Comments on: Embracing a New Antiwar Movement http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:05:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Dissident Voice : In a Hole? Dig Deeper! http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-11106 Dissident Voice : In a Hole? Dig Deeper! Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:04:14 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-11106 [...] Those who endorse uniting with the Paulites to build a stronger antiwar movement, such as left-wing writer/activist Joshua Frank, ought to know who they’re getting into bed with. Here is a tiny sampling of the responses I’ve [...] [...] Those who endorse uniting with the Paulites to build a stronger antiwar movement, such as left-wing writer/activist Joshua Frank, ought to know who they’re getting into bed with. Here is a tiny sampling of the responses I’ve [...]

]]> By: Joel Henderson http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-11072 Joel Henderson Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:01:02 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-11072 Hi Marcelle, Thanks for the reply. First of all, I've seen mention of the John Birch Society in a few places, and invariably it always seems to be spat out, as if someone was saying a horrible word (and generally seems to be fully equated with violent racism or something similar). I don't pretend to know much about the JBS, however I've met a local JBS rep a few times, and have read some of their magazines and checked out the website...also have spent a few minutes looking at some past JBS personalities. On the surface, it seems as though the JBS wants to protect the Constitution, fight totalitarianism and insure that civil liberties are protected. Apparently they also are not all that excited about overwhelming collectivism, preferring that people are seen as individuals (with all of the inalienable rights that an individual has) rather than be part of some potentially right-infringing collective. None of this sounds all that horrible to me. I'm not saying that I'm joining up (I'm not much of a joiner) but I tend to sympathize with the ideals of protecting the Constitution, our civil liberties as well as the idea that people should be looked at as individuals, not members of a gender or ethnic/religious group. As in any group, there have no doubt been JBS members who have had abhorrent views on race, etc. Unfortunately I think you could find that sort of thing in any group... So in any case, I'm not sure that having 'John Birch Society members' as supporters is necessarily a horrible thing...unless those people were bad people (or you disagreed with the ideals that the JBS supposedly stands for). Regarding the environment, I tend to agree with you; from a deep personal level, I wish that a president could do more about keeping the environment clean...however, the more that I learn about our system of government, I don't think that there is a heck of a lot that the executive branch can do (short of vetoing bills, etc) OTHER THAN stopping needless wars (which are extremely damaging to the environment). I think that a combination of ideas, such as removing the collusion between federal government and some of the wealthiest polluters (ie: petroleum industry), supporting/inspiring alternative fuel & green building industries, and personal choice may be the most pragmatic answer. Obviously that's just my opinion. In the meantime, I personally try to FREELY do the things that I think have the least environmental footprint (under the rule of "don't sh*t where you eat") - namely, I run my car on recycled vegetable oil (and constantly spread the word about it), there are no incandescent bulbs in my house (and my friend's houses, if I can help it), I try not to eat much meat, I also try to buy locally-grown food, I try to use my compost pile for everything compostable (yup, I even use my roommate's composting toilet). Eventually I hope to build a sustainable, 'green' home that uses only solar for electricity, rainwater catchment for water use, greywater recycling for food growth, passive solar & high-efficiency wood stove for heating, a solar stove & masonry bake oven for cooking and various other permaculture methods for landscaping/food growth. Obviously, not everyone has the same passion that I do about the environment, but if 50% of Americans would start to feel the same way, I think we could make a huge difference. Giving a large and remote federal government more of our civil liberties (and earnings) to be wasted ineffectively is probably not going to have the same level of results. Just my $.02 Hi Marcelle,

Thanks for the reply.
First of all, I’ve seen mention of the John Birch Society in a few places, and invariably it always seems to be spat out, as if someone was saying a horrible word (and generally seems to be fully equated with violent racism or something similar).

I don’t pretend to know much about the JBS, however I’ve met a local JBS rep a few times, and have read some of their magazines and checked out the website…also have spent a few minutes looking at some past JBS personalities.

On the surface, it seems as though the JBS wants to protect the Constitution, fight totalitarianism and insure that civil liberties are protected. Apparently they also are not all that excited about overwhelming collectivism, preferring that people are seen as individuals (with all of the inalienable rights that an individual has) rather than be part of some potentially right-infringing collective.

None of this sounds all that horrible to me. I’m not saying that I’m joining up (I’m not much of a joiner) but I tend to sympathize with the ideals of protecting the Constitution, our civil liberties as well as the idea that people should be looked at as individuals, not members of a gender or ethnic/religious group.

As in any group, there have no doubt been JBS members who have had abhorrent views on race, etc. Unfortunately I think you could find that sort of thing in any group…

So in any case, I’m not sure that having ‘John Birch Society members’ as supporters is necessarily a horrible thing…unless those people were bad people (or you disagreed with the ideals that the JBS supposedly stands for).

