Friday, May 23, 2008
McCain Pastor: Islam Is a 'Conspiracy of Spiritual Evil'
I find it interesting that all of these "Pastor Problems" are arising. However, in the case of Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, he was wRIGHT! This Prejudiced Parsley Prick (note the alliteration) really is off his rocker. I find it to be strange that Obama doesn't support what Wright is saying, even though he is right, just because Obama takes what the mainstream media is feeding him without question (maybe he should pull in to focus that if the media portrayed his wife's "anti-Americanism" wrong, then maybe, just maybe, they could've gotten Wright wrong... but I guess it has to hit closer to home to actually matter). Also, Obama rejects to agree with Wright to keep up his image with the democrats that have also gotten the incorrect mainstream version of Wright's speeches. On the other hand, McCain's Pastor is completely wrong, yet McCain has not yet rejected what Parsley has said... Interesting. Maybe McCain isn't as lovey-dovey about Islam as he claims to be.
Friday, May 16, 2008
US House blocks Iraq war money, sets pullout plan.
I think this article is a good summary of how our executive branch will out-power any legislative branch power... WHICH IS WRONG! Stupid Bush.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Thoughts on Direct Action
I am convinced that the antiwar movement is at a stage in which we need to start thinking about how to use direct actions in a tactical sense.
The recent quietness of UFPJ and ANSWER due to the election season has caused a resurgence in grassroots activism, especially on college campuses, against the war. This can be seen from the recent success CAN has been having with new chapters springing up and larger and dedicated member turnouts at the 4 regional conferences. Because of this, there is a melding pot of different ideas and opinions. Ideas on how to organize and what methods of direct action to implement. Before I go on, I do want to mention that even through these organizational differences, CAN has been able to maintain a more radical (and in my opinion) comprehensive stance against the war than UFPJ or ANSWER. While CAN doesn't officially denounce the occupations of Afghanistan or Palestine and the impending wars with Iran and Pakistan, most of it's membership is dedicated to anti-imperialism which is necessary to make sure that these same wars don't start after another 40 years. That is why I believe that CAN is in a position to make a bigger difference than UFPJ or ANWER. With this massive potential for a real student antiwar movement, we need to debate the decide on the best method for direct action.
There are so many different definitions for "direct action" that it is confusing when talking to someone with a different definition than your own. For simplicity sake, I like to define "direct action" into these categories:
1) Tabling on your Quad or at an event to get your organization visible to the public. Only risk is a few angry looks and heated arguments with right-wingers.
2) Peaceful protest - this could be anything from a vigil, to a march with a designated route, to a die-in that does not disrupt the everyday. Only risk is some disgruntled looks by passer-bys.
3) Civil disobedience phase 1 - this is another form of protest. It could be a march that goes outside of it's designated area (if there was one to begin with). If the crowd is big enough and on a national scale the police may be involved, and so may police violence.
4) Direct Action phase 1 - I think this would be along the lines of stopping the flow of traffic of a major highway to something such as the RNC. While you are directly engaging in action to stop the meeting of the "warhawks," you are still not doing something to physically stop the war. This is more "active" than "passive." Being arrested is a possibility along with the possibility of some minor police violence.
5) Civil disobedience phase 2 - this is another form of protest. I think of this to be like a sit-in at a senator's office. It is peaceful, but some criticize saying that you are still "asking someone to do it for you." The 1968 DNC protest would fit this category as would other civil rights actions throughout the 60's. It maintains a forceful voice while remaining non-violent. This remains more "passive" than "active" as opposed to Direct Action phase 1. Being arrested is a plausibility along with police violence and brutality.
6) Direct Action phase 2 - This is physically stopping the war machine from working by individual or mass effort. Stopping the transportation of war materials to port to be shipped to war would be a perfect example of this. There is a possibility of being arrested along with police violence and brutality as well as possible riots.
I am not claiming this to be a complete list, or even an accurate one. This is just how I perceive the different kinds of "direct actions" to break down into. Some people consider all of these actions to be "direct actions." I'm not here to debate that, because that is a pointless discussion. However, we, as movement organizers and activists, need to figure out how best to relate to these actions and when and how to implement them. I think that all of these actions are necessary and have a time and place. The problem is to find out which is the correct choice at any given time. This is usually difficult because we are so ingrained in our movement work, that it is hard for us to put ourselves in the potential antiwar activists' shoes.
