This whole courtroom is out of order!

Well if Rick Santorum can tie for first place in Iowa, we guess anything is possible. Like a mega-move comeback from an Occupy Wall Street solidarity faction, which has sent out a press release for January 20th's "Occupy the Courts" day. No, that's not what happens when everyone with DATS show up and pleads not guilty. It's a Supreme Court sit-in!

Press release below. Warning: May include phrases like "Cornel West" "personhood rights" and "Corporations are NOT people!" (Which...obviously! That's why they never get arrested!)

Inspired by our friends at Occupy Wall Street, and Dr. Cornel West, Move To Amend is planning bold action to mark the second anniversary of the infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision!

Occupy the Courts will be a one day occupation of Federal courthouses across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Friday January 20, 2012.

Move to Amend volunteers across the USA will lead the charge on the judiciary which created — and continues to expand — corporate personhood rights.

Americans across the country are on the march, and they are marching OUR way. They carry signs that say, “Corporations are NOT people! Money is NOT Speech!” And they are chanting those truths at the top of their lungs! The time has come to make these truths evident to the courts.

If you're interested in participating at a courthouse near you (and honestly, what else are you doing this Friday), the site has an interactive map. Check it out, and don't forget to show up in a red velour suit and tell Sonia Sotomayor " I wore this ridiculous thing for you!" (Judges love a good My Cousin Vinny reference.)

President Obama’s extraordinary embrace of Reverend Al Sharpton last week has as much to do with the president’s antipathy for three other black leaders—Jesse Jackson, Dr. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley—as it does with any genuine White House enthusiasm for the controversial New York preacher. Unlike Sharpton, who actually sat in the front row at Obama’s December announcement of the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts, Jackson, West and Smiley have criticized the president’s centrist tilt, alienating themselves from the administration.

[skip]

By taking on these critics, Sharpton has become Obama’s go-to black leader, dispatched as a surrogate to several 2010 swing states by the Democratic National Committee, and ostensibly getting ready for a similar role in the 2012 race. Obama appears unconcerned about the ways Republican operatives used Sharpton in television commercials to taint Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

[skip]

Ironically, Sharpton for years has had an arrangement with New York mayor Mike Bloomberg similar to the one he now has with Obama—never criticizing what is widely seen as the whitest management team in modern city history and enjoying access at City Hall.

The visit to Harlem was Obama’s first as a presidential candidate, and if the intention was to strike a stark contrast between the popular support he enjoys here compared to Sen. Hillary Clinton, who held a relatively tame “homecoming” rally in the neighborhood just a few weeks ago, well, the goal was achieved. Obama was all smiles as he climbed into an SUV that was about to take him to the Apollo Theater, the last in a series of events designed to serve as a public demonstration of his appeal to black voters. He had also used his time here to court Sharpton, one of the few black power players who hasn’t endorsed Clinton—or anyone else for that matter.

“Obama said he was coming to town, and that he’d like to come by the office and he did and he said let’s ride by Sylvias’s together and I said fine,” Sharpton, sitting in front of a table of soul food, said after Obama left. “I’m very happy that he’s decided to come out on the hate crimes issue. No one should be president without addressing this problem.

He added, “There has not been a priority given to issues of African Americans and the issues of racial disparity.”

A few minutes later, on the Apollo stage, Obama addressed those exact concerns.

“I’m in this race because I’m tired of reading about Jena,” said Obama. “Tired of reading about nooses. I’m tired of hearing about a justice department that doesn’t understand justice. We will have a civil rights division that actually investigates crimes; you will have a civil rights division that believes in justice and equality for all Americans.”

In an empathetic and often times confrontational speech delivered from the stage of the historic theater, Obama underlined the groundbreaking nature of his candidacy (as compared, by implication, to Hillary Clinton’s).

“I don’t want to wake up and find out four years from now that we missed this window of opportunity to finally bring about the kind of changes that all of us have been dreaming about and hoping about for so very long,” Obama said. “We cannot wait, that’s why we are doing it now.”

