could you substantiate this conclusion further? what actions on the part of the establishment showed significant change as a result of "seattle"? (and not a result of growing discontent, protest elsewhere and academic and other criticism, not to mention bono). was there a reduction in or restrictions on outsourcing? flow of american capital into "third-world" nations for exploitative industries? what is the significant political block that was identified in "seattle" that was missing in DC/NYC?
> I have to assume that there are millions of people abroad who look at
> the US as a monster of rapacious greed, power and carelessness---and
> that they were cheered by some sign that the US was not entirely
> composed of selfish, narrow minded, greedy, xenophobic
> assholes----that were some significant minority who understood what
> the US corporate elite was doing to people at home and in the rest of
> the world.
and why wouldn't these millions get the same message from DC? in truth, i tend to doubt that "seattle" (or "DC") means much to the most disadvantaged of those millions -- the very people whose cause we are hoping to further.
--ravi
-- If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!