Thursday, June 26, 2008

I Hate The War

As Mike points out tonight, Eugene Kane is not a journalist, he is a fabricator and it's worth examing because this is what The Cult of Saint Barack has done all along. They've acted enraged by remarks by distorting them, by cutting sentences in half and by flat-out lying.

Here's what Ralph said about Barack:

Ralph Nader: No. I mean, he's deceiving people. He takes, he takes -- in this very building he would take money from corporate lawyers who are not registered lobbyists but whose desks are across the aisle from corporate lawyers who are register lobbyists in the same law firm -- that's been reported more than once in the mainstream press. Six out of seven industrties as of a month ago have given more money to Obama than they have to McCain. Only transportation industry was more equal opportunity corruption . Look at the health care industry which has poured money into his campaign. The Secuirty industry. Defense industry. No. There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comees to being a Democratic presidential candidate he's half African-American. Wheter that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk White? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards. I think his main problem is that he censors himself he knows exactly who has power, who has too much, who has too little what needs to be done right down the community level but he has bought the advice that if you want to win the election you better take it easy on the coproation abuses and do XYZ and when I hear that I say Oh I see. So he's doing all this to win the eleciton and then he'll be diferent? Well let's see if it worked. Did it work for Mondale? Did it work for Dukakis? Did it work for Clinton? Yes, but only because of Perot? Did it work for Gore? Did it work for Kerry?

M.E. Sprengelmeyer: Do you think he's trying to, what was your term, 'talk white'?

Ralph Nader: Of course. I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a Black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law. Haven't heard a thing. I mean, the amount of economic exploitation in the ghettos is shocking. You'd think he'd propose a task force to at least study it. I mean, these people are eroded every day. The kids, bodies are asbestos and lead, municipal services discriminate against them because it's the poor area, including fire and police protection and building code enforcement. And then the lenders, the loan sharks get at them, and the dirty food ends up in the ghettos, like the contaminated meat. It's a dumping ground for shoddy merchandise. You don't see many credit unions there. You don't see many libraries there. You dont's ee many health clinics there. This is, we're talking 40-50 million Americans who are predominatly African-Americans and Latinos. Anybody see that kind of campaigning? Have yous ee him campaign in real poor areas of the city very frequently? No, he doesn't campaign there.

M.E. Sprengelmeyer: What do you think the purpose of that is?

Ralph Nader: He wants to show that he is not a threatening, a political threatening, another politically-threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to White guilt. You appeal to White guilt not by coming on as a Black is beautiful, Black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the White power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.

You're not allowed to lie about what Nader said. But The Cult took the blogs yesterday and flat out lied. They played dumb and rewrote it into Nader saying Barack was using 'proper English'. They lied.

That's how it works in The Cult. You lie. You take a critique and lie about what it said. You lie and then you lie some more. You ignore the critique, ignore what was said, find one phrase you can leap on, distort it and then add 'details' to it to work up some faux outrage that will lead to high passion and everyone will fall in line.

Eugene Kane is supposed to be a journalist. Somehow he's ignored the critique offered, somehow he's turned it (like a good Cult member) into 'Nader's mocking Barack for using so-called proper English.' That wasn't Nader's critique, that wasn't stated by Nader. Nader was noting Barack was talking to the White power structure in this country and demonstrating that he would ignore issue like poverty. Anyone who saw how John Edwards was marginalized by the press -- Big and Small -- is fully aware that poverty isn't an issue they want to address. Equally true is that bi-racial Barack has been presented as the first "Black" presidential candidate with a shot at the White House ("with a . . ." sometimes gets left out the equation, a slap in the face to Jesse Jackson who had two amazing runs). So if Barack's a 'first,' that would mean the power structure in this country was something other than what Barack is.

Ralph Nader critiqued Barack for his refusal to address the issues that effect poor people in this country. It's not a new critique. Nader's not the first one to make it. Where Rev. Jackson challenged, Barack strokes. That is the criticism. But notice how the lies come marching out in order to ensure that this conversation never take place.

Tavis Smiley is among the many who have tried to have this conversation. His thanks for that was to be attacked by Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professional liar, who would later reference attacks on Tavis while appearing on Charlie Rose and act surprised by them and leave out the fact that she launched the attacks with her blog post "Who Died and Made Tavis King?"

Many people have attempted to have this conversation and every time they do, it's really important that the Cult prevent it from taking place. They do that by lying. They're now distorting what Ralph Nader said and insisting he said Barack has a right to speak 'proper English.' Nader never said he didn't or he did. That wasn't the critique. But twisting it is how the Cult works. They try to inflame and they try to enrage.

And if they can get people outraged enough, they know no discussion will ever take place. They're demonizing Ralph Nader and they're doing so for a reason: they don't want the conversation to be started.

So you get Eugene Kane's trash in "Talking White:"

That's pretty silly. In the American vernacular, all that means is a black person is using so-called proper English. Imagine a major African-American political candidate who didn't 'talk white'.
Can you imagine the criticism he or she would get?
Many educated black folks speak two languages; the voice they use when talking with family and friends along with a professional voice that is essentially regarded as 'talking white'.

Kane's distorting and lying. That was never Nader's point, that was never raised by Nader. Nader's talking about the power structure in this country and how Barack signals to it that poverty will not be a concern. Poverty wasn't dealt with any better as the late sixties closed (chronological sixties, not 'the sixties') then it is today but at least journalists pretended to give a damn. Kane's creating a straw man to rail against because that's so much easier than having the discussion that's needed, that's been needed. And no one's being helped by that. Maybe Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box is 'helped' by it. The same way she's helped by no one ever asking questions about that absurd, now ended marriage where she used gay-porn to get pregnant. That's off-limits, she insists, but she shows no such concern for other people, now does she? Want to trash mentally challenged kids? She's happy to post that crap in her Cat Litter Box. Want to lie about Hillary? Go for it, she'll waive you through. She'll even add to it.

It's the story of a cheap, social climber who set her sights on a gay man with money, married him, stay married him to him and would still be married to him if he didn't get tired of living a lie. Cobble together "Fame Is A Girl's Best Friend," and you've got her life story. Now she wants to be considered part of the left and wants us to all forget how much she lied over and over throughout the nineties. And we're supposed to forget that as she allows one lie after another about Hillary to be posted at her Cat Litter Box. She had no concern about Chelsea Clinton's feelings during the nineties (or this decade) but you must never press her to talk about her sham of a marriage because it might upset her own children. That's a non-standard there. And standards is the issue because she's lied 'from the left' the same way she did from the right and it's past time that people stopped stepping into the sewer to converse with her.

David Brock came over from the right. He wrote a book where he ripped himself apart and owned his misdeeds and lies. And today he practices standards and plays fair. (There are some people on the right who can do that regardless but Brock was a self-identified hit man for the right wing.) Someone like that should be warmly welcomed. But Newt's best pal deciding there was money to be made by shifting to the left, never taking accountability for her host of lies and smears, setting up shop on the left and continuing her lies? No.

And the left, the real left, should grasp that she stayed married to her meal ticket as long as it was handy. The same way she'll stayed married to the left as long as it's handy. Goes to pattern. In 2008, she demonstrated that she had not changed at all. She was a laugh to the left in the nineties . . . for the same methods she employs today. And maybe when she 'created' the interview with George Clooney we all should have caught on? Or maybe her advocating for the recall of the Democratic governor should have been a clue? But today, there's no denying that, while a David Brock truly can have a transformation, the Aging Socialite went to where the money was and where she wouldn't be asked questions about her ridiculous marriage. The right wing would make a huge deal out of that because she had burned a ton of bridges on the right (over ego, not politics). From the 'left,' there was the hope that she could 'draw the veil.' Not when she's prying into everyone else's lives.

She wasn't a journalist on the right and she's not on the left -- no matter how much she spends for people to compile the information she pastes together in those clip-jobs passing themselves off as 'books.' What left position has she taken? People should have noticed a long time ago that she's no different from the play left on TV crowd that pushes the conversation to the right. It's not just Barack that's not being held to a standard, it's not just the MSM, it's these self-constructed 'heroes' of the 'left' who have nothing to offer because they're from right.

This is not going to be a pretty period for writers (real ones) to look back on as they attempt to explain how the left got derailed repeatedly and how the illegal war continued over and over. It's going to be the decade of wasted possibilities, wasted potential as the left ran after quick-fixes and picked up the worst standards of the extreme right-wing in order to 'win.' How The Left Lost could be the title of such a book. Whether Barack gets into the White House or not, the left has lost. It has lost the way, it has lost the standards and it has given up the high ground. It has stayed silent while Barack's used homophobia to scare up voters in South Carolina. It has utilized sexism to destroy a candidate (Hillary). It has distorted and lied to turn valid critiques of Barack's position into false charges of 'racism.'

How do you recover from that? How does the left repair itself?

Whether Barack gets into the White House or not, it will not have been worth it.

Quick fixes and lies do not bring about change. Quick fixes and lies do not elevate left positions. Embracing and teaching cowardice (staying silent is being a coward) does not result in any advancement. It doesn't even allow for a healthy exchange.

In five years, a lot of mirrors are going to be held up to this time period and a lot of people are going to have to cover their faces, shield their eyes, because they can't stomach what they see reflected.

They will have no one to blame but themselves. They were so desperate to 'win' that they would betray every standard they have. After the 1988 election, some political scientists didn't think Democrats could win the White House again. They thought the Democrats would be 'left' with Congress from now on. That wouldn't be a bad thing if Democratic control resulted in actual change. But two decades later -- and two terms seeing a Democratic president elected and take office -- wasn't good enough. They want it all (elected office wise) and they want it now and don't give a damn what it takes to get there.

With very few exceptions, our 'left' 'leaders' stand for nothing today. They have compromised themselves, they have betrayed the left. And, no, it is not worth it. Fads and hula-hoops never bring about change. And it's real hard to decry the horse racing nature of Big Media's campaign coverage when that's all the left has to offer today. It's hard to call yourself a media 'critic' when you stay silent on a candidate using homophobia, when you ignore the rampant sexism.

We have seen David Corn betray his standards. He was factual to the point of being anal about it. Whether you liked him or not, admired his work or not, you were aware he did more than gas bag. What did we see this year? He betrayed himself. He insisted Bill Clinton had 'pardoned' two members of the Weather Underground -- for being Weather Underground was the implication Corn made. That was a lie on every level. Clinton didn't pardon and that's such a basic fact that it's hard to believe David Corn (of all people) would make that error. And the old David Corn would have looked into the two women's cases and discovered that one was considered a political prisoner by some on the left and it had nothing to do with Weather Underground. But instead it was rush in with a piece to mitigate Barack's long relationship with Bill Ayers (and Bernardine Dohrn -- sexism allows her to be stripped out of the equation even though she led Weather).

Or you get the extreme lies that allows people to defend Jeremaih Wright stating that AIDS was a government conspiracy to kill off African-Americans. When did Corn call that out? Corn who felt the need to call into KPFK and be put on air immediately because he wasn't about to let any 'conspiracy talk' take place had nothing to say about Wright's crackpot science?

Or The Nation which was trashing the new SDS for being close to Bernardine and giving her a warm reception to a speech she gave. Bernardine's a wonderful speaker. She's always been one. But there was their SDS cover story just ripping apart the new SDS for their refusing to wall of Dohrn and others. Less than two years later, it's time for them to drop their opposition to Weather? It's time for the very same magazine that attacked Dohrn to now defend Weather?

I don't attack Weather Underground. I lived through that time period, I was a poli sci major. It is not shocking that a violent government -- Tricky Dick's administration -- would lead to violence as a response. (Especially -- take note -- coming on the heels of LBJ's non-responsive government on the issue of Vietnam.) I also don't deny that violence creates victims. But didn't the same Nation magazine that wanted to crucify Dohrn in their new SDS cover story suddenly rush to minimize the very real actions of Weather Underground.

And they want people to believe they have standards? You don't have to agree with their attack on Dohrn. You can or you can reject it. You can even not care. But when, less than two years later, Weather's suddenly a non-issue, you have to notice the extreme flip-flop. And it's been that way throughout the push Barack campaign.

And what does that campaign have to offer? "We want to end the war!" Applause. Cheers. He's going to end the illegal war! He's the anti-war candidate! He's promised to end the illegal war! Only that's not reality and everyone knew it all along. They certainly knew it by June 5th when he was repeating on CNN what Samantha Power had already told the BBC months ago. So Barack, you got a plan to end the illegal war, tell us about that.

Barack Obama: Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind. Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq. And our troops, and Gen. Petraeus, deserve enormous credit for that. I have to look at this issue from a broader perspective, though.

He may or may not get into the White House. He may or may not get the Democratic Party nomination. Four years for some, two years for others, of building up a War Hawk as the person who would end the illegal war. And what does anyone have to show for it? Not a damn thing.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4101. Tonight? 4113. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,225,898 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War up from . . . well they haven't updated. Like last week, it still reads 1,225,898 last week. Maybe that's where the White House is getting their 'violence is down' talking point?

The e-mail address for this site is