^.^
As I have said, I intend to give SUFP and its members their equal chance to express their opinions on this subject...especially since the subject is about THEM.
With that being said, here is a response, from Mr. Hanks (name obscurred for privacy purposes)
"I don't care how this Nazi sympathizer feels. We are at war with trash like him. He belongs in Leavenworth. Instead he will have a career as a corporate lawyer learning all the arts of force and fraud."
"For what it is worth, I was against the demonstration because I didn't think there would be enough interest or time. I would prefer a well planned demonstration demanding the abolition of the Republican party for years of treason and subversion. Then we don't get tied down to "celebrities".
*signed by Mr. Hanks*
---
Hmm. Perhaps Mr. Hanks should be on the lookout for a possible coronary, a brain explosion, or some other such thing. After all, Mr. Hanks and the rest of the members of SUFP say they are for "peace", yet he apparently is at war with "trash like (me)".
And I'm a NAZI... *grin* That's certainly original.
However, Mr. Hanks should perhaps take a step back, and re-evaluate what he said. After all, the "trash" I think he is referring to are a bunch of nihilistic Jihadists who don't think twice about killing anyone, be it Iraqi, American, or miscellaneous, man, woman, children, etc. They are led by men like Ayman al-Zarqawi(sp), and Osama bin-Laden...who are searching for the quickest way to take as many innocent Americans IN THIS COUNTRY off the face of the planet, not to mention any Americans or foreigners who might be "despoiling" their own lands.
I am merely a person using my own opinions, my philosophy, and the philosophies of like-minded people, and the lessons of history to write commentary on today's world, and the people who live there.
It's two different things, in my opinion...
John B.
PS: Please continue with the emails!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dear John --
To my knowledge, we have never met but I will respond to these comments of yours because I find them rather ill-informed, to be polite.
First of all, SUFP as a group never actually planned to protest Ken Starr per se. We had some members who were interested in protesting but time was short, energy was low, and so we came up with a simple little idea that could be acted on by individuals if they chose. We circulated that idea and let it go at that.
Instead, our hope and intention was to counter the Ken Starr message with "the other side of the story." Whether or not he chose to speak about his campaign against the Clintons, we felt that people needed to be reminded of $40 million that was wasted on a partisan witch-hunt. Therefore, we were able to arrange for a free showing of THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT that chronicles the campaign to take down the Clintons and Ken Starr's role in that. We arranged with the distributor of the movie to be able to show it, we arranged for a venue, we printed and distributed flyers advertising the showing, and following Ken Starr's speech we hosted a showing of this important film for several dozen interested people. (This has also led to a request by a couple others to show it at house parties, for which we are providing the film.) In this way, SUFP very effectively provided a counterbalance for the Starr appearance.
As for what appeared or didn't appear in newspapers, well, we can hardly be held responsible for what newspapers choose to print or not print. I was contacted by a Branding Iron representative to ask why we were protesting Starr's appearance and I responded, explaining that we had no problem with Starr's appearance per se, simply that we felt there needed to be balance to his presentation and we intended to provide some. (We did.) That the BI chose to focus on a "protest" and didn't mention our showing of the film is for the BI to explain, not SUFP. Likewise, if the Boomerang missed the fact that we sponsored a showing of THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT, I think that tells you more about their reporting than what SUFP has done.
As to whether or not SUFP is or is not an effective organization, I would point out that, in the 2+ years that SUFP has existed, we have organized several large marches and other events, all of which have been well-attended. Moreover, we have been on the corner of 3rd and Grand every Friday afternoon for 2 years expressing our dissent. We have a candlelight vigil every Sunday night in front of the courthouse. We are in the Union every Wednesday handing out literature and materials. We have been taken our message to all of Wyoming on KUWR on at least 3 occasions. We have had a presence at the 4th of July events, at the Farmer's Market, in the Jubilee Days parade. We have had a die-in on campus. We have raised money for, and purchased, toiletries, disposable cameras and phone cards for troops fighting in Iraq. We have sponsored a number of films both on and off campus. We sponsored Poets Against the War. We protested Dick Cheney's appearance on campus and the arrival of the Fred Phelps hate machine. We held a memorial march last 9/11. We have read the names of soldiers killed in Iraq on three separate occasions. We have monthly potlucks with speakers on all kinds of peace-related issues. In two weeks, we will sponsor another march, for the 2nd anniversary of the war, and will have speakers there. On April 2, we will be offering draft counseling training. On April 8, we're planning a Liberal Pride Ball so people can get in touch with like-minded people and kick back and have a good time. And that's what I remember off the top of my head. There's probably more that I've forgotten.
