So you agree with anon when he/she/it says that only a few thousand showed up, when in fact hundreds of thousands showed up? And you agree with anon that holding protests on 'liberal college campuses' is silly, when the facts are that the protests were held on the streets of American cities. And also all over the world? What exactly is it that you agree with anon about, since anon has been shown to be full of shit?

-- Kitt

Go back and re-read what I said. The point is not whether or not there were hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands or six people protesting. The point is that those individual, scattered protests do not a serious protest movement make. Glenn has been on a kick about "seriousness" lately. Great. How "serious" are protests that are not sustained and/or intense enough to bring about change? I'll give you the answer: They aren't serious.

A serious protest movement would not let up. It would not stop until it was recognized, heard and dealt with one way or the other. I know you want to claim that there have been massive protests and "oh woe is us the media and the man ignored them and and...waaaaa" but it is my belief that, at this point, you and those like you are simply using the media and government as scapegoats to sooth your nagging fear that you haven't done enough. Well you haven't. Neither have I and all the excuse making in the world isn't going to change that fact. We the people have not done enough. Complaining and commenting on a blog isn't enough no matter how much you want it to be. That is the larger point here and one I read Anon as making.

Tell you what. Since you think you are speaking for me, in that you think you know what I want to claim, I'll let you speak for me in saying "Fuck you" to you. Do not ever try to tell me what I want to claim and expect to not get a 'fuck you' about it. -- Kitt

lol. Kitt. I was speaking to you because you responded to my post. You can choose to ignore the larger point of the discussion if you like but your defensiveness is not helping to convince me that I was incorrect in my assessment. Being angry and telling me to fuck off is all well and good but it still doesn't change the fact that the media and the man can only be blamed so long before one realizes that, in the end, it is we who are to blame.

How much coverage has the op-ed in the New York Times gotten? Almost none. How much coverage did O'Hanlon's and Pollack's op-ed get? Tons. Is that my fault? Am I not aware of that lack of balance? No on both counts.

It is indeed funny to me in a sad sort of way... the way you simply can not fathom, or refuse to acknowledge, that it is indeed our fault. We were discussing protest movements. The larger point that (wrt the media, pundits and government) until we give them a reason to take us seriously, they will not, seems lost on you.

Thank you for confirming my assessment though. For a moment I had worried that I had read you incorrectly. Keep screaming into the void Kitt. I wish you luck.

some thoughts for Kitt and Adnoto

@Adnoto: Starting any statement with "You think..." pretty well guarantees that the rest will not be read.

@Kitt: Ditto, viz. "Fuck you."

@both: Lager beer greatly enhances any pissing contest, increasing both volume and intensity...

-- nasruddin

Thanks for the thoughts but I don't mind a good "fuck you" now and again. My laugh was genuine. As for my "you think" comment... My assertion that Kitt and many, many others are using the "the man is keeping us down" excuse as a reason or explanation as to why "we the people" have not put a stop to this madness is accurate I believe. I can not come to any other conclusion actually. It's ok really. I gave up a long time ago myself. I was just pointing that out. I just don't like to see people kid themselves.

Glenn. I know this is a private matter but who would you support for president in 2008? I really don't expect an answer but given your posts of the past few days and your willingness to expose the Democratic congress for what they are leads me to believe that you might be willing to take the next step and support a third party candidate. Is that a possibility? I mean, given what we all know, isn't it a political, social, ecological (and moral for that matter) imperative that we begin to truly put the screws to the Democrats by voting away from the party?

I am not a Democrat but I have voted for them almost exclusively in the past. I will not be voting for them in the near future. Not a chance. So I guess I am wondering: What are we prepared to do? We know the Dems are as bad as the Thugs. How can we continue to vote for them?

Do you think this is a subject you will ever address directly? I am just curious. You have a voice. I am curious to what extent you are willing to use it.

Yes, the Democrats are corporatist and yes, the top 3 candidates are all going to lead to the expanding of our military-industrial complex. We're still better off with any of them than any of the authoritarian proto-fascists on the right.

-- tastycakes

"Better off?" The fear is fascinating.

"Realist," correct?