EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Wanted: Unruly Activists
The first thing the members of Congress did before they heard the testimony of General David Petraeus, the Administration's new political point man on the war, was to throw the members of Code Pink out of the room. The Code Pinkers are those obnoxious females wearing their eponymously colored T-shirts with end-the-killing slogans on them.
The women of Code Pink are liable to pop up at any solemn public gathering demanding peace at the top of their voices. They are unable to understand that elected officials are better informed and wiser than they are and thus they mistakenly dis people important enough to warrant bodyguards.
During Code Pink's brief moment in the sun, several Republican members of Congress groused to House Arms Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D. Mo) about the scandalous trouble-makers. American politicians, who these days are equipped with security details, have come to regard political heckling as a misdemeanor of greater gravity even than making a pass at an undercover cop in a men's room. Heckling used to be an inseparable part of public debate and, once upon a time, a politician was judged in part by his ability to come through with the kind of humorous riposte that sets audiences to laughing and the hecklers to the sidelines. Lincoln, Churchill and Disraeli were masters at it.
The Code Pinkers are playing what ESPN would call Extreme or X-politics. X-politicians make noise, bust up meetings, chain themselves to furniture, do the big floppola in front of the security personnel and wail like hell when they are dragged off. Most of us are incapable of playing X-politics, but thank God the women of Code Pink are not.
You don't play X-politics because you want a new school superintendent or a stop sign on your block. You play it when it's about war, about dying, maiming and mass misery on a scale too large for any mind to encompass. You play it because the war party always has all the drums and all the bugles and all the flags. You play it because somebody has to smash through, be the truth-teller. And it's not going to be people with normal temperatures and Anglo-Saxon inhibitions.
X-politics is only for the lion-hearted. Samuel Adams played it at the Boston Massacre and the wildest, craziest and yet most essential X-politician in our history was John Brown, Old Potawatamie, who ended dangling from a noose, the North's most electric abolitionist martyr.
An X-politician does not have to lead an armed insurrection, but he or she must do something that enflames indignation and ignites anger. On a small scale that is what Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr did. He's the man who was gang-tackled by the Capitol cops to keep him out of the hearing room. Put your hands together and give it up for the Reverend as you watch the seven-minute video of his encounter with Capitol Hill's finest.
MoveOn.org plays its own, somewhat more sedate brand of X-politics. The day before the hearings it kicked war partisans in the shins with a full-page New York Times ad, with a headline that screamed, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?". It drove the likes of Orrin Hatch (R. UT) to offering resolutions of condemnation and denunciations of MoveOn.org's wickedness for suggesting the General cannot be counted to tell the whole truth.
(In the interest of full disclosure, the writer confesses to having sent MoveOn.org a small contribution immediately after having read that ad.)
A newspaper ad alone could not have so convincingly disseminated the thought that Petraeus had moved from being a four-star general to being a four-star Republican politician. For that the ad had to provoke a furious reaction from the war lovers.
The essence of X-politics, whether it's Cindy Sheehan or Eli Pariser, one of MoveOn.org's better known people, is to use the other sides' rage, money and status against itself.
May Code Pink strike again. And again.
Nicholas von Hoffman is the author of A Devil's Dictionary of Business, now in paperback. He is a Pulitzer Prize losing author of thirteen books, including Citizen Cohn, and a columnist for the New York Observer.
© 2007 The Nation
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
112 Comments so far
Show AllCongress is not the only place that one will get the boot for heckling; it happens all the time on other so called progressive boards; I got banned at Hartmann's board for having the audacity to post several common dream articles critical of the Dem controlled congress which puts into question their endless support of the Iraq War. Heckling ought to be protected instead of punished. If the progressive movement is ever going to be relevant again, it needs to embrace diversity, including the diversity found in communication standards. One size surely does not fit all.
Truthseeker and future are both right.
It takes love which gives courage to act.
There are all kinds of excuses not to act. Some people even feel that all the loss of liberties is ok if they are safe. Mosst don't realize that not acting means having given up.
I know the wage slave theory and it is true - but it won't get any better people don't act.
Want to reason with mass murderers and accessories to murder of hundred of thousands of innocent Iraqis? "Let us reason together."...suckers.
off22, Uh, yeah, like I just said, state-run capitalism is bad. You didn't say anything. You just reinforced my statement that state-run capitalism is bad.
