I have at last found a group that I am more sick of hearing about than the little Cuban boat boy: the World Bank protesters.

This morning, I was supposed to be weepy because NPR told me that the arrested protesters were fed baloney sandwiches in jail - when most of them are vegetarians or vegans! The horror! Shouldn't Whole Foods be catering these events?

I watched a student group leader grouse on CSPAN that the college loan burden prevented her and others from working for social justice full time - instead, in order to pay back the loans, they were forced to take high paying jobs at corporations! Again, the horror! How dare I think that anyone who gave a rat's ass about social injustice would find a way to work to solve it while holding down a full time job!

I came out of college $24,000 in debt but grateful - a word these little guttersnipes don't even know, it seems - because it allowed me to be the first person in my family to attend college, to better my life. And I gladly pay it back to allow other people the same opportunity. There's your first step toward social justice! There's some responsibility for you!

I cannot condone the boneheaded mentality that thinks any progress is going to come from preventing a few meetings of the IMF. These kids are not making any argument that appeals to anyone other than themselves and that is why they will continue to be teargassed and mocked and the IMF will continue to run roughshod over the poor and illiterate in the world.

Social change is not born out of protests - it's unrolled slowly by peopel who get involved in their communities.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

Answers

I cannot condone the boneheaded mentality that thinks any progress is going to come from preventing a few meetings of the IMF.

Eh... they aren't even doing that. DC is nothing if not adept at dealing with demonstrations and getting high powered people where they need to go.

What they are doing is managing to block traffic and shut down public transportation services - that second being the only means for most of the low paid hourly workers to get to jobs that aren't going to compensate them for time lost. Oh well, 'friendly fire', I guess.

Their message is being watered down by tons of "oh goody a protest, let me go join them so I can protest cruelty to aardvarks", people who aren't coherently expressing (or, I assume, understanding) what it is the protest is about (if I hear one more interview with someone saying 'it's about...y'know..like, man... dude... i am so, like, ready to be gassed for this cause...' I may scream), and that fact that here locally, people are MUCH more distressed about an additional burden on an already horrible traffic problem.

This town takes it's traffic seriously. A year ago we had a jumper on the bridge that stopped rush hour traffic cold for 6 hours. No one was interested in what his problem was.... they just wanted him off the bridge so they could get home, whether he walked away or jumped.

I'm sure these folks have a point, but I'm not gleaning what it is from this protest. I'm not sure who the intended audience here is supposed to be.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

Protesting is so much fun, though. It's like a picnic, with more yelling. I attended at least a half-dozen in college. None was successful in that none of the things we were rallying for ever came to pass. I met lots of cute guys, though, and I got my picture in the paper once and also on KING 5 news. (Both times for anti-tuition-hike protests.) Getting nice fresh air and making put-upon faces was a lot more fun than, say, stuffing envelopes or gathering signatures. BOR-ing!

I was out of the protesting biz by the time the anti-Gulf-War crowd blocked off the interstate during rush hour. I'm sure all those pissed-off commuters crawled right home and wrote their congressmen.

I think my favorite part of any protest was when one earnest student would say to another, "You know, they put these bricks down in Red Square during the sixties because they're slipperier than grass and that made it easier to turn protesters away with firehoses," because then I could interrupt and say, "No, dummy, that's when they put the underground parking garage in." Which was true.

Seems to me that the media could put a stop to all this nonsense by simply deciding that young people carrying signs and wearing backpacks decorated with Gandhi and Einstien buttons are not actually a newsworthy item, unless one of them gets shot.

......................................................

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

"I was out of the protesting biz by the time the anti-Gulf-War crowd blocked off the interstate during rush hour. I'm sure all those pissed-off commuters crawled right home and wrote their congressmen."

You wouldn't have to here! You just lean out your car window and yell, because he's probably stuck in the car next to yours!

Actually, that's the other thing this accomplished - the government granted itself liberal leave today to avoid the traffic problem. So it really was just their low-paid assistants that got stuck with this.

I have no problem with a big picnic - it's just laughable to be so earnest about it, while not accomplishing what the official intent is, and making it most difficult for the poor folks that are presumably the ones who are supposed to benefit.



-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Yeah, it's a lot of fun to make fun of the protesters.

It's also exactly what you're supposed to be doing.

Jesus Christ, how fucking complacent have we become in this country? This is the second time in recent months that police have beaten and pepper sprayed people who were sitting down. Would you stop for just a second and consider that? Would you like to explain to me where the phrase "peaceful assembly" allows for beating and pepper spraying? We've interpreted our constitution to allow police to use violence -- violence, okay? -- in situations where people are blocking traffic, disrupting business as usual, making a nuisance of themselves -- but not actually hurting or threatening anyone.

And the media puts the funny kid on TV who's bitching about his bologna sandwiches, or the newspapers talk about the traffic, and we eat it up and laugh at how funny those dumb college kids are, thinking they're going to change the world. Instead of demanding more from our police, from our media, from ourselves, we go with the predictable response and react exactly the way we're supposed to react.

When I got to work this morning, I inadvertantly walked in on a conversation about the protests in Washington. The woman who was speaking said just about what Gabby said, quoting the same interview. And then she said, "How'd they like to go to Bosnia? It's not like the police were bashing anyone in the head or anything."

Uh, except they were. It wasn't a picnic. People got hurt. Civil liberties took a goddamn horsewhipping, and not in the form of bologna sandwiches. The media spun it into a cute story, and intelligent people focused on that because we're all so used to this bullshit that we accept it as a matter of course.

That is what we ought to be protesting. But I guess that would just be silly.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I dunno, Beth. I don't think it is the media -- or at least, I think the media is being used as a scapegoat.

If you talk to most people who actually live and work in D.C., as I do, you're not going to find a whole lot of sympathy for the protestors who were capriciously blocking streets for seemingly no other reason than the fact that they could. That has nothing to do with the press coverage, which I thought was pretty fair. It has everything to do with the fact that the protestors disrupted everyone's lives over something that nobody understands, least of all a significant portion of the protestors.

Does "peaceful assembly" permit blocking streets to prohibit traffic from passing (that's a little harsher than I intend it to be -- seriously, is that allowed? Could I do that without getting arrested?)? Does "peaceful assembly" allow a mob to block access to Federal buildings in order to prevent the meeting of world leaders? I'd be pretty shocked if that's what the founding fathers intended (I'd also be pretty shocked if they anticipated modern weapons when they wrote the Second Amendment, but that's another story). Or do the police have the right to maintain order?

The cops have a responsibility to the citizens of Washington D.C. to preserve order as best they can. People live here. Everyone I know had to work on Monday. I had to go to class. People had to go to the post office and mail their tax forms in. Had to buy groceries. Had to walk their dogs. This wasn't a Federal holiday. Life went on.

I'm not endorsing the pepper spray or the billy clubs -- I didn't see them used but I saw the news footage. I think that was absolutely wrong. But Beth, this was not Kent State. Nor was this Seattle. There were no riots, and from what I saw there was no wanton use of force by the police, except in a couple of cases which the press reported on. Mother Nature had far more to do with the smaller crowds on Monday than any fear of the police.

And this isn't to pick on you in particular, since I've heard the expression numerous times over the past week, but I am so sick of hearing the patronizing "Oh, you're reacting like you're supposed to react, like the government and media brainwashes you to" used against anyone who doesn't agree with what the protestors were trying to say. If I heard the sentiments expressed once this past week here, I heard them a hundred times. Just because I disagree with the protestors' arguments doesn't mean that I'm somehow missing the point of all this. I can understand the arguments against the IMF, World Bank and WTO. I just don't agree with them.

This is not part of a vast government, media and police conspiracy to discredit the protestors. It's just my .02.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Personally, I find the spectacle of young middle-class Amercians, going through their 'dye your hair a funny colour and be a vegan' phase, leaving their nice little houses early one morning, dressed in their best Birkenstocks and with their best 'meat is murder' badges on, protesting in a major city of the most developed country in the planet against THE EVILS OF CAPITALIST SOCIETY absolutely hilarious.

Living in the First World and protesting against capitalist society is like being a fish and protesting against how wet the water is. When these protesters renounce their worldly goods and move to a hut somewhere in West Africa I'll maybe take them seriously, but for the moment they're a bunch of bloody hypocrites as far as I'm concerned. Send them back to work.

And don't even get me started on the people trying to stop the Cuban boy's father from getting his son back. Who the hell died and made America boss of the world?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

... and another thing! The protestors this week may have been peacefully sitting around, and if that is the case then I agree - the police should keep the pepper spray in the car. However, the last time groups similar to this (with the same aims) protested in the city of London they were handing out folded leaflets with razorblades hidden inside. Very nice. They were also setting cars on fire, blocking streets, and generally causing complete and utter chaos.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I have to disagree with you, Beth, on whether or not they were harming or threatening anyone. They were surrounding cars trying to pass, not just those going to that meeting (although that steps outside 'peaceful assembly just as much as a prolife protest that blocks entry and surrounds women to chant at them does) - now you tell me if you'd feel threatened if a group of strangers surrounded your car. I would, and it doesn't matter if they have a cause or whether or not I agree with it - back the hell away from car, and if you don't, yes ma'am, I sure do hope there will be police there to help me get you away from me.

DC has peaceful protests on every subject under the sun and moon, every single day of the year. We can tell the difference.

By and large, this one wasn't violent - on either side. The police took action (as hoped for by the protesters) when the protestors engaged in threatening, illegal behavior, or vandalism. And don't give me this 'nobody owns it because it's a corporation' crap - that's the same excuse kids use to shoplift, and it isn't the corporation that has to clean up the resulting mess in the streets.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I don't think it matters what you think of their cause, but I do think it's awfully condescending to assume that people who were willing to risk pepper spray and billy clubs don't understand what they were protesting. Those of you on here who are alluding to your own protest days in college -- did that happen to you when you went to protests that you maybe didn't entirely understand? Because it didn't happen to me.

I never said that the protesters shouldn't have been arrested. Many of them wanted to be arrested. I said that the use of a billy club against someone who is unarmed, the use of pepper spray against someone who is not posing an immediate threat, is absolutely insanely one hundred percent wrong, but you aren't talking about that: you're making fun of the protesters.

Look at the escalation. At the Humboldt protests over old growth lumber, we had police swabbing pepper spray directly onto protesters' eyeballs. That was okay (a court said so). In Seattle, police used violence against non-violent protesters. This weekend, everyone assumed the protesters were violent -- did you read those reports? This is directly from the front page of Yahoo:

Police detained hundreds of anti-globalization demonstrators Monday and hurled tear gas and sprayed pepper to crush protests

There is an implicit assumption there that the protests were violent - - and by violent, I don't mean blocking traffic; I mean hurling rocks, getting into fights, swinging baseball bats, or endorsing the same. I read a lot of news reports last night, and I saw one unconfirmed report of one group of protesters throwing some rocks or bottles on Sunday. We assume that there was violence because of the police reaction, but I'm not seeing those reports.

On the other hand, if you go outside of the mainstream media, you will find a whole hell of a lot about police violence this weekend. You will read about people being clubbed in the head while sitting down. You will read about cops removing their badges so they can't be identified. You will read about ambushes and organized violent response.

You don't want me to call you brainwashed by the media, but would you look at the contradiction here? It was a picnic. It was a frat party. It was a dangerous, violent, scary riot that required the police to respond with extreme force. You can't have it both ways, but those are the stories you're being fed.

And I'm sorry, but if you have never been pepper sprayed for standing up for what you believe in, then I think you have no business questioning how firmly these people hold their beliefs. You can think they're silly, you can think they're misguided, but assuming they don't know what they're protesting just because you don't is a mistake. (I personally think protests are a pretty ineffective way to make changes, but I don't question the sincerity here.) Gabby's original comment about "local action" indicates that perhaps she is the one who's missing the point here, because the entire issue is globalization that renders local action useless and ineffective.

I know several people who were in Washington this weekend; they are all serious political activists (most of them over thirty, too, and college graduates). Not one of them is a pie-eyed college kid.

One last thought: if your reaction to protesters is that they're a bunch of silly college kids, and you went through that phase, too, and they'll grow out of it and feel so silly in a few years, then I don't think it's their sincerity you ought to be questioning, but your own. Just because it was a game or a picnic or a phase for you doesn't mean it's the same way for everyone. I know a whole hell of a lot of activists of all description who are 25, 35, 45, 55, or 75.

I will include some links to alternate news sources in today's weblogs. Not to sound to radical on you here, but every single major U.S. media source is owned by the same multinational corporations that were one target of this weekend's protests. I would look elsewhere for the truth.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I was at the march against the Gulf War in D.C. back in 1991 and I'd wager there were many more people at that than at this World Bank thing - but even so, it's downright scary even inside the march line, to be surrounded by people who are shouting and upset. I remember walking by one side of the White House and a full line of cops in riot gear (helmets, shields, frightening looking guns) were standing right up against the fence. I got the message and I knew they had every right to deliver it.

For the record, many police officers are forced to undergo pepper spray training during their own training - there's a controversy about it, but I think it's a good idea so they at least understand how people are going to be feeling after they've been sprayed. And from what I've seen on the news, most of those kids on the front lines were wearing visors or goggles - so they were prepared, don't weep too much for them.

I know exactly what these protesters are like - they're like the people I was in CISLA (Committee In Solidarity With Latin America) with, who thought it would be a really good idea to go to the local Waffle House (where every Earlham Student spent a great deal of time) and spill our coffees on the table to make it clear that the campesinos were being oppressed. Not once did it occur to them that what we were doing, really, was a) being mean and unfair to the first world waitress who had the misfortune of waiting on us and b) looking like the dumb ass kids we really were and doing nothing to help people half a world away.

I marched against the Gulf War and I'd do it again, but I never thought it was going to do more than show the government that a certain section of America was seriously displeased with the war. Like they'd care, but you know, whatever.

(According to NPR just now, the majority of arrests that occurred were negotiated with the protesters - so let's not imagine a bunch of hippie kids clubbed like baby seals.)

I'd rather these protesters stopped taking the easy way out and instead volunteered for Teach for America, or Peace Corps or City Year or the Salvation Army - something, anything that would result in actual, real progress - something they could have a hand in, to learn about the reality of these things they speak so passionately about but have only really known in a classroom or a cramped meeting room next to the college newspaper office.

There's enough misery and poverty in the United States that could do with a bit of fixing, before they head off to Burma.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Yes, I read that yesterday, that a couple hundred people were arrested in a negotiated deal. I will link to a story about how that came about.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Beth - I would never suggest that *no one* there knows what they are there for, but its blind to suggest that means they all do. They took the time to get training in how to go limp, how to deal with clubbing and pepper spray - why didn't they take the time to practice responding to questions about what they are there for at the same time? I'm all for messages - whatever the message is - actually getting out.

Instead I see - and not from the 'media' but from forum accounts from people who live there - a lot of residents as well as 'press' who went down to talk to them, ask them what they were there for, and got a lot of 'like...ya know...' People who WANTED to understand why these folks were blocking their streets, spraypainting their buildings and sidewalks, (Question - would spraypainting "Kill the Bankers" be hate speech?)uprooting their urban flowergardens because they wanted to get the tires they were planted in, dragging their cars out into the road to be used as a blockade.

If these protesters truly stand up for what they believe in, I hope they will come back after the cameras have moved on, and clean up those sidewalks, fix the vandalism and huge heaps of trash they left behind, and for pete's sake, if you're gonna save the rainforest, could you replant the poor old woman in SW DC's flowers while you're at it and get your freaking spray paint off her building? The residents of that area don't have a lot of funds for sandblasters.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Good post, Beth. I don't actually agree with many of your points, but it was good nonetheless.

If the only issue being discussed is whether or not the police may have used excessive force, then yes, you're right. There is no excuse for whacking somebody on the head with a big stick, just because they're sitting somewhere and you don't like it. However, faced with hundreds of people deliberately trying to disrupt life on a working day in a large city, I can understand how the police may have got ... overzealous. I don't condone it, but I can understand it.

However, Gabby's original post was bemoaning (what she sees as) the hypocracy of a bunch of college students (or ex-college students) protesting at the evils of capitalist society. I thoroughly agree, as I said before. These people are personally enjoying all the benefits of capitalist life in the Western world every day of their lives, whether they're working as fulltime protesters or CEOs, and I think their protest is a joke. But that doesn't mean the police are therefore justified to beat the crap out of them.

I never had protest days in college or anywhere else, because in my opinion a bunch of people marching around and chanting mindlessly is a sad sight, and does very little to change events these days. When I was at university fees were introduced, and students are still having protest marches to parliament about it. That was ten years ago! Nothing is going to be changed because you wag lectures for an afternoon and hold up a bit of traffic. Vote for political party that promises to cut the fees, or lobby, but don't march around.

And why did so many of these protesters want to be arrested? A fat lot of good they're going to be to their cause if they're spending half their time in court, getting their capitalist scum lawyers to argue with the judges on their behalf.

"And I'm sorry, but if you have never been pepper sprayed for standing up for what you believe in, then I think you have no business questioning how firmly these people hold their beliefs."

I fundamentally disagree with that. I've also never been run over by a bus, but I know it would hurt. If these people really want to make a difference they'd find something effective to do, rather than this. I'll make no secret that I think their entire argument is flawed. For example, wiping out Third World debt will make not one jot of difference to the quality of life of people in the Third World, because the problem is their corrupt governments, not the debt itself. Those countries are not all poor ... check out the bank balance of Mugabe sometime. If these protesters want to really help out, they should move to Africa and become aid workers.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I can't disagree with the last sentence of your post, Jackie; on the other hand, when politics keep undermining the efforts of direct aid workers, sometimes those workers need someone to make a fuss on their behalfs.

As for my comment about how you have no business assessing sincerity if you've never been pepper sprayed, I wasn't actually referring to an ability to "feel the pain" of the protesters. I was speaking directly to anyone who went to college in the 80's or early 90's (I can't speak to earlier decades because I wasn't there) who assumes that these students are just like the students we knew (and were). The rules have changed. I went to or was on the edge of quite a few protests in my time, but in the 80's and early 90's, you could rest pretty easy that while you might get arrested, you weren't going to be gassed or clubbed unless things got really out of hand. Gabby says she saw the cops in riot gear and knew what they were there for, but in those days, they were there to look scary. Now they're there to take action.

You don't have that assurance anymore, and if our courts continue to endorse out of proportion violence as a reasonable means of crowd control, you'll never have it again.

The "kids" who went to Washington last weekend knew that, even if the ones who wound up on TV couldn't clearly articulate their reasons for being there. They definitely knew, after Seattle, that there was a damn good chance that they were going to get hurt. It's presumptuous for those of us who went through our "activist phase" in a different era to assume this crowd is just like we were, because they aren't.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Oh, yes, and I'd like to offer a ringing endorsement re. protesters fixing damage done to poor neighborhoods and little old ladies' flower gardens. Of course, I think trashing flower gardens is right up there with kicking puppies on the universal list of Bad Things, so it's possible that I'm very biased on the subject.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Beth, I think we're kind of in agreement then. I may not agree in the slightest with the reason for the protest, but peaceful protesters shouldn't be physically harmed unduly.

This is apparently all going to flare up again in London some time very soon. I don't think the protests here are quite as innocent and peaceful as they may be in the USA, but I also think the police here are less inclined to use force, and aren't routinely armed. I don't know if there's a correlation there!

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Just for the record, on SUNDAY, at least, I definitely saw televised shots of a few protesters---only a few in a big crowd--throwing rocks at the police. Dunno about Monday, but oftentimes I will have CNN in the background when I'm reading on Sunday. There is no doubt about it, saw the pitch, saw the impact.

I'm all for organized protests of good causes...hey, I took part in a few protests back in the Sixties...although this seems a little too "planned" for me. Like the people demanding to be arrested.

Brutality? Yeah, I saw some cops lose their heads, and I saw some protesters doing the same. For the most part, though, it was pretty civilized. Chicago under Mayor Daley Sr. during the Democratic Convention or Kent State it wasn't.

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I think the issue of whether it is appropriate to use force to disband peaceful protesters is an interesting one, because I think there's a fine line between "peaceful protest" and a threat to society. Protesters blocking traffic may just sound like a nuisance, but doing so disrupts the entire city's infrastructure, jeopardizing lives by slowing down ambulances and police cars and wasting people's valuable time. I guess you have to do something disruptive to get on the news these days, but I would hope that these protesters would take a hint from the negative media coverage they have received, and conduct further protests in a way that is truly peaceful and not disruptive.

Further, I would like to ask what alternative methods you would advocate for breaking up disruptive protests? I don't mean that in a snotty way, I just don't know of any good solution to the problem. I know that in the case of the protesters whose eyes were swabbed with pepper spray, the police warned them that if they didn't cooperate, they would be pepper sprayed. My understanding is that this is typically the case: that before force is used, the threat of force is used. In those cases where the threat of force is not effective, what can be done to restore order?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Beth:

You write

"Police detained hundreds of anti-globalization demonstrators Monday and hurled tear gas and sprayed pepper to crush protests

"There is an implicit assumption there that the protests were violent"

Maybe it's because I wasn't looking for it, but I don't see that at all. I didn't see an assumption being made either way -- it's just a description of what occurred (and according to the police, the tear gas was fired by mistake, which I'm sure you're not buying but I figured I'd throw that in anyway). Nowhere do I see the article implying that the protestors were being violent and thus deserved what they got.

You also write: "On the other hand, if you go outside of the mainstream media, you will find a whole hell of a lot about police violence this weekend. You will read about people being clubbed in the head while sitting down. You will read about cops removing their badges so they can't be identified. You will read about ambushes and organized violent response. "

Yes, you will. And I would guess that the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes.

But if you think the mainstream media has an agenda, are you saying that the alternative press does not? You apparently believe that the alternative press offers a more credible account than the mainstream press does, and that may well be true, but I don't think for one minute that their reporters were somehow altruistically reporting truth while the evil CNN and Washington Post reporters decided to slam the protestors out of global self-interest or sheer malice.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

No, of course I don't think you should blindly accept what the alternative press or any other media source has to say. I don't think you should blindly accept what anyone has to say. But I do think you ought to consider, when you're reading CNN or any other major media outlet, that the corporations that own those publications have a vested interest in quelling dissension regarding how they do business. You don't have to be paranoid or a radical to accept that.

If you can point out a similar conflict of interest for Mother Jones or any of the other well-established liberal news sources, I'd be very interested in hearing it.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

The biggest thing missing from the 'standard press' is a good solid objective look at what the issues are at all, without slanting it to either side's bias. You can't find that in the alternative press either, though you may glean enough between the two, if you wade through all the rhetoric to be able to get enough info to go look for information in order to sort it all out. The coverage hasn't been *about* the World Bank, so there is not motive on the part of the press to hide anything (other than by not talking about it much).

The coverage - and this discussion - has been about the protests, so the players are: the protesters, the police, and the locals who got stuck in the middle.

Which one of those owns the Post? none? Then why assume that a paper like the Post - which isn't shy about reporting police brutality in DC would suddenly hide anything now? Or does the World Bank own the DC Police Dept?

Which one of those owns the alternative press sources you refer to? There is only one group among the three that has a media voice in the discussion of the protest itself.

So who are these hypothetical evil baddies that are trying to lie to us about what took place in DC?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Beth, I think the point you bring up DEMONSTRATES a conflict of interest for Mother Jones, et al.: it is certainly in their best interest to perpetuate a perception that the mainstream media is controlled by corporate interests, because otherwise they wouldn't have an audience! Giving an "alternative" viewpoint on the news is their niche. Casting the news in a different light from the mainstream press is their raison d'etre, which I think does constitute a potential source of bias.

Of course, I also think that you are right about the mainstream press having biases, as well.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Many people have responded here by wondering what the use of protesting is. To me a protest, although at times it can directly change things, is above all a witness to what is just and truthful, and a chance to be heard in a very deaf modern world. Sometimes it's a picnic, sometimes it's a nightmare, but that doesn't change the original motivation - to be a witness for something you strongly believe in. There's great poetry in the idea of protest, which is something that goes neglected in this pragmatic, hard-nosed world. Why can't we have symbols of peace and community and justice? Why does every action have to have "realistic" goals or be dismissed as a waste of time, middle class student hypocrisy, public disorder. We have plenty of disorder all around us, especially in D.C. I find it disturbing that young black boys are murdered in a steady stream just a few blocks from IMF buildings. I find it disturbing that public schools have metal detectors and armed security guards just a neighbourhood away from Congress. I find it disturbing that free clinics and soup kitchens scramble for funds in the shadow of the monied Washington establishment. Does public disorder only become an issue when it's right under the noses of middle-class, post-activist Washingtonians? I also think it's a shame we don't recognize the long history of social protest that exists in the USA as a legacy to be built upon. Some people have said, hey this isn't the 60s anymore! But who said worthwhile demonstrations had to end in the 60s? Martin Luther King Jr. planned on leading marches to Washington that talked about economic justice. Tragically his life was taken before that could happen. But the Seattle and IMF/WB protests are really a continuation of his original vision. Broad coalitions are the key to successful social movements, and thus you have to invite and expect many types of people to get involved. That includes college kids, who yes, do have the time and money to be involved, but more important the heart and guts to do something with their convictions besides debate them in class or coffeeshops. But if you polled the people involved in this last protest, you would find people from the Third World, old folks, religious, workers, and many others also in attendence. Lastly, I think the criticism that protesters are not involved in their local communities or should be doing work in Africa is unfounded and unfair. All the activist people that I know are deeply committed to their home communities, and several have also spent much time working abroad.

and why don't those protesters get involved in their communities or do aid work in Africa.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Sofia wrote:

I find it disturbing that free clinics and soup kitchens scramble for funds in the shadow of the monied Washington establishment. Does public disorder only become an issue when it's right under the noses of middle-class, post-activist Washingtonians?

Isn't this just "eye for an eye" logic? And furthermore, what makes you think that the protests only hurt middle-class Washingtonians?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

The collective that organized the protests has a Web site with news, arguments against the WB/IMF, and logistical information for protestors. (Thanks to th is Slate article for this and other links.)

Social change ... [is] unrolled slowly by people who get involved in their communities"

According to my understanding, a lot of people who have been involved in their communities discovered that they couldn't make much progress, because of the IMF and similar institutions. ("We don't have the budget for this literacy program, because of the IMF austerity measures." "We can't pass a law requiring these environmentally safe practices, because the WTO would consider it interference with free trade.") So people with a very broad range of pet causes discovered they have a common enemy. And what are they supposed to do other than protest? Organize an opposition slate for the next World Bank elections?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Jennifer Wade made the exact point I was trying to make about the alternative press when she posted earlier about Mother Jones: "it is certainly in their best interest to perpetuate a perception that the mainstream media is controlled by corporate interests, because otherwise they wouldn't have an audience! ... Casting the news in a different light from the mainstream press is their raison d'etre, which I think does constitute a potential source of bias."

I'm a journalist in the working world (but in the sports section, so nobody has to watch what they say here;) ), so maybe I've already been corrupted by the system. But Beth, I think you're overestimating the effect of CNN and other major media outlets' desire to preserve the way they do business has on daily news coverage. I don't think how the protestors felt about The Washington Post or USA TODAY had anything to do with the coverage that the protests received. I thought the coverage was pretty fair, and covered all the bases.

The fact that police used pepper spray is part of the story of this weekend, and I don't think that was ignored or brushed aside. It's also part of the story that a significant portion of the people here were those like the guy complaining about getting bologna sandwiches in jail, or the student boasting that they were willing to stand outside in the rain to show their solidarity as though this was roughly equivalent to the student barricades in Les Miserables. Arguably, those weren't the people getting pepper sprayed, but they were part of the protest. It's dishonest to say that all the protestors were college kids with no idea what they were doing, but it would be no less dishonest for the press to insinuate that all the protesters were like Dave from Retrogression, whose report from D.C. I eagerly await.

The fact that some people choose to take Bologna Sandwich Guy more seriously than the police's actions isn't the fault of the media. The press puts the stories out there and leaves it up to the public to make up its own mind. Or so the theory goes.

On another note: Beth, if you were the supreme dispenser of laws and justice in this society, how far would you permit the police to go in dispersing protestors that may not be violent, but are disruptive and arguably pose a threat to public order (i.e., protestors not throwing rocks or breaking windows, but blocking a major roadway and preventing people from entering a public building)?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

o my god beth, please don't apologize for sounding too radical. I know radicalism makes people uncomfortable but without it we'd be shuffling along the path to an early death and people like that MicroStrategy dude would be President. And I mean radicalism on both sides of the political spectrum.

I think I'm sort of off the topic here, because I'm not discussing violent vs. nonviolent protests, which is a fascinating subject all in itself. There was a great article in Slate recently about "what is really civil disobedience" (referring to Elian), and I hope someone will write something illumnating about the uses and boundaries of violent and nonviolent protests.

Could anyone really understand the World Bank and the IMF without a degree in Economics? While the protesters may be extreme and potentially misguided, I am all for the protests. We compromise all the time in the voting booth, voting for some idiot because we have a choice only between Dubya and Gore. Why not be a warm body in a count, meet like minded people and be part of a statement. Assuming you somewhat agree with the point of the protests. That does more than being the 1/2 % of the american public who voted for Ralph Nader in 1996 (as I did). The World Bank has a bitter past and there's no reason people should not be suspicious about how it goes about its business.

I think protests and active displays of political statements made me uncomfortable for a long time: how could people be sure they were right? I was indoctrinated in my liberal arts education to use rationality and see all sides of an issue. but eventually, if you want to move forward, you have to choose, or agree with somebody! I now think about my reactions to protests more critically and try to self-educate as much as I can. There are many reasons people might want to be arrested at protests. Its part of the tactics of civil disobedience. Things seemed to go awry in this case. Those sound bites of vegan folks were just stupid. But even NPR wants a good sound bite.

Its possible to both be happy to pay your student loans with your decent job and be pissed at the system that makes college cost $18,000 a year for a state school, or whatever it is at the moment. many many activists live what they preach. They don't buy gap, they try to live conscientiously, and shockingly, are able to work towards making their own cities better places as well as looking at the big picture. In addition, going to D.C. or London doesn't PREVENT you from working in your own backyard. It probably helps you, as you feel less alone in your fight against starbucks in Palo Alto (or whatever, OK?)

being an aid worker in africa is not the only way to help people there. There are numerous stories of aid workers and organizations becoming inadvertently part of the problem, for one thing. Aid workers can't do much about dictators who deposit IMF funds in their swiss bank accounts. Its so easy to just say "well go to africa then...". And plenty of people do. Calling attention to corruption, coercion and poverty abroad is legitimate, even if you make a fool out of yourself. It might be better to write a thoughtful op ed piece for the New York Times (and there's an interesting one today, against the protests) but not everyone has that privilege. That is why people get together and sing stupid songs and make huge puppets.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Jen, you have a point about the bias of the alternative press to remain alternative. In fact, that's one of my main complaints about a particular alternative paper that shall remain nameless: they put their "alternative" status somewhere ahead of accuracy and fairness, and as a result, they're just plain wrong a lot of the time. I read them anyway, just as I skim somewhere between 15-30 online new sources (mainstream, left-wing, and yes, even conservative) on almost a daily basis. (And without sounding too rah-rah for Mother Jones, I will say that it is my favorite of the bunch, especially since Mojo occasionally expresses some skepticism regarding more out-there "alternative" media.)

Regarding how far I think police ought to be allowed to go: I know this is going to sound like a cop-out, but I'm not an expert in crowd control or police tactics. That doesn't mean that I don't think there are limits. There are a lot of ways to stop a crowd: you can use nerve gas. You can use a nuclear bomb. You can shoot people. You can use tanks.

Do I have a problem with cops forcibly removing (i.e., picking up and bodily moving) protesters who are blocking traffic or access to the site they are protesting? Not really. If the protesters fight back, do I have a problem with the use of reasonable force? Nope, not really. That's what the cops ought to be allowed to do. But obviously there are limits; no one is going to disagree with that, are they? Can you shoot someone for blocking traffic? Is that okay?

It's obviously a line-drawing issue. Personally I would have thought the line would be drawn somewhere on the other side of dabbing pepper spray directly onto the eyes of people whose offense was not moving out of the way. And see, that's the problem: if we focus on making fun of the protesters and pointing out their ineffectiveness instead of being outraged at police tactics, then we don't get anything better. We've basically endorsed the use of pepper spray as it was used in the Headwaters protest. We've endorsed the use of billy clubs on people who are seated and not fighting back. We've endorsed tear gas and smoke bombs, and so where is the incentive for police to use alternate methods of crowd control? There is none.

I asked a hypothetical question up there -- is it okay for a cop to shoot a protester who won't get out of the way? -- but it's not really that hypothetical. If we decide as a society that it is okay, either through complacency or through court decisions, then you'd better expect more protesters to start getting shot. That's how it works.

And back to the direct action vs. social protest, I can tell you right now that direct action sometimes needs the political unrest to back it up. I went into a profession that I thought was going to give me an opportunity to directly fight police brutality and the destruction of our Fourth Amendment rights, but since no one outside the system seems to care, all I can do is throw up my hands and say, sorry, guys.

Come to think of it, I'd be tickled as hell if a few of you good people would go camp out at your local city hall and refuse to budge unless you get police oversight review boards, an end to drug forfeiture laws, and some local laws and regulations to restore what used to be our fourth amendment rights against warrantless searches of our homes, property, and persons. Nope, you probably wouldn't get any laws changed that day. But you might make the news, and believe me, I'm not getting any attention at all typing away in my office.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I'm surprised to be in the minority here (looking at the early posters) but I think debt is bad.

College debt that occurs because tuition is rising many times faster than inflation is bad. It falls disproportionately on working-class students and their parents, who are then told, in a sermon that probably hasn't changed since the Reformation, that starting adult life with a big fiscal handicap is good, because the "sacrifice" will make them "appreciate" their education more.

Government debt, whether it's in Africa or New York City, is bad. Saying that it's not the biggest problem is a cop-out. It's a problem. Almost any other way to spend the money is better - salaries for politicians' relatives, mansions in Mobuto or Westchester. Because the money is likely to be respent and keep some of its velocity. I hate to be endorsing the trickle-down theory of economics, but even trickle-down is better than straight interest payments.

Whether anything can be done about debt, whether these kids should be the ones to do it, whether protest works, whether the police treated the protesters fairly are separate issues. The baloney sandwich thing is just an example of typical journalistic focus on the marginal and absurd. But I don't accept the assumption that debt is OK or inevitable and only immature people complain about it.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

And in response to Lynda's latest entry, the McNeil Lehrer (or whatever its called, the PBS Newshour with jim Lehrer) had an excellent roundtable discussion about the World Bank itself with 4 very knowledgeable people, two who want to reform it, two who think its fine how it is. I learned a lot. I think there has been quite a bit of attention paid to the institutions people protest: during seattle time I read a lot about the WTO. Last night I learned tons about china and the capital markets and short term loans. Much more interesting than the Nasdaq!

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Actually, Jen (other Jen), that's a really good point. I think people have learned a ton about the WTF and the IMF in the past few months, and I guarantee you that wouldn't have happened without the protests. So in that sense, they've accomplished at least one goal.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Clarification.. the eye swabbing took place at some other protest, not the DC event, yes? And I ask because of some armswinging about how terrible the DC police were without acknowledging that they weren't all that terrible at ALL. Since these protests are going to be continuing in other cities, I would think it would be in the protestors best interests (unless they truly are trying to goad police forces into violence for some reason) to point out the good and offer some reasonable solution for those other cities to avoid the areas where it wasn't picture-perfect. You know, "You keep your billy clubs away, we won't surround and intimidate civilians trying to conduct their daily business".

Good luck finding LA's police department as level headed as DC's was.

Oh...and per the comments on all of the city problems DC has going on so close to these federal buildings...STRONG agreement there. DC is in the unfortunate position of being host to all these federal organization (and therefore the staging ground for all these federal protests), without having any representation in Congress.

So when you come here and block these roads, trash these streets, and vandalize these neighborhoods so you can be 'heard'... you're doing it to the one group of US citizens who CAN'T make their voice heard through Congressional representation.

Be courtesy to the people who aren't the enemy, please.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Ah, thank you Jen! I tried to follow a link referencing that (from the evil Post who are trying to hide this stuff from me), but it was down last night. I'll try again today - that's just what I'm looking for.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Lynda: the eye-swabbing was not in D.C., correct. It was in Humboldt County during the Headwaters old growth forest protests.

And it does appear that the police response in Seattle was significantly worse than it was in D.C. Didn't one of those articles say that protesters gave Ramsey a bouquet of roses after he negotiated the mass arrest (i.e., prevented further violence)?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I would not doubt it... Chief Ramsey was a definite calming influence for all parties during this.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

D.C. is more used to protests than most other cities -- seems like there's something going on almost every weekend -- so I would guess that the police are better trained in what to expect than they might be elsewhere. I'm not sure how many protests Seattle gets, but I'd imagine that it's not very many. Let's be honest ... if you live in Washington D.C., you have to accept that there's an awful lot in your hometown that could be considered protest-worthy.

Based on nothing more than a rough guess, though, this appears to be the biggest one we've had in awhile.

People can and have argued about how effective Ramsey is as the chief of police, but not many argue that he is a PR whiz if given the chance. Regardless of how the police wind up being viewed after this weekend, Ramsey will probably emerge smelling like a rose. (I don't guess I'll fare the same after that ridiculously bad pun.)

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

(I'm sorry, I skipped quickly through these posts and probably missed some similar points)

To sum up my minimal understanding - World Bank & IMF - 1. global policy provides economic aid to poor & poor countries, apparently often skirting human right issues, such as e.g. "our sweatshop is much better than what you have in your country, (which is next to nothing) so the fact that we pay you $2 for 12 hours work -- you should be glad) and 2. Economics is primary motivation, so the fact the environmental concerns that wouldn't wash in developed countries, we can ignore mostly because, gee, these people have bigger problems

Is that it? I'm not sure if I have it right.

A couple points:

a) Any police brutality will only enhance a protest don't you think? (not that it's necessarily sought out, but it can't hurt the cause though it might hurt individuals)

b) I'm not sure what good working in these undeveloped countries would do for World Bank policy changes (or even working in your local community, for that matter as far as this issue is concerned) -- actually best bet might be protests by prominent individuals, or middle-class youth with lots of energy or time on their hands. OR (2), maybe get a job with the World Bank people and work from the inside.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I spent the majority of Sunday at ground zero for the protests.

Really, thought, rain would have kept me away. In fact, as the day started out, it looked like just that would happen. But the sun broke through around the same time I saw TV reports of clubbings and pepper sprayings at 14th and I Streets.

With a mixture of curiousity, empathy, disdain, and something else I'm not sure of as motivation, I packed my digicam, id, handkerchief, and bail money in my pockets and peddled on down to the World Bank.

Or as close as I could get to it. The police, looking rather impressive (or oppressive- depends on which side of the gates you were on), had blocked off nearly 50 square blocks of downtown DC. Funny, I was just sitting in front of the World Bank eating my lunch on a bench last Thursday. Now I couldn't even see the bench.

Looking around, you'd have thought it was the terrace area of an early Lollapalooza tour (if you ignored the few people chained together- no, wait- they had that at the first Lolla I went to, too). People spread out on the grass, some banging drums, others preaching to a crowd of two or three. Not that it stopped at the grass. Pennsylvania Avenue, crossing which is normally resembles a low score game of Frogger, was devoid of vehicles.

Instead, you had small groups wandering between the various intersections where others had assumed various stages of sit-ins. Once or twice, as police marched up (stormtrooper style, doncha know- can never be too careful with them high school kids, I guess . . ) to the barricades, you'd get someone on a bullhorn yelling for "support!" In response to what was supposed to be a rallying call to help defend the right to protest- a few would amble over, a couple would pass the call down the street- and most would ignore it.

Me? Already at the corner, I just sat on my bike, up against the curb. Just seeing the police march up like that had already raised my deeply ingrained distrust and dislike of them. But seeing the appalling apathy of those in the immediate area raised something equally as negative and disdainful towards them.

Both Beth and Gabby could find good, solid evidence of their positions in the make up of the crowd. And even while I've got friends working at the World Bank and IMF, I had others pushing on the barriers.

It's hard to explain. I look at them- I see me. Not that long ago. Maybe even me today. I don't know.

Who am I to be complaining about apathy when I just rode on in for fun? At least they *came*.

But that kept tugging against something else I felt strongly about- the majority of these people were *clueless* about the work of the World Bank or the IMF.

But they cared. They might not be sure exactly what they cared about, but I'd take that over uninterested disdain.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Curtis, I don't know if I agree with your conviction that misguided devotion to a cause is better than apathy. I mean, would you say the same thing about kids who were white supremacists: "they may not really understand what they're talking about, but at least they believe in something, and they're doing their part to uphold the white man's superiority!"?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Jen, I don't think that comparison works at all. I think Curtis assumed that at least the protesters hearts were in the right place, which is not something you can assume about white supremecists.

Be that as it may, I think apathy is a far greater problem in the year 2000 than white supremacy. At least, its effects are far more pervasive.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I agree, Beth, regarding apathy.

But I can think of one group who are strongly sincere, believe their hearts are in the right place and feel so strongly about what they protest against that they are willing to block people from gaining access to a place they feel results in murder... and laws have been put in place to prevent them from taking their freedom of expression and assembly to that level. They too are distressed at whatt hey regard as national apathy about an issue they feel strongly about.

I'm referring to prolife protesters, and I'm wondering if it matters at all whether or not one agrees with a group in question to the tendancy to grant them leeway?

(I am pro-choice, and strongly opposed to intimidation tactics that prevent entry to a legal public place, and frankly I don't care how sincere a group might be if they are seeking to prevent that entry through force, just because they don't like why they are seeking entry. I'm curious if my mind is supposed to be changed about that fundamental principle if I happen to agree with the cause in question?)

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

But how do they know that their hearts are in the right place unless they know what they're talking about? White supremacists think that THEIR hearts are in the right place, too, although you and I would differ.

You could also easily apply a less extreme example. How about young teenagers who protest against abortion clinics or against gay rights because their churches tell them these things are wrong and they want to save others from a life of damnation? People generally don't go out on a limb to advance a cause unless they feel very strongly that they are doing what is right (or unless they have something to gain, personally). These people really think they're doing something good, but if they examined the issues more closely, they might not think that way.

It seems that you are applying different standards of conduct to causes you believe in, and those you don't. If it's all right for protesters against the IMF to recruit young people with limited understanding of the subject at hand to engage in disruptive protests, why isn't it all right for a pro-death penalty group to do the same?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

You are assuming way too much about my beliefs, Jen. I was just about to respond to Lynda by saying that one of my major disagreements with some liberal organizations is their failure to stand up for the rights of abortion protesters to have their say.

That doesn't mean that I don't think abortion protesters very often go too far. I also sincerely wish that they wouldn't choose to stand around with pictures of dead babies, especially at clinics, because I think they cause a lot of unnecessary suffering when they do that. Do I support their right to do it, even when it makes me boiling mad? Absolutely. Do I think they ought to be arrested when they block access or fail to disperse when they've gotten a lawful order to do so? Absolutely. Do I think IMF and World Trade protesters ought to face the same response? Absolutely. Do I think any of the above -- white supremecists, IMF protesters, or abortion protesters -- ought to be kicked in the head, clubbed, or doused with tear gas unless they are posing a direct and immediate threat to someone else's physical well-being? No, I don't.

Jeremy and I were talking about this yesterday ... I know abortion protesters receive a lot of training in civil disobedience and how to get arrested without getting clubbed in the head, but so do other organized protesters, generally speaking. Does anyone know of any instances in which police have used tear gas, pepper spray, or billy clubs on abortion protesters? I'm honestly curious.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I haven't read through the whole thread yet, but I just wanted to amend, after reading Beth's early comments what I'd said last night: I don't mean to make light of the violent methods occasionally used to disperse protests, I just think that the idea that a protest does any damn good is really misguided. People protest because they perceive it as an easy way to gain attention for their cause, following the principle that "Local news is anything an anchor can stand in front of." Protests are also attractive to right-minded young people because it's a way to bond with other right-minded types rather than be surrounded by uninformed, dispassionate sorts who perceive you as a militant nut (e.g. the general public).

All of the innocents who were brutalized by the police in Seattle last December have not put a single dent in the activities of the World Trade Organization. More damningly, anti-Vietnam-war rallies had almost entirely dried up on college campuses and elsewhere by 1970, yet the US continued its military action there until 1975. Protests are not only ineffective but also put activists at needless risk and endanger the surrounding citizenry. They continue because they are more fun [until the gassing starts, which it rarely does; at the UW they administration would just lock up their offices until we went away] than writing letters or attending meetings or gathering signatures, and because reporters continue to devote precious column space to them.

None of this excuses police brutality. No matter how nonproductive I personally think protests are, I adamantly believe in the people's right to participate in them without fear of violence. I consider the motivation behind the protests and the police overreaction to them to be two separate issues.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

By the way ... when I said above that I think people ought to be arrested when they block access to a public place and are told to disperse, I'm not saying anything particularly radical. One of the fundamentals of civil disobedience is that you accept that you are breaking the law (in a peaceful, nonviolent fashion), but your beliefs are so strong that you are willing to take the risk of arrest to make your point. One area in which I really disagreed with abortion protesters was their desire to have special rules: they wanted to block access and not get arrested. But that's a fundamental element of first amendment protection: the same rules apply no matter what your "message" is. I believe very strongly in that principle, and I don't think I've said anything here that would give you reason to think I'd apply different rules to white supremecists or pro-life protesters than I would apply to anyone else.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Beth, my assumption was not that you would't support the rights of anti-abortion activists to protest, but rather that you would probably rather have impressionable teens be apathetic rather than spend their time menacing pregnant women "because, you know, babies are cute and stuff, and you shouldn't kill them."

But obviously, making assumptions about anyone's beliefs is a dangerous game...

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

(I hate to "pull a Mike Leung" and post twice in a row, but I was just reading over previous posts and thought of this.)

Beth, the thing that led me to believe that you were judging different groups by different standards was when you said that comparing clueless IMF protesters with clueless white supremacists wasn't a valid comparison, because one group had it's heart in the right place, and the other didn't.

To me, this distinction seems pretty arbitrary. Maybe you can clarify?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

um, Kim do you think protests in Tiananmen Square were pointless because they didn't create immediate or useful change?

Such events create spokespeople, martyrs, and of course media attention, that I think wouldn't likely occur under other circumstances.

I'm not sure how you track the effectiveness of early protests, and subsequent steamroller effect to some future result -- but most history books seem fit to remember the upstarts in any historical event as progenitors or at least a partial catalyst for change when it does happen.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Jen, I'm permitted to find some political causes compelling and others less so. I think some political causes are motivated by good desires -- and oddly enough, those are the ones I happen to agree with, or that are at least close to issues I agree with -- and other repulsive. I think the same laws ought to apply to all political groups, but I don't have to have the same opinions of those groups. You can call that arbitrary, but I call it having an opinion.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

(Did I hear my cue?)

I generally worry for a people when I hear that they deal with protest, any protest, with intolerance. Kim's I just think that the idea that a protest does any damn good is really misguided comment dismisses the need of the individual human being to take a match and set things on fire on occasion. After all, each individual human being does live by consuming things that were once alive. Life does eat life, after all.

Some of us meet this need to slate-wipe by starting online journals, and making evil posts to Beth's forum, but just because this kind of activity doesn't satisfy those who sit under the raised arms of billy clubs, that doesn't mean it's any healthier for them to starve their needs than it is for me to starve mine. The countries where these needs are starved/censored more thoroughly (do you need me to give examples?), well their prosperity aren't to be envied, now are they? (Although we all know lots of people who would like to increase the intolerance level of that kind of activity.)

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I think the groups in D.C. this past weekend were trying to practice civil disobedience, and trying to block access, and thereby be arrested. They were not complaining about being arrested, I don't believe, indeed, they wanted to make that statement. If anything, they were mad they couldn't get arrested without potentially getting hurt. While that seems wimpy and to not make a lot of sense, the goal was to get arrested without making it violent. At least, the folks who were negotiating with the police had that goal.

Meanwhile, Operation rescue is notorious for flooding jails with children and adults blocking entrances and practicing civil disobedience. I hadn't thought of the IMF protesters in the same way, though that's exactly what they tried. Very interesting, folks. This has been a fascinating day on this forum!

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

It was ridiculous.

Protestors going into stores like Nike and The Gap to protest their global capitalism and they WERE WEARING NIKE'S AND GAP CLOTHING.

Fighting The Man and big corporations... and lining up to buy Coke's from street vendors on Sunday cause it was so hot. and I quote:

"But some young protesters were finding it hard to avoid the evils of corporate globalism. Just outside the Wilson Center, a Fordham University student who gave his name only as Mike bought a $2 Coke. But isn't corporate giant Coca-Cola viewed by protesters as part of the problem?

"Uh, yeah," he said sheepishly. "But there's a limited selection here, and I'm dying of thirst." endquote

Too many people, no organization, no common message or goal - the only thing the protestors could agree on was that anarchy ruled: do whatever you want. There were AIDS protestors, Environmentalist, anti-capitalist, etc. etc.

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24170-2000Apr16.html

From another Post article:

"In Georgetown, a group of street theater protesters marched up M Street toward the Gap. Each wore a big box with a single letter. One, wearing the letter S, was asked what the boxes spelled. "I don't know," he said. "I guess, 'Boycott the Gap.' "

Up the street, about a dozen people ripped off their shirts and yelled, "Better wear nothing than Gap!"

Over at 14th and Florida, a handful of protesters wrote "Free the Puppets" on the inside of pizza cartons, banged plastic candy jugs and chanted: "What do we want?" "Our puppets!" "When do we want them?" "Now!"

"Hey, we want the food, too," interrupted one protester. "Let's add that in."

"Yeah," said another, "And freedom and justice. Let's add that, too."

"And the bicycles," said yet another."

yup, there is a message for ya.

Once arrested, complaining about the food they were served as it wasn't vegetarian and the fruit juice wasn't 100% juice. Well gee, I don't recall jails having menus, Bad DC for not being more conscious of your dietary restrictions.

Perhaps I'm a bit peeved about this whole thing? You betcha - I work two blocks away from the World Bank and I don't appreciate having my life disrupted for a cause that isn't even really a true cause. I don't think half the people out there had any idea what the World Bank does - I think it was just some excitement to be out and protest and "Fight Da Man". And now DC has to clean up the spray paint and the litter and life goes on.

feh. glad it's over. Sign me up for a protest when there is a true message. "Low Interest Loans" can't be worth all this hoopla.

- t

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Hey, I'm just glad they bought stuff. Maybe it'll boost our local economy.

Here's a link to Mark Fisher's column in the Post, for whatever it's worth. He wasn't much of a fan:

"http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/metro/columns/fishermarc/A33400-2000 Apr17.html"

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I read that article. If I ever get to be that old, I'm begging you, please kill me. I'm serious.

I'd rather be a drooling vegetable than be that cynical, snotty, and disconnected. Jesus.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Well, that's Washington for you. There are an awful lot of Marc Fisher's around.

Ed. note: This not meant to imply I'm implicating myself in the above statement. I'm still a young guy, and hope that others would not consider me snotty or disconnected. (A little bit cynical, maybe.) The link to the column was merely intended to provode some entertainment for everyone here who's helped me make this day spectacularly unproductive.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

This is an issue that I find difficult to comment on in a meaningful manner, if only because it gets all mixed up in my own emotional responses.

First of all, I don't find civil protest to be useless or meaningless as an overall concept -- each protest can have more or less meaning depending on how well it is organized, how well the groupo protesting gets its message across.

I also think that there is a time and place when this kind of protest can be more or less effective. In many ways, the tools of protest need to suit the atmosphere of the times.

It may seem somewhat off-track, but a book I've been reading lately might have some insight into some of the points brought up here, especially as regards protests now and protests in the Vietnam-era: http://fourthturning.com

But back to the IMF, World Bank and the protesters.

By some odd twist of fate I managed to choose the weekend before the protesters arrived to leave DC and move to San Francisco.

We were driving across the country, taking in the awesome sight of its sheer size, the scope of its geography while people were massing in front of buildings where I used to meet my good friend M. for lunch.

M. works for the World Bank. She works for the tech dept. doing support and software documentation and things like that. Little of what she does, has anything to do with what the protesters were protesting. Yet I imagine that her life was very much disrupted by the protests.

If I were still living and working in DC, I might have found my own daily commute disrupted, and I imagine I would have been just as disgruntled and mildly put out as dozens of other area commuters undoubtedly were.

Yet, here on the opposite side of the country, a far different perspective was offered to me, from the pages of the San Francisco Bay Guardian. One which explained in depth the issues behind the protest, or at least, reasons why certain action groups from this area traveled across the country in the opposite direction from myself, to protest.

In this article, I found reasons that I could agree with for walking down to that sidewalk and lifting my voice to be heard. It had little to do with "corporate globalism" a pat phrase and one that doesn't explain much.

The article had more to do with innocent people being killed, going hungry and losing their jobs because of misguided development efforts. It had to do with IMF and World Bank encouraged projects causing greater debt and consequently greater suffering for people of underdeveloped nations.

