London Calling

November 11, 2003 11:10 AM

A nice sit down and a cup of teaare among many events (pdf) planned for GWB's impending visit to the UK. Police are estimating 100,000 plus demonstrators for his visit, and London's Mayor says of American requests for an exclusion zone to protect him, 'I don't think that's got a chance at all'. How does this level of grass-roots dissent compare to his reception when out and about in the US?
posted by punilux (45 comments total)

Let the bashfest begin...
posted by alumshubby at 11:16 AM on November 11, 2003

yes, let it. for never in recent history has there been a subject so deserving of repeated, tireless bashing. if the boy king were in this room at this moment, i'd be bashing him with more than words, you can bet on it. personally, i will never shut up about the boy king until he's deposed. sorry if that's spoiling your enjoyment of the latest matrix sequel.
posted by quonsar at 11:32 AM on November 11, 2003

So there. :)
posted by LouReedsSon at 11:39 AM on November 11, 2003

See, mere Mayors can't talk back to the secret service but Lord Mayors can.
posted by jfuller at 11:44 AM on November 11, 2003

My enjoyment of Metafilter, don't you mean? :o)

Wow, quonsar, I didn't know you were such a badass. A lot of the Bush-bashing types I see posting around here sound like they'd be afraid of hurting their wrists or something, but not you, buddy. I hope the SS isn't combing server records to find out where you post from in order to come talk to you.

Besides, we'll get our official chance to make him political history in about a year. To me, the idea of firing his ass for incompetence is much more satisfying than beating the crap out of him. Let the punishment fit the crime, I say. I don't what him bruised and bloody; I want him back on his frickin' ranch in Texas so I can forget about him.

To get back to the subject at hand, doesn't the mayor of London come under some special royal or Parlimentary purview? I'm murky on the details, but I seem to recall that the Mayor is elected but serves at the pleasure etc. or his salary comes from the royal purse, or something. One of y'all from over that side of the ditch feel free to correct me.

Would the Queen want to want set a precedent like keeping folks off the streets for a foreign head of state's visit?
posted by alumshubby at 11:48 AM on November 11, 2003

The precedent has been set, and the repercussions were embarassing. There are two mayoral titles for London; the Lord Mayor has a much more limited remit - mainly confined to the City of London, whereas the Mayor is more political, and covers wider issues for the city as a whole. (The phrase 'City of London' generally and historically refers to the 'Square Mile'; the financial centre).
posted by punilux at 11:56 AM on November 11, 2003

Punishment fit the crime? The only fit I can see is orange jumpsuits for the entire Bush administration. They are treasonously un-American, and they should be jailed.

Also note: they had to gut the UN, in order to not face trial for International War Crimes. (A 3rd party candidate would get a lot of coverage if he vowed, upon his election, to present the Bush administration to the UN for prosecution).

Oh, and on-topic: the so-called "exclusion zone" is less about protecting the president than it is about diminishing the evidence of dissent.
posted by yesster at 11:57 AM on November 11, 2003

Would the Queen want to want set a precedent like keeping folks off the streets for a foreign head of state's visit?

already happened when Jiang Zemin came to London, buddy

anyway,
Everyone knows about it
From the Queen of England to the hounds of hell

on preview, what punilux said
posted by matteo at 12:08 PM on November 11, 2003

Bare Your Bum at Bush!
posted by homunculus at 12:18 PM on November 11, 2003

Didn't know about Jiang. Orange jumpsuits? OK, if you insist, then have 'em serve time in an Iraqi prison while you're at it, then.
posted by alumshubby at 12:19 PM on November 11, 2003

if the boy king were in this room at this moment, i'd be bashing him with more than words, you can bet on it.

I think I once said something like that. In fifth grade. But don't worry quonsar, we all know you could take him, you he-man, you!

personally, i will never shut up about the boy king until he's deposed. sorry if that's spoiling your enjoyment of the latest matrix sequel.

And the bottom line of course, as always, is that discussion of politics on MetaFilter blows goats and I would sooner ban it entirely than stomach another Bush baaaaad! thread.
posted by mathowie at 4:43 PM PST on September 6

Never mind what the person who runs this site says -- quonsar will "never stop" until Bush is deposed!

Bare Your Bum at Bush!

Hee hee. Let's moon the President! It'll really screw up the pictures! Make him see our naked arses! He'll surely see the errors of his foreign policy then! Hee hee!

Christ. Is there something in the water today?
posted by pardonyou? at 12:50 PM on November 11, 2003

Mr Livingstone said the fact no prime minister had been assassinated in nearly two centuries showed the British had always had good security.

If anybody else was wondering about this, it turns out to have been Spencer Perceval, and I note that the guy who killed him "had been trying unsuccessfully to obtain government compensation for debts incurred while he was in Russia." There's a lot of Western investment going bad in Russia these days...
posted by languagehat at 1:04 PM on November 11, 2003

On a related note... does it strike anybody odd that in the past few years there have been mass demonstrations of several western leaders (both political and economic) whenever summits have been held. I'm talking thousands of people rallying against their leaders.

Does anybody else remember this in times past? I'm too young for the Civil Rights marches, but I find it odd that democratically elected leaders have some many people mad at them. Is it herd mentality? I don't recall such protests against people and not for a cause (central American Solidarity and nuclear disarmament being examples) for some time.

At least GW and the PM aren't meeting in the middle of Canadian wilderness or Qatar yet.
posted by infowar at 1:11 PM on November 11, 2003

And the bottom line of course, as always, is that discussion of politics on MetaFilter blows goats and I would sooner ban it entirely than stomach another Bush baaaaad! thread.

Maybe the discussion has been so obtuse because its the visceral reaction that Bush seems to generate in people both for and against. I personally feel ill when I hear him talk about freedom and democracy when his actions stand in such stark contradiction to his words. The reasons seem to be everywhere, but people at large just don't seem to give a damn. No wonder those who do are screaming. Personally I feel that if someone's not outraged, that person's not paying attention.

For me the bottom line is that there are people who have strong feelings about Bush, and on Metafilter those who don't like him seem to outnumber those who do. It might not make for reading that doesn't infuriate, but it does serve as a barometer of what those readers with something to say feel about the man. And maybe they say it so often because their convictions are just that strong. I guess the question comes down to 'how much anger is too much?' For me, it's enough when the man is outta there.
posted by holycola at 1:15 PM on November 11, 2003

Don't they have "free speech zones" in the UK too? We wouldn't want them to miss out on their free speech by not having a state designated zone for it. Seems to me that would solve this whole mess.
posted by jester69 at 1:21 PM on November 11, 2003

We have one, jester. It's on the corner of Hyde Park, where rallies are traditionally held. GWB won't see it from his car, although he'll likely pass it several times.
posted by punilux at 2:02 PM on November 11, 2003

punilux, here you are arrested if you attempt to speak your mind without the confines of the designated zone. Hopefully things aren't that bad there yet.
posted by jester69 at 2:12 PM on November 11, 2003

Outta curiousity, and in all due respect, Matt...

Have you ever seen a political discussion that didn't blow goats? Seems to me that's the nature of the beast...
posted by Perigee at 2:24 PM on November 11, 2003

My enjoyment of Metafilter, don't you mean? :o)

Here's a novel idea: skip the thread. You may find this works with books, newspapers, the boob tube, etc...without requiring the rest of us to be concerned with your individual tastes, or lack thereof.

I think I once said something like that. In fifth grade.

Let's see. We decry the goat-blowing level of political discourse on MetaFilter in the same post that we proffer the sophisticated "ha ha, you must still be in grammar school" debating point.

But you forgot to add the"nanner-nanner-nanner". Work on it, will ya? And wipe off your chin.

What most of these Bush apologists really desire, of course, is a criticism-exclusion zone for Naval Aviator Hero Bush everywhere...a criticism-exclusion zone here on MetaFilter, across America and Asia, now in Britain...and everywhere Bush will travel.

If criticisms of Bush and his policies are so uninformed...so merely obviously Bush-hate...what exactly is there to fear? Why the knee-shaking need to stifle criticism and debate here on MetaFilter, across America, and throughout the world?

From Bush right on down, those who run from criticism invariably have excellent reasons for doing so.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:46 PM on November 11, 2003

those who run from criticism invariably have excellent reasons for doing so.

::: nod :::
posted by rushmc at 4:10 PM on November 11, 2003

Those who run from criticism invariably have excellent reasons for doing so.

Wow.

That's a keeper.

That's one for the hard-bound books of classic quotations.

Too bad I'll always have to explain to non-MeFites why I attribute it to "fold_and_mutilate".
posted by wendell at 7:42 PM on November 11, 2003

those who run from criticism invariably have excellent reasons for doing so.

