Yeah, I got attacked online for stating I am voting for Stein. Coates, author of Message did a wonderful interview in which he spoke to the subject and much else as well. (see below) Chris Hedges latest with Kshama Sawant makes sense to me and I have been speaking up and out but people say a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. No it's not. It's a vote for a better future. We know we cannot win it now and that we must fight a long battle for that win of a better future.
My comment on the interview: "I am somewhat confounded by the notion that what I say and what I label and the words I use should be guided by how many powerful people are going to get angry at me. What is the use in being a writer? . . . If we are going to write, we are supposed to say what we see. . .There are a great many things in America that are not said. But the reasons those things are not said are not for any reasons any writer of integrity should respect". Absolutely beautiful. More writers like this man. Thank you being one of those kinds of writers, Sam.
I love your energy for thinking outside the false duopoly box. I was always going to vote Green anyway so my vote isn't in play for VotePact but I do have to share my serious question: People lie about their vote all the time, so what's to stop them making a deal with an opposing voter and then doing what they like in the privacy of the voting booth?
There is the issue of how the people can trust one another to actually vote for who they say they’ll vote for; this is similar to the classic “prisoner’s dilemma.” The major answer to this fear is dialogue, dialogue and more dialogue—for the people to really talk through what they want and to develop trust in the political realm that they have in other areas of life, as friends, co-workers or neighbors. This interweaves the personal and political. This is part of the reason we’re not connecting people. We’re encouraging people to pair up with people they already know and trust. This way, they avoid cancelling out each other’s votes. These relatives and friends might actually avoid talking politics, since they know they disagree. VotePact uses that disagreement to their mutual advantage. The political establishment wants you to not talk about your beliefs with people you care about. To do so is genuinely revolutionary in the best sense.
Another alternative is to each get absentee ballots, fill them out together and mail them together. (Some states allow you to vote on the day of the election and override your absentee ballot, so check your local regulations before you do this.)
Dear Sam, I wanted to express my disappointment with Said Arikat's recent performance at the White House press conferences. If possible, could you kindly forward the attached message to him?
Thank you very much for your help.
Dear Mr. Said Arikat,
I’m writing to you from Sweden, where I regularly watch the White House press conferences on social media. I appreciate your presence there. Yet, at times, it seems that essential truths get overshadowed in the conversation. Please keep the following points as a clear checklist, letting them guide each of your exchanges with the White House spokesperson. Repeat these points persistently, every chance you have.
It is simply unacceptable to allow the spokesperson to steer the conversation from a perceived moral high ground to a place where opposing claims are accepted as 'self-evident truths
1. The U.S. Government Is the One Blocking Justice:
The U.S. administration’s veto in the UN Security Council is not just a formality—it’s what stands between the Palestinian people and the right to basic human rights. Each time the issue is raised, the veto means "no" to justice. Through this veto, Palestinian rights are denied, creating a situation where Israel is placed above the law and international standards do not apply.
The U.S. blocks the legal process.
By consistently using its veto, the U.S. has shielded Israel from accountability for human rights violations. This protection undermines international law, denying the Palestinian people justice and human rights—a reality that, in effect, denies their humanity. By obstructing modern legal principles, the U.S. grants Israel the freedom to act without consequence.
In the eyes of the Global South, this gives the U.S. the status of a terrorist actor, which is not in America's interest.
Suggested question:
-The U.S. Government Is the one who has consistently been blocking justice for the Palestinians, where you always have denied Palestinian human rights by refusing to uphold international law visavi Israel, but you somehow want the world to believe that you are a force for good in the region, could you elaborate?
(The question should be adapted to assert the truth boldly and compel the spokesperson to defend the indefensible. Avoid framing the question in a way that allows them to evade; instead, use the opportunity to 'speak truth to power.' Preemptively incorporate their typical defenses within the question, then press them on why they believe these narratives will stand up to scrutiny.)
2. Labeling Someone as a "Terrorist" Requires the Moral High Ground and Legal Standards the U.S. Lacks and Alone Has Undermined:
"Terrorism" is a term that presumes law and justice are accessible and can be enforced, yet it is the U.S. itself that has dismantled this framework. For the Palestinian people, law does not exist—because the U.S. blocks it—so what remains? They are left with a much older model: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." To call this "terrorism" is a double standard and hypocrisy from the U.S. First, uphold international law, and only then can there be moral grounds to condemn those who turn to arms rather than a legal path.
The U.S. veto denies Palestinians access to international legal recourse, leaving them unprotected under modern humanitarian law. As a result, they are forced to resort to "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," a reaction that could only be considered "terrorism" if the same legal standards applied universally to all parties. Terrorism can only exist if there is a legal institution upholding law for all—a right the U.S. alone has denied to Palestinians. The U.S. is not a force for peace; in the eyes of the world, it is the principal barrier to it.
Suggested question:
-The U.S. singlehandedly blocks Palestinian access to international humanitarian law, leaving some of the 15 Palestinian factions – collectively dismissed as 'Hamas,' the modern-day ‘redskins’ in your narrative – with no recourse but to respond with an ancient 'eye for an eye' approach. Yet, you label this 'terrorism' while simultaneously granting Israel impunity. How does the U.S. justify withholding impartial law while condemning those who are denied it? Are you suggesting that the biblical 'eye for an eye' is, in your view, a 'terrorist' doctrine?”
"The U.S. administration consistently lumps together all Palestinian groups, from secular communists like the PFLP to moderate Muslims and religiously motivated factions like Hamas, along with ordinary citizens who may act in desperation. Labeling all of these as 'Hamas' overlooks the political and ideological diversity within Palestinian society and reflects a generalized disdain. Isn't this a clear example of racial bias, reducing all Palestinians to a single, derogatory stereotype that implies they don’t deserve the same legal distinctions and rights as others? Can you explain how this doesn’t reveal an underlying racist logic?"
3. Who Bears the Moral Responsibility for Bloodshed?
The answer is clear: the one who denies justice—the United States.
The bloodshed from Israel's terrorbombings and the so-called “Hamas terrorist attacks” stems directly from the U.S.'s refusal to apply international law universally.
This makes the U.S. morally more culpable than both Israel and Palestinian groups because Israel is its client state.
By shielding Israel unconditionally, the U.S. takes on the blood guilt not only for Palestinian victims but also for Israeli.
The U.S. bears more responsibility than Israel for the bloodshed in Palestine, where the current crisis is seen as a genocide by the world’s leading genocide scholars and the majority of global citizens, opposed only by the U.S. administration and the leaders of its closest allies.
Suggested questions:
-You point fingers at Hamas for the 42,000 Palestinian deaths. But I hold the U.S. primarily accountable—not your client state, Israel, and certainly not the Palestinians themselves. At one moment, you accuse Hamas of using human shields; in the next, you claim they hide deep underground. Meanwhile, Israel carries out what the entire world, aside from the U.S. and its allies, calls “terror bombings” aimed at “eradicating” Hamas, yet this only seems to radicalize more Palestinians into joining. Chris Sidoti, an international human rights lawyer and former UN investigator, describes Israel’s policy as a “terror factory.” My questions:
i. Are you genuinely surprised that this strategy is failing, with Hamas’ military wing reporting a surge in membership amid the ongoing genocide?
ii. Is it truly in the U.S.'s imperial interest to support this failing strategy by providing weapons during a live-streamed genocide, or is it the grip of the Israeli lobby so much reported by Prof. Johen Mearsheimer, Prof. Stephen Walt, former CIA-station shief Philiup Giraldi, Colonel Douglas McGregor etc. etc. and many other highly esteemed American geopolitical analysts, it is all over the internet?
ii. What message does the U.S. have for the Global South, which now sees the U.S. as the main enabler of Israel's genocide against the Palestinians?
-According to Israeli human rights activist David Sheen, incitement to genocide has been an established part of Israeli public discourse since at least 2010. His testimony at the Bundestag in 2014, titled 'Israeli Incitement,' highlights that individuals from all sectors of Israeli society have been involved—and still are. It is therefore fair to say there is public consensus in Israel supporting genocide against Palestinians, a stance that has held for over a decade. Yet you maintain that this has no bearing on Israeli actions on the battlefield, correct?
(Again, the question is not important, hammering the accusation is important)
4. Corrupt U.S. Politicians Undermine America's Position as Regional Hegemon
If the U.S.'s true goal is to sustain its influence in the region, why would it support Israel’s actions in a way that fosters enmity throughout the Middle East? Backing Israel unconditionally at every turn not only erodes U.S. credibility but weakens its broader strategic position.
This occurs not out of careful calculation for American imperial interests but as a result of the sway of political contributions from pro-Israel lobbying, overriding broader U.S. strategic goals. The U.S.'s unconditional support for Israel has alienated longstanding Arab allies and tarnished its standing in the Global South, where it is increasingly perceived as a destabilizing influence. This current approach undermines U.S. influence worldwide and, especially, in the Middle East. It appears to serve the personal financial interests of politicians rather than advancing America’s long-term strategic objectives. Empires fall, history shows, when corruption replaces loyalty to the state.
Suggested question:
-The U.S. has worked hard to install and maintain puppet regimes that serve American interests over those of their own people, because that’s what empires do. But these regimes now face unprecedented pressure and unrest from their own populations, who can plainly see that they are forced to support Israel's genocide. How comfortable do you think these regimes are in serving U.S. interests when the U.S. is sending unconditional military support to Israel amidst a genocide, live-streamed on social media? I can understand how it might have served an empire’s interests to supply arms to the perpetrator of a genocide when social media didn’t exist, but I can’t understand how it benefits the empire to do so now, when social media reigns supreme and people are live-streaming directly from the places where they are being killed. Explain how this benefits the U.S. imperial interests?
Many of us have no one on the other side to pair up with - I also suspect given the prisoner's dilemma, many people will opt for voting the "lesser evil," as they perceive it, anyway. VotePack is a good idea except that it is almost inconceivable in reality to garner more than a tiny token.
The "uncommitted vote" doesn't deserve any opprobrium in our difficult situation.
Yeah, I got attacked online for stating I am voting for Stein. Coates, author of Message did a wonderful interview in which he spoke to the subject and much else as well. (see below) Chris Hedges latest with Kshama Sawant makes sense to me and I have been speaking up and out but people say a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. No it's not. It's a vote for a better future. We know we cannot win it now and that we must fight a long battle for that win of a better future.
https://youtu.be/ZmUpkA-VYZs?si=7d9_dTiWT6bEaJbu
My comment on the interview: "I am somewhat confounded by the notion that what I say and what I label and the words I use should be guided by how many powerful people are going to get angry at me. What is the use in being a writer? . . . If we are going to write, we are supposed to say what we see. . .There are a great many things in America that are not said. But the reasons those things are not said are not for any reasons any writer of integrity should respect". Absolutely beautiful. More writers like this man. Thank you being one of those kinds of writers, Sam.
I love your energy for thinking outside the false duopoly box. I was always going to vote Green anyway so my vote isn't in play for VotePact but I do have to share my serious question: People lie about their vote all the time, so what's to stop them making a deal with an opposing voter and then doing what they like in the privacy of the voting booth?
from https://votepact.org/about-vote-pact/ --
The Issue of Trust
There is the issue of how the people can trust one another to actually vote for who they say they’ll vote for; this is similar to the classic “prisoner’s dilemma.” The major answer to this fear is dialogue, dialogue and more dialogue—for the people to really talk through what they want and to develop trust in the political realm that they have in other areas of life, as friends, co-workers or neighbors. This interweaves the personal and political. This is part of the reason we’re not connecting people. We’re encouraging people to pair up with people they already know and trust. This way, they avoid cancelling out each other’s votes. These relatives and friends might actually avoid talking politics, since they know they disagree. VotePact uses that disagreement to their mutual advantage. The political establishment wants you to not talk about your beliefs with people you care about. To do so is genuinely revolutionary in the best sense.
Another alternative is to each get absentee ballots, fill them out together and mail them together. (Some states allow you to vote on the day of the election and override your absentee ballot, so check your local regulations before you do this.)
Dear Sam, I wanted to express my disappointment with Said Arikat's recent performance at the White House press conferences. If possible, could you kindly forward the attached message to him?
Thank you very much for your help.
