Turn Your Back On Bush
I read about Turn YOur Back On Bush at Salon.com today. It's a neat idea, and a very good way to get around the crushing of dissent that will certainly take place at the inauguration.
I guess that the only problem with it is...what if only a hundred people show up, ready to go? A few isolated people turning their backs doesn't really make for an effective protest. Still, it'll be interesting to see what happens.
I guess that the only problem with it is...what if only a hundred people show up, ready to go? A few isolated people turning their backs doesn't really make for an effective protest. Still, it'll be interesting to see what happens.
posted by Robert at
9:41 AM
6 Comments:
(Savannah) We should go! This is why god invented credit cards. Let's go. (But I can tell you what will happen: it will be deliberately ignored by the media. The truth is that back in 2000, Bush's procession to the inauguration was protested also, and by quite a lot of angry people. The American media simply ignored it.)
By
Anonymous, at 10:21 AM
I strongly disagree that this is a neat idea. This is at its core a childish temper tantrum thrown by overly self-entitled narcissists, and at more practical level, a waste of resources.
Another poster has stated in these comments that this is what credit cards are for. If this is the case, let me predict the resulting situation after the credit cards have been used: Motel 6, Exxon-Mobil, BP, Denny's and most other roadside franchises will all show a higher quarterly profit on their respective books. George Bush will be inaugurated as President of the United States. The air will be slightly more polluted with fine particulate matter, VOX and NOX compounds from automobile exhaust. Currently-unaffordable consumer debt will rise. The fully-imagined outcome that the President will "come to his senses" after the "true people" of this country have shown him the error of his ways by facing away from him will remain entirely just that -- imagined. The news media will not pick this story up because they report news, and it is not news that many people strongly dislike and even hate the President; everybody knows this already.
The tragedy of all of this is that the money spent on credit cards could otherwise have done a lot locally -- wherever local is -- through charitable donations to homeless shelters, food banks, the United Way, or any other of hundreds of other decent charities that do real work with their donations to help people who have real problems and needs. Better yet would be a donation of one's time to any charity by way of volunteer work. These actions require real thought, real commitment, real toil and real sacrifice. They are nowhere near as much fun, as participating in a stunt where one can show just how clever he or she is.
By
Anonymous, at 4:41 PM
I still think it's neat. It gets around the odious concept of the "free speech zone," an idea which both sides sadly embrace. And it won't get people arrested, the way flipping the bird probably would.
Your larger point is taken, though,
By
Robert, at 7:37 PM
Anonymous dude says: "I strongly disagree that this is a neat idea. This is at its core a childish temper tantrum thrown by overly self-entitled narcissists, and at more practical level, a waste of resources."
Josh replies: When we have a president who calls reporters assholes and a vice president that tells his "colleagues" in the senate to fuck themselves, spare me the lecture on childish temper tantrums. The Boston Tea Party "at its core [was also] a childish temper tantrum thrown by overly self-entitled narcissists, and at more practical level, a waste of resources." And yet, I don't mind.
You can argue that any money spent on anything other than bare necessities, rather than helping the less fortunate, is "a waste of resources." By and large we've made a choice as a capitalist society that we're comfortable with that. And frankly, while I give a decent amount to charity, my great preference would be that people don't have to rely on the whims of others to have a life with basic human needs.
Anyhoo . . .
By
Anonymous, at 10:00 PM
Anonymous one replies: Oh, my goodness, a tousle.
Boston Tea Party? Come to your senses, my friend. The Boston Tea Party was not some kind of dalliance hosted by narcissists craving press, status and adulation from peers, but those concerned with issues larger than themselves, such as oppression of country and fellow countrymen. To claim analogy is a fallacy. Turning one's back on Bush might be akin to circling the Snobs' Garden Party with touring buses while mooning the guests through the interior-side windows of said buses. In short, a prank, and nothing more.
Your point about charity is spot on: all are entitled to their right to be as charitable or miserly as they see fit. However, this is not a discussion on the virtues and ethics of charitable giving but rather one of motives of back turners. These are the motives I call out to question. Let those who claim higher moral rectitude demonstrate it through local action and deed, and not simply word. The back turners' actions are akin to the thuggish actions of those who protested the WTO in the city of Seattle. Few there were truly interested in the fates of Laotian workers, turtles or whatever the downtrod du jour. The protests were an opportunity for unbridlement, simple unfettered chaos free of true social conscience, and scoring some points with your mates. Few were interested in producing scientific or economic studies; few were interested in educating the ignorant; few were interested in making sacrifices. In other words, few were interested in undertaking the things that truly make a difference. These are the things that require hard, hard, hard work.
There's nothing more American than burning down a Sport Utility Vehicle dealership in lieu of thoughtful, arduous, legitimate quest for real change -- instead just think as short term and at the most minimal cost and at the least amount of work to you. Just do whatever you have to do to get your way. How American.
To paraphrase the daughter of the great Homer (for whom there seems to some reverence here), complaining about something until you get your way is a pretty crappy lesson.
Those who live by the Simpson, ...
By
Anonymous, at 1:38 PM
"The Boston Tea Party was not some kind of dalliance hosted by narcissists craving press, status and adulation from peers, but those concerned with issues larger than themselves, such as oppression of country and fellow countrymen. To claim analogy is a fallacy."
The folks back in England would probably have disagreed with your assessment. I would also argue that the "regular" folks (as opposed to "professional protesters") who support ideas like this ARE concerned with the oppression of country and fellow countrymen. Just because you aver that my claimed analogy is a fallacy doesn't make it so. And with respect to the professionals, whatever else the folks who go from protest to protest are doing (and regardless of whether I agree with their tactics and their views), I don't think you could call it a dalliance.
"Let those who claim higher moral rectitude demonstrate it through local action and deed, and not simply word. . . . To paraphrase the daughter of the great Homer (for whom there seems to some reverence here), complaining about something until you get your way is a pretty crappy lesson."
That's clearly a matter of opinion. Some folks believe in the power and value of symbolic speech and making a statement. The Supreme Court has recognized that this type of speech is at the very core of the First Amendment in cases like the Vietnam war protester with "Fuck the Draft" scrawled on his jacket. The justices didn't go into a lengthy critique of the crudeness of the expression, nor did they excoriate the defendant for not doing more work in his anti-war efforts, rather than wearing his jacket as a prank. Those on the right clearly see the value in these kinds of actions, and they bust their ass doing them very well.
Finally, there's some implication that folks who would turn their back on the president are letting that be the extent of their actions. For some that may be true, for some it probably isn't. Dealing in blanket generalizations is an easy way out in and of itself.
To "die by the Simpsons" would necessarily mean that this is some argument that you've won and I've lost. I'm not convinced, and given that my purpose for reading Rob's blog and making the occasional comment is to chat with my friends, I respond to all further diatribes with the mot juste of my generation - whatever.
By
Anonymous, at 11:21 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home