EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Where Is The Dissent In America?
Washington - When viewed through American eyes, the recent protests in Istanbul and Tel Aviv demanding that their governments become accountable are truly impressive and extraordinary.
For a US liberal - which is what I consider myself to be - the Israeli and the Turkish protests are also a disturbing reminder that Americans have apparently forgotten one of their constitutional rights: the right to protest. Americans are loud at proclaiming their rights, but, lately, they have been reluctant to practice them. Indeed, a couple of years ago, when Iraq was writing its new constitution, a joke was frequently repeated in limited circles: "Why not give them the US constitution, since we're not using it?"
The George W. Bush presidency has articulated, ad nauseam, America's plan for exporting democracy to the rest of the world - especially to the Middle East. Yet, rarely does the Bush administration proclaim the need for democracy outside of areas where oil is of our concern.
Take Africa, for example. A couple of years ago, it was Liberia, which, under Charles Taylor, became one of the most wretched places for human rights in the world. Taylor could have been unseated quickly and expeditiously with minimal force, and the United States certainly had historical reasons for "liberating" Liberia from its monstrous dictator. But Taylor stayed in power until he wrecked his country, at which stage the US sent in a handful of marines to make a belated push to force Taylor to leave.
More recently, Zimbabwe and Nigeria ought to be of major concern regarding constitutional abuses, but Robert Mugabe still reigns supreme in the former country (that has no oil) and the rigged election in Nigeria two weeks ago, which ought to have triggered a barrage of criticism from the American State Department, resulted in hardly a puff of smoke. (Actually, in the case of Nigeria - one of America's major oil suppliers - it looks as if oil did contribute to Bush's decision to do nothing.)
But it is the war in Iraq that ought to have led to major protests in the United States by now, because of the administration's "selective" push for democracy around the world.
Three weeks ago, a lone gunman at Virginia Tech murdered 32 innocent students and faculty members, triggering a massive outcry for a few days, but no one expects that America's obsession with guns is about to change. One hundred US soldiers have died in Iraq in the last month alone, and there is nary a protest or airing of concern from Americans, who have clearly stopped paying any attention to the debacle - except to say that they "want our soldiers to come home."
Americans have so compartmentalized the war that hardly anyone pays attention to what's happening in Iraq, except the families of the 150,000 US soldiers who are dying there. Most other Americans have stopped reading articles in the newspapers about the war and muted their TV sets during the evening news when the declining minutes of daily coverage are broadcast.
In part, the utter lack of concern about the war is because Americans are convinced that it has nothing to do with them economically - they have certainly not been asked to make any sacrifice to pay for the war. So, the war continues to drain the country of billions of dollars, while the American consumer continues to prop up the economy by increasing personal debt. That is, of course, a mirror of the government's own massive debt because of Bush's folly.
And it is not just the war that Americans are reluctant to protest about - but just about everything else involving George W. Bush's vision for the country and the world. The country's top law enforcer, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been disgraced by recent partisan acts that clearly were designed to support the Republican agenda. Yet, Gonzales is praised almost daily by President Bush, while he violates other parts of the constitution in acts that have systematically eroded all of our individual rights.
Paul Wolfowitz, head of the World Bank, is similarly lauded by President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, though Wolfowitz has also compromised his position and run the morale of the World Bank into the ground.
The list of abuses at the hands of the neocons in their attempt to cram right-wing conservatism down the throats of every American are so ubiquitous that the only pleasure a sane person can take these days is the occasional smile, and the remark, "I told you so," which echo a bumper sticker seen on many vehicles in the country for the past six years: "If You're Not Outraged, You're Not Paying Attention."
Americans are asleep. They have tuned out and shut down to recent events because of the staggering amount of outrage and abuse by their government during the past half-dozen years. Even in the best of times, a large portion of the population pays little attention to world events. If you visit the outlying sections of the country and pick up a local newspaper, you might conclude that the readers of that gazette were only concerned about local events. An international incident, which ought to be of concern for everyone, is either given no attention at all or buried in a minor paragraph at the back of the paper.
One wonders what kind of outrage would finally draw Americans into the streets as the citizens of Istanbul and Tel Aviv did earlier this week.
Charles R. Larson is Chair of the Department of Literature at American University in Washington, DC. He is a frequent Contributor to Salon, The Nation, and The Washington Examiner magazines. He submitted this commentary to the Middle East Times.
