Jen's Green Journal

I've been reading a lot of frustrations at the Dems in congress on blogs these day. I saw a post on One Utah tonight about how the Dems aren't willing to do what it takes to get us out of Iraq. I read on deadbeatwriter's blog her frustrations with the similar positions that the Dems have to Repubs and the secret deals the Dems are making with the White House.

The momentum that swept the Dems to the majority last November is going to evaporate by the next election if they don't get to work and start to act like an opposition party to the Repubs.

I heard a statistic this past weekend that I think is relevent here. According to Dan Jones, 49% of Utahns are Repub, 18% are Dem, and 33% are independent. That 33% is very telling. It means that there's a growing number of people who don't feel represented by either party.

On the nationaly level, the Dems keep trying to paint themselves as an opposition party to the Repubs, but as the years go by they look more and more like the Repubs. If you are craving the color yellow and the only choices you are given are black and charcoal grey, how long before you stop picking the charcoal (just 'cuz it's slightly closer to what you want) and insist that you get a yellow option or you aren't playing anymore?

The sad thing is that the Dems do have a few really good people playing on their team. But those are the people who will get marginalized by the national party. Case in point: Dennis Kucinich. He's by far the best Dem that's running for president, but you likely haven't even heard that he's running; and the nomination will most likely go to Hillary Clinton -- who's probably the most center to right of any of the Dems running for president.

From Kucinich's website:

"End Fake Politics . . .

The American people want this war to end and the troops to be brought home. Why then is this house preparing to capitulate to the Bush White house and let the war continue?

We learned today that the democratic compromise with President Bush is to make withdrawal timetables "non-binding" (meaningless). We have the power to end the occupation now. It is time support our troops by bringing them home by enacting HR1234, the most comprehensive plan to secure Iraq and stabilize the region.

US presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency. High level officials estimate the HR1234 transition of US, out international peace keeping and security forces in, is possible within three months of Congress cutting funds."

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
 - George Bernard Shaw

An Unreasonable Man starts March 30 at the Salt Lake Film Society. I saw this documentary about Ralph Nader during the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and I reviewed it at that time. Here are some highlights of the film that I chose from that review:

The film covered a variety of perspectives. Those who criticized Nader's run (including those who had formerly worked with Nader -- Nader's Raiders) and those who felt that it was important for him to run.

The film is also very inspiring. Ralph Nader has accomplished more to make this country a better place as a citizen than most politicians could ever dream of in office. That accomplishment came at a price: long work hours that made a personal life difficult. Nader never married, and the film suggested that he didn't have time for a girlfriend (or boyfriend? don't want to assume sexual preference.) But we can thank Nader for so many things that many people probably aren't even aware that we have because of Nader.

My biggest criticism of the film is that it didn't cover any of the controversy and splitting within the Green Party in 2004 over Nader's decision to run a second time. The film seemed incomplete without those events and conversations. The filmmakers were present at the screening and did a Q&A afterward and I regret that I didn't ask them about that while I had the chance. I was still trying to absorb all that I had seen -- there was a lot of perspectives and information presented and the omission didn't occur to me until about half an hour after the film finished.

Lisa Viola, who reviewed the film for the 2006 Sundance Film Festival catalog wrote this:

“The name Ralph Nader sparks fiery debate among people across the country. To some,  he is an icon of rare idealism, while others see him simply as the political spoiler of the last two elections. No matter what you think of the man, the fact remains that he is a tireless crusader.

Hailing from modest means in small-town Conneticut without a family pedigree, Nader rose to prominence during the 70s as a consumer rights activist. Over his lengthy career, he has impacted the public in countless ways. He has saved thousands of lives by initiating legislation ranging from seat-belt mandates for cars to food safety regulations. This well-documented film recounts his early days going up against General Motors and inspiring young liberal minds, who adopted the name “Nader’s Raiders” to help fight unregulated corporations.

This exhaustive and potentially charged film by Henriette Mantel and Stephen Skrovan includes well-placed archival footage and newly shot interviews with Nader himself. Numerous extended interviews  with former colleagues, supporters, and family members allow the riveting, dramatic story to unfold. An Unreasonable Man skillfully dissects the life and work of an unparalleled human being. The film begs the question, when do we speak for what is right without compromise and when do we surrender one battle for the sake of the war? America, it’s your turn to vote.”

Salt Lake Film Society Screening Times (doesn't show 3/30 and beyond times yet)
Film trailer
metacritic
Official website

Photo of Ralph Becker that I snapped at an ice cream party before Mayor Rocky Anderson's Global Warming presentation last July.

