Letters to the Editor
-
Kitt..
Here is the tinyurl link to the video you posted.
http://tinyurl.com/2n3mtt
Have fun.
-
The Democrats let the felons slide before and they'll do the same thing again.
"For the good of the country".
The Democrats are only slightly less abhorrent than the Republicans and what is worse, they lack the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done.
Unless people in the very highest of places get real serious punishment the nightmare we have lived through for the last six years will be back again like a bad dream.
I've lived through this crap three times now, I hope I'm gone before it happens again but I'm not particularly sanguine about it.
-
Why did we invade Iraq?
And why won't Bush leave? We've heard Richard Clarke, Tenet, Powell, we've read all the books.
It's clear Bush wanted to go after Iraq even before he was elected. It's clear he wanted a reason to go after Hussein. Cheney has equally forceful. Why? And why won't they leave?
We need to make this presidential election about something and make sure the next president understands that he or she is accountable to the country. the next president should be able to answer these questions fully and truthfully. We deserve to know why this war happened and why it has not ended.
-
Scapegoats
William Timberman:
Did Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Harry Gold actually pass atomic secrets to the Russians? Did Alger Hiss spy for them at the State Department? I don't find the evidence completely compelling, but suppose for the sake of argument that they did exactly what they were charged -- and the Rosenbergs and Gold were convicted -- of doing.
Was it treason? In the narrow sense, yes, absolutely, but there's a broader sense, a moral sense, in which what they were said to have done could be considered as something quite different.
The other question is: did they get fair trials? This reminds me of the new documentary that's out about the Sacco and Vanzetti case, produced by Peter Miller, who works frequently with Ken Burns.
http://www.willowpondfilms.com/sacco_and_vanzetti.html
I just saw the film a couple of weeks ago in L.A. and it will be opening in a bunch of theaters around the country in May; the schedule is here:
http://www.willowpondfilms.com/news.html
The question I was left with at the end was not, "Well, were they guilty or innocent?" but instead, "How could the officials involved sleep at night after participating in this travesty?" I especially liked how the filmmakers compared the perception and treatment of immigrants at the time of the trial to post-9-11 sentiment about Muslims. From the NY Times review:
Less didactic and more piercing is the sense that two human beings were killed despite inconclusive or conflicting evidence, as an example to fellow travelers. The judge in the case, Webster Thayer, told the jury, referring to Vanzetti, "This man, although he may not have actually committed the crime attributed to him, is nevertheless culpable, because he is the enemy of our existing institutions."
** Full Disclosure: I'm a friend of the editor and co-producer-- but the film is still excellent! Various reviews:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-sacco6apr06,1,5834189.story?coll=la-entnews-movies
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933239.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?res=9E06E4DE1130F933A05750C0A9619C8B63
-
Shows what I know.....
When I saw this headline, I was getting ready to post a comment on how the pushback against Tenet by Bush defenders was already beginning.
Officers: Ex-CIA chief Tenet a 'failed' leader
Then I read the story and realized that this was in fact a 1`-2 punch being thrown AGAINST the administration and the continuation of the war.
The letter, signed by Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, Jim Marcinkowski, Vince Cannistraro and David MacMichael, said Tenet should have resigned in protest rather than take part in the administration's buildup to the war.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/29/tenet.letter/
Larry Johnson has been an outspoken critic all along, but I can't help but think that CNN piling-on behind the 60 Minutes segment does indeed represent a sea-change. History is being made as we speak.
-
Couple of points
A.) Durbin's speech made me angry too, but Paul reminded me that Grahm did make some noises about the obvious deception that the Intelligence Committee assisted in manufacturing our way to war. I don't want to see any of those Senators continue in office after this revelation.
B.) This was a great thread to read.
C.) For the Star Trek sub-thread:
You might want to take a close look at the first episode of TNG. Journey to Far Point Station. This is of course where we meet Q. Picard was put on trial for the crimes of humanity or more specifically for being a "grievously savage race."
Q used a court of human origin that was from our post nuclear age. Picard was tried in that court because it showed just how savage humans really were. Q commuted the death sentence the court issued because Picard said that humans HAD advanced (the prime directive and all) but Q's condition was that Picard fulfill the mission at Far Point without showing that humans were in fact a savage race.
It appears that TNG felt we had to have our Bladerunner era before we got to the squeaky clean greener pastures of Roddenberry's dreams.
-
"A genuine political sea change?"
Perhaps, but certainly a mild one. The nascent reawakening of an American progressive movement may be what is being witnessed here, but said movement is still far from effectively coalescing. I think that a few other things need to happen before we can justifiably say that we are witnessing the re-emergence of an effective left-progressive politic in this country.
First and foremost, the labor movement in this country must begin to think beyond bread-and-butter issues, and shed the suffocating weight of bureaucratic trade unionism. We are witnessing some realignment within American labor following the secession of the SEIU from the AFL-CIO, joined by UNITE HERE, UFCW, the Teamsters, LIUNA, and the Carpenters. But this is a factional split motivated by "leadership" disputes, not a genuine, grass-roots union democracy movement. I applaud their focus on industry-based organizing, but I know that the unions have major democracy issues. We are seeing the reinvigoration of the IWW (who have been organizing Starbucks, among other places), which is aiming at democratizing the workplace.
Second, the intesification of grassroots efforts to organize outside and across traditional constituencies challenging business as usual at the local level. Although keeping an eye on national conditions is always key (and, let's face it, Washington politics are sexy), effective local political organizing has made the Republican machine what it is. Alternative local power structures organized to confront this machine are what will ultimately win, and non-traditional constituencies will be our source of power. Issue-based organizing is a way to get started and gain attention, but issues alone end up reducing things to tiny boxes.
Third, the emergence of a mainstream left press. Frankly, the prospects of the establishment press, particularly the local press, becoming better are fairly low. As many here have noted, the internet is stealing a lot of their market. Although they've responded by going electronic, it's quite possible that they may end up abandoning print journalism altogether in favor of their online editions (or fold). This will leave a gap that can be exploited, if a movement is in place ready to fill the void. Although getting a true left press at the national level is unlikely to happen soon, we may be able to disseminate at a lower level.
Fourth, increasing electability of left-progressive candidates. This won't happen everywhere. If we see a major challenge by a genuine opposition candidate (such as, say, Feingold or Kucinich) for the Presidency, then I can accept that we've seen a major sea change. Until then, there's more work to be done.