Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    

Flagrancy

to Reason

 

blog roll


    our democracy at work..., 2005-08-13 12:28:54 | Main | we're moving to miami..., 2005-08-18 10:20:30

    circular monkey death squads attack:

    Brendan O'Neill again harangues some unqualified anti-war movement: "the war's opponents have sought cynically to exploit the families' sorrow for political ends ... grief has become a 'significant political force' - some in the antiwar movement are exploiting it". His case? A few families of fallen soldiers asked "Why did my child die?" and the LA Times claims "leading liberal and antiwar activists [are] parachuting in to try to make [Sheehan] their long-sought voice". Case closed! How dare antiwar groups support another antiwar group! How cynical and exploitational to make an open ended question part of their message! For shame!

    Does O'Niell ever watch the news? There was a "debate" among pro-war circles, if you think a circle jerk among liberal hawks, neo-cons, and bewildered jingoists qualifies as "debate". There never was "a serious political debate about Iraq". If there was it would start with an honest answer to these families' simple question, the lack of which is why "antiwar forces push these families further into the spotlight", namely the families themselves, and a corporate media that doesn't know how to facillitate a serious debate but knows very well how to sell a personal story, shortly before making a mockery of it.

    The guy's repeated whining about anti-war groups weren't all this bad - and could be summed up as 'the problem with self-organized groups without PR professionals and political savvy is that they often look like self-organized groups without PR professionals and political savvy'. Which seemed well enough answered by upj, much to the lack of acclaim by O'Niell. Still somebody is going to inevitably bring a free-mumia poster to Washington or something - and exaggerating its presence isn't going to help the people in the crowd you might otherwise consider sensible. The pro-war crowd didn't eat its own like this: the segments of their fringe that weren't leading the crowd were ignored, and everybody was happily enlisted for public support. You might say they were more tolerant. If the anti-war movement of O'Neill's imagination were as whiney as he is in reality he'd be the first to bitch about it.


:: posted by buermann @ 2005-08-17 11:35:13 CST | link


    Comments:
      Aw, give the guy a break, buermann! He's just trying to be fair n' balanced. On one hand, the warmongers use the full power of the state to order slaughter and torture. They lie constanly, loot and leave, like, lots of people bereaved and suffering. On the other hand, anti-war people with lousy PR join up with each other and constantly agitate to have the war stopped. They need to be more careful about who this attracts. It evens out, as he notes at the end of his article.

    posted by Harry @ 2005-08-17 15:14:24 | link




    go ahead, express that vague notion
    Name:
    Email:
    Homepage:
    Comment

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
and
other curmudgeonry

Enforcing
American
Hegemony
- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001


the good book
and other cultural
artifacts


The Autobiography
of
Mother Jones


Contact Info:
buermann[at]
flagrancy[dot]net



"Any man who is not a radical at 20 has no heart. A man who is not a cynic at 50 has no mind."