The flyer said “EMERGENCY DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THE WAR EFFORT,” and, of course it gave the place and time. I was to go there. . . but, then, I had second thoughts, not to mention that my vehicle had developed a brake problem making it impossible (maybe, maybe not) to go, which conveniently gave me the excuse to not go. The truth is that I was afraid to go. I was afraid to go to a peaceful protest against government sanctioned, vicious, acts of violence that will surely kill thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians.

The rules have all changed. The people who run that state entity known as the United States of America have made that very clear. They are bent on waging war against an unseen and unknown enemy called “terrorism.” (what a convenient way to support the military budget) On an international scale, they have made it clear that if you support anyone suspected of “terrorism,” you also are guilty of “terrorism,” and, therefore will be dealt with as we deal with terrorists. In reality, this means that if you do not support us, you must support them, and, therefore you are one of them and we are allowed to do whatever we want to do to you. Thus are the paraphrased words of the United States governmental leaders who are speaking for that entity known as the United States of America.

Now, let’s bring this attitude back home. In the U. S. media there is an all out effort going on to whip up a frenzy of support for a retaliatory response. On every major corporate media outlet, there is a message of “America United” on the Fox Network, “Attack on America” on NBC, “America’s New War” on CNN, and so on and so on and so on ad nauseum – all presupposing that a war for the U.S. is inevitable. (how convenient for the lagging U.S. economy) We are being pushed into a war mode for sure and if you doubt it your cognitive abilities are suspect. The propaganda machine has been stepped up and it is working well.

The implications for those who do not support such a course of action are interesting. How many ways has it been said in the past? “If you are not for us, you surely must be against us,” “If you ain’t wit’ us you be agin’ us,” “those who do not stand by our side are surely our enemies,” “if you are not my friend, you are my enemy.” Remember for yourself all of the different ways that it has been articulated.

This puts all who do not agree with the prepackaged response to the actions that occurred on September 11 at the World Trade Center in New York City in a rather precarious and dangerous position. The same standard is being applied at home as abroad – “if you are not for our plan, you must be against us.” This translates to “you are the enemy,” and that means that you are “fair game.”

This is what dissent to the Official United States Governmental Position has come down to. If you do not agree with the official position you are suspected of being a “terrorist” and are, therefore, “fair game.”

Yes, I was afraid to go to the demonstration against the “Official United States Governmental Position” today. I knew that it would make me “fair game.” I knew that the rulers of the governmental entity known as the United States of America could call me a “terrorist,” hunt me down, and kill me. Tiene cuidado. Juan Domingo

sure, protesting in Seattle, or Genoa, or someplace else was a danger. And now things are pretty serious all-over.

However, it's still probably best to voice one's opinion, and to stand up and be counted. This is how liberty is retained. Democracy is an eternal struggle. Be motivated with hope rather than fear as much as possible. Justice is still a laudable goal. Our strength always remains as people in action.

Was it Thoreau who sat in jail and answered his friend's question of "why are you in there?" with "why aren't you??"

vaya con spiritus

Henry David Thoreau was in jail for refusing to pay the war tax to pay for the Mexican-American War.

Ralph Waldo Emerosn came to visit him, and said, "What are you doing in there, Henry?"

"What are you doing out there?" Thoreau replied.

Thoreau was the only recorded conscientious objector to the Mexican-American American.

A hundred and twenty years later, there were thousands of formal conscientious objectors to the Vietnam War, and hundreds of thousands, even millions of informal conscientious objectors.

Now the US is reduced to fighting wars only against bona fide evil--which we have helped to create: Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and now Osama bin Laden.

We cannot combat this new development solely with Thoreau's simple self-mobilization of conscience. It is a more complex challenge--because there is genuine evil to be struggled against on both sides. Both are caught in cycles of demonization, self-righteousness and violence. But Thoreau is still a tremendous inspiration, for his solo act of conscience had more power than anyone then living could possibly imagine. This shows us that every act of conscience has unlimited potential, no matter how frail or futile it may seem at the time.