Our apologies good friends, for the fracture of good order. Reflections on Sheehan's Protest

in light our prophets and the real makers of US history, which is really made by the people, not only by the elite.

On May 17th, 1968, Nine people, including Father Daniel Berrigan and his brother Father Phillip Berrigan, entered a draft board and removed draft files of those who were about to be sent to Viet Nam. They took these files outside and burned them with home-made napalm, a weapon commonly used on civilians by the U.S. forces. They then awaited their arrest by authorities. This is an excerpt from a statement Berrigan read in court during their trial.



The words of Martin Luther King, in his stinging rebuke to "liberals" who urged "patience" have already been quoted in another post. Please read them for yourself here. http://www.almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

I would like to quote another prophet, Fredrick Douglass, whose unqualified condemnation of an unjust war (not merely its poor execution) set him apart from almost everyone in political office.



None seem willing to take their stand for peace at all risks.

Let's not forget who Cindy Sheehan was interrupting yestderday. Rahm Emanuel's congressional website says NOTHING about the Iraq war. This is Rahm's second term in office. He is also in the leadership of the Democratic Party. Does it seem appropiate that Rahm might take a public position? Or does he support the continuation of the war, in some form or another?


Edit to add words of wisdom from yet another trouble maker:

Mario Savio, UC Berkeley, December 3, 1964. Rest in Peace, Mario.

A larger following, K&R for Cindy!

didn't have much of a following then either.

Silencing others to make your point is thuggish. You want to make some noise, go ahead and make some. But muzzling others and stealing their platform and making it impossible for them to speak at all is not the way to do it.

Burning draft records isn't the same as shouting down someone and denying their right to be heard. No one's First Amendment rights were curtailed by the Berrigans. And she wasn't "interrupting" him, she was preventing him from speaking. There's a difference.

There are few if any people who aren't on the same page as Cindy WRT to the war. But her methodology seems to be more about her, and less and less about her message. That, to me, is unhelpful to the goal of actually ending the war. YMMV.

I actually would welcome that.

He didn't cut the event short. He saw that other people were trying to shout down the protestors, and he asked those people - his supporters - to quiet down, so he could hear. And then he asked his hecklers to state what they were angry about. They were there protesting the lack of support for AIDS research and care.

He let them speak - giving them the floor, voluntarily, in front of thousands and thousands of people.

And then he addressed their concerns, talking about his position on the issue, legislation he had proposed, where it had gotten stalled, and so forth.

He didn't cut short the event and run and hide because he refused to engage in a dialogue. And he neither silenced his protestors, nor allowed himself to be silenced.

That might be something for Rahm to meditate on.

He should have addressed them. It's part of our messy democracy that you don't get to ignore the constituents. It's also something that Congress has gotten away with for far too long.

I support Cindy and her rabble rousing yesterday. We will be heard and more important than that, we will be heard!

Kerry response was perfect. It showed what a democracy is supposed to be about.

Shit I wish he was president.

easier on all of us.

son had to die, and why others now have to die as well? Why didn't he speak to the 70 people who accompanied her and were trying to petition their government for redress of grievances, and address those grievances, like an honest person should? Why did he sneak off?

No one can "shout you down" if you are speaking honestly and from your heart, and have the courage of your beliefs. And this is the problem of the Iraq War. SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people now want it ended. 56% of the American people never wanted it started (Feb. '03). And yet the war policy is written in the back rooms by the Bush Cartel and the Oil Giants and the War Profiteers, who have their talons in too many members of Congress. Our views don't count. The war profiteers get to blather on, endlessly--at the invitation of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. And they are repeatedly kept in power by non-transparent elections, run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations.

So, what are our citizens to do? How can we be heard? Our letters are put aside when Halliburton or Exxon-Mobile walks in the door of Congressional offices. We have no way of being heard. They have all the money and all the power.

