In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

D.C. Protest Pics

Jill

Courtesy of my sister, who lives in D.C.

protest1
This man, who was there to protest the protest, spent a good deal of his time yelling at my sister, “Hey, baby-killer! How many babies did you kill today?”

Ah, how closely she has followed in my footsteps. We do, after all, have a proud family tradition of being called baby-killers.

protest2
Hot boys in skirts and pink wigs. Ain’t nothin’ better.

protest3
This requires no caption.

22 thoughts on D.C. Protest Pics

  1. I normally don’t pay attention to morons (well, I try not to), but I’ve got to confess to a bit of curiosity…what is the epithet “baby-killer” supposed to refer to–your sister was at an antiwar protest, right? Did this red-faced, moronic toad get lost on his way to harass a pro-choice rally?

    He looks like quite the intellectual giant! I’ll bet, in between shouts of “baby-killer”, he bellowed “U-S-A, U-S-A!”

  2. People come to town and they never let me know when they’re going to be here. I’ve got a big ‘ol house now that can accommodate guests (if I run out and get them air mattresses).

  5. …and how is the Worker’s World Party these days? Ahh, for those halcyon Soviet days, when they preferred killing ssloooowly…

  7. I think Chris Hitchens gives a pretty good summary of what Rob’s referring to. The fact that not even many politically savvy folks know about the agenda of the “anti-war” movement’s core is testament to how shoddy a job our modern media does. Groups like ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice don’t want “peace”. They just want a different side to win the war.

  8. …that is exactly what I’m talking about. Of course Hitchens wrote on this. He knows these folks intimately. Didja catch the Kos posts attempting to quiet the anti-Zionists? “You’re going to distract Americans who may join our anti-war cause if you’d shut up about the Jews!” Rolling-on-the-ground funny…

    Sorry, Jill. You may not be aware that international ANSWER is and has been a Communist front group. I blame your liberal institution of learnin’. Since they organized this gathering of “patriotic Americans”, this information should have been front and center for public consumption. That conservative bias again.

  9. Who cares what the various agendas of coalition groups are? This protest was specifically about the war, not every bullet point on every group’s charter, and nobody thinks any different, except perhaps if one was trying to distract from the valid message of the protests – that this war is futile, and the most logical path to take is to cut our losses and end the stupidity.

  10. Well, I’m aware that trying to discredit movements by associating them with Communism has been a key target of the right since the infamous spider web chart in the 1920s. It’s not going to work this time. Nobody really gives a shit about the Communist menace anymore. Very few people think that ANSWER represents the anti-war movement. And it’s not distracting people from the key questions about how this war is being waged and why we got into it in the first place. So nice shot, but you’ll have to try again.

  11. It’s not just about being associated with Communism. These folks have never met a fascist regime, left or right, that they didn’t like. They support Slobodan Milosevic as much as they supported the actions of the Chinese Communists at Tiananmen Square. And I think you’re wrong about ANSWER not being the face of the movement. It has certainly held itself out as such, and provides the lion’s share of the planning and logistical support for rallies like the one in DC.

    Bottom line: if you want to criticize the war, fine. But don’t fool yourself in to thinking you’re supporting “peace” by aligning with organizations that that have a long history of promoting violence and aggression.

  12. But don’t fool yourself in to thinking you’re supporting “peace” by aligning with organizations that that have a long history of promoting violence and aggression.

    I think you’re the one who’s fooling yourself. You’ve been whining for several years now about how anti-war protesters are all a bunch of evil Stalinists. It’s not working. More and more people are asking the questions that anti-war protesters have been asking all along. It’s fine by me if you keep trying to smear the anti-war folks. It’s a losing strategy. But if you want to convince anyone, you’re better off trying something else.

  13. Crap, I went to a peace rally and suddenly I find that my mere presence has made me a communist, a fascist, a friend of Slobodan Milosevic, Chinese communists, and Islamic fundamentalists. Whew! That’s quite a lot for standing around for a few hours.
    At least I haven’t yet been called a queer. That’s not nearly as original.

  14. You’ve been whining for several years now about how anti-war protesters are all a bunch of evil Stalinists.

    I’m sorry, I’ve never met you, let alone known you for “several years”, so I don’t know how you can tell me what I have or haven’t been doing over that period. To you, and to Sina as well, please note that nowhere in this thread have I accused anyone of being “evil”, “Stalinist” or “a friend of Slobodon Milosevic”…other than people that, by their own admission, are friends of Slobodan Milosevic. Does going to a peace rally hosted by avowed Stalinists make you a Stalinist? No. Does it make it easier for people to take you seriously? I’m going with no on that one too. Does it severely undercut your moral authority, especially when you purport to argue for non-violence? You betcha.

    Since some people seem to having a hard time wrapping their heads around how associating a bunch of radical pro-fascist, pro-jihadi thugs can, shall we say, dilute the credibility of those who may have legitimate concerns about the war in Iraq, let me put it this way: I’m in the Federalist Society. If the Federalist Society ever suddenly decided one day that, in addition to hosting academic debates and discussions, they would also like to agitate for global jihad and cheerlead for Kim Jong-Il, I would denounce them in the strongest possible terms and stop attending events that they host, regardless of how much else I might find agreeable in their missions statement.

