Why I refuse to attend Anti-War rallies

A.N.S.W.E.R.

I need no other reason to refuse to attend these organized rallies, nor does anybody else who opposes the war.

While I stand with the vast majority of those who attend these things in spirit, I cannot in good conscience tie myself to that organization.

I cannot see how having hundreds of different causes (some very fringe) helps get the message of pulling out of Iraq out.

"Alison Sterling Nichols, a Westhaven paralegal who recently traveled to Crawford, Tex. to be with Cindy Sheehan, said she had a confession to make.

Last year, she said she neglected to attend the Eureka peace rally because she was convinced at the time that her actions would not be heard by the Bush Administration.

”This administration doesn’t listen and they made me feel like my opinion doesn’t matter,” she said. “Never again am I going to let someone make me passive because they’re not going to listen.”

Cindy Sheehan knew they weren’t going to listen, Nichols said. She knew that but spoke up anyway.

In Eureka, Alexander Cockburn, a columnist for The Nation, said stopping the war will take “a force throughout society,” like with the Vietnam War.

”It’s not going to be easy,” he said.

(Above from the Humboldt County, CA anti-war protests yesterday. Where National Green Party presidential nominee, David Cobb, who also lives in Eureka, (Humboldt County) spoke to the crowd about how very important it is to continue attending these protests and about our frighten, do nothing, democrats, and Kerry in particular).

http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_3060976

The Answer folks make the anti-war movement, which is now supported by the majority of Americans, seem like a bunch of fringe nutballs.

The Answer folks make the anti-war movement, which is now supported by the majority of Americans, seem like a bunch of fringe nutballs.

but A.N.S.W.E.R. dilutes the message with fringe crap like Free Mumia, thus destroying the movement and the message.

and I understand you have you own principles (your not the only one repulsed by hardcore communist hypocrisy) but you should still try to go. Once you are in the crowd marching it becomes different and feels like a more spontaneous event. When the march came in front of the White House it was a purely anti-bush message, people giving Bush the finger and screaming slogans like Fuck Bush, Impeach Bush, Jail the Chief, etc. Very focused on the man and his admin and not much else. There are a few morons who pass by with a Che guevarra flag or banner every once in a while but it is mostly middle of the road and focused on Bush.

"Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga!

I need no other reason to refuse to vote Democrat, nor does anybody else who opposes the war.

While I stand with the vast majority of those who vote Democrat, I cannot in good conscience tie myself to that Democratic representative from Georgia.

I cannot see how having hundreds of different representatives (some very fringe) helps get the message of pulling out of Iraq out."

I love Cynthia McKinney. You probably don't. But it doesn't do either of us any good to have people withdraw simply because some of the other people within the party hold different views that they consider radical.

I hear you say, "we shouldn't be associated with those fringe elements." But tell me, how did your staying away protect us from being associated with those "fringe" elements? To the contrary, if more middle-of-the-road types weren't afraid to show up, they would dilute the presence of what you deride as "fringe" elements. So your decision not to show up had a small net affect that is in the opposite direction of your stated goal.

Let me give you an insight from the "fringe," if I may.

Here and on your blog, you often champion views that you perceive as more moderate than the ideas you label as "fringe" ideas. You are a persuasive advocate, and you have probably come to expect a lot of people to agree with you. Sometimes, in this thread, you seem to hold those people who disagree with you in some disdain.

Well, my views aren't so moderate. As a result, I haven't developed any strong expectation that lots of people are going to agree with me, and consequently I really cannot hold people who disagree with me in great disdain if their views aren't mean-spirited or patently ridiculous (otherwise, I'd be holding an awful lot of people in disdain).

It is unfortunate that they are the ones that received all the coverage from CSPAN. I think they were probably even the minority when you count up who all else was there. I'm more pissed at CSPAN and, as usual, MSM, for the lack of coverage of the protest in the street, and in particular, CSPAN, for staying at that ANSWER thingy.

But maybe they just have an in with CSPAN. Isn't one of ANSWER's top guys and old Clinton or otherwise Democrat from that era (I can't recall, but I thought one of them worked in the Clinton Admin or something)?

According to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4873884&mesg_id=4874142

United for Peace and Justice might feel the same way. I still think it's more on CSPAN than ANSWER.

...

But I might be wrong.

A thorough-going reading seems to show that Stalinists, Marxist-Leninists and Maoists are also involved. But then again, just about everyone else is too.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php

http://www.answers.com/topic/workers-world-party-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSWER

http://www.workers.org /

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party

If A.N.S.W.E.R. had not been the organizers, you probably would have had a real MSM presence.

So long as they are organized and funded by A.N.S.W.E.R., you might as well kiss off anything remotely resembling MSM coverage.

elements? Seems to me like the MSM like the controversial elements.

To make all of us look like loonies and like we have our own hidden agenda when I'd say majority of the people there were to end the war.

likes to show all of the "fringes' and claims they're only providing balance.

Why can't we just show the average people in America who are against this war? Last I heard, we're the majority. You don't have to go that far out there to find us.

JMCPO.

That's the whole purpose of it!

No side issues should have been pushed.

The last A.N.S.W.E.R. rally I attended, you should have seen the puzzled looks on the faces of average people who were attending just to protest the war, but got bombarded with a million different obscure messages.

It was even worse when they tried to get chants started for said causes.

Me and mrs were gonna go for the DU meet-ups, but when I heard they were even kicked out of camp casey....

if A.N.S.W.E.R. wer left out completely. In fact, I'd do my damndest to help get others there if it was made obvious to A.N.S.W.E.R. that they were not welcome in no uncertain terms.

Then maybe we can have an antiwar rally that might actually *change* things. ANSWER just makes us look like a bunch of nutcases, & they dilute our message. Let some other group run things.

Tammy

we need air america, global exchange, working for change, common cause, and other good groups to do one with credibility

Thats all CSPAN continued to show, the endless yakking on a stage with an empty field. Don't people know enough to shut up. I am afraid your losing people because you allow the shotgun scatter blast of things not presently related to the purpose of the march. It seemed like an endless parade of individuals that have various other agendas. Its very disappointing to see them take over and rant about entirely different issues than the task at hand. Now you know why some people think Liberals wear tin-foil hats. That is what will be played up by the Repugs.

Where were the main stream Democratic Liberal Progressive people? Well, frankly they mostly likely refuse to get caught up in other agendas. They stay away. Your not going to attract even some of our stronger politicians (those w/back bone)if there they have to justify associating with some of the endless parade of fringe or very fringe groups.

I think the question we all need to ask, is are we hurting ourselves more by having so many side issues attached to ending this war.

and with good reason. The instant they attend they are branded as supporting every last nutball cause that is also on the stage.

In fact, I admire the leaders more for having the good sense to NOT attend the thing.

Just imagine how many would showup if it WAS NOT linked or organized by ANSWER. There are plenty that do not support the war but refuse to associate with the extreme.

most of them would have to reveal themselves as flip-floppers. Most of our congress greenlighted the war. It wasn't ANSWER. They dilute the message to get people who attend more aware of other issues and because they just might get one of those little-known issues on camera. The little press the march did get was solely focused on the war.

As far as the media's reaction, they don't want to cover it b/c they have a hurricane to cover (sarcasm) and they think people have heard enough about the war. It's water under the bridge, you libbie complainers. It's not b/c ANSWER. Give them credit for doing what no one else seems to be able to do these days.

fact is Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Bayh, Lieberman all pro-war, and the rest of the big-name Democrats you would not want in a foxhole with you.

That's probably why they didn't come. I was at first pissed off that not even John Kerry was going to be there but I guess this is why.

If you don't like their demos, organize your own.

Sitting in your living room bitching doesn't help anything.

no other organization is doing more to destroy the anti-war movement than ANSWER.

Why does the Democratic party SUCK and why do the Republicans control the government?

Because the Republicans speak with ONE VOICE. They aren't splintered like we are.

Yes we are a HUGE tent, but we need to speak with ONE VOICE. And what that ONE VOICE should be saying right now is GET OUT OF IRAQ. The country is ready for that message and we are blowing our opportunity.

Let's face it, Rove isn't such a genius, he just knows his opponent very well. He knows that his opponent can't even get their shit together about HOW to protest, let alone protest at all!

I do not blame high level Dems for not attending ANYTHING that ANSWER sponsors.

They're freakin' Commies and Socialists, for God's sake! Don't you guys get it? That is what the Right accuses us of EVERY DAY.

I'm sorry if this offends some people, but ANSWER plays right into Rove, Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage etc. hands!

They can actually tell the truth when they call the Anti-war protesters "COMMUNIST SOCIALIST pigs that hate America." Heck, they do that anyway, but why give them the documented PROOF they need? And why would any Democrat go anywhere near a protest that features Socialist and Communist speakers? The right-wing noise machine has honed the Left wing socialist/communist message for decades, do you actually think Democratic candidates should get caught up in that?

It plays into the hands of the GOP and when that happens, they win

And you're saying they are destroying the anti-war movement? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

That is hitting the nail right on the head. If you aren't at least trying to do something about the problem you become part of the problem not the solution.

You know I for one have had it with mainstream Dems. They have done nothing absolutely nothing but appease the monsters that are in power now. Frankly imho there needs to be a wholesale housecleaning of mainstream Dems. Those are the Dems that refused to stand up for Clinton, they ratified the war powers for Bush when they knew Iraq posed no threat to the US, they knew there was no connection with Hussein to Bin Laden. They passed the Patriot Act without so much as even trying to get the vote delayed by a day or two so they could at least read part of it. I'm so sick of mainstream Democrats pandering themselves off to GOP policies that its no wonder this country is in the condition its in. Screw the DNC... Look at Brazile's last performance in the Post regarding Katrina when her family was a victim of the criminal negligence of the Bush administration's complete lack of response.

I don't particularly care for ANSWER but at least they are trying to do something about a completely immoral war that is really nothing more than the Bush crime family's vendetta against Hussein and taking over control of Iraq's oil supply. In some ways Bush was right when he said you are either with him or against him. He drew the line in the sand and if the Dems refuse to line up against him then they must be for him and the polices that will ultimately lead to the demise of everything we as Americans hold dear, as we are watching happen each and every day that man is in power.

Europe kept appeasing Hitler and look what that led to.

because the only thing you can replace a mainstream Dem with is a frothing at the mouth Bushevik Republican.

That's how politics works in this country.

So you will actually be doing more to damage the country than the Republicans!

I would have thought that Nader's run in 2000 would have taught you that.

Brush up on your philosophical reasoning. The Bushevicks are pushing an idealistic message so you need to fight fire with fire. Question is which idealistic point do you really want, a conservative one or one that is liberal and progressive.

and ignoring political reality.

Bush and company have been using political idealism to achieve their political goals. You fight fire with fire.

The Busheviks played to Joe Barcalounger and Joe ate it up, thus the Busheviks win.

Joe Barcalounger is an idealist...He actually believe the crap that he too can be among the Fortune 400 richest people if he just keeps voting GOP.

Political "idealism" is only one of the GOP's many tools which they use very well. The Democrats use it too but not as well as the GOP. The GOP is much better at marketing and getting its points across. Look at the whole Swiftboat thing; they played the lies and innuendo brilliantly.

But to your other point about the mainstream Democrats, I suggest we stick with them. Tom Daschle was sometimes villified on these boards as being too centrist, too cooperative with the GOP, etc. Well, if your state has a lot of people who are Republican and they can vote you out somwhat easily , you better try to please them too. The political realities are there whether you like it or not and it is called the voter constituency. I wish I had a dime for every time I see someone on DU say they aren't going to support a Democrat anymore because he /she voted against left wing Democrat points. By not supporting Daschle, look who got in. A right wing Republican. See how smart we are by not supporting mainstream Democrats? Boy, that was really a smart move not supporting him; we showed Daschle a thing or two. And if we keep staying smart like this, not supporting mainstream Democrats like Daschle, we can lose 2006 and 2008. We can show everyone how fucking smart we are. We will keep biting off our nose to spite our face. And the Republicans will be laughing their heads off.

The appeasement by Democrats is something that will historically fail. Will is something that must be used and the mainstream democrats have no more will than their GOP counterparts. In fact you watch the GOP will use the very idealism to con the American people once more and keep the body politic divided. Daschle was voted precisely because he showed he had no guts to stand up to the status quo that has been handed to middle class and poor by the GOP. Until the Dems stand up and start opposing this crime syndicate that is running the US these days we will continue to get the same treatment we have been. I've voted a straight democratic ticket my entire life and what do I have for it? NOTHING!!!!! What do my fellow Americans have for it??? NOTHING!!!! YOu fail to see the fact that most politicians whether Dem or GOP sell their votes to the corporate lobbyist that pays the most. So it really make no difference which lemming you vote for. That is the real deal. Yes things were a bit better under Clinton for Americans but he could have done so much more. But then why do you think JFK and RFK were both murdered??? That was the warning to any and all Democrats who dared to defy the fascists that have since completely taken over the nation. This problem we are having just didn't spring up in 2000 or start with GWB. It's been going on now for a little over 40 years. These criminals don't just have a five or ten year plan, they have a 100 year plan hence the title PNAC. Get it?

i guess if they organize it, they can do what they want. but maybe next time they should call it what it is...a potpourri protest.