It had to do with raising awareness about the fact, that perhaps the methodology of the World Bank and the IMF need to be revisited and revised with an eye for more effective development strategies.

It was a very reasonable article, if one with a very heavy liberal/environmental slant. It was however, a very different type of coverage from what I glimpsed briefly on my television screen, or even the refrain that has cropped up here.

There are apparently some legitimate problems with the way in which the Bank and the IMF operate -- their systems may need revising and if no one raises a voice to say so, then how will those changes ever be made?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

*applause* Beth K, you spell out my disgruntlement that those protesting were not given some training in how to speak on the issue along with the training they were given in how to handle the police force.

If a group can actually manage to get airtime for a protest in DC (no small feat!), then every man or woman there should have been ready for impromptu interviews explaining what it was they were there for - not ethereal mottos and buzzwords, but a solid explanation that people who haven't thought about it can understand and grasp enough to pursue the thought.

Police violence in a protest is a possibility - and being trained to deal with it isn't a bad idea. But being asked what you're there for - that's a guarantee, and if you can't answer, or haven't enough grasp of your own issue to have it dawn on you that wearing Nike's and hanging out at the Starbucks while protesting 3rd World commerce practices, then please, stay home and off camera.

If it's really the message that matters, that is.

Otherwise...go ahead, have fun, don't make the locals miserable and try to avoid police violence, and we'll call it a big picnic. We may even think about the big issue in spite of you - but some of us are still going to feel that you personally haven't quite grasped it yourself, and you'll still have missed your opportunity to explain it and stand up for it in a way that is truly meaningful.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Re the ineffectiveness of civil protest as a societal-changing force, one word: Selma.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Okay, let me amend my previous statement: demonstrations generally do not have significant results unless something goes horribly awry and at least one innocent person dies. Man, even then... there was a lot more going on in the Civil Rights movement at the time of the Selma march, and I don't know if you could really attribute, say, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 directly to that one particular protest.

(For those of you who haven't seen footage of Bloody Sunday, you really should rent the PBS series "Eyes on the Prize".)

...............................................

-- Anonymous, April 19, 2000

I suppose this is one of those questions that will never really be resolved. Some people believe that protests do nothing and can even be counteractive to the cause; others believe they are crucial. Personally, I tend to think that any movement that has ever gotten anywhere has done so with a combination of moderate and radical tactics.

And part of the whole point about nonviolent civil disobedience is for something to go wrong--that is, to make the authorities reveal just how far they are willing to go in order to enforce the status quo, such as bludgeoning or firing on peaceful protestors. Worked for King, worked for Ghandi, worked for the suffragists.

There's a good case in point. More than 75 years later, historians still don't agree on whether the radical protest tactics used by the National Women's Party helped or hindered the passage of the 19th Amendment. I tend to agree with those who think that the NWP's picketing the White House, hunger strikes in prison, etc., created a great deal of public support and sympathy for women's suffrage. At the very least, their theatrics and hard-line stance suddenly made the older organization, NAWSA, look a lot more moderate and reasonable to politicians. But some historians completely disagree with that assessment, and it's possible they're right. Considering that in all movements that achieve anything, there is always more going on than public protest, it is, admittedly, difficult to ascertain what exactly has the most impact.

-- Anonymous, April 19, 2000

Two observations on this topic:

1) Lynda B. not only hit the nails on the head, she pounded them into the 2x4 like a nail gun.

2) One thing I'll never understand: These WTO protesters almost all vote for the candidate that promises the most regulation,highest taxes, and strongest central goverment. Yet they expect me to take their protests against centralization of authority seriously?

-- Anonymous, April 19, 2000

I regret not being able to participate earlier. Suffice to say, Beth pretty much captures my thoughts. (ack!)

As to the protesters inconveniencing "local folk"- please. This was almost entirely contained in the "federal city." Not a whole lot of neighborhood there.

Finally, just to prove that the Washington Post isn't completely hopeless (nearly, but not completely)- a link worth following- http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47201-2000Apr19.html

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2000

First off, here's my account of the IMF protests. Unlike the most of the rest of yinz (including the whining DC residents who might have had to drive five minutes out of their way because the *cops*, not the protestors, blockaded off much of the nonresidential downtown) I was there. So go to http://www.retrogression.com/DavidGrenier/A16_2.html and read about it.

My response to you folks won't be nice, and will probably be the last thing I post on these fora for quite a while. You have no idea how hurt and angry it makes me to go face the possibility of getting gassed and beaten only to come home to find a bunch of whiny mouse potatos who's biggest concern seems to be whether Pamie updated her television recaps belittling those who took a great risk to defend and expand our freedom.

Lynda's arguments hold no water because she is obviosulyy simply against anyone who stands up for just about anything. Her strategy on this and other message forum topics is to attack anyone who stands up for social justice as not being able to change everythign and make the whole world perfect overnight. No matter what problem someone is working on, she has a different problem that is more important. No matter what tactic someone uses, she has one that is supposed to be better. She's a complete armchair quarterback using this nonlogic to justify her own apathy and selfishness and to attack anyone who is doing anything worthwhile.

Also, many of us *did* do media training. I brought it up with the Rhode Island folks before we went down. Overall, people are a bit more concerned with immediate pressing needs like medical and legal training. I know I was interviewed and gave some good information on the World Bank, especially their record in Latin America, but that wasn't used. Most of the other protesters I was near kept trying to steer the conversation back to the issues and hand and not get caught in the media's quest for soundbites about us vs. the cops. But none of us appeared on the news. The media will search through a cowd of millions to find their stooge, and that is what they did. They knew what they were looking for and they kept going until they got it. The soundbite that would play into the mindset of the appropriate ad- watching demographic... middle and upper class white folks who buy all the shit advertised on CBS, ABC, and NPR.

The turncoat liberals (I trust liberals about as much as I trust conservatives, they're pretty much the same except on the issues of abortion and flagburning) like Kim Rollins assume that just because they are shallow and apathetic that the rest of us are. I suppose if I sold out whatever principals I may have once had, mocking protestors might make me feel better about myself too. Luckily I haven't done that, and don't see myself doing it soon.

The comments about blocking traffic during the Gulf War not having an effect because the commuters didn't go home and write their congresspeople is incredibly short sighted. Congress people don't give a fuck about their constituents, they care about their PACs, contributions, speaking fees and other bribes. The Gulf War was a war for oil, we all know that. Therefore it was a war for profit. Disrupting business at home threatens profit, and if seeking profit in the middle east will threaten their profit at home, eventually the bosses will call off their political dogs and stop the war. IF the protests faile, it's not because the motivations or tactics were not sound, it's because too many apathetic fucks like yinz would rather sit on your couch and let people starve and die for your daily conveniences than get involved in trying to build a world where we can all have the things we want without anyone getting killed for them.

Funny thing about Lynda's rantings is that I was in DC, and I talked to a lot of folks from the town, mostly black folks and a bunch fo Salvadorans. All low-income, many homeless. They were very supportive of us but too afraid of the cops to join us. My guess is that it's only the middle class commuters who got their panties in a bunch.

The idea that people in America can't protest American imperialism is also ridiculous. For years folks in the rest of the world have been doing what we're now starting to do and wondering, "where the fuck are the Americans? It is their government and their corporations who are the most responsible for this, when will their people stand in solidarity with us?" We may liv eina developed country, but we have a hell of a lot of poor and homeless folks here. My hometown is no middle class paradise, I don't wear birkenstocks, my hair is it's natural color and I eat all the meat I want. Global Capitalism turned my hometown from the jewlery manufacturing center of the continent to a ghost town with empty warehouses and burned out factories... and no fucking jobs. The image you have been given to coddle you like a security blanket is a fucking lie. Come to New Bedford for a while, or Fall River, or hang out with me in Olneyville or South Providence. Hell, go to East St Louis, Gary, or Wilkinsburg. Just because y'all might live in safe little middle class existences doesn't mean the rest of us do. So fuck yinz.

I also question whether or not Jackie actually received a pamphlet with a razorblade in it or if she just heard about them. I have a feeling they may be as real as the homemade pepper spray and molotov cocktails we supposedly had in DC.

The idea that protestors are not involved in more "serious" work and only interested in protests/parties is also patently false. Most of the people I went down with are union organizers. A few are tenant organizers. One works for a nonprofit setting up community gardens. Several have been peace witnesses in Chiapas, cook with Food Not Bombs, etc. Most of us *aren't* rich college kids and *can't* afford to take off to Burma to do what the people there could do for themselves if global Capitalism wasn't crushing them.

Jackie asks why so many protesters wanted to be arrested. The reason is simple.. .jail solidarity. The more of us there are together the more we can practice jail solidarity, the result being that after a few days of some pretty severe intimidation, including being threatened with rape, the protesters managhed to free all but two people with no court date, no onames given and nothing but a five dollar jaywalking fine. WE're a lot smarter than you think. We're probably a lot smarter than you are.

Re: media control - there were five op-eds in the NYT against the protests, not a single one against the IMF. IF you accept the status quo and use institutional sources for your stories (business leaders, cops, politicians) you are a "professional" and "unbiased" journalist. If you do not accept the status quo or go outside the institutional sources you are "biased" and don't get hired/promoted. Plus if you ever try to do real reporting it takes too long and you miss your deadlines. IF you ever try to use nontraditional sources you are expected to have much more fact checking and corrolation, and you risk a libel suit. So oyu stick with business leaders, cops, and politicians. REporters don't need ot be censored because most working journalists come from a similar pro-status-quo mindset and background. That's how they get to be professionals in teh first place. Read Bob McChesny or Noam Chomsky for more on this, entire books have been written ont his subject. Turning it into a cartoonish "men in black" censorship issue is just another defensive device.

Tracy's comment about people drinking coke is specious. It was hot. Many were suffering from heat exhaustion. You can only carry so much water with you and our water supplies at 17th and E were depleted by 11 am. PErsonally I woulnd't drink coke because it makes me feel sick and when it is really hot it just makes it worse, but it's not as nonsensical as you try to make it sound. Get your mind off of your consumption for a moment. Just because there are no public fountains in the area and Capitalism has decided it is ethical and morally good to sell people basic resources like water means that *we* are to blame fo rbeing forced to by it or .. or what, die of thirst? If anything your comment shows how much fucking power these corporations have over every aspect of our lives. But yet again it is used only as a specious argument to discredit activists and thereby justify one's own apathy.

Jim's comment is completely misinvformed. Most of the folks I went to DC with don't vote for either candidates in our one-party system.

So that's my reaction to your armchair bullshit. Go back and read mighty tv now or discuss masturbation or breakups or something a few of you might actually know something about.

fuck y'all.

Fuckers.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

And it's precisely this kind of hysterical, non-sensical response that prevents causes of import from being taken seriously.

You guys can get out there and shout "El puebo unido jamas sera vencido" until your faces turn blue, but god forbid you put together a reasoned, logical and - most of all - calm, mature response to your critics.

If I didn't listen to you before, being called names isn't going to encourage me to listen now. I feel even more justified in my cynicism toward the IMF/WTO/World Bank protests and protesters.

I sincerely hope you are embarrassed by your response.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

This won't win me any friends, but I want to put in a ringing endorsement of Dave's post before you all descend on him like wolves.

Gabby, your calling Dave's reasoned (if very angry) response "nonsensical" after your string of glib, superficial posts that revealed nothing more than your own lofty cynicism gave me the biggest laugh I've had all week. Thanks for that, anyway.

Frankly, as far as I can tell most of the people who have been making fun of the protesters here have had no fucking idea what the protest was about, and have imputed their own ignorance to the protesters. Dave clearly knows why he was there -- so my question is, why are the rest of you here?

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

God, I have my capstone project due for grad school tomorrow so this is the last thing I should be doing but...

You know, Dave, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. If people believe that the IMF and World Bank are necessary organizations that may need to be reformed but certainly not abolished, it doesn't make them brainwashed apathetic zombies. Forgive me if there are people who take pronouncements from the anarchists with the same grain of skepticism that they do with any other bit of information they might come across.

I appreciate that you were in D.C. with full knowledge of what the IMF and World Bank do, and what you were protesting. Do you think that was true of the majority of people there? Because that sure wasn't true from where I sat. There were an awful lot of people there who couldn't have said what the initials IMF stood for, much less what it does. Maybe the fact that the media found more of those people to quote was because there were more of them there than there were people well-versed on the issues.

I could spend the next week talking about your comments on reporters and the nature of journalism, and I probably should since it's apparently something you know very little about. To insinuate that the major media outlets operate as some sort of giant monolith with an internal agenda to manipulate news coverage is flat-out incorrect. If you think that the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and USA TODAY sit around and plot together how they're going to cover various stories and what angles to take ... well, I don't know what to tell you except that that's simply not true. Reporters go out and talk to people, watch what's happening and write what the see. I'm sorry if what the reporters saw wasn't the picture you wanted to provide, but it sure wasn't because they somehow already had their stories written in advance and were just looking for specific anecdotes to make their point.

I also think that it's great that you seem to think that if protests fail, it's our own damn faults for not going to the barricades. I have news for you: it's not because "too many apathetic fucks like yinz would rather sit on your couch and let people starve and die for your daily conveniences than get involved in trying to build a world where we can all have the things we want without anyone getting killed for them." I think we'd all love to see Utopia. In my case, I just don't agree that anarchy is the answer, or that the World Bank and IMF are the culprits making this world an awful place. I'm sorry if that pisses you off, and I'm sure that makes you think I'm an ignorant brainwashed tool of the man, but I don't care.

And "whining D.C. residents"? Hey Dave, why don't you go march on your hometown and see what your friends and family say. You come to our city and disrupt everything for a cause that not a whole lot of the natives agree with, you can pretty much expect all of we ungrateful bastards to be grateful when you pack up and leave.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

The corporate controlled media this, the corporate controlled media that. The ruling elite this, the ruling elite that. Fight the power, blah blah blah.

Way to be specific, Dave. I just finished reading your piece - and it was a long haul, let me tell you. At my college, we had this thing called the Opinion Board, where people would post carefully written or typed essays just like this one, so it was quite the flashback.

So: there's a conspiracy of oligarchs and media titans who want to keep the Truth from the People - am I reading this right?

To what end, Dave? I'm serious. I see that you think this is a bad thing - even if you are completely unable to identify what it means or what particular truths we're missing out on - but why? And could you provide us with a list of what corporations own what information channels? And furthermore, what specific truth distortions are occuring as a result? Because otherwise, you sound like a drunk guy who has mistaken swamp gas for a UFO out in Okechogee Lake.

Here's some truths no one likes to talk about: that in order to have prosperity and in order for capitalism to work (and unless you can find me a better economic system that has worked for as long as capitalism has, don't start with the 'capitalism sucks' stuff because your mouth is as much attached to that teat as mine is) there must be a lower level of wealth - the haves and the have nots. Basic high school economics. That the people who have the power to change all this stuff you hate about the system are, in fact, the ones who you're screaming at and thumbing your nose at - and common sense dictates that it's not how you win friends and influence people.

The world you want is never going to happen. Unless you're willing to compromise your ideals and your unrealistic goals, you're not doing those poor Third World people any damn good at all. Unless you're willing to treat people like us - the sell-outs, the arm chair liberals - with respect, you will never win. It is the people like us who you desperately need on your side to get your cause from a 6 o'clock news freakshow to the halls of Congress.

That, my friend, is reality.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

Thank you, Dave, for the link and the long, clear explanation of the issues at the front of it. Broader dissemination of such explanations (not only to the general public, but among your fellow protesters) would be a worthy move. May I suggest distributing copies of that explanatory for those who might be approached by the press in PA? Contrary to what you may think, reporters are not thinking corporation, they are thinking deadline, and how to condense a 2 ton dinosaur into a short column, and they love readymade quotes.

I'm not going to comment on your remarks here about your perceptions of my character (I am confused about the multiple message board comment, but I'm willing to regard it as mistaken identity). You are correct that my concerns tend to be more about those smaller, closer issues - but we will have to remain in disagreement about whether or not those should matter, and since you know me as little as I know you, I am in no need of defending my motives for believing that to you.

Middle class I may currently be... but we count too.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

I should also say that I liked Dave's Retrogression article a lot more than I did his forum post, for whatever that's worth (probably not a whole lot.)

One point in the article that struck me as perhaps drawing conclusions that go too far beyond the facts is when he writes:

"The fact that the cops would shut down our space at all belies their good faith fagade, but the fact that they would willfully and knowingly spread falsehoods in order to shift public opinion against us says exactly who's side they are on. They aren't keeping the peace; they are trying to defend the IMF from criticism and accountability. They engaged in a propaganda smear campaign attempting to achieve with lies what they couldn't with gas and clubs."

It's perhaps a minor point, but I don't think the cops gave a rat's ass about defending the IMF as an institution, and I'd be surprised if many of them knew exactly what it does. I think the cops were about keeping the peace -- and after Seattle, the prevailing wisdom was that the demonstrators posed a greater threat than the IMF delegates. That's not an unreasonable assumption, IMHO, but I don't think it suggests that the cops are on any ideological side other than that of maintaining order, and I'd be surprised if the police really care if the IMF is criticized or not.

If I'm assuming too much here, or going off on a tangent unnecessarily, I apologize.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

David: you have no idea what I now do with my time other than that I no longer attend protests, so to call me shallow, apathetic, and a turncoat liberal is massively misinformed of you. Since I stopped carrying a sign and chanting, I have, among other things: organized a gift drive ["The Giving Tree" in Seattle -- maybe you've heard of it] for disadvantaged children, run a clothing bank at the local YWCA for unemployed women and recent parolees, been a volunteer with the police department counselling domestic violence victims at crime scenes, and been active with the Progressive Animal Welfare Society where, since I've started, I've been partially responsible for getting the city to ban circus acts featuring exotic animals, and forcing trappers to discontinue the use of leg traps in this state. I also rehabilitate abused and abandoned animals in my house; right now I have a stray, feral cat and her five kittens. You cannot assume anything about my life just because my issues are not your issues, nor my methods your methods. Perhaps what I elect to be active in seems small and petty to you, but eh. I like being able to watch change happen based on my actions, so I tackle little local stuff rather than the international conglomerates you feel up to facing.

This is why I let my NOW membership lapse. I was made to feel that if I didn't agree with every damn thing they got behind (which included lobbying local cinema chains to censor movies that were deemed "offensive"), I was a traitor, a sellout. This "you're with us or against us" attitude serves no one. Even though I agreed with NOW on the vast majority of their platform, they lost my support because of their inflexible litmus test, and alienating everyone aside from radical lesbian separtist feminists is going to bite them in the ass soon enough (some would argue it already has.)

I didn't say jack shit about whether or not I thought you and your fellows were involved in a worthy cause. I'm talking methodology. Just showing up and risking getting bonked with a nightstick is not, I don't think, the best way to change the world. You act as though disagreeing with the form your activism takes is tantamount to saying that you are wrong to believe as you do, and that's just unclear thinking. I also think it's stupid that people who support animal welfare -- just like I do! -- display that support by releasing ranch- raised mink into the Wisconsin countryside, where they kill domestic animals and local wildlife alike, and freeze to death in the winter. Am I not allowed to say that this is boneheaded while at the same time being true to my beliefs, which parallel theirs? (Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question.)

An aside to Beth: your wholehearted, caveat-free endorsement of David's post, in addition to your incredibly harsh attitude in another thread today, has given me the distinct impression you'd rather I made myself scarce. Sorry to have so egregiously offended you, and I do promise you won't be irritated by me sticking my nose in your forum again. Seems like the last thing you need in your life right now is more stress, and I respect your ownership of this space. This place was fun for a while, so thanks for tolerating me as long as you did.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

David, that was truly hilarious, and so unlikely to change anybody's mind that I'm quite frankly full of admiration that you bothered to post at all.

Disclaimer to everyone  this is going to be glib, sarcastic and completely piss-taking, because as far as I'm concerned this entire issue is a load of cobblers. So sensitive souls may want to look away now.

But before I get stuck into Davids post, two things 

Curtis  you commented on storm trooper tactics used by the police against high school kids. While that certainly sounds a leetle over the top, lets not forget that the average US school kid isnt a rosy- cheeked young scamp with a slingshot in his back pocket  guns in schools and kids shooting each other every once and a while has put paid to that. I bet the dinner ladies will be showing up in full body armour soon.

Beth  I really enjoy this forum, and obviously your contributions are a major element of it, but is it necessary to be quite so derisive of other contributors, simply because they dont agree with you? If I was Gabby and youd just described my previous posts as a string of glib, superficial posts that revealed nothing more than your own lofty cynicism Id be tempted to forget the good times and give you the big fuck off signal. The rest of us are here because otherwise you and David would be saying yes, thats what I think too, and youd get a little bored with that.

David - did you know that the organiser of the UK version of these protests is the son of a multi-millionaire? He lives in a flat in Chelsea, and can spend his time organising anti-capitalist protests because he doesn't have to work for a living - he draws on his trust fund.

No, nobody handed me a pamphlet with a razorblade in it because I work in the West End, not in the City, and I've got better sense to head to the part of town where the hysterical and disgruntled middle class protesters are running riot in their bi-annual 'fuck the world' party.

