Sorta Dumb
It's good that tens of thousands have showed up in Washington D.C. Saturday to protest the war.
But you gotta ask yourself, just how big are the rocks in the heads of the protest organizers? You can hardly blame the media for thrusting Jane Fonda into the lead of nearly every piece on the protests if you're the lunkhead who decided to feature her on the speakers' dais. Isn't that why celebrities are exploited in this manner in the first place? To attract the media (unless you think Fonda is some sort of great policy wonk).
Just as senseless, the spokesperson the rally organizers sent out to do the media rounds this past week was co-chair Judith Le Blanc, a representative of the Communist Party USA. Personally, I don't give a whit that someone's in the CP-- just means to me they have abandoned all critical thought and...that they represent next to nobody.
But what's the greater strategy here? At the precise moment when Republican Senators are speaking up against the war, when active duty military are organizing and showing up at the rallies, so on and so on, why do you elevate a CP hack, Fonda, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover to highest visibilty? WTF? Are these really the people we need now to convince those still wavering that the war needs to be ended?
There, were, fortunately some active duty troops who were given a spot on the speakers' platform today. They were overshadowed by coverage of Fonda, who most young people know only as the star in the horrible movie Monster-in-Law.
Why do such overtly dumb decisions get made? Maybe someone can explain it to me because, frankly, I give up trying to fathom what's in the head of these folks.
P.S. According to one web site, here is the list of speakers, published before the event. More were probably added at the last minute to satisfy aggrieved constituencies). I have drawn a line through those I would have scratched. And I have bold-faced those to whom I would havegiven the microphone.
Mayor Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City, UT
Moriah Arnold, 12-year-old sixth grader from Harvard, MA
Carlos & Melida Arredondo, Gold Star Families for Peace
Medea Benjamin, founder of CodePink: Women for Peace
Clayola Brown, Vice-President, UNITE-HERE
John Brown, former State Department diplomat
Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator, United for Peace and Justice
David Cline, Veterans For Peace
Representative John Conyers (D-MI)
Felicia Eaves, Black Voices for Peace
Eve Ensler, playwright
Noura Erakat, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
Jane Fonda, actress, author
Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women
Umuna Ghismay, Peoples’ Hurricane Relief Fund
Danny Glover, actor/activist
Reverend Graylon Hagler, Plymouth Congregational Church, Washington, DC (Maybe)
Jonathon Hutto, active-duty member of the U.S. Navy
Reverend Jesse Jackson, RainbowPUSH Coalition
Raed Jarrar, Iraq Project Director at Global Exchange
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Judith LeBlanc, National Co-Chair, United for Peace and Justice
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun Magazine
Liam Madden, active-duty member of the U.S. Navy
George Martin, National Co-Chair, United for Peace and Justice
Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action
Fred Mason, AFL-CIO
Andrew Murray, Stop the War Coalition UK
Michael O’Gorman, Farms Not Arms
Jesselyn Radack, former Justice Department official
Garett Reppenhagen, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Tim Robbins, actor/activist
Josh Ruebner, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
Susan Sarandon, actor/activist
Khalidah Shabra, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
Susan Schaer, Women's Action for New Directions
Eleanor Smeal, Feminist Majority
Bishop Walter Sullivan, Pax Christi
Bob Watada, father of Lt. Ehren Watada, first officer to refuse deployment to Iraq
Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Randi Wilson, National Youth and Student Peace Coalition (Maybe.. depends on who/what this coalition is)
Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Ann Wright, retired Army Colonel, former State Dept. diplomat
(Of course, even this shortened list is way too long. The reason that people don't listen to the speeches at rallies is that there are always too many of them and too many from absolute non-representative nobodies. How about cutting the above list to 5? Who are the 5 you would choose if that all is you were allowed?).
PPS. Just picked up my day-after Sunday edition of the L.A. Times. It's local edition and different than the web so I'm not linking to it.
There's no headline today, instead a big above-the-fold pic from the anti-war demo with Fonda, Robbins and Sarandon --all wearing sunglasses-- prominently in the foreground.
The bold-faced title of the picture reads: Actors and Actvists.
The lede sentence: "Jane Fonda, in tan coat, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins among 100,000 protesters who converged on the National Mall in Washington."
I think my point has been made. Push Fonda and the celebrities forward and watch the media follow-suit. Sorta dumb, as I said yesterday.
January 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I’m not sure I disagree…..but……is anything you said above important at all in the grand scheme of things? I mean, why do you care about who organized it – its not like it was ANSWER? And it is the media focusing on Fonda, Penn, etc. – most speakers have been activists, politicians (you’ll pardon me if I trust Jane Fonda over Democrats) and yes, active duty servicepeople.
What was the point of posting that, if not to literally rain on a parade, with a touch of redbaiting? I don’ mean this to at all insult you or “euston-bait” you, but what is the point of giving the right that material about Judith LeBlanc? Is it important?
January 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Marc, as I noted below, John Aravosis on AMERICABLOG made the same point today (he was a little stronger – called the speaker at the time an “Idiot”). But he did go into one of the whys and it went to his experiences in Gay Pride Rallys. What to do with the Transgendered among them. Shoud they show up in drag or not? It was hard for the organizers to say “no”. I suspect that it was hard to say “No” to Fonda or Robbins and, frankly, they’re not the problem. Everybody uses celebrities – that’s our society. The CP person is more troubling but, as John points out, the real problem is the need to be “inclusive” – hence the “Free Mumia” and other special interest crowds. THIS WAS ABOUT IRAQ! I don’t give a damn if Jane or Susan talks about that. I do care that every cause under the sun gets its ten minutes of Demo fame. But then, as I’ve said before, I don’t expect much from these gettogethers so I’m not disappointed.
January 27th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
You know, Cummings, I going to admit the worst thing I can do in this position. i.e. this time you really made me ANGRY.
WHY did I comment on this,as you ask? Because Im a thinking, person who cares about this running a public blog on the left. If Im not allowed to muse out loud about greater political strategy of the peace movement then you better hang it up.