Say what you want about ANSWER, they had the initiative to plan this thing out. They planned it, they did the work, they did it. Maybe they're pure evil like some think, maybe their multi-issue approach is a horrible tactical disaster. But they did the work.

Someone sitting on their behind, seeing a protest coming up, not liking something about them and then deciding to continue sitting on their behind - well what does that hold for the future? I think it's a fairly obvious progression, a year from now the same scenario will play out - ANSWER will still "run" the anti-war demonstrations, and people sitting around and doing nothing will once again see a demonstration coming up, see it is ANSWER, and do nothing once again.

The way to get ANSWER out of the picture is to work with other people who want to organize an anti-war demonstration, probably in a democratic, grassroots manner, and probably that is primarily focused on the war in Iraq, with other issues not coming into it so much. The two things preventing this is ANSWER types are hard workers, and people who complain about ANSWER just like to complain and are lazy. Another thing is that organizations like UFPJ have a lot of DLC and DINOs people who have a lot of sway over UFPJ, and who only think about Democrats winning the next election, and what effect a demonstration would have to help or hinder this. ANSWER is neither lazy, nor entirely focused on the next election, which is why they are so successful. I have problems with ANSWER, but there's only one way such a group got so prominent in organizing these demonstrations - massive laziness and wishy-washiness among everyone else.

Why can we not seem to organize antiwar protests of national significance without involving A.N.S.W.E.R.?

Their presence hands easy ammo to pro-war types. They stand for a lot of things we don't. Can't we just put the A.N.S.W.E.R. crack pipe down?

Peace.

so I think it ends up playing right into the hands of the GOP controlled media and the GOP.

Does that mean we should have a mainstream Democratic president, who is basically a DINO?

If most Americans aren't "liberals" we're not going to see a liberal prez. Gotta face facts.

What a BULLSHIT POMPOUS-ASS generalization. How many elections you planning on winning with the coastal liberal enclave states, hmm? How you planning on electing this superleftist president, since you think everyone who lives between the two coasts is a mouthbreathing moron?

There are plenty of people who are believers in liberal ideals in good old rural middle America. They believe in fair wages, Social Security, and good governance; they believe in the goodness of America, respect for our traditions, and they don't like authoritarian government - which is what the Bush govt. is. But you know what they also don't like? Fringe extremists. The "free Mumia" and pro-Palestine crowd. In short, lunatics like ANSWER. I can't blame them - I hate extremists of all stripes. And you know, rejecting ANSWER and its bullshit demagoguery doesn't make someone a DINO, since ANSWER far from affiliates itself with the Democratic party. Since when did NOT being a raving far leftist make one a DINO?

And if the Democrats are going to win the next few elections, we have to appeal to the people delineated in your last paragraph. The problems mentioned in "What's the Matter with Kansas" and other similar books are still so much with us. Some of what I would call the "natural base" of the Democrats have gone over to the pugs and it disturbs me so much I can barely (talk) write about it. By the way I am a fellow mouth breathing Illinoisan (bwaha) and hi!

:hi:

Oh God, I know... we absolutely need to reclaim the middle class/blue collar/populist segment of the population. They voted Dem once, and will do so again. The RW seduced them with social populism... making them feel as if only Republicans shared their values. It's a bald-faced lie, and the sooner we defuse it (which, incidentally, is NOT by insulting the intelligence of all Middle Americans), the sooner they will come back to the flock.

Ahh, but what do I know? I'm just an idjit country girl. And what's worse, I'm from downstate IL. My house is surrounded by cornfields! Why, it's a wonder I can even READ!

:eyes:

organize a mobilization and at least keep the platform speakers on message . . .

and make it ONLY about the Iraq war.

those guys are completely on the fringe, going to their site is "answer" enough...

it's the same kind of guys that were kicked out French anti-war rallies 2003 because they had posters with the picture of Saddam...

and they aren't run by A.N.S.W.E.R. So, if you attended your local rallies...I wouldn't worry so much about them. :shrug:

Light a candle in your window. Whatever we do will ONE DAY SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE...Make a Difference...with or without A.N.S.W.E.R.

they definitely stole some wind from from our sail, not denying there are many valid injustices to be addressed, but stealing the wind from one ship and dividing it up can even bring all the causes to a slow crawl.

Pity CSPAN did not carry that--channel 9 in DC ran a live feed, and the quality was superb...

none of the messages resonate.

Thousands protest against Iraq war in US

More than 100,000 protesters flooded Washington for dual demonstrations against the US-led war in Iraq and economic globalisation, before coming together to demand that US President George W Bush bring troops home.

Thousands marched in London as well, and protests were planned in San Francisco and Los Angeles that called for an end to military action in Iraq nearly 30 months after an invasion ousted Saddam Hussein.

"We need a people's movement to end this war," said Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war protester whose son was killed in fighting in Iraq. She camped out in Crawford, Texas, during much of August while Bush was holidaying there, and Sheehan's rallies drew crowds that sometimes numbered in the hundreds as she demanded a meeting with Bush.

Bush, who met Sheehan in 2004 after her son was killed, refused to meet her again.

"We'll be the checks and balances on this out-of-control criminal government," Sheehan, who has become the anti-war movement's best-known face, told the group gathered at the Ellipse, a park behind the White House.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Thousands-protest-against-Iraq-war-in-US/2005/09/25/1127586732923.html

because they are intertwined like everything else in life.

:eyes:

The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal: An Innocent Man on Death Row

EVIDENCE IGNORED! 22 YEARS STOLEN!

Who is Mumia Abu-Jamal?
Mumia Abu-Jamal is a renowned journalist from Philadelphia who has been in prison since 1981 and on death row since 1983 for allegedly shooting Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. He is known as the “Voice of the Voiceless” for his award- winning reporting on police brutality and other social and racial epidemics that plague communities of color in Philadelphia and throughout the world. Mumia has received international support over the years in his efforts to overturn his unjust conviction.

Mumia Abu-Jamal was serving as the President of the Association of Black Journalists at the time of his arrest. He was a founding member of the Philadelphia Chapter of the Black Panther Party as a teenager. Years later he began reporting professionally on radio stations such as NPR, and was the news director of Philadelphia station WHAT. Much of his journalism called attention to the blatant injustice and brutality he watched happen on a daily basis to MOVE, a revolutionary organization that works to protect all forms of life--human, animal, plant--and the Earth as a whole.

snip--

http://www.mumia.org/freedom.now/

and is RIGHT THE FUCK WHERE HE BELONGS!

