In thousands of cities and towns, millions of people—many of them new to activism—marched, vigiled, prayed, lobbied. War on Iraq happened anyway. And many Americans judged the war to be successful. In 1991 a similar scenario led to discouragement and dropping out. Bill Clinton defeated George Bush I the following year despite, not because of, Bush’s war record. The months and… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (14)Page 1 of 1 pagesIt’s time for:
Operation USA Freedom - Here At Home!We have so many issues here in our own backyard that we need to pay attention to that this is where the Peace movement is going.
This is how we as a Peace movement will grow also, since right now we must be able to identify with Americans who are in pain - seeing their jobs cut, seeing their education cuts (Parents in Oregon are giving Blood - literally - to pay for their teachers), seeing they are not able to pay for medical care.
Make signs that IDENTIFY with their Personal Pain. Then you got their attention. Later they can learn about other more complex issues around the world, but FIRST reach out to something they feel daily - make your signs Personal.
Then you got their attention - and a new person joins our Peace movement.
Here are some suggestions for the Anti-War Signs Now as of May 19:
Stop Media Monopoly!
Stop the FCC June 2!
Education, Health Care and Jobs - NOT WAR
Teachers & Books - Not Bombs
Operation USA Freedom - Here At Home (with Peace Signs!)
No More Bush!
Corporate Accountability - Including Bush and Cheney
SAVE OUR CONSITITUTION!
SAVE THE U.S.A. - PATRIOTS FOR PEACE !
REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME!
Stop Violence Here At Home
Stop the War HERE AT HOME
Decent Jobs Wanted Here At Home
Help Our Gulf War Vets ñ www.GulfWarVets.com
Tax Cuts for the Rich ñ Hurt US Here At Home !
Stop Hurting Our Citizens Here At Home, Bush!
Stop Media Lies!
No More Media Monopoly!
Our Future Here At Home ñ ourfuture.org
Patriots For Peace ñ And For A Better America!
Support GW Vets ñ Donít CUT their Benefits!
Stop Hurting Our Vets ñ Stop CUTTING Aid!
Stop Layoffs- Give Us Jobs Here At Home!
Stop Patriot Act 2 ñ Stop Attacking Our Civil Liberties!
Posted by Nicole on May 19, 2003 at 8:50 PM It was great to read Geov Parrish’s upbeat analysis of What’s Next for anti-war activists. Perhaps In These Times readers will be interested to know about United for a Fair Economy’s latest interactive workshop, “War & the Economy - Too Many Guns, Not Enouth Butter.” This workshop explores the impact of militarism on the U.S. economy, informed by race, class, and gender perspectives. Workshop materials are available for free at <www.faireconomy.org/econ/workshops/war_and_economy.html>. Thank you.
Posted by Steve Schnapp on May 22, 2003 at 8:18 PM “Stop Media Monopoly!”
Great! We shuld be able to read “In These Times” or “Tehran Times” or get reports from Al jazheera if we choose.
Oh wait a minute - we already can. What monopoly are you talking about?
Posted by Nus on May 23, 2003 at 4:59 PM “the framework of an endless “war on terror”
Is it suggested that there should be no war on terror? That terrorist attacks on American and foreign civilians should be accepted? That a war against terrorist and their supporters should not be open-ended?
“Without the domestic and worldwide peace movements, many, many more Iraqi civilians may have died”
Could you explain and support this statement?
“the reality of continuing field combat action by U.S. armed forces in ...Colombia, the Philippines”
Could you explain and support this statement?
Posted by Nus on May 23, 2003 at 5:04 PM stay connected to the cause. write letters, e-mails , phone calls, to both demos & republicans in power concerning the issues of the day. we need one loud voice to speak on our behalf. we need to be articulate , not desperate.
Posted by M Shem on May 23, 2003 at 6:19 PM You leftists are a sad bunch. It must be a big job convincing yourself that every American success is really a failure. May I suggest that you limit your bitching and crying to problems that actually exist? For example, don’t whine about a media monopoly that doesn’t exist. And best of luck to your Democrats in ‘04. Maybe Kerry willget to the White House if he keeps telling people he fought in Vietnam.
Posted by Ted on May 23, 2003 at 7:25 PM Responding to Ted’s screed, it doesn’t take much more than a cursory attention span to notice the lack of left-wing media critics, pundits, authors, and other experts from the mainstream media monopoly that most certainly DOES exist. It is also not difficult to notice the vapid reporting, puff pieces, and homogeonized entertainment and writing that appears in media owned by a few large corporate interests. Nor is one too challenged, if one is so inclined to look, to see how some important things, such as labor reporting, environmental reporting. and investigative journalism, receive scant little attention in media outlets driven less by a desire for exposure of facts and a seeper semblance of truth, and more by advertiser dollars and a desire to protect the steady financial stream.
Let’s also not presume that the Democrats present the only left political alternatives, and here I am speaking not merely about candidates but also ideas. You whiny right-wingers should know that, since you re-energized your party with long-range ideas and plans that went well outside not only what the GOP considered possible in the 1960s and 1970s, but what the Dems and others farther on the left did. This is what is emerging now, despite the fact that the left has had to rely on alternative media sources for much of their progressive ideas. I love to see you right-whiners cry, trying to stave off the backlash that’s coming…
Posted by Jason on May 25, 2003 at 12:53 AM Jason, what backlash are you talking about? Have you ever seen Peter Jennings? He is very critical of republicans. People have a problem with O’Reilly, he does lean right on most isssues but also goes left as well (death penalty, enron etc). Alan Colmes is lefty as well. NPR is extremely liberal.
No one cares about the environment, I wish people did, but there is a reason why they don’t have environmental reporting, no one cares. What about the investigative journalism done on Jesse Jackson on how he spends his money (tax-exempt) inappropriately. Or how Hillary Clinton was using tax money to campaign in NY. There is plenty of investigative reporting.
Posted by Brad on May 26, 2003 at 8:32 PM Brad:
To clarify, I believe that there will be a backlash against the style of bitter right-wing, largely corporate discourse that Ted’s comments, I feel, embody. This will occur in part because so many people and ideas are usually shut out from the narrow discourse, and relatedly because people on the left have begun to utilize alternative sources to their advantage. However, that does not mean that we have mainstream media utopia now by any stretch. So what if Peter Jennigs is tough on the GOP? It’s nothing compared to the pom-pom wavers on Fox, MSNBC, many on CNN, and elsewhere. At least Jennings mouths some fairly neutral news, especially compared to hacks like Joe Scarborough and others who elide the distinction between newspeople and political shills.As for your statement about no one caring abour environmental reporting, that’s simply ridiculous. Eespecially in areas where environmental damage is severe, people pick up on the importance of environmental awareness immediately. The lack of environmental reporting in mainstream media likely comes from corporate media institutions not wanting to attack other corporate interests, which might be adjacent to or overlap with those of the media outlets in the forms of advertising, common corporate executives, etc. No kidding there’s investigative reporting. Plenty? Hardly, especially in big print media outlets. Fewer staff reporters rely to a greater degree on “official” sources, i.e. government, corporate, PR firms, etc, to save themselves time and their company money while low-paid stringers often cover other local stories. If there’s so much investigative reporting done, why did stories such as Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, and others die so quickly? They were media fads, not spurs for further investigation from those who could pay for staff to do such work, yet often don’t. What about U.S. atrocities committed in Iraq? Why did foreign media outlets break them instead of “embedded journalists?”
Posted by Jason on May 27, 2003 at 10:58 PM Brad:
Furthermore, it’s easy to play fast and loose with vague terms such as liberal and left, affixing them to people and institutions whether or not they actually apply. Those terms are also relative, and I’m quite certain that our definitions of each, and our judgements of their applicability to the people and institutions in your examples, would no doubt vary. That’s my point. Mainstream media leave out people on the left, of nearly any definition, who clearly challenge the prevailing right-wing corporate media orthodoxy that currently monopolizes the mainstream airwaves and papers. For example, where are people such as Norman Solomon, Jeff Cohen of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Edward Said, Edward Herman, Noam Chomsky, Bob McChesney, Michael Albert, Mark Weisbrot, and others on tv and in print? Rarely if ever are these people seen or read in mainstream media outlets, with the occasional bone thrown to liberals like David Corn or John Nichols of The Nation, or Cohen. Why not have Chomsky more frequently on tv to pummel people like the Eight Million Dollar man Bill Bennett, as he did before? or Bill Buckley, as Chomsky did in 1969 on “Firing Line”? Now THAT’S television!Their absence from such outlets is steering their work, as well as the work and energies of others, into alternative sources of expression that reflects a mounting groundswell and backlash against the drastic right-wing lurch that the U.S. has taken. People like Colmes, Jennings, et al. are small potatoes compared with the extensive work being done under the radar of the corporate media. Trust me, it’s coming—like it or not. The right did it in the 1960s, the left’s turn is now, and it’s well under way.
