first thank you for all the great e-mails on the post that went up thursday.
a few wondered why i didn't post friday since i took weds. off. i wasn't off weds. i was writing the thing that went up thursday. i saved it to draft. and on thursday, i was taking part in the community's special programming.
i really loved doing that, by the way.
i love that we can all come together like that and be this group of support.
and that we can do it with laughter because there was a lot of laughter during that.
eli wrote to say my line about 'no pledge drive' made him laugh. thank you, eli. it may not have been my line though. we were all pumped up when c.i. called to say there would be special programming. c.i. was willing to host it at the common ills and invite anyone over. c.i. wasn't sure how many would be interested in participating. when the number became obvious, it became a third estate sunday review thing. and dona said, 'rebecca, you'll be the only thing up until we get this special programming done' so i was really glad that i had that thing saved to draft and that it was so long.
not long enough for sherry who wrote that she'd read it and was waiting and ended up rereading it before the 1st half of special programming went up. but she loved the roundtable which was the 1st of the 2 special programming events.
i hope every1 got something out of it.
it was a long process and it took a great deal of time but i haven't heard any 1 gripe about that.
we were drained at the end and not everyone could do what i did, crawl into bed and sleep as late as you want. so i want to thank every 1 for being there.
and let me point out that was a thursday post. i know that every 1 would love it if there were entries at all the sites every day, several times a day.
that's not going to happen. i honestly wish c.i. would post less because i know the time constraints c.i. is under. but we all have lives and no 1's doing this to make money. we do this because we think we have something to say. if some 1 doesn't think they have something to say, they may not write that day.
but i think, as a whole, the community provides more than enough commentary each week. i think we did that this week because special programming covered a lot of topics.
why are so many on the left and 'left' silent about the war?
that's really something that disgusts me.
c.i.'s idea for 'war got your tongue' almost didn't get heard. everytime c.i. would attempt to explain it, 1 of us would have just got the title and start laughing. it's a great title.
as others have noted at their sites, that's 3 pieces we put together. like lennon and mccartney putting parts of their own stuff into 1 song. we did that due to time but i think the editorial turned out amazing.
we were actually done before we all hung up. but jim wanted to read it. aloud. to all of us.
when he was done, ty said 'i'm satisfied' and we all were.
there are things you do and you can take comfort that you tried. maybe it didn't turn out quite the way you expected but you gave it a try and didn't just sit there wishing some 1 else would do it.
then there are the things you do that turn out differently and you look at them and think, 'i'm not just proud that i took a stab at something, i'm proud of how it turned out.'
that's how i feel about the editorial.
to me, it speaks to the issue that a large number of people have stood up but a larger number has stayed silent. why?
why do they stay silent?
are they afraid that if they took a stand, they'd lose readers. if they came out for the war or against it, they might lose readers?
that's something to wonder about.
is it all about 'will i be liked?'
i think for some it is.
i have more respect for the war cheerleaders that mean it then i do for the 1s who never say anything.
and of course, i agree with the people speaking out against the war.
i don't think even a casual reader would ever get the impression that i was for the war.
but i think a casual reader of a lot of other sites, online mags, might wonder where they stood.
so, for instance, if you put 'politics' in your site title, you don't have an excuse for being silent on the war.
i don't think there's an excuse for not speaking out at this point. maybe if you're a reader and you're shy. but if you've got the guts to weigh in at your own site (blog or magazine) you should have the guts to have an opinion on the war.
it's not the supporters who keep it going at this point, it's the 1s who stay silent.
some supporters are actually starting to question it.
but the war will continue as long as 'good men do nothing.' that's from hannah arendt, i think. the quote section. it's about evil, i believe. i read it in 1 of elaine's posts and it stayed with me.
as long as good men and good women stay silent, the war goes on.
no end in sight because why end it when so many don't seem to care.
and if you're silent, that's how it reads: that you don't care.
there are times when all of us will let an issue slide in terms of posting because who has the time to cover everything? i know elaine will grab something or some 1 else so i'll focus on something different. but i've never been afraid to talk about the war. i've never been afraid to say that i'm against it.
i've written about it often.
now i started this site at a time when people were backing off from talking about it. the election had happened, the inauguration was about to or had just happened. tom hayden had a piece against the war that a supposed left site wouldn't run.
all the sudden we were supposed to just focus on other things.
i didn't buy that.
to me, the war is everything that is wrong with the bully boy.
1) people are dying and the 'compassionate conservative' doesn't care.
now he's comparing iraq to japan. he'll lie to justify his illegal actions.
2) when the government that we've installed comes to more power, life will be worse for women in iraq then it was before. we didn't liberate the women in afghanistan and we've made things worse for women's rights in iraq.
he is no friend to feminists. he's only a friend to women if you're a woman who has no self-respect.
3) we were lied into war.
this is about his refusal to address facts. he doesn't like facts. he likes spin. so he lies and manipulates.
4) the economy still sucks.
we've got the usual happy talk stories that it's better. in a month that'll be over. at christmas time the media always pushes that the economy has gotten better.
you don't get the big ads from department stores and companies if you're telling the truth about the economy, not when we're in the big shopping period.
and the war is 1 of the many excuses he offers for the bad economy. his decisions are why we're still in a bad economy.
5) the silencing of dissent.
without it, he'd have no war today. he pulled that trick from the start. he and his attack dogs think they can bully the whole country, the whole world.
the arrogance, the lies, the destruction, the attacks, it's all there in the war.
so that's why i couldn't be silent about the war.
i'm shocked that so many can.
but, if you watched the wizard of oz, you know that some believe courage, brains and hearts need to be handed out. we've got it all inside of us, if we choose to access it. most of us don't choose to. i don't know who we think our silence helps?
isn't it funny that bernie has nothing of value to offer the world today but he does have the time to bully kat?
isn't it funny that his site can claim poor little bernie had no way to be heard which is a big fat lie because kat had offered to post his whiney crap at her site if he'd write something.
maybe bernie should stop trying to bully women and figure out where he stands on the war?
or are the attacks on anti-war voices like kat and bright eyes supposed to tell us where bernie stands?
bernie's priority is apparently bernie. people dying doesn't upset him. some woman not kissing his ass does. it's all about bernie.
well bridget may have loved bernie, but no 1 in this community does.
he can continue writing his whiney ass, sniveling sucks ups to the new republic and being useless.
now bernie would say 'i don't suck up to the new republic! i wrote my disagrement with them!'
bernie's not real smart apparently.
he doesn't seem to grasp that when he highlights the new republic and links to them and then delivers his kid gloves treatment he's endorsing them.
he's chosen to take seriously a rag that's declared war on peace activists and thinks 'jokes' about arundhati roy being targeted with bunker busts are okay.
any 1 who was outraged by that b.s. wouldn't be highlighting the rag.
he's like a man defending his best friend who beats his wife with 'only when he's drunk. he only does it when he's drunk.'
oh, okay, that's different then.
it probably hurts her a lot less then too, since he'd drunk. right?
there is no difference.
that rag became a rag under the right-wing of the 80s and they still practice their bullshit attacks. there's no difference between the new republic and bill o'reilly except some people think that the new republic is 'high brow.'
they are both bullies. they are both disgusting.
and people are tired of it.
i was so glad to see the community rise up against bernie.
the round-robin friday made me proud to be a part of this community. the work we did at the third estate sunday review thursday made me proud to be a part of this community. what could have been a very destructive moment became a really inspirational 1 for me.
i think that's the lesson in the world we live in now. you stand together on your beliefs and you find strength.
