i feel a little nervous about this washington protest, for a variety of reasons, including the possibility(ies) of (a) getting shot at and (b) getting misconstrued and/or co-opted. the first one is barely worth thinking about, i suppose, although we've agreed to park in a safe place and not to stop for gas while we're in or around washington. the second is, i guess, more of an issue for me. laurel and i have been talking about how to get moderate people out there, opposing this war, and we haven't come up with any really stellar ideas (more fliers, anyone?). it seems as if most americans think opposition to an iraq incursion is somehow radical, or that if you oppose it strongly you *become* radical. but i'm not radical in ways that fit the agendas of a lot of protest organizers. i'm not a communist, a socialist, an anarchist, a member of AIM, or a hamas apologist; i don't particularly care about mumia; i vote democratic, not green. blah, blah, blah.

the point is that i think if we're going to be effective in getting people who are otherwise moderates involved in this peace movement, we need to be (just to borrow a lovely bushism) on message. the message is, "we oppose war in iraq, because war in iraq would be inhumane, unjust and ultimately ineffective." the message should not and can not be, "we oppose war in iraq and the only way to solve this and all the other problems of the world is to...overthrow capitalism...get rid of governments...dismantle the israeli state...hurt or kill anyone..."...and the list goes on. we're never going to be effective unless we let everyone in. and that means, like it or not, republicans who are opposed for all the wrong reasons, people who have never opposed a war before and may never do it again, middle class white people from the midwest, police officers, members of the armed forces, and lots of other non-radicals.

so...yeah, i hope people stay on message. i hope that the revolutionaries keep their mouths shut for once. it's too important to work it another way.