At the end of the speech, he brought the packed house to its feet by saying, “That’s why I need you to stand up with me New York, that’s why I can’t do this myself. I know I can lead this country. I need you to stand up with me, because change doesn’t happen from the top down, change happens from the bottom up.“

The contrast was unmistakable between the Obama event and Clinton’s homecoming in October at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem. At Clinton’s event, empty seats dotted the balcony and elected officials paying their respects to the Clintons and her strong supporter Rep. Charlie Rangel accounted for much of the audience on the floor. Before the Obama fund-raiser, a line of supporters waiting in the cold snaked around 125th street, Frederick Douglas Ave and 126th street. One guy with a sparkly earing working the metal detectors said the chaos and size of the crowd was "worse than Jay-Z."

At the church event, Clinton was introduced by Rangel, the dean of the New York Congressional delegation, and many of the state’s most influential elected officials were in attendance. Last night, Obama had state senator Bill Perkins, who was quickly able to point out the few members of the state assembly and city council in the crowd. One of those council members, at least, said the difference worked in Obama’s favor.

“No comparison whatsoever,” said the city council member, Charles Barron. “That was staged. It was propped up by the pastors and the leaders; this is propped up by the masses. That's a big difference.” He added, “Why wouldn’t black people support a black candidate who is ready to lead America?"

That was a message many of the introductory speakers seemed to be getting at.

After gospel singers sang “Amazing Grace” and “Happy Day,” a preacher prayed for Obama to maintain his good judgment and Professor Cornel West said of Obama, “There is a difference between being articulate and eloquent and he is an eloquent brother.” He then asked the audience, “How does it feel to be on the right side of history?”

A few minutes later, the comedian Chris Rock picked up on that theme. “You’d be really embarrassed if he won and you wasn’t with him,” Rock said. He altered his voice to comic affect. “‘I had that white lady. What was I thinking? What was I thinking?’”

When Obama finally took the stage, in front of an enormous American flag and dressed in a dark suit and silver tie, the crowd erupted. One cheering woman, Yvonne Lee, wore a yellow shirt that said “Who decided Hillary is the best for the black community?” Another, Farnesse France, punctuated Obama’s remarks about the sort of leader the country needed by adding approvingly that the country also stood to gain “Somebody who is good on the eyes as well.”

In his speech, Obama seemed to suggest that a vote for Clinton was a defeatist one.

“You are not willing to just settle for what the cynics are telling you you have to settle for,” he said. “But you instead are willing to reach for what is possible.”

Mr. Summers told the conference attendees that he wished to discuss "the issue of women's representation in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions." His most widely reported gaffe was suggesting that women don't have the intellectual candlepower needed to compete with men in the sciences, and that they probably weren't willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary for a "high-powered" job. He'd prefaced his speech by saying that he might very well be wrong in his theories, and that he was going to try to "provoke" his audience-and indeed he did, as the ensuing public firestorm has shown. While his statements about women are troubling, they were within the realm of reasoned debate; after all, innate brain differences between men and women are hardly an esoteric field of study. But he went on: "It is, after all, not the case that the role of women in science is the only example of a group that is significantly underrepresented in an important activity … Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking … white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association … Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and in agriculture." The most bizarre is "Jews in farming."

The Harvard president had ventured into some weird Dr. Strangelove territory, revealing a mind which has spent a bit too much time concocting wacky theories which are best kept between oneself and one's analyst.

Mr. Summer's strange remarks are all the more regrettable in light of his record of speaking out for academic rigor at a time when many, if not most, college campuses are hostage to whatever fad happens to be embraced by the mind-dulling devotees of political correctness. In 2002, Mr. Summers made news by standing alone in addressing the growing problem of anti-Semitism among American university students and faculty. Several Harvard professors and students had been demanding that the university withdraw all of its investments from Israel, a demand that was mirrored at 40 other U.S. universities. Meanwhile, students across the country had been raising money for organizations linked to Islamic terrorists. Mr. Summers' speech was a much-needed bromide against bigotry.

He's also shown himself to be a true ally of Harvard students who are there to learn. He dared to suggest to black studies "scholar" and author Cornel West that he spend more time on scholarship and less on salesmanship. Mr. Summers, who himself had been Harvard's youngest tenured professor at age 28, met with Mr. West after it had become clear that Mr. West had abandoned serious scholarship to become a self-promoting propagandist, not to mention a friend to dangerous anti-Semites such as Louis Farrakhan. Mr. West reacted by going public, calling Mr. Summers "the Ariel Sharon of American higher education" and calling in Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to attack Mr. Summers' effrontery. He then decamped for Princeton, where his dubious charms and credentials had won him some deluded fans in the administration. Harvard's gain was Princeton's loss.

Nevertheless, Mr. Summers needs to realize that as president of one of the nation's leading universities, whatever he says travels far and wide. For the moment, the governing Harvard Corporation, which has the final word on Mr. Summers' employment, has come out strongly supporting him. And while several professors are calling for his head, over 150 full professors have signed a letter staunchly defending him. Meanwhile, one trusts Mr. Summers will avoid giving his enemies such ample ammunition in the future.

Ognibene, the Queens Cronies' Candidate

In his 10-year career as a City Councilman from Queens, Thomas Ognibene was distinguished mainly for winning the coveted office of Minority Leader. In this capacity, Mr. Ognibene presided over the Council's vast array of Republican members-vast, that is, if your capacity for calculation is limited by the number of fingers on one hand.

Mr. Ognibene was forced out of office in 2002 because of the city's term-limits law. Now, he is looking to make a political comeback as a Mayoral candidate. He has announced that he will challenge the incumbent, Michael Bloomberg, in a Republican primary later this year.

On the face of it, Mr. Ognibene's challenge is quixotic at best, pointless at worst. He seems really annoyed that Mr. Bloomberg had better things to do than attend President Bush's inauguration last month. Mr. Ognibene thinks Mr. Bloomberg is ashamed of being a Republican. What any of this has to do with municipal governance remains a mystery. He's also unhappy with the Mayor's support of gay rights, gun control and women's right to choose.

Mr. Ognibene is entitled to his opinions, and he has every right to challenge the Mayor. Most of the city's establishment Republicans are siding with Mr. Bloomberg-except for Mr. Ognibene's cronies in Queens. The Republican county committee there has endorsed Mr. Ognibene's insurgent campaign, spurning Mr. Bloomberg and his solid record of achievement.

Nobody, of course, will ever confuse county committee members with the membership of Mensa. They are neither the best nor the brightest; they generally get to their station in life through unswerving loyalty and back-slapping flattery. But even by these low standards, the Queens county committee looks foolish in endorsing a hack whose only recommendation is his place of residence.

Mr. Ognibene, after all, isn't running for Queens Borough President, although he seems supremely qualified for that non-job. He is running for Mayor of the city of New York, a demanding position that requires abilities and talents Mr. Ognibene has yet to demonstrate. But for Queens Republicans, what matters most is that Thomas Ognibene is one of them.

And so this unremarkable former Councilman can bank on the not-insignificant support of his loyalists. While Mr. Bloomberg would seem to have little to fear from Mr. Ognibene and his friends, remember that many people didn't think John Lindsay had much to fear from Staten Island's John Marchi in the Republican Mayoral primary in 1969. Surprise! The remarkably able Mr. Marchi defeated Mr. Lindsay.

Mr. Ognibene very likely will not be as successful as Mr. Marchi was in 1969. But if he manages to wound Mr. Bloomberg and then runs as the Conservative Party candidate, Mr. Ognibene could prove to be a spoiler in the general election. And that could lead to Mr. Bloomberg's ouster and the election of a Democrat.

Then Mr. Ognibene and his friends from Queens will really be upset. After all, if they think Michael Bloomberg isn't an authentic Republican, what will they make of Fernando Ferrer, Gifford Miller or Anthony Weiner?

Angry Wives Get Their Say

Angry at your husband? Then let him have it. That is, if you want to live a long and healthy life.

So says a new 10-year study of 3,000 women and men between 18 and 77 years of age that was presented at the recent Second International Conference on Women, Heart Disease and Stroke. The topic was marital discord, and the researchers found that wives who kept their feelings bottled up during conflicts with their husbands were four times as likely to die early as those women who expressed their anger bluntly. The leading causes of death were cancer and heart disease. The study's author, an epidemiologist in Wisconsin named Elaine Eaker, said that many women tend to self-suppression because they think it will help sustain their marriage, but keeping the peace carries a heavy price. Not only do women who stifle themselves die earlier, they also suffer more from depression, studies have shown.

What about the fellows? The study revealed that men who bottle up anger at their wives suffer no ill effects. So, guys, keep the lid on.

