Quoting Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: > > > I've been enjoying the summit of the americas summit. So far I've > seen - > > people in gas masks (most canadians own gas masks - as i told my > friend > > steve when he asked why - you never know), a guy in a bunny outfit, > and > > two guys dressed as nuns. I'm glad I mooked this event in my > > PDA. Wonderful show - now the police are firing rubber bullets - and > tear > > gas. > > HAHA! > > EXCELLENT!!!! (snip) What we should be working toward is encouraging more libertarians to be in a position to participate IN the meetings--and I don't mean just that in the sense of all that whiny 'place at the table' pie-in-the-sky horseshit, but actual real-live policy analysts people are willing to listen to and take seriously. Who stands a better chance of having real power and influence: someone throwing rocks on the outside or or someone drafting reports on the inside? Something to think about. 'Raising public awareness' with costumes and stunts is one thing, affecting national policy decisions is quite another. There's the kind of debate and rhetoric that's useful on TV, and there's the kind of analysis that makes a discernable impact. I'm not saying the former doesn't have its place--but for a cause to rely on it to the exclusion of more serious methods creates a nasty PR problem. For instance, I can assure you that no one at the IMF or the World Bank ever gave a crap about anything anyone ever said while wearing a turtle suit. Appealing to emotion is most effective on the stupid: if we're mainly interested in whipping up a lot of support from stupid people I guess that's the best way to go. But being included in the debate in a meaningful way is going to take a lot more than that. ~Faustine. **** 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
