Here are the local “final” results for the June 5 primary election (see some of it summarized below). (Keep in mind there is still a canvas period, though results shouldn’t change).
The winners are District 1 Supervisor and moderate GOPer Nate Beason (who won without a runoff), Superior Court Judge Tom Anderson and Truckee Mayor Richard Anderson for District 5 supervisor. (Both Andersons, unrelated, are moderate Democrats).
Other winners are moderates in general or “purple politics,” and Democratic Congressional candidate Jim Reed (who garnered roughly the same number of votes as staunch conservatives Doug LaMalfa and Sam Aanestad in our supposedly “red” county). The outcome in the Congressional race was redolent of Charlie Brown’s performance against Tom McClintock the first time around.
The losers are Sue McGuire and George Smyrnos (both good people) but moreover many of their single-issue, agenda-driven supporters in our community. We’ve reported them previously — you know who they are. (The anti-Beason signs were childish).
Other losers include the local tea party who vocally endorsed these candidates, The Union’s hard-right editorial policy, the loud, hard-right blogging contingent of Russ Steele, George Rebane, Barry Pruett and Todd Juvinall. (Juvinall once was a county supervisor and Steele once was a county ERC board commissioner and transportation commissioner). Times have changed.
Also, Tom McClintock’s opponent did better than expected in our county.
My own suspicion is that social media has opened the doors to more views and voices than in the past, more accurately reflecting our diverse community and breaking the “bottleneck” of the dominant media that has long controlled communications. This trend will continue.
Placer County also is “purple.” Moderate Democrat Jennifer Montgomery won her race, as did moderate GOPer Jim Holmes. Both will continue as county supervisors.
County Supervisor District 1
Nate Beason 2,842 votes – 59.29%
Alfred “Al” Bulf: 445 votes – 9.28%
Louis Meyer: 84 votes – 1.75%
Sue McGuire: 1,402 votes – 29.25%
Unresolved Write-Ins 20 votes
Judge of the Superior Court Seat 1
George John Smyrnos 7,300 votes – 38.52%
Tom Anderson 11,584 votes – 61.13%
Unresolved Write-Ins: 67 – 0.35%
County Supervisor District 5
Richard Anderson: 1,359 votes – 66.00%
Mike Rogers: 690 votes – 33.51%
Unresolved Write-Ins: 10 votes – 0.49%
Thanks to Yubanet.com for its real-time reporting and to the county clerk-recorder’s office for its deft handling of the election.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Thanks, Jeff, for having the reults ready for us early birds. I’m sure I’ll read on one of those blogs how stupid everyone is. If not, I’ll be surprised.
Wonderful News. Just read that California’s financial recovery is faster than the nation’s too. We look good in purple;) The Jim Reed race looks exciting. More fun in November! Congrats to all…
Kate
It was a good night here in Nevada County. I was pleased to stay up late, follow election results across the entire Sierra, where in general the forces of moderation and rationality did pretty well against the forces of conspiracy and irrationality, and come back to Nevada County on-line for a little cheer. Yubanet did a great job of keeping us up to speed thanks to Pascal and her intrepid smart phone (seems the web went down for a little while at election central).
In short, Jeff’s contention that Nevada County is more moderate than many of its big mouths proved true. We voted for Jack Uppal for Congress, re-elected Mr. Beason by roughly 60-40, elected a moderate democrat in the 5th district by 65-35, and retained Judge Anderson, who faced the most organized Tea Party challenge. The contention that the Tea people represent a majority sentiment in the county is now roundly and conclusively proved false. All the protestations made by some nattering nabobs of negativism that “decline to state swings conservative in Nevada county” were proved false as well.
But that only means that the brains of the Tea people, those intellectual giants of political prognostication, will be coming after your rights through more insidious means. They will be rallying their troops–flush with their Medicare accounts, military pensions, taxpayer subsidized mortgages, and GI bill funded college degrees–to oppose you socialist traitors who follow a Kenyan muslim.
The wild eyed conspiracy theories about what motivates people to improve their communities will be redoubled, with shouts of “Agenda 21″ “socialism” and even “traitor”. Your community garden, walkable community, bike lane, county park, even your freedom to associate under the constitution, will be cast as the globalist invasion of the Cement Hill.
Their attempt to disenfranchise people by challenging voter registration will continue, because this crew would rather disenfranchise a million voters than allow on false vote to be cast–which is roughly the ratio of voter fraud incidents to voters across the country.
The less power they have at the ballot box the more power they will seek to assert by being the angry mob who shows up.
Their attempt to intimidate decision-makers with wild claims of incompetence, corruption and immorality in local government will continue. So now it is up to us to stand up for our newly elected representatives. To counter the irrationality that the Tea people bring to the council chamber and the board chamber. To tell our elected officials we want rational government. that respects all points of view, even those of the Tea party, but that makes decisions based on data, science, research, respectful discussion, and the clear will of the majority of the community.
In the end, democracy is driven by those who show up, and if we want to institutionalize rational government, we need to show up to support it.
Well said, Steve. Those of us whom still believe in reason, science, expertise, and have ideals that go beyond “What’s in it for me,” still have to keep our guard up and be ready for every right-hook that will be thrown at the sides of our faces. Angry people just get angrier and uglier when they lose, or don’t get what they want–which to me seems to be a return to the Wild, Wild West.
Awesome comment Steve. Right on!
Judges are special citizens we the people entrust to decide the fates of those in conflict, George Smyrnos waged a dark and underhanded campaign to gain that position. We should all be alarmed that such tactics did as well as they did and be concerned that a day may come when they might prevail.
As a democracy we decide at the ballot box but the real work of building an educated electorate to make those decisions begins well beforehand. As a nation and a county we are failing at this and those that see it need to do something before it is too late.
Here, here Steve. And, in an interesting twist in Wisconsin–it appears that the democrats have taken back the senate because of Racine, Wisconsin. Imagine Karl Rove and the Koch Boys paying a bazillion dollars to keep S. Walker in power only to find you bought the lamest of lame ducks. Isn’t it ironic, dontcha think?
Kate
Here are some good resources summing up the election:
http://graphics.latimes.com/california-primary-june-5-2012/
http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/elections/Pages/Home.aspx
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/
I’m going to be interested in the LaMalfa-Reed race for Congress. Now LaMalfa is going to have to decide what “He’s one of us” really means in his district. The hard right has made a shambles out of local GOP unity.
Good point, Kate. Thank you for a bright spot in all this darkness. Walker has been reined in at least till November! (I hope)
Another bright spot is that this mixed outcome certainly must be a wake up call for democrats and republicans alike that they must work together to get something done.
•Get this: tea party supporter Barry Pruett is suddenly embracing Doug LaMalfa and Nate Beason, whom he has bashed verbally for months, even though they handily defeated his hard right candidates (Aanestad and McGuire).
http://barrypruett.blogspot.com/2012/06/nevada-county-elections-breakdown.html
He is declaring “victory”! LOL! Barry couldn’t figure out a way to “declare victory” on the Smyrnos-Anderson race, though. Last night Barry batted 0-3 on his candidates. And that’s coming off of his own sound defeat two years ago. Oh, and Tom McClintock lost in our county too.
•And hard-right blogger Russ Steele has gone so far as to remove his post boasting about The Union’s online Election Day poll, which turned out to be a farce (predicting that the losers would win).
It’s time to get on with our days. Enjoy yours: It’s beautiful outside!
Let this be an object lesson in how craven political operatives snatch pyrrhic victory from the hands on ignoble defeat.
Jeff…Where do you get off calling American citizens you don’t agree with “hard right” because they believe in and support our Constitution and Bill of Rights? All our people in Congress etc., swear an oath to protect and uphold our U.S. Constitution regardless of their political party. We’re all Americans. Does your anti Bill of Rights stance make you “hard left?”
