<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
I doubt that on Super Bowl week any spooks would bother with a mere $200 in action.<br><br>As a Green Party organizer in Chicago and a candidate for the seat once held by the likes of Blago and Rahmbo, I must say that I believe we will elect a Green in November. Saying anything else would be just plain stupid. Greens must act composed and behave as if they have just as much of a chance as anyone else.<br><br>Some people might say that Greens will NEVER win in the states (despite their resounding success in other countries.) People also said that a Republican would never win the Kennedy Senate seat. Whoever these people are, maybe we should stop listening to them?<br><br>With a ruling Democratic Party that is this bad, anything can happen. We will see that anything this November.<br><br>And I guarantee that the bloodbath in Iraq and Afghanistan will be ongoing.<br><br>-<br>Matt<br><br>P.S. - There is no doubt that the implosion of the anti-war movement had everything to do with the Democrats, primarily John Kerry and Barack Obama. I was around in 2004 to see people disappear from meetings and rallies, only to turn up at Obama for Senate organizing sessions or Kerry fundraisers. It made me so sick I had to leave the country for a few years. <br><br>> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:40:32 -0600<br>> From: galliher@illinois.edu<br>> To: naiman.uiuc@gmail.com<br>> CC: peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<br>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!<br>> <br>> I'm staking my two Benjamins not on the notion that there'll be a Green <br>> representative any time soon, but on the conviction that the US won't leave <br>> Afghanistan (or Iraq) short of a war of more than Vietnamese scale (60,000 <br>> Americans and 4 million Asians dead, many more maimed) - unless it's forced to <br>> politically, here at home. And I'd gladly pay $200 in that event. --CGE<br>> <br>> Robert Naiman wrote:<br>> > If anyone rats us out, we can argue that the stakes are too small to be<br>> > considered real gambling. By the time any of us gets to collect, we won't<br>> > even be able to take each other out to a nice dinner on it.<br>> > <br>> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:31 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher@illinois.edu><br>> > wrote:<br>> >> Which side of the bet do you want, Ricky?<br>> >> <br>> >> The same as Bob? If so, I've got you faded.<br>> >> <br>> >> We're going to get chambana.net busted for making book...<br>> >> <br>> >> <br>> >> Ricky Baldwin wrote:<br>> >>> I agree with all this, and I'll also bet anyone the same $100 on the same<br>> >>> terms.<br>> >>> <br>> >>> Ricky<br>> >>> <br>> >>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn<br>> >>> <br>> >>> --- On *Thu, 2/4/10, Robert Naiman /<naiman.uiuc@gmail.com>/* wrote:<br>> >>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> From: Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]<br>> >>> Pull a Green Party Ballot Today! To: "Morton K. Brussel"<br>> >>> <brussel@illinois.edu> Cc: "Peace-discuss List"<br>> >>> <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 3:31<br>> >>> PM<br>> >>> <br>> >>> I certainly agree with Mort that there is no "pat resolution" to the <br>> >>> dilemmas that we face.<br>> >>> <br>> >>> But some of the logic here escapes me.<br>> >>> <br>> >>> Cheryle Jackson didn't fail because she was "caught in the Democratic <br>> >>> party web." She failed because she didn't get enough votes in the <br>> >>> Democratic primary. If more people had voted for her in the Democratic <br>> >>> primary, she would have won. How people who are anti-war can be <br>> >>> indifferent to this escapes me. Jackson was competitive in the City of <br>> >>> Chicago. If there were a real statewide anti-war movement that was <br>> >>> prepared to intervene in Democratic primaries, the outcome could have <br>> >>> been different.<br>> >>> <br>> >>> It seems odd to me to punish anti-war candidates running as Democrats by<br>> >>> not voting for them, for the failure of other Democrats to be anti-war.<br>> >>> Are the Green Party representatives in Congress doing a better job of<br>> >>> opposing the war than the anti-war Democrats? No, because there are no<br>> >>> Green Party representatives in Congress. And it is extremely likely that<br>> >>> there will never be any in our lifetime. Is voting for the Green Party an<br>> >>> effective strategy for ending the wars, when Green Party candidates are<br>> >>> unlikely to ever be in a position of voting on it? I'll bet anyone on<br>> >>> this list $100 that the last U.S. soldier will leave Afghanistan before<br>> >>> any Green Party candidates are elected to Congress.<br>> >>> <br>> >>> If Green Party activists can figure out a way to undertake their <br>> >>> long-term - and quite uncertain - project of transformation without <br>> >>> getting in the way of here-and-now efforts to address the wars and other<br>> >>> social ills, then I have no dispute with them. But if they insist on<br>> >>> trying to obstruct more practical efforts, then they have to expect some<br>> >>> push-back.