This week’s letter of the week goes to Phillip Randall. Thanks for the hyperbole-free letter, Phil. You can pick up your $25 gift certificate to Dinner’s Ready this week at our offices, 704 NW Georgia. For all the rest of you, the woodshed if officially open for business.
After all the polarizing letters about the ongoing wars and recruiting it is nice to see a letter like Stephanie Bearse’s (letters 2-27). Since she seems to be listening, I’m replying in the same spirit of reconciliation.
We in the peace movement have spent the last five years protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and though there has been a dramatic shift in popular opinion against the wars this work has been at times dangerous and frustrating.
I would like to address her point about talking to our representatives. And I’m going to give Rep. Greg Walden, Sen. Gordon Smith and Sen. Ron Wyden grades based on their listening skill. We have really tried to lobby our three representatives, and to be perfectly honest I’m disappointed by their responses.
Rep. Walden first: After years of talking to his aides in the Bend office we planned a town hall meeting in Redmond last February with the express purpose of inviting Greg Walden to listen to his constituents. Two hundred people showed up from around the state, some driving for four hours one way to talk to the congressman. Walden’s office didn’t honor our presence with even an aide to answer our questions. The occupation of his office in Bend the following month by the Wise Older Women of CODEPINK was simply a direct result of his consistent dodging of the peace movement in his district. All the CODEPINK women wanted was a simple phone call. They waited 12 hours and were arrested for the call that never came. Congressman Walden gets an F.
We have also tried to meet with Sen. Smith’s aides, and I remember one rather farcical occasion was when his aide refused to invite us into the office and instead spoke to our peaceful group through a partially open door. Sen. Smith’s position on the war has been rather schizophrenic; he has made statements critical of the war, but then voted with his Republican colleagues for the war. Sen. Smith gets a C-minus.
Sen. Wyden’s aides have been pleasant, inviting us into their office when it snowing outside and giving us coffee. Sen. Wyden scheduled a meeting at the church that I attend, and around 25 of us had direct conversations with him. He has even been in the minority of those senators who voted to cut off war funding. Our problem with Sen. Wyden’s position on the war is that when he talks about the “withdrawal” of troops from Iraq he actually means a drawing down of troops. Sen. Wyden gets a B-minus.
Our presence outside the recruiting office was peaceful, and we exchanged pleasantries with the recruiters. Remember that many of us who are working for peace served honorably in the military and simply believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are morally wrong and unjust from a religious viewpoint.
Members of the Central Oregon CODEPINK community good friends of mine, and I believe that their actions are honorable and just. The leaders of CODEPINK here are also the ones who have organized the campaign to help the homeless community and assist low-income Bend residents hurt by skyrocketing rents.
We are not war protesters; our movement is intent on working for peace to restore morality to our nation and to stop the diversion of essential services to the $500,000-a-minute wars. We invite serious dialogue with the pro-war crowd and would hope that those of us on different sides of this war could simply talk to one another. – Philip H. Randall
This article appears in Mar 13-19, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
“We in the peace movement have spent the last five years protesting the wars…”
VS
“We are not war protesters.”
Which is it, Mr. Randall? Sounds like you are a little (?) confused.
Perhaps you can explain how a ‘peace movement’ such as code-pink, promotes peace by creating hate and discontent among the majority when they they protest outside military recruiters offices, and offend the sensibilities of practically everyone by yelling remarks, such as they did to the father of a slain marine in Berkeley, “Hey, how does it feel to have your son die for oil?” This was said with a big grin, to a man that lost his child. You call that peace? That is a disgrace. Actually, it is a lot worse than a disgrace, but when I said how I really felt, the Source removed the post.
To me, what your purported goals are, on the one hand, and the misdirected methodologies you employ to achieve them, appear irrational.
“We invite serious dialogue with the pro-war crowd.”
First of all, I don’t think a pro-war crowd actually exists. Perhaps the first order of business, if you really want to open up a true dialogue, would be to properly identify who it is that stands in opposition to you.