Regarding the environment, I tend to agree with you; from a deep personal level, I wish that a president could do more about keeping the environment clean…however, the more that I learn about our system of government, I don’t think that there is a heck of a lot that the executive branch can do (short of vetoing bills, etc) OTHER THAN stopping needless wars (which are extremely damaging to the environment).

I think that a combination of ideas, such as removing the collusion between federal government and some of the wealthiest polluters (ie: petroleum industry), supporting/inspiring alternative fuel & green building industries, and personal choice may be the most pragmatic answer. Obviously that’s just my opinion.

In the meantime, I personally try to FREELY do the things that I think have the least environmental footprint (under the rule of “don’t sh*t where you eat”) - namely, I run my car on recycled vegetable oil (and constantly spread the word about it), there are no incandescent bulbs in my house (and my friend’s houses, if I can help it), I try not to eat much meat, I also try to buy locally-grown food, I try to use my compost pile for everything compostable (yup, I even use my roommate’s composting toilet).

Eventually I hope to build a sustainable, ‘green’ home that uses only solar for electricity, rainwater catchment for water use, greywater recycling for food growth, passive solar & high-efficiency wood stove for heating, a solar stove & masonry bake oven for cooking and various other permaculture methods for landscaping/food growth.

Obviously, not everyone has the same passion that I do about the environment, but if 50% of Americans would start to feel the same way, I think we could make a huge difference.

Giving a large and remote federal government more of our civil liberties (and earnings) to be wasted ineffectively is probably not going to have the same level of results.

Just my $.02

]]> By: gerald spezio http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10771 gerald spezio Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:13:13 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10771 The Zionist map from GOD. http://www.theunjustmedia.com/the%20zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm The Zionist map from GOD.

http://www.theunjustmedia.com/the%20zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm

]]> By: gerald spezio http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10770 gerald spezio Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:11:53 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10770 Israel-first Zionists are the murdering engineers and brains in the ongoing Palestine and Iraq genocides.. Manipulated US working class kids are bloody and battered as they stumble, grope, and try to kill more innocent Iraqis. Disgusting overfed Zionist monster, Richard Perle, wants more murder and death for his Zionist designs. Zionist Joe Lieberman preaches for more murder in Iraq and Iran Joshua Frank eliminates Zionism as a cause of the murdering. The Zionist Lobby has bought all the presidential candidates that they need. Why would smiling Joshua Frank tell us to look under the bed for the space aliens in the works? Keep checking on that Zionist map from GOD, and you will be less MYSTIFIED about ongoing and unending Zionist murdering! Israel-first Zionists are the murdering engineers and brains in the ongoing Palestine and Iraq genocides..

Manipulated US working class kids are bloody and battered as they stumble, grope, and try to kill more innocent Iraqis.

Disgusting overfed Zionist monster, Richard Perle, wants more murder and death for his Zionist designs.

Zionist Joe Lieberman preaches for more murder in Iraq and Iran

Joshua Frank eliminates Zionism as a cause of the murdering.

The Zionist Lobby has bought all the presidential candidates that they need.

Why would smiling Joshua Frank tell us to look under the bed for the space aliens in the works?

Keep checking on that Zionist map from GOD, and you will be less MYSTIFIED about ongoing and unending Zionist murdering!

]]> By: Dissident Voice : Why The Left Must Reject Ron Paul http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10704 Dissident Voice : Why The Left Must Reject Ron Paul Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:00:12 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10704 [...] Some antiwar activists and leftists desperate to revitalize a flagging antiwar movement make appeals to the Left to form a Left-Right bloc with Ron Paul supporters. Even environmental activist and left-wing author Joshua Frank, who writes insightful and often scathing attacks on liberal Democrats’ capitulations to reactionary policies, recently penned an article citing–though not endorsing–Paul’s campaign in calling for leftist antiwar activists to reach out to form a sort of Left-Right antiwar alliance. He argues, “Whether we’re beer swilling rednecks from Knoxville or mushroom eatin’ hippies from Eugene, we need to come together,” (”Embracing a New Antiwar Movement“). [...] [...] Some antiwar activists and leftists desperate to revitalize a flagging antiwar movement make appeals to the Left to form a Left-Right bloc with Ron Paul supporters. Even environmental activist and left-wing author Joshua Frank, who writes insightful and often scathing attacks on liberal Democrats’ capitulations to reactionary policies, recently penned an article citing–though not endorsing–Paul’s campaign in calling for leftist antiwar activists to reach out to form a sort of Left-Right antiwar alliance. He argues, “Whether we’re beer swilling rednecks from Knoxville or mushroom eatin’ hippies from Eugene, we need to come together,” (”Embracing a New Antiwar Movement“). [...]

