Tag Archives: peace

Farenheit 9-11

Laura and I didn’t get to the theater to pick up our tickets in time to sit together so we had to split up. During the previews, I convinced the geezers I was sitting with to see Metallica: Some Kind of Monster. That was fun.

The guy who was sitting in front of me works for a defense contractor and was forbidden by his employer from seeing the movie. While I salute him for going anyway, I wanted to explain to him, “Dude, if you’d shut up about not being allowed to see the movie, no one around you would know you’re not allowed to see the movie.” I didn’t say anything, but I thought it a lot. I also thought a lot about taking the John Kerry bumper sticker out of my purse and adhering it to his back, but I didn’t do that, either.

There was so much applause I missed a lot of the narration – and we saw the movie in Virginia, where I am often told by Marylanders, we are all without exception intolerant, gun-toting, homophobic, rightwing, assholes. Go figure.

I thought the film was well-paced and well-constructed. Moore is really at the top of his game here – I admit I was a bit worries because I often found The Awful Truth to be sort of meandering and hit or miss, but this time he really gets it right. I’d say it’s one of the most important major releases of the year, in fact I’d say it was the most important release of the year but I think that title goes to SuperSize Me. The longstanding health implications and questions that film raises about what we’re feeding the next generation and what we’re teaching them about nutrition need to be screamed from the rooftops.

Fortunately, you don’t have to choose. You can see them both.

everything old is…even older again. wait…

Recently I saw footage of the Gulf War Protests in Lafayette Park. No, not this Gulf War, the the first one. Deja vu all over again, as the joke goes.

I’m feeling kind of shallow today, so rather than pose tough questions about our oil-crazed foreign policy initiatives, I’m instead going to tell you what I’m really thinking as I watch our young earnest selves on this tape.

Why does Ian MacKaye look practically the same to me on both tapes when I look so much older in the tapes from the recent protests?

Gotta be the lighting.

Or maybe it’s just that I look very, very young on the ’91 tapes, not that I look old on the recent tapes. Sure. I’ll buy that for a dollar.

On a whim, I searched online for pictures from the 1991 protests and to my surprise found actual video (not the same video I saw, but that’s not the point). Check out Alan’s excellent demand media site to see that footage and more.

maybe what we should really fear is the puppets

I was trying to explain some particularly popular contemporary protest and demonstration tactics to a pal and this spurned a pretty lengthy discussion of what we thought of various tactics as well as what we thought the purpose of various tactics should be.

My take, in a nutshell:

The puppets are past their prime.

The puppets suck.

Burn the puppets and move on.

No, seriously.

Wait. Yes. Seriously. That was it.

Later, however, I thought more about the subject. I think there’s a whole book to be written about different tactics and perhaps a guide to choosing which tactic best suits your situation. Writing a book tonight seems out of the question, but since I’ve bounced these ideas off various people I might as well babble a bit here. Besides, it’s better than more babbling about how my hands hurt.

The thing that makes me nuts is how often a march, action or other event is planned with no thought given to what the ideal outcome is. Are you sending a direct message to an executive or board? trying to get media coverage to educate the public about an election, issue, problem, etc? Call me silly, but it seems ill-conceived not to know precisely what you plan to achieve before you take to the streets. That, and the fact that follow-up seems to be a foreign concept to so-many well-meaning organizations.

Without follow-up, you’ll probably be forgotten. Immediately. By the press. By the people. By the decisionmakers. What part of this is hard to understand?

There, that wasn’t so hard. It’s not like I’m asking you to become social scientists and conduct extensive surveys, write massive grant applications, conduct endless focus groups, and write the requisite conference paper presentation. That would be easy, instead, I’m asking you to do the human equivalent of herd cats.

No. No. Joking aside, if we can have trainings for street medics, for civil disobedience, and for other techniques, why can’t we take the time to do a little research. Ask the questions. “What’s our purpose?” (educate consumers? or voters? elect a specific candidate? what? what are you trying to do?), “What do we want to see happen?” (media coverage? a meeting with an executive? a resignation?) “What’s the best way to achieve those ends?” (what are the messages, symbols, or images that we need to get on the air and in front of the people we’re trying to reach?)

Is your point to educate consumers?

No media coverage = fast activist burnout and a truly rotten and possibly damaging waste energy, and probably a sense of failure.

If you’re going to go to the trouble to stage a big drama with costumes and theater make sure someone sees it. (and, if you aren’t the SOA Watch and can’t get Martin Sheen to come out, this is probably your best option). If you stage street theater without the mainstream media’s attention you’re pretty much just doing street theater, only without the hat-passing that would mean you’d at least make a few bucks for your time and energy. I’m big on the not wasting energy thing these days, I know, but it really is a big issue for protestors. (see also: burnout causes, cross-referenced with: creeping sense of futility).

