Pax Americana

Warmongers

NB: I am not speaking for any other member of Green Mountain CodePINK, other local chapters or nationl.

A recent Facebook exchange on our page [update: it continued, but I haven't appended here]:

Kathy Elquist: Let's see you support this warmonger - you are all warmongers - your tax money went to pay killing innocent Libyans - obama gave Libya's Military more money and they used it to kill innocent people - you warmongers

Green Mountain Code Pink: In point of fact, we don't support this action, and continue to fight against all warmongering and for peace and justice.

Kathy Elquist: then why aren't you protesting and holding impeachment signs like you did when Bush went to Iraq? You people were rabid when Bush went into Iraq but yet you sit silent on this because it is obama. I see nothing wrong with people who wantpeace - that's fine but you people spit on our troops and just went ape shit on Bush. The signs about Bush were unbelievable - you protested his ranch, the Capitol, you even disrespected Condoleezza Rice AND YET YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING REGARDING OBAMA'S ILLEGAL WAR and THAT is what makes you people HYPOCRITICAL LEFT WING LOONS.

Kathy Elquist: ALSO you may fight against "all warmongering" but you don't protest the same - you are giving obama a pass because he's your man, you voted for him, you supported him and you support him now - otherwise you would be out in the streets like you did when Bush was in office or in front of the Marines recruiting office in Berkeley 

Green Mountain Code Pink: Well, I see this is going to take a bit of effort, so I'm working on a blog post to address your quesions since Facebook is not conducive to long responses. I will post a link in a couple hours. In the meantime, I have a question for you. It appears that you support the preventive invasion and occupation of Iraq, but do not support NATO and the Arab League's support of the revolution in Libya (I apologize if my assumption is incorrect). Why were you for Bush's war, but not Obama's? [posted this from my Droid at about 530am after dealing with a fussy Samuel]

Samuel Johnson might have added to his truism that Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel: charges of hypocrisy are the penultimate refuge.  It can be a fun exercise and a way to interrupt dissonance, but it lacks a certain amount of seriousness and is often a reciprocal case of projection.

Still, I did want to take some time to respond because it's worth exploring why certain conflicts get support from some quarters and not others, and I'd like to disabuse folks of any notion that many of us don't, in fact, oppose Obama's militarism as much as we did Bush's.

It's really not surprising to me there's any divide on support for military action depending on who's in office.  Opinion naturally fluctuates based on partisan affiliation I suspect in large part because, yeah, your guy's in office and you're more likely to justify stuff somebody on your team does.  But I think it's kind of a chicken-egg problem because wouldn't it also be the case that your guy probably uses the military in situations that jibe with what you think is justified?

The Bushes intervened in the Persian Gulf twice, protecting our access to the oil rich region.  The most recent Democratic presidents intervened in Yugoslavia and now Libya, ostensibly to help people actively rebelling against tyrants.  The motives seem to be in line with their parties' general interests, so of course Republicans would tend to celebrate Bush wars and not Dem wars, and Democrats would the opposite.  Absent a change in mindset and maybe establishing a Department of Peace, as I advocate, most Americans no matter what their party affiliation believe in a "just war" and merely quibble on the margins about when violence is necessary.

Now, I am absolutely against our military action in Libya.  I'm really down on all the intervention, but I don't have much say in what France or Britain or the Arab League does, and this more rightly falls into their sphere of influence anyway.

That said, if one believes violence is ever justified, I would think you'd ascribe more legitimacy to NATO's involvement than Bush's preventive invasion and occupation of Iraq.  With the latter, there was a long drumbeat to war based on incredible deception, fearmongering and manipulation, where the White House had already made a decision to attack from the beginning and was simply looking for a reason.  The former has been quite fluid and developed very fast, with the rebels requesting help as their position weakened, making time of the essence.

While the brightest lights of the GOP were calling for intervention and accusing Obama of dithering, his Administration was working with allies to get all their ducks in a row.  This includes a Security Council resolution that explicitly authorizes force (1973's "all necessary measures"), in contrast to Bush's skipping the UN when it was clear they weren't going to give him permission (1441 stopped short at "serious consequences").  

To his credit, Bush did convince Congress to give him authority with the AUMF.  But again with a quickly changing situation in Libya and no run-up period, Obama didn't really have that as an option, though he did comply with the War Powers Resolution and Congress has offered tepid support for now.

Thus, even though I think this action is unjustified--I don't care if Republicans or the Pope or anybody in particular endorses it--I can understand why somebody against the Iraq War might be okay with Obama's current air campaign.  I can even understand why supporters on the Left use the same bullshit propaganda.

Whatever hope I had in January 09 that we might be able to mitigate military misadventures during Obama's tenure has long since evaporated, as it did for many of us.  So we're still working on the same issues as before, despite a bit of Protest Fatigue after 10 years in Afghanistan, 8 years in Iraq and 1 week over Libya.

Let's keep in mind that it takes a lot of effort to build resistance.  Yes, millions of people around the world protested before Iraq, but of course there was plenty of time to organize.  We've had little opportunity to do so with this conflict as yet.

All the same, Dennis Kucinich has already mentioned the I-word.  He hasn't introduced Articles of Impeachment yet, but he didn't do that until 2008 for Bush anyway, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to object that nobody is calling for it the same way we did with the previous president just because a Dem is in office.  For the record, by 2007 I was agitating for impeachment.  Not solely because Bush went to war since that was certainly his prerogative, but rather for many of the reasons Kucinich stipulated later, and similarly I see no argument for impeachment at this point.

That political process aside, many of us have still been in the streets marking the start of the Iraq War since Obama took office, even escalating demands and action.  We're still doing counter-recruitment at mililarty locations and schools.  We're still engaged in war tax resistance.  And speaking out against Libya again and again.

Personally, I don't care if you supported the Iraq War and are now against the Libyan intervention.  I welcome everybody who has discovered a distaste for military action and look forward to your help bringing all our troops home from all our wars.

ntodd

Aid To Whom?

Foreign aid is always the easy target for people who talk about cutting the Federal budget.  American voters never seem to want cuts to any domestic program.  And of course, one must always point out that this only accounts for the barest of an iota of a fraction of a percentage of our fiscal situation.

However, it can be instructive to consider such aid in the context of what it is used for and how it could be used back home.

Excluding Iraq and Afghanistan--I give them a pass for the sake of argument under the philosophy of You Broke It, You Bought It--the two largest recipients of US military financing and aid are in one corner of the ME: Israel (~$2.75B) and Egypt (~$1.75B).  Again, it ain't a lot of coin in relative terms, but Israel's oppression of Gaza and the West Bank is financed in large part with our tax dollars, as was Mubarak's regime, recently voted off Autocratic Idol.

Cutting off Israel's and Egypt's allowance wouldn't make any significant contribution to reducing the Federal deficit or national debt.  Yet in light of Obama's proposal to cut $2.5B from The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, perhaps it is significant.

I wonder what it would look like if we stopped aiding foreign militaries and instead aided poor people here in the US?  I wonder what it would look like if Americans took to the streets for 18 days to demand not domestic regime change, but a change in foreign policy regime?

ntodd

 

The Revolution Will Not Be

Chris Hedges:

Collective, suicidal inertia rolls us forward toward national insolvency and the collapse of empire. And we do not protest. The peace movement, despite the heroic efforts of a handful of groups such as  Iraq Veterans Against the War, the Green Party and  Code Pink, is dead. No one cares.
...
Our passivity has resulted, however, in much more than imperial adventurism and a permanent underclass. A slow-motion coup by a corporate state has cemented into place a neofeudalism in which there are only masters and serfs. And the process is one that cannot be reversed through the traditional mechanisms of electoral politics.

Our hopes, like withered leaves, fall fast;
Pallid lips say, 'It is past!
We can return no more!'

Oh, well, I guess we're done for.  Yet over at Adbusters:

The country’s great experiment in freedom and democracy has run aground. Dollars have long trumped ideals and the halls of Congress are rife with corruption. The system of checks and balances has been compromised by corporate lobbyists who must scrutinize and vet every piece of major legislation before it can be voted into law. On the surface, things seem fine: Spectacular election campaigns reignite hope and usher in change; passionate debates unfold every day on CNN and FOX; and millions of people seem politically energized, launching cyber campaigns 24/7. In many ways, America’s two-party system seems to be thriving, offering substantive philosophical and policy choices. Yet teeming just beneath the surface is the truth:

Big Banks, Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Food have the power … And every congressman and senator must feed at the corporate trough.

Only the rise of a mythical “third party” can save America now. The Tea Party movement is a promising start, but it must find a counterpoint – the birth of a radical Coffee Party movement on the left. Then America will be poised on the brink of an historic political power shift. As the planet heats up and our global systems approach their terminal tipping point, people in each movement will wake up to the fact that, in essence, they are both dreaming the same dream, fighting the same fight. Opposing views will synthesize into one powerful voice, one unified movement screaming for radical freedom, radical democracy and a future we can all believe in. Once this synthesis kicks in – maybe as soon as 2013 – we’ll see the first rumblings of true regime change in America.

Look, then, into thine heart, and write!
Yes, into Life's deep stream!
All forms of sorrow and delight,
All solemn Voices of the Night,
That can soothe thee, or affright,-
Be these henceforth thy theme.

As one who has engaged in direct action with Code Pink and now looks to use the political process through traditional and non-traditional means, I have to believe that we can still effect change despite the structural, economic and other obstacles in our way.  No era has been charmed, no electoral system has been perfect, no movement has been instantly victorious,but the arc of history does indeed bend toward justice.

The key is for the People to rediscover their sovereign power and to exercise it instead of giving in to disenfranchisement, cynicism and hopelessness.  It was greatly encouraging to see so many people show up in Montpelier on Saturday to continue the struggle for health justice.  And it is encouraging to see concerned Vermonters step up to the plate in the political arena as well.

We cannot guarantee success through action, but we can guarantee failure through inaction.  There will be no one thing that will save us, so I encourage everybody to try something new, something outside your comfort zone just a little bit, something that used to be unimaginable to you.  Imagine the results...

ntodd

Healing The Reform

Rabbi Michael Lerner:

What now? I say it’s OK to celebrate partial victories, even while acknowledging what has yet to be accomplished. So let’s celebrate this one! … AND … it’s also OK to acknowledge that this bill does not represent most of what we really want.

Amen.

Since the good Rabbi's post is over at a blog alluding to tikkun olam, I think this is an apt phrase to consider, too, as we work to further reform here at home: it is not incumbent upon you to finish the task, but neither are you free to absolve yourself from it.

We won't win every struggle, but it's up to us to keep trying because if we don't, we guarantee failure and really, what other point is there to life or politics?

ntodd

Make Us Do It

Look, letters, petitions and virtual marches are lovely.  Really, they are, so good on MoveOn et al for the effort today.

That said, let's not pretend this is what Obama needs to "make him do it."  I often cite the same apocryphal FDR story he has, and I see it's making the rounds again.  Yet people seem to forget just how this actually worked with Roosevelt:

As the nation prepared for war, African American leaders hoped that the rapidly growing defense industry would provide new opportunities for blacks. In September 1940, A. Philip Randolph, president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, met with President Roosevelt and urged the President to promote equal employment opportunities and to desegregate the armed forces. Although Randolph left the meeting with assurances that President Roosevelt was looking into the matter, no agreement was made.

Having failed to secure the support of the Roosevelt administration, Randolph hoped to bring his cause to the American people. For months he planned a march on Washington and gathered the support of tens of thousands of African Americans. Worried about the impact of the march, Franklin Roosevelt met with Randolph two weeks before the march was scheduled to begin and urged him to call off the march. The only way he would stop the march, A. Philip Randolph told FDR, was if President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order.  [emph mine]

On June 25, 1941 President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 prohibiting discrimination in the defense industry and created the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to monitor hiring practices. Although the military remained segregated, World War II brought about new jobs and opportunities for African Americans.

I agree with the assessment that Obama's tepid health insurance reform proposal full of GOP "ideas" represents a loser mentality.  What of our collective refusal to step up and apply real pressure on him to deliver meaningful HCR in the form of single-payer?

I submit our reliance on passive, electronic means of expression is part of our own loser mentality.  We fundamentally gave up in March when we didn't begin an aggressive, escalating strategy to support HR676.

Fortunately, we've once again got an opportunity and some good starting points.  But what's our next act and what will it take to make us do it?

ntodd

Where The Rhetoric Ends

Healthcare-NOW!

Let’s make President Obama hear us loud and clear that we want Medicare for All!

The event will be followed by lobby visits to drop information to each Congressional office about the single-payer, improved Medicare-for-All solution to the health care crisis. If you can join us to lobby after the Summit, please contact Katie at [email protected] or 1-800-453-1305.

When: Wednesday, February 25th, 2010 – 9am. Please RSVP.

Where: In front of the White House on Pennsylvania Ave between 15th and 17th Sts.

Who: Patients, Nurses, and Doctors who have the solution to the Health Care Crisis.

For more information, and talking points, on the sidewalk summit, go here.

Please let us know that you’ll be there.

A number of sidewalk summits are being planned in cities across the country on the same day. Check back for more information on them as it comes in.

Um...I think it's Thursday the 25th, but whatever.  I love this planned action.

ntodd

Sam's First Lobbying Experience

We left the house early today so we could meet with Congressman Welch's HCR point person in Burlington before my classes.  Third time's a charm, it seems: our previous attempts had been aborted by literal and figurative weather (snow storm first, then Ericka's being ill).

We chatted with Susan Elliot for almost a quarter hour, though a few minutes were spent oohing and aahing over our newest activist.  Last time we'd gotten together--a follow-up to our August group lobbying action--Sam still had a few weeks to cook, so it was nice to make official introductions.  The boy was his usual charming self, dressed to kill and very alert.

Anyway, we got some helpful intel from our meeting.  There is, unsurprisingly, a lot of frustration on the House side, especially amongst staff.  They worked so hard to get HR3200 out the door--flaws notwithstanding--and it's gone nowhere thanks to the Democrats' lack of 120 votes in the Senate to pass anything.

They definitely are "spinning off" as many smaller bills as they can to get whatever benefits are possible no matter what the fate of the Senate's Frankenstein monster.  A decent, albeit unsatisfying hedge from where we sit because we at least get the truly good things without the other baggage like mandates that entrench the insurance companies.

Peter's still playing it close to the vest about how he might vote on whatever comes out of the sausage machine.  Readers might recall that he--rightly, I think--didn't want to be painted into a corner with the pledge Credo/FDL wanted Members to sign. 

So it's unclear if he and other progs will stand firm or fall into the "pass something" trap, watered down PO or not.  Susan reaffirmed Peter's pro-choice stance, but it doesn't look like he'll vote against a bill that contains Stupak/Nelson language.  We expressed our concern about women being thrown under the bus, and our preference to kill the bill entirely to push HR676, which we also acknowledged is not a likely thing.  Still, you gotta weigh in.

The best news we got was that our entire Congressional delegation is working closely with Vermont Legislators on our single-payer efforts.  And it looks like stimulus monies might actually help grease the skids, though they will run out in June of 2011.  After that our health programs will be running a deficit like the rest of our state services, but there's talk of a sweetened beverage tax that will help cut down on obesity-related health problems and make up a significant bit of the anticipated shortfall.

Susan agreed that with Racine and Shumlin salivating over the Dem nomination and Governor's seat, there's a fire lit to get single-payer done here.  Racine and his committee in particular were able to punt the issue last year, hoping to leave any "reform" up to DC Democrats and their Overwhelming Yet Strangely Impotent Majority.  Now they have to deal with this since Congress has screwed the pooch and thus will be quite motivated, but we must up the pressure all the same (more on that later).

On the whole it was another positive meeting, disheartening with regard to the national scene, encouraging at the state level.  Despite the many challenges ahead, we came out of the Congressman's office feeling re-energized knowing that we've got real opportunities for change and even if we're not reading about it in the news, there is good stuff happening in the background that can bear fruit.

ntodd

Full Court Press

I tend to focus on direct action over electoral politics, but of course one way to effect change is through the normal process of campaigning and voting.  The problem in our two-party system is that the Democrats can generally count on progressive voters, if only through the fear that voting for an alternative candidate will aid the GOP.

However, we cannot be afraid to press our points and even exercise some political muscle.  Perhaps it's a dicey proposition to not support the Democratic nominee for President, but at the district level the danger is less and our efforts to chip away at the partisan duopoly can even be more successful.

So how about taking a page from the 50 State Strategy?  Enter Full Court Press:

435 Democratic Primaries 2012*

It’s quite simple.  We strongly believe in the following 5 points:

    * WPA-style jobs program — create jobs by CREATING JOBS!
    * Medicare available for all
    * Repeal Hyde Amendment, vote no on any bill with Stupak or Nelson-like language
    * Repeal DOMA, DADT, support gay marriage
    * U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan

They reflect the needs and desires of the Democratic Party’s progressive base.  The principles of you and me.  And yet our officials ignore them, not just as individuals, but as a party, en masse.  They try to blame individuals, if it weren’t for Stupak, if it weren’t for Nelson.  Yet the Democrats in Congress — both House and Senate — have said yes to a version of the healthcare bill that includes either the Stupak or the Nelson amendments.  They have said it is okay to throw women’s Right to Choose under the bus.

They vote funds for ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They are not fighting for the federal government to actually create jobs by creating jobs.  The Democratic Party has not repealed the Defense of Marriage Act or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, when they have had the power to do so.

SO WE TAKE THESE POINTS TO THE POLITICIANS

In every congressional district with a Democratic incumbent, we ask her or him whether she or he supports those points.  In writing.  All 5.  If they say yes, we support them.  If they do not, or if it is not a Democratic seat, we file in the Democratic congressional primary.  We get the signatures, we do the paperwork, we pay the filing fee, We run on those points.

The bottom line is to have at least one FCP candidate on the primary ballot in every district.

They're also exploring possibly fielding candidates in 2010, but the short-term goal is to make Full Court Press a "household word" this year, then in 2011 recruit candidates and building the necessary campaign support structure for 2012.

Let's assert ourselves and no longer be dominated by "centrist" hegemony.

ntodd

Franking Privileges

Just got a letter from Representative Welch (composed Feb 4) in response to a letter I sent him (on Jan 27) about a letter he and several colleagues wrote to President Obama about lifting the siege of Gaza (way back on Jan 21).  The Mail, it seems, moves as slowly as Justice sometimes.

Regardless, the letter (the one our Congressman signed) is a small gesture and certainly won't tangibly change things.  Neither will any of the missives I've sent to him and other Members on myriad issues over the years, of course.  Not even what Senators Bennet, Brown, Gillibrand and Merkley wrote to Harry Reid about reconciliation and HCR will do a huge amount of good.

That's not really the point of this exercise.  Writing letters can be a significant act of dissent or declaration of intent in a variety of contexts, a starting point for escalation or a signal of continued vigilance and dedication to change.  They also can maintain relationships, not just romantic ones but political, too.

So I'm always glad when one of our Congressional delegation takes the minimal energy required to send something back to me.  Sure Welch's staff composes the letters and he just signs them (I don't think he or either of our Senators uses an autopen), but it's still an important part of the continuing interaction.

Actually, with Peter it's a bit more personal since I've spent a few years lobbying his office, getting to know him and his staff.  I do have to admit it tickles me a little that he always crosses out 'Mr Pritsky' and writes 'Todd', and appends the form letter with a little note in his chicken scratch.  Today: Thanks Todd.  Appreciate your continued leadership.

Yeah, yeah, an overstatement on his part, but it's a nice sentiment all the same and just encourages me to keep pestering him on Gaza, Afghanistan, HCR, etc.  Hmm...is he asking me to "make him do it"?

ntodd

198 More Sundays: If We Take To The Streets We Can Beat K-Street

Jeannette Rankin is a hero of Ericka's and mine, and a major inspiration ("mascot" seems wrong) for Green Mountain Code Pink.  The first female Member of Congress, a leader in the suffrage movement, she became a devotee of MLK in the Civil Rights/Vietname War era.  In January of 1968 she led 5000 women in the Rankin Brigade to confront Congress and famously said, "If we had 10,000 mothers willing to go to prison, we could end this war."

I wonder what it would be like if we formed a new Health Brigade to fight for single-payer.  Perhaps the Brigade could kick things off with a day of action after some low-level electronic lobbying leading up to Obama's HCR summit. 

I was thinking March 15--the anniversary of LBJ's "we shall overcome" speech to Congress--which is a Monday, so Congressional offices in DC and every district will be open for business (in my experience the Members aren't usually around on Mondays, but staff are).  Maybe call it Operation Dignity, or Operation Hope, or Operation Health, or Operation Single-Payer, or Operation Something Else People More Clever Than NTodd Can Come Up With.

Whatever the name, I have in mind three Methods the Health Brigade could employ.  First, 15. Group lobbying:

Lobbying in the sense of personal visits to a parliamentary representative by his constituent in an effort to influence his voting in the parliament or assembly is normally simply a verbal expression of opinion.  When does as a group action, however, lobbying becomes a form of corporate nonviolent action, because in addition to persuasion of the legislator, the gathering of a fairly large group of people in order to lobby itself becomes a demonstration.  This may take the form of small group lobbying when a series of individuals or groups in moderate numbers on one occasion, or over a period of time, or on several occassions visit their representatives in an effort to influence them...Or lobbying may be organized to focus on getting very large numbers on a particular day.  This is mass lobbying.

Let's say there were roughly 5000 people nationwide who went to their Reps' and Senators' offices in-district.  Maybe 10 people dedicated to single-payer--we had 16 people in teeny Vermont show up at Peter Welch's office in August--at each office to request a meeting with staff to discuss HCR.  That would be at least 5350 citizens (I know some Senators, like our dear friend Max Baucus, have more than one in the larger states) showing their commitment to real reform.

At those meetings, people could share their personal stories, indicate why they think single-payer is the only right path, and explain how they will fight in the primaries and this November only for candidates who support HR676.  Regardless whether the Member is a Democrat or Republican, we issue our demands and promises for future action.

We could double the impact if we also had 10 people visit each Congressional office on the Hill.  Same template, different location.  Now we've 10,000 citizens making their physical presence felt, lobbying their elected employees, nationwide, all at the same time.  Of course it would be great if we could get 20 people to join in at each location, but 10 as a minimum seems reasonable and does get us symbolic, yet significant, numbers in aggregate.

After a nice chat, what if we upped the ante right then and there?  Say we demand to speak to the Reps and Senators themselves?  Force the gatekeepers off balance a little bit.  No, no, we don't want to check out the website or set up a meeting later with some other staffer, thanks, please either bring them here now or get them on the phone.  Modern technology is so wonderful that Congress surely has the capacity to connect with constituents even if Members are on a roadside in East Nowhere, VT.

If we don't get a chance to talk with our targets, a subset of the citizens lobby can engage in the next level of the action.  162. Sit-in, a form of nonviolent physical intervention:

In a sit-in the interventionists occupy certain facilities by sitting on available chairs, stools and occasionally on the floor for a limited or unlimited period, either in a single act of in a series of acts, with the objective of disrupting the normal pattern of activities.

One major problem with Congress is the fact that lobbyists are constantly making their presence felt.  As I've noted before, when Ericka were in Welch's DC office, there was a Lockheed business card in the guest log just before we signed in.

It's not just money that moves politicians--though that is most important at campaign time--but contact with people and ideas.  If the only folks in their faces are lobbyists and not their constituents, then the former wins.

The default pattern needs to be interrupted, and gumming up the normal daily function of a Congressional office can be a part of that.  What's more, it can provide some good visuals and narratives if 5000 people all across America risked arrest to highlight their dedication to an important cause. 

Even if no media are there, and I'd submit we should invite some to the events, with cellphones and blogs the other delegates not volunteering to be arrested can provide coverage that could further interrupt the default thought patterns of our fellow citizens.  Hey, these people aren't just a few fringers--more doctors like Flowers and Paris would help--but folks just like me and they want single-payer.

Having documented the sit-in and arrest, the rest of the delegations can engage in some other Nonviolent Protest and Persuasion:

Several methods may be used in attempts to put pressures on individual members of the opponent group, whether officials or ordinary soldiers, for example.  These acts may be directed against specific persons or groups of persons, or may be intended to apply pressure on individuals who are part of a large body, such as an occupation army.

Delegates--and people uncomfortable with the lobbying component--would relocate outside the offices to show solidarity and create other opportunities for visuals and interactions with 34. Vigils:

A vigil is an appeal normally addressed not to one or a few person, but to many people.  Like picketing, a vigil consists of people remaining at a particular place as a means of expressing a point of view.  It differs from picketing, however, in that it is frequently maintained over a longer period of time, sometimes around the clock, and is associated with a more solemn attitude, often of a pleading or religious character.  It often involves late hours and loss of sleep.

Part of our protest and persuasion should focus not on our opponents in government, but potential allies in the population at large.  As I said the other day, we need to get our fellow citizens to understand how important this civil rights issue is, how it impacts them, and how they might get involved.  The more people you convince to join the movement through vigils, phonebanking and canvassing, the more pressure that can be brought to bear on the President, Congress and corporations through phonecalls, letters, lobbying, boycotts and strikes.

Now the big question: how do we get this Brigade marching?

ntodd

(Post at Pax Americana, Dohiyi Mir, Green Mountain Code Pink, and Daily Kos.)