Here's an interesting story, hat tipped to BlatherWatch, the new blogmonitor of the Northwest's talk radio outlets: the family of activist Rachel Corrie is suing Caterpillar, Inc. and the State of Israel. More on BW's analysis in a minute, but some background linking first. The suit was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and other partners on behalf of the Corrie family. You can read their filing here. Somewhat related is the broader movement against Caterpillar, against whom it has been alleged that their custom-fitting of equipment for the IDF constitutes a war crime. Their appeals are based at the rather amusingly oblique CatDestroysHomes.org. Who knows how many false Google hits that one's gotten.
Amnesty International is less concerned with Caterpillar's role than the country whose soldiers drive them; they have appealed to Israel to do an honest investigation, and for the United States to take action based on the State Department's belief that the IDF investigation revealed inconsistencies. On the personal front, there are not one but two sites devoted to the memory of Rachel Corrie, as well as providing links and commentary on her story and its greater implications.
Back to BlatherWatch. I think their main point makes sense--this is not a lawsuit the Corries can or should expect to win; Cat can simply claim their bulldozers are not intended to bury people and houses with people in them, and they'll skate by.
That's not to say that Cat doesn't have some kind of moral and ethical culpability. As their statement in response to the suit indicates, they are neither allowed nor able to dictate how their products are used--but they can dictate who they are used by, or at least who they are sold to. It's ultraclear by now for what purpose the IDF intends to use Cat's equipment; if that bothers Cat execs they appear not to show it, or they would be more bothered by the loss of revenue from Israel.
But because the Corries went on Seattle talk radio to plead their case and were apparently not given an entirely sympathetic ear, BW's complaint is either that the left should be taking on the Corries' case--or perhaps that leftwing media outlets should do as well in ridiculing causes they find foolish or ultimately detrimental to society. I'm not sure which. The answer to the first charge is that "the left" has taken up the cause, although perhaps not the blogosphere at large. The links above are evidence of that, and mid-major media site Common Dreams recently commemorated the anniversary of her death, so it's not like they've been totally silent.
The second charge is one I think we'll continue to hear, that the left fails to be as relentlessly monomaniacal when it comes to the "chosen" issue of the day. I put chosen only loosely in quotes, since there is some theory on the Web that major rightwing sites like Instapundit and Powerline are part of a quiet cabal that seizes and issue and hammers on it in concert until critical mass is reached and the MSM become involved.
I'm not sure mimicing that sense of en masse advocacy is either possible or desirable among the left. Preemptive Carla yesterday asserted her liberal extraparty independence and to a large degree I agree with her. On the occassions when I have been called upon to blog on a certain topic in order to create a louder echo in the chamber, I feel awkward. It's as if I'm surrendering a small part of my brain to the Democratic Party or the cause of liberalism in general--that I'd have the ability to find an interesting topic that's not the Issue of the Day, were it not for my lockstep loyalism to The Great Struggle. I may find the IoD pertinent, important and compelling--but not only do I feel like a bit of a sheep giving forth the party line, I worry that readers will see that which they have read about elsewhere, and move on, thinking they have AlsoAlso pegged as just another dittohead site. I hate that feeling. So if you read something from me here on a topic that the Web is buzzing about (eg the Schiavo case, which is next on my hitlist given the new developments), be assured that it's because I find the topic worthy--not that it's being directed from on high, or I've got an agenda to push beyond my own.
--TJ
tj,
Good entry. The Corrie case is not compelling beyond the cause and advocacy arena. Opportunistic from an awareness standpoint is more like it IMO.
On your secondary (or was it tertiary) point, if I were blogging I hope (one never knows until one tries) that I would not sacrifice my integrity on the right-wing topic du jour. Look forward to your Schiavo post.
Posted by: marks | March 18, 2005 at 16:49
TJ:
Thanks for noticing the post. I always wonder when I lay stuff out there like that who else feels the way I do. It's nice to not be alone.
My beef of the day has moved on to the notion that somehow I'm not a worthy enough blogger to qualify for links on the upper tier blogs because I don't sport a penis.
I live in hope that one day we'll be past that crap.
