frejja make cams2006 pahanen lendersan Black Cat Big Amatures Viagra Asian Glass Cams Kordiceps cpm Br_JOHN john Pahan Pahan Ivan Moiseenko Pahan info Paxan Coss Vano Grozn Cool Pahan Kiev Pahan Ivanchik kordi kordiceps kiev Like med Kordic life Live Kiev kord I love my life tee cpm profit Piramida help faq faq help kiev clan 3 group cordiceps Real Estate Support

Friday, April 21, 2006

Let’s criticize the peace movement, from a primate’s perspective

A few weeks ago, Scott Ritter wrote an article criticizing the anti-war movement. Now there’s a new interview with him in which he says many of the same things:

You’ve offered the anti-war movement a bitter pill to swallow. You’ve said the peaceniks are a poorly organized conglomeration of egos, pet projects and idealism. Can you elaborate?

First of all, what is the peace movement? There is no national peace movement. There’s a conglomeration of organizations, all of which are ego-driven. If you take a look at Peace Action, they have a national Peace Action and they have state Peace Actions around the country. They don’t work well with each other; they don’t get along with each other. They feud. They don’t have a centralized plan…

I am not volunteering myself to be the visionary of the peace movement. All I’m saying is that having attended these meetings and reflecting on what I’ve seen, the peace movement’s getting its butt kicked…There needs to a meeting of the minds, a unified vision statement: What do we agree on? What is our focus of effort? And then once you get this mission statement, let’s put a little bit of fire into this…

But as soon as you mention “structure” to the peace movement, they get all nervous. They think it’s abut imposing military standards on them—an absurdity…It’s about organizing, and making sure you don’t waste resources. That’s what the peace movement needs: organization and to stop wasting resources.

I’m a football fan. At the end of the day, I judge a coach and a team by the score that exists on the scoreboard when the end of the fourth quarter comes. And right now, it’s the pro-war movement 60, the anti-war movement nothing. Someone can’t tell me, “No, no, we’re doing OK.” No, you’re not. You’re getting beat, and you need to recognize you’re getting beat, and you need to figure out why you’re getting beat, and you need to figure out what you need to do to get yourself back on track. And the key thing here is: Bring a sense of focus and organization, which is lacking.

I have a lot of sympathy for Ritter’s perspective. Much of what he says is completely right. However, I also think he doesn’t recognize the problems stem from something much deeper than individual shortcomings in 2006.

The root of it is the U.S. is an extremely depoliticized society. There are barely any progressive institutions in America, so there’s no progressive institutional memory. No one remembers what worked before and what didn’t. Everything starts from zero each time. And there’s little progressive culture encouraging people to sacrifice for the good of what institutions do exist. (This is not something I figured out on my own.)

Fixing this would take decades. But obviously people want to be effective right now.

The normal answer would be for the anti-war movement to become more hierarchical. That’s what primate societies under stress naturally do. (This is why leaders love war.) But hierarchy only works in the short-term, and even then it doesn’t work too well—particularly when your long-term goal is a less hierarchical society.

Do you have an opinion? If so, I’d be very curious to hear it, here. If enough people have cogent thoughts, I’m sure we can get Common Dreams or similar places to run a selection.

UPDATE: People have said some genuinely interesting things so far. Please don’t hesitate to chip in if you feel like it. I definitely will edit things down and send it someplace, and report back.

Update from Tom: Jon’s site appears to be running slow. Please do not send your suggestions to my inbox — just hang on to them until he’s back online.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

In Tom We Trust

There are those who would say Tom DeLay lost his job as House majority leader because he was indicted by a Texas grand jury on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, or because of his extensive ties to lawbreaking lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But they would be wrong.

In fact, the Texas Republican fell from power because he is a Christian.

That, at least, is the view of Rick Scarborough, convener of a conference this week called “The War on Christians.”

“I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ,” Scarborough said, introducing DeLay yesterday. When DeLay finished, the host reminded the politician: “God always does his best work right after a crucifixion.”

On the radio just now, Bush said something to the effect that health savings accounts allow someone who makes the right decisions about smoking or drinking to save money. Which I find infuriating — the implication that catastrophic illness only strikes those who “deserve” it due to their bad lifestyles.

Disease happens, even to the most health conscious among us. A friend of mine just spent a couple of years battling cancer. Out of the blue, no rhyme or reason to it. That’s how this crap shoot we call life works. Health care shouldn’t be about saving money if you’re virtuous enough to avoid illness. Health care should be about, you know, providing health care, particuarly to those unlucky enough to need it in a serious way.

This is kind of basic. Everybody gets sick, everybody know someone who’s been through something catastrophic. If the Democrats are smart, they’ll grab this issue with both hands and not let go.