Main

Who is this left anyway? Archives

October 21, 2005

I got your litmus, right here

Read my virtual lips: universal single-payer health care. What Hillary should have done, and did the opposite instead.

If you're a lefty -- even if you're a liberal -- hell, even if you're a "progressive" -- you've wanted this since you morphed from a polliwog. Don't try to deny it. You know you want it.

So let's nail our colors to the mast on this one. If we can't insist on this, then we might as well crawl into a hole and pull it in after us.

As far as the flea-cracking details go... leave that to the Ivy wonks. But let's resolve to run some third-party wild man against any Dembo who won't flat out endorse single payer... period.... no exceptions. Anybody who waffles on this one -- let's close the iron door on him.

Or, ahem, her.


November 19, 2005

True blue collar

One of the wonderful things about the unexpected thunderbolt of John Murtha is his district, the 12th of Pennsylvania. On a map, it's the oddest-looking thing you could ever hope to see -- clearly a classic gerrymander, occupying roughly the third ring out from Pittsburgh (after the city core and the near suburbs).

A quick galnce at the Census results shows that it is, to say the least, decidedly blue-collar: The 2000 median household income was $30,612. Only 6% of families had incomes over $100,000. 20% of families with children under 5 were below the official poverty level. 14% of the population over 25 were college graduates.

As the guy says in the opera, Traulich und treu ist's nur in der Tiefe; falsch und feig, was dort oben sich freut. Loyal and true are the depths -- false and frightened, they who enjoy life on high.


November 22, 2005

Jes'-folks wisdom

Even the local Republicans acknowledge that John Murtha is a shoo-in for re-election next year in his very patriotic, very blue-collar district. His courage in coming out against the Iraq war will cost him nothing with his constituents, who dwell deep in NASCAR country.

Meanwhile, in wealthy, well educated Rye Brook, NY, Hillary Clinton was afraid to give the same message to her enlightened, ultra-Blue constituents.

"It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us," she said. Probably without blushing at all.

In a way you have to hand it to Hillary. She has her own kind of honesty. When she's bought, she stays bought. I don't know exactly who's put the injun sign on her, although the Israel lobby wouldn't be a bad guess. They wanted this war bad, and they'll find that their latter condition is worse than their first once the US runs down the flag and packs up.

So Hillary has her orders, and she's staying the course. For the time being. It'll be fun to watch her wriggle when she finally decides she's got to fight free, somehow, of this particular tar baby.


December 2, 2005

His soul is marching on (I hope)

Today, December 2, is the anniversary of John Brown's execution in 1859.

Somehow, thinking of Old Osawatomie, I just don't feel like saying anything flip or ironical. He deserves better, much better. Better than anything I have the eloquence to say.

But then, as far as I know, no American writer or thinker has even come close to giving Brown his due. Talk about a Founding Father -- and yet so strangely relegated to footnotes, when men a tenth of his stature crowd the pediments of our civic temples.

In the very limited setting of this blog, perhaps I can at least claim Brown as the great, the definitive critiquer of two-party politics. In his day the Democrats had the honor of being the greater evil. But Brown was just as stern, and as unpalatable, to the lesser. Abe Lincoln had to spend a lot of time distancing himself from the terrorist of Harper's Ferry, when his Democratic opponents were as eager to wield the tarbrush as, say, Chuck Schumer is nowadays; and Brown himself saw no hope in Lincoln's party as long as it confined itself to the politics of "yes, but..."

Brown saw to it that "yes, but" was no longer an option.

When will we follow his example?


January 3, 2006

Put up the price of beans, dammit

It's all the rage: put a minimum wage lifter on every state ballot next November.

Bravo. It's a winner everywhere. It'll get out the "right " vote -- in fact the idea is so hot out in Arnie land that the walnut man has tried a pre-emption -- after straight arming two earlier legislative moves to raise the state rate.

He's now doing a Disraeli end run by proposing a minimum raise of his own and, according to the LA Times,

" ... California business owners...facing a ballot initiative that would increase the minimum wage to $8.75 an hour and require cost-of-living increases after that.... [and] internal polling showing widespread public support... are inclined to support the Governor's plan."
Did you catch the why-for?

<Begin X-ray of Wal-Mart's brain>
First and foremost we gotta keep those f...ing hordes of raise seekers and goo goos away from the off-election polling booths.
<End X-ray>

Yup -- this hot number needs a cool jerk-down from the masthead.

But also notice, besides a heftier raise, the intiative includes indexing to the CPI. This indexing is the real deal here with indexing at the fed level, well ... that's dynamite. The latest nine years without a change follows an earlier 8 year or so de facto "freeze," both of them clearly a matter of quiet bipartisan consensus. Indexation would find few sincere friends on either side of the aisle.

Actually, if I was running the Cal ballot operation I'd welcome the Gub's law, and use it to call for an indexation amendment -- then wait for his scramble to settle down into a signature.

