"I don't happen to agree with the dictionary's definition of 'vigorous, sometimes agressive action.'"

I don't happen to agree with the law of gravity. Alas, I still cannot fly.

Also, if we're both allowed to make small changes to the accepted definitions of words in order to make them match up more perfectly with what we *think* they should mean, then I call dibs on feminism. You can amend "activism" to include "taking the day off work to smoke pot and masturbate" and I'll amend "feminism" to include "deliberately seeking out evidence of oppression where it doesn't exist." I bet we'll suddenly end up with way more self-proclaimed activists, and way less self-proclaimed feminists. Hurray!

Anyway, the major problem with the proposed protest (in addition to the fact that it doesn't meet the qualifications of being "activist") is that A) it is largely invisible (the absence of a percentage of the work force is unlikely to even register... and if it does, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will associate it with a protest); and B) in those cases where it *is* visible, it isn't convincing.

I mean, what a powerful, powerful message: "I despise the republicans so much... that I'm willing to take a vacation day." Way to go, Chuckles. Hey, as long as you're willing to make such big sacrifices, why don't you go ahead and eat a bowl of ice cream in protest as well? That'll show 'em how strongly you feel about this.

Furthermore, drawing a comparison between this protest and work strikes, hunger strikes and sit-ins demonstrates, at best, an almost total misunderstanding of what each of these situations involves... and, at worst, a willingness to engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty.¹ Work strikes, hunger strikes and sit-ins are peaceful, not passive.

My dad was union steward at Gillette company for many years... let me assure you that a labor strike involves substantially more effort than taking the day off work. You've got to, you know, picket and march and stuff.