I shouldn't be writing this.

I have 50 pages of writing to crank out for the end of the semester. Two of my topics- the theology and biblical exegesis behind Messianic Judaism and Messianism in Paul, at least overlap some (by design), so I can conserve research. The semester ends on the 18th, and one of my papers isn't due until the 25th, so there's time, but there's also a lot of research to do.

Is a protest meant to change the mind of your opponents, or just to fire up your movement? I'm not sure how the impressive demonstrations against immigration legislation will be received by conservatives. In terms of sheer principle, I think it probably will fuel their fire, and contribute to many of the stereotypes they love to perpetuate. On the other hand, the sheer inconvenience caused by the boycott hopefully cannot be ignored.
I was glad to see more folks waving American flags in the rallies. The SF Chronicle nicely pointed out as the protests ramped up a few weeks ago that waving a Mexican flag at a protest does not exactly say "You need me in the US, and I want to be in the US." It was a nice public service announcement from a thoroughly liberal publication. The US / Mexican flag ratio appeared to be about 4:1 yesterday, which I think is about right.
In case you hadn't figured it out, I analyze protests based solely on the effectiveness of their statement, and how they'll play in the media. Venting of anger and expression of pride are key components, as well, I'll happily admit. I've simply seen too many poorly executed protests that ultimately didn't make a statement. I don't think yesterday was one of those.

Last night, during the 6th inning of the Sawks-Yanqs game I realized something. Johnny Damon plays for New York now. I didn't catch it until the 230th time the announcers pointed it out. I appreciate their persistence. In other news, apparently there was a ballgame played in Fenway Park last night. I wonder how that went...