Please provide your opinion: worldcantwait.org folks?

[Nimrod2005]

I heard Sarah (I think) on Melloy's show last night? I would like to participate in their effort, but don't know much about the group? Went to the site, but felt that I needed more information?

Protests being organized for the State of the Union and later on Feb. 4th in D.C.

Is is this a large group? Does moveon.org work with them?

Will millions show up in DC on Feb 4th for example? has this happened before?

Thanks!

[bigscott]

1. i dont think

millions will go to the effort of showing up in DC in the winter - esp now that * authorized arrests of anyone, for any reason, in a security zone - which will be all of DC on SOTU night - i think it would be more effective to have all the dems in Congress stay home as a protest

[LynneSin]

2. I'm curious about where this group came from and

how they are tied in with either International Answer or United for Peace and Justice.

I was absolutely disgusted at how the protest turned out last Sept and from all that I read it was basically IA changing the agenda at the last minute that delayed the original march stepoff time AND add additional speakers who had nothing to do with why the bulk of us where there in DC protest (which was mainly the war).

So where did this group come from?

[SharonRB]

3. I'm not sure where they came from, but

they are advertising like crazy on AAR for the SOTU protests. I first heard of them when I went to the forum Conyers was at week before last. They want Bush to step down. I plan to go to the local protest on the 31st, weather permitting.

On edit: I agree with you, Lynne, about what happened in DC in September. I was there against the war and for impeachment -- I thought the other issues were inappropriate and I don't agree with everything Answer stands for. It was not the place or time to have talks about the Palestinian situation, etc.

[LynneSin]

4. Did you read the press release that UPFJ sent out about that protest

everything they complained about was exactly the same complaints I had about the protest. I still remember telling everyone in the DU group that we would be marching at 12:30 because honestly that's what I read on the UFPJ website. IA totally highjacked that rally and tosssed in all their little side group speakers, some of which I personally wasn't in agreement with just to give these people a platform in front of a large audience they would have never gotten if the protest was arrange just for these minor issues. After Cindy was done speaking that March should have started right then and there instead of 2 additional hours of speakers. The more I read UFPJ's letter the more I know that I will never go to another IA sponsered event again

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3162

(1) ANSWER did not honor the agreed-upon time limits for its sections of the pre-march Rally, going more than an hour over in one section. The time was to be evenly divided in 30 minutes segments alternating between the two coalitions. Besides the impact in terms of disrespect to other speakers and the attendees in Washington, DC, this meant that the C-SPAN broadcast of the rally presented a one-sided picture of the antiwar movement to the U.S. public. In the extended ANSWER section broadcast on C-SPAN, there was in fact very little focus on, or explanation of, the central demand motivating hundreds of thousands of people to attend the demonstration: U.S. Out of Iraq Now.

(2) ANSWER delayed the start of the March for an hour past the agreed upon time. We learned that morning that while our agreement with ANSWER was to begin the march at 12:30, the permit ANSWER had negotiated with the police had the march starting at 1:30. This led to confusion, which in turn prevented the agreed-upon lead contingent carrying the agreed-upon lead banner (“End the War in Iraq, Bring the Troops Home Now, Justice for Hurricane Victims”) from actually leading the March. This diluted the March’s message – especially in terms of media images of the March’s front rank. It also jeopardized relationships between UFPJ and the representatives of several organizations whom we asked be part of the lead contingent of the March. An antiwar movement still not as strong as we need to be when compared to the tasks before us, in which developing relationships of mutual trust and accountability is of vital importance, can ill afford such short-sighted and narrow-minded practice.

(3) ANSWER did not turn out many volunteers to provide for fundraising, security and media operations for the March and Rally. UFPJ was also short of volunteers, but the much smaller numbers from ANSWER meant that many of the practical burdens of attending to the needs of the crowd fell on UFPJ, while ANSWER concentrated its attention on extending the time their speakers were on the stage.

[SharonRB]

7. I hadn't seen this

Thanks for posting.

[Nimrod2005]

5. Thanks, that's the kind of information I needed.

:toast:

[rucky]

6. *sigh* we'll NEVER get a mass movement going

excuses, excuses.