on ending the never-ending war in the middle east

REGARDING CURRENT PROTESTS against the never-ending war in the Middle East, I remember the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations waaaaaay back the late 1960s and early ’70s, comedian-turned-activist Dick Gregory praised the demonstrators but said that they would have little effect on Nixon and Kissinger’s attitudes or on American policy.

Gregory said (and this is from memory) that if we REALLY want to make a change in US policy, we had to do it with how we spent our spent our money.

He said that if only 10% of Americans refused to buy a Coca Cola or to a McDonalds for one week, Coca Cola and McDonalds would see that the war ended the following week.

Well, we didn’t do it for that cause and we won’t do it for this cause . . .



 

4 thoughts on “on ending the never-ending war in the middle east

  1. I’m wondering if it could keep Rep*blicans outta da White House an’ getta Democratic majority in Congress!?!

    1. It doesn’t take a revolution. It doesn’t take a majority. It takes a dedicated, principled minority—which is damn near impossible to find in America these days

      1. I wasn’t looking for a revolution, I was thinking about the 10% premise.

        And, how does one stimulate the disenfranchised, apathetic minority—be it by age, religion, or race—to take the leap?

        Spam the weird-web? TVidiot? Newspapers? Flyers? It all costs… time and money.

        I think that I’ll just keep talking it up, talk to my kids, speak up at club functions, and continue my left of center ‘tude.

        1. The 10% is how I am remembering it. He might have meant that if enough of us held off on spending our money at/on corporations such Mcdonalds and Coca Cola and it adversely affected their business by as little as 10%—which would be a HUGE amount of money!—a handful of phone calls from a few business leaders would do in a matter of weeks what millions of us couldn’t at protests in years!

          Mandatory voting. Which of course the GOP would never back because it because 1) it could in fact be perceived as an infringement on “personal rights,” and 2) it would cost them virtually every election almost everywhere.

          Keep on keepin’ on . . .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close