Im also FURIOUS with you about your crack about a “tinge of red-baiting.” What the fuck does that mean? because someone is dumb enough to join the cpusa this now exempts from mention of that fact? Would u think it relevant if the major organizers of the demo were say members of the DNC or the DLC?
red-baiting, just so you know, young man, means when you try to smear an entire movement by associating it with communists or subversives. Im not doing that. And I demand you retract your thoughtless crack. If anything UPFJ is opening itself up to red-baiting by thrusting forward as its public spokesman a member of a CP that represents about.01% of the American population.
I didnt give the right the info about Le Blanc you dunderhead. It’s public information put forward by UFPJ. If you think there’s a problem with that, then send your complaints to the CP and UFPJ. What an utterly stupid complaint you lodge.
Why dont you friggin deal with the substance of what I said? And by the way, you ought to damn well care who organizes mass protests in the name of a cause you associate yourself with.
Man, Im ever tired of this debate. You love the peace movement as is? Great! Cuz it’s gonna be around for a long time at this rate.
January 27th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Nice comment RLC. I think that gets us closer to the problem.
BTW, as a former organizer of these sort of demos, including one where we invited Fonda (in 1969), you can say no.
The bigger problem is exactly what you say: they are activist/organizer focused events instead of audience/focused events. Instead of worrying about including the greatest number of audience, they worry about including the greatest number of themselves! The sad part is that no one ver seems to learn.
Bottom line: putting aside the whining and sectarian accusations of cumings and co. it’;s just too bad that this moment wasnt taken advantage of to stage an event that acknowledged the growing costintuency of the anti-war movement rather than dredging up, for the umpteenth time, the same old tired cast of usual suspects. Jesse Jackson?
January 27th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Gee Marc I’m worried. We agree. Where did I go wrong!
January 27th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I’m afraid all of the mercury in the seafood he’s been eating has taken a toll on Marc’s central nervous system!
Who is “still wavering” on the war (besides useless Dems)?
The celebs (you forgot Sean Penn) are there to attract MSM attention AND because they can more or less eloquently state the disgust for this war that over 70% of americans feel.
Hopefully, some of your blog-buddies will try to explain to you the concept of solidarity, the need to put ideological differences aside for the greater good etc.
Besides, I’m surprised that someone who supports the US war on Afghanistan would criticize todays rally on purely tactical grounds. Can you say with complete certainty (within the limits of your mercury-ravaged CNS) that you are against the Iraq war?
January 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Thank you for your 100% predictable and pedestrian comment Mr Watters. How much do you charge for tutoring on solidarity? I imagine I could learn a lot from you.
When you have a spare moment out from your instruction, take a peek in the mirror. Then you will be able see with your own eyes why the American Left is such an irrelevant force. Solidarity Forever!
And in case anyone asks, I think the CPUSA is a glorious organization. And being affiliated with it in 2007 makes more sense than ever.
January 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Couldnt agree mmorew with you Marc.
Im so sick of our society that seems to think that these clebs in some way have the handle on whats going on in the hearts and minds of teh AVERAGE American. We dont need them to tell us how we feel about the way.
What is wrong with these organizers? Have they been hijacked by Hollywood?
Get real, people. And get real people.
January 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Woh,
I agree with Marc, this march could be a boomerang, very, incredible, silly to put as speaker somebody from the PC . Also, about the celebrities, in the sixthy ( i was not born) i read that John Lennon was one of the key of the movement, but we are talking about John Lennon, the celebrities/activitist are more than a joke, c`mon Fonda and Tim Robbins, where they were at the beginning of this nightmare???
January 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I tried to ask a question. I didn’t think that should make you furious.
Re Redbaiting. I said a “tinge” meaning no, you didn’t try to slam the whole demo, but you commented on a media spokesperson not by dint of her qualifications or lack thereof, but on the basis of her membership in the communist party.
I actually agreed, as I noted, with much of what you had to say. What I meant about propriety and “The right” is that you pout yourself in a position of allowing folks to say “even antiwar leftist Marc Cooper said…..” In other words, I disagree philosophically with the notion that it matters at all.
The substance of what you said comes in second to the overall tone of criticism, which call me a Stalinist, but I’ll say is “a serious mistake” just as the public discourse – and liebral/left discourse is being set – and you can call me JohnFordist when I’ll say that the “legend” is more important than the fact.
In other words, as a public left blogger -and one who has a history of, from even before the wr, slamming the peace movement – and no one doubts your sincerity – you help set the overall discourse as to whether a) the protests were historic events b) the protests were nothing important or c) the protests were hijacked by Jane Fonda and the Hollywood left, not to mention COMMIES.
What is important, today, is that the big picture is honored, in my opinion. And furthermore, the peace movement will be here for a while. I don’t think anyone has illusions any more about the war ending – in fact its gonna expand. But vocal opposition will be here for this entire “multigenerational” struggle. And I’m not saying “go with the movement you have,” I’m saying get on the UFPJ committee and make your views known.
Sorry to take up so much space, but hey, I bore the brunt of a cyber-lecture for asking a question.
January 27th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Oh – and Jesse Jackson is VERY respected in many quarters. I’d agree somewhat with whether it was intelligent to include Jane Fonda – but Jesse Jackson is a fine orator and someone fitting the event.
January 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
ZZZZZZZ.
Accusing me of a tinge of red baiting, of asking public questions better left unasked, of handing some valuable secret info to the Sinister Right is “hardly just asking a question.”
Let’s cut thru all this crap and say it one sentence: It’s pathetic that the organizers of today’s peace rally chose to put the face of a has-been and baggage carrying washed up celeb and the voice of a CP hack over an and above of that of more mainstream characters including active-duty GI’s. Sorry, bud, but that’s just a simple and IRREFUTABLE truth .
All it means to me is that 20 or 30 full time activists who man the tedious meetings that put these things together are blind to greater strategic interests and much more interested in promoting themselves and their mini-platforms. Further, most are so cut off and isolated from real world politics that they dont even know the first thing about breaking into it, not even when their ideas are temporarily popular.
