Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn June 2003 I wrote about how General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, was shunted aside by the arrogant civilians running Defense--Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith. ( I post the blog below.)
Reading between the lines of his 2003 Farewell Address, Shinseki blasted these men---men who not only exaggerated the threat Iraq posed, but gravely underestimated the problems of postwar occupation.
On December 7th, the 67th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President-Elect Obama will nominate the retired General-- the highest ranking Asian-American in US military history (he is Japanese-American)-- to head the Department of Veteran Affairs. The Department, second largest after Defense (with 240,000 employees) administers health and other benefits for active military and veterans. It is underfunded, antiquated and stretched to the breaking point by a war this country should never have waged.
As Joshua Kors has reported in his award-winning Nation series, we've seen a stunning pattern of benefit denials to veterans by the Department of Veteran Affairs. Misdiagnosing PTSD as preexisting "personality disorder"--in an effort to save funds on the backs of worthy vets-- is a travesty that the Department and new administration must address with sustained commitment and bring to a full stop.
Fortunately, Kors' reporting in The Nation has led to congressional hearings, an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act and, crucially, payment of back benefits for the men and women who've served their nation. Let's work with Shinseki to repair the damage done to veterans' lives, health and well-being-- and ensure that those who understand the brutality of war don't escalate another futile one in Afghanistan.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=759 ===================================== 06/16/2003 @ 5:06pm
A General's Farewell by Katrina vanden Heuvel
Remember General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, who warned that occupying Iraq might require hundreds of thousands of soldiers for an extended period? He was immediately reprimanded by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz for being "wildly off the mark."
It's now two months since Baghdad fell, no WMD's have been found and US forces are bogged down in Iraq. American generals, happy to boast about the rapid defeat of Saddam's regime, now admit the war is far from over. The other night, General Barry McCaffrey predicted that US troops would be in Iraq for five years and warned that three divisions of the National Guard might be needed to reinforce Army divisions already deployed. And Lieutenant General David McKiernan, commander of US ground forces in Iraq, recently said his troops would be needed for a long time to come, that Baghdad and a large swathe of northern and western Iraq is only a "semi-permissive" environment, and that "subversive forces" are still active.
Since Bush strutted onto the USS Lincoln to declare "Mission Accomplished," more than forty Americans have been killed with many more wounded, (sixty-six have been killed since the fall of Baghdad on April 9.) No wonder General Shinseki--the highest-ranking Asian- American in US military history--retired the other day with a blast at the arrogance of the Pentagon's civilian leaders:
"You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader," he said. "You can certainly command without that sense of commitment, but you cannot lead without it. And without leadership, command is a hollow experience, a vacuum often filled with mistrust and arrogance."
Read between the lines. The Army chief of staff is telling us that men like Donald Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are arrogant commanders, who not only exaggerated the threat Iraq posed but gravely underestimated the problems of postwar occupation. Americans would do well to heed General Shinseki's final warning.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
As an anti war Japanese American, I can't think of a better way to honor the dead at Pearl Harbor than to nominate General Shinseki. He has a big job ahead of him and I wish him well for the sake of our troops.
Maya FortLeft (mhasegawa.wordpress.com)
Posted by mayah at 12/07/2008 @ 07:23am
Yet another great pick by Obama, here is a General who wasn't afraid to tell the truth and there weren't many out there that had the guts to do that against Bush and the gang. He will do a good job in this position a man who really cares about and understands the troops needs. The right may not like it, but Obama is putting together one hell of a good team and he will show them all what a "real" President looks like. I assume I will be shot down by the righteous right once this is posted, but do I care...not a jot!!
Posted by Caj at 12/07/2008 @ 07:51am
So are we going to get some Purist complaining that Obama should have named Medea Benjamin SecVA and "not some militarist"?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 12/07/2008 @ 08:13am
Justice does have a way of trickling in. A drop here and a drop there, then a stream, a river and the tide changes.
