The "Peace" Marchers

[Stephen]

democracy failed in 2000

kurchatovium, why should I have voted for Gore? I wanted Ralph Nader to be president of the United States. Voting for the lesser of two evils only gets you an evil office holder. And you're wrong about Nader voters switching their votes would have guaranteed a Gore victory (that's accepting the ridiculous assumption that Nader voters "really" wanted Gore to be president). All that would've accomplished would have been to make it a little harder for Bush family to steal the election. But had Nader supporters voted for a lesser of two evils, democracy REALLY would have failed. Please try to accept the idea that we liked Nader. You're right about at least one thing -- Gore isn't liberal enough. Gore isn't liberal AT ALL!! Anyone who thinks Gore, Clinton (either of them), Lieberman and all the rest of those DLC clowns are liberals has really been snookered by the Republican propaganda machine. Voting for Nader did not cost Gore the election. The smirking Bush clan, their toadies in Florida and on the Supreme Court and Gore's own half-assed campaign blew it for him.

 

[august spies]

personally i feel one dollar one vote representive democracy worthless, but the system of representative democracy we have in the us is the most anit democratic of them all. if anything it should at least be switched to a parlimentry system where people who get votes get represented, not a winner take all system. and we need a none of the above option on the ballet, whereas if a certain percent of the population picks none of the above there would have to be a re election

 

[kurchatovium]

I agree Stephen you should vote for who you wanted and I do believe that you wanted him as president, but actions have consequences. The consequence of 4% of the people not willing to settle for Gore meant they had to settle for Bush. I am not wrong about the election either 4% of the votes would have given the election to Gore hands down. He would have won many more states electoral votes with that additional margin, perhaps the election might even have been a landslide electorally. I think even many liberal people would agree with that statement.

I agree as well that Gore's campaign was not very well thought out, being an incumbent he had a big advantage that he seem to throw away.

 

[Stephen]

why should we "settle"

I believe the overwhelming majority of Nader voters were like me. We either vote for Nader or stay home on election day. Is that anyone's idea of democracy working? People not going to vote because there is no candidate suitable is a sad commentary on our election system. We are thankful there was someone like Nader on the ballot to get us to the polls. And what this "consequences" shit? You still can't accept the fact that we Nader voters didn't like Gore and didn't think he'd make a good president. Nader should have gotten about 6-8 percent of the vote. I'm certain there were many who wanted Nader who "chickened out" because they knew he wouldn't win and bought the goofy argument that voting for somebody who has no chance of winning is somehow throwing away your vote. If that was the case, then nobody should have voted for Mondale in 1984 or Dole in 1996. If old Albert Jr. wanted my vote he should have come at me with an argument better than "at least I'm not as bad a Bush." I'm through "settling" for anyone.

 

[kurchatovium]

I accept it fine. I don't think you threw away your vote. I think you made a statement. Also I am certain everyone that voted for Nader thought he was the best choice. However even if Nader had gotten 19% of the vote like Perot did he would still have gotten 0 electoral votes which means he had no chance to get elected. None. Thats just cold hard reality in a two party system. Many times I liked a libertarian candidate better than either party but I knew when I voted for them they were not going to win but I did anyway because I wanted everyone to know I was not happy with the mainstream candidates. Generally I pick the person that might win that represents my views a little better. Usually in my case thats a republican. I don't get everything I want but I get some of what I want. If your not willing to settle thats your right, your decision but get ready to lose a lot cause thats what is going to happen in all probablity. The proper strategy for third parties is one libertarians are pursuing now I think. Trying to get third party candidates into lower offices at the state and city level where there is no electoral system and they have a better chance to get elected. Hopefully they get well known and well liked then they move up to higher offices. Slowly you push more and more people in until one day you might have a very popular third party person who could get 35-45% of the vote and maybe get the presidency. Just my thoughts though.

 

[Stephen]

I'm used to losing

trust me, kurchatovium, most everyone for whom I vote loses, though most of the time I simply don't vote. I'm never trying to make a statement, other than the idiots the 2 "major" parties offer us plain and simple aren't good enough for me. I believe if "none of the above" was available on the ballot, I would be at the polls each time ready to cast a vote that can make me feel good.

I also like the idea of holding a two-person runoff if no one gets 50 percent of the electorate (that's eligible adults, not just those who vote). If in the runoff neither candidate gets 50 percent of the adult population to vote for him/her, the election is null and void and a new one with new candidates is held. A few of those and maybe the parties would start listening to the majority of citizens.

Oh, and Jim Hightower is a hero of mine.

 

[august spies]

its better to vote for somone you want and not win than vote for somone you dont want and win

 

[ShiningIce]

How true that is.

 

[Stephen]

amen

and if Ralph Nader weren't on the ballot, Albert Gore Jr. would not have won even one more state.

 

[MadKalnod]

The Philadelphia Daily News had a cover story on the Peace Protesters Thursday. The last paragraph cracked me up, and proved a theory I've held for years.

I'm paraphrasing here, but the reporter finally asks one young man why he opposes the war. He says: "I don't oppose it. Nobody wants war, but I feel it's necessary in this case, and that President Bush is doing the right thing." Dumbfounded, the reporter asks what he's doing at the rally, then. He says: "I'm here to pick up chicks." The accompanying photographs indicated that he had come to the right place, as the photographer had found no shortage of toothsome co-eds in attendance.

It's long been my belief that movements like this get as much momentum as they do, and the appearrance of popular support, on the basis of two key demographics: A.) Attractive young women who want to be respected for their minds, not their bodies, and as such become involved with deep and serious causes in the hope that they will appear equally deep and serious by association; and B.) Shallow young men who hold no genuine sympathy for the cause in question, but make a show of joining in the belief that it will impress the aforementioned attractive young women into sleeping with them.

Further, I've come to suspect that the current fad of "stripping for peace", in which protesters get naked, often spelling out anti-war slogans with their nude bodies, in an attempt to bring about peace (Yeah, there's a clear, direct cause-and-effect relationship on display... ) is little more than an attempt by the organizers of the movement to manipulate Demographic A into increasing the attendance of Demographic B. Or do you really believe that all those college boys with "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" T-shirts and enough facial piercings that their heads can be used as trout lures are motivated solely by profound concern for geopolitical stability; and that the chance of seeing the lovely Caitlin and Heather from Sociology 101 playing the part of "Captital T" in the Co-Ed Naked Crossword Puzzle For Peace had absolutely no bearing on their decision to turn out for the march?

It's nothing new. During Vietnam, there were anti-draft posters displaying Joan Baez and her sisters, considered to have quite high Comeliness Scores at the time, sitting on a couch beneath the words "Girls say yes to boys who say no." See it here. Since the protesters have dragged a whole VW Minibus-load of Vietnam-era methods and motives to denounce the current action in Iraq, regardless of whether or not they are even remotely appropriate to the situation, it's not surprising that they dust off this gimmick as well. What is surprising is how short a distance it is from using the implied reward of nudity on display to convince shallow and easily-manipulated college guys to wave "Bush = Hitler" signs and shout "No Blood for Oil" for a few hours, and say, using the promise of 72 virgins and an eternal Spring Break booty call to convince equally shallow and easily-manipulated young men into strapping explosives around their waists and detonating themselves in an Israeli day care center.

Of course, that's just an opinion, I could be wrong.

(/Dennis Miller Rant Mode)

 

[Stephen]

a complex question all wrapped up in a nice, neat little package

Hmmm, where to start to debunk this crap...

I'm 49 years old, with a receeding hairline and a waist thicker than the 32 inches I had when I was opposing the Vietnam War. I could not pick up a co-ed, toothsome or otherwise, unless I had a frontloader. But I'm happy you mentioned that the young women who come to these marches are beautiful. Most conservatives tell you that the women protesting this insanity are all ugly, and that the protesters of either gender are slovenly and unwashed. Thank you for telling us some truth.

I don't know how it is in Philadelphia, but here in Cleveland the majority of marchers against this dirty little war are middle age. College boys? There are a few, but I did not see any with a "Grand Theft Auto" T-shirt, or any other references to violence. Nice try, but have you actually been to a peace march, or just take the word of a right-wing fishwrap?

Looks like the right wing has dusted off the old "I'm here just to pick up girls" nonsense. Some fool in the Pentagon said during the height of the opposition to the Vietnam War that the marchers only wanted to get on TV and say, "Hi mom!" That has always been one on which the forces of reaction have fallen back. Trust me, sincerity reigns supreme at the marches. And most young people come in large groups, so the pick-up-girls argument falls pretty flat.

"Stripping for peace?" Have you been outside lately? That would be more like dying of pneumonia for peace. What do you think this is, a Philadelphia Eagles game, where idiots take off their shirts in December so they can get on television? I have never heard of this fad. Then again, Cleveland is the last place in America to pick up on cool trends.

Yes, we have used Vietnam Era "gimmicks," because most of us in the marches are old enough to remember the madness that was the Vietnam War. Because Shrub and his evil cabal haven't learned their lessons from the Vietnam debacle, it's only fitting that we fight these new warmongers with the same fire we fought Nixon, Johnson, Kissinger, McNamara, Westmorerland et al.

Where are my 72 virgins? Of course, with my luck, one of them will be you.

So when are you going to sign up and go fight this war? Wait. Let me answer that question. Let's see..ahhhh, um..never? If you truly believe this impending war is justified and morally defensable, it is you who are shallow and easily manipulated, by an unelected president and his goon squad who care only about their own careers and will send young Americans to die to advance themselves. Funny you should mention Israel. Let's discuss Moloch, the demon of war who eats children.

"Of course, that's just an opinion. I could be wrong." About the marches, you ARE wrong. And my opinion is Dennis Miller has his head so far up his arse he needs a glass navel to see where he's going. Oh, but he was such a hit on "Monday Night Football."

 

[Haltickling]

MK, I take it that this article is by Dennis Miller, not yourself?

Anyway, it speaks for a despicably cynical attitude towards human and humanistic motives. I don't know about the demographic data from the US Peace Marches; in Germany, the participants came from all age groups and social classes. I've rarely seen a broader range of demonstrators (I was there at our local peace march although I hate crowds).

In short: this article is crap!

 

[Marauder]

It's not the article that's crappy, it's generalizations. Actually, the article has a couple of good points. You can bet that in any protest or demonstration resides a notable percentage of people who are there just to be there, without caring about the cause. A smaller percentage is there only to stir up trouble, again without caring about the cause. And a large percentage is there for the cause but has no real clue as to what that cause is - they're merely following their leader like so many good little sheep. The few people who are smart enough to know what the cause is are also smart enough to know that protests will accomplish exactly zilch, aside from keeping the masses amused. They also know how to make a quaint profit for their rep by organizing the marches.

This holds true for every possible side on every possible topic.

 

[Mike_Edward]

Re: a complex question all wrapped up in a nice, neat little package

Funny you should mention Israel. Let's discuss Moloch, the demon of war who eats children.

Maybe you could elaborate on the meaning of the above comment?

 

[Stephen]

how old are you, Marauder?

Marches accomplish nothing? If it weren't for protest marches we might still be fighting the Vietnam War today. Talk about absurd generalizations. We anti-war marchers got the movement rolling. It snowballed and eventually swallowed Middle America. Please don't say it accomplished nothing.

To Mike: Moloch (did I spell it right?) was the Old Testament follower of Satan who was said to demand children as sacrifice. Moloch features prominently in Milton's "Paradise Lost" and as a metaphor in the poetry of Allen Ginsburg.

 

[Marauder]

I'm 27. And I'm glad to hear that you have retained the belief that civil protests can change the world. I salute you for your idealism and courage. I sincerely doubt that the peace movement had much to do with the end of the vietnam war, though, at least when protests and marches are concerned. Politicians don't much care about fringe groups gathering in the streets. They care about voters. Once the populace's opinion is starting to sway, politics will soon follow. And the populace is swayed, nowadays, by the media. Which, in turn, is heavily influenced by the government, and that means, ah screw it.

Bah, I'm too tired for trying to finish my argument or try to destroy one of the last bastions of wide-eyed idealism I'm likely to come across in these cynical times.

Note that "How old are you" is a <i>Very Bad Thing</i>(tm) to ever inject into an argument. It doesn't exactly encourage the ideal discourse.

 

[Stephen]

well, it matters

Marauder, I asked how old you were because too many Americans are extremely ignorant of anything that happened before they were born.

And my idealism isn't wide-eyed. Believe me, I'm probably more cynical than anyone in the TMF. Anyone who isn't cynical isn't paying attention. The wide-eyed ones are the ones who believe every word from the lying lips of Bush (any of them), Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rice etc.

And civil protests DO change the world. Maybe it's too slow for you young fellows who grew up in a world of instant gratification, but it works. The civil rights marches of the 1960s worked (as well as sit-ins and voter registration drives in the South). The protesters had EVERYTHING to do with ending the Vietnam War. We were hardly a "fringe group" then and we aren't one now. We convinced Middle America of the futility of the Vietnam War. We stared down a lying government and made it blink.

Maybe if you knew a little history of protest movements, you could become an idealist (without the condescending "wide-eyed" adjective, which doesn't exactly encourage the ideal discourse). It's fun. As a popular TV commercial that aired before you were born said, "Try it, you'll like it."

 

[Mike_Edward]

Re: how old are you, Marauder?

To Mike: Moloch (did I spell it right?) was the Old Testament follower of Satan who was said to demand children as sacrifice. Moloch features prominently in Milton's "Paradise Lost" and as a metaphor in the poetry of Allen Ginsburg.

The literary allusion I understood.

I'm interested in how you singled Israel out for your Moloch Award. Why don't you tell us the criteria, and how it triumphed over all the other candidates out there.

 

[Marauder]

Thanks for not taking overly much offense. In fact, believe it or not, the "wide-eyed" thingy wasn't even meant to be condescending. Reading that post over, though, it sure sounds like it. I guess I was a little too tired and peeved over the age thingy. Sorry for that.

Me and idealism don't get along too well. I've tried it, and it didn't take. I'm a jaded, cynical guy already. Doesn't stop me from striving to be better than I am, but I strive with a cocked eyebrow.

Regarding the history surrounding Vietnam and the peace movement: I thought I was pretty firm there. Since you were there and I was, for obvious reasons, not, I'll cassume you are correct for now and ease any argument about that period of time until I have done significant research to either affirm or correct my point of view. I still stand by my initial post, though. Today's protests are something which I have personal experience in. They don't accomplish anything, because the majority of the populace sees them as entertainment or threat, not as anything to be taken seriously. Thus, no cigar. I don't claim professional knowledge about social dynamics, though. Most of my points are just educated guesses.

Neither did I wish to offend you personally with either my initial or my follow-up post. I'm truly sorry if I trod on your foot there. Wasn't meant that way. I'm starting to suspect we'd be on the same side in many arguments.

Thank you for taking the time to force me to reconsider what I've typed, please accept my apologies for sounding condescending, and I hope you have a safe and pleasant day!

 

[Mike_Edward]

Re: well, it matters

The protesters had EVERYTHING to do with ending the Vietnam War.

Actually, they had nothing to do with the end of the Vietnam War. Nixon crushed McGovern in 1972 because, in his words, the 'silent majority' of voters weren't in the streets. The protesters, from an electoral standpoint, were in fact a fringe group.

The Vietnam War ended because Saigon was overrun by the Viet Cong. Remember that?

 

[Shakespeare]

Reason For The Peace Marchers?

I guess the so-called "Global Warming" marching thing fell through this winter. Hey Neville Chamberlain "peacenicks" good news, Earth Day is not far away.

 

[Stephen]

apology accepted

Marauder, I'm as cynical as you. But I will never give up doing what I think I must do. Idealism and cynicism have a strange synergy within me.