And that's all I have to say about that cop killing fuckhead.

I am just talking to you and you are going off the wall yelling at me.
:wtf: Guess, you are the only one who could be right about it huh?

Does it make you feel good to denigrate him by using that name?
how strange!~

I don't think Wesley Cook is innocent. In fact, I'm damned positive he's guilty of cop killing and I support the death penalty, especially for cop killers.

about how you are attacking..
Death penalty is barbaric, most of the World knows this already.

You can't just change your name and make your crimes go away.

And the SCOTUS does not agree with you about the DP. The DP is the law in most states and if you want to alter that, you need to convince people like me. Trying to convince me that the DP is wrong does not start with trying to get a cop killer out of prison.

anyhow? and why do you think it is just fine to yell at?

Ever heard of new evidence?
Ever heard of being murdered by the State and then being proven innocent?


New Witnesses
In 2001, court stenographer Terri Maurer-Carter came forward and stated that in 1982, before Mumia’s trial began, she heard Judge Sabo say, “Yeah, and I’m going to help them fry the n****r.” He was referring to Mumia. This backs up evidence of judicial bias and racism in Mumia’s case. In the same year, esteemed Philadelphia journalist Linn Washington stated that on the morning of December 9th, 1981, he went to the scene to report on it--and no police were present. This backs up prior claims that police didn’t handle the crime scene properly.

The Confession
In 1999, Arnold Beverly confessed to killing Officer Faulkner. This confession is validated by a lie detector test administered by eminent polygraph expert Charles Honts. Despite concrete evidence supporting this confession, the Philadelphia District Attorney has refused to investigate, and the courts have not even allowed it to be heard. The injustice continues . . .
snip---

http://www.afrikan.i-dentity.com/freedom.now/

you only affirm my position on the DP.

of changing your mind in the first place.
Like I said ever heard of new evidence.. guess not

Cook is a murderer and deserves to be put to death.

End of story.

No one deserves to be put to death.
It is not the end of story fortunately you don't get to decide that.

And Wesley Cook has a date with the executioner.

:puke:

I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've run for office as a Democrat. I've supported Democrats with donations.

I am opposed to the Iraq War. I oppose tax cuts for the rich at the expense of social programs for the poor. I support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I support the NEA. I support spending tax dollars wisely to upgrade basic infrastructure in this country and would cut corporate welfare if I could.

I also support the Death Penalty and free ownership of firearms.

in your statement you made, is wrong.

Like it or not, that is the name he was given.

There is a difference.

I use the names given to the criminals. It stops confusion.

Wesley Cook is a cop killer and a liar. I don't give a shit if he calls himself Fockin Goofey.

what the fuck ever, Walt
There is no confusion his name is Mumia.

decency to call someone by their name.
His name is still Mumia no matter how many times you decide to denigrate him by calling him Wesley.

for propagandistic purposes to free a cop killer from justice.

The sort of name or what?
Sub-human so you can just decide to call him another name?
Really, why can't you just not call him anything if you are not calling him by the name he has taken.
That is like calling me by my maiden name, that is wrong because it is not my name any Longer!


snip--
http://www.sff.net/people/tbisson/mumia.html

"Mumia" is a murderer.

yours?
Death penalty is barbaric.

I said he belonged in jail. He is. I didn't advocate executing him in that reply or any other---nor, have I advocated that for anyone publicly ever. And, you are welcome to any cause you like. I looked into this one myself in the past and found the "innocent" claim unconvincing. I find many others far more convincing. I happen to think that this person is in the right place right now. I also happen to think that state-sponsored execution is wrong. Too many mistakes and too much "making an example" involved.

Death Row.

The Decisions
On December 18th, 2001, Judge Yohn issued a decision on the Habeas Corpus petition
in Federal District Court. He upheld Mumia’s unjust conviction, but challenged the sentencing phase (the death sentence). This means there could be a new sentencing hearing after all appeals are resolved, but the only options are life in prison with no possibility of parole or another death sentence. This is not justice. There is massive evidence of Mumia’s innocence and he should be absolutely free. Mumia’s legal team
filed an appeal of this decision in January of 2002. Mumia remains on death row until
all appeals by both sides are heard.

http://www.afrikan.i-dentity.com/freedom.now/

mumia is guilty as all hell, and the deluded fools that protest on his behalf are pitiful.

and pitiful huh?
How high are you up on that pedestal?

the truth shall set you free...and send mumia to the death chamber. :hi:

how small of you and how purely evil and vengeful, you must feel welcome with the right.

who can always be counted on to fuck-up any and every rally that our side tries to put on to address REAL issues. :hi:

message yet.. 100,000 to 300,000 in D.C. is excellent.
Get over yourself. Look out of the box for once and see we are all intertwined rather you like it or not.
peace

or network news. all people saw was the ANSWER rally on mainstream TV. Thats the problem, bad PR.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4890324&mesg_id=4890324

Like I said look out of the box, everything is tied together ...
racism, corporate corruption, the death penalty, etc...

look who is on death row mostly people of color and only poor people.

Study finds racial imbalance on death row
9/22/2005, 9:28 a.m. ET
By DAVID KRAVETS
The Associated Press


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — More condemned men and women are on California's death row for killing whites than for murdering people of any other race, despite there being more black and Hispanic murder victims, according to a new study.

The study, to be published in the Santa Clara Law Review, tallied the races of California homicide victims in the 1990s.

It concluded suspects who murdered whites were almost four times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed Hispanics, and three times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks.

"To put it bluntly, there's apparently different values being placed on victims from different racial and ethnic groups," said Northeastern University criminal justice professor Glenn Pierce, a co-author of the study. "That's what the pattern would suggest."

When it came to the race of the defendant, the study concluded race did not contribute significantly to whether prosecutors sought the death penalty or jurors recommended death.

