so what are these protests going to accomplish?

And at least here in Portland, the news covered nothing but the protests, with no commercial breaks, from 5 to 8pm. So, mission accomplished.

This communications major is wrapping up thirteen hours of work helping my station broadcast the news of the day. I'm going to a candlelight vigil tonight so I can finally, as a human, work through all the emotion I've had to fight back today while processing information.

No footage of the antiwar protest at the federal courthouse building or even a number given.

i had on CNN earlier, but i missed any protest footage. that might have just been my negligence though, as i was listening to the radio and reading.

Suppoesdly 20,000 turned out in Times Square in New York, but that number seems massively high?

http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentintid=28732

There is little doubt in my mind that the application of massive brutal force, coupled with psychological pressure will allow the invasion army to overcome all armed opposition they meet. In the minds of many Americans (and British) the relief of a swift 'victory' will soon wash away the stain of having invaded another country on few, flimsy and mostly false pretenses. The challenge for those who see danger in the future from the precedents set here is to stubbornly insist on revisiting Bush's and Blair's pretexts and comparing them to the facts.

The fact that Iraq has not used its presumed WMD in defense of its homeland is pretty suggestive to me that their weapons programs were nowhere near as far advanced as we have been told. The connections to terrorism were never proved in even the most superficial way, merely asserted over and over.

Once Iraq is under our control, look for our propaganda to change the subject and to concentrate on Saddam's undoubted brutality in oppressing domestic dissent with brutal violence. Of course, don't expect to hear the same about Mubarak any time soon. I don't expect to hear much more about WMD or terror networks a month or three from today.

maybe they can have some effect. but people should keep in mind the downside.

Erm, well usually the point is to get a point of view to be expressed in the media. If the media have been acting all gung-ho about the war (and I don't watch tv news, so I can't say how they've been treating this) and acting as if no Americans are appalled at the thought of war, then this is an excellent way to let people know that, in fact, there are a lot of people quite pissed off.

tv news status: nw cable news having a steady stream of on-the-air callers - from the sampling i heard, maybe 90% against protesters??

i think all the reasons given for protesting are valid and admirable. i question that this is the best time

Those who engage in civil disobedience are not likely to change anyone's opinion; however, if such actions persist for the length (or perhaps beyond) of the war, their economic impact will be notable. The power structures of the world care only slightly about public opinion, if at all. Activists have appealed to the minds and hearts of the leaders, but to no avail. Now, many activists are targeting their pocketbooks.

The city cannot afford this. Children can no longer be guaranteed an education, as many schools have closed their doors; criminals can no longer be guaranteed prosecution, as there is not enough money to pay court-appointed lawyers to represent those who cannot pay for their own defense; the mentally ill have been turned out onto the street as clinics have shut down; unemployment among the youth is as high as it has ever been. Portland struggles to provide basic services. There is no more money.

When the city cannot pay, it turns to the state. Oregon is having severe economic problems at the moment, so Portland will not be reimbursed by the state. Therefore, Portland will have to turn to the federal government (in part through the Dept. of Homeland Security) to pay for the police power, for the graffiti removal staff, for overtime of the garbage collectors, for the lost business, etc.

Whether it is thoughtful and engaging or violent "fucking shit up," direct action is having an impact, however small, on the coffers of the nation. The war costs alone are going to require the administration to take back billions from the tax cuts. This almost exclusively hurts the rich (the primary beneficiaries of the tax cuts). Social programs have been widdled down to almost-nothing so unless they break up social security, the administration is going to have to run a massive deficit to pay for homeland security. Sustained civil disobedience will make this task just that much more difficult.

One might hope that protests in the U.S./U.K. will distinguish 'the people' from 'the leaders' in terms of culpability for this war, convincing the enemies it creates/inflames to restrict acts of terrorism/retaliation to military or at least symbolic targets, instead of large civilian centers.

While active, I am also somewhat cynical. I think it is only a matter of time before activism (still called "patriotic" by Bush) will be equated with and prosecuted as "terrorism," if it continues to disrupt commerce.

Of course, some of those people ended up in favor of the war as a result of the protests; that's the problem with a lot of protest rhetoric, it polarizes.

It's been a long, long time since protests have had the same effect on the public and on public opinion that the Vietnam-era ones had. The novelty wore off decades ago.

And that the war is ongoing. That was all I was saying. Ron seemed to be implying that because the war is now underway protest is inappropriate because it antagonises people.

yes, if this 'war on terrorism' continues and bush goes on to invade Iran and so on then this could happen and it would become a civil liberties problem for sure.

i think vietnam comparison is a bit of a stretch and accuse you of trying to push buttons

england is an interesting situation, but i still think protest there is a good thing, because the public opinion is so strongly against

Quick, which cost more money that could have been used for better purposes: the protests that night or the war that night?

n, really? please explain

Number of pro-war counter-protesters I saw along the route: 8

If they come out well enough, I'll post some of the pics I took today. Can someone please tell me how wearing a shocking-colored frightwig and sporting a missile-as-exaggerated-phallus strap-on does anything other than undermine the credibility of the cause? By adhering to cartoony stereotypes and brandishing the clichés like shiny badges, all you're really doing is helping reduce the anti-war movement to an easily marginalized, easily ridiculed demographic that prompts more chuckles than serious credence. How do you expect people to take you seriously? Here are some clues: DON'T sing an impromptu a cappella rendition of John Lennon's "Imagine", DON'T wear tye pajamas to the demonstration, LEAVE the hippy trappings of the 60's at home and DON'T resort to lame sloganeering!

As far as all the protest technique-critique, I'm not sure if you're expecting a unified intellectual response or what; not everyone against the war is media-savvy. The left seems so terrified of the right's ability to tear apart their media image.

mass arrests in washington sq park, check out nyc.indymedia.org

re : LESBIANS FOR A FREE PALESTINE => During the Irish Famine in the 1840s, aid (food and blankets) was sent by a Native American tribe => I like these apparently curious and unlikely reach-outs, bcz what they say (against all established stereotypes) is "Humanity is of a kind"

Maybe protesting will accomplish nothing, but it feels better than *doing* nothing.

I can't believe that people are being *arrested* for protesting in the States. That idea frightens me almost more than the war does. Who will liberate the American people from their illigitimate dictators?

This particular conflict is comprised and rooted in many unfortunate things.....but is it racist?

eventually (after an unbelievable list of poorly rhymed and rhythmed bosh shots), he hit on "blair bush cia — how many kids did you kill today"

the second he shouted this, a little group of muslim schoolgirls started yelling it over and over: they had stayed shut up during all the useless tries, like his very own senior steering group

it was komikal not least bcz of the implicit criticism in their earlier silence (as in *TRY OTHER CHANTS PLZ!*)

--

Alex in NYC: I would say yes absolutely this war is racist: Israel's guilty of far more terroristic activity than Iraq but we won't be bombing them any time soon

ie lbj, the architect of civil rights (= therefore the us president of greatest moral achievement since WW2), but also probably the most ruthless, wily, machiavellian and amoral operator in US politics, resigned rather than pursue a second term of being called "babykiller"

in the recent bbc2 doc on the war in kosovo, blair is quoted, astonishingly unguardedly, as admitting how frantic the war leaders were that the tactics they adopted didn't play into the protestors' hands (and the protests were small compared to the current ones)

(this is a good example of the unfairness of politics of course: that giving ppl in power the nbenefit of the doubt allows them huge leeway to let you down)

if you announce "i promise to do so-and-so", then it's maybe less the ppl who say "i totally believe you and approve" who keep you honest, than the ppl who say "i totally don't believe you, you fraud" (even if you pretty much know that some of them will NEVBER believe you, even if you KEEP yr promise)

< / crooked timber of humanity yadda yadda >

Yes, the Palestinians are, technically, a different race than the settling Israelis, but is that the primary source of the friction? I doubt it. I think it has more to do with perceptions of who has the right to occupy the plot of land in question -- and the inherent mistreatment of the opposing side, not simply the fact that their skin colors happen to differ. I think it's idealogy (and the subsequent enforcement thereof) that is driving these camps apart.

This weekend may be the lowest ebb of the anti war movement, already some of my fears about the war are being confirmed, not only are iraqis being killed but british and american troops are being killed and captured. Its not a walkover like last time. Its too early to say if the pentagon has got its tactics wrong.

I will not gloat and say I told you so, I take no pleasure in anyone's death, this war didn't have to happen.

mostly by each other, it seems

(i've been repeatedly flummoxed by the opinion here that canadian protests aren't directed at our own gov't since we've already opted out - but if they serve as nothing more than gigantic chanting post-it reminders to the pm's office they've accomplished a great deal as far as i'm concerned)

If only that were still true. A group of army troops has been captured. Al-Jazeera has been playing tapes of the dead and interviews with the living. I couldn't watch those for very long.

http://www.webcamsue.demon.nl/

has a link to the Al-Jeezra news feed

cheers for the link, watching news in a language I don't understand is an odd experience...

Ed, perspective! I realize it's hard given your emotions and I apologize for the blunt talk I'm about to say, but here are the differences:

1) The invasion was not preceded by a month-long bombardment on the Iraqi front lines, but was designed to go in and get moving quickly towards Baghdad. This assumed there would be a greater risk but that a combination of superior firepower and ability, psychological edge and more would be enough to see the job done. Given this particular strategy:

2) By any standard except that which assumed that there would be absolutely NO fighting on the part of the Iraqis -- and only hyperclueless pundits would have said that -- and that the Pentagon was designing its strategy so that there would be NO American deaths, wounded and captured at all -- an absolute lovely dream but utterly and totally unrealistic when it comes to any such planning, though the goal to minimize such death and loss as much as possible -- what's happening is so far from the invaders' point of view an astonishing success given that there are thousands upon thousands of US/Allied troops on the ground throughout Iraq and at present utterly miniscule losses in comparison to their overall numbers. Airfields and strategic sites have been secured rather than turned into static warzones, forward motion is still happening. Situations like that diehard bunch in Umm Qasr are not Stalingrad; they have not halted the strategy and you are not yet seeing a morass where thousands of American troops are dying by inches. Let's hope we don't see that at all and I won't be at any sort of ease until this is over (and then long after that).

Yes, every loss is a human now dead. Yes, I think this whole war is shit. BUT AT PRESENT THIS IS NOT A US MILITARY DISASTER. An entire Iraqi division quickly surrended or dissolved -- as opposed to mown into ribbons -- is if anything something to take heart from, unless you were assuming that the US military was solely interested in butchering people.

'Not a walkover' -- Ed, wake up. So far, the walkover is happening. Troops were killed last time too and so far the official numbers in this battle concerning US troops and its allies are less than that (Iraqi troop deaths are going to be another sickening matter). It will change but you are kidding yourself if you are thinking this is anything other than to be expected, and if you think that a very very VERY small amount of deaths in the US forces and four captured soldiers has the Pentagon thinking, "Oops, we goofed," you are living in a dream. Your ultimate nightmare scenario has not come true yet and you should instead concentrate on hoping that it won't happen instead of thinking it HAS happened.

Again, I am sorry to be so blunt. Philosophically I agree with you one hundred percent on the needlessness of fighting in general; I hope I have made it clear enough times I think the overarching BushCo strategy here w/r/t terrorism and international relations is a miserable failure, and I've worried myself to sleep about it enough times now. But you must take more into account than you are doing about the fighting at present -- if you're that worried sick right now about the comparatively minor problems from the US strategic point of view in this advance, the potential Baghdad street-by-street horrorshow is going to leave you a paralyzed mess. Are you ready for that possibility?

i've heard several times that there's a push to 1) upgrade iraq's oil-producing capacity to pre-90s levels and 2) use the money from the wells to pay for recenstructing iraq

this seems all dandy except then i thought, well, if this DIDN'T happen, who'd be paying for the reconstruction? the US and a few allies, right? it's robbing peter to pay yourself back. the flipside of your coin mark is that protestors' loud criticisms demand more sophisticated justification from their opponents, sharper strategy, "oh we actually have to LAUNDER this money"

if a just world were unexpectedly to come about some time soon, the group of govts which pushed 12 years of anti-saddam sanctions through the UN after Gulf War One will come together to pay the non-saddamite iraqi population massive reparation for the resultant loss of life

Yes, the Native Americans are, technically, a different race than the settling Anglos, but is that the primary source of the friction? I doubt it. I think it
has more to do with perceptions of who has the right to occupy the plot of land in question -- and the inherent mistreatment of the opposing
side, not simply the fact that their skin colors happen to differ. I think it's idealogy (and the subsequent enforcement thereof) that is driving these camps apart.
-- G. Custer, 1875

Number of people in the march today in NYC: 100,000 - 200,000
Number of pro-war counter-protesters I saw along the route: 8

*sigh* Yes, because the "pro-peace" side has gotten violent at every single march so far. This is why I have nothing to do with protests and think they're a waste of everyone's goddamned time. Even see upthread, pro-peace people leaving the march early cos they knew it'd get "ugly". I wouldn't go either if I was the opposing side.

A "better" example would probably be the Chicago demonstration the same day, they were guaranteed a police barricade so equitable amounts of protestors showed up, shouted each other down from opposing sides of the barricades, and that was that. As opposed to the goddamned freeforall running down NYC streets I fucking witnessed.

It pisses me off because shit like this is what helps make people support the war. I got two emails from relatives last night checking to make sure I wasn't "downtown with those fucking moron college kids". Nice, well done guys, etc.

Alex's tips: OTM. Too bad no one listens to them.

I'm trying to keep things in proportion, but I was trying to emphasise my point about this being the lowest ebb of the peace movement. The pentagon is far from being thrown off course.

Um. I mean, you get 1000 people protesting and a dozen of them get violent: This does not mean that protesters are violent people. Of course the media cover the 12 protests to the exclusion of the 988 peaceful ones because it makes better copy; and of course there are those who would argue that it's in the government's best interest to ensure that the protests get violent (and are thus discredited by the general public) and this is why the police incite protesters to the very violence they are are allegedly trying to prevent.

Here in Portland the protests did not get violent (there was some small property damage and some grafitti, but nothing that could really be called violent) but even the more empathetic news stations were reporting as if the protesters wouldn't be satisfied unless there was some violence; clearly though it was the news that was waiting with baited breath for a big story to break out.

I think it's pretty glib to expect 200,000 people to all present the exact same front, or for none of them to say something you disagree with. It's very easy to look out your window and pick out silly statements. Personally, I am very ambivalent about the war--not so much against taking out Saddam as depressed by the way the diplomatic process was handled and mistrustful of the intentions of Bush and co--but you can't really have a march that's that nuanced, can you? The whole point of it is that a lot of different people come together from different points on the spectrum, united around the fact that something isn't right here. It wasn't just hippies--I saw young and old people, different races, dressed different ways. Plenty of hipsters representing the designer handbag contingent, believe me. If you let the kind of people who mutter things about college kids deter you, then you're not going to get very far.

Re Custer: Anti-semitism runs rampant across the Middle East, and of course it's the Jews who are racist. Of course.

Alex, no (but I don't know): I'm just saying that the U.S. is virulently pro-Israel partly because Israelis "count" as white people. This is a more complicated thought than that reduction makes it sound: what I mean involves religion, cultural referents, the history of continental Europe etc., but yeah. I think Iraq is full of people whom our leader think of as "them."

Didn't stop the police from calling everyone "violent anarchists".

and re: israel & racism my analogy holds pretty well i think -- the logic of the situation propels people to racism even if that wasn't the initial impulse. & you wanna talk about racism in israel? talk about the treatment of the less-white jews themselves.

There are rational and articulate people on all sides of this, including those who are pro-war, and it'd be silly to think otherwise.

It's not a "rationale," it's a reaction. Are you suggesting that because I am motivated to comment on some of the more ludicrous aspects of the protests (a bunch of guys in big silly shoes and full make-up carrying a banner that says:"Clowns For Peace," for example) that I'm suddenly "pro-war"? I'm merely lamenting the the fact that these people who undoubtedly have very firmly held convictions on the matter are undermining their own cause by appearing laughable and easily written off.

If you think I'm "pro-war," however, you can go ram it up your sphincter. Some good friends and colleagues of mine are in harm's way right now. In the very early hours of Saturday morning, I had to call the wife of one of our correspondents to re-assure her that it wasn't, in fact, her husband that had been killed (despite reports to the contrary) and that he was indeed still alive, though very shaken up. I only take solace in the fact that I was bestowing good news. If you think I'm in approval of this fucking vast catastrophic chapter of American history, you are sorely mistaken.

Oh, and fuck you, Sterling.

Saying this, I'm aware that some people will be happy just to be seen as "not approving of what's going on" that they won't mind the finer points of their personal opinions being blurred. And that's fine. I understand your P.O.V. hstencil, but understand that the more idiotic elements of a protest can alienate people who don't want to be identified with mindless antiauthoritarianism.

Though I wonder if people who dress up in frightwigs et al. actually do stuff that, while not allowing for public disruption, allow you more control over the ouctome like voting or contributing to e-mail campaigns on specific issues. Much of my dislike of protests is that their social element and vagueness allows for people to ignore the complexities and just let their freak flag fly.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with letting people fly their "freak flag," either, even if I find it distasteful or boring. It's guaranteed by the Constitution, after all!

The one thing I dislike is this "shallow analysis" knee-jerk intellectualism. Okay most people should know more about the world but protesting is just as democratic if not more than voting and nobody's like "voting is worthless coz the rabble don't know enough" or rather people were like this and it was why they didn't want to give the franchise to women, black people, landless, etc.

Sterling, I'm simply saying voting allows you to make a more specific statement with your presence than a protest does and with stronger ramifications, therefore if you're trying to change things, it would follow that voting would be important to a protestor (which I've got, from personal experience, good reason to think it isn't for a certain portion). I don't know what you mean by it being "just as democratic".

I WAS at the fuckin' rally....hell, I couldn't escape it (I live on 9th Street & University Place). I also have two rolls of film to support it (coming soon).

I don't follow. Voting = democrat or republican, each "big tent" with issue after issue and some they both agree on. Protest = one specific issue.

I can't imagine a world without protests. That's just giving in too much. Someone has to carry the torch for dissent. Even if it has no effect at least it's a visible sign that someone still believes in checks and balances.

And Amateurist, there's plenty you can do. Contact the politicans who represent you and let them know that what you do and do not support, either through mass e-mail petitions or just send a letter yourself. If you hear about some news that isn't getting attention, share it with others. Inform people one-on-one so that they'll use that knowledge when they vote in the next election. There's plenty of ways to voice dissent without screaming in the middle of the street.

Just to have it on record, if I thought screaming in the middle of the street would help in a specific situation, I'd be happy to. I'm just not sure this time.

Not saying Alex can't criticize, but it would mean more if he'd actually gotten out there and been one of the masses to be counted!

Well, I was indeed there as a warm body and sentient being who is opposed to the war, but I was there more as an observer of the march. I'm of the mindset that marches of this kind don't really do a rolling rat fuck bit of difference, especially when punctuated by displays of silliness ("clowns for peace," "Lesbians for a Free Palestine" etc.) I think those who are in the seats of control don't really give a damn how many people showed up at the rallies either, as they'll simply pay attention to the polls (which, bizarrely, are currently maintaining that 76% of the American populace is in favour of this war).

Anthony, one problem I see with this is that, to me, it is often inappropriate to inject this sort of discussion into conversations with the people I come in contact with. I almost always avoid political or religious conversations at work, because I tend to get too upset about these subjects. Also, if I find out that a co-worker's views are reprehensible to me, I am stuck with seeing them through the filter of my response to their beliefs. Likewise, I don't think it's entirely fair to take advantage of a friendship by propagandizing your friend your your personal causes. I have done this before, and had friends end up saying: "Look, why are you directing all this at me? I'm not interested in getting involved. Why don't you go do some activism."

I think the public square is a good spot to air one's beliefs. I get annoyed when a friend tries to, say, convert me to their religious beliefs; but street preachers don't bother me nearly as much.

But has a street preacher ever changed your mind?

I still think this is incredibly -- I might even have to say bizarrely -- disengenuous of you. Are you seriously thinking that the events of the past two or three days are suddenly making *everyone* 'more informed as to the reality of war'? I can't believe you're taking this stance -- who is this vast audience of people that have somehow already forgotten what it is and whose minds are now going to pull a 180 or something? Ed, my friend, I really think you're a great guy who has not only put much thought into this but acted on your conscience straight down the line, but you're losing me big time. I really think you're SEVERELY overestimating the impact of the past two days. We are not talking My Lai, we are not talking the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon.

The potential lowest ebb of the peace movement hasn't come yet, Ed. It could come with the US grand strategy working like a charm. It COULD happen, just as much as the Baghdad hellhole could happen. I really have to say you are drawing the line too swiftly and too suddenly here.

Um, I mentioned having to try to get through the mess downtown somewhere on this thread - haha Alex and I both see the same thing but because I live uptown I must've seen it only on tv? Neither of us were actually taking part in the protest so ergo what we see is the obnoxious fuXors running around like lunatics, wearing missles-as-dildos and waving meaningless placards. Is everyone at these protests like that? Of course not. But you can't deny those people are there and a big part of the reason why this sort of thing is not taken seriously.

As Alex said, being "pro-war" isn't a rationale, it's a gut reaction. Just like how when television broadcasts keep showing a small group of Arabs burning American flags, it makes a good portion of Americans all pissed off at "Arabs" as opposed to "that particular individual group right there". I guess it's human nature, I don't see why anyone is surprised by this - particularly on this board, since god knows there have been enough examples of this kind of behavior.

hstencil, I'm not telling you not to do what you want. If you want to stand in the street and spray paint the road with "BUSH SUXOR" you can do that and I'd be all for it - correcting your statements of support percentages or telling you I feel your co-protestors aren't really doing anyone involved any good isn't even remotely attempting to stop you. Hell, go to more protests and try to calm down the morons who give the whole lot a bad name.

I just hope all clowns for peace and Lesbians for Palestine show up at the next election because quite honestly I'm tired of being the only one of my "politically active" brethren who can show the hell up - and YES hstencil I know you vote because you said so on the other thread, but I challenge you to go around the next protest and ask how many of them did. The reason I stopped doing things like that was for this very reason.

I used "propagandize" broadly to include giving out selected information. It's true, "War Bad" or even "No Blood for Oil" doesn't have much persuasive force.

Tep, no, no street-preacher has ever canged my mind, but the political equivalent have sometimes at least made me consider things I wouldn't otherwise (though even there, I can't say I've ever been converted by any of them).

I think we should have something called Free Speech Day, where everyone grabs a megaphone and gives their views on--whatever.

And this is my only real objection to protests -- not the ideals, but the fact that they don't change things. (I have an ... aesthetic objection, I suppose, because of having spent too long at Hampshire and being exposed to too many protest-oriented folks who give the others a bad name. But that wouldn't be important by itself). To the extent that they worked thirty years ago, they did so because they were surprising: "kids" actually cared about things and were being active (fifteen years earlier, educational conferences had been held to address concerns about the growing conservatism of American teenagers) and making themselves heard.

It isn't surprising anymore; it's a given. The effectiveness was lost decades ago.

And yeah, what Douglas said: written letters are at least paid attention to, and I imagine must be effective for that: my Congressman called me in response to one, although that was when I lived in New Hampshire (and so lived in a very small district, and he probably knew or knew of my family).

Are you really surprised? Vote, write your representatives, send letters to the editor, call radio shows, take to the streets? What good has it done?

The person who received the majority of votes in this country is not in office, and third party candidates were not even allowed a chance to debate. What happens when letters are not published, and sound-bytes are abbreviated and taken out of context; when your representatives respond with "...I agree, but there's nothing I can do...now is not the time..." and other statements highlighting the cowardice and opportunism which appears systemic even on local levels of governance? What happens when taking to the streets results in dispersal by bean-bag guns, rubber bullets, pepper spray, and brute force (all methods were used multiple times in the last couple days in Portland)? What happens when such marches are not "permitted." When campaign contributions, nepotism, fear, and enormous conflicts of interest are allowed to shape domestic and foreign policy is it any suprise that we are seeing profound frustration?

Of course the last two days haven't been like My Lai, however we live in an age where the expectation of war is something different. The last war in which there were significant British casualties was the Falklands and that was 20 years ago. Since then British involvement in wars has been with the overwhelming force of the americans, with very few casualties. Already British casualties are approaching the levels experienced in the first gulf war, although none confirmed at the hands of the iraqis yet.

The US have been trailing this war with their best case senarios, shock and awe followed by the crumbling of the regime, avoiding fighting in the cities. Trying to get people on board the war effort, and the first two days of the war appeard to confirm those expectations. The demos came after these two days of war, leading to this low ebb, maybe its going to be all right. Now events are become a little more real people will return to the peace camp.

The nature of this war means that it will more than likely entail a heavier cost than any action since the falklands. Iraq has been subjected to 12 years of humiliating sanctions and a fair proportion of the population seems willing to try and inflict casualties on the invading forces. This war won't be vietnam mainly because the desert isn't the jungle but things are going to happen that are going to be very uncomfortable for the war mongers.

Yeah, the U.S. has killed more British than the Iraqis yet. Super-depressing.

The key thing about the incipient guerrilla actions that is causing me annoyance is how it seems Rumsfeld et al didn't expect it. Erm, hello? That could have been factored in QUITE readily.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=FE9A1EB4-32D7-4A86-94CB-72F6DBFCE847

I'd be interested in Ally and Alex's thoughts. Oh, and Jess, my thoughts exactly.

As for the guerillas. I can't belive either that US/UK didn't expect their supply lines to be harried when by their own admission they were planning to bypass pockets of resistance whilst continuing on to more important centres. The flip of course is that the desert is very difficult to 'secure' if you don't have a vehicle then you can stay hidden as long as you have supplies.

I'm having trouble reading this as anything but pointless romanticization. People have died asserting their right, and therefore protesting is "good"? I'm not sure anyone on this thread has really said that it's bad. The initial question was whether or not it actually accomplishes anything. Just because it's a valuable right to have doesn't mean exercising the right is useful. Just because you don't like the notion that confrontation is bad doesn't mean confrontational activity is better than non-confrontational -- it would be hard to keep that stance up at an anti-war protest, I'd hope.

Why is it a good thing that they piss people off and disturb people? How does that help?

Or the cities -- the whole "hey, the troops switched to civilian clothes and are attacking us now! no fair!" reaction is just sad, really.

Walking to work this morning up and passed an antique store on the corner of 11th and University Place. Someone had spraypainted "THIS WAR IS WRONG!" on its edifice in sloppy flourescent colors. Yes, this war is wrong, but how is it that antique store's fault? How does defacing that wall help rectify the crime? Why should that antique store have to pay the price for some not-entirely-eloquent bonehead's "right to protest"?

US: "Respect the rules of war!"
IRAQ: "Hell with that, we're trying to survive."
US: *gasps* "UNCHIVALRIC!"

Of course, the resistance to, say, the Nazis was brilliantly heroic in the US mind...

Also the "Respect the geneva convention" line is a bit rich coming from the prople who brought you camp x-ray and the pictures of iraqis surrenderring in this war and the last.

And I didn't say that protesting was good because people died for it. I was trying to be delicate but now I'll just come out and say it : I think the dismissal of protesting is more than a little smug and it usually comes from the same type of people - i.e., people who have the luxury of taking it or leaving it. There are a lot of people out there who act as if protesting began and ended with Vietnam. If protesting is not your thing, I can understand not going, but I suspect that there are deeper motivations for some of these dismissals because they always come from the same corners.

Romanticization...that to me is just more of that rhetoric that shows up around wartime - logic vs. emotion, romanticization vs. realism, etc., etc.

That said, I do agree with Alex about some of the silliness that you see at demonstrations. I myself cringe at all of the peace / hippie crap - this war calls for more specific arguments.

now, there's a kneejerk reaction - i'm not sure if it's just me or if it's the combition of my basic stance coupled with living in this town for so long - that these kids were out there as some sort of grand joke, striking back at a town which - despite the fact that it's like 8 mile with more trees and fewer black people - hosts all sorts of protests, rallies, gay pride fests, weirdo arts walks, etc etc. (i remember a few months ago, when war really seemed like a foregone conclusion for the first time, there were two dopey looking teenage boys in the same spot holding "bomb afghanistan" signs, which got them little to no attention other than being snickered at.) but then, i realize i have no real reason to believe they weren't totally heartfelt. why else would a bunch of kids be wasting the first beautiful day - a weekend day, no less - in months standing outside a vietnamese restaurant getting shouted at? in a way, i respect these kids more than most of the armchair lefties i have met through evergreen - precisely the type of flaky, johnny-come-latelies that tep talks about in regards to hampshire, where "protesting" something - anything - will get out laid/course credit/a modicum of self-respect you can't muster for yourself.

it sounds corny as all get out - but this is only because, like most other areas in this country which goes a long way towards explaining a lot of the sentiment on this thread, america has become fucking paralyzed against earnestness, any sort of personal public expression which might label them as "corny" or "overly romantic" - but this sort of public protest is a right. kerry talks about the pro-war protestors trying to define what it is to be american, and it's easy to caricature them in this way. but if anything is about "being american" it's the ability to stand on an empty street corner and shout "FIRE" or whatever and try to get someone to listen to you. olympia, in it's way, is one of the most class divided/defined cities i know; it goes well beyond town vs. gown antipathy, and the only thing keeping it from violence is a thin layer of mutual distrust. yesterday was a pretty good reminder that the "oppressiveness" of the sort of "public discourse" kerry talks about above can run two ways. how easy must it feel for those who already feel politically disadvantaged - economically, class-wise - to feel trampled by the "smarty pants" college boys with their garish protests, etc etc. protesting, taking to the streets with signs, is the only way many of these people may have to EVER be heard. they're not educated in the ways to make their government run for them - writing letters to congress people, etc. - and this direct contact with their fellow citizens might be the only way they, if not learn, at least feel heard. the trick, then, is to bring the two parties together without it degenerating into viciousness or violence. like most things in life.

Not in those words, but you implied it, or I inferred it -- you're not ready to write off protests because of people who died asserting their rights to protest.

I was trying to be delicate but now I'll just come out and say it : I think the dismissal of protesting is more than a little smug and it usually comes from the same type of people - i.e., people who have the luxury of taking it or leaving it. There are a lot of people out there who act as if protesting began and ended with Vietnam. If protesting is not your thing, I can understand not going, but I suspect that there are deeper motivations for some of these dismissals because they always come from the same corners.

You're not being any less dismissive, frankly, by grouping me in with "wartime rhetoric" (it's not as though it took this war for me to form an opinion of protesting; I've felt the same for the last decade). And talk of luxury is silly: we're a privileged nation. Which of the protesters out there doesn't have the luxury of "taking it or leaving it"?

It also ensured that the protests made the national news.

And oops, people were trying to leave the streets but were trapped by the cops.

Do you also feel that the people around the world are also "throwing a tantrum"?

What exactly is that supposed to mean? That those who are protesting and chanting simplistic little slogans have some higher moral awareness or obligation/responsibility to get out in the street, tie up traffic, and make a lot of noise? I really resent the implications that those of us who dare take a cynical view towards the rampant shenanigans of much (notice I didn't say "all") of the protesters are somehow gun-toting hawks with hard-ons for genocide.

Good, cuz no one knew that anyone was against the war. Nope, no one.

Undoubtedly they do (or at least I would imagine they do), but what end does it ultimately serve?

What I think is that you're conflating a desire to make oneself heard and deal with one's frustrations over the war with an obligation to protest. You're not saying anything arcane or esoteric: I'm not some addled knuckle-dragging warhawk who is somehow deaf to the wisdom of the left.

No, not everyone in the U.S. is equally privileged, but are you suggesting that the protesters are less so? And if so, are you suggesting they're less privileged in any sense other than their representation in the media?

Alex beat me to it, and with better phrasing. Call this a "me too," then.

On Saturdays, up in the park near me there is a Rasta sabbath ceremony. People bring drums and sing and "reason" about what's going on in the world. Sure, they wear robes and sashes and carry flags and staffs, they march around in a way that could be considered silly.

All their talk about peace and equality isn't going to make a shit load of difference to the folks planning the next structural adjustment plan for Jamaica at the World Bank or the IMF or the Pan-American Development bank or whatever. What the Rastas do do, however, is that they make people think. Even if people walk by and say "Man, those guys running around praising Haile Salassie I the first, conquering lion of the tribe of judah are nut cases," they hear a big group of people singing about "peace and love" everytime. Saying something--especially for people who don't have recourse to mass communication (like lots of people in peace marches worldwide)--is meaningful in that it not only might make the people who have a voice or more access to communicating their opinions--like perhaps someone who lives at 9th Street and University Place in NYC--it also empowers individuals. The only way that things will change is if people think they can do it and don't believe that they'll always be curtly dismissed.

That said I'm trying to train myself not to take anything Oops says too seriously.

Alex, the problem I find with an anti-war person disagreeing with protests because of a Monster Raving Loony element in the protest mix is an extension of the Left affecting politenesss and deference when dealing with conservatives when we don't actually feel like deferring to them at all. It's like we're on best behaviour in front of older relatives and THAT NEVER WORKS.

I agree with you there, Alex, to a point. One of the Trotskyites had a "Free Mumia" sign, which was pretty pointless. Then again, they also had some "Smash Capitalism" ones too.

I'm of the mindset that marches of this kind don't really do a rolling rat fuck bit of difference

I think the movement would be well-served.

an interesting blend of post-60s defeatism and ennui and then 60s radical language, i think.

Ah, now it's all clear. Protests work because we save gas.

Glad we got THAT straightened. Any itch of contempt or urge to dismiss I may have felt towards the protest movement has surely passed now.

Tell that to someone in an ambulance on his way to a hospital.

Maybe protesters should start a defense investment group, a la the Carlyle Group? Or a construction/logistics firm a la Kellogg, Brown & Root?

Alex, the NYPD kept a clear route for ambulances. I saw one make it early on through the protest with no problems whatsoever.

Oops: I don't think it was the law-breaking in this case that was designed to attract attention, it was the dramatic scene of 1,000s of demonstrators marching down what would typically be a busy/central street.

Also it's difficult for me to imagine how a protest could fail to break the law when the law now tends to rope these protests into tiny areas within a police cordon.

Stencil: I agree that one shouldn't be too Pollyannaish about the Chicago cops. But a lot of people--myself included, sometimes--do have a kind of Pollyannaish outlook (serve and protect, etc.), and it's helpful to remind people that many of the arrests were not the result of outlandish provocative behavior but just bored cops looking for some action. I only wish CNN etc. would feature this sort of information in their coverage of the protests.

Alex: there are other ways of getting around than LSD. I'm sure the ambulances were rerouted to Michigan Ave or Clark St, etc.

Cross-posting abounds!

Yeah, dude. *drifts off into haze* < / cheap humor >

=short-sightedness?

Okay. Can do.

I'm of the mindset that marches of this kind don't really do a rolling rat fuck bit of difference

Well, what's hard to figure out? I think peace marches/rallies/protests are generally ignored by those whose minds the marchers are seeking to change. Thus, the only people they're really pissing off are those whose lives are being directly affected by it (people in the immediate vicinity of the march) and those who are already pre-disposed to agree or disagree with it.

I think the movement would be well-served....

Oh, is "movement" a part of 60's radical language? Sorry, let me get my thesaurus out then

Anyway, if Clear Channel and the Free Republic are going to have their little demos - and get endorsement from the tv news (who gave out the time & place), then we sure as hell have to have ours.

Changing people's minds is a much more gradual process than can be accomplished in a single protest.

Ah sarcasm.

Oh, but doing nude rain dances while carrying big paper maché puppets is an effective method?

(enuf about me/you, talk about the issues)

Also what are your preferred means of dissent? The means that involve people actually witnessing the dissent?

(Hear, hear, Jess.)

Of course that's always the case. I can't set a broken arm for you, but I can tell you that hitting it with a hammer won't help. That doesn't make me wrong about the hammer.

How many protestors multitask? In otherwards, not only march but write those letters (as noted above and/or elsewhere, direct mail rather than e-mail seems to be the trick), make those phone calls, etc.?

There is no magic cocktail or combination here, I think, but this suddenly struck me as a valid question. If everyone who did march also did that, do you think there might be greater all-around pressure?

You just can't resist being a condescending prick, can you?

Just because I can identify the demographic as a "movement" doesn't mean that I'm part of it. I'm against the war, but I don't consider myself part of any "movement," but I think the word sums up the demographic.

And that helps your point how, exactly? Because people aren't protesting in Naperville may be because they don't feel like they can, or should, or that protesting at the Riverwalk would be more appropriate than protesting at the Federal Plaza.

When I went to the 9/11 moment of silence (the Friday after), it appalled me to hear people start chanting "USA! USA!" as if we had won some hockey game (instead of getting our asses handed to us). That image, and the disgust I felt afterwards, is exactly the reason behind my protesting now.

tep, your analogy is shit because any first year boy scout knows how to set a broken arm. it's not a hard skill to learn.

Well Alex, what's "effective" then?

and you still have yet to answer. I really would like to know what people who think the protests are "stupid" or "ineffective" would have us do (aside from communicate with our representatives and vote, as has been pointed out before since some of us do that).

Same way it helped your point by bringing up 9/11 memorials in the first place, I guess.

Kerry, I saw people on the news sitting down...one of them was appauled that the cops would ask them and then force them to move because 'we're just sitting here peacefully'.

What an excellent point, jess. Please keep contributing. You're valuable to this thread.

if, you know, you weren't being purposefully disingenuous like a lot of people on this thread, you might have been able to unpack the counter-analogy enough to realize that claiming ignorance from a position of moral authority is dubious when some simple research into the subject might give your arguments that much more weight. but hey, one-liners are easier, right?

Overbroad metaphors sidetracking discussion = dud.

What would be more effective? Doing something that could be taken seriously. By appearing foolish (i.e. much of the protests), you are doing a DISservice to the cause you're trying to espouse, because you are only re-inforcing firmly-held stereotypes. Why not, like Oops says, spearhead some sort've letter campagin? Utilize the channels of your local government. Boycott certain goods and services, maybe. Utlize public access opportunities within the media. But leave the mohicans and the tree people at home. If you wan't to defeat your enemy, learn to sing his song. Infultrate the system via the accepted channels and try to change it from the inside. Spend less time in the art studio making scary George Dubya Bush puppets and more time registering to vote and reading up on the facts.

I notice that no one took up my query above about global anti-war protests. Do you think that the protests in, say, India are equally useless?

If you would actually engage in discussion instead of shooting off what you think are pithy one-liners, perhaps we could all get around what would be an "effective" means, and perhaps you'd come off less flippantly. I'm sure you don't care, but it's damn annoying to me since I do want to discuss this, not trade barbs back and forth like it's some sort of "who's dick is bigger?" contest. If I wanted to be shouted down with fake wit, I'd go to freerepublic.

why are lots of the people on this thread seemingly intent on picking up on any slightly ambiguous point and then misrepresenting it to further own points? i dont like the taking the others point and making it ridiculuous. could we have less of making fun of rain dances and stuff

why am i reticent of posting this for fear of being pounced on myself?

nearly all the people here have raised good points, but no one seems to be listening to any but their own. this thread makes me sad.

but the thing that makes me more sad is the idea that protest should have to conform to set guidelines for fearing of upsetting and turning away the 'moral majority'. perhaps because its true:(

What the fuck do you know about it? Moreover, you just accused me of making generalizations, then turn around and lump everyone from NYC in one big groups of disaffect-o's.

the VALUE of getting this stuff on tv is not only to have it be shown in all those little bumfuck areas your metropolitan asses could care less about but also promoting SOLIDARITY with those "stuck" there.

People in those "little bumfuck" areas are probably more gung-ho to nuke the snots out of Iraq than anyone else, as middle America is a hotbed of conservatism. Where do you think that 76% approval is coming from?

Right, so you're defending the naked rain dances, the clowns for peace and the missile-as-dildos brigade because you can't think of something more 'effective'? Is that it?

No, I'm defending them, as I think I did upthread, because it's not up to me to tell other people how to act. That seems to me to be entirely OPPOSITE of the point of these protests, even if I find them distasteful. In a different way, there are other forms of human expression (political, artistic, otherwise) that I find boring/banal/embarrasing/distasteful/whatever, but I feel that my responsibility is not to lecture others about what they do (aside from oops, ha!), and do what I feel is right.

What would be more effective? Doing something that could be taken seriously. By appearing foolish (i.e. much of the protests), you are doing a DISservice to the cause you're trying to espouse, because you are only re-inforcing firmly-held stereotypes.

If you feel so strongly about this, why didn't YOU say something to your hated hippies? I didn't, so I won't. Why should it be my responsibility if it doesn't bother me? What bothers me is our illegal war and illegitimate president, and that's what I'm out in the street marching against (and taking some responsibility in speaking out against)!

Why not, like Oops says, spearhead some sort've letter campagin? Utilize the channels of your local government.

Have you not checked out the web sites of groups that have sponsored these marches?

Boycott certain goods and services, maybe.

I'm not sure if Raytheon or General Dynamics have consumer products divisions, but I'm not planning on buying any GE anytime soon (but then again I wasn't anyway - those fuckers laid off my dad last year because of age discrimination).

Utlize public access opportunities within the media.

Ha, do you think the American public watches a lot of Public Access stations? I mean, does anyone in NYC aside from horny teenagers who watch Robin Byrd?

But leave the mohicans and the tree people at home.

It's not up to me to tell people to stay home when the idea is a mass protest, and everyone's invited (and I didn't organize the thing in the first place!).

If you wan't to defeat your enemy, learn to sing his song. Infultrate the system via the accepted channels and try to change it from the inside.

Uh, I have a job, I vote, I pay taxes, I am in the system.

Spend less time in the art studio making scary George Dubya Bush puppets and more time registering to vote and reading up on the facts.

I do the latter, but why do you also assume that these are mutually exclusive? I don't know any papier-mache-head makers, so I can't say how well they know the facts! I presume you don't, either.

and reversing-accusing me of stereotyping new yorkers while going on in your next second to stereotype everyone in the "flyover states" is just stupid

someone quick find me a picture of jaz coleman with paint on himself

Ha!

Okay, that was silly. Sorry.

Okay, that's a good point.

if, you know, you weren't being purposefully disingenuous like a lot of people on this thread, you might have been able to unpack the counter-analogy enough to realize that claiming ignorance from a position of moral authority is dubious when some simple research into the subject might give your arguments that much more weight. but hey, one-liners are easier, right?

I thought I was answering a one-liner with a one-liner -- but if you saw my initial analogy as a one-liner, then you were doing the same, so. Retracted. Sorry to be unnecessarily glib.

I'll expand. First off, I don't see myself as being in a position of moral authority. I don't think protests are -wrong-. If I thought they helped, I'd be out there (although in New Orleans, the deck is stacked really heavily against protests, in the whole context of Mardi Gras, a parade-and-parties subculture, etc. ... no one notices large groups, really. So ideally, I'd be "out there," but I'd be living somewhere else.) I don't think people lack the right to protest; I've only questioned whether it does any good. I haven't seen any good come of it, except for making those who participate feel better, and I'm not sure that's a good thing, because if you feel you've done your duty, won't you feel less compelled to explore other avenues of opposition?

I do object to the "you can't point out something doesn't work if you don't provide a solution" argument. It's valid in some cases -- I'm wary of candidates who do nothing but point out the flaws in their opponents' plans, while providing no solutions of their own, but that's because I want to vote for someone who has some idea of what he or she plans to do once they get to work.

In this case, I don't see why it's important. Most, maybe all, of the posters to this thread seem to be against the war. It follows that they all want to see efforts expended to stop that war, or stop the policies and approaches which resulted in it, or at the least prevent the parties responsible for it from remaining in their positions of power, and they want those efforts to be fruitful.

Analogy seems like the best way to sum up my objection to the "if you don't have a solution, quit nitpicking" school of thought. There are obviously situations in which people can tell X isn't working, without knowing what to recommend instead. The fact that they lack an alternative solution doesn't mean they're wrong.

In case it isn't clear, let me say that I'd love to be proven wrong about protests. I'd love to discover that they have an effect on federal policy (I've seen protests work for regional/local issues, so I don't need to be convinced about that -- but in those cases, they were centered around an issue people could be mobilized to vote for or against, an option we don't have with the war).

If the actions of a few hippies you don't aesthetically chime with make you want to take your toys and go home, then you are being the very worst kind of elitist, and I have seen your likes before. I am reminded here of PC girls at my college who bussed down to a pro-choice rally in DC, only to abandon the march because there weren't enough 'working class' and 'women of colour' in attendance. Like the labels fell off or something. This middle-class, cater-for-me mindset totally sucks; you can't dial up peace like pizza.

Look, man, I was only making observations and suggestions about how I think they'd be more effective in their efforts. If they want to make jackasses of themselves, I'm not going to stop them. It's their right to do so, after all. Just don't ask me to take them seriously.

What bothers me is our illegal war and illegitimate president, and that's what I'm out in the street marching against (and taking some responsibility in speaking out against)!

If that makes you feel better about it, then knock your socks off. I just don't think it's going to matter to our illegitimate president nor bring an end to the illegal war. But, y'know, that's my opinion. Like Jess says, I'm a disaffected, defeatist snob, apparently.

To Jess:
and reversing-accusing me of stereotyping new yorkers while going on in your next second to stereotype everyone in the "flyover states" is just stupid

How is it stupid? Defend your generalization then!

someone quick find me a picture of jaz coleman with paint on himself

At your service....

http://www.an-irrational-domain.net/images/jaz/jaz122.JPG

The actions of a few hippies merely put me off and depress me. They don't make me want to bomb Iraq. They just make me sad, as as far as I'm concerned, they're deluding themselves.

to wit:

i make my initial post - not directed at anyone except ilm at large - on the nature of cynicism and public protest.

alex replies - to kerry directly but in a way which also ties into my post - re. cyncisim.

i mention to alex that cynicism won't protect him for ever.

"escalation into a near flame-war": Who said anything about it "protecting" me? Are you so wrapped up in the cause that your senses have left you, Jess? Are you that knee-jerk?If so, you're no different than the "love it or leave it" jarheads who think September 2001's hijackers were all Iraqis.

trust me, alex don't need any help in flaming. just check out "killing joke: classic or dud".

and more importantly, i STAND by what i said: cynicism as a worldview means you have taken a wrong step somewhere. otherwise it is totally a defense mechanism, one which can be very useful to protect yourself against cant and bogusness. but one which is very tricky to navigate and very easy to give onesself over to entirely before too long.

For a start, I wouldn't say my view of the world is categorically cynical, but I don't see how someone could intelligently examine the world around them without a shred of cynicism.

One very important point of protests/demos/manifs is to be the inflammation within the allegedly healthy body.

This is apt, but it also points out how important it is for a protest to present the right "symptoms": some inflammations are a result of valid dissolute lifestyle stuff that needs to be examined and perhaps changed, while others are just senseless invasions that need to be quashed with as many antibiotics as possible. So be sure you're attacking the right organ, I guess (which is what most of the hataz are saying, I think.)

So the sickness = ? To hear some protestors tell it, the sickness to be purged is that the United States isn't willing to go to war with Saudi Arabia and North Korea as well.

In any mass protest there will always be people whose methods and tactics you find embarrassing or actually counterproductive to the central aims of the thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being disappointed or annoyed by this. The whole point of a protest, though, is that regarding the topic at hand you agree with those disappointing wackjobs more than you agree with the most reasonable member of the opposition. So yes, you can feel that the protesting fringes actually sap or embarrass that voice. And yes, a lot of them are there because protesting is easier, more fun, more urgent and concrete than making careful arguments or writing letters -- and a lot of more moderate voices aren't there because of that. But turning your back on the protest is the worst reaction you can possibly have to this, and a thousand times more counterproductive than anything the window-smashers or puppeteers could be up to: by turning your back on protest all you're accomplishing is to cede the anti-war voice to precisely the people you think are least qualified to hold it. Like Mark says, you can only stand next to them and outnumber them, and like Stencil and Kerry have said quite frequently over the past week, the bulk of the people at the biggest of these protests have been doing exactly that. How much cognitive dissonance should this situation possibly cause? Just stand there and remember: I disagree with their tactics, but we agree about the war. All that's really being debated here is whether to stress the disappointment or the solidarity.

Less synthetically: I actually do think Oops has something of a point about things like blocking traffic. Not that blocking Lake Shore Drive for a little while was the worst thing ever to happen, but I think protesters need to be careful and sparing about actively impinging on other people's freedoms to make themselves heard, especially in this current situation. The fear that's driving so many Americans to support war is a fear of "terrorism," which for them is a fear of uncertainty -- the fear that there are elements around them who, for reasons they can't quite fathom, are very upset about something and therefore plan to disrupt their lives with various levels of disorder or violence. There's a level on which I fear certain types of protest add to that atmosphere. But there's also a level on which it has to be remembered that protests aren't debates: they're not solely about convincing people who disagree with you. They're just about being there and being heard, creating a coherent voice and drawing out the people who have agreed with it all along but haven't been motivated to act. And, in so doing, you can still convince some people, but not with coherent and rational argumentation -- you convince them by leading them to make clear decisions about issues you don't think they've ever been forced to think through clearly. There are a lot of people in this country whose support of the status quo is built on convenience, on self-professed ignorance, or on preoccupation -- people who may not have even developed an opinion on this war other than thinking that the president seemed to have some convincing-sounding reasons, so he probably knows what he's doing. We shouldn't forget that one point of protest is to make the person stuck in traffic for an extra hour start to wonder why, and try to find an explanation not in the four-word placards but by asking people and reading things.

So I'm hesitant about some of the tactics -- I think some are a little embarrassing, others flat-out counterproductive, and others maybe just risky and deserving of careful thought. I'm sure we all feel this way about some tactic or other. But those are the people you agree with: you're going to have to either drown them out or deal with them.

I hear the points about not letting the fringes of the movement take over said movement because you're put off by their tactics. Intellectually, I understand this. But when I see and hear about protesters breaking the law and causing havoc, I ask myself "Is this what I am 'for'?"

And, oops: stopping traffic may frustrate some people (though surely not all) who are stuck in traffic, but that's a fairly civil form of disobedience: It's hardly rioting. No one is likely to die because Lake Shore Drive is shut down for a few hours. If that is havoc, it's a fairly controlled, premeditated, and benign form of havoc.

But isn't the end goal of media attention to provoke thought? Isn't part of the goal of protest to -- sooner or later -- force people to seriously reckon with the idea that a significant number of their peers disagree with the status quo? I think this sort of thing is essential in the U.S., which is so culturally isolated that it's very easy for people to just assume that our actions are routine and consequence-free.

And a great number of Americans don't like to think of themselves as politically opinionated. Many of the people who get caricatured as Toby Keith-listening middle-American war supporters are just people who reflexively support any war the U.S. is in, as a default position -- they're people who happily leave such things up to the men in the suits, right up until strong, sustained, and convincing opposition breaks through and makes them think: "A lot of people are really angry about this. Maybe they have a point." It's not that it convinces people who already have opinions: it convinces those who don't have opinions that what's happening is crucial enough that they should.

I think that's a bit of wishful thinking. Call me cynical, but I don't think that would happen more than a handful of times. More likely someone would see this opposition and think "Hey, these damn hippie peaceniks are out in the street again...why do they hate America, don't they know what we're fighting for, blah blah blah."

It was also an element with Vietnam: obviously it was the course of the war itself that led more and more people to sympathize with the protest movement, but the fact remained that the protest movement set up the camp, staked out and tidied up a position so it would be ready for more and more people to turn to it. The question -- "what are these people so worked up about?" -- eventually got answered, in the form of years of dead bodies. And the people asking it increasingly shifted in position: "Actually," they were able to say, "the worked-up people have a point."

I mean, everyone loves to say that people are sheep, and obviously we are social animals. Protest serves a social function. A good anti-war protest makes it a million times safer for the average person to say "I'm against this war" or even just "I have doubts about this war." It creates confidence that people agree, that this is a reasonable position and not a risky fringe crusade. The type of protest people have been digging at on this thread is the type that can, unfortunately, somewhat diminish that sense.

(or what nabisco said)

Nab: But isn't the end goal of media attention to provoke thought?

Yes, but not to provoke thought in the commuters, to provoke thought in the people watching the media (and even more so the people watching the polls).

I'm one of those people who live in bumfuck, NY. Semi-rural area, not too conservative, not too liberal (although we do have ithaca nearby, but that's a whole different story). I'm not in favor of war. War=bad.
The some of the protests that I have seen on the news have made nothing but a negative impact on me. If I'm remembering correctly, I heard something about the city of San Francisco having to pay their cops $40/hr overtime to because of the protests that blocked streets, etc. That really adds up quickly. So, if almost all of the city's police force is trying to clear streets so that people can go to work and try and keep the economy in bad economic times afloat, who's out there fielding the emergency calls? Is all the city's money is going towards trying to keep the roads clear? This is not going to make any great impact on middle america.

Not only this, but I've seen tons of ambivalance towards this whole conflict in my community. There is the opposition, those in favor, and those who don't really care. There have been several community protests, but I have heard of no letter writing campaigns or anything else. What I see are weekend protesters who don't bother to research the issues being fought over at all. And, I'm sorry, but it leaves me with an aversion to the whole protest scene.

Please don't attack me. I mean no harm and I really hope this makes sense.

Well no of course they didn't have to, the city chose to have all those cops there.

***

It appears that an escaltion in tactics on the part of a minority of protestors has moved many people to show their "true colors," and I don't just mean on this thread.

Senator Minnis (appropriate name) of Oregon (a former cop with a record of violent response to protestors of all stripes) has sponsored a bill which would create the crime of terrorism which could in fact result in life imprisonment for people who in any way participate in an action which disrupts commerce, education, or transportation. The bill actually received a hearing today, and will likely go to committee if it hasn't already; all this, despite the fact that in an interview John Minnis admited that the bill would "need some tweaking to come into compliance with the Constitution."

I am disgusted that this could even be fathomed let alone seriously considered. The erosion of civil rights is real and immediate, and yet the majority of people I talk to, including those against the war(s), still insist that one should 'accept reality' and defer to ('inevitable') authority. One of my fellow un/under-employed friends said only half-kidding, "at least you wouldn't have to worry about rent in prison."

It does occur to me that a lot of the US protests have had problems with the authorities either restricting the protests before the start, keeping them away from traditional gathering places, or have hemmed in protests once they've got going.

In the main marches and rallies in the UK are worked out by the organisers and the police together and it helps that in most cities there's a traditional gathering place and in London at least a couple of obvious routes through. There was an enormous row when the Secretary of State for Culture said that Hyde park would not be allowed for the rally. The Police, organisers and the Mayor of London made her back down.

When people have their rights to protest , as they seem to have done in some american cities, some elements are going to lash out and do thing which the main constituency the protesters are trying to influence may find those tactics unpalatable.

I think though that the authorities should accede to any reasonable request from the protesters in the interest of fairness and freedom of expression. Ideally though the protesters andauthorities should work together in the public interest no matter how opposed to each other they may be. Everyone will come out of the experience better.

Ed is absolutely right that when there are acceptable spaces created for this sort of thing -- venues in which people are traditionally allowed and expected to gather and voice their opinions -- there's a much smaller level of confrontation, a lesser need for police intervention, etc. It creates a podium for the masses to gather and speak, and in certain ways it even lends some authority and gets people to notice what they're saying.

Ed: the one place in the U.S. that's like this is the Mall in Washington, D.C. Protests there are necessarily well-organized, moderate, and non-confrontational; they also get news coverage and respect simply by virtue of existing in a historical space of protest. (Cf Vietnam, MLK at the Lincoln Memorial.) Unfortunately these days they seem very poor about opening that space in cooperation with anything but the most widely-acceptable of causes, and I don't think the anti-war project is nearly organized enough to assemble a moderate high-profile event there.

But seriously, right now, protest-wise, there is nothing I'd like to see more than a diverse, focused, and fucking HUGE anti-war gathering on the Mall.

That's just myopic, like the lame 'inconvenienced commuter' stories in the Evening Standard whenever there's a Tube strike: 'sheesh, other people's right to protest and strike sure is annoying and inconveniencing for executive me, make it stop'. I think freedom of speech is a responsibility with costs like any other, and I pay the taxes that subsidise the police ANYWAY. Also, I know *a lot* more about police and their duties than most people participating in this thread. To wit:

There is a budget for public order, whether at protests or parades. Nobody bitches about the extra cost when it's PARADE TIME or people call them killjoys.

You can't really say resources are being diverted by the wrong kind of emergency. There is no right kind of emergency.

Cops love overtime, or at least the cash part, because their starting salaries are so poor. My uncle did a lot of this in the '60s, and that was back when one low cop's salary supported a family.

Suzy has a point about the parades, and the NYPD/FDNY force at parades is MASSIVE to the point that on some blocks there are more law enforcement agents than revellers, esp. for St. Paddy's or Puerto Rican Day.

I really don't want to try to explain how a movement grows, but just want to point out that a movement may grow w/in a particular area (NYC, let's say) and make virtually no gains as a whole. Focusing on what happens in major cities is just a symptom of the common problem of ignoring 'fly-over' country.

nabisco, your point about the Vietnam peace movement seemed to prove my point. You casually mentioned that it was the course of the war that caused massive public opposition, and that the protest movement was just there waiting. To me this shows that the protest movement was uneffective, and it was only when people came around to the anti-war point of view themselves that the actual movement gained momentum. If I set up a "Down With Bush" organization that attracted limited support, and then Bush killed his brother or did something else where it was obvious that he was bad news, I really couldn't take credit for the swelling of Bush hate.

For the record, I'm not convinced either way as to whether or not the Vietnam protests had much effect. It's a whole different matter as to whether the massive public opposition to Vietnam actually was the main factor in ending it.

(nb: I really hate to disagree with you--disagree is probaly to strong of a word--since I agree w/virtually everything you say, this thread and elsewhere)