Mike, McGovern lost for many more reasons than his opposition to the Vietnam War. In fact, that was the only reason he received as many votes as he did. He was in the mainstream on that one. And GOP treachery had a lot to do with his loss.

As for Moloch, he's a demon in the Hebrew tradition. That's all. Take the chip off your shoulder about Israel, please, unless you live there.

Shakespeare, keep you flames to yourself.

 

[Mike_Edward]

Re: apology accepted

Marauder, I'm as cynical as you. But I will never give up doing what I think I must do. Idealism and cynicism have a strange synergy within me.

Mike, McGovern lost for many more reasons than his opposition to the Vietnam War. In fact, that was the only reason he received as many votes as he did. He was in the mainstream on that one. And GOP treachery had a lot to do with his loss.

As for Moloch, he's a demon in the Hebrew tradition. That's all. Take the chip off your shoulder about Israel, please, unless you live there.

Shakespeare, keep you flames to yourself.

Actually, he lost because the "peace" marchers, and their views, were quite in the minority. And he thought he could win by pandering to the mobs in the street. But you're right, the handful of votes he did get did come from the die-hard Democrats and the fringe left who opposed the war. Although why the US pulled out of Vietnam had absolutely nothing to do with them.

As for Moloch, is North Korea part of the Axis of Moloch? Or just Israel?

And I take it that your comments regarding Israel mean that we should only comment on places where we've lived? So I take it that you won't be commenting on Iraq or North Korea? Or have you lived there? Or perhaps you live there now?

 

[Stephen]

touchy, aren't we

No, Mike, the election of 1972 was far more complex than you think. There were other issues than the Vietnam War. There were problems for the McGovern campaign from the get-go, and Nixon's "dirty tricksters" had a lot to do with the way the election turned out. But you just go on thinking that the Vietnam War was only opposed by the fringe left. If it were, the U.S. would never have gotten out of Vietnam as early as it did.

Mobs in the streets? I saw one of those in NYC in 1970. They were Nixon supporters who were running amok, beating up anyone with long hair or black skin. I don't think McGovern pandered to them, but ol' Tricky Dick sure did. Please do not wake up from your fantasy world. You might say something correct and give us all heart attacks.

And why so touchy about Israel? Moloch and Mammon are two Old Testament demons who seem to be very much worshiped in the USA today, which is where I live.

 

[Mike_Edward]

Re: touchy, aren't we

No, Mike, the election of 1972 was far more complex than you think. There were other issues than the Vietnam War. There were problems for the McGovern campaign from the get-go, and Nixon's "dirty tricksters" had a lot to do with the way the election turned out. But you just go on thinking that the Vietnam War was only opposed by the fringe left. If it were, the U.S. would never have gotten out of Vietnam as early as it did.

Mobs in the streets? I saw one of those in NYC in 1970. They were Nixon supporters who were running amok, beating up anyone with long hair or black skin. I don't think McGovern pandered to them, but ol' Tricky Dick sure did. Please do not wake up from your fantasy world. You might say something correct and give us all heart attacks.

And why so touchy about Israel? Moloch and Mammon are two Old Testament demons who seem to be very much worshiped in the USA today, which is where I live.

Let's think about this. You compared Israel to a child-eating demon. And I'm the touchy one? All I asked for was an explanation of why Israel is demonic, and the best you can do is give us a literature lesson about where the name Moloch originates?

Why can't you just put your cards on the table, and say what you think, and speak frankly? Let's try this again: Stephen, why do you think Israel is demonic? Don't push your answer off on some 'hey, it's no big deal'; 'who cares, it's just Israel'; A slur is a slur, and if you can't stand up and back it up, don't make it.

And Nixon crushed McGovern because of 'dirty trixters?' Just keep telling yourself that. Yes, Nixon sent his supporters out into the streets of New York City to beat up hippies and blacks. Spare me the race card. But you're right, the election was about more than Vietnam, and it was an election in which the left was in the minority, and that's why they lost.