Look, the emperor and his clowns do not care a wit about anything concerning good or bad. These people are not evil in the sense that they get pleasure out of gore, blood and guts..
But they do think that having a war is fun!

I mean if you controlled the most awesome military force on the whole planet and you had a choice of making war or making sure the social security checks are sent out or the trains are running or the schools are funded and staffed with qualified teachers or some other unexciting task to do, which would you rather pick? These people are bored plain and simple.. they need to do something BIG to feel important and powerful.

On top of that the war gig also happens to fill your and your buddies pockets full of filthy lucre and none of your associates are doing the dying so what's not to like?

Basically it comes down to this..why does a dog lick his balls?? ... because he can.

Same for Bush and his gang.. they can play overlords to our puny selves and blow things up with out tax money.. why? because they can. Simple as that!

there is no learning. there is no learning curve. everything is tabula rasa.

if we finished things, made them solid and permanent, then we'd be like homo erectus, stuck with stone tools for millennia. this is the adaptability downside. true is what you can do and when you can do a lot, at a speed no one can catch you, 99% of the world's resistance is buzzkill?

Speaking of memory and forgetting, and of Dana Priest, I remember that she's a woman, and Dana Milbank (who also works for the formerly great Washington Post) is not, by remembering that because Dana P. is female, she COULDN'T be a priest (of the Catholic persuasion - I have met Episcopalian priestesses.)

I used to work for Thomas Jefferson, in a way - that is to say, I was at a small college that was a branch of the University of Virginia - once in a while I'd get to DC and go visit Tom's Memorial - there are some inspiring words on the walls there.

Decades earlier, I had studied Virginia History in fourth grade. I memorized part of Patrick Henry's famous speech, which perorates "give me liberty or give me death". Those monks over in Burma would understand, I suppose. I was also told that most slaves were well-treated. I was a damn yankee, though (a yankee comes down, looks around, and goes home - a DAMN yankee don't go home soon enough) and thought that the phrase "well-treated slave" was oxymoronic (although I may not have heard the word yet).

I never heard of this Jefferson Hour until now - thanks for mentioning it.

creativeforcesoftheuniverse blahblahblah

I'm not sure "democratic government is essentially impossible," but take a look at the countries in which it could be considered "successful," or doing good for a large number of it citizens. In our time, small European countries with relatively homogeneous populations, and Germany, which had to start from its "Nullpunkt" (Zero Point) in 1945 and shaped itself deliberately against a piece of its tradition and history. And then there's the UK, with one story at home and one in its Empire.
What common thread or threads propel a people to desire and practice "democracy?" Are we grinding the ones that existed in America into the dirt? And where's the will to resist and restore or resurrect?
I suspect most of us who post here have history and theory aplenty on the topic.

Hersh (and Jefferson) is wrong. The problem is not a lack of learning or knowledge, it's a lack of self-esteem. Submission to authority is taught and learned at an early age in schools and churches. Somebody better/higher/richer/holier than me knows what's good for me and I should submit to this "higher wisdom" which is really meant to enslave me.

You see this big-time in the rejection of science for religion. Half of Americans believe the bible is literally correct, and more than that believe in a god which controls their lives. You see it now in the presidential election circus. It's: What will candidate A do in Iraq? and not (as it should be in a democracy): What will we tell the president to do in Iraq?

Currently we see the US government claiming that the problems that the US has in the occupation of Iraq (Iraq being a sovereign country), which involve Iraqis killing US occupying forces, are the fault of . . . Iran! As far-fetched as this claim is, it is widely parroted in the press and accepted as truth because the authorities say it. It has nothing to do with facts, truth, knowledge or even common sense.

In that sense Hersh is correct--we haven't learned to resist authority. --Oops, gotta go now. Have to ask Dr. Laura what to do on a personal problem.

Don raises a point Nietzsche made:
"The shepards change, the sheep remain."

When and where was it not so, and what did conditions have to become for people to act? And why the return to obedience, religious or ideological? (Or, financial?)

Very good suggestions--SteveB--what "we" should be saying to and asking of the two-thirds of the country that isn't "batshit insane."
These two-thirds--are they against the war because we screwed it up (as Vietnam), or because it is (as was Vietnam)a stupid and immoral war?
And if we asked of them to work with "us" (make-up of "us" TBD)to for social justice and economic well-being for many and not enrichment of a few, how well you think that "socialist" message would resonate?
Ayn Rand still moves more Americans than Harrington's "Other America." But what do we say to that two-thirds to turn that around? A Tom Frank dicovered in "What's the Matter With Kansas?", the myth (and con job) of making it is still stronger than the appeal to community.
How would you walk into a pizza place in South Boston or Dayton and talk to the patrons about that?
I'm not quarreling with the things you'd like to see done, but the progressive or left has not (yet) found an approach that works, that connects with rational and irrational matters in the heads and hearts of many Americans.

Steve B. As to YOUR questions
1. Yes, in fact the WHOLE population needs to see a message that is easily understood in its direction and goals.
2.They think and want the SAME things that you or I think and want, A peaceful, prosperous life with family and friends.
3. "WE" should be saying IMPEACH.
4.Ask them to call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and just say IMPEACH.
5. Do so YOURSELF for an example and urge EVERY AMERICAN to do the same. Make EVERY EFFORT to spread the number around and encourage ALL to call.

These two-thirds--are they against the war because we screwed it up (as Vietnam), or because it is (as was Vietnam)a stupid and immoral war?

Why is this an important question? If we want to build a movement, we shouldn't be trying to carve out some sort of privileged place for ourselves as the ones that were against the war from the start, or are against it for the "right" reasons (not that this is your intention, but I think your emphasis on this question could lead us in that direction). Any movement worthy of the name has to welcome all who share its goals - which, in this case, should be to end to US occupation of Iraq.

My argument is that people in "a pizza place in South Boston or Dayton" are ALREADY against the war. They don't need to be persuaded of anything. The problem is that we, as the antiwar movement, haven't given them effective options. Marching, writing your congressman, getting arrested in the Congressman's office - none of these things have proven to be effective, so those people in Dayton have good reason for not engaging in these activities.

I think the most effective step those people could take to end the war is not to enlist in the military. This is already happening; since 2003, the enlistment rates in the African-American community, for example, have dropped by half. We need to use that as a model and build on that success.

"...none of these things have proven to be effective..."
True. Lowering enlistment numbers may still be another band aid.
And calling the movement "anti-war" is a colossal turn-off. (Anti which war? All war(s)? How the hell am I supposed to be able to choose? Do I even have the "right" to choose?) It seems to me the way to reach the men and women in that South Boston bar is through specifics, and to offer specifics as well for their economic welfare and security. The campaign to get those Harvard janitors a living wage, now that was splendid--and successful. If the energies of the left were poured into hundreds of similar efforts, those people would be more ready to listen to how war is used and who the people are--from the billionaires on Wall Street to their Congressional tools to the elites operating in that value-free vacuum they've built and protected since Ronnie ushered in its cemtrality in American life.
BRING BACK THE DRAFT! If the sons and daughters of DC lawyers and Goldman Sachs execs were sent to Iraq, the war would end in a NY minute.
Petition, anyone?

(Anti which war? All war(s)? How the hell am I supposed to be able to choose? Do I even have the "right" to choose?)

To be effective, a counter-recrutiment campaign doesn't need to turn those young people in South Boston into pacifists, it just needs to persuade them that enlisting in this war, at this moment, is not in their interest, and not in the interest of their country. And it's not a "band-aid". When Bush announced a reduction in the numbers of troops in Iraq, from 168,000 today to 130,000 by Summer 2008, the only reason for this change was that they can't get enough troops to keep the numbers in Iraq at the current level. Don't you think that's a clue for how we can have an even greater impact on impeding the government's ability to continue this war?

And sorry, but I think that calls to bring back the draft are an example of the complete failure of many on the left to think strategically about this war. If we thought strategically, we would identify the resources that are needed to continue the war, and then get busy choking off the government's access to those resources. And a war runs on two things: money and soldiers. If Congress isn't going to cut off the money, it's our job to cut off the supply of soldiers. Bringing back the draft only removes from our hands the one tool that has had a measurable material impact on the government's ability to continue the war.

SteveB,
"Here's a thought: how about lavishing some attention on the two-thirds of the country that isn't batshit insane? What do these people think? What should we be saying to them? What should we be asking them to do? How can we organize them into an effective resistance?"

The very first thing I'd suggest to these people is that they don't pay any attention whatsoever to someone who wants to say something 'important' to them, ask them to do something and/or, and this one especially, tries to organize them into anything. In other words I'd suggest that they pay no attention to you.

To get to "those people" it might be wise to follow Brecht, who understood:
"Erst kommt das Fressen, dann die Moral," which was nicely summed up as "First the stomach, then morality."
We haven't reached most people on their "first," so how and why will they pay attention to the second, unless progressive voices can make the connection that hits home in Dayton's joints. Have you heard such voices? Who's listening?

Since 1968, we all know how the American people chose the top dog to represent and protect their interests: Nixon 2x, Carter 1x, Reagan 2x, Bush I 1x, Clinton (Mr. NAFTA) 2x, Bush II 2x.
Now: What interests of the fork lift operator in Dayton or the teacher's assistant in Revere did these gents represent?
Must those same people not understand their role in our democratic farce first, before they'll leave the Capitalism Raises All Boats Titanic?
Who'll tell them? Think they'll listen?

Don Bacon:
Gee, I hope people don't listen to you when you "suggest" they not listen to me. In fact, I'd better go suggest they not listen to you first, before you suggest they not listen to me.

To get to "those people" it might be wise to follow Brecht, who understood:
"Erst kommt das Fressen, dann die Moral," which was nicely summed up as "First the stomach, then morality."

Sorry to repeat myself, but, as I said before, since 2003 enlistments among African-Americans has dropped by half. And, just to put that fact into context, in many large cities, the unemployment rate for young black men is over 50%.

Surely, if we were all being driven by our stomachs, the military shouldn't be having such difficulty recruiting young black men into its ranks. Yes, some of those deciding not to enlist are doing so simply because they don't want to lose their legs to an IED, but there's nothing shameful about that, and the net effect is the same - one less soldier to continue the war.

So, in answer to your question about who's listening, I'd say that many, probably most, young people are listening, and, since they have it in their power to end this war by not enlisting, they are the people who we need to have listen to us.

If there's one thing that absolutely drives me nuts, its the sloppy and indiscriminate use of the term "we."

A tiny minority of highly-paid media whores continues to parrot Bush administration propaganda, and that means we "haven't learned to resist authority."

Well, I like the term "we" because it's akin to someone that gets in your face and pokes you real hard in chest and says, "Oh, yeah -- what are YOU gonna do about it?". Poke! Poke! Poke!

Never had that happen? It's kind of a bully, upmanship thing to do, but it's almost never a good idea to let emotion take hold and wring that finger till it snaps. We usually back away, muttering that we'll get that mofo someday. When the time is right. Just bide till then.

You see, we're just biding our time. Ooops. I said we again. ;-)

Indoctrination of authority? Isn't that what the "pledge of allegiance" is all about?

Democracy just doesn't work in the longterm. The oligarchy knows it.

I have a copy of the 1944 TV series Zorro's Black Whip. It's a really cool series. One of the really unusual features is that you have a villain who learns from experience. The bad guy learns and adapts and doesn't make the same mistakes twice. Problem: That makes for a limited series that couldn't be sustained. How do you keep something like that going? So I blame popular culture. It's all the fault of TV serials!

Is that available on HD-DVD or BlueRay?

Well, I like the term "we" because it's akin to someone that gets in your face and pokes you real hard in chest and says, "Oh, yeah -- what are YOU gonna do about it?". Poke! Poke! Poke!

Really? Because I respond in the opposite way. When I read "we still haven't learned to question authority", I would think, if I actually believed this particular line of bullshit, "Well, he must mean that nobody is questioning authority. And if no one is questioning authority, then why should I stick my neck out?"

That's what I hate about the all-encompassing "we". In the example given, it implies that resistance doesn't exist, which has the effect of discouraging resistance. If you were getting paid by the gov't to spread this line, that would be one thing. But why are people who are apparently opposed to the government's actions implying that "everyone" believes the government? It just makes no sense, unless the goal is to carve out some exalted status for oneself, as the the only one who sees through the propaganda.

Ted asks if Zorro's Black Whip, which Rich apprises us of (although it was a movie serial, not a tv series - when I was a small child they still showed movie serials, but it was the tail end of the phenomenon) is available on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. Even better, it turns out - you can download it directly from Amazon.com and cut out all the physical media middlemen.

As for me, if I buy it, I will probably get it in one of the double or triple feature DVDs it's on.

And it was the Lone Ranger, not Zorro, riding with his faithful companion "Tonto", who reportedly said, after encountering hostile Indians in every cardinal direction, "It looks like we're surrounded."

To which Tonto replied, "What you mean we, white man?"

The question of who is included in "the Substance Of We Feeling" (Doris Lessing's phrase)is addressed in this Marge Piercy poem, that Bill Moyers liked so much that he quoted it at the end of a speech on Media Reform:

The Low Road

What can they do
to you? Whatever they want.
They can set you up, they can
bust you, they can break
your fingers, they can
burn your brain with electricity,
blur you with drugs till you
can t walk, can’t remember, they can
take your child, wall up
your lover. They can do anything
you can’t blame them
from doing. How can you stop
them? Alone, you can fight,
you can refuse, you can
take what revenge you can
but they roll over you.

But two people fighting
back to back can cut through
a mob, a snake-dancing file
can break a cordon, an army
can meet an army.

