Hello, I'm sure everyone is probably using Bonnaroo as a means to replenish the soul and escape from the everday cycle of all the turmoil in the world. I am too. With that in mind I hate to discuss war but it has to be done. I feel that our generation 18-35, really has no spontanaity to speak out about the wrong that is happening in the world. Sorry, this may not apply to all but to the majority. Our lives have been pretty easy and we haven't had to face to much conflict that would cause for an uproar, besides freeing Leonard or Bill Clinton a "whoopsie" from the girl next door. In no way am i asking for people to chant rage againt the machine lyrics and flash pictures of Ghadi at whoever will listen Blah, Blah, Blah,
Let me make this short an simple, Bonnaroo keeps getting bigger and calls for more national attention each year. Being tha the war is out of control and Bush must go, this would be a perfect opportuniy to take direct-action and let out collective voice be heard. I'm pretty sure this will be a topic amongst the musicians so let's add to that sweet sounds of the peace drums roaring. Being that the media will be covering, let ou9 100plus thousand voices be heard and help bring our girls and boys home so they too can share the next roo. If anyone has any ideas how we can have a collective sign of this disapproval of the war, not our troops, please leave some ideas. Thanks, Bret Nida
I think that would be great, to have something that WE could do to show our disapproval of this war. Unfortunately I don't know how many people would participate. It seems there is alot of apathay among many in the jamband crowd. It's like we use the music to forget the horrible things going on around us. We should be using the music to remember what's important in our lives. I wish more people would become politically active(including myself). I think alot of people don't know what to do. I really would like to go to some peace marches this summer. Just to be another body there, making a stand against what I see as an unjustified war. It's gotten to the point where I don't know if I can live with myself if I just sit back and do nothing. Sit down or Stand up. What's it going to be? I'd love to do something, I just don't know what. Does anybody know if there will be any organizations at Roo to help with this calamity? I read on the email list about the group to get people registered to vote. That's a start, for sure. I just need something more. I feel so strongly about this and I'm tired of just talking about it. Also, DankyDon, it sucks about your friend being in Iraq in this temultuous time. I had 2 friends in the Marines that were over there a year ago during "major combat operations". My one friend was in Baghdad when it fell, he won't talk about it much. My other friend was in Nasseriah, and has told me things that make me really wonder what we're doing there. This is one of the reasons I feel so strongly. These are OUR friends over there getting killed and wounded. What's it all for?
The demographic that goes to Bonnaroo in the highest numbers (the 18-35 crowd) is renowned in political circles for political apathy. They COUNT on that. That's why you see so much legislation passed that seems to screw this group. The pols know they don't vote and so they don't worry about how their actions will impact the young folks.
Remember, it only takes a minute to pull the lever (or touch the screen...) but that small action sends a powerful message to those in charge. It may even change who's in charge, if that's what enough people want.
Now, what can we do at Bonnaroo? Good question. I don't have THE answer, but I do have a few thoughts:
Think about putting up a sign, sticker, poster, or flag that coveys your message. If there were a huge number of those the public and media couldn't help but notice. That makes people think and those numbers make them take you seriously.
Donate a little someting to your candidate. You don't have to give till it hurts, but think what would happen if each of those 100,000 people gave a buck to a single candidate. Now imagine if they all gave a five or a ten (or whatever). That's just 100,000 people in a nation of millions.
If you talk to the media, remember to keep your point concise. They're looking for short 'soundbites' and succinct quotes. Think about what your main point is before you get there and be ready to give that, not a laundry list of rambling grievences.
Then go home and make sure your friends are registered. Print out a few copies of the form and invest in a roll of stamps. Then on election day, throw a voting party. Everyone go down to the polls together, vote, then come on home for beers and whatnot. Or have folks just meet up with you after they've been to their polling places, if you're not all from the same neighborhood. The only requirement is that they show up with their "I Voted" sticker. Put a little effort into making it fun and people will do it, I promise.
JayFromRochester, those are good places to start. What about those that are already registered and plan on voting? Voting is VERY important (especially this election). I need more though. I like the idea of putting up a flag or sign or something to show where you stand. I'll do this, it will also help me find my campsite. How do you change this spirit of apathy? I don't want people who don't care about what's going on, voting either. I mean everyone has a right to vote, and I wouldn't deny anyone that. Alot of the problem is the uniformed public, who ignores the news, ignores the issues and goes to vote for the standing president because it the EASIEST THING TO DO. How do you get people to care about what's going on? How do you get people to realize that this is affecting them whether they want to admidt it or not?
