I totally agree. Our SF office building's front door had to be barricaded because of protesters. I am all for freedom of speech, but angry crowds are scary.

Hey juju, are you on Montgomery St. too?

Yeah, I think the rest of the country doesn't take San Francisco seriously when we protest anymore. Sometimes it makes me want to put down my water stick, take off my viking helmet and you know ... become an informed citizen.

There was recently an anti-war protest on my campus. They were also protesting the UC involvement in the development of nukes. While I totally support their cause the way they go about it is stupid. Taking a day off of school, marching down campus, disrupting a meeting (in regards to nukes)and vandalism is not helpful. I really doubt that the government even cares what 300+ students on a UC campus think about the war. It just seems like a big excuse to ditch class. They always seem to conveniently schedule these protests around midterms.

I also think that it is a big wast of police time. They brought out CHP, city cops and a police helicopter to try to keep the peace. I think that the polices' time could have been better spent elsewhere like on people who actually have emergencies. Also there are some students who are now complaining of police brutality even though there wasn't any.

Im all for protest but it should be done when your protest can actually be affective either in government or even raising awareness (neither of which happened on my campus)

*waste

BTW I forgot to mention that I think that sometimes the protests that occur now are trying to match the ones of the 60s put they go about things all wrong now. Specially at my campus the anti-war protests of the 60s were huge, they even burned down of Bank of America but the modern day protests just are not as effective

I've always had mixed feelings about protests. I think it does help occasionally to give a physical demonstration of the large number of people who feel a certain way and the strength of that feeling. I believe the pictures can have an impact at home and abroad. But the emotion that fuels the marches often gets self-righteous and counter-productive. I've seen right-to-lifers and peace protestors get really nasty with the police and with people who voice conflicting opinions. I never left a march feeling that anything had really been accomplished - so now I just leave them to people who believe in them.

I still have seen nothing more effective than a non-violent, non-harassment, non-confrontational language protest. It is the sheer numbers that speak volumes not the big mouths and megaphones.

The gov. does pay attention to the numbers of people at large rallies. 100 protesters could protest at the top of their lungs but they would not equal the power of 500 sitting there in complete silence.

The reason traditional non-violent protests work so well is sympathy. People don't like to see people doing absolutely nothing wrong being mistreated and man handled by the authorities. What these protesters today don't get is that they're doing thing that are illegal and for all intents and purposes really freaking annoying.

Hey Hypno, do you have anything to do with the Academy?

That's where I attended my Undegrad. Mentioning New Montgomery made me think of that....

Oh, and I agree!

I have no problem with protests -- but most modern protests seem to be lacking two key elements (which helped make the Civil Rights Movement as effective as it was)

1) Organization -- I don't even know where to start with this. I mean, people write books about it. Basically, organization reflects commitment to the cause or issue being protested. It's also pretty impressive to see a huge well-behaved and self-controlled group. The problem with many modern protests (and a huge difference from the Civil Rights protests) is that many participants are there because it's something to do, or a friend was trying to get more bodies. When you have people who are not concerned about effecting change, things tend to get out of control a lot easier. Organization also protects participants, public and private property and members of law enforcement (and when the police are happy, the protesters are happy)

2) Communication.
2(a) -- Communication with members/protesters. It's important that protesters are well-informed (granted, they should do that part on their own and not rely on the protest leaders for all of their information, but that's another issue) about what they are protesting; what change they are hoping to effect; and how this protest is being managed/run. Each participant should be well aware of his/her rights and the limits of those rights. Protest leaders should also let them know what, if any, protection the group can or will offer to participants (for instance, if they're wrongly arrested or something, the group may be willing to advocate for them -- but if the participant behaves in a manner not in line with the group's plans, he/she may well be on his own in figuring out his new criminal record)
2(b) -- Communication with community leaders, local government, etc. Most government agencies, buildings, departments, etc are pretty aware of citizens' rights when it comes to protests and will make reasonable efforts to accommodate the protest -- just be sure they have advance notice, so they can be adequately prepared. Some protesters get offended when they see a large police presence, but if the organizers have communicated with them effectively and done their part to make sure everything is legal and safe, the police are going into the protest expecting the best but being prepared for the worst.

I think I had another point, but this is already really long and got distracted by the phone

Yay protesters -- just do it right! (Actually, a pretty good example of that was the FAMU/FSU protests following the Martin Lee Andersen Boot Camp death -- student organizations at both universities collaborated, and student body leaders from I believe both schools were able to use the protest to get meetings with state leaders, etc etc. I don't recall what they were initially asking for or what responses they got, but I do remember that it was a very well organized protest)

I just wanted to point out that not all of the protests today were "illegal" and violence provoking.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1932344420080319

I'm too mad about this post to get into my thoughts and feelings on it, but suffice to say, if I could have been, I would have been in Time Square today alongside the rest of the Anti-War protesters.

I think protests are important and I admire most protesters. Like hypnoticmix said, sheer numbers garner attention. Protests also promote solidarity and remind us of our rights as Americans. In some countries, protesting is illegal and protesters routinely get beaten or even killed. Although police and govt. brutality is rampant here, we are relatively lucky in the big scheme of things.

Matdredalia: Thanks for that link.

IMO that's a textbook example of an effective protest.

And it's an excellent article. Be sure to read page 2, there are a couple of good quotes. The ladies seem insightful and make good, logical arguments.

However: a hasty retreat now would abandon the Iraqi people to chaos. No matter whether you think we should have gone in or not, a quick exit would be heartless and selfish. We should at least try to fix what has been broken.

Another small point: Have we had any other attacks on US soil in the last five years? Hmmm.....

Hey mymellowman, no I work on Montgomery in the financial district.

I agree with Hypno. I also agree with citizen but only with respect to the violence - it is ironic, and more to the point it doesn't accomplish the protestor's goals but detracts from the purpose of protest.

The benefit of the mass numbers is so that traffic WILL be held up and people (including, hopefully, people with the power to change things eg government, councils etc WILL notice and realise that there are very many people who care about the issue being protested).

Maybe it's because I'm coming from the Australian perspective, but I do know (especially as a lawyer who majored in political philosophy in my liberal arts degree) that it takes a LONG time to effect change through the conventional "systematic" [eg bureaucratic, paper-pushing] methods in a democracy. THe government has to listen to everyone, there is always some organisation or institution that lobbies the reverse, there will be a thousand consultations of everything possible, etc. Especially when it comes to international politics, there will always be the diplomatic considerations that people feel are totally out of their control or consideration.

Therefore, I think protests are still important and play a unique part in democracies such as ours in which, yes, there are other ways of effecting change. But they should be peaceful and not turn into violent mobs of people causing chaos and distress to bystanders. This makes the crowd lose credibility and therefore its voice, and what good is the protest then?

[sorry for sounding like an up-my-self snot, i promise that's unintentional, i just wanted to say that i've done lots of research in this particular area, which i'm really passionate about. so apologies if i sound like a total tool!]

I support protests because I do think they make the powers that be a little less comfortable, once the pictures show up in the news. The big thing is, without collectivity for a cause, nothing happens. The threat of collectivity is a good one. We can feel as passionately as we want about something, but as long as we are just going about our daily lives, our feelings mean nothing. Problem is, most people don't have time for more. Protests are a good way to get people who can't devote much time to a cause still show the public and government, hey, this is what I've been thinking about, and it matters to me. It usually doesn't work if the collectivity doesn't last, but there's always a little chance. Seeing a lot of people grouped for a cause can be powerful.

I think people can go about protests in more respectful ways than you're describing. Where I live, near SF, many people gathered by the roadside in a parking lot of a business that doesn't get much traffic, stayed out of everyone's way, and just held up their signs and candles. No fan-fare, no costumes, just waving at passersby.

My favorite protest that I've seen was in my former hometown, calling for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to allow illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses. Hundreds of people skipped work and school that day and walked to our downtown. They banged pots and pans with spoons, calling out "Si se puede." Honestly, I thought it was beautiful. It wasn't an angry event--they smiled and laughed and it looked more like a parade than a protest. (They didn't even block traffic; they practically filed down the sidewalk in twos, leaving enough room for others.)
I think that day swayed a lot of people's opinions...we were impressed. It didn't get them what they wanted, but maybe it got them closer to it.

