others think that Bush is the exception and so state and act like that.

what's so difficult to wrap your mind around about this?

well said, Noodles.

SPLITIST

Geez Im redundant today. Ehat Im doing at work really does come out in what I post. Today its been documenting documentation.

DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING!

You'd probably pass through Provence! Mmmmm, goat cheese.

Er, anyway, what bugs me about these sort of protestors (aside my deeply-held suspicions that such activities are mostly to get a rise out of people than anything else, Sterling's comments notwithstanding) is no matter their professed political beliefs, they are very plainly not doing themselves or the antiwar movement any favors by taking such action. Political action is lagrely about strategy. Burn a flag in your backyard if you feel so strongly about it; if you're taking it to the streets, why not consider the effect of your actions in a broader context? (Also: for all their "revolutionary" rhetoric, I doubt any of these groups would even know how to start one.)

1. Fair is fair, etc., and it's up to those people to weigh the introduction of their other ideas against having maximum war-preventing efficiency.

2. It's possible that patchwork assemblies of a variety of different viewpoints that all agree on one thing are often more effective / convincing than organized, coherent movements that focus on reasonable, palatable arguments.

But I don't think that's what's called for, at present: this isn't necessarily a call for some groundswell social change, but rather an attempt to cut off a pretty concretely defined proposal to go to war. So I do -- perhaps selfishly -- get annoyed when people introduce ideas into the anti-war argument that will likely just make them less convincing to the American mainstream: they're speaking the truth they believe, I'm sure, but as Amateurist says there are some situations in which you're more likely to accomplish what you want by choosing your arguments more carefully.

the left are far too concerned with getting it right, or at least their version of right, having seen the horros of socialism gon wrong (Stalin Mao etc.) and will argue the toss about it for ever, encoraged by the right.

The right care about getting their guy, any guy, into power and then divvying it up. This why the UK conservatives are doing so badly because they have lost the focus on rampant power.

"We are going to rebuild this memorial, and it will be brighter, bigger and better than ever,' Chandler said.

Does it sound to anyone else like she's describing the final set for "Chicago" here?

Mmmm, I threw the "kill whiteys" in there kinda-jokey. Sorry if it seemed like I implied something like that...definitely not my intention.

She thinks Bush is a good president and thinks the good economy of the '90s was down to Republicans leaving everything in order for anyone else to fuck up.

Howard Stern:check
Sean Hannity:checkmate

No wonder the "left" tends to sympathize with the Palestinians, neither of them can get their shit together for more than a few hours at a time. Plus the 'whoever's losing' axiom.

Actually the behavior from both sides in this argument is thoroughly embarrassing to me. We should go ahead and get it over with so that people all over the world can stop making fools of themselves. Freedom Fries, listening to Chumbawumba play an acoustic set while standing in freezing weather, WTF PPL this is NOT HOW WE SHOWCASE SOLIDARITY FOR THE SAKE OF SOME FUCK.

A quick examination of the WP or NYT editorials page proves that intelligent discourse has been effectively weeded out of the American press by partyline showboats and stiffs who are too old to cold-call politicians anymore. Blogs are starring in the next production of a Chorus Line. The best part is that NOBODY CARES ANYMORE because who the fuck has time to read the news anyway (or would want to)?

I'm stopping before I get heavy. For the next seven minutes, a piano plays backwards.

The group dynamics of that type of outfit often encourage loud-mouthed show-ponies who are each forever promoting him/her self as the meanest, most committed, most radical, most daring bastard in the valley. They are fish who have found a pond the perfect size for themselves to look big in.

Such people, where they occur, crave the awe of their peers, and are utterly dedicated to their own ego. Someone with a longer, wider view may try to rein Mr Angry in, but in the mere attempt Mr Sensible is seen to be 'compromising' and 'selling out' and presenting himself as a target for Mr Angry to knock off to establish even more 'cred' among the gullible, until he stops making a nuisance of himself and sods off taking his minions with him and forming his own little cell of 'true believers'.

For publicity stunts, rampant ego and control-freakery, the Hollywood machine has little to contribute here.

But like Millar said above, if there was an actual unified Anti-War Movement, they would have issued a statement explaining this and denouncing those people already. I liked all of Millar's post quite a bit, actually.