Jesse Jackson is a tired old war horse who will soon be out whinnying for Hillary, the same way he did for Clinton, Gore and Kerry, He’s irrelevant to almost everyone under 40 and long ago burned up any credibilty as an independent force.
The day in December 1998 that Bill Clinton launched air attacks on Iraq, Rev. Jackson came out on the Capitol Steps and held a protest rally in FAVOR of Clinton because his victimization as a sexual predator was more important to Jackson than his role as perpetrator of undeclared war against Iraq.
As to Ms. Le Blanc: Now, if I were a CP member, and if I were on the Steering Committee of the UFPJ and someone nominated me to be co chair or spokesperson, no less in the year 2007 (!), I would have the brains and humility and the cleverness to decline the nomination in favor of some nice acceptable liberal that I could maybe influence. But, nah. As I said, a lot of this is about ego and self-identity being more important than political results. What difference anyway does it make to a CPer if they attract mass support or not? They spend their entire lives in meetings of 10 people — they’re used to their isolation. It reaffirms their purity.
January 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
RLC:
“I don’t expect much from these gettogethers”.
I’m afraid that these gettogethers are our only hope. The Dems and Repubs are Not speaking up against the war as our mercurial moderator claims – they’re speaking up against the proposed escalation.
When the number of people attending anti-war rallies reaches threshold, the politicians will have no choice but to ignore their financial sponsors and pull the plug.
Now, if you’re too troubled by the guy standing next to you at the rally wearing a ‘free Mumia’ t-shirt, or at some point you begin to get the vague feeling that this is one of those activist/organizer focused events (as opposed to the far more preferable audience/focused events), or you didn’t like Jane Fonda’s latest movie, or you’re upset by all the Hollywood libral speakers, or you’re
disturbed by the ideological leanings of one of the organizers, then you probably are not opposed to the war sufficiently to engage in this sort of protest.
Go home and do whatever it is that wimps do…
January 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
“You can Hardly blame the media…” Hmm… Ya know, somehow, if I really give it the old college try… I CAN blame the media for this, and the relentless dumbing down of the just about any issue.. I can also blame others all too cooperative in letting them do it.
Jesse Jackson has a lot of faults( and good points too), it’s ammusing what pushed him over the line: he supported Clinton against the Coulter/Hitchens push to reverse the election of 1996 by any means nessesary. Sorry, there was a healthy slice of McCarthyism on the Ken Starr desert tray, and some of us remember who ordered seconds.
But I’m open minded… Would you have felt better if it was Ani Difranco, Brad and Anglea, The Dixie Chicks, and Oprah?
January 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Yes it is “just asking a question.” I didn’t accuse you of anything, I asked why you wrote something that appeared subjectively, to me, as questionable.
I lthink the problem is mitigated by your addition, because you make affirmative points. I like what you added to the post, by the way. Raed Jarrar though should not have been x’d out…Why not an Iraqi?
We probably share the critique that hte movement makes a mistake by orienting itself far too much towards the Democratic party. I doubt Jackson will “whinny” for Hillary though I do agree with your critique of him – but in terms of simple oratory quality, he is one of the greats.
January 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Yes. Jackson is a great orator. I remember being on the floor of the 1996 Democratic National Convention and being dumbfounded and what an excellent job Jackson did in convincing the delegates to applaud Clinton for abolishing the federal safety net. It was one of the most polished, and cynical, performances I have ever seem.
January 27th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I didn’t even know the CPUSA still existed, but then so do the DeLeonites. The folks that organize these marches are the true believers, operating out of the same kind of strange faith as motivates those who stand up holding the Watchtower. People who happen to think that the war has been poorly run or was imprudent in the first place, but neither think they have discovered the science of history nor live for the hate in their hearts don’t have the devotion or obsession to sit through the endless meetings and the rest of the mind-numbingly boring stuff that goes into organizing one of these events.
I don’t have a dog in this particular fight, but the organizers’ choice of speakers and PR people (which flows from the aforementioned obsessions) should make it easy for Michelle Malkin to post her usual photo of the “tinfoil hat brigade.”
BTW, the turnout for the recent pro-life rally was apparently far larger than for this shindig, although the former was pretty much invisible in the press, or so they say.
January 27th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
So, you would have handed John Conyers the mic. Last summer, he convenes impeachment proceedings in the basement of the Capitol.
Now that the Dems are in power, he declares, along with Pelosi, that impeachment is off the table.
Those Dems sure can talk the talk
January 27th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Marc, you lined out 26 of the 43 listed speakers, which is 3 our of 5. A movement is known not only by what it says but by who says it and what their positions on other issues say about them. I think that nuts, communists, and Hollywood wackos are ideal speakers for such a protest and that there should have been more of them on the platform speaking.
January 27th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Marc:
I also remember the 1960s, fighting off the repeated attempts by the draft board to reclassify me 1A, all that stuff, and I don’t remember the period as any kind of victory for the left. What I do remember is the left getting obsessed with police brutality against the Century City marchers and the Chicago protesters, an inward turning to all kinds of competing utopian fantasies, and the general derision of the populace. It was only when the normal people got involved — the lawyers and house wives and middle class conformist types, perhaps brought along by their draft-age children and the fifty thousand dead — that the country became seriously antiwar. The moratorium march in Boston had upwards of fifty thousand people, and a lot of them were middle aged suburbanites.
The point that a realistic antiwar movement should have been making is that the people in the center are now seriously antiwar. There is no new information in that list of “usual suspects,” and nobody is going to be surprised that Jane Fonda also opposes this war. It won’t change any minds. A more effective approach would be to feature people who wouldn’t be expected to oppose the war, but now do oppose it. One Republican congressman would trump that entire list, and one Democratic Senator who voted for the war originally would be second on my list if I were the organizer. Murtha and Webb would be prime choices.
There is a strong boredom coefficient in media coverage, and the Robbins – Sarandon — Fonda contingent leads the list. Show me new names representing traditionally pro-war groups and I will be a little more impressed. If they had held the protest in Atlanta or Birmingham or Dallas and gotten a big crowd, that would have been more newsworthy.