The biggest question is how should CAN relate to the RNC Protest in St. Paul in September. Because there is such a large number of people congregating all for one protest, and possibly one of the largest grassroots organized protests of the year, there is huge potential that hasn't been seen in this country for about 30-40 years.
Direct action does need a tactic. You have to consider the political environment, what are you able to accomplish with however many people show up, what you want to achieve from the action, and how your direct action will play off to others who you want to join your movement. Although, this may change due to the environment or spontaneity of the protest or political climate. The trick is to be able to recognize this when it occurs.
There is an idea that CAN should engage in Direct Action phase 1 actions to shut down streets with the intention to shut down the RNC or shut down St Paul itself. My criticism of this is that this is a big overestimation of what is physically possible for the protesters to accomplish. Even beyond that, I do not think it is politically savvy for us to engage in that kind of action right now. Most people who will read about this will be upset if the protesters took this tactic. It will give more ammunition for the right-wing, moderate, and even some liberals to think that antiwar protesters are against "freedom of speech." They will reason that even if we disagree with the Republicans, that no matter how horrible and deadly their politics, that we should allow them to convene because they have the freedom of speech. Whereas the protesters know the Republicans have the right to convene, but are making a point and are protesting the ideas behind the Republican pro-war, anti-immigration, anti-gay policies. However, this message will get completely lost to anyone who does not attend.
It is on that basis that I think we need to engage in either Civil Disobedience phase 1 and if all is going great and we have the mass support, possibly even Civil Disobedience phase 2. Civil Disobedience phase 1 would be something like having protests that go outside the designated protest "free speech zones." Civil Disobedience phase 2 would be something along the lines of having a sit-in or die-in around the entrance of the center the convention will take place in, but not physically stopping them from speaking. Imagine the message it will send if people see politicians stepping over dead bodies to get to their convention! I think this would play out much more favorably for our movement because then we will be able to be seen as the victims of police brutality (if there is any). If there is no police brutality, then we will still be able to get our message across through peaceful means.
I have no disillusion that we will be able to stop the RNC from convening or be able to stop the war from this one action. Which is why I favor taking the route which will get us the best media attention that will be more inviting for the young liberals and radicals to join. We need to build the widest movement possible while not losing our clarity on opposing the war in Iraq on a moral basis, not as a tactical failure. I do not think that direct actions that have the intention of trying to "fuck shit up" or shut down the RNC or shut down St. Paul will be productive to building this kind of antiwar movement.
peace
Steven Wyatt
The recent quietness of UFPJ and ANSWER due to the election season has caused a resurgence in grassroots activism, especially on college campuses, against the war. This can be seen from the recent success CAN has been having with new chapters springing up and larger and dedicated member turnouts at the 4 regional conferences. Because of this, there is a melding pot of different ideas and opinions. Ideas on how to organize and what methods of direct action to implement. Before I go on, I do want to mention that even through these organizational differences, CAN has been able to maintain a more radical (and in my opinion) comprehensive stance against the war than UFPJ or ANSWER. While CAN doesn't officially denounce the occupations of Afghanistan or Palestine and the impending wars with Iran and Pakistan, most of it's membership is dedicated to anti-imperialism which is necessary to make sure that these same wars don't start after another 40 years. That is why I believe that CAN is in a position to make a bigger difference than UFPJ or ANWER. With this massive potential for a real student antiwar movement, we need to debate the decide on the best method for direct action.
There are so many different definitions for "direct action" that it is confusing when talking to someone with a different definition than your own. For simplicity sake, I like to define "direct action" into these categories:
1) Tabling on your Quad or at an event to get your organization visible to the public. Only risk is a few angry looks and heated arguments with right-wingers.
2) Peaceful protest - this could be anything from a vigil, to a march with a designated route, to a die-in that does not disrupt the everyday. Only risk is some disgruntled looks by passer-bys.
