<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=890334523-08102005>I
would imagine that many of the participants at the September 24th Rally and
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=890334523-08102005>March
were registered Democrats.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
O29-bounces@massglobalaction.org
[mailto:O29-bounces@massglobalaction.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>gary
hicks<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, October 08, 2005 6:41 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Dave
Cutler; Keith Rosenthal; o29@massglobalaction.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [O29]
please. this is not about getting a merit badge.<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>"Beware of the democrats for they are the enemy of the<BR>people."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>all of them? without exception? even those of color, women, glbt,
the poor --- working people all--- who might leave if only there were a
mature non-sectarian left for these people to go to?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>" They speak with forked tongues. Their lust for power knows no
bounds."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>probably true. but begs the question as to the left's attitude,
engagement, etc. with power. so far, the track record seems to show that the
left is afraid of power because of what the ruling class has done with it.
there's been poor discussion of what good things a committed left might do
with power. so we get stuck with this middle class moralizing about lust for
power and have to make do with a mentality of protest. results: they rule. as
to the forked tongue thing: it was originally attributed to white people as a
whole. i fervently hope that's not true because i have no interest in telling
my nationalist friends that the white man is the devil and that they were
correct all along.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>" We have but one choice overthrow the two party dictatorship.Until
that time there shall<BR>be no peace."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>us and what army?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>in struggle,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>gary hicks<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Dave Cutler
<ds_cutler@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Beware
of the democrats for they are the enemy of the<BR>people.They speak with
forked tongues.Their lust for<BR>power knows no bounds.We have but one
choice overthrow<BR>the two party dictatorship.Until that time there
shall<BR>be no peace.<BR>--- gary hicks
<GOOBERTHINK06@YAHOO.COM>wrote:<BR><BR>>
hmmm------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> first i'm not aware that
i was attacking keith<BR>> personally. i was referring to the
political<BR>> behavior of a number of people in cadre<BR>>
organizations. please read my remarks below<BR>> carefully.<BR>>
<BR>> second it's not about reducing the politics of the<BR>> march,
whether i'm "for" or "against" troops out<BR>> now, or whether i'm "for"
or "against" the struggle<BR>> against racism. for the record i'm FOR
both of these<BR>> things.<BR>> <BR>> finally, it's a good thing
that this isn't about<BR>> merit badges. were it so, a whole lot of us
wouldn't<BR>> make it to tenderfoot ---------------------- and<BR>>
this is assuming we got beyond being brownies and<BR>> cub scouts!
<BR>> <BR>> Anytime it is assumed that " by adding this
demand,<BR>> we will double and triple our chances of drawing<BR>>
people of color out to the protest who will see it<BR>> on the flyer and
be immediately attracted", is<BR>> underestimating the difficulty of
engaging multiple<BR>> generations of people who have read so many
flyers<BR>> like the current ones and have been unimpressed.<BR>> Such
assumptions also insult the intelligence of<BR>> people of color by
assuming we'll read the stuff and<BR>> as if by magic we'll be at the
bandstand on the<BR>> commons just rarin' to march, chant, and
sing.<BR>> ipso, facto, ergo, movement! <BR>> <BR>> gary<BR>>
<BR>> Keith Rosenthal <KEITHMR81@YAHOO.COM>wrote:<BR>> hey,<BR>>
please. this is not about getting a merit badge.<BR>> this is about the
importance of the movement<BR>> understanding how racism, especially,
against Arabs,<BR>> is inextricably linked to the war on Iraq, and
that,<BR>> morally and strategically, if we are going to stop<BR>>
this war, we have to forge a united, multiracial<BR>> movement, that
stands against the scapegoating or<BR>> attacks on people of color as a
way to divide and<BR>> conquer us. <BR>> this is why i agree with Ty
and others who have<BR>> argued that we should support this demand as
part of<BR>> the protest. (and by the way, what are you talking<BR>>
about, gary? you're trying to criticize and bait<BR>> me, as a white
person, who is pushing for our<BR>> movement to publicly stand against
racism? what<BR>> sense does that make? i'm arguing for this not
only<BR>> because of my conversations with people of color,<BR>>
including arabs and muslims in particular, but<BR>> because it's the
right thing to do -- politically,<BR>> tactically, and strategically --
in order to build a<BR>> bigger, stronger protest and antiwar movement.)
by<BR>> adding this demand, we will double and triple our<BR>> chances
of drawing people of color out to the<BR>> protest who will see it on the
flyer and be<BR>> immediately attracted. <BR>> i'm curious, gary, are
you worried that adding a<BR>> demand on racism will make the march too
"radical?"<BR>> because this is the logic you used when arguing
why<BR>> we shouldn't even support the demand "Troops Out<BR>> Now!"
so i'm wondering if there is a similar line of<BR>> reasoning going
on?<BR>> finally, it shouldn't be too difficult for us to<BR>> have a
civil and fraternal debate on this matter<BR>> monday. the argument that
says that if we open this<BR>> discussion and vote on monday we will
create<BR>> "chaos," and "division," are, i think just as untrue<BR>>
as the argument that says that if the US leaves Iraq<BR>> immediately it
will create "chaos," and "division,"<BR>> (which are, by the way, thinly
veiled racist ideas<BR>> that the Iraqis are incapable of handling their
own<BR>> affairs without the US). <BR>> if we can't discuss this
together, how can we<BR>> expect to be able to discuss anything of
importance<BR>> with each other in a civil manner? how can we<BR>>
expect to be able to organize democratic and open<BR>> movements? we need
to learn how to do this anyway<BR>> as we go about the business of
coalition-building. <BR>> we should debate, discuss, take a clear vote,
and<BR>> then move on as one, united against the war,<BR>> whatever
the outcome.<BR>> <BR>> Solidarity,<BR>> Keith Rosenthal<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> gary
hicks <GOOBERTHINK06@YAHOO.COM>wrote: hi:<BR>> <BR>> it has now become
more than apparent that this<BR>> argument isn't about the demands of the
march, even<BR>> though this is how it's being presented. <BR>>
<BR>> this argument is all about a bunch of (mostly) white<BR>> folks
purporting to be socialists, progressives,<BR>> etc. who for the life of
them can't get a handle on<BR>> the centrality of the struggle against
their own<BR>> chauvinisms.<BR>> <BR>> this argument is also about
folks with purportedly<BR>> socialist and progressive politics who for
reasons<BR>> known only to god and their cadre leaders have GOT<BR>>
TO BE the first kids on their block to come up with<BR>> a correct line
on these matters. hence whoever<BR>> achieves this can go on to seize
hegemony, power, or<BR>> whatever elusive bragging rights (or is it
rites?)<BR>> and glory as long as folks listen.<BR>> <BR>> finally,
ty is more than right about how it has<BR>> taken this long to come to
this point, since at<BR>> least 911. this is downright pitiful
and<BR>> disgraceful. so---------------------<BR>> <BR>> i agree
with david that monday night is NOT the time<BR>> for this discussion,
since we all know-- yes we do,<BR>> because we all know how we are!--
that there will be<BR>> no two for, two against a given proposal<BR>>
----------------- but a free-for-all in place of the<BR>> time needed to
actually put this event together. and<BR>> frankly, some of us (myself
included) who were<BR>> involved in the march 20 event, and some of
us<BR>> (myself not included) in the followup to the<BR>> december
event of last year, have all been there<BR>> done that. and obviously,
the april 23 conference<BR>> didn't/couldn't resolve matters because at
bottom<BR>> that conference was all about getting together<BR>> people
for a fall action by way of a few workshops<BR>> thrown in--- as though
these latter would magically<BR>> infuse us with the intelligence needed
to carry on<BR>> without the hassles which we've been privy to on<BR>>
this past week's emails.<BR>> <BR>> so let's get down to organizing
business monday<BR>> night and check our ideologies and egos at the
door.<BR>> <BR>> gary<BR>> <BR>> DAVID KEIL
<DMKEIL@GMAIL.COM>wrote:<BR>> I'm sorry to hear of this decision to take
a<BR>> divisive approach Monday.<BR>> The issues are complex and can't
be decided<BR>> democratically after only<BR>> two speakers for and
against. I suggest that a<BR>> committee form (I<BR>> suggested some
names -- Chris Desir, Elisabeth<BR>> Leonard, Julie Keefe,<BR>> Amee
Chew, Chrystie Hopkins, Karen Slater, Judith<BR>> Roderick, and
would<BR>> add Reem Abou-Samra) to discuss this question by<BR>> email
and phone<BR>> before the Monday meeting. This committee should
try<BR>> to work out a<BR>> consensus or at least an acceptable
committee<BR>> majority that<BR>> acknowledges in a friendly way
whatever is the<BR>> minority position. The<BR>> last thing we need is
a mutually aggressive<BR>> atmosphere at a work<BR>> meeting. I feel
as if the choice offered is, "Back<BR>> off or we slug it<BR>> out
now." I don't like that choice.<BR>> <BR>> On 10/6/05, Keith Rosenthal
wrote:<BR>> > Hey all,<BR>> > After further discussion on and
off this<BR>> listserve, it is clear that this<BR>> > debate is
really important and that the space<BR>> available at last
monday's<BR>> > meeting was insufficient for all sides to
clearly<BR>> air their ideas on the<BR>> > question of adding a
demand against anti-arab<BR>> racism. Moreover, after<BR>> >
further discussion with organizations of color and<BR>> other concerned
activists<BR>> > (including District 7 activists, and Muslim
and<BR>> Arab student and community<BR>> > groups), it is clear
that the vote we took on<BR>> Monday was (to say the least)<BR>> >
inconclusive and needs to be revisited. Because it<BR>> was a tie vote,
and not<BR>> > a clear win or lose either way, it is clear
that<BR>> we needed this discussion<BR>> > and our now in a better
position to take an<BR>> informed vote again.<BR>> > In light of
Bush's speech today declaring the<BR>> necessity of war on Islam<BR>>
> as the "prime reason" for continuing the war on<BR>> Iraq. And in
light of the<BR>> > mounting anger amongst people of color and
the<BR>> rest of the population about<BR>> <BR>=== message truncated
===><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>> O29
mailing list<BR>>
O29@massglobalaction.org<BR>><BR>http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org<BR>>
<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>__________________________________
<BR>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
<BR>http://mail.yahoo.com<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR SIZE=1>
<A
href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/">Yahoo!
Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it
free.</A></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>