<Begin Terminator voice>
"I'll be back... to you... on zat."
<End Terminator voice>

February 12, 2006

Huis clos?

Tim D wrote in a recent comment (I'm excerpting):
... We are on a bullet train heading toward a gaping chasm full of environmental and social catastrophes... We need radical change now, but no political vehicle for it.

[Some argue] we need to take it one school board and local election at a time.... Well, I don't necessarily disagree, but time is not on our side. However, I'll admit that even if an informed and incorruptible person like Nader was elected to the presidency, she or he wouldn't have the kind of dictatorial powers necessary to arbitrarily make the kind of changes we need (nor should he).

What to do, what to do...?

Quick, slightly flippant answer: we need to stop behaving predictably.

More serious answer: Nobody knows what will work, but the necessary precondition to finding what will work is to stop doing things that not only don't work, but make things worse (like pinning our hopes on the Democratic Party).

Once public discontent breaks out of the vessels designed to contain and tranquilize it, the elites start getting worried. That's when they stop pushing and start making concessions. There have been several such phases of "instability" in American history, and every one of 'em had positive effects.

Considerable intellects like Karl Marx have proven unequal to the task of mapping out in detail what will happen or must happen to bring about social change, and none of us in in that league. But let instability be our watchword. Get the genie of public discontent out of the bottle of the party system. Stuff will happen. I don't know exactly what form it will take and neither does anybody else. But once the water overflows the levee, it will find its own course.

Sorry for the mixed metaphors. Sniffing those Pythonic vapors always does that to me.

May 11, 2006

Strain builds on the fault line

The split ticket stuff has me posing this question -- are we about to see a spontaneous spliting of the Orthrian two headed brute?

Instead of much ado about nothing -- which has indeed been our three squares since '66 at least -- is this the massive buildup of subterranean class forces that leads to a great divide a la the 1890's? And no, we didn't get a permanent new major party like we did in the 1850's, but we got the serious morphing of one major from just a second cola party to a plausible enough uncola party.

Any Kos type, at this point, would note with consternation that this uncola party was an even lesser half electorally than it was as the cola alternative -- and stayed so for nearly all of the next 36 years.

But our hypothetical Kosnik would have missed the point, as usual. A real difference had been created, and survived -- a difference that no opportunism of the DLC kind could entirely remove. Once that fault line started expressing itself in the early 90s (I mean the 1890s of course, not the awful more recent 90s), it didn't settle down till it reached hegemony through the New Deal.

Mark me down as an optimist on this one. I'd lay even odds on another such massive social-political upheaval, well before Bush II applies for Medicare.

June 24, 2006

The none-of-the-above bloc

ms_xeno writes:
If I had ample time and resources to recruit potential voters and activists wherever I wanted to, I definitely wouldn't waste time in echo-chambers like Alternet. I am so bloody sick and tired of their colossal laziness, stupidity, bullying, guilt-mongering and above all-- their smug, implacable belief that their overlords own anybody who's ever voiced a progressive view or voted Dem. I'd go among non-voters before I'd waste time with these people. They need more deprogramming than any of us can provide, I fear. If you caught a non-voter before he or she started reading the tracts, you might have a chance. With pwogs, there ain't even that much to hope for...

July 11, 2006

Corporate unionism from Andy Stern

An interesting item, from the Daily Labor Report, reproduced on the lbo-talk mailing list:
Contending that the employer-based health care insurance system is "dead," Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, June 16 called for creation of a new "uniquely" American health care system....

While Stern was not specific about what kind of health-care system he envisions to replace the current one, he did say that the United States has to build its own system, not import a system from Canada or any other country.

Stern, who leads a union that represents 1.8 million members, including about 1 million health care workers, rejected calls for a single-payer, universal health insurance system built on Medicare, which have the support of many others in the labor movement. He said that a new system should have multiple payers, not a single payer. "Single-payer is a stalking horse for I'm not sure what," he said.

Sorta breathtaking, huh? "A stalking horse for I'm not sure what" -- now there's an incisive critique for you.

Stern was talking at an event sponsored by Brookings and the New America Foundation ("Fresh ideas that are neither left nor right" -- only corporate). Even so, it's startling to see a union leader -- and a supposed sansculotte, too, by American standards -- dismissing single-payer out of hand in this cavalier manner.

As the DLR item notes, more than half of Andy's union's members work in the health-care racket in some capacity or other. Under single-payer, which would trim this bloated sector considerably, at least some of these folks would end up looking for jobs elsewhere, and Andy would be a figure of less consequence. So he has cast his lot with the bloodsuckers who own and run the laughably-misnamed American "health-care" industry.

Plus ca change... there's the history of the American labor movement in a nutshell. Scratch brave new Andy and you find old George Meany.

