Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Sam Farr's Town Hall in Santa Cruz: Is the problem Farr or the system?
While attendees brought up a myriad of issues, the people's concern for the U.S. Bombings and invasions of other countries overwhelmed the dialog. This meeting testified to the disconnect between federal Democrats and their constituencies. Farr did sign the Declaration of Peace, but did not offer other hopes to end U.S. Driven war. He claimed consistently, “The Republicans have the majority,” and, thus, the Democrats, and what he supports, is squelched by the all powerful Republicans.
Congressman, Sam Farr, held a “town hall” meeting on Monday in Santa Cruz at the Vet's Hall. This is a summary of the evening. It appeared that he showed up to rally his Democrat supporters, however, it was very clear that Farr was mostly at odds with the crowd in attendance.
While attendees brought up a myriad of issues, the people's concern for the U.S. Bombings and invasions of other countries overwhelmed the dialog. This meeting testified to the disconnect between federal Democrats and their constituencies. Farr did sign the Declaration of Peace, but did not offer other hopes to end U.S. Driven war. He claimed consistently, “The Republicans have the majority,” and, thus, the Democrats, and what he supports, is squelched by the all powerful Republicans.
Farr started out by boiling down his perceptions of the political and financial situation in the U.S. Farr said the political situation, or what he calls, “the superbowl of politics,” is that the Republicans rule right now, and therefore, the Democrats cannot push any of their legislation and Democrats must compromise for anything they support to be passed. In his summary of the American financial system, Farr reminded his constituency that if the federal government was to pay off its debt right now, that each American citizen would owe $130,000 each. In giving, his history “positive” policies Democrats, such as Bill Clinton, employed was not met with any applause, as the crowd remained silent and clapped at the end of Farr's opening remarks.
Farr received most applause at the beginning of the question/comment period when he signed the Declaration of Peace. In signing this document Farr committed to endorse H.R. 4232, and co-sign H.Con. Res. 197. H.R. 4232, the End the War in Iraq Act of 2005, would cut off all funding for IU.S. Military action in Iraq, “while providing a safe and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. Troops.” Additionally, this bill allows other agencies then the Department of Defense to reconstruct. H.Con.Res.197, No Permanent Bases in Iraq prohibits the U.S. From entering into any military base agreement with Iraq that would lead to a permanent U.S. Military presence in Iraq. So if you support Sam Farr make sure he sticks to his promises!
Many people thanked Farr for coming and then grilled him on his yes vote for supporting Israel's bombing of Lebanon and not collaborating with Republicans and Democrats to get U.S. Military out of Iraq. Some people were satisfied that he supports ceasefire and legislation to end the invasion of Iraq, but many attendees did not think that was enough since violence continues is both regions, despite his efforts.
Throughout the evening Farr urged attendees to ensure the Democrats win more seats this November. One woman asked Farr for names of campaigns and democrats in other areas to which Farr responded, “This is a non-partisan night and that is a campaign issue I cannot speak to that...” Therefore, even those people who wanted to do as Farr asked, help elect Democrats, left the Hall with out the information to do so.
This meeting reminds us of the limited power our elected officials have to change policy which we are concerned about, such as ending U.S.-led war, such as in Iraq, and violent occupations, such as in Palestine and Haiti, or other issues such as higher education budgets and a violence-free and welcoming immigration policy. Is it the system that fails? Is it Farr that fails? What are we going to do?
While attendees brought up a myriad of issues, the people's concern for the U.S. Bombings and invasions of other countries overwhelmed the dialog. This meeting testified to the disconnect between federal Democrats and their constituencies. Farr did sign the Declaration of Peace, but did not offer other hopes to end U.S. Driven war. He claimed consistently, “The Republicans have the majority,” and, thus, the Democrats, and what he supports, is squelched by the all powerful Republicans.
Farr started out by boiling down his perceptions of the political and financial situation in the U.S. Farr said the political situation, or what he calls, “the superbowl of politics,” is that the Republicans rule right now, and therefore, the Democrats cannot push any of their legislation and Democrats must compromise for anything they support to be passed. In his summary of the American financial system, Farr reminded his constituency that if the federal government was to pay off its debt right now, that each American citizen would owe $130,000 each. In giving, his history “positive” policies Democrats, such as Bill Clinton, employed was not met with any applause, as the crowd remained silent and clapped at the end of Farr's opening remarks.
Farr received most applause at the beginning of the question/comment period when he signed the Declaration of Peace. In signing this document Farr committed to endorse H.R. 4232, and co-sign H.Con. Res. 197. H.R. 4232, the End the War in Iraq Act of 2005, would cut off all funding for IU.S. Military action in Iraq, “while providing a safe and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. Troops.” Additionally, this bill allows other agencies then the Department of Defense to reconstruct. H.Con.Res.197, No Permanent Bases in Iraq prohibits the U.S. From entering into any military base agreement with Iraq that would lead to a permanent U.S. Military presence in Iraq. So if you support Sam Farr make sure he sticks to his promises!
