Printed from Urbana-Champaign IMC : http://127.0.0.1/
UCIMC Independent Media 
Center
Media Centers

[topics]
biotech

[regions]
united states

oceania

germany

[projects]
video
satellite tv
radio
print

[process]
volunteer
tech
process & imc docs
mailing lists
indymedia faq
fbi/legal updates
discussion

west asia
palestine
israel
beirut

united states
worcester
western mass
virginia beach
vermont
utah
urbana-champaign
tennessee
tampa bay
tallahassee-red hills
seattle
santa cruz, ca
santa barbara
san francisco bay area
san francisco
san diego
saint louis
rogue valley
rochester
richmond
portland
pittsburgh
philadelphia
omaha
oklahoma
nyc
north texas
north carolina
new orleans
new mexico
new jersey
new hampshire
minneapolis/st. paul
milwaukee
michigan
miami
maine
madison
la
kansas city
ithaca
idaho
hudson mohawk
houston
hawaii
hampton roads, va
dc
danbury, ct
columbus
colorado
cleveland
chicago
charlottesville
buffalo
boston
binghamton
big muddy
baltimore
austin
atlanta
arkansas
arizona

south asia
mumbai
india

oceania
sydney
perth
melbourne
manila
jakarta
darwin
brisbane
aotearoa
adelaide

latin america
valparaiso
uruguay
tijuana
santiago
rosario
qollasuyu
puerto rico
peru
mexico
ecuador
colombia
chile sur
chile
chiapas
brasil
bolivia
argentina

europe
west vlaanderen
valencia
united kingdom
ukraine
toulouse
thessaloniki
switzerland
sverige
scotland
russia
romania
portugal
poland
paris/ăŽle-de-france
oost-vlaanderen
norway
nice
netherlands
nantes
marseille
malta
madrid
lille
liege
la plana
italy
istanbul
ireland
hungary
grenoble
galiza
euskal herria
estrecho / madiaq
cyprus
croatia
bulgaria
bristol
belgrade
belgium
belarus
barcelona
austria
athens
armenia
antwerpen
andorra
alacant

east asia
qc
japan
burma

canada
winnipeg
windsor
victoria
vancouver
thunder bay
quebec
ottawa
ontario
montreal
maritimes
london, ontario
hamilton

africa
south africa
nigeria
canarias
ambazonia

www.indymedia.org

This site
made manifest by
dadaIMC software
&
the friendly folks of
AcornActiveMedia.com

Comment on this article | View comments | Email this Article
News :: Civil & Human Rights
Naomi Klein speaks at NCMR Current rating: 0
13 May 2005
This is an excerpt from a panel at the NCMR
which focused on News, Information and the
Corporate Media. It is 27 minutes 15 seconds
and 28.4 meg MP3.

Naomi Klein.mp3
Naomi Klein is a journalist and author of the best seller No Logo. She writes a syndicated Column in The Nation, The Guardian and other publications. She was a Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics and is currently a Freda Kirchway Fellow of the Nation Institute. Naomi has done groundbreaking work documenting worker co-operatives in Argentina when the national currency collapsed. She is also Canadian.
See also:
http://www.nologo.org/
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Re: Naomi Klein speaks at NCMR
Current rating: 0
14 May 2005
Ain't But One Way Out
Naomi Klein's "Courage"
By MICHAEL NEUMANN

Naomi Klein, in a recent article posted on In These Times, tells us "How to end the war". She says we need to know the reasons for it, that these are exposed by the US' pursuit of military bases and Iraqi oil wealth. She says that we should struggle for what the Iraqis themselves want, meaningful self-determination and real democracy, buttressed by respect of international law. Her essay pretty well collects in one place everything that is wrong with so much left-wing thinking right now.

What's wrong?

First, to end the war, we do not need to know the real reasons for it. That's historical research, not political planning. It's like saying that, for the allies to win World War II, they needed to know Hitler's real reasons for making it. These reasons are still debated--A.J.P.Taylor introduced major competition to the naked aggression thesis--yet the war is long won. This is not nit-picking; it exemplifies the left's obsession with pointless, endless, fruitless analysis.

