[statecom-discuss] Re: The people are in motion to oppose war and empire.

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

True!   Grace
In a message dated 5/4/07 7:55:41 AM, etwee at earthlink.net writes:


> I wasn't bemoaning anything then, but I will now.
> 
> I hereby bemoan the careless way we treat one another (a.k.a. the human 
> material at hand), and our habit of using words as masks, rather than as tools.
> 
> To paraphrase the Bee Gees, "It's only words, but words are all we have (at 
> the moment), to take their power away."
> 
> When I said there is no peace movement, I assumed agreement on what a 
> movement is. I shouldn't have.
> 
> Surely though, the word suggests both motion and direction.
> 
> I propose that a real US peace movement would be COUNTRYWIDE, and a MASS 
> movement, meaning a lot of people ACTIVELY involved, not just a passive Silent 
> Majority.  
> 
> In the past a movement meant (I thought) that there were always new 
> organizations popping up, so that new leaders and patricipants came to renew and 
> clearly outnumber the "original" leaders and patricipants.
> 
> A social movement must include many organizations and competing ideas, but 
> cannot be reduced to any of them. It has a life of its own, independent of 
> established legal, State, and media structures, though it's not completely 
> separate from them.
> 
> Millions of people in the US, apparently a silent majority, are opposed to 
> current war policies. But if you go to the meetings and rallies, you don't see 
> a lot of new leaders there. You don't see new organizations. If you look at 
> the organized opposition, what is it? You see lots of websites, nonprofits 
> mostly attuned to the Democrat party, and some small socialist and anarchist 
> groups. You don't see large activist organizations.
> 
> Has that situation changed since GRP was sending reps to UJP? If we were to 
> reconnect now, what would we bring to the table? Do we have a distinct 
> strategy to propose? Are we in a position to participate as a coherent, visible 
> group in the current consensual "strategy" of sporadic protest demonstrations?
> 
> I agree that antiwar work should be a core GRP activity. But HOW to do this 
> work should be part of a strategic decision that we have yet to make. In 
> order to make responsible decisions, I hope we can replace wishful thinking with 
> a serious inventory of our strengths and weaknesses and of the current 
> political environment in Massachusetts.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com>
> >Sent: May 3, 2007 8:24 PM
> >To: BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net>, John Walsh <jvwalshmd at gmail.com>, 
> NeedToKnow at green-rainbow.org, adcom.members at green-rainbow.org, Discussion 
> List for StateCom members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>, Jill Stein <
> jstein at massmed.org>, David Rolde <davidrolde at comcast.net>, 
> ronghua.zhuge at umassmed.edu
> >Subject: Re: The people are in motion to oppose war and empire.
> >
> >to paraphrase john reed to emma goldman, in the movie "reds": DAMMIT, IT'S 
> NOT THE PEACE MOVEMENT WE WANTED, BUT IT'S THE ONE WE'VE GOT!!!
> >
> >instead of bemoaning the lack of a peace movement, we need to deal with the 
> human materiel at hand in this country, and therefore the prospects and 
> limits of what we can do at this hour. otherwise, we should pack up, go home, 
> tell the bourgeoisie we were just kidding all along, andf re-enroll in sunday 
> school where god is in his heaven and all is well ---------------------
> >
> >gary
> >
> >BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net> wrote: John, the problem can't our 
> relationship with the peace movement. There really is no peace movement. The 
> problem is how to bring one into being. What strategy to achive this would we 
> offer antiwar activists? If we have one I am not aware of it. As a party we 
> aren't organizing around ANYTHING at the moment.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >>From: John Walsh
> >>Sent: May 2, 2007 2:05 PM
> >>To: NeedToKnow at green-rainbow.org, adcom.members at green-rainbow.org, 
> Discussion List for StateCom members , Jill Stein , David Rolde , 
> ronghua.zhuge at umassmed.edu
> >>Subject: The people are in motion to oppose war and empire.
> >>
> >>PLEASE POST
> >>
> >>I am more than a little frustrated by our attitude toward and
> >>relationship to the peace movement.  For years now THE MAIN thing on
> >>the minds of the electorate is the war on Iraq - with others, Lebanon
> >>(again) Somalia, Iran, Sudan, Syria, looming on the horizon.
> >>It is no secret that the empire wants to lock up access to the world's
> >>oil supply and that the Israel Lobby wants to use the U.S. to wage war
> >>on as  much of the Arab and Muslim world as possible.
> >>
> >>Where are we?  As I think of it, we are elsewhere.  We have our
> >>priorities and the people have theirs.  How smart is that?  The people
> >>have lost faith in the Democrats as an antiwar party as the polls
> >>show.  But have we presented an alternative?  Are we there at every
> >>possible community meeting, every demonstration, every meeting of UJP,
> >>UFPJ, ANSWER, etc, offering an alternative specifically labeled as a
> >>GRP alternative.  The answer is NO.  We are engaged in internal
> >>squabbles, putting out manifestos, forming ever more committees and on
> >>and on.  And we are not even a member of many of these coalitions.
> >>How many have worked actively with MFSO, Vets for Peace, Smedley
> >>Butler (many of whom did show up at our anti-Kerry picket which could
> >>have been a GRP picket by the way)?  We are too small to do everything
> >>and it would seem that  our number one priority should be that of the
> >>people and the things that are setting them in motion.
> >>
> >>The only time that the GRP has made a really big deal out of the war
> >>was when Chuck Turner introduced the antiwar resolution in the City
> >>Council.  It got front page news and even that reliable lackey of
> >>AIPAC, Menino, had to vote for it.  (The GRP was not mentioned in the
> >>news coverage.)  Even  that effort although the best was too
> >>short-lived
> >>
> >>If this is not dysfunctionality, I do not know what is.  Of the
> >>innumerable committees, do we have one that is directed at the war on
> >>Iraq.  So we have a golden opportunity and it is being systematically
> >>squandered.  UJP in this area is not doing its job.  They are in bed
> >>with the Democrats even though many if not most of the rank and file
> >>do not like this state of affairs.   They desperately need our input.
> >>But  we seem to have "other priorities" to quote our Vice President.
> >>
> >>The Dems are running scared but if there is no alternative to them,
> >>they have nothing to worry about.  I hope you have a chance to read
> >>the following:
> >>http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh05012007.html
> >>***
> >>May 1, 2007
> >>
> >>Fear and Vitriol in the Halls of Congress
> >>
> >>Edgy Dems Snarl at Their Antiwar Base
> >>
> >>By JOHN V. WALSH
> >>
> >>Democrats in Congress are growing increasingly hostile toward their
> >>antiwar base. David Obey has provided the most notorious example upon
> >>a chance encounter with Marine Mom, Tina Richards, in a Congressional
> >>hallway. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS4wHMCc57k). Richards
> >>had tried to talk with Obey, her Congressman, for a long time, but he
> >>had successfully eluded her until this day. Now she and other antiwar
> >>activists were lobbying in the Capitol in an attempt to get "our"
> >>Senators and Representatives to cut off funding for the war. Not
> >>surprisingly, Obey gave the standard response when Richards asked why
> >>he continues to fund the war. "We don't have the votes," he shouted at
> >>her. To which the answer is of course: "Congressman, we only want your
> >>one vote, and your help in getting the rest. You cannot win if you do
> >>not fight." Talk to any Dem politician and he or she will tell that
> >>they on your side but the others are the problem. So the votes are not
> >>there collectively, but individually everyone is on the side of peace.
> >>That is a very strange calculus.
> >>
> >>The odious aspect of the encounter was that Obey set about attacking
> >>the Marine Mom and the handful of Democrats who, unlike him, refused
> >>to vote supplemental funding for the war. "Idiot liberals," was the
> >>first outburst, followed by: "The liberal groups are jumping around
> >>without knowing what the hell is in the [supplemental funding] bill";
> >>"You're smoking something illegal"; and "If you guys don't stop
> >>screwing it up," we will end the war. Finally an aide pulled him away
> >>and he waddled through a door and slammed it shut in Richards face.
> >>What is wrong here? Why would he treat this worried mother in such a
> >>shabby way?
> >>
> >>It is not just Obey; he just happened to get caught on camera. When we
> >>went to visit Senator Kerry's aide here in MA we got the same
> >>response. We were just "a bunch of liberals." Senator Kerry, the aide
> >>said petulantly, is trying to do "some good in the world", not just
> >>trying to "feel good" like "you liberals." And again from my "liberal"
> >>Congressman Capuano, the same thing. Capuano assured us that he was
> >>trying to do some real good in the world unlike "the liberals" who
> >>voted against the supplemental. Again the anger at the "liberal"
> >>groups and the ten Congresspeople (two of them Republicans) who voted
> >>against the supplemental out of opposition to the war was ferocious.
> >>Why is this?
> >>
> >>I submit that these Democrats are running scared. They know that their
> >>antiwar base is crucial to winning their next election. Without it
> >>they might lose in 2008. In strongly antiwar districts like Capuano's
> >>in Massachusetts or Obey's in Wisconsin, there is a real danger of
> >>losing their Congressional seats, than which nothing is more important
> >>to them. And the few genuine antiwar voices in their party, Dennis
> >>Kucinich or Barbara Lee, for example, make then look bad by
> >>comparison. They wish these bothersome liberals would just go away.
> >>What if a strong antiwar Democrat were to appear in the next primary
> >>or what if a Green should run in the general against them in '08? Can
> >>they win if their antiwar base is fed up with them and turns
> >>elsewhere? And what if they also face a strong Republican opponent,
> >>which is Kerry's problem in '08?
> >>
> >>The same dynamic showed up in the recent MoveOn town hall meeting,
> >>which featured phone presentations and questions for each of the
> >>antiwar candidates, meaning Democratic candidates. (Libertarian Ron
> >>Paul was not invited, unsurprisingly since MoveOn is a wholly owned
> >>subsidiary of the Democratic Party.) A vote was taken afterwards on
> >>the favorite candidate of the antiwar participants, and the results
> >>were headlined as "Clinton suffers virtual defeat in MoveOn vote on
> >>Iraq," or "Clinton Bombs in Liberal Straw Poll.
> >>
> >>With 43,000 people responding, the numbers were: Obama, 28 per cent;
> >>Edwards, 25 per cent; Kucinich, 17 per cent; Richardson, 12 per cent;
> >>Clinton, 10 per cent; with only Biden and Dodd lower. The
> >>interpretation is simple. If you are seen as pro-war, your prospects
> >>are dim. True to form, having taken the poll, MoveOn quickly
> >>disappeared the results from its web site. One can be fairly certain
> >>that the Dem hierarchy was displeased with the results for HRC and
> >>ordered the whole thing air brushed away. MoveOn dutifully obliged.
> >>
> >>The striking thing about the poll is how well Kucinich did. He is the
> >>only one in the entire pack who can legitimately claim to be antiwar.
> >>Obama and Edwards were ahead of him only because they are widely
> >>perceived, or more accurately misperceived, as antiwar. And of course
> >>they get tons of sympathetic coverage in the mass media. But their
> >>true colors are becoming ever clearer. Recently (4/29) in the
> >>Washington Post, the rabid neocon Robert Kagan of the American
> >>Enterprise Institute, adviser to the McCain campaign and lead
> >>proponent of war on Iran, heaped praise on Obama for being an advocate
> >>of pre-emptive war and of increasing the army and marines by tens of
> >>thousands of troops. ( For his part Edwards is now exposed by Senator
> >>Durbin's disclosure that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee knew
> >>that the administration was lying in the lead-up to the war on Iraq.
> >>Durbin excuses himself from hiding the truth from the public by saying
> >>the committee was sworn to secrecy. But that was a time to come
> >>forward with the truth and take the consequences--even jail--to stop a
> >>war based on lies. And it is even worse to have been on that committee
> >>and to have voted for the war. John Edwards was on that committee.
> >>John Edwards voted for the war. It turns out that John Edwards did in
> >>fact know then what he knows now! Durbin is the second Senator to have
> >>outed Edwards in this way, the first being former Senator Bob Graham.
> >>
> >>The Democrats are in an awful bind. They have been complicit in this
> >>war from the beginning--up to their necks in the death and destruction
> >>every bit as much as W. That provides an opening for a new start in
> >>American politics. But this means that the Greens and the Libertarians
> >>must seize the moment, overcome their dysfunctionality and pose a
> >>serious challenge to the two War Parties. The Democrats are on the
> >>run; will we go get 'em? Will we live up to the challenge?
> >>
> >>John Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar at gmail.com. He encourages one
> >>and all to join the many thousands who have signed the petition at
> >>WWW.FilibusterForPeace.org. It only takes 41 of the 51 Democratic
> >>Senators to bring the war on Iraq to an end. They have the power. Why
> >>do they not use it?
> >
> >
> >Bill Cunningham
> >
> >
> >      
> >---------------------------------
> >Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> > Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> 
> 
> Bill Cunningham
> 
> 




**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.