And no wonder. Unable to quit with dignity or decency, Mr. West used his decision to leave Harvard to inflate his public profile by attacking Harvard president Lawrence Summers. What was Mr. Summer's crime? Last fall, in a private conservation between the two men, the Harvard president dared suggest that Mr. West spend more time on scholarship and less on salesmanship, especially as Mr. West held one of the highly valued "university professorships" at Harvard. Mr. Summers, who himself had been Harvard's youngest tenured professor at age 28, believes that the job of a professor entails some responsibility to the institution's fundamental mission as a center for teaching and research. But Mr. West has long since abandoned serious scholarship for a role as a political cheerleader and self-promoting propagandist. Last year he found time to make 150 off-campus speaking appearances, often at $12,000 apiece, and to record a CD which he describes as "danceable education." He's also been happy to lend a hand to anti-Semites: He appeared alongside Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March, and he worked on a committee exploring a Presidential run by Al Sharpton. And so he was naturally outraged by Mr. Summer's suggestion that he might want to crank out a few scholarly tomes now and then. Rather than defend himself on academic grounds, Mr. West fanned rumors that this was a racial issue. Like clockwork, Mr. Sharpton and fellow fraud Jesse Jackson loudly attacked Harvard and Mr. Summers. Still, Mr. Summers reportedly apologized to Mr. West for any misunderstanding and made several attempts to patch things up.

Meanwhile, Princeton's new president, Shirley Tilghman, and new provost, Amy Gutmann, had been fawning over Mr. West. And so Mr. West, apparently realizing that staying at Harvard might mean he'd have to publish some real work, decided to hop to Princeton, where he had previously taught from 1988 to 1994. Rather than leaving Harvard with grace, he showed his penchant for anti-Semitism when he told The New York Times , "Larry Summers strikes me as the Ariel Sharon of American higher education." When he's done with Princeton, Mr. West is well-positioned for a job offer from the University of Damascus.

Lawrence Summers deserves praise for acting like a conscientious academic leader, who is clearly strengthening Harvard by creating the conditions for a hack professor to relocate to Princeton. As for Princeton's academic leaders, they have simply provided a home for America's most prominent academic charlatan to sell his wares.

Robert Torricelli, Country Squire?

Which smells worse: the New Jersey Meadowlands on a steamy August afternoon, or Senator Robert Torricelli's public and private finances? Let's put it this way: We'd prefer the great swamp's blasts of methane to Mr. Torricelli's odiferous shenanigans.

Trader Bob, who gained a small portion of his infamy by making scores of stock transitions that reeked of impropriety, apparently is so pleased with his recent good fortune that he's decided he wants to live life like a country gentlemen in rural New Jersey. According to a report in the Star-Ledger of New Jersey, the Senator is about to buy a $1.3 million historic estate on the banks of the Delaware River. The Star-Ledger reports that the new digs include a 16-room colonial home, a guest house, an in-ground swimming pool and pool house, and a substantial barn. The latter amenity inspired the Senator to offer the following insight into his character: He reportedly bragged that "I have the biggest barn in the county." As well he might, for in that county of impressive horses, none has hind quarters that can match Mr. Torricelli.

A year or so ago, the Senator had reason to contemplate a move to less plush lodgings. Investigators were looking into his campaign's shady fund-raising. Now, however, it appears that Mr. Torricelli has beaten the rap, and his re-election prospects this year have improved despite the cloud of suspicion. Republicans with stature chose not to run against Trader Bob once it became clear that he would not be posing for mug shots any time soon.

As he takes the measure of other barns in Hunterdon County, Trader Bob must find this amusing. The rest of us can only throw up our hands in disgust.

The Marriage Clock

While every marriage has trouble spots, new research suggests that there are two periods when couples tend to divorce-either in the first seven years, or at the 14-year mark. The study by two psychology professors-John Gottman of the University of Washington and Robert Levenson of the University of California at Berkeley-published in the journal Family Process , identifies two types of unhappy couples and shows how the type can be used to predict how long a marriage will last. First are couples who fall into what the researchers call an "emotionally volatile attack-defend pattern," characterized by criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling-living inside what the authors call a "culture of criticism." Not surprisingly, these are the couples who are likely to divorce within the first seven years. The study suggests that a therapist may be able to help such couples learn how to create a "culture of appreciation."