I can't help but relate this to a very recent statement: "...I didn't know if he was arrogant or ignorant or both. And during the trial and through this proceeding, I got this answer, and it was both."
The hsuB/cHeney admin have directed much much worse crimes and to millions more families here and across the world than those two destroyed and the only reason the hsuB/cHeney admin aren't already in prison is that they're corporate white repub new cons.
Fixing the V A is not only going to require billions if not trillions more in funding, but lets talk about a recession and a bail out--- of intelligence and conscience... Obama has been attempting to answer that question: where can that ever print that up again...
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/07/2008 @ 09:34am
er, ": where can 'we' ever print that up again..."
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/07/2008 @ 09:37am
If only Shinseki could have been given a more relevant role in Obama's core team!
Posted by syfriendly at 12/07/2008 @ 11:18am
Great pick!
A solid soldier willing to speak truth to power, and a not so subtle FU to the outgoing primate.
MASK, we are more likely to see attacks on Shinseki from the troop loving rightwing war-mongers than any Marxist crying from the Communist Obama supporters.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/07/2008 @ 11:33am
Posted by syfriendly at 12/07/2008 @ 11:18am
The Dept of Veteran Affairs is going to be incredibly important in the upcoming decades. Thanks to Chimpies unending war strateegery, the USA is going to be facing billions and billions of dollars in healthcare benefits for hundreds of thousands of veterans.
HOPEfully President Obama will be able to make incremental progress with Defense in the area of removing their head from their ass when it comes to PTSD and the now recognized Gulf War Syndrome, AND whatever Syndrome(s) is going to come from the 2 failed wars instituted by the Finger Fighters for Freedom .
Posted by crabwalk at 12/07/2008 @ 11:40am
And, let us not forget Gen Shinsekis ties to the Marxist Underground!We look foward to his keynote speech at the Annual Vegan Supper and Salon, entitled "Killing the MIC from the Inside; one soldiers story of oriental intrigue".
Posted by crabwalk at 12/07/2008 @ 11:44am
Erick Shinseki Good choice. He is a soldiers soldier. "Don't get people killed for the sheer joy of ego".
Posted by julien38 at 12/07/2008 @ 11:47am
Best selection Obama has made!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/07/2008 @ 11:53am
Best selection Obama has made!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/07/2008 @ 11:53am
Best selection Obama has made!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/07/2008 @ 11:53am
Also look for more stories related to how the horror of Depleted Uranium were muffled, its long term affect on our vets and calls for DU to be outlawed worldwide.
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/07/2008 @ 11:56am
Nations that will not swear off child killing land mines and cluster bombs:
Russia
China
Pakistan
USA.
...by the company you keep.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/07/2008 @ 1:00pm
Nations that will not swear off child killing land mines and cluster bombs:
Russia
China
Pakistan
USA.
...by the company you keep.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/07/2008 @ 1:00pm
How interesting the USA is on the list...and we profess to be such a caring nation!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/07/2008 @ 1:45pm
It's okay for us to use landmines, since we're a democracy.
DUH!
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/07/2008 @ 3:22pm
Noone in the universe can convince a true believer of anything that threatens his beliefs.
Beliefs such as: Barack Obama = Exotic, Muslim, Writer Hate Follower, Hollow-soaring-rhetoric-hopemonger, Celebrity, super-Lib, Socialist, Ayer's pal, ominous commercials 24 hours / day... REDISTRIBUTIONIST!! Says who: Joe the Plumber!!!!!! Mega-corporations actually gave this phony a ton of air time.
Big media tried sooooooo hard. They're drifting. Obama's in. The cut n' run party (so named by the Decider-Installer of democracy in Iraq) is being told by sprouting democratic Iraq to comply with Obama timeline. The 'let's watch 'em fight' jig is up, Hillary's SS. They're trying to find their sea legs, and they need to have their legs crushed and an actual constitutionally-grounded 4th estate established.
LOVE the appointment.
