[Imc-dc-editorial] ahh...the never ending editorial debate...

[Chuck0]

Zoe Mitchell wrote:

>...unintentionally elucidated by someone outside of the editorial working group. 
>
>>From this:  http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=57940&group=webcast
>Please address your criticism to the ideas, not the people. Back it up with facts, citations. Even
>mainstream history books note the trend that popular protest of this sort comes after other
>avenues have been exhausted and marginalized, and that overhwhelmingly, from a historical
>perspective, the protests that reach this scale (and usually continue to grow over time-periods of
>months and years) end up having actually been representative of working class, poor, and a good
>portion of middle class opinion - the overwhelming majority of the American population.
>
>What's left are the priviledged - largely middle class and upper class who are passionate enough
>to voice themselves or even participate in so much as a poll or an election. And they're the ones
>divided 50/50... half of them with the rest of the working class, the other half producing the
>memes and myths or believing in them - supporting the status quo.
>
>The demonstrators I've seen this past weekend have been about half youth and half older folks.
>I've talked to sanitation workers, cab drivers, pizza makers, social workers, vets - both in the
>capacity of their jobs this weekend or out in the streets with the protestors. The vast majority
>support these demonstrations, even if they can't participate. There are a lot people who don't
>have the privilege to participate.
>
>Name-calling and cheap shots (on both sides) really isn't worth it. Really stupid stuff. It
>doesn't help me reconsider or form my positions any differently and it is totally
>counter-productive. I would consider it, with some argument, a violation of the editorial policy
>published on this site. 
>
Nice response, Zoe, if you were the author. Good response for anybody 
who was the author.

The usual pro-America idiots are feeling very nervous right now, because 
they understand that the world stands against the President that they 
support. I'm betting they are feeling nervous because of the complete 
lack of pro-war fever. This is a much different war than Gulf War 1. 
There isn't this big "support our troops" thing going on, that tied in 
with patriotism. Even if Bush's forces capture Iraq easily by Monday, it 
will still be a hollow victory for the pro-America set. How are they 
going to then justify the next set of wars?

Infoshop has been getting lots of right wing hate mail this week, but 
not as much as after 9-11. David Horowitz even wrote a 
foaming-at-the-mouth article about "left wing fifth columnists" that 
screamed about anarchists and made links to Infoshop. No, when the right 
wing isn't smug about a US war and are engaging in childish attacks on 
the Left, you know how badly things are going for them.

They are really scared. The sudden rise of the anti-war and peace 
movements scared the bejesus out of them.

Chuck0