> Couldn't agree more.
>
> They "just" changed the terms of the debate.
>
> They "just" claimed that ordinary people had the right to publicly, transparently, openly discuss the shared reality of 99% of us.
>
> They "just" showed the world that there was widespread opposition to the status quo in the greatest imperialist power in the world.
>
> They "just" sank into the national consciousness that 99% of the people are on the same side.
>
> They "just" discarded the rhetoric of victimization.
>
> ....etc.
Who is arguing the opposite? You do the movement a disservice when you turn justified admiration of what it's accomplished into legitimation of apathy about what to do next. It is entirely possible - though I certainly hope not - that six months or six years from now we'll look back and say it's too bad that those are the *only* things it accomplished before flaming out. And you can't just assume that won't happen because the movement "must know what it's doing" - after all, look how much it's already accomplished. The skills and ideas necessary to organize demonstrations and occupations are totally different from those necessary for turning the resulting change of consciousness into a lasting movement. And finally, no matter how much Carrol huffs and puffs, there is nothing wrong with me saying this. It is perfectly legitimate to sit behind a computer screen and say what the movement should and should not do - just as legitimate as it is to sit in a meeting room of Bloomington Peace and Justice and say what it should do.
SA