PDA

View Full Version : anti-war rally


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


ian
02-12-2003, 01:00 PM
There is an anti-war rally on the 15th February (Saturday) to try and stop a war in Iraq. These are being held throughout the world and is likely to be in your local city (or capital city in some cases). Most start at 13:00 hrs. More info available at:

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

I didn't want to open this up as a discussion topic particularly since I felt attendence was a personal matter and discussion was beyond the remit of this site - however I felt many aikidoka may be interested in such information.

akiy
02-12-2003, 01:03 PM
Thread moved to the Open Discussions forum.

-- Jun

Neil Mick
02-12-2003, 01:16 PM
The march in San Francisco has been moved to th 16th, so as not to conflict with another parade.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/calendar.php?calid=1138

Also, actions are called when war breaks out:

http://www.actagainstwar.org/

Abasan
02-13-2003, 02:12 AM
Good luck on a peaceful rally.

Neil Mick
02-18-2003, 07:16 PM
With the exception of a small, nasty altercation between police and a splinter-group, I'd say we made our point:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1575251.php

Les Kelso
03-09-2003, 10:56 AM
I personally think the best way to protest against war is not to wait until the war is on the brink of eruption. By then, policies are set (as are minds) and the only thing really ever accomplished is a complete polorization of support/non support and a feeling of alienation by our soldiers. The VAST majority of soldiers don't want to be at war either but if ordered, they must or face courts martial and a life time of shame, humiliation and legal difficulties. Can anyone recall any time in the past when an anti-war protest stopped a war? Can anyone recall any time in the past when an anti war protest didn't damage the morale of our soldiers?

Kevin Leavitt
03-09-2003, 03:10 PM
All good point Les.

The time to prevent war is way before it festers to the surface.

As a soldier I would love nothing more than to be permanently put out of a job.

But, once diplomacy and non-violence fails...get out of the way.

I think this can be seen in aikido daily practice.

The best way to redirect an attack is to intercept it way before it even begins. If you wait until nage is set and on his way....you will usually fail in effectively dealing with it.

I really think the samething applies to war. War is a symptom of a problem it is not the root cause.

I am all for non-violence, but in order for it to be effective we must deal with problems at the root. Greed, glutony, selfishness have always been at the root.

When soldiers go to war, they are the tool of the machine. They are not the problem, they are reflective of our society and an extension of each one of us. We must look with sadness that we failed in acheiving a peaceful resolution and now must result in using them.

That said, we must accept the fact that they are an extension of all of us and get behind and support them.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't continue to protest and speak out against violence. It is something that constantly needs to be done. We need that. But, focus your energies in the right direction.

It is a shame that a majority of our society is seems to be only concerned with getting more stuff, Hummer H2's, more gas, more TVs, bigger houses. All this creates an imbalance in the world and creates polarities that will crop up later and require us to have to go out and deal with it again.

I wish we as a country could do more to show true compassion and impower others to stand up to oppressive regimes and overcome them.

Non-violence is a great concept, but lets face it, it does not work in every situation.

Neil Mick
03-10-2003, 03:14 AM
the only thing really ever accomplished is a complete polorization of support/non support and a feeling of alienation by our soldiers. The VAST majority of soldiers don't want to be at war either but if ordered, they must or face courts martial and a life time of shame, humiliation and legal difficulties. Can anyone recall any time in the past when an anti-war protest stopped a war? Can anyone recall any time in the past when an anti war protest didn't damage the morale of our soldiers?
As a matter of fact, I think Gandhi's efforts to win Indian independence averted a war. I'm sure that there are other examples.

With respect, it is simplistic to state that anti-war protests only weaken the morale of soldiers. Certainly, the protests of Vietnam shortened a war that went on for too long (yes, I know that other factors were involved, but the peace protests were definitely a factor).

Soldiers who refuse orders based upon moral choices do face shame, humiliation and imprisonment, true: but so does everyone who bucks a military gov't. 1000 Israeli IDF "refuseniks" are serving a year in jail because they won't serve in the Occupied Territories. Members of Voices in the Wilderness, some of the "human shields," are fined $20,000 by the State Dept for delivering medicines to Iraq.

http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/pages/declaration_2002_2003.html

History is filled with examples of ppl trying to change the system and being punished for it. Don't blame the peace movement for the heavy hand of the Powers that Be. This is easily the largest peace movement ever in America, possibly the world, and I am proud of the ppl who stand up for it, especially in these times of dwindling social liberties.

However, I do agree with you that the protest should have begun about 10 years ago. The Sanctions have gone on for way too long.

Les Kelso
03-21-2003, 04:22 PM
[QUOTE="Neil Mick"]As a matter of fact, I think Gandhi's efforts to win Indian independence averted a war. I'm sure that there are other examples.

I believe Mahatma Gandhi's efforts merely postponed the war...not prevented it.

With respect, it is simplistic to state that anti-war protests only weaken the morale of soldiers.

If indeed 'respect' you would quote what I said not what 'you' said...I never said anti war protests ONLY weaken the morale of soldiers...I asked if there was ever a time when the protests didn't weaken the morale of soldiers...your argument would be better taken if not for misquotes.

Certainly, the protests of Vietnam shortened a war that went on for too long (yes, I know that other factors were involved, but the peace protests were definitely a factor).

Of course protests are a 'factor' in ending wars...so are mass killings and suicides and one or the other side capitulating. the large question is whose side is served by issuing protest against your country's involvement? Just because the protest makes YOU feel better because you 'stood up' for your values doesn't mean your protest doesn't become a viable tool for the enemy....(anyone remember Jane Fonda?) What a wonderful war protester she was. Would you go that far? how far would you go? Would you protest in the face of those who daily put their lives on the line? It's probably a lot easier (safer) to do it from a great distance with only the tv cameras to let the soldiers know how you "feel". I felt the sting of 'protesters' when I was in Vietnam and will never probably see the value in hurting our forces while in the field.

I'm afraid the soldiers might think your 'protest' to be nothing more than a thinly veiled propaganda ploy by the enemy within our country and react accordingly.

Soldiers who refuse orders based upon moral choices do face shame, humiliation and imprisonment, true: but so does everyone who bucks a military gov't. 1000 Israeli IDF "refuseniks" are serving a year in jail because they won't serve in the Occupied Territories. Members of Voices in the Wilderness, some of the "human shields," are fined $20,000 by the State Dept for delivering medicines to Iraq.

As well they should be...If you live in the US and use the services and freedoms of the US then regardless of whether you believe in the political actions of the US, you have a debt of loyalty to pay BECAUSE you live here and enjoy the freedoms others have died for..The same freedoms you are protesting others fighting to sustain....If I know for a fact my neighbor down the street is amassing an attack on my house I am certainly not going to wait until it happens...But perhaps you would..perhaps your answer would be a bit different if the situation were more on your doorstep instead of several thousand miles away...Like on New York City's doorstep...Not many protesters when we went into afghanistan after Bin Laden were there? why not?

Gee, there is such a big difference in Bin Laden killing thousands of us here in America and Hussein killing thousands of nameless and faceless entities in his country simply because they were of a different race and political faction.

http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/pages/declaration_2002_2003.html

History is filled with examples of ppl trying to change the system and being punished for it. Don't blame the peace movement for the heavy hand of the Powers that Be.

Once again you seem to be arguing with yourself and certainly not anything I said..

I don't blame the peace movement for any 'heavy hand' of the powers that be..

My 'blame' if laid anywhere is on the cowards and peaceniks who hide behind legitimate focus of consciencious objecting...One is made to feel they would all stand and cheer enmass if they were to hear a US helicopter was shot down or mass US casualties were incurred..I don't think they would have much to do if they couldn't focus on how bad the US is. If we are such a horrible country led by such horrible people then why in the world would they want to live here? Because if they protested in the same manner against the war in IRAQ or IRAN or many other nations they would be summarily shot or imprisoned..Isn't freedom great?!

Les Kelso

Neil Mick
03-21-2003, 09:39 PM
My 'blame' if laid anywhere is on the cowards and peaceniks who hide behind legitimate focus of consciencious objecting...One is made to feel they would all stand and cheer enmass if they were to hear a US helicopter was shot down or mass US casualties were incurred..I don't think they would have much to do if they couldn't focus on how bad the US is. If we are such a horrible country led by such horrible people then why in the world would they want to live here?

Les Kelso
Nice of you to courteously respond to my posts so promptly, Les. I almost forgot about it.

Allow me to introduce you to a new mode of communication: it's called "discussion" and "respect." Both allow for an equal exchange of ideas and thoughts, with a certain amount of freeform consideration to explore ideas, slightly outside (but, not too far) the topics covered by the previous speaker.

Perhaps you've heard of them? Your last post implies not.

And, with respect: if you believe your comment about protestors cheering the loss of the lives of US soldiers; I seriously doubt your ability to objectively view the various points in the ongoing debate.

Your knee-jerk comment reaching for the old, McCarthy-era chestnut of "America: love it or leave it" is similarly closed-minded.

Guess what, Les? We DO love this country!! THAT's why we're protesting!!! We HATE what our President is doing!

Hating a foreign policy is NOT the same thing as hating the country!!

I get so SICK of having to re-state this!

BTW: speaking of "paying attention:" did you NOTICE the request of the original post-er to NOT debate the pro's and con's of the war??

Neil Mick
03-22-2003, 01:55 AM
This is what democracy looks like:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/1586541.php

George S. Ledyard
03-22-2003, 10:33 AM
If I were an organizer of such groups right now, which I am not, I would ask that our mebers begin a writing campaighn to the troops showing that we support them 100%. The biggest single mistake from the Viet Nam war era was blaming the soldires for the policies of the leaders.

