I don’t know whether or not that was good planning and I have no stand on the “Do something, anything” idea. What I haven’t done however is criticize those who act while having no concrete feasible alternatives of my own to offer.

That takes the kind of planning and focus discussed. But getting seven friends to walk into the Capitol Rotunda, sit down, smack the floor and hold up laser-printed signs to annoy a couple tour groups … I don’t consider that a well-planned, thoughtful, impactful demonstration.

Priya, do you consider that good planning? A good, focused, well-thought-out demonstration? Are you also in the camp of “Do something, anything”?

But in short, I think I can summarize the “solution” with the saying, “If you’re going to do it, do it right.” If you’re going to protest and use civil disobedience, then do it with forethought, planning, and focus. Make it relevant, bold, impactful, and ensure that it is properly attention-getting to get your message both out & across.

Greg, correct me if I’m wrong: you seem to be in the camp of “Do something, anything.” Am I correct? My concern with that is that it leads to unfocused, ad-hoc protests that at best fail to accomplish much, and at worst may even backfire.

Tell me what your solution is. I’m open to anything (aside from sitting by and doing nothing while we wait for spineless Democrats and our “Fierce Advocate” to get off their butts.)

I’m okay with that.

It is strange that the US MSM ignored it: it happened in the heart of youir democracy!

You are mistaken. I’m not in the “don’t rock the boat” crowd. I’m in the “don’t be stupid, know what you are planning and what goal you wish to accomplish, be effective and don’t waste your abilities on pointless stunts” crowd.

In other words, Choi chaining himself to the White House fence was effective (though I think it could have been far more effective had it been planned better).

The latest efforts, I’m not so sure. They seem unfocused, poorly planned, and don’t seem to have a goal in mind. They feel, for lack of a better word, spontaeous: focused in the emotion of the moment and not in strategy. And unfortunately, while spontenaity feels good, it is seldom effective (look at those who “stormed the podium” at the NOM rally).

When engaging in civil disobedience MLK was brilliant. Everyone knew in advance that conflict was going to happen. The media was there and the public was sitting on the edge of their seat to see what was going to happen. And the protests were where the injustice was going on, not off in Washington DC directed at politicians. MLK was changing society and the hearts and minds of Americans, not the hearing date on a bill.

And MLK addressed issues for which he was well suited as an image. Choi is, unfortunately, squandering his moral authority. As a DADT spokesman he holds the advantage of being right – not only in reality but also in the minds of those who heard him. He is a true victim of an unjust policy.

But as a ENDA image, not so much. If GetEqual wants to fight for ENDA, do so around someone who horrifically and tragically was fired from a private business in a blatant act of anti-gay discrimination. And do civil disobedience that logically ties to that discrimination: block that company’s driveways (with lots of media) or state a sit in at their corporate meeting. Give the public a victim they can sympathize with and a villain that they can recognize as such.

Here we have Choi and others protesting Nancy Pelosi at the Capitol Rotunda. Few Americans see Pelosi as an anti-gay villain who is out to fire innocent gay people. And Choi’s not been a victim of private industry discrimination. You have neither a sympathetic victim nor an obvious villain.

Not only is Choi less effective at swaying the public on ENDA, it muddies his effectiveness on DADT. People now wonder, was he fired for being gay or for getting arresting blocking streets. It’s not as clean anymore – and consequently we’ve all lost a valuable tool against DADT.

Civil disobedience is effective IF it gains sympathy. Remember civil disobedience (MLK, Rosa Parks, Ghandi) does not influence politicians… it only changes the public’s position. Politicians respond to the public, not to protesters.

If your civil disobedience does not win the hearts of the television audience, then instead of a brave hero, you just come across as a rather odd attention-seeker and a public annoyance. And then you actually harm the cause.

I don’t think Choi/GetEqual has reached the “harm” stage, but they aren’t – in my opinion – achieving much support from the public.

And believe me, if I’m beginning to question whether it might be all about attention and silly blind activism-for-the-sake-of-activism, then non-gay people have long since come to that conclusion. I very much hope that my burgeoning suspicions are misplaced.