Posted by Jason on May 27, 2003 at 11:17 PM You mentioned Bill Bennett, look the guy screwed up, bigtime. But he didn’t lose 8 million, that figure was never backed up my a name (unnamed source) and therefore should be taken carefully. Look you made some great points. Fox news is easily the most “rah-rah” out of the channels, but its biggest show (O’reilly Factor) has his opinion (which is usually conservative) and someone with opposite beliefs, I can’t quite remember the mans name, but during the war they had a guy on from fair and accuracy in reporting a few times a week.
In terms of protecting their own networks, you’re right. Networks can’t be too critical of their advertisers but guests can, and will sometimes. There is no way to fix that problem though.
You said that papers are “monopolized” by the right wing. Two of the nations biggest papers the NY Times and LA times are decidedly left-wing. They were lambasted when they were foudn to be reporting that the US was actually losing the war. Which is ridiculous, we won that war in every way possible, its the after-war we’re messing up. Robert Scheer (La times columnist) sided with the BBC on the report about Jessica Lynch beign a hoax. That’s pretty left-wing.
I can’t deny that their is a shift to the right in reporting. Networks are following Fox News’ lead because of their high ratings. They also don’t want to anger Americans by criticizing a highly popular president.
Posted by Brad on May 27, 2003 at 11:38 PM Brad:
Fair enough. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about the political terminology (liberal vs. left), since what you see as left media institutions I would characterize as liberal. As far as their reporting the U.S.‘s losing the war, I never read their reports as such, but rather as the war being tougher sledding than either previously reported or planned by the government. On that, I would say their reporting was fair. if there was some article actually discussing the U.S. “losing” the war, I must have missed it. I would agree that the papers you mentioned are liberal in political perspective, yet also have rightist writers (NY Times with Safire and Friedman), which is OK in my opinion. I believe in, practice, and allow for freedom of speech. It’s more the complete picture that is right-wing. I would also add that by “monopolized” I don’t mean the total exclusion of all others, but the domination of the political discourse, and the power that corporate media wield.I think that your reasons listed for why networks are following Fox’s lead are valid, but Fox is following up on some trends while leading in some others. For example, right-wing Op-Ed writers such as Buchanan, Will, Buckley, and many others, especially from politics to punditry, have been around for a while. Don’t you think that the reliance of networks and papers, even and especially the NY and LA Times and Washington Post, reliance on certain sources has steered media opinions rightward for some time? I think the prevalence is current, but the rightward swing has been under way for a few decades to some degree, especially with the fracturing of the old Democratic Party dual core of liberal Northerners and Southern Dixiecrats.
Sincerely Brad, I’m glad we’ve had this exchange, and I apologize for any appearance of being caustic. these are tense times politically, and I sometimes get my hackles up. But I back your right to your opinions, hope that you’ll continue to post, and look forward to more exchanges of thoughts in the future.
Posted by Jason on May 28, 2003 at 2:45 AM Excellent appraisal of situation and challenge for the future. I posted an excerpt and link at the Hastings Against War group mailing.
Posted by Fernando Bauza on May 28, 2003 at 8:02 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Posted by aya on May 20, 2003 at 12:56 PM 
Also by Geov Parrish
- What’s Next
Across the country, legions of newly motivated anti-war activists now turn ... to what? - Remember Rachel Corrie
- New Blood
Can a moment of anti-war anger become an effective new political movement? - American Gulag
Hundreds of 9/11 detainees remain behind bars, shrouded in secrecy. - Hob-nobbing at Ground Zero
The World Economic Forum is coming to New York. - Stopping the War
The peace movement returns
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