© 2007 The Middle East Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
158 Comments so far
Show Alleurobelle, I am talking about the migrant rights marches both this year and the much larger ones last year. Tied to labor issues for sure (!) but to my knowledge not organized by the usual suspects in the labor movement. As I understand it, the workplace raids and other uses of force to go after people who fall into the racial profile have had an effect on turnout this year (not the only thing).
I was editing my comment when you posted, btw, and I had no idea it was visible as I was editing! I added detail about what I meant, though I don't know if it is clear. So I will post this one too.
Also, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "fine with you" -- with me? Huh? Maybe you're editing as I speak
"Despite my lack of faith in marches and other "dissent" strategies as they play out in the U.S."
Me too, me too.
I didn't see a word "labor" in your post, so I decided to
provoke a clarification.
:)
Thanks, tekla west, for quoting Phil Ochs. He also sang "I Ain't Marchin' Anymore." And what he said before that live performance, was that the government was controlling thought through the media--so, yeah, little, if anything, has changed. I teach in a community college and have tried to instill critical thinking in the next generation. They shrug.
No, Sporos, you missed missing labor protests on May 1st.
This by itself is indicative.
Anti-war - yes (fine with you).
Pro-labor - no (not fine with).
Why do I see a problem here?
I must admit I have seen much bigger protests in my life than
the one you mentioned. In a different country, of course.
I believe one of the reasons (excuses?) for the lack of protesting is that we are all too distracted, and too exhausted with the "stuff" of living. Working hard to make ends meet, playing hard to keep up with the Joneses, staying fit to look like the movies, pushing our kids to ensure a secure life for them. After all that effort, we have energy enough to vent our rage only by sitting at our keyboard.
Why is it like this? Consumerism directs us to work, spend, keep up, and distracts us from the real issues of life.
I haven't read it yet, but I know the answer: nowhere.
Different nations have different traditions.
To dissent and protest are not traditions of this land.
"I love my boss," "I love my job" "I love my President - the best and the brightest," "I love..." - all these loves and many other are.
No wonder the world hates.
As an activist this makes me want to give up. What's the point? There's nobody to influence, they've all shut down.
Mr. Larson needs to stop treating the statements of the Bush administration as if they are valid indicators of Bush policy. Few Americans outside the 30 percenters expect any of the administration's pronouncements to have even a grain of truth.
And I am not so sure that the neocons want to cram their "right-wing conservatism down the throats of every American" as much as they want to fool enough of the gullible for long enough to rob the great majority of us of our money and our future in a way that would make it exceedingly difficult for us to get them back.
As Professor David Michael Green has written before, it is long past time to begin treating Bush and his criminal gang as the pathological liars, murderers, thieves, and traitors that they are.
correction:
Different nations have different traditions.
I know I love somebody - a person who's introduced editing.
Is it permanent? Please, please.
:)
Two things. Dissent has become shouting into the wind or preaching to the choir. Even private discourse on anything 'political' becomes tentative because of the gulf of understanding between the conversationalists.
I have seen the slide in comprehension since the 80's with the then high school students. I worked as a teacher's aide then and was appalled by the wasted efforts of good teachers and intelligent students to become educated but instead where mostly reduced to training. I see the same thing now. "Brave New World" begins by showing us the deliberate mental stunting or enhancement of babies in vitro. It hasn't needed that to nearly accomplish the same thing; a generation or two of students who understand rules and grades but don't know how to think. Real politics would be about thinking wouldn't it? So maybe Bush's 'politics' isn't politics at all because it requires no thinkning. It is just POWER. Raw lustful power gotten anyway it can be gotten and given by generations trained to submit to power.
"While we are distracted in this game of Three Card Monty our friends and foes alike are about to steal once again from the poor and the old as they slice more meat from the live body of Social Security and Medicare." - Walter Burns
The Onion magazine did an excellent paraody "Protest One Person Short of Success": http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39439.
I don't think it's fair to point to lack of mass protesting in the streets as indicative of tacit approval of Bush & Co's politics. Surf the blogs. Googling anti-Bush web sites turns up hundreds of thousands, if not millions of American-based hits. "bush crony", "bush fascist", "bush impeach" and so on. What does protesting accomplish? What does blogging and writing accomplish? For all of our venting, not much at all.
What's much more worrisome than lack of dissent (you can Google plenty of dissent) is the huge break between the man/woman on the street and the Republicrats. D.C. doesn't seem to represent the majority of Americans. We need cleaner elections and more public engagement in politics.
You won't read about or see protests in the media. There have been huge protests with hndreds of thousands of people in many cities/states -but the reporters and media falied to report any of them. This Administration 'owns' the mainstream media -they are calling the shots. The media does not report on the voices of dissent because Bush, Rove, Cheney & Co are making certain of it, period.
I've been saying it for years ... we will not see grassroots action until all of the TV stations are off the air, and all of the fast-food restaurants are closed.
Maybe then people will have an excuse to get off of their couches, go outside and shout, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
I've tried to get people in my area to participate in friendly protests in the recent past-no one wants to because they're afraid of being singled out, getting on a list by watchdog observers....and with good reason. Heaven forbid any of us ever get on the enemy combatant list just because Bush sees you're making too big of a fuss-how do you ever get off that list...or to make a call to someone to tell them where you are, if you even can find that out? Protest, we should-but then the media has shown they know how to 'reduce' the number of people protesting by cutting them out of the published photographs-that doesn't come from a government spokesman, that complicity is offered. So what's the point anymore, they've nailed us down and the longer we wait for those strong enough to take a chance and stand up for what's right, the more we play into their hands. I don't have an answer but I'm open to suggestions-I'm new to these blogs, I'm not as well educated as most of you here are but I have a strong mind and willing voice-be a good neighbor, someone give me tips on how to wake people up and get them ready to speak.
Wow, a lot of comments here. Many posters wrote of demonstrations, but it is clear that the Ghandi/King approach of peaceful civil disobediance is not working.
I suggest we should take to the streets with no peaceful intent. A general strike where no work is done, nothing is spent, hits hard at the people with full pockets.
Furthermore, plan and execute unauthorized protests (i.e., no permits) in unauthorized zones (around buildings of public and corporate leadership, military bases, etc).
And go prepared to take a few rubber bullets, tear gas and police riot tactics.
Watch the movie "V for Vendetta".
This is a two-part comment:
1. I find it ironic that this article has come out the same week as May 1, 2007 when there have been marches across the nation related to immigration issues, tied movement-wise to much bigger marches this time last year (well, early March 2006, then April 10 2006, then May 1 2006). Do those not count because they're not primarily white, because the author has a limited definition of what "America" is, because they're not anti-war or what?
And actually, if we are serious about that word "America" -- it means the whole continent and not just the US, which changes the picture considerably in terms of dissent, from the First Nations struggles over land and sovereignty in Canada to all sorts of dissent in countries to the south of the US.
2. I'm in my 30s, live in the United States and have been involved in various ways in activism since I was 16 (well, 14 if you count volunteering for the Democratic Party on a major election, which I don't but some might).
After I was "out on the streets" in the early 90s protesting the Gulf War under the first Bush I tried to understand what was bothering me about the whole thing -- something felt not-right to me. I reflected on it and realized that I didn't believe in marches as an automatically valuable strategy for change since -- in the US in my experience -- they are so often without deep movement roots and oriented toward visibility to the powers-that-be ... and I didn't believe that the powers-that-be cared one bit.
I did not then and do not now believe that this country has ever been the democracy it has claimed to be, seeing as how its origins are in theft of land, actual and attempted genocide, white supremacy, violence, expansion of power and control -- this is the core, not "freedom" or "democracy or whatever else it might claim.
For the most part, these "be on the street" actions -- by themselves as supposed indicators of dissent -- feel to me like ritual and they seem to lack actual solidity unless there is an underlying movement core that is for real and goes much deeper than surface events. Often (not always, but often), that underlying piece is lacking, especially when it comes to U.S. "anti-war" struggles.
Despite my lack of faith in marches and other "dissent" strategies as they play out in the U.S., I have continued to be involved with various issues and have marched in various protests over the years. But I still think that this article assumes something that should not be assumed.
What is the strategic role of "on the streets" protest in the United States? Maybe more specifically: When and how is this approach actually valuable to some sort of actual real change (as it perhaps might be in some situations)? When and how is it just a shallow ritual designed to feel good to some of its participants, create media images, and promote the lie that the United States is now -- and has been at any point -- a benevolent democracy as it it claims?
