Re: [MAPC-coord] action, no action?

Re: [MAPC-coord] action, no action?

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-10-20

I'm going to agree with much of what x says (and ignore for the moment
the parts I disagree with, since they aren't really relevant to the question
of holding an emergency action today).

It appears that we are entering a period of small hit-and-run special forces
attacks on the ground.  While this is a "new phase" of the war, I'm not sure
it's a significant escalation over the air war. When I contemplated an
emergency action in response to a special forces deployment, I was thinking
of something like a simultaneous deployment of 5000 troops for combat
throughout Afghanistan.

And, given the low traffic level on these lists, it seems pretty clear that
the membership base of this organization is not interpreting this as a
significant escalation demanding an emergency response.

I think x was right on target when he said that emergency rallies should
be designed  "to channel a spontaneous response from the people" rather than
to "attempt to drum up a response."

Pulling together an emergency rally requires a lot of effort and disruption
of our lives, and puts a lot of stress and strain on the organization.  A
failed "attempt to drum up a response" runs the risk not only of burn-out
but also of a lackluster turnout (in comparison to the last emergency rally,
where there was a "spontaneous response from the people") giving the
impression that opposition to the war is fading away.

I would like to see us develop a range of less demanding ways to respond
quickly to developments which don't rise to the level of an "emergency", but
I fear it's too late to do that in response to yesterday's events.

Setting up a picket line is a good suggestion, but the symbolism of a picket
(in my mind at least) is that it targets the location where it is held.
That would mean moving it to a federal location rather than the State
Capitol.

Another immediate response -- Education rather than Action -- would be
mobilizing a couple dozen leafletters & table-sitters to State Street and
oither locations to distribute literature specifically writen in response to
the most recent developments.  (This would of course require that we have a
process for producing such literature, but that is another story.)

I think if we were doing the sort of 24/7 work that x suggests, we could
work out the specifics of that work on a daily basis to respond to new
developments as needed.

x

----- Original Message -----
From: "x" <x>
To: "x" <x>; <x>
Cc: <x>; <x>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 11:54 AM
Subject: RE: [MAPC-coord] action, no action?


> Yup.  That's what I intended.  And here's a copy for "discuss" too.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: x
> [mailto:x]On Behalf Of
> x
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 10:35 AM
> To: x
> Cc: x
> Subject: Fw: [MAPC-coord] action, no action?
>
>
> I'm assuming that x intended this reply to go to the lists, not just
to
> me, so I'm forwarding it along.  (If I'm wrong, I apologize, but with time
> being of the essence, I decided to take the chance.)
>
> x
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "x" <x>
> To: "x" <x>
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 9:44 AM
> Subject: RE: [MAPC-coord] action, no action?
>
>
> > Yes I have an opinion...  I think our reactionary plans to respond to
> > egregious actions on the part of the US are totally off the mark.
Barring
> > deployment of tactical nukes to the field, employment of weapons of mass
> > destruction, or overt invasion with intent to occupy a country, nothing
> the
> > US does right now will upset enough of the people to help us gather a
big
> > rally.  A big rally in my experience in Madison is over 1000 people.  A
> > medium size rally is between three or four hundred and a thousand.  How
> many
> > of us think we can even organize a medium size rally in response to an
ill
> > defined set of "emergencies" that we intend to react against?  We need
to
> > look deeper for a strategy and tactics that won't have our best people
> > burning out from so much work to so little result.  We need to define a
> > program of constant social pressure.  We need to keep the issues
squarely
> in
> > front of the people 7 by 24.  And I think we need to do this without
> > alienating and polarizing people.
> >
> > I think the art event planned for next week is wonderful because it is
> > independent of CNN ("all anthrax all the time" as x says).  How much
> > tabling do we have the resources to support, week in and week out at
both
> > unions?  How many other "vigils" like the Quaker sponsored ones on
Monday
> > and Friday can we organize and support?  A few people here and there all
> the
> > time is far more effective than poorly attended rallies held in response
> to
> > ill defined emergencies.
> >
> > I'm not saying all of our rally activities to date have been ineffective
> or
> > poorly attended... far from it!  But organizers who can help to channel
a
> > spontaneous response from the people with a rally will be far more
> effective
> > than organizers who attempt to drum up a response.
> >
> > I think we need to refine our approaches:  hold rallies that are well
> > planned and/or responsive to a clear need; work with education and
> outreach
> > to see that tables are planned and manned, ummm... personed; organize in
> the
> > community around people who may want to respond to the war with peaceful
> > activity, but could give a rats ass regarding abstruse economic issues
> like
> > G8 summits.  Want to educate these people?  Give them time and good
> > examples.
> >
> > Comments?  Thoughts?
> >
> > -x-
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: x
> > [mailto:x]On Behalf Of
> > x
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 11:35 PM
> > To: x
> > Cc: x
> > Subject: Re: [MAPC-coord] action, no action?
> >
> >
> > Aaaargh.
> >
> > Part of me says "If we have to ask whether we should hold an emergency
> > rally, we shouldn't hold it."
> >
> > The other part of me feels like a frog in a pot of water on the stove.
If
> > the heat is turned up gradually enough, the frog never knows when to
jump,
> > until it's too late.
> >
> > I realize that's not very helpful.  Anyone else have an opinion?
> >
> > x
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "x" <x>
> > To: <x>
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:34 PM
> > Subject: [MAPC-coord] action, no action?
> >
> >
> > > all (this is really a response to x's friday morning
> > > call to potential action/questions and x's friday
> > > night hey it looks like we should at least do a picket
> > > line sat afternoon emails):
> > >
> > > if we are going to do this tomorrow, as x is
> > > suggesting, i am out, as i have to work, but pls keep
> > > me posted, as i will then start the arts chain going.
> > > do we want same signs or more? x has sticks and i
> > > have cardboard, etc.
> > >
> > > i wonder if, and this is just a wonder, having even a
> > > picket when the action is not being well-publicized is
> > > a good idea. i know that there is much going on in
> > > this war, like all other us "actions" which is
> > > underwritten dramatically, and we need to call
> > > attention to it, however, folks are more likely to
> > > understand what we are calling for and call with us if
> > > it is of a dramatic nature. subjective nature, i
> > > suppose. as we all agreed at the last meeting, from
> > > here on out it is much more subjective than just the
> > > bombing beginning.
> > >
> > > regardless, i will pass the word if i hear back from
> > > more folks.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > x
> > >
> > > --- x <x> wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I'm back from work and the media coverage is
> > > > different than this
> > > > morning. This morning, TV had reported it as
> > > > "deploying ground troops."
> > > > Now the media is characterizing it as "a handful of
> > > > U.S. special forces."
> > > > Given that description, it looks like we do not need
> > > > to employ our
> > > > emergency response today. What a relief!  However, I
> > > > think we need to
> > > > be READY if troops are sent in. Given the quick
> > > > nature in which this
> > > > may happen, I opt for planning our strategy now so
> > > > we don't have to
> > > > scramble later. I think a picket line would be the
> > > > most expedient course,
> > > > especially given the fact that we've already had
> > > > numerous
> > > > rallies. Also, a picket line is a lot less work to
> > > > organize than a rally.
> > > > Rallies involve amplification, multiple speakers,
> > > > musicians, etc. We would
> > > > need the following to be ready if we decide on a
> > > > picket line: press release,
> > > > press contacts, bullhorn or portable sound system
> > > > (or both), picket signs,
> > > > chant sheets, and MAPC literature. These tasks cross
> > > > over multiple
> > > > committees so I think we ought to decide now what we
> > > > want to do and
> > > > start preparing within the committees--then we won't
> > > > be in a crisis
> > > > mode later.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Peace,
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "x" <x>
> > > > To: <x>;
> > > > <x>
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:31 AM
> > > > Subject: [MAPC-coord] Re: [MAPC-action] 5pm Action
> > > > Protesting Ground Troops
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > CNN is reporting a small deployment of Special
> > > > Forces ground troops,
> > > > > probably intended to locate targets for air
> > > > strikes rather than to engage
> > > > in
> > > > > combat.  Fox News is reporting three teams of a
> > > > dozen troops each.  One of
> > > > > them reported that there had been numerous prior
> > > > sightings of U.S. troops,
> > > > > but that this was the first official confirmation.
> > > >  It's not the top story
> > > > > either place.
> > > > >
> > > > > My recollection from the CC discussions was that
> > > > an emergency response
> > > > would
> > > > > be automatic in the event of a non-Special Forces
> > > > ground invasion or a
> > > > > *major* deployment of Special Forces, but that a
> > > > small Special Forces
> > > > > deployment would not necessarily trigger an
> > > > emergency action.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would also note that, in the two hours since Rae
> > > > posted this, there has
> > > > > been no other discussion of an action on any of
> > > > the MAPC lists.  So I
> > > > don't
> > > > > get the impression that other folks in MAPC have
> > > > interpreted this as
> > > > > requiring immediate action.
> > > > >
> > > > > My own feeling -- perhaps influenced by the fact
> > > > that I'm sick and can't
> > > > > help out regardless -- is that this is not a
> > > > significant military
> > > > escalation
> > > > > and is probably just a public acknowledgment of
> > > > what has been happening on
> > > > > the ground all along.
> > > > >
> > > > > x
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "x" <x>
> > > > > To: <x>;
> > > > <x>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 7:53 AM
> > > > > Subject: [MAPC-action] 5pm Action Protesting
> > > > Ground Troops
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The media is saying that the US has sent ground
> > > > troops into Afghanistan.
> > > > > We
> > > > > > had planned on a 5pm action on the capitol in
> > > > response to this. I think
> > > > we
> > > > > > should go ahead, but given all the other things
> > > > we are doing, we should
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > it simple.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I propose we just have a picket line. The
> > > > following things need to be
> > > > > done:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Get an announcement out to WORT to build the
> > > > action.
> > > > > > Get a bullhorn.
> > > > > > Put together a sheet of chants.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, I am walking out the door to go
> > > > to work, so I can't help
> > > > on
> > > > > > this. Given the fact its a work day, I suspect
> > > > alot of other people are
> > > > in
> > > > > > the same boat. Can someone step up and run with
> > > > this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > x

Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:44 PM

Re: [MAPC-coord] action, no action?