Odd - I just found myself wishing I could march along with a group called "the International Socialist Organization."

I assume they are Harry's Place/Hitchens type socialists.

Is that the Socialist International for Dyslexics?

The ISO are definitely NOT Hitchens-like socialists. Their newspaper, the Socialist Worker, is ghastly.

Oh well, I was identifying them by their alliance with this cause, rather than their writings. Well, whatever, there's enough evidence otherwise that it's a good cause, so having them along won't smear it.

Werent you one of the people dissing the Darfur rally cause

1. You didnt think there was any point unless we were willing to go to war
2. They included too many liberals?

What would be the point of attending such a rally? Do you think the govt of Egypt will listen? Do you think theres anything the US govt can do that they arent already doing? That would work? ( i personally think there ARE some things the US govt could do, but then I wasnt arguing for full faith in the Bush admin over Darfur)

Why is it ok to walk with the International Socialists for a good cause in Egypt, but not with Pelosi and Obama and some antiwar types for a good cause in Darfur?

I don't remember having a problem with the Darfur rally being mostly liberals, but if so please refresh my memory.

These two cases seem very different to me. First of all, I did go to several Darfur rallies in NYC over the past year or so. I knew the DC event would be many of the same people and rhetoric.

Darfur is a huge intractible problem, which has been jawed about for years. Bush and Bolton have been bringing it up at the UN for over a year. No one but the US is having rallies about it that I know. I didn't think a big party on the Mall was going to add anything new.

Contrast the Egyptian judges rally: It's an issue no one knows about, so the rally hopefully makes news. Rallies were taking place all over the world. It is not a huge intractible problem which has been festering for years, it is about a specific issue that can be remedied quickly by releasing the judges and dissidents. Pressuring a government with publicity often works.

There is no government in Sudan worth the name, and that problem will not be solved by publicity, but by arms.

As for the Socialist group: At huge marches every fringey group turns up to tout their own agendas. (Apparently the Darfur rally didn't have that problem, which is good.) But if some group that usually sides with tyrants wants to sign onto a small specific cause that is contrary to their usual politics . . . okay.

Two different issues, they need different solutions.

"Darfur is a huge intractible problem, which has been jawed about for years."

Egypt has been jawed about for years as well. Maybe there were rallies in NY about Darfur, there were none in DC, and few that i know of anywhere. THe Darfur rallies were a novum, if not as much as the egyptian rallies.

"Bush and Bolton have been bringing it up at the UN for over a year."

actually theres some question about how much real priority the US has given it. That has been discussed much.

" No one but the US is having rallies about it that I know. I didn't think a big party on the Mall was going to add anything new."

There was a rally in Canada. None in Europe, true. Are you really saying that an antimubarak rally in London is the difference?

"Contrast the Egyptian judges rally: It's an issue no one knows about, so the rally hopefully makes news. Rallies were taking place all over the world."

Pardon, but the issue of dictatorship in Egypt is one ive been familiar with for years.

" It is not a huge intractible problem which has been festering for years, it is about a specific issue that can be remedied quickly by releasing the judges and dissidents."

And the Darfur issue can be remedied quickly by Sudan admitting UN forces.

"Pressuring a government with publicity often works."

Precisely.

"There is no government in Sudan worth the name, and that problem will not be solved by publicity, but by arms."

I dont know what you mean by "worth the name" the Govt in Khartoum certain controls its own forces, its not somalia. Do you mean a govt with a horrible human rights record, that wont change except under pressure. Well Egypt is not much better.

"Two different issues, they need different solutions."

Both required pressure on the govts involved. In neither case is the govt involved concerned that somebodys holding a rally, EXCEPT to the extent that said rally pressures WESTERN govts to greater action.

Yes, I know Mubarak isnt a genocidaire, and relies on 2 billion a year in US aid. That aside, the situations are parallel.

"Egypt has been jawed about for years as well"

WHAT about Egypt has been talked aobut for years? Getting these particular dissidents out of jail is new. This was a specific rally to bring attention to a specific problem that can be easily solved by a government decision. You are comapring apples and oranges.

"There was a rally in Canada. None in Europe, true. Are you really saying that an antimubarak rally in London is the difference?"

There were rallies in Athens, Beirut, Cairo, London, the Hague, Paris and 5 cities in the US.

"And the Darfur issue can be remedied quickly by Sudan admitting UN forces."

No it can't.

"In neither case is the govt involved concerned that somebodys holding a rally, EXCEPT to the extent that said rally pressures WESTERN govts to greater action."

Not true at all. Publicity has pressured many foreign goveernments to release dissidents. That's all the rally was about. You are still comparing apples and oranges.

PS I fully support the actions of those who demonstrated in front of the UN and Sudan embassies, especially the congressmen - that's the kind of focused publicity that has more impact than a rally on the Mall.