|
Post by Moses on Feb 15, 2005 12:06:35 GMT -5
I don't know-- its really hard-- being up against the echochamber and no one even questioning the premise of the "War on Terror".
I think that alot of ordinary people do know but nothing is said. So that once I made a comment about Jane Harman when she appeared on Blitzer (Blitzer presenting her as the "opposition"- ha!) and the person who had it on said: "I know" -- and she was a Republican (who was for Dean but voted for Kerry because clearly any sane person knows that Bush is insane and dangerous-- and this person has known the Cheneys for many years)
|
|
|
Post by Ropegun on Feb 15, 2005 16:53:01 GMT -5
I was'nt really thinking along the lines of telling average people. They don't care. they're more concerned about whether the golf couse is open, or what their credit card rates are. Normal everyday stuff.
I was thinking more along the lines of confronting politicians directly regarding their choices and who they really represent.
How one could actually do tis, I don't know.
I'd still like a forum to discuss nut and bolts kind of things we can do though.
peace.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 16, 2005 0:39:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ropegun on Feb 16, 2005 12:03:48 GMT -5
Here in Seattle we have many groups like the one you posted. They show up at the major protests and march, but it does'nt really seem to be doing much to change anything.
There has to be a way of forcing the powers that be to listen to what we have to say, and to address those issues, instead of merely spinning us away as tinfoil hat wearers and anarchists.
There has to be some sort of plan or ideas for coming up with one, so as to let those in power know that they are being opposed and we will not just go away quietly. They have to know that we know what they are up to, and that we will do what we can to put an end to this crap.
Here's looking for ideas.
Peace.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 16, 2005 13:13:58 GMT -5
Many of the issues that concern ordinary citizens aren't even in the news at all, because only the special interest, money-backed "issues" get any kind of send-ups at all by the two political parties, and then by the media.
It's extremely strange-- like an incestuous dialogue of the elite is the only thing occuring in the "public" domain.
Many of us regret replacing our congressional representative w/ a Democrat, because he is nothing more than a machine cog, who represents powerful insiders, with an occasional "anti-Bush" bone thrown to the constituency.
Working with his office has proven to be a dead end (seemingly populated by the know-nothing children of the powerful insiders).
Now that he is ensconced, it seems that it will be very difficult to replace him, and the Republicans, having purged all their moderates, wouldn't put up anyone like the former moderate Republican who represented her constituents and not her Party.
Some "populist" web-based party orgs like MoveOn and the "True Majority" are helpful, but they clearly choose issues that will not displease powerful players, so those of us whose lives and children's lives are being ruined by bipartisan policies such as NCLB and the Israeli-interests in foreign policy, media consolidation and other monopolies, lack of affordable housing, predatory lending, etc. are out in the cold, because there isn't any well-funded entity whose interests are served by opposing these.
But there are citizens who are organizing around these issues-- a meeting on affordable housing broke records here for attendance, and yet there was NO play in the media about this, and no adjustment on policy by our DLC political leadership.
The so-called "advocacy" orgs have long ago been co-opted by the special interests, and are not a vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by Ropegun on Feb 16, 2005 13:33:39 GMT -5
I'm glad you brought up the bipartisan theme in all of this. The truth is that they both work for the same people, and it aint us.
Regarding your comments about Moveon and the like, I agree about what they do. And I also concur about media coverage of real issues. It is as if the whole of the media acts as a smokescreen, to disguise what really is taking place, and to confuse the people. I honestly believe that this is the case.
This is why I say the fight should be taken directly to the politicians. If corporations and religious organizations can lobby, and have access to those who are supposed to represent us, why can we not do the same? What is to stop us? Our representatives must leave the chambers sometime.
I tell you, if I could do it financially, I'd be there, in D.C., raising hell. At this point, all I have is time, due to lack of work.
Anyway, the media won't allow our positions to be heard, as it goes against the grain of the special interests. The pols won't listen unless they are made to, and have no other choice. Unless their political careers are in jeapordy, they don't care. And this really stinks.
