Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Wars, lobbyists, anti-war action groups, and change
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
IAmNiki



Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 1605
Location: North Smithfield, RI
 Reply with quote  

I mean this with no pointedness or sarcasm when I ask this, but Projo is right leaning? I'm asking out of curiousity because my experience with that newspaper has only been the reading I've done casually when I randomly decide to pick one up.
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jared Paul



Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 3720
Location: www.PrayersForAtheists.org
 Reply with quote  

IAmNiki wrote:
I mean this with no pointedness or sarcasm when I ask this, but Projo is right leaning? I'm asking out of curiousity because my experience with that newspaper has only been the reading I've done casually when I randomly decide to pick one up.


Yeah, Nik. They are owned by the conservative A.H. Belo Corporation from Texas. The paper has recently started to swing slightly toward the center, it endorsed Obama for pres in 2008, but endorsed Bush in 2000 and 2004, and aside from Obama hasn't endorsed a single other Democrat for Pres in over 40 years, even though RI is just about the "blue-est" voting state in the union.

http://obamaendorsements.blogspot.com/2008/10/ri-providence-journal.html

The major paper for the capital city of the blue stat in the union endorsing Bush TWICE even though Rhode Islanders cast their votes for the Democratic candidate by a large margin each time. Same with during the Clinton years.

It endorsed Bob Dole, Bush I, and Reagan. I'm pretty sure it endorsed Nixon twice as well.
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:57 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21602
 Reply with quote  

Yet, they gave coverage to a reasonably small gathering of people protesting "Obama's Wars." I wonder if they'd give such coverage if Bush was in office and there were protests against his wars. Wait...there were protests against his wars. Did the Journal cover those?

I hope this makes us think about the impact these gatherings make and to what ends. Be thankful yall didn't get lumped in with the Tea Party because there's a thinline between their look (as well as slogans) and your own.
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Jared Paul



Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 3720
Location: www.PrayersForAtheists.org
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
Yet, they gave coverage to a reasonably small gathering of people protesting "Obama's Wars." I wonder if they'd give such coverage if Bush was in office and there were protests against his wars. Wait...there were protests against his wars. Did the Journal cover those?

I hope this makes us think about the impact these gatherings make and to what ends. Be thankful yall didn't get lumped in with the Tea Party because there's a thinline between their look (as well as slogans) and your own.


The Providence Journal wasn't there to cover us. They were there to cover Obama, and probably to get some juicy T-bag photos. As I stated earlier, the T-bags dispersed significantly after we arrived. And we wound up with the bulk of the coverage.

They don't cover you unless you make them cover you.

The Pro Jo covered the anti-war movement from 2001-2008 with a pro-Bush lean, that slightly tapered off at the end.

I'm definitely not willing to gloss over 40 years of a paper endorsing the candidate It's state opposes. Good for them for getting it right for once. It's time to keep on them till they get it right on the regular.
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21602
 Reply with quote  

It's possible my point and/or concern is being overlooked. Maybe not.
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
sarah q



Joined: 02 Dec 2009
Posts: 175
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
It's possible my point and/or concern is being overlooked. Maybe not.


That was my concern as well, not until we began chanting "Obama's not against the war, we are, we are" did I feel a very clear distinction was made.

I never make or carry signs, but in my head I was devising an excessively elaborate sign of "We are not against Obama as a person, he seems like a nice guy, but we don't agrees with his policies on X, Y and Z...". The sign went on and on in my head. Hahaha.

I think for the most part people understood we weren't with the tea-partiers. The tea partiers DEFINITELY understood as they started aggressively booing us as soon as we got there.
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:11 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Jared Paul



Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 3720
Location: www.PrayersForAtheists.org
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
It's possible my point and/or concern is being overlooked. Maybe not.


I did miss what you were saying. And it's an excellent point. They could very easily have been covering us specifically to make Obama look bad. Though, I do feel like there has been a slight swing to the center in their Providence office, i.e. their endorsement of Obama in 08, and what finally seems to be a little give in their coverage of local progressive issues as a whole over the past 1-2 years. New staff, rising progressive political capital in Providence, Whitehouse winning the senate seat, openly gay mayor, gay speaker of the house, and the sheer volume of state workers/working class people Carcieri has pissed off, these are all probably factors.

And I do think you made another excellent point about detailed planning in regards to all aspects, even clothing, to maximize on the visual aesthetic of the action. I will say that we took specific precautions to not look or sound like T-bags. The T-bags are pretty generally pro-Afghanistan war (as Christine O'Donnell so recently made clear to the national media). We led with an anti-Guantanamo street theater and had a diverse group of participants- in terms of age, sex, preference, background, which is something that is also nearly non-existent with T-Bag actions. We had specific anti-T-bag chants that helped push them out of their set up point and away from us, and did them loudly while be covered/interviewed.

Our group voted almost unanimously to go with the title: "End Obama's Wars and Occupations Now; End the Attacks on Civil Liberties; and Money for Jobs, Not for War" two weeks ago- but after a member got flack from another group she's part of for adding Obama's name into the title, and the RI Unemployed Council asked us to take his name out of the title, we had another vote. The proposal to change failed just barely and 3 of our key members opted to sit this one out as a result.

It is unquestionably a contentious issue. And we'd never want to do anything to boost the T-bags in anyway but there comes a point where we can't just sit back and be quiet out of fear of being confused with or helping them. QuARI was there over what they feel are broken promises in regards to marriage rights and DADT. RI Unemployed Council was there to call for a Bailout of the people, and not the banks.

We are the anti-war group in the city, and we spoke to the issues relevant to our points of unity. The majority of our group feel that the "Democratic" Party cannot be separated from the war, and Obama cannot be separated from his policies or his party.

So we're willing to risk it. Definitely not looking for a pat on the back. Or shocked if it's not a stand that people agree with. We do however realize that there are people who agree with us and feel like they don't have support. It's important to me, and folks at RIMC, that we let local folks in that position know they aren't alone, that being anti-Afghanistan war does not mean pro-Taliban, and that there are alternatives to Capitalism.

What a lot of us want to know is: if Bush had less numbers in both the House and the Senate then Obama does now, yet he seemed to be able to pass, or just do, whatever he wanted, why then are Obama and the Democrats unable to achieve their goals with anywhere near the efficiency that Bush and the Republicans were?
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
See Arrrgh



Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 251
Location: New England
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
It's possible my point and/or concern is being overlooked. Maybe not.


Maybe.
Post Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:14 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon