Saturday, October 23, 2004

C-SPAN Steps 'Outside the Ballot Box'

By Mark Hand

Read full article...

Posted 10/23 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Congratulations to Mark on his work in organizing this wonderful site and the wonderful speakers at the events. Wish I could be there. Solidarity.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  10/22  at  05:47 AM

  2. Ditto on the CONGRATS, Mark.  I trust that one and all will weigh in here w commentary respecting this wonderful contribution to our mutual concerns.  Can’t wait to see Mick at the podium once again, can’t wait to take it all in....  Blessings in solidarity, Richard

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/22  at  10:27 AM

  3. Really looking forward to it. Next best thing to being there. Thanks to all for doing the event and getting C-Span there. C-Span is/can be such a useful tool, but unfortunately it spends far too much time on people spewing administration blather. That’s a euphemism, blather.

    Posted by catherine from  on  10/22  at  10:32 AM

  4. I echo the above comments of gratitude for your efforts.  While it’s tough being a voice in the wilderness, all significant change efforts begin their journeys as one.  I look forward to putting my Tivo to good social use this Saturday, thanks to your efforts.  They are very much appreciated. NR

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  10/22  at  12:15 PM

  5. Mark and the speakers deserve more than a round of applause for organizing this event.  Although I could be present at the “Outside the Ballot Box,” and listen to the speakers, I cannot emphasize the importance of such events in helping retain voices of sanity, peace, and justice alive.  There is a clearly a need for such efforts at the community level if progressive, liberal, liberatarian, and democratic social changes are to be achieved.

    Organizers of the event are to commended for volunteering their time and efforts to make a valuable educational opportunity available to the public.  I look forward to seeing it on Book TV.

    Posted by Abu Spinoza from  on  10/22  at  12:26 PM

  6. Have been watching a lot of CSPAN lately and was lucky enough to catch most of “Outside the Ballot Box” this afternoon.  Things that we may not want to hear but that we need to hear unless we want to bury our heads in the sand and let the world dictate how we live and what we will leave for our children and grandchildren.  I truly admired the compassion that all three speakers had in trying to educate the public.  I was not able to record the program and wondered if there was some way to purchase a tape or DVD of “Outside the Ballot Box”?

    Posted by Kathy from  on  10/23  at  06:29 PM

  7. We hope C-SPAN will make copies of this program available to viewers interested in purchasing a copy. Viewers can find contact information for C-SPAN Book-TV at http://www.booktv.org/comments/

    Thanks.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  10/23  at  06:35 PM

  8. It is available from C-SPAN’s online store:

    http://www.c-spanstore.org/cgi-bin/cspanstore/159639-1.html

    Program number : 159639-1

    $29.95

    Posted by Nancy from  on  10/23  at  08:26 PM

  9. Kudos to Mark and the three terrific speakers.  My wife and I enjoyed their words and the audience’s responses.

    Seth Sandronsky

    Posted by Seth Sandronsky from  on  10/23  at  08:29 PM

  10. have you tried http://www.whatreallyhappened.com and http://www.wrmea.com ?

    Posted by Dan Unis from  on  10/23  at  11:20 PM

  11. Caught an hour of Saturday’s C-Span showing. Mickey Z., who I’m a fan of, was cool and engaging. I’d never heard of Mark Anderson before, but he was eloquent and moving. Fine event. I’m new to Press Action, but it’s now on my favorites lists. View my blog, Running Commentary:
    http://www.b-u-m.net/RunningComment.html

    Posted by Russ Wellen from Sleepy Hollow, New York  on  10/25  at  08:56 AM

  12. Richard, (visit his comments)

    I certainly favor constructive criticism of the articles I post on Press Action as well as the recent “Outside” event Nancy and I organized. We had never organized such an event and, given that we are only two people, we believe the event was a success insofar as it gave a forum to information and ideas not often presented at forums here in the D.C. area or heard on television. Will the event have a great effect on reversing the terrible policies of the U.S. government and getting Americans to think twice about the way they’re living their lives? No, not a great impact. But I think the event probably positively affected the thinking of a few people, and I think that should not be easily dismissed, just as your OneDance event definitely affected in a good way the thinking of many people.

    You may decide to argue that “Outside” did more harm than good because it did not focus enough on the type of direct action that you believe Americans should be engaging in order to bring down the system as soon as possible. And you may believe “Outside” was harmful because it focused too much attention on issues such as “civil liberties” when you believe there are more important issues such as the ongoing genocide of Native Americans and the Pentagon’s ecocide here in our own backyards. And you may contend that the event advocated too much of an incremental or evolutionary approach to political, social and economic change here in the U.S., when in your opinion there’s probably not enough time to waste with such a “changing- people’s-minds” approach.

    “Outside” was just one type of event. There are plenty of other methods and avenues for pursuing change. And I believe people need to continue ratcheting up the pressure on the powers-that-be. Smart, well-organized confrontation with the repressive features of the government is a good thing. I know you’re planning some events of your own, Richard, and that’s a good thing. A diversity of strategies for change certainly should be welcome.

    As Mickey has noted, though, not everyone is as far along in their understanding of the repressive nature of our government and society as you and other Press Action readers are. So we also need to try to reach out to them.

    While I appreciate and will continue to value the nice words people have said about the event, I agree it’s now time to move on. As I said in my closing comments at “Outside,” we have a lot of work to do so let’s get going. And as Mickey, Elaine, and Mark A. emphasized at “Outside,” people should determine what their strengths are in the battle against the powers-that-be and then put those strengths to good use.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  10/25  at  11:35 AM

  13. You make a poignant observation, Richard.  One that is easily appreciated within the context that it issues from: “we are at war with the opposition”.  But since context is everything, as someone wisely once asserted, I dare say that some of our fellow revolutionaries (myself included) may be operating from a different one.  The context of effecting a much-needed radical transformation of our cultural and collective perception(s) of our national identity and conduct.  And depending on the context that one has adopted for their revolutionary (my preferred descriptor over “progressive") efforts, you will adopt certain mechanisms and actions over others.  Whether you agree or disgaree with this, this is the kind of dialogue that needs to be conducted.  Thanks for opening the door to it. NR

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  10/25  at  12:57 PM

  14. “Some people change when they see the light, others when they feel the heat.” (Caroline Schoeder) I submit to you that the latter produces a more superficial and shorter-in-duration form of change than the former one does.  You can’t change a condition without changing those who made the condition permissable in the first place.  NR

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  10/25  at  02:13 PM

  15. Richard Oxman’s comments on this article have been moved. To join him in a discussion, please visit him here:

    Richard’s Comments.

    Posted by Press Action from Arlington, VA  on  10/25  at  08:02 PM

  16. I saw the broadcast and it was very stimulating and well-done.  Wonderful to see those kind of politics in the mainstream.  I was going to miss the the first half hour, so I taped it.  But the tape messed up.  Mickey was very impressive in his presence and his delivery.  I didn’t see Mark Hand unless it was in the closing comments, and then the camera didn’t zoom in on him very well, which was disappointing.  All in all A+.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  10/25  at  09:05 PM

  17. Why have my comments been moved?  I was going to next address the Harpers Ferry anniversary which fell on the same date as OUTSIDE...and make a few contrasts/comparisons, but...I guess I should wait to see what the response is to the question above.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/25  at  11:36 PM

  18. Richard’s discussion can be continued here.

    Posted by Press Action from  on  10/26  at  07:55 AM

  19. Though I could write at length about the afternoon and the three speakers and their content, I’ll just say that my fantasy is that the 2 1/2 hours could be put on tape and distributed to all American high school kids. And wouldn’t it be a treat to have any or all of the them - Mickey, Elaine, Mark - as history teachers?

    Posted by catherine from cleveland  on  10/27  at  10:56 AM

  20. Catherine-- I agree completely with your comments. Each of the speakers would be wonderful high school or college history teachers. To her credit, an AP history teacher at the local Washington-Lee High School here in Arlington County gave students extra credit if they attended “Outside the Ballot Box” and then wrote an essay about what they learned. I think a couple students attended the forum.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  10/27  at  11:11 AM

  21. Nice turn in Arlington County, but I’d like more focus on why very few schools will allow such fare w/i their doors on any ongoing basis.  Which would lead us to why we must undermine the public school system...as it can’t be reformed sufficiently, and serves to perpetuate the worse excesses of America. The fact that most parents have to hand over their kids for most of the day right now because of economic considerations does not detract from the need to discuss how little the abominations of the schools are addressed. If the “problem” of the schools is acknowledged (on this level), we have a shot at doing something about the Big Picture. OUTSIDE on the inside of schools is a plus, but it’s NOT a “step in the right direction,” as they say. I trust readers can make that distinction.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/27  at  12:35 PM

  22. I disagree.  The problem is often not as complicated as we sometimes like to believe it is.  The fact of the matter is, critical thinking skills (which, invariably, involves the inclusion of seriously considering differing opinions and perspectives) are not taught in most schools because many parents are not interested in making sure that that is the case.  Many parents simply want to leave it to the providence of others (school teachers and officials) to decide what gets taught and learned in schools.  So we have schools that mass produce young believers of, and subscribers to, the prevailing conventional “wisdom” as a result.  For parents to care about and insist that critical thinking skills get addressed in schools, they have to first value and practice them at home.  And there’s the rub. NR

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  10/27  at  12:49 PM

  23. If you’re disagreeing with me, I don’t know exactly what point of difference you see here. Parents who do not value critical thinking at home are the same parents that do not insist that it be valued in schools. Furthermore, when you say something like “the inclusion of seriously considering differing opinions and perspectives” you don’t seem to acknowledge that the parameters for differing views are severely restricted and that the language for expressing radical notions is terribly limited, much of both often discouraged...when a little bit of anything that threatens to undermine the foundations of our so-called civilization begins to rear its “ugly” head. If the teachers and adminstrators, on occasion, allow something slightly “anything” to emerge...the social setting where group-think is so highly prized kicks in.  I taught for 30 years on all levels worldwide, by the way.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/27  at  07:07 PM

  24. Richard, with all due respect, it’d be a nice change every once in a while if you could defer to the sanctity of another’s opinion.  It doesn’t have to thereby be unconsonant with yours.  At #22 Nader Raider made a very valid point and one that could contribute to, and expand, the dialog.  Instead of building on that, you act as if anyone’s perspective who chimes in here cannot deviate in the slightest from yours.  Really, it becomes semantics.  There is room for respecting the diversity and right of others to their opinion that can fall outside the parameters of what you deem permissible debate.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  10/27  at  08:16 PM

  25. Nader Raider can respond...and push a dialogue, T.  I’d like to know what the basis is for your saying: “you act as if anyone’s perspective who chimes in here cannot deviate in the slightest from yours.” What is it EXACTLY that I should have built on, T?  What are you referring to when you invoke “semantics” in your critique? I was essentially saying, in my response, that the school system does NOT allow for a wide range of opinion as opposed to what Nader Raider suggested, underscoring a previous point I had made...that ZERO is going to be accomplished through that system...that exists to perpetuate our worst excesses...and that the people (parents) that Nader Raider seemed to think might hold some hope...should be given up on.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/27  at  09:27 PM

  26. I have no point or dialogue that needs to be pushed, Richard.  Since all my perspectives are “under construction” and subject to change, none of them require that others subscribe to them also.  All I meant to say was… and to reaffirm anyone’s contention that the system is corrupt and sucks… it is exactly so because we permit it to be.  Schools are myopic in their content of instruction, because parents don’t demand that it be otherwise.  And many systems suck, in general, because we allow them to suck… instead of demanding otherwise.  The system is rarely the real problem, in my eyes.  It’s the people who permit the system to be that way who are more of a problem.  Along the same lines, I don’t see GWB as the problem.  I see his supporters and enablers as the cause/source of the problem.  He’s just a symptom of some of our neighbors and friends.  NR

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  10/27  at  09:41 PM

  27. We’re together on all this. Great to hear these words from you, NR. Now...all of us who feel this way, I say, have an obligation to go down a different route than what the vast majority of “progressives/revolutionaries” are taking...and spend some serious heartbeats devising...trying to devise means for dealing with the genocidists/ecocidists. I think the obligatory thinking/talking will take on an easy, natural life of its own...producing results...as long as the starting point for one and all is...truly giving up on elements like the school system...that are usually envisioned as holding some kind of panacea...if funded properly, etc.  Our mutual problem is that not enough readers here have really given up on such.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/27  at  10:31 PM

