[eDebate] prague spring

Jake Stromboli infracaninophile
Mon Jun 19 09:22:35 CDT 2006

no truthout post, yet.

stannard's post pushes the slf past a threshold.   we will stand down our 
parody of karl rove and ann coulter's ad hominem cheap shots to demonstrate 
our seriousness about the forthcoming dialogue over student protest.   a 
long time ago, we promised to stand down the rhetorical buffoonery if 
republicans on the list started a campaign for rove's resignation on a 
standard of rhetorical reciprocity, i.e. if you don't like our approach and 
want us to stop posting, then please apply the same logic to the grand 
master in the white house.   the only other condition for standing down 
would be a long anticipated, dabait sit-in movement demanding the withdrawal 
of US murder squads which has finally been met.   backchannel support and 
now public support for slf demands of complacent students proudly provides 
the necessary conditions for us to dialogue without a parody of rove's 
"shoot the messenger" tactic.   i will reserve the rove parody for 
COINTELPRO type interference from suspected moles and for republicans who 
deny the first amendment right of student protests.

stannard said late last night:

"Truthfully, "Stromboli's" call for civil disobedience, channeled both 
through the debate community and other networks, is a viable and timely 
strategy, accompanied by multiple networks and fora of
political conversation from students, workers, and others opposed not only 
to the current administration, but to the institutional, ideological and 
material conditions which make the current
administration possible.  We might differ on tactics but I'd be more than 
willing to help facilitate that discussion and whatever might come out of 
it." endquote

as long as sit-ins are a component of the non-violent civil disobedience, i 
doubt we differ much on tactics and now that the rove tactic parody is over, 
our tactical, differential gap has probably narrowed.

i strongly believe that organizing should be done publicly on the internet 
and otherwise b/c the inevitability of surveillance and monitoring by the 
current administration that categorizes peace activists as terrorists.   
there will be little secrecy but i think this is a distinct advantage for 
the student occupiers of today over yesteryear since secrecy tended to 
preserve hierarchical modes of organizing and facilitated COINTELPRO 
instigation of infighting.   i also think that the relative insularity of 
the debate community will prove to be an excellent defensive weapon against 
intelligence infiltration and sabotage.   imagine a COINTELPRO letter 
addressed to Ross Smith and supposedly written by Gordon Mitchell that says 
that Ross is a homosexual and Gordon wants to meet him at the bicycle racks 
for a texas shootout ASAP.   decade long friendships and historical 
awareness will withstand predictable and original rove style tactics of 

as y'all know, james vernon reed has been planning a debate documentary 
project for the fall and i am sure that he will drop the planned tournament 
footage for the sit ins in a literal heartbeat for the production of a 
godard style student film that involves the occupiers in the whole process 
from editing to distribution.   reed is a phenomenal asset and it will be 
great to have him inside one of the president's offices given his experience 
of storming the university of texas towers over the hopwood decision back in 
1995 (i believe) as well as his street protest experiences in LA during the 
2000 DNC.   reed is one of the more intelligent debate thinkers who 
instantly realized the reactionary nature of the statism critique of student 
protests and the glaring incompatibility of that critique with the spanos 
argument about the role of sit ins in the withdrawal from vietnam.   the 
statism critique forces protesters into a false corner of opposing a 
monstrous, monolith and thereby preserves an antiquated hegelian dialectic 
debunked primarily by foucault.  protesters should never be burdened with 
overthrowing the entire state as the goal of each every action since that 
fantasy overwhelms fighting for specific demands from a specific group with 
a specific voice (what foucault called "micro-resistance").   the 
foucaultian theory does not rule out the possibility of overthrowing the 
established order, it merely holds that the result only comes from the 
unpredictable synergism of smaller movements fighting for specific causes.   
the established order is just an idea until it manifests in specific forms 
of control that target local groups.  in fact, a careful review of the early 
1970s and the french scene in particular turns up the suspicion that the 
statist critique of protest was proliferated by intelligence agencies as a 
counter-revolutionary tool to triangulate youth desire.

i would like to keep the discussion on edebate.   phil kerpen is a true 
advocate of free speech and we greatly appreciate his practice given the 
controversial nature of the rove parody.   i think that it is good for 
republican students and coaches to observe the organizing efforts so that at 
the very least they will come to the defense of their colleagues in the 
event of any unnecessary police backlash on first amendment grounds.   
republican debate colleagues may not agree with the demand for withdrawal of 
US murder squads from iraq but many probably agree with the student right to 
occupy buildings on the campuses they paid the tuition to build and force 
their view into a mainstream media that does not actively solicit student 
views and they most definitely are probably against the use of police force 
to silence their colleagues.   we should find out who the strong first 
amendment, republican debate advocates (including former debaters who now 
practice law) are and prepare talking points against police and intelligence 

i envision a press conference before the semester begins and i hope that the 
press conference will be multi-partisan and that from the getgo before the 
FBI and the saboteurs even have a chance to start playing dirty, republican 
free speech advocates with a knowledge of nixon's dirty COINTELPRO and 
blatant attempts to thwart citizens from the right to organize will attend 
the press conference and display their support for the right to protest as a 
fundamental right of democracy, "only maligned in places like red china".  i 
hope that these republican advocates will point to the extremism embedded in 
the current administration's "with us or against us" ploy and will announce 
to the public that their peace loving colleagues are clearly not terrorists 
and that any wiretapping or infiltration of their organizing efforts is 
unconstitutional and should be prosecuted.

mr. stannard, please, do what you can to facilitate the necessary dialogue.  
thank you for your post.


>From: "matt stannard" <stannardmatt at hotmail.com>
>To: infracaninophile at hotmail.com, edebate at ndtceda.com
>CC: jvreedmore at hotmail.com
>Subject: RE: [eDebate] rove matter explodes or dies tomorrow
>Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:02:03 -0600
>I want Rove to get his due as much as anyone, but I am curious about 
>Truthout's treatment of the Jason Leopold issue.  They write:
>"Mr. Leopold did not act alone in his reporting of this matter. His work, 
>sources and conclusions were reviewed carefully at each step of the 
>process. There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically."
>However, Joe Lauria tells a different story: Leopold stole his credentials 
>to get an interview--not from some mainstream corporate reporter, but from 
>a progressive journalist.  That's at 
>This and other unsettling evidence about Leopold leads blogger Eternal Hope 
>to conclude:
>"What good will it do us to embrace Jason Leopold, ride him to victory in 
>the next two elections, only to become no better than the people we pretend 
>not to like?
>"Instead of doing the responsible thing and admitting they were wrong, 
>Truthout refuses to admit they were wrong even when they know they were 
>wrong. They claim that they were operating with the best of intentions and 
>that they had multiple people fact-check their story. But the problem is 
>that they did not do a good job of it. The problem is that they wanted the 
>story to be true, so they ignored warning signs that suggested that they 
>were being played. And the reason many of us on the left thought Rove was 
>about to be indicted was because we believed Leopold because he was 
>reporting what we wanted to hear - not what was actually the truth."
>It's true that if the Democrats re-take the House, then Waxman will come to 
>the rescue.  But the Dems WON'T retake the house.  Nor do they deserve to.  
>They have no COHERENT opposition strategy.  They can't condemn the 
>Republicans' reliance on corporate money, because they also rely on 
>corporate money.  They can't condemn unethical leaks or intelligence 
>manipulation because they've done plenty of that too.  They can't really 
>even take a stand against election fraud because nobody really believes 
>their hands are totally clean.  They can't take advantage of strong 
>anti-war sentiment because they aren't a sincere anti-war party.  Clinton, 
>who was one of the most crooked and opportunistic politicians of the 20th 
>century, essentially ruined and fragmented the party, although he had a lot 
>of help from Carter.  Nobody is willing to truly stand up to the 
>Republicans in the culture wars, because the big money is just as 
>conservative and bigotted no matter which party it's supporting.  And both 
>sides can simply claim that their appeal to the prejudices of the 
>"heartland" is pragmatic.
>Truthfully, "Stromboli's" call for civil disobedience, channeled both 
>through the debate community and other networks, is a viable and timely 
>strategy, accompanied by multiple networks and fora of political 
>conversation from students, workers, and others opposed not only to the 
>current administration, but to the institutional, ideological and material 
>conditions which make the current administration possible.  We might differ 
>on tactics but I'd be more than willing to help facilitate that discussion 
>and whatever might come out of it.
>>From: "Jake Stromboli" <infracaninophile at hotmail.com>
>>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>>CC: jvreedmore at hotmail.com
>>Subject: [eDebate] rove matter explodes or dies tomorrow
>>Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:02:01 -0500
>>as you know truthout.org "standed down" on the rove matter friday w 
>>of a comprehensive reply tomorrow:
>>"Expect a more comprehensive accounting of this matter on Monday, June 
>>adding fuel to the fire, the rove team fired accusations in the washington
>>post today that leopold is a cocaine addict and the entire story was
>>was leopold set up by the rove team so that goebbels could announce that 
>>conservatives are winning the internet war stressing unity over liberal
>>i tend to doubt it.   the theory requires you to believe that rove sought
>>out five grand jury testimonies and a last minute clearance so he could 
>>progressive journalism.
>>i think the internet ploy is another go at overhyping his exoneration and 
>>feeble attempt to undue further damage to his reputation done on the
>>the main theories going around about what happened with the indictment.
>>1) fitzgerald decided he couldn't make charges stick and let him off to
>>focus on libby and may have got rove to turn state's evidence to make the
>>libby case a slam dunk.
>>2) fitzgerald knew he could make charges stick and presented rove with a
>>sealed indictment and an offer to drop the indictment if he turns state's
>>evidence against cheney or someoneelse higher up the chain.
>>3) rove didn't do anything wrong and it took fitzgerald five runs in front
>>of the grand jury to figure that out and a man with an impeccable 
>>was unnecessarily dragged through the mud.
>>3 is out but it's cute.
>>1 is unlikely given news today about the libby pardon prospect:
>>if you don't think fitzgerald knew this was coming, then you are out to
>>lunch.  i think the obviousness of a libby pardon sans other indictments
>>points to the likelihood of theory 2.  also, the idea that the 
>>is ongoing.  if fitzgerald were only indicting libby who has already been
>>indicted, the investigation would most likely be over now.   fitzgerald 
>>already revealed a revenge motive against the wilsons by cheney and i 
