From.... http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00471.htm

The Soldier Vote

When You Lay It On The Line
Voting Doesn’t Come Easy

http://www.scoop.co.nz/images/scoop-logo.gif

ByMichael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, DC

Those Who Defend the Vote Deserve the Vote: The American Revolution

Soldiers of the American Revolutionary Army forcefully argued that they had the right to vote. Restrictions to voting based on property and other criteria were common in colonial America to assure the right type of voters. Washington’s troops were acutely aware of the injustice of their sacrifices for a freedom that they lacked.

Several states responded to these demands by expanding the franchise. For example, Pennsylvania’s radical constitution abolished property ownership as a requirement for voting. Male voting rights were based only on one requirement: to vote you needed to be a tax payer.

The Revolutionary Army’s demand for voting rights was a strong influence that spread democratic ideals. While the wealthy in other states were troubled by Pennsylvania’s consistent application of revolutionary ideals, those states were ultimately influenced by the general trend toward democracy generated by the war time contributions of citizens from all economic classes.

During the war, many patriot militiamen claimed the right to elect their officers; subsequently, many veterans, whether or not they had property, demanded the franchise. And when they voted, they chose different sorts of leaders. Before the war, about 85 percent of the assembly were wealthy men; by 1784, however, middling farmers and artisans controlled the lower houses of most northern states and formed a sizable minority in the southern states. Oxford University Press

Snip

… But in one state with a commitment to the broadest possible franchise, the soldiers made the difference for Lincoln. The Pennsylvania soldier vote exceeded Lincoln’s margin of victory and saved that critical state for those loyal to the Union cause.

http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0705/251ff8d66820906d36a4.jpeg
Pennsylvania’s Civil War soldiers are seen in this Harpers Weekly] story from 10 October 1864. Pennsylvania was one
of the few states that made voting easier for its soldiers at war. The state lowered the voting age form 21 to 18 and
removed many common voting restrictions of that era. Lincoln won the state’s popular vote by 19 thousand votes. The
soldier vote in just the Army of the Potomac contributed 14 of the 19 thousand vote margin.

http://americancivilwar.com/pictures/colored_infantry.jpg

That wasn't the only distinction for revolutionary Pennsylvania during the Civil War. Just 4 months after the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Regiment (immortalized in the movie, Glory) was organized, Pennsylvania mustered the first of 10 black regiments (approx. 10,000 troops) from freemen and ex-slaves in the state:

3rd United States Colored Regiment - Served alongside the 54th Mass. at Fort Wagner. "The courage and good conduct displayed by this regiment, composed as it was, entirely of colored soldiers, were highly creditable, and were commended in an order by the General commanding the Department of the South. It was somewhat remarkable, that the regiment never lost a man as prisoner, though raiding parties not unfrequently were beaten, and driven by superior numbers. The general feeling among the men seemed to be, that immediate death was preferable to the treatment likely to be experienced as prisoners, On one occasion, a soldier who had been surrounded and driven into the river, stubbornly refused repeated calls to surrender, and was killed on the spot."

6th United States Colored Regiment - "On the 29th of September, General Ord, in command of the Eighteenth Corps, attacked and carried a long line of intrenchments below Chapin's Farm. At the same time, General Birney advanced from Deep Bottom, driving the enemy on the New Market Road, back to the heights. In this movement, the Fourth and Sixth Colored had the advance, and gallantly pushed the enemy, until he had arrived at his intrenchments forming the outer defences of Richmond. Here a halt was ordered, and preparations were made for an assault. The enemy was strongly posted and was in heavy force; but at the signal to advance, the Sixth went gallantly forward in the face of a withering fire which thinned its ranks at every step. In its course, it was obliged to cross a small stream, and then an open field; but without wavering, it pressed on until more than half its numbers had fallen, and nearly all its officers were lost; when, seeing the fruitlessness of further pushing the charge with so weak a force, the signal was given to retire. The regiment entered the battle with three hundred and sixty-seven, rank and file. Of this number, three officers and thirtynine men were killed, eleven officers and one hundred and fifty men wounded, and seven missing, an aggregate of two hundred and ten, more than sixty-two per cent. of its strength...

"General Butler, in an order of October 11, said: "' Of the colored soldiers of the Third Division of the Tenth and Eighteenth corps, the general commanding desires to make special mention. In the charge on the enemy's works by the Colored Division of the Eighteenth Corps, at Spring Hill and New Market, better men were never better led, better officers never led better men. With hardly an exception, officers of colored troops have justified the care with which they have been selected. A few more such charges, and to commnand colored troops will be the post of honor in the American armies. The colored soldiers, by coolness, steadiness, and determined courage and dash, have silenced every cavil of the doubters of their soldierly capacity, and drawn tokens of admiration from their enemies"

8th United States Colored Regiment - At Olustee, in February, 1864: "Without awaiting the arrival of the rest of his force, Seymour put the Seventh New Hampshire in position on the right of the road, and the Eighth Colored upon the left, and pushed them at once into action. The Eighth, though scarcely a month from camp, and with hardly any skill in handling a musket, boldly advanced in face of a withering fire from the enemy's strong and well chosen lines. Hamilton's guns thundered in its rear, adding to the terrors, and in some instances to the dangers of its position; but still it stood firm. For three-quarters of an hour, the action raged with unabated fury, these raw troops maintaining their ground without the least shelter, with a courage worthy of veterans."

And so on for the rest:

22nd United States Colored Regiment
24th United States Colored Regiment
32nd United States Colored Regiment
41st United States Colored Regiment
43rd United States Colored Regiment
45th United States Colored Regiment
127th United States Colored Regiment

.

Clearly the subject deserved a longer article but that wasn't my intention. It was simple - point out the irony and sad contradiction of asking men and women to go die, risk life and limb, lose their family, and then not e able to participate in the decision making process involved in the war being fought. That's not to say that the soldier vote could, in all cases or even most, have an effect on the war policy. But it certainly had a huge effect in the case of Lincoln and Roosevelt and the respective races for the House in 1864 and both chambers in 1944. Imagine President McClellan and President Dewey. Wonderful stuff.

Of some interest, this article, to me looked like a perfect fit for the front page of every progressive internet 'zine out there. It's in the theme of a correction to the disastrous strategy of Viet Nam war resistance - insulting and attacking soldiers. But it received less of a reception than others I've put out there. Could be timing, skeleton staff on Memorial Day, etc. But damn, it was a slow pitch that few hit. It's the only thing I've written to date of course, that I really fretted over in terms of distribution. Go figure.

Clearly the subject deserved a longer article but that wasn't my intention. It was simple - point out the irony and sad contradiction of asking men and women to go die, risk life and limb, lose their family, and then not e able to participate in the decision making process involved in the war being fought. That's not to say that the soldier vote could, in all cases or even most, have an effect on the war policy. But it certainly had a huge effect in the case of Lincoln and Roosevelt and the respective races for the House in 1864 and both chambers in 1944. Imagine President McClellan and President Dewey. Wonderful stuff.

Of some interest, this article, to me looked like a perfect fit for the front page of every progressive internet 'zine out there. It's in the theme of a correction to the disastrous strategy of Viet Nam war resistance - insulting and attacking soldiers. But it received less of a reception than others I've put out there. Could be timing, skeleton staff on Memorial Day, etc. But damn, it was a slow pitch that few hit. It's the only thing I've written to date of course, that I really fretted over in terms of distribution. Go figure.