    I don’t see why critics of the war in Iraq can’t be held to a similar standard, which is really not a high bar to clear, if you think about it.

  15. Bottom line: if you want to criticize the war, fine. But don’t fool yourself in to thinking you’re supporting “peace” by aligning with organizations that that have a long history of promoting violence and aggression.

    I’m sorry, where did I (or anyone else here) align themselves with any of these groups? You and Rob are the ones who brought them up. I didn’t even go to the protest, and most of the people who did were there soley to show their frustration with the war in Iraq, not to present themselves as part of any particular organization.

  16. Jill: I apologize if you thought I was referring to you or any of the other commenters in this thread specifically. I wasn’t, and didn’t intend for my comments to be read that way. My general argument, which I still believe to be valid is: A) the people behind much of the “anti-war” movement have some pretty despicable goals, B) this agenda is not well known outside the “anti-war” movement or well-disseminated by the media, and C) anyone who lends credence to these groups by publicly supporting them or going to functions that they sponsor can’t just be allowed to sweep this agenda under the carpet or pretend that it doesn’t matter.

    I reiterate: it is possible to be credible opponent of the war in Iraq without being a Stalinist, and no, just going to an “anti-war” rally hosted by ANSWER doesn’t necessarily imply that you agree with all of that group’s goals.

  17. I meant that “you” in the plural sense, Jon C. I have no idea what you personally were doing two-and-a-half years ago. People of your political persuasion were smearing the anti-war movement, because only evil Stalinists would deny that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

    The bottom line is that he didn’t, and you’re flailing around screaming about ANSWER because you don’t want to discuss the fact that the entire rationale for this war was a mistake or a lie. Nor do you want to discuss the real possibility that Iraq is about to slide into civil war.

    My general argument, which I still believe to be valid is: A) the people behind much of the “anti-war” movement have some pretty despicable goals

    Which people? My friend, a devout Catholic who agrees with the Pope that this isn’t a just war? Her pastor, who we bumped into at an anti-war protest? The mother in D.C. on Sunday with the sign that said “proud of my soldier, ashamed of this war”? Which of those people are the evil Milosovic-loving Stalinists? Because those people are the anti-war movement, just as much as anyone else.

    B) this agenda is not well known outside the “anti-war” movement or well-disseminated by the media

    Translation: the general public refuses to believe my lie, so the media must be biased.

    C) anyone who lends credence to these groups by publicly supporting them or going to functions that they sponsor can’t just be allowed to sweep this agenda under the carpet or pretend that it doesn’t matter.

    Translation: I don’t want to talk about the fact that the rationale for going to war was a mistake or a lie, and I don’t want to talk about the fact that the occupation is a mess and a calamity in the making. Can’t we please shoot that damned messenger?!

    I’m not going to anti-war protests anymore, because I haven’t the foggiest notion what we should do about this mess at this point. But I don’t regret going two-and-a-half years ago. I think we were right. And I’d rather protest an injustice alongside people with whom I disagree about other things than be bullied into remaining silent.

  19. Sally: as the cliche goes, what we have here is a failure to communicate. If at this point in the discussion you’re still not clear on “which people” I’m talking about or what agenda I’m referring to, or think that I’m trying to “bully” people into not criticizing the war, then you’ve either understood nothing I’ve posted above or we’re just talking past each other. Most assuredly, if we were to have a discussion about whether Iraq is better off post-war or during the Saddam Hussein era, that too would rapidly decline into talking past one another, so I’ll decline, thanks.

  20. Amen to that. I don’t particularly like the way the war is being waged either. Nevertheless, I’m not going to align myself with Fascist props or pinko tards to rally against it. Not to mention the black-hooded “anarchists for peace”. Yeah, that’s gonna get a lot of traction in the US. I’m sure it’s sweeping the nation. Just ’cause Brian Williams says it doesn’t make it so.

  21. “Communist front”…there’s a term I haven’t heard in a while. Is someone going to start using the term “Comsymp” (for Commie sympathizer, of course)? How about “fellow traveler”, or my personal fave, “useful fool”? Boy, the Cold War was fun, wasn’t it? Why don’t we bring it back? Much easier in those days; you were either for the commies, or against ’em!

  22. This man, who was there to protest the protest, spent a good deal of his time yelling at my sister, “Hey, baby-killer! How many babies did you kill today?”

    Wow, that’s Jim Robinson, proprietor of Free Republic.com. The woman in the wheelchair next to Robinson’s wheelchair is his wife, Sheila. They’re sure getting around, lately. They were last spotted in Crawford, Tx at the pro-war, anti-Cindy rally.

    So, there he is, cheering for the war that killed Cindy’s son and 2,000 other American moms’ sons and daughters and tens of thousands of Iraqi moms, babies, children, sons, daughters and men while yelling “killer” at your sister.

    I really have no idea how the wingnuts manage to live with the cognitive dissonance their hypocrisy must cause.

Comments are currently closed.