i fail to see how this substantiates chuck0's holding out "seattle" as a counterexample to "DC". so, they moved the place they meet. my guess is, they may not even need to do that. seattle was, IIRC, unprepared for this. if it were NYC, it would've "guiliani time" again for the NYPD, and that would probably have taken care of things.
as you say, there was no economic impact. as far as i can tell, there was no impact on the power structure and the existing systems.
caginess? i am not sure i even see signs of that.
> ``and why wouldn't these millions get the same message from DC?''
>
> They probably would.
and according to a poster from germany, they do.
>
> ``I tend to doubt that "seattle" (or "DC") means much..''
>
> Then why did you go? And if you didn't, then why not? See, I tend to
> think all this noise does help. It may not be much. But it is
> something. For one thing Bush, Cheney, and most of Congress hightailed
> it out of town.
>
same as moving the WTO meeting to davos, yes? i am not sure if you are arguing my case here or chuck0's ;-).
you cut off my sentence above: i said words to the effect: i doubt that "seattle" or "dc" mean much to the most disadvantaged millions in the rest of the world (in response to the idea that it may be motivating, etc). i say that because i do not think they hear much about these things and they have critical needs to address every day. perhaps they have a more positive image of the US thanks to tsunami relief and bill clinton's visits.
i went to the march to be with my community, as a sort of act of solidarity, and to influence opinion here in the US (and perhaps the rest of the western world).
--ravi
-- If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!