Ralph and Matt on WAMC

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1247783

This link will bring you to Joe Donahue's recent interview with Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez. Its really great! Let WAMC know that you'd like to hear more! Let them know what you think.

Email Joe at: roundtable@wamc.org

Chris Hedges Endorses ...

If you are for peace, you may well want to read this well-reasoned piece by Pulitzer Prize winning author, Christopher Hedges (perhaps best known for his incredible book, "War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning").

Peace (the REAL kind),

Matt

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/24/7858/

A Vote For Obama, Etc., Is a Vote For War, Militarism, Imperialism

Monday, March 24, 2008

TruthDig.com

A Conscientious Objection

by Chris Hedges

Those of us who oppose the war, who believe that all U.S. troops should be withdrawn and the network of permanent bases in Iraq dismantled, have only two options in the coming presidential elections--Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. A vote for any of the Republican and Democratic candidates is a vote to perpetuate the occupation of Iraq and a lengthy and futile war of attrition with the Iraqi insurgency. You can sign on for the suicidal hundred-year war with John McCain or for the nebulous open-ended war-lite with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or back those who reject the war. If you vote Democrat or Republican in the coming election be honest with yourself--you have voted to allow the U.S. government to continue, in some form, the campaign that needlessly kills ever more Americans and Iraqis in a conflict that has become the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history and a crime under international law.

"When will the American people actually vote to give to the world more than bombs and missiles, sweatshops, dubious science, frankenfood, poverty and misery?" Cynthia McKinney, the presidential candidate in the Green Party primaries, told me. "Not only do we need an immediate, orderly withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, we need an end to the militarism that has placed U.S. troops on the soil of over 100 countries. A true peace agenda means a complete redefinition of security. I remain convinced that if people in Haiti, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua can vote a peace and justice agenda into power, then so too can we."

Examine the proposals on Iraq offered by Clinton and Obama. They talk about withdrawing some troops, but they also talk about leaving behind forces to protect U.S. bases in Iraq, assigning troops to train the Iraqi army and continuing the fight against "terrorism." Clinton and Obama do not throw out numbers, but a rough estimate would be 40,000 or 50,000 troops permanently stationed in Iraq. Obama, his advisers say, will also not rule out continuing to use private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The war would not end under a Democratic administration. It would drag on until the mission collapsed and the U.S. retreated in humiliation. And when pressed, the Democratic candidates have admitted as much.

Tim Russert in the New Hampshire debate asked the Democratic candidates to guarantee that all U.S. troops in Iraq would be home by 2013. No one, including John Edwards, was prepared to make such a commitment. Dennis Kucinich, the only Democratic candidate who opposed a continuation of the war, had been excluded from the debate. When the question was asked he was standing outside the hall in the snow with supporters to protest his exclusion.

But the lust for militarism by Clinton and Obama does not end with Iraq. The two remaining Democratic candidates back the occupation of Afghanistan. They defend Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon, which killed hundreds of Lebanese, destroyed huge parts of Lebanon's infrastructure and left U.S.-manufactured cluster bombs littered over southern Lebanon. Clinton and Obama praise the right-wing government in Jerusalem and callously blame the Palestinian victims for the suffering inflicted on them by Israel. They support, in open defiance of international law, the 40-year Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the draconian siege of Gaza, dismissing the grim humanitarian crisis it has unleashed on the 1.5 million Palestinians trapped in the world's largest open-air prison.

The Democrats, who took control of the Congress in midterm elections largely because of public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war, have continued to fund the war, ignoring anti-war voters. The party, as a result, has sunk even lower in public opinion polls than the president, to a 19 percent approval rating, according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Clinton and Obama dutifully lined up with most other Democratic legislators to cast ballots in favor of squandering more than $300 billion in taxpayer money on a war that should never have been fought. And, if either is elected, he or she will spend billions more on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will skip the rest of the mediocre voting records of Obama and Clinton, which include pandering to corporate interests, failing to back a universal single-payer health care system, refusing to call for the slashing of the bloated military budget, not urging repeal of NAFTA and the Taft-Hartley Act, which cripples the ability of unions to organize, and not seeking an end to nuclear power as an energy resource. Let's stick with the war. It is depressing enough.

The anti-war movement bears much of the blame. It sold us out to the Democratic Party. The decision by anti-war activists to accept a moratorium on demonstrations in 2004 in order to support John Kerry ended our chance to build a widespread, grass-roots movement against

the war. Kerry, in return for this support, ridiculed and humiliated those of us who opposed the war. He called for more troops in Iraq. He mouthed thought-terminating patriotic slogans to out-Bush Bush. He promised victory in Iraq. He assured voters that he, unlike George W.

