I don't think they're called for just now, for a variety of reasons.

And those reasons would be..? You've stated that you don't think masses of otherwise comfortable middle class Americans will disrupt their lives by heading to the streets, OK, but what are the reasons demos aren't "called for just now"? They're not called for because no one will show up? That's it?

I know you want to live forever, but boomers are going to die off in their 70s and 80s just like everyone else. You all aren't going to make it to 110 in any significant numbers.

My WWII era mother is still voting at 85. We boomers may have thought she was too old to vote in 1968 but she's still voting.

Yeah. Do not storm the Bastille, forget Tiananmen Square. Ho Hum

If you are tired, full of ennui, by all means stay home. Let those filled with passion take over. Do not denigrate the cause. It may be more significant than all the previously protested causes put together. If we attack Iran, we may be talking about a resultant nuclear war. As Einstein said, (i paraphrase) the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones.

Addendum

Are street protests or Internet Websites more effective to bring about political change?

This boomer and Vietnam Veteran will always remember with fierce pride the protesters who took to the streets and college campuses -- to have the cops beat them and national guard shoot them -- until by force of personal example, they attracted a mainstream following and eventually proved Gandhi right again about repressive governments: "First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win."

Not long ago I saw a lonely woman, Cindy Sheehan, standing by herself in a roadside Texas ditch outside Deputy Dubya Bush's so-called "ranch." She doesn't stand alone any more because the power of personal example in protest inspires and energizes the citizenry to oppose oppressive and unresponsive government. We protesting boomers and Vietnam Veterans Aganst the War haven't all died off yet. Senator John Kerry even rejoined our ranks the other day. So history has not heard the last of us. The subservient punks of today can express their tired aquiescence to government perfidy and malfeasance all they want; history will remember them for nothing but their abject surrender. They don't need a draft to motivate them. They'd just succumb passively to that, too. They don't live in the times that try mens' souls. They live in the times that buy them.

I don't mind being stuck with you. But can you please, please, please start living in the present! Both the Right and the Left need to relegate the 60s to the history books and finally addresss the world today. The events of the 1860s were far more cataclysmic than the grandiose Bacchic farce of the 1960s, but can you imagine how weird it would have been if the politics of TR's presidency had been obsessed with the events of the Civil War? The Progrsesive Movement of that day would have drowned in silly nostalgia and acrminious sectarian strife.

I have never heard of anyone being forced to take part in a street protest. Those who disagree with that tactic shouldn't join the protestors. But, if they share the goals of the protest I don't see what they gain by becoming vocal critics of those who do the protesting.

Back in the 60's I didn't join any of the protests, partly because I was a Civil Service employee who would have lost a job if I did. But, also because like many here I thought the protests were counter productive. I was wrong then.

I did my protesting years later, in the late 70's and early 80's, then in the run up to the Iraq fiasco. If I felt physically able I would join any such protest now, but I don't. The reference to Cindy Sheehan is a very good one. Without her willingness, as a totally unknown person, to put herself on the line and stick to it, many millions of us would never even realize that our ranks are very large, and public protests are a good way to demonstrate that.

Hoppy in Sacramento

"Who thinks Vietnam would have been won if we bombed a few more weeks, or escalated into Cambodia? "

Who? Our idiot president and vice president, our "elected" war criminals.

Jan Knaus

Thank you for adding your voice. I've addressed this issue in two separate blog entries (Entry 1 and Entry 2).

Mind you, I have no desire to send anyone off to fight any war, "voluntary" or otherwise. But at the very least the topic of the draft deserves a more active discussion than either left or right has been willing to give it.

PS. I have always thought that Ms Graff's posts were simple-minded, but this one takes the cake. Is there a place where the original posts can get a rating? If not, please count mine for this one as "unworthy." Whatever number that comes to....I don't care. It was a thoughtless and poor post.

Jan Knaus

But why do you think they should be preserved forever as the last successful street protests?

I realize this is hyperbole (maybe), but nonetheless, it's a big straw man, don't you think?

I take it that Ms. Graff's point is not that there will be no more successful street protests, but that these street protests will not be successful. (If you ask me, the stronger assertion that you attribute to her isn't far off the mark, either).

That's a rather important assertion, and worth debating seriously. At a time when more soldiers are about to be sent into what looks like an impossible mission, the opportunity costs of choosing the wrong antiwar strategy are unconscionably high.

This has got to be the most anti-American post I have read.

Ms Graff says that Americans are so damn selfish they'll never take to the streets to stop the war because their sorry asses are not on the line.

Oh yeah??

I've got news for you Ms Graff!

Plenty of heterosexual people moved their sorry asses in the 60s and 70s to fight for the causes that are so dear to you. And they did it for that concept that seems so alien to you: altruism.

Yes, Ms Graff, there are Americans willing to take a stand for a cause that does not involve only their own personal interests.
And you probably owe them more than you think.

I don't care if you insult boomers. But in your post you are insulting all Americans.

I'd rather believe that you're not very good with words because

f you want some street protests, here's a suggestion: institute a draft

Both?

Tom

Devon,

You gave me a 2. Obviously, you don't feel my anger at being disrespected. Look at other posts. I'm not the only one.

Tom

Again, not the point. Whatever.

So sit around contemplating your navel while Bush starts a war with Iran?

Tom

Yeah, maybe I should be giving more credence to the anger, but it's the distortion that bothers me.  I guess I see now that the original post was disrespectful (to be honest, I have a bit of a tin ear to that, because I've spent much of this decade, professionally, trying to find ways to work around the inability of some members of the 60s left to move on and develop new ideas and tactics).  

Nobody is suggesting that we pave the way and let more people die in a senseless war.  But I'm getting a little frustrated with the idea that either you get out on the streets and protest or you're letting our soldiers die.  It's not going to work this time.  We'd be more likely to find something that does if we didn't spend our time marching, or arguing about marching.  

