Reply
Sat 28 Jun, 2003 08:46 am
Just prior to the Iraq war of "liberation" the peoples of the Earth demonstrated mightily against it. Now, as Bush seems stronger than ever, a renewed call for the same thing seems to me to be in order. The urgency has not receded, just the impulse to act. What about it? How can we get people to act instead of passively grumbling? It seems to me that protestors build up a momentum which could lead to eventual change, over and over since and during the 60s, and then let the pressure off of the politicians. When they do start up again, they have to build their case all over again, being less effective because so many would be sympathizers have either given in to futility or have to be convinced all over again. Protest has to be a way of life, not a chosen battle here, an email there.
When the time is right, ed.
The pot is on slow simmer.
Patience. It's going to be a an excellent soup, in time.
(I can't quite make out what that is in your avatar...)
Oh, it's Lulu and (whatever the other one's name was)!
edgar:
There was a great article in "The Nation" that alluded to this.
But how much longer can we wait.
If we wait too long the next movement may be a bit more--aggressive. . .
It has to play like a fine orchestra, and like a fine orchestra it has to stay in practice to be effective. We got to stay right in der president's face.
Couldn't agree more. Timing is always important. It will be interesting to see what happens in NYC, when the GOP descends on it.
I have a gut feeling that things are beginning to implode for the admin, but that could be hunger, since I haven't eaten yet.
It better hurry up and implode then - Things don't look too smooth for our side from where I sit.
NeoGuin: is this the article from The Nation to which you referred?
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=159
No.
I believe it was by Schnell.
Not on-line
As I say these things, I have the feeling it will be in vain. Bush has most voters of the mentality: "Get them before they get us." I fear that means the public will very willingly accept millions of innocent Muslim deaths if there is a chance it will lesson the probability of even one more 911 attack. Kill whole nations to save a few American lives. They will not elect a Democrat because they percieve a shift away from that strategy if they do.
If I were an unknown Democratic presidential candidate I would study the tactic of R. Nixon in 1968. He said, "I have a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam." Once elected, he admitted the statement was only a ploy to get himself elected. And of course he immediately set in motion his notion of an expanded war. I would study the possibility of making it seem I would outshrub the Bush in his policy of aggression. Once elected, of course, revert to a sane policy. Just a whimsy..
edgar, I'm taking it as my personal responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.
I'm more of the mind that as the thousand cuts start to ooze, as the dozens of pots simmering begin to reach 212 degrees, that there aren't enough orange alerts to con even 49.99% of the electorate twice.
A lot of things can happen in 15 months--another terrorist attack, another war that needs fighting, a national economy that continues 'ooching'--and none of them are good for Commander Codpiece.
(OTOH, if those don't happen and the economy improves--fo' mo' yeahs.)
I'm just venting this morning. Won't give up the fight, ever.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace