ISO alienates SF State activists-SAW site debate Part 2

More documents expose more meddling and interference by the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in the student anti-war movement. From: Michael Hoffman <kilgorehoffman@...>
Date: Tue May 10, 2005 10:57 pm
Subject: Predictable and Sad kilgorehoffman
Offline
Send Email
Dear SAW activists,

It's both predictable and truly upsetting that the
end of this semester has degenerated to such a point
for SAW. Predictable because under the pressure of
discipline we are attacking each other. Upsetting
because we could be in a great position to build SAW
next semester.
As an individual facing discipline AND working
closely with the Lawyers to defend the groups AND
someone who's been intimately involved in the work of
SAW, I must admit I feel beaten-down, worn-ragged,
attacked, hopeless, and ready to give up on the whole
thing entirely.
I contemplated suicide twice today.
But I will never give up. This movement is NOT ABOUT
ME OR MY FEELINGS. This is about stopping a war: a war
in the middle East and the war on working class people
all over the world.
This semester was extremely difficult. Every thing
we did, we had to learn every single lesson the hard
way...twice. I've never helped to organize a protest
before, I've never tried to organize SAW meetings
before - and by the way no-one on steering committee
aside from Kristin ever had either. We didn't have a
clear set of goals going into the semester and
completely under-estimated the amount of work all the
events we tried to take on would be. We helped to
organize March 19th and the CAN conference after
everyone was already exhausted by trying to do the
"week of action". Our biggest miscalculation was
underestimating the effect of the fallout of March
9th. And in an attempt to adjust to all the weekly
developments in the "discipline" we ended up
floundering. Call it a communist plot if you wish, but
it looks more to me like a difficult learning process.
No-one wants the SAW meetings to be boring and rigid,
but quite honestly no-one on the steeering committee
knew how to do that.
Since the beggining of the semester certain
people have been pulling back from SAW, some of them
at one point considering giving up SAW for religious
pusuits, others just too busy. This is a sign of the
deep demoralization that is all around us. I f we were
in a time period where people felt we could change
things, we would have a lot of people in the SAW
meetings and everyone would be excited. I stand out in
the quad a few times a week either tabling for SAW or
selling SW and the overwhelming sentiment is that
there is very little we can actually do about the
situation. Some of them can be convinced otherwise.
Anyone notice the markedly larger presence of
religious groups on our campus? Maybe it's just me but
it seems like post election, more people are looking
to a "higher-power" for world salvation, rather than
getting down and organizing. Nothing against it, it
just seems true. The 2005 March 19th protests were all
the same or smaller in size than they were last year
and CAN, ANSWER, UFPJ. Not in Our Name and other
coalitions are still just a fraction of what they were
when they were founded.
In spite of this, we have found through the March
9th event and its aftermath that there are growing
numbers of people who are ready to take action against
the declining conditions. We had 3 of the largest
cultural groups on our campus, sign-on to an event
that was advertised with "Kick The Military Out of
SFSU". This was huge. We have taken an enormous step
forward in terms of our national as well as campus
profile. SAW is a force to be reconned with... when we
work together.
Of the students on campus who are dedicated to
building SAW, many are in the ISO as well. ISO members
are dedicated to building SAW because we are also
dedicated to someday participating in, and helping to
create, a socialist Revolution where working class
people take control of all the wealth that they create
and use for human needs. We work to build SAW because
it will take a broad antiwar movement to actually end
this war that is destroying so many lives and helping
to escalate the war on the working class. But we
staunchly believe that if we don't build a socialist
organization as well, we will not have a socialist
revolution which we feel is the only way to end the
root-cause of wars. That is why we ask people to join
our organization. We have never hidden this fact. If
you do not want to join us, then don't.
We put forward our view of how the movement and SAW
should proceed in the meetings and work for real
democracy in the movements. Whenever SAW has decided
to do something that ISO members put forward, it only
happened if other people agree and also argued for
that. The ISO members are a part of SAW. They are also
often times some of the most visible and active SAW
members. We are never happy to be a large bulk of SAW
and in fact we try very hard to bring new people in.
We do not like it that people confuse SAW and the ISO
but this is due to the smallish size of SAW, which in
turn is more of a question of political climate than
selling newspapers. In terms of certain people in SAW
not wanting to be associated with our "agenda", well,
our agenda is to build the antiwar movement. If we had
our way there'd be hundreds of people coming to SAW
meetings and we'd be marching, sitting in and kicking
the military out of the nearby highschools and staging
walkouts against the war ect. We would love to be a
small minority.
This is our "agenda" but there are certain lines
that we will not allow to be crossed. Policies that
are meant at silencing, monitoring, or in any way
inhibiting the right for people on the left to express
thier views will, if not in the beggining, in the end
be used against the radicals such as socialists.
Instead of seeking to silence or limit the visiblity
of the socialist politics present in SAW, we should
think of ways to make the other voices louder. I think
putting together another SAW newspaper with debates
around pacifism, resistance, immediate w/drawal would
be a great way to do this.
We must learn to work through things that are
uncomfortable, even heated, viscious debates if we are
ever going to actually build a movement composed of
diverse beliefs. Yes, it may hurt your feelings, make
you mad, feel really crappy, but if we just give up,
we'll never learn, and we'll have done precisely what
the US gov't, the SFSU administration, and the ruling
class wants us to do: stay divided. This is difficult
but we are also new at it.
I also wanted to clarify why we sell a paper. We
believe the movement is strengthened by political
discussion, debate, histroy, analysis, and news from
real-life struggles.We sell the paper because it has
politics in it that we think are important and it has
coverage of the movements that we are a part of. It is
also a forum for debate: scathing letters are printed
in it all the time, disagreeing with an article. We
don't sell it to harrass people or get dollars, or
make anyone feel uncomfortable. We sell the paper
because we think it's important that peop;e reads it
and we can't afford to just give them away because we
have no corporate sponsors. The paper is mainly paid
for by membership dues. I understand that sometimes we
may be too pushy or awkward, but if we don't try,
we'll never get better at doing it gracefully. We are
all pretty new activists.

I hope we can continue to work together to build SAW.
We have a promising future if we can just work through
these differences and just focus, work together, and
remember what this is all about:
ENDING THIS DISGUSTING WAR !

In Solidarity,
Michael Hoffman

Students Against War
&
International Socialist Organization

From: "Dave Carr" <motopu@speakeasy.net>
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 1:13 am
Subject: Arundhati Roy-Next in line for a Socialist Worker hit piece? motopu2001
Offline
Send Email

At the last meeting, Arundhati Roy was praised for her statement
that we can't wait for a pristine resistance movement before
supporting it. I agree with her, but it looks as if her statement
below could earn her a special place in an upcoming SW article on
"who's ruining our movement." I mean, how dare she say the resistance
"ought to be non-violent resistance."Get out those pens and start
slamming her troops! Let's keep this movement pure! Funny how similar
her position is to Naomi Klein huh?

The source is:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/
4C5CD85A-865E-4C1A-8FB1-2313C7722D3F.htm

'Violent occupation'

She said activists and resistance movements "need to understand that
Iraq is engaging in the frontlines of empire and we have to throw our
weight behind the Iraqi resistance".


But she told ABC radio on Wednesday that she did not mean people
should engage in violence against multinational forces.

"One wasn't urging them to join the army, but to become the
resistance, to become part of what ought to be non-violent resistance
against a very violent occupation," she said, adding that the term
resistance needed to be redefined.

"We can't assume that resistance means terrorism because that would be
playing right into the hands of the occupation," she said.

From: "Alyssa Morrisey" <reverb49@...>
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 3:13 am
Subject: RE: [SAWSFSU] Predictable and Sad reverb49@...
Send Email
These emails have been swarming my mailbox lately, so I’ll throw in my two
cents. First of all, there is a SAW message board, why don’t you take up the
argument there? It might be uplifting for you to know that nearly the whole
continent of Europe, among others, supports your cause and are facing
similar problems.
UEA, the school in England I now attend after leaving SFSU, once had an
antiwar movement. Though, it was not a strong one because right after the
war started, especially after Bush was reelected, there was no longer an
antiwar movement. I give props to SAW, who has managed to recreate itself
every year to fit the changing times.
This argument is simply about which direction you want to pursue next year.
Though, it is a shame that you’ve chosen now to debate such a demoralizing
topic, while you should be supporting each other. I think there is no
possible way you can resolve these issues before the beginning of next
semester. This is an issue that could take years and years to resolve. I
think it’s best to reprioritize. Shift this one to the back burner and worry
about common enemies, the president and the campus president. Let the
Socialist Worker and Arundhati Roy say what they think, but keep your
thoughts on them to yourself until next term for the sake of keeping SAW
united.
The problem with a group like SAW is that you face demoralization on
countless occasions. The standpoint of the campus republicans is simply to
go by what the president says, and oppose whatever the “liberals” say. They
pay no attention to the fact this view faces several contradictions. SAW on
the other hand, is based on research and development. It takes time to work
out every kink and contradiction, and people have little patience for things
that take time. Many still believe that the antiwar movement should be
stopping the war right now as we speak. We know this could take ages.
When I first joined, the group was just being assembled, and hundreds of
people were debating whether it should be against all wars, or simply the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many people feel they weren’t being heard, and
fell out of interest. Hundreds signed up for the mailing list asked to be
dropped. But it didn’t stop there. Countless things have been accomplished
since then, and I’m lead to believe that you’ve replenished your numbers
several times since. I’m afraid it’s just that time of year. People who were
once interested at the beginning of the semester now know that they can
accomplish nothing by the end. All student groups face this. This is another
reason why you should close the topic for further discussion until Fall.
Right now you need to work off momentum. Concentrate on the things that you
have already accomplished. Worry about the subjects you’ve already
discussed. More people will join in the next semester. After all, there’s no
telling what tricks Bush can conger up by then.

From: "Dave Carr" <motopu@speakeasy.net>
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 1:30 am
Subject: Re: Predictable and Sad motopu2001
Offline
Send Email
Don't you dare off yourself Mike. I am posting angry responses
because non ISO members are being attacked, again, as redbaiters.
Boring!!! You and I have worked together outside of SAW and you know I
have a high opinion of you and other ISO members aside from the
political debate about structural issues of the movement, and the
occasional reliance on generic rhetoric (and maybe a few other
things). When Alex said our position was a result of the US
government's anti-communist propaganda, that was totally off the mark.
Speaking for myself, any criticism I have of communism or socialism
has to do with historical accounts from people like Emma Goldman (who
got her very own SW hit piece that mischaracterized her views and
theories), Alexander Berkman, Noam Chomsky, and Maurice Brinton among
others, who all lay out very convincing cases against past Bolshevik
actions specifically. As far as today, we can see what some of the
problems have been first hand.
If this happens every semester, maybe it is time the ISO folks
step out from behind the rhetoric shield and assess what they are
doing that is upsetting people.
Crap, I know you are saying this is not about you, but stopping
the war. I respect that, but for the love of Pete (?) don't harm
yourself in any way, we need you, if only for your drumming skills.
I apologize for sending such a personal mail to the site. I
welcome any criticism of my views, and have found some of the
arguments against the non ISO contingent well written and genuine. But
I still feel as if the ISO is talking past our concerns to a degree in
the last emails here.
We'll talk at tomorrow's meeting about what happens next. It's
not as if breakaway people won't still be willing to cooperate on
specific events with SAW/ISO people.
Dave

From: ANN ADAIR ROBERTSON <arobert@...>
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 8:08 am
Subject: Re: [SAWSFSU] Re: Predictable and Sad arobert@...
Send Email
To: SAW members
From: Ann Robertson (SAW faculty adviser)

First, I would like to applaud all SAW members for the amazing role you
have played on campus organizing against the war. It would be so
demoralizing if you weren't here -- taking the lead in a campaign that we
should all be involved in.

Second, let me compliment all those who have been engaged in a debating
issues relevant to your organization on this list serve. Participants
have made sophisticated observations and have maintained a respectful tone
throughout the debate. This is crucial to any genuine dialogue, and
dialogues are crucial to holding any democratic organization together.

Finally, let me just say a few words about the broader picture that is
perhaps making life difficult for you.
The faculty at SFSU is severely
overworked, and it is hard for any of us to actively support you. But the
support is there. One faculty member quickly put together a letter of
support for you (it should be in the Xpress this week) and got a few
signatures from other faculty members. She could have gotten many more if
she had had more time.
Most people in the US are now against the war in Iraq. It took
years for this to be accomplished during the Vietnam war period. And that
antiwar movement also had its ups and downs. But one of the difficulties
we have now that was not present then is that in Vietnam there was a
united anti-US resistance in the country. Iraq lacks a unified resistance
movement. So people are naturally confused about what is going on over
there, and that makes it more difficult for us. But eventually we will
prevail. The Iraqi people overwhelmingly want the US out. And they will
eventually unify to get the US out. Moreover, most of the US military
over there probably doesn't want to be there. We get reports that there
is serious demoralization among their ranks.
So, this is just to say that you are playing a historic role. But
it takes a lot of patience and determination to move history. I hope you
keep up the good work.

From: pardis esmaeili <smileypop1@...>
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 2:24 pm
Subject: Dear ISO smileypop1
Offline
Send Email
Dear ISO members,
I think that you have put up a defense attitude against the rest of us all too quickly and unreasonably. I know that at the last meeting I mentioned something about the ISO selling newspapers at our meetings. First off, I want to apologize if I offended anyone. I would like all of us to be aware of the fact that we are all students struggling to get a certain point out to the government. We have and will continue to make mistakes. I may have made a mistake in the way i brought up the issue, but one of the purposes of me joining SAW was to become active and voice my opinion. I know that me and a few others have felt pressured many times by ISO members to buy the newspaper, I get asked almost every week. Normally I would not be so hesitant to just tell the person to buzz off, but I i do because these people are my friends and fellow activists who i respect. I feel as if I have to hide my opinions because I don't want to offend anyone. And that is exactly what has happened. Me b
ringing up the issue of the newspaper wasn't an attack on the ISO, it was an effort to bring up an issue that many SAW members have discussed, so that the entire group, including ISO members could discuss it further. In my opinion, we need to focus the SAW agenda to anti-war activism and simply that. THat's why I feel that the ISO selling newspapers is a little out of line. I realize that you could come up with defenses like restriction of free-speech and all that shnazz. But the point is SAW is an anti-war organization. It's not a place for other organizations to recruit people. We are supposedly a bipartisan organization, therefore, we shouldnt be endorsing or involving any sort of political agendas not related to war. I almost feel like I want to say that the ISO has it's own place and own time to sell their newspapers, and publicize their agenda. SAW meetings just dont seem to be the place. anyway, i am very busy the rest of the semester and can't be anymore involved tha
n dealing with the adminstration and making sure they dont fuck me, michael or katrina over. But I really hope that we can figure out a mature and organized solution to this problem, I would hate to come back next semester to find a bunch of hostile ISO and SAW members bickering at each other and forgetting their main objective. Personally i thought SAW's objective was to fight to end the war. ISO's agenda is much more complex and involved many different issues, one of which is the anti-war movement. We love the fact that we have ISO members in SAW, but it seems like it would make more sense if we viewed ISO members in SAW as just members of SAW who are also ISO members. i guess the biggest dilemma is to find a way to distinguish SAW and it's purpose from ISO's. So I hope that all of this heated discussion about SAW's future doesn't boil down to personal feelings being hurt, because I feel it's getting there. Hopefully we can resolve our differences soon, and get back to bus
iness!
Peace and love,
Pardis

From: EMTerzakis@...
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: [SAWSFSU] Response and breif synopsis of why this is happening EMTerzakis@...
Send Email
You're right, David. Klein IS ridiculing and dismissing people who disagree with her as "blanket cheerleaders" for the resistance, which I guess WOULD silence people who dislike being ridiculed and dismissed. My mistake.

I simply disagree with your interpretation of Klein's remarks regarding the resistance; if you don't defend the rights of all people to resist occupation, then what are you suggesting should be done with them?

Elizabeth


Bay Area ISO Notes 5/12/05
-Cadre Todd

Red Baiting at SFSU
Red-baiting came to SFSU in the last two weeks when some members of
the Students Against War group proposed restricting SW sales at SAW
events because "the ISO drives people away." Of course, this is a
ridiculous idea, given that ISO members STARTED the group, make up
many of the most active members of the group, and were instrumental
in planning the March 9 counter-recruitment action that earned
national attention, as well as the wrath of the SFSU
administration. Comrades at SFSU did a very good job of defending
their rights to be open socialists in the movement, pointed out that
the liberal anti-war leadership's tailing of Kerry is to blame for
the state of the movement (not the ISO), and then put forward clear
proposals to get SAW moving back in an outward direction.
Crucially, because the ISO members did not back down in the face of
this campaign, the members of SAW who were putting forward these
proposals, withdrew them. While standing up for themselves was
certainly stressful, and it is disappointing that fellow activists
succumb to McCarthyite prejudices, they held their ground and
demonstrated that you don't have to bury your principles in order to
be good organizers. The SFSU comrades have provided an excellent
model for the rest of the district about how to be socialists in the
movements, both when things are going well, and when they are
difficult. Below is the statement that ISO members at SFSU drafted
for the debate within SAW.

ISO statement for SAW debate
The 2004 presidential elections turned out to be a hugely
demoralizing factor for the anti-war movement. Due to the commitment
to the Democratic Party's right-wing positions on the war, the anti-
war movement shrank in size and experienced demoralization which has
continued in the post-election hangover. We believe that the overall
demoralization that the anti-war movement is experiencing in the
United States has contributed to the small size of SAW, not because
of the participation and influence of the ISO or any other
organization which is a member of SAW.

We believe that the presence of the ISO and its open anti-
imperialist, anti-racist, pro-civil liberties positions have
strengthened SAW and helped to prevent the anti-war movement from
collapsing on campus, as it has on numerous other campuses. For
instance, ISO members were instrumental in arguing that the March
9th counter recruitment protest could be large and successful.

For these reasons we are strongly opposed to the proposals which
have been sent around the SAW list serve and which will be presented
at the SAW meeting this coming Wednesday, May 11. We believe these
proposals will be a step in the direction of policing ourselves.
These proposals are reminiscent of McCarthyism and are in line with
the political censorship sweeping across the country, and will have
drastically damaging effects on the campus anti-war movement and the
left as a whole.

We believe that these proposals are an attack on the ISO as a
political organization, otherwise, why was the original proposal to
change the structure of SAW meetings not mentioned to any member of
the ISO before it was put forward? Moreover, we believe that the
proposal for incapacitating the steering committee will lead to a
decentralized structure and unaccountable leadership made up of the
loudest, most confident voices in SAW, which will damage SAW as a
democratic organization.