I haven't yet decided who I want to support for mayor of Salt Lake City, but I do like a lot of what I had to hear from Ralph Becker, who held a blogger's reception this evening at his campaign headquarters downtown. I was Ralph's constituent until 9 months ago, and I always thought he was a great representative in the Utah Legislature. He's the guy that always pushed for ethical reforms, like requiring the legislators to report all gifts they received from lobbyists.

We discussed a lot of different issues, from campaign strategies to what we thought would make Salt Lake City a great place to live. Some discussion on technology and adding free wireless internet access to more locations around the city, the predictable discussion on Utah's liquor laws, making downtown and Salt Lake City more walkable and livable. I appreciate Ralph Becker's commitment to the environment and education, and he was receptive to my suggestions to address the daycare situation in Salt Lake City, which I feel is very important if we want to keep families living here rather than moving to Sandy and places where daycare is easier to find.

I'm excited to follow this campaign.

About 15 bloggers were in attendance, some who I've already met, like Cliff from One Utah and Ethan from SLC Spin. I met some other bloggers from the Utah blogosphere that I only knew through their blogs, like Bob from The World According to Me, Rob from the Utah Amicus and "Oldenburg" from The Third Avenue. Some bloggers left before I had a chance to meet them and find out what blogs they write.



Cliff Lyon (left) makes a point at Ralph Becker's (center) blogger reception

 

It's now official. As an anti-war, pro-peace person, I will not be able to support Hillary, as much as I'd like to see a woman president.

Back in March of 2003, just a couple of weeks before the war started, I was fortunate to be involved in the Code Pink events in Washington D.C. About 50 us were able to meet with Hillary Clinton to express our views of the war.

Thanks to Kirsten Michel, who filmed the meeting (about 16 minutes), I'm able to post the video on this blog. It's a good reminder that just because someone is a Democrat, they don't always have progressive values.

(Thank you to Kirsten Michel for the video, and thanks to my friends Rex and Rene who gave me their frequent flyer miles so that I could attend these events)

Bryan at the "This Divided State" blog shares my frustrations with Democratic politicians. He wrote a great post with suggestions for those Democrats:

"1) Offer viable alternatives to Bush policies that you disagree with, particularly the war. Get the entire party behind a reasonable and strategic solution to Bush's tentpole issues and take that to the American people. If I hear one more Democratic Strategist say, "It's not our job to offer alternative solutions, we're the minority party," I'm going to pull my hair out and never vote for another Democratic Candidate again. I'll go completely third party. Saying you don't need to offer solutions because you're the minority party is a good way of saying that you plan on staying the minority party."

More common sense solutions for the Dems at http://thisdividedstate.blogspot.com/2006/03/message-to-democrats.html

Yesterday LaVarr Webb of Utah Policy Daily, which self describes as, "Where political junkies get their daily fix", wrote about how "angry" liberals were the best gift that a beleaguerd Republican Party could hope for.

"Democrats face a big problem because it is Bush-hating, anti-war activists like MoveOn.org, George Soros, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and liberal bloggers like Daily Kos that are providing most of the intellectual heft of the Democratic Party. These guys can fire up the liberal base, raise scads of money, generate armies of grassroots workers, and create enthusiasm and a sense of mission."

The major flaw in his logic is that the angry talking heads chase away voters. If that were true, the Republican Party would have self-destructed beginning in the 90s with all the angry "conservatives" dominating the airwaves and tv. Angry conservative talking-heads like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh still dominate popular culture, despite in-roads by Air America and Michael Moore.

I believe Democrats are losing votes for at least one good reason. The Democratic Party as a whole is failing in it's role as an opposition party. I don't know if that's because some of the same big corporate donors are bankrolling both parties, or that the DNC believes it can capture more voters by moving further to the right, but we've seen that time after time when Republicans attempt to pass bad legislation, many Democrats roll over and play dead. Those that don't automatically roll over usually get bullied by Republican law makers until they do.

Pro-peace liberals (which are the majority of us) really have no one to vote for, unless they are married to voting the lesser of evils, which many aren't. Kerry and Dean were pro-occupation and many Democrats voted to give Bush the war powers he's abused, like Hillary Clinton. In the last election liberals had the choice of voting for the continued war and occupation with a leader that believes that God speaks to him, or continued war and occupation with a leader that we might be able to convince to get us out of Iraq. Not exactly inspiring to many of us, and it's no wonder that many liberals stayed home. Michael Moore switched to lesser of the evils this past election to support Kerry, after supporting pro-peace Nader in 2000.

Mr. Webb does make one valid point, and that's how liberals tend to fight each other. Us libbies aren't good in marching lock-step with one ideology the way the cons do. In many ways that can be a good thing, but it doesn't always lead to poltical power. It can also misdirect a lot of energy that could channeled in to political races. For example, in the 2004 election, Dems were spending an awful lot of energy trying to convince liberals that a vote for Nader or the Green Party's David Cobb was a vote for Bush, or filing lawsuits against Nader in several states to keep him off the ballot, rather than putting all that energy into promoting a pro-peace Dem that would have generated a lot more support from their base than Kerry did.