Bonnie – I am not Jeff and I will let him speak for himself, but I have studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I am sick and tired of people that claim to be Constitutional experts when in fact they are not. The Supreme Court was established by the founding fathers to interpret the Constitution, which was written 250 years ago. When Jeff says you are hard right – well he is just calling a spade a spade. If you are going to hide behind the Constitution to support your hard right politics, then tell us what makes you a Constitutional expert? Have you studied Constitutional law? Do you recognize many perspectives on interpreting the Constitution? Or, do you just claim to know the truth?
Actually what I really resent is that when Bonnie uses the narrowly defined constitution as a crutch to stand up her limited view of individual rights she cheapens the document, and strips it of its adpirational vision. I am an American. I own the constitution just as much as she does. She does not define its meaning for me. Our society, laws, institutions, history and accomplishments over 230 years define it or me. Turning back the clock to the 19th century on how we interpret the constitution would strip millions of Americans of the gains of the last 200 years. It would be a rejection of modernity itself.
Bonnie,
We all believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We’re all Americans too. But your politics are hard right. Hard-right politicians have been losing in our county for several election cycles now. This isn’t political rocket science.
Bonnie, I’m also offended at the implication that your positions are somehow the “constitutional” ones. If you truly believe in something then explain what you think and why, and let’s deliberate. United we stand, divided we fall.
.
Stephen Wahlstrom, you commented “…. I have studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I am sick and tired of people that claim to be Constitutional experts when in fact they are not. The Supreme Court was established by the founding fathers to interpret the Constitution, which was written 250 years ago.” The Constitution is the standard of laws under which the states united…hence, the United States of America. Those who wrote the laws understood human nature and hoped that those who later interpreted the laws would do so according to the intent when they were written. Why? Because they knew what the totalitarian (ruling class) mentality was like towards the slaves that produced everything. (Robinhood is a simple children’s story explaining the corruption at the top). When you study the Constitution you also need to study history. For instance, Ex Post Facto…In Enland if a starving man stole a loaf of bread, was found guilty and sent to prison…it might become a life sentence, because if the government changed and added more penalties to the offense after his sentence these changes would be added to his sentence “after the fact.” No State Church…because the kings in collusion with their state church jailed and comfiscated property from non believers. Very dangerous times and lots of persecution. Abraham Lincoln believed our Bill of Rights made America a place where ordinary people could realize their creative dreams….and that human slavery was an abomination in this country.
Steven, when you say the Supreme Court was established to interpret the Constitution you have to take into consideration human nature, and the ethics of those politicians who decide what Judges will be chosen to become Justices. Will they pick Justices to interpret the laws to promote a political agenda, or choose them to uphold and interpret the laws as they were intended by the founders? As to understanding the Constitution….we, the people have the right to study and use the law to protect ourselves from ignorant Judges who break the law. Don’t ever take their honesty for granted. Here’s a couple of our experiences regarding the subject. http://www.mcguiresplace.net/The%20Laws
Bonnie,
Your rant is rambling and difficult to understand. Reading between the lines I take it that you have appointed yourself as the defender of the Constitution – protecting the masses from “ignorant judges” (your words). Very similar to the rhetoric of the Third Reich. It is amazing that you know more about the Constitution than people than people who have spent their career studying and practicing law. You might want to consider turning the channel away from Fox News once in awhile
“Those who wrote the laws understood human nature and hoped that those who later interpreted the laws would do so according to the intent when they were written.” Bonnie M.
The idea that all of the founders shared the same hopes about how future generations would interpret law is simply not supported in fact.
Many of the participants in the Constitutional convention itself vociferously disagreed about the intent or the content of specific passages of the Constitution. In many cases portion of the Constitution were intentionally made more vague, with the aim of allowing future judicial action to clarify the intent. This was done to take issues in the convention off the table so they could reach an agreement. In many cases portions of the Constitution were included knowing that they were internally inconsistent, in order to placate special interests. In addition, the Constitution was written by and approved by the participants in the Constitutional convention, but then it had to be ratified by conventions in 11 states. Each one of those states convention delegates had an opinion about what the Constitution meant. There were literally hundreds of them. Changing just a few delegates in each state would have meant no ratification. How do we know their “original intent”? We have good records of the convention delegates, but almost no record of the state ratifying conventions. Compound that by the several hundreds who ratified, and you simply cannot say that they “hoped that those who later interpreted the laws would do so according to the intent when they were written”. Finally many of the framers had outright opposition to certain portions of the Constitution, so whose opinion on the interpretation of the particular passage in question should be used? a federalists? a republicans? a delegates, a ratifying convention member?
Take it from a guy who has both the Federalist Papers and Madison’s Notes on the Convention as his nightstand as bedtime reading….. this was not a group of 55 men who just got together and magically agreed on everything; they had serious disagreements. They were also smart enough to know they were fallible, and would never have formed a system of government hamstrung by the requirement to see it only though original intent, thus assuming their infallibility.
This issue of “intent” was so clearly not uniformly agreed to that the framers built into the system courts to interpret intent, a legislature to draft new laws to change intent, and a methodology for amending the constitution to add or subtract rights, liberties, laws and new values. The bottom line is that the framers did exactly the opposite of what you are implying. They were so smart that they knew that people’s interpretation would change over time so they built in the systems to allow it to change.
In short, the very founding document of our country is one great confusing, intentionally vague, grand compromise, deliberately designed to create a Union but knowing that that Union would need to be reinterpreted every day, every congressional session, every time a court met.
But even more important than the point that you are just flat out wrong about original intent, is the question of why you would want to be right!
Of what real relevance today is the opinion or the world view of a small group of homogeneous white men who owned property? Should all future Americans be beholden to the world view of an 18th century slave holder? If I were an African-American woman, a fourth generation Hispanic American, or even a member of the current generation, I would say that I want a government that reflects my time, my world view, my values, my issues. The Constitution actually becomes pretty stale and irrelevant to modern life if only viewed through 18th century eyes. It loses its ability to address modern issues. Becoming brittle, such a constitution will break. We have more than 200 years of history and legal precedent to look back on, exactly what the framers intended us to have to re-interpret the Constitution, giving us the ability to allow it to change gradually, making it flexible and dynamic, but changing slowly over time as the morals and beliefs of the population shift. Thus the African-American woman, the Hispanic and the young person can embrace the Constitution, internalize it, make it a relevant part of their value system. That is what makes it work; we love it just as much today as we did 200 years ago. If we did not the Union would have dissolved long ago.
Bonnie, the big problem I have is that your world view is just so limiting that, if everyone thought the way you did, the Constitution would have failed almost 200 years ago. Instead it endured the debate over the role of the courts, the fight between federalism and republicanism, state rights, the challenge of slavery and civil war, the rise of an industrial state, the influx of millions of immigrants, suffrage, and civil rights. It survived all of these things BECAUSE it was flexible. The big question is can the Constitution survive the very position that many are taking know, that it should become an inflexible document, one hamstrung by original intent.
Steve:
Exceptional post.
I had fun exchanging the word “Constitution” for the word “Bible.”
My experience is that when you find someone who diefies the Constitution, you’ve also found someone who diefies the Bible.
And, after that, there’s not much left to say to them!
Jesus H. Christ Shawn, I think you are right!
The absolutely delicious irony of the new “Top Two” primary system is that — after running as far to the right as possible — the two Republicans advancing in the first Assembly District, Dahle and Bosetti, the winner in November will be chosen by Indepenedents and Democrats who no longer have a candidate in the race.
The question is, who blinks first? Which of these two will have the audacity to have a conversation with the District’s Democrats and seek to represent the purple instincts of the 1st Assembly District, rather than continue to compete for the 1/3 of the District’s voters that align with the tea-party?
The answer is neither, it will have to happen organically, because the Republican party in California is a circular firing squad. The first Republican to reach out will be killed, up here.
The reaching will have to occur in other districts where the Republican Revolutionary Guard does not control the apparatus.
I have to laugh, headline on the Dragon’s Breath blog…
“My My My, should I gloat? Election victories galore!”
Overlooked?
