# Bay Area to Bush:Welcome to dinner; now please choke on it.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2006, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831 "2006-04-23T04:36:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/61 "2006-04-24T14:01:40Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If a pro-life group blocks access to an abortion clinic, is that also an act of Patriotism? If not, why not? > > If Hillary Clinton comes to speak at Stanford and the local Republican Youth group blocks the access road so that she is unable to enter, is that an act of Patriotism and if not, why not? Good questions. I think we need to distinguish between civil disobedience against those in power and acts of terrorism against the common person. The pro-life protests at abortion clinics are designed to terrorize ordinary women considering a legal medical procedure. The Hillary question is a bit more complicated. She does not represent the government and therefore is not a legitimate target of civil disobedience. Some protesting at her events is appropriate, however to prevent her from speaking would amount to voter intimidation and interference with the electoral process. Bush is not running for office, so there is no electoral process to compromise. He represents the government. I’d say he is a legitimate target for civil disobedience. Let’s turn the question around. What is the essential difference between blocking a presidential motorcade and the non-violent civil disobedience practiced by King and Gandhi? I see more similarities than differences. You have an unresponsive government continuing to practice atrocities or allow them to happen. Conventional means of trying to get grievances addressed are ineffective. An episode like this isn’t out of line in my book. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/62 "2006-04-24T16:33:38Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Let’s turn the question around. What is the essential difference between blocking a presidential motorcade and the non-violent civil disobedience practiced by King and Gandhi? I see more similarities than differences. You have an unresponsive government continuing to practice atrocities or allow them to happen. Conventional means of trying to get grievances addressed are ineffective. An episode like this isn’t out of line in my book. But we don’t have “an unresponsive government”. We had an election and the other guy lost-- that’s an entirely differnt thing. The civil rights protesters were largely disenfranchized and truly had no legal means to affect political change. Ghandi’s protests were aimed at an occupying power. Also, that action targeting Bush was preventing him from going to a meeting. He wasn’t on his way to sign some heinous legislation or to perfrom any official act at all. These weren’t priotesters chaining themselves to the steps of the Capitol Building. Bush was acting in the capacity of a private citizen going to a meeting with non-governmental advisers. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/63 "2006-04-24T16:57:38Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But we don’t have “an unresponsive government”. We had an election and the other guy lost-- that’s an entirely differnt thing. The civil rights protesters were largely disenfranchized and truly had no legal means to affect political change. Ghandi’s protests were aimed at an occupying power. > > Also, that action targeting Bush was preventing him from going to a meeting. He wasn’t on his way to sign some heinous legislation or to perfrom any official act at all. These weren’t priotesters chaining themselves to the steps of the Capitol Building. Bush was acting in the capacity of a private citizen going to a meeting with non-governmental advisers. We’ll have to agree to disagree. I think a government that continues an occupation against the wishes of the majority of the people is unresponsive and that the leader of said government that has approval ratings in the 30s can’t be considered as being responsive to the people. We’ll have to disagree on the notion that Bush won the election as well, it’s my opinion that the outcomes in Florida and Ohio were frauds. So we have a stinker that we can’t get rid of for three more years (actually Wednesday at 1:00pm EDT makes precisely 1000 days for those who are counting). This stinker shows no signs of either recognizing that the war was a mistake or that its continuation is a mistake. If this was a parliamentary government, he’d be out on his keister. He boasts of not reading the news and is quite well known to equate disagreement with disloyalty and therefore is surrounded by yes men. What are the people to do? It seems to me that protesting his every move is the only way to get the message across. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/64 "2006-04-24T16:58:37Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > In that spirit, let me turn, albeit untimely, to the equivalence above made between abortion clinic blockaders and the (hypothetical) road blockers who turned out to be a figment of my (fevered) brain. > > The manifestation of popular indignation in the face of war crimes is not the same as an attempt to force upon an unwilling woman the consummation of an unwanted pregnancy. > > In the one case, there is no palpable harm to the aggrieved president, other than exposure to general disdain, and the necessity of mustering his cossacks to clear the way. > > He has within is grasp the immediate remedy to any infringement on his personal liberty. > > The woman kept from a legal medical procedure does not. Since we are already on a huge hijack, and an over all hate fest; I would like to point out that many of those who ‘block’ abortion clinic do indeed believe they are preventing murder. That seems to be a similiar position to those who believe that Bush is also responsible for murder, and thus blocking his path. Good for the Goose, good for the Gander; I say ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/65 "2006-04-24T19:08:23Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > We’ll have to agree to disagree. Yeah, we’re probably at that point. I just think there is a key difference between a disenfranchized group protesting for rights, or even a group which refuses to obey a specific unjust law, and group of protestors who want to disrupt the normal functioning of a legitimately elected government just to get its point across. > [@](#): > > I think a government that continues an occupation against the wishes of the majority of the people is unresponsive and that the leader of said government that has approval ratings in the 30s can’t be considered as being responsive to the people. Well, I can’t believe that you want the government to run on public opinion polls, but it’s simply untrue that a majority is in favor of pulling out all the troops immediately. The majority is now “against the war”, which isn’t the same thing. If you look at [these polls](http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm), the closest one that comes to addressing the “against the occupation” question asks: “Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq?” Only 28% responded that we should withdraw all troops now. > [@](#): > > We’ll have to disagree on the notion that Bush won the election as well, it’s my opinion that the outcomes in Florida and Ohio were frauds. Yes, we will have to disagree about that since one cannot reasonably make that conclusion on the evidence available. We’ve been over that many, many times on this board. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/66 "2006-04-24T19:24:46Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > Since we are already on a huge hijack, and an over all hate fest; I would like to point out that many of those who ‘block’ abortion clinic do indeed believe they are preventing murder. That seems to be a similiar position to those who believe that Bush is also responsible for murder, and thus blocking his path. > > Good for the Goose, good for the Gander; I say you are conflating utterly incompatible goals. In the clinic blockade the conduct of the woman seeking an abortion is the object of the pressure, and the desired outcome is to prevent her free action. in the case of the presidential motorcade there is no question that he has the power to enforce his freedom of action–the object is to force the confrontation and gain public view of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/67 "2006-04-24T19:30:55Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Free speech does not consist of prevent someone else from exercising his right to free speech. Agreed. However… > [@](#): > > Bush would have been completely within his rights to arrest every one of those blocking public roads. Um, how? A citizen’s arrest? I’m pretty sure a resident of D.C. is not a traffic cop in California. President of the USA he may be, but given a federal system, how much jurisdiction does he have? ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/68 "2006-04-24T19:33:40Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > you are conflating utterly incompatible goals. In the clinic blockade the conduct of the woman seeking an abortion is the object of the pressure, and the desired outcome is to prevent her free action. The goal as you see it, ‘they’ would argue that they are saving lives (the unborn fetus). I would also argue that ANY large protest (large enough to block a clinic surely) has the goal of attention (and a gain of public view). > [@](#): > > in the case of the presidential motorcade there is no question that he has the power to enforce his freedom of action–the object is to force the confrontation and gain public view of the issue. No question? I would say he has exactly the same options as a woman going to a clinic (call the police). I would also say ‘gaining public view’ was secondary to personal disgust (again could be the same for abortion clinic protestors). The only difference I see is one you agree with and one you don’t (though I believe those who block abortions would have the same issue). ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/69 "2006-04-24T19:39:53Z")
_(call the police_ wrong. he has the police with him. If every woman going to a clinic had a secret service entourage, your analogy would be apt. They do not. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/70 "2006-04-24T19:45:45Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > _(call the police_ > > wrong. he has the police with him. > > If every woman going to a clinic had a secret service entourage, your analogy would be apt. They do not. That would actually NOT be considered the police, however they are law enforcement. Unless you are saying that the woman can not get a police escort (which they can, and do); I don’t see how it makes any difference (beyond the object of protest). ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/71 "2006-04-24T19:52:40Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > That would actually NOT be considered the police, however they are law enforcement. > > Unless you are saying that the woman can not get a police escort (which they can, and do); I don’t see how it makes any difference (beyond the object of protest). I believe that the ability of every woman seeking access to a clinic to muster up a phalanx of officers equivalent to the secret service detail is very much in question… ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/72 "2006-04-24T19:55:16Z")
