rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:15 am**

I thought we need a place where we can recognize those who have decided it's better to resist than to knuckle under, better to speak out than be silent, better to risk defeat by perilous action than be sure of defeat by doing nothing. Here's my first nominee. You go, Tony Palumbo! == Site / Archives Web Tamara Dietrich Tamara Dietrich Email this story Printer friendly format Search archives Recent Columns A patriot crashes the party Oct 29, 2005 Convicts: Out of sight, out of mind Oct 27, 2005 Right, time to bear arms not the same Oct 25, 2005 Closure may prove elusive Oct 15, 2005 * Home o About Us * News o Peninsula South of James Williamsburg Middle Peninsula Obituaries Columnists Virginia Nation/World Special Projects * Opinion o Today's Views Post Your Views Opinion Columns News Columns Sports Columns Life Columns Submit Letters Submit Feedback * Sports o Local Columnists National Stats, Scores, More Racing Fantasy Racing Fishing Report Find Local Courses * Business o Local National News Tech News Your Money Local Stocks Advertiser Index * Entertainment o Local Today's Events Main Events Search Events Restaurants Music/Clubs Museums Movies TV Listings * Life o Life Today Columnists Travel Gardening Dating Health Special Occasions Comics & More * Classifieds o All ads Sales & Deals Personals Homes Apartments Jobs Cars * Site Index o Register Newsletters Customer Service Contact Us Advertiser Index White & Yellow Pages * Obituaries Eastern Virginia Title Company William E. Wood & Associates A patriot crashes the party Published October 29 2005 The most patriotic element of George Bush's speech in Norfolk on Friday morning wasn't the flags on the big "Strategy for Victory" sign behind the podium. It wasn't the backdrop bleachers artfully decorated with warm bodies in military uniforms. It was the moment early on when a man stood up in Chrysler Hall, yanked open his shirt to expose his "Dump Bush" T-shirt in full view of shocked members of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network seated nearby and cried, "War is terrorism! Torture is terrorism!" before he was hustled out by security people. "That was me," says Tom Palumbo, anti-war activist and, now, presidential party-crasher. "I think maybe he heard me. I know he looked befuddled." So ... Bush's cone of silence can be cracked. An "invitation-only," meticulously scripted, rah-rah presidential appearance can be infiltrated by a lone punman who thinks it's that important for our tone-deaf leader to "hear the other side." How did a noisy peacenik like Palumbo make it past security? Simple, he says: "I had a ticket." He got it by calling Rep. Thelma Drake's office, which referred him to the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce, which had invited Bush to speak. The chamber gave Palumbo a ticket, no questions asked. "Why wouldn't they give it to me, let me ask you?" Palumbo says - a fair question in a democracy constitutionally committed to free and vigorous debate at all levels of government. In a real American democracy, whenever the president speechifies to the public, the doors would be flung open to all citizens. True, those citizens might be X-rayed and frisked, but they wouldn't be vetted according to their personal or political views first. But it's not so fair a question in this new age of fear-mongering - an age excruciatingly laid out in Bush's warmed-over speech about how radical Islamism is this generation's Communism, or the Red Scare of the 21st century. Bush has used this speech several times in the past month, with no sense of irony or appreciation that the Red Scare unbridled also gave us Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, the loyalty oath, the blacklist, duck-and-cover, backyard bomb shelters, mass hysteria masquerading as patriotism and civil liberties in a stranglehold. Certainly terrorism is a threat. So is a pandemic. So is smoking. So is poverty, environmental ravages, federal disaster relief as oxymoron, corporate excesses, indicted White House aides and the public's confidence in its own chief public servant in free fall. These threats, however, got no mention Friday. Instead, we heard about Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Even about Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. About "facing a radical ideology with unalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world." About "exposed and disrupted 'nucular' programs" and "cold-blooded contempt for human life." About the "rage of killers" and "evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us ... working in deadly earnest to gain them." Boo. Bush also berated tyrants who "seek to end dissent in every form," which brings us back to Palumbo. After Palumbo exposed his politics in Chrysler Hall, Secret Service agents grabbed him by the arms and shoulders and escorted him outside. He didn't resist. They didn't force the issue. They turned him over to local police, who asked who he was, what he said and how he got his ticket. He was fully prepared for arrest, but the police saw no need. Before they let him go, they took his picture. "I smiled," Palumbo says, "and gave them the peace sign." The man is too savvy to believe Bush's speech would have been anything but what it was. But he insists that if Bush "had said we were bringing the troops home, I wouldn't have said anything. If he'd said, 'We're funding our schools,' I would've stood up and given him a standing O." Instead, he says, the speech was the same old "fear-based mentality." "And if we're operating out of fear," Palumbo says, "all we're going to do is shoot into the dark." Friday was the first time he's breached the white tower. Even if he was thrown out on his activism, he counts it a success. "Absolutely," Palumbo says. "He's delusional if he believes that the American people support him in this venture. If it takes a citizen like me to stand up ... If we didn't throw teabags off the ship, we'd still be under British rule." Funny how our George can makes us nostalgic for that George, and wonder if it's too late to get those tea bags back. Tamara Dietrich can be reached at tdietrich@dailypress.com or at 247-7892.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:05 pm**

