Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on August 20, 2004, 12:23:46 pm
-
not many political debates raging at the moment, so here's an interview that sheds some light on Santor Kerry and the modern "environmental" movement.
----------------------------------------
Monkeywrench Hope
An Interview with Jeffrey St. Clair
original article (//"http://www.counterpunch.com/frank08202004.html")
Jeffrey St. Clair is an environmentalist and author of Been Brown So Long it Looked Like Green to Me: The Politics of Nature. He is also the co-editor with Alexander Cockburn of several new books including Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, and Imperial Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia. He currently resides in Oregon City, Oregon.
Joshua Frank: Jeff, thanks for agreeing to this interview. So many progressives I've talked to, who admit John Kerry offers no alternative to the Bush Administration on almost every issue -- often justify their support for the Kerry ticket by saying that there is at least a stark difference between Bush and Kerry on the environmental front. They point out such things as Bush's disregard for science, his horrible forest plan, his roll-back of Bill Clinton's roadless rule -- while they see Kerry as an environmental crusader who has received ringing endorsements from all the major environmental groups. Having covered environmental politics since the early 1990s, how do you respond to this rationale? Do you agree that indeed there are major differences between Bush and Kerry regarding the environment?
Jeffrey St. Clair: Let's get some things straight up front. The environmental movement bears very little relationship to the "major environmental groups." The big groups, aka Gang Green, function politically as little more than green front for the Democratic Party. Of course, they inflate Kerry as an environmental crusader. They would say, and indeed have said, the same thing about any Democratic nominee. That's their job. They do it very well, indeed. They should, because the Beltway Greens aren't really environmentalists any more in the way we used to think of enviros 15 or 20 years ago. These aren't activists, but lawyers and lobbyists, mainly from Ivy League schools, overwhelmingly white and liberal, who could (and perhaps will) just as easily be lobbying on health care, abortion rights, trade policy. They come packing with a PhD in deal making. There's no driving commitment to wilderness or burning rage about cancer alley or passionate concern about the fate of the grizzly. It's all very congenial, nicely compensated, prefabricated and totally uninspired.
The irony, of course, is that the better this new breed of eco-lobbyist do their job (i.e., act as a kind of mercenary force against the Republicans), the less seriously most rational people (except the perenniably gullible) take them. With good reason. There's more threat inflation being waged by the Big Greens, than by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. Does Bush want to pursue corporate-driven environmentally hostile policies? Of course. Is Kerry an environmental crusader? Of course, not. And there's the lie. In it's zeal to become a Beltway player, the Big Greens have ceased to be truth-tellers. For example, the Greens say Bush has turned his back on the Kyoto protocols. True enough. But they neglect to say that Kerry turned his back first, voting against Kyoto while he was a senator and Clinton was president. This is to say that Bush was tight with Ken Lay and covered for Enron. Right on. We all know Bush, the inveterate nick-name dropper, dubbed Lay "Kenny Boy." But they over look the fact that Lay and the Kerry's are also very good friends and frequent dining companions. Moreover, Ken Lay was recruited by Teresa Heinz Kerry for a seat on the board of her environmental foundation, where he was assigned the task of heading the foundation's global warming task force. They charge that Bush, fully marinated in crude oil, wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Horrible, but true. They say that Kerry opposes this. And that's true, too. But they elide the fact that Kerry told Teamster's president Jimmy Hoffa that while he won't drill in ANWR, he does plan to drill "everywhere else like never before." Where would everywhere else include? The coastal plain of Alaska, offshore waters of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, the Rocky Mountain Front, the red rock country of Utah, the deserts of New Mexico, the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. There's more. Kerry met with the American Gas Association a few weeks ago and pledged his support for a Trans-Alaska-Canada Natural Gas Pipeline that will cut across some of the most incredible tundra and taiga on Earth -- a project that will dwarf the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. No one among the Beltway Greens even squeaked. This amounts to a grand and debilitating hypocrisy.