And, back to the trenches, guys with PTSD self-medicating, refusing talk therapy, creating havoc at home, domestic violence, self-sabotaging, hostile, hot and cold... $ and smart administrators can't do much for hard core trauma.
Posted by winyahn at 12/07/2008 @ 6:48pm
In Japanese, Shinseki's name is written 新関, which can mean "new connection (or gateway)" but also "new barrier."
It should be interesting to see how he lives up to his name....
Posted by chinpoko at 12/07/2008 @ 7:26pm
*In Japanese, Shinseki's name is written 新関, which can mean "new connection (or gateway)" but also "new barrier."
It should be interesting to see how he lives up to his name....
Posted by chinpoko at 12/07/2008 @ 7:26pm*
Demo Chinpoko-san, all Japanese names have a positive and a negative reading, a reflection of the true nature of man. Whether one expresses the positive or the negative is what gives the true measure of a human.
BTW thank you for the kanji on that. I had been looking for a decent rendering and hadn't found one yet. Domo arigato gozaimashita!
Posted by yutsano at 12/07/2008 @ 7:55pm
On topic, Shinseki is such a huge smack in the face to Bush. Probably why I'm enjoying it so much. That and I've respected him for a long time even before the Iraq debacle.
Posted by yutsano at 12/07/2008 @ 8:34pm
Posted by crabwalk at 12/07/2008 @ 11:33am
True most attacks on Shinseki likely to come from the Right, but not impossible that B_KOOL or someone else will say something like "He should have made Howard Zinn, SecVA, instead of someone so entrenched the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!!!!!! Ai-yyeeeeeee!"
Posted by Mask at 12/07/2008 @ 9:50pm
Posted by Mask at 12/07/2008 @ 9:50pm
Actually the progressive hopes were tied to Tammy Duckworth or Max Cleland. But yeah I'm sure one of the more left out there will find fault with Shinseki. Of course that just increases my confidence in Shinseki all that much more.
Posted by yutsano at 12/07/2008 @ 9:58pm
Joe the Plumber for Housing and Development
Sarah Palin for Commerce
Queer Eye 4 Straight Guy for the Interior
Posted by winyahn at 12/07/2008 @ 10:11pm
I'm sorry, but I find the plaudits for P-E Obama's choice miss the point. Gen Shinseki was Chief of Staff when he was forced out by the know-it-all neocons. He is a man with a deep knowledge of our armed forces and of strategic considerations. He has been placed by Obama in a position removed from policy-making, a position where he would not be in conflict with others who are telling Obama to increase the troop in Afghanistan. He will be unable to contribute to decisions involving the Af-Pak border and the role of Afghanistan in the hostilities between India and Pakistan. He will not be able to shed light on the problems in Iraq, especially as forces are sent thence to Afghanistan.
I conclude that Obama wanted to reward Shinseki but did not want his advice alongside Robert Gates's and Hillary Clinton's, because he new that like oil and water they would not mix.
Cheers for Gen Shinseki but no applause for Obama!
Posted by goedel at 12/07/2008 @ 10:36pm
<i>Sarah Palin for Commerce
Posted by winyahn at 12/07/2008 @ 10:11pm </i>
Ambassador to Russia, perhaps?
Posted by Thrawn at 12/07/2008 @ 11:41pm
*Ambassador to Russia, perhaps?
Posted by Thrawn at 12/07/2008 @ 11:41pm*
I'm so glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that!
Posted by yutsano at 12/08/2008 @ 01:13am
What's so hard about understanding: Kill Kill Kill Money Money Money, Kill Kill Kill Money Money Money, Kill Kill Kill Money Money Money, Kill Kill Kill Money Money Money,...?
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/08/2008 @ 02:54am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 02:39am
It's based on the fact that Shinseki didn't toe the line on Iraq, LL....
ergo (per the Right's usual definition) he "Hates the troops and wants America to lose and the terrorists to win!"
