A short while ago, I said that I was confident that Anwar al-Awlaki was an evil bastard. While I remain confident that the sentiments he has expressed are evil, everything else about the man now seems mysterious. Is he dead? Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the notorious crotch-bomber (and subject of several previous posts) has claimed that Anwar is still alive. It's unclear whether he spoke metaphorically.
Still, it's fair to ask if we have proof of his death beyond the word of the U.S. government. According to the Guardian, the drone attack left physical remains:
A senior tribal chief who helped bury the bodies in a cemetery in Jawf told the Associated Press that seven people were killed in the strike, their bodies completely charred. The chief said the brother of one of the dead, who had given the group shelter in his home, had witnessed the strike.
According to the chief, the witness said Awlaki was travelling in a pick-up with six other people on their way to neighbouring Marib province. They stopped for breakfast in the desert and were sitting on the ground to eat when they spotted drones, so they rushed to their truck. A Hellfire missile fired from a drone struck the truck, leaving it a charred husk and killing all of those inside. The chief spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be connected to the group, and he did not identify the witness.
Why would they rush to the truck? Seems to me that the wisest course of action would have been to spread out in seven different directions.
Frankly, this story doesn't add up. Why didn't they eat breakfast in the home of the brother? Why did these men get in the truck, travel a very short distance, then get out and eat? They cannot have traveled far, because they were observed by the brother.
This eyewitness account seems more than a little odd. At any rate, since the remains were unidentifiable and the witness is also unidentified, we really don't have proof that al-Awlaki was killed.
For whom did he work?This far-right site notes oft-heard reports that al-Awlaki was recruited by the CIA. A ludicrous claim? Maybe. Maybe not.
After the announcement of al-Awlaki's death, quite a few people pointed to this bizarre story which appeared in the U.K.'s Daily Mail a year ago. The headline: "Dining with the enemy: Al Qaeda leader linked to 9/11 hijackers 'was invited to the Pentagon for lunch after attacks.'"
New documents have been obtained which apparently detail how Anwar Al-Awlaki, the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, rubbed shoulders with high-ranking military personnel just months after the atrocities.
Fox News claim to have acquired documents that state that Awlaki was taken to the U.S. Department of Defense's headquarters as part of the military's outreach program to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks.
American-born Awlaki, of Yemeni descent, 'was considered to be an up and coming member of the Islamic community'.
'After her vetting, Aulaqi (Awlaki) was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army's Office of Government Counsel'.
Awlaki was apparently interviewed at least four times by the FBI in the week after the September 11 attacks because of his links to the three hijackers.
Nawaf al-Hazmi,Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour were all aboard Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon.
Al-Awlaki was a former chaplain at George Washington University -- which just happens to have longstanding ties to the CIA. (Example.) Could American intelligence have recruited him at the time, or earlier?
Facebook. Al-Awlaki communicated with jihadis via Facebook, which I consider pretty damned suspicious behavior. How likely is it that an alleged Islamic holy warrior would use Facebook, an internet service which is notorious for compromising the privacy of users? A service funded by the CIA and owned by a Jew? A service which requires users to divulge their cell-phone numbers in order to gain an account, even though modern cell phones have GPS tracking devices baked in?
Arguably, al-Awlaki's Facebook account provided Uncle with an easy way to track the names, addresses and physical locations of any young dimwit who might be attracted to jihadist rhetoric. Let's get back to the crotch bomber. After the incident, Al-Awlaki spoke at length about the putative bomber:
"Umar Farouk is one of my students; I had communications with him. And I support what he did."
This is jihadi boilerplate, and not very informative. Why didn't he address any of the many mysteries surrounding the crotch bomber case? See, for example, here and here and here.
In particular, I'd like to know who videotaped the flight. I'd also like to know how Farouk got aboard the flight in Amsterdam without a passport. Originally, we were told that a well-dressed accomplice helped him board as a "refugee;" strangely, both the accomplice and the "refugee" story soon disappeared from official accounts.
The Timeline.This site offers a rather thorough overview of al-Awlaki's life. History Commons also provides valuable details. Let's look at some noteworthy entries:
June 6, 1990: Applies for Social Security card. Claims he was born in Sana’a, Yemen.
June 8, 1990: SSN 521-77-7121 issued to Awlaki.
He was born in New Mexico in 1971, a fact which he might have mentioned to the folks at the Social Security office. His family moved to Yemen in 1978; he came back to the United States on June 5, 1990.
In 1991, he started attending at a university in Colorado, and was graduated in 1994 with a degree in civil engineering. However, he spent much of that time period popping in and out of the country.
1993: Awlaki visits Afghanistan. “My impression was that he didn’t like it there,” Abdul Belgasem, a fellow student at CSU, tells Time magazine. “He wouldn’t have gone with al-Qaeda. He didn’t like the way they lived.”
Shortly after he got his degree, al-Awlaki began his career as an imam. It seems likely that al-Awlaki was one of the Denver operatives who, in 1994, set up secure communications for Osama Bin Laden using U.S. Army lines. See here.
However...
August 1996: Busted for soliciting a prostitute in San Diego. Pleads guilty to a lesser charge. Enrolls in HIV and AIDS education program and fined $400.
Time uncertain: Arrested by San Diego police “for hanging around a school.”
There was another prostitution bust in 1997.
Starting in 1998, he was the vice president of a charity accused of funding Al Qaeda. This fact makes his visit to the Pentagon all the more remarkable.
January 1999: Enrolls in San Diego State University master’s in educational leadership program. SDSU spokesman says the school does not have records showing Awlaki earned a degree.
Why would he enroll in such a program?
1999-2000: During its investigation, FBI learns that Awlaki knows individuals from the Holy Land Foundation and others involved in raising money for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Sources alleged that Aulaqi had other extremist connections. (9/11 Commission Report)
February 2000: Four calls between Awlaki and Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi who helped Al-Hamzi and Almihdhar find an apartment in San Diego. An FBI agent tells 9/11 Commission staff he is “98 percent sure” that the two hijackers were using al-Bayoumi’s phone at this time.
Early 2000: Visited by a subject of a Los Angeles FBI investigation closely associated with Blind Sheikh [Omar Abdel] Rahman. (Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11)
Early 2000: Several sources tell FBI that Alwaki “had closed-door meetings in San Diego” with Alhazmi, al-Midhar and another unidentified person “whom al-Bayoumi had asked to help the hijackers.” (Congressional Joint Inquiry)
March 2000: FBI closes its investigation, stating “the imam … does not meet the criterion for [further] investigation.”
One wonders what the guy would have to do to meet their criterion. According to History Commons, al-Awlaki served as the "spiritual guide" to the San Diego-based hijackers.
As most of you know, many mysteries surround those two men, who, if you believe certain reports, even had the ability to be in two places at the same time. They lived in an open, above-ground fashion -- with an FBI informant.
Here's what I wrote them on an earlier occasion:
They clearly had dangerous histories. The FBI knew all about them from taps on the father-in-law's phone. Supposedly, the CIA gave the FBI a data dump on the two, although the documentation may or may not have gotten lost in the mail. They were allowed to fly in and out of the United States, meeting with all sorts of dubious characters, and living on nobody-knows-what source of income. Evidence suggests that they may have been in (and out of) the country since 1996.
They had a listed phone number, accessible to anyone with internet access. They had a California DMV record. They had a U.S. bank account.
And they were shacking up with a freaking FBI informant.
You probably could have found them in about ten minutes, even without FBI authority. They did everything short of sending Christmas cards to the Hoover building. Nevertheless, Bob Fuller of the Bureau couldn't find them.
Back to our timeline. In early 2001, al-Awlaki moved to Virginia (home of the spooks) and began his career at George Washington University, where he pursues a PhD in "Human Resource Development."
April 2001: Al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour arrive in Falls Church and attend Dar Al-Hijra mosque. Awlaki denies having contact with the men in Virginia.
August 2001: According to NY Times, Awlaki tells neighbor Lincoln Higgie, “I don’t think you’ll be seeing me. I won’t be coming back to San Diego again. Later on you’ll find out why.”
On that same occasion, he said that "something big" was going to happen, and that he had to be out of the country -- in fact, he had plans to go to Kuwait. (Why Kuwait? He had family in Yemen.)
Before Sept. 11, 2001: Awlaki returns briefly to San Diego (9/11 Commission MFR) “Reportedly acted suspiciously by declining help with boxes he was transporting in a rental car (driven only 37 miles) and by refusing to provide any local address to the rental agent.”
September 2001: German authorities find Awlaki’s phone number in the Hamburg home of Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni who was a leading figure in the 9/11 plot.
Given his clear connections to the San Diego team members, you would presume that Al-Awlaki would have scooted out of the country -- as he had announced he would do. But no. Naturally, he was interviewed by the FBI after the terror attack. And with unnatural ease, he sailed right through their questioning -- even though he clearly seems to have lied about his relationship with the hijackers, since his story contradicted the evidence of his cell phone records.
(Wasn't Martha Stewart forced to do jail time for lying to investigators about a much less important matter?)
Yet even though they let the guy go more than once, the FBI would later tell foreign governments that they want to question al-Awlaki!
There was another prostitute bust in 2002. Despite which...
Feb. 5, 2002: Awlaki delivers lecture to senior Defense officials at the Pentagon on Islam and Middle Eastern politics and popular culture.
Go here for a DoD memo about that luncheon. Attendees had a choice of seafood, beef or chicken.
His name came up in the abortive Operation Green Quest investigation. He was placed on the terrorist watch list. Shortly after that, a judge issued a warrant for his arrest on a charge of passport fraud.
In October of 2002, the warrant was rescinded and the criminal case was dropped. He was allowed to fly into the U.S on October 10, 2002. Customs detained him until the FBI told Customs that al-Awlaki was taken off the watch list just the day before.
History Commons draws the following info from a 2004 U.S. News and World Report story:
Al-Awlaki then leaves the US again. The FBI will later admit they were “very interested” in al-Awlaki and yet failed to stop him from leaving the country. One FBI source says, “We don’t know how he got out.”
The pattern is unmistakable: The FBI told everyone that they were "very interested" in the man -- but only when he was out of the country. If they were so desperate to talk to him again, why didn't they pay him a visit when Customs had detained him at the airport?
Dec. 18, 2003: British MP Louise Ellman tells House of Commons calls Muslim Association of Britain is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood; says Awlaki “is reportedly wanted for questioning by the FBI in connection with the 9/11 al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.”
Yeah. Funny thing about that, Louise: The FBI did question him twice, both before and after he 9/11 attacks. They let him go, despite clear evidence of his involvement. And they let him fly in and out of the country, even though lots of innocent people (lefties, mostly) were put on the "no fly" list during this same period.
In 2006, he was in Yemen. The authorities there arrested him on kidnapping charges. (Al Qaeda in Yemen was going to kidnap a U.S. official.) The U.S. requested the Yemenis to hold him.
In October of 2006, an Al Qaeda gunrunning ring in Yemen was raided by the authorities. Al-Awlaki was part of this ring, using the name Abu Atiq. This fascinating story in The Australian almost comes right out and admits that "Abu" was an "inside man" working for either Yemeni or western intelligence:
...the key to the raids appears to be a Yemeni known as Abu Atiq, who was arrested about six weeks before the October 17 swoop. Abu Atiq was allegedly an associate of two of the September 11 hijackers and a protege of the virulently anti-Western Salafi cleric and head of Islamic studies at al-Islam, Abdul al-Majid al-Zindani, who the US wants arrested on terror charges. But Atiq's biggest claim to notoriety is his alleged role in a foiled al-Qa'ida plot to bomb oil and gas facilities in Yemen.
The strong implication here is that Al-Awlaki was scooped up on kidnapping charges, cooperated with the authorities, and blew the whistle on the gunrunners. The Australian notes that those who run afoul of Yemeni authorities usually are tossed into rough detention at the Central Security Prison in Sanaa, where torture is often used on suspects.
Al-Awlaki was confined for 18 months, kept away from the other prisoners. We don't know if he was tortured, but he probably was not -- if he had been, he would have advertised the fact during his propaganda broadcasts.
During his imprisonment, the FBI questioned him about his contacts with the 9/11 hijackers. This, despite the fact that they had already questioned him about that in 2002 and decided that he was unworthy of further attention.
Even though many smaller fish disappear into Yemen's prisons, never to be seen again, al-Awlaki was let go. He then began his career as a jihadist rabble-rouser, media figure and Facebook personality.
By the way: The drone strike represents only his most recent death. In December of 2009, the Yemenis reported that they had killed him in an airstrike.
I don't claim to have a proper "Theory of al-Awlaki." But there is definitely something about this guy that we have not yet been told.
Permalink
I struggled through this, and bless you for keeping all the names straight (I was particularly confused by one pronoun in your clips box ..."After her vetting..."). But the storyline came through and I particularly appreciated the Martha Stewart reference, thank you!
Keeping the world safe from the evil Martha Stewarts of the world seems like the utmost the bozos in charge can do. Do you mind if I borrow that moral yardstick for a sign for Occupy Boston?
I've seen several honest examples of people (whatever) diving into vehicles as choppers, planes, and drones approach. Terror doesn't make for logical thinking.
I wonder through what magic 8- ball (maybe his own) that ye olde crotch bomber gets his unerring intel?
What is it with 'terror' oppressive men and prostitution? Makes one wonder about 'sexual' issues, anger and OUTBURSTS (OK, 'outbursts' is to simplistic, but the point is they seem to present a danger to self or OTHERS!).
Why would the FBI and CIA leave such a man loose and about? Odd, very odd and up until reading this post I believed he was an American guy who had gone off the road into the cultish parts of religiosity (Many groups like this, have cultish links/behaviors etc).
The crotch and shoe guys both had very low self esteem and had thought they were going to have a better time in the here after...etc...blah, blah...
Are reporters really reporting these days or are they asleep, and why didn't we know about the arrests?
myiq2xu said... Jesus only came back from the dead once. ............ Why didn't the media report about his 'drone strike kill' in 2009 by Yemen? Was he already dead, or is he pretending now, was it a play for political moves? Who benefits from such 'Tough Actions'???
Thank God she's coming home. This entire case has been a travesty.
For me, the primary lesson of this outrageous episode concerns a conflict of archetypes. For as long as I can remember, citizens of the United States have either flattered or amused themselves with the belief that Americans are sexually prudish and innocent, especially when compared with Europeans. Europeans (we have long told ourselves) are far freer, far more knowing, far more experimental, far more worldly, far more tolerant, far sexier. Think Mary Pickford in her petticoat versus Sophia Loren in her slip -- Marie Osmond versus Laura Antonelli -- the all-American corn-fed farm girl in pigtails versus the topless countess walking her ocelot in St Tropez.
Those stereotypes remained lodged in our minds before, during and after the sexual revolution. We've told this story to ourselves so often that it comes as a shock to realize that Europeans have a very different narrative lodged in their heads -- a story about sexually rapacious Americans who pose a threat to the virtuous sons and daughters of the homeland.
Amanda was the victim of a psychological (or literary) construct of which she, like most other Americans, was previously unaware. Of the case itself, I can only repeat the words published here on December 4, 2009:
Rudy Guede has already been convicted in the death of Meredith Kercher. Nothing links him to either Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. If he were part of a conspiracy, why would he not lessen his sentence by testifying against the others? To this day, he insists that Knox was not present. (Frankly, the evidence against Guede might not have held up in an American court.)
The case against Knox is laughable. No genuine physical evidence links her to the crime. None. Neither is there any eyewitness testimony against her.
I'll say it again: An American woman has been convicted of murder despite a complete lack of forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony. There is no evidence that more than one person committed the crime. Another person, unconnected to her, has already been convicted.
The entire case rests on the twisted imaginations of the investigators, who formed their bizarre theories early on, and who refused to rethink their presumptions even after Guede came to their attention.
The prosecutor actually put these words into Knox's mouth as she allegedly assailed Kercher:
“You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.”
It is ludicrous to presume that any American would talk this way. This piece of dialogue was purely imaginary -- an example of bad screenwriting which should never have been allowed in any courtroom.
Judge Claudia Matteini suggested that Knox and Sollecito had been seeking to "experience extreme sensations, intense sexual relations which break up the monotony of everyday life..."