]]> By: Marcelle Cendrars http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10502 Marcelle Cendrars Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:44:14 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10502 This latest contribution by Tom doesn't address Paul's lack of a stance vis-a-vis the environment, delineated in my commentary above. That is an example of hands-off government proposed which doesn't address a danger...which didn't exist in Thoreau's time. Also, there's a false assumption here that Ron Paul is the only viable "imperfect" choice... Again, it's a no-brainer that the positive aspects of Paul platform are laudable. However, to dismiss the "negatives" (some of which are cited throughout the commentary above...without resorting to hysteria, or mislabeling, etc.) on the premise that the only options we have are to be found within the realm of the major candidates being placed on the table for us once again...is wrong. We have other options. Both in terms of other candidates AND in the notion of not giving the presidential race the energy and importance we seem to...in lieu of pursuing other avenues for our heartbeats. A deeper look into what will have to change to cut into our imperialistic inclinations will make it clear that anyone who attempts to make the kind of reductions that Paul proposes...is a likely candidate for "elimination" in short order. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't vote for him...if that's the vote of one's conscience. Rather, it means that one should not devote virtually ALL one's energies to helping to elect a given candidate for The Executive position. It's too fragile a deal to pin all of one's hopes on. One can vote for one's candidate and feel good...as long as one is engaged --simultaneously-- in other activity designed to address what has to be done to change all the elements in society that current contribute to that "Elimination Syndrome." Just about all the people I hear who are raving about this or that presidential candidate are making that pitch their exclusive activity in the political arena. The blah blah is too one-sided for what's needed in the real world. -- Marcelle This latest contribution by Tom doesn’t address Paul’s lack of a stance vis-a-vis the environment, delineated in my commentary above. That is an example of hands-off government proposed which doesn’t address a danger…which didn’t exist in Thoreau’s time. Also, there’s a false assumption here that Ron Paul is the only viable “imperfect” choice… Again, it’s a no-brainer that the positive aspects of Paul platform are laudable. However, to dismiss the “negatives” (some of which are cited throughout the commentary above…without resorting to hysteria, or mislabeling, etc.) on the premise that the only options we have are to be found within the realm of the major candidates being placed on the table for us once again…is wrong. We have other options. Both in terms of other candidates AND in the notion of not giving the presidential race the energy and importance we seem to…in lieu of pursuing other avenues for our heartbeats. A deeper look into what will have to change to cut into our imperialistic inclinations will make it clear that anyone who attempts to make the kind of reductions that Paul proposes…is a likely candidate for “elimination” in short order. That doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t vote for him…if that’s the vote of one’s conscience. Rather, it means that one should not devote virtually ALL one’s energies to helping to elect a given candidate for The Executive position. It’s too fragile a deal to pin all of one’s hopes on. One can vote for one’s candidate and feel good…as long as one is engaged –simultaneously– in other activity designed to address what has to be done to change all the elements in society that current contribute to that “Elimination Syndrome.” Just about all the people I hear who are raving about this or that presidential candidate are making that pitch their exclusive activity in the political arena. The blah blah is too one-sided for what’s needed in the real world. — Marcelle

]]> By: Tom Blanton http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10483 Tom Blanton Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:47:22 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10483 I would encourage those on the left to go back and read Thoreau's "On Civil Disobedience". In the opening paragraphs, one will find this: I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe - "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. The left can't have it both ways. If you support the fascist economics of FDR and a nation powerful enough to provide cradle to grave care for all citizens, you will never get a nation that is anything less than an imperialist empire. If you support decentralization and believe that states should be able to allow medical marijuana or gay marriage, then how can you say states should not have the right to enact laws regarding abortion? The fact that the left is hysterical about Ron Paul, accusing him of being a right-wing fascist, and the right is equally hysterical - often calling him a leftist - says something about how both the left and right view the role of government. Apparently, that view is that 50.1% of the population should dictate by threat of violence and/or prison how the other 49.9% must live. I know that anarchists, and even libertarians, scare the hell out of both the left and right and I know why. Thoreau knew why, too. The lust to rule over others and impose whatever morality they hold trumps everything else. Ron Paul is not perfect, nor is the Constitution, but in a world of imperfect choices, they may be the best alternatives at the moment. He will not enact my dream of an anarchist society, but he beats the option of an imperialistic fascist police state with a few crumbs called social programs to keep the poor from rioting. Joshua Frank is a pretty smart guy, despite being hung up on the left/right thing - which is largely false these days, anyway. I would encourage those on the left to go back and read Thoreau’s “On Civil Disobedience”. In the opening paragraphs, one will find this:

I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe - “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

The left can’t have it both ways. If you support the fascist economics of FDR and a nation powerful enough to provide cradle to grave care for all citizens, you will never get a nation that is anything less than an imperialist empire. If you support decentralization and believe that states should be able to allow medical marijuana or gay marriage, then how can you say states should not have the right to enact laws regarding abortion?

The fact that the left is hysterical about Ron Paul, accusing him of being a right-wing fascist, and the right is equally hysterical - often calling him a leftist - says something about how both the left and right view the role of government. Apparently, that view is that 50.1% of the population should dictate by threat of violence and/or prison how the other 49.9% must live.