There's nothing wrong with free trade as long as people are controlling it as opposed to the government.
Communism and socialism blow.
The Rev Yearwood clip shows that we are living under an authoritarian government right now.
It's a sort of authoritarianism of the unitary executive based on the philosophy of Dick Cheney and executed through a compliant and weak-minded President.
Windhorse..
Thank you, my man or woman.
A totally sane comment at last!
Future,
All the thing's you've said are true, but they have always been true, were the French pesantry more economically secure in 1789 what about the Russians pesants in 1917? Or, the Sandinista's in 1978? Or the Indians from 1920's to 1948?
Great, more Ron Paul dickheads spouting off. Ron Paul is about as progressive as I am a neo-con. He wants to dismantle and privatize every social program that exists, he's a pro life wing nut, he's a racist asshole, need I go on? Anyone that votes for him is a racist asshole as well...
emilie--I respect your right to protest as you choose, but to refuse to march with Cindy Sheehan and the Code Pinkers is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face! They are the vanguard of this movement and have inspired many not to give up hope. I hope you don't think they should be polite and respectful when they go to Washington. What have our "representatives" done lately to earn that?
trails_end: are you sure about Kucinich? It was S. 891 Child Medication Safety Act of 2007 introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
It was "To protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance in order to attend school, and for other purposes." That's something I would vote for!
Kucinich seems to be the best match for most of the country- he campaigns for (and introduces legislation for)
-ending NAFTA & the WTO
-Immediate withdrawl from Iraq
-reducing the defense budget
-universal single-payer health insurance
-signing the Kyoto and other international treaties
He is the best union man out there. When people take a poll matching their values to congressional votes- Kucinich wins by a landslide.
He also has been there for the most votes of ANY canidate- he's actually doing his job!
People criticise him because we are told to do so.
I am supporting both Kucinich and Ron Paul- I wish they would debate because it would actually be worth watching.
dustinchicago, The bill "To protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance in order to attend school, and for other purposes." was the Ron Paul bill.
Kucinich voted for the one that wanted to coerce parents and their children...
I criticise Kucinich because that's how I see him now. Nobody tells me what to think.
Kristina40, how about 'progressive' dickheads? Whoever said anything about Ron Paul being progressive?
A word about progressives..rememeber Margaret Sanger and her onward and upward movement to sterilize the poor in this country? The wonderful progressive Sanger who was buddies with Prescott Bush?
Umm..a little love affair between the progressives and the reactionaries? The left and the right? The Democrats and the Republicans?
Ah, but what the hell? The only thing that matters is that you're on the right side. Isn't that right?
Law and order - what a bummer ey?
http://wheresyourbrain.blogspot.com/
trails_end,
But also do you remember Jane Addams and Hull House? Was she not a progressive woman who dedicated herself to helping the poor and inspired other women and (some) men to have a broader humanistic concern for the poor? You seem to frame your argument on one idea, make a judgment, and use that same paintbrush to cast a monolithic picture that excludes many other significant aspects.
I don't think trails_end was stereotyping; rather, s/he was using an historical example--one of many--to show past collusion between supposed progressives and reactionaries. If you've read Kolko's critic of the so-called Progresssive Era--"The Triumph of Conservatism"--you should be able to appreciate the point being made.
Yeh, law and order is a real bummer in a plutocracy. Or is that just "order"?
Just two nights ago we were watching John Lennon vs the United States of America and I ask my husband "Where are the John Lennons, Abbie Hoffmans and Jerry Rubins of today?" His answer was, if they were around today they would either be "dissapeared" or in Guantanamo. As a 18-20 year old at the time of Vietnam and the Democratic Convention in Chicago, I know that their outrageousness gave the rest of us a little nudge to do something, maybe not as radically as they did, but something, to protest that war, and the collusion of the establishment in it. Radicals are never embraced by the mainstream, but they cut the path for the mainstream to follow. I live in rural Washington State and the only demonstrations against the war we've had in this area have been a bunch of 50+ year olds. Where are the 20 somethings? Why aren't they outraged? We need their energy. I find it a source of endless joy that the torch of those anti war radicals is being picked up by a bunch of courageous, loud mouthed, women in pink.
emiliehamilton:
At some point one has to say "No!"
