NYC ANTI-WAR RALLY: "Another World Is Possible"

New York, NY. Sunday, Oct. 6, 2002 --

I don't know how many people were there. I don't know how to estimate crowd numbers and I never trust the corporate media reports on such things, but the crowd stretched as far as you could see at the East Meadow of Central Park near 97th Street and Fifth Avenue. And the feeling was tremendous. There was a sense of jubilation that so many people had come out together to speak out against the war. The day was perfect. It was warm, sunny. The city never looked better. The human heart of the city was vibrant as people from all sides gathered at Central Park. It was uplifting and hopeful to see so many people from children to very old people, of all colors and nationalities coming together to try to stop the further killing of Iraqi people.

The rally was organized by Not In Our Name. There was a stage set up with some musical performers and a string of speakers who took only about a minute each to voice their feelings about the war.

The actor Gabriel Byrne was one of the first speakers. He spoke out angrily and eloquently against Bush's war. "He's not even an elected leader. Why is this guy speaking for us who lied his way into power?" Byrne said. "If they believe violence is going to lead to peace, they don't understand history," he said.

A clergyman said, "I'm going to tell you why we are resisting this war. It's because of our refusal to surrender our moral imagination, to give in to the culture of death. We reject the idea that the lives of Iraqi children are worth any less than American children.

"We are very near to a spiritual and moral breakdown in this country," he said. "There is poison in our culture. A lot of it comes from our so-called leaders..."

A Black Muslim said, "If he were alive today, which side do you think Moses would be on, the side of the people or the side of the big corporations? If Jesus were alive, which side do you think he would be on, the side of the people or the side of the big corporations? If Muhammad were alive today, which side do you think he would be on, the side of the people or the side of the big corporations?" The crowed shouted back "The people!" in each case. "Then that's the side we have to be on. Be strong in your faith. Be not deceived by the lies..."

Susan Sarandon said, "I am so happy to be here, to see you all here. I was almost convinced by the mainstream media that I was going out of my mind, that no one cares about this war. George Bush makes it all sound very simple: 'You are either with us or against us.' I don't know who 'us' is, but if George Bush were here today I'd like him to see, this is what democracy looks like! This is what an intelligent citizenry does! We question! We demand answers! We will not give our sons and daughters for a war for oil! We can imagine the people whose faces we will never see whose lives will be destroyed by this war. We do want to live in a world where countries respect each others wishes and after this war there will be no international law, only the rule of the stronger. Do we want to be the next Rome?

"Look around you," she said. "Look at yourselves, take pictures, because when you read about it tomorrow it won't look like this."

Actor Tim Robbins also spoke. He said, "I don't care much for any kind of fundamentalism. Any religion that turns to violence loses me. And what is our fundamentalism? Our fundamentalism is business. The idea that profits are more important than people's lives. The unfettered spread of our business interests throughout the world.

"We resist profit at the cost of human life," Robbins said. "This war is being used to distract us from Enron and Halliburton, scandals that connect this administration with what is wrong with the American economy."

Some of the most eloquent and inspiring speakers were high school kids from Stuyvesant High School in New York. They lined up on the stage at one point and two of them spoke to the crowd. It was amazing. They had the brightness and energy of youth, the sense of great possibility. They looked much like the kids you see on TV, but with a great difference. You will never see kids like these on network TV because these kids were politically conscious, aware of what is going on, of how their world is being hijacked and desecrated by a bunch of oil mobsters, and they are angry and determined not to let it happen.

"We are taking this pledge [the Not In Our Name Pledge] because this is our world," said one high school girl. "We will be here long after George Bush and his crowd are gone."

The sight of those young people, so self-assured, so dedicated, intelligent, aware and articulate, was one of the most hopeful signs I have seen in a world that has grown more and more dismal in the last few years. It was one more aspect of the world that the corporate media does not want you to know exists. But out there on the street today you could see it for yourself and feel it in your flesh and bones, the possibility that, as they say, "another world is possible."

-- David Cogswell, Oct. 7, 2002

It's good to know there are so many good people who care about the future of society. Those Bush-leaguers would perpetuate war-for-profit forever, if they could get away with it. That cannot be allowed to happen. The future of the trillions of people who are yet to live on this planet depend on the evolution of a moral society.

I wish I could have been there.

Being in a war strips away all illusions about one's self and others. That is why heroics and trechery abound in wars. So many people realize that they themselves are cowards, monsters, fools, or backstabbers. A few find they are better.

I fear the day we no longer have war. Mankind would become wrapped in a cocoon of self-deception and self-contentment. All the evils of the world would build up under this cloth until we sufficate.

Strife is necessary to humanity in the same way fire is necessary to a forest. Without it the forest is choked by its own debris and vermin or vanishes after a fire finally does occur.

Originally posted by Clockwood
Being in a war strips away all illusions about one's self and others. That is why heroics and trechery abound in wars. So many people realize that they themselves are cowards, monsters, fools, or backstabbers. A few find they are better.

I fear the day we no longer have war. Mankind would become wrapped in a cocoon of self-deception and self-contentment. All the evils of the world would build up under this cloth until we sufficate.

