Progressive Divisions
by BooMan
Mon Apr 13th, 2009 at 11:10:30 PM EST
Today's progressives are different from the people that lived during The Progressive Era but we share much in common with our forebears. Consider this description:
Progressives did not agree on a single agenda. They disagreed vehemently in their attitudes toward such subjects as immigration restriction and prohibition of alcohol. They were a diverse lot that included Republicans and Democrats, Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, and urban and rural reformers. Women's organizations stood at the forefront of the social reforms and policy innovations during the Progressive era...
...For the most part, Progressives were urban and college-educated, including journalists, academics, teachers, doctors, and nurses, as well as many business people.
Uniting these various reform movements stemmed from a preoccupation with the elimination of corruption and waste and an emphasis on efficiency, science, and professional expertise as the best ways to solve social problems.
A book published in 1913, Benjamin Parker De Witt's The Progressive Movement, argued that three tendencies underlay progressive reforms: the desire to eliminate political corruption, the impulse to make government more efficient and effective, and a belief that government should "relieve social and economic distress." Progressives wanted to apply the techniques of systematization, rationalization, and bureaucratic administrative control developed by business to problems posed by the city and industry.
Today's progressives, like the old ones, do not share a single agenda. We are still made up of liberal Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, and skewed toward the female gender. We are still dominated by the urban, the college-educated, and the professional ranks. What's changed is mainly related to larger demographic and living-style changes that have occurred over the last century. For example, we're less urban now because we have suburbs and exurbs that house hordes of college-educated professionals.
Yet, our movement is more inclusive of urban and immigrant organizations because of the decline of machine politics and the rise of sophisticated community organizations in our cities. Many of our new immigrant communities are neither Christian nor Jewish, and progressives are increasingly secular in orientation (including toleration and the embrace of the Gay Community). The Hispanic population has exploded and trends heavily Democratic. And blacks now enjoy full voting and citizenship rights and form the backbone of the progressive movement.
Another difference is that the modern progressive movement is almost totally devoid of support from members of the Republican Party. The modern progressive movement can best be understood ideologically as a mixture of center-left Democrats, left and far-left Democrats, and elements of Greens and non-aligned far-left independents (whose participation is heavily dependent on mini-cycles and message/personality). Insofar as the new progressive movement involves Republicans, they are no longer Republicans.
They have been driven out over the modern GOP's social conservatism, opposition to science-based policy/efficient government, lack of respect for civil liberties, corruption, and/or their foreign adventurism.
The modern progressive movement is more diverse in every way from the prior one. It has more geographic scope, involves a wider array of ethnicities, races, and religions, and brings together rather than separating the urban community. And, yet, very few elected politicians in Washington represent progressive values as they are daily expressed in everything from the Blogosphere to black/Hispanic radio, to college newspapers. Our lack of representation actually unites us and helps keep some of our internal divisions hidden...at least, most of the time.
For, while progressives are united in opposing corruption and supporting good government in the interest of relieving social and economic distress, we have many differences. I often separate progressives into two subcategories: Academic Progressives and Urban Progressives. The reason I do this is to highlight our differences. Most people do not actually belong in just one camp, but life-experience counts for a lot.
In the broadest terms, Academic Progressives differ from Urban Progressives in the urgency and focus of their approach. Academics like to devise long-term strategies for ameliorating social ills. Perhaps because they like to develop positive slippery-slopes, they are always on the watch-out for negative slippery slopes. Academics are hyper-vigilant about separation of church and state (e.g., on school choice and faith-based charities), while Urban Progressives are more willing to accept any help they can get regardless of potential long-term consequences.
Because Urban Progressives work in their communities and face first-hand the day-to-day problems of the poor and dispossessed, they tend to have lower expectations (less idealistic) and focus on pragmatic solutions that solve problems in the very short-term. Urban Progressives might organize protests and petitions to keep the recreation centers and libraries open. Academic Progressives are more likely to explore ways to improve the stability of the city budget so that we don't face cyclical pressure to close public pools and libraries.
There can be surprises, too. Urban Progressives are concerned about police brutality, racial profiling, the war on drugs, and the availability of guns. But they're more concerned about crime and the lack of police protection against thugs in their neighborhoods. As a general matter, Urban Progressives are tougher on crime than Academic Progressives. They are more likely to see the necessity of gun ownership, for example, because the police cannot (or will not) protect them from home intrusion. They are less likely to oppose Stop and Frisk laws than Academics who are concerned with the slippery slope impact on civil liberties.
All these things are relative and averages, but there are real differences between progressives. Even something as simple as the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips from pirates can split progressives. Someone told me today that I'm a right-winger because I applaud the job our Navy SEALS did and have no sympathy for the three pirates who were killed in the process. And I am constantly reminded that a small but significant percentage of the Academic Progressive Left actually does fit the negative stereotypes (Blame America First) and distrusts power to such a degree that they could never actually wield it.
But we have entered a new progressive era and we will be increasing our political power on the Left for some time. We won't agree on everything, but we'll agree on enough to maintain a coherent and stable left-leaning governing majority on the Congressional level. Progressives that understand power and respect and desire power will do well. Progressives that do not understand, respect, or desire power will remain, by necessity, outside critiquers who always insist they hold the only true progressive values.
Display: ThreadedMinimalNestedFlatFlat UnthreadedDynamic ThreadedDynamic Minimal
Progressive Divisions | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
Contrary to what some progressive like to think, we live in a real world, with real dangers. Not all problems can be cured with idealogical purity. Reading progressive blogs I sometimes get a feeling some of the posters are not all that different in 'moral certitude' than 'wingers'.
It is possible to be proud of America, and Americans without being evil or jingoistic.
It is possible to love your country, but not necessarily like everything it does.
nalbar
by nalbar (nalbarsatgmaildotcom) on Mon Apr 13th, 2009 at 11:32:58 PM EST
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
And I am constantly reminded that a small but significant percentage of the Academic Progressive left actually does fit the negative stereotypes (Blame America First) and distrust power to such a degree that they could never actually wield it.
I think there is a very small part, although it may seem larger as they tend to be the most vocal and follow politics very closely.
And I don't think the characterization 'blame America first' is accurate, but it's more of an empathy thing...ie, seeing the USA as others might, and being much more willing to see and acknowledge shortcomings. Also, I think progressives- by nature- tend to identify and side with underdogs and the oppressed, hence the rationalizing of the actions of the pirates.
by jdw on Mon Apr 13th, 2009 at 11:48:59 PM EST
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
Here's a MyDD piece that concludes:
Now ask yourselves, why are there pirates off the coast of Somalia?
Sorry, but I am not indifferent to the plight of Somalis especially when the root causes of their misery is US militarism and corporate greed. The US and the Europeans continue to put their noses where they don't belong. They poke at snakes and then wonder why the snake bites back.
Needless to say, he never built much of any predicate for Somalia's problems being caused by the United States. Europe? Maybe. The Soviet Union? Possibly. Regardless, it's all our fault. And, of course, the people that drew the maps that created Somalia in 1885. They were Americans...not!
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 12:12:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
I see your point, but I think this is a very small but very vocal minority of progressives as a whole, perhaps very overrepresented in the blogosphere.
At least I hope so :)
Jeebus.
by jdw on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 12:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
Here's Susie Madrak at Crooks & Liars:
I wonder which principled member of our corporate media will point out that, in the big picture, the Somali pirates are acting in self-defense?
Overrepresented? Sure. I said 'small, but significant.'
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 12:35:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
I noticed a lot of comments like this at various blogs over the last several days. (Mostly from reader comments and not as featured posts.)
I assumed that this represents a very small minority, figuring that of maybe 100 progressives, a small minority of them are blog connected, even less blog active, and even less have these views. Dunno.
by jdw on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 01:02:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
No. It's much more widespread. It's still a small minority but they have a big megaphone.
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 01:10:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
ugh.
by jdw on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 01:19:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
But you can't deny the role the US has played that has contributed to the continuing failed state-ness of Somalia, and that THAT is a major contributor to getting people to take up piracy.
by MNPundit on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 09:15:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
Here
and
Here
The US is not the sum of the problem here, but we have not helped and we have often hurt, though I don't think there are any easy answers.
by MNPundit on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 09:21:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
No, I do deny that.
I think the United States was briefly allied with the Somali government during the Cold War and we tried to help them in 1992 with some humanitarian aid. The place is very hard to govern. It's not our fault. About the only blame I can place on America is that we sold them weapons that were later used in their civil war. We did nothing to promote piracy. He haven't had any interest in keeping Somalia a failed state, and we're right to consider its current state as a security threat to the whole world.
