h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ah yes, sorry, I just quoted 'a million' because that was what was written above. It was just a meaningless figure, like I would have said 'loads of'.

I love Greta Christina's blog.

"Out of context, yes. But, as Jack pointed out, when compared to the total population of *300-million*, one million really doesn't seem like very much, since they'd be outnumbered 300 to 1. Because of that I choose to stick with percentages, since it's much easier to place a number in its proper context by using percentages rather than the inherent size of the number. Therefore, considering that we're talking about less than 1/2 of 1%, I am frankly not impressed."

But that makes an incorrect assumption which is that all those who didn't turn-up to protest didn't feel the same way. Out of people who feel strongly about something, only a certain percentage are going to travel across the country and protest about it; there'll be plenty more at home.

Remember the million man march from some years ago now? That was only a small percentage of the african-american male population but it was *representative* of much more and a million people (or whatever the actual number was, we can assume it was pretty high) marching on Washington then was *rightly* seen as politically significant.

Additionally, let's apply this logic across the board to demonstrate how wrong it is.

Take the Iraq War protests in the UK; let's assume that the highest nunber estimated was correct (even though it probably wasn't): three million protesters. The population of the UK in 60 million, therefore the protesters made-up a measly 5% of the total UK population and therefore, by much of the logic being thrown around here, the protests were insignificant against the 95% who *weren't* there to protest.

Except they weren't, this was the largest political protest in the UK since the Poll Tax demonstrations.

But only 5% of the population.

>The closest thing to an official estimate says 70,000.

What official estimate? Earlier you said event organisers estimated between 70,000 and 800,000 demonstrators (presumably we can ignore Glenn Beck's "estimate") so where did the 70,000 come from? The only "official" estimates I can think of would come from the police who are generally regarded as having a tendency to minimise protest crowd numbers.

Even if it was 70,000 I'd dispute that as "insignificant"; smaller than those at Obama's inauguration: certainly; not comparable with some of the largest protests in US history: certainly; insignificant: no.

You rebutted you own argument.

"it was *representative* of much more".


Also. The US has a black population of 13%. As such the million man march pulled between 1% and 2% of the black population.

The Teabaggers needed 40 to 80 times as many people to match those percentages.

>>>>>> Remember the million man march from some years ago now?

Yes and I think many people, including people outside the US, do. Not so many, IMO, remember EXACTLY what those black many were saying.... just that there were a million of them.

The *million* figure stood out. Which is why I should think anybody marching, about anything, would like to achieve/pretend the million mark..... just to ensure the kind of media focus obtained with the Million Men march.

A million people is always impressive no matter what the percentage of the population. In one place it's a heck of a lot of people and probably an absolute drag. Little demos, here, there and everywhere could together achieve the same numbers but not the same impact. (Plus it's easier to get the international TV cameras to a single place.)

What they were after is 'attention'... this thread proved they got it in some respects, merely because of that 'million' claim.

>You rebutted you own argument.
>
>"it was *representative* of much more".

In what way? I was arguing that the protests were *representative* of a much higher number of people than those who actually showed-up; protests usually are (see my comments about the Iraq war protests).

>Also. The US has a black population of 13%. As such the million man march pulled between 1% and 2% of the black population.

Did it? It was called the million man march but it probably wasn't a million men (you've already argued against these assumptions, remember?) so it was probably less of the black population than you claim. I still argue it was probably highly representative, despite being a small percentage of the africa-american population (which would make it irrelevant according to some posters here).

"Yes and I think many people, including people outside the US, do. Not so many, IMO, remember EXACTLY what those black many were saying.... just that there were a million of them.

The *million* figure stood out. Which is why I should think anybody marching, about anything, would like to achieve/pretend the million mark..... just to ensure the kind of media focus obtained with the Million Men march."

This is kind-of what I'm getting at. I doubt a million men showed-up to the "million man march" but its political impact was significant and not just in the US but worldwide; it send a definite message to Washington.

That's why I think it's foolish to dismiss these anti-Obama protests; if they were "insignificant" we wouldn't be hearing about them so much. Thanks to the American right (and far-right)'s stance on Obama's healthcare reforms there's a lot of disinformation and outright nonsense being thrown about and it could well be convincing a lot more people than anyone realises.

Americans shouldn't react to protests like these by dismissing them with wishful thinking about it being every single opponent of Obama's healthcare reforms all in one place. They should treat it like what it is: a fight they need to get involved with and win.

Zagreb - "What official estimate?"

