Memorial Day is a when the fallen US service members are remembered. It's often said truth is the first casualty of war. It certainly was the first casualty of the Iraq War -- as Liane Hansen and weapons inspector David Kay noted on today's Weekend Edition (NPR).
Kay spoke of being shunned for telling the truth. And that reminded us of just how popular liars can be. For example, 'brave' 'lefties' Eric Alterman and Katrina vanden Heuvel love to praise two-bit speech writer Hendrik Hertzberg (a centrist, a fool and a liar) because he writes for The New Yorker. And the two-bit speechwriter writes for The New Yorker because he lies. He lies and runs with the pack. That was evident in 2000 when he not only refused to call out the attacks on Al Gore but he took part in them and wrote that Al Gore claimed he invented the internet. (Al Gore never said any such thing.) Of course, this is the same Hendrik who embarrssed himself in 2004 as his dippy collected 'writings' came out in Politics by appearing on Air America Radio and being asked a very basic question which he rushed to run from . . . only for the host to point out that Hendrik himself had noted this when covering the campaign of George H.W. Bush many moons ago and that it was among the observations in his just-released Politics. Hendrik didn't really have a response for that proving the adage that a confronted gasbag is often a silenced gasbag.
A number of people disgraced themselves in 2008 -- and a number have continued to disgrace themselves since -- as they traded in independence for membership in the Cult of St. Barack. Some have come forward and admitted they were wrong.
As Marcia explained last week, it's okay to be wrong. We could have all been wrong. If we were were, if Barack had pulled all US troops out of Iraq, if he'd addressed the needs of the people and not the corporations, etc., we'd be mature enough to say, "Golly were we wrong in 2008 -- and since -- when we repeatedly called out Barack as a corporatist War Hawk."
Maturity doesn't mean you won't be wrong. We will all be wrong in our lifetimes. Repeatedly. Maturity is realizing you were wrong and being able to admit it, to own it.
Looking at a candidate in 2016, some of us may see someone of strength, some of us may seem someone bought and paid. And that can be opinion and one group may end up right and one group wrong.
But there is another layer.
That layer is the group that betrayed everything they supposedly believed in to push their candidate of choice. For example, FAIR still hasn't gotten honest about how they repeatedly and consistently ignored sexism in the 2008 Democratic Party primaries while calling out real racism and pretend racism to advance their candidate (Barack). They're supposed to be a watchdog. They never once called out, for example, Keith Olbermann. When, under pressure and with the Democratic Party primaries wrapping up, they finally addressed sexism on their show (CounterSpin), it took Hillary being called a "bitch" on CNN. And they spent one sentence on that, forgetting to tell you who said it because they were much more interested in (yet again) insisting that Barack had been wronged. Ava and C.I. documented the silence on sexism throughout the primaries from FAIR and noted it when CounterSpin finally found an example of sexism:
Peter Hart: One of the most disturbing features of the media coverage of the Democratic presidential race is the way racism and sexism have been expressed. CNN viewers were treated to one pundit explanation that people might call Hillary Clinton a bitch because well isn't that just what some women are. Not everyone's so out in the open. MSNBC host Chris Matthews opened his May 18th show wondering how Barack Obama would connect with regular Democrats? Obviously code for working class Whites. This would seem to make the millions of Obama voters so far irregular. But then consider the May 14th op-ed by Washington Post Writers Group Kathleen Parker. She wrote about 'full bloodness' and the patriot divide between Obama and John McCain offering that there is "different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines through generations of sacrifice." This makes Obama less American than his likely Republican rival and his success part of a larger threat "There is a very real sense that once upon a time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity." Well thanks to The Washington Post, Parker's rant appeared in newspapers around the country including the Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune. We're not sure what those papers used for a headline but one blogger suggest [nonsense] would do. Parker's attack wasn't even new. Before in the pages of The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wondered if Obama had ever gotten misty thinking about his country's rich heritage. John McCain by contrast "carries it in his bones." There's an appetite in corporate media for such repellent ideas as Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell recalled, Noonan's column was praised by NBC's anchor Brian Williams as Pulitzer worthy.
And, in 2008, that was the extent of the calling out of sexism against Hillary by the so-called 'watch dog.'
