I can easily agree with sniffy. Cynthia McKinney was my representative for a while, she is notoriously easily sidetracked and distracted. Not the type of person who gets things done on time. Ralph Nader has consistently run on the Ralph Nader platform, supporting the policy of ------ electing Ralph Nader. He has never, ever, ever, even once in his life, got down in the trenches and tried to form a real third party, only shown up every 4 years to run on the Ralph Nader Personality Cult ticket, with a few stragglers added on who despise the two big parties. I'd rather vote for almost any other candidate than the guy who has set back third parties for years.

True enough. But then again, at least Nader, if elected, would attempt to implement policies I agree with.

I don't know - I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama after his vote on the telecom immunity bill. It was just too much of a betrayal of principle, and an indication that he was capable of doing what he now seems to be doing - leaving some of the Bush policies (like his use of State Secrets) in place.

I don't know about you, but I just can't lend my support to that kind of thing. Which means that guys like Nader, or simply not voting, is all you have left.

I suppose I could devote my life to organizing, and sometimes I seriously consider it, but the costs are way high. My family would suffer, I'm not sure how I would pay the bills, etc.

Iraq was a target since before the Gulf war. White papers and everything---all well known. Meet the same standard of proof or shut up.

Yep, and the Clinton administration's stated policy goal on Iraq was regime change. Who knows what would have happened after 9/11?

For the record, I doubt a president Gore would have gone into Iraq (though I don't think it can be ruled out). However, I would bet he would have attacked Afghanistan. And also note, the Dems went along with the Iraq invasion, as well as most of the other abuses of the Bush years.

Assuming the Dems would not have initiated the abuses, even though they went along with them when someone else did, is indeed a difference, but not a strong enough difference to gain my enthusiastic support.

Does Kinser tell us the US invades a new country every 2 years regardless of which party is in "power"? No?

Of course not - but history does teach us that American foreign policy has been remarkably consistent between R and D administrations. I admit the Bush II years were a turn for the worse, but again, the Dems largely supported him.

Those two points make your "Third Party" or just a "Better Man or Woman" will solve it all philosophy empty and, as Spiro might have said, Nattering Nabobishness.

Yeah, but I can understand the desire for a third party. There are lots of folks who literally have no voice, because the R's and D's will not implement policies they support. I fit in that category.

What are you supposed to do in that case? The third party route has been tried, and has failed miserably. Not because there isn't any interest, but because the 2 main parties have put up so many obstacles and of such great height, that it is virtually impossible to get one going. You NEED some kind of celebrity candidate to get on the radar, but then a movement driven by celebrity usually doesn't have any staying power, and is susceptible to the criticism of being about personalities, not issues.

The only other approach I can think of is to try and shift the stance of one of the major parties, like trying to move the Dems left. Admittedly this worked for the wingnuts, but only because they have some very wealthy patrons, the R's believe a lot of that nonsense anyway, and like it or not a lot of what they advocate big business can get behind (lower taxes, busting unions, etc.).

But progressives have failed to take over the Dems. Not enough money, the media tends to favor the conservative line, etc. You know the reasons. Someone like Obama is about as good as we're going to get. But we're quickly learning it's not good enough.

So, tearing down those who advocate for a third party (or not voting at all) is easy. But what's your alternative/solution?

The everyday application of international law inevitably leads to the punishment of weak states and actors, unfortunately.

How could it be otherwise? I don't think this is the way things _ought_ to be, but it is the way they are, no question.

I doubt it could ever be much different, given our biology. Logic and reason, evolutionarily speaking, are there to help us rationalize the things we want to do anyway. The best way to obtain good international behavior is probably to equalize power and influence among the world's nations.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

I'm enjoying your discussion. This is good stuff.

Do I have that in Germany? If I find German laws or German judicial proceedings unjust, can I exercise rights to change their Government or have the laws changed?

I bet Ondelette would say you have a voice in your own government, and could agitate for it to legally abrogate these kinds of treaties/arrangements if you find them disagreeable.

One question that occurs to me is, what if you live in a country that does not allow citizen participation, i.e., a dictatorship? Could you really be considered to have given "consent" to something your government signed?

Hey Glenn, any word on how the legislation to investigate actions of the Bush Administration is progressing in Congress?