Nonetheless, now that you’ve framed the question so precisely, I should add that: we disagree on what constitute “serious issues” which the left has waffled on. (And we disagree on many subsidiary matters, for example, Noam Chomsky’s contributions and whether Ron Jacobs believes that “liberals” are “leftists”.)

What is less subjective, however, is the perception that reality is constantly changing. And this perception places a greater burden to re-examine on persons who assert that they are simply restating an opinion, than the burden to re-examine on persons who assert they are stating an opinion occasioned by new facts. Which in a way renders irrelevant the factor of new readers’ requiring to be provided with history. And which applies how, to the issue of the left’s waffling on “serious issues.”? In my case, the heavier burden is on me to re-examine my opinion that waffling on its anti-war sentiments has been the cause of the left’s appearing untrustworthy. In your case, the burden is on you to re-examine your opinion that waffling on its other-than-anti-war sentiments has been the cause of the left’s appearing untrustworthy.

I tried to meet my burden by telling a true story about the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art. Elsewhere, I’ve tried to meet the same burden with a poem. In this post, I’m trying to be analytical and rational, in response to your challenge of that nature, but it is because of self-perceived limitations in my analytical and rational abilities that I’ve tried to meet my burden to re-examine my opinion of the left’s waffling by a process that resulted in a story and in a poem. To the extent that these “creative” results were ambiguous (and I know that they were) or misleading, I’m sorry.

In struggle, my friend

Here’s a few links however the article are more comprehensive than a few sentences.
Jeffrey Blankfort01

Jeffrey Blankfort02

Double Standards

Look Lloyd,

I’m not sure what you are driving at with your commentary but my response to Ron was clear and concise. Ron stated that there is “no easy way out.” I disagree. What is difficult is identifying the problem. The solution is fairly easy.

My premise is that the “left” has spent more time diverting people’s attention from confronting serious issues. That makes the left appear untrustworthy. I’m sorry if I may sound repetitive to you but unfortunately it is the same issue and the same omission.

I certainly would not disabuse you if you expressed and repeated the same discontent over a particular issue (for example Ron Paul) that is the purpose of this blog and there may be new or infrequent readers who happen upon DV that you may want to consider as well.

Thus, your remark about “ego”, IMO, is irrelevant to the topic at hand that you’ve needlessly interjected into this discussion. If you disagree with the content of my remarks then simply express the points where you disagree and we can debate them.

Thank you.

I’d like a simple sentence or two from the person who had something negative to say about Chomsky. Want to get the position stated clear.

Must run, but I do hope people will give me feedback on the Ron Paul piece (link cited above) at bcendra@yahoo.com, and give me other stuff here.

Best, M

i don’t know if you’ve checked it out recently but things such as the truth squads, architects/engineers, pilots, students, academics and many other groups and individuals not traditionally associated with “left causes” are now active, impassioned and involved in advocating the cause.

and make no mistake, 911 truth by logical extension is an anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist movement. the left in the usa, and in gb and australia and elsewhere in the anglo-saxon world, are , as usual, the last ones to get it. this is no more exemplified than in the person of the master sleepwalker, chomsky, himself.

on last checking the only established grouping on the left that had a half decent analysis of 911 and its importance in understanding the entire picture of war, global capitalism and approaching fascism, are the dear old trots at world socilaist web site (but they can’t quite bring themselves to say “false flag”).

we don’t really need to go out and start a new movement, or breath life into the dead carcass of the anti-war movement, 911 truth movement is already that movement and growing rapidly.

in the ideological vacuum of the left’s non-involvement in 911 truth it’s left to the likes of the right wing activist alex jones to educate the cadres.

i can’t overstate that the left needs to wake up to itself and get a handle on this issue. a proper handle, understand what the truth movement is saying and stop rejecting it out of hand as a trivial side issue.

for the left to be so uninvolved in a growing, happening movement as 911 truth is a big mistake.

But do these sorts of discussions going from considered expressions of differences with an article’s author sometimes involved, to increasingly egotistical and pre-fabricated position-declarations…do these sorts of discussions characterize internet exchanges about domestic politics in Britain, say, or Mexico or Canada? If Tricky-Dick Cheney sits in DC gloating that “not-to-worry, given time, and lord knows there’s time, they will just dissolve in squabbling, AGAIN,” would it matter? Do you get the feeling that the most trenchant comment you could post is just repeating what you posted two weeks ago, but drifted away from slightly in the interim?

