Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed





War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Van Jones and the Boycott of Glenn Beck

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Sep 8, 2009

By Amy Goodman

Glenn Beck was mad. He’s the right-wing talk radio host who has a television program on the Fox News Channel. Advertisers were fleeing his Fox program en masse after the civil rights group Color of Change mounted a campaign urging advertisers to boycott Beck, who labeled President Barack Obama a “racist.” As the campaign progressed, Beck began his attacks against Van Jones. Jones was appointed by Obama in March to be special adviser for green jobs. He co-founded Color of Change four years ago. After weeks of attacks from Beck, Jones resigned his position at the White House last Sunday.

Beck said on “Fox & Friends,” the network’s morning show, July 28: “This president I think has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people. ... This guy is, I believe, a racist.” This inspired colorofchange.org to launch its campaign urging advertisers to drop their sponsorship of Beck’s Fox program. The campaign had a powerful impact, with companies like Progressive Insurance, Geico and Procter & Gamble immediately pulling their advertising. Since then, more than 50 companies have joined, including Best Buy, Capital One, CVS, Discover, GMAC Financial Services, HSBC, Mercedes-Benz, Travelocity and Wal-Mart.

Van Jones was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2009. His book, “The Green Collar Economy,” was a national best-seller. A Yale Law School graduate, Jones didn’t go after the lucrative jobs that were available to him, but moved to San Francisco, where he founded Bay Area PoliceWatch, a hot line for victims of alleged police brutality. He then founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, based in Oakland, Calif., “a strategy and action center working for justice, opportunity and peace in urban America.” The center thrived, growing to a staff of more than 20 and building a solid record of fighting police violence and youth incarceration, along with spearheading green-job initiatives. The fusion of racial justice and economic and environmental sustainability is at the core of Jones’ work.

Jones told me last October: “The clean energy revolution ... would put literally millions of people to work, putting up solar panels all across the United States, weatherizing buildings so they don’t leak so much energy ... you could put Detroit back to work not making SUVs to destroy the world, but making wind turbines. We think that you can fight pollution and poverty at the same time.”

Beck alleged Jones was a former black nationalist and communist, that he signed a petition calling for a congressional investigation into the events of 9/11, and that Jones referred to Republicans as “assholes” in a February 2009 talk. (Beck failed to note that Jones referred to himself in the talk with the same term.) Jones apologized for the remark, which is more than George W. Bush did when recorded referring to New York Times reporter Adam Clymer with the same term in 2000.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Jones said Beck’s attacks were a “vicious smear campaign ... using lies and distortions to distract and divide.” Ben Jealous, president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said, “The only thing more outrageous than Mr. Beck’s attack on Van Jones is the fact that there are sponsors that continue to pay him to provide this type of offensive commentary.” He recalled Beck’s 2006 radio attack on a 7-year-old African-American girl, when Beck, responding to her poem about her heritage, said: “You want to go to Africa? I will personally purchase your airfare. I’ll do it. It’s one-way.”

Glenn Beck may claim a notch in his belt, but he’s also helped push Van Jones back into an arena where he can be much more effective, as a grass-roots organizer working for progressive change from outside the administration. And with groups like the NAACP paying more attention to Beck, the advertiser boycott of his show is unlikely to just go away.
 
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
 
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 750 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times,” recently released in paperback.

© 2009 Amy Goodman

Distributed by King Features Syndicate


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, March 5, 2010 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

Right however socialism isn’t an automatic lead to communism. Just as capitalism doesn’t automatically lead to fascism. It can if left unchecked. I’m for autonomy for the individual as much as possible. But we need a social safety net to be civilized. Otherwise it is the Libertarian dog-eat-dog, survival of their fittest Social darwinism which I also find anathema as any kind of top down ownership/leadership control of my life. As we are at risk now from a corporate/theocratic dictatorship at this time. [Did you know our gov’t can’t operate now without liberal corporate help? Does that bother you, it does me!]

Most such “avowed” extremists tend to not say. As for Van Jones it depends on which one do you trust? The one in the 1990’s or 2005? And if he can change. And has he changed? It was only a manager in a jobs promotion post. Not that it matters since that great hero of the Homeland Glenn Beck was able to remove him anyway. A moot point all around. I’d be more worried about those “avowed” Christian extremists who are in our special forces on their Crusade in the Middle East.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, March 4, 2010 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment

Night Gaunt says: I suppose first we need a definition of “Communism” here because there are many types. If it is by Stalin, Lenin & Mao then it is just a code word for ownership of the state by a few oligarchs. Not what Marx & Engels talked about. It depends on what Mr. Van Jones wishes for, wished?

Communism is a dictatorship. The ideology might be one you find common ground with, but to me a dictatorship based on any ideology is anathema.

Night Gaunt says: “Eco-Capitalism is the use of commerce centered around low carbon and non-carbon technologies to replace CONG* domination that we have had for over 100 years. Does that sound bad? How would it increment into communism?

Yes, I suspect it would. Which type of communism it would lead to is irrelevant to me. Perhaps it would be ok with you.


What could van Jones or someone like him do to move away from laissaze faire Capitalism or affect our gov’t to aid the people over corporate domination? Is that the linchpin you fear?

What could van Jones do? I dont know, maybe not much. Is that a reason why I should tolerate him in the government? Would you tolerate an avowed fascist in our government? What if he helped us move away from some bad problem in the system? Would that make him more acceptable to you?

I doubt it.

I do not fear removing ‘corporate domination’, but we have to ask ourselves where it will end up. Apparently you think communism is a good thing if it moves us away from fascism.

What principles do we sacrifice if we call one in to remove the other? And where does it lead? The principles of our republic ought to be strengthened(not destroyed) in order to to preserve the polity from undue corporate influence.

My concern about Van Jones: Eco-Capitalism is vague, elastic and probably is a code word for a socialism that is an incremental step towards communism. But I havent studied it yet. Have you?

If not, why are you so trusting? We should be on guard against both communism and fascism.

I choose neither the fascist nor the communist to cure our ills. If one of them is in the hen house, i am not calling the other in to remove the former. I will not tolerate either of them.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, March 3, 2010 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

I suppose first we need a definition of “Communism” here because there are many types. If it is by Stalin, Lenin & Mao then it is just a code word for ownership of the state by a few oligarchs. Not what Marx & Engels talked about. It depends on what Mr. Van Jones wishes for, wished?, in this context. “Eco-Capitalism is the use of commerce centered around low carbon and non-carbon technologies to replace CONG* domination that we have had for over 100 years. Does that sound bad? How would it increment into communism? Which type of? Would it stop the incremental fascism going on since 1980? [The mixture of corporation/gov’t/radical Christian theology]

We already have such groupings in our gov’t that promote “Free Market Capitalism” which is code for domination by it through our gov’t. Which right now can’t operate on its own without corporate help, from the economy to the military. Something that our two Democratic presidents have supported too.

What could van Jones or someone like him do to move away from laissaze faire Capitalism or affect our gov’t to aid the people over corporate domination? Is that the linchpin you fear? I don’t see it as such. At best it could green the incipient empire a little bit, but not much. [Radical global climate change promotes dictatorships and religious fundamentalism- both they could use.]

Does that help?

Good to see you back Ozark Michael!

*Coal-Oil-Nuclear-(Natural)Gas [i.e. methane]

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, March 2, 2010 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, you are one of the better participants on these forums but I am going to disagree with you on this.

Isnt it possible that instead of going straight for Communism, Van Jones has become an incrementalist?

Sort of like Obama on the single payor question, perhaps Van Jones hopes to accomplish a small step towards his real goals, and his advovacvy of ‘eco-capitalism’ is only a small step towards a different economic system?

Let me put this another way. Lets pretend that Van Jones was a fascist in the 1990s. Let us imagine that recently he gets behind a new idea… lets make up a name and call it ‘state-corporation unity capitalism’ and now a Republican President(lets imagine this happens in 2012) wants him to work in the government at a high post, a post we will call ‘State Corporation Czar’

If this happened, wouldnt you be a little skeptical? Wouldnt you be a little worried that ‘State Corporation’ was merely a small step to something worse? That our imaginary Van Jones still had hopes in the long term for fascism?

I will await your answer but I suspect that you would worry a great deal.

I know how you think about fascism, I know that even a hint of it makes you very concerned. You would be demanding that a possibly fascist Van Jones be fired, you would suspect that all the ‘state corporation’ talk was cover for sinister intentions.

Furthermore, you would be wondering if ‘state corporation’ was a ‘soft’ fascism, sort of a code for something else.

So back to reality.

Van Jones was a communist. He doesnt talk about it anymore. He talks about ‘eco-capitalism’ instead. What does ‘eco-capitalism’ mean? Is that all he really wants, or is it just a step?

A step towards what?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 28, 2010 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

Early activism in the 1990’s

“He got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a group explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics[19] whose points of unity were revolutionary democracy, revolutionary feminism, revolutionary internationalism, the central role of the working class, urban Marxism, and Third World Communism.[20] While associated with STORM, Jones actively began protesting police brutality.”[15]

Shift to environmentalism and Green for All

“By 2005, Jones had begun promoting eco-capitalism and environmental justice.”[26]

As you can see, call me Roy he is “communist” no more. He is a Green Capitalis. Not that Glenn Beck will acknowledge it, will you?

Report this

By call me Roy, February 27, 2010 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

NAACP to Honor Van Jones as ‘American Treasure’
LORD have mercy. America’s Constitution says it does not matter, what creed, color, or religion you are (heck you could be a one-eyed, one-horned, flyin’ purple people eater scientologist), thats OK, but if your proud to be a Communist, you aren’t goin’ to far with any freedom lovin’ Americans. Just ask any of our troops (who of course are all angels in disguise). Van thought he was too clean to be seen, to right to be tight. He thought, if this was TV you could see, if this was the stage, I’d be a rage. Hit the road, Jack

Report this

By DBM, October 7, 2009 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment

It would seem that the BOND group are typical Republican operative wingnuts ... except that their leader Jesse Lee Paterson has black skin.

