ntang (ntang) wrote,

  • Mood:

New Yorkers doth protest too much, methinks

I'm not pro-war, I've never kept that secret, but I've tried to stay out of things because for the most part, I just don't want to get dragged into it. It's a done deal at this point, we're at war, and while I disagree with what I believe Bush's motives to be, I think there are some valid reasons to be at war and that some good could come of it. And that's it, I don't want to get into it past that.

However, I just read about something that pisses me off.



"Thursday March 27, 7:00 A.M.
Onward, NO Business As Usual! Stop The City If They Don't Stop The War!

Decentralized autonomous direct action throughout the city will stop rush hour traffic. Classrooms will sit empty and employees will NOT be at their desks. Roving street blockades and civil disobedience will fill the intersections. Marching together hasn't stopped the war so now let's swarm throughout the city in smaller groups and greater numbers. Those who oppose the war will join with others and stand up for justice. Mobilize your affinity group and help shut down the city!"


I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me how making my commute hell, or raising a big ruckus in this fine city of ours is going to help the anti-war effort? How it's going to make the US pull out of Iraq? This kind of shit drives me crazy. It reminds me of all of the 13 year old linux geeks that send threatening or flaming emails to people like Bill Gates or post long ridiculous rants about the evil of MS online. This stuff hurts the credibility of everyone even remotely involved, and it makes anti-war protesters look like a bunch of idiots.

If they want to shut something down, go camp outside the white house and get in Bush's way when he tries to drive around or something, shut down DC. Even that won't stop the war, but at least they'll be having a direct impact on the president. This plan sucks.

And on another note, I was really proud of the fact that NYC had one of the largest anti-war protests anywhere, but that we did it without the violence and ridiculous levels of insanity that happened in every other city. Yes, there were some incidents, but they were probably as much the fault of the police and/or administration than the protesters' faults. We had shown the world we were passionate about our beliefs, but were still sane. Unlike, say, San Francisco.


I'm really bothered by this. I don't mind if they want to have their "die-in" at Rockefeller Center (apparently it means people lie down and pretend to be dead), or if they want to march, or congregate and protest peacefully, but does anyone else see any irony and hypocrisy in demonstrating for peace in a violent and/or lawless manner? We want to spare the Iraqi people violence, so we visit it upon ourselves? HELLO?

So, basically, a lot of people are going to get arrested, my ass is going to get sore from sitting on the bus for 4 hours, anti-war-protesters will lose any credibility they had, and nothing positive will be accomplished. Yay! We should do this more often. :P

(I'm taking a chance and leaving this open to comments. You're welcome to comment regardless of your feelings on the matter, all I ask is that you stay civil.)

  • Where I am nowadays

    I haven't updated this in a million years... in case you're wondering why, it's because I've mostly moved on to other places. You can find my…

  • DSL

    I've been a loyal Megapath customer for years. (Something like 8 or 10, crazy, in that range...) They've had great service (and a great service -…

  • MySQL failover

    So we're running some MySQL at work, which is a little unusual for us, but is probably long overdue. (Specifically, it's for some Wordpress…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded