RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush
I totally agree with Mario and don't think it's disrespect any more than any other peaceful active protest is disrespect. BUT, I'm worried that if I hoof it down there to DC and brave the crowds, this backturning will prove totally unsatisfying. Can we throw just a couple of eggs before we turn our backs? ELISABETH DUBIN Hillier ARCHITECTURE One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F 215 636-9989 | hillier.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William H. Magill Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:50 AM To: Mario Giorno Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush On 15 Dec, 2004, at 14:14, Mario Giorno wrote: If we turn our backs on the president, we should all be aware that it's classically considered to be the ultimate symbolic gesture of no-confidence. It means we, in spirit if not in any physical sense, shun the man himself and cast him out. I can see why this would be a useful gesture to give toward the president and his policies; it's non-violent, it's universally understood, The simple fact that you feel a need to explain your proposed actions clearly illustrates that the concept is neither universally understood nor a classic symbol of no-confidence. The organizers may wish this to be so, but it is simply not true. In fact, I would counter that the vast majority of the population would consider turning one's back on someone to be nothing more than disrespectful, and a reflection on the upbringing and education of those so doing. We see this kind of behavior daily in the Philadelphia schools, and in almost any pre-teen clique movie ... where Hollywood uses the technique to underscore how immature the participants are. Media coverage of the event will spend 99% of the piece explaining WHY these people were doing what they were doing -- because nobody in the Media will believe that their audience will have any idea what it is that the protesters are doing or trying to accomplish. In fact, the Media will have to interview the protest organizers so that THEY can explain what it is they are doing because the Media folks won't have a clue what it is they are doing. ... except for what the protest organizers will have explained to the assignment editors in their press releases to get the Media to cover them in the first place. T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush
What you overlook, Miggle, is that we're not simply talking about "turning our backs". That's polite code language. What we're actually talking about is turning our backs, dropping trou, and *mooning* the guy. If that's not a universally understood symbol, I don't know what is. Ross Bender http://rosslynnbender.org/gentry.html In a message dated 12/16/2004 1:00:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 15 Dec, 2004, at 14:14, Mario Giorno wrote: If we turn our backs on the president, we should all be aware that it's classically considered to be the ultimate symbolic gesture of no-confidence. It means we, in spirit if not in any physical sense, shun the man himself and cast him out. I can see why this would be a useful gesture to give toward the president and his policies; it's non-violent, it's universally understood,The simple fact that you feel a need to explain your proposed actions clearly illustrates that the concept is neither universally understood nor a classic symbol of no-confidence.The organizers may wish this to be so, but it is simply not true.In fact, I would counter that the vast majority of the population would consider turning one's back on someone to be nothing more than disrespectful, and a reflection on the upbringing and education of those so doing. We see this kind of behavior daily in the Philadelphia schools, and in almost any "pre-teen" "clique" movie ... where Hollywood uses the technique to underscore how immature the participants are.Media coverage of the event will spend 99% of the "piece" explaining WHY these people were doing what they were doing -- because nobody in the Media will believe that their audience will have any idea what it is that the protesters are doing or trying to accomplish. In fact, the Media will have to interview the protest organizers so that THEY can explain what it is they are doing because the Media folks won't have a clue what it is they are doing. ... except for what the protest organizers will have explained to the assignment editors in their press releases to get the Media to cover them in the first place.T.T.F.N.William H. Magill[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush - for the ignorant
In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:52:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the significance is that the protesters are showing their support to one another How quaint, the poorly educated and ignorant in a public display of solidarity. Do you think they know how to reduce a fractional intellect to the lowest common denominator? and helping to solidify that they are not alone in their rejection of the Cheney Dynasty and all that it represents. Gee, in the land I am from, the CIN is George Bush, the duly electedPresident of the United States of America. Did you guys participate in a special plebiscitesponsored byAl Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and their effete posse?William H. Magill wrote:the vast majority of the populationwould consider turning one's back on someone to be nothing more thandisrespectful, and a reflection on the upbringing and education of those so doing. No dialog. No relationship building. No shared vision. So who are the un-Americans now? E Pluribus Unum? Or, is it too a victim of our failing to teach in our schools authenticAmerican history, instead of revisionist PC detritus? It is itthe way ofthe warrior, to turn his back on his enemy, Stephen? Or do you recognize, the current Office of the President is not occupied by theenemies of our Nation? Our Nation was established as and shall foreverremain "a new order for the ages". Craig MelidosianRealSolutions NetworkP O Box 33355Phila PA 19142-0555215-724-8148 24hr voice/fax215-724-3212 voiceBreakthrough RelationshipsEnhancing Value in Community GovernmentCopyright ©1998-2004
RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush - for the ignorant
OH, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND RIGHTEOUS, not this again... I will break it down for Craig: Craig, some of us don't agree with the president's policies, and now that he's been duly elected, we are trying to figure out how to show him that he does not have OUR political "capital" to spend. That's all. ELISABETH DUBINHillier ARCHITECTUREOne South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F 215 636-9989 | hillier.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:23 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush - for the ignorant In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:52:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the significance is that the protesters are showing their support to one another How quaint, the poorly educated and ignorant in a public display of solidarity. Do you think they know how to reduce a fractional intellect to the lowest common denominator? and helping to solidify that they are not alone in their rejection of the Cheney Dynasty and all that it represents. Gee, in the land I am from, the CIN is George Bush, the duly electedPresident of the United States of America. Did you guys participate in a special plebiscitesponsored byAl Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and their effete posse?William H. Magill wrote:the vast majority of the populationwould consider turning one's back on someone to be nothing more thandisrespectful, and a reflection on the upbringing and education of those so doing. No dialog. No relationship building. No shared vision. So who are the un-Americans now? E Pluribus Unum? Or, is it too a victim of our failing to teach in our schools authenticAmerican history, instead of revisionist PC detritus? It is itthe way ofthe warrior, to turn his back on his enemy, Stephen? Or do you recognize, the current Office of the President is not occupied by theenemies of our Nation? Our Nation was established as and shall foreverremain "a new order for the ages". Craig MelidosianRealSolutions NetworkP O Box 33355Phila PA 19142-0555215-724-8148 24hr voice/fax215-724-3212 voiceBreakthrough RelationshipsEnhancing Value in Community GovernmentCopyright 1998-2004
Re: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush - if Kerry won
In a message dated 12/16/2004 11:38:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: craig will now regale us with his vision of the high-falutin protest g. gordon liddy would be staging along the parade route had john kerry won: No, we would be eating roasted rat meat and planning the New American Revolution, while chanting, "Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo." You as a gun owning free-thinking artsy freak will forfeit your weapons and be re-educated by the likes of brown-shirted Teresa Heinz' or you can join our struggle to assure, "The great series of ages begins anew. Power to the Right People. Power to the People Right On. Ciao, Craig
Re: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush - if Kerry won
That's it. I'm going to have to go to DC, and moon Bush. I'm going to use stilts and get a Brazil wax, in a maneuver I've named Under the Cherry Moon. :Pete On Dec 16, 2004, at 12:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: x-tad-smallerIn a message dated 12/16/2004 11:38:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:/x-tad-smallerx-tad-smallercraig will now regale us with his vision of the high-falutin protest g. gordon liddy would be staging along the parade route had john kerry won:/x-tad-smallerx-tad-smallerNo, we would be eating roasted rat meat and planning the New American Revolution, while chanting, Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo./x-tad-smallerx-tad-smaller /x-tad-smallerx-tad-smallerYou as a gun owning free-thinking artsy freak will forfeit your weapons and be re-educated by the likes of brown-shirted Teresa Heinz' or you can join our struggle to assure, The great series of ages begins anew./x-tad-smallerx-tad-smaller /x-tad-smallerx-tad-smallerPower to the Right People. Power to the People Right On./x-tad-smallerx-tad-smaller /x-tad-smallerx-tad-smallerCiao,/x-tad-smallerx-tad-smaller /x-tad-smallerCraig
Re: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush - mooning
In a message dated 12/16/2004 11:25:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What we're actually talking about is turning our backs, dropping trou, and *mooning* the guy. As with any fine art, talent is honed by practice. Take it regularly and aggressively to the Bowl, during daylight hours. If something should pop-out, please pick it up; Tony may still be counting. Ciao, Craig
RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush - for the ignorant
