Today on Blogcritics
Home » Iraqi Muslim Leader Declares War on U.S. Forces

Iraqi Muslim Leader Declares War on U.S. Forces

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The powerful Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr says he wants to oust American forces from Iraq. According to a statement issued today, he's prepared to unleash his "guerrilla fighters to concentrate on pushing American forces out of the country."

He also called on the Iraqi army and police to end their working relationship with the U.S.  For the past few months, Al-Sadr has been telling his troops to lie low, especially while the U.S. forces were operating in his region.  Muqtada al-Sadr now wants Iraqi forces to join the insurgents in the battle against "the occupiers."

The statement, reportedly stamped with al-Sadr's official seal, was distributed in the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Sunday — a day before a large demonstration there, called for by al-Sadr, to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. In it, he said that “God has ordered you to be patient in front of your enemy, and unify your efforts against them – not against the sons of Iraq.”

Reuters reported Sunday afternoon that thousands of Iraqis were streaming to the holy southern city of Najaf on Sunday "in response to a call by… Al-Sadr for a big anti-American protest on Monday." 

Al-Sadr's militant group has been likened to the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah, in that they're taking a guns and butter approach in the neighborhoods they control.  Besides his military activities, his people are providing basic social services the central government has been unable to accomplish, winning adherents throughout the region.  

The situation in Iraq can seemingly change overnight.  CBS news reported that the U.S. and Al-Sadr had held talks to reduce violence in the slums of Sadr City.  An agreement was not achieved, partly because Al-Sadr's representatives demanded that the U.S. pull out of the neighborhood – a condition which was rejected. 

Powered by

About Mark Schannon

Retired crisis & risk manager/communications expert; extensive public relations experience in most areas over 30 years. Still available for extraordinary opportunities of mind-numbing complexity. Life-long liberal agnostic...or is that agnostic liberal.
  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    good eye, Mark..i had flagged this a few hours ago for reference

    truly bad craziness indeed

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Thanks “Jaz”…actually, I had the article a lot earlier, but Roger C. found that AP, who first ran with it, wasn’t sure…so I waited to get some more detail…frankly, it’s a little over-edited…but the important point — that the looney little lunatic is on the march again.

    I think what’s going on is that he was losing control of some of his forces with his “lay low” strategy, so he’s letting them go kill so they can drink their fill of blood.

    But not…

    In Jameson Veritas

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    This would perhaps be more meaningful if Sadr were actually in Iraq and had an actual ‘army’ to command, which according to the last reports he did not.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    It just occured to me that when he refers to ‘his’ army, he probably means the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

    Dave

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Dave, you’re making a lot of assumptions. First, the Americans there aren’t sure where he is–they think Lithuania, but they don’t rule out that he is still in Iraq. Second, his people, surprise, insist he is still in Iraq. Third, I’m not sure where you get the notion that he doesn’t have an army. He’s lost some control of it by calling on them to not fight…letting some of the more radical elements break away…but I think that’s why he issued the statement.

    I haven’t heard of anyone say he doesn’t have an army.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Lithuania? I hadn’t heard that one. Last I’d heard he’d fled to Iran and most of his followers had gone to neighboring countries particularly Iran and Syria. As for not having an army, it’s more a case of them being scattered to the four winds. I’m sure he could get them back together with some work – but not if he’s in Lithuania.

    Dave

  • STM

    al Sadr is a self-styled religious leader and runs a very distant second in terms of influence to the other Shi’ite mullahs in Iraq, who have called on Iraqis not to fight the coalition. Time will tell I guess, but I’d suspect not much is going to change. He’s done it all before.

  • moonraven

    Was there a point somewhere in this article?

    I sure as hell didn’t see any.

    As Che said, Let there be two, three, four, one hundred al Sadrs.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    I’m fairly confident Che was never aware of al Sadr, not unless he had a time travel machine. Not that time travel is possible of course.

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    The fact that violent fanatics can so easily gain control over masses of followers by using the ignorance, superstitions and fears of people would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

    The 21st century is no different from the 20th in that regard, so far. Can anyone name one so-called leader in the entire world who is rational, competent, and truthful?

  • moonraven

    The most dangerous violent fanatic is called Geroge Bush.

    Chris, You’re too young to understand the quote–whch originally referred to Vietnams.

  • Clavos

    Chris, You’re too young to understand the quote–whch originally referred to Vietnams.

    You’re underestimating Christopher, mr. He knows what you meant, and what you actually said…

  • moonraven

    You are now his vocero, buttfuzz?

  • Clavos

    ¿Y qué?

  • moonraven

    I would like to see where he has authorized you to interpret his thoughts, nailhead.

    That would be like authorizing George Bush to be his vocero. All double digit IQ of him.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I’m 100% positive that if Che was alive he’d see Sadr as an enemy rather than an ally. The type of society which Sadr advocates is inherently incompatible with the type of society which Che promoted. True, in the end both lead to oppression and dictatorship, but the ideologies are totally contradictory.

    Dave

  • moonraven

    Put a sock in it, Nalle.

    You have never read one word of Che’s writings or you would not even consider such a foolish, pompous comment.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I wasn’t aware you were looking over my shoulder and monitoring what I read. In fact, I’ve read his book on Guerilla warfare and Socialism and Man in Cuba which was in a larger collection on socialism.

    Do you really want to argue with me that the totalitarian theocratic state advocated by people like Moqtada al-Sadr is in any way compatible with the kind of government Che promoted?

    Dave

  • MBD

    $18… It’s all spelled N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L-=I-S-M.

  • Les Slater

    moonraven #8,

    “As Che said, Let there be two, three, four, one hundred al Sadrs.”

    Che would never had said such a thing. Iraq and Viet Nam are not the same thing. The national liberation struggle in Viet Nam had a progressive program for workers and peasants.

    All of the condenders in Iraq are just petty capitalists fighting for turf. They have no program.

    Please do not insult Che to try to make your case.

    Les

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Exactly, Les. And it’s even worse than their being capitalists, which they really aren’t except by convenience. They’re also theocrats and Che wouldn’t have liked that at all either.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    I think they are fundamentally capitalists and only accidentally theocrats.

    Les

  • moonraven

    You wet-behind the ears right-wing jokers think you know more about Che than I do?

  • moonraven

    How many of you have even read La guerra de guerrillas? Or even his speeches and his diaries written in Cuba, the Congo and Bolivia?

  • Les Slater

    “…think you know more about Che than I do?”

    You seem to know little so it would not seem too dificult to know more.

    “How many of you have read….”

    I have and more.

    Your #8 “As Che said, Let ther be two, …” shows you have less understanding of politics than just a simple misunderstanding of Che.

    Any advocacy of guerilla warfare in La guerra de guerrillas was preconditioned on that war being progressive.

    The U.S. should get the fuck out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines, Somalia and Cuba. But what does praising Muqtada al-Sadr have to do with that? Al-Sadr leads a Shiite militia that operates in and outside the Iraqi government and has a record of murdering opponents and Sunni civilians, much like Sunni-led death squads are doing. Al-Sadr’s forces are one of the bases of support of Iraqi prime minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki.

    Let there be two, three, four, one hundred al Sadrs! My ass!

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Any advocacy of guerilla warfare in La guerra de guerrillas was preconditioned on that war being progressive.

    Good point, Les. Does MR think that Che would have supported the Contras? They were guerilla fighters too. MR is confusing her extremist anti-Americanism with Che’s progressive anti-colonialism and they’re not the same thing. The difference perhaps being that Che had some principles.

    As for the capitalism of Islamic radicals, I think you’re mistaking greed and self-interest for capitalism, which is a common mistake. They’re not the same thing. They would gladly take wealth from others by force which is essentially countrary to capitalism, and they have no interest in building enterprises or a real capitalist economic structure.

    And of course our reading of Che on guerilla warfare doesn’t count because we read it in English instead of Spanish – just to head off one of MR’s inevitable strawfilled arguments.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Am I the only who caught that mr called Les “right-wing”??? (#23)

  • Les Slater

    “Does MR think that Che would have supported the Contras?” I don’t think so.

    I think her mistake is that she somehow sees Muqtada al-Sadr as progressive. It’s not a very sophisticated viewpoint. Che would see right through that.

  • Les Slater

    “Am I the only who caught that mr called Les “right-wing”???”

    I saw it. It’s about as sophisticated as calling Bush a fascist.

  • troll

    Les – the essential nature of the fascist state is that it lords it over both owners and workers ensuring a production environment free of overt class warfare

    Bush – as the head of the federal government – is a fascist

    rock on with your sophisticated self

  • Les Slater

    troll,

    The U.S. government is a government the capitalist class. Bush is just the Chief Executive.

    There has never been a fascist government that has allowed such freedom as we now have.

    Les

  • troll

    Les – *There has never been a fascist government that has allowed such freedom as we now have.*

    there’s the power and beauty of modern fascism which does not have to be grotesque…all that it has to do is suppress the ‘natural’ inclinations of the classes to ‘war’ with each other

    Italy lost WW2 but won the peace

  • Clavos

    troll says:

    there’s the power and beauty of modern fascism which does not have to be grotesque…all that it has to do is suppress the ‘natural’ inclinations of the classes to ‘war’ with each other

    I think that remark is wrong on two counts troll:

    First, I think you’re trying to stretch the concept of fascism to fit your hypothesis. In the process you distort the definition of fascism into something it’s not.

    Second, Even if we accept your definition, the “inclinations of the classes to ‘war’ with each other” are, at this time and in this country, being fanned feverishly from within by those at both ends of the political spectrum who are intent on radically modifying our political system.

    Thus, an argument can be made that those inclinations are NOT being supressed.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “As Che said, Let there be two, three, four, one hundred al Sadrs.”

    Che Guevara is sooo fucking dead.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Can anyone name one so-called leader in the entire world who is rational, competent, and truthful?”

    Dick Cheney? [ducks…]

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “I think they are fundamentally capitalists and only accidentally theocrats.”

    If Muqtada al-Sadr is only “accidentally” a theocrat, I’d hate to see somebody who was one on purpose!

  • troll

    Clavos – first: fascism was developed as a practical program in response to a working class on the verge of exploding in revolution in the late 1800s early 1900s…(if owners had not yielded the State power to reign in their excesses it would have been all over for them)

    all of the other characteristics listed in other definitions of ‘fascism’ are not essential (although corporate organization might be essential as well – I’m not clear on that one)

    second: the ‘class warfare’ that you see being fanned is bogus – I hear few voices calling for the expropriation of private property by workers or seriously advocating no holds barred laissez faire capitalism

  • Les Slater

    “If Muqtada al-Sadr is only “accidentally” a theocrat,…”

    I should have said incidentally.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    troll, i think you’re engaging in a trendy redefinition of fascism. I’m not buying it.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    second: the ‘class warfare’ that you see being fanned is bogus

    I disagree. We are being bombarded on a daily basis with “news” reports about the “earnings divide”, and how the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer, in every variation and permutation the mind of man can conceive of.

    That’s textbook class warfare tactics.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    There’s a difference between real class warfare based on genuine oppression – which is the basic justification for Marxism – and the bogus manufactured class warfare which is cynically promoted by the left and the news media to stir up an artificial discontent which is ultimately against the best interests of the very people they work so hard to sell it to.

    In a society with the high level of income mobility we still find in the US real class conflict is virtually impossible, because too many people can see the obvious fact that whatever benefits the enterprising class will benefit them as well if they work hard to advance themselves.

    Dave

  • troll

    just my read on the history Dave…part the road we’ve traveled to present day socialism (which is not yet at odds with fascism – as in the all powerful State regulating the economic interaction of its citizens)

    and not to worry Clavos – it’s just those damned Dems looking to get votes…were poor folk actually to take action against private/State property they would be squashed like bugs – by our all powerful State – no matter which party was in power

    that’s the covenant

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I think before the all-powerful state got to them, their disgruntled neighbors would deal with them more informally.

    Dave

  • troll

    ah yes…’enlightened vigilantism’ – the next historically necessary stage of law enforcement and the makings of another off topic rant

  • S.T.M

    There is no genuine class warfare in America or in any other western democracy for that matter. Most are two-party systems where the gap between the haves and have nots mostly isn’t that great – apart from those on the fringes at the very bottom end and those lapping at the cream at the top end.

    I can hardly see the great unwashed of the proletariat rising up en masse to unseat the powers that be in the US.

    What will happen is that there’ll be a democratic vote and someone will be elected. If it it costs the high-end earning voters on the defeated side a couple of extra tax dollars a week to help those at the very bottom end, I’d hardly see that as the great triumph of the working class.

    It’s just called an election victory.

    The same thing will happen here (in Australia) in the federal election later this year.

    The real drama is going on in the middle east.

  • Clavos

    Hasn’t this whole fascism discussion been off topic? And is “off topic” not allowed?

  • troll

    (Clavos – I was referring to my own off topic ranting)

  • S.T.M

    How can it be off-topic when all we’ve done is move the topic steadily to each next logical conclusion?

    Know the story of my father’s axe?

    “I replaced the handle when it broke, and my brother replaced the head when it was blunt.

    But it’s still my father’s axe.”

  • troll

    by golly you’re right Stan…those militias are engaged in vigilantism

  • Clavos

    More coffee…need more coffee.

    Sorry, gents. Carry on…

  • S.T.M

    They’re fu.king vigilantes all right.

  • troll

    though hardly enlightened – with all due respect to the Prophet may he rest in peace

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    What will happen is that there’ll be a democratic vote and someone will be elected. If it it costs the high-end earning voters on the defeated side a couple of extra tax dollars a week to help those at the very bottom end, I’d hardly see that as the great triumph of the working class.

    And it’s not. It’s a great triumph for the povert pimps and panderers who keep the underclass loyal by bribing them with government checks and encouraging them never to seek to advance themselves by their own hard work and merit.

    The real drama is going on in the middle east.

    One has to wonder if the ongoing drama there is just contrived to distract us from things which impact us more directly.

    Dave

  • S.T.M

    Forgive me for asking, but have I touched a raw nerve here somewhere??

  • Clavos

    Dave,

    One has to wonder if the ongoing drama there is just contrived to distract us from things which impact us more directly.

    I’ve wondered the same thing myself. My inclination, cynically, is to answer, “at least to some degree.”

  • S.T.M

    Nah, George (bless ‘im) thought he was on a fair-dinkum mission to cleanse the Earth of guys in black hats (not you Dave).

    Lunatics flying planes into skyscrapers tends to have that kind of effect on leaders (of whatever calibre).

    Perhaps we shouldn’t forget how this whole sorry mess started, and perhaps we should also stop flagellating ourselves about whether it’s right.

    It is. It just could have been conducted a bit better. All that’s happened is that we’ve ended up looking like bullies because that’s how the loony left wants it portrayed. The real bullies are the ones who think it’s OK to chop off people’s heads with blunt knives and record it on video or blow the shit out of 15-year-old girls on holiday with their parents.

    Fu.k ’em, I say.

    I just heard on the news here tonight that Australia is sending another 300 special forces soldiers to fight the Taleban. Good on ’em. I hope the Taleban cops it fair up the blurter.

    The whole lot of ’em, including their so-called brothers in Iraq, Iran and wherever else they hide out like rats in a sewer, are a pack of mongrel bastards.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos: Off topic is allowed.
    STM: Fucking isn’t censored so fuck all you want!

  • moonraven

    [Edited]

    Of course Che did not say literally anything about Iraq–he has been dead for almost 40 years!

    I was giving MY opinion, [Edited]–which is that anyone who tells you gringo fascist bullies to get the fuck out of his or her country has my FULL support.

    You [Edited] have my full contempt.

  • moonraven

    Chris, Again you are a liar. I took you at your word and you deleted part of my post.

  • Les Slater

    moonraven,

    The problem with your full support is that al-Sadr has an agenda which apparently you are not willing to see.

    And again, please do not invoke the name of Che to support your naive political views.

    Les

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    moonraven, I took your word for it when you said you wouldn’t interact with me anymore. All I did here was remove the offensive parts of your remark above. Furthermore, in my opinion, the power and flow of your words have been improved by my judicious editing.

    Even though I am quite an adept liar, I very rarely do it as the problems outweigh the benefits and I much prefer the openness and power of simple honesty.

    I suspect the person who would most support your position would be the one person you object to most strongly until now, your favourite bête noir, our own Dave Nalle.

  • moonraven

    Les, I will invoke whomever I damn please–whenever I damn feel like doing so.

    As someone who lives part of the year in Bahrain, which has a Shiite majority, I am much more aware of a) the Middle East situation and b) how the Shiites fit into it, than you are.

  • Les Slater

    “As someone who lives part of the year in Bahrain, which has a Shiite majority, I am much more aware of a) the Middle East situation and b) how the Shiites fit into it, than you are.”

    You’re just as puffed up [Edited. Try to set a good example, Les. Comments Editor] as when you wrote: “You wet-behind the ears right-wing jokers think you know more about Che than I do?”

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    You know Les, you could BE a right-winger if you wanted to, and make Moonraven’s comments true. After all many of your former comrades like William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz have become righties and they got to keep their whole conquer the world Stalinist dream alive in the process.

    Dave

  • moonraven

    You ARE wet-behind-the-ears right-wing jokers.

    And you DO know nothing about Che.

    Saying you read something that you haven’t doesn’t make it true.

  • Les Slater

    comments editor,

    Would ‘full of excrement’ been more appropriate?

    What’s the difference?

    Les

  • moonraven

    We folks with feathers have the habit of puffing them. It’s part of our nature.

    But that doesn’t take away from the fact that I know probably 1000 times more than you do about the MIddle East–and I would not even consider calling myself an expert.

  • Les Slater

    It would not take much to know more about Che than you do. I do know a lot about Che.

    I have read much and I know very well people that are now on a first name personal basis with people like Pombo and several others that knew Che personally.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Dear Comments Editor:

    As the author of this very minor piece that has generated an extraordinary amount of blather, much flame, and precious little light, do I have the right (constitutional or otherwise) to ban people from commenting on my posts.

    I find when that bizarre person who knows everything about everthing since the beginning of time in every corner in the world (I don’t even want to type her name…MR) starts up her engines, I lose interest in everything on the thread.

    I know I have the ***power*** to block her, but have I the authority under the BC Constitution and Rules Book.

    In Jameson Pax

  • moonraven

    Right.

    And you know many people who are on a first name basis with the Easter Bunny, too.

    What does that make you, an egg?

    Which of the Che bios which came out 10 years ago for the 30th anniversary of his death (one of which is now reprinted with more information) do you conisder to be the best,and why?

  • moonraven

    Go for it, fascist Mark! Ban me. Make sure there is nothing following your inept little pieces that contradicts your point of view.

    Do it NOW!

  • Les Slater

    I also have met Victor Dreke who was with Che in the Congo.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Mark, in a word, no. Technically, you have the power, but only in theory I’m afraid. Anyway, she makes me laugh. No sane person could call you a fascist. She’s like a secular Mary Reborn Revisited!

  • Les Slater

    You do nothing but display your ignorance by bringing up the Easter bunny. The bunny has nothing to do with this topic.

    You are the one that called for a 1000 al-Sadrs. That IS related to this topic. But you are nothing but a reactionary if you stick to that 1000 al-Sadrs. He is a thug and calls on a war to drive out the U.S. between killing Suni civilians. He is especially vocal when he backed into a corner.

  • moonraven

    Les,

    You did not respond to the question about Che bios. Can’t do it? Credibility ZERO.

    I met a lot of film people when I was living and working as a film critic in Santa Fe–does that make me a star, or an expert on their private lives. NO.

    The Easter Bunny is very timely–Easter was 2 days ago, and the Bunny–to the best of my knowledge–is NOT REAL.

    Just like your expertise on Che Guevara. Tell it to Regis Debray….

  • moonraven

    Actually, Les the Enlightened One:

    I called for 100 al Sadrs in my original post (Number ( on this thread).

    And I respeat–I FULLY support anyone in Iraq who calls for the ousting of the US invaders. I don’t care if he is Sunni or Shiite.

    The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, but I support his enemical position to the hilt.

    I have a project in suspension in Iraq–so the sooner you fuckers are out of there, the better.

  • moonraven

    Chris,

    Someone who calls for the abolishing of another’s rights because he or she disagrees with him in a public forum is not only a fascist, but a psychotic fascist.

    This is not even a REAL place.

  • Les Slater

    MS. Raven,

    I very rarely read any biographies, I have read none of Che. I have read much of what Che has actually written and have read much of personal accounts of those that worked with and/or fought with. None has any direct experience with the whole life of Che.

    My direct reading of Che starts with the Motorcycle Diary and ends with the most current and complete Bolivian Diary and most in between.

    My favorite by Che is his account of Cuba’s Revolutionary War 1956-1958. There is much autobiographical there.

    Les

  • moonraven

    Les,

    Since you did not bother to read anything that gives the entire arc of Che’s life and work from a critical perspective, I think it is really suspect for you to say that you can predict what he would do or not do in any area of the current geopolitical situation.

    You should keep in mind that there is considerable difference between a hagiography (which some of the Cuban books are and which some folks considered the film, The Motorcycle Diaries to be) and a biography which critically evaluates the life and work of a person.

    I have read everything Che wrote–and yes, just for Nalle I have to fess up that I read it in its ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. I have also read all of the major bios. As well as probably 50 books that were critical of the Cuban Revolution–the best being that of Carlos Franqui, as he was a major player in it.

    There are several very good bios–one by Paco Taibo II (Mexican writer) which is very complete but I do not know if it is in English and even the one by former Mexican chancelor Jorge Castaneda has some good stuff–although his axe to grind, that Fidel deliberately severed all ties with Che in Bolivia to get rid of a rival, is presented with zero substantiation and makes the bio deeply flawed.

    In my opinion, the bio of Che by Jon Lee Anderson, Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, may well be the definitive bio, as he had access to a lot of personal documents in the possession of Che’s wife, Aleida. It has recently been published in a slightly expanded form and is more critical of Che’s posture of violence than the 1997 version was.

    It is also interesting to compare Che’s diary that he kept in Cuba during his time in the mountains as well as during the march of his column across the island with that kept at the same time by Raul Castro–they were published together in one volume here in Mexico.

    I have found that La guerra de guerrillas is absolutely fundamental to understanding Che’s actions and his thinking. Especially in view of the fact that he acted in direct contradiction to his own “guerrilla manual” in almost 100% of the cases of his actions in both the Congo in 1965 and Bolivia in 1966-67.

    And it may very well be that the real tragedy of Che lies not in his being murdered by the CIA, but in his stubborn violation of his own rules for guerrilla warfare in both countries and in his failure to sare leadership with the CP in Bolivia. Just MHO, but not unshared by others.

  • Les Slater

    moonraven,

    Thank you for your well considered response. I see we have some basic, fundamental, differences about Che. I am glad to hear though that you take Che more seriously than I thought.

    I will try to respond later to some of what you bring up.

    Les

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Well, Chris, she may make you laugh, but I don’t think that stupid, opinionated, unintelligent, crass, offensive, bizarre, pretentious half-wits are at all amusing. She’s a sad old lady, probably living off canned dog food, who’s found a forum that will tolerate her unintelligible or insulting blather. She and a few others make it impossible to have a rational discussion about any issue.

    I suppose it’s time to bring it up again with the editor group, because I don’t want her involved in any way with BC. We’re having enough trouble generating intelligent discussion on the political board–why in the world would we allow her a voice when it’s such an ugly, negative, thoughtless, useless one?

    You may find her amusing–I find her pathetic and useless.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Che…with bullet holes!

    Funny!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    but…but ….but, Mark…you like me

    and i’m most of those things too!!

    except for the “sad old lady” part

  • Paul2

    Mark –

    “I suppose it’s time to bring it up again with the editor group, because I don’t want her involved in any way with BC.”

    This is an OPEN FORUM if you haven’t noticed. That means that you can’t choose with whom you have a discussion. And its not up to you to “assess” who is suitable or not. Do you think that this is your own little absolutist playground ?

    Obviously you feel inferior and intellectually intimidated by writers on this page. Then you should deal with your own problems, instead of proposing a ban of people posting on this site.

    So spare us with this infantile and reactionary crap.

  • Clavos

    jaz, You eat dog food???

  • troll

    avoid the wheat whey…go with the corn

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Paul, you’re obviously not familiar with the personalities here. For Mark who’s the most even tempered and easygoing of souls to be fed up with MR really means she’s exceeded the acceptable level of annoyance.

    I’d prefer to see her dealt with in a more populist way by just having everyone agree to ignore her, but Mark’s got a legitimate complaint. Her behavior really does disrupt discussion.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Moonraven and Nalle…

    When did this sight turn into a pissing contest to see who knows more about some dead communist who’s nothing but a shit stain in the annals of world history and who is only acknowledged with anything more than sheer indifference or apathy by stoned out brainwashed american college kids and deadbeat socialist who blame the USA for all of the world’s problems but have never actually helped anyone in their lives.

    Fuck Che Guevara…….

    You want to read about a great man Moonraven… I suggest you pick up a copy of the biography of Ronald Reagan.

    As for me if I ever came across a book about Che Guevara I’m sure I could put it to use… tearing the pages out and wiping my ass!

  • troll

    she should be neither banned nor ignored – like most commenters she will eventually start making more substantive contributions

    look at the Con for example…his comments used to be so crude and devoid of content

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Jaz, you get a free pass whenever and wherever you want…as long as I can keep up with your ever changing monikers. Although, I’m with Clavos–if you eat dog food (regularly), then I may have reconsider our friendship. There’s nothing wrong with a milkbone now and then…but you never know where these habits lead.

    Paul2, whoever you are, this is not a “public” forum. It is owned by the uber-editors who set policy. And because you’re new, I’m just going to ignore your pitiful attempts at insulting me…except that I’ll bet you, like “she who cannot be named” enjoy dog food too often. Woof?

    Thank you, Dave, but I have been growing more testy about rudeness & personal attacks. I have been trained my masters in those fields and it has taken me many years to reject them (oh, where’s my mentor John Spivey when I need him).

    There are a lot of good people who won’t participate in the political site anymore because of what goes on in the comments–people a lot more valuable than “she who cannot be named” and, perhaps even Paul2…unless he gets a little history and begins to know something about the people at BC. My guess is that he’s another of these teenagers we have to put up with from time to time…but one stupid post maketh not a moron.

    And remember, when all else is bleak,

    In Jameson Veritas

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    i thought it was dogs as food…

    my bad

    and as for “changing monikers”…looks like i’ll stick with just using my initials

    all the rest has been set aside in futility…

    but i digress

  • Arch Conservative

    In Jameson Veritas

    What the fuck does that mean?

    In Jameson’s whiskey we find truth?

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    No, dogs as food is okay…at least many Asian societies thing so. It’s dog food you have to watch out for.

    And Arch, now, come on, I was just beginning to think there was something more under the Arch than conservative ranting, but if you attack John Jameson, well, sir, all bets, holds, and rules are off.

    If you didn’t know that In Jameson There is Truth, then you are not only forgiven, but encouraged to discover the joy of nectar from the Gods. If you’re really wealthy, go for Middleton, but for my humble self

    In Jameson Veritas, Yes. Where the hell else would you expect to find truth?

  • troll

    it’s good to see you’re awake Mark…how’s the condition of the condition

  • Clavos

    troll 89,

    ROTFL!!

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Hey troll, about 95%, I think. At least I’m not sleeping 16-18 hours a day and napping the rest. What’s annoying and a little scary is that I don’t know what happened, what it was, what caused it, and can I spread it to others (hmmm…I wonder to whom?)

    Oy, do I have an idea. You take “she who cannot be named” under your wing and restore or create some sanity and civility to her, and I’ll give up my quest. I could care less what her point of view is…I care a lot that she’s preventing everyone else from having one.

    But I have faith, because, as you know,

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Clavos

    Mark,

    Didn’t you see a doctor?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I do have to admire the subtlety of troll’s humor in #89.

    Dave

  • troll

    consider #79…although self serving there’s also plenty of interesting info there worth discussing
    —-

    Les and moonraven: what do we have here…a bit of a cult – ?

    but wait – ! hero worship and cults of personalities are #3 on the list of common traits in definitions of ‘fascism’

    (I’ll give you two Che Rookie Cards for one Trotsky MVP)

    …fascistas – they’re everywhere

    …and while I haven’t read everything Che ever wrote or was written about him I did run my diesel Isuzu on a half gallon of piss once – got 6 miles before stalling out – it took a whole can of mystery oil to get the gummed up injectors clean

    so I guess my knowledge of Che’s mindset is in the form of praxis

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Troll, you’re a commentor for sore eyes.

    Clavos, have I seen a doctor? Last November, my family doctor, who, after I laid out all my cares and woes, here I go, there I go, bye bye blackbird…oops…brain fog there, sorry. Anyway, after an EKG (note the K) decided I was fundamentally depressed.

    I went through 3 rounds at a sleep clinic and my neurologist said, after reviewing the data that I was the most complex case she’d ever seen…and then she disappeared. What is something I said?

    The sleep doc has been the only decent one. He put me on a program to reset my internal clock & to my amazement, it seems to have worked pretty well. After trolling for another neurologist, three weeks ago, one agreed to see me in late April.

    And…aren’t you sorry you asked…I had done some major crisis work for the Baylor College of Medicine basically living there for 4-5 months a couple of years ago. I called them & sent all my records–a deafening silence.

    I am going to start calling other major medical centers. I still get dizzy spells, am very careful about driving, and some very important parts of my brain (no jokes, jaz) are still not working.

    Phew. The lesson, which I’ve known about hospitals, is that if you’re too sick to take care of yourself, get an advocate to harass the medical system. Alas, my bride hasn’t been able to do it for a variety of reasons, although she’s come to most of the doctor appointments.

    Double Phew.

    The doctor is OUT.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Les Slater

    “…fascistas – they’re everywhere”

    Sounds like the flip side of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, communists under every bed.

  • Clavos

    Mark,

    I’m really sorry to hear about all your problems, and not at all sorry I asked.

    As you may have read in some of my past comments, my wife has some serious problems, and I spend a great deal of time advocating for her, as well as functioning as her primary caregiver. I’m lucky, because I’m retired from the corporate world and now self-employed, which gives me enough flexibility time-wise to be able to help her.

    I also know what you mean about those deafening silences. My wife’s underlying problem is neurological; spinal cord injury.

    After exhausting every facility/doctor we could get appointments with here in Miami, and with no real progress made in her condition, we applied to the Mayo Clinic a few months ago.

    They asked for, and we sent, reams and reams of records, test results, etc. After due time (a week or so), their response was that my wife had already been treated at a better spinal cord injury place (U of M/Jackson), than theirs, and that they had nothing additional or more advanced to offer us.

    Anyhow, just a glimpse of what we’re working through, so you can see that in me you definitely have an empathetic supporter who’s “been there, done that.”

    If I can help in any way, contact me on the BC group site.

  • moonraven

    Les,

    You do not say what fundamental differences we have in regard to Che Guevara.

    I am not inclined to guess what they are–especally given the low level of discourse on this site, they could be anything.

    I have tried to bring attention to the total incivility by holding up a language mirror to the worst offenders here–but they are too dim to see what they look like in that mirror.

    One thing to consider, however, is that no matter how you see your “heroes”, they are human. Which means they have the same defects as anyone else, but something they have done has managed to tip the scales in favor of their qualities–at least in the eyes of some.

    Che is not God. Hugo Chavez took that title away from Eric Clapton some time ago….

  • moonraven

    Anyone can see by the number and quality of responses to my post Number 79 just how much folks want to discuss any real political or historical issues on these threads.

    They don’t.

    Another reason why I have declined to consider writing any articles for blogcritics.

  • troll

    paciencia

    Les said he’d get back to you – and ya know – he might have something interesting to say

  • troll

    also – and perhaps more to the point – why would anyone engage you given your past responses – ?

  • Paul2

    Mark – I actually do know a bit about the people posting here, but that is beside the point.

    You’re the one who proposed banning someone from this site.

    I generally object to this kind of censorship and you don’t offer any specific justification for a ban either. Your sensitivities certainly are not enough. You overestimate yourself.

    If you would actually read what Moonraven has posted across the BC Politics section, she provides more input and knowledge than most others here. And definitely more than you. That is something you can’t admit to. And thats precisely why you resort to proposing censorship, while claiming that MR is eating dog food in the same paragraph. That’s ridiculous.

  • moonraven

    It just shows that Mark’s [Edited] whining and puling (look it up, that’s what dictionaries are for) he is just a little 3-year old snotnose [Edited]

    Way to go, Big Guy!

  • moonraven

    Chris is abusing his editorial position.

    Again.

    He deletes my personal attacks, but attacks me with impunity.

    Real class act you are, Chris.

  • Clavos

    Che is not God. Hugo Chavez took that title away from Eric Clapton some time ago….

    Yet another reason for atheism…

  • moonraven

    I wonder if Clavos has EVER known anyone with a snse of humor….

  • moonraven

    Great, well-written and well-documented responses to my post 79.

    Congratulations on being able to carry on a real discussion about a political figure.

    Pats on the back all around for your insightful commentary.

  • Les Slater

    “You do not say what fundamental differences we have in regard to Che Guevara.”

    One is you say he should have cooperated with the Bolivian CP. I say the Bolivian CP should have cooperated with him. Since it was quite clear that the Bolivian CP was not, and would not, cooperate the likelyhood of sccess was low. But that’s Monday morning quarterbacking.

    I was a member of the Socialist Workers Party during most of the 70’s. That’s when several groups in Latin America were trying to emulate Che. A minority in the party were supporting Roberto Santucho’s PRT and other such groups that were affiliated with the same international grouping we were. I was with the majority.

    Our position was that what Che certainly supported as a tactic was not to supported as a stategy. All tactics are subordinate to strategy. Some of the highlights of the debate are in book form: ‘The Leninist strategy of party building : the debate on guerrilla warfare in Latin America’ is out of print but probably available.

  • Clavos

    I wonder if Clavos has EVER known anyone with a snse of humor….

    If that was your idea of humor, I guess not…

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    moonraven, delighted as I am to see you acknowledge that you do indeed make personal attacks. However, I am not abusing either my position or yourself.

    Indeed, my last remark on this page was #73, wherein I told Mark that he could not take advantage of his role as an editor here to ban you from the site. That is hardly attacking you with impunity by any stretch of the imagination.

    All you have to do to avoid my attentions entirely is concentrate on political debate and resist the temptation to indulge in over-exuberant personal characterisation.

    Good day to you, madam.

  • moonraven

    Les,

    The Bolivian CP was in a position to provide an infrastructure as well as manpower for Che.

    Che was still smarting, I believe, from the debacle in the Congo was had sent him into a profound depression for almost a year–and needed to prove that he was the Alpha male.

    Therefore, he refused to share the leadership.

    One of Che’s most important STRATEGIC points in all of his writing is the necessity to build a base on the ground–in Cuba it was primarily incorporating the local campesinos.

    In Bolivia he did not do that. In fact, local campesinos repeatedly reported the presence of FOREIGN agitators in the area. The Bolivian CP could have provided the entry to the local folks that was needed.

    Without that, Che and his folks (I do not say men as there was Tanya to consider) were cut off from local support, moved around to keep in shape and were divided into two groups under Che’s orders as some folks became ill.

    Che’s group never did reconnect with Joaquin’s group–in fact J’s groups was attacked as they crossed a river and Tanya and others were killed there.

    Both Che’s strategy and his tactics were bad in Bolivia. He kept going out of pride, will and dedication–and because he did not see any other acceptable alternative.

    I had a lot of sympathy and empathy for Che–but he and I share some of the same defects that led to his being killed. Primarily, failure to practice what one preaches.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Clavos, thanks for the offer & good luck with your wife. I’ve learned both personally and professionally that you just can’t give up when it comes to the medical/hospital community.

    Paul2, I’m really not interested in your view of how the Bill of Rights applies to privately-owned property or especially your assessment of my intelligence. When you show some, maybe we can compare brain pan sizes.

    If you don’t see the reason for the ban, then I’d suggest you either take reading lessons or get some glasses. “She who cannot be named” and now you prevent anyone else from having a rational conversation about any issue. “She” just rants and raves and brags about her vast knowledge of everything, probably including circumcision.

    If you can’t see how disruptive and abusive she’s been… and if you don’t know that this is the first time I’ve taken her on… well, either this or my other post… then you’re speaking with no brain… alas a terrible tragedy but one you shouldn’t inflict on us.

    I was hoping everyone would just ignore her, but she pulls people in for some reason. But if she’s not going to be ignored, then I’ll rip her throat out every chance I get & if you want to get in line, I’d be glad to do the same. [Personal attack deleted]

    And “she who cannot be named,” the best you can do is call me a 3 year old snotnose??? Oh my, wait, I am bleeding. I’ve been gored and gouged. You make Paul2 seem downright brilliant.

    Oh and don’t worry about writing for BC — who in their right mind would publish your drivel… let alone figure out how to edit it to make sense. [Personal attack deleted]

    Moi, I seek for purity & truth…

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Les Slater

    “The Bolivian CP was in a position to provide an infrastructure as well as manpower for Che.

