George W. Bush was giving a speech at Monticello yesterday and he was bombarded by protesters as seen in this CNN video. I can't honestly say that Bush didn't make some mistakes in Iraq or that our Union's current state is a tenuous one, but I can say that protesters should pick their battles a little better. You have a right to protest any kind of speech you want, but why would anybody think the protest a naturalization ceremony on the 4th of July? What is gained by doing that? How is this much different than the Westboro Baptist Church protesting funerals of soldiers? It's a little less offensive, but not much. The Monticello website describes the ceremony at which Bush was speaking as:
This outdoor naturalization ceremony for new citizens on Monticello’s West Lawn and is one of America’s most inspiring July 4 events. This year's ceremony features the remarks of President George W. Bush. The Independence Day event is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. and members of the public will be admitted free of charge.
Maybe next time they can protest someone's graduation or go to somebody's birthday party. The protesters, who couldn't even really come up with any worthy protest, settle for disrupting what could have been a very beautiful and meaningful ceremony for our new brothers and sisters. I maintain that they have a right to protest, but everybody else who came to the event has the right to enjoy it without the braying of a few disgruntled simpletons.
Is what these protesters did adding anything to the National discourse anyway? Or are they just sounding off like loud-mouthed babies with rhetorical, unfounded nonsense? If you're really that upset with the Bush administration, or any administration, why not write something that has facts and details, something to be published so that instead of you looking like a party-pooping moron, people will see your point and maybe do something productive. Productivity: what most protesters lack. Maybe that's why we don't shoot protesters or imprison them: we know that they react in an incendiary fashion and throw common sense and logic out the window. Nobody really listens to them. If Gandhi had been more rash and thoughtless, India would still be a British colony. It seems as though we live in a society where volume is considered more effective than truth, logic and common sense.
Before these people protest another event, maybe they should read some Thoreau and think of some ways to protest productively. Put down the big stick, take the bass out of your voice and do something smart and valuable. I don't disagree with their message, only with their delivery.
Maybe next time they can protest someone's graduation or go to somebody's birthday party. The protesters, who couldn't even really come up with any worthy protest, settle for disrupting what could have been a very beautiful and meaningful ceremony for our new brothers and sisters. I maintain that they have a right to protest, but everybody else who came to the event has the right to enjoy it without the braying of a few disgruntled simpletons.
Is what these protesters did adding anything to the National discourse anyway? Or are they just sounding off like loud-mouthed babies with rhetorical, unfounded nonsense? If you're really that upset with the Bush administration, or any administration, why not write something that has facts and details, something to be published so that instead of you looking like a party-pooping moron, people will see your point and maybe do something productive. Productivity: what most protesters lack. Maybe that's why we don't shoot protesters or imprison them: we know that they react in an incendiary fashion and throw common sense and logic out the window. Nobody really listens to them. If Gandhi had been more rash and thoughtless, India would still be a British colony. It seems as though we live in a society where volume is considered more effective than truth, logic and common sense.
Before these people protest another event, maybe they should read some Thoreau and think of some ways to protest productively. Put down the big stick, take the bass out of your voice and do something smart and valuable. I don't disagree with their message, only with their delivery.
3 comments:
Well and generously spoken. You've summed up my feelings about Michael Moore very nicely. And seriously? How can you protest AT Monticello on the day Jefferson died? No class.
We've had this debate many times. I'm not specifically defending these protesters, but if you truly are a follower of Thoreau than wether or not someone thinks you are an asshole is inconsequential. I hold that any type of protest is meant to be disruptive, not disrespectful. What these people are protesting is everybody enjoying their 4th of July when the President is playing 4 corners and running out the clock on the Iraq War while daily people die without even a shadow of a reason. Their perspective is "fine, I'm an asshole, but people are dying and no one seems to care. If I have to be an asshole to point that out, then so be it." It's not the most sophisticated argument, but there it is all the same.
What the protesters don't realize is that people have been misinformed about the Iraq war to the point that no amount of protesting is going change the already altered perception the nation has of the war. So I don't think they're assholes, just myopic and a bit simple.
All the same, reminding the nation that people are still dying while we spend time fretting over celebrity gossip may not be the nicest thing to do, but there is a nobility in it. Are they truly assholes, or are we mad at them because they remind us how impotent our political system leaves us? Food for thought.
I'm not truly a follower of anybody.
Certainly if this was a protest at a movie premier or a county fair, I'd agree.
But when it's at a naturalization ceremony, I tend to draw the line. The protest that went on during this event was disruptive, but it was also disrespectful.
I don't care if the President felt a little uncomfortable. He should for the poor job he has done.
But why not protest any other event he is at? Why not do something constructive?
Can't we both agree that protesting is necessary, but that there has to be a better, more effective way in which to do it? Instead on focusing on volume, focusing on the message? I don't find any nobility in that kind of protest.
Post a Comment