I know that anarchists, and even libertarians, scare the hell out of both the left and right and I know why. Thoreau knew why, too. The lust to rule over others and impose whatever morality they hold trumps everything else.

Ron Paul is not perfect, nor is the Constitution, but in a world of imperfect choices, they may be the best alternatives at the moment. He will not enact my dream of an anarchist society, but he beats the option of an imperialistic fascist police state with a few crumbs called social programs to keep the poor from rioting.

Joshua Frank is a pretty smart guy, despite being hung up on the left/right thing - which is largely false these days, anyway.

]]> By: Mike McNiven http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10449 Mike McNiven Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:18:27 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10449 Thank you Mr.Frank for outing the imperialist Kerry so well!! The following is a good example of the minimum components of a "peace with social justice" position: http://www.hopoi.org/index.html Thank you Mr.Frank for outing the imperialist Kerry so well!!

The following is a good example of the minimum components of a “peace with social justice” position:

http://www.hopoi.org/index.html

]]> By: gerald spezio http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10417 gerald spezio Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:25:31 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10417 The Univ. of Chicago did NOT train Wolfie in the details of murdering for Zionism. Wolfie only learned the "Philosophy of Murder for Zionism" as a highest calling - higher than anything else. Wolfie is still working on the details of murdering in order to get the Palestinians' land for eternal goodness and mercy for all Zionists. The Univ. of Chicago did NOT train Wolfie in the details of murdering for Zionism.

Wolfie only learned the “Philosophy of Murder for Zionism” as a highest calling - higher than anything else.

Wolfie is still working on the details of murdering in order to get the Palestinians’ land for eternal goodness and mercy for all Zionists.

]]> By: gerald spezio http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10410 gerald spezio Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:12:22 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10410 Yup, no way out of it. In order to stop the war and the murdering, you first have to identify the murderers and the murderers' raw material. The Mericans are murdering the Iraqis for Israel. The Israelis are murdering the Palestinians for the dreams of Zion in the sky forever. The University of Chicago trained Wolfie to seek, destroy, and murder for Zionism. Yup, no way out of it.

In order to stop the war and the murdering, you first have to identify the murderers and the murderers’ raw material.

The Mericans are murdering the Iraqis for Israel.

The Israelis are murdering the Palestinians for the dreams of Zion in the sky forever.

The University of Chicago trained Wolfie to seek, destroy, and murder for Zionism.

]]> By: Marcelle Cendrars http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10364 Marcelle Cendrars Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:31:44 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10364 Solid contribution, Joel. However, my direct experience with the Paul campaign is that a John Bircher was repping him in California. That begs the question WHY? And that fellow was very vague when pressed on the question of WHY the John Birchers backed Paul 100%...something I don't think others here addressed here either...in spite of my having raised the point above. Beyond that, please note that if one's running for almost any office...it behooves one to put on a good face with brown babies as well as white. That's a ref to something you suggested above. FINALLY, why do you think there's no category for "Environment" on his site; that's another question I raised above which I don't believe was addressed. Best with your best intentions, Marcelle Solid contribution, Joel. However, my direct experience with the Paul campaign is that a John Bircher was repping him in California. That begs the question WHY? And that fellow was very vague when pressed on the question of WHY the John Birchers backed Paul 100%…something I don’t think others here addressed here either…in spite of my having raised the point above. Beyond that, please note that if one’s running for almost any office…it behooves one to put on a good face with brown babies as well as white. That’s a ref to something you suggested above. FINALLY, why do you think there’s no category for “Environment” on his site; that’s another question I raised above which I don’t believe was addressed. Best with your best intentions, Marcelle

