> http://www.counterpunch.org/ (Front page story)
>
> America's Greens Rally to Flag, Run for Cover
>
> Let's get this straight. If all resisters to the Bush political program
> were to follow this shameful exhibition by these green groups, we would
> see peace groups declining to protest against nuclear attacks on Iraq and
> armed invasion of Afghanistan. We would see civil rights sitting on their
> hands as racial and religious profiling is used to persecute people of
> Middle Eastern descent. Defenders of Palestinian rights would say that
> for the time being they wouldn't protest the use of US Apache helicopters
> against civilians in West Bank towns and villages. What nonsense!
> Principles are never more important than when it is inconvenient or
> dangerous to stand up for them.
Rubbish. Fundamental principles needn't change, but the appropriate (and most advantageous) expression of same is context-specific, like all other aspects of life. Rigidly fixing one's feet in the sand while life goes on - or ceases - all around is the height of foolishness. One may as well admit defeat. Whatever one may think of the Sierra Club's effectiveness on a day-to-day basis, describing their decision not to run their campaign so soon after the WTC disaster as "flag waving" is silly. There's plenty of flag waving going on right now, but running the campaign in Tuesday's immediate aftermath might well be perceived as the other side of the same coin. The enormity of Tuesday's events has created a kind of vacuum, and anything done or said stands out in sharp relief as a result.
In any case, there is no equivalence in the examples cited in the above paragraph from the article. They're all distinct issues, with different requirements depending on the situation. It's one thing to have principles, something else entirely to self-indulgently construct principles about your principles...
--
/ dave /