Strikes me that single-payer needs to become a litmus issue, just like out-of-Iraq-now. Anybody who won't unhesitatingly endorse these two inarguably sound ideas isn't worth a second thought or a minute of your time.

July 31, 2006

To the pure all things are pure

A earlier post evoked a discussion of "purism". Crackpot realists like the Kosniks tend to think of anybody to their left as a "purist". Stanley Rogouski made the following trenchant comment, which pretty much says it all:
Things I'm a purist about:
  1. The First Amendment
  2. The right to an abortion
Things I can debate about:
  1. Tolls on the NJ Turnpike
  2. Taxes
Things the Kos/Atrios crowd is purist about:
  1. Support for Israel
  2. No third parties, ever.
Things the Kos/Atrios crowd is willing to negotiate away:
  1. The First Amendment
  2. The right to an abortion

August 10, 2006

No mas

Here's a voter pledge I signed. It comes in two parts. Part One:
I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq and ....
Part two:
...preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign.
Part one is not bad -- I prefer "now" to "speedy", but not bad.

Part two? Well, it's nice there is a Part Two. For one thing, it heads off the donk Murtha frame -- redeploy to an air war with a dark-ops option, or any other sotto-voce re-intervention proviso. We hardly need some update of the infamous Platt amendment, or TR's bill-collector civil-order revision of the Monroe doctrine.

Imagine -- we Yankees, back at the turn of the last century, actually "embedded" a unilateral right of intervention in the constitution of "liberated Cuba."

We need tighter language, for sure. A "war of aggression" label is way too easily finessed. I suspect, for example, a redeploy that after some Sunni-menacing by the Shia, led back to a Kosovo-type air war, could avoid the war of aggression label fairly easily.

So this term, "war of agression," is no sound basis for policy reformation of the "never again" variety -- not unless we prevent all pretexts, starting with the best of all, a war of humane emergency.

Barring "wars of agression" is only a fair start -- we need to work together towards something more like "no gringo interventions, period." And to insure a deep lesson is learned, pass a a one time levy on the transnational corporations to pay us all back for all the prior interventions. We could call it the Smedley Butler levy.

This is not an easy task, needless to say -- a world without nations intervening on each other. But then, I suspect, neither was ending human sacrifice.

Bottom line -- humane empire is still empire. Perhaps we prove to be the final evil of civilization itself -- Benthamite imperialists, intervening for the greater good, or Pastor Niebuhr types interested in universal values enforcement.

Try your passivity against, say, murderous state oppression like Sudan, or state-without-a-state rule of the gun like Somalia -- or both, like Congo. Policing or disarming terrorist armed states within a state or or or....

It ain't easy to agree what is not to be done. But surely a line must be drawn and the struggle to find that line needs to be "dialogued out" right now. The bulk of the American citizenry must share a new line, that clearly tells our Uncle Sam what he's never ever to do again.

August 11, 2006

Where do movements come from?

(Another comment Too Good To Be A Comment, from 'NYCO'. -- Ed.)

Well, you're spot-on about the limited utility of electoral politics. I live in New York, and everything is just ossified. Four incumbents got defeated last year in a state legislature of 200-odd people, and it was considered an earthshaking year.

And in New York, the Democrats are completely controlled by the downstate party establishment, and they don't do much for the party upstate except enable the numbnut, no-talent sloppy seconds who have become Democratic mayors and the odd county executive, who keep presiding passively over the area's economic decline. If you want a good look at how Democrats hover around the fire of the status quo while pretending they are progressives who care about all Americans, look no further than New York City. They have no desire to lead, just to wallow in their own little lucrative world. They can't even lead their own state out of the abyss. I was reasonably enthusiastic about Spitzer being a bit of a rebel but my enthusiasm is starting to fade. He's coasting.

You do need movements focused on concrete embodiments of the issues, but those are hard to come by. People would rather flee than fight. We have an interesting (to say the least) situation in upstate New York with opposition to the New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI) project, a monstrous 200-mile power line that's going to kill about 40 small communities. The Greens are pretty vocal about it (and Maurice Hinchey), but interestingly so are the traditional anti-downstate Republican/independents. So there are some odd bedfellows.

Democrats (including Spitzer) are reluctant to take too strong a stance against it. After all, those 40 communities are in line to be economically exterminated in order to make New York City bigger and shinier, and the Democrats are all creatures of the City. You cannot expect too much from the Democrats. In the end, they will give in (the power company has run crying to the federal government to have 200 miles of upstate NY taken by eminent domain as a "National Energy Corridor"). Schumer, Hillary, all of them. They will gladly sell some of their constituents' homes out from under them (or stand by while it happens) if it means they can continue in their hegemony.

In any case, I'm not really explaining the NYRI situation that well. The company that is pushing this is shadowy, arrogant and has an Enron-like whiff coming off it. It's just foul, and the Bush Administration is behind it. The larger issues lying behind the fight have to do with the decay of social contracts, the question of sustainable energy generation and transmission, sustainable growth, etc.