JF:Does this perpetual hypocrisy of the Big Greens go any deeper? Such endorsements seem to carry a lot of weight with potential voters. Larry Fahn, the Sierra Club's current president, said following their endorsement of John Kerry, "Now, thousands of Sierra Club members in every state will be volunteering their efforts to tell voters about the clear choice in this election [We are] encouraging all Americans who care about the environment to vote for John Kerry in November." This is an enviro organization that boasts of having over 700,000 members. That's a huge number of potential Kerry supporters. What are the reasons the Club blatantly turns its back on its radical John Muir roots? What are their motivations for being a "green-front" for the Democratic Party as you say?
JSC: Yes, it goes much deeper than just hypocrisy. It involves big money, an obscene craving for political access, ego enlargement and a kind of political paternalism that I (and many others) find revolting. I don't think the environment will play that much of a factor in the election. Nobody listens to environmentalists anymore, except their own captive members. That's my point. The Big Greens have marginalized the environmental movement through their blatant partisanship. The environment isn't an election issue any more, because there's no viable green candidate -- a fact that is apparent to the average teenager in Lincoln, Nebraska. Essentially, Fahn and the others play the role of cattle drivers, keeping their own herd in line, lest it stampede over into Nader's greener pastures. Yes, the Club has 700,000 members. But these aren't activists. The Club doesn't want activists, indeed they run them out of the organization. Activists have an unwelcome tendency to think and act for themselves. They aren't great at following marching orders, especially when it means marching over a cliff.
JF: Speaking of "no viable green candidate," David Cobb, the Green Party Presidential candidate, is currently polling at 0%. If that is even possible. His support apparently isn't even a blip on the electoral radar screen. What do you think the ramifications will be for the Greens who, like the Sierra Club, were founded on radical environmental ideals, but have apparently sidelined any radical tendencies, and opted to run a "smart-state" campaign which basically endorses John Kerry for president?
JSC: I think the Greens are kaput, a kind of group political suicide on the order of Jonestown or that strange cult in Rancho Santa Fe who neutered themselves, donned their black sweat suits and Nikes, & poisoned themselves while waiting for the Hale-Bopp Comet. David Cobb is either Jim Jones or Hale-Bopp. Take your pick. A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, the founding purpose of the Green party was to be a party of resistance. It was never about party building, or getting school board candidates elected, or anything but being a monkeywrench against a corrupt political system. Once the Greens decided to play nice, they ceased to exist as a force of opposition. Why be a Green when you can be a Dem? Why be a Dem when you can be a Republican? The only choice now is not to vote. Staying home on Election Day under these circumstances isn't apathy or laziness or political mopery (as much as I admire all of those things) but an act of supreme resistance, particularly against those hysterical Dems who yelp that this is the most important election of our lifetime. Bunk.
JF: Would you say that Ralph Nader is playing nice this election season? Is there reason to stay home with him in the race? Or is he just playing by the rules, much like the Greens, unwilling to monkeywrench against the political system?
JSC: I think Ralph played coy for too long. Then he was baited into running by the very smear artists who spent three years mugging him. They really underestimated what Ralph is made of -- which just shows that they are as stupid as they are politically corrupt. He wasn't going to stand by and allow a bunch of political thugs and liars to besmirch his character. Then he was betrayed by his own political progenies, including the Green Party, which he almost single-handedly built into a national force. Ralph is a lawyer and a good one. He lives by rules and plays by them. He's not a monkeywrencher or revolutionary or even a radical. He believes in ethical government, despite all the odds. If Nader makes the Oregon ballot -- a long shot given the slimy tactics used against him by Democrats and some Greens -- I will happily vote for him. I take Foucault seriously. Politics is really about power. The only power the Left (loosely speaking) enjoys these days is the power of negation. We can't elect Nader or Camejo or Jackson. But we can defeat bad Democrats, like Gore and Kerry. Until the Democrats bend in our direction or a new political party rises to challenge them. And it doesn't take much, other then courage, to make this happen -- an all out anti-war & anti-free trade campaign waged in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, New Hampshire, Maine and New Mexico. Those are the states that matter. Those are the states that will force the power elite to deal with the Left. Until that happens, the Democratic Party will continue to move to the right, outpacing the Repubs on several issues.