I'm beginning to feel like the left, like the Pentagon, is perennially fighting the last war.

Umm, so nothing. *shrug* thought I said everything I wanted to . . .

Street action has a history of working that is as old as streets.

Michael,

I think you speak for many in this post. I know you speak for at least one more.

I don't read much poetry but I write some and also some flash fiction. I'm going to steal the following line.

"They don't live in the times that try mens' souls. They live in the times that buy them."

2003? What happened in 2003 that was even remotely comparable in size, press coverage, and resonance with the people at large to what happened in the '60s and the '70s?

In any case, six months in politics is an eternity, and America in 2007 is very different from America in 2003.

2003? What happened in 2003 that was even remotely comparable in size, press coverage, and resonance with the people at large to what happened in the '60s and the '70s?

My point exactly. 

As I have posted over and over, I think street protests are too weak to be worth the effort.  So don't take what I say below as a defense of street protests.

Now, addressing the issue head on is certainly worthwhile.  We can discuss it like adults.   The lead "Can we get over the 60s already?" is an immature attack on the boomers.

What did the boomers do for you?  The daily newspapers from every city in America are online.  Choose any city you want.  Select any year from 1955 to 1970.  Read every page of the paper (a substantial paper, not some 15 page fake paper) for a month.  What I am saying is, get to understand the pre-boomer era.   The X-ers haven't a clue.  You are a bunch of wusses.  You couldn't survive that era.  WE changed the world for you.  It cost us a lot.

Your lack of any basic respect is disgusting. 

Graff you owe us an apology. 

Point? That's not a point. In the words of Mr. Hughes, that's just "a lump in the mind," for the reason I just gave.

Devon,

There are plenty of ways to protest. Why belittle those who have the energy and dedication to put their bodies where they're mouths are? The impact of hundreds of thousands of marchers on the White House is what made Henry Kissinger convince Nixon not to use nukes on Vietnam. See Seymour Hersh's book on Nixon.

Tom

She may not be back, after all her parting line was,

But there are other ways to make change--a topic for everyone else to take up.

What is your definition of "hippie"?

Tom

... and keep protesting while you're trying something else.

Tom

Okay - I'm ready to surrender.  My beef with protest is that I think it distracts from the effort - in some ways, the legacy of the sixties for the institutional left anyway has been an over-reliance on protest and litigation, neither techniques, I'd argue, that take up the challenge in a very serious way to win converts.  But with my back tot he wall, I admit that right now, in conjunction with other things (many of which I don't know to exist as yet), a protest movement could do some good.

Tom, I don't think that's the argument you really want to have. I suspect you know that I don't have a rigorous definition, but was rather using the term to broadly pick out those individuals who either are easily identifiable or who self-identify.

Devon,

Thanks for being open-minded.

Let's hope that working together in a variety of ways we can stop Bush and secure a safe future for our kids and everyone else.

Peace,

Tom

E.J.: "It's not middle class Americans who are dying or at risk for death, and so they are unlikely to disrupt their lives by heading into the streets."

Really? Who is it, then? Just where in the f*ck did you get the idea that it isn't a huge portion of those killed over there who come from the middle class? Do you even know what "middle class" means? What era are you from? Middle class doesn't mean the Cleaver family. Middle class are people who are at the same shit end of the stick as the poor. There's the rich and then there's everybody else. Get a goddam clue before you spout off.

Tom, the term retains it's meaning. There are plenty of them on every college campus.

You can be angry all you want, but to what advantage.

55k dead in 14 years of war in Viet Nam is pretty lightweight, considering the Brits lost almost half that many by the end of the first day of the Somme in 1916. 1 day vs. 14 years. hmmmm, Sorry that the sacrifices of generations past weren't on the TV for your commodified consumption.

The inability to get over the deaths of your young friends does make you a bit of an anachronism, but also begs the question: You had 55000 friends in the 1960s? Wow, you boomers do have super powers!

Also, holding an emotion for AT LEAST 32 years doesn't sound very grown up, so I don't know if I should take your advice.

Anger + Street protests(tantrums) vs. Anger + political organizing, given the choice I will happily take the latter, more mature position.

At the risk of coming across as a troll, can I just say, "ZZZzzzzz." Or to paraphrase the tagline for the film Alien: "On the streets, no one can hear you scream."

This whole hippie/yippie/hipster compare and contrast essay that's been showing up 'round these parts of late is frankly boring.

I was born in 1969 and my little baby brain didn't even remotely get into anything until the 1980's and even then it took a whole lot more, um, living to get what was going on around me.

I fully appreciate the works of those who went before. Truly, I do.

But... I marched here in Manhattan twice (once in 2003 and again during the Republican Convention) and afterwards swore I'd never do it again.

Why?

Because it was sound and fury signifying nothing. At least in the effect we were having.

Yes, it feels good to get out on the street and scream. It does. It also felt really good to be an 11-year old screaming at a Clash concert. Both were great screaming experiences but they didn't DO anything.

The internet seems to me to be the real analogue to the street protests of the past. The added bonus, of course, is that while you can type in all caps I still can't hear you scream. I can actually read what you're saying and agree or dismiss not just in my head, but in a way that might get heard too.

Seems like the MSM hears us far better too. Just saying.

It's useful to have these conversations, methinks, but at the same time I wonder why we don't acknowledge this medium through which we're, um, conversating. And... recognize the revolutionary (really) aspects of this conversation.

For once, it actually is the medium not the message. So, screw this particular message... it's dated by the medium we're using.

I reserve the right to be spectacularly wrong.

No, I just read it somewhere.

             - tom stoppard
 

I reserve the right to be spectacularly wrong.

As long as you don't abuse it.

We all recognize the revolutionary aspect of this electronic conversation. We also all recognize that we can "converse" about life and death while sipping a latte with talib kweli rapping in the background, all the while wondering how to get that kitty cat's tail from hiding our monitor's screen.
It can be tough.

Street protests changed the conversation. They brought about this "ghastly" thing called political correctness, which meant historically persecuted people finally got a break from the thugs.

But Ms Graff of the "me, me, and super me" generation gets to enjoy the benefits while whining about the noise.

Her logic is morally offensive. Americans will never be Iraqis, so I guess we'll never get our compatriots to worry about them either.

Street protests polarize and they make people uncomfortable. Good! Mention any progressive accomplishment which didn't do that.

Actually, I don't think that very many folks seem to recognize the revolutionary aspects of this "electronic conversation."

Your dismissive, facile and elitist comments about latte's and kitty's getting in the way of our monitors depressingly demonstrate that. Or, you're saying that because I can have a dialogue with coffee in hand and kitty in the way somehow are less than getting out on the street with placards in hand and screaming in throat.

I don't say that to insult, truly. But it feels, well, terribly old world to me. And while I'm all for learning from the past in order to not repeat those mistakes, I certainly cannot live there. The world moves on. 

Street protests - at least in my little corner of the world - make people yawn and think, "Ooohh. Look at the green people." Sure there are folks in my little klatch (I pretend no larger circle outside of places like TPMCafe) who feel it's important to get "out there" and "give it to the man" but I don't.

As I wrote, I honor those who have gone before me. I cannot sit here - pushing my cat to the side - and type these ideas out without there being those who've done constructive work to allow me such a possibility.

But... I cannot live in your past. 

Don't get me wrong. There will - hopefully - always be something stirring, wonderful and inspiring at seeing large numbers of people in one place speaking with one (well kind of one) voice. The voice of the masses should always have a kind of power.

The world, however, has moved on. Not because we designed it to be so, but because that's the way things seem to work. I've seen more constructive, rich, and influential dialogues happening online than I've ever seen in a mass of people screaming.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is something to be said for voices speaking individually rather than loud chants spoken by the many. Seems to me that we've reached a point in evolution that the voice of the one has the power to outweigh the voice of the many.

At least that's my hope.

Again, I may be spectacularly wrong. I'm okay with that. Are you?

No, I just read it somewhere.

- tom stoppard

Hello Reece:

A late "boomer #2..." born in 1963 ... Can easily make it into their early 90s ... Maybe not a "significant number" of them as you say ... Especially if the current wackos in the WH don't get everyone incinerated first...

~OGD~

While we bicker amongst ourselves and chatter about the superiority of the netroots movement in affecting change - we all FAIL to recognize that NOTHING has changed. Yeah we won an election FINALLY, and gained control of Congress, - but the fascists in the Bush government continue the nazification of America unabated, while one half of theleft slime the other for choosing protest, as opposed to what, BlOGGING? We are all bloggiing, and in case any one of you have not been paying attention the costly bloody noendinsight horrorshow in Iraq escalated. We've lost thirty soldiers in the last few days, and hundreds of Iraqi's have been slaughtered.

Our satanic VP continues LYING to and SPITTING in the face of the American people proclaiming beyond all reason, and without substantiation the things or progressing in Iraq, and it's not that terrible, the fascist in the Bush government did and are doing the right thing, and all those who oppose this course are giving aid and comfort to the evildoers, - and let's attack Iran so the fascist in the Bush government can waste more blood, and pillage more treasure.

The fascist in the Bush government conninvingly forced through a new oil distribution law therough Iraqi puppet government affording select oil and energy oligarchs beholden to the Bush government control of 75% of Iraq' oil for 30 years.

Our fascist attorney general continues dismembering the constitution, the rule of law, and the core principle that formally defined America, and sanctioning torture, rendition, detention without due process habeas corpus, the right to a trial, or even a chage, and spying on Americans without warrant, review, recourse, or remedy.

The fascists in the GOP killed minimum wage bill, continue swiftboating, and heaping slime upon any and every voice on theleft, and swearing to the "Pledge".

The netroort cheerleaders might want not stop patting each other on the back and sliming their fellow Americans who share the same basic ideologies and ends, - and take notice of the fact that these seeming victories are effectively HOLLOW and MOOT. While netrooter attack hippies (who are long since dead or matured), - they ignore the glaring factbasedreality that it there is no change of course, and if fact it is FULL STEAM AHEAD with the fascist Bush government policies, and deceptive, abusive, derelict, and failing machinations and wanton profiteering.

Netrooters are eating their roots, and have accomplished nothing yet, but more fair and balanced rhetoric, TALK. TALK is all we have now. Nothing else in America has changed one bit. Not Iraq, not anything in our domestic policies, not one single bit accountability from the fascist in the Bush government - NOTHING. NO THING! NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN ANY WAY!!!

So netrooters (who I fully support in spirit, and with whom I share the ultimate ends) had better recognize that talk means and accomplishes NOTHING, and the fascist warmongers and profiteer in the Bush government are moving full steam ahead in insidious nazification of America, and the wanton profiteering and engorgement of thier own off sheet accounts.

"Deliver us from evil!"

But the music! Why doesn't someone think of the music!

When I went to College, there was a strong 60's nostalgia tendency ... but, man, it wasn't the street protests. It was the music, man. Well, a couple of other things too, but most importantly the music.

It helped that we were still in the age of the phonograph, so we could just go down to the used record store and buy it, cheap.

Hopefully my children and grandchildren will. The fact that you don't get that -- can't even fathom caring about after you're gone -- tips you off as a narcissist. You probably really can't help it, but then you'll never know the ups and downs of empathy.

Jan Knaus

I agree; it's kind of like the argument that we're "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." It may be true that this administration can only do one thing at a time (ie: ruin the country), but there is nothing that says we can't protest in many ways.

Frankly, for a bunch of elected officials who justifiably feel threatened about their ongoing job prospects, some very large and vocal protests might actually get their attention.

Jan Knaus

This is, what, the sixth or seventh thread on this topic in the last week? Everyone's trying to justify what they did/didn't (or would have/wouldn't have if they'd been around) back then. It's getting beyond navel-diving.
The thing everyone has to remember is that it is 2007, not 1967. Iraq is a war of aggression being waged by the most radical clique ever to come to power in this country. More, this clique shows every intention of following this policy (and maybe expanding it) despite overwhelming lack of public support.
TonyForesta seems to get it. Bush apparently feels he is entitled to do anything he pleases, to a degree that would have made even Nixon nervous. It's not even left vs. right anymore, it's the Decider vs. everyone who won't kneel.

Speaking of cowards...I notice that Miss Graff has not responded to any of the strong emotions expressed here. Stirling Newberry and many other posters do. I think the least she can do is to either back up her original piece, with perhaps an actually THOUGHTFUL bit of prose; or to respectfully admit that she wrote it when she was asleep and having a nightmare. And then apologize.

Jan Knaus

Sorry that you don't care that someone lost friends for nothing. The Somme was a massive slaughter. If we throw in 2 or 3 million Vietnamese would that make Vietnam a big enough slaughter for you.

Tom

Sorry. You're stuck with us for the next 50 years.

For the Boomers sake, I hope not. You've already got two big generations behind you building resentment as you refuse to retire, send our jobs overseas, and cling to inefficient and polluting ways of doing business. Add two more and it won't be a pretty political situation for anyone.

edit: Just to be clear by "you" I'm referring to the leaders of the generation generally, not to any specific person on this site.

Sorry, 2x post - see below.

This is silly, Jan. By definition, trolls are not among us to contribute to, let alone elevate, the level of discourse.

Hoping for an apology from a troll is as futile as expecting rationality from a Bushie.

tips you off as a narcissist

 BINGO!

Unfortunately no one generation has cornered the market on narcissism. However I sometimes wonder if the those ear buds, flat screens, silicon etched ICs etc. aren't seducing many into gazing at their own beautiful image.  ;-) 

it is not enough that we agree, but that we agree for the right reasons

Oh my! Where have I heard that before? Watch out, my karma might run over your.....dogma.

Hoppy,

You bring up a good point:

I have never heard of anyone being forced to take part in a street protest.

 And it makes me think a little more about this resistance to street protests. I'm beginning to get the feeling that it is very counter productive and I wonder if there isn't an hidden agenda at work. Maybe an agenda so hidden that those supporting it are doing so without  full awareness of their acts.

I'm not suggesting a new conspiracy, more a confederacy of fear. Maybe some form of assimilation into an electro-materialistic subculture has taken place. Some dread of wetware over software. Some repugnance of the organic, action based, passion required to shove something as inertia bound as this war machine off the tracks.

There is undoubtably a new digital coccoon swathing this new generation, perhaps they fear any move away from it. Ahhh, the future has arrived!

Tom when was the last time you were on a college campus?

The challenge to define "hippie," is a pertinent one, or, more importantly, "hippie leftism." In the sixties, there were two social movements, the hippies, and the New Left. They weren't the same thing. The hippies were not politically engaged; the New Left was.

There was certainly an effort to bring these two movements together. It was one of Abbie Hoffman's concerns. And the People's Park protest in Berkeley joined the two strains into one cause.

The phrase "hippie leftism" is a vague mishmash that doesn't really illuminate. It's worth examining the sixties--which is not to say romanticizing it--but as with all historical analysis, it should be grounded in a factual and nuanced approach.

Dude, all those anti-war protests in the 60s that the boomers here are so proud of--those protests weren't manned by the "New Left." Maybe they were lead by the New Left, but the boots on the ground weren't just the SDS. However it worked out--you can put the New Left on the top if you want--there was a culture of leftism that has trickled down into contemporary society. And now it is the sons and daughters of those original groups who are the filling up (or not) current protests.

Good Point Dan K:

Being a member of the choir I tend to agree. Although, what you have presented here is yet another action as part of a variety of ways ...

~OGD~

Re:When I wrote to try to imagine 5 of your friends being blown up, and then mentioned the 55,000 number it was to personalize the larger number

Exactly the problem with the boomers, it ain't always personal. Just cause YOU saw it happen on TV doesn't make it any more or less worthwhile than any other sacrifices made at any point in the past and likely in the future.
Now, to somewhat play your game and try to out personalize you on this issue, I don't know if the five I know who have returned from Iraq , most with some form of PTSD and one without a limb, would agree with your characterization that Viet Nam was the greatest sacrifice ever by a generation, especially considering most boomers just watched it on the sidelines.

re: There's holding an emotion (not what I said), and then there's learning from mistakes (what I said).

Well, what else could you possibly mean by saying you hadn't "gotten over" your friends you lost in Viet Nam? Are you trying to change the rules of the game? Typical of most boomers infantile urges, like a small child they must attempt to change the rules when they realize they are caught.

re:You sound like the kind of person who doesn't take advice at all, and from your mean-spirited responses, I doubt that you have done much learning from mistakes either.

Well, I am mean spirited, but I do take advice, but usually not from boomers because frankly they haven't had the type of experiences most of the younger generation has, and also because as much as most boomers try desperately to hold on to their relevantness, they are slowly slipping into their dotage. sorry the younger generation despises you guys.

There ya' go Danius...

Thanks for expanding on this sub issue. Please see my comment here . . .

~OGD~

Thank you for that information Doc...

I'll take the peyote please ... and I'll call you in the morning, after I stop chasing windmills.

~OGD~

E.J., There are many more Charlie Rangels out there that are pining for a Draft, but they are laughed off by the left and the right, because it is abundantly clear that like you it is a cynical attempt to compel young people involuntarily to put their lives at risk for someone like Rangel's personal political goals. This is the same thing that the hippies accused the establishment pro-Vietnam group in the 60s.

