To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Paul Street's Blog » "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Paul Street's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreet
Bio:         Paul Street is an independent radical-democratic policy researcher, journalist, historian, and speaker based in Iowa City, Iowa, and Chicago, Illinois.&nbs... (More)

All Street Blogs

Recent Street Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books

"Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Paul Street at Jul 19, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
In political conversations with friends and family of left-liberal, vaguely progressive inclination, I often find myself telling them they don't know the full radical pre- and proto-fascist extent of what they are up against on the authoritarian new militarist American right. The comments I'm about to paste in might seem outside the margins of acceptable political discourse in "liberal" (broad sense) America, home of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. In fact, however, its not terribly far from things I've heard both in direct conversation with seemingly regular "mainstream"/ordinary Americans and on "mainstream" (right-wing) talk radio (which I occasionally monitor in my automobile, when the White Sox aren't playing) --- at outlets like WLS 890 AM in Chicago. Before you read this comment, which calls, in essence (whether its author knows it or not) for the construction of something akin to an open police state in the United States, let me tell you that its author is a woman --- she shall remain anonymous, but let's call her "Apple Pie" ---- who participates in a political discussion room among and between mostly young American mothers connected through a listserv that is primarily about sharing ideas and techniques towards the healthy feeding and care of infants. "Apple Pie's" comment was sent to me by a progressive participant in that listserv, who tells me of her concerns with the large number of her fellow participants who seem to agree that "everybody - that is all Americans - who disagree with [their] vision of the current political situation should be interred with no freedom and no rights." The comment from "Apple Pie" reads as follows: "How about this? We divide the country in half, those who support the war on terrorism and those who do not. The ones who choose to fight and support our freedoms are the only ones who get those freedoms. The other half well they basically have no freedoms because they want everyone else to do all the work and suffer all of the pain so therefore they don't deserve the same freedoms. The half that does not support the "war" now has no freedom of speech or freedom of expression, if you are caught burning a flag or hanging it upside down, you are tried for treason, well, heck you don't even get a trial because you no longer have that right since you aren't willing to fight for it. If the terrorists attack your side don't count on us to help you out, you didn't support us in the first place so now we will only help ourselves. You can then live peacefully amongst the terrorists trying to convince them that there is no need to attack you. Meanwhile our side will enjoy all the freedoms and safety our country currently enjoys." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Apple Pie" followed up this chilling formulation with: "Yes my previous post was harsh but I really get fed up with liberals expecting everyone else to suffer and pay for our freedoms while they just sit back and reap the rewards. It seems terribly unfair and selfish." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And then this: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Honestly, I want to know, why do those who are not willing to defend our freedoms or support those who do deserve to live here in this country? I'm not saying you have to strap on a machine gun and go off to war yourself but at least support those who do." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then, my progressive listserv informant continues, came the following statement of support from a different authoritarian young mother: "Ths is EXACTLY what I've thought since day one, but I will admit, was too chicken-shit to say. But you know what - ITA and I stand right by you and don't give a flying hoot what anyone here thinks about it." "Right down the middle . . .how sweet would that be." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And there was this, from another supporter: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In life, there are givers and there are takers." "You live in this country and take from it - all the blessings of this:" " ' We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'" "The words in that document are the ideals we strive for - but they aren't guaranteed. They have to be fought for - and preserved. And someone has to do THAT job." "Not everyone in this world believes in that statement - or that we are endowed by our Creator ..or any creator for that matter. There are those who don't believe those rights are ours - and are willing to take them away if they can." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not going to do my usual thing of breaking down all the absurdities and contradictions in this newly respectable radical right and hard nationalist discourse. Most of this blog's readers are already ahead of me on that. Nor will I bother with my standard rant on the extent to which the Founders would be horrified by the new American militarism and imperialism. Google/yahoo up my name along with with "James Madison" and various semi-useful essay reflections (some more original than others) will come up in a few seconds. My point is that all progressives of whatever stripe (and I am near the leftmost edge, though some would dispute that I imagine) need to fully gauge the depth and degree of the right-authoritarianism that is embraced by some significant number and percentage of Americans...including some mothers of small babies. These young ladies are not alone and you ought to hear what the fathers of their children think. ...Sorry, nothing on porn...and no self-righteous hyperbole on the ZNet blog system and how other ZNet bloggers choose to run their own blogs.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (79)