  28. In addition to what I said in #27 as a positive response to NR, I think I owe it to one and all to underscore a point NR stressed: It’s...our neighbors!  The Red Sox just pulled it off, and I love them for doin’ THAT.  But most of those guys are probably on “the other side.” Ditto for the well-intentioned sweetie who says “hi” every now and then down the block.  If you’re serious about making change in this country and around the world...you’re going to have to look at those people as needing something other than the usual efforts at “reform” (in line with the point I made above about the school system). That’s a daunting, unpopular stance I’m begging you all to embrace...at the risk of your lives. No scenarios out of Hollywood, please.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/27  at  10:50 PM

  29. Abso-frickin’-lutely right on!  That’s the biggest criticism (contructive, I hope) that I have about my fellow avtivists/change agents.  Some of us do more talking ABOUT “them” than TO “them”.  If, as an activist/change agent, you are talking more to your fellow activists/change agents than you are to the folks who need to be changed (not GWB, but his supporters/enablers and your neighbors/friends), then I’ll be audacious enough to propose that you may be contributing to the “them versus us” personal reality that many of ‘em feel about us.  That’s one of the reasons why I like what Mark Andersen has to say.  Our efforts to effect significant change does not have to be an adversarial one.  More often than not, and if it involves our friemds and neighbors who support GWB, an adversarial approach is also not the most productive one. NR

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  10/27  at  11:04 PM

  30. Divorce can be an adversarial proceeding. It doesn’t have to be.  However, if one is divorcing oneself from Mainstream America and attempting to change it...one will, inevitably, come up against individuals who will insist upon...friction, force one into agonizing battles over, say,...the children, property, etc.  There are issues over which it’s impossible to not have confrontation, yes? Mark has MANY wonderful, sweet, right-on qualities.  However,...forgetting about GWB...his support of Kerry contributes to our downward spiral as much as anyone else. His notion that he’s going to help the poor in DC by mainly talking to people is well-intentioned, and to be applauded.  But, obviously, his advances will be “too small” w/o consideration of coronary-provoking confrontation. “Significant” change on the individual level, short-term, yes. Significant/Radical change...w/o adversity, no.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/28  at  03:00 AM

  31. I see a difference between effecting social change through direct action which is both nonviolent and disobedient, Richard, and “warring” against a political/authoritarian adversary, either in word or in deed.  Our own history as a nation teaches us that civil disobedience effects significant social change more effectively than any other mechanism.  I would like to hear what others feel about how to effect social change more effectively also.  It’s a dialogue worthy of further discussion.  NR

    “Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies… Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good… All through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants. . . and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall, always."—M.K. Gandhi

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  10/28  at  07:50 AM

  32. I too would like readers to consider your words, especially: “ Our own history as a nation teaches us that civil disobedience effects significant social change more effectively than any other mechanism.” It depends, in part, what you mean by “more effectively,” yes? One would have to address the efficacy of the American Revolution with the “mechanism” used, yes? I’ve supported the Gandhi you’re presenting for consideration here on this site when arguing against Stan Goff’s call for violence (GOFF GUFF or something like that was the title), but...Ward Churchill’s and ALF’s recommended “mechanisms” at times have merit, yes? They are at variance with what you’re saying, I believe. The “warring” (in any form)should, ideally, be embraced with love. But there is a New Age Love that floats around these parts that has no warrior heart.  And Press Actioneers tend to talk...not take part.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/28  at  10:34 AM

  33. Re: NR’s comments at #31 - was it Gandhi who also coined the slogan “always the low prices, always”?  Seriously, very trenchant comments NR.  Hurray!

    All due respect again Richard; I wish you could provide some kind of simple decoding chart that one could use to decipher what is meant by the statement that “[o]ne would have to address the efficacy of the American Revolution with the “mechanism” used, yes?”

    “What’s so funny about peace, love and understanding.”
    - I want to say that’s Elvis Costello, but
    it’s actually ...I forget the artist.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  10/28  at  02:58 PM

  34. It means that the American Revolution was violent, and that NR --if she wanted to “defend” her notion that “ Our own history as a nation teaches us that civil disobedience effects significant social change more effectively than any other mechanism."-- would need to reconcile that fact.  Is that clear? By the way, anyone embracing Gandhi --as I pointed out in the Goff article and follow-up commentary attached to it-- needs to be prepared to give up one’s life. The form of following Gandhi that’s embraced by New Agers (not understanding him well, filling the ranks of too many protests)...leads to taking many valuable activists “out of the loop” by virtue of their being hauled off to jail...and worse. Such is not something that The Movement can afford; it may be something that a given individual must do for personal reasons.  Dellinger-brand Gandhi --whereby life is truly risked, serious life-threatening confrontation is forced-- may be up for consideration. But passive nonviolence --not very adversarial-- is something that Gandhi frowned upon.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/28  at  04:06 PM

  35. There was nothing “New Agey” about the following historical nonviolent direct action responses:

    http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html

    And there is more than one intepretation of what warriorhood entails.

    NR

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  10/28  at  05:35 PM

  36. Tubman always carried a gun, threatening to “take care” of anyone who might blow the cover off of a given operation. The examples listed on the source you give, NR, are full of fully adversarial stances taken with words and deeds; that’s how this how dialogue got started, as I remember...my objecting to the notion that one could address opposition, problem-people et. al. w/o an adversarial approach. You’re absolutely right in saying that there’s nothing “New Agey” about much of what’s on the site you’ve given...but that was never in question. I used the term as an representative of those who advocate/practice the passive nonviolence Gandhi abhored...which he characterized as WORSE THAN VIOLENCE. Regarding “warriorhood,” yes...as long as it doesn’t include passive nonviolence. Methinks we’re together on this, yes?

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/28  at  06:36 PM

  37. Richard:
    http://www.blogger.com/start

    Posted by miss manners from  on  10/28  at  07:32 PM

  38. Please intro yourself, Miss Manners. Don’t know whether to take this (blogger thing) as a compliment...or an invitation to stop taking up time and space in these here parts.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/28  at  08:03 PM

  39. One of the problems of using terminologies within a conversation… is that they tend to have different meanings to different participants of the conversation (i.e. passive nonviolence, aggressive nonviolence, etc.)... but are often treated as if they mean the same thing to the participants.  Having said that, I subscribe to the meanings of the terms we are using as depicted in the following summary (item nos. 1 throuh 4) of Dr. King’s “basis for nonviolent direct action”:  http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/nonviolent.resist.html NR

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  10/29  at  09:42 AM

  40. The problem is not one of semantics. While everyone should appreciate your clarifying the source of your comments, we don’t want to avoid dealing with the issue I raised respecting the need to risk your life...if you are embracing what Gandhi advocated...what King and other high profile nonviolent spokespeople have supported...when urging nonviolent disobedience. There’s nothing vague about what Gandhi meant by “passive” nonviolence --which he detested-- as he very clearly called people cowards who avoided violent confrontation. The other issue, however, which I raised is, arguably, even more important...perhaps. It shouldn’t be pushed under the mental rug. To wit, protesters --in adopting nonviolence as a way-- have to deal with the problems (for The Movement) of being taken out of the loop prematurely. The “love” must be retained...and the passive approach avoided...BUT...something NEW must be added to the mix...as King himself suggested just before his assassination.  Certainly today it is clear that we cannot simply repeat Dellinger, King, et. al. in form. Simply, we do not have the #s to do so.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/29  at  10:24 AM

  41. Last night I spent a half-hour crafting a response to #34 defending my comments about semantics and then lost it.  I’m therefore withdrawing from this debate except to reiterate a little of it.  One thing that has to be considered is force is the monopoly of the state.  It will always have the overwhelming advantage.  Therefore social movements need to find something even more effective.  To date that has been civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance.  I’m not aware of anything else that has been as effective.  The American Revolution is not appropos because modern weaponry is too deadly to consider as a mean to effect desired change.  Besides, it was a victory of rich white landed gentry.  I don’t think that is any longer the type of change we are striving for.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  10/29  at  05:53 PM

  42. One would have to be an idiot to pit the State’s force against hoped-for force being manifested by the non-rich white landed gentry and others on these shores here today.  That’s NOT me to a “T,” T.  And...respecting that point and the point about the American Revolution analogy...I point you to my entry #40 here...which I cannot believe you’ve read yet. Now...not to confuse the issue for you, but...even though no one is recommending the kind of violence you hint at in your entry...your comment that you’re not aware of anything other than nonviolence being effective begs for a response. I beg you to consider the positive value of what came down at Wounded Knee when AIM did something other than what you recommend to deal with the Powers’ overwhelming force.  That Peltier is still in prison and bodies are strewn across the land because of it is neither here nor there in terms of the thrust of my message.  But read #40 for starters, if you will, and then I’ll get down with delineating WHO ELSE contributed to the American Revolution.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/29  at  06:06 PM

  43. During our country’s internationally illegal invasion of Iraq, Richard, I vividly recall reading a news article about a poll that was conducted then.  The poll besically asked some Americans two questions (I’m paraphrasing here, of course): 1) do you think that you’re getting the entire picture/story of what’s happening in Iraq (in the course of the invasion) from the reporters who are embedded within the invaders; and, 2) if not, does it matter to you that you aren’t?

    More than 80% of the respondants answered “no” to the first question, I remember reading.  And more than 60% answered “no” to the second one too.

    In other words, most of our neighbors and friends did not want to know the whole and complete truth of what we were doing.  They preferred to believe in an altered reality, of our invasion of Iraq, instead.

    If you asked me who I was outraged at most during that time, I would unequivocably say that it were my fellow countrymen who had decided to be WILFULLY IGNORANT… for whatever reason(s) it served them to be that… not our administration.  Our administration was only conducting itself in a manner that was supported and enabled by a willfully ignorant majority.

    So it is our willfully ignorant critical mass of citizens that I view as the most important target (amongst some other targets, of course) of our revolutionary efforts.

    So how do you turn people who desire to be willfully ignorant into citizens who won’t settle for anything less but the unadulterated truth?

    NR

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  10/31  at  02:29 AM

  44. Excellent start, NR. First of all, you do NOT aim initially for the ambitious turn around hinted at in your final question; I think you know that. ONE way to approach the dilemma is to attempt to interrupt “routines/business as usual” in the name of FORCING the public you’ve characterized...to look at certain issues, etc. That means --to cite one example-- stripping them of distractions. And I’m not talking about one night stands; I’m talking about ongoing interruptions that cannot be ignored. For instance, are you familiar w the proposal I’ve delineated on this site vis-a-vis the Leno/Letterman shows?  I’ll wait for a response from you and others on this...before going further.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/31  at  03:22 AM

  45. No, I’m not familiar with the proposal that you cite, Richard.  Where can I become familiarized with it?

    As for your suggestion, re. to not intially aim at the “ambitious” turn-around that I earlier posited needs to be created, I’m not as certain as you are that it’s not a worthy objective that needs to be initially identified as such.

    The success of any effort to effect change is always judged by the goals or objectives that it strives to achieve.  That’s why its particularly important to engage in a constructive dialogue… at the start-up of any concerted effort to effect change… that has, as its objective, the identification of desired outcomes for the efforts that will ensue.

    And I submit that the transformation of the American electorate’s sense of civic duty and responsibility is a worthwhile objective yo identify upfront.  Now, where can I go to become familiarized with your proposal?

    NR

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  10/31  at  11:32 AM

  46. Your words were: “So how do you turn people who desire to be willfully ignorant into citizens who won’t settle for anything less but the unadulterated truth?” It IS worthy. It is deserves to be identified as such. However, it IS overly ambitious as a first step. Way before turning people who are “willfully ignorant” into the kind of citizens you want them to be … one needs to pluck them from their routines/their denial. I will be happy to send details regarding the Leno/Letterman idea—which I’m thrilled you asked for—to ANYONE who sends me a courtesy email reminder to do so following the elections at . Essentially, it has to do with doing something nonviolent and legal that will interfere with the public’s habits, and confront them w what we’re concerned with, giving them a chance to reconsider what they’re doing...and inspiring others to attempt other direct action that’ll do the same...following new paradigms of protest. The constructive dialogue you seek cannot come --sufficiently-- first...as you cannot reason a man out of what he wasn’t reasoned into; emotional attachments must be dealt with first. Hence ... the Leno idea. Ameicans have—to too great a degree—abandoned civic responsibility, and have entered the realm of FEAR and deeper into HABIT, the great deadener, as Beckett said.  If I don’t respond to your request for Leno-related stuff w/i 24 hours following the election ... let me know.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/01  at  10:54 AM

  47. <a href= http://pills.awardspace.com/viagra/order-viagra-online.html >order viagra online</a></br><a href= http://pills.awardspace.com/viagra/cheap-generic-viagra.html >cheap generic viagra</a></br>

    Posted by ihkc from New York  on  02/13  at  09:44 PM

    48. Next entry: Who's Running the Show Behind Corporate Media?

    Previous entry: For Kerry, It’s Not Easy Pretending to be Green

    [ads]

    Support Press Action