The fact that there are enough young people (and even some Vietnam vets) are willing to risk their lives in the middle east, seems to frustrate many anti-war boomers, which explains why out of anger,you hear "botched jokes" about how deficient they think these young soldiers are.

It is easy to argue that your argument that 1960s level war opposition is only possible with a draft can only be interpreted as an argument that many of the 1960s hippies were not consciously against the war for political or moral reasons, but merely out of narcissistic self interest. If that is not your argument, then why would you compare the two eras and say "self interest" and self preservation by todays youth is the only thing that will elevate the movement to the levels of opposition you desire.

Many argue that Bush is placing these volunteers in harms way for his own political goals, but your argument is a slam at the Rangels on the left that would force our youth to be cannon fodder for their own cynical selfish benefit.

You weren't looking around.

Hate to break it to you, OGD, but if you were born in 1963, you are not a boomer. You are a member of a transitional generation between boomers and Generation X.

CD:

See! Not enough sun?

~OGD~

 Dear Betty regarding,

The world, however, has moved on. Not because we designed it to be so, but because that's the way things seem to work. I've seen more constructive, rich, and influential dialogues happening online than I've ever seen in a mass of people screaming.

OK, I get your point about not being able to re-live someone else's era, even if it is inspiring. Gotcha. I understand what it is like not to be able to communicate the power of TV to parents who grew up with a radio and silent movies. So, I definitely feel you when you say the world has moved on. Been there. It is the sentence though about the strengths of this medium that leaves me puzzled. I just gotta ask, with all those positives...how then is it productive..how can it produce meaningful outcomes?. Because that is the real point of many posts on this thread.

Mass civil protests worked and brought about change due to the power of being televised into peoples homes. That galvanized the masses to rise up and assert their civil and political rights in this democracy to force governmental change. Folks could see that others wanted the same thing they did and they got up off their butts and protested. 

 How is your generations 'medium' effective? How does all the constructive, rich and influential dialogue via monitors produce political change? To date, we who used the power of TV to bring about change in the 70s and 80s are not seeing a powerful impactful political change induce by the 'constructive dialogue' of this medium.

I think that is where we are cross-purposes. Fine to tout the medium but where's the beef?  What powerful and meaningful changes has it produced?  We have an executive in the WH who needs to be impeached following the content of his SOTU address he is openly defying the expressed will of the people based on how the elected Congress changed in the last election.

How can this medium of 'rich dialogue' have a meaningful impact on these serious issues where lives are a stake?

It is my belief that it is your generations failure to use the power of journalism and broadcast medium as well as to have completely abdicated the power of the press to corporate interests and the vainglorious pursuit of 'celebrity news analyst' that is the problem today.

WE know what works. It is the power of the press and TV, to inform the masses,  in a democracy that engenders change and protest.  Not, folks need to cozy up to the WH and to news producers so they can be 'talking heads' and place their own career ambitions above the duty to provide objective and accurate news reporting and coverage that is the problem. A democracy is only as good as the masses are informed. A strong democracy requires informed citizenry, that is why 'freedom of the press' is such an important cornerstone in our constitution.

Why is it that our country was never shown the protests in FL over the 2000 Supreme Court ruling, where was the coverage of the protesters on Pennsylvania Avenue on the day of inauguration? For the first time in history, a President drove to his inauguration rather than walk...due to the protesters that where not shown to the public. We could have stopped this man from ever TAKING the office he was APPOINTED to!!  And where was the press when he traveled globally, and people all around the world would protest this American President. Why was the country not shown how universally reviled this man was? He represented AMERICA and world leaders and citizens DESPISED him. He engendered nothing but distrust and disrespect for our nation.

It is your generation that is now in decision making positions when it comes to the power of journalism, broadcasting and reporting the news. 

Could it be they are failing us and sipping lattes while our democracy is becoming a totalitarian state as they engage in 'constructive, rich and intelligent dialogue' at their monitors?

There have been a lot of discussions about conflicts in vision between the Boomers and the netroots or X'ers. Your admonition of the X'ers for not appreciating you and calling them wusses without a lot of information to back up your remarks reminds me of the greatest generation folks brushing off the youth of the 60s but not willing to appreciate their vision. If you are going to call a whole generation wusses, please explain.

A conflict of vision is much different than differing on principle.

Hey cowboy ...

The commies are coming! The commies are coming!

Now here ... Go resist this!

Oh... I forgot the commies are already here... Must be my .... now wait for the WORD OF THE DAY... dotage catching up with me...

~OGD~

He was born well before 1963, he is just being contrarian as always.

Wikipedia begs to disagree.

Example of... One flew over the cuckoo's nest?

~OGD~

Thanks Reece,

Your rating my comment unproductive only proves I've made my point.

Toughen up butter cup...

It's like water off a duck's back!

~OGD~

My mistake. Like I said, they all look the same to me.

Thank goodness for guys like you with the good memories, Mr. King. You can remind us which one was it that had the bad knee but kept playing football?

And which one had the cyst?

And which one had other priorities?

My memory just isn't what it used to be.

Wow! Two unproductives... I'm starting to feel like a slice of bologna stuck between two pieces of moldy rye bread...

Like water off a ducks back...

~OGD~

Sorry, I missed danius's comment below, where this really belongs. I agree with danius.

I don't like labels, and I don't think things turn out the way we expect them to very much. So I don't think we should try very hard to motivate ourselves to fit into preconceived categories or to gauge our actions according to how well we can predict the future.

Admittedly I attended a college where the Left was very strong, but I do not see any resemblance between the Left and what I think of as "hippies." My perception is that the Left of my day was ideologically disciplined and not interested in what they might term "bourgeois decadence."

