Press Action

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Nader Asks for Apology for ‘Obscene Racist Epithet’

Read full article...

Posted 07/13 |

Add a Comment

Comments:

You must register to comment.

The Black Caucus has a whole lot more to apologize about than this particular --to be off the mark in the name of being ultra kind-- faux pas. In general, almost all of our representatives, black or white or otherwise, are politically-correct (by word) gangsters. Even for their “own people” the representatives in question haven’t seen fit to make sure that the library associated with the Rotunda and the artwork it houses represent the “contraband slaves” that built the damn thing! I’m more “black” than the bulk of the...BASTA_ _ _, O’Xman.

Posted by O'Xman from on 07/13 at 06:04 PM

Thanks for posting this, Mark. Further proof that the Democrats don’t even need people like us to point out their complicity in the fiasco known as “America.” Just stand back and watch them in action...then surrender all hope/faith in the two-party (sic) system and find/create new avenues for change. ASAP.

Posted by Mickey Z. from on 07/13 at 06:07 PM

Some members of the Congressional Black Caucus still don’t understand what Nader’s candidacy is all about. Here’s how some reacted today to Nader asking for an apology from Melvin Watt:

“He ain’t playing with a full deck,” said caucus member Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.

“I don’t think he gets it,” said caucus member Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md. “We were particularly offended by Nader’s exhibitionism, his selfishness and egotism.”

“If he didn’t understand what the meeting was about, not only is he an egotistical maniac, he’s dumber than I thought he was,” said caucus member Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y.

Posted by Mark Hand from on 07/13 at 08:54 PM

-For the record, Nader’s Lebanese. He doesn’t make a point of saying this and he could probably pass for white but still he doesn’t claim to be white and I have read an interview where he said he did take some joy in being Lebanese due to the heritage and cultural traditions-If Nader actually expected to discuss strategy and issues beyond whether or not he should run, he’s incredibly naïve.-Have people seen this Reuters story? It shows that the Dems aren’t quite as opposed to Bush as they want people to believe.

Posted by micah holmquist from on 07/13 at 08:58 PM

Did anyone notice John Stauber quoted in the link Mark provided? Yet another lefty turned ABBer. The ranks swell as November nears.

Posted by Mickey Z. from on 07/13 at 09:05 PM

Thanks for the article link, Micah. So in Arizona and other states, Democrats and affiliated groups, such as StopNader.com, are fighting tooth and nail to keep Nader off the ballot, but in Illinois and other states Democrats are collaborating with Republicans to amend state election laws to keep Bush on the ballot and acquiesce to the Republicans’ desire to hold their convention in NYC close to the third anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Hmm.

Posted by Mark Hand from on 07/13 at 09:10 PM

Yeah, Mickey, I noticed the mention of John Stauber in the article. Stauber’s work “exposing” Republican support for getting Nader on state ballots probably won’t hurt sales of his new book, “Banana Republicans.” I have a friend who, like many ABBers, claims that Kerry doesn’t have to worry about appealing to liberals and the Left because they’re solidly backing him, thus allowing Kerry to spend his resources on campaigning as a right-winger on certain issues in order to attract the so-called “swing” voters. So if the Left is solidly in Kerry’s camp, why are the Democrats and their lefty apologists such as John Stauber and Norman Solomon so terrified of real democracy and letting voters decide for themselves?

Posted by Mark Hand from on 07/13 at 09:30 PM

It’s time for the very few who can do so to take a long clear look at ALL the people who would wish Kerry well, let alone actively support him. The bad news is that it’ll be very painful to separate oneself from all the usual “buddies” who have been on the same side of the fence on many issues over the years. The good news is that it won’t take huge numbers to keep either major party from continuing The Momentum. It is very significant that so many minorities can join in on wishing it well, The Momentum. But totally understandable, albeit disgusting. One more time, for now...ask yourself how many heartbeats you devote daily to thinking about how you can operate outside of the electoral system. ABB.... After Beating Bush. Then what? BBB.... Before Beating Bush. What? Hugs, Ox

Posted by O'Xman from on 07/13 at 10:01 PM

There are some members of the Black Caucus that I like more often than I dislike them. Rangel, Waters, and Conyers come to mind. Overall though, the CBC is just another worthless bunch of party hacks.

Posted by Justin Felux from San Antonio, TX on 07/14 at 07:39 AM

Whoa! What fun to see the Uncles protecting their positions!

Hoping the proles will act does not include the BCCers, the males quoted being ABBers!

But Maxine Waters cannot be lumped into the group of sell-outs..I STILL support her for President (but will vote Nader) for having the wisdom and courage to correctly state that 9/11 was an attack by OUR government on OUR soil.

She’s truly a Right On Heroine, and I hope she speaks out on this issue.

Posted by Dave Stewart from on 07/14 at 11:26 AM

What does Maxine say about Charles Rangel hugging Hillary? Or does she --in spite of her many good points-- hug Hillary also at times? Trying to address what risks/compromises are necessary/worthwhile here. Oxlove

Posted by O'Xman from on 07/14 at 01:58 PM

I live in Baltimore and the local Greens here (who have no courage) want to run a full slate of congressional candidates, but many do not want to run against Elijah Cummings (Congressperson in my district). They cite his “decent voting record” during the Bush years, but they will not respond to the fact that Cummings was a blind supporter and apologist for Clinton and Cummings’ constituents suffered under Clinton and Gore’s policies.

And Melvin Watt has a HELL of alot of nerve. He disses Nader here, but will support a White man (John Kerry) who will ensure that class and racial inequality stay intact if he becomes President. Watt doesn’t give a damn about his constituents either.

If we are ever going to get anywhere and get anything done, we must dismantle the Democratic Party.