Butte County’s Measure A, the Board of Supervisors effort to create substantial new regulation of marijuana cultivation, loses in a landslide yesterday, 44-56%.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/06/05/ca/bt/meas/A/
After all the whooping and cheering and waving of pom-poms over the great progressive victory dies down, it will be time to take a more sobering look at Tuesday’s message. The unions were soundly defeated in Wisconsin, San Diego and San Jose. People are becoming as uncomfortable with government owned by unions as much as they are with corporations. The cigarette tax, whether it wins or loses, was close enough to show that Californians are not prone to raising taxes. That’s saying something for an electorate that usually has no problem with taxes, as long as they aren’t the ones who pay them. It could mean trouble for the initiatives in November.
California is still in a lot of trouble, financially. If the Democrats can’t solve the long term debt problems without nickel-and-diming us to death, they will find themselves on the short end of the ballot someday not too far in the future. The ‘Great Reset’ has yet to be clearly defined.
RL,
You often confuse apples with oranges. In our area, the tea party and hard-right candidates (McGuire, Smyrnos and Aanestad) all lost to moderates. McGuire was even endorsed by the “old guard” of the Contractors Association, once a powerful local political force. And they still lost. A Democrat beat Tom McClintock in our county (imagine that), Democrat Reed beat Aanestad, and the second Democrat supporter (Anderson) was elected to the BOS (joining Lamphier). We are decidedly “purple,” not red. Nobody said the progressives “won”; they said we are politically a mixed bag. And that’s good because our problems are nonpartisan. We don’t need ideologues. Statewide the tobacco tax was losing. Tobacco companies poured nearly $47 million into fighting the initiative, using the same simplistic “anti-tax,” “anti-government” rhetoric that you often embrace. I doubt they will care about the tax initiatives in November. Why did you not bring this up? It’s just as tough to recall a governor as to unseat a judge. This was brought up in the Smyrnos case to justify the defeat, but I didn’t hear that same argument being applied to Wisconsin. Moreover, when it comes to pensions, our Democratic governor has been a leader in suggesting pension reform. The GOP does not have the lock on pension reform. Why did you not mention that? The GOP shares the blame for our “mess” in California just as much as the Democrats. Think about it.
Judging by the usual responses people like me or Chuck Shea get from the peanut gallery here and the lack of any criticism of the ruling status quo in Sacramento from you, Jeff, I would have to say it’s the progressive “go-to” site in Nevada County. If all politics is local, why so uptight over noticing statewide or national trends in relation to Nevada County? The local Tea Party may be sucking hind tit, but they are still a force to be reckoned with in the big picture.
RL,
Labeling this site “progressive” and calling me a “leftie” (the name-calling is ongoing) is a reflection of the vacuum in our town for entertaining any commentary that is to the left of “hard right.” You’ve left me a big opening, and I have driven a truck through it (again and again). Thanks!
You know as well as I do that I challenge Russ and George’s positions on almost a daily basis, even if most here don’t ever visit those sites. And yes, I hear that you’re driving a truck now. Can overalls be far behind? Look out, Jeff, you’re in danger of “going native.”
Jeff and RL,
If someone doesn’t share the myopic view of individualism/ selfishness they are considered a misrepresented conflation of progressive, environmentalist, socialist, collectivist, or communist by George, Russ, Todd, and Barry. I have said this before and will continue to say it; The republican party has gone so far to the right that Nixon and Reagan wouldn’t even be considered a viable choice in today’s party.
Obamacare is almost identical to the proposed Nixon health care reform for one example or Reagan having capital taxed at the same rate as labor is another.
Come on Jeff…California’s had a Democrat majority rule in California for many years. Kind of like a lock down if you have a business. Any fool knows that spending addicts using someone elses money will never have enough no matter how many times they raise taxes. Whoopee! Steve Frisch says “our local Tea People had planted their swords and beginning to implement the Meckler Plan to ‘take back America’ one goose step at a time” is really the opposite scenario. Any ding bat historian can look back at the last century at the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) government labor unions that took over Russia and Germany. If you’ll look in the Encyclopedia Brit you’ll see the political science “How to” get to the goose stepping. Greedy people spending government into bankruptcy. From my perch on the rock…the Tea Party’s there to remind us to be aware of and protect the laws that protect us. If you’ve never been in a position where you had to personally use the Constitution laws to defend yourself…you’re not aware of what’s been happening to thousands of people in this country for many years. The process of illimination that was revealed during the infamous Nuremberg Trials. We’ve watched group after group of producers deliberately regulated into extinction over the years. Nobody’s aware of it unless you read their trade magazines…and how boring can that get?
Bonnie M wrote; “Any ding bat historian can look back at the last century at the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) government labor unions that took over Russia and Germany.”
What?!? Are you suggesting Communism and Nazism was doing OK until the labor unions ran a-muck? I’m afraid it’s going to take a ding bat historian to agree with this little gem. Did the Soviet Union even have labor unions?
If only Hitler and Stalin had the cajones of Scott Walker!;)
Although it is often hard to decipher what Bonnie actually means, and we would welcome Bonnie clarifying, I think she was equating the labor union movements in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany with the United States. If so, she misses a fundamental historical truth about the labor movements in both countries that is a key distinguishing factor.
Although the Nazi’s adopted the language of the socialist movement in order to gain appeal to German workers during their struggle with Social Democrats and Communists for control of the government, the Nazi’s were not a socialist movement, at least not under Hitler’s domination. The early Nazi’s professed many elements of socialism in the early 1920′s, but by the time they began their true rise to power in the late 1920′s they had aligned themselves with German industrialists and reactionary forces. The economic system they advanced was not socialism, is was corporate control in league with and eventually under control of the government. Socialism is control by and ownership by the workers. When the Nazi’s finally seized power they immediately moved to outlaw labor unions, and merged them into a single labor organization called the German Labor Front, under control of Dr. Robert Ley. Although the “front” was governed by a board of 12 representing labor and major industries, the members were had picked by Hitler and Ley, and any dissent was immediately crushed by the government.
The same organizational structure was used in Communist Russia. All unions came under the control of the All Russian Council of the Economy, with hand picked leadership by Lenin then Stalin, and purged if they dissented from government control.
The labor movement in the United States is fundamentally different.
There are hundreds if not thousands of independent labor organizations in the US, who may occasionally band together though organizations like the American Federation of Labor, Congress of Industrial Workers or in ad hoc state an national organizational structures. The unions are independent entities, elect their own leadership, and regularly are in conflict with US government control or direction. In the US individual one union is often acting in conflict with another unions goals and objectives, and may even be competing for membership and representation. In short, in the US labor is a democratic (with a small d) institution, that adds to the diversity of independent democratic voices in the country. In my humble opinion it is the very democratic nature, and diversity of representation that makes organized labor a key bulwork of democracy.
It has become fashionable to compare US labor to Nazi’s and Communists control, but it is both historically and ideologically inaccurate.
But who really cares about accuracy when one is engaged in craven propaganda to gain power?
I think Communist Russia only had labor “camps” not unions.(as in hard labor syberia work till you die camps)
Okay I wrote communist labor union, and National Socialist (Nazi) union instead of labor Party, but it doesn’t change what happened to Russia and Germany. Violent organizations that killed thousands of people to establish their idea of Utopia.
So Bonnie – the question is will the Tea Party follow the same path in their quest for libertarian utopia?
So Bonnie, looking back at your original comment, is what you are saying is that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany slipped into communism and fascism respectively because their governments spent too much of other peoples money? If that is the case then the culprits would have been the Tsarist government and the combination of the Kaiser’s government and the Wiemar Republic. The theoretical response to their overspending would be the rise of totalitarian governments and holocaust (both for the scapegoats, the kulaks and the Jews, and the world, in the form of global war.)
And, although I appreciate you correcting your comparing Communist and Nazi controlled labor organizations with American unions, I cannot help but suspect that the slip was Freudian, not inadvertent. Somewhere there is a cigar with the union label that is unwelcome in your household.
But lets go to my original statement that you seemed to take issue with, that, “the Tea Party is beginning to implement the Meckler plan to ‘take back America’ one goose step at a time.”
Being an avid student of history, I think there actually are some real analogies that can be drawn between fascism and the current obsession with re-interpreting our founding documents, defining certain people as ‘real Americans’, and publishing a public treatise on how a particular ideology can seize control, as Mr.Meckler did with his 40 year plan.
There are other troubling characteristics here that must be noted:
The constant use of nationalistic symbols to evoke a direct relationship between the tea party mind set and patriotism, as though other people are not equally patriotic, as the Tea Party constantly does.
The disdain for human rights and the rule of law being applied to all people equally, as evidenced by attempting to deny people voting rights based on ethnicity and color, which the Tea Party is supporting all across the country.
The identification of enemies and opponents as scapegoats as a unifying cause; encouraging a collective mindset where people are falsely labeled communists, socialists, muslims, dupes of the United Nations, terrorists or anyone perceived as “un-American” is spoken of as an enemy, and Tea Party friends and members are referred to as ‘real Americans”
Supporting the supremacy of the military; all debt reduction must come from social services even in a situation where the Tea Party itself is arguing that debt must be reduced, the military, which is larger than the next 8 nations in the world combined in effective power, is exempt.
The intertwining of government and religion.
The protection of corporate power.
The lionization of Fox news and the vilification of other media sources–to the extent that the Tea Party Gazette is considered a better source than the New York Times.
The vilification of organized labor…. you did that yourself here, you compared them simultaneously to communists and fascists…..
Disdain for intellectuals and the educated….we hear that all the time from Todd, and ironically what we hear from Russ and George is that anyone who does not agree with them is an ill educated (or innumerate) boob…….
I could actually go on and on here about the similarities between the mind set displayed by the Tea Party and the history of fascism and fascist tactics……and I should thank Dr, Lawrence Britt whose list of 14 characteristics of fascism helped sharpen my thoughts here…..but I digress…..let me be clear, I do not wish to call you or your movement fascist. I think there are many well meaning people who love their country, long for sense of security, who want to reform the economy, and create a better world for their children, in the Tea Party. They are disgusted that the US government, that appears at times to act like Tsarists or as incompetent as the government of the Wiemar Republic, does not seem to be able to solve the problem—-get the connection?
“If the Democrats can’t solve the long term debt problems without nickel-and-diming us to death”
The problem with Democrats is how the money they spend makes the problems worse.The Scandavians spend a lot of money and I hear they come out OK with it.
The Republicans have no room to talk with their short sighted break the piggy bank thinking. They end up spending more than Democrats in the end. One thing ought to be perfectly clear but it isn’t: We can’t solve the debt problem without first solving the economy problem and we can’t solving this problem of people spending less by spending less further.
Bob, I don’t think anyone here was contending that the Seante and Assembly districts were ever in any position to go Democratic. Those of us who watch regional politics know that those districts are solidly Republican. The discussion was over the local elections, where our local Tea People had planted their swords and beginning to implement the Meckler Plan to ‘take back America’ one goose step at a time. The fact remains that Nevada County rejected the people who represented that plan roundly, and did so because they are more moderate than the Tea People think.
A lot of ground has been covered, but I just feel the need to correct Bonnie M.’s totally incorrect assertion that any ding bat historian can look back at the Communist and National Socialist government labor unions taking over Russia and Germany. Very garbled understanding of the Russian Revolution, with the Menshiviks soon replaced by the Bolsheviks and civil war, with political power concentrated in the Politburo, mainly. In Germany, Hitler never conceived of sharing power with trade unions, Gregor Strasor, from Berlin leaned that way, but was murdered during the Night of the Long Knives. And I certainly don’t need the tea people to interp
ret the Constitution for me. From what I’ve heard from them on the subject, they are in dire need of classes on the Constitution, along with U.S. History and historiography. The place to start is by turning off Fox so-called news. A true news network does not have a one time top Republican stategist as its honcho, and Murdock is lucky England didn’t throw his unethical butt in the Tower of London.
Hear, hear!
California is still the eighth largest economy in the world. It seems that there are still a few businesses (probably even including some run by conservatives, gasp!) that are still successful (in spite of our local rightwing divider naysayers).
With due respect Bonnie, I feel every sentence you write can be challenged and debunked. Steve has expanded on Nazi history. I’ll just add that Strassor represented Berlin, where lots of workers lived, thus his sympathy for them. And after the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler knew/realized he needed support of the Army and the Industrialist and decided power must be gained legally. Once it was, all opposition was eliminated. The full power of the state was now available to Goebbles to desseminate disinformation, which is much like what dominates today’s dialogue. As Leonard Pitts puts it, “Facts don’t Matter.” Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.
Scholarship takes time and effort and an ability to make use of the data, not misuse it.
Well Ed…To each his own experience. I personally knew people who lived in Germany and Russia when their turmoil began. The one’s in Germany said that anyone who was dumb enough to say anything negative about communism disappeared. Same in Russia. Pretty scary. They felt lucky to to have made it to America. When I hear people calling people hard right and not mentioning hard left it looks and sounds like propaganda falsely stirring up hatred towards a certain group of people. Hard right and hard left are the same….They believe in big government domination over every aspect of our existence. The opposite is freedom for which our Constitution stands. That’s why my old friends came to America.
Wow! Once again wow!?! You knew people who were adults in 1917? How old are you?
You wrote; “The one’s in Germany said that anyone who was dumb enough to say anything negative about communism disappeared.”
I’m pretty sure that’s a lie. Germany and the Nazi’s were hugely anti-communist. Remember that whole ‘Eastern Front’ thing? Communists went to the camps.
You’re killing me Bonnie. I haven’t stopped laughing for two days!
Bonnie, I think most of us know refugees the USSR, but those from Germany I know are 2nd generation and Jewish–I grew up in NYC area. In ’72, with a gal whose parents were White Russians aho fought Trotsky and the nascent Red Army, I, with many other, camped throughout European USSR, exiting from Georgia by sea Trawler, stopping at Yalta, then to Odessa. I’ve been a student of Soviet history since the fifties; Nazi Germany, too as I’m named after my father’s best friend who died at Anzio and my father continued up Italy int
o France, then Germany.
Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who opposed the Nazi regime. He spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. Germany, 1937.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me
Thus was my inspiration to study these areas at such an early age. But if, in Germany, a person disappeared because they spoke badly about Communism, it would be the communist that would be responsible, not the National Socialists. Street battles between the two factions were the order of the day, with many on both sides dead on the streets at the end of the day. Of course, the Nazis won, eventually. It is true, Hitler wasn’t that popular in Berlin compared to Bavaria. But as soon as he came to power and the Enabling Act was passd the extermination and confinement of communists, Social Democrats and all other remotely anti-Nazi groups began. Before Hitler came to power, Germany was a battleground, chaotic mayhem, where anything was possible.
Only recently did I join this blog, looking for an alternative to the obviously, heavily tilted to the right, Union. I don’t know any of the people on this blog, but have seen so much right wing, mis-information published in the Union. And the notion the tea people have that they are the ones who really know what the Constitution means, when I believe–and I’ll wager I’ve studied U.S. history along with the Constitution more intensively than 99% of the tea people–they interpret this document to fit their personal desires and biases.
Without commenting, I’ve read debating between some of the regulars from this blog and those from the four right wingers and the people from Pelline’s blog obliterate the commentators from the right. Yet, the right insists they are right because their ability to even discern the basics of the argument is limited by a number of factors which I’ll condense, and repeat: Facts don’t matter.
And when I see the symbol of the Soviet Union posted next to President Obama, it only reinforces my belief that we’re dealing with playground mentalities.
Excellent post, Ed.
I particularly found the term “playground mentality” to be an apt descriptor.
The question I have, that i wish you or someone could answer, is how does one approach a grown person whose identity is interwoven into a group with undeveloped critical thinking skills? Stephen Colbert calls their version of the facts “truthiness”. It is his own term that refers to embracing explanations purely based on how one feels instead of intelligent analysis. Of course we are all guilty of this more or less.