It's very specific, even geographically centered, issues like these that are prime coalescing points for greater movements. Indeed, no one can remember such a wide coalition of upstaters - not just from rural towns; there is at least one city, Utica, involved -- trying to form a collective defense movement for their communities over 200 miles of space. But do people want to pay attention if the movement-creators are "the little guys"? I'm not sure. There is still a self-flattering that goes on among alleged progressives that says they're doing OK if they vote for the "right party." They are unable to see what's happening in their own back yard.

But if the people who are forming real, on-the-ground movements -- without permission from the Democratic Party, or the blogeoisie -- endure and find ways to meet up with each other (for instance, as someone interested in anti-NYRI efforts, I have been in touch with other folks in Appalachia who are fighting similar battles to come against the federal government)... then new, actual networks of actual action can form pretty much under the radar of the parties. Then, election politics becomes just one tool in the toolbag. But first I think a lot of actual movement work needs to be done.

August 13, 2006

Party! Party!

Why support reform of an old party? Or for that matter, why even bother to build a new party, if it's just to win elections?

After all, the victory at the ballot box, or through the ballot box in the legislature or executive, is really only the result of a fired-up, effective mass movement that won't stop, and won't take anything less. It's hard to argue with the notion "put your efforts where the real push comes from" -- hard to counter the bald command "no more wasting energy on that old war and Wall Street mule."

Some contributors here recently have been making this case loud and clear -- and some have said more: some say flat-out "no party -- no party politics at all" -- not even Green or peace or jobs, or what not.

These folks start where Stop Me ends. Our line here is "Democrat party ... wherever you go, don't go there anymore... it's a diversion... a distraction ... a shock absorber for anything anti-corporate." But they go a further step. They say "forget party politics altogether -- go for direct action movement building only. Make it exclusively a bottom-up gig, kids."

So far as I can see for the moment, this set of marching orders is all well and good, and coincides with our Stop Me minimum program, as far as that goes. Our program is effectively acomplished if folks in flocks simply make it clear they won't vote for Wall Street lite's donkey totem.

So what's my unease here? Well sure all these frustrated, fired-up folks can join "the movements," and in particular, build or re-energize the nation's long list of noble issue orgs. We can never have enough people power, direct action, or rap music. But as a union boy by adoption -- sort of a Pharaoh's-son reverse Moses -- let me say if the majority of job folks, as they claim when asked by outsiders, really would like a nice organization at their job site -- an organization that "worked with them and for them" like job unions' standard blue prints call for them to do -- why don't they have them already?

The answer to that is obvious -- it's de facto impossible. And why? Because by code, law, precedent, and court and administrative actions, it's illegal to use techniques necessary if you want to succeed at organizing most job sites. Like a thousand other venues, job organizing is effectively barred by the system.

It's not enough to have the abstract "right" to organize, to agitate, and to take joint action, if the time, the place, and the type of all these actions are all hedgerowed. No elite ever lost out by holding on to the house odds. Unless the odds are changed, the spontaneous desires of the "people" can be easily thwarted. Such is the source, not only of movement fights but of recourse to a party too. The Job Crow system will not end by spontaneous mass action alone, any more than Jim Crow did.

Sure, there's huge movement-building to do on the job-site front. The mass of jobsters haven't the first clue about what they can do, or what needs to be done. All we know is this -- the job-site revulsion in this country is massive, and I suspect it already exceeds the flash point. But the jobsters are not even in motion yet, let alone the organizations that must arise to articulate goals, and devise ways and means.

But attendez-vous -- at last I reach my point: as soon as that org gets effective, it's bound to bang its collective head against the "state," and as Joe Friday sez so wonderfully, "that's where we come in." Electoral party activity becomes not just part of the problem, as it is now, but one of the necessities of a solution.

Obviously, on big fronts, where many stand to gain some, and a few lose lots, influence wil not be enough -- only seizing, drastically reforming, or building anew will get it done. Either way, a party capable of electoral success in these "blood" fights must emerge -- must and will become crucial.

The necessary second job of all movement fighters is building political power, and unlike the job movement, the anti-Iraq war movement is already at the point where party action is on the agenda -- and the failure to take it is hurting the movement.

Right now the troops need to be pulled out. No time to find a better vehicle. Scare these opportunist careerist scamps into doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, as with civil rights. The peace movement today needs to force this stance on the donkey like a nasty training bridle.

August 21, 2006

Gettin' on for seventy times seven

Where in hell was the post-Katrina black march on Washington?

I read that somewhere today, and it's a good question. And where was the torchlight rally in front of the Lincoln memorial? And where was the black siege village around the White House?

