Duty to Warn

Seven months after the mass arrests of over 1,800 protesters at the Republican Convention in New York City last summer, 91 percent of the nearly 1,700 cases that have been concluded have resulted in acquittals or the dismissal of charges. Four hundred cases were dismissed after video recordings made by volunteer observers and others showed that there was no reason for the arrests, the New York Times reported last week. Some of the videos also exposed false testimony by the police.

In the case of Dennis Kyne, arrested on the steps of the New York Public Library last August, police officer Matthew Wohl testified at trial last December that “we picked him up and we carried him while he squirmed and screamed. I had one of his legs because he was kicking and refusing to walk on his own.”

The John Bolton nomination battle is one of those rare moments when a window has opened onto how the U.S. public was rushed into war with Iraq and, in a larger sense, how conservatives seized control over the flow of information that shapes policy.

Bolton may be – as former State Department intelligence chief Carl Ford Jr. said – “a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy” who bullies those below him who come up with inconvenient facts. But Bolton’s abusive tendencies are not just a personality flaw; they are part of a broader political strategy.

Since his early days as a protégé of Sen. Jesse Helms, Bolton was part of a new aggressive breed of conservatives, who came of age during the Vietnam War and who thus understand the importance of keeping a lid on public dissent.

In practical terms, that means influencing or controlling what the public perceives as reality, often exaggerating threats to stampede the people in a desired direction. That need to manage information, in turn, requires discrediting individuals who can effectively challenge the factual constraints….

This past weekend, at the California State Democratic Party Convention in Los Angeles, the largest gathering of state-party Democrats in the nation, activists with Progressive Democrats of America led by PDA Executive Director Tim Carpenter successfully lobbied 2,000 delegates to pass a resolution calling for the termination of the occupation of Iraq. The resolution included specific language demanding the withdrawal of American troops from that country. "The California Democratic Party," reads the resolution in part, "calls for the termination of the occupation…of American troops in Iraq."

This victory is a powerful statement not only to the national Democratic Party but to the Republican administration and the majority in Congress.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Good news! If there is a distinct possibility a Bush nominee is a vile-tempered, lying, ineffective bully, the U.S. Senate is willing to hold off on the vote for two weeks.

John Bolton was an amazingly bad choice for ambassador to the United Nations from the beginning. He has a long record of expressing contempt for and distrust of the United Nations. You may or may not consider that a reasonable position, but it is highly inadvisable in a diplomat. In addition, he was a notable failure as under secretary of state for arms control and international security.

Harold Meyerson has an interesting article in the Spring 2005 Dissent Magazine called "Beyond The Consensus: Democrats Agree on How to Play Defense, but What Are They Fighting For?" (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/)  

Meyerson encourages Democrats to "go to war against Democratic Wall Street elites," to win back the white working class through progressive economic policies.  I completely agree, but want to quibble with how Meyerson proposes we do this.

Meyerson begins by claiming that Democrats are all agreed that they presented a strong unified front in last year's elections, that "minorities are not complaining that the party's voter mobilization efforts were insufficient," that "Kerry was surely the strongest candidate in the Democratic field last year." 

Already, before he's begun his argument, Meyerson has lost a lot of activists.  He goes on, quickly, before presenting data and arguments about economics, to prescribe positions on abortion, religion, and national security, without justifying them in any way. 

Every day presents infinite reasons to believe that change can't happen, infinite reasons to give up. But I always tell myself, "Sonya, you have to pick your team." It seems to me that there are two teams in this world. And you can find evidence to support the arguments of both. The trademark of one team is cynicism. They'll tell you why what you're doing doesn't matter, why nothing is going to change, why no matter how hard you work, you're going to fail. They seem to get satisfaction out of explaining how we'll always have injustice. You can't change human nature, they say. It's foolish to try. From their experience, they might be right.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Spring fever is taking a weird form this year. Politicians say nice things for political reasons and then revert with a vengeance -- a sort of political Tourette syndrome, they can't help what they say.

Tom DeLay, of all people, recently issued a fatwa on the need for good manners, a concept so bizarre there is no metaphor for it. It is itself a metaphor: "... as weird as the time Tom DeLay gave us all a lecture on manners."

In his new role as the Emily Post of politics, DeLay informed us, "It is unfortunate in our electoral system, exacerbated by our adversarial media culture, that political discourse has to get so overheated, that it's not just arguments, but motives are questioned." Did someone question his motive in taking an all-expenses-paid vacation from a lobbyist?

This would be the same Tom DeLay who said, "Screw the Senate," when he learned Bob Dole had cut a deal with Clinton to end the government shutdown caused by Newt Gingrich.

"We're in charge. We don't have to negotiate with the Senate." Same as above.

The recent decision by General Motors to pull its advertising from the Los Angeles Times has not gone over very well.

“Blame the press,” Daily Variety scoffed in mid-April, after several days of publicity about the automaker’s move. “That’s the latest coping mechanism for General Motors, whose slumping share price and falling profits have generated a wave of negative media coverage. ... GM isn’t the first Fortune 500 company to retaliate against a newspaper’s editorial coverage by taking a punch at its ad division. But most companies understand the tactic just doesn’t work; it only generates more bad coverage.”

In the Motor City, the Detroit News business writer Daniel Howes told readers that the monetary slap at the L.A. Times exposes “GM’s thinning corporate skin.” Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam had this to say: “On the one hand, the decision, which may affect up to $20 million in ad spending, sends a powerful message to the Times. On the other hand, it sends a powerful message to the country about the idiots who are running GM.”

President Bush just told reporters that he has no intention of setting any timetable for withdrawal. "Our troops will come home when Iraq is capable of defending herself," he said. Powerful pundits keep telling us that a swift pullout of U.S. troops would be irresponsible. And plenty of people have bought into that idea -- including quite a few progressives. Such acceptance is part of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."

Sometimes, an unspoken assumption among progressive activists is that the occupation of Iraq must be tolerated for tactical reasons -- while other issues, notably domestic ones, are more winnable on Capitol Hill. But this acceptance means going along with many of the devastating effects of a militarized society: from ravaged budgets for social programs to more authoritarian attitudes and violence in communities across the country.