I just finished reading the Hersh piece, which arrived in my mailbox this morning. What strikes me about it is how incredibly similar the administration talk, as Hersh portrays it, is to the run-up to Iraq. Substitute "WMD" for "nukes" in the media coverage, and it looks like you could just replace stories from then with the stuff now and not be able to tell the difference.

It seems to me the administration has already made up its mind, and the only possibility we have of preventing a third war is to have massive, massive protests nation-wide, like, now.

How does this make political sense for them? I mean even domestically, assuming that's all they really care about.

We had massive, nation-wide protests last time and the DC response (from a much-too-high number of Democrats as well) was to smile condescendingly and pat the anti-war people on the head. I'm not any more confident now in their efficacy, unfortunately.

Neither am I, but there's nothing else we can do until the midterms, if then.

Idon'tpay, I'm beyond thinking of whether anything they do makes political sense. Really.

Why is it that nation-wide protests can produce results in France but not here? Are the French really that much better at protesting than we are?

The French aren't currently being ruled by a man who thinks he's on a mission from god.

Are the French really that much better at protesting than we are?

Arguably, yes.

There's a whole vocabulary of protests that ranges in nuance from "hey, don't cut our to budget" to "we are really fricking serious about this." To signify the first message, five thousand [teachers, nurses, whatever] show up in front of the Elysee and bang drums for three hours. To signify the second message, hundreds of thousands people immobilize the capital with barricades and start throwing paving stones at cops.

So is the latter message just not in the U.S. protest vocabulary anymore? I'm not so much in favor of throwing cobblestones at the police or anyone else, but are we no longer capable of protests that do more than just make the protestors feel like they did their part?

Protests came out of the 60's in the US as somehow fundamentally unserious (and disloyal) -- the fact that you're protesting at all carries with it a loss of credibility. I'm not sure why this is true here and not in Europe, or how to change it.

I've been trying to think of a protest that would look serious -- I wonder how hard it would be to shut down all traffic in DC, or at least in the relevantly governmental bits? Say, ten people at every intersection, with backups ready to come in once the first batch had been arrested and the cops had left?

I've thought about this issue for years, the fundamental unseriousness of protests here since the sixties, if not then. My guess is that despite the rent fabric due to immigration, the French have a stronger idea of society than we do, and hence a mass protest requires some sort of social response.
It isn't our culture per se, it's the weakness of our society; in Canada, which has the same culture but is a different society, a mass protest might be very effective.
And the more tightly-bound a society is, the more effective a small protest can be. Norma Field's wonderful In The Realm of a Dying Emperor, about Japanese dissidents, is a good example.

On the (dis)loyalty issue, would it help if each and every protestor were carrying an American flag?

Maybe they could dress up nicely too. Suits and ties. Have it be the most respectable-looking angry mob you've ever seen.

The problem (or a problem) is that there are two different types of seriousness: how respectable a person are you? and how much do you care? and we need both. It's hard to look respectable (suits and flags) without also giving the impression that it's not all that big of a deal to you. A serious protest would need people in suits with flags actually getting arrested. Throwing cobblestones at cops is still bad, but at least blocking traffic.

In Seattle, we did get arrested, and we did shut the city down for several days. That's been largely true of most of the WTO protests since then. And yet, they've also been portrayed as unserious (puppets, etc.). I think that's just the reality that we have to deal with: that the coverage will minimize the reality. The March for Women's Lives a couple of years ago, which I was also at, had a million women there--but hardly any press coverage at all.

I fear that throwing cobblestones at cops is what it's gonna take.

A serious protest would need people in suits with flags actually getting arrested.

Count me in.

I don't pay: How does this make political sense for them? I mean even domestically, assuming that's all they really care about.

Who? The US administration? It makes lots of sense. If the Iranians develop a defensive nuclear technology, then the US loses it's greatest tool of foreign policy with them - the threat of military action. And as Iran is arguably the most US-hostile nation in an area of extreme value to the US (and China, and India, and Europe, Russia, Canada, Australia, ...), that equates to the potential loss of a great deal of influence in the region. And if the weapons are developed, a military strike to remove them after the fact becomes unlikely, hence the current haste.

However, if you mean how does this make political sense for Iran, then I gotta say hey, this administration has been busily painting a giant bullseye on Iran's ass for the last few years. Now, what with the US military largely tied up in Iraq, it makes perfect sense to me to be developing nuclear weapons.

I fear that throwing cobblestones at cops is what it's gonna take.

Can we throw nerf cobblestones, or rotten eggs, or something else? I've got a brother-in-law who's a cop, and I'd prefer that he not get clocked in the name of sane foreign policy.

Yeah, I don't want my friends who are cops to get attacked either.

Maybe it's time for them to cross over the barriers?

I fear that throwing cobblestones at cops is what it's gonna take.

I doubt it. This is a law-and-order country in a way that France (or any W. European country) simply isn't. Look at the national response to the '68 Democratic National Convention. That was a fricking police riot, and everybody still just hated on the hippies for decades afterwards.

My fear is that the only thing that will stop them, if they are really determined, is money. And by that, I mean China seriously threatening to pull its American investments, other governments seriously threatening to peg their currencies to the euro instead of the dollar, Japan and Saudi Arabia and the like announcing they will no longer step in and purchase dollars to keep our currency afloat, et cetera.

As citizens, we just don't have any pull with this administration. They don't have to run for office again and they don't give a good goddamn what you think.

The other thing, of course, would be the military telling them they are insane and refusing to carry out the orders. However, the US military refusing to bow to civilian control is dangerous in its own right. Amazingly, it may now be the less worrisome problem.

Maybe they could dress up nicely too. Suits and ties. Have it be the most respectable-looking angry mob you've ever seen.

I think this would quite possibly do a lot to make the message have an impact. When I protested during Ashcroft's visit to the Triangle a few years ago, I was surprised by how cleaned up the crowd was - lots of soccer moms with toddlers in tow, lots of respectable middle-aged types. A surprising number of the people there looked like they were dressed for church - by no means a majority, or even a large minority, but enough to make the point that the people there were a broader cross-section than just "hippies" or any other pigeon-hole one might want to use. It gave a very different impression from that which, say, my parents picked up from footage of the WTO protests. To whit, my mom basically only needed to see one white kid with dreds and a nose ring to write it all off as a bunch of crazy junkies. It was a wildly inaccurate characterization (and it shouldn't matter how many nose-rings someone has in the first damn place, but my mom is a product of her era), but I think the Nixonian notion that protesters are just troublemakers and ne'er-do-wells getting their jollies at the expense of law and order has stuck around in the minds of much of Middle America.

Another problem with protests, however, is that they speak in the wrong direction. Almost every protest I've been to has had an overall theme of trying to speak to The Leaders, whoever they were at the time. Those people? They ain't listenin'. Successful protests, IMO, are ones that speak directly to non-participant fellow citizens, ones that suck the wind out of the establishment voices for a day or an hour or whatever and speak in their place rather than trying to shout in deaf ears. Look at the "I Have A Dream" speech: King went to the seat of power, blanketed it in people dressed to the nines, turned on the cameras and spoke to America, not American government. He inspired others to change the way they lived their lives and their expectations of society. A protest that inspires equals to change their own way of thinking rather than tugs at the shirt-sleeves of the powerful is going to be far more effective at getting things done. An anti-war protest that convinces other fellow citizens to get angry about endless war will do a lot more to change the mood of our nation than one that calls for some government big-wig's resignation, or tries to poke holes in policy, or demands change that starts at the top. Certainly, the message can be in part addressed to government, but I think if that's the case then everyone needs to understand it is largely an exercise in rhetoric.

The tie-in between the two is that if you want to reach out and shake the shoulders of Mom & Pop America, it probably helps to look like someone they wouldn't mind showing up at their front door.

I've noticed in some circles that even mild forms of protest, like writing a congressmen, are met with dour expressions and the idea that this is somehow disloyal.

Plus, protests here seem to bring out the loons. Friends of mine in college used to protest sweatshops, and it always annoyed them that *any* protest seemed to be a reason for the anarchists to jump around madly.

Anyhow, I think it makes sense for this administration to talk up Iran because Republicans are good on security (all evidence to the contrary) and Democrats are wimps, and the elections are coming up.

Otherwise, it makes no sense at all. Iran is ten years away by most estimates. Even if you grant that it is a Big Problem Which Must Be Solved With Big Bombs, there's no reason it has to be done now, with the military busy in Iraq & Afghanistan.

I was at the WTO, and I don't have dreads. And most of the people I saw there were union guys, middle-class folks, and the like. And yet, like you say, it only takes one "hippie", and that's who the pics get taken of.

And of course, 'hippies', guys in black breaking windows, or anyone else you want can be supplied by people discrediting the protests if they don't appear spontaneously.

And R. McM is absolutely right.

b, I'm not trying to paint it that way, just demonstrating that it is easy for people who wish to do so to paint it that way. My mom hates Bush, hates the war in Iraq, would love to see the guy run out of town on a rail. But she was already a mother of two and gunning directly for middle-class respectability during the '68 convention and the anti-war movement of the '60s and '70s, and she has retained those attitudes that it's just a bunch of crazies taking to the streets. I think that is the rule rather than the exception, as well, and as such, if a protest wants to get its message across, it has to do so in the costume of respectability. I don't think one's costume makes one's ideas better or worse, and I do think of it as just a costume, but if the topic is "how do we make protests powerful again," that is part of a possible answer.

No, I realize. I'm just feeling really incredibly bitter today. I think you're right about who the protests need to be aimed at, and that apo is probably right about the administration's complete lack of interest in what the fuck we think. Am just having one of those cranky, powerless, despairing kind of mornings.

Plus, protests here seem to bring out the loons.

Right, and this is a problem, because they are the ones toward whom the cameras will gravitate (see: news coverage of any gay pride march ever). Also, it would help if people could keep their fucking attention focused on the matter at hand for once. This drives me insane. Every time I went to some anti-war protest in 2003, I wanted to grab the "Free Mumia" and "Hemp Now" and "Free Palestine" signs and club their carriers into a stupor with them.

Eyes on the ball, people. We're trying to get the other side out, and you're wandering around centerfield looking for grasshoppers.

one of those cranky, powerless, despairing kind of mornings.

Me too, dear. Me too. And it's been dragging on for weeks now.

Me too, dear.

Apostropher is teh patronizing oppressor!

At least we still have Big Tobacco to offer us solace.

Agreed with most of what's been said, about the need to avoid looking all freaky and to stay on topic. But I wanted to highlight:

Have it be the most respectable-looking angry mob you've ever seen.

Isn't that basically what happened with the immigration demonstrations? And they seem to have had some effect.

Another thing that seems to have contributed to the success of the recent protests in France was the willingness of protesters to show up day-after-day and keep the pressure on. By contrast, most protests in the U.S. tend to be one-day-only, blink-and-you'll-miss-it sorts of things. Cindy Sheehan and the protesters that rallied around her last August are a notable exception to this, and I think the ability of her protest to outlast a single news cycle greatly contributed to its effectiveness.

The anti-Iraq War protest in NYC in 2003 was huge and 98% respectable-looking citizens. (For one thing, it was February, and everybody looks pretty respectable in a giant overcoat and a hat...) There were die-ins at Rockefeller Plaza and at major traffic intersections.

Headlines for maybe a day.

See, what the French protests did that the American ones don't and maybe never did is that protestors didn't go away after the first day. The universities in Paris have been disrupted for almost two months now; violence and solidarity have been escalating rather than diffusing. That's scary shit for businesspeople and average non-partisan citizens, and that gets important people to force the government to consider a compromise solution.

Fuck; pwned.

No pwnage. 'Tis but the hive mind at its finest.

respectable-looking citizens.

My mom and my dad. Separately -- they don't talk to each other. Mom shamed a cop into letting a pregnant woman who was getting squished up against a barricade out; I was very proud of her (and somewhat sorry for the cop. Mom's terrifying.)

One problem is that demonstrations occur in cities. I've been out holding my candle on repeated occasions in the last few years, also downtown. The crowd--and the cops--are almost always supportive, with thumbs up and friendly waves and honks.

The people among whom demonstrations are held almost always support them, at least lately. And if the votes of cities determined elections, we wouldn't be here.

I think the immigrant protests were, frankly a setup. Seems like between them and the Duke rape case, we're not talking about DeLay or this Hersh thing much anywhere but blogs.

Yeah, all that and stuff, but I was... LOOK!!! ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!! LOOK- BROWN PEOPLE EVERYWHERE!!! AGHHHH!!!!!

I don't mean setup in the sense that the protests themselves weren't sincere. I mean setup in the sense that the R's decided to make a big fucking stink with stupid anti-immigrant legislation in order to provide a distraction. Of course, they had no way of knowing that the lacrosse team at Duke would rape a stripper, or they might've held the bill for later use.

Cynthia McKinney HIT A COP!!!1!

And I still want to see the security camera footage.

Part of the problem with the efficacy of public protest in the United States is that there are few enough public venues left in which you can engage middle America. Folks live in the suburbs where you have to drive to private shopping malls and centers to engage in commerce. Folks go to work at private office parks and factories. How do you even try to get your message across to those people directly?

its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral...

Does anyone really believe this? First, there's no way the Koran could say anything specific about having atomic bombs. Second, plenty of Muslims have shown they have no problem with using bombs against innocent civilians (I'm not just talking about actual terrorists, but also their apologists and supporters). Third, Ahmadinejad has talked about wiping Israel off the map.

Not. Buying. It. Sorry, folks.

And to anyone who says "Don't worry, they're 10 years away from having a nuke", the obvious question is, "Well, how close do they have to be before we do something about it?"

Does anyone really believe this?

I believe that there are Iranian religious leaders - just like there are American religious leaders - who believe that nuclear weapons are immoral and the world shouldn't have them. I also believe that Iran will eventually go nuclear and there is nothing we are able to do that won't just, at best, speed that process, or at worst, spark a world war.

Second, plenty of Muslims have shown they have no problem with using bombs against innocent civilians

They hardly have the market cornered in that. Glass houses and all that.

Ahmadinejad has talked about wiping Israel off the map.

Ahmedinejad is a loon with a big mouth. But he's also a very weak president who won't ever have the ability to wipe anybody off the map. The choice isn't up to him and won't ever be, fortunately. In the meantime, the single most effective way to get the Iranian people to rally behind him is to start dropping bombs on their country.

They hardly have the market cornered in that. Glass houses and all that.

American leaders aren't claiming nukes are "Christianly" immoral (and America is not officially a Christian nation, anyway). If you're going to say that a certain thing is against your religion, it's fair to point out that many other members of your religion disagree.

Yeah, that's all true, but I was referring to the willingness to kill innocent civilians with bombs. I'm pretty sure we're winning that race.

Willingness, or desire?

If you're the one being blown up, the difference is pretty subtle.

"Willingness, or desire?"

If there is no direct moral equivalency between negligent manslaughter and first degree murder, you are assuming some level of objectivity; one is more than the other. So, are we not winning the body count race, in the "more" column?

And before you make the "apologist" accusation, stating that the Islamofascist contention that the American Government does not care about the lives of Muslims is not in conflict with many facts on the ground and continues to aid their recruitment efforst (breath) does not mean that Islamofascists aren't bat shit insane. Or that their actions are excusable in any way.