Many people thanked Farr for coming and then grilled him on his yes vote for supporting Israel's bombing of Lebanon and not collaborating with Republicans and Democrats to get U.S. Military out of Iraq. Some people were satisfied that he supports ceasefire and legislation to end the invasion of Iraq, but many attendees did not think that was enough since violence continues is both regions, despite his efforts.
Throughout the evening Farr urged attendees to ensure the Democrats win more seats this November. One woman asked Farr for names of campaigns and democrats in other areas to which Farr responded, “This is a non-partisan night and that is a campaign issue I cannot speak to that...” Therefore, even those people who wanted to do as Farr asked, help elect Democrats, left the Hall with out the information to do so.
This meeting reminds us of the limited power our elected officials have to change policy which we are concerned about, such as ending U.S.-led war, such as in Iraq, and violent occupations, such as in Palestine and Haiti, or other issues such as higher education budgets and a violence-free and welcoming immigration policy. Is it the system that fails? Is it Farr that fails? What are we going to do?
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Sam Farr has more than a million dollars in stocks.He also contributes,as do we taxpayers for him, to a federal plan which invests heavily in the stock market.He supports AARP which has stock and controls a brokerage house.
Why does he oppose a voluntary plan to put a portion of our social security in such a plan?He says it's too risky.Why can't I take thesame risks he does?
For those who want a history of Farr's pro-war votes, go to http://www.santacruz.indymedia.org and google for Farr.
I posted some specific web addresses, but apparently they were deleted (after I spent half an hour putting them together).
Can someone from indybay get back to me and explain why?
Thanks
I posted some specific web addresses, but apparently they were deleted (after I spent half an hour putting them together).
Can someone from indybay get back to me and explain why?
Thanks
do you remember the title or the url of where you had posted them?
Immigration from Mexico helps the rich and hurts the poor of America. I don't know why "liberal" and "radical" people can't see that.
It lowers wages and brings in more competition for housing and jobs.
It lowers wages and brings in more competition for housing and jobs.
Here is a discussion on Sam Farr from Liberation News that happened a few years ago that I thought would be helpful on the subject:
1. In the Santa Cruz Sentinel City Councilmember Mike Rotkin attacks the Santa Cruz anti-war movement and Peace and Freedom Party Congressional Candidate Steve Argue
2. Steven Argue responds.
Twisted logic abounds
By Mike Rotkin
I was appalled to see the self-righteous letter from two so-called leaders of the Santa Cruz Peace Coalition recently in which they proudly proclaim their role in prohibiting Congressmember Sam Farr from speaking at the recent peace rally in Santa Cruz.
These sectarian idiots are not speaking for the 7,000 citizens who were demonstrating their opposition to war with Iraq. A successful peace coalition should be in the business of building the largest, broad-based opposition to the impending war possible. As one of the handful of members of Congress voting in opposition o Bush’s drive for a first-strike, unilaterally declared war in Iraq, Sam Farr is certainly worthy of our support and admiration. His principled opposition to the USA Patriot Act and willingness to be the first member of the U.S. Congress to attend a town hall meeting about the war also make him a leader of the growing anti-war movement at this point in time.
The fact that we may disagree with his position on a number of other issues does not allow us the luxury of trying to write him out of the peace movement. This is the kind of sectarian, holier-than-thou politics which led to our president begin George Bush rather than Al Gore.
And how Mr. Argue, who spent most of last year in jail for punching a police officer, thinks he has the moral standing to criticize Mr. Farr for Farr’s ostensible lack of humanitarianism requires a logic too twisted for me to get my head around.
Mike Rotkin
Santa Cruz
___________________________________________________________
Dear Editor,
City Councilmember Mike Rotkin recently denounced me in the letters section of your paper saying I have no moral standing to criticize Congressman Sam Farr. In this letter Rotkin also denounces leaders of the Santa Cruz anti-war movement as sectarian idiots for not allowing Sam Farr to speak at an anti-war demonstration of 7,000 people in Santa Cruz.
The simple fact of the matter is that Sam Farr excluded himself from speaking at the demonstration. Farr had been invited to speak at numerous peace events earlier where he declined to speak. Then, at the last minute, seeing the numbers of people who would be present, Farr wanted to speak at the rally. To allow Farr to speak the organizations involved would have had to hold a meeting of the organizers to democratically make that decision. Farr was too late.
Nor would the outcome of that discussion be a forgone conclusion. Much of the anti-war movement is disgusted with Sam Farr’s record. While Sam Farr has recently voted against the attack on Iraq he also voted for the record 440 billion dollar war budget. As schools close and money is sucked out of our communities we see this vote as financial support for the terror being unleashed. Likewise Sam Farr votes for billions of dollars in support of the death squad government of Colombia, a government that kills human rights activists, unionists and other people. In addition Sam Farr voted his support for Clinton’s bombing of Yugoslavia.
As for Mike Rotkin’s assertion that I have no moral standing to speak out against Sam Farr’s policies, Mike Rotkin is being a classic hypocrite. As Rotkin knows the incident to which he refers occurred at a protest in opposition to Sam Farr’s support for the bombing of Yugoslavia. A mother was put in a pain compliance hold for no good reason by Officer La Favor. This woman was screaming in pain and holding a small child that repeatedly screamed: “Mommy! Mommy! Mommy!” To end the crime Officer La Favor was committing I punched La Favor in the nose and the woman and child escaped. Even the City Council’s own Citizen’s Police Review Board ruled that this police violence was excessive force that endangered the child.
For Rotkin to bring up this incident is a clear indication of how Mike Rotkin always tries to make the victims the criminals. As a City Councilmember Mike Rotkin should be trying to curtail police abuses instead of justifying them. I, on the other hand, am not a pacifist in the struggle for justice and I am not ashamed of taking direct action to stop the battery of a woman and stopping the terror being inflicted on a small child.
Mike Rotkin in questioning my moral standing should be questioned for his support for police violence against anti-war protesters and his support for the Santa Cruz law that makes sleep illegal for the homeless.
Steven Argue
Santa Cruz
Liberation News
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
1. In the Santa Cruz Sentinel City Councilmember Mike Rotkin attacks the Santa Cruz anti-war movement and Peace and Freedom Party Congressional Candidate Steve Argue
2. Steven Argue responds.
Twisted logic abounds
By Mike Rotkin
I was appalled to see the self-righteous letter from two so-called leaders of the Santa Cruz Peace Coalition recently in which they proudly proclaim their role in prohibiting Congressmember Sam Farr from speaking at the recent peace rally in Santa Cruz.
These sectarian idiots are not speaking for the 7,000 citizens who were demonstrating their opposition to war with Iraq. A successful peace coalition should be in the business of building the largest, broad-based opposition to the impending war possible. As one of the handful of members of Congress voting in opposition o Bush’s drive for a first-strike, unilaterally declared war in Iraq, Sam Farr is certainly worthy of our support and admiration. His principled opposition to the USA Patriot Act and willingness to be the first member of the U.S. Congress to attend a town hall meeting about the war also make him a leader of the growing anti-war movement at this point in time.
The fact that we may disagree with his position on a number of other issues does not allow us the luxury of trying to write him out of the peace movement. This is the kind of sectarian, holier-than-thou politics which led to our president begin George Bush rather than Al Gore.
And how Mr. Argue, who spent most of last year in jail for punching a police officer, thinks he has the moral standing to criticize Mr. Farr for Farr’s ostensible lack of humanitarianism requires a logic too twisted for me to get my head around.
Mike Rotkin
Santa Cruz
___________________________________________________________
Dear Editor,
City Councilmember Mike Rotkin recently denounced me in the letters section of your paper saying I have no moral standing to criticize Congressman Sam Farr. In this letter Rotkin also denounces leaders of the Santa Cruz anti-war movement as sectarian idiots for not allowing Sam Farr to speak at an anti-war demonstration of 7,000 people in Santa Cruz.
The simple fact of the matter is that Sam Farr excluded himself from speaking at the demonstration. Farr had been invited to speak at numerous peace events earlier where he declined to speak. Then, at the last minute, seeing the numbers of people who would be present, Farr wanted to speak at the rally. To allow Farr to speak the organizations involved would have had to hold a meeting of the organizers to democratically make that decision. Farr was too late.
Nor would the outcome of that discussion be a forgone conclusion. Much of the anti-war movement is disgusted with Sam Farr’s record. While Sam Farr has recently voted against the attack on Iraq he also voted for the record 440 billion dollar war budget. As schools close and money is sucked out of our communities we see this vote as financial support for the terror being unleashed. Likewise Sam Farr votes for billions of dollars in support of the death squad government of Colombia, a government that kills human rights activists, unionists and other people. In addition Sam Farr voted his support for Clinton’s bombing of Yugoslavia.
As for Mike Rotkin’s assertion that I have no moral standing to speak out against Sam Farr’s policies, Mike Rotkin is being a classic hypocrite. As Rotkin knows the incident to which he refers occurred at a protest in opposition to Sam Farr’s support for the bombing of Yugoslavia. A mother was put in a pain compliance hold for no good reason by Officer La Favor. This woman was screaming in pain and holding a small child that repeatedly screamed: “Mommy! Mommy! Mommy!” To end the crime Officer La Favor was committing I punched La Favor in the nose and the woman and child escaped. Even the City Council’s own Citizen’s Police Review Board ruled that this police violence was excessive force that endangered the child.
For Rotkin to bring up this incident is a clear indication of how Mike Rotkin always tries to make the victims the criminals. As a City Councilmember Mike Rotkin should be trying to curtail police abuses instead of justifying them. I, on the other hand, am not a pacifist in the struggle for justice and I am not ashamed of taking direct action to stop the battery of a woman and stopping the terror being inflicted on a small child.
Mike Rotkin in questioning my moral standing should be questioned for his support for police violence against anti-war protesters and his support for the Santa Cruz law that makes sleep illegal for the homeless.
Steven Argue
Santa Cruz
Liberation News
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
Peace And Freedom Party Challenging Sam Farr's Seat
While needed schools are being shut down Sam Farr voted for over 400 billion dollars to be put to the US war budget. This is unacceptable.
Steve Argue Running As
Peace & Freedom Party Candidate For Congress
The Peace and Freedom Party has registered well over the 76,000 registrants in the state of California needed to put us back on the ballot. In celebration of this fact I am announcing my candidacy for US Congress, challenging the seat currently held by Sam Farr (D). This campaign is starting right now because Steve Argue’s campaign will not have the money or coverage that Sam Farr will have as a result of his corporate backing. Over the next two years I will work to expose the evil policies of Sam Farr to apply pressure on him and to provide voters with an alternative in the next election.
Sam Farr the War Monger
While needed schools are being shut down Sam Farr voted for over 400 billion dollars to be put to the US war budget. This is unacceptable. This money will be used to terrorize the people of the entire world, including Iraq. Dianne Feinstein, Dubya Bush, Mike Honda, and Anna Eshoo should also be exposed for their even more direct support for war with Iraq. It is my opinion that all of these politicians should pay a political price for their pro-war stand.
Sam Farr is a supporter of the death squad government of Colombia, a government that outright murders trade union and human rights activists. Despite these abuses corporate America and their representatives, including Sam Farr, see the Colombian death squad government as representing their interests. For this reason Sam Farr has voted to send billions of dollars in military aid to the Colombian death squad government. This must end!
Congressman Sam Farr supported the bombing of Belgrade and Kosovo. This was a war that was waged to privatize Kosovo mines and further dismember Yugoslavia to further US corporate interests in the region. The lie that the war was carried out to stop ethnic cleansing can be seen in the fact the US has been backing forces such as the KLA in Kosovo and the government of Croatia that have themselves carried out ethnic cleansing.
There are some who want to pressure Farr to take a more active approach in stopping the war with Iraq. Yet a look at Farr's statements regarding this war shows that he is not really opposed to war with Iraq, but instead has tactical differences regarding the U.S. going it alone and other lame concerns that represent an actual interest in a more effective US imperialist war policy the world over. His vote for the massive military appropriations represents this common interest Farr has with Bush, big oil, and the arms industry. Farr's differences with Bush stem from his knowledge that this war may cause massive unrest, foreign and domestic, that may make it more difficult for the US to carry out its evil imperialist wars and exploitation on the people of the world. With such motivations there is no reason to think Farr will mobilize and educate the people against this war.
What does Farr have to say to the people on this issue anyway? Sam Farr has not spoken out against the constant bombing of Iraq that has occurred since the first US attack on Iraq in the early 1990s. He has not spoken out against the US imposed economic sanctions that have starved about 1.5 million Iraqi children. Nor has Farr opposed the deadly use of radio-active waste in the production of US weapons that were used both in Yugoslavia and on Iraq poisoning the inhabitants of those countries as well as 100,000 "Gulf War Syndrome" US soldiers.
Those who want an authentic anti-war movement should expect to have to organize it and to lead it your selves. Expecting Democrats to do it is like expecting a mule to quack like a duck.
In my studies of history I've seen three effective ways to end a war. 1. Is when the soldiers refuse to fight. This is the way that the long and persistent anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s finally educated the soldiers and ended the war in Vietnam. 2. If the working class strikes and refuses to participate in building or shipping the armaments. A very effective strike that shut down Seattle Washington during the early days of the Russian revolution physically stopped the sending of war supplies and helped force the US to pull its troops out of the young Soviet Union. 3. A third way will be through a revolution of the people. If we succeed in doing any of the first two types of action we may not be too far from carrying out the third. All three forms of direct action will take the building of strong organizations independent of the Democrats and Republicans.
I support any and all actions that will help build the kind of consciousness among the people that could one day make the three kinds of effective direct action by the people possible. Illusions in warmongers like Sam Farr's potential to organize an anti-war movement are an obstacle to effective action. Instead of pleading with the Sam Farrs of the world we are better off holding rallies and distributing literature to the people. Reaching GIs and young people of draft or recruitment age is critical. The Farrs and Bushes of the world will never be reached by our moral arguments. Like Nixon, however, they will notice if the soldiers refuse to fight.
The Peace and Freedom Party urges people to break with illusions in the twin parties of war that rule America and to register to vote with the Peace and Freedom Party. The Peace and Freedom Party is a party that has opposed every US war since it was founded in 1967 and actively calls for the vigorous building of an effective anti-war movement. I encourage people who think that this kind of thinking makes sense to:
1. Register with the Peace and Freedom Party, your registration will help us stay on the ballot. If when you register you get an old form that does not list the Peace and Freedom Party, simply check other and write in Peace and Freedom Party.
2. Participate in demonstrations and other activities against the war. In addition to other events we encourage people to attend the Peace Friday demonstrations held every Friday at Ocean and Water Streets at 5:00 PM in Santa Cruz.
3. The City Council will hold a special “town hall meeting” at the Del Mar
Theatre with Congressman Sam Farr to discuss a U.S.-led war on Iraq. The meeting will run from 6:30-8:30 PM
Feb. 18. Be there to speak out against the war and Sam Farr.
4. Support Steve Argue for Congress by distributing literature or making a financial contribution. Checks can be written to Steve Argue for Congress and sent to 1135 N. Branciforte. To volunteer call (831) 457-9754 Box 1169
While needed schools are being shut down Sam Farr voted for over 400 billion dollars to be put to the US war budget. This is unacceptable.
Steve Argue Running As
Peace & Freedom Party Candidate For Congress
The Peace and Freedom Party has registered well over the 76,000 registrants in the state of California needed to put us back on the ballot. In celebration of this fact I am announcing my candidacy for US Congress, challenging the seat currently held by Sam Farr (D). This campaign is starting right now because Steve Argue’s campaign will not have the money or coverage that Sam Farr will have as a result of his corporate backing. Over the next two years I will work to expose the evil policies of Sam Farr to apply pressure on him and to provide voters with an alternative in the next election.
Sam Farr the War Monger
While needed schools are being shut down Sam Farr voted for over 400 billion dollars to be put to the US war budget. This is unacceptable. This money will be used to terrorize the people of the entire world, including Iraq. Dianne Feinstein, Dubya Bush, Mike Honda, and Anna Eshoo should also be exposed for their even more direct support for war with Iraq. It is my opinion that all of these politicians should pay a political price for their pro-war stand.
Sam Farr is a supporter of the death squad government of Colombia, a government that outright murders trade union and human rights activists. Despite these abuses corporate America and their representatives, including Sam Farr, see the Colombian death squad government as representing their interests. For this reason Sam Farr has voted to send billions of dollars in military aid to the Colombian death squad government. This must end!
Congressman Sam Farr supported the bombing of Belgrade and Kosovo. This was a war that was waged to privatize Kosovo mines and further dismember Yugoslavia to further US corporate interests in the region. The lie that the war was carried out to stop ethnic cleansing can be seen in the fact the US has been backing forces such as the KLA in Kosovo and the government of Croatia that have themselves carried out ethnic cleansing.
There are some who want to pressure Farr to take a more active approach in stopping the war with Iraq. Yet a look at Farr's statements regarding this war shows that he is not really opposed to war with Iraq, but instead has tactical differences regarding the U.S. going it alone and other lame concerns that represent an actual interest in a more effective US imperialist war policy the world over. His vote for the massive military appropriations represents this common interest Farr has with Bush, big oil, and the arms industry. Farr's differences with Bush stem from his knowledge that this war may cause massive unrest, foreign and domestic, that may make it more difficult for the US to carry out its evil imperialist wars and exploitation on the people of the world. With such motivations there is no reason to think Farr will mobilize and educate the people against this war.
What does Farr have to say to the people on this issue anyway? Sam Farr has not spoken out against the constant bombing of Iraq that has occurred since the first US attack on Iraq in the early 1990s. He has not spoken out against the US imposed economic sanctions that have starved about 1.5 million Iraqi children. Nor has Farr opposed the deadly use of radio-active waste in the production of US weapons that were used both in Yugoslavia and on Iraq poisoning the inhabitants of those countries as well as 100,000 "Gulf War Syndrome" US soldiers.
Those who want an authentic anti-war movement should expect to have to organize it and to lead it your selves. Expecting Democrats to do it is like expecting a mule to quack like a duck.
In my studies of history I've seen three effective ways to end a war. 1. Is when the soldiers refuse to fight. This is the way that the long and persistent anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s finally educated the soldiers and ended the war in Vietnam. 2. If the working class strikes and refuses to participate in building or shipping the armaments. A very effective strike that shut down Seattle Washington during the early days of the Russian revolution physically stopped the sending of war supplies and helped force the US to pull its troops out of the young Soviet Union. 3. A third way will be through a revolution of the people. If we succeed in doing any of the first two types of action we may not be too far from carrying out the third. All three forms of direct action will take the building of strong organizations independent of the Democrats and Republicans.
I support any and all actions that will help build the kind of consciousness among the people that could one day make the three kinds of effective direct action by the people possible. Illusions in warmongers like Sam Farr's potential to organize an anti-war movement are an obstacle to effective action. Instead of pleading with the Sam Farrs of the world we are better off holding rallies and distributing literature to the people. Reaching GIs and young people of draft or recruitment age is critical. The Farrs and Bushes of the world will never be reached by our moral arguments. Like Nixon, however, they will notice if the soldiers refuse to fight.
The Peace and Freedom Party urges people to break with illusions in the twin parties of war that rule America and to register to vote with the Peace and Freedom Party. The Peace and Freedom Party is a party that has opposed every US war since it was founded in 1967 and actively calls for the vigorous building of an effective anti-war movement. I encourage people who think that this kind of thinking makes sense to:
1. Register with the Peace and Freedom Party, your registration will help us stay on the ballot. If when you register you get an old form that does not list the Peace and Freedom Party, simply check other and write in Peace and Freedom Party.
2. Participate in demonstrations and other activities against the war. In addition to other events we encourage people to attend the Peace Friday demonstrations held every Friday at Ocean and Water Streets at 5:00 PM in Santa Cruz.
3. The City Council will hold a special “town hall meeting” at the Del Mar
Theatre with Congressman Sam Farr to discuss a U.S.-led war on Iraq. The meeting will run from 6:30-8:30 PM
Feb. 18. Be there to speak out against the war and Sam Farr.