Auto, there is so many swirling currents of Did so! Did not! that I've never known what to make of the claim that soldiers were systematically insulted and attacked. I've taken it on faith to be true, but then today represents a startling polarity shift. Newswolf has a personal account of it happening to him I think. Even the snarling leftys of the big sites rarely dare to tread there (although I think in an underlying sense many do blame the troops..if only as a reactionary stance to the "support da troops" stuff coming full-bore from the Right).

Would you say that was a tactic of the Anti-war movement during Vietnam - calling the troops babykillers and etc? I don't really see how that works or what it would have been seen to accomplish..?

Personally, I don't really know where to stand on the question. There are alot of dumbfucks who get off on killing and shit, thats for sure. It looks like the military has made tactical use of those types (Abu Ghraib being just the beginning) although there are so many cross purposes I've never even tried to sort them all out (inflame anti-American sentiment seems to be a biggie though).

Clearly the subject deserved a longer article but that wasn't my intention. It was simple - point out the irony and sad contradiction of asking men and women to go die, risk life and limb, lose their family, and then not e able to participate in the decision making process involved in the war being fought. That's not to say that the soldier vote could, in all cases or even most, have an effect on the war policy. But it certainly had a huge effect in the case of Lincoln and Roosevelt and the respective races for the House in 1864 and both chambers in 1944. Imagine President McClellan and President Dewey. Wonderful stuff.

Of some interest, this article, to me looked like a perfect fit for the front page of every progressive internet 'zine out there. It's in the theme of a correction to the disastrous strategy of Viet Nam war resistance - insulting and attacking soldiers. But it received less of a reception than others I've put out there. Could be timing, skeleton staff on Memorial Day, etc. But damn, it was a slow pitch that few hit. It's the only thing I've written to date of course, that I really fretted over in terms of distribution. Go figure.

Auto, there is so many swirling currents of Did so! Did not! that I've never known what to make of the claim that soldiers were systematically insulted and attacked. I've taken it on faith to be true, but then today represents a startling polarity shift. Newswolf has a personal account of it happening to him I think. Even the snarling leftys of the big sites rarely dare to tread there (although I think in an underlying sense many do blame the troops..if only as a reactionary stance to the "support da troops" stuff coming full-bore from the Right).

Would you say that was a tactic of the Anti-war movement during Vietnam - calling the troops babykillers and etc? I don't really see how that works or what it would have been seen to accomplish..?

Personally, I don't really know where to stand on the question. There are alot of dumbfucks who get off on killing and shit, thats for sure. It looks like the military has made tactical use of those types (Abu Ghraib being just the beginning) although there are so many cross purposes I've never even tried to sort them all out (inflame anti-American sentiment seems to be a biggie though).

Right you are. Urban fucking legend! There have been MANY attempts to document such a "strategy" with no fucking results.

Of course there were splits within the generation. I told several of my friends where to go... Didn't throw any shit though (din't think of it or I would have).

Respecting "the troops" is exactly the same as "Support Your Local Police".

Nah... thank you, though.

.

The article was generic regarding the rights of people who signed up for military service or were drafter. They should be
able to vote. The fact that it's not made simple or not really made available on some occasions is the outrage. I wasn't
writing my occasional screed and wanted to portray the facts...military voting is screwed up by those in government who
wrap themselves in the flag; just like military health care is screwed up. The well documented problems of Viet Nam vets
and the failure of the government and Congressional supporters to deal quickly with those problems is PURE BULL SHIT. I
place this type of reasoning in the same category as those opposing abortion consistently voting against maternal and child
health, health care for those in need etc. It's OK to insist that they be born but once that happens, "we can't be bothered."



I think it's a distorted version of life and death...a fetus is life; a living baby, soldier, etc. in need is somehow worth less
effort than the fetus. I could go on...stem cell research; the less life like, the greater the support.

Now lets hop in the way back machine. I'll be I'll be Mr. Peabody and you be Sherman:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Peabody_sherman.jpg
(That's Sherman on the left.)
-------------
Peabody: OK Sherman, lets get in the way backmachine. We're going back to 1967. There's a terrible war on and
the US is fighting it. The people really don't want the war and there an anti war movement.
Sherman: Gee Mr. Peabody, that's great!
Peabody: Hold on Sherman there a few things you need to know. The anti-war protesters have a great case and
lots of documentation.
Sherman: What's wrong with that Mr. Peabody.
Peabody: Well Sherman, a few things. In addition to that case, the protesters have spokespeople who are down right
offensive to the population they're trying to persuade. Some of them appear in a way offensive to the people and some
of their speakers/leaders (who fly all over who knows how) give speeches where they call orginary citizens names.
Sherman: Wow, that's really strange.
Peabody: Yep, and it gets worse. The more the people want out the more offensive the leaders become in their rhetoric.
Sherman: So What happened?
Peabody: Well the war lasted for a time longer than any American war. Millions died, millions more were injured.
A country was devastated and America lost ground in the expansion of social welfare.
Sherman: All because the protest leaders were offensive?
Peabody: No, Sherman, you total dunce of a pet human. The people of the country had the responsibility to end the war
by changing governments. They also chose a leader, Nixon, who made a promise to end it quickly. They knew he was a
liar. But the protest leaders may just have had a shot if they'd not been so offensive and if they'd sought to organize the
troops by at least avoiding offending the very people that they needed to achieve a clear, insistant majority. It wouldn't
have been as fun for those leaders. It was all about their self-expression - "me." As Dr. Rank says, "Narcissism is often
the strategy of the inferior individual once he has a chance to succeed...it brings about failure, which then allows self pity."
Sherman: Wow, thanks Mr. Peabody. Since we're backin the 60's can we hang out in San Francisco for a while?
-------------------

I love this subject. I'm sure that many of the stories about this and that abuse of troops were planted. They had people
doing that stuff. I know that they had people provoking violence at demonstrations. But the anti war leadership was full of
you know what for playing ego based checkers instead of socially responsible based chess.

I was near the stage when AJerry Rubin spoke at a huge rally. At the end, he thought the microphone was off he said to
one of the others This the most fun yet or something similar and I thought, "You mouthy little >>>>, this isn't about you
and your fun loving tour of the USA, it's about the f'ing war." They left town shortly and that evening there was some
violence and a death or two. Nice work assholes.

There were fine people opposing the war but those at the front,the "face men" were really goof balls.

Clearly the subject deserved a longer article but that wasn't my intention. It was simple - point out the irony and sad contradiction of asking men and women to go die, risk life and limb, lose their family, and then not e able to participate in the decision making process involved in the war being fought. That's not to say that the soldier vote could, in all cases or even most, have an effect on the war policy. But it certainly had a huge effect in the case of Lincoln and Roosevelt and the respective races for the House in 1864 and both chambers in 1944. Imagine President McClellan and President Dewey. Wonderful stuff.

Of some interest, this article, to me looked like a perfect fit for the front page of every progressive internet 'zine out there. It's in the theme of a correction to the disastrous strategy of Viet Nam war resistance - insulting and attacking soldiers. But it received less of a reception than others I've put out there. Could be timing, skeleton staff on Memorial Day, etc. But damn, it was a slow pitch that few hit. It's the only thing I've written to date of course, that I really fretted over in terms of distribution. Go figure.

Auto, there is so many swirling currents of Did so! Did not! that I've never known what to make of the claim that soldiers were systematically insulted and attacked. I've taken it on faith to be true, but then today represents a startling polarity shift. Newswolf has a personal account of it happening to him I think. Even the snarling leftys of the big sites rarely dare to tread there (although I think in an underlying sense many do blame the troops..if only as a reactionary stance to the "support da troops" stuff coming full-bore from the Right).