Instead, it was the race of the victim that was paramount.

snip--
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-52/112739604251492.xml&storylist=national

Amnesty Report Finds Racial Injustice in Death Penalty - According to a new report issued by Amnesty International, race continues to play a strong role in U.S. death penalty cases. In "U.S.: Death by Discrimination - The Continuing Role of Race in Capital Cases," Amnesty states that:

Even though blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80% of people executed since the death penalty was reinstated have been executed for murders involving white victims.
More than 20% of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white juries.
The report also examines case law and international policies related to race and the death penalty.
Maryland Study Finds that Race and Geography Play Key Roles in Death Penalty - According to the findings of a Governor-commissioned
snip--
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5

http://ccadp.org/serialpresident.htm

Even voting rights tied to race and corruption of our system..
More Blacks Deprived of Vote Because of Felony Convictions
A new report by The Sentencing Project, "The Vanishing Black Electorate: Felony Disenfranchisement in Atlanta, Georgia," examines the racial effects of depriving citizens of voting rights because of criminal convictions. The report reveals sharp disparities in voting eligibility by race and neighborhood. Among the report's key findings are the following:

One out of every seven African American males in Atlanta is disenfranchised as a result of a felony conviction;
One-third of the black male disenfranchisement rate in Georgia is a result of drug offense convictions;
Black males in Atlanta are registered to vote at an 11% lower rate than other demographic groups, but more than two-thirds of this differential is a result of high rate of disenfranchisement.
The report also contains a series of recommendations for change in criminal justice policy and disenfranchisement practices that would close the racial gap in voter registration and result in greater electoral participation. ("The Vanishing Black Electorate: Felony Disenfranchisement in Atlanta, Georgia," The Sentencing Project, September 2004; Washington Post, Sept. 23, 2004) In many cases, disenfranchisement can also affect jury composition in capital cases.
snip---
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5

Poverty and the Death Penalty

Unfair to low income
people
Alabama’s criminal justice system
discriminates against low-income
people accused of a capital crime, no
matter what race they are. Unlike
most states, Alabama has no
statewide public defender system. If
a defendant cannot afford an
attorney, the court assigns one from
a pool of local lawyers. Attorneys
assigned to capital cases are
compensated at the lowest rate in
the country, a rate that is often less
than half their private practice rate.
The result of this system is that lowincome
people can receive legal
representation so poor that it allows
the conviction of innocent people.
snip--
http://www.alarise.org/Moratorium.pdf

http://www.forusa.org/fellowship/may-june_00/onewoman.html

on TV. there was little to no coverage of the march in rural america. The only PR was the ANSWER rally. Middle America will be turned off to the left if thats who the media uses to represent us, and we are right now on the cusp of winning middle america. ANSWER cannot be the face of the left on TV. Its rallies/speakers do more harm then good. I will protest locally.

Earlier on CNN the guy said United for Peace and Justice, he did not mention A.N.S.W.E.R.
Anyone who is out there can be the face and should be the face because they have enough balls to stand up to this fascism..
Protest locally is fine with me makes no never mind to me where you protest.

What is important is to stand up for justice and peace.

Who the fuck is Middle America anyhow?

Give me a break and stop trying to put everyone in a box..

Why do you insist on making your mind up for others?

who are right at this moment changing their minds about the war in Iraq..to have the only representation of the left on TV be the ANSWER speakers is a double negative for the peace movement. I work with everyday americans in rural america..they didnt even KNOW there was a march ...I just hope none of them watched C Span and saw the ANSWER speakers. Middle America and rural America are right at this moment questioning the war..the last thing we want to do is turn them off with people screaming Free Mumia on TV.

something besides their own small little world for once.

and you'll get an idea of how many saw it there.

The same thing could be said of the marches of yesteryear protesting Nam but ultimately the goal was achieved despite the many voices that were raised on differing issues. It also pays to always remember that even organizations such ANSWER are always infiltrated with undercover operatives to do precisely what is happening with this thread and divide liberals and progressives based on the issues.

is that, intended or not, mainstream readers run smack into another idealogically based argument. No matter how sincere the logic, the reasoning, the pleading, the defending, the rationales....

It all boils down to another idealogical point of view.

As an American citizen, I've had it up to here with idealogy. I'll settle for reality.

idealogy myself.

not necessary to be one or the other, and in "reality" it never is.

If you have truly had it up to here with ideology, you accept Bush's point of view and there's no argument. More likely, you have tipped the balance toward a more pragmatic viewpoint. When the scale shows you're accepting policies which result in more harm than good, though, it shifts from pragmatism to appeasement, which accomplishes nothing.

Pragmatic views are more effective with lower levels of commitment. If you're willing to spend ten years going after a goal ideology can pay off. If not it's a waste of time.

and the idealogy of the left who think everything must be in a certain way...

oh my what will the press say? how will joe-blow react?

I have had it with people appeasing this bs.
I don't pacify anyone

It's called the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, on drugs, and on the very ideal of liberty itself. Actually what the left needs is a very healty dose of idealism and believe it or not that is exactly the philosophical grounds the neocons are basing their policies on.

...the usual kooks. It definitely cause a loss of focus, and therefore of power.

as being a member of, or the chairperson of, anything with the words "anti-imperialist" or "Communist" in the organization's title, no matter how small that group might be, we've lost Old John.

When six speakers in a row take the microphone to denounce American imperialism in six different parts of the world, none of which are Iraq, we've lost Old John's neighbors, too.

Dilution isn't something to seek as a goal. Focus!

I think work a day folks see the bodies in the street and they understand these people do not like the war. The more bodies the more thought provoking. I don't think ANSWER is a good reason not to go. I will have the means to attend such events in the future thanks to the randomness of good fortune. I will be there.

and you wont get MSM play without big name politicians joining in the protest.

And you won't get big name politicians joining in the protest so long as A.N.S.W.E.R. runs the show.

Seems like a lot of DUers know about and are unimpressed by this bunch. Again, I need to educate myself about ANSWER. I want one voice and loud against this war for sure.
Tin Foil thought: Is the creation of a group like ANSWER the answer to a neocons dreams?
No matter. They can be marginalized if we make it a priority.

...a group like ANSWER NEEDS Chimpy McDumbass and Dirty Dick in office. Otherwise, they have no foil to play off of. If Clinton, Gore or Kerry were in office, we wouldn't be in the huge ass mess we are in now, and no one would be forced to listen about all their little pet projects and cause celeb bullshit.

The anti-war movement is much bigger than ANSWER. There were people there from many different organizations, all walks of life, and the predominant message was:

The war is wrong and it needs to end- and IMPEACH BUSH
Believe me, it was focused.

...what little coverage it got focused on A.N.S.W.E.R.

Corporate Media's fault? Yes.

But so long as A.N.S.W.E.R. folks are the 'talking heads' that people see and hear, it's not focused on the War On Iraq and Impeaching Bush. It's all over the progressive-liberal-radical-Communist-Anarchist spectrum, and folks stop listening.

For a while we had that with Cindy, but then she allowed her protest to be hijacked and professionalized.