I am normally hesitant to engage in judgmental chanting, but didn't Jesus turn the tables in the Temple and call the hypocrites "whited sepulchres"? It's easier to lose your center when engaging in that type of thing, but with practice, not impossible.
It is time to say NO!
Futureme writes: "So I wish we could some how band together but until we are all suffering and have nothing else to loose..."
-That principle is called 'Unity in Adversity' and when it kicks in, I've seen it unite even the most disparate of people.
Vern, fear not, I hear where you are coming from and my instinct supports that viewpoint. The Left is not at present in the ascendant. Many of us feel passionately that it should be, as that would likely result in a more equitable, peaceful world, so if the prevailing wind is overarchingly from the powerful, nasty Right, we quite naturally seek to support the 'underdogs' who are pushing towards the warmer, more humane region of the Left.
Personally I care not if Code Pink are rich, -or poor, but do care very much that they continue with their blessed and beautifully 'unruly' work!
To couch it in religious terms, if Buddha or Christ popped up in the USA tomorrow and chose to align more with one side or the other, I have no doubt they would be more supportive of the Code Pink gals, than the *CODE OINK* warmongers!
I want to see medals for our 'Meddlers' ~ and awards for our unruly 'Untowards'! :)
PS: What was that little snipe that John Stewart took at Code Pink's demo at Petraeus's hearing? It's good to laugh at ourselves, but John's comment was that the way one of the Code Pink women was protesting "wasn't helping."
In all fairness though - That's one criticism after seeing hundreds of very funny politically-astute gags.
May Code Pink strike again and again.Amen to that and to Moveon too.These morons(senators and Reps) are making a mockery of democracy and every damn one of them should be run out of Washington
I thought Rev Yearwood he was just givng a hip hop breakdancing demonstration.
The elite will pay attention to two things:
1. MONEY
2. DEATH
If the elite refuse to relent, one of these activists will go off the reservation and hit them in one of these spots. Death is much easier to bring about.
Due to technical difficulties I've had to move my petition to http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/unsanam2
A Petition for United Nations Sanctions Against America
In response to blessthebeasts and srelf
I do say NO. I refuse to pay for the weapons of war - I have met with our MA
Representative John Olver with a small
group of women which may have led to his
choosing to join the Out of Iraq caucus -
I came down for Camp Democracy last September - I make phone calls and send
letters to our Congressional legislators.
I have spent time vigiling at Lafayette
Park across the street from the White House. Before Bush was given office in 2000 I worked for the Peace Tax Foundation because I do not believe people choosing to live in accordance with their conscience should have to live in poverty.
Back when Bush Jr chose to bomb Iraq I and
a few other women sat in prayer praying for
diplomatic intervention rather than a rush to war. Tomorrow, and perhaps Saturday I may spend at the vigil in Lafayette Park.
I do not want to walk with women who have
chosen to use foul language and screaming
to get their message across. I remember some time ago shortly after Cindy Sheehan
had met with Thich Nhat Hanh how she said
she would be more careful in communicating her outrage - her anger - her sorrow. But that is not what happened. I met Cindy Sheehan when she came to Northampton - I saw photographs of her son - I listened to her story - her pain. I am not her. But I
had hoped that she might bring more dignity to anit war protests than she has.
I do not believe I am alone in my wish for
a more careful organized protest of the war in Iraq.
Heck, what about a Kucinich/Paul ticket. Oh shit the shrub is on the tele. Gotta go puke! Kucinich STRENTH FOR PEACE 2008.
Neither have I heard "foul language" from Code Pink. Or from Ray McGovern. Or from Cindy Sheehan. Or from Rev. Yearwood. If we are talking about something, we have to distinguish between what is real and what is not.
Frankly, the language that Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies used would not be as effective today. It was more of a big deal then. More attention-getting.
I'm sure those who advocate dignified protest are very nice people. But we want something that works. I'm of the opinion that we can be dignified until hell freezes over and not much will change. (It would if half the population went on a dignified strike, but it won't happen.) Our tactics should change as we learn. We have to shake things up. Maybe that's a basic difference in dissenting tactics, but I think it's also a difference in perception.