I did not say there was an official estimate. I stated "closest thing to an official estimate". Which was by the DCFD.

"Earlier you said event organisers estimated between 70,000"

They had based on those who had registered for the protest (less than 40,000) and those they expected join unregistered.

>Even if it was 70,000 I'd dispute that as "insignificant"


I didn't claim that the event was "insignificant". I observed that the numbers are low and are made up people who extremist views that are not representative of conservative America let alone America as a whole.
I affirmed that the event was not insignificant.
But chose rebut your affirming that the event was positively "significant" which supported only by offering unsound numbers.
And asked you offer illuminated in what sense you regarded it as "significant".

Since you've changed your position I have no argument with you.

"Did it? It was called the million man march but it probably wasn't a million men (you've already argued against these assumptions, remember?) so it was probably less of the black population than you claim."

No. It was within those parameters. Do the math yourself based on the estimates of attendance at the million man march. Which indeed did not achieve the hoped for million.

>But chose rebut your affirming that the event was positively "significant" which supported only by offering unsound numbers.

I didn't offer any specific numbers, I said the estimate was between 70,000 and 800,000. You've not explained exactly why these are unsound other than that the DCFD (the fire department I assume) gave a smaller estimate. For my thoughts on that, see my comments about police estimates.

And I still maintain that this protest cannot be shrugged off as you are doing (although fair enough you didn't say it was insignificant); the reasons for this are in post 49.

" I observed that the numbers are low and are made up people who extremist views that are not representative of conservative America let alone America as a whole"

You observed? You not only don't know the actual numbers but you have *no way* of knowing what the various people on the protest thought beyond a few soundbites a photographs in the media; what you actually have is an assumption. Whilst I don't dispute there were a lot of the lunatic fringe on the protest (the banners said it all) the idea that others opposed to Obama's healthcare plans without such extreme views wouldn't have been on the protest is taking a bit of a leap of faith. To go back to the Iraq War protests, many of those who organised and participated were on the far-left fringe but a large number (according to those who were there) weren't. Protests have their organisers, banner-wavers and leaders who tend to be the ones who make the papers and the television but it's foolish to assume that they're completely representative of the protests themselves.

Currently, most Americans support Obama's healthcare reform plans but a large majority do not. Opposition to Obama's healthcare reform is not some fringe movement inspired by Fox News; it's a large percentage of the American population many of whom need to be won-over.

Here's something else to consider:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/05/cnn-poll-americans-split-on-obamas-health-care-proposals/

That's from a month and a half ago and suggests support for Obama's heathcare reforms at 50% with opposition at 45%.

There's also this from a month or so earlier

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/21/nation/na-obama-health-poll21

Now, that's a couple of months old now but it suggests support for Obama's healthcare plan shrunk slightly over a period of months.

This is something the American left is going to have to fight for; this is why protests in Washington cannot and should not be dismissed *they are representative of something far far bigger*. Opposition to US healthcare reform is not a small, shrill minority of hicks with "OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST" placards, it's nearly half the country and has the potential to become the majority if it's not taken seriously.

>What they were after is 'attention'... this thread proved they got it in some respects, merely because of that 'million' claim.

That's certainly a large part of the reason for it (the reason for any protest, in fact).

However, at the risk of repeating myself yet again , I think it's important to understand what these protests represent. There's a groundswell of active rightwing opposition to Obama and even on issues where it was assumed the American public would support him wholeheartedly (ie healthcare reform) they're wavering to the extent that that majority support could be overturned. The "Tea Party" protests are about Obama's supposed government expenditure and his healthcare plan is symbolic of what these people are attacking. There's certainly a small rightwing minority who shout loudest but the number of people who take the side they do on certain issues is much higher.

After Obama's landslide victory and the Democrats dominating the legislature there was always going to be a strong rightwing fightback and that's what's happening, that's why the US is seeing these protests (and you can expect more in future).

Point taken. Though I wish to reemphasize that I was not dismissing anybody.

>>..comparing a difficult healthcare reform to genocide
is obviously so idiotic..<<

You must have friends in the medical profession.

Doctors don't want you to know how literally 'vital'
is their place in our modern society. They represent
(almost literally) the nervous system in the body of
humankind. At least in western civilisation; other
places have their own 'shamen' or medico civil services.

Take away medical services and access to prescription
drugs and society would collapse in a very few days.

Happily, only the great and mighty Hippocrates has sway
over the lot as a functioning group. And as he's easily
the kindest of the neo gods we likely need not worry.

Just saying, if he had half a mind to, he could.


~jwf~