Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
16th and broadway anti-war demonstrations debated
Mud-slinging between neighborhood grassroots anti-war activists who have organized 14 successful events in the last year versus the World Can't Wait
To protest or not to protest at the 16th and Broadway intersections over the past week were debated through emails, broadcasted on Air America and talked about amongst friends of the anti-war movement. Now it's even debated on http://www.sacindymedia.org in the comment section beneath IndyMedia photographer Gary Zimmerman's slanted article.
Interestingly, the controversy stems from a little request for courtesy.
Anti-war activists Stephen and Virginia Pearcy originally had scheduled a rally for Saturday, June 10 but decided to cancel the event due to a conflicting human rights event in Davis called Mumbo Gumbo. The event, as advertised on http://www.sacindymedia.org as the "absolutely, positively, without any doubt whatsoever... my favorite event of the year," by Sacramento resident Paul Burke, who is working on his sociology PhD.
Once the request out there to friends of the Pearcys, another anti-war activist group called The World Can't Wait took the opportunity of a once-scheduled event and ran with the date, despite requests from the Pearcys that it not go on at that particular intersection at that particular day.
Ruth and George from A World Can't Wait (Sacramento coalition) felt that they were being "red-baited" by the Pearcys since some of the organizers (not necessarily from Sacramento) are communists. Historically speaking, many have argued that A World Can't Wait is a front for the communist party who seek donations from protesters at events they sponser.
Supporters of the World Can't Wait Sacramento collective have also said that Ruth and George are "very Sacramento" and have worked diligently to organize anti-war activities. On Christine Craft's show, they were asked if they would consider themselves communists and George replied, "I consider myself more as a socialist."
Interestingly, the type of socialism that comes to pass at the demo on Saturday was another green-flag "World Can't Wait" promotion.
Some of the most slanderous comments come from Zimmerman's article: "Radio talk show host Christine Craft (KSAC 1240 AM) even devoted most of her June 9 program to promote the boycott, decrying the supposed take over of the demonstration by violent, communist/anarchist outside agitators."
Craft did devote her show to the debate. Granted, she hosted the Pearcys in her studio and took calls from Ruth and George, but she never said that she was boycotting the protest. In fact, she said that she had never even been to a Pearcy-initiated demo because on those days she takes care of her mother.
So, at first glance, you may think it’s ironic that the couple so involved in the free speech movement (with the anti-war art and all that) would be discouraging their supporters from attending last Saturday's anti-war rally. But, it’s not that they are discouraging freedom of expression in anyway, they simply are encouraging events to continue in a positive fashion.
I hope this article brings peace between the two divisions and we can continue to seap through the tough times because they don't look any better.
Interestingly, the controversy stems from a little request for courtesy.
Anti-war activists Stephen and Virginia Pearcy originally had scheduled a rally for Saturday, June 10 but decided to cancel the event due to a conflicting human rights event in Davis called Mumbo Gumbo. The event, as advertised on http://www.sacindymedia.org as the "absolutely, positively, without any doubt whatsoever... my favorite event of the year," by Sacramento resident Paul Burke, who is working on his sociology PhD.
Once the request out there to friends of the Pearcys, another anti-war activist group called The World Can't Wait took the opportunity of a once-scheduled event and ran with the date, despite requests from the Pearcys that it not go on at that particular intersection at that particular day.
Ruth and George from A World Can't Wait (Sacramento coalition) felt that they were being "red-baited" by the Pearcys since some of the organizers (not necessarily from Sacramento) are communists. Historically speaking, many have argued that A World Can't Wait is a front for the communist party who seek donations from protesters at events they sponser.
Supporters of the World Can't Wait Sacramento collective have also said that Ruth and George are "very Sacramento" and have worked diligently to organize anti-war activities. On Christine Craft's show, they were asked if they would consider themselves communists and George replied, "I consider myself more as a socialist."
Interestingly, the type of socialism that comes to pass at the demo on Saturday was another green-flag "World Can't Wait" promotion.
Some of the most slanderous comments come from Zimmerman's article: "Radio talk show host Christine Craft (KSAC 1240 AM) even devoted most of her June 9 program to promote the boycott, decrying the supposed take over of the demonstration by violent, communist/anarchist outside agitators."
Craft did devote her show to the debate. Granted, she hosted the Pearcys in her studio and took calls from Ruth and George, but she never said that she was boycotting the protest. In fact, she said that she had never even been to a Pearcy-initiated demo because on those days she takes care of her mother.
So, at first glance, you may think it’s ironic that the couple so involved in the free speech movement (with the anti-war art and all that) would be discouraging their supporters from attending last Saturday's anti-war rally. But, it’s not that they are discouraging freedom of expression in anyway, they simply are encouraging events to continue in a positive fashion.
I hope this article brings peace between the two divisions and we can continue to seap through the tough times because they don't look any better.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Gary Zimmerman's is also funny. He posted photos of the same people over and over again, but multiplied them by 4. You were able to show humor in the actual facts.
I find this whole situation perversely humorous.
Personally, as someone who resides in Sacramento, I have only attended this protest a couple of times, primarily because it became evident to me that it is more an anti-Bush protest in the guise of an antiwar one.
The protests, at least the times that I attended, focused exclusively upon Bush and the Republicans, with an understandably strong emphasis upon their "lies", implicitly supporting the intellectually dishonest position that the Democratic Party leadership in the House and Senate only voted for the Iraq war because they had been mislead. It is a "lie" that is as equally brazen, and as equally offensive, as the lies that Bush told to frighten much of the public into supporting the war.
In fact, 21 Democratic senators bravely went against the President, Senate Minority Leader Daschle and House Minority Leader Gephardt and voted against the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq, making much the same case, as did many prominent outside critics, like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, that we make today, almost 4 years later. At least Bush stands by his war, however ineptly, while the Democrats cravenly manufacture excuses for their complicity.
I don't recall ever seeing any signs condemning people like Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Joseph Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein for their votes for the war and their continued support for the occupation. Nor I have I recently heard that this event has begun to emphasize the prospect of a war against Iran, a war that, if launched, will have the same strong bipartisan support (Clinton is especially hawkish in this regard) that the war and occupation in Iraq does.