3) Civil disobedience phase 1 - this is another form of protest. It could be a march that goes outside of it's designated area (if there was one to begin with). If the crowd is big enough and on a national scale the police may be involved, and so may police violence.
4) Direct Action phase 1 - I think this would be along the lines of stopping the flow of traffic of a major highway to something such as the RNC. While you are directly engaging in action to stop the meeting of the "warhawks," you are still not doing something to physically stop the war. This is more "active" than "passive." Being arrested is a possibility along with the possibility of some minor police violence.
5) Civil disobedience phase 2 - this is another form of protest. I think of this to be like a sit-in at a senator's office. It is peaceful, but some criticize saying that you are still "asking someone to do it for you." The 1968 DNC protest would fit this category as would other civil rights actions throughout the 60's. It maintains a forceful voice while remaining non-violent. This remains more "passive" than "active" as opposed to Direct Action phase 1. Being arrested is a plausibility along with police violence and brutality.
6) Direct Action phase 2 - This is physically stopping the war machine from working by individual or mass effort. Stopping the transportation of war materials to port to be shipped to war would be a perfect example of this. There is a possibility of being arrested along with police violence and brutality as well as possible riots.
I am not claiming this to be a complete list, or even an accurate one. This is just how I perceive the different kinds of "direct actions" to break down into. Some people consider all of these actions to be "direct actions." I'm not here to debate that, because that is a pointless discussion. However, we, as movement organizers and activists, need to figure out how best to relate to these actions and when and how to implement them. I think that all of these actions are necessary and have a time and place. The problem is to find out which is the correct choice at any given time. This is usually difficult because we are so ingrained in our movement work, that it is hard for us to put ourselves in the potential antiwar activists' shoes.
The biggest question is how should CAN relate to the RNC Protest in St. Paul in September. Because there is such a large number of people congregating all for one protest, and possibly one of the largest grassroots organized protests of the year, there is huge potential that hasn't been seen in this country for about 30-40 years.
Direct action does need a tactic. You have to consider the political environment, what are you able to accomplish with however many people show up, what you want to achieve from the action, and how your direct action will play off to others who you want to join your movement. Although, this may change due to the environment or spontaneity of the protest or political climate. The trick is to be able to recognize this when it occurs.
There is an idea that CAN should engage in Direct Action phase 1 actions to shut down streets with the intention to shut down the RNC or shut down St Paul itself. My criticism of this is that this is a big overestimation of what is physically possible for the protesters to accomplish. Even beyond that, I do not think it is politically savvy for us to engage in that kind of action right now. Most people who will read about this will be upset if the protesters took this tactic. It will give more ammunition for the right-wing, moderate, and even some liberals to think that antiwar protesters are against "freedom of speech." They will reason that even if we disagree with the Republicans, that no matter how horrible and deadly their politics, that we should allow them to convene because they have the freedom of speech. Whereas the protesters know the Republicans have the right to convene, but are making a point and are protesting the ideas behind the Republican pro-war, anti-immigration, anti-gay policies. However, this message will get completely lost to anyone who does not attend.
It is on that basis that I think we need to engage in either Civil Disobedience phase 1 and if all is going great and we have the mass support, possibly even Civil Disobedience phase 2. Civil Disobedience phase 1 would be something like having protests that go outside the designated protest "free speech zones." Civil Disobedience phase 2 would be something along the lines of having a sit-in or die-in around the entrance of the center the convention will take place in, but not physically stopping them from speaking. Imagine the message it will send if people see politicians stepping over dead bodies to get to their convention! I think this would play out much more favorably for our movement because then we will be able to be seen as the victims of police brutality (if there is any). If there is no police brutality, then we will still be able to get our message across through peaceful means.
I have no disillusion that we will be able to stop the RNC from convening or be able to stop the war from this one action. Which is why I favor taking the route which will get us the best media attention that will be more inviting for the young liberals and radicals to join. We need to build the widest movement possible while not losing our clarity on opposing the war in Iraq on a moral basis, not as a tactical failure. I do not think that direct actions that have the intention of trying to "fuck shit up" or shut down the RNC or shut down St. Paul will be productive to building this kind of antiwar movement.
peace
Steven Wyatt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)