JF: On what issues have the Democrats outpaced the Republicans?
JSC: It's a long list, Josh. NAFTA, welfare deform, evisceration of the Endangered Species Act, the drug war, logging the national forests (the ANNUAL cut under Clinton was three to four times the TOTAL cut under Bush for his first 3 years) and, most recently, their ridiculous objections to the Bush plan for withdrawal of US from Europe, which signals the end of NATO.
JF: We heard so much about the rampages of Bush's "Healthy Forest Initiative" from Big Greens, who cried foul as the horrible legislation floated through congress. It seemed that under Bush some of these green lobbyists were actually invigorated, where as under Clinton they seemed to sit back and idly watch the salvage rider clear-cut ancient forests, while NAFTA blatantly undermined environmental regulations. Do you think that having Bush in office another four years will energize these big enviros to do some good? How about the radical environmental movement on the ground? For many, it seems like dire times indeed, with little hope for environmental salvation.
JSC: As a general rule, environmentalists, like other social movements, are better playing defense than offense; better at organizing against something than for something; better at attacking enemies than holding purported allies accountable for their actions. This has borne itself out again and again. At the legislative level, much of Bush's most insane policies have been stymied or sunk. The problem, naturally, comes at the administrative level, where there's often little recourse beyond litigation followed by direct action. And the Big Green groups don't DO direct action. And for the past 30 years, the federal courts have drifted steadily to the right. The "right" is probably the wrong term since true conservatives are supposedly suspicious of unbridled executive authority. This judiciary is exceptionally tolerant of almost any decision made by the executive branch. So the courts are becoming a much tougher venue to wage these battles. Yes, the environmental movement is "invigorated" under Bush, but for the wrong reasons.
The foot soldiers of the environmental movement have been conditioned to hate -- and I mean hate -- and all his minions -- fair enough, they are a hateful bunch. What's missing, of course, is any admission that it's the political system which is aligned with the corporations against the environment; what's missing is any acknowledgment that Bush -- from forests to water policy, from oil leasing to power plants, from salmon to toxic emissions -- is merely openly pursuing policies which Clinton (with the aid of many Democrats in congress) quietly established. And that's the fatal flaw of the Big Greens. They have refused to act as honest brokers, as non-partisan defenders of the planet. Instead, they seduced their own members into believing that a change in the White House will lead to a change of direction in environmental policy. That's the crucial lie. And it's a big one and a dangerous one. On paper, Kerry is marginally better than Bush on the environment. But where a unified resistance has confounded many of Bush's plans, Kerry will face little resistance. In fact, the Big Greens are likely to be complicit, as they were during Clinton time. The press will play along. And that's when the real damage will be done. Then we will be left once again with that thin green line of defenders, Earth First!, people in neighborhoods fighting power plants and landfills (the dreaded NIMBYS) and the like, who put the needs of the earth & the lives of their children above the niceties of two party politics. Cherish those people: they are our only hope.
-
i don't get involved in politics any, but word on the street is that when he was in the military/navy/wherever he was involved in rape of women at some of the places he was stationed, amongst other atrocities performed by him/his partners.
was that Kerry? or was it someone else? or am i just dreaming it
-
quite possible. Remember, that was Vietnam and he was part of the Phoenix Program, one of the worst attrocities commited during the war. I haven't read anything regarding his rape, so don't take this as a confirmation, but hell, war is chaos and especially that one, no one's going to notice a rape here or there.
What is known is that he took part in various other crimes, such as the murder of civilians and the burning of villages. Here it is (part of it), in his own words. ("http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3")
-
Only rumour I heard about Kerry is that he went nuts while on the boat and machinegunned an abandoned Vietnamese village full of cattle and small animals before burning the place to the ground.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040820/sc_nm/environment_water_dc
I wonder, if the money that had been spent on the 'oil war' had been used in education and the environment how much better things would be right now?
-
Incomparably.