Great idea Since some people do not want to speak up then we shall do it for them. Isn't that what big brothers and siters are for(no pun intended) If people want stay in their blissful bubble and not read the news, read the newspaper or pay any attention to the perputual turmoil in the world that is fine. That is what America is for. and that is what Big Brothers and Sisters(no pun intended) are for we can speak for them, but not think for them Being that Bonnaroo is everone's escape from this we should channel this emotion through the Musicians. On top of other In-your-face message such as banners, Flags, Stickers, I think we shoulld encourage as many people thqat we know that want to speak out write to the musicians and have them speak about this current crisis. This will make people have to think about it. Plus it will be coming form the right mind and spirit
With that in mind I ask you'll that read this and want to participate to help get all the bands email and contact info and have people start sending request to the band to have them discuss this matter. The following are my start and please help
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com(mediski, martin, and wood)
Also, we should create a universal sticker that is agreed upon and pass them out. Hopefully we can formally meet giving each other sticker.
Please forgive the errors in my previous message I forgot to proof read. Below is the correct response:
If people want stay in their blissful bubble and not read the news, read the newspaper or pay any attention to the perpetual turmoil in the world that is fine. That is what America is for. And that is what Big Brothers and Sisters (no pun intended) are for. We can speak for them, but not think for them. Being that Bonnaroo is everyone’s escape from this we should channel this emotion through the musicians. On top of other In-your-face message such as banners, Flags, Stickers, I think we should encourage as many people that we know that want to speak out write to the musicians and have them speak about this current crisis. This will make people have to think about it. Plus it will be coming from the right mind and spirit.
With that in mind I ask you'll that read this and want to participate to help get all the bands email and contact info and have people start sending request to the band to have them discuss this matter when performing. The following are my start and please help
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com(medeski, martin, and wood)
Also, we should create a universal sticker that is agreed upon and pass them out. Hopefully we can formally meet giving each other sticker. explanation of why:
Post by BonnarooPaul on Apr 10, 2004 7:17:16 GMT -5
excellent. i like to see this....some of my personal thoughts on our current situation..and i apologize for the length, but i feel these are important.
- the reason many do not participate in politics even to the smallest degree is that it is presented in a confusing, fancy rhetoric, and boring manner. many people don't understand these shows and news as completely as they'd like. it's not a knock against the people, it's just not how we conversate.... we need a show or something where they talk about it in normal layman's terms(kind of like daily show but more serious) and explain what's going on..now of course our politicians don't want this because they wouldn't be able to doubletalk everything.
- the two party system is killing the country. people get so worried trying to make sure the other party doesn't win, they don't even focus on making sure THEIR party's candidate is the best possible choice. they just vote for who has the best possible chance to win the whole thing.
- apathy as you mentioned. we need for people to realize that these things do affect us..
we are at a critical point here as a Jay mentioned. i'm not sure if you have noticed but we are at a state where the ultraconservative(much like the 50's) is taking over everything. it's like religion(and not really religion, it's actually conservative traditions that people have blurred into their religion but isn't listed anywhere in the bible) is being pushed in laws when it has no place there what so ever. so people are trying to make their beleifs or opinions into laws. that's not what laws are for.
Bush is a terrible president. His background shows he should have never been elected in the first place. If it were a business and you were looking at his resume, you'd be like "no way i'm hiring this guy, he did a terrible job at his last position." But he got elected on his name.
We need to get our sh*t together as people and start DEMANDING that our candidates be honest. Don't settle for corrupt politicians because that's the standup joke of the century, that all politicians are dishonest. Don't settle for that. I have a hard time beleiving we can't find a real honest good person to elect as president in this country.
I will be there encouraging people to vote for anyone other than Bush. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, or independant as I am, I will encourage you to vote against Bush and to vote for who you think is the best possible person for the job, regardless of party affiliation.
sorry for the long post. if you guys have some ideas, i'm all ears. can't say that I can invest too much money into something cuz i'm still saving for Bonnaroo but i'll give it my all.
THIS IS IMPORTANT! the bad thing is there are people who will see this thread and not read it and continue on being apathetic. it's a shame they don't care.
Post by BonnarooPaul on Apr 10, 2004 7:34:18 GMT -5
if you guys have any ideas on a good reaccuring political theme so that it gets noticed, please post it.... i think beyond tshirts and bumper stickers is a phrase....
if you can get a good phrase to spread, something catchy, that people could make their own stuff or write on their windows or make their own signs, then you'll get more participation... some ideas so far to start the brainstorming
Vote Bonnaroo, not Bush Vote Peace, Not Bush No More Bush No More Beating Around With Bush Please Vote- They Don't Think You Will If you care, you'll vote Take America Back- Vote! Peaceful Revolution= Vote!
i like the last one or some form of it personally but just throwing some ideas out there. Has to be something catchy but gets the point across.