Second, Klein's claims about what counts as evidence for what are feeble. Of course, when one country invades another on a shoestring budget--and the whole point of Rumsfeld's policies was to make war on the cheap--then its first priorities will be to:

(1) make the place safe for your own forces, so that the political and economic cost of the war doesn't spiral out of control, and

(2) use the country's assets--in this case oil--to pay your way. So the invasion's activities were dictated by the invasion's budget, and are no indication of any ultimate objectives.(*) As for making the place safe for foreign investment, that is a third, more long-term priority along the same lines: get the private sector to do the reconstruction, which would otherwise cost far more than the US could ever afford. This is classic creepy-Republican wishful thinking and again has nothing to do with any ultimate objectives.

Third, Klein makes much of the insincerity of US democracy-rhetoric about Iraq. Well, duh. What has this to do with anything? Everyone but some few Americans know this, and those few Americans are either too steeped in their prejudices to be moved, or don't really give a damn whether the US is out to make Iraq into a democracy. They are far more concerned about kicking terrorist butt and generally showing the world that America is boss. Their motives are pure 9-11 reaction.

Fourth, Klein tells us we should have the courage to be serious, and then recommends what might as well be frivolity. She tells us that "the core fight is over respect for international law". Nope, international law is a non-starter, because there is no overriding, neutral sovereign to enforce it. What Klein is asking us to respect is in reality no more than a bunch of sentences expressing good wishes, articulated by courts and lawyers without the slightest authority because, in the real world, authority rests on naked power. No, the core fight is to get the US out of Iraq, isn't it? Which would be preferable: the US leaving Iraq tomorrow, and remaining completely contemptuous of international law, or leaving in five years, imbued with the deepest respect for international law? Klein's priorities are just a case of political ADD.

Fifth, Klein's position is drawn and quartered by the tug-of-war between her wish to avoid Bush's nation-building and her embrace of that very doctrine. First she says: "The future of the anti-war movement requires that it become a pro-democracy movement. Our marching orders have been given to us by the people of Iraq... We need to take our direction from them."

Then she says: "We need to support the people of Iraq and their clear demands for an end to both military and corporate occupation. ...It doesn't mean blindly cheerleading for "the resistance." Because there isn't just one resistance in Iraq... Not everyone fighting the U.S. occupation is fighting for the freedom of all Iraqis; some are fighting for their own elite power. That's why we need to stay focused on supporting the demands for self-determination, not cheering any setback for U.S. empire."

Then she says: "Anybody who says Iraqis don't want democracy should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Iraqis are clamoring for democracy and had risked their lives for it long before this invasion-in the 1991 uprising against Saddam, for example, when they were left to be slaughtered. The elections in January took place only because of tremendous pressure from Iraqi Shia communities that insisted on getting the freedom they were promised."

It's confusing, but I get it: getting the US out of Iraq is not really our first priority. It's getting the US out of Iraq *on our terms*. Who's 'we'? Well, 'we' support democracy, which means supporting, not all Iraqis, but the Iraqis who support democracy. The other Iraqis are bad: they just want to support 'their own [now conspicuously absent] Ă©lite power.' Worse, "Some elements of the armed resistance are targeting Iraqi civilians as they pray in Shia mosques-barbaric acts that serve the interests of the Bush administration by feeding the perception that the country is on the brink of civil war and therefore U.S. forces must remain in Iraq." So we support the people who want democracy, and who don't attack the Shia. We support the people who really want democracy, namely the nice Shia (not any nasty ones who want a theocracy) and, though she does not mention them, the Kurds. In other words, we support exactly the elements of the population Bush supports, and whatever other nice people we can find. It's all very well for Klein to talk of a 'responsible agenda' for withdrawal and even reparations, but if she's really committed to democracy in Iraq, she is committed to large parts of the US government's current policies.