-
Stealth & SadisticSid: you two are talking about another guy with a similiar name and a mixup happened earlier
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I haven't read anything regarding his rape,
[/url]
his rape? Ouch. Hope they didn't use pungi sticks
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Stealth & SadisticSid: you two are talking about another guy with a similiar name and a mixup happened earlier
Sid aint, though the story aint quite right. Hes on record admitting shooting civvies and burning civilians Kazan, theres no point in trying to cover up for him.
-
damn right he's on record, if anyone would bother to read my posts, there's a link to an .mp3 of Kerry admiting as much.
whats more, the Democrats (with Kerry in the lead) are actually criticizing, yes, criticizing Bush's plan to pull back the best part of 100,000 troops from Western Europe to the States. Its like Bizzaro World out there, the Dems are actually becoming more hawkish than the Republicans.
-
Rictor: "hawkish" because they want to leave troops in places to fulfill our treaty requirements, etc -- right
oh.. i saw this earlier - it's funny
(http://www.photodump.com/direct/Prospero424/binladen.jpg)
-
sometimes even Nazi's can be insightful
(http://www.travisely.com/fark/goering.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i don't get involved in politics any, but word on the street is that when he was in the military/navy/wherever he was involved in rape of women at some of the places he was stationed, amongst other atrocities performed by him/his partners.
was that Kerry? or was it someone else? or am i just dreaming it
I have heard that the Earth is at the center of the universe, but that doesn't make it true. Republicans are generally liars, so it is not a good idea to trust things like that.
And I have heard nothing about that, but either way I would be skeptical.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
sometimes even Nazi's can be insightful
(http://www.travisely.com/fark/goering.jpg)
So true.
-
Your treaty obligations are to the UN and NATO, and mostly amount to money (which the US is not paying) and troops for UN or NATO missions.
How do I put this...
Military bases in foreign nation are imperialist concepts. A republic, which the US supposedly is, does not have armed soldiers stationed in foreign nations. The only type of institution that had military bases in places other that its own soil, let alone in 130+ nations, during peace-time is an empire. That the very definition of the word. But also, its pure hypocricy, and the rule of law, specifically international law, means that no double standards should be implemented. Unless you're all keen to station some Saudi, Japanese and Hungarian troops in New York, Chicago and DC.
And just so you don't get all upset Kaz, those troops leaving Western Europe will be replaced with fresh troops ocuppying Eastern Europe, its the new "global realignment" thing. Musn't let the empire's grip loosen, or the rabble hordes might get some dangerous ideas.
It only took 15 years, but I guess that Washington finally concluded that Germany might not be an imminent threat after all. Now that the US has valiantly averted the threat of the Fourth Reich, maybe they'll get around too freeing Okinawa too? Or maybe they'll just run out of young girls to rape, get bored and go home.
...and so far, only one person has actually responded to the thread's topic (thanks Flipside). Now, I know that Kerry is an all-round dislikable character, but can't be just take it one fault at a time? Don't worry, we'll get through them all eventually.
re: Kaz's comic:
yeah, thats why I'de vote for Bush.
-
Theres still a Naval base in Japan, which was supposed to be removed years ago, and the Japanese government has requested that they leave several times. So far they have shown no sign of doing so.
-
There have actually been massive street protests by the people of Okinawa for years now. Removing US bases has become a major political issue for the major of the island, and rightly so.
-
rictor: and then what will they do when they get invaded? they have a treaty which states that they will have _NO_ army and that it's our obligation to protect them
and germany is the same (Except they're allowed to have a _small_ army)
-
Actually, Japan is allowed to have an army for self-defence. It's a small army, but with usual Japanese attention to detail, they've made it a very efficient one :)
In fact, the Japanese that are over in Iraq right now are banned from eating Pork, have been encouraged to cover their hair and grow moustaches. The American news reported this as them trying to 'camoflague' themselves and were taking the mickey, but as the representative pointed out, they are going there to help these people rebuild and to protect them. If obeying their customs etc will help earn their respect in order to do that, so much the better.
Personally, i think it's a good idea, but opinions may differ on that :)
-
So, the occupied nations is not allowed to have an army, and instead, they must have foreign troops to protect them from a non-existant threat?
