Comments on: Putting Peace First

By: Mike McNiven

Mike McNiven — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:14:56 +0000

Peace with social justice first:

http://www.counterpunch.org/fiyouzat09292007.html

By: Robert B. Livingston

Robert B. Livingston — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:16:07 +0000

This is a very nice summation of where we stand– although I would be surprised, but cheered if Ralph Nader ran as a real Green. I think his father would allow it if he were living– because truly– the Green Party is as more a child of Nader’s ideas than anyone else’s. While not synonymous with Nader– the Green Party is and has always “belonged” to Nader– just as a sometimes rebellious child, in a sense– not literally, still belongs to its parents.

It is deplorable that the Friends Committee on National Legislation is turning its back on real peace candidates– but I don’t expect they will be unique and we are likely to see many others place their bets on candidates that look like more sure winners.
(See Hirschhorn’s article about Robert F. Kennedy here at Dissident Voice.)

The great humanist writer Erich Fromm has said that if we were betters we would be foolish to place our bets on a horse that stands a 20% chance of winning.

But he also said– significantly– that when we are taking a chance over issues that involves life and death– we have no other real choice but to take that chance!
Source: http://tinyurl.com/3ayel4

By: Paul Busch

Paul Busch — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:03:30 +0000

I agree with the gist of Zeese’s article. Peace voters have been *way* too eager to vote against their own interests. Michael Hureaux is right, too. Until we have public financing of campaigns, they go to the highest bidder. That means corporate interests trump citizen interests. That’s also the reason we don’t have single payer universal health care. Zeese says that it’s because we’re spending too much on our military. We are, without doubt, spending way the hell too much on our military. But we’re *also* spending too much on our health care. We already spend more per capita on health care than any country in the world. And what do we get for that? Rich CEO’s and shareholders in the health care and pharmaceutical industries. 50 million completely uninsured Americans, tens of million more underinsured, and those with “full coverage” routinely turned down on their claims. As long as these corporations are calling the shots in the health care debate, Americans won’t get the universal coverage that they want and deserve (and are already paying for!).

By: Michael Hureaux

Michael Hureaux — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:26:02 +0000

Mike Gravel was eliminated from the debates because he doesn’t have a million dollars in assets to his campaign. That’s whyhe was shut out. The “left’ of the democratic party refuses to peep this shit for the intrusion upon the democratic process that it is. None of the major candidates have mentioned it, including Ron Paul. The fact of the matter is that networks are allowed to decide the “seriousness” of candidates based upon the amounts of money they are able to raise for a campaign. It’s small wonder Kucinich is kicked to the side. With standards like this, it’s only a matter of time before the requirement becomes five million, then ten million in funds, etc. People who vote for democrats don’t want to talk about capitalism. But capitalism is why we have the war, capitalism is why Gravel is shut out of the debates, and capitalism is why in another ten years, there’s going to be a formal single party system in the United States. People need to wake up and smell the fucking coffee.