Washblog

One of the reasons I have remained as vocal about my views on Senator Cantwell is that folks like Goldy are so willing to turn a blind eye to her Iraq vote and its ramifications. To pass this vote off as just "one amongst many" is to belittle the importance of such a life and death decision. Trivializing the work that you do is simply a means of rationalization which the so-called pragmatic Democrats can use to get through the November election.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

"Simplistic" is a comparative compliment, though typically insensitive.

I have not had the time to listen to last night's show yet, so I have no idea what the context is of the comment you take umbrage at, but I'm pretty confident that I aimed nothing at your "personal efforts."  In fact, I invited both you and Arthur to call in because I respect how deeply involved you've been with this issue, and I wanted to hear your perspective.  I regret that when I flipped the hours to accomodate Sen. Cantwell's schedule, I was away from my computer, and could not access my email via KIRO's network so as to give you an update.

As to your anger at me, I remain very blunt in my assessment that this has always been a race between Cantwell and McGavick, and that no other candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.  Given that choice, I choose Cantwell hands down, and however disappointed I may be at some of her votes (and the votes of the majority of Democrats) I am confident that we would be many times better off under Democratic control than Republican.  In this I follow the lead of Russ Feingold, who came out to Seattle to campaign for Cantwell, because he knows that if we want to give him a shot at implementing his agenda, we need to give him a Democratic majority.

That is the choice as I see it.  You express doubt that the we can trust the Dems to change policies in Iraq, and no, I can't give you any assurances that we can.  But our choice is between the Dems and the Republicans, and I certainly know that I cannot trust the latter.

And finally, speaking of being "simplistic"... I devoted an entire hour to this subject last night, interviewing both Sen. Cantwell and Mark Wilson... and you chose to characterize me and the entire conversation on the basis of a single word.

Their work counters strong ongoing pressure that some Democrats have put on others to swallow their consciences and, basically, shut up.

We're standing up to our knees in blood here.  And we're witnessing an unprecedented -- and deadly -- undermining of democratic institutions in this country.  When Sandra Day O'Connor sounds the alarm and tells us that we may be taking the first steps to a dictatorship in this country -- and when climate change and other environmental crises converge to threaten collapse of the ecological systems we depend upon for our survival  -- then it is not time for business as usual.  It is not time to swallow our consciences.

As a culture we're simply not getting this.  Up til now (and maybe this will change due to all the good work that's being done) -- Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray both -- most of our national leadership HAS NOT BEEN GETTING IT.  

We are in imminent danger and we're acting like sitting ducks.  We are acting suicidally.

We are also, IMO, becoming culturally sociopathic.  Torture is going on here. State-sanctioned torture.  Our climate has been poisoned.  Lietta's voice of reality and conscience is desperately needed.

That said, I understand at least in part why people feel they should put this pressure on us to shut up.  I appreciate the intent -- and I appreciate that the people applying this pressure are partly correct.  Their pressure could shut us up.  But, with people like Lietta leading the way and refusing to shut up --- I believe this pressure has actually made dissent more effective.

I haven't heard the podcast in question and can't speak to what's in it.  But I want to acknowledge my appreciation for David Goldstein and his work -- regardless of what my reaction to this particular segment would be.

I see what David does -- including his advocacy for a fair tax system in WA and his writing on Horsesass, as grounded in a sense of justice.  This is not anything I've been told or have seen in print.  It is what strikes me as strongly evident when I look at what he writes.  It surprises me that it's not obvious to everyone.  Day after day for years this site brings out information that traditional media is not covering -- and that we deserve to know.  There is considerable hard work, dedication, and personal risk involved.  The edginess of the site is part of what makes it readable -- and influential.  Carl Rove tactics?   I don't see that.  I see a consistent effort to be fair, accurate, and relevant.  A person writing on a blog does not have an editor to check on work and style, etc.    I've been very impressed with the level of accuracy on Horsesass -- and the care that I see in making ethical choices about what information to make public and how to attribute it, etc.  I have a great deal of respect for this.

Maria will be the Demo candidate and I'll work and write on her behalf. To be honest with you, I'd like to see more enthusiastic writing and content on her behalf from all bloggers and LTE writers who share space under this big progressive tent.