]]> By: Joel Henderson http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10353 Joel Henderson Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:05:05 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10353 Interesting article, and certainly interesting commentary...however, as someone who has actively supported Congressman Paul's campaign for the last 5-6 months, I have to take a bit of umbrage with a few points: I've done quite a bit of reading/research on Dr. Paul's voting record, writings, speeches, etc. and cannot find (when using an open and un-biased mind) ANY suggestion of racism/bigotry, with the exception of the piece which was written in the his newsletter in the mid-90's. From what I've read & heard from the man himself, that piece was written by a staffer who was fired as soon as the piece came out...the writing style doesn't seem to match the numerous other Paul-authored pieces that I've read (nor does the spirit match the behavior that I've seen) so I personally don't feel that the 1 piece is enough evidence to claim that 'Ron Paul supporters are racist' or that the man himself is a 'staunch racist'. Again, this is just my opinion - take from it what you will. I've met the man 2 times, seen him interact with crowds of people from many ethnic backgrounds, etc - he doesn't seem to act/look/behave differently depending upon a person's ethnicity or gender. Again, this is just my opinion from my own personal observations... I've probably met over 100 fellow supporters in the last few months; again, we're talking about various ethnicities as well as a typical cross-section of American demographics...nowhere did I see any evidence of 'staunch racism' or bigotry...all that I saw were many passionate individuals who mostly wanted to end the war, stop American imperialism, protect civil liberties, etc etc. Obviously, each supporter has their own 'pet' issues and certainly they don't all agree with each other on all of them...however, I think most of them understand that by supporting a person who appears to have an extensive record of integrity who seems to stick to a known rule of law (ie: U.S. Constitution) these supporters probably feel like they will at least know what they are getting, and know the methodology with which they can have an impact on the system (again, ie: the U.S. Constitution and the system of local, state & federal governance). In regards to the claims of rabid anti-immigrant/anti-immigration...I'm not sure that I've heard of any evidence to support this - I've heard Dr. Paul talk about protecting the borders (which personally seems like a fair idea to me). I've also heard him mention a few times about his respect for all of the people who have emigrated to the U.S. legally. Again, these are just my opinions based on what I've heard, read & seen. I have never been all that interested in politics - mostly due to the sleazy, used-car-salesman nature of most politicians (regardless of which 'side' they claimed to represent) but also due to the divisive qualities that it seemed to bring out in people. However, I've become fairly passionate about Ron Paul's campaign for precisely those reasons; from the involvement that I've had, I've seen nothing but respect for all individuals (as opposed to rabid collectivism) and apparent consistency to a set of ethics over an extended period of time. While I certainly do not agree with every single one of Ron Paul's stances, I feel that I can at the very least trust him to continue his adherence to the system of governance and rule of law that we have in the U.S. - something that I'm not can be said of most other candidates (though I really do like Dennis Kucinich, even if I don't think some of his policies would be all that sustainable from an economic standpoint). Anyways, thanks for reading and sorry for the length - I just wanted to ask people to do their own research and not blindly accept the soundbites that you may hear on the mainstream media (nor am I asking you to accept anything that I've written - there's quite a lot of material out there; please do the research before throwing serious accusations around). Thanks and peace Joel Interesting article, and certainly interesting commentary…however, as someone who has actively supported Congressman Paul’s campaign for the last 5-6 months, I have to take a bit of umbrage with a few points:

I’ve done quite a bit of reading/research on Dr. Paul’s voting record, writings, speeches, etc. and cannot find (when using an open and un-biased mind) ANY suggestion of racism/bigotry, with the exception of the piece which was written in the his newsletter in the mid-90’s.
From what I’ve read & heard from the man himself, that piece was written by a staffer who was fired as soon as the piece came out…the writing style doesn’t seem to match the numerous other Paul-authored pieces that I’ve read (nor does the spirit match the behavior that I’ve seen) so I personally don’t feel that the 1 piece is enough evidence to claim that ‘Ron Paul supporters are racist’ or that the man himself is a ’staunch racist’.
Again, this is just my opinion - take from it what you will.

I’ve met the man 2 times, seen him interact with crowds of people from many ethnic backgrounds, etc - he doesn’t seem to act/look/behave differently depending upon a person’s ethnicity or gender.

Again, this is just my opinion from my own personal observations…

I’ve probably met over 100 fellow supporters in the last few months; again, we’re talking about various ethnicities as well as a typical cross-section of American demographics…nowhere did I see any evidence of ’staunch racism’ or bigotry…all that I saw were many passionate individuals who mostly wanted to end the war, stop American imperialism, protect civil liberties, etc etc.

Obviously, each supporter has their own ‘pet’ issues and certainly they don’t all agree with each other on all of them…however, I think most of them understand that by supporting a person who appears to have an extensive record of integrity who seems to stick to a known rule of law (ie: U.S. Constitution) these supporters probably feel like they will at least know what they are getting, and know the methodology with which they can have an impact on the system (again, ie: the U.S. Constitution and the system of local, state & federal governance).

In regards to the claims of rabid anti-immigrant/anti-immigration…I’m not sure that I’ve heard of any evidence to support this - I’ve heard Dr. Paul talk about protecting the borders (which personally seems like a fair idea to me). I’ve also heard him mention a few times about his respect for all of the people who have emigrated to the U.S. legally.

Again, these are just my opinions based on what I’ve heard, read & seen.

I have never been all that interested in politics - mostly due to the sleazy, used-car-salesman nature of most politicians (regardless of which ’side’ they claimed to represent) but also due to the divisive qualities that it seemed to bring out in people.

However, I’ve become fairly passionate about Ron Paul’s campaign for precisely those reasons; from the involvement that I’ve had, I’ve seen nothing but respect for all individuals (as opposed to rabid collectivism) and apparent consistency to a set of ethics over an extended period of time.

While I certainly do not agree with every single one of Ron Paul’s stances, I feel that I can at the very least trust him to continue his adherence to the system of governance and rule of law that we have in the U.S. - something that I’m not can be said of most other candidates (though I really do like Dennis Kucinich, even if I don’t think some of his policies would be all that sustainable from an economic standpoint).

Anyways, thanks for reading and sorry for the length - I just wanted to ask people to do their own research and not blindly accept the soundbites that you may hear on the mainstream media (nor am I asking you to accept anything that I’ve written - there’s quite a lot of material out there; please do the research before throwing serious accusations around).

