Posted by thanks, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2007 at 4:47 pm

I'll never understand why palo alto protestors think that disrupting commuter traffic achieves their goal. Is their vision that inconveniencing their neighbors will get them to come around to their way of thinking?

Why can't they write an emotionally charged post to Palo Alto Online instead. I am sure it will have the same non-impact and people that live in the area will get home sooner for dinner ;^)

Posted by thanks, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2007 at 6:07 pm

by the way, their commitment to the protest usually peaks with the arrival of the news vans, so call news people early and the intersection will clear quickly after the last camera departs.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2007 at 9:48 pm

Since a conspiracy to commit any crime is a felony, haul off the perps for 5 to 10. The 33rd word, people, the 33rd word. When you impede the progress of another you are agressing against them, so cut it out.

Incidently, the term "Anti War" by itself makes as much sense as anti crime or anti fire. Everyone is anti-war, very likely including Hitler and Stalin. They both were quite willing to take what they wanted peaceably when they could.

Posted by Civitas, a resident of another community, on Jan 10, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Walter_E_Wallis gives Hitler and Stalin too much credit! Surely the only time either of these meglomaniacs was anti-war when was they thought they would lose ...

Posted by chris, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2007 at 12:15 am

How about a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline to pay for the war?

Do you think that would motivate these drivers that are in a hurry

to put more pressure on the government to de-escalate the war in Iraq

rather than bending to Bush's latest whim?

Posted by Wolf, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2007 at 12:45 am

Walter said it right. Almost nobody wants war for war sake since we stopped glorifying war 2-3 centuries ago. But not wanting war, and refusing to engage in one, are totally different things. How exactly do you respond to aggression? How were we expected to respond to Pearl Harbor or to the Kuwait invasion -- with words? Wasn't the reluctance of UN (and other western powers) to wage war responsible for the Rwandan massacre in the 90's?

When I see "War is not an Answer" slogan, I always think that it really depends on the Question.

Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on Jan 11, 2007 at 6:54 am

I don't understand..

+++first we were bad because we dared to give the Iraqis a chance at freedom, granted because we thought it would also be good for the region and us in getting rid of a brutal nutcase who was trying his best to develop enough WMD to hold Israel hostage and make a pan-Arabia

+++, and then we were bad because we didn't have enough people there to keep the peace (because we were trying to live up to our promise to let the elected Iraqis develop their own way of managing their fringe)

+++ and now we are bad because the ELECTED Iraqi govt wants us to have enough people there to keep the peace so that the Iraqis can finish building their own security for their own democracy that they have built with blinding speed. ( Does anyone actually think we are forcing on them? This is a POLICE help)

Let's see..if I were an Iraqi, I think I would be concluding that these guys on the left really want me to live under a dictatorship. I would not be grateful, at all...

By the way, it is now old, but get the DVD "Voices of Iraq". It is by some guys who, admittedly by their own word only, randomly passed out a bunch of video players around Iraq a couple years ago and told teh people they could record whatever they want. It is an eye opener to hear from real people themselves what is happening to them, on the very day we get a "bad headline", and what they think about the news they are hearing that we get.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2007 at 7:04 am

Sorry, Civitas, but Hitler and Stalin were anti war when war came to visit them. I can visualize Hitler in his bunker, whining "Why can'r we just get along!" and Uncle Joe, skedaddling out of Moscow, missing the non-agression pact so recently breached.

I consider anti-war protesters to be in the same class as those who demean sewer and garbage workers while enjoying the sanitary lives their efforts make possible, or who belittle cops as they sit snug in their gated community.

Anti-war activists combine the worst aspects of ignorance and arrogance, plus just a little bit of ingratitude.

Posted by chris, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2007 at 9:12 am

How many lives and billions of dollars does Bush get to play with until he comes up with a plan that works?

Did he say up until a few months ago that we were winning? that Rumsfeld was the greatest defense secretary ever? Was he "lying" or

delusional?

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2007 at 10:02 am

The enemy changes. The fool does not.

Posted by Get a Grip, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2007 at 10:26 am

Peninsula Peace & Justice Center has been doing these protests for years & they know what they're doing. It'll be on the sidewalk & the intention isn't to interrupt commuters, but to express disagreement w/the policy in a peaceful, active way. Protests are needed as a tool to work politicians whose job it is to pay attention to what their contsituents want.

Posted by chris, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2007 at 11:05 am

Are you saying you are a fool? If not, give some examples of fools so that we can better understand your point.

Communicating clearly and effectively is something we can all use more of. The obfuscation from Bush is the best example of what not to do.

Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2007 at 11:51 am

Peninsula "Peace and Justice" activists -

I would consider standing with you at today's rally against the escalation in Iraq. However, the hard-core anti-Israel bent of your organization makes it hard to feel comfortable begin numbered among you. On this topic, I reviewed the most recent articles posted/linked on your web site, and found nothing but anti-Israel rhetoric. I'm not necessarily a fan of the current government or the Israeli right, but everything you post calls on Israel to change, to make concessions, to withdraw, without ANY hint of a context or justification for Israel's positions. Just as one recent example, what did Israel's withdrawal from Gaza produce? Palestinians spitefully destroyed buildings and greenhouses left behind that could have helped the Gaza economy. Thousands of rocket attacks against Israel. Kidnapping. More tunnels. More armed conflict between Fatah and Hamas - and surprise, when they fight each other, it's impossible to avoid "civilian" deaths. Of course, when Israel's fight against militants also kills civilians, it's considered racist or "genocidal" (what an obscene misuse of that word!). None of those facts or opinions can be found among your links. And all I can tell from your links is that Hamas is a political party. Is that the kind of peace and justice you're about? One-sided whitewashing?

I might support your position (or elements of it) on Iraq, but I've seen enough of the American left to know that if I stand with you today, I'll likely be standing next to signs that conflate the issues and demonize Israel. I'm sad that it has to be that way for now... will it ever change? I'm not asking you to abandon the idea of solidarity with Palestine, but would your ideas of peace and justice ever involve the suggestion that suicide bombing is wrong, that Hamas is an extremist terrorist group, or that Israel might have good reasons not to negotiate with those who seek its demise? Or does anything go when you march under the banner of "peace and justice"?

Posted by thanks, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Get a grip,

Oh I think you are talking that group of about 12 Seniors that pickets on the sidewalk occasionally. If so, you are right that group does not get in the street, and it also does not cause traffic problems.

While I am sort of inline with Skeptic Al in terms of my position on your politics. I have neve been inconvenienced by your protests, have at it. Make sure you bring warm clothes and coffee, its going to be cold.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2007 at 7:09 pm

A fool is someone who believes that there are no problems you cannot negotiate your way out of, someone who lacks the understanding that there are people in this world who mean it when they openly announce their intention to kill or enslave you. When the fools try to cripple thir defenders and shower them with contempt, they decend "...to the vile depths from which they have sprung, unwept, unhonored and unsung." [Scott]