diet coke for breakfast

Wednesday, December 03, 2003

Posted by Tanstaafl - Protest is needed in politics, even without results:

Yet for a demonstration to work, it has to be disruptive. It must upset business as usual. It means taking your body and using it as your own political weapon, placing it in the middle of the street so that traffic stops.

FALSE. First of all, when a protest becomes "disruptive" and you are using your body as a "political weapon", you have crossed from non-violent into violent protest. If you block the entrance to a building, then you are using force to keep people out, and that's violence. Furthermore, Ms. Sentilles argues that because we went to war in Iraq, that the 800,000 Americans who protested against it failed and that their protest was meaningless. First, I think the 800K figure is inflated since many of these people went to many of these protests more than once. But, even if the number's correct, that's less than one half of one percent of the US population. Just because you marched through the street, does that make you right? Does that mean that I MUST agree with you? Well if that's the case, I'll go march about tax cuts and school vouchers. Then will you have to agree with ME on THOSE issues?

Brian-- I'm surprised that's the only thing you chose to rip out of this column. How about her last paragraph? "While I have given up on protesting the war in Iraq, I haven't given up on protest altogether. This April there will be a march in support of Roe v. Wade in Washington, D.C., and I, along with my mom and my sisters, plan on attending."
Wow. She's protesting in support of a judicial precedent (on which democracy has no sway) which is still in effect! Just be happy that you're no longer dealing with these people day-to-day in college--I don't have that pleasure yet.

James-- I was busy. I figured most of the other items in the column were absurd on their face. The only other part that I felt might be worth pointing out is how bizarre her complaint about being "silenced" is. Ok, so maybe the protest wasn't EXACTLY where she wanted it to be, but to say that it wasn't seen is stupid. The protests were on the front page of EVERY paper. Nine months later she STILL has a forum to talk about it. When was she silenced exactly? She's another whiner who doesn't understand that no rights are absolute. If they were, we'd have chaos because they conflict. If I can't attend my People for the Ethical Treatment of Liberal Ninnies (PETLN) meeting because the NRA's protesting outside, then Charleton Heston and Tom Sellek's rights to free speech are infringing on my right to association. Which right is more important? Is it always more important? In her mind, HER right would always be the most important. It's part of her self-described "ivory-tower" elitism.

Brian-- Sometimes I'm tempted to climb to the top of the "ivory-tower" with a high-powered rifle. And I'd like to quote the Simpsons regarding people such as this young lady: "We need another Vietnam--thin out their ranks a little."


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?