    The Moscow oriented CPs were noted for their treachery. The were counterrovolutionary through and through. The Cuban Moscow group was in Batista’s government during the early period when Fidel and followers were fighting in the hills.

    Both Fidel and Che thought that the duty of a revolutionary was to make a revolution. The CPs of the world during that period claimed that objective conditions were not yet ripe. They were going to wait forever.

    “One of Che’s most important STRATEGIC points in all of his writing is the necessity to build a base on the ground–in Cuba it was primarily incorporating the local campesinos.”

    The importance of the cities and organization there is usually overlooked or underestemated. Read Armando Hart’s ‘Aldabonazo: Inside the Cuban Revolutionary Underground, 1952-58, a participant’s account.’ Che himself underestimated the importance here, but those that followed him were much more crude and blind.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Mark, I like you a lot personally but there is no way at all that you are going to take on anybody. You, like everybody else who uses the comments space, will follow the comments guidelines or be edited in line with them.

    I am the Comments Editor and it is my responsibility to moderate this shared space. It doesn’t belong to anybody but everybody and, just as I have in the past even edited commments from parts of the ruling troika and even, more scarily, the fearsome Ms Dawn too, you can rest confident that I will follow the guidelines I have been given without fear or favour to any quarter.

    You just go about your business and leave me to do mine. If you’re not happy about that, then you should use your newly discovered energy to complain to the Troika about my handling of the role and not cast yourself as some kind of cultural vigilante.

    Got it? Good!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Mark,

    Good to “hear” your voice again.

    Hey listen, dude. The trick to dealing with Marthe Raymond (moonraven) is to remember her heritage – and our own. We all have a lot more in common than your realize. We all come from a people that has been driven from its home, suffered multiple genocides and none of us – Marthe and I in particular – are willing to be history’s victims. In addition, she is trying to do something meaningful with her abilities. I see myself the same way. We see the world differently, but don’t seriously tell me that you can’t deal with someone who has a different point of view than yours. I know better.

    Do remember Dumbledore’s comment about wizards who used the phrase “he who must not named.” They only give an evil force more power. Marthe is not evil – she is used to playing a much nastier version of hardball than you are, that’s all…

    I’m really glad to see that you are feeling better, though.

    By the way, if you think dealing with American hospital bureaucracies is a pain in the ass, you should try the Israeli ones. The key thing to remember about the Israeli is that he always thinks someone is trying to pull something over on him – so he acts like a schmuck to avoid being pissed on. Try dealing with a whole country of people like this.

    In essence, nothing gets done around here without lots of banging on the table and brinksmanship. All the nightmares of Jewish culture are alive and well in this country. That is the problem of living in a country where almost every doctor is a Jewish doctor – and everybody thinks that because he can pontificate around a kiddush table on Shabbes, he is the world’s leading expert on everything under the sun.

    I see I’m rambling on here. May you experience a full recovery and send the shoemakers back to mending shoes… Tihyeh barí – sei gesunt.

    Reuven

  • Les Slater

    moonraven,

    I do see that you do know much more about Che, and I am sure many other things than I gave you credit for after reading the ‘One, Two, Three, 1000…’ comment.

    My disagreement is more with your take on Iraq, especially the al-Sadr remarks. I have no doubt that Che might have changed since he was writing and acting on a world scale, but there is no evidence that he would have said such a thing.

    I know people do change. You seem to be somewhat familiar with Hegel. When young he described Napoleon conquering Europe as the ‘World Spirit riding in on a horse’. When he was old he was an apologist for Prussian absolutism.

    But then again, age does not have to do that to you. Last week I went to dinner with Rafael Cancel Miranda. He must be pushing 80 but he is still full of fire and sharp as a tack. I’m sure he has more in common with Che than Hegel.

    Since Che is dead I will deal with your al-Sadr comment.

    First I’ll deal a little with your methodology. You freely use the term fascist to refer to any that displease you. I doubt you give that terminology serious thought, it’s just an epithet. It’s an indication that you are not careful in your analysis in general.

    You, of all people, should know that the more enlightened of foreign opponents of U.S. policy clearly make a distinction between the people of this country and the government running it.

    There are no revolutionary forces in Iraq. They are all just a bunch of cut-throats. Just because one or another flash some shiny object does not mean it’s good coin.

    Les

  • moonraven

    Les,

    Please stay on point if you want to argue with me.

    You are just giving me propaganda now–that the Moscow-oriented CPs were treacherous may be your opinion or it may be from someone else with some experience of them.

    Fidel apparently thought enough of the Bolivian CP to insist that Che go there and to provide the appropriate contacts for him with them. Reps from the CP made at least 2 trips to La Habana and met with Fidel during the process of buying the ranch as a base of operations.

    Che had NO other options in Bolivia for infrastructure building. If he did not trust those folks, WHY did he go there, then? This is not a trivial question, Les, as going there cost him his life.

    Your response to my point about building a base of locals does not address my point–which was that Che broke his own cardinal rule.

    I am fully aware of the power issues between Fidel and Frank Pais that led to some devaluing of the urban contribution to the Cuban Revolution. But that process has nothing to do with the point that I made.

    1. Che was in a very rural area in Bolivia. If you did read his Bolivian Diary you should remember that there are pages of descriptions of Miguel and the Vanguardia cutting trails through the vegetation with machetes! That means his only option of building a local base was CAMPESINOS.

    2. Your comment directly undercuts your first contention about the CP–which WAS in the cities.

    Do you seriously think that if the CP and Che had shared leadership that Che would have been completely cut off with no means whatsoever to communicate with La Habana–or with La Paz?

    I still have absolutely no idea of why you are or were interested in Che.

    Nor of why, if you have such an invested interest, you haven’t read any bios nor La guerra de guerrillas, which is available in ENGLISH on amazon.com for about 10 bucks.

    I think, Les–if you want to know the truth–that you just wanted to dogpack me on this thread in order to make yourself look macho or get your rocks off.

    You are not the first to do that.

    I think I have wasted me time with you.

  • moonraven

    Okay, Les, Now I see what your beef is.

    You support invading other countries for their natural resources. If the people of those countries resist for you they are just cut-throats. That is just a way of “dehumanizing the enemy”–just like calling Vietnamese people “gooks” was, to justify KILLING them.

    I do make a distinction between the US government and the FEW decent US folks that I personally KNOW. I also happen to know quite a few very decent Iraquis–some of which were my students in an MA program I taught in in JOrdan in 2005. They are anything but cut-throats. They are smarter than anyone on this blogsite and much more civiized in their treatment of other people than you are.

    If you support invasions and genocide then I definitely make no distinction between you and the US government–there is no distinction to be made.

    The term fascist implies institutionalize intolerance of any opposing views–and in a larger geopolitical context it is the marriage of big business and government which creates that institutionalizing. I am quoting the horse’s mouth, Mussolini, here.

    Les, I think we are done here.

    You had an ulterior motive in engaging me, and I don’t like that kind of underhanded approach.

  • Les Slater

    “You support invading other countries for their natural resources. If the people of those countries resist for you they are just cut-throats.”

    You do have trouble thinking. I guess I will have to clarify.

    “There are no revolutionary forces in Iraq.” The ones that some ascribe to as being revolutionary are nothing but “…. just a bunch of cut-throats.” That specifically refers to to al-Sadr as well as other militia leaders. Your sanitizing them because they sometimes clash with U.S. forces is nothing any principled revolutionary would ever do.

  • moonraven

    Les,

    You are not a principled revolutionary. The tee shirt does not make the revolutionary! So get off your high horse.

    And I have no trouble thinking.

    Saying I am stupid because I disagree with your description of Iraquis as cut-throats is out of bounds.

    I am NOT stupid. I live part of each year in the Middle East, and I am in a position to have an opinion about Iraquis, as I know a number of them.

    You do not know any Iraquis, are operating from the typical gringo anti-white stance and trying to make it OKAY by insulting me.

    That’s how you started off on this thread and it is clear that you are capable of nothing better.

    Che never advocated stealing other people’s resources. He also did not advocate dehumanizing the enemy–although he did kill a number of people and put others in front of a firing squad as traitors to their country.

    You, on the other hand are a cowardly gringo bully–nothing revolutionary about you.

    This time, Les, we are REALLY done.

    And I am out of here.

  • Arch Conservative

    Chris the only time I would ever agree with the communist clowness is in assessing your use of your editorial powers. You are entirely too LIBERAL in the manner and frequency that you use them.

    As for you Moonbat I gave you some red meat in post 89 after I learned that you and Nalle were battling back and forth over the Chester and you completely ignored it. So I’m forced to cut and paste it in its entirety to see if I can’t ellicit a reaction.

    Here goes:

    Moonraven and Nalle…

    When did this sight turn into a pissing contest to see who knows more about some dead communist who’s nothing but a shit stain in the annals of world history and who is only acknowledged with anything more than sheer indifference or apathy by stoned out brainwashed American college kids and deadbeat socialist who blame the USA for all of the world’s problems but have never actually helped anyone in their lives.

    Fuck Che Guevara…

    You want to read about a great man Moonraven… I suggest you pick up a copy of the biography of Ronald Reagan.

    As for me if I ever came across a book about Che Guevara I’m sure I could put it to use… tearing the pages out and wiping my ass!

  • troll

    Les – moonraven is no revolutionary…she is a tourist of the world and member of the investor class with their pseudo ‘leftist’ interests

  • Les Slater

    moonraven,

    I am begining to recognize who you are. You are a liberal of a certain type.

    I’ve seen them go deeper and deeper into hysterics since Al Gore lost the 2000 elections. There is no rational reason to be a liberal these days. If you try to maintain that being liberal is the right thing to be then you can no longer justify anything rationally. You begin to see most people as enemies, you see some pigs as revolutionaries.

    Why do I call you a liberal? You don’t fit any other description. You certainly are not a Marxist or a revolutionary.

    Les

  • Clavos

    mr,

    I don’t know Les personally – only from several exchanges here on BC. And I’m about as far from him politically as one can be and still be on the same spectrum.

    Les doesn’t need me to defend him; he can certainly defend himself, but your comments to him were more than I could sit by and listen to without reacting.

    I can tell you unequivocally that not only is Les a principled man, he actually lives his principles and is committed to them. Moreover, he is polite and respectful to whomever treats him the same way.

    None of which can be said about you.

  • Paul2

    Mark, you disqualify yourself with things you post on this thread.

    You call for censorship, because others are “stupid, opinionated, unintelligent, crass, offensive, bizarre, pretentious”, then you go on claiming that those who oppose censorship are not entitled to their opinion, have no brains, eat dog food, are ugly and illiterate and that they may line up for you to tear their throats out.

    Thats you seeking purity & truth.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    Paul – might one suggest you try reading more of what Mark has written on this site, and then compare it to the person in Question?

    any Objective viewing of said material will clearly demonstrate the differences…

    now, Mark is indeed far from perfect, i myself have argued AGAINST censoring, bu this points have been valid…and any such attacks made by him were provoked many times over in the first place

    to put it more simply…you appear to not know what the fuck you are talking about

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    She’s been much ruder to others than to me.

    I’ve had much sharper critism from people I have much respect for.

    Les

  • Les Slater

    “I’m about as far from him politically as one can be and still be on the same spectrum.”

    It’s mostly superficial.

  • Clavos

    Les, Having often been the target of her rudeness (and, much to my regret, having returned some of that rudeness to her), I know you’re right.

    What amazes is me is that she appears not to realize how much she might find to agree with you about, because she is so full of herself she didn’t even listen to what you were saying.

    (steps off soapbox)

  • Paul2

    jaz

    thanx for your suggestion.

    i was specifically referring to the comments on this thread. and he said all of these things here and i certainly didn’t give him any reason to insult me in this way, just because i object to his censorship proposition. i also don’t think that someone who may have written some good stuff in the past is entitled to call for censorship or tear my throat out more than anyone else.

    i will read some more of the older stuff.

  • Clavos

    Les 133,

    C’mon, man, you can’t just drop a nugget like that and not elaborate!…:>)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    fair enough, Paul…and all i asked was a thoughtful look at all the info before making a judgement

    when both person’s outputs are looked at, i think you will see just what i mean

    and as an aside, anybody who can even try and call Les some kind of “right-winger” is seriously demented in the extreme…or pulling our collective legs

    either way, just more flotsam, even if it’s with peyote and jalepeno

  • Arch Conservative

    “and as an aside, anybody who can even try and call Les some kind of “right-winger” is seriously demented in the extreme…or pulling our collective legs”

    Jaz………

    You have to keep in mind that you’re dealing with someone who makes Hugo Chavez look like Pat Buchannan.