It might feel good to laugh at Bonnie or deride her as someone just did above on this blog but I question whether any good will come of that and see it as just a different version of “truthiness” (ridicule feels good). I appreciate your respectfulness and believe it is on the right track.
Greg, much to my chagrin over the years, I have discovered that the truth will not set one free, in most cases. All the facts, figures, historical analysis, and polite discourse in the world will not change the mind of someone who is ‘asleep’. In order to be set free from the confines of ones own limited experience and feelings, first the scales must be removed from the eyes, the perpetual state of sleep walking broken, and the sleeping state replaced with the fully awakened state, where experiences and feelings, that are the basis of beliefs and values, can be ruthlessly tested, and new understanding can act as the catalyst for the replacement of outmoded beliefs. The naked, unfortunate truth is that that is just too much work for most people. They live in a sleeping state of their own making until some cathartic person experience wakes them. Which is why we have religions, political parties, and ‘truthiness’.
That should read ‘personal experience’.
I certainly also think so, Steve, but my question is about what the most productive approach to this situation is.
I am convinced that this would be attempting to find common ground.
The question then becomes, what common ground do we and Bonnie share?
Are you still there, Bonnie? What common ground do we share?
Thanks, Greg. I do, at times, try to be tactful and respectful. The first time I appproached a tea person was at a booth at the fair grounds. He was close in age to what my father would be if he hadn’t died young. I asked him why the tea party didn’t organize during the Bush years, when the things they are complaining about really started to skyrocket. He was very dismissive, saying, “It’s gotten much worse,” and turned his back on me. But I let it go, not wanting to argue with a man in his eighties. Even at 64, I think Bonnie is nearer to that generation than mine (Sorry, Bonnie if I’m wrong, no insult intended) and I have an inbred distaste for rudeness toward the older generation–unless really provoked.
But I do find her thinking and style of debating so similar to both my parents, college grads both from Univ. of Ill. and conservative Republicans, which was dogma forbidden to be questioned while they lived. Both died very young and free to study w/o interferrence, I discovered the multiple holes in Taft conservatism. After I returned from Nam and visited my father in Fla. and he told me he wanted to line up all the hippies that gathered in a small park near the restaurant he bought with my step mother and machine-gun them, I knew we were now on different planets. Soon after that, he died, but he was decorated five times for heroism during the Italian campaign.
As I have hinted at, I have had many friends who don’t have very developed critical thinking skills. When young, while the money came in, we belonged to a nice country club in Greenwich, but at the same time I hung aroung with the poor kids on the streets, raising hell, getting in fights, avoiding the police, etc. Now, many of those same kids are grown, have never pursued much education, have histories of being hard core junkies, live in houses where I’ve never seen a book of any kind, yet lecture me on history, politics, etc. saying we all have a right to our opinions and a right to disagree. True, but ultimately I have to point out to those whom are telling me I’m wrong, that opinions don’t have to be valued equally. I said to a NYC retired union fireman and former junkie, that I wouldn’t think of telling him how the best way to fight a fire was; that was his profession. Studying U.S. History and teaching it was what I’ve done since before I was ten. And others, too, that have never shown any intellectual curiosity or read much of anything, but have succeded as pilots or in selling. Now that they have a lot of money, they think they are experts in everything, and think I’m full of sh–. Friendships have been ruined.
We all have are areas of knowledge. When I don’t know–or care–about a subject, I don’t get involved in the conversation. But I believe that everybody thinks they are “smart.” Thus, most minds are closed to the other sides arguments because being wrong is a blow to one’s entire self perception/ego. Heels dig in. But intelligence and critical thinking ability are not what was meant when Jefferson wrote “All men are created equal.” Shortly after Obama was elected, on TV, I watched a group of people who looked lile the guests on the Jerry Springer show, shouting into the mike, “We want our country back.” Obviously they meant back fro that black guy.
So, as I’ve said before, I believe the divide is great, worse than anytime this century. I don’t know if there is a way for civil dialogue to maintain itself when we are in an age of “In your face” on almost everything.
And I think the hard left disappeared as a relevant factor years ago. It is just that anyone that isn’t on the rightwing bandwagon is labeled a leftie by the Right Ideologues, such as Rush, Glenn, That hateful, skinny blonde whose name I don’t even want to remember. But there certainly is a hard, very scarey, right, who I see as a real threat to the principles of government set forth by the founding fathers. They found common ground, but the conservatives & tea people refuse to say anything but no compromise, NYET, to anything Obama proposes. That’s no way to compete with Asia.
Well, Greg, you never miss an opportunity to call me out when you think I’m rude; which I can be.
You wrote”The question then becomes, what common ground do we and Bonnie share? Are you still there, Bonnie? What common ground do we share?”
I’m sorry if I get quick. But I also get frustrated. Do you really think you’re going to get an answer to this question?
What common ground do we share? Greg, I had written it before you asked the question, but evidently it had been deleted. The common ground we share is that we’re all Americans, and a Bill of Rights to protect all of us from tyrants. Those who use the terms “hard right,” and hardly ever “hard left” deliberately confuse people. There’s no difference. Both believe in an all powerful government that controls everything in our lives. Simply put, I love being an American and freedom.
Hi Bonnie,
I do think you said that before about the Bill of Rights but it is good to hear it in this context. I freshened up on the Bill of Rights.
I think you mean that by being Americans we have the protection of the Bill of Rights by law. I assume that you would be happy for every person on the planet to also have these rights but they might choose other rights depending on their situation.
It is a reasonable document but at the same time it was written for another time and place. It seems to be about points that were especially important to the early Americans and might be entirely different today
.
I also assume that this should be a living document and that you agree it was a good thing when women were included as well as many others that were inconvenient to do so at the time (I think we should include the rights of people yet to be born).
I think we share in common that government in some ways has lost sight of its role to benefit us and that this has been at the expense of the people.
My particular gripe with government is that it’s strategies to make a better society have made it worse in many respects. Do we share that in common? I think we do.On that topic then, would you agree with this?
“All citizens have the right to not be taxed for inane programs that only make the situation worse.”
Certainly a majority of people would agree with this proposed right and if they could further agree on what inane program is then we could all vote to do away with it.
Would you suggest a government program they tax us for that we could all agree on is counter productive? Or a law that violates our rights?
Well since we have 11 US aircraft carriers, 10 of which are nuclear, and the rest of the WORLD has 10, and all of our nuclear carriers have almost double the capacity of the next closest sized carrier, I would say us building the 3 that are being built right now are a HUGE waste of money, or, “inane programs that only make the situation worse.”
I’m sure Bonnie would agree!
Oh yeah, did I mention that the only other nuclear powered carrier in the world is the French carrier the Charles de Gaulle—you know, our ally, when we are not renaming French Fries.
Greg,
Its called natural rights/ law. It comes from Locke and the enlightenment (very progressive ideas). What I have found is that those who like to use the terms liberty and freedom use them as far as our borders and for selective segments of the US population. The Bill of Rights was opposed by the federalists (conservatives of the US revolution era) due to the inherent distrust of average people having power in their lives and government. Unfortunately both the Bush and Obama administrations have been violating our natural rights at an astonishing level.
Here is a brief history of the Bill of Rights
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/bill-rights-brief-history
Just a quick reply tonight, Ben, then more tomorrow, hopefully. I’ve found some scholars seem to over analyze Locke–Gary Wills I believe contends Hume was more influential to the D of I-/-natural rights/state of nature issue. I was reading one book recently on the 2nd amendment and the author spent so much time on whether it was Constitutional to raise a revolution against the gov’t vs the constitutionality of rebellions vs the gov’t, all in the context of rights to bear arms, which he called the right to control violence. The point seeme
d academic, as people will have a revolution if they want
“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”
John F. Kennedy
Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961.