Thanks and peace
Joel

]]> By: Marcelle Cendrars http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10350 Marcelle Cendrars Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:17:22 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10350 Gary's main point is excellent. Ditto for that of Vanessa. But this focus on "not forgetting the past" -- which many aside from just Ron are concerned with-- is not being honored. One can only end the war in Iraq if one addresses ending virtually all U.S. wars. Look at the past, if you will, and tell me that there's a significant distinction between our "wars" since WWII. Isn't there a thread that runs through them all? And isn't it clear by now that being "successful" on that count --after a lot more anguish passes, way down the road, btw-- will only provide a slight superficial respite, if that, from the next full-on abomination? One doesn't have to be a full-on pacifist to acknowledge that The Left needs to step away from the relatively easy road of attacking The Iraq Dilemma...and step out on to the much more challenging Horror which is our Militarized Mentality...seen not only in the form of recruitment on campuses, but in clothes, in Hummers, and a vast number of other manifestations. That can't be addressed, obviously, by the old traditional means 'cause they've been totally co-opted at this juncture. New approaches are called for, but that's not on the table for discussion apparently. Go through this site or CPunch or others regularly and you'll see one of the great diseases of The Left: Redundancy. I've offered to meet with readers of this site (who live in California) to get something new started, but...no takers...or those who inquire a tiny little bit seem to have no imagination whatsoever. DVoice may post soon my The Dream Party article...which proposes working with the electoral system in a new way...taking chances with a new paradigm...which puts all the blah blah bout presidential elections and impeachment effort into a different perspective. Sure, go ahead and vote for someone to be The Executive of the Land. But don't make so much fuss, take so many heartbeats up with debating the uneding pros and cons...the glorious outcome that will be had through impeachment. Get war criminals impeached...if it doesn't take up ALL your time. As long as you leave some significant time for meeting in person, in small groups, without recognition, to dialogue about truly NEW PARADIGMS. If I am finally posted on this please don't be prematurely dismissive. Ask some questions...or better yet...ask some Qs in a private meeting with me. Surprise is necessary to our salvation, and that's why the article is going to be (if seen at all) gen'l, vague. Blessings in solidarity, Marcelle Gary’s main point is excellent. Ditto for that of Vanessa. But this focus on “not forgetting the past” — which many aside from just Ron are concerned with– is not being honored. One can only end the war in Iraq if one addresses ending virtually all U.S. wars. Look at the past, if you will, and tell me that there’s a significant distinction between our “wars” since WWII. Isn’t there a thread that runs through them all? And isn’t it clear by now that being “successful” on that count –after a lot more anguish passes, way down the road, btw– will only provide a slight superficial respite, if that, from the next full-on abomination? One doesn’t have to be a full-on pacifist to acknowledge that The Left needs to step away from the relatively easy road of attacking The Iraq Dilemma…and step out on to the much more challenging Horror which is our Militarized Mentality…seen not only in the form of recruitment on campuses, but in clothes, in Hummers, and a vast number of other manifestations. That can’t be addressed, obviously, by the old traditional means ’cause they’ve been totally co-opted at this juncture. New approaches are called for, but that’s not on the table for discussion apparently. Go through this site or CPunch or others regularly and you’ll see one of the great diseases of The Left: Redundancy. I’ve offered to meet with readers of this site (who live in California) to get something new started, but…no takers…or those who inquire a tiny little bit seem to have no imagination whatsoever. DVoice may post soon my The Dream Party article…which proposes working with the electoral system in a new way…taking chances with a new paradigm…which puts all the blah blah bout presidential elections and impeachment effort into a different perspective. Sure, go ahead and vote for someone to be The Executive of the Land. But don’t make so much fuss, take so many heartbeats up with debating the uneding pros and cons…the glorious outcome that will be had through impeachment. Get war criminals impeached…if it doesn’t take up ALL your time. As long as you leave some significant time for meeting in person, in small groups, without recognition, to dialogue about truly NEW PARADIGMS. If I am finally posted on this please don’t be prematurely dismissive. Ask some questions…or better yet…ask some Qs in a private meeting with me. Surprise is necessary to our salvation, and that’s why the article is going to be (if seen at all) gen’l, vague. Blessings in solidarity, Marcelle

