I think the vandals of May 1st gave the general public too much credit. Perhaps they assumed that the connection between these two monuments to capitalist gluttony, thievery, exploitations, wealth hoarding etc. and the plight of workers & immigrants would be obvious, and that the action would speak for itself without needing to be spelled out for people. They were wrong. Instead of making a connection between banks and oppression, it seems that many people (so habituated to identifying with their oppressors and letting T.V. and newspapers do their thinking for them) have simply made a connection between activists and what they erroneously call "violence". As such, i think that it would have been better if the banks were attacked on April 30th or May 2nd, so as not to have tied that level of militancy to something like Mayday, which is supposed to be a venue for above-ground-no-risk organizing & community building between immigrants/workers, and activists/advocates. These relationships are important because people from the activist/advocate community tend to be more privileged as far as race and class are concerned and therefore have greater access to rights and resources than do immigrants and poor people, thus making them very useful allies. In the wake of the May Day vandalism, as I understand it, some folks in the immigrant community are too sketched out to want to have anything to do with the mostly white activist community.