I am actually a bit older than the boomers, and I had never heard of the word "hippie" at that time. The word that was current in my day was "beatnik."

I will not try to define what a "hippie" was, but I do not think that loving rock music and demonstrating against the war necessarily makes one an ideological Leftist.

My most vivid memory of the period, which was actually later, when I returned to campus for grad school, was the evening of the Kent State shootings, when delegates from Kent State came to our campus to tell us what had happened. We were all horrified, of course, since any of us could have been there. I don't think the Kent State shootings have anything to do with "Left" or "hippie." It was about human beings.

The tragedy of Kent State underscores the right of people to express their deepest beliefs, but it also proved to me that the government (also known as the "establishment") was not listening.

I say, demonstrate if you feel moved to demonstrate. You don't have to believe that anyone will listen to you or that it will change anything. Your role is simply to be a witness to history. In terms of the existentialism of my youth, I suppose that means that your obligation is simply to be an authentic person, regardless of the results. If your role is to demonstrate, demonstrate. If you have another role, do that. Just be authentic. You might unexpectedly become part of history, like the kids who were shot at Kent State. Since you never know when that is going to happen, you want to make every moment a true moment.

You don't come across as a troll, BettyCrow

But you do come across a as someone who expects cause and effect to be directly and instantaneously connected.  One of your other responders has remarked to that effect, and I just want to second those remarks.  The last time you marched was in 2004, two years ago.  I don't know how long after that march it took you to conclude that your actions had no effect.  I think you may have made that conclusion just a little too quickly.

I wager that within the last couple of months, say back to October, I've seen references to the way free speech on the streets was treated during the conventions mentioned on the blogs a couple of dozen times, maybe more.  I know it has been mentioned here in the café several times in the last couple of weeks.  In every mention, the suppression of free street speech, the creation of little pens for protesters, the refusal of parade permits, has been condemned.  Each of those condemnations of the political elites is an effect of your action.  Two plus years after you acted, your action is still echoing.  The effect is cumulative, and who's to say that some small portion of the victories gained in 2006 isn't due to the ways your actions in 2004 exposed the arrogance of the managers of the Republican Convention.  Every little bit helped.

I followed Josh Marshall's lead in the crusade to save Social Security from Republican Bamboozlement.  I wrote letters, I chipped in a few bucks.  I also marched on the White House with about a thousand other attendees at the Take Back America Conference in 2005. . .and enjoyed a little street theatre in Lafayette Square, courtesy of Billionaires for Bush.  Certainly that event, by itself, had a minuscule effect.  Candlelight vigils, by themselves, have minuscule effects...but maybe it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.   

We live in an age of instant gratification and short attention spans.  But the person who uttered these words was in his crusade over the very long haul:

• I am in earnest; I will not equivocate; I will not excuse; I will not retreat a single inch; and I will be heard

aMike

I thought that would rile you up. I note you have not responded to my other questions. Memory failing you, Mr. King?

BTW, you fail to mention what rank you achieved in our Armed Forces. Pray enlighten us, Mr. King. No need for false modesty. Colonel in the Marines, perhaps? Airborne? Seals, maybe?

And I really wish you would leave my lingerie out of these conversations, sir. It is getting embarrasing.

I'm an older boomer and I think it's time to retire the marching in the streets, too.

Marching in the streets was the only option when we were old enough for the draft but too young to vote. Marching in the streets was the only option for the Civil Rights movement -- because the people marching were being DENIED the rights that translate into political power.

Most important, marching in the streets made sense in an era when the mass media could be counted on to cover and spotlight mass movements.

But times have changed.

Boomers can, and should, do a hell of a lot more than just "demonstrate." They have political power -- IF they're willing to organize and use it. And they have economic power.

And, again, most important, the media has changed. It no longer covers peaceful mass demonstrations -- no matter how massive they are. And without media coverage, the whole rationale for a "demonstration" is lost.

The only thing today's media will cover is any and every hint of violence -- no matter how minor or how few people involved.

By doing so they successfully undermine the whole point of peaceful protests -- which is to both capture the attention of AND APPEAL TO THE MORAL CONSCIENCE OF the nation.

Nobody said the only thing you do is demonstrate. These demonstrations are the coming together of hundreds of thousands of activists who are busy all the time in their local communities.

The main media attention we got in the sixties was to have the mainstream media downplay the number of demonstrators and make sure that if there was one "crazy" in a crowd of ten-thousand he/she got face time on tv. That kind of attention we can do without. I assume C-Span will be there tomorrow.

Tom

I see, first you re-edit your remark to hide your initial response, then you hide behind false sarcasm, and now you hide behind a false intention of trying to rile somebody. Are you so afraid of expressing your own beliefs and ideas directly that they can not withstand a debate. This is your fourth waffle on this topic after refering to Rumsfeld's military career as that of a chickenhawk. Why don't you just come out and say why he is a chickenhawk and more importantly, what a Chickenhawk is. You can either weasel around the issue or show that you have confidence enough in your beliefs and state it clearly. What is your definition of a chickenhawk?

Michael Moore was the only one who had the guts to show what happened in Washington in January 2001. Of course, the powers that be have crucified him for it.

Tom

How about "Cut and Run"?

Tom

On this long thread I may have missed one or two but there are important distinctions between the sixties and now beyond the draft, (although that is very important), that affect the equation.

The first is that this war is young, and not in same danger of unmeasured escalation as was Vietnam. The second is the much smaller casualty number to date. The third is that the justification for Vietnam was more obviously a stretch. This because we had not been attacked on our home soil for a long time (of course Saddam didn't attack us; I'm talking about the feeling in the air).  No one seriously argued that the Vietnamese would come here to attack (not saying that is a good argument but it is an emotionally resonant one).