Do you see the madness in that. Its subjugation, pure and simple. So, whats the difference between this and a mafia racket? I think its safe to assume that Tojo won't be taking a comeback, so that treay, if it exists (some proof would be nice), is bull****. Same with Germany.
besides, no one is going to attack Japan. And they have an army, which is curiously enough serving in Iraq. Furthermore, than might bne true for one nation, but what about the 130 others.
so, we're back to square one, which is that there is no legitimate reason at all to have a single soldier on foreign soil during peace time.
-
Rictor: those are _TREATY_ _OBLIGATIONS_ from World War II -- yes it's "subjugation" if we exercise force on them - which we don't. They started a huge war, lost and are suffering the consequence of having to obey the peace treaty
we could have chosen not to protect them and help them rebuild their countries
-
exactly, World War 2. That was 60 years ago. Hardly anyone who served in WW2 is even alive anymore. This generation has done nothing wrong. And if you seriously think that Japan is a threat to anyone anymore (except North Korea) then you're out of your mind. If we're going to start getting legal about it, how many treaties hs the US broken?
and still, thats around 130 more nations to account for. Do they all have treaty obligations?
-
As Rictor said, WW2 was 60 years ago. You know, in 60 years, the world changes. And Japan has finished being rebuilt a looooooong time ago. And as for the American troops protecting them, if China decide to invade (only country with the power to really do so), the difference made by the american troops will amount to nothing. And I do seem to remember the soldier stationned in Japan being implicated in : Rape, weapons smuggling, and other joyous things like that.
And you wonder why people want them gone ?
-
I may be wrong, but I think that treaty ended about 10 years ago anyway, the agreement I seem to recall was for 50 years.
-
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://video.csupomona.edu/streaming/inc/images/stclair.jpg&imgrefurl=http://video.csupomona.edu/streaming/inc/ht_index.html&h=45&w=60&sz=3&tbnid=0j8dUQks5lQJ:&tbnh=45&tbnw=60&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djeffrey%2Bstclair%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8
click the first interview, with Chalmers Johnson. He's one of the leading authors that I know of when it comes to the global network of US miltary bases. For most of his life, his primary interest has been US-Japanese relations, so he's very qualified to speak about US bases and specifically Okinawa. His job used to be as analyst for the CIA, so I don't think anyone can accuse him of being a left pinko commie. I'll be asking for Sorrows of Empire for my birthday, it sounds like a brilliant read.
I highly recommend it (the interview, not the book which I haven't read yet).
-
Hmmmmmmmmm.... Does sound interesting, it's kinda creepy to see some businessman-looking bloke cooly talking about clandestine operations to overthrow foreign governments.
-
A coup can more often be traced back to the Armani than to the military berret.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Stealth & SadisticSid: you two are talking about another guy with a similiar name and a mixup happened earlier
ah yes. but i knew that there was something with Kerry too... apparently (after reading this thread) it's his admitting to burning villages and shooting civilians.
OK :) thanks for the clarification ;)
-
yeah he said something like "like most other soldiers there i followed orders ..." the orders being to do that -- he's not particularily proud of it
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Republicans are generally liars, so it is not a good idea to trust things like that.
I'm amazed at how brainwashed people can be.
As rictor already pointed out, he admitted it himself. Thats why the Dems really are trying the shut out the SBVFT because they can't feasibly deny their claims. Irony is the dems are the party of free speech (supposedly).
-
Originally posted by Kazan
yeah he said something like "like most other soldiers there i followed orders ..." the orders being to do that -- he's not particularily proud of it
Again, according to most of the people that were with him, those things just are not true.
-
The trouble is, he wasn't drafted, he enlisted. So, he intentionally went to kill Vietnamese peasants.
-
deepblue: if you're citing those veterans supporting bush: THEY WEREN'T WITH HIM
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The trouble is, he wasn't drafted, he enlisted. So, he intentionally went to kill Vietnamese peasants.
oh that's total and complete bull**** and you know it
furthermore he volunteered _before_ vietnam started
-
I just think it's senseless debating about what he did in Vietnam. The entire war was an atrocity. They were shot at during the night by the same people who they had seen picking rice the previous day. Nobody knew what the hell was going on. Villages got torched, people got involuntarily relocated, and it was just an all-around horrific, nightmarish mess. Whatever Kerry actually did, you can bet it wasn't anything that was unusal, and also that there were people who did much worse.
