New Democratic movement formed: Move Away!
I said last week (in my post "The Day The Antiwar Movement Imploded") that the MoveOn ad alleging treason by General Petraeus would be the beginning of the end for the antiwar movement.
The odds continue to go up that I was right. I'd say right now, they're 72 to 25.
That is, as you may have guessed, the vote count on the resolution in the Senate condemning MoveOn's ad. 25 of the usual far-left Democrats (Kennedy, Durbin, Kerry) voted against it, as did Hillary, a couple (both of whom, Obama and Biden, are running for president) managed to be absent, but every Republican and almost half the Democrats voted for the resolution to condemn the organization that just months ago was claiming it owned the Democratic party.
It's hard to think of a comparable moment in American political history when the knives came out against a force that had gotten too powerful for its own good-- the Buckley crowd expelling the Birchers and the anti-semites from the respectable conservative movement in the 50s? The wave of 1920s anti-Klan legislation in midwestern states that drove it out of its original territory in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan? Something like these, I suppose.
* * *
Meanwhile, history, in one of its delicate ironies, gives us another perfect example of how morally rotten some of our most leftist precincts have become.
In California, the regents of the university system will not allow their ears to be polluted by former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, who is untouchable for having stated the observable fact that there are relatively few women in the highest echelons of science.
In Columbia, the administrators will allow their grounds to be sullied by a speech by former hostage taker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is acceptable despite having denied the observable fact* that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
Add in the Duke "rape" case, the Ward Churchills and all the rest, and the bonkers-left domination of academia and the greater leftist movement may finally come under public scrutiny and, in many cases, the censure and abhorrence by decent people that it has long deserved.
* Yes, 1983Merman, it IS an observable fact. Quite simply so, in fact. As Billy Wilder wrote one Holocaust denier, "What a relief it is to learn that six million Jews were not murdered by the Nazis. Just one question, though. Where is my mother?"
Move On is a bit too left for my tastes and I thought the ad was a really stupid political mistake for the simple reason that betrayal has a totally different connotation for military people than most of the rest of us who use the term more carelessly.
That said, it is not within the Senate's purview as a body to condemn any sort of political speech. It is one thing for individual Senators to stand in the well of Senate and personally condemn Move On but to pass a resolution in which THE Senate condemns them is going way too far and setting a very bad precedent.
September 20, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The end of the antiwar movement will come when people stop being antiwar. So far, there's no sign of that happening.
Summers wasn't condemned for pointing out that there were relatively few women in the higher echelons of science, but for suggesting that there might be a biological explanation. This is basic information--if you don't know it, you really have no business pontificating. As for the domination of the academy by the left, tell it to Norman Finkelstein.
September 20, 2007 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The end of the antiwar movement will come when people stop being antiwar. So far, there's no sign of that happening.
The puny crowds that turn out for protests notwithstanding...
Summers wasn't condemned for pointing out that there were relatively few women in the higher echelons of science, but for suggesting that there might be a biological explanation.
Well, we sure wouldn't want free speculation on scientific facts in an academic setting! Off with his head!
The reality, of course, is that Summers was condemned for daring to strike back against the entrenched PC mafia at Harvard, and they used the first chance they got to force him out, hardly mattered what it was. This is basic insight-- if you don't understand it, you really have no business pontificating.
September 20, 2007 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The antiwar crowds are a hell of a lot bigger than the counter-demonstrators, and polls show a substantial majority against the war. As for Summers, since you've already admitted that getting your facts straight is unimportant to you, it's hard to see why your interpretations have any value.
September 20, 2007 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
since you've already admitted that getting your facts straight is unimportant to you
Thanks for playing. Good night.
September 20, 2007 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon Max. You'll have to learn to stand up for yourself sooner or later. These incessant concessions of defeat are tiresome.
September 21, 2007 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's tiresome is this straw response:
"Well, since you refuse to deny that you're admitting that your rejection of opposition to dog abuse is nonforthcoming, I refuse to read anything further by someone who hates dogs."
That's real clever if you're 14. I'm not.
Thanks for playing. Good night.
September 21, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Twice in 2 posts! I appreciate your gracious acknowlegement of defeat, but talk about tiresome!
I guess I missed the dog abuse debate. Were you pro or con?
Have a pleasant evening.
September 21, 2007 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh, that's original.
September 21, 2007 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post is another excellent example of Max's excellent writing, lack of awareness, and vapid thinking.
If the anti-war movement is imploding, it seems to have started only in the last 24 hours. Just yesterday, the Republicans scored a Pyrrhic victory by threatening a filibuster over Webb's dwell time amendment.
Apparently unaware of the melt-down of the peace movement, 49 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted in favor of the bill that would have given our brave GIs and National Guard some hard-earned and well-deserved rest and training between 15-month deployments.
Today's vote, of course, was meaningless political theater. The votes that will carry gravitas will be the those that the Republicans will be required to cast repeatedly between now and November 2008 against bills to reduce the bloody, crippling cost of the Mess in Mesopotamia. They will be forced to demonstrate their pro-war, anti-troop attitude again and again. Even if they relent and allow one to pass, they will be faced with the dilemma of voting on overturning Bush's veto.
That sucking sound you hear is not the anti-war movement imploding. It's the Republican leadership taking a gulp of air before going under water for the third time.
As for the rest of the post, Max is the only author in recent memory to go off-topic on himself!
September 20, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rest is empty insults (yeah, those Republicans sure took a licking defeating Harry Reid & co. yet again; a few more humiliating defeats like that and the Dems will really have them in a corner), but I found this interesting because it's a prediction:
That's your prediction; mine is that, as they (or simply she) gets closer to the possibility of being in charge of the military and responsible for our security, she-- I mean whoever the Democratic candidate is-- will get more and more hawkish. And that what she'll call "bringing the troops home" and what Bush and the Republicans will call the appropriate drawdown of forces will amount to exactly the same number of troops-- leaving a significant force in place for as long as we were in Germany or South Korea.
September 20, 2007 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Max seems determined to make a career out of perceiving insult and generating "righteous" indignation from it. Well, that's OK with me if it works for his therapist.
a few more humiliating defeats like that and the Dems will really have them in a corner Actually, the Dems already have McConnell and his minions in a corner; but yes, Max makes my point exactly. And considering the scrotal volume among the Democratic leadership, this situation is roughly equivalent to the World Wildlife Federation's victory over the World Wrestling Federation. The real WWF won not because they are strong, not because they are effective, but because they were right.
That's your prediction [that the Dems will require the Reps to vote repeatedly for the further slaughter of American and Iraqis]; mine is that, as they (or simply she) gets closer to the possibility of being in charge of the military and responsible for our security, she-- I mean whoever the Democratic candidate is-- will get more and more hawkish. Since Max is willing to go so far out on a limb to demonstrate his prescience, I will now make a PROFOUND AND STARTLING REVELATION of my own. Remember, you heard it here first:
On election day, 8-Nov-2007, in three small American cities -- Tarrytown, New York, Taos, New Mexico, and Gurnee, Wisconsin -- take a deep breath now -- the sun will rise in the east!
Predicting that Hillary will be a war hawk is like predicting the death of Lincoln -- it happened long ago.
But such a "prediction" -- all the twaddle in Max's reply in fact -- hardly supports his hilarious, Pollyannaish (from the neocon point of view), Cheneyan claim that the anti-war movement is in its death throes.
It is now time, if he is true to his form, for Max to call me a name, complain of my insults again, and surrender the field. But this is NOT a prediction, inasmuch as expecting consistency from Max is unlikely to pay off.
September 21, 2007 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pa Amb Tomaquet (Catalan Tomato Bread)
Rustic bread, preferably a little past fresh
Tomatoes, preferably a little past ripe
Olive oil
Salt
Cured sausage or salame, such as Spanish chorizo (not Mexican), sopressata, etc.
Toast bread until crisp. Slice tomato in half and rub pulp over bread. Sprinkle with salt and olive oil. Place sliced salame on top and eat. Option: rub bread with garlic.
September 21, 2007 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this have some connection with your defense of dog abusers, or is it yet another concession? I can't keep track.
September 21, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no dog in the recipe.
September 21, 2007 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must be the concession, then. Nighty night.
September 21, 2007 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "anti-war" movement is not monolithic. However opposed I may be to the operations in Iraq, I will not assume that any group that claims to be "anti-war" represents me.
For example, for any given position that Ramsey Clark, Noam Chomsky, or ANSWER supports, it is best to check directly with me to verify that I am not opposed to it. Even when there may be a general agreement, opinion the means of carrying out the policy may differ...excuse the term...radically.
Agreement with moveon and opposition to the Iraq operation need not be associated.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 20, 2007 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
With which of the well-documented charges in the MoveOn ad do you disagree, Howard?
September 21, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand my point, which was not directed at the ad. My point regarded the concept that there is some monolithic "antiwar movement" that can collapse, as opposed to there being a loose assemblage of groups that express opposition to the specific Iraq campaign.
If I were asked to sign an ANSWER petition condemning an agreed atrocity, I would refuse to sign theirs -- but might well publicize my utter rejection of the atrocity. While the Middle East, for example, seems to operate on the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I would never turn my ideological back on Ramsey Clark, even though we might have the same objective.
There is a history of fringe groups identifying a common interest, and then co-opting the larger movement, in the fringe group's presentation, in support of its pet project. Back in the days of opposition to the US involvement in Vietnam, it seemed, for a time, that every demonstration was joined by the DC Committee to Free Angela Davis, and somehow, the "Free Angela!" signs managed to upstage the ones about LBJ's lies.
Remembering Watergate, getting to the point where Nixon's impeachment and almost certain conviction formed a national consensus came not from specific hearings about impeachment, but from a brick-by-brick building a...dare I say unimpeachable...foundation. The Ervin Committee, for example, obtained the testimony from Alexander Butterfield, which revealed the smoking guns of the Oval Office tapes.
When Waxman's committee had Valerie Plame Wilson testify, it was laying such a foundation. When Midge Potter of CODE PINK tried to get into every camera shot of the witness, with her IMPEACH BUSH NOW T-shirt, I cannot see how those antics helped a process that was, perhaps not in the way desired by some activists, moving to exactly the same goal. If I will complain bitterly about Congressional action or inaction, it is the failure to hold hearings about Administration illegalities and assaults on the Constitution. Competing for the cameras in a hearing investigating just such illegality (violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982) is, in my opinion, childish at best and ammunition for Bush loyalists at worst.
The ad was silly. I find MoveOn sillier. I find Congressional condemnation of an ad silliest.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 21, 2007 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly your overall thesis is perfectly sensible, but...
The ad was silly.
I'll restate my question: Which of the many well-documented charges in the MoveOn ad do you find silly?
September 22, 2007 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will rephrase my answer. I did not do a detailed analysis of the ad. There are organizations, such as the Republican National Committee and Moveon, which, over time, have established that they are not worth reading. As a general rule, when any blogger or organization uses disparaging variants of names, be it Bushit, Betray-Us, macaca, Democrat Party, or Amerikka, I tend to turn my attention to something that will have more substance.
When I was contracted to do open source intelligence, I had to read through jargon-filled publications to extract information not available elsewhere.
The Democrats acted irresponsibility in condemning an exercise of free speech, whether it was from MoveOn, Ann Coulter, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Muhammad Yunus, or Nelson Mandela. Ignoring the ad would both have been sensible and constitutional.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 22, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I understand you correctly, you found the ad silly without reading it, correct?
September 23, 2007 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he were to answer yes to your question, there's a name for that: it's called "having bad P.R." When you are an organization like moveon.org, P.R. is a significant part of what you do. If they have this image with some people, it is either purposeful, or bad technique.
By they way, I believe Howard has already answered you in his post, my highlighting:
They had more than a million headlines to chose from to get someone like Howard's full and careful attention.
September 23, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not make a judgment if it was silly or not. I made a different judgment.
There are somethings, which, if stolen from me, are relatively easy or relatively hard to replace. I can replace money, especially if a new startup or two gets started, or I win a legal action. As long as I act in a timely and responsible way, I can often replace or repair a problem with my health.
Time stolen from me is something I can never replace. Close to that theft is that of my reputation, my good name.
While I am, in fact, a speed reader, I know full well that I cannot read everything presented to me. My grandmother worked in a candy factory, which had the rule that you could eat all you wanted on the job, but not take any home. She said that within three days, like most other new employees, did not want to think about sweets.
I used to work for the Library of Congress, and had a stack pass. There were a few areas where I wanted to read every book on a topic, but I soon realized that the books would come faster than I could read.
So, I became sensitive to those things that would steal irreplaceable reading time. In headlines and blogs, childish pejoratives based on names are a signal that, unless I hear differently from other sources, the particular piece isn't worth reading. Since I tend to read detailed military reports from multiple viewpoints, I also didn't feel I needed a political article to tell me more about David Petraeus.
So no, I didn't find the article silly without reading it. I found it not worth my attention when I read its headline.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
William Shakespeare, "Othello", Act 3 scene 3
September 23, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not make a judgment if it [the MoveOn ad] was silly or not.
My mistake, Howard. When you said, "The ad was silly," I thought you meant the ad was silly. Foolish of me.
October 10, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink