What went right with the Halliburton protest.. & Police on horses thoughts

[lostnfound]

1) The inverse of 'Operation Mockingbird'..thinking about how our government spreads 'memes' through the media to shape public opinion in subtle ways. Mockingbirds hang out in the trees and suddenly start to chatter, then go quiet again. When the 'media mockingbirds' start to chatter, a story or idea is planted and spread widely and quickly -- so that NO MATTER what media you are watching or reading, you likely will hear it more than once.

The Halliburton shareholders meeting protest (DU thread) was a success in media coverage -- corporate/mainstream AND noncorporate; in creativity -- the people WEREN'T bored; in organization; and in timing.

TV coverage of the protest was reasonable AND it included comments on Halliburton's overcharges to the government AND ended with a mention of its outstanding asbestos lawsuits. The protest was covered in many cities, in part due to a weeklong effort to contact the media. The effect is small -- but a seed is planted -- creating chatter.

2) Police on horses. While watching them herding protestors back onto the sidewalk, I found myself very sympathetic to the fact that they were 'trying to do their job' (of clearing the road), that it was probably frustrating and hard for them to understand why protestors would resort to blocking the driveway.. and I hoped that they wouldn't end up hurting anyone.

But watching them herding the people in the 'die-in' was especially disconcerting -- it seemed inevitable someone would get their face stepped on. A friend who did the sit-down/direct action said, 'yeah, I got stepped on a couple of times'..not on the face.

Being at the feet of a prancing horse is not where I want to be..Would protestors on horseback be allowed?

The assumptions that underlie one's perception of this type of situation are interesting. Priorities on property, safety, speech, freedom (on both sides)..

Also, I'm always amazed at the relatively ineffective tools which ordinary people have for inducing change. If 5 million ordinary people dislike government policy, they write/protest/put their bodies on the line/assume risk etc.., but if one mega-millionaire or top corporate buddy of Cheney dislikes a policy, they make a phone call.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. That's because it's not "one man, one vote"

in our democracy. Each little dollar bill gets one vote.

[havocmom]

2. When protests fail to get policy changes, the costs go up.

'...the relatively ineffective tools which ordinary people have for inducing change. " You just hit the nail on the head. When that is the case (as when representative democracy fails due to $$ being more important than people, corporations having person-hood with actual persons delegated to second class status, and media ownership so limited that only one message gets out) what recourse do people have? If they have no real representation in a government's policy decisions, eventually they give up or ratchet up the opposition.

Makes one understand how random acts of violent destruction in a society start becoming patterns.

Any government which truly wants to wage war on terrorists needs to put people first. It won't stop it all, but it would be a start. People with nothing to lose because policy has left them destitute become dangerously frustrated. Either the system is made to work or it will fall apart. History shows this over and over. Do we learn from it?