Posted by Brandy from on 07/14 at 04:19 PM

Consider it dismantled. Great to hear your voice again, Brandy. As you know St. Clair gave Great Hell on some of the counts you raise today...on Counterpunch...which all sd skim, I believe. Would you run on the Press Action Party? In fact, again, I think that before the disgruntled deal w the dismantled on any level electorally...there is an unpleasant task involving “forced education” on masses of people who have no time, interest or inclination to learn or make a difference. Will address that somewhat in an upcoming piece on Pilger. Best in solidarity, rich in small case letters

Posted by O'Xman from on 07/14 at 09:38 PM

Eric Falterman thinks Nader is insane for denouncing the dictatorship of the two-party (sic) system. He writes:

“Question of the Day: Is Ralph Nader genuinely, and I don’t mean metaphorically, insane? Take a look at this quote, to Salon’s David Talbot:

Ralph: “We’re not going to play the fascist game of the two-party monopoly barricading itself from any competition, with all kinds of statutory obstruction that cost third parties immense time and money if they can surmount them. This is a dictatorship, which you don’t seem to understand.”

Posted by Mark Hand from on 07/14 at 10:26 PM

Stauber and Rampton’s Center for Media and Democracy reminds me a lot of outfits like Chip Berlet’s Political Research Associates that see their role in life as exposing rightwing machinations. However, liberal machinations don’t seem to interest them as much. With funding from the Florence and John Schumann Foundation (Bill Moyer’s fiefdom) and the Ted Turner Foundation, I doubt that you’ll find as much attention paid to Kerry’s sins as to Nader’s peccadillos.

Posted by Louis Proyect from on 07/15 at 08:10 AM

Hi Richard. Thanks.

Hello Mark: Eric Alterman is an asshole. Sorry to be so crude, but there is no other way to say it. Another Nation country club Democrat. And I love how he tries to sell the bogus idea that Al Gore has “changed” and is “populist”. This about Gore, who STILL does not want to talk about the racist election tampering in FL in 2000 because he does not want to “divide the country.”

Posted by Brandy from on 07/15 at 12:32 PM

It’s so great to see there are other people out there that see this “democratic” system for what it is.

Posted by Jonny from Oregon on 07/15 at 02:22 PM

Press Action people are slated to make a huge impact on this rotting corpse; these comments are encouraging.I look forward to Brandy and Jonny commenting in connection with my upcoming piece on PILGER’S PREFERENCES...on this site (if I get Mark’s blessings)...as I will be addressing...in detail...the concerns they express here. We need to stop even talking about the likes of Alterman and Gore, don’t we? There ARE “other people” all over the place who are looking to replace “what it is” with...what it’s going to be...which, contrary to popular misconception...we do not have to delineate for the anal retentive...ahead of time. That’s as per Arundhati Roy at the WSF, if you remember. Specifics await you...shortly, ROX

Posted by O'Xman from on 07/15 at 05:33 PM

Speaking of the Nation country club liberals: I just finished Greg Bates’s book “Ralph’s Revolt,” in which he cites no less than Calvin Trillin, The Nation’s deadline poet as calling Nader a “creep.” Ralph Nader! Whose every word in this campaign is full of the richest intelligence, honesty and integrity lacking in the entirety of the two front runners’, full of cant, hypocrisy and subterfuge.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/16 at 06:45 PM

Arrogant white man is not an Obscene Racist Epithet’. Stop trying to get free publicity. Starting a third party is hard work and it doesn’t begin at the top. What have you done in the years since the last presidential election to create a third party? Nothing. You wait to presidential election to run. You don’t have any party machinery. The Green Party refused to nominate you.

You and I both know You’re not going to win. So you are arrogant, you are white, and you are a man.

To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson you are standing outside the tent to defeat president Bush and pissing in.

Obsene but true.

Denise Y. Hardy

Posted by DENISE Y HARDY from on 07/17 at 10:23 AM

If you stand as examplar of the principles that Nader does, that should be enough “hard work” to start a third party. What else do you do? And what have the frontrunners done to justify their parties’ viability for nominating candidates? Acted as political money-drops to perpetuate the same slime and corruption.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/17 at 10:41 AM

The abuse that Nader has taken from the Democratic Party is unprecedented. It shows their true colors. They have proven they are every bit as tyrannical and corrupt as the Republican Party. Instead of trying to reach out to Naderites who represent around 5% at the moment, they attack him and attempt to derail his efforts to get on ballots in several states.

These members of the Congressional Black Caucus who spoke with virulence and hatred are corrupt to the core. What is their motive for trying to bounce the most progressive candidate out of the race? One is to keep Israel’s apartheid occupation of Palestine out of the debate. Cummings is a Zionist mouthpiece, beholden to them for their heavy campaign contributions. He held back his endorsement of Howard Dean for this reason (until Dean changed his tune).

As for those who use slanderous remarks like ‘arrogant white man’, Nader is an ARAB-AMERICAN. These jerks are not only abusing the race card to slander Ralph, they are mislabeling him.

The Dems are shooting themselves in the foot, again. These slanderous attacks will backfire. They are pushing people like myself who are on the fence between Dems and Greens over to the Greens forever. The Democratic Party is corrupt, abusive, and tyrannical.

Posted by Going Green from on 07/17 at 01:56 PM

Anyone paraphrasing Lyndon Johnson --with so many others to choose from-- speaks for itself...(dis)respecting Hardy’s silly take on the obscenity angle discussed here. Also, “winning” in the electoral sense that Denise cites is...obviously...far from the point of Ralph’s running. Blessings, Richard O.

Posted by O'Xman from on 07/17 at 08:06 PM

The invective that Hardy (among others) is directing at Nader needs to be directed at John Kerry and the Democrats.