What to do?
|
|
|
Post by POA on Feb 16, 2005 19:22:37 GMT -5
I was'nt really thinking along the lines of telling average people. They don't care. they're more concerned about whether the golf couse is open, or what their credit card rates are. Normal everyday stuff. I was thinking more along the lines of confronting politicians directly regarding their choices and who they really represent. How one could actually do tis, I don't know. I'd still like a forum to discuss nut and bolts kind of things we can do though. peace. I sort of had the opposite idea, for several reasons: 1) Other ordinary people might be sedated by the media, et cetera, but I also think they can't help but notice that in virtually every area that matters for something, their lives are getting worse. 2) In comparison, politicians are almost explicitly trained at this point to ignore their own constituents. Feinstein wasn't listening when I and thousands of others emailed her not to support the war. Commodore Strong Closer, even after losing the election, is still completely tone-deaf as to any ideas what he's done wrong and continues to do wrong. There are exceptions that ought to be supported, but I don't think that trying to get through to those that aren't exceptional will prove particularly successful. 3) Perhaps a different approach would be protests on such a small and diverse scale that people can't help but know that there are other people who really object to their support for the Bush administration. The problem with large protests at this point is that since they're physically localized, a totally hostile media gets to 'interpret' the experience to everyone else, in the process either recasting it as irrelevant and/or completely nonexistent. What about finding out which churches and which pastors actually support the invasion of Iraq/the Bush agenda, and directly protesting them right outside their churches? In effect, that's what they've been doing to more liberal religious organizations-one good turn deserves another.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 16, 2005 23:02:31 GMT -5
Feinstein did cave into pressure and voted against Ashcroft-- but then Feingold and Dodd voted for him, assuring his win.
I think pressure should continue to be put on the elected incumbents (I saw that Lieberman may have a primary challenger? And Lantos got a run for his money in the Primaries) but I would also like to see visible protests against the businesses that supported Bush (nearly all of them-- but the consumer products particularly) and other entities like the churches-- and the synogogues, which have become nothing but money-laundering schemes for Israel. This would take some very brave people, though!
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 17, 2005 1:17:57 GMT -5
A Turning Point for the Anti-War Movement? [/b] Rick Jahnkow works for two San Diego-based antimilitarist organizations, the Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities (www.projectyano.org) and the Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (www.comdsd.org). A version of this article first appeared in the January-February 2005 issue of COMD's Draft NOtices. Despite 2005 being the start of a second presidential term for George W. Bush, this year may bring together a number of factors that will offer the antiwar movement an important opportunity to shorten the US occupation of Iraq and begin to reverse the decades-long growth of militarism in this country. However, to take advantage of this opportunity, the antiwar movement will have to think critically about its emphasis on symbolic war protest and look more closely at strategies for interfering with the flow of human resources needed for war, especially through counter-recruitment organizing. As the year began, it should have been clear to everyone that the neoconservative plan for the Middle East pursued by the Bush administration had run into trouble. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is now the quagmire that many predicted, and US actions in the region have created less political stability instead of more. Meanwhile, total annual spending on war and the military has reached almost half a trillion dollars. This is being financed through deficit spending and proposed cuts in domestic programs that will generate much anger in the coming months toward Bush and his Republican majority. The increasing reports of Republican realists publicly criticizing Bush policies, especially over Iraq, indicate that beneath the surface, opinion against the neocons is growing even within the conservative base of Bush's own party. Perhaps most importantly, a developing personnel shortage within the military, caused by Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, will soon mean the Pentagon can no longer carry out the mission that has so far been handed to it. Reserve and National Guard forces now make up about 40% of the troops in Iraq, but the National Guard missed its recruitment quota by 13% last year and Reserve forces are "rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force," according to a December 2004 memo by the chief of Army Reserves, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly. Earlier in the year, a report by the Defense Science Board, a Department of Defense advisory group, concluded that the US military could not maintain its current peacekeeping commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan without either a significant increase in the size of the armed forces or a scaling back of its missions' objectives. The Bush administration has publicly stated that it intends to "stay the course," but trying to resolve this problem by increasing the size of the military is appearing to be impossible without a draft. That route, if chosen, would be an absolute disaster for the Pentagon. Thirty years ago, the public image and influence of the military establishment reached a low point because of controversy over the Vietnam War and the draft that was used to fight it. When massive war resistance and social upheaval forced an end to the draft, the Pentagon had to begin relying on aggressive marketing to fill the armed forces' ranks and improve its relationship with the public. As a result of this shift in strategy, the military has been gradually expanding its presence in K-12 schools and strengthening its ability to propagandize through other institutions of socialization. Those efforts, together with a less risky war fighting doctrine that grew out of the so-called Vietnam Syndrome, have helped the military establishment rehabilitate its image and expand its influence to an unprecedented level. Right now, however, public opposition to the war in Iraq is increasing and antagonism toward the draft is still running extremely high -- so high that the Republicans in Congress felt it necessary to bring Congressman Rangel's nonviable draft bill to the floor just so it could be voted down 402-2, and both Bush and Kerry felt compelled to publicly promise there would be no draft if they were elected. Furthermore, the Pentagon knows that its political gains over the last 30 years would be jeopardized by a firestorm of hostility if, once again, conscription were used to force people to fight an unpopular, risky war. A draft would mean that recruiters and ROTC programs would come under fierce attack on college campuses, as would the military recruiters and military-linked programs that have invaded our K-12 schools, including the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC), military aptitude testing (ASVAB), the Young Marines, and the many military-school partnerships that have been taking root at all school levels. If the military believes it cannot marshal the resources needed to carry out its mission, and if the draft is an unacceptable solution because of the perceived likelihood of a severe political backlash, it leaves only the choice of changing the mission. In other words, the US would have to find a way to begin phasing out its occupation of Iraq relatively soon. Even though Bush has talked about staying the course, there is little he can do if the troops, money, and will are not there to continue, and if the career officers at the Pentagon become more vocal in defending their own vital institutional interests. In this case, the Pentagon's interests are best served by changing the mission rather than resorting to a draft. The challenge for the anti-war movement is to work toward this outcome by strengthening the perception that neither a draft nor aggressive recruiting can sustain the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have an opportunity to do this by making counter-recruitment organizing and the demilitarization of schools a higher priority. Counter-recruitment activism in our schools can advance the most important goals of the anti-war movement in several ways. By supporting and facilitating more organizing against the military's presence in schools, we can communicate clearly that even more dire consequences are around the corner if conscription is reintroduced. Showcasing alternatives to enlistment, such as job training programs and college scholarships, helps students and educators confront the dangerous trend toward the militarization of education, which if not reversed will lay the foundation for future wars and make a draft much more likely. Counter-recruitment also offers great openings for youth activism. Even more than through protest alone, by reducing the number of new recruits, we can materially interfere with the -government's ability to sustain the occupation of Iraq and pursue other preemptive wars. In the process, we can push the Pentagon toward expressing more direct public criticism of the administration's handling of the war and of the Bush administration's military interventionism in general. One of the barriers to counter-recruitment activism in colleges and universities has been a set of laws known as the Solomon Amendments, which since 1997 has threatened campuses with the loss of federal funds if they ban recruiters and ROTC. A parallel law was implemented in 2002 to stop high schools from restricting recruiter access to students and student lists. Multiple lawsuits challenging the college-related law were introduced in 2003, and on November 29, 2004, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the Solomon Amendments violated the plaintiffs' free speech rights (see also the district court victory in Burt v. Rumsfeld, the case brought by Yale). The Justice Department indicated that it will appeal the appellate ruling to the US Supreme Court, and has asked for a stay from the Third Circuit. (For more information about the legal cases, please see www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/Index.html). Currently, however, there is an important window of opportunity to escalate college counter-recruitment organizing. There is also a possibility for some high school districts that formerly had restrictions on recruiter access to reinstate them. Amidst the current climate of concern about predatory recruiters and the Iraq war, renewed restrictions on recruiters could inspire a larger number of districts to follow suit. Even if the Supreme Court eventually overturns the court ruling against mandatory recruiter access to colleges, there are still many possibilities for challenging and resisting the military's efforts to recruit and indoctrinate young people. The many grassroots groups belonging to the National Network Opposing the Militarization of Youth (www.youthandthemilitary.org) are bringing new energy to the struggle. Creative counter-recruitment direct action is also spreading nationwide, including a recruiting center takeover in Madison, Wisconsin by individuals demanding that it be turned into a college financial aid office. More anti-war activists are gradually realizing how critical counter-recruitment work is and are deciding that symbolic protest, though valuable, is not enough. By countering military recruitment, people can actually nonviolently stand in the way of what is being done in Iraq. If more of us get involved in stopping the machinery of war in our own communities, this could be a turning point for the anti-war movement. Information sources: New York Times, September 20, 2003; Baltimore Sun, January 5, 2005.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 23, 2005 11:53:40 GMT -5
Same thing: A so-called religion and it's institutions, taken over by right wing political front groups and war-mongers: Lecture: Is the Arab Press Really Talking About Peace? February 24, 2005 7:30 PM - 9:30 PM Location: Sixth and I SynagogueMesorah DC presents Is the Arab Press Really Talking About Peace?, a lecture and video presentation by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Yigal Carmon the founder and president of MEMRI will lead the presentation. <br>
|
|
|
Post by nana on Feb 23, 2005 19:35:15 GMT -5
How in the name of all that's holy can Christians and even supposedly Christian Churches support war? Given that the following supposedly forms the basis of Christianity I just can't fathom how people manage to claim to follow Christ and Bush. The Eight Beatitudes The text of St. Matthew runs as follows: * Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3) * Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land. (Verse 4) * Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5) * Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6) * Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7) * Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8) * Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9) * Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)[/color] ___________________________________________________ The above was found at: www.newadvent.org/cathen/02371a.htm and no where does it say that bombing, shooting, war, murder, maiming, invading, occupying, or those committing those acts, are 'blessed'. And whatever happened to Thou Shalt not kill?
|
|
|
Post by POA on Feb 24, 2005 11:46:16 GMT -5
Usually when I ask fundamentalists that, they respond by saying either:
"There is a time for peace, and a time for war."
or:
"For I have come not to bring peace, but a sword"
They're both in the bible somewhere; I forgot precisely where (I think it was Ecclesiastes and in the gospels)...but you do see my point hopefully: they essentially have a quote to counter anything you say to them so they can go on doing what they've always been doing: namely killing and robbing people and being hypocrites about it.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 24, 2005 15:38:36 GMT -5
Yes, they steadfastly ignore the gist of what Jesus preached, since they aren't really believers but have subjugated Christianity to their base desire to hate and kill, just as you say.
And Ecclesiastes was written by the Sadduces, and not by Jesus, so one wonders why are they citing this as on the same plane?
Because they aren't Christians but part of a political organization for which a theology has been invented.
As to the citation you mention (ignoring the Old Testament one) there are plenty of refutations of their utterly ridiculous use of this as a justification for war and killing. (murder).
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 25, 2005 7:03:48 GMT -5
Church draws world's eyes with activismBy: Tammy Worth, Sun Staff Writer September 23, 2004 <br>A visit to First Family Church from Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, has received international attention from Switzerland-based Télévision Swiss Romande. A film crew arrived on Monday from Geneva to cover Falwell's speaking engagements this week to Kansas pastors about his part in political movements. Crews from the Swiss station have been visiting swing states to find out what the hot button is in each area prior to the upcoming presidential election. One crew, led by Jean-Phillipe Schaller, viewed Missouri as a swing state and found out about Falwell visiting First Family. "We came here to make something of the question of the importance of religion in politics," said Schaller, "and found this venue of Falwell was taking place here. And I had a contact of Caroline McKnight who said churches were mobilizing around this." Jerry Johnston, head pastor at First Family Church, 7700 W. 143rd St., Overland Park, said he was not surprised by the international attention from the press. "I think that whenever you have a decisive lead around issues, you'll create a movement and you'll potentially get worldwide attention," he said. McKnight, president of the Mainstream Coalition, a political watchdog group that, among other things, advocates for separation of church and state, said First Family is the epicenter of the local religious-political movement. She said it was no surprise that someone of Falwell's stature has come to the Overland Park church. "I expect it to be a kind of 'Let me tell you what I know about how to get away with politics in the church'," she said. "He is the leader of the gang when it comes to this, and he has been punished more by the IRS than anyone. Now he wants to teach others how to get in trouble just like him."This past summer, Johnston took a break from building his mega-church to organize with other area pastors to support an amendment proposed in the Kansas Legislature to ban same-sex marriage. His rallies have garnered attention from local groups, such as Mainstream, that believe he is walking a thin line between what churches can and can't do politically as tax-exempt organizations. Falwell spoke Wednesday night to the First Family congregation on "Lessons I Learned as a Catalyst of the Reagan Revolution ... What I did Right and Wrong." He will hold numerous pastor policy briefings today throughout Kansas flanked by Johnston, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline and Kris Kobach, professor of constitutional law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Republican candidate for the 3rd District congressional seat.Johnston, who said he has been friends with Falwell for a long time, asked him to come to First Family to rally local church leaders to become national role models.[CLONING PROJECT:] "We need thousands of pastors who will become James Dobsons, Billy Grahams and Chuck Colsons, and the problem is we only have a dozen," said Johnston. Our goal, and I represent the new generation on the scene for the next 30 years, is a massive duplication of leaders like these by the thousands."Johnston said he would like to see local pastors make an impact on politics in four ways. "First, we need to teach and preach the word of God without trying to be politically correct and be given to double speak so characteristic of politicians who try to please everyone and stand for nothing." He said he also wants to keep people aware of the issues of importance to people of faith, to target the large population of evangelical Christians who don't vote and eventually to minister to elected officials. "This will be the most faith-charged election ever in the history of the United States, and it is highly strategic because of appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court and because of the federal marriage amendment that we must enact due to the moral degradation of our country."In 1979 Falwell organized more than 100,000 conservative religious leaders and conservative lay persons to form the Moral Majority. He began Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va., in 1956 and now has a congregation of 24,000 members. He also founded Lynchburg Christian Academy with students in preschool through 12th grade and Liberty University, the largest evangelical Christian university in the country. ©The Johnson County Sun 2005
|
|