This is pure bone-headed American ideology all over again. Of course the Shia communities wanted elections--wouldn't you, if that was your gateway to power? Sure they revolted in 1991--we are told they wanted Saddam Hussein off their backs, and thought they saw their chance. None of this shows that Iraqis have the American left's infantile commitment to a system of government which, in America itself, has been a miserable failure. Democracy, if it works anywhere, seems to work best in very settled, very prosperous countries--like those of Western Europe, at least before it got riled up about its immigrants. Iraq is no such place.

There's more. If Klein were not as arrogant as Bush, she would be the first to stress that she knows nothing about Iraq or what the Iraqis want, rather than trumpeting her great certainty on that subject. She would not produce embarrassing nonsense like "Now Iraqis are struggling for the tools that will make self-determination meaningful...". For one thing, 'self-determination' is comical: do the Iraqi Kurds want it in the same sense that the other Iraqis do? It is like the joke (yes, joke) that Kant reports: Two kings, Francis I of France and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, both want Milan. Francis proclaims a harmonious convergence of interest: "what my brother Charles wants, I want too." For another thing, in our ignorance of Iraq, shouldn't we tend to go with the obvious? Savage resistance to an invasion is usually taken to mean that the resisters want the invaders out of there. It is usually taken, not as a struggle to make self-determination meaningful, but as a struggle for self-determination.

Quite possibly Iraqis do want what Klein apparently considers the prerequisites of meaningfulness: "freedom from debt for Iraq, a total abandonment of Bremer's illegal economic laws, full Iraqi control over the reconstruction budget". Quite possibly they want many other things. But haven't quite a few Iraqis been telling and showing us that, first and foremost, they want the Americans out, period, not only if the departure is meaningful? Doesn't their first priority seem to be, not some search for meaning, but the killing of America's soldiers and lackeys? Is there something unclear about this message, or something I missed? Have the Iraqis expressed passionate longings for the American left to pick and choose among the factions in their country?

Throughout, Klein lacks precisely what she says we should have: the courage to be serious. What sort of courage does it take to demonstrate for True Democracy? Klein has not even asked the hard question. If she wants democracy so much--because, just like Bush and Blair, she absolutely knows those pitiful little Iraqis are pining for democracy--just when and how should the US withdraw its troops? Presumably the answer must be: once they have made Iraq safe for democracy. This would mean withdrawing once the 'democratic Iraqis' are strong enough to prevail over the undemocratic Iraqis, who seem to be quite powerful and well-organized. This would certainly require US military assistance, perhaps for years, or the introduction of other military forces to do the same thing, e.g. getting the UN or NATO to spell off the American invaders. (If Klein thinks that, somewhere in the universe, there are decorous, respectful, virtually nonviolent troops ready to somehow neutralize Klein's and Bush's 'bad guys'; this is another fantasy.) So Klein's courage consists in asking for pretty much what Bush is giving her.

Yes, Klein is sincere, she wants real democracy, she supports the truly democratic elements, and Bush is insincere. But in the end it is a difference that makes no difference. If you insist on bringing democracy to Iraq--always protesting that this is what the Iraqis themselves want--you will have to beat the anti-democratic elements you both deplore, and this will mean US bases and American soldiers shedding Iraqi blood. Any sincerity infusing these policies, and their ultimate objectives, is so much posturing over the same vicious meddling.

Getting Serious

The courage to be serious would mean something quite different. It would mean, not this bloodless, venti-decaf-latte substitute for passion, but real hatred of America's actions and single-minded, furious determination to get every last 'coalition' soldier off Iraqi soil, as soon as possible, by any means necessary. No ifs ands or buts about democracy, just get them out. Anyone who really believed in the Iraqis' right to their own damn country would not be fussing about whether their projected form of government or mode of self-determination matched American leftist ideals. This in none of our business, not least because it is mere insolence to presume that we know what the Iraqis want or how they should get it. It takes years to know a country, and, if one doesn't live there, at least long study, bolstered by fluency in the country's language. Only American yahoos, of all political stripes, would think otherwise.