Would you say that was a tactic of the Anti-war movement during Vietnam - calling the troops babykillers and etc? I don't really see how that works or what it would have been seen to accomplish..?

Personally, I don't really know where to stand on the question. There are alot of dumbfucks who get off on killing and shit, thats for sure. It looks like the military has made tactical use of those types (Abu Ghraib being just the beginning) although there are so many cross purposes I've never even tried to sort them all out (inflame anti-American sentiment seems to be a biggie though).

Kid, My point was not about attacking the troops, I was just whining about the wast of a nice opportunity with this
article. It got rave reviews from the people I try them out on who aren't that political AND it shows a cynicism over
time on the part of those who send soldiers to war.

As for the discussion on offending troops, I don't think that there was much nastiness to troops in any war, including Viet Nam and certainly not this one. My point was/is that tactically, if you want to end a war, you don't attack the troops. It's simple logic given the terrain. Ses my response to Anax, where I address this in a Socratic style;)

The article was generic regarding the rights of people who signed up for military service or were drafter. They should be
able to vote. The fact that it's not made simple or not really made available on some occasions is the outrage. I wasn't
writing my occasional screed and wanted to portray the facts...military voting is screwed up by those in government who
wrap themselves in the flag; just like military health care is screwed up. The well documented problems of Viet Nam vets
and the failure of the government and Congressional supporters to deal quickly with those problems is PURE BULL SHIT. I
place this type of reasoning in the same category as those opposing abortion consistently voting against maternal and child
health, health care for those in need etc. It's OK to insist that they be born but once that happens, "we can't be bothered."



I think it's a distorted version of life and death...a fetus is life; a living baby, soldier, etc. in need is somehow worth less
effort than the fetus. I could go on...stem cell research; the less life like, the greater the support.

Now lets hop in the way back machine. I'll be I'll be Mr. Peabody and you be Sherman:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Peabody_sherman.jpg
(That's Sherman on the left.)
-------------
Peabody: OK Sherman, lets get in the way backmachine. We're going back to 1967. There's a terrible war on and
the US is fighting it. The people really don't want the war and there an anti war movement.
Sherman: Gee Mr. Peabody, that's great!
Peabody: Hold on Sherman there a few things you need to know. The anti-war protesters have a great case and
lots of documentation.
Sherman: What's wrong with that Mr. Peabody.
Peabody: Well Sherman, a few things. In addition to that case, the protesters have spokespeople who are down right
offensive to the population they're trying to persuade. Some of them appear in a way offensive to the people and some
of their speakers/leaders (who fly all over who knows how) give speeches where they call orginary citizens names.
Sherman: Wow, that's really strange.
Peabody: Yep, and it gets worse. The more the people want out the more offensive the leaders become in their rhetoric.
Sherman: So What happened?
Peabody: Well the war lasted for a time longer than any American war. Millions died, millions more were injured.
A country was devastated and America lost ground in the expansion of social welfare.
Sherman: All because the protest leaders were offensive?
Peabody: No, Sherman, you total dunce of a pet human. The people of the country had the responsibility to end the war
by changing governments. They also chose a leader, Nixon, who made a promise to end it quickly. They knew he was a
liar. But the protest leaders may just have had a shot if they'd not been so offensive and if they'd sought to organize the
troops by at least avoiding offending the very people that they needed to achieve a clear, insistant majority. It wouldn't
have been as fun for those leaders. It was all about their self-expression - "me." As Dr. Rank says, "Narcissism is often
the strategy of the inferior individual once he has a chance to succeed...it brings about failure, which then allows self pity."
Sherman: Wow, thanks Mr. Peabody. Since we're backin the 60's can we hang out in San Francisco for a while?
-------------------

I love this subject. I'm sure that many of the stories about this and that abuse of troops were planted. They had people
doing that stuff. I know that they had people provoking violence at demonstrations. But the anti war leadership was full of
you know what for playing ego based checkers instead of socially responsible based chess.

I was near the stage when AJerry Rubin spoke at a huge rally. At the end, he thought the microphone was off he said to
one of the others This the most fun yet or something similar and I thought, "You mouthy little >>>>, this isn't about you
and your fun loving tour of the USA, it's about the f'ing war." They left town shortly and that evening there was some
violence and a death or two. Nice work assholes.

There were fine people opposing the war but those at the front,the "face men" were really goof balls.

Boy Mr. Peabody, that is some selective wayback machine - no doubt built by Peabody and Sons Inc., of Madison Ave. I heard this one at least a million times: "But the protest leaders may just have had a shot if they'd not been so offensive and if they'd sought to organize the troops by at least avoiding offending the very people that they needed to achieve a clear, insistant majority."

Yep, it's all about a "majority", ain't it (only "legitimate" way to go)? And we sure were close to a majority weren't we? Take a look at the Democratic Convention of 1968. There must have been 30 or 40 votes by then. If we hadn't offended so many, maybe it might have got to say 50 or 60 - that would have left only another 400 plus to go. Why, I'm sure that those fresh scrubbed, "we're your kids", Eugene McCarthy childrens crusaders got ten all by themselves. Too bad Jane Fonda turned them all off by being "mouthy".

This is quite a load in the diapers, Dr. Rank, and if you don't mind me saying, quite a right-wing load. A million dead was an act of nature but some bullshit talk was "truly offensive".

The resistance to the war was largely spontaneous. The "leadership" was too. It came about that way because the destruction of the left was near total during McCarthyism as was the defection of the Democratic Party from the New Deal after the purge of Henry Wallace. The movement against the war was self-creating. It included everyone under the sun. So Jerry Rubin was an asshole? So what? He didn't exactly hide it. He became a stock broker shortly after the war was over. Frankly, I preferred him when he was having "fun". Rennie Davis is in the rogues gallery of this very board. He was an asshole back then, too. So what? More power to the contribution he actually made... it was a hell of a lot more than he is making now.

Spontaneous movements cause friction and make heat. It is in the nature of the beast. There was no discipline violated because there was no discipline. It makes the sacrifice even more praise-worthy. Lecturing the past on "how we do things here" is the height of confusion.

"The well documented problems of the Vietnam vets"... You mean the ones with American citizenship? I figured as much.

http://www.robl.w1.com/Pix/C696146.jpg
.

Clearly the subject deserved a longer article but that wasn't my intention. It was simple - point out the irony and sad contradiction of asking men and women to go die, risk life and limb, lose their family, and then not e able to participate in the decision making process involved in the war being fought. That's not to say that the soldier vote could, in all cases or even most, have an effect on the war policy. But it certainly had a huge effect in the case of Lincoln and Roosevelt and the respective races for the House in 1864 and both chambers in 1944. Imagine President McClellan and President Dewey. Wonderful stuff.

Of some interest, this article, to me looked like a perfect fit for the front page of every progressive internet 'zine out there. It's in the theme of a correction to the disastrous strategy of Viet Nam war resistance - insulting and attacking soldiers. But it received less of a reception than others I've put out there. Could be timing, skeleton staff on Memorial Day, etc. But damn, it was a slow pitch that few hit. It's the only thing I've written to date of course, that I really fretted over in terms of distribution. Go figure.

Auto, there is so many swirling currents of Did so! Did not! that I've never known what to make of the claim that soldiers were systematically insulted and attacked. I've taken it on faith to be true, but then today represents a startling polarity shift. Newswolf has a personal account of it happening to him I think. Even the snarling leftys of the big sites rarely dare to tread there (although I think in an underlying sense many do blame the troops..if only as a reactionary stance to the "support da troops" stuff coming full-bore from the Right).