I think that is the point you are trying to make, or at least part of it. The other part is that featuring the crackpot fringe upfront (CPUSA and that ilk) does harm to the message that the movement ought to be making, and I think you make that point too.
Here is my analysis of the speaker list (and this view hasn’t changed much since 1967): The far left is opportunistic; in its fevered brain, it sees this war as an opportunity to move people left; in this sense, it sacrifices the more direct goal of antiwar activism, and makes that activism subservient to its higher goals, namely to recruit people to the far left. I saw it in the ’60s, and it’s not surprising to see it today. In the extreme form, leftist activists in the late ’60s pointed out that the war was a good thing (albeit in disguise) because it would radicalize the American people. The attitude was as unrealistic as it was grossly opportunistic. I sense some of the same attitude in this protest.
January 27th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Marc, I think you’re missing the main reason these protests are so top-heavy with speakers: because there’s no genuine, coherent anti-war policy with a strong grassroots movement behind it. On the far left, the anti-war argument is “All US troops out of the Middle East NOW”, and toward the political center, the anti-war argument is “Gradual draw-down of troops in Iraq with redeployment to neighboring countries to buffer against regional destabilization.” The latter is legitimate, while the former is, frankly, nihilistically unserious. But if the anti-war movement attempted to congeal around either one of those two poles, it would be about a tenth of the size of what we saw today. So instead, you get an adhoc, incoherent melange of fringe activists, relatively mainstream politicians and military members, thrown together with our reliably agitated celebrity protesters who don’t know their ass from their elbow.
Which is why, at the end of the day, Congress will almost surely end up ratifying some version of Bush’s surge, as questionable as it is. Not because it’s a good idea, but because on a level that’s almost cultural, psychic and generational, the anti-war movement will never galvanize around a sensible alternative.
January 27th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Bob.. Thanks for your cogent comments.
WJA: With all due respect, you haven’t a clue what your talking about. None. Turn the telescope around and take a gander at your side of this equation. Talk about a motley crew, a “coalition” of THE most discredited pack of pols possible (Bush, Cheney, Condi,) to presidential hopefuls like McCain who ought to know better but have engaged themselves in an opportunistic sewer. Congress is absolutely not going to coalesce aroundd Bush’s surge nor is anybody else. On the contrary.
At best Bush will get a cosmetic and very conditional acquiesence from Congress, and a very temporary one. Yes, Im a big critic of the Democrats and think them incapable of leadership. But let me tell you my friend, the Bush Consensus is 1) history and 2) a political loser.
Since 2001, what we might call the Bush Right has swaggered in the conviction that they represented real majorities. It’s qutie amusing now to watch folks like you who havent figured out that the tables have already turned politicallu and it’s you are in peril of being the real fringe. That grass roots movement you say doesnt exist in fact already flexed its muscle… it took the congressional majority away from y’all! LOL.
Have you seen the math yet for the 2008 congressional elections? The Presidential race could literally feature King Kong versus Godzilla but at the congressional level it’s a near certainty that the GOP will lose significantly more ground. If I were you I would be afraid, very afraid.
As to the anti-war movement: right-wingers generally know little about the world. They know even less about liberals and their movements.
January 27th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
The spectacle at the ANSWER style protest we saw today (anyone who has observed ANSWER has seen how they have perfected the style of mixing some legitimate speakers with a number of obscure figures, giving each 5 mins) has not been effective. It cannot be defended. The proof is in the pudding.
The anti-war movement enjoys more support now than it did in the height of the Vietnam days. Yet it is much more fringe.
The spectacle has more to do with activist narcissism and careerism. The goal for many of these hacks is not to stop the war, but to gain fame and a stage. They need face time to continue their careers as professional activists. A gig as a professional activist has its perks! Ass kissing from fans (some of them lunatics who are members of kooky sects like CPUSA) and if one gets big enough, lots of dough from colleges. Maybe even a book on an obscure imprint. Maybe even something in The Nation!
Careerism will obviously trump any logical political strategy that might undermined more face time. It is a cycle!
Engaged (or obsessed) folks like Mr. Cummings will defend and follow. The left will continue to wallow.
It is sad. Very sad. This awful war needs to end. The only thing sadder will be Hilary and Obama and the demise of Edwards.
January 27th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I also forgot that career activists usually get an interview on Democracy Now or something on Pacifica.
January 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Like it or not, the CPUSA is a major “player” in UFPJ. It’s devoted time, funds, and space to keeping UFPJ afloat. The CPUSA is hardly one of my favorite organizations, but I have no problem giving them credit where they deserve it. And I’ve met LeBlanc and she’s perfectly pleasant, doesn’t push her CP membership at public events of this sort, and works hard. So Marc is being Sorta Cranky.
More disturbing is that no representative of Arab, Arab-American or Muslim organizations spoke. I’m presuming some were asked. They’re on the receiving end of the “war on terror,” after all.
Oh, and it’s not that hard to find out about NYSPC: http://www.nyspc.net
January 27th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
We marched today in Los Angeles and were astounded that several Venezuelan flags and Chavez T shirts were prominent in the marchers! Talk about not being aware of the reasons for the protest!
January 27th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Re CPUSA: To back a losing horse until it dies is simply human nature. To continue to back a losing horse after it’s dead, however, takes an exceptional level of self-delusion.
January 27th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Enraged or obsessed?
All I’ll say is that
A) At least people here are debating tactics, thus agreeing that an antiwar movement is important.
b) On the question of using the antiwar movement to move people left (or using the left to move people to an antiwar position) it is not an either/or. I think that a fine line has to be achieved between asserting the economic factors that lead to the warfare state, and drawing in a broad coalition. But these numbers, combined with the unprecedented national antiwar sentiemnt – far more than during the mobe, render most criticisms here superfluous, even when I agree with them. No one is gonna start FAVORING the war because Jane Fonda spoke no matter how much they erroneously believe her to be a traitor…
January 27th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
On career activists….I guess that American tradition from John Brown onwards n is not important to Aemrican civic culture, right?