The whole thread was worth getting to that.
posted by dejah420 at 9:18 PM on November 11, 2003

Pardonyou? - "Hee hee. Let's moon the President! It'll really screw up the pictures! Make him see our naked arses! He'll surely see the errors of his foreign policy then! Hee hee!

Christ. Is there something in the water today?"

He won't see the errors of his foreign (or domestic) policy through rational debate. The man's on a mission from God, a "chosen one", a "prophet in his own skull."

Arse bearing is a fitting tribute to the politics and person that is the genetically-regressed fundie, that is George W Bush.
posted by Blue Stone at 9:35 PM on November 11, 2003

"It will be the first official state visit by an American president for more than fifty years."

How telling is that? Hmmm?

"The ideas of some American security advisers that perhaps we should shut the whole of central London for three days, ignoring the economic consequences of that, I don't think that's got a chance at all," he said. – Mr Livingstone

Now that there is a fee to drive your car into central London, there should be plenty of room for more protestors.

The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received: Seems not many are fooled by the President's speeches and "we're getting Sammy Bin Laddy", oh yeah.
posted by alicesshoe at 10:13 PM on November 11, 2003

those who run from criticism invariably have excellent reasons for doing so

Yeah. And sometimes, the excellent reason is that the ones doing the criticizing are barely qualified to tie their own shoelaces, let alone criticize you, and since it's impossible to accomplish anything in the face of their unrelenting idiocy, and it's usually illegal to actually kill them, you just try to go where they aren't so you can get some real work done.

While the above pithy slogan is indeed both pithy and a slogan, it's basically content-free, as it fails to actually damn anyone. They might be running from you because their conscience can't bear to be pricked by the power of your truth. Or they might be running from you simply because you are an annoying self-righteous twit. Sure, you might think you're not in the latter category, but scientific studies have shown that people consistently overrate their own capabilities, and they do so in inverse proportion to their actual competence. You are far more likely to be a fuckwit than you think you are, and the more of a fuckwit you are, the less likely you are to grasp that you're a fuckwit.

The slogan also encapsulates a fairly un-American attitude, flying as it does in the face of our country's longstanding tradition of presumption of innocence. If you run, you must be guilty, right? I realize the court of public opinion is not obliged to follow the rule of law, but it'd be nice if we occasionally nodded in the general direction of fairness, to show that at least we know where it is located.

Last but not least, from a practical standpoint, saying something like "those who run from criticism invariably have excellent reasons for doing so" leaves you living in a rhetorical glass house. At the first sign that you are becoming annoyed by criticism, your opponent will trot it out and accuse you of hypocrisy, and you lose.

For all these reasons, this pithy slogan is not nearly as clever as it appears at first blush.
posted by kindall at 12:01 AM on November 12, 2003

The general level of protest and rage, in the US and outside, is made far far worse IMO by the absence of a safety valve. Bush & Co. have apparently concluded that if media do not cover protests, then there are no protests, and if there are no protests then their policies have the approval of Americans (and only Americans count). So in addition to the "free speech" zones--and Orwellian labels are another consistent thread with the current Republican leadership, as in the Patriot Act, the Healthy Forest Initiative, and other obscenities--we have "enemy combatants" sequestered at Guantanamo (now disputed by the Supreme Court--NYT link, reg. req.), we have no photos of war dead coming back to Dover, etc., etc.

Main point is that if you keep opposition bottled up, it works for a while, but there will come an explosion if there's no opportunity for release. What say you? Wouldn't it have been in Bush's best interest, beginning in Dec. 2000, to allow the opposition to speak?
posted by palancik at 6:19 AM on November 12, 2003

If you run, you must be guilty, right?

If it talks like a duck, and walks like a duck...it often is a duck, and denying that correlation is counterproductive.

Deducing someone's intent from their behavior is not comparable to convicting and punishing them without proof. Human thought is an ongoing series of best-fit assumptions. If you want to raise the bar so that every assessment we make of the world requires absolute proof, you will create a world in which it is impossible to function, since we never have ALL the facts at our disposal, backed by irrefutably documented evidence.

I agree that people should exercise care in making judgements about other people's motives, but I don't agree that they should be denied the right to come to their own conclusions. Given many years of gregarious interpersonal interaction and real-world experience, many people develop the tools (including so-called "B.S. detectors") to become quite proficient at this.
posted by rushmc at 6:43 AM on November 12, 2003

And sometimes, the excellent reason is that the ones doing the criticizing are barely qualified to tie their own shoelaces, let alone criticize you, and since it's impossible to accomplish anything in the face of their unrelenting idiocy, and it's usually illegal to actually kill them, you just try to go where they aren't so you can get some real work done.

