?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
The inaugural protest - The Phantom Librarian
Spewing out too many words since November 2003
fernwithy
fernwithy
The inaugural protest
So... the basic idea of the not-one-damn-dime thing is more or less to protest the choice of the red states by economically crippling the blue ones for a day? I get the symbolism (and of course, the blue states contribute quite a lot to the national gross), but punishing a Boston bookseller who was disappointed in how conservative Kerry was strikes me as possibly not the best strategy. Or maybe it's just me.

I feel a bit...: confused confused

21 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
(Deleted comment)
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: January 19th, 2005 03:34 am (UTC) (Link)
Better idea... run for office!
rabidsamfan From: rabidsamfan Date: January 19th, 2005 03:40 am (UTC) (Link)
To be honest, I don't think that even if a lot of people did protest by not paying any money out, it would cripple anyone's economy. It might be felt, but chances are most weekday purchases would simply be made a day early or a day later, so the actual damage to the retailers is pretty much non-existent by the end of the month. The point isn't to hurt the businesses so much as to demonstrate in a palpable way how many people were disappointed either by the results of the election or by the shenanigans which went on (and are still going on) in Ohio, Florida and New Mexico.
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: January 19th, 2005 03:48 am (UTC) (Link)
I doubt there's anyone who doesn't realize that there's a great deal of disappointment in the blue states. I think I posted because I'm watching the news on 25 (yes, Fox, but it wasn't anything they said, just a connection I made). The long-faced reporter says, "Of course, in Boston, there won't be much inaugural celebration..." And then went and interviewed the NWDD woman in Cambridge. And I thought--so, they know that no one is really celebrating in Boston, but it's in Boston and cities like it that this is supposed to interfere with the celebration.
rabidsamfan From: rabidsamfan Date: January 19th, 2005 03:57 am (UTC) (Link)
Not the way I've understood it from the first mentions I saw on the net. And there are plenty of people who will be celebrating in Massachusetts, of course. There are staunch Bush supporters here, and if you saw the article in the Globe you know they interviewed a couple of them. And there are folks like my sister in Colorado whose state went for Bush who will happily protest this way because it's not horribly inconvenient and it is one way to send a signal.

It would be foolish to think that this kind of protest would interfere with the celebrations anyway. And it's not meant to. It's like the Native American protest in Plymouth every Thanksgiving. It doesn't stop most people from having a turkey dinner, but it might make a few think a little bit.
hughroe From: hughroe Date: January 19th, 2005 05:15 am (UTC) (Link)
hmmmm, for some odd reason, I get the feeling that you aren't talking about how Kerry supporters ransacked and invaded Bush/Cheney offices in Miami, Tampa and Orlando.

Nor do I see the same amount of attention on the some 30000 unverified votes in wisconsin, that gave that state to Kerry.
rabidsamfan From: rabidsamfan Date: January 19th, 2005 12:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
Cite your sources, please. I haven't read about either of those things in either the traditional media or the net and can't evaluate the authenticity of either charge without seeing more info.
rabidsamfan From: rabidsamfan Date: January 19th, 2005 10:53 pm (UTC) (Link)
Thanks! I'll take a look when I get a chance.
calliopeia17 From: calliopeia17 Date: January 19th, 2005 03:41 am (UTC) (Link)
Believe me, even we angry ranting liberals recognize that the Not One Damn Dime Day thing is pretty stupid. At least, I hope most of us think so. Because, yeah, nice as the symbolism is, there's that whole little problem with the fact that it just won't work.
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: January 19th, 2005 03:52 am (UTC) (Link)
I guess it would make more sense to me if the money were then going somewhere else. For instance, since there's an issue with voter education--complaints that voters don't know their rights or don't know how to register properly or whatnot--why not propose that instead of spending money on on lunch and incidental purchases, you take the money you would have spent and donate it to a voter education campaign? I was talking to a guy who worked the Kerry campaign and he talked about lack of funds for voter ed, so that strikes me as a good cause. Make sure that people know how to register and how to vote, teach them what questions no one has a right to ask them and what they shouldn't be intimidated by. That would be a good protest given the issues raised by the opposition to the election.
calliopeia17 From: calliopeia17 Date: January 19th, 2005 04:03 am (UTC) (Link)
I agree, though my major problem is really that the concept of a silent protest means that it will be just that - silent.

A protest that nobody actually sees serves no purpose - and it would be foolish to assume that the protest could garner enough support to actually make a visible economic impact. A good protest is vocal and highly visible - even a hundred highly visible people picketing on the parade route is more effective than a thousand people invisibly not buying anything.
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: January 19th, 2005 05:17 am (UTC) (Link)
A good protest is vocal and highly visible - even a hundred highly visible people picketing on the parade route is more effective than a thousand people invisibly not buying anything.