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Aug 09, 2005 15:05 PM
I never said communism was not expansionist. "No dear, capitalism is the most successful system governing human affairs, not the most expansionist." If capitalism is not expansionist then how is it that it has been expanding for the last 200 years? You state communism as the most expansionist system, then go on to say capitalism is much more ubiquitous. How brilliant. "If colonialism "fucked up" economies, one would expect the end of colonial rule to herald in prosperity and progress." It has not ended and therefore continues to "fuck up" the colonial countries. "How does your observation about nation states contradict my statement about the universaly heirarchical nature of government?" Because, it shows how the hierarchical arrangement of nation states leads to oppression. If you concede that governments take power from people, then it follows that more powerful nation/states oppress and take power from "lower" nation/states. "I didn't make any statement about Bush BTW. That's your obsession not mine." You can substitute any recent president or for that matter any capitalist ruler. My point was that capitalism does not remove the occurance of political prisner camps, which negates your assertion that socialism alone leads to political oppression.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 08, 2005 23:41 PM
>The "rigged market" theory holds no water whatsoever because mant non-European nations have thrived in this so called "rigged market". That's because they refused to play by the rigged rules. Every succesful non-European economy (and by succesful I suppose we mean industrialized) did what it did through protectionist measures. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, China, etc. and indeed the postwar European economies themselves, all developled successful economies through state interventionism in finance, industrial policy and trade protectionism. Wherever they were considered too radical, or not necessary enough to contain the Soviet threat the U.S. sponsored coups and invasions. Hence Greece, Brazil, the Phillipines, Vietnam and all the other usual suspects. You'll never develop an industrialized first world economy by growing bannanas or sewing T-shirts. If I had a T-Shirt from Haiti, this is what it would say: "Played by capitalist rules since 1915 and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 08, 2005 21:13 PM
You might not expect a man in leg irons for ten years to run as fast as people who haven't. I would, however, expect him to be able to advance a few steps without falling flat on his face. The point is Africa is WORSE after liberation. The Africans are now free to redraw their borders, they just can't agree on them.Not our fault anymore. The "rigged market" theory holds no water whatsoever because mant non-European nations have thrived in this so called "rigged market".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 07, 2005 21:01 PM
"If colonialism "fucked up" economies, one would expect the end of colonial rule to herald in prosperity and progress.The Liberin their nation to the fact that they, "went without the benefits of colonialism" If I put you in leg irons for ten years and then remove them tell you to run a marathon does it make sense to say that since the leg irons are now removed you should be able to run as far and fast as the others? Moreover, colonialism does not jusr "end" with formal independence. Many of its lethal legacies still remain and continue to "fuck up" these countries. Most notable are artificial national boders in Africa and the ME, which were drawn to facilitate continue divide and conquer and exploitation of resources. Also, the newly "independent nations" have to participate in a world economy whose rules and terms are written by their former masters for their own benefits. Some familarity of how the game is set up may confer some advantages SINCE YOU HAVE TO PLAY THIS RIGGED GAME.Your "Liberian" has to be understood in this context.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 07, 2005 18:28 PM
Communism mot expansionist? Hmmm! I must have misunderstood the words of the Internationale. No dear, capitalism is the most successful system governing human affairs, not the most expansionist. The problem for Communism is that its internationalist ambitions were not matched by its actual achievements. If colonialism "fucked up" economies, one would expect the end of colonial rule to herald in prosperity and progress. Check out Mugabeland and Mandelaland.I don't think that's the case with these two African newtopias. The Liberians openly attribute the poverty in their nation to the fact that they, "went without the benefits of colonialism". How does your observation about nation states contradict my statement about the universaly heirarchical nature of government? I didn't make any statement about Bush BTW. That's your obsession not mine.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Aug 07, 2005 14:42 PM
"Communism is the most unashamedly expansionist creed in modern history." No, that would be capitalism! "White Castro still has death camps for his political prisoners." So does white Bush, who you claim was "democratically" elected. "Countries go to the IMF when their economies fuck up" Yes, after years of colonial rule they are quite "fucked up." This is more the result of the required expansion of capitalism then of any policy move by the countries themselves. " All government is heirarchical. The act of governing creates a dichotomy between governing and governed." Yes, but some are more "heirarchical" than others and the nation/states themselves are arranged hierarchically with someone on top. Just as right-wingers hate government because it is on top of them, nations of the global south hate the US because it is on top of them constantly oppressing them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 07, 2005 11:02 AM
Joe/hotsax "Cuba had not attempted to invade the rest of the Carribean and place a racial minority thre in death camps" Really! What was white Che Guevara doing when he died among the Indians of Bolivia then? Communism is the most unashamedly expansionist creed in modern history. White Castro still has death camps for his political prisoners. Countries go to the IMF when their economies fuck up, when IMF recomendations fail to salvage these fucked up economies the IMF make a convenient scapegoat for national economic incompetence. All government is heirarchical. The act of governing creates a dichotomy between governing and governed. Next please!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 06, 2005 09:35 AM
"It doesn't look like the Cuban people made that choice. It looks like their government made it form them by putting marxist orthodoxy above common economic sense..." You're arguing as if the people living under U.S imposed FORMAL democracies in many Latin America countries have any more choice. Voting in and of itself is not democracy, it's just a game. The kind of "democracy" that the U.s imposes on South America is a travesty. Its only function is to legitimize the local elite remote controlled by Washington. The U.S cannot tolerate anything resembles genuine democracy.What it wants are compliant clients."Democracy" is just a piece of PR prop. As soon as the simple people take the slogans too seriously and want a taste of real democracy the Empire will put them in their place. Chavez is DEMOCRATICALLY elected. The last I check(which was this morning) he has the support of over 70% of the population.That is a much stronger democratic madate than ANY western leader. Yet in its typical double speak the U.S has the gall of accusing Chavez of being "undemocratic". Attacking democracy in the name of democracy is the U.S's favourite game. It is so blatantly hypocritical that it would be comical if not for the horrible outcomes.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 06, 2005 04:29 AM
"Why must we identify humane social policy with formal democracy" There are obviously arguments for trading "formal" democracy for the necessities of life, and if it was necessary to do so, and the people made that choice themselves, then fine. But you haven't shown EITHER for these things (necessity or free choice). It doesn't look like the Cuban people made that choice. It looks like their government made it form them by putting marxist orthodoxy above common economic sense. It looks to me like they can't have both because , while the people enjoy the health care and the education, they don't enjoy the Marxist dogma that keeps their economy sluggish. However, since the Cuban Government's self-identity is tied to Marxism, they cannot let the people overturn their economic approach without loosing all sense of legitimacy beyond the national loyalty to Castro himself. That and the annoying habit of marxists to feel entitled to tell poor people what they "really want". So, the only necessity is either 1) the necessity of repression to avoid losing power - NOT an excuse 2) the necessity of forcing people to do what is best for themselves, even if they don't like it - also NOT an excuse.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 05, 2005 18:06 PM
More blustering and rhetorics from Calvin. The Hitler analogy would be more apt to describe the U.s than Cuba. Many people in Latin America who has been on the recieving end of U.S backed fascist regimes would agree.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 04, 2005 23:56 PM
"I don't think that anyone claims that the Cuban regime is ideal" If there are they will in line right behind the people who think that Michael Jackson would make a good baby sitter. Pointing out that Cuba has free health care and universal adult literacy is like pointing out that Hitler was an animal loving, tea-total, vegetarian Terence.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 03, 2005 08:46 AM
Symmetry is elegant. There is some formal symmetry in your argument but the symmetry ends in the formal level. No one can seriously argue Islamic terrorists pose nearly as much threat to the U.S as the U.S does to Cuba. 9/11 not with standing, there is absolute zero chance that you'll wake up and find your government toppled by terrotists and a Taliban puppet issuing fatwas from the white house. On the other hand, the U.S's record of wholesale terror and economical/political subjecation in south Central America is well documented. Imagine youself living next door to a global hegemone 100 times more powerful than you are. It has the declared goal of destroying your government and backs up its threat with 50 years of subervertions, terrorist attacks, economical stragulations and actual military invasion. If the much smaller threat by terrorists is enough to turn the U.s into a quasi police state I wonder how would it respond in the secenario I outlined. When that happens you can talk about symmetry with Cuba.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 03, 2005 04:14 AM
This is where the ends meet. Radicals of both stripes do the same thing is this regard. Sometimes I accuse them of not being cynical enough, but the deeper truth is that they are more cynical then I. Zealots know they are in the minority, so they believe in democracy only so long as the people choose what is best for them. When they don't, democracy must yeild to higher values. Furthermore, Zealots know that they step on toes, and that vested interests will oppose them. Consequently they view themselves as under-seige, and use this to justify their own hypocritical actions. "Cuba is unjustly underseige by the US. We cannot allow the internal collaboraters and foreign capitalists to undermine our efforts to achieve true socialism. Cuba must restrict the bougeouise freedom of expression because if they did not then the people might be exposed to enemy propaganda, and that could undermine all the progress we have made towards socialism." "The US is unjustly under seige by Islamic terrorists. Censorship, inclduing the Patriot Act, is critical to winning the War on Terror and protecting our citizens from harm. We cannot allow the traitors and enemy agents amongst us to sap our will to fight. We cannot let them make us lose this war like they made us lose Vietnam. We cannot allow anti-American proapaganda that puts both our citizens at home, and our troops overseas, in danger."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 03, 2005 03:29 AM
"How can you call it a success when the same person has held absolute power for 50 years? Where tourists have more rights than the Cuban people do?" It was successful in the sense that it was never toppled by the U.S. That would be a success in it's own right to a person more concerned with "sticking it" to the US and the "capitalists" than with helping the people. Medical care and free speech are two different things. There is no logic to defending poltical repressions by quoting statistics on medical care unless someone can show exactly why increases in medical care necessitate decreases in political freedoms. This never happens. They definitely want both for themselves. I've yet to see anyone defend the Patriot Act on the grounds that Bush also provided Medicare Perscription Drug benefits to the elderly. I doubt they would give up the right to vote in exchange for socialized medicine. But Cubans are a different story. I've been in a few of thse conversations and at not point has ANYONE involved explained why the Cubans could not have both. NEVER has anyone even tried to explain why the Cuban government, which is supposedly very popular, could not hold elections AND treat it's citizens.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By The, Roger at Aug 01, 2005 19:32 PM
They're not always US spies, many of the dissidents are just ordinary people that long for the desire to speak freely about their government and their dictator for life. They yearn the freedom to criticize their government and its actions, in other words, the very same freedoms that you and other Westerners enjoy. Terence you called Cuba a successful Left Revolution. I'm asking you to back it up and justify the word "success" with the great repression and restrictions in freedom that Cuba and the Castro government has brought on to its people. How can you call it a success when the same person has held absolute power for 50 years? Where tourists have more rights than the Cuban people do? Also, reflect on your much repeated statistics on healthcare and literacy with the fact that Cuba was ALREADY A LEADER IN THOSE STATISTICS well before Castro came to power! If you do not know enough about Cuba to back up your claims, as appears to be the case, then you shouldn't be making statements about how Cuba represents a "successful revolution." To some people, the repression of Castro and the Left historically "looking the other way" when it comes to it, is more than just a statistic. I personally know people that were sent to Castro's gulags simply for speaking out against the regime. If this had happened in ANY US Friendly country you guys would be SCREAMING about it at the top of your lungs! But since it's the great Commie Fidel, all we hear is..silence.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Aug 01, 2005 00:47 AM
Bwong - I have not accused you of trying to silence me or from preventing me from posting. You said that I was trying to prove that I was a liberal/leftist when I never said I was and in fact called myself a centrist. Keir - Do you like preaching to the chorus 24-7? I can't speak for everyone, but one of the reasons I am here is because I am genuinely curious about the hard Left since we really don't get that POV in the US. No, I'm not going to roll over and automatically agree with everything that is said here, but I will listen. I appreciate those Left people, such as Graeme that actually responds to others that disagree. However, I've also noticed, particularly in this blog, that many leftists do not bother responding or engaging in debate with people that disagree. How will the radical Left ever grow its numbers if they continue to ignore the vast majority that disagrees with them? I would think that Left people here would be more than happy to engage in debate with non-left people interested enough to take part in a discussion. Your comments Keir, remind me so much of the Right: "If you hate America so much, then why stay here? I'm not telling you to leave, just wondering.." That's a very common question in hard right circles. Again it is truly amazing how extremes mirror each other.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 29, 2005 17:09 PM
"jackboot fascist troll" How dare you call me a troll! In point of fact bwong, it is you who is the racist. As your comments on slavery reveal. Slavery was institutional in Africa for thousands of years. In the sixteenth century hundreds of thousands of Whites endured slavery on the plantations of the Americas. Whites were enslaved in a de facto sense under the indentured servant racket. The Arabs took nine million slaves out of Africa. The only reason they didn't take more was because the majority of their slaves were Europeans. This makes slavery a fact of history not an indulgence of White Europeans. You select only the example of Black enslavement in America and edit out the broader historical context in order to vilify Whites. That my friend is RACISM.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 29, 2005 14:59 PM
Prokerkus, Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting you should not post your opinions here, nor am I second guesting your motives. In any case right and left are only approximate labels, in details(and sometimes in board areas) people disagree often and it's silly to argue who is truly left etc. I don't think it is fair to lump people like yourself, who apper to be interested in having a dialogue with jackboot facist trolls like Calvin, to whom even the rampacious Roger soundslike a "liberal",--at least Roger is not unabashly racist.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 29, 2005 09:32 AM
Bwong- I've never called myself a liberal or a leftist, I've identified myself as a centrist many times on this site. Often by introducing myself as the resident centrist of this board. If I had to indentify which politicians I am closest to, I'd probably go with Hillary Clinton/John Kerry types. If you asked most Americans what they consider Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to be politically, they'd say "liberal." Personally however I'd call myself a centrist. Kerry was also named "most liberal senator in the US Senate" in 2004, though I don't believe he is. Wow, had no idea that Canada was so far to the left. Interesting to know. All in all though, to the Left of most Americans and to the right of most Canadians does sort of reenforce the centrist label I think.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 29, 2005 05:29 AM
"if I went on a hard right blog and talked about my firm belief in Roe v Wade, great fear of Christian fundamentalism, skepticism towards organized religion in general I have no problem with same-sex civil unions.. " Well, here in Canada even our rightwing Conservative party endorses almost everything you say, including abortion right and same sex "civil union". Here we legally recognized same sex marriage, only the rightwingers still talk about "civil union", "seperate but equal" that kind of things. In the U.S even our conservative politicians will be considered "commies". "Left" and "right" is pretty meaningless when it comes to partisian politics in the U.S because your political centre has moved so far off to the right comparing to the rest of the world. Your cited the fact that you agree with John Kerry to prove you're a leftist/liberal. But if Kerry were to run for prime minister in Canada he would be viewed as a far right fundamentalist nut case and a war monger. He is way further to the right than Stephen Harper, our little Bush butt kisser in Canadian politics. Kerry only appears to be "liberal" because Bush and his cohorts are even more crazy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 28, 2005 18:46 PM
Know what else is funny? Although I am called a right winger or a "Republican in disguise" on this blog, if I went on a hard right blog and talked about my firm belief in Roe v Wade, great fear of Christian fundamentalism, skepticism towards organized religion in general, have no problem with same-sex civil unions, have no problem with pornography and could even see it as possibly being a healthy part of a someone's sexual growth, have no need for a tax cut, firm gun-control advocate, and believe that the minimum wage should be raised and social security strengthened, they'd probably call me a "Commie in disguise!" and an "EXTREME left winger!!." They'd also tell me how "judging my the results of the Novemeber 2004 elections, your opinions are to the FAR LEFT of mainstream America" and that I was probably "a waste of time talking to" since I am so deep in "ultra liberal propaganda." In other words, I'd get the same things I'm being told here, expect the word "right" would be replaced with the word "left."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 28, 2005 03:35 AM
"You may be overstating your case somewhat. It is simplistic to say poverty is the only cause of terrorism it would be equally wrong to catagorically dismiss it." You're right - I was overstating. Obviously poverty CAN lead to desperte people who will strike out, and my earlier posts made it sound like I was denying this basic fact - I do not. However, I think my point is solid. "Terrorism" is almost NEVER done purely out of desperation or immediate need, it always seems to have a guiding idealogy behind it. Poor, desperate, people want tangible things - bread, land, and peace - not abstract principles. As we can see in sub-saharan Africa, they will rob, riot, loot, rape and murder out of rage, etc., but rarely will they indulge in the cold, calculated, attacks on foreign soild that produce NO immediate benefit. When has an act of terror ever resulted in a food shipment? When has there been an international terror attack by a Hatian, or a Ugandan? The fact is that the poorest nations on the world have almost no history of exporting international terror - except when run by idealogues (and madmen like Idi Amin). That honor has only been claimed by the U.S./allies, the Soviet-Block, China, and the middle eastern nations.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By The, Roger at Jul 28, 2005 03:17 AM
Thank you to Anonymous and Prokerkus for trying to encourage the lefties here on this site to actually reply to the many excellent points that myself and others have made. It seems they are not interested in doing that however. Calvin - Chorus aside, you should be lucky they even respond (albeit half heartedly) to you. The ignore most of us who decimate their propaganda. I see they are now going after your email address, a step up from attacking someone's name I guess. Terence - I think I've been patient enough, would you please respond to this: "If the one party, one dictator in 50 years, no election, no change of power in 50 years, one newspaper, state controlled media, apartheid system where Cubans, even those that could afford it are not allowed into tourist resorts; where political prisoners abound, where people are found guilty and executed within 24 hours, and where the government won't allow the people to travel freely for fear that they will never return is your idea of a "successful left revolution"; I'd really hate to see what a failure looks like." Oh, and if you could respond without bringing up my name, email address, what websites I may or may not have visited it or any other idiotic nonsense, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Street, Paul at Jul 27, 2005 19:45 PM
A little background on rounders and baseball: http://roundersforfun.com/ http://www.wikisearch.net/rounders http://www.rengeekcentral.com/rounders/bballhist-earlyyears.htm In the last link, we learn that: "In spite of evidence showing that baseball developed from rounders, many people believe that Abner Doubleday invented the game in Cooperstown, N.Y., in 1839. Doubleday later became a general in the United States Army. He died in 1893." "The Doubleday Theory arose from a dispute over the origin of baseball in the early 1900s. Albert G. Spalding, a sporting-goods manufacturer and former ballplayer, suggested the appointment of a commission to settle the question of the game's origin. Many people told the commission that baseball developed from rounders. But the commission's report, published in 1908, credited Doubleday with inventing the game. It based its conclusion on a letter from Abner Craves, who had been a boyhood friend of Doubleday's. Craves said he had been present when Doubleday invented baseball in Cooperstown in 1839."

Reply this comment

Person

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 27, 2005 14:16 PM
Hi Guys. "Then in a wailful choir the small gnats mourn" No! Don't tell me I've hounded Paul to his death? Why I'm almost as "dangerous" as these new moms. I take back everythng I said about you guys being cowards. You are obviously making a heroic stand against powerful enemies. Evil bible-belt Christians (as oppossed to nice Muslims), new moms, deadly forum contributors who killed John Keats, and marginalised poor whites, err......sorry, I mean racists. I always did think that Keats was overrated. I prefer Wordsworth myself. "I wandered lonley as a cloud That flits from forums all around When all at once I saw a crowd A host of confirmed leftist clowns" Regards Calvin

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 27, 2005 04:38 AM
Hi Paul! Only one valid definition of Fascism? No. There are two definitions of Fascism. The first definition is based on an understanding of the political philosophy of Benito Mussollini and might incorporate some of the ideas of Wilfredo Pareto and Juius Evola. That's the valid definition. The other definition is just a catch all label for anything leftists don't like but are too stupid to formulate an argument against. That's the invalid definition. The one you clearly adhere to Paul. That you are reduced to gleefuly seizing upon the fact that I failed to notice that a post came from one of your acolytes rather than from yourself smacks rather of desperation don't you think Paul? Your above post is simply a compendium of pompous assertion BTW. Did you have a point that you wanted to make or were you just releasing some mental flatulence? "nice to hear about the rounder though" I see that you have adopted my faux casual posting style. Thanks Paul, immitation is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery. Regards Calvin

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 27, 2005 04:07 AM
Hi Paul! Sorry about that. I made the gross assumption that it was you who made that post. It displayed the same feeble level of sarcasm you deploy, but seems in fact, to have been posted by someone who is named after the inner mechanism of the ear? I'm copping flak from people named after body parts now.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Street, Paul at Jul 27, 2005 03:52 AM
"Calvin" is a dogged if ill-informed British pit bull, it appears. He thinks the Italian variant is the one and only definition of fascism --- a little behind the curve of the literature there, I'm afraid. The accusation of sexism is absurd. What stupendous courage "Calvin" exhibits with his half-erudite web-flaming, including his idiotic charge of "cowardice," from across the Atlantic. His humiliation is self-imposed. His embarassment has produced a confusion where he doesn't even stop to see that the language comment came from someone else ----Koceilah R. He is starting to make spelling mistakes. Calvin is trapped like a rat in the cage of this blog's comments section. More thrashing is on its way. How masochistic. Nice to hear about "rounders," though.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 27, 2005 03:41 AM
"Actually" its an abreviation of "argumentum ad hominem", meaning, argument to the man. To claim that I was accusing you of being an, "argument to the man" when in fact I accused you of using argument to the man, and compounding your stupidity by insisting that your erroneous usage is gramaticaly correct, is just more evidence of your ignorance Paul. You have now established your ignorance of history, your ignorance of Fascism and your ignorance of Latin. Keep on heaping on the "humiliation" Paul. I think that I can just about take it. Best Regards Calvin

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Rekouche, Koceilah at Jul 27, 2005 03:23 AM
Actually ad hominem is an adjective so Calvin your use is incorrect. Trust your intuition, use the small words in your lexicon before big Latin ones.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 27, 2005 02:26 AM
Hi Paul, Calvin here, "so now I get my reward". You have a high regard for your own work don't you? I think that you are suffering from the intellectual version of positive body dismoprphia. A British politician once coined a phrase which describes your rebuttal, "like being savaged by a dead sheep". For your edification you don't "be" ad hominem, you "use" ad hominems, or in your case overuse ad hominems. Your post may have alluded to the fact that the opinions expressed by these moms were fairly widespread, you just happened to focus on the moms though, didn't you? Hey imagine that! A woman daring to have an opinion. Can you tell me why you choose to define these women by their maternal status Paul? Sounds a bit like the rabid left-wing stereotype "soccer mom". You are now making accusations about the advocacy of "fascist measures". Which aspects of Mussollini's state corporatism are you accusing these "moms" of recommending, Paul? It's clear that you have no conception of what fascism is. It's just another, you guessed it, ad hominem to you. Despite your bluster it's clear that you know nothing about the history of the European Islamic conflict either. Baseball, yes, we have a children's game called rounders in the UK which is a bit like baseball. It's not played by grown ups though. I,m so demoralized I can hardly stop laughing. Regards Calvin

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 27, 2005 01:26 AM
"Poverty has NOTHING to do with terrorism. Majority of terrorists in history have been well off, educated, youths who were either.. Terrorism is *caused* by idealistic, well off, youth who are NOT starving" r4d20 You may be overstating your case somewhat. It is simplistic to say poverty is the only cause of terrorism it would be equally wrong to catagorically dismiss it. "Terrorists"(of the retail kind) have complex motivations with interlinking causes.Poverty is often an important factor. Just because someone are not poor doesn't mean they are unaffected by poverty around them. Moreover, if the poverty can be linked to other things such as imperialism it takes on an additional dimension. In many countries "poverty" is tied up deeply with a sense of national humiliation and it is a very potent motivation for proud, idealistic, educated young people. Also, a movement cannot sustain itself without some level of mass support. While the kind of people you describe may be more likely to view poverty through political lense, they won't amount to anything without the help of many more with the simpler goals of improving their material conditions,--and such people can be easily radicalized if they are sufficiently pissted off or desperate. PS There are lone terrorists who don't belong to any movement, e.g the unabomber.I think those cases belong more in the realm of psychology than politics.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 27, 2005 00:03 AM
rd420 wrote:"The point is they do it because they care, and because they know that the poor have not the means to bring about change." Yeah, and Bush invaded Iraq to spread democracy. Stop being gullible. Its amazing how you can see through one lie but not two. " Exactly. After looking over these posts, I'm thinking more and more that it really does come down to a matter of you're either "with us or against us"; "you're either on our team or you're wth the enemy" And if you're with the enemy, we want no part of you since that is a waste of time. No room for debate, no room for dialogue, if we say something unsupportable we just ignore it and no pressure will be brought on us to back up our thoughts since we're "on the same side" Again it's very similar to how a hardline right-wing Bush supporter thinks. I think a few of us here just check out this site called RadicalMiddle.com. While both sides have, in essence, the same "us or them" philosophy, clear thinking people free of propaganda can look at BOTH sides and see what makes sense and what doesn't. BOTH have something good and something bad to offer. It seems that when the Left analyzes the Right, and vice versa, it is full of cynicism, deep suspicion, and ALWAYS looking for the most sinister motivations possible for any good that they might find. However when it comes to their own side, they have NONE of these cynicisms and are instead full of incredible gullibility, idealism and naivete.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Street, Paul at Jul 26, 2005 22:59 PM
anonymous3, please. Are you familiar with my work? I've done zillions of these (relatively) calm and reasoned pieces (and will continue to do more): please see http://www.zmag.org/content/AllByAuthor.cfm?lname=Street&fname=Paul&startrow=01) But then that's got little to do with this particular mode of discourse and this instance. And where, really, is the great "insult" to "Calvin"? He walked into it, calling me "a coward" with no basis and now he gets his reward...and this bothers you? I find your note so, well, namby-pamby. I say do like ebogan and terence and get a grip on who and what you are up against. I said nothing about Prokerus. Talking with some vaguely progressive, half left folks these days I find myself feeling like the Jack Nicholson character in the movie version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest...I'm trying to encourage people to do themselves a great favor by allowing themselves to tell Nurse Ratchet and the rest of the right where to get off. "Oh, but it turns some people off." Maybe that's for the best: who wants to go to war with people who are squeamish about hurting the feelings of the masters' running dog lackeys? The right does not extend these sorts of concerns to the left and it's doing rather well for itself. "There's no crying in baseball" (Tom Hanks character in "A League of Their Own") and there's no tears for right-wing, imperial-war-supporting character assassins on this blog.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Jarrett_gabriel, Anonymous3 at Jul 26, 2005 21:55 PM
http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/polisci/faculty/shalom/ss45qa.htm

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Jarrett_gabriel, Anonymous3 at Jul 26, 2005 20:46 PM
I am a regular Z magazine reader and have over the past couple years learned a lot about current affairs. It was through listening to the strong arguments made by people like Mike Albert and Noam Chomsky that I among other things went from a supporter of the war in Iraq to an opponent of it. Having read the arguments made by some people on this blog however, it seems that there is a lack of effort being made to convince people with a different perspective, due to a lot of experience which seems to suggest that it a waste of time. I think it is extremely important to make the effort since unless this is done, social change will be difficult. There are certain people who probably won't be convinced, but Prokerus for example doesn't appear to be a lost cause. I don't think insulting people like Paul has just done is very constructive and only causes people to ignore your message. Even if no one is convinced, practicing engaging in rational argument for its own sake, is a worthy aim. I recognize that there is little room to do this on this blog system, but if you provide a link where other people can click on (such as this one: http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/polisci/faculty/shalom/ss45qa.htm, which makes detailed arguments for opposing the Bush administrations "War on Terrorism,") then it's possible that someone may learn something useful.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Street, Paul at Jul 26, 2005 19:20 PM
So "Calvin" refuses to admit the foolish nature of his accusations of (a) cowardice and (b) bullying. He has the audacity to accuse me of being ad-hominin when he has just (absurdly) called me "a coward." He claims to see a "dreary leftist methodology" in a brief note pointing out the inadequate nature of his criticism. He tries to shame me for not pointing out his own historical confusion. He tries to rescue his preposterous argument by claiming that these anonymous moms (who I have so terribly "bullied") were drunk on conversational java (you know, ...we can all get worked up and start calling for fascist measures against those who resist unjust imperial wars). He still misses the fact that my original post talked about how common such such sentiments are over the airwaves of American right wing talk radio and television. The fact that he references "referees" when we have umpires in baseball tells me he's not really familiar with the American scene and probably ought to opt for silence on difficult U.S. matters. And on it goes. The point is really not to engage in civil argument across moral and ideological frames with such people as this. It is to demoralize and defeat them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 26, 2005 12:36 PM
Kier, I did post a reply to your polite and reasonable counter. I didn't know about the 12000 second rule though, and I lost it. Its hard to argue against accusations of facism made by people who use the term simply to describe behaviour they don't like, rather than to decribe the corporate state system of Mussollini. To address your original point about the shooting of the Brazilian student. It seems to me that whatever the actual genesis of the present Islamic terrorist attacks, consensus of left wing opinion holds that their proximate cause is the occupation of Iaq (despite the fact that Sept11 preceded this occupation). Soon after the London bombings liberals and leftists were leavening their condemnations with caveats warning Westerners that these actions were mitigated by fact of the Anglo/US invasion of Iraq, so therefore responsibility for the deaths in London really lies at the feet of Bush and Blair, or so the leftist logic goes. In which case I have no problem in attributing responsibility for the Brazilian's death to the terror bombers who created the climate of fear and suspicion which made this kind of tragedy possible. I mentioned the Moorish invasion of Spain as a counter balance to the near-constant hyping of the crusades as being somehow analogous to our present relationship with Islam. Your objections seem to consist of erroneous accusations of Fascism and unsustainable accusations of irrationality. Its hard to argue with that.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 26, 2005 08:07 AM
Jackbaney wrote: "I also notice that YOU haven't really challenged my implication that YOU'RE NOT REALLY THE ANTI-CHOMSKY." For God's sake: Who CARES ABOUT SOMEBODY'S NAME?? All the points that myself, rd420, realPC and Roger have brought up and all you can do is nitpick over his NAME?!? How petty is that! Get a life man! Start contributing something worthwhile to the discussion and stop obsessing over the guy's name. BTW- People often say they are anti-Bush or anti-war without necessarily being literally the exact physical opposite of Bush or meaning that they are a pacifist. I don't know if this is because the level of intellect here isn't what it is on other boards but at least the guys over at the Chomsky board actually RESPOND to points being made and engage in debate; not run away or make stupid little nitpicking remarks over someone's name. Also if the people who accused me of being a Republican in disguise would kindly tell me where exactly I differ with Kerry and other mainstream Democrats I would appreciate that as well. To be honest, I always thought that the Left had an intellectual edge over the Right. But now it just looks as if both extremes when you get down to it are just a bunch of knee-jerk, emotional responses that divide up people into "us vs them" mentality. For all the hatred these people have against Bush, it's awfully ironic how their basic thinking remains almost the same.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 26, 2005 05:11 AM
Paul, Moorish armies "invaded" southern France where they were defeated by Charles "The Hammer" Martel (grandfather to Charlemange) at the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D. And, indeed, it was one of the final battles that marked the END of the first true Jihad that had started under Mohammed. Sadly, however, is has become commonplace for anti-Islamic revisionists to try and link ALL the seperate Wars, fought by seperate Islamic rulers for seperate reasons, into some unified global 1300-year long Jihad. I just about feel over in my seat when I heard someone refer to the Conquest of Byzantium by the Turks as an "Muslim Jihad against Christians" - completely ignoring that the Turks had been conquering everyone in their path (mostly Islamic states) since they started moving West out of the Asian Steppes. A Dynastic war of conquest does not become a "jihad" just because the dynasty is Muslim.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 26, 2005 02:38 AM
Ahh! The usual dreary leftist methodology Paul. Straight of the bat with the highly unexpected ad hominem,"a little hissy fit". Indeed. The fact that you are, as you claim, a regular left-wing Don Quixote constantly battling the right-wing beast in its bastions of power, does not change the fact that you resorted to falsely promoting (out of context I might add) the coffee table bantter of a few moms as indicative of their sober political opinions. Introducing the adjectives "evil" and "noble" to suggest a romantic historical analysis on my part is simply another example of your overuse of the strawman gambit. Furthermore it does not change the fact that Islam did invade France, although I did in fact mrean to say Spain. Not very up on history are you Paul? You just missed a perfect opportunbity for a cheap shot due to your ignorance of the topic being discussed. Your premature assertion of victory is almost as amusing as your attempt to suggest macho credentials by your utilisation of a "boys own" style baseball metaphor. I'll let you into a secret Paul. In real life you don't get to play and referee. With responses as weak as that I don't need luck. Regards Calvin