Bush, would never have pulled out of Fallujah. Anti-war voters stood passively behind him as they were humiliated and abused. And the anti- war movement has never recovered. The groundswell of popular revulsion that led hundreds of thousands to take to the streets before 2006 collapsed. The five-year anniversary of the war was marked with tepid protests that were sparsely attended. Why not? If the anti-war movement gutlessly backs pro-war candidates, what credibility does it have? If it fails to support those candidates on the margins of the political spectrum who stand with it against the war, what is the movement worth? Why not be cynical and go home?

"It is a virus," Nader said in a phone interview. "It is self-defeating. What are they doing this for if they can't push it into the political arena? Is it all theater?" "The strategy of the Democratic Party is to beat the Republicans by becoming more like them," Nader said. "How can they get away with that? If they become more like the Republic Party they start eating into the Republican vote. This usually would inflict a price on them. They would lose the left's vote, but since the left signaled to the Democrats that their vote can be taken for granted because the Republicans are too horrible to contemplate, they get both. As a result, when you put this cocktail together, becoming more Republican to get Republican votes and hanging on to the left because they have nowhere to go, you set up a tug in the direction of the corporations. There is no discernable end to this strategy by the left. When you ask the left they say not this year, sometime later. But when? If it is not now, if it is sometime in the future, when? What is their breaking point? If you do not have a breaking point you are a slave."

The energy and idealism are out there. Nader, in a March 13-14 Zogby poll, took 5 to 6 percent in a race between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. Nader, among voters under 30 and among independents, polled 12 to 15 percent. If the anti-war movement gets behind him and McKinney, if it stands behind its principles, it could begin to shake the foundations of the Democratic Party. It could re-energize itself. It might even force Democrats to offer voters a concrete plan to withdraw from Iraq.

War is not an abstraction to me. I know its evil. It is time, if we care about the state of the nation, to take an unequivocal stand against the war. If Clinton and Obama do not want to join us, so be it. I support those candidates and organizations that fight back. We should, in solidarity, strike with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union on May 1 against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should support Code Pink's refusal to pay the portion of our taxes that go to funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But most of all, we should refuse to be suckered by Democratic candidates who use fuzzy language and will not commit to a total withdrawal from Iraq. We owe it to the hundreds of thousands of dead and injured. We owe to those Iraqis and Americans who will die in the coming days, weeks and months. We owe it to ourselves so, at the very least, we can salvage our integrity.

Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."

The ONLY Peace Candidate Is Coming To Glens Falls

Organizational Meeting for Ralph Nader's Visit to Glens Falls

Rock Hill Cafe Tuesday April 1st at 7:00 pm (call Matt at 361-6278 for more information)

I have included you on this short list of people because I suspect that you may be interested in helping to set up and organize Ralph Nader's visit to Glens Falls at the end of April.

Nader is (currently) the only presidential candidate who will withdraw us from Iraq and get us Single Payer Health Care. He is also the only announced candidate who does not ever accept corporate donations.

If you are for single payer health care and are against the illegal occupation of Iraq, please come meet with us and consider helping out.

Whether you are an ardent supporter of Ralph's (like me) or just someone who has respect for him and values all of the work he has done to improve our country and our democracy, please come out to help make his visit here a wonderful event for him and for the entire progressive community.

Please let me know if you cannot come but are still interested in helping out.

Peace,

Matt

Supreme Court, Inc * must read *

This piece addresses the absolutely terrifying changes and restrictions applied to the workers' remedy (litigation) over the past twenty-five years. It explains who is mostly responsible for removing vital layers of protection from the working and middle classes, protection that was once provided by a Supreme Court that may have actually represented a broad spectrum of American viewpoints. Today's court is basically like our two-party system, a fake left and a fake right and behind which are nine very pro-corporate justices. This extremely well-written and researched piece explains how that has come to pass and who the key players are. Anyone who invests the time to read this will be awfully glad that they did.

Supreme Court, Inc.

By JEFFREY ROSEN

New York Times Magazine

March 16, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html?th&emc=th

Greenwich Now Has a GREEN Mayor!

Thanks are due to the Post-Star for covering the election of a third party candidate in a local village. David is a good friend of mine and a fellow Green whose inspiration to run was provided by two men who engage in independent politics all the way; Ralph Nader and Howie Hawkins.

Greenwich mayor ousted in village elections
By Melissa Guay and Alyson Martin

Current Greenwich Deputy Mayor Michael Schreiner knew he had an uphill battle in Tuesday's mayoral election, and it seems his assessment was accurate, as he lost the seat to the Open Government Party's David Doonan, who received 74 percent of the vote in a 351-voter turnout.

Doonan's running mates also secured the two trustee seats up for grabs, with Mary Catherine "Cathy" Brown and Lyle Hayes taking 28 percent and 24 percent of the vote, respectively.

Donald McKinley came in next with 15 percent, Elizabeth Davis with 14 percent, and Thomas Jordan with 11 percent of the vote.