Posted by Brandy from on 07/17 at 10:18 PM

I’ve attempted to remain civil, considering I’ve made only a couple of posts and have no track record, but all I really see is typical lefty talk against “the system” with no reference at all about how to oppose it in any effective way.

Exactly how is running for Prez every four years building an alternative to “the system”? Isn’t it just playing along with the charade it supposedly criticizes?

The real-world effect and meaning of a Nader candidacy is the same as it was in 2000—the election of Bush, apparently in some misguided hope that his election will lead to the further breakdown of the US social and political system.

If a serious break occurs, what will be ushered in won’t be any kind of socialist revolution, but a national socialist one with a Pinochet-like head.

As for the left and race, the left remains an incredibly lily-white movement that has little connection at all to the black communities or little if any clue as to how to make a connection. Like Nader, it imagines a connection that rests on the thin air of intellectual abstraction, and when that abstraction is burst with contact with blacks, it castigates them for not “getting it”.

Unless there is some serious grassroots-level work, Watts’ perception is closer to reality than Nader’s.

Posted by Zeddrick from on 07/19 at 02:53 AM

The point is that Kerry is no alternative to Bush, right down to belonging to the same secret society. Nader is an alternative, and stands as an example of that alternative. The point of a Nader run is not alone Nader in 2004, but in starting to create the viability and momentum of an alternative, and if necessary third-party.

Certainly you are right about the need for serious grassroots-level work. As Chomsky has said, “Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion – which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist.”

It is also true that the left is too lily-white, unfortunate in the extreme. But I don’t think this is entirely the fault of the left. I’ve had some personal experience working with left grassroots groups that made the recruiting of people of color a priority, with little success. It’s unfortunate moreover, that the left is disorganized to the point, for all intents and purposes, of non-existence.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/19 at 06:24 PM

Building a legit alternative to the Dem party is not running for Prez every four years, which really does nothing to challenge the DP or the status quo, but works to help not only Republicans, but the most reactionary Republicans, gain office. It happened in both 1980 and in 2000.

I have no illusions that Kerry is progressive or even very liberal, but to repeat the mantra that there’s no difference between them is ignorant. As the cover article in the new TNR points out, the Bush admin is waging ideological war against intelligence and expertise itself with negative impact against progress in science, health and nearly any issue you’d choose.

As Nader alluded to in 2000, it’s not really ignorance, but a deluded strategy that imagines a right-wing gov’t gutting the liberal welfare state will somehow come to a head and swing the political pendulum back the other way, if not lead to some kind of revolution or the rise of a socialist alternative.

That is a dangerous delusion, as is the idea that Nader is offering a real alternative.

Posted by Zeddrick from on 07/19 at 08:26 PM

It’s one of many alternatives. It was the struggling for a third party that installed reactionary Republicans in 2000. It was the very corruption Nader ran against - this time in the stolen election and the fraudulent Supreme Court ruling. Gore laid down like a dead dog after winning a Presidential race. He deserved to lose. The Congressional Black Causus sought to challenge the Supreme Court decision on the grounds of the egregious expunging of supposed felons numbering in the hundred thousand range in Florida, as reported in Greg Palast’s book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Their move needed a single voice vote to proceed, and got none, including Al Gore who was presiding over the Senate as the Vice-President. For starters of old ground not worth covering.

Has Bush been any less culpable in wielding the instruments and weapons of “progress” than Clinton? And by the way, if this is progress let me try a hundred years ago or more, maybe as a Native American, who had some semblance of culture and spirituality.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/20 at 09:59 PM

Regarding Zeddrick’s comment about Pinochet above...which relates to soooooo much of what’s above. Pinochet? How can anyone express worry about a Pinochet (clone or #2) entering the picture...as a possibility...when you’ve got Bush in the flesh operating at present? And don’t forget that WE PUT PINOCHET IN POWER. I fear that everyone’s fears respecting what MIGHT BE “ushered in” (to use Zeddrick’s ill-advised term) is a huge waste of energy. It’s already bloody enough for many lifetimes for the people who wish to have a fundamental change brought in here with or without electoral shenanigans. A Pinochet II or a Bush III or a JFK II couldn’t make it any worse for the vast majority of Native Americans or Blacks in this country than it already is. Meaning...it’s bad enough for a large enough segment of this population to seriously discuss how to trip up the whole board game ASAP...risking the obvious...more bloodshed and tears. “There are those who want to set fire to our world; We are in danger; There is only time to work slowly; There is no time not to love.” These words by Denna Metzger...which I took out of Robbins’ book on DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA are well-intentioned, and beautiful...and make much sense. However, both Metzger and Robbins (and Kucinich for that matter) have all taken a stance that is a luxury for them, and impossible for the truly downtrodden to tolerate literally. Much must be forced down the pike at this juncture. With love, yes. But the arthiritic snail’s pace that almost everyone on the Left has adopted won’t wash. Clean, Ox

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 07/20 at 10:35 PM

>>>A Pinochet II or a Bush III or a JFK II couldn’t make it any worse for the vast majority of Native Americans or Blacks in this country than it already is.

It’s just that kind of hyperbole, esp. when such rhetoric is taken as reality, that leads to delusion and ultimate ineffect. Looking at some quick census data I pulled up, 57 percent of black households pull in $25,000 or more per year. 28 percent make $50,000 or more.

Not great sums of money by any means, and money is not the sole measure of well-being, but it’s absurd to say that for “the vast majority” of Blacks it can’t get any worse.

Even if you don’t buy that census data (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/black/ppl-164/tab14.txt), I don’t see, from my admittedly limited if not narrow perspective, any movement of any size that could tip the board, let alone a progressive one.