4. Support Steve Argue for Congress by distributing literature or making a financial contribution. Checks can be written to Steve Argue for Congress and sent to 1135 N. Branciforte. To volunteer call (831) 457-9754 Box 1169
The real Sam Farr record, by Joe Williams:
http://www.ezcampaigns.com/joewilliams/about/issuedetails.asp?id=65
Resist The U.S. Invasion of Iraq! By Steve Argue
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/m-fem/2003m03/msg00023.htm
http://www.ezcampaigns.com/joewilliams/about/issuedetails.asp?id=65
Resist The U.S. Invasion of Iraq! By Steve Argue
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/m-fem/2003m03/msg00023.htm
There wasn't much information in the original post about Sam Farr's real voting record. I don't have time to write something new right now, but I thought that these posts from a few years ago would be useful. These were campaign materials I produced in the early stages of the election, but I actually decided not to run against Sam Farr and endorsed Joe Williams instead. Joe’s breakdown of the voting record of Sam Farr is a good look at the record of a man who is part of the problem.
Thanks for Steve Argue’s posts and websites here. Useful and informative.
Thanks to the indybay editor who responded to my concern about my apparently deleted comment last Thursday. Unfortunately (unlike with this comment), I made no back-up copy.
I am fairly sure the comment was deleted. If you check out the right side of the indybay screen, you’ll find that there are 9 comments logged for this story. But when you check the actual number of comments that are underneath the story, there are only 8. One is gone. I suspect that was mine.
That said, I don’t want to try to dredge through the old http://www.santacruz.indymedia.org site to retrace the history of popular protest against Farr’s pro-war stands (which has had significant effect, I believe)
Still, folks might check:
Demanding Farr Speak Out on the War (2002)
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2529/index.php
Constituents Say No to War (2003)
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/3846/index.php
Sam Farr’s Open Record (2004)
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10502/index.php
Thanks to Steve and others for continuing this important debate.
If anyone needs company in treking down to Farr's office to demand stronger action, let me know.
Thanks to the indybay editor who responded to my concern about my apparently deleted comment last Thursday. Unfortunately (unlike with this comment), I made no back-up copy.
I am fairly sure the comment was deleted. If you check out the right side of the indybay screen, you’ll find that there are 9 comments logged for this story. But when you check the actual number of comments that are underneath the story, there are only 8. One is gone. I suspect that was mine.
That said, I don’t want to try to dredge through the old http://www.santacruz.indymedia.org site to retrace the history of popular protest against Farr’s pro-war stands (which has had significant effect, I believe)
Still, folks might check:
Demanding Farr Speak Out on the War (2002)
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2529/index.php
Constituents Say No to War (2003)
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/3846/index.php
Sam Farr’s Open Record (2004)
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10502/index.php
Thanks to Steve and others for continuing this important debate.
If anyone needs company in treking down to Farr's office to demand stronger action, let me know.
Contrary to Mr. Argue's argument the most effective way to end a war is to win it.
All the best
Jackson says, “Contrary to Mr. Argue's argument the most effective way to end a war is to win it.”
In the war against imperialism and capitalism I advocate nothing less. But you sound like you’re on the other side. Tell me Jackson, what war is your imperialism winning?
In the war against imperialism and capitalism I advocate nothing less. But you sound like you’re on the other side. Tell me Jackson, what war is your imperialism winning?
I was not discussing imperialism, but it comes to mind that Britian's Rhodesia was a much nicer place than the current Zimbabwe.The comparison with capitalism here is also noteworthy,wouldn't you agree.
All the best
All the best
I wasn't discussing imperialism , but certainly imperialist Rhodesia was a nicer place to live than the current Zibabwe. Capitalism doesn't come out to badly in a comparison here either.
All the best
All the best
Jackson says, “I wasn't discussing imperialism.” Oh contrar Jackson, what the U.S. is doing in Iraq is imperialism.
And what of the Mugabe’s capitalist government of Zimbabwe? Did I hear you say you’d like to return to the blacks of Zimbabwe to the days of racist Rhodesian apartheid?
And what of the Mugabe’s capitalist government of Zimbabwe? Did I hear you say you’d like to return to the blacks of Zimbabwe to the days of racist Rhodesian apartheid?
I was not discussing imperialism or Iraq.I started by asking about Farr's hypocrisy re social security and the stock market.I made a comment on how best to end a war and followed with an observation that Rhodesia was a nicer place to live than the current Zimbabwe,which is hardly a capitalist state by any definition.
By the way with what would you replace capitalism.
Jackson, your point on Social Security is a bad one that would allow capitalists to profit off of the privatization of Social Security at the expense of recipients and in time cause the demise of the system itself. You are criticizing Sam Farr from the right for not ruining Social Security. Sam Farr is correct in saying these schemes are too risky. Social Security is a government program that works, unless you are going to improve it leave it alone!
Jackson, if you weren't talking about Iraq or imperialism I have no idea what war you were talking about winning.
Jackson, you support the Western-backed racist, fascist, settler regime of Rhodesia and oppose the Mugabe government. Now you think it is off point when I respond. In addition you contradict my statement that Zimbabwe is a capitalist country without providing any information on why you do not think that Zimbabwe is capitalist.