The couples who are likely to divorce at the 14-year point are described as couples who avoid all conflict and are stuck in an "emotionally inexpressive pattern." The researchers indicate this may be "the lowest point in marital satisfaction in the life course," since the avoidant couple's problems are often compounded by the fact that they have a teenager at home. To quote the study, each partner experiences "alienation because of long-standing unexpressed marital disillusionment and disappointment in the marriage, which is exacerbated by a midlife crisis, and then expressed via a coalition triangle with an unhappily married (and long-silent) parent and a rebellious adolescent." The cure for the 14-year blues? The authors suggest that a therapist can help the couple express their avoided feelings; he or she also "helps them to have their midlife crisis together." Now that's true romance.

Rabbi Lerner's theme was that Jews who love justice must come forward to reclaim their tradition from the brutal actions of the Israeli government in the last two weeks.

"I promise you that in 200 years, they will talk about this period as one of despicable behavior on the part of the Jewish people," he said, "and that what the Jewish people did to the Palestinian people was a terrible deep shame."

It seemed that about a third of the 200 people in the temple sanctuary had come to battle Mr. Lerner. But as he spoke, his voice rising in fluent, turbulent riffs on the Torah, you could sense them turning stonily silent in their seats, deciding not to take him on, and the questions tended to be friendly.

A young Jewish woman got up and said that she had organized campus protests with Palestinians and then was upset to discover anti-Semitic literature at the events. Mr. Lerner told her that she should tell them she would not be party to any disgusting lies about Jews.

A man rose to say he was a Christian and a professor who agreed with Mr. Lerner but was scared to express his point of view because he would be labeled an anti-Semite.

Mr. Lerner thanked the man for his courage. The forces of Jewish correctness are vindictive, he said. They had instilled a fear that if you said what you really thought about Israel, you were going to be labeled anti-Semitic or, if you're Jewish, as a self-hater.

A middle-aged woman stood to object. She had been to Israel. "The Jewish community is in jeopardy. My concern is to protect the Jewish children in a real way. That's what you haven't touched on."

Another member of the audience rose unbidden and seemed contorted by feeling.

"The pain of the Israelis is very, very real," he said. "But the Israelis have done things that have made the Palestinians justifiably hate us."

The rabbi said that suicide bombing was reprehensible, unjustified and a sin against humanity. "Got that?" he said. But he said the Israeli actions were not protecting Jewish lives, but creating more hatred. Jews had to learn to live with an Islamic majority around them. The ultimate triumph of Hitler was that he'd convinced his victims' descendants of the rightness of his worldview: the more power and control and domination you have over people, the safer you'll be.

The temple president, Ms. Knoll, watched silently from the back of the room. Her own heart was in conflict. It seemed to her that she, along with the rest of the official Jewish community in America, had adopted a kind of wall of silence. She was not going to be critical of Israel; she would stand up for Israel. At the same time, she recognized that this was not one of the shining moments in Jewish history.

The next day, April 11, Mr. Lerner went to the corner of 22nd and C streets, outside the State Department, to stage an act of civil disobedience with other members of his so-called "Tikkun Community." It was a beautiful day. Again, more than 200 people surrounded him, though now he was joined at the press microphones by Cornel West, the Harvard professor now headed for Princeton.

The contrast between the men was spectacular. Mr. Lerner wore the same suit and tie as the night before. Threads hung from his jacket hem; his hair was all over the place. Mr. West wore a stylish black three-piece suit with a silver watch chain at the vest pocket. A narrow black scarf was wound tightly around his neck, and he moved lightly in pointy black gusseted shoes. Mr. Lerner's coat bulged with a book called Radical Voices . Mr. West had brought no jailhouse reading. His Afro was combed out beautifully for the cameras and glinted with hair spray.

Both men spoke in the cadences of their traditions.

"I will never allow my Jewish brothers and sisters to deal with this by themselves. It is a human issue," Mr. West said. Then tilting forward, he seized his own earlobes defiantly, as if to mock caricatures of black people. "And I don't ask anyone for permission to play my small role."

Mr. Lerner said, "Remember that you were strangers in the land of Israel-why in the world does the Torah repeat that so frequently? Because the Torah is a force of healing and transformation. It says we do not have to pass on the pain from generation to generation. What the Nazis did to us was morally disgusting. We will not follow in their logic. We hold to the deepest truths of the Jewish tradition: that every human being should be cherished; that the blood of the Palestinian people is equally precious to the blood of the Jewish people."

A reporter asked whether Mr. Lerner had received threats. Mr. West hugged the rabbi and cried, "Is the sky blue?"

