READER COMMENTS ON

"Occupy Electoral Politics!"

(135 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/7/2011 @ 1:38 pm PT...





I never said that boycotting elections would establish a democracy. I said that boycotting elections is the only known and proven way to nonviolently delegitimize a government: http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172 Since corporate interests currently control the Democratic and Republican parties, even if US voters turned out to vote for people who would represent their interests (and weren't just telling the usual campaign lies), those people would be a small minority in Congress with no seniority and no way to pass legislation. The Constitution does not say anything about promoting the general welfare. That clause is in the preamble to the Constitution and the Supreme Court has found that the preamble is not part of the Constitution proper. All teach-ins at Occupy San Diego are self-appointed and it states on the education website that they do not represent the consensus of Occupy San Diego. It is a matter of free speech to allow dissident opinions, not a consensus that Occupy San Diego holds dissident opinions. No credentials are required to hold teach-ins because Occupy San Diego believes that free speech is everyone's right, not just the right of those with power and influence. I have explained many times how boycotting elections can delegitimize the corporatocracy, although out of respect for this forum I usually provide links rather than reposting my full explanations. Some of those links are: You've Got to Stop Voting http://fubarandgrill.org/node/ The Value of Voting http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1189 A Discussion with Occupiers about Representative vs. Direct Democracy http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1238 I'd be happy to supply more if anyone is interested. This being a political blog dedicated to working within the system, I rather doubt that anyone here is interested. Embracing an undemocratic political process cannot establish a democracy. I explain that very clearly in "The Value of Voting." The criminal class is ravaging the economy with the consent of the governed expressed by voting. It doesn't matter who people vote for, if enough people vote, the corporate interests can claim the consent of the governed for continuing corporate rule. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the popular vote doesn't have to be counted, and more than 90% of US votes are counted by central tabulators which can be easily hacked by insiders without leaving any auditable trace whatsoever, so most votes are completely unverifiable. Uncounted, unverifiable votes cannot bring about change. Votes are only valuable if they are actually counted. The Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore 2000 that US votes need not be counted. Uncounted votes have no value whatsoever to the individuals who voted, but can could as consent of the governed as part of the turnout doing their civic duty to imperialism and capitalism. Voting in elections held by a government that engages in wars of aggression and drone-bombs innocent children every day, is consent of the governed to allow the government to continue those crimes against humanity. Most voters are too apathetic to care about genocide and war crimes, but I am not. Robert Jensen, who I admired for years, wrote that unless the system is changed, the new boss will turn out to be just like the old boss. Jensen sold out in supporting Norman Solomon, because Solomon will have no more power than Kucinich, Grayson, Dellums, or any of other progressive Member of Congress. Bob Filner, a long-time Member of Congress and a former Freedom Rider, left Congress to run for Mayor of San Diego because he says he thinks he might have more power as a Mayor than as a Congressman. Solomon should talk to Filner about what he might be able to accomplish in Congress. S. Brian Willson is Occupying DC and has a recent book about entitled, Blood on the Tracks, now in its second printing. When he was here in San Diego at his book tour, I asked him what he thought about an election boycott and he said that he agrees with me, that he doesn't vote, and that not voting is an important part of an overall strategy of noncompliance such as building alternative systems, boycotting corporations, removing money from the system, etc. Willson lost both his legs trying to block a weapons shipment to the Contras. He is a world-renowned peace advocate. I'd much rather have his agreement than yours, Ernest, or that of Brad or anyone else who has shown a willingness to tolerate genocide and vote for people who are guilty of crimes against humanity. Democracy has been scornfully referred to as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. It can work, but only if the lamb has a solid and unbreakable block, not just once, but every single time that vote comes up, until the wolves, rather than starve, agree to an alternate entree. I doubt if you or anyone else here will read the links I provided, but I did answer your questions.

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/7/2011 @ 1:49 pm PT...





I forgot to mention that S. Brian Willson not only used to be a voter, he was a campaign manager for John Kerry, flying all over the country to counter the swiftboat attacks. He did not arrive at his position of not voting through apathy but through revulsion at being sold out by every candidate he'd ever supported. Kucinich talks about peace, but in '08 he threw his support to pro-war Obama. Willson isn't just talk, he is someone who has and continues to put his life on the line to end war crimes. You can't end war crimes by voting for war criminals or by voting in a system where war criminals have an unbreakable majority.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 12/7/2011 @ 2:05 pm PT...





Mark E. Smith - I have no idea who Willson is, or what the hell he has to do with this story, but I'm glad to see Ernie speak to your years of "don't vote!" nonsense. While I'm a strong believer that folks have every right to not vote, and its up to them whether they do or don't, your years of advocating against voting --- when the majority of the population already doesn't vote! (and how's that been working out for you?) --- continues to be as dumb today as the first day you ever wasted our time with it here. I wasn't aware that by voting for or against a ballot initiative I was "voting for war criminals". Neither was I aware that by voting for, say, Ron Paul or the Green Party candidate for my local Mayor, that I was "voting for war criminals". I also hadn't realize that this is a "system where war criminals have an unbreakable majority". If it's unbreakable, then why bother to do anything? It can't be broken either by voting or by not voting, according to your silly argument, so why waste your breath at all here? Your years of advocating for idiocy continues, I guess. Good luck with that. Looks like you're winning though! Since almost nobody votes anyway. Keep up the great work! You folks against voting have given us a terrific set of public officials!

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/7/2011 @ 2:13 pm PT...





Try googling S. Brian Willson, Brad. And why is my first comment still being held for moderation? Is there anything in it that violates any rules you may have previously posted or be considering posting in the future, like Rob Kall's rule on OpEdNews that anyone who mentions election boycotts will be banned? I posted my responses on my own website and Tweeted a link to them, just in case you or Ernest decides not to allow my first comment to be posted here. Many people believe that they aren't voting for war criminals or war crimes when they vote for local officials, for third party candidates, or for specific civil rights such as marriage equality, but the system that they are granting their consent of the governed to by voting, is still engaged in war crimes, so that's what they're consenting to whether they are capable of understanding it or not, and whether or not they care. Most voters are too apathetic too care. If they can get a Green Mayor elected, why worry if another million innocent children are done-bombed in their sleep in some far-away country?

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/7/2011 @ 2:24 pm PT...





Brad, in my first comment, I explained who S. Brian Willson is. That comment is still being "held for moderation," meaning censored. Unlike your comment and Ernest's article, my response contained no personal attacks whatsoever, no childish name-calling, no attempts to discredit anyone, and no unfounded statements.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/7/2011 @ 2:45 pm PT...





As my response to Ernest is still being "held for moderation," anyone who wants to read it can see it here: http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1240 I do wonder why my second comment, which makes no sense without the first one, was allowed, but the first one is still being censored. But then since Ernest's purpose was to discredit me and my ideas, he certainly wouldn't want me to be able to respond.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 12/7/2011 @ 2:56 pm PT...





Mark E. Smith, Really? You think a community that would have the wherewithal to elect a Green Mayor would not be worrying about innocent children being drone-bombed? Ernie and Brad, I've been one of the people here who've wondered if not voting might be the best strategy after all. My reasons are perhaps a bit different than those discussed above but never mind all that cuz my thinking is evolving again on this.. First of all just the phrase--Occupy Elections--tickles me and gives me hope. If the amazing and seemingly magical power of the combined will of so many of us in the OWS can start working it's magic on the multiple undemocratic dysfunctions of our election processes then I would feel much more like playing. But more than that I'm with Ernie on this cuz I think the smartest play is to confront the beast in every facet of its hydra-headed existence at every possible turn in every possible venue. Relentlessly, peacefully, creatively working on new dynamics of the revolution so desperately needed. So why concede the electoral process? Yes, there are only a handful of true progressives currently walking the hallowed halls and yes, the game is terribly rigged against us. But getting Elizabeth Warren and/or Norman Solomon in there can only be good for creating the new direction so many of us hunger for. And just because the game is currently a clusterfuck doesn't mean we can't in time, with tremendous effort and perseverance unclusterfuck it.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/7/2011 @ 3:37 pm PT...





So, David, as long as you can get Elizabeth Warren or Normal Solomon in there in hopes of, with great time, effort, and perservence, creating a new direction, you are willing to do your civic duty to the state and, by voting, grant your personal consent of the governed for it to continue drone-bombing innocent children for the duration?

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... ghostof911 said on 12/7/2011 @ 4:00 pm PT...





The goal of the Occupy revolution is not to persuade political elites who've sold out to the corporate security state to make "concessions" but to replace each and every corporatist with leaders whose only fealty is to the 99%. Agree that the call to extract concenssions from Democratic party sell-outs is insulting. Because Occupy members display a high level of political activism, the movement becomes a choice voting block for politicians. Occupy will spur politicians to come to them, as in the manner of denouncing PAC contributions. Occupy will reciprocate with support at the polls. In that way, the movement can systematically replace the politicians who are not representing the people who elect them to office. Democracy is a living thing. Either you participate or you spectate. Either you use it or you lose it.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/7/2011 @ 4:25 pm PT...





It isn't just war crimes abroad that voters are consenting to, there are a few things going on here also: http://myoccupylaarrest.blogspot.com/ But since it isn't urgent, with great time, effort, and perseverence, voters might be able to elect one or two people who might, in time, be able to start to create a new direction. In the meantime, you just keep voting for capitalism, imperialism, corporate rule, and corruption, because you believe that the only way to change it is to be a part of it and participate in it. You certainly wouldn't want to risk losing any of it. By the way, just what it is that you don't want to lose? I'd really like to know. It can't be democracy because we don't have one. Our elected officials make it explicitly clear that they do not and will not allow public opinion to influence their policy decisions, as would be the case in any democratic form of government where citizens have a voice instead of just a vote. So what is it you don't want to lose? I will not.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Mark S. Tucker said on 12/7/2011 @ 4:29 pm PT...





