"Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."
~ Rosa Luxemburg.
~ Rosa Luxemburg.
If you're going to waste your time voting tomorrow, here are a few links for you to read and consider.
First, Noam Chomsky has endorsed Green Party candidates Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente:
Cynthia McKinney today expressed her appreciation for the support of Professor Noam Chomsky, noted linguist tenured at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In private emails with campaign supporters this week, the respected social critic noted that he had voted Green in 2004, and would be voting for the party ticket next Tuesday, as well.
"I find it very gratifying that our campaign has garnered the support and vote of such an eminent thinker and noted critic of our nation's foreign policy," said Ms. McKinney, Green Party nominee for President of the United States. "I share Professor Chomsky's analysis that our vote is best invested in building an institution which will survive the close of the polls next Tuesday."
The Green Party platform in a nutshell:
"Millions of Americans who favor the Green Party's positions on the wars, health care, global warming, and other important issues plan to vote for Barack Obama, who doesn't share their views. It's not enough just to defeat John McCain and the GOP agenda," said Green vice presidential candidate Rosa Clemente.
"Democrats have retreated over and over and voted for Bush-Cheney policies -- war funding, the unconstitutional US Patriotic Act, telecomm immunity, corporate handouts and taxbreaks, the death penalty, record incarceration rates, and a $700 billion Wall Street bailout that doesn't help working Americans. The only way to reverse the dangerous direction of US politics is to build a real opposition party. Voting for Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente will strengthen a party that's dedicated to ecological, antiwar, and truly democratic values and doesn't take money and orders from corporations," Ms. Clemente added.
More at the Green Party homepage.
Twelve reasons to reject Obama and vote any other way at all:
1. Obama publicly and repeatedly promises to escalate the US military intervention in Afghanistan, increasing the number of US troops, expanding their operations and engaging in systematic cross-border attacks. In other words, Obama is a greater warmonger than Bush.
2. Obama publicly has declared that his regime will extend the ‘war against terrorism’ by systematic, large-scale ground and air attacks on Pakistan, thus escalating the war to include villages, towns and cities deemed sympathetic to the Afghan resistance.
3. Obama opposes the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq in favor of redeployment; the relocation of US troops from combat zones to training and logistical positions, contingent on the military capability of the Iraqi Army to defeat the resistance. Obama opposes a clearly defined deadline to withdraw US forces from Iraq because US troops in Iraq are essential to pursuing his overall policies in the Middle East, which include military confrontations with Iran, Syria and Southern Lebanon.
4. Obama has declared his unconditional support for the position of the pro-Israel Lobby and the colonial expansionist and bellicose policies of the Jewish state. He has promised to back Israeli military attacks whatever the cost to the US. His abject servility to Israel was evident in his speech at the annual AIPAC conference in Washington 2008. Top advisers who have long and notorious links to the top echelons of the principle Zionist propaganda mills and the Presidents of the Leading Jewish American Organizations wrote the speech and formulate his Middle East policy.
5. Obama has promised to attack Iran if it continues to process uranium for its nuclear programs. Twice, just weeks before the elections, Obama’s running mate Joseph Biden spelled out a series of ‘points of conflict’ (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia and North Korea) emphasizing that Obama ‘would respond forcefully’. Obama’s senior Middle East advisers include leading Zionists like Dennis Ross, closely linked to the ‘Bipartisan Policy Center’, which published a report serving as a blueprint for war with Iran. Obama’s proposed offer to negotiate with Iran is little more than a pretext for issuing an ultimatum to Iran to surrender its sovereignty or face massive military assault.
6. Obama unconditionally supports Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians and the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the leading cause of Middle East hostility, warfare and the discredit of US policy in the region. With three dozen Israel-Firsters among his leading campaign organizers, top policy advisers, speech writers and among the likely candidates for cabinet positions, there is virtually no hope of ‘influencing from within’ or ‘applying popular pressure’ to change Obama’s slavish submission to the Zionist Power Configuration. By supporting Obama, the “progressive intellectuals” are, in effect, allies of his Zionist mentors.
7. On the domestic front, Obama’s key economic advisers have impeccable Wall Street credentials. He gave unquestioning and immediate endorsement to Treasury Secretary Paulson’s $700 billion dollar taxpayer bailout of the richest investment banks in the US. Obama has failed to challenge Paulson or the banks over the use of Federal funds for buyouts and acquisitions instead of loans and credit to producers and homeowners. Obama’s backing of Paulson and the Wall Street bailout is matched by his meager proposals to suspend mortgage foreclosures for a three-month period, pending re-negotiations of interest payments. Obama proposes to escalate transfers of government funds to mismanaged financial institutions and bankrupt capitalist corporations, in efforts to save failed capitalism rather than pursue any new large-scale, long-term public investment programs which will generate well-paid employment for workers.
8. Obama’s economic team has openly declared their embrace and practice of ‘free market’ ideology and opposition to any effort to engage in large-scale injections of government funds in publicly-owned productive activity and social services in the face of wide-spread private sector failure, corruption and collapse.
9. Obama embraces failed private sector health plans, run and controlled by corporate insurance companies, conservative medical and hospital associations and Big Pharma. He publicly rejects a universal national health program modeled after the successful Federal Medicare program in favor of inefficient, state-subsidized private for profit plans that are costly and beyond the means of over one third of US families.
10. Obama is and continues to be an advocate for Big Agro and its highly subsidized and profitable ethanol program, which has increased food prices for millions in the US and for hundreds of millions in the world.
11. Obama advocates continuing the criminal embargo on Cuba, hostile confrontation with Venezuela’s populist President Chavez and other Latin American reformers and the duplicitous policy of promoting protectionism at home and free market access to Latin America. His key policy advicers on Latin America propose cosmetic changes in style and diplomacy but unrelenting support for re-asserting US hegemony.
12. Obama has not proposed, nor do his free market advisers and billionaire financial backers envision, any comprehensive plan or strategy to get us out of the deepening recession. On the contrary, the course of piecemeal measures presented by Obama are internally inconsistent: Fiscal austerity is incompatible with job creation; bailing out Wall Street drains funds from productive investment; and pursuing new wars undermine domestic recovery.
More on the Greens, especially for those who want to see women holding the highest political office in the US--I mean, it was that whole sexism argument that boosted Clinton and Palin, right?
The Green Party Presidential ticket of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente brings something special and unprecedented to U.S. politics. Not only are they the first all women-of-color ticket for President and Vice President with ballot access in most states. These women take racial justice seriously, and have made strides to put gender at the center of a progressive agenda. For these two, it's more than skin deep.
[ . . . ]
While it's easy to recognize that corporate media has excluded McKinney and Clemente from their election coverage, progressive and liberal media have also contributed to the blackout on these women. The Daily Show's election website, Indecision2008.com, prominently tracks Nader and minor (male) conservative candidates, such as Ron Paul and libertarian Bob Barr – but not McKinney. Perhaps not surprising from a male-dominated show that dismisses Palin as a VPILF?
[ . . . ]
A few feminist, and gender-conscious progressive sites have offered the women a nod. But while the National Organization for Women has acknowledged Palin's candidacy as historic, it has failed to mention the Green Party's groundbreaking women-of-color ticket – at all.
And then there's the argument of either vote independent or boycott:
Most progressives voting for Obama do so out of their partial blindness regarding the crimes of the American state; they see all the crimes commissioned and executed by the Republicans, but if a Democrat vote-getting team ransacked their very neighborhoods, doing drive-by's at high noon, with 'Vote Democrat' signs on their SUVs, they would most likely not see it. If a Democratic candidate is not too pretty, their answer is simple: it is a vote against Republicans. When pushed for something more positive, more substantial, lacking anything to offer, they argue that Obama-Biden ticket is less scary than McCain-Palin, and so we must make sure they get elected.
The other point they make is that a vote for Obama is a slap in the face of racism. To think that one is fighting racism while voting for a candidate that upholds every racist element of the structures of imperialism is to venture into political oblivion.
Such arguments can only come from people who do nothing whatsoever to change the really existing political life of the U.S. in between presidential elections. But, of course, every four years they must express some political recommendation of sorts, and out of desperate frustration, due to seeing the political field as only what the system presents (i.e., due to the fact that they do not act as subjective agencies), they can only decide which system-provided choice is less harmful. This is the gist of their dilemma.
So long as the left in the U.S. does not create its own independent institutions, so long as there is no institutional alternative that can channel people's grievances, and so long as there is no political party representing the working classes along a socialist outlook, the current balance of forces will continue to work increasingly against the working people and those interested in a more just society, and no matter how learned we might be, we will end up supporting the 'lesser' of the two evil parties dominating the people; in other words, supporting the imperial system.
[ . . . ]
In lieu of a disclaimer, I must say that I respect anybody who votes for Nader or McKinney as a way of registering their opposition to the 'two party' monopoly. I have argued in previous articles that, IF you think by voting you can bring change, then know that the only change worth voting for is the kind presented in the platforms of the independent candidates. Also, voting for independent candidates as a way of registering your support for people who are actually addressing our problems is a way of getting a real tally of how many people actually oppose the establishment candidates and support real change.
[ . . . ]
I come from the so-called Third World, in which boycotting elections is a political tool the masses, and the parties that stand with them, employ with good effect. Imran Khan's party (Insaf) in Pakistan, for example, boycotted the last elections there, and it was an organized message sent to the establishment that the rulers would not get a stamp of approval from the real opposition. This, far from re-creating 'apathy' or 'conceding' the elections, actually makes governments nervous. In Iran, for another example, you are required to take your birth certificate with you when you vote, so the authorities can stamp it, so they can see who has not participated, so they can do onto you what they will, should you have to deal with the authorities at some point.
So, boycott is actually a very powerful political tool, because it gives political voice to those who refuse to participate. Simply sitting at home and not announcing that you are boycotting is a different matter. Boycott is a political move, with a long-term vision in mind.
Of course, we already know what a vote for Demopublicans or Republicrats means for the situation of Kurds in Turkey. It means business as usual, as it has been since 1923. It means business as usual in the bullshit Global War on Terror, Incorporated. In fact, a vote for the Demopublicans/Republicrats--one in the same party, actually--means a maintenance of the status quo no matter what the issue.
If you haven't done it already, it's time to think long and hard about what you're going to do tomorrow if you are eligible to vote in the US.