Every single person that I have ever discussed code-pink or any anti-war group with, belonged to the Anti-Irrational Crowd. We are not pro-war, we are anti-irrational. There is an enormous difference. Your side needs to become aware that our side thinks that the differences between us are the difference between rational and non-rational.
First, lets establish what rational is: Reasonable and sensible: Governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgement, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice.
The rational don’t know how they feel about a given subject until they think about it. The irrational feel a certain way about a given subject and than think in ways that accommodate their emotion. Thought-emotion VS emotion-thought. Rational thinking, wisdom, is not a product of riding your emotions like they were a wild horse.
The rational think it is irrational to protest in a manner that accomplishes less than nothing. I say less than nothing, because protesting at recruiters offices, making vile statements to aggrieved parents of dead warriors, removes you even further from your stated goal. You are going backwards rather than forwards. Might that be irrational? We think so, plus, we don’t like it.
War is a product of politics. If you want to remove war, you must cut off it’s origin, which is political. To be successful politically, you must win the hearts and minds of the body politic. There is no way in hell code-pink is doing that. In essence, you are abusing your right of free speech. While you are abusing your free speech rights, you are abusing all the rest of us with the vileness of your actions. Enter the rational opposing the irrational… and so it goes.
It would be helpful to all concerned if you tried thinking before acting. And, you might actually accomplish something, an occasional benefit of cognition.
C. T. Belza claims to be in league with the anti-irrational crowd, but on a previous thread he aligned him/herself with the author of this comment: “In my opinion, the members of code pink and those that defend them, should be thrashed within an inch of their worthless lives by all able bodied bystanders and any nearby members of the military, current or former, anytime they show up in public to do their scum sucking mockery of free speech.”
Now, C. T. and others in the anti-irrational crowd, would you say that statement is rational? I presume you will continue as on that previous thread with avoiding answering questions or dodging them.
Bodden: Because I made a comment against you on the same thread that others were commenting on, doesn’t mean I’m aligned with them. If that is your flawed logic, then you are also aligned with them because you commented on the same thread.
Your comment here is another example of irrational thinking as I described above. Were you rational, you would have realized you were tarring yourself with the same brush that you imagined you got me with.
As for the quote you mention above, I understand completely the frustration of dealing with irrationals. What the hell do you think my post above is all about?
As always, you fail to get the point, even your own.
CTB: “Because I made a comment against you on the same thread that others were commenting on, doesn’t mean I’m aligned with them.”
If you were joining in their criticism of me you were on their side. Now answer my question, “Do you think that quote about flaying people within an inch of their lives was rational?”
Bodden: I made those comments and I stand by them. That is what I think. Do you think my comments are more or less offensive than code-pinks mocking the parents of dead American military heroes? Give me a break! Reasoning with the unreasonable, such as yourself, is a futile exercise. I don’t suffer fools gladly. Why should I?
This thread should be about the letter that tops it, not more of your seemingly endless supply of irrational, overly verbose, repetitive, boring, combative drivel.
Belza is right on target. This debate has never been about pro-war vs anti-war. It is about the rational opposing mindless, destructive reactionaries. Why? Because of the damage they do. Codepink is based on hate, and it shows. They, like everyone else, get what they create.
They created the push back. And so do you.
“we planned a town hall meeting in Redmond last February with the express pupose of inviting Greg Walden to listen to his constituents….no one showed up to answer our questions.”
Doesn’t sound like he made a commitment to show up before hand. Weren’t you jumping to unfounded conclusions assuming he would show up just because a group of war protesters gave him an invite? Sounds like your ego got ahead of the rational department.
If this farce is an example of how you conduct your anti-war doings… good luck.
I certainly wouldn’t judge Walden on that issue. The man probably has a few items on his plate already. Governance is a serious business with real issues and dealing with a couple of hundred anti-war socialists apparently wasn’t a top priority.
