Marisacat

Vidal in Havana 16 January 2007

Saul Landau has a two parter up at Counterpunch on the December … well, it was a delegation of sorts, that set off for Cuba.  An assortment of San Francisco pols, a former senator or two and Gore Vidal.

[B]ut US policies that had from 1959 on aimed at destroying the revolution, intensified under George W. Bush’s two terms. Cuban leaders responded as always by taking whatever measures they thought necessary to deflect US hostility. As the revolution neared its 48th anniversary, and without a very sick Fidel active at the helm, what approach would the leaders take toward the colossus of the north?

In the evening of December 13, Gore Vidal, the former Senators, Jean Stein, Dennis Herrera, City Attorney of San Francisco, his assistants, Matt Tyrnauer from Vanity Fair, myself and the others met with Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque.

He told the group that Cuba wants to talk to the United States. The only condition: respect for Cuban sovereignty. In the course of the hour-long meeting it became obvious that Cuba had little to offer – other than total surrender. It could not offer to remove the embargo or travel ban from the United States, nor relinquish its naval base from US territory. The final meeting took place with a US diplomat. After a few minutes of small talk John Burton asked, “What did Cuba do to the United States?” Burton had previously talked about how China had killed thousands of US troops in the Korean War as had Vietnam in their war. Both of those countries were ruled by Communist Parties. “Christ,” Burton said. “Saudi Arabia doesn’t even have one party and they don’t let women drive […]

Over the years there have been so many of these… from students 35 and more years ago who went to help harvest the sugar cane to later missions of earnest US pols, often seeking to expand farm exports – other sorts of trade…

Vidal the historian recalled how after World War II, Harry Truman began to say: “‘the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.’” At the onset of the Cold War, the Russians having suffered 20 million dead, “there was barely anybody to come. Even so, the decision was made: the only way to rule the country is by terrorizing everybody. Bush is trying it – with some success.”

The articles are almost gentle… especially against the contrast that day by day we are closer to some re-enactment of Fallujah upon parts of Baghdad, Sadr City.  Open the veins, let the blood flow into the warm bath water.  That is what we are doing…

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) – Public confidence in the way George W. Bush is handling the coalition effort increased slightly in the United States after his recent address to the nation, according to a poll by Gallup released by USA Today. 29 per cent of respondents think their president has a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq.

When asked if the Democrats in Congress have a defined strategy for Iraq, only 21 per cent of respondents believe they do, down four points in a week.

********************************************************

UPDATE, 9:20 am

Thrill to the clarion call (or not):

[“T]he Bush administration has frankly failed to put any leverage on this government,” Clinton told CBS “The Early Show.” But she sidestepped questions on whether she would vote to block funding for Bush’s troop increase.

On Afghanistan, Clinton called the conflict there “one of the great missed opportunities,” urging an increase in U.S. troops before a likely “spring offensive” by the Taliban.

“Let’s focus on Afghanistan and get it right,” Clinton said.

Clinton deflected questions on the presidential qualifications of Obama, who has emerged as her chief competitor for the nomination.

“We’re going to have a really vigorous debate on both sides, in both parties,” Clinton told NBC’s “Today Show.” “The voters will make that decision.”

Clinton is expected to join the presidential field within days. Asked on NPR’s “Morning Edition” about when to expect her announcement, Clinton said she was following her own timeline and wouldn’t be influenced by the actions of other candidates.

I’m trying to pursue my own assessment and analysis,” she said. “There is a lot involved in doing this effectively, if you are going to take the plunge  [snip]

Oh do plunge.  It won’t hurt.  In fact, she’ll barely notice.

**************************************************************

UPDATE, 1:30 pm.. slightly warmer in San Francisco…

This bodes well for the Fucked RomneyCare, WydenCare and SxhwarzeneggerCare doesn’t it?

Just up at the NYT:

A federal appeals court ruled today that Maryland violated federal law when it required Wal-Mart Stores to increase spending on employee health insurance, in a decision that appears likely to end a bitter yearlong legal battle that pitted state legislators, organized labor and health care advocates against the nation’s largest retailer.

The 2-to-1 ruling by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a major setback — if not a fatal blow — for a nascent campaign, called “fair share,” that sought to move millions of America’s working poor off of state-sponsored insurance programs, like Medicaid, and on to employer-based plans.

Facing ballooning Medicaid costs, the Maryland state legislature last year passed a law forcing major employers to spend the equivalent of 8 percent of their payrolls on health care. But it structured the legislation so that it was aimed at only one company — Wal-Mart, which has many workers rely on Medicaid in states from Maryland to Georgia.

hmmmm:

But the appeals court, upholding a lower court ruling, found that the Maryland rule violated a federal labor law intended to allow companies to create a uniform system of health benefits across the country, rather than navigate a patchwork of state-by-state requirements.

By requiring employers in Maryland to restructure insurance plans, the court found, the law “conflicts” with the intent of the federal labor law, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.

The ruling could have wide-ranging implications for the so-called fair share health care legislation under consideration in several states, which has been put on hold while lawmakers awaited a final ruling in the Maryland case. It was not immediately clear whether Maryland officials were planning to appeal the case to the full circuit court or ultimately to the United States Supreme Court.  [snip]

Single payer anyone?  An across the board, federal, ”everyone is equal in the benefits derived from the system” health care? 

Doesn’t matter, Momma said that, like impeachment, it is “off the table”.

***************************************************

UPDATE, 2:40 pm

We know we are in very deep shit when Hagel sounds stronger, more specifically condemnatory of the president than any Democratic senator.  And that has been true now for over a week.

“I will do everything I can to stop the president’s policy as he outlined it Wednesday night,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, who joined Democrats at a press conference on the resolution.

    “I think it is dangerously irresponsible,” Hagel said.

************************************************************

UPDATE, 7:30 pm…. we are warming up nicely out here in San Francisco… 😉

This would be spot-on…from Who Is IOZ.  Both the original post from Max Sawicky (who takes on the recent sloppy drool from Matt Stoller), commented on by Perrin and finally IOZ.

Don’t miss Proconsul in the threads at IOZ.  What a hoot!  Surely someone we all know under different guises. He sure stamps his tiny toes!  And Max Silber shows up as well.

This is a fav rave extract from Sawicky:

The contemporary “Internet left” is not very left. It is vociferous, partisan, and alert to opportunities to nail Republicans and Joe Lieberman. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But left? Please.

Of course, with my well honed instinct for kicking at the sour milk burbles from MyDD – and others – I like this one TOO:

All generalizations about “the 1960s left” are false, except for this one.

Matt Stoller is well-situated to talk about the intersection of contemporary internet-based protest and the Democratic Party. He does not seem very current on the boots-on-the-ground left that is responsible for the huge anti-war demonstrations we have seen since 2002, as well as for local organizing against Wal-Mart and for the “living wage.” About the 60s left, he is all wet. Why does this matter? It speaks to the limits of the netroots when it comes to policy, program, ideology, and intellectual world-view.

Max’s post is meaty with updates and responses to the thread.  Ahem… 😉

brooks — the anti-globalization movement began in earnest under Clinton, or maybe Bush I. Stiglitz didn’t become a (moderate) critic until he was well clear of the White House and the World Bank. The movement people are not I think much moved by Stiglitz as much as Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Medea Benjamin, Michael Moore, and others.I applaud the activist success of the netroots, such as it is. I would like to see more in the vein of basic principle, less obsession with tactics and polls. Is that so wrong?

IOZ:

Hucksters like Kos and egomaniacal half-rate scholars like Eric Alterman spend as much time excoriating the far left or futiley courting a few dedicated libertarians in the name of Democratic victory as they do “opposing” President Bush. They’re as fond of stab-in-the-back narratives as the prowar right. “If not for that fucking Nader . . .” Dennis Kucinich looks funny. Libertarians should support welfare statism and we will deign to prosecute fewer and more graceful imperial holding actions. You know the song and dance.

I don’t know. What’s a Democrat done for me lately?

And a bit more from Max Sawicky:

The “Internet left” is substantially a captive of the Internet bubble. It’s a nice bubble, full of fun. It is awash in hypertext and flash graphics, but it doesn’t demonstrate much depth in history, political-economy, or ideology, which is another way of saying it is fairly stuck in mainstream ideology and narrow tactics. It needs to step away from the LCD monitor and crack some difficult books, go to some boring meetings, wear out some shoe leather.

And big kiss of a BINGO! to this line from Max:

The real Internet left is the Internet of leftists who use the Internet.

I have been reading the Stoller (et alia) snarl drool snarl whine bitch snarl drool for a few weeks (years) now… and more than one person sent me the Stoller latest from Monday (what set off the responses at TPM Cafe, I would guess) but you know… eventually if the diaper pin is stuck in the baby… well maybe he can just reach around and unstick himself. 

Oh I know that was rude.  Ageist.  Maybe, probably!, Sexist.  LOL I don’t fucking care.

Bullshit.  It. Gets. Old.

ET ENCORE UN!

Stop Me Before I Vote Again joins the fun (Madman filled me in).  And they link to Koswhack lui-meme. 

 This little tiff in the progressive blogosphere over the wanker “intellectuals” who think bloggers suck because they don’t read “Marx” (snort) is pretty ridiculous….

Here’s my take on the whole matter — “intellectuals” who’d rather read books and measure purity are next-to-useless.

Why yes, that is Kos.  Ignorant and delighted to display the rather too Curtis Sliwa persona that just ooo-oo-oozes out.

As well as the always estimable Hunter (who has seemed more of a gatherer to moi-meme.  What? you have not spied the incarnation?  Oh… do be resourceful!)

A snip from SMBIVA:

Pretty breathtaking, huh? Note that all us old 60s lefties are responsible for Nixon, Reagan, etc. Kos is unwittingly demonstrating here a point I have long tried to make: that the organizational Democrats really hate and fear the actual Left (even in its current etiolated form) much more than they hate and fear their supposed antagonists on the Other Team.

I would go so far as to suggest that we lefties might want to return the compliment, and hate the Judases of the Democratic Party rather worse — if only a little worse — than the Pilates of the other party.

Yum!