The whole 200K poor black folks' diaspora from the Big Easy has just completely drowned its righteous outrage among its thousand and one "official places of refuge." The easest whitey trick of all: dilution. This vast black dispersion, this callous vale of smeers removal, this forced semipermanent vacation from all that prime location property -- why, that's just pure realtors' sneaky Pete: an opportunistic cleansing conspiracy to turn slumlords' warrens into big-D genteel developments.

This whole disgusting process should instead have led directly to a re-collection of every last one of these same expelled black folks, right outside the White House fence line, and America's black leadership should have camped out with the displaced persons, and dared Cheney to send in the troops.

Why hasn't this happened? What's more -- why can't it still happen? Why hasn't the black community risen up over Katrina like the Chicano community did over the house Republican Migra concentration camp plan?

Simple: today's national black leadership is tied by the neck to the Democratic party, and can't you hear the lily donk barons' response even to the slightest suggestion of a black poor folks' siege of the Bush/Cheney White House?

"Hush up now -- you know the score -- don't go gettin' conspicuous on us again. Those days are gone. We don't need a repeat of the early 70's, and you all damn well know it. We don't need you rappin' round the White House now, like you did just about everywhere back then. Christ almighty, it was you black types actin' up that turned us into the minority party in the first place! Wanna ruin our chance to recover?"

That's the DLC donks' way of talkin' -- hard-nosed. Kos would like it. It's pragmatic. It's winners' talk. Didn't Clinton electrocute some poor retarded black fella back home in Arkansas, right on the eve of his election to the presidency? "Bzzz! Get the message, gang? and Sister Souljah -- you could be next."

The papers tell us black folks forgave Bill his sins -- though I wonder how deep or broad that really is. They have to do a shitload of forgiving, when it comes to the donks.

As a white bystander, may I respectfully ask -- why do you bother?

October 14, 2006

Don't blame Dixie

The long slog of the Iraqupation has the South looking pretty damn close to just like the rest of us now. Look at these recent survey results :
  • 57% of Southerners believe the U.S. "should have stayed out of Iraq," compared to 44% who think the U.S. "did the right thing" by taking military action. Nationally, 58% of the public believes the U.S. should have stayed out and 43% now agree with military action.
  • Southerners are skeptical about the goals of the Iraq mission. 29% of Southerners agree with the Bush Administration's position that "Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism," compared to 25% nationally. But 30% in Southern states -- the same as the national average -- believe the main reason the U.S. is in Iraq is "to ensure access to oil."
  • By at least one measure, Southerners are more frustrated with the war than their counterparts in other regions. Asked if they were "proud" or "sad" about Iraq, a surprising 62% of respondents in the South said they were "very sad" about the course of the war, compared to only 56% in other regions of the country. Only 10% of those surveyed in the South say they are "somewhat proud" or "very proud" of the Iraq mission -- slightly less than those polled in other states.
  • 30% of those polled in Southern states say the U.S. should "withdraw completely" from Iraq. Those in non-Southern states were less likely to call for a total withdrawal of U.S. troops (26%), but more likely to think U.S. troop levels should be decreased "some" or "a lot" -- 34% in non-Southern states, compared to 26% in the South. Put together, 56% of Southerners and 59% in other regions support a decrease or withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Allowing for survey error, these look like fraternal twins, though I kinda like the south's (prolly) statistically insignificant stronger mix of an "in or out" attitude better then the rest of us with our fudged "partial withdrawal."

October 18, 2006

Their extremists can beat our extremists

According to the LA Times, a "pink purge" may be imminent:
Some Seek 'Pink Purge' in the GOP
By Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writer

In recent years, the Republican Party aimed to broaden its appeal with a "big-tent" strategy of reaching out to voters who might typically lean Democratic. But now a debate is growing within the GOP about whether the tent has become too big — by including gays....

[T]he GOP is facing a hard choice — risk losing the social conservatives who are legendary for turning out the vote, or risk alienating the moderate voters who are crucial to this election's outcome.

"There's a huge schism on the right," said Mike Rogers, a gay-rights activist who runs a blog to combat what he calls hypocrisy among conservative gay politicians. "The fiscal conservatives are furious at the religious conservatives, because they need the moderates for economic policy. But they need the social conservatives to turn out the vote."

....Republican National Committee Press Secretary Tracey Schmitt [said], "Our core supporters understand that a Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi [the Senate and House minority leaders] would be devoid of a values agenda. They are mobilized and committed to electing Republicans on Nov. 7."

Schmitt is certainly right about Reid and Pelosi not having a "values" agenda, unless the values in question are real-estate values. Whether the Bible crowd is as dependable for the Republicans as, say, anti-war liberals are for the Democrats, is another matter.

In one way, I hope they are, and I hope the great Democratic faux-mentum of the last few weeks fizzles spectacularly. In another way, I hope they're not, and I hope they take a walk, and set a shining example for our hapless Left, who will never get the respect the fundies get until, like the fundies, they're willing to withdraw their support when they're displeased.

November 21, 2006

Balls of empire, part III

The fact is that we have come a long way. The American people are increasingly dissatisfied with war and Empire--in fact we are sick to death of it.
That's J V Walsh, a 24/7 imperial war stopper.

I wish I saw this the way he does, but I don't. I see plenty of room to finesse this as... a bridge too far; an ambitous mistake; a fool's sand trap, etc. etc.

Hell, we can still be crusaders -- we just need to be smart about it. And as to the fed up little guys -- If you view our overseas emerging market in failed states -- armed intrusions as pure spectacle -- like the NFL, it's hard to not see the "kick".

I vividly recall that armored cav charge across the desert to Baghdad, and the statue topple. Even the pouch-packer line "mission accomplished," framed like that and paid for on Uncle's credit card -- what's not to like about an intervention for freedom?

Even say we pay go it next time, if we just do the old liberation in-and-out, the topple and scram, at $100 billion total package cost, do the math: divided by 140 million households thats less than a grand per viewing family. Say we spread the cost over 18 months, from pre-strike talk to post-topple talk, thats a cable bill upgrade: $40 per month.

See, it's the stickin' around and the breakage fees, the occupation, that's what can get old quick. We need to get our trade partners to pay for this part. Or maybe they are paying for it, by swapping trade goods for our sure to sharply devalue UOUs -- Uncle Owes You, and good luck collecting.

As Herr Scruggs sez at his site:

The consensus of the state elite is that they have the right to meddle, coerce and violently impose their will inside and outside the borders of the country. Doing that outside the borders makes a reflecting effect back in, which allows them to handle domestic repression and exploitation with small violence, narrow legalistic attrition, the perjured media and the self-appointed bootlickers.
Indeed, not only is there twin-tower blow-back, there's feedback too.

But conjure with this, dear children of the white dove: plain Caucasian folks 'round here still don't think the state has a bone for 'em. To them, all this ramping up of the 1984 state is like aquiring a pack of trained attack dogs for the neighborhood. The furry monsters "just all know... by smell" who to roll for, and who needs a savage limb-by-limb ripping apart.

100 million shit-ass jobs, and 2 million straw bosses -- with that out there waiting for 'em 40 hours each week, the "system" can crank out these bloody-minded pro-empire types like blocks of Velveeta.

December 18, 2006

Not always incurable

Thus James Boyce, on the Huffington Post:
James Boyce
I Fubared Iraq.

I can't believe how dumb I am....

I really and truly believed that the Democratic leadership would read the results of the elections properly - and push every single day to end the war....

I even thought that that the political pressure would be such that in the end Iraq would not be the issue in 2008 that it would have been if the Democrats had not regained control of Congress....

I am complete idiot.

Sounds like a good start. I will follow Boyce's recovery with interest. Is there a twelve-step program for sobering Democrats, I wonder? What would the steps be?

February 8, 2007

Mock the G-WOT

I'm still tickled about the Aqua Teen Hunger Force stunt in Boston.

http://www.bostonist.com/archives/2007/02/01/aqua_teen_hunger_attack_the_aftermath.php

A nation harrumphs in indignant sputter, as slap-happy hoaxsters unrepentantly quack, "What, me g-wot?" Wouldn't it be wonderful if deliberate emulation followed their inadvertence? Call it the mock heard round the world.

Boston, the city that once stood alone and unafraid, now stands as an emblem of hunkered abject official hysterics. Freaks and geeks, beware, if your pranks happen to fall into the faultless metallic grip of the Beantown security heavyweights.

But even after all the big heat, the bluster and the squeeze, these two miscreant millenial post-Seattle nihilists in dreadlocks and paint-stained jeans saw fit to mock their way out of the jam and into the hearts of anti-Big Brothers everywhere.

Mock the g-wot! Mock the g-wot!

July 9, 2007

The lowering boomers

Ahhh, the Monthly Review -- often I turn to it for... well, in this case, it turned out to be foolkrieging:

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/buhle110607.html

As many of you may know, I hate my generation of meritoids -- the woodstock wing in particular, and its "new left" solarium in even more particular.

Long abandoned, its walls of glass smashed in at a thousand points by the stones of time's hard realities, I've often recalled it with a mellow snicker. But now, I'll be goddamned if after nearly a third of a century of total eclipse, this least worthy of radical structures isn't appearing from behind the leading edge of our new century. A gen-X maxim proves true again: just when you begin to believe their reign has finally ended, recall this bloody fact: old boomers never die, they just wade wade wade... back in.

The old new-left Undead have "rewrtitten" -- how pathetic is that? -- a document that sank like a stone back in '63, when it was first written. For a patch of unintended self-parody, the current version deserves immediate induction into the boomer travesty temple of Olympian laughter. Early on, there's a whack at the "long-winded" Vaclav Havel, which is very welcome of course, but then talk about long-winded:

...drafted by several MDS and SDS activists with criticisms and suggestions from Bruce Rubenstein, Jay Jurie, Penny Rosemont, Mark Rudd, and Devra Morice for MDS, Senia Barragan and Josh Russell for SDS, and a valued friend from War Times, Max Elbaum. Paul Buhle did most of the drafting and rewriting....