]]> By: Ron Jacobs http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10339 Ron Jacobs Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:11:29 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10339 Hello, Good to see this debate taking plce. While I am one of those writers on Counterpunch, my pieces on the antiwar movement are usually critical encouragements of antiwar folks to forget about the nature of the national "leadership" and to work with all those (except for fascists) that oppose the war. In my mind, this includes everybody! I do not think it is our role to endorse candidates, but to push them to take a clear stand so that the voters know whether or not they are for or against the war and occupation. Then, one decides whether or not to vote for them based on that info and gets back into the streets the next day. Left Turn has posed some false questions in their essay, but in general seem to be looking for a dialogue to move the left and the antiwar movement forward. That's a good thing. Let's take it from there. But don't forget the past--there are lessons to be learned from it, no matter what one thinks about it. Hello,
Good to see this debate taking plce. While I am one of those writers on Counterpunch, my pieces on the antiwar movement are usually critical encouragements of antiwar folks to forget about the nature of the national “leadership” and to work with all those (except for fascists) that oppose the war. In my mind, this includes everybody! I do not think it is our role to endorse candidates, but to push them to take a clear stand so that the voters know whether or not they are for or against the war and occupation. Then, one decides whether or not to vote for them based on that info and gets back into the streets the next day. Left Turn has posed some false questions in their essay, but in general seem to be looking for a dialogue to move the left and the antiwar movement forward. That’s a good thing. Let’s take it from there. But don’t forget the past–there are lessons to be learned from it, no matter what one thinks about it.

]]> By: vanessa vail http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10338 vanessa vail Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:55:50 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10338 joshua, i'm shocked you would point to a person's voting record rather than the REASON for why he/she votes a certain way. there are many folks who may vote similarly on an issue but for very very different reasons..adn that can have horrific impacts down the road. motive is as important as anything...if not more. it depicts where this person will head next with his/her country. just keep in mind w/ron paul...who would like to undue everything FDR put in place, that he has not only supported but proposed a litany of legislation that is based on the far right conspiracy theory and new world order thought and against human welfare. joshua,
i’m shocked you would point to a person’s voting record rather than the REASON for why he/she votes a certain way. there are many folks who may vote similarly on an issue but for very very different reasons..adn that can have horrific impacts down the road. motive is as important as anything…if not more. it depicts where this person will head next with his/her country.
just keep in mind w/ron paul…who would like to undue everything FDR put in place, that he has not only supported but proposed a litany of legislation that is based on the far right conspiracy theory and new world order thought and against human welfare.

]]> By: Gary Corseri http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10333 Gary Corseri Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:27:40 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10333 May I suggest that Max Uhlenbeck and Joshua Frank both make valid points that are worth expatiating, but that their "anger within the family" manner of engagement undermines their arguments. The Left is divided--fragmented--and has been for a long time. Much ground has been lost and the consolidation of the media in the hands of neocons and racists has vastly complicated the struggle. It is not ill-conceived for the Left to re-define itself in the post-9/11 era. What goals? What alliances? What strategies? How and where to draw the lines? If these are the questions Messrs Uhlenbeck and Frank are posing, they merit serious consideration and reflection. Proper formatting and scaffolding will help. May I suggest that Max Uhlenbeck and Joshua Frank both make valid points that are worth expatiating, but that their “anger within the family” manner of engagement undermines their arguments.

The Left is divided–fragmented–and has been for a long time. Much ground has been lost and the consolidation of the media in the hands of neocons and racists has vastly complicated the struggle.

It is not ill-conceived for the Left to re-define itself in the post-9/11 era. What goals? What alliances? What strategies? How and where to draw the lines?

If these are the questions Messrs Uhlenbeck and Frank are posing, they merit serious consideration and reflection. Proper formatting and scaffolding will help.

]]> By: Marcelle Cendrars http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10327 Marcelle Cendrars Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:19:09 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10327 Also...on Ron Paul...as I remember...his website...doesn't even have a statement respecting climate change concerns. And although the military is certainly a VERY HUGE contributor to so much that's negative in that realm, ending the war in Iraq and closing lots of bases isn't nearly enough to head off the immiment danger to Iraqis and all others from environmental issues. A legit candidate needs to think enough of what we're going through environmentally to address that separately. All activists do. It would be easy enough to blend them in conversation, in talking points which are focused primarily on demilitarizing the U.S. -- Marcelle Also…on Ron Paul…as I remember…his website…doesn’t even have a statement respecting climate change concerns. And although the military is certainly a VERY HUGE contributor to so much that’s negative in that realm, ending the war in Iraq and closing lots of bases isn’t nearly enough to head off the immiment danger to Iraqis and all others from environmental issues. A legit candidate needs to think enough of what we’re going through environmentally to address that separately. All activists do. It would be easy enough to blend them in conversation, in talking points which are focused primarily on demilitarizing the U.S. — Marcelle

]]> By: Marcelle Cendrars http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10326 Marcelle Cendrars Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:02:31 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10326 At this point in U.S. history it's very strange for anyone to be drawing parallels between Vietnam and Iraq in terms of what ended one and what will end another. Society has become much too militarized for that, military-type mentality much more institutionalised (in a blatant way). Gen'l "fear factor" has risen radically high, way above where what the "communist marker" created...which had been a constant for a long time in the U.S. And that's just citing a few significant diffs between then and now. Chomsky's take, btw, puts much more emphasis on Big Biz turning against the war...it having become...not in their interests to continue the atrocities. Now much of Big Biz and related cousins are making fortunes...with fortunes at stake re our "staying the course" no matter what. BUT to discuss how to end the war by going blah blah over the Prez Election is very misguided anyway. With all else in place, obviously...ending one particular way accomplishes too little. No viable candidate is slated to end the war...as was indicated by someone else above, and The Executive Office Job is not the place to be putting our energies...in such a lopsided fashion...with so little left for other angles of attack. I'm going to rewrite the article I made reference to earlier...in the hopes that DVoice editors will see fit to put one of those "other" angles on the table for discussion here. One really has to shoot for ending war generally...not one particular one. And that has nothing to do with traditional pacifism. For all practical purposes, virtually none of the U.S. wars...was the way to go...in retrospect. One must embrace that take and run with it, urging that we have to bring the troops home from a lot of places. But, as some of the readers have indicated above, that must be done without Ron Paul. In fact, it must be accomplished without focusing primarily on Iraq. Or we will all be back ad infinitum on the same track, spending sooooooooo much time blabbering about the niceties of this and that. The political/cultural change that most seem to agree is necessary cannot be addressed by debating pros and cons of this or that potential leader. Tricks and surprises must be employed. New ones. I don't see people believing in that in the above dialogue. I see a simple forging ahead. "Habit is the great deadener," said Beckett. -- Marcelle At this point in U.S. history it’s very strange for anyone to be drawing parallels between Vietnam and Iraq in terms of what ended one and what will end another. Society has become much too militarized for that, military-type mentality much more institutionalised (in a blatant way). Gen’l “fear factor” has risen radically high, way above where what the “communist marker” created…which had been a constant for a long time in the U.S. And that’s just citing a few significant diffs between then and now. Chomsky’s take, btw, puts much more emphasis on Big Biz turning against the war…it having become…not in their interests to continue the atrocities. Now much of Big Biz and related cousins are making fortunes…with fortunes at stake re our “staying the course” no matter what. BUT to discuss how to end the war by going blah blah over the Prez Election is very misguided anyway. With all else in place, obviously…ending one particular way accomplishes too little. No viable candidate is slated to end the war…as was indicated by someone else above, and The Executive Office Job is not the place to be putting our energies…in such a lopsided fashion…with so little left for other angles of attack. I’m going to rewrite the article I made reference to earlier…in the hopes that DVoice editors will see fit to put one of those “other” angles on the table for discussion here. One really has to shoot for ending war generally…not one particular one. And that has nothing to do with traditional pacifism. For all practical purposes, virtually none of the U.S. wars…was the way to go…in retrospect. One must embrace that take and run with it, urging that we have to bring the troops home from a lot of places. But, as some of the readers have indicated above, that must be done without Ron Paul. In fact, it must be accomplished without focusing primarily on Iraq. Or we will all be back ad infinitum on the same track, spending sooooooooo much time blabbering about the niceties of this and that. The political/cultural change that most seem to agree is necessary cannot be addressed by debating pros and cons of this or that potential leader. Tricks and surprises must be employed. New ones. I don’t see people believing in that in the above dialogue. I see a simple forging ahead. “Habit is the great deadener,” said Beckett. — Marcelle

]]> By: Joshua Frank http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10317 Joshua Frank Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:39:16 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10317 PS: The Vietnam war, despite what many people think, was not fought by poor blacks. This was true, experts say, between 1965 and 1966, but changed with the draft. Most were, however, middle-lower class white kids. PS: The Vietnam war, despite what many people think, was not fought by poor blacks. This was true, experts say, between 1965 and 1966, but changed with the draft. Most were, however, middle-lower class white kids.

]]> By: Joshua Frank http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10314 Joshua Frank Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:07:20 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/embracing-a-new-movement/#comment-10314 Michael, Nixon gave a rather famous speech on the “silent majority” in late 1969, I think it was, and was later recorded on tape chatting about how this was a turning point for the larger antiwar movement -- at least in how it had affected him and his administration's framing of their policies. His speech was meant to rally conservatives behind the war as he knew (and admitted privately) many had begun to turn. It was one thing when young college kids protested in Washington, he said, and quite another all together when his own base began to turn. Look for Roger Morris' great Nixon biography for more on the subject. Of course I am not saying young radicals, vets etc, didn't play a huge role in bringing the war to an end. They most certainly did. They were the backbone. Michael,

Nixon gave a rather famous speech on the “silent majority” in late 1969, I think it was, and was later recorded on tape chatting about how this was a turning point for the larger antiwar movement — at least in how it had affected him and his administration’s framing of their policies. His speech was meant to rally conservatives behind the war as he knew (and admitted privately) many had begun to turn. It was one thing when young college kids protested in Washington, he said, and quite another all together when his own base began to turn. Look for Roger Morris’ great Nixon biography for more on the subject.

Of course I am not saying young radicals, vets etc, didn’t play a huge role in bringing the war to an end. They most certainly did. They were the backbone.

]]>