I see a big disconnect between those who run as Democrats and those who vote for them -- most people that vote for Democrats are environmentally conscious, peace-loving, and equality and justice minded people. Most Democrat politicians sell them out when in office. This will continue to happen until people are willing to run for office to do what is right, and not to keep getting re-elected. Term limits would help weed out a bit of this tendency, and it would be nice if our elections were publicly funded so that those willing to run for the right reasons can afford to. I also beleive that strong third parties will help to keep the Democratic politicians honest.

As for being angry, us "wild-eyed" liberals, as Mr. Webb calls us, have a lot of good reasons for being angry. Liberals get angry when lots and lots of innocent people are killed by violence, when our planet and by extension our health is being trashed for the economic benefit of a few, when our constitution and our civil rights are subverted because we don't agree with the guy in office, when we are being forced into marching lock-step with one ideology that says that: gays are bad, women's primary role in life it to make babies, and doggone it, God likes us better than anybody else so we have a right to dominate everyone else on the planet.

There's going to be an evening honoring Senator Hatch's 30 years of service tomorrow evening.

Senator Hatch will be 72 years old in March, and if he wins re-election, he'll be in office until the age of 78. Most companies expect their employees to retire at 62, 65 or 67, and many encourage it. I don't have a problem with people continuing their careers past the usual retirement age, but I think it's time for Hatch to retire so that  someone else has a chance. I'm not sure if the Republicans will be running anyone against Hatch in a primary, but there are two other options: Democrat Pete Ashdown and Green Julian Hatch. If Orrin retired he'd be able to devote more of his time to his song writing and may actually be able to improve it. Let's give him that opportunity.

Back in August when Bush visited our state, he rode in a limo with Hatch to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention. In response to the thousands of Utahns that were protesting Bush's visit, he honored us  with naming us "nutcakes." The nutcakes will respond at Hatch's party tomorrow night with a rally -- the perfect time to let Orrin know that you don't approve of his approval of Bush's illegal wire tapping or of his many other policies and votes. More info on the Nutcakes rally can be found here.

Sundance is over for 2006. I'm curious to see which films from this year's festival will be available either in the theatres and/or on DVD.

One I hope to see come out to wide release is the film I saw at the festival this past Saturday, An Unreasonable Man. The Sundance Film Guide describes the film this way:

“The name Ralph Nade sparks fiery debate among people across the country. To some,  he is an icon of rare idealism, while others see him simply as the political spoiler of the last two elections. No matter what you think of the man, the fact remains that he is a tireless crusader.

Hailing from modest means in small-town Conneticut without a family pedigree, Nader rose to prominence during the 70s as a consumer rights activist. Over his lengthy career, he has impacted the public in countless ways. He has saved thousands of lives by initiating legislation ranging from seat-belt mandates for cars to food safety regulations. This well-documented film recounts his early days going up against General Motors and inspiring young liberal minds, who adopted the name “Nader’s Raiders” to help fight unregulated corporations.

This exhaustive and potentially charged film by Henriette Mantel and Stephen Skrovan includes well-placed archival footage and newly shot interviews with Nader himself. Numerous extended interviews  with former colleagues, supporters, and family members allow the riveting, dramatic story to unfold. An Unreasonable Man skillfully dissects the life and work of an unparalleled human being. The film begs the question, when do we speak for what is right without compromise and when do we surrender one battle for the sake of the war? America, it’s your turn to vote.”-Lisa Viola

My biggest criticism of the film is that it didn't cover any of the controversy and splitting within the Green Party in 2004 over Nader's decision to run a second time. The film seemed incomplete without those events and conversations. The filmmakers were present at the screening and did a Q&A afterward and I regret that I didn't ask them about that while I had the chance. I was still trying to absorb all that I had seen -- there was a lot of perspectives and information presented and the omission didn't occur to me until about half an hour after the film finished.

The film covered a variety of perspectives. Those who criticized Nader's run (including those who had formerly worked with Nader -- Nader's Raiders) and those who felt that it was important for him to run.

The film is also very inspiring. Ralph Nader has accomplished more to make this country a better place as a citizen than most politicians could ever dream of in office. That accomplishment came at a price: long work hours that made a personal life difficult. Nader never married, and the film suggested that he didn't have time for a girlfriend (or boyfriend? don't want to assume sexual preference.) But we can thank Nader for so many things that many people probably aren't even aware that we have because of Nader.

