Goddamned anti-American rallies

[xiphias]

Pro-war rallies make me sick. Literally. It's the idea that people -- Americans -- are willing to come out and say "If you protest the actions of the government, you're anti-American." That idea makes me sick. I mean, what the fuck do these people think? "We're in favor of freedom in Iraq, but not freedom in America!" Or, maybe, "It's okay to have freedom, just so long as you shut your face and don't USE your freedom."

They make me sick. If they're so goddamned pissed off at living in a country where people can disapprove of their government's actions, then why the fuck don't they just MOVE TO IRAQ?

Comments

[copperpoint.livejournal.com]

Amen!

[navrins]

It is possible to be pro-war and still recognize the rights of others to be anti-war. Or anti-war and intolerant of those who are pro-war. War and repression aren't the same thing.

That said, I do agree with most of what you said.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

How many of the people who are pro-war, but not anti-anti-war, actually go to the rallies?

In order form a protest, you need to be AGAINST something. People don't show up to rallies because they SUPPORT something -- only because they OPPOSE something. Sometimes, that's a real fine line -- but nobody takes to the streets and chants because they're happy with how things would go if they didn't take to the streets and chant.

The pro-war rallies -- what are they against? They're not protests -- what are they protesting? What they want is already happening, isn't it?

No. They're protesting the fact that their fellow citizens are protesting. That's what they're upset about.

This post, of course, was written after hearing, on the news, what people were chanting at the anti-anti-war rallies. And finding that it did, in fact, make me sick.

[navrins]

Well, as you know from my journal, I'm not sure I get the point of the anti-war rallies at this point. Nor have I observed any post-invasion protests aside from the one between my workplace and my lunch last week. But I could imagine some pro-war folks saying "Hey, I don't want people to get the impression that everybody here is against the war, so we'd better rally and show there is support for it."

'Course, that probably isn't what most of them are actually doing. (As a side note... eh, moving it to my own journal.)

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

marry me?

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean.

I myself am tired of being told that even though I'm pro-peace and anti-this-war-in-particular, if I don't "support our troops", I'm not a real American, so why don't I just get the fuck out.

This whole thing makes me so angry.

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

The word is that many of those rallies are being sponsored and promoted by Clear Channel, the media conglomerate with ties to the current administration.

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

A media outlet that reports news creating and sponsoring, and then reporting on, pro-war rallies creates some really bizarre conflicts of interest.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Where did you hear that?

[(Anonymous)]

First link I could find:

Media giant's rally sponsorship raises questions (http://www.chicagotribune.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=chi%2D0303190157mar19&section=/printstory)

mattrolls

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

Clip from the New York Press. Link here:
http://www.nypress.com/static/billboard.cfm#1780

[cheshyre]

Which led to this handy diagram of the links between Clear Channel and the Bush administration.

So, Clear Channel has recently boycotted the Dixie Chicks and organized pro-war demonstrations. Shortly after 9/11, Clear Channel (which owns 1170 radio stations) provided an advisory list of songs which may be too sensitive to play.


Clear Channel is clearly too powerful, and demonstrates why media ownership has to remain diverse...

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

The FCC was recently re-examining its policies on ownership of broadcast media. They were expected to liberalize the rules even further, to permit even more cartel-ization of the media by large conglomerates like Clear Channel. Fortunately some Senators (including Trent Lott (!)) became interested in this matter and called Chairman Powell on the carpet to explain himself. Senators specifically voiced concerns about programming diversity in the face of consolidation. At hearings on the matter Chairman Powell raised a few eyebrows by making public statements reversing his previous position and wondering whether deregulation was actually a good idea.

We shall have to see how this turns out. Might be a good thing to write your local legislators on--especially since you can tie fairness in news reporting (especially about the war) to corporate ownership.