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 12:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
I never said we wanted to keep Somalia as a failed state, so don't put words in my mouth. But the policies we have pursued have had the effect of making the situation worse and at times, impeding what progress there is.
What do intentions have to do with that?
by MNPundit on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 01:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
if you look hard enough you can blame the United States for anything and everything. And sometimes we are directly to blame. But in Somalia? It's a very strained argument. There is a long line of Brits, Italians, Soviets, and Somalis ahead of us that can take blame first.
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 01:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
I agree with your take completely but didn't the US military support Ethopia with aid in the most recent conflict?
Blue Tidal Wave
by Mac G on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 12:39:07 AM EST
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
Yes:
WASHINGTON -- The United States has quietly poured weapons and military advisers into Ethiopia, whose recent invasion of Somalia opened a new front in the Bush administration's war on terrorism.
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 12:48:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Getting there - but ... (none / 0)
Look at the "new way forward" banking plan promoted by OpenLeft and FDL and similar and you will see that the "academic left" is not really about much change in the status quo at all. They are about: we need more regulations and people like us doing the regulating.
by rootless2 (sansracine_at_yahoo_dot_fr) on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 07:59:10 AM EST
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 1)
An Inconvenient opinion, apparently:
Beyond Pirate Rescue: What's Really Happening in Somalia?
by Valtin [Subscribe]
Share this on Twitter - Beyond Pirate Rescue: What's Really Happening in Somalia? Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 11:16:03 AM PDT
The dramatic rescue of Captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates made for smash headlines in the U.S. and around the world, but is not the first such dramatic rescue from pirates in these waters. The French had dramatic video footage of one of their captures.
What has not been covered in the news, obsessed with GOP hopes for Obama's first big failure, and Democrats patriotic triumphalism, is that the U.S. has played a big role in plunging Somalia into the chaos that has allowed piracy to take hold there, and that it's an open question how the Obama administration will deal with the bigger picture.
This diary is an attempt to cover these two issues.
Valtin's diary :: ::
No one wants to see an innocent man be killed or held hostage, so it was with some satisfaction that most heard of the rescue of the sea captain who had offered himself up as hostage for the safety of his crew.
But this kind of small scale human drama is dwarfed by the reality of what has been happening in Somalia for almost two decades now. I don't know why large-scale human drama doesn't play as well in the U.S. media, but I suspect it is because when it serves U.S. interests to exploit a tragedy, headlines are rolled out.
When the tragedy, such as the millions of refugees created by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, is politically inconvenient, the headlines are mysteriously absent.
An Inconvient Fact: The U.S. Helped Create the Conditions for Piracy
From Times Online (a conservative UK newspaper -- emphases added -- H/T Chris Floyd):
Years of violence, neglect and misguided policies have left Somalia one of the most dangerous countries and a breeding ground for the pirates attacking one of the world's busiest shipping routes.
Today the northeast area of the country, including Puntland, has been carved up by warlords who finance themselves by drug and gun running.
This is also the heartland of the pirates, whose main backers are linked to the Western-backed government. Radical Islamists control much of the south, including the key port of Kismayo and the porous border area with Kenya, a staunch Western ally.
This has realised a Western nightmare, which was supposed to have been destroyed by Ethiopia's American-backed invasion of Somalia two years ago in support of a puppet government created by the international community.
That alliance spanned the spectrum from extreme radicals to moderate, devout Muslims.
The latter were in charge.
Everyone - except Pentagon planners, it seems - knew that Somalia had never proved fertile territory for Saudi-style radical Islam. However, indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas by Ethiopia, Somalia's historic enemy, with huge casualties, put an end to that.
The Islamists were driven out, the moderates went into exile and the hardliners took control of the south with a popular powerbase beyond their wildest dreams.
Approximately 20,000 have died, and almost two million people have been displaced in this senseless civil war, prompted in part by the U.S., and certainly a proxy war with numerous players (the U.S., Ethiopia, various Arab states, Eritrea, even North Korea!, as we shall see).
So while I'm glad this sea captain was rescued, I don't look at the U.S. government as some sort of savior.
And I certainly am not angry at Somalians, who did not ask for the rule of warlords, pirates, and hardline Islamists in a fractured state ruling over them. Many have fled for the refugee camps already.
The Huffington Post published an article yesterday by Joanne Offer, IRC information officer in Nairobi, describing the miserable conditions in which a quarter-million Somalian refugees are living in the overcrowded Dadaab camp in eastern Kenya.
Dr. Vincent Kahi, the IRC's health coordinator, described a cholera outbreak: "To date, the number of cases . . . has been small --- just 26 --- and we have managed to contain the outbreak, but resources in the camps remain massively overstretched and provide ideal conditions for diseases like cholera to keep coming back. All [aid] agencies in Dadaab are doing their best, but the sheer number of people in such a small space and in an area with water scarcity is a recipe for future problems."
While I do not blame Obama -- and please note this, readers who may think I'm trashing Obama -- such facts mute any enthusiasm I have over this latest military show.
Again, I'm glad an innocent man was saved, but I'm sick of the U.S. media, who makes a huge thing because it's an American life, but barely makes a peep over what U.S. policy in the region has wrought in past years, and to the miserable suffering of the people in the region.
Convergent Evidence of U.S. Duplicity in Somalia
Those touting the U.S. raid as some sort of Entebbe, i.e., a military action that will make others think twice about messing with the big, bad United States, just don't get it.
Even U.S. Naval Forces Central Command chief Vice Adm. Bill Gortney stated after the rescue, "This could escalate violence in this part of the world, no question about it."
Other pirates in the region are quoted as making violent threats, but the real truth is that the pirates already understand that the U.S. will intervene in their region at will, as in the backing the Ethiopian invasion of their country to overthrow their government.
Does anyone really think that this one incident will significantly change their consciousness of what the U.S. can do?
A commenter in another diary called Somalia "a pawn of foreign interests and paranoia"? I'd say so. The former includes the United States, and their paranoia is well-earned.
From an article in The Progressive in Dec. 2008:
Alas, there are no good guys in this war. Ethiopian President Meles Zenawi is a nasty piece of work. He has been a darling of the United States ever since the Clinton Administration's time, when he was hailed as being part of the "African renaissance."
The war on terror has drawn Zenawi, a Christian leader of a religiously mixed but Christian-dominated country, closer to the Bush Administration. African renaissance man or not, he has been ruthless in his exercise of power.
For instance, Ethiopian security forces killed nearly fifty people in November 2005 in a crackdown on protests. They also arrested thousands, including politicians, journalists, and activists.
U.S. policy in Somalia is born out of desperation.
The United States abandoned Somalia after its failed mission in the early 1990s, and looked the other way as the country was mired in anarchy for the next decade. It was only recently that the Bush Administration, frightened by Islamic fundamentalism, began a dubious policy of handing out cash to Somali warlords as a way to check the Islamist militias....
The human toll of the invasion is increasing day by day.
Plus, the U.S. backing for the invasion will add to its unpopularity on the continent and in the Middle East. The African Union and the Arab League have called for Ethiopia to pull out, as have Kenya and Djibouti.
The United States should firmly add its voice, and instead of backing military adventures should invest in the Somali peace process as a way of staving off the Islamist threat.
The Ethiopian invasion of Somalia had full U.S. military backing. So you see, the Somalis have already tasted what U.S. military power can do. From coverage in Wired:
Citing the possibility that the Islamic Courts government was harboring terrorists, the Pentagon ordered gunships, fighters and warships to attack targets in Somalia, paving the way for Ethiopian tanks to sweep south, destroying Somalia's first relatively stable government in 15 years.
What Somalia was left with is starvation, tribal infighting, a brutal Ethiopian occupation and, ironically, a genuine Islamic insurgency where before there was only a suspicion of one....
Even the European Union warned the U.S. that bombing Somali towns "only escalates violence," as it purportedly goes after Al Qaeda Islamists.
Oh, and here's another example of U.S. duplicity and cynicism in the region that will blow your mind, from the NY Times in April 2007:
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, April 7 -- Three months after the United States successfully pressed the United Nations to impose strict sanctions on North Korea because of the country's nuclear test, Bush administration officials allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from the North, in what appears to be a violation of the restrictions, according to senior American officials.
The United States allowed the arms delivery to go through in January in part because Ethiopia was in the midst of a military offensive against Islamic militias inside Somalia, a campaign that aided the American policy of combating religious extremists in the Horn of Africa.
Obama and Somalia
What of President Obama's policy towards Somalia? One sea rescue does not make a foreign policy.
When he was running for president, Obama stated that he wanted "a coherent strategy for stabilizing Somalia."
Writing at Foreign Policy in Focus earlier this year, Francis Njubi Nesbitt described the situation for the new Obama administration (emphasis in original):
Among the litany of booby traps left by the Bush administration for the Obama team, Somalia could be one of the most complicated and bizarre....
The Obama administration, if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing is any indication, also views the Horn of Africa in the context of terrorism.
Nevertheless, Obama has also talked of his preference for diplomatic solutions. Somalia would be an ideal place to test his diplomacy.
Nesbitt described the particulars of the Ethiopian invasion, providing readers here with yet another description of the situation, the better for us to form an opinion of what has occurred in that part of the world.
Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia in December 2006, backed by the United States, sparked an Islamist resistance that led to thousands of civilian deaths, displaced over a million people, and depopulated the capital, Mogadishu.
But instead of focusing on the aftermath of this crisis and helping foster a peace process, the United States, European Union, and other international actors are engaged in the more dramatic and media-friendly anti-piracy campaign....
While the pirates attract the lion's share of world attention, the Islamist militias are gaining ground and are sure to control the whole country once Ethiopia withdraws its troops.
The conflict has spread to other parts of the region, with suicide bombings in the formerly stable Somaliland and Puntland regions, piracy in international waters, and cross-border kidnappings in Kenya.
U.S. and EU actions and policies since 2001 were supposed to prevent this kind of chaos. By treating Somalia and the region as a battle-zone in the "war on terror," however, the international community has made things worse....
Nesbett describes U.S. policy in the Bush years as "obdurate and counterproductive." The CIA backed the warlords, "setting the stage" for the rise of the "Islamic Courts", which in turn stoked the invasion of Ethiopia, in the name of the "war on terror." As we can see, even the North Koreans got into the act.
What a concoction of cynicism, ignorance, misdealing, and big power politics, with the Somali people the innocent victims! The media talk about piracy and dramatic sea rescues does not change the situation in that part of the world.
In fact, if the chaos in Somalia, stirred up by the U.S. and Ethiopia, had not spilled into the world's sea lanes, then we most likely would not be talking about Somalia at all right now.
I can't take much from Obama's sign-off on the rescue of Capt. Phillips. I think the U.S. couldn't afford to let the captain of a U.S.-flagged ship (a rare enough thing in itself) be held hostage or killed.
But what now of Somalia? Most likely it will slip off the front pages, and the excited recommended diaries at Daily Kos, and back into its state of forgotten misery, a pawn in the U.S. perpetual war on terror.
Nesbitt ends his article hopefully. I don't share his sense of hope, but will end here, too, because at the moment, even desperate hope may be all we have.
Obama's pledge to change the Bush administration's belligerent and counterproductive policies could have far-reaching consequences for the region as a whole.
Also posted at Invictus
Tags: Somalia, Ethiopia, piracy, Richard Phillips, U.S. war on terror, war on terror, refugees, Barack Obama, Recommended (all tags) :: Add/Edit Tags to this Diary :: Previous Tag Versions
Tags
Add keywords that describe this Diary (required). Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags
You must enter at least one Tag for this Diary Entry:
dd
by lyvwyr101 (lyvwyr101@aol.com) on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 08:41:57 AM EST
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
The irony is that often those best equipped to wield power are scared of power and reluctant to wield it.
by MNPundit on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 09:22:59 AM EST
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
a lot of what you say is accurate, but this:
Urban Progressives are concerned about police brutality, racial profiling, the war on drugs, and the availability of guns. But they're more concerned about crime and the lack of police protection against thugs in their neighborhoods. As a general matter, Urban Progressives are tougher on crime than Academic Progressives. They are more likely to see the necessity of gun ownership, for example, because the police cannot (or will not) protect them from home intrusion. They are less likely to oppose Stop and Frisk laws than Academics who are concerned with the slippery slope impact on civil liberties.
...has a lot of of problematic statements to unpack. A lot.
rban Progressives are concerned about police brutality, racial profiling, the war on drugs, and the availability of guns. But they're more concerned about crime and the lack of police protection against thugs in their neighborhoods.
Actually, it's not a question of more concerned about one or the other, but a balancing act. In Philly, for example, the system has been out of whack for years: we have neighborhoods that, thanks to Bush-era cuts, are patrolled by cops in cars who don't know the residents. As a result, when an incident occurs if the cops bother to show up at all, there is more likely to be brutality because the cops don't know anyone: both are due to the lack of community presence. Urban progressives like my neighbors and me want police protection against thugs, but not in the sense of a monolithic police state.
