--and a smile comes to your face, because you have glimpsed something so incredibly asinine that the blogpost practically writes itself. Read:

The parade that wound its way down JFK Street in celebration of Oktoberbest last weekend was an altogether standard procession, featuring energetic marching bands, costumed dancers, awkward stilt-walkers, and left-leaning political dissent. Nothing unusual or controversial—just jovial calls for the impeachment of the President, signs to the effect of “Honk if You Think Iraq is the Greatest Travesty in the History of the World,” and other meaningful jabs at our evil Commander-in-Chief.

[...]Unfortunately, this attitude points to a troubling dilution of political protest and a lack of serious dialogue in Cambridge and in many parts of this country today. There is a fine line between amusing political satire and impassioned political statements, a line which is frequently and haphazardly crossed.[...]

The parade participants last Sunday were not informed and serious political dissenters—or if they were their discourse gave no indication of it. But their approach was problematic and narrow-minded: “We Are All The Same,” one banner proclaimed, implying that no one could possibly disagree with them. As long as we are all the same in our opinions, the expression of them amounts not to protest but to a shameless venting of sentiment.

Those bastards.

[...]The protesters clearly viewed themselves as innocuous jesters, and certainly many of the spectators viewed them the same way. But, intended or not, this message was an aggressive political protest, and a completely inappropriate abuse of the public arena.

If we have learned anything from the shocking images of brutality in Burma it is that our right to publicly disagree with our leadership is an extremely precious one, a privilege that we too often take for granted. We must exercise it responsibly lest it lose its power.

I will leave aside for the time being the question of how something is simultaneously a "right" and a "privilege"...

...it's kind of stunning how easily this piece falls right into blogosphere stereotypes about mainstream media attitudes. It is actually -- not even obliquely, but literally -- an argument that, while we presumably do face an irresponsible president causing continued deaths of innocents in an unjustified war of choice, what's most offensive is that protesters are having too much fun. "Shameless venting of sentiment". "Abuse of the public arena." Dude even uses the word "serious" without a trace of irony (paging Joe Klein!). This reads like something from, I don't know, Harper's circa 1967 -- "we might have concerns about President Johnson and the war in Vietnam, but nobody wants to be one of those rude unwashed radicals with their long hair and their 'rock' music." And it's of course the same reasoning that led all such "sensible" people to support the Iraq War in the first place, because all those No Blood For Oil types were clearly just protesting for kicks. Silly hippies!

Plus, check out the aversion that's on display here toward the intersection of humor and politics. "There is a fine line between amusing political satire and impassioned political statements" -- huh? Satire is political argument, in one of its most refined and powerful forms. Besides, who declared that protests weren't allowed to be any fun? How is that possibly a good idea? If modern protests (especially student protests) were really as pompous and ponderous as this op-ed seems to demand, maybe they'd attract more Crimson writers, but they'd be insufferable and they'd accomplish nothing. Real change requires you to motivate people, which in today's world requires you to be entertaining and (yes) a little bit radical. But instead from the Crimson we get an attitude that, all too typically, confuses the appearance of gravitas for actual intellectual value and promotes reflexive moderation over real productive thought. Sound familiar?

Yes, what we have here is Harvard pseudointellectual elitism in its purest form, I-Banker Journalism in the flesh. No matter what the topic, these people must keep up appearances; they cannot possibly associate with the mob, and uncomfortable things like irony simply cannot be permitted. In this rather extreme case, even public protest is apparently reserved only for the qualified, educated elite; and if the rabble continues to misuse it, then -- presumably by the sovereign authority of the Harvard Crimson -- it will somehow "lose its meaning" and have to be taken away. No ice cream until you eat your vegetables!

...I feel bad for this writer, and for the sake of Google I won't reprint his name; he's just a comper, and for all I know this op-ed might just be some crap you have to do to please the Crimson's overlords. But it's just such a perfect example of the toxic establishmentarian culture that pervades this place, and the extent of our journalists' disconnect with the real world; these are the Pundits of Tomorrow, friends, better learn to deal with them.