Just another protest ...

Every controversy has an entourage of angry politicians, lawyers and ... protesters.\nIn the past few weeks we've seen quite a lot of protesters in the headlines. From Beirut to Florida to Chicago to right here in Bloomington -- where we've even had the added joy of counter-protesters -- they've clogged the streets in their efforts to change the world.\nCorrection: Their efforts are to let the world know how they feel, not to change it.\nLast Saturday, Chicago's streets, as well as those of other cities, were graced by protesters marking the two-year anniversary of the Iraq war as well as their police escort. I remember picking up the Chicago Sun-Times and seeing a picture of the police dealing with a ragged, dirty, dreadlocked protester who ventured outside the bounds of normal protesting etiquette.\nFirst of all, wouldn't it make much more sense to be orderly about a protest? I, for one, would certainly be more inclined to at least listen to protesters' ideas if the police didn't have to deal with them.\nThen there's the attire. I remember watching the European news where "green" groups protested Spanish bullfights wearing nothing but face paint and scanty underwear. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously if you present your view on an issue dressed like "Braveheart" on LSD? \nShowing some decorum, even just acting civilized, will make any mob, however large, at least look serious about an issue. It's great that people care about issues and can express their views, but there are far more effective ways to present views than acting like barbarians.\nAlso, that a police escort is needed at many protests doesn't say a whole lot for protesters in general. "Big deal," one might say, "parades have them, too." Well, police don't need to arm themselves to the teeth and prepare for a face-off in parades. Protests such as the one Monday in Dzhalal Abad, Kyrgyzstan -- where four police officers were beaten to death -- shows exactly why police are needed to keep order. Some protesters are nothing more than an angry mob with a collective anger that can quite easily burst into violence. The presence of police means that protesters are recognized as a safety risk to other citizens.\nHow can a protester think that his views will be seriously considered by participating in something recognized as potentially dangerous to society? Their proclivity for turning violent shifts the focus of bystanders away from the protesters' views, which defeats the entire purpose of holding a demonstration in the first place.\nProtesting the war in Chicago is also nothing more than wasting breath. No decisions on the Iraq war are made there, so why voice your opinion to the powerless?\nLet us now consider protests in a good place. The past few weeks saw thousands of protesters in Beirut, Lebanon, gather to "demand Syrian withdrawal" from their country. If other protests turn violent when they should be peaceful, here's one where picking up arms would actually achieve the protesters' goals.\nThe European revolutions of 1848 that overthrew Metternich and the July monarchy were not done by peaceful whining. The citizens picked up their own arms and won their own government. Perhaps the Lebanese protest would have been more effective as a revolution. Tyrants and invaders are not overthrown with a bunch of waving flags unless their rule is weak to begin with.\nFreedom of speech is something we take for granted in this country so much that we do not use it effectively. \nInstead of painting your face and taking to the streets, argue your case with reason, be serious about what you say or, better yet, get out and actually do something that will directly help you achieve your cause.