Dear Mr. Said Arikat,
I’m writing to you from Sweden, where I regularly watch the White House press conferences on social media. I appreciate your presence there. Yet, at times, it seems that essential truths get overshadowed in the conversation. Please keep the following points as a clear checklist, letting them guide each of your exchanges with the White House spokesperson. Repeat these points persistently, every chance you have.
It is simply unacceptable to allow the spokesperson to steer the conversation from a perceived moral high ground to a place where opposing claims are accepted as 'self-evident truths
1. The U.S. Government Is the One Blocking Justice:
The U.S. administration’s veto in the UN Security Council is not just a formality—it’s what stands between the Palestinian people and the right to basic human rights. Each time the issue is raised, the veto means "no" to justice. Through this veto, Palestinian rights are denied, creating a situation where Israel is placed above the law and international standards do not apply.
The U.S. blocks the legal process.
By consistently using its veto, the U.S. has shielded Israel from accountability for human rights violations. This protection undermines international law, denying the Palestinian people justice and human rights—a reality that, in effect, denies their humanity. By obstructing modern legal principles, the U.S. grants Israel the freedom to act without consequence.
In the eyes of the Global South, this gives the U.S. the status of a terrorist actor, which is not in America's interest.
Suggested question:
-The U.S. Government Is the one who has consistently been blocking justice for the Palestinians, where you always have denied Palestinian human rights by refusing to uphold international law visavi Israel, but you somehow want the world to believe that you are a force for good in the region, could you elaborate?
(The question should be adapted to assert the truth boldly and compel the spokesperson to defend the indefensible. Avoid framing the question in a way that allows them to evade; instead, use the opportunity to 'speak truth to power.' Preemptively incorporate their typical defenses within the question, then press them on why they believe these narratives will stand up to scrutiny.)
2. Labeling Someone as a "Terrorist" Requires the Moral High Ground and Legal Standards the U.S. Lacks and Alone Has Undermined:
"Terrorism" is a term that presumes law and justice are accessible and can be enforced, yet it is the U.S. itself that has dismantled this framework. For the Palestinian people, law does not exist—because the U.S. blocks it—so what remains? They are left with a much older model: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." To call this "terrorism" is a double standard and hypocrisy from the U.S. First, uphold international law, and only then can there be moral grounds to condemn those who turn to arms rather than a legal path.
The U.S. veto denies Palestinians access to international legal recourse, leaving them unprotected under modern humanitarian law. As a result, they are forced to resort to "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," a reaction that could only be considered "terrorism" if the same legal standards applied universally to all parties. Terrorism can only exist if there is a legal institution upholding law for all—a right the U.S. alone has denied to Palestinians. The U.S. is not a force for peace; in the eyes of the world, it is the principal barrier to it.
Suggested question:
-The U.S. singlehandedly blocks Palestinian access to international humanitarian law, leaving some of the 15 Palestinian factions – collectively dismissed as 'Hamas,' the modern-day ‘redskins’ in your narrative – with no recourse but to respond with an ancient 'eye for an eye' approach. Yet, you label this 'terrorism' while simultaneously granting Israel impunity. How does the U.S. justify withholding impartial law while condemning those who are denied it? Are you suggesting that the biblical 'eye for an eye' is, in your view, a 'terrorist' doctrine?”
"The U.S. administration consistently lumps together all Palestinian groups, from secular communists like the PFLP to moderate Muslims and religiously motivated factions like Hamas, along with ordinary citizens who may act in desperation. Labeling all of these as 'Hamas' overlooks the political and ideological diversity within Palestinian society and reflects a generalized disdain. Isn't this a clear example of racial bias, reducing all Palestinians to a single, derogatory stereotype that implies they don’t deserve the same legal distinctions and rights as others? Can you explain how this doesn’t reveal an underlying racist logic?"
3. Who Bears the Moral Responsibility for Bloodshed?
The answer is clear: the one who denies justice—the United States.
The bloodshed from Israel's terrorbombings and the so-called “Hamas terrorist attacks” stems directly from the U.S.'s refusal to apply international law universally.
This makes the U.S. morally more culpable than both Israel and Palestinian groups because Israel is its client state.
By shielding Israel unconditionally, the U.S. takes on the blood guilt not only for Palestinian victims but also for Israeli.
The U.S. bears more responsibility than Israel for the bloodshed in Palestine, where the current crisis is seen as a genocide by the world’s leading genocide scholars and the majority of global citizens, opposed only by the U.S. administration and the leaders of its closest allies.
Suggested questions:
-You point fingers at Hamas for the 42,000 Palestinian deaths. But I hold the U.S. primarily accountable—not your client state, Israel, and certainly not the Palestinians themselves. At one moment, you accuse Hamas of using human shields; in the next, you claim they hide deep underground. Meanwhile, Israel carries out what the entire world, aside from the U.S. and its allies, calls “terror bombings” aimed at “eradicating” Hamas, yet this only seems to radicalize more Palestinians into joining. Chris Sidoti, an international human rights lawyer and former UN investigator, describes Israel’s policy as a “terror factory.” My questions:
i. Are you genuinely surprised that this strategy is failing, with Hamas’ military wing reporting a surge in membership amid the ongoing genocide?
ii. Is it truly in the U.S.'s imperial interest to support this failing strategy by providing weapons during a live-streamed genocide, or is it the grip of the Israeli lobby so much reported by Prof. Johen Mearsheimer, Prof. Stephen Walt, former CIA-station shief Philiup Giraldi, Colonel Douglas McGregor etc. etc. and many other highly esteemed American geopolitical analysts, it is all over the internet?
ii. What message does the U.S. have for the Global South, which now sees the U.S. as the main enabler of Israel's genocide against the Palestinians?
-According to Israeli human rights activist David Sheen, incitement to genocide has been an established part of Israeli public discourse since at least 2010. His testimony at the Bundestag in 2014, titled 'Israeli Incitement,' highlights that individuals from all sectors of Israeli society have been involved—and still are. It is therefore fair to say there is public consensus in Israel supporting genocide against Palestinians, a stance that has held for over a decade. Yet you maintain that this has no bearing on Israeli actions on the battlefield, correct?
(Again, the question is not important, hammering the accusation is important)
4. Corrupt U.S. Politicians Undermine America's Position as Regional Hegemon
If the U.S.'s true goal is to sustain its influence in the region, why would it support Israel’s actions in a way that fosters enmity throughout the Middle East? Backing Israel unconditionally at every turn not only erodes U.S. credibility but weakens its broader strategic position.
This occurs not out of careful calculation for American imperial interests but as a result of the sway of political contributions from pro-Israel lobbying, overriding broader U.S. strategic goals. The U.S.'s unconditional support for Israel has alienated longstanding Arab allies and tarnished its standing in the Global South, where it is increasingly perceived as a destabilizing influence. This current approach undermines U.S. influence worldwide and, especially, in the Middle East. It appears to serve the personal financial interests of politicians rather than advancing America’s long-term strategic objectives. Empires fall, history shows, when corruption replaces loyalty to the state.
Suggested question:
-The U.S. has worked hard to install and maintain puppet regimes that serve American interests over those of their own people, because that’s what empires do. But these regimes now face unprecedented pressure and unrest from their own populations, who can plainly see that they are forced to support Israel's genocide. How comfortable do you think these regimes are in serving U.S. interests when the U.S. is sending unconditional military support to Israel amidst a genocide, live-streamed on social media? I can understand how it might have served an empire’s interests to supply arms to the perpetrator of a genocide when social media didn’t exist, but I can’t understand how it benefits the empire to do so now, when social media reigns supreme and people are live-streaming directly from the places where they are being killed. Explain how this benefits the U.S. imperial interests?
Best regards,
Lasse Karagiannis
sent.
Many of us have no one on the other side to pair up with - I also suspect given the prisoner's dilemma, many people will opt for voting the "lesser evil," as they perceive it, anyway. VotePack is a good idea except that it is almost inconceivable in reality to garner more than a tiny token.
The "uncommitted vote" doesn't deserve any opprobrium in our difficult situation.
I suspect that's exaggerated. I think people avoid talking politics with people "on the side".
Ralph Nader hangs out with rightwingers like Bruce Fein. They can pair up. They choose not to.