Daily Kos

why i am going to nyc

Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 04:59:07 PM PDT

there've been some discussions in the diaries recently about the benefits and risks of protesting at the rnc.  for me the most compelling issue is the war in iraq... and i don't think a kerry win is going to be sufficient to get us out asap.  so, while i desperately want bush to lose - i also want to provide kerry with the political pressure (and cover) to do the right thing and end our military occupation of iraq.

starhawk's post today from nyc could have been written for our discussion... so, i just have to share some of it with dkos folks....

...while my friends at home say, "Take care of yourself" with that worried tone in their voices, I'm actually having a great time in a very New York way, listening to smart and inspiring people talk, and having lots of interesting conversations.  And in spite of the media smear campaign and the police' claim to be shadowing every dangerous anarchist in town, none of us actually seem to be being followed.  Nor are the police harassing us.  In Miami, activists were followed for weeks beforehand, arrested on the sidewalk while going to meetings or handing out flyers, and you could feel the surveillance like the Red Eye of Sauron, always watching.  Here, the city seems quite normal, and the occasional cop we pass on the street is smiling and friendly.

Still, there's an aura of fear that people seem to have internalized. Martin, who is one of the Argentines hear to present on their social revolution, remarks on it.  We're talking in Spanish so I'm sometimes missing the nuances, but he's saying how you can feel the fear, coming into the city, and how it's a kind of fascism, the level of control, the media campaigns.  I suggest that its internalized fascism--not the cop snatching you off the sidewalk but the cop inside your head who says, "Don't protest, don't say anything, don't do anything to upset the situation." Some people are leaving town because they are afraid of terrorist attacks and some because they are so afraid that Bush will get re-elected that they fear any sort of street disturbance will be spun toward his good.

But obviously I don't think so.  Or rather, I can acknowledge the fear and the real possibility that anything we do or don't do can be spun to his advantage, but it seems clear to me that fear and timidity are what maintain his--or anyone's-oppressive power.  The Democrats have been timid for years, have avoided openly challenging him, have predicated their whole strategy on what their pollsters tell them somebody else thinks.

Somewhere, somehow, we have to stop adapting to what we think someone else might think about what might possibly happen, and just do what we think is right.  It's not the government or the cops on the streets or the New York Post that shut us up, it's the cops and the Karl Roves inside our head who steal our will and our voices.

....A man came in and sat down who had what my Vietnam Veteran friend Lawrence calls the thousand-yard-stare, that faraway look as if your eyes were fixed on some horror no one else can see.  He had bad teeth and his head and    his words kept jerking away as if were hard to stay still, stay focused.  He is a veteran, named David, just back from Iraq.  In four days of fighting in Fallujah, his unit had a 67percent casualty rate.  He was lucky, he tells me, he had a good wound, shot in the ass, his hip broken, his wife was sobbing and grateful after months of snatched, hideously expensive phone calls, "I'm alive."  "I'm alive."  "At this moment, I'm still alive."

He used to run a business, he tells me, he's a plumber, electrician, now he can't work, his mind won't function, but he's organizing other veterans in the South Bronx and he's very excited by permaculture. They've squatted a building because many of them have no homes.  They don't get paid enough overseas to support their families, and they come home to no jobs or jobs they can't do because they    have lost a limb or they're in a wheelchair or they simply can't focus through the thousand yard stare.  And they've got the violence locked inside them and it comes out on their wives, they're shooting up and drinking to dull the pain, and they need food.  They need jobs.  They need to be able to walk in the door and say, "I'm home from work."

I knew it was bad, but not this bad. I can say honestly that I did everything within my power to prevent this war, and I lost.  We all lost. But now David's teeth are rotting from the toxins in the Iraqi soil left over from our depleted    uranium bombs in the first Gulf War and the ones we've dropped since and the awful food the army served them and they've closed the Veteran's Hospital and they've got to wait months and months to even see a social worker.  And he, mind you, is one of the victors.

He didn't sign on to kill Iraqis, he joined the National Guard because he wanted to fight fires in California, and help people.  Most of his guys are Green Card soldiers, they signed up to get a Green Card, maybe go to school, but now they're not going to school, they can't think, can't focus, can't see beyond the pain.

"And who are we now?" he asks. "I guess we're activists--what does that mean?"