( Personal thoughts on Nader, for those who care. )

The title of the film comes from the quote from George Bernard Shaw which sums up the film nicely:

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

 

Going to a Sundance film is a little like gambling with good odds. I've seen a few stinkers, but most have been really good. In Salt Lake City, it's also interesting to see which screenings the filmmakers (and possibly some cast and crew) will end up attending (they always have shown up at the Park City screenings I have attended). I'd say you have a 75% chance of seeing something great, and if you go to a film screening in Salt Lake, probably a 75% chance of getting a question and anwer period, or some other kind of interaction, with the film's director.

Continuing on with Sundance Film Festival films for political junkies, activists, progressives and more.

Sundance Sunday in Salt Lake City (Jan. 22) Film Tags ~ environment, political divide, GLBT issues, electoral politics, social justice, women's issues, immigration ~

Clear Cut: The Story of Philomath, Oregon {Spectrum} Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center (138 W. 300 S.) 12:30 pm (my recom. wait list time 11:00)
From the film guide: " . . .As the fading lumber industry gave way to new hig-tech industries, Philomath found itself in flux, with old and new ways of life dividing residents. As one of the descendants in charge of the Clemens Foundation, Steve Lowther was determined to change what he felt was a "politically correct" (read "antilogging") curriculum and lack of morals among students. He pressed the school board to stop the liberal bias that was allegedly overrunning the school's administration. What unfurled was a drag-out fight - under intense national media scrutiny - involving the future of the foundation, with the students caught in the middle." - Lisa Viola

Shorts Program II {Shorts Program} Broadway Theatre (300 S. just east of State Street) 3:00 pm (my recom. wait list time 1:15 - 1:30)  Shorts Programs are some of my favorites at Sundance.
From the film guide: " From around the world, these documentaries captivate us with insightful glimpses into arenas where people can realize their inner strength. Women from a South African township illuminate their plight with courage, beauty, and hope. All-American men share their fears of both living and dying. A transgendered son learns how to connect to the land around him through a generous and loving father, and an 80-something-year-old councilwoman tells us and everyone around her hoe the world of voting should work in America." - Roberta Monroe and Mike Plante
Film shorts titles: Mind Over Matter; No Umbrella --Election Day in the City; Range; Rape for Who I Am; Undressing My Mother.

Thin {Documentary} Broadway Theatre (300 S. just east of State Street) 3:45 pm (my recom. wait list time 2:00 - 2:15}
From the film guide: "Eating disorders have reached epidemic levels in America -- yet only recently have they been recognized as serious mental illnesses. One in seven people with anorexia nervosa will die, making htis the deadliest of all psychiatric diagnoses. With Thin, Lauren Greenfield, a photographer acclaimed for illuminating women's and society's attitudes toward the female body, gains unprecedented access to a Florida residential treatment center to observe four anorexic women, aged 15 to 30, struggling to recover over a six-month period . . ." - Caroline Libresco

Wild Tigers I Have Known {Frontier} Broadway Theatre (300 S. just east of State Street) 4:30 pm (my recom. wait list time 2:45 - 3:00}
From the film guide: "Logan, soft spoken, lonely, and 13 years old, is a boy with a cruch. unlike his equally lonely friend Joey,  who obsesses over the seual exploits of the slightly older postpubescent boys, Logan is fixated ont he boys themselves, particularly Rodeo Walker. Rodeo is the only one of the group of cool kids who shows any friendliness towar Logan, meaning he doesn't go out of his way to make Logan's life miserable. As Logan and Rodeo strike up a mismatched friendship, the kind that only works on walks deep into the forest when no one else is around, Logan's infatuation with Rodeo inspires him to create a new persona named Leah. Leah and Rodeo grow close through whispered late-night phone calls, and when Leah agrees to meet Rodeo face to face, it is Logan who must finally prove that he can ask for what he so achingly wants." - Matt Anderson

Crossing Arizona {Documentary} Broadway Theatre (300 S. just east of State Street) 6:00 pm (my recom. wait list time 4:15 - 4:30)
From the film guide:"Tension along the Mexican/American border is one of the most rapidly escalating issues int he country today. Joseph Mathew's intimate and invaluably comprehensive documentary, Crossing Arizona, offers a balanced and up-to-the-minute look at the current crisis as it is developin at its hottest point -- the Arizona/Sonor border.
Heightened security along the Texas and California borders funnels and estimated 4,500 undocumented migrants every day through the deadliest landscape in the country -- Arizona's Sonora desert. The journey can take four days on foot, and the death toll is rapidly mounting. Crossers who survive oftern tap the resources of citizens and property owners in the area, triggering a range of impassioned responses and conflicted feelings about human rights, culture, class, and national security." - Shari Frilot

Thank You for Smoking {Premiers}, Tower Theatre (900 S. just west of 900 E.) 9:00 pm (my recom. wait list time 7:15 - 7:30, but this is a premier, so earlier the better)
From the film guide: " . . .Thank You for Smoking is nearly perfect in three ways:
First-- premise. Nick Naylor, fast-thinking master of media manipulation, is tapped to turn the tide of animosity away from the tabacco industry. Nick can talk his way in or out of anything, but this time he pulls out the big gun -- Hollywood.
Second-- pace. Reitman's script is crisp and tight. Every joke and sight gag lands a punch. This hard-hitting satire takes us right to the edge but never over. Setups take place in real-world situations just close enough to scare us into laughter.
Third-- casting. The whole ensemble, led by Aaron Ekhart with his smug good looks, could not be better. Maria Bello's liquor lobbiest (jk-lobbyist?) and David Koechner's gun advocate complete the mod squad of merhants-of-death who meet each week to brag about the spin they have unleashed."- John Cooper

Shorts Program V {Shorts Program}, Broadway Theatre (300 S. just east of State Street) 10:30 pm (my recom. wait list time 8:45 - 9:15)
From the film guide: "Whether about victims, perpetrators, or systems, these short films are sure to provoke furies of discussion and questions. Oh, and a film about how karaoke cand save the world if we let it." - Mike Plante and Roberta Munroe
Film titles: Aruba; Before Dawn; The Beginning of the End; Exoticore; Flesh; Hold-Up; La Muerta Es Pequena; One Sung Hero.

Much as I'd love to see a woman president, I agree with Molly -- I won't support or vote for Senator Hillary Clinton.

"Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can."

Wonder if Molly is planning on voting Green next election?

There was a recent discussion about voting for women on the feminist community here on LiveJournal. I got out of the discussion that feminists wouldn't just vote for a woman just because she's a woman. The thread is called, "What if Clinton Runs?"

I wrote recently about my brief personal experience with Senator Clinton as one of the reasons that I don't think that Senator Clinton would be a good president.

I'm stealing this story from </b></a> Greens Show 1/4 Win Rate in 2005

Not bad for a political party still in it's childhood. Not bad for a political party that doesn't accept donations from PACs and has a much lower personal donation limit that the corporate parties. Not bad for a political party dealing with the growing pains of in-fighting and splits.

I think we should call the Green Party, "The Little Party That Could".

Just received this info in an email:

"THIS DIVIDED STATE"... Michael Moore comes to Utah, some Mormons try to kill him, a battle of free speech between red and blue.

For a short time only, the first 26 minutes of this controversial film will be available to watch or download FOR FREE on the website, http://www.thisdividedstate.com

( more info )

Locally you can also purchase "This Divided State" at: Free Speech Zone 2144 S Highland Drive in Sugarhouse

(A note of interest, some of us Radical Cheerleaders make a very brief appearance in the film.)

It's kind of funny that several media outlets around the country and a couple of international ones have picked up on the ( Julian ) Hatch vs. ( Orrin ) Hatch story, but as of today only a couple of news stations have picked it up here in Utah. I think a press release went out today to the local papers, let's see if they have anything by tomorrow . . .

Medea Benjamin is an amazing woman. She has been at the forefront of the anti-war movement and hasn't been afraid to put herself anywhere that she might get across her message. Medea ran as a Green candidate for the Senate in California in 2000, and there have been folks tossing out her name to possibly run as the GPUS candidate for president or to run for congress against Pelosi.

There are some Greens giving Medea Benjamin a bad rap. She is accused of being a traitor to the Green Party, and I've been writing to various comments in Ken Sain's blog in defense of Medea. Some of those comments get lost as the posts drop off the front page, and I feel tempted to keep commenting to new accusations.

So in this post I will post some of my past defenses and then I'll just link to it when I need to comment to more "Medea is a Green Party Traitor" posts/comments. I'm perfectly willing to learn if I have it wrong, but so far I haven't seen anything from or about Medea that deserves the derision I'm seeing from some Greens.

The following comment showed up in Ken Sain's post "Staw Poll Surprise" :

"Medea Benjamin is a traitor…pure and simple. She was an apologist for Kerry and betrayed the anti-war movement. She is a professional liberal whose sole concern is maintaining her class status as a “leader” of the “movement”. The Green Party should stay as far away as possible from people like her. "

Here's my response:

I heartily disagree and I feel that I need to bring up an important point here regarding Medea Benjamin.

When I first saw Medea’s statement last year asking anti-war folks to vote for Kerry in swing states and David Cobb in all other states, I was at first angry, feeling like she was betraying the party.

After a couple of days [of contemplation] had passed, I saw it differently.

I met Medea in D.C. in March of 2003 during the Code Pink events before the war. I was right next to her as she passionately and eloquently finagled a meeting between us Code Pink women and Hillary Clinton with Hillary’s chief of staff. I heard her speak of her visits to Iraq and the people she met there both before and after the war started.

I’m giving this background because it helps to explain why I think she did what she did. I believe she placed more importance on the small possibility that Kerry (with plenty of pressure from the anti-war folks) would end the Iraq war than the importance that Green Party might have a few thousand more votes.

I think she was thinking of the people she met in Iraq. I know that if I had the choice I mentioned above, I would probably choose the same. I would be desperate to save as many lives as possible, thinking that some of the people I had met might be spared if there was a candidate in the White House that just might be willing to listen to reason, if that message of reason was sent loud and clear enough. We all know that Bush was and is completely unreasonable. I’m pretty sure that I felt that Kerry (as horrible as he was) was a better option than Bush by the overwhelming depression I felt on the day after election day. I did vote for David Cobb with a clear conscience because Utah is not a swing state. Not sure what I would have done in a swing state, but with peoples’ lives and tremendous human suffering on the line, I may have made a different decision.

Sometimes you make political sacrifices to do the greater good, and I believe that about Medea. In fact, if you can put yourself in an Iraqi shoes, our internal party squabbling over the purity of our greeness vs. someone else’s greeness seems pretty silly.

I’m not trying to be rude here or pick a fight — I just think this is something that the Greens who feel betrayed by her may not have considered.

I’d vote for Medea if I had the opportunity. She’s an amazing woman.

________________

I added a little later:

This article just after election day last year http://www.progressive.org/mag_lizdbenjamin kind of says what I’m trying to say in my comments above. I also liked this little bit:

“Q: You were arrested at the Democratic National Convention and at the Republican National Convention this year. Why do you keep getting arrested?

Benjamin: I keep getting arrested because they keep arresting me. I felt that the issue of the war had to be brought up at both the Democratic and Republican conventions in any way we could. That’s why my efforts to get onto the floors of those conventions with banners and with words speaking against the war were absolutely critical. I didn’t agree with people who said, “Give the Democrats their space, and we’ll push Kerry after the election.” I always thought it was critical to push Kerry during the campaign.

Getting arrested is never a goal, it’s a consequence–sometimes a necessary consequence. We shouldn’t be afraid of speaking out and putting ourselves at risk, even if it means getting arrested. With four more years of the Bush Administration, many more of us are going to get arrested. We are going to have to be very visible and very loud, speaking up against the assaults on our civil liberties, our environment, our right to choice, and for our passionate desire to relate to the rest of the world not through bombs and bullets and Bradley fighting vehicles, but through compassion and love and kindness.”

___________________

Another comment was made a few months back to Ken's post "Tulsa:2008" :

"Medea folded into the Democratic camp last time, letting Kerry off the hook for being pro-war. Such a waste of a very talented individual…
Say NO to Medea!"

My response:

That’s a kind of black and white statement to a strategy she endorsed with lots of shades of grey. While I didn’t agree with her strategy, I do know that Medea lives the Key Values. Her main focus since 2002 has been to stop the Iraq War (even before it began), and I think that her recommended strategy was consistent with her anti-war efforts. She has been to Iraq on several occasions now, and I’m sure after meeting with Iraqis who are suffering, she would much rather focus on any strategy that might get the US out of there rather than get involved in the arguments over which nominee is more Green.

 

It's now almost official -- Julian Hatch, a distant relative of Senator Orrin Hatch will be challenging him for his Senate seat in 2006.

Julian Hatch is a member of the nationally affiliated Green Party of Utah, which will have to change it's name once the petition drive is complete. (The Greens that split off from the Green Party last year formed a rival party and won the petition drive race to claim the official name. Background can be found here. )

The announcement has run in papers around the country, and even in the Guardian U.K. and an Australian paper.

This should be an interesting and exciting campaign.

(Julian) Hatch for Senate Webpage

 

Ken Sain is reporting that this election night there are thirteen Green victories around the U.S. as of right now! We are slowly but surely growing . . .

 

 

UPDATE: Looks like a total of 17 victories for Greens this morning. :)

Just for the fun of it, Ken Sain posted a straw poll ballot with possible Green nominees for president in 2008. It's all done by instant runoff voting, which the Green Party supports, and would be a great way to reform our current system.

I’ve received three (all the same) “2005 Critical National Issues Survey” from the “Friends of Hillary” over the past few months.I filled it out, with modifications, the first time and sent it in.

In the first part, you are supposed to rank a list of nine issues. The nine issues listed are:

· Economy/Jobs

· Environment

· Social Security

· Education

· Homeland Security

· Health Care

· Tax Cuts

· Reproductive Rights

· Separation of Church and State

Conspicuously absent from the list (which I added to the side, and then ranked with the rest) are:

· Ending the Iraq War

· Getting rid of the Patriot Act

· Reducing Military Spending

· Promotion of Fair Trade over Free Trade

· Debt Relief to Africa

In the second part, there are a number of questions that are asked about which party you trust on various issues. The only two choices given on each question is Democrat and Republican. I added Green Party to each with a hand-drawn box that I checked off.

In the section for additional comments I added: Senator Clinton voted to give Bush war powers – bad move. I vote Green Party because they are ANTI-WAR, anti-corporate rule, and represent my values. I will donate only to pro-peace candidates. Get us out of Iraq!

I remember how rabid the right-wing got about Hillary way back when Clinton took office. I had no problem with her at the time, and I knew that the main reason conservatives detested Hillary was because she was a strong woman who had been labeled that nasty “L” word – liberal.

I’ve seen many instances over the years where Hillary could have done the right thing, but sold out, mostly for political gain.

Back in March of 2003, the CODE PINK anti-war group had several events in Washington D.C. Thanks to a donation of a friend’s frequent flyer miles and being able to share a hotel room with some other women, I was able to attend.

Two days before the march was a lobbying event. We had planned to give “pink slips” to senators that supported giving Bush war powers, and pink medals of courage to those that had opposed the war. I met Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evans and several other pink women at the NOW offices in D.C. where we packed our pink gear in bags and split up in cabs headed for the senate office buildings.

We made it past security and headed for the women’s restroom to change in to our pink berets and other pink paraphernalia.

In the restroom I was teaching a couple of women part of a chant that the radical cheerleaders in Salt Lake had used, and we modified it for Hillary, the first office we planned to visit. It went like this:

We’re putting our bodies on the line
Trying to stop war while there’s still time
We’re putting our bodies on the line
Hillary, it’s time to get some spine!

We stormed Hillary’s office, scaring her staff. There were probably 25-30 of us with some press stuffed in the fairly small outer office, holding up clothesline with dyed pink slips with various messages. The chant I had taught a couple of women spread to the whole group, and we did that chant and sang some peace songs, while Hillary’s staff tried to find someone to talk to us.

Hillary’s chief of staff came out to talk with us and somehow we moved out into the hallway,where Medea cornered her. I can’t remember what Medea said, but I remember being so impressed with how eloquent and passionate she was. It was agreed that the chief of staff would arrange a meeting between Hillary Clinton and us later in the day.

We went to a few other offices, Diane Feinstein and Ted Kennedy among others, but were unable to arrange meetings with the Senators, and ended up talking mostly with staff. We then met a few blocks away for a lobbying “debriefing”; we were joined with more Code Pinkers and then headed for our meeting with Senator Clinton.

After some time, I wondered if the meeting would happen at all, as Senator Clinton was very late. We were finally admitted into a waiting room, but we weren’t allowed to bring in our clothesline, so several of us put the pink slips on over our clothing.

While we waited for Senator Clinton, we sang, and the chant I had taught earlier had now evolved into a song. Many women were dancing and all of us were singing. The atmosphere in the room felt like a celebration of peace and hope.

Senator Clinton finally arrived, and I think that many of us were quite awed that we’d actually been able to meet with Hillary. Senator Clinton seemed very tired when she came into the room. She spent some time explaining her position on Iraq, and wouldn’t back off on going to war, even when Medea talked about Hillary’s position on “It takes a village” and asked about the children of Iraq, something she knew a lot about, as she and several other CODE PINK women had visited Iraq to meet with everyday Iraqis.

Finally, when it was determined that she had no intention of changing her stance on war, Jodie Evans took off her pink slip, which said “Hillary, you’re fired!” and handed it to her.

Senator Clinton got very angry, saying “I’m the Senator from New York, and I will not do anything that will put people at risk” or something along those lines, and she stormed out as almost all of us responded with, “But you are!” very much aware that war on Iraq would be more likely to increase terrorist numbers than to diminish them.

The energy in the room, a few minutes before feeling so positive, was now quite different. I was amazed how powerful her anger with us was, it was palpable.

As much as I’d like to see a woman as president, it is this incident and Hillary’s record of selling out what were probably once good principles that has convinced me that I will not support her for president. There’s no guarantee that the good things that does still support will get any support from her as president, either.

There’s been talk of running Cindy
Sheehan as an alternative to Hillary, and I would really like to see the Green Party run a woman in the next presidential election.

Waiting to Pink Slip Hillary March 2003 We weren't allowed to bring in these props, so many of us put the pink slips on over our clothing

Code Pink and Hillary Clinton March 2003 Poor quality photo I took with a disposable camera. Senator Clinton is standing up in bluish-green, and Medea Benjamin in standing to the left of her.