Were I in his shoes, I wouldn’t have met with your group either. I wouldn’t now in my own shoes. The way your bunch goes about manifesting your opinions doesn’t make much sense to a lot of us.
This is the opening paragraph in an article on the Common Dreams (commondreams.org) web site. “As a 29 year US Army/Army Reserves Colonel and a U.S. diplomat who resigned in March 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq, I am very proud of the city of Berkeley, California. Berkeley and her citizenry have had the courage to stand on their peace convictions and declare that it does not want its youth recruited into the illegal Iraq war. Neither the action of Berkeley City council, nor the actions of the anti-war groups that oppose the location of the office in Berkeley, mean they are anti-military, or that they are รข traitorsรข ย to their country. Rather, the actions reflect the sentiment of the people of Berkeley that they can รข Support the Troops,รข ย but also acknowledge publicly that one of the most effective strategies to resisting the war in Iraq is to make it harder for the military to find young people to send as cannon fodder.”
To say you are ‘supporting the troops’ while picketing them is disingenuous to say the least. Hell, why don’t I just call it a bold faced lie, that’s what it is.
“one of the most effective strategies to resisting the war in Iraq is to make it harder for the military to find young people to send as cannon fodder.”
Presumably, you then also make it harder for the military to be adequately staffed to fight in a war you like, or maybe the one that starts next Tuesday, because someone attacks us. It would never occur to these irrationals that they just might be cutting their head off to spite their face.
The big lie here that Bodden, Randall, Code-pink don’t tell you, is that this has nothing really to do with the war in Iraq. These same folks don’t like the war in Afghanistan either. The true goal of code-pink, for instance, is to promote radical Socialism, which both it’s two founders, Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, freely admit. Read Medea Benjamin’s book, ‘I Senator,’ where she freely chronicles her radical Socialist agenda, for an inside look at the real codepink.
This isn’t about hating the war in Iraq, this is about tearing this country apart and forming it into a giant Cuba. Medea Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle after her first trip to Cuba in the early 1980’s that life in Cuba, “made it seem like I’d died and went to heaven.”
Wise up, people. You too, Bodden. Or, perhaps Bodden is a radical Socialist himself. He actively promotes their agenda and considering the amount of research he does, one can assume he already is aware of code-pinks true nature.
Philip H. Randall: “Members of Central Oregon CODEPINK community (are) good friends of mine, and I believe their actions are honorable and just.”
Well, perhaps that depends on your definition of honorable and just. It’s conceivable that the local chapter doesn’t have a clue about the national CODEPINK organizations agenda, but that brings up
questions about the local groups judgement. Do rational people join organizations that they have no knowledge of? I doubt that, and in any case, people are responsible for their own actions.
What is CODEPINK really about? Let’s ask the founders of it. Medea Benjamin is a co-founder. Born Susie Benjamin, she changed her name to Medea, after the Greek tragedy by the same name, where the main character kills her own children to get revenge on her husband. She is a self professed ardent pro-Castro advocate, having lived in Cuba, and married a pro-Castro Cuban. For many years she made a living conducting guided tours to Cuba. In the 80’s, Medea assisted in the formation of the Institute for Food and Development Policy (IFDP) which went into business sending aid to the Marxist Sandinista ruling Nicaragua. In the 90’s, she and other CODEPINKS were field Marshals during the anti-globalist riots in Seattle in 2000.
CODEPINKS Jodie Evans is a trustee of the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) which is a coalition of anti-capitalist environmentalists. RAN’s co-founder Michael Roselle, is the founder of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) which the FBI ranks as one of the top terrorist groups in the U.S.
In January 2005, CODEPINK acknowledged a donation of more than $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the “other side” as they put it, supplying the terrorists operating against our troops in Fallujah, Iraq. This is $600,000 worth of ‘aid and comfort’ to our enemies in an active war. They did not give $600,000 worth of aid and comfort to our soldiers.
CODEPINK, on it’s website, refers to members of the U.S. Military as “Killers.”
In January 2006 CODEPINKS Evans, Benjamin and Cindy Sheehan went to visit Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
CODEPINKS Cindy Sheehan told Gold Star Widow Laura Youngbloods 5 year old son, “Your daddy died for a lie.”
Draw your own conclusions.
“Rather, the actions reflect the sentiment of the people of Berkeley that they can รข Support the Troops,รข ย but also acknowledge publicly that one of the most effective strategies to resisting the war in Iraq is to make it harder for the military to find young people to send as cannon fodder.”
“Cannon fodder” is commonly applied to military personnel sacrificed in wars based on lies. The war on Iraq was based on lies and is illegal in international law.
Cannon fodder: 3,978 military and DoD civilians in Iraq and 13,138 wounded in Iraq and unable to return to duty, per DoD casualty reports as of March 17, 2008. A recent newspaper report suggested that one in three service personnel returning from Iraq does so with some form of psychological problem. The number of men and women in this last category includes some who couldn’t take it any longer and didn’t get the care they needed and saw suicide as their only relief. More data is available from antiwar.com.
How many more of our young men and women remain to be sacrificed on this altar built upon lies?
Phil, what do you know of piece? You have never been in war. You have been given piece without cost. How could you value it? You have not been there. You have not witnessed war first hand. You have never fought for anything in your sheltered life for which you may have to pay the ultimate sacrifice. Speaking as a veteran Phil I wish you would stick with what you know. A good lahti, a challenging ski slope, and a worthy mountain bike.
Now we have Bodden quoting his own post and commenting on his comments. Next, he’ll quote his post quoting his post and comment on that. Repetition is not a substitute for rationality or original thinking, Bodden. And, even my Springer Spaniel knows what cannon fodder is.
Protesting at military recruiters because you don’t like a particular war is like protesting at Ford Motor because you don’t like the way highways are designed. But then, you seem to like the obtuse approach; take the long way so far around the barn you get lost in the fog.
I suspect you don’t give a tinkers damn about the war. You hate Bush, and the war becomes the convenient scapegoat. The casualties of war are another red herring. Were ‘life’ your true concern, you would expend your energy where the most life is lost. Start at the top, work your way down. Being in the war in Iraq is actually safer then being at Fort Benning. More military personnel have died in accidents in the US than are casualties of war. We’ve lost fifty times as many citizens in auto accidents as we have in the same period in Iraq. What about table salt, smoking, trans fats, Splenda, lack of excersise? You want to save life? Go to where the dead are happening. But that’s not really your issue, is it?
So, don’t give me your tired song and dance about loss of life. You are a politically motivated radical socialist America Hater who uses the war as a tool to leverage your own radical personal agenda.
You haven’t made a favorable comment about the United States in at least twenty years.
Randall & Bodden are on the wrong side of the Iraq issue. According to a poll out this morning, 64% of Americans think we should stay in Iraq until “security and stability” are established. This is an indication that at least 64% of us are rational. Where the military haters lose out on this issue is in failing to realize that the Iraq situation is not a ‘single’ issue. There is a lot more at stake here than just “stop the war.”
The Rationals understand the nature of cause-effect. They understand that when you create a vacuum, something flows into that vacuum. What might that be? The cut and run crowd don’t have a clue. They haven’t thought that far ahead. When you have a ‘single issue’ reactionary mentality, as the end the war now crowd does, you don’t worry about what happens next. Rationals do worry about what happens next.
Martin Luther King made the observation that hate doesn’t allow you to think straight. There is evidence of the truth of that on this very thread.
End the war now mentality is like speeding along in a car and you don’t like the trip you are on so you just jump out of the car, with no thought to what happens when your lame reactionary ass hits the pavement at 60 mph.
Common sense tells us that the mess we will inherit if we abandon Iraq too soon will make the last five years look an ice cream social. Why don’t we put a little thought into that? Sixty four percent of us do.