Right. It's also conspicuously more polite than whatever it's protesting, so that the protestors look better than the other guys (though I haven't noticed a lot of protestors following this rule!).

The point of this sort of protest is to bring publicity, and the problem with this is that it's scattered and with the exception of turned-out pockets, invisible. I expect a little coverage around here, and of course the media will make as much as it can of it, but they're not going to chase people all over the place for it; they've got better things to do. Another thought--if you didn't want to make it money-based--would be to have a counter-event, possibly raising money for another cause (my suggestion would be tsunami aid, since the current criticism of spending seems to be a lopsided balance between the inaugural spending and the tsunami spending), that conflicts with the inauguration and gets news coverage.

Of course, people could also allow themselves to be jailed for refusing to pay taxes, do the whole Thoreau thing. I hope they don't, since that's counter-productive, but it would get press.
rabidsamfan From: rabidsamfan Date: January 19th, 2005 03:59 am (UTC) (Link)
How's it supposed to "work"? Thanks to Congress there's no way to stop Bush from getting sworn in. The protest isn't about "working" it's about waving a protest sign in the hopes that someone might pause long enough to read the words.

Bush thinks, and he's already said, that he's not accountable anymore because he got re-elected. I don't think it's unreasonable to throw up a signal flare that contradicts that idea.
dreagoddess From: dreagoddess Date: January 19th, 2005 04:17 am (UTC) (Link)
Bush thinks, and he's already said, that he's not accountable anymore because he got re-elected.

Erm...just out of curiosity, where/when did he say that?
rabidsamfan From: rabidsamfan Date: January 19th, 2005 04:54 am (UTC) (Link)
Over the weekend.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4178655.stm

"Mr Bush said there was no need to hold any of his officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgements in pre-war planning or managing the aftermath."

He was talking specifically about Iraq, but he's also said things like the election gave him a mandate -- he really seems to think that having one (no matter the questions about the election process in key states) means that everything he does is okay.
calliopeia17 From: calliopeia17 Date: January 19th, 2005 05:03 am (UTC) (Link)
See my comment above- I don't think a "silent protest" does much to throw up a signal flare, as you put it. I just think a visible form of protest would be much more effective.
leeflower From: leeflower Date: January 19th, 2005 06:25 am (UTC) (Link)
well, I probably will be participating in the protest by default, because I live inside the capital beltway and am not stupid enough to make out-of the-house plans on that day in particular.

Words absolutely can't describe how pissed I am that King George is forcing the good people of the District of Columbia to foot the bill for this crap, though. Genious bit of tactic on his part, I suppose, because now all the protests will accomplish is helping to financially wound a democrat-controlled population center, but I seem to recall a little war being fought a few centuries back... something about taxation without representation? Hm. I guess they didn't hear about that one in Texas.
mincot From: mincot Date: January 19th, 2005 02:56 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh, we heard about it in Texas. BElieve me: there are liberals in Texas, and we tried to warn people back in 2000 that when the Shrub said that he would do for the nation what he had done for Texas that that was a THREAT, not a promise. Nobody believed us.

And go Ronnie Earle!!! He's one of my heroes--he goes after ANYONE, no matter the political party, who is misbehaving in office. The man is like a pit bull, and as a former Texan I am proud of him.
leeflower From: leeflower Date: January 19th, 2005 04:33 pm (UTC) (Link)
yeah, I appreciate people who don't let their criticism fall along party lines. During our last election for governor in Maryland, I had absolutely nothing nice to say about Kathleen (Kennedy) Townsend (the person running against our current governor). She was incompetent, lazy, and arrogant as hell, and everyone was like "no no, she's not... she's a democrat!"

[return all political parties where lazy +arrogant +incompetent= mutually exclusive; no results found].
miss_daizy From: miss_daizy Date: January 20th, 2005 03:29 am (UTC) (Link)
It's really telling in a way - let's all protest by not spending for one day - so what kind of sacrafice is that? (I can't help but think, because of the proximity of MLK day, how silly this would sound to the brave men and women of the civil rights movement.) Impractical in many ways - should the people who rely on public transportation call off work, since bus fare is spending??? Is every merchant a Republican? And what is the "protester" doing in protest besides delaying gratification for 24 hours??? Big whoop. My daughter has a friend who is having an eighth birthday party - she has asked that in lieu of gifts, we make donations to tsunami relief. Now that's an worthwhile action, if not actually a protest.

Want to do something about Middle East policy - get rid of your SUV, not for one day, but for good. But that's hard, so you know, that's not gonna happen.

Feel good crap is what this is, IMO.

Ugh, I'm going to get flamed by SUV drivers.

(Deleted comment)
21 comments or Leave a comment