Froma March 2 report on CNN about the U.S. killing nine Afghan boys:
MICHAEL HOLMES: I mean, just another terrible thing. We’ve seen this happen before.
DON LEMON: Yes. Sad all the way around. He did apologize, but still.
HOLMES: It does a lot of damage to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. You don’t win hearts and minds that way.
LEMON: Absolutely. Thank you, Michael.
I can think of bigger problem here than the”damageto the U.S. mission.”
As sickening as this exchange is, it mirrors to some extent how many “progressives” frame this horror show. They speak of “failure” – not in the moral sense – but of the “mission”, as if that mission was something other than control of a nation containing coveted pipeline routes in a geostrategically important region.
They too speak of “hearts and minds” – and in doing so throw into question the extent of their possession of the former.
Perhaps they believe that is the “pragmatic” way to be effective, because otherwise the public won’t respond, but if you can’t put this in the context of the murder of innocents in the name of greed and power, and make that the core of your opposition to this war, what does that say about the moral compass of this country – and how your “pragmatism” determines which way it points?
All this to support opium growing – I am repulsed and saddened by this callous exchange. This is a war crime bring these offenders to justice!
@ Doug Latimer’s inference that this is a war perpetuated by progressives.
The callous attitude of this particular representative doesn’t have anything to do with the progressive movement, which has largely become synonymous with “Democrats” or at the very least “non-Tea Party zealot.” If anything, conservatives (including the freaks from the Tea Party) are far more responsible for the war hawk mentality that led to this tragedy. If you’re gonna make this a partisan issue, at least blame the responsible party.
Guy, not my inference at all. I wish folks would think before typing, but that, I fear, is a lost art, and cause.
Reread it, and if you still can’t suss my intent, I’ll explain.
Or if anyone else wants to take a shot at doing so, by all means …
“Progressives”?! What have so-called progressives got to do with this exchange? This is just another typical discussion between journalists disconnected from the reality of the situation they’re reporting on. The U.S. military f*cked up and some incompetent idiot should be punished. How do you mistakenly ID nine boys gathering firewood as a mortal enemy?
Patreus should visit each boy’s family and apoligize on his knees for taking away the lives of their irreplaceable, beloved children. The media reports on civilian deaths as if it were reporting on the deaths of some neighbor’s cats across town.
I agree that Latimer is a calous, smug, pretentious creep who can “suss” my a*s.
WHen I heard this– I felt sick sick sick. Callous and heartless and mindless. The hearts and mind cliche slogan needs to go all the way around. War is for the heartless and mindless only.
This is not about normal death. This is about senseless, sick suffering. Perhaps now that people are feeling it more in their hearts, instead of as an intelluctual exercise, people will STOP THIS MADNESS. I mean today. I mean yesterday.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph …
Obviously, I do have to make myself clear.
Frank, if you’d paid any attention to my posts here over the years, you’d know that my sentiments are the same as yours regarding this act of terror.
My point is that many of those opposed to this war don’t focus on these murders that have been occurring for nearly ten years, paid for by your and my tax dollars.
They speak of “mission failure” and “unwinnable war” and “the damage to our economy”.
Somehow the fact that innocent human beings are dying becomes an afterthought, if that.
If we oppose this hell because our humanity compels us to, then we have to put ourselves in the place of those caught in the conflagration, and see the world our gummint has created through their eyes.
Then, we have to try our damnedest to make others see, as well.
I really don’t know how that intent translated to “callousness” in your view, but I’d appreciate an acknowledgement that you now do in fact “suss” it, and will redirect your bile towards those deserving of it – the inhuman bastards for whom empire is all, and for whom the deaths of children aren’t “collateral damage” …
They’re an integral feature of war, American style.
@ Doug Latimer:
I apologize for the “sensitive” among the ineffectual-left. I don’t think it is your sentiment so much that offends, as it is your choice of stereotype, even though yes you did say “some progressives” and not “all”.
Frankly I momentarily flinched because I don’t think you can be considered “progressive” if you sanitize your arguments as you do correctly point out in your original comment. If you’d just said “some on the left of this issue”, I bet everyone would have contributed to the discussion instead of hackling their backsides.
But that does bring up a problem that I think you have actually debated here in the past? What label do we give those of us who oppose the tea-party, right-wing, religio, neo agenda?
