Signing petitions is useless-- IMO.

To whom are we petitioning? The Republicans couldn't give a rats ass about anything we have to say. And the Democrats don't have the power to pick up on a petition and make any use of it.

Perhaps I've become the most paranoid tin-hat in the world, but we know that the thugs running this country are monitoring democratic websites. And I for one have no doubt that they have "enemies lists" that makes Nixon's original such list look benign. And I also believe that signing anti-Bush petitions is not only useless, but puts you on their "list." (And no, DU is not giving them your name. But you're not as anonymous on-line as you think you are.)

So the big question is, "What's the alternative?"

In the short term, I don't have a definitive answer. In the long term, we've got to get these fascists out of power. But I don't even have the answer to how we do that. (And yes, I know that posts like this put me on their "enemies list.") But one way or another, we've got to defeat these thugs while we still have some semblance of freedom.

Has an online petition ever made ANY sort of difference?

Organize at the grassroots. Get off the internet and go to a meeting in your area. Become a precinct chair. Network with your neighbors, churchgoers, and other non-democrats.... in other words, don't just preach to the choir.

All that good jazz. :D

edited to add, I sorta kinda agree with you about the petitions. I think they are most effective if a group sponsors them for a specific purpose and then the group takes all the sigs to a meeting, etcetera.

Boxer just sent out an email that noted she had 700,000 signatures on her Condi petition. Some petitions do matter. I think we should keep signing and not let fear of some unknown list stop us. F'em! If they want your info, they can and will obtain it whether or not you have signed some petition.

What I am saying is that, with few exceptions, petitions in today's dictatorial environment aren't all that useful.

On edit: Do you really believe that Boxer's petition with 700,000 signatures is going to make a difference? Condi will be confirmed and our foreign policy will be a disater for another four years.

Many petitions are futile, but I do think that in some cases, such as Boxer's Condi petition, they can have some impact. If she mentions how many signed her petition on the Senate floor, it will get noticed and it is "our voice" in a small way. And no, of course, it wont STOP the Condi nomination, that would take more Dems in Congress.

To get our reps to fight for us is a 'win' in and of itself.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=80370&ran=43780

I mean, when I see petitions, I wonder if they really accomplish much.

IProbably no one important ever sees it, or they just laugh it off.

was the one that demanded that Gray Davis be recalled.

Sometimes a petition that is demanding the Democrats fight some Republican maneuver could do some good by letting Dems in Congress know that people are paying attention, but petitioning Republicans to stop acting like Republicans is pretty much a waste of time.

It helps her. When any of our leaders can show they have grassroot support, it helps them with whatever cause they fight for, and that helps us. Was 70,000 signatures enough? Should we fight to make sure Boxer gets more next time? Or do we stop signing them, and figure they're useless. I would tend to do the former. Can't hurt, might help. Like chicken soup for democracy's soul.

The petition itself is nothing. But in the hands of the right leader, it can be a tool for positive change.

I'd love to know how many signatures Kerry got for his children's bill. I didn't see a thing about that on CSPAN today. Did anyone? I know he submitted it today.

Representitives that can use them in support of an issue.

if you can do tabling in a public space and use that to draw attention to the issue then i think it can have value. historically only direct action has been effective. i am afraid voting, petitioning, letters to the editor etc. are illusions of participatory democracy. you are given the impression you have an iota of power when in fact nada. i vote knowing it is the least important action necessary even if it wasn't rigged which it is. the whole show is a charade.

out the courage to do it knowing they have the support. maybe it doesnt have much to do with the other side, maybe it has more to do with getting message out

I think it let the democrats and republicans know we are watching and listening. I for one have never been this involved in politics before.

They are a lot more approachable than you might think and willing to hear from you.

Boxer's is one, I think. The other one is the one Harry Reid sent out today -- he and the Senate Democrats put together a great 10-point legislative agenda. It includes election reform and a bunch of politically-savvy proposals that I'm hoping will tie the Republicans up in knots. If you didn't see it, here's the link.

http://democrats.senate.gov/cosponsor-form.html

(Click on the underlined sentence on the bottom left of the linked text and that will provide more details about the plan)

"So the big question is, "What's the alternative?"

What's the alternative? Well after being a very active member of the I.L.W.U. union for 10yrs now, this is sort of my department of specialty. :)

The key word here is "Solidarity" - There needs to be a point of "critical mass" before your movement is unstoppable. In our case I firmly believe that both an economic and physical revolt will bring about the change we desire. At this point, I firmly believe that nothing else but a 60's style open and on going mass revolt will affect the kinds of changes we know our county needs.

--But--

Let me reiterate that there needs to be a point where critical mass is reached and exceeded. At that point, the only way for them (the government/money powers) can stop it; is by giving what the people want. Which in our case is the long struggle of "Equality" - "Fair Wages" - "Safe Working Conditions" - "Honest Freedom" - "Honest Justice" - "Government Servile To The People, Not To Money Interests" - etc, etc.

This is a concept that you can even hear Mark Twain referring to. Here's a Mark Twain passage from his note book:


"A Patriot is merely a rebel at the start."

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been."

"In any civic crisis of a great and dangerous sort the common herd is not privately anxious about the rights and wrongs of the matter, it is only anxious to be on the winning side."

"In the North, before the war, the man who opposed slavery was despised and ostracised, and insulted. By the "patriots." Then, by and by, the "patriots" went over to his side, and thenceforth his attitude became patriotism."

"There are two kinds of patriotism -- monarchical patriotism and republican patriotism. In the one case the government and the king may rightfully furnish you their notions of patriotism; in the other, neither the government nor the entire nation is privileged to dictate to any individual what the form of his patriotism shall be. The gospel of the monarchical patriotism is: "The King can do no wrong." We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: "Our country, right or wrong!" We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had:-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism." ~ Mark Twain.



What we need to do >>> http://members.cox.net/ducati996sp/Revolt.WMV ((1meg video))

If Kerry or Boxer come forward with proposal and can point to hundreds of thousands of people who took the trouble to sign a petition in support, they are not speaking as a lone voice.