You know I love you and find some of your musings quite fascinating - some even compelling. I find myself increasingly appalled, however, that your solution to everything seems to be increased militarism and continuous war. I've reached the conclusion that this must stem as much as anything from the fact that, as you told me, you are of my father's generation. He fought alongside Patton as a young man in the last war that America won. He decided at the conclusion that all of mankind was insane, and retreated to the remote isles of the South Pacific for almost seven years before he was willing to return to what we mistakely call "civilisation."

Romanticists want to say WWII was a war against fascism, which is bullshit! It was a war against three agressor nations - Germany, Japan and Italy. It was won by several victim nations - America, Russia, Britain, France, China. Wars are fought between nations, not between philosophies. Our "victory" in the Cold War was in fact the triumph of one economic system over another. (I cannot continue my thoughts here as Rich has indicated that the Founders, in their infinite wisdom, have created a filter which disallows posts containing "isms."...)

I suppose it is easy to fall into the trap, when waking up every morning is a welcome surprise, of suggesting solutions to challenges that may well foment countless decades of violence for generations to come. As I am just under four-score and ten, I expect to be around for at least two more generations. My wonderful children, being 18 and 20, have three, four or more to go. The future you are proposing for them holds no appeal to me...

It is a bit fascinating, in my eyes, that you seem to be somewhat opposed to the current administration, albeit I gather that this opposition is much more based on economic and labor issues. Certainly GWB has rattled America's mighty saber and unleashed the dogs of war that are marauding across the middle east unchecked. It was my hope when I stepped into the political arena that the 21st century would be, finally, the era in which the nations of the world might unite in commity. focus on our common challenges and exploit the myriad blessings with which we've been endowed. Instead it seems, at least for now, that this century might amazingly outdo the last in terms of destructive and non-stop violence.

Will you rest easier seeing your newly coined monies spent producing nothing more than the machinery of war?

Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle

[This posting is a copy of post to Forum on the Rules Committee request for Candidate Threshhold ideas.]

.
For What We Are Together is to Oppose Dis-Unity. And this uniting one-line agenda needs some meat on its bones.

Remember "Where's the Beef?"

The beef is to stop doing war and peace on the cheap.

The cheap means we have NOT put our capital and labor to work to protect our jobs and worldwide democracy.

We may not be able to bring democracy to others. But we can show others how to protect it where it exists -- protect it from totalitarian fascism and from mindless bottom-line fundamentalism that would externalize all costs until we all were dead.
.

John Gelles

Unity-now wiki
My Website
mailto:john.gelles@gmail.com

Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.

.
Thanks to Tolas and Craft6 for comments.

The merger I suggested at the end of the Forum description attempts to resolve what Craft6 wants (hot candidates) and what Tolas and I may want (some bumper stickers ahead of any convention that may draw support for the candidate and even draw attention to us that would bring candidates to us).

How might this work?

I have three famous name candidates in mind: Lee Scott, Ray Kurzweil and Richard Armitage. Lee is CEO of Wal-Mart. Ray is our "Edison" of today, America's leading inventor and greatest scholar optimist. Richard was the recent Under-Secretary of State under Colin Powell.

None of these three is electible -- but we are not looking to elect a person, we are trying to affect the mood of this nation.

None of these three would join us -- they are famous and we are not.

But around Lee I could construct a very brief agenda for trying to raise the very poorest people up to a standard of living close to the poorest of Wal-Mart's customers and trying to do all the good things for his customers and all the rest of the world that Lee promised in his hour long talk with Charlie Rose.

Around Ray I could build a similar agenda based on his optimistic view of the biotech, nanotech and infotech revolutions in progress. You can read his view on my website.

Around Richard I could build yet another agenda around optimism in foreign policy applications and desired outcomes.

At any time, the names attached to the agenda (bumper stickers) could be detached: the real persons are not likely to participate in these forums. If a hot agenda begins to appear, beyond opposing disunity, we might possibly attract some money and/or the interest of famous reformers to lead us.

OK. The above is only a concept. But the baloney going on about a convention two years away will never attract a leader -- because it will never attract membership without a leader.

The search for a candidate threshhold is trapped in a Catch 22. Only an injection of Soros-size earnest money or a bumper sticker jackpot (i.e., a hot agenda) will move it off the treadmill it is on.

America without George Washington would still be Canada!
.

John Gelles

Unity-now wiki
My Website
mailto:john.gelles@gmail.com

Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.

If Unity08 delegates pick the platform first, then insist on adherence to it, the choice of candidates will be very constrained.

I was initially opposed to the Unity08 founders idea of an agenda, rather than a platform, but it makes sense. Let's agree on the issues we want discussed, then have all potential candidates address those issues.

The winning candidate then decides how the platform shapes around those critical issues, with the delegates voting for the candidate who both agrees with them on the important issues, and has the best chance to win.

johngelles, I could not agree more on every point. You're three word slogan "oppose irrational disunity" is the essence of my hope in unity08 (and perhaps life).

As another suggestion, Aldous Huxley once said that the aim of government is "realizing the greatest number of desirable potentialities." This has always struck a strong chord with me.

---

I've seen "the corporation" documentary a few times, and agree on many of it's points. Your comments on it are right on. If corporations are individuals as the law now treats them, they are highly irrational members of society suffering from severe psychosis. They were not always this way, and do not need to continue in this way, but in our current environment many of them are simply doing no good.
--
A similar line of thought to all this is something I strongly believe myself, which is that humanity needs to get back to an accord with nature and their environment. We have become so fragmented and detached, that the whole world is out of sync. I think we all need to learn to step back and take a breath of fresh air. A more wise decision will surely follow.

.
I say our campaign in a nutshell is to "oppose irrational disunity". No one can say I'm wrong.

I also say to build out from its single theme to a few more bumper stickers to catch more supporters and contributions. What might they be?

"Defend our Homeland and our Borders!" -- "If attacked again, destroy the source of any attack to discourage yet another one after it."

You may note the similarity between the leftist street chant, "The People United Can Never be Defeated" and our own feeling that Unity is our message and dis-Unity is the problem.

Today I watched the Canadian documentary "The Corporation". Made in 2024 and playing currently on Sundance Channel, it is the full account of all our political problems. It's facts are clear, it's wisdom is certain. We could build our convention around it.

All "The Corporation" lacks is a program to build a replacement for what there might be left if every corporation disappeared instantly into a black hole.

The Corporation, is an institution that replaces ownership (by a living proprietor) with ownership and rule by an inhuman bottom line logic divorced from thougtful reform of the very top of the system: money, law, lanaguage, morality, science, sense.

Such reform at the very top would require connecting the bottom line to the economic interests of future generations.

People who can do that with diagrams and current laws must also sell their solutions to lawmakers have found it easier to build NASA and go to the moon than to build a FEDERAL RESERVE with a handle on leaving no one behind.

We require simultaneous protection of the freedom to innovate and the freedom to finance human rights as an ultimate necessitiy.

For some reason, we want what little we know of "price" to solve every real problem on earth.

Just how ignorant can we be?

I suggest we try to partner with the official website of the movie
http://www.thecorporation.com -- they have the bill of particulars -- together we would try to fashion agendas.

If I mis-remembered the website URL, please use Google to correct my error.

All the above pretends we mostly need duelling platforms or agendas -- not duelling candidates. The forum kicking that issue arround is into candidate threshholds. They imagine important-people candidates who want to use our site. I cannot imagine why. What evidence is there than anyone we would want might say yes he or she wants our megaphone. A megaphone that relains unpowered by even a battery.
.

John Gelles

Unity-now wiki
My Website
mailto:john.gelles@gmail.com

Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.