January 27th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Wow – was trying to get the list of 5 Marc requested at the end of his post…but just waded through so much crap I am brain dead!…wanting to see the 5 anyone might have selected….instead…I have never heard so much crap, and to hear about being a Red in 2007 I found quite funny to be honest…
Welllllll…having said that, and Marc does not need my affirmation, nor do we know each other in all reality, but I have to admit I agree with all of his replies, and yes who cares what I think, as I am almost never here, but needed to say that, at the least… again I do agree with Marc once again in all of his replies to you, so that spared me from answering those…
Soooo…. since no one took up the 5 person challenge from Marc, I will say this…I have no 5 favorites, but absolutely at the lowest level at least one I would have omitted — Jane Fonda — who was ALWAYS and still is, an illiterate political moron, forget what the right wing likes to call her…good old Hanoi Jane…to me she is just an ass, who’s only claim to fame politicaly was being married to…well we all know who…Tom Hayden.
…….that woman belongs in a Zoo and only feeds into the RW name calling which is almost justified by my take, to be honest…. the rest of the pack, …Robbins, Saradon, et al have their own problem based reality, but again and it is my own saw…Fonda should be euthanized, before speaking on any topic, let alone anyone giving her any real political credence…nay, better said, any credence on any topic!
January 27th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
WJA, with whom I seldom agree, wrote: “…at the end of the day, Congress will almost surely end up ratifying some version of Bush’s surge, as questionable as it is.”
In some sense, they already did: the Senate confirmed Petraeus *unanimously*. Now, if the Dems were serious about stemming this Surge, why didn’t they at least abstain from that vote, in protest?
“Not because it’s a good idea, but because on a level that’s almost cultural, psychic and generational, the anti-war movement will never galvanize around a sensible alternative.”
To those levels, you might add “semantic”, because it’s not even an anti-war movement, just a “Get the Hell Out Soon” movement. After all, our departure from Iraq wouldn’t necessarily end the war. It could leave (perhaps even directly yield) an even more lethal war, perhaps no longer confined to Iraq.
People ask, “How could Iraq be any worse?” Too bad Ryszard Kapuscinski is no longer alive to answer that question in the flesh. But it’s enough to read his books. There are many gradations of war, most of which he witnessed personally, many of which generate more carnage than we’ve seen so far in Iraq, while still falling short of Total War — of which he also had first-hand experience.
Bush has said that Iraq is a situation that his successor will inherit. I suspect he’s right. I also suspect that his successor, upon taking the oath of office, will still be quite a long way from getting the U.S. out.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:43 am
I would like to see some accurate crowd figures for the Washington march, because if the “tens of thousands” I have seen in media reports is correct then that is pathetic. On the other hand I saw one estimate of 400,000 which would be much better. My point is that both Democrats and the Bush administration will take note of this. If the turnout was disappointing–anything under several hundred thousand would indicate to me that most antiwar Americans are not willing to go to the trouble–then it emboldens Bush in his obstinacy and the Democrats in their determination to be over cautious. So what was it? A resounding success with numbers greater than expected, or a serious disappointment? Or was it just right? It matters.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Christ! Fonda…again? She has the cash, can’t she just pay for airline tickets for the soldiers protesting the war?
Man, sister should take a break a let some others pose for the cameras. Anyway…
January 28th, 2007 at 12:55 am
And speaking of the Democrats, required reading this morning is Frank Rich’s total takedown of Hillary Clinton in the New York Times for her opportunism and failure to lead on Iraq. Some have suggested that a few of us here are obsessed with Hillary, and they are right in this sense: A repudiation of Hillary would make me think there was some hope for the Democratic Party after all, especially if it were in favor of a candidate who actually has the guts to take a real position on the issues.
January 28th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Ed Watters:
Now, yet again, attached to this post:
Pot -> Kettle -> Black.
Watters == hypocrite yahoo.
January 28th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Before I headed over to the anti-war march in SF, I looked at CNN’s website to see what was happening at the East Coast protests. Well, there was Jane Fonda face ‘representin’ as the top news story. I just wonder which ding-a-lings at the organizing meetings pushed her as a speaker. Can we name names?
SF had decent numbers but nowhere near as large (or rowdy) like the protests at the beginning of the war. We marched to a local labor struggle (http://alcatrazunion.com/), which all things considered was an intelligent connection to make IMO.
As far as the war goes in Iraq, I think putting a little Marx in our analysis might help. There is no way that the American capitalist class is going to leave and risk a likely spreading of the war into other countries. Not because of any concern for Middle Eastern lives, but because they don’t want chaos in the world’s oil region. Iraq might be in chaos but at this point its contained to a small region.
If enough pressure is asserted by the American public, we could expect some type of faux “retreat” to Kuwait or Kurdistsan or somewhere close by. There the US can set up base and jump back in and put a lid on things when and if necessary. Also the US will accomplish one of its goals in this war which is to maintain military bases in the region.
While I mostly agree with Marc here about the rally, I would disagree with thinking that the democrat party politicians on the whole are anything more than anti-war posers. Sorry I can’t offer any holistic solutions because the situation looks fucked.
January 28th, 2007 at 1:43 am
[...] On today’s anti-war rally and a response to Marc Cooper Marc Cooper has a critique of the anti-war rally in DC, which he appropriately titles Sorta Dumb. Go here. [...]
January 28th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Balter: “So what was it? A resounding success with numbers greater than expected, or a serious disappointment? Or was it just right? It matters. ”
The demo organizers are claiming more than the 100,000 they’d hoped for, the DC cops say (unofficially) it was less.
The war is unpopular, but is it unpopular enough to make a big difference? I have to wonder. Americans are split (about 45% on each side) about whether to get out ASAP or wait a year or two at current (but not increased) troop levels. They are similarly split on whether the Dems should try to block funding. Opposition is widening. But is it deepening?