I have no doubt that the organizers and participants are sincere in their efforts, but, the reality is that the occupation is now over 3 years old, with no signs of being terminated, and with no real prospect that the Democratic Party will push for it, as we move forward towards a war in Iran. Sadly, the rallies at 16th and J have nothing to say about this, because they are centered solely around the historical and political fiction that the war and occupation are solely the preserve of the Republicans.
Meanwhile, we get passive/aggressive statements like the supporter of the Pearcys who posted this article (compare and contrast):
[(1) Interestingly, the type of socialism that comes to pass at the demo on Saturday was another green-flag "World Can't Wait" promotion.]
[(2) So, at first glance, you may think it’s ironic that the couple so involved in the free speech movement (with the anti-war art and all that) would be discouraging their supporters from attending last Saturday's anti-war rally. But, it’s not that they are discouraging freedom of expression in anyway, they simply are encouraging events to continue in a positive fashion.
I hope this article brings peace between the two divisions and we can continue to seap through the tough times because they don't look any better.]
So, let me get this straight, the author wants everyone to get along while taking gratuitous slaps at WCW. Get back to me when you decide whether you want to work with NION and WCW or if you have decided to continue to attack them as illegitimate.
Furthermore, as an aside, the author writes about "Ruth and George" as if they just fell off the back of a truck. I don't know "George" but, apparently, the author doesn't know that "Ruth" is Ruth Holbrook, who been involved in progressive labor , civil rights and antiwar activities in Sacramento for decades, possibly since before I was born in 1960. She was honored by the Sacramento Central Labor Council several years ago. She is known by many people in the community, and they are certainly able to determine if Virginia Pearcy's characterization of her behaviour is accurate. I don't know one way or the other, as I said, I don't attend this rally, much less go to meetings about it.
Additionally, I also find the criticism of WCW for holding the event at the same time as the "Mumbo Gumbo" event in Davis a little disingenous. Obviously, "Ruth and George" weren't planning on attending an event in another city, anyway, nd wanted to continue to have the rally in Sacramento.
Do people in SF cancel rallies, speaking events and presentations because of events in Oakland? Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, but it is recognized that it can be virtually impossible to avoid scheduling conflicts entirely.
People were certainly free to go to the "Mumbo Gumbo" event in Davis as a one time event, and return to the rally in the future, while others who were uninterested went to 16th and J. Unfortunately, it looks to me like the people who are involved with the "Mumbo Gumbo" event, or have frequently attended it, like Paul Burke, who was quoted in another article or post in support of the Pearcys, were involuntarily drafted in support of them, and inappropriately pulled into the middle of this dispute.
But I am ranging far afield. If there are people and organizations willing to organize protests, speaking events and presentations that honestly address the war and the real challenges in bringing it to an end in the face of bipartisan support for the indefinite occupation of Iraq, I'm interested.
Of course, that may mean there will initially be a lot less people there, because it will involve confronting Democrats as well as Republicans. But there are people elsewhere arond the country already doing so, and it must be possible to learn from them. It will also involve speaking out against a war against Iran NOW, instead of doing so from a position of moral righteousness after it is happens.
Again, this will be difficult, but my personal view is that our ability to mobilize opposition to the militarism of the US is enhanced by addressing it truthfully, even if it will initially encounter significant opposition, than by promoting a mythology that it is primarily associated with George Bush and the Republican Party.
--Richard Estes
Personally, as someone who resides in Sacramento, I have only attended this protest a couple of times, primarily because it became evident to me that it is more an anti-Bush protest in the guise of an antiwar one.
The protests, at least the times that I attended, focused exclusively upon Bush and the Republicans, with an understandably strong emphasis upon their "lies", implicitly supporting the intellectually dishonest position that the Democratic Party leadership in the House and Senate only voted for the Iraq war because they had been mislead. It is a "lie" that is as equally brazen, and as equally offensive, as the lies that Bush told to frighten much of the public into supporting the war.
In fact, 21 Democratic senators bravely went against the President, Senate Minority Leader Daschle and House Minority Leader Gephardt and voted against the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq, making much the same case, as did many prominent outside critics, like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, that we make today, almost 4 years later. At least Bush stands by his war, however ineptly, while the Democrats cravenly manufacture excuses for their complicity.
I don't recall ever seeing any signs condemning people like Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Joseph Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein for their votes for the war and their continued support for the occupation. Nor I have I recently heard that this event has begun to emphasize the prospect of a war against Iran, a war that, if launched, will have the same strong bipartisan support (Clinton is especially hawkish in this regard) that the war and occupation in Iraq does.
I have no doubt that the organizers and participants are sincere in their efforts, but, the reality is that the occupation is now over 3 years old, with no signs of being terminated, and with no real prospect that the Democratic Party will push for it, as we move forward towards a war in Iran. Sadly, the rallies at 16th and J have nothing to say about this, because they are centered solely around the historical and political fiction that the war and occupation are solely the preserve of the Republicans.
Meanwhile, we get passive/aggressive statements like the supporter of the Pearcys who posted this article (compare and contrast):
[(1) Interestingly, the type of socialism that comes to pass at the demo on Saturday was another green-flag "World Can't Wait" promotion.]
[(2) So, at first glance, you may think it’s ironic that the couple so involved in the free speech movement (with the anti-war art and all that) would be discouraging their supporters from attending last Saturday's anti-war rally. But, it’s not that they are discouraging freedom of expression in anyway, they simply are encouraging events to continue in a positive fashion.
I hope this article brings peace between the two divisions and we can continue to seap through the tough times because they don't look any better.]
So, let me get this straight, the author wants everyone to get along while taking gratuitous slaps at WCW. Get back to me when you decide whether you want to work with NION and WCW or if you have decided to continue to attack them as illegitimate.
Furthermore, as an aside, the author writes about "Ruth and George" as if they just fell off the back of a truck. I don't know "George" but, apparently, the author doesn't know that "Ruth" is Ruth Holbrook, who been involved in progressive labor , civil rights and antiwar activities in Sacramento for decades, possibly since before I was born in 1960. She was honored by the Sacramento Central Labor Council several years ago. She is known by many people in the community, and they are certainly able to determine if Virginia Pearcy's characterization of her behaviour is accurate. I don't know one way or the other, as I said, I don't attend this rally, much less go to meetings about it.