We keep choosing labels that obviously are not specific enough to resist exception. And as long as we do that it just gives those on the right another way to wedge our solidarity on those most important issues we all agree on: War, the environment and the human condition.
Wait, wait, wait guys, Doug was making a reasonable point, then Guy referred to the callousness of the representative(Holmes) who sloughed off the argument as being only about the American war “mission” and then Guy suggested that there was not any compassionate view towards the deaths by the man. Then Frank reads what Guy wrote and misinterprets that Guy was calling Doug callous and which Frank agreed with, but which Guy wasn’t saying. At least that looks to be what just occurred. We shouldn’t be fighting each other when we basically agree that the mission takes a back seat to the tragedies happening against civilians in Afghanistan and is what is the most important part of the issue. I have heard so called progressives say similar things about the war, dismissing the horror of civilian deaths.
Similarly Center for American Progress’s Matt Miller launched into wanting to make Social Security more “progressive” and I am not certain just what he means by it. He did say that SS in its present form would take away from other progressive priorities. But it sounded a lot like what the Republicans want to do with SS. And isn’t Matt a progressive? Sam Seder responded to Matt’s endorsement of the capitulation to the Right on Social Security by Matt.
Sam Seder responds to Center for American Progress senior fellow Matt Miller’s endorsement of capitulation to the Right on Social Security and Medicare in …
http://www.democraticunderground.com â┚¬Ã‚º Discuss
C’mon let’s get together on things.
@Raymond:
You just illustrated my point about the “progressive” label.
And I agree with you when you question one’s meaning of it’s usage in a issue-driven discussion, especially when it leaves you scratching your head in uncertainty.
Language is a fluid thing in a changing society. And it’s ever changing diction in our ever evolving and primarily youth-driven lexicon doesn’t take kindly to our tendency to soundbite and truncate our conversations and opinions, when we should be elaborating on them instead…
I look forward to reading Doug’s comments. I think he’s one of the more articulate found here. But still he can be misunderstood as we’ve seen here. I’m sure he’ll survive it.
Here’s some consolation on the subject of misnomer in our modern political diatribe: With the introduction of the Tea-Party political ideology, I’m sure there are many, many on the right who are even more confused about their party affiliated public discussions, when opinions come from, and are mixed with both the old guard conservatives and this new breed of the corporate-led blind parrot brigade.
Frankly I think the traditional conservatives actually understand the danger they pose to our society just as we on the left do.
Just look at Ralph Nader and Ron Paul getting together. Now that’s weird…
Mr. Latimer, your original post was entirely clear and your point well taken. We on the left do ourselves no favors by talking around the heart of the matter. The Viet Nam war, for instance, was not a failure because we lost, nor simply because we lost 50-plus thousand of our young people, but because we killed countless millions of Vietnamese human beings. The failure of that war was inherent in the fighting of it. The same is true of our murderous presence in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world.
Progressives are not our enemies. Liberals are not our enemies. Conservatives are not our enemies. War itself is the enemy. Whether children are being killed or soldiers are being killed, people are dying at the hands of people. It’s always in the name of some higher good, and no higher good has ever come of it. It is not a necessary evil, it is just an evil.
@Doug Westendrop:
Very well said. That is the gist of it, isn’t it. A world without war is a concept untried to my knowledge in our entire bloody history (mankind’s I mean). And therefore we cannot know what forms a society might take in such a world, except through various writers of literary fiction.
John Lennon posed the challenge when he implored us to “Give Peace a chance”. Yet, we have not.
Why is that what we consider difficult politically, is more often than not the physically easier thing to do?
Just a quick note here, as I’m rushing to get down to Madison for the rally today.
It’s windy as hell, and let’s hope that mirrors the winds of change blowing through the nation and the world.
Thank you kindly, J, Raymond and Doug W. Being misunderstood always frustrates me, and it’s good to know that wasn’t the case with you folks.
I’ll likely have more to say when I get back.
If you’re interested, herewith my signage:
LET’S MAKE THIS A CLASS ACT
UNDERCLASS
WORKING CLASS
MIDDLE CLASS
UNITED
On the flip side:
AS FOR THE RULING CLASS
NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION
A luta continua, y’all.
