Discussion on Choices & Votes
Saturday, 23. May 2009
Based on the op-ed piece I just posted, I would like to present the following two discussion points and have your thoughts.
The Lesser of Two Evils
On the issue of casting votes, one of the points I keep hearing, over and over, is that ‘I knew it even back then, but I had to choose and vote for the lesser of two evils.’
Don’t you consider this, at least to a degree, to be acceptance of ‘no hope for real change’ when it matters the most, during elections? First, to readily accept that we are limited to only choices that have been declared as ‘viable’ by the same MSM and establishment we seek to change.
Second, to helplessly adopt a mindset that says ‘evilness’ is an inevitable prerequisite for ‘viable’ candidates.
When it comes to ‘evilness,’ there is no reliable standard of measurement. Let’s say, for example, that the pre-selected options are: Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain. How do you measure their degree of ‘evilness?’ For arguments sake, let’s say there is a standard of “evilness” measurement, and when applied to these candidates you get the following data: on a scale of ‘0 to 100’ on the evilness measurement index (‘100’ being absolute evil, ‘0’ being no evil qualities), McCain ranks 98, Clinton 96, and Obama 94. Based on this do people feel justified in voting for the lesser of the ‘given’ three, even though that candidate still ranks extremely high in ‘evilness’? I’m just asking. I really want to get your take on this.
Wasting one’s Vote
The second issue I want to bring up has to do with the notion shared by many: I didn’t want to ‘Waste’ my vote, as in:
I know there are other candidates who are ‘much less evil’ and have much better track records. However, as you see, they don’t have a chance. The MSM and the establishment have either marginalized them or never acknowledged them in the first place. They have no chance, thus, I won’t ‘waste my vote and will choose between the ‘viable’ candidates declared ‘electable.’
We don’t give those ‘better’ candidates a chance even when we believe in them and their competence. What if every one of us who’ve been active and pushing for ‘real changes’ disregarded the ‘established’ etiquette of candidate viability, went out and actually voted for the candidate we trusted ? What if by doing this that ‘nonviable’ candidate ended up with, lets’ say 15% of total votes? Granted he or she has not become the ultimate winner, elected, but what do you think that 15% would mean in the next election? Would it encourage more people to do the same, cast their vote based on what they really believe? Would it motivate better people to rise up and take on leadership? Would it help the current landscape of the MSM – promoting coverage of a ‘people’s candidate’? And finally, what if two election seasons later we get to see a ‘people’s candidate’ with 50% or more of votes cast?
I think this is more than enough to chew on and discuss. I am truly interested to hear all viewpoints, so please bring them in!
Kathleen M. Dickson Says:
Either the Dems or the Repugs have to choose to be the party of human rights (anti-corporate) and *against* abortion, but *for* Second Amendment rights.
Whichever party grabs that first, wins.
Ron Paul, Ralph Nader ought to join forces, but utter clarity has to be made on the topic of abortion. And at the same time, insurance companies killing people has to be associated with abortion. That has to be made clear to the Pro-Lifers. The Bigs are not on the side of the Pro-Lifers, because the Bigs are the mass-murdering BigInsurance and BigPharma- brain damagers of children.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
Anonymous Says:
You are right and witty sibel! Laughing & Crying all together.
Anonymous Says:
-ian
Very good points. I had this very same discussion with my family during the election. I kept trying to explain to them that neither of the two party candidates really respected the constitution and that the only way to start to make a difference was to vote third party. while they, and many others, might believe that there are better candidates out there they think that voting for them will result in votes being taken away from the better of two evils and since the third party wont win anyway the wosre of two evils will therefore get more votes. there is this mentality of needing to be on the winning team also. everyone wants to be able to party backstage with the winner, right? being on the losing team is no fun. when i pointed out how third party candidates actually had the best answers to questions at debates and were the only ones talking about things that really mattered (Ron Paul), they started to pay a bit more attention. they admitted that the marginalization by the MSM had unconsciously made them tune out to that candidate. As I have noted before, the amount of PR and psychological manipulation that has become a mainstay of our media is incredible. by constantly repeating over and over that the sky is red people actually start to believe it…even when they can look out with their own eyes and see otherwise. its a subtle kind of hypnosis that subliminally plants the idea that third party candidates are goofy or extremist and could not possibly ever win. look what happened to kucinich…his main question in the debate was about his having seen a UFO…WTF?! this was a blatant attempt at attempting to make him look like a freak.
i agree with you that the more people start to see that third party candidates can get even a respectable 15% or so the faster they can start to shake off this programming which says they cant win..but it will be very difficult to do this when there are so many obstacles in the way of third party candidates getting heard.
eric zaetsch Says:
Two things are historical realities, like them or not:
1- The nation has, except for transitional periods, been faced with a choice between candidates from two parties. Third party candidates have been disruptive of that and either non-factors or accused of being “spoilers,” Wallace, Anderson and Nadar being examples.
2- Talk of strict constitutional construction, what the founders intended, etc., is unrealistic due to changing times and communication realities and due to the steady growth of the government as the nation has grown. A subpart of this, after WW I there was the “progressive” Wilson administration, Palmer raids against “anarchists,” drug laws, the League of Nations, creation of the FBI, and the creation of the central bank. Then, after WW II there was a shift to a permanant intelligence community, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the entrenchment of a large permanent military. Add Bretton Woods and the UN.
It is a different world.
Lesser of evils – if I had my way Dennis Kucinich would not be marginalized. Wellstone would not have crashed and burned. But we almost never have our way, and at the end two men [so far] are left standing as our choice.
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum language is used for a reason.
By posing the questions, Sibel, you are ducking suggesting a way out. I do not have an answer, so, do you?
After the Buckley case where the Supreme Court said spending is a form of protected speech, getting the influence of money out of things has been difficult; along with the notion of legislators policing themselves being suspect.
Without financing reform the system will continue as is, and the sad thing is whenever reforms are invented, circumventions are invented.
How can the money, and the advantages of incumbency be lessened as factors? What would true and lasting reform look like?
Do the Chinese having cerimonial executions for corruption lessen it? If not general deterrence, there is at least a low recidivism.
Back on point, if you do not get your first choice, it is then a choice of lesser evils; while wasting a vote is not an individual thing, but an institutional problem where institutional reforms are needed. “They” rig the game so that we have no choice but to “waste” votes in guessing at “lesser evils.”
That’s my best answer set.
eric zaetsch Says:
I forgot to say, term limits and curbs on the revolving door would also help, but money and concentration of the media and how they propagandize us are the key problems. Add to that those having advantage under things as they are having a vested interest in keeping things as they are, reform is unlikely. We in Minnesota had Jesse Ventura as an interlude, but no real third party imprint that took and lasted. There is still our Independent Party getting 5-10% in elections where it is a factor at all, but the spolier label’s been attached, and not without cause.
eric zaetsch Says:
Jesse Ventura had his phrase, "jackals of the press" but they used it to mock him, and it never took off beyond his usage, e.g., this Googgle:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22jesse+ventura%22+%22jackals+of+the+press%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=
The notion of equating our esteemend journalist establishment to a meat-eating scavenger pack, who's to say whether it was more disrespectful than appropriate.
Besides Jesse.
Anonymous Says:
The answer is that when the game is rigged change the game.
The real question is how do we identify and get intelligent, honest and moral citizens to run for office, give them the support they need to run a viable campaign…. and then vote for them.
Rahm Emmanual was known as a progressive candidate hit man. He would support the blue dog democratic corporatist candidate (and even the moderate corporatist republican candidate) and undermine the populist or progressive.
This has been going on for too many years.
I once watched a political machine walk in and take over running the way that Minnesota elects party delegates. It was interesting how the pro-tem organizers bent over backwards to let them.
It was the beginning of Ted Mondale’s rise.
I stopped being a democrat when John Kerry threw the 2004 election by not challenging and investigating Ohio… despite Edward’s statement to the contrary. He in fact did not show up for duty.
He was a straw man for Bush and the wealthiest Senator.
Imhotep
(still having google sign-in issues)
Metemneurosis Says:
Hi Sibel,
I hate to say it but I voted for Obama and I did it partly out of ignorance and partly in order to avoid wasting my vote. That is, I knew he had done some things I thought wrong but I didn’t know how much he had done by that point. I’m now in awe of how easily I let myself be duped again. You’d think by this point I would have known that it would be a lot of empty promises. Anyway, I’m willing to say now that you’re probably right. We probably should be willing to throw our votes for a couple of elections to send a message. It’s not like things could get much worse than Obama/Bush anyway. Or rather things will get worse but I don’t think it will make much difference to how quickly they get worse if a Dem or Rep gets elected next term. So our votes would be better used by sending that message. But I suggest two things. As concerned citizens on these kinds of issues we should try to organize. Especially for a person like yourself who has some small amount of recognizability (and a huge amount of credibility in my eyes) it would be helpful for you to put your name behind a candidate and do it in a lot of places. (Brad Blog, Anti-war – if it’s still around
– even MSM sources if you can) Because it would be better if all of us concerned put our votes behind one person like Nader rather than some voting for Nader some for Ron Paul, some for Kucinich. Second suggestion: we should try to organize more at the local level. We should encourage people to vote for county commissioners, mayors, state reps, governors etc. At the more local levels the MSM bias is less of a factor. I think the two main problems with the ‘progressives’ in this country is that there is a real lack of organization and there is still so much apathy among most people. Very few people really think of themselves as citizens. One of the main problems is that people who agree on things like reigning in government corruption and corporate abuses etc. are divided on other ideological grounds. For example, I don’t know exactly what his economic stance is but I’d bet that Nader would have a hard time coming to agreement on those terms with Ron Paul as the reader above suggests. I’d think Ron Paul is so much in favor of laissez-faire he would be less favorable to unions etc. which would put him at odds with Nader.
RealityZone Says:
the main ingredient in our political system is mother’s milk [money]. the elite will never ever allow a viable third party.
Anonymous Says:
Wouldn’t a “NO CONFIDENCE IN OUR GOVERNMENT” lever be a great option. I believe the last time I researched this Nevada was the only state to have it. I have not voted for a winner since the 1980 election,(I woke up in 1981).I use the write in option and twice voted for Ross Perot. I live in PA and Ron Paul was not on the ballot so I wrote him in. Gary
Jere L Hough Says:
I would agree with what Eric Zaetsch has said, and add this.
“The lesser of two evils is exactly the same as the greater of two goods.” It’s a “glass half-full or half-empty” issue.
It’s all relative. We live in an imperfect world, and nearly all choices are less than ideal.
This is especially true in politics or social issues, where compromise is always necessary. There is a reason why the powers that be try to convince people that there is no difference in the candidates. There is always a difference, no matter how small it might be.
BTW, I also answered this question on Op Ed News under your article.
I appreciate your courage. You are a true hero.
Jere L Hough Says:
Oh, and on the second issue, wasting one’s vote? Voting for someone who can’t win is a waste of one’s vote. Worse, its a vote for the GREATER of two evils, if that is how you see them.
Under our current system, I think we all need to make absolutely certain that our votes count, and are counted.
I will work and campaign and donate money to a Kucinich or Nader or another third party candidate right up to the major party nomination. Then I will vote for the best candidate who has a chance to win, or the best party platform that has a reasonable chance.
Voting in a general election for someone or some party that does not have a chance to win is throwing away your vote. At least that is true in our US “winner take all” system (that I can’t stand).
It is the SYSTEM that needs to be changed, so that there is some kind of proportional representation, or instant runn-off, or something.
BTW, to fix the system we have to first fix the money problem. See http://wealthmoney.wordpress.com
Fixing the money problem is the underlying key to fixing everything else that is wrong with our world, including our political system, war, hunger, etc.
Anonymous Says:
Thank you for this forum.My name is Roger Morris. I am posting under annon because of some difficulty getting through to this any other way.
As to may 23rd post. within present left-right ingrained hide-bound system, the control mechanisms are hierarchical and all totally owned [you don't get let IN unless you are with it-at every level], there are probably only three ways possible. Maybe 4 if Lutherian’nailing proclaimations to the castle doors’ counts. Which it dos’nt.
1. the true independant incremental numbers gained 2 or 3 election cycle method as you stated. Which would require actually VOTING for the ‘out of field’ candidate and believing in it as effective. Which it would become.
2.revolution, which would be a terrible mess since weapons and crowd control methods more extreme and designed to counter same[posse commitatus?patriot act etc]plus the obvious willingness for state forces to use them and the obvious relish many indoctrinated into armed force have in killing.
3.The infiltration from within method, which is longer term than even 1. and would be almost impossible since such an organism[modern bodypolitik] is created by suspicion and fealty therefore is attuned to subversives[which the 'independant' is] from within.It is also the method used by the present system to have wrung control in the first place so they’ll be right on it.
To vote true independent is obviously the humane and democratic way, but it has great disadvantages also. The accumulated damage of present administrative yin[R]-yang[D] means there might not be anything left to vote for by the time the percentages are reached allowing independent influence, since all previous similar administrations are continually isolating and destroying the very freedoms the ‘independents’ are using to get there , so will probably have the drawbridge UP upon arrival.
Then its back to number 2.
Nothing new there. No miracles.
Just to finish Two things. If my memory serves me well, Eric Holder was actually in court for Chiquita[?]or was it United Fruit??against indigenous land owners in El Salvador or Guatamala -down south anyways, at the time of his call up for Attorney General.Indicative insofar as he was not advocating for the little guy at the time. And an obvious historical shadow of Dulles et al 60 yrs ago.
Second. And perhaps the most important of all before us and in terms of your discussion. The SECRET world that exists all around us that must surely control the events we now wish to understand :political influence/control/people power etc.
A writer mentioned MENA arkansas and the bush cia/clinton drug importation iran contra event.Still secret from mainstream awareness. Now we have the 911 event. One of the worlds great mysteries swirling about us, the absolute wealth of information directly countering the official report , legendary., yet nothing is done. NOTHING No traction made.No COURT in the land able to wrench one aspect from the holders of the secret.Why?? because of silence. Omerta by state to not even go there.Acknowledge nothing. Refuse information entry to the record. Secrets and silence are the modern methods of control.This you know.
It is my belief that it will take one over arching reach into the void to retake the political will from this awful deception we are struggling to understand. One great lie has to be exposed to show the corruption writhing within, and that is 911, because it CAN BE DONE. The EVIDENCE is there.
And ,like the nightmare it is, once confronted and exposed, the clean ups can begin. Including our ‘democratic’ systems .There is going to be no easy way.
Anonymous Says:
Love the “evilness index”, I’m amazed you can still have a sense of humor. Regarding “wasting” my vote – I’m right with you on that; 1st, I believe we are never wrong when we back up what and who we believe in with our vote – even if the odds are stacked. 2nd – I believe you are absolutely right that consistent voting thru several election cycles would have a positive effect – how much is hard to guage. Keep the posts coming.
Markum
Sibel Edmonds Says:
I must say, I really appreciate all these well-articulated sincere comments.
Ian: I do remember the shenanigan on Kucinich UFO episode, and then there was this other episode based on some old 'news letter' from Ron Paul related publication by some ghost writer…If they would have covered Senator Obama's track record issue and past actions, I would have said 'okay, fair & balanced.' But it was this very precise & selective 'marginalization.' But then again, how many people, the informed ones, loudly shouted in popular blogosphere? Maybe a few.
Eric: "institutional reforms are needed." I certainly agree with this point; 100%. And, of all these needed reforms, campaign finance issue is on the top of 'my' list. Thank you for pointing this out. I am going to put it in my 'blog topic ideas' folder to write/post about. You know what, that folder is getting thicker and thicker every day! For revolving door see my two old op-ed pieces titled under 'Highjacking of a Nation.' Right on. And for 'term limits': one of the most important reforms needed for congress; too many 'crusty' people!
IMHOTEP: "The real question is how." And that is one of the major reasons for finally starting a blog:-) Collectively find a way to interpret all these great thoughts into real actions. Otherwise we'll be sitting and writing these posts until the day we die, and that's not a way to go!
Sibel Edmonds Says:
Metemneurosis: ‘Organizing’- First I want to see the number of ‘willing’ people. Many people talk, but when it comes to taking action the crowd thins out…to a very few. Also, if I were to do something like this, I would disregard ‘D’ and ‘R.’ Period. I see some coalitions are being formed to do exactly what you are suggesting (and what I agree with), however, it is still largely driven by ‘partisanship’ to a point of getting myopic. Finally, approaching it locally is the way to go. I see Ron Paul people are following that model, and seem quite successful. Finally, don’t hate saying that you voted for Obama; you are able to see the realities now, admit to it, and you are being outspoken about it. You are open-minded and you care. The pity, and the danger, is that many are still holding on and defending the indefensible.
Reality Zone: Welcome. Please don’t give up like this! Of course the Elite will fight it big time. Of course it will be a very hard battle. But ‘impossible’? ‘Never’? Hope to have you back here and see…revolutionary spirit;-)
Gary: Welcome. ‘Perot’- Good or bad, he got ~17%. That says something. Of course, as others have pointed out, ‘financing’ matters, and the man had it. Meaning, with campaign financing reform (congress will never pass it; are you kidding me?! They live on that!), raising awareness, organizing…it is certainly doable, and then reach for a higher %…and higher…
Jere: Welcome, and thank you for your support. You are right about ‘compromise’ but to what degree? That’s the question. Also, you say ‘It is the SYSTEM that needs to be changed,’ and I say, ‘WE need to change the system.’ Unfortunately many people say and do exactly this: The congress is corrupt and needs to be fixedchange; the campaign finance system is broken and needs to; and so on so forth. This is why we are where we are today. It takes more than casting our votes every 4 or 2 years. How far are we willing to go? How much are we willing to do? I know we have kids, and spouse, jobs and bills to pay… and …but …we also have our freedom, our bill of rights, Our country to defend, and do so not only for us but for our children.
Roger Morris: Nice to have you here. Nicely articulated and well-presented points. On point 1: agreed; 2: There are many different kind and categories for revolution…violence is not the only way to revolt; 3: Very interesting way of putting it-I am impressed:-) Eric Holder’s ‘Chiquita Past’- your memory serves you well. “Secrets and silence are the modern methods of control”- True.
Anonymous Says:
Since the premise of your blogs has been that nothing is secure, speaking truth to power requires wisdom. I followed the Clint Curtis fiasco where Rahm Immanuel suppressed his bid to replace Feeney.I challenged Joe Wilson that he was collateral damage to shut his wife Valerie Plame up. He appeared as an Economic Hitman to me. Obama has shifted on every significant policy position since his election. The missing trillions from the Philippines disappeared into offshore accounts that funded the Bush takeover of our political process. The pragmatic solution is to learn how to garden, build community, barter, and prepare, because climate change and pole shifts are our most likely savior at this point. I was once asked by John McCain why I did not run for office since I had charisma. I stated to him that I could not compromise my values. That was while John was still on his first wife.
Anonymous Says:
This post is creating some really good dialogue – not the usual one or two canned comments – great to see it.
Re “lesser of two evils” – we certainly all have had this said to us – don’t waste your vote, you’ll just help the “greater of two evils” win. While I certainly understand the logic, if we all follow this, we’ll never get a better choice who has a chance. I agree with Sibel, let’s start voting for and supporting that better choice and see what happens.
Also, Sibel is right on that going “local” has the best chance of success.
Jeff
Zica Says:
We need something like the drug war slogan from Nancy Reagan. How about “Just say No to Republicans AND Democrats”?
Two of my conservative neighbors voted 3rd party in the 2008 elections. One for Nader even.
Let me say that it feels GREAT to vote for the candidates you like, instead of the ones you dislike less. That feeling makes it worth it, instantly. Just knowing that you haven’t been “compromised” in that one action, at least, gives you a sense of integrity that can evade you otherwise.
So, maybe the slogan should be the opposite of what Nancy says. Maybe something like “Do 3rd party because it makes you feel good!”
Zica Says:
And to anyone that says I’m wasting my vote or helping someone I didn’t vote for get elected, I say No! You are the one who is complicit in the hiring of these criminals, not I. Go ahead and be scared on election day, but don’t go to the polling place if you can’t overcome your fear long enough to vote your conscience.
Sibel Edmonds Says:
Zica: Hope to see more people with this level of self-confidence & determination. Because I have noticed: even some of those who who dd/did vote outside the 'given' 2 choices, happen to be hesitant to say it with pride; as if it is something to be ashamed of, or politically 'incorrect' or…
eric zaetsch Says:
Just a quick thought or two.
Everyone should READ the Articles of Confederation. Know what the Federalists wanted to alter. Something like the EU and NATO balled together before the Constitution replaced the Confederation.
The Articles are online e.g., here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
I was born in 1944, but had not read them until months ago.
My specific point, term limits now, how far might we go? And governing when Congress is in recess? Check Article IX, 5th Par., about a parliamentary form where nobody could preside, “more than one year in any term of three years.”
For history of Constitution’s Seventeenth Amendment, direct election of senators, try a quick Wikipedia look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
However, the spread of the right to vote and direct election [the electoral college is now as vestigal as the appendix] arguably may have played into fostering strongly dominant two parties (with compromise within each among a spread of contesting powers), vs. coalition formation with compromise among coalitions to hold enough seats for a parliamentary majority.
The point is, there are other ways and means to run a government, nothing is carved by any divine hand in stone on a mountaintop.
Would we today have a better system if we looked at a parliamentary alternative with no one presiding “more than one year in any three?”
Would the bureaucracy then be an even stronger factor than now, probably so, but would that be better or worse?
Agency heads could and should be subject to term limits. Consider J. Edgar Hoover plus Greenspan (and what now we face), it’s a slam dunk.
Curiously, the word “secret” is never in the Articles, while “secrecy” is used once, for limited purpose.
We have now very strongly institutionalized secrecy. We have a Cybersecurity Act text pending, Snowe and Rockefeller sponsored, and if passed we’ll have a cybersecurity czar and vague elastic definitions and discretionary executive powers we can all see as permitting mischief.
The Constitution is online e.g.,
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
The word “secret” is absent and “secrecy” only used once, as in the Articles, as the exception to each house keeping a journal of all events (except where secrecy is required in foreign relations, etc.). The Articles and Constitution are in parallel.
So, secrecy as a proviso in otherwise fully open government – as the presumptive norm to be stringently construed whenever not followed.
We now have rules, NSA and CIA ostensibly to operate offshore only; but that was disrespected and circumvented with cooperation by telcom companies retroactively blessed as beyond current executive prosecutorial intent even after a party change.
Bottom line – in wanting reform, we need to define reform carefully and try to ferret out harmful “unintended consequences” of any change we’d offer.
eric zaetsch Says:
Most of this commment is closer to earlier thoughts and posts than the question of lesser evil and wasted votes, but with all those evilness index hypothetical ratings in the 90’s, do they form an axis that way?
Here’s an exercise for readers, how much of the ATT and other telco “aid” to NSA surveillance was outsourced rather than done directly for NSA, and who were the contractors for outsourcing, and their nationalities [primary ownership and control locale, etc.].
Along with that question, who recently has been let off the hook, Jane Harman, etc., et al.?
Some outside of the US might know the old saying about keeping your friends close and enemies closer; and we presume we thus were at least “close.” Harman was “close” to somebody who tipped her off on what some NSA transcripts included, and who exactly knew what, how, and when – and who did who learn things from?
hint: for outsourcing, try a
google = Narus Verint
I’ve often wondered why Oliver North did not cash in big time on endorsement money for shredding machinery. Jordan on shoes, North on shredders – each a natural.
It does all tie together. “Secrifying” truth, or a collective conscious parallelism in declining to face and print it leaves us ill-informed, uninformed, or assymetrically informed – and in a state of questionable information and understanding of “truth” isn’t the expectation wasted votes, and inability to really know a lesser evil from a greater one?
So – fix the influence of money, the revolving door, term limit needs, and truthfulness and the availability of honest credible and useful information and you are a long way closer to not wasting decision powers; knowing evils when you see them as well as being allowed and encouraged to see them.
Rotate bureaucratic heads too, limit their terms, and don’t allow Congress to police itself and set the rules for funding campaigns. You don’t want the foxes running the hen house; but the problem is we’ve foxes running a fox house, and we’re all hens in the game.
How can the hens make the rules when each only has one vote, while foxes have resources and vested interests in the status quo?