These undemocratic proposals are a new manifestation of McCarthyism
in the United States. What do we mean by this? It's simple.
Because of the anti-socialist ideology pumped out by our government,
many activists have prejudices against socialist organizations and
Members of those organizations for `scaring' people away. In fact,
The ISO was instrumental in starting
SAW and its members spend as much time, if not more time than other
SAW members reaching out to new people, so to say that the
ISO "scares people away" is a really unfortunate claim. The only
reason anyone listens to this at all is because American political
culture is so influenced by McCarthyism, the irrational fear of
communists or socialists.

Instead of thinking of ways to make the other voices in SAW louder,
these proposals seem to be aimed at making the socialists quieter.

It is chilling that some of the same people who are fighting along
side of us for the right to protest the brutal occupation in Iraq on
our campus are attacking the right of the ISO to present our anti-
imperialist, anti-racist, pro-choice, pro-workers'rights positions
in the printed form of Socialist Worker. This attempt is an echo of
the Smith Act of 1940, which criminalized the sale of literature
by "organizations who advocated the overthrow of the United States
government". The aftermath of the Smith Act was the arrest,
prosecution and expulsion of communists and socialists from
political organizations, work places, unions and schools. The
proposals being put forth are markedly similar to the attacks by the
SFSU administration on SAW and the ISO and the United States
government's attacks on the left as a whole. Instead of proudly
standing up to Corrigan and the SFSU administration, defending the
right of socialists and others to say and print whatever they want,
and have the greatest possible freedom to distribute it, some SAW
members are bringing the logic of repressing free speech into the
movement itself.

The anti war movement is in a state of crisis. Open debate,
democratic decision making structures and an environment in which
all people opposed to the war, including socialists, are able to
bring in their political positions, is what is needed to build an
anti war movement capable of ending the occupation in Iraq. ISO
members in SAW are putting forth the following proposals, which we
are counter-posing to the other proposals.

They are as follows:
A) SAW relaunch its newspaper to reaffirm its commitment to ending
the occupation of Iraq and clarify the various political debates
that are desperately needed in the anti war movement.

B) SAW's last meeting of the semester should be a public meeting
focusing on the city's College Not Combat campaign. This would
allow SAW to continue its counter-recruitment focus. The biggest
priority for SAW till the end of the semester is to grow and counter-
recruitment work is the best way to draw in new people wanting to
work to prevent their young working class brothers and sisters from
going off to fight and die in Iraq.

Finally, we are absolutely opposed to a split in SAW. Learning to
work through these debates may be difficult and uncomfortable, but
we should all make a commitment to building a united anti-war group
on one of the highest profile campuses in this country. This war
will not end this semester. It will probably not end for years to
come. Most likely, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die and
thousands of American soldiers will die. This is serious business we
are talking about and we want everyone in SAW to think about these
proposals from this point of view.

Todd

From: kyeaw@...
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 10:26 pm
Subject: Re: [SAWSFSU] Red Baiting at SFSU avarbal
Offline
Send Email


Hey guys, hope you get this in time for the meeting. Billy, Ellie and I were
speaking today with Dillon who used to be in SAW and he raised a few points
that we wanted to address in our proposals, so we're making a few slight
changes, although the basic ideas are still the same. I hope this isn't a
problem for anyone, mostly it's just further clarification of what we mean by
certain things. Dillon will also be at the meeting tonight to voice his views
on why he left SAW and support our proposals (although he won't be voting) so
you guys can meet him if you don't already know him. So anyway, here goes:

1) We are proposing the following new meeting structure aimed at sparking
more diverse, inclusive discussions in SAW.
30 min for organizing/break outs at beginning of meetings
At 5:30 we will begin by asking if there are any organizing comittees who need
time on the agenda for any purpose and we'll allot them the time they feel
they need, which will then take place after the discussion
We will kick off the meeting with a 5 minute state of the world/current events
talk given by a SAW member, picked the week beforehand. Following that, we
will set aside up to half an hour for discussion purposes (although we don't
need to use the whole time if people don't have a lot to contribute or
discuss), which will be open to anyone. This will be a time to bring up any
articles that you've read or any concerns or questions you've had concerning
SAW activism, the movement, the state of the war, etc. It is also a time where
ideas for events are encouraged to be raised and discussed. It is a period of
time set aside to allow for a free and open discussion, not dictated by the
confines of any particular subject matter (ie. we will only discuss the Iraqi
resistance for half an hour) and allowing for anyone to contribute and bring
up original, creative, or even oposing ideas and viewpoints. *** We decided
to change this from our original proposal of people bringing in articles to
share and then us voting on which to discuss because that seemed too contrite,
as though we were trying to control the discussion. We really want people to
bring up anything they feel is pertinent, rather than simply sticking to
articles written by other people with a limited focus. This will be a more
organic, free formed discussion.***
Following the discussion, there wil be time for each organizing committee who
requested a few minutes to use their time to discuss anything that needs to be
discussed regarding their event. This could include bringing up a vote about
an issue that needs to be decided on by the whole group, requesting more
organizers to help on the event, having a discussion about what should happen
at the event, etc. We also want to make sure that any ideas for events raised
in the discussion are given time during this portion of the agenda (if
necessary) so that the organizers can get a group of people together to work
on whatever event they proposed, so we can vote on it if necessary, etc.
Basically, this portion of the agenda will be set up somewhat before the
discussion, but will also be flexible so any new ideas about events that are
raised can be hammered out as well and don't get ignored or forgotten about.

one meeting each month will be set aside for a presentation and discussion
on some major antiwar topic. we would like to bring in outside speakers as
much as possible. The other three meetings a month will be organizing-
focussed meetings as described above.
2) Steering cmte. should not be delegated any duties that can be better
accomplished in the regular SAW meetings. steering cmte's role will be
purely bureaucratic: organizing tabling/flyering, delegating
responsibilities, keeping track of donations, etc.
If a member has an idea for some action, they will form a cmte responsible
for the action, and have the authority to carry it out. this will allow
actions to be carried out more naturally, less bureaucratically, and give
the individual activists in SAW more autonomy.
3) No soliciting for anything besides SAW except during announcements. This
includes selling anything outside of the SAW meeting both before and after the
meeting, for example by the entryway to the hall that leads to the meeting or
at the door of the meeting, as well as inside the room where we meet. As
mentioned, people are welcome to sell anything they want, including
newspapers, during the announcement section of the meeting, but are not
allowed to solicit individuals at any other time. This proposal is aimed at
preventing outside group agendas from being confused with SAW's own agenda, as
well as relieving SAW members from the pressure of being confronted
individually to buy something that they may not be interested in and having to
refuse to do so, which is a very akward position for many of us.
--we also want to bring up our concerns that the ISO's recruiting within
SAW is hurting SAW's membership, though no formal restriction or ban on
ISO recruitment will be proposed. our hope is that by changing the meeting
structure we won't have to take more direct actions to curb the ISO's
influence in SAW--
4) every semester we should have a fund raising event for some group or
cause SAW votes to support.
5) welcome new members. the CAN reps, and anyone else who wants to, should
be responsible for making new members feel welcome. we should get to know
new members, asking them what they want to get out of SAW. this will also
help us learn how to grow SAW.
Rachel, i was hoping that as chair you could present these last to along
with the steering cmte props. here again are the proposals to be put
forward by steering cmte.
1) meeting agendas are to be proposed, discussed, and voted on in the
preceding meeting.
2) create a separate SAW email list for major announcements. that way less
active members don't have to deal with the same volume of emails as
organizers.
that's it! good works everyone. i think these proposals have a great
chance of breathing new life into SAW.
peace,
Billy


Billy,

So this is what you have sunk to? Well why didn't you include the rest
of the notes? The notes were not just about saw but about all the
activity we are engaged in like fighting the death penalty and working
on the amie allison green party campaign. And as long as we are at
the subject, you guys made a fuss about having the meeting this wed be
about your proposals instead of working on the defense campaign. So
riddle me this, how come no one brought up any proposals? Are you
planning to leave? If so I think it is mistake, if not have some
RESPECT for the people you are working with.

:D avid

Sharon Smith Book Tour
The Women and Socialism Book Tour was a great success. All tolled,
about 175 attended the 5 meetings and we sold around 75 copies of the
book. Every discussion was different, but the unifying theme was the
need to rebuild the fight for women's liberation and the relevancy of
class politics in doing that. The success of this tour sets us up
well to do more Haymarket Books events in the future. Next plans are
for a June event around The Dispossessed book about Colombia and then
a tour in the late summer or early fall with David Zirin's What's My
Name Fool.

College Not Combat
We just got the OK from the City Attorney today! So we should have
petitions ready by the end of next week. The Mission branch is
anchoring the endorsement process, but ALL branches should plan NOW to
cancel all activities for May 28 and send ALL members and contacts to
SF for the petition launch. Our goal is to have 100 people spend
three or four hours collecting signatures on that day with the hopes
of getting 4,000 names. It will be Carnaval in the Mission, meaning
there will be THOUSANDS of people milling around the streets, so this
could be perfect.
BART UNION DAY
The BART unions are under attack. Management is cutting their
benefits, laying them off and BLAMING them for the hikes in BART
fares. Thanks to XXXXXX in the Mission branch, a rank and file
station agent in SEIU 790 who is heading up a union effort to get the
union side of the story out called and asked the ISO to help cover 5
BART station on Wednesday, May 18 to hand out union flyers. This is a
great opportunity to show solidarity with the unions as well as a
great way to meet rank and file BART union activists. The 5 stations
will be Berkeley, Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell and Civic Center.
The shifts will be from 6:30 to 8:30 am and from 4 to 6pm. Berkeley,
Mission and SFSU branches should get as many members out to these
shifts as possible. This is a GREAT activity to bring contacts to.
Given the recent untimely death of Ray Quan, who was the leader of the
radical rank and file in the BART unions, it is a very encouraging
sign that the union is fighting back. It is also a fitting tribute to
Ray.

CTA/CAN protest in Sacto v. Arnold
On May 25, CTA and CAN will be anchoring a major anti-Arnold protest
at the capitol building in Sacramento. Davis ISO will anchor the
intervention and SFSU, Mission and Berkeley branches should plan on
sending as many members as feasible. Our goal is to have a strong ISO
contingent of 20 or more comrades. Details TBA.

Socialism 2005
Every branch is well on its way to meeting goals for members coming to
Socialism. If you haven't signed up yet, what are you waiting for!
In the next week, we will nail down details for a major district-wide
fund-raiser for financial aid. But all members should register
on-line asap at www.socialismconference.org even if you have to borrow
money to do it.

Party Weekend:
Many comrades have already gone precinct walking for Aimee Allison.
If you haven't signed up, but would like to, please ask you BC how to
do it. Also, there will be a fund-raising party for her campaign at
my house on Saturday, May 14 at 4:30pm. Don't worry about cost, even
if you can only kick in a couple bucks, that's fine. Immediately
following that, will be a birthday party for XXXXXXXX, so you're all
invited. Several folks will be up at XXXXXXXXXs wedding – Congrats!
Then on Sunday, there will be a CEDP bbq fundraiser at XXXXXX and
FINALLY, XXXXXX having a graduation party. Check the ISO list serve
for details about all of these. I know I could use a good party†or 4.


From: "Dave Carr" <motopu@speakeasy.net>
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 1:57 am
Subject: Message from the redbaiting McCarthyite right wing embodiment of evil motopu2001
Offline
Send Email
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: Because he was a redbaiting McCarthyite.

Todd:
Red Baiting at SFSU
Red-baiting came to SFSU in the last two weeks when some members of
the Students Against War group proposed restricting SW sales at SAW
events because "the ISO drives people away."

Dave: I would like to see the source for the above quote, as I
couldn't find it on this site. When the majority of the group feels
harassed and alienated by the presence of an outside group, which the
majority agrees manipulates the meetings and is not up front about
their tactics and influence of the group, they should ban together to
defend the future of the group. We were eventually forced into meeting
outside of the group to counter the secrecy of the ISO against us. We
started doing this only about three weeks ago I believe. What we hoped
to accomplish was to make SAW more, not less radical. More radical in
that ideas came from the group itself through discussion and
brainstorming. As it stood, from the beginning of the semester, we
noticed our agenda always mirrored whatever the ISO was working on
nationally. For example, when the issue of "supporting the resistance"
became central to CAN and the ISO, it was suddenly at the center of
SAW meetings too. All three groups in lock step. Pretty interesting.
Sure there are slight differences, but the guidance was always there,
as if we couldn't determine our own goals.
As I made clear at the meeting before last, I support anyone fighting
against the illegal and immoral invasion by the US without conditions.
That is different from supporting their politics or goals for the
people of Iraq, and the ISO has the same position as I do from my
discussions with ISO members. But the problem arises when the ISO
takes this term "support" and turns it into a loyalty test for people
in the movement. So people who support the right to resist and
understand why their is a resistance, but can't issue the statement "I
support the resistance" are viewed as undermining the resistance
itself, because they have reservations about what that statement might
mean. To some it sounds like supporting the killing of US troops,
which isn't what it means to me, because I know we support the troops
right to not have to fight this illegal war in the first place, and
understand they are victims in many ways to-economically, and victims
of propaganda and lies. But many people just hear the statement and
can't get on board with it and "say the words"--"I support the
resistance." ("Say the words"--see Island of Doctor Moreau for the
source of that quote.)
A recent post to my chat site from an ISO member actually went so far
as to blame Naomi Klein for operation Matador in Iraq:
"She supports the resistance but hedges on armed resistance and
parrots the US critique of the armed struggle.
Giving the US an excuse to bludgeon them as they are doing in
the Iraqi town of Obeidi in Operation Matador."


Dave: I think it is off base to say that Klein "parrots the US
critique." First of all what does he mean by US? The Bush
administration? The Democrats? I never heard a Democrat say that:

"Donald Rumsfeld claims that the resistance is just a few "thugs,
gangs and terrorists". This is dangerous wishful thinking. The war
against the occupation is now being fought out in the open, by regular
people defending their homes and neighbourhoods - an Iraqi intifada."
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1190300,00.html

But Naomi Klein did. Let me also say, I am only defending Klein
because the ISO has misrepresented her arguments for self serving
purposes that are not intellectually honest. If you're going to argue
against someone, at least take the time to read what they actually
say. The ISO article posted here was shown to be false, regardless of
the side arguments that were thrown into the mix. And Naomi Klein is
not simply "parroting the US critique of the armed struggle", nor did
her views lead to operation Matador. To even imply it is insane. But
ISO membership seems to be whipped up into an
anti-UFPJ/Bennis/Benjamin/Klein (but not Roy-who is a "friend" despite
calling for a specifically non violent resistance) frenzy, and
rationality flies out the window. This is the sort of "critical
thinking" that was controlling SAW.


Todd:
Of course, this is a
ridiculous idea [that the ISO is one reason members of SAW quit],
given that ISO members STARTED the group, make up
many of the most active members of the group, and were instrumental
in planning the March 9 counter-recruitment action that earned
national attention, as well as the wrath of the SFSU
administration.


Dave: March 9th was important I agree. But pointing to it in no way
refutes the idea that members have quit or been hounded out of SAW by
the ISO, nor does it legitimize your hyperbole against anyone who
dares criticize SW articles and or ISO operating tactics in the group.
We resented the ISO Fraction meetings that brought the agenda to us to
put our stamp of approval on. That's not democracy, and don't tell us
it is. Billy was clear that he had an ISO person on him who was
assigned to recruit him who was heavily determining his role in the
steering committee. That is his choice to accept or decline the
influence from an ISO recruiter, but when you pretend you don't try to
control SAW, do you really expect anyone to believe you? The same ISO
member who posts a lot of ISO statements to my chat site told me
straight up that the ISO controls SAW:

"We have a large `ISO lobby' in SAW that essentially ensures that our
agenda is put through. There is nothing wrong with this, afterall,
the ISO puts forth a lot of time and effort into SAW. In fact, i
would argue that without the help of the ISO lobby, SAW would not be
nearly as influential on campus."

Interestingly, when I asked this ISO member to consider an article by
Maurice Brinton on the "Bolsheviks and Workers Control" which is
critical of the Bolsheviks his response was"

"At this point in time i dont feel comfortable enough to read
the brinton article. My ISO advisor and I both feel that i need
more education before taking on such critiques."

This was pretty upsetting to me, as I tend not to like people telling
others what they should or should not read. But the number of control
freaks in the ISO seems fairly high. The other day, a member stopped
me to ask me not to leave SAW, she was asked by another long time ISO
member why she was "just standing around." As I made my way to talk to
Frank from the Sparticists, I heard the member who had been chewed out
complaining loudly that she actually had the right to talk to whoever
she wanted to while selling papers. Good for you for not taking that shit.



Todd:
Comrades at SFSU did a very good job of defending
their rights to be open socialists in the movement, pointed out that
the liberal anti-war leadership's tailing of Kerry is to blame for
the state of the movement (not the ISO), and then put forward clear
proposals to get SAW moving back in an outward direction.

Dave: The presidential election has zero to do with what was happening
in SAW. Do you really think we're so dim that you can just use slight
of hand-"ooh look over here-right wing democrats!"? What was happening
in SAW had to do with ISO manipulation of the group, not a rightward
shift of anything. Frankly, I find the tactics of ISO to be
specifically anti-socialist, and the rhetoric that SAW members were
trying to closet socialists is not true. In a socialist group,
theoretically members would have control over their own labor. What
you are defending is vanguardism.

By the way, I did like the proposals, but it was too late. Brandi,
Jason and myself had already decided the environment was too hostile
within SAW. Even if we "won" which we probably could have with the
majority of weekly attendees, we would not have had our hearts in it.
Brandy had been called "too stupid to understand the importance of the
ISO on our campus." This quote was passed on to her from inside the
ISO. Other members had been called redbaiters after quitting the ISO.
The name calling and accusations never stopped. I was constantly
called a red baiter by the ISO member on my chat group whenever I
criticized a statement from a SW article or a view the ISO held. It
was building the kind of stress that eventually leads a person to
realize that there are other peace groups out there. I believe
something along the lines of an anti-imperialist, anti-war, group like
Food Not Bombs would probably be a better place for me. But first we
had made an attempt to address the ISO problem in SAW. Partly because
we had been made aware that this problem had been happening every
semester. At Wednesday's meeting, a member of Students For Peace came
and told the group that our problem was not a paranoid hallucination,
but the same one Students for Peace had experienced a few semesters
back. He explained that from his perspective, the ISO had agreed to
work with Students For Peace, but then started SAW to counter the
group on campus. All the ISO members scoffed loudly at this. But as I
have pointed out in previous posts, it seems that many, if not most
activists, including those to the left of the ISO, who are not
actually in the ISO see it as just this sort of group. Not from
watching FOX News or reading Front Page magazine, but from personal
experience.
When we saw the litany of misrepresentations against us, of which your
statement is a perfect example Todd, we decided it was over. It's not
that we disagree with that many ISO political stances, but that the
level of loyalty to the ISO as a group above all else was actually
damaging to us as human beings.
For myself, I've come to see that the ISO lacks a consistent set of
principles. Here are two examples:
1. Groups who attempt to influence the Democrats as a small part of
what they do are labeled sellouts who are ruining the movement. Their
sins become literal mantras repeated by the ISO membership. But when
the ISO, a socialist and anti-capitalist group supports a
pro-capitalist candidate for President, this is entirely acceptable. I
like Nader, but the ISO stance seems muddled. This would be fine if
the ISO wasn't constantly attacking other groups for mixed messages.
Many of us have views that can contradict each other at times, that's
part of existence, but the ISO doesn't cut anyone but themselves any
slack. I've been in other peace groups, and never ever experienced
this level of hostility. That's over the last twenty years, literally.
2. The ISO attacks Naomi Klein and others for not making the correctly
worded statement about supporting the resistance. Yet Arundhati Roy,
another valuable activist, is not attacked when she specifically calls
for a non violent resistance. Again, the rhetoric of the ISO isn't
even terribly consistent. And yet, any transgression on the part of
others who they deem unworthy is held up by the ISO as evidence that
they have sold out. In the case of SAW, our attempt to address the ISO
manipulation made us "McCarthyites."
But one thing I learned from my professors who have been around long
enough, is that in the McCarthy period, they were forced to sign
loyalty oaths to the government promising they were not
communists.Many of them refused. It is very similar to the type of
test that the ISO is holding people to-- over this specific language
on "supporting the resistance." Even those who support "the right to
resist" but won't use the right words are deemed "disloyal" by the
ISO. Funny how they throw the term so loosely at people they want to
discredit, and yet embody the concept so fully in their own actions.