Ben, just to clarify my post from last night, which was cut-off, fresh in my mind was a book, The Mythic Meanings if the Second Amendment, by David C Williams, which, quite frankly, I couldn’t finish. His lengthy analysis of whether the Constitution bestows the right of revolution, to me, seemed pointless. That is what I mean by over analyzing. IMO, it doesn’t matter a whit what any Constitution says about a populations rights concerning revoultion. If they’re fed up, heads may roll. It just seemed more like a question suitable for, I guess, a moot court. I wasn’t disagreeing with anything you said.
Regarding Gary Wills, I thought that was an interesting bit of trivia, and believe it came from reading his book, Inventing
America, but I read it over twenty years ago, so can’t be sure.
But, don’t you think that the charge of violating the Constitution in major ways, applies to a great number of presidents, even Adams, Jefferson and Lincoln? As the Constitution is an interpretive document, I think this could be a never ending debate, particularly since this imperfect, compromise arrangement to guide governance was created by minds that had no conception of the vastly different circumstances which would influence existance in the future world. The one major constant was their understanding of human nature. (My opinion, of course.)
Todd Juvinall, the ex-CAPRO ED, continues to struggle with the idea that Democrats and Republicans are living and working together (and collaborating) in our county. We are “red,’” he declares, ignoring that two of five on the county BOS now support “D”s. It’s OK with them, I think. “D”s also are found in other elected and appointed positions. To Todd, “purple” is a six-letter word. How sad.
Judging from an extended exchange on points of history–initiated by me in reponse to one of his posts–that person seems to be w/o any depth of knowledge, critical thinking ability, ability to synthesize information and believes allegations are the same as conclusions arrived at after extensive research following rules of historiography or whatever discipline is under discussion. Anyone supplying examples to support one’s view–he never does–is labeled a bloviater by a true Jabberwocky.
Ed,
You’re right about every administration violating the Constitution, which shows the strength of the foundation of the document. What I believe is different about recent administrations is the assault on our civil liberties or direct violation’s upon the governed. The most disturbing part of it is the excuse of violating our rights in the name of patriotism and security. I aggressively opposed the Bush administration and have been speaking to high school students among other groups about the Obama administration continuing and even expanding these violations. I have protested both administrations and find myself walking along side very different types of activists depending on the party that controls the Executive Branch. The one constant are the real anti-war or pro-peace activists who have been used for different political agenda’s by both the republicans and democrats. It is sad to see that we have been brainwashed so deeply to hate the other party that we will turn a blind eye to these assaults if it is our party of choice in control of the government.
I won’t deny the resurgence of the Imperial Presidency and the shame brought to the office when Bush held sway, but no way do I think Obama can be equated as the same as Bush in terms of character, ambitions, goals, mis-use of power, etc. I know many are upset with drones killing an American citizen in Yemen; one that would gladly slit your throat or cut off your head given the chance. My harsher perspective comes from knowing friends’ family members and names of people from my hometown and relatives in Boston area–from years gone by–whom perished in the World Trade Center massacre. I much prefer peace, but not no matter what the provocation. (I was strongly opposed to Iraq war from day one, but not a quick, properly executed, effort to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan. But Bush blew that, too.)
Of course some/many have been brainwashed to hate the other party, but plenty of intelligent people know the basic differences in being a union member and a CEO on Wall ST. and the interests of both groups. There is much repair work needed, but I still believe the most important thing we can do is defeat the right-wing, especially the amorphous blob is now is. It reminds be of the destructive Ego Monster in the sci-fi movie classic, The Forbidden Planet.
PS Non violence can be destructive–doing some geneological research I found 12 Peritzes listed as murdered on Kristalnacht
Ed,
Although I can sympathize with the Bin Laden sentiment it hasn’t been sufficiently proven that he really had anything to do with the actions on September 11, 2001 in NY City and Washington DC.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/268-35/5859-noam-chomsky-my-reaction-to-osama-bin-ladens-death
What we do know is the primary planning of the events of 9/11 were planned in Germany, Spain, and the US. What we (US) have done in both Afghanistan and Iraq has been tragic. Millions of people have displaced, murdered, killed and millions more have been saddled with PTSD for the rest of their lives along with high exposures to depleted uranium. The difference between the Bush and Obama administrations is one acted preemptively and the other continued the policies but their actions when it comes to unconstitutional use of the military is equal. Neither has/ had a declaration of war (debate on floor and vote) on any of the military interventions/ invasions/ occupations. We are seeing all levels of government in our nation slash services to pay for these military actions, two tax breaks, and medicare party d. There is something inherently wrong with this picture. Both parties have had majorities plus the executive branch to reverse these policies but have failed to do so.
While I respect Noam Choamsky, I certainly don’t deem him infallible and his short piece didn’t prove Bin Laden’s continuous bragging about his accomplishments, false. Like I said, I was always against the the Iraqi invasion, probably more so than people who haven’t been in combat and don’t have PTSD. And the action in Afghanistan should have concluded after a month or two. It is always much easier to start a war than to disengage, which Obama did do from Iraq. Perhaps not as fast as some would have wished, but who can say with certainty what intra-sect bloodshed would have been like if he withdrew our troops immediately. I, of course, detested Bush for his backdoor draft and sending these troops over there for 3 and 4 tours. If suicides have all ready surpassed the KIA’s, they soon will.
Of course i don’t approve of Congress, especially lately. But really Ben, what do you think would have happened in Afghanistan if one month there wasn’t a single Am. troop left in country–right after Obama’s inauguration. How many secularists slaughtered? But I firmly believe, had the USA done Nothing after 9/11, despite Choamsky’s doubts, there would have been another incident. Doing nothing would have been the worst policy. It’s really been much this way since in about 650 A.D. the faithful slaughtered 500 -600 Jews in the town square of Medina or a town nearby then launched their raid of conquering and enslavement that was only halted at Tours, in France, in 711. And, on and off the battle has raged since that time. So the hatred can’t be blamed on American policy, it existed long before we ever existed.
Bush got us in and Obama is getting us out, slower than some would like, but please Ben, don’t say Bush and Obama are the same, because they ain’t, and while I’m and Independent, I’ll take the Dems over the near fascist right wing we now have any day.
Even George Washington, when ordering his troops to open fire on a contingent of French bringing him a message, was accused of violating the code of honor/war, even murder, as the act set of the last of the French and Indian Wars.
So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. I don’t like violence, but we wouldn’t have won our independence w/o it.
Ed,
I am not a pacifist but do want a debate on the floor of our government so all the American people can hear it. If our military interventions were truly about protecting the natural rights of oppressed people I might be alright with the US being the world police but that isn’t how it works at all. The military industrial complex has intertwined and distorted the role of US military to where it is good for the economy and for profit for us to get entangled in foreign struggles.
For Iraq especially the debate was allowed to happen on corporate controlled media who make money off of war. I will give one example of this phenomena. From Colin Powell’s joke of a presentation at the UN until we officially started dropping bombs there were either 200 or 300 interviews on corporate media CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, MSNBC, and CNN and out of those interviews only 4 times did someone question the reasoning and justification of an invasion. At least 98% of the time they were pro invasion. No wonder the US population thought the we had to preemptively attack.
OK one more example
MSNBC (GE) scrapped their highest rated show in the stations history due to the anti-invasion stances the host took and would take in the future. The host was Phil Donahue
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-04.htm
Ben, I’m not opposing those views. At least I didn’t think my posts were making that point, in fact I think I post agreement.
Ed,
Last comment on the subject. I agree with you that Obama is not equivalent to Bush on so many issues but on the major issues there is really razor thin differences between the two administrations. This has more to do with being owned by special interests than personal character. I admire and think President Obama is an amazing person but that doesn’t mean I will be voting for him come November. When we vote for republican or democrats we are voting for the leadership of the party not the candidate before us. The leadership of both party’s are wholly owned subsidiaries of big money special interests. There are a dwindling number of Representatives/ Senators that are truly individuals but through redistricting we lost another one this primary season in Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
Ben, my last comment also. Again, I’m about defeating the extreme right.
Ed and Ben, For what it is worth, I agree with both of you.
Great thread – perhaps the best I can remember here. Good job all!
Thanks Peter. Well said. BTW, now Todd Juvinall (a former supervisor, no less) is claiming our local “purple people” are being funded by George Soros and suggesting that Terry Lamphier and newly elected Richard Anderson do not support Democrats’ ideals. Poor fellow. He’s taking the purple thing pretty hard.
Although I really feel Bonnie’s intentions are well meant I’m not sure if she has ever taken the time to examine topics thoroughly. In many ways she reminds me of my dear Mom who was a conservative Christian. I don’t see anything wrong with that but Mom listened to and voted for who she was told to listen to and vote for. As Mom got older she began examining things for herself and became more moderate or “purple” (I like that).
What some people fail to understand is being moderate, middle of the road (purple) is not wishy-washy but instead embraces a variety of philosophies. As an example, many friends are socially liberal and fiscally conservative (I feel most of us are) but their idea of fiscal conservativeness is pro-corporations while others believe that conservativeness should be for the people rather than corporations.
Some have cackled that being moderate/middle of the road/purple is only going to get you run over. I disagree as long as one is strong in their system of beliefs, they can make one heck of an iron barrier. I don’t think anyone wants to run into one.
Hi Ben.
you wrote: “I can sympathize with the Bin Laden sentiment it hasn’t been sufficiently proven that he really had anything to do with the actions on September 11, 2001 in NY City and Washington DC.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/268-35/5859-noam-chomsky-my-reaction-to-osama-bin-ladens-death“.
Am I reading this correctly? You have reservations that OBL’s involvement in 9-11 isn’t sufficiently proven? Wow! (a Bonnie Wow!) That’s a new one to me. I don’t think your link is very convincing. It’s an opinion piece. Do you have any other supporting evidence for your thinking?
You wrote: “a*) What we do know is the primary planning of the events of 9/11 were planned in Germany, Spain, and the US. What we (US) have done in both Afghanistan and Iraq has been tragic.
b*) Millions of people have displaced, murdered, killed and millions more have been saddled with PTSD for the rest of their lives….
c*)…… along with high exposures to depleted uranium.
* I edited Ben’s comment to clarify my next point.
A & B have facts & opinion. I happen to agree. C, I am unaware of millions of people being exposed to depleted uranium. What is ‘depleted uranium’? Do you have a citation for this?
I’m not trying to be difficult. It just seems you’ve thrown a couple of bombs out there. You may be right, but I need proof.
The rest of the post, I agree with.
I’m not touching a &b with a 10 foot pole.
On c, the use of depleted uranium, primarily from nuclear reactors through the reprocesing of spent fuel rods, in the manufacture of armor and for use as armor piercing shells, both for aerial cannon, tank cannon, machine guns and anti-tank artillery, is common practice in the US military. It health effects are serious.
I’m sorry Steve, but uranium is rare. Really, really rare. It’s why most countries don’t have nuclear weapons. It’s why we only built two during WWII (only used one). Are we really using any form of uranium for any type of metallurgy?
Again, I could be wrong, but I need some proof. So far, this doesn’t pass the sniff test. I’m going to look it up.
Chris, actually we did use two bombs. “Little Boy” dropped on Hiroshima, August 6th, 1945 and then again with “Fat Boy” dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th. Also we had a third one ready to go if japan had not surrendered on August 15. The third target was to be Tokyo on the 19th.
Chris,
Here is a link to a studies on Depleted Uranium DU and the US military.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12200&page=5
The other thing DU has been outlawed by a UN resolution. Here is an excerpt of an article talking about it.
“According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing ‘poison or poisoned weapons’ and ‘arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering’. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.”
Ben is correct. Depleted uranium has been left all over Iraq during Desert Storm & Operation Freedom or whatever George Bush called it. Many studies were done about the connections between depleted uranium and the illnesses brought back by troops after Desert Storm. Very little study has been completed about the impacts of depleted uranium on Iraqi civilians, which has be huge.
Ben,
Are you a conspiracy theorist now?? Maybe you would like to tell us who “really” shot JFK or tell us what retirement community Elvis is living in. Maybe 911 never really happened after all, after all the moon landing wasn’t real…or so I’m told..lol
OK, did a quick search. Apparently, uranium is a problem. I never knew. However, the effects are still being studied and conclusions are not completely conclusive. Alright, so uranium exposure is a problem.
No problem Chris.
Pete,
No I am not a conspiracy theorists. No I don’t think 9/11 was an inside job. I think the Bush (Cheney) administration didn’t spend any time worrying about such an attack and did very little to prevent it. I don’t waste my time trying to prove the unprovable. There is no doubt Osama bin Laden hated the US and was involved in many plots to attack strategic US targets but I cannot remember a single report with evidence linking him to 9/11 planning. I know wikipedia isn’t a good source but try to search on the internet about bin Laden and 9/11 and there are 42 million results. So I searched for any report with evidence linking him to the attacks other than his own reversal of admission years after 2001. 9/11 Commission doesn’t say it either. There isn’t any hard evidence linking him to 9/11.
Here is the key sentence in the wiki link
“The U.S. never formally indicted bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks but he was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.[100][101]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Osama_bin_Laden
The warnings were bin Laden determined to strike within US borders but they were more warnings of al qaeda striking US.
Everyone,
I have been a pro peace or anti war activist for over 20 years. Unless someone really digs into US policy the things our JCS and Executive Branch order our military to do seem unbelievable, like use depleted uranium or white phosphorus against insurgents in an urban setting. Both are considered WMD’s. Responsibility really doesn’t sit on the shoulders of the soldiers but those who came up with the policies that then were executed through the chain of command. By the time it gets down to the low ranks it seems like a very real threat from someone who is less than human.
My information although sometimes hard to believe is pretty solid.
Here is an interview on Democracy Now in 1998. A little over halfway they start discussing Iraq and 2/3 of the way is depleted uranium. It is actually interesting to hear the same old crap. Despite knowing the negative affects to our own soldiers and Iraqi citizens we still used in the invasions/ occupations of Afghanistan/ Iraq. http://ia600600.us.archive.org/29/items/dn1998-1221/dn1998-1221-1_64kb.mp3
Ben, thanks for educating me and others on DU. It is not something I knew about as it was only an idea when I was in Nam–as my research reveals. That’s why I like this blog; always learning.
And please understand I respect you for your views and activism for peace, I’m one however that feels that there are times when non-violence is not a viable response. I have nothing but contempt for chickenhawks who promote war but avoid serving, but always respect those who were against the war on principle and refused to go, despite the consequences. Whose right, whose wrong, on these questions it is nearly impossible to determine, IMO. Diem never had much chance, corruption and all, to create a workable gov’t, but now, Vietnam is beginning to thrive since adopting to a large extent, private enterprise. This I saw on my return visit in 2004. Red on the outside, green on the inside, peope would tell me, at least in the south, where dislike of the North was still evident.
I’m influenced by a person named Kitty Genovese, a women in NYC, walking on the street and attacked, stabbed to death–circa 1964–while a crowd of 25 to 30 watched w/o a single person going to her aid.
A very famous case in the NYC area. I can’t understand that kind of behavior. I have put myself in harm’s way to help others; sometimes that is what is necessary.
Even Pennsylvanians got fed up with the Quakers when the frontier was ablaze, then the Revolution started. Exceptions were made for them about having to join the miltias, but that was during mostly peaceful times.
And, of course I have no argument with outrage at slashing spending on safety net programs whith such bloated defence spending, but I stongly disagree with any suggestion that the great majority of the blame for this does not rest on the shoulders of the GOP.
I don’t think the Panglossian best of all possible worlds is one w/o war, as daily life teaches us anew. Wish it were so.
