  My husband Jeff and I tried to launch a "virtual salon" in order to discuss the Iraq situation and democracy in general. The salon was a flop, so we shelved the project for now. I hope to be involved with something like in the future. Here is a posting I made to that salon in which I tried to make a case for the potential power of such an on-line discussion group: In Jeff's first post, he said that he was trying to not have opinions, except about Iraq because a moment of history has arisen which makes it impossible not to have an opinion. I have felt the same urgency to become political. Like Jeff, I am critical and suspicious of my sense of responding to a "call".
For one reason, there have been many moments in the history of the world at which people have been politicized. Jeff invoked the Dreyfuss Affair. He could have invoked any one of a number of political crises including the Salem witch trials, the McCarthy investigations, the anti-Viet Nam War protests, the Civil Rights Movement, Kent State, CIA operations in Latin America, "Iran Gate", the Alaskan pipeline, the Lake Mead project, the Spotted Owl -- and that's just some of the possibilities in the contemporary history of the U.S. let alone the rest of the world. The fact that I could reel off such a long list with so little effort raises a question for me. Isn't there a crisis ready-to-hand for anyone who is looking to become political? As Virginia Woolf remarked (and the Pythagoreans before her) even when we walk across the grass we can imagine the screams of the creatures we are crushing.
What constitues a moment that compels us to be political? This question leads me to reflect upon the crisis of 1968 in France, where a slogan emerged, "Mieux vaut avoir tort avec Sartre que raison avec Aaron. " (Better to be wrong with Sartre than right with Aaron). As far as I understand the situation, Sartre, a charismatic and persuasive public intellectual advocated revolutionary change in society. Aaron, a "square", failed at first to raise opposition to revolution despite the mounting evidence that actual communist governments were totalitarian. Sartre and his supporters seemed to have become immune to evidence.
Are there circumstances in which we can defend being immune to evidence? Religious faith may be one such circumstance. St. Paul, Kierkegaard, Pascal, the Buddha, among others, have showed that for the faithful, the commitment to faith is of a different nature than reason. As Pascal said in Les Pensées, "The heart has its reason which Reason cannot know. " Regarding personal faith conviction (a belief derived despite contrary evidence, i.e. irrational ) seems defensible.
(I recognize that this point is highly debatable! ) But is there a role for a conviction, the irrational, in politics? When we adopt an opinion and act upon it politically, is it possible that we change our mind? If so, what evidence would it take for us to change an opinion? If it is possible that under some unknown, future circumstance we may change our opinion, what kind of actions do we choose in the present? The example of Jane Fonda springs to mind.
The only facts I facts I know are true about Jane Fonda are that she opposed the U.S. war against Viet Nam, made a visit to North Viet Nam and was photographed in front of some North Vietnamese anti-aircraft missiles for which she later apologized. What I find relevant to this discussion is Fonda's conviction. I would like to know more about her "conversion". For example, what contributed to her politicization including sociological and psychological analysis, as well as her version or versions of the story? Did she ever study or discuss theory? What made her decide to become an activist?
What does she think about the opinion she held then? Her actions marked the rest of her life and the history of the U.S. in ways that no one could ever fully understand. Her action constituted an "event" at the time and continues to occupy a place in our collective memory. Although no one could ever measure the specific effects of her action, it seems to have been a watershed. Like with all "events" (whatever their scope and magnitude), "way leads onto way". Our present contains our past, including Jane Fonda's visit to North Viet Nam and all of the subsequent re-visitations of the event through various means, including news reports, interviews and family discussions.
If we believe that the present contains the past and the possibilities for the future, then it is apparent that expressing one's opinions is a weighty responsibility. To have an opinion and act on it is to affect our world in contingent ways. How can we be certain that our opinion is founded and our subsequent acts justified? One possible means is to subject our ideas to a kind of peer review -- like academics do. By consulting others, we may avoid being rash, but how do we protect ourselves from being co-opted -- of letting ourselves be swayed by "common sense". "Common sense" is after-all, a more problematic term than it appears at first.
Our everyday interpretation of "common sense" is that it is desirable, because it is moderate, measured, rational. Upon reflection, however, "common sense" takes on a more sinister character, derived from the word "sens" (direction in French) -- a unidirectional movement of mass thinking. The question then arrives as to which society to submit one's opinions for review. Considered in this light, the potential power of the virtual salon takes on a new dimension. Should we be talking to each other at all or simply posting our thoughts independently without inviting or offering further comment? If we are going to converse, who do we want to include -- people who are more like us or less?
Should there be any ground rules for interaction? 