There is certainly discontent out there among all segments of the population, but most of it is of a reactionary variety, regardless of skin color. Just this past week, I went into an urban food joint (yes, they served meat) where a black worker was talking to a couple of black customers about how he’d sweated for twenty years without any real reward from the white owners. After he went back to work, the two customers commented that they wouldn’t work for “the devil”, who’d slave his own children for a buck.

Hate to tell you, but the devil of their moral tale wasn’t the capitalist, but whitey, just like the “devil” of many poor whites ain’t the bossman, but darkey.

The truly downtrodden, as a mass, will almost certainly follow the demogogue down instead of the progressive up when things come to a head.

Posted by Zeddrick from on 07/21 at 01:03 AM

I’m fully aware of the stats that are provided above. They are totally meaningless, as they have no relevance for the vast majority of Blacks are are not reflected in the census, have jobs without adequate health insurance, have jobs that do not follow OSHA parameters, etc. No one has any illusions about large numbers of people trying to upset the cart. That’s very dated thinking. Nothing is being proposed, thought or expected to be acted upon following such old paradigms. But the dissatisfaction is clearly directed at both whites and capitalists. And anyone in touch with Blacks in this country cross the board --not the NPR variety, not the NAACP variety, not the police (who have become blue in lieu of Black), et. al. solely-- knows that things have been getting worse. It doesn’t matter that you can count a soldier of the U.S. Army as having a certain income...when certain conditions in the neighborhood that he/she comes from are unacceptable, to say the least. There are parallels with that example in many areas, including education. I recommend that anyone who doubts what I say here...read the well-respected Randall Robinson’s QUITTING AMERICA or THE DEBT (by the same author) immediately. I notice that nothing is mentioned respecting Native Americans above. Again, no one expects a “movement” to take root. I do root, however, for the victims to rise up individually and close the shop for good. To talk absurdly --still-- as if Kerry is better than Bush is to say Ricki Lane or Jerry Springer is better than Bush. Of course, they are. But not by much. And they pose other problems. To wit, the cultural disaster that they propogate is bringing us down as quickly as the wars, and, in fact, is inseparable from all the typical targets of protest. Falling back on such figures that are cited will not do. Best, ox I’m rushing --as most readers know-- these days...or I would say much more. The violence that the Governor of California wants to continue at places like Pelican BAY, by the way, will not stand. Neither will the uneven (general) playing field, the elimination of Black Cultural Heritage and so much more. You are not on the ground --you are in books and/or listening to mainstream sources-- if you think differently. How would you know what the complaints are? By stopping by a hot dog stand? Is that it?

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 07/21 at 10:07 PM

Whatever the hell all that means. The fact is almost without exception the whitey and the capitalist are one and the same. Just to take two of the most prominent and disgusting varieties - Cheney and Ken Lay.

More bunk statistics about blacks in this country. Dwarfed by the fact, for example, that worldwide one in two people, the vast majoirty of them people of color, exist on two US dollars a day, in other words in horrible destitution. I guess you don’t walk around the streets of your city like I do chicago, and see many where even one is too many, homeless, or mentally ill people abaondoned to the streets. And the massive indifference to their terrible suffering by the respectable, the successful and the comfortable, who live comtemptible lives of commercial oblivion and consumerist fantasy, a corporate goddam madhouse. The system is the unconscionable thing in a pathetic country like the United STates, in which Bill Gates alone is worth more than the poorest 100 million. Anybody who can’t see that that on its face is a terrible injustice, is a soulless part of the soulless system. Bill Geek goddam Gates. The US government invented the Internet. But Bill Capitalist Gates is the one who cashes in. What did His Geekdom do?

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/21 at 10:13 PM

Hope you know Richard as should be obvious that those comments were apparently posted in synchonicity with yours, and directed at the previous writer. About Gates benefitting from the Internet that the government created: state assumption of risk and investment, to borrow Chomsky’s formulations, and privatization of profits.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/21 at 11:07 PM

Of course, T. However, merci for the courtesy to me...and the heartbeats for one and all too. Interesting how Zeddrick can categorize the nationwide “discontent” as “reactionary.” The following was found on an Amy Goodman “Headline” blurb: “Black Farmers’ Claim Rejected
According to a report released this week by a public interest watchgroup, tens of thousands of black farmers have yet to see any of the compensation promised them by the U.S. Department of Agriculture five years ago in one of the federal government’s largest-ever racial bias settlements. A two-year probe by the Environmental Working Group and the National Black Farmers Association. found that the government had denied restitution to 81,000 out of 94,000 black farmers who sought compensation. The farmers, who were seeking payments for unequal treatment when they applied for loan programs and other aid, agreed to the settlement in 1999.” We’re not talking here about what’s owed to the millions of descendants of forced labor here in the U.S., the benefits of which are still be enjoyed by white neighbors plus, but MAINLY by whites of a certain capitalistic variety. Everyone on the Left who wants to make advances...wants to make MOVEMENT (forget the term “The Movement")...should be addressing reparations for those who are long overdue...some acknowledgement, to say the least, for the abominations their ancestors went through here...in the name of our “progress.” The acknowledgement alone --money issues aside for the moment-- would go a long way toward helping ot improve everyone’s state of being. But it IS just a beginning. Nothing will be achieved without that well-meaning, well-deserved attempt at addressing the past. Blacks need a MAJOR acknowledgement of (the details of)what was “erased” from their past, what is still hidden deep from our schoolchildren today. And they should receive money, money that IS available as per Mark Zepezauer’s revised edition of TAKE THE RICH OFF WELFARE. Native Americans should be given some land back plus; a very sensible proposal on that count is laid out by Ward Churchill in STRUGGLE FOR THE LAND. How much coverage is devoted to casino deals versus what options could be on the table? The table needs to be turned over so that all the chips fall to the ground. Which brings me to Chip Ward of Salt Lake City. Rebecca Solnitt --connected with BADASS (Bay Area Direct Action Secret Society) just put out something titled HOPE (something or other “in the darkness”?)...which praises the advances among those resisting. One of the examples she lists is the work of her good friend, Chip Ward. I met him when we were trying to move OneDance: The People’s Summit into Mormon territory. He’s a perfect example of something crucially wrong with the Left. To wit (to focus on one point), we can cite this or that act of success...and lose sight of the Huge Picture. Humanity, to paraphrase Lord Dunsany, is like people packed into an auto which is rushing downhill without lights at 100mph, driven by a four-year-old. The signposts…

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 07/22 at 06:27 PM

>>>You are not on the ground --you are in books and/or listening to mainstream sources-- if you think differently.

>>>Anybody who can’t see that that on its face is a terrible injustice, is a soulless part of the soulless system.

Typical leftist b.s. that is a big part of the reason the left in the U.S. is largely a few misfits hawking newspapers. Who wants to have anything to do with a movement that rides a high horse and pisses on anyone who doesn’t see things exactly their way? On the ground, my ass.

Nobody with a brain and a soul would exchange one groupthink for another.

Posted by Zeddrick from on 07/22 at 11:04 PM

Which blather does not at all respond to let alone refute the gross injustice of one person - Bill Gates - being worth more than the poorest 100 million Americans combined. I mean just to take one facet of this issue, if that poor 100 million had Gates’s money, they’d be spending it on housing, food, education, etc. and expanding the economy, never mind the more equitable social arrangement.

I don’t see where hawking newspaper is inherently good or bad, but contingent on the content of those newspapers. As for the crap in the Haul Street Journal, the New York Slimes, or the rest of the corporate media, it should be self-evident. As for a left radical paper, at least its quality would be admirable. Even though it wouldn’t survive economically.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/23 at 02:26 PM

The people in prisons, on death row or not, are not hawking papers. Ditto for the people we’re committing abominations against in Haiti...and planning to act against in Venezuela. Ditto for those we’re spraying and controlling in Colombia. The people who were behind the recent WTC event...they’re not hawking papers either, and they won’t be before, during or after the next “hit.” In fact, if you, Zeddrick, don’t see things (basically) “my way” respecting the fundamental domestic racism and ongoing overseas abominations, I’m afraid that the general politically correct, academic posture you’ve adopted about my relationship to groupthink...is just an intellectually respectable comment. It has NO relationship to the realities that I am addressing. And...I invite you to delineate where you get your information/attitude from...these days...on this site. It might be instructive to give someone like me an opportunity to criticize the sources which you base your stance on. You, obviously, are pleased with being associated with a larger group than what you estimate to be in “our camp.” I would submit to you that the vast majority of Americans...who would probably agree with you on many issues...are not only very wrong (on several counts)...once again...but doomed...regardless of whether or not their fate is sealed by those who are resisting. Best, Ox

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 07/23 at 06:42 PM

One of the reasons that people like Zeddrick or whomever is afraid of the left is that people argue with them, as opposed to adressing their points and showing them why they may be wrong.

It is not “group think” to think that there is something fundamentally wrong with the world right now. Though I am an atheist, I was raised in a religous tradition, and I assume - given America’s religousity - that perhaps many others here were as well. What I am saying is that “what would (name your deity) do?”

And groupthink can be healthy. People have this idea - going back to Hannah Arrendt, moral equivalence between communism and fascism, that there is something inherently wrong with collective thought. A Jungian would say that the only way for the human mind to form is proper groupthink....

So, Zeddick, forget about the labels that scare you...communism, left, etc. - think about it like this - when you are awake at night thinking about your country and your world, does it make you grin, or chagrined?

Posted by j cummings from on 07/24 at 12:10 PM

Well said, Jordy.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/24 at 04:12 PM

How to respond to the attitudes above, if at all? Seriously, what do you think gives you the right to be so smugly condescending and self-congratulatory? Do you think you are an attractive option for people who are discontent with the status quo in this country? To paraphrase Ox above, where do you get this attitude?

Scared of the left? Is that a joke? Because that’s a laughable conceit. But a sad one, because it demonstrates the vacuum where serious, active opposition to the status quo should stand.

My background, experience? Mom a teacher, dad a truck driver. Lived and traveled all over the U.S., from the biggest cities to rural America. Went to college and was active in the left there, esp. around Central American issues in the ‘80’s. Worked for mainstream activist group both raising money and in committees. Worked all kinds of jobs, construction, stockrooms, manual labor, taught school to adolescents with a variety of backgrounds and problems. Now work providing medical services that save peoples’ lives from every walk of life.

What am I reading? Five books closest at hand: Full Spectrum Disorder by Stan Goff; The Clash of Fundamentalisms by Tariq Ali; War against the Weak by Edwin Black; The Exception to the Rulers by Amy Goodman; Homeland by Dale Maharidge.

What minimumally aware person could be happy or content with the state of the country or the world right now? The fact that you lump “the vast majority” who don’t line up behind you as wrong or doomed says much more about you than about them.

We may in fact be doomed, but what I see from several of you is a perverse pleasure in that fact, which again is telling.