Hello again, Ern. Always enjoy your articles. The real problem here, though, as I have been at pains to point out in Veritas Vampirus through hundreds of issues, lies in linguistic ignorance…in this case in the incognition that 'democracy' and 'anarchy' are synonyms. They are, and not acknowledging that brings us our grief. I can't tell you how many self-proclaimed "anarchists" I've run across who, recessing their flavoring when operating in the public sphere, nonetheless shill for this republicanism we call, to put it in Hartmann's idiotology, 'small d democracy'. ANY form of representational government is republicanism, pure and simple (ironically, note my small 'r', as opposed to the Republicanism of the Republican Party, which is of course fascism). We live in a representational government and always have...save, of course,that it's now a fascism, which is the logical end point of republicanism but especially of Republicanism. Democracy means exactly what the term denotes: people rule, ALL people (there are no rhetorical or definitional limiters to the term). That's anarchy in its essence (and, as you know, I quibble with anarchists over their own splinters and thus label myself a 'meta-anarchist', a political philosophy populated by precisely 1). Until people come to use democracy in its proper meaning, it will remain an evanescent concept over which all and sundry bray and keen, to little if any avail, nothing more than sound, fury, and blather. Thus, 'small d democracy', 'representative democracy', 'indirect democracy' and all this baboon adjectivilization by Hartmann, Malloy, Rhodes & Co., Inc. LLC of the term only serve to illustrate the speakers' pertinent illiteracies and glaring philosophical shortcomings. More, it's a trifle amusing to see such adamancy to vote in a forum whose main drive has been exposure of the election frauds that have been so rampant for well over a decade, a colloquy that can only lead to a conclusion I've drawn that Brad's not terribly fond of: that all elections everywhere from top down and bottom up must be considered fraudulent when done electronically until proven otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent? Yew betchum, stellarly in a case like this. Worse, when we look at the Democrats and their record (anyone at all remember Richard Daley???), we see no end of paper vote enfraudations. In fact, our entire American history has been fraught with the problem. So…people who encourage to not vote are loons? To the contrary, we're just not Democrat-ick or Progressive Democrat-ick dupes nor bereft of a bent to logical extrapolation. We have no patrons we must answer to. We're the true democrat/anarchists. *That* is the problem here. And re: OWS, I love it, I'm in solidarity, but only for what it is, which is extremely limited. When it decides that at-home and global revolution are inevitable, then I'll pay much closer attention. Until then, it's still a very good thing, however…just exceedingly limited. Far as I'm concerned, any and all political agitation is self-justified, no matter its purview. Oh, and if I may, I'd like to point out that your phrase 'egalitarian democracy' is a redundancy.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 12/7/2011 @ 4:46 pm PT...





Several points, Mark Smith: 1. Your first comment did not end up in moderation because of a violation of the blog's rules, but automatically because of its length. I've had that happen to some of my own comments. 2. Brad was tied up with his KPFK appearance, and I didn't see your book length dissertation until now. It's now posted as comment #1. 3. With all due respect, there's a gaping hole in your logic --- always has been. One does not "consent" to war by voting for an anti-war candidate, like a Kucinich, or a Solomon, or a Bernie Sanders. Your half-baked, boycott elections idea amounts not only to a surrender of the political realm to the corporate security state, but free reign for the warmongers who are then unchecked by the vote. Your boycott is the political equivalent to a Senator abstaining rather than voting against continued funding of the war in Afghanistan. So, Mark E. Smith, when you propose boycotting elections, it is you who consents by your absence to war.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 12/7/2011 @ 5:05 pm PT...





One of the problems I've always had with your linguistic purity arguments, Mark S. Tucker, is that you tend to make up your own definitions, and then lampoon anyone who does not use them precisely as you do. Let's take the word "democracy." Mark S. Tucker definition: Democracy means exactly what the term denotes: people rule, ALL people (there are no rhetorical or definitional limiters to the term) Merriam-Webster definition a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. Reference.com definition: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Your entitled to your opinion, Mark Tucker. You're not entitled to your own definitions. Finally, the words "egalitarian democracy" are not redundant. They are used to stress that even a political system that is structured for "rule by the people" can be undercut by capitalist inequality. Indeed, Chomsky is critical of the current structure of U.S. "representative democracy [because it] is limited to the political sphere and in no serious way encroaches on the economic sphere." It is my humble opinion that meaningful political democracy is not possible absent economic democracy --- hence the term "egalitarian democracy." How's that for precision, Mark?

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Mark S. Tucker said on 12/7/2011 @ 7:00 pm PT...





Not bad, Ernie, but not good either. You of course missed the scientific approach; that is, you looked to a perverted dictionary definition rather than an etymological base, a first-cause discovery, which should, I would imagine, be de rigeur for a lawyer. At least, that was the case when I was studying Law and solving cases for my teacher. And, by the way, I am entitled to the *facts*, and that's what I purvey, so let's take this by the numbers. The conjoining of the words 'demos' (people) and 'cratein' (rule) (later 'kratos' and affixially '-cracy') mean precisely what they say: people rule, nothing more, nothing less. Fact, not opinion. And when they were first put together in old Greece, the civilization knew exactly what was meant, equally knowing they were not practicing democracy, not even vaguely. Read the classics and you'll see it. It was then, as it was later under the monstrous Jefferson & Co., a demagoguing excuse to water down tyranny a trifle, including formerly excluded very narrow slices of certain classes into the elite…to better serve the elite. As we both well know, Ern, revisionism is a big problem in *everything*. Take the Santa Clara decision in your profession or travel over to history teachers and look at the crap they have to peddle in order to indoctrinate students into the historo-capitalist fairy-tale we call "democracy". Then peruse Simon Winchester's The Meaning of Everything and see how much perversion went into the making of the Oxford Dictionary. Same happened to Webster's. Dictionary-making is not a linguistic exercise, it is political, first and last, and words like 'democracy' are precisely the target. Dictate meaning and you dictate reality…or didn't you catch that in your Chomsky readings? Noam is by no means shy about such things when you read him widely and fully, esp. re: Big Eddie vBernays. It's very simple: a word means what it means or it doesn't. Taking a Benthamite Utilitarian position, btw, should anyone be minded to, won't change a thing. Expanding words to mean other things is not expansion, it is perversion. Want a different meaning? Coin a different word. Our language is so chock full of such miserable impreciseness that it causes the intelligent to weep and gnash teeth. No wonder people can understand nothing but TV gabble. To echo Confucius, I wish my people understood their language. How's *that* for precision, Ernie? And if you run into Mr. Merriam-Webster or Ms. Reference.com, you can tell them that I can recommend a good therapist for their delusions. You, of course, are free to heed whomever pleases you in any case. If you don't mind, I'll address your fallacious equivalencies of capitalism and democracy tomorrow, as the two are not even addressable in similar context. Lastly, re: my typification of Jefferson, I'll soon be proving, in my newsletter, that he was a monster along the lines of Columbus. This, naturally, as a matter of keeping facts straight, not as the kind of revisionist *opinion*-making transvestituring itself as fact we hear from radio infauxtainers and others.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 12/7/2011 @ 8:43 pm PT...





OMG, Mark Tucker. Bad enough I've had to debate right wing strict constructionists and their perverted views on the "original intent" of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Now I get someone on the Left who thinks he's a linguistic originalist, whose narrow interpretation of language leads to such a myopic conception as to ignore common usage of language necessary for modern communications. Good luck with that, Mark. I'm sure you'll find at least fifteen, maybe 20 people in the 21st Century who'll buy into it.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 12/7/2011 @ 9:18 pm PT...





Mark S Tucker @11, Where'd you get the word "enfraudations"? Can't find it in my dictionary. The only place I've been able to find it online is in a piece you wrote. Is it from ENF--meaning the Elks National Foundation--, Rauda--referring to a municipality in Saale-Holzand district of Thuringia, Germany, and the common suffix "tion"? I found that incomprehensible deconstruction in Hydrangea's Guide To Written Masturbation. But there was no explanation. Just a smirking, self-satisfied smiley face.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/7/2011 @ 9:35 pm PT...





Ernest, both dictionary definitions you cited agree that democracy is a system of government where supreme power is vested in the people. That is obviously not the case in the US. We do not have the power to ensure that our votes are counted. If we had supreme power over government we could force it to count our votes. We do not have the power to unseat Members of Congress if we aren't able to prove that their elections were stolen until after they've been sworn into office. Once they're sworn in, we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the election was rigged and stolen, but only Congress can unseat them and Congress never has. In 2006 there were six stolen elections appealed to Congress that they didn't even bother to investigate, the most famous one being that of Clint Curtis, which was fully documented here on BradBlog. We do not have the power to appeal a Supreme Court decision, no matter how unprecedented, unconstitutional, irrational, or even absurd such a decision may be. The Framers weren't misspeaking, using a poor choice of words, or joking around when they named the highest law of the land the "Supreme Court." They were vesting supreme power in government, in an unelected body of government which they established, not in the people, who can neither vote for, nor remove a Supreme Court justice from office, nor appeal a Supreme Court decision. The Framers knew exactly what the word "supreme" meant, and they vested supreme power in government, not in the people. So our government doesn't even meet the dictionary definition of a democratic form of government, no less Mark Tucker's definition, which I happen to agree with. Thanks to whoever or whatever finally allowed my comment (Comment #1) to be posted. I also agree with Mark Tucker that it is a travesty for those who devote themselves to exposing the many problems with our electoral system, to encourage people to vote in it anyway. We don't need to vote in order to gather more evidence of election fraud, as we have tons of evidence of election fraud, along with tons of evidence that there is nothing within our power to do about it. If we had supreme power over government, we'd be able to at least have honest elections. Saying, as Brad has, that we have "faith-based elections" where we vote and then wait for the "elections fairy" to come down and announce the unverifiable results, and then encourage people to vote in such elections is, in my opinion, as corrupt as encouraging people to gamble money in a rigged card game. If you know the game is rigged, the honest thing to do is to warn people not to play. If this was a democracy and if our votes had to be counted and were verifiable, I'd be proud to vote, as I did for many years. Once I became an election integrity activist and learned that our electoral system is rigged and corrupt, I tried to find out why. I found out that it isn't just a question of how people vote or how the votes are, or are not tallied, but a problem with the Constitution itself, which vested supreme power in government rather than in the hands of the people, and thus established a plutocracy rather than a democracy. That's when I stopped voting.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 12/7/2011 @ 10:03 pm PT...





Mark E Smith @10, You say--"In the meantime, you just keep voting for capitalism, imperialism, corporate rule, and corruption, because you believe that the only way to change it is to be a part of it and participate in it. You certainly wouldn't want to risk losing any of it."-- Those are weird things to write. You're assigning acts, meaning, and motivation to me completely out of your own ethers. Then it gets weirder. After ending that paragraph with--"You certainly wouldn't want to risk losing any of it."--you start the next paragraph asking--"By the way, just what it is that you don't want to lose?" To sum up--You make up my reality for me. You make up my motivation for me. After doing me those favors you assert, a bit snarkily, that I wouldn't want to lose these things(that you made up). THEN you ask with great interest(and a little typo) exactly what it is I'm afraid to lose? How the hell would I know? You're having that conversation with yourself.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 12/7/2011 @ 10:12 pm PT...





Mark E. Smith @17 wrote: Thanks to whoever or whatever finally allowed my comment (Comment #1) to be posted Thanks for confirming that you didn't bother to read my comment @12. And when did this place get hijacked by the Mark men?

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 12/7/2011 @ 10:57 pm PT...





Oy. Been gone all day, and got no time now to wade into the dialectical sand traps and self-delusional lame-brainisms of this thread tonight. As much as I might like to. Maybe tomorrow. If I have time to catch up with the running train. Good thing there aren't issues of real importance that all this fine Marksmanship couldn't have been targeted towards instead. Sigh...

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/7/2011 @ 11:32 pm PT...





Ernest, I did read your comment #12, but let me respond to it more fully: Several points, Mark Smith: 1. Your first comment did not end up in moderation because of a violation of the blog's rules, but automatically because of its length. I've had that happen to some of my own comments. That explains why my comment was held for moderation, but it does not explain who or what finally allowed my comment to be posted. 2. Brad was tied up with his KPFK appearance, and I didn't see your book length dissertation until now. It's now posted as comment #1. That was obvious and needs no response. 3. With all due respect, there's a gaping hole in your logic --- always has been. One does not "consent" to war by voting for an anti-war candidate, like a Kucinich, or a Solomon, or a Bernie Sanders. Well, let's see, Ernie. Suppose somebody is known to be a multiple-bigamist who marries many women at the same time and takes their money. Would you say that a woman who knows that he does this, knows that he takes the money of the women he marries, but still consents to marry him anyway, isn't, by marrying him, consenting to allow him to take her money? It would be different if she didn't know. If you know that the government is waging wars of aggression, committing crimes against humanity, and drone-bombing innocent children in their sleep, and you vote for somebody like a Kucinich or a Sanders who has been part of that government and hasn't been able to stop it from committing war crimes, or a Solomon who isn't any better than they are and would have less seniority, wouldn't you, by voting for them, be consenting to the war crimes you know the government is committing that you know they haven't been able to stop and certainly won't be able to stop, at least not for a long, long time? Your half-baked, boycott elections idea amounts not only to a surrender of the political realm to the corporate security state, but free reign for the warmongers who are then unchecked by the vote. In what way have warmongers ever been checked by the vote? Maybe after a few decades of war when they've already killed millions of innocents, they might shift their base of operations to a different theater where they can kill millions of different innocents, but the US has been engaged in genocidal wars since its inception, when it slaughtered the Native Americans, and has rarely been at peace since. It is almost always engaged in some war somewhere, usually to protect Rockefeller business interests like Standard Oil, United Fruit, and their latest incarnations. Your boycott is the political equivalent to a Senator abstaining rather than voting against continued funding of the war in Afghanistan. Yes, you're right. Some Senators do act out of conscience vote against war. Others, seeing that they lack a majority and would be subject to vicious attacks for voting against war, simply abstain. I consider both actions commendable and I respect them, but you seem to consider abstaining irrelevant and "doing nothing." I think they set a shining example and a refusal to vote for war should be honored, as should any Senator's vote against war. When the majority is voting for war, both a vote against war and a refusal to vote at all, are acts that do not support war. It is different with Senators, though. They actually have an opportunity to vote for or against war, while we the people do not. Our Constitution did not vest supreme power in our hands and we are only allowed to vote (in rigged elections where our votes don't have to be counted) for representatives who will be able to vote for or against war. We have no direct vote on issues like war and we have no power to force our representatives to represent us. We know that the majority in Congress are pro-war, so even if we vote for a minority candidate opposed to war, we know that the end result will be continued war. If you know that your vote doesn't have to be taken into account (or even counted) and that no matter how you vote, the current system will continue to wage wars of aggression, no matter how you vote you are consenting to war. It's like consenting to marry the guy you know is already married to eight other women and will just take your money. So, Mark E. Smith, when you propose boycotting elections, it is you who consents by your absence to war. That's faulty logic, Ernie. The Senator who votes against war or who abstains from a vote where the only possible result will be more war, is not consenting to war the way that the Senator who votes in favor of war is. Since Senators don't have to represent their constituents, the fact that most voters are opposed to war has no impact on Senate war votes. While abstention is not a vote against war, it is not consent to war either. In fact it lowers the vote count, so that instead of, say, 98 Senators for war and 2 against war, there are only 97 Senators for war, 2 against war, and one abstention. Such a vote would mean that there were three Senators who were not willing to affirmatively consent to war. Since we can't vote on issues like war, voting to consent to a Senate with that known pro-war makeup is also affirmative consent to war, even if it adds a theoretical 3rd or 4th Senator who will not consent to war. There's an unbreakable pro-war majority in the Senate, we know it exists, we can consent to it or not, and we might even hope to diminish that unbreakable majority by a vote or two, but we have no vote on war. Knowing that no matter who we vote for or who is elected, the result will be more war, the only possible way to oppose war is not to vote. If you know that no matter how you vote, the result will be continued war, how can you consider your vote for a peace candidate to be a vote against war? It is a vote to consent to allow a pro-war Congress to continue to wage war in your name while you attempt, over time, with great effort and perseverence, to used rigged elections to elect more anti-war candidates. In the meantime, you're consenting to continuing war.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/7/2011 @ 11:42 pm PT...





I did read your comment #12, Ernie, but my attempt just now to respond to it more fully resulted in another lengthy post which is being held for moderation. It might appear here by tomorrow. In the meantime, it can be viewed (scroll down to the bottom) here: http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1240#comment-3247

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/7/2011 @ 11:53 pm PT...





Brad (#20), if this wasn't an issue of real importance, why would your lede article be addressing it?

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 12:09 am PT...





Ernest, in addition to giving teach-ins at Occupy San Diego, which I did of my own initiative, I was also invited to host a discussion on the topic of election boycotts at Occupy Cafe: When the Governed Don't Consent http://www.occupycafe.or...e-governed-don-t-consent I'm also taking part in a discussion on the same forum about the 2012 elections: http://www.occupycafe.or...y-and-the-2012-elections As for "Occupy Everywhere," I don't necessarily think that's a great idea. There are some places I don't think should be occupied. For example, I posted a sarcastic comment on my little website that essentially said: Why don't we Occupy the prisons? We could start by getting as many people as possible into local jails, and then aim for supermax prisons, and eventually Occupy Guantanamo and the CIA's secret prisons. If we could get millions and millions of people inside the prison system, we could work from within to change it. That was intended as caustic sarcasm to show that not everywhere can be productively Occupied. We already have millions of people in the prison system, and adding millions more is not likely to accomplish anything to reform the prison system. Nor is adding more voters to the rolls likely to reform our electoral system.

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Mark S. Tucker said on 12/8/2011 @ 12:09 am PT...





Well, Ernie, it's more than disappointing to read a retort conflated entirely of smarmy ad hominems, from a lawyer no less (well, okay, maybe not all that disconcerting then), something that wouldn't surprise me for a moment in the babble of an onanistic troll jackball chowderhead like Lasagna, whose excretions I've unfortunately had to wade through in previously perused exchanges here, but you? Sad. You addressed not a single point I made, facts that Chomsky, whose name you persistently bandy about with what at first appears to be familiarity, would very much agree with, himself a linguist and having entertained precisely my points many times, vastly your superior (and mine). You demean the concepts without a shred of analytically sound refutation. Let me add another name to the mix: Gore Vidal. Read his work and listen to his talks, and you'll find precisely my point well captured in his examinations of the conflicts between word, concept, and manifestation, not to mention the deviation you think improper democracy. You might want to check out S.I. Hayakawa as well on such matters. Then John Raulston Saul. Etc. Just 20 people? I'm afraid you live in a myopic void. True, there are not many of us, but thousands upon thousands upon thousands exist who know such "esoteric" subjects well. Were you at all familiar with the true Left, you'd know that without my telling you. Behind the scenes you make claims to an anarchistic spirit, but, really, you haven't a clue, I'm afraid, and I'm sorry to have to note that, I really am. That your and Brad's squalling groupie would chime in with inane fleering means little, the intellectual midget in question an ignorable flimp at best, but your own dismissive attitude does you no credit. Be a smart-ass if you wish, I encourage such things, I'm one as well, as thousands of my readers and you (and Brad) will attest, you know that from my own past work, present forum, and elsewhere, but I do so only in context or forwarding the argument's points in whatever direction, addressing the matter at hand, not running from it. This is why I bothered at all to pen missives your way in the first place. This Jekyll/Hyde gig is regrettable in you. You don't even know how to render a good fight any more. I'm curious, though: what do you mean by "this place" being "hijacked" by "Mark men". This is only the second dialogue thread I've ever participated in on Brad Blog, mainly because of dimwits like Lasagna who infest the Net like cockroaches. BB is in fact one of the handful of sites I've considered worth attending in the last five years, as you and Brad very much know. To see it descend to a skein of dodgeball flippancy like so many others is a trifle tragic. You purport to see my two comments in a forum of 20 inserts as part of a hijacking? I think your rhetoric is revealing far too much about you, Ernie. True, Mark Smith goes on at length, but, unlike Lasagna, his points are cogent, well stated. I find his position exceedingly tenable, much more than yours and Brad's…and at least Brad cedes that not voting is a right as well, with, of course, a million and one odd qualifications. Smith's expositions in fact fall into the category Chomsky referred to when he cited Republicans accusing their opponents of having no solutions when the translation runs that very good solutions are indeed put forth but the Repubs just don't like them. An ocean of difference exists there. If you'd care to resume the debate on its points, great, but if you'd prefer to remain in situ with this bizarre new avoidance syndrome, well….. Oh, and Brad, if you're referring to me with these inchoate "self-delusional" and "lamebrainisms" charges, well, bring it on, buddy, let's see whatcha got. Mean it. Or would you prefer to hide in the woods like Ernie?

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Adam said on 12/8/2011 @ 1:31 am PT...





Ernest Canning's Wrote In Article...

The BRAD BLOG, unlike the corporate MSM, covered the recent BradBlog.com is a model of how democracy and fairness should be practices in news media. BradBlog.com doesn't engage in autocratic practices that many so-called alternative/progressive news sources engage in. For example, BradBlog wouldn't delete comments by someone who brings up election integrity issues as DailyKos has a history of doing. Unlike RawStory which unjustly banned a reader called adam8 (that is, me), BradBlog wouldn't ban someone from commenting on the basis of a crime he didn't commit or for questioning the honesty of someone who would slander him by email to several individuals, on the basis of fictional connections made by faulty software (disqus, purportedly). Thank you BradBlog for not hypocritically engaging in blatantly unfair and autocratic practices.

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 12/8/2011 @ 1:55 am PT...





Re: Mark S. Tucker @24: Relax, draw in a deep breath and start over. The Mark men comment was intended as levity. Sorry you did not see it that way. And there was no need for you to launch a personal attack on David Lasagna. Your doing so violates one of the few rules Brad has for posting on the comment section. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Now, getting back to your earlier comment. Since you apparently attended law school, you do know that one of the basic means for interpreting words used in a statute in order to ascertain legislative intent is their common and ordinary usage. Insisting on narrow meaning based on original derivations of the roots of a word --- 'demos' (people) and 'cratein' (rule) (later 'kratos' and affixially '-cracy') --- in my mind, is a form of linguistic masturbation. The Webster's and Reference.com definitions which you so cavalierly dismiss are, in fact, the commonly understood meaning of the word "democracy." If it is really inappropriate to affix the common and widely used meaning of the word "democracy," as you claim, then why was it appropriate to affix "cracy" and to drop the "s" instead of "demoscratein." Ah, there we go, Mark. We can settle it. You are an advocate of "demoscratein" (original meaning) whereas I advocate "democracy" (commonly understood usage).

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 12/8/2011 @ 2:05 am PT...





Admittedly, I haven't read the latest from Ernie carefully enough to comment proper - I've been way too busy trying to get my last 8 occupiers out of jail... ...which is why I'm talking umbrage with yet another article condemning and criticizing our process from someone, who WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, hasn't been to one single General Assembly meeting - and has only utilized the information from me re: our process to back up what I'm realizing now is a pre-determined, academic, "from 30,000 ft" armchair narrative. I'm so so so sick of being asked, but not not listened to, on this concensus topic from SO many of my progressive, intelligent, critical thinking heroes and colleagues who have not participated on the ground, refuse to follow our own broadcasts, and continue pad their part in this constant "spanking" and "chastising" of the movement from the very people who claim to support us. I will have more to say on this once I get some rest, and have had more time to fully absorb the latest slap on the wrist (to heroes from heroes) on our concensus process that everyone seems to have a very strong opinion about, regardless of what has been achieved in just two months time by the very process they malign.

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 12/8/2011 @ 2:21 am PT...





Re Mark E. Smith @21 sees a Senator's abstention to a war resolution "commendable." I, on the other hand, can't help but think of Edmund Burke. "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 12/8/2011 @ 2:34 am PT...





Okay...took a breath. Realizing that Ernest has actually "softened" the OWS criticism here, until the last paragraph. I realize this piece is more of a condemnation of Mark E. Smith (which I am all for) and his never-ending asinine assertion that somehow NOT VOTING is "OCCUPYING" anything; that boycotting the vote will somehow have impact on the 1% who want us to stay home and not vote - so how does HELPING them DEFEAT us help the 99%? ...Mark never has an answer to that. Ernest - I don't necessarily disagree that direct democracy is a sticky wicket - and I realize it has not proven HISTORICALLY effective. Okay. We can agree on that to some extent. But once again, I feel you're missing some critical info re: how the process changes from within, how organic (yet slow) and effective it can be. Consensus takes practice and patience, but we're getting REALLY good at it. There are several efforts afoot to begin to coral our political chops now and find a way to form a NEW representative democracy. Much of that is a work in progress as we discuss occupy phase 2... ...and for me? That will be OCCUPYING ELECTIONS (by actually OCCUPYING THEM, unlike Mark's assertion that we should Occupy the COUCH on election day to some unknown and inexplicable end.) Also, it's worth noting that the TEA PARTY and OWS are finding common ground in jointly opposing this horrible National Defense Authorization Act. So there is LOTS more common ground right now, with the country in such a state of perma-disaster... We may never agree on everything.

But it's really refreshing to live in a sub-culture in which EVERYONE has a voice...

Even the Mark E. Smiths. His bad idea will vet itself thru the process.

"Boycotting Elections" would be hard-blocked at our GA...by me, and by a LOT of my fellow occupiers.

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 3:40 am PT...





Sure, Jeannie. Certainly the millions of dollars that the Republicans and the big corporations spend on voter suppression does make it look like they don't want people to vote, or perhaps that they want people to think that their uncounted, unverifiable vote for their choice of corporate puppets or powerless minorities is somehow valuable, but that's nothing compared to the billions of dollars they spend funding elections and getting out the vote. I didn't say that not voting is Occupying anything, I just said that some things aren't really productive to Occupy, such as prisons and elections. Yes, you can get some PR and sway some opinions out of it, but you aren't going to reform the prisons by getting more people into them, and you aren't going to reform the electoral process by voting. My idea has already been discarded by Occupy San Diego. Although my teach-ins drew a fair-sized audience and received what seemed to me to be more praise than they deserved, they were in the end totally disregarded and Occupy San Diego was cmpletely co-opted, as I had predicted a month earlier when I overheard a group of high-level local Democratic Party political operatives at Occupy saying that they needed to "keep a low profile" and "take things one step at a time." Obviously, at least to me, they didn't want people to notice they were co-opting the group away from direct democracy and back into politics as usual. They, and a group called Canvass for a Cause, which while ostensibly non-partisan in order to retain their tax-exempt status, never, to my knowledge has canvassed for a predominantly Republican cause and always hands out voter registration forms when they canvass, won out totally. First Ray Lutz, who has headed Democratic Party clubs here and was a Democratic Congressional candidate (and, who like you, Ernest, Brad, and all political party operatives, hates my election boycott advocacy, although you alone, Jeannie, don't seem to have engaged in the ad hominem attacks required of political operatives), decided that since the cops had wrecked all the tables, including the information table, the media table, the medical table, the library table, the education table, the food table, the comfort table, etc., it was likely that the cops and the city saw OccupySD as opposing the system. So he set up a voter registration table, something he has always done as a Democratic operative, to have a good court case if they tried to take away a table he was using to support the system. It worked. He was arrested for setting up the table (structure), but his followers, local Democrats, and C4aC began saying he'd been arrested for registering voters. He hadn't asked for consensus, but he had asked the GA to support his individual action and they'd agreed. The next day C4aC went to GA and announced that they were setting up a new voter registration table. They simply announced it without seeking consensus. When I went down there with my "Boycott the war--Don't vote!" t-shirt and flyers, I was surrounded by Democratic Party operatives and a large group from Canvass for a Cause, and isolated. Right now the only table that Occupy San Diego has is a voter registration table. Oh, they still have GAs, but I'm sure they'd consense on sticking with politics as usual and not attempting to create a direct democracy. If they didn't at first try, the Democrats could bring in a few hundred people to outnumber the dozen or so usually there, and push it through with their 90% majority rule. I will still advocate for direct democracy, which is what the GAs are supposed to be, where everyone has a voice and can vote directly on issues, as opposed to representative "democracy" where people are deemed incompetent to vote on issues and can vote only on which guardians they would prefer to make their decisions for them. So, Jeannie, do you intend to propose to your GA that they abandon the direct democracy consensus process and elect representatives to vote on issues for them? Better still, how about secret vote counts, or a proposal that once the GAs elect representatives, individual votes don't have to be counted at all, only votes cast by official Occupy officeholders? Do you really support the GAs, Jeannie, or do you attend so that you can co-opt them away from direct democracy and back to representative "democracy," or politics as usual?