A little shouting in the corridors of Congress is not a major offense, under the circumstances. The folks who harassed Emmanuel represent 70% of the American people. And with 3,000 US soldiers dead (those we know about), and tens of thousands maimed for life, and more deaths and maimings to come, and at least one hundred thousand innocent people slaughtered in Iraq by our bombs and guns, and the torture of many helpless people, perhaps a little impoliteness is in order. That was Dan Berrigan's point. I happen to be an old acquaintance of his. He is a poet and a priest, and tends to speak softly. But I have no doubt in my mind that he would support this peoples' protest in the halls of Congress. People who derided this protest today are exactly the same as those who derided Fr. Berrigan in the '60s for breaking the law. When so many people are dying, and things are so out of order in our country, civil disobedience, burning Draft records--or shouting in the halls of Congress against a pro-war Congressman--are not really disorderly or impolite. They are the height of civil order and generosity. The shouters today gave Emmanuel a chance to redeem himself, and confront these matters honestly, and he did not take it. That is what occurred. He was not degraded, tortured or humiliated. He had a chance to respond. He chose to sneak way into the musty, lobbyist-controlled back rooms where American democracy is being destroyed, and where the planning for more death is taking place, out of the public venue.

Well said.

speak to the press instead of walking out.

either.

Go read your Constitution. First Amendment does NOT in any way assure that you have any right whatsoever to be heard -- or indeed to speak at all. It simply says that the GOVERNMENT cannot keep you from saying what you want to say.

Get it? I can shout you down until you wither away and it will have had NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. Nothing. It's only that the government can't shut up dissidents.

Sometimes I WISH the First Amendment guaranteed what you believe it does. It would make it a lot easier for "our side" to be heard on the cable news programs, for example.

But it just doesn't.

And besides, Rahm just got interrupted. He went away and came back later.

Right to be heard... I wish. :rofl:

"You can't waste the day when the night brings a hearse. Go on and plead the fifth 'cause you can't plead the first."

Seems to me he's basically as responsible for Casey Sheehan's death as George W. Bush.

better get with the program. There is no support for escalating Iraq.

In the US congress. They will not call it "escalation" they will call it a "surge". They will also say it is temporary. But once more troops are sent in, they will stay there for a very long time.

and that scares the ever loving shit out of me... My Son just came home in November after a year... I want this war to be over, not escalated....

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

:eyes:

Cindy is not as eloquent as Martin, or Dan Berrigan, but she does take action in oppostion to policies of genocide.

Unlike mr. rahm.

... as was evidenced by the last election. Maybe we should wait for elected officials to implement our will before we stoop to publicity stunts that only allow us to be painted as "radicals." We owe it to the peace movement to not marginalize ourselves as howling disruptors.

why is she the "radical?"

... isn't demanding that the Iraq war be the ONLY issue. The grand majority isn't going on a hunger strike, shouting down congressmen, visiting Hugo Chavez, etc. If you want to be taken seriously you don't do any of these things. It only works to marginalize yourself and tars those that agree with you as radicals. Foolish actions like her protest serve to only give cover to "moderates" to vote against her to show that they won't be pushed around by want the media calls "the radical left."

... and dismissive attitude towards them that her last had. If you want the peace movement to be taken seriously you push it forward in a serious manner, with cogent, well thought out planning and discussion. You don't do publicity stunts that can be dismissed easily without even discussing their merits.

Notice that outside of DU, and a few 5 second spots on the news where the news person is chuckling under their breath almost no one is discussing Cindy Sheehan. That is because her stunts have marginalized her.

Like that hippie who put a flower in one of the cop's guns. Nobody remembers that stupid stunt! Or when John Lennon took to his bed with his new bride to get people to listen to their political point of view or when they paid for the billboard that said War is Over! (if you want it to be).

The Civil Rights Movement? Women's Movement? Peace Movement?

What you don't seem to recognize -- and oh! the irony! -- is that the reality is precisely opposite of what you imagine:

Notice that outside of DU, and a few 5 second spots on the news where the news person is chuckling under their breath almost no one is discussing Cindy Sheehan. That is because her stunts have marginalized her.

A nice ladylike visit to Rahm or anyone else wouldn't have been discussed at ALL on the news.

