Oy Vey! Gingrich Slams Right-Wing for 'Purge' of GOP

Somebody please tell Newt Gingrich to stop digging. From The Hill, "Gingrich Calls GOP Support for Hoffman a 'Purge'":

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) late Monday had some choice words for Republicans supporting Conservative Party party candidate Doug Hoffman (N.Y.), accusing them of conducting a "purge" of the GOP.

Many national Republican figures, such as Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) and ex-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), have backed Hoffman over GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava in the 23rd district's special election this year. The district has been long-held by Republicans, but many conservatives have shied away from Scozzafava for her socially liberal positions and the local GOP's selection process that they say was not transparent.

Gingrich broke the mold and backed Scozzafava, saying her candidacy gave the Republicans the best shot of regaining a congressional majority. The former Speaker faced a push-back from the right after his announcement but he upped the ante on Monday.

"This idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests and all across the country we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent; that guarantees Obama's reelection, that guarantees Pelosi as Speaker-for-life," he told Fox News last night.

Yeah. Right.

See Michelle Malkin's response, "Yes, Newt, the GOP Should be 'Purged' of Left-Wing Saboteurs."

Image Credit: The Blog Prof, "Song: Karl Marx - 'Dede' - Marx Endorses Dede Scozzafava!"

Islamic State of Iraq Claims Responsibility for Justice Ministry Blast: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Cheers Inside Job, Questions Baghdad Gov't Legitimacy

Rachel Maddow all but applauded the terror in her report last night on the Ministry of Justice attack in Iraq that killed nearly 160. Yet, reports from both the BBC and the Washington Post indicate that al Qaeda in Iraq affilates mounted the carnage, and neither of the reports raises questions of an inside job. See, "Al-Qaeda Group Claims Iraq Blasts," and "Extremist Group Claims Responsibility for Baghdad Bombs."

From the BBC's report:

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said the attacks showed that increased international support for the country was "vital and important".

The blasts drew comparison with an attack on 19 August, also claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq, in which truck bombs hit two ministry buildings and killed at least 100 people.

Iraq then blamed foreign fighters and accused Syria of involvement, demanding a UN investigation.

Mr Zebari said Sunday's blasts had strengthened that request for "a senior international envoy to come to Iraq and evaluate the degree of interference targeting stability in Iraq".
The US state department said it would support a United Nations investigation into "very serious allegations" of foreign involvement in Iraqi violence.

"What happened was so utterly horrific that the circumstances surrounding it need to be looked into," spokesman Ian Kelly was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.

Overall, violence has dropped dramatically in Iraq compared to a year ago, but sporadic attacks still continue in several parts of the country.

See also, Astute Bloggers, "HUGE SUICIDE ATTACK IN BAGHDAD - 150+ DEAD; 500+ WOUNDED."

Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out...

Bruce Springsteen's not one of my all-time favorites, but I've enjoyed some of his music over the years. Check out this old clip, from 1975, of the E Street Band's "Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out":

Tear drops on the city
Bad Scooter searching for his groove
Seem like the whole world walking pretty
And you can't find the room to move
Well everybody better move over, that's all
'Cause I'm running on the bad side
And I got my back to the wall
Tenth Avenue freeze-out, Tenth Avenue freeze-out...

More lyrics here.

My good friend Tony at PA Pundits International is again an inspiration for my rock-and-roll posting. See this week's Sunday night music-club entry, "Sunday Music – Reelin’ In The Years."

Also, thanks to Theo Spark for generous inclusion in his hot blog roundups.

P.S. I chose Springteen after listening this morning to a medley of piano-rockers on KSWD - The Sound 100.3 FM (Elton John, Toto, etc.). Check out the station for live Internet streaming. Great stuff!

Measuring Counterinsurgency Success

This is vital contribution to the ongoing debate on Afghanistan: See Jason Campbell, Michael E. O'Hanlon, and Jeremy Shapiro, "How to Measure the War: Judging Success and Failure in Counterinsurgency."

The authors apply comparative analytical metrics to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq war is broken down into three periods: The initial campaign to topple the Baghdad regime (marked by military victory and the subsequent rise of armed resistance); from 2004 to the end of 2006 (where Americans nearly lost Iraq to insurgency, transnational terrorism, and civil war); and 2007 to the present (a period in which security improved so much that the levels of violence in Iraq was less than that of Russia and South Africa for the same period).

Campbell, O'Hanlon, and Shapiro are not rosy-eyed optimists. The authors indicate that while the insurgency in Iraq was more deadly overall, Afghanistan begins from a much lower level of development. On many comparative indicators, the Aghans rate dead last in human developmental indices - the population is poor, largely illiterate, with little scientific and technological (human capital) infrastructure from which to build a modern state.

What's perhaps the most important section of is the discussion of public support for the Karzai government and potential support for the alternative: a return to the Taliban's theo-authoritarian regime:

Public opinion ... serves as a helpful way to transpose the various data onto local expectations, providing needed perspective even if it is notoriously difficult to poll in conflict zones. After all, it is the civilians that are the focal point of counterinsurgency missions. Recent polling sheds light on some interesting points that belie the widely perceived severity of decline in Afghanistan. When Afghans were asked what the biggest problem in their local area was, in a 2008 bbc poll, insecurity received only 14 percent of the vote, tying for the sixth most popular answer behind a host of quality-of-life concerns such as unemployment, electricity, access to potable water, roads, and health care.7 Another popular theory challenged by polling is the sense that public support for Karzai and the central government has reached dangerously low levels, creating an opening for a return of Taliban control. True, approval ratings for Karzai and the central government have declined since 2005 (from 83 percent to 52 percent for Karzai and from 80 percent to 48 percent for the central government). However, when asked who they would rather have ruling Afghanistan, the overwhelming majority (between 82 and 91 percent in annual polling since 2005) reply “Current Government,” with “Taliban” gaining the favor of only between 1 percent and 4 percent of the respondents. Additionally, public disdain for the Taliban has remained static, with between 84 and 91 percent of respondents stating they have a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of the group.8 Tactical innovations by insurgents, particularly suicide bombings that kill civilians, have not always increased the insurgents’ popularity with the larger population, even in areas where they enjoy traditional support. One can infer that while there is palpable frustration with the continued ineffectiveness of the central government, the Taliban are not viewed as a viable alternative by the vast majority of Afghanistan’s people.

The authors suggest that Americans take the long view on the mission. In the near-term, folks shouldn't expect much improvement in metrics until the end of 2010 -- and that's if the mission's been successful to that point. Patience is key, as noted:

Counterinsurgency campaigns, especially successful ones, last on average over a decade. For this reason, political leaders rightly counsel patience. But skeptical publics rightly demand interim measures that can demonstrate that progress is being made. Both points of view are legitimate, even if they are in tension. On balance, however, patience is required in Afghanistan, since the main task there is to build up institutions and Afghan government capacity — inherently difficult and slow enterprises.

Video Hat Tip: Theo Spark. (If President Obama abandons the deployment, he'll be forsaking the huge sacrifices this country has made for liberty and security in that nation so far, and he'll be damning the Afghan people to a regime of political authoritarianism they do not want.)

Dems to Cram 'Public Option' Down Throat of American Public

As far as I'm concerned, the public option was defeated last summer, when conservatives protested Democratic health policy at town hall forums around the nation. Reputable polls continue to show tepid support for a government run health plan, which is why papers like the Washington Post have published bogus polls to help the Democrats deceive the American people.

Now here's this from Breitbart, "Pelosi: Health Care 'Public Option' Needs New Name" (via Memeorandum):

A government-sponsored "public option" for health care lives, though it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different moniker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday.
In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as "the consumer option." Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi's side and used the term "competitive option."

Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.

"You'll hear everyone say, 'There's got to be a better name for this,'" Pelosi said. "When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars."

Pelosi said that was a misconception and that any taxpayer money used to start up the public option would be repaid. She also said such an option would ultimately drive down government health care costs.

The speaker said the "competitive option" idea emerged during her closed-door roundtable at the Sunrise Senior Center with advocates of seniors and others who work with older populations. Wasserman Schultz suggested the term might be here to stay.

Right. A competitive option? These idiots got nothing!

See also, Verum Serum, "Public Option Marketing by Dems Finally Jumps the Shark." Plus, from William Jacobson, "Harry Reid: 'I Have Nothing to Announce, So Pay Attention'."

RELATED: The Wall Street Journal, "Senate on Verge of Health Bill."

Gingrich Doubles-Down Support for RINO Scozzafava: Attacks Conservatives as Hoffman Surges in NY-23

I thought Newt Gingrich was one of the sharpest analysts in contemporary politics? He's not looking too bright right now, and in fact, he's downright stupid if he's now seriously contemplating entry into the race for the 2012 GOP nomination.

Last week the former House Speaker came out in favor of electing RINO Dede Scozzafava to Congress from New York's 23rd congressional district. And now Gingrich is stepping up his attacks on the grassroots/tea party base, and amazingly, this is just as public support is putting Hoffman on top in the polls.

From the Politico, "Newt Gingrich: Doug Hoffman Support a 'Mistake'":

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is warning conservative activists that their support for a third-party candidate in a key upcoming New York special election is a “mistake.”

In a video captured last week and posted on YouTube Friday, Gingrich told tea party organizer Lisa Miller at a book-signing event that conservatives are inadvertently hindering the cause by backing Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman over Dede Scozzafava, the Republican Party’s nominee.

“I just think it is a mistake for the conservative movement to think splitting in the special election is a smart idea,” Gingrich said. “If we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us.”

A number of top national conservative voices have endorsed Hoffman in the last week, while others have yet to weigh in on behalf of either candidate. Gingrich, however, is one of the few prominent conservatives to support Scozzafava.

Asked why he chose to back Scozzafava, who supports abortion rights, same sex marriage and has ties with local labor leaders, Gingrich responded, “Let’s just start with she is the nominee of the local party. My bias is to be for the nominee of the local party, and I don’t second guess the local party.”

His bias is obviously toward radical lefist ideological carpetbaggers.

More later ...

Momentum's With Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd Congressional

From the Club for Growth, "Hoffman Surges Into Lead in NY-23"(via Memeorandum):

A poll released today by the Club for Growth shows Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman surging into the lead in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district to replace John McHugh, the former congressman who recently became Secretary of the Army.

The poll of 300 likely voters, conducted October 24-25, 2009, shows Conservative Doug Hoffman at 31.3%, Democrat Bill Owens at 27.0%, Republican Dede Scozzafava at 19.7%, and 22% undecided. The poll's margin of error is +/- 5.66%. No information was provided about any of the candidates prior to the ballot question.

This is the third poll done for the Club for Growth in the NY-23 special election, and Doug Hoffman is the only candidate to show an increase in his support levels in each successive poll. The momentum in the race is clearly with Hoffman.

Notice the absence of push-polling methods.

The findings match up with my comments at my previous post, on the dynamism of the conservative movement, "Gallup Poll: Conservatism is Top Ideology; Meanwhile, From Newsweek: Right-Wing Has 'Overstayed' its Welcome."

Gallup Poll: Conservatism is Top Ideology; Meanwhile, From Newsweek: Right-Wing Has 'Overstayed' its Welcome

Gallup reports that conservative ideology is backed by a large plurality of Americans, "Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group":

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

Compare that to Newsweek editor Jon Meacham's discussion of current partisan trends, "The Great American Ideological Crackup" (via Memeorandum):

Shortly after the 2004 presidential election, I was chatting with a senior figure in the Democratic Party when, inevitably, the talk turned to why John Kerry had lost. My interlocutor's theory of the case: the voters did not know the truth about George W. Bush. Why didn't they know the truth? I asked. The reply: because of Roger Ailes.

On hearing that a particularly dopey man we both knew had gone to rehab for drinking, a friend of mine once sent me an e-mail that said: "You know, that's an awful lot to blame on alcohol." To adapt the image, the 2004 victory is an awful lot to credit Ailes with. The head of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel, Ailes (whom I know) is a talented and influential man. He rose from The Mike Douglas Show to become a maker of presidents, from Nixon to Bush 41, and his channel is a big player in our politics. But if he and Fox News were as omnipotent as Democrats fear, John McCain and Sarah Palin would be in the White House.

Still, to many liberals, Murdoch and Ailes are the scary Wild Things of the last decade or so in American politics, the men on whom many of the evils of the world can be blamed ....

The whole thing feels like the last war, or a song that has not worn well, or a guest who has overstayed his welcome. The White House–vs.–Fox News mini-saga belongs to an era that effectively ended last fall, when President Bush radically enlarged the role of the federal government in the economy and Obama won the presidency. It was clear then, and is even clearer now, that the issues which long defined the right-left divide (hawkishness abroad, a limited role for government at home) are in spectacular disarray.

It's mindboggling, really, this elite media-bubble that envelops folks like Jon Meacham.

Forty percent of Americans identify with conservatism, we've had nearly a year of grassroots conservative and libertarian protests against the excessive government of both parties, and the most dynamic political movement in the country right now is the conservative's grassroots election campaign in New York's 23 congressional district.

That's what should be on the cover of this week's Newsweek, not Anna Quindlen's lame paean to President Obama's first year in office, "Hope Springs Eternal."

I'm doubling-down on my prediction that Obama's a one-term president. The left just doesn't get it: Democrats won no mandate to reengineer society in 2008. Folks want competence and good goverment, and instead they've been hoodwinked by a dopey-changey ideological Pied Piper of socialist nihilism.

It's almost unbelievable, but a real ideological crackup's coming ... conservatives just need to keep the pressure on.

SEIU Joins People's 'Direct Action' Group in Chicago Bank Protests

From the SEIU blog, "VIDEO: You Weren't on the Guest List":

SEIU is astroturfing with the National People's Action campaign, a communist front group:

National People's Action exists as a network to create a society in which racial and economic justice are realized in all aspects of society, resulting in more equity in work, housing, health, education, finance, and other systems central to our well-being.

The following beliefs were developed by our community leaders. Our beliefs are the building blocks for our big ideas and what we believe as a network:

• Every person has innate dignity, beauty, and worth, and thus is entitled to basic human rights;
• All people, regardless of race, class, gender, sexual orientation and national origin must be ensured a high quality of life;
• Society should be organized on the basis of mutual responsibility, cooperation, and community self-determination achieved through political and economic democracy.

Our big ideas – based on our beliefs – are those policies that we fight for as a network.
We will fight for policies that:

• Take back our power to use the government as our tool to promote the common good, correct the injustices of the past, and redistribute resources equitably and sustainably.
• Democratize the market to put people above profits.
• Enforce fundamental human rights standards that prevent exploitation of people and the environment.
• Take action to ensure racial, gender, economic, and immigrant justice in all social and economic systems.

And from the SEIU protest page, here's the list of affiliated organizations:

We are the members of:

Action Now

AFL-CIO

Albany Park Neighborhood Council

Americans for Financial Reform

ARISE Chicago

Brighton Park Neighborhood Council

Change To Win

Chicago Coalition of the Homeless

Citizen Action

Grassroots Collaborative

Housing Action Illinois

Illinois Alliance for Retired Americans

Illinois Hunger Coalition

Jane Addams Senior Caucus

Jobs with Justice

Northside Action and Justice

Northside POWER

National People's Action

SEIU Illinois State Council

SOUL

UE

Workers United

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin pandered to the activists at the bankers conference, calling for more regulations, wouldn't you know. See, the Chicago Tribune, "Durbin Calls for Bailed-Out Banks to Help on Foreclosures: Banker Association Meeting Greeted by Protests Here."

RELATED: This is where its heading. From thee New York Times, "Trying to Rein In ‘Too Big to Fail’ Institutions" (via Memeorandum):

Congress and the Obama administration are about to take up one of the most fundamental issues stemming from the near collapse of the financial system last year — how to deal with institutions that are so big that the government has no choice but to rescue them when they get in trouble.

A senior administration official said on Sunday that after extensive consultations with Treasury Department officials, Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, would introduce legislation as early as this week. The measure would make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution.

Preserving the American Nuclear Deterrent

As a candidate, President Obama repeatedly announced his intentions to pursue a "nuclear free world." In October 2007, Obama pledged a reduction of stockpiles of fissile material, with the ultimate goal of ridding the world of nuclear arms. In July 2008, at his speech in Berlin, Obama called to "renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons." And in April this year, Obama told a crowd in Prague that "his administration would 'reduce the role of nuclear weapons” in its national security strategy."

These announcements are striking in the context of the history of American strategic policy. And as Keir Lieber and Daryl Press argue in their new article at Foreign Affairs, the nuclear peace of the last 60 years has perhaps dulled the sense of urgency that ought normally reside in discussions of high nuclear politics. Should the administration carry out its repeated pledges to make dramatic unilateral cuts in U.S. stockpiles, our country's national security might well face new extreme dangers.

Here's a passage from Lieber and Press', "The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent":

The central problem for U.S. deterrence in the future is that even rational adversaries will have powerful incentives to introduce nuclear weapons -- that is, threaten to use them, put them on alert, test them, or even use them -- during a conventional war against the United States. If U.S. military forces begin to prevail on the battlefield, U.S. adversaries may use nuclear threats to compel a cease-fire or deny the United States access to allied military bases. Such threats might succeed in pressuring the United States to settle the conflict short of a decisive victory.

Such escalatory strategies are rational. Losing a conventional war to the United States would be a disastrous outcome for any leader, and it would be worth taking great risks to force a cease-fire and avert total defeat. The fate of recent U.S. adversaries is revealing. The ex-dictator of Panama, Manuel Noriega, remains in a Miami prison. The former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, awaits trial in The Hague, where Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic died in detention three years ago. Saddam Hussein's punishment for losing the 2003 war was total: his government was toppled, his sons were killed, and he was hanged on a dimly lit gallows, surrounded by enemies. Even those leaders who have eluded the United States -- such as the Somali warlord Muhammad Farah Aidid and Osama bin Laden -- have done so despite intense U.S. efforts to capture or kill them. The United States' overseas conflicts are limited wars only from the U.S. perspective; to adversaries, they are existential. It should not be surprising if they use every weapon at their disposal to stave off total defeat.

Coercive nuclear escalation may sound like a far-fetched strategy, but it was NATO's policy during much of the Cold War. The Western allies felt that they were hopelessly outgunned in Europe at the conventional level by the Warsaw Pact. Even though NATO harbored little hope of prevailing in a nuclear war, it planned to initiate a series of escalating nuclear operations at the outbreak of war -- alerts, tactical nuclear strikes, and wider nuclear attacks -- to force the Soviets to accept a cease-fire. The United States' future adversaries face the same basic problem today: vast conventional military inferiority. They may adopt the same solution. Leaders in Beijing may choose gradual, coercive escalation if they face imminent military defeat in the Taiwan Strait -- a loss that could weaken the Chinese Communist Party's grip on power. And if U.S. military forces were advancing toward Pyongyang, there is no reason to expect that North Korean leaders would keep their nuclear weapons on the sidelines.

Layered on top of these challenges are two additional ones. First, U.S. conventional military doctrine is inherently escalatory. The new American way of war involves launching simultaneous air and ground attacks throughout the theater to blind, confuse, and overwhelm the enemy. Even if the United States decided to leave the adversary's leaders in power (stopping short of regime change so as to prevent the confrontation from escalating), how would Washington credibly convey the assurance that it was not seeking regime change once its adversary was blinded by attacks on its radar and communication systems and command bunkers? A central strategic puzzle of modern war is that the tactics best suited to dominating the conventional battlefield are the same ones most likely to trigger nuclear escalation.

Furthermore, managing complex military operations to prevent escalation is always difficult. In 1991, in the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Iraq's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, that the United States would leave Saddam's regime in power as long as Iraq did not use its chemical or biological weapons. But despite Baker's assurance, the U.S. military unleashed a major bombing campaign targeting Iraq's leaders, which on at least one occasion nearly killed Saddam. The political intent to control escalation was not reflected in the military operations, which nearly achieved a regime change.

In future confrontations with nuclear-armed adversaries, the United States will undoubtedly want to prevent nuclear escalation. But the leaders of U.S. adversaries will face life-and-death incentives to use their nuclear arsenals to force a cease-fire and remain in power.

The authors go on to outline the advanced technological basis for maintaining a robust "counter-target" nuclear deterrence policy. Lieber and Press speak of the "grim logic" of rational decision-making, and they anticipate criticisms from those who'd claim that their war-gaming scenarios are "macabre." But as they note:

Deterrence depends on the capacity to carry out threats. Retaining that capacity is not a sign that the United States has moved beyond deterrence to a war-fighting posture for its nuclear arsenal; rather, the capacity to execute threats is the very foundation of deterrence.

It's not a mystery as to why this administration is so intent on dismantling the strategic security apparatus that's kept great power peace since the end of World War II. This president sees the United States as the greatest threat to internatioanal order - that's why he's toured the world making apologies for American policies and power projection, and that's why he won the Nobel Peace Prize. But hopey-changey platitudes of world peace are essentially exogenous to the logic of military-strategic rationality. Ignoring these facts will make war more likely, not less, with an even greater risk of catastrophic loss of life.

**********

UPDATE: See also Common Sense Political Thought, "Foreign Policy 101: Do We Really Want to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?"

Afghan Insurgency More Dangerous Than Ever: Obama Leaves McChrystal Hanging

Is Newshoggers cheering American deaths again? It's always the U.S. they decry, not stuff like this below:

EXTREME CONTENT WARNING!!

See also, "Afghan Insurgency Given New Life by Their Enemies":

Afghans do want governance – they want good governance. But they have been ripped off every time it's been within their grasp. And the worst rip-off has been in the last eight years, because democracy and good governance were the gifts offered by the West – by governments that supposedly knew about these things.

You have to want freedom and good government, and so far a lot of blood and treasure been expended on the promise of the first amid a shortage of the second.

And since President Barack Obama doesn't not care about the mission - and since he has anti-Americans defeatists like Jodie Evans at his side - it's no wonder idiots like the Newshoggers can spew their fecal matter with considerable hopes of having the desired effect.

And frankly, combined, this is why my good friend Pamela says forget it - let's bring the troops home.

Via Memeorandum.

'We Need to Take 'Em Down' - ANSWER/PSL: Stop the War at Home and Abroad!

On Saturday afternoon, October 24th, I attended the Long Beach Public Forum on Afghanistan, "STOP THE WAR AT HOME AND ABROAD," sponsored by L.A.'s Party for Socialism and Liberation. The party's website is here. The event took place at one of the coolest coffeehouse's ever, the Library Coffeehouse, at Broadway and Redondo, in downtown Long Beach.

Here's the sidewalk scene as I arrived. Inside, the walls are lined with old bookshelves, and customers were working with laptops at tables and lounging in comfortable chairs. Definitely a happening local hangout:

Apparently, activists already toured the neighborhood to plaster party stickers on the local communications hardware. I actually forgot my cellphone. I used this payphone - the first time I've used one in years - to call home and check in on my family before the event started:

Back out front, one of the event organizers, Douglas Kauffman, was handing out flyers for the event. That's him pictured below. He was standing with another young fellow, Comrade Javiar, who refused to have his picture taken. Even Kaufman was hesitant, but I'd introduced myself and given him my business card, so he said okay:

I ordered a latte and hung out for a couple of minutes. The group met in a small side room at the coffeehouse. The setting was intimate. I didn't take any more pictures until after the event. I snapped this just as things were concluding. Here's the table organizers set up with flyers and copies of Liberation, the PSL news organ.

At the upper left is Richard Becker's Palestine, Israel and the U.S. Empire. I'm about halfway through the volume, and I'll most likely will be writing a review and analysis when I'm done (big problems in that book, but more on that later). I picked up a copy of Liberation, on the left, with the cover story about the Wall Street bailout. Inside, the November 6th edition features a piece on the war, "Occupation Intensifies, Afghan Resistance Grows Stronger":

As the civlian death toll rises and reports come back of troops dying in a war that cannot be won, public opinion in the United States is starting to turn. What is needed is for the people to once again take to the streets to demand an end to the occupation. Once free from foreign occupation, the people of Afghanistan will be able to determine their destiny.

Notice also the upcoming event flyers at right. The PSL has made a big deal previously about its upcoming socialism conference. But notice the new Students Fight Back flyer at top right. Students Fight Back is ANSWER's campus front group. I discussed the organization yesterday. See, "'Mobilizing Conference' for Public Schools Revives '60s-Era Campus Radicalism." Organizers have an event planned for November 17th at the CSU Chancellor's office in downtown Long Beach, along the waterway. The flyer's small print reads, "The CSU Trustees don't care about students, faculty or campus workers. They have pushed the state budget crisis onto our backs." The flyer also calls for "mass demonstrations," clearly in line with what I reported yesterday: Activists statewide have situated the campus mobilizations within the dialectical language of international solidarity and revolutionary struggle.

Douglas Kauffman spoke first during the presentations. He's a key organizer for the CSU protest on November 17th. It turns out that the big line coming from ANSWER and Students Fight Back is that the wars abroad have cut into education budgets at home (no mention of the fact that state revenues pay for the bulk of public school programs in California). Kauffman in particular spoke of how the "war economy" had created an "economic draft," analogous the federal government's Vietnam-era draft. "Capitalism has made it that poor and minorities are targeted first," argued Kauffman. "Those impressed into military service face worse economic circumstances after they return home from war." Kauffman spoke for some time, mouthing boilerplate communist talking points, and concluding with, "We will fight to destroy the imperial war machine - troops out of Afghanistan now!"

Next up was "Comrade Javiar." I got a kick out of the emcee's introduction, since this was my first actual party meeting where cadres referred to each other as "comrade." It's almost a blast from out of time: All that was missing were the berets and bandoliers. That said, Comrade Javiar was sporting a "Viva La Palestine" t-shirt, which featured images of radical militants above the slogan, "Which side are you on?"

Comrade Javiar denounced alleged American imperialism in Afghanistan. Sounding as though he'd read some key Leninist tracts, he exclaimed, "Imperialism is a system that exists for war." Comrade Javiar continued, saying that America's colonial occupation was doomed. Resistance movements had achieved independence in countries like China, Korea, Vietnam, and Mozambique. "Imperialism can be defeated," he claimed. Comrade Javiar then reminded the audience that "ANSWER was the only group that mobilized against the invasion of Aghanistan in 2001." He was quite proud of this, and was convinced that resistance and struggle would ultimately defeat the American regime.

Interestingly, when the emcee opened up the floor for questions, one woman who was sitting to the back of the room with her daughter spoke up and denounced the Obama administration. She said that President Obama is a "puppet" controlled by the powerful corporate interests who run the country. "We need to take em' out," she said, speaking of the government in Washington, and referring to hopes for the proletarian victory over the ruling class. Here's the picture of the woman. I waited until folks were moving outside to try to get a couple of more photographs:

Comrade Javiar was in wild agreement with the "We need to take 'em down" comments, although seeming a bit paranoid, he couched his direct calls for toppling the Obama regime in the vague language of "change." Ironic that Obama himself has branded himself as the agent of change. Comrade Javiar should just come out and say his wants to decapitate the "criminal" Obama administration. He had already denounced the current administration for backtracking on pledges to withraw the troops, and Comrade Javiar made the point that in fact Obama had "escalated" the "occupation."

Comrade Javiar was accompanied by a former student of mine from Long Beach City College. I said hello to Shondriane Wise after the event was over. She as pleased to see me and happy I'd recognized her, but she also refused to be photographed. She said she hadn't yet joined the Party for Socialism and Liberation, but she did end up leaving with Comrade Javiar; so it's most likely that she's long been indoctrinated to Marxist-Leninist basics by now. I snapped this shot of the couple as they were leaving. Comrade Javiar turned back to look just in time:

Is it just me, but isn't there something fundamentally inauthentic for our revolutionary to be hopping into a late-model Volkswagon convertible?

No ascetism for today's revolutinary communist party cadres, I guess?

Radical Left Launches Feminist Feeding Frenzy on Obama's 'Guy Thing'

It's never ending with the mind-numbingly politically-correct quota-crushing radical left-wing feminist establishment. From the New York Times, "Man’s World at White House? No Harm, No Foul, Aides Say":

Does the White House feel like a frat house?

The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players.

The president, after all, is an unabashed First Guy’s Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a “big rambunctious dog” over a “girlie dog” and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.

He presides over a White House rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other “dude” and testosterone-brimming personalities like Rahm Emanuel, the often-profane chief of staff; Lawrence Summers, the brash economic adviser; and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, who habitually speaks in sports metaphors.

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

While the senior adviser Valerie Jarrett is undeniably one of the president’s closest White House confidantes, some women inside or close to the administration complain that Mr. Obama’s female advisers are not as visible as their male colleagues or, they suspect, as influential.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton administration whose sister, Betsy, served as the Obama campaign’s chief operating officer.

I think the Times overstates Obama's manliness. Perhaps if he'd only apply a little more of that testosterone to our enemies ...

In any case, the "guy thing" backlash on the left is no surprise. These are Democrats. That's what they do.

Doug Hoffman to Conservatives: 'Take Back the Party!'

From Doug Hoffman's column at the New York Post, "Take Back the Party!":

At this time, three months ago, I was wrestling with a decision. A decision as to whether or not to run in a special election to fill the seat vacated by the new secretary of the Army, John McHugh. If you had told me 90 days later I would be penning an op-ed piece for the New York Post, I would have laughed in disbelief. I would have laughed even louder had you told me that I would be receiving endorsement and support from political leaders like Fred Thompson, former Majority Leader Dick Armey, or Sarah Palin. Or appearing on broadcast media with national audiences, as their hosts peppered me with questions about the future of the GOP and our nation.

You see I’m not a professional politician; I’ve never sought elected office. I grew up poor in Saranac Lake, in the heart of the Adirondacks. My siblings and I were raised in a single-parent household by our mother. We worked to help her pay the mortgage. But, like so many others in this great land, I worked hard, got a good education, did a six-year stint in the military, married, landed a good job with a “big eight” accounting firm and started living the American dream.

It’s funny what can happen in America, when you are able to dream and have the courage to follow your dreams. At 27 I was hired as controller of the organizing committee for the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid. Three years later I bought the accounting firm that employed my mother. Now I have six offices spread across the northern reaches of New York and a dozen other small businesses in the Adirondacks that employ my wife, children and hopefully someday, my grandchildren. I am living the American Dream.

The reason I’m running for office is to ensure that others share the same opportunities.

The rest is here.

Hat Tip: Robert Stacy McCain.

Update on Derrion Albert Gang Melee Murder

Update to my report, "'The Providence Effect': Astonishing Educational Achievement, 'The Way It Should Be Done'."

There I quoted the Chicago Tribune on the administration's response to the Derrion Albert killing:

President Barack Obama is sending Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan to Chicago this week in the wake of the fatal beating. Obama's spokesman has indicated the administration is preparing an initiative to address the national issues of youth crime and violence.

Now check out Joanne Jacob's report at Pajamas Media, "Response to School Violence Is Inadequate":

“Quiet and order” are the “foundation of learning” at UNO charter schools in Chicago, reports Education Week. Educated in a safe, disciplined, school community, UNO’s students – mostly low-income and Latino — outperform the average for Chicago public school students.

For many students in the city that used to “know how,” school is a chaotic and dangerous place — and getting home is even worse. Last year, 34 Chicago students died violently, usually off campus, and 290 were wounded in shootings.

The latest victim, 16-year-old Derrion Albert, is different for two reasons: He was an honor student who stumbled into a brawl between two warring factions at Fenger “Academy” High School. More important, the brutal assault was videotaped by a classmate’s cellphone and shown on the Internet.

In response to the furor, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who was CEO of Chicago Public Schools, pledged federal support to fight youth violence. So far, that amounts to $25 million for crime prevention nationwide.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley pledged more police protection for students on the perilous way home and GED programs for dropouts.

Fenger will get $500,000. As they talked in a downtown hotel, another fight broke out outside Fenger, despite a police presence.

Even before Albert’s murder, Chicago Public Schools CEO Ron Huberman announced a $30 million a year violence prevention plan that targets students who fit a profile that predicts who is most likely to be a victim of violence. (They’re also likely to be perpetrators, but that’s not the PC spin.) Black males from troubled families who are in special education or alternative schools are likely to be involved in violence, the data show. These students are behind in credits, skip school more than 40 percent of the time, and commit one serious school violation per year.

The 1,200 who best fit the profile will be offered paid jobs to keep them busy and matched with “advocates” and social workers.

There will no jobs for students like Derrion Albert, who show up, do the work, and follow the rules. They don’t fit the profile.

More at the link (and specifically, more on in-classroom methods to get troublemakers out of class and keep student learning on track).

Time to Topple the Iranian Regime

From Michael Ledeen, at the Weekly Standard, "We Have Met the Enemy ... And it is Iran":

Speaking publicly about the role of Iran in Afghanistan--which is substantial, and about which we have considerable information--seems to be taboo for our current leaders. This is neither new nor surprising. Iranians, and Iranian-trained terrorists from organizations such as Hezbollah, have been killing Americans for years. The Bush administration, for example, had similar information about Iran's role in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and top officials did their best to suppress it. According to reporter Bob Woodward, a top State Department official knew that Iran had committed "acts of war" against our troops in Iraq and kept that information from the president, fearing a forceful response.

Nonetheless, we learned a lot about Iranian activities against our troops, both because the basic elements in the lethal roadside bombs were traced to Iran, and because Iranian military officers (from the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force) were captured in Iraq and provided details of the mullahs' training, arming, funding, and protection of insurgents sent to kill Americans and other coalition forces.

This information was not limited to Iraq. During the initial assault against the Taliban following 9/11, Special Forces found Iranian assassins operating against us, and by late 2007, there was abundant public testimony about Iran's activities in Afghanistan.

Former White House counter--terrorism official Richard Clarke pointed out in the summer of 2007 that the Taliban were using heavy arms, C-4 explosives, and advanced roadside bombs. "It is inconceivable," he said, "that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it."

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said at the same time, "There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this. It's certainly coming from the government of Iran."

General Dan McNeill, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, announced that "the Iranian military was involved in a shipment of sophisticated explosive devices intercepted [in September 2007] .  .  . in western Afghanistan."

The Iranians' attacks on American forces were nothing new; they were only the most recent in a war that began in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution's seizure of power in Tehran. Soon thereafter, Iran raced to the top of our list of state sponsors of terror, and it is still there today. Those well-known chants of "Death to America!" are not slogans for domestic consumption; they describe the central thrust of Iranian foreign policy. The mullahs are now part of a global anti-American alliance that includes Syria, Russia, Eritrea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia, along with terrorist organizations from Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad to the Colombian FARC.

Therefore, in Afghanistan as in Iraq, no matter how well we do, no matter how many high-level targets we eliminate, no matter how many cities, towns, and villages we secure, unless we defeat Iran we will always be designing yet another counterinsurgency strategy in yet another place. We are in a big war, and Iran is at the heart of the enemy army. Alas, no American president since the Islamic Revolution has been willing to face the consequences of Iran's war against America. Most of the time, our leaders have refused to accept the fact that Iran will do everything possible to dominate or destroy us. Instead of trying to defeat the mullahs, every president has sought rapprochement, just as Obama is doing now.

RTWT.

The Goldstone Report: Rewarding Palestinian Terror

Lally Weymouth recently interviewed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. From the Washington Post (via Memeorandum):

Q: What did you think of the Goldstone report?

A: I thought there were limits to hypocrisy but I was obviously wrong. The so-called human rights commission accuses Israel that legitimately defended itself against Hamas of war crimes. Mind you, Hamas didn't commit just one type of war crime. It committed four. First, they called for the destruction of Israel, which under the U.N. Charter is considered a war crime -- incitement to genocide; secondly, they fired deliberately on civilians; third, they hid behind civilians; and fourth, they've been holding our captured soldier, Gilad Shalit, without access to the Red Cross, for three years.

And who gets accused of criminal behavior at the end of the day? Israel that sent thousands of text messages and made tens of thousands of cellular phone calls to Palestinian civilians [to warn them to evacuate]. This inversion of justice is patently absurd.

People here appear to feel the Goldstone report is very unfair, but some have called for an internal inquiry. What is your position?

We've had 26 allegations investigated. Not because of the U.N. decision but because this is our procedure. We've investigated people for wrong behavior. We've put people on trial in the past because we're a functioning democracy. We'll do it in this case too. But what the Goldstone report actually accuses Israel of is deliberately targeting civilians, which is patently false.

So you're not in favor of an independent inquiry?

We're looking into that not because of the Goldstone report but because of our own internal needs.

The best way to defuse this issue is to speak the truth because Israel was defending itself with just means against an unjust attack. Serious countries have to think about adapting the laws of war in the age of terrorism and guerrilla warfare. If the terrorists believe they have a license to kill by choosing to kill from behind civilian lines, that's what they'll do again and again. What exactly is Israel supposed to do?

That's why you think the report is so dangerous?

This gives terrorist regimes a new weapon against democracies and even against non-democracies -- it allows them to attack entire cities with weapons of mass terror and get away with it simply because they fire the rockets from populated areas. In the case of Hamas, they deliberately targeted civilians while hiding behind civilians. So our attempted surgical strikes would be attacked as [acts of] war criminals. There's a world of difference between the incidental civilian casualties that are tragic in any war and the deliberate targeting of civilians.

Now [comes] the new tactic, which is the deliberate targeting of civilians while using civilians as a human shield. A double war crime. [But] the U.N. commission in Geneva added insult to injury by condemning Israel. It's a complete inversion of the facts, which is more[or] less what this report does. It just stands truth and justice on its head. So the simplest way to deal with this [report] is to tell the truth. The United States did that with great clarity.

See also, Honest Reporting, "The Goldstone Report: Rewarding Palestinian Terror":

BACKGROUND SUMMARY

The United Nations fact-finding mission examining Israel's Operation Cast Lead against Hamas in Gaza has been published. Headed by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, the mission's 575-page report (PDF format) found that "Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity."

Here, we provide an overview of some of the failings the Goldstone Report, including:

• Israel did not deliberately target the civilian population of Gaza and, in fact, made efforts to prevent civilian casualties that no other army in the world would have done.
• Contrary to the assertions of Goldstone, Hamas did use Palestinian civilians as human shields.
• The Goldstone Report is not objective and is, in fact tainted by bias and politicization, both from the UN Human Rights Council and members of the mission itself.
• The report relied upon the contributions of anti-Israel non-governmental organizations and unreliable Palestinian "eyewitnesses."
• Israel respects human rights and has a sophisticated legal and judicial system. Hamas does not. Yet the report has created an unjust equivalence of a democratic state with a terror organization.

More at the link.

TEA PARTY: The Documentary Film

Via Skye at Midnight Blue, check out the trailer for TEA PARTY: The Documentary Film:

The Tea Party movement of 2009 shocked the political establishment, the nation at large and left a big media machine dizzy in its wake. How did it happen? Where did it come from? Now, experience the story of the movement that's driving our national dialogue against big government spending and a Constitution under assault. "Tea Party: The Documentary Film" follows the struggles of five grassroots individuals and their transformation from home town rally goers and rally organizers to national activists in the 912 March on Washington. In the process, the film reveals what is at the heart of this nationwide surge of civic engagement - a return to and respect for a Constitutionally limited government, personal responsibility and fiscal restraint at the Federal level.

The film's website is here.

Unlike Collapse, I'm really interested in this one.

San Francisco Protestors Denounce Olmert as 'War Criminal'‎, Attempt Citizens' Arrest

Radical activists attempted a "citizens' arrest" of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmertj during his speech to the World Affairs Council in San Francisco this week. The San Jose Mercury News has the report, "Ex-Israeli Prime Minister Heckled on San Francisco Visit":

Protesters heckled former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during a speech in San Francisco Thursday, denouncing him as a war criminal and demanding his arrest.
As soon as Olmert took the stage at the Westin St. Francis Hotel — and following a warning by the discussion's moderator that no disturbances would be tolerated — a woman and man rose from their seats and shouted: "war criminal," "mass murderer."

Minutes after they were pushed out by police, another person stood up and yelled, "Aren't you ashamed of yourself?"

All in all, more than 20 people interrupted Olmert's 90-minute appearance, during which he answered questions on Middle East peace, Iran, the Lebanon War in 2006 and last winter's Gaza offensive, which was the point of attack for the protesters.

The protest was sponsored by all the hardline anti-Israel groups, including Code Pink "Women for Peace," who I reported last night were granted access to President Barack Obama during his recent fundraising trip to San Fran. See,"Jodie Evans and the Obama-Hollywood-Terrorist Connection."

And if you'll notice at the video, the San Francisco chapter of the Hamas-backing International ANSWER Coalition was out in force.

'Mobilizing Conference' for Public Schools Revives '60s-Era Campus Radicalism

At last weekend's ANSWER's "teach-in" on Afghanistan, one of the speakers was Tamara Khoury of Students Fight Back, a college protest group out of Cal State Fullerton. Ms. Koury denounced the "war economy" that was siphoning funds from public education: "I can't get into my classes, my tuition this year was doubled, and yet hundreds of billions go wage criminal war against innocent people each year. This must end."

It turns out that Students Fight Back is a campus front group for the ANSWER Coalition, and the group's support from terrorist-backing organizations is just the beginning. With the the slow pace of economic recovery in California, radical activists around the state are taking advantage of the current "crisis of capitalism" to decry budget cuts and organize "collective action" for the "struggle" of the working class. Check the website for the Mobilizing Conference to Save Public Education. And notice the classic raised fist of international solidarity at the announcement:

Actually, a number of campus "direct action" campaigns have been taking place over the last few weeks. Just this week, activists at CSU Fullerton mounted a protest called "Furlough Fest" to resist the three-day cutbacks that idled the campus. Students "occupied" the college green, and activists set up tents and camped out overnight to decry cancellation of classes." ANSWER's Students Fight Back was a key organizing cell for an earlier action on September 29th. That event came on the heels of the September 24th mobilization at UC Santa Cruz, which was billed as a part of "a day of action at all UCs across the state." Dubbed the "Occupation of the Graduate Student Commons at UC Santa Cruz," the mobilization was an element of the larger campaign of grassroots resistance. According to organizers, "a single day of action, announced in advance, is not enough. Escalation is absolutely necessary."

