Dave_Schuldt Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 The Day the Earth Stood Still: An international sick-out http://onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Weinstein011603/weinstein011603.html > The Day the Earth Stood Still: An international > sick-out > > By Rita Weinstein > Online Journal Contributing Writer > > January 16, 2003-Anybody out there remember the > classic sci-fi film by that name? In it, an alien > landed a spacecraft on the Mall in Washington, D.C. > and asked to be allowed to speak to the UN to > deliver a warning: disarm or you will be destroyed. > > The alien, Klatu, didn't specify by whom the > destruction would take place. He did make it plain > that we would certainly do it to ourselves, even if > no one "out there" did. Klatu never made it to the > UN, but he was able to demonstrate to the world that > those who sent him meant business. He caused a > shutdown of all power throughout the globe at a > specified time on a specified date. From cars to > trains to wristwatches, everything came to a halt. > > On Saturday, January 18, there will be very large > anti-war demonstrations in Washington, DC, San > Francisco, and in cities across America. According > to George Monbiot of The Guardian (Jan. 7, 2003), > "On January 18, demonstrators will seek to blockade > the armed forces' joint headquarters at Northwood, > in north London. Three days later, there'll be a > mass lobby of parliament; at 6 pm on the day the war > is announced, protesters will gather in almost every > town centre in Britain. On February 15, there'll be > a massive rally in London." There will also be > demonstrations in cities throughout Europe on > February 15. > > Here's the idea: a global work stoppage, an > international sick day if you will, to take place on > Friday, February 14 (or on the day after the > nighttime bombing begins, if Bush starts the war > prior to February 14) to protest the war on the > world currently being waged by the Bush > administration. Monbiot goes on to add, "The > [Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament] and the Stop the > War Coalition have suggested an hour's stoppage on > the day after the war begins. Many activists [in the > U.K.] are now talking about building on this, and > seeking to provoke wider strike action-even a > general strike." > > So, in England, a kind of "sick-out" movement is > building. If we can get the ball rolling here for a > coordinated "sick-out" across America, a full-blown > "sick-out" day-in essence, a general strike of > protest-could sweep across England, Europe and the > rest of the globe. > > It is we, the folks who show up for work every > day, who are providing the tax dollars to pay for > this war on the economy, the environment, worker > safety, civil rights, and on the poor. We are the > ones who keep the machine up and running. We are the > ones whose children are being short-changed on > education, health care, and clean air and water. We > are the ones who will reap the whirlwind (or will be > sucking wind) when the bill for the administration's > misguided and dangerous policies comes due. > > A general strike early in the last century brought > down the Tsar of all the Russias and changed nearly > a century of history. The Communist Party came > crashing down in Poland thanks to the solidarity of > its workers. If we choose peaceful noncooperation in > maintaining a system badly in need of course > correction, we may surprise ourselves at how quickly > change can be effected. No organization is > necessary, in fact it would probably be > counter-productive. Just start forwarding this > article. Let's all get truly sick and tired of it > all on February 14, 2003 (or on the day after > bombing begins), and make it the day the Earth > stands still. Go out there and get sick! > > Rita Weinstein is a Seattle-based freelance writer > and playwright. Contact her at rwineskin@juno.com. > ===== "Intelligent and conscientious people have doubts -- express yours through conscientious objections to militarism and war. For info. on this topic (not direct-services!), please do visit, www.objector.org>." Spray on suckers!!! Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 Genius efforts Yeah right. Let's go harrass the military. They don't even make the decisions when we go to war. They're guilty by association. Your ignorance is amazing Dave. Quote
rbw1966 Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 Genius efforts Yeah right. Let's go harrass the military. They don't even make the decisions when we go to war. They're guilty by association. Your ignorance is amazing Dave. If by "harass the military" you are referring to the passage in the above article which talks about "blockade the armed forces' joint headquarters at Northwood, in north London" then, in my not so humble opinion, the action is directed towards the right target--the decision-makers and not the soldiers. I've have a problem with harrassing soldiers for the same reasons you allude to, however I don't read anything like that in the article. RIF (reading is fundamental) Quote
