Listen man, I'm not for vandalism. And I'm all for more positive attempts at communication like, for example, peaceful protest. I'm not all that surprised though, when you consider the vicious response from the right (from T_J to Rumsfeld to Bush) to such reasonable attempts at communication, that some people might become frustrated and resort to SLIGHTLY more radical means. Again, I don't condone it. But when the response to defacement of public property is so extreme, I am befuddled and deeply saddened that the destruction of innocent life provokes a less passionate condemnation.
While a small number of families, political moderates, and senior citizens salted the ranks of Saturday's march, a much-larger contingent escaped the notice of most journalists. Waving inflammatory signs, wearing scary costumes, and partaking in street theatre, the anti-American extremists who dominated the event were hard to miss. Yet, they were somehow overlooked in most of the press accounts of the protest Based on the numerous demonstrations I've been to, I would say that this is a lie by a fanatic rightwinger who believes that it is ok to lie for his cause. He can' t be that dumb, unless he is a neophyte reporter who a rightwing publication assigned to the story. The "most journalists" who the author talks about are giving a more accurate picture by talking about the large majority who are at the demo. These mainstream journalists are not just trying to create a false picture to discredit the peace movement. What really goes on is that much of the ground work. for these demonstrations is done at times by some pretty nutty folks. There are some small groups in Houston and nationwide called the Workers World Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party. They often times do a lot of the grunt work of getting permits and such. They live to do this type of thing. They are always there first. They have all dozen members at each event holding their bizaare signs and they love to spray paint stupid stuff. They have literature tables with their nutty stuff at the demos. The vast majority of people who show up to the demos are ordinary folks moderates, liberals or green types who don't support N. Korea, Sadam Hussein etc, and have never supported any totalitarian governments whether they call themselves, Kingdoms, Soviet Republics or whatever. They just don't view Iraq as a threat or they don't think that premptive war is the answer. Some are complete pacifists. Though many at the demonstrators don't realize who some of the organizers are, many people do. These people at the demo basically agree to assemble due to their common cause of not supporting the Vietnam, Gulfwar I. II etc. It is sort of like the rich cat irreligious Republicans who have mistresses and abortions being at the convention with working class church going Baptists whose main issue is abortion. All have the common goal of electing a Republican. The influence of these small extreme groups is unfortunate and counterproductive. It is greater in the beginning of a movement, but they lose influence as the movement grows since they will always remain with limited numbers. There is no way that the demo in DC with 100,000 was mainly composed of the exreme types the author depicts. To know more: Behind the Placards
I agree that they shouldn't deface the freeway like that, but they probably did it because they couldn't afford a billboard....like the strikingly beautiful one along 59 in the same area with Ton DeLay's ugly mug on it congratulating him for his, ahem, "leadership". Somebody should spray paint NO WAR FOR OIL across that ridiculous monstrosity.
I would have so much more preferred that Tex. Concrete is hard to clean; billboards are easy. Aren't they all coming down in another decade anyway? Batman, I don't know if you were talking to me or TJ (about whatever it was he said). But, not everything is about this stupid war, for or against. Grafitti is not a big deal compared to a possible invasion of Iraq. A possible invasion of Iraq is no big deal compared to the fact that all men must die. They may all be related, but it doesn't mean we have to talk about the great tragedies of life all the time. This isn't about war for me -- which, though I have an opinion about it, doesn't really affect me personally in any very significant way -- this is about grafitti. Houston is my home town which I dearly love. And some jerk is abusing it so he can have some illegitimate and ineffective shout-out to the people in Houston.
Isn't that the problem, Juan? A frickin' *war* doesn't affect you in a very significant way, but graffiti on beautiful 59 does? Jesus.
Bah... most protesters are college students with nothing better to do. I know... I've been there . Even if other people agree, they usually don't have the time or initiative to actually attend. Not like protest does much good anyway in its usual setting... (scares the moderate suburbanites if anything, imo). There are the occasional protests that no sane moderate liberal would attend, like the anti-WTO protests. Nader's rallies were usually kind of nutty as well. I walked out midway through his Boston rally. Nader's a decent thinker (though a bit deluded), but the people who spoke before him were melodramatic ideologues. I have noticed that the nuts usually get more attention than the majority constituted of normal people. So if the opposite was true this time, it'd be a first.
I think I'll start throwing trash out the window every day now to protest. I mean come on, what's a little trash on the freeway going to hurt? This is war we're talking about.
Oh come on, Freak. Nobody here has said that vandalism wasn't wrong. They, and I, have only said it's unfortunate that spray paint generates more outrage than innocent lives lost. Juan: I wasn't addressing anyone in particular -- only addressing the notion that people implied vandalism was a more heinous act than killing innocent people.
The problem is what exactly? I already agree with the protesters -- I don't want a war in Iraq. Graffito-tagging my city doesn't strengthen an anti-war position. It makes the protesters look like a fringe-element that resorts to crime to force their views on others. Can a person in a position of power, that can actually have some influence on decisions about national policy, really be convinced of the validity of a man's argument through vandalism? The only thing it really does, besides crapping up my city, is undermine the arguments of folks who are trying to put forth cogent arguments against war. Are they trying to bring the war home to me? To make me feel some of the suffering that the US wreaks upon other nations? To make the war as personally significant to me as it is somehow to them? If so, aren't they casting themselves in the part of the bully, the USA? There are wars all over the globe. There are people being enslaved in Sudan; genocides in central Africa; rebellions in South America; dictatorships every time you turn around. Frankly, I can't get too wound up about every war and major atrocity in the world (if I did, I would want a war in Iraq to put an end to Saddam's dictatorship). I don't think I can put my own life on hold whenever people are fighting on the other side of the globe. So yes, Houston is more important to me than a frickin war. Especially when we're talking about an action like this grafitti which is pointless, useless, self-defeating and destructive. To recap: (1) Grafitti makes protesters look like fools and undermines all arguments against war. (2) This grafitti is oppressive, just as the US foreign policy is, but on a smaller scale. (3) My self-interest dictates that I should condemn damaging my home-town.
