Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Alexander Cockburn Scintillates in San Francisco
Rain didn't dampen the attendance of an enthusiastic and youthful audience who gathered at Station 40 in the San Francisco Mission district last night to hear Counterpunch co-editor Alexander Cockburn speak about a variety of topics pertaining to the status, strategy and influence of the Left in America today.
San Francisco
December 7, 2007
Yesterday evening the famed contrarian, prolific political essayist, and editor of Counterpunch Alexander Cockburn spoke in San Francisco's Mission District at Station 40, one of the neighborhood's excellent venues for young radicals and bohemians.
At his Counterpunch website, Cockburn and his co-editor Jeffrey St. Clair boast of having "many friends and all the right enemies" and guarantee that no one will ever see either of them "on the pundit line up at MSNBC."
At Station 40, Cockburn found many friends among the attendees who eschewed the commonplace and braved the rain to find extraordinary entertainment and information. None in his audience were to be disappointed.
Cockburn exuberantly and generously expounded upon a variety of topics with the versatility of a master Bee bop musician. With turns of humorous wit and dead seriousness, he challenged his audience's sense of reality on topics ranging from global warming, economic forces, conspiracies, current political forces, and his own sense of optimism (in spite of his appraisal that the U.S. political Left is in bad shape).
Some highlights:
Cockburn expressed his surprise that the determined neocons never "found" any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He asked, "Couldn't somebody have kicked one off the back of a truck?"
Cockburn declared that the recent National Intelligence Estimate that revealed that Iran had completely abandoned a nuclear weapons program will make it virtually impossible for the Neocon administration in Washington to pursue its alleged plans to attack Iran.
He warned of recent moves the government is making to clamp down on freedom of speech, which he said could put Counterpunch out of business overnight.
He had scathing words for the Democratic Party and neoliberals which he blamed for paving the way toward Bush and the neocons.
He called Dennis Kucinich "the little engine that couldn't" because of the way Kucinich fell into line behind Kerry in 2004.
He declared that he was no fan of Naomi Klein, the author of the widely acclaimed Shock Doctrine, but lamented the paucity and influence of serious economists on the Left.
He derided Al Gore as a "whore of the nuclear energy industry-- and his hawkishness during the first Iraq war.
He criticized the general lardishness of the modern enviornment movement which he said was dependent on charitable foundation support-- and of many university professors, describing tenure as a "chastening institution."
He advised the Left to become more fearless, and to reassert a vision of global justice that can talk once again about the redistribution of wealth.
Alexander Cockburn said that he would be in San Francisco again on Saturday and hoped to attend Cindy Sheehan's open house at her new campaign headquarters.
December 7, 2007
Yesterday evening the famed contrarian, prolific political essayist, and editor of Counterpunch Alexander Cockburn spoke in San Francisco's Mission District at Station 40, one of the neighborhood's excellent venues for young radicals and bohemians.
At his Counterpunch website, Cockburn and his co-editor Jeffrey St. Clair boast of having "many friends and all the right enemies" and guarantee that no one will ever see either of them "on the pundit line up at MSNBC."
At Station 40, Cockburn found many friends among the attendees who eschewed the commonplace and braved the rain to find extraordinary entertainment and information. None in his audience were to be disappointed.
Cockburn exuberantly and generously expounded upon a variety of topics with the versatility of a master Bee bop musician. With turns of humorous wit and dead seriousness, he challenged his audience's sense of reality on topics ranging from global warming, economic forces, conspiracies, current political forces, and his own sense of optimism (in spite of his appraisal that the U.S. political Left is in bad shape).
Some highlights:
Cockburn expressed his surprise that the determined neocons never "found" any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He asked, "Couldn't somebody have kicked one off the back of a truck?"
Cockburn declared that the recent National Intelligence Estimate that revealed that Iran had completely abandoned a nuclear weapons program will make it virtually impossible for the Neocon administration in Washington to pursue its alleged plans to attack Iran.
He warned of recent moves the government is making to clamp down on freedom of speech, which he said could put Counterpunch out of business overnight.
He had scathing words for the Democratic Party and neoliberals which he blamed for paving the way toward Bush and the neocons.
He called Dennis Kucinich "the little engine that couldn't" because of the way Kucinich fell into line behind Kerry in 2004.
He declared that he was no fan of Naomi Klein, the author of the widely acclaimed Shock Doctrine, but lamented the paucity and influence of serious economists on the Left.
He derided Al Gore as a "whore of the nuclear energy industry-- and his hawkishness during the first Iraq war.
He criticized the general lardishness of the modern enviornment movement which he said was dependent on charitable foundation support-- and of many university professors, describing tenure as a "chastening institution."
He advised the Left to become more fearless, and to reassert a vision of global justice that can talk once again about the redistribution of wealth.
Alexander Cockburn said that he would be in San Francisco again on Saturday and hoped to attend Cindy Sheehan's open house at her new campaign headquarters.
For more information:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I have been a fan of Cockburn and counterpunch, but am dismayed at his fervent denial of Global Warming as man made. Did he talk about this? I've read his articles on the subject and am really amazed how he has lockstepped with the right in relation to the global warming threat. I was surprised to see such a support for him (and station 40 hosting his views) even after St. Clair publically refuted his claims and most of his points on the subject are simply weightless. What's up with this and what's up with Cockburn? Has he lost his marbles or what? And station 40, what were you thinking? Duh.
yeah, i totally disagree with cockburn on global warming and think he has his science ass backwards, but yeah, he is a contrarian and is entitled to his own opinion...but, he did make some good points about how the left is looking at climate change in a very uncritical manner and lioning people who were previously (and for good reason!) looked at as untrustworthy, like al gore and the folks at the UN...and as to the idea that the left needs a vision of how we can make the world better, not just scavenge for crumbs after the apocalypse hits, i say hear hear...it's about what we can do, and not just all the negative stuff in the world...we all know there's plenty of that, but we need to offer alternatives, not just bitching...
My impresssion was that Cockburn's perspective is that since the Carter administration, average Americans have been encouraged to adopt a perspective that scarcity is growing. Since about that time, the rich have grown exhorbitantly richer-- while most Americans have seen their incomes stagnate.
A conspiracy?
Cockburn somewhat deflected that argument (making short shrift of Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bohemian Grove scenarios) because he feels that is unproductive. He said that conspiracy shouldn't become "a substitute for real analysis." For him, it seems, the "global warming" issue is a handy way to for some people to promote nuclear power plants or to ration energy which can hurt populations in the Third World most. "Real anaylsis" for him (I think) relates to economic forces.
My perspective is that most climate scientists, indeed most people today, are convinced that global warming is real because of a preponderence of evidence-- many logically err by saying that it is an irrefutable closed case.
Cockburn's contrariness is valuable because truth emerges from the conflict of ideas-- seldom from universal orthodoxy. Does his logic, particularly about "conspiracies", have inconsistencies? I would say yes-- although I agree with Cockburn as much to say that most conspiracy theory today is pure hogwash.
Cockburn made a humorous point that there is very little time left for alleged conspiracists to conspire between peeing on redwoods and abandoning care at the Bohemian Grove to jetting off to Davos... and so on.
One thing is certain-- if Cockburn comes to town he is well worth going to hear. I am reminded of the days when flights had smoking and non-smoking sections. Personally, I found the company more intelligent and more agreeable in the smoking section. Al Gore may be more "correct" when he identifies global warming as a serious threat-- but would one want to be buckled next to him on a long flight?
Too-- (the smoking analogy may be a good one)-- we all know that smoking cigarettes causes cancer-- and the cigarette industry has conspired for years to hook people on nicotine while they are young and incapable of making reasoned decisions. Meanwhile, do-gooders pump up taxes that most impact the poor who can hardly afford their addictions. Employees are forced to puff cigarettes outside on shorter breaks-- because they must go outside-- where they are an advertisement of health to the passing youth (sick people cannot go outside). They also buy more cigarettes because they cannot leisurely smoke a whole one-- but go through more "half-smokes" to get their required fixes.
Economic analysis of any situation provides many valuable insights.
Keep questioning!
A conspiracy?
Cockburn somewhat deflected that argument (making short shrift of Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bohemian Grove scenarios) because he feels that is unproductive. He said that conspiracy shouldn't become "a substitute for real analysis." For him, it seems, the "global warming" issue is a handy way to for some people to promote nuclear power plants or to ration energy which can hurt populations in the Third World most. "Real anaylsis" for him (I think) relates to economic forces.
My perspective is that most climate scientists, indeed most people today, are convinced that global warming is real because of a preponderence of evidence-- many logically err by saying that it is an irrefutable closed case.
Cockburn's contrariness is valuable because truth emerges from the conflict of ideas-- seldom from universal orthodoxy. Does his logic, particularly about "conspiracies", have inconsistencies? I would say yes-- although I agree with Cockburn as much to say that most conspiracy theory today is pure hogwash.
Cockburn made a humorous point that there is very little time left for alleged conspiracists to conspire between peeing on redwoods and abandoning care at the Bohemian Grove to jetting off to Davos... and so on.
One thing is certain-- if Cockburn comes to town he is well worth going to hear. I am reminded of the days when flights had smoking and non-smoking sections. Personally, I found the company more intelligent and more agreeable in the smoking section. Al Gore may be more "correct" when he identifies global warming as a serious threat-- but would one want to be buckled next to him on a long flight?
Too-- (the smoking analogy may be a good one)-- we all know that smoking cigarettes causes cancer-- and the cigarette industry has conspired for years to hook people on nicotine while they are young and incapable of making reasoned decisions. Meanwhile, do-gooders pump up taxes that most impact the poor who can hardly afford their addictions. Employees are forced to puff cigarettes outside on shorter breaks-- because they must go outside-- where they are an advertisement of health to the passing youth (sick people cannot go outside). They also buy more cigarettes because they cannot leisurely smoke a whole one-- but go through more "half-smokes" to get their required fixes.
Economic analysis of any situation provides many valuable insights.
Keep questioning!
Too the "Previous Fan of CounterPunch" who is disappointed that Station 40 hosted Alex Cockburn: I disagreed with some of Cockburn's points, but it was still an interesting and thought-provoking lecture. Are you saying that radical event spaces should only host speakers who you agree 100% with? Isn't this the same kind of dogmatic thinking that's hobbled the left over the year? It's not like Cockburn is getting paid by Exxon to slam global warming... he just disagrees with a lot of the science, which I think is a viewpoint worth exploring and debating. "Duh?" Hmm.... sorry we didn't all come to the obvious conclusion that contrarian thinkers should be banned from radical spaces like you did.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$205.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network