Mr. Lerner described threats he's received in phone calls and e-mails, and said that the Anti-Defamation League had refused to condemn them, saying that they arose from political differences, not because Mr. Lerner is Jewish.

Two Arab women in chadors came up holding the Palestinian flag. "Let's welcome these women," someone said.

Mr. Lerner glanced at one of their posters, equating the Holocaust to what is happening now in Palestine. The rabbi said he didn't agree with that statement. What was happening in the West Bank was bad enough without having to describe it inaccurately as genocide, he said.

Then a solid-looking man walked into the circle holding an Israeli flag. He introduced himself as Jim Matlack, the Washington director of the American Friends Service Committee. He said that Quakers had helped Jews out of Nazi Germany during the Holocaust, and now they condemned lethal attacks on civilians, whether by suicide bombers or helicopters and tanks.

The theme of the Holocaust was taken up by Cherie Brown, of the National Coalition Building Institute. She said that the mechanism of oppression is that when a people are mistreated, they often turn around and mistreat others.

"Every Jew needs to sob their heart out," she said. "We need to build healing mechanisms."

It was 1 o'clock. The demonstrators had been standing there more than two hours and had to decide whether to disobey the law. There followed a chaotic and open discussion. Some had second thoughts- because there appeared to be no national media here, and because they approved of the Bush administration's tough new line with Ariel Sharon.

One man suggested that they restage the disobedience outside the Israeli embassy. An older woman said, "Why the Israeli embassy and not the Palestinian office?"

She was answered by Zack Winestine, a skinny New Yorker wearing a black sweater and tan baseball cap. He said it was an issue of responsibility.

"Look at the people upon whom we can have an influence," he said. "As an American, as a Jew, I can be responsible for the Israelis. Because it's my people, and my tax dollars."

Mr. Winestine seemed to tremble as he spoke. This was obviously a moment of great moral urgency. He said he had long sought an opportunity to speak out against Israeli actions, but within a Jewish framework, supporting Israel. Mr. Lerner had provided that.

The rabbi said that he had confused feelings himself. After all, Jews are suffering in the Middle East. But Jewish organizations have demanded loyalty and discouraged Jews from expressing their outrage over Israeli actions. He wanted those people to come out of the closet.

"The only reason they're not," he said, "is the power of AIPAC"-the American Israel Public Affairs Committee-"and the forces of Jewish convention, which narrow the dialogue and make it impossible for the voices of Jewish justice to be heard."

The heart of the discussion had become Mr. Winestine. Voice quavering, he said he felt a need to act.

"It's a matter of complicity," he said. "We as Jews and we as Americans have to make clear that we do not support what is going on. Now is the time. We shouldn't pass up the opportunity. It is an opportunity for history."

A final vote was taken. Civil disobedience won. The group sang "Down by the Riverside," then moved out into C Street opposite the doors of the State Department and sat down.

A line of police formed along the sidewalk, and a demonstrator beat a conga drum. A police lieutenant rode up on a white Harley and told Mr. Lerner that those who did not clear the street after warnings would face jail time and a $100 fine.

Mr. Winestine's baseball cap was passed around and soon overflowed with cash.

The protesters patted the asphalt and passed around a water bottle. They introduced themselves to the circle one by one and described their motives. There were about 20 of them, including Mr. Winestine, Mr. Lerner, Mr. West, Mr. Matlack, Laurie Eichenbaum, who had asked the question at the forum the night before about joining Palestinian protesters, and a pretty blond senior from Woodrow Wilson High School. She wore a white camisole top, a red cardigan sweater and flip-flops. The photographers took pictures of her. It looked to be her first act of civil disobedience, but to judge from the smile on her face as she was sat by the police humiliatingly on the curb, wrists behind her back, not her last.

Cornel West shot out his gold-cufflinked cuffs for the plastic handcuffs. Mr. Lerner's suit seemed ready to burst as he was arrested.

They were taken away at 2 o'clock. Sunlight and calm reigned again on C Street.

What had passed was an agonized discussion among people for whom this had been a decisive moment. The mockery kicked in quickly. The Washington Post covered the demonstration the next morning in the Style section and treated it as farce: "Peace Demonstrators Arrested, Without Much Conviction." The Post took delight in the fact that Mr. Lerner and Mr. West had been allowed to go to the men's room at the State Department before they went to jail.