Hell, you only have to go back to our own pre-Iraq-war recent past. How many of our nice, orderly, hundreds and hundreds of thousands or people attending protests got covered in the news? They were, for the most part, completely ignored. Had there been some serious civil disobedience -- or WHERE there was some civil disobedience -- that got coverage.

You WISH her stunts have marginalized here. It will ever be JUST THE OPPOSITE.

On MORE than one occasion? Or filling all the parking lots at the Pentagon?

Show me sit ins, show me walk outs...they are NOT happening. The College Republicans are the ones having bake sales for white scholarships at the colleges--back in the sixties, no one would admit to being a College Republican.

If you think a few ladies yelling at a representative equates somehow to Vietnam protests, you've another think coming.

And I AM old enough to remember those protests, and I was at a few of them.

No draft = no pain. Or pain that is distributed only amongst family members of the all-volunteer force. It's just not mattering enough to a critical mass of America. You might not like that assessment, but it's the unfortunate truth.

I have done actions with Cindy. She travels in lots bigger crowds than that.

Come to DC on Jan 27. You will see a whole lot more than a half a dozen protesters - with Cindy leading the way.

And the space where Rahm was holding the presser isn't that large.

I may be in DC that week. We'll see.

is that a half a dozen would be an unusually small group for Cindy. When we went with her to Austin to protest against Karl Rove last August, there were about 100 in our group.

in Providence, Saturday at noon in front of the courthouse. Often more. You are welcome to join us. We get lots of honks and thumbs up from passing drivers.

Bill

We have the same local protests all over my state, too, and they're good. At intersections, in front of town halls, at the one last rotary on the Cape....and it is often a small group of folks with signs and whatnot. On more than one occasion I have brought the ones congregating down the street from my home coffee and pastries from a nearby shop.

The difference between those groups and Cindy's little stunt is that the message by the groups on the corners is communicated CLEARLY. It's there, in writing, on the signs. THAT is why you get the thumbs up and the honks--I am one of those thumbs-uppers and honkers, too, FWIW.

Cindy's little adventure was billed as a disruption, not an antiwar protest, the chanting was weak and unclear, and the media only gave the clip ten or fifteen seconds, all of it focused on Rahm Emanuel, not the protestors. People who do not pay attention take one look at that, and ask themselves: What is she mad about? That her son is dead? Well, she and 2,999 others. That may seem cruel, but her message about "THE WAR" is being lost with all these fucking "stunts."

She might try using her once-articulate voice that we heard in that 'REAL VOICES' ad and return to the message of the pain of a parent, rather than cuddling Hugo, chaining herself to fences, and muddied chanting on the Hill. Her message is NOT getting out. She's getting airtime, all right, and the airtime is saying: This Woman is Wacky.

I don't mean to be unkind in this assessment, but not one person I've asked (all against the war, like I am) sees it differently than that. They KNOW what she is TRYING to accomplish, but they think she is "Making an ass of herself" and "Biting the hand that feeds her" and "Helping the GOP with that foolishness, and right before we take over, too!" It's not just me who thinks she's ineffective. She's starting to piss some antiwar people off, to the point that they don't want to be associated with her. That's not helpful to the overall cause. YM, as always, MV.

But I'm catching a boatload of grief for daring to say anything that might be construed as negative about the woman.

What the hell is wrong with the Democratic Party that it cannot include somebody who has such an interest in ending this war.

How can you expect her to discuss anything if she isn't invited into the discussion?

Tell us what actions YOU have taken part in.

I am about over these keyboard commandos criticizing Cindy for doing more than most of you have done about ending the war. There comes a time when writing letters and making phone calls is ineffective. Cindy knows that and she has basically given up her private life to work at ending the war.

I may not agree with everything she does but I admire the hell out of her courage for doing it. And I am willing to bet I can count on 2 hands the number of DUers who have done a tenth of what she has done.

... I have tried my best.

As for ending the war I am absolutely for withdrawl. I agree with Cindy's goal but not her methods (with the exception of Camp Casey). I think that her methods actually serve to make us look less mainstream than we actually are. Congressmen aren't motivated by being shouted down. What they are motivated by are voters, and if they think that the anti-war movement is not where the majority of voters are they will not vote against the war. I'm looking at it pragmatically.