Posted by Zeddrick from on 07/24 at 09:59 PM

Impressive credentials Zeddrick; and an impressive reading list. Touche’

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/24 at 11:44 PM

Jordy was making an effort to be kind, in addressig the labeling issue. “...may...be doomed...”? Is that in the sense of “might”? Look, the path is much clearer than that, Zeddrick. That’s the mental attitude adopted by those involved with the arthiritic tortoise pace of electoral politics. To wit, Tracy’s praises notwithstanding, there is NO time to be loitering around such works by Stan Goff or Amy Goodman. With the bio experience you provide for yourself alone, I should think you’d know enough of what they put forth in those works already to not dwaddle in their “paralysis of analysis” realms. Both Goff and Goodman make a wonderful contribtion, no doubt. However, to the extent that you’ re of the mind that we can afford the luxury of dwelling on the niceties that they polish up in their recent works...we’re in different realms. Such reading does NOT suggest the same sense of urgency that I have been advocating, and, yes, someone does have to take the “presumptuous” stance that there’s something that’s not progressive about loitering with the librarians in lieu of lighting things up with the would-be liberators. There’s too much effort being extended...for too long now...keeping up, exchanging personal views...going over old ground, etc. as a substitute for action that’ll push envelopes. Unless the protestors “break out of the pens” in Boston (w/o putting heads on chopping blocks)...well, you evaluate the RELATIVE worth of their well-intentioned protest. Reading, writing, etc. in and about such activities is --again, all due respect to Tracy-- on a lower notch. We MUST reset our priorities, Richard

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 07/26 at 12:39 PM

With all due respect to you Richard, and admitting that there is something if not a lot in what you are saying, it seems to me that parsing issues and reading and writing about them is okay when you do it. It is something else again when others engage in the same activity. I admit the danger you are noting of the paralysis of analysis. Still, being educated on the issues is the FIRST STEP in doing something about them. Indeed, the people who engage in the dialectics at this site are at least informed. Even if I don’t agree with them, at least they have opinions. I’ll give them that. And the vast majority who are disengaged from the political process? Who haven’t the slightest clue as to what’s going on? What say you to them?

How many times have you taken off after Amy Goodman, and thereby given a pass to the likes of say, Katie Couric or Diane Sawyer? Amy’s a wonderful and important part of the progressive movement and deserves kudos rather than the slightest of criticisms - at least from these quarters. Coming from the conservative Democrats or the Republican right I could understand. She paid more dues and enough for a lifetime when she was at the point of a bayonet in Timor this close to perishing. I could name 25 newspeople off the top of my head more deserving of jeers that I’ve never heard you mention. Why do they get the luxury of silence from you, while Amy Goodman of all people takes the hit?

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/26 at 02:32 PM

I think that kind of purity is what is putting Zeddick - and myself some of the time - off. First of all, as someone who donates much skilled labour for free to the world of “the left,” such as it is, I don’t like hearing that I am any less of a revolutionary than those whose praxis is something that I will surely support like john reed.

Posted by j cummings from on 07/26 at 02:38 PM

(purity in terms of what OX wrote)...and I ditto what Tracy wrote in regards to Goff. The very existence of ex-military Marxists writing about the military - even in a flawed manner - is better than a dozen professors spouting about the sociology of military life.

Posted by j cummings from on 07/26 at 02:40 PM

Very good points above, real discussion instead of merely argument.

Action is essential, arguments necessary, fighting can’t be avoided, but while too much focus on the intellectual has been a pitfall of the left, anti-intellectualism is the foe of any real movement for positive change.

It is a moment of urgency, but not a foolish urgency. There’s nothing revolutionary about forming yet another circular firing squad to pick off both real and potential support and leaving the vultures unmolested to pick their bones clean.

There’s an incredible amount of work to be done that will take millions of people to even come close to getting it done. Got to find a way to bring ‘em in, not drive ‘em away.

Posted by Zeddrick from on 07/26 at 07:37 PM

Thanks to Zed, Tracy and Jordy and all others reading the above. First, TRACY: Education is not the issue, is not in question here. Obviously it’s central to all. The question I raise related to it is two-fold: 1) via what means and 2) how expeditiously. If someone needs to read Stan Goff or Amy’s EXCEPTION...so be it. I’m not in a position to say they shouldn’t except that when the likes of Zeddrick lays out a particular bio, etc. it begs the question of WHY one of that background would need to consult the rehashing she does in that work. Ditto for Goff’s latest. My criticism of both of them has zero to do w not appreciating their pluses; I’ve indicated appreciation of that above here...AND in my articles and previous commentary. But Amy’s risking her life in Indonesia --something I’ve applauded here-- has zero to do with my criticisms of her. Anyone who takes the time to criticize Katie or Diane has to see a Progressive Psychiatrist. Who needs to criticize them. For whom? Again, things like that should be our STARTING point. As...the fact that Amy and Stan have done good should be our STARTING point. We do NOT need to spend heartbeats telling one another how grand they are. Rather, we need, as I see it, discussion of specifics like a) why Goff acted like Jean Brodie (of the play) in a recent article encouraging violent thoughts prematurely? b) What justification Stan can give for putting yet another book on the market that doesn’t take us beyond what we already know...from Chalmers, his previous work, etc. For citizens who “do not have a clue”...WE need to discuss tactics for reaching them. The high sales of certain “left” books can be a STARTING point, but...there’s virtually no discussion of what WE are doing, can do...to further the education that Tracy cries about being needed by the masses. They’re not learning sufficiently from our talks here, obviously. And...Amy pushes the electoral process way too much for my taste. If one is addressing the need to go “beyond the voting booth” (to borrow from Mick)...one must ask are we talking about the type of thing Bob Avakian is talking about vis-a-vis the RCParty OR...doing extra-electoral college activity along with taking the voting seriously. The former takes the position that our two-party system does what it has to vis-a-vis the likes of Kucinich, Dean, et. al. to convince voters that things don’t have to be that bad...that we should work w/i this sick system...to fix things. Amy MUST be criticized, Tracy, when she looks the other way on certain issues. How is it possible, for instance, for Michael Moore AND the 9/11 Report to both not mention a word of Israel? Why doesn’t Amy make that connection? Why didn’t she call him on his support of Wesley Clark the first time around? The general public you want to educate her needs her to do so. When she drops the ball...like…