The article about our meeting with Senator Clinton from Common Dreams includes a couple of photos.

Reading on Ken Sain's blog today, a great answer from Kevin Zeese to Kos readers on why he will continue to run as a Green and not in the Democratic primary as the Kossacks are urging him to.

A few things I found in his response. . .

 

on whether the two parties actual represent the people:

"A survey published in the July 16 Economist asked U.S. voters whether they felt their elected officials represented their priorities. Only 17 percent said “yes.” In the greatest democracy on earth 83 percent can’t say they are represented! It is no wonder we have such low voter turnouts. (A survey of non-voters found that that a majority of non-voters felt that the candidates did not represent their concerns – even in the last election 40% of registerd voters didn’t vote, Kerry gave them no reason except not being Bush – not good enough.) It is also not surprising that Democrats are at their lowest popularity in more than 50 months while Republicans are also dropping in the polls. Neither party represents the priorities of the people."

 

 

On how trying to change the Democratic Party from within is unlikely to work:

 

"For years, indeed decades, people have tried to reform the Democratic Party from the inside. It always fails. When political movements go inside the Democratic Party – they weaken and disappear – look at the anti-war movement in 2004, the union movement over decades, efforts at African American equality – on and on. What ever happened to the Rainbow Coalition? What has the Democratic establishment done for those that are calling for change from within? Nothing. Even Howard Dean has stopped talking about ending the Iraq War since becoming DNC Chairman. The only way to create the politics we want is by challenging the corrupt system in place."

 

On it's NOT impossible to change the system, we just need to guts to do it:

 

"I know some of you say it is impossible – the two party system can’t be challenged. But certainly this corrupt method of governance is not as embedded as slavery, the denial of women’s rights, nor as strong as the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union or Maoism. Yet, those have all crumbled. Change is possible. Even our founders warned against “factions” as political parties were known in their day. This corrupt two-party system is inconsistent with the vision of a robust representative democracy – with our vision for being the greatest democracy in Earth’s history. We have the power to create the future we want – but if we keep supporting candidates based on party label and not on issues we care about then we will keep getting political leaders that do not represent our interests. We will only get what we want by voting for what we want."

CORRECTION: Zeese is a Green who is running as an independent.

 

 

I believe that most of the people who vote "Democrat" are fairly progressive people, so they've got to be fairly disappointed with some of the elected Dems who yesterday helped pass CAFTA as well as the horrible energy bill.

Rather than rant on these particular evils (you can read a good Green account of them on Chlorophyll today by kycolonel), I'd rather try to appeal logically to my Democrat brothers and sisters: [in a loving tone :) ] Do you really believe that if you keep voting for the Dems they'll someday start doing the right thing? Right now there's no incentive for the Dems to move back to the left. They know that progressives will keep voting for them as the lesser of two evils.

The only way to counter this kind of ideological corruption is to build a strong progressive 3rd party. This can do one of two things:

1. A stronger Green Party can put pressure back on the Dems to move left. If moderate or right-leaning Dem continues to vote with the Repubs on horrible legislation, he/she risks either losing their seat to a Green or having a Green candidate "spoil" by taking enough votes that the real Repub wins the election. Ken Sain's blog had a great example of how this strategy can work to pull the Dems back here.
2. If all the truly progressive people left the Dems, it could truly become the centrist party it's been striving to become. This way you really will be able to vote your conscience and you have a really good chance of putting  Greens in higher and highers offices. My theory is that if the Dems become the true centrist party, some of the moderate Repubs that are frustrated with the fundamentalist Christians and big-spending neo-cons will likely move into the Dem camp.

Other advantages of becoming a Green:

1. If you are interested in politics and want to participate, even if it's just behind the scenes, the Green Party is a great place to do that. The Green Party is a "grassroots" party, which means that the opinions of the members is equally important as the party officers. The more established parties have a heirarchical structure that makes it difficult to have any effect, especially when you have just joined or don't have a lot of good connections. Running for office is also easier in the Greens due to it's grassroots nature.
2. Being a part of the Green Party can also offer you lots of opportunites for involvement in many groups and projects that aim to make the world a better place. The Green Party is a "hands-on" kind of party. We walk the talk. Many of our members belong to other organizations that focus on the environment, peace and justice, feminism, race equality, glbt issues, labor, and many others. Green Parties  around the country work on many of issues as well through committees and caucuses.
3. It's a great way to make new friends and contacts -- Greens are dynamic and thoughtful people.
4. If voting is all you really want to worry about when it comes to politics, voting Green means voting your conscience -- and that feels really good, take it from me!