At any rate, this war isn”t over. Al Queda, or a group of whatever name they wish to call themselves, exists, and not for the first time. Even Sa-lah-a-Din, reconquerer of Jeruselum, had to contend with the Bin Laden of his day, an Iraqi, Rashid al-Din Sinan, the Old Man of the Mountain, who ruled the Assassins (hashasheen or something like that) who were greatly feared for their murdering prowess. (Finally, the Mongols breeched their mountain fortress.) Religious fanaticism lives on, and there are millions devoted to a warped interpretation of Jihad. I sure don’t see it ending in my lifetime.
The right wing has to be defeated!!!!!!!!!
Ed,
There is nothing wrong with self-defense but I have a great dislike for military offense that is used for American Interests (private profit). I have suggested this short read to a man on Jeff’s blog before, it’s called “War Is A Racket” by Major General Smedley Butler
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1
There is a youtube reenactment of this speech if you don’t want to take the time to read it. The reenactment is like 8 minutes long.
For the record I was talked out of joining the Marines by my veteran Dad (Air Force-Korea), Great Uncle (Navy Silver Star-WWII), and two Uncles (Navy, Army-Korea). The piece of advice everyone of them told me separately in their own words were do not give your body and soul to the military unless your nation needs you to do so. I took their advice and am very thankful to all of them for caring enough about me and our country to give me such sound advice.
I’m familiar with War is a Racket and of course Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler. I think I posted the book about him preventing the coup by the right wing (biggest names in American finance, industry, etc.) to over throw FDR. It occurred when the bonus army marched on D.C. They went to him because of his impeccable reputation, but he refused to play ball. Of course, all conspirators denied any involvement, and the matter disappeared. His opinions were formed mostly in Central America.
Had to switch to my desk top as the blog box on laptop doesn’t move, thus all those posts that are cut off.
And Butler a Quaker I believe, got his start in the Boxer Rebellion and was slow to come to the view that he expressed. An idealist who became bitter. But WWII was different, certainly for the Poles and many others.
Anyways, The Plot To Seize the White House, by Jules Archer is the story of the rightwingers approaching Gen. Butler to assist in ousting FDR in 1933-34. The du Ponts and Morgans, to name a couple, helped with the financing if the attempted coup through, a PAC of the times.
While I didn’t think Good Morning, Vietnam was a particularly good movie, to me it had one of the best anti-war sequences ever filmed: a montage of scenes with the sound track if Louis Armstrong singing It’s A Wonderful World.
Funny Ben, as a young man I wanted to go to West Point. I worked in my Congressman’s office (Henry Hyde) for about 3 years, hoping he would recommend me. My family thought I was insane. At the last minute I decided I did not want the recommendation. I learned a lot about politics as a teenager though, much of it as an observer of the wrong side of the aisle. Funny thing is, today Hyde would be called a RINO.
Steve, thanks for sharing this little bit of your personal history. Growing up in California, Henry Hyde made me crazy with his Iran-Contra position.
But he was definitely a complex man and his support of legislation to help people w/ AIDS in the ’80s was unusual, but then he was so very much anti-abortion in all regards as well. He supported Clinton’s impeachment but was against the Iraq War.
I respected him, unlike many in the fed and state gov’t that I don’t respect. But they are craven not principled.
A difficult state of affairs.
You, when able, would have enjoyed the beautiful surroundings and the physical structure of West Point. Saw many a football game there when I was young and spent a lot of time in the area later in life. For a history lover, that area is a vast gold mine.
Hyde also ended up supporting the Brady Bill, numerous relatively liberal foreign policy initiatives, and of course Reagan’s largest in history tax increases. When I volunteered in his office he was in his first terms and just beginning his run. All of those things came long after I left the friendly confines of Chicago and moved to Babylon by the Bay. But, to be fair, I was not there out of any sense of fealty to his issues; I wanted to see how a Congressional office worked. I had spent 1968 going with my father to see every Presidential candidate I could speak, missing only Bobby Kennedy; and 1972 working for future felon Dan Walker for Governor and George McGovern for President.
Ed, I have been to West Point several times. Beautiful area, amazing history (except for Benedict Arnold of course) and so close to Springwood!
Yes, too bad Arnold was such a pouty fellow. When loyal, he was an asset.
Ed,
We haven’t had a declaration of war since WWII and we also haven’t had a decade go by without the US military occupying or intervening in another nations affairs. I am glad to hear you know the Butler story. Some say it was a political calculation but I think he resented his role as an enforcer of corporate imperialism, which is one of the major contributing factors in the colonists taking up arms against the British that won us our freedom from the crown.
Four more comments and it hits 100. You can do it!
Don’t worry Greg, we will. I’ve got to respond to Ben, but am exhausted now. Took a fall last week or so; unconscious on the floor, on and off w/o being able to get up for about 7 hours. Still hurting and feeling the effects. Brain scan did show I have a brain, despite assertions to the contrary by our right-wing bloggers–no tumors though.
Ed, I hope you feel better soon.
Thanks, Annie. Afraid I damaged nerve in right arm, though. Just was begining to touch type again after cubital tunnel surgery on left arm, which causes hand to shrivel, starting with pinkie and the next finger. Now, same feeling in right hand. Growing old is not for the feint of heart.
Ben, after my blood pressure rising from talking to the VA, I need to relax, so I have to respond to the last sentence of your post. Butler, IMO, absolutely, like you say, was disillusioned and resented how the Corps was used in those Central American Wars mainly, if not exclusively, in the interests of United Fruit–I think it was called–and other big corporations. I didn’t read his book, but so much of it was discussed in the book I posted, I didn’t feel it necessary. I do understand his change of heart, as I went through something similar.
What I really want to comment on is the comment that corporate imperialism was a major factor in the colonists taking up arms against the British. I’m a bit uncertain of what you mean by this. Yes, the leaders were men of means, and wanted to e free of British interference and monopolies, but those colonists thaat did the actual fighting were affected by things like the stamp tax, which didn’t last long, then, much later the tea tax which affected Boston wholesalers and led to the REAL tea party patriots, which ultimately let to the Intolerable Acts and actually troops on the ground in Boston.
Eventually, when the British marched to Lexington and Concord to raid ammo supplies and the shooting started, it was country folk doing the fighting. And since the main tactic of the Redcoats was to maarch in line anc close on the enemy so they could use their bayonets, this they were unable to do as they retreated to Boston, thus they were picked off like drugged rabbits. At Bunker Hill they took another beating, before the Colonists withdrew before those deadly bayonets inflicted too much damage.
Still, the estimates I’ve seen are about 1/3rd patriots, 1/3rd Tories, 1/3rd sideliners (no specific source remembered.) The talking was done by men of means, the fighting, mostly by men of little means.
While I’ve read enough history to know a case can be made for just about any thesis, I am interested in who advances this thesis. I never did read (Was it Beard’s) An Economic History (Interpretation) of the U.S. but have read a great deal in this area. Although, I admit to being more interested for a lomg time in 20thc Russian history.
BTW, just a few pages short of finishing another book debunking the ridiculous notion that Reagan won the Cold war. Those people always leave out what Gorbachev did and the deep fissures evident in ’72 which I saw all over.
Back on the topic, I today picked up a Smyrnos sign on our evening walk. I think he put signs up on private property where no one would take them down, or pick them up later. I’m still disturbed that he did so well even though he lost. It reminds me of the sign on private property, “If you hear a gunshot, that means I missed”. I knew nothing about him except from his campaign which showed he had no business being a judge. They say he is a “nice” guy and I say that this is completely irrelevant and misses the point.
Tom Anderson is speaking at the Spirit Peer Empowerment Center about mental illness and the law Thursday the 21st at 2 pm. I am looking forward to meeting him.
Greg, great comment. I finally met Tom for the first time a few weeks ago during the Grass Valley Charter School Spring Fling at the Holiday Inn Express. It was just before the election and we had a nice chat. I came away from our discussion with exactly the same opinion I had beforehand: exactly the right person for the job in these transitional times.
Some affects of depleted uranium being used in Iraq. This should be considered crimes against humanity.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/20/ten_years_later_us_has_left?autostart=true&get_clicky_key=suggested_next_story