Monday, April 19, 2004

Old-Timers Hitting the Panic Button

By Mark Hand

Read full article...

Posted 04/19 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Hey Mark: Sign me up to take a few swings against Noam.

    Many years ago, when I began my long martial arts career, I watched (for the thousandth time) a Bruce Lee flick with some kung fu classmates. Afterwards, one of them shocked us all by declaring: “You know, the more I learn as a fighter...the less I’m awed by Bruce.” To my young ears, it sounded blasphemous.

    Fast-forward a few decades and here I am witnessing Chomsky, Zinn, Parenti, etc. doing the ABB Tango and I find myself thinking back on my old classmate’s Bruce Lee comment...and it makes more sense than ever before.

    Bush, Kerry, Kush, Berry...it all sounds the same to me. Just say no to the Kushberry. It might make you Ralph.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  04/19  at  08:52 PM

  2. As a former Theatre person, I can tell you that Mick’s humor --so on target-- always threatens to upstage his content, steal the scene, so to speak...no matter how substantial a point he’s making.  It’s just that good.  But here...you’ve got the absolutely perfect blend.  The only “threat” to us here is that readers won’t leave the auditorium and make “Kushberry” a household name. I dunno, maybe I’m too big of a Mick fan.  Well, gotta go and read Mark’s article now. Seriously, Mark, serious hugs.  I’ll be right back (I see an empty seat upfront), Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/19  at  09:14 PM

  3. Full disclosure: It was in an e-mail from a mysterious reader known as “The Marked Woman” that I first came across “Kush” and “Berry.” From there, well, I mushed them together into an unappetizing fruit.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  04/19  at  09:25 PM

  4. This is a HOME RUN of a humorous article, bases loaded (with levity and lots ‘o learnin’ to boot).  Here’s something I wish I had written.  Only thing I’d add is that if Katrina vanden Heuvel is not Watering the Boy (’s of Summer), make sure she’s playin’ Left Out, Mark.  In a league of your own, Master.  Hugs, Ox

    Posted by Yoga Oxfun from  on  04/19  at  09:26 PM

  5. In “The Ultimate Betrayal” Zinn writes of the wounded returning from Iraq: “And even though they had fearsome weapons, they were still vulnerable to guerrilla attacks that have left so many of them blinded and crippled. Is this not the ultimate betrayal of our young by our government?”

    Kerry is not offering a ledge, more like a bridge to permanent bases in Iraq.  There does appear to be a cadre of the left’s most fearsome intellectual weapons in a state of free fall, though.  If that’s not the ultimate betrayal, what is?

    Terrific article, as always.

    Peace

    Posted by Diane Warth from  on  04/19  at  11:02 PM

  6. I still don’t think of it as a betrayal as much as it is a tactical debate.  I don’t think that the years of service that many of the above mentioned ABBers have provided render them turncoats - even though I am no longer an ABBr, for reasons of Palestine - on which as per usual the Dems are outhawking the Republicans.  If Nader can make this an issue he will get the entire 6 million Arab American vote.

    He must make this an issue - if only to “Push Kerry” as he says he will be doing.

    Anyway - I think what Zinn etc. are doing is understandable and in the long run moot.  In 1969 Theodor Adorno did not join the youth protests in West Germany.  Jochka Fischer led these protests.  Joschka is now a servant of German Imperialism, and Theodor retains respect as a tremendously important thinker.  Or Bobby Byrd and John Kerry.  In 1971 Bobby Byrd was a racist Southern Democrat and Kerry was a self-styled antiwar activist.  Now Byrd is the lone politician to speechify beautifully against the war, and Kerry wants to outhawk Bush.

    Posted by J Cummings from  on  04/20  at  10:04 AM

  7. It’s definitely being viewed as a tactical approach by the “old-timers.” And I don’t view the members of the “team” that I created in this article as “turncoats.” I was never too fond of Weinstein and Navasky and don’t view their support for Kerry and the Democrats as a change at all in their political philosophy. Tom Hayden hasn’t done much of value since the early 1970s, and his time in the California Assembly probably explains his optimism for the current crop of Dems. The other team members are still doing good work and I respect their position on the ABB voting strategy, although I disagree with it and view it as counterproductive, if indeed their goal is building a movement that will eventually chip away at the power held by the Republicrats. It was obvious during the radio interview that Zinn detests Kerry and he wasn’t afraid to tell the mostly liberal audience of the Majority Report why. And yet Zinn still holds out hope that the dangerously hawkish platform that Kerry is building will be remodeled with some dovish planks if elected president. I don’t think so. I liked Jordy’s reminder about what happened to Adorno/Fischer and Byrd/Kerry. I just wish there were more young militant realists fighting the U.S. political establishment today, even if some of them end up joining the criminal class 30 years from now, as Fischer and Kerry have today. If I had Terkel’s optimism, though, I would believe the radical interventionists currently in power in Washington will have lost their grip by the time I approach my golden years, a period in life that apparently has created such panic in Chomsky and Zinn. And perhaps by then there will be no criminal class for any aspiring “turncoats” to join.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  04/20  at  10:51 AM

  8. Let me offer what I think is an interesting sidelight to the above comments by Jordy.  I’ve only had direct contact w Parenti regarding this ABB thing, and I can tell you that his “explanation” for what he’s doing is something less than “understandable.” To wit, he cited the fact that he’s in his 70s as a reason for not doing anything “more radical” than what he’s doing at this juncture.  While that may be “understandable” to some, it’s not acceptable...regardless of his magnificent contributions on several fronts throughout his lifetime.  While Michael, Noam and Howard aren’t expected to put their heads in the front of a police baton, there are other ways of undermining The Powers...that would have them pushing the envelope beyond the ABB stance...and beyond the glorious stuff they take part in...routinely, it seems.  An attitudinal adjustment is what’s called for here to end the current holocausts.  How many millions of people would have been motivated to “rise up” in a “different form” (than simply resolving to be an ABBer) if those guys and others had motivated them w an uncharacteristic scream from their respective podiums?  And how many “new recruits” for radical action could they, in turn, brought into the fold?  Why aren’t those guys et. al. taking matters just a little bit further in this 21st century version of 20th century holocausts?  Where is the plea on the knees for people to take risks?  What degree of difference does one observe at one of their lectures these days from what’s been delivered in the past?  I can’t speak for Noam or Howard “in person” of late, but I can tell you that Parenti out-Goffs Goff; he’s putting people to sleep.  Or he’s having them get up and do a Clap Fandango for A Moment...only to return to sleep before he leaves the hall.  The problem with the “turncoats” whether or not we call them by that label is that they have an obligation to make sure Sleeping Sickenss doesn’t take hold of the masses they’re urging to vote ABB in November.  With that guaranteed to take hold in the fall w a Kerry victory, one has to ask whether or not this Turncoat Gang would be acting the same way in WW II Germany.  Michael gives the feel of going through the motions of the Lecture Circuit...even though I would NEVER accuse any of the Big Three of being concerned with $$$.  Just want to close on the note that The Powers are probably praying for a Kerry victory at this juncture...’cause it IS the perfect prescription for putting the populace back to sleep...that small portion of it that’s been roused for the moment.  Why not take advantage of the fact that they’ve been roused?  I direct that question to each and every reader...and ask you to ask yourself what YOU’RE doing to end this American Abomination. Best, Ricardo

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/20  at  10:51 AM

  9. Regarding the war, “Kushberry,” as Mickey Z calls them, is just the same, and Kerry part may be even worse.  The best that ABBers could possible argue is there is some intrinsic value in defeating Bush, and that Kerry would realize that the US public is against war.  But I rather doubt if Kerry would do such as thing.  In fact he explictly calls for more troops in Iraq, that is, more violence.  Kerry is even not willing to consider the position of the current Spanish Prime Minister.  The best that ABBers can say is that Kerry’s position is somewhat better on domestic issues.  May be this is so, but needs to be convincingly argued.  Perhaps there is a difference in (say) abortion, the war on drugs, civil rights, tax policy, and so forth.  But frankly the marginal difference between Kerry and Bush are so little that I doubt that the Kerry presidency could be consider any better.  It is much more reasonable to support Ralph Nader, even if he is imperfect.

