Join 3,431 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Blackout
January 20, 2005 7:56 AM   Subscribe

Blackout Some sites have gone black today in protest of black box voting and/or four more years of Bush. But, actually, I haven't seen many. Are people tired of fighting or is this just a poorly-organized effort no one knows about?
posted by sparky (64 comments total)

 
Perhaps it's a combination of the two.

I myself don't have the resources or the time to show up in DC or even Manhattan for a protest today, but I've decided that I'm going to start forwarding that photo of the wailing toddler with her parents' blood on her hands to everyone on my email list who has ever sent me a "George Bush talks to Jesus every day and protects us from evil" spam.
posted by availablelight at 8:10 AM on January 20, 2005


Are people tired of fighting or is this just a poorly-organized effort no one knows about?

I think you missed the third -- and most likely -- possibility: People don't see the value in lame, ineffectual "protests." If people participated in every one of these things, they'd have to turn off their computers, stay away from the stores, turn their back to Bush, stand on one leg, scratch their heads, eat nothing but falafel, etc., etc., etc.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:13 AM on January 20, 2005


This is the first I've heard of it, and I frequent many fairly liberal and anti-Bush sites. I vote for the second option.
posted by SisterHavana at 8:13 AM on January 20, 2005


Maybe all the folks who thought it was an effective, intelligent & useful protest are in school today? High school
posted by jenleigh at 8:14 AM on January 20, 2005


Nail on the head, pardonyou. (But isn't the falafel protest for Bill O'Reilly's birthday?)
posted by thirdparty at 8:17 AM on January 20, 2005


Maybe people are tired of poorly-organized protests.
posted by availablelight at 8:21 AM on January 20, 2005


Poorly organised? Perhaps. (Potential) protesters tired and jaded? You bet. Feeling powerless? Absolutely.

But although we know that closing a couple of website (mostly personal sites/blogs anyway) for a day isn't going to stop the inauguration from happening, at least we're keeping alive the awareness of the feelings of disgust and disappointment of Americans and people worldwide. I'm as cynical as the next guy, but hey, at least it's something.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:37 AM on January 20, 2005


Most protests seem so futile. The choir applauds us, and the uninitiated learn nothing. It's not like there's anyone in America who would go to these sites and say, "Hey, some people don't like Bush? OMG I never considered that."

The quote is nice, and something I need to write down, but otherwise, this just seems like a symbolic gesture only appreicated by its participants. I've seen clever, educational protests, but the majority are "I can't think of what to do but I still want people to think I'm active!"
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:39 AM on January 20, 2005


Whineyasscrybabybiatches...just deal.
posted by 1016 at 8:44 AM on January 20, 2005


Rationality has lost. Jingoism and fundamentalism have won. Given that, I see no reason to keep trying to protest. The majority of people in this country believe we need more God in government, preemptive war is a good idea, and gay marriage is a bigger problem than massive federal debt and the trashing of our national image around the world.

Game over. Americans are idiots. Why bother.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:47 AM on January 20, 2005


LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA....I can't hear you....LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA
posted by Otis at 8:54 AM on January 20, 2005


I think this article pretty much sums it up.

Wait, you mean that it was supposed to be satire?

Seriously, if any of these people actually care about the state of the world, maybe they should go out and contribute something positive to their communities instead of calling for more stupid, pointless, childish protests. Democracy is not something that happens only once every four years. It happens every day in your neighborhood. Go out and make an actual difference fer crissakes, instead of throwing temper tantrums about about what's already done.
posted by casu marzu at 8:59 AM on January 20, 2005


y6y6y6, what a terrible attitude.

The majority of the people in this country don't believe those things. It's possible that the majority of voters believe those things, but I highly doubt even that. What's certain is that the reason we have these problems is that people like you said "why bother".

You can't win if you won't bother to play.

And frankly it's attitudes like yours that perpetuate the myht that "liberals are wimps." The Christian Right suceeds by focusing on small victories, and turning them into larger victories.