Would you say that was a tactic of the Anti-war movement during Vietnam - calling the troops babykillers and etc? I don't really see how that works or what it would have been seen to accomplish..?

Personally, I don't really know where to stand on the question. There are alot of dumbfucks who get off on killing and shit, thats for sure. It looks like the military has made tactical use of those types (Abu Ghraib being just the beginning) although there are so many cross purposes I've never even tried to sort them all out (inflame anti-American sentiment seems to be a biggie though).

Kid, My point was not about attacking the troops, I was just whining about the wast of a nice opportunity with this
article. It got rave reviews from the people I try them out on who aren't that political AND it shows a cynicism over
time on the part of those who send soldiers to war.

As for the discussion on offending troops, I don't think that there was much nastiness to troops in any war, including Viet Nam and certainly not this one. My point was/is that tactically, if you want to end a war, you don't attack the troops. It's simple logic given the terrain. Ses my response to Anax, where I address this in a Socratic style;)

I was really just asking the question of what was true and what has been "added" to the history books posthumously. Anax is the one you offended, not me.

I have no idea what constitutes an effective anti-war movement, it doesn't seem like anybody else does either..

The article was generic regarding the rights of people who signed up for military service or were drafter. They should be
able to vote. The fact that it's not made simple or not really made available on some occasions is the outrage. I wasn't
writing my occasional screed and wanted to portray the facts...military voting is screwed up by those in government who
wrap themselves in the flag; just like military health care is screwed up. The well documented problems of Viet Nam vets
and the failure of the government and Congressional supporters to deal quickly with those problems is PURE BULL SHIT. I
place this type of reasoning in the same category as those opposing abortion consistently voting against maternal and child
health, health care for those in need etc. It's OK to insist that they be born but once that happens, "we can't be bothered."



I think it's a distorted version of life and death...a fetus is life; a living baby, soldier, etc. in need is somehow worth less
effort than the fetus. I could go on...stem cell research; the less life like, the greater the support.

Now lets hop in the way back machine. I'll be I'll be Mr. Peabody and you be Sherman:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Peabody_sherman.jpg
(That's Sherman on the left.)
-------------
Peabody: OK Sherman, lets get in the way backmachine. We're going back to 1967. There's a terrible war on and
the US is fighting it. The people really don't want the war and there an anti war movement.
Sherman: Gee Mr. Peabody, that's great!
Peabody: Hold on Sherman there a few things you need to know. The anti-war protesters have a great case and
lots of documentation.
Sherman: What's wrong with that Mr. Peabody.
Peabody: Well Sherman, a few things. In addition to that case, the protesters have spokespeople who are down right
offensive to the population they're trying to persuade. Some of them appear in a way offensive to the people and some
of their speakers/leaders (who fly all over who knows how) give speeches where they call orginary citizens names.
Sherman: Wow, that's really strange.
Peabody: Yep, and it gets worse. The more the people want out the more offensive the leaders become in their rhetoric.
Sherman: So What happened?
Peabody: Well the war lasted for a time longer than any American war. Millions died, millions more were injured.
A country was devastated and America lost ground in the expansion of social welfare.
Sherman: All because the protest leaders were offensive?
Peabody: No, Sherman, you total dunce of a pet human. The people of the country had the responsibility to end the war
by changing governments. They also chose a leader, Nixon, who made a promise to end it quickly. They knew he was a
liar. But the protest leaders may just have had a shot if they'd not been so offensive and if they'd sought to organize the
troops by at least avoiding offending the very people that they needed to achieve a clear, insistant majority. It wouldn't
have been as fun for those leaders. It was all about their self-expression - "me." As Dr. Rank says, "Narcissism is often
the strategy of the inferior individual once he has a chance to succeed...it brings about failure, which then allows self pity."
Sherman: Wow, thanks Mr. Peabody. Since we're backin the 60's can we hang out in San Francisco for a while?
-------------------

I love this subject. I'm sure that many of the stories about this and that abuse of troops were planted. They had people
doing that stuff. I know that they had people provoking violence at demonstrations. But the anti war leadership was full of
you know what for playing ego based checkers instead of socially responsible based chess.

I was near the stage when AJerry Rubin spoke at a huge rally. At the end, he thought the microphone was off he said to
one of the others This the most fun yet or something similar and I thought, "You mouthy little >>>>, this isn't about you
and your fun loving tour of the USA, it's about the f'ing war." They left town shortly and that evening there was some
violence and a death or two. Nice work assholes.

There were fine people opposing the war but those at the front,the "face men" were really goof balls.

Boy Mr. Peabody, that is some selective wayback machine - no doubt built by Peabody and Sons Inc., of Madison Ave. I heard this one at least a million times: "But the protest leaders may just have had a shot if they'd not been so offensive and if they'd sought to organize the troops by at least avoiding offending the very people that they needed to achieve a clear, insistant majority."

Yep, it's all about a "majority", ain't it (only "legitimate" way to go)? And we sure were close to a majority weren't we? Take a look at the Democratic Convention of 1968. There must have been 30 or 40 votes by then. If we hadn't offended so many, maybe it might have got to say 50 or 60 - that would have left only another 400 plus to go. Why, I'm sure that those fresh scrubbed, "we're your kids", Eugene McCarthy childrens crusaders got ten all by themselves. Too bad Jane Fonda turned them all off by being "mouthy".

This is quite a load in the diapers, Dr. Rank, and if you don't mind me saying, quite a right-wing load. A million dead was an act of nature but some bullshit talk was "truly offensive".

The resistance to the war was largely spontaneous. The "leadership" was too. It came about that way because the destruction of the left was near total during McCarthyism as was the defection of the Democratic Party from the New Deal after the purge of Henry Wallace. The movement against the war was self-creating. It included everyone under the sun. So Jerry Rubin was an asshole? So what? He didn't exactly hide it. He became a stock broker shortly after the war was over. Frankly, I preferred him when he was having "fun". Rennie Davis is in the rogues gallery of this very board. He was an asshole back then, too. So what? More power to the contribution he actually made... it was a hell of a lot more than he is making now.

Spontaneous movements cause friction and make heat. It is in the nature of the beast. There was no discipline violated because there was no discipline. It makes the sacrifice even more praise-worthy. Lecturing the past on "how we do things here" is the height of confusion.

"The well documented problems of the Vietnam vets"... You mean the ones with American citizenship? I figured as much.

http://www.robl.w1.com/Pix/C696146.jpg
.


"This is quite a load in the diapers, Dr. Rank, and if you don't mind me saying, quite a right-wing load. A million dead was an act of nature but some bullshit talk was "truly offensive". "

Well powder me and put me to bed. It's not diapers at all. It's about winning, being effective, getting the job done.

I don't like being on the losing side but I'm willing to be there if people are doing what it takes to make progress towards change. It wasn't 1.0 million dead. It was more. 1.7 million, American phase, 3.5 million total.

Second Indochina War (1960-75): 3 500 000 [make link]

* Vietnam War (1965-73): 1 700 000
o Most historians of the Second Indochina War concern themselves primarily with the American Phase of the conflict, 1965-73; however, many do not specify whether their estimated death tolls cover only this phase of the war or the whole thing. An asterisk(*) indicates that the number seems to cover the entire conflict rather than just the American Phase, but check the "Sources" section to see exactly which years are covered by each authority: "

[b]Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975-1978): 1 650 000 [make link]

Both at:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm

Now, I'm right wing because I find the highest value in supporting the continuation of human life, all of it, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, regardless of national affiliation

I think that's worth wearing a suit. I agree that the anti war movement STARTED spontaneously. I also agree that it was, at times, a reflection of the personalities of the leaders, which included tantrums....fucking tantrums...look at the death totals. You don't like tantrums. Neither do I, particularly when human life is on the line. In fact, since we're discussing it, I find the behavior totally unforgivable once things got rolling and it was obvious that being a fucking flower child got in the way of getting people on your side (who cares why they agree, just that they do and they act in support of your mission).

It's right wing to support cellular and embryonic life forms and humanist to support the living, everywhere. That's what I am, a human-ist...let those alive live as well as possible, don't kill them, don't bomb, torture, and maim them; when lots of them are getting killed and injured, take the advise of the only 'ad man' necessary, and read Aristotle's Rhetoric. You use the best available means to persuade your audience by promoting an identification between you and them. Kenneth Burke did a nice follow up on Aristotle in the middle of the last century (feeling old are wel;). Why do you do that? Well as Aristotle figured out, it's necessary to promote that identification so they'll listen to you.

I do not agree that there was no chance to turn things around, but it was then like now, very difficult. In fact, the parallel is there isn't it. 71% now favor ending Iraq and what do the Democrats do when they're elected with that message. Nothing. Nothing at all and we lack the life-style divides of the 60's and early 70's.

You're right, of course (as though I'm an expert;), about the evisceration of the left wing of the Democratic Party. I grew up in a family where Eugene V. Debs was viewed as a man of honor and commitment. Was he? I bet he was because my favorite uncle had been in the plumbers union and he told me so (he was also a scary dude so I tended to agree). Did Debs show up dressed in drag to persuade people like my uncle? That would have been a career ending event.

Today we have the 'politics of personal destruction' in the forefront, a mild version of McCarthyism but more organized and relentless. In the the 60's we had the politics of personal expression, which helped fuel the spontaneous beginnings of the anti war movement. But it didn't carry forward. There were all sorts of organizations, discussions, etc. The message was there - ultimately the public just go fed up and then it was over.

I don't have the answers but I know what isn't an acceptable answer, carrying on endlessly when the message is there, change course, tune in, turn on, drop the acting out and tantrums.

For me it all comes back to who is doing the damn killing and what's their major malfunction. Do they think we're a bunch of ants? YES Do they care if we live or die while they promote war and pollute the planet in ways that guarantee hundreds of millions of deaths of children due to climate change (recent UN report)? APPARENTLY NOT.

You can't have humanity and human rights and culture (even avant garde culture) without being alive. Means no killing, maiming, torturing. People here, Viet Nam, Iraq, German, Jordan, etc. etc. ALL have an equal entitlement to living. If it takes a little adjustment now and then to make the case (which the "leaders" ignore anyway) then why not?

Now, I'm right wing because I find the highest value in supporting the continuation of human life, all of it, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, regardless of national affiliation

I think that's worth wearing a suit. I agree that the anti war movement STARTED spontaneously. I also agree that it was, at times, a reflection of the personalities of the leaders, which included tantrums....fucking tantrums...look at the death totals. You don't like tantrums. Neither do I, particularly when human life is on the line. In fact, since we're discussing it, I find the behavior totally unforgivable once things got rolling and it was obvious that being a fucking flower child got in the way of getting people on your side (who cares why they agree, just that they do and they act in support of your mission).

It's right wing to support cellular and embryonic life forms and humanist to support the living, everywhere. That's what I am, a human-ist...let those alive live as well as possible, don't kill them, don't bomb, torture, and maim them; when lots of them are getting killed and injured, take the advise of the only 'ad man' necessary, and read Aristotle's Rhetoric. You use the best available means to persuade your audience by promoting an identification between you and them. Kenneth Burke did a nice follow up on Aristotle in the middle of the last century (feeling old are wel;). Why do you do that? Well as Aristotle figured out, it's necessary to promote that identification so they'll listen to you.

I do not agree that there was no chance to turn things around, but it was then like now, very difficult. In fact, the parallel is there isn't it. 71% now favor ending Iraq and what do the Democrats do when they're elected with that message. Nothing. Nothing at all and we lack the life-style divides of the 60's and early 70's.

You're right, of course (as though I'm an expert;), about the evisceration of the left wing of the Democratic Party. I grew up in a family where Eugene V. Debs was viewed as a man of honor and commitment. Was he? I bet he was because my favorite uncle had been in the plumbers union and he told me so (he was also a scary dude so I tended to agree). Did Debs show up dressed in drag to persuade people like my uncle? That would have been a career ending event.

Today we have the 'politics of personal destruction' in the forefront, a mild version of McCarthyism but more organized and relentless. In the the 60's we had the politics of personal expression, which helped fuel the spontaneous beginnings of the anti war movement. But it didn't carry forward. There were all sorts of organizations, discussions, etc. The message was there - ultimately the public just go fed up and then it was over.

I don't have the answers but I know what isn't an acceptable answer, carrying on endlessly when the message is there, change course, tune in, turn on, drop the acting out and tantrums.

For me it all comes back to who is doing the damn killing and what's their major malfunction. Do they think we're a bunch of ants? YES Do they care if we live or die while they promote war and pollute the planet in ways that guarantee hundreds of millions of deaths of children due to climate change (recent UN report)? APPARENTLY NOT.

You can't have humanity and human rights and culture (even avant garde culture) without being alive. Means no killing, maiming, torturing. People here, Viet Nam, Iraq, German, Jordan, etc. etc. ALL have an equal entitlement to living. If it takes a little adjustment now and then to make the case (which the "leaders" ignore anyway) then why not?

Well, Dr. Rank, ya know I love ya or I wouldn't work with you. But, read what you have written above. The old logic and "humanist" sentiment is fraying badly. Perhaps it hangs together for you but for me, you are a prisoner of your own predisposition.

Start anywhere and let's consider it.

Debs?

The fucker sold out the movement, didn't he? All that was important about the populist movement and then, the Socialist Party: the focus on the economic conditions of people right here in America - didn't he turn his back on all of that when he decided to oppose the First World War? The war was very popular; perhaps the very expression of national patriotism. And for America, it was largely irrelevent. By the time the U.S. really got into it, it was almost over... a few thousand dead, a little saber-rattling and it would pass into the night. What an egotistical character Debs was, to have gone to prison to oppose it, despite being given every opportunity to avoid it. And yes, maybe he got a few votes while he was there but the movement he led was essentially finished by the time he got out. What a grand-stander to have engaged in a "career-ending event".

Aristotle and rhetoric?

You already know that this is a subject close to my heart. But the rhetoric Aristotle discusses is a conversation within the class. I have no doubt that the advice was well postulated when talking amongst the slave owners. But it was a different conversation altogether when talking to the slaves. Ask the Spartans about how their nobility was bought at the price of continuous slave revolt. And when even the houshold slaves revolted during the final war with Athens, how self-indulgent of those slaves to have ignored such sage advice as Aristotle's, which they knew at least as well as their illiterate masters. Instead of their upheaval, could they not have petitioned their owners with that turn of the head, that mark of servitude, known to every Spartan and helot, alike?

I fear, Dr. Rank, that you are merely repeating the catechism of obsequeseness, the required oral examination given to all who enter the halls of the professions and other such noble pursuits. I have heard the chorus before. One John Kerry comes to mind, as he hung up his VVAW fatigue jacket for the last time, to "work within the system" and talk with the "language of power". "We are your children", they said, ignoring the fact that I and most of my cohorts were never their children. They have accomplished much, haven't they?

Ants?

