Please vote for Mike Gravel

Vote with your own consciousness. But if you want to know my opinion, here is what I think.

Deep from my heart, based on my knowledge and experience, I think for the best of this country and world peace you should vote for Gravel. Ihe root of 911 is American Military Industry Complex (https://freestone.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/on-americas-response-to-911/) (https://freestone.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/on-american-foreign-policy/). We need someone who can take on those MICs. Based on past records, Gravel is the person I trust to take on MICs. Obama is not a true pacifist. I don’t trust him to take on MICs. Gravel put his life on the line to end the Vietnam war. Will Obama do that to end the Iraq war?

As Gravel said the representative democracy in America is broken. It is hijacked by Corporate America. We need someone to address from the root and return the power to American people. Gravel’s fair tax and National Initiative is to address these root causes. I think it is pretty safe for me to say that Obama represents more of the interest of corporate America than the interest of American people.

There is no time for detailed reasons of why we should support Gravel. Simply put, it is very educational and fun for me to know about Gravel’s campaign. I learned a lot from his campaign. I think if you like Noam Chomsky and Democracy Now!, the probability is very high that you will like Mike Gravel.

I can understand the passion many people have for Obama. People want to see change, and they are excited about Obama’s message. I give people enough credits for this. When I was listening to Obama’s speech on TV 4 years ago at the Democract Convention, I was very impressed, and applauded him for the great speech. But 4 years passed, what did he do to stop the war? Look at what Gravel did in the 70s, I think I have reasons to expect more.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Random Thoughts

7 responses to “Please vote for Mike Gravel

  1. Tony

    Are you serious? Gravel? The guy’s retarded. Well, close to retarded. If you’re far left, I could respect you backing Kucinich, even though if he were elected in the primaries there’d be no chance in hell of him getting elected nationally. Obama was walking a fine line, being a voice of opposition, wanting to stop the war responsibly, but not signaling to the international stage that he would be afraid to use force if force was called for. You don’t disagree with the use of force in any instance right? Like world war two was necessary, right? Anyway, I agree with your sentiments about the military industrial complex. I just think Obama’s going to do a much better job than Gravel in every possible respect.

  2. Tony, thank for reading the blog. If you have patient, I wish to have a detailed discussion here of our different views.

    I will start to make a try here.

    Do you also think Noam Chomsky is retarded? How about MLK?

    Why do you think Obama can do a much better job than Gravel in every possible respect? Gravel’s one man filibuster stopped the draft and Gravel’s release of pentagon paper led to the stop of Vietnam war. Has Obama been able to stop the Iraq war? What has Obama done to stop the war? Don’t you feel angry that people keep getting killed in Iraq? Don’t you wish Obama can get angry and really stand up to stop the war? Come on, people are dying in Iraq!

    During the primary, Obama’s position was to increase the troops in Iraq. After the primary, his view changed to withdrawing from Iraq. But by that time, even Bush was talking about withdrawing. So Obama’s position on war is really…

    Obama kept accusing Hillary Clinton and Mccain for voting for war. But remember when Obama voiced his opinion against a war, he wasn’t in the senate yet. So he wasn’t under corporate pressure. So it was ok for him to say against the war without really suffering the consequence. But for Hillary Clinton, she was already in the senate and she had to face the consequence of not going with what the corporate wanted. However, during the debates, both Clinton and Mccain were not able to point out that Obama wasn’t under pressure since he wasn’t in the senate yet. How could they point that out? That meant to admit they are all under corporate pressure and not representing the interest of American people. You think Obama doesn’t know that people in the congress are all under pressure from the corporate? Why doesn’t Obama admit Clinton was under pressure of the corporate? Why did he keep accusing Clinton and praise himself for right judgment? I am really doubtful of his integrity because of this.

    How many speeches did Obama give at that time to voice his stance against the war? Did he really passionately tell people not to go to war?

    I don’t follow politics. My knowledge of all these are very limited. So maybe you can tell me more details.

    What I know for sure is that Obama challenged Columbia University to bring back military recruiters to the campus. From Obama’s rhetoric, I can tell he doesn’t have deep understanding of what is peace and what is violence. Just look at his stance on gay marriage. Not that this issue matters to me personally in any way. I just think this is no one else’s business. It is a violence to impose your personal values on other people while they didn’t do anything to harm you. Imposing the law to ban gay marriage is a violence. However, Obama is not supporting gay marriage. Doesn’t that say something to you? Why do people compare Obama to MLK? This is really a joke. Obama is not MLK. Obama doesn’t really understand what is non-violence. People keep saying Obama is smart. Maybe he is (I don’t really think he is smart.). But he has no deep experience of love.

    America has the best defense in the whole world. The military expense of US is half of the entire world. With the super power of its regular weapons, America is still keeping nuclear weapons and threaten to use nuke on other countries. Maybe Americans feel that they have the right to protect themselves because of the 911, Americans have no idea what people in other countries are living through every day. 911 is a huge tragedy to American people, but for people in other countries, it is just normal. It is everyday life for them. Look at people in the mideast. If Americans think they are justified to use nuke weapons to threaten other countries, why aren’t those countries justified to keep pursuing nuke weapons. Why aren’t the people there justified to use terrorism to fight the state terrorism of US?
    Unfortunately, for a large part, Obama wiill continue the state terrorism of US. I don’t expect him to challenge military industry complex. He and Clintons are all political cowards.

    If Obama understand what is love, peace and non-violence and he is just smart in being strategical, that is another story. But I am sorry from what I have seen I think he doesn’t even understand love, peace and non-violence.

    If we think peace is really important in this world, we should take every step to help bring peace to this world. America, as the most powerful country in the world, has the most leisure to do that, to set up a good example for other countries to follow. If America cannot do that, neither can other countries. Other countries are under much bigger threat everyday.

    Kucinich is a nice guy. But I don’t think he can be a good leader. It is ok for him to work in the congress. But to be a president is different. So for this, I agree with you he probably won’t be a good president. Mike Gravel, however, is a real leader.

    Also with Kucinich, he didn’t say anything when Mike Gravel was excluded from the debate. Later Kucinich was excluded from the debate as well. He then started complaining of corporate censorship. It is really laughable. When Mike Gravel was excluded, why you Kucinich didn’t you even say a sentence about the censorship during the debate. The same, I don’t feel Ralph Nader make a good leader. He is really a nice guy. But to be a leader is different. Mike Gravel is the only choice for American people. His running for president is to get rid of politics through National Initiative, which is to empower people to make laws instead of giving their power away to the politicians during every election (including this one in 2008). That is why I support him. Seeing him running for president is like seeing Noam Chomsky running president. Mike Gravel has the same knowledge and integrity as Noam Chomsky (although probably not as knowledge as Noam Chomsky in linguistics). The only difference is Mike Gravel is a leader. He is very shrewd (as we can see from his release of Pentagon Paper), and he can execute.

    These are my evidence and rationals. What you know and how you reason might suggest otherwise. I will be very interested in knowing of your evidences and reasoning.

    Thanks.

  3. BTW, I hope you have read the two links (https://freestone.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/on-americas-response-to-911/) (https://freestone.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/on-american-foreign-policy/) in this article. They have many of my background reasons of why I supported Mike Gravel.

  4. “Do you also think Noam Chomsky is retarded? How about MLK?”
    No. I have great respect for MLK, and have read some Chomsky, and do like the guy. He makes a nice contribution to the conversation, with my biggest criticism of him being that he doesn’t acknowledge many of the contributions of capitalism. That being said, the public debate is too skewed to the right in this country, and I wish he got more coverage.

    “Why do you think Obama can do a much better job than Gravel in every possible respect”
    Because he’s one of the most brilliant individuals ever elected to public office.

    “Gravel’s one man filibuster stopped the draft and Gravel’s release of pentagon paper led to the stop of Vietnam war”
    If this is truly the case, then I’m really surprised, especially after watching Gravel in the debates.

    “What has Obama done to stop the war?”
    He was one of the few politicians who public spoke in opposition to the war in its lead up.

    “Don’t you feel angry that people keep getting killed in Iraq?”
    Yes. It was retarded. But at the same time, I don’t believe people will just stop being killed the moment we leave. We created a power vacuum in taking out Saddam.

    “Obama’s position was to increase the troops in Iraq.”
    Bullshit. He’s only spoken on increasing our presence in Afganistan.

    “Did he really passionately tell people not to go to war?”
    He opposes dumb wars.
    http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

    “I don’t follow politics. My knowledge of all these are very limited. ”
    hmmm.

    As far as the stuff about him not supporting gay marriage and the military recruiter stuff, yeah, I hear you. But I also understand that as a black man running for president, he’s had to pick his battles very wisely. Politics is all about acquiring political capital and good will. To get elected, he had to position himself as a moderate. It sucks that politics is like this, but they were already trying to position him as a socialist and a leftist, even with his moderate record. He doesn’t oppose gay rights, but he hasn’t had the political capital to openly support it.

    “But he has no deep experience of love.”
    Him and Michelle seem like a wonderful couple to me… to which you may respond with something about some deeper kind of love… to which I’d respond that someone who heads the harvard law review doesn’t turn down a wall street job to go into community organizing if he hasn’t got a deep sense of compassion.

    “If Americans think they are justified to use nuke weapons to threaten other countries, why aren’t those countries justified to keep pursuing nuke weapons. ”
    I totally agree. It’s pure hypocrisy.

    “Unfortunately, for a large part, Obama wiill continue the state terrorism of US”
    You watch him close Guantanamo as soon as he gets elected. He’s also going to stop the culture of torture, and the stupid notion of preemptive war.

    “probably not as knowledge as Noam Chomsky in linguistics”
    Linguistics? Interesting, I didn’t know Chomsky was an expert in the study of language. I thought his thing was politics, law and economics. http://definr.com/linguistics

    “I will be very interested in knowing of your evidences and reasoning.”
    I consider myself a moderate liberal. I believe in a free market with a progressive tax system, and tight constraints on corporations by government when those corporations hinder the overall success of the commonwealth. Obama’s thinking most closely resembled my own compared to the other politicians, including moving towards a more progressive tax system and providing universal healthcare. In regard to energy policy, he believes in drastically limiting our greenhouse gases through heavy government investment in alternatives. He believes in the use of force when it’s necessary, such as in WWII for example, but definitely isn’t a hawk. He got most of his money from independent donors, and has already taken steps to limit the influence of lobbyist in Washington. And in terms of how he thinks, he shows an ability to see issues from opposing points of view, and can explain the complexity of difficult issues with a real eloquence, such as with his speech on race.

    Oh yeah, for anyone reading this who doesn’t know who Mike Gravel is:

  5. Tony, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your candidness and straightforwardness very much. We actually share a lot in common. 4 years ago, I had more in common with you and I was also excited of Obama’s speech at the Democratic Convention then. But a lot of things made me take another look of the American foreign policy and rethink the dominance of corporate power in American life.

    Noam Chomsky, as far as I can remember, does recognize the contribution of the capitalism in the past. He is not someone who just repudiate capitalism without knowing where we are coming from.

    “If this is truly the case, then I’m really surprised, especially after watching Gravel in the debates.”
    –yes, I know many people were turned off by Gravel’s display of anger during the debate. But I can totally understand his anger. To me, his anger is very right. Just look at what the system has dragged us into today. People are dying in Iraq (everyday, or almost everyday). Only people very cold-blooded can still be so unconcerned. Up to now, we still didn’t give a right answer to the question a boy asked of us after 911: why they hate us so much? 7 years after 911, we still don’t have a right response. Talking about danger, that to me, is very dangerous.

    I read Obama’s speech: http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm
    As I have expected, he didn’t touch on anything related to the root of the war. He was only against the war from very pragmatic reason. That kind of stance, of course, is welcomed by the corporate America. It is a very shallow speech. MLK, on the other way, was against the war from the very root of wars.

    See this link http://www.ontheissues.org/2007_Dem_primary_SC.htm, you will see that Obama wanted to increase troop in Iraq during the primary debate.

    “Politics is all about acquiring political capital and good will. To get elected, he had to position himself as a moderate.”
    –yes, you are right. Obama is just another politician. He is not MLK. It is a joke to compare him to MLK. Obama is not going to represent people’s interest. He simply doesn’t have that insight. This is why I support Gravel. Gravel’s running for the president, in a sense, is to get rid of politics. His platform of National Initiative is to empower people to make laws directly so NI can be another check and balance in the government. Indeed, Gravel’s passion, courage, and understanding of non-violence, peace and love can be compared to MLK. He is the right response to 911. Seeing him running for president is like seeing MLK running for president. Too sad American people could not recognize their MLK running for the president.

    People put too much hope in a politician. Yes, we can. Do you know what you can? Gravel told us we can take the power into our own hands. Actually the only time history moved forward is when people take power into their own hands.

    “someone who heads the harvard law review doesn’t turn down a wall street job to go into community organizing if he hasn’t got a deep sense of compassion.”
    –this doesn’t prove anything to me. Someone who had his eye on president and chose his base in Democratic Party chose to start as a community organizer. That totally makes sense to me: that is what politicians do.

    “You watch him close Guantanamo as soon as he gets elected. He’s also going to stop the culture of torture, and the stupid notion of preemptive war.”
    — yes, I am happy to see the close of Guantanamo. But now it is too early to make any judgment. They are now talking about setting up a separate system within US law system to trial those prisoners transferred from Guantanamo. So we have to wait and see what kind of system they will come up with, whether it resembles more closely with the one in Guantanamo.

    Noam Chomsky is professor of linguistics. He is an expert in that field and well respected. Actually his work is even used in Computer Science.

    “I believe in a free market with a progressive tax system, and tight constraints on corporations by government when those corporations hinder the overall success of the commonwealth.”
    — yes, I recognize the function of market, and I also think the corporate power in US got too powerful. However, I don’t put much hope in the government restraining the corporate. I have seen that government can be bought by the corporate, as evidenced by this election. The only way to refrain the corporate is to empower the people.

    Yes, Obama is much better than Bush as president. But he is just another politician after all. Probably the best he can be is to be another Bill Clinton, which is not a very bad thing. But the problems that America is faced are deeply rooted in the system. Obama is not able to have insight into those deep issues. He is also unwilling to develop that insight. He just wants to be a politician. Thus don’t expect Obama to address the systemic failures, although Obama promised pretty much everything during his campaign. For example, is Obama going to change washington DC? Is he going to get the government out of grip of the corporate? Obama’s solutions, at the best, are only band-aid solutions.

  6. an article from Noam Chomsky on Obama’s stance on war:
    http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080403.htm

  7. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080508.htm

    From the above, I think it makes more sense to me that Obama, who certainly has some political genius, who studied some history and understand the inner dynamics of politics, saw it as a big chance for him to be publicly voicing against the war. He knew that he was going to reap the fruit about 6 years later. So he gave a shallow speech to voice this stance against the Iraq war. His speech (is it the only speech he gave at that time?) touched nothing on the principle of anit-war. It was only used to send a clear message to the corporate America, so those agencies serving for the corporate america looking for the next president to invest in can pour money in.

    This together with the dirty trick he played during the campaign (such as accusing Clinton supporting the war, and the admittance of his inhale of M), make the whole thing more making sense to me. Obama is really a political genius.

    Of course, I cannot know Obama personally. This is all just speculation. Politics is also something beyond my comprehension. This is just one of my attempts to understand these politicians (who to me are really strange animals). So far, this quite makes sense to me. Politics is really a very dirty thing.

    Obama surely know how much corporate America dominates American people’s life. I think every politician knows that. At least for politicians at the national level who are constantly pursued by the corporate, they should know that. (This is probably why no one cares about politics at the local level.) So it is a disillusion to believe Obama will take on corporate America. The only chance is after we take power into our own hands, Obama sees that he has to do that. Then he will take the free ride.

    So hopefully Obama is a president we can lead. That is surely better than Bush.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s