I was looking for a nice Fauvist painting and ran across the name of Louis Valtat about a week ago, and lo and behold, the Internet turned one up at the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art. There I spent an hour downloading from their beautiful collection of Impressionist and 20th century European and American Art. And I began to feel differently about the 2003 outrages of those who lamented the destruction of Iraq’s museums. In 2003, I was simply outraged by the Chipmunk’s incredible stupidity and so outrageous violatations of international law. (So outraged that I included the word “fuck” in my entry in my college’s 40th Anniversary Report at the time.) But thinking last week that any day now, the fool might wake up and decide it’s time, time to hit Iran, and…and…that’s it, squabblers. No more Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, and all bet’s are off.

Iraq was Sinbad the Sailor’s land; most of us met Sinbad when we were growing up and loved him, right? And his home was in Baghdad, if I’m not mistaken. Is it just good bye Baghdad, hello another nothing Left in America?

I thought Marcelle Cendrars had been selling her own program short, saying we have to point for three years from now. Now I wonder. While the words of a long-disappeared Vietnam Vet friend — an electronics expert on a destroyer off the coast, he was — come back to me. “Without hope…there is no hope.”

It’s a matter of perspectives Ron. Understanding WHY it is “hard” makes it extremely easy. Your article ignores the WHY.

As B.J. Sabri writes…
That may be true, but the fundamental problem is, there is no Left (in the revolutionary sense) in the United States. In the U.S., it is very possible that some progressives feel they are leftist, but leftist in relation to what, Republicans, Democrats, or someone else?

The Liberals are not leftist Ron. Clearly they are limited to Kerry and Obama. That is the limit of their principles.

However the “left” that went ahead and supported Kerry and the ABB/Safe State strategy in 2004 did so for UNPRINCIPLED reasons.

In fact, I’d say that the people who are attracted to Ron Paul this year are MORE principled than the “left” who supported Kerry because they REALLY want to see an end to the war and the curtailment of militarism.

The “left” has not provided the people with an honest assessment of the current political landscape and decided to sabotage themselves rather than build an anti-war movement. With 75% of the U.S. population against the war on Iraq it should be EXTREMELY easy to build a movement. Any popularity for both Paul and Obama has very much to do with the vacuum (”failure”) created by the left as you point out in your article.

But Ron you know full well that there was clearly momentum for the anti-war movement in 2003. What happened Ron? You don’t offer an analysis to that question. This is the “sins of omission” that I am referring to.

As BJ Sabri continues …
Take for instance what is considered the top exponent of the American Left: Noam Chomsky. While NC, being an ambivalent critic of the American Empire on both fronts: domestically and internationally, is decidedly a leftist (in the American sense), he, nevertheless and tacitly is allying himself with the bogus wars on terrorism by using specific language items that are characteristic of the Neocon establishment. I could even conclude that, considering that the term, “left” is currently vague and devoid of any substantive meaning, we have to revise it – entirely.

How do we revise it Ron? The very people who have come to represent the “left” (not Liberals) have betrayed those very principles of Marx, of Luxemburg whose principles that you hold so dear.

Unfortunately the only member of the left that has really spoken out in clear terms recently has been James Petras. Why aren’t there more like him holding the left accountable and calling out those who have diverted and obscured analysis? If he can do it surely there are others who can. It’s quite easy. It means having the resolve to be honest with your audience.

The truth rings clear to people and the people know when you are not being straight with them.

That may be true, but the fundamental problem is, there is no Left (in the revolutionary sense) in the United States. In the U.S., it is very possible that some progressives feel they are leftist, but leftist in relation to what, Republicans, Democrats, or someone else?
It is rather odd that in most cases, segments of the so-called American Left could be domestically leftists, but arch-imperialist internationally. This is not strange because on international level many agendas drive how people can classify themselves. Take for instance what is considered the top exponent of the American Left: Noam Chomsky. While NC, being an ambivalent critic of the American Empire on both fronts: domestically and internationally, is decidedly a leftist (in the American sense), he, nevertheless and tacitly is allying himself with the bogus wars on terrorism by using specific language items that are characteristic of the Neocon establishment. I could even conclude that, considering that the term, “left” is currently vague and devoid of any substantive meaning, we have to revise it – entirely.