Rudeness of interrupting speech of elite war supporter.
vs.
Protest against a war this congressperson supports that has claimed 600,000+ lives

not a tough choice for me.

of the Senate Armed Services Committee is open to Bush's plan to escalate the war. Evan Bayh, another member of the committee said the same thing. Even Harry Reid said he would consider a plan. I'm sorry, but I'm not as confident as you seem to be that the new congress will "implement our will."

And as for worrying about how the right-wing will paint us is ridiculous. As I recall that worked so well for the Democrats in the lead-up to the Iraq war. :sarcasm:

... "ridiculous."

What I did say is her publicity stunts allow us to be painted as radicals. The peace movement is not radical, it is mainstream, but allowing it to be seen as radical because of poorly planned and implemented protests that only really serve make us look radical does not help our cause. When the media effectively tars us as "far left" it will make it much easier for "moderates" to pull away from anti-war stances to avoid the appearance of caving to "radicals" in the party.

As for the Senators, their opinion doesn't really matter. The senate doesn't have the power of the purse strings, only the congress does. Even if they were against the surge it takes at least 60 votes in the senate to pass anything, and we aren't even close to those numbers.

Maybe because he was not born here... but whatever, he is on the minority side when it comes to the war.
Why the hell shouldn't he be interrupted?

... maybe because it doesn't look good to the general public on whose support we rely. Tell me, thinking as a normal American citizen that pays little attention to politics, whenever you see that clip who is the more sympathetic character (remember the average citizen doesn't know who Cindy Sheehan is or her story)? Who appeared more civilized and professional? Who appeared to not be a radical? If you answered "the protesters" for any of those questions you are kidding yourself.

Right now, image is everything. If the peace movement becomes thought of as a bunch of radicals and disprutors the congress will be less inclined to vote against the war out of fear of being painted as radicals themselves. It's simple pragmatism, if you want the congress to vote your way make your way look as popular and mainstream as possible. Cindy Sheehan's protest did just the opposite.

Rahm was born in Sweet Home Chicago in 1959. What were you going for with that assertion?? That's troubling, that comment.


Background Information

Party: Democrat
Residence: Chicago
Marital Status: Married (Amy)
Prev. Occupation: Businessman
Prev. Political Exp.: no prior elected office
Education: BA Sarah Lawrence College, 1981; MS Northwestern University, 1985
Birthdate: 11/29/1959
Birthplace: Chicago, IL
Religion: Jewish

Other Information

Term: 3rd
First Elected: 2002
Percentage in Last Election: 78%
Major Opponent: Kevin White

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=129559

What a pathetic attempt to paint him as some zionist mole. I'm no fan of Emanuel's, that's for sure, but your your biases are showing. Disgusting.

Born: 29-Nov-1959
Birthplace: Chicago, IL

But yes, he has a very pro-militarism bias.

Yes, my bias is that i am anti-war.

I'd vote for Uri Avnery 10 times over Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
Hell, i think Uri would be vote my represent my views in Congress in respect to the middle east better than Barbara Lee... don't take that as a knock against lee, as much as a compliment to Uri.

I was wondering if perhaps I was being excessively sensitive, but I just couldn't shake that "that just ain't RIGHT" feeling over the remark.

But hey, the Chicago Jewish lad's Jewish father was, I believe, born in the Jewish state....so perhaps it takes several generations for some to become "sufficiently American" in the eyes of some segments of our society?

If enough people join in, add their bodies, we won't have to howl.

Yup, being considered howling disruptors while our children and friends get their limbs blown off or have brains damaged or die or come home not knowing how to sleep through the night or trust again, yeah, that is something to worry about. I'm tired of waiting. Time to make it clear to our elected officials what our will is and demand they do something about it and if it takes "publicity stunts" or "howling disruptions" to do it, so be it.

You wrote:

"Maybe we should wait for elected officials to implement our will..."

I ask, how long? A day? A month? Three months? Two years?

On average, 2 American soldiers die each day in Iraq. On average, 33 are wounded. 63 die per month and over 900 are wounded every 30 days. Untold thousands of Iraqi citizens are dead already and the land is being laid waste by depleted uranium.

