Have the giant puppets been deployed at the G-20 summit yet...

[WCGreen]

Because it really isn't a full G-20 Summit until the giant puppets have been deployed.

These protests from the where ever they come from are exercises in futility.

The corporate media will not cover them other than to show they are breaking windows and walking around with giant puppets.

I get the anger and the frustration but no one seems to be listening.

The only people benefiting from these protests are the highly paid security consultants who provided the clamp down.

Maybe if I was younger I might better understand it, but I don't think so.

Protests in this country only work if you can attract more people to your cause.

There is no real energy in the anti-corporate protests.

There is no growth.

No minds are being changed.

There are, however, performance artists and giant puppets.

[BeFree]

1. Gawd

Can you be even more of a bummer? Please, don't try. Spare us.

I'm with those people in the streets.

""Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. K"

[WCGreen]

2. What, for talking the truth...

they have done nothing to change anything.

Since they have started their performance art protests, the G-20 as only gotten stronger and more accepted by the general population.

You want to change. Engage.

You want to have fun, join the giant puppet brigade.

So I guess if I disagree with your view of the world I am a "Bummer"...

BTW, breaking windows, trashing police cars and creating mayhem is not my idea of peaceful protesting - especially when that is all that is ever presented as the face of the G-20 protesters...

[BeFree]

20. ..........

they have done nothing to change anything.

They've done more than you ever will.

Since they have started their performance art protests, the G-20 as only gotten stronger and more accepted by the general population.

Says who? You. You are the EXPERT?

You want to change. Engage.

That's what the people you are cheesing on are doing. Engaging.

You want to have fun, join the giant puppet brigade.

Deflating the wcgreen puppet here is fun. And engaging. And is accepted by the general public. <grin>

So I guess if I disagree with your view of the world I am a "Bummer"...

You don't have a clue what my view is. But we see what yours is. A bum rap on those who are engaging.

BTW, breaking windows, trashing police cars and creating mayhem is not my idea of peaceful protesting - especially when that is all that is ever presented as the face of the G-20 protesters...

Turn off your TV. All they ever present is what bums you out and makes you post bummer posts.

Do It now. Turn off your TV.

[WCGreen]

22. How sanctimonious you are...

How could you possible make such a vapid statement as they have done much more than I have.

How would you know?

What you are saying is a kin to a puff of air, like those inflating the puppets.

FYI, I have been involved in the political process for over thirty years now, inside and out.

I feel I have earned my right to questioned the tactics of those who came after me.

But heaven forbid I should rain on your parade...

At least I have the balls to say what is on my mind instead of towing the "accepted" Meme.

Who is the rebel now?

It's easy to go along with the majority.

Be Free...

I'll say, as long as I clear my opinions with you.

[BeFree]

23. Hah

You are the one telling good people who are on the streets that what they are doing is useless.

You need to read your own shit, for the first time, obviously.

[WCGreen]

24. I'm not telling the 'good people" on the street anyting...

I am merely expressing my opinion.

If you really think what they are doing is making a difference, have at it.

I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything.

I am merely, again, expressing my opinion.

Last time I checked that was still okay.

I think it is pointless, sophomoric and ineffective but I would never, ever tell anyone what to do.

And if you really think what they are doing is effective, then head on up to Toronto and join the party.

It's a free country, for now, at least.

[BeFree]

25. You wrote:

"These protests from the where ever they come from are exercises in futility."

We thank you for your support...NOT.

Maybe if you were younger you would understand what you write?

[WCGreen]

26. And that is my opinion..

And I will stick to it.

Just as you are sticking to your opinions and perceptions.

[hlthe2b]

3. So, if there were no protests, we would be better off?

the message that the corporatocracy is not "beloved by all" would be advanced without the protests? I mean we know how well the media does its job, so without people in the streets, and yes their big puppets, the MSM would do those indepth investigative reports and expose the hell out of the issue, right? Right?

I'm seriously asking. :shrug:

[WCGreen]

4. No, but tell me, has it made any difference?

I get it, I was young once.

But the protests that were successful, the ones that changed the world were the ones that engaged the people who watch and feel a part of the protest.

How do you think people watching at home will cotton up to the predictable turned over cars and smashed winddows...

MLK was successful because he preached change and was patient. The Civil Rights movement turned the country toward them because they were peacefull and engaged the people.

which to you think has had a more lasting on the impact society as a whole? The Civil Rights Movement or the anarchists?

[hlthe2b]

5. I'm not advocating vandalism & violence. I'm advocating protest

Your original post seemed to be arguing against the street protests at all, yet you bring up non-violent protest as a straw man argument. Of course I agree with the non-violent MLK approach. That wasn't the issue at hand. Should they be out protesting or not?

[WCGreen]

8. Protest, but don't smash windows, upturn cars and set fire to anything in sight...

I think engagement is the way to go, change the minds of the people not taking to the streets.

I was part of those protests in the early 70's.

The anti-war movement was not successful until they convinced the political folks that they would vote against people who continued to support the war.

These theatrical protests have been going on since the late 90's and nothing has changed the minds of the people out there.

The media loves to focus on the destruction caused by the Anarchists and the Giant Puppets while ignoring the people who are there to make a statement and not performance art.

Street protests are great it they are focused and on task.

The Civil Rights movement was successful because the police over reacted to peaceful protests.

When the police clamp down because of looting and setting fires, then the mass of people out there on the other side of the video cams are going to be sympathetic to the police.

Sometimes I think they seed these protests with undercover people who start the mayhem to discredit the many who are upset.

But one overturned on fire car trumps three thousand peaceful protesters every time.

[hlthe2b]

18. Actually, I believe the seeding of infiltrators has been proven...

As we saw with the Iraq anti-war protests, many disparate unrelated issues attempted to blend into the mix, diluting a consistent message. While the Vietnam anti-war protests were more uni-focused, I think ultimately,the unfettered tv coverage of the horror that was actually occurring in Vietnam-- the never-ending bodies on the tarmac coming back, on tv every night, and the horrendous inequities in the conduct of the draft, was largely responsible for the change of tide for war support.

The Civil Rights movement was successful due to the cohesiveness that was accomplished by a very effective and charismatic leader--as well, as you say the overreaction of police to peaceful protests.

So two recent models-- the domestic anti-Iraq War protests (arguably the international anti-war protests had more impact) and anti-Globalization protests have been ineffective and done little to advance either movement. I'm not sure how one replicates successful models in either case... Leaders like MLK (and Gandhi) do not come around all that often and even less so on an international level. So how to restrain the protesters, uniting them to non-violent protests at G-20 events? I don't have a clue.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. The protests when you were young also were protrayed

in the media as violent and out of control. If you do not recall that, you are forgetting important facts. King preached 'the fierce urgency of the now' and he was not patient at all. Fierce urgency of the now. Those are King's words. Words he preached. Fierce. Urgency. Now.
Back in that time, the media tried hard to do what you are doing here, they conflated King with extremists. The news did not spend much time explaining that the Panthers were not the same as King's people. No. They were all 'in the streets protesting'. Some of them had guns. Just as you paint the protesters as 'anarchists' because there are some anarchists there disrupting, the media then painted King as Malcolm and Malcolm as a threat, and showed pictures of protesters with guns. Black protesters, posing with guns, even. And they said "what do they expect to accomplish, with guns? Burning down their own neighborhoods?".
I think your memory has selected a few things and forgotten others. King cut through some of that crap, and it cost him his life. But the whole time, they were not presenting him as he is thought of now. He could have easily said 'well, tv thinks I'm Huey Newton, so what's the point?'. I head about him being a communist, a philanderer, and all kinds of things. In my house, we knew that meant he was right, because those who were wrong were slandering him. But slander they did.
Some people, even my parents back in the 60's, can not be fooled by a smashed window. Anyone can smash a window. Anyone can seek to defame and to destroy. Agents or anarchists? Do you really know, in a way that you can prove? No, you do not.

[WCGreen]

9. Oh give me a break...

King wanted to engage the establishment with a peaceful front.

He preached to not fight back, to let the police instigate the violence.

What he meant by the "fierce urgency of the now" was to keep the demonstrations coming, never falter and never employ the tactics of the opposition.

I remember how violently opposed to King my family was growing up but I also remember, vividly, that the Civil Rights movements was derailed when the riots broke out in 65, 66, 67 and 68.

King distanced himself from those urban uprising and went to several cities to preach calm and peace and was credited with quelling much violence.

[obxhead]

7. I was discussing this with a UK friend living in Canada now.

Many believe that some of the violent protesters are in fact plants to create a little havoc. Doing so wouldn't seem that far out of the realm of possibility and would create the situation for these security companies to make a quick buck.

[WCGreen]

10. I alluded to that in post number 8...

[asdjrocky]

11. Yes, most of the world leaders are there.

[WCGreen]

13. Secluded and could care less what is happening in the street....

[asdjrocky]

16. And the pupet masters are nowhere to been seen.

[stray cat]

12. Protesting is easy - real sacrifice is hard

[G_j]

15. enlighten us

please

[bemildred]

14. How would you know?

I mean, if it did make a difference, had made a difference, how would you know? What would you compare it with to see the difference? Would we be informed that our "leaders" did something different because of protests and why?

[WCGreen]

17. If anything the economic situation has gotten worse...

There is more upward movement of capital and real assets concentration in the hands of the privileged few.

There are deep cuts in the social safety nets being made all across Europe and a Commission on dealing with the imaginary threat of Social Security meeting in secret as we speak to present their conclusions to make recommendations to a lame duck congress to vote on.

Scapegoating has become a national pastime in Europe, lashing out at Muslim, and here in the US, lashing out at "illegals."

So yea, I see that if anything, the situation is getting worse, much worse.

And yet the puppets dance...

[bemildred]

19. That's a different question.

Back in the 60s we got civil rights and medicare, and quite a few other things, but the war went on. Yet that's the touchstone that is referred to as effective.

I'm just pointing out that our ruling elites hate the very idea of the public interfering with their doing what they like, and would do everything in their power to give us the idea that we are impotent and ought to just shut up; so, we would never be told even if we did manage to influence policy.

[WCGreen]

21. I think the Civil Rights movement

was wildly successful because of the middle class people who took up the cause when they saw the brutality of police attacking fellow Christian protesters.

It's important to engage the middle class and not alientate them to your cause...

[bemildred]

28. Right, it's important who gets seen as violent and unreasonable and undemocratic, and like that.

But I was just pointing out that the question as to whether protests have been effective or not is more complicated than it might seem. You have to ask "effective for whom and to what purpose" before you can even begin to answer that question, and the people who show up at protests are a very diverse lot.

I don't agree that the Civil Rights movement was wildly successful, but real progress was made, just like with gender equality issues.

[applegrove]

27. They had giant bobbleheads at the G8 on friday.