[Peace-discuss] 9/11 film actions

Thu Jun 17 23:21:02 CDT 2004

You may recall that my suggestion was "relocate to the street and leaflet
the attendees from public property" rather than asking a property owner
what we might say.

And I fail to see the connection with your peculiar assertion, "With so
much [killing] going on, outrage at [torture] seems to me to be wasted."
We should, I suppose, save our outrage for threats to private property?

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Chuck Minne wrote:

> I really enjoy and regard highly your comments. However, this one to
> me seems to be disjointed flailing. If your point is that AWARE has
> some unrecognized right, moral or otherwise, to take over private
> property at their discretion, I think you are full of crap. If that’s
> not your point, I don’t know what is.
> 
> Of course, since I own my home, and consider it extremely private
> property, I may be just plain warped.  But then I am in the tiny
> minority, perhaps of only one, that finds killing vastly more
> offensive than torture. With so much of the former going on, outrage
> at the latter seems to me to be wasted. So I must truly be warped.
> Accepting that condition, I have to ask: What do we do when skinheads
> exercise their moral right to private property and smash the AWARE
> table at Boardman’s? Say, “Its your right, brother! Be quick before
> the just plain trespassers arrive and we have to cheerfully make room.
> Let’s go appropriate some popcorn. Can you imagine, there are people
> who are stupid enough to pay to get in? They don’t know shit about
> morals!”
> 
> 
> "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote:Do you all
> recall that scene in the film Dr. Strangelove in which Peter Sellers
> as the British officer has finally got the codes that will recall the
> bombers that will produce the nuclear holocaust and is desperate to
> find change so that he can operate a pay phone (I'll explain that, for
> you younger people) to call Washington? He asks an American soldier
> (Keenan Wynn, if I remember correctly) to shoot into a Coke machine so
> he can get the money. The soldier looks at him in horror: "That's
> private property!" he says.
> 
> There's a peculiar deference offered to private property in matters
> political in this country. Mr. Boardman might not like it if we
> promote an opponent to a man who, having voted for aggressive war (for
> which we hanged people at Nuremberg), has the blood of 50,000 Iraqis
> on his hands. Similarly, the local public radio station can't in good
> conscience allow us to mention that our political leaders are war
> criminals who should be incarcerated -- because it's not a local
> issue...
> 
> During the Green party campaign two years ago, I was surprised
> (shocked, really) to find the number of people who thought we were
> doing something impolite in talking about a political campaign that
> was neither Republican not Democrat. After all, they took care of
> politics -- and there were rules, after all. We got two sorts of
> outraged response to our soliciting: (1) "You can't do that here! This
> is public property!"; and (2) "You can't do that here! This is private
> property!"
> 
> In fact, of course, the political system is the private property of
> the two wings of the property party in this country -- so much so that
> they can often appear "very reasonable, even generous" in letting
> outsiders occasionally participate as "guests" -- so long as they
> realize that they are using the owners' place of business on
> sufferance, and on the condition that nothing change.
> 
> Regards, Carl
> 
> 
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Regina Cassidy wrote:
> 
> > It seemed to me also that Boardman was being very reasonable, even
> > generous. I suggest that AWARE respect the limits he requests in
> > using his place of business to get the message across.
> > 
> > Perhaps he wouldn't even mind Carl leafletting outside the theater off
> > his property (not that he needs permission).
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be great if some fence-sitters or even right-wingers
> > actually attended the movie and changed their minds? We need to let
> > them get in the theater without feeling intimidated. At that point,
> > seeing the movie is more important than getting literature into
> > people's hands (they may even seek it out afterwards).
> > 
> > Gina
> > 
> > >>> Chuck Minne 06/17/04 5:58 PM >>>
> > 
> > I have no idea if that is the case or not. I know you are Mr.
> > Boardman's guest. I thought he was very understanding and generous. I
> > know that he expressed that he was not taking a position and wanted to
> > represent all sides. As far as I know it was represented to him that
> > you wanted to use his lobby to promote AWARE and he said OK. I think
> > he would consider representing AWARE and also a certain political
> > candidate two entirely separate matters, and would feel somewhat
> > betrayed or blindsided when you put out someone's campaign literature.
> > I would.
> > 
> > I simply think that as guests you should get his approval * nobody
> > likes that kind of surprise. Johnson may have helped him or he may be
> > seeking Johnson's assistance on some matter, thus this could be a
> > sensitive issue for him. I'm sure that in the spirit of his neutrality
> > and openness that he might want to then also display some Johnson
> > literature, and maybe anybody else. Or just say "no" to any candidate
> > literature. Maybe he'll say, "go ahead, I hate the sob." I don't have
> > a clue, I just know how I think a guest should act.
> > 
> > I think a lot of business would have told you to go to hell, and that
> > he has been very generous and he should be treated with every
> > courtesy. I do not think you would want to be considered a "give us an
> > inch and we will take a mile" type of organization. Again, just my 2¢.
> > 
> > 
> > "C. G. Estabrook" wrote:If that's the
> > case, Chuck, we should relocate to the street and leaflet the
> > attendees from public property. I don't we can acquiesce in having
> > commercial enterprises (like WILL and the Art Theater) condition what
> > we say. Regards, Carl
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Chuck Minne wrote:
> > 
> > > I would suggest you get permission before putting any candidate 
> > > literature on the table. After all, you would be using Mr. Boradman's
> > > theater to oppose the incumbent, and he might be very uncomfortable
> > > with that. I would be, if I were him. Just my 2¢. 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> Most Americans do not even know that ours is the only country actually convicted of terrorism in a world court, for the atrocities of the U.S. sponsored Contras in Nicaragua.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 