So David, youre hurt because you chose to go face the possibility of getting gassed and beaten only to come home to find a bunch of whiny mouse potatos   well, a big boo-hoo. If youre big enough to protest against everything under the sun then youre just going to have to accept that most of the world thinks youre a joke. Lyndas arguments reflect the views of a vast number of people, both on this forum and elsewhere. We think youre hypocritical and ridiculous to protest against the society you personally receive so much benefit from.

David, to me youre the original angry young man, and I bet you could find something to rebel against whatever was going on. But I repeat  what are you actually achieving? Why dont you go to some of these countries you are supposedly trying to help and do something practical? Or are you not yet ready to give up the comforts of the society you hate so much? Fucking hypocrite. All this IF the protests faile, it's not because the motivations or tactics were not sound, it's because too many apathetic fucks like yinz would rather sit on your couch and let people starve and die for your daily conveniences than get involved in trying to build a world where we can all have the things we want without anyone getting killed for them.  what have you achieved?

Why dont you actively help the poor and homeless people in your hometown? Do you run a shelter? Or are you just a mouthpiece? Youre assuming were all living safe middle class lives, just because we choose to disagree with you and your methods. I like progress  progress means Im not married to a farmer and working 15 hours a day with no electricity or indoor plumbing. Sounds good to me, but Im of course assuming you dont partake in any of these advantages of capitalism (and we wont even comment on your computer  gee, what a great invention).

And youre not involved in more serious work, David, because that wouldnt involve staying in the good old USA. Being a peace witness in Chiapas is not the same as washing lepers in Cairo, or distributing gruel to the starving hordes in West Africa. Or helping flood victims in Southern Africa. There are any number of things you could be doing to help, and thats just in one continent. But I suppose youre doing much more by staying put and shouting really loud.

Jail solidarity, eh? Good one. The reason so many protesters wanted to be arrested is to martyr themselves and make themselves feel important. How did the protesters manage to free all but two people? Any lawyers involved?

It is entirely relevant that the protestors were buying Cokes. Its very funny. Did they buy them at McDonalds? Why were the water supplies depleted so early? That smacks of poor organisation to me  I wouldnt trust you people to lead the revolution if thats the best you can manage.

Why don't you have a read of Kim's last post. That's what serious, grown-up people do to change the world. You're a whiny little kid by comparison.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

Jackie: I don't apologize for my response to Gabby. My tone wasn't any harsher than the tone she uses to dismiss those who disagree with her on this forum or others where I've read her posts. And I think her response was glib. She started this thread, and she has repeatedly dismissed concerns regarding globalism without actually addressing the issues -- instead, she's focusing on what she sees as the immaturity of those concerned about globalism. If she would, just once, actually talk about the issues in any depth, my opinion of her arguments might change. Right now, I stand by "glib."

Kim, I always enjoy your posts on the forum. However, your first couple of posts on this particular topic left me more or less shaking with rage. If I had included a caveat in my endorsement of Dave, it would have been that I like and respect many of the people with whom he is angry, but I also respect his right to be just as angry as he wants to be, given that he was down on the front lines and the rest of us were watching it on TV.

Since the thread started, I've been feeling a little uncomfortable about the direction my journal has gone. You know, I used to have a home page instead of a journal, and I used to make people angry on a regular basis. I wrote about things that made me angry, things that mattered to me, things that tore me up. I didn't have a lot of readers, maybe fifty or so of them on a good day, so even if I wrote something that stirred up some hate mail, it wasn't a very big deal. Hell, in those days I actually had time to sit down and write back to every person who wrote to me, even the ones who hated my guts.

I don't write that way anymore. I guess I decided I liked having five hundered, a thousand, twelve hundred hits a day. Most of you come from a radically different political perspective than I do; most of you aren't people I'd spend time with on a daily basis. That's not an insult -- I'm just not sure how much we really have in common.

So just to refresh your memory, in case you've forgotten (or never knew) who and what I really am: I am a defense lawyer not only by profession but by inclination; fuck with the helpless and I will take you to the mat. I consider myself a radical feminist and I'm a little ashamed of myself for the way I tone that down just so I don't offend Dave Van. I am a member of the Green Party, but I wish they weren't so wishy-washy. I think that sometimes the ends justifies the means, especially when it comes to civil disobedience and organized protest. I think that sometimes political action only comes about when the radical segment of any movement gets angry and gets ugly. I wish that weren't the case, but I do believe it.

As I said, I've toned that down over the past couple of years, and perhaps led my readers to believe that I'm someone other than who I really am. I apologize for that, but I won't apologize for thinking that the majority of the posters on this topic are wrong, dreadfully wrong, and for being a little disgusted.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

Another thing that I should perhaps have made clear: Dave and I are old friends; I've known him a lot longer than I've known the rest of you. I only say that because I've been accused tonight of abandoning old friends in favor of a newcomer. Of course, this isn't about loyalty -- it's about beliefs -- but I thought you should know the history.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

Beth, under no circumstances should you ever apologise for anything you've written - I tend to assume people wouldn't post stuff unless they meant it - at least, that's how I tend to do this. So I wasn't suggesting you should apologise to Gabby - I was just commenting on how I would have reacted if I was her. But I'm not, so it's all kind of irrelevant ... I'll save it for the day where you and I may cross swords instead.

But it won't be on this thread - I've made my position fairly clear, and we'll have to agree to differ.

By the way, I can understand how we would probably never even know each other in the 'real' world, but I have a feeling I'd occasionally overhear your conversations and find myself agreeing with you. So don't tone yourself down, but remember that having a different opinion doesn't make somebody a bad person.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

I don't expect anyone to apologize to me any more than I expect any of the so-called radicals involved in this discussion to truly address the issues I've raised.

I don't believe that globalism is either an issue or a problem and thus I have no interest in discussing it - especially since the proof of its existence is a usually paranoia and more vague stories of kids in sweatshops with a healthy dose of buzz phrases like 'ruling elite'.

What does interest me - as is evidenced by my posts - is the attitude and beliefs of the people who have been caught up in this pyramid marketing scheme of a cause. I am more convinced than ever that people have stumbled blindly into these protests because they are bored, frustrated and confused in their day to day lives. The power they are trying to fight probably has more to do with a rowdy neighbor, an obnoxious boss or an inattentive lover. But those are, more often than not, issues which are harder to deal with - too personal, too messy. But globalism and the oppression of people who you never, ever have to see or interact with! Now, there's something you can seek your teeth into and get properly enraged about.

It's distraction, it's silliness. And you make a lot of motion and sound without actually ever having to do anything - and you get to look like a hero of immense proportions for having gone to a couple of demonstrations. How brave! You risked being pepper sprayed.

Amway itself couldn't have done it better.

Never mind, of course, that you get to come home to your cushy First World apartment, job and lifestyle. Never mind that you live in the land of luxury and ease.

Give me 10 arm chair, sell out, wishy-washy liberals like Kim Rollins who actually have gotten out and made positive change than a hollering, pouting, tear gassed mob of protesters.

And, now: a final round question: So imagine that all the big bad global organizations go away - the IMF, WTO and World Bank all go poof - overnight.

What now?

And brace yourselves, because you'll have a huge mess to clean up.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

I've been pretty amazed at some of the posts in this topic. I guess I'd assumed that most people may not agree with the protesters and their methods, but at least are open minded about the issues.

That news report about the protesters having to eat bologna sandwiches was stupid, but the IMF and the World Bank are entities that I would think we should at least be keeping an eye on, even if we decide we agree with all of their policies. For me, the protesters have served a useful purpose of making me more aware that this is something I need to learn more about.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

Although I realise the furore surrounding this died down last week, I thought some of you might be interested in an account of similar protests held yesterday, when The Rioters Hit London.

Attacking memorials for war veterans was a particularly nice touch, and did much to generate sympathy from the general public.

Nothing will convince me that these people are anything other than complete hooligans, looking for any excuse to riot - and there were Washington and Seattle protesters amongst their numbers.

A friend of mine working in the City yesterday told me that the bankers of his company reacted to the protests last year by standing on the balcony of their building, drinking champagne and showering the hordes with photocopied #50 notes.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Beth: Somewhere in your last post I think I lost the direction of this original thread. I would agree that there are some important issues out there that need our attention. However, I thought this thread was about the tactics used by the police and the protestors? Maybe the two can't be seperated easily, but all the debating in the world with a good defense attorney (flattery to endear me and score points :)) will not convince me that the vast majority of the protestors gave a honest damn about the practices of the IMF or the WTO. I saw too many scenes of 20-25 year olds VANDALIZING homes, businesses, and personal property of people that had nothing to do with the IMF. Mom & Pop Pizzeria had a metal newspaper machine thrown through their plate glass window. This is what I saw on TV. This is the angry mob protesting a worthy cause? What third world country did Mom & Pop oppress? I don't give a damn about who controlled the media cameraman that filmed this act... the media didn't make them do it.

Maybe the IMF and WTO are a secret sister society of the Illumanti. Maybe they are promoting the sweat-shop productions in China. Maybe they are really aliens successfully averting Agent's Scully and Mulder. All that aside, the manner in which the people protested was wrong. There are plenty of wide open spaces in D.C. in which they could have organized a demonstration that would not have drawn the negative element that showed up "for the hell of it" and wouldn't have kept poor joe blow from making it to work on time. Additionally, they would not have drawn the police "brutality". Even the truly despicable and bigoted Louis Farrakahn organized a million man march that went off smoothly and peacefully. And whose message do you think will be most remembered? I would think the million man march did a much better job of making their message heard, and they didn't have to vandalize home and storeowners to do it. And one more comparison of this demonstration to MLK, Jr. leading a large following out of Selma, Alabama, and I am likely to puke. To compare the two belittles Dr. King and his message almost to the point of sacrilege. The message was different, the protestors were different, and there wasn't an innocent homeowner one that had their house vandalized in the process.

One more thing. I have to say this to David, or my head is going to explode. If you have a problem with paying for the most basic resource like water, don't fucking pay for it! Move out in the country, drill your own well, dig your own trenches, lay your own water lines and filter all the impurities out of the groundwater your own damned self! No one in this country is going to stop you. Until you do that, don't scream about how injust it is when someone else does all that for you and charges what is essentially a pretty cheap cost for clean drinking water. There is a big difference in being anti-capitalism and wanting something for nothing. If you prefer a Marxist society where all of the resources are distributed according to need, you can move to any of the remaining communist societies and enjoy the benefits of such an economic system. There is only one cost. Your fucking freedom.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Marx said somewhere that revolution was 'the carnival of the oppressed'. I've always liked that. Whatever I may think about the policies of the IMF and WTO-- and I'm very ambivalent about globalization --I would have enjoyed being able to organize a truly clever protest that would have tied up traffic, smashed a few windows, and generally made life a little less pleasant for suit-and- tie/homeowner/business/lower-middle-class conservative types. Having stockbrockers drink champagne and throw down 50-pound notes would be brilliant, too: one more sign of the theatricality of the whole thing.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000