On the “local level” idea, try it. How many campaign signs you can post at the mroe desirable traffic locations is a suburban determinant; and mailings cost, so that for a job offering basically an honorium we have to spend an amount that’s an impediment for reformers but a mere cost of doing business for those wanting the driver’s seat because there’s money in driving one way over another. Been there, done it, led for town mayor on the primary vote to get two finalists when the reading and thinking voters bothered to show up; then on the general election day, in a presidential year but way down ticket and nonpartisan, the other guy put up more bigger costlier signs at better sites assisted by allied vested interests; and got 60%. Go figure. Even at local levels it’s a money game.
eric zaetsch Says:
Also, at local levels – the very local papers survive, at least here in the Minnesota Twin Cities burbs, by selling and printing legal notices.
Cities and foreclosing banks by law have to repeatedly publish legal notices and are the sources of the bulk of income to the local press.
Next, figure whose boat does not get rocked by the local papers.
Figure why they just love parades, scholarships, graduations and firefighter of the year awards more than real, inquisitive, and truthful news.
Anonymous Says:
[widely reported April 14. 2009. senior counsel to the 9/11 commission - John Farmer- says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response the the attack. Farmer's book about his experiences working for the Commission entitled 'The Ground Truth: The Story Behind Americas Defense on 9/11' unveils how"the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks." and Farmer himself states that "at some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened"]
There is something here that I wish to say again. At the risk of being tedious.naive. ‘unknowing’. I am not trying to draw you, Sibel, into saying anything. But I do want to point out our discussion on political change can only go one or two ways, given the circumstances, and for those to be effective great time spans would be required . 4 year cycles. time is no impediment to democratic progress in a fair system of evolution, but in the present real politik is of the essence. We are talking around the presence of ingrained badness.A hegemony of violence and corruption ownership and control well able to deal with incremental change. an acknowledged system itself predatory and highly tuned to agents of change.
This forum exists because of one single transformative event. As you can well attest. The destruction of the twin towers in New York. That is what we are talking about by proxy. The Torture, the wars, the doctrine of pre-emption, the predator drones , subterfuge, changes in human/civil rights, the steady invasive technologies and corporate spiderswebstructures evolving around media, secrecy and confidentiality-voter fraud… everything we discuss is conduited through and is built upon the symbolic/actual destruction of those buildings. So lets pull it out of the shadow.
You mention the revolution need not be violent. I hope beyond the capacity to describe it so. Violence is what has brought us to this dilemma. Violence is the tool of a beast. the present administration utilizes it, as do I don’t know how many countries around the world and It has reduced the great republic to torture . To the slaughter of innocents by drone attacks from the bat caves of Kentucky or kansas or where ever they fly from.
But non-violent revolution? How is that to be achieved.
How to initiate such a thing?
A single transformative event . by LAW . To utilize the same mechanism used to construct the illusion in the first place. c/o court of LAW. To turn the heads around and face the extent of the lie. That single exposure would illustrate and allow light into every aspect we have thus far discussed. To take the “single transformative event” that created the hyper-state we are now living in, and expose it as the great lie it is, to stand it naked in a court of law with all its aspects clear and wide, would be a revolutionary act. Would create such a shift in the minds of the world that the very ground would shake again.
Please just imagine it for a moment. The proper unfettered utilization of just law/ investigative process as the tool of a non-violent revolution.
roger morrisentionym
robert Says:
Sibel…good idea along with education….people are destoyed from lack of knowledge
Anonymous Says:
Roger Morrisentionym makes some valid points that suggest two questions, one rhetorical, one genuinely curious. In my youth I tested the limits of non-violence to an extreme degree that few would be willing to undertake, but that said – in order to defend one’s belief it is either necessary to accept this premise without reservation or test for oneself.
Hitchhiking from Oklahoma to Dallas, a male homosexual picked me up. At one point while having coffee before continuing on, I was threatened with a knife at my back. Trained not to react in anger or fear, I did the unexpected. I prayed out loud some sort of gibberish. The poor fellow was thrown across the room, scratched his head, and said, “I don’t know who or what you are, but you are free to go.” I walked out and a shooting star went across the sky. Is anyone that espouses non-violence willing to make this commitment?
My second question developed over a number of years. I met Jerry Levin who was held hostage by Hizballah in Beirut and it was his wife not the U.S. government that helped him get released even though he was a bureau chief for CNN. He now helps Palestinian children get to school past Israeli settlers who assault them. I began to separate Zionists from Jews at that point. However, it was only recently that a birthright Jew told me there was a difference between a Khazar Jew (Askenazi), Sephardic, and those entrusted as Keepers of the Law. This is very relevant to the discussion in light of AIPAC and Kissinger and Associates. Where lies the truth in this history?
Xanderale Says:
Sibel,
I have been following your case off and on for about two years now. I hate to admit it, but in a way I had kind of given up, but I came across this post with a link here, and have now started reading your blog and the comments. You have some great commentators.
Regarding choices and votes, as a staunch Republican, I can tell you that the GOP got its start as a third party in the years prior to the Civil War. That happened when there was no telephone, no television, no computers, no Internet, yet within a very few years the GOP had its first president elected, Abraham Lincoln.
If that could happen then, just think what could happen now! We could really turn things around fast nowadays.
I am not ashamed to say that I am a staunch Republican, despite what the W Administration did to bury your case. I am a Republican; W is a criminal. In the same way, Sibel, despite what has been done to you by criminals claiming to be Americans, I would categorize you as a staunch American. There’s the logic.
Off topic, do your first and middle names mean anything? Edmonds is your married name, but I am curious about your first and middle names. Also, did I read somewhere that you are a mother? On some day when you’re tired of everything else, I for one would be interested to read whatever you felt comfortable writing for public consumption on those topics. It would help us to get to know a little better a de facto leader of what will undoubtedly develop (sooner or later) into a powerful movement. True, a person is defined by her actions, and your patriotism, courage, determination, ingenuity and persistence speak volumes about you (and the relative silence from Obama, W and Bill Clinton is deafening), but I think I am not the only one who might find such a post interesting.
Sibel Edmonds Says:
Xanderale: First, I want to welcome you. Next, happy to have people & commentators from every single party and political philosophy. Unfortunately many 'political' blogs tend to gear towards and become a tight circle of one ideology, one party, and spend/waste energy in attacking the other and listen to their own cheering echo. I am truly enjoying the comments and all the constructive criticism, and I hope this trend will continue.
Of course you shouldn't be ashamed to say that you are a staunch Republican as long as you continue your open-minded evaluation of your party; as you just did with expressing your take on the former president. Same applies to our so-called representatives. As you know my case involved two administrations & both parties, which meant: little or no support in congress and elsewhere. So yes, I do understand.
My first name's origin has several different spellings, and the meaning and its origin changes based on that. In Greek: Oracle; in French: Pretty/beautiful; etc. My middle name, my maiden name, Deniz means Sea/Ocean in Turkish…My daughter, the love of my life, is 10 mo old.
And finally, thank you so very much for your sincerely expressed kind words & support; means so much, especially during a pretty much lonely battle. Hope you'll visit regularly and provide your views/insight including your criticism.
Metemneurosis Says:
Hi Sibel,
In thinking about the way your story revealed so much to many of us (or at to me at least) about our government I think ‘beautiful oracle’ is a perfect description of you. Of course, what you’ve been revealing is not so beautiful. But that’s not your fault. A couple of things. When I mentioned organizing above I meant not only regular organizing like getting out and working to help a candidate but also ‘organizing’ in the sense of asking others concerned with the issues you’re concerned with to vote for a particular person if they’re going to vote third party or write someone in on the next presidential ballot. I mention it because I think there are people frustrated enough to vote third party on both sides of the political spectrum. But since we’re probably not going to win with a third party in the next election any way it might be worthwhile to go on Anti-War or somewhere and just say look let’s all vote Ron Paul, or let’s all vote Nader or whatever. Because getting 10% for one candidate would be more persuasive than 5 or 6 for several different candidates. (Although even that would be an improvement. I understand Nader got 3% last election.) And if we’re not going to win anyway they don’t have to worry about voting Nader when they’d rather vote Ron Paul. On the other hand we’d then have to problem of what to do if it began to look like we were gaining momentum. Then surely that kind of alliance, if it could be built, would fracture. But I think we could cross that bridge when we come to it. Finally and most importantly I just finished reading Mike Ruppert’s A Presidential Energy Policy. Scary stuff, really scary. But once you read it pieces of other things start to fit. It makes sense of the rabid disregard for domestic and international opinion our government displayed in it’s policies toward Afghanistan and Iraq as well as currently in Pakistan. I knew a lot of it was about oil but I thought it was driven by pure greed. I thought that greed had become the kind of vice that makes a person blind to their own depravity. I thought they were half crazed. But if Ruppert is right about what he’s saying though what they did is still wrong it’s not as crazy as it first seemed. They seemed crazy because they haven’t been telling us about how bad things really are in terms of energy supply. You really have to read this book. I’ve never forced any book on another person but I’m buying several more copies to send to my friends and family. If you get a chance please just pick it up and read the first four chapters (about 40 pages) it could be the most important book you’ll read (no exaggeration). Plus I’d love to hear your thoughts.
David
Anonymous Says:
Mike Ruppert just published a new book!! The last I heard of Mike was him fleeing to South America and then into Canada.I know he genuinely believes oil is the ONLY driver of gov’t policies,to the point of delusion,but as you start researching our current problems you need to look for a beginning.The scary part is the further you go back in history you come to realize you may never find the answers.
Emmanuel Says:
this fantastic what a great idea. i hope you have all the success in the world. do you have any need of support in your work? like donations?
Anonymous Says:
I strongly believe in voting your hopes, not your fears. IMHO Roger Morris’ last post nails it. 9/11 Truth is the best feasible revolutionary force we can muster. That’s why I work for it relentlessly, along with the End The Fed, and Transition Towns movements, all ways to address our dilemma of “Peak Everything” (not the least of which may be peak ego!;). May I suggest checking out “The Crash Course”, “Money As Debt”, “The Story Of Stuff”, and “The Transition Handbook”. Build community and re-localize!!
Rich
ReverseEngineer at HopeDance dot net
jersey girl Says:
To say your vote is wasted by voting lesser of two evils is ridiculous. As Sibel pointed out you are still voting for “evil”.
My point before the election to anyone that would listen, including those who comment at oped news was that yes, a third party candidate probably could not win. However, imagine the stir it would create to have said third party candidate make a huge showing in the polls at the end of the day? Isn’t that a message we’d like the powers that be hear? The corporate media would have no choice but to report on it. I think it would have been a way to show the real power of the people. But alas, the majority voted their fear not their conscience.
And what did we get for it? Bush with a better vocabulary. How on earth could McCain have been that much worse? Top it all off with we are still stuck with the “one party” system. I call it “the United Corporate Party of America.”
~~sigh~~
mmonk Says:
Sometimes a vote is defensive in nature. In other words, to stop the rapid movement in the wrong direction, one chooses the slower movement in the wrong direction. The two party system has a stranglehold on ballot access in many states which limits the ability of a national candidate outside the two parties to become a lasting movement.
Sibel Edmonds Says:
Jersey Girl & MMonk: I am truly enjoying this dialogue. Please don't stop!
Jere L Hough Says:
I posted a comment several days ago. Now I will address the issue at length:
A message of truth to Sibel Edmonds
Posted on 2009/05/28 by Jere Hough | Edit
A message of truth to Sibel Edmonds: Lesser of Two Evils or Wasted Vote?
by Jere L Hough
Sibel Edmonds is one of my heroes. She is a whistleblower and a truth-teller. I honor her as I would someone who gives all, even life itself, in support of eternal values such as truth, goodness and beauty. I hold her and all who honor truth in the same high esteem that many hold Mother Theresa, right up there with the saints and heroes of history.
Sibel asked a question about voting for 3rd or 4th party candidates in America, and whether of not voting for someone who might only get a small percentage of the vote was the right thing to do. She feels that it is not correct to vote for “the lesser of two evils” when both major party candidates are bad, or do not represent her positions.
I can relate. I can sympathize. I understand the rationale. But I do not agree.
I have heard this issue argued so many times, and have addressed it so many times, that I will now post it on my blog site, so I don’t have to keep going over and over this same ground for the few years that I may have remaining here, should that be God’s will. I am in my seventies, and have long endured chronic health problems. I wish to pass on what little light I have attained without undue repetition. I hope some people read it, and comment, or give their thoughts on the subject.
The answer Sibel leans to is to vote for the best candidate regardless of the situation or the field or the parties or the percentages. She praised one answer that said something to the effect that ‘as long as one votes for the best possible candidate nobody can fault that choice’, regardless of whether the person voted for can win or not. She seems to thing that kind of clear moral conviction is right. Even ‘writing in’ the best candidate is the ‘right thing to do’ according to this line of reasoning.
I’ve heard so many good people make the same argument. On first glance it seems faultless. Who could criticize one’s casting a vote for the “best candidate”? But let us look more closely. Is voting for the best possible candidate regardless of chance of winning the best policy? Of course not. In most cases it is a totally wasted vote. Here is why:
It ignores the consequences, or outcomes, of your choice.
It ignores the practical reality. It ignores circumstances or the situation at hand. The importance of an election is all about the outcome, the results. It’s not about YOU or YOUR conscience, or smugly leaving the voting booth thinking that at least you didn’t vote for “the lesser of two evils”. It’s about the consequences of you vote, and that depends of the wisdom of your choice in any given situation in evaluating outcomes. Quite often that means making sure the worst possible choice – the one who could do the most harm – is defeated, and kept out of power. Read more »
Please continue reading at my blog:
A Message for Sibel EdmondsJere L Hough
Money Reformer
madranger Says:
Each time I’ve read of your tragic experience in doing everything you could to enlighten the gov., it has all but locked you up for being a patriot it sickened me. As an American, I’m so sorry.
I am an Independent… actually a Constitutionist; and any time I see a person even come close in representing its standards, I am thrilled.
The Republic that the founding fathers designed has evolved into a democracy… or has it?
This Gov. ‘of the people, for the people, and by the people’ can only exist by an INFORMED POPULICE. That depends on a transpearent post. Without that,all is folly.
Zica Says:
To Mr. Hough:
I want to respectfully say that I think you are missing the point that Sibel and others, myself included, are trying to get across.
The two “viable” parties offer only an illusion of differences at this point. We are kept prisoner because of the systemic problems with our election system combined with the mass propaganda of fear of the “other side”.
The only thing we can do with integrity at the polls is to vote for the candidate we like the best, even if that happens to be 3rd, 4th, 5th party, or write-in.
If we can stand to have that integrity, which IS about us as individuals, our votes might just do some good, even if it takes multiple election cycles. And if some of us would stop acting as whips for the D and R parties, when we don’t agree with them, more of us would be able to stand it.
It’s hard to lose, but there is positive consequence to a conscientious vote, one of the first being able to (smug or not) know that we did it. It has to start somewhere because forever is a long time to wait for the powers that be to give us a better chance.
Jere L Hough Says:
To Zica,
You could not have possibly made that comment if you had read my entire post on the subject. Did you finish reading the blog?
I was a teacher of history and government before retiring, and I have written extensively (more than you would read) on these subjects.
If I have not fully demonstrated that I understand every possible argument that you or Sibel could ever think up then it is YOU who is missing the point.
All of my blogs and websites have been oriented for political and economic systemic reforms. I have never been a “follow” of any Party. I have always chosen the best candidate and platform based on those that most closely conform to MY convictions and ideals of what a truly democratic society would look like. I have always appealed for people to get beyond the two-party point of view.
Please reread my article to Sibel:
A Message of Truth to Sibel EdmondsThen, if you have a dispute with anything I actually said, I’d be happy to discuss our differences.
eric zaetsch Says:
Zica says, “the two ‘viable’ parties …”. Zica understands the point of kicking off the blog by kicking the press. How else do you get your “news?” What are they dispensing instead? What is the excuse? If the local papers are going broke, as appears to be the case, what’s propping up the consolidated media???
Who’s providing the props?
I recall a high school teacher first mentioning to me Plato’s Allegory of the Caves.
New nice slogan of the day, “Continuity you can count on.”
Last thought, how much revolution is there in a couple with three kids [believing anti-choice propaganda], not meeting the mortgage payments, and overextended on the credit cards? How much fight in a new graduate you hang a ton of debt on out of the starting gate. The elite’s way of handicaping the graduation horese race “… and now youngsters, run for the roses.”
Babara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror” closed by looking back at disillusion and defeat during the Crusades of the fourteenth century; and one thing I remember of her several themes was that while the aristocracies played their games over power and borders they consistently and brutally put down peasant revolt. And they held the peasantry tied to the aristocracy’s land. Our times, substitute capital for land, otherwise the mirror is not that distant.
eric zaetsch Says:
Jere – So you know, some value Karl Marx far more than Mother Theresa.
What’s interesting in that is they, let’s call them “Marxists,” and the other “Theresans,” the Marxists get a bad press and the Theresans get a good press, and look at the difference – each group wants a better world – but one says Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights [there's a bit of Marley to the Marxists], while the other says, help the poor – sacrifice yourself for something larger and better, rather than help yourself.
They, the Thereasans, get the good press. Have you ever wondered why?
Go figure.
Jere, you talk “God’s will.”
Who are you to say what that is? It’s presumptous.
Moreover, it’s arguably foolish to believe that sacrificing oneself and one’s life [the Thereasan doctrine] is praisworthy, or more so than, Marley again, “Once you see what life is worth, you will look for your’s on earth, Now you see the light, Stand up for your rights.”
Jere – you are correct, there is a power elite, and there is the abstract notion “credit,” with positive ramifications – if you want “credit” you have to promise to give back to those holding power to grant “credit” more than they give you as a stake to sit at the table and gamble at their rigged game.
The phrase “behind the eight ball” comes to mind.
The question is – How do we move from there, or do we accept it as “God’s will” and await some after-death reward, as teaching has been since Constantine coopeted something he thought helpful.
I am still bedeviled by how to implement Marley’s, “You be a big, big tree, We be a small ax” and I think that’s the thread of the blog.
Jere, what specifically do you say we do about not being given any real political say, no choice, no “credit” except on exploitative terms, no non-rigged seat at the gaming table, a vote, one among millions like a lottery ticket, what’s your answer about getting organized and exerting reform???
What’s my answer?
I honestly don’t have one.
The game’s been rigged, for certain, but not by fools. It’s not easy to answer.
In closing, my illustrious Rep in Congress, Michele Bachmann, gained attention by suggesting some kind of neo-McCarthyism, and was mocked.
That is only because the original dose of McCarthyism was so effective that the velvet glove could be put back on, and her approach belittled. Be assured, if it looks to the elite that a new McCarthyism is needed, there will be one.
Zica Says:
Mr. Hough: Thanks for the link to your blog – I tried to find it the first time and didn’t know which blog it was on.
Anyway, I appreciate how much you have written on the subject. I found that there are some starting points of perspective that we share, although my comments on the ‘point’ still stand.
You have tried to put me in a box of ‘Stupidity, Ignorance, and Deception’. I am trying to get you to think outside of your box for a second. You did mention the possibility of it being ok to vote for a candidate with no chance to win: if there was no difference between the candidates that could. Now let’s step out of your box…
Imagine Sibels Evilness Matrix for a moment. Let’s say it’s a two dimensional x-y axis graph. On the x axis you have time marked by election cycles and on the y axis you have Evilness.
Now imagine two straight parallel lines running together like railroad tracks through time on the x axis. The lines begin and continue from two points on the y axis near 93 and 97 (out of 100).
Then imagine a line in the form of a wave, moving through time with each peak and valley exactly hitting either side of the railroad track parallel lines from above. That seems to be where you’re stuck – in the waves between the Railroad Tracks of Evilness.
Now imagine a parabolic line starting at the same point as the railroad tracks, but moving (ever so slowly at first) downward through time on the Evilness y axis. After some time the parabola increases its slope downward. After more time we’ll be in the negative y axis. Negative Evilness.
You see, I think you’re part of their game. You think I am. But I’m not the one trying to out-game the game riggers.
My favorite quote (from a fortune cookie): “You will soon be aware of your increasing awareness.”
mmonk Says:
To jersey girl:
I think a threshold for a thrid party candidate to make a difference or have the two parties pay attention would be around the same number Perot was able to get. Since Perot, I think the press is even less willing today than then to give another candidate from the outside press time. I also think presidential debates should go back to being handled by the League of Women Voters. Maybe public financing is the answer as well. Also, the Democratic party today is divided into two factions, corporate and progressive with the corporate faction pretty much in control. Maybe the progressive faction could become some sort of a swing vote movement. Who knows?
Jere L Hough Says:
Eric wrote: “Jere, what specifically do you say we do about not being given any real political say, no choice, no “credit” except on exploitative terms, no non-rigged seat at the gaming table, a vote, one among millions like a lottery ticket, what’s your answer about getting organized and exerting reform?”
Eric, This is a thoughtful question, and I’ve spent most of my life thinking about the answers to it. My websites and forums will reward anyone who invests the time to learn from them, and the reward will be many of the answers you seek, and the directions to look for help with the rest. The real questions are “How much time are you willing to spend confirming the validity of the answers I and many others have provided? How many links are you willing to follow? How many books will you read? How many videos will you watch? How open is your mind? How eager are your for the REAL truth?”
In other words, any teacher can only point the way, and help clarify. I cannot open one’s head and pour in information and knowledge.
Here is the beginning of “The Yellow Brick Road”:
My latest blog on the new global economic order
My forum on changing the system
An open letter to Barack Obama two days before his assumption of the US Presidency.
eric zaetsch Says:
Jere – I will follow up, and a couple of the blogs you indicated reading are interesting.
I don’t know if this is the thread to post this comment, none fit it exactly but, here it is:
A friend sent this link, where trend extrapolation seems apparent.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/summarytables.html
I most certainly feel secure, now, given all that expenditure.
How’s this grab other commenters?
Table S-2, Discretionary Funding, Security Funding – up, up and away.
Then, same table, decreasing spending on “Global War on Terror.”
What beyond word-game mendacity is going on? Explain it to me, please.
Jere L Hough Says:
Zica said…
“Mr. Hough: Thanks for the link to your blog – I tried to find it the first time and didn’t know which blog it was on.”
You might have simply clicked on the link I provided. Takes you right to it.
Zica said…”Anyway, I appreciate how much you have written on the subject. I found that there are some starting points of perspective that we share, although my comments on the ‘point’ still stand.”
Then, Zica, you apparently have a reading comprehension problem. I have examined every possible argument and scenario involving the issue of third party voting, and I provided my analysis:
One simply MUST weigh the CONSEQUENCES of ones’ vote, in each and every situation.
PERIOD.
It is ONLY the outcome, or the consequences of your actions that really matter to society and civilization. However, your INTENTIONS and MOTIVATIONS are of utmost importance to YOU, and will generally guide you into being useful to your neighbors and community.
Zica said…”You have tried to put me in a box of ‘Stupidity, Ignorance, and Deception’.”
No, Zica, you are doing that quite well all by yourself. Besides I said those were possible distinct “alternatives”, NOT a “box”. That is your own false construction.
It is you that is in the box, Zica. I have always thought “outside the box”… always. And I am always eager to hear new ideas and arguments… if they make sense.
Zica said…”I am trying to get you to think outside of your box for a second.”
Sigh.
Zica said…”You did mention the possibility of it being ok to vote for a candidate with no chance to win: if there was no difference between the candidates that could.”
Yes, but I also added that the chances of that actually being the case were almost nil, and I also said we needed to vote to keep the most dangerous candidate out of office at times.
“The power of candidates to do evil ALWAYS outweighs their power to do good.”
That is a universal truth that must be understood before we can fix our broken system.(skipping over the kooky stuff…)
Zica said…”You see, I think you’re part of their game. You think I am.”
That’s funny…and sad. That’s nearly as bad as saying you think Sibel is “part of their game”. Pretty pitiful, IMO. And you assertion that I think YOU are part of their game is also quite absurd. You do not possess anything that “they” need. You are probably just a good-natured dupe, buying in to all the propaganda they sell to various groups and personality types.
Zica said…”But I’m not the one trying to out-game the game riggers.”
That is probably a very good thing. It wouldn’t be your strong suit.
Zica said..”My favorite quote (from a fortune cookie): “You will soon be aware of your increasing awareness.”
Hmmm. I can see why that’s your favorite.
I would never have imagined I’d ever be exchanging thoughts with a “fortune cookie philosopher”, even online.
I’m only doing this because of great respect for Sibel, and all “whistleblowers” who risk everything for the sake of principles, and a regard for their “neighbors” and fellow citizens.
Support the American Monetary Reform Act, being introduced by Dennis Kucinich.
It may be the most important legislation we could pass as a start to reclaiming our democracy from the globalist usurpers. Obama will sign it into law if the congress will pass it.
My Website
arealjeffersonian Says:
Great dialogue going on here, thanks Sibel for creating the forum.
The discussion between Mr. Hough & Zica is interesting, enlightening, and amusing, and after reading their posts a few times, I find I have to come down in opposition to Mr. Hough's basic premise that one should not "waste" their vote on a 3rd (or 4th etc.) party with no chance to win.
Given Mr. Hough's powerful and all encompassing rhetoric, he doesn't really address Sibel's premise that voting for a "nonviable" candidate in this election can help set the stage for change in the next, or the next. Mr. Hough seems certain that only the IMMEDIATE result of your vote matters.It seems to me that if we follow that reasoning we will forever be presented with only the two "viable" candidates the "establishment" presents us with – with no hope of change.
And I do wish Jefferson were still around – I would certainly write him in.
Sibel Edmonds Says:
One of the biggest reasons I had stayed away from 'blogs and bloging': Too many out there with shallow or extremely antagonistic tone. Also, many with 'only' like-minded people who keep 'hooraying' each other and experiencing orgasmic high from their echo. Well, no more worries in that department. I am delighted to have so many articulate & passionate thinkers who express their stand/view/opinions and criticism respectfully and constructively…
Jere Hough: Although I may not agree with your conclusion I find your argument and reasoning thought provoking and well-presented. Also, I know many, the majority, share your conclusion (based on the history/record & obviously the long-held trend), but not many with your critical thinking and knowledge. When I get a chance I'll go back, read each argument and try to respond to each one with deserved attention.
Zica: How can we multiply our number by….hmmm….maybe 100,000?! Seriously, I know it is so very hard, but I don't view it as 'impossible.' And, I think we have the right climate now. Other needed factors: a truly viable candidate(s), unity (too many alt candidates—-fragment…), solid organization & communication…Yap, all that.
Jeffersonian: Absolutely-excellent dialogue. Last I heard Jefferson was placed on 'no fly list' due to his revolutionary vision being interpreted as 'possible terrorist' by DHS! Please continue this exchange…we need to expand upon these ideas/suggestions
Jere L Hough Says:
Jeffersonian: Thanks for the comment. I am also a *real* Jeffersonian. I don’t know of anyone else, other than Franklin or Paine, I’ve so often found truly profound. Have you read all Jefferson’s letters? Truly revealing. So here we have one Jeffersonian in “opposition” to another one. Interesting.
You said: “he doesn’t really address Sibel’s premise that voting for a “nonviable” candidate in this election can help set the stage for change in the next, or the next.”
But I though I had sufficiently addressed this. How many ways can I say “It won’t work”? Our apparent disagreement comes from my recognition that it is impossible to change the present system by voting for 3rd party candidates with no chance of victory. I’ve heard that false argument my entire 70 year life, and it hasn’t worked yet, except to get the worst of the two majors elected. It is a noble intention, and where there is no chance a minority candidate is going to give us another “Frankenbush” it might do no harm. But it is going to do little good either. Perhaps you failed to read the rest of the article on my blog, and study the examples I gave?
Here’s the bottom line reality: That is not the way change happens in America, or anywhere else where there are “winner take all” systems. The chance has to take place in the street, or in the campaigns. By the time we get around to voting, the “die is cast”. At that point, unless your 3rd party person actually has some chance to win, or there really is no “Frankenbush” in the race to win because of your “spoiler vote”, you should vote for the person you either like the most or dislike the least WHO CAN ACTUALLY WIN.
Haven’t I adequately pointed out that people with your POV are what gave our nation the death blow of Darth Cheney and FrankenBush? How far down the road to hell do we have to go before people learn from their worst mistakes? It’s all about the CONSEQUENCES of your vote/action.
Oh, and even if you can grow your 3rd party vote from 5% to 15 % while electing a string of Darth FrankenBushes, by that time we’d probably just have a Fascist Dictator who would abolish all the elections, and parties, except his.
Time, RealJeff. We don’t have the luxury of wasting time. We’re in the Titanic. It’s already hit the iceberg. The ship is sinking, and you are worrying about the arrangement of the deck chairs, or the decor of the ballroom, or voting on how to make the next voyage a little bit better.
Is it really so hard for so many to see this?
Sibel: I’m running out to time for this dialogue too. I have provided you with answers. As the proverb goes, one can lead a horse to water, but…
I am actively campaigning, writing, lobbying, shouting, screaming, warning, selling, pleading, beseeching, advocating for real and concrete social and political reforms that will give your small child a chance to inherit a kinder, gentler world.
If you really want to help make similar changes, here is one way: Go to this website and support proposals for monetary reforms. It is the key to all other reforms. It really is the “one ring that binds them all”. I urge everyone to vote for this proposal:
CLICK HERE
Then search for other changes you’d like to see happen in our government, and VOTE for them!
May God bless and keep you Sibel.
Zica Says:
To Mr. Hough: Choo Choo!
To Sibel: We’re working on it. To be honest, I trust you and I trust Ralph Nader. But he’s only got a few more tries left in him
Zica Says:
Sibel, actually, the numbers are there already, and in the millions.
We need to call off the damned progressive dogs who bark everytime an inependent walks by.
And to repeat what some others have said, a keystone focal point is the NYCCAN initiative.
mmonk Says:
To Zica:
Why do you blame the progressives?
Zica Says:
To mmonk: Because I consider myself one and I see time and time again the interest of progressives go down on Mr. Hough’s Titanic because they purposely steer the boat towards the iceberg. Must be a lack of self-esteem or maybe it’s the thrill of fear itself.
I don’t blame progressives solely, but I see us as an ironic roadblock to our own goals. So, I guess it’d be nice if we could stop barking at the real progressive leaders and candidates when they don’t have a (D) next to their name.
One of the most trusted and proven progressives in our history is trying to lead us away from EvilTown, and all the so called progressive pundits can do is ‘bark, bark, bark’ when he runs for office.
Jere L Hough Says:
Take Action: There is a unique window of opportunity for casting votes in the President’s Online Brainstorming Session.
The top vote-getters will get top priority. I posted above my own pet project, transforming private money creation into a public function, with direct oversight. This is Ellen H Brown’s proposal, and can be seen HEREOnce you are there, look for The Whistleblowers Protection proposal, and sign it, as I did. There are several key proposals there that any progressive should support, including election reforms, instant runoff ballots, campaign finance reforms, and so on.
Voting will continue for a few days, and then the most popular ideas will get further online discussion.
This is a chance to DO something other than just gripe and complain.
Web of Debt
eric zaetsch Says:
The Hough-provided links regarding monetary politics are both informative and challenging.
Neither Hough’s nor Zica’s answer about facing wasted voting worries via either fork in the road is strong.
The options are weak because one vote is weak.
Questions of time and immediacy and present degrees of potential mischief are points Hough and Zica differ on – if we don’t take “path A” now, how bad are the consequences.
My take – Humans have evolved and lasted so that time and civilizatons are measured in generations, centuries, eons, and immediacy is an illusion (although historical changes in power and empire can be quick but then permanant). E.g. Gorbachev and “that wall.”
Wars can be lost or abandoned with lasting consequences.
In that sense of instantaneous historical timelessness, Hough may be correct. In a larger sense, species survival lengths of time, Zica’s choice might be without fault.
In the sense that nuclear war or astroid hits can make us a cinder where all bets are off on species survival, rare event statistics did not even predict the present financial system failure and crisis in any satisfying way, so it is faulted for more rare possibilities.
Charles Schultz had Linus in Peanuts saying, “Two hundred years from now, who’ll know the difference?” What do we know about monetary history and what help is it today, and will today’s money amounts and distribution matter two hundred years from now?
On the monetary system and reform, the Steve Lendman blog is above average:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/
In there he has a six part series about Ellen Brown’s “Web of Debt.” Brown has her own site and blog:
http://www.webofdebt.com/
From there, this link is given:
http://model-economy.wikispaces.com/
It seems there is overlap with what Sibel is aiming at exploring and what Hough is saying about monetary reform.
I did not know Kucinich had a bill on monetary reform, and that link from Hough helps me learn more. I knew Ron Paul has his audit the Fed and end the Fed bills, with the audit bill having over 170 cosponsors and gaining.
Looking at the House Financial Services Committee membership, and how they jumped at the 700 billion dollar slush fund for banks that Palusen and Bernanke fostered, and how they are dragging feet on helping the debtor-homeowner little folks, suggests monetary reform will not be easy.
I think Barney Frank is as well-spoken as Obama. Has it done any good or is his having a secure district and funding from those the committee should regulate leading to more problems than solutions?
Sibel, have a look at Landman.
Perhaps you or BradBlog could get cross-posting of his very recent op-ed on manipulation of markets, and because you’ve public recognition you might be able to interest a first rate econophysicist to enter the question – they claim to be the new wave, etc.
For the most credible econophysist around, and one with practical experience on setting up a trading company, Prediction Company, there is Doyne Farmer at Sanata Fe:
http://www.santafe.edu/~jdf/SFI%20Template/About%20Me.html
http://www.santafe.edu/profiles/?pid=37
His publications listing indicates interest in how trading markets function, which should include wanting to be able to spot abnormal trading patterns – such as the “pump and dump” that Lendman discusses.
mmonk Says:
Zica, I understand what you are saying. I was curious sense progressives in the Democratic party seem to be the only ones to fight for accountability among the elected. I was thinking the DLC and Blue Dogs have the Democratic party in a headlock. And they control things. But I know there are many outside the two pary system and they left because it seems the two parties are merging in many respects despite the rhetoric.
Sibel Edmonds Says:
MMonk: “it seems the two parties are merging in many respects despite the rhetoric.”
And I totally agree with this observation.
eric zaetsch Says:
Zica – MMonk – Sibel
My impression has been third parties try to park in the middle.
Jesse Ventura and the Independent Party in Minnesota is that – Blue Dog attitude but secular and w/o any of the GOP theocratic flavor.
Then there was Perot.
Wallace and John Anderson seemed to be insincere spoiler efforts only.
I wonder if it would be viable, a left and labor party, a centrist Democratic remainder, a secular GOP business-banking-privilege remnant, and a Christian Family Party thing. It is how I would like to see the fractions break up.
Then the theocratic people would not have to feel used and then marginalized, while a left and labor candidate could win the oval office, if current labor leadership could deliver rank and file votes and not only volunteer help on phone banks and if awareness of what’s best for “our people” might again be as awakened as it was in labor’s past.
Remember how the air traffic controllers supported Reagan.
Then there would have to be coalition formation for any party to have a congressional majority including itself but not exclusively entitled to committee chairs, etc.
It seems the Dems now take the liberal wing for granted – a they may not like our games but they’ll deliver in the booth mentality.
AND – Nadar did not cause Gore to lose. Gore caused Gore to lose. He ran an awful campaign and picking Lieberman was unwise.
Steve Says:
Great post! (Forgive me, but let me repeat a comment of mine from your second post:)
Your political honesty is a breath of fresh air, Sibel. The list of Obama’s terrible voting record — not even to mention the Afghanistan war! — made me ultimately cringe away from voting for Obama. Basically, I agreed with McCain 20%, Obama 40%, and independent Chuck Baldwin/Ron Paul 80% (though Nader is equally impressive). I think it’s obvious who won my vote
Anonymous Says:
With numbers on our side re:MSM, think like the younger generation folks. Be mobile. Sibel’s site will work for awhile, then move on. Move on got controlled by Soros. Learn to link critically, verify your sources, talk with live people.The Internet will become less free with a cyberczar and abuses still in place regarding Internet surveillance. Free speech is on the ground, Dude.
Jere L Hough Says:
Whoever the last “anonymous” is, he knows a few things. It will soon be too dangerous to openly post on topics like this, or my web site, or Ellen Brown’s. Enjoy and use them while you can. Now to my main request:
Please sign the WHISTEBLOWER PROPOSAL on Pres. Obama’s Open Gov website, below. It is now second in popularity, ahead of even election and money reforms.
IMO, election and money reforms are THE keys to returning democracy to the people. Government is now in the hands of a financial aristocracy, and they are mostly psychosociopaths. They do intend to rule our world or destroy it.
The problem is that even if they get to rule it among themselves (Bilderbergers, Trilaterals, CFRs) they will still destroy it fighting for control among themselves.
This is a main reason I cannot accept the second premise Sibel advanced for voting for “can’t win 3rd candidates”. We don’t have the time, even if that strategy worked, and it doesn’t.
Anyone who REALLY wants to open their eyes and “wake up” from the “Matrix” (The movie is an excellent allegory – disregard the gratuitous violence) they have us trapped in should read “Tragedy and Hope”, by Prof. Carroll Quigley. It is the best “contemporary history of our world in print, bar none. Furthermore, nothing else even comes close. (Believe me, I’ve checked them all out.) I’ve written a review of this on my website, and many reviews can be seen on Amazon.com.
If you lack time to read the book, then read the reviews of the book, or read some intelligent synopsis or highlights. One such can be found in “How the World Really Works”, by Alan B Jones. This route will get you the juicier parts of several other “must read” works to those who really want to see what is behind the “Matrix”, or “curtain”.
A few more honest souls here might even find a little sympathy for the unenviable position our current president finds himself, and try helping his efforts at change, along with making an effort to better sort out what is personally HIS fault, and what is just the world he inherited.
Sign the WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION proposalMore information and eye-opening leads can be found on my blog, HERE
keenwaa Says:
I see by the date on the other posts that this is an old discussion, but I found this debate an interesting and important one, and want to chime in with a couple comments.
Sibel, I greatly admire you and your work and have followed your story ever since I heard about it. I was especially intrigued with the recent wiretapping revelations about Senator Harman vis-à-vis Aipac. I had been looking to see if you had anything to say about the matter and was thrilled to find your site. I’m glad you joined the blogosphere. Just be careful! I’m sure you know better than anyone how they’d like to seize upon the littlest thing to try to discredit you.
I’m also surprised at the general level of civility that has prevailed on your blog. Hopefully it will continue even as your readership grows!
I wanted to briefly respond to the debate about which strategy is superior with regards to elections. Having heard both arguments here and many times before, I think the tactic of voting for the non-establishment candidate is the most compelling.
In response to Mr. Hough (I’ll post to your blog too): After looking at your linked argument and some of your other postings, I can tell we have many points of agreement. Your argument was generally sound, but I think you missed part of Sibel’s reasoning. You critiqued the “do what is right let the consequence follow” argument but missed the consequentialist argument that was also made in combination with it. It goes along with what was said about the long term perspective when voting your conscience. The strategy of gradually increasing votes for non-establishment candidates is a legitimate one and is not blind to outcome. It just finds that it's more hopeless/useless to vote within the system, with little differences between the parties in their approach to a number of important issues.
In criticizing the “both parties are the same” attitude, it seems you let your frustration get the better of you. While some of the reasons you cite for this attitude are undoubtedly correct, there is much more truth to this statement than you recognize. Though fostering this mindset may be a tactic of some political strategists, I doubt it is on the scale you suggest. Moreover, it is without question infinitely secondary to the opposite strategy of creating a façade of conflicting interests among each parties’ elite. I’m especially surprised at your thoughts on this given your knowledge of Carroll Quigley’s works—“The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy” (Tragedy and Hope). Many of us believe the establishment has succeeded in achieving this. Sibel’s story attests to this—clearly it has influenced her views on voting. Party, platform, and campaign promises make little difference when it comes to establishment politicians' actions, making judging the better of two evils nearly a hopeless endeavor.
You draw upon relevant historical examples where little success was achieved, but I think therein lies your mistake. You seem to be grounded in the failures of the past, without faith that anything can change. Remember that there were naysayers about every “improbable,” great moment of history, but fortunately they were wrong. I think Sibel’s case might be the key to bringing about the REAL change we’ve all been longing for. I have hopes that if/when the truth about Sibel’s story (and all the others connected with it) becomes known, with its magnitude and scale across both parties so far-reaching, that it will awaken and disgust a naïve, trusting public, alerting it to the façade created by the establishment.