I don’t think saying “all those civilians dying in collateral damage incidents( like that represented) will not help us to prove to these people that we are the lesser of two evils” is in any way callous.You are parsing their words.I can tell you that I am sure that the man who fired on them is probably devastated.The chain of command on up to the president is shaken and sobered by this horrible accident.But more importantly I can guarantee you that if this was Osama launching an attack that killed 1000 children- they would celebrate the mission. This is the difference. This is who we are for all our flaws.And this is who they are.It must be stated. And that is our “mission”.To free them from people who celebrate death. And join them in mourning their loss that was our fault, and responsibility….but not our want.I hope the military will be forthcoming with an explanation of how this happened.
Well, the scene around the capitol was very inspiring. I’ve no idea of the number, but the streets encircling the building were filled, with a ton of folks assembled immediately around it. I left about one, so it may have built beyond that.
But, apropos to the discussion above, it got me thinking about just what you’d call the crowd, what label you’d append to them.
Are they “progressive”, “liberal”, “populist”, “left” … ?
And that leads me to asking just what they – we – want. And that’s a failure I see all too often – the lack of articulation of our vision.
In this instance, we can say what we oppose. But what do we wish to see in its place?
And how do we get there?
And I think that takes us to what we believe in, and why, wouldn’t you say?
Each person answers that in their own way. I call tell you my story, abbreviated, if you’re interested.
I grew up in the South in the ’60s. My daddy was a member of the White Citizens Council. Essentially, it was South Africa with a drawl.
Of course, I went to church, First Baptist, all white, needless to say.
But I took those lessons, never meant to be taken literally, to heart. The Golden Rule made sense, in my naivete, and from that point it was largely a matter of not allowing the world to induce me to rationalize that view.
A hair-trigger guilt reflex and an unhealthy dose of OCD didn’t hurt. (Well, they did, but you know what I mean.)
So we come back to labels. I try to be what I conceive to be a mensch, a Yiddish term if you don’t know, for someone who does right by others. I don’t claim to be anywhere near that standard, but I try to do what my conscience demands and my courage allows, and to never be satisfied with the limits of either.
I think that’s as good a moniker as any. It also establishes “the vision thing” – we want to see a world where every person has what they need to live a life of dignity. Our gummint committed to that over sixty years ago, in signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to me our goal should be to make it keep that promise.
I’d like to think that sea of humanity in Madison shares that aim, although I’m old enough to know that many of them would place any number of qualifiers into the equation. Still, I’d hope the general sentiment is shared, and if so, it’s something to build on, isn’t it?
That leads into how to get there. I think I make my own views on that pretty clear at my dinky little blog, so if you’re so inclined, click on. Unlike this here, over there I usually try to get my points across as succinctly as possible, so no worries on the screedometer.
I will say that I believe that a zero sum profit-based system can’t get us where we need to go, nor pull us back from where we’re heading. We need a paradigm in which we work with others for the benefit of all, rather than for others solely for their benefit.
And we’ll need a livable planet on which to build that model, won’t we? That’s Job One.
So, for those of you still with me, the bottom line for me is that if we’re on this rock for anything, it’s to give a damn about each other, and to work for a world that mirrors that purpose.
I think that commitment resonates with most of humanity, and it’s what we need to be showing in our words and deeds. We talk the talk, we walk the walk, and we hold out our hands to all who feel moved to walk along with us.
No guarantees of a happy ending. In fact, you’d be a fool to think this will end well, given our history so far, wouldn’t you?
But while hope’s nice, it isn’t necessary. Our fulfillment comes from the effort, not the result.
So let’s get lifting, and maybe we can prove my pessimism premature.
That would be one sweet mea culpa.
I think “mensch” is as good a goal as any. I don’t know how much of what’s happening in Wisconsin is altruistic though. It may be simple good old fashioned self-interest bringing many together. Their rights and their paychecks are being taken away and naturally they are upset.
If there was really a broader sense of justice on all our parts we would have been in the streets when Reagan first started going after the “welfare mothers,” the air traffic controlers, and the family farmers. Why did we not rise up to protect them in the 80s? Wouldn’t it be nice if we showed solidarity with Native Americans, people on death row, the disabled, etc. — and the poor everywhere? If we were as outraged over those injustices as we are about what’s going on in Madison, what a world we might have.
I aspire to be more than the lesser of two evils.
I second D. Latimer’s comments–the fact that “progressive” was in quotes apparently was ignored initially. His first comments above were accurate. I would have used the word “Liberal” (in quotes), but it’s quibbling. Keep us updated on the batttle in Wisconsin, D.L.
Doug W, I second that emotion. That’s what I was trying to get at with my sign (which garnered a couple of props from fellow protesteers), and my looong remarks above.
In this case, the right thing is the smart thing. There’s no contradiction there, although I agree that I’d wish for our motivation to come from our better angels as well as our understandably self-interested inner accountants. But don’t forget that for many, that “self” includes our partners and our kids, as well as assorted relatives, doesn’t it?
We have to have that grand alliance – underclass, working class, middle class – to make this work. It bothered me that “the Wisconsin 14” were feted as heroes, when doubtless many of them, if not the whole Sheboygan, have less than stellar records when it comes to fighting for poor folks, who are the first to be chucked off the bus, aren’t they?
What they did was laudable. What they will do needs to be watched like a hawk. They are, after all, politicians.
Tim, the police estimates were anywhere from 85 to 100K, the largest crowd thus far. The tractor record went by the boards, as well. -g-
Obviously, the recall effort was a central theme, for Walkover as well as his henchpersons with offices in the Capitol. But that’s down the line. The most immediate need is for actions outside the electoral arena to keep the pressure up.
Boycotts, walkouts, a general strike – as our armchair warriors love to say, “all options are on the table.”
As well, there’s a Supreme Court election April 5th that I assume will be important in the sense of legal actions taken against this and other legislation, and the ploys employed to pass them.
And this is nationwide, let’s not forget. I’m hoping to see significant coordination and cooperation among folks across the country.
As I said, it was a blustery day in Madtown Saturday. Let’s hope that’s a harbinger of true winds of change.
I see many people seem offended by the statement that “progressives” sustain and perpetuate the war in Afghanistan. To these I would ask one single question, “Is Mr Obama considered a ‘progressive, ‘who opposes the tea-party, right-wing, religio, neo agenda?'”
If your answer to this is yes the shut up. And please do not attempt to use the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, if you even understand what that means.
Well, I stand completely in support of the outraged majority in Wisconsin. I didn’t mean to second guess the goals of the many who are embattled there. I am also with anyone, “progressive” or not, who wants to oppose war for whatever reasons that are on their minds. I only want to say that our cause is — or can be — bigger than the rights of any particular group. As indeed I hear others here also saying. I am in favor of “keeping the dream alive” for laborers and the middle class in Wisconsin, but let’s not forget that there is another “class,” the “underclass” in Mr. Latimer’s sign, that has not had anything like that dream in their sights for a long time. A half progressive is better than no progressive at all, but I think it’s that narrow thinking of only “my class” that leads to having to put the word “progressive” in quotes.
I would like to see the words “common good” return to use, both here in the US and around the world. War is not only hard on Afghanistan and the other countries we have invaded, but the world is a poorer place for the loss of the lives of the children. Afghanistan’s loss is our loss.
There is, of course, an exact parallel to what is happening in Wisconsin. The losses of the workers there make our whole country poorer.
The progressives…..The common good….. The underclass,middle class as separate from the upper class (instead of its feeder pond). Calling the gang of 14 who ran from their duty laudable.So many vaguely Marxist /socialist sounding terms and ideas. Trying to paint a free society with a free market and personal freedoms as the enemy of the people. The workers. All trying to mask what the Wis. debate is really about.It is not about collective bargaining .It is about the right NOT to unionize. That is the core of all this. The end result.So keep talking class warfare. Keep saying if we loose an election we will simply run away and become fugitives rather than vote if any legislation is not to our liking. Keep thinking and spreading the lie that conservatives who believe in our constitution,and believe they can do a better job than the destruction liberalism has wrought on the average person— are in effect EVIL.We on the right do not place limits on people and their dreams.We celebrate that. This idea that all must share equally . Share by force of an all knowing, all loving, all caring federal government dispersing a redistribution of wealth.It is such a renunciation of personal responsibility.It is socialiasm. Never has worked.Never will work. Sooner or later you run out of other folks money(Thatcher).
Doug you seem a good man. That does not make you any less wrong. Your words are couched in one way, but can be easily seen as Obama would have us all see them.As a premise to give him the ultimate power over how we live our lives.No this all just wont fly.We will be governed but not ruled. What is happening at its core is America is rejecting a centalized government with the power to dictate terms.Unions can send mr Tumpka to the White house 3 times a week.Have him talk to obama every day for all the good it will do.Once Obama is history Trumka will quickly find the number one number on his speed dial has gone dead.The illegal corrupt collusion over.Then hopefully as America rebounds , and rebuilds wealth -unions will find work returning.At that point we hope their prime job will be teaching and producing the class acts of the labor world.And uphold a policy of non interference with those who choose NOT to unionize.
As ever, michael e, I do appreciate getting to see the world through your eyes. And as usual it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. You seem like a good man to me too, but you seem way off base talking about the “renunciation of personal responsibility.” Really? I don’t find any logic to that.
The “socialism” you describe, such as it is, actually has been very good for this country. I’m not sure why that’s invisible to you. What separates our country from third world countries is our middle class. And you don’t have a middle class unless you have a government that controls the power of the wealthy. Ever. “Never has worked. Never will work,” to quote a sage. I’m not sure why that’s not apparent to you.
And the power struggle you see of Obama trying to consolidate power is very peculiar in my eyes, as I find no evidence at all for it. Is that something that Rush made up? I see Obama as being pretty ineffective in trying to limit the consolidation of the power of the very wealthy in our country. Corporate power grows with every administration. The rich get richer and the country gets poorer.
But you’re right, time will tell. And fodder for another discussion, perhaps. I don’t know how we got here from the death of children in Afghanistan.
Peace, my friend.
Ben Stein in conversation about taxes with Alan Greenspan
â┚¬Ã…“There’s class warfare, all right,â┚¬Ã‚ Warren Buffett said, â┚¬Ã…“but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.â┚¬Ã‚Â
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html
Whoops! Big time brain cramp
Make that “Ben Stein in conversation about taxes with Warren Buffett.”
Sorry it’s early.
Sorry doug i went off on a tangent.Yeah I don’t agree that the middle class is created by a gov controlling the wealth of a nation or its most successful people.Or that socialism works.And I think this class warfare is simply a political football for the left.As you say ,a conversation for another time.
Rule #1
When a politician says it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.
When the right claims there’s no class war, it’s class war.
It’s okay for the rich and the super-rich to buy polititains outright, and get them to believe cockamamie nonsense (libertarianism, state’s rights, tax cuts for the rich translate into jobs for the poor, etc.) that simply makes it easier to take bribes with a clear concscience. But when actual democracy is practiced by unions, whereby they pool their resources and use simple, straight-forward, historically proven ways to advance the cause of all workers, suddenly it’s class warfare. The fact is, the Right in particular and conservatives in general are trying to destroy what little power the working person has left. They’re quite upfront about it now–there was a time, very recently, when the bastards tried to hide their destructive impulses. Not anymore. And it’s perfectly appropriate that the discussion veered from the murdered Afghani children collecting firewood to the beaten down workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere in this country. Both groups are seen through a particular kind of prism, or perhaps filter, that allows the rentier class (and of course the “journalist” class) to see these people as something less than full-fledged human beings. They’re just tropes, animatrons, cardboard cut-outs, outliers asking for something (freedom, a living wage, collective bargaining rights, life itself) that will be denied to them out of “necessity” or because of “facts on the ground.” The fact that the beaten down Egyptian people immediately saw the Wisconsin workers as their natural allies was a shocking reminder that the same brutes and sociopaths seek to crush democratic impulses everywhere, whether in the streets of Madison, or Tahrir Square, or mountain paths in Afghanistan, where innocent children thought that they could gather firewood in relative safety. Their murders are on our our hands, a typically destructive act by a callous and despotic nation utterly loose from it’s moral and democratic moorings. That the Right and it’s Tea-Bagger adjuncts (and more than a few Beltway “journalists” and Democratic “analysts”) see no problem at all with the above crimes and anti-democratic actions gives us pause and causes us to understand just how implacable and serious the task ahead of us is.
So enforced unionization is now tied to Egyptian freedom is now tied to all the downtrodden in the world in the name of hatred to be fostered upon all those who believe in our constitution and have succeeded in a free society?And all deaths happening now are the fault of those who are NOT in power(tea party,right) in the evil empire of the United states?And of course those who are in power…. are innocent as newborns?How is that hammer and sickle flag flying Tim?Sorry your not a communist your a socialist.
Ps……Wanna see politicians bought?Take a look at senators sent packing by their union masters.
Personal freedom.Free markets.Low taxes.Smaller government.Say it.Live it.Learn it
“Personal freedom.Free markets.Low taxes.Smaller government.Say it.Live it.Learn it
Hey, you forgot “Wolverines!!!!”