Ahhh, history! Study it folks, it's relevant all the time...
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "
Honest Abe November 19, 1863
And I always thought that last line was pretty catchy...
Although I haven't read every single word of this topic (for I have neither the time nor the patience), I have only seen one statement holding even the slightest glimmer of truth and relevance: we must all vote.
I hope there aren't too many young and impressionable children reading this thread, because they will take all of your ungrounded statements against Bush and against America as truth, though you provide little support for anything you say.
And the most disgusting of all the comments (though I'm sure you meant well, and I am SURE you are a fine person. I'm not trying to attack ANYONE here): "I will be there encouraging people to vote for anyone other than Bush. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, or independant as I am, I will encourage you to vote against Bush and to vote for who you think is the best possible person for the job, regardless of party affiliation." How would this help ANYTHING? Do you honestly think Ralph Nader or John Kerry could do anything more for America than what Bush is currently doing? Plus, if you aren't unifying your support behind a particular candidate, you're spliting votes and you are actually just helping the person you are against (Bush) even more.
Well henry, if you don't read everything this thread has to say, because as you say"I don't have the time or patience", don't generalize about the thread not holding any glimmer of truth. In my posts I go out of my way not to Bush bash. Believe me I'd love to, but I don't think it does the debate any good. The problem is a bipartisan problem. Voter apathy. It's on both sides of the aisle. People that just don't care, so either they don't vote, or they don't think about who they're voting for. This is an issue that all of US can look at, and try to work twords a resolution.
I agree with you that just voting for "anybody but Bush" doesn't do anybody any good. Vote for the person you think could best do the job, regardless of whether you think they'll win or not. In my mind, at this point, Kerry hasn't shown me anything of substance. I like the fact that Kerry had the balls to come back from Veitnam and protest against it. I really think Kerry blew his opportunity to seperate himself from Bush by voting for the Iraq resolution that sent us to war. He hasn't really offered any sort of alternative to what he would do to help the situation, besides saying that he'd bring the UN back in to help.
To me this is all just more of the same. Which is why voters are so apathetic. We may as well go vote with our eyes closed and pull a lever. We need a candidate who can work with both sides, equally. Evenhandedness is what we need domestically and with reguards to our foreign policy. Unfortunately I don't think that will ever happen in this 2 party system. Why? Money. Every candidate gets money from special interests aka corperations, and therefore they favor one side to the other. In addition we recieve our information from the media who are increasingly becoming bigger and bigger. Information to the masses controled by a few. (LET RALPH DEBATE)
We need someone who wants to change this, because it's gone too far. That person is Nader. Will Nader ever win? Not a snowballs chance in hell. Will voting for Nader take votes away from Kerry and perhaps give Bush the edge? Most likely. Nader is the only person who talks about taking the money and power away from special interests. He also wants to get rid of the drug war, which would save billions(also the only candidate talking about this). Just letting Ralph into the debates can help more americans realize that radical change is what we need, not more of the same. I'm sure it won't happen in this election. I just hope it happens before it's to late for US, or our freedoms will be an afterthought. I perhaps will vote for Kerry if he can show me something of substance. Some new ideas. He really should be taking lessons on the issues from Ralph, but he's too concerned about polls and this group and that group.
Bottom line. All of us here may have different opinions on the issues and candidates. Some are against Bush but I think we are all for America. I think we all want what's best for this country, so please henry don't say that these statements are "against America" just because they don't align with what you believe. Join the frey and continue THE DEBATE cause that too is one of the most important things in a democracy that is of the people, by the people, and for the people. This should be what we're working twords.
Well said, Danbird. I agree with everything you have said, except I think (which I don't think you ever said anything contrary to this) Nader couldn't provide for an entire administration. I agree we should let him debate, I agree we should pull out of the drug war, and I agree we need to lose the lobbyists.
And I shouldn't have said anything about anti-American. It was an automatic response; I'm conditioned to typing stuff like that in response to numerous other forum threads I've participated in that are similar to this one.
I shouldn't have generalized; but I read only the beginning of your posts, and, in general (I know, dangerous phrase), the beginnings led me to believe you were talking about the importance of voter participation, which I originally commented on.