We stand at the beginning of a new social movement as well the beginning of a new century. The global overreach of US strategies has created divisions in society unknown since the 1960s, in some ways unknown since the 1890s. Here, a soldier is shot to death after a fourteen-hour domestic standoff because he is driven mad by the prospect of his return to Iraq. There, casualty figures are systematically underreported, the degree of military brutalization and eco-poisoning warfare hidden as effectively, or ineffectively, as in the early years of the US invasion of Southeast Asia. In Washington, powerful forces with billions of dollars behind them (and clearly more at stake) rage against each other, hopeful of protecting Empire but blinded by their past triumphs and unable to find a way out. New SDS, with several thousand members and several hundred chapters, takes the field in the name of a newly rebellious generation, its membership reaching into community colleges and high schools far from the liberal arts limits of the 1960s, and across borders to Canada, Germany, Indonesia, and elsewhere. We also see the beginning of yet a new project: the founding of MDS, the Movement for a Democratic Society.

Can't touch stuff like that, now can ya? You just gotta bottle it for posterity.

What follows that opening florish is a lickety-split dash through the last 45 years or so. Upshot : Uncle won all the marbles -- set up a global rigged casino -- and got to use even "depleted uranium" where and when needed, without much meritoid yowling.

Yes, it's gotten pretty dark on planet earth, but fortunately for civilizations' better angels, 9/11 proved "This was not the end of history." Since that frightful moment, "The truth is out and the subservient backers of American military conquests have grown sheepish and silent." However, "Rather than engage in the sort of introspection that would reveal the role and purposes of U.S. power projected across the globe," the TNC goblins upped the ante, switching to No More Mr Nice Guy mode, i.e. a "strategy that can be neatly encompassed as a Patriot Act for the whole planet."

Mid-voyage sum-up:

On the forty-fifth anniversary of the Port Huron Statement... we once again face a world in which existing modes of thought are treated by the public with contempt. Institutions both old and new seem to be threatened....

The golden age of confident socialism, in the first decade of the twentieth century, can be book-ended with the golden age of capitalism during the final decade of the same century... why then the self-confident predictions of the Marxists and equally self-certain predictions of the 1980s-90s globalizers fail so miserably?

It seems the Wall Street rats, in drafting up their new world order, didn't reckon with "a moiling world of people." This triggers another plunge into Clio's record books, now back to the age of the two Roosevelts, which saved capitalism from itself -- but
Then FDR died... [beginning a] march toward total global hegemony at any cost.... Labor leaders, screenwriters, even career diplomats associated with leftwing causes either abandoned their ideals or found themselves banned and discarded...A new world of atomic bombs and Cadillacs emerged, with light weapons and Chevrolets for small-fry wars and consumers, respectively....

... keen economic analysis updating a century of Marxist predictions.... notes that stagnation and sluggish growth in the old-fashioned categories of GNP and productive capacity have continued as leftwingers long predicted they would.

Now we get a run of why that's good -- no, that's bad -- because despite the GNP secular sluggery,
... remarkably enough, these disappointments have not impeded profit levels, nor brought down the world's leading capitalist power, its center still situated on Wall Street....

No one, neither Keynes nor Milton Friedman, had sufficiently credited the power of seemingly bottomless debt.... [or] predicted the degree of the financiers' takeover, displacing actual production with the concentration of paper [or] the strange contemporary conjunction -- punctuated by the Chinese State-directed bailout of Wall Street....

Perhaps, and this is a grim thought, slow growth and wild speculation are locked together in a downward spiral of widening class differences and ecological decline. Making money steadily displaces the making of anything else, goods or services. Debt creation and the collaterization of debt, the magic instruments of recovery (or pseudo-recovery), demand ever taller towers of cash. These disproportions come, naturally enough, from a vast heightening of exploitation in every respect, now no longer draining only the lives of people on the planet but the earth itself. Lacking a successful challenge, they will, within two generations, have wiped out nearly every species of fish, eviscerated all but the least of rainforests, and set the planet upon a near irreversible course of global warming. The lives of suffering humanity, in the face of these threats, can only be imagined....