There are things that are so wrong they go beyond    normal anger or rage.  "I'm angry," Naomi says in a soft voice that doesn't change expression.  "I'm so angry."  I'm angry, too.  And anger is healing, and powerful.  Anger is the life force responding to a threat. Anger cuts through fear. David and his guys are not afraid.  They are dying, and know it, he tells me.  They are already in a hell beyond what most of us can imagine. What do we owe them, and what do we owe those on the receiving end of their firepower, the living and the dead victims of the guns placed in their    hands by those who will meet in that convention hall next weekend?

The very least we owe them is to not be afraid. To not let our voices and our anger be silenced. To speak the truth. To do what we think is right.    

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 12 comments

  •  Thanks (none / 0)

    Thanks for sharing this.  Please post a tip jar.
  •  Speaking your mind in NYC (4.00 / 2)

    I encourage anyone who wants to protest Bush/GOP policies in NYC to speak your mind and be safe. Any large crowd has the potential for health and safety problems so a little bit of awareness and planning go a long way towards a successful protest.

    I have a question about the Central Park permit denials...why is the cost of repairing the lawn always an issue in the rulings? The Great Lawn cost $18 million dollars to build from scratch. A recent Dave Matthews concert caused $140,000 worth of damage. NYC will spend $76 million on security alone for the GOP Convention. Why are the costs associated with large protests cited in the rulings denying the permits while the costs of security for the GOP Convention are acceptable?

  •  Two Months (none / 0)

    "Somewhere, somehow, we have to stop adapting to what we think someone else might think..."

    Two months before a really important election where we have a chance to actually get rid of this administration is not the best time to decide to not worry about what others think.  

    We need 51% of the votes, and we damn well should worry about what others think if we want to get to 51%.

    •  already tried that.... (none / 0)

      Two months before a really important election where we have a chance to actually get rid of this administration is not the best time to decide to not worry about what others think.

      isn't that what the dem leadership was saying for the 2002 elections?  this argument was used as a justification for going along with bush's iraq war plans.  the dems could have prevented it (filibuster in the senate)... but, oh no, what would people think?!

      The Democrats have been timid for years, have avoided openly challenging him, have predicated their whole strategy on what their pollsters tell them somebody else thinks.

      i might be more inclined to see things your way, if we hadn't already tried that approach.  and look where it has gotten us.  the pres, the house, the senate - all controlled, not by replublicans, by the crazy wing of the republicans.  and the dems.... have moved further right than nixon (policy wise).

      i think maybe starhawk is right.  it's time to try something different.  i reject my inner fascist!  ;-)

      •  Re: already tried that.... (none / 0)

        "the pres, the house, the senate - all controlled, not by replublicans, by the crazy wing of the republicans."

        As you may not be aware, we've got an election coming up in two months that gives us an opportunity to change who controls those institutions.

        If you want to ignore that fact so that you can have fun in NYC, well, it's a free country.  But you should be clear on the effect of your decisions.  Taking responsibility for your actions may be 'fascist' in your book, but if that's the case, you ought to get a better book.

        •  i am VERY aware of the elections coming up... (none / 0)

          As you may not be aware, we've got an election coming up in two months that gives us an opportunity to change who controls those institutions.

          silly me.  i think that should be the people.  the citizens of the country.  like me.  and you.  in our entire history as a country, i do not know of one time that was done through the ballot box only.  it has always taken mass action by strong social movements.

          if you think my idea of fun is taking my summer vacation to go to nyc... then your judgement is seriously off.

          i would MUCH prefer to be laying on the beach... hiking in the mountains.  or even staying home and doing chores.

          in my opinion, after much reflection, i think it is my responsibility as a citizen to go and support the protests.  and i suppose there is some excitment in the thought that i can be part of something positive and historic.  but only if my participation is a positive contribution.

          there is no way to be completely clear about the effect an action will have without being able to see into the future.  and i can't do that.  quite frankly, i find your certainty about  what the effects the protests will have a little odd.  how can anyone be so certain?

          what i can do is to listen to all the arguments and think hard about my values, the means i use and the ends i seek.  if i didn't think the effect of supporting the protests would be positive, i certainly wouldn't go.  but i just really really disagree with you.  i certainly recognize the possibility that i am wrong - so, the responsible thing to do (in my book) is to reconsider... i've done that and i think your reading of history is incorrect.  bottom line - i have to rely on my own judgement.  that doesn't make me irresponsible.

          and of course i don't think taking responsibility for my actions is fascist.  where ever did you get that idea?