<br>> >>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Morton K. Brussel <brussel@illinois.edu<br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=brussel@illinois.edu>> wrote:<br>> >>>> One votes Green, as I did, with the hope (Always with hope, even<br>> >>> if laced with pessimism) that this party may gain in stature and be able<br>> >>> to effect future progressive change in the national politics. Yet, one<br>> >>> regrets not being able to also vote for candidates like Cheryle Jackson,<br>> >>> who, because she is caught in the Democratic party web, has small<br>> >>> (negligible) chance of winning.<br>> >>>> <br>> >>>> Question: Is it important to keep the Green party going and to<br>> >>> increase its visibility, or is it more important to vote for possibly<br>> >>> progressive candidates in established parties that fail the test, over<br>> >>> all, of effective progressivism (anti-war, anti-militarist, socially<br>> >>> conscious, egalitarian, etc.)? The evidence indicates that the<br>> >>> Democratic party in recent times has not been a counterforce, au<br>> >>> contraire, to the conservative corporate establishment. Can it be<br>> >>> improved by voting for someone like Cheryl Jackson when even getting<br>> >>> someone like her on the ballot is unlikely, given the nature of the<br>> >>> D-Party. This is a symptom of the utter corruption of our political<br>> >>> system.<br>> >>>> <br>> >>>> We need a complete turning around, i.e., a revolution, of that<br>> >>> political system. Can voting Democratic achieve this? Can voting Green<br>> >>> better achieve this?<br>> >>>> <br>> >>>> There seems to be no pat resolution to these dilemmas.<br>> >>>> <br>> >>>> --another 2¢ worth.<br>> >>>> <br>> >>>> --mkb<br>> >>>> <br>> >>>> Incidentally, at a meeting of Gill supporters, Gill unequivocally<br>> >>> stated that he would not support the AfPac or Iraq wars/occupations…, or<br>> >>> the budgets that sustain them. He did this in the face of Democrats who<br>> >>> were uncomfortable with his position.<br>> >>>> <br>> >>>> <br>> >>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:<br>> >>>> <br>> >>>>> Tom, do you agree with Matt's view that<br>> >>>>> <br>> >>>>> "If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was <br>> >>>>> actually any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning in <br>> >>>>> this rigged election."?<br>> >>>>> <br>> >>>>> If so, does this statement also apply to Green candidates? If it <br>> >>>>> doesn't also apply to Green candidates, why not? If it does also<br>> >>> apply<br>> >>>>> to Green candidates, does it apply forever, or only until some <br>> >>>>> particular reform(s) of the "rigged election" are achieved? If the <br>> >>>>> latter, what reform(s)? What is the Green Party strategy to<br>> >>> bring such<br>> >>>>> reform(s) about?<br>> >>>>> <br>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Tom Abram <tabram@gmail.com<br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=tabram@gmail.com>> wrote:<br>> >>>>>> Obviously, the Illinois Green Party, its candidates, and active <br>> >>>>>> members are going to encourage their members to vote for Green <br>> >>>>>> canididates. That's kind of the point of building a party. To<br>> >>> get<br>> >>>>>> candidates of our values elected and influence public policy.<br>> >>> Just<br>> >>>>>> like the Dems and Reps, but our values are far more progressive. <br>> >>>>>> Would you really expect the Democrats to advocate their members<br>> >>> voting<br>> >>>>>> for a Republican candidate? Why should we? We gain absolutely <br>> >>>>>> nothing from this and further distort the power dynamics between <br>> >>>>>> ourselves and the corporate parties. When Greens have stepped<br>> >>> aside<br>> >>>>>> from an election due to pressure from "progressive Democrats" they <br>> >>>>>> have gained absolutely nothing, furthering the acceptance of such <br>> >>>>>> candidates and marginalizing the Green Party.<br>> >>>>>> <br>> >>>>>> If an individual wants to vote in a different primary to<br>> >>> influence the<br>> >>>>>> outcome, I can understand that. However, I personally feel it's a <br>> >>>>>> stronger statement to vote Green. I have been criticized for <br>> >>>>>> advocating voters to pull a Green ballot. To expect one party to <br>> >>>>>> kowtow to another and encourage their members, supporters, and the <br>> >>>>>> public to vote in another party is ludicrous. When Republicans<br>> >>> cross<br>> >>>>>> over in the primary to vote for Dems (like the 2006 District 9<br>> >>> County<br>> >>>>>> Board race and the silly Rush Limbaugh effort to nominate Hilary <br>> >>>>>> Clinton) they're called infiltrators by the Dems. But these<br>> >>> same Dems<br>> >>>>>> encourage Greens to cross over. No thanks. We are not a subset, <br>> >>>>>> splinter, or sect of the Democratic Party. The law and media have <br>> >>>>>> already treated the Greens inferiorly (even though we're now a <br>> >>>>>> recognized established party in Illinois). We don't need our<br>> >>> activist<br>> >>>>>> allies to do the same.