Breaking News: Shots Fired at US capitol

[mmhmm]

Actually, picketing is something people with some respect for the law and for the rights of others might do.  They'd be more likely to do that than harass someone, politician, or not.  They'd probably find picketing more suitable than boycotts, since boycotts aren't known to do anything at all.  They'd definitely find picketing more responsible than refusal to pay taxes.  I imagine what they're trying to do is show those they're trying to convince of <insert cause here> that there are many who wish to address the issue in a different way than it's currently being addressed.  To say it's meaningless is simply not true.  It means they're trying to communicate in a cooperative way and are not willing to break the law.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 6, 2013 15:46:42 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Actually, picketing is something people with some respect for the law and for the rights of others might do.  They'd be more likely to do that than harass someone, politician, or not.  They'd probably find picketing more suitable than boycotts, since boycotts aren't known to do anything at all.  They'd definitely find picketing more responsible than refusal to pay taxes.  I imagine what they're trying to do is show those they're trying to convince of <insert cause here> that there are many who wish to address the issue in a different way than it's currently being addressed.  To say it's meaningless is simply not true.  It means they're trying to communicate in a cooperative way and are not willing to break the law.

Boycotts hit people's wallets, which gets their attention. And although I agree with you that the other tactics I listed aren't particularly "responsible", my point stands that they're vastly more effective than picketing in provoking a meaningful response--good or bad.

[mmhmm]

Oct 6, 2013 16:54:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 6, 2013 15:46:42 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Actually, picketing is something people with some respect for the law and for the rights of others might do.  They'd be more likely to do that than harass someone, politician, or not.  They'd probably find picketing more suitable than boycotts, since boycotts aren't known to do anything at all.  They'd definitely find picketing more responsible than refusal to pay taxes.  I imagine what they're trying to do is show those they're trying to convince of <insert cause here> that there are many who wish to address the issue in a different way than it's currently being addressed.  To say it's meaningless is simply not true.  It means they're trying to communicate in a cooperative way and are not willing to break the law.

Boycotts hit people's wallets, which gets their attention. And although I agree with you that the other tactics I listed aren't particularly "responsible", my point stands that they're vastly more effective than picketing in provoking a meaningful response--good or bad.

There are a lot of people who aren't willing to become irresponsible for the pleasure of "winning", Virgil.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 6, 2013 17:02:00 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 6, 2013 16:54:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Boycotts hit people's wallets, which gets their attention. And although I agree with you that the other tactics I listed aren't particularly "responsible", my point stands that they're vastly more effective than picketing in provoking a meaningful response--good or bad.

There are a lot of people who aren't willing to become irresponsible for the pleasure of "winning", Virgil.

Certainly. I'm one of them. I believe in strictly abiding by the laws of one's society. But I don't delude myself into thinking that waving a sign and marching in a circle effects real political change, or "winning" as you put it.

If an exceptional number of people are involved, picketing might elicit a few token concessions. But for anything a federal government genuinely wants to do--start an unpopular war, pass an unpopular healthcare bill, raise taxes, cut spending, buy a dozen new aircraft carriers, run a pipeline through the middle of pristine national park, etc., etc.--you can wave those signs and shout until your throat bleeds, you're accomplishing nothing.

At best you're Cindy Sheehan having your life picked apart while the war you despise rages on through your opponent's second term and his successor's first term. At worst you're the WBC, universally loathed by everyone.

[mmhmm]

For anything a federal government genuinely wants to do, Virgil, boycotts won't accomplish anything, either; nor, will any of your other "ideas".  If the federal government genuinely wants to do it, it will be done and the devil take the hindmost.  It's a sad commentary on life in our time, but it's true.  Thus, the point becomes moot.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 6, 2013 17:34:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

For anything a federal government genuinely wants to do, Virgil, boycotts won't accomplish anything, either; nor, will any of your other "ideas".  If the federal government genuinely wants to do it, it will be done and the devil take the hindmost.  It's a sad commentary on life in our time, but it's true.  Thus, the point becomes moot.

I never said the other "ideas" (read: well-known forms of political dissent) were particularly successful, just that they consistently provoke a reaction.

That reaction is rarely pretty, bringing us back full-circle to workpublic's comments that governments make stark examples of meaningful dissent.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 6, 2013 15:25:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 6, 2013 14:20:11 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dudes setting themselves on fire don't influence anyone either 

Agreed. But the issue at hand is whether the state makes examples of meaningful dissent. I agree with workpublic that Tenn's example isn't relevant since a bunch of people waving signs isn't meaningful dissent.

Meaningful dissent would be things like blockades, occupations, harassment of politicians, large-scale boycotts, refusal to pay taxes, etc.

Picketing is something people with too much time on their hands do to convince themselves they're effecting some kind of political change.

It seems to have worked at least once ìn our country. It changed the hearts and minds of milions.  But I guess you know better.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 6, 2013 18:09:29 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 6, 2013 15:25:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Agreed. But the issue at hand is whether the state makes examples of meaningful dissent. I agree with workpublic that Tenn's example isn't relevant since a bunch of people waving signs isn't meaningful dissent.

Meaningful dissent would be things like blockades, occupations, harassment of politicians, large-scale boycotts, refusal to pay taxes, etc.

Picketing is something people with too much time on their hands do to convince themselves they're effecting some kind of political change.

It seems to have worked at least once ìn our country. It changed the hearts and minds of milions.  But I guess you know better.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

[Tennesseer]

You can 'hoc' this and 'hoc' that Virgil but protests worked during the Civil Rights movement.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 6, 2013 18:17:02 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You can 'hoc' this and 'hoc' that Virgil but protests worked during the Civil Rights movement.

And I'm convinced the protests were an aftereffect of an underlying shift in societal attitudes. An effect rather than a cause. Ancillary, in a word.

You look at it and see a movement that succeeded because of social activism. I see social activism that happened to be present during a successful movement. I've seen the same activism present during many unsuccessful movements, including present-day US race relations, which are either stalled or regressing depending on how pessimistic you are.

[resolution]

Oct 6, 2013 14:20:11 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dudes setting themselves on fire don't influence anyone either 

I was surprised that it received so little attention in the media.

[mmhmm]

Oct 6, 2013 18:07:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 6, 2013 17:34:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

For anything a federal government genuinely wants to do, Virgil, boycotts won't accomplish anything, either; nor, will any of your other "ideas".  If the federal government genuinely wants to do it, it will be done and the devil take the hindmost.  It's a sad commentary on life in our time, but it's true.  Thus, the point becomes moot.

I never said the other "ideas" (read: well-known forms of political dissent) were particularly successful, just that they consistently provoke a reaction.

That reaction is rarely pretty, bringing us back full-circle to workpublic's comments that governments make stark examples of meaningful dissent.

A whole raft of people picketing will provoke a reaction, too, Virgil.  A reaction doesn't mean much, really, unless the reaction is productive of the change those provoking the reaction wish to see.  If I see some guy trotting down the street in a diaper, carrying a sign that says "The government won't feed me", I'm going to react.  I'll probably laugh.  However, my reaction isn't conducive to anything.

That said, we're probably into a semantics thing here, so I'm going to drop it.

[mmhmm]

Oct 6, 2013 18:42:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 6, 2013 18:17:02 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You can 'hoc' this and 'hoc' that Virgil but protests worked during the Civil Rights movement.

And I'm convinced the protests were an aftereffect of an underlying shift in societal attitudes. An effect rather than a cause. Ancillary, in a word.

You look at it and see a movement that succeeded because of social activism. I see social activism that happened to be present during a successful movement. I've seen the same activism present during many unsuccessful movements, including present-day US race relations, which are either stalled or regressing depending on how pessimistic you are.

Since you weren't around in the 60s, Virgil, you might want to pay some attention to the ideas of others who were.  I believe Tennesseer was.  I was.  I know there are others here who were; although, how active they might have been I don't know.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 6, 2013 18:54:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 6, 2013 18:42:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

And I'm convinced the protests were an aftereffect of an underlying shift in societal attitudes. An effect rather than a cause. Ancillary, in a word.

You look at it and see a movement that succeeded because of social activism. I see social activism that happened to be present during a successful movement. I've seen the same activism present during many unsuccessful movements, including present-day US race relations, which are either stalled or regressing depending on how pessimistic you are.

Since you weren't around in the 60s, Virgil, you might want to pay some attention to the ideas of others who were.  I believe Tennesseer was.  I was.  I know there are others here who were; although, how active they might have been I don't know.

I know Americans who were around in the 60's who share my opinion, if that makes you feel any better.

[mmhmm]

I doesn't, Virgil.  If they were speaking, it might.  I know a lot of people.  People of different ethnicities, cultures, colors, etc.  That doesn't mean I know what it's like to be them.

[djAdvocate]

[frankq]

I remember the 60's, and I remember that there was a lot more than picketing going on, especially in Chicago......

Picketing is designed to show politicians that people aren't happy, and that those people vote. Elevations of conflict, as occurred during the civil rights movement and the Vietnam protests are our way of letting politicians know that they had best start paying attention to the picketers because we're getting to the end of our ropes....And, as history has shown, that is a bad thing....

[workpublic]

Since you weren't around in the 60s, Virgil, you might want to pay some attention to the ideas of others who were. I believe Tennesseer was. I was. I know there are others here who were; although, how active they might have been I don't know.

i was too.

and the govt "triple downed" on fire power/superiority/rights removal/tolerance to dissension since then because of then.

just look at the difference between police forces(state county and local) in the 60s vs now.

westchester county police didn't have tanks back then.

[EVT1]

Read an article today comparing the current Republican issues to what the democrats went through back in the day:

www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/keller-the-right-gets-its-60s.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    The Republicans are finally having their ’60s. Half a century after the American left experienced its days of rage, its repudiation of the political establishment, conservatives are having their own political catharsis. Ted Cruz is their spotlight-seeking Abbie Hoffman. (The Texas senator’s faux filibuster last week reminded me of Hoffman’s vow to “levitate” the Pentagon using psychic energy.) The Tea Party is their manifesto-brandishing Students for a Democratic Society. Threatening to blow up America’s credit rating is their version of civil disobedience. And Obamacare is their Vietnam.

I can see the similarity.

[billisonboard]

Oct 9, 2013 20:38:30 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

... (The Texas senator’s faux filibuster last week reminded me of Hoffman’s vow to “levitate” the Pentagon using psychic energy.) ...

I can see the similarity.

No.

In the name of the amulets of touching, seeing, groping, hearing and loving, we call upon the powers of the cosmos to protect our ceremonies in the name of Zeus, in the name of Anubis, god of the dead, in the name of all those killed because they do not comprehend, in the name of the lives of the soldiers in Vietnam who were killed because of a bad karma, in the name of sea-born Aphrodite, in the name of Magna Mater, in the name of Dionysus, Zagreus, Jesus, Yahweh, the unnamable, the quintessent finality of the Zoroastrian fire, in the name of Hermes, in the name of the Beak of Sok, in the name of scarab, in the name, in the name, in the name of the Tyrone Power Pound Cake Society in the Sky, in the name of Rah, Osiris, Horus, Nepta, Isis, in the name of the flowing living universe, in the name of the mouth of the river, we call upon the spirit to raise the Pentagon from its destiny and preserve it. wagingnonviolence.org/feature/the-day-they-levitated-the-pentagon/

Say!
I like green eggs and ham!
I do!! I like them, Sam-I-am!
And I would eat them in a boat!
And I would eat them with a goat...
And I will eat them in the rain.
And in the dark. And on a train.
And in a car. And in a tree.
They are so good so good you see!

So I will eat them in a box.
And I will eat them with a fox.
And I will eat them in a house.
And I will eat them with a mouse.
And I will eat them here and there.
Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE!

I do so like
green eggs and ham!
Thank you!
Thank you,
Sam-I-am
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091118215339AAG8bjF

Not even close.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 9, 2013 15:13:11 GMT -5 workpublic said:

mmhmm said: "Since you weren't around in the 60s, Virgil, you might want to pay some attention to the ideas of others who were. I believe Tennesseer was. I was. I know there are others here who were; although, how active they might have been I don't know."

Workpublic replied: i was too.

For someone who was born around 1960, how much of the pre-1965 Civil Rights Act civil rights marches, demonstrations, and the brutality rained down on blacks and whites marching for racial equality by racist police and white citizens do you actually remember?

Oct 2, 2013 7:05:22 GMT -5 workpublic said:

i'm 53 have some health issues, can't get regular employee jobs. i need health insurance. i can't afford it.  if this is the way to get it, this is the way i'll get it. period

[workpublic]

i was born in 1960. i was aware in 1963(i had my own beatle records at 7(1967). also being alive in the subsequent years i was bombarded with media reports, documentaries, editorials, etc. My step brother was 12 years older than me. so we had a teenager and then a young college member of the family during those years. does one have to had been alive in 1942 to be able recognize and know about nazi brutality?


and i'll stand by my statement that the "brutal, racist" police in 1963 had nothing on the "brutal, racist" police of today.