It was a moving experience to hear Reverend Lennox Yearwood speak on July 5 at the Impeachment Forum in Philadelphia and again on the 24th at Independence Hall with Cindy Sheehan. He spoke to the truth and his passion for justice, peace and unity was palpable. I wondered, though, that afternoon of the 24th what might come of the growing reaction as it related to race and the sit-in at Congressman Conyers’ office the day before. I wondered if this issue might have erupted eventually irregardless of what happened with John Conyers. I am not referring to the on-line blog comments fueled by boredom and self-righteousness from those (on all sides) who are quick to criticize, yet slow to act, but to a deeper discussion of why our marches, rallies, and movements are for the most part segregated despite an open invitation by all and why there continues to be a certain level of distrust.
A friend of mine in the pursuit of justice, a community leader in Camden, New Jersey, has guided me recently through his writing in understanding more clearly where some of these issues are rooted. Understanding this has been integral as we form a coalition of diverse groups in the peace and justice movement here in New Jersey. In planning for The People’s March for Peace, Equality, Jobs and Justice in Newark, NJ on August 25, we have been working to energize others to join together and are acutely aware of the need for all people to have a voice if significant change is going to be made.
In the process, I was invited to speak at a rally that was held on a hot day this summer in a church parking lot in Camden. The focus was on ending the war in Iraq and the larger picture of how the military machine continues to drain money and resources from communities like Camden - the poorest city in the richest state. There was a strong emphasis as well on the significance of reparations. I was asked to speak on the impeachment movement. As I listened to the other speakers, it struck me that our outrage over the abuses by the current administration as it relates to the Constitution, rule of law and human rights is out of proportion if we do not first take into consideration the injustices that have been and continue to be inflicted upon minority groups in this nation since its birth. Knowing that I had all the legal and Constitutional arguments laid out for impeachment, my friend gently cautioned that what worked in a speech in Princeton may not be received in the same way in Camden. He was correct in that assessment and when I began to speak of the gross criminal negligence during Katrina, I immediately felt the energy emanate from the crowd.
It was then that I realized more completely and with greater depth than ever before that Katrina happened well before George Bush and his sidekick "Brownie" ambled into town. The levees that were breached last summer reflected a breach in justice and humanity in our country as a result of racial and socioeconomic discrimination. It led me to ask myself where was I before I began speaking out for impeachment? I have, in the past, written members of Congress on reparations, on housing, and equal access to education, but did I do it with this level of passion and with this sense of urgency? No. Did I choose to shift my speech more strongly toward the Katrina travesty to gain support for my agenda or because I wanted to further a movement of justice for the African-American community? While I care deeply about the latter, I believe the honest answer would be the former. Can I then claim to not understand why there is a measure of distrust as we try to merge our movements?
While the message was warmly received from those in attendance, I was humbled by that realization. There is after all a big difference between being aware of the injustices that have occurred in our country and actually being the recipient of that injustice. For me and others like me to stroll into an economically disadvantaged community like Camden waving a warning flag that we are in grave peril from the government and urging them to join and act immediately would seem comical if it were not so serious. Of course these citizens know we are in danger, we’ve been in danger and they’ve been living it. While I imagine I could have been rebuked for this, we have moved forward graciously, if not cautiously, toward our goal of creating peace and demanding justice. I credit this, not only to the simple decency of all involved, but as well to the organizers of the rally. A clear objective had been identified in advance and an understanding that our goal to unify diverse groups called for an open mind as well as an open heart, that we needed to listen more than speak, and that we needed to trust more in inter-dependence.
I understand now that before I can join with others, I first must look inward. It is no longer enough to simply assure myself and others that impeachment will benefit us all. While I hold fast to my conviction that it is the right thing for our country and will continue to pursue it vigorously, when this administration is gone, whether through impeachment or on January 20, 2009, the departure will not be the remedy to our ills as a nation and people. What promise can I make? What commitment will I give after the King has left the building ?