And the final, missing, factor was the previously successful civil rights marches. Those had a provenance very different from arguments over foreign policy, being natural human rights for a huge, visible population that contributed mightily to industry and war without respect and full citizenship (not mention a debt owed). If we are still at war in a couple of years we may yet see folks in the street.

Maybe the one with the cyst on his butt was GWTush.

Tom

What is the relevance of relevantness to this conversation?

Tom

Our biggest mistake wasn't protesting in 1968, it was in not leaving the Democratic party and having the discipline to work for the political power to sell a different alternative to the American public. If we had, maybe we'd have built something worthwhile over the last 40 years.

Sure, it's futile to march in the streets. It's also futile to vote for triangulating Democrats. Neither kept this country from getting into another Vietnam.

So that is your fifth waffling on the issue. I imagine it is your last, because you've proven you not only are too afraid to provide any factual information to back up your claims, you don't supply any references and now you have sunk to a new level of spinelessness...You can't even define the terms that you use.

It is obvious why you consider your arguments too flimsy to sustain a logical analysis and that is because as you admit, ...you have no beliefs, only fleeting emotional outbursts.

Regarding your final attempt to express you beliefs or lack thereof is sadly false also.

As President and commander in chief, the President can award the medal of freedom for military or civilian acheivement or if in the case of Donald Rumsfeld or his fellow recipient Colin Powell, if the individual has excelled in both military and civilian contribuitions to his nation, he can be rewarded for that. So says the second place winner of the popular vote in 1960, John F. Kennedy. Here is Kennedy's words from the executive order:

"... Award of the Medal. (a) The Medal may be awarded by the President as provided in this order to any person who has made an especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors...."

Hearing a small person accuse people like this of cowardice and not even the ability to explain himself in even the most basic way is as I said before, the act of a fool.

There is a time when Wile E. Coyote should just give up. Do you ever get tired of crashing and burning K.J.

You do see the irony in this don't you, Jan?

You saying that I am the one who has no substance. You saying I'm the one who only has definitions and grammar. When above you are the one you asked me to define the word "ugly." Did you not go to first grade?

And then there's my response to you below was not about grammar. It was about substance. You wrote four or five sentences that lacked the necessary components for complete thoughts. Maybe you didn't go to first grade.

What point did you make? You sure can read a lot into ratings. By your logic, I'm the king of this thread since I've racked up way more 1s than you have. That's my operating assumption from now on, OGD--anytime I get a 1 rating, I am proved correct in my assertions.

Same list of questions, still no answers:

-- Chickenhawk with the bad knees, Vietnam no, football si.

-- Chickenhawk with butt cyst, Army no, pain killers si.

-- Chickenhawk with "other priorities", defend America no, Halliburton si.

-- Your highest rank in the Armed Forces.

There is a time when Wile E. Coyote should just give up.
You mean, like the Republicans did in Vietnam? Like you always do in our debates? What?

OK! Another 1 rating from Mr. King. May I have another, sir?

Historically, this has been your way of admitting defeat. Is that what you are doing, or are you going to answer my questions?

Queen Victoria was also adamantly opposed to supporting the CSA, due in part to strong anti-slavery beliefs, and in part to reverence for her husband's memory, as Prince Albert's last public act before his death from typhoid in Dec 1861 was to help mediate the crisis that the Union provoked when it seized a British vessel bearing CSA diplomats to Europe.

Actually, although I believe it is a code of behavior, not an actual rule, the practice on this site is to avoid rating responses you respond to.  The reason is that rating and responding both seems to generate petty rating battles.  This practice predates my joining this site.  On rare occasion someone will rate first then offer an explanatory comment (I have done it myself).  Explanatory comments are not considered comments on the post.

You have to live with a culture for some time to be a full member. 

Speaking to everyone on the skinny end of the thread:

Can't we close this down already?  I don't see anything productive coming of it anymore, do you? 

So it would be good if you learned the code.

Gawd. Bush Borg.

Laura just isn't the Borg Queen. Wouldn't rule out Dr. Rice, however, who does seem to like leather.

I'm not sure about futility, though. The Israelis have avoided hosting a summit, since they remember what happened to them the last time they talked to a Bush in the Desert.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

mary catherine reynolds
On a pretty regular basis, I schlep my PA system and guitar, sometimes my piano player and drummer, and lead the singing at our local anti-war rally. There's nothing about nostalgia involved. The equipment is heavy and the work is emotionally draining. But it's necessary for us here in Oklahoma City for a number of reasons. Here follows a list, not comprehensive.

The people of this right-leaning state need to see us. You can't see a person's vote on television. You can see that person carry a sign and march in a rally. The people here who don't get it yet need a chance to see that their community is not monolithically pro-war. Our local media is happy to show the rallies, if only as objects of ridicule. And they always give one or more of us a chance for a sound bite that might change someone's mind.

The coverage of rallies on TV helps us find like -minded people who will come to meetings, read blogs and contribute money and time for our local movement, which is decades old and strong, if small.

We need to confront the smattering of pro-war counter protesters that always show up and look them in the eye. They need to see people who dare to disagree with them in flesh and blood. With each rally, there are fewer of them, and our numbers are constant.

As many have mentioned in this thread, i march for dozens or even hundreds who can't. Those people need to know i'm marching, and haven't given up.

I don't want anyone to be able to say, "if the war's so bad, why aren't people marching?" It is so bad, and we are.

We marchers need to see each other, and encourage each other. It's too easy to sit in front of the screen and think you're the only one, blogs such as this notwithstanding.

We need to march now so our organization is sharp if things get worse. Here's a link to something worth laying down in front of a bulldozer for.

http://www.sosalliance.org/underwater_video.shtml

thanks for reading this - thanks everyone for posting.

And so can everyone else.

Rumsfeld was a poor Secretary of Defense, an example of the Peter Principle in that he might have been competent running transformation programs. I have no reason to doubt his Naval service; antisubmarine patrol flying tends to be characterized as hours and days of boredom punctuated by moments of terror.