You may think we are ineffective but I don't believe you have any basis upon which to make such a judgment except what you perceive to have happened at one event, about which you apparently did not have full knowledge or understanding. Moreover, I would suggest that the glibness with which you dismiss our efforts suggests that you have never tried to organize many activities yourself. It's a lot harder than it may appear to get people involved in the issues affecting their lives. However, since you appear to believe that we are much less effective than you think we could be, I certainly encourage you to come and lend us your expertise if, in fact, you share our goals. However, I suspect your real purpose is simply to be an agent of dissension and since we are committed to trying to create a less contentious world, we probably would not be interested in the kind of "help" you would want to contribute.
Last, but not least, as for your encounters with your unnamed "contact" in SUFP, let me point out that SUFP is a non-hierarchical group that operates through consensus. No one -- myself included! -- is empowered to speak for SUFP except on specific issues when the group asks someone to serve as their spokesperson. We have any number of members, all of who speak for themselves all of the time. Had you had the same conversation with any other SUFP member, you almost certainly would have received a different answer from each. So please distinguish between what someone says on their own behalf and what someone says on behalf of SUFP. To my knowledge, no one has been designated by the group to respond to you. (And, that means that this is MY response to you, not SUFP's.)
Again, if you indeed share our values and wish to a contributing member of the group, we would welcome you. If, however, you wish to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at what others do, that is your option but don't expect us to crumble and go away because you write some ill-informed criticism. We know what we have accomplished in the last two years and we know that our presence in Laramie and in Wyoming has been effective. As for you "not paying any attention" to us in the future, I don't think we will worry too much about that since it's pretty clear you've never paid any attention to us in the past.
Finally, since you won't be paying attention in the future, feel free to sign off of the mailing lists. If you don't know how, just drop me a note and I will be glad to remove you.
Lesley Wischmann
Laramie, WY
^.^
Some comments about the email I received from Lesley W.: (in bold)
First of all, SUFP as a group never actually planned to protest Ken Starr per se. We had some members who were interested in protesting but time was short, energy was low, and so we came up with a simple little idea that could be acted on by individuals if they chose. We circulated that idea and let it go at that.
The point in my original remarks was that this was billed to the local media as a protest. The reason I contacted members of SUFP was because I too thought that they were talking about a REAL protest, not "a simple little idea".
Instead of hyping a supposed protest, in the statement to the BI, whomever represented SUFP could have easily made a statement about their views on Ken Starr, the group could have forgone the whole idea of "protesting" the Starr speech, and made an announcement about the film, "The Hunting of the President" in the paper.
For all the hype, your "protest" would have gotten the same amount of attention that it did.
Whether or not he chose to speak about his campaign against the Clintons, we felt that people needed to be reminded of $40 million that was wasted on a partisan witch-hunt.
I have thought about writing a full-blown article on the Clinton years, both the good and the bad. In the case of Ken Starr and Whitewater, Clinton could have difused a lot of this matter by simply coming out with the TRUTH. But, even given that, Bill Clinton as a board-certified lawyer should have known that perjury about ANY MATTER while under oath was something not to be tolerated. That he got to serve out his term and his only punishment was the temporary revocation of his lawyer's liscense makes a joke out of the justice system in this country.
Likewise, if the Boomerang missed the fact that we sponsored a showing of THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT, I think that tells you more about their reporting than what SUFP has done.
The Laramie Boomerang is in the business of reporting NEWS, not telling the people what every group in town is doing at their local meetings. Your so-called "protest", which wasn't, made news. No one really cares much whether you show a film afterwords.
The BI, being more centered toward the college audience, which is more activist, and because the film was shown on the college campus would be more inclined to advertise the film.
As to whether or not SUFP is or is not an effective organization, I would point out that, in the 2+ years that SUFP has existed, we have organized several large marches and other events,
**SNIP LONG LIST OF ITEMS**
And that's what I remember off the top of my head. There's probably more that I've forgotten.
The problem here is not all of the various activities that SUFP does around town, most of which barely get mentioned in the community section of the newspapers.
The point of my recent blog article was that in THIS case, where SUFP really had a chance to come out and make a major statement, what emerged was something more like a cat gagging on a hairball. You may scoff at the Laramie Boomerang's reporting on the activities of SUFP in general, and the Starr speech in particular, but the point I made in my article remains.
If SUFP had put even a minimum amount of effort into the thing, or if they had simply grouped those who showed up together, perhaps the "protest" would have had a bigger impact. Impact is what protests are about...not making quiet statements, not showing a movie afterwords.
As for you "not paying any attention" to us in the future, I don't think we will worry too much about that since it's pretty clear you've never paid any attention to us in the past.
What I meant by that statement is that I will be far less likely to read any real power or meaning into SUFP's next "protest". When you show me that you actually know how to pull off a REAL protest, then I will begin to think of you as something substantive.
John B.
Post a Comment