I don't think I'm off the mark in calling those who brought us to war and those keeping us there murderers. We murdered three million or more people in southeast Asia and we're murdering people again. It will happen again even if we are successful in "bringing home the troops" from Iraq. At some point, a nation has to be honest and use honest words no matter how painful.
Personally, I thought Amy Goodman's interview with Curtis Muhammad, a man with decades of activist experience, was heartbreaking in his obvious coming to grips with the nature of current dissent in the case of the Katrina aftermath...People are going through the motions but where is the anger, the desperate passion?
Can't take it anymore!!! Heard Schrubs voice on the radio and started screaming. Scared all three of of my dogs into the corner! God, I can't take it anymore......
trails_end September 13th, 2007 6:09 pm
"There's nothing wrong with free trade as long as people are controlling it..."
Yeah, I know you. Let the "people" control it. You mean the Masters, which you hope to be one of. To folks like you there are only 2 kinds of people in the world. Masters and Slaves.
That IS Libertarianism.
Rebel Farmer,
I don't watch or listen to Bush. In fact, I rarely watch television. But whenever I do and his ugly mug appears on the screen, I switch the channel, or when his voice comes on the radio, I change stations. It almost is an innate reaction. That helps me.
emiliehamilton:
I get what you're saying, I think. But, the word "shame" is not foul language. In all the Code Pink demos I have seen, I haven't heard foul language by them. Is it that common? And just what is it that is so offensive? There are always the fringe elements that show up to your demo that are using tactics or sentiments that you are opposed to. Is that what you're talking about? That stuff is a real bother and detracts from a good message. But it can't stop us from participating. One can always go over and give them an alternative view. Maybe that's what you are there for.
An updated version of libertarianism:
Vote for Ron Paul or Armageddon. Scream and tell everybody that he's our messiah until everybody else becomes ad nauseum (in addition to the free market crap) .
Sorry, I keep having problem with editing.
"I think the real fear some people have is not what would happen to them if they step out and protest. It's what would happen at home.
You hear all this talk about how great the economy is but trust me screw this house bubble crap. The Economy was crap way before that. It was great for CEO's who had record profits. But not for people that work for a living.
Most people are one car malfunction, one broken bone, sick child, bad case of the flu, or just happen to be late cause of traffic situation from loosing it all.
And not because they don't try. They just are stretch to the limit.
So for a person to muster up the strength to risk loosing there job, they house, and the lives to stand up for what they believe in can some times be more than the average person can do.
They are not selfish by nature but forced by the system and the "new rules" to survive at all cost.
Sure a lot of people would love to boycott Wal-mart. But it sure is nice to have money left over on their paychecks after taking care of the monthly shopping.
Most people would love to eat healthy. But it sure is a lot easier to eat for 4.50 a day then it is to eat for 13.50 a day at a healthier place.
Most people are already working 45-55 hour work weeks and not by choice. One day of work is one bill that won't get paid."
Future.me, I agree. That's why I get angry at people on the left who suggest that the people are lazy and apathetic. It's self-righteous.
Can a guy or gal with two kids to feed afford to go to jail for wrestling with a cop? Or have that cop knock their teeth out?
The people in power know that a majority is against them. They don't care. We could all rush the White House, and they'd just cut half of us all down. You think they'd pull out of Iraq just because we started turning over cars, raising hell, and busting heads?
Most people can't afford to become martyrs.
God Bless the Code Pink ladies. I just hope they don't end up like John Brown or even Rev. Yearwood, whom I can't say I'm enthusiastic about putting himself in harm's way.
If people would just vote for the right people, we could make things right w/o any bloodshed or chaos.
Ron Paul says some good things, but I still wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him.
Kuchinich is getting my vote.
To those at the end of the trail, Kucinich also wants to pull us out of the UN. Nafta as well. I'm not trying to change your opinion......or am I? Peace to you and yours.
Arry -
How low has our "education" sunk ? !
"God bless" ing anything is a condemnation of real thought.
If we don't stand up to the military-industrial-complex, and stop buying and reading the NYT, LA Times, Chicago, etc. etc., and start printing our own papers (the Paines Times ?), either online or in real print... or both...
What is drastically misunderstood is that, if we don't get out on the streets, they won't "see" us. Nothing new under the sun since the Yippy revolution... so, they don't know to look on the internet... they can conveniently avoid acknowledgement !!! And thereby deny it in the major news (print or video).
"What we don't acknowledge doesn't exist" - ooops, that's me quoting myself... through observation.
iwarrior -- The first order of concern for any plutocracy or any other authoritarian state is that the people think they have some power and are "part of the system". In our case, national elections have to look like they have some meaning. But can't you see the way it always shapes up?
The whole process is to hire a spokesperson for the military-industrial-corporate-complex and make it look like the people have a choice. It is accomplished through massive amounts of money given to the best "job applicants" for marketing, usually involving being a "voice of authority" and saying very little and only that which can be safely be enclosed, now or later, within the corporate agenda.
If people voted their views, Kucinich might actually win the nomination, but things are arranged differently, and part of it has to do with fear of rocking the boat. Fear that the edifice will come tumbling down. That's what they always hold over our heads. So, we go for the easy person, the person with few sharp edges to puncture the nice enclosed corporate womb in which we spend most of our lives. (The lie is that it is beneficent and has something to do with democracy.)
You can be sure that the corporate establishment would pull out all of the stops if there was actually a chance of Kucinich being elected.
Anyway, I don't consider it to be self-righteous to vigorously and passionately oppose living under a gang of corporate thugs and to honor with my life the principles of our republic. What's our nation worth? Maybe that's a question that should be asked.
marclarby -- True. The internet is kind of a "free speech zone".
LOL, this is great. I have my own opinions on the subject, but like 90-95% of the articles I read here (almost all of them) I'll keep them to myself for now... (okay, so maybe I post a little more often than that, but I have been going through a bit of a shy/quiet spell lately)
What I -WOULD- like to point out is the title of the article in light of the thread we have going on here. I'd say that the article served it's titular purpose quite well, the mob gathered here has indeed been 'unruly'.
This is both excellent and disturbing. Excellent in it's passion and it's wide array of views being presented, that is to say, both a spark and some fuel. The disturbing part is not that there is dissent here, the disturbing part is that not too many of you seem to be willing to take each other seriously enough to stop and listen to some well reasoned points.
If you stopped being so pissed and get a little CURIOUS you'll find interesting things happening. Sometimes you find out some info that changes your mind, sometimes you'll end up twice as pissed, either way you usually learn something that will make you a better person or at least make your arguments hit a little harder with the fresh facts...
After that thought, I've decided to give you my opinion on the current discussion after all.
I used to be one of the pro-libertarian people. I really liked the idea of the state staying out of things and letting me run my own life. Then I thought about roads. I realized that I probably wouldn't have made it past my 2nd year of life if it hadn't been for my Medicade paying for the hospital stay and medical care I needed at that time. I realized that public utilities were nice...
Then I realized that libertarianism, if you just stop and think about what will REALLY happen instead of focusing on the joy of the relief of government inspired pressures. We've seen what happens when big business is allowed to regulate itself, haven't we? Doesn't every corporate scandal that screws us (us as in the poor and middle class) over come on the heels of deregulation? Don't things get a little better for a while while someone who represents the people (at least nominally, and I'm referring to the government of course) makes sure they aren't just up and up ABUSING us. (I know, it's not as great as I'm making it sound, but it's more than NOTHING, which is what I'm comparing it to)
You say the 'invisible hand' of the market will do that? I thought so too, until I got a little better at math. You see, I don't believe that Adam Smith conjured up any invisible hand, but I do believe in the invisible hand of mathematics (there's more evidence for it) and the math behind the free market utopia is assumptive, demonstrably inaccurate, and fantastically utopian. It actually requires people in the position to live in luxury beyond our dreams to actively support society because they are smart enough to realize that they NEED us to be at least 'okay' in order to grease the wheels of the system that feeds them. That would seem to make sense too, until you pick up a newspaper and quickly realize that it just doesn't work like that. The rich are always trying to pay less and less, libertarianism requires them to VOLUNTARILY give more and more. Not today chummer, it's not happening.
Face it, if you simply passed the hat to pay for a 20 million dollar bridge replacement (or that much for simple REPAIRS on a large bridge, but for now I'm just talking about your average over-the-city-river bridge in small town USA), how often do you think the hat would fill up BEFORE the bridge actually collapsed?