Two people can keep each other
sane, can give support, conviction,
love, massage, hope, sex.
Three people are a delegation,
a committee, a wedge. With four
you can play bridge and start
an organisation. With six
you can rent a whole house,
eat pie for dinner with no
seconds, and hold a fund raising party.
A dozen make a demonstration.
A hundred fill a hall.
A thousand have solidarity and your own newsletter;
ten thousand, power and your own paper;
a hundred thousand, your own media;
ten million, your own country.

It goes on one at a time,
it starts when you care
to act, it starts when you do
it again after they said no,
it starts when you say We
and know who you mean, and each
day you mean one more.

--Marge Piercy
Copyright 2006, Middlemarsh, Inc.

Hear this poem, and many of her political poems in Marge Piercy's own voice in her CD
Louder: We Can't Hear You Yet! or find it in her famous collection The Moon is Always Female.

The bad guy learns and adapts and doesn't make the same mistakes twice. Problem: That makes for a limited series that couldn't be sustained. How do you keep something like that going?

You run the story-arc till it reaches conclusion. Then you move on to a different story-arc and maybe with different characters. Or not. As a viewer, take a 90-degree turn and get out of the theater; catch the midnight greyhound and appreciate the noir life of the bus station.

But again, there's this expected convention about keeping the story going, even after it exhausts its natural life (and I think it's just familiarity that drives this). You fall into familiar habits because it's comfy, but the other guys are depending on the comfort of habit as well for their purposes -- to sell you more popcorn, to make crappy knockoffs, get re-elected, etc.

And I'm not using the "we" in the sense that I hate "we", but that it is an interesting device used to poke with on certain subjects.

Now for the exhortation:

Everyone to the ramparts!!! I'll be joining you there shortly after my daily constitutional.

i try to avoid using we much. i like it a lot in future and future conditional, especially for something where it seems there'd be majority support for something but it's hard to tell now who specifically'd be saying aye. i love the possessive, though, and that's because i dislike disowning our net effect on the world. our military. our pollution. our humanitarian record. i like posting those on the wall and saying, "this is our current contribution." then you can break it down by interest group, region, age, chromosomes, so on.

inaction is a correct course of action sometime. It is a very valid strategy in my worldview. I fully understand that many people sense that "they must do something" to appear busy, to appear moral, etc. If not to the outside world, then to themselves.

Ted: You're really something, you know that? Some really, really bad shit is happening, and some even-worse shit promises to happen, and some people are trying to stop the bad shit from happening or at least prevent the even-worse shit from happening, and, meanwhile, you're doing not a damn thing, and yet you've cleverly constructed a worldview where you come off as morally superior. Brilliant!

Guess what? Inaction is always the "correct" course of action. When Rosa Parks was sitting on that bus, the smartest thing for her to have done was to shut up and move to the back. Likewise for Steve Biko, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi. These people didn't do what they did to "appear busy" or to "appear moral." They did what they did because they had some hope of changing things for the better. But nobody's going to catch a smart guy like you doing something stupid like that. Congratulations, and enjoy the ride. Do things right, and you'll be able to pass into the next world without leaving any significant marks on this one.

Guess what? Inaction is always the "correct" course of action. When Rosa Parks was sitting on that bus, the smartest thing for her to have done was to shut up and move to the back. Likewise for Steve Biko, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi. These people didn't do what they did to "appear busy" or to "appear moral." They did what they did because they had some hope of changing things for the better. But nobody's going to catch a smart guy like you doing something stupid like that. Congratulations, and enjoy the ride. Do things right, and you'll be able to pass into the next world without leaving any significant marks on this one.

Meh.

How do you know what their motivation was? I heard Rosa was tired so she just sat down and didn't get up. Sounds like a form of inaction to me.

Half-assed fixing around the edges just extends the horizon. The other day, leading Democrats were falling over themselves extending the occupation to 2013 on TV. Giving them power in 2008 is bad, bad news for the world in general. The Republicans on the other hand are fracturing as we speak -- if there's a potential for a third party it's looking like it's going to come from them when they fracture into the religious nutty wing and the libertarian business wing. Putting Democrats into the white house prematurely allows them to mend their fences against a common enemy.

Me, I'm holding out for the Democrats to fracture apart as well; but to get to that we've still got a way to go and people are damn busy putting band aides all over them and allowing Republicans to regroup and makes progressives complacent.

Anywho, stay chilled and keep the blood pressure in check. I don't need monuments built to me in this world so don't need to leave significant marks; but, I don't believe in the next one either.

Inaction is always the "correct" course of action.

??? -- but this? I don't get it. Inaction as a form of strategy depends on discretionary use; if the opposition is doing your work for you, you step back and let them finish. But I forget -- we're supposed to claim ownership otherwise the significant marks we make would be lost to history.