First, in my area the protests drew little attention from the media, certainly not as much as some of the cyclists who once a month make asses of themselves and enemies for cyclists.

Second, the average age was, I would guess, 35. A LOT of older people were there with a lot of kids.

It was a significant event.

And third, a thought that never occurred to me.

I'm absolutely against violence, and I can see that the violence of the '60s demonstration served a purpose. It wasn't until they got violent and scared the regime and rest of the country that the demonstrators were taken seriously. No one had to factor them into anything other than isolated cranks.

We need more, bigger and peaceful demonstrations. Start throwing the associated economic problems of the war into the speeches, the debt for war, and use that as a focus, too. The walking wounded will include the baby boomers without access to medical care.

Increase the awareness, gradually, of being against war AND it's irresponsible cost, both to others and to the US.

As they become a serious concern for the administration, watch the cops get violent. The 1968 Chicago Democratic convention riots were a police riot. And then there will be the publicity.

One scenario could easily have the Feds start arresting the leadership as "enemies of the country", without naming or charging them. They would disappear, much like Argentina or Chile, or Germany or Russia. Ashcroft has the laws and the willingness to view the administration AS the country. Which it ain't. At all. It's a transitory political regime.

But I think it will all be over before any of this gets too far.

Arf