Posted by Mask at 12/08/2008 @ 07:27am
Luvvy, maybe comments like this from the neo-cons:
Swift-vet.com
"Do not forget, that Shinseki was one of Clinton's boys. I have found that most Senior Officers and Enlisted members of the military said that Shinseki was a ticket puncher that lacked the ability to properly lead and mentor soldiers.....so its no suprise that he retired.......we are all glad he did." _________________ Regards, Brian
Posted by crabwalk at 12/08/2008 @ 08:00am
The comments here I think are more reflective of the fact that many on the left actually have no idea how conservatives think.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 02:39am
You have got that right, we do have no idea how you think...it's all just messed up logic!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/08/2008 @ 08:10am
BINGO.
But then again isn't understanding those that think nonsense-- elitist!?!?!
Don't dunces have rights too?
Even a dunce has the 'right' to be president!
Otherwise-- we're just talking about 'evil' and its having 'rights'.
And as the largest majority in history has concluded-- the hsuB/cHeney admin was as wrong as wrong can get on just about everything.
Yet especially in the USA, evil stupids do have the god-given right to prison.
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/08/2008 @ 09:11am
Note to progressives: new new con strategy, illogically note that every move now made by Obama is what new cons really want and against everything progressives want and therefore new cons are still winning over progressives... So new cons can still be proud of themselves because they're still winning and 'right'.
Never forget-- new cons do not believe in science nor history, so whatever they said yesterday has little to do with what they're saying today. Their reality is malleable and constantly in flux to whatever thought they want to be true at the present time as long as it conforms to their two long reaching goals: Kill Kill Kill Money Money Money, Kill Kill Kill Money Money Money, Kill Kill Kill Money Money Money, Kill Kill Kill Money Money Money,...
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/08/2008 @ 09:53am
How do you get that when he wanted a more aggressive military presence than Rumsfeld?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 09:34am
How do you get that when he wanted a more aggressive military presence than Rumsfeld?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 09:34am
Well, I would have thought that was obvious, because he said it would take more troops that what Rumsfeld wanted. Did Bush not keep saying over and over he would listen to the General's on the ground!!!! Then the minute any of them didn't come up with what Bush or Rumsfeld wanted to hear they were moved on!!! I don't think his appointment has anything to do with this "troop level" business, why would it? The main thing is that he's been there and done so to speak in the battle field and he knows first hand what is required for these brave Vets coming home. That position needs someone who cares and will fight for these Vets to get the help so many of them need and will need for years to come.
Posted by Caj at 12/08/2008 @ 11:00am
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/08/2008 @ 09:53am
This is left over from the campaign, Family Values- off limits
Experience, Palin has it, Obama doesn't.
Community Organizers- good under "faith based initiatives"- communist when done by Catholic groups in Chicago.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/08/2008 @ 11:15am
Nations that will not swear off child killing land mines and cluster bombs:
Russia
China
Pakistan
USA.
...by the company you keep.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/07/2008 @ 1:00pm
How interesting the USA is on the list...and we profess to be such a caring nation!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/07/2008 @ 1:45pm
To provide some much needed history for you: The US refuses to sign a ban on land mines is not because a lack of concern for children (we care). Rather it is because we currently use land mines for the protection of 37,000 US soldiers and 49million civilians. Where?, you ask. The Korean DMZ. An area dividing two states that have been at war since the 1950s and where the threat of invasion still exists. Signing a ban on land mines would require a costly and dangerous removal of said mines. Dangerous because we don't know where every single one is exactly and because it would remove one of the military obstacles to invasion. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the decommissioning of weaponry, but if it would cost more lives to do so than not. The US can still promote land mine removal elsewhere without forcing itself to compromise on the security of an ally.
Posted by tbloomquist at 12/08/2008 @ 11:59am
Also, Shinseki is a great pick for VA Sec. He's a brilliant and genial man.
