A little bit ago, I read an article on line about what organizations are bankrolling the anti-war protests, and now I can not remember where I read it - has anyone read something similar, or can anyone point me in the right direction ???
Thanks -
The anti-war protests are not being “bankrolled” by anyone. Any costs incurred in attending a protests are paid by the protesters themselves in 99% of cases. There is some wacky group that has been active in some protests - I’m sorry I can’t remember the name. The vast majority of protesters receive nothing from them and don’t even know they exist.
Thanks, oceans_11 - that was exactly what I was looking for…
Fox. That figures.
You’re welcome, klas.
Yeah, they actually report REAL FACTS! How DARE they deviate from accepted propaganda???
Like it or not, some real slimy bastards are co-opting any genuine anti-war sentiment for their own political ends.
I have no use for most of the protestors, but let’s face it: nowadays, it’s not difficult or expensive to organize a rally. The Internet has made it very easy for ideologues of any and all stripes to find each other and inform each other of upcoming events.
So, if 10,000 people show up for an anti-war demonstration at the state capital here in Austin (as happened just yesterday), I don’t start imagining that there MUST be some sinister shadow group bankrolling and planning the whole thing. That simply isn’t necessary! All that organizers need to is spread the word of a planned rally (again, the Internet helps spread the word, quickly and cheaply), and interested people will show up.
I mean, really, how much could it cost to put up a few anti-war websites, or to make some cardboard signs?
Uh, “a retired agent of the U.S. Information Agency” is the source for this? I had no idea that a defunct bureaucracy that encouraged study abroad programs and trasnlated foreign newspapers had “agents.”
That Fox article reads like somebody bankrolls their propaganda, too. Hmm…liberal media, my a**
Yes, facts like “…Romerstein said.”
“…intelligence officials say…”
“…said Herbert Romerstein, a retired agent of the U.S. Information Agency.”
Finding a couple of government stooges who are willing to provide hysterical, alarmist quotes for a biased news story is about as easy as finding a group that provides funds and implying (without making an actionable allegation) that that group calls the shots.
Pretending for a moment that WWP, IAC and IFCO have, in fact, been shown to be “slimy bastards,” in what way is accepting money to fund one’s own activities “being co-opted”? Those aren’t hundreds of thousands of professional protesters out there – they’re people who are protesting this war, and many may never do this again. What global conspiracy is being furthered when WWP pays for a podium?
And since when does a podium cost $200,000?
When I read in this morning’s Indianapolis Star that Castro’s Cuba was jailing his critics, I thought, “Boy, that’s a sure sign of a weak government on the skids.” That’s when I heard on the radio that police in San Francisco were arresting hundreds of anti-war protesters. A person’s mind could get boggled.
The cite article is dubious on factual grounds. Protests are generally organized and funded locally. In Seattle, the dateline of the article and my hometwon, the financial backer of the largest local protest was the Church Council of Greater Seattle. The hat was passed at the Feb. 15 march, but likely did not cover the cost.
Other sponsoring organizations are groups like Peace Action. They raise money by making phone calls and soliciting donations.
It is rather strange that the author picks out the Workers of the World Party. Even here in Seattle, where there honest-to-goodness communists, WWP is not a large organization among its fellow Communist, Socialist and simmilar organizations. Yes, they show up at demonstrations, along with International Socialist Organization, the Freedom Socialist Party and a handful of others. If they have been funding demonstrations, why would they restrict themselves to a card table on the sidelines?
I am curious to know where the author thinks WWP gets its money.
As for the international action center, they are a much larger organization. I leave it to you to decide if Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General and Founder of the IAC, is a communist. It is curious that the author acknowedges this, but does not comment on it.
The article has a number of other flaws. The author does not distinguish between the majority of protestors who are not planning civil disobedience, and a small number who are planning nonviolent resistance.
The activities attributed to activists border on the surreal. I would be greatly suprised if the Direct Action Network would protest at power plants or water facilities, and can not fathom chaining oneself to a schoolyard fence.
One could continue, but I belive this answers the original question.
They are not arresting people for protesting peacefully; they’re arresting people for lying in the street blocking traffic, attempting to overtake the Bay Bridge in order to shut it down, and assulting officers and bystanders with rocks, pipes, bottles and bike chains. None of these things are legal regardless of the world situation. These people are in fact trying to get arrested and in some cases were instructed to “start thinking of your sound bites now.”
http://www.sfgate.com/ has a sidebar with stories related to the protesting, and at latest report the protests are costing the city $500,000 a day in police overtime. To pay for this programs and jobs are going to have to be cut. Not cool.
Try doing a Google Search on “Herbert Romerstein” Nuff said.
It is not a fact that everyone arrested at protests has broken a law. This is evidenced by the fact that the DA rarely prosecutes. The rest is opinion, and off-topic at that.
Ouch! I was merely clarifying for AskNott that there were people doing things other than protesting peacefully since s/he might not have the advantage of local San Francisco newscasts as I do. I don’t think mentioning the cost of the protesting was off topic since we were discussing money – and the cost and its repercussions are straight from the (“da”) mayor’s mouth, not opinions. “Not cool” is opinion, you got me there. Hope it wasn’t too strongly worded for you. Heh.