Your friend in rantage,
Carla
Posted by: Carla | March 18, 2005 at 17:33
Modern medicine can do miracles, Carla! You can sport whatever you like!
:)
Posted by: Torrid | March 18, 2005 at 21:27
You liberal freakazoid. :)
On topic, I'm sure Cat has many more lives than this suit threatens, and they will use free enterprise as a worthy defense.
On the final comments, I find your (and Carla's) independence admirable. I'm equally frustrated by it. Carla commented recently (in my secrecy post) that the answer "in part" to what ails us might be a "solid, vocal and focused opposition party." Your adversary is solid, extremely focused (united) and understands the power of a singular popular appeals. The Left is being steamrolled in the process. It may be uncomfortable to chime in alongside so many others on Big topics, but the issue is crucial, the information going public convoluted, then somehow the Left has to learn to bang enough cymbals to start winning some major battles.
TJ told me at the beginning of the campaign season that Democrats were bad at playing dirty. I'd never supported a democrat before, so I'd never paid close attention to the inner details like I was this time. You support a very weak party that isn't bad at playing dirty, it doesn't understand the dynamics of spirited competition in the ugly realm of politics. Politics are ugly by nature. Don't play unless you intend to play rough; otherwise, you just get your ass kicked.
A thousand bloggers on the left sound like birds chirping on a bright Spring morning to the Right. It's sweet music because their is no focus and no damage done.
A thousand bloggers on the right get into formation and swoop down on prey like vicious seagulls in a Hitchcock film. The Left serves up a sacrificial lamb and the right picks it clean to the bone and waits for the next issue to eat. Meanwhile, the Left goes on singing in the morning about a thousand minor complaints.
This country is in trouble.
Oh, I'll disagree with you on Shiavo. It should be an interesting discussion. Regular Zap posting should resume this coming week.
Posted by: Zap | March 19, 2005 at 01:42
many late night typos once again... sorry.
Posted by: Zap | March 19, 2005 at 01:44
Zap:
I think you miss the point on the "united party" thing. If you get a chance...go read my post at PK on it.
It's the sound machine that gets PAID to do these jobs that need to work together to create a unified voice. Those of us who do it on our own have to be free to write on what moves us, IMO.
Bloggers like Kos, Wonkette, Josh Marshall, Atrios would do well to be a part of the sound machine because they're bigger and they collect paychecks for what they do. If someone wants to pay TJ and me to write as a part of the sound machine..I have a feeling we'd both sign on. But I don't think you (the collective you..not personal) can ask bloggers who don't get paid to write about what they're told to write about.
Incidentally TJ...I wouldn't make a very good guy..even with an operation. LOL
Posted by: Carla | March 19, 2005 at 10:25
Excuse me as I hate to break up the lovefest, but what has Caterpillar to do with Rachel Corrie's death that her parents deserve money. What is Caterpillar's liability here?
You folks are way out there!!
Posted by: swatter | March 22, 2005 at 07:37
Swatter, I think we all agree their legal liability is close to nil. There are other kinds of liability however, IMO.
Posted by: Torridjoe | March 22, 2005 at 08:44
Come on, we can't carry things that far. It is that attitude that caused Mickey Ds to lose a ton of money over spilt coffee. The liability has to stop somewhere and personal responsibility has to take over.
On a business sidelight, did you know that every condo in Seattle is under lawsuit? It seems the legal profession has talked all the associations to sue over condo liability. And guess what, condo insurers will pay to settle and perpetuate the problem. I can't believe there is that much wrong with all these condos to generate a 100 lawsuit rate.
Posted by: swatter | March 22, 2005 at 12:21
I don't know what you mean by "carry things that far." Who's carrying what where? Nobody here thinks the Corries have a case against Cat--got it?
As an aside however, the McDonald's case you speak of is nowhere near as you describe it. It was about hot coffee, but in the context of McD's a) refusing to pay medical bills (about 18K if I recall) or settle and thus finding itself in trial over the matter, and b) there were MULTIPLE cases of the same thing happening, including I believe prior settlements, after which McD's did nothing about the temperature or cups that hold their coffee.
Posted by: Torridjoe | March 22, 2005 at 16:15