Well, we already know that we are bees, thanks to the tragic Pisarev. But, perhaps, hornets would be a more apt analogy. Amongst some of these, the devastation of thousands is no offense at all, but the failure to shift slightly in one direction, to dance the wrong way, or to smell of the wrong hive is a capital crime. No current denizen of our hive is allowed to talk about "humanism", Dr. Rank. There are entirely too many dead to make that anything but an obscenity. Three and a half million dead, you say (and yes I know the number)? And how many millions before and after? And you want to focus your criticsim on those who opposed, no matter how imperfectly, that killing? And this advice you give out of your love of mankind? That is where we part company, dear doctor. I wish for the reincarnation of those crazy kids and unabashed egotists every day.

There is no discussion among "equals", Dr. Rank, in which our rhetoric and our demeanor are merely the "tools" of our advocacy. Those are merely the platitudes of the prison trustees who are also convicts such as we. "Keep your nose clean, and you're outta here in no time..."

.

I always thought Virgil from PI was just an angry hippie, but maybe the term applies to anax too :)

I don't quite get in: you're saying that a vain, fruitless "advocacy" is better than *conforming* even enough to draw in more people? Even when you are essentially aligned with those people save for cultural impediments? Those shackles are just too heavy, you can't then help become a water boy for/of The Man?

Are you saying the greater population wasn't truly with the anti-war movement? I get the point that it was ultimately doomed no matter what thanks to our Beloved Leaders, so does that mean you are casting aside auto's claim that it might have been possible?

To me your soft spot for hippies is curious in that all of the "go your own way" positivism (even from Marx himself) sort of presupposes conditions that don't actually exist. On an abstract level, sure we can applaud them for the *stand* they took. We can even sympathize with the plight they were in that caused events to play out as they did. But to commend them for actually accomplishing something? Could you run that by me again?

Your other point that hippies were such a drop in the pissbucket that criticizing them reveals more about our own ideological biases than anything else? Sure I'll go along with. But then they need to stop shoving goddamn John Lennon down my throat like he was some kinda Buddha/Jesus combo meal. He was a schmuck..I'll take Kurt Cobain over him any day. If they promise to stop telling me to "Give peace a chance" I promise to stop telling them they smell bad. (They're still cumbags though ;) )

I always thought Virgil from PI was just an angry hippie, but maybe the term applies to anax too :)

I don't quite get in: you're saying that a vain, fruitless "advocacy" is better than *conforming* even enough to draw in more people? Even when you are essentially aligned with those people save for cultural impediments? Those shackles are just too heavy, you can't then help become a water boy for/of The Man?

Are you saying the greater population wasn't truly with the anti-war movement? I get the point that it was ultimately doomed no matter what thanks to our Beloved Leaders, so does that mean you are casting aside auto's claim that it might have been possible?

To me your soft spot for hippies is curious in that all of the "go your own way" positivism (even from Marx himself) sort of presupposes conditions that don't actually exist. On an abstract level, sure we can applaud them for the *stand* they took. We can even sympathize with the plight they were in that caused events to play out as they did. But to commend them for actually accomplishing something? Could you run that by me again?

Your other point that hippies were such a drop in the pissbucket that criticizing them reveals more about our own ideological biases than anything else? Sure I'll go along with. But then they need to stop shoving goddamn John Lennon down my throat like he was some kinda Buddha/Jesus combo meal. He was a schmuck..I'll take Kurt Cobain over him any day. If they promise to stop telling me to "Give peace a chance" I promise to stop telling them they smell bad. (They're still cumbags though ;) )

"Hippies" ain't a class. The people who were "outrageous", weren't just hippies. Consider Bobby Seale or the olympic athletes or the Panthers as a whole. They were merely confused and all over the map and against the war. Were they "effective"? Shit, yes... so much so that it took decades to "revise" the "lessons of Vietnam" and to shovel this shit of "respecting the troops", and "Fonda was a traitor", and all the rest. "Hippies" and many others played precisely the same role in America that the Islamic revolution played in Iran - when you muzzle all other opposition, it pops up somewhere else... like a water balloon. That it all comes out crazy is no surprise.

A good deal of it was "middle-class rebellion", yes. But there isn't really any middle class either. The current desire to attack the old anti-war movement is a much greater confusion.

I've got my own criticisms of the period but this "culture war" shit... fogetabodit.

.

Were they "effective"? Shit, yes... so much so that it took decades to "revise" the "lessons of Vietnam" and to shovel this shit of "respecting the troops", and "Fonda was a traitor", and all the rest. "Hippies" and many others played precisely the same role in America that the Islamic revolution played in Iran - when you muzzle all other opposition, it pops up somewhere else... like a water balloon. That it all comes out crazy is no surprise.


I guess the reason I'd never considered that was that a. it seems like most of those sentiments had been bubbling under for a long time and b. a certain cynicism from watching what happens today..basically, it seems like if they had wanted to jam that stuff down our throat they would've, culture shift or no.

Now, I'm right wing because I find the highest value in supporting the continuation of human life, all of it, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, regardless of national affiliation

I think that's worth wearing a suit. I agree that the anti war movement STARTED spontaneously. I also agree that it was, at times, a reflection of the personalities of the leaders, which included tantrums....fucking tantrums...look at the death totals. You don't like tantrums. Neither do I, particularly when human life is on the line. In fact, since we're discussing it, I find the behavior totally unforgivable once things got rolling and it was obvious that being a fucking flower child got in the way of getting people on your side (who cares why they agree, just that they do and they act in support of your mission).

It's right wing to support cellular and embryonic life forms and humanist to support the living, everywhere. That's what I am, a human-ist...let those alive live as well as possible, don't kill them, don't bomb, torture, and maim them; when lots of them are getting killed and injured, take the advise of the only 'ad man' necessary, and read Aristotle's Rhetoric. You use the best available means to persuade your audience by promoting an identification between you and them. Kenneth Burke did a nice follow up on Aristotle in the middle of the last century (feeling old are wel;). Why do you do that? Well as Aristotle figured out, it's necessary to promote that identification so they'll listen to you.

I do not agree that there was no chance to turn things around, but it was then like now, very difficult. In fact, the parallel is there isn't it. 71% now favor ending Iraq and what do the Democrats do when they're elected with that message. Nothing. Nothing at all and we lack the life-style divides of the 60's and early 70's.

You're right, of course (as though I'm an expert;), about the evisceration of the left wing of the Democratic Party. I grew up in a family where Eugene V. Debs was viewed as a man of honor and commitment. Was he? I bet he was because my favorite uncle had been in the plumbers union and he told me so (he was also a scary dude so I tended to agree). Did Debs show up dressed in drag to persuade people like my uncle? That would have been a career ending event.

Today we have the 'politics of personal destruction' in the forefront, a mild version of McCarthyism but more organized and relentless. In the the 60's we had the politics of personal expression, which helped fuel the spontaneous beginnings of the anti war movement. But it didn't carry forward. There were all sorts of organizations, discussions, etc. The message was there - ultimately the public just go fed up and then it was over.

I don't have the answers but I know what isn't an acceptable answer, carrying on endlessly when the message is there, change course, tune in, turn on, drop the acting out and tantrums.

For me it all comes back to who is doing the damn killing and what's their major malfunction. Do they think we're a bunch of ants? YES Do they care if we live or die while they promote war and pollute the planet in ways that guarantee hundreds of millions of deaths of children due to climate change (recent UN report)? APPARENTLY NOT.