moreover, the status quo is the pres travels with a permanent detail. The status quo for the woman is she must initiate a request for an escort, with the attendant disincentives that flow from any interaction with authority, the obstacles that will inevitibly arise in the process, the delays attendant upon the delegation of resources, etc. it’s just different. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/73 "2006-04-24T19:58:33Z")
so then it is resources of the person involved? If \ who had 75 body guards wanted to get an abortion (or merely go to the clinic), then it would be ok? And IF the president DIDN’T have a detail, then this would NOT be ok? ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/74 "2006-04-24T20:12:31Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > so then it is resources of the person involved? If \ who had 75 body guards wanted to get an abortion (or merely go to the clinic), then it would be ok? > > And IF the president DIDN’T have a detail, then this would NOT be ok? but he does. The stanford protest was intended to force him to look the protest in the eye. Silent vigils on the route to a clinic are still permitted, as well. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/75 "2006-04-24T20:33:42Z")
**BobLibDem** : I think we got off track from the original question I had for you in response to your first post in this thread: > [@BLD](#): > > An act of patriotism, in my book. To further understand your definition of patritotism, would it be “an act of patriotism” for a pro-life group to block Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s vehicle or to try to prevent her from getting to the Supreme Court to exercise her duties? I see these similarities to the anti-Bush protesters: The pro-lifers considers RBG to a significant participant in the crafting of abortion law. In their minds, abortion is great evil-- the murder of thousands of innocent “unborn children”. Additionally, they have every reason to be entirely frustrated with the political process-- Republicans control all the branches of government, and yet _Roe v Wade_ remains on the books. Democrats continue to vote against SCOTUS nominees who will not promise to uphold that ruling, threatening to go so far as fiibustering to keeps potential anti-\*Roe \*justices off the court. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/76 "2006-04-24T20:39:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **BobLibDem** : I think we got off track from the original question I had for you in response to your first post in this thread: > To further understand your definition of patritotism, would it be “an act of patriotism” for a pro-life group to block Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s vehicle or to try to prevent her from getting to the Supreme Court to exercise her duties? > > I see these similarities to the anti-Bush protesters: The pro-lifers considers RBG to a significant participant in the crafting of abortion law. In their minds, abortion is great evil-- the murder of thousands of innocent “unborn children”. Additionally, they have every reason to be entirely frustrated with the political process-- Republicans control all the branches of government, and yet _Roe v Wade_ remains on the books. Democrats continue to vote against SCOTUS nominees who will not promise to uphold that ruling, threatening to go so far as fiibustering to keeps potential anti-\*Roe \*justices off the court. You are certainly much closer here to the appropriate analogy, and, frankly, (since there is no real risk that RBG would be prevented from voting on a case, just as there is no real risk tha G-dub’s forward progress would be impeded irrevocably), I can’t see how we might object ethically, presuming the wilingness, per tommndebb’s remark above, to be arrested for lying down in front of her parking space, etc. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/77 "2006-04-24T20:53:19Z")
I would like to add one caveat to the abortion analogy, given the latest broadcast from TV 'Sama (all jihad, all the time…). Barring fire and brimstone, no one is going to vaporize me for not intervening in the abortion process which has been endorsed by our society and its laws. per contra, I am liable as a citizen of a democracy for the conduct of my government, which exposes me (however unjustly, and, indeed, inappropriately, given my personal politics) to be in the way of a terrorist reaction to those policies. This gives a somewhat more personal energy to the protests at Stanford. (if only to alert 'sama that this is not Texas…) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/78 "2006-04-24T21:11:50Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > The woman kept from a legal medical procedure does not. What, she can’t call the cops? Since when? ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/79 "2006-04-24T21:24:37Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > What, she can’t call the cops? Since when? the key word: “call” see above discussion:the president has the cops with him. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831/80 "2006-04-24T21:39:22Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > the key word: “call” > > see above discussion:the president has the cops with him. On not sure how the immidiacy of the police’s presence makes any difference, unless you mean to imply that the police would not come, that the woman’s condition was such that the delay for the police’s arrival would be problematic, or that the protesters would somehow prevent her from contacting them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bay-area-to-bush-welcome-to-dinner-now-please-choke-on-it/353831.md?page=5)