Strife is necessary to humanity in the same way fire is necessary to a forest. Without it the forest is choked by its own debris and vermin or vanishes after a fire finally does occur.

Uhh... no.

When war is gone, we can all live in peace and people will only die of illness and occasionally murder or accidents, not war or terrorism.

Originally posted by Clockwood
Being in a war strips away all illusions about one's self and others. That is why heroics and trechery abound in wars. So many people realize that they themselves are cowards, monsters, fools, or backstabbers. A few find they are better.

I fear the day we no longer have war. Mankind would become wrapped in a cocoon of self-deception and self-contentment. All the evils of the world would build up under this cloth until we sufficate.

Strife is necessary to humanity in the same way fire is necessary to a forest. Without it the forest is choked by its own debris and vermin or vanishes after a fire finally does occur.

Absolutely. Times of intense stress - confrontation with mortality - brings out what is most necessary, most vital, in people.

It's like looking into a burning house and wondering what you save of all your possessions, except that your positions can be organized by similar characteristic... in war, the individual picks his or her dominant characteristc that is most useful and expands upon it.

I fear the day we no longer have war. Mankind would become wrapped in a cocoon of self-deception and self-contentment. All the evils of the world would build up under this cloth until we sufficate.

War on an international or national level will be present in our society for some time to come, but war is never the answer to a problem. Diplomatic solutions are the only solutions, a world without war but with casual disagreement amongst nations is as close to heaven as the human race as a whole could come to.

Prozak,

I get the feeling that you don't value human lives the way normal humans do. Perhaps you should head back to Quaoar, where dumbass motherf*ckers don't give a shit?

Clockwood doesn't know much about forests, either. If a forest doesn't burn, the fallen leaves and other perishables degrade into smaller particles and feed the forest. If it does burn, all that nourishment goes up in smoke. If it doesn't burn, it supports a larger variety of life. If it does burn, a lot of the life dies outright and others have to move to a different area to continue living.

People who don't get the big picture generally focus on a single peripheral and assign great import to it.

Forests generally get enough nourishment over time from general detritus. However, if that detritus builds up too much, it interferes with new growth, soil aeration, and water absorption. Luckily, forests have evolved to take advantage of occasional bushfires. The fire clears away the crap, and the smoke in many cases is what triggers the release and germination of new seeds. In short, fires now and then are very healthy for forests.

Adam, where in the world did you get your education? With your disdain for "books", it is little wonder that you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of topics that you just see pictures of. A forest is most healthy if it never burns. That's why old growth forests are the most spectacularly beautiful. The plant life systems in them are lush and mature, and the animate life systems that reside in them are varied and abundant.

I've got to agree with adam on the forests thing. About the occasional fires.

But John, why do you keep questioning other people's education when it is in reality your own which needs to be under the microscope?

Originally posted by John MacNeil
Adam, where in the world did you get your education? With your disdain for "books", it is little wonder that you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of topics that you just see pictures of. A forest is most healthy if it never burns. That's why old growth forests are the most spectacularly beautiful. The plant life systems in them are lush and mature, and the animate life systems that reside in them are varied and abundant.
1) I don't disdain books at all. I disdain people who read some K-Mart Guides To Everything and a few websites and think it makes them experts.

2) If a forest never burns, it builds up too much crap on the ground which prevents new growth, inhibits soil aeration, and stops water being soaked into the soil (too much water is held at ground level in the detritus, and evaporates in the day).

3) Smoke and heat promts the release and germination of seeds for many plants.

4) Try thinking about it. Forests have experienced fires prety much for ever. That's a long time for evolution to play its games. Now, what seems more likely to you? 1, that after so long, forests simply get burnt and that's it? Or 2, that various plants have developed to take advantage of the newly opened area, cleaner ground, and more resources?

Bushfires info (http://www.nps.gov/seki/fire/firerole.htm)
Bushfires in general (http://clearlyexplained.com/nature/earth/disasters/bushfires.html)
The nice easy version (http://clc.cet.edu/forestfireshow.html)
In Australia (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/6c98bb75496a5ad1ca2569de00267e48!OpenDocument)

Pollux V, that is the first time I ever posted a question about someone's education who didn't bring up the subject first. And the question was rhetorical, as the "where in the world" part should have alerted you to. I don't care where anyone got their education. The point of discussion, especially here on the internet, is to hear different points of view on subjects so a greater understanding of subjects discussed can be obtained.

And I wasn't aware that my education needed to be placed under a microscope and studied. Especially by people who are so secretive they don't use their real names and who instead use monickers. Why should my education be more pertinent than anyone else's?

Is there a hierarchal grading of education that makes one view automatically more pertinent than another view? Is a Princeton view more pertinent than a Harvard view? Is an east coast view more pertinent than a west coast view? Is it the idea which makes the pertinent view, or is it the alumni that one belongs to that makes the pertinent view? If you want to get into grading each individual according to the education facility attended, instead of according to the view tendered, then you confuse intelligence with formal education. I believe topics will be advanced on their own merit if they are discussed rationally and without rancor.

Adam, I've spent over thirty year in and around forests and I know exactly what I am talking about when I address the subject. You, obviously, got your misunderstanding from a few websites.

When people try to "manage" a forest, they are acting against the natural system and anything they do to it will not make it better in the long run, but will have adverse effects on the forest system in the long run.

Much of what is done for management in forests, whether they are park land or public land, are done for entirely selfish reasons. Park and Forest Management departments must spend all their allotted money in a given fiscal year or they do not receive the same amount of funding in the next fiscal year. This leads to a lot of unnecessary projects that must be kept in operation year after year so that funding levels for the department as a whole do not shrink. If you ever watch news programing, you will see, each summer, a concerted effort by fire suppression crews to put out fires. That is because fires destroy forests.

Adam, I've spent over thirty year in and around forests and I know exactly what I am talking about when I address the subject. You, obviously, got your misunderstanding from a few websites.

People used to think the world is flat. It isn't. I like to keep up with new knowledge, new developments. I grew up on a farm surrounded by forest, watching fires around us now and then. It simply isn't enough for anyone claiming to be intelligent to say 'Ouch, fire hot, fire burn tree, fire bad". There is more to it, as pointed out in my previous post, and also in that link to the US national parks service.


When people try to "manage" a forest, they are acting against the natural system and anything they do to it will not make it better in the long run, but will have adverse effects on the forest system in the long run.

Yet strangely, the Australian aborigines are often praised for their forest management techniques over the last forty thousand years or so, including their discovery that regular burning renews and invigorates forests.


If you ever watch news programing, you will see, each summer, a concerted effort by fire suppression crews to put out fires. That is because fires destroy forests.

No, it is because fires destroy homes and towns.

Who praised Aborigines for starting forest fires for the last forty thousand year? If you ever went to Australia, Adam, you would find that it was grass fires the Aborigines set, and it was so they could kill the animals running away from the fire. The only thing the Australians ever praised the Aborigenes for was dying, when they used them for target practice.

Originally posted by Pollux V
War on an international or national level will be present in our society for some time to come, but war is never the answer to a problem. Diplomatic solutions are the only solutions, a world without war but with casual disagreement amongst nations is as close to heaven as the human race as a whole could come to.

Prozak,

I get the feeling that you don't value human lives the way normal humans do. Perhaps you should head back to Quaoar, where dumbass motherf*ckers don't give a shit?

Pollux:

Perhaps you should follow this link --

http://www.anus.com/anus/db/linkola_pentti/

Originally posted by Adam
People used to think the world is flat. It isn't. I like to keep up with new knowledge, new developments. I grew up on a farm surrounded by forest, watching fires around us now and then. It simply isn't enough for anyone claiming to be intelligent to say 'Ouch, fire hot, fire burn tree, fire bad". There is more to it, as pointed out in my previous post, and also in that link to the US national parks service.


Yet strangely, the Australian aborigines are often praised for their forest management techniques over the last forty thousand years or so, including their discovery that regular burning renews and invigorates forests.


No, it is because fires destroy homes and towns.

In my opinion, it is because without frequent natural fires, the buildup of wood and debris causes a far worse fire than would naturally occur.

Forest management techniques of the aborigines? Unconscious ones; there is nothing noble or intelligent about that people/culture that deserves praise. The only reason people attempt to do so is out of pity.

If you ever went to Australia, Adam...

I was born and raised here.


The only thing the Australians ever praised the Aborigenes for was dying, when they used them for target practice.

Actually just about any environemtnal group will praise the native Australians for their use of fire. You'll note in many of the links I have provided for you discussion of the fires and forests, not just grasslands.
Another link about forests and fires. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1747062.stm)
And again. (http://www.write101.com/W.Tips164.htm)
And yes, many aborigine tribes were treated very bad here, two hundred years ago. But they were employed as more than just targets; hunters and trackers quite often.

Originally posted by prozak

Forest management techniques of the aborigines? Unconscious ones; there is nothing noble or intelligent about that people/culture that deserves praise. The only reason people attempt to do so is out of pity.

Personally I am not very impressed with the Australian aborigines, with their complete lack of progress over 40,000 years here. The spend forty millennia on the world's largest piece of iron and never developed metal-working. Some tribes were cannibals. Their "justice" systems were often incredibly barbaric (but then so was the justice system of the early European settlers, and so is the system in Texas today). They were, until Europeans arrived here, as Desmon Morris might say, "stultified". However, they did observe that there was strong growth and fresh resources after a fire, and simply repeated it every now and then.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
Clockwood doesn't know much about forests, either. If a forest doesn't burn, the fallen leaves and other perishables degrade into smaller particles and feed the forest. If it does burn, all that nourishment goes up in smoke. If it doesn't burn, it supports a larger variety of life. If it does burn, a lot of the life dies outright and others have to move to a different area to continue living.

People who don't get the big picture generally focus on a single peripheral and assign great import to it.


Untrue. If a forest goes a long time without a fire when it finally does get a fire it burns so hot it kills all the trees. Normal forest fires do not kill the majority of trees. Some trees, including the jiant sequoya, would go extinct without fire. Their cones can not open without it. Fires also clear out vines and underbrush and can cure an rea of diseases and pest infestations.