Current Greenwich Mayor Chris McCormick came in last place among the candidates, totaling 8 percent of the vote.

Hudson Falls' election saw the Republican party sweep the race as its two trustee seats were filled by Republicans Michael Horrigan and James Gallagher.

Horrigan secured 40 percent of the vote, Gallagher took 35 percent and Democrat Robert Cook lost with 24 percent.

Those results do not include absentee ballots, which will be tallied today.

Current Hudson Falls Trustee John Barton, a Republican, ran for mayor unopposed, and won without incident.

Greenwich Village Justice John Pemrick and Hudson Falls Village Justice Michael Feeder ran for re-election unopposed and each secured another term.

Village of Cambridge trustee incumbents Mark Spiezio and Michael Wyatt kept their posts in the election for their two seats, garnering 38 percent and 34 percent of the vote, respectively.

Candidate Stephen Robertson received 28 percent. Christopher Callahan won his unopposed bid for the one-year trustee term.

The Whitehall village election saw Walter Sandford and Ken Bartholomew take the two trustee seats up for grabs, with 35 percent of the vote and 28 percent of the vote. Robert Carswell lost with 24 percent and Donna Spoor with 13 percent of the vote.

The Village of Lake George's one-year trustee term was won by John Root, who received 155 votes. Jim Behrmann received 84 votes from village residents.

Uncontested races

Argyle Mayor Edward Ellithorpe and trustees Harold Adams and Mark Haley each secured another term in their uncontested bids to remain in office, despite a handful of write-in votes opting for other candidates.

Village of Fort Ann Trustee Mary Lou Graves also secured another term in her uncontested race, with no write-in bids challenging the seat.

Salem Mayor Anne Dunigan and trustees Carol Rives and Paul Koloyluch ran for re-election unopposed, as did village Justice Francis Blanck, and all remain in their seats.

Corinth Mayor Bradley Winslow won re-election with 120 votes. Mitch Saunders, a write-in, received 35 votes.

Also re-elected were Corinth trustees Pauline Densmore, with 110 votes, and Leigh Lescault, also with 110 votes.

South Glens Falls saw Frank Jones running for trustee unopposed. Jones garnered 40 votes, and the village reported no write-in candidates.

Village of Schuylerville Green Party member Roger Sherman ran unopposed to fill the trustee position vacated when Glenn Decker resigned in October after having served only about seven months of a four-year term. Sherman won with 46 votes. A write-in candidate, Jim Miers, received five votes.

There were no elections this year in the villages of Victory, Granville and Fort Edward.

Sptizergate

Eliot Spitzer, a ruling class career politician, recently resigned because it was discovered that he was hiring prostitutes from an escort service and may have been involved in money laundering and/or using taxpayer money to fund his "addiction" (as Bill Clinton might call it).

I have four words for people who were surprised or outraged by this and they were all in the first sentence; RULING CLASS CAREER POLITICIAN.

Which part was not clearly understood?

And don't start with your "Sheriff of Wall Street" crap, either! Sheriffs don't pretend to slap the bad guys around, negotiate a slap on the wrist and then accept campaign donations at the other end.

All RULING CLASS CAREER POLITICIANS are very bad people who do not, in any way, represent working people. Wake up! Vote for real human beings.

If you have trouble at nay point in deciding which candidates are "real" and which ones aren't, please feel free to use my handy dandy test;

Do they have a little (d) or a little (r) after their names?

If the answer is yes, the odds are overwhelming that you have stumbled across one of these sad pathetic co-opted creatures that frequently masquerade as human beings. To be safe, simply do not vote for them or give them money (unless, of course, you are incredibly naive)! ;-)

It's Our Own Fault, No One Elses's!

(Published in "The Chronicle" March 6, 2008)

Dear Editor:

This past week, Ralph Nader announced his entry into the presidential race and caused quite the stir. Pundits used the word "spoiler" many times. Many unknown Poli-Sci professors had their day in the media spotlight opining that Ralph's Quixotic campaigns are largely irrelevant. Some editorialized about why someone with "no chance" of winning would even bother to run.

Lets just stop the propaganda for a minute. Gore ran a terrible campaign in 2000 and, even though he won, he refused to do anything about it (ignoring 57,000 stolen votes in Florida alone).

There were also six other candidates on that fateful Florida ballot who (using the "spoiler logic") cost Gore the election. Do you remember their names? No one does and they haven't been attacked and vilified like Ralph because he is the one that scares them silly! If Ralph Nader was ever allowed into (what passes nowadays for) presidential debates, he would totally destroy his opposition while pointing out the corporate interests each candidate is beholden to. When you are that effective, they have no choice but to ridicule you and call you names.

As for Nader's (extremely limited) chances of winning, that is completely our fault. We allow the corporate media to bestow millions of dollars of free coverage on the two-party candidates

and do nothing when they totally ignore third party candidates. Hillary and McCain and Obama will get media attention every single day this year until November and independent candidates

will get little or no coverage at all. Imagine how much stronger our democracy would be if everyone had to get equal coverage. Would independents fare better? You bet they would!

That said, it really does seem that we are simply incapable of voting in our own best interests. Even though we all complain about severe lack of choice, we also continue to vote Democrat or Republican in every election. A Republican friend of mine who does not support Nader's Quixotic presidential runs told me the other day that he was "kind of leaning toward Obama". I asked him why and he regurgitated some rhetoric about "hope and change". So, I asked him why, in a safe state, he would even consider voting for such a disappointment when he was perfectly free and clear to vote for an independent (like Ralph) who could further the cause of more and better issues and fairer ballot access? He looked at me blankly and that when I

remembered, once again, that very few New Yorkers understand that we live in a safe state.

If all Americans knew about safe states, we could likely wrestle control of our democracy away from its corporate sponsors in just one or two election cycles. New York is one of about forty states where the two-party candidates won't even bother to show up during the election cycle. They don't bother because they both know who will win already. If we ever realized this and voted accordingly, we would have a bloodless revolution overnight. If you've ever believed that the kind of democracy we learn about in school is actually possible, then you need to think outside the box and exercise your right to choose, wisely. Voting for and supporting Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez (or anyone other than the two-party candidates) is in all of our collective best interests. Food for thought. (votenader.org)

Sincerely,

Matt Funiciello

Fake Election 2008: MTBC - 1 Pundits - 0

On June 4th of 2007, I wrote a column opining about the corporate candidates for the 2008 presidential race. In that post, I predicted that John McCain would be the Republican nominee , that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee and that Barack Obama would end up as her VP.

I made the McCain prediction based on media coverage and that one was easy. When the mainstream media gives potential candidates almost weekly free national coverage of one kind or another, you know they are the chosen corporate candidates.

I made the Hillary prediction based on some of the same media reasons but also because she is very much like McCain on issues of war and peace and terrorism. The centrists in the Democratic Party always take over in every election cycle and choose a nominee who seems most like a Republican. I may not have predicted Barack Obama's current lead but thats largely irrelevant. I am absolutely certain that the "terror-fied" middle in the Democratic Party will not choose him and the two (supposedly opposing) camps will cut a deal (personally, I think they worked out a Pres/VP deal a LONG time ago). Interestingly, I just heard Hillary saying in one of her victory speeches that Obama might do well as her VP.

Many people had trouble believing my certainty about the candidates. Few believed that my predictions would come true (about McCain, particularly). Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson seemed like shoe-ins at the time. Many people were interested to hear my opinion but took it with a grain of salt as the so-called "experts" were all saying that McCain was out.

Yesterday, John McCain secured easily the Republican nomination. This would be a huge upset if those media pundits were ever called to the carpet. They almost universally predicted that he was all washed up, of no interest and that he had no shot. I knew that it was pre-ordained but prior to the New Hampshire primary, McCain was a loser who had run out of money and his campaign manager and many top aides had left his campaign.

I also predicted in that same column that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Party's candidate. That may have seemed logical at the time but since then my prescience has been severely tested as Barack Obama has won primary after primary and has gained a small lead in the delegate race. Many who follow the "Faux Progressive Pied Piper" have watched as his "Hope Machine" has rolled across the country and they think he is unstoppable. I told them all to just wait. As soon as the centrists in the party see that an unknown may actually be their candidate after 8 years of Gee Dubya, they will stream to the polling stations by the millions to ensure that their party choose "experience and security" over "hope and change".

Last night, Hillary narrowed Obama's lead and cemented her underdog status within the party by winning the bellweather states of Texas and Ohio. It is widely thought that her ads questioning Obama's lack of experience had a lot to do with this. Again, this is true because Obama is an unknown commodity and the party's centrists will always demand a vetted, seasoned corporate puppet so that there will be NO surprises. I am absolutely POSITIVE that Hillary will "win" as I predicted (I put quotation marks around the word "win" because you can't really "win" anything that is totally rigged from the get go).

If big mainstream media ever want a source that can give them a clue about what is actually going on around them, all they need do is check out MTBC occasionally. ;-)

The Hermit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM9aQN9CdCI

Check out this youtube video. The guy's name is Davis Fleetwood (aka The Hermit). In this video, he compares the mainstream presidential candidates to food. Fleetwood's youtube channel is "nocureforthat.com". He has literally hundreds of videos posted, most of which are quite funny, most of which are very insightful. He worked for Denis Kucinich for about ten years. Accumulated wisdom with a softer-edged Bill Hicks style delivery. Don't miss out.