> Steve, no one's disputing SH's right to a lawyer. The problem is the
> political ramifications of someone so identified with the antiwar
> movement taking the job. Remember the Nation's David Corn going on
> O'Reilly saying that the movement was run by Saddam-sympathizing
> Communists? That was a slur, but this would make it ten times worse.
Doug: I think you are trying to explain the obvious to some leftists who are in denial about public perception of activism. Perhaps if they got out more and mixed with normal people they would quickly grasp that public perception of activists is pretty damn important.
And you are write about this being ten times worse, because the right wing will run with the Ramsey Clark story and broadcast it from all of their radio shows, newspaper columns, and their TV network. All it takes is for Ramsey Clark to take up the case of Hussein and the right wing will tar and feather the anti-war movement without pause. This is one of the reasons why I and other have been trying to kick WWP/IAC/ANSWER out of the anti-war movement. The fact that Hussein deserves legal representation is irrelevant. Ramsey Clark does not work for the ACLU or independently, he is a prominent face of the American anti-war movement thanks to ANSWER's work and the stupidity of other activists in allowing them to stake out this position of hegemony over the movement.
The blithering myopia of the hard core leftists in the anti-war movement who just want "everybody to love each other" is going to doom the anti-war and peace movements to the margins for years to come.
<< Chuck0 >>
Homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Monumental Mistake (blog) -> http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/index.php Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Infoshop Portal -> http://portal.infoshop.org/ Infoshop Science -> http://science.infoshop.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
If people eat their ballots, then that nut-case Stockwell Day will get in. Right-wingers aren't angst-ridden about voting. Don't we have to vote strategically, even if that means voting for the Liberals?
Having to decide between Tweedledum and Tweedledee -- that's not a choice -- that's a threat. Our electoral system favors a two-party race, and we should reject it. We have to start working towards a democratic system that doesn't force people to vote for the lesser of two evils (or the evil of two lessers). We can't keep jumping from election to election, voting for one moron because we're terrified that there's something worse. Now's the time to stop legitimizing this process and take a stand for fundamental, long-term change. It's more important to call attention to the farce of electoral politics than to split-hairs by choosing between Tweedledumb andTweedledee (or The Mad Hatter, the Queen of Hearts and the Doormouse for that matter).
- The Edible Ballot Society <http://edibleballot.tao.ca/faq.html>