I object to a rush by some to explain, rationalize or otherwise smooth things over without slowing down and taking a closer look first. It is good that this was exposed. It opened a line of communication, as complex and painful as might be, about a problem that has been rumbling under the surface for a long time. I encourage people to continue the conversation. If we truly want unity, particularly against the powerful political machine, we have to find our common humanity and work to heal this wound and not just place a bandage over it. Let us also come to know that the schism that divides us and keeps us from moving forward, in turn emboldens that political machine.
I shared with the community in Camden these thoughts that day:
"A successful movement gains its strength from Unity and that is why we are here today. It is where our power lies. The greatest tool of the elite and powerful is to create and perpetuate divisions among us through race, economic status, and religion, particularly now against the Muslim community by breeding fear and distrust. Those divisions weaken us, shift the focus and allow the powers to be to engage in self-serving acts while those without the power, those who are marginalized endure the fall out. With Unity, every group, every person can define and maintain their true selves, bring their unique experiences to the table. There will be some differences, but united we can create a movement that won’t easily be stopped."
Writer/Photographer. Advocate for clean government, media reform and civil liberties. Chair of the PDA-SJ Impeachment Team and co-leader of the NJ Impeach Groups. Writer and managing editor for OpEdNews.com. cherylbirenwright.wordpress.com
Your concluding thoughts, are superb and should be read by every activist.
"A successful movement gains its strength from Unity and that is why we are here today. It is where our power lies. The greatest tool of the elite and powerful is to create and perpetuate divisions among us through race, economic status, and religion, particularly now against the Muslim community by breeding fear and distrust. Those divisions weaken us, shift the focus and allow the powers to be to engage in self-serving acts while those without the power, those who are marginalized endure the fall out. With Unity, every group, every person can define and maintain their true selves, bring their unique experiences to the table. There will be some differences, but united we can create a movement that won’t easily be stopped."
by
Rob Kall (748 articles, 3834 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1613 comments)
on Monday, August 6, 2007 at 2:43:16 PM
I really enjoyed your article. The fact that you stopped and thought about what you were about to say to the folks in Camden (when I began to speak of the gross criminal negligence during Katrina, I immediately felt the energy emanate from the crowd. ) shows that you have come to realize that not every message is for everyone. That being said (credit being given), I think it is also important to point out that choosing a topic based on your audience can also lead to feelings of misgivings. Growing up as a black man in this country, I have heard many definitions for what makes up an American, and what our duties should be to this country. I have to say with trepidation (for the American purists out there) that none of those definitions spoke to my essence. Whenever a tragedy has struck this country - my last thought still did not empathize with us poor Americans. A human tradgedy is a human tradgedy regardless of its location to a person's loyalties. I guess my point is that labeling, no matter how arbitrary or supported, ultimately leaves someone out of the picture. In addition, speaking to a group of supposed labels can leave the messenger marginalized. I, for one, would enjoy seeing a real unity in my lifetime. However, the usage of labels will prevent this from happening. I want to thank you for attempting to put on my shoes. Let me know when you get them on and have had the chance to walk around in them for a bit. I would be interested to know if your focus or purpose has shifted. If I may, there is an excellent book that speaks to this empathy. It is called "Black Like Me" by John Howard Griffin. Lets keep growing.
by
LaKevius (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Monday, August 6, 2007 at 3:26:41 PM
Lakevius - thank you very much for sharing your insights. i'd like to clarify something though. perhaps i didn't convey it properly with my words, but i actually did not as you put it "choose a topic based on your audience." the issue of katrina was already built in to my speech and i had shared the same thoughts with groups in Trenton, Princeton, etc. what i was commenting on was that when i started to speak of it, the overwhelming reaction that i received naturally led me to shift the focus of my address. of course, i think you can see that i also questioned myself afterwards about where my motivation to pursue it more strongly came from. my answer was not easy to admit to, but no i did not suddenly bring up katrina because of the audience i was speaking to.