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 12/8/2011 @ 4:46 am PT...





The candidate selection process that takes place before a politician is selected to run for office is where the main problem lies. The 1% select them for tactical or strategic reasons that further their agenda, not the agenda of the 99%. How voting for those hand selected by the 1% help the 99% is not evident. If money is taken out of it, which will now require a constitutional amendment in the wake of Citizens United v FEC, then a new context arises. Until then voting is the Roman thing to do.

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 12/8/2011 @ 5:10 am PT...





Okay, I'll pretend like you're really asking and really answer you, Mark: I happen to LOVE the direct democracy process, Adore it. I've been defending it from the get - feverishly trying to educate my E.I. / activist / media friends about why and where this process works, 'cuz in article after article, they really don't seem to get it. In fact, I'm so enamored of the process, I can't stop using the hand signals, even when carrying liquids. And if you really knew Occupy, then you'd know that it can not be co-opted by any individual or group. It has a life of it's own, self-rejuvinative; glorious morphing in timely step and direction. We are galvanized. So, no I have no intention of co-opting occupy (even if I COULD) on behalf of representative democracy...many others are floating those ideas, I'm just following their progress as they pick up more interest and support from various occupies. We are all discussing that in open forums as we become more localized, but more connected, after our forced evictions. No, what I intend to do, Mark, is OCCUPY THE WISCONSIN RECALLS. I intend to propose @ occupyLA GA that they support the effort on behalf of our brothers and sisters in OCCUPY MADISON, who are already ramping up the recall rocket, mobilizing as we speak. Then, I intend to livestream for weeks from the ground via citizen election activists with cell phones, get the site mirrored with my new friends over at the global revolution feed, and expose any real-time election "anomalies" on election day to millions of international (and national) viewers / occupiers. When "glitches" are identified (and we know where they will be) we intend to "flash mob" and "occupy" the districts of interest, call them en masse / then show up, sit down and link arms at the B.O.E. and not move until they count the paper ballots by HAND and with HUMAN EYES in front of us. That is what I intend to do with a broken system, Mark...expose it, then FIX it. I intend to DO something. Really wish you would join that kind of a fight, stop working against the 99% and FOR the 1%ers who want us to drop out completely so they can rule in perpetuity. For someone who understands as much as you do about the nature of our rigged US election system, and who can articulate the issues with some authority - I would HOPE for *but never expect* your help in this imperative 2012 critical mass of an election-slog. If you were not so intractable and stubborn in your odd assertion that boycotting the vote somehow officially 'delegitimizes' an already "delegitimized", corrupt governing body - you could be a real force for good. ...but Brad has written that to you a gazillion times, to no effect. So I don't expect we'll see anything malleable in you that bends to reason at this late juncture in this tired-ass debate. Catch ya later, Mark E! I'm sure I'll see u round! Caught your post at OCCUPYCAFE. A tired *Eye roll* was all it illicited from me.

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 12/8/2011 @ 5:27 am PT...





...and ferchrissakes, Mark - I am not (nor is BRAD or ERNEST - a "political operative".) You really should drop that kind of hooey - makes you seem unhinged. Nor am I a cop. Or a FREEPER. Or a dirty hippie. Or a MOVE ON plant, or a 'sleeper-cell', or anything other title that would be ascribed to me by pundits, press-pols, and even some(not-so-stable) fellow occupiers. I am a voter.

I am an American.

I am a NYC 9/11 relief worker, a US election investigator, and a now - a proud LA occupier. As such, I can not advocate your "do nothing" position re: our most sacred right to vote. It strikes me as the antithesis of everything we claim to value, as well as a most cynical and lethargic reaction to the hostile government takeover we have endured. Which should move all Americans - even you - to some kind of palpable action. So strange to me that you spend SO much time and energy trying to get people to do the nothing they're already doing! We could bottle-rocket you to the moon and back on so much wasted hot-air steam...

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 12/8/2011 @ 6:07 am PT...





Dredd @ 32 writes: "How voting for those hand selected by the 1% help the 99% is not evident." True. That is why THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES, and fusion parties (perhaps a fusion 99% party in the states that allow it?) with actual candidates (or even virtual ones) on the ballot could make a meaningful difference - even give people like Mark a reason to vote! They could register a WRITE IN as protest/ or support a 99% affiliated candidate - then if the VOTES ARE COUNTED BY HUMANS in front of the public? ..we could change the game. Or at least make millions of American voters more aware that the election cycle chess pieces have been pre-set. I would add, to further fuel this debate (even tho' I really don't wanna) that we know that high voter turnout can counter-hack a rigged election. Bev Harris and Harri Hursti proved that in HACKING DEMOCRACY; the math has to "seem" relatively plausible - and they can only shave so many votes without risking detection...well, that is, if people take the time to observe the vote count on election night.

...Which they can't do from home, where Mark would have them collectively sitting it out, instead. Dredd also writes: "If money is taken out of it, which will now require a constitutional amendment in the wake of Citizens United v FEC, then a new context arises." Ah, good news Dredd! Well, maybe not good - but it's a start! You'll be happy to know that "reversing citizens united" via constitutional amendment was our very first occupyLA "demand" reached by 100% concensus!

http://occupylosangeles.org/?q=node/2658 “A group of protesters from labor unions and the Occupy L.A. movement joined forces to support a bank regulation bill put forward by Councilman Richard Alarcon. “ http://abclocal.go.com/k...rss-kabc-article-8455946 "The Los Angeles City Council voted 11-0 to pass a resolution calling for legislation to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision (5-4) which assigns person-hood status to corporations and opened the door for a flood of corporate cash into the political system. ...so Ernest's closing comments:

"

Certainly, at the local level, that process, including the use of the people's mic with participants taking turns in making statements and repeating the statements of others, has benefited both group solidarity and mutual understanding..." The process is quite beneficial if it means a full airing of views, but, respectfully, it is impractical when every decision must be approved by a super majority..." Impractical? Yah mabye, but it's WORKING.

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 12/8/2011 @ 6:28 am PT...





Mark S. Tucker @11 wrote: it's a trifle amusing to see such adamancy to vote in a forum whose main drive has been exposure of the election frauds that have been so rampant for well over a decade... Mark E. Smith @17 adds: We do not have the power to ensure that our votes are counted. Oversimplification! More than 70% of the U.S. votes on optical scanners, which are vulnerable to both intentional hacks as well as unintended failures. Nevertheless, the votes are hand marked on paper ballots which are fed into the machines. Those paper ballots can be used to prove fraud, though, if they are not publicly counted at the precinct level on Election Night, you run into thorny issues concerning chain-of-custody. Between 20% & 30% of the jurisdictions vote on 100% unverifiable, usually touch screen, DREs. There is no way to verify that those machines have accurately counted any vote cast on them. They are indeed electronic black holes, though fraud can potentially be detected if given complete access to the source codes. While there are problems with absentee voting, Brad and I have recommended voting on paper absentee ballots in all DRE jurisdictions. Those paper ballots do provide a potential means for uncovering election fraud. The classic example was the 2010 South Carolina Democratic primary contest between Alvin Greene and Vic Rawl. Greene was unemployed, virtually unknown and barely articulate. He had no campaign website, no volunteers, no campaign literature. He didn’t even own a computer or a cell phone. His opponent, the respected circuit judge and former state legislator Vic Rawl had raised hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars, appeared at 80 campaign events across the state, and had hundreds of volunteers. The numbers were inexplicable. By way of example, Lancaster County's paper absentee ballots went to Rawl 84% to 16%, but the unverifiable touch screens reported that Rawl had lost the county by 17%. Statewide, the virtually unknown Greene captured 60% of the vote, according to the unverifiable machines. Those anomalies would not have appeared if those who cast the paper absentee ballots had, per Mark Smith's advice, boycotted the election. And just think how different the numbers would have been if everyone insisted on voting by absentee paper ballot. Finally, there's the walk and chew gum at the same time issue. If you go back a re-read my article, you'll find that part of Occupying Elections is insistence on converting to paper-ballot elections and transparent counts.

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 6:33 am PT...





I'm waiting to see a proposal for a Constitutional amendment that addresses the fact that the Constitution enumerates and specifically grants to the Supreme Court, the sole right to interpret the Constitution and to decide cases arising out of it. So when the Supreme Court decides that the alternate interpretations of the Constitution that allow for a Constitutional Convention outside of the Article V process, are invalid, because the sole right to interpret the Constitution lies with the Supreme Court and is not retained by the States or the people like unenumerated rights, will you go to violent revolution, Jeannie? But of course you don't have to worry about that for a long time, as Constitutional Amendments can take decades. Remember the ERA? If I recall correctly, Wisconsin had a "Ballot Box 13" incident, where enough votes to reverse the election were "discovered" after the preliminary results were already in, and attempts to do anything about it failed. As for exposing the corruption when an election was obviously rigged, that has been done many times. It cannot, however, removed a seated federal official from office. Only Congress can do that, and in the case of Presidents and seated Members of Congress, they never have. But you can dream. 2012 won't be stolen the way that 2000 and 2004 were. The 1% have gotten to sophisticated for that. It will be done the way 2008 was stolen, by running two candidates with identical agendas, so that whoever wins, the 1% win. To this end, all the political operatives need to do is get out the vote. Since there is no obvious "lesser evil" candidate, and no party has a proud record of accomplishments to point to, political operatives have been doing this by urging people to vote for third party and independent candidates (who would have no power to bring about change even if elected, due to the unbreakable Democratic/Republican majority), write in their own names, vote for "None of the Above" or vote for "Nobody," cast blank ballots, or deliberately spoil their ballots. The 1% don't spend billions on elections to gain power--they already have power. They invest that money so that their puppet government can claim the legitimacy of being a democratically elected government with the consent of the governed. So they don't care who people cast their uncounted ballots for, they just want sufficient turnout to be able to claim legitimacy. You're just playing at GA until the "real election," Jeannie. You don't want direct democracy to replace the old system, so that we the people can vote directly on war, because most of us oppose war. You want power to remain vested in the hands of government, so that only elected officials, preferably your beloved genocidal Democrats, but you certainly wouldn't rebel if another Bush was elected, can continue to drone-bomb innocent children in your name. And as Mark Tucker pointed out to Ernest earlier, I have answers to the things you say, and I've spelled them out--you're just saying I don't have answers because you don't like my answers and can't refute them.

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 6:39 am PT...





I just noticed the BradBlog blurb for this article on the right hand sidebar: Ernest Canning on the need for the Occupy Movement to move into the electoral realm, and how they can do so without violating their important core principles... I guess direct democracy, people being able to vote directly on issues and policies like wars and bailouts, as opposed to representative "democracy" where only representatives can vote on issues and policies, isn't one of Occupy's important core principles. That's really sad, because I thought it was. I know that as long as power remains vested in the government, elected officials will not have to represent their constituents and therefore most will not, so the only way we could end our government's crimes against humanity would be if we the people had a direct vote. And Ernest, Brad, and Jeannie think that's a bad idea.

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 12/8/2011 @ 6:44 am PT...





Adding: to frame this as a "representative democracy" vs. a "direct democracy" debate, imho, is limiting and misses the mark. Occupy is more about self-governance where both of those democratic methodologies have completely failed us. Occupy is trying something new. And yes, it IS new - to all who insist we are only following the historical blueprints that have already been fatally drafted for us, and are doomed to repeat the same mistakes that are beyond our control... I submit that this global movement is entirely new. And it's young. And it's not going anywhere.

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 12/8/2011 @ 6:50 am PT...





I believe Jeannie Dean is onto something profound when she discusses both continuation of the consensus process in play at local GAs together with "representative democracy" as part of an occupation of electoral politics. The answer to your concern, Dredd, is to have those who are selected to "represent" the 99% emerge from within the organic OWS movement. In that event, the fact that the "representative" chose to run as a Democrat (e.g., Norman Solomon) does not mean that they must adhere to anything the current Democratic leadership desires. In fact, the goal of OWS should include occupying the Democratic Party for the purpose of removing everyone in current leadership positions who has sold out to the corporate security state.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 12/8/2011 @ 6:53 am PT...





"So when the Supreme Court decides that the alternate interpretations of the Constitution that allow for a Constitutional Convention outside of the Article V process, are invalid, because the sole right to interpret the Constitution lies with the Supreme Court and is not retained by the States or the people like unenumerated rights, will you go to violent revolution, Jeannie?" No. ..my beloved Democrats? Are u effin' kiddin' me? K. You have now lost me, again, like you always do by ascribing ludicrous political assumptions that don't exist. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. I don't know why I bothered to waste my time with you, this morning.

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 7:22 am PT...





Ernest @36 says, that when I say that we do not have the power to ensure that our votes are counted, I'm oversimplifying, and then goes into various details of how votes could be counted. I wasn't oversimplifying, Ernest. I was referring to Bush v. Gore 2000 when the Supreme Court found that we have no Constitutional right to have our votes counted, stopped the vote count, nullified the election, and installed the President of their choice. We have no Constitutional right to ensure that our votes are counted, and no power to appeal a Supreme Court decision to not allow the votes to be counted, as occurred in 2000. The Supreme Court has supreme power, which was vested in it by the Constitution. It can intervene with or without a pretext, make rulings that are unprecedented and irrational, and despite the supposed checks and balances some ignorant people refer to, the truth is that, as Al Gore noted after the 2000 election, the only way to appeal a Supreme Court decision is through armed revolution. If the Supreme Court decides in 2012 or any future election, to order that the votes not be counted, as it did in 2000, we have no power to ensure that our votes are counted. In fact, in 2004 there was a huge turnout because voters were so furious about the stolen election of 2000, that when John Kerry promised to ensure every vote would be counted, people flocked to the polls in hordes. Including me. I sent that lying billionaire money I couldn't afford because I wanted my vote to be counted. And he, uh, changed his mind. And nobody had the power to ensure our votes were counted, so once again, they weren't counted. I'm not oversimplifying. We do not have the power to ensure that our votes are counted. It doesn't matter if they're cast on paper or on machines, if the Supreme Court says they won't be counted, they won't be counted. Look up the dictionary definition of the word "supreme." And maybe you can respond to my previous point, that your dictionary definitions of democracy all said that supreme power is vested in the hands of the people. This is not a democracy and never was. Supreme power was vested by the Constitution in the hands of the Supreme Court. That's why they didn't call it the High Court, the President's Court, or the Unelected Court, but the Supreme Court.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 7:37 am PT...





Jeannie, I don't care who you voted for. A vote for Ron Paul was a vote for Obama. In our winner-take-all system, a vote is the consent of the governed to be governed by whoever wins the the election, which may not be the candidate they voted for. Doing one's civic duty to the system by voting in its elections is demonstrating enough faith in the system to trust that whoever wins the "election," that person will represent the voter's interests. This is an article of faith for which no evidence has ever been presented. I guess I should have said "your beloved system," as it is the representative system of government, as opposed to direct democracy, that you love, wish to preserve, and think everyone should legitimize through their vote. I don't care whether you're trying to co-opt the Occupy Movement for Obama, Ron Paul, or RuPaul, as long as you advocate people vote in elections for representatives, you're opposing direct democracy and expressing your preference for the current system. The Occupy Movement is saturated with political operatives and they love the GAs. But they wouldn't want to see the whole country run that way. It's just a toy for them, a game, a silly frivolous, meaningless trip, which, no matter how much it may accomplish, can never take the place of "real" elections for "real" representatives in our corporate-run imperialist state. As long as the government keeps drone-bombing innocent children, voters are happy. Oh, they might complain about the economy, civil rights at home, or other trivial issues, but as long as our government keeps committing crimes against humanity, they'll keep right on voting in its elections to grant it their consent of the governed.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 7:48 am PT...





Jeannie, direct democracy is self-governance. Look at the first official statement of Occupy Wall Street, which includes the List of Grievances. At the bottom you'll see: To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal. I didn't make it up. The Occupy Wall Street Movement, however co-opted and corrupted it may become, was founded on the principles and spirit of direct democracy.

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 12/8/2011 @ 8:59 am PT...





As Mark E. Smith continues to rail against voting, three members of Occupy DC announced plans for a hunger strike over the right to vote.

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 9:42 am PT...





We have two people in San Diego on hunger strike now, Ernest, a woman who began recently and a man, John Kenney, in his 30th day. John began his hunger strike to try to get the City Council to negotiate with Occupy San Diego and to put Occupy San Diego on their agenda. After 30 days, John is so weak that he needs a wheelchair. He isn't young and this isn't his first hunger strike. It is serious, and it could cost him his life. As for the City Council, a few members tend to be somewhat reasonable, but others are hard-core anti-Occupy. Basically, it boils down to trying to force the powers that be to allow protests against their own power. People who believe in the system, believe that there must be some way to get the system to represent, or at least allow their interests. The system believes it exists to suppress civil dissent. It isn't just corporate money. Power also corrupts, so putting people in power is a risky venture no matter how well-intentioned they may be. The idea of direct democracy is to decentralize power and vest power in the hands of the people, so that everyone has an equal voice, rather than some people having power to allow or deny the rights of others. Along with the hunger strikes, lawsuits have also been filed in attempts to get the system to respect what people fondly believe to be their legal and Constitutional rights. In reality, as Mumia Abu Jamal learned from Delbert Africa and recounts in his book, Jailhouse Lawyers, the law is whatever the judges say that it is. Therefore our rights are also whatever the judges and elected officials allow us. They have the power, we do not. It is foolish to think that votes which do not have to be counted are valuable. It is also foolish to think that in a democratic system of government, people would have to sue, petition, lobby, or go on hunger strike to get their elected and appointed officials to respect their rights. In a democratic system of government, supreme power is vested in the hands of the people, not in the hands of government. A common criticism of not voting is the old canard, "If you don't vote, you can't complain." The Declaration of Independence, like Occupy's List of Grievances, is a long list of complaints. Complaining is one of those unalienable rights, even if it isn't enumerated. Even a plant, insect, or animal has the right to react when it is hurt--it is part of the essence of life. If you are a captive and are not free, you can complain, petition, go on hunger strike, vote, or whatever you wish to do to try to get your captors, owners, rulers and/or tyrants to be more benevolent towards you. In a democracy you don't have to do that because in a democracy, supreme power is vested in the people, not in representatives, elected officials, appointed officials, owners, kings, tyrants, dictators, or anyone else. If you have supreme power, you don't have to petition anyone for your rights or ask anyone to grant you your rights or at least stop denying you your rights. If you have supreme power, as would be the case in a democratic system of government (according to the dictionary definitions Ernest posted), you simply exercise your rights because there is no higher institutional power that can deny or take away your rights. Another problem with voting or petitioning a government for your rights, is that what government giveth, government can taketh away. If your rights are conditional upon the government granting or allowing them tomorrow, the government can decide to deny or disallow those rights the following day. I still believe that direct democracy, i.e., government of the people, by the people (not by kings, dictators, judges, or elected representatives, but by the people), and for the people is the best system I know of. But it has never existed in the USA. We've always had a plutocracy where power was vested in the hands of a wealthy few. I had hoped that Occupy would begin, or at least attempt to change that, and in some cities there are still remnants of hope. In other cities, where Occupiers have rejected direct democracy, the movement is merely reformist, not revolutionary, and even if it were to succeed in gaining some temporary reforms, it would not change the system. That is perfectly okay with those who prefer plutocracy, capitalism, corporate rule, and imperialism to democracy, but I happen to prefer democracy. And I've done my homework and know what the word means. It means supreme power vested in the hands of the people, not in the hands of government.

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 9:54 am PT...





Also, if you think that I'm against voting, please read the essay I wrote (and did post a link to in my first comment here) entitled, "The Value of Voting." http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1189 In it, I clearly explain that I am no more against voting than I am against breathing. I am against voting in an undemocratic system of government, just as I am against breathing in a toxic environment that lacks oxygen. In a democratic system of government, voting is the most precious right of all, just as in an environment suitable for human life, breathing is essential to survival. In an undemocratic system of government, voting can be fatal, just as breathing in a toxic environment without oxygen would be. I am fully in favor or voting and am proud to vote in GAs, just as I would be proud to vote in any democratic system. I will not vote in an undemocratic system because that would be voting to consent to be governed undemocratically, and that I will not do. What you choose to do is up to you.

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 12/8/2011 @ 10:21 am PT...





Mark E. Smith @47 wrote: I am against voting in an undemocratic system of government, just as I am against breathing in a toxic environment that lacks oxygen. Great! So now you want us to "boycott breathing"! Hmmm, Don't think it healthy for me to hold my breath waiting to see how that works out. Yeah, I know, Mark. Our atmosphere may be polluted but it does still contain oxygen. But what you don't seem to grasp is that, while our electoral system is systemically skewed to wealth and power, like our polluted atmosphere, it still provides a means for achieving a peaceful democratic revolution using the tactics I've described in this article + those advocated by Jeannie Dean and others. Sorry, Mark, but, as your experience at OccupySD seems to show, there are very few who are willing to drink the boycott elections Kool aid.

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... eli said on 12/8/2011 @ 10:26 am PT...





I personally don't support the arguments against voting, because I feel that I personally have a ethical obligation to prevent the greater evil from gaining power, to whatever extent I can. So if my abstention (or vote for a third party for that matter) contributes to allowing what I consider to be a greater evil to gain power, I would consider myself partially responsible. In politics, as in life, we don't always get to make choices from among ideal options, and must often choose a lesser evil. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be working to improve the available options, but I believe we still have a responsibility to act based on the reality of the current situation, and not to sit on our hands while allowing (a greater) evil to occur. That said, I want to point out an argument in favor of abstention: Peter Singer (in his 1974 book Democracy and Disobedience) argues that if one voluntarily participates in a decision procedure, one thereby takes on an obligation to obey the outcome of this procedure. Only by abstaining, according to Singer, can one preserve the moral right of disobedience. There may be other considerations in favor of disobedience (such as if the decision procedure itself is fundamentally unjust), but voluntary participation is one factor that argues against a right of disobedience, according to Singer. I'm really not sure how to reconcile these two points, but I wanted to bring up the Singer argument to show that arguments for abstention do also have a moral basis.

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... Sark said on 12/8/2011 @ 11:49 am PT...





Hi All and Mark,

I am the individual that is in a discussion with Mark E. S. at the OccupyCafe. He actually linked to BradBlog so I decided to take a look. I know that there is no way I am saying anything any here have not said to Mark over what looks to be years of interactions. I also saw this mentioned in another place.

I am going to post some of my latest comments made to Mark at the OccupyCafe here because maybe some that have addressed this for years can help me with how I am stating things. I say this because I have seen advocating for not voting and writing in Mic Check as a "I do not consent" stand posted at Occupy sites.

So, here goes. It will be several post and may not make much sense because it is only mine but the entire thread is at the OccupyCafe. Peace Mark, I do not agree with your judgement about those that make the decision to vote. And I do not agree with your position that all the murder of innocent children and destruction of the environment will continue with or without the "consent to be governed". I do think that because of human nature, there will always be some of that happening but I think that honest true vote count elections would do much to move forward the causes of Peace, Social, Environmental and Economic justice. If individuals need to make the decision to not vote, that is their right in this country. If citizens were required to vote, not voting might make more of a statement. I think that saying "I do not consent and therefore I will not vote" may give one some comfort in the position they have taken but I think it will do nothing to change the reality of the world we are living in today. I do know that massive voter turnout has been the only effective way to have any chance against rigged elections. I think those doing the election selecting hope, wish and dream about some voters not showing up at the polls. Mark, you could go on and on and on about what "could" happen but the probability of what you say happening is so remote that it is difficult to give it any more time for discussion. Just because the court and justices have the label "supreme" it does not mean there is no recourse as I said earlier concerning impeachment. And, the Robert's court is doing a lot of overturning settled law from past "supreme courts" so I guess "supreme" changes over time. I understand the impeachment process and what has and has not happened but I think that it would be very different if the members of congress were elected rather than selected. As for honest judges, because we have had years of judges being ""selected" for their positions, it is becoming more and more difficult to find ones that don't legislate from the bench for the maintaining of easily rigged elections. The people could change that if they required that their votes be counted on paper and hand counted. And, all this said, I would rather spend my time on the realities of what is actually happening and has a high probability of happening. I have friends right now in WI working on the efforts to recall the governor there. They also worked on the WI supreme court recount and the recall of senators in the state. I support their efforts and am grateful for all they are doing. I am glad that they have become aware of all the many problems with elections and are leading the way in reform. Nine months ago they "Occupied" their capital and continue to have a daily presence there. And, while they are doing all of this, they are also working for Peace, Social, Economic and Environmental justice. I think they are heroines and heroes and I think they are doing a lot to make their state and this world a better place for all. I think they are making a very big difference by how they choose to say they do not consent. You have every right to put out a call to not vote just as others put out the calls to write in candidates and others choose to vote. I hope that others will make the choice to address the problems with elections and will push forward for reform and will continue to vote in masses so we can maybe overcome the algorithms. I hope that the reality that Hand-Counted Paper Ballots are a necessity for a true vote count and honest elections will come out of all of this effort. Now, off to Occupy.....................

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... Sark said on 12/8/2011 @ 11:52 am PT...





My latest post to Mark and a continuation from post 50 here; Mark, you have come to your comfortable place that justifies for you your position and stand. I do not agree with you and for me even your base for your stand is a false assumption. If I had to go with your stand, I would have to say the the act of living here is what gives the implied consent, not the act of voting. The acts of voting or not voting are actually pretty much the same in your argument, just different paths of choice with different outcomes. Not voting would just be a passive consent. What about paying taxes? Isn't that giving consent as you define it? Do you continue to use government services? Would not the use of government services also imply consent? If I needed to go to the hospital for emergency care, giving consent to have a broken finger fixed does not mean I give consent to have a lung transplant or agree to avoidable wrong and mistreatment. I think the same goes for those elected and how they do or do not represent the citizens. For me, expressing a choice in an election does not give implied consent but I can see where that act of my living here might. I'll think about that. I do understand the compelling call to not vote but I think the reality is that is is the dream and desire of the far-right-wing conservatives that the population not vote. I can clearly imagine a Karl Rove strategy meeting where they discuss how to get the progressive liberals to not vote and come up with the "We Do Not Consent" campaign. I just voted a month ago and the voter turnout was around 10%. I voted for a man that I respect and like even though he ran unopposed because I needed to make a statement of support. I made the decision to not vote in the other three of four races and truth is, in this case it made no difference. Even with all of that, I found it hard to vote because I know without any doubt that the machines are easily hacked and manipulated with malware. I first became aware that politics are dirty and rotten when Pres. Kennedy was shot. In 1980 I became aware that there was something very wrong with elections and in 2000 and 2004, I could not understand why we were not in the streets in the millions. Voter turn our now is in the upper 30% range for non-presidential years and the mid 50% range for presidential years and it has been like this since the seventies so you have had years of 40-60%+ participating in your form of "I do not consent" and all it has done is enable the the 1% to gain more power and control, especially with the propaganda machine. I also would like to say that until 8-9 months ago, I was not familiar with any of the names you mentioned and now I only know one of them.I wonder what it is that has kept those that care about elections and voting from discovering each other and being able to work together. I say that because I have spent years of my life working on this issue. There are many things about the government that I would like to see changed but I am going to stand firm on my position that Hand-Counted Paper Ballots are the most important first step. Peace

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 12/8/2011 @ 12:06 pm PT...