Again: we don’t have a draft spreading the pain more equally. Balter’s frequent postings of deaths in Iraq serve only to underscore to me how few there are, relative to Vietnam — probably not more than triple the death rate from accidental death in peacetime (and above the rate from homicide for males 18-35 in some inner cities.) It’s just too easy for many Americans to look at the names of the dead and think, “Well, they *did* sign up of their own accord.” You’re not going to get many middle-aged housewives into the streets until they see a risk to their sons and daughters in a death lottery. Republican voters remain quite staunch in their support of staying in Iraq for as long as it takes (whatever “it” is — there are shifts going on), unlike in the Vietnam era, when GOP voters tended in the direction of Dem voters, with a slight lag.
For Iraq to become a real burning issue, the stuff of bipartisan support for ending involvement, and truly massive street demonstrations when it drags on anyway, it’s going to have to hurt a lot more. This administration probably understands pain thresholds as a political constraint — thus, we have Fred Kaplan’s recommendation of a 50,000-troop surge going down the memory hole, and his endorsement of a 20,000-troop surge as somehow acceptably effective. You can’t say they’ve learned nothing whatsoever from Vietnam, politically. I don’t think you can say the same for whoever organized these demonstrations, however. Except, of course, for various leftist splinter groups who correctly saw it as an opportunity. As long as they see demonstrations as opportunities for visibility and recruitment, they’ll “surge” to the forefront when it comes to organizing them. Does their involvement make appearances by more moderate and credible personages unacceptably embarrassing? Yes, but why should leftist radicals care? Their whole schtick is about how anybody much to the right of them must be a sellout anyway.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Erratum: for “(and above the rate from homicide for males 18-35 in some inner cities.)” please read “(and below the rate ….)”
January 28th, 2007 at 3:41 am
“As far as the war goes in Iraq, I think putting a little Marx in our analysis might help. There is no way that the American capitalist class is going to leave and risk a likely spreading of the war into other countries.”
I’m no big fan of the idea of capitalist class solidarity (which even Marx admitted could be overstated, IIRC), but in this case I agree. A spreading Middle East war would mean oil shocks, recession, profits turning to losses, more boardroom beheadings, chaos in global financial markets, waves of layoffs feeding protectionist sentiment among voters in the West and Japan — a potential economic death spiral starting just as baby boomers are starting to retire en masse hoping to get something out of their stock portfolios. It wouldn’t be a gross caricature of American economic growth over the last few years to see it as a chiefly matter of dumping investment into China, getting some of it back out in the form of cheaper goods, and the rest in the form of boomerang loans from the Chinese so that Americans can keep making money selling ever-pricier real estate to each other. When that merry-go-round stops turning (it’s been decelerating fast), the current estimate of oil shock price levels ($100/bbl) might drop a lot, even to the point of overlapping the (historically high) range we’ve seen recently. BushCo might talk about “freedom” and “democracy” in Iraq, but the real pressure right now is to simply turn Iraq into something containable, without resorting to measures that would provoke a serious voter backlash. And it probably has to pull off this Iraq-containablity before the Shangri-La Economy starts to unwind in a big way.
Good luck putting the worms back into the can, guys. Your consolation prize if you fail: things will be so bad when you leave the Executive branch that the Dems can neither fix it nor (as the malaise drags on for years, maybe decades) pin all of the blame on the GOP.
January 28th, 2007 at 4:01 am
By the way, the presence of Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson in Washington raises an interesting question. There was a rally in SLC too, I have not heard any reports on how it went but it probably would have gone a whole lot better if Anderson had been there to speak at it. We need people in Utah to oppose the war more than we need people in DC and NYC. But of course staying in town would have deprived Anderson of his national exposure in the sun. And so it goes.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:46 am
To the anti-war protest, it’s organizers and ALL who marched, I say RIGHT ON, RIGHT ON, RIGHT ON.
More power to you.
Upwards of 60 percent of Americans are against this disastrous war and a far higher percentage of people around the world oppose it. There’s hardly a need to march so as to “convince” people the war’s a bad idea. These marches are CELEBRATIONS that the end is nigh for the war and the people are taking power back in America. These marches are not policy development committees hammering out a stance for the next caucus meeting and straw poll.
The idea that a politically correct speakers list at a protest march is going to make a difference is plain silly.
The Internet, blogs, new media have completely displaced “street” activism and Marc’s obvious jealousy of any leftist that gets a little too much attention just shows how far outside reality and inside his ego his obsessions dwell.
January 28th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Marc wrote to WJA: That grass roots movement you say doesnt exist in fact already flexed its muscle… it took the congressional majority away from y’all! LOL.
Marc, the Democrats didn’t run on what they would do, because they only spoke in vague generalities. So, the American voters simply voted for change without knowing what that change would be. Once the “grass roots movement,” as your described, shows its hand, the American people will realize that they were deceived by a minority of people whose values and vision for our country are unacceptable to the majority.
It’s one thing to get elected on “saying we’re different.” Now, in trying to flex their muscle, they will be exposed for thier anti-American values. We have to go through some of these cycles to educate each new generation.
January 28th, 2007 at 8:55 am
“So, the American voters simply voted for change without knowing what that change would be.”–Woody
Sorry Woody, but all the exit polls and surveys showed that the biggest change people voted for was a withdrawal from Iraq, either phased or quick. You know that as well as I do, or at least you should.
Speaking of Woody: The tragic thing here is not that he is so clueless and ignorant, because clueless and ignorant people are a dime a dozen in America. But that the White House is occupied by someone who is just as clueless and ignorant, this is the real disaster.
January 28th, 2007 at 9:08 am
It’s clear, from reading you since the Village Voice years, that you’ve gotten more right-wing as you’ve gotten older. You’ve also outed yourself as a Zionist and whole-hearted supporter of the apartheid Israeli regime, hence, you are a racist. Thanks for letting us know, asshole. If find it hilarious that you think you’re on the “left” as you claim above.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:18 am
OK Kevin,
A hypocrite is someone who states he is against something, but then goes ahead and engages in that ‘something’, in this case, name-calling.
The problem with your heinous accusation is that I never stated that I was against ‘name-calling’. I simply stated that Marc, rather than responding to the substance of my post, chose to resort to ‘name-calling’ instead.