Review http://www.pscelebrities.com/whitelightblacklight/2008/01/five-negative-reasons-to-vote-for-ron.htm
to get another angle on what’s going on here.

The 9/11 issue is no different than many other instances in which the U.S.
“authorities” and powers have been caught with…pants down, bloody gun in hand. The point that I was making is that when The Real Players see us going blah blah incessantly over stuff like FDR setting up Pearl Harbor or dealing with the question of who shot JFK…it make them happy…’cause it keeps us busy, and distracted. We will NOT make further inroads w further discussion of the like. Rather, we will waste precious time doing so.

Much too much of that talk comes about not because of an intelligent perception of the fact that people will “come around” if they only know the facts that a given leftist knows, but, rather, because that given leftist is off and running…proving that he/she knows something that “the other” doesn’t know.

The Hispanic students that my colleague met with yesterday in an effort to form solidarity in California –as per my Dream Party article here– know in their bones the rotten to the core capability of U.S. powers, and they’d like to see the likes of “us” use our precious time to form solidarity with them, not go over old ground.

The 9/11 POINT should be that whether or not a given leftist can convince “others” that so and so was responsible…the POINT is that so and so is CAPABLE (in terms of mental set, attitudinally, in fact) of doing such dastardly deeds. Less time on a given specific, a little time on testing the waters w those who you’re trying to “organize” will be time better spent. Are you trying to organize? Or are you involved in arguing and the like? Or something else? Good questions.

Where will the $$$ come from for stuff like health coverage? Don’t get distracted by all the talk about the ECONOMY. You can’t save yourself in that regard. What you can do is to reject old flypaper on the wall “stuckness” in old models…and get involved in something truly new…something along the lines of what I’ve written about on this site.

The U.S. cannot fight any wars without the support of the state of California. I am involved in a movement to take over the state…vis-a-vis placement of a governor in Sacramento who will make a difference. Ron Paul would divert money spent on Iraq to spending $$ to battle poor Mexicans on the Border, placing landmines –perhaps– in the way of starving immigrants. If you like that scenario vote for Ronnie. The Guv Thing is very complex, but easily becomes attractive and understandable with a private meeting with me; it can’t be sound-bit here…and requires in-person contact, not the written word i public.

The pro-choice issue that Alice has rammed home is significant. So are many other issues put on the backburner by the Pauline People who would have us believe one can end the slaughter in Iraq, the drain on the economy compliments of the military in the Middle East…without addressing other issues simultaneously. It’s not a matter of a candidate being PERFECT. Rather, it’s a clear case of not wanting to put power in the hands of someone who’s so callous about certain segments of the population at home and abroad.

All of you people –incuding the person who’s getting eyeglasses or whatever at WalMart -yeech!- contact me at bcendra@yahoo.com to get to a walk the walk stage. LOve, MC

So true.

And then we have “leftists” trying to convince us that the war in Iraq is about oil. While I agree with Ron’s objection to supporting Paul and his assessment that the reason for the interest in Paul is due to the failures of the left he doesn’t explain why the left is in a state of disarray.

The left decided to self destruct rather than coalesce against the war. This is why I disagree with Ron when he says there is no easy way to get out of this mess we find ourselves in…. The problem is the duplicity, denials, and dishonesty on the left. The solution is obvious but IMO there is little resolve on the left to honestly confront their denials.

Yep. Whats an Iraqi’s life worth compared to my pension.

And then we have Barack Obama trying to convince us racism is dead. With ‘progressives’ likes these, who needs the KKK?

it goes like this. once you realise 911 was a false flag op, you know, entirely a put up job made in the usa, that means the entire imperialist project abroad which is justified by the 911 false flag attacks are, ipso facto, also BOGUS, BULLSHIT, WRONG, WITHOUT A GENUINE BASIS and so on… making the conceptual leap into 911 truth is probably the most radicalising step most ordinary people will ever make.

Anyhow, this being said, the dollar is going through a meltdown. Please tell me where the money will come from to balance the budget AND do universal health care? The window is closing real fast on that. I don’t see it at all.