"those who have decided it's better to resist than to knuckle under, better to speak out than be silent, better to risk defeat by perilous action than be sure of defeat by doing nothing." first to my mind: Eugene V Debs

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2005 5:46 pm**

Dolores Ibarruri, dubbed "La Passionara" by her supporters during the Spanish Civil War, who once said "It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees." book: Ibarrui, D. (1966). They Shall Not Pass: The Autobiography of La Passionara. New York: International Publishers. I found the book in a library once, it was a good read. The Spanish loyalists strugle against franco is worth looking into.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2005 5:59 pm**

Conquering fear of the illusion of death is the key. An illusion ingrained into your psyche by those who control you. Those who insist that all there is , is the here and now, so you gotta "grab it while you can". Cui Bono, in terms of people fighting people, aspiring for material gains , whilst conveniently getting themselves strapped up beyond their pituitary glands in debt ? Yummy yummy go the interest merchants. Stand up for whats right. As a fellow poster recently told me, better to live a year like a lion than a lifetime like a sheep. Baaaaa <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> "Im not a prophet or a stoneage man, Just a mortal with potential of a superman " - David Bowie - Quicksand.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:27 pm**

...not historical ones. Prosecutors like Pat Fitzgerald and Ronnie Earle, definitely. Cindy Sheehan. Reps. John Conyers, Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich. Journos Robert Fisk, Frank Rich, Keith Olbermann, Bill Moyers, and the venerable, unintimidatable, insilenceable Helen Thomas.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:55 pm**

"THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING REASONABLE ABOUT SELF CENSORSHIP DURING A TIME OF RISING FASCISM." Writing in an Age of Terror A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION by David Swanson Remarks delivered at National Writers Union conference in Philadelphia, October, 29, 2005, opening forum with Ed Herman, Danny Schechter, and Linn Washington, on "Writing in an Age of Terror." * * * Obviously, if this really were an age of terror, an age in which we were all terrorized, there would be no writing. You can't write if you're terrorized. I mean, you can, but your writing will have all the clarity of a campaign speech by John Kerry, or all the relevance of the election-year literature produced by the AFL-CIO, which refused to acknowledge that there was a war in Iraq. Every serious article about U.S. or global politics that pretends there is no war in Iraq is an example of writing in an age of terror. Every article that pretends the war is not a blatant violation of international law and a crime against humanity is an example of writing in an age of terror. But that sort of writing, during other wars, predates the commandment from Bush to feel terrorized. What's new about writing in this age, I think, stems from the rule that you must be either with or against the anti-terror crusaders being led by George W. Bush. You must be with Bush or with the terrorists. What seems possibly new from this is an increased unwillingness on the part of those opposed to Bush's policies to openly say so, or to say so without all sorts of qualifications. The progressive PR firm Fenton Communications in March 2003 published a book of tips for "navigating media in wartime," which began "DON'T bash Bush. 2 out of 3 Americans approve of Bush's handling of the confrontation with Saddam Hussein. In times of war -- especially the early stages -- the public's instinct is to stand behind its leader. You won't win any allies by alienating yourself with harsh attacks." Now, of course, 2 out of 3 Americans disapprove of Bush's war, but Fenton hasn't really changed its tune. In fact, everybody's singing from the same hymnal. Another progressive organization called Demos released a set of "[Hurricane] Katrina Talking Points" some weeks back that included this: " Keep the conversation in a 'reasonable mode.' Appeal to people across political ideology. This means avoiding sharp, rhetorical language about political parties, politicians, etc. Stay away from discussing particular people who are to be blamed. This is very important. When highly political, partisan or ideological images are triggered people revert to their own traditional identifications and positions and stop 'hearing' a more reasonable discussion about government and its purposes." There is absolutely nothing reasonable about self-censorship during a time of rising fascism. The right wing does not self-censor in this way, and it has not worked for Democrats over the course of my lifetime. It's not a new approach. But what strikes me as new is the degree to which ordinary activists are all modeling themselves as amateur PR strategists and all parroting the self-defeating centrist talking points put out by the people paid for that service. You can go to strategy meetings of liberal activist groups of any size, from the largest coalitions to the tiniest small-town gathering, and the discussion will focus on properly framing the message so as to appeal to those who completely disagree with us. And that framing of the message will not be about persuading people to change their minds so much as it will be about censoring parts of our message so as not to offend them. The corporate media should get a pile of blame for this. The way it shuts out voices and labels positions as unacceptable is not just manufacturing consent. It's manufacturing a million little manufacturers who go out and spread the gospel, who nominate unelectable candidates because the media said they were the electable ones, and who ultimately are speaking and writing from a place of fear and terror. The question for us is not how we can write better in an age of terror, but how we can write ourselves and others into a realization that this is not an age of terror, that many many people are not scared, that a majority of us oppose Bush, oppose his war, and want to see him impeached over it, and that no matter how radical the message framers tell us that is, it is still majority opinion and we still must write about it without any fear, with complete honesty, without any modification for alleged broader appeal. Emerson said "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men [and women], -- that is genius." Conversely, then, to believe that others cannot handle your thoughts must be idiocy. That means that if you believe a war is wrong because little Arab children get their limbs ripped off, you should write that. You don't have to write that it's wrong because some veterans now oppose it. You can and should write that if that's what you believe, but I'm not convinced that we stop enough and ask ourselves what we believe.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:59 pm**

...and I don't think he does it himself, the Big Dog is certainly right about his party: "Democrats can't be afraid to talk about hot-button issues, including abortion, and should fight back against personal attacks from conservatives if they want to regain power in Washington, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday. "You can't say 'Please don't be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.' Give me a break here," Clinton said. "If you don't want to fight for the future and you can't figure out how to beat these people then find something else to do." "

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:19 am**

...who tried to warn people that BushCo was leading the US into war on bogus grounds. Alas, Scott is getting a bit fed up with the inert mass of sheeple who make up the electorate, in his article on the Libby indictment he wrote: "If the American people go along with such blatant attempts at obscuring the reality of the criminal conspiracy that has been committed, then it is perhaps time we finally lay to rest this experiment we call American democracy." Doesn't anyone besides me have heroes who aren't dead? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":(">

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:02 am**

Ole Willy was smart enough to know how to do well in Liberal politics, how to centralize, he was also smarter than to go off-script. Notice when he got his slap on the wrist, he didn't go to his family, he went to the bankers. Slick Willy was there the day that they shot his boy hero Kennedy(himself no saint), he knows better than to talk about anything that is relevant.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:57 pm**

...Marchetti, etc. And the other authors who've reported on the secret government by atrocity we live under like L. Fletcher Prouty, William Blum, Peter Dale Scott, Mae Brussell, Mark Lane. Arming the masses with information to defend themselves against the elite is a moral act of epic proportion. Using that info to stand up to power and shame them publicly is a whole other category of courage.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:10 pm**

Read her speech on winning the Sydney Peace Prize <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Roys-full-speech/2004/11/04/1099362264349.html">www.smh.com.au/news/Opini...64349.html</a> or her short book on the Narmada Dams development in India <a href="http://www.narmada.org/gcg/gcg.html">www.narmada.org/gcg/gcg.html</a> from sydney speech.. "...I speak of Iraq, not because everybody is talking about it, (sadly at the cost of leaving other horrors in other places to unfurl in the dark), but because it is a sign of things to come. Iraq marks the beginning of a new cycle. It offers us an opportunity to watch the Corporate-Military cabal that has come to be known as 'Empire' at work. In the new Iraq the gloves are off. As the battle to control the world's resources intensifies, economic colonialism through formal military aggression is staging a comeback. Iraq is the logical culmination of the process of corporate globalization in which neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism have fused. ..." I'd marry her tomorrow but she's prob got more sense.

rigorousintuition.ca

Hero/ines of the Resistance!

Hero/ines of the Resistance!

Re: Hero/ines of the Resistance!

here's one of the Heroines of the Resistance!

Re: here's one of the Heroines of the Resistance!

Actually I was thinking of CURRENT heroes...

Another hero!

And while he's not my hero...

And another hero, Scott Ritter...

b

All the ex-CIA whistleblowers: Agee, Stockwell, McGehee

Arundhati Roy