Before you think the article posted here has anything to do with what African Americans are thinking have a look at:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/groups/brotherhood-organization-new-destiny

Report this

By BBFmail, October 7, 2009 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment

I had missed this one.  Interesting???


Black Group Comes Out In Support of Glenn Beck, Obama is a Racist
BOND Action, Inc. ^ | August 27, 2009 | abigail2

Posted on Thu Aug 27 11:10:40 2009 by abigail2

Black Group Comes Out In Support Of Glenn Beck

BOND Action, Inc., a national cultural action organization, has come out in support of FOX News Channel broadcaster Glenn Beck. Beck has been under attack from the radical left-wing group ColorOfChange.org after he said last month that he believes President Obama is “a racist.”

ColorOfChangeorg was founded by Van Jones; a self-described “rowdy black nationalist.” Jones now serves as White House environmental advisor (“green jobs czar”). So far advertisers including Geico, Ally Bank, and Sargento Cheese have been intimidated into pulling ads off The Glenn Beck Show. “BOND Action, Inc., will be working to expose the source behind the boycott and counter it,” said Founder and President, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.

“Glenn Beck is right, Obama is a racist! ” added Rev. Peterson. “Where were the boycotts and outraged activists when President George W. Bush was being falsely maligned as a ‘racist’? This is a blatant double standard. This boycott is an attempt to silence Beck from continuing his expose’ of Barack Obama’s socialist agenda and his radical ‘green jobs czar’ Van Jones.” ColorOfChange.org claims some 33 advertisers have pulled their ads off The Glenn Beck Show, but that number is reportedly exaggerated. ColorOfChange.org has a checkered past. The group reportedly endorsed outrageous statements by rapper Kanye West that former President Bush gave troops permission to go to New Orleans and shoot black people during Hurricane Katrina. Beck’s television program draws more than 2 million viewers and BOND Action, Inc., is calling on advertisers not to cave in to pressure.

Rev. Peterson said, “ColorOfChange.org claims that it exists to ‘strengthen Black America’s political voice’—but it’s clear that they are a left-wing, racist political group that deal in lies. This attempt to silence Beck is an attack on free speech and must be countered.”

For more information call (877) WE-ACT-77 (932-2877) or visit http://www.bondaction.org

Report this

By ardee, October 7, 2009 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment

DBM, October 7 at 5:28 pm

I absolutely concur, and repetition is the key. One finds it in the politics of Karl Rove and his minions, and that of MarthaA/ThomasG as well.

I would only note that it seems a shame that truth is not convincing enough, and that it seems so difficult to find.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, October 7, 2009 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

By David Pruett, October 5 at 10:09 pm #

Freedom is not free!

Pure jingoism brought to you by the military industrialists.

Report this

By DBM, October 7, 2009 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

You know Ardee you got me thinking ... trite and formulaic phrases can actually carry a lot of power.  I still remember that sickening moment when Obama capitulated to Bill O’Reilly and agreed that “The surge worked”. 

I suggest that people get badgered with more useful phrases until they have to agree.  How about

“Trickle Down Economics has never worked”

Report this

By ardee, October 7, 2009 at 3:24 am Link to this comment

David Pruett, October 5 at 6:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you Glenn Beck!

For spreading lies, racism , separatism, anger and distorting the truth…...

God Bless America!

Yeah, whatever

Support Freedom and Patriotism . . . shake the hand of an American service
member and thank them for thier service.

Work to end illegal and unnecessary wars that only benefit those who make the weapons. Do something really good for our men and women in uniform and save them from death for profit.

Freedom is not free!

True, it requires diligence and engaging ones brain rather than memorizing trite and formulaic phrases.

Report this

By tompaine, October 5, 2009 at 4:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is simple once one understands that it is theater. The Republicans are desperate. Instead of being “for” something, they have decided to take a position against something. Witch hunters need witches. The witch hunters are Beck, Riley, Limbaugh, etc., while the evil witches are liberal-democrats, commies, anti-Christian, non-whites, etc. It’s pretty simple (and foolish). One simply accuse the opposition of being evil or wrong, and that automatically makes you good and right. It works, but only with insecure, frightened, and foolish people.

The problem is not Fox, the media, or even their puppet masters; but rather there are simply too many people in this democracy who would rather believe in flattering, lies, self-deception, hatred, violence, and punishment as solutions to the human predicament. Rather than to take responsibility for their own future, too many people have taken refuge in theatre. That is the causal factor that is doing away with the United States. Instead of watching Beck or Riley every day, there are alternatives – real news, for those who care.

Thanks Amy, it helps me at least to think a little more!   
Here is a link to another article on the same subject: http://prayerdance.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/

Report this

By David Pruett, October 5, 2009 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you Glenn Beck!

God Bless America!

Support Freedom and Patriotism . . . shake the hand of an American service
member and thank them for thier service.

Freedom is not free!

Report this

By gutsf, September 21, 2009 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

Here is a link describing why Glenn Beck is “controlled opposition”— meaning being put into place for the purpose of spreading disinformation among conservatives and libertarians while at the same time discrediting those groups in the eyes of people who associate with the left wing..

http://newsofinterest.tv/audio_pages/aj_glenn_beck_2009_09_14.php

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 16, 2009 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment

No, I am going by what he does and doesn’t do. He supports our empire overseas and has no problem with the way FISA has been changed, rendition is continuing under him, the continual stonewalling on transparency (or lack thereof), the use of Clinton & Bush appointees of a decidedly right wing character as he makes sure nothing of a liberal or Progressive nature gets through. Such as in health care so far. Remember it isn’t what he says but what he does that counts.

He needs to prove himself and he has, as a Conservative at best, a fascist in the closet as worse. Keeping the Bush/Cheney regime alive isn’t the way to do it. You should be able to see that if you were looking at what he is doing with a clear perception based upon action alone. Nothing else. And Van Jones is a Green Capitalist as he has proven himself to be. And also as I said, it wouldn’t interfere in our loss of rights or the subversion of the republic into a decrepit state ripe for the capitalistic theocrats to takeover. Not a bit of a problem. But then you have a blindness in that area, it just doesn’t sit well with you I understand but it doesn’t change what is going on or for what direction we are going to.

Report this

By fuelcellboy, September 16, 2009 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I can not read Amy Goodman anymore.

I almost sent Amy money a couple of years ago.

Architects and Engineers know that 9-11 was controlled demololition (http://www.ae911truth.org).

ACORN?

How many people at the Washington ‘tea party’?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 16, 2009 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt said: However you must understand that Van Jones position wouldn’t have affected Obama’s continuing puscht to the reich anymore than if Bush/Cheney or McCain were still in charge.

First of all we are getting somewhere. What you are saying is that Van Jones was not a big player(even if he was a communist), and the direction of the nation wasnt effected that much by him. Thats a fair point to make.

However, changing subjects to a more important personage: “puscht to the reich” makes Obama sound like a fascist.  As much as i oppose Obama on many issues, i find myself in the odd place of defending him. I must object to you implying he is a fascist.

Probably you are frustrated with Obama and waxing metaphorical. Which is ok, its legal, it makes your point. I think it has several bad effects and actually undermines your cause.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 16, 2009 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

However you must understand that Van Jones position wouldn’t have affected Obama’s continuing puscht to the reich anymore than if Bush/Cheney or McCain were still in charge. The word “czar” first used by Nixon, isn’t what they are really called nor what power they may or may not have. Some do like the person in charge of Drug Control Policy but others donot. More advisory in nature. But all are appointed by the president, not elected. So we have a greener empire? In the long run it doesn’t help us does it Ozark Michael with our ways of life?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 16, 2009 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment

I ask: “would you approve of the fascist as easily as the communist?”

Night-Gaunt: No unless he proved himself to be otherwise.

‘Proof otherwise’ would include not only renouncing violence, but also renouncing the goals of fascism, wouldnt it?

I had to wait a week or two to get to that “No”. At last we get to what is real. Only Night Gaunt has that honesty. Fair enough, your honest answer earns my honest answer in return.

Basically my response to him is the same as it would be to the fascist. I say “No” to both. And the proof otherwise would have to be quite convincing before i would want them in government.

Night Gaunt asks: That was back in 1996, tell me what you have found that shows he is still of that ilk of radical violence and protest these 13 years later?

I think when anyone who espouses radical views mixed with violence/revolution and then later renounces the violent part, there is still the radical agenda in their heads. In other words, they have the same goal but realize that violence isnt going to succeed. The extremist goal is still their dream, its just the method that changes.

Yes I am glad Van Jones isnt into the violent part anymore. Also I am glad that you arent into the violent part, Night Gaunt. I never thought that Van Jones was preparing for violence these days. That isnt the point. 

But on the other hand, anyone who in the past wanted the violent method, is a bit of a risk. I worry that if at some point in the future violence could be seen to have the potential to accomplish the goal(which was never renounced) then violence might be back on the table for the extremist. So I am very cautious about both of them, fascist and communist.

Leftists here have acted as if it was wrong to find out and expose Van Jones. Again, if he was a fascist, Truthdig would have been all over this story long ago, and the burden of proof would be on Van Jones to clear himself and not on me at all. In fact, if a former fascist was in Bush’s administration, Truthdig would use it to help prove that Bush was a fascist.

Obama was very afraid that Van Jones was going to make him look like a communist. Perhaps looking into it further would clearly exhonorate Van Jones, but that seems doubtful.

You ask me what else I know about Van Jones. I dont know and very few people are ever going to know because the Obama administration booted him out as soon as the story broke.

Blaming Glenn Beck for this process is quite short sighted.

BTW, i had time to listen to Beck on radio for the last week and I even watched him on TV a few times. your accusations that i am a follower of his were false. i dont think he is going to stay on top very long.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 16, 2009 at 11:12 am Link to this comment

No unless he proved himself to be otherwise. That is something you have yet to address yourself. Can you say with that same straight face about a former “communist” or was it “anarchist” the information is spotty in that area.  Van Jones was in S.T.O.R.M. for 2 years then started his own group, the Ella Baker Cntr. and went another way. That was back in 1996, tell me what you have found that shows he is still of that ilk of radical violence and protest these 13 years later? You are much better at dodging than answering the original question, aren’t you?

Anyway such gov’t positions aren’t voted on to begin with so the whole point is for you to prove that lack of consistency you expect from the wide plethora of respondents here. You have noticed there is no monolith here either have you?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 16, 2009 at 5:50 am Link to this comment

Tell me, does Senator Byrd get your ire because he was once in the KKK many decades ago?

I would not have voted for him 30(?) years ago when he first ran for the senate. If it ever occured to me later to support Byrd, after he has proven himself, I would not pretend the KKK stuff didnt happen like cann4ing advises us all to do with Van Jones.

Not that I dont wish Van Jones well, nor do i hate him. Nor would I withhold friendship on a personal level. Another communist, MarthaA, hopes for a future where I would be shot for being a conservative. Even that is forgivable on a personal level.

And if she changed her mind about it, i would not only forgive, but welcome her as a friend. So yes, i do believe in love, forgiveness, and redemption.

But that sort of extremism is a deep hole to climb out of as far as trust for public office is concerned. This is rather complicated and perhaps I am not making it clear. But clarity cannot come from me and be delivered to you as if it was a parcel in your mail box.

Again, my original proposition has not been answered: “Come Truthdiggers. Try and tell me with a straight face that you would
approve a person who professed fascism to be in the government, just because they recently changed their minds about it.”

Night-Gaunt! If nothing else you are honest… would you approve of the fascist as easily as the communist? That is where the clarity will come from.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 15, 2009 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment

“Jones came from rural Tennessee, by way of Yale Law School. The self-described former “rowdy black nationalist” is best known as founder of the Ella Baker Center, an Oakland-based nonprofit group with roots firmly grounded in criminal-justice issues that affect low-income people of color. In 1995, he started Bay Area PoliceWatch, a program that assists victims of alleged police brutality. He made his mark as an activist by brashly saying things no other civil-rights leaders would say, such as “Willie Brown’s Police Commission is killing black people.” The center’s second program, Books Not Bars, runs a campaign to radically transform California’s youth prisons into rehabilitation centers. As the group gained visibility and a reputation for in-your-face tactics, its annual budget snowballed to $1.4 million, and its staff increased to 22.”--Eliza Strickland

Yes Ozark Michael thanx for this it shows me you are even more wrong than before! Does reformed or self described mean anything? Or what others say, not counting biased observes like Glenn Beck?

Tell me, does Senator Byrd get your ire because he was once in the KKK many decades ago? Can they ever clean up their act by proving it whenever they work? Van Jones is hardly the man he was in 1992 is he? You did read the article you linked us to didn’t you OM? He was in STORM for two years then left to do it a different way. One without anger or violence or walking around with signs. Read more closely next time.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 15, 2009 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

Here is the organization Van Jones joined: 

STORM initially included anarchists, communists and revolutionary nationalists, but after some internal, personal struggles the anarchists left, and STORM become more communist-oriented.


my source is easy to check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Together_to_Organize_a_Revolutionary_Movement


and then this is a quote from Van Jones, you will have to scroll down a long way:

“I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”


http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the_new_face_of_environmentalism/Content?oid=290098&showFullText=true

Van Jones was a professed communist in a communist organization. If he professed fascism in a fascist organization you would have known about it without any help, and everyone on Truthdig would have understood why he had to go.

Report this

By cann4ing, September 15, 2009 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

OM—please provide links for your sources and I will gladly pull them apart, one-by-one.

PS Calling someone a name, be it “communist,” “anarchist” or “local ignoramus” does not add weight to your arguments.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 15, 2009 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment

the local ignoramus said: Van Jones never “professed” communism, fascism or anarchism.

Arrested during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, and briefly sent to jail, Jones met, he said “communists and anarchists,” and decided “ This is what I need to be part of.”

He said that he spent “the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.”

From 1992 until 2002, Jones was a member of a communist group that was dedicated to “organizing a revolutionary movement in America

The group he joined was Storm, a Bay Area Marxist-Maoist collective.

Lets lighten the mood with a fun fact: Van Jones is an ardent follower of Amilcar Cabral, the late Marxist revolutionary of Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands, who lauded Lenin “as the greatest champion of the national liberation of the peoples.”

In 2006, Van Jones named his newborn son “Cabral” in the Marxist leader’s honor.

Not a single one of you took up my challenge, but thats ok. I didnt expect anything else.

Report this

By BBFmail, September 15, 2009 at 6:46 am Link to this comment

I would be reluctant to trust the decisions of someone(supposedly a top notch lawyer) who signs a petition w/o reading it…and then claims he did not support the petition he signed after this has been made public..and he is questioned about it.  The bottom line is ...Glenn Beck did not cause him to resign…that was the Obama administration.  Obama threw him “under the bus” along with Wright, Rezko, Ayers, his Grandmother….and who knows how many others.

Report this

By ardee, September 15, 2009 at 3:04 am Link to this comment

Don Pelton, September 10 at 5:00 pm

Thank you for the link to your website. I think it a worthy and informative one and have bookmarked it for future referencing.

Report this

By DBM, September 14, 2009 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment

Cann4ing quoted Henry Wallace:

On April 9, 1944, while our nation was engaged in a life-and-death struggle with fascism in Europe, an op-ed written by Vice President Henry Wallace appeared in the NY Times:

“The American fascist would prefer not to use violence.  His method is to poison the channels of information.  With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power.”

“They claim to be super patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.  They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.  Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjugation.”

HAS ANYONE EVER DESCRIBED THE TWO MAJOR AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES MORE ACCURATELY?

Report this

By Dave Schwab, September 14, 2009 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

The Hill: Green Party courts Van Jones for future run

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/58435-green-party-courts-van-jones-for-future-run

Report this

By BBFmail, September 14, 2009 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

Well, it appears the whole Glenn Beck boycott was overblown by the libs
Conservative blog Hot Air decided to do a little investigating into the smear campaign trolled out by Color of Change/Van Jones.

Apparently, there is no massive boycott of Glenn Beck—except in the imagination of Color of Change, and fueled with lies by HuffPo and MSNBC. (I know, shocker, MSNBC lied?! )

Of companies that were reported to have dropped their advertising on Beck’s show were Wal-Mart, Best Buy and CVS. Of these three, only Wal-Mart has pulled an ad from the show and rescheduled it to a different time slot on Fox so there was never any loss in ad revenue. Best Buy informed DefendGlennBeck.com that they have never advertised on the Glenn Beck show, and CVS also has never advertised on the Glenn Beck show but has expressed a preference not to have their ads on his show.

Here is the link:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/1…of-glenn-beck/

Report this

By cann4ing, September 14, 2009 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

Beth:  You are quite right.  Van Jones is quite capable of operating efficiently in the private sector, but when is the last time you found the private sector operating in the public interest?

The private sector is all about profits.  What’s good for Wall Street is not necessary good for the American people.

Report this

By Beth, September 14, 2009 at 8:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a really great post, and I am sorry that your comments are getting flamed.

I do think that loosing Van Jones is a huge loss for America, however I think with his talents he will be huge in the private sector, and might even be able to do more good than he would have if he remained in the public sector.

Report this

By cann4ing, September 14, 2009 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

Van Jones never “professed” communism, fascism or anarchism.  All three labels were applied by Glenn Beck’s rather hostile imagination.

Right wing nut cases, like Ozark Michael, create caricatures of individuals in order to smear their reputations, then proposed meaningless hypothetical questions, like “what if” Van Jones had professed himself to be a fascist, ignoring that those operating on the far right, especially people like Glenn Beck, meet the classic definition of fascism.

On April 9, 1944, while our nation was engaged in a life-and-death struggle with fascism in Europe, an op-ed written by Vice President Henry Wallace appeared in the NY Times:

“The American fascist would prefer not to use violence.  His method is to poison the channels of information.  With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power.”

“They claim to be super patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.  They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.  Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjugation.”

Report this

By ardee, September 14, 2009 at 3:29 am Link to this comment

Ozark now twists in the wind.

While Jones did indeed join S.T.O.R.M. directly out of Law School, an Oakland based Marxist group which worked to end police brutality towards African American and other minority groups, the question remains….so freaking what?

Is it now a crime to advocate for radical political change, which Jones did not by the by, or to express ones beliefs in another system of governance, which Jones only did by association?

Does OzarkMichael practice selective discrimination here, failing to express any objection to those right wing politicos who belong to seemingly radical right groups as well? There are certainly enough of them…..

Van Jones was doing good work before nutjobs like Beck forced him out of government. I think Jones should have refused to leave, frankly and surmise that he was asked to do so by a White House filled with cowards.

Perhaps Ozark will now turn his attention to Ron Paul and his association with Stormfront, or those republicans living in that radical christian house in D.C….or perhaps not.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 13, 2009 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment

Just as Horowitze too was a professed Communist (of some type) then turned to being a reich-winger. His radicalism intact. I have not seen that with Van Jones. Do you have some evidence that he is a Communist (of what type) and/or Anarchist (what type) and if he remains it? And if he can be both? [Not really, they are too opposing depending on which types they are.] For a Christian you have no trust. Or do you think Ozark Michael, that people cannot change? Do they remain sinners after they confess them? Are you sure you’re a Christian? You sound more like a follower of Calvin and his rigidity of once you are you remain as God ordained in the beginning who you are and where you will go after judgment.

Report this

By FredPinVT, September 13, 2009 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael: How do I go about disproving a non-
existent fact that isn’t? Glad to meet you but the
pundits have US fighting over their failures. Why?
Should we not rather discuss the issues instead of
chasing goonies?? Issues should be driving the
debate, not anything else. Not ideology and not
misleadings. Issues. I want to discuss issues! Now,
are you happy with paying an insurance company who
denies you treatments and gives themselves bonuses?
I’m not and that needs to change. The way I see it
is, let the hospitals return to healthcare like it
was in the 60’s, we had no insurance and it was much
cheaper. Now much of your money is going to pay a
salary of someone who has no clue whats wrong with
you? Think about that… I assume your name is
Michael…  have a good night, Sir…

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 13, 2009 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

thats a misunderstanding, Fred. i didnt mean to say that van Jones professed fascism.

What i meant to do was challenge you with a counter question. Its a thought experiment. I should have worded it differently: “Imagine if Van Jones had professed fascism…”

and then i showed how hypocritical the Left is. The Left tends to yawn about the totalitarianism of the extreme Left.

Perhaps you or Nightgaunt will prove me wrong?

Report this

By FredPinVT, September 13, 2009 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

Where are the facts concerning Van Jones professing
Fascism? There must be someplace other than an
extremists web sites like Fox?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 13, 2009 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt asked: How about when Van Jones stopped profession communism (what type?) and anarchism but then became a capitalist. Does that count or is it only what he first said that is important for you Ozark Michael?

Let me counter propose this: If Van Jones professed fascism, and then later stopped professing it, would you be comfortable with him in government? I would NOT. Period.

Ahh, but the Left always wants the rules to be different for itself, always overlooks or excuses its own extremism. The hypocrisy of the Left is overwhelming.

Again, Van Jones should never have been hired and should never be consulted by the government. Sorry extreme leftists of Truthdig… no sale.

Report this

By FredPinVT, September 12, 2009 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment

Where do the rtwing nuts get their prowess? The likes
of limbaugh, beck, hannity and o’reilly are insults
to intelligence. It’s their followers I worry most
about. Because they are being led by the
multinational cooperate fat cat cigar smokers and
they have no clue? The neo-cons say spit and they
spit. Bend over, they bend over, march and they
march. Call out obscenities and they call them out.
And most of them don’t even know why? It’s like the
dogs following the pack because one dog is barking.
It’s absolutely laughable!... and yet so sad… They
don’t even know what working together is. The
idealist drums of a few, they follow.

Report this

By cann4ing, September 12, 2009 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

The hypocrisy of the hard right is almost as appalling as is the ignorance of its blinded followers.

At the outset of the 2000 campaign, each Republican member of Congress was given a copy of “The Art of Political War” by David Horowitz, each bearing a Karl Rove endorsement inside the cover

In the 1960s Horowitz was a militant Marxist and a one time supporter of the Black Panther Party.  His militancy has remained constant, even as his worldview has changed.  He now pimps for the hard right and corporate power. 

In “The Art of Political War.” Horwitz enjoins his readers to cripple an opponent not by outwitting him in debate but by following Lenin’s injunction:

“In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent’s argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.”

The hard-right could never debate a brilliant environmentalist like Van Jones, a Yale Law School graduate, head on, so they assault his character; try to destroy his reputation.

What is especially amusing is that in calling Jones a “communist-anarchist radical” Glenn Beck simply displayed his own fundamental ignorance of the irreconcilable differences between communists and anarchists.

It’s a replay of McCarthyism, pure and simple.  And Obama made a major mistake in permitting a mindless troll like Beck to get away with it.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 12, 2009 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment

How about when Van Jones stopped profession communism (what type?) and anarchism but then became a capitalist. Does that count or is it only what he first said that is important for you Ozark Michael?

A simple question for you to answer.

Report this

By cann4ing, September 12, 2009 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

Oh please, OM.  The Bush administration was filled with fascists, starting with Cheney.  Never heard you complaining.  Why is that?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 12, 2009 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

my challenge: “tell me with a straight face that you would approve a person who professed fascism to be in the government”

Although Louise writes a nice post to chuckle at, she didnt answer the challenge. No amount of admiration by other lesser minds can change that.

If someone professed fascism, you would want them gone, and by the way so would I. Van Jones professed Communism, and its a good thing that he is gone, even if you are too far to the Left to understand that.

Report this

By FredPinVT, September 11, 2009 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bring Van Jones back and fire beck!

Report this

By PeterGrfx, September 11, 2009 at 12:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If being an ex-Communist disqualifies you from serious consideration, then half the founding editors of National Review would have to be considered off-limits: i.e., Frank Meyer and Whittaker Chambers (ex-Communists), and Max Eastman and James Burnham (ex-Trotskyists), not to mention all the ex-Trotskyists and pseudo-social democrats (Josh Muravchik, for example) who helped found the neo-conservatives.

Report this

By DBM, September 10, 2009 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment

Cann4ing:
“DBM speaks of a “vetting process of the Party leadership.”  What vetting process?  There is nothing in the Constitution or the laws of these United States that even hints that a President must vet his appointees through the Party leadership.  ...
The unthinking posts of these ... uninformed wing-nuts reflect nothing more than the ability to regurgitate the latest right-wing talking point.”

Not to be too thin-skinned but you might want to read more carefully.  What I said was:
“I don’t get the impression that Obama is a centrist or a moderate.  If he is then he certainly managed to circumvent the vetting process of the party leaderships!  No, he’ll almost definitely be a well right of centre conservative who owes a lot of favours to his large corporate campaign donors.”

The implication is that the Democrats (like the Republicans) vet their presidential candidates to ensure that they are acceptable to their corporate sponsors ... not sure how you interpret that as a right wing-nut position.

Ah well, I’ve been called worse!

Report this

By mcthorogood, September 10, 2009 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

@Don Pelton, September 10 at 5:00 pm

Thanks for the link on Who Really Toppled van Jones.

The first time that I saw Phil Kerpen and learned of “Americans For Prosperity”, I headed over to the Center for Media and Democracy to learn more about these ca$hroots.

Report this

By ardee, September 10, 2009 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

Louise, September 10 at 4:42 pm

Kudos for a literate and insightful post. Too bad it is wasted on those who do not listen.

Report this

By HF101, September 10, 2009 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

...FOX experienced 0 revenue loss, all they did was shuffle the deck! All those
‘righteous’ advertisers can now be found on Hannity, Bill O & Greta V.
Good luck getting advertisers to turn away from REAL network ratings..it’s
their manna.

Report this

By Don Pelton, September 10, 2009 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There’s more to the backstory on this: A campaign was
launched against Van Jones even before Beck made his
offensive comment about Obama, so ... before the
resulting advertiser boycott, and thus well before
Beck’s counterattack against Color of Change
cofounder Jones.

Who launched that campaign against Jones and why?

I summarize it here:

http://sierravoices.com/2009/09/who-really-toppled-
van-jones/

Report this

By Louise, September 10, 2009 at 1:42 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael,

“Come Truthdiggers. Try and tell me with a straight face that you would
approve a person who professed fascism to be in the government, just because
they recently changed their minds about it.”

~~~

I feel a chuckle coming on. smile

There are a lot of folks who perfectly fit the idealized definition of Fascism in our government, who by the way, have made no effort to change their minds. Found primarily on the right, and for the most part having been approved by the folks who elected them. (With a straight face.)

They call themselves conservative, as did the folks who created Fascism. As Mussolini stated, Fascism is the direct opposite of Socialism, seeks to destroy Democracy and elevate a solid Republic based on a political and economic system that combines nationalism, ant-communism, anti-capitalism, anti-labor union and anti-liberalism into a state that binds all classes together under a Corporatist system.

Oh my gosh! I think I just described the Bush years!

Ooops! I left out totalitarianism! Lets see, totalitarianism is characterized by censorship, monopoly of information, centrally steered propaganda, ideology - official and obligatory, lack of opposition parties, rule by a mono-party, clearly defined internal and external enemies, (Becks hit-list) an ideal type of man, (white Christian) extreme skepticism regarding creative arts, science, history and a selective approach to traditions. And of course, total control of society; social, religious, economic and political. Gotta give Republicans their due. If they don’t rule just now, it’s not for want of trying.

Obama, the Socialist Fascist. Kind of like saying my favorite color is the red color green. Seems the USA’ers know a lot of names, but they haven’t a clue what those names mean. Like I’ll bet a lot of folks think Fascist and Nazi are the same thing. Just like I’ll bet a lot of folks think Socialism and Fascism are the same thing, and some even think Communism and Fascism are the same thing.

That reflects a level of ignorance almost as funny as the notion that Corporate Capitalism and Democracy are the same thing. Capitalism, ideally dedicated to the protection of individual rights, under Corporate control fights to remove individual rights. Which by the way is why Mussolini felt a Corporatist system was fundamental to the development of his Fascist party.

Corporate version capitalism is akin to Fascism, but not Socialism or Communism. Except when there are exceptions, like Communist China which right now is one of the most successful Corporate Capitalist economies on earth, only you can comfortably remove Capitalist and simply call it Corporatism. Which by the way, much better defines OUR version of Capitalism. Because, in case you hadn’t noticed Corporations guide our economy a lot more than free Capitalists!

So seems to me unless or until we can take the time to educate ourselves, name calling is just that. Name calling. Petty, stupid and pointless, unless the point is to simply destroy something just because we can. Or because that’s all we know how to do. In Becks case, that just about covers it. People who have no real value do that you know ... attack everyone and everything so no one will notice that’s the only thing they know how to do.

Report this

By Louise, September 10, 2009 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment

Nighthawk,

[By Louise, September 9 at 9:20 am #]
“Bigotry never is, and that about says it all.
Racism, blind hatred, fear and denial. “

“Well, that certainly proved me wrong.  I guess it’s too complicated for you.  You obviously imagine that you understand it, but you really have no clue.”

“Sorry hon. I can’t help you until you learn to accept it.”

~~~

Ok, what exactly is the “it” I need to accept?

“Van Jones. Prof. Gates. Jeremiah Wright. Barack Hussein Obama.” Is that the it?

Well golly whiz, looky there ... they’re all black!