FAIR needs to own what they did. They weren't just wrong, they violated every core belief they preach (apparently, they don't hold these core beliefs, they just preach them). They were far from alone.
Howard Zinn was a historian. He was a rabble rouser. He was one of the left's brightest lights. And he built up his repuation over many, many decades.
But he trashed everything he stood for to whore for Barack.
Howard endorsed Barack. When the shock and backlash was too much, Howard immediately made an announcement that he was endorsing Ralph Nader. From the Nader Campaign's October 29, 2008 press release:
Howard Zinn now says he’s voting for Nader.
The famous historian lives in Massachusetts, where Obama is ahead by 20 points.
Zinn created a stir earlier when he said he was voting for Obama.
He legitimately took some heat for supporting the corporate Obama.
But late last night, Zinn admitted in an e-mail to our campaign that he made a mistake and now says he will vote for Nader.
And Zinn urges all people of conscience to vote for the true progressive in slam dunk states.
But, of course, this just more Coward Zinn. The 'independent' who counted on the support of the disenfranchised to become a known quantity didn't really support independents. He would go on to insist that if you were in a swing state, you should vote for Barack.
Had people followed that sort of advice when buying history books, no one would ever purchased one by Zinn. Is there anything sadder than a dreamer who can no longer dream?
Even worse, Coward lied. He did not vote for Ralph. He only said he was going to in order to stop the criticism (rightful criticism) of his cowardice and his selling out. After the election, Coward would repeatedly brag about voting for Barack in interview after interview. He would allow his name to be used -- the 'independent' -- for an inaugural ball. (Anthony Arnove would insist to us that he and Howard were not attending and that it was too late to remove their names. That is and was a falsehood.) In one of her last conversations with him, Elaine would point out that he had betrayed his life's work and he wasn't getting any younger but Howard would poo-pah that and insist that Barack was the second coming. He died shortly after and never managed to improve or salvage his legacy.
His actions trashed his legacy.
For some strange reason (ignorance), Riverdaughter is on one tear after another at the left (she's been getting right-wing linkage for some time now and maybe she's ready to cross over?). In her delusioned state, it was she and only she who stood up against the Cult of St. Barack.
That's not true, that's not true at all.
In real time, there were many of us who had the courage to stand up.
The tens of thousands of readers who look to Zinn as a trusted voice of wisdom and reason are being dangerously misled by an article that omits the reality that every indication points to Barack Obama doing the exact opposite of what Zinn writes. Zinn knows as well as anyone that not an iota of evidence exists that Obama would do anything approaching what is described above. For a man of Zinn’s stature on the Left to even hint of such a possibility is a shockingly irresponsible act and one that only contributes to the misguided perception that Obama’s election is somehow a victory for the progressive Left.
That's Mickey Z, showing the kind of courage that gets you attacked ("News Flash: Obama Hypnotized Zinn"). Bad enough that you get attacked on it real time, but to be forgotten afterward?
Riverdaughter knows full well the fallout from telling the truth about Barack in 2008, as do we. So for her to repeatedly state and imply that the left was silent when they weren't isn't just wrong, isn't just insulting, it's shameful. We're not fans of Riverdaughter, we really can't stand her these days, but we will not deny her the credit she deserves for being correct about Barack Obama. It's a real shame she can't provide the same courtesy and recognition to others.
Mickey Z wasn't taking a one-time stance. He was vocal, he was vocal repeatedly. And he called out some of the big names and did so based upon what they did and said in the past and present. (As opposed to Riverdaughter who can't stop slamming Chris Hedges for things he's never done or written.) Here's Mickey Z when Noam Chomsky and Coward endorsed Barack:
This strategy of choosing an alleged 'lesser evil' because he/she might be influenced by some mythical 'popular movement' would be naive if put forth by a high school student. Professors [Noam] Chomsky and Zinn know better. If it's incremental change they want, why not encourage their many readers to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney? The classic (read: absurd) reply to that question is: 'Because Nader or McKinney can't win.' Of course they can't win if everyone who claims to agree with them inexplicably votes for Obama instead. Paging Alice: You're wanted down the ______ rabbit hole.
Down the rabbit hole, indeed. Seems we need a day of remembrance for truth tellers as well.