freeclimb9 Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 clipped fron salon.com: Idiocy of the week Sheryl Crow, brain-dead peacenik in sequins. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Andrew Sullivan Jan. 15, 2003 | Doesn't it sometimes get a tad bit embarrassing being on the left these days? I'm not talking about legitimate left-liberal beliefs -- that income inequality is wrong, that corporations are evil, that governments are better judges than individuals about what's good for the world, etc. I'm talking about the way in which otherwise legitimate left-wing causes tend to get embraced by, well, the intellectually challenged. I mean actors and celebrities and pop stars and others not exactly known for being the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree -- almost all of whom seem to drift into the camp of the knee-jerk left. I mean people like Barbra Streisand, who doesn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran, and who at this point must have done more to discredit Hollywood liberals than an entire bookshelf of National Reviews. I mean Sean Penn, another man who just helped Bush win more support for war. I mean, well, Sheryl Crow. Yes, I know this is the proverbial cold-blooded vertebrate in a round wooden tub. But what are you gonna do? Ms. Crow showed up at the latest public relations exercise for the music industry, the American Music Awards, dressed in a sequined T-shirt with the message "War Is Not The Answer" blazoned across it. One word: Sequins? Here is a fabulously wealthy, famously cute singer, telling the impoverished men, women and children tortured, gassed and abused by one of the most disgusting dictators of all time that any attempt to rescue or liberate them is "not the answer." And she expresses this message in sequins. She couldn't afford diamonds? One is also required to ask: If war is "not the answer," what exactly is the question? I wonder if, in her long interludes of geopolitical analysis, Ms. Crow even asks herself that. Perhaps if she did -- let's say the question is about the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists -- we might have an inkling about what her "answer" might actually be. Mercifully, Ms. Crow provides us with what she believes is an argument. Are you sitting down? Here it comes: "I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies." Let's take this bit by bit. "War is based in greed." Some wars, surely. The pirate wars of the 17th century. Saddam's incursion into Kuwait. Early British forays in the Far East and India. But all wars? The United States' intervention in the Second World War? The Wars of Religion in the 17th century? Many wars are fueled by nationalism, or by ideology, or by expansionism. And many wars have seen their protagonists not enriched but impoverished. Take Britain's entry into the war against Nazi Germany. It would have been far more lucrative for the Brits to have made a deal with Hitler, to preserve their wealth and empire. Instead, they waged war, lost their entire imperial project and ransacked their own domestic wealth. Where would that fit into Ms. Crow's worldview? And then there's the concept of a just war -- wars that have to be fought to defeat a greater evil. Wars of self-defense. Wars of prevention. Wars against tyrants. Ms. Crow's remarks seem to acknowledge no such distinction. Does she believe that removing Hitler from power solved nothing? That preventing further genocide in the Balkans solved nothing? That ending 50 years of Soviet tyranny meant nothing? Apparently so. There's only one word for this kind of argument: Asinine. Then we have this wonderful insight: "The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies." Wow. Like, wow. Like, war. It's bad. Bad karma. But, ahem, what if you have no choice in the matter? What if an enemy decides, out of hatred or fanaticism or ideology, simply to attack you? I'm not sure where Ms. Crow was on Sept. 11, 2001. But the enemy made its point palpably clear. Does wishing that these crazed religious nuts were not our enemies solve any problems? I'm taking her too seriously, of course. I should ignore her. But the "antiwar" movement (I put it in quotation marks because any kind of appeasement this time will only make a bloodier future war inevitable) is happy to use celebrities for its own purposes. And so their presence in the debate has to be acknowledged, if only to be decried. So let's decry this moronic celebrity convergence. The weak arguments of the appease-Saddam left just got a little weaker. And the karmic retributions are gonna be harsh, man. Way harsh. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 Rob after reading that I can only assume that if a crowd like this was organized under this sort of talk and they ran across some military then we can all guess what would happen then wouldn't we. If they are going to do bs in london what's to stop them here. Oh nothing. If they want to protest they should get the target right or nobody will view it respectfully. Own thoughts are fundamental too. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 Oh an just stop working too. I am sure if ole boss get's pissed there will be some other person just waiting to take the job you hold Quote
allthumbs Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 Ain't that the truth. Every time I've gotten smug and thought I was indispensable, BAM, out the door I went. Learned my lesson quick. Quote
Dave_Schuldt Posted January 24, 2003 Author Posted January 24, 2003 This post doesn't reflect my opinion, just wanted to see what the righties had to spray about it. Greg W. where are you? Quote
Greg_W Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 I'm here Dave. That is a bunch of bullshit. Mob rule doesn't work, and that is what they are attempting to do. Quote
erik Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 I'm here Dave. That is a bunch of bullshit. Mob rule doesn't work, and that is what they are attempting to do. greg, they are not attempting mob rule in my opinion..they are attempting to voice their opinion..with more and more and more people disagreeing with the current political shit pile g-w seems to desire to swim in...people are realizing that maybe he is jumping the gun....but we as citizens dont get heard...and dont give me any of that political rhetoric about they are are elected officals... how do i tell gw that i dont want part in his daddy's war?? and if there is secret shit that they are not telling us..."to protect us" i call bullshit on that too...as my brother dies in some gas cloud..i will be fucking pissed... if all this bullshit is done to protect us, well lets hear the justification of it all..... Quote
minx Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 yep, gotta go w/erik on this one. this is just one way to get someone to pay attention. should they just write a letter to the editor and their congressman. We all know how effective that is. Quote
j_b Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 Ain't that the truth. Every time I've gotten smug and thought I was indispensable, BAM, out the door I went. Learned my lesson quick. Ain't that the truth. There is nothing like a big stick to keep the folks in line. Mob rule doesn't work do you mean anyone among the ~70%, who think we should give inspections a real chance? I suspect that by this standard voting with one's feet is mob rule. Quote
allthumbs Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 piss and moan all y'all want, in the end we have no voice Quote
Greg_W Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 Their stupid little one day tantrum will only hurt their employers, especially small business owners. They will be losing productivity. What will it do, reduce tax intake? They spend beyond their limits already. They don't care; they'll just try and raise taxes to compensate and we ALL will get slammed for a small group of liberal wackos' antics. They're not talking about staging protests at the Capitol or White House are they? Quote
Dave_Schuldt Posted January 24, 2003 Author Posted January 24, 2003 Well said erik, maybe it's time to get a NO IRAQ WAR sign for my front yard. Can't wait till I tell my Dad, he will shit his pants and spew a bunch of bullshit about how we NEED to go over there with or without the Euros. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 Congratulations, Greg! Your attention, please, everyone! Attention, attention! Thank you. Why don't we all give Greg a big round of applause for saying what he just said. Coming out is never easy, especially for someone with so many manliness issues as Greg, so this is truly a noteworthy accomplishment. Good work, Greg! "Dave, I'd like you to meet dad's 'special new friend', Greg. He'll be dropping by a lot to have breakfast with us. Sometimes he might even be in the kitchen before you get up. Sometimes he might be in dad's bath robe, but it's OK. You just treat him like one of the family and I won't box your ears. OK? That's good." Quote
minx Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/105671_poll24.shtml It's not just a few left wing wackos who disagree w/the president. Greg, how should we get his attention? Quote
Greg_W Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 Concentrated, organized, vocal protest to your Senators and Congressmen will get the message to the President, believe me. By the looks of that poll, GW better mop up quick in Iraq and get back to dealing with domestic issues or he will make the same mistake George The Elder made prior to '92. Quote
minx Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 indeed, he better clean up his act but he'd be well advised not rush into iraq. he has not made his case well. His skidding fast and the public (myself included) seems to think he acts to rashly. Quote
allthumbs Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 thanks for the armchair analysis of world events - the NFL is always in need of good quarterbacks Quote
erik Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 indeed, he better clean up his act but he'd be well advised not rush into iraq. he has not made his case well. His skidding fast and the public (myself included) seems to think he acts to rashly. MINX, i think they call that dumb texan syndrome..(no OFFENSE TEX) Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 thanks for the armchair analysis of world events - the NFL is always in need of good quarterbacks Well, Trask, someone had to balance your armchair analysis of "liberals". Quote
minx Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 trask, come back when you have cogent thought to contribute. Go play with muffy and your own spunk in the corner. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.