posted July 21, 2004 03:36 PM            

Who is it that really wants to pollute the water and air in America? We all breathe the same air and drink the same water.

Who is it that wants to kill or eat all the fish, destroy all the wetlands or wreak havoc on Mother Nature? No one I know.

It's easy to be for Mom, apple pie and the Flag...unless you're a dedicated leftist but
the idea that being for something good gives one the special right to trample on the rights of others, destroy their property and harass them in the exercise of their legitimate rights is the very enemy of legitimate protesters. It's also unlawful and it's time some of these so called peaceful protesters spend some time in orange jumpsuits picking up trash along the roadsides.

In short, the leaders of these groups play on the idealism and naivety of their members. Their goal is power, political power they can't win at the ballot boxes which is the only lawful way to get political power in America.

posted August 03, 2004 03:44 PM            

Am I really the only lefty around this place that has ever been to a major protest or ever been to a convergence space to see what the protesters are all about? It seems to me like no one else ever stands up to counter any of these grossly inaccurate stereotypes...*sighsighsigh*

Pidaua,
I would never say that the bombing of anyone is 'okay' so long as it brings about some perceived 'good'.

quote:

---

One does not have to say "Kill People" to insinuate that the innocent deaths brought about the necessary change in policy.

---

I have never advocated using violence as a form of protest. Unless you call blockading a street or buisness 'violent'. If that is considered violence than I would like folks to consider that buying a product of sweatshop labor from Nike is also an act of violence. So then the way I see it, blockading Nike in order to prevent people from supporting the violence which that corporation perpetuates is an act of defense for those who cannot defend themselves.

quote:

---

Why do these people not use their resources to get an an education and become their own company to compete against the big evil ones? I think they are lazy - pure and simple.

---

Pid, when you sensed my "semi-seething" anger, it was actually more like the barely contained anguish of my frustration over not being able to adequately explain to you just how completely off target I perceive you to be with some of the perceptions you share regarding protesters- anarchists particularly. I challenged you to go to a convergence center the next time you are in the midst of a major protest because I think it would be a really interesting and eye-opening experience for you that would shake you up a bit- in a good way. Meaning, I think you would have to seriously reconsider some of the things you have said about them, like calling them 'lazy', if you were to see all of the things being organized there- medical/healing space; a media center; trainings in non-violence techniques and practicing how to stay calm in the midst of group panic situations and help calm others; cooking for hundreds; community garden organization; local buisness and neighborhood outreach; sign painting and making puppets; childcare (usually- it's a newer thing); and of course lots of meetings- everything is generally concensus process: a slower but purer form of democracy. I would never have recommended that if I thought it would be a dangerous situation, as is how it seemed to me that you saw it as (?).
Really, the notion that most of these folks are lazy just doesn't make sense.

As for the question about why we don't just start our own corporation to counter the 'evil' ones...
The asking of it reveals a lack of understanding of the position I and many of these protesters share on the topic of the corporation. It is my view that the very nature of the corporation is to be an exploiter. Corporations are set up to maximize profit and minimize culpability for any destruction that ensues from their activity. It has little to nothing to do with the people inside, running the corporations, it has everything to do with the very structure of the corporation, which is designed to value profit above all else- environment, workers or community. Corporations are inherently amoral. That is the reason asking why anti-globalization protesters don't just start their own corporations doens't make much sense. I could expand more on why the machinery of the corporation is the problem but I think that's another topic for a different thread perhaps. I just wanted to point out that it's better to know WHY people are out protesting before going and making such harsh judgements of them.

posted August 03, 2004 03:45 PM            

Your post shows a distinct lack of interest in even trying to understand the point of view other than your own, in favor of just silly ridicule. The thing is, I know that you actually do have an interest in how our food is produced, based on other conversations we've had. This is a primary and pivotal issue for many of these protesters as well, so you'd better watch out. You may end up discovering that these protesters not only have solutions they are pushing but they may turn out even being somewhere in the vicinity of a viable solution you could see yourself agreeing with.

quiksilver-
I understand the reasonable concern about mob mentality. I wanted to say that this is a concern that is foremost on the minds of organizers of these protests as well. That is why there are always many organized trainings just prior to a big action for folks about how to keep your cool in the midst of a large group of people that are panicking and techniques for calming groups down quickly. That's a role I found myself in when I went to Miami with the Pagan Cluster. When the cops decided to attack everyone some people were inclined to start running immediately, but then voices from all around yelled "WALK!" and that actually worked wonders. The crowd very discernably calmed and slowed. Then the cluster circled up near the only escape intersection and began signing and drumming which had a considerable calming effect on people who might otherwise have been freaking out, considering that the cops were unleashing a full on assault of tear gas, rubber bullets and percussive bombs. It's important to be aware of how dangerous a large group of panicking people can be but also remember that an unusually large porportion of them have at the very least, been through a training on such dangers and many have a great deal of experience with it.

The thing is, a big reason I think NY was chosen for the RNC was exactly because they were hoping it would make it easier to suppress the undoubtedly large opposition showing that is bound to accompany it. Their exact hope is that the City will be so freaked out about a possible terrorist attack that it will make it that much easier to turn the city hostile towards protesters who can be played by the media as 'endagering the city'. The thing is, I don't buy the argument that protesters are endagering the city by their presence any more than the RNC is or any day in NY regardless of who is there. There wasn't anything special happening on September 11, 2001.

It's very important for many reasons to have a strong showing of opposition to the regressive policies being institued by the Republicans and the republican elite. To force the protests away from the RNC is to mute the very large numbers of people forming this opposition and allow the false picture of acceptance and support for the RNC to be broadcast to the nation and the rest of the world when that's just not the case. There are masses of people in this country who strongly disagree with the direction Bush has taken this country in and it's vitally important that they not be shoved under the carpet.

As for solutions... I just need to say that it's erroneous to say that we aren't for anything or have any solutions to the problems we are protesting against. There are lots of solutions out there being implemented as we speak on local levels every day. Permaculture, community supported agriculture (CSA), co-operative buisnesses, sustainable building techniques and construction, bio-diesel and veggie oil fuel cars, alternative energy sources, intentional community building, communities revoking corporate "personhood" rights (in Pennsylvania- very exciting:::may one day be regarded similarly as the Boston Tea Party), local currency/barter systems, (see Ithaca, NY time shares), and more! The thing is, most Americans seem to expect the corporate media to inform them of these positive solutions to some really major problems and the fact is it just ain't gonna happen. Hence the cliche- "The Revolution will NOT be Televised!"
It's not in the interest of the corporate sponsors to cover these things- in fact, many of these solutions run directly counter to corporate profit motive so undoubtedly there is censorship, be it overt on the part of managers, editors, etc. or self-censorship on the part of reporters whose self-preservation instinct must play a part in the face of such a conflict of interest.
Not to mention it's not sensationalist enough for our bloodthirsty media. It's alot better for ratings to just portray protesters as pi$$ed of and violent without anything positive to say.

That's why I find this notion of liberal media so hilarious. If it were truly leftist, they would report on sustainable solutions like permaculture but no doubt it will be a very long time before that happens.
The information is out there if people want to learn what this movement is all about but you have to dig for it. There is very little, if any truth in the portrayal of it in the corporate media.

okay, one last thing.. I can't bite my tongue on it....
jw-

quote:

---

Who is it that really wants to pollute the water and air in America? We all breathe the same air and drink the same water.
Who is it that wants to kill or eat all the fish, destroy all the wetlands or wreak havoc on Mother Nature? No one I know.

---

That's right. Even people who are on the boards of directors of mulitnational corporations may not want to do these things, however if their only means of increasing profits is to increase destruction of the water or the air then you must realize that no doubt these corporate officers will not only order it, but they will try to do everything they can to evade responsibility for that destruction if the profit motive dictates it necessary. They will do this because if they do not, they are violating corporate law which says that a corporation's duty is to their shareholds first before all else- even the quality of a community's water or air. If a president of a corporation wants to put community health before proft then he will not long be president. He will be replaced by the mechanisms of the corporation.