Dirty Hippies Take to the Streets

Posted by on . 22 comments.

sf iraq war protest 034

Photos from the San Francisco version are here and here

If you don’t go look at the photos, then this guy (and the terrorists) win.

Comments

  1. sac says:
    January 30, 2007 at 7:12 am

    Can I say that try as I might, even though I may share many of their sentiments, I cannot be down with 99% of the people who take to the streets, including the girl with the idiot slogan pictured? Although protests are an excellent place to meet chicks, no question.

  2. matt says:
    January 30, 2007 at 8:17 am

    I cannot be down with 99% of the people who take to the streets

    because you fancy yourself above it?

  3. jamie beth says:
    January 30, 2007 at 8:47 am

    people who take to the streets generally have hope.

  4. tom says:
    January 30, 2007 at 11:16 am

    eh, to be honest i grew tired of the kinds of people who go to protests. after countless protests in pgh and a bunch in DC, they all started to be kind of the same. people shouting the same things over and over, regardless of the issue at hand. people who are damn near completely clueless about the issues at hand. sure, there are some who arent like that, but theyre vastly outnumbered. that said, im not against them doing what they do, but its not hard to figure out why these protests never change anything. its like a small one day activity around an issue that even the people who take part in it largely stop thinking about shortly thereafter.

    i guess the anti-war protests are slightly different in that most people can relate to them, but the arguments for why this war is awful and a disaster dont really fit well on signs. im all for populism, but just like i wont buy a brittney spears CD just because 3 millions others did, im not going to hold an opinion just because a couple thousand people say so. it takes reasoned arguments and discussion, none of which is provided in a protest.

  5. matt says:
    January 30, 2007 at 11:18 am

    tom, you can’t be bothered to vote. of course protesting isn’t going to be your bag.

    it takes reasoned arguments and discussion, none of which is provided in a protest.

    but that’s not the point of a protest, is it?

  6. tom says:
    January 30, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    its not that i cant be bothered, i wont insult my own intelligence by acting as if voting matters. it takes me more effort to go do any number of things that i dont even really give a shit about than it would to go vote. ive even taken my grandmother to go vote at the same place i would, ive even walked into the polling spot with her. it would take no energy to walk in and pull the levers. none.

    but this is my point: what *IS* the point of a protest? it doesnt change things. it doesnt even change peoples’s minds. a large number of the people there are sheep who have no idea what theyre talking about just as the people who are on the other side of issue X are. is it for people to feel good that other people agree with them? the whole idea is now fundamentally flawed. perhaps at some point years ago, protests were a viable political tool. now, theyre a joke.

  7. matt says:
    January 30, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    what can i say, you’re a rebel, a soul rebel.

    but this is my point: what *IS* the point of a protest?

    what else is there? not everyone has an op/ed column or even a blog.

    i’m not much of a protest guy myself, but that’s because anything I feel like writing gets read by several thousand people. were that not the case, i’d be carrying a sign with all the other dirty hippies.

  8. sac says:
    January 31, 2007 at 7:18 am

    because you fancy yourself above it?

    No. I went to more than my share. But the sign that girl is holding is very indicative of the type of thinking that goes on at protests, and I know protests aren’t for thinking, but the reasoning behind going to one should involve some sort of mental activity.

    The last one I was at was in 1991 (fuck I’m old) to protest Gulf War I. It was in Berkeley on University Ave. and as the crowd made its way to the 80 overpass, the police formed a roadblock so that we couldn’t march over the overpass. So a very earnest young girl with a bullhorn starts shouting things like “These pigs will not stop us!,” “These pigs are part of the war machine!” (I’m not kidding, she needed to update her protester’s manual). And I was thinking, you know, it’s not going to make one bit of difference whether we cross the overpass or not, and then I realized that was the point. To buck authority, express ourselves and cross that fucking overpass. Didn’t matter what cause it was for, really.

    So yeah, I never went to another one, although I stand by my assertion that they’re fantastic places to meet hot hippie chicks.

    people who take to the streets generally have hope.

    I’ve got plenty of hope, although it wanes when I see pictures like the one at the top of this post. (Not for the quality, you’re a damn good photographer.)

  9. matt says:
    January 31, 2007 at 8:56 am

    But the sign that girl is holding is very indicative of the type of thinking that goes on at protests, and I know protests aren’t for thinking, but the reasoning behind going to one should involve some sort of mental activity.

    there will always be fringe elements and extremists. i have a photo that i don’t think made the cut of a woman with a sign that said something to the effect of “it’s not bush’s fault, it’s the capitalistic market system.” that woman is clearly not in the mainstream. nor are the idiots who look at a single issue protest march and decide that the single issue should be their issue. there were a few people picketing a non-union employer, the requisite free mumia and cuban 6 shirts.