          •  Re: i am VERY aware of the elections coming up (none / 1)

            "quite frankly, i find your certainty about  what the effects the protests will have a little odd.  how can anyone be so certain?"

            I'm not certain, but my level of confidence is quite high.  

            I'm pretty good at seeing into the political future dimly, especially at the media level that's so crucial at this stage of a Presidential campaign.  My track record is better than the average pundit.  And everything I know about this game tells me that the protests are a major plus for the GOP.

            If you don't want to take my word for it, here's the word of another reasonably wise person - Josh Marshall writes today:

            "I think I can guarantee you that the Democratic party and the Kerry campaign would vastly prefer that Kerry supporters among the demonstrators keep their heads down and their voices low or simply not show up at all ... There's no use in belaboring the point since everyone knows this is true."

            ---

            If you're really interested, I can try to lay out in some detail what the media dynamic is going to be from the protests, and how the Bush campaign is planning on using it to their advantage.

            •  yes... (none / 0)

              of course i'm not going to take your word for it (no offense) or anyone else's.  especially strangers.  i have my own values and i have my own judgment.  i intend to use them.

              as for the josh marshall quote... it is also not an argument.  he could be perfectly correct that the dem party leaders don't want a protest.  so what?  the party leaders are no more the party than you or i are.  and these are the dem party leaders who gave us the war because they thought it would be good for the 2002 elections.  i don't trust their values or their judgement enough to ignore my own values and judgement.... and i think they were wrong (morally and strategically) in 2002.

              to me, replacing bush with kerry is a tactic in support of larger strategic goals.  for example, ending the occupation of iraq. i've listed additional goals in other threads, which i could repeat here... but for now lets just use iraq as an example.   how does not protesting support my strategic goal of ending the occupation?

              if you've got an actual argument, other than restating your opinion as fact, i will happily reconsider.  but, i've been asking you (in other threads) for evidence or an argument, and i've yet to see anything even slightly  compelling.  i've even been entertaining the possibilty that you are a troll, but i'm not so sure.  i do know that your spree of "2" ratings to comments just because you disagreed with them was quite troll-like.  so here's your chance.  i am open to argument and evidence, but if you just restate your personal views as fact - well, i give up.

              •  Re: yes... (none / 0)

                "i do know that your spree of "2" ratings to comments just because you disagreed with them was quite troll-like."

                Really?  I thought that was the purpose of "2" ratings.  How are you supposed to rate a comment that you both strongly disagree with, and find to be marginal to the topic at hand?

                And if you look at my ratings, you'll find I give out far more "4" ratings than all the others combined.

                "and these are the dem party leaders who gave us the war because they thought it would be good for the 2002 elections."

                Stop the slander.  George Bush gave us the war.  

                And as far as the IWR vote, the administration had the votes no matter how the Dem Congressional leadership decided to play it.  Even if Gephardt had stood strong, the administration probably still would have had the votes to pass the IWR instead of Biden/Lugar.  And even if Biden/Lugar had passed instead, it still wouldn't have stopped the war...

                "i think they were wrong (morally and strategically) in 2002."

                Strategically, the '02 elections had all the markings of a GOP landslide.  We were only a year separated from 9/11, Bush's approval ratings were still sky high, and Congress's approval ratings were at a level unseen in over 30 years.

                To take that landscape, and fight the election to a draw, is not evidence of wrong strategic thinking in my book.

                ---

                "he could be perfectly correct that the dem party leaders don't want a protest.  so what?"

                2 months away from an election, you ought to get on the same page as them.  Being organized helps our side to win.  Once election day is past, feel free to get off the same page.

                "how does not protesting support my strategic goal of ending the occupation?"

                By helping to elect Kerry and a Democratic Congress in 2 months.

                "so here's your chance.  i am open to argument and evidence, but if you just restate your personal views as fact - well, i give up."

                Well that's a box.  How can I give you evidence about how a future event is going to play out?  All I can give you are my personal views.  

                What evidence could I have offered a year ago that John Edwards would surge at the end of the race?  What evidence could I have offered last December that Howard Dean was toast?  What evidence could I have offered this February that John Kerry was going to win the general election?

                One thing to look at is that Team Kerry doesn't want the protests and Team Bush does.  Now it could be that they're both operating under some mass delusion that is only apparant to selise.  But I doubt it.

                And here's a comment of mine from another thread that outlines some of the basic rationales:

                http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/8/22/3310/16098/21#21

Permalink | 12 comments