I just don't see that any candidate could do a better job than Bush. It's sad, but I see the Presidency as an almost defunct position. Besides a few Executive orders here and there, Bush has done nothing special, himself. It's all a product of the different branches of government.
Yea Nader isn't very charasmatic. But he speaks what he believes. Well I'm glad that you're not a mindless Bush supporter, henry. I know too many people like that. I feel where you're coming from thinking that someone else won't be able to do as good a job as Bush. I supported Bush(for the most part) up until this whole quagmire in Iraq. I don't think we had any choice but to trust him that there were WMD. But I said it at the beginning that if there were no WMD found this war would be a complete failure in the eyes of the world. I think Bush has to pay for sending us into a pre-emptive war, in the middle east, for an "imminent threat" when there is nothing to be found. And now our friends are over there dying for this?!?! It scares me.
Geez, I really don't want to start a political debate!
Now I DON'T agree that we went to a pre-emptive war. We went in once, we (meaning the UN) created a cease-fire/WAR treaty with Iraq, and Iraq wasn't abiding by the rules of that treaty, for more reasons besides WMD.
The rest of the UN wasn't exactly concerned with Iraq. They seemed to care little about the flagrant disregard Saddam was handling his country with, killing millions of people. They seemed to care little that Saddam was breaking the treaty we all agreed upon.
Now, if the UN won't protect the world's people and even IT'S OWN TREATIES, what good is it?
Bush shouldn't have misrepresented the facts about the WMD. But I don't think it was totally Bush. There was probably some sort of intelligence failure. Either way it's good we are liberating that country.
Still, Saddam did have weapons he wasn't supposed to have. They weren't WMD but they were "Weapons of sorta mass destruction" - SCUD missles, etc. He started using them, firing them against Kuwait as SOON as we launched the air strikes against Iraq.
Bring home our brothers and sisters and let the middle east and everyone else deal with their own friggin' problems. We need to solve our problems right here. If we didn't get into everyone elses business for no reason, they wouldn't try and kill Americans here or abroad.
Bring home our brothers and sisters and let the middle east and everyone else deal with their own friggin' problems. We need to solve our problems right here. If we didn't get into everyone elses business for no reason, they wouldn't try and kill Americans here or abroad.
I dunno. They try to kill their own people enough. Saddam's sons had a license to rape any women they wanted. They also had the authority to throw random people into plastic shredders. Just because they wanted to watch them suffer.
Iraq was a pretty messed up and scary place, but maybe it isn't cool to help people for the sake of helping them, nowadays.
Alright. I'm gonna try and keep this short. The UN argument seems to be all that there is left to justify this war. But lets look at the facts. In Iraq war #1, Cheney was Secretary of Defense. It was his decision not to pursue the ground war any further. Therefore the republican gaurd divisions weren't taken out, and when the kurdish army in the north and the shiites in the south rebeled, they were slaughtered. Had they been taken out the first time we wouldn't be where we are today. Secondly, we passed a UN resolution saying something like "all necessary options will be pursued" if Iraq didn't come clean about their WMD. It passed. We were then going to try and pass a resolution to authorize war. Realizing it wasn't going to pass. We skipped it and went at it "alone." Now we want the UN back. EVENHANDEDNESS. I said it in another post. We can't be buddy buddy with UN when we need something and then disregaurd them as irrelevent when it doesn't suit us. I agree that the UN doesn't have a whole lot of balls. But the majority of the world views them as legitimate. Oh yea, and when did the US become the armed police of the UN? Since when do we enforce UN resolutions? When it suits our "interests" is when. No one will argue that Sadaam wasn't a terrible tyrant, and that the world was better off when he was in power. Kim Jong Il is also a terrible tyrant with nuclear weapons, why aren't we in North Korea? Or Iran. The fact of the matter is that this administration was obcessed with Iraq even before 9-11(see Richard Clarke). Now the admisitration tries to justify this war with 9-11, even though we've killed how many thousand of innocent Iraqis? Why are thier lives less important than ours? This is why most of the world hates us,because we lack evenhandedness and we're very brazen about it. Well that wasn't very short, but I think I've said everything I have to say on the issue. I welcome a reply from henry or anybody for that matter. I'd like to know if I'm on the right track.
I've read a good portion of this thread, and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts of mine...