Posted by tbloomquist at 12/08/2008 @ 12:02pm
How do you get that when he wanted a more aggressive military presence than Rumsfeld?----Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 09:34am
NY Times
By THOM SHANKER Published: January 12, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 -- After President Bush told the nation on Wednesday night that he was ordering a rapid increase of American forces in Iraq, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki was not among the retired officers to offer instant analysis on television.
But the president's new strategy, with its explicit acknowledgment that not enough troops had been sent to Iraq to establish control, was a vindication for General Shinseki, who as Army chief of staff publicly told Congress as much just before the war began in 2003.
First vilified, then marginalized by the Bush administration after those comments, General Shinseki retired and faded away, even as lawmakers, pundits and politicians increasingly cited his prescience.
"We never had enough troops to begin with," Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said just before the president's televised address. "A month or two ago we found out the Army is broken, and they agreed that General Shinseki was right."
Posted by Mask at 12/08/2008 @ 12:31pm
So are we going to get some Purist complaining that Obama should have named Medea Benjamin SecVA and "not some militarist"?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 12/07/2008 @ 08:13am
Only in yours or yutsano's fevered imaginations.
Now, if Obama had appointed someone who had originally supported the Rumsfled strategy, then Obama's liberal supporters might very well have a legitimate complaint.
Posted by cka2nd at 12/08/2008 @ 12:56pm
Step 1: hire Shinseki.
Step 2: hire Sanchez.
Step 3: indict Rumsfeld, Addington and Cheney for war crimes, conspiracy to commit torture, & crimes against humanity (as well as for criminal intent and conspiracy with respect to the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Step 4: ease into retirement all general officers who voluntarily became stuffed shirts and yes-man under W.
Step 5: re-hire the CIA staff put out to pasture under W because the wouldn't toady up to W and Cheney's drum-beat to war.
"to be continued..."
Posted by itstheonlywaytobesure at 12/08/2008 @ 1:10pm
Posted by cka2nd at 12/08/2008 @ 12:56pm
WOW! CKA...you mean it's possible for Obama to appoint somebody that...
you like?!??!!??!?!?!?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/08/2008 @ 2:07pm
WOW! CKA...you mean it's possible for Obama to appoint somebody that...
you like?!??!!??!?!?!?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/08/2008 @ 2:07pm
And again we must ask, does Mask have a reading comprehension problem or does he just prefer to misstate the positions of other people?
A. I never said I liked Shinseki.
B. I am not now and never have been a "liberal supporter" of Obama, so I was never going to feel betrayed by any of his appointments, though I of course reserve the right to criticize some more that others.
C. Which is just what I wrote a few weeks ago about the potential appointment of New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine as Treasury Secretary. Given all of the possibilities, he was probably the best we could hope for from a centrist capitalist like Obama. Instead we got Guytner(?), a protege of the very people who got us in this mess, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. Would I endorse Corzine? No. But would I expend as much energy protesting against him as I would against the Rubin boys? No.
D. It therefore follows that Shinseki seems not to warrant any wailing on the part of either Obama's supporters OR opponents on the left. Better to spend one's time opposing Guytner or Clinton, or making sure that David Patterson doesn't appoint some DLC-type like Tom Suozi to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate.
Posted by cka2nd at 12/08/2008 @ 3:09pm
One more thing. The reaction of centrists like Mask to the critics of Obama's cabinet and staff choices is typical of the worst kinds of ideologues of the left or right.
No voices allowed save YOUR kind of voices! Obama appoints only former war supporters to his national security team? That's OK. The major economic posts go only to apostles of free trade and deregulation, and that's just fine. And if someone protests because of the ideological uniformity of these picks, if someone points out that not a single war opponent or fair trader has been appointed so far, they are accused of wanting the same type of ideological conformity that the centrists are perfectly happy with when its their ideology that is represented. It's like Bushites and rabid rightists opposing a Chuck Hagel or a John McCain while falling all over a Sam Brownback or Tom DeLay.