thank you so much for the recommendation of "Black Like Me." I remember very clearly (born in '65) my parents having that book on our shelves as a kid. may have read it as a younger person, but would definitely like to revisit it. finally, truth be told and i'm sure you will agree, i will never be able to walk in your shoes, but i can learn from your walk.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 318 comments)
on Monday, August 6, 2007 at 3:48:46 PM
never to say finally - especially when i am calling for an ongoing discussion. i understand the thoughts you shared about not wanting to have labels attached or be expected to react to a situation in a particular way and i can certainly appreciate that.
i'm curious, though, what your thoughts are on the main subject of the article (as opposed to my reactions) which is that there does seem to be a segregation by race or ethinicity when it comes to rallies and marches. rev. yearwood has commented regarding impeachment that there seems to be more unity among people, but that (his words) "When I speak at anti-war rallies the audience is usually all White, when I speak at immigration rallies the audience is usually all Brown, when I speak at rallies and events with Katrina survivors the audience is usually all Black. Global warming, usually White, police brutality, usually Black, and so on. " What are your thoughts on that and if you agree how might we addres that?
i agree with you completely regarding a tragedy that we should come at it from a humanistic approach, but apparently while our feelings might be that way, our actions are not always. i didn't have to be black or poor to stand with tears stinging my eyes as i watched the events of katrina unfold as i am sure many others did irregardless of their race, but why do people tend to be specific about what they will take to the streets or gather in meetings over? our govt. aside, i think all americans pulled together in the immediate aftermath of katrina, but i am guessing that has trailed off despite the fact there are still a lot of wrongs to be 'righted' in that situation - or as the rev. describes the public anti-war movement seems to be predominantly white, etc.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 318 comments)
on Monday, August 6, 2007 at 4:59:05 PM
Thanks for your reply. I do apologize for my misguided comment about choosing a topic based on supposed labels and the impression left on you. Your article is refreshing to my intellect and hopefully to the idea of unifying messages.
About the message you were conveying in your article...my thoughts are as individual and broad as the catalyst behind your article. It is true that there are many issues that plague our world today. When I begin to contemplate them all, the thoughts and ideas begin to overwhelm my ability to have any perspective. Choosing any one of those ideas to focus on left me feeling marginalized. There was no way that I could give any more weight to one cause without feeling just as obligated to the others. So, I begin to wonder why so many issues exist and their true essence. Imagine being able to go back to the first non-personal decision that was made and watching life expand from their. If it was a good decision, then life was allowed to move from that moment towards growth. If subsequent non-personal decisions were also of a good nature, then growth would continue and those things that challenged us would be welcomed, for that meant more growth. The other side of that coin is non-good non-personal decisions; imagine that being the starting point. The next decision that was made was also a non-good non-personal decision and the result was some folks benefitting and others not. The next time a decision has to be made, the folks who got the short end of the stick are now banded together and will do what it takes to make sure they get just as much as the others or no one gets anything. Let the manipulating and persuading begin. This is where we are at today. Manipulating and persuading each other to have faith in what we are. For me, unless we go back to that first initial non-good non-personal decision and make good for all, then we will continue to be manipulators and persuaders. This because we are not sure who is for or against us (the individual) because the decisions don't benefit all. There needs to be a unifying message for unity. In essence, we are all unified. However, the unification is covert at the moment. It hides itself among the human rights groups, animal activist, government leaders, religious leaders, musicians, thespians, philanthropists, etc. In summation, until we can find a reason to stop classifying ourselves anything other than a organism full of energy to do wonderful things, then we will continue to mask our unity.
I hope I wasn't too long winded or rambling. I wanted to be as lucid as I could. Thanks for asking the question of me.
by
LaKevius (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 9:03:00 AM
i don't consider that rambling at all, although it did kinda make my brain hurt trying to process it :-)
i think there is a book somewhere in that, or at least an article series. it reminds me a lot of conversations i've had with one of my brothers who practices buddhism. when you describe the unification being covert, that is a brilliant observation and i tend to believe what hides it is ego. and really we'll never be able to fully get past that, but if once in a while, we all set the ego aside imagine what we can do for the world. thanks again for weighing in.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 318 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 9:16:45 AM
I enjoyed your article. I have spent many hours over the past few years trying to imagine a remedy to this situation, and the one PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) uses, drawing activists like Rev. Yearwood onto its board and working very closely with the black and hispanic caucuses in congress and the Rainbow Push Coalition is only one half of the answer - but not to be ignored.