Todd:
Crucially, because the ISO members did not back down in the face of
this campaign, the members of SAW who were putting forward these
proposals, withdrew them.

Dave: I agree, we could have worded the proposal better. But what we
were facing was the ISO paper out at every phase of each meeting. At
the beginning of the semester, I was too alienated to speak up about
my resentment of the ISO's attitude of ownership of the group, but I
didn't want to say anything too offensive. When I did criticize what I
saw on the SAW site, pertaining to an article about "The Future of the
Movement" or something to that effect, which as usual,
mischaracterized other group's views, I kept it short because there
had been so many posts by ISO members about (paraphrasing) "let's not
clog this board up with political discussion, that's what the meetings
are for." So instead, it just became a back and forth between me and
Michael, who I know personally. But at the meetings, we would just do
the same thing where if you said something, it was literally not even
addressed unless it was already on the agenda, which had been decided
on by the steering committee, which the ISO knew how to guide, and
through the presence of the unified stance of all ISO members at the
meeting. This pretty much determined the course of all meetings, and
as this became apparent, the non ISO members, and I think I speak for
all of us, felt more and more powerless.

Todd:
While standing up for themselves was
certainly stressful, and it is disappointing that fellow activists
succumb to McCarthyite prejudices, they held their ground and
demonstrated that you don't have to bury your principles in order to
be good organizers.

Dave: Todd, your description does not capture what happened at the
meeting. Both Katrina and Michael apologized to non ISO members for
any bad feelings the ISO had caused, which was very nice, and seemed
genuine. A lot of ideas were shared, and a fairly deep discussion
about why this was happening actually took place. Michael was visibly
upset by the situation, and I was openly expressing my anger at how
the ISO had somehow come to frame us as the ones limiting the debate,
when just the week before they had put forth a proposal to stop any
discussion on the matter until after the Summer. This was before there
was even a proposal to limit the time in which the ISO paper was used
inside meetings. And the paper was never to be banned, but only
limited to the announcements period. Why? I hope I've at least made
clear some of what non ISO people were up against, and why we felt the
need to try to create more non ISO space in SAW meetings. We actually
thought of SAW as a separate group. If you want to boil it down to
McCarthyism, I find that to be disingenuous to the point of lying.

Todd:
The SFSU comrades have provided an excellent
model for the rest of the district about how to be socialists in the
movements, both when things are going well, and when they are
difficult.

Dave: On the contrary, I believe you are embarrassing yourself and
your group by the constant dumbing down of what is happening into good
versus evil arguments so that you can win political points. I hope
other members on the SAW list who can start to see what has happened
will voice their opinions. I do worry that they are majority ISO
members though (I really don't know), in which case, it will simply
prove our group right for leaving SAW to the ISO. The ISO does do some
great things on our campus, and although I feel I had a hand in
planning March 9th, I know it was generated initially by the ISO, not
SAW. Still, I'm so happy I was there to do my part. And I know the
administration is absolutely wrong to try to punish anyone for it. As
some of you know, I did contribute in a small way to digging up a few
good items for the defense, and I hope my writing for the group was
useful, even though I know it could have been done without me, and
that so many others did way more than I did. One of the statements
made about the amount of work ISO members do is true. But that should
not preclude autonomy for SAW. All the non ISO members seem to still
be on board for defending the ISO and SAW(although that may have
changed after Todd's statement) even though some of us feel the ISO
would not do the same for us red baiting McCarthyites.
I am pretty sure that this is a good thing to bring it out in the open
like this. Being in an anti-war movement is not just about winning. It
is about what kind of a world, organization of labor, and
opportunities for expression we want to see in the future. I believe
that by me sharing my experience with struggling against the ISO,
people will be able to weigh what I say against what Todd and others
say and decide for themselves, which is great. We plan on sharing our
experiences widely, and although we know the ISO will beat us to
indymedia and other spaces, I'm confident that people will understand
we are not red baiters or McCarthyites, just frustrated activists who
felt cheated out of any real participation and control over our labor
inside what we thought was our group.
Lastly, I don't speak for all the non ISO members, nor have I
spoken with anyone but Billy today. Some of them may stay inside the
group, and I hope I haven't made it any harder for them to do that. I
just don't believe it helps anyone to hold my toungue on important
issues like these.
----Dave


From: chretientodd@...
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 10:01 am
Subject: Re: [SAWSFSU] Red Baiting at SFSU chretientodd@...
Send Email
Dear SAW list members,
I'm not sure what Billy thought he was accomplishing by posting the summary
of the debate at SFSU that I wrote in the "Bay Area ISO Notes." It's basically
just re-stating what the ISO members in SAW have been arguing for a couple weeks
(most of it is literally a copy of what they posted to the SAW list previously).
If the "shock" factor is supposed to be that I am an ISO "cadre" (meaning
"organizer") and that I summarized the experience at SFSU and then informed
other members of the ISO of what happened (in an internal memo, btw), it's not
very exciting. If the intention is to imply that the ISO members at SFSU can't
think for themselves and they are somehow so "indoctrinated" that they blindly
"follow orders" then this is just another indication that some members of SAW
have succumb to McCarthyite prejudice. Socialists are zombies, blah, blah,
blah... If I'm wrong about these "ifs" then I look forward to Billy's
explanation for posting it in the first place.

To be clear, I am still on this list because I used to be in SAW before I
graduated. Since I am no longer in SAW, I haven't commented AT ALL on the
debates within SAW on the list, voted on any proposals, made any proposals, etc.
My only posts up to now were to update folks on the Xpress ad, which I offered
to do because I'd had previous experience defending the Berkeley 3, everyone
seemed happy to have me take on that work at the time and I'm glad I did. The
only reason I am commenting about this debate now on the list now is because
Billy brought me into it.

At any rate, David R went ahead and posted the rest of the ISO Notes, so I
hope people who read them will consider joining with us to support the BART
workers, hit the streets to petition for College Not Combat, and come to the
fund-raiser for Aimee Allison.

Finally, thanks to everyone who helped gather names and money for the
full-page add in the Xpress. It looks great. In the end, we raised about $700
for the add, and I just paid the remainder myself.

"cadre" Todd

From: pardis esmaeili <smileypop1@...>
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 12:24 am
Subject: come on people, i thought i was in college not the third grade smileypop1
Offline
Send Email
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to put my two cents in about all the ridiculous childish e-mails that have been going on back and forth between SAW and the ISO since yesterday. I dont know what went on in the meeting yesterday, i dont know what was said and not said. All i know is that every argument has two sides, both sides are always guilty of irrational comments and attitudes especially when you have a group of incredibly passionate people like us. But unfortunately i think we have been completely drowning ourselves out from what is going on around us. The ISO: i don't seem to understand you guys. You are fighting, kicking and screaming because some of us VOICED OUR OPINION about what is going on in SAW. For some reason you have all turned around and turned it into some conspiracy theory that we are just trying to surpress you and we are all just part of the new McCarthyism. I don't mean to be rude, but that's BULLSHIT. I just wish that you could open up your eyes and realize that just bec
ause we are critical of the situation we are in, just because we are inferring things from our past experience, just because we are expressing what we FEEL, (which may be different from what you feel), does NOT mean we are surpressing you. ISO has a completely different agenda than what I and the others who are on "my side" feel SAW is about. It's wonderful that you started the organization, it's wonderful that you're all so active, that doesnt mean u should not be open critism and outside views. On the other hand, i want to point out that there have been childish acts on both sides of this. And i think that we all need to grow up (myself included) and stop bickering at each other and actually find a solution. Many of us dont agree with the socialist system, we shouldnt be verbally slaughtered for it. Instead we need to realize that the one thing we all know we have in common is we are against this war and the crimes that are being committed in its name. So let's get over ou
r hurt feelings, and figure out a way to organize and utilize our strenght. We are all intelligent people, with open minds, me make mistakes, but we can't forget our cause and our goal. I really hope we all can just take some time and cool off and be mature and educated about what we do and say.
Peace, Love and Solidarity
Pardis

From: Alex Schmaus <alexalexalex49@...>
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 12:59 pm
Subject: my response alexalexalex49
Offline
Send Email
I have not entered into the listserve debate as of yet, save for issueing formal statements, for i feel that it is an undemocratic, inefficient method of communication and has been toxic to our coalition. That said, here goes:

If anyone chooses to leave SAW, do not martyr yoursleves.

The ISO has not driven anyone out of SAW. Some of you have serious anti-leninist politics, thats ok, but you leave because you do not want to work with us.

Some of you claim that the "tone" of the ISO, its robotic membership, its recruitment tactics, and the selling of its anti-imperialist, anti-racist newspaper make you feel unconfortable, that you cannot work in such a hositle environment anymore. I'm sorry, but this is bullshit.

I have no idea what is meant by "tone," but it sounds like "shut up about your politics." Secondly, the idea that comrades are robotic automotons following strict orders from high up is incredibly disrespectful, untrue and a complete red herring to the debate aroudn the foward direction of SAW. If you don't want to be "accosted" by comrades with the paper anymore, simply be clear about it, use your words. I never heard anyone tell me to "never talk to them about the paper again" until the shit hit the fan.

The ISO is deeply commited to the foward direction of the student anti war movement. We think that for the movement to grow we need more socialists, that is the extent of our outside "agenda" within SAW. If you do not want us to work on recruiting you personally to the politics that we believe are needed to make the world a better place tell us and we won't. The ISO is also deeply commited to the growth of the antiwar movement in general and comrades have done as much or more work to the building of SAW events, and the recruitment of new anti-war activists. I have been deeply saddened to see several new activists come and and go, scared away by our mutual in-fighting.

There is still a war to end and i feel that some of us care more about our personal battles than building a strong and diverse student anti war movent on one of the most high-profile campuses in the country. Anyone of the activists in SAW abandoning our cause would deeply sadden me. If a seperate anti-ISO group is formed, i hope that it is successfull in building the movement, although I have my doubts. We will never be able to build a movement that challanges the war machine if we split everytime we have differences.

On Wensday SAW, the only student anti war coalition on campus, voted to

A) re-start the SAW newspaper, in order to address the political questions in the movement right now and

B) have a public meeting next wensday centered around building the cities College Not Combat campaign in order to continue the counter-recruitment focus discussed at CAN conferences and expanded nationally in part by our March 9th protest

If you want to help build SAW and end the war i hope to see you on wensday

Alex Schmaus
Students Against War
International Socialist Organization

From: EvlPotato@...
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 9:39 pm
Subject: human beings.. EvlPotato@...
Send Email
Hmm... despite being personally attacked on this listserv recently, I'll try not to respond with my "feelings" about that specifically since many of you seem not to care at all about what effect you might be having on other human beings. What is that I say? HUMAN BEINGS? Is that what we are? I guess I forgot...

I first of all want to say that, although some aspects of this debate are childish and unneccesary to have on a listserv, I think that expressing ourselves about all of these issues is important and very necessary, and since many of you refuse to have these discussions in person (or have at least tried to avoid them in the meetings) maybe the listserv is the best way to talk. There are obviously issues and problems in SAW, major problems. Some people will continue to say that these problems don't exist or that we should ignore them, but I believe that is untrue and unwise.

When people have to quit working in