<br>> >>>>>> <br>> >>>>>> Tom Abram<br>> >>>>>> <br>> >>>>>> <br>> >>>>>> On 2/4/10, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc@gmail.com<br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=naiman.uiuc@gmail.com>> wrote:<br>> >>>>>>> I find Matt's argument here quite striking. I wonder how many <br>> >>>>>>> activists in the Illinois Green Party share the views that Matt <br>> >>>>>>> expresses here. If it turns out that these views are<br>> >>> widespread in the<br>> >>>>>>> Illinois Green Party, I think it should affect the calculation of<br>> >>>>>>> folks who are interested in promoting progressive change in<br>> >>> the world<br>> >>>>>>> in which we actually live about whether the Illinois Green<br>> >>> Party is an<br>> >>>>>>> institution whose influence in public affairs they want to<br>> >>> promote.<br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> Matt argues that it actually doesn't matter who Cheryle<br>> >>> Jackson is or<br>> >>>>>>> what views she espouses:<br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> "If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was <br>> >>>>>>> actually any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning<br>> >>> in<br>> >>>>>>> this rigged election."<br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> Presumably, Matt is acknowledging here that he actually<br>> >>> doesn't know<br>> >>>>>>> anything about and doesn't care to know anything about Cheryle <br>> >>>>>>> Jackson, a remarkable position for someone who presumes to<br>> >>> educate<br>> >>>>>>> others on public affairs. But in Matt's worldview, that<br>> >>> information is<br>> >>>>>>> irrelevant, so why bother acquiring it? All you need to know<br>> >>> about the<br>> >>>>>>> world is that you should vote for the Green Party.<br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> Furthermore, one presumes that according to Matt's logic, so<br>> >>> long as<br>> >>>>>>> the election remains "rigged," no Green Party candidates will<br>> >>> ever<br>> >>>>>>> have a realistic chance of ever winning any election.<br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> Therefore, in Matt's worldview, the call to vote for the Green<br>> >>> Party<br>> >>>>>>> is essentially a call for a boycott of the election. The only <br>> >>>>>>> difference between voting for the Green Party and staying home<br>> >>> is that<br>> >>>>>>> if you vote for the Green Party, there is an official record<br>> >>> of how<br>> >>>>>>> many people participated in the Green Party-initiated boycott.<br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> Note the similarity between Matt's argument and the old anarchist<br>> >>>>>>> slogan, "if voting changed anything, they'd abolish it." Of<br>> >>> course,<br>> >>>>>>> anarchists with this view are generally electoral<br>> >>> abstentionists. The<br>> >>>>>>> only difference is that the anarchists generally don't exhort<br>> >>> you to<br>> >>>>>>> go the polling place on election day and vote anarchist.<br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> Other folks here are more familiar with the Illinois Green<br>> >>> Party than<br>> >>>>>>> I am. Are these views widespread in the Illinois Green Party?<br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Matt Reichel<br>> >>> <mattreichel@hotmail.com </mc/compose?to=mattreichel@hotmail.com>><br>> >>>>>>> wrote:<br>> >>>>>>>> Of course, I couldn't disagree more with the analysis that it<br>> >>>>>>>> is worthwhile pulling a corporate party ballot. If Cheryle<br>> >>>>>>>> Jackson or<br>> >>> anyone else on the<br>> >>>>>>>> corporate ballots was actually any good, then they had no<br>> >>> realistic chance<br>> >>>>>>>> of winning in this rigged election.<br>> >>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>> The act of pulling a Green ballot in itself was a vote<br>> >>> against the system<br>> >>>>>>>> of corporate bribe-taking candidates.<br>> >>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>> In the end, over 5,000 people in the state pulled a Green<br>> >>> ballot: a 60%<br>> >>>>>>>> increase over 2008 numbers, despite turnout being about 1/3rd<br>> >>> of 2008<br>> >>>>>>>> across the board. (Champaign County was the only major county<br>> >>>>>>>> that saw<br>> >>> a<br>> >>>>>>>> decrease, in large part due to the graduation and relocation of<br>> >>>>>>>> several<br>> >>> active GP<br>> >>>>>>>> activists from there)<br>> >>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>> Most of the increase occurred in inner-city Chicago, where<br>> >>> residents have<br>> >>>>>>>> the benefit of clarity that those of you in the cornfields<br>> >>> might not have:<br>> >>>>>>>> choosing among corporate bribe taking candidates in one of<br>> >>> the corporate<br>> >>>>>>>> bribe-taking parties is an act of futility. In the land of<br>> >>> Blago, Rahmbo,<br>> >>>>>>>> Stroger, Daley, Burke I and II, Dick Mell, and so on, this<br>> >>> couldn't be<br>> >>>>>>>> clearer.<br>> >>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>> Solidarity,<br>> >>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>> Matt<br>> >>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:39:31 -0600 From:<br>> >>>>>>>>> galliher@illinois.edu<br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=galliher@illinois.edu><br>> >>>>>>>>> To: kmedina67@gmail.com </mc/compose?to=kmedina67@gmail.com> <br>> >>>>>>>>> CC: Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><br>> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!<br>> >>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>> My experience exactly. Without the kiss.<br>> >>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>> Karen Medina wrote:<br>> >>>>>>>>>> Election judge to Karen: "Would you like a Democrat or a<br>> >>> Republican<br>> >>>>>>>>>> ballot?"<br>> >>>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>>> Karen: "You are not offering a Green ballot?"<br>> >>>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>>> EJ: "Would you like a Green ballot?"<br>> >>>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>>> Karen: "No. But aren't we offered a Green ballot?"<br>> >>>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>>> [... ] [Karen was voter 110 at her precinct at 10:30am<br>> >>>>>>>>>> today.]<br>> >>>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>>> Karen to 3 EJs in an otherwise empty poling place: "Have a<br>> >>> wonderful<br>> >>>>>>>>>> day! Hope you have a great turnout!"<br>> >>>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>>> EJ1 blows a kiss. A heartfelt good-bye.<br>> >>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous<br>> >>>>>>>>> content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.<br>> >>>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss<br>> >>>>>>>>> mailing list Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><br>> >>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<br>> >>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>> ________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with<br>> >>>>>>>> powerful SPAM protection. Sign up<br>> >>> now.<br>> >>>>>>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous<br>> >>>>>>>> content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. <br>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss<br>> >>>>>>>> mailing list Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><br>> >>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<br>> >>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org <br>> >>>>>>> naiman@justforeignpolicy.org<br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org><br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan Timeline for Withdrawal<br>> >>>>>>> and Political Negotiations<br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations<br>> >>> <br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous<br>> >>>>>>> content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.<br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss<br>> >>>>>>> mailing list Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><br>> >>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<br>> >>>>>>> <br>> >>>>>> <br>> >>>>> <br>> >>>>> <br>> >>>>> <br>> >>>>> -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org <br>> >>>>> naiman@justforeignpolicy.org<br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org><br>> >>>>> <br>> >>>>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan Timeline for Withdrawal and<br>> >>>>> Political Negotiations<br>> >>>>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations<br>> >>> <br>> >>>>> <br>> >>>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by<br>> >>>>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.<br>> >>>>> <br>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing<br>> >>>>> list Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><br>> >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<br>> >>>> <br>> >>>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org <br>> >>> naiman@justforeignpolicy.org <br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org><br>> >>> <br>> >>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan Timeline for Withdrawal and<br>> >>> Political Negotiations<br>> >>> <br>> >>> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations<br>> >>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by<br>> >>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.<br>> >>> <br>> >>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing<br>> >>> list Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net <br>> >>> </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net> <br>> >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<br>> >>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by<br>> >>> *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be<br>> >>> clean.<br>> >>> <br>> >>> <br>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> >>> <br>> >>> This body part will be downloaded on demand.<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> <br>> -- <br>> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>> believed to be clean.<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Peace-discuss mailing list<br>> Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<br>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<br> <br /><hr />Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. <a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/' target='_new'>Sign up now.</a><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body>
</html>