  • moonraven

    Les is clearly right wing. His pro-war stance on Iraq deminstrates that.

    And he also so naive that he believes that I voted for Al Gore.

    He can check the archives to see that I have posted who I voted for in the 3 elections in which I voted in the US. The last was for Jesse Jackson in 1994–as a write-in. I voted for him because I knew him back in the days when he was doing PUSH in Chicago and I was campus rep for the Black Panthers at Northern Illinois U.

    I do consider Gore the best of the lot of possible Demo candidates in the next election, however. He’s bright, he’s got fairly decent ecological credentials, he has already been elected president once (2000)–and I believe he won an Oscar….

    I do not believe this discussion has anything to do with MY revolutionary credentials. I would not have the temerity to call myself a revolutionary, although many others have.
    It has to do with someone else trying to palm himself off as a follower of Che Guevara without having done his homework.

    He’s not the first to think the tee shirt with Che’s “Che in the Sky with Jacket” pic is all one needs.

    Still, better a tee shirt of Che than one of Bush.

  • Les Slater

    ‘C’mon, man, you can’t just drop a nugget like that…’

    I remember a couple weeks back in response to some comment I made, several, including you and Dave lined up (I could actuallly see it), with your right hands over you hearts and swore on the invilability of private property. I know it was just a knee-jerk reaction.

    We all got so much shit pumped into our heads, whether it’s ‘Imus in the Morning’ or ‘NPR’ or ‘BBC’ or their tele and hyperspace equivalents, we say things that we think our our own thoughs. It’s amusing to see how little variance there is. They all fall into tightly grouped sets with little in between.

  • Clavos

    @#139,

    Bwwahahahahahahhaahhhaaaa!!

    You have just blown whatever shred of credibility as to your intelligence you may have still clung to, mr.

    heh.

  • Clavos

    Les 138,

    OK, but how does that relate to where I stand politically vis-a-vis where you stand?

    Are we (you and I) not (from statements we have made to each other) more or less on polar opposite ends of contemporary political thought?

    Or am I missing the point of your 139? Or, possibly, something along the way?

    Oh, and BTW: I really do believe that property rights are part of the foundation of capitalism, and thus of utmost importance.

  • Les Slater

    Oh, and BTW: I really do believe that property rights are part of the foundation of capitalism, and thus of utmost importance.

    See, we agree.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    arghhhhhhh….do you see what “she who must not be named” has done. Even after she, apparently has left to go back to her bat cave (you better not edit that one Chris…it’s clever), we still can’t talk of anything but her [I’m editing this before Chris because we’re probably keeping him up at night] opinions, rants, and raves.

    Paul2–this is the last time I [edited by writer] to talk to you (wow, I’m a much stricter editor than Chris…shit.) until you show some [edited]. Read your first post & my response. I won’t call it the hand of friendship, but it was at least a hand & not a fist.

    My views on censorship are a closely guarded state secret. I’ll give you a hint though. I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with anything Arch Con has said (except maybe once when he said hello) but even when he’s being a [edited], I will defy the legions of lunatics to defend his right to be so completely wrong all the time.

    This is not about censorship; this is about abuse of privilge, about destroying the opportunity for others to offer points of view without having to worry about “she who cannot be named” (which by the way is a takeoff from Rumpole of the Baily & not some high brow intellectual shit) blathering on and with her voodoo magic drawing everyone in to discuss things with her.

    You want to see an amazing thread. It’s buried deep in the bowels of BC, but it started with an article I wrote called, “I’m Confused About…Jews.” The comments went on for months — hundreds of them, by agnostics such as moi, jaz, I think troll, and the very religious, including Ruvy. The respect shown by everyone to everyone else, regardless of our beliefs led to one of the most incredible theological discussions I’ve ever had the privilege of engaging in.

    It didn’t change my mind about God. But I think it was either Ruvy or a lost BC soul named John Spivey who once said they thought I was on a spiritual quest & I’ll never forget how hard everyone tried to be clear, explicit, personally honest, expose ourselves by talking about really pesonal shit…everything that can’t happen while that [deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted] person is allowed to destroy us…and I use the word destroy intentionally and in all its horrible consequences.

    Oh fuck, you’re not even reading, let along listening. I can tell by the offclicks from my computer.

    Rueven, my friend, yes I am back, although not 100%–I have saved all your e-mails so I can deal with with love when I get the entire brain back in working order. But at least I can write short stuff (for me this is short, remembe3r I’ve got a fucking novel to edit and another I fear to rewrite) and edit.

    So here we be, trapped by “she who must not be named.” I hereby declare this thread closed. (Yeah, yeah, Chris, I know I can’t do that, but I can dream, can’t I?)

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Clavos

    To a point, my friend. I want to preserve them; do you?

  • troll

    (not to worry Mark – nothing never changes

    and remember to remember: ‘they’re all perfect’)

  • Les Slater

    What capitalism has brought us, much is worth preserving.

    Personal property? Your house? Your boat if you have one? Of course!

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Gadfry daniels, Clavos, I rant on for hours and you ask me a question like that? Preserve what?

    As much freedom of speech as possible? Of course. You & I have been on enough threads so you should know that.

    Irritating, obnoxious fools: Hell, I even tolerate them.

    Toxic [deleted by writer] who destroy the ability to have a rational give and take–fuck ’em. They’re the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre.

    So, what did you mean? LOL.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Clavos

    Sorry, Mark, that question (which I should have better identified) was directed at Les, who thankfully realized it and answered me.

    Carry on. But, that’s what you just said you do, right?

  • Clavos

    BTW Mark, I remember that discussion well.

    One outcome of it was that John Spivey recommended a book to me, which I purchased (but which I regretfully admit, I’ve still only partly read) called “Buddhism Without Beliefs.”

    I’m completely with you on the point about respect and civility; the discussions are much more enjoyable when they’re observed.

  • Clavos

    Les,

    Gotta admit. You surprised me.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Clavos, the comments are flying so fast they’re crossing each other, but you’re absolutely right. You and Les talking rather than shrieking.

    You have bought John’s book, right? It is amazing. I’ll have to get that Buddha book.

    And so, to some it is early, but a hard day your noble warrior for truth, justice, and my way has had…so, good night.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • STM

    Les wrote: “What capitalism has brought us, much is worth preserving. Personal property? Your house? Your boat if you have one? Of course!”

    Les, I’m interested in your views. How do you feel about pragmatic socialism – in the style of “New” Labour in Britain, or the Australian Labour Party – accord-based workplace laws thrashed out in the courts through arbitration, etc, such as awards with minimum set rates and penalties for night and weekend work, combined with genuine social change that doesn’t seek to tear down private industry but enlists it to help raise the living standards of workers in exchange for higher productivity?

  • STM

    MR wrote: “Les is clearly right wing. His pro-war stance on Iraq deminstrates that.”

    You don’t have to be right wing to want to see lunatics stopped from doing their murderous work. No one wants wars moonraven, but the truth is, most Iraqis aren’t happy about what the insurgents are doing to their country, and most are glad to have a murderous stalinist gone. Most of them want what we all want: for their kids to be able to go to school, to have jobs, to live in peace. The secular nationalists who make up the bulk of the insurgents are Baathists: they want a return to the old regime. The religious nuts who make up the rest of the crew just want to kill anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe.

    Spending a bit of time in Bahrain doesn’t qualify you to know everything about the middle-east. In regards to Iraq, to use your own tired standard argument: you’ve never been there, so you don’t know.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “He can check the archives to see that I have posted who I voted for in the 3 elections in which I voted in the US. The last was for Jesse Jackson in 1994–as a write-in.”

    That’s interesting, inasmuch as there was no Presidential election that year…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    oh….snap!

    but will be explained away as a mere typo

  • moonraven

    It was a typo. 1984.

  • Les Slater

    STM # 153

    moonraven is a symptom of why things can’t be fixed under capitalism. She has lost all faith. She’s not the only one, most people on BC know there is something fundamentally wrong.

    I am looking into starting a new party. Detroit is fertile ground. It won’t be anything like labor paties in Britain, Austrailia or elswhere.

    Les

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Les, I think that most people would agree that if becoming like Moonraven is the response to the problem then we’ll keep the problem, thanks.

    I think most people have not lost faith. Why would they when the capitalist system – if not the government – is working so well for them?

    Good luck with your new party, though. A regional labor-style party for the rust belt might be an interesting and positive addition to the political process. I bet you could run James Trafficant for president when he gets out of jail.

    Dave

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Les, while I don’t agree with Dave, I don’t think “she who must not be named’s” problems have to do with a lack of faith in the U.S. system–I’m losing faith too, but I don’t abuse people left and right…too often…and I don’t claim to be an expert of everything under the sun.

    I think she’s just sad and angry & uses forums like this to vent. Hell, I’ve written that I fear the whole human race will turn out to be just a flicker in greater scale of evolution, but that doesn’t make me bitter, mean, etc. etc.

    And Dave, old sport, I gotta get some data.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “I’ve written that I fear the whole human race will turn out to be just a flicker in greater scale of evolution”

    That’s interesting. Let’s say we foolish humans nuke ourselves back to the caves sometime in the near future. What species do you think is the most likely to evolve beyond us mere humans? (This is a serious question, by the way…)

    Remember, there are a few prerequisites a species must meet before it has a credible shot at achieving advanced civilization. These include:

    – living on land (see next item)
    – the ability to create and use fire (no fire = no civilization!)
    – opposable thumbs (this is needed to manipulate simple tools, a crucial first step in using more advanced tools)
    – large brains capable of abstract thought (self-explanatory)
    – ability to rapidly adapt to changing environmental conditions (otherwise, massive die-offs and/or an inherently nomadic existence will occur)
    – the ability to reproduce either relatively frequently, or in relatively large numbers (to counteract the effects of high mortality, infant or otherwise)
    – long life expectancies (so that there is enough time to both learn about civilization, and then teach this to the next generation)
    – an inherent instinct for child-rearing (this mostly limits the contenders to fellow mammals)
    – warm-blooded (so that the species is not confined to a tropical climate region)
    – Etc.

    So…whatcha got? My money’s on raccoons…

  • Les Slater

    Mark #160

    “…while I don’t agree with Dave, I don’t think ‘she who must not be named’s’ problems have to do with a lack of faith in the U.S. system–I’m losing faith too, but I don’t abuse people left and right…”

    For a person that talks about Chavez’s Socialism and really does know a lot about Che, and a lot of other things, she’s hoping beyond hope that the good old U.S. system pulls through. She is a liberal Democrat.

    Moonraven #139

    “I do consider Gore the best of the lot of possible Demo candidates in the next election, however. He’s bright, he’s got fairly decent ecological credentials, he has already been elected president once (2000)–and I believe he won an Oscar….”

    The problem is that things ain’t going according to plan. She sees much that is wrong but is cluless about what the causes are. She has two fundamental problems, one is what she sees she feels powerless to do anything about. She’s banging her head against the wall. Two, she does not, and can not see why other people don’t see things as she sees them. ‘It’s all around us, can’t you see it?’. We’ve all turned into right-wingers and fascists.

    I think that rather than thinking we are all dumb, she thinks were brainwashed. She sees her world coming to an end, everything is closing in on her. These are some of the things that cause people to become hysterical. Notice that she can’t read? That’s one of the symptoms.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Les, shit, if you’re going to use reason, compassion, and humanity against me, I see no reason to continue this discussion. You’re fired. Return all your salary.

    While I reluctantly agree with your assessment of “she who cannot be named,” as one of the beleagured editors of the politics section, I have to look at how badly we’ve been damaged by her and others, and as much as I’m convinced I can turn anyone from a sourpuss into a lilly…it ain’t going to work with her.

    Because of a weird sleep disorder that I still haven’t completely shaken, I wasn’t active on BC for some months. When I got enough brain power (3 neurons, only 1 to go) back to jump back in, I was horrified by how the entire politics group had deteriorated.

    As far as I’m concerned, she welcomed back any time she can control her anger and personal attacks. I don’t care what her political positions are–label me confused beyond redemption. But I will fight to protect BC Politics so we can compete against the “big boys,” and in her current incarnation, she’s not helping.

    The funny thing…although I’m not sure…she might actually be able to be a great participant if she just developed a sense of humor and got rid of some of that vicious anger that dominates everything she says.

    But enough of that. If she wants to change, it’s easy…just follow the sacred rule,

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Clavos

    Mark writes:

    As far as I’m concerned, she welcomed back any time she can control her anger and personal attacks.

    What’s going on? I noticed she hasn’t commented in a couple of days. Was she actually banned?

    If she was, speaking as one of her prime targets, I disagree with banning her.

    And to Les’ very perceptive analysis of her, I would also add that she seems to me to be very insecure, and despite her braggadocio, has fairly low self esteem.

  • Les Slater

    Mark,

    I have had to let go of a couple of people that were close to me that had developed paranoid schizophrenia and would pull me down with them if I did not get away from them. I have had to advise others to do the same.

    Not that she is P.S. but our interests should not be pulled down into the mud for something we are unable to solve.

    Les

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Clavos, she’s not been banned, but Eric O wrote an amazingly sensitive e-mail asking her to take a 30 day cooling off period. You should know, since I was the instigator, Gonzo is still ripping me up and down the river, but he’s just a 60s hippie who won’t grow up (actually, so am I…)oh well…

    The point was that banning was felt to be too strong, we couldn’t reason with her, but some of us felt strongly that she was undermining the political section in very dangerous ways–hence Les’ comment.

    No one’s happy with the decision. Lord knows the editors spent enough time going back and forth on it. What I noticed, I think because I’d been fairly inactive for so long because of the African Sleeping Sickness (or whatever) is how weak the political section had become. And as I looked at it, all I could see was “She who must not be named” and a few others who so dominated with negativity that we were losing both writers and commenters.

    So it because an unsolvable problem of whose rights come first.

    I think Eric came up with the perfect solution. A cooling off period will do us all a lot of good.

    As long as people remember,

    In Jameson Veritas

    (Does that answer your question?)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    “she welcomed back…”

    so..it’s a done thing…

    /disappointed

  • Clavos

    Thoroughly, Mark. And thank you. I won’t opine (it’s really not my place), beyond saying that I think an outright banning would have been far more damaging to BC than anything she could do, so I’m glad that didn’t happen.

    The cooling off is an excellent solution. I’m also hopeful it will work.

    Believe it or not, conservative as I am, I too am a superannuated 60s hippie, though I did spend part of the 60s involuntarily involved in our misadventure in Vietnam.

    But, when I got back, I went to college, and well, it was the 60s, y’know?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Clavos, there are a hell of a lot of us who grew up in the 60s and ended up relatively conservative or libertarian 30 years later. I think that certain values which are considered conservative today are compatible with the beliefs which characterized the sixties, particularly the emphasis from that period on self-reliance, activism and individual responsibility and rights.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Dave, I think a lot of it goes back to what you wrote about recently regarding classic liberalism. Much of what came out of the sixties fit that mold, IMO.

  • SonnyD

    I really, really hope to see BC get back to the kind of discussions that were being held when I first found it. In the mean time I’ve been visiting several other sites where the people are civil to one another. But I keep coming back and lurking for a while until I see that it’s still not a fun place to be.

    But, I still do come back because there are certain “personalities” here that I like a lot and feel more comfortable with than any I have found anyplace else. So what’s a person to do?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    :::waves to Sonny:::

    click the URL if yer not sure who it is…

    heh

  • Clavos

    “So what’s a person to do?”

    SonnyD, don’t lurk. Participate. The more people who participate, post, and comment, and do so civilly and spiritedly, the better off we all are.

    Jump in, the water’s great!

  • STM

    I assume classic liberalism in America means much what the Labor Party does in Australia – not the tearing down of capitalism, but working with private enterprise to raise the living standards of ALL workers along with productivity so everyone benefits. No place, in other words, for the loony left – which I despise. A strong word, but that is where they sit in my thinking. Somewhere out there (turn left at Venus and keep going), along with the loony Right.

  • SonnyD

    jaz: Do you really think I wouldn’t know you under any name? I caught the mention you made to your initials long before you started using them to sign in.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I assume classic liberalism in America means much what the Labor Party does in Australia – not the tearing down of capitalism, but working with private enterprise to raise the living standards of ALL workers along with productivity so everyone benefits.

    I’m not that familiar with the Labor party in Australia, but it doesn’t sound exactly the same. Classical Liberalism is just about the same thing as what we call Libertarianism, but going back to the roots of the movement in the period of the American Revolution, putting aside more modern influences which have upped the level of ideological absolutism.

    It’s your basic belief in the fundamental rights to life, liberty and property and doing what you want so long as it doesn’t harm others. Then you add on the idea of the social contract which both justifies the existence of government which serves the interests of the people, and also the idea that there’s an ethical obligation for individuals to engage in some form of public service for the betterment of the people and society as a whole. Or that’s how I see it, anyway.

    No place, in other words, for the loony left – which I despise. A strong word, but that is where they sit in my thinking. Somewhere out there (turn left at Venus and keep going), along with the loony Right.

    The crazy extremists on botht he left and the right offer so little positive to any discourse that I often wish they’d both just go away.

    Dave

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    As I’m the Comments Editor, I feel I must bear a certain proportion of the burden of responsibility for allowing too much leeway in the back and forth you lot seem to enjoy so much here in the BC Politics section.

    The battle of ideas, the dialectic struggle if you will, is a vital and fascinating spectacle. The tendency to turn from that battle to one more based on personalities is very understandable but ultimately makes a shared space like this unbearable and unreadable.

    I shall attempt to do a better job of ensuring that this remains a free, fair and essentially neutral space for everybody, regardless of their role or perspective. I think that basically means:- be excellent to each other. Or else!

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    I like that, Chris. Good line: Be excellent to each other. One can already see the change in this thread.

    RJ #161: Fascinating question, no answer here. I’m rereading that amazing book, “Wonderful Life, The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History” by Stephen Jay Gould. It’s about a virtually total wipe out of most living creatures about 600 million years ago, and then an eruption of new life. The Burgess Shale is in Canada and has revealed some of the strangest findings ever.

    One thing Gould wrestles with is the question of how do you figure out, before the fact, which species survive and which don’t. He finally decides, at least with the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods, that one can’t. (The book and his conclusions are highly controversial, but on this one point, I think there’s general agreement.)

    I wonder about your criteria though. Aren’t they too anthropomorphic? Porposes & Dolphins, for example, could develop along lines we never imagined. A couple of million years ago, there was this radical development in simean DNA that resulted in humans, apes, and (I can’t help it…me about to be bad…wait, there’s a way out) Gonzo, wha hahahahahahahahahahahahah.

    Hell, it could be one of the insect species. We’re assuming whatever replaces us will be more intelligent; what if they’re simply more resilient. Then my vote goes to the cockroach.

    Jaz & Clavos: I’ll be honest. I wanted her gone, but my bride tells me that one lingering symptom of this bizarre thing I’ve got is that I’m angrier than normal, and I had to admit she’s right. (My bride is “She Who Must Be Obeyed,” which comes directly from Rumpole of the Baily.)

    I think the cooling off period makes a lot of sense. And Jaz, it’s going to happen to another you hammered me about–and I let the editors know when this person’s name came up that you beat me up over that too. So there, LOL. I think it’s a good compromise between my extreme position & those who wanted to do nothing.

    Finally, SonnyD, listen to Clavos, he be very smart. We need you back. We need lots of people back. There are so many bright people here with some of the weirdest ideas–sometimes my head spins…which is relatively easy to do.

    Thank God for what I can always rely on:

    In Jameson Veritas

  • troll

    well…she’ll do as scapegoat

    but her behavior is not the sole or even primary cause of the so called ‘degradation’ that you complain of – and in fact she ‘turned up the volume’ lately as a reaction to what she saw as dishonest and overbearing goings on here

    hot headed commenters and impossible threads are not incompatible with a valuable comment space…where folks can work on figuring out how to get their ‘messages’ across

    the experiment/question – where could free expression take a group of commenters brainstorming ideas around topics introduced in articles – ? – was a good one…attempts to direct the process toward a preferred outcome have had a predictably stifling effect

    lots of creative thought and experiments in communication have been discouraged already in the name of comity and levelheadedness and control which limits the pool of contributers – readers – new ideas…we’ll never know just how much I guess

    Chris – not surprisingly you left out the equally important – ‘party on – !’

  • troll

    my comment on this move has been blocked – in essence it was:

    enjoy the matzah

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    “for allowing too much leeway…”

    that’s the Trump and the Shout, as far as i’m concerned…

    i’ll check back after an indeterminate hiatus

    good luck

  • Clavos

    jaz,

    Indulge this Old Fogey, please…

    What do you mean by “the Trump and the Shout”?

    I think I have an inkling, but don’t want to make any assumptions.

    I googled it, and the only hit I got that made any sense at all had something to do with the “rapture”?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Jaz, I think you missed the essence of Christopher’s comment which was in the LAST paragraph rather than the first which you reacted to so negatively.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Back on topic the following article from The Militant may be of some interest.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    That’s essentially the same story I covered in my Newsbrief on Friday which was largely ignored because a chronically narcissistic commenter took over the comment section.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    /sigh…just because you Asked nicely Clavos..

    your googling touches on it, the heralding and announcement is the Thing

    just me and how i take it, i fully Comprehend the why being used, i just don’t agree with it, bu it ain’t my call

    now…plz stop calling upon the Name of the daemon, we do so dislike being compelled to Appear

    have Fun kiddies…and best of Luck

    ::slips back into the Shadows of occasional Lurking::

  • Les Slater

    Editor,

    The link to Militant above (my 183) brings up an error page. The URL that I posted must have worked since Dave commented on it. The URL now linked ends in
    . Removing that links to the proper article.

    Les

  • Les Slater

    Ends in br%20/ with surrounding brackets that made it invisable in previous comment.

  • sugababe

    wot pot

  • Clavos

    Militant link above still doesn’t work.

    This should.

    (Can’t believe I just provided a link to a SWP piece!!)

  • Les Slater

    Can’t believe I just provided a link to a SWP piece!!

    And Dave: “That’s essentially the same story I covered…”

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Sorry about fixing the link and munging it. For future references live links (working) are better than long lines of address code.

    The piece may originate with the SWP, but it’s basically derived from reports in the Guardian (also a socialist rag) which got most of their info from the news services. It’s essentially factual. It even has a relatively positive spin – more of one than I provided in my very brief coverage.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    The Militant, like many, if not most, small weekly papers gets its news from wire services and quotes from major dailies. They get photos from similar sources.

    Much of the paper has U.S. news and reporters on the scenes. Reporters are also in other countries and reporters travel to other countries frequently. There are also local contacts in many countries that can be contacted by email or phone for information.

    The militant tries very hard to be factual.

    Les

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Clavos (168) “I won’t opine (it’s really not my place), beyond saying that I think an outright banning would have been far more damaging to BC than anything she could do, so I’m glad that didn’t happen.”

    I’m having trouble keeping up with all this, but Lord o’ Mercy, Clavos, of course it’s your place to opine. We’re struggling with this so we can all enjoy ribald and sometimes intelligent comments without fearing personal attacks, and there ain’t none of us smart enough to figure out the perfect answer. If commenters don’t offer their opinions, then it’s a bunch of editors having a circle jerk.

    Now I’m worried people are taking this whole thing as a way to stiffle opinions. It is absolutely not. We hope our actions will make it easier for people to offer their opinions (whatever they are) without fear of being mauled–attacked, yes, mauled no.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    I must say I’m rather disappointed with the way jaz is reacting. What exactly is so funny about peace, love and understanding, coupled with some basic respect and good manners towards others? Must be all that Rush he listens to!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    damnit Christopher…you keep Invoking my Name, i keep having to lay it out for ya…

    i’ll make it simple as i can

    nothing wrong with good Manners or Consideration for others at all, far from it…as you noted with the sub-refs…trying to Work me with my own spewings

    but once it becomes Compulsory, you remove any real Meaning and reduce it from something bearing Grace to mere mechanical response to Authoritarian boundaries

    that whole Free Will thing, ya know….

    we done now?

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    jaz, I still worry that you’re missing the point. There is nothing at all wrong with the occasional, spirited fuck you or whatever, as in – “fuck you, you overly liberal heavy metal fuckwit extremist” – provided it is only sporadic. And preferably funny!

    However, there seems to be an inability to exercise self-restraint by many people and too many conversations about too many subjects have just become prolonged arguments and insult fests. At the very least, it becomes an extremely tedious read and I for one am concerned about the readability of the comments space.

    There is a British TV soap opera called Eastenders which is very popular in the UK but I never watch it as it seems to consist entirely of people arguing all the time, which I find tedious, boring and ultimately really dispiriting and depressing.

    For what it may or may not be worth, I was not one of the people calling for any sanction against you know who (female) or you know who (male). The latter may well be the next one to have the welcome mat withdrawn but I’m not the one calling for it or doing it.

    There are several other ways of resolving these kinds of issues but the current approach is what our lords and masters have chosen to deploy for the time being.

  • troll

    (asks troll meekly from the back of the room and only after raising his hand – )

    gee Chris…might you unblock my comment some point – ?

    (and quickly follows up with – )

    at your pleasure and convenience of course…

  • Clavos

    (Clavos, also from back of room, furtively whispers to troll)

    Hehe! That was very funny, troll.

    (resumes surreptitiously playing with his Gameboy)

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    troll, if you mean #179, it was liberated from the over-eager Akismet yonks ago. And if you’re at the back of the room, you’re in my seat, so move, ya fuck!

    Tee Hee

  • Clavos

    Mark (194)sez:

    “I’m having trouble keeping up with all this, but Lord o’ Mercy, Clavos, of course it’s your place to opine. We’re struggling with this so we can all enjoy ribald and sometimes intelligent comments without fearing personal attacks, and there ain’t none of us smart enough to figure out the perfect answer. If commenters don’t offer their opinions, then it’s a bunch of editors having a circle jerk.”

    Point certainly taken, and not to worry; I didn’t express myself well: what I meant was it wasn’t my place because I didn’t know the whole story.

    I don’t in any way feel cowed or restricted yet, so won’t expect to exercise any more than my customary level of self-restraint, which we all know, has a tendency to slip often.

    Besides, I will do anything, (reluctant as you know I am to offer my opinion) to avoid the spectacle of the editors in a circle jerk! (shudders)

  • troll

    missed that yonk – thanks Chris

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Porposes & Dolphins, for example, could develop along lines we never imagined.”

    Sure, if they are able to eventually function on land (not a huge jump, perhaps), and if they evolve some opposable appendages (which would probably have to follow the above), then they could easily grow smart enough to manipulate fire and start an actual civilization. But if they are confined to coastal regions because of a semi-aquatic existence, agriculture would be a problem. (Of course, I suppose they could just rely on “fish farms” and the like…)

    Thanks for the feedback. I like egghead sorta discussions from time to time… 😉

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Oh shit, did I say circle jerk? Where’s the comments editor when you really need him just to protect me from myself.

    RJ–yeah, I love this head game debates that don’t usually go anywhere but are lots of fun.

    The point is that I’m challenging your basic assumptions about land-based, opposible thumbs, and all those human-based qualities that allowed us to make H-bombs.

    Why would dolphins need farming? They eat fish. Why would they need to walk anywhere or use tools? Being the dominant species doesn’t necessarily mean been the most technologically sohpisticated…although let’s say Dolphins have a natural Psi ability & slowly develop the ability to manipulate their environment mentally.

    Fire was an essential step for Homo Sapiens; we shouldn’t assume it’s a requirement for evolutionary growth. Maybe they’ll jump right to nuclear power, LOL.

    We need to start with a blank slate and no reconditions–which is rather hard when you think about it.

    And what about my cockroaches. They eat radiation, so when all else is in rubble, they’ll be doing the Snoopy happy dance.

    Mark,

    In Jameson Veritas

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Why would dolphins need farming? They eat fish.

    Fish move. (But that’s moot; so do cows!)

    But if your dolphin population grows large enough that they eat all the fish in their geographical area, then they must move to new areas in order to feed themselves. That’s nomadic. And nomads do not create civilizations. (The Mongols were nomadic, but they didn’t really create anything; however, they destroyed a lot of things and took over some other things that had already been built by others. In any case, eventually they got their asses handed to them…by non-nomads!)

    Why would they need to walk anywhere or use tools?

    Surely you jest. The entire point of civilization is to create tools that can accomplish some task(s) that could not be easily accomplished without those tools. Sharpened sticks, jagged rocks, hammers, saws, knives, guns, printing presses, penicillin, soap, toilets, air-conditioners, assembly lines, computers, and atomic weapons are all tools. Without tools, we are still living in the caves with a life expectancy of 20. In short, tools rule!

    Being the dominant species doesn’t necessarily mean been the most technologically sophisticated…

    Well, lions and tigers and bears (oh, my!) were at the top of the food chain web until we weak but wily humans arrived on the scene. If you’re talking only about the “dominant” species, we humans still aren’t there. Ants make up a helluva lot more of the total global biomass than we humans ever will. What I’m talking about here is advanced civilization. So maybe we’re talking past each other…

    although let’s say Dolphins have a natural Psi ability & slowly develop the ability to manipulate their environment mentally.

    Well, if you wanna go the sci-fi route, then any species could potentially develop that ability. But even with that ability, how the hell are dolphins gonna make nukes or computers that they can actually use? They’re underwater!

    Fire was an essential step for Homo Sapiens; we shouldn’t assume it’s a requirement for evolutionary growth. Maybe they’ll jump right to nuclear power, LOL.

    Fire is a crucial chemical reaction. Without fire, you cannot utilize many elements/compounds in any beneficial way. And you can’t use fire if you’re stuck in the ocean.

    And what about my cockroaches. They eat radiation, so when all else is in rubble, they’ll be doing the Snoopy happy dance.

    Those fuckers are evil. They can live almost anywhere, and survive almost anything. But they have an exoskeleton, which inherently limits their size. And any small animal will necessarily have a small brain. And a small brain is incapable of the sort of abstract thought needed to build a civilization. QED.

  • STM

    So long, and thanks for all the fish …

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Well, this certainly took an abrupt right turn into the twilight zone.

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Well, this certainly took an abrupt right turn into the twilight zone.”

    ROTFL!

    Seriously though, would you rather it took an “MCH turn” into an argument about who spent more time playing billiards in Hawaii during the early 70s?

    Or a “moonraven turn” about who loves Che more, or who hates Bushitler more?

    At least me and MS are having an intellectual discussion here… :-/

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    So long, and thanks for all the fish …

    Also ROFL…

    Yeah, Dave, RJ & I are being intellectual…I hope.

    RJ, one of the problems Gould brings up about evolution is the phrase, “survival of the fittest,” which he argues is tautological, and explains why. I forget how he solves it, but you’re right in that we may be talking at cross purposes, and I think I’m to blame because I’m think along two lines.

    First is if Homo Sapiens bites the dust, what superior form of life may evolve to replace us. Then we’ve got the land/sea problem, and I still think your being anthropomorphic. I can’t imagine a superior species not having the qualities you list, but that’s the problem. The very fact that I can’t imagine it suggests a conceptual framework we can’t reach.

    Second is just who becomes more dominant on the planet, and you’re right that ants (and mosquitos–Gad, I’d kill myself before letting them take over…), and cockroaches may alread have that distinction.

    So we’re left with a conceptual black hole & a bunch of scrungy insects we’d all like to step on. And a couple of cute dophins. Next move?

    In Jameson Veritas

  • MCH

    “Seriously though, would you rather it took an “MCH turn” into an argument about who spent more time playing billiards in Hawaii during the early 70s?”

    Or an “RJ turn,” to see who can make the most fun of the size of Elizabeth Edwards’ butt?

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Well, I’m all for arguing about billiards & time wasted getting blue chalk on one’s fingers, but you loose on this one because of the mention of hawaii. First, I’ve never been there, so it’s, like, stuff it up your nose. Second, they have lots of earthquakes there, so, there you are, 20K on the line, you’ve got an easy shot at the 9 ball to win it all…you stroke the cue softly & an earthquake swallows the fucking table.

    Or…I don’t know who Eliz Edwards is, but if she’s cute & has a great butt, RJ & I could have a good time assessing its relative features (until the women here beat the shit out of us…)

    Can’t you come up with something that won’t get me killed?

    Remember,

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Clavos

    Mark,

    Or…I don’t know who Eliz Edwards is…

    She’s John’s wife, and for some incomprehensible reason, MCH doesn’t like people to make her the butt of their jokes (or was it jokes about her butt?)

    Whatever. If you don’t want emmy stalking you for the rest of your life, just don’t include her name in anything humorous.

  • Les Slater

    Another reason people are put off by BC is a tendency to get way off topic and an IN culture.

  • Zedd

    Mark,

    I think that a small point that we evade is that AlSadir is actually dealing with the crux of the issue. This is not our country or region. His being offended by that is legitimate. What is shocking is that he is willing to do something about it. Were he here and we were in the same situation as Iraq is, we would deem him a hero. I think that is what Moonraven was saying. A lot of the guys on here got caught up in showing off their knowledge of Che and missed her point.

    Whether he is a revolutionary or capitalist is neither hear or there, they are all opportunistic. The fact that he is saying that the US has no right to determine the future of Iraq is something to be considered and internalized by us.

    Also, let us all prepare for the fact that Iraq will not be stable for generations. It rarely happens that nations are built and stabilized in a short time. We had a civil war 100 yrs after our conception.

    Whether its the various nations in Africa, Asia and South America that are dealing with post imperialism or post Soviet states, it takes time. Lets adjust to that and cease to look at the struggles of these nations as an indication of their inferiority or a sign of our superiority.

  • Les Slater

    Zedd,

    “The fact that he is saying that the US has no right to determine the future of Iraq is something to be considered and internalized by us.”

    The fact that he is saying that makes it one thing we can agree with him on. We can also agree that he has a right to believe in his religion and be a leader in that arena. What else can we agree on? We certainly cannot praise him for his leading attacks on the Sunni population.

    Moonraven, while condemning U.S. occupation praises one who is part of the occupier set up government. al-Sadr called his followers out of the government. Does that deserve praise? Malcolm X once said that if a man sticks a knife in your back, you don’t praise him when he pulls it half way out.

    The whole point about Che was that it was not Che that said it or would likely say it. It was moonraven’s attempt to use the authority of the revolutionary Che to promote her own reactionary position.

    “Whether its the various nations in Africa, Asia and South America that are dealing with post imperialism or post Soviet states, it takes time.

    Post imperialism?

    Les

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    It seems to me like right now the US isn’t trying to determine the future of Iraq, it’s trying to make sure that Iraq has any future at all. That might be something to stick in your peace pipe and take a few puffs on.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    “It seems to me like right now the US isn’t trying to determine the future of Iraq, …”

    You really don’t believe that. When you say “…it’s trying to make sure that Iraq has any future at all”, it just means that you have your own definition of future. It just happens to coincide with the U.S.’s dfinition of future. The two parts of your statement are a contradiction.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I don’t buy it, Les. The situation in Iraq right now is that the US is mainly there in a peacekeeping role. We’re trying to keep the lid on so that the Iraqis can prove they can run their country so that we can get the fuck out. I don’t see that as determining what their future is going to be, except to the extent that we’re trying to make self-government possible for them, which is okay by me.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    You read the article. You made no particular criticism. You did not say ‘the only thing I disagreed with…’. Excerpted from the article:

    “The Mahdi militia is a special target of the crackdown in Iraq, led by thousands of additional U.S. troops being sent mostly to the capital, with the aim of establishing a stable capitalist regime in Iraq friendly to U.S. interests in the region.”

    The reason you did not mention anything is that the above statement is factual, or at least you consider it to be factual, and I agree. What you did not see, and this may be the fault of the Militant, is that the Militant does not support that aim, neither do I. You do.

    Les

  • Clavos

    What you did not see, and this may be the fault of the Militant, is that the Militant does not support that aim, neither do I. You do.

    I would bet Dave did see it, just by virtue of the fact that the source is the Militant, and there’s no way they would support a “capitalist state.”

    I certainly saw it.

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    He may have seen it, but it did not register. He did make comments on the article. He said that it was factual and that it even put more of a positive spin than his article.

    From Dave’s 216:

    “It seems to me like right now the US isn’t trying to determine the future of Iraq, it’s trying to make sure that Iraq has any future at all.”

    The logic of his statements is that outside capitalism (at least for Iraq), there is only a null set.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    “The Mahdi militia is a special target of the crackdown in Iraq, led by thousands of additional U.S. troops being sent mostly to the capital, with the aim of establishing a stable capitalist regime in Iraq friendly to U.S. interests in the region.”

    The reason you did not mention anything is that the above statement is factual, or at least you consider it to be factual, and I agree. What you did not see, and this may be the fault of the Militant, is that the Militant does not support that aim, neither do I. You do.