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Street, Paul at Jul 26, 2005 02:03 AM
Somebody told me some rightwinger was having "a little hissy fit" on my blog and calling me out as "a coward" at the same time. So here I am back at this old post and...goodness, Calvin, but what an unbelievably ill-advised comment. One brief blog (equivalent to perhaps 1 ten-thousandth of my total published work) on some radically authoritarian comments from some rightist moms and I am somehow cowering in fear of right wing male intellectuals, academicians and so forth --- people I regularly criticize and engage in other venues? That's strike one, Calvin. And, yes, I am somehow, "bullying" those moms? Strike Two! And then he's back to the evil Moorish invasion of noble France. Holy cow. That's strike three. Back to the bench, Calvin. Better luck next at-bat. All guts and no brains can get you killed at the plate.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 26, 2005 01:45 AM
"The point is they do it because they care, and because they know that the poor have not the means to bring about change." Yeah, and Bush invaded Iraq to spread democracy. Stop being gullible. Its amazing how you can see through one lie but not two.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 26, 2005 01:29 AM
Paul is a male with established intellectual credentials. There are many intellectuals of opposite opinion to Paul, but Paul chooses to present the arguments of these intellectual "civillians" as the embodiement of the anti-liberal critique. In other words he creates a nice litle straw-man to chop up. Its a lot easier than debating your intellectual peers isn't it? I regard that as cowardly. Bullying is the cowards interpretation of courage. Liberalism is the de-facto religion of western intellectuals and academics. A demographic which it is absurd to claim is oppressed given their immense power and influence. I might regard Paul's comments as slightly less than laughable if his ilk were to save some of their condemnation for the medieval supremacist murderers who instigated the modern military phase of the 700 year old conflict between western civilisation and Islam. A conflict begun with the Moorish invasion of France in 711 incidentally.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 26, 2005 00:35 AM
If I may comment on the original post.This is pathetic extrapolation of the emotive casual coffee lounge banter of a few people into a confirmed belief system. These women are clearly employing an analogy to draw refrence to what they percieve as hypocritical behaviour. This is not only intellectually valid, it is, in point of fact, intellectually sophisticated. It is a recognized phenomenon that people and groups create enemies which reflect their own prowess and abilities. Working class whites are accussed of victimising blacks and minorities because they are incapable of challenging the powerful social structures which genuinely oppress them. It is instructive that liberal intellectuals are now reduced to bullying young mothers. What does this say about the bravery of liberal intellectuals?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By The, Roger at Jul 25, 2005 21:40 PM
"...the most successful left revolution the world has yet seen." If the one party, one dictator in 50 years, no election, no change of power in 50 years, one newspaper, state controlled media, apartheid system where Cubans, even those that could afford it are not allowed into tourist resorts; where political prisoners abound, where people are found guilty and executed within 24 hours, and where the government won't allow the people to travel freely for fear that they will never return is your idea of a "successful left revolution"; I'd really hate to see what a failure looks like. Notice that none of the Lefties here on Znet are really challenging any of the (completely accurate) points we're making. They just go back to meaningless generalities and ad-hominems about how we're "not compassionate", "reactionaries", "full of propaganda" and how it's "not worth my time to respond further" (as if they responded at all) This is a sign that we are "debating" with youth; generally privileged young people (whom I bet are overwhelmingly white and middle class) that have been given a very one-sided analysis of the world either through their university or intentionally from themselves. Their inability to even to begin to discuss the most basic of facts dealing with the nature of revolutions that differs even slightly with their own leftist education is very telling.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By The, Roger at Jul 25, 2005 21:09 PM
realpc: Amen. terence: "It's not surprising that educated people with a bit of economic leverage start revolutions" Agreed. However we were responding to a comment made by ebogan that stated the exact opposite. "Only the brainwashed will fall for your critique of the Cuban revolution" What did I say incorrectly about it? That Fidel, Raul, Che et al were all upper and middle class? That Castro's numbers never were more than a few thousand? That women and blacks did not and do not have the top leadership positions in the country? These are all historical facts. "Cuba has time and time again been recognized for extraordinarily high literacy and health care standards" OK, never said otherwise, thanks for avoiding the topic. However, since you've brought it up: Cuba has ALWAYS been a leader in literacy and healthcare. Dating back to the 50s Cuba has ALWAYS had one of the highest literacy and healthcare standards in Latin America. At best, Castro has only maintained such levels, at a much greater cost to freedom and liberty. If you're referring to the embargo, you might want to check out this website: http://www.netforcuba.org/InfoCuba-EN/CubainPictures/CubainPictures.htm It shows you images of Cuba's apartheid system: where flashy, ultra-sophisticated resorts for tourists ONLY contrast with the everyday lives of most Cubans.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Rekouche, Koceilah at Jul 25, 2005 20:44 PM
With few exceptions revolutions have behind them large numbers of unremembered people who do the real work. History books record the names of so-called 'leaders' but almost none deserve the credit given to them. To the extent its true these leaders come from privledged backgrounds -- its not a mystery as to why. Circles of academia, wealth and power are frontlines, so access within these enables one to confront and change them. The cowardice shown by many on this board is only trumped by their shameful attempts to induce hopelessness in others so they can join in the realm of uncreative reactionary loathing. rd42, anti chomsky, realpc, etc. Its clear you have zero compassion for anyone or anything. Thats a starting point in my book for your words to have any value at all. You are here to demoralize and bring people into the gutters with you. But, I'm glad you're around because its vital those of us who care about others and want to make the world a better place understand folks like you. But your high floating words don't disguise the comtempt and utter hate the lies behind them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jul 25, 2005 19:42 PM
"They let the poor fight with them, but never govern with them." Yeah, because they look down on the poor uneducated people they supposedly love so much. You see the same thing right here at ZNet. It's paternalistic and condescending and disrespectful. The dumb workers keep voting for traditional values because they don't know any better. It can't possibly be because traditions might have some value. I think most radical revolutionaries have very big egos. Their western Marxist education leads them to over-estimate how much they understand about life and society. They want to go out and fix the world. It happens over and over, with predictably disastrous results.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By The, Roger at Jul 25, 2005 10:19 AM
EDIT: Meant Zapatistas not "Zadinistas" in previous post. It also makes perfect sense why the sons of the middle and upper class would have the time, luxury, and motivation to try to "change the world": Do you really believe a truly poor person who is barely making ends meet would have the time to sit around, read Marx or Chomsky and daydream about revolution? Give me a break. Only the sons of relative privilege can afford that luxury. Castro's original numbers of revolutionaries at one point dwindled down to single digits and even at the height of the revolution never numbered more than a few thousand. Understandably, the sons of privilege and elitism had great difficulty attracting the poor campesinos to their cause. In fact, it was mostly due to the unpopularity of the Batista regime, that they were able to achieve ANY kind of tangible support whatsoever. Not because of any deep-seated ideology or intellectualism; again, that's mostly a middle/upper class phenomena. The ideology of the revolution was supplied almost completely by the elitist elements; not the rank and file. This is constant throughout almost every modern revolution/radical cause. Bin Laden is a good example of a wealthy, well educated elitist who uses poor rank and file to do his bidding. But they are not the ones who make the decisions or the ones that have the power. They are just used for cannon-fodder or to borrow a term from Stalin: "Useful Fools."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 25, 2005 09:55 AM
NONE of the terrorists of 9/11 or 7/7 were poor. They were ALL dissafected middle/upperclass young people, angry over the conditions of the less fortunate, but who had lives of leisure compared to the people they claimed to represent. They were people who had the time to read political and religious theory and get angry over global injustice and the Iraq war instead of looking for food or working 12 hours for $1. And, fundamentally, they have no real connection, understanding, or appreciation, for the real conditions of those people either. So yes, in a sense poverty DOES cause terrorism - not by turning the poor into terrorists but by providing the bored & pamapered children of the weathly with a ready made justification to act out their angst. Poverty is a problem, and poor people do suffer, but it does not give the self-righteous children of the bougeouise any right to kill people in their name.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By The, Roger at Jul 25, 2005 09:55 AM
Terence might want to read what Ebogan wrote to understand WHY most people will not be joining the ranks of the far-left anytime soon: "Your assertions...are not worth responding to" and "No further retorts from me, since any more would be pointless at this stage." Yes very pointless; not singing to the choir 24-7 could have a very bad effect on the Left, as I'm sure you know. Snobbish "know it all" elitism at its worst. "As for the claim that only people who are 'not starving' have the time and inclination to 'change the system', how ahistorical! Any casual study of the Cuban revolution.." How completely historical, as that example you just gave proves quite well. Who were the leaders of the Cuban Revolution? Fidel Castro - Came from a wealthy, upper-class family. Was a lawyer and barely worked a day in his life. Raul Castro - Ditto Che Guevara - Product of an upper middle class white Argentine family. Was a doctor. (On a side note, The Left's beloved Zadinistas have Marcos: a former university professor, white and non-indian. The leaders of the Cuban Revolution were all middle and upper class and mostly well-educated. Overwhelmingly white as well. This is true to this day: very few women and blacks in Cuba have the top leadership positions in the country, despite being the overwhelming majority, much more so than in the US. The Left doesn't talk about it much though, since it doesn't fit in with their agenda.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 25, 2005 09:25 AM
"As for the claim that only people who are 'not starving' have the time and inclination to 'change the system', how ahistorical!" Castro graduated from the University of Havana in 1950 with a law degree - he was a child of the elite along with his brother Raul. Che graduated from University of Buenos Aires and Medical - another child of the elite. Daniel Ortega was the son of an accountant (later a small business owner). He joined the Sandinistas in college. Sergio Ramírez was a novelist who graduated from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua. Alfonso Robelo Callejas was a successful businessman. Violeta Barrios de Chamorro was a successful newspaper publisher. Of course, there were others who participated, but in both cases the final leadership was DOMINATED ENTIRELY by educated elites. They let the poor fight with them, but never govern with them. Watch for this with that phony Chavez too.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 25, 2005 09:03 AM
"in addition to terence's well-made point, you are demonstrably to the right of much opinion from US and UK intelligence sources" Yea yea yea, I'll believe it when I see it. Left-wing people have polls showing America is a liberal country while conservatives have their own polls "proving" that America is conservative. Personally, I think polls are easily-manipulated snapshots of US public opinion that can be skewed to say whatever you want them to say. My gut feeling is that Americans are generally apolotical, centrist, and favor stability over great change. "That you are in reality a fully-paid-up Republican would not suprise us either" Give me one thing that I said that John Kerry would disagree with. Kerry believes there is a war on terror going on, praised Bush for his actions related to 911, voted for the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, etc. I think he is far closer to my politics that he is to yours, which explains why I voted for him. "you yourself display immense fear--you might ask where that comes from, and answer honestly" Kinda thought I did: Terrorist attacks in London, Egypt, Iraq, 911 etc "US-sponsorexd state terror" Which present day examples would be... rd420 - I agree totally.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jul 25, 2005 02:52 AM
exactly.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 25, 2005 00:15 AM
" extreme poverty in many parts of the globe will and has killed more people than any terrorist incidents have since 9/11" Poverty has NOTHING to do with terrorism. Majority of terrorists in history have been well off, educated, youths who were either 1) Religious 2) Socialist/Communist 3) Anarchist Very few have been poor. Terrorism is caused by idealistic, well off, youth who are NOT starving and have the time to think about "changing the system" and get worked up into a rage at the injustice of the world --- in other words, people like YOU.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 24, 2005 08:01 AM
Hey guys. As the resident centrist of these boards, allow me to offer my two cents on the subject. First off I can understand completely the sentiments being enunciated by these women. Look, we are in a worldwide War on the Terror. This is World War III, right here and now. These maniacs are bombing London, Egypt, killing men women and children. Who knows where they will strike next. ALL civilized nations and ALL civilized people of the world, right or left, Democrat or Republican, must join in this effort to defeat this savage enemy. Including those states: Syria, Iran, Palestine, Cuba et al that support them. If you have any left-leaning bone in your body you MUST oppose these brutal thugs. They are fundamentalists who wish to return us to a place of maybe 2,000 years ago. Of course people are scared. Of course people are nervous. People are looking for leadership and for protection. That's why we all support the troops, and yes, support the President in THIS fight against terrorism. (And don't use that extreme right-winger stuff with me: I'm a registered Democrat, member of Amnesty International, and I voted for John Kerry) Oh and Bush really did beat Gore in 2000. Florida was a complete disaster but the media called it early disenfranchising many panhandle GOP voters. Bush beat Gore and he certainly beat Kerry and I'm saying this as a registered Democrat who voted for both.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Jul 23, 2005 01:54 AM