Title: RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush - for the ignorant How quaint, the poorly educated and ignorant in a public display of solidarity. craig will now regale us with his vision of the high-falutin protest g. gordon liddy would be staging along the parade route had john kerry won:
RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush - for the ignorant
Now that's too funny... Watch what you say online... you don't want to be a nabbed up with the rest of the conspirators once his deal goes down... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kyle Cassidy [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED], .edu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush - for the .purple.com ignorant 12/16/04 11:43 AM Please respond to Kyle Cassidy How quaint, the poorly educated and ignorant in a public display of solidarity. craig will now regale us with his vision of the high-falutin protest g. gordon liddy would be staging along the parade route had john kerry won: You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush
I am no fan of Bush and I agree with the concept of using the inauguration to protest, but would you be saying the same thing if Kerry had won? Our of curiosity (and not rhetorically), are you aware of any precedent for a sitting President not having an inauguration during a time of war? Jonathan A. Cass -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush I can't believe the man we call our President is going ahead with an inauguration in a time of war. If I can make it down to DC, I will be participating in this: http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org Quote: Posted on Wed, Dec. 15, 2004 Quiet Protest Planned for Inauguration DONNA CASSATA Associated Press WASHINGTON - No buttons, signs or unusual dress will distinguish the protesters from the thousands who will line the inaugural parade route next month, but at a set time, they say they will demonstrate against President Bush - by turning their backs on the chief executive. Coupled with the widely expected pomp and pageantry of a presidential inauguration are demonstrations by protesters angered by Bush's policies, in particular the war in Iraq. Getting ready for Jan. 20, 2005, various groups are using Web sites, e-mails, fliers and word of mouth to urge thousands of demonstrators to gather in the nation's capital. Among planned events are an anti-war rally and three-mile march to the White House, a massive bike ride similar to those that disrupted traffic in New York City before the Republican National Convention, and a die-in to remind the nation of more than 1,200 U.S. dead in Iraq. Through the Web site www.turnyourbackonbush.org, organizers are urging demonstrators to leave political buttons and placards at home, join other parade-goers on the afternoon of the inauguration and then, as Bush's motorcade passes, show the president their backs. Turning your back is as old as authority itself, said Jet Heiko, a Philadelphia-based protest organizer. It's a very understandable symbol for defying authority. On its Web site, the group called it a unique action because we won't know who is participating until the moment it begins. The DC Anti-War Network is organizing a rally and march to the White House on the morning of the inauguration, getting the word out through the Web site www.counter-inaugural.org/, which says, Bush isn't going away, and neither are we. The violence in Iraq was one reason more than 100,000 protesters filled New York City streets on a Sunday morning in August before the Republican convention. Organizers of the inauguration protests expect stronger feelings toward the war to persuade thousands to travel to Washington next month. Heightened security, January weather and the calendar - the inauguration falls on a Thursday - are certain to limit the numbers. In 2000, additional officers from the Metropolitan Police and other law enforcement agencies kept order, and no major confrontations occurred and only a handful of people were arrested. Security is expected to be even tighter for the first inauguration since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Four years ago, protest organizers capitalized on strong feelings over the disputed election, which had barely subsided, and the timing inauguration fell on a Saturday. This year's election was settled weeks ago, on Nov. 3, when Democratic Sen. John Kerry called to congratulate Bush. Still, organizers hope to attract a crowd. We got 80 percent of people to protest the Republican Convention in New York in the last week, said Jim Macdonald of the DC Anti-War Network. ON THE NET Official inaugural Web site: http://www.inaugural05.com Protest organizers: http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org Protest organizers: http://www.counter-inaugural.org You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush
Umm..good question -Original Message- From: Jonathan Cass [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Dec 15, 2004 1:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush I am no fan of Bush and I agree with the concept of using the inauguration to protest, but would you be saying the same thing if Kerry had won? Our of curiosity (and not rhetorically), are you aware of any precedent for a sitting President not having an inauguration during a time of war? Jonathan A. Cass -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] wakkamen Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush I can't believe the man we call our President is going ahead with an inauguration in a time of war. If I can make it down to DC, I will be participating in this: http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org Quote: Posted on Wed, Dec. 15, 2004 Quiet Protest Planned for Inauguration DONNA CASSATA Associated Press WASHINGTON - No buttons, signs or unusual dress will distinguish the protesters from the thousands who will line the inaugural parade route next month, but at a set time, they say they will demonstrate against President Bush - by turning their backs on the chief executive. Coupled with the widely expected pomp and pageantry of a presidential inauguration are demonstrations by protesters angered by Bush's policies, in particular the war in Iraq. Getting ready for Jan. 20, 2005, various groups are using Web sites, e-mails, fliers and word of mouth to urge thousands of demonstrators to gather in the nation's capital. Among planned events are an anti-war rally and three-mile march to the White House, a massive bike ride similar to those that disrupted traffic in New York City before the Republican National Convention, and a die-in to remind the nation of more than 1,200 U.S. dead in Iraq. Through the Web site www.turnyourbackonbush.org, organizers are urging demonstrators to leave political buttons and placards at home, join other parade-goers on the afternoon of the inauguration and then, as Bush's motorcade passes, show the president their backs. Turning your back is as old as authority itself, said Jet Heiko, a Philadelphia-based protest organizer. It's a very understandable symbol for defying authority. On its Web site, the group called it a unique action because we won't know who is participating until the moment it begins. The DC Anti-War Network is organizing a rally and march to the White House on the morning of the inauguration, getting the word out through the Web site www.counter-inaugural.org/, which says, Bush isn't going away, and neither are we. The violence in Iraq was one reason more than 100,000 protesters filled New York City streets on a Sunday morning in August before the Republican convention. Organizers of the inauguration protests expect stronger feelings toward the war to persuade thousands to travel to Washington next month. Heightened security, January weather and the calendar - the inauguration falls on a Thursday - are certain to limit the numbers. In 2000, additional officers from the Metropolitan Police and other law enforcement agencies kept order, and no major confrontations occurred and only a handful of people were arrested. Security is expected to be even tighter for the first inauguration since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Four years ago, protest organizers capitalized on strong feelings over the disputed election, which had barely subsided, and the timing inauguration fell on a Saturday. This year's election was settled weeks ago, on Nov. 3, when Democratic Sen. John Kerry called to congratulate Bush. Still, organizers hope to attract a crowd. We got 80 percent of people to protest the Republican Convention in New York in the last week, said Jim Macdonald of the DC Anti-War Network. ON THE NET Official inaugural Web site: http://www.inaugural05.com Protest organizers: http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org Protest organizers: http://www.counter-inaugural.org You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush
Interesting. But wouldn't canceling the Inauguration be a sign of weakness that would only play into the hands of insurgents and terrorists. Come on man, don't you LOOOVVEEE America? The concept of sacrifice during wartime in this country has been given nothing but lip service since WWII. Sacrifice during the Korean War? Vietnam? The first Iraq War? We live in a country that is more than willing to sacrifice its future so that it can be fat and happy in the present. Jonathan A. Cass -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush Check out: http://www.phillyblog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7283 http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/10410196.htm Quote: Posted on Tue, Dec. 14, 2004 Editorial | Inaugural Ball Cancel this bash during a time of war Thank you, Claire Gawinowicz of Oreland. Her letter in yesterday's Inquirer made this excellent suggestion: Cancel inaugural balls for President Bush's next term as a show of sacrifice during a time of war. The President would make a powerful statement if he did so. Numerous presidents have shunned them since the first official ball was held in 1809 for James Madison. Franklin Pierce declined to celebrate while mourning the fresh loss of his son in 1853. Franklin D. Roosevelt skipped them during the Depression and World War II. FDR knew the dissonance of holding galas in Washington when the nation's sons and daughters in uniform were fighting in hostile lands. That surely will be the case next month as Bush takes his second oath of office: U.S. forces in Iraq will still be battling (with insufficient armor and other supplies) a surprisingly strong insurgency. No, these parties are not paid for with great stashes of public dollars. Soldiers won't get bulletproof vests paid for with the money saved - unless the private donors want to use their dollars that way. But inaugural festivities have little to do with the substance of democracy. They're all about symbolism. Bush would show a keen sensitivity toward the situation of his soldiers by finally acknowledging that wartime demands true sacrifice - a notion betrayed by his insistence on tax cuts. That symbolism would be far greater than the grandest of balls. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/10402727.htm Quote: Letters | Letters Posted on Mon, Dec. 13, 2004 Cancel inaugural balls President Bush recently told troops at Camp Pendleton that the time of war is a time of sacrifice that he wanted other Americans to help military families. Suppose he acts as the chief role model for the country by canceling the inaugural balls and inviting members of military families to the White House for an open house instead. In the same speech, Bush said that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked Americans to find some way to help during World War II. I wonder if Bush knows that FDR cancelled inaugural balls in both 1941 and 1945 in deference to Americans fighting overseas. How about it, Mr. President? After all, the time of war is a time of sacrifice. Claire Gawinowicz Oreland In a message dated 12/15/2004 1:15:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jonathan Cass [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am no fan of Bush and I agree with the concept of using the inauguration to protest, but would you be saying the same thing if Kerry had won? Our of curiosity (and not rhetorically), are you aware of any precedent for a sitting President not having an inauguration during a time of war? Jonathan A. Cass -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush I can't believe the man we call our President is going ahead with an inauguration in a time of war. If I can make it down to DC, I will be participating in this: http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org Quote: Posted on Wed, Dec. 15, 2004 Quiet Protest Planned for Inauguration DONNA CASSATA Associated Press WASHINGTON - No buttons, signs or unusual dress will distinguish the protesters from the thousands who will line the inaugural parade route next month, but at a set time, they say they will demonstrate against President Bush - by turning their backs on the chief executive. Coupled with the widely expected pomp and pageantry of a presidential inauguration are demonstrations by protesters angered by Bush's policies, in particular the war in Iraq. Getting ready for Jan. 20, 2005, various groups are using Web sites, e-mails, fliers and word of mouth to urge thousands of demonstrators to gather in the nation's capital. Among planned events are an anti-war rally and three-mile march to the White House, a massive bike ride similar to those that disrupted traffic in New York City before the Republican National Convention
RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush
Title: RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush Folks, I was made aware by an old friend and lover of history that certainly since the Revloutionary War, the U.S. has never stopped participating in some form of war at home or abroad. We exist in a state of perpetual war, because we seemingly either don't know how to effectively avoid them or we depend on them to gain much needed resources, be it self rule, the elimination of taxation, land, waterways, control of regional commerce, gold, slaves, etc. We are a war nation like no other in the modern world. We don't have war downtime, because it's become such a magnificent political/economic growth stimulator - at least through most of our history; the War of 1812, the Civil War, Vietnam and now Iraq have proven to be a drain on the national economy, military population, and national morale as well as tauting defeated causes. If we turn our backs on the president, we should all be aware that it's classically considered to be the ultimate symbolic gesture of no-confidence. It means we, in spirit if not in any physical sense, shun the man himself and cast him out. I can see why this would be a useful gesture to give toward the president and his policies; it's non-violent, it's universally understood, and it makes a great news image, if ENOUGH people join in. I for one would approve such an effort, but that's only my opinion. What is needed is a big push that will carry enough dissenters to D.C. to protest. Go to http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org and see for yourself how you can get to the capital cheaply and easily and spend the day giving your First Amendment rights some good use. Mario Giorno Communications Research Technician ASC/APPC University of Pennsylvania 3620 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104
Re: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush
On 15 Dec, 2004, at 14:14, Mario Giorno wrote: If we turn our backs on the president, we should all be aware that it's classically considered to be the ultimate symbolic gesture of no-confidence. It means we, in spirit if not in any physical sense, shun the man himself and cast him out. I can see why this would be a useful gesture to give toward the president and his policies; it's non-violent, it's universally understood, The simple fact that you feel a need to explain your proposed actions clearly illustrates that the concept is neither universally understood nor a classic symbol of no-confidence. The organizers may wish this to be so, but it is simply not true. In fact, I would counter that the vast majority of the population would consider turning one's back on someone to be nothing more than disrespectful, and a reflection on the upbringing and education of those so doing. We see this kind of behavior daily in the Philadelphia schools, and in almost any pre-teen clique movie ... where Hollywood uses the technique to underscore how immature the participants are. Media coverage of the event will spend 99% of the piece explaining WHY these people were doing what they were doing -- because nobody in the Media will believe that their audience will have any idea what it is that the protesters are doing or trying to accomplish. In fact, the Media will have to interview the protest organizers so that THEY can explain what it is they are doing because the Media folks won't have a clue what it is they are doing. ... except for what the protest organizers will have explained to the assignment editors in their press releases to get the Media to cover them in the first place. T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush
Check out: http://www.phillyblog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7283 http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/10410196.htm Quote: Posted on Tue, Dec. 14, 2004 Editorial | Inaugural Ball Cancel this bash during a time of war Thank you, Claire Gawinowicz of Oreland. Her letter in yesterday's Inquirer made this excellent suggestion: Cancel inaugural balls for President Bush's next term as a show of sacrifice during a time of war. The President would make a powerful statement if he did so. Numerous presidents have shunned them since the first official ball was held in 1809 for James Madison. Franklin Pierce declined to celebrate while mourning the fresh loss of his son in 1853. Franklin D. Roosevelt skipped them during the Depression and World War II. FDR knew the dissonance of holding galas in Washington when the nation's sons and daughters in uniform were fighting in hostile lands. That surely will be the case next month as Bush takes his second oath of office: U.S. forces in Iraq will still be battling (with insufficient armor and other supplies) a surprisingly strong insurgency. No, these parties are not paid for with great stashes of public dollars. Soldiers won't get bulletproof vests paid for with the money saved - unless the private donors want to use their dollars that way. But inaugural festivities have little to do with the substance of democracy. They're all about symbolism. Bush would show a keen sensitivity toward the situation of his soldiers by finally acknowledging that wartime demands true sacrifice - a notion betrayed by his insistence on tax cuts. That symbolism would be far greater than the grandest of balls. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/10402727.htm Quote: Letters | Letters Posted on Mon, Dec. 13, 2004 Cancel inaugural balls President Bush recently told troops at Camp Pendleton that the time of war is a time of sacrifice that he wanted other Americans to help military families. Suppose he acts as the chief role model for the country by canceling the inaugural balls and inviting members of military families to the White House for an open house instead. In the same speech, Bush said that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked Americans to find some way to help during World War II. I wonder if Bush knows that FDR cancelled inaugural balls in both 1941 and 1945 in deference to Americans fighting overseas. How about it, Mr. President? After all, the time of war is a time of sacrifice. Claire Gawinowicz Oreland In a message dated 12/15/2004 1:15:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jonathan Cass [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am no fan of Bush and I agree with the concept of using the inauguration to protest, but would you be saying the same thing if Kerry had won? Our of curiosity (and not rhetorically), are you aware of any precedent for a sitting President not having an inauguration during a time of war? Jonathan A. Cass -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush I can't believe the man we call our President is going ahead with an inauguration in a time of war. If I can make it down to DC, I will be participating in this: http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org Quote: Posted on Wed, Dec. 15, 2004 Quiet Protest Planned for Inauguration DONNA CASSATA Associated Press WASHINGTON - No buttons, signs or unusual dress will distinguish the protesters from the thousands who will line the inaugural parade route next month, but at a set time, they say they will demonstrate against President Bush - by turning their backs on the chief executive. Coupled with the widely expected pomp and pageantry of a presidential inauguration are demonstrations by protesters angered by Bush's policies, in particular the war in Iraq. Getting ready for Jan. 20, 2005, various groups are using Web sites, e-mails, fliers and word of mouth to urge thousands of demonstrators to gather in the nation's capital. Among planned events are an anti-war rally and three-mile march to the White House, a massive bike ride similar to those that disrupted traffic in New York City before the Republican National Convention, and a die-in to remind the nation of more than 1,200 U.S. dead in Iraq. Through the Web site www.turnyourbackonbush.org, organizers are urging demonstrators to leave political buttons and placards at home, join other parade-goers on the afternoon of the inauguration and then, as Bush's motorcade passes, show the president their backs. Turning your back is as old as authority itself, said Jet Heiko, a Philadelphia-based protest organizer. It's a very understandable symbol for defying authority. On its Web site, the group called it a unique action because we won't know who is participating until the moment it begins. The DC Anti-War Network is organizing a
