BlogHer - Why Aren't We Rioting in the Streets? - Comments

Everyone would have to do this...

Papergeist — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:22:28 -0500

I wonder... if everyone refused to pay taxes this year, they would not have any money for the war. That would be the kind of protest that is nessasary. After all, we're the ones footing the bill!

Susan
Papergeist

I know what you mean. But

andreea360 — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:16:38 -0600

I know what you mean. But this is not the only problem.. I think that most of the army people who go in Iraq do it for the money. I've heard they receive a large amount of cash to go there. Unfortunately most of those that return in US end up in places such as a residential drug treatment center so, after all, money aren't everything. They can ruin lives. They can be worse than weapons.

For all our technology and

nelle2nelle — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:10:41 -0600

For all our technology and what it brings in terms of voice, there is still nothing more formidable - in ways good and bad - than large public gatherings.

It's a fine line to walk, diversity vs like mindedness, group law vs striving for rights, etc. It's not really the Holy Grail of protest I suppose, and not everything of 40 years ago is better than now.

It saddens me we are here for the second time in my life, lessons gone unlearned. As a once student of history, as one forever interested in history, that we eschew the lessons found in the past is the height of folly, and we do so at great peril and cost.

In the end, we allowed this leadership to come to be, we as a nation stood passively by and bought the lies presented to us, without taking a closer, more critical look. And we stood by and allowed a smear campaign to assist them to continue their hold on power another 4 years.

All we really have now is what Congress is toying with... resolutions, and perhaps the courage to cut funding. Absent millions in the streets, that is the only way this war will end prior to the next presidency.

Unless... the president does the unthinkable, and attacks Iran. It looks as unthinkable now as an attack on Iraq looked in December 2001, but...

I saw somewhere yesterday there are hints some generals have let it be known they will resign if asked to attack Iran. If he orders this, something I believe could actually destroy this nation, perhaps then people will rise up en masse and take to the streets. I hope and pray it need never get that far.

nelle

So it's the draft that's the difference?

Morra Aarons Mele — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:37:48 -0600

Nelle, I appreciate your perspective, and I think perhaps we are too removed from the immediacy of war. I love your quote;
"Whilst the whole idea and it's waging has been badly mismanaged, they have kept a lot away from our visual senses, so the opposition, whilst now of a vast majority, still is on a more passive level than the decade between 1965 and 1975."

But now (as Lisa points out) we have the Internet, which goodness knows has visual sources of every and any graphic, violent, and all too true stripe. And we're still not rioting in the streets....

Rioting via the keyboard - is it enough?

Lisa Stone — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:13:57 -0600

I've been mulling your passionate post all morning, Morra. You've really hit me in the solar plexus. Here's where I find myself: I'm terribly disappointed at the slow pace of change, and missed opportunities for global statesmanship. While many days I feel like taking to the street corners with a handpainted sign about any number of issues, I feel like I have bigger change of effecting long-term change every time I put my head under the hood at BlogHer.org and BlogHerAds.com.

Nothing is more important to me right now than publishing new voices from throughout the political spectrum that articulate a reality check to the powers that be. I think blogging equals participation, and participation of any kind leads to action at the ballot box, and to real change. A couple weeks ago, I heard some confirmation from outside the blogosphere that this approach is working. I was in Miami, speaking on the power of community at the WeMedia conference. The highlight of the conference for me was hearing former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, now president of the University of Miami, talk about the value of listening to what people are saying online. She told an auditorium of about 500 people:

"As a decisionmaker, if I don't use multiple sources, I make mistakes," Shalala said. "The one thing I've learned out of all the new media discussions as a decisionmaker...is that it may take more time, but you can get a lot more information from the public" by researching what people think.

Later Shalala talked specifically about how reading opinions about her latest hire, a new football coach, affirmed her choice. This communications activity, she said, is affecting 18-24 year-olds in a way that will change their voting behavior: "It looks like they're starting to vote. That's in part influenced by new media."

We're talking and decisionmakers are listening because, increasingly, they have to. To me that means we need to publish and promote as many women writers as possible as we burn up to Election 2008 -- and I mean writers from left, right and center. Because women are still underrepresented in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, not just on newspaper op-ed pages.

I feel like I'm seeing more and more women brought into public policy discussions every day via blogging, whether it's Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's candidacies, the war in Iraq or health care. I've even (jealously) sacrificed my own writing. I've been missing in action on this site in the past couple of months, planning for a massive redesign. And I think I've made the right choice. In that time, the editors and community on this site have confirmed my choice by continuing to rattle swords, ploughshares and olive branches at the White House and those seeking the White House, in a way that really helps motivate me.

Specifically:

Kim Ponders' scathing perspective on the Bush administration response to the Iraq Study Group Report:Affirming our Way to Victory in Iraq among others

Your posts on distractions (SF Mayor Gavin Newsom's affair) and outrages (treatment of vets)

Kim Pearson's incredible coverage of Second Life, both the Scooter Libby trial and Iraq

Dana J. Tuszke's perspective on Election 2008

Melinda Casino's five-second therapy delivered to the blogging left over Marcottegate, which she pretty much predicted

Birdie Jaworski's coverage of presidential hopeful and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson

Marianne Richmond's and Laura Scott'scoverage of the effects of social media on politics, and on pending legislation that could change the arena for all of us

And everyone I may have missed!

My guess is that if you were sitting across the table from me in this cafe, Morra, you might say, "Yes, Lisa, but people are dying RIGHT NOW. What are we doing about it?" And so I'll ask back -- is there a way that we could improve rioting via the keyboard? I'm all...fingers.

Great post -

Best,
Lisa

There is quite a bit of

nelle2nelle — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:05:29 -0600

There is quite a bit of difference between now and 40 years ago. At that time, many of our young faced being drafted and shipped off, so there was a direct interest in what was transpiring.

Now... we no longer have nightly reports that show flag draped caskets arriving in Delaware. We don't have that sense of 'they will get me soon, too" looming over us. Whilst the whole idea and it's waging has been badly mismanaged, they have kept a lot away from our visual senses, so the opposition, whilst now of a vast majority, still is on a more passive level than the decade between 1965 and 1975.

In one way, that's good, I don't believe any of us wish for recruiting and police stations to be bombed (as happened here.) But we do have to be discussing, electing leaders who will work toward the ending of the war, and staying on them to stay true to this.

We put someone in Congress who was outspent 5 to 1, and who was down by 20 points two months before the election. I have confidence in Carol to stand by us on the issue.

Just as the vast majority of us now stand in opposition to the Iraq war, a similar majority still believes our involvement in Afghanistan was the right thing to do... but we've foregone achieving success there in favour of our president thinking he can do as he pleases, where he pleases, when he pleases, out of some desire to impose his will on the world.

I fear nothing is going to change until 20 January, 2009. At that point, and with the changes that will come, expect the right to lay all the blame for the failure right on the lap of the left.

nelle

Why Aren't We Rioting in the Streets?

Morra Aarons Mele — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:04:06 -0600

Do you want the US out of Iraq now? I want the country to go on strike. I want the Congress to stage a sit in. I am re-printing the entire NYT lead editorial from today, because I think it is the most coherent argument for pulling out of Iraq NOW. Apologies to the New York Times, but I am just one woman, angry about this war and I feel powerless because I don't know what to do to help stop it. BlogHers: do you have ideas about what to do? What are you doing to help stop the war? Who's doing good work for this cause- recommendations, contacts, links. Can we talk about this?
[img_assist|fid=3168|thumb=1|alt=Anti-War Grannies|caption=Tucson's anti-war Grannies (bbc.co.uk)]

Al Qaeda Resurgent
Almost five and a half years ago, America â€” united by the shock of 9/11 â€” understood exactly what it needed to do. It had to find, thwart and take down the command structure of Al Qaeda, which was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 innocent people on American soil. Despite years of costly warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, America today is not significantly closer to that essential goal.

At a crucial moment, the Bush administration diverted Americaâ€™s military strength, political attention and foreign aid dollars from a necessary, winnable war in Afghanistan to an unnecessary, and by now unwinnable, war in Iraq. Al Qaeda took full advantage of these blunders to survive and rebuild. Now it seems to be back in business.

As our colleagues Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde reported last week, American intelligence and counterterrorism officials believe that Al Qaeda has rebuilt its notorious training camps, this time in Pakistanâ€™s loosely governed tribal regions near the Afghan border. Camp graduates are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq â€” and may well be plotting new terrorist strikes in the West.

The same officials point to more frequent and more current videos as evidence that Al Qaedaâ€™s top leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri â€” once on the run for their lives and unable to maintain timely communications with their followers â€” now feel more secure. Al Qaeda is not as strong as it was when its Taliban allies ruled Afghanistan. But, the officials warn, it is getting there.

Al Qaedaâ€™s comeback didnâ€™t have to happen. And it must not be allowed to continue. The new Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan do not operate with the blessing of the Pakistani government. But Pakistanâ€™s military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has not tried very hard to drive them out. In recent months he has virtually conceded the tribal areas to local leaders sympathetic to Al Qaeda. President Bush needs to warn him that continued American backing depends on his doing more to rid his country of people being trained to kill Americans.

Washington also has to enlist more support on the Afghan side of the border. NATO allies need to drop restrictions that hobble their troopsâ€™ ability to fight a resurgent Taliban. Afghan leaders need to wage a more aggressive campaign against corruption and drug trafficking. And Washington needs to pour significantly more money into rural development, to give Afghan farmers alternatives to drug cultivation. One reason General Musharraf has been hedging his bets with the Taliban and Al Qaeda is his growing doubt that Washington is determined to succeed in Afghanistan.

Having failed to finish off Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Washington now finds itself fighting Qaeda-affiliated groups on multiple fronts, most recently in Somalia. Al Qaedaâ€™s comeback in Pakistan is a devastating indictment of Mr. Bushâ€™s grievously flawed strategies and misplaced Iraq obsession. Unless the president changes course, the dangers to America and its friends will continue to multiply.