[Peace-discuss] What AWARE calls on Obama & Congress to do...

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

The suggestion to use "join AWARE" rather than "join us" was made because if
you read the paragraph you will notice that it gives a lists of things that
one might do in conjunction with this sort of action INCLUDING "joining
others."  The implication is that this would be a collective movement in
which a loose assemblage of people and organizations would be engaged.

I refer you to the section that says:

> 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.

Furthermore, it does not say who "us" is except by way of a footnote with a
sort of advertisement for the web site and giving the meeting times and
location as indicated by the double stars.  Nowhere prior to this in the
body of the pamphlet does it even mention AWARE or who the "us" would be so
the reader could  make the association.  I believe that the group and the
footnoted information should be explicitly mentioned in the body of the text
and not relegated to a footnote.

It could have just as easily been written as follows:

Join AWARE (http://www.anti-war.net/), which meets every Sunday at 5PM in
the basement of the Independent Media Center, Broadway & Elm, Urbana. Join
other groups or 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.  Don't just stand there and complain; make your feelings and
opinions known!

This would have would have included all the information and not relegated
anything to footnotes.

As for your concern about such actions as teach-ins, I did not know that
there was one planned. If AWARE were to organize one as the sponsoring
group, there is no necessary reason that it would have to control the agenda
to be discussed or who can or should attend and contribute - even those who
have a contrary vision to that which we might hold. It is a teach-in
afterall and not an indoctrination.  Other than mentioning AWARE as the
hosting group if AWARE should be the hosting group or among the hosting
groups for such an event, I do not know what specifics you are referring to.
All who might participate could bring up the sorts of actions that they
propose, are engaged in, or will be doing.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Storm [mailto:rstorm2 at illinois.edu] 
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:06 AM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON; 'Stuart Levy'; peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] What AWARE calls on Obama & Congress to do...

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