Does a line between nature and human civilization exist anywhere but in our minds? I think not. The cause and effects of human actions are, by extension the causes and effects of nature since nature produced us in no different a fashion than plants, rocks, or starfish. I think by now we as a species have become so physically, spiritually, and emotionally estranged from nature that it seems to be separate from us, in a category all it's own.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Jul 23, 2005 01:31 AM
What I find frustrating is the popularity of the view that there is a cleanly divided country between "left" and "right" political affiliation. Tell the truth to a pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war person about America's international terrorism, as I have done many times, and very frequently the response is "you just think that way because you are on the left. As if there are two football teams and you are loyal to one or the other. This squelches meaningful debate because as soon as you reveal your tendency, for example "leftist", those that consider themselves on the other team, the right, will consdier whatever you say from then on, no matter how logical or truthful, as useless babble that need not even be looked into, as it is tainted by your loyalty to "the other side".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jul 23, 2005 00:11 AM
We are restricted by the physical laws of nature, and also by human nature. Our species evolved over millions of years, so how we ignore our genetic inheritance? Until relatively recently, 10,000 or so years ago, humans lived in small nomadic groups. There was no dissent, everyone "knew" the same "facts," and all were on the same wavelength. There was no great disparity between rich and poor, since no one had more than they needed to survive each day. Wars were small and localized, since population density was low. Technology, and therefore weapons, were primitive. That is the lifestyle that feels right to us, as social mammals. The lifestyle that we have, thanks to the invention of agriculture and all that quickly followed, is very different. We are socially alienated because people are restless, and not content to stay near life-long friends and relatives. We are in constant danger because of constantly improving weapons technology. Conservatives blame progressives and progressives blame conservatives.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 22, 2005 22:22 PM
"anyone who cares about the suffering of others is foolish to even entertain discussion of "nature" in relation to that topic" Great Idea. Let's ignore nature. It solves all our problems. When we pay attention to "nature", for example, we are limited by pesky things like "conservation of energy". When we ignore it, however, like a good reformer should, we can make plans to satisfy all the energy needs of the world with a hamster and a wheel! I'm really not terribly sure how I am supposed to take seriously a recomendation to ignore the rules of physical reality.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jul 22, 2005 17:49 PM
perhaps "nature" will rise up against our folly It always does.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Zildus, Evan at Jul 22, 2005 11:46 AM
just a note... it's not obvious that nature intends anything. in fact, it should be pretty obvious that nature never intends anything, because "nature" is not an agent. people intend things. arguably, dogs and cats intend things. trees don't intend things, and fictions like "the natural order" certainly don't intend things. the point is that nature has nothing to do with arguments and discussions like these. what matters is whether or not you care that people are disenfranchised, whether or not you accept that they are, etc. stake out your values, make a case for them (preferably without vacuous or exclusively polemic notions such as the "natural order"), and comment on the way the world is. stating my own opinion, anyone who cares about the suffering of others is foolish to even entertain discussion of "nature" in relation to that topic. anyone who wants to perpetuate suffering and, perhaps, their own ignoring of it, would do "well" to bandy about 'nature' and any other wrench-in-honesty-and-reason's-machinery. there's no nature to speak of, only human values and human decisions. perhaps "nature" will rise up against our folly. if that happens, i doubt it will be because we didn't talk about it enough.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jul 21, 2005 14:59 PM
r4d20, "..eating is a natural instinct found in almost every human (see below). However, we have examples, like Ghandi, that humans can overcome this instinct. It takes dedication,..." Yes we can overcome nature sometimes, but it's almost always damaging, as in your example. Obviously nature intends us to eat for a good reason. Every time we try improving on nature, there are unanticipated unpleasant consequences. We would be happier living in nomadic tribes, with low population density. We would have clean air and water, close kinship relations, and plenty of exercise. The bad physical and mental health, and the social alienation, we see nowdays is not caused by an evil oppressive system. It is caused by PROGRESS. But we can't stop being clever and interfering with nature. I wish progressives would start to recognize that the source of our problems is progress itself. Why get angry at humans for being the clever species that messes things up? We need less self-righteous anger, more humility, and maybe we can start living a little more harmoniously with our world. We need some non-arrogant problem-solving.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 21, 2005 04:42 AM
"I don't accept the genetic premise, but I agree with your conclusion: that even if parecon isn't what human nature would choose on its own, it is superior to the alternatives and possible under human nature." I understand you're aversion to the "genetic premise" , but I have a feeling you probably misinterpreted me. I was not making any argument about Genetic Determiniation - nor was I claiming anything like that the nation-state in inevitable because of our genes. Further, unlike many people, I dont always equte "natural" with "better". Genes don't make any behaviour "inevitable" - certainly not any political structure. However, they DO make some behaviours come more easily and instinctually than others. Sure, "unnatural" behaviors can be learned, but it requires more effort and work than learning/reinforcing the more instinctual/"natural" ones. For example, I think we can agree that eating is a natural instinct found in almost every human (see below). However, we have examples, like Ghandi, that humans can overcome this instinct. It takes dedication, training, and commitment to "learn to unlearn" our deepist instincts - that type of self control is learned and NOT natural at all. It is difficult and not everyone will succeed - some will be bound by instincts for all their lives. Social reformers ignore this stuff to their peril - and to the peril of everyone around them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Cacioppo, Jonas at Jul 21, 2005 02:45 AM
One of the many wonderful things about this country is our wide range of freedoms. It therefore frightens me to no end that there are forces afoot seeking to divide us against each other in the name of 'national security' and our global 'mission'. The age-old method of divide and conquer is in high pace; though I subscribe to no ideology (as I view it as an unreasonable narrowing of thought), I see it to be the responsibility of progressive/liberal elements in our society to thwart extremism of any stripe and fascistic demagoguery in whatever name and to whatever end at its source.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Street, Paul at Jul 20, 2005 23:50 PM
ebogan you left out RAC's following 'sentence': "Period." Alright then, Roger. Thanks for your evidence-based sharing. The unpardonable ("despicable") sin of comment deletion is a bad move with people of the right so determined to discredit themselves. I'm not a Gore fan but the point is that Bush won through the bizarre intervention of the Supreme Court on 12/12/2000. The real count of intended votes in Florida was certainly on Gore's side and that's even without the felony/racial disenfranchisement issues that Palast and others have researched quite well. The best count of the November-December fiasco is Jeffrey Toobin, Too Close to Call (see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375761071/qid=1121891036/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-7275047-4872918) The best thing on Republican exploitation of "moral issues" (filling pseudo-populist space left by corporate Democratic abandonment of the people's moral-economy issues) is Tom Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas? (2004)....great book with weak/blind spots on race/racism and empire/"national security" issues. RAC ought to read these books (and much more) but won't because they are outside his moral ideological frames. When the ideological distance is as great as this (ie ZNet contra an RAC...totally irreconcilable), cross-frame arguing often strikes me as thoroughly pointless and a dysfunctional waste of time (not some sort of virtuous use of allegedly powerful free-speech space in supposedly public blog commenting sections) for both sides as facts become irrelevant in such "discourse." Curiously, little things like 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians and millions of desperately poor black and other US children pushed further into misery by radically regressive and imperial policies (all too bipartisan but with the Republicans worse by a not insignificant [in human terms] margin ) in the US don't seem to compute as "moral issues" in the rightwhite mindset. ebogan's thoroughly reasoned and obviously logical discussion of the forces that lead many folks of marginal economic position into the military simply does not compute with the socially constructed wiring/framing of the right-white Amerikanner mind. The point is not (I have to keep reminding myself) so much to argue with such folks as to spark people to grasp the threat they represent and the need to counter them. As I say we have to be real about who and what we are up against.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By The, Roger at Jul 20, 2005 22:20 PM
"He is wrong to equate supporting this bloody...war and occupation with "supporting the troops" Troops are meant to fight and defend your country. Period. Everyone who is in the army now is there because they CHOSE to be there. "...and (b) actual citizen opinion and sentiments in the US." Seriously now, if you really believed that then the GOP would not be in control of 3 branches of gov. It's that simple. If you want to know the truth however, read up on why the Left has lost connection with the moral values, culturally conservative, faith-based voters in the Red states. From Fr.Frank Pavone of Preists For Life: "Senate Democrats, especially those seeking reelection next year, should know that we will be watching them carefully. If they again attempt to attack a nominee's faith or pro-life convictions, their constituents will know about it and they will be held accountable." "The left's position on the war is closer to "mainstream" opinion than is RAC's" Which explains why the Green Party, the Socialist Parties, the Nader candidacy did so well last year...oh wait... And please: Bush Won. Gore Lost. Get over it. Justice John Roberts is a great man, one of whom we can all be proud of. A person of faith and great character. He's someone who was overwhelmingly backed by BOTH Democrats and Republicans on his way to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Bush nominated a mainstream conservative and true to his word, a uniter not a divider.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jul 20, 2005 22:12 PM
realpc actually said "nationalism...is all we have" In context, my statement obviously meant that our nations protect us from external enemies. There is nothing else that does that job, and our survival depends on it.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Street, Paul at Jul 20, 2005 19:16 PM
Oh my God, realpc actually said "nationalism...is all we have" (thanks for catching that Keir). And so his determination to ahistorically reduce the current ruling socioeconomic and imperial order to "natural design" and "human nature" undermines his declared liberalism and leads him to embrace the crude and authoritarian division of the glorious global human species along the blood-soaked lines of one of history's most murderous institutions: the nation state. Roger (RAC) is remarkably wrong in multiple and many-sided ways. 9/11/2001 did not "change everything" but rather exacerbated existing trends towards American empire and inequality, providing the ruling regime of 12/12/00 (date of the Supreme Court's illegal granting of the Gore-won Florida and hence US race to partisan ally Dubya) with a welcome pretext for invading a nation that had nothing to do with any terrorist threats to the US and its freedoms. It does not prove the relevance or legitimately defensive nature of American imperial expenditures but rather shows the danger posed to Americans by such expenditures and activities in the Middle East. The terrorist war on Iraq was not legitimately launched as part of a legitimate war on terror but rather used 9/11 as a pretext for undertaking an imperial project that was long pursued by key Buschon players, including Dubya his own bad self. Insofar as terrorists are on the march in Iraq, this is primarily due to the terrible and widely unpopular (even now in the US) American occupation of Iraq. The left's position on the war is closer to "mainstream" opinion than is RAC's. He is wrong to equate supporting this bloody, illegal, counter-productive and imperial war and occupation with "supporting the troops," who are badly victimized by the war and who are not supported by policymakers who send them to murder, die, and lose limbs for evil and officially unclear purposes. I love how RAC blinds himself to the shocking disconnect between (a) policy and the related party profile of current office-holding in the US and (b) actual citizen opinion and sentiments in the US. Justice John Roberts is a specific reactionary appointment being made by a remarkably unpopular and radically regressive and authoritarian second-term president whose core policy objectives (for example social security privatization and the remarkable deficit-generating and social-program-disabling combination of (a) plutocratic tax cuts for the rich and (b) expensive imperial war) are actually repudiated by most of the populace. bmainprize you are somewhat mildly defending one of the most preposterous and over-the-top rants in the history of modern bloggery. Reasonable comment deletion (and personally, I have deleted a total of maybe 5 comments out of probably more than --- I don't know--- 800 comments in a year plus of blogging...wow what a left authoritarian I am....what "terrible company" I must keep) is obviously and fundamentally legitimate in (a) cases of obscenity; (b) cases of threat; and (c) more controversially in the rare cases of obvious serial trollers who simply refuse to respond to criticism of their arguments. To give you one example of (c), the preposterous "yakov bok" (who has not been banned to my knowledge) has a long record of just right-flaming and refusing to engage criticisms of his generally ludicrous posts. He is all about de-railing and diverting and has no interest in dialogue or even providing elementary defense of his positions. The broad blogger community accepts the blogger's right to delete such nonsense (and I've killed a grand total of one yakov comment). Now just killing comments because you disagree (like I disagree with realpc and RAC in this post)...well, that would be ridiculous and self-defeating, though not technically disallowed. Anyone wants to be stupid enough to just delete every comment they reject...well, it is their right and it ain't my job to tell them how to run their own freaking blog but they are going to look moronic IMO. But equating the right of folks to use blog commenting space (here or anywhere else) however they wish with western Free Speech traditions and rights is technically absurd. It is sheer nonsense of the highest order. I would deny, say "yakov" (whoever that is..."yakov bok" is a character in a Bernard Malamud novel) his free speech rights if I somehow intervened (imagine) to deny him the ability to freely do his own blog or newssheet or web page or newspaper or whatever.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jul 20, 2005 17:27 PM
"the nation state is an historical and socially constructed formation and a significantly artificial reference group" There are various ways to define "nation." In the past it has meant a coalition of tribes within a geographic area. Now that we are genetically diverse we are not always united by tribal identity. But we have a core shared culture and value system. I understand some of the criticisms of the US and I am not a mindless defender. But I can also see that to these "reactionary" women, the US represents something they prefer to see as trustworthy and strong. Because the US system is what provides for and protects them and their babies, and everything they live for. Without the US to defend them, they (and all of us) are helpless. Radical progressives want to demolish the existing system and replace it with something they consider better. What the "reactionary" women hear in that statement is "DEMOLISH THE EXISTING SYSTEM." Looked at from their perspective, you are the enemy, I would like to add something: Complex systems evolve, they are seldom if ever created from scratch. In nature, design is always evolutionary, always building on what already exists. Even in human technology this is often true. One mistake radical revolutionaries make is in thinking society is an artificial system and therefore does not have to evolve naturally. But human society is part of nature -- even if it were an artificial system, it is too complex to design from scratch.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By The, Roger at Jul 20, 2005 17:12 PM
Well put RealPC. You did it better than I could. The fact of the matter is that these women are speaking from emotion; while they may be intellectually "inacurate" or "immature" perhaps, they do so from an instinctive reasoning: we (our nation, our civilization, our way of life) is under attack. Nameless bands of thugs and vicious terrorists are on the march in Iraq, London, and elsewhere. 911 changed everything for us as it proved that spending resources on our military was NOT just a big "waste of time" as the Left put it since the USSR fell, but still necessary to combat the war on Terror and those nations which support it. They see the Left (which should be described more accurately as the Chomsky-Far-Left) and see that it is not responding to the new times that we live in: that it generally does not support the war on terror, including the war in Iraq, do not support our troops This by no means is an attack on MAINSTREAM American liberals, such as most Democrats who ARE patriotic, DO support the war on terror, and do support the troops. This is only to show how much the far/extreme left is no longer connected with the American mainstream. I love how Street and others talk about how so many conservatives are "sympathetic" to their agenda as Republicans win election after election and control all 3 branches of government. Justice John Roberts is just another example of American becoming a more conservative country in the post 911 world.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Rubins_friend, Bmainprize at Jul 20, 2005 13:57 PM
"...no self righteous hyperbole on the Znet blog system and how other Znet bloggers choose to run their own blogs." Hyperbole no, a respect for openess yes. To delete comments of those we dislike because it is on "our dime" is rather silly. It smacks of "i'm taking my ball and going home, wah wah wah". Just reinforces the fear of an authoritarian left.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 20, 2005 03:46 AM
"realpc the nation state is an historical and socially constructed formation and a significantly artificial reference group that often provides illegitemate and timeworn sinister cover for authoritarian attacks on civilization" The most "natural" form of human arrangement is obviously the tribe - humans evolved from social primates, and so the species was litterally "born" into a tribal structure. The agritcultural revolution allowed for the creation of larger socieities, but those required another way of ordering things. The last 5000 years of history has been a chronicle of the various attempts to do this. So, while the nation-state may not be "natural", it is the current product of a natural process of experimentation. OF course, this doesn't mean that it's the best possible or that we can't do better. Anything that aims to replace it (including Parecon), however, will also be an UNNATURAL system (unless, of course, it advocates a return to nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers). When it comes to structuring society, sometimes "unnatural" is a good thing.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Street, Paul at Jul 20, 2005 02:07 AM
ebogan I must once again request that you not hold back in your assessment of the broad Euro-American populace and its controlling institutions. Joe I think I have contributed to a quality v. quantity confusion. Quantitatively, I'd say that you are right about how most Americans are not American like the at least partly jackbooted "Apple Pie" and that we do tend to overestimate and thereby enhance the spread of reactionary values. I guess what I think is that a lot of my progressive conversants seem not to want to acknowledge the extent to which the world view of those on the right (whatever their quantitative spread may be) has moved qualitatively into something that deserves to be considered proto-fascism. And one thing that is bothersome is that these hard nationalist authoritarians are often quite aggressively organized and political and so tend to wield influence beyond their numbers. I certainly don't think Americans are generally stupid and in fact I know hard rightists who are actually quite intelligent in their own dark way. A lot of the left quasi social democratic and relatedly anti-imperial opinion we can pick up from the optimism-generating polls that Chomsky and others (myself included) have cited to show the disconnect between policy and opinion tends to lose resolve when it comes to action. It's too passive. It's one thing to tell a pollster you support public welfare over imperial adventures and mass incarceration; it's another thing to march against those policies and (toughter still) to develop serious societal and policy alternatives to state-capitalist Empire and Inequality, Inc. If you are saying we need to get a lot more than 20 percent of potential recruits (is that what you mean by "sympathetic people?" must be) into left organizations and that if we did that would go a long way to marginalizing hard right sentiments, then we are in total agreement of course. I guess my point is not to demoralize people into giving up but to encourage improved efforts at such recruitment for people by trying to wake some folks up to the dark nature of the danger on the right. It Can't Happen Here? (the title of a strange 1935 Sinclair Lewis novel depicting the rise of fascism in U.S.). Yes it can, especially when people lose faith in acting on basically progressive ideals, thereby completing a core authoritarian project: Taking the Risk Out of Democracy (book by Alex Carey). realpc the nation state is an historical and socially constructed formation and a significantly artificial reference group that often provides illegitemate and timeworn sinister cover for authoritarian attacks on civilization. It also seems to divide people in ways that work against their necessary efforts at collective self-protection. I know you won't like this, but I would ask (not-so Americans as) "Apple Pie" to read your somewhat demonized scribblers Marx and Engels on how "the workingmen have no country." As it is now she seems a better candidate to be reading Mein Kampf or one of Stalin's discourses on socialism in one militarized state. But I think you are right to say that these women have legitimate human concerns that combine with understandable confusion to align them with some rather shocking ideas. I think there's generally a core kernel of genuine humanity beneath the darkest values and behaviors and no small amount of simple fear and confusion (much cultivated by "elites") at the heart of "the human condition."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jul 19, 2005 23:29 PM
The women you quoted are obviously unsophisticated and don't realize what they are saying. If you want to understand them, you have to read between the lines and consider their perspective, which is emotional not intellectual. These women are afraid of a terrible enemy, although they have no clear idea of who or what the enemy is (neither do any of us, I guess). They are afraid for themselves and for their babies and, as humans have done forever, look to the tribal leaders for protection. They want the "tribe" to stand together and they want the leaders to be brave and fierce. Of course they are wrong -- the US is not just a big tribe, but something far more complex. And the enemy is not a tribe either, but something undefined lacking any clear location or identity. The women you quoted are wrong, intellectually, but there is something natural and correct about their emotional perspective. Our survival is threatened, our civilization is under attack. If you do not identify with our crazy chaotic civilization (I admit I do not identify whole-heartedly myself), then you might be helping to undermine it. Nationalism has many faults, but it's all we really have. If our nation can't protect us, we are dead.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Street, Paul at Jul 19, 2005 19:34 PM
Not sure I understand Joe E's note. I'm not saying make the hard right the left's main focus. This is one blog among hundreds of my writings, most of which are about the "power elite," and I hope I introduced the issue reasonably by framing it as an example of the extent to which authoritarian thought is going among some post-9/11 Americans --- something I find some of my fellow progressives to possibly (maybe I'm wrong) be underestimating. Self-demoralization is a choice (and a bad and self-fulfilling one) and I think non-demoralized left thinkers and activists should adopt Gramsci's formula: "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will." Left will's effectiveness is enhanced by having a full grasp (however "pessimistic" if that's the right word) of who and what we're up against. And extreme nationalist authoritarianism among a part of the populace --- something a little deeper than what Joe E. calls "the hardest nuts" --- is part of what we're up against. And like I said, review the part where I say that I hear this sort of thinking and rhetoric in "mainstream" media. Counseling silence on uncomfortable issues because of fear that leftists will choose demoralization strikes me as something of a slippery slope and I counsel stepping back from that position. As for drawing in Apple Pie (AP)...not likely, to say the least...but people on the right will occasionally surprise. Note, however, the decent commentary from the fellow from San Diego (SD). AP and SD may have the same party affiliation but they're not the same. AP is a radical reactionary, willing to speak (whether she knows it or not) in openly proto-fascist terms. SD is more of a true American conservative who senses the conflict between his small-r republican ideals and (for him) radical, "out of control" American imperialism and militarism. SD's not-at-all likely to become a leftist, to be sure, but he is someone to collaborate with in seeking to roll back the sorrowful excesses of the bipartisan (as Bacevich argues) new American imperialism-militarism. That rollback is a necessary part of the left project.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Street, Paul at Jul 19, 2005 04:29 AM
r4d20 (whoever is behind that alias), I've clashed with you on various things in the past but I don't recall thinking you were a right winger. Anyway I see occasional agreements across right-left ideological divides as when I got the following note from an older gentleman, a self-described "conservative" in San Diego who wrote to say: "Dear Mr. Street:" "I have just read a review of your new book. I hope you are reassured by the political breadth of opinion regarding America fulfilling Eisenhower's grim vision of the military-industrial complex." "For example, I am a political conservative, but couldn't agree with you more about the evolution of our foreign policy toward an arrogant imperialism. We would do far better to stand down in the Middle East, and start getting our domestic house in order." "What an irony Peter -- that $300 BILLION dollars dumped into the Iraqi sand along with the bodies of American servicemen could go a long ways toward helping us both guard against, and help us find, those terrorist nukes in the US." "Jefferson was right, and now is the time for United States citizens to bring this out-of-control national government in check. I believe that there is a broad consensus on this point among the electorate that can be activated by good people standing up and speaking the uncomfortable truth as you have done. Both the Right and Left would discover friends they didn't realize they had!" He's right. I've long run into and made some friends among some true conservatives, who are horrified by what they perceived as the radicalism of the in-power and modern day hard-right Republicans authoritarians. I suggested to him that he would enjoy Andrew Bacevich's latest book The New American Militarism (2004). Bacevich is a West Point graduate who calls himself a conservative and he tends to misrepresent some left positions but he happens to have penned some very incisive criticism and analysis of bipartisan US militarism and he is properly disgusted by the Buschon project at home and abroad.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Right Down the Middle...How Sweet Would That Be:" Dark Reflections From Some New American Moms

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 19, 2005 03:59 AM
You know what is REALLY a shame. By your standards I am a right winger, but the hell if I can identify with these idiots. It's not just liberals they want to lock up either - the rightwingers even view the more socially liberal and accepting Republicans as "liberals in disguise". This new Inquisition is, to me, the scariest, and most frustrating, aspect of the modern Republican party. It is scary because it attacks the foundation of our democracy - a democracy is impossible when orthodoxy is the highest value. IT is frustrating because it shows that the Republicans have completely adopted the tactics of the same "PC thugs" that turned me off to left-wing politics as a youth. The same people who opposed "left-wing indoctrination" in College are now supporting right-wing indoctrination. What happened to people against any indoctrination? What happened to people to can say "I did/didn't support the war and you felt the opposite, but NEITHER of us is un-American or bad. We just see the world differently".

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (79)

Loading_border