The UC Santa Cruz action was quite a serious business. Students occupied campus buildings for five hours, and the university has released a formal policy on police reactions to the demonstrations. One student announced that protesters were sending a message about "an actual shift in power relations." He said, "We have the capacity, if we act in concert, to stop the university from functioning." Photographs from the occupation show protesters marching with militant signs, for example: "Demilitarize and De-Privatize Our University," and "Dismantle UC Regents - Demand Student Collective Self-Determination."

Marc Bousquet, a hardline professor at Santa Clara University, published an interview with a student cadre at the Chronicle of Higher Education, "Will Occupation Become a Movement?" The interview followed a second round of direct action at UC Santa Cruz. Bousquet asked what were the next steps for Occupy California!:

We should all look forward to, and prepare ourselves for, a far longer struggle, a struggle for which these actions, regardless of what one thinks of them, do not serve as inspirations but rather as concrete expressions of what is felt by countless others across the system and world.

The is clearly the language of international solidarity and revolutionary struggle.

In the fact, Socialist Worker, the Marxist-Leninist organ of the International Socialist Organization, published a big background report on the student mobilizing conference, of which the occuption movement is clearly aligned, "Organizing the Fight for Public Education":

There are different political ideas among of these groups of people, running from moderate liberals to socialists and anarchists, and all points along the spectrum.

And there is no agreement on tactics. Some students and teachers believe that lobbying elected officials is essential, while others have taken direct action to occupy buildings or liberate libraries closed due to budget cuts.

The socialists are particularly invested in the potential of the events to bring about a revolutionary crisis in the state educational system. Last week, Professor Julian DelGaudio, who is the faculty organizer for Long Beach City College's local ANSWER cell, distributed a letter to the editor from the Berkeley Daily Planet, written by Eugene Ruyle, an emeritus professor at Long Beach State: "Don’t Let the University Interfere with Your Education":

As a congressional candidate of the socialist Peace and Freedom Party (District 10, 2008), I would remind everyone that, ultimately, the solution to California's budgetary problems lies in the socialist transformation of the global economy, based on the principles of peace, democracy, equality, and ecology, and led by the workers of the world organized as the ruling class. I do not suggest that students and workers simply wait for The Revolution, however. Instead, I urge them to challenge the existing system ...

Again, clear talk of revolutionary transformation. And while Ruyle's manifesto was actually quite bourgeois in its program (salary rollbacks and budget reform are among the planks), it's unlikely that the restless youth will sit around for too long waiting for the legislative and electoral initiatives needed to actualize the left's transformational agenda.

Indeed, students just this week organized a walkout and militant takeover over the library at Fresno State University. According to Indy Media, the occupation was one of the "largest mobilizations since the 60s":

The rally before the march was well attended, fluctuating from 100-300 students and faculty. People spoke and expressed their shared rage. This was followed by a march of well over 600 students chanting things like "no cuts! no fees! education should be free!" and "hey! hey! ho! ho! Welty's gotta go!"

It's unclear what impact all of this protest activity will have over the long term. California holds a gubernatorial election next year, and the budget crisis will be the central issue facing the electorate, combined perhaps with a popular movement for constituational change through the initiative process (simple majority to pass the state budget, for example). But like the antiwar student protesters of the 1960s, radical street activists are clearly impatient, militant, and just can't wait. Some of the sponsoring organizations have clear ties to international organizations hostile to the United States, and for a genuine revival of the campust uprisings during the Vietnam era we'd need to see direct action leading to revolutionary agitation and political violence against established authority.

Unlike during the '60s, student protesters today don't have the draft as the central rallying institution of injustice and oppression to resist. Students today will not be sent to fight and die in the jungles of Indochina in an "imperial" war of aggression against the "indigenous" Vietnamese population. Without that, the current movement will lack urgency and historical inevitability.

What's not unlikely, however, is the emergence of a new cadre of communist extremists who form a revolutionary vanguard with plans to topple the capitalist regime. Certainly the ANSWER Coaltion continues its work to speed up the contradictions of capitalism and the triumph of the working class. Should the language of "criminal wars" overseas and "catastrophic" corruption and "privatization" of the university elicit a true violent response, California could well be in for a reprise of the campus violence that rocked the nation during the peace movement years ago.

In 1968, student extremists occupied the campus at Columbia University for five days. College dean Henry Coleman was held hostage for 24 hours. Mark Rudd, the leader of the campus cell of Students for a Democratic Society, described the resistance as leading the way toward a Marxist revolution. Tom Hayden, a SDS national leader, claimed that the Columbia occupation "opened a new tactical stage in the resistance movement." When police cracked down on protesters, many innocent bystanders got caught up in the violence. Militant organizers used the widening confrontation to expand the coalition seeking to overthrow the system. Protests spread to other universities thereafter. Harvard University was gripped with its own student takeover in 1969. The same violent police response in Cambridge turned the radical minority there into martyrs when police stormed University Hall to put down the unrest. Movement organizers sought to exploit the official response to gain sympathy for communism. Campus turmoil continued, and in October 1969 the Weatherman faction of the SDS organized the Days of Rage protests in Chicago to bring down the system once and for all. Thereafter, throughout the early-1970s, domestic terrorist groups and revolutionary totalitarians continued to make war upon the U.S. government.

And so, forty years later, student activists are pushing to reignite the potential violence of the earlier protest generation. One might well hope that California enjoys an economic recovery in the short term, and that the "crisis of capitalism" is delayed long enough to avoid inevitable bloodshed and mayhem that comes from the kind of militant activism that we're seeing today.