Protest is NOT an excuse for violence.

Last week students and teachers around the state protested cuts in
Education. In some places, the protests were peaceful and meaningful. In
others, they were peaceful and essentially meaningless. In still others,
they were dangerous and stupid.

Students in Santa Cruz threw rocks through someone's car window as he drove
past. Students in Oakland decided to "occupy" I-880. Occupying a building
in protest makes sense, in a way. Occupying a freeway is a dangerous and
stupid activity that could have gotten students killed, as well as drivers.
So police stopped them, in some cases somewhat violently because the
students refused to turn back and were hell-bent on walking on a damn
freeway.

This kind of behavior is, in my opinion, not good. I'm fine with
protest--sit-ins have a long and storied history in our nation, as do picket
lines. But the current trend toward violent, destructive protests is
troubling. Heretics of Dune's Reverend Mother Taraza said "In my
estimation, more misery has been created by reformers than by any other
force in human history. Show me someone who says, "Something must be done!"
and I will show you a head full of vicious intentions that have no other
outlet. What we must strive for always! is to find the natural flow and go
with it." I don't agree with that at all times--certainly the "natural
flow" is sometimes too slow. But the first part . . . I think that recent
protests have shown us that there is at least some truth in that. Mixed
into any protest are disparate elements: on the one hand, those who truly
with to foment change, and on the other, those who want to destroy,
threaten, and revel in violence. Any protest movement that wants to be
taken seriously needs to cut this nihilistic subset out of their midst.

Had I been at the Santa Cruz protest, had I seen the idiot who threw the
rocks, I would have turned him in and then continued to protest. There is
no call, no excuse for what was done. There is protest, which is good, and
then there is dangerous behavior disguised as protest. Do we applaud the
students in Santa Cruz who "protested" by throwing rocks through the windows
of a passing car? Do we applaud the students who protest through violent
behavior, waving guns around campus? Or do we applaud those who protest in
meaningful, non-violent and non-destructive ways?

The choices we make say a lot about our society and its claims to
civilization.

I'm doing a happydance, here.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/03/sen-roy-ashburn.html

Senator Roy Ashburn, Republican senator from southern California, came out
today.

I cannot imagine how the man has felt, voting against gay rights in so many
cases. Apparently he believed that it was his responsibility to vote as his
mostly-conservative district would want him to vote. And I see his point .
. . but on the other hand, most residents of a given district are not, in
fact, experts on policy, or civics, or pretty much anything to do with
politics, and I'd rather my politician vote in ways that are most in keeping
with existing law and precedent more than because the bigots want him to
vote that way.

This is just one reason I will never even attempt to run for public
office--I just couldn't vote against something I believed in no matter how
much my constituents would want me to.

Weigh in, folks!

One view is that voters should be electing the best, most forthcoming
individuals with the intelligence and judgment to cast votes that serve the
common good, equality-minded leaders who know enough about rights and
commerce to help shape a better nation and world.

Instead, many neo-conservatives want to make sure that their representatives
hate the same people they do, favor the same narrow business interests as
them, etc. No wonder they turn out to be liars, hypocrites and addicted to
pork-barrel spending.

Should representatives vote as the majority of their constituents want, or
should they represent the needs of their district? Are the two the same
thing, or are they different? If all we want is reps who vote exactly as we
would, then why bother with representative democracy; let's just go 100%
Athenian and everybody who cares can vote on every stupid thing that comes
along?

Comments?