You can't have humanity and human rights and culture (even avant garde culture) without being alive. Means no killing, maiming, torturing. People here, Viet Nam, Iraq, German, Jordan, etc. etc. ALL have an equal entitlement to living. If it takes a little adjustment now and then to make the case (which the "leaders" ignore anyway) then why not?

Well, Dr. Rank, ya know I love ya or I wouldn't work with you. But, read what you have written above. The old logic and "humanist" sentiment is fraying badly. Perhaps it hangs together for you but for me, you are a prisoner of your own predisposition.

Start anywhere and let's consider it.

Debs?

The fucker sold out the movement, didn't he? All that was important about the populist movement and then, the Socialist Party: the focus on the economic conditions of people right here in America - didn't he turn his back on all of that when he decided to oppose the First World War? The war was very popular; perhaps the very expression of national patriotism. And for America, it was largely irrelevent. By the time the U.S. really got into it, it was almost over... a few thousand dead, a little saber-rattling and it would pass into the night. What an egotistical character Debs was, to have gone to prison to oppose it, despite being given every opportunity to avoid it. And yes, maybe he got a few votes while he was there but the movement he led was essentially finished by the time he got out. What a grand-stander to have engaged in a "career-ending event".

Aristotle and rhetoric?

You already know that this is a subject close to my heart. But the rhetoric Aristotle discusses is a conversation within the class. I have no doubt that the advice was well postulated when talking amongst the slave owners. But it was a different conversation altogether when talking to the slaves. Ask the Spartans about how their nobility was bought at the price of continuous slave revolt. And when even the houshold slaves revolted during the final war with Athens, how self-indulgent of those slaves to have ignored such sage advice as Aristotle's, which they knew at least as well as their illiterate masters. Instead of their upheaval, could they not have petitioned their owners with that turn of the head, that mark of servitude, known to every Spartan and helot, alike?

I fear, Dr. Rank, that you are merely repeating the catechism of obsequeseness, the required oral examination given to all who enter the halls of the professions and other such noble pursuits. I have heard the chorus before. One John Kerry comes to mind, as he hung up his VVAW fatigue jacket for the last time, to "work within the system" and talk with the "language of power". "We are your children", they said, ignoring the fact that I and most of my cohorts were never their children. They have accomplished much, haven't they?

Ants?

Well, we already know that we are bees, thanks to the tragic Pisarev. But, perhaps, hornets would be a more apt analogy. Amongst some of these, the devastation of thousands is no offense at all, but the failure to shift slightly in one direction, to dance the wrong way, or to smell of the wrong hive is a capital crime. No current denizen of our hive is allowed to talk about "humanism", Dr. Rank. There are entirely too many dead to make that anything but an obscenity. Three and a half million dead, you say (and yes I know the number)? And how many millions before and after? And you want to focus your criticsim on those who opposed, no matter how imperfectly, that killing? And this advice you give out of your love of mankind? That is where we part company, dear doctor. I wish for the reincarnation of those crazy kids and unabashed egotists every day.

There is no discussion among "equals", Dr. Rank, in which our rhetoric and our demeanor are merely the "tools" of our advocacy. Those are merely the platitudes of the prison trustees who are also convicts such as we. "Keep your nose clean, and you're outta here in no time..."

.

I'm in a bit of a pinch here but I wanted to thank you for further education on Debs. You and I agree, he lost his momentum etc. As you point out, he lost his cause too, when he forgot who he was talking to. Imagine that. I guess he lost his identification with the people to whom he was speaking ("the audience"). So we agree on that.

As for the rest, I'll be back.

btw, I worked for Kerry (not because I liked his approach) for the same reason I worked for Kaine, because the alternatives were truly frightening. Kerry's fatal mistake was a lack of intellectual honesty on the original authorization for Iraq. He knew what we knew, the rationale was a lie, a fabrication from whole cloth, a cheap trick...yet he voted for the war.

But I guess Kerry was just doing what Debs should have done, right.

Nice scrimmage;)

Were they "effective"? Shit, yes... so much so that it took decades to "revise" the "lessons of Vietnam" and to shovel this shit of "respecting the troops", and "Fonda was a traitor", and all the rest. "Hippies" and many others played precisely the same role in America that the Islamic revolution played in Iran - when you muzzle all other opposition, it pops up somewhere else... like a water balloon. That it all comes out crazy is no surprise.


I guess the reason I'd never considered that was that a. it seems like most of those sentiments had been bubbling under for a long time and b. a certain cynicism from watching what happens today..basically, it seems like if they had wanted to jam that stuff down our throat they would've, culture shift or no.

Not true, oh wise one... Consider, Reagan. The man set out, in most calculating fashion, to restore the "military option". Step by step, he "took on" the smallest countries in the world: Granada, Panama, Nicaragua, Lebanon? Tread loudly and kick kittens. The elder Bush notched it up a step by engaging in only the second (billed as) "just war" of the century. Poor little Kuwait, yadda, yadda... it's a wonder that the "Rape of Belguim" posters didn't get dug up again. To this day, Bushie Jr. is still trying to undo the "bad taste" from the Vietnam War: FISA, Church commissions, Watergate (and what was that about?), peace-niks, you name it. Even, John Lennon and "Give Peace a Chance". The "movement" didn't create all of that; you could even argue that it was as much a product as a cause. Nevertheless, it was all part of an "unacceptable drift" in U.S. freedom of action on foreign policy. That alone makes it the target of scorn for liberal and conservative, alike.

"They" are no more "free" to do what they want then "we" are. It is not about intent.

Wanna flower?

http://perso.gapcho.mageos.com/riboud1.jpg

I'm in a bit of a pinch here but I wanted to thank you for further education on Debs. You and I agree, he lost his momentum and, as you point out his cause, when he forgot who he was talking to. Imagine that. I guess he lost
his identification with the people to whom he was speaking ("the audience"). So we agree on that.

As for the rest, I'll be back.

btw, I worked for Kerry not because I liked his approach for the same reason I worked for Kaine, becasue the alternatives were truly frightening. Kerry's fatal mistake was a lack of intellectual honesty on the original authorization for Iraq. He knew what we knew, the rationale was a lie, a fabrication from whole cloth, a cheap trick...yet he voted for the war.

But I guess Kerry was just doing what Debs should have done, right.

Nice scrimmage;)

I never know if the good doctor is serious but, just in case you have really misheard me, my narrative on Debs was dripping with sarcism. Debs had no choice but to do what he did. Otherwise, he would have been an opportunist fuck. Because he did what he did, at least he is known to us. Very few of the sellout "socialists" who supported WWI because it was too hard to fight patriotism have appeared anywhere on the rolls of history, except perhaps on the commemerative wall of the pre-modern-Pelosi/Reid Democrats.

Watta I gotta do? Put up a sarcasm graphic like on DU?

http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg


And, BTW, you worked for Kerry, got the "alternatives" that were "truly frightening", anyway, and didn't even leave any decent music behind.

"Kerry's fatal mistake" was that he was a bourgeois fuck-head and a ruling-class vampire.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~ineng/jac/jac-hippies.jpg

Explain to me again how you were smarter than these people?

.

Explain to me again how you were smarter than these people?

.

Deodorant?

Anyway, that "Oh wise one" was more of that sarcasm wannit..

For the record I read Autos reply twice and, unless he found some common ground I missed, he totally misread your tone.

I of course bow to your superior insight on this (no sarcasm tag)

""Hippies" and many others played precisely the same role in America that the Islamic revolution played in Iran - when you muzzle all other opposition, it pops up somewhere else... like a water balloon. That it all comes out crazy is no surprise.

A good deal of it was "middle-class rebellion", yes. But there isn't really any middle class either. The current desire to attack the old anti-war movement is a much greater confusion.

I've got my own criticisms of the period but this "culture war" shit... fogetabodit."

You're a total genius! That's the best analogy I've heard yet. It's utterly devastating, enough so that, even if not true, it should be.

I'm not attacking the "Old anti war movement" per se, I'm offering a comment in reflection.

...speaking of which, and here's a cheerful thought. I remember a period in late 1966 when things started to shift very rapidly. The real heroes were the 25k who marched in DC in 2004 but at the '66 point, the opposition just ballooned and carried forward.

Back to the cheerful thought. The war starts with a Democratic president and congress, it's carried forward for years with a Republican-conservative Demcratic congress, then Nixon, the great crook. Bye the time he was done, the opposition was immense in terms of public opinion but it took forever for congress to act. Today, we've got a 71% opposition to the ware, which is amazing since that array of individuals had to learn about the war without any media. Those people elect a Democratic congress facing a faltering president and what happens nothing, nada, zip, zilch. So here's the equation...

For Viet Nam, you've got an explosive protest movement, a war increasingly unpopular, a media that's not cowered, and a resistant congress. Nothing changes.

For Iraq, you've got no protest movement, a war that's unpopular across the board, a president that is luck if he breaks 30% before he's led off or his term ends, and a newly minted congress filled with Democrats...who do nothing.

I agree that the intensity of opposition to Viet Nam prevented a quick forgetting. In fact, I was hoping it would be for us what the 100 Years War was for the Swedes (or whichever war convinced them to knock it off). But no luck, we got Reagan, the mythology, and the results of, among other things, very lazy thinking. Seems like these foreign adventures just have to suck up enough oxygen and end on their own.

I have a little prediction. Even though we lack a major movement shouting from the roof tops that this war is obscene, we'll have an aftermath that's a product of the internet and ever inquiring minds. It will all come out. There's no doubt about the 600 thousand dead civilians in Iraq. That number is higher now, bye quite a bit. There are a lot of pissed off soldiers and others over there with cameras, there's every reason to think there will be a digital invasion to to document the horrors...and we'll see it all...right in our living rooms...and as a bonus, we'll find about all those people who died thanks to Clinton and his incessant bombing.
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2004/07/22/Tommie-Smith_-John-Carlos.jpg
Tommie Smith & John Carlos spoke the
truth about the horror they saw.
A totally on target statement, at the right time.

And look at this...the object of their protest.

Que viva Mexico...
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/10/02/mas-jesus.html

I'm in a bit of a pinch here but I wanted to thank you for further education on Debs. You and I agree, he lost his momentum and, as you point out his cause, when he forgot who he was talking to. Imagine that. I guess he lost
his identification with the people to whom he was speaking ("the audience"). So we agree on that.

As for the rest, I'll be back.

btw, I worked for Kerry not because I liked his approach for the same reason I worked for Kaine, becasue the alternatives were truly frightening. Kerry's fatal mistake was a lack of intellectual honesty on the original authorization for Iraq. He knew what we knew, the rationale was a lie, a fabrication from whole cloth, a cheap trick...yet he voted for the war.

But I guess Kerry was just doing what Debs should have done, right.

Nice scrimmage;)

I never know if the good doctor is serious but, just in case you have really misheard me, my narrative on Debs was dripping with sarcism. Debs had no choice but to do what he did. Otherwise, he would have been an opportunist fuck. Because he did what he did, at least he is known to us. Very few of the sellout "socialists" who supported WWI because it was too hard to fight patriotism have appeared anywhere on the rolls of history, except perhaps on the commemerative wall of the pre-modern-Pelosi/Reid Democrats.

Watta I gotta do? Put up a sarcasm graphic like on DU?

http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg


And, BTW, you worked for Kerry, got the "alternatives" that were "truly frightening", anyway, and didn't even leave any decent music behind.

"Kerry's fatal mistake" was that he was a bourgeois fuck-head and a ruling-class vampire.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~ineng/jac/jac-hippies.jpg

Explain to me again how you were smarter than these people?

.

What makes you think I wasn't one of those people? Maybe not that day but on others, I showed up.

Point taken on Debs, I thought that was too easy.

What I got out of working for Kerry (and I'm so sorry I mentioned that) was the opportunity to watch him collapse like a cheap card table in the face of the hugest theft in our history. Bet you can't say that? Not that is surprised me.

For Kaine, I got something better (they answered my letters briefly since I had some "currency" right after the ass kicking he gave the other guy).

I wrote Warner as he was on the way out and said, "Do the right thing" and give the 200 thousand ex felons of Virginia the right to vote. It 's the only course and it will make you look like a genius out of the gate in your run for prexy.

What do I get? A letter from Kaine (who tells me Warner asked him to send it) saying Virgina has, under Warner, done such a great job on this...oh sure, blabla (they think I'm an idot). So I reply (having my Inaugural tickets in hand already) in which I authoritatively point to the origins of Virginia's state law - the Mississippi Constitution of 1891. They still call for money (rofl) but no more invitations. It was worth it.

http://www.celticcafe.com/archive/Buzz/images/A_Mighty_Wind_450.jpg
Didn't you forget a few of your favorites

As for the music...get over it, it's old, done, gone bye bye...bald, fat people
hopping up and down at Beach Boys concerts broadcast on PBS (now that's
just awful...unless your were talking about Sun RA, Kid Creole & the Coconuts ,
the timeless acts)

...get on the internet radio band wagon and send Congress a letter of protest
on the rate changes that threaten it's very existence...

http://www.saveourinternetradio.com/

All of this talk of the old days got me musing, got to thinking about the underground comix of the time, and being the place this is it seems right to mention Trashman, Agent of the Sixth Internationale:

http://www.diesirae911.com/images/trashman.gif

Sure, he shared comix with the likes of Capt. Pissgums and the Freak Bros, but what the hey, gotta get the message out.

Some folks thought a lot of him:

http://www.chowk.com/uploads/images/profile/trashman.jpg

:shock:

All of this talk of the old days got me musing, got to thinking about the underground comix of the time, and being the place this is it seems right to mention Trashman, Agent of the Sixth Internationale:

http://www.diesirae911.com/images/trashman.gif

Sure, he shared comix with the likes of Capt. Pissgums and the Freak Bros, but what the hey, gotta get the message out.

Some folks thought a lot of him:

http://www.chowk.com/uploads/images/profile/trashman.jpg

:shock:

Geez, I can't believe I've never heard of any of those..Captain Pissgums? I mean, I have a comic collection dating back to books from the 70s..

No shit..

As for the music...get over it, it's old, done, gone bye bye...bald, fat people
hopping up and down at Beach Boys concerts broadcast on PBS (now that's
just awful...unless your were talking about Sun RA, Kid Creole & the Coconuts ,
the timeless acts)



You're right about the music... I basically stopped listening. I didn't hear nothin' till about the Clash. Then I said, "Hmmm... what have I missed?"

The high point seems to have been pop music at the end of the Disco era. If not for my snobbishness, I would have got it. White working class kids seeing Boy George come up on the tube and instead of saying, "we should throw rocks at him...", they would say "I can dance to that... I love that song." No wonder they brought back God, the corpse of Reagan, colonial war, and so on. Couldn't live with that shit for long...

I missed hip-hop, too... I had a young daughter and you know the story. It took my daughter to teach me. That was some of the angriest poetry I have ever heard. Too bad that by the time I wised up, it really was about blunts and booty...

http://www.airmagination.com/nua1.jpg
.