The judge is obviously a sexual fantasist. Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (under indictment for misconduct in another case) is another sick fantasist with a history of seeing inane Satanic conspiracies everywhere. This deranged freak actually believes that Amanda Knox was involved in some form of devil worship, even though no evidence indicates that she ever took any interest in any form of occultism, and no evidence links occultism to this crime.
At the very end, the prosecutors seemed to go even madder:
Why are italian lawyers calling amanda knox “satanic” and “lucifer-like” – is it because their evidence has fallen apart?
Defenders for Raffaele Sollecito spent most time rehabbing Amanda Knox’s character after she was called she devil, Nazi, dirty etc. They have alibis until 9:20 p.m. Murder probably happened around 9 p.m. Lawyers say no reason to believe this was group attack, point to Rudy Guede and the grave evidence against him, indicating lone killer.
Ugliest quote of entire trial: ”Amanda was muddy on the outside and dirty on the inside. She has two souls – the clean one you see her before you and the other … She is borderline. She likes alcohol, drugs and she likes hot, wild sex.” (By civil attorney Carlo Pacelli, representing falsely accused bar owner Patrick Lumumba, who employed Knox as barmaid.).
The astonishing thing is that Amanda was not (by modern standards) any kind of erotomaniac. She is a studious, ambitious young woman who knows several languages. Alas, she served as a blank screen onto which many Italians projected their sick anti-American fantasies.
It’s official, Amanda Knox is a witch of deception and a Nazi, according to the prosecution. She’s survived three days of insults as well as nonstop pandering to convicted murderer Rudy Guede. How careless were the Italian cops who collected the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele Sollecito? See Injustice in Perugia’s fascinating video.
Many, both inside and outside of the U.S., seem to be under the impression that fundamentalist religious mania exists only in this country, especially in our depraved southern states. But the disease has also made its presence known in Italy. Anyone who has (for example) read Paolo Apolito's book about the bizarre events in Oliveta Citra in 1985 will know that Italy is not immune to outbreaks of religious mania. Mignini's thinking was colored by a reactionary subculture every bit as bizarre as anything you'll find in Mississippi.
The vindication of Amanda Knox comes not long after the release of the West Memphis Three. Taken together, these cases demonstrate that Western society is finally starting to understand the dangers of falling back into the brutish irrationality of Medieval thinking. We have come to the edge of the cliff and we are pushing our way back to safety.
Then again...
The continuing popularity of Perry, Bachmann and the Tea Party reminds us that we remain haunted by monsters of the unconscious.
Permalink
I have been fascinated by this case for some time. Im not as sure as you that Knox is innocent. I know there is no reliable forensic evidence tying her to the crime. But to me it is odd that there is actually no evidence that she ever entered that room. Wouldnt you expect some evidence of her to be in the room since she lived in the house?
There is reason to believe that someone staged a break in. That someone might have been Guede, but he doesnt seem to have had a good motive to stage a break in. There are also some very odd statements, implicating people with alibis. When those statements where made, she knew that it was a murder case. Me personally, I would stick to the truth in a murder case. The stakes are just too high.
Sollecito called the Carabinieri and reported a break but asserted that nothing had been taken. The investigating authorities found this odd because several rooms were still locked and hadnt been entered. How did he know?
Nothing here is conclusive and perhaps that the key point. But both Sollecito and Knox have clearly changed stories or flat out lied on several occasions.
I wouldnt let the issues about the prosecutor worry too much. Its true the prosecutor has made absurd statements and has impaired credibility. But the judges in the case made it clear they dismissed some of his more fanciful statements. They didn't believe the rubbish about satanism, and they didn't think immorality was relevant. They just thought Knox was lying.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 7:01 PM
Ah, the sick twisted minds of those raised in a Catholic culture. Makes you wonder how many of Knox's accusers were boinked by their parish priest.
posted by Mr. Mike : 7:52 PM
I'm glad Knox was acquitted. I wonder what, if anything, the US would have done if she had been locked away again. I get scripts of Prison Break running through my head.
Joseph tells the acquittal of the accused, and Amanda Knox is due to the lack of forensic evidence, and as if hit by a bias of the accusers mediaval Amanda and showing the following sentence "It is ludicrous to presume That Would Any American talk this way "because only American girls is just pure and chaste! . Only the Europeans are vulgar! Joseph wrote that the trial of Amanda Knox is guilty only of prejudice mediaval Italians who go hunting for witches in the Middle Ages as not telling the truth. In Italy, people have many more problems than the case of Amanda Knox, corruption, nepotism and not at all happy to be Represented by politicians thieves and scoundrels who rob every day, but the case of Amanda Knox seems an acquittal due to the pressure of big business chauvinism and promise a large income to his return to exclude the fact that she is acquitted good for her. In Perugia, a girl is dead and the only culprit is a black guy that has good lawyers.The bias of the writer is like that of Italian Catholics hated, but the shadow of no milionarie business milliardario that is not seen nel caso di Amanda Knox then we all go to protest on Wall Sreet only because we are pure and good!
posted by Anonymous : 6:44 AM
I didn't follow the case very closely but I never thought they had a plausible story line or a shred of evidence to demonstrate their story line. How she was convicted in the first place is beyond me. I guess it was just Knox paying for the sins of our country with Iraq, Afghanistan and the whole "entitled" and "spoiled" Americans mind set some Europeans seem to harbor.
What surprises me is that it has only been 4 years since she first got convicted and went to prison. Seems like much longer than that. I really hope they didn't abuse her horribly while she was in prison. That had to be a hard 4 year stretch no matter how they treated her.
posted by gregoryp : 7:30 AM
Greg,
It just isnt so clear cut. There is no motive. However there was also no alibi. The only alibi was that the lovers claimed to spend the night together. However Sollecito's initial statement was that he could remember whether he was with Amanda or not. He also claimed to have used his computer to watch cartoons and Amelie with Amanda. However there was no activity on his computer between 9.10pm on Nov 1, and 5.32am the next morning. They also switched their cell phones off in roughly the same time frame. Both of them. They switched them back on at 6am.
I dont see proof that they murdered that kid. However I cant see anything which exonerates them. I guess its about burden of proof.
I guess I am less sympathetic cos in her "confession" she pinned the murder on her boss at a local bar, a black guy called Lumumba. He was arrested and only released when a Swiss businessman heard about his arrest and came forward to say he had been drinking in his bar with him in the bar at the time.
What kind of person puts someone they know in the frame for a murder? Even were she were innocent of murder, she commited perjury to incriminate an innocent party who had done nothing but help her.
Finally, what makes you think Italian prisons are worse than American one? I think thats a rather odd assumption. Im absolutely convinced the food is better in Italy.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 9:00 AM
Ok, Harry she is guilty. She didn't have an ironclad alibi to prove her innocence. No real person can positively account for every second of every day. Just not possible. We all go places and do things but can't prove that we did those things. It is called living.
Also, how can anyone not believe that a solitary male criminal could overpower a young woman, sexually abuse her and then murder her? Goodness, that happens every freaking day and quite frankly I find it strange to think that people are just so flabbergasted that a "black" man is the only person paying for a crime that he obviously committed. Like it really matters what freaking color a person is if they are indeed guilty of a crime. Completely ludicrous.
In order to actually believe the storyline as described by the prosecution you have to throw out common sense and be willing to believe, as many here in Texas do, that the prosecutor is always right and convict no matter how unlikely or preposterous, without merit, evidence or testimony. People need to get reacquainted with the concept of Occam's razor.
posted by gregoryp : 11:07 AM
I think she is far from innocent. If she did not actually commit the murder, I believe she contributed to the conditions causing it (accessory), was present and was responsible for the presence of Guede. When young people do stupid things involving sex and drugs in another country (release of restraint), there can be unfortunate consequences. The thing I find most damning was that she was up so early in the morning with Sollecito buying cleaning supplies (receipts are part of the "circumstantial" evidence against her). Who does that after a party or night out? She didn't do it because she was a neat freak (judging by her roommate's prior complaints about her). She strikes me as an irresponsible piece of work being portrayed as a child by her defense and family. Maybe she will learn something from the experience (including jail) but celebrating her release seems inappropriate, especially given that the victim clearly did not deserve to die and does deserve justice, fully as much as Knox.
The Libertarians -- in particular, those who follow Alex Jones -- are spreading crappy conspiracy theories about the Occupiers. Yes, it's all a plot by Evil Soros! Also see here:
Despite their honest intentions, many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are being suckered into a trap and calling for the very “solutions” that are part of the financial elite’s agenda to torpedo the American middle class – higher taxes and more big government.
Actually, government action and higher taxes on the financial elite created the middle class in the first place.
I may have to re-think my cynical attitude toward the Occupiers. Kids, you have made the right enemies. To that extent: Bravo.
I like some of what I'm reading here. We still need an official statement of demands and grievances. I contend that such a statement must contain a clear denunciation of Libertarianism, using that term.
Permalink
"Fox news co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle bashed the protest, saying it was composed of “people with absolutely no purpose or focus in life.”"
The TEAPARTY/GOP/Libertarian Network goes after Occupy Wall Street. As you've noted that is enough reason to support the kids. And then there's the fact that the future is theirs and it's finally dawning on them that they must fight for it. By the way, watched some video of the protests and there were quite a few silver headed and bald headed people joining in. So they're not all kids.
I suppose a GENUINE movement of the people (especially young people), that's not organized by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin,The Koch Brothers, NOM and a bunch of middle age religious Zealnuts who are afraid of "teh gay" is a scarey notion to FOX NEWS.
As soon as the wave moves South, I'm joining the kids, lame arm and all.
Anon is right. It makes sense that the spearhead of this movement is being waged by the kids--it's their future that's being squeezed and twisted. Besides they have more energy and better feet :0).
Soros and all the other conspiracy backers don't need to tell the working class that they've been screwed royally and that the powers-that-be would just like them to go away. Besides, there are other groups joining now: veterans, pilots, postal workers, etc. A number of the protest kids have reported that many of the cops have actually said they support the movement. Let's face it: anyone who actually works for a living is part of the 99ers Naked Capitalism has a piece on the Occupy Boston protests and Corrente has an article up on Occupy Everywhere, which shows the protests springing up across the country.
It may not be a perfect protest but it's a beginning. And yes, anyone howling about the libertarian/neoliberal destruction in the country is on the right track.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 8:23 AM
"We still need an official statement of demands and grievances. I contend that such a statement must contain a clear denunciation of Libertarianism, using that term."
I get where you're coming from, but - like my disagreement over the 'progressive' vs 'liberal' labels - I don't think the word carries the connotations for others that it does for you. I don't think nitpicking over the usage of the word is a winning strategy or worth fighting over.
My suspicions are that many people associate the word 'libertarian' with civil liberties rather than as a proto-Fascist economic doctrine, and that many who self-identify as Tea Partiers consider themselves equally as concerned with civil liberties as economic/taxation liberties (difference being nobody ever stokes up a Two Minutes Hate on cable news for civil side).
Another issue is the For/Against dichotomy: 'Libertarian' directly implies (or at least is widely understood to suggest) a small, hands-off government. Setting oneself or ones' movement in direct opposition to the term leads the rationally handicapped to assume that the opposition must stand as an inverted concept: Big Government sticking it's nose in your bidness - economic and otherwise.
It's basically the same argument I made over Prog/Lib - it's not just about the principle, it's about the message. Message wins far more battles than Principle. Together they're a dynamic duo, but Principle without Message is like sending Robin out to clean up Gotham's streets while Batman takes a powder. Sadly, the GOP seems to pay Batman better, and Democrats seem to think Robin can win the day... even when he has to fight Batman. That metaphor's for you, Joe.
Also: if you effectively demonize Libertarians in the public mind, they'll just change labels and regroup. Isn't that the Tea Party?
So I say: Let us not concern ourselves with labels, but rather pair Message with Principle and deploy both. Don't denounce Libertarianism, denounce the foundations of it's philosophy: Denounce it's anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare, anti-worker ideology (use lots of Anti's - e.g. they're not Pro-Business, they're Anti-Worker).
I'd also think that this would get us closer to debate on substance and policy rather than broad, ill-defined philosophies on governance - and it's in the details, in policy, where Liberal governance wins the day. The GOP/Rand wing have bumper stickers and slogans, but Liberals own policy analysis and it's implications... or at least the stuff that can be shown to the public.
A final note: Debating over policy & it's implications can lead to a "gotcha" moment, whereas debating over a broad philosophy of governance never will.
So, in sum, I think it's better to fight the policy and philosophy fights than the label fights.
And if you've read all of what I just pooped out onto my keyboard... I'm sorry.
You are right...I have seen trolls infiltrating the Occupy Boston boards. Over and over they punch the meme "What is your message? What is your goal? What are your demands? What is your end game?" I prefer a more focused message myself....and the kids' crunchy granola kum baya attitude toward one and all is a bit wearing on one's patience (there are plenty of bushy-eyed clueless kids calling themselves Libertarians there) ----but I'm still supporting their fledgling emergence. We're long overdue for street action. My favorite slogan I saw today was "The Beginning is Near" ---but that sign was painted by an old-time protester. I recognized his name!
What happens next? Really. This is the start but what is the middle and what is the end? I hear and see what can be done to disrupt the movement/action/protest. That stuff is old hat but effective old hat. What can be done to deal with the expected monkey business? That is where leadership and organization come in but I am still impressed that the protests are still going strong and even growing without clear 'leadership/decision makers'. It would be very cool if all of this work affects this country by achieving something close to, say "30-40%" of the demands. Very cool. No more fence sitting for me. I'll be at Freedom Plaza Thursday. HOT DAMN!!
The Libertarians have pointed to Solyndras as evidence of Obama's alleged "socialism." So why don't they point at Rick Perry?
The Texas Emerging Technology Fund (ETF) is practically Perry’s own, personal multi-million dollar fundraising machine. When it comes to doling out money to private firms he doesn’t have to beg anyone for anything.
Here’s a successful Texas investment strategy. Put a $1000 of your own money into a business. Invest $75,000 in the Governor’s campaigns. Then fund the rest of your business with a $4.5m taxpayer funded grant from the Governor’s ETF. That’s not a loan like Solyndra received, that’s cash on the barrelhead, delivered from the state and never to be repaid.
Big Perry donor Charles Tate helped to run the ETF. The fund gave to a Tate enterprise called ThromboVision, which failed a few years later. Remember: Perry doled out grants, not loans.
Permalink
The Economic Cycle Research Institute says a new recession is unavoidable. This probably means that the Republican nominee will be the next president.
It also means that we will likely be entering into a proto-revolutionary period. This gives fringe-dwellers their big chance to take over. The Libertarians have their act together -- "sacred scripture," organization, a robust media infrastructure -- while the left does not.
Thus, while I fear this new recession, I fear even more what comes next.
Permalink
Just what we need, loons with a nuclear arsenal. Think Land of Confusion by Genesis only Perry or Bachmann instead of Reagan.
posted by Mr. Mike : 8:11 AM
There's a financial tsunami headed our way. Will it be 2012, 2013, etc? Don't know. But it's coming and all the king's men and all the king's horses refuse to acknowledge the danger. If they did? The NYC occupation would truly be child's play.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 10:28 AM
First of all we don't have a new recession coming. We have been in a depression and are still there and will be there for quite some time to come.
This is what they want you to think. What they want you to write about. What they want the media to flout.
The powers will be will tell you they are all different recessions. They will tell you that cos there are different remedies for depressions rather than common or garden recessions. If its a recession the situation is normal. If its a depression the situation is exceptional and requires exceptional measures - a new new deal perhaps? With the path the authorities are going down - restricting growth of money (or failing to offset the natural contraction of credit if you prefer), and limited fiscal intervention, then yes this next phase of recession is inevitable.
Joseph, I have warned about this for 4 years or so. It is clearly happening now. The only way out is massive intervention, of a form which will involve massive wealth transfer. But the politics here wont tolerate it. So instead you must have a depression.ly the same as Japan.
Barack Obama used military drone weapons to kill reputed terror leader Anwar al-Awlaki, who happens to be American-born. I have little doubt that al-Awlaki was a very bad guy, and I do not mourn his passing. But this assassination of an American citizen was extrajudicial and illegal. He received no trial. We don't really know the true nature of the evidence against him; we must take the government's word.
Hate to admit it, but Ron Paul is right about this one.
"Al-Awlaki was born here, he's an American citizen, he was never tried or charged for any crimes," Paul said. "To start assassinating American citizens without charges - we should think very seriously about this."
Whenever government officials decide to erode the protections of due process, they always begin by targeting someone genuinely detestable. Anyone who criticizes the assassination of an al-Awlaki may stand accused of being a terrorist sympathizer.
Much the same thing occurs when the government uses "Big Brother" tactics to spy on (or to entrap) a pedophile.
Terrorists and child molesters. Those are the big, scary monsters used to goad us into giving up our civil liberties.
Americans are asked to accept, and even to applaud, the end of the rule of law and the right to privacy, because terrorists and child molesters are just so damned evil that any counter-measures are justified. Well...yes. They are evil. But if we do not extend legal protections to our worst citizens, then very soon those protections will be denied to everyone, especially to those whose only real crime is dissent.
Republican congressman Peter King defended Obama's action against al-Awlaki:
"It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country..."
Those very words could be used to justify the assassination of militia members -- or even the assassination of G. Gordon Liddy, who once counseled his listeners to fire "head shots" at federal officers. They could even be used to target Ron Paul, who has flirted with advocating secession. (Al-Awlaki was not accused of literally bearing arms against the U.S.; he offered advocacy, instigation and planning.)
On a related note: A couple of days ago, a Florida customs official was arrested for possession of child pornography on his computer. Most people read such news stories and automatically presume the charge to be true. Frankly, so do I -- in this particular case.
But step back for a moment. How do you really know that the charge is true?
In the 1980s (according to an oft-told story), a gang lord stood accused of being involved with the cocaine trade. The government proved that cash in his possession tested positive for trace evidence of the drug. The defense countered by proving that all folding money contains trace evidence of cocaine.
Similarly, perhaps your computer has kiddie porn imagery nestled somewhere on it. Perhaps most computers do.
We all download freeware programs -- including the firewall ZoneAlarm, which is provided to you gratis by people who are at least rumored to be connected to Israeli intelligence. There are numerous other free apps out there: Video converters, music players, anti-spyware, registry utilities, so on and so-forth.
How do you know -- how can you be 100% certain -- that these apps do not place a tiny illegal image in some deeply hidden folder on your system? Perhaps the program automatically erases the illegal image seconds after placing it on your computer. The image would still be visible to a cop or federal agent doing a forensic analysis of your system.
From the standpoint of a totalitarian ruler, it would be very useful to engineer a society in which nearly everyone can (potentially) be proven in court to be a lawbreaker. Let's posit that the "Occupy Wall Street" movement whelps up an actual leader. To discredit him, the government need merely gin up an accusation of pedophilia -- and lo, the evidence will appear on his system. The forensic computer detective who examines the drive will believe that he has made a legitimate find.
Something similar happens on the streets everyday. In most places, the cops tolerate a flow of traffic about five m.p.h. above the posted speed limit. This situation turns everyone into a lawbreaker -- and that, in turn, gives cops the right to pull over anyone they choose, for reasons that have nothing to do with speeding. (Such as "driving while black.")
The Florida customs official referenced above was probably a legitimate threat to society. I feel confident that al-Awlaki was an evil bastard.
Nevertheless, I advise my readers to question everything.
Recently I had a chance to use a small amount of personal experience to gently chide a conspiracist...We were two strangers, far, far, from Chicago, talking about long ago Mayor Harold Washington. My new acquaintance noted: "You know, I think they had him killed." Now I was working in an ER on the South Side at the time of his death. Washington was downtown at the mayors office that morning. (We thanked God it was Northwestern that got him and not us.) I knew the guys who tried to rescusitate him, I knew the guys who put him on the bypass pump. Maybe someone secretly tried to shorten his lifespan but from the way things went down I am perfectly satisfied that it was Twinkies, not the white establishment that did this great mayor in. Mayor Washington was a massive heart attack waiting (which it didn't) to happen.
So I suppose that out there somewhere is someone who has had enough personal experience to tell me that, in fact, al-Awlaki got everything he had coming to him. But come on, the guy gave interviews on CNN. To me he looks to be a government plant whose "death" serves to keep the whole Al Qaida charade at a simmer.
posted by lastlemming : 12:34 AM
Last two posts very thought-provoking.
Bear in mind sex offenders include teenaged boys barely over the majority, with girls their age, barely under "consent."
@prolerzee...teenage boys don't fit the whole boogeyman idea. The middle aged man who might kidnap your little son or daughter and molest him/ her does. Those guys titillate and grab the eyeballs of the public, teenage boys titillate and grab the eyeballs of cougars.
posted by Aleealee : 6:29 AM
I had the same thoughts, a user could download an app that had photos and a program to email them to anyone in the address book. Not a government plot but that of a malicious prankster.
Locally there was a case of sexting that ended up with the kids involved in real trouble. They were charged with a felony.
posted by Mr. Mike : 8:07 AM
I love this quote.
"It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country..."
Its so obviously bogus reasoning that the idiot who uttered it needs a slap in the face and some media attention. Why do people say dumb stuff like this? Why do people let them?
If something is legal, then show me the law. Its simple. If you dont cite law you are talking bull.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 8:41 AM
We absolutely agree on the question of al-Awlaki. I was stunned when Obama put out the kill order on the man. And now the press and political rah-rah men are cheering the hit.
It's certainly not because I think al-Awlaki was a good guy or even that I've entertained the conspiracy edge but because every time we kick the Rule of Law to the curb, we become weaker. If we rely on the capricious Rule of Men [or Women], it's all over but for the weeping.
Btw, I heard yesterday on the radio that the Administration could have stripped al-Awlaki of his US citizenship for plotting against the country, thereby squeezing within the Law. Guess they didn't feel the need to even go through the motions.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 8:46 AM
Aleealee, I meant consenting teenagers are sometimes caught up in the net of "sex offender" and then are tarred for life... the "boogie man" theme does make people judge without thinking. Eventually, tho, when the overreaching reaches a critical mass, perceptions change. The "war on drugs" is an example.
The U.S. government has no problem killing its own citizens. The first people ever lynched (by Judge Lynch)were white Southerners judged Loyalist by their neighbors. Tens of thousands of citizens were killed in the Civil War, long before anyone was called an enemy combatant. The due process of today is being labelled an enemy combatant.
I feel confident that al-Awlaki was an evil bastard.
Well I feel confident the guy was jerk. Don't you think calling Awlaki an "evil bastard" sort of plays into the whole propaganda line of government? My bet is most of what the public has been told about the guy is total bullshit.
The profitability of the entire industrial military terrorism fighting complex rests largely on the reputation of a handful of evil madmen.
Regarding Al-Alwaki, where's the evidence? The US government arbitrarily upgraded his rank in Al-Qaeda right after they assassinated him. Surely that's only the tip of the propaganda iceberg.
I think everything about this guy's alleged infamy deserves to be challenged. Where's the evidence? Since he's dead now, surely they can present "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence sufficient to convict on capital offense charges.
Thanks, Joe, as always, for saying what others fear to say. We all need to diligent about covering our tracks online and keeping an open mind when other people's suspicious tracks are uncovered.
posted by Trojan Joe : 11:51 AM
Jotman, spot on. Everything, and I mean everything we supposedly know about al-Awlaki comes from "the administration" or "government sources". No judge has seen any evidence, neither has any media figure (at least, none has indicated they've seen any hard evidence). We are expected to just take the government's word that is was for the best that this guy was assassinated without any trial, without even any formal charges. I don't see why anyone would trust the government on this one. The founding fathers didn't trust government, that was why they created all the checks and balances they did. Obama has eliminated those in this case, to become judge, jury, and executioner. I can't believe more people are not appalled by this development.
Sorry about the lack of posting. I've been busy with lots of stuff, including helping a friend move. (She's going to Vegas. A gruesome idea, if you ask me -- which she didn't.)
Our last post, on the Occupy Wall Street movement, made a lot of people feel queasy. I'm queasy about it too. Theodore Roosevelt's "In the Arena" quote haunts us all: If you're just a spectator, what right do you have to sneer at the warriors?
Then again, perhaps this blog constitutes a form of fighting.
Part of the problem stems from personal history. My only first-hand experience of protest marches occurred during the movement to end America's covert wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Those marches seemed ineffectual, silly and depressing; worst of all, they offered a glimpse of the thin line separating mass action from mob action. I neither liked nor trusted many of the people with whom I marched.
On the other hand: Just how ineffectual were those protests? Reagan never did send American troops into open warfare, although he clearly wanted to do so. When polled, the American public always remained anti-interventionist. I'm not sure that the protest marches played any role in keeping us out of war. How can one judge such a thing? But perhaps they helped.
We still haven't processed the lessons of the Reagan revolution.
I never will forget that the Reagan movement was created by people who once protested the Vietnam war. For that reason, whenever I look at the Occupiers, I see Tea Partiers, or at least potential Tea Partiers: The opposites look more like equivalences to these jaded eyes.
The thirst for rebellion will always -- in the long run -- serve the cause of reaction, because conservatism is revolutionary. James Kwak at the Baseline Scenario makes the point. Never forget that Boulanger, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were all rebels. So was Reagan.
I noted, in the earlier post, that the political history of the 1970s came down to this progression: The slogan "Don't trust the Pentagon" turned into "Don't trust the government," which turned into "Don't trust the very idea of government," which turned into "Vote for Reagan."
Today, the "occupiers" have no universally agreed-upon program beyond an outrage over police brutality. Watch it happen: "Fuck the police" will turn into "Fuck the government," which will turn into "Fuck the very idea of government," which will turn into "Let's live in AynRandLand." Alienation from power is always a sentiment that the Libertarians can work with.
I suppose that support for the protesters depends upon one's level of discouragement over electoral politics. If you are a liberal, how can you not be discouraged right now? The "liberal" label has been misapplied to a bad president who is anything but a liberal.
Nevertheless, I have always counseled New Deal idealists to work within the Democratic Party with an idea toward an eventual takeover. This is how the Libertarians took over the Republican party. Why not emulate a successful strategy?
Today, as in the Vietnam era, the protesters seem to think that elections can solve nothing because the candidates have been purchased by the powerful. Look, we're all angry at the corruption which has ruined so much of the American political system. But if you have given up on electoral politics altogether, then what are you for? The only alternatives are fascism and/or AynRandLand.
If fear of future regulations and taxes is holding business back, as everyone on the right asserts, why didn’t the Republican victory in the midterms set off a surge in employment?
The right has been insanely successful in convincing the populace that prolonged unemployment is due to something other than lack of demand.
Horatio Alger laughs at you: Gore Vidal once wrote an essay -- I forget which one -- in which he noted that, during the Depression, every person who lost a job blamed himself. In the play Death of Salesman, the unsuccessful businessman must listen to innumerable tales of smart go-getters who made it big. Our culture offers a thousand daily jabs at our egos: "You're not talented enough. You're not good enough. That's why you're not rich."
Ever since the early 1980s, I've noticed that every recession is marked by a propaganda barrage designed to convince the public that bright, upbeat up-and-comers can still make it in America. The Horatio Alger myth just won't die. We're always being told that personal success has nothing to do with inherited wealth and everything to do with pluck and ambition.
Here's an example. Yahoo News runs a story like that nearly every day.
I think that the cumulative effect of these stories is not positive. The message is not "You can do it too." The message is "Lost your house? You have no-one to blame but yourself."
Permalink
Never forget that Boulanger, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were all rebels. So was Reagan.
So were Washington, Paine, Mandela, Walesa, Gandhi,and Havel. Revolutions (and revolutionaries) come in all types. Reactionaries tend to have money and power on their side - so yes, they have very high odds of success.
There's ample evidence to know that corporations, especially financial institutions have Americans by the short hairs. This has only been possible with the help of the politicians in Washington. The Wall Street protestors may not understand how Wall Street works, but they have a sense that something is wrong and that those who run Wall Street institutions have something to do with what is wrong with our economy. Wall Street and Washington should pay attention. One day a leader will tap into the discontent, and hell will break loose. DM
posted by Anonymous : 6:59 PM
Hell indeed. I agree, DM.
Sextus: Washington and Paine operated against a background of the Enlightenment. Today's rebels are trying to speak to a generation which knows nothing of enlightenment values; their only reference points go to Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul and Alex Jones. Do you really expect to find ANYTHING nourishing in such a cultural stew?
"The thirst for rebellion will always -- in the long run -- serve the cause of reaction, because conservatism is revolutionary." Joe Cannon
"Conservatism arises in reaction to something, and it oftentimes perceives itself to be the underdog." Corey Rubin author of "The Reactionary Mind" in interview with Thomas Rogers of Salon http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/02/reactionary_mind_interview/
Great minds think alike.
posted by Penelope Pennebaker : 5:42 AM
I certainly take your point, Joseph. But I also feel in my gut that these protests in NYC, what will happen very shortly in DC and the satellite marches and demonstrations growing through the country is a direct expression of an unresponsive government that is unwilling or incapable of telling any truth to its citizenry.
On the financial side, we haven't had our Pecora moment. A relatively small group of financiers brought down the world through greed and lies. And yet, no one has been held accountable, short of Bernie Madoff [a piker in comparison].
We have endless, stupid wars that have bled the country of treasure and blood. I was listening to Book TV last night, a presentation of a former CIA agent on the subject of 'enhanced' interrogation and what we've lost in terms of who we're 'suppose to be over the last dozen years. And who is touring the country with books and more propaganda? Cheney and Rumsfeld.
In terms of elections, we've had three compromised elections in a row: 2000 where GW was installed by the Supreme Court, 2004 where the results in Ohio were highly suspicious and never answered adequately and a botched primary in 2008, which gave us Barack Obama [because frankly the Dems could have run Happy and Clown and won].
Money has corrupted the legislative process, corporate abuse has become the norm [think BPs outrageous behavior in the Gulf] and people--the working-class, the middle-class--are hurting be it through unemployment or a health system that's obscenely expensive and ruled by the insurance industry.
So, when I see the livestream of these kids in the street, my eyes register the unsettling nature of it but my heart knows that if I were a kid [one of the fetuses] and had possibly watched my father lose his job, my family lose our house, my mother sick but unable to get adequate treatment, my school loans coming due and I'm without a job and with no prospect of finding one? I'd be in the street, too. Because I'd feel I had no alternative.
Unsettling yes. But the choices are pretty miserable.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 8:18 AM
Peggy Sue,
I have noticed the same thing. I think I know the reason. The reason there has been no Pecora moment, is because they continue to be in control. We continue to live in a bankocracy. Jamie Dimon is one of our leading Oligarchs. We do not matter. Only our banking masters matter because it is only with money that you can take political power.
You are absolutely right Peggy Sue. And consider the recession that is coming. What will that end up doing to us? Where will this process end?
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is morphing into a nationwide movement called "Occupy Together." (Stupid name, but let's not quibble about nomenclature.) Why haven't I mentioned the protests in New York heretofore? Because I am unsure if any good can come of them. There is no leadership. There is no platform. There are no specific goals. No demands. No coherent weltanschauung.
Perhaps worst of all, this movement is primarily the work of young people -- in other words, of idiots. They have no sense of history, no idea as to which past strategies have worked and which have failed. Never trust anyone under 30.
Naturally, these fetuses are reliant on Facebook and Twitter and cell phones with GPS -- which means that Uncle is keeping track of their every blink, breath and cough, as they keep feeding more and more info to the data-miners. This is a revolution? The first job of a revolutionary is to get away with it -- and you'll never get away with it if you don't know when to maintain radio silence. (Or computer and cell phone silence.)
As I said: These toddlers are idiots. Never forget that we're dealing with the same college kids who thought that Obama was the Prog Messiah.
If the current movement proves to be a genuine threat to the powers-that-be, here's what will happen:
1. The provocateurs will show up. Agents will commit acts of violence, thereby giving the entire movement a black eye.
2. A glib and charismatic YAFL (Yet Another Fucking Libertarian) will commandeer the movement, or at least a large section thereof.
3. An avowed Marxist (either a phony or a manipulated dupe) will become one of the faces of the movement. This will scare the folks in the heartland and play right into the Randroid propaganda line.
4. The entire shebang will be undone by internal bickering, combating egos, the unrelenting cries of me me me. Most of all, expect to see that unrelenting scourge of liberalism: Identity politics. (Black, gay, Hispanic, feminist, etc.) Once those egomaniacs take the spotlight -- it's over.
Lookee here and you will see that other scourge of the left -- the hopeless fantasy called "consensus decision making," otherwise known as Egomania On Parade. Ah yes. Let's have a return to the wonderful early days of the SDS, when the fetuses of 1963 spent eight hours debating whether to take half the day off.
I predict that nothing good will come of such an amorphous movement. If you want to see what these youngsters are doing wrong, take a gander at this recent message on the OccupyWallStreet site:
You must organize massive strikes. Marching is not enough. In a Capitalist society only striking will bring genuine change.
1) Organize strikes throughout the entire city: businesses and trades of every kind. Have them each designate a specific color to represent themselves.
2) Congregate all striking organizations in one place.
And on and on. What's missing here? For one thing: A program. Specific demands. A strike without demands makes about as much sense as a strike without representative negotiators.
The other thing missing here is, of course, any practical notion of how to get such an ambitious scheme off the ground. I'm reminded of the People's Front of Judea calling for the overthrow of the entire Roman empire within the next twelve months: "Yeah, twelve months. And let's face it: As empires go, this is the big one..."
"We Americans here-by assert our duty to alter our current form of government."
Alter it in what ways? The writer gives no specifics. How can we be sure that the writer would alter it for the better? (I'm already unhappy with the altered spelling of hereby.)
Look, fetuses: We oldsters can recall what happened to the anti-Vietnam movement. You can learn from us. Here's what went wrong in the 1970s: The motto "Don't trust the Pentagon" turned into "Don't trust the government" which turned into "Don't trust the very idea of government," which turned into "Vote for Reagan." Something very similar will happen here. Watch and see.
If you don't want to see that inevitable ideological segue -- call it "Creeping Libertarian Rot" -- you must state out loud: "We believe in a strong government and a new New Deal. In the economic sphere, we are 100% opposed to Libertarianism." I don't see that declaration in any of the "Occupy" web sites.
Do you seek "to alter our current form of government" via a Constitutional convention, as some misguided lefties do? Guess what: The Libertarians have their shit together on that front -- have had, for years -- and they are just dying for a convention to happen. They have the money, they have the numbers, they have the passion, they have the organizational skills, and most of all, they have the willingness to submit to an organizing body (which lefties are too egomaniacal to do). If there's a convention, they'll take over the place pronto. The result will be no Social Security, no Medicare, no EPA, no Pell Grants, no Middle Class, no impediments to Total Corporate Control. Welcome to Ayn RandLand.
How can the current "Occupy Wall Street" movement be transformed into something useful? Here's one modest proposal: No fetuses. We must have sufficient humility to admit that our educational system has failed. Therefore, no-one under the age of 30 should be allowed to write anything or to make any decisions. Even those over 30 must not be allowed a voice unless (for example) they can, without hesitation and without consulting Google, tell people who Robert La Folette was.
Beyond that, and more seriously: There must be leadership, there must be willingness to take direction from that leadership, there must be a program, there must be a specific set of grievances, and there must be a specific vision for the future. We also need a plan to combat predictable problems such as paranoia, smears, the sowing of internal strife, and acts by agents provocateurs.
Arguably, there is room for a brand new "ism" here. That may sound like odd advice, coming from the guy who once said that "all isms are prisons." But sweeping generalizations exist to be pissed on, right?
Without a plan of action and a concrete vision, all you'll ever have are crybabies crying. On teevee this morning, I heard Matt Taibbi and Keith Olbermann argue that, although the occupation may be vague and hazy now, it will probably coalesce into a movement with specific goals. Don't bet on it. Do you really think that a headless body can spontaneously generate a brain?
Well, this is a point where we disagree. I think the 99ers have a shot at raising awareness and waking people up. Yes, they're young for the most part and disorganized. But I wouldn't piss on the parade for that alone. And this act of civil disobedience has spread to Boston, Chicago, Las Vegas and out on the coast. The Nurses' Union has been pushing its own movement against the excesses of Wall St. The postal workers, the teachers' union and others are supportive. Reportedly buses came in from Wisconsin last weekend to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the fetuses.
It's a beginning and will be followed by the movement/sit-in scheduled for DC in early October. The longer and larger these acts of dissent go on, the harder it will be to ignore.
Will it be successful? Who knows. I'm not a fortune teller. But sitting on our hands, moaning and groaning won't change a damn thing. Nor will elections.
I'm encouraged by this and several other pushes: Eric Schniederman, the AG in NY pushing forward with his investigations despite intimidation from the banks and the Administration; Dylan Ratigan's movement to GetTheMoneyOut; and yes, even the growing [if incredibly slow] acknowledgement that Obama is a fraud, bought and sold by those who brung 'im to the dance.
It has to start somewhere. Or it won't start at all. Color me encouraged by anyone willing to standup and pushback. Even fetuses!
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 7:31 AM
Corporate America has made it so it's too risky for Joe and Jane Sixpack to go on strike like happens in Europe. There your medical benefits aren't tied to your employment and there is a safety net for the un/under employed.
When a Canadian acquaintance lost their job due to the slow down in American auto manufacturing he was bemoaning the loss of his health insurance. Turns out he was referring to his employer paid Vision and Dental plans. His health insurance is managed by the provincial government.
Anyway for a strike to be effective it has to bring commerce to a halt and that ain't gonna happen.
posted by Mr. Mike : 7:33 AM
Its an evolutionary process. The enviroment is generating resistance. I do feel sorry for these kids. They can see their parents lifestyle being taken away from them. They dont understand why or how or how to resist. So they will get their butts kicked. But some of them will escape the dragnets and the kickings from Long Island policemen, and will go away having learned something about the true state of affairs and how things are done. They will learn and adapt. Expect facebook use to disappear and be replaced by pop up bulletin boards. Expect them to video everything so that if they are beaten videos get youtubed round the world in seconds. Its gonna be a long fight. I KNOW with absolute certainty that the kids are gonna win in the end (they always do). However it might well be entirely pyrrhic.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 7:43 AM
I'm afraid I agree with Peggy Sue. However, I think you make very good points Joseph. Still, it has to start somewhere, and established liberal institutions are obviously not doing a damn thing. I view this with skepticism, but also with a small amount of hope (not the Obama kind, of course).
As much as I think you're analysis is the most likely, I would prefer to focus on Peggy Sue's view.
However, I am not naive, and will be following this closely.
One thing is certain, elections will not change the situation we are in.
posted by Gus : 8:14 AM
I agree with Peggy Sue. Obviously, all the same issues that applied to and often undermined the protests during the start-up protests against the Vietnam war will find their way into this movement. Still I believe these young people have focused on the correct culprits and are doing what all of us older folks wish we could do and no longer have the stamina to do. It's an "I'm pissed off and I won't take it anymore" movement & moment. Are they naive in their approach, in their methods, in their organization, in their vague goals, undoubtedly, but so were those of us who protested against the Vietnam war. All most of us knew was that our friends were being dragged off to a war that we didn't understand, in a country many of us knew absolutely nothing about. All we knew was that most of them were sent away against their will and many of them never came back. It was the elite using the people as cannon fodder to execute their own self serving agenda and strategic goals. It's fundamentally the same struggle, the powerless against the powerful.
posted by ANonOMouse : 9:46 AM
Good tactical advice.
I haven't been able to parse out any real goal for these demonstrations. I have to agree that I hear no coherent strategy or alternative being offered. Looks a lot like G20 anarchists to me. They must be preaching to their choir. They've already exhausted their 15 minutes of notoriety, and the longer they go on, the more the consensus will turn on them. Time to declare victory and withdraw.
I think media coverage has been deliberately thin as a favor to the current Administration's hopes of re-election. Nothing pisses off a big chunk of America faster than seeing civil unrest, and the political ruling class gets the heat.
you hit it right on the head. I disagree that the sit in is useless, but agree, and am stunned by the answers when asked by the media what your goal is- "ummmm we are just here to uhhhmmm". I would volunteer to be a spokesman- here is the answer: To hold those accountable for the meltdown. To demand true government representation. Effective government that regulates. That the debt issue is used for profit and to rip appart any social net. That the debt issue can be resolved by- requiring the very banks we helped to contribute, reduce military spending without cutting veteran benefits, bring back industry so that unskilled workers can have jobs, if they do not bring back industry- to tax the imports that have US or other brand names such as GAP or Nike, or you name it. There should be serious tariffs since this has taken away jobs. Require current employers to provide benefits whether it is full time or part time- ie stop the Wall Mart scam. In France you get a work contract and automatic health coverage even if you are low wage- you can at least have health care. Stop the monopolies and chains that have replaced small business. Stop the Bank-Oil-Defense industry control and propaganda and invest in new energy sources, or at the very least- creat ultra efficient vehicles- such as those in europe- they would sell. There are just a few reasons why people are fed up and standing in the rain on Wall St in the rain, and spending the night- This is a great post/blog and I agree- this BS of having no clear message is making the TEA PARTY a***les laugh and marginalize this momentous event
I just lost my whole post- I agree - there is no coherent stated goal. Yet there is, but people are like a deer in the headlights when asked what the purpose is. I would volunteer to be a spokesman- it is obvious why we are here: There is no more free market- it has been taken over by chains and monopolies. There is no possibility of organizing labor. It is not conspiracy theory- there is a cabal of BANK-OIL-DEFENSE/WEAPONS-DRUGS. This is well documented. We want those responsible for the collapse held accountable. So we are demanding that justice be served in response to the irresponsable securitization of mortgages and other nefarious investment vehicles that collapsed the economoy. Regulation- effective government, hiring only those with no conflict of interest. Stopping the phenomena of "too big to fail" AIG types- so that we become beholden to them like idiots and bail them out. Financial industry should never include only a few large investment banks. Insurance should never be too big to fail. Bring back industry for unskilled worker employment- otherwise tax US brands that are manufacturing overseas- GAP Nike, u name it.- it is all monopoly now. Stop using the deficit to threaten important social nets- instead, cut defense, oil subsidizing, drug war spending. Change the criminal justice system and the WAR ON DRUGS which is a scam used for various goals in other countries. Stop using drugs to keep poor urban communities totally disfunctional and unable to participate as citizens. Those are just a few reasons people are standing on Wall St. in the rain.... please! GET A CLEAR MESSAGE OUT- Great blog/subject that absolutely has to be spread so that this can continue with a coherent mssg.
I am 57 years old -- not a kid (sigh.) I say that to put in context what I say next. I have been down there at the protest since the first day. The media portrays these protestors as disorganized and with no clear message. That is not true. The first day I spoke with a number of them and listened to them. I was surprised at how informed and articulate they were as to our economic situation. They are concerned about the corporate control of Congress and the media, they want the too big to fail banks broken up, and, although they are not anti-capitalism, they want a system that does not funnel all of the wealth to 1% of the population.
And, despite the lack of (1) media attention, (2) food (at times), and (3) dry bedding and clothes, they show remarkable resilience and determination. They give me some hope. I did not expect this from them because I teach law students and have been discouraged at how indifferent they are to what is happening to this country.
posted by vermontlaw : 11:47 AM
You believe it's just young people? The WaPo says it, so it's true? It's not true, there are people from all walks of life there. Cornel West was there the other day, labor unions are there today. 100 cops from the NYPD refused to go to work today to show solidarity, transit worker unions are there today. The OWS crowd marched in support of another labor union yesterday.
They've got it together, and by NOT having a concrete set of demands that can be met, they are allowing this to continue growing and changing as the situation demands.
I support the Occupy Wall Street youth, as at least they are willing to try and expose the system and they aren't concerned about being called racists.
If you listen to the song and read many of their writings they see themselves as the 'Digital Race', they are the generation that see each other as people and they truly seem to have transcended race identification. They are also aware of the past as many spend many hours discussing history and their new form of news based on a science that still escapes me...which I think they picked up while on Wikipedia.
DETAILED LIST OF DEMANDS & OVERVIEW OF TACTICS FOR DC PROTEST (compiled from suggestions made in this forum) -- Please suggest additions or edits so I can propose this list to those keeping the official one.
Read more here: https://occupywallst.org/forum/detailed-list-of-demands-overview-of-tactics-for-d/
I believe the Children / Kids are getting their ACTIONS in order rather quickly with all their collective minds on nano activity. ;-)
I've been keeping up with this on Corrente. No, 'they' don' have all of their ducks in row. I bet neither did the worlds first protesters, whoever they were, but they had to cut their teeth, or get them knocked out, somewhere, sometime.
The timing is good because if this was done next year, right before the election prom, they would have been drowned out, ignored and misrepresented even moreso, with apt justification by the MSM. Failure to 'change the system' is a certainty. Tomorrow. Who knows what they'll take with them and use for the rest of their lives. Things are gonna get worse and they'll still be around.
posted by Aleealee : 1:17 PM
Occupy Together is kind of cheesy but not the worst name.
You know what I would like to see...a network of publicity that shines the light on protests that are happening locally across the US for specific problems. They do exist, always have. But if the Occupy kids folded these protests and citizen actions into their formless protests, the benefits would be two-fold: they'd learn how to focus on a specific problem for an actual solution....and these citizens who are fighting at local municipal levels would get an infusion of attention, exposure and support.
Just to give one example....there have been dedicated people in Idaho fighting the oil companies who are bringing "megaloads" thru their state, taking over entire roads and crossing bridges not designed to hold such weight...all without state trooper escort because they don't have the manpower to dedicate to that, so damn any safety issues.
We need to spotlight these patriots, especially at a time when shiny tv ad spokesmen are speaking soothing words about tapping all those tar sands in Canada.
Google mega-loads and Idaho to see what the people in Idaho have been fighting all alone. I wouldn't mind seeing Occupy become a movement name for people like that, and others, who have been disrupting foreclosures, etc. etc.
WomanVoter: "If you listen to the song and read many of their writings they see themselves as the 'Digital Race', they are the generation that see each other as people and they truly seem to have transcended race identification."
There's the problem right there. "Digital." That just means that the NSA can and will track all of these people via Facebook, Google and their damned iPhones (which offer GPS and non-removable batteries. (Removing the battery is the only way to avoid GPS)). You prove my point: They're idiots.
"they truly seem to have transcended race identification"
If they are nattering on to each other about how virtuous they are on race, then they are prime candidates to be sidetracked by Identity politics. The attitude should be: "Fuck everything else. This is about economics, economics, economics."
The moment they say that, Bearded Hippie will show up and say: "Yeah, but don't you see? It's all connected, man! The economic part, the econological part, the spiritual part, the gender part, the racial part, the hemp legalization part..."
Bearded Hippie is THE DEVIL. Even if he is sincere, even if he is not a provocateur, he is THE DEVIL.
Economics, economics, economics. And that's it.
The economic stance must be anti-Libertarian -- using that term. Libertarianism is the enemy in this situation, the greatest enemy mankind faces, perhaps the greatest EVER faced. There can be no dialogue with Libertarians. They are the Borg. They are unredeemable evil.
From what I see, these hazy, kids are prime candidates to be misled by a charismatic YAFL. Or maybe even an old-school fascist.
I hope I'm wrong.
Just as I hoped I was wrong when I told people that Obama would be a terrible president.
I think Peggy Sue and Aleealee are right. This is just a kind of training ground, prelude or overture for the young people occupying Wall Street now. They'll be the ones, in years to come, who will be at the core of the real revolution.
I have to believe that or go stark staring bonkers.
Note: I misspelled "ecological" in the rant above.
Lambert: No metaphor ever devised has ever been exact. That's why we call them metaphors.
This particular metaphor is not about government. It's about an unorganized protest movement. "Headless body" works. "Chicken with its head cut off" might have worked better.
Maybe you need to get up there and offer yourself as a leader. You have the vision, the plan, and an historical perspective.
posted by Sophie : 4:48 PM
Me? A leader? I'd get up there and tell everyone "You're all ninnies. I hate everyone. It's all going to hell anyways." How many people would dig THAT formulation?
The thing this country needs most of all is new leaders to present an alternative.
We all have a responsibility to stand up and say it doesnt have to be like this.
I promise you, the alternative is the impoverishment of the country, rich and poor alike. All because of the extremes of ignorance and prejudice that this country has descended into. What I find most ironic, is that a reading of the Old Testament provides clear recommendations to avoid the current economic situation. Let he that has eyes see. So much for their interest in scripture.
And Happy New Year.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 5:34 PM
Joseph,
Don't get me wrong -- much of what you say is true. There is no sense in reinventing the wheel and they could learn a lot from "old hands." And, that was my initial thought. But, I really believe there has been merit in giving them some space and time to figure out some of this for themselves.
I have been surprised because your point -- that students today are ill-informed --has been demonstrated to me over and over again in conversations with many of my students. But, this group is different -- which is why perhaps they are the ones out there.
And, yes, you and I were right about Obama!
posted by vermontlaw : 5:38 PM
Back in the early 70's my backasswards state decided to hold a constitutional convention to replace the antiquated document. Before they ever even met it was obvious that the Right had out-organized the Left and any resulting document would likely try to repeal the 1st amendment to the US Constitution. In the intervening years the Right has only gotten more organized the Left has only become more expert at navel gazing.
These naifs believe they can repeat something like the Arab Spring. They're just too naive to know that the Arabs were suffering REAL repression, repression unto death. The US is just under the total control of the corporations, we likely won't die from calling Exxon a bunch of goddamned lousy motherfuckers.
posted by Penelope Pennebaker : 7:56 PM
Well, the airline pilot union has joined the kids in Occupy Wall St. Hundreds of pilots are there, in uniform! I hope the teachers join in this weekend...and then more unions, what few we have left.
Before you know it there will be 9-11 truthers and other crackpots coming out of the woodwork and showing up to try to grab some of the attention.
Even without provocateurs sooner or later someone will decide to "take it to the next level." The media will cover the wrong things because the media works for TPTB.
But then, myiq, it all comes down to Lenin's question. What, then, is to be done?
I'm starting to feel a little ashamed to be carping from the outside. Theodore Roosevelt's "In the arena" quote has come to haunt me. I have to give the kids credit for trying to do SOMETHING.
That said, the whole "Occupy" thing just seems...wrong.
1) We need new banks, or to take the existing big banks into public ownership. They need to be recapitalised and to do that they need to have the subordinated debt wiped out and the equity diluted to zero.
If we dont do that we will have a slow bleed for the next 10 years.
2) We need a commitment to a simple but PROGRESSIVE tax system. Not flat taxes.
3) We need wealth taxes, and inheritance taxes. People shouldnt be able to do nothing and collect rents on their great grandad's achievements (exploitation) in perpetuity. That is not a meritocracy.
4) We need an expanstionary monetary policy and fiscal policy. We need a better energy infrastructure, better roads, better rail, better public schools, better health care.
5) We need the bidding system for public office to end. We need crony capitalism to end. We need to drive the money out of Washington. We need to stop public offices switching backwards and forwards to the private sector to trade influence for money. We need stiff new anti-corruption laws and we need the EXISTING LAWS ENFORCED.
Hows that for an agenda?
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 4:24 AM
I agree with Peggy Sue on this one. I recognize all the problems inherent in this protest...but yet....
I read an interesting article by a woman involved in the Tahrir Square protests (wish I could find the link, but I’m too disorganized). The initial organizers apparently were "all the usual suspects" (i.e. sort of professional activists, most young – i.e. many fetuses). They’d attempted previous actions but hadn’t garnered much support. Apparently, someone suggested that they should take the next protest march through poor neighborhoods in Cairo – and large numbers of people started joining the march that led to all the subsequent events.
Wisconsin started small and haltingly. When the news of Walker’s bill was released, and given the substantial Republican majority in both the state legislature and state senate, most everyone felt that it was hopeless to resist. That no-one would or could resist. That the bill would pass in a few days. Then small things started happening. A bunch of members of the UW TAA (the TA union – 90% fetuses) brought heart-shaped balloons to the Capitol on Valentines Day. That gave a sense that – maybe people can do something. Spontaneous actions started happening. Each would generate a sense that maybe, just maybe, resistance was not futile. And the major protests built from that. And it was largely leaderless (though it had a clear demand – Kill The Bill). There was a people’s mike, and I was afraid that crazy people would say stupid sh*t. And occasionally that happened. But the whole thing worked. Some people in the media characterized the protests as "union organized", but for the most part that is a total misconception. The unions were involved – but it was a grassroots spontaneous uprising. And the fetuses played a crucial role in starting the resistance, as well as occupying the Capitol, which prevented it from being closed (a 22 year old is more able to endure sleeping on a cold concrete floor, while most of the "older folks" went home).
With Occupy Wall St and reading various articles by attendees – e.g. Matt Stoller’s piece http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/matt-stoller-occupywallstreet-is-a-church-of-dissent-not-a-protest.html I recognize elements in common with the Wisconsin protest – that really weren’t present in old protests I’ve been involved in (e.g. 70’s on). As noted in the comments - involvement of unions for example – which potentially can bring in a cross section of "ordinary people". And that was in part the result of outreach by the protesters (e.g. about 100 attended a protest organized by the postal worker’s union – something the postal workers hadn’t expected and which they appreciated). Also, the extreme emphasis on nonviolence is in common with WI. The attempt to reach out to the cops and maintain good relations is also in common (it appears that in NYC, the cops who ordered and carried out violent suppression were not the regular beat-cops). I’ll also note that the WI protests really made me aware of the crucial role of a "public space" for such actions (some type of continuously open public space that can serve as a base, where people can see one another and be positively reinforced and even have some fun) – in WI the Capitol served that purpose, in NYC it’s Zucotti Park/Liberty Square. And I think, potentially, a new model of protest is being created in these events.
I’m an extreme pessimist by nature, so I don’t expect much from the action in NYC...but who knows.
The city's most experienced agitators—the labor and community groups that typically organize local marches, rallies and sit-ins—have been largely missing from the Occupy Wall Street protest that is in its 13th day at Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan.
You were right Joseph...the Obots are beginning to claim THEY are taking back government...with their meme. I thought they people down there were protesting Bush and Obama/Biden???
Well, Wall Street has figured out how to make it their campaign slogan, and it will be interesting when the youth catch on, as many have these Obots have the fist with the Obama logo and 2012. OK, I am feeling sick now...no one will say any thing, because if they do it is Racist. Remember when he took 'Yes We Can' from the Farm Workers?
OBAMA OCCUPY Wall Street...I thought he was woven into it already with all his corporate donors?
posted by Anonymous : 9:59 AM
Peter, I could give you some scare stories about my credit union. Mine tried to refuse my mortgage payment once, completely illegally, and I went straight to my mayor's office and had them call one of the board members and when I went back to the CU, the president came out to take my check. Nice try at being robber barons, jerks. It gets worse...they keep trying to get my house, which still has equity in it, because they know I'm all alone here and struggling. Don't trust credit unions, even tho they are a better option than most banks. I also quit a federal credit union because they came up with sneaky ways to rob family members month after month.
Anyway! just a caveat.
I really came on to say Occupy Boston begins tonight, and I agree w/ affinis...these old bones are not fit for camping, but if the occupation here takes hold I will be taking the little ones food galore!!!
Joseph...also meant to say that last year the unions went to DC for that October protest.....the one that got ZERO coverage because Jon Stewart unfortunately decided to hold that phony anti-Beck Rally a couple of weeks later, and sucked all the air out of the long-planned rally to hold DC accountable.
I went, and talked to many of the people from across the country. No one, not mass media, not the blogosphere, paid it much mind. There were a few cameras there, and my sign identified me as the "Professional Leftist" that the White House sneered at...I was asked to be interviewed on camera when suddenly I was surrounded by Obots heckling me and accusing me of being "Tea Party." And in one of the only blog write-ups I saw, the hecklers were interviewed for having a "run-in with a Tea Partier."
Of course, zero mention of the teachers or other unions or why people were really there.
I hope the unions do take advantage of this rare media attention, and join on in. The spotlight will be the match on dry timber...which is exactly why we usually get media blackouts instead.
I forgot to note this list of potential demands: http://nplusonemag.com/occupywallstreet
posted by affinis : 8:30 PM
The key definitely is getting lots of unions strongly involved- that's what gave the backbone to the Arab Spring movements too- union workers sick and tired of what their countries were doing to the workers. Union workers might be majority middle aged folks (40's-60's), so yeah we don't have the time (work full time jobs that are crucial to our survival) or physical resilience those 20 somethings have, but we have life experience and know how direct our determination to a more defined goal. But let's not dismiss these kids, lets' jump in before those types you talked about do and misdirect these kids.
Here's a somewhat interesting article: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/commentary/2011/09/30/why-occupy-wall-street-won%E2%80%99t-die The article's link to the dancing guy doesn't work correctly, so here's the link to that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA8z7f7a2Pk And yes, there are always the risk of being co-opted in a detrimental direction...but there's also potential.
posted by affinis : 5:09 AM
Some photos of the protest rally Prowlerzee refers to in his comment. That rally didn't get a lot of media attention, and seemed very "managed" by the party establishment.
October 2 Rally http://jotman.blogspot.com/2010/10/there-live-oct-2-rally-on-mall-in.html
Here are a few photos of the other two rallies:
Sanity and/or Fear http://jotman.blogspot.com/2010/10/live-blogging-rally-for-sanity-in.html
I really shouldn't write a third post about that egregious Nation piece by Melissa Harris-Perry, who accuses anti-Obama liberals of being racists. (Scroll down for installments one and two.) But the ensuing discussion has been intriguing; I'll give Melissa credit for accomplishing that much. One of the most sagacious responses comes to us by way of Bob Somerby. He quotes this bit from Joan Walsh (Melissa's friend and defender):
On MSNBC, liberals Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews helmed a lineup that was hugely critical of Clinton (today Matthews is one of Obama's leading defenders, while Olbermann, once a passionate supporter, has left both MSNBC and the Obama camp). The New York Times editorial pages, helmed by white liberal Clinton critic Howell Raines and featuring (once-liberal) Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, savaged Clinton and Al Gore.
Somerby:
What a strange set of recollections! We have no idea why Walsh would call Matthews a liberal even today; it’s absurd to describe him as a liberal during his very ugly 1990s incarnation. And when was Maureen Dowd ever a liberal? It’s very strange to see the way these labels get handed out.
Not many weeks ago, I noted that politics in the U.K. must be simple: Just find out which candidate has Murdoch's support, then vote the other way. In the U.S., we may use Chris Matthews as an anti-weathervane.
Somerby proves by example a point that I made in my first post on this topic:
But right through October 2000, “white progressives at the Nation” were still promoting the RNC’s crackpot trashing of Candidate Gore. With three weeks left to go in the race, a silly sad crackpot “white progressive” was allowed to rant like this:
COCKBURN (10/16/00): What suppressed psychic tumult drives [Gore] to those stretchers that litter his career, the lies large and small about his life and achievements? You'd think that a man exposed to as much public derision as was Gore after claiming he and Tipper were the model for the couple in Love Story, or after saying he'd invented the Internet, would by now be more prudent in his vauntings. But no. Just as a klepto's fingers inevitably stray toward the cash register, so too does Gore persist in his fabrications.
For the record, Matthews was worse. But that was your Nation way back then. Harris-Perry headlines this week.
That kind of shit is the very reason why this liberal got into the habit of not buying The Nation many years ago -- well before Al Gore invented the internet.
(Kidding.)
Seriously, why do we keep allowing these losers to define the left? Most of the well-known "voices of liberalism" either dismay or annoy me. Joan Walsh doesn't represent me. Neither do those jackasses at The Nation. Or Z Magazine. Or The Newly Republican. Or Chris Matthews. Or Markos Moulitsas. Or Randi Rhodes. Or Keith Olbermann.
Here's a useful general rule: If you've heard of 'em, they're no good.
With the possible exception of Olbermann, the afore-named people have resumes similar to that of the Captain of the Exxon Valdez. Yet they still think that they have a right to steer the boat.
A note on epistemology. In our previous post about Melissa Harris-Perry, I offered this quote from her work:
But the responses to this recent article have been revealing in ways that I find typical of our contemporary epistemology of race....
Can someone please explain what that phrase means?
Yes, I know what "epistemology" is: The study of knowledge. How do we know what we know about reality? How do we define knowing and how do we define reality? Those are epistemological questions.
I understand the meaning of that word. What I don't understand is how there can be an "epistemology of race" or of anything else.
A little googling reveals that academics make frequent reference to "the epistemology of" this or that. There is even a webpage devoted to something called "the espitemology of modality." Sounds scary.
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about an eccentric genius named Richard Mitchell. (His works are here.) I spent three hours talking to him back in my college days; he got goofy toward the end and started singing Mahler in German. We corresponded a bit afterwards. I had long hoped to meet up with him again -- a hope which ended with his death in 2002. In his veneration of the classics and of "old school" intellectual standards, he was something of a Tory. Although he called himself the Underground Grammarian, the target of his crusade was not so much sloppy grammar as sloppy thinking. He didn't like jargon. He didn't like bureaucratese. He didn't like showy, empty language.
Does "the epistemology of race" mean something? Or is the phrase showy and empty?
Poor Keith, that house on Nantucket is a lost dream now.
Somerby thought the politics of Dowd, Matthews, and Russert could be traced back to their Irish-Catholic beliefs. The Church does a great job of instilling guilt into its members as a way to keep the collection basket full. They were never comfortable with Choice or same sex marriage. I call it the Bob Casey wing of the Democratic party.
That and the childish urge to one better their peers in out sliming Candidate Gore led to eight years of Bush and by extension, 911.
They have no shame.
posted by Mr. Mike : 7:21 AM
Don't dis guilt. Guilt beats shamelessness and pride, which are the great unspoken teachings of the fundamentalists. Guilt and mysticism are the two great gifts that the Catholic church has given the world.
There's a straight line from Cockburn to Harris-Perry. Cockburn, who always had odious politics, used to at least be funny. Now he's a stumble-bum stoner who spends all his political capital assaulting liberal Democrats. He hasn't had a real political hero since the Ayatollah Khomeini. I can see defending Obama, with a jaundiced eye, given the House of Wax Rs gunning for him. But Harris-Perry et al attack the successful wing of the party and steps in it -- they're the ones who keep rupturing the center-left.
Normally this blog saves the non-political posts on the weekend, but I can't resist offering a rejoinder to this Salon piece about classics which kids should avoid.
I'm told "A Tale of Two Cities" gets put on curricula because it's the shortest Dickens novel, but "Oliver Twist" is only a little longer and its mistreated-orphans premise seems vastly more child-friendly.
It isn't. Ask any historian of the period, and ask any Dickens expert who has been paying attention to those historians. In the book, Fagin's urchins are portrayed as "pickpockets" because the novel would have been condemned if Dickens had told the truth. "Pickpocket" is a euphemism. Those kids were child prostitutes. That was the kind of operation which the real-life Fagins got up to, and get up to.
In the book, Nancy tells Fagin "I thieved for you when I was a child not half as old as this." (She indicates Oliver, who is ten.) "I have been in the same trade, and in the same service, for twelve years since..." If you have any awareness of subtext you'll see that she's not talking about thieving. The words "in the same service" give away the true meaning.
Your kids may be better off with Tale of Two Cities.
Permalink
Agreed 110% ! As long as the kiddiwinkies absorb the message, which is no less relevant in the USA today:
From Wiki: Dickens wants his readers to be careful that the same revolution that so damaged France will not happen in Britain, which (at least at the beginning of the book) is shown to be nearly as unjust as France. But his warning is addressed not to the British lower classes, but to the aristocracy. He repeatedly uses the metaphor of sowing and reaping; if the aristocracy continues to plant the seeds of a revolution through behaving unjustly, they can be certain of harvesting that revolution in time. The lower classes do not have any agency in this metaphor: they simply react to the behaviour of the aristocracy. In this sense it can be said that while Dickens sympathises with the poor, he identifies with the rich: they are the book's audience, its "us" and not its "them". "Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious licence and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind".
With the people starving and begging the Marquis for food; his uncharitable response is to let the people eat grass; the people are left with nothing but onions to eat and are forced to starve while the nobles are living lavishly upon the people's backs. Every time the nobles refer to the life of the peasants it is only to destroy or humiliate the poor.
Today, in the US for "nobles" read "corporations" or "the elite" or "the extreme rightwing"
If the nobles are corporations does that make congress the clergy.
posted by Mr. Mike : 7:52 PM
Time to read Foucault's genealogy of power/knowledge/capital
To see capital to its end - to its death - one needs to appreciate Baudrillard's hatred and condemnation of it. And Iam beginning to believe that Ayn Rand did just that without knowing that she did it. While professing the opposite of what she was writing, thinking and saying. She was following Nietzsche being"worse than worse".
I have wondered whether the ghosts in The Turn of the Screw (often read in high school) were pedophiles. Never thought of the children in Oliver Twist being prostitutes but I think the age of consent was quite young in Britain at that time.
"Vote the way I tell you or I'll call you a racist"
Melissa Harris-Perry is still saying that you're a racist if you're an anti-Obama liberal.
But the responses to this recent article have been revealing in ways that I find typical of our contemporary epistemology of race....
No, the responses revealed that the 2008 Obot strategy of "racist-baiting" all critics just won't cut it these days.
Her argument comes down this: She says that her critics have unfairly demanded that she prove racist intent. (No, they haven't. Her critics have said that she was full of crap. That's very different.) She goes on to argue that you often cannot prove the existence of racist intent behind racist action.
Harris-Perry is engaging in a very clever variant of our old friend, petitio principii -- begging the question. Her argument requires us to accept as a given the very premises which are under debate. There is no racist action at work here -- just a whole lot of liberals making legitimate complaints about a bad, bad president, much worse than Clinton was. Obama sold himself as the Prog Messiah and then he turned out to be somewhere to the right of Bob Dole. Damn right liberals are gonna be pissed off.
I posit that the race factor worked, and continues to work, in Obama's favor. (At least among liberals and centrists. Obviously, there is a fair amount of genuinely nasty racism at play on the right.) If Obama were white, the Democrats would be fielding another candidate right now.
When Clinton got in big time trouble in the polls, he took aggressive corrective action, firing staffers (including Hillary as co-president), changed many of his policies, and became fixated on job creation. The economy was beginning to boom in 1996 when he was up for reelection. Whether you attribute that to dumb luck of how Presidential elections mapped against economic cycles versus sound policy moves, Clinton faced voters when most had reason to think their personal prospects were on the rise.
By contrast, as Obama’s economic policies have failed to pull the economy out of its crisis-induced deep malaise, he has done nothing different save get more pissy and double down on his failed strategy of selling out the middle class. His recent, and no doubt desperation-induced effort to rekindle the support of his badly abused base via gestures like a millioniares’ tax, are likely to go the way of past promises of change: they will be watered down to thin gruel so as not to ruffle his moneyed backers. It is remarakbly disingenuous for Harris-Perry to contend that dissatisfaction with Obama results from racism, as opposed to (among other things) ineffective policy responses to substantial and widespread economic stress.
Although this article is not worth taking seriously on its (de)merits, it has nevertheless created a bit of a firestorm, proving that the scurrilous use of the race card is an attention-getter.
I don't like all of what Riverdaughter has to say, but this part is worth quoting...
The biggest differences that I can see between the Clinton years and the Obama years is that when the Republicans amped up the crazy starting in 1992, no one had ever seen anything like it before. It wasn’t like Watergate when Nixon really did something criminal and both parties took him out. No, this was a political media Dresden that seemed determined to wipe Clinton off the map. He and Hillary didn’t always navigate the firestorm very well. They were the first that had to go through it. No other president in my lifetime has had every crevice of their personal and political lives examined in such humiliating detail. And what did the millions of dollars of investigations turn up? A blow job. That was it.
Actually, I would argue that the crusade against Jimmy Carter was the first case of "amp up the crazy." Few now recall some of the weirder things going on in the culture in those days, especially on late night radio, and especially in the wake of the Iranian hostage crisis. There was a guy named Ray Briem who had a radio program that played throughout the night and well into the morning. He was a bit like Limbaugh and a bit like Beck, though much more gentlemanly than either. His show traded in bizarre conspiracy theories involving the Trilateral Commission, and he routinely insinuated that Jimmy was somehow in league with those dreadful Russians.
There was a lot of mondo bizarro propaganda like that percolating throughout the culture back in the 1970s, especially as the televangelists found their muscles. Academics like to pretend that these appeals to conspiranoia have only a limited impact, but I disagree. I think that a well-funded campaign of incessant smear and fear can change the way millions of people perceive reality. A good portion of the "malaise" that Carter addressed in that infamous speech was fostered, even created, by that propaganda barrage.
Needless to say, the left press detested Carter. Without exception. Like Clinton, the guy had no defenders anywhere in the press.
Now that's an interesting comparison. Instead of asking why liberals are so much harsher on Obama than on Clinton (even though they aren't and weren't), perhaps Melissa should tell us why left-leaning organs like The Nation were so much tougher on Carter than on Obama? I never cared for Jimmy, personally -- and I strongly supported the Kennedy insurgency in 1980. But Carter looks rather good compared to our current president.
Let's get back to the present day. Naked Capitalism brings it all home:
The left is obsessed with what ought to be peripheral concerns, namely, political correctness and Puritanical moralizing, because it is actually deeply divided on the things that matter, namely money and the role of the state. The Democrats have been so deeply penetrated by the neoliberal/Robert Rubin/Hamilton Project types that they aren’t that different from the right on economic issues. Both want little regulation of banking and open trade and international capital flows. Both want to “reform” Medicare and Social Security. Both are leery of a welfare state, the Republicans openly so, the Rubinite Dems with all sorts of handwringing and clever schemes to incentivize private companies that generally subsidize what they would have done regardless...
This, I think, is why someone like Elizabeth Warren (recently endorsed by Progressives United) is so important. She articulates a political/economic worldview that stands outside the Rubin/Reagan/Randroid sphere. Barack Obama doesn't.
That's why we dislike him. Skin color has nothing to do with it.
If Obama was a liberal, or even a Democrat, I don't think he'd be loosing support like he is. The fact that he is African American is probably the only reason he hasn't lost ALL support from the left. Some people are so filled with "white guilt" that they just can't accept the reality of his Presidency.
Let's not kid ourselves. Obama was groomed for this position, his skin color was a bonus for his elect-ability. The race card was played very heavily by his supporters, and I see they are STILL very much at it. So, who are the REAL racists here, hmm?
posted by Gus : 7:16 AM
I would say that electing someone President is about as far from discriminating against someone as you could possibly get.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 7:37 AM
Has Melissa Harris-Perry ever written on the misogyny that was so apparent during the 2008 primary season directed at Hillary?
What about what Sarah Palin faced in that department during and after the general election?
We have been working as a nation to end racial discrimination since the Eisenhower administration back in 1950's for women's rights, not so much.
She wants to play the Race Card?
Push back with the Misogyny Card.
posted by Mr. Mike : 8:29 AM
Carter crazy criticism:
I remember back in the day, Cosmic Awareness (a semi-anonymous newsletter) said Carter and many top world figures had been replaced by an automaton (a cybernetic simulated human).
For some odd reason, at a mature age, Carter had changed his part on his head to the other side. This was taken as a key clue!
XI
posted by Anonymous : 9:57 AM
Wow! You knocked it out of the park, Mr. Cannon. The article you referenced has definitely shook a hornet's nest. Frankly, I don't think the charge of racism will work this time. The Obamacrats diluted the accusation to the point of making the charge meaningless, which is an unfortunate by-product of the mindless pursuit of winning at all costs. And, of course, the inability or unwillingness to admit that Barack Obama is simply a lousy President with no discernable leadership skills as well as a man who betrayed every promise made and the party he rode in on. His race has nothing to do with it.
Btw, I'm a huge fan of Naked Capitalism. They are nearly always on point.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 10:18 AM
A professor Hunter has joined in calling the AP 'racist' for transcribing Obama the way he was speaking at the CBC...and the shocker is Hunter teaches journalism.
Melissa Harris Perry really got me upset, as she must think we don't see our bank accounts...nor aware of the rising health insurance premiums. In 2010 my premiums rose by 83% + and in 2011 they rose again by 11%. Today I have the highest deductible, with a large out of pocket cost in the thousands if I am hospitalized. The Kaiser Foundation found that health insurance premiums are soaring, outpacing wages, with the yearly premium of $15,000 after Obama's Give Away to the insurance industry. Did he read it? Does he care?
If I had kept my insurance with the increase (the co-pay was $10.) my annual cost for a family of three was going to be $27,600.00. If I complain I am a racist, according to Melissa Harris Perry I would be a racist, because my job is to make Obama successful.
Obama blocked Single Payer, he blocked the Public Option and then the bone he wagged in front of us The Medicare Buy In (people 45 and over have the highest death rate when they lose their coverage and are being laid off in droves due to these health premium increase) he took off the table too...essentially he didn't yell 'Let them DIE', but actions speak louder than word here.
I support the youth Occupying Wall Street because they finally broke through and are bringing to light all the corporate welfare, the fact that the 1% doesn't pay their share, the fact that US corporations the have the second lowest tax rate in the world (yet GOP continues to lie) and the fact that in WI it was the health premiums that broke the camels back. My eldest family was laid off in june, as many teachers across the nation have and are...and the press is still pretending Obama did some great thing when we were ALL screwed (sorry for the language)...and called RACISTS for complaining.
There's no communicating with those people....oops, I said "those people." Racist, huh...yup, I specifically meant the white Obots who made a "Magic Negro" fetish out of Obama and sit on the Emperor's High Horse and have no clue their asses are hanging out there for all to see.
They may not know everyone sees thru their race card, but that's all they have to play.
Well, there is one more card in their game (making them 50 short of a full deck) ... how awful the "other side" is. They clutch their pearls (both of them) and wail how never before has there been such CRAZY on the Republican side. Short memories or ignorance, take your pick.
I would agree that "a well-funded campaign of incessant smear and fear can change the way millions of people perceive reality." An example: many people still assume the Clintons were 'dirty' in the Whitewater issue simply because of the lengthy investigation; the fact that no charges were ever filed is a footnote. I've encountered this even among liberal-minded friends and co-workers. It's like the apocryphal story about LBJ's first Senate race where his opponent was accused of having carnal knowledge of his farm animals: as I've heard it told, when someone said to Johnson "But it's not true!" LBJ's response was "So what? Let the bastard deny it!" The smear sticks in peoples' minds, the acquittal does not. The right knows this and plays it to the hilt, whereas the left...
And the other thing I wanted to say: Elizabeth Warren is FANTASTIC. I loved her "nobody gets rich in America by themselves" bit - pure gold. Sometimes I wonder if the Democratic party just needs someone to provide the template for electoral victory - someone who can convey the messages succinctly, explain complex problems in layman's terms, and connect with voters on a non-bullshit level.
If we had more people like Warren winning electoral victories, it might make the establishment Democrats more inclined to replicate her rhetoric and policy proposals. After all, a populist movement should - by definition, I would say - be left/liberal by definition. If they weren't so willfully ignorant and/or co-opted - if they were a true 'populist' movement - the Tea Party would be fighting the Democrats for being too right-wing instead of fighting Republicans for being too centrist (read: rational).
posted by Hoarseface : 2:29 PM
"I would say that electing someone President is about as far from discriminating against someone as you could possibly get. Harry"
The feminists who believe gender trumps race...didn't they see the video of black women, coast to coast.. even in battered women shelters, cheering when the OJ verdict was announced?
posted by Anonymous : 3:46 PM
Anon, I really should not have let your comment go through, if only because you are anonymous. I don't think that "feminism" is any kind of monolith. Neither are racial attitudes; there are many shades of opinion within just about any group or subgroup you can imagine.
As for OJ -- one day, I'll post on that. I strongly suspect that the guy was guilty of murder. But if I were on that jury, I too would have voted to acquit. What choice would I have had, when shown such obviously tainted evidence? Alan Dershowitz has pretty much admitted that he thinks the OJ imbroglio was a classic case of the cops "framing a guilty man," and I think that his argument is persuasive. You have to punish such police behavior, even at the risk of letting a guilty man walk.
Old enough to remember the rabid attacks against Carter too, glad you brought it up. I remember as well how the then just starting to be corporate owned news media fawned all over Reagan- in 1979, and look how they shove under the rug the slimy Iran-Contra deal that Reagan used to gain the White House... not to mention the economic horror he unleashed on the poor and lower middle class as president to benefit the rich. Before W I counted Reagan as the worst president ever.
Some of the hatred of Carter and Clinton comes from Beltway hatred of southern white politicians who happen to be liberal leaning on racial issues and exhibit intelligence and sanity- in other words don't fit the elite stereotypes. Johnson knew how to manipulate that stereotype and get what he wanted passed. Carter and Clinton wanted to show America and the world that many southerners did not fit that stereotype. The media and other elites can't stand that. Thus their enthusiastic embrace of white southern politicians (including pseudo southerners) who fit some version of stereotype- W, Gingrich, Perry, etc...
The Obots are still calling us racists! It all started with this shitty article by Melissa Harris-Perry in The Nation. The title: "Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama." The gist: Yes, Obama is a disappointment, but those awful, awful Clintons are MONSTERS FROM HELL and yet Bill Clinton didn't lose support from liberals in 1996. Liberal dissatisfaction with Obama must therefore result from only one factor: Racism.
"If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors."
Where to begin? Let's start with the obvious: Bill Clinton gave us eight years of prosperity and peace. Barack Obama has given us nothing but poverty and war. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich and was thus able to end the Bush I recession while (eventually) running a surplus. Barack Obama kept the Bush tax cuts on the rich and has made the deficit much, much worse. Dems used to be able to point at Dubya's massive amount of red ink while smirking and guffawing. Now we can't smirk about that anymore, thanks to Barack Obama.
Saying that Barack Obama is "just as competent" as Clinton is like saying that an ostrich can fly just as well as an eagle.
Here's Harris-Perry:
Today, America’s continuing entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan provoke anger, but while Clinton reduced defense spending, covert military operations were standard practice during his administration.
Screw you, Melissa. Note the lack of specifics. Which "covert military actions?" Do we have anything on the Clinton side of the ledger that even begins to compare with what Obama has been doing in Libya, Colombia, Pakistan, Yemen?
For what it is worth: I guessed that Obama might be a war-monger when I saw his 2004 address to the Democratic National Convention. Not once did he criticize the decision to invade, even though both Clinton and Kerry did. (Look it up.) And although he later presented himself as an anti-war activist, I could not find (after much searching) any occasions in 2003 or 2004 when he made a public denunciation of the Iraq invasion.
Let's get back to Clinton. Despite what Melissa what have you believe, he did not receive a great deal of liberal support. In fact, lots of progressives fucked him over at every opportunity.
I'm referring to the writers of "progressive" publications like The Nation, which printed a lot of sheer conspiranoia bunk about Clinton back in the day. Most of the time, Alexander Cockburn's "Beat the Devil" column was brimming over with ScaifeShit so noisome that even Scaife might have steered clear of it. Z Magazine and the Pacifica network were often just as bad.
Meanwhile, the fetuses who wrote for the allegedly centrist New Republic (which I rechristened The Newly Republican in that era) also trafficked in anti-Clinton conspiranoia, especially when it came to coverage of Whitewater. Major periodicals like The New York Times and the Washington Post became notorious for printing anti-Clinton allegations first sounded in the National Enquirer and other tabloids. Clinton got no positive press anywhere in America -- on the left or on the right. Virtually any anti-Clinton lie got into ink, and very often that lying ink was liberal ink.
That's the secret history of the Clinton era. That's the story which revisionist creeps like Melissa don't want you to know about.
If you want to feel even more infuriated, read the response by Melissa's good friend, Joan Walsh. Bring on that revisionist history, Joan:
White liberal Sen. Byron Dorgan was one of the few Democrats with the integrity and foresight to stand up to Clinton and his economic team when they supported the repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall banking restrictions, which opened the door to Wall Street corruption that torched the economy in 2008.
Glass-Steagall was a law. As Joan may have learned from her civics teacher -- do they still teach civics in high school? -- laws are neither made nor repealed by presidents; they are made and repealed by Congress. In this case, the repeal measure was the Republican-led Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was crafted to allow Travelers to buy Citibank in 1998.
Here's the part that the the progs won't tell you about: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed by a veto-proof majority in a Republican-controlled Congress.
My earlier piece quotes a summary of Anglachel's marvelously detailed research into this period:
So what do we see in this contemporaneous report? That the White House had been pushing back on this act for months. That certain Congressional Dems, Dodd and Schumer foremost, explicitly wanted to kill Glass-Steagall. That the White House fought them as well as Gramm on this issue...
Despite that incontrovertible fact of history, jackass brie-and-chablis progs like Melissa and Joan -- can't you just picture them "doing lunch" at the latest trendy bistro? -- continue to say "Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall." As though any president could do such a thing.