PS That Onion article mentioned by an earlier commenter (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39439) ... excellent!
Shane,
You are partly correct, and I have no doubt that this enslavement was done deliberately.
It's a known fact that people who work more than 40 hours a
week are not productive, but in this country people work 79-80 hours a week, and I think that this insanity can be partly explained by the greed of the employers, but partly ... by the desire to enslave and control. People work these 70-80 hours and collapse in front of stupid TV.
In addition, I believe the wonderful Nazis psychiatrists have contributed. I do believe that "Angry, go to a psychologist" is their achievement. Those who function on the level of troublemakers, complainers, "angry, go to a psychiatrist" should look at their acts.
I believe that consumerism is only partly to blame, enslavement is a primary cause.
It's always a good idea to go outside of one's own bubble.
I really don't know why people don't understand that those who barely survive don't overspend; they are exhausted
and/or brainwashed, but not "overconsumed."
Protests and dissent have not gone away, they just changed to forums like this one. Difficult as it is, I frequent conservative forums to try polite dialogue. I think we have to change minds to change policies.
"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".
When elephants decide to disappear they lose interest in mating, When Americans decide to disappear they lose interest in politics. The question is only whether the disappearance of America is a good thing. The extinction of the American Dream, of our professed ideals and hopes for ourselves and for the rest of the world, would be a great tragedy. But what about the real America, the great, imperial monster that began to reject its own humanitarian principles as soon as they were declared, that today remains hijacked by thieves who have replaced principles with platitudes and have now gone forth to loot the world with barely a veneer of justification?
If militant America can not be repaired perhaps it should be discontinued. The hint of fear behind those administration assertions that defeat is unthinkable suggests that something like a gelding is in fact taking place. First the Freudian humiliation of having our Trade Center towers whacked off, and now, despite our awesome military thrust into the Middle East, a sort of futile, disappointing, ineffectual pounding of third world people who are increasingly unimpressed by us. The "lack of fire" in the press and the public could be the long overdue beginning of embarrassment. It might be that at last Americans are starting to sit down and shut up, an appropriate posture for big guys with erectile dysfunction.
At present the colleges and universities are not generating protests. Any successful protest movement needs college students in massive numbers. Students are uniquely suited to engage in protests: students are usually not bound by permanent jobs so they have the flexibilty to go to demostrations. Most middle-aged working adults cannot easily take off from work to go to a street protest. College students, being young, can vigoriously throw rocks and bottles at riot cops and then run fast when the riot cops chase them. Don't laugh, it's a real advantage. I saw all this on the street of Berkeley 30 years ago. Of course, there was the draft then.
Dissent has been very well managed by the Bush administration.
Bush chose most of his top people from PNAC and American Enterprise Institute. People whose families had experienced the techniques first hand under Goebbels and Goering in the 1930's and 1940's.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, THE TRUTH IS THE GREATEST ENEMY OF THE STATE."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
During the Nuremburg trials Hermann Goerring said: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and DENOUNCE THE PEACEMAKERS FOR EXPOSING THE COUNTRY TO DANGER. It works the same in any country."
Bush's attack dogs crafted delightful phrases like "If you aren't with us, you are against us!", and "People who speak out against what we are doing are providing support and sympathy for the enemy!"
It worked so well, Cheney is STILL doing it!
To me it seems ironic that the people whose ancestors were at the center of the Holocaust should rejoice in USING such techniques themselves, but to some people their ends justify ANY means.
China is right, we ARE a paper tiger.
There is more dissent and are more protests than ever but they aren't in the embedded media, and when they are mentioned, we are cubbie-holed as generic protesters. I'm sick of the same old tactics that allow us to be portrayed in an ineffective and iconic way. We go to DC and march in proscribed circles after permits are given and everyone leaves town -- big deal. We need to be creative and not ask for permits. We need to surround the Whitehouse refusing to leave before this administration does. We need to think out of the box and do what is not expected and what cannot be cubbie holed or ignored. Therein lies a challenge.
What about Bush's covering up of global warming? Thousands of scientists agree that global warming will have disastrous effects on our planet if we do not immediately make significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Antarctic Larsen B shelf melted five years ago--it's gone. Greenland is melting now. When it does, sea levels will rise about 25 feet, inundating coastal areas such as Manhattan, San Francisco, and Mumbai. This will create hundreds of millions of refugees, not to mention killing thousands.
http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/greenland/melt2005/
And that's just one of the consequences of global warming.
Where is the outcry, the urgency? We desperately need to address this issue and make our government act. Let's pretend Congress is capable of acting in our planet's best interests and can ignore the oil lobbyists who want to continue spreading FUD about global warming. Push them to act! Now.
But I am not sure it really matters whether people are in the streets. What matters is whether they affect the information flow. Protests are one means of doing that, though as some have written when the news media does not adequately cover the protests, it might not matter whether they occur at all.
We are here instead of on the streets, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a new age, and we have only begun to explore the possibilities with the Internet. It seems that one way progressives can affect the information flow is to set up Web pages that will draw in others, though certainly progressives should not use methods inconsistent with progressive values. And another way is to generate income to contribute, or just to donate money, to progressive causes that will have their own effects on Internet traffic and information flow.
The Internet appears to be the new street, for better or worse.
What If???
Imagine George and Martha Washington transported to early 21st century upper middle-class suburbia:
George: Martha, I'm off to lead the revolutionary armies to secure our rights and liberties!!!
Martha: George!!!!! Don't you dare! What will the neigbors think???!!??
College students just don't give a sh%t about their future. In a recent free environmental film festival at my local college the only people watching were grey heads and few of them at that.
Around here the college students focus on drinking or smoking themselves into oblivion as often as possible. They frequently drink themselves to death.
I think the US has lost it's sense of hope. Our elections are rigged and our leaders and the media ignore the people. Young adults are busily practicing a policy of "get yours NOW before it's too late."
Anybody want a used nation? It's a little dirty and the floors are rotting but it has great views.
Stifling dissent is easy.
1) Let it be known that protestors will be "spied on." (Whether they or not.)
2) Have police fire rubber bullets at a few protests. (Even at ONE protest every ten years will keep the crowds down.)
3) Create "Free-Speech Zones" where the protests will have little impact. ("I would go to the protest, but nobody will even see us.")
4) Keep media coverage to a minimum. ("I wanted to go, but I didn't hear about it.")
2 mortgages, 2 car payments, 2 kids, parents needing healthcare - there is NO FREE TIME with which to protest ANYTHING.
We're not apathetic, just incredibly busy.
Amadala in Star Wars says that democracy crumbles with a roar of the crowd and a standing ovation. Yes, that's one way, but another is to impoverish the populace of TIME. What use is "freedom" if we have no time to enjoy it???
"One wonders what kind of outrage would finally draw Americans into the streets."
The DOW to the contrary, I believe most Americans are economically cowed to the point where they are afraid to dissent, that is, to speak their mind. This wasn't true in the 1970's, when middle-class American's had economic clout and the Baby Boomers were in their 20s/30s (ie, they had a bright economic future, if not a bright economic present). Today, with a $9 trillion public debt, a $10 trillion household debt, and a $10-20 trillion Boomer retirement obligation just on the horizon, American's are wary of getting 'out on a limb' because they feel financially pinched or exposed to the ravages of corporate disapproval.
To give one example, a few years ago I worked for a major american defense contractor. After publicly speaking out against the impending invasion of Iraq, I found my job assignments degrading. They continued to degrade until, last year, I quit. I feel my liberal leanings definitely played a role in my unacknowledged career hounding. If you asked me to dissent publicly now, I would definitely turn you down.
Corporate America knows we are, on average, in tremendous debt, indeed, that's exactly where they want us. It makes for a more compliant employee, one who'll go along with any outrage.
fedup07 is right. The streets have been filled with protestors with nary a sign of any major media camera. Don't wait until you look out the window to see them or wait until you see them on Fox News. They are OUT THERE. Get out the door and join them. I disagree that protest is not alive in this country. Yes, alot of people are sleep-walking. But alot aren't. There's no news reports about how many people have made signs and hit the streets for the first time since 2000. There's no report on how many civil disobedience arrests there have been. I think if there were, it would show that Americans are protesting in growing numbers. Just because the main-stream media doesn't report on it, doesn't mean it's not happening. If a tree falls in the forest with no one there does it make a sound? YES. It still makes a sound.
In the United States, houses are built and are called homes. Industries are built, and are called democracies.
There is dissent but it goes largely un or under reported. Many are not aware of the atrocities because they certainly are not reported on TV news or in newpapers in general. Those who are aware and see fit to protest are quickly disillusioned by the lack of media coverage or even worse, the label of being unpatriotic. Our education system produces workers not thinkers. We are spoiled by our effective slavery. All we really need to survive is a shitty job, which most of us have. We are too afraid to give up our SUV's and Mccredit cards to challenge authority. The powers that be are so deeply entrenched that it's nearly impossible to fight back. WE need to create a forum, by the people for the people, which is loyal to the truth and offers, for public viewing, intelligent discourse. Television is much more effective than the internet because it requires little effort and is more prevelant in homes of the underpaid or unemployed. We need to make it possible for poor, good, intelligent people to run for office. Campaign reform. The television airwaves are pulic property. Major cable channels should be required to air debates between candidates, free of charge, sell commercials if neccessary. Qualifying for said debates could require a certain number of petitioners for example. We need to admit to our children that we aren't always right. Teach them to question what they hear, as opposed to speaking only when spoken to. We need to come to the realization that we are all in this together, no matter our skin color, religous beliefs, culture or sexual orientation. We need fundamental changes in the way society works, not protest, at this point. We must fight the elite who dictate legislation through bribes and promises of yachts and vacation homes. We need to use our resources for the good of all people, not trickle down, rich get richer, manipulation. We need to diclose our own salaries and not fall into the "don't discuss salary" trap. This would help towards raising living wages. Profits should be dispersed amongst workers. The way we accomplish this is refuse to contribute to the wealth of the wealthiest any longer. For those who don't know who they are, simply buy local. Buy from Ma and Pa outfits. Withdrawl your money from mega banks, sell your stocks. Stop borrowing. If the 70% who disapprove of W and his henchmen could save enough to stop working for even one month, their reign would crumble. That would be a helluva protest. In short, make some choices for the good of society instead of for your own comfort. Sacrifice. Don't be afraid!
mr. larson,
you ask where are the dissenters. I AM RIGHT HERE! i have lost "friends", been kicked out of bars for speaking up. i am doing what i can! what more do you ask??? come down to austin texas and walk in the front. i will be there with you!!!
Before the invasion a million of us showed up to protest in DC. We were joined by millions of others around the world. Bush called us a 'focus group' and he was not interested in what we had to say.
Most Americans are fat, lazy (apathetic) and generally do not care about anything unless it has some direct effect on them. I have heard like minded people state, I agree with what they say but I cant take time off of work. I agree with these protesters but do they have to march and block the road during rush hour?
As a rule Americans do not know or care to know what our government is doing around the world. Rarely a handful of those against our international policies or an unfortunate, forgotten victim of our crumbling mental health care system sneak in through a hole in the fence and do harm to civilians. Only then do people wake up and shout, point and accuse. After a short time of misguided accusasions and grumblings the majority of the population is lulled complacently back to sleep. Happily suckling the teat provided by McDonalds, WalMart, American Idol and Bill O'reily.
DCNative - I disagree slightly, in that Americans DO care about what government does ... but that only happens on April 15.
Rove: "Tune out, Shut Down, and Sleep On!"
But seriously, tune into "Democracy Now", "Flashpoints", "Counterspin" and many of the other wonderful shows born from Pacifica.
I would be glad to join protests. Just tell me where and when. Before the war with Iraq started I was in a huge protest march in Seattle. I'd say between 50 and 100 thousand people. We got about the same amount of coverage on our local news as did about 100 pro war demonstrators standing on an overpass on I-5 near the local military base. We are just ignored by the [owned facisist] media.
If the president comes to town it is illegal to get any where near any area where he might be able to see you.
Even on this sight if you type something regarding certain topics your message will not be posted. Censorship right here at common dreams.
It has been said that you get the government you deserve. Because of the apathy of the people and their unwillingness to protest decades of murderous US interventions around the world, the people of the USA have earned the right to be ruled by Dick and George. We are sheep being led to slaughter.
The reason that there are no huge protests like 200,000 protesters in a tiny country like Israel, is simply fear. Americans are scared to death. They're just getting by and it's getting harder every month. They are afraid to lose their often praised 'American Way Of Life' not realizing that there was never such a thing in the first place. America is based on fear and lies. You got to be bigger, better, richer, faster, slimmer, more beautiful or whatever else, but you will never be accepted the way you are. The fear to be in the spot light in the focus of one's social environment, a true Freudian disaster. Only if people wake up and realize that they have nothing to lose but their dignity they will flock into the streets. Everything is temporary, even little bushie and the Liarettes.
The stain America has brought onto it's already dirty vest will be hard to clean out. But time and a lot of scrubbing will help.
Unless micro human bush attacks Iran.
But that's another story to be told...
And I agree wholly regarding the 'edit this' button. How wonderful! I wish we had a button like this for the administration - like 'Delete'
"At present the colleges and universities are not generating protests. Any successful protest movement needs college students in massive numbers. Students are uniquely suited to engage in protests: students are usually not bound by permanent jobs so they have the flexibilty to go to demostrations. Most middle-aged working adults cannot easily take off from work to go to a street protest. College students, being young, can vigoriously throw rocks and bottles at riot cops and then run fast when the riot cops chase them. Don't laugh, it's a real advantage. I saw all this on the street of Berkeley 30 years ago. Of course, there was the draft then."
Absolutely correct.
Adults often can't risk because of family responsibilities,
and tend to be less idealistic.
But we have Reagan youth, and they come to Columbia, for example, with a single question: "How do I get to Wall Street fast?"
Stifling dissent is easy.
1) Let it be known that protestors will be "spied on." (Whether they or not.)
2) Have police fire rubber bullets at a few protests. (Even at ONE protest every ten years will keep the crowds down.)
3) Create "Free-Speech Zones" where the protests will have little impact. ("I would go to the protest, but nobody will even see us.")
4) Keep media coverage to a minimum. ("I wanted to go, but I didn't hear about it.")"
These wouldn't silence people in other countries,
Actually they would be encouraged to protest.
kivals wrote:
"The Internet appears to be the new street, for better or worse..."
Definitely for the worse! This is from an article published in the Army War College's Journal "Parameters" back in 1997:
"...of note, the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and community..."
The article is called "Constant Conflict" by (then) Maj. Ralph Peters. It shows the current phase of the US imperialist program was well underway under Clinton. It is stunning in its swaggering, power-drunk arrogance. Remember, this is an official Army scholarly journal, and I IMPLORE everyone to read it here:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/97summer/peters.htm
There are cultural things you're missing
- "We don't talk about politics" - here, but not in other countries.
- "Angry, go to a psychiatrist" - here, but not in other countries.
- Antiintelectualism
- "Don't argue," "Smile" - here, but not in other cultures
- Different concept of "niceness" - a nice Nazi isn't possible elsewhere
- a truly idiotic "I love my job, boss." Start loving also
your wife, kids, parks and beaches. Become a patriot
P.S. jp is absolutely right! Even if the events aren't picked up in the media, being there with others that are willing to protest, even if it is in a cage, keeps the fight in all who participate. Taking part in any protest of any size makes you remember that you are not alone or just plain crazy. Thanks jp for the reminder.
willo
Is that true? How do you know this is happening? I have had some problems posting when certain articles are on this site. Who is doing the censoring and how does it work?
Here's my solution to the apathy problem: Send the $124 billion Iraq Supplemental Funding bill that Bush just vetoed right back to him, with the additional provision that the appropriation must be paid for by levying a tax on the citizenry.
Let's see now, that's $124 billion,divided by 300 million people, giving about... $413 per person... so the typical household of, say, 4 people will have to cough up $1650.
Now that would get peoples' attention.
David,
"It has been said that you get the government you deserve. "
Well, yes.
There's nothing in Washington which is not done everywhere
all the time in the workplace. Such a nation truly deserves
Bush & CO.
Yes, Common Dreams censors. Try posting anything with the words zionist or AIPAC.
Peace movements are not effective without publicity by the printed press, radio or television. I think ACT UP in New York is a great example of how to make the media cover your story as they did with AIDS back in the 80's.
We have to demand the rights to be seen and heard. The airwaves belong to the public last time I checked. The license to broadcast does not give the right to only show news that support the corporate sponsors and owners.
Stand up! Get up!