january 20 approaches

I've decided against going to DC to protest the inauguration. I think it's a great thing to do, and I hope hundreds of thousands of people turn out, but I can't be among them.



I love big marches. I love the powerful feeling of unity, the comfort of being part of a huge crowd of people who all feel strongly enough to demonstrate. I love the spirit of community it fosters.



It can be a very emotional experience, as when the mall was blanketed by the AIDS quilt, the last time it was displayed in its entirety. (It became too big.) Allan and I were both overcome with the enormity of it, each square representing a life cut short. Not usually given to public displays, we could only stand and hold each other.



And it can also be a joyous experience, as when we reclaimed our city streets from the Republican convention, then reclaimed our park from government hacks.



But now I am so angry. So angry and sad and sometimes despairing about the fraudulent election and all it implies. And all the horror that will be visited on the world from it. I feel I can't go to Washington in a wholly negative state, all seething fury and grief. It will just make me feel worse. And because I'm so angry, I don't have the energy for it.



Some years back I would have felt guilty about not joining my fellow travelers at the barricades, but thankfully I've grown away from that. We can't all do everything. What counts is that we each do something.

Comments

  1. Kyle_From_Ottawa17 January 2005 at 06:44

    Bush isn't a normal politician though. He seems totally oblivious to protests and doesn't even do the traditional waffling to avoid decisions and lose votes.

    His supporters aren't normal either. They're fanatically loyal to him no matter what he does. Bush could probably pull out a gun and shoot Jacques Chirac in the middle of a crowd and the weirdos at Free Republic would cheer him on.

    ReplyDelete
  2. laura k17 January 2005 at 07:19

    Freepers: right you are. Great image. :)

    But we don't protest the inauguration - or any of Bush's policies - to speak to him. We know he's not listening and doesn't give a shit what we think. It's more to raise a voice against him/them, to show that he is not acting in our names. I think that's a form of resistance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kyle_From_Ottawa17 January 2005 at 10:21

    True, but he should be listening. Usually a government goes on the defensive when you have massive protests like this, and usually the media goes on the offensive. Regardless of whatever bias the media itself has, usually they're always looking for the government to slip up. At least, that's how it works here. Even the Globe and Mail would go for the Liberal party jugular if it smelled blood. A flailing government is news, and the media is far more loyal to the dollar than it is to any political preference.

    But somethings gone wrong south of the border. The media is now trying to defend and explain the government's actions, which seems opposite to what they're supposed to do. It seems wrong to have the media in bed with the government, regardless of what your political preferences are.

    ReplyDelete
  4. laura k17 January 2005 at 10:54

    You're absolutely right that he should be listening.

    But he didn't listen when millions of people around the globe begged him to not invade Iraq, and we know he won't listen now. And the American media ignored that massive protest. "Liberal" (ha!) CNN acted like it hadn't happened, just continued to report on the Lacy Peterson trial, or was it JonBenet Ramsey...

    ReplyDelete
  5. laura k17 January 2005 at 10:58

    P.S. I couldn't remember the name of that poor little girl. I googled "father accused of killing daughter Colorado". We love the internet...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

not so fast

Not everyone thinks the Conservative government is a lock. Canada's opposition Conservative Party, which is set to bring down the minority Liberal government later this week, was hit by a new opinion poll on Monday that showed it was trailing in the country's most vote-rich region. The Leger Marketing poll for the Sun chain of newspapers put support for the Liberals in the powerful central province of Ontario at 43 percent compared with 31 percent for the Conservatives. Ontario, a Liberal stronghold at the federal level for the past 12 years, accounts for 106 of the 308 seats in House of Commons, and no party can hope to form a government without doing well there. . . . Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals have been badly hurt by a corruption scandal and Conservative leader Stephen Harper says the government must be defeated as soon as possible. The Leger figures, however, suggest there is no guarantee Harper can end 12 years of Liberal rule. Thanks, ALPF! I must say, I...
Read more

dipstick

So there won't be an election yet. Talk about a squeaker . Feel free to tell us how you feel about this, unless it's all been said already, then feel free not to. ALPF mustered his courage and sent more links, so I have some good commentary to post. I found this Macleans story on the Conservative party's reaction to Stronach's decision - and public reaction to that reaction - very interesting. Canadians seem almost universally turned off by the name-calling and sexist slurs. On the other hand, when a certain governor made his "girly men" pronouncement, his constituency howled with glee. (Which is not to say the rest of us weren't appalled.) The Macleans article also notes that not all the sexism came from politicians: Some of the most sexist characterizations of Stronach didn't come from her political adversaries, but from media. Montreal's La Presse newspaper ran a cartoon of Martin leaning out his car window to solicit a street-walking Stronach...
Read more