They are less likely to oppose Stop and Frisk laws than Academics who are concerned with the slippery slope impact on civil liberties.
That may be true among wealthy white progressives in neighborhoods far away from the poor, but among urban progressives who live in the neighborhoods targeted by stop and frisk, the opposite is true. We see stop-and-frisk as a police state tactic that will encourage racial profiling, target young black men indiscriminately, and breed distrust between the community and the cops.
In short, you are oversimplifying.
John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??
by brendan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 09:23:38 AM EST
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
true. it would be a very long essay if i didn't.
but that's okay because we have a comments section to get into more detail.
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 12:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
Let me get this straight . . . Liberals that don't want to go around the world starting wars are academic wimps that will never have power so they should stfu, or something . . . .
Okay. Not a particularly novel argument (I seem to remember a good number of conservative Democrats and right-wingers mocking those opposed to Iraq war as being appeasing cowards that can never have power in America)
But I think you and Obama will discover the trappings of the super-warrior fighter killing the bad guys and laying down some justice will only get you so far. It's not a win-win for you and your man Obama--just ask Bush the dangers of mindless militarism to one's political fortunes.
Your killing and wars will not bring about your stated goals of peace in the Horn of Africa. It might bring Obama a small bump in the polls, and all these noxesistant people that were waiting for Obama to prove he's not a secret communist and is willing to use the military can relax. Yes, the media game of making sure our leader will order assasinations and military assaults is alive and well. And you and Obama have secret chubbies over this. how convenient. If we don't share in your childish death fantasies than we're not "serious" enough liberals and the real adults will never let us near real power because we're not smart enough to use military power just cause we can and to show the world we're not pussies.
That's all this is. You are puffing your chest out and you want to kill you some bad guys and you will use the very American political tool of claiming those that don't want war are pussies. It doesn't matter that your and your warmongering ilk are almost always wrong. You need the history book dude. You're clueless.
It's disgusting. And Obama (and this country) will fail if Obama takes the military bait to start conflicts throughout the World.
American empire as we know it is over. Whether you and Obama like that or not. You might have a couple of media coups up your sleeves. Democrats always like putting on the codpiece and playing commander and I'm sure Obama thinks he's a big man now and he loves everyone feeling his muscles and telling him how tough he looks. As you apparantly do. Do you feel like a tough guy? Jumping around in joy over an assasination. Did you dream about it? Or is it simple political opportunism for you? You see your chance for your man to look tough and this is your way of getting back at all those liberals that were saying mean things about Obama's "bipartisanship" (really his conservativism).
Is Matt Yglesias a big progressive pussy unlike you, the tough guy? http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-14/the-war-on-piracy/ Do you and your urban tough guys that like guns plan on prosecuting a war in Somalia? Do you know how many people died there? Via U.S. guns and weapons and from the hands of U.S. military? Are you going to be the tough guy and go fight in Somalia?
by SFHawkguy on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:30:29 AM EST
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
"Let me get this straight . . . Liberals that don't want to go around the world starting wars are academic wimps that will never have power so they should stfu, or something . . . ."
That's so wrong, you deserve some sort of commendation.
by rootless2 (sansracine_at_yahoo_dot_fr) on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 12:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
What do you think this is all about?
Bush and military wanted to be able to declare the whole world a war zone.
The legal justification for America's actions in Somalia 2 years ago was that 3 terrorists were responsible for the bombings in Kenya so we had to support a war (involving thousands of deaths) to bring these 3 dudes "to justice". It was subterfuge for the real agenda which was to get involved in the affairs of Somalia and prevent the Islamic Courts movement from taking over the country. It was a bullshit legal justification for starting and participating in a pretty good sized war.
Most of America was blissfully unaware because the pussy Democrats in Congress didn't want to look like pussies so they didn't say anything as our country waged a probably illegal action in Somalia.
Now, we hear we have to send the military in because of pirates.
To me, on its face, it appears the military is once again seeking justification for a wider war in the region that has nothiing or little to do with piracy.
Maybe it is in the U.S. interest to wage war on Somalia. I tend to think not.
But the U.S. Congress should declare war on Somalia if that is the case.