Such ideologues of the left, right AND center will even settle for a whole roomful of appointees who do not represent them. Do any of Obama's defense and foreign policy picks truly represent an anti-war centrist like Mask? No, and yet he and others like him take it. They've become so caught up in spliting things down the middle and opposing anything and anyone to their left that they'll accept people whose most critical decisions they themselves have criticized.
I don't mean to sound patronizing, but open your minds folks. Read widely, without reading stupid (so, yes to The American Conservative and Workers Vanguard, but no to National Review, The Weekly Standard and People's Weekly World), and exercise your critical faculties everywhere, not just when reading your opponents.
Posted by cka2nd at 12/08/2008 @ 3:27pm
Go to the dark side, cka2nd.
'We' are all screwed up, while YOU, of course, are a genius. You will lead us from darkness into the light. Tell us the story of Marxism once more, and how it's the New Communism, or it's the Old Communism. Wait... it's the old socialism... no... no! Oh, help us please, comrade, won't you? We have been drinking the kool-aid.
Well, we all rest assured that YOU are going to straighten us all up after some affectionate browbeating. Go ahead. We anxiously wait for your voluminous triple posts made after a furious vetting of the 'facts' from your favorite internet sites.
'No voices allowed save YOUR kind of voices?' What a sad quote. It is truly unbelievable that after the last eight years of disaster, it's already our fault, damn uneducated centrists!
Look out of your door this christmas. You may realize that, outside, there are people living. Not all of them are as incredibly educated as you. But in a nation that needs anything it can get to UNITE, we don't need constant carping and bellyaching from the same people who put us here. Do something for someone this season. Channel your anger and journalistic eloquence towards helping those less fortunate than you. Although I can hardly imagine that.
Posted by ficheye at 12/08/2008 @ 6:26pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 02:39am
There's no such thing as Santa or "Leftist" or "Conservative". Want me to prove this?
OK, here goes Larry!: state a definition of each which both sides agree to.
(And never start a sentence with and never use a preposition to end a sentence with.)
Cmon Larry, you believe believe believe. Now test your belief. Define "leftist" and "conservative". Hint, 'leftists' almost never even use the term 'leftist'.
Posted by winyahn at 12/09/2008 @ 12:25am
Hint, 'leftists' almost never even use the term 'leftist'.
Posted by winyahn at 12/09/2008 @ 12:25am
I don't think that's true, although we probably say "the left" as in "such-and-such" is on "the left" more than "so-and-so is a leftist."
Posted by cka2nd at 12/09/2008 @ 12:09pm
Yeah... you're rightist about that.
Hmmm, 8000 vs 200 in Google news.
Think I'll start using rightist. Kind of dilutes the 100% connotation of "right" a la truthiness.
Posted by winyahn at 12/09/2008 @ 11:41pm
Posted by ficheye at 12/08/2008 @ 6:26pm
No one will probably read this, but I thought I should get my response to this on the record. First of two posts, by the way.
"'No voices allowed save YOUR kind of voices?' What a sad quote. It is truly unbelievable that after the last eight years of disaster, it's already our fault, damn uneducated centrists!"
Well, setting aside my systemic critique of capitalism, wicked, browbeating Trotskyist that I am, how about you take your head out of your ass and examine the 20+ years before George W. Bush?
Deregulation started under centrist, New South Democrat Jimmy Carter (at the urging of liberal Ted Kennedy and his staff, I might add).
The plan to fire the air traffic controllers was hatched during the Carter Administration and then carried out by Ronald Reagan (hope the hellfires are good and toasty, Ronnie!).
The center-right Democratic Leadership Council was founded by Bill Clinton and Al Gore, among others, to move the Dems even further into an accomodation with Capital.
Clinton got elected thanks to Ross Perot and his administration - decent NLRB appointments notwithstanding - opens the floodgates to financial deregulation.
Bush and Co., unfettered by the Dems in Congress, let alone in the DLC, follows in Clinton's path, and we are in the mess we are in, which was 30 years in the making.
Posted by cka2nd at 12/10/2008 @ 11:15am
Posted by ficheye at 12/08/2008 @ 6:26pm
Post 2 of 2 in response to ficheye.
"Look out of your door this christmas. You may realize that, outside, there are people living. Not all of them are as incredibly educated as you...Do something for someone this season. Channel your anger and journalistic eloquence towards helping those less fortunate than you. Although I can hardly imagine that."
I'm no longer the activist I once was, but, while working as a low-wage clerical worker, I was an elected union shop steward and executive council member for eight years. For four years, I defended abortion clinics and escorted clients past anti-aboriton, so-called "sidewalk counselors." I've marched against war and to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, and donated money to organizations fighting for the unjustly imprisoned, reproductive rights and working class revolution. It's not enough, of course, but it ain't nothing, either, and I will not apologize for choosing activism over charity work.
"But in a nation that needs anything it can get to UNITE, we don't need constant carping and bellyaching from the same people who put us here."
As I noted in my last post, it was Democrats and Republicans who got us into the mess we are in right now. Pray tell, how Trotskyists like me "put us here?"
And give me a break on the childish call for unity. Why the hell should the working class UNITE with their exploiters? Why should people of color UNITE with bigots? Why should queers UNITE with the religous right? Power has never conceded anything without a fight. We don't need unity, we need the working class and the oppressed to free themselves from the Dems and the GOP and take power in their own name!
Posted by cka2nd at 12/10/2008 @ 11:31am
Posted by cka2nd at 12/10/2008 @ 11:31am
Well, now... this is going to come as a surprise, but I actually agree with some of what you said.. except on the childish call for unity, because a civil war or endless carping and bellyaching is the only other recourse.
But, after pissing you off, you actually got down and said something cogent. I, too, think most politicians suck, and even more so after Mr. Blowhard over in Illinois. And the overarching definition of my call to unite was misunderstood. Maybe I meant to say "Get out of the living room, away from the TV, and become an interactive member of the society you live in." That's a little better.
But, again, cursing... I never told you to get your head out of your ass. That's up to you. But after all the flaming, lengthy posts, you actually said something I could read and understand. My bitch was that this site is used by many to just curse and flame and get off topic after the first few posts. But, that in itself is proof that almost everyone is unhappy with the status quo...
I also never said anything about how a trotskyist 'like you' put us anywhere. I never said anything was 'your' fault'. Read my post again. If you read it in the first place. The whole system is screwed up and the people need to abandon complacency and become involved or we are all doomed to a repetition of the past.
Did the trotskyists unite? What? You see, what I'm looking for on this site is information. I don't think UNITING for the common good is childish. It's necessary if we are going to move forward. Otherwise we rely on voting to resolve all issues, and that just ain't gonna cut it.
So, strangely, I thank you for your posts. However, your last sentence seems to make light of 'uniting' while actually advocating for it.
Posted by ficheye at 12/10/2008 @ 3:40pm
"we don't need constant carping and bellyaching from the same people who put us here."
Posted by ficheye at 12/08/2008 @ 6:26pm
"As I noted in my last post, it was Democrats and Republicans who got us into the mess we are in right now. Pray tell, how Trotskyists like me 'put us here?'"
Posted by cka2nd at 12/10/2008 @ 11:31am
"I also never said anything about how a trotskyist 'like you' put us anywhere. I never said anything was 'your' fault'."
Posted by ficheye at 12/10/2008 @ 3:40pm
Well, it sounded to me like you were accusing Obama's critics to the left of "carping and bellyaching" and you linked that description with "the same people who put us here," soooo, it I took it to mean that the left - inside the Democratic Party or out - had gotten us into this mess. If that was an error, I think it was understandable since there are many mainstream pundits, center-right Democrats and right-wing blowhards who say that very thing.
I don't think I flame, although perhaps my understanding of the term is mistaken. I rarely use a "dirty" word even as mild as ass, I don't curse people out or shout in all caps, and I can't remember the last time I assumed that another poster here did not or would not engage in helping those in need ("Although I can hardly imagine that.") or implied that they had not read my post ("If you read it in the first place."). I have engaged in generally respectful debate with lvliberty1 and Darin the Troll, two of our resident right-wingers, although the former has accused me of bad taste for celebrating the death of Jesse Helms. The only person whose character I can remember questioning is Mask, and that having to do with his posts here.
By the way, first I'm an eloquent writer and then I'm finally cogent. Which is it?
Posted by cka2nd at 12/10/2008 @ 4:53pm
On the question of calling for unity, this is a serious issue. Every nation has its divisions, most importantly along the lines of class. While there might be temporary unity in time of war, the reality is that what some people consider the common good is very different from that envisioned by others.
I can unite with my conservative and libertarian friends in opposing gun control, but they reject single payer healthcare. I can unite with libertarians, leftists and some liberals in favoring the decriminalization of drugs and prostitution, but most conservatives, liberals and centrists would oppose us. I can unite with anti-abortionists, Black Nationalists and the Chinese tongs in fighting against police abuse but abortion is another matter entirely. Hell, even public education doesn't unify everyone, let alone labor rights, the progressive income tax or climate change.
In other words, I'm not opposed to working together on specific issues. But to expect all Americans to "Unite!" or, as some Black friends of mine used to say, "The Black community needs to unite before we work with Whites or other people of color" is unrealistic. It demands a level of conformity that is unachievable, whether because folks have different ideas and philosophies, or because they have opposed interests, especially class interests.
I'm all for progressive capitalists speaking out in favor of labor rights and higher wages, and a number of conservatives argue for well-paid manufacturing jobs. But fundamentally, the interests of the owners of capital and of the workers who create that capital are opposed. And while I would love it if every member of the working class united to overthrow capital, hell, even just to fight back, I know that level of unity is impossible in humans.
Posted by cka2nd at 12/10/2008 @ 5:12pm
Well, let's see...
You can be an eloquent writer AND, at the same time not make very much sense...BUT WAIT!! I don't mean YOU, specifically, but writers in general, so don't take it personal.
And on the issue of uniting, I'd have to say that what I mean to say is very much like what you outlined, but unfortunately I think you interpreted my reference to mean an unachievable, hippy dippy 60's kind of unity, which I did NOT mean. So we need to read everything before doing anything, like the test in high school, and try to realize that (me included), unless someone were to write a book, these posts can often convey some pretty ambiguous information at first glance.
We are both far off topic, but I liked your last two posts. They were cogent(!). Now if more people actually laid out their positions like that, this place would be a better forum for exchange.
As a final word, I'll list a site that I like to go to on occasion. Boy, I'm gonna get a raft of shit for this one, but I go to LOTS of sites (Even the Trotskyist education page). They seem to parse things pretty finely. Not sure what I make of it yet.
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/
I'm not totally sold on everything this guy says, but he is entertaining and thought provoking. Like any of us need to be provoked in the first place. I'd be curious to know if you think this guy is totally full of crap or what.
Posted by ficheye at 12/11/2008 @ 01:52am
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/ I'm not totally sold on everything this guy says, but he is entertaining and thought provoking. Like any of us need to be provoked in the first place. I'd be curious to know if you think this guy is totally full of crap or what.
Posted by ficheye at 12/11/2008 @ 01:52am
Some interesting stuff from my first, quick glance, but the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is a REAL turn-off.
Posted by cka2nd at 12/12/2008 @ 08:41am
Some interesting stuff from my first, quick glance, but the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is a REAL turn-off. Posted by cka2nd at 12/12/2008 @ 08:41am
I like his grasp of economic issues, but the 911 stuff... well, he's said it all before.
On to the next blog!!!
Posted by ficheye at 12/12/2008 @ 3:49pm