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 07/27 at 01:53 PM

Just wrote an addendum to the above which I wish hadn’t gotten “inadvertently” erased, but.... I cited a study I did recently in which 95% of the respondents indicated that --respecting the most recent COUNTERPUNCH/ZNET articles they read-- already knew the thrust of the piece. That should tell you something. I’ve had enough personal contact with Stan and Amy both to tell readers that their lecture circuit routines --though that’s not what they’re ‘about’-- limit their parameters. Those in their choirs need to move beyond what they’re limitations prevent THEM from doing/urging. In my erased piece...I cited a few principles that will be elaborated upon for activists in an upcoming delayed article. I’ve had too few responses regarding interest in tactics. Less than what’s discussed here in general on that subject. However, the erased piece noted: a) anonymity, b) rejection of violence against persons, c) moving expeditiously, d) consideration of violence against property, e) avoidance of arrest, f) plans which require little financially, g) organizing in very small groups...are some of the points I touched upon. Weigh, if you will, how much space is devoted to discussion of those kinds of things (or tactics in general) vs. all the electoral talk and all the self-congratulatory discovery of this or that on the left and/or all the complaints on things we’ve endlessly complained about before...in some form. Where’s the semblance of balance? Best, ox

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 07/27 at 02:45 PM

Stan Goff, for all of his good points, cannot be categorized as a Marxist. I’ve personally handed money to him for services rendered in activist circles...and I can assure you that he did not conduct himself in a Marxist manner...by any definition. I don’t even think Stan uses that term w reference to himself anyway. I do not think that his major flaws are “writing” flaws, by the way. To review one example, when I was trying to organize nationally for a Hunger for Peace Strike six months ago...Stan was most emphatic that such confrontation was not in the cards, that there was not the taste for such fare among the public. That’s fine. His problem is that he’s moving so fast in an un-Marxist manner...over un-Marxist goals --allowing his busy lecture schedule dictate much too much-- he doesn’t have time to discuss what all organizing activists need to make time for; he does a good job devoting blood to his local organizing, but if you’re waiting on him to make inroads...you’ll wait forever. He --like Amy-- have many too many career considerations to allow them to lead on a large scale in that realm. And he’s spending entirely too much time dwelling on the projects that the moderate Vets for Peace are dwelling on. Unlike the Vets for Peace, Stan does TALK about radical action, but it is either not followed through with WALKING THE TALK...and/or the talk itself is irresponsible with respect to suggestions about violence in the future. And, again, someone has to speak for the Trees w regard to their book production...for the volumes produced which are redundant...for the small circle of activists who actually read the stuff. Much of Amy’s work reinforces the notion that the electoral process can reform things sufficiently...down the road. Her beautiful Advocacy Journalism...and it is gorgeous at times...simply does not go far enough...and in not doing so compunds ignorance w ignorance. I do care if I am off-putting by my words to my comrades here. I will try to watch my tone and language...again. However, we are pressing on habits here. The whole point, perhaps, to follow Tracy’s line...is to do more than encourage self-education. My tack --the tactics I could share w you/would like to see discussed-- is to try new ways to “force” the general public to become aware of certain sources/particular information...so that those “millions” who ARE needed can start getting smarter. I don’t see Alternative Media doing that...reaching out sufficiently. It will be up to small groups, as I see it, to come up w creative ways of stopping business as usual long enough...and with a good enough spotlight on what you want...to form solidarity. To show the way in increments. I’d like to know how others think they’ll do that. Not w reforms in the public school system. Not with more independent channels. Urgently, Ox ps Be careful of “foolish comlacency” and “foolish routines” too.

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 07/27 at 08:38 PM

quick answer before I go try to sell my soul (read meet a literary agent for the first time.)

1) Moore should have mentioned Israel in the film, but it is still brilliant, imho. Also, he should make a film or a TV special of some sort about AIPAC, using his Roger and Me style, and a film about the occupation. I believe on this issue his heart is in the right place. He dedicated his recent book I’m told, to Rachel Corrie, and he had a very respectful chapter about Israel/Palestine in his Stupid White Men. Also didn’t I hear that Paul Berman screwed him at Mother Jones not over Sandanistas as some say, but over his wanting to put the Intifada on the cover?

2) the 911 report - buried but with clarity - see RayMcGovern at Counterpunch today - DOES mention Israel.

3) Purity - “(name your left celebrity) owes us an apology. he failed us. he is a phony.” Impurity “(same as above named lefty) really failed by (name your left wing sin,) one hopes that he learns from his mistake.” This can be matched with one or two sentences that are somewhat esoteric, regarding said lefty’s hypocrisy, pointing out examples of redemption, and in summing up, reminding Amy/Stan/Michael/Noam who they are speaking for…

Posted by j cummings from on 07/28 at 12:56 PM

Onto one other point - career considerations...royalties are not dividends.

Writers, journalists and even bankers are still, using the Marxist definition, “proletarian.” I don’t think at all that there is any shame in someone taking career considerations seriously. If Goodman and Moore are being forced to constrain themselves, then I’m sure we will find out about that eventually.

Posted by j cummings from on 07/28 at 12:59 PM

Thanks for responding, Jordy. It is not a matter of taking a “pure” stance, however, in pointing out that Michael Moore supported Clarke’s entry, advocated that people “consider” Oprah, etc. It is a matter of analysis. Just as one is not indulging in “conspiracy theory” when saying that GM is into profit, it is NOT a matter of “purity” in pointing out that Moore and others on the “left” have embraced lamentable/disgusting positions. For all of Moore’s positive points (to use him as an example for the others), supporting someone who contributed to horrors or someone who contributes to the “legitimization” of the likes of Thomas Freidman is obligatory and instructive; it is comparable --to use the GM example-- to institutional analysis. More to follow. Best, ox

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 07/28 at 01:22 PM

The fact that Moore dedicates a book to Rachel Corrie has nothing to do with whether or not he --to put it VERY mildly-- missed a grand opportunity to educate the public about what happened w Bush vis-a-vis Iraq and 9/11. In fact, his sin of omission is a perfect example of compounding ignorance with ignorance...which applies to the others you name also on different levels. For Moore to personally be disgusted by a bulldozer plowing down Rachel has nothing to do w my criticism of his handling...his film. Just so, when Amy looked the other way when Michael was on her show raising funds with his Nascar caps for Democracy Now! (and simultaneously “supporting” Clarke)...is already know; we do NOT have to wait to “find out,” as you suggest, what they are about. They are both about good things and...very bad things. Reinforcing the notion that Clarke or Kerry (who still perpetuates the horrid notion that Vietnam was a “mistake”!) will not make advances for the Left. What profit it a man if he gains the whole world if he loses his soul in the process? Something of the kind from the so-called Good Book? On a more mundane level, such sweeping under the carpet of past sins will ensure more Iraqs, more Haitis. Stan Goff and Amy are not having a problem re “career considerations” that are of a personal nature. They involve us all. When Stan puts out of book on Haiti (HIDEOUS DREAM)...and makes ONE indirect mention of Touissant L’Overture...ONE...it is inexcusable...and very damaging by omitting important lessons that must not and cannot be legitimately omitted in a book on Haiti. It is done...as so much of what he’s done...for “tactful” reasons...all of us suffering from it in the processs. Paul Berman stories have nothing to do with my criticism of Moore’s work, and Amy’s sacrifices and blood given...have nothing to do with the way in which she’s dropped the ball. You can look at me as being “picky” or acting “pure” easily w/o addressing issues such as...where the hell are we going to be once we put a Vietnam apologist into office? I can only think that you do not understand what went on in Vietnam and why. Unlike what Moore would have you believe...we were also lied to about that, the media also supported the lies...and the American public supported the atrocities virtually till the end...and are ready to do so again w Kerry in Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and elsewhere. hugs,ox

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 07/28 at 01:37 PM

#1)re:Nader and the Democrats
First--are we all really on the same page? Can we honestly say that the person so heavily criticizing Ralph Nader above has the same aims as Oxman? I truly don’t mean to condescend--the Nader-Hater’s reading list dwarfs what I’ve read, aside from surfing the web, in the past year about politics--but can you seriously urge people to attack Nader solely because he threatens the Democratic Party’s nominee for the presidency? I don’t think you have to have a doctorate to realize that the Democratic Party is as complicit in the horrors besetting the world as any mainstream party in the world has ever been since World War II, including the Soviet Communist Party and the Republicans. They are totally, integrally, irredeemably, irrevocably--until-their-last-breath--part of the American Establishment. When you think of poverty, the death penalty, environmental destruction, and state repression; when you think of imperialist war that murders thousands--even millions(!); when you think about how information is controlled, about the institutions that carry out the ideological functions of the American system--think of the Democratic Party. They fanatically, zealously defend and promote it all, all the time.

I’ve heard the argument that ABBers make that the Democratic Party, despite it’s endless faults and endless shortcomings, still represents a more humane aspect of the American system, in direct contrast to the openly hostile Republican Party. Who, might I ask, are the Republicans number one--NUMBER ONE--political allies? Who works with the Republican Party more often than any other organization? The Democrats. There is no hostility between the two parties. They attend to each other’s wants and needs with loving attention--it is why they are there, it is what they do, it is their job as they see it.

I respect people who vote for Ralph Nader, because a vote for the Democrats is nothing less than a voluntary, premeditated endorsement of the current social contract--a “contract” put out on the world by power-hungry madmen. Are the Democrats “outsiders” who seek to soften the terms of this contract? To explain that people should vote for the Democrats “to get rid of a bad man” implies that we’ve EVER had a decent national leader in the country (Abraham Lincoln did well to wage a war that abolished the institution of slavery), so we might have another one AGAIN.

If you’ve never had a decent leader (Lincoln took an impressive step forward, but nevertheless much his program and views were archaic), and if the power and “prestige” of the country is based on crimes against humanity, and if the Democrats have been there every step of the way, selling it all with each manipulative maneuver and corrupt bid for high office--and they are the “HUMANE ALTERNATIVE” (hahaha! Please!)--then Oxman is right, and we should shun them to hasten the downfall of the entire system. That would leave us with a vote to cast.

#2) re:left-wing figures with public reputations

I thought Michael Moore’s movie (Fahrenheit 9/11) pulled punches. Frankly, it seemed like he…

Posted by G. R. from on 07/29 at 10:33 PM

Note from the Administrator:
August 1, 2004
Subject: Internet Abuse

All patients are immediately to refain from additional Internet use. We had thought that such diversion would be therapuetic. Alas, quite the contrary.

Zeddrick you leave Oxman alone. You know how brittle he is. Shame on you!

Now back to your rooms, now!

Dr.Mei Eighes

Posted by Dr. Mei Eighes from Asylum Control Center on 08/01 at 03:15 PM

Good blog with interesing information!

Posted by Brone from France on 09/02 at 09:29 AM

Next entry: Halloween in July: Scaring Kids and Voters

Previous entry: In U.S., Hired Without Health Benefits

[ads]

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Nader Asks for Apology for ‘Obscene Racist Epithet’

Comments:

Support Press Action

Support Press Action

Search

Editor's Picks

Most Recent Entries

Archives

Best of the Web

Syndicate