While she stood in Crawford as a lone mother with only a few people helping her, and media coverage, she had POWER. But then she began to talk about other issues, blamed Israel, and lost focus. Then a bunch of "the usual crowd" showed up and she became associated with them. Now she has been marginalized and lost her impact.

We need a symbol with the focus of a laser beam. Absolutely NO other issues allowed AT ALL. The symbol must have great emotional appeal. And it helps if it arises naturally, without being placed there by "the usual crowd". In other words, it needs to be fresh.

I respectfully disagree with you that she has lost her impact. She opened the barn door. The horses are out. There's no going back.

At least your conscience will be clear.

So, when is the rally that you are organizing going to be?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Be the organizer......get to work!

Also, protesting isnt just about getting the attention of MSM! It's about making your voice heard in your own community, it's about giving other people hope.......giving yourself hope, it's about boosting your spirit for a few hours and letting that natural high give you the energy you need to keep fighting the good fight!

Yours is just a pathetic excuse......and if you're not out in the streets with WHOMEVER you are part of the problem!!

Good grief!

Don't hear the freeps avoiding pro-war rallies because of David Duke, right?

Make it BIGGER than Answer and: voila! They're probably a cia front or something, anyway.

The second the word "Mumia" or "You know, we wouldn't have so much fighting in the world if we'd just LEGALIZE IT!" crosses their lips, they get Chuck Barris treatment.

ANSWER organized this event.

What did you do?

I stayed the fuck away from it because A.N.S.W.E.R. is a bunch of nutballs.

It was focused, it got the message out, and there was no shrill screaming.

But what I was trying to get at with the "Gong show" suggestion is, what would be wrong with a large segment of people at an ANSWER rally who came to specifically protest the Iraq war voicing their displeasure when a kook takes the stage? Boo them off the goddamn stage if they are off point. Or, would that be "offensive" to the organizers who worked so hard and have earned the right to trot out every wingnut with an agenda, counterproductive as it may be?

petition ANSWER to limit on-stage discussion (for that particular rally) to the war.

ANSWER has an incredibly effective machine in place for organizing, and the Free Tibet crowd will show up even if they don't get a speaker.

Have you contacted them with your complaint?

let alone try and contact them.

If they organize it, I stay away.

n/t

Or did I imagine the international media reports on the anti-war protests in the US?



Violet...

What Joe Barcalounger thinks means everything.

When Joe saw Free Mumia signs, he just kept on flipping the channels.

And sorry to break the news to you, but what us furriners see and think isn't irrelevant. The fact is that ANSWER organised a highly successful protest. You might not like that the anti-war protest was a successful one attended by a large number of folk, but that's the reality...

Violet...

If you don't convince Jow Barcalounger, the war will go on and on.

Joe was not convinced yesterday because the message was diluted.

Let me be blunt. If this Jow Barcalounger bloke needs a protest from yesterday to convince them that the war in Iraq is wrong, Jow Barcalounger is a fucking idjit who will never be convinced that the war is wrong. Which makes me wonder why anyone would give a toss what Jow Barcalounger thinks?

So yr telling me that the media coverage we saw from Australia was not what actually happened and the protest wasn't a successful one attended by a large number of people?


Violet...

He is the average American.

And what you saw in Australia differs vastly from what Joe saw. All Joe got a chance to see was the ANSWER speakers, nothing else.

Assuming that Joe can actually read, is there some reason why I should believe you when US media is reporting on the anti-war protests?


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/25/politics/25protest.html?hp&ex=1127707200&en=39b41a1b5721a762&ei=5094&partner=homepage

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/25/WASHINGTON.TMP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401615.html

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12732849.htm

http://www.latimes.com/la-092405laprotests_wr,0,1494462.story?coll=la-home-headlines

There's many more, but I don't think there's a need to post a link to every US media article that reported the protests were successful and well attended....

Violet...

Joe is a moron.

...then nothing is going to catch their attention or win them over, especially not in the form of marches or rallies. So why bother with Joe at all?


Violet...

If Joe is a moron who doesn't know anything, why is Walt Starr so convinced that they know anything about ANSWER? :shrug:

Violet...

:applause:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

What are you REALLY afraid of?

All this beating about the Bush with this read herring Jow Barcalounger who doesn't read, doesn't know squat?


Jow Barcalounger's vapid opinion, based on nothing but the Sports section, is more important to you than getting out in the street and voicing your problem with the war? The transparent straws you're grasping at are totally ridiculous. If you cared one whit what Jow Barcalounger really thought, you'd be front and center at those marches standing across from the pro-war idiots who go show their support for Bush. But since you can't be bothered to do even that, why should anyone take what you have to say seriously?

Stay home. The antiwar movement is carrying on just fine without either you or Jow Barcalounger. Nobody missed you or begged you to go so why these hysterics?

sorry to say, but Joe is a uninformed, lazy moron that would rather listen to FOX news.

as I said yesterday, the Mainstream Media made sure the masses in the US had no idea there was a march, and had C Span just focussed on the march, it would have been great.
They didnt, they just focussed on the damned rally. It just reinforced the stereotypes.

deja vu all over again.

So many agendas then too. But eventually the "silent majority" turned against the war. All the noise made by the "radicals" helped turn the tide just as it is happening now. To think that yesterday's march focused on ANSWER is simply not true. Every rally I'v ever been to has speakers I don't or didn't think were relevant. But it's not the speeches that make the difference. It's the people getting together making a statement and being energized to go actually DO SOMETHING locally, even if it's just talk about it at the water cooler. Everybody who went and talks about their experience is helping shift the tide of public opinion.

it showed nothing about the march. ANSWER rallies are bad PR.

I was there and haven't been watching tv today. WAPO and NYT didn't focus on the speeches but did focus on the diversity of the crowd.

During the Viet Nam years. Those commie liberal long haired hippies that didn't know squat. Well eventually all those freaks did win and that illegal war was ended, because eventually four students lost their lives standing up for their right to free speech. Whether you like ANSWER or not they are out there agitating for your RIGHT to speak and think freely. You might want to thank them. The mainstream Dems sure aren't doing anything like that for you.

and welcome!

The commie bogeyman returns renamed A.N.S.W.E.R.

Wow! A.N.S.W.E.R. is Marxist, Stalinist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Maoist, and probably a rightwing conspiracy all at once.

Sounds a lot like SDS back in the '60s - according to the rightwingers and their "moderate" pals.

These threads have been showing up like clockwork for 2 years and are always hysterical.

For 2 years, the same tired complaints and for 2 years the same moderate crowd sitting on their ass complaining about ANSWER. What a farce.

