More Nov. 30 Bush Visit Protests And Ideas

I LOVE that idea.

What a statement !


---
"Arrogance is unacceptable. Do it to my face, and I will react" - Jim Callaghan

Ghandi would be proud!

---
Canada for Canadians

I've been reading the various Bush protest ideas. While it may be unpopular, I'm going to play the devil's advocate because I feel it would be irresponsible to not do so.

I was in my pre-teens, early teens through the period of the big Vietnam protests.

I've thought a lot about the protests through the intervening years. At times I've wondered whether these (the Kent State incident aside) didn't do more to extend the war than they did achieve the desired goal of ending it.

Regardless of how many nineteen-twenty year olds opposed the war, it would end only when Mr. and Mrs. Middle-America grew tired of supporting it or when these same people came to question its value/purpose and started expressing these thoughts to their elected officials.

Any parent will question why their or their friend's child died when the body bags start coming home. As callous as it may sound, a well thought out and presented strategy to encourage the growth of those thoughts could have achieved a positive outcome.

What Mr. and Mrs. Middle-America got to view on T.V. were scenes of unkempt, uncouth young people acting in a manner that totally contradicted the Middle-America's values and beliefs about their nation, not to mention demeaning the sacrifice of their own or their neighbour's son 'in defense of their nation'.

The difficulty was that the protesters were for the most part just speaking to themselves and the government, rather than to those they really needed to get on board.

Now given that those defending the war seemed pretty much like Mr. and Mrs. Middle-America and those against it seemed their exact opposite, not to mention young and possibly 'communistic', who would the Middle-America's be expected to believe was 'right'?

And believing these people were 'right', and defending the nation both against an external threat (world communist conspiracy) and an internal threat (unkempt hooligans possibly controlled by world communist conspiracy) the Middle-America's might not have thought as much about the value of the war and supported it longer than might otherwise have been the case.

Anyone seeking to advance a cause must understand those to whom they need to ally to offer any chance of success. It is always a battle of hearts and mind.

Most Canadians may not be real keen on Bush, however most also are likely to believe that foreign dignitaries should be accorded some respect when visiting the country and most aren't aware of the types of concerns expressed on Vive and 'alternative' news sites, rather being dependent on the mainstream news organixations for their view of current events.

What these people are likely to hear/see of any Bush protests is a quick comment that these were mostly peaceful, with the main focus being on televised footage of the inevitable incidents that won't be and the most bizarre looking protesters. Following day editorial comment will probably be negative. The end result is as likely to be large numbers of Canadians feeling embarassed that a foreign dignitary was subject to such a sorry spectacle and disrespectful treatment in their nation as it is to galvanize national opinion towards the ends that might be hoped from the porotests. They may in fact start feeling empathy towards Bush.

My concern is that protests of this nature may often play into the hands of those they are formed to oppose rather than achieving the desired goal.

However, I've been wrong before and may be here as well. I support the purpose, but thought I should present an alternative view of the potential outcome of the action.


---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

Well, Bush is a convicted war criminal. Lets all be polite to him? Because we might get bad press? The press is bought and paid for and so is Bush. I remember the Viet Nam era too. What stopped the war was a televised execution. Once that happened the hypocrisy was exposed and that was the turning point.

Of course the press was not 100% bought and paid for at that time. Now every event is sanitized and spun to deflect criticism. I think you are wrong Jim. I think Jack Layton is wrong. Bush has earned nothing but contempt and hard time in prison.

I hands down agree with Milton on this,

Not to say you are wrong Calumny. I also remember Nam protests and like Milton agree that the press was willing to give air time to protestors which I don't feel they are today. For me to go out and protest is not so the press or Middle America can see it (I currantly am Middle America/Canada). If I could personally be at the protests it would strictly be because I want to go on record as someone that opposes the genocide that is going on. And it is most important for me to want to distance myself as a Canadian from the tactics of takeover that the USA uses.

I was one of those young people back in the Viet nam protests. But its diffgerent now. Back then almost all demonstrators were young. Older folks didn't go to demos. It wasn't part of the culture. Today its different, large scale demos are full of ordinary working middle aged folks (like me) Demonstrating is now an accepted part of the democratic process. So let's demonstate against Bush the war criminal.