We don't need more bullshit wars for unstated hidden reasons. Especially when the political dynamic is a Democrat politician trying to seize on the popularity of a president at war who appears to like the game of going after the evildoers . . .
by SFHawkguy on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 02:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
what is it all about? Hostage rescue. Why are you turning into the Third World War. A man was kidnapped and held for ransom. He was freed. End of story. He didn't kidnap himself you know.
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 03:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
Because I see where this is going. It will be the justification for a greater military adventure in the region. It's the military's way of asserting it's power over Obama.
Crime happens throughout the world and throughout history. Declaring war on crime will not work.
This is simply a way for the military and the U.S. to assert it's ability to act throughout the world. We were like kids at the State Fair shooting gallery last time. Truckloads of Somalis were wiped out 2 years and where did it get us? Do we as a country really know enough to support a warlord over a Islamic fighter in Somalia? Haven't we learned that we don't know enough to pick sides in this battle and our bombs and death and destruction always make it worse?
We are always told that it is heroic actions of the noble Navy sniper (or whatever) that will save us. Then as we start wiping out whole villages or start dropping bombs on the "bad" guys it all goes to hell.
Don't fall for trick.
Pirates are bad. Crime is bad. But this is about a bigger military prescense in the area. That is not good for America. And you guys trying to sucker the U.S. into a wider war are the real un-American traitors. You would have the World in smoking ruins as you cling to your silly sniper fantasies. Did you dream about pulling the trigger yourself?
by SFHawkguy on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 03:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
give me a break.
The whole world is clamoring for some solution to the piracy problem. And in the whole wide range of American projection of power, nothing has more legitimacy as our role in securing safe shipping lanes. Working with the Chinese and European nations, we will find a way to make the Suez trip safe for shipping. And we should do that or we're worth a damn as a world power.
It's by far the least offensive aspect of our power.
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 03:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
Killing kidnappers is assassination?
I'm collecting quite a list of STUPID LEFTIST remarks. Maybe I'll make a little book for the holidays filled with these canards. The righties will buy them in droves. $$$$$
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 12:41:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
I have no idea what happened on that boat. I really don't care. I know enough to be suspect of the story put out by the military. Some heroic sniper [legally] used deadly force to stop an illegal action. Great.
I'm refering to your not-to-hidden glee in sending a bullet into another human because it makes your man look like a tough guy.
And I'm referring to your glee in taking on the crazy left. You get them tough guy. You ever killed another human being? Even if it is legally justified?
You've just been waiting for your chicken hawk in chief to be able to bring in the guns and start shooting so you can battle the pussy peåçenik left and show that Obama is as American as American pie and the sweet justice of a sniper's bullet ripping through some subhuman beast on the horn of that subhuman continent. Kill all of America's enemies. That will surely get the heat off of Obama and we can all forget our collective problems as we breeze in and smoke these thugs. You in?
Write your foolish book about the "stupid left". I can tell this is where you've been heading. You, the real men on the left, will distract the country from its real problems as you and the rest of the tough guys go smoke you some evildoers.
Did you see how we smoked that Somalia scum 2 years ago. It was like a video game. Stupid Muslims riding around like big fat targets that we SMOKED . . .;
Tough guy. How'd that turn out? Or, are you urban progressives too touigh to get involved in un-American debates about war with us peacenik pussies? You know that America will support you as you smoke you some black African Muslim scum? Go for it. It will be a cheap political win for you.
Big man taking on the pussy left. You tell them how silly they are for not realizing that we can sniper assasinate our way out of our problems. Pussies on the left don't realize the power of a sniper assasian--or as Booman would have it--a super-partirot hero gunfighter bringin' American justice to the World.
You show us silly lefties. Write your silly book,
by SFHawkguy on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 02:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
Your problem is much deeper than pirate killing.
It seems that you see it as unseemly for Americans to celebrate the successful rescue of one of our citizens because the price was the loss of life for three poor brown Muslims. You are putting a whole lot of your personal issues on me where they do not belong. I don't care if you personally are a pussy. I didn't say that you were. I'm just glad that Captain Phillips is safe and sound and that we had a bit of good luck. Politically, it is helpful to the degree that being decisive, lucky, and successful confers benefits on any leader. But the feel-good part of this is that Phillips was rescued unharmed, not that people got killed in the process.
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 03:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
So now we're STUPID, too?