Or how about, ” She CHOSE to put you (Barry) in a Muslim school.” Is that the it? The dreaded religion Islam, it?

Yep, racism, blind hatred, fear, denial AND bigotry never is complicated, and that about says it all. Sorry if you missed the “religious” implication in bigotry. Thought you understood, I should have made it clearer. Maybe you’re the one who needs a clue. I on the other hand do have a clue, and I do accept that the ugly “it” exists, even though I absolutely reject and do not understand it.

So please, don’t help me.

You need to work a little more on helping yourself understand what bigotry, racism, blind hatred, fear and denial mean.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 10, 2009 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

Nice description of Woll‘s “inverted totalitarianism” but there are those who want to have the full kind so that none of them will be bothered with even the problems of a poorly functioning democratic-republic like Cheney is now.

Report this

By cann4ing, September 10, 2009 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

By bogi666, September 10 at 9:54 am #

I have taken a cue from the neocon propaganda machine which, using several different spokes person, who all repeat continuously the same talking points. The WMD’s and the mushroom cloud being the most obvious examples.The technique works and was developed by a neocon linguist.
________________

Actually, the technique is much older than the Bush regime neocons—- with emphasis on the “con”:

“[A]ll effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand…Propaganda [has] to be continuous and unvarying in its message.  It should never admit a glimmer of doubt in its own claims, or concede the tiniest element of right in the claims of the other side.”  Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

To fully appreciate hard-right smear campaigns, wing-nut mobs disrupting town hall meetings and the like, it is important to understand that theirs is a fascist reality—-a point recognized in an April 9, 1944 New York Times editorial authored by Vice President Henry Wallace, defining the “American fascist:”

“The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information.  With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power.

“They claim to be superpatriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the constitution.  They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and   vested interest.  Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjugation.”

Report this

By Dave Schwab, September 10, 2009 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

Let’s put Van Jones back to work - join the movement to draft Van to run for governor of California:

http://bit.ly/DraftVanJonesCA

Report this

By hammering in the morning, September 10, 2009 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

By Nighthawk, September 9 at 9:54 pm

“Now, before all of you loons get your panties in a bunch, I can only relate what was told to me by someone that was there.  Well that and the numbers.  3500 to 4000 just in one of the venues in the area.  About 20 of those were Obamanites.  Call it about 15,000 in one day in my area. 

A groundswell of grassroots multipartisan people.  “The People”. 
No wonder it has Obama jumping.”

nighthawk I will give you that corporate lobbyists and their Astroturf organizations were quite successful in delivering the far right to town halls. The fact that they were upset about things which don’t actually exist is sort of beside the point they were active and loud and so commanded a lot of media attention.

Where we disagree would be your use of the word “multipartisan” I would only agree if you describe people who believe that the Government is evil to people who think that Obama is Hitler is as a group “multipartisan”

Further I would not describe these protests as a “groundswell” These people as a group are the same 28 percenters who still thought W was doing a good job at the end of his Presidency. Just because these protesters were loud and unruly does not make them a majority.

Lastly you will probably come back and say that support for the Presidents plan is slipping. Yes that is true, however it has more to do with the media than the protests. We have all be inundated with coverage of these right wing lies for a month. The media presents the debate as being equal therefore it is not surprising that some uninformed people would start to believe the lies.

Make no mistake nighthawk, the center and left in this country comprises 70% of the citizens in this country. We will take this country back again from the “economic royalists” as FDR described them. It is just that most people are not as pissed of yet as the folks who are too dumb to know when they are being manipulated.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 10, 2009 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

Wow Night Hawk you can watch any of the others reich-wing shows and read their materials and come up with the same talking points so unless you live in a cave you have the taint of them. Their orders are within you and are regurgitated as needed.

Yes one black man out of 15 armed & (idiotic) men, the other 14 were white. I wish that corporate news, not known for its liberality in favor of the truth or human rights, would have shown it. I thank MSNBC for doing so.

You all must know that the “center” is a moderate right wing at best. With the “extreme left” is the moderate left these days. Don’t you?

I do wonder what JeanniMack thought of those radicals in the oval office for the past 8 years before? Obama is a radical to me too in the same mold following the same programming and doing the same damage. He may sacrifice his presidency for this, but then the same crooks that got Bush “elected” twice can do the same for him. Just think of what Clinton did for the cause when the Republicans were stymied. Hillary Clinton would have been no better either. Democrats are the sugar that allow the poison to go down. The poison is the Republican straight up. Demos aren’t “light” they are just easier on you. Like lubricant for when you are raped (male or female). It doesn’t change the fact of what was done to you and me.

Obama made a good speech but he still must do something in order to prove himself. I am amazed at those who take him at his word again after he has reneged so often before. The benefit of the doubt should be over for him.

Report this

By PogueMahone, September 10, 2009 at 9:27 am Link to this comment

JEANNIEMAC,

You keep stating that the president appoints “radicals” to govt posts.

you and your ilk have demonized words like liberal and radical over the past several decades.  Radical is from the Latin for “root” and we all know that to effectively change anything, one must get to the root of the matter.

Report this

By richardbelldc, September 10, 2009 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

The Van Jones story is much less complicated than the intensity of the debate suggests. Despite having a wonderful record of accomplishment, he had the misfortune to have associated himself with one of today’s “third rail” issues, the 9/11 conspiracy universe. Privatizing Social Security is a perennial third rail issue. Just because you think that it’s irrational to think of a given issue as third rail does not, in and of itself, diminish the issue’s acute toxicity in the present.

Other people in this thread have offered polling numbers which appear to show that a significant percentage of Americans agree that 9/11 was some kind of conspiracy. But whatever the polling numbers may be, everyone with even a remote connection to the reality of American politics at this moment knows that association with 9/11 conspiracy-land is deadly. Van Jones race had nothing to do with it; white, black, brown, yellow,red, he was politically dead once the right-wing started publicizing his 9/11 past. Are there people who really believe that Obama would have been well-served by trying to defend Jones under these circumstance?

As an earlier Chicago political writer put it, “Politics ain’t beanbag.” (Finley Peter Dunn). Obama is playing in the big leagues. Staff with 9/11 conspiracy connections are about as low-hanging as any fruit can be, from the point of view of right-wing attack dogs.

Report this

By bogi666, September 10, 2009 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

rfidler, your observation and comments are well taken and I do have a purpose in repeating the same points over and over. I have taken a cue from the neocon propaganda machine which, using several different spokes person, who all repeat continuously the same talking points. The WMD’s and the mushroom cloud being the most obvious examples.The technique works and was developed by a neocon linguist. That’s why I do it and I attempt not to post repeatedly on the same comment.

Report this

By cann4ing, September 10, 2009 at 6:37 am Link to this comment

Very reasonable question, ardee, but don’t hold your breath waiting for a reasonable answer from an uneducated wing-nut like our JEANNIEMAC.

The level of their ignorance is astounding.

Consider for example JEANNIEMAC’s statement:

“Why aren’t his [Obama’s] people vetted by Congress? Why is he by-passing this process?”

She seems unaware of the fact that there is no Congressional process for confirming mid-level positions in the executive branch of the U.S. government.

There are positions where there is a confirmation process.  For example, Ambassador to the UN.  Where George W. Bush bypassed the Congressional confirmation process through a recess appointment of John R. Bolton, a hard-right fanatic who once said if you lopped off 13 floors from the UN building, no one would notice the difference, JEANNIEMAC has failed to identify a single Obama recess appointment, because there are none.

DBM speaks of a “vetting process of the Party leadership.”  What vetting process?  There is nothing in the Constitution or the laws of these United States that even hints that a President must vet his appointees through the Party leadership.  (Never mind that an elected President is considered the head of his/her Party).

There is no precedent for such a constraint on executive power.

The unthinking posts of these two uninformed wing-nuts reflect nothing more than the ability to regurgitate the latest right-wing talking point.

Obama can be rightfully criticized, but not for the reasons listed by the wing-nuts.  They accuse Obama as being a socialist.  Sadly, he is nothing of the sort.  He has surrounded himself with Goldman-Sachs-connected Wall Street tycoons.  He, along with the corporatist Democratic Leadership, is part and parcel of a bi-partisan elite consensus when it comes to Empire and corporate wealth and power.

I’m inclined to agree with John Pilger that Obama is simply a media creation.  He possesses extraordinary skills of oration that lend toward soaring rhetoric.  But, in terms of corporate wealth and power, Obama is no different than his Republican predecessor. 

The real power struggle is the competition for K-Street money, with corporate America finding Obama and the Democratic Leadership a more effective means for deceiving the public than Republicans who make no bones about screwing the little guy.

Where you and I differ is that I don’t think the same things I just said about Obama apply to members of the progressive caucus, a group that once included Cynthia McKinney prior to her ouster by the corporate sector of the Party. McKinney did not become a progressive only when she walked away from the Democratic Party.  She was a progressive all along.  So are Kucinich, Weiner, et al.

Report this

By ardee, September 10, 2009 at 3:44 am Link to this comment

JEANNIEMAC, September 9 at 5:57 pm #

I asked why Obama appoints only radicals to important posts.  No one answered the question.

You post a ridiculous assumption and then complain because people treat it as such.  How about a list of those appointees ou think fall under that category ?

Report this

By Existentialist, September 9, 2009 at 9:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It seems to me that the failure of this here debate is for people to take sides with either the Dems or the Reps. 

These labels are no longer the issue when it comes to governmental debates. 

The main issue staring us in the face is the individual entity versus the corporate entity in our current US reality.

People should be examining Obama’s czars (for which, he still has less of them than Bush Jr. had)—the term going back to use in the F. D. Roosevelt admin. from any information that I’ve read.  After the Bush administration, we should be examining every detail and every motivation of the members of each new administration.

I know I have been quite skeptical, especially over the cult of personality surrounding Obama (or the average overheard hatred and whining about him because he is a Democrat, that he is black, a socialist, born in Kenya, or a Muslim).  What we should be analyzing is whether or not this administration serves the People or the Plutocrats.  So far the scorecard reads in the usual favor of the Plutocracy. 

In terms of czars having shaky pasts, and what can be seen as ‘radical’ views, John P. Holdren comes to mind.  I know little about the man, but I have read excerpts of his work containing his views on depopulation/population control.  Cass Sunstien, and the news articles about ‘gagging the internet’ and animal courtroom representation have circulated around the internet as well.  I bring these people up, with admittedly little personal knowledge about them, other than hearing about their ‘radical’ ideas from a variety of sources from MSM to Truthdig, to illustrate that there has been controversy surrounding his czar picks.

The amount of money the new congress and president have taken from the health industry is highly suspect.  It took a Freedom of Information Act request to determine how many private meetings Mr. President had with Big Pharma, Health Insurance in the earliest part of his term.  The private meetings , and even the lies the admin told the people about drug prices are suspect for the kinds of change the American people are supposed to buy into believing is coming. 

Jones did with Beck what Obama didn’t do over Dobbs.  This begs the question, why didn’t Jones stand up to his criticism?  Why didn’t he just ignore it?  It seems that most, and even the vilest of politicians, ignore their detractors and keep on keepin’ on with their agendas. 

Or:  Is this just the year that’s going to make me fed up with the phrase “Pullin’ a Palin”?

Report this

By DBM, September 9, 2009 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment

I don’t get the impression that Obama is a centrist or a moderate.  If he is then he certainly managed to circumvent the vetting process of the party leaderships!  No, he’ll almost definitely be a well right of centre conservative who owes a lot of favours to his large corporate campaign donors.

That said, he just might turn out to be a humanist who is not impervious to visible suffering and can be swayed by overwhelming public opinion reflecting public need.  You’d have to say that Healthcare is a bellwether in that regard.

If the Democrats find a way to continue to deny sick Americans affordable healthcare (while making great healthcare available to the healthy and the rich!), then that will be a pretty stark indication that there is little likelihood of reform in many quarters.

Frankly, though, I don’t know what the next option would be.  The odds of a 3rd party having any influence in the American system in the foreseeable future must be miniscule.

Report this

By KDelphi, September 9, 2009 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment

DBM—excellent point. It is one I have been trying to articulate, unsuccesfully.

It would take about 20 yrs of Hugo Chavez to even get this contry back to a moderate republic.

The GOP knows exactly what to do when they are in power. Even with majorities all the way around, Dems tend to flail. I keep hearing that it is because “Dems are diverse”, but it seems to be all one sex to me—no cajones.

Report this

By DBM, September 9, 2009 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

What I find amazing is the contrast of what Obama does with how he is attacked.  It seems a bit like “W the AWOL National Guardsman” attacking John Kerry for his war record (in a War!!)!

On the one hand Obama desparately seeks middle ground and tries to lure votes from the Republicans and Blue Dogs (which they withhold as a block on principle regardless of concessions given).  On the other hand Obama is attacked as some sort of radical.  His positions are firmly to the right of the majority of the population according to polls of actual issues.

On the one hand Obama surrounds himself with Washington insiders including a number of staunch Republicans in key positions (can you imagine a Democrat in W’s cabinet like Gates in the Defence portfolio?).  He has Wall St insiders as financial and economic advisors, the military industrial complex advising on military policy and Health industry insiders advising on Health “reform”.  But, true to form, the Right Wing noise makers chatter on about him “nam[ing] unvetted radicals from his past, to important government positions” as poor gullible Jeanniemac puts it.

Given the complete lack of reciprocity Obama should run roughshod over the Right unless and until voters stop him.  I only wish there was any indication that that was his true desire.

Bush was very clear that he considered getting elected was a “mandate” to enact every hair-brained far-right policy he could get to.  Predictably the country is in economic tatters, has massive and growing economic inequity, is embroiled in unnecessary wars and has become THE international paria (far exceeding Al Quaida as a perceived threat in polls of non-Americans).

Surely 8 years swinging the pendulum back would be just a half-decent start?

Report this

By KDelphi, September 9, 2009 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment

Nighthawk—“black people cannot be racist”?? How ridiculous.

Outraged—what is it that the Dems have done? Please, one thing. It doesnt have to be ‘what it is”—it can be whatever we want it to be. It is our country, not theirs. I have almost nothing is common with rich members of Congress or the president and do not feel, at all, that we are ‘in this together”. They have money, I dont. They have private health care, I dont. They have big houses , I dont.

Unless you are very wealthy, I dont see what you have in common with them either.

If the “health insurance reform” debate has taught me anything, it is that most members of both parties know absolutely NOTHING about the health care “system” in the uS.


Ozark—whether Obam has ‘radical Leftists ’ in is cabinet is not a consensus by any means. In most civilized countries they would be raving Torries.

Besides you just said it—all agree that fascism is bad but only a few agree that Communism (whatever t f that is) is bad.USAns wouldnt know a “communist’ if it bit them in the ass. Hint—Jones was not a Communist and the Communist Party USA sold out to the Democrats a long time ago. Check out “Peoples World Weekly” during Obama’s campaign. They actualy sent me am email complaining about me complaining about Obama in a Letter to the Eeditor (which they printed, ironically) They replied “Which side are you on?” I asked “which side is HE on” and no one answered.

rfidler—how can they cater to mkt forces when most of us have no idea what corporations (or even countries!) were involved in growing, producing, packaging, etc any given product? The time that that would work is long gone. Beck is still on the air, no? So many corporations are monopolies , that even a boycott such as this is almost hopeless.

JEANNIEMAC—wtf is a “real American black person”??

I wish some REAL “radicals” qould come along and show USAns what “radicals” are.

Report this

By Nighthawk, September 9, 2009 at 7:04 pm Link to this comment

By JEANNIEMAC, September 9 at 5:57 pm #

“I asked why Obama appoints only radicals to important posts.  No one answered the question. 
It is really tiresome when an otherwise smart person uses the old excuse of racism when they can’t/won’t come up with an answer.”

Crying “racism” is the only answer they can come up with.

Well, that and “Republicans cheat on their wives!”
“Republicans lie too!”  “Bush was fiscally irresponsible!”  (Right.  About 5% as bad as Obama.)

All they have is elementary school taunts.

“I know you are but what am I?”

Pathetic. 

Van Jones’ calling his detractors racist.  Too funny!

Report this

By Nighthawk, September 9, 2009 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

By Hulk2008, September 9 at 9:51 am #
“Hey NightHawk,  You nailed yourself. “

Riiiiight.  Okaaay then.  If you say so.  Yep.  Working with Communists is certainly an indictment of me. 

Be careful Hulkie.  Don’t let anyone think that you work with a Christian or someone who believes the Constitution limits Government or something like that.  Bet you’d become a pariah over that one.

By Louise, September 9 at 9:20 am #
“Bigotry never is, and that about says it all.
Racism, blind hatred, fear and denial. “

Well, that certainly proved me wrong.  I guess it’s too complicated for you.  You obviously imagine that you understand it, but you really have no clue.

Sorry hon. I can’t help you until you learn to accept it.

By DBM, September 9 at 8:38 am #
“Obama seems to me to have surrounded himself with corporatists and right-wingers.  If a stray progressive got through”

A broad and foolish assumption that what you consider to be a “corporatist” and what you consider to be a “progressive” are mutually exclusive.

Now go be a good little Liberal and rewrite the definitions to suit your needs.

By Night-Gaunt, September 9 at 1:04 am #
“Night-Hawk certainly watches Beck because those are his talking points.”

Gee.  Hate to disappoint you.  I don’t even watch Fox.

That Beck’s talking points happen to coincidentally be the truth is not my fault.

“Strange isn’t it Night-Hawk?”

Not at all.  I fully expected it. 

Kind of like when Obama was confronted about being for a Public “Option”.  He denied ever saying that.  Called them liars.  But when shown the tape of himself calling for it, he had to change tack.
Kind of like saying that black is white, being proven wrong, and denying having ever said it.

Gosh!  And Van Jones says he’s no longer a Communist and he can’t imagine how his name got on a crackpot petition?  Sayitisn’tso!

Best line I’ve heard lately came from one of the Tea Parties in my area yesterday. 

A guy stands up and says:  “This President was elected by White people seeking to prove that they are not racist and by Black people who proved that they are.”

Sure, sure, I know what you’re thinking.  You can’t help yourselves.  Much like Obama and Jones, you can’t help it.  It’s what you are.


It was a Black guy that spoke up.  Obviously he was not being racist.  It’s not possible.  His answer is that it is the imagined and undeserved guilt of White folks that got Obama elected.

It’s kind of like the guy that went to a rally in Arizona with an AR15 slung over his shoulder.

Interview after interview in the MSM strangely and anomolously showed the guy from the neck down.  Obviously it was not to hide his identity, since other folks doing similar things were shown in full.

So what could they be hiding?  Oh, that’s right!  It was a Black guy with a black rifle!

Now before all of you closet racists get all “wee weed” up: Black rifle is a nickname for AR15 style rifles.  (You’re welcome.)

Gosh, don’t you love that line? “Wee weed up”.  How Presidential sounding is that, eh?

Now, before all of you loons get your panties in a bunch, I can only relate what was told to me by someone that was there.  Well that and the numbers.  3500 to 4000 just in one of the venues in the area.  About 20 of those were Obamanites.  Call it about 15,000 in one day in my area. 

A groundswell of grassroots multipartisan people.  “The People”. 
No wonder it has Obama jumping.

Report this

By cann4ing, September 9, 2009 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

By JEANNIEMAC, September 9 at 5:57 pm #

I asked why Obama appoints only radicals to important posts.  No one answered the question. 
____________________

Loaded question, like asking when did you last beat your wife.  Jones was not a “radical” by any stretch of the imagination.  Fox News and Glenn Beck are radical fascists.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 9, 2009 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

Another way to view the Van Jones story is that he was small fry but that Fox News led by Glenn Beck blew it all out of proportion and when they flamed it out and Van Jones left that was the story. That was all. No loyalty for Van Jones from Obama and company who just rolled over on it without a sound. A very small cog in the wheels of gov’t just got squeaky and was replaced. No big deal except for those who made that mountain from that ant hill. That is all.

Beck didn’t seem to believe Van Jones when he later became a “self avowed” capitalist. Curious isn’t it? Beck is a racist worm and a vapid and rabid reich winger. A fount from one of the flowers of the White Power Christian Movement.

“Czar” was first coined as a moniker by Richard Nixon and it has grown since then. Such positions usually don’t get much press and the gov’t is run by such appointed people. Some could serve for many decades quietly under many presidents. Beck is part of a larger agenda and so for now his job is secure even if he had no sponsors.

Report this

By JEANNIEMAC, September 9, 2009 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment

I asked why Obama appoints only radicals to important posts.  No one answered the question. 
It is really tiresome when an otherwise smart person uses the old excuse of racism when they can’t/won’t come up with an answer.
Anyway, this is getting boring. God bless us all.

Report this

By ardee, September 9, 2009 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

JEANNIEMAC, September 9 at 4:37 pm

Cann4ing did a superb job chastising your obvious racism, I would only add that it is sad that here in the twenty first century we find such as you still alive and ignorant.

I am always amazed by the cowardice displayed by this Democratic administration. Jones should never had resigned and Obama should have stood by him, as should the entire Democratic Congress in fact.

Just the fact that we see a democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, a Democrat in the White House and the radical right still leads this nation by the nose is a sickening indictment of that Party.

Report this

By cann4ing, September 9, 2009 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

By JEANNIEMAC, September 9 at 4:37 pm #

DMB:  I have no problem with Obama appointing qualified black people to government posts. But why does he chose radical, socialist black people when there are many real American black persons who could do a great job?

____________________

Oh?  So now Van Jones, a Yale Law School graduate and one of the foremost experts on green jobs is not a “real American black person?”

It seems JEANNIEMAC that you and your ilk had no problem when George W. Bush appointed true political hacks to head agencies like FEMA—- then praised their disastrous performance.

Tell me JEANNIEMAC where in the Constitution can you find the word “capitalism?” 

The Constitution begins with “We the People,” not “We the Corporations.”  It expressly states that it was intended to “promote the general welfare”—- oh those awful socialists!

To demonstrate how far your right wing heroes have strayed from what this nation once stood for, consider the words of the nation’s first Republican President,  Abraham Lincoln:

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.  Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.  Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much higher consideration.”

If he were alive today, Lincoln would have wanted nothing to do with the Republican Party.

Of course, if you were really self-aware, you’d admit that your real problem with both Jones and Obama is that they are black.  But I doubt you’d ever admit that one, so you go off with they’re not “real Americans.”

Report this

By JEANNIEMAC, September 9, 2009 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

DMB:  I have no problem with Obama appointing qualified black people to government posts. But why does he chose radical, socialist black people when there are many real American black persons who could do a great job?  But, he does not want real Americans in his government. He wants radicals just like himself, to further his agenda.

Report this

By mcthorogood, September 9, 2009 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

While all of us are products of the society that we live in, some us chose to change society for better or worse.  Like many of us, I went through several stages as I developed my worldview.

Prior to 9-11, I was an engineer immersed in my daily job.  Many of us are caught in the same daily grind without time for much else, especially since real wages have not kept up with the cost of living.  The extra time after work is spent in leisure activities, often watching television.  After 9-11, I ignored Dubya’s advice to just go shopping and instead researched Wahhabism.

I didn’t begin to really wake up until early 2007, until I donned my tin-foil hat and became a Ron Paul supporter.  I was shocked at the blatant corruption, the shadow government, and the various industrial complexes that curtail democracy within our government.  Somewhere, along the way, the ideals of the American Revolution have been co-opted by corporate-personhood.  I was mad as hell and I wasn’t going take it any more.  But along the way I also learned about the radical evangelism, politics of deviance, neoliberalism, social justice, climate change, and peak oil.

Finally, I began to realize that we must accept responsibility for the situation in the world today, and to realize that change will not come from above, but from the people below.  Just as the French rejected the birthright of kings in the eighteenth century,  people outside the U.S. are rejecting neoliberalism in South America.  Might we look to the people of Oaxaca, Mexico and Honduras as examples of real change?

Glenn Beck is in the stage of being mad as hell.  Many people having little time for much else, listen to and watch Glenn Beck and his ilk, and they too become mad as hell.  People like Van Jones have reached the final stage, and realize that change will come as result of the people below uniting for a common good.

Report this

By JEANNIEMAC, September 9, 2009 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

I asked why Obama’s czars are not vetted as to their backgrounds.    Diamond gave a ranting diatribe. He did not give answers.
Why is Obama appointing unvetted radicals to important government posts?

Report this

By Rory, September 9, 2009 at 11:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Van Jones is and will continue to be a self absorbed ignorant huckster. The facts of his past are clear, he claimed to be a communist and never discounted that anywhere along the line. He continues to fight hard to get a convicted unrepentent cop killer released. As far as being progressive, people like Jones are far from being progressive but rather do more to divide people from actual progress then anything else. His delusional greendreams of solar panels and windmills dotting across America bringing millions of jobs to our shores is so far from reality, its like beleiving that District 9 is real. Solar, wind and geothermal account for roughly 2% of our energy needs right now and the cost to implement such costly energy extensive technology is foolish on a wide scale. Geothermal is expensive to do and not viable on a city scale. Solar requires thousands and thousands of square acres to implement and millions of gallons of water to clean the panles on a regular basis just to provide energy to a small city. Wind, well, wind doesn’t blow all the time and again just how many thousands of acres will it take to produce enough real energy when the wind does blow? Foolish, but then that is who Van Jones seems to attract, fools with no real sense of reality.

Report this

By diamond, September 9, 2009 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

Jeanniemac get a brain! I implore you. Find one, somewhere. At the moment you’re running on wattage that wouldn’t produce enough spark to light a cigarette. 73% of Americans want an inquiry into 9/11. Are they all radicals too? Glenn Beck is a dickhead, which makes him perfectly qualified to be on American TV.  And you know what I’m waiting for Nighthawk? I’m waiting for Bush and Cheney to be exposed for what they really are: lying, murdering, warmongering, treasonous bastards. Yes, I’d like to see that.

Report this

By Miss Amercia, September 9, 2009 at 11:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Glenn Beck simply did what the mainstream media should have done months ago..Regardless of how you think about this President, the citizens of this country have not only a right, but a responsibility to know as much as possible about those who have access to the President and who may shape his ideas and the future that we will leave to our children. So, why is the left so upset the Beck, broadcast some of Jones’ public speeches?

Report this

By cann4ing, September 9, 2009 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

By dihey, September 9 at 12:35 pm #

cann4ing

I am afraid that you do not understand the fundamental difference between hypothesis and theory.
_________________________________

From Webster’s

Hypothesis:  1.  a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.  2.  an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument…

Theory:  a method of scientific study entailing “systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the natural behavior of a specified set of phenomena.”

Whether hypothesis or theory, the 9/11 truthers suggest that the most probable explanation for the sudden (8.7 second) collapse of WTC7 into its own footprint is controlled demolition.

While I’m not personally satisfied that the evidence uncovered to date fully supports that hypothesis/theory, I am also not satisfied that those backing the official hypothesis/theory have set forth an adequate scientific explanation that would establish that the sudden collapse was the result of fire.

What is your hypothesis/theory of that aspect of the event?  What are your engineering qualifications for offering that hypothesis/theory?  What “evidence” can you point to that would substantiate the “official hypothesis/theory”?

You see, Dihey, I’m not interested in political bias from either the Left or the Right.  I’m interested in scientifically established truth.

Report this

By Frederick Fuller, September 9, 2009 at 11:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

OzarkMichael you do not know what you’re talking about. Communism is not fascism. It is a form of socialism, which has hundreds of definitions. That Jones was a communist at one time is like maligning a person for changing faiths. And too, his job was a trifle in the administration, a thing of no influence. Jones resigned because he knew it was the right thing to do. Had he stayed the administration would have one more hot spot for conservatives like Beck to attack, and none of us need that.

Report this

By JEANNIEMAC, September 9, 2009 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

Why does Obama name unvetted radicals from his past, to important government positions?  Why aren’t his people vetted by Congress? Why is he by-passing this process?  Many American people are getting very anxious about this man who appears to be establishing a socialist, totalitarian government.

Report this

By cann4ing, September 9, 2009 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

By richardbelldc, September 9 at 1:38 pm #

Once it became public knowledge that Jones had even the tangential associations that have been reported, his continuation as a member of the administration was unlikely.

______________________

If what you say is true, then we have truly returned to the dark days of McCartyism.  Questioning whether one has doubts about 9/11 is the substantive equivalent to “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

Meanwhile, the hard-right, including whack job Glenn Beck, can come up with baseless “birther” conspiracies and “death panels” and no one utters a word.

And by the way, you do understand that the official version of 9/11, still cloaked in secrecy, is a “conspiracy theory” do you not?

If a desire for scientific inquiry is a “third rail” we are in deep shit!

Report this

By Dave Schwab, September 9, 2009 at 10:52 am Link to this comment

Van Jones is a visionary who understands how we can fix the economic and ecological crises together.

Join the movement to draft Van Jones for governor of California!

http://bit.ly/DraftVanJonesCA

Report this

By richardbelldc, September 9, 2009 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

While it’s natural to focus on Glen Beck’s role in the forced resignation of Van Jones, let’s not give Beck too much credit. 

For reasons which are unclear, too many progressives fail to understand, much less accept, the toxicity of the 9/11 conspiracy issue. Beck hardly had to do any serious lifting to stigmatize Jones with 9/11. Once it became public knowledge that Jones had even the tangential associations that have been reported, his continuation as a member of the administration was unlikely. If such minor exertions are sufficient to earn Beck a “notch in his belt,” it’s a pretty pathetic little notch.

At any given time in history, there are likely to be a few issues so toxic that any association with them can be quickly fatal—so-called “third rail” issues. Glen Beck had little or nothing to do with making 9/11 conspiracies a third rail issue. If you do not understand why it was so easy to force Jones out over this issue, you need to step back from the political front lines and take another look at what constitutes acceptible discourse these days. Even if Obama was riding 65-70% favorability ratings, I would never expect him to expend even a tiny bit of his political capital in any argument that suggested the president did not totally reject 9/11 conspiracy arguments.

The existence of third rails does not mean that progressives should be afraid of attacking these issues—that’s part of the work outsiders HAVE to do.

But there’s a big difference between one’s ability to work on the outside as a progressive activist, and one’s ability to work on the inside as a part of a political administration. One of the major challenges that faces any activist considering whether to move from outside to inside is the greater scrunity that falls on one’s past activities and associations.

Jones had already accomplished wonderful things before he joined the administration. It’s hard to think of examples from the past where someone with such solid credentials as a change agent was able to go into an administration (not just Obama’s) and be as effective inside as he or she was previously on the outside. (Can you think of any?) I agree with Goodman that Jones is likely to be more effective now that he’s back outside.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 9, 2009 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

Every one of us knows that fascism is bad. If a person was recently a fascist,
but then they claimed to no longer be such, we would all be a little nervous
about allowing them to have any power or employ in the White House.
Although we would not try to remove that person’s citizenship, we would not
allow them in government.

Is that understood? All agreed?

Only a few of us know that Communism is also bad. i say that because only a
few of us realize that a person who was recently a communist should not be in
government. Most of you arent nervous about allowing a person like that to
have power.

Van Jones should not have been hired by this or any administration. I dont
care what color he is, that is irrelevant.

Come Truthdiggers. Try and tell me with a straight face that you would
approve a person who professed fascism to be in the government, just because
they recently changed their minds about it.

Report this

By Existentialist, September 9, 2009 at 9:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

DBM:  “I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration was evil enought to have allowed 9/11 to occur despite the circumstantial evidence.  It seems more likely to me that they were monumentally inept and unlucky.”

I don’t think it is hard to believe at all.  Many in Bush’s administration were involved in the conservative think-tank, Project for a New American Century.  Look it up. 

They sent GW a memo on 20 September 2001, telling him that now was the time to go after Saddam.  The PNAC has a history of wanting heavy US militarism in the Middle-East. 

This is also a good reference to key warning signs leading up to 9/11 (tho some way old news links have gone dead in recent years…at least there are citations left):  http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_warnings

If you search the US National Archives site for Northwoods, you’ll find the un-classified (since ‘97) Operation Northwoods documents, where, in 1962, the CIA was plotting a series of terrorist attacks against the United States, where the blame would be laid on Cuba, in order to gain anti-Castro support.  Thankfully, it didn’t go through.  But, the idea had been discussed for decades before 9/11.

The Pearl Harbor incident is also another example of a strike used as an excuse to go to war (same with the sinking of the USS Maine, and RMS Lusitania).  The average American has no clue that the US had been antagonizing the Japanese into an attack, namely by cutting off their access to the Panama Canal and sources for oil in Venezuela and other countries. 

I don’t think it was fair for Beck & Co. to criticize Jones’s beliefs about 9/11, especially when Beck has had his obsessive delusions about Iran when he was on CNN (when a buddy and I used to watch his show for laughs). 

The finger-pointing and name calling of the Dems and Reps is annoying.  Frankly, I’m sick of both parties.  I’m no donkey or elephant.  They both end up representing and supporting the causes of the elite anyway. 

Beck is irrelevant.  As is Faux News.  Another outlet to perpetuate the society of the spectacle, another hype machine.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he was back on the booze, and started to go McCarthy on us (only, this time it won’t be over those ‘atheistic commies’).

Report this

By dihey, September 9, 2009 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

cann4ing

I am afraid that you do not understand the fundamental difference between hypothesis and theory.

Report this

By cann4ing, September 9, 2009 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

By dihey, September 9 at 9:16 am #

Here is the core of what Mr. Van Jones signed: [questioning whether the Bush administration] “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext to war”.

I do not want to be governed by persons who supported such nonsense.
__________________________

How do you “know” whether it is nonsense?  Have you studied “all” of the evidence and do you possess the engineering skills to explain why WTC7, which was not struck by a plane, collapsed into its own footprint in the span of 8.7 seconds?

I, for one, am not convinced by the evidence offered to date by 9/11 Truthers is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.

Lest I incur the wrath of the 9/11 Truther movement, I will reiterate that I am also not satisfied that the evidence produced to date warrants acceptance of the “official conspiracy theory” of what took place on 9/11.

The word “theory” as a method of scientific study merely refers to “systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the natural behavior of a specified set of phenomena.” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary).

Ordinarily, a detective, seeking to solve a crime, comes up with a theory, then develops leads to determine whether the evidence substantiates that theory.

9/11 is no different.

A “conspiracy” is a meeting of more than one mind to commit a crime.  The “official conspiracy theory” is that 19 hijackers committed the crime (9/11) as part of an al Qaeda plot.  The “unofficial theory” is that 9/11 may have been an “inside job.”

The petition which Jones allegedly signed in 2004 simply sought a full and open investigation to determine which of these two “theories” or perhaps a combination of the two is accurate.

Simply requesting a full and fair investigation should be uncontroversial, but it is not because the corporate media uses the words “conspiracy theory” as a dismissive form of denigration that applies only to those who question “official reality.” 

While the corporate media label, “conspiracy theorist” implies “mental derangement,” in truth it is the corporate media’s use of “conspiracy theory” as a form of dismissive denigration that is unscientific.  Under the scientific method, every theory—- official or unofficial—- must withstand the test of scientific inquiry.

Finally, Van Jones was exceptionally well-qualified for his post—- a position from which he could aid in the creation of green jobs and prevent further environmental degradation of our planet. 

Jones’ position on 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with the job he performed.  His resignation in the face of Beck’s scurrilous attacks is our loss as a nation, perhaps the planet’s as well.

Report this

By christian96, September 9, 2009 at 9:17 am Link to this comment

Several months ago I was receiving an e-mail from
the Glen Beck program periodically.  I cancelled
the e-mail.  When they ask a reason for my cancelation, I replied, “Because Mr. Beck is either
ignorant and/or deceptive.”

Report this

By HammeringInTheMorning, September 9, 2009 at 8:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“By dihey, September 9 at 9:16 am #

Here is the core of what Mr. Van Jones signed: [questioning whether the Bush administration] “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext to war”.

I do not want to be governed by persons who supported such nonsense.

Actually dihey, the petition that Mr. Van Jones sighed: said nothing about, [questioning whether the Bush administration] “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext to war”. The petition only asked Congress to perform a real investigation and raises specific questions which need answers.  The quote you have above in from an article which is on the same page as the petition on the 9-11 Truth website. Again it is not part of the petition. If you want to see it here is the link. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

Because there are legitimate questions about what the Bush government knew and when they knew it. Because NORAD appears to have been compromised on the Morning of 9-11. because there are hundreds of other questions there should be an investigation which can provide real answers.

“I do not want to be governed by persons who supported such nonsense.” And I sir do not want to be governed by Criminals and sociopaths

Report this

By Rodger Lemonde, September 9, 2009 at 8:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nighthawk
Face it Glenn is swirling the porcelain. He is marginally better than you at hiding his racism behind
his paranoia.
You are both bigots. This country doesn’t need to
fester in your poison any longer. Selling prejudice as
patriotism is not a value this country needs.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, September 9, 2009 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

Hulk2008:

You are absolutely correct in your assessment of corporate behavior, which is why I am so confused by those who claim that corporations are so all-powerful. They have to listen to and cater to their customers or they’ll be out of business. If Beck pisses off too many sponsors, of course Fox will dump him, regardless of their ideological affinities. I wish more readers of this blog understood market forces like you do.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, September 9, 2009 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

bogi666:

Is it my deja vu, or are you hung up on the 10th rate psycho label? Don’t get lazy on us now!

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, September 9, 2009 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

To rfidler:
  You asked why don’t those corporations ignore small organizations like Color of Change and Mr. Jones? 
  Simple:  Corporations rely on sales - there are far fewer people who want to be considered racists than those that don’t - to avoid losses of sales, they pull their ads.  It’s the same principle that was the basis of the bus boycott during the civil rights era.
    If every employee of every company were completely vetted to ensure political and philosophical “purity”, there would soon be nobody left to employ.  The Obama admin allowed Jones to walk because it “cost” them more than he provided with his green advice.  Eventually Fox (aka The Wall Of Noise) will have to decide if Beck costs them more than his raving brings in.  It’s just numbers; otherwise Beck would still be at his CNN job. 
    Personally, I would still prefer to see the freaky Don Imus than the bland Morning Joe, even with all of I-Man’s minuses - but MSNBC did the numbers and I-Man is gone.

Report this

By bogi666, September 9, 2009 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

Beck is obviously mentally ill, manic depressive a 10th rate psycho. Just why people would even watch a 10th rate psycho on TV is beyond me. He’s also an alcoholic. The combination of being a manic depressive alcoholic is a 10th rate psycho in Becks case. If I’m going to watch psycho’s I’m going to watch 1st rate psycho’s on the internet. Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, now they are some 1st rate psycho’s and not cowardly like Beck who hides in a TV studio displaying his psychotic behavior. At least Hitler and his gang were in the WW1 trenches and battled in the streets like real men. Interesting to note that the FOX news audience are a bunch of old geezers who are brain dead, spiritually dead and inbred who don’t even have the sense to go for the 1str rate psycho’s.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, September 9, 2009 at 7:19 am Link to this comment

If all these big corporations really run America, how is it that some piss-ant little organization like Color of Change can force them to stop sponsoring the Beck show? Why don’t they tell Jones, et al, to pound sand?

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook