why people like her and others (especially when Cindy Sheehan was protesting outside of W's ranch) feel the need to interfere in this generation's organic protest/progressive movement. Regardless of whether I like her or not, she's hurts the cause by drawing attention to herself and her past and away from the present circumstances.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

I do not believe that Fonda should hide out because the media chooses to behave in a silly manner. It is the media shifted focus.

The wingnuttery is going act stupid and speak stupid about the protest regardless of who shows.

Wow. You really think she was counterproductive? I think her wave peaked a long time ago, but it was a fulcrum moment for anti-war protest - bearding the lion in its den, so to speak, causing a lot of people to "grow a pair".

stood, I said people like Fonda showing up at Cindy Sheehan's protest made parts of it counter productive, like when Joan Baez showed up and started singing kumbay-fucking-ya or some shit.

No, Cindy was the real deal She helped turn the tide.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

- EOM

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

For the longest time I never really understood the venom she drew from people like my father who served in the war, then I saw some of the footage when she was witht the North Vietnamese Army. I am sorry that is not a simple mistake. It was treasonous and unconscienable. Protest the war all you want. Try and do whatever it takes, say whatever must be said to end an unjust war. But to do what she did with the soldiers of the enemy, the enemy trying to kill people like my father, well I understand why she is reviled.

She was cavorting with the enemy, sitting on there howitzers grinning from ear to ear, encouraging their efforts to try and kill my father, fortunately for me they did not succeed. Had they succeeded I would not be alive today, my mother would have been left with 3 other young boys to raise on her own, my family as I know it would have never existed, I would never have existed. She encouraged them to try and kill my father, I am glad they did not do as she encouraged, but they did kill over 50,000 other fathers, brothers and sons. Unforgivable.

I hope this helps you understand the contempt people have for her. It is not a matter of right or wrong for people in my position or my fathers or my mothers or my brothers or for the other families that served in Vietnam. Imagine someone encouraging someone else to kill the dearest person in your life, then maybe you could understand.

For me it is a question of existence. Something she determined should not have happened because she wanted other people to kill my father, a good honorable man, serving his country while being betrayed by its leadership.

Donald Braden
www.debatablepolitics.com

She's stayed away as long as she could - because of this perception. Now is an opportune moment for her (and everyone else) to get involved.

Is there some age discrimination going on here? No one generation "owns" the anti-war movement. If at age 70 or 80 I am witness to dangerous warmongering, I will join any anti-war movement. And walk I will, with a "walker" if I have to.

Right?

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

There is and has been in the US even before the '60's but really
emphasized there a kind of generational embarrassment - and now marching is regarded as so last millenium.

i was really embarrassed when my mother walked with me in the first women's march in NYC -I felt it was really my generation's issue- but she had been a labor organizer and when she smelled that march. no one was going to stop her going, and the younger people around her liked to see her chanting!:-)

That's just the way things seem to be here, goood, bad or indifferent.

I don't know if it's also true in Canada. Hey, whoever can stop my generation's President by blogging, voting, or marching, more power to them. I didn't see Hillary there up with Jane. That would have been a hoot!

_{"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"}

in that outfit even if it had been a young woman, or a cross-dresser, right?

_{"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"}

celebrities on my part. If this is going to work, if real protests are going to work they are going to have to be like Moratorium in October 1969 that was on a Wednesday and was geared towards shutting activity down, down just some silly Saturday outing. the protests have to be Gandhiesque, in that they have to bite, but be peaceful. Just protesting is a waste of time. But protesting something and being effective, now that is another matter. And all the Jane Fonda's in the world won't make these Saturday protests any more effective. They have to mean something and they have to have a real effect. Just having a protest on Saturday says, "hey, I don't care enough to miss fucking work for this, I can only do it on the weekend when I can get a babysitter."

Ya dig?

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

But it sure got you all fired up. Perhaps you'll do another take on the subject, which has been evolving on this thread.!