Some of you anarchists (the ones I make friends with) have a vision in your head of how anarchy COULD work, and it's beautiful. It's also extremely-low probability. Sure, you can grow your pot without worry, you can live with the person you love without some bureaucrat telling you that it's unacceptable, but those things are possible in a socialistic democracy too (re: Netherlands). What you keep forgetting is that big business will be more than happy to step into the authoritarian role. Oh they MIGHT (that's an important word, and needs to be meditated upon in this context for true understanding) not send the dogs, truncheons and rubber bullets chasing after you, but they most certainly WILL cut you off of supplies of food, water, shelter, heat... You can grow food or hunt you say? Oh whose land? Your land? The bank doesn't own a piece of it does it? You wouldn't be too upset if it was taken in a 'merger' in the form of a 'hostile takeover' would you? If it did upset you, to whom would you take your grievance? Think it through, they have the resources, the land, the manufacturing equipment, and they need far fewer of us as 'surfs' thanks to modern manufacturing techniques. You want to deride me for using the mythical 'they'? Well, 'they' have meetings all the time, 'they' know that they are of a kind, and look after each other (yes, there is dirty backstabbing, but any thieves guild has that), 'they' know each other, if not by face then by reputation, they know who belongs and who doesn't... But calling them 'they' is foolish and conspiratorial, no? makes me seem crazy. Anyways, onward...
And as for Ron Paul specifically he's a libertarian (with everything I discussed above wrapped up into a neat little package) and he's a racist. Oh, he apologized for that? (to paraphrase) - 'I'm sorry you took my comments so strongly, but I'm not a racist just because I told the truth about almost all black people being criminals' is not an apology to me. Even if he DID apologize, I'm not the type to magically like someone because they came down off their high horse long enough to toss out 'sorry' quietly and grudgingly at the lowly likes of myself and my class.
Woo, that turned into a lot more than I meant it to.
EMILIEHAMILTON
you could be right. perhaps it would have more effect if everyone were to sing the 'beatles' song: ALL WE ARE SAYING, IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE.'
over and over and over and over...................................
I'm somewhat confused by all the attacks on the so called "nasty libertarians" by many of the posters here, and not just in this recent thread but in many previous ones. I have no party affiliation and am a political novice of sorts, but I don't understand the vitriol toward those who, according to Websters definition of libertarian, "...advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state".
I realize that that definition may be an over simplification but most "libertarians" I know are like most "progressives" I know, very compassionate, and caring people who have a deep concern for the preservation of individual rights, like free speech, the right to free assembly and association, the right to freely practice their beliefs (and non beliefs), etc. They advocate non intervention in most foreign matters with a very limited role in government in general. Though they advocate a free market economy most are not corporatists, they are small business and individually oriented and would dismantle the bloated corporate state welfare system.
While we bicker over personal political preferences our so called "government" has been hijacked has it not? Do you really believe voting is going to change things? While we may wait in hopeful anticipation for the next election, the forest around us is on fire threatening our homes, our livelihoods, and our "freedoms".
George says "they hate us for our freedom". So what's his solution? Take them away from us while he goes on some blundering messianic quest for... what? oil? rapturous eternal salvation? revenge? proof he's tougher than daddy? What the hell is he doing?
So back to the article above "Wanted Unruly Activists". Good for Code Pink, they are doing what they deem essential for them. We are not all "code pinkers", but we are "progressives", "libertarians", "union workers", "leftist intellectuals", "anarchists", "confused bystanders", "outraged democrats" and "betrayed republicans". Each need to find the "activism" appropriate for themselves but it needs to go beyond the "comfort zone" if it's going to have any impact. We need to get creative and recognize our common enemy, Bush and company, and support each others efforts to rid ourselves of this dictator and bring him and his co-conspirators to trial for crimes against humanity.
In response to coco..
I really do believe if we sang GIVE PEACE
A CHANCE as the primary chant - a chant
without religious overtones - we would
attract other people - people who agree
with ending the war but would not join
the more militant activist vigils and
marches. Someone from 'home' up in MA
mentioned to me yesterday how he remembers the vigils and marches of years ago when
more 'common' people were willing to come
out for vigils and marches - ones that
truly advocated for peace. So yes - if
organizers of these marches would consider
chanting ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE I believe more people would come
out to join the demonstrations.