I think to solve the problem we all need to go where we are not comfortable. If we are white, we need to show up at celebrations and rallies and actions on issues important to communities of color, and if we are brown or black, we must show up at celebrations and rallies and actions where the preponderance of participants are white, and participate in the planning committees as well. I don't see enough white people at MLK or Juneteenth celebrations, nor at immigration rallies, and not enough brown or black people at Peace Fairs or Earth Day or Anti-war marches and rallies. And unfortunately Sunday morning is the most racially segregated time of the week.
This is not always comfortable. I do practice what I preach, but it is not easy to break down centuries of mistrust and unthinking privilege. At any public event, even ones planned deliberately to bring people together to break bread and hold conversations across lines of "difference," I notice that people do gather and chat by race as surely as they did in high schools and it is just plain socially uncomfortable, though necessary, to go up to a group of people who know each other and are at ease with each other and try to join in the conversation. We need to hold public conversation about breaking down these barriers, because as sure as day follows night, if we can all but understand we are One movement, One people, "divided and conquered" by supposed "issue" by the opposition with great malice of forethought as well as our own social inhibitions, when this day of unity finally dawns, much more will change than the "issues" at hand. This will be the day we become unstoppable in crafting a world that works for everyone.
by
revgerry (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 9:22:02 AM
thank you revgerry for sharing that. it's exactly the conversation i'm hoping can be had by more and more people. i appreciate your suggestons as well. in that vein, i would like to ask everyone to rally around the city of Newark, NJ as they deal with a terrible crime Outrage over Newark killings. As mentioned, in my article above, there has already been a massive rally planned in Newark on August 25. This recent tragedy will surely be addressed there as well. This morning looking at the news coverage of people gathering (i think at city hall) over the murders, I noticed one sole (sure there were more somewhere) white man amongst the crowd holding a sign in support. We can all do better than that.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 318 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 9:39:05 AM
...And it was so nice of Rob Kall to headline it for you, in the newsletter. I also agree with Rob Kall's favorite section.
A successful movement gains its strength from Unity and that is why we are here today. It is where our power lies.
Indeed, we must be united. However, it is fair for me to ask the following. In fact, this question begs to be asked. What are we united against? Are we still against the same things? And OTOH, are we still "for" the same things? I think so and I know I am.
Therefore one of the next logical questions that must be asked here is, are we still for the democrats who clearly vote against the party line on our most important and heartfelt issues (a.k.a. the things we are united against)?
Another important question would have to be: What of the democrats who didn't vote against us, but made no real effort to stop those that did? This question deserves to be repeated - because it's these people that we must influence the most. For if they don't grow a backbone and get their priorities straight - then while we the people may be united, the democratic party wont be. And that is something...that is a goal that should be at the forefront. A goal that should be discussed in depth, with serious plans made towards that goal - and that goal must never be forgotten. Does anybody agree with me? Can I get a "Amen"?
So yesirree, Cheryl (and Rob), I'm all for uniting - for our greatest power is there - but it's important to make sure your not just expecting business as usual. It's important to make sure that you are not expecting us to continue to unite against people that actually vote against our interest.s You know, the interests that united us as progressives and democrats in the first place.
Is that what we are United in Agreement with?
No spin please. The opednews readership is smart and astute. I'd like some clear answers. I'm sure they would as well.
by
RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 352 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 12:04:27 PM
It's important to make sure that you are not expecting us to continue to unite for people that actually vote against our interests.
