Better anti-war protests
Oct. 27th, 2002 06:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vicarzSo, what's the difference?
Many large protests against a potential war in Iraq took place this weekend. They got tons of press and were (reportedly) not disturbed by police for the most part. Way cool. I get the impression their voices were heard.
Compare and contrast this to the moronic display we just experienced around the last IMF / war / crunchy street party fiasco.
Many large protests against a potential war in Iraq took place this weekend. They got tons of press and were (reportedly) not disturbed by police for the most part. Way cool. I get the impression their voices were heard.
Compare and contrast this to the moronic display we just experienced around the last IMF / war / crunchy street party fiasco.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-10-27 04:02 pm (UTC)Antiwar protests are much more tangible and concrete to a public that doesn't want to listen to a long litany of IMF wrongs, and won't ever read enough about World Bank to "get" the issues. (And I include myself, because I can assure you that I haven't read up on them.)
The IMF protestors lack a spokesperson who can synthesize their issues into a coherent, intelligent message in front of cameras.
People are afraid of their sons being sent to be killed, and somehow traffic problems because of demonstrations seem a little more reasonable in the face of that.