On preview: what casu said, too.
posted by breath at 9:00 AM on January 20, 2005


If they really wanted to make a point they'd be down until 2009. Posers.
posted by geekyguy at 9:02 AM on January 20, 2005


my car is almost out of gas (stupid me). Yet I agreed to participate in the 'Not One Dime' protest. This is a tough one for me. I don't want to get stuck. I hope I can make it through today.
posted by brucec at 9:06 AM on January 20, 2005


1016, rude, name-calling comments are making Metafilter suck. Until you can find an articulate, thoughtful way to express yourself, please turn off your computer.
posted by Mom at 9:07 AM on January 20, 2005


Maybe all the folks who thought it was an effective, intelligent & useful protest are in school today? High school
Doubtful, because those people probably also listened to Mike Moore telling them to cut class in protest.
posted by darukaru at 9:10 AM on January 20, 2005


I stand fully behind 1016's comment. Everyone should just deal. For all of those around here who weren't going to just deal, I suggest you wisen up, and deal. You know. Deal.

Just deal. It's high time we deal.
posted by odinsdream at 9:10 AM on January 20, 2005


Maybe the boycott should involve those companies that are paying for this spectacle. And whatever happened to inauguration financing reform?

From today's NYT (the stench gets worse each time I read it) ...

Then Mr. Bush was carried by motorcade to a private gathering at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium for some of his most generous financial supporters. The donors invited to the event - those who had contributed $250,000 each to help pay for the $40 million inaugural festivities - included big corporations whose business can be affected by government policy, like AT&T, ChevronTexaco and Bank of America, as well as some wealthy individuals, including Sheldon G. Adelson, a Las Vegas casino operator, and Nelson Peltz, a New York financier.
posted by terrier319 at 9:10 AM on January 20, 2005


The majority of people in this country believe we need more God in government, preemptive war is a good idea, and gay marriage is a bigger problem than massive federal debt and the trashing of our national image around the world.

That seems a little melodramatic. We're talking about 51% of the population. Not exactly a tyrrany.

Rationality has lost. Jingoism and fundamentalism have won.

Perhaps puppets and blackouts and back-turning and Michael Mooreisms don't strike those 51% as "rationale" or sensible, or even interesting. Just trite.

Perhaps the other 49% should present clear, meaningful visionary alternatives to our current US policies (ex: what is the "rational" answer to being attacked on 9/11) in order to keep their public image from crumbling further. As it stands, complaining a lot while lacking intelligent alternatives just makes one a whiner, not an "activist" or a "progressive". There's the difference, for me.
posted by jenleigh at 9:11 AM on January 20, 2005


my car is almost out of gas (stupid me). Yet I agreed to participate in the 'Not One Dime' protest. This is a tough one for me. I don't want to get stuck. I hope I can make it through today.

You are kidding, right? You'd run out of gas rather than spend money on some ineffectual protest?
posted by fixedgear at 9:11 AM on January 20, 2005


Err, rather than not spend money...
posted by fixedgear at 9:12 AM on January 20, 2005


Unfortunately, I'm not kidding to the extent that its a real situation -- that my Honda Civic is really pinning the red.

If I actually knew that I'd run out right now, I'd tank up and sell-out in a second.

Since I don't know for sure that point at which I'll run out with my commute home my dilemma is whether or not to give up..or take a chance that I'll make it and not feel like a sell out..
posted by brucec at 9:17 AM on January 20, 2005


The majority of people in this country believe we need more God in government, preemptive war is a good idea, and gay marriage is a bigger problem than massive federal debt and the trashing of our national image around the world.

No they don't. Certainly some people believe that, but people voted for a wide variety of reasons. Can we please dispense with the generalizations?
posted by casu marzu at 9:18 AM on January 20, 2005


and of course they've used one of their suggested images to blackout their site today..............................
posted by lloyder at 9:20 AM on January 20, 2005


Good point about the generalizations... I mean, a good number of people that pulled the lever for Bush just didn't see enough reason to fire him.
posted by brucec at 9:21 AM on January 20, 2005


RIP Democracy 1776-2005?

