BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16%

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16%
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM

Ron, you have a knack for cutting right through to the heart of the matter (20 Oct 06 - 11:24 PM). And Amos's post immediately following pins it down even more. Worth re-reading both posts.

GUEST, you seem to be determined to misinterpret what I say. It is not "either voting or bloody revolution," and I never said it was.

In the Sixties, while some folks were working within the system—and making progress—there were lots of sit-ins, marches and demonstrations that were keeping the pressure on and aiding those working on the inside. In the meantime, there were the relatively small number of bomb-throwers and self-appointed revolutionaries out there who were trying to turn the peaceful demonstrations into riots.

In the so-called "Battle of Seattle," the WTO riots in November, 1999, there were some 40,000 people peacefully demonstrating. In the meantime, there were about 200 self-appointed revolutionaries running amok, smashing plate glass windows, tipping over cars, and starting fires. They got all the national publicity and completely undercut the message of the 40,000 peaceful demonstrators.

Apparently you missed where I said above that I have participated in marches, demonstrations, and vigils, and I've seen all of this in action. Marches, demonstrations, and vigils can be very effective if they remain peaceful. I described one of the demonstrations I've participated in recently:   the silent march prior to the invasion of Iraq that started at St. James Cathedral in downtown Seattle and ended with a candlelight vigil at St Mark's Cathedral on Capitol Hill. This was a well-organized protest against the impending war, and some 30,000 people participated. But keeping demonstrations and protests peaceful is essential.

One of the potential dangers of demonstrations is that a small number of rabble-rousers can sometimes turn them into riots, and this must be carefully guarded against. I've known of instances where a few revolutionaries tried to get others to organize demonstrations so they could turn them into riots. This is why I am a bit suspicious of people who are a) obviously very angry, and b) eager to take their anger to the streets. So I tend to wonder a bit about you.

I am not dedicated to the Democratic Party. I'm not a member of any party. When I said that I support and vote for the candidate who most closely reflects my position, and who actually has a chance of winning, it usually turns out to be a Democrat. There are often Green Party candidates who are closer to my position, but when I ask around, very few people have heard of them. Now, that's the pits! But that's the way it runs. I know they aren't going to get more than a small percentage of the votes, so I vote for the best viable alternative.

So please refrain from your constantly misrepresenting what I say.

By the way, did anybody watch "NOW with David Brancaccio" on PBS last night? The subject was election reform and regulation of financing. Clicky. Not all Democrats and Republicans (Senators, Representatives, and local politicians) have been bought by the lobbyists and corporations. If one is willing to listen with an open mind (but still maintaining a healthy skepticism) what was said on the program contradicts much of what has been said in this thread about "duopoly."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16%
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:40 PM

Here's a nice summary of the situation.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16%
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM

Great commentary, Amos! I spotted it on another thread and listened, but I think it deserves to be posted in enough places so that no one can miss it.

On that other thread, I posted a scene from one of my favorite movies/plays, A Man for All Seasons. I think this brief but intense conversation should also be posted in as many places as possible. So here goes.

The same things Sir Thomas More says about laws in this scene also apply to constitutional protections:

William Roper:   So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More:     Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper:     Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More:     Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Don Firth