A few things you can do.

[ebonlock]

If you're interested I've included a forward from a friend with some really good suggestions for ways you can act to protest President Bush's plans to initiate an invasion of Iraq.




The Bush Administration's blueprint for war in Iraq starts with
a strategy code named "Shock and Awe." Their plan is to launch
an unprecedented bombing campaign involving more cruise missiles
and other bombs in the first day than were used in the entire
1991 Gulf War. The theory is that they will "shock and awe" Iraq
into immediate surrender. The reality is that large numbers of
Iraqi civilians will die for the sins of their government, a
government they have no power to change.


There is another way. Clearly inspections and containment are
working. California Peace Action supports the position of many
governments, and in particular many members of the UN Security
Council, that Colin Powell's presentation to the UN built the
case for supporting stronger inspections and giving more time to
the UN to multilaterally disarm Iraq.


He did not make the case for the massive bombing of a major
city.


IN THE NEXT TEN DAYS THERE ARE FOUR CRUCIAL THINGS YOU CAN DO:

Demonstrate:

On February 15th there will be demonstrations in cities
worldwide, from Cape Town to New York, from Tokyo to Cairo.
There will also be demonstrations in cities throughout
California including Sacramento, Los Angeles, Fresno, and Santa
Rosa.


On February 16th, there will be a massive demonstration in San
Francisco.


To find out about the demonstration closest to your California
community or the major demonstration in San Francisco, check out
the list of local peace organization's by following the links
from the home page at our web site:
http://www.californiapeaceaction.org/


For more information, or for information about actions in other
states visit United For Peace and Justice, a nationwide
coalition of organizations including Peace Action, at
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/


At the February 16th demonstration in San Francisco, there will
be a large contingent of families with children marching
together, under the banner Families Say No to War. For more
information, e-mail
Parents@CaliforniaPeaceAction.org


Volunteer:


Volunteers are urgently needed for these demonstrations. To get
involved as a volunteer with these demonstrations or to march
with a Peace Action contingent contact:


Southern California - Erin@CaliforniaPeaceAction.org
Northern California - Eric@CaliforniaPeaceAction.org
Sacramento/Yolo Peace Action - sypeaceact@jps.net


Contact Your Elected Officials:

City councils across the country have begun passing Resolutions
opposing a war with Iraq. Please support the current effort to
pass a resolution in the Los Angeles City Council by making a
call today! Contact the council President, Alex Padilla at (213)
847-7777 as well as your City Council member.


For contact information or to find out who your council member
is go to:
http://cityofla.org/ and type your address into the 'My
Neighborhood' section.


For more information or if you would like to gather petition
signatures in the districts of Wendy Greuel, Tom LaBonge, Alex
Padilla, or Janice Hahn, please contact
Danielle@CaliforniaPeaceAction.org


Senate Resolution 32, a new resolution put forth by Senator Ted
Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Robert Byrd (D - WV) on January 29,
calls on the President to support UN inspectors and to obtain
further approval from Congress before using military force
against Iraq without the broad support of the international
community.


As the administration moves closer to war against Iraq, it is
important that you call Senators Boxer and Feinstein and tell
them to support this attempt to restrain the President.

Capitol Hill Switchboard - (800) 839-5276

Senator Dianne Feinstein - (202) 224-3841
feinstein.senate.gov/~feinstein

Senator Barbara Boxer - (202) 224-3553
boxer.senate.gov/contact


Donate:

Raising the voice against the war takes money. We want to
provide maximum financial support to the upcoming
demonstrations. We also need support for the printing of flyers,
posters, brochures, etc. If you can help support the anti-war
effort, please contribute at
http://www.californiapeaceaction.org/


--

--
To reach your Representative or Senators call the Capitol Hill
switchboard at
1-800-839-5276 or 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to their
office.

Find out who your Representative is:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

If you are not in California, identify your senators here:
http://www.senate.gov/


Please send this email to your friends!

Contribute to California Peace Action
by visiting
http://www.californiapeaceaction.org/giving/giving.htm

Subscription Information
To subscribe to Peace Action Alerts, send email to:
AlertMe@CaliforniaPeaceAction.org
To unsubscribe, send email to:
DeAlertMe@CaliforniaPeaceAction.org

For fact sheets and articles visit:
http://www.CaliforniaPeaceAction.org/

Comments

[windrose.livejournal.com]

If the seriousness of our convictions is measured only by the degree to which we're prepared to sacrifice personal comfort and assume grave personal risk over principle, then the pro-war side and the anti-war side must be judged by the same yardstick: advocates for war must enlist or the like in order to be credible, while opponents of the war must volunteer as human shields or the like in order to be credible.

