anti-war rally

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.

Thread moved to the Open Discussions forum.

-- Jun

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/

Good luck on a peaceful rally.

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

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?

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.

Les Kelso wrote: 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/page...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.

[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/page...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

Les Kelso wrote: 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??

This is what democracy looks like:

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

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.

Neil Mick wrote: 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

George S. Ledyard wrote: 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.

George S. Ledyard wrote: 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.

Les Kelso wrote: 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.

Les Kelso wrote: 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.

Les Kelso wrote: 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!) .

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.

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

Neil Mick wrote: 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!) . 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.

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

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.

Les Kelso wrote: 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

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???

Jaime McGrath wrote: Again and again the lunatic keep hammering away at the election in an attempt to deligitimize President Bush Bush WON get over it!!!

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

Jaime McGrath wrote: 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

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.

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: [QB] As far as viewing you in contempt I guess I do. [/QB]

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.