I have a group mailing that includes all the biggie newspapers and local papers within 150 miles of Bay Center and I send a short (I know that surprises many people) LTE every week. Averaging two publishings a month in the Aberdeen Daily World and local papers here. Not much success elsewhere in the state but that is hard for me to track and no reason for me to quit trying.

As for trivial and simplistic pursuits, I certainly have no need to ride in on a sweaty horse to defend my wife who I think expressed herself very well.

But then ...

Unlike folks like Goldy, Switzer and Belltowner,  Lietta and I are not as invested in politics and elections. But then neither are we terrified of McGavick, recognizing that based on the current situation, this election is Maria's to lose, not McGavick's to win.  

We did not come to Washblog or start our own blogs because politics is what we eat, sleep and spew every hour of every day.

When the liar's invasion started, Lietta quit her job,
Lietta and I bought a domain,
built websites,
started blogs,
started writing LTE's,
started speaking out,
started rallying,
joined Washblog,
Lietta went to Crawford
and spoke several times a day all the way from St. Louis to Washington D.C. last September
because we will not shut up and go quietly away ...

not because folks who love politics think we should trust them
... when they naively tell us we'll sleep better at night when the (D) in November is  victorious over the (R)
... and that is the fastest way from the NOW of this moment to get our kids out of harms way.

Now that, folks is simplistic.

We can already see nationwide with generals in  Iraq talking openly about bringing brigades and battalions home that the anti-war sentiment DURING the campaign is having immediate clout and affecting change NOW.

Some at Washblog have already acknowledged that anti-war efforts have nudged Senator Cantwell into a better position.

Simplistic is the idea that more need to die while politicians and their advocates are content to preach patience before we can  get our military youngsters out of the maw of that god-damned meat grinder this country had no business starting.

She and I speak from the feeling place of opposition to a  tragedy that takes human life every day and should never have happened.

I can't say that enough times people.

Every death between now and November is a death that need not happen.

It's not simplistic and it's not cutesy to downplay our priority and feeling as if this were a church where only orthodox beliefs and groupthink conforming political attitudes have merit.

What is not simplistic and trivial is that because of the liars' invasion and occupation of Iraq, we have seen and shed tears with more moms and dads who've lost their children to that invasion and occupation than any flippant political opinionater  here has I'm sure.

Doesn't make us experts, but trivializes the trivializers who love the put-downs.

Until you lose one of your own or have the experience of being the shoulder a bereaved parent leans on, it'll remain abstract for you and you won't even be aware of just how detached that leaves you.

You who rush to defend your political priorities are offended by Lietta's temper tantrum because she heard what sounded like a radio DJ dismissing our efforts as simplistic.

But having said that, I truly have no bone to pick with David and I congratulate him on achieving his wish. He has gone where we all would like to be ... a place where our voices are louder.

I heard him declare his long time desire last night while waiting on the phone and listening to his program. He has for years wanted to bring his voice to the radio.

I doubt that he meant it the way Lietta heard it. But I also doubt Belltowner's dismissal of it as trivial.

Why is it that what you all take seriously I HAVE to take seriously while what I take seriously you can belittle?

Switzer once wrote a good whiner opinion about how we need more humor and lightness at Washblog because everybody takes themselves so seriously.

Ain't that the truth?

Ain't that what's generating the arguments here and the opinion I'm writing right now?

But humor doesn't trivialize serious stuff. When attempted, it comes out as a smirk. And we know who the most famous insincere smirker is in this country.

When I got home last Thursday night after work, Lietta was gone.

She'd been in Olympia all day bannering and meeting with Watada activists and the national council of which she's a member. She has had serious problems driving the freeways for years now but since I could not take time off work to drive her there, she drove herself.

(BTW, you King County folks think it's trivial that 2-3 times a month we drive 2-3 hours one way to participate in the political process of this state and nation while you can mosey over to some event by way of Starbucks? Based on miles traveled and personal spending on fuel and meals, that makes us more significant political activists than you trivialists)

She drove herself and finally returned home at midnight.

There's nothing simplistic or trivial about it.

To those who rush to clamor about innocence and justifications, I suggest when all is said and done whether this election was more important than the ultimate end of the occupation of Iraq, your priority will be more trivial than mine.

Arthur
You sure you ain't staking too much on yer theories? Not enough common sense?

I totally understand where the anti-war people who oppose Cantwell are coming from.

I totally understand the pragmatic side that would back Cantwell despite her position.

Judging from the lack of financial support for Cantwell's Democratic opponents, there just aren't enough people to produce the votes that would be needed to replace her.  At the same time there is a Republican opponent that will only continue to benefit from any weakening of Cantwell's support base.  There is little room for error.

In basic terms, Cantwell would not lose enough votes to lose a primary, but she could lose enough votes due to the effort of others trying to beat her in the primary to lose the general election, with an end result far worse than the one Cantwell opponents on the Democratic side would want.

This is the fine line.

However, I do believe that there are ways to influence Cantwell without undermining her re-election.  That should be the goal.

If Ralph Nadar hadn't been the factor he was in 2000 perhaps the pragmatists wouldn't have the same position, but he was, and the utter disaster of that will be with us for the rest of our lives.

On The Road To 2008: Countdown to the next opportunity to change the direction of America

And Rick Larsen, fresh from this third trip to Iraq, is seeing signs of progress.

We'll see what things are like in September. It's possible that, by then, all talk about this strategy or that strategy--or this is simplistic or that is simplistic--may go out the window.

History has a way of rolling over people's statements and leaving them flat. All the reasoned talk in the world is mere air when it comes up against rage. Rage can change history and leave us breathless, scrounging for words.

Of course, all may yet be well--but I doubt it. My guess is that the worst is yet to come.

Simplify, simplify, simplify.

--H. D. Thoreau

---

Geeks like to get worked up about operating systems, programming languages, monopolies, and the like. We call them religious wars. Things can get pretty heated.

About a decade back, I decided I no longer cared about Microsoft or anything they do. They're irrelevant. I felt that any success they'd have was the result of momentum (or illegal behavior). And I couldn't think of a way to cash in for personal gain. And their schtick was boring and outdated. If, by some wierd alignment of the stars, Microsoft does something that doesn't piss me off, I acknowledge it while bracing for the next outrage, the next disappointment.

Every now and then, when I don't really have a choice, I kick some money towards Microsoft. I'm not real happy about it. But I'm not terribly upset either. That's just the way things are.

Meanwhile, I'm enjoy doing my little part in dismantling Microsoft's empire. Anything that is interesting, new, or in some way worthwhile, is being done somewhere else.

So it occurs to me that Cantwell equals Microsoft. Yesterday's news. We're stuck with her, her kind, her sycophants, her camp followers. For now. We really don't have many options. Other than continue to throw temper tantrums and create a space for someone better to come along.

---

The other side of my brain thinks that they efforts of the progressives like Lietta, Arthur, Chad, the other Chad, Cindy Sheehan, and millions of others provide cover, push things in the right direction, or both.

The people who criticize, particularly in the name of unity or some other dumbass ideal, simply don't get it. Sorry, but it's true.

In dealing with Cantwell and other Democratic enablers of the Ruling Junta, there's exactly two possible courses of action.

First, provide cover for them to operate. What politician is going to go out on a limb and oppose Bush and all the other crazies without backup? Look what happened to everyone who has to date. They've been eviserated by the weak-minded media blowhards.

Second, a lot of these people simply aren't very bright. You have to repeatedly pound their thick skulls with a "clue x 4" board. I mean, really, who on this planet didn't know that Bush's Folly in Iraq would be a colossal fuckup or that there's no conceiveable way to make things right? Who?

I'd like to think that Cantwell is just fearful. That'd make sense. We could do something about it. Mostly by providing cover.

I really hope that Cantwell isn't some sort of stubborn moron. Like Leiberman and Bush. Then our options are more limited.

---

So, in summation, everyone advising (telling) me how to behave with regards to Cantwell is not just part of the problem, they are the problem. Under no circumstances does it help to shut up, toe the line, and get along. Like happy little cows being led to slaughter.

By way of illustration, I'm sure the activists from the civil rights movement would have been a lot more effective if they'd been more polite and less confrontational.