If you're smart and your critics are stupid, isn't confronting them directly the best thing to do - especially during public appearances? If only once in a while? And isn't the supposition that your critics aren't qualified to criticize you - the province of geniuses and fanatics - much more anti-democratic than fold_and_mutilate's First Law of White Broncos?
posted by furiousthought at 7:48 AM on November 12, 2003

What foldy said.

Remember when protest was allowed in the US?

Remember when our Constitution was interpreted to include the entire country as a free speech zone?

Wasn't that great?

How I envy you Brits!
posted by nofundy at 7:55 AM on November 12, 2003

Remember when our Constitution was interpreted to include the entire country as a free speech zone?

I don't. The First Amendment has long been held to allow reasonable restrictions on "time, place, and manner."

Note for nofundy who tends to make erroneous assumptions about my beliefs: I don't necessarily disagree that the "protection zones" are inconsistent with the First Amendment. I posted only to correct the misstatement that our Constitution had been interpreted to include the "entire country" as a "free speech zone."
posted by pardonyou? at 8:13 AM on November 12, 2003

Remember when our Constitution was interpreted to include the entire country as a free speech zone?

I don't. The First Amendment has long been held to allow reasonable restrictions on "time, place, and manner."

Note for nofundy who has a tendency to make erroneous assumptions about my beliefs: I don't necessarily disagree that the "protection zones" are inconsistent with the First Amendment. I posted only to correct the misstatement that our Constitution had been interpreted to include the "entire country" as a "free speech zone."
posted by pardonyou? at 8:14 AM on November 12, 2003

Twice even!
posted by pardonyou? at 8:15 AM on November 12, 2003

Wow, f_and_m, I didn't realize I was "requiring" you to "be concerned with" a damn thing. Well, pardon me all to hell, as Rooster Cogburn once said. And gee, did you really mean to imply that I lack taste because the eighty-zillionth anti-Bush FPP seems to be a bit much? I guess I'm just not gorging myself on the latest taste sensation -- the devolution of MetaFilter into It'sCoolToHateBush'sGutsFilter. Guess I'd better get with the program.
posted by alumshubby at 8:24 AM on November 12, 2003

devolution? we've been here for three years, alumshubby.
posted by Mars Saxman at 9:01 AM on November 12, 2003

The slogan also encapsulates a fairly un-American attitude, flying as it does in the face of our country's longstanding tradition of presumption of innocence.

Presumption of innocence only applies when facing criminal charges, which won't happen since Bush appointed the prosecutors. No, the more deeply running American tradition is one of accountability of elected officials. I recognize that the fact that the GOP controls Congress has insulated the president from the usual oversight mechanisms, but the press and public still has a right -- no, a responsibility to criticize and hold the president accountable for his foibles and general bad policy decisions.

It amazes me that there are still such hard-core defenders of him left. Most of those I know IRL who were Bush supporters are very disillusioned with him. He's a demonstrable liar -- about intelligence, about his foreign policy goals, about his motivations -- and he isn't compassionate nor terribly conservative either. What kind of conservative keeps asking Congress for blank check appropriations to fund foreign policy adventures and nation-building?

Bush deserves nothing less than continual, constant criticism of him every where he goes. If he wasn't such a coward, he'd not ask that foreign powers repress dissent on his behalf.
posted by norm at 9:08 AM on November 12, 2003

I know IRL who were Bush supporters

unlike CART, who supported Gore, and F1 who'd vote for some gap-toothed homosexual or another but, praise Jebus, are all damn furriners and can't vote here nohow.

And we'll just not mention them SCCA and WRC weenies.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:21 AM on November 12, 2003

devolution? we've been here for three years, alumshubby.

No shit, Sherlock, but hardly with the stridency I've seen of late.

Not, I'll concede readily, that W doesn't have it coming. Which is why I relish the opportunity I'll enjoy next November to fire him. I knew he wasn't going to be the next George Washington (and no, I didn't vote for W in 2000), but he's made Bill Clinton, whom I thought was kind of lightweight on foreign-relations issues, look like a statesman. And he's the most un-conservative conservative I've seen in a looooong time. But when some of these chickenhawks-in-reverse talk about physically assaulting him, that's something I never heard during the darkest days of Slick Willie. Hell, I don't remember anybody talking about kicking Ronnie in the shins.

What kind of conservative keeps asking Congress for blank check appropriations to fund foreign policy adventures and nation-building?

Uhhhh...Harry S Truman? No, wait.....Richard M. Nixon? No...Theodore Roosevelt?....Ummm....lessee....Practically every President who's ignored GW's advice on avoiding foreign entanglements? I think the biggest difference with our boy wonder is one of degree more than of kind.
posted by alumshubby at 10:08 AM on November 12, 2003

It amazes me that there are still such hard-core defenders of him left.

I understand the feeling, but it shouldn't surprise. People who take an emotional stance on what should not be (primarily) emotional issues make it personal, and people are much less willing to admit they were wrong about something when they feel they have a personal stake in it.

It's wrong, but it's comprehensible.
posted by rushmc at 10:45 AM on November 12, 2003

It'll be interesting to see just whether the American media blandly covers Bush's stately procession down the Mall (a privilege that wasn't granted to many more deserving holders of his office), or notices the thousands of people who are set to track his every step. And I don't mean the bastard corps of Secret Service, who act as if they own the place when they're on their foreign jaunts.

They're even discussing in Britain whether Secret Service officers will have immunity from prosecution if they decide to shoot up a bunch of protesters. Excuse me, Mr Aviator Sunglasses from the Land of Friendly Fire: you're foreign guests in a country that bans handguns. Leave your piece at home, and let the Met do the job of over-zealously policing the visit. I suspect that the Special Branch doesn't get those sorts of privileges when Tony goes to the Texas ranch.

(At least PC Plod will be coining in the overtime pay, and just in time for Christmas shopping too.)
posted by riviera at 11:29 AM on November 12, 2003

I think foldy knows all about running from criticism. He's really an expert after all his years of posting his unbelievably condescending and insulting posts, and then disappearing back to his high horse, with nary a response to any possible criticism of him or his near content-free posts.

Criticism of Bush is all over Metafilter, from intelligent and well researched (as well as the less well researched, because you don't need to dig deep to find all sorts of good examples of why Bush should be criticized,) to the shrill, combative, and stupidly macho "I'd kick his ass, 'cause I'm a real man, able to wield my masculine power much more than this 'boy' can."

If bellicose and immature attacks that galvanize opposition and annoy and push away more moderate and sympathetic people are what people like foldy want, then they are welcome to continue, but all they create is heat with little light.
posted by Snyder at 11:50 AM on November 12, 2003

Snyder,

Like a bumper sticker quote?

"If you're not mad as hell, then you've not been paying attention"

How about a fundy Bible quote?

"Because you are neither hot or cold, but lukewarm, I spit you out."

Fighters wanted. Enlist now. Before it's too late.

Alumshubby,

TV and radio has an on/off button and you are not required to read or post to threads that do not interest you.
Move along, nothing to see here.
posted by nofundy at 12:00 PM on November 12, 2003

I think foldy knows all about running from criticism

f&m has posted his physical address and phone number right here on MetaFilter, pal. If you don't like his views, that's fine, but if you're going to attack him personally, try to find a plausible excuse.
posted by languagehat at 12:04 PM on November 12, 2003

nofundy,

kindly take three running steps and go straight to hell.
posted by alumshubby at 12:05 PM on November 12, 2003

::: makes a note about alumshubby in his little book :::
posted by rushmc at 3:44 PM on November 12, 2003

languagehat, I know he posted those things, but to me, it's just more macho posturing. I mean, it just seems like a challenge, a "I can take anything you can throw at me," but all it does it take disagreement away from the site, and make it a power play. He rarely address anything anyone ever says to him, (except in the most condescending of ways,) and I feel that the posting of his physical address and phone number is lieu of his email is simply a way to displace any possible dialogue.

I have no wish to get more involved with the man, either over the phone or in person, because I don't have that much invested in any response I have. It seems the opposite with foldy, where it's important enough to want others to call him on the phone, but not important enough to be able to be sent email or post a response on Metafilter.

Maybe I shouldn't respond, after all his behavior does map reasonably with a troll. But that's not relevant at this point.

I guess this should probably go to Metatalk, if anywhere. But I doubt it would be worthwhile.
posted by Snyder at 1:44 PM on November 13, 2003