Still no time at present to respond to all of this (though I'd still like to! and hope to do so if I can carve out time later tonight), but I wanted to ring in to note to Mark Tucker: We have very few rules for Commenting at The BRAD BLOG. One of them, however, has to do with personal attacks on other commenters, as you did in one of your comments above to David Lasagna. Please consider this a friendly warning. Doing so again may lead to removal of both the comment, and your unfettered commenting privileges here. You are free to personally attack public figures --- folks like myself and Ernie Canning are included in that group, as we have a "bully pulpit" here in being able to create original blog items --- but other commenters are not. So please respect those rules when posting here, whether you agree or disagree with me, Ernie, or anybody else on any particular thing. Thanks!

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 12/8/2011 @ 12:11 pm PT...





Mark S Tucker @25-- When you complain about "smarmy ad hominems" and then launch into full swarm mode with such smarmy gems as-- "..an onanistic troll jackball chowderhead like Lasagna, whose excretions..."(and) "..your and Brad's squalling groupie(who)would chime in with inane fleering means little, the intellectual midget in question an ignorable flimp at best..."(and) "dimwits like Lasagna who infest the Net like cockroaches."-- you come across as an oblivious, pompous hypocrite who's hard to take seriously. All that invective cuz I asked you where you got the word "enfraudations" and then made a little fun of you. You made that word up, didn't you?

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 12:59 pm PT...





Thank you for the Pete Seeger reference, Eli. Sark, I engage in all other forms of noncompliance except for living here. I'm 71, I spent many years living in countries like Mexico, Honduras, and Afghanistan, and if I could, I would leave. That isn't possible for me, so I'm stuck here. But I've never paid taxes--fortunately I only once in my life earned enough money to be required to file, and that year the IRS allowed people to average the past 2 years with the present one, so I still owed nothing. I do almost all my grocery shopping at the co-op and buy almost no corporate brands. I am deeply opposed to imperialist crimes against humanity and try not to support them in any way and to oppose them in every way that I can. In speaking of election fraud, massive voter turnout, such as in 2004, did nothing to change rigged elections, nor could any other form of voting. Many people excused Kerry for breaking his promises not to concede early and to ensure the votes were counted, by saying that if he had tried, the Supreme Court would have stopped him anyway. In any event Bush, who was never elected, was returned for a second term. In '08 no rigging was required, as the 1% donated huge amounts (slightly more to Obama) to both major candidates, who both supported war and bailouts while most voters did not, so that whoever won, the result would be more wars and more bailouts to benefit the 1%. Voting with paper ballots or having a bigger turnout couldn't have changed that. Ernest, neither you nor Brad nor Jeannie nor anyone else has said how you could accomplish a peaceful democratic revolution. More poor people voting in rigged elections where the votes don't even have to be counted and the Supreme Court has the final say, certainly won't do it. Amendments to the Constitution, unless they eliminate Congress and the Supreme Court or severely limit their power to judge and thus have the final say in elections won't do it. Putting a few healthy apples into a barrel full of rotten ones won't do it. And granting your consent to the current system while petitioning it to be less evil won't do it either. Because our imperialist government, no matter which party was in power, has almost constantly been engaged in genocide and crimes against humanity since its inception, it is thoroughly polluted. Only those who see the lives of others as being worth less than their own lives, could fail to see that. As S. Brian Willson says of the millions of innocents our government has been killing for two centuries and continues to kill, "We are not worth more, they are not worth less." This environment may not be totally polluted for you, but it is totally polluted and incapable of sustaining life for millions of innocents. "We are not worth more, they are not worth less." Because I identify with those innocents instead of with those complicit in killing them, this atmosphere is totally polluted as far as I'm concerned. Only those who consider their lives to be worth more than the lives of others, would consider this atmosphere not to be totally polluted. Crimes against humanity will not be an issue in the 2012 election. It will not be mentioned in the Presidential "debates." It will not be on the ballot. It will be as completely ignored by voters as the stench from the death camps was in Nazi Germany. I consider myself a somewhat conscious being and I cannot ignore the stench of genocide by focusing instead on local candidates, issues, or hopes for change within the system. I've been fooled many times, but I'm not one of the people who can be fooled all of the time.

COMMENT #55 [Permalink]

... Newman Tomes said on 12/8/2011 @ 1:01 pm PT...





The republican party is trying to suppress the vote and they have many schills out posting blogs and making robo calls. Talking to them is like talking with a brick wall. The Democrats stayed home last time and we got the tea party. Stay home the next election and we will get more of them. We need to get more people to vote. Not less. For you people thinking there is no difference in the parties explain why there is nothing getting done. If they were the same we would not be having such a stalemate. Get out and VOTE

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 2:47 pm PT...





To the innocent children Obama is drone-bombing every day, there is no difference whatsoever between the Democrats and the Tea Party, Newman. If you were one of those children, a parent of one of those children, or cared about those children, you wouldn't see a difference either. It is only because you consider your life to be worth more than the the lives of those innocent children, that you see a difference. Which party is in power might make a slight difference for you, but it would make no difference whatsoever for the innocent children our government, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, continues to murder with drone bombs. But then talking to people who care only about themselves and not about others really is like talking to a brick wall, regardless of their political affiliation.

COMMENT #57 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 12/8/2011 @ 3:33 pm PT...





Mark E Smith @ 54 I'm with you on much of what you say here. Where you lose me is with sweeping statements like- "Only those who see the lives of others as being worth less than their own lives, could fail to see that(how thoroughly polluted our government is)". and--"Only those who consider their lives to be worth more than the lives of others, would consider this atmosphere not to be totally polluted." For me those strokes are way too broad and fail to account for the wide diversity of thought and action of so many people who, I'd guess, are largely in agreement with you, but may have a fundamentally different outlook on the possible effectiveness of certain activities(like voting)that you disdain. Because your sweeping statements sound dismissive I think you unnecessarily put yourself at odds with many who are probably your teammates. I can appreciate your grim outlook. I have one, too. But for me the recent and continuing brouhaha caused by the ever-expanding OWS Movement and its ever-widening ripples is triggering a new hope. I do not think it will be easy. I do not think there is not going to be hell to pay for so much of what we've already done. But I am thinking that paradigm shifting is possible. Hell, you can see if happening. Reading your posts I keep thinking of something Howard Zinn used to point out. I'm gonna mangle it, but basically it was that you can't always foresee how things are gonna go. Zinn would point to the surprise of Franco's Spain turning democratic and the Berlin Wall coming down. He would take the impossibility of always knowing how events will go, the fact that change does sometimes happen in the most unexpected places, the reality of how fragile the powerful's hold on power actually is, and the fact that sometimes enormous change, like ending the Vietnam War, starts out so terribly humbly, as reason to have hope and to pursue dreams of change with a full heart. I'm with him on that. I think you gotta embrace a certain amount of pessimism cuz we're so fucked. Simultaneously, you gotta embrace a certain amount of optimism in order to keep at it all and to live with the proper spirit. Thank goodness for the paradoxical nature of the universe. (Just another dimwitted excretion from Bradblog's very own onanistic troll jackball chowderhead,

Cockroach Lasagna)

COMMENT #58 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 12/8/2011 @ 4:12 pm PT...





Another great first hand account(and more) from one of Jeannie Dean's compatriots describing his arrest--http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/08-3

COMMENT #59 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 4:40 pm PT...





Here's a jurist, Jules Lobel, who speaks in measured tones, but says that equality and direct democracy are key to the success and long-term sustainability of the Occupy Movement. http://www.truth-out.org...cupy-movement/1323353901 His message might be more acceptable to many than my own. To me, it is like seeing somebody killing a puppy or a kitten, and asking them to please turn their stereo down. They may or may not comply, but if you mention that they're killing an innocent creature, they're likely to get upset with you, so it is more polite to just ignore it. Besides, their loud music can be annoying and interfere with your personal pursuit of happiness, but why should it bother you if they kill a few puppies or kittens? I agree that by not mentioning the elephant in the room, Prof. Lobel's message will reach more people, and probably accomplish more. But if it were your child the elephant was about to stomp on, wouldn't you be screaming about it at the top of your lungs, no matter who resented your message and your tone? I'm a leftie. The innocent children being killed are my children, every one of them. An injury to them is an injury to me. I do take it personally. Yes, there are paradoxes, like "look before you leap," compared with "he who hesitates is lost." The same can be said for "insanity is repeating the same experiment and expecting different results," and "demand miracles." I do see things in black and white sometimes, such as in my personal, individual belief that crimes against humanity are bad, evil, wrong, etc. Politicians and voters have more mature, nuanced views, such as that crimes against humanity are sometimes worth it and profitable, aren't worth making a fuss about, and aren't a priority. Just a matter of differing viewpoints. In '08 I asked every peace activist I knew who was supporting Kucinich, all of whom were Progressive Democrats, what they'd do if he dropped out of the race (as he eventually did). They told me that they'd hold their noses and vote for whoever their party nominated. People like that are not my teammates. My teammates oppose crimes against humanity at all times, even during "important elections."

COMMENT #60 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 12/8/2011 @ 4:45 pm PT...





Per UMass-Lowell poll, Elizabeth Warren is leading Scott Brown 49% to 42%.

COMMENT #61 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 12/8/2011 @ 5:08 pm PT...





I know that many people see not voting as "doing nothing," while they see c