Re: RE: RAT Hello Seattle, i must be going...

[Ahoodwink@aol.com]

Werner wrote:

In a message dated 12/3/99 4:40:03 PM, werner_trieschmann@adg.ardemgaz.com 
writes:

<< But I would imagine that a lot
of people completely discounted the arguments the WTO protesters were making
because of the violence. I'm sure the people out there who don't know about
WTO are now tuning out because it turned into one more mob scene.  >>

Unfortunately, I would counter that it was the violence that helped the 
protests make the news AT ALL, and witnessed by this note I got from my 
friend Dave Buchen in Puerto Rico:

<<Well, all I can say is Bravo Seattle! Here in Puerto Rico the newspapers 
have
had full spreads of cops in their robo-outfits carrying their truncheons and
beating people til they're bloody. And that pretty much perfectly sums up  the
WTO's goals and aspirations. The riots and protests will stick like gum to the
shoe of globalization for a while so that the words free trade and
globalization will not be uttered without the stench of tear gas. Go Seattle!
As for the question of peaceful protest:  Clinton says that he supports
peaceful protest about the WTO but not violent protest. First off clearly he
is a hypocrite, using violence when he's sees fit. Second off the reason he
wants you and me to only use peaceful protest is that in this case it would
have been utterly ineffective. The protests would have been ignored outside of
the Sea-Tac metro area and the WTO would keep humming along quietly making the
world a better place for 2% of the population. And for the rest to hell with 
em.

Rah Rah Seattle!
Sis Boom Bah!

Dave Barbarismo>>

So it's more complicated.  The news LIKES violence.  Violence is not good.  
But - in this case it carried the event further, though admittedly not the 
correct message.  messy indeed.