I think the "deadline" to pull out of Iraq will help define this war's true intentions. I was against going in, but now that we've broken the nation at their proverbial knees, we can't let them rot. If Bush stands by this deadline, Iraq could fall into a hole deeper than anyone can imagine. The nation is obviously not ready for democracy, and we can't force it down their throat, by setting up a make shift constitution full of half-thoughts and rushed leadership. Strong nations aren't built by force from an outside source, they're built from within. It's ridiculous to think this neo-con strategy of shooting the "democracy gun" at fragile nations will somehow be successful in spreading what has made our own country great.
I'm pretty sure Bush will try to pull out the vast majority of our troops by the deadline to cover his own ass (god, I hope I'm wrong)...and in doing so, he will cripple the nation of Iraq and kick the sleeping dragon, that is, the Middle East. I want to see the troops at home as much as anyone, but we're already too far gone into this "rebuilding" of Iraq. It's like plastic surgery or something...stripping away the skin is only half the battle. If we aren't ready to stitch up the wounds we have caused, we will have set a precedent unlike any other in modern times.
I'm not going to totally disagree with having a presence in Iraq. My problem is...he lied about the reason...plain and simple. The two huge reasons we supposedly went over was WMD and ties to terrorism. Huh? What's up with that. And yet we are still seem to have no issue with Saudi Arabia (I'm sorry, where were most of those 9/11 attackrs from?) Not saying we should go to war with Saudi Arabia because of that, but don't go into Iraq claiming that is the reason. And then when none of that pans out we are there to FREE Iraq. Oh, well, than why didn't you say so? And why is Iraq so lucky? Can I just say the human devistation around the world is unimaginable and we sit and do nothing. Notice how the media only shows us the images of the terrible Sadaam so we can sleep peacfully knowing that "YES, this is the right thing to do, didn't you see the violence he puts his own people through?" Nice security blanket, but where are the other images from around the world. Oh yeah, we dont' need them because we're not invading them. The plain and simple truth is that the BUsh family has a beef with Sadaam. It is sick and ugly, but hey, atleast Dubya finished what his father couldn't. Way to go...
Post by BonnarooPaul on Apr 13, 2004 4:57:15 GMT -5
well since i'm the one who said vote for anyone other than Bush, let me retract that statement... vote for anyone else RUNNING for president than Bush... don't write in candidate yourself or trey anastacio..
Heck, yes i said for anyone other than Bush. I"m tired of corruption in the White House. I"m tired of people voting for corruption because they think it's a neccessary evil of the position. People gettiing used to it. So far everyone running in my opinion is better than Bush. He was a terrible governor of Texas so I don't know how he got elected president. Yes I do, because of his name.
Bush is a terrible president. No, I don't like Kerry either. But he isn't AS corrupt as Bush. He's just not. And yes I say vote even someone in a third party although I KNOW it helps Bush(I actually used to use this as an argument last time to vote for Gore so I am well aware of the consequences of such a thing). But the reason I have changed my tune on this is that we've got to have a start with people voting for someone other than Republicans and Democrats. The two-party system is killing our election process because it promotes corruption. So as much as I dislike Bush, I love our country more so I realize that getting a trend of people feeling comfortable voting for a third-party candidate is EXTREMELY important.
Yes vote for anyone other than Bush because only Bush is trying to push personal religion-founded beleifs into law. Making laws that should be unconstitutional that infringe on our rights.
I'm not just some tool saying vote for anyone except Bush just because he represents the moral majority without some sort of basis for my reasonings. So my statement cannot be looked at as "disgusting" because it is real and true.
George Bush is not a good president. We need a true leader who isn't trying to fill the pockets of him and his advisors. I don't think it's all him, alot is the people around him manipulating him. You wonder can Ralph Nader truley be a better leader than George Bush(how can that possibly be if he's not a career politician- sarcasm off). I say yes. The country is run by the people around the president. I don't think Nader would allow corrupt people around him like Bush or even Clinton allowed.
What I'm tired of is people who think Bush isn't that bad because they expect a level of corruption in office and think that just because they're still free to drive and shop that they still live in a free country. That status quo isn't so bad.
Update: There is no status quo. We are slowly taking away freedoms and rights of individuals. We are slowly moving toward a churchstate where if you're not a Christian then you're cast out. Slowly now where it seems that everything is ok now, but at some point it speeds up. You must take action now to prevent this.
I'm on messageboards everyday too debating politics. George Bush is a terrible president, stop turning your head away from the things he has done and confront them.
Post by BonnarooPaul on Apr 13, 2004 4:58:44 GMT -5
oh one last thing....it looks as if our leaders didn't have a good plan on the end of the war when we set up their government and can pull out. This is what caused them to hate us in the first place after the Afghanistan-Russian conflict.