And once you get yourself on the 11:00 news? Getting coverage is half the battle. But half the battle is still only half the battle, and the second half will kick your ass if your message doesn’t make sense. And if your message makes no sense, what’s the point? To take our medley of violence metaphors to the logical conclusion: if you aren’t scoring points for your own side, you’re just handing your intended targets ammunition to fight back with.

We’ve all met protesters who seem to actually be in it for the martyrdom and arrest record. Fortunately, they’re rare. The exhibitionists, narcissists, and egomaniacs are a slightly larger problem since they often fail to distinguish between press for self and press for the cause, and you’re trying to wield political influence with your protest (one presumes) not get on Star Search.

But it’s the stupid puppets and street theater that gets the attention of the cameras. And this is when we make a bargain only Faust could love…we engage in what the media expects to show their viewers and hope like hell we aren’t harming our message.

There’s so much to say on the subject and there’s no right answer for all applications. No flowchart, no howto manual, no weekend training session complete with trustfalls will provide us with a template of surefire tactics for every occassion. Too many variables (community, goals, resources, etc) make one-size fits all methods a silly idea to even ponder, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be asking questions all the time about what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. And most importantly of all, we need to ask what do we do now.

Or maybe I just have issues with the damned puppets.

I have to rest my hands for a while. Posting will become sporadic.

semana por la paz

I guess it’s pretty obvious that we (Code Pink) didn’t get to Colombia for the week of peace. The Latin American Working Group has a page of terrific resources and information about the week of peace and the peace movement in Colombia on their site.

The one page fact sheets about the political, economic, social and health consequences of US foreign policy towards Colombia are excellent, as is the interview with Ana Teresa Bernal, who initially invited us to the week of peace in the first place.

“Overcoming the Logic of War”
An Interview with Ana Teresa Bernal, leader of the National Network of Initiatives Against War and for Peace (Published by the FOR Task Force on Latin America and the Caribbean in the Puerto Rico Update, Number 37, Autumn 2002).

Watching Telemundo is a poor substitute for being in Bogota this week, I have to say.

Also on the LAWG site, there’s an update about the latest US aid package for Colombia:

Tell the Senate that Colombia Aid Must Be Debated!

Urgent Action! Tell the Senate that Colombia Aid Must Be Debated!
Contact Your Senators Immediately to Help Change US Policy Toward Colombia

The US Senate is about to debate another massive aid package to Colombia for 2004— and like all of the past aid packages, most of this money will go to the Colombian military and police. Colombia is now the third largest recipient of US military aid in the world, after Israel and Egypt.

The US Senate could debate the 2004 foreign aid bill, which contains over $500 million in aid for Colombia, as early as the week of September 8th. However, they do not plan on debating the Colombia aid package. In fact, the US Senate hasn’t debated Colombia policy for two years—they have approved the money with no discussion. This is despite the fact that the goals for Colombia policy that Congress set out three years ago have not been met– and in many cases, things have gotten worse. We need your help immediately to ask the Senate why it is not talking about this policy, and then ask them to debate and change it.

A massive amount of money with a terrible impact. Our taxpayer dollars—over $600 million this year, and more next year if the Bush Administration prevails—go to fund counterinsurgency and counter-drug operations and to protect an oil pipeline in Colombia.

Funding the Colombian armed forces, who collaborate with brutal paramilitary groups, has accelerated the armed conflict in Colombia. In 2000, 12 civilians a day died violently in Colombia. That number rose to 19 a day this year, as paramilitaries, guerillas, and the Colombian military step up their side of the conflict and catch civilians in the crossfire.

Dropping herbicides on land owned by small farmers has killed some drug crops, but has taken food crops with it. Water sources are contaminated and people go hungry, especially because most do not receive alternative development assistance afterwards. Many move elsewhere and plant coca again.

Plan Colombia has not curbed drug abuse in the US, one of its main goals. According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, drugs are just as available on US streets now as they were three years ago.
The US House has had very strong debates on Colombia, and the votes get closer each year to cut military aid to Colombia’s brutal armed forces. With so much at stake, we need to tell the Senate to follow their lead, and debate and change this policy!

Action Needed! The Senate may debate the 2004 foreign aid bill as early as the week of September 8th, so action is needed immediately! Stop in to your senator’s state office and meet with a staff member, or organize a fax or call-in campaign, asking you senators to debate and change US policy toward Colombia when the foreign aid bill comes to the Senate floor. To find the phone number or fax number of your senators’ state or DC offices, please see www.senate.gov. A sample letter is available below which can be modified and faxed to your senators at their DC offices. Put any faxes to the attention of the foreign policy aide.

Visit the page if you would like a copy of the sample letter, which I know that you do.