I feel no loss of dignity when Marc or anyone else calls me names – it’s his blog and he can do whatever the eff he wants. I would have preferred that he instead explain his Chilean/Vietnamese terrorist argument but it’s helluva lot easier to type ‘Comrade Watters’ than to admit that one of your assertions was way outside the bounds of rational thought.
Anyway Kevin, I’ve frequently been hypocritical but not in regard to ‘name-calling’: in my book its fairgame.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:27 am
matter:
You can’t seriously think Cooper is right wing. Just a cursory look at his archives shows otherwise.
The point of this post is that the demonstrations yesterday were poorly run, and that the choice of speakers was unhelpful, if not counterproductive.
It should give you pause that that as a right-winger myself, I draw comfort from these demos. The Fidel-Hugo-Mumia shenanigans and the frivolity of Hollywood make our point for us.
By the way, I don’t think you find it “hilarious” that Cooper thinks he’s on the left. I think you are livid at the fact.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:01 am
It is so easy for some leftists to call people they disagree with right wing, because it means that they don’t actually have to engage with the arguments presented nor try to refute them. Give “matter” a few more years and he will be a born again Christian or a Scientologist, because those who treat the left as a cult usually move on to other cults eventually.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:02 am
As to the anti-war movement: right-wingers generally know little about the world. They know even less about liberals and their movements.
Amen.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:44 am
In LA we stood out in the rain and listened to waaaay too many speakers as well – while I was fine about showing up – it was, well, it was like so many other marches and rallies – but wetter.
I appreciate Mark’s point about the issue of activist/organizer centered marches vs. audience-centered ones.
What is the goal here? Who is the audience? When it starts pouring, why don’t organizers – and speakers – recognize the problem and pare down speeches and trim the program?
More important:Why don’t they consider the issue so obvious from previous marches – the wane of interest in the endless stream of people at the microphone? What’s gained here? What’s lost?
I couldn’t keep my speaker list to five but I tried – I liked the exercise:
elected officials contingent:
Conyers, Kucinich, Waters & Woolsey
miltary contingent:
Carlos & Melida Arredondo, Gold Star Families for Peace;
Jonathon Hutto, active-duty member of the U.S. Navy;
Bob Watada, father of Lt. Ehren Watada, first officer to refuse deployment to Iraq;
Garett Reppenhagen, Iraq Veterans Against the War
labor:
Fred Mason, AFL-CIO
faith community:
Bishop Walter Sullivan, Pax Christi
January 28th, 2007 at 11:44 am
The immigration demonstrations of last year seem to be a much better model of what public events can accomplish.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Nothing but soldiers or recently serving ex-soldiers, sailors/marines and family members. Period. Cut the platform bs.
clancy
January 28th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
If I were an organizer:
I’d thow in – same militar folks as above, plus State, CIA exes – say keeping at a minimum and taking into account oratory – Hutto and John Brown or Ann Wright
Well known orator/activists, but not too many…..an Iraqi leftist, someone from Code Pink, perhaps someone from RAWA.
One local politician, one national politician
Reprsentatives of ALL faith communities, ethnic communities, etc.- And scratch that New Age flake Lerner and replace him with Rabbi Arthur Waskow.
AT LEAST ONE right wing/libertarian antiwar activist – Justin Raimundo or Lew Rockwell, Ivan Eland, someone from CATO, etc.
AT LEAST ONE hardcore Marxist.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Oh and from labor – I’d nix AFL-CIO until they explain their collaboration with NED unions in certain countries. How about a Wob.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
“That’s it. I’m otta here”
You promised…..didn’t you Ed?
“More disturbing is that no representative of Arab, Arab-American or Muslim organizations spoke. I’m presuming some were asked. They’re on the receiving end of the “war on terror,†after all.”
Yes Jason, that is disturbing …….too. What other four do you have. Amuse us.
I don’t have five more. I gave at the voter booth.
January 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Ed I counted at least three “Arab/Arab-American” speakers on that list and one of them was the “Idiot” that John Aravosis of AMERICABLOG saw on C-SPAN talking about the plight of the Palestinians and barely mentioning Iraq. Look speakers come and speakers go and the real problem here was the lack of any ones that could electrify the crowd. But then I can think of only one march that ever had that moment and it was in August of 1963. I’ll leave it to the good people here to guess who that speaker was.
I agree that it would have been nice if Jack Murtha or Jim Webb had gone but, given their backgrounds, its very unlikely either would have wanted to attend. Jim Webb and Jane Fonda? Get Real!
January 28th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Murtha probably would have went. He has a very good relationship with UFPJ.
January 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
And to that person who called me a “wimp” for not expecting much. I’ll refer you to the lyrics from an old Nitty Gritty Dirt Band Song:
“Gravestones cheer the living dear their
their no use to the dead”
I’m sure everyone there felt real good and militant afterword but so what. I’ll take the work I did helping to elect an anti-war congress and wiorking with MOVE-ON in petitioning same was more valuable. Of course that is just an opinion folks.
January 28th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
all right, all right – point taken – I’ll eliminate labor and faith (despite my ties to labor – and my nonexistent ones to faith).
January 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Balter wrote: Sorry Woody, but all the exit polls and surveys showed that the biggest change people voted for was a withdrawal from Iraq….
Mike, the American people never gave their approval to running away from Iraq in disgrace and defeat and deserting the brave Iraqis who voted for democracy, and they didn’t vote for a U.S. party that they knew was actively backed by communists and Jane Fonda. If the Democrats had laid all of their cards on the table, they would still be in a minority.
—–
Marc’s seconded remark: “As to the anti-war movement: right-wingers generally know little about the world. They know even less about liberals and their movements.
And why should anyone presume from such a remark that whoever agrees with that understands “right-wing” patriotism or the world themselves, and why would such people suggest that conservatives have no contribution to make in the war debate? Did we suspend the First Amendment?
Maybe conservatives know a lot more about the world and the leftist movement than those isolated on the other side, who dedicate themselves to a socialist movement above their own country? And, conservatives certainly have a rational thinking process that makes them overall more successful than liberals, who think emotionally and hide within their academic and political clans?
Rather than having fewer and more sane speakers at anti-war demonstrations, I say put all the anti-war leaders on display for the American people to see what they really bought. For many of the Democratic elected, there is a two-year return policy, and it won’t take two years to see that the product doesn’t work as originally advertised.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
No politicians, please, also keep the focus on the subject. And with the attack on Iran right around the corner, a mention of the build-up to that would be nice. If it WAS mentioned, heard none of that in the two-minute stand-ups I saw here in LA.
Also, so off subject but a needed reminder. Bill Clinton was a perjurer, and Starr?Coulter/Hitchens, regardless of their evil, did not stand up in front of the cameras and say “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinski” . Billy Jeff did, folks.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Gee Big Uncle Jim, I don’t know. George W Bush stood in front of the cameras and told us that Saddam Hussein was a meanace to the US and had WMDs when he knew better. But then, lying about a war is insignificant when compared to lying about a blow-job. I mean, what do we tell the kiddies?
Give me a break!
January 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
RLC
This brings to mind the basic Marxist principle of use value, exchange value etc. With protest being literally commodified, it is very hard to discern what is more or less valuable. Your view of politics as simply influencing the state, not civil society actors or the basic principle of rallying civil society negates the whole idea of participatory politics. I would be no less vulgar, in a Marxist sense, if I were to negate the same activity in terms of ballots and Move On, etc. Most Americans don’t see an either/or, and I presume quite strongly that the same 70 percent who oppose the war supported and/or were at least GLAD that these Demos took place.
January 28th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Maybe. Maybe not.
But here’s today’s Hillary sighting. Today she announced that the US should be out of Iraq by the end of Bush’s term.
Well . . . I guess it is progress.
January 28th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Out of Iraq Into Iran!!!
Woman speaks in forced tongues.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Sorry to waste Marc’s bandwidth and server space with this, but Richard Lo Cicero, drop me an e-mail at randinho at yahoo dot com.
Thanks
January 28th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
I just came across a website called National Youth and Student Peace Conference.
This group has to be the creation of some communist sect. No one else uses the world “youth” these days, except communists and the California Youth Authority (prisons).
January 28th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Actually, it’s a “Coalition.” Oh, well.
January 28th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Actually, the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition (NYSPC) is NOT a communist sect, but really IS a coalition of almost all the student activist groups that organize on campuses against the war.
And to rebut your next point in advance: Yes, the Young Communist League is a member, but they don’t run the thing by any measure. There’s a lot of non-sectarian and really good groups in there, like United Students Against Sweatshops and the United States Student Association. Also, the word “youth” is there because all the groups wanted the coalition to be accessible to young people who aren’t necessarily students at the moment.
Although NYSPC shares some of the flaws of UFPJ, they are generally much better — at least in part because they aren’t interested in reliving their memories of protesting Vietnam like so many UFPJ folks.
Also, quick question for Mark: of the two union reps who spoke, you chose the one from the AFL-CIO over the one from UNITE-HERE — any particular reason?
January 28th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Jim R:
Re: my “That’s it, I’m outta here” comment.
I changed my mind.
RLC:
I wasn’t referring to you as a wimp. It was directed at the bloggers who expressed a lack of tolerance for the ‘free Mumia’, CPUSA, Jane Fonda etc. etc presence. I thought your comment about inclusion of transgendered at gay pride rallies needed to be heard.
The fact that the organizers were unable to put thier unrelated special causes on the back burner doesn’t negate the importance of tolerance and solidarity among the participants and supporters of the cause. Those who spend so much energy critiqueing yesterday’s rally have thier own murky agenda.
For me, it’s about getting bodies on the street, with as clear a message as possible, and as much positive MSM attention as possible. According to the NYT, Chi Trib and Wash Post articles I read, the event was successful in all
the above criteria (and Jane Fonda even got a pretty fair response).
Happily, the MSM’s account of the rally was generally more positive than alot of the so-called left pundits…
January 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“Rather than having fewer and more sane speakers at anti-war demonstrations, I say put all the anti-war leaders on display for the American people to see what they really bought.”
Here Here Woody. The most amusing thing is Marc is trying like hell to talk some sense into them, trying to save them from themselves, and most of the left here are shooting at him.
If this not a Jim Jones kind of religion, what is.
January 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Bunkerbuster’s “Ready, Steady, Go” Rockin’ Protestor Roster
Top 5
1. George Galloway, in a duet with Elvis Costello
“Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood.” I’m just a soul whose intentions are good…
2. Green Day, in Latin, liturgy composed by Noam Chomsky
“Pax Vobiscum, American Idiot…”
3. Jane Fonda, scantily clad, with backup singers Cindy Sheehan, Amy Goodman and the Dixie Chicks
“Shame on you”
4. Howard Dean and Yoko Ono, with saxaphone solo by Bill Clinton
“Star Spangled Banner”
5. The ex-U.S. Navy Gay Mens Choir, as conducted by Marc “I am NOT a Stalinist” Cooper
“War, What Is It Good For?”
January 29th, 2007 at 5:00 am
“No one else uses the world “youth†these days, except communists and the California Youth Authority”
Uhhhh…
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/090104.asp
http://www.migop.org/youth/default.asp
http://www.rym.org/
January 29th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Marc, some clarity please on what you think the political direction of the anti war movement should be. You call for axing the “left” in the form of sectarians like the CPUSA, which you rather flatteringly credit with 0.01% support. You also denounce the right wing of the movement in the form of those like Jesse Jackson who want to push it into the equally despicable DP. I agree. But what positive ideas do you want to advocate in the space in between? Should the movement go on with the unrelentingly negative messages we’ve been flogging since new left times? Should we instead find something, like some definition of democratic socialism, that we are in favor of and can openly advocate? One thing the CPUSA and Jesse Jackson have in common is that they both have clear political programs to push. What about you?
April 24th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
saggy tit…
Aggregator of saggy tit sites…
November 30th, 2009 at 9:53 am
I’m seeking some material on Alto Saxaphones and I’ve just stumbled upon this site! A good read which I thought to be of value. I look forward to have more time to stay longer.