Then Ravi writes; hi hari! i'll attempt an answer to the above question: let us concede to you that kerry getting in does not help us at all to organize for anything beyond the dem muzzle. the question remains: isn't it still worth defeating bush?
REPLY: Hello Ravi, hope you are well.
Let me be clear, I will take such a victory with a whoop if not a glass of champagne. [I vividly recall having a glass of champers for Mrs T's political departure from the stage.. That was a long awaited glass as I recall, as an economic refugee from the UK]. And I do think that victory would be is worth while, largely as Bush & his crew are so utterly & arrogantly despicable.
But I remain fearful in the extreme; (i) as to Mr Kerry's specific positions ["Believe me, if we need to get tough with Iran I HAVE A PLAN & I WILL BE TOUGH WITH IRAN"; second debate); & (ii) In a much more generla manner - further perpetuating the myth that the Democrats are a true alternative.
If these problems of (i) & (ii) Above are legitimate, how is the pattern of continuing attacks on the peoples of the world - of which Iraq is by no means the first..... to be broken? [A very small example of the huge number of USA led "actions" - simply tabulated & listed for ease of reference at: Navigate via cover page at: Cover: http://www.allianceML.com/PAPER/2004/SEPTEMBER/COVER.html Contains: A Reference Guide to USA Imperialist Actions Since the Cold War USA Imperialist].
Elsewhere I heard Justin say a variation of what Doug recently said: "That Nader is not the man". Yes but - ... Kerry is not the man - surely?
Then - who is the wo(man)? & how does such a paragon come into being? If the Nader movement is not a potential third force, what does it take to make one? & why abstain from that task now? If the pro-Nader-ites are 'spoilers' - are the pro-Kerry-ites, peddlers of false hopes?
I heard on Dougs' radio show [By the way, for what it is worth - Doug - I thoroughly enjoy your show - it very good indeed, thanks very much - Keep em coming] an editor of the Black ... something or other -- who basically said "Yes we'll just have to deal with Kerry later".
Isn't that the story of the USA left? If the idea of organising outside the Demcoratic Party is such anathema, how will a movement be created within the democratic party that eats' its rebels? & Why should it not do so - it knows what happens if worms enter the apple?
I am all in favour of saving one's powder for the 'right moment'. Trouble is that if this 'time' keeps getting postponed, it turns rottten & does not ignite. Another generation goes under, as the grayhairs look for their canes that they no longer get from medicare.
Sorry to ramble - that is just my sense of it.
Another time I will try to take up your point re Kashmir (with which i think i agree - if W's remarks are the oppostie of yours!)
Many Cheers, H