    Posted by Abu Spinoza from  on  04/20  at  11:10 AM

  10. Mark,

    I think you greatly underestimate the importance of the Nobody But Kerry movement. If we can defeat Bush and get that “ledge” just think of what we progressives can do…

    O.K. if you need a reminder just go back to the glorious eight years of Bill Clinton where progressives stopped Clinton from having the federal government execute anyone. It only become easier for the federal government to execute people and Clinton refused to institute a moratorium on the death penalty. We prevented Clinton from invading Iraq. So the U.S. only bombed and sanctioned Iraq. And I don’t think I even need to mention that Clinton did not outlaw abortion, affirmative action or same-gender relationships, three things Bush is planning to do very, very soon.

    See how great it can be!

    One thing the Nobody But Kerry people fail to contemplate is that yes there are difference between the stated positions of Bush and Kerry, but the differences are small enough so that political considerations and the course of events are likely to play a bigger role in how they govern than anything they believe “deep down inside.”

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  04/20  at  11:32 AM

  11. Good article; I wish I’d caught Zinn on Garofalo’s show.  I have surprised to see so many of these guys coming out in favor of Kerry.  Chomsky, Ivins, Herman, et al didn’t surprise me, but Michael Parenti?  Is this the same guy that authored “Blackshirts and Reds”?  The Communist Party is also pretty explicit in its support of Kerry.  I’d like to see them showing up in droves at Kerry rallies with “Communists for Kerry” banners, just for the comic relief.  Seems like the Trotskyites and a few other mavericks are the only ones thinking twice about the ABB argument.

    Frankly I’m not too excited by Ralph Nader either.  His issue focus is too narrow and he doesn’t really appeal to women or people who aren’t white.  I don’t see his candidacy accomplishing much this year.  Maybe if he ends up in a position to be a possible “spoiler” things will get interesting, but right now I just don’t have any enthusiasm for Ralph.

    Although I don’t think he ever will, I want Michael Eric Dyson to run for president.  He is as intelligent, articulate, and quick on his feet as Ralph is (if not moreso).  I think he would have a more broad appeal.  And he is good-looking and charismatic, which is unfortunately very important in this TV-driven world.

    Posted by Justin Felux from  on  04/20  at  12:54 PM

  12. Sticking with the big leaguers theme (political pundits & baseball players)

    Posted by Kap Fulton from  on  04/20  at  01:48 PM

  13. Parenti’s most recent book is one of the finest things I’ve read on Ancient Rome though.

    Posted by Jordy Cummings from  on  04/20  at  03:52 PM

  14. Was there an Anybody-but-Caesar movement back then?

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  04/20  at  04:38 PM

  15. I’m aghast at Herman on the NBK bandwagon.  He’s been trenchantly railing against “cruise missile leftists” for a couple of years at least.  What a surprise to see him support one now. 

    I don’t think it’s Nader’s fault his candidacy doesn’t appeal to women and non-whites.  His message should certainly by all rights appeal to the vast majority of those constituencies.  It is mystifying to me that it does not.  Apart from his dead-on stance on the issues, however, his campaign is a logistical disaster, at least here in Illinois.  It’s impossible to get a straight answer from the campaign, to get a downloadable version of the petition to get him on the ballot here, or anything else.  I have become so disillusioned with this aspect of his campaign, that I have quit pestering them to utilize me as a volunteer.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  04/20  at  04:56 PM

  16. Following MZ’s line of thinking…

    Hitler: evil
    Bush: less evil
    Kerry: slightly less evil
    Geraldo: slightly less evil on his good days
    Nader: means well, almost there, creeps out small children, less evil
    Mark’s baseball team, THE SEE NO EVILERS: cheerleading with good intentions but hyping a slightly fuzzier form of evil nonetheless

    Posted by Kap Fulton from  on  04/20  at  05:02 PM

  17. Regarding Parenti’s “ROMAN” work, it was VERY instructive, a very wonderful work in many respects.  For what it’s worth, however, please note that Larry Everest, Mr. Revolution, has suggested that one CAN find the seeds of Michael’s ABB stance throughout the pages...to address both Jordy and Mick.  The energy that Mark Hand has helped to generate with this piece would be very welcome in The Realm of Radical Action.  In serious solidarity, ROX

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/20  at  06:50 PM

  18. I’ve heard some poeple say Parenti is a dilettante when it comes to Roman history and that the ideas he presents in his book aren’t really original.  I have no idea either way; that period of time is not my cup of tea.

    Posted by Justin Felux from  on  04/20  at  09:00 PM

  19. Whoever is telling Justin that Parenti’s analysis is dilettanish is being disingenuous...or ignorant...or wanting to distract from others who really deserve such criticism; that said I do think Larry Everest’s criticism of the work is justified.  REGARDING THE MORE CENTRAL ISSUE HERE OF THE SMALL LEDGE VS. NO LEDGE...I don’t know if one of the PAction gang said this above...but it occurs to me that we shouldn’t be putting ourselves in the position of going out onto that ledge or “no ledge,” as the case may be.  We should be staying indoors and confronting the enemy right in the house.  We shouldn’t be persuaded --just because Parenti, Chomsky et. al. are pointing a finger in a certain direction-- that “the way out” is over there.  Begin the awful,ugly battle at home, Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/20  at  11:15 PM

  20. I agree with Abu that a Kerry presidency could incite a worst case scenario.  Any hopes that we are reasonable will be dashed by his bigger, fiercer ‘peacekeeping’ plan.  Where we will stand globally without crazy George & Co. to blame for our arrogance?

    I do see their acquiescence as a betrayal.  If I followed their advise I would be signing on to more dead and wounded that in all likelihood will be forced into ‘service’ by the draft and brutal oppression in Iraq and who knows where next.

    While I respect their collective work they seem to have learned little from it themselves.  I intend to vote for any candidate that puts more value on truth and human life than these tacticians with time and blood to spare.

    Posted by Diane Warth from  on  04/21  at  11:57 AM

  21. I’ve held my tongue on this one long enough, and while I agree 100% with many of the sentiments put forth in the original article and the subsequent comments particularly by Mark, Mickey, Richard, lets reign ourselves in from making fairly ludicrous statements calling these guys (Zinn, Chomsky , etc.) ‘betrayers’ (this term in particular REALLY bothers me as it requires a sort of prerequisite underhandedness, and or questionable personal motivations) or having ‘learned little’ from their ‘collective work.’ That’s not to say these guys don’t have a lot of clout and their statements carry much weight – Thereby they inherit a certain grave responsibility. For all their fabulous contributions, it does not make them exempt from criticism. So, I totally agree we that MUST call them on their failings, miscalculations, and or false hopes and not become sycophants, hanging on their every word. Zinn’s statement though, in fairness, “sure, vote for Kerry” is hardly a ringing endorsement or rallying cry, and it was accompanied by numerous numerous caveats, as Mark has noted.  Zinn, of course, is well known for his sentiment “if voting could change anything, it would be illegal,” so putting forth the notion that Zinn’s opinion precludes (when in fact it actively necessitates) action outside the electoral system is fairly ridiculous. So yes, by all means let us hold them accountable – voice your anger and disappointment - admonish them for not ‘going far enough.’ But as far as calling them ‘betrayers’ or ‘tacticians with time and blood to spare?’ No thanks. I get off the bus at that point…

    Posted by BruceA from  on  04/21  at  02:20 PM

  22. Bruce, your words make sense. However, we must realize the position of the researcher. Chomsky, Zinn et al are famous because, well, they stay within the acceptable realm of argument. If Chomsky had taken a stance of “truism” (a word he likes) he would advocate non-voting. This notion of choosing a face for a system that can be later molded into what the people what is simply ridiculous. Let us not try to change what we know, let us enlighten those who wish to learn. There comes a time, when we must move past our mentors (even while we say thank you). Some have called Edward Said sexist. That does not, in any way, take away from his great work.

    PS - Emma Goldman also was quoted regarding the illegality of voting. And I’m sure someone else said it previously to her…

    Posted by Kap from  on  04/21  at  03:31 PM

  23. Well ‘famous’ and ‘acceptable’ are certainly relative terms (in this case extremely so)...

    But anyways, Kap, if I infer correctly, you would then be in direct opposition to calls by Richard, Mickey, etc. to vote for Nader?

    Posted by BruceA from  on  04/21  at  04:26 PM

  24. Isn’t it time to say the “s” word?
    If a choice between Bush and Kerry
    is the best the system can offer,
    then, sorry, I’m getting off the
    bus.

    When the door to the cage is open,
    why step back in?  Why go with a
    system that offers us no real
    alternatives and the very real
    possibility of planetary destruction?

    I respect Chomsky and Zinn.
    That they’ve chosen the Kushberry
    route only proves that all mortals
    are fallible.

    Wasn’t it Rosa Luxembourg who said,
    “Either socialism or barbarism?”

    Kathleen M.

    Posted by Kathleen McGettigan from  on  04/21  at  04:48 PM

  25. Regardless how Kerry thinks about the war, using it as an election year argument--at this point--may be a losing proposition.

    When Wall Street sees the occupation as a threat, it will move to change American public opinion, which must substantially oppose the ‘war on terror’ as too costly in terms of American lives.

    Until that happens, Kerry will lose any argument over the war.  Which says a lot about American culture that I wish weren’t true.

    Posted by Jon R. Koppenhoefer from  on  04/21  at  05:00 PM

  26. BruceA, to answer your question: I absolutely see Nader as a lesser/lesser evil. And since the Republican power grab in the CA recall election I will not vote. The state of CA wanted me to choose between Governor Death Penalty (Gray Davis) and a women fondling, power hungry body builder. HOWEVER, even though I voted AGAINST the recall (the whole thing was funded by a slimy used car salesman), I could still choose a candidate I liked of the remained hundreds. I chose Peter Camejo (why? because’s a famous Green...of course). Let alone the fact that the whole system of voting is run by “THEM” with their touchscreen voting.

    Not to mention, that out of the 115 recall candidates, Mr. Body Oil himself received the last slot on the ballot. Conveniently, he was singled out from the masses.

    I’ll remain a chuckling observer....

    Posted by Kap Fulton from  on  04/21  at  05:03 PM

  27. Wow. I’d hazard to guess that virtually all of Hand’s lefty leaguers are beyond the age of 60 - certainly Chomsky, in his late 70’s, and, by the author’s own admission, Terkel and Zinn who are each older than Ivins by at least two decades. Yet, rather than receiving accolades for wisdom or for being a firebrand, the sole female in this lineup not only gets singled out for her age, but is mentioned for her age alone!

    And they say sexism is dead.

    Posted by Maryellen from  on  04/21  at  08:28 PM

  28. Maryellen, you are the one mentioning that Molly is a woman, not Mark. I suspect her gender had little bearing.

    Posted by Nancy from  on  04/21  at  09:54 PM

  29. Amen to Kathleen’s suggestion for socialism.  How soon?  And how much?

    I believe Chomsky is about 73 give or take six months.  Criticizing Mark for a supposedly sexist comment he never made is seriously a cheap shot in the context of his consistently incisive, extremely reasoned and inimitable commentary here.

    In the current hard copy Counterpunch, Gabriel Kolko makes a very compelling argument that a Bush victory over Kerry could actually be better for progressivism.  He states Kerry would essentially continue the same imperial, militarist policies as Bush, but under this aegis of multilateralism and repairing the alliances Bush has so undermined.  He says this will only delay the inevitable, which four more years of Bush will hasten, which is a US unilateralism that our allies, particularly our closest - G Britain, Australia, Canada - but also the Europeans, especially France, Germany, Spain et al., already rife with misgivings, will necessarily find to be against their interests - political, economic, electoral.  All told of course in Kolko’s singular voice.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  04/21  at  10:24 PM

  30. Hayden’s a lefty in the field with a weak arm. (played on his team). He’d be a disaster at short.

    Posted by J.B. from  on  04/21  at  10:25 PM

  31. Maryellen-- I penciled in Molly to bat cleanup. That means I think she’s a star ABBer, with home run potential. She’s the Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Mike Schmidt and Barry Bonds of this great group of old-time ABBers. I’m counting on her to carry the offensive load for my anti-Bush team. I listed her age in the team’s program guide because I suspected many fans wouldn’t believe the vibrant Ms. Ivins could be approaching 60-years-old, the cut-off age to qualify for the league. Everyone knows her teammates are old enough to qualify so I didn’t want to insult the intelligence of the league’s fans by listing their ages; I had to honor the great Terkel’s longevity, though. (Just to be safe, can someone check on S. Landau’s age? I don’t want the league office disqualifying the team from regular season play for keeping an underaged player on the roster.)