But! Be of good cheer! There's the "Crisis of Empire":
The explosion of simultaneous crises, as leading scholar of empire William Appleman Williams noted long ago, stems from the demands for absolute planetary control... [and yet] How much does "the average American" feel the suffering of others in less fortunate places of the planet?
Pretty sweeping, eh? And -- there's more! There's a "A Short History of the Old and Heroic Left." Starting point:
A special moment in the 1840s-60s [which] saw abolitionism, women's rights, and pacifism predict the movements of more than a century later and offered a legitimate counterpart to the emerging class struggles in Europe and elsewhere.... If the Communist Manifesto and the Paris Barricades of 1848 had any single counterpart anywhere, it was surely the Seneca Falls Convention and the declarations of Woman's Rights.
At this point we enter the full Barnum and Bailey world of lefticle struggle. After a Dante to Virgil-like adeiu to Allen Ginsberg, we reach "1962, the year of Port Huron," Like Finnegans Wake, river run back to that mudsill of the left's "Age of Aquarius."

Oh I grow weak -- but read on: such topics await you as "Globalized Labor -- At Home"; such insights as:

In the new century, the situation has changed utterly... new radical hopes become visible on the horizon... a version of egalitarianism, successor to visions of socialism and anarchism.... the day has not passed when working people, as part of a broad coalition (and not likely to be unionized) can make a decisive difference.
Final panorama:

The Society We Face -- Then and Now

Perhaps the work begun at Port Huron will be taken up once again around the world, for the globalization of power, capital and empire surely will globalize the stirrings of conscience and resistance. While the powers that be debate whether the world is dominated by a single superpower (the US position) or is multipolar (the position of the French, the Chinese and others), there is an alternative vision appearing among millions of people who are involved in global justice, peace human rights and environmental movements -- the vision of a future created through participatory democracy

July 16, 2007

Bag it, Bageant

Just read an interview with Joe Batshit, whom Joshua Frank apparently, and disappointingly, takes more seriously than he deserves:

http://counterpunch.com/frank07142007.html

This guy Bageant is a pageant of frauds. Take this sum-up on the prospects for America's pantomime class struggle turning to war mode:

I don't think that will ever happen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep up the fight. I think so-called terrorism and ecocide may tear down the system for us, though.
Political inaction has its square-one excuse when change is probably impossible, doesn't it?

Joe presses on:

Danger has no favorites!
(Having that level of phrase lilt in ya prolly gets you published.)
The good old days of "the teeming masses," that sweat-soaked, beer-farting mob of working class Americans who didn't have a pot to piss in, much less a credit card, but instinctively knew fascism when they saw it, are over
Oh no, there's that old high-60's chestnut again -- the post-scarcity white prole libel!
Seattle in 1999 may not happen in the states again. We have all become an artificial product of corporately "administrated" modern life.
Always, always, when you least expect it, Clio pulls the rug out from under the never-again poundcakers. Or as Joe himself sez: "Life has a funny way of making us eat every word."

December 13, 2007

Baby steps

Read this piece by Mz Wypplesbruegerski at C-punch:

http://counterpunch.com/wypijewski12102007.html

... with all innocent curiosity, and got IED'd -- didn't a sour bomb go off in my mortal soul department (such as it is), and I've been off and on nauseated for two days since.

Heres the entryway to my tour of boomer rad post-9/11 ground zero:

"I don't think either mere cheerleading -- we need the will! we need the courage! another world IS possible! -- is much of a solution to anything. There are world historical forces afoot here, and one of the jobs of anyone who considers herself on the left is to try to understand them. I don't think the Left in the heady days of empire really thought too much about the privileges and distortions being children of the empire conferred on it, except to say, in some quarters, We don't want any part of it! But opting out only goes so far, and is delusional even if understandable. Now that the empire is exhausted at the top -- and we could disagree about that, but I think the signs are more indicative of fundamental weakness than of strength even if the US can still kill everyone in the world many times over and still 'afford' billions of dollars a day doing that in one way or another... Radicals are feeling what it means to be part of the general decline. How do we deal with it? That's not an idle question, or one that has an obvious answer. There was a certain amount of chauvinism attached to the American Left in the sixties, a sense of being at the center of the political universe even if people did make their trips to Hanoi or Ghana or Paris...."
...And from there off she went into the malaise gauche:
Sometimes I think that at a minimum we ought to be encouraging people to join -- anything. The PTA, the Kiwanis Club, the local pathetic chapter of the NAACP, the local tenants group, the freelancers union, the local Democratic club or libertarian club, whatever, just to start remembering how to think together. And even if it prompted people to see what they don't want to be part of, maybe it would encourage them to create something that they do. This sounds pretty lame, I know. But the situation is pretty lame...
As I read this sober, "baby-steps" assessment (as Joanne herself chracaterizes it), I felt like Orson Welles' character must feel as he slides, glides, staggers, and tumbles into the gunblast-shattered climax of Lady from Shanghai. And as I type this, see me, in overhead crane shot pullaway, running like a ten-year-old apple thief, if for nothing else, at least to preserve my sense of invincible personal insanity.

About Who is this left anyway?

This page contains an archive of all entries posted to Stop Me Before I Vote Again in the Who is this left anyway? category. They are listed from oldest to newest.

Whale watch is the previous category.

winning by losing is the next category.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31