Citizen, I do not agree with your position. And I think you are overlooking some important points.

First of all anarchy and peace are not mutually exclusive. You can have a protest which is sort of chaotic or with the purpose of disrupting the daily routine without it being violent or without it inciting violence.

You were disrupted for a day. People who have died from this war or who have lost someone because of the war have been disrupted for all eternity.

It seems to me that we average Americans expect to fight and finance a huge war without making any sacrifices. Many of us who do not know someone in Iraq or are not there ourselves are allowed to go on with our daily lives without paying any notice to the fact that we are at WAR! In my opinion, any little reminder, even if it is just one protest, that forces us to consider and to remember that we are at War is good and necessary. We can't expect the soldiers to fight this war while we try as hard as we can to forget about it. It is unpatriotic.

Citizen, I do agree with you when you say this: "I understand that given that reality people feel helpless. I do. But there are ways to spread your message without inciting violence. Your misguided pleas for attention are causing more harm than good."

Instead of directing this comment to anti-war protestors, however, I would direct it to George W Bush and to all American people. I understand that Americans didn't want to feel helpless after 9/11. I understad that democracy is a great message that should be spread around the world, certainly in the face of cruel and evil dictators such as Saddam. BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO SPREAD YOUR MESSAGE, AMERICA, WITHOUT INCITING VIOLENCE. YOUR MISGUIDED PLEAS FOR ATTENTION, GLOBAL POWER, AND MONEY ARE CAUSING MORE HARM THAN GOOD!!!!!!

Hypno said it quite well enough for me. I don't like this post. You should've put Liberty's on the front, and been forced to click through to read this one... Very negative. And, I don't agree with sitting back and appearing oblivious.

*Oops! Guess I should have scrolled down! LoL

Today the peace sign turns 50. Happy Birthday to a symbol that stood for nuclear disarmament. I agree with the post but more so with Hypno's statement of the power of seeing so many people peacefully protesting and that today's protesters are missing the concept of a peaceful demonstration. Being in NYC I end up more pissed at the protesters and their cause D'Jour then anything else. Their screaming and rants drown out their message and their blocking of traffic and people is really annoying.

I agree entirely. As I commented on another post, I am in DC, and the protesters yesterday started out near my building -- far away from both the Capitol and White House.

In terms of the Capitol, I guess they made it there eventually, but Congress wasn't in! So, they were demonstrating to staffers.

In terms of the White House, it's clear the man in charge there doesn't care much what citizens think about any issue.

So, them throwing red paint on the street or lying in the street in front of Quizno's so my coworkers (at a health care organization that has NO stance on the war) was the most ineffective thing. I also find folks hypocritical when they are violent to go for peace.

I don't agree with violent protests. However I REALLY believe in protests, and I participate in them too. Before the Iraq war started, I was one of 1/2 a million people that took to the streets of London and voiced our opposition. Did it stop my country's participation? no, but it meant that my country was less willing to let our leader get away with it, and he was forced to continuously answer questions about our involvement in the war. Our voices were heard, Our PM acknowledged our unhappiness. We made use of our democratic freedoms.

Hi Blondie99!
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. You raise some great points and I was glad to read your take on it. I do think that the circus-like spectacle that, perhaps not all but certainly some, protests take on distracts wildly from the seriousness of their message. My quibble is mainly with that point.

And yes! You're absolutely right. We need to be reminded of what's going on--as often as possible. I just wish those reminders, the delivery of that message, fully captured and communicated the dignity and seriousness of the idea and allowed people to consider that--instead of the protest itself.

citizen said rhetoric.

I agree with Blondie99

Blondie is right. How can we criticize anti-war protestors for inciting violence to spread their message. It is America who is using violence to force the great ideals of democracy on the rest of the world. Doesn't that seem hypocritical?

And Citizen, how can you say DO SOMETHING to these anti-war protestors. They along with the soldiers are the only ones actually DOING ANYTHING. The rest of us just sit at home complaining about the price of oil and refusing to pay more to pay for this enormous and expensive war.

Well said, CitizenSugar.

"Blondie is right. How can we criticize anti-war protestors for inciting violence to spread their message. It is America who is using violence to force the great ideals of democracy on the rest of the world. Doesn't that seem hypocritical?" - Well, if there protesters are against violence, aren't they the ones who are hypocritical?

Most protesters are not violent.

I'm sorry, I just think this is a completely uninteresting story, with all it's pros and cons, compared to the Burma protests. I agree with Citizen though, and mostly because I think this jams the conversation instead of starting it, or pushing it. You know what I think they should do? Have town hall and college campus meetings with politicians, military leaders, middle east analysts and college professors informing the public about the situation, the different strategies and outcomes and where the public can have their questions answered in detail.

The marching, the shouting, the posters; the politicians are not going to listen to that. But the more informed we are, the higher the bar is for our elected officials, and the better we can cast our votes come election time. If we made it a priority 365 days a year to get involved we wouldn't need these good for nothing protests.

If you want to influence the direction of this country you should encourage people around you to inform themselves, write in to news channels, newspapers and magazines, write letters to your mayors, senators, governors, campaign for your presidential candidate, start a political blog, vote, get involved in politics on a local level, and the list goes on. This will be far more helpful than a cartoony protest. Going to this protest isn't doing anything. And it doesn't help your cause and it pushes the opposing party away.

Why is that? It is because we live in a free democracy, unlike Burma, Palestine, Iran, Taiwan, North Korea where protests really do make a difference, and you can be killed for even trying to plan one. We should pay more attention to those.

Mother Teresa once said; "Anti war rallies? No. Invite me to a Pro peace rally, and I will go."

for some reason every picture I have ever seen of protestors looks like the kids that used to sit outside High School smoking and waiting for thier rides, and or the drama club sitting around the caf rehearsing Grease for the umpteenth time.

I strongly disagree with the notion that anti-war protesters should take liberties when it comes to inciting violence and mayhem upon the general public. When your purpose is to demonstrate against violence and insight peace the worst thing you can do is to become what you are protesting.

The purpose of being out there is not to reach the people who already agree with you. Nor is it to reach the people who disagree with you. It is to reach the vast number of Americans who are for all intents and purposes on auto pilot. You're trying to get their attention to get them to snap out of it, pay attention and want to be enlightened about an issue that truly matters. You will not accomplish this by using tactics which make people recoil from the messenger there for shutting them off from the message. I believe the anti-war protesters hearts are in the right place but they need to be smarter about their tactics if they want to convince the masses.

Let us not also forget the power of the pen. Every one letter received by our national representatives is considered to be twenty five people sharing the same exact opinion.

Yesterday a 93 year old woman walked into the Times Square recruiting station to enlist and take the place of a soldier. My kind of lady. Grandmas are holding a "knit - in" here in NYC - quiet but got the attention of the city and the press who thus spread their message.

Violent protesters only incur the wrath of the people of the city they are in and the disgust of others. They tax the cities resources. Cops who should be patrolling and protecting are trying to control them, courts who should be dealing with criminals are dealing with them. Waste of money, fuel and manpower.

Write your local paper, knit or stand on a corner holding a banner. Make your point with dignity but rampage through my city and I want to see you in jail and your message is lost on the masses.

Whisper and they will listen harder, scream and they will cover their ears.

I agree and disagree with this post. I agree that violence gets you no where and that the violent protestors are doing more harm than good. But there are none violent protestors. I'm going to second a ton of people on here and go ahead and say that the voice of hundreds of calm, not violent people gets heard. Protests can be effective, but anarchy and chaos do not lead to peace. We're having a major problem with very violent protesting up here in Vancouver right now. Buildings are getting destroyed and people are getting hurt. This does not get your point across. It does not make me want to help you. In fact, it does the opposite. I do think that people can rally together to make a difference, but I think it is better done by informing ourselves and using that knowledge to provide a well thought out and informative written message to the newspapers and your local governing body ect. Make your point with respect and you will receive a respectful response.

Here in Washington, DC I think 30 people were arrested trying to block the entrance to the IRS building. Otherwise I'd have to say it was fairly peaceful, if a bit morbid (those death masks - shudder). A lot of people are just looking for a cause, and finding one, but not necessarily the right cause for them.