After taking power in 1979, Mugabe worked to strengthen capitalism in Zimbabwe. As one US banker put it in the early 1980s: “The management of the more sophisticated large companies, i.e., TA Holdings, Lonrho and Anglo American, seem to be impressed by and satisfied with Mugabe’s management and the increased level of understanding in government and commercial considerations... I feel it is a political pattern that Mugabe gives radical, anti-business speeches before government makes major pro-business decisions or announcements.” [1].
Mugabe’s politics are essentially the same as a whole number of black bourgeois regimes professing Pan Africanist or socialist views that were put in power when Britain and France ended colonial rule in the 1960s. This elite layer, most of them educated in Western universities, were used by the colonial powers to maintain their economic domination over the African continent, which had been threatened by a wave of strikes and political unrest in the period following World War Two.
Jackson, if you weren't talking about Iraq or imperialism I have no idea what war you were talking about winning.
Jackson, you support the Western-backed racist, fascist, settler regime of Rhodesia and oppose the Mugabe government. Now you think it is off point when I respond. In addition you contradict my statement that Zimbabwe is a capitalist country without providing any information on why you do not think that Zimbabwe is capitalist.
After taking power in 1979, Mugabe worked to strengthen capitalism in Zimbabwe. As one US banker put it in the early 1980s: “The management of the more sophisticated large companies, i.e., TA Holdings, Lonrho and Anglo American, seem to be impressed by and satisfied with Mugabe’s management and the increased level of understanding in government and commercial considerations... I feel it is a political pattern that Mugabe gives radical, anti-business speeches before government makes major pro-business decisions or announcements.” [1].
Mugabe’s politics are essentially the same as a whole number of black bourgeois regimes professing Pan Africanist or socialist views that were put in power when Britain and France ended colonial rule in the 1960s. This elite layer, most of them educated in Western universities, were used by the colonial powers to maintain their economic domination over the African continent, which had been threatened by a wave of strikes and political unrest in the period following World War Two.
I was in such a big hurry I forgot to use quotations and credit the last two paragraphs of my comments to the World Socialist Web Site.
You haven't answered the question,merely repeated it, when you say Farr is against letting some people put some social security proceeds into a private fund because it is too risky.The question remains:if he has millions in stocks why can't I also take a risk with my proceeds and put some into stocks.Why is it too risky for me,but not him or all the other govt.types who can invest in the stock mkt.
As for Zimbabwe,the current dictator has been in power for 26 years.A once prosperous country is bankrupt with starvation a problem for many.The press is suppressed and reporters tortured.
Land is confiscated at gunpoint and maize and grain are turned over to the state as required.His "cleanse the filth" program evicted over 700,000 people from their homes without replacement.
Naturally he and his cronies live in splendor.
Your socialist source stands alone in calling this capitalism.Mugawbe,a self styled Marxist,sounds more like the standard totalitarian.And yes a person in Rhodesia was far better off since,at least,he wasn't starving to death when he complained.
As for Zimbabwe,the current dictator has been in power for 26 years.A once prosperous country is bankrupt with starvation a problem for many.The press is suppressed and reporters tortured.
Land is confiscated at gunpoint and maize and grain are turned over to the state as required.His "cleanse the filth" program evicted over 700,000 people from their homes without replacement.
Naturally he and his cronies live in splendor.
Your socialist source stands alone in calling this capitalism.Mugawbe,a self styled Marxist,sounds more like the standard totalitarian.And yes a person in Rhodesia was far better off since,at least,he wasn't starving to death when he complained.
I just looked at the socialist web site and under Mugabe search one finds first an article by Jean Shaoul of Feb. 26,1999 which says the guy is a dictator.1999 !! Have things changed?
Jackson, those in power who want to privatize social security funds are also wealthy. Their plans are not designed to make you more money; their plans are designed to make higher capitalist profits at great risk to a needed government program. In this case Sam Farr has taken the right position because doing otherwise would be politically unpopular and cost Farr dearly in this district.
Jackson, there are many sources you can look up to see that much of the economy of Zimbabwe is in private hands, meaning it is a capitalist country. This is how neo-colonialism worked in Africa. The imperialists put anti-socialist pro-imperialist leaders in power that only in words espoused socialism and anti-imperialism. I've talked to many Africans that agree with my assessment of this and have read similar analysis from a number of sources on the left. So no, I am not alone my assessment of Mugabe’s capitalist government.
As for starvation, corruption, and Mugabe being a dictator, these are all common occurrences under capitalism. Likewise imperialist policies of austerity and "free market" liberalization forced on Zimbabwe through the policies of the IMF and the World Bank are one of the biggest causes of Zimbabwe’s economic decline in the 1990's.
Here is a good article on the subject:
Zimbabwe: “Land Reform” and Imperialist Hypocrisy
http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2003/Zimbabwe.html
Jackson, there are many sources you can look up to see that much of the economy of Zimbabwe is in private hands, meaning it is a capitalist country. This is how neo-colonialism worked in Africa. The imperialists put anti-socialist pro-imperialist leaders in power that only in words espoused socialism and anti-imperialism. I've talked to many Africans that agree with my assessment of this and have read similar analysis from a number of sources on the left. So no, I am not alone my assessment of Mugabe’s capitalist government.
As for starvation, corruption, and Mugabe being a dictator, these are all common occurrences under capitalism. Likewise imperialist policies of austerity and "free market" liberalization forced on Zimbabwe through the policies of the IMF and the World Bank are one of the biggest causes of Zimbabwe’s economic decline in the 1990's.
Here is a good article on the subject:
Zimbabwe: “Land Reform” and Imperialist Hypocrisy
http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2003/Zimbabwe.html
Re. Farr.If he did it to soothe the savage breast of his constit uancy,that is one thing.But he calls it risky and yet pours money into the stock market.I call that hypocrisy.What do you call it?
Re Zimbabwe.
How can a country which holds all the land after seizing it.which then doles it out to its favorites.who then are required to turn over the proceeds from the property to the same govt. be called capitalist?If you cannot freely dispose of property, you cannot be said to own it in any meaningful sense.Quotes from the socialist and communist press notwithstanding,the facts belie any claim of capitalism.
There is no private ownership of property if one's liberty can be seized as is lawful in Zimbabwe.
Re Zimbabwe.
How can a country which holds all the land after seizing it.which then doles it out to its favorites.who then are required to turn over the proceeds from the property to the same govt. be called capitalist?If you cannot freely dispose of property, you cannot be said to own it in any meaningful sense.Quotes from the socialist and communist press notwithstanding,the facts belie any claim of capitalism.
There is no private ownership of property if one's liberty can be seized as is lawful in Zimbabwe.
Jackson claims, "There is no private ownership of property if one's liberty can be seized as is lawful in Zimbabwe."
Tell that to Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, and the countless other political prisoners in this country and other capitalist countries around the world. Speaking of southern Africa, the decades of prison forced on Nelson Mandela serves as a good example of one’s liberty being seized under capitalism.
Jackson claims that Zimbabwe “holds all the land after seizing it” from the white capitalist landowners. This is not the case. The government has turned much of the land over to wealthy black capitalists and other cronies of the regime. The poor peasants that managed to get some land are stuck with no government resources to help them work that land. This does not resemble socialist land reform in any way. It was a cynical manipulation of the people's desire to have real land reform in order to benefit one group of capitalists against another.
Such competition between capitalists, with one group seizing by force what the other thought they owned is an important part of the history of capitalism. The First and Second World Wars are good examples of this kind of capitalist competition.
Likewise capitalism in America has shown little appreciation of land ownership, being built as it is on land stolen from the Native Americans.
Likewise, the capitalist seizing of farmland from landowners is also common in the United States. Take a look at what the banks and cops have done to family farms in this country.
Socialist land reform, such as what took place in Cuba, seized the land from the capitalists like Rockafeller's United Fruit Company to be sure. But they did not dole out the best land to other capitalists and let the peasants starve on the rest. They kept the land in state hands and made the resources necessary available to work the land. In addition the Cuban revolution ended the seasonal starvation of peasant labor where the capitalists allowed peasants to go hungry in the off season, made education available to peasant children, and instituted a system of free medical care. This is socialist land reform and it is very different from what has occurred in Zimbabwe.
Jackson, you want to call Sam Farr a hypocrite, generally on other issues I would agree with you, but he has the right position in opposing the destruction of Social Security.
Perhaps this Jim Hightower article will help:
Social Security Aint Broke, So Don't Fix It
http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/553
Tell that to Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, and the countless other political prisoners in this country and other capitalist countries around the world. Speaking of southern Africa, the decades of prison forced on Nelson Mandela serves as a good example of one’s liberty being seized under capitalism.
Jackson claims that Zimbabwe “holds all the land after seizing it” from the white capitalist landowners. This is not the case. The government has turned much of the land over to wealthy black capitalists and other cronies of the regime. The poor peasants that managed to get some land are stuck with no government resources to help them work that land. This does not resemble socialist land reform in any way. It was a cynical manipulation of the people's desire to have real land reform in order to benefit one group of capitalists against another.
Such competition between capitalists, with one group seizing by force what the other thought they owned is an important part of the history of capitalism. The First and Second World Wars are good examples of this kind of capitalist competition.
Likewise capitalism in America has shown little appreciation of land ownership, being built as it is on land stolen from the Native Americans.
Likewise, the capitalist seizing of farmland from landowners is also common in the United States. Take a look at what the banks and cops have done to family farms in this country.
Socialist land reform, such as what took place in Cuba, seized the land from the capitalists like Rockafeller's United Fruit Company to be sure. But they did not dole out the best land to other capitalists and let the peasants starve on the rest. They kept the land in state hands and made the resources necessary available to work the land. In addition the Cuban revolution ended the seasonal starvation of peasant labor where the capitalists allowed peasants to go hungry in the off season, made education available to peasant children, and instituted a system of free medical care. This is socialist land reform and it is very different from what has occurred in Zimbabwe.
Jackson, you want to call Sam Farr a hypocrite, generally on other issues I would agree with you, but he has the right position in opposing the destruction of Social Security.
Perhaps this Jim Hightower article will help:
Social Security Aint Broke, So Don't Fix It
http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/553
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network