It is like trying to chase a flock little birds as they scatter in every dirction at once. I'm only going to try for a few of them.
I don't believe that this stuff about appearance matters. Reasonable people pay no attention to such trivia. Unreasonable reactionaries may claim that they would be more willing to listen to demonstrators in suits with neat haircuts, but when black activists wearing suits and neat haircuts approached those very reactionaries they were first ignored, then condemned, then attacked with firehoses and police dogs. The suits made no difference, and it was the intervention of reasonable people that made change happen.
And so it is today. Those who obsess with how demonstrators dress are not listening any way, and have no intention of accepting any kind of factual argument or democratic pressure. The deomonstrations you see today are appeals to reasonable people to take action to reign in the reactionaries. It is a waste of time to to reason with someone who thinks on such a primitive level that he thinks that people dressed strangely must be wrong.
After that, you change the subject to a tactical discussion. How best to get Greenpeace's message out? Maybe Greenpeace agrees that slashdotting a website is an ineffective use of resources and that is why they use other methods. I merely began by asserting that it should be a valid option, and that the acts of civil disobedience that have changed the world have almost always been bad news for someone. The prerequsite for civil disobedience is that polite and established methods have failed and more exteme tactics are called for. As to what "they" are hoping for, again, "they" are not DoSing anyone, nor slashdotting anyone. You may look at Greenpeace's site yourself if you want to know what they are doing and what they hope to accomplish by it.
Now your last question is really what all this anti-globalization protest is all about. "These countries" don't want to borrow from the World Bank by its terms. They don't want the IMF's sadistic austerity measures implemented. They are not clamoring for lattes and cell phones. If globalization were implemented with any respect for what the people want, we wouln't have nations thrown into massive debt, while the corrupt leaders who did business with the World Bank flee the country with their ill-gottne profits. The World Bank is telling populations who were never given a choice that they have to pay back money borrowed in their name by irresponsible, unelected strongmen and warlords.
On the other end, the people of the West are not demanding that we carry out these policies in poor countries. The wishes of the people in the West are being ignored as corporations decide that it would be to their benefit to try to make developing nations into good markets for their cell phones and assorted other crap. And if they can't do that (and they generally can't), they'll settle for exploiting them for as much cheap labor and material as they can before the country collapses.
Now as far as your criticism of democracy, I don't feel like bothering with it. I see some non-sequiters about crime rings and democracy in Asia, and the odd idea that the financial dealings of the World Bank are supposed to be undemocratic. You do realize we are not discussing a private company, right? If you can sort all that out and present some coherent argument for the bureaucratic autonomy of the IMF and World Bank, fine, I'll at least read it. But in the mean time, I'm going to go on believing that the institutions that my government creates and supports should be accountable to the electorate, not run by some exclusive clique of technocrats and plutocrats.
The back of Baudelaire's head
appears on every other thirteen dollar bill.
--Poetry Nation, Jeffrey McDaniel
[ Parent ]