Actually, I would agree with that. I would also point out that marches and protests do have an effect on the policies of world leaders, as history and men like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi have shown us. They can also be dangerous, as evidenced by the massacre at Tiannamen Square a decade ago.

Whether you admit it or not, the strength of our convictions *is* an important issue. I was raised that if you believe in a thing, you should be willing to stand up for it, no matter the cost. While it is not necessary to enlist to show your support of a military action in Iraq, it is the most obvious method.

I have the utmost respect and admiration for our troops and will do whatever I can to help them. I have too many neighbors in uniform not to care what happens to them and to the families they leave behind. This does not mean that I think military action in Iraq is a good idea; I don't. But at this point I think it is unavoidable.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

It's true that protests have, in the past, had profound effects on geopolitics. It's also true that protesting against state policy can be dangerous, even life-threatening, for protesters.

This past weekend's protests had as much moral commonality with Ghandi or King as koala bears have with fusion reactors (I have a link to some candids (http://www.right-thinking.com/comments.php?id=P508_0_1_0) of the patchoulli-soaked retards who turned up in San Fran over the weekend, if you're unconvinced -- there may be a serious argument against military intervention in Iraq, but you wouldn't have heard it at that carnival of assclowns).

Also, the odds of a Tiananmen Square or Kent State-type incident occurring at a protest in a modern first-world nation are so infinitisemally tiny that they do not merit contemplation by serious people (various left-wing delusions about the John Ashcroft Brownshirt Brigades notwithstanding).

All this said, I agree with you that, basically, talk is cheap.

On the other hand, as I said previously, arguments stand or fall on their own merits, and dismissing an argument by branding its advocate insufficiently sincere (unless, of course, the advocate has made his sincerity an issue) is a cheap attempt to change the subject, and is a poor surrogate for rational debate.

[windrose.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, as I said previously, arguments stand or fall on their own merits, and dismissing an argument by branding its advocate insufficiently sincere (unless, of course, the advocate has made his sincerity an issue) is a cheap attempt to change the subject, and is a poor surrogate for rational debate.

Begging your pardon, but nowhere in my previous posts did I call anyone's sincerity into question. I did say I had a problem with hypocrisy, but you and I are in agreement on that point. So, where am I dismissing an argument based on the sincerity of its advocate?

I admire those who have the courage of their convictions, even when I don't agree with their rhetoric. Saying that one should stand up for one's beliefs is in no way a derogatory statement. You are the one using inflammatory language and belittling the actions of others whose views do not agree with your own (i.e. "patchouli-soaked retards").

Or did you think that my comment about being annoyed with people who cry for blood but don't have the stomach to fight themselves was directed at you personally? It wasn't. How could it be? I don't know you from Adam's house cat.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

So, where am I dismissing an argument based on the sincerity of its advocate?

Guilty conscience, much? I was speaking generally: "Here is where I agree with you, and here is what else I think, while we're on the subject."

You are the one using inflammatory language and belittling the actions of others whose views do not agree with your own (i.e. "patchouli-soaked retards").

Because I don't see there's anything to admire in this weekend's parade of Stalinists, anti-Semites, blame-America-first'ers, and assorted loons. As I also pointed out previously, protesting state policy in a modern first-world nation is for all intents and purposes a risk-free endeavor unless you get uppity with the authorities; the only "courage" these people displayed is whatever it took to brave BART on a busy Sunday, and, sorry, that doesn't impress me. Nor do I find particularly admirable the protesters' dogmatic adherence to the discredited socio-political philosophy of Marx, anti-Semetism, and moral equivalence, and so I will feel free to characterize them accordingly.

Your mileage may, of course, vary.

Or did you think that my comment about being annoyed with people who cry for blood but don't have the stomach to fight themselves was directed at you personally?

I'm sensitive to the "chickenhawk" slur, and initially it seemed like your trite suggestion (i.e., enlist) was in that vein. I realized after your second post it wasn't. After that, I was speaking generally; see above.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

A brief interjection by the editorial staff of Ellie's LiveJournal:


First and foremost, I once again ask that folks posting stuff here remember to treat one another with respect. filidh, you are using inflammatory language, I don't see anyone else heaping derision upon the pro-war folks but I am seeing a lot of anti-war protest vitriol. So far most of us have managed to discuss the issues in an adult manner without resorting to name-calling.
I'd like to see that trend continue.

You may not hold the protestors in a position of respect, but I'd like to point out that they are at the very least doing something. Even if it is just getting up on a Sunday morning and BARTing up to SF to walk with a number of likeminded souls.

Yes some of the most outlandish folks made the news, but I think we can both agree that the media purposely goes out looking for every group's fringe to plaster in print and on television. I happen to know folks that marched in both SF and NY and I can assure you that none fall under the heading of "Stalinists, anti-Semites, blame-America-first'ers, and assorted loons."

Was it particularly dangerous to march? Nope. But did it take conviction, concern, and purpose to do it? You'd better believe it. I don't know about you, but I spent my Sunday doing something I liked to do rather than something I felt I should do, so I'm sure as hell not in a position to throw stones at these folks. Are you?

Wow.

[danielmedic.livejournal.com]

Lot to cover here ...

Some disclaimers:

1) I'm here by invitation; I don't crawl around friend-of-friend links on LJ looking for arguments to get into. Really. ;)

2) I am a Desert Storm vet.

3) I am against the apparently inevitable war.

Okay, all that being said ...

It is entirely reasonable to ask that the hawks take more risks in support of their beliefs than the doves, for the very simple reason that the hawks want people to die and the doves do not want people to die. Strip away all the ideology, and that's what you're left with. "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it," said William T. Sherman, who knew a thing or two about the subject.

For healthy people of military age who support the war: the recruiting office is right down the street. Unless you're doing a job that contributes more to national security than getting yourself fitted out with a a pack and a rifle, put up or shut up.

Anyone who thinks that Ashcroft isn't dangerous hasn't been paying attention. The grotesquely misnamed Patriot Act has already been used to arrest and hold American citizens without trial. The "Patriot II" draft legislation is even worse; it's the worst assault on the Bill of Rights since the Alien and Sedition Acts nigh two centuries ago. Judge a man by the quality of his enemies -- anyone who can get Dick Armey and Bob Barr to go to work for the ACLU, ferchrissakes, is one scary dude.

The striking thing about the recent round of protests is how diverse the crowd was. It wasn't just long-haired lefties; the streets were filled with yuppies, working stiffs, grandmas, and -- this one is important -- veterans. Lots and lots of veterans. You know, people who actually know what war looks like.

All right, I'm done. To keep windrose happy ;) I'll close with another one of may favorite Civil War quotes, one that seems particularly appropriate at this is point:

"I foresee that the country will have to pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, of our national sin." -- Robert E. Lee

Re: Wow.

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

1) I'm here by invitation; I don't crawl around friend-of-friend links on LJ looking for arguments to get into. Really. ;)

Well in this case I'm glad you did, windrose speaks very highly of you and I find it a pleasure to know that you've peeked in here at my little LJ.

Re: Wow.

[danielmedic.livejournal.com]

Glad to be here.

Not so little.

Sorry, still very tired. Would have been much more eloquent otherwise.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

The point I am making is that action, like dissent, is in and of itself morally neutral. The fervence with which you articulate your point of view is, at the end of the day, immaterial: if you have a coherent argument, then you have a coherent argument; if your argument is asinine, then your argument is asinine.

The American Nazis who marched in Skokie years ago weren't brave men willing to stand up for their principles. They were adherents of a blood-soaked and hateful political philosophy, nothing more and nothing less.

If you can show me that your friends were more representative of the protesters, over the weekend, than these guys (http://www.right-thinking.com/comments.php?id=P508_0_1_0), then I will forthrightly withdraw my characterizations of the protests and the protesters. If you can show me that the protests were by and large serious, sober affairs where a coherent and moral case against war was made, then I will even make a post in my own LJ to the effect of thanking the protesters for their role in facilitating healthy, intelligent public debate on this important issue.

But quite frankly I don't think you can make that case. I've reviewed literally hundreds of news reports on the worldwide protests, and it seems fairly clear that there was little if any "conviction, concern, and purpose" on display; mostly it was lot of naked partisanship and/or reflexive anti-Americanism and/or geopolitical obtuseness.

At that, I absolutely do feel justified throwing stones. I hope most other people would, too, because I don't think it's healthy for a society to suffer fools gladly.

[danielmedic.livejournal.com]

The American Nazis who marched in Skokie years ago weren't brave men willing to stand up for their principles. They were adherents of a blood-soaked and hateful political philosophy, nothing more and nothing less.

The truth is, unfortunately, that they were both. Good is not always courageous, nor is evil always cowardly; and the evil can have an intensity to their convictions which the good seldom match. Too bad -- the world would be a better place if this were not so.