>>think he's going to let it slide and disappear through an obvious pardon
>>from the president.   all of his time and investigation would be for 
>>on an underling who was not the originator of the plot.
>>the luskin letter still remains unpublished and fitzgerald has yet to
>>confirm the statements of rove's lawyer.  all of this is discernible from
>>the blogs.
>>rove's fate still hinges on the upcoming elections given the waxman motion
>>for congressional investigation into his conduct but still he could go 
>>in a criminal suit brought by the wilsons.   cooper has admitted in his 
>>article that he found out about plame's CIA status from rove and novak 
>>out the same.
>>anyway, you look at it tomorrow's statements from truthout.org loom large.
>>leopold has now been accused of drug problems in the national media
>>alongside the idea that he fabricated the whole story to get attention
>>despite ruining his career.   the truthout subscribers are up in arms and
>>want leopold to reveal his sources as he promised on the radio if he was
>>deceived.   other websites are calling for the termination of truthout.
>>speculation is rampant.  ash has every possible means to axe leopold and
>>move on but apparently he believes the story and the idea of cooperation
>>turning state's evidence against cheney and i bet you he has been digging 
>>get the next lead on that angle and tomorrow is going to be the biggest
>>explosion yet given shenanigans of the right wing in the washington post
>>taking this story to a whole other level...you can count on it that i will
>>have it up on this list as soon as it is posted on truthout.
>>one last thing that you have to take account about this administration is
>>that they have poor quick fix strategies for halting slides in approval
>>ratings.   the fact is that the numbers keep sliding down to an
>>uncomfortable point especially the iraq war polls.   you know that the
>>administration would have rather hoped the approval ratings went up after
>>the beginning of the iraq war and that it would have been a successful
>>policy that brought democracy.   instead you see them trying to fabricate
>>rebound situations of optimism with an al-zarqawi kill, rove exoneration 
>>bagdhad trip all choreographed together as the koehner house talking 
>>reveal.   they try this sugar coat candyland strategy all of the time and 
>>doesn't work.  cheney on national tv on a sunday telling the american 
>>that he thinks "the iraqi people will welcome their liberators".   little
>>symbolic moral victories here and there but no proof or even sound
>>conception that modern imperial armies have figured out how to beat 
>>warfare tactics by resident populations.   america lost vietnam.   soviets
>>lost afghanistan.   the neocons were supposed to usher in a new era of
>>warfare with fancy electromagnetic weapons and increased mobility but it's
>>still the same unwinnable guerilla war.    the republicans are so focused 
>>popular opinion at particular points in time that they are unable to
>>reconsider long term policy as a real strategy.   they need the nation to
>>look divided 50-50 so they can do the dirty work in florida, ohio or
>>whatever swing state will be key this year.   they know that it is almost
>>impossible to prove fraud on the spot like nixon knew in 1960 and the 
>>will defer to whatever result they achieve.
>>the problem is that iraq is going so bad that eventually in 2 years or 4
>>years an overwhelming majority of people will be against the war and
>>election tampering will be less viable as the cornerstore of a rove 
>>    these periodic quick fix sugarcoats are going to become more and more
>>obvious for what they are and everyone will know without a doubt in their
>>mind that there is no foreseeable end to this conflict and that it is a
>>veritable quagmire.   please don't wait 2 or 4 years and takeover your
>>college campus soon, in the fall, so that we can accelerate the process
>>through power tactics.   too many people are dying b.c you and i are not
>>very creative in our resistance and we don't seek methods of confrontation
>>that challenge us to be somebody we do not know.
>>another key problem for the neocons not exploited by the democrats or any
>>other opposition to asufficient enough degree is the idea presented during
>>vietnam that americans are not colonists anymore.   the israeli model for
>>the middle east does not work for americans b/c no significant segment of
>>our population intends to live there.   we had the same problem in 
>>   the israelis are fighting for "their land".   they can mobilize a 
>>society for that purpose.  americans are fighting for dick cheney's oil.
>>it ain't gonna last.   the ideas of "democracy" and "freedom" will easily 
>>down the drain b/c iraq is other people's land and all of those storm
>>troopers can't wait to get back to hamburgers and movies and highway
>>checkpoints.   the french had a vested stake in vietnam b/c they lived
>>there, old school colonial style.   americans do not have a need for 
>>elsewhere.  instead a certain backward part of the population has need of
>>periodic fascist interludes to prove that clean murder is still a part of
>>human nature.  cut and run is not democratic feebleness against 
>>cut and run is all of the systematic mass murder a people with no desire 
>>live elsewhere can stomach.  thank you and good night...
>>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>>eDebate mailing list
>>eDebate at ndtceda.com

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 

More information about the Mailman mailing list