Calumny's comment is 'politically correct' and it is people who think like him/her who will be the end of us all.<p> 'Nam and Iraq are totally different as far as the American homefront is concerned. In the 70's, baby boomers were coming of age. It was the flower power revolution and the American media were not yet under government control as they are today. Corporations now own the medias AND the government. Who cares what 'image' TV viewers get from the protesters ? This is not 'American Idol'. If there are protests, our greatest risk is that they will not be shown on American TV anyway because the medias are totally under the neo-cons control now. As I've once heard or read somewhere, 'the next revolution will not be televised'. The time for political rectitude bullsh*t is over. See where THAT got us. <p> If any comparison needs to be made, let us go back to Germany circa 1930. The similarities between America '04 and Germany '30 include a rise in fascism, isolationist doctrines, fear of foreigners, nationalist propaganda etc... The brown shirting of America is just a corner away with one exception, America is already armed to the teeth while it took Germany 10 years to build its armament capacity. So what does Canada do ? Do we play nice for the cameras, become another Austria and join fascist America hoping we will appease the monster by playing along or do we fight for our Canadian sovereignty, values and principles ?<p> Referring to Bush as a dignitary who must be received with proper protocol and politeness is to to have our nation trampled on because we have NO BALLS to stand up to what we believe in. Bush is not a dignitary. He is a war criminal, he has the blood of 100,000 Iraqis on his hands. Under his administration, world institutions and laws are being pushed about as if they didn't exist. Americans are losing their rights to freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and soon the freedom to even think for fear of being tagged a terrorist and then disappear without a trace under the Patriot Act...and Calumny says we should play nice ??? How about we emasculate Canada instead ? The result will be the same. No balls.

I'm grateful that no one went ballistic concerning my 'devil's advocate' post.

I'm not opposed to the ideas being suggested in this article and elsewhere. I just think it's of value to have a devil's advocate perspective in these discussions.

Also wanted to clarify that my previous post wasn't intended to be dismissive or demeaning of the efforts of those who protested in the sixties. My comments were only intended to indicate how things may have come across to the 'Middle-Americas', and as such may have other than the optimal desired effect in some instances.

Above anon is me.

Sorry.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

I don't believe I said we should play nice. What I said was we need to be careful we don't play into the hands of those we oppose, i.e., end up driving more of the 'on the fence' folks into the oppositions camp than we move into our own.

As many males have discovered, the use of 'balls' over brains generally ends badly.

There's nothing 'politically correct' in my thoughts. If I were a Bush supporter, I'd be encouraging as many anti-Bush protests as possible, as each would provide some moments I could use to demonstrate how 'Bush must be right because see how out-to-lunch his opponents are'. While not a logically valid argument, the subtleties often elude folks.



---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

Milton, I was not referring to the bush visit, I was answering the call to get in to see the president inagurated, and only then turn your back to him in disgust.

I do NOT think we should let bush even visit this country, and I have just added a submission that, if accepted by the editors, will plainly show how I feel bush should be treated.

Like the spoiled brat that he is.

Jail ?? You BET !!


---
"Arrogance is unacceptable. Do it to my face, and I will react" - Jim Callaghan

Anyone know cheney and bush email addresses ??

Hey throw in rice as well, couldn't hurt.

I'm feeling frisky today.


---
"Arrogance is unacceptable. Do it to my face, and I will react" - Jim Callaghan

I understand the idea that is going about what the media finally shows to the public and what the public then perceives of the protesters. That would be that the protesters were violent, disorganised and not very clear in their thoughts. Maybe a new tactic at protests is not letting the cameras get to those scenes. Get in front of the camera peacefully and make sure that the camera people never get to the disorderly who are angry and rightfully so. Let the "normal, middle Canada" make sure they are seen if they go out. Should there be more organisation in protesting and maybe have training to make sure that happens? What do you think?

Ah yes. Lord Chamberlain also thought himself to be a sensible and subtle man back in the 30's. He even believed he had come to a compromise with Hitler. We all know who turned out to be the bigger fool, don't we. Let us not repeat history.