Additionally, I also find the criticism of WCW for holding the event at the same time as the "Mumbo Gumbo" event in Davis a little disingenous. Obviously, "Ruth and George" weren't planning on attending an event in another city, anyway, nd wanted to continue to have the rally in Sacramento.
Do people in SF cancel rallies, speaking events and presentations because of events in Oakland? Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, but it is recognized that it can be virtually impossible to avoid scheduling conflicts entirely.
People were certainly free to go to the "Mumbo Gumbo" event in Davis as a one time event, and return to the rally in the future, while others who were uninterested went to 16th and J. Unfortunately, it looks to me like the people who are involved with the "Mumbo Gumbo" event, or have frequently attended it, like Paul Burke, who was quoted in another article or post in support of the Pearcys, were involuntarily drafted in support of them, and inappropriately pulled into the middle of this dispute.
But I am ranging far afield. If there are people and organizations willing to organize protests, speaking events and presentations that honestly address the war and the real challenges in bringing it to an end in the face of bipartisan support for the indefinite occupation of Iraq, I'm interested.
Of course, that may mean there will initially be a lot less people there, because it will involve confronting Democrats as well as Republicans. But there are people elsewhere arond the country already doing so, and it must be possible to learn from them. It will also involve speaking out against a war against Iran NOW, instead of doing so from a position of moral righteousness after it is happens.
Again, this will be difficult, but my personal view is that our ability to mobilize opposition to the militarism of the US is enhanced by addressing it truthfully, even if it will initially encounter significant opposition, than by promoting a mythology that it is primarily associated with George Bush and the Republican Party.
--Richard Estes
I think I find Richard's commentary almost more amusing than the article. This is the same Richard Estes from Davis that said, "I'm voting for Kerry for one reason: the rest of the world wants Bush out" and also said:
"if Bush goes, it will embolden people around the world to more aggressively resist the military and economic predation of the US
if Bush is defeated, the moment of the announcement will launch one of the greatest global celebrations in history, comparable to the end of World War II
there is a left beyond anarchism, beyond communism, a global left rooted in tolerance, compassion and fairness, and freedom from the colonial economic exploitation of the American system of finance capitalism
and they have spoken with one voice: Bush must go as a precondition for any future progress"
See URL below
Have you now decided that Bush ain't so bad after all? You're such a fraud! You try to pretend you're on the sidelines and presenting an objective viewpoint, when in fact you can't tell your right foot from your left. Please!
"if Bush goes, it will embolden people around the world to more aggressively resist the military and economic predation of the US
if Bush is defeated, the moment of the announcement will launch one of the greatest global celebrations in history, comparable to the end of World War II
there is a left beyond anarchism, beyond communism, a global left rooted in tolerance, compassion and fairness, and freedom from the colonial economic exploitation of the American system of finance capitalism
and they have spoken with one voice: Bush must go as a precondition for any future progress"
See URL below
Have you now decided that Bush ain't so bad after all? You're such a fraud! You try to pretend you're on the sidelines and presenting an objective viewpoint, when in fact you can't tell your right foot from your left. Please!
For more information:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:cW1YtH...
[I think I find Richard's commentary almost more amusing than the article. This is the same Richard Estes from Davis that said, "I'm voting for Kerry for one reason: the rest of the world wants Bush out" and also said:
"if Bush goes, it will embolden people around the world to more aggressively resist the military and economic predation of the US
if Bush is defeated, the moment of the announcement will launch one of the greatest global celebrations in history, comparable to the end of World War II
there is a left beyond anarchism, beyond communism, a global left rooted in tolerance, compassion and fairness, and freedom from the colonial economic exploitation of the American system of finance capitalism
and they have spoken with one voice: Bush must go as a precondition for any future progress"
See URL below
Have you now decided that Bush ain't so bad after all? You're such a fraud! You try to pretend you're on the sidelines and presenting an objective viewpoint, when in fact you can't tell your right foot from your left. Please!
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:cW1YtH...]
thanks for trying to get me back into the good graces of people who believe that the Democratic Party is the sole vehicle for social change, the sole arbiter of what may or may not be politically expressed, perspectives that I have never advocated, but, really, I don't need the help
as for comment about the 2004 election, it looks pretty good in retrospect, as it clearly expressed the view of many leftist movements around the world, a disgust w/Kerry and the Democrats, but a desire to drive the neo-conservatives from power, with the hope that they could be more successful with Bush gone
in any event, how this relates to the need for antiwar protest to engage the causes and perpetuation of the war honestly is beyond me, but I'm just overcome with emotion that I'm still remembered around here, and you would publicize my past comments
(sniff, sniff, grabbing for hankerchief)
--Richard
"if Bush goes, it will embolden people around the world to more aggressively resist the military and economic predation of the US
if Bush is defeated, the moment of the announcement will launch one of the greatest global celebrations in history, comparable to the end of World War II
there is a left beyond anarchism, beyond communism, a global left rooted in tolerance, compassion and fairness, and freedom from the colonial economic exploitation of the American system of finance capitalism
and they have spoken with one voice: Bush must go as a precondition for any future progress"
See URL below
Have you now decided that Bush ain't so bad after all? You're such a fraud! You try to pretend you're on the sidelines and presenting an objective viewpoint, when in fact you can't tell your right foot from your left. Please!
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:cW1YtH...]
thanks for trying to get me back into the good graces of people who believe that the Democratic Party is the sole vehicle for social change, the sole arbiter of what may or may not be politically expressed, perspectives that I have never advocated, but, really, I don't need the help
as for comment about the 2004 election, it looks pretty good in retrospect, as it clearly expressed the view of many leftist movements around the world, a disgust w/Kerry and the Democrats, but a desire to drive the neo-conservatives from power, with the hope that they could be more successful with Bush gone
in any event, how this relates to the need for antiwar protest to engage the causes and perpetuation of the war honestly is beyond me, but I'm just overcome with emotion that I'm still remembered around here, and you would publicize my past comments
(sniff, sniff, grabbing for hankerchief)
--Richard
Why can't you all just let it go? Who cares what group said what, when, where, why, etc.? This is what "they" want you to do...quibble about your minor differences and labels instead of stand together against their atrocities.
Commanding that we "End the discussion" sounds so totalitarian of you. Do you think discussion and debate make us weak? If so, then you're living in the wrong country--China might be more to your liking.
Why don't you stop telling other people to shut up and let them voice their opinions . . . before it's too late!
Why don't you stop telling other people to shut up and let them voice their opinions . . . before it's too late!
[Who needs agent provacateurs?
by End the discussion already
Tuesday Jun 13th, 2006 11:57 AM
Why can't you all just let it go? Who cares what group said what, when, where, why, etc.? This is what "they" want you to do...quibble about your minor differences and labels instead of stand together against their atrocities.]
Being honest about who is responsible for this war, Republican and Democrat, and creating a protest movement based upon accountability and stopping the next war in Iran is not quibbling, a label or a minor difference, it goes to the heart of why the protests at 16th and J, as a symbol of much protest against the war nationally, are, I must regretfully say, ineffectual.
They are ineffectual, because they communicate a message that many people know to be untrue, that Bush and the Republicans are solely responsible for the war and occupation. If we must be candid, we must admit that it is a lie as great as the lies that Bush used to support the war.
Anyway, this is pretty simple: are there going to be protests that criticize people from both parties for their support of the war and occupation and will there be an emphasis towards informing people that the Iraq scenario is going to be repeated in Iran, again, with bipartisan support?
If yes, I'm interested. If not, I'm not, because it is a politically and intellectually dishonest approach that people see through very quickly. Strangely enough, the libertarians over antiwar.com get this, and provide a very eclectic mix of commentary and news across the spectrum about the war in the context of the US empire, and they have flourished over the last 10 years.
--Richard
by End the discussion already
Tuesday Jun 13th, 2006 11:57 AM
Why can't you all just let it go? Who cares what group said what, when, where, why, etc.? This is what "they" want you to do...quibble about your minor differences and labels instead of stand together against their atrocities.]
Being honest about who is responsible for this war, Republican and Democrat, and creating a protest movement based upon accountability and stopping the next war in Iran is not quibbling, a label or a minor difference, it goes to the heart of why the protests at 16th and J, as a symbol of much protest against the war nationally, are, I must regretfully say, ineffectual.
They are ineffectual, because they communicate a message that many people know to be untrue, that Bush and the Republicans are solely responsible for the war and occupation. If we must be candid, we must admit that it is a lie as great as the lies that Bush used to support the war.
Anyway, this is pretty simple: are there going to be protests that criticize people from both parties for their support of the war and occupation and will there be an emphasis towards informing people that the Iraq scenario is going to be repeated in Iran, again, with bipartisan support?
If yes, I'm interested. If not, I'm not, because it is a politically and intellectually dishonest approach that people see through very quickly. Strangely enough, the libertarians over antiwar.com get this, and provide a very eclectic mix of commentary and news across the spectrum about the war in the context of the US empire, and they have flourished over the last 10 years.
--Richard
this article was posted by someone who is supportive of the Pearcys, with the idea that it should engender a DEBATE
now, apparently, because the issues have escaped the crabbed boundaries of the person who posted the article, everyone is supposed to SHUT UP because honest dialogue is doing the work of the NATIONAL SECURITY STATE
anyway, why these non-denial denials to my earlier remark?
[Anyway, this is pretty simple: are there going to be protests that criticize people from both parties for their support of the war and occupation and will there be an emphasis towards informing people that the Iraq scenario is going to be repeated in Iran, again, with bipartisan support?
If yes, I'm interested. If not, I'm not, because it is a politically and intellectually dishonest approach that people see through very quickly. Strangely enough, the libertarians over antiwar.com get this, and provide a very eclectic mix of commentary and news across the spectrum about the war in the context of the US empire, and they have flourished over the last 10 years.]
if anyone is willing to answer, or engage this, instead of trying to engage in some kind of pathetic attempt to shut down the discussion, I'm all ears
--Richard
now, apparently, because the issues have escaped the crabbed boundaries of the person who posted the article, everyone is supposed to SHUT UP because honest dialogue is doing the work of the NATIONAL SECURITY STATE
anyway, why these non-denial denials to my earlier remark?
[Anyway, this is pretty simple: are there going to be protests that criticize people from both parties for their support of the war and occupation and will there be an emphasis towards informing people that the Iraq scenario is going to be repeated in Iran, again, with bipartisan support?
If yes, I'm interested. If not, I'm not, because it is a politically and intellectually dishonest approach that people see through very quickly. Strangely enough, the libertarians over antiwar.com get this, and provide a very eclectic mix of commentary and news across the spectrum about the war in the context of the US empire, and they have flourished over the last 10 years.]
if anyone is willing to answer, or engage this, instead of trying to engage in some kind of pathetic attempt to shut down the discussion, I'm all ears
--Richard
The right laughs as the left fractions into smaller and smaller segments. Whether this call to not protest was based on concerns of violent outbreaks or the silly fact that the Pierces feel they own that avenue and that form of expression the damaging result is the same.
Why is it that protestors are so concerned about public perception?
Are we the ones responsible for tens of thousands of deaths? No
Are we dishonest about our intentions? No
Modern day protest is a joke. It either requires following rules or obtaining a permit.
These leftist entrepueners should worry less about their brand getting bad publicity and more about the actual cause of fighting against the war.
Why is it that protestors are so concerned about public perception?
Are we the ones responsible for tens of thousands of deaths? No
Are we dishonest about our intentions? No
Modern day protest is a joke. It either requires following rules or obtaining a permit.
These leftist entrepueners should worry less about their brand getting bad publicity and more about the actual cause of fighting against the war.
Civilian
Excellent comment! This "controversy" over who should or should not organize a demonstration at a certain location is so ridiculous that I'm wondering whether I'm really dealing with rational human beings. However, the only real winner in this fiasco is the Bush regime and the Project for a New American Century. Anybody who "red baits" has no place in the progressive community must and be exposed for the de-facto agent provocateurs that they are!