I would add that I am not interested in uniting just for the sake of uniting. Innocent people are being slaughtered and butchered as I write this and unless the supreme court takes action (which I doubt) our constitution is dead. This is serious and should not - no, it must not - be treated lightly with a "United" catch phrase.
by
RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 352 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 1:57:54 PM
to try to respond to what i think you're asking in both comments - in regards to what do i support, i think it's pretty clear if you take a look at the rallies i mentioned - stopping the war, impeachment, putting money into domestic programs, addressing the growing disparity between rich and poor, plus some. i can't speak for rob, but you need only to look at the numerous articles he has submitted to know that he cares about those things as well not to mention healthcare reform, etc. now, i don't know what umbrella that fits under or if it needs or can fit. some say progressive so that's fine with me for now i don't really care.
when you ask who am i am uniting against, i suspect you're wondering if you can catch me voting for a certain group just because they're "supposed" to be the ones who come closest to these issues. well, you can look at some of my other diaries or articles and see i don't hold back on confronting the dems as much as the republicans. i believe one of the main problems is that we do not have an opposition party. i can't change that overnight, but what i can do and am doing for example, is looking to groom and support an opposition candidate to my long-time "democrat" congressman who helped sell the iraq war and is doing nothing about the assaults on the constitution. you said, "It's important to make sure that you are not expecting us to continue to unite for people that actually vote against our interests." i don't quite understand why you're suggesting i would expect anyone to do that when i'm not doing it myself.
In regards to "No spin please. The opednews readership is smart and astute. I'd like some clear answers. I'm sure they would as well." I can tell you have a lot of passion over the the things that are happening in our country, just not sure why my article has led you to think i am going to spin or avoid an issue. has what i said challenged you or offended you?
you said, "Innocent people are being slaughtered and butchered as I write this and unless the supreme court takes action (which I doubt) our constitution is dead. This is serious..." No shit! Why do you think I'm doing what I'm doing? I'm about to lose my job over working my tail off for impeachment and trying to stop a war. You go on to say "...and should not - no, it must not - be treated lightly with a "United" catch phrase." I'm not trying to use a catch phrase. i do believe that if a cause is to be won, it's necessary to have a unified force. i'm using that as a verb, an action word, not a catch phrase. i'm talking about it in a real and tangible way.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 318 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 4:12:03 PM
People choose, we choose, we follow a comfortable route, we
Basically, people don't go the extra mile to reach out to others. People should go that extra length to find out what our fellow brothers and sisters are up to.
Alas, most do not. Regardless of color or creed people choose to go with whom they are most comfortable. If we put half the effort into building and visiting others of different color, creed, and identity that we do in blogging, criticizing and forming units of support around each other, we would be succeeding in denting the status quo.
Step 1; Go out and set up time to network and take part in others in their efforts. Such movements like this succeed.
Note: Corporations set people on different boards of directors on other companies for a region. It is to set up modes of profit, common experience and network that can lead to multiplication of developments.
Let's be savvy and keep in touch and work with or sit on the programs of others. Do it consciously. Then tell the party of your choice to respect you. YOU ARE JUST AS UNITED AS ANY group of corporate sponsors.
Get to work reformers! Cross breed, learn and build the greatest network and movement in World History.
Start yesterday!
by
ALONE (119 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 269 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 2:18:39 PM
....I don't believe the failure of the Peace Movement to unify sucessfully is caused by any racial, economic or other 'division'. I think it is simply that the various Groups are handicapped by their own EGOs and short-sightedness.
We aren't uniting in the way we used to be able to do because of the MEDIA censorship... but instead of recognizing that and organizing our various efforts in concert - as ONE BODY and ONE action, all the Groups want to 'do their own thing' and be THE Group. That is not possible when faced with today's monopolized Media that Geo W Bush boastfully proclaimed "MY Support base". Well, that support base is working against the peace movement. Our Groups are disorganized and fractured. It is like herding chickens. No wonder we can't get the attention of the majority of the Public. and that is what it takes.
Of course, writing to congressmen is a joke: MOST of the politicians are complicit in the AIPAC/PNAC agenda. WHAT COULD BE MORE OBVIOUS??? They are ALL self-serving. Congress has become a 'den of iniquity'.All the 'partisan fighting' is really only about which Party gets the Biggest Bone, NOT about what is better for America and Americans. Those who used to be the "good guys" are AFRAID to jeopardize their positions by opposing BushCo. Congress no longer represents The People. They represent lobbyists and corporations with an eye to the future possibilities for personal profit - or they go-along to get-along and save their careers. They have sold out to AIPAC/PNAC. They lust for ever-more power.
It is time that we elect 'third party' candidates THROUGHOUT OUR GOVERNMENT. There is no other way to circumvent the Political MACHINES that run BOTH partys. Impeachment is a barebones begining - the fascists have embedded their yesmen all through our agencies, departments, offices... and those are the dangerous ones who must be removed.
Don't mistake my meaning: this was a great article, but it took a detour 'round some of the basic problems.
by
mary-ann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 3:52:45 PM
pizzed - i didn't mistake your meaning. i actually agree with a lot of what you've said and i have said very similar things in different venues, just so happens that this particular article addresses an issue in a specific way, getting down to the humanistic part of people's reactions to being a part or not being a part of a "group" or movement and how, in turn, it makes it more of a challenge to fend off the cretans you describe. by the way, you used the phrase "peace movement" and i'd like to add or point out that i'm also talking about "justice." they don't always go hand in hand.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 318 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 4:42:53 PM
okay, i actually do disagree with your first sentence - had focused more on the rest of your comment the first go round. "I don't believe the failure of the Peace Movement to unify sucessfully is caused by any racial, economic or other 'division'. I think it is simply that the various Groups are handicapped by their own EGOs and short-sightedness." first of all to clarify again i am talking about more than the "peace" movement - i'm talking about many of the movements that we all seem to care about and i've been to enough rallies and marches on various issues to see that there is a separation by race. i know i don't always manage to read all the comments on everyone's post so i'll re-emphasize what i posted in a comment above, this coming from Rev. Lennox Yearwood who has taken some heat recently for his involvement in the sit-in at Conyer's office 2 weeks ago, "When I speak at anti-war rallies the audience is usually all White, when I speak at immigration rallies the audience is usually all Brown, when I speak at rallies and events with Katrina survivors the audience is usually all Black. Global warming, usually White, police brutality, usually Black, and so on. " I'm not the only one who has observed this. We can't blame the politicians or media on that. That's our responsibility.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 318 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 4:56:49 PM
"I can tell you have a lot of passion over the the things that are happening in our country, just not sure why my article has led you to think i am going to spin or avoid an issue. has what i said challenged you or offended you?"
No, I'm absolutely not offended in any way. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can explain and to prove everything to you in here. Suffice to say, that it is my belief that Rob Kall intentionally used your article (and other recent articles) to make a "sideways" swipe at those who are furious and disillusionedwith the democrats - to swipe at those who are now making demands that the democrats make some real and serious (not just token) actions towards what they promised and what we voted them in for. I'm convinced that he'd like nothing more than for us to shut up and to get in lock-step with the democratic PTB. And I note I am far from the only one on opednews who has expressed this concern.
If you want to know more details, send me an email and we can talk privately.
P.S. Please don't mistake my seeming intense level of "passion" for what is really disgust with some things around here.
by
RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 352 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 11:00:37 AM
i guess you have some reasons for feeling that way, i wouldn't know. funny thing though on july 11 rob came over to address a group at an impeach meeting i organized and one of the main topics of discussion was unseating what he referred to as "republicrats" democrats who have been either supporting bush's war, etc. or not opposing his nefarious deeds. for example, we talked a lot about finding some opposition to my long-term congressman, rob andrews who is a democrat who helped bush gain support amongst the dems for the iraq war. but, i'll leave it at that and if rob wants to address this he can.
i would like to ask you (and we might as well do it here) what about the article or rob headlining it has to do with the democrats especially supporting the democrats? i'd like to ask you to be specific, because i spoke about unifying against the 'political machine,' i did not in any way exclude the democrats. as i mentioned earlier i've been critical of most dems - in fact, disgusted by them so much that i'm working to upseat mine. rob knows that so if he wanted to push some issue you think he has, he wouldn't have done it through me. i don't really mind the thread going in a different direction, but it does explain why i sensed there was some hostility and pre-judgment behind your initial comment.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 318 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 3:29:45 PM