Thank you, Liberty. I have participated in several large protests. Yes, some people occasionally get out of control, but by & large most protesters are peaceful.

But there are ways to spread your message without inciting violence. Your misguided pleas for attention are causing more harm than good.

I have serious problems with the above statement. Most protests & protesters are non-violent & seek to gain attention to the issues peacefully. My father (a vet) protests on our State House steps every Wednesday with a group called Women in Black. About 10-15 people stand outside & hold up signs. Neither of those things cause any harm.

The vast majority of protests are small in number & don't seek to tie up traffic or otherwise disrupt daily life. Please keep that in mind

Hey sashak,

You're absolutely right. It is certainly possible to demonstrate an idea without it devolving into spectacle. I applaud those who are able to communicate their ideas in a way that is effective and doesn't distract from the message. Thanks for your comment!

Hypnomix -- I am in LA, but we have an office in SF. Our office is on California street, in the same building as Chevron. My co-worker said it was pretty scary getting into work.

I applaud your father and his associates sashak and I don't think anyone here is criticizing them or others like them. Our focus is very specific on those that cause chaos with the ironic intent to teach peace.

Oh cool juju I'm on Montgomery & Washington across the street from the Transamerica bldg.

This is true of protests, yes. But not true of sit-ins and other civil disobedience tactics which have peacefully upset the process enough to achieve victory. For example, Students Against Sweatshops at Harvard Uni last year sat in for 67 days in their Presidents office demanding a living wage and benefits for non-Union janitors at the school who were mainly black and latino. The University at Buffalo SAS chapter did the same thing.

Sometimes all it takes is to show people that other's care, and to educate - I'm an old school student organizer but protests aren't my thing - you have to be up front, abrupt, prepared, and ready to get down and dirty (i.e. arrested or beaten, both of which a lot of activists have been), not walk in the streets with signs.

Oh, and ironically, it is only because of the threat or action of violent protesters that the Civil Rights Act was passed, and that the American people had such influence in the ending of the vietnam war. It took one year after MLK died for the CRA to be passed, because of the threat of race riots (and the imaginary threat and media-spun propaganda that the Black Panther party would incite violence), and fragging in Vietnam against generals coupled with several citizen-led riots in America sped along the withdrawal process from Vietnam a great deal. So we may disagree with violence, but I think I disagree more with the centuries of justified violence that our particular government has practiced and continues to on certain groups of people in this nation and overseas. I would prefer peace, of course, but what can we logically expect when people are incited to such a degree? On that note, American anti-war protesters now have not and will not become violent because they are invested in this peaceful protest stuff.

Are you for real?? Have you ever been to any kind of peaceful protest, or have you only seen clips of violent protests on TV? Taking an issue to the streets peacefully, as a show of numbers, is a vital part of American history and an essential right.

Yes, I have been to many peaceful, well-attended protests. I suppose someone who is anti-protests would question my right to even go. I'd call that opinion anti-American, frankly.

With all due respect minaminamina I disagree when you say "ironically, it is only because of the threat or action of violent protesters that the Civil Rights Act was passed". The Civil Rights act was first proposed in 63 by Pres. Kennedy and I believe that the Johnson admin. finally took action because a few states left up to there own discretion chose to continue to treat minorities as second rate citizens regardless of federal legal threats, withholding of federal funds ect. After a few years of watching non-violent protesters beat by local and state authorities and having to send the FBI and federal troops to protect the protesters the public and the administration had had enough. Were they Johnny come latelys, sure. But my point is it was not due to the protesters overt actions of violence it was in due part to the overt violence upon the protesters.

That's not what MLK's FBI file states, nor what JFK or LBJ's staff discussions entailed - this was my first graduate thesis assignment, so I was lucky enough to be able to spend a hell of a lot of time in the Congressional Record. You might be interested in it, hypnoticmix, because what you just stated in your comment is certainly true of what Americans learn, but not the reality of the situation.

I completely agree with you, Citizensugar. On Thursday there was a huge protest in my city, and an organized(I guess you could say so) walkout of students at high schools to go to the protest. I didn't understand the reasoning behind the walkout(I didn't leave); leaving school won't protest peace, rather it will protest authority. I later saw pictures of students scaling the city hall, and some were arrested.