[Peace-discuss] Lesser evilism

Thu Sep 16 21:48:12 CDT 2004

Looks like Kerry's managing to lose this election all by himself.  He was polled at just 4% above Bush in Illinois.  

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/kerryEVproj.htm

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.race2004.net/

http://www.federalreview.com/

http://www.electionprojection.com/

Oh, he is the lesser of two evils.  

Ken

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ken Urban
Assoc. Prof., Computer Science
Parkland College

Office: B129A
           (217)-353-2246
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> <jencart at mailstation.com> 09/16/04 4:12 PM >>>
We wouldn't BE @ war if Naderites had voted for "the lesser of two evils" in 2000.  Duh.  And if Naderites throw the election to Bush again, there goes what's left of our democracy.... think Supreme Court appointees....

Jenifer C.

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Stinard <pstinard at hotmail.com>
Sent: Sep 15, 2004 9:20 PM
To: peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Lesser evilism

Hello,

I've quoted a couple of messages from Mort below on supporting Kerry in the 
Novemenber election.   I don't know how appropriate it is to lobby AWARE 
members to support a pro-war, pro-US interventionism candidate like Kerry, 
but we're all adults here and can make our own decisions.  In an "ideal 
democracy," people would normally support a candidate who shares their views 
rather than someone who doesn't.  It takes convoluted reasoning to do 
otherwise, but then again, we don't have an "ideal democracy".  Kerry is a 
pro-war candidate, and he takes minority support for granted.  It makes more 
sense for members of an anti-war anti-racism group to OPPPOSE Kerry.  I'm 
just pointing out the hypocrisy here.

I found the following statement on HIV/AIDS on one of the candidate's web 
site:

"Countries that have struggled for decades to improve are faced with 
weakened economies, debilitated military forces, and a deteriorating 
capacity to govern effectively and cope with rising health care costs. These 
countries could well become the home base for terrorists or criminal 
elements looking for a safe haven or even for those trading in weapons of 
mass destruction."

You know who said this, right?  It was John Kerry, of course.  No one should 
be surprised.  He hasn't shown himself to be anything other than a 
neoconservative, neoliberal lapdog.  In my view, the rest of the world is 
equally screwed whether Bush or Kerry wins, and even the God-like Chomsky 
admits as much.  I'll go further than Chomsky and say that the world is 
worse off if Kerry wins because we'll have the European Union's support to 
beat up on thirld world countries in a Kerry administration.  More people 
may die overall as a result of Kerry's policies, but we just don't know.  Be 
that as it may, Chomsky says that Kerry might be better on domestic US 
issues, and he may be right, if you can trust what Kerry says.  Let me quote 
Mort:  "As Chomsky has emphasized, the differences may be small, but they 
can have very large effects on the lives of ordinary people."  Chomsky has a 
lot of faith in the Butterfly Effect and chaos theory, and "ordinary people" 
remains ambiguously undefined.  Let me define it for him as US citizens, if 
he's talking about a positive effect, of course.

Here's another one of Mort's points, speaking of Kerry:  "In fact, we don't 
know exactly what he will do, and that provides more hope than we can expect 
from Bush et al."  I agree with Mort that we don't know what Kerry will do, 
and that's what makes supporting Kerry such a pathetic option.  The ONLY 
thing that I admire about Bush is at least you know where he stands on every 
issue.  If you don't know where he stands on a particular issue, then assume 
the worst, because that's usually correct.   Although it's a pathetic point 
in favor of Kerry, it's something to hold on to, no matter how flimsy.  I'm 
only talking about domestic issues now, because it's already been 
well-argued (and accepted by Chomsky, no less!) that there's no major 
difference in international policy.

Before I say how I'm going to vote in the election, let me make the 
following prediction:  Kerry will lose to George W. Bush, and he may even 
lose Illinois, unless something major happens to tilt the balance in favor 
of Kerry.  The average US voter doesn't seem to care about deaths in Iraq, 
not even of US soldiers, doesn't care about the economy, doesn't care about 
education.  US voters seem to care (and I say "seem", because it's 
inexplicable and alien to me) about image, and about being reassured, and 
Bush is better at that than Kerry.  Kerry looks like he doesn't want to win. 
  He only gives half-hearted replies to Bush's lies and distortions--maybe 
deep down he believes them and even shares them.

So, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by choosing between Bush and 
Kerry doesn't sound like an appropriate topic for AWARE, and as an anti-war 
anti-racism group, AWARE members should really try to support candidates 
that support those ideals.  The decision that I've made for this election 
has nothing to do with either candidate's position on war or racism.  I 
despise Bush's policies and think that he is evil, and I think that Kerry 
will also be an evil president.  I SHOULD vote for a third party candidate 
who accurately reflects my views and who supports world peace.  I had been 
planning to do so all along.  Only by voting for good third-party 
alternatives will the two-party stranglehold be broken.  Both parties are 
beholden to corporate interests, and those interests are incompatible with 
individual liberties.  To make this short and end my agonizing and 
equivocating in print, I'm going to vote for Kerry because a Bush victory 
could mean the death of a loved one with HIV.  The quote from the Kerry 
website about weapons of mass destruction is from the beginning of a mostly 
appalling statement on HIV/AIDS in which the Kerry campaign goes out of its 
way to not actually mention helping anyone with HIV/AIDS until near the end, 
where it speaks of increasing funding for the ADAP program, which provides 
funding for the exorbitantly expensive HIV medication.  Under Bush, money is 
running out, and people could be cut, which means that they will develop 
AIDS and die.  Kerry provides a glimmer of hope, and I think that he will 
follow through, because the cost of ADAP is a drop in the bucket compared to 
the defense budget.  Bush just doesn't care--all assistance programs are 
dying.  So, call me selfish and hypocritical.  I admit it, and I feel sick 
and awful about the choice I have to make in this election.

This email is a journey in self-discovery, so I apologize to Mort for taking 
him to task when the end result is the same--I'm voting for Kerry.  My 
disagreement is in the facile manner in which the arguments are made, when 
no one really knows whether a Kerry victory is better for world peace.  
Voting in this election is a leap of faith.  I think that each person should 
analyze the issues and the candidate's positions.  Check their 
websites--they're very informative in what they say and in what they DON'T 
say.  Then decide whether you believe them, whether they have reasons to lie 
about what they are saying.  Decide what's at stake for you personally, for 
the US, and for the world, and then decide what's most important, and make 
the appropriate decision.

--Phil

>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:36:19 -0500
>From: Morton K.Brussel <brussel4 at insightbb.com>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] here's an opinion that might interest
>To: Susan Davis <sgdavis at uiuc.edu>
>Cc: peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>Message-ID: <22BFF6CD-0746-11D9-B4B6-000502314E22 at insightbb.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>It seems to me that Jacobs isn't saying anything new about what the
>anti-war movement wants; his demands are quite congruent with those of
>the "movement", as, e.g., represented by UFPJ. What he is saying is
>don't worry about the election, since it will make no difference
>insofar as war and peace is concerned; capitalism is the culprit.
>
>Is promoting the revolution a feasible/reasonable policy now?
>
>That he sees no difference between the Dems and the Pubs shows to me
>that he doesn't see very well. As Chomsky has emphasized, the
>differences may be small, but they can have very large effects on the
>lives of ordinary people. Kerry I believe does offer us some respite
>from cowboy madness, and a slight change in direction. In fact, we
>don't know exactly what he will do, and that provides more hope than we
>can expect from Bush et al.
>
>My 2¢, MKB
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:05:32 -0500
>From: Morton K.Brussel <brussel4 at insightbb.com>
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Petition from former Nader supporters.
>To: peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>Message-ID: <991C15F0-0752-11D9-B4B6-000502314E22 at insightbb.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>This petition/letter, from former Nader supporters, is circulating
>around. It will not be well received by Nader, St. Clair, Cockburn,
>Harrison, Arnove, and others.
>MKB
>
>I hope you will join me in signing this petition calling on
>progressives to vote to defeat George W. Bush in this year's
>presidential election:
>
>   http://www.Vote2StopBush.org/join.html
>
>Many progressive activists are urging voters this year to support
>Kerry/Edwards in all swing states. Progressive votes for Kerry in swing
>states may prove decisive in attaining the vital goal of defeating
>George Bush. While progressives disagree with Kerry's policies on Iraq
>and other issues, I believe that removing Bush from office should be
>the top priority in the 2004 presidential election.
>
>   This approach is endorsed by leading progressive  activists, including
>most of the public endorsers of Ralph Nader's campaign  for president
>four years ago -- people such as Noam  Chomsky, Phil Donahue, Barbara
>Ehrenreich, Jim Hightower, Rabbi Michael Lerner,  Bonnie  Raitt, Tim
>Robbins,  Susan Sarandon,  Cornel West and Howard Zinn. The "Vote to
>Stop Bush" website  lists more than 70 members of the "Nader 2000
>Citizens Committee" who  this time around are urging voters to vote for
>John Kerry in swing states. You can  read the full list here:
>
>   http://www.Vote2StopBush.org
>
>Every vote matters, and this is a crucial election. Please join me in
>working  to defeat George W. Bush.
>
>   Thank you.

>------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss