>
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Michael Dawson wrote:
>
>> First, capitalism requires lots of things that any sane person would
>> hope
>> will survive past capitalism. Just because capitalism relies on
>> something
>> doesn't mean that something is bad. Capitalism relies on people eating
>> and
>> drinking. Should we all go on permanent hunger strike?
Ted Glick and a few others, then in the Berrigan Brothers Defense Committee, during the early 70's, decided to fast until the Vietnam War ended. War last for three more yrs.
Ted, bless his heart (but, not his strategic sense, took great unbridge @ the below from a UfPJ list on the 2004 elections. And, are there really Greens that want to nominate Jesse Ventura in 2004? He's a Libertoon! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------- Forwarded message ------- From: Ted Glick <indpol at igc.org> To: <ufpj-elect at yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [ufpj-elect] Re: backbone Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:03:24 -0500
I agree with Cynthia that this email is disrespectful and offensive.
Ted
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Gubrud" <mgubrud at squid.umd.edu> To: <ufpj-elect at yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 11:30 PM Subject: Re: [ufpj-elect] Re: backbone
Since UfPJ will be joining demonstrations at both the Republican and Democratic conventions, I think I would like to suggest, in the spirit of nonpartisan inclusiveness, that UfPJ also plan to demonstrate at the Green Party nominating convention, or whatever it is the Greens have where they choose their (ahem) candidate for President of the United States for 2004.
An appropriate theme might be a "brain campaign" where we wear brain buttons and carry around a giant brain, urging the Greens to act like they are equipped to comprehend the meaning of "winner-take-all"; or alternatively perhaps a "mirror campaign" where we carry a giant mirror and hold it up to the Greens, inviting them to take a look at themselves and what they are actually doing in the name of the Earth, peace, etc.
I was trying to think of some way of expressing the idea of "responsibility," but I'm afraid that might be too abstract a concept to get across to people who think political fortitude means unwillingness to compromise on any issue, ever, even when one represents only a small minority of the electorate.
Then again, it may perhaps be better to eschew all these high-concept antics and simply take our outraged protests to those people who opened the doors of the White House to the greatest enemies of peace and justice (not to mention the Earth) in American history, and who are now bent on helping them stay there.
Or perhaps best of all, following Steve's analysis, in Boston clearly express specific views about specific issues, rather than general attitudes about the Party.
Steven Ault wrote:
>
> UFPJ's relationship to the RNC is rather simple and
clear cut, but not
> so regarding the DNC. Among the 650 or so constituent
organizations
> comprising UFPJ, positions and strategies around the
Democratic Party
> generally, and the 2004 presidential election
specifically, are
> dissimilar and not at all easily reconcilable -- as is
obvious. The
> discussion around the Backbone campaign is a case in
point. Given the
> nature of our coalition, it would seem that the best
strategy for UFPJ
> towards the DNC is to steer clear of any and all
relationships and
> characterizations in favor of a "clean" issue-only
oriented intervention
> . In other words, the Backbone campaign may indeed have
merit (according
> to some), but it is not something that UFPJ should take
on.
>
> - Steve Ault -
>
> Ben Manski wrote:
>
> >Greetings Ben,
> >
> >I don't have a simplistic analysis. I am summarizing a
view that the
> >theme you are promoting is exclusive. If I'd wanted to
engage you in
> >debate about the pros and cons of '04, I would have. I
didn't send
> >you a 2000 word essay regarding electoral politics
because I don't
> >think this is the right place for those debates.
> >
> >Since you raise it, I respect the work of some of the
individual
> >elected Democrats you mention, even if I disagree with
some of their
> >methods. From the perspective of Greens, however, they
do not
> >represent the backbone of their party. They are
marginalized within
> >their party. And they don't represent any golden era
of the
> >Democrats either. They represent potential (and
sometimes real)
> >allies working within a different party. We sometimes
find such
> >allies among the Republican, Libertarian, Socialist,
and Reform
> >parties as well.
> >
> >Re: the backbone theme, let me try and boil it down to
the following:
> >
> >Many, likely most, non-Democrats going to Boston will
not be well-
> >represented by a message that suggests, by its very
nature, that we
> >are constituencies who feel ownership of the Democratic
Party.
> >
> >There needs to be a more inclusive message.
> >
> > - Ben Manski