Wait, what happened in the last three weeks to kill democracy? As far as I knew, democracy was still doing alright, either that or it had been dead for quite a few years already.
posted by thirteenkiller at 9:24 AM on January 20, 2005


"Perhaps the other 49% should present clear, meaningful visionary alternatives to our current US policies (ex: what is the "rational" answer to being attacked on 9/11) in order to keep their public image from crumbling further.

No, perhaps the politicians elected by the votes of that 49% should present clear, meaningful alternatives. Face it, the democrats have simply failed to do this for quite some time now. As fraught with problems as the "contract with America" was, it was at least a platform the 'right' base could get behind - it was marketing policy through branding and it worked (similarly - The War on Terrorâ„¢); we can all argue about what actually came out of that contract, but the point is, it helped solidify their base.

Unfortunately these protests don't inspire the base, they soothe the conscience of the few that participate. I'm not saying don't protest but create a more thoughtful and organized protest that those 49% can really get behind.

...and no, I don't have any ideas.
posted by j.p. Hung at 9:35 AM on January 20, 2005


for those who may be interested, the saga is coming to an end. Not a perfect moral solution, but one that will assure me of keeping some of my pride and not being stranded on the road.

A co-worker who is a rabid Bush supporter is going to lend me five dollars for five dollars worth of gas. Money she would have spent today, as she was certianly not boycotting anything today. I, in turn give her the meatloaf sandwhich that I brought in so she does not have to buy lunch, and thus spend the five dollars.

-I spend the five dollars on gas, but introduce no new dollars into the economy today, since these are rabid republican dollars.

-I eliminate the risk that I would run out of gas on the road, and perhaps have to spend on mechanical services today.

-I am hungry, but there's RITZ crackers and other snacks I can mooch around the office as a sacrifice.
posted by brucec at 9:38 AM on January 20, 2005


"Can we please dispense with the generalizations?"

Bush won the last election. And he did so by appealing to the items I mentioned. It's not a generalization - It's a result. Trying to argue that not everyone feels that way is silly. We, as a nation, can not remove a president who has been a complete failure if that president appeals to Rush Limbaugh listeners.

Yes, it's depressing. But no, it's not the fault of people like me. One of the reasons democrats lost so badly is that they tried to use logic and rational arguments. What good could protest possibly do? Besides piss off people I don't like.

Bush is a drunk and a liar who dodged the draft before he ran several businesses into the ground. But he talks a good game.

Kerry is a war hero with a spotless record of public service. But he's boring.

Bush gets the highest percentage of votes ever.

Game over. Americans, in general, are idiots. And protests only marginalize the left. So you go wear your "kick me" shirt in the street. I'll sit home and wait for the poosibility of real change.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:40 AM on January 20, 2005


Game over. Americans are idiots. Why bother.

If this is game over then you give up too easy:

"Asked about the Iraq war, a majority of 52 per cent said the US made a mistake in sending in the troops; 47 per cent disagreed."

"US President George W. Bush begins his second term in office with a 51 per cent approval rating, a far lower figure than that of other US presidents who were elected to a second term over the past 50 years, a poll out today found."

[link]
posted by tweak at 9:40 AM on January 20, 2005


Poo-sibility indeed. I think that's my new fucking word for the fucking day. Poosibility.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:43 AM on January 20, 2005


Are people tired of fighting or is this just a poorly-organized effort no one knows about?

This is the first I've heard about it. I'd go with B.

And yanno, I think it's pretty silly. If you're going to protest, do it already. Get your behind to DC and protest, although it's a little late at this point. You say you can't? Tell that to the Ukranians who protested their election.

Where were you last January, when you could have actually done something? I'm a little tired of empty gestures that don't do anything except assuage the consciences of people who have just now realised that they're now stuck with something they don't like, because they sat on their butts for the last four to six years and didn't come up with any kind of plausible alternative.

FWIW, I'm going shopping today (I hope). Between a sick kid and bad roads, I've been stuck at home for over a week, and we're running out of food.