Excellent comment! This "controversy" over who should or should not organize a demonstration at a certain location is so ridiculous that I'm wondering whether I'm really dealing with rational human beings. However, the only real winner in this fiasco is the Bush regime and the Project for a New American Century. Anybody who "red baits" has no place in the progressive community must and be exposed for the de-facto agent provocateurs that they are!
Your a communist or your not. You have an ego or you don't. Who cares?
No wonder why the Left is so pathetic. It's more concerned about what names to call itself or other people than about the issues.
How about just "Stop the War!"
No wonder why the Left is so pathetic. It's more concerned about what names to call itself or other people than about the issues.
How about just "Stop the War!"
Both George and I are members of the Sacramento Coalition to End the War - we were able to get the Sac City Council to pass a resolution calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Our next campaign is one of informing high school juniors and seniors as to their rights with respect to recruiters having their personal information. We are not members of World Can't Wait as was expressed in one of these messages but we are pleased to work with them. We have been labor and community activist for over 30 years in the Sacramento area.
Hi,
World Can't Wait is what we call a "front group" for the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (http://revcom.us/rcp-e.htm). A lot of people don't find the fact that they are communists to be the problem, or the fact that they are "Marxists" (most labor activists are, if you think about that)-- it's that they are into "MLM" (Marxist-Leninist Maoism) and are basically a cult led by "Chairman" (for life?) Bob Avakian.
A lot of these communist and socialist parties have front groups, which work on what they call a "united front," with a statement of their positions, which were invented by party members and "supporters" and some invited friends. The RCP has had a bunch of front groups, from October 22nd Coalition to Refuse and Resist to Not in Our Name (NION)-- they have mostly abandoned all of their front groups in order to focus on World Can't Wait.
The worst part about all of this is that the "World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime" slogan doesn't even mention their goal, which would basically be to replace Bush with Bob Avakian. They make it sound like getting Bush out would solve all the problems out there, but let's face it, Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq, Gore couldn't have avoided getting us there in the first place, and even if you get a Green Party candidate elected, there is still the military industrial complex (including the military and companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, Bechtel, etc, along with US "intelligence" groups and others who would want to go to war), so it is unavoidable.
The above info on World Can't Wait is not redbaiting. If the CIA/FBI/NSA cares at all about these front groups, then they have already infiltrated them. If people are against redbaiting, it means that they have something to fear-- is it being exposed as some weirdo group, or is it that the government will "find out" that they are a member of the group?
i call it like it is. I base things that I write on my experiences. I don't like communist groups because they believe in having a state. I don't like the RCP because it is like a cult, and because its members and the group itself (along with front groups) have acted in ways that show that they don't really have the "interests" of "the people" at heart.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20051203143218921
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party%2C_USA
World Can't Wait is what we call a "front group" for the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (http://revcom.us/rcp-e.htm). A lot of people don't find the fact that they are communists to be the problem, or the fact that they are "Marxists" (most labor activists are, if you think about that)-- it's that they are into "MLM" (Marxist-Leninist Maoism) and are basically a cult led by "Chairman" (for life?) Bob Avakian.
A lot of these communist and socialist parties have front groups, which work on what they call a "united front," with a statement of their positions, which were invented by party members and "supporters" and some invited friends. The RCP has had a bunch of front groups, from October 22nd Coalition to Refuse and Resist to Not in Our Name (NION)-- they have mostly abandoned all of their front groups in order to focus on World Can't Wait.
The worst part about all of this is that the "World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime" slogan doesn't even mention their goal, which would basically be to replace Bush with Bob Avakian. They make it sound like getting Bush out would solve all the problems out there, but let's face it, Kerry wouldn't have gotten the US out of Iraq, Gore couldn't have avoided getting us there in the first place, and even if you get a Green Party candidate elected, there is still the military industrial complex (including the military and companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, Bechtel, etc, along with US "intelligence" groups and others who would want to go to war), so it is unavoidable.
The above info on World Can't Wait is not redbaiting. If the CIA/FBI/NSA cares at all about these front groups, then they have already infiltrated them. If people are against redbaiting, it means that they have something to fear-- is it being exposed as some weirdo group, or is it that the government will "find out" that they are a member of the group?
i call it like it is. I base things that I write on my experiences. I don't like communist groups because they believe in having a state. I don't like the RCP because it is like a cult, and because its members and the group itself (along with front groups) have acted in ways that show that they don't really have the "interests" of "the people" at heart.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20051203143218921
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party%2C_USA
If ya'll take Pittsburgh and replace it with Sacramento you might go far in resolving this situation
This is a statement from Pittsburgh Organizing Group (POG) to the many groups and organizations in our city involved in struggles for social and economic justice. Its purpose is to make more explicit the solidarity we try to engage in towards other members of the progressive community. It is the way in which we seek to make real the commitment we have to build a strong and lasting culture of mutual respect and support across the lines that too often divide us. We encourage other groups to write their own solidarity statements, something we believe could produce beneficial results for the community (we would be happy to use this page as a place to publicize those). Groups are also welcome to simply rework or endorse the below statement.
Our solidarity made real!
We are just one of a great multitude of groups striving for progressive social change. When considering our relationship to each other we try to keep in mind we are not necessarily immediate allies nor are we each other’s greatest enemy. There are many things, on which we likely do not agree, but despite this fact we are part of the same broad struggles together and strength exists in the bonds between our groups and individuals. We are often in the streets together to protest, working on the same issue, or towards a similar goal. We know that corporations, police, mass media, and other dominant institutions of power are often trying to divide us in order to crush our movements. Solidarity is the way in which our diversity becomes our strength, we build our movements and we protect each other’s bodies, lives and rights, both on the streets and in our every day organizing.
We believe we have some things in common. We believe in basic human rights and the need to live with respect and dignity. We believe we must protect this planet - our air, water, earth and food or we will all die. We believe these global corporate and political institutions are serving primarily the interests of the rich. We agree in the right of communities to self-determination within a framework of progressive social change. We believe workers are entitled to be the beneficiaries of their labor and that they have an unalienable right to organize for the betterment of themselves and others. We all agree it’s time for fundamental change. As we take to the streets together, as we continue our day to day organizing, let us work to be in solidarity with one another.
The following are ways in which we attempt to make this feeling of solidarity real. It is the way in which we strive to provide a framework of solidarity in the city.
As individual members of POG we aim
* Challenge and critique other groups and individuals in constructive ways and in a spirit of respect.
* To try to listen without getting defensive. To be open in thinking, not rigid in positions.
* To avoid making assumptions about the opinions or values of others based on what a person looks like or what groups we “know” or think they belong to.
* To refrain from personal attacks, even with people whom strongly disagree. (We try to focus on how we feel, not what they did.)
* To understand that even though we may sometimes disagree, the vast majority of those in our movements have come to their politics, strategies and choice of tactics through thoughtful and intelligent consideration of issues, circumstances and experiences.
* To try to be accountable to others and the group as a whole for the decisions we make and be responsible for the things we say you’re going to do.
* To support workers struggles. We don’t cross picket lines and we don’t scab or support those who do.
At protests and in our dealing with other groups and the police
* We do not turn people over or single people out to the police through either physical or verbal actions.
* We do not let people within our groups interfere with other groups without explanation and accountability.
* We share food, water, medical and other supplies with groups lacking those resources
* We support ANY protester who is hurt, gassed, shot or beaten
* We try as much as is possible and practical to respect other groups’ rights to do a certain type of protest at certain times and places. If we choose to participate as a group, we try to do so within the tone and tactics they set. If we do not agree with the tone and tactics, we do not, as a group, participate in that protest or bring a differently oriented protest into that time and space without extensive explanation of the reasons why. We ask the same of other individuals and groups who participate in our events.
* We understand that our actions and tactics have repercussions that go beyond our immediate group and ourselves.
* We do not provide the police or any other government agent information on the activities of other groups or individuals. If they want to know something they can contact that group themselves.
* If we choose to negotiate with the police, we never do so for other groups of which we are not a part.
As a group
* We strive to make everyone aware of the resources available at events we're participating in, or organizing: legal, medical, and otherwise
* We strive to organize in as open and inclusive way as is practical while still maintaining a culture of security in recognition of the ongoing attempts of the state to survey and disrupt our movements.
* We seek to emphasize anti-oppression principles in all of our organizing.
In the Media
* We seek to avoid perpetuating a “good” protester “bad” protester dichotomy
* We do not denounce other demonstrators.
* We talk about our strategy and beliefs, not others
* We acknowledge other groups’ existence and role they play in creating change
* We acknowledge that we sometimes disagree with one another about strategy and tactics.
* We condemn police repression and brutality
Jail solidarity
* We seek to support those arrested to the maximum extent possible. No one is free until everyone is free!
This is a statement from Pittsburgh Organizing Group (POG) to the many groups and organizations in our city involved in struggles for social and economic justice. Its purpose is to make more explicit the solidarity we try to engage in towards other members of the progressive community. It is the way in which we seek to make real the commitment we have to build a strong and lasting culture of mutual respect and support across the lines that too often divide us. We encourage other groups to write their own solidarity statements, something we believe could produce beneficial results for the community (we would be happy to use this page as a place to publicize those). Groups are also welcome to simply rework or endorse the below statement.
Our solidarity made real!
We are just one of a great multitude of groups striving for progressive social change. When considering our relationship to each other we try to keep in mind we are not necessarily immediate allies nor are we each other’s greatest enemy. There are many things, on which we likely do not agree, but despite this fact we are part of the same broad struggles together and strength exists in the bonds between our groups and individuals. We are often in the streets together to protest, working on the same issue, or towards a similar goal. We know that corporations, police, mass media, and other dominant institutions of power are often trying to divide us in order to crush our movements. Solidarity is the way in which our diversity becomes our strength, we build our movements and we protect each other’s bodies, lives and rights, both on the streets and in our every day organizing.
We believe we have some things in common. We believe in basic human rights and the need to live with respect and dignity. We believe we must protect this planet - our air, water, earth and food or we will all die. We believe these global corporate and political institutions are serving primarily the interests of the rich. We agree in the right of communities to self-determination within a framework of progressive social change. We believe workers are entitled to be the beneficiaries of their labor and that they have an unalienable right to organize for the betterment of themselves and others. We all agree it’s time for fundamental change. As we take to the streets together, as we continue our day to day organizing, let us work to be in solidarity with one another.
The following are ways in which we attempt to make this feeling of solidarity real. It is the way in which we strive to provide a framework of solidarity in the city.
As individual members of POG we aim
* Challenge and critique other groups and individuals in constructive ways and in a spirit of respect.
* To try to listen without getting defensive. To be open in thinking, not rigid in positions.
* To avoid making assumptions about the opinions or values of others based on what a person looks like or what groups we “know” or think they belong to.
* To refrain from personal attacks, even with people whom strongly disagree. (We try to focus on how we feel, not what they did.)
* To understand that even though we may sometimes disagree, the vast majority of those in our movements have come to their politics, strategies and choice of tactics through thoughtful and intelligent consideration of issues, circumstances and experiences.
* To try to be accountable to others and the group as a whole for the decisions we make and be responsible for the things we say you’re going to do.
* To support workers struggles. We don’t cross picket lines and we don’t scab or support those who do.
At protests and in our dealing with other groups and the police
* We do not turn people over or single people out to the police through either physical or verbal actions.
* We do not let people within our groups interfere with other groups without explanation and accountability.
* We share food, water, medical and other supplies with groups lacking those resources
* We support ANY protester who is hurt, gassed, shot or beaten
* We try as much as is possible and practical to respect other groups’ rights to do a certain type of protest at certain times and places. If we choose to participate as a group, we try to do so within the tone and tactics they set. If we do not agree with the tone and tactics, we do not, as a group, participate in that protest or bring a differently oriented protest into that time and space without extensive explanation of the reasons why. We ask the same of other individuals and groups who participate in our events.
* We understand that our actions and tactics have repercussions that go beyond our immediate group and ourselves.
* We do not provide the police or any other government agent information on the activities of other groups or individuals. If they want to know something they can contact that group themselves.
* If we choose to negotiate with the police, we never do so for other groups of which we are not a part.
As a group
* We strive to make everyone aware of the resources available at events we're participating in, or organizing: legal, medical, and otherwise
* We strive to organize in as open and inclusive way as is practical while still maintaining a culture of security in recognition of the ongoing attempts of the state to survey and disrupt our movements.
* We seek to emphasize anti-oppression principles in all of our organizing.
In the Media
* We seek to avoid perpetuating a “good” protester “bad” protester dichotomy
* We do not denounce other demonstrators.
* We talk about our strategy and beliefs, not others
* We acknowledge other groups’ existence and role they play in creating change
* We acknowledge that we sometimes disagree with one another about strategy and tactics.
* We condemn police repression and brutality
Jail solidarity
* We seek to support those arrested to the maximum extent possible. No one is free until everyone is free!
Interesting comments but a few inaccuracies. The original rally on June 10th was not cancelled because of Mumbo Gumbo, which wasn't at the same time as the rally anyway. That was the reason given publicly. But if you were on the Pearcys' e-mail list, you would know it was because he was upset with people not calling the Sacramento News and Review to criticize their lack of coverage of any of the rallies. I think you should ask Mr Pearcy to put you on his e-mail list so you can see what he actually says.
He also sent out an e-mail saying anyone who wanted to was welcome to protest on the same corner on June 10th. Only after Ruth and George called for a protest did he reverse his position.
I hope protests will continue to happen in Sacramento. If the Pearcys are going to feel possessive of that corner, that's their business. There are other good locations to protest in Sac, I doubt anyone else really wants to get into a turf war over that particular corner. There are more important issues to focus on, like the war in Iraq and threats against Iran. If the Pearcys had stated from the start that they would prefer no one else used that corner, this whole ruckus never would have happened. Courtesy was never the issue.
He also sent out an e-mail saying anyone who wanted to was welcome to protest on the same corner on June 10th. Only after Ruth and George called for a protest did he reverse his position.
I hope protests will continue to happen in Sacramento. If the Pearcys are going to feel possessive of that corner, that's their business. There are other good locations to protest in Sac, I doubt anyone else really wants to get into a turf war over that particular corner. There are more important issues to focus on, like the war in Iraq and threats against Iran. If the Pearcys had stated from the start that they would prefer no one else used that corner, this whole ruckus never would have happened. Courtesy was never the issue.
I believe there should be a healthy discussion about cross-demonstrations in order to avoid duplication and there should always be better coordination among the different advocacy groups in the Sacramento area, no an endless online debate.
I myself am a foot soldier and live by the Seavey Circle Housng Projects by 5th and Broadway. Thus, it is easier for me to go to a Demo by Tower Records than to the Davis Area anyways.
I suggest there be a monthly Potluck for Sacramento Progressive Activists so we can all get to know each other better face to face and group to group in order not to get hung up on mere ideloogical camps. Preferaqbly on a Saturday.
I recommend a basic humane rights agenda because I see the critical need for there to be a basic sane, humane common denominator for those of us who uphold humane rights in general, including the rights of immigrants.
One of the major weaknesses of the liberal-to-radical white progressive movement is its failure to address domestic issues and domestic concerns, this makes it irrelavant to those of us in the ghettos, barrios and oppressed communities inside the United States. We number in the millions! Many of us here inisde the United States are actually hungry, homeless and hopeless HERE NOW!
I understand we should THINK GLOBAL AND WORK LOCAL, but we should also try to keep a moving balance between international, regional and local issues. There needs to be a strong Progressive Community Center in Downtown Sacramento in order to recruit more fresh people so that we do not merely preach to the choir! Then, maye I am just a dreamer......
Woe to those isolated neighbors whose dogs bark to each other more than they themselves communicate with their neighbors!
Let solidarity be a living life-style, not just a mere political slogan.
Venceremos!
Peter S. Lopez ~aka Peta
A Native Insurgent!
<b>I believe there should be a strong Sacramento Solidarity Statement such as this one for us here in Sacramento!<br>Solidarity should be a Spirit we carry with us in all our relations wherever we go and whatever we do.</b>
greengirl, i find your "corrections" interesting because i'm on pearcy's email list and didn't receive any of the emails that you claim he sent to his list.
(1) you say, "The original rally on June 10th was not cancelled because of Mumbo Gumbo, which wasn't at the same time as the rally anyway. That was the reason given publicly. But if you were on the Pearcys' e-mail list, you would know it was because he was upset with people not calling the Sacramento News and Review to criticize their lack of coverage of any of the rallies."
i got the pearcy's email canceling the june 10th event and he did not state in the email why he was canceling the event. i heard him on the radio talking about the mumbo gumbo event (which did overlap with the rally) and, come to think of it, he never said anything about sac news and review.
(2) you say, "He also sent out an e-mail saying anyone who wanted to was welcome to protest on the same corner on June 10th. Only after Ruth and George called for a protest did he reverse his position."
again, i'm on pearcy's email list and i never received from pearcy an email stating that no one is welcome to protest on the same corner, but i did receive an email from pearcy talking about the corporate takeover of the rallies by wcw and he wanted the community decide by their attendance whether they agreed with this or not.
(3) you say, "If the Pearcys had stated from the start that they would prefer no one else used that corner, this whole ruckus never would have happened. Courtesy was never the issue."
are you saying that wcw would have respected pearcy's request that no one else use the corner? if so, will wcw respect the request from others who have attended the pearcy's rallies that wcw not use the corner?
(1) you say, "The original rally on June 10th was not cancelled because of Mumbo Gumbo, which wasn't at the same time as the rally anyway. That was the reason given publicly. But if you were on the Pearcys' e-mail list, you would know it was because he was upset with people not calling the Sacramento News and Review to criticize their lack of coverage of any of the rallies."
i got the pearcy's email canceling the june 10th event and he did not state in the email why he was canceling the event. i heard him on the radio talking about the mumbo gumbo event (which did overlap with the rally) and, come to think of it, he never said anything about sac news and review.
(2) you say, "He also sent out an e-mail saying anyone who wanted to was welcome to protest on the same corner on June 10th. Only after Ruth and George called for a protest did he reverse his position."
again, i'm on pearcy's email list and i never received from pearcy an email stating that no one is welcome to protest on the same corner, but i did receive an email from pearcy talking about the corporate takeover of the rallies by wcw and he wanted the community decide by their attendance whether they agreed with this or not.
(3) you say, "If the Pearcys had stated from the start that they would prefer no one else used that corner, this whole ruckus never would have happened. Courtesy was never the issue."
are you saying that wcw would have respected pearcy's request that no one else use the corner? if so, will wcw respect the request from others who have attended the pearcy's rallies that wcw not use the corner?
Dear Peter Lopez and All,
Please let me strongly agree with your call for a focus in
Sacramento-area events on universal human rights, and also
specifically on the rights of immigrants in the bilingual
and indeed multilingual society of Alta California.
Opposition to basic human rights violations such as the
death penalty, extrajudicial killings, and torture should be
a point of unity, whatever different visions we might share
of an ideal society or the best strategies for approaching
it. The Bush Regime, of course, is in violation of these
standards as expressed by Amnesty International and others;
and we should be ready to hold up other regimes impartially
to the same standards.
We are strongly in agreement that immigrant rights are
central to our struggle in a community with many historical
elements, often neglected, of linguistic and cultural
diversity. From different viewpoints Sacramento is part of
the territory of the indigenous Nisenan and Plains Miwuk
Nations; of Aztlan or Alta California; and also of the State
of California.
In response to currents of repression from the discredited
and unconstitutional Proposition 187 to recent attacks on
immigrants and people displaying symbols of solidarity or
identity such as the Mexican flag, our movement needs to
celebrate and promote a vibrant and diverse Alta California
moving toward a goal of universal bilingual literacy, with
the many languages other than Spanish and English,
indigenous and immigrant, also playing their vital roles.
Our motto might be "A Safe and Open Border," with equable
labor protections, wages, and hours on both sides of it.
Who is really indocumentado/a, or "undocumented"? My answer
might be, "Yo soy indocumentada porque ni tengo una tarjeta
verde de la Nacion Nisenan indigena, ni tengo documentos
del Gubierno de Mexico."
As to amnesty for immigrants: it seems to me that all of us
who are not indigenous residents of Alta California need it,
and as St. Francis of Assisi has said: "In pardoning, we are
pardoned." The trails of invasions and broken treaties with
many indigenous Nations, and also violations of the Treaty
of Guadalupe Hidalgo, are surely matters at least as grave
as some informal border crossings by people often in
desperate poverty who seek only a new home where they may
live in peace with their neighbors.
Of course, a just and liberating solution to the immigration
question is intimately related to the need to stop the war
in Iraq and the game plan of the Project for a New American
Century more generally. Offering immigrants a hospitable
reception, and at the same time promoting sustainable human
and economic democracy with equable labor conditions on both
sides of the border, will require many of the fiscal and
human resources now devoted to the military-industrial
complex.
Our problem is how at once to further the goals of the
anti-war movement and to broaden our concerns to
immigration, bilingualism/multilingualism, and universal
labor rights -- a "globalism" based on human rights rather
than human oppression.
I hope that Virginia and Stephen Pearcy, Ruth Holbrook and
George McAdow, and many other dedicated activists will join
us in such a constructive dialogue, looking beyond past
differences to a future we must build together.
Paz y amor, Peace and love,
Margo Schulter
mschulter [at] calweb.com
Please let me strongly agree with your call for a focus in
Sacramento-area events on universal human rights, and also
specifically on the rights of immigrants in the bilingual
and indeed multilingual society of Alta California.
Opposition to basic human rights violations such as the
death penalty, extrajudicial killings, and torture should be
a point of unity, whatever different visions we might share
of an ideal society or the best strategies for approaching
it. The Bush Regime, of course, is in violation of these
standards as expressed by Amnesty International and others;
and we should be ready to hold up other regimes impartially
to the same standards.
We are strongly in agreement that immigrant rights are
central to our struggle in a community with many historical
elements, often neglected, of linguistic and cultural
diversity. From different viewpoints Sacramento is part of
the territory of the indigenous Nisenan and Plains Miwuk
Nations; of Aztlan or Alta California; and also of the State
of California.
In response to currents of repression from the discredited
and unconstitutional Proposition 187 to recent attacks on
immigrants and people displaying symbols of solidarity or
identity such as the Mexican flag, our movement needs to
celebrate and promote a vibrant and diverse Alta California
moving toward a goal of universal bilingual literacy, with
the many languages other than Spanish and English,
indigenous and immigrant, also playing their vital roles.
Our motto might be "A Safe and Open Border," with equable
labor protections, wages, and hours on both sides of it.
Who is really indocumentado/a, or "undocumented"? My answer
might be, "Yo soy indocumentada porque ni tengo una tarjeta
verde de la Nacion Nisenan indigena, ni tengo documentos
del Gubierno de Mexico."
As to amnesty for immigrants: it seems to me that all of us
who are not indigenous residents of Alta California need it,
and as St. Francis of Assisi has said: "In pardoning, we are
pardoned." The trails of invasions and broken treaties with
many indigenous Nations, and also violations of the Treaty
of Guadalupe Hidalgo, are surely matters at least as grave
as some informal border crossings by people often in
desperate poverty who seek only a new home where they may
live in peace with their neighbors.
Of course, a just and liberating solution to the immigration
question is intimately related to the need to stop the war
in Iraq and the game plan of the Project for a New American
Century more generally. Offering immigrants a hospitable
reception, and at the same time promoting sustainable human
and economic democracy with equable labor conditions on both
sides of the border, will require many of the fiscal and
human resources now devoted to the military-industrial
complex.
Our problem is how at once to further the goals of the
anti-war movement and to broaden our concerns to
immigration, bilingualism/multilingualism, and universal
labor rights -- a "globalism" based on human rights rather
than human oppression.
I hope that Virginia and Stephen Pearcy, Ruth Holbrook and
George McAdow, and many other dedicated activists will join
us in such a constructive dialogue, looking beyond past
differences to a future we must build together.
Paz y amor, Peace and love,
Margo Schulter
mschulter [at] calweb.com
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$155.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network