--- MICHAEL YATES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why is this the choice?
********** The choice of which pre-selected candidate of the major parties to vote for, will be made outside *our* ability to influence said selection. If you're going to vote for one of the candidates of the two party system, you *may* have to choose between Bush and Clark or some other pre-selected Democrat. *************** Who would urge a vote for > Bush? Why would a radical vote for either one? Most people I know in America vote for one of the two major party candidates. Personally, I think this is stupid. But no matter...they do as they think they please. For the record, I personally vote for the person who is espousing the most radically left position. Others do differently. I don't spend a whole lot of time on the voting question, as I think that the outcome is largely determined in advance. As far as Moore goes, he's got a lot of weight to throw around. He's recognized as a media power by the powers that be, mainly because he strikes a rich enough vein of disatisfaction in the market i.e. US. Lots of proles buy his books. So, what he says does have some impact. On the other hand, what *I* say about the election has little impact. What the ruling class says about who will be the legitimized candidates and who won't has an OVERWHELMING IMPACT. ********** > Remember when people said that we had to vote for > LBJ because Goldwater was so bad? Yeah, "Part of the way with LBJ." What a nice chant, only to be followed by, "LBJ, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today!" I remember that. Ah yes, I remember it all. The thing is, as hard as it is for US to admit it, LBJ WAS the better choice between the two candidates who were REALISTICALLY (as defined by the owner/controllers of the corporate/State media) allowed to be voted for. Goldwater would have nuked Vietnam. The program of Reagan and Bush and Nixon AND G. Wallace would have been implimented in Goldwater's first term. Forget LBJ's lame attempt at the "Great Society". Michael Moore is > risking becoming a kind of cottage industry, more > commodity than person. How can a person claiming to > be radical support Clark? It seems to me that US > generals, Clark not least, are just the highest > ranking killers in the world. > > Michael Yates Well Michael--great name huh, even though Mr. Moore has it too--I would tend to give Herr Moore the benefit of the doubt here and suggest that he sees Clark as an Eisenhower image within the Spectacle, an image to throw at the military duty-dodging Shrub. Moore is a master of image manipulation. He apparently likes the 'chicken hawk' tag as a way of getting at the Shrub. And you are right, even images have become commodities within the vast pile of wealth and power which makes up contemporary social relations. Best, Mike B) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike Ballard > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:39 PM > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Michael Moore and General > Clark > > > Are you saying that you'd urge a vote for Bush to > keep > Clark out of the Presidency, if that was what the > choice was to be limited to? > > clip > ===== **************************************************************** Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much of life. So aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something. Henry David Thoreau http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal http://personals.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Personals New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time.