Don't like ANSWER? Then write to the DLC, maybe they'll organize a march. I'd suggest the following signs:

"You can be for the war without being for the war"

"Fire Bush, put Hillary in charge of the war"

"Stop Palestinian Terrorism"

"Make the world a better place; Stop Iran before they attack us"

"Help Simeus build better sweatshops for Haitians"

"A Third Way is Possible"

:rofl:

When they can disclaim any taint of the left and still try to convince us that they are different from the Republicans.

Those slogans are hilarious.

n/t

;)

LOL, yeah I'll wait for the DLC bus to some pick me up!

One of the great things about these events is the creativity and energy they produce. Many of the people attended will go home and actually do something to try to make change.

I don't go for the speeches, but I do like to meet people, start a few chants, laugh and cry with them at this ridiculous situation we find ourselves in. I've been part of several street theater actions where we have asked other folk to join in. And even getting there is part of the fun. A group of 50 or so were at the New Haven (ct) train station at midnight Friday for the overnight train to DC, The prace trains to the NY marches were awesome too.

Read the NYT article and today's WPO. What is the focus? A.N.W.S.E.R.? Hardly. Besides I don't feel I am hooking my wagon to their horse by going. And I'm happy to throw a few bucks in their bucket. These events are important, and I for one am thankful that Somebody is organizing them.

There are plenty of people out there and here on DU who know full well that there are many other causes worthy of demonstration. But most of them think ANSWER's presentation was embarrassing, and they realize there is one cause that everyone agrees on (well two actually): The troops out of Iraq, and Bush out of the White House. That's what people are in DC for this weekend.
It just doesn't help when it is suggested by someone on a stage that people are also there to protest the occupation of Palestine - because most people aren't. That's why people walked away from the speeches.
And it is ANSWER's reputation for that kind of thing that actually makes people not go, who might go otherwise.

We all want as many people there as possible right? Well then.

The same thing happened during the Civil Rights movement and the Anti-Vietnam War movement.

SNCC was communist and too radical.
SDS was funded by the communists.
PLP was Maoist and gave the movement a bad name.
SWP was made up of crazy Trotskyites.
VVAW were disgruntled vets funded by Moscow.
The Women's Movement took the focus off the anti-war movement.
The anti-war movement took the focus off the civil rights movement.
People carrying VC flags discredited the movement.

Or, to go further back:

The ILWU was run by communists and should be kicked out of the labor movement.
The CIO was a communist front organization.
The IWW was a an Anarchist organization.

Or, even further:

The Suffrage movement was threatened by members who advocated voting rights for blacks.

to protest. We just can't have anybody protesting anytime they want you know. If the police were not allowed to approve the protest the results would be anarchy, anarchy I say.

And A.N.S.W.E.R did get the police permits. Somebody has to be in charge or else how can anything get done?

Maybe you know another group that would be better, or at least will step-up to the plate?

What we see here is a power vacuum. Strange how A.N.S.W.E.R. was organized on Sept 14, 2001. The dust had hardly settled in NYC and there they were.

ANSWER didn't exist then.

:eyes:

The 60's marches were organized by the dem's? Hardly. Some of the groups. SDS, YIPPEES, and many "Revolutionary" groups provided the impetus then too. Many of them were far more extreme than ANSWER. And the speakers had different agendas then too. Just like today, there were few anti war politicians until public attention forced them to change. The protests, sit-ins and moratoriums had an impact in changing the tide.

Please don't think those events had a singluar focus. There was an anti-was thrust, but every splinter group was hawking their personal agenda. It was no different, and iy =t worked over time.

a lot of those groups were infiltrated by right-wing and government operatives.

With regard to A.N.S.W.E.R., it's so far out in the fringe that it tars and feathers the rest of the anti-war movement.

I agree with the original poster here on the protests, as long as the likes of this group is involved, I won't participate, either.

Yesterday in Reno there were just a handful of people at the federal courthouse for the protest. I was jogging when I saw them, but I refused to join them.

It seems so, but I wouldn't know. I'll just jog on past.

who needs infiltrators when there are whiny multitudes here who deal in this kind of backbiting while professing some single issue purity. Someone said they didn't go because they heard some "Stalinists" would be there.

Those Stalinists that worshipped him must be pretty damn old to be out there marching. Maybe they are the among some of the old old people I saw out there marching rolling around in wheelchair's, paid for by the state health system of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic, awash in funds so I hear.

heard though. Or that some other communist was on the program. And as if Stalin had adherents other than by terror.

They are as legitimate a political group as any other, with all due respect to another Joe, Joe McCarthy.

If you are against the war, it shouldn't matter what your political affiliation is. This is supposed to be a democracy.

It's a simple fact that anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war is mainstream. You can either maximize the force of public opinion, or not. Diluting the message with all kinds of other topics that actually turn people off, and being and over all embarrassment (except for the technical part), doesn't help.

"Moderate Dems" :rofl: or when their points are too brazen, "Conservative Dems"

Long ago infiltrated and with a tent this big, it's hard for the admins to tell. You'll find some of them posting at right wings sites under their own names as they flame the wars. It's totally disgusting.

Totally infiltrated. Time to zip up the damn tent.

I'm assuming you attended those marches personally. I know I did. And yes there were multiple groups, including SDS and the yippies, etc. But the singular focus was the Vietnam War. While the rhetoric of the SDS and the Yippies promoted "revolution" even they focused their attention on the war. Even the 1971 May Day demonstrations were bi-furcated, with the March on Washington, which focused on the war, preceding the more radical, and less Vietnam-war centric May Day events, which were planned and carried out (somewhat unsuccessfully due to unconsitutional actions by the police in rounding up protesters in advance). Indeed, as I recall, there were problems at some rallies (not in DC--maybe San Francisco),with Farm Workers trying to comandeer the anti-war rally to make their own message, leave the anti-war movement less unified.

onenote

A few speakers brought up other issues, but unlike past ANSWER protests there wasn't as much on the Palestinian issue as in some of the past marches. There is no question that 99% of the people were focused on getting out of Iraq.

I don't remember attending any rallies in the 60's where racism and other side issues were not mentioned at some point. I was a teenager, but my recollection is that there were many agendas, but still one primary focus. There will always be an element that uses a huge rally to promote their agenda, I find it far more offensive that the media repirts on the counter protest as if it had any impact or relevance.

I'm not a big fan of ANSWER, but until someone else rises up and gewts the permits first I'll go because the focus of this rally was anti war, a few speakers aside. By the way, the speakers went on far too long ana had little impact imho.

Takes what could be a powerful united anti-war message and turns it into "ProtestPalooza".

Was there a group from NAMBTLA there this time?

Not only the headlines. I read the first two paragraphs of about ten newspaper articles and none mentioned A.N.S.W.E.R. or any other causes.

I have no idea how regular network news covered the March.

The protests that I joined during the Vietnam War also had plenty of speakers on other causes. And some grumbled then, too. Nonetheless, the movement grew and grew.

I see no evidence that Nationally Prominent Dems would attend ANY anti-War rally no matter who organized it. No evidence. None.

It is not the Speakers who make the statement that Pols listen to - it is the numbers. Just the numbers. Ire is better spent countering the chronic under-reporting of the numbers, not the Organizers.

not one station covered the march.

I wouldn't of known it from the TV coverage... where did all these crazy groups come from and why were they allowed to speak?

Lots of people did.
A bunch more walked out on the speeches the ANSWER people were giving.

Meanwhile an alternative to ANSWER can be created.

Even if done well, the MSM probably still won't pay much attention, but more then they do now, since there'll be less plausible reason to ignore it. And there won't be any of the unattractiveness presented by ANSWER, to be broadcasted by C-SPAN. That means fewer people turned off, so next time around many more people could show up.

The majority of the people complaining- they don't want to go. They haven't gone in 2 years and have no intention of going now. With very few exceptions, their point is to destroy not protest.

I cringed listening to ANSWER hijacking the march. I agree.

do anything as far as protesting this criminal war or stopping it. They are forever outside my field of trust now. So some group not pure enough in some way (usually, too supportive of the palestinians seems to be their tired old shibboleth re these groups), despite never having done a fucking thing to you or anyone you know is the excuse for not being in solidarity with the march, much less going.

You got issues if you can't see that bringing in other injustices in the world (not done in a big way this time) in some part of the march activities is adressing additional parts of the same continuum of whats wrong that caused the Iraq war. Usually this only-talk-about-the-war thing comes from white males. Interesting.

and how the ANSWER speakers do a lousy job of it to everyday americans. Im sure there are middle class black folks who wouldnt want to align themselves with people yelling stalinist phrases also. all in all, the march itself was great, it just wasnt covered by the media..the only thing they showed was C Span, and the free mumia rally.

and having such a great fear of exposing everyday americans to important issues including free mumia is not very savory, and makes my point about faintheartedness. The people with issues about ANSWER would also have an issue about some other groups range of concerns. Buck up a little if you can. I am sometimes fearful too about expressing leftist views in certain places, but working on it. So I have great respect and commend those who are this committed.

and ANSWER does more to help BushCo with its rallies, and the coverage it gets, then to help the anti war movement. It doesnt play in middle america.

Yesterday's rally helped the cause of getting our troops home. Politicians on both sides stayed away, but they will know how many people were there (at least Bush and Rove will}. 99% of the peope were there to protest the war and that is what will make a difference.

Do you think the media won't find something negative to say regardless of who oraganizes it?

Again, I'm not a fan of ANSWER, but I'll bet 99% of Americans have no clue who they are.

The Vietnam protests played really well in middle america too.:sarcasm:

Yet the marches and rallies helped shift public opinion.

The problem is ... once ANSWER starts doing their Commie/Socialist thing they will know who they are and our message will be LOST.

Anti-War=Communist

That is the message that the right-wing noise machine has honed for 30 years ... why are we giving them the proof they need?

We're playing right into the hands of Rove, Rush etc.

(edited for spelling error)

they only covered ANSWERs speakers. as far as the US public is concerned, there was no march.

Who else should be asked to stay home or pushed aside? Gold star families for peace were there as part of this. A mistake, PR not right on that either? My guess: you and some others here would have problems with just about anyone unless approved by some mythical focus group of regular, middle americans. I suppose MLK getting arrested in Selma was bad PR going by that standard, many regular, middle american didn't like him then.

in our local rally, I'd go home. They were not, but the message was still diluted

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :grr: :grr: :grr:

Which for middle America, who is just waking up it is not healthy.

Oh and cut the antisemitic crap at these rallies.... one, two, three again, how many Jewish Reps are at the Syrian Parliament, How about Jordan's Egypt? How many Arab Israelis are in Parliament? (quite a few to the point that they come to count when creating minority governments)

Is Israel a perfect democracy? are we?

And that is the kind of shit that makes me go... ok, I am going to stay home now...

(Yes the Iraq war had something to do with Israel, but was way in the bottom.... in the geopolitical and energy realities of the world)

:sarcasm: Don't you know that Arabs don't enjoy ANY rights in Israel?

Knesset? and they have rights, they are not perfect rights but they are far more rights than ANY jewish population has enjoyed in Arab states since the early 20th century...

These are the kinds of nuances that don't belong in a demonstration and if you do not know Arab israelis are elected to Parliament, thank the media... yes there are arabs who ARE citizens of the state of Israel.

Oh and by the way, I don't need to go to a march to hear antisemitic crap... and I did challenge the speaker on it...

As I said, Isael is not perfect but what is going to happen when, not if, Israel improves its relations with its neighboors and the Palestinians are no longer used as foils to keep their populations under control

I am so tired of hearing the crap about Arabs not having ANY rights in Israel.

Heck, someone on another thread said it was OKAY to burn down the synagogues that were left by the people that vacated the settlements.

If, as members of the Left we cannot even agree that BURNING DOWN A HOUSE OF GOD IS WRONG, how can we agree on how best to get our message out to the Sheeple of America?

Heck, someone on another thread said it was OKAY to burn down the synagogues that were left by the people that vacated the settlements.

If, as members of the Left we cannot even agree that BURNING DOWN A HOUSE OF GOD IS WRONG,

Those synagogues were decommissioned, or whatever the religious term is for them NOT BEING A HOUSE OF GOD ANYMORE. But who needs facts when overheated crap and rhetoric can keep the batteries at a high level? ;)



Violet...

once synagogues, houses of worship, and the Israelis watching them being battered, sledge-hammered and torn down had to be an unpleasant thing to watch.

I just had the same talk with a friend. I wasn't feeling well yesterday, so I was unable to attend the L.A. protests. I watched the D.C. protests on CSPAN and I felt embarrassed. Instead of talking about Iraq, a lot of the speakers had the Palestinian scarves wrapped around their head and necks, yammering on about the Israeli occupation. The shrill screaming of "brothers, sisters and comrades" rhetoric got on my nerves too. It makes us look like a bunch of fucking nuts.

We are trying to stop that murderous war in Iraq. Throwing in Banda Aceh, Tibet, Mumia, etc. muddles the message.