By all accounts, I have to say that Rumsfeld's heart, if not head, was in the right place on 9/11. There are numerous accounts about his attempting to run to the crash site to provide one more pair of hands, until his security detail, quite correctly, wrestled him under control and got him to the National Military Command Center.

His responsibilities meant that he needed to be in a command center. Much as I dislike his decisions, I respect that he apparently was ready to rush into physical danger, rather than reading "My Pet Goat."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I don't know why I bother.... but there's always some hope someone will learn a little history.

• Wikipedia for starters
• Columbia University Library 25th Anniversary Commemoration exhibit
• "Remembering Stonewall"
• The Village Voice Commemorates Stonewall

And no, these weren't left out of the history books.  If you wish a bibliography one can quite easily be assembled.

aMike

And Today Comes the March

We'll see what comes of it all if anything.  For the "Reality-based" Community the proof of the pudding is in the eating.  For a very different take on this march and on the role of street action in general, I recommend a saunter over to Alternet and the post "Savvy Iraq War Protests Don't Just target "The Decider" in DC" 

Evan Derkacz is no boomer, I suspect.  He makes several interesting points:  among them, quoting the New York Times,

• So the groups that are organizing the demonstrations against the president’s strategy are also carrying out a sophisticated, well-financed lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill. Their behind-the-scenes efforts are intensifying, relying on tactics deployed in a cutthroat political race. (my emphasis)

And this:

• Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a coalition of labor unions, MoveOn.org and other groups that have traditionally rallied against wars, has raised $1.5 million since it was formed two weeks ago. The group is singling out Republicans and Democrats who have spoken out against the war, but who have so far declined to pledge support for a resolution denouncing Mr. Bush’s plan to increase the number of troops.(Again, my emphasis)

And there's this from Digby/Hullabaloo.  He begins by quoting a comment by Ché Pasa

• The idea that physical protest doesn't matter or is ineffective is absurd on its face, and yet this idea is nearly endemic to much of high profile lefty blogistan, a matter of faith more than evidence. I've been in several set-to's with blogish proprietors over the issue, most recently over the question of whether Cindy Sheehan's protests are of any relevance or consequence, and shouldn't she and her tactics be shunned by the "serious" left?

He then makes an interesting comparison to Revolutionary Boston in 1776...likening today's blogs to the various radical clubs (seven of them) who were the driving force behind the Boston radicals.  Finally he says this:

• The blogs and the rest of the virtual community are vital, but I agree with Ché Pasa that from time to time we need a tea party of some form to bring it all together, to physically demonstrate the movement. In keeping with that notion, I think the lefty blogistan should up its emphasis on the importance of rallies and protests.
  
  In the meanwhile, here's to hoping today's march on Washington makes the news

 The point is that this march represents a synergy between several tactics arising out of several traditions, old and new.  The Internet meets the face-to-face political activist. 

It will be interesting to observe images from the March.  I suspect there will be a broad cross section of generations represented:  broad enough so no generation will be able to claim a majority, and this silly inter-generational war may quietly fade away. 

aMike

Incidentally, and entirely off topic, Go read Steve Clemons' spectacular post, and drop a few bucks on the cause he espouses.  You'll be glad you did.  And send it to all your friends.

That one little section by Ché Pasa there says quite a bit, were he's quoted as saying:

the "...'serious' left"

I guess the rest of the left according to those on the "serious left" would be left as the 'leftover-left'?

Let's see, meat loaf? Yeah, meat loaf!

~OGD~

ps: Thanks for that Steve Clemons' link.

Kitchen = Heat?

~OGD~

It isn't nostalgia.
The peace movement of today is the direct descendant of the last big peace movement (and all the peace work that has been done in between the two eras). That's how it is. YOU get over it.
And check out the news reports on today's demonstration. It's a proud day for America.

Another 1 rating from an a colleague whose IQ matches his favorite rating! Thank you! Between you and Mr. King, this has been a red letter day!

Pile 'em on, Believers. I collect 'em like you collect rosary beads blessed by the Pope.

Well, I have to chuckle that NBC News lead tonight with the demonstration and Hillary's visit to Iowa was carried after Jane Fonda's remarks on the war.

At least you can tell what Jane Fonda believes. Hillary? Today, Hillary is still in it to win. Why she wants to win it or whatever good it's going to do the rest of us if she wins it is something that must wait for later. For Hillary, it's enough that people know that Hillary is in it and Hillary wants to win.

So who is the narcissist Jane or Hillary?

Please, Hillary. No workout tape. I don't want to think about aerobic politics.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Perish the thought!

Maybe, Josh could start an online chatroom

Here chuckie ... anyone wishing to chat can do so till their little hearts' content over at my cafe blog:

More Material to ^Crib^ to Slam the Boomers over Their Heads


~OGD~

Here's another post-demonstration evaluation:

Thom Hartmann's latest for Common Dreams, entitled Join the Parade for We the People.  It is superb writing by someone who also was on the scene and has a deeper understanding of what the street is all about.  

Here's my favorite part.  

The Parade was the core concept of the Founders and Framers of this nation. Their idea was that we don't elect leaders - we elect representatives.

It's not about who's in Washington, our state capitols, or our county or municipal offices. It's about us.

One of the most effective ways to trivialize the political process is to turn it into a sports event. From TV commentators to radio talk show hosts to bloggers and pundits of all stripe, calculating the game of "who's going to win" is a powerful and effective tool for diminishing a discussion of the real issues and the real role of We The People in politics.

Such a discussion trivializes activism. It trivializes the Parade. Ultimately, it trivializes We The People - us  

 The words are Hartmann's, the emphasis is mine, and they strike me as pertinent to this discussion.  I think Hartmann's credentials pass muster.  (Warning...there's some gray in his beard).

aMike