Did Clinton sign the bill? Yes, and I'll tell you why. Clinton was concerned about CRA, the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 act which Clinton had dramatically strengthened. Bascially, the CRA helped combat redlining, and made it easier for minorities to get loans.
Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".
(No, the CRA did not cause the subprime loan madness that created the 2008 crisis, although many Republicans will try to convince you that it did.)
The same forces which attacked Glass-Steagall also wanted to gut CRA at the same time. Clinton got the best deal he could. He signed the bill; in exchange, CRA was protected.
You think otherwise? You think Clinton could have done better?
What part of the words "veto-proof majority" do you not understand?
And while you mull over your answer to that question, you might also want to try your hand at another poser that I've been asking for the past four years: Can you name a single black person not named Obama whom Obama has helped? Ever? I can tell you which black people were helped by Clinton: Anyone who was ever aided by his strengthened version of the CRA.
So much for the charge of racism.
I'll have to give Walsh credit for writing these words:
And whether it was the Volcker rule getting commercial banks out of speculative, proprietary trading, or efforts to sell shady derivatives on "exchanges" for the sake of transparency, or a contingency plan to force the toxic behemoth Citibank into bankruptcy, Obama let important reforms either die on the vine or be diluted into ineffectiveness. He had a rare window to change the system radically, and it's now closed.
Of course, that's the reason why so much Wall Street money went into the Obama campaign in the first place -- to make sure that a controllable president was in office. I also have to give little Davey Sirota credit for the following:
Obama is also a man who criticized Bush-era civil liberties policies as a candidate and then as president not only extended those policies -- but, in many cases, actually made them worse. Among other things, he has pressed for longer Patriot Act extensions than congressional Republicans, added bipartisan legitimacy to warrantless wiretapping (which he explicitly promised to end) and claimed autocratic powers that even the extremist Bush administration never dared to claim (for example, the power to assassinate American citizens without charge).
And let's not forget trade and healthcare. Candidate Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA and reform the corresponding free-trade template that has cost Americans so many jobs. He also repeatedly pledged to champion a public option to compete with private health insurers and promised to push for legislation allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Now, President Obama is pushing a new series of NAFTA-like deals in Panama, South Korea and Colombia. And, as we now know, he didn't merely try but fail to pass a public option or the Medicare drug-negotiation provisions -- he actively used his power to eliminate those provisions from the final healthcare bill.
Of course, Sirota goes on to assail those evil, evil Clintons.
What bugs the fuck out of me is this: The Obama failure has completely discredited the anti-Clinton crowd, and yet these clowns continue to write as though they don't know that they've been discredited.
We wouldn't be in the current mess if not for people like Walsh, Sirota, and the Obama groupies at The Nation. If not for them, we would now have President Hillary. True, she probably would have done a lot of things that would have pissed me off. Even so, we can safely presume that she would have dealt with Wall Street very differently -- and she probably would have spent the stimulus on jobs instead of tax cuts. This much is certain: She was very clear about her desire to institute a new HOLC to help people keep their homes.
We need to make sure that the psychotic Clinton-haters get the news: Your side lost. Obama's failure has consigned you to the trash heap of history. Stop writing. Just stop writing. You have no credibility. Just go the fuck away.
They spent much of 2008 telling us to get out of the party. Now it's our turn.
BigTrouble: Here's a new site which may be of interest to you: IndictBreitbart.org. There is reason to believe that Big Things are going to start happening on the Breitbart front, and very soon. As I've said before: The problem with guys like Brietbart is that they are creatures of impulse, creatures of the Id -- and they simply don't know when to cool their jets.
More to come.
(By the way: Andy is pissed off because some people have called him gay. Oh, come on, Andy. In today's America, if you are male and at all well-known, there will always be someone out there who has nothing better to do with his time than to spread gay rumors about you. If Lee Marvin were still alive, people would be calling him gay. Consider it a sign that you've made it. Hell, even I have been called gay -- and if that person says it again, I'll sic my ferocious Hell-hound Bella on him.)
Schumer has ,uch to answer re:Glass-Steagall. He has long been a virtual operative of the investment banks and slammed Clinton hard, inside and out, during C's last 18 months of incumbency. C had already been weakened by the psy-ops war called the Lewinsky affair that exploded daily in his face via the media on all fronts. Schumer, Gramm, Citigroup (former T-Sec Rubin working the White House) and an army of financial industry lobbyists overwhelmed the opposition. You've rightly located the one decent program protected amidst the wreckage.
I really don't know what to say except that it is useless to get in the thick of this kind of political analysis. It is not going to get us out of this.
It is not useless. It may be futile but that is not the same. This post is more than useful, it's vital. Even if we shove our friends' noses in it as fast as they can primly defriend us it's vital for our sanity to know they are criminally wrong and we, TYS correct.
Thank you, Joseph...I refuse to read that article for health (blood pressure) reasons, but I know one thing the wench is right about...IF it's lefty "racism" that deprives the Obamessiah from another heinous term, it will be due to disillusioned OBOTS. They elected him with their Magic Negro racist wish-thinking, and if they take their votes elsewhere because in their mind the Magic Negro didn't deliver their fantasy world then, yeah...Hollywood racist fantasies about Magic Negroes elected him, and those same OBOT racist idealizations may cost him the next election...so what. Still not a problem caused by those of us left in the true, increasingly isolated, reality-based community.
Dont get mad. This is Obama's best tactic. Not very original, but its been effective. What do you expect his supporters to do? Refer to his record? Point to his policies? Come on. What else do they have, and what else works as well?
Its a great line. Obama has done nothing different from any other white Republican president. You have to be racist if you criticise when he is clearly no worse than George Bush II. All credit to them.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 4:38 AM
Of course, the race card is going to come back out. What else is there? As long as the Obamacrats can deflect and distract, they needn't defend the dismal record that Obama is dragging around like an albatross. You can only drag out Bin Laden's corpse so many times or point to Bush&Co.'s failures [which were huge]. But when you've repeated so many of the GOPs disasters, broken so many promises, what's left? Throwing rocks at the Clintons is a national sport and the Administration reads the polls, too. So destroy the Bill Clinton patina, pretend that HRC's approval rating isn't in the stratosphere [or better yet write articles musing how she might save your ass], and then pull out the race card for good measure and/or blame liberals for making unreasonable demands.
But whatever you do, don't have people look at the record because . . . then you lose.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 7:26 AM
Do these people have any shame? People like Walsh and Perry have been given their orders by their paymasters to do what ever they have to do to get the people to sing hosannas to "The One!"
If you'll excuse me for my profanity.......Fuck them all!
Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich and was thus able to end the Bush I recession while (eventually) running a surplus.
No, that recession had ended a year and a half or so before Clinton took office. '92 seemed like a recession year, as UE went from 7.1% to 7.8% DURING THAT FIRST WHOLE RECOVERY YEAR.
Nor were Clinton's first years all that prosperous. Even four years later, Dole's campaign warned of the Clinton recession, which of course didn't exist, but was semi-plausible, because the economy was middling at best.
Not disagreeing on the actual thrust of this piece, ultimately, but I will add that Clinton set a precedent (along with Gerald Ford) that presidents get a pass on their crimes from their successors. Obama's following that precedent has been among the more disappointing of his actions.
XI
posted by Anonymous : 8:23 AM
In the words of Kenneth Williams, long since dead British comedian,
"Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvs4bOMv5Xw
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 8:35 AM
I think Obama is racist. He told blacks to "take the bedroom slippers off..." What does that imply? Next he'll tell the blacks to get off the porch. DM
posted by Anonymous : 11:49 AM
My response to XI is here.
"Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in August of that year, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses,[58] and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers. Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years.[59]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
and first term job creation, not all those jobs were created in 1996 is here http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/labor.html#jobcreation
DM
posted by Anonymous : 12:09 PM
Liberals most certainly did abandon Clinton, they just did it in 2000 when they stabbed Al Gore in the back. What the hell was the Nader campaign all about? In 2000 the air was thick with "Clinton/Gore dissed us for eight long years and it's payback time, motherfuckers."
posted by Ugsome : 3:01 PM
Excellent post, Joseph. Superb.
The racist card is not going to work this time. There is still racism in the US but the constant false accusations has diluted the effectiveness.
The only way President Obama can get re-elected is if the Republicans run a lunatic (which could happen, of course).
djmm
posted by djmm : 3:54 PM
I cast my 2008 primary vote for the best person for the job regardless of color or gender. What does that make me?
I hope to do the same in 2012.
posted by Mr. Mike : 7:55 PM
Obama raised $35M from FIRE in the first half of 2007. Those donations will go down in history as having the highest ROI ever. Conversely, for the rest of use the Obama presidency will be remembered as the biggest start up bust.
posted by Anonymous : 2:45 AM
When I read Prof. Harris-Perry's diatribe I can't help but think of what it's like to be an antiZionist Jew in north america in the 21st century-- the ADL and grey-haired bubbies might tell you that there's anti semitism on every street, and that every 'goy' is really waiting for the moment to start a crystalnacht again... but the truth is people may hate zionism, but the Jews are more than ensconced. Still the ADL raises $70M a year for fear-mongering and calling the rest of the world racist. Sound familiar yet? The most powerful minority in the history of the USA and they're the ones worried about racism?? Meanwhile, watch this film; http://youtu.be/rCUPXWyE1HY it shows who is more racist on the streets... People might still have lingering prejudices (have you seen any films or TV about Italians who don't end up with concrete boots?) but if it means that someone is going to round up every hollywood film director and goldman sachs veep, and gas them with Zyklon B? Hardly. And the same thing must be said about Black/White relations in America. There will still be lingering tensions. I can't imagine feeling all that comfortable in a place where 50 years ago I was not allowed to drink from a white water fountain or sit at the Woolworth counter. Might feel a little sting still. But at the end of the day, none of that has to taint one's impression of a useless, lying, manipulative sack of shit. if the sack stinks like shit, don't polish it, and don't tell my my olfactory offense is purely based on racism.
Seriously, you PUMA people need to relax. It's not necessarily the content of your comments which exposes your racism, its the tone. Let's take a couple of your arguments here: Note the lack of specifics. Which "covert military actions?" Do we have anything on the Clinton side of the ledger that even begins to compare with what Obama has been doing in Libya, Colombia, Pakistan, Yemen? Did you seriously make the argument that clinton's covert operations weren't overt thus he didn't happen. I'm just going to move on assuming you didn't really thinkg this one through.
Let's take this : We need to make sure that the psychotic Clinton-haters get the news: Your side lost. Obama's failure has consigned you to the trash heap of history. Stop writing. Just stop writing. You have no credibility. Just go the fuck away.
Wow. That's funny because when "obots" said that to you avert the 08 election you accused them of sexism. This is where folks will tell you. You say now its "your turn" how is that exactly, or are you one of the folks foolish enough to think hillary will challenge Obama in some sort of primary? What exactly is your pragmatic approch to this situation? In a nutshell here's the reason us colored folk think your a racist. Has the presidency been perfect? Hell no, have you acknoweldged a single positive thing he's done? No you racist bastard. Reversed clinton's HORRIBLE DADT policy (you'll say it was a compromise, i'll say it was a compromise which lead to lesbian bating, and further perpetuated sexual violence and discrimation in the miltary - yes moreso than the previously existing ban). Here's a short list of things you racist fucks would never even mention: Starting with another one that Clinton AND Bush failed at - remember that guy famous terrorist, what was his name, oh that's right Osama Fucking Bin Laden - yeah Obama killed that guy; START nuclear reduction; the consumer financial protection bureau; extension of unemployment benefits; tobacco regulation; cash for clunkers which while not popular with economists (or me) was a popular program with the public; 9/11 worker compensation food safety legislation (which clinton couldn't get done);
That's all for now.
posted by Anonymous : 10:09 AM
Anon....if you are so good at spotting racism in strangers. Why don't you see how racist YOU are?
There are several tests, offered from Pres Obama's alma mater Harvard, which test for bias.
On the weekends, we sometimes discuss non-political subjects around here, so I'd like to offer a few words of outrage over this inane Salon article on the joys of Tantric sex, written by a lesbian named Andrea Askowitz. Before you say it: No, what bothers me is not her lesbianism. What bothers me is the fact that this dimwit knows nothing -- NOT ONE THING -- about Tantra. Instead of doing a little reading, she paid money for lessons from a teacher at a "workshop." That's a clue right there. Unless you're talking about the kind of place where Geppetto might store his chisel, the word "workshop" is invariably a synonym for scam.
For most Americans, Tantra has become a sort of shorthand for "spiritual fucking." Wrong. That's not it.
Go to a university library and pick up a good scholarly book on Tantra, as practiced in India and Tibet, and very likely you will see not one word about sex. You will see page after page of very dull ritual; if there's any talk at all of sex, it will be brief. This should give you an idea. There are innumerable variants of Tantra, although the two main divisions are, of course, Vedic and Buddhist. Historically, most Tantrics have been ascetics, abstaining from meat and intercourse -- they aren't even supposed to think about sex. For them, the spiritual union described in the maithuna rite (which I may or may not describe below) is purely symbolic.
I'm sure that Ms. Askowitz is a well-meaning person, but she has unwittingly participated in the kind of spiritual burglary which actual Tantrics must surely consider insulting and ethnocentric. Imagine a cult in Japan composed of people who hit each other in the head with big wooden mallets until they pass out. The leader of the group announces: "We are Christians. This is what Christianity teaches." How would most Christians elsewhere in the world feel about such a bizarre representation of their faith?
Nonsensical American notions about Tantra go back to a priapic spiritual huckster of the early 20th century named Perry Baker, who hailed from California. When he got into the guru business, he rechristened himself Pierre Bernard, and then re-rechristened himself as -- I shit thee not -- "Oom the Omnipotent." Aleister Crowley (nobody's idea of a prude) once summarized Oom's operation as "that slimy abomination, a love cult." Oom's sect attracted rich women who gave him a ton of money. Eventually, he opened up his own ur-version of the Playboy mansion in Upper Nyack, New York, where he spent days and nights ooming and ooming with his devotees until his oomer very nearly fell off. Naturally, he developed a jaded attitude toward "normal" ooming; when his tastes veered toward teens, the police became involved, and the results were all very scandalous. Somehow, Leopold Stokowski got mixed up in this. I shit thee not.
The "sexy" part of Tantra -- the only part of Tantrism that Americans ever seem to care about -- is the maithuna ritual. Almost needless to say, the word "maithuna" appears nowhere in Ms. Askowitz' piece, and nothing similar to it is described.
Love gurus like Oom and the creeps who run these trendy "workshops" will tell you that sex magic is all about "really feeling it" and "respecting your lover" and "visualizing the goddess" and all that other New Agey horseshit. Apparently, Ms. Askowitz -- an alleged writer -- never considered the vast possibilities offered by a visit to the library, or even by calling up Google. I don't mean to seem impolite, but if you're too lazy to do any actual research, then shut the fuck up.
In case you're curious, I have somewhere between 30-40 books about Tantra and at least that many about Western sex magic. (I keep unfolding like a flower, don't I?) The two are not the same thing, despite what the hucksters who run "workshops" will tell you.
Okay, so most items in my library are pdf ebooks, which may strike some of you as insufferably downscale. But words is words, right? Granted, many of the works in that collection are crappy, while others are only semi-crappy. Like a lot of people, I was introduced to the topic of Tantra when I stumbled across a copy of Kamala Devi's semi-crappy The Eastern Way of Love -- which of course focuses only on the sex stuff, because that's the only aspect which American"seekers" could possibly ever care about. (On the other hand, Kamala's book contains the phrase "quaff a jet of bindu," which I've always considered marvelously poetic.)
Just to prove that I really do know something about this stuff: Some of you may recall a previous post, impishly published on Easter Sunday, in which I revealed the Big Damn Secret of Sex Magick, by which I mean western sex magic, which (as noted above) is not tantric and which may or may not go back to the Gnostics. There's a variant of this rite for male homosexuals, but I don't know of a lesbian version. I'm not sure that such a thing is even physically possible.
Frankly, and I don't mean to sound un-PC, but I'm not sure that a lesbian version of the maithuna rite (which I've decided not to describe in this essay) is physically possible either. An actual oomer may be an unfortunate necessity. But don't take my word for it: Look it up. Experiment. You tell me if a girl-girl adaptation is conceivable. If so, let's have a description, preferably with illustrations. If not, 'tis a pity: A properly-done maithuna rite ends in an experience some call the MahaTantra (although I don't think they call it that in India), which causes a psychedelic tactical nuclear missile to go off in your cerebral cortex and compared to which mere orgasm will forever after seem about as exciting as cracking your toe knuckle. And then you spend the rest of your life being Alejandro Jodorowsky.
According to this crappy source, "...the couple must withdraw before the orgasm. The semen must never be ejaculated in one’s life." But now that you are Alejandro Jodorowsky, you won't need to.
(And I haven't even mentioned the nooky-in-the-graveyard thing, as practiced by some Tibetan tantrics. If that sounds sexy to you, look up the practice of Tibetan "sky burial.")
Whatever Ms. Askowitz experienced with her partner seems to have been fun and fulfilling. That's fine. All I ask is this: Don't call it Tantra. Words have definitions. Language is not Calvinball; you can't make up the rules as you go along.
Being the Ancient of Days, I happily consign the maithuna rite to the young. At this stage of the game, my interest in the subject is academic. Nevertheless, I have achieved a certain level of Jodorowskyness.
btw, the initial picture was so gorgeous I thought it might be some new project of yours...I do hope your project/s are on track. I know it can be devastating to lose material, but loss is also an art to be mastered.
The painting at the very top was done by a guy named Karl Bang, born Bong Ka in Shanghai and formally trained in both Chinese and Western styles of art. I just discovered his work. Terrific stuff, if you ask me.
Some years back there was something called EST or like that where you attended some training camp. Why is it we constantly fall for this tripe?
Do we choose our philosophies like we do our leaders?
posted by Mr. Mike : 6:42 AM
It was his prattling on about Tantric sex that put me right off Sting, when he first burst upon the pop scene as part of the band Police, in the UK. Of course the media picked up on it and I suppose he found mentioning it, and bragging how good he was at it, was good for publicity. I sensed affectation and "phoney" - it put me off his singing for good.
Preach, brother! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP_NKCV_Dn0 (Sorry, couldn't help it!)
posted by Lea : 7:22 AM
"The love for pleasure is a cosmic impulse so vast and consuming that it would wreak havoc if not balanced by another impulse, the love of handling power. Not the love of power, but of handling it. Tantra is a way of handling power, especially the power of attraction, mood, mania, inspiration, including any emotion, positive or negative." Introducing Planetary Tantra
ayup, work that narrative ... who believes could possibly believe in evolution when the Garden of Eden is so useful for keeping people in line and makes for such a good bed time story?
And that's why I watch the Cartoon Network, else I'd be throwing things at the screen.
Notice how Obama gave us Stress and Ulcers in lieu of Hope and Change?
Effen Kossholes, I hope they choke on their cheeze flavored snack food.
Who knew the first black person in the White House would be a republican?
posted by Mr. Mike : 2:18 PM
But since we don't have a "wealth tax", and the point of government is surely not redistribution of wealth, show us what the analogous distribution is for income.
I think it was Jon Stewart who worked out that if you took half the income from all the working poor in America, you'd still have less revenue than you'd get if you raised the top tax rate to the levels we saw during the Clinton era. And that rate was itself much less than in the Reagan era. We had full employment in the 1950s, when the top tax rate on the wealthiest Americans (rebranded as "job creators" in modern propaganda) was well over 80 percent.
Permalink
You have to tax someone. So if you wont tax the rich who are left?
On another note, did you see the footage of the police action against demonstrators in Wall Street. Disgusting. Pepper spraying young women.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 7:31 AM
The currect faux-rage over 40+% of the population not paying taxes is nothing more than a distraction, a smoke screen to cover the butts of the wealthy and corporate interests who scream like pigs at the very idea of 'paying their fair share.' Plus, all the screeching is based on half-truths, something the GOP has turned into an art form.
The Earned Income Tax credit, enacted by Gerald Ford and increased by Ronald Reagan, the Republican saint of record, doesn't eliminate all tax. Those who qualify, poor and moderate-income families, still pay payroll taxes, sales tax, state and local taxes, and I'm quite sure would turn in their credit for the millionaire/billioniare lifestyle. You know, the types like the tea party Rep from Louisiana, John Fleming, who cried crocodile tears: raise his taxes [his annual take is 6+ million] and he'd only have $400,000 per annum to live on--after he fed the family.
Big f**king boo-hoo.
My question? How can these people make these ludicrous statements without falling down and busting a gut? There are lies, and then there are damn lies.
The Republican Party takes the Liar's Club crown. That's not letting the Dems off--they're gaining ground. But the Republicans? They're miles and miles ahead!
Even if the premises weren't inane, the logic would still be unsound. Since you don't want any lessons in formal logic this weekend, let's talk about the inane premises. I have to admit, though, that the task is frustrating. It's like trying to prove the blueness of the sky to a zealot who insists that the sky is green.
The afore-linked piece in the American Thinker resorts to quoting cranks in order give "fascism" a preferred redefinition. Unfortunately, the ill-educated youngsters who read this crap don't know that virtually every major book on fascism (including Mein Kampf and Mussolini's The Doctrine of Fascism) categorizes the movement as right-wing.
According to our American "Thinker," the sheer weight of all those books only proves the immensity of the scheme to misinform the public:
Over the past seventy years, the left and their allies in the media have succeeded in labeling fascism as a right-wing or conservative philosophy when it in reality was an offshoot of socialism.
In other words: "I say that the sky is green. Anyone who says otherwise is part of a conspiracy. If billions say that the sky is blue, billions are in on the plot."
This "allies in the media" label is an outrageous, disingenuous fib. The fibbers know full well that their young readers are too lazy to check the facts for themselves. Those few who do bother to research the state of the American media during the heyday of the fascist dictators will soon discover that most of the press was owned by right-wingers who supported big business.
Moreover, most of those right-wingers were friendly to fascists until fascist crimes became too large to rationalize. Even the film Citizen Kane underlines this point. For an in-depth view of the pro-fascist sympathies of the media in the 1920s and 30s, you can do no better than to consult George Seldes' masterly Lords of the Press -- available online here. What he has to say about the Hearst press should be kept in mind if you ever take the tour of San Simeon.
In the Thirties McCormick and the Tribune form alliances with the most ardent of the Isolationists. Charles "Lucky" Lindbergh becomes the mouthpiece for American Isolation, and accepts ( in 1938) the highest honor the German military can bestow on a foreigner. Lindbergh makes friends among the German high command and is personally decorated by Herman Goring.
Anyone pondering the points where patrician Americans begin to espouse a crypto Fascism in the Thirties should consider the relation between men like McCormick and Lindbergh. Both, usually privately, posit the existence of social, intellectual and biological elites which they just happen to represent. Lindbergh researches, in France, a scientific basis for "a master-race." Fascism was not just a German phenomena, America had its Father Coughlins and Senator Bilbo's. They form a long line extending directly to "populist" Pat Buchanan.
The Tribune, ever anxious to condemn those Americans who had gone to Spain to fight Fascism, is impressed that neither Hitler or Mussolini have labor union problems.
In a Tribune editorial in 1939, McCormick will urge that Poland, England and France turn away from a German Fascist attack and unite against their "real enemy, the Soviet Union." On the day Poland is invaded, the Tribune announces :"This Is Not Our War."
Now let's go to Germany, to the time of the Putsch. The idea of General Ludendorff (co-leader of the Putsch) lending his support to a non-conservative cause will evince howls of laughter from anyone who has ever read anything about that man. The SA brownshirts kidnapped and imprisoned Socialist politicians. Afterward, a right-wing judge gave Hitler a very modest sentence (the charge was treason) and made sure that he received comfortable lodgings.
During Hitler's rise, German newspapers routinely labeled the Nazi party a right-wing party, in contradistinction to the many left parties in Germany at the time. There is virtually no dissent among historians of the period on the question of classifying the NSDAP as a right-wing party during the Weimar period. Far from being sympathetic to the left, the Nazis participated in underground "Fehme" assassination squads which killed socialists -- and even centrists, such as Walther Rathenau and Fritz Gerlich.
The Pooles' book Who Financed Hitler? conclusively proves that the Nazi party would have remained insignificant without massive funding from Henry Ford. Anyone who has ever read a book about Ford knows that he never would have supported a cause that carried even the slightest odor of leftism.
Ford later became the idol of the John Birch Society, and is now revered by many tea partiers. The modern day inheritors of the JBS legacy (including Beck) don't want you to know that the Society was founded by pro-fascist Americans. More on that below.
Oh...and before someone states the obvious: Yes, it is true that Mussolini had once called himself a socialist. It's also true that Stalin studied for the priesthood, and that Milton Friedman once argued that the government under FDR didn't do enough to combat the Depression. Attitudes can change.
Mussolini defined fascism as "corporatism" -- a definition which the Beckian kooks never like to mention. Neither do they care to note that, throughout the 1930s, America's corporatists usually favored fascism. In fact, they tried to foment a fascist coup in 1934. Take a look at the driving forces behind this coup and ask yourself if these names sound like a list of left-wingers:
Heading and directing the organization were Du Pont and J.P. Morgan and Company men. . . . Heavy contributors to the American Liberty League included the Pitcairn family (Pittsburgh Plate Glass), Andrew W. Mellon Associates, Rockefeller Associates, E.F. Hutton Associates, William S. Knudsen (General Motors), and the Pew family (Sun Oil Associates). J. Howard Pew, longtime friend and supporter of Robert Welch, who later founded the John Birch Society, was a generous patron, along with other members of the Pew family, of extremist right-wing causes. . . . Two organizations affiliated with the league were openly fascist and antilabor. One was the Sentinels of the Republic, financed chiefly by the Pitcairn family and J. Howard Pew. Its members labeled the New Deal ‘Jewish Communism’
Emphasis added. For obvious reasons, the folks at American Thinker don't want you thinking about that stuff. Incidentally, Mellon money is the basis of the Scaife fortune, which is behind much modern far-right propaganda.
The disingenuous ideologues who peddle revisionist pseudo-history to uneducated ninnies want to erase all memory of one key fact: There was a thriving fascist movement in America funded by conservative businessmen. Charles Higham's excellent books Trading With the Enemy and American Swastika document the pro-fascist bias of the American industrialist class of the 1930s.
The subject of post-war fascist infiltration of the American power structure is far too large for this post. Suffice it to say that virtually all of the links go to the Republican right -- from Gehlen's incorporation into the CIA, to Joe Kamp's close relationship with Joe McCarthy (whom Ann Coulter and the tea partiers have tried to rehabilitate), to Nixon's connections with Valerian Trifa, to Reagan's connection to Otto von Bolschwing (via Helena von Damme). American Swastika is a good source on this history, as is Christopher Simpson's Blowback.
Space limitations forbid any real discussion of Japanese fascism, which was largely a creation of Japanese capitalism, and which was aggressively anti-left. I'll say only this: If you ever visit the Nixon library in Whittier, take note of the elaborate fountain in the parking lot. A small plaque will tell you that the fountain was donated by one Roichi Sasakawa. His history tells the larger story of Japanese fascism. (Take special note of the Moon connection.)
So what evidence does the American Thinker offer to prove that fascism was a left-wing phenomenon? The writer points to the person whom he considers the most egregious "fascist" of the 1930s. Not Hitler, not Mussolini, not Tojo; the real fascist of that period was, of course, Franklin D. Roosevelt.
But the concept of a corporate state has been a staple of the American left since Franklin Roosevelt.
It was FDR who initiated the National Labor Relations Board to make the government the final arbiter in labor issues.
Well, which is it? Was FDR pro-corporation or pro-union? I don't think the answer matters much to our essayist; he has entered those hallucinatory realms where any paradox is acceptable as long as an enemy's name is besmirched.
Portraying FDR as a proponent of the "corporate state" is ridiculous. The corporatists of his time had quite the opposite opinion; that's why they tried to overthrow him. They viewed Roosevelt as the impediment to their dream of a corporate-run American.
Our essayist further wants us to believe that fascism was pro-union and pro-labor. What nonsense. In 1924, Mussolini outlawed all labor strikes. All trade unions in Nazi Germany were summarily crushed. By contrast, the unionization movement grew stronger under FDR.
Our American Thinker also claims that rising taxes under FDR are indicative of his innate fascism. But taxes remained surprisingly low in Nazi Germany. The economy expanded through "military Keynesianism" and gross deficit spending -- the strategy later employed by Reagan.
As for Mussolini's tax policy -- well, Wikipedia has a nice summary.
The government undertook a low-key laissez-faire program - the tax system was restructured (February 1925 law, 23 June 1927 decree-law, etc.), there were attempts to attract foreign investment and establish trade agreements, efforts were made to balance the budget and cut subsidies. The 10% tax on capital invested in banking and industrial sectors was repealed, while the tax on directors and administrators of anonymous companies (SA) was cut down by half. All foreign capital was exonerated of taxes, while the luxury tax was also repealed...
Mussolini was, in short, a libertarian in his dealings with big business.
His deification of the state was simply a nationalistic jingoism indistinguishable from that displayed by this nation's reactionary flag-wavers. The Italian dictator's government used its oppressive power only to crush the working class, never to inconvenience the corporations.
What I'm saying here is nothing new. In more civilized times, these things were taught in grade schools.
Alas, the people who want to replace real history with the fake stuff have tons of money and illimitable patience. They produce books filled with bunk -- and these works cite each other, creating an illusion of academic consensus. That's why our "Thinker" can get away with spouting nonsense as though it were indisputable reality. Example: "Yet it is generally recognized today that by pursuing these policies FDR prolonged the Great Depression by another 5-7 years." There is no such general recognition.
(I could write a whole post around this particular piece of revisionist BS. One day, I will.)
As I glance up at the opening of this essay, I realize that we never got around to discussing the second premise of our silly syllogism. Need I do so? Many, many previous posts have already made the point. Calling Obama a "leftist" is like calling the Incredible Hulk "dainty."
Comments to the article in your first link are unbelievably ridiculous! They mostly appear to be written by literate people, not wailing banshees we see on some comment threads. Yet how can they be so deluded?
One clip from SeniorD's comment: Are the Socialist forces which have been diligently working to undermine capitalism and freedom (read the right to own property) seeing their goal in sight? If this country, once viewed as a haven of freedom, turns Socialist in fact if not in statements this world has no champion for individual freedom, a free wheeling capitalist society with less onerous taxes and soveriegn States united by a small federal government.
I know what you mean. As I read those comments, all I could think was: "A little learning is indeed a dangerous thing." That is -- it is dangerous if you are intent on learning only those facts which conform with your prejudices.
I registered for the site and offered a link to this story. But my comment won't pass moderation.
How about (1) Obama is bought and paid for by corporations, a corporatist who has governed to benefit business at the expense of the populace; (2) Fascism involves co-option of the govt by business;(3) Obama is a Fascist?
posted by Anonymous : 4:09 PM
Closer to the truth, anon. But for his fealty, Obama is now despised by much of corporate America.
This is a phenomenon I can't clearly understand right now. As years pass, we'll get a better view of what happened.
Corporate America sees Obama as someone with no spine. If enough of his base deserts him, he'll go after Wall Street. It took the losses of 2010 to get him moving on DADT.
Mike, I tend toward a different theory. I suspect that we are seeing something like "The Shock Doctrine" in action.
There is, undeniably, a group that would like to remake the entire country in an ultra-libertarian fashion. You can't do that without shock, without economic ruination. To get the desired outcome, the catastrophe must be seen as a "liberal" creation.
That is Obama's role. Whether or not he is conscious of it -- I doubt that he ever was or will be -- is immaterial.
"There is, undeniably, a group that would like to remake the entire country in an ultra-libertarian fashion. You can't do that without shock, without economic ruination. To get the desired outcome, the catastrophe must be seen as a "liberal" creation." That is Obama's role. Whether or not he is conscious of it -- I doubt that he ever was or will be -- is immaterial."
Looking at the legislative intransigence concerning economic solutions of the congressional republicon/Tp'ers from that perspective, explains alot. It also explains the current crop of batshit crazies on the GOP debate stage.
And thanks for a great post.
posted by ANonOMouse : 6:23 AM
You do realize that Hitler and Mussolini invented Fascism because they were thwarted in their attempts to be Gay Atheist Married.