As for the ads where Vietnam vets talk about how Kerry didn't earn his medals, in all probability those are people who were angry at him because he protested the war when he returned home. They arrive at the conclusion that because he protested the war, he was attacking the soldiers, so he must not deserve his medals.
-
Where do you get your info Kaz? They were with him, swiftboats travel and go into combat in groups.
Your implying that at least 64 people are lying and only John Kerry is telling the truth. Yeah right.
-
*sigh*
He didn't miss one single day of duty on account of his injuries. Anything bigger than a scratch, and he would have been out for atleast a day or two. Those three purple hearts are illegitimate, and everyone knows it. They were for cuts and bruises, and one was self inflicted.
Kaz: He enlisted in the Navy in 1966, several years after the outbreak of hostilites in Vietnam. Don't try to slip that sort of bull**** past me, its easily verifiable with a quick Google search or on Wikipedia. Or maybe you just made an honest mistake, well, my statement stands. He enlisted knowing full well what lay ahead.
-
Rictor: i'll have to doublecheck, but i could have sworn he volunteered before -- either way your comment about "he signed up to kill civilians" is total bull****
-
I don't think that was his point, that was just a general cheap shot at the military in general, haven't you been paying atention to anything he has ever said? I mean it'd be like An0n posting gay porn and people saying he was gay.
-
So what if Rictor posted gay military porn?
-
I don't want to know
-
that can be arranged....
Look, if there's a war on in Vietnam, and your country is sending people over there as fast as possible, it takes about 2 brain cells to figure out that its a complete ****storm, so the chances are that you're not going to be sitting by a pool in Saigon sipping a margarita.
Furthermore, the nature of America activities in 'Nam (terror campaigns against civilians , Phoenix and all that) was well know at this time, particularly to someone with a high degree of education like Kerry.
...how is it that every time anyone talks about Kerry, the conversation always drifts to Vietnam. Yes, its one of the reasons why I dislike him, but his actual, current policies far, far outweigh that. If he looked like he had some promising policies and ideas to implement, instead of being Bush-lite, I could look past 'Nam. But alas, by the second post it was already derailed...
-
once again rictor: bull****
and whether or not you like is policies is irrelevant - your a politically naive ultra-socialist who denies that atrocities happened in his country of birth
-
you're absolutely right. I ought to be hanged for my treacherous, murderous, socialist ways, and you ought to hang right beside me for acting like a 3 year old: once your arguement falls apart, throwing a tantrum and resorting to name calling.
At least I have a point to make. You obviously have none, or you would made it by now. Jumping up and down and screaming bull**** isn't gonna convince anyone buddy :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
also, please try to be more creative in your insults. You've used that ultra-socialist thing like the past three times. How about be switch to "anti-semetic terrorist appeaser" for a while, just for a change of pace your understand.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
once again rictor: bull****
and whether or not you like is policies is irrelevant - your a politically naive ultra-socialist who denies that atrocities happened in his country of birth
yeah that has a lot to do with this :)
-
if i was jumping up and down and throwing a tantrum you'd know it -- i don't waste my breath trying to correct you anymore because you have a skull about as thick as a lead reactor plate
You are a biased individual who doesn't even make an attempt to be nonbiased -- you are the ultra-left, just like bush is the ultra-right
BTW "Antisemetic terrorist appeaser" isn't a true statement about you, and hence why i haven't used it. I pointed out that "you're a political naive utlra-socialist who denies that atrocities happened in his country of birth" because it's TRUE (as illistrated by your own statements throughout the past)
You are an unreliable source at best - but you are infact a idealogue with an agenda
-
"idealogue with an agenda"
...now that I like. It has such a great ring to it, don't you think? I appreciate you taking the time to craft such a masterful insult, just for me.
But please, if you have nothing to say regarding the topic that is being discussed, don't say anything. If you want to make a "Rictor is a naive ultra-socialist anti-America idealogue with an agenda, oh and also he eats babies" thread, you're welcome to it and more power to ya (though I don't think that will all fit in the title). However, don't go around and stir **** up and get other people's threads locked.
...which reminds me, admins: don't lock this just yet. And through with Don Quixote, and apparently there are still a few people with the common curtesy to stay on topic, so..yeah...
-
you don't have the common curtesy and sophistication to be a non-biased source, and i'm pointing that out and you're crying "INSULT! INSULT!"
something cannot be an insult if it's true
-
You are a biased individual who doesn't even make an attempt to be nonbiased.
What is there to an argument but a clash of biases? A debate isn't about looking at a situation objectively; it's about making a case for your point of view. If I didn't know any better I'd say you found that threatening.
something cannot be an insult if it's true
I beg to differ. True or false, it is an insult if it is phrased in a manner so as to be personally charged.
Now then, where were we? Ah, yes.
Rictor, I think maybe our points of view on Kerry are beyond resolution for the reasont that although, in some strategic way, you may view Kerry's regime as being more destructive, the fact of the matter is that many of us here in America are consumed with mortal terror when we think about how badly Bush could rape us with another four years, and we're convinced that Kerry shows much more promise of helping to stabilize the situation.
And look, maybe Kerry doesn't look all that different from Bush regarding imperialism, but there is a fundamental difference between them: Bush's administration is composed of religious fundamentalists whose wacko agenda is not much different from the likes of Al Quaeda, whereas Kerry's head is at least down on the secular Earth with the rest of us humans.
-
I finally realized that neoliberism has a true voice on this forum - Kazan, since he actually believes his arguments are just.
I'd only ever read about these people in Chomksy books - I feel like a trader landing on the shores on the new world and seeing Natives.
*loads rifle*
-
Ford: actually, Bush's administration, at least the people who call the shots, is made up of secular neocons (yes, I know that word is oversed by now, but its their proper title).
People within the administration like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby and Richard Perle, as well as leading neocon intellectuals at large, such as Robert Kagan, Irving and William Kristol (father and son) and others. These people are the true source of Bush's agenda, at least when it comes to foreign policy, with a few straight up imperialists among their ranks (Rumsfeld, Condy and Big Dick).
Its important, very important, to know this group, to know their origins. Their origins are, amazingly enough, from the Left. The father of this movement was a guy called Leo Strauss ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Political_Straussians"), who was a politcal philosopher throught most of the 20th century. His views, and indeed the offical views of the neocon movement hold that benevolent world hegemony (by the US of course) if the only way to go, and that whatever needs to be done to achieve this is justifiable. Thats why the neocons have so much respect for Machiavelli, they're kindred spirits.
Now, they deifinitely came from the Left, and also from the Democratic party. They formed from the right-wing sectors of the Democrats, those who hold true that the US should maintain hegemony in order to export democracy and peace and all that bull****. Which is exactly the same thing Kerry & Co are saying. In fact, the neocons have more in common with Kerry, secular and rational, than with Bush and his Bible thumpers. Don't think they won't jump ship if Kerry wins. They are not aligned with a specific party but with a specific ideaology, and whoever can best serve their agenda, thats who they go with. Whats more, they have members both in Republican and Democratic circles. Clinton, Kerry, Lieberman, Clark, Albright and all of those guys, the brains in charge of the Democratic Party, and those who will be making the decisions if Kerry is elected, are within ideological spitting distance from the neocons. Keep in mind, that originally the neocons developed out of the same place Kerry is today: imperialist Democrats.
In some ways, rational and secular imperialists are much more dangerous, because they act rationally. Bush is a cowboy, so when he gets up on the podium, people can read him like a book. He's prone to relgious superstitions, and therefore will make mistakes. But Kerry and the "new Democrats" will act with cold percision and manipulate the American public and the world much better than Bush could.
But anyway, you have no reason to believe me, just watch for yourself.
vyper: and the ironic thing is, he denies neoliberalism even exists
-
Yes, I've read about Leo Strauss, and from what I've read, the way his writings should be interpreted is subject to great controversy.
Yes, the neocon intellectuals are secular in their thinking, but there is still an undeniable strain of religious zeal. Some of them, such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, probably don't believe most of what they like to have the public buy into. However, there are others, such as Bush himself and Ashcroft, (he's one of the worst in my estimation), who are genuine Christian fundamentalists, who honestly believe that their twisted brand of religious dogma must be integrated into political policy. One of them, I forget which one, is even a member of Opus Dei.
-
vyper: neoliberal my ass
-
Ooh, calm it big boy... all in good time.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Yes, I've read about Leo Strauss, and from what I've read, the way his writings should be interpreted is subject to great controversy.
Yes, the neocon intellectuals are secular in their thinking, but there is still an undeniable strain of religious zeal. Some of them, such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, probably don't believe most of what they like to have the public buy into. However, there are others, such as Bush himself and Ashcroft, (he's one of the worst in my estimation), who are genuine Christian fundamentalists, who honestly believe that their twisted brand of religious dogma must be integrated into political policy. One of them, I forget which one, is even a member of Opus Dei.
In my humble opinion, and keep in mind that it is just that, the neocons mesh better with the new Democrats than with the convervatives like Bush. Bush and Ashcroft specifically are deeply religious people, but neither is in charge of foreign policy. From what I know, the neocon movement doesn't really have a specific domestic agenda, other than a clampdown on freedoms in order to enable ther foreign policy. But Bush and the Republicans, in addition to being imperialists abroad, have a concrete agenda at home: anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti social programs, anti environment.
And thats why the neocons either way. Yes, Bush and Kerry do differ (though not susbtantially) in matters of domestic governance, but once you step outside the confines of the US, its the same thing. And thats what has enabled the neocons to have a loyalty towards both parties, since they don't really care who implements what policy at home, as long as they get their empire. And right now, thats both the major parties.
True, there are some old guard conservatives within Bush's administration, quite a few actually including Bush himself, but look at the people who make up the core of the foreign policy group: Perle, Feith, Libby, Rusmfeld (he's kind of iffy, more of a straight up hawk than anything else), Wolfowitz, Cheney. Bush and Ascroft couldn't be called neocons because they come from a different background. They are converstatives in the same sense that Reagan was.
Not that I'm saying what alot of people these days are saying, that US foreign policy has somehow been "hijacked" by the evil neocons. Don't get me wrong, it was no less murderous under Reagan, Nixon or Bush 41, but I think its important to note that since the neocon idealogy is focused so much on foreign policy, and since both parties are equal in that regard, this allows the same agenda to continue, regardless of who is in power. Kerry has already vowed to continue the occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue to "war on terror", is actually OPPOSED to withdrawing troops from abroad, has vowed to continue the same murderous policies in South America and also to continue the reshaping of the Middle-East.
As I may have mentioned before, I can and do look at it from this perspective becuase I don't live within the US. Anyone who does will probably place greater worth than I do (that is to say, great than 0) on domestic issues like education, abortion and taxes. And thats understandable. But I'm looking at it through the eyes of the other 95% of the world that cares about how America behaves on the international stage. Bush and Kerry may be in the pockets of the same corporations, but at least there is a slight difference between them on those issues which affect Americans. And for some people, than small difference is enough to hold you nose and vote for Kerry.
oh dear, I'm ranting again. Sorry ;) ;)
BTW: I don't know about Opus Dei, but both Bush and Kerry belong to the Skull and Bones, and Bush is part of the Trilateral Commission.
-
Well, Skull and Bones is just a club for young guys who want another excuse to behave like young guys on campus, so I hardly care about that.
Okay, so I guess the conclusion we arrive at is that the world is America's ***** until the American people can learn to keep it in their pants when they hear the national anthem.
-
*ahem* You deserve to die! Die, go to hell, and burn!
Quoted...
-
Quoted? Ah, yes, that must be Dante Alighieri.
-
Don't you just love those constructive posts? ;)