_{"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"}

something very off the cuff like and it engenders a many comments that the ensuing conversation clarifies my own personal thinking. That's part of why I started The Agonist in the first place way back in 2002. I wish I had time for more of these as well because they do help me. Clarifying my own thinking is important and nothing hones it better than constructive but firm criticism from others.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

comment, it's more a celebrity bias than anything else.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

As I re-read your posts after your reply to my comment, I see now. I do still see that one line of "...our generation's war," and a note about this isn't Viet Nam; this isn't a jungle. This is sand. That's the set of words that stopped my further exploration. Thanks!

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

equate as lefty, peacenik hippies.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

Being a lefty, peacenik hippy is not a bad thing except to the uptight white ultra controlling totally insecure media controllers.

Placating them is just not something I feel is important. Especially given the crappy standard today's media is all about.

What I do feel is important is that any American regardless of their job that wants to and can protest this dismal trip into blood and death show up and protest.

You say that like it's a bad thing :)

Sure, Jane's radioactive to a certain slice of the American populace - as are "hippie peaceniks".

Naturally this is just rank bullshit viewed from an internationalist POV - from my experience of years living in Europe, the hippies and Jane were and remain heroic figures there - and this revision of history mustn't stand unopposed. We must not acquiesce by silence to the demonization of those that spoke out, or that speak out today, against war; there's ground there that must not be yielded without a fight.

I could accept your framing on the strategic level of "pick your fights".

the label, lefty, peacenik, hippie. I am one. I'm a dirty fucking hippie blogger as Atrios says. So, please, when I use that term I use it because it's a media frame that sets off all kinds of negative feedback loops in modern America. Fact of life.

But, I'll dispense with it and let's you and I talk about 'picking our fights' about how to be better protesters and effective protesters, instead of Saturday afternoon protesters, ok?

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

To repeat another poster, I believe it's only the people who (even remember and) dislike Jane Fonda for example(who hasn't been to a protest in in years), who thought negatively about her participation.

I would think "Saturday afternoon protesters" who've put themselves out this whole weekend to be bussed for hours into and out of Washington and who know there are going to be speakers including Fonda and still go should be cut a break. Maybe someone who went there will respond to the thread Sunday.

The issues for today's march are a question of timing and coordination, on how a larger number of people could have participated. 'Recapturing Woodstock' ? no.

Leslie Cagan sometimes pulls a coalition off and sometimes doesn't, and she's been in the organization business a long time.

If a million people had gone to Washington, I doubt if Jane Fonda would even be an issue for anyone. But I respect those who went for their efforts. Forget the media for a while. If those people who went were disheartened, then the march was a mistake. If it energized them enough to do some of the other pressure stuff, then it wasn't.

-mole

_{"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"}

I have a great deal of respect for the people out there protesting and I hate it that I sound like I'm belittling their efforts.

For example, I am certain there is a 60 year old woman, lifelong moderate mid-west Republican voter, who got on a bus late last night, slept on it through the night and then awoke in DC, walked all day in a protest and is now on the bus back home. That couldn't be easy and is a sacrifice. I applaud it and respect it.

But it seems like a wasted effort when her sacrifice and change of heart is overshadowed by the fact that Jane Fonda got more news coverage than the rest of them did. I don't think it is unreasonable to be irked by that?

Again, this isn't about Jane Fonda; it's about the fact that so many other person's sacrifice has been overshadowed, and possibly squandered.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

...the protests now and the protests then is that the protests then were the product of a broad and deep social movement - the protests now seem much more a "fringe" activity. The list of reasons for this, to my mind at least, is longer than my arm; among the more important of them would seem to be: a) the American public originally was quite in favour of pounding on Iraq - to a significant degree they're now against it because it's not working so good for them, yes they marshal moral arguments against the conflict, but the proportion of the population that was willing to overlook that morality prior to the conflict is large, b) the war is fought by a professional military caste funded by a society on a peacetime footing - in the main it's something that happens to "other" people, particularly when one looks to the university campuses widely believed to be the wellspring of resistance to the Vietnam War - opposition there seems to me to be a good deal more muted now than then, in my view in large part because there's no danger that the student body is going to wake up one morning in Iraq, Republic of, and c) Internet discussion and organizing seems to me to be serving as a pressure release valve - quite large numbers of folks that are dissatisfied are able to give vent to that, and actually pour their support behind organized political movements; some of the latter is good and some is bad, me personally, I think most of these folks are getting used by many of the candidates because they know that there are real hard limits on what they can do on the issue, but regardless of the effect it does seem to be keeping people off the streets and keeping more of the demos smaller (because organization has become easier, it becomes easier for folks to find more frequent, more local, and smaller venues to express their opposition). There's about a zillion other reasons, including the biggie - demography - but that gets way, way too wonkish.

If one wants to turn this into an actual social movement (and I wish you luck, 'cause I don't see it happening), at all costs keep the celebrities away. As someone downthread said, back in the day Jane Fonda was the spokesman for a movement - in the present day, I don't see any celebrity that fits that bill with the exception of Cindy Sheehan that qualifies in the public mind. If they look like hangers on, like celebrities that decided that this was cooler than being spokesmen for fuzzy forest animals or sick kids, tell them to stay away. The first celebrity to talk about "giving something back" should be kicked down and shot, right there infront of the infotainment "reporter" from People they're doubtless giving the interview to. They should have the sense to know this themselves, and if they really care about the issue they should damned well know that perception matters and stay away.

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

the second the draft is re-introduced, resistance at home will again prevail, and this round of American war profiteers will have to head back down their rat holes for awhile.

The floggings will continue until morale improves. - Anon.

job. It's not meant as an insult. It's not meant as some kind of generational warfare. I want this war to be over and the way people are going about it now is INEFFECTIVE. We're six years into it and nothing will change until the protests become effective or Bush leaves the presidency in 2009.

There is no reason to take this personally. It's not meant to be or am I aiming it that way. I don't like the media in this country and more than you like the media in yours, but I have to live with it and try to use it, bend it in a way most effective and successfully. Pointing out that the Right-wing is going to have a field day with the Jane Fonda meme is a tactical necessity. Or have we all become like George Bush all of the sudden incapable of evaluating our own errors? It doesn't matter if she is a hero or not. When she is there, and other celebrities like her they detract from the real message and allow the media to focus on the fact that the protests were 'unserious' and 'carnival-like' as opposed to the message which is that most of Americans, regardless of age, sex or religion oppose the war. That message doesn't get out when the media focuses on Jane Fonda. Why is that so hard to understand? It's not about her, it's about the message.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

until there is perspective to view it from?

Who would have thought a bunch of people wearing silly clothing, dying their hair all colours of the rainbow, singing anti-war songs, refusing to move when horses charged at them, and dying at Kent State, lighting candles ... the list is long.

It was the accumulation of numerous protests, some attended well, others skimpy and protestors, large and small in number with a wide variety of approaches that turned the tide and caused the government to turn from warfare in Viet Nam.

Six years just may be the boiling point for the American people. Does the rage begin after all that time for the accumulation of things this adminitration has done that have eroded the American Constitution. It's gradual and you can cannot state what works and what does not. Accept all protests and protestors and let the chips fall where they may.

Could be that protests are not as well attended now as they were in the 60's because of instant communcation and activists have taken to blogging as an effective alternative to marching in the streets. Each generation finds their unique way.

Have you marched or have you chosen blogging as a more effective alternative? That's your way...it is not for everyone. There is not a one size fits all. I did not take your criticism personally just your ego was a 'bit' offensive in thinking you can say what is effective and what is not.

we also have to learn from our mistakes.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

in this thread:-)

_{"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"}

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

Now there was a guy who took himself too seriously:-)

_{"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"}

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

there are usually three pointing right back at me. I try to remind myself of that, but often fall short. :-)

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

Part of the problem is the media coverage. I was not alive in the 60s but I can tell you the youth of the country did not happen to wake up one morning and hit the streets. They probably saw marches on TV, saw the growth of the movement as it was reported in the press and then joined in the movement.

Reporters today are almost disdainful of the protests of today. I remember one saying something like, "well these aren't like the ones we participated in in the 60s, these are organized by trained individuals."

You know what so were the ones in the 60s!! Protests are NEVER accidental, there are always agitators and organizers involved. Reporters do nothing to report the nature of todays protests, they treat them dismissively.

What they need to realize is that things aren't the same as they were in the 60s, so what, do your job, report the STORY.

Donald Braden
www.debatablepolitics.com

I found it very humorous that someone of the generation that coined the phrase was chiding me to respect my elders. It's called irony.

I don't think I have any trouble articulating what I really mean to say: I still mean what I wrote in the first two sentences of the post. The third sentence was the one that was poorly chosen. But I stand by the first two. Regardless of how any of us feel about Jane Fonda or any of the other 60s era icons the minute they show up at a protest and the media latches on tho their presence they distract from the message of the protests.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

Why do they say get stuffed? Because it's 3 of their grandsons that Bush wants to waste. They don't care about what the media wants to wallow in. They care about their grandsons.

Dad adds that media is not so different. He says you always have the arseholes that are sucking up and you always have the ones that report. Human nature has not changed at all from the 60s to now. There's still a buck to be made and there are fish that will eat that bait at any cost.

but perhaps dead was too stong a word, after all there's this here

peace.

-mole

(note- my original reply stated that no one replying to S-P had actually said "repect your elders". I was wrong)

_{"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"}

How this:

Don't beat up the oldies...it's the media itself that has failed the American people. Have respect for your elders you twit and literally anyone who wants to march for peace should be welcome, whether their name is Jane Fonda or not.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

and you got to read it before I softened my reply up. Well, boo on me.
I shouldn't have written that reply anyway.
-mole

_{"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"}

a great deal. That's the whole point of this place, for me at least. If I am not challenged I don't learn a darn thing. So, I don't mind. As long as people do it politely, which is what everyone in this thread did. Makes me smile--at least now I'm smiling. The other night, well, not so much!

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

you took my remark seriously! I'll be sure to insert a smiley next time. How's some serious grovelling on my part to erase what ailed you?

"It just feels sooooo good when you stop! :-)

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

It all reminds me of a line from a famous, or rather infamous, memo Pat Buchanan, then a White House staffer, wrote for Richard Nixon in, I believe, 1972 when their idea of the moment was what they called 'positive polarization'.

At the end of this confidential strategy memo laying out various ideas about how to create social unrest over racial issues and confrontations with the judiciary, Buchanan wrote (and you can find this passage on p. 185 of Jonathan Schell's wonderful Time of Illusion): "In conclusion, this is a potential throw of the dice that could bring the media on our heads, and cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half."

And there you have it. Tear the country apart. And once it's broken, our chunk will be bigger.

( ... Link ... )

Welcome to 2007.

I'd reckon the results aren't fully in yet; they have yet to discover they wound up with the smaller half.

I'm going to post the "five myths" for those interested; the arguments against them are at your link.

TIME: 5 Myths About the Midterm Elections

Thursday, Nov. 16, 2006 By PERRY BACON JR., ANA MARIE COX AND KAREN TUMULTY

MYTH: Joe Lieberman's victory proves the netroots don't matter.
REALITY: The netroots had some key victories.

(...)

MYTH: Democrats won because they carefully recruited more conservative candidates.
REALITY: Democrats won because their candidates were conservative about their message.

(...)

MYTH: The losses Republicans sufferend this election were no different than what you usually see in a President's sixth year in office.
REALITY: Redistricting minimized what might have been a truly historic shellacking.

(...)

MYTH: The election was all about the war.
REALITY: It's the dishonesty, stupid.

(...)

MYTH: Republicans lost their base.
REALITY: The base turned out, they just got beat.

(...)

PS: Protesting is still effective. I think it no longer serves precisely the same social purposes that it once was aimed to - put it this way, it's been a long time since the most effective goal was to air grievances in front of the political echelon.