On preview, what jenleigh and jphung said. (note that all "you's" in the post are generic you, not specific you.)
posted by jlkr at 9:58 AM on January 20, 2005


"George W. Bush begins his second term in office with a 51 per cent approval rating"

Oh yes, his administration is surely crippled. I'll bet he'd get his ass handed to him if he tried to appoint a DOJ head who'd advocated torture and unchecked presidential power. And I'll bet he'll get laughed out of Congress when he asks for another $100 billion to spend on the Iraq quagmire. And surely he'll receive some serious derision if he keeps trying to amend the Constitution to define a word more to the liking of the religious right.

The real world just keeps popping your fantasy balloons. And the more it happens, the easier it gets for you to pretend otherwise.

The polls you refer to proved really reliable before the last election huh? Where the rubber meets the road your polls have failed you. America likes Bush. And reality shows. And freedom fries.

The end result of such protests has been, and will be, a solidifying of Republican control.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:59 AM on January 20, 2005


Whineyasscrybabybiatches...just deal.
posted by 1016 at 8:44 AM PST on January 20

Fuck you dude. Just, fuck you. Go away if all you have to provide is drivel.
posted by tr33hggr at 10:16 AM on January 20, 2005


It doesn't make much of a difference, but my blog post for the day was:

Mom and Dad taught me: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.





I hope folks are bundled up for the parade. I hope they don't get too cold.

posted by mmahaffie at 10:23 AM on January 20, 2005


Half the country doesn't want Bush back. 100% of the country knows this already. What exactly is "protesting" his re-election supposed to prove?
posted by Foosnark at 10:30 AM on January 20, 2005


Bush gets the highest percentage of votes ever.

Er.. what?
I think you're confused here. Bush got the highest number of votes ever. But that doesn't mean a lot; Kerry got the second highest number of votes ever. The turnout broke.. well.. every record there is. In fact, the opposite of your claim is true: Bush was re-elected with the smallest margin of victory ever.
posted by Plutor at 10:43 AM on January 20, 2005


Let's face it GWB has benefited from having the largest attack on American soil during his Presidency. The pre-9/11 Bush Presidency of August 2001 was a mix of low poll numbers, abandoned domestic programs, questionable foriegn policy moves, recessive economy, the loss of the Senate.

It was Jimmy Carter without the sweater.

9/11 created a resoivor of support that still has drink in it... but it won't forever. The War on Terrorism boxed in the Democratic campaign from the choice of the nominee to limiting what that nominee could say, to having to deal with terror alerts everytime something positive happened for Kerry...it savaged the Democrats in both 2002 and 2004.

..No doubt that 9/11 has created a base of fear and loyalty to incumbent that helped Bush, but to translate that into 'Everyone in America Supports Bush' is illogical.

There are plenty of people who like Bush, people who just didn't think there was enough to fire him, people who have some doubts about him and people who hate him. On Nov. 2nd that resulted in a two point victory over his opponent, the worst incumbent performance since 1916.
posted by brucec at 10:49 AM on January 20, 2005


y6y6y6y6y6y6y6y6....actually the polling data prior to the election was quite accurate. Bush won by only a couple percentage points, as the polls suggested.

"One of the reasons democrats lost so badly is that they tried to use logic and rational arguments."

No, they were actually pretty pathetic when it came to that..the reason they lost is because their candidate sucked and the Republican machine was better at PR.

sidenote: glad you got it worked out brucec.
posted by j.p. Hung at 11:02 AM on January 20, 2005


"Can we please dispense with the generalizations?"

Bush won the last election. And he did so by appealing to the items I mentioned. It's not a generalization - It's a result. Trying to argue that not everyone feels that way is silly. We, as a nation, can not remove a president who has been a complete failure if that president appeals to Rush Limbaugh listeners.


y6y6y6 -- you didn't even read the article. You are dead wrong. The vast majority of voters in this country do not march in lockstep to one of the two (self-contradictory) monolithic ideologies presented by the two major parties. Hell, most of the elected representatives from the parties do not agree with those ideologies in toto. It is not only a gross generalization to assume that everyone who voted for Bush is a jingoist, fundamentalist, homophobic dittohead who favors preemptive war -- it's also an exceedingly ignorant and close-minded one. Some people hold some of those positions -- and some hold none of them and still voted for Bush for other reasons. Just as not everyone who voted for Kerry shares your belief that Bush is drunken, lying draft-dodger and that Kerry is a fucking saint. However, I daresay that your supremely arrogant attitude is one of the many reasons why some people would rather choose Bush over any alternative preferred by someone such as yourself.

I'll sit home and wait for the poosibility of real change.

Thanks for making my point for me: you're part of the problem. Please continue to stay at home, keep your ennui to yourself, and make sure your tinfoil hat stays glued in place.
posted by casu marzu at 11:12 AM on January 20, 2005


thanks j.p. despite the gas station guy giving me a dirty look for spending only 5 dollars on gas, my pride is intact and i can easily get to the 21st without spending.

Of course, I've learned a lesson about the real effectiveness of these protests..
posted by brucec at 11:14 AM on January 20, 2005


"People don't see the value in lame, ineffectual 'protests.'" Especially ones like the gas boycott day, the epitome of slacktivism.

Protests must hit critical mass relative to the range of their target to affect the world. A handful of sites or a small mob can make a statement against a very specific group or issue, but a simple page-blacking will do nothing against the juggernaut of a presidential administration.
posted by NickDouglas at 11:16 AM on January 20, 2005


Perhaps the other 49% should present clear, meaningful visionary alternatives to our current US policies (ex: what is the "rational" answer to being attacked on 9/11) in order to keep their public image from crumbling further.

For many of the 49%, the "rational" answer was Afghanistan and Bin Laden. The "irrational" answer was a separate war in Iraq launched under false pretenses and costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Is that not meaningful enough to keep their public image from crumbling further?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:20 AM on January 20, 2005


>but to translate that into 'Everyone in America Supports Bush' is illogical.

But it certainly has made the right show its true colors, which is much scarier than the Bush administration. The fact that more than half this country (not to mention many democrats and non-voters) have no problem with introducing elements of theocracy into a republic, fighting a war based on lies for geopolitical reasons mostly involving energy resources and regional control, torture, complete disdain for the geneva convention, disdain for your allies and trading partners, bigoted attacks on gays and immigrants, the "pritivatize everything now" concept, etc.

These people make up a signficant part of the country and hold powerful political and economic positions. y6's posts may be a bit over the top, but please don't bury your head in the sand. Look at Bush's new appointees, the US rewards failure and torturers. Look at the economy. The voters want to be in debt. Look at the war. Voters don't mind killing 10,000 innocent civillians over fictional WMD. Look at healthcare accessbility. Look at the distribution of wealth. Look at how the corporate media fails to inform. Look at media consolidation. Look at what the FCC is doing.

Not to mention approval polls are meaningless, especially for lame duck presidency. Power sits with the Republicans and they are ready to dismantle the US's social programs, promote theocracy, and continue this war.

Its worse than you think and Bush is just a symptom. He's not the problem. In a better informed country which took political and economic issues seriously (as compared to just social hot button issues and party identity issues) Bush would have never even been nominated back in 1999. His failed businesses, AWOL status, nepotism, etc would have made him the worst candidate ever, but when elections are run like maketing campaigns and no one cares much for truth, then he's a good brand with that Republican sounding last name of his.
posted by skallas at 11:21 AM on January 20, 2005


i turned my blog black, but i turned the text white.

just cuz we lost the election doesnt mean we cant have dumbass blogs

(self link)
posted by tsarfan at 11:51 AM on January 20, 2005


good on you, brucec. way to stick it out.

it's funny. i agree with brucec's explanation of GWB's 9/11 "capital," and i also agree with skallas and y6y6y6. it could certainly go either way. GWB and his supporters have made our political system much worse, and the majority of Americans care more that The O.C. is on tonight.

i support any and all economic boycotts and protests, however ineffectual or navelgazerrific. i'd say we should stop buying stuff on every Sunday if it didn't seem so religious.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:53 AM on January 20, 2005


right skallas, they are huge marketing campaigns (or more correctly, PR campaigns) and yeah, I think you are partly right, "no one cares much for the truth". During the run up to the election, I argued vehemently with my "new republican*" sisters, citing facts, figures, statements from this administration, historical precedents etc.

No amount of factual data or could penetrate their skulls. The election was not about Bush/Kerry, it was about their inability to admit they might be wrong about something.

Go Jeb Bush 2008!!

*new republicans - those clinging to the belief they are actually conservative republicans in the face of overwhelming evidence that the party they support has abandoned the practical aspects of conservatism.
posted by j.p. Hung at 12:03 PM on January 20, 2005


A Presidential election result isn't a great measure of the people's feelings on this issue or that. It's all or nothing. I could hate Bush's domestic agenda but vote for him because I thought Kerry looked French.

No doubt that the size and magnatude of Bush support should concern Democrats....but in terms of their being a new army of people who agree with all the positions cited above...i think its unlikely there's any more of this crowd than there was in 1993.
posted by brucec at 12:04 PM on January 20, 2005


in terms of their being a new army of people who agree with all the positions cited above...i think its unlikely there's any more of this crowd than there was in 1993.

there might not be more of them, but they've never held so much power before. i'm still a little worried about what happens after we bomb Iran.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:21 PM on January 20, 2005


I hadn't even heard about this until I went to visit one of my friend's web sites today and found it blacked-out. But then, I haven't been at the computer much the last few days. Though these sorts of web protests are probably mostly ineffectual, the people that take part in them can feel like they are doing something. Not everyone can has the time and money to spend days protesting in public ... having jobs to do and families to care for. I might have taken part in it had I heard about it in time, but I didn't ... so I didn't.

jlkr said: If you're going to protest, do it already. Get your behind to DC and protest, although it's a little late at this point. You say you can't? Tell that to the Ukranians who protested their election.

So you are saying that it's just as easy to get from any point in the United States to Washington, DC to protest an election as it is to get across a country smaller than Texas?
posted by Orb at 12:44 PM on January 20, 2005


brucec

Just to let you know: If you have just hit the red line (empty) as I assume you have from your comments then you probably have between 1 and 2 gallons left in the tank. That is where the fuel guage is typically set.

If you're in a civic this means you could go anywhere from 20 to 70 miles on what you have left.

I am not suggesting you not buy gas, because I wouldn't want to be responsible for your being stuck somewhere, but provided your needle is actually riding the E line, you probably have more than just fumes in there.
posted by Yellowbeard at 12:52 PM on January 20, 2005


So you are saying that it's just as easy to get from any point in the United States to Washington, DC to protest an election as it is to get across a country smaller than Texas?

Given that the smaller country had angry opposition led mobs, squads of secret police, and a history of poisoning those who oppose them, yes, yes I would say it's just as easy.
posted by unreason at 12:54 PM on January 20, 2005


yellowbeard- actually in between my second comment and my third i snuck out of the office and got the gas. yes it was at the point of hitting the red line...damn 20 miles..i didn't need to comprimise my principles at all.....
posted by brucec at 1:11 PM on January 20, 2005


tr33hggr, thank you very much; you make my point with superb conciseness. Great analysis, tremendous marshalling of the facts supporting your position.

Mom, sorry...I'll try and be a better boy.

But: the vast majority of invective on Metafilter comes from the left.
posted by 1016 at 2:21 PM on January 20, 2005


Thank you, 1016.
posted by Mom at 5:45 PM on January 20, 2005


Did I start that behavior? "Whineyasscrybabybiatches"?

I tell you, I'm just sick of people saying "get over it," or "just deal."

Ok, I'll stop being a citizen who cares, who questions, who takes the obligations of community serious. I'll just deal. I mean, I can't do anything about it, right? Who really cares about the toddler covered in his parent's blood? I'll just deal. It's truly a much more comfortable position.

Yup. You certainly did a much better job of making your "point with superb conciseness. Great analysis, tremendous marshalling of the facts supporting your position," as you say.
posted by tr33hggr at 7:32 PM on January 20, 2005


Oh yeah. Fuck off as well. Deal with it, bitch.
posted by tr33hggr at 7:33 PM on January 20, 2005


Sorry mom, but I'm tired of being treated like a nonpatriot for giving a shit.
posted by tr33hggr at 7:36 PM on January 20, 2005


Nobody called you a nonpatriot, tr33hggr...

And, I don't think it's even debatable that the astoundingly high percentage of rancorous, abusive political rhetoric on MeFi comes from the left....

And: your superbly crappy and nasty initial response is simply validation of my initial comment about crybabyness/whineyness stuff from you and your self-safisfied ilk.

Thanks for borrowing my language, too. Got any of your own that works? Guess not.

Out.
posted by 1016 at 8:58 PM on January 20, 2005


tr33hggr, you can take your obligations as citizen seriously without taking them personally, which is what all of those I suspect 1016 was referring to appear to be doing. After an election it is time that all American's get behind the person elected whether it was their choice or not. Getting behind does not have to be endorsing or supporting but at least accept that the majority has spoken. Is it just me or didn't it used to be that way?

Of course, every protester/dissident believes that the horrors they are witness to now are the worst or that this is the end of days. But you know what? You can do something about it, you can stay aware, continue to be well-informed from a wide variety of sources, support candidates and measures that fit your idealogies and vote for change. If you vote and it does not turn out the way that you hoped you should know that the system worked; it turned out the way the majority chose. That does not mean you attack the majority or you take your toys and go home, instead it means that you look to what it is that made the majority decide in that direction and try to understand their motives while you re-evaluate yours. If you still believe what you believed then bully for you. If you do not, well then, bully for you. Either way it is your responsibility to remain as aware as you have the energy for and continue to make political choices that fit your beliefs. In no way should you give up on America or feel personal animosity towards your fellow citizens. That is scary dangerous shit.

Y'know, United we stand, divided we fall. I'm just sayin'.
posted by geekyguy at 9:10 PM on January 20, 2005


Good enough. Point taken geekyguy.
posted by tr33hggr at 6:25 AM on January 21, 2005


On topic: bushblackout wasn't very well publicized or organized, but I thought it was an interesting idea and similar actions to raise awareness on (generally less controversial) issues seemed to be well received among bloggers. So, I bought a MeFi textad for it, though I am in no way affiliated with the site. It's had 27 clickthrus in 1,354 views...I know little about internet ads, I'm not sure what a 2% clickthru rate says MeFi's interest.

Off topic: damn this thread sucks.

1016, please repeat this mantra 20 times before ever hitting the post button: "Signal? Or noise?" The self-discipline of MeFites to only contirbute when they really have something to say is what has made this site great. And if you are going to to make comments like "I don't think it's even debatable that (shit bombs like your first comment) on MeFi comes from the left," please learn to use the anchor tag. Phrases like "it's not debatable" just show you have no means to prove your point other than claiming self-evidence. Even "MeFi is blue" is debatable.

geekyguy, a large and growing portion --up to quarter in some polls-- of the american population believe the election was illegimate. And the simple fact is, there is no proof Bush won the election. (Get over it!, it can't be proven.) Until we have an auditable paper trail, the problem of non-consent of the governed will only get worse.

If I believed Bush's policies were truly the will of the majority of America, I would grit my teeth and bear the war mongering, the environmental rape, the eroding of civil rights. Or, I would admit that I truly do no longer love this country and make my home in place I considered sane. But I don't believe the majority support those policies. I believe BushCo used a combination of voter intimidation, electronic fraud, and corporate media propaganda to place the McChimperor into power. It is that belief which spurs me to protest, even more than the policies themselves.

Indeed, divided we fall, guy. But there is simply no way way I will stand in any fashion behind a president who is both fraudulent and evil. Maybe one or maybe the other, because I love my country. But certainly not both.
posted by danOstuporStar at 8:04 AM on January 21, 2005


I should have shut up and let danOstuporStar take the stage. Thanks. I have now learned my "don't post while drinking" lesson.
posted by tr33hggr at 8:39 AM on January 21, 2005


« Older New research takes steps towards finding the "gay ...  |  "Yes, I'm comin' back to serve... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments