[Peace-discuss] What AWARE calls on Obama
& Congress to do...
Rachel Storm
rstorm2 at illinois.edu
Fri Dec 5 03:06:22 CST 2008
Laurie brings up some excellent points. I disagree only on whether we should replace "join us" with "join AWARE." Although AWARE is the specific organization, I think it's best to highlight the fact that this movement ought to be seen as a collective engagement of many organizations, individuals, etc.
Moreover, if we're to hold the teach-in as planned, wouldn't it be better to let go of any specifics and stick to "us" so as not to exlude the valuable work of all activists in and outside of AWARE?
R
---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 18:09:03 -0600
>From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] What AWARE calls on Obama & Congress to do...
>To: "'Stuart Levy'" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>, <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>
>Stuart,
>
>A few brief points, I promise. Ok, I lie; I don't know how to keep things
>brief.
>
> > AWARE calls on the Obama administration
> > to live up to the promise of change
>
>I do cringe at the heading because it is so academic. It needs to be in a
>headline format and catchy if you want to catch peoples' eyes and get them
>to look at the contents. Not only does the way it reads sound academic like
>the title to a formal legalistic treatise; but allows Obama and others to
>suggest that he and his administration are living up to their promises of
>change and what THEY meant by them which happens to be different than what
>AWARE interpreted it to be.
>
>>Do we need to do this? Shouldn't we just wait and see what he does? No!
>>There's a great deal of power and trillions of dollars of money at stake in
>>keeping things as they are, from the military industry, the new "security"
>>industry, the media industry, the oil industry, the banking industry, from
>many
>>sorts of powerful constituencies.
>
>I would state this introduction along the following lines:
>
>Why do we need to do this rather than just wait and see what he does? Why
>engage in these sorts of pre-emptive actions? There's a great deal of power
>and trillions of dollars of money at stake in keeping things as they are.
>The military industry, the new "security" industry, the media industry, the
>oil industry, the banking industry, from many other sorts of powerful
>constituencies already have made in-roads into getting Obama ear in order to
>secure support for keeping things more or less as they are. That is why we
>need to act now and not wait. They seek to install and already have
>succeeded in installing major appointments that they call "pragmatic" and
>"non-ideological" as if that is the sort of change that was promised by
>Obama and as if putting into positions of authority and official power the
>old Washington hands and establishment representatives who were involved in
>previous administrations that were dedicated to maintaining the status quo
>that got us into the mess that we are now in represents a change to
>something NEW.
>
>
>> Beware of such labels: "pragmatism" implies not questioning assumptions,
>such as the
>> assumption that the US has an inalienable right to use military force
>anywhere in
>> the world, that major changes to the way we use energy or provide health
>care are
>> just not feasible, that "free market" practices serve our people well,
>that erosion
>> of civil liberties and use of torture are regrettable but necessary.
>That's why...
>
>"Pragmatism" does not imply not questioning assumptions; it implies
>expediency and opportunism, while "non-ideological" implies "amoralistic"
>and "factual" - therefore not open to empirical question or normative
>evaluation. Machiavellian approaches are both practical or pragmatic and
>non-ideological on their face as long as one only analyzes the surface
>structure and declines to delve into the sub-structure.
>
>You might use the following language:
>
>"Be careful of labels! Do you know what "pragmatic" or "non-ideological"
>really mean?"
>
>Then you can go on to explain, give answers, furnish textual descriptions in
>a paragraph using the above as the paragraph intro.
>
>>Obama is being compared with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who brought in the
>New Deal,
>>the fruits of which (Social Security, labor protections, infrastructure
>creation, ...)
>>we still depend on. But as Frances Fox Piven[*] and others argue, FDR
>didn't and
>>wouldn't have done it alone: "mass protests [...] forced him to make
>choices he
>>would otherwise have avoided [...] the rise of protest movements forced the
>new
>>president and the Democratic Congress to become bold reformers."
>
>This is too detailed (look at me talking! :-)) You probably do not need to
>list specific examples of the New Deal since most people already have a good
>idea what the New Deal was and may have included. I would eliminate the
>things in the parentheses. Instead of "Join us," I would say "Join AWARE."
>
>I would also try to avoid footnotes. This is a "call to action pamphlet"
>and not an academic treatise; footnotes of any kind are off-putting to most
>everyday readers. Newspapers do not use footnotes for good reason; they
>would lose readers.
>
>> Some things AWARE [**] calls on the new Administration and Congress to do:
>
>The material referenced by the ** can be put in a box at the end of the
>pamphlet and should not be included in the fashion that it is here. Avoid
>** references to footnoted information within the pamphlet's textual
>content.
>
> > - Withdraw from Iraq *all* US troops, *and* all military contractors.
> > The Iraqi Parliament agreed to a 2011 deadline, but don't wait.
> > Make it plain that the US will keep no military bases there.
>
> > - End the war in Afghanistan. As in Iraq, our invasion violates
>international law;
> > and as in Iraq, our violent presence there only strengthens our
>opponents. Even
> > our own military have acknowledged that military means will not
>suffice in
> > Afghanistan. Encourage the Afghan government's efforts to negotiate
>with the
> > Taliban, including all who are willing to talk.
>
>I would suggest the following way of stating the above:
>
>- Withdraw from and end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remove *ALL* US
>troops *AND* all military contractors.
>
> - The Iraqi Parliament agreed to a 2011 deadline, but we should not
>wait until then when we can do this earlier.
> Make it plain and clear that the US will keep no military bases
>there in the foreseeable future.
>
> - As in Iraq, our invasion violates international law; and our violent
>presence there only strengthens our opponents. Even our own
>military have acknowledged that military means will not suffice in
>Afghanistan. Encourage the Afghan government's efforts to
>negotiate with the Taliban, including all who are willing to talk.
>
>- Cease illegal and counterproductive incursions into Pakistan, Syria,
>Somalia, ...
>
>- Rethink our policies toward Central America and Latin America.
>
> - End our long-running, counterproductive embargo against Cuba, and
>open a dialog
> with the Cuban government.
>
> - Repair relations with Venezuela and Bolivia, including restoring
>Bolivia's preferential
> access to US markets.
>
>- Renew US efforts to resolve Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including
>dismantling
> West Bank settlements.
>
> - Support the 2002 Arab League offer for peace in exchange for a
>return to
> the 1967 borders and agreement on refugee status.
>
> - Negotiate with Hamas (as 64% of Israelis support doing) -- they
>won free and fair elections.
>
>- Put our vast military spending, including our own weapons of mass
>destruction,
> on the table for cuts.
>
>- Close Guantanamo Bay, and end use of torture, as promised, and promptly.
>
>- Whether by prosecution of those who created and justified the policies, or
>by a
> Truth Commission, ensure that the world and the US people know we
>understand that
> wars of aggression, torture and arbitrary imprisonment are never
>acceptable.
>
>- Talk with Iran, as promised, without preconditions.
>
> - Reestablish US diplomatic representation.
>
> - Make clear that the US will accept a peaceful Iranian nuclear
>power program under
> international supervision.
>
> - Seek Iran's help in resolving Middle East conflicts, including in
>Iraq, Afghanistan,
> Israel/Palestine, and Lebanon.
>
>- Repudiate the Bush Administration's signing statements, and the whole
>notion that a President
> can override laws by fiat. Stop this terrible precedent now.
>
>Hope this helps even if it is more than a few comments. :-)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
>[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy
>Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:32 PM
>To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] What AWARE calls on Obama & Congress to do...
>
>Here's another draft, following input from lots of you.
>It's a little long (77 lines where I wanted 66), and of course
>leaves a lot out, but I did want some sort of introduction explaining
>why on earth we even bother to say all this now.
>
>You might cringe at the heading; if you see a better one,
>please let me know. I do think it's important to appeal to all those
>(many, many!) people who see the new Administration as representing
>a chance for improvement, so using Obama's own rhetoric seemed appropriate.
>
>=============================================================
> AWARE calls on the Obama administration
> to live up to the promise of change
>
>Do we need to do this? Shouldn't we just wait and see what he does? No!
>There's a great deal of power and trillions of dollars of money at stake in
>keeping things as they are, from the military industry, the new "security"
>industry, the media industry, the oil industry, the banking industry, from
>many
>sorts of powerful constituencies. They speak with confidence, calling
>Obama's
>Bush- and Clinton-era appointments "pragmatic" and "non-ideological".
>
>Beware of such labels: "pragmatism" implies not questioning assumptions,
>such as the
>assumption that the US has an inalienable right to use military force
>anywhere in
>the world, that major changes to the way we use energy or provide health
>care are
>just not feasible, that "free market" practices serve our people well, that
>erosion
>of civil liberties and use of torture are regrettable but necessary. That's
>why...
>
> Obama Needs a Protest Movement [*]
>
>Obama is being compared with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who brought in the
>New Deal,
>the fruits of which (Social Security, labor protections, infrastructure
>creation, ...)
>we still depend on. But as Frances Fox Piven[*] and others argue, FDR
>didn't and
>wouldn't have done it alone: "mass protests [...] forced him to make choices
>he
>would otherwise have avoided [...] the rise of protest movements forced the
>new
>president and the Democratic Congress to become bold reformers."
>
>Obama and the Congress need our pressure now to resist pressure from our
>opponents,
>who are not waiting. We must call on the Administration to carry out the
>best of
>Obama's promises, and to do other things which he has not promised. Join us
>[**],
>join other groups, act on your own, but act. Write letters to the editor,
>to the new
>Administration, to Congress. Make signs and demonstrate. Talk with your
>neighbors.
>
>Some things AWARE [**] calls on the new Administration and Congress to do:
>
> - Withdraw from Iraq *all* US troops, *and* all military contractors.
> The Iraqi Parliament agreed to a 2011 deadline, but don't wait.
> Make it plain that the US will keep no military bases there.
>
> - End the war in Afghanistan. As in Iraq, our invasion violates
>international law;
> and as in Iraq, our violent presence there only strengthens our
>opponents. Even
> our own military have acknowledged that military means will not suffice
>in
> Afghanistan. Encourage the Afghan government's efforts to negotiate
>with the
> Taliban, including all who are willing to talk.
>
> - Cease illegal and counterproductive incursions into Pakistan, Syria,
>Somalia, ...
>
> - Renew US efforts to resolve Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including
>dismantling
> West Bank settlements. Support the 2002 Arab League offer for peace in
>exchange
> for a return to the 1967 borders and agreement on refugee status.
>Negotiate with
> Hamas (as 64% of Israelis support doing) -- they won free and fair
>elections.
>
> - Put our vast military spending, including our own weapons of mass
>destruction,
> on the table for cuts.
>
> - Close Guantanamo Bay, and end use of torture, as promised, and promptly.
>
> - Whether by prosecution of those who created and justified the policies,
>or by a
> Truth Commission, ensure that the world and the US people know we
>understand that
> wars of aggression, torture and arbitrary imprisonment are never
>acceptable.
>
> - Talk with Iran, as promised, without preconditions. Reestablish US
>diplomatic
> representation. Make clear that the US will accept a peaceful Iranian
>nuclear power
> program under international supervision. Seek Iran's help in resolving
>Middle East
> conflicts, including in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, and
>Lebanon.
>
> - Rethink our policies toward Central America and Latin America. End our
> long-running, counterproductive embargo against Cuba, and open a dialog
> with the Cuban government. Repair relations with Venezuela and
>Bolivia,
> including restoring Bolivia's preferential access to US markets.
>
> - Repudiate the Bush Administration's signing statements, and the whole
>notion
> that a President can override laws by fiat. Stop this terrible
>precedent now.
>
>[*] http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/piven
> Article by Frances Fox Piven's in the Dec. 1, 2008 issue of The Nation
>
>[**] http://www.anti-war.net/ AWARE meets every Sunday at 5PM in the
>basement
> of the Independent Media Center, Broadway & Elm, Urbana.
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
International Studies/ Transnational Gender Studies
WIMSE Program Assistant
Forte International Exchange Local Rep.
(630) 677.7219
402 S. Race St, Apt. 2
Urbana, IL. 61801
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list