"How to end the war?" Neither I nor Klein know how, but trying involves real, angry, nasty opposition, something a government might be concerned about. It cannot be built on a demand for withdrawal hedged with cherrypicking among which Iraqis 'give us our marching orders'. Real opposition requires something beyond reasoned persuasion; the utter impotence of the utterly reasonable left has shown as much. It is not a matter of discovering what documents which neocon produced in 1990. It is not a matter of billions and billions of emails, insulating us from the world like so much pink fiberglass. It is not a matter of blandly 'building constituencies', but of using the constituency that we already have, that we are. It is a couse of action which demonstrates that this war disgusts us, that we will stop at nothing to end it, and that we couldn't care less if it tears our country apart. The US should just leave, now, and we should all just shut up about democracy in Iraq. Decisions about policing belong to Iraqis and perhaps international agencies, whether or not these agencies have the slightest commitment to a democracy, and not to Americans of any political stripe. That's a clear message on which clear, resolute, all-out opposition can be built.

The courage to be serious also means not 'supporting our troops'. This support really has become obnoxious. We have just been treated to dozens of Vietnam commemorative pieces. The best of them make some mention of the three million Vietnamese we killed, and perhaps the Vietnamese children who, thanks to Agent Orange, must live some sort of life in hideous deformity. But on the left as on the right, it is all too common for the piece to be built around some loveable Vietnam vet. A recent Nation article, for instance, we meet

"Mike Sulsona, a former Marine... just back from his first trip to Vietnam since the war. He was excited because he surprised himself by liking it there this time and because he was pleased with the research he did for a play he wants to write about an Army tank driver."

We learn that

'Back in Ho Chi Minh City, the old Saigon, Sulsona was rolling his chair down a crowded sidewalk before his return to New York. He almost collided with a Vietnamese man, also in a wheelchair, rolling in the opposite direction, trying to sell lottery tickets. Recognizing each other by their differentness from everyone else and similarity to each other, the two paraplegics stopped rolling. The Vietnam veteran and the Vietnamese veteran wheeled their chairs to face each other as they might once have done with weapons.

'Neither knew many words in the other's language, but they spoke briefly, haltingly, enough for Sulsona to determine the other man had also been in the war. "Suddenly, we began laughing," Sulsona said. "Heavy belly laughs. I have no idea if he was in the South Vietnamese Army fighting for our side, or in the Viet Cong, or had come down with the North Vietnamese Army... Does it make a difference? We were laughing and laughing and couldn't stop, couldn't help ourselves, just a couple of guys who got fucked up in the war. ...Neither of us could stop laughing. I mean, what was all that about, anyway?"'

Heck, that sure is a nice send-off for bathing a country in fire and poison: let's pause and reflect on how gosh-darn crazy war is. It's exactly the slimy, war-is-hell-and-we're-just-human cop-out that endears so many to the Korean-war wackiness of M*A*S*H, which first aired three years before the fall of Saigon.

This is not compassion; it is cowardice. Unless you are a third force, with decisive power to affect the world situation, in a war you must take one side or the other. The left is no such third force. We are for the American invasion of Iraq, and the troops that effect it, or we are against it. To be serious is to acknowledge that one can't always pick and choose. We could not have seriously said, "we support the war against Hitler, but oppose Stalin", because that, taken seriously, would have been silly. Are you going to fight Stalin? Then you help Hitler. Are you not going to fight Stalin? Then who gives a damn what you 'oppose'?

If we support the troops, that means we don't want them to be killed, and we support their efforts to protect themselves, at least until such time--months, years?--as they can withdraw. In other words, we are against the Iraqis who attack them. We are for the deaths of the attackers, and anyone else who gets caught in crossfire as American troops fight back. If not, how is our support 'meaningful'?

We make patronizing excuses for 'our' soldiers: they are poor, ignorant, oppressed, deceived by recruiters, they are canon-fodder, they are everything that has formed the backbone of evil armies since the dawn of history. They are everything, that is, but adults, responsible for their decisions. As a consequence of these decisions, they have come thousands of miles to kill and mutilate people who did them no harm. If we--to use Klein's idiom--'meaningfully' support 'our' troops, we 'meaningfully' support the rape of Iraq, however much we bleat about the right and proper, partisan and time-consuming way to bring the boys home. The courage to be serious means the courage to make hard choices. Do we have it?


* * *

(*) Yes, some of the bases look permanent. Sure, the US government would like to have them forever, who wouldn't? Countries like to be powerful, and seize on the opportunity to extend their power. But it is quite a stretch to suppose that the US invaded Iraq for these bases when, at far less cost of every kind, they could have built them elsewhere in the region.

Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. Professor Neumann's views are not to be taken as those of his university. His book What's Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche has just been republished by Broadview Press. He contributed the essay, "What is Anti-Semitism", to CounterPunch's book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. In September 2005, CounterPunch/AK Press will publish Neumann's new book, The Case Against Israel. He can be reached at: mneumann (at) trentu.ca.
Political Toxicity of the Ultras
Current rating: 0
14 May 2005
It never ceases to amaze me how some people insist that only the most ultra-orthodox left viewpoints are worthy of support.

The fact of the matter is that politics is all about persuading those in the middle of an issue to come over to our side. Neumann probably alienates far more of those people than he persuades. We could do with fewer people like him shooting the rest of us in the foot.

Even more infuriating is the fact that Neumann implies that Naomi Klein must somehow secretly support the war in her heart if she doesn't toe Neumann's line. This line of argument divides progressives, as well as alienating potential opponents of the war. What was he thinking? What was whoever posted this as some sort of credible reply to Klein thinking? Perhaps they are worried about their own ideological purity more than anything else. In practical terms, Neumann's view on this is as irrelevant as whether or not he has jock itch. The rest of us really would rather discuss and support a position that is likely to build opposition to the war, rather than scattering the sterile seeds of sectarianism as Neumann does.
Torture’s Dirty Secret: It Works
Current rating: 0
14 May 2005
I recently caught a glimpse of the effects of torture in action at an event honoring Maher Arar. The Syrian-born Canadian is the world’s most famous victim of “rendition,” the process by which US officials outsource torture to foreign countries. Arar was switching planes in New York when US interrogators detained him and “rendered” him to Syria, where he was held for ten months in a cell slightly larger than a grave and taken out periodically for beatings.

Arar was being honored for his courage by the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, a mainstream advocacy organization. The audience gave him a heartfelt standing ovation, but there was fear mixed in with the celebration. Many of the prominent community leaders kept their distance from Arar, responding to him only tentatively. Some speakers were unable even to mention the honored guest by name, as if he had something they could catch. And perhaps they were right: The tenuous “evidence”—later discredited—that landed Arar in a rat-infested cell was guilt by association. And if that could happen to Arar, a successful software engineer and family man, who is safe?

In a rare public speech, Arar addressed this fear directly. He told the audience that an independent commissioner has been trying to gather evidence of law-enforcement officials breaking the rules when investigating Muslim Canadians. The commissioner has heard dozens of stories of threats, harassment and inappropriate home visits. But, Arar said, “not a single person made a public complaint. Fear prevented them from doing so.” Fear of being the next Maher Arar.

The fear is even thicker among Muslims in the United States, where the Patriot Act gives police the power to seize the records of any mosque, school, library or community group on mere suspicion of terrorist links. When this intense surveillance is paired with the ever-present threat of torture, the message is clear: You are being watched, your neighbor may be a spy, the government can find out anything about you. If you misstep, you could disappear onto a plane bound for Syria, or into “the deep dark hole that is Guantánamo Bay,” to borrow a phrase from Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

But this fear has to be finely calibrated. The people being intim-idated need to know enough to be afraid but not so much that they demand justice. This helps explain why the Defense Department will release certain kinds of seemingly incriminating information about Guantánamo—pictures of men in cages, for instance—at the same time that it acts to suppress photographs on a par with what escaped from Abu Ghraib. And it might also explain why the Pentagon approved the new book by a former military translator, including the passages about prisoners being sexually humiliated, but prevented him from writing about the widespread use of attack dogs. This strategic leaking of information, combined with official denials, induces a state of mind that Argentines describe as “knowing/not knowing,” a vestige of their “dirty war.”

“Obviously, intelligence agents have an incentive to hide the use of unlawful methods,” says the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer. “On the other hand, when they use rendition and torture as a threat, it’s undeniable that they benefit, in some sense, from the fact that people know that intelligence agents are willing to act unlawfully. They benefit from the fact that people understand the threat and believe it to be credible.”

And the threats have been received. In an affidavit filed with an ACLU court challenge to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, Nazih Hassan, president of the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor, Michigan, describes this new climate. Membership and attendance are down, donations are way down, board members have resigned—Hassan says his members fear doing anything that could get their names on lists. One member testified anonymously that he has “stopped speaking out on political and social issues” because he doesn’t want to draw attention to himself.

This is torture’s true purpose: to terrorize—not only the people in Guantánamo’s cages and Syria’s isolation cells but also, and more important, the broader community that hears about these abuses. Torture is a machine designed to break the will to resist—the individual prisoner’s will and the collective will.

This is not a controversial claim. In 2001 the US NGO Physicians for Human Rights published a manual on treating torture survivors that noted: “perpetrators often attempt to justify their acts of torture and ill treatment by the need to gather information. Such conceptualizations obscure the purpose of torture….The aim of torture is to dehumanize the victim, break his/her will, and at the same time, set horrific examples for those who come in contact with the victim. In this way, torture can break or damage the will and coherence of entire communities.”

Yet despite this body of knowledge, torture continues to be debated in the United States as if it were merely a morally questionable way to extract information, not an instrument of state terror. But there’s a problem: No one claims that torture is an effective interrogation tool—least of all the people who practice it. Torture “doesn’t work. There are better ways to deal with captives,” CIA director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16. And a recently declassified memo written by an FBI official in Guantánamo states that extreme coercion produced “nothing more than what FBI got using simple investigative techniques.” The Army’s own interrogation field manual states that force “can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

And yet the abuses keep on coming—Uzbekistan as the new hot spot for renditions; the “El Salvador model” imported to Iraq. And the only sensible explanation for torture’s persistent popularity comes from a most unlikely source. Lynndie England, the fall girl for Abu Ghraib, was asked during her botched trial why she and her colleagues had forced naked prisoners into a human pyramid. “As a way to control them,” she replied.

Exactly. As an interrogation tool, torture is a bust. But when it comes to social control, nothing works quite like torture.


Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies (Picador) and, most recently, Fences and Windows: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (Picador).

Copyright © 2005 The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/
Re: Naomi Klein speaks at NCMR
Current rating: 0
14 May 2005
Opposition to the war has been building for three years -- even longer if you accept that the war mongering hit its stride upon the annointment of the killers in the white house.

And the war rages out of control.

The situation in Iraq offers no evidence that any of the efforts in amerika to stop the war has had the slightest impact. It's actually far worse than that, with bush-cheney-rumsfeld-haliburton-lockheed-etal now drooling over Syria and Iran. There is no end in sight.

"Discussing and supporting a position that is likely to build opposition to the war" is what has been going on for years. If you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you've got. It's time to push out into other courses of action.

In some ways, modern progressive thought and "action" can be seen as 40 years old at this point. 1965 -- the civil rights movement his its full stride, opposition to the war in Vietnam ignited, radicalism took root (Black Panthers, SDS et al).

And today, four decades down the line, what do we see?

Republicans controlling the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

Democratcs are indistinguishable from republicans.

The corporations control virtually everthing, including the media.

Right wing religious fanaticism is in the ascendency.

War in Afghanistan, Iraq.

Militaristic oppression all over the globe, sponsored by we truly.

Disappearance of civil liberties and human rights in amerika, not to mention our military prisons that dot the planet.

When will the mainstream left acknowledge the impotence of its methods?
Ideological Pretension vs. Political Pragmatism
Current rating: 0
14 May 2005
Some fool writes:
"When will the mainstream left acknowledge the impotence of its methods?"

The work that the "mainstream left" has done in the last 10 years in this country is the only reason things aren't far worse than they are. It sure as hell isn't the Democratic 'Leadership' Council that is leading opposition to the war. And it sure as hell isn't you, malatesta.

The left is finally getting some traction with the masses. It is growing, because it has broken out of the straitjacket of ideologically pretensious purity that you are promoting here by employing the tactic of political pragmatism.

I can't help but laugh at your insinuation that Neumann and you are somehow more dedicated to the cause of peace than Naomi Klein is.

Your position is an example of how persistent , but marginalized elements of the left have some sort of misguided and ahistorical nostaligia for clinging to a particular party line in hopes that the masses will follow them into the revolution some day. Well, someday, someone might come up with the pure line that will overcome ignorance and political naivety. It sure isn't the self-defeating BS you're peddling here.

Your position is another good example of why the left shouldn't waste its time on firing squads --- because people like you always somehow manage to line up the firing squad in a circle, while the real enemy snickers behind your back.
Re: Naomi Klein speaks at NCMR
Current rating: 0
14 May 2005
Saying that things could be worse means nothing. Things could always be worse. What matters is that the ruling class and the warmongers, the corporate thieves and the cultural fascists still run the show. Sure, it’s nice and comforting to know that a few people’s lives have been marginally improved, but that leaves billions – billions – of people on the planet mired in famine and war.

What’s really pitiful is that the left has been so thoroughly and gleefully co-opted by the right. “Support the troops” is a wonderful example. The right demanded that this time around – as opposed to Vietnam – the left refrained from placing responsibility on the soldiers who do the shooting, the torturing, the bombing. And the left bought without a peep. Jane Fonda goes on national tv to repent for her trip to Hanoi. And while the right uses this as another opportunity to attack her, they rejoice that they’ve crammed their orthodoxy down her throat.

Nobody’s insinuating that people aren’t sincere in their nausea at the war and injustice. It’s about tactics, about taking an approach that actually accomplishes the main objective. The war rages on. The amerikan left comforts itself with picket signs and candlelight vigils, while the people die in Iraq. Try telling them that without you their lives would be even worse.

My bullshit might be self-defeating, but at least I’m not meekly allowing myself to be defeated by the war machine.
This is ashame...
Current rating: 0
15 May 2005
I'm ashamed that war is made into a partisan issue and people that stand against murder are attacked by public relations experts.

There is always a choice and you don't have to write or post rhetoric that dehumanizes and alienates entire ethnic groups.

Using the media to stage future wars by marginalizing any credible voice should be a violation of international human rights conventions.

People need to remember how atrocities are systematically carried out and reinforced by propaganda experts.

Please wage war on another website
and leave the Canadians alone!
Re: Naomi Klein speaks at NCMR
Current rating: 0
19 May 2005
"And the left bought without a peep. Jane Fonda goes on national tv to repent for her trip to Hanoi. And while the right uses this as another opportunity to attack her, they rejoice that they’ve crammed their orthodoxy down her throat."

You've missed the interview on 60 Minutes and are repeating spin. Fonda didn't apologize for going to Hanoi. She was quite clear about the dykes and other issues in Vietnam. She did apologize, yet again, for the photo.

The 60 Minutes interview which has led so many who should know better to spin it was severely edited due to 60 turning a half hour over to the Pope dying.

In other formats, Letterman, et al, she's been able to speak at length. But even on 60 Minutes, she refused to apologize for her activism or for going to Vietnam. (Nor should she.)
Re: Naomi Klein speaks at NCMR
Current rating: 0
20 May 2005
Okay, I stand corrected on Jane. Doesn't change a thing. The left is protesting the war within the allowable limits of dissent -- dictated by the war party.