    I’ve written about this before.

    but this march was pretty focused all in all. so the girl in the photo above isn’t my choice for communications strategist. so what? she is clearly against the war, and made a sign that she felt conveyed that to other people.

    was this march ever going to have any effect on policy. no. but when you have no power (even over elected officials of your own party) protesting is really all there is. some choose to exercise this right, and others don’t. but don’t marginalize everyone because a few fringe elements express positions that might be silly.

    i realize that part of this is my fault because i edited 800 photos down to the less than 100 i posted, and chose the one to post here that had one of the sillier messages on it. i didn’t choose the photos to make a political point, i chose the photos i thought were worthy of being seen. the vast majority of signs read “US out of iraq” or “bring the troops home.” and the bulk of the people marching were normal working people.

    and i’m still not sure why the sf chron felt the need to undercount the turnout by a factor of 10, but i’m sure this adds to the urge to dismiss the protest as a whole…

  10. tom says:
    January 31, 2007 at 10:53 am

    a question: how many “no war for oil!” signs were there? those are my favorites.

  11. matt says:
    January 31, 2007 at 10:57 am

    a handful.

  12. sac says:
    January 31, 2007 at 11:09 am

    I’m a firm believer of solemn marches as protest, much like the AIDS walks of years gone by. Much more powerful and effective. In fact, if a protest were to by advertised as a “walk,” it may be possible to do something like that. But things like street theater, while a lot of fun to look at, only do harm to the cause, if the cause is to make people who are in power sit up and listen and to reach regular people who may not agree with you. But as I said, that isn’t the cause at most protests. It’s all about venting and self-expression.

    And yeah, it is very telling that you chose that photo. The reasons for choosing it are the same ones that photo editors choose similar photos. Lots of passion and tension, and that makes for a good photo.

  13. matt says:
    January 31, 2007 at 11:15 am

    I’m a firm believer of solemn marches as protest, much like the AIDS walks of years gone by. Much more powerful and effective. In fact, if a protest were to by advertised as a “walk,” it may be possible to do something like that. But things like street theater, while a lot of fun to look at, only do harm to the cause, if the cause is to make people who are in power sit up and listen and to reach regular people who may not agree with you. But as I said, that isn’t the cause at most protests. It’s all about venting and self-expression.

    there is some serious irony going on here. you put down protest marchers because they are venting, but you denigrate democrats who didn’t do the same thing when they were in the minority?

    the way the media (and you) treats the marchers should explain why those in congress don’t do the same thing.

  14. sac says:
    January 31, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    I think you’re reaching, here. Democrats forcefully opposing Republican policies is not “venting” if they offer viable alternatives and fight for those alternatives. People screaming “No blood for oil!” while wearing facepaint is not the same thing. I don’t want Democrats to jump up and down and act hysterical, I want them to formulate good policy and work effectively towards enacting it, regardless of whether they’re in the majority or not.

    Seriously, you’re just joking, right?

  15. matt says:
    January 31, 2007 at 1:14 pm

    not joking at all. i think you continue to operate under the perception that the minority party can get anything done by themselves. it is a simple fact that – except at the margins – they can’t. how are the republicans doing so far this year?

    of course i don’t want barbara boxer in a “send the twins” shirt, but the coverage of her and others during the attempted filibuster of alito made it seem indistinguishable from if she had.

  16. sac says:
    February 5, 2007 at 10:12 am

    You’re thinking short-term. A politician with a long and public track record of being for or against this or that is more credible and effective.

  17. matt says:
    February 5, 2007 at 10:14 am

    A politician with a long and public track record of being for or against this or that is more credible and effective.

    like jack murtha? what are you getting at here?

  18. sac says:
    February 5, 2007 at 11:38 am

    Sure, Murtha is a good example. Multiply him by an entire party and you have a coherent, cohesive political force who offer up a viable opposition when in the minority and a strong force for change and/or good policy when in the majority.

    I’m not saying people should she their beliefs and line up with the rank and file, necessarily. I just disagree with your argument that parties in the minority are powerless. Power is not solely about majority votes, but also about the perception of purpose and vision.

  19. matt says:
    February 5, 2007 at 11:53 am

    I just disagree with your argument that parties in the minority are powerless.

    i don’t get to say this often enough, but you’re living in a pre-9/11 world.

  20. sac says:
    February 5, 2007 at 11:57 am

    Whatever. See my comment on your social security post.

  21. matt says:
    February 5, 2007 at 12:02 pm

    not much of an argument here or there.

  22. sac says:
    February 5, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Compared to your unimpeachable “pre-9/11″ argument, I suppose you are correct. Truly a marvel of rhetoric, that.