    The thing is, Les, when I or most rational people read that, we don’t have the same reaction as the The Militant’s target audience. When they wrote that I’m sure they thought it would enrage their base. When most people read it they are likely to say “good idea,” because they have this weird belief that a stable, productive and free society might be a good idea for Iraq or for ay other country. They don’t object because they don’t think capitalism is evil – they think it’s the natural and logical route to that free, stable and successful society. For that matter, most people reading that would think that having a US-friendly regime there is a good thing, not a bad thing.

    And this, in a nutshell, shows much of what’s wrong with the socialist movement in America. It’s inbred and doesn’t know how to effectively broaden its appeal. Whoever wrote that article didn’t understand that the broader audience of potential converts would react to it differently from their already loyal constituency. They wrote the article to play to socialists, rather than writing it to make socialism appeal to a mass audience.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    “When they wrote that I’m sure they thought it would enrage their base.”

    Why on earth would you think that? It is just a fact. It is only written to inform. People of that ‘base’ don’t need this fact to be told to them. There may be some that think that Bush is trying to create a fascist state. These people may be enraged and call the Militant a right-wing rag that is pro-war and trying to cover for Bush.

    “When most people read it they are likely to say ‘good idea,’ because they have this weird belief that a stable, productive and free society might be a good idea for Iraq or for ay other country.”

    That is probably true. It is not the purpose of a news article to say whether such a thing might be good or bad.

    “They wrote the article to play to socialists, rather than writing it to make socialism appeal to a mass audience.”

    This article was neither writen to play to socialists nor make socialism appeal to a mass audience. It was a news article. It was intended to inform. Most workers do not have access to articles that are that clear and succinct.

    Les

  • Clavos

    Les,

    “Most workers do not have access to articles that are that clear and succinct.”

    How is it that “most workers” don’t have access? Is The Militant not their newspaper? Is someone suppressing it?

    I’m a worker, have been one since I was sixteen; I can access and read it, and I’m sure I could subscribe if I chose to.

    What exactly is a worker? We all are wage slaves in this country; to my thinking, we’re ALL “workers.”

    Is the Militant suppressed? If so, by whom and how? If it’s even available on the Internet, it would appear it’s not suppressed in any way, no?

  • Les Slater

    I should have said workers do not otherwise have articles ….

  • Les Slater

    Workers are being bombarded with all kinds of nonsence. Some of it is that the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq. The Militant is there to give an accurate picture of what is happening.

    Dave says, ‘It even has a relatively positive spin – more of one than I provided in my very brief coverage.’

    That’s because Dave does, at various times, and to varying degrees, believe the propaganda about U.S. losing the war.

  • Clavos

    So, are you saying the US is winning the war?

  • Les Slater

    It will do whatever it has to to win it. It may not in the long run but there are no reasons to believe otherwise at the present time. For one thing the Democrats are totally in favor of winning the war. They want more money to be spent. This time limit thing is totally fake.

  • Clavos

    The Dems want to win??

    Aren’t they the ones saying we’ve already lost?

    I DO believe they want more money spent (by the Republicans) so they can continue to point to the Bush people’s spending as another reason for the public to vote for them on ’08.

  • Les Slater

    “Aren’t they the ones saying we’ve already lost?”

    They are saying that Bush administration is not fighting this war to win. Remember Kerry?

    “I DO believe they want more money spent (by the Republicans) so they can continue to point to the Bush people’s spending as another reason for the public to vote for them on ’08.”

    I am talking about upping what Bush asked for in his war budget. They will not deny that it was they that voted more than the President asked for. They are nervous though. If the war is lost they hope it will be on Bush’s watch. They will be able to say that they did not obstruct. The current administration will not give up trying to win. If the Dems get in in ’08 they will continue the war.

  • Clavos

    Les,

    “If the Dems get in in ’08 they will continue the war.”

    You have to be the only guy in the country who believes that. Why?

    They’ve spent six years slamming the republicans for the war, and you think they’re going to continue it if it isn’t over by ’08?

    Why? So they won’t be known as the party that lost it?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    In the country Clavos??? You meant only guy on the planet…didn’t you?

  • Les Slater

    “Why? So they won’t be known as the party that lost it?”

    That’s only a small part of it. The war was always supported by the vast majority of the Democrats. They complain that they were mislead but now that ‘we’ are in there we can’t just pull out. They have no intension of forcing the current administration to pull out.

    I’m not the only one that believes the war will continue if the Democrats get in office.

    There are two main reasons that the U.S. feels it does not have to get out and can win this war. One is there is no force in Iraq or in the region that can defeat the U.S. forces, and two there is not only no anti-war movement in the U.S. but there is no widespread opposition to the war. The war is broader than Iraq. It includes Afghanistan, Phillipines and threatens to spread to Iran.

    There are those who say that that troops would be better used in Afghanistan or to put down the ‘real’ enimy in Iran.

  • Clavos

    Les,

    I see almost all of your points in 233. Except:

    there is no widespread opposition to the war

    I don’t see that. It seems to me that every day, opposition to the war on the part of the voters is growing.

    Don’t you think the election results in November were in part due to growing opposition to the war?

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    I had a discussion with a leading anti-war activist in Boston (by phone)about a week ago. She made the same points that you make. It started by me making the statement that there is no widespread anti-war sentiment in the U.S. She alluded to all the polls that show otherwise. I pointed out some of what the polls actually showed. There is a lot of questioning about the prosecution of the war in Iraq. The majority, however agrees that ‘we’ should not pull out because ‘we’ have an obligation not to just cut and run and leave the mess that ‘we’ created. Others say ‘we’ are stretched too thin and ‘we’ can’t solve the ‘real’ problems in Afghanistan and Iran.

    The elections did not show much of anything. The party out of office gained ground. The party in office is blamed for much that is happening. It does not mean the Democrats are going to do any better.

  • Les Slater

    Oh, the elections did show that the Democrats were successful in painting the whole Bush administration with the brush of the most extreme on the right that are part of his administration and supporters.

  • Clavos

    Hard to argue with that, Les.

    I would call this “opposition to the war”, though:

    Others say ‘we’ are stretched too thin and ‘we’ can’t solve the ‘real’ problems in Afghanistan and Iran.

    Simply because logically, pulling out is the only solution to those problems, if one believes that.

    This next is true (and is only opposition to the Administration, not the war):

    There is a lot of questioning about the prosecution of the war in Iraq. The majority, however agrees that ‘we’ should not pull out because ‘we’ have an obligation not to just cut and run and leave the mess that ‘we’ created.

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    “Simply because logically, pulling out is the only solution to those problems, if one believes that.”

    Iraq is only part of ‘the’ war. It’s much bigger.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Interesting exchange there between Les and Clavos, but I want to go back to an earlier point.

    Les, you suggest that the article in The Militant is designed to give workers straight news they can’t get anywhere else. I’m willing to accept that as a statement of their intentions. It’s believable.

    But I don’t see that the problem they’re addressing actually exists. From what I can tell the article in The Militant is factually indistinguishable from coverage in a number of other sources. The only slight difference that caught my eye was the emphasis on capitalism as one of the objectives for the Iraqi state. You don’t find that emphasis in mainstream coverage.

    So my question is, why do workers need to go to The Militant to get news which is pretty much the same as what the popular media is offering on the same topics?

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    My discussion with Clavos and Andy’s me being the only one on the planet are examples of what the press does to people. The question of who is winning the war is lost in all kinds of subtle and not so subtle propaganda. I also have seen you go pretty far at times thinking the U.S. for all practicle purposes has lost the war.

    It can’t be just one article that shows this beyond a doubt. There is consistency that workers will find in NO other source.

  • Clavos

    Les 238,

    I agree about the war being bigger, but my impression was that in this discussion we were just focusing on the Iraq/Afghanistan theater, though we were using the term “war.”

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    I am trying to focus it on the broader reality. None of these can be taken separately. It’s an imperialist war of great magnitude and dimensions. The war against the working class at home is part of this same broader war. It all has to do with trying to maintain and increase profits of a capitalist system in crisis.

    Les

  • Clavos

    Les,

    I’m enjoying this (not the least because you and I have always had civil discussions), and I especially want to talk about your #242, but it’s 2AM here, and this worker has to…work tomorrow.

    Would REALLY like to resume this shortly.

    Buenas noches, amigo…

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    Sweet dreams. I’m off too. And Dave, it’s 1 am, go to sleep.

    Les

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Gadfry Daniels, I leave you guys alone for a day or two and we’re back knee deep in Iraqi shit. But before I offer my three cents:

    Les “Another reason people are put off by BC is a tendency to get way off topic and an IN culture.”

    Is that just a feeling you have or have you talked to more than just a few people about it. I’ve never gotten complaints about our tendency to go flying off topic. I kind of like it. I could see how people would consider this a kind of “in” culture, but as long as bullmoose loonies are leashed, it’s not a hard culture to join. (By the way, I am serious about the question because we have to expand the number of people of who play in this section.)

    I have one problem with Old Sadr and all the rest of those fucking crazy Iraqis–they’re slaughtering innocent women and children as a way of getting at us. They don’t have the courage to just fight openly (oh well, overwhelming force & numbers & all that) so they rely on terrorism. They’re worse than subhuman. I don’t care that we invaded his country & made a muck of the whole thing. I don’t care what religious bullshit he drops and dances around.

    I do care that hundreds of innocents every day are being killed by these Islamic fascists. It’s become another Vietnam. We might have been able to win at one point, but we can’t now. We can’t cause any more damage by just saying, Hey, sorry, but we’re getting our asses out of here now.

    And we’ll carry with us the guilt & blame for having caused so much needless suffering. And Bush, Cheney, Rummy & the rest of those criminals will get lovely pensions and sip fine wine.

    They all suck–the fascists in Iraq & the fascists in Washington.

    And that has to be true because…

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Les Slater

    Mark,

    “Les ‘Another reason people are put off by BC is a tendency to get way off topic and an IN culture.'”

    It’s mostly just a feeling of mine. Are there stats on how many read but don’t comment? Some of the tone here can be quite intimidating. A timid soul may not dare utter. I have seen some that may be naive but seem to have an honest opinon or question are responded to with mostly epithets.

    Les

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Les, sorry to take so long to respond, but weekend was lost while we put our house on the market & suffered through first open house…yuk.

    Anyway, that possible fear of commenting because of the potential vitriolic resonse is one of the prime reasons we’ve been taking steps to, shall we say, bridle the more vicious members of the community. Nobody cares what their point of view is–but most of the editors are in agreement that they’re damaging the politics site. So we’ll see what happens.

    If there are stats, I don’t see them. It’s a good question & I’ll raise it.

    If you know of anyone specifically who doesn’t comment for fear of getting fileted, please either let me know or ask them to e-mail me.

    Thanks…

    In Jameson Veritas

  • http://ruvysroost,blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Mark,

    Where you planning to run off to when you sell the house? Anywhere close to eh Jerusalem perhaps? If that is anywhere in your mind, give me a holler at the usual address, and I’ll look into details for you.

    Listen, I know you have a reasonably good knowledge of politics and the like, but you’ve got to realize there is a real difference between Nazi and Fascist. Fascism was an economic system of corporatist control. Nazism was (and still is) a race based philosophy of world domination with satanic roots.

    “Islamo-fascist” is a compliment the bastards do not deserve. It implies they have the intelligence to organize and efficiently run an economy. If you want to toss name around, “Islamo-nazi” nails the beast on the head because the Wahhabi philosophy that dominates so much of these groups is satanic in nature, and is steeped with an admiration for Nazism. The main difference is that you replace “Aryan” with “Moslem”.

    As to the “fascists” in Washington, you may be dead on.

    Soon Independence Day celebrations start here…

    Gotta run.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Reuven,

    Literally you’re right about the meaning of the term “fascist” but I think that the usage is changing so it means more, dictatorial rule.

    The problem with Islamo-Nazis is that it’s loaded with emotional baggage that could quickly get a conversation off topic.

    As for moving, alas, I don’t think Jerusalem is high on the list…my shiksa bride would have major problems with that…and I could move that far as long as my mother’s still alive.

    It’s either going to be Western North Carolina up in the mountains or maybe, gulp, Little Rock, just because we have a fair number of friends there. But a trip to Jerusalem is high on my list if I can convince the bride that the ax murderers have all left…sigh.

    But I can go on bravely because…

    In Jameson Veritas

  • http://ruvysroost,blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Well, Mark, I think I’ll start using the term “Islamo-nazi” precisely because of the emotional baggage. It’s about time the bastards blew up in anger every time they heard themselves ACCURATELY described. I’m getting good and sick of the bastards trying to stick that satanic label on us.

    Besides, not all Moslems are Islamo-nazis.