"Anglo-Saxon inhibitions"
what the fuck does that mean?
Clue:
http://www.cix.co.uk/~morven/libertarian.html
Irony heh, that the response to a putdown would be criticism of a putdown?
See the game? If someone makes derogatory remarks about Code Pink--that is okay, but if someone attacks those who criticize Code Pink, then that is the problem.
Ever notice the Right allows themselves license to attack freely, but silences dissent?
"Anglo-Saxon inhibitions"
The WASP ruling class and their puritan imposed stifling rigidity.
emiliehamilton: I am in no way being derisive of you or the song you suggest, but you made me think of something...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IfhUaUuG1sM
Again, I'm not being derisive by posting this, in fact I think it demonstrates how fearful of peace the fascists are.
Beware the Lame Duck
The Nation Editorial
"Relief over Bush's last days should not blind us to this central fact: For the next sixteen months, his Administration is the executive branch. It still runs the occupation of Iraq, approves or vetoes laws and budgets, makes political and judicial appointments, issues federal regulations, negotiates treaties and trade agreements and controls a swollen network of surveillance and law enforcement agencies. Indeed, thanks to the implementation of the "unitary executive" theory and the unprecedented use of signing statements, Bush may be the most powerful and dangerous President in history."
America is locked into a corrupt economic and political system made corrupt by a sociopathic ruling class and elected lawmakers dedicated to continuing the corruption forever. Our representatives have immunized themselves from law by passing laws that legalize criminality. For instance, campaign contributions are nothing but legalized bribery. In another instance, the Supreme Court gave corporations rights equal to and in many cases superior to human rights. Corporations are a sham device owned by wealthy people who gave themselves unlimited rights and no social responsibilities. All along, the intent was to oppress, exploit and rob the American people.
We the people can't reform or change the system by voting because our representatives in both political parties have subverted the laws and constitution by making it virtually impossible for us to establish new political parties to reform or change the system. Remember, their primary goal is to protect and perpetuate corruption and the system, because corruption is the source of their wealth and power. And truth be told, not enough Americans know or care enough to even vote, much less reform or change the system.
Don't worry though, the system is self-destructing anyway. With a little luck, some of us might even survive when the plutocrat's Mammonistic Empire crashes and burns.
.
trails_end: Well, I looked in the congressional record, and the only bill comparable to what you said is the I only found the Child Medication Safety Act of 2007. Please find the name of the bill you are referring to (Library of Congress)- it might help change my opinion on Kucinich. Otherwise, I will just think you are confused.
The "telling people what to think" reference was to MSM's deliverance of him and others… like Mr. Paul :)
And again about labels, they only weaken one's argument (if you have one). The important thing is to show that people think for yourself.
It's seems that I'm picking on you- but the other posts here I either agree with them or find them boring… so on to free trade- we must always be allowed to do business, but the needs of the community must always come first. How about a little honor in our laws. I will still listen to Ron Paul only because he sounds different from most all other candidates- like he actually listens to many and thinks for himself.
On the UN- I always held out hope for this organization. And it has been a good platform for institutions, nations, scientists, and philanthropists from all over the world to come together and move forward… but I fear One World Government and how the UN may fit in. Until the rest of the world can use the UN to gain enough leverage to stop the US (or China, Russia etc) when it's govt does something harmful to the world, the UN will not be the platform we expect it to be. Building a consensus among billions of people is impossibly difficult- but we must work towards some useful platform.
On Wal-Mart (iwarrior & Future.me) is there not a difference between civil disobedience and moral-value shopping? Everyone here needs to take a long look at their spending habits. There are always ways to shop healthier and local- and yes it can be more expensive. But what about your priorities and moral values? I've been broke and homeless- I've made it through because I am completely honest with my priorities (It is possible to eat healthier and less and spend the same as your $1 menu diet.) And because I worked it through with friends and family and kind strangers. Yes its extremely hard to go it alone- especially with kids in tow- which is why you need a strong community (which, by the way, is not Wal-Mart). And fighting a cop is not civil disobedience.
Marclarby: yes start your own paper- amazing what you can do with computers and printers these days. Everyone ask themselves- How many people can I speak to? How many can they speak to? That's your base readership.
On Kucinich- I hear repeatedly that "if people vote their values and views, then Kucinich would win. But, he has no chance." Call me an optimist, but that seems totally contradictory. The more people you get to think for themselves and question all they see and hear will Kucinich closer to winning. Just stop for a moment…. Breathe…. Be FOR something.
Rebelnow: I also find many precepts of Libertarianism appealing, and I would love to see a compromise with other points of view. Again- free market is vital to the function of the community, but at the same time it can't trump the inalienable rights of people or the overall welfare of the community. Otherwise, Self Rule fades away. Consensus and Compromise People!
Vern: people are attacked when they criticize unrighteously. It's the "those activists suck, but I'm just an armchair general" attacks that we shouldn't allow. It's about backing up your argument, or else you'll be viewed as a hack and treated as such.
AND THANK YOU NEOMUNK! Unruly mob indeed! And I am curious, always. I want to hear what others think in order to appreciate others and to improve my own beliefs. From your post- I had only listened to Ron Paul speak, haven't done any in-depth research on him, so I think I will. Has anyone ever tried free-market socialism? The government not providing services but corporations owned by unions or communities- is there even such a thing?
I do apologize for tell one to stay on topic and then going off myself- that is bad form. So, my best attempt to turn mine around-
Which candidate would most likely listen to protesters? In what order?
Which would most like listen to them as President?
How would you get the UN to listen to you, so it would be more effective to your needs?
What corporation would respond to protest and how?
Which person in this thread responds the best/worst to criticism and question?
And I DO BELIEVE IN VOTING! First, consider the alternative of not voting. Yes, we need action of all sorts- and more people need to be involved more of the time—that is the safegaurd of democracy. Vote damn it!
The invasion of Iraq is most often referred to as "war" when nothing could be further from the truth, it was and still is nothing more than armed robbery with extreme violence. The Iraq nation was subjected to sanctions, a no fly zone over most of their country and bombing before the final act of aggression. That war council called UNSC couldn't possibly be called by a greater misnomer than that. How can an organisation which is supposed to keep world secure sanction the marauding mobs which hurtled towards Iraq with the resulting death and destruction in their wake.
How can a nation believe 19 incompetent arabs hijacked 4 aircraft and flew them around the most heavily armed country the world has ever known and then not call for the incompetent who allowed it to happen to go.
The reason of course is because the people fear for their families, their livelihood and their very existence.
Years of brainwashing the American public with " history " of the superiority of the USA over all others and the claim it's a democracy when in fact it's nothing more than an autocracy. Yes almost every citizen has a vote but who do the people they vote for represent, they represent the people who gave them the money to run.
Not until the full spectrum of political thought is represented can the USA call itself a democracy.
"I'm somewhat confused by all the attacks on the so called "nasty libertarians" by many of the posters here, and not just in this recent thread but in many previous ones. I have no party affiliation and am a political novice of sorts, but I don't understand the vitriol toward those who, according to Websters definition of libertarian, "…advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state"."
Libertarians are Social Darwinists who believe that the wealthy are wealthy because they earned it & that all the people's attempts to redresses social iniquities & inequities through law or state mechanisms -- the only mechanisms which can limit the power of corporations -- are destructive of the wealth-creators, i.e., them. And those who don't achieve wealth, or enough to satisfy themsel;ves, are just lazy. For example, all the victims in New Orleans & the Gulf Coast don't deserve to be helped because "they chose to live there." People who can't afford health insurance could pay for it if they made an effort, but they're lazy or stupid. & want the non-lazy people -- i.e., libertarians -- to pay for it.
Libertarians are parasites who look past all the structure built by unpaid labor and maintained by tax-breaks given to economic exploiters, and they imagine that they could do all that better if only the state would stop oppressing them.
EMILIEHAMILTON
oh well, it was a thought. i watched the video neomunk posted. i don't know what that was about or when but there didn't seem to be a lot of people. and they didn't appear to be unruly. so i don't know what's the solution or best course of action. maybe the police are programmed to respond to certain tunes/lyrics. good luck all of you.