How long is too long?

... is a good start.

and there will be no rolling eyes on my post!

And she's facing similar political barriers. :eyes:

listen to her without resorting to violence. That should be obvious to you but you are obviously blinded by your dislike. Don't worry, there were plenty who dispised Ghandi in his time as well.

... you mean being dismissed out of hand. You're dead on.

She did a great thing at Camp Casey by bringing attention to the callousness of Bush. But you are dreaming if you think that she or her protests have done much at all to change the national discourse. The events on the ground have done that for themselves. And you are deeply dreaming if you think she is comparable to Ghandi.

so I think we need to leave it at agree to disagree.

My membership to the Cindy Sheehan Can Do No Wrong Club? I think I'll pass.

I couldn't be anymore against this war, or more for immediate withdrawl. I just don't think Cindy Sheehan is the best (or even a good face) to put on that message. I think her stunts do far more harm than good.

It is possible to be against the war, and not think Cindy Sheehan is a good representative.

as doing more harm than good?

And if you somehow convince yourself that such an event exists, how can you possibly suggest that it outweighs everything else?

For starters, how about meeting with Hugo Chavez, and then going on to praise Hugo Chavez on Hardball and other media outlets. Now you could have a different opinion on Hugo Chavez, you might think he's a stand up guy, but to the wide majority of public their opinion of him is a Marxist third world despot, who meets and is friends with Castro and the President of Iran (I'm not going to try to spell his name.)

Now if your goal is to try to bring the American public to your side, and remember most Americans don't like Marxism, Castro, or Iran, is it really in your best interest or the best interest of your movement to go on TV praising Hugo Chavez?

I could go on, but it should be clear that it isn't in the best interest of the peace movement to be attached to someone who has worked hard on marginalizing herself.

but the few who think he's some kind of threat to this nation are the ones who support Bush no matter what he does.

Chavez is always a convenient talking point for dishonest right-wingers, but Cindy Sheehan doesn't pander to that silly dishonesty.

And when they do have occasion to be made aware of her it is always some publicity stunt that is dismissed out of hand. That does not help the peace movement.

I think you are kidding yourself that people don't know who Chavez is, especially after his UN speech and the days afterward where the media paired him with Castro and the president of Iran.

right-wing talking points.

I can't honestly think that Cindy is a poor choice to be a leader in the peace movement, or what she does makes us look silly.

How about you honestly try to rebut what I say instead of trying to stifle discourse? What's next? Are you going to call me a freeper?

attacks on Cindy are nothing but meaningless right-wing talking points?

... who has to resort to childish smears. You haven't presented one fact or even cogent point. You've said I'm on the wrong side. When I pointed out that I'm against the war, you've claimed that I couldn't name anything Cindy has done to hurt the peace movement. When I did, you essentially said that doesn't count. When I pointed out that it if fact does count to many people, you've claimed I'm spouting RW talking points.

So yes I do disagree that I an posting meaningless RW talking points. So unless you are actually going to come up with a serious reply, we are done.

childish smearing, you've got a winning hand.

But I'd rather stick with the facts.

... beside marching in D.C., marching in local anti-war protests, belonging to a local anti-war group, sending letters and petitions to my ex-congressman Hostettler, working as a volunteer for my new congressman Ellsworth, donating money to Democrat candidates, and voting straight ticket Democrat since '02, I guess mot much.

But whatever I've done I'm sure it will not be enough.

You know there are actions they do at Camp Casey when I am there that I don't agree with. So I just don't participate. I also choose to avoid those actions that may get me arrested. Professionally, I can't afford to get arrested.

But for the keyboard commandos who have spent 2 days here on DU not only criticizing Cindy but calling her every name in the book, I say either put up or shut up. (It appears you are not one of them, BTW)

I am just not going to sit here and let people criticize her while they do nothing but spell all their words correctly. :)

That sounds really radical to me. Hippies!!! That's not all that far off from what Cindy Sheehan is doing. The great middle America that you fear painting the antiwar faction as "radicals" doesn't differentiate between you, a "marching hippie," and Cindy Sheehan.

You're splitting hairs to participate in the circular firing squad.

Geez, some people don't know how to win. Get your head out.

... and going into a government building and shouting down a Democratic congressman who is discussing ethics reform, is either being willfully ignorant or as you so gracefully put it needs to get their head out.

The man does not deserve to speak for the Dems until he starts opposing the war.

I could not agree more.

if it comes to this. As long as AIPAC does.

their own efforts to end US involvement in Iraq using whatever techniques they deem appropriate.

Cindy was not elected to represent us. She is not our paid spokesperson. She has no responsibility except to her own conscience.

Years ago I was involved in some political advocacy for the disabled. Our small group of activists got very frustrated with people in government who were more concerned with their own egos than doing what was ethical. Our letters and phone calls were ignored. Money was wasted on programs that were proven to be ineffective. In desperation we disrupted their state conference and embarrassed these officials into doing what was responsible and ethical. I recall being criticized by some other parents of children with disabilities for being "rude". But those same parents never had time to write letters or make phone calls, let alone make dozens of trips to the state capitol.

People are dying every single day in Iraq. How many days, how many deaths until it is "proper" to demand action?

Edited for typo.

I'm sorry. But this is the way governance in America works.

;-)

typing in your opinions about the "process," you and yours could be swallowed up by same... Just an observation. ;-)

I have done more than my fair share of activism. I'm a college kid on xmas break. It's the reality...

and choose to pass judgement on a woman who has taken a LIFE BREAK to pursue her cause. If that works for YOU...

The "process" failed then too. It cost 59,000 American their lives because arrogant politicians refused to admit that it was un-winnable. They were afraid of appearing "weak".

I believe in our democracy, but that doesn't mean that you sit silently by while people die because the process and debate take time. Especially when that process has gone awry.

in Portland, OR. I have taken dedicated courses on Vietnam and the Cold War. I understand what went wrong, but I also understand what ultimately ended the war, support in Congress collapsed, and frankly Cindy Sheehan by sheer force of will cannot achieve that. The new Speaker of the House is a Democratic woman who voted against the war. Harry Reid is without a doubt no fan of the war anymore.

I'm not saying be quite, I'm saying there is a time and a place, and interrupting a news conference on ethics reform before the opening of the first Democratic Congress in 12 years is bad form.

Listen to Murtha on Countdown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._William_Fulbright

See the movie "Sir, No Sir!"
http://www.sirnosir.com/

We live in a representative democracy. Only 11% of Americans support escalating the war in Iraq. And yet this morning's New York Times ran a story about how Carl Levin the new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is open to increasing troops in Iraq. The same with Evan Bayh, another member of the committee, and the same with Harry Reid.

I have friends whose son is now on his 3rd tour of duty in Iraq. I am with them in that I too have no patience for a process that ignores the will of the people when there is so much at risk.

1. That is not what Levin actually said. Levin is giving Bush enough rope to hang himself.
2. I have a high school friend who did a tour and is going back.
3. If you don't want to listen to me, listen to Murtha on Countdown.

Its going to take time, I'm sorry, its the truth. Demand what you will...but don't lose faith in our Democratic leaders, they are good women and men (mostly).

He promised he would go back to the UN before invading Iraq. He promised he would exhaust every diplomatic avenue before invading Iraq. He broke those promises.

I read Levin's exact words. Any Democrat willing to risk more American lives to a proven liar is a fool.

PROTEST. It's the ONLY way for people to be urgently heard between elections, which only happen at best every 2 years. Yes, you can write cards and letters and make phone calls, but those are even more ignored than ever in these days of push-button maxi-fax campaigns. And there's no URGENCY to it.

Historically, ideologically, etc., PROTEST is the American way, irrevokably.

I'm just saying her choice of time and place was not in the best interests of her cause...if she wants to get in Rahm's face she should do it in his office. That was Steny Hoyer's presser too...bottomline: bad timing.

It seems to me that there is a tremendous sense of urgency in Washington now...

or offer an opinion as to the efficacy of her efforts.

I don't go for that lockstep nonsense. I agree with her view, just not her methods. I have written to, and personally spoken with, both my Senators, my representative, and several others in my state's delegation about the issue in polite but not uncertain terms. It doesn't hurt that I donate to their warchests, and it makes them listen to me, and have a staffer answer the mail I send them.

All politics is local. If Rahm's constituents weigh in with him, it could well make a difference. And if they are donors, it might make even more difference. Like it or not, that is how the game works.

I guess, though, since we aren't CINDY SHEEHAN we don't count, eh?

I was making the observation that there is more than one way to skin a cat. People who don't like Cindy's methods are free to employ their own. It's a more productive use of time/ energy, because the deaths and casualties continue to mount as we speak.

Catholic I have heard about Father Barrigan, but never heard this story. It must be his turning point onto the path of civil rights. We all have our turning points. So glad I'm able to witness Cindy's first hand. She will always be remember as the women who would not mourn quietly. She would be the lion who roared. This also seems logical to me. One does not get to take your children away without a fight. Cindy is a light to guide those of us willing to use it. Thanks Cindy.

We need an eternal flame under this issue!

Let me share another Frederick O. Douglass quote that I've posted elsewhere a couple of times real recently:

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and never will.” -Frederick Douglass

Demanding that they do so is what is supposed to happen in a democracy.

There were more people than Cindy at the Capitol shouting down Rahm. I'm really encouraged to see all those who posted on this site for the protesters who were able to make in to the Press Conference. We are protesting, holding vigils, having rallys.. to try to end this incredible stupid occupation. We write letter after letter to our Congress persons and the President. We write letters to the editors, and call into radio shows. At least those who shouted at the press conference are drawing attention that many Americans what out Troops Home Now.

...I wish that I could recommend it again. :thumbsup:

Cindy has not been given the credit that she is due for kicking the anti-war movement into the mainstream.

And she was right. The leadership of the Democratic Party was wrong.
My apologies Ms. Hamer, for not mentioning your work.

PB

The dude has been arrested many times for his peaceful civil disobedience. Can't think of his name at the moment. I will try to get it and be back with it. I was notified by the Arizona Alliance for UPJ. Off topic sorry, but I thought I would throw it in heh, and I'm not Catlick.

the slaughter in Iraq, are opposed to the DLC agenda, so I doubt that would go over well with that group.

thing to do.

Why didn't the dems invite her to join them?

The more I think about this the more I see Sheehan as a meteor to galvanize attention on this issue.

When do you hero-worshippers start making the graven images out of gold?

bones out of the blood of our soldiers, and innocent Iraqis?

That's just doin the right thing.

K & R

Father John Dear, S.J.
noted peace activist, author and lecturer, will speak on
Dr. King, Jesus, and The Road to Peace:
Gospel Nonviolence in a World of Violence and War
sponsored by Pax Christi Arizona & the Jesuit Alumni of Arizona (JAAZ)
Friday, January 12 7:00 pm
Ethel and Kemper Marley Auditorium
at the Virginia Piper Center, Xavier College Prep
4710 North 5th Street, Phoenix, AZ
John Dear is a nationally known advocate for peace, justice, and nonviolence. A Jesuit priest, pastor and lecturer, he is the author /editor of 23 books on Gospel peacemaking and nonviolence. He will speak about our world of violence and war, alternatives of nonviolence and peace, what it means to follow Jesus in these times.
Father Dear served as the director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the largest interfaith peace group in the nation. He also coordinated chaplains for the Red Cross in New York City after 9/11 and founded Pax Christi New Mexico. Arrested more than 75 times in acts of civil disobedience against war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, he currently leads a campaign to close Los Alamos.
Ø
A reception in the courtyard will follow the presentation.
Ø
Free admission, but contributions to defray costs of the evening and contribute to Father Dear’s ministry of peace are most welcome.
Father Dear’s books, including Jesus The Rebel, The Questions of Jesus, Living Peace: A Spirituality of Action and Contemplation, You Will Be My Witnesses, The God of Peace: Toward a Theology of Nonviolence and others will be on sale during the evening.
Call 480-820-3695 for more details.