Fascinating, how quickly the "gloves come off" over other people's opinions. I guess we really "hit a nerve," for some people. Tough shit. That's how that goes.
dd
by lyvwyr101 (lyvwyr101@aol.com) on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 12:47:35 PM EST
Truly Insightful (none / 0)
Progressives that understand power and respect and desire power will do well. Progressives that do not understand, respect, or desire power will remain, by necessity, outside critiquers who always insist they hold the only true progressive values.
Very well stated.
Let's include an observation. Barack Obama clearly belongs in the first group listed above but used superior political skill to convince the second group that he was "one of them."
Ergo, as time goes on, and history tends to write itself, there will be more and more of a reckoning of sorts as more and more of the folks in the second group become more and more aware that Barack Obama is not "one of them."
by Prometheus09 on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 02:30:37 PM EST
Re: Truly Insightful (none / 0)
I consider Obama to be a progressive, and you see signs of it all the time, including most recently his bold action inre Cuba.
But he's not where I want him to be on civil liberties. It's a huge problem that won't go away.
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 02:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
Implying that someone is mentally unstable because they disagree with you is a cheap shot. Be that as it may-do kidnappers usually kill their victims when they demand ransom?
I know little about the mentality or motives of kidnappers-while so many others seem to know so much-however, wrong though I may be, I thought that exchanging the hostage for money was the dynamic involved.
dd
by lyvwyr101 (lyvwyr101@aol.com) on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 03:16:09 PM EST
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
We are still made up of liberal Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, and skewed toward the female gender.
A significant percentage of us are none of the above. There are a bunch of other religions in the mix, some of which lean heavily left, and of course, the biggest (and fastest-growing) non-Judaeo-Christian faction would be non-religious people.
As far as the pirates go, I don't frankly give a shit. As soon as you pick up a gun and use it to compel behavior, you have left the arena of civilized discourse and are, as far as I'm concerned, a fair target for anyone else with a gun. Those who use violence or the threat of violence to achieve their ends are in no position to complain when someone else uses violence to thwart them. And in the case of four guys with light arms engaging in a standoff with the US Navy, well, let's just say they earned their Darwin Awards just as surely as the folks at Waco and Ruby Ridge did with their hopeless standoffs. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong if one of the participants is unable to grasp simple matters of cause and effect.
by corvus on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 03:42:38 PM EST
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
The Somali pirates were all teenagers, weren't they? There are violent, armed, and dangerous kids everywhere. Not just in Somalia.
No one works harder than law enforcement in dealing with violent and armed kids especially during hostage situations. Perhaps these kids were just not seen as being worth the time or the trouble.
dd
by lyvwyr101 (lyvwyr101@aol.com) on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 04:10:55 PM EST
Re: Progressive Divisions (none / 0)
yes, it appears that the kidnappers were all 19 or younger. Youth might explain their recklessness. Imagine thinking that you can outsmart the US Navy while they tow you in an out-of-gas motorboat and wind up with $6 million in cash.
by BooMan on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 at 04:19:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Progressive Divisions | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: ThreadedMinimalNestedFlatFlat UnthreadedDynamic ThreadedDynamic Minimal
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ] Menu
. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search
Login
Username:
Password:
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Security or Stupidity? The Economist calls Bruce Schneier "a security guru." He gets beyond the rhetoric, reveals hidden truths, unseats the comfortable, and knocks over the holy wisdom in his blog and latest book.
"The closest the security industry has to a rock star."
--The Register
Read more...Advertise here
Gift Cards * New Arrivals
Title Author ISBN
NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."
THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________
Learn the real story behind the WMD in Iraq:
The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism
by Ron Suskind
Read Barack Obama's vision for America:
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama
DaveW recommends:
I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter
Need some laughs?
I Am America (and So Can You!)
by Stephen Colbert
rae recommends:
Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.
On BooMan’s shelf:
Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin
This looks interesting:
Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris
Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:
Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert
"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble
Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off
Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone
From northcountry’s bookshelf:
The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra
A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:
Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.
Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes (Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes (Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes
Download South Park on iTunes
James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:
Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----
Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")
Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)
Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)
"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen
The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review
BT's all-time best seller:
PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95
Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)
The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!
The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan
Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----
Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review
Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey
1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus
Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"
Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)
The Price of Privilege:
How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine
Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:
All Departments Outdoor Gear Men's Clothing Women's Clothing Shoes & Boots Kids' Corner Home Decor
We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")
Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!
:
:
Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop
More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.
Search this blog:
© 2007 Booman Tribune
No comments:
Post a Comment