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  04/21  at  10:37 PM

  32. All of the niceties of argument put aside for the moment...as...I think we can all agree...can get to be the focus in and of themselves...please note that some people are going to FORCE the discussion in a different direction.  For example, no one should think --as per one of the comments above-- that my putting in a word for Nader previously...takes away from the hard “other work” that needs to be done.  What is that work?  It’s really the only work that counts.  It’s the task that steps beyond what we can expect of Zinn et. al. at this point, for a number of reasons.  It’s a job that goes way beyond involvement in the electoral system.  Revolutionaries in the 18th century in this country FORCED the majority of the population to “get involved”...to make a decision about commitments...and how to do THAT is what lies before us.  I really don’t think most readers here have a clear vision of what getting rid of old paradigms means, but this weekend...in Santa Cruz...someone moved in a very dangerous direction...in an effort...misguided or otherwise...to do something risky...something that is an example of what it might take...might...to stop the genocide and ecocide.  There was a bomb threat and more at Amy Goodman’s performance in Santa Cruz; I have submitted an article for consideration on the subject to a number of places. Here’s hoping people pay attention to what’s coming down one way or the other...unless we can devote much more energy to something other than academic arguments.  I enjoy them as much as anyone, but I hope we’ll all really step into new territory also...the challenge of what will do the trick...short of bombs.  Blessings, Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/21  at  10:47 PM

  33. So ultimately Tracy, it has come down to this - the left out ‘lefts’ the left...by voting for Bush! (Just kidding, I know you nor Kolko are putting forth this argument per se.) In all seriousness though, Kolko’s concerns are real and I can appreciate them - the idea that Kerry may better disguise the same ‘imperial, militarist policies’ of Bush and essentially give them an air of legitimacy vis-a-vie a more multilateral (and tactically effective) ‘gang rape’ of Iraq. In the end though, in that the dogmatic ABB crowd is attacked (rightfully) for making blanket ‘faith based’ assertions (i.e.  Kerry maybe…might… possibly… perhaps…be a bit better for some, etc.) I think the same critisizms could be made against any inverse ‘faith based’ arguments.  Is it possible for instance to really meanifully quantify whether the Reagan/Bush1 years were essentially ‘better’ or ‘worse’ (for whom, and in what respect) than the Clinton years. A few years ago I would have unequivically said the former was much ‘worse’ in all aspects.  Now I suspect convicing arguments could be made for either case. Can the former though, particulary in respect to activists or progressives (keeping in mind too that the former directely lead into the the latter) be considered more fruitful? While certainly being mindful of the unique threats posed by each in this dicotomy (the more open, overt threat vs.  the idea a slighly higher ledge from which to argue), I think the only choice is to somehow ignore this debate altogether if these cyclical patterns are to be broken…

    Posted by BruceA from  on  04/22  at  12:12 AM

  34. I find Molly Ivins charming but she annoys me at times, like when she acts like she is an expert on all things that have to do with Texas.  Out of the 5 or 6 progressives that come from Texas (myself included) I think she is probably my least favorite.  Jim Hightower and Bob Jensen are cool.

    Posted by Justin Felux from  on  04/22  at  12:31 AM

  35. If I understand Bruce, YES...ignore the debate totally; it’s a total distraction from what we need to be doing.  And THANK GOODNESS...someone has started to put Molly Ivins in her place, Justin.  I have no idea how she ever got placed in the company of Zinn and Chomsky, but please keep her out!  She’s the one that had the audacity to put Kucinich down --I was NEVER voting for him-- because of his physical appearance; that’s a “way worse than tacky” tack to take in talking about the candidates...even if you’re describing how the American public might feel.  She lowers herself too many times to that level.  Yes, Jensen is head and shoulders and thighs above Molly.  Hightower, however, is another expensive ball of wax.  It’s time to take figures like him to task --regardless of their wonderful, fun-filled contributions-- for the money they charge to appear at their Green Fests, etc.  Activists must not let up on this point.  Why on earth or elsewhere are people w Hightower’s $$$ charging so much money to get THE MESSAGE out?  Part of the message --arguably one of the more important elements in it-- is that This System DOESN’T work.  Best, Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/22  at  09:42 AM

  36. Yeah, Hightower shouldn’t charge all that money to grace people with his presence.  Overall though, I really like the guy.  He connects with people that NOBODY else on the left can connect with, probably in large part due to his thick accent.

    Posted by Justin Felux from  on  04/22  at  01:25 PM

  37. When I posted my above comment about Kolko, I hit the post rather than the preview button, and didn’t edit my comment correctly. 

    In Counterpunch Kolko says, and once again it is in his inimitably astute way, that European, and NATO, and other US’ allies interests are necessarily diverging from those of the US.  He claims, and Cockburn has recently backed him up, that Bush will hasten the break that will isolate the US and its imperial military adventures.  While this is ostensibly against US interests, it essentially is against the Halliburton-Bechtel-military-industrial-oil megalopoly-complex’s interests, rather than most peoples’, that is, our, progressives’ interests; and Kolko intimates, the vast majority of the world’s population.  He says that a Kerry presidency, could delay these breaks under the darkness of his multilateralism and his stated goals of repairing strained alliances, especially with the French and Germans.  He says the sooner the United States and its military ambitions are isolated, the safer the world and everyone in it will be.  He says for that reason, he will not be voting this year.  I wish I could encourage him to vote for Nader since that is the case, but I have no idea how a mere mortal could entreat Kolko. 

    And, in any event, as Richard tirelessly makes the point here, the electoral process is only a small part of the work that needs to be done.  True, but notwithstanding that, I would highly recommend Kolko’s newest book, “Another Century of War,” a real delight of a book of a unique mind, and a terse, adroit, analytical prowess.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  04/22  at  05:41 PM

  38. Mere mortals are all Kolko has to work on him, he a mere mortal himself. Go for it, T. I hope all readers will consult Ward Churchill’s suggestions about what to do on http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html.  As interesting as the Kolko book must be (always glad to get a recommendation from the likes of T), all of The Powers and their back and forth debates are distractions from the business at hand.  They, along with Hightower’s humor, can serve as huge distractions.  This is NOT to say that we should pay no attention to differences among The Powers or pay nothing to see Hightower in action (who does what Justin says he does), but...we must ask ourselves how many of our heartbeats are going in which direction.  What are our priorities...when we aren’t being observed in public.  If we aren’t working to dismantle this Machine...to put serious glitches in its running business as usual RIGHT NOW...what is it that we have faith in?  Who?  What plan?  I submit that we must individually adopt our own singular plans for action...that run simultaneously with anything else we’re doing w others...with the ultimate aim being to cause The American Plan...The American Abominations...to cease virtually overnight.  Merci, Rich

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/22  at  09:02 PM

  39. BruceA poses an interesting question about the Repugs v Dems specifically Reagan/Bush I v Clinton.  Telling, I think is this: the US led, UN sanctions against Iraq lasted from Aug 1990 to Mar 2003.  In that time, best estimates I have seen are 1.5 million deaths directly attributable to the sanctions, half of them children under 5.  In light of these numbers, Clinton presided over the greater genocide, is the bigger thug and murderer than either Bush.  Strange.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  04/22  at  09:43 PM

  40. Why is it important to determine who is the greater thug?  How much energy do we devote to such mental gymnastics versus “dismantling activity”?  This is not to attack Bruce or TM. Not at all.  However, I do think I am addressing a really core issue, greatly neglected on the Left.  We have to be extremely careful not to encourage such verbal exchanges...which too often are indulged in...in lieu of radical action that will make a difference.  Best, Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/23  at  03:04 AM
    41. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: My What Would Chomsky Do? Penpals

    Previous entry: Hospital Closings and the Geneva Convention

    [ads]

    Support Press Action