As I watched the war news again I found myself feeling proud of these folks who place themselves at risk at the behest of their leaders for a cause that is only little understood. The military is the best prepared in the world and I think we should support these folks by showing them that we care, that we are concerned for their safety etc. It is important that the anti war movement not bee perecieved as not supporting our own people and not being patriotic. There has developed a view in some parts that being patriotic means to enthusiastically support our government every time it sets out to kill some more foreigners. That is certainly not my view of what being patriotic is about.

Patriotism is about being proud of the ideals that went in to the founding of this country and wishing to see that our country lives up to those ideals. Our greatest strength as a country is having a system of government that is the envy of the world. People around the world are quite aware that there is no where they can go where personal freddom is greater than in the US. They are equally aware that in our dealings with people from outside our own country we often do not live up to those same ideals. They only apply for our own folks, not folks from other countries. And if the administration succeeds in getting Patriot Act II enacted those values won't even apply here any more.

That said, as soon as this war is over I think it is time for all out opposition to this administration and its policies. There is an election coming and as far as I am concerened this is a take no prisoners campaign. But in the mean time it is time to show our support for our soldiers and have pride in their courage and sacrifice.

Les Kelso
03-22-2003, 01:39 PM
Nice of you to courteously respond to my posts so promptly, Les. I almost forgot about it.

FORGIVE MY 'PROMPTNESS' MR MICK, OR RATHER LACK OF IT..I HAVE A VERY BUSY SCHEDULE AND ONLY FIND TIME TO DEBATE ON THE COMPUTER WHEN OTHER ISSUES CAN TAKE A BACK SEAT.

Allow me to introduce you to a new mode of communication: it's called "discussion" and "respect." Both allow for an equal exchange of ideas and thoughts, with a certain amount of freeform consideration to explore ideas, slightly outside (but, not too far)

WHO SETS THEBOUNDARIES?

I FEEL AS IF I RESPONDED IN KIND TO THE AMOUNT OF 'RESPECT' (OR RATHER LACK OF IT) IN ADDRESSING YOU AS FIRST MISQUOTING ME AND THEN ARGUING WITH YOUR OWN MISQUOTE.

I LOVE DEBATE..BUT HAVE NEVER EXPECTED ANYONE TO AGREE WITH ME OR MYSELF WITH THEM..JUST LISTEN AND RESPOND..IN KIND.



Perhaps you've heard of them? Your last post implies not.

And, with respect: if you believe your comment about protestors cheering the loss of the lives of US soldiers; I seriously doubt your ability to objectively view the various points in the ongoing debate.

MY COMMENTS ABOUT PROTESTERS CHEERING THE LOSS OF LIVES WAS "ONE IS LED TO BELIEVE" BY THE VEHEMENCY OF THE VERBAL ATTACKS BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY MANY MANY INSTANCES IN THE PAST OF PROTESTERS CHEERING US LOSSES DURING WARTIME CONFRONTATIONS. WHY WOULD ANYTHING CHANGE NOW?

Your knee-jerk comment reaching for the old, McCarthy-era chestnut of "America: love it or leave it" is similarly closed-minded.

MY COMMENTS WERE NOT OF "LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT"

THEY WERE MORE IN LINE OF "LEARN NOT TO BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU" AND AS MR LEDYARD STATES, FIND AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES (SUCH AS ELECTING A NEW ADMINISTRATION FOR NEW RULES) RATHER THAN DISSING OUR SOLDIERS DURING WARTIME.

Guess what, Les? We DO love this country!! THAT's why we're protesting!!! We HATE what our President is doing!

OUR PRESIDENT IS DOING THE JOB HE WAS ELECTED TO DO..RUN THE COUNTRY AS HE THINKS BEST. INTERESTING TIDBIT ON CNN STATING 70% OF AMERICANS FEEL IT WAS THE CORRECT THING TO DO TO INVADE IRAQ..I KNOW THAT DOESNT NECESSARILY MAKE IT RIGHT BUT IT DOES MAKE IT A CONSENSUS OF MAJORITY.

Hating a foreign policy is NOT the same thing as hating the country!!

SOLDIERS DONT MAKE THE POLICY SO WHY ATTACK THEM WHILE THEY ARE CARRYING OUT THEIR ORDERS?

I get so SICK of having to re-state this!

PERHAPS YOUR 'SICK'NESS IS A SYMPTOM OF YOUR OWN NARROW BELIEFS? OF CRYING OUT AND NOT BEING ABLE TO CONVINCE A DIFFERENT PERSUASION?

IF I HAVE A BELIEF THAT IS TRUE (TO MY OWN UNDERSTANDING) I WOULD NEVER TIRE OF STATING IT..OPPOSITION TO IT WOULD SPUR ME TO REPEAT THE TRUTH OVER AND OVER AD NAUSEUM.

BTW: speaking of "paying attention:" did you NOTICE the request of the original post-er to NOT debate the pro's and con's of the war??
WHATS THIS? AFTER DEBATING THE SAME ISSUES AS I YOU WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO A REQUEST YOU ARE IGNORING FROM THE BEGINNING? HOW CAN DISCUSSING ANTI WAR PROTESTS OR NO ANTI WAR PROTESTS BE ADEQUETLY ADDRESSED WITHOUT DISCUSSING 'PROS AND CONS'? ISN'T THAT WHAT DEBATE IS? WOW! IF YOU ARE GIVING UP ON THE CONVERSATION FINE, JUST SAY SO. I APOLOGIZE FOR STATING MY OPINION IN SUCH A GREGARIOUS MANNER AS TO MAKE YOU CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

LES KELSO

Neil Mick
03-23-2003, 02:24 AM
If I were an organizer of such groups right now, which I am not, I would ask that our mebers begin a writing campaighn to the troops showing that we support them 100%. As I watched the war news again I found myself feeling proud of these folks who place themselves at risk at the behest of their leaders for a cause that is only little understood.
I agree with you 100%, at least for their safety. I do not support their actions.
as soon as this war is over I think it is time for all out opposition to this administration and its policies. There is an election coming and as far as I am concerened this is a take no prisoners campaign. But in the mean time it is time to show our support for our soldiers and have pride in their courage and sacrifice.
This war is illegal. This war will enrage much of Arab opinion, and will make the leaders culpable for war crimes charges.

Worst of all by far, this war is taking place in an imminent human rights catastrophe.

As impossible as it seems, we must nonetheless prevail to stop this war. We elected him; we can stop him.

Neil Mick
03-23-2003, 02:54 AM
WHATS THIS? AFTER DEBATING THE SAME ISSUES AS I YOU WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO A REQUEST YOU ARE IGNORING FROM THE BEGINNING? HOW CAN DISCUSSING ANTI WAR PROTESTS OR NO ANTI WAR PROTESTS BE ADEQUETLY ADDRESSED WITHOUT DISCUSSING 'PROS AND CONS'? ISN'T THAT WHAT DEBATE IS? WOW! IF YOU ARE GIVING UP ON THE CONVERSATION FINE, JUST SAY SO. I APOLOGIZE FOR STATING MY OPINION IN SUCH A GREGARIOUS MANNER AS TO MAKE YOU CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

LES KELSO
My apologies, Les. I'll be happy to discuss some points with you, but I must admit I'm very upset, right now. Please excuse my sarcasm.
PROTESTERS CHEERING US LOSSES DURING WARTIME CONFRONTATIONS. WHY WOULD ANYTHING CHANGE NOW?
This movement is different. I was arrested in Capitola. Along with me were a minister, an 87-year-old woman with one leg and on blood-clotting medicine, and me: who's never been arrested before. There are a lot of ppl from religious faith organizations, more so than in the '60's.

In short, this movement is much broader, and has a more international component to it.

And, ppl naturally rally to their leader in times of war (invading, or defending).

About soldiers:

The interesting thing about this movement is that I have heard very little in the way of criticizing soldiers, with the notable exception of a post-er in aikidojournal, which I took him to task for.

On the Left, most of the sentiments express the same as George's: we're concerned for them.

And, I apologize if I ever gave the impression that this isn't true.
PERHAPS YOUR 'SICK'NESS IS A SYMPTOM OF YOUR OWN NARROW BELIEFS? OF CRYING OUT AND NOT BEING ABLE TO CONVINCE A DIFFERENT PERSUASION?
Perhaps. Let me tell you a story:

I was listening to a pirate-radio broadcast debate between the Left DJ, and a fellow who only referred to himself as "janitor." This was just after I was arrested, and I was keyed up, but interested.

Janitor was basically complaining about the protestors and how they block traffic and make life difficult, etc. The DJ, you might imagine, was incensed, and he blocked her into the tired "Saddam's evil, why aren't you criticising him" argument, and she was boxed in, yelling facts about the US's expansionism, etc. Since it was unlicensed, the invectives were flyin.

I thought about the debates I've had here. I started to understand something: that everyone has a perspective, in this. Everyone has some viewpoint that is valid (at least in part), and to be included in a consensus, you need to acknowledge their perspective.

In short, you need to blend. Then, you can talk about the issues.

So, I called her up and expressed my thoughts. Janitor called back about 4x, and he kept congratulating me on my moderate-ness (imagine!):freaky: .

I talked basically about accepting the essential dignity of someone with whom you disagree. She was speechless.

That's another thing about this movement. It is very diverse.

Neil Mick
03-23-2003, 03:12 AM
This, from Michael Moore's website:

"We support the troops, and wish they did not have to fight Bush's unnecessary war. The greatest support we can give these young men and women is to call for their safe and fast return home."

www.michaelmoore.com

George S. Ledyard
03-23-2003, 11:07 AM
I thought about the debates I've had here. I started to understand something: that everyone has a perspective, in this. Everyone has some viewpoint that is valid (at least in part), and to be included in a consensus, you need to acknowledge their perspective.

In short, you need to blend. Then, you can talk about the issues.

So, I called her up and expressed my thoughts. Janitor called back about 4x, and he kept congratulating me on my moderate-ness (imagine!):freaky: .

I talked basically about accepting the essential dignity of someone with whom you disagree. She was speechless.

That's another thing about this movement. It is very diverse.
Mary Heiny Sensei has been training in something called Non-violent communication. It involves a lot of training in how to listen. Most of us, myself included don't really listen once point of view gets acretain distance from our own. Once polarization takes place you have conflict.

The folks we are conversing with about these issues are good folks. They care passionately about these issues. If we met them in other contexts we would probably get along fine. So it is a mistake to let these debates create enmity between people who have a lot in common. We all do Aikido. That gives us more in common than we have with most other members of our society. We don't have to agree on these things. A good debate is fine but it fails to be productive when it gets to the point at which the other person stops listening.

These debates frequently end up like those old Saturady Night Live routines "Jane, you ignorant slut! Dan, you Fascist Pig."

Being able to present your ideas in a way that respects others isn't just being nice, it is the only way in which you can really change anything.

Les Kelso
03-23-2003, 08:06 PM
Thank you for clarifying and blending..

If I seemed blunt and offensive I apologize.

My personal pain in feeling the brunt of anti war protests have left me with a sour acid taste and memories of more anti-soldier and anti-american protesters who I feel 'used' the legitimacy of anti war protests to vent and further their personal agendas. I can tell you there is nothing more hateful to a soldier than to be confronted with a screaming sign carrying protester upon returning home from violent conflicts where they watched their friends die...where none of THEM wanted to be either, but chose to support their COUNTRY and its ELECTED leaders. If you want to truly help your country, do it at the polls, or in congress with impeachment hearings...although now that GW Bush military has found a chemical weapons factory in Iraq I doubt if many will be calling for impeachment proceedings..As a matter of fact I feel many voices will be a bit quieter and more humble..but maybe not.

I hate war. I hate violent conflict. I didn't vote for GW Bush but he is our ELECTED leader and I will stand up and be counted as a loyal American, not one who second guesses before knowing all the facts..See you at the Polls.

Les Kelso

Neil Mick
03-23-2003, 08:56 PM
I agree with some of your statement, Les. The troops deserve our support, not our condemnation.

But, I can show you ample reasons why this war is flat-out wrong and must be stopped. (BTW: you're wrong about calling for impeachment, I imagine: www.votetoimpeach.com ).

This war is taking place in an imminent human rights disaster waiting to happen...already IS happening (the ICRC recently reported a town with no electricity or access to water, in spite of US guarantees to the otherwise).

In the midst of all the imminent wounded and the UN (& others) humanitarian reports of not being able to handle the crisis, this protest is a call for human rights now ignored by the Administration.

deepsoup
03-24-2003, 03:28 PM
I didn't vote for GW Bush but he is our ELECTED leader and I will stand up and be counted as a loyal American, not one who second guesses before knowing all the facts..See you at the Polls.
Al Gore is your ELECTED leader, GW Bush is the guy who was appointed by the supreme court after his brother's outrageous gerrymandering narrowly failed to give him Florida.

Sean

x

John Boswell
03-24-2003, 03:40 PM
Neil,

What a very pretty WEBSITE that is, votetoimpeach.org huh? Hmm... wonder who's paying for that? And yes, it does a DANDY job of explaining that a president of the United States CAN be impeached. That's in the constitution and really hard to find. Glad they cleared that up. However, I would like to address the reasons WHY they want to impeach.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND OTHER NAMED OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OF UNPRECEDENTED DANGER TO THE CONSTITUTION AND PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

Draft Articles of Impeachment of President George W. Bush and other named officials of the United States charge the most serious crimes known to law and history. Nothing in the experience of the impeachment power under the Constitution compares. The conduct charged threatens the Constitution, the United Nations, the rule of law and the lives of unknown thousands, or millions of people by their act and example.

The alleged impeachable acts of President George W. Bush include:

1. Ordering and directing "first strike" war of aggression against Afghanistan causing thousands of deaths;
Lets stop right there. The fight in Afganistan was not a "first strike". Actually, 9/11/01 was the first strike, it was against the U.S. on behalf of the Al Quida and Taliban forces. Now that we have that straight, I want to know what the source is for the "thousands dead" point given.
2. Removing the government of Afghanistan by force and installing a government of his choice;
Umm, that alledged "government" was in fact a terrorist organization guilty THEMSELVES of more international crimes than Bush is being charged with.
3. Authorizing daily intrusions into Iraqi airspace and aerial attacks including attacks on alleged defense installations in Iraq which have killed hundreds of people in time of peace;
These "intrusions" were actually "No Fly Zones" set up after the Desert Storm war of 1991, but let me guess... that was unlawful to, right?
4. Authorizing, ordering and condoning attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties are unavoidable;
Umm... yeah. Right. This is a gross generalization of the facts if not a bold-faced lie. You wanna know how wars are faught? Turn on NBC or FoxNews. They got the front-lines going out LIVE on international T.V. And did you happen to notice the Iraqi soldiers using women and children as shields?

I had intended to go point for point but work calls. Ask yourself these things:

Who is funding the anti-war proests? and this website (impeach website)?

Who are these protestors that have the time and "right" to go stand in traffic and fight police and vandalize business', etc. ad nauseum.?

Who goes to the U.N. with satalite, photos and other evidence of Iraqi violations of international law?

AND JUST WHO THE HELL IS TRYING TO HELP THE IRAQI PEOPLE???

There are former Iraqi civilians that have made it to the United States, joined the U.S. Marines and back in Iraq fighting the war. You gonna call that man a lier?

Please note: I do not like war nor have I ever said anyone here or in the government does. But just how long do you put up with a psychopath before you finally fight back???

deepsoup
03-24-2003, 03:52 PM
Again and again the lunatic keep hammering away at the election in an attempt to deligitimize President Bush Bush WON get over it!!! (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm)
Ok, if it makes you feel better:

GW Bush was appointed by the supreme court after his brother's outrageous gerrymandering narrowly succeeded in giving him Florida.

Either way the irony is overwhelming when he gets up on his high horse and starts yammering on about 'democracy'.

Sean

x

deepsoup
03-24-2003, 04:07 PM
Did you even LOOK at the link above or are we just to argue for arguments sake?
I skimmed it, couldn't find any reference to Jeb Bush's outrageous gerrymandering though.

Sean

x

Neil Mick
03-25-2003, 02:43 AM
Notes from the protest, at the tail end of a tense day

by Neil Mick Tuesday March 25, 2003 at 12:37 AM

(from Indymedia)

Some thoughts and experiences on the M24 SF march, 5-9pm

by Neil MIck

"Whose streets?? OUR STREETS! Whose streets?? OUR STREETS!!"

I arrived at Powell & Market just after 5pm. This was to be my first time in this march, in SF: I was one of the "Capitola 13" arrested, but the whole affair was mostly symbolic. While the police presence was heavy, everyone was polite, and the police were gentle to all of us. They even let us all go, after citing us.

Today, however, I was more than a little anxious, having seen the photos of police wrestling young women to the ground with pain-compliance holds, bikers knocked off their bikes for simply riding by and yelling anti-war slogans. The threat of violence was sobering, but I couldn't just sit at home and listen. I had to attend this march, no matter the result.

The picture on Market and 5th wasn't quite what I'd expected: about 50 ppl were standing quietly, with 12 cops on bikes flanking Market,and one circling helicopter. A subdued anxiety hung in the twilight air; but I felt this tension everywhere I went today, and so it was unsurprising.

"What do we want...? PEACE! When do we want it...?"

Soon enough, a confused man yelled that there was "good news:" 2 American soldiers had been killed. No one cheered. I shouted: "That is NOT good news! NO death is good news!" Another protestor and I talked to this man and got him to see that we should support the safe return of our soldiers, and he soon agreed.

After awhile enough protestors gathered to march up Market. There were between 50-100 of us, not including our 50-100 man police escort. Still, the police were restrained and did not harass anyone. The one arrest I saw-- a man scaled a fire-escape right in the middle of the march-- was handled with a minimum of force by 3 officers. They even left us totally alone for awhile, as the marchers approached Church and Market.

"POLICE FOR PEACE!! POLICE FOR PEACE!!"

At first intimidated from the heavy police presence, the mood turned festive and celebratory when the police left the march. We turned down Castro and again on 18th, picking up a few marchers along the way, swelling our ranks to about 100.

"OFF OF YOUR COUCH AND ONTO THE STREETS!!"

Sometime down 18th we received our police escort again: a ten-car cavalcade with about 4 cops in each car (!) , followed by the required police van, in case the itch for arrest was too much to deny. Luckily, they never chose to scratch, while I attended.

Our chants took the tone of the neighborhoods we visited. In the Castro, it was "Out of the BARS and ONTO THE STREETS!!" Noe Valley was inclusive of everyone. We'd stop to re-concentrate the marchers, and I saw a yarn shop with a circle of knitters. And so I led with "KNITTERS for PEACE! KNITTERS for PEACE!" All the knitters held their peace signs high, in solidarity. In fact, most people we passed smiled and waved. Cars honked, and much of SF's denizens expressed their approval.

At the basketball courts, Dolores Park: "Basketballers for peace!!!" And of course: "POLICE for PEACE!!"

When we got to the Mission, it was "No mas Bush!! No mas Bush!!"

The long walk, and the rancid, inescapable funk of the Mission took its toll on the march: we lost a few ppl by the time we approached 24th St. By the time I signed off, we were all tired and whittled away to less than 20. Still, the remaining marchers soldiered on, heading up 24th toward Valencia, and out of my view.

This movement may well not be enough to stop this war: I'm not sure that it can. But we do not march simply to stop the war: we march because we cannot sit idly by while our country engages in such a flawed policy. We cannot go about our normal business-as-usual, while Iraqi men, women and children are murdered, with our tax dollars.

In short, we march to be true to ourselves.

Won't you join us? There's room, for everyone.

Neil Mick
03-25-2003, 03:19 AM
Jaime: what doubletalking diatribes again.



This is why I do not debate you: you sit there in your comfy chair and discuss "slants" on the media, all the while quoting FoxNews and NBC.

What does it take...? FOXNEWS IS PRACTICALLY THE OFFICIAL ORGAN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. Now, here's your cue where you use that razor-wit to decry my "slants" in my sources (mostly FAIR, a media watchdog group, slandered by you for...gasp! Having Ed Asner and Susan Sarandon on their Boards), while blindly (yes, blindly: your eye is STILL closed) ignoring the points FAIR makes about Fox: that most of the staff are former speechwriters and staff of hard-Right politicians, and their bias is hardly hidden (again: where is their "Liberal" perspective??).

If you could find some reference stating Ed Asner's background writing for the IWW, or Susan Sarandon's regular paychecks she receives from some major Leftist bloc (as IF; the Leftists are largely broke, unless you count Susan Sarandon or Spike Lee), then I'd see your point, regarding slants.

In case you forgot, from Aikidojournal:

I looked up some things about Fox. Even in the other outlets, the news is slanted:

http://www.fair.org/reports/iraq-sources.html

But, the slant of Fox takes the cake:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

http://www.fair.org/extra/0201/geraldo-fox.html

http://www.fair.org/extra/9806/foxbgh.html

But, again: the real reason for not debating you is the obvious contempt you hold for any viewpoint, not your own. You have expressed your lack of respect for me, and this means you've lost, IMM. I have no interest in talking to someone who holds my views in such low esteem.
Originally posted by Jaime. McGrath:



As far as viewing you in contempt I guess I do.


Once upon a time I would have just loved to go over every single one of your points and exchanged taunts and counter-posts, as we try to one-up each other with sources.

But since this war has started, I don't have the stomach to tediously search all the justifications of why I oppose this war. This war has changed everything, and I am so uninterested in gaining "points," just to stroke my ego. The reasons for stopping this charade of a war are legion, I've argued most at great length, and the jury, IMM, is out.

The prosecution rests. And, like Cassandra: many of my worst fears are coming to light. Ppl are starting to die unnecessary deaths, there already IS a humanitarian disaster in-the-making at Basra, Hussein WASN'T simply "snuffed out," like an annoying mosquito, and the Arab ppl are starting to use terms like: "massacre," for some of these events, beamed right into their living rooms, every day.

Anti-US feeling is at an all-time high. The Iraqi's did not greet us with "rice and music," and I doubt they're going to like us remaining in their country for years, if this is any indication.

The Academy Awards looked like a fictional re-enactment of the McCarthy blacklists (FWIH...I didn't get a chance to see them), and while I am sure that we'll EVENTUALLY depose Hussein, it will be cold comfort, for all the damage, trouble and destabilization it's going to cause.

So, I'm not interested in trading snipes with someone who views this whole sorry affair as little more than a hockey game.

What part of "not interested" aren't you hearing...?

Go away: bother someone else.

Michael Neal
03-25-2003, 07:29 AM
Are these some of Neil's friends?

http://brain-terminal.com/video/sf-2003-03-15/quicktime-hq.html

DanielR
03-25-2003, 10:38 AM
Jaime,

With all due respect, what is the point you're trying to make with these references?

DanielR
03-25-2003, 11:49 AM
Jaime,

The reason for my question was that I was under impression that you and Michael were trying to discredit your opponent by proving that he was in the same crowd with a bunch of hooligans.

Personally, I would be very surprised if Neil had anything to do with those dangerous and senseless acts. So I'm wondering if you guys are just talking about two different things. Anti-war deminstrations are legal, disruptions of peace and order are not, that's it. What's to agrue about?

Les Kelso
03-25-2003, 12:03 PM
Al Gore is your ELECTED leader, GW Bush is the guy who was appointed by the supreme court after his brother's outrageous gerrymandering narrowly failed to give him Florida.

Sean

x
Sean,

Please come to the same reality as the rest of the world..Even Al Gore agrees GWB is the ELECTED president..you have the same sour grapes message that still exists in areas of the south that continue to fly the confederate flag and revere the leanings of the Robert E. Lee regime. The "south" won't rise again! Gore lost, however it happened, he lost..end of story. come to grips with it and move on. everyone else has.

Les Kelso
03-25-2003, 02:46 PM
[QUOTE="Jaime McGrath"]Perhaps we should all step back and listen to what an Iraqi refugee has to say about all this.

SORRY JAIME....THE PAGE WON'T LOAD..HOW ABOUT RELAYING THE GIST OF IT.

Neil Mick
03-25-2003, 07:08 PM
Personally, I would be very surprised if Neil had anything to do with those dangerous and senseless acts. So I'm wondering if you guys are just talking about two different things. Anti-war deminstrations are legal, disruptions of peace and order are not, that's it. What's to agrue about?
Daniel: you make a good point. But, in a sense, so does Jaime (altho unintentionally).

Really, there IS no argument: the right to assemble peacefully is a cherished American freedom.

"The other view--" the mainstrean media, however, shows ONLY the few regrettable acts of violence by protestors and shows the pro-war protests (few though they are) as equal in number to the anti-war protests.

The smear-tactics of protestors is amply demonstrated in the video, above.

Trust me, I was there, as well. I've seen some of the ppl in the video, and yes: they stand out. That's the point.

The videographer chose to interview the most extreme-dressed members of the protest, and (I imagine) cut the interviews to make them look spacey, or stupid.

The video hardly shows the full spectrum of the protestors, which is broad indeed. Even so, I see nothing wrong with outrageous dress at a march or fringe opinions.

We all agree that we want peace and an end to war, in this movement. Betond that, I don't care what you decide to wear to the march, or if you believe the world is flat.

OTOH, The ONLY thing you hear from the mainstream media regarding the protests is the violence, and the flakiness.

You do not see or hear about the class action suit against the police, nor do you see pictures like this (http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/1590430.php).

Neil Mick
03-25-2003, 07:31 PM
I skimmed it, couldn't find any reference to Jeb Bush's outrageous gerrymandering though.

Sean

x
Yes, Sean, it IS outrageous, isn't it? Some of the details of the Florida black population excluded from the vote are shocking.

The legal reason, a 100-year-old Reconstruction law, shut out 100's of thousands of African Americans for supposedly being felons, many of them actually having never even broken a misdemeanor.

In one case a woman who was registrar of a small town was informed that she couldn't vote.

Truly amazing, these times we live in...

DanielR
03-25-2003, 10:56 PM
"The other view--" the mainstrean media, however, shows ONLY the few regrettable acts of violence by protestors and shows the pro-war protests (few though they are) as equal in number to the anti-war protests.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I saw bits and pieces of the coverages on the main networks, and I didn't really notice any offensive one-sidedness. However, some sources that come up during these discussions here, a pretty, ahem, lopsided. And there's plenty of these out there, so I guess if you guys want to go on debating that in any crowd of people there're going to be nice people and there're going to be hooligans, you have amunition that will keep you going forever ;)

DanielR
03-26-2003, 08:35 AM
Jaime,

I looked through some other creations of the author of this insight you offered. As far as I can tell this person is as radical on the right as he's trying to portray the left activists. From another article of his:
Since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, over 30 million babies have been "legally" murdered through abortion in "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
I wouldn't look for objectivity in those parts...

DanielR
03-26-2003, 09:25 AM
...while this author never claims to be objecvtive this does not mean that ALL his points are bad.
Then if I may make a suggestion - please point out what exactly it is in that article that you find to be of substance. Otherwise the overall impression from the article and the site it's posted on does a disservice to your argument.

DanielR
03-26-2003, 10:01 AM
What do you think the author of this article is wrong about in this article? Well, let's see. The first part of the article tries to scare the reader with waves of leftists raging on the streets. Then follows an example of violent incidents during one of the demonstrations. 1,000 out of 200,000 demonstrators misbehaved. That's 0.5% - almost the same percentage of Americans are now in jails, so statistically there's no surprise here - in a crowd of 200K, 1K will be criminals ;)

Then he goes on revealing inconsistencies in left leader's policies, proclaiming that the Communists are back, etc.

Bottom line: all this might be true, and he might have described the real motivation for some of the demonstrators, but IMHO most people there just don't want this war, period.

DanielR
03-26-2003, 10:14 AM
Shoot Officers This is absolutely disgusting and does an enormous disservice to the cause those people think they pursue.

Neil Mick
03-26-2003, 10:26 AM
I am going to take one last stab at a response. Choose your response carefully, because I am at the end of my (notoriously long) patience.

First, I'll explain why.

Not once have you asked me civilly why I do not wish to debate you. Not once.

On the internet, we can freely exchange ideas, but we cannot really know the reasons for our posting, or what we think and feel, beyond what we write.

You seem to think that I won't debate you because I cannot answer your questions. This is an erroneous statement.

I do not answer your questions because you fail to give me respect.

I cannot tell you how deeply offended I was by the OOC quote: "I do not find military service noteworthy." You only took 1/2 of my sentence. The full sentence said something along the lines of "I do not find military service very noteworthy; any more noteworthy than being a teacher, which I am." A little different, when I'm fully quoted, isn't it?

But, if the full meaning was not clear when you read it: allow me to explain: I find military service as important as being a teacher, fireman, or (yes) peace activist. All fulfill needed functions in this society; all are partially taken up with a sense of duty.

Also, you know full well that I even took kyuT to task for praising the deaths of US soldiers, in aikidojournal.

You know, and I know, that you took 1/2 of my statement and repeated it a few times here , and numerous times at aikidojournal. It's why I stopped writing over there.

I found the misquote SO offensive, I considered that if I met you tomorrow, I'd have some second thoughts about wishing to train. Extreme, maybe: but I've also seen the full al-jazeera video of the American prisoners (I can provide the link, if you want to see it, but it's pretty horrible. The broadcast shows about a dozen American bodies). I was horrified.

No matter what guage I hold American military service, they should not be over there, held as POW's while W flaunts the Geneva Conventions to use when he feels it convenient. It is dangerous to Americans held as POW's.

These are extreme times, and one should choose words carefully.

You do not know anything about me, in the Aikido community...my rank, my experience.

How would you feel, making a statement like that, and what then, if I were to show up as a guest instructor at your dojo?

And so, I took a day from directly responding to your posts to breathe, and consider my response. Understand, that I took this task with a feeling of deep respect, because we are both Aikidoists.

But, sorry if I cannot sit down and pore over hours of links to properly debate you; I've got a peace to wage.

Lets have an objective look at this. Questions must be asked as once again before and after photos are missing.

1. What was this protester doing that garnered police attention?

2. Why is there no photos of him before the "tackle".

3. With the news articles from multiple sources about the violence of protesters is it possible or even likley that the police would be too busy to pick out peaceful demonstrators as opposed to dealing with the violent ones?

4. The website claims "direct strikes" but I do not see the club in contact with the suspect, not once. And this was a video tape, I am sure he has it if it happened. Again evidence is conviently missing.

In an unruly violent crowd the police have to keep away others who would otherwise overwhelm them. I see nothing out of place in Any of these photos.

Things that make you go hmmmm.....

Again, as with the debate over Rachel Corrie, you get the idea that the camera is omnipotent and ppl dealing with the chaos in a march being assaulted by police can get every single important shot.

I do not know the full details, but have you heard anything in the mainstream of the class action lawsuit, against the SFPD?

I didn't think so...

And, if the police cannot pick out peaceful protestors from violent one's, why are police using holds like pulling hair on (mostly women) who are doing nothing but crossing the street? And yes: I have the photo of the incident, if you want to see it.

Also, the inability of police to be able to distinguish between between peaceful and nonpeaceful protestors on a DAILY basis (the mass arrests continue) suggests either incompetence or malice. And, if you look at the numbers arrested on each day with respect to the ratios of police (on Friday and on the da I was there), there is a 1:1 ratio in many cases.

Are you suggesting that the police cannot distinguish between violent and nonviolent protestors, even when they are as many, as the protestors?

This notion beggars belief.

You fully admit to the bias of your sources; is it so hard to consider that these sources present a bias of the protestors as a violent mob, which they are not?

Erik
03-26-2003, 11:36 AM
I wanted to just offer something that I marvel at. It goes something like this:

Rightest, "the liberal media is always painting with the brush of the left. 90% of the media is liberal and never present our side of the argument".

Leftest, "the conservative media is always painting with the brush of the right. They are owned by big corporations and pander to their interests".

The media can't win because if they even show the other side they are biased. Funny stuff!

George S. Ledyard
03-26-2003, 12:23 PM
I wanted to just offer something that I marvel at. It goes something like this:

Rightest, "the liberal media is always painting with the brush of the left. 90% of the media is liberal and never present our side of the argument".

Leftest, "the conservative media is always painting with the brush of the right. They are owned by big corporations and pander to their interests".

The media can't win because if they even show the other side they are biased. Funny stuff!
Actually, if you read Noam Chomsky on the media you can see why this is true. The media is basically representative of whatever viewpoint the "Establishment" or the "Powers That Be" have at the time. Opinions both from the far Left and from the far Right are generally not representative of the internationally oriented, multi-national coporate controlled establishment so those views get little play. Chosmky demonstrates this with copius documentation when it came to Cold War media presentation. There are some Conservative folks who have written books "proving" the liberal bias of the media. Despite that these points of view would seemingly be incompatible I think Chomsky has it right. He doesn't use terms like liberal and conservative. Each of these points of view (liberal / conservative, reublican / democacrat) are not necessarily compatible with the point of view of the ruling establishment (which is there regardless of which party is on power at a given moment) and so each can end up feeling like the media is biased against them.

George S. Ledyard
03-26-2003, 12:36 PM
Also look at the very first photo of his same site:

Shoot Officers (http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/03/1583064.php) They are obviously very proud of this banner as it is displayed first on the page. The sign reads:

"We support our troops when they SHOOT their officers"

Non-violence eh?

-JMc

Oh in case they move it it is also Here (http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/shoot-officers-sf-031503.jpg).
This is eactly how the Right consistently attempts to dismiss protests against whatever their current policies are. It is standard practice to find the most extreme example possible of the worst behavior or ideolgy and then put it out through the conservative media, especially the talk shows, that this is representative of the oppositions point of view in general. Do these guys exist, sure thay do. They represent a radical fringe that has no real following, that no one other than a certain class of disaffected youth believes in, that actually hurts the cause we are trying to put forth. This is the equivalent to pulling out pictures of some neo-nazis at a support America rally and trying to say that their viewpoint is somehow representative of what regualr middle americans believe. These people are merely a distraction from the real issues that we must be discussing.

Michael Neal
03-26-2003, 02:10 PM
Mr. Ledyard, unfortunatley you are mistaken about this. Maybe the majority of people that hold the anti-war viewpoint are not like these guys but the people funding, organizing, and participating in the protests are.
This is the equivalent to pulling out pictures of some neo-nazis at a support America rally and trying to say that their viewpoint is somehow representative of what regualr middle americans believe
Is this not what the left does on an almost daily basis on every issues of importance in America? I can not count how many times I have heard the term "radical christian right" and others to refer to just about anyone who goes to church and is not a liberal.

George S. Ledyard
03-26-2003, 03:25 PM
Mr. Leydard,

So then we can add indybay.org to this lunatic fringe or as you call them the "radical fringe" since it is they that proudly displays this disgusting example of what goes on at these protests. They also post pictures of "police brutality" that convienently leave out certain pictures that would help find the truth. Currently on their front page we have another person flipping the camera off while another holds up a sign saying "no war but the class war" I don't know what this means. I did not get these things from some crazed right wing site trying to expose the lunatic fringe, I got it from one group of these anti war activists' web sites that are touted on these boards. Also may I infer then that you view these people as the equivolent to a group of neo-nazis? Niel Mick (and strangley enough a rhyming user on another board also) uses this sight so much I think he may be a member. I agree that this distracts from the real issues at hand but at the same time we have posters on your side putting up this stuff and claiming "peacful" protests and potential "police" brutality.

I am sir, the other side and believe that by not showing this we begin to engage in a form of self censorship.

I watched some of the initial Peace marches in DC and other cities as they were broadcast on C-Span. I see N. Korean flags, Bush as Hitler signs, USSR flags, and other ridiculous stuff. Not to mention the speakers who make outrageous statments and go unchalleneged (I have not bought Ben and Jerry's ice cream since I watched these speeches).

I also mentioned on another board about the protester who keyed my car for no other reason than my American flag on it.

Yes these are small (and not so small) examples but they are beginning to add up.

I also see on indybay.org Iraqi flags, Pictures of smashed windows captioned "A bit of destruction", references to hitler, The very few American flags I see are either written on or upsode down. The list goes on and on.

If a poster is going to use these sights don't I have a right, or a duty even, to use the SAME sights along with my own to discount what some put forth as the only true opinion?

Do I think all peace protesters are part of that article I posted, no i don't as I don't think most of these guys think before they act.I do believe the money sources cited in it as I have seen this before. I also believe there are people like yourself for the most part who have fundamental beliefs against this war and I respect that. But I feel most of these people are duped. But when I go toe to toe, as one put it to me, with the people on the left I do not get answers I get counter points that have nothing to do with what was origionally discussed. Or even for example, when I put forth 1 account of 1 individual Iraqi and his points, NO ONE, NOT ONE of you even mentioned the content, NONE! No one on the left can answer his questions honestly. I get the same response as you posed above that I am finding the fringe. Have you heard of the Iraqi refugees in Deerborn, Michigan, some with bullet scars from Saddams regiem. They too are pro war, are they the fringe too?

That is where I stand.
Actually I thought I had addressed the issue of the content repeatedly. Not in the sense that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would increase or even allow any kind of freedom or social justice in Iraq because clearly it wouldn't. But as I have at length outlined there is a lot of thought that this invasion will not increase global stability at all, will make us more vulnerable to terror than before, will potentially destabilize Iraq in such a way that they still will not attain the social justice they deserve. This is a country ripe for civil war. They are remarkably similar to Yugoslavia under Tito. Once Tito was gone the social pressures led to disastrous civil war which totally destroyed much of the region.

No question that Saddam is a creep. But if you look at the record, the idea that this is a war of liberation came late to this endeavor. Why, because it is the only reason the resonates for the American people. We don't like dictators like this. But there are issues atht have to do with the larger picture and they have to do with timing and strategy. You can make the right move at the wrong time and it will be a mistake. You can make the right move but do it the wrong way and it will be a mistake. We may fix Iraq only to find that the consequences of having done so in the manner that we have will dwarf the consequences of waiting and approaching the problem differently.

If you are so all fired upset about Saddam Hussein you must also be appalled at the fact that we have consistently supported governments in all sorts of countries which have killed their own people in equal numbers, tortured their own citizens, acted in the worst possible ways. Where were you when we were doing that? Perhaps a bit young to remember El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentine, Guatemala, Brazil, etc. Well the people in the current administration aren't too young. Many of them were the very same people who actively supported, not just tolerated, some of the worst criminals in this hemisphere. No where did I hear the tearful calls for justice for oppressed peoples then.

I am perfectly willing to believe that you actually believe that this is why we are going into Iraq. I am also sure that the majority of our troops are motivated by these same idealistic motives. But I am equally sure that these altruistic motivations are absent from the deliberations of our leaders except to the extent that they believe they will motivate the public to support the war. This is focus group morality, what will sell in Peoria?

I am really glad that we are still a country which sees itself as being motivated by these lofty ideals and I am very angry at seeing these ideals cynically exploited by people whom I know to be uncaring about these issues based on the public record and the history of their actions.

Oh and regardingthe refugees in the US that are pro invasion, I don't doubt that they are. But you had better take in to account the news reports from Jordan that hit yesterday that thousands of Iraqi men, whom had fled the Saddam regime, were returning to Iraq ti fight, not against Saddam but against us. You guys had better realize how the rest of the world sees this or you are in for some big surprises (in fact we may be seeing the surprises already).

Neil Mick
03-26-2003, 06:36 PM
I always choose my answers carefully. As you will see below you crossed a line and now it is you who should back up and reflect, brother

And why should I? I at least have the huevos to tell you to your face what I think of you Mick also known as Ham. You think I am a moron or something. You post that obscene Dr. Suess rhyme and insult me. Go ahead and deny it lets let the boards decide.

A post by Ham on Aikido journal:

"The question might be as aptly posed thusly:

What makes you think that your desire to "go about your life as best you can" trumps others' deeply felt responsibility to use all means necessary to delegitimize an ongoing breach of International Law carried out by an unelected President and a Congress which has abdicated its responsibility under the Constitution?

This is what democracy looks like when leaders act without the consent of the governed.

Even if -- as is likely -- you disagree with this assessment as a matter of principle, it is a question that must be addressed in practical terms.

What you propose is a police state, with all the good little germans falling in line. Is that what you are fighting for? At least the germans seem to have learned their lesson....

"

And the very next post by Neil Mick on Aikido journal:

"OK, Mr. Jaime "both eyes open" McGrath:

I read your post on Senator Byrd's unfortunate use of the n-word, and I think at the very least, he should be called into account for it (incidentally, he later apologized for the epithet

And yes, I deplore his (now eschewed) former membership in the KKK.

And yet, it's so EASY to "shoot the messenger," when you wish to ignore the message, isn't it? So easy to be "good little Germans," fall into line, as ham so well puts it.

I do not condone all the actions of the anti-war protest, but then again, we're not an army following the orders of one. We're a movement; each of us comes to this protest with his own uniqueness, her own individuality, to carry the message that

WE DO NOT WANT THIS ILLEGAL WAR!!!

...slandering Bush? Considering the casual disregard for the will of his constituents, his allies, the rest of the world, and even his own religious congregation, in pushing heedlessly onward, can you actually blame them for pointing the finger at Bush?

I think that left eye is still shut, from disuse, Jaime. Send me your address, and I'll mail you a little visine"

So you try to deny it all you want as any readers of your posts and the non rhyming post by ham will be able to immediatly see that you two are one in the same or at least attended the same grammer school. (what did you say about the most simple logical explaination is the truth.)

Same writing style, vocabulary, and verb congegation. It is too bad that the editor took off your vulgar, infantile attack against me so people can really see who you really are.

Who knows what you really mean.

Prime example. You didn't take him to task until I exposed you. Then we are not sure if you really mean it ham. And you couldn't take him to task without firing shots about bush or the war.

Ham, I know exactlly why you stopped posting over there as Mick. You felt it easier to insult me with Dr. Suess type Rhymes under disguise of a different poster.

You coward.

As I reccommend you should as Aikido is an art based on mutual trust and you clearly demonstrated your lack of respect for anyone other than yourself and I am concerned for your fellow Aikidoka that you practice with.

yes they are.

I think myself and others now learned something new about you in the "Aikido Community" As for your rank and experience you obviously missed something along the way. Rank and experience is a minimal consideration for earning my respect. You are not of the right moral characture to be a guest instructor at my dojo I am sure my Sensei would agree so this is a non-issue.

Ham, Don't give me the crocidile tears as you did no such thing except attempt to make yourself look better.

Interesting methodology, Ham.

-JMc

I warned you my Eyes are Wide Open.

Peace and love brother.

Check and Mate.
What do you say to this? :blush:

I am embarrassed for you, Jaime. I have attempted to approach you in respect as to why I find your posts offensive, and you lump me as masquerading as HAM???

Wow. if it weren't so sad, it would be funny.

A whole range of options has come to mind over this display of vitriol: reporting this post to Jun; writing a letter to your dojo (as I feel that even though the internet should be a free forum of expression, no matter what your rank, you are testing the bounds of etiquette with your insulting and aggressive remarks); etc.

But, I think the best punishment of all is to let this stand.

O Sensei said: "he who makes the first attack is lost." Once you directly insulted me, you lost, IMM.

This curious assumption of me being ham is the final test...you've really "lost" your sense of balance. I thank you for a most valuable lesson.

As a fellow Aikidoist, I strongly suggest you reflect a tad more before you post (because even though you say otherwise, clearly: you don't).

God: this is so funny, I'm going to write ham and tell him that you've discovered our dark and terrible secret; we're really clones.

He'll get a kick out of it. Maybe even make up a limerick about you. :D

(P.S. I hate limericks. Even though I'm a poet, I consider myself a BAD poet. But, just for you, here's a little ditty I composed around December, part of an online collaboration...)

Too soon to root our Anthems and wave empty symbols of Primaries, in color.

; they stand aside the parade:

cheesy whiskered, faux voodood, commontaters unconsciously pray for direction.



The cardboard King timidly

parades his weak prostate as his coast-like

strut agitates, but succeeding:

he fails to awaken America, a glorious thing, the giant remains asleep.

His gazes listlessly lazes through the

Golden Arches' de Triumphe,



Aides-de-camps wipe the collective unconscious,

susurrating their words buzzbuzz into cockroach-black

cell-phones:

His earpiece sucks the

next directive. No longer confused, he

fully embraces his only and very first notion of self. (The end is near)



"remember 2004...remember 2004!!"



Electric Oracles will

tell us what it all means,

what a good cowboy-butcher

he was.

Embryonic liberals coagulate

while military subwoofers rip earths tissues.

Bad language a poor substitute for

dead children; headless mothers.



He will stand, prouder than

Washington in that Larry Rivers painting,

striking his "what me worry?" pose/prose,

failing in success to

awaken America.



Standing tough

on the Cadillac Black,

sheathed in many cubic tonnes

of testosterone, kevlar and mesh, his

skull rotates, privately pondering his

family dynamic.

P.P.S. In the end, Jaime: the biggest thing I feel for you, is pity. Thank you, again. Gotta go, there's a peace to wage.

Neil Mick
03-27-2003, 12:21 AM
I wanted to just offer something that I marvel at. It goes something like this:

Rightest, "the liberal media is always painting with the brush of the left. 90% of the media is liberal and never present our side of the argument".

Leftest, "the conservative media is always painting with the brush of the right. They are owned by big corporations and pander to their interests".

The media can't win because if they even show the other side they are biased. Funny stuff!
Well, amusing, yes: but it's a little more complicated, than that.

The "liberal media" comprises a variety of interests. While some elements of the Left are notoriously sectarian (Communist periodicals come to mind), a lot of the Left media-outlets are quite egalitarian.

Take Indymedia, for example. The website is supposed to be "by the viewers, for the viewers," meaning that anyone can post their opinion (I've read some disturbing rumors suggesting that the webmeisters are acting as editors--selectively censoring the site--but I'm not sure if this rumor is factual).

Other Leftist periodicals--The Independent, for example--often take a whole spectrum of views that disagree with other elements of the Left. If anything, the Left is TOO scattered and diversory, IMO. A typical critique of the Right (IMM, a fair one, for once) is that the Left often offers no acceptable alternative strategies...mostly because they cannot agree.

The Right, OTOH, has recently taken a disturbing trend of "ditto-head" group-think, to coin a phrase: a "with-us-or-against-us" approach that will ultimately cause them to fail from their own rigidity, IMHO.

The reason for this is the manner in which the media is used, and funded, by think-tanks and former speech-writers of the Right. Of course, the term "Right" is misleading, as it is closely tied to corporate interests.

Note, for example: many of the "Pro-war" rallies,,,almost all of them are initiated by corporate-controlled radio stations and networks.

I highly recommend "Trust Us: We're the Experts," for an eye-opening account of the ways in which corporations spin and manufacture public opinion.

Neil Mick
03-27-2003, 12:30 AM
I don't necessarily agree with this. I saw bits and pieces of the coverages on the main networks, and I didn't really notice any offensive one-sidedness. However, some sources that come up during these discussions here, a pretty, ahem, lopsided. And there's plenty of these out there, so I guess if you guys want to go on debating that in any crowd of people there're going to be nice people and there're going to be hooligans, you have amunition that will keep you going forever ;)
Well, Daniel, your question is unanswerable, since I do not know what media sources you're looking at.

Personally, I've noticed that all the mainstream media I read (The NY Times, the Santa Cruz Sentinel (ack!), the SF Chronicle, and the San Jose Mercury...I've become quite the newshound, since this sorry affair) all seem to lead with accounts of violence in the protest marches, how the police found a bag of bombs, etc. To me, this is a clear slant, as articles like these present the protestors (not just of this march, but other peace marches and rallies) as violent anarchists, when the truth is very different and more complicated, as is usual in life.

But, let's try an experiment. Since SF was hit the hardest by protests, see what you can find in the media on the class-action lawsuit (if you can find anything). When you do, let me know and we can look at the article together, and discuss its slants.

DanielR
03-27-2003, 09:10 AM
Well, Daniel, your question is unanswerable, since I do not know what media sources you're looking at.

...But, let's try an experiment. Since SF was hit the hardest by protests, see what you can find in the media on the class-action lawsuit (if you can find anything). When you do, let me know and we can look at the article together, and discuss its slants.
Neil,

My comment was much more on a personal side. As a neutral observer, I didn't get a decidedly negative or positive opinion on the protesters from what I've seen on TV (NBC, ABC, CNN). Don't know if this says much.

I could not find anything on the lawsuit you mentioned, except on indybay.org . Not sure how knowing about this lawsuit would change anything in my eyes. Knowing the ruling might.

Michael Neal
03-27-2003, 04:18 PM
Regardless of all the disagreements I have with the left wingers here I am glad that there are people that disagree with the war. If there were no checks on any governing power then we would be opening ourselves up to the same type of life as Iraq. Yes, you heard me correctly, all political figures need to brought back to earth on occasion to prevent their heads from swelling too much.

However, that does not apply to the majority of anti-war protesters who are not questioning a policy rather they are trying to advance a very unhealthy leftist agenda using the war as an excuse to do this.

Neil Mick
03-27-2003, 04:26 PM
Neil,

My comment was much more on a personal side. As a neutral observer, I didn't get a decidedly negative or positive opinion on the protesters from what I've seen on TV (NBC, ABC, CNN). Don't know if this says much.

I could not find anything on the lawsuit you mentioned, except on indybay.org . Not sure how knowing about this lawsuit would change anything in my eyes. Knowing the ruling might.
Daniel: my point was not so much what opinion the TV stations put forth, but how they were protrayed. Did the stories lead in with accounts of violence?

Also, the lack of news coverage on the lawsuit is a telling factor, IMM.

I'm sure that the mainstream corporate media will pick up the story, but not without either spinning it as some blatant scrabbling for money, or a legal battle of non-importance. I' just waiting to see which way they'll spin it.

DanielR
03-27-2003, 09:46 PM
Daniel: my point was not so much what opinion the TV stations put forth, but how they were protrayed. Did the stories lead in with accounts of violence? Well, now you got me looking for it :) Indeed, the two stories I saw tonight were not particularly even. The only people who got to speak in front of the camera were a police chief who said the police was distracted from fighting the crime, and a guy who said the protestors hurt the morale of the soldiers. Two valid points, but noone got to speak from the other side.

Neil Mick
03-29-2003, 03:06 AM
OK, very good. The only thing I read (in the SF Chronicle) was that the mayor was complaining about how much the protestors cost the City, curiously saying that: "the peace protestors are ruining the peaceful nature of San Francisco." Typical of W. Brown, IMA.

Anyway, check out this article in the Chronicle, a very mainstream paper:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/29/PROTEST.TMP

In the biker section, I counted only 3 paragraphs that had a positive comment for the protestors, as opposed to the other 15, negative paragraphs (they block traffic, etc).

The second half of the article is more neutral toward the protestors, but the what they don'r say of the pro-war rally is interesting. The numbers of attendees for the "pro-troops" rally was absent, even though the anti-war really arrest #'s were known.

Also, the lack of ID of "organizer Bennet" is suspicious. Several of these rallies are organized by corporations and radio-stations, not grassroots organizations.

And, the final comment about "SF being too liberal" puts the blame for low attendance on SF, rather than general disagreement with the war (not saying they should or shouldn't, but no mention was made of this possibility).

What do you think?

DanielR
03-29-2003, 09:20 AM
Neil,
In the biker section, I counted only 3 paragraphs that had a positive comment for the protestors, as opposed to the other 15, negative paragraphs (they block traffic, etc).
I didn't get quite the same count. All the paragraphs under "Show of support" didn't look negative to me.
what they don'r say of the pro-war rally is interesting. The numbers of attendees for the "pro-troops" rally was absent, even though the anti-war really arrest #'s were known.
I thought the article did mention the numbers: "About 125 people gathered in noontime sunshine to voice their support for U.S. forces", and "dozens of people gathered to support the troops" .
Also, the lack of ID of "organizer Bennet" is suspicious. Several of these rallies are organized by corporations and radio-stations, not grassroots organizations.Well, for me it would be more important to know whether the participants showed up of their own will, even if it was a radio station who called them to come.
And, the final comment about "SF being too liberal" puts the blame for low attendance on SF, rather than general disagreement with the war (not saying they should or shouldn't, but no mention was made of this possibility).Hmm... not too sure about this one. I can see how finishing the article with this paragraph leaves a certain impression, although I can't say for sure this was the author's intention. This is not an analytical article, and the final comment is that of a support-the-troops-rally participant, nothing more.

Neil Mick
03-30-2003, 09:49 PM
Sorry, Daniel: you're right, I went back and looked and I miscounted about the negative's.

If you're still interested, perhaps if you counted the # of negatives that you see, and I'll see if we agree...?

Also, regarding the radio show: who sponsors the rallies is very important. Unlike any of the anti-war rallies, the pro-war rallies are mostly sponsored by corporate media outlets.

But, this story gets more interesting, the more you look into it.

Look at this:

"Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

Now, I don't know, some ppl might cry "biased media!" and "corporate control of rallies," and all, but if there's a connection, it sure is interesting. Amost classically close to the f(ascist)-word, if I may say so.

But, yes: I fully admit my bias.

Actually, I'm still blown away by the revelation that the US consciously used starvation and denial of water to a whole country, to get Hussein to do their bidding, and they knew the full consequences of the Sanctions beforehand.

Where are these people's humanity...?

DanielR
03-31-2003, 03:01 PM
If you're still interested, perhaps if you counted the # of negatives that you see, and I'll see if we agree...?You know, I tried, but I couldn't finish because it isn't quite clear what is negative. To me, stating the fact that a rally disrupted the traffic is not negative, it's just a fact. So... it's all subjective.
Also, regarding the radio show: who sponsors the rallies is very important. Unlike any of the anti-war rallies, the pro-war rallies are mostly sponsored by corporate media outlets...
I agree that it's different, but again: if pro-war rally participants are not lured there with, ummm, I don't know - $20 bills to each participant - to me it's more or less kosher, at least on that level. The connection between Clear Channel and Bush is indeed interesting, but these things don't surprise me anymore. I don't devote much time to listening to Clear Channel stations, but so far I didn't hear anything outrageos. Calls to support the troops - that's fine, and I think it should be that way. Those are music stations, and it's not their job to analyze the situation. As long as NPR keeps it balanced and to the point, I'm content.
Actually, I'm still blown away by the revelation that the US consciously used starvation and denial of water to a whole country, to get Hussein to do their bidding... I'll hold my comments for a while - want to see what comes up for rebuttal in other threads :)

Neil Mick
03-31-2003, 06:32 PM
You know, I tried, but I couldn't finish because it isn't quite clear what is negative. To me, stating the fact that a rally disrupted the traffic is not negative, it's just a fact. So... it's all subjective.
OK, let's take a look at 3 paragraphs I find "negative," as an example:

"But it was Critical Mass that drew the most attention, if only because it was the most disruptive. The ride began shortly after 6 p.m. at Justin Herman Plaza and meandered through the Financial District, creating immediate gridlock.

Long lines of idling cars clogged streets leading to the Bay Bridge, where a line of police in riot gear blocked the First Street ramp to all traffic to prevent cyclists from riding onto the bridge.

"I'm trying to get home to my 6-year-old son," lamented Donna Chen as she sat in traffic on First Street. "This is terrible. They have a right to do what they want to do, but I have a right to go home. "

Now, all three state the truth, but from a negatice perspective. It terms the event as "disruptive," "creating gridlock," causing motorists to "lament."

Sure, all these things are true, but what about the perspective of the bikers? What about their thoughts on freedom to assemble? What about motorists who SUPPORTED thre bikers? Surely some1 supported their cause, and didn't mind the wait. Why no comments from them?

Now, I'm not saying that the slant is a big one; just enough to paint the bikersa in a negative light, as an example.
I agree that it's different, but again: if pro-war rally participants are not lured there with, ummm, I don't know - $20 bills to each participant - to me it's more or less kosher, at least on that level. The connection between Clear Channel and Bush is indeed interesting, but these things don't surprise me anymore. Calls to support the troops - that's fine, and I think it should be that way. Those are music stations, and it's not their job to analyze the situation. As long as NPR keeps it balanced and to the point, I'm content.
Don't get me started on NPR (1 week after 9/11, the Morning Show asked if the President "should" use assassination as a form of legitimate foreign policy. They're better than the "mainstream," but not much, IMO).

And, the Germans had state-sponsored rallies in the '30's, too. The corporate sponsorship gives an eerie similarity, to these rallies.

My 2 cents.

DanielR
03-31-2003, 09:59 PM
Now, all three state the truth, but from a negatice perspective. It terms the event as "disruptive," "creating gridlock," causing motorists to "lament."Well, I was going to say that this is exactly what happened, so why not write it like that? Then I thought that if it was a St Patrik's Day parade, the tone would be different. I see your point.
what about the perspective of the bikers? What about their thoughts on freedom to assemble? What about motorists who SUPPORTED thre bikers? Surely some1 supported their cause, and didn't mind the wait. Why no comments from them?
Well, actually... :
Not everyone on four wheels was angry at those on two. Many motorists honked in support of the demonstrators, and while some waved fists in anger, others waved peace signs in solidarity.

"I support the protest. I support it so much I gave myself two hours to get to the airport," said Leecia Welch as she sat in a cab taking her to San Francisco International Airport for a flight to Seattle. "I hope it's enough."

Man, and I thought NPR was still ok ;) :
Don't get me started on NPR (1 week after 9/11, the Morning Show asked if the President "should" use assassination as a form of legitimate foreign policy. Would you please clarify why do you see this question as illegitimate or unbalanced?
And, the Germans had state-sponsored rallies in the '30's, too. The corporate sponsorship gives an eerie similarity, to these rallies. You know, Neil, I once tried on this forum to draw a parallel between a certain policy and a nazi policy. It didn't go all that well, and I can understand why. I'm now much more careful with drawing such parallels.

So again I go back to what I originally said: to me, it's more important what is said rather than who sponsored the speaker.

Neil Mick
03-31-2003, 10:52 PM
So again I go back to what I originally said: to me, it's more important what is said rather than who sponsored the speaker.
Yeah, I don't take quite as much umbrage about the corporate-sponsorship thing, as some Lefties.

They're radio, they're right-wing, and they're going to use their power however they can. But, it IS a little disturbing, along with the military takeover of the media, and the loss of civil liberties.

I've heard a fair number of ppl mutter "rise of US fascism," and I don't know...Vandenberg AFB has shoot-to-kill orders against tresspassers (protestors), and the police abuses are not a heartening sign...particularly when a good portion of the police went to the "Pro-war" rally.

But, thanks for hanging in with me about the article. That's how you determine the bias of any article: the more negative paragraphs, the worse it is.

Regarding assassinations...? Well, if you think that state-sponsored assassinations are OK, I guess, then, that you feel perfectly safe knowing that Mossad (the Israeli secret service) has announced their intention to conduct assassinations outside Israel: even, in the US.

Does this make you feel safe? It doesn't, for me. Do you see where this is heading?

DanielR
04-01-2003, 07:57 AM
Regarding assassinations...? Well, if you think that state-sponsored assassinations are OK, I guess, then, that you feel perfectly safe knowing that Mossad (the Israeli secret service) has announced their intention to conduct assassinations outside Israel: even, in the US.
But Neil, this wasn't my question. We're not debating whether state-sponsored assasinations are ok. You said that even asking about it made NPR look unbalanced in your eyes. It's not like NPR was calling the US gov't to immediately start with that policy - they were asking someone whether that was the way to go. IMHO, a perfectly legitimate question to ask, given that Israel has been conducting this policy for a while now, so it's reasonable for a journalist to assume that an answer to this question would be interesting to many listeners.

Neil Mick
04-01-2003, 04:27 PM
But Neil, this wasn't my question. We're not debating whether state-sponsored assasinations are ok. You said that even asking about it made NPR look unbalanced in your eyes. It's not like NPR was calling the US gov't to immediately start with that policy - they were asking someone whether that was the way to go. IMHO, a perfectly legitimate question to ask, given that Israel has been conducting this policy for a while now, so it's reasonable for a journalist to assume that an answer to this question would be interesting to many listeners.
OK. I see your point. And, IMA, the radio-program is a side-issue (still germaine, but somewhat off to the side).

I think it's perfectly fine to debate this topic (necessary, in fact), but I am amazed that they did not have any discussion about the legitimacy of the action; no int'l legal experts on the validity of assassinations, etc. My recollection of the program is spotty; I'd have to go back and listen, again.

One interesting anecdote about spin on the media: I was listening to a DemocracyNow! broadcast, and Amy Goodman brought on a caller who called another radio show (The Alice show) to complain. It appears that Sarah, the morning DJ, exhorted listening motorists to run over protestors who get in their way.

I was shocked. Since the radio stn sponsoring the Alice show is in the Bay Area, I called them and spoke to another DJ, and asked her if it was true. She said that the Program Mgr was reviewing the whole program and would be issuing a statement the next day. She said that Sarah did NOT suggest motorists run over protestors, and that the caller on DN! might be liable for a lawsuit.

I asked her if an archived stream could be put on their website, but she dissembled, and didn't give a straight answer.

To date, there are no letters from the PM on the Alice website, and no archived links for shows. I sent the DJ an email, requesting again the PM's letter, but I got no response.

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

DanielR
04-01-2003, 07:26 PM
I think it's perfectly fine to debate this topic (necessary, in fact), but I am amazed that they did not have any discussion about the legitimacy of the action; no int'l legal experts on the validity of assassinations, etc. My recollection of the program is spotty; I'd have to go back and listen, again.
It would've been an interesting topic for "Justice Talking". There was one on fighting terrorism soon after 9/11, maybe they went over it.
It appears that Sarah, the morning DJ, exhorted listening motorists to run over protestors who get in their way...Nonsense like this is one of the reasons I stopped listening to one of apparently more popular stations in NY. The way some DJs allow themselves to talk about the war and related subjects is abhorrent. Some kind of prepackaged patriotism for mass consumption, I assume.

Kevin Leavitt
04-01-2003, 07:39 PM
I never listen to the ignorance and stupidity that comes from the mouths of DJ's who seem to only appeal to ignorant popularity.

Likewise, lately I rarely even watch the news since it seems to be very concerned with ratings and making money.

I would love to see shows and talks that get to the core subjects of solving problems. Once you identify yourself as having a problem (which I think we all agree WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE!) you must get on with solving it.

Saying things such as running over protesters is absurd and just plain ignorant.

When are we going to start solving problems at the core level? Taking care of the environment, not being wasteful, and the like?

DanielR
04-01-2003, 08:08 PM
I would love to see shows and talks that get to the core subjects of solving problems.Well, during my years in the US I found NPR to be the closest thing to that. You know what the problem is though? The problems we're talking about here would require a lot of airtime...

Neil Mick
04-01-2003, 08:19 PM
Good post, Kevin. I totally agree.

When are we going to start getting to solving the core problems, and not dodging them?

Kevin Leavitt
04-03-2003, 07:52 PM
I do take time to listen to NPR when I can. I do find that to be the most "comforting"

but with everything in life you must constantly question and think for yourself and realize that your thoughts and opinions are shaped by the perspective and influences of your environment.

Neil Mick
04-06-2003, 10:14 PM
Can't you almost feel the love?? :grr:

CONVERT, AND GET WATER (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/5554317.htm)

Anat Amitay
04-07-2003, 11:13 AM
Kevin,

to your question about when we're going to start solving problems at core level and take care of the invironment...

Well, when politicians will want their place in politics for the best of their people and not the best of their pockets...

It is only politics that brings a country to war (sometimes justful and sometimes not), but as leaders, they have (or should have) the power to influence and make decisions.

If the people in power would decide to make the world a better place and keep it 'in good shape' for the generations to come, than maybe things would have looked different. maybe more laws for the safekeeping of invironment would be passed and seriosely recognized, maybe more talks would take place instead of the whispers between those in power on what benefit they might gain. How many people around the world actualy believe that you need to concure Iraq in order to make Saddam fall? or is the conquer meant to have a hand on the oil fields? is that a good enough reason for the soldiers killed?

(sorry I'm making this so blunt, I know there is much more to it).

I think that as long as people with power and money run the politics, in their basis, they want more power and money, and not the best for the people.

just my 2 cents.

Anat

Kevin Leavitt
04-07-2003, 08:12 PM
Good points Anat...

I think we as a people (citizens) need to do a much better job of holding them accountable.

It is easy to play the victim of money and power, at some point we need to take responsibility that it is us, the majority who put these people in office.

Just as we expect teachers to raise our kids while we go off and work hard so we can have 2 cars a large mortgage and other niceties. We then blame the "system" when the kill others in schools and get into drugs.

At some point we have to accept that we all are at fault and need to be accountable for our actions as a country!

Kevin Leavitt
04-07-2003, 08:15 PM
Oh one other thought...

I think that is why the martial arts and aikido in particular are so attractive to me....

It is the one place that you must be honest both with yourself and your partners.....

It is hard to "fake" or "grandstand" or hide your faults...

In order to do it...you must be somewhat honest.

(I do admit that their are some ways to hide behind your ego...but less than in other ventures!)

Michael Neal
04-18-2003, 07:45 AM
Very Funny

http://www.mywebdimension.com/images/antiwar_protesters.jpg