The FBI has declared eco-terrorism its top domestic priority, despite the fact that no human deaths or injuries have resulted from such activity in the US. Meanwhile, Jeff Luers is serving 22 years for trying to burn a few SUVs--when the average sentence for arson is 7 years. And various defendants are facing serious time in the so-called "Green Scare" cases.
This leads me to pose the question...in a situation where it appears increasingly possible that we are altering our environment to such a degree that massive extinctions are increasingly likely--possibly even human extinction--is it reasonable to insist on proper communicative channels, to call people terrorists who are driven to increasingly extreme actions by an admittedly extreme situation? Can one insist the decorum of formal deliberation in a madhouse?
On the other hand, what couldn't be justified by such an interpretation of the situation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
FUCK!!!! I can't get that link thing right. Here are the links from this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/schuster.column/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Luers
http://greenscare.org/
Nice blog Kemosabe. I'm amazed the Marshall Family didnt make your list. What pipes they have.
Why does everyone keep commenting on my list of favorite music? It was hastily thrown together.
The reason I commented on your music list is because you left out both the Ramones and David Allen Coe. And now that I think of it, Public Enemy and the Fresh Prince.
You should very thoughtful about the music list on your blog. It defines who you are to the general public. And Chris, you DO NOT want to be known as "that blogger dude who doesn't like the Ramones, David Allen Coe, Public Enemy, or the Fresh Prince." Now, I know that your musical taste is impecable, but Susie Bloggreader needs to know that too. This is your bid at cyber-posterity. You can't f--- this up.
I LIKE David Allen Coe, but I'm not familiar with enough of his shit to make him a "favorite." Remember when we used to go to Joe's in Flagstaff and listen to that one that goes "I was drunk the day my mom got out of prison"?
And the Ramones ARE on there, you just overlooked them.
D.A.C. has recently done some stuff with Pantera you might be interested in. Did I also overlook Public Enemy and The Fresh Prince?
I do remember Joe's and drunk imprisoned mamas. I miss going to bars and swaying against jukeboxes.
furthermore, insisting on formal deliberation in a mad house is like passing gas: everyone does it but few dare own it.
By the way, who the hell are the Marshall Family?
"Pop" and Danny Marshall appeared on Ralph's Clinch Mountain Gospel with Shit-ley. According to legend, The whole fam damily really laid a hurting on the BG gospel scene during the 70's. Rebel's "Vault" releases (which are a godsend )feature the fam in 2 volumes of BG gospel. Dont let the real slick shit scare you off. Among them tracks are some bonna fide gems.
Is this the Eric of "drunkboy" fame?
Yes, I'm the famous DrunkBoy. How are things Puke ?
Good man, real good. Nice to electronically hear from you. I find Chis's blog quite distracting.
In a sense you provided a clue to the response in your first paragraph of "it's not easy being green." The condition that no human or animal be harmed seems reasonable to me.
Of course there are limits to what is acceptable even in extreme times. And these are extreme times, we are perhaps beyond the tipping point in the balance of global warming. However as soon as you attempt make a list of this limits you are creating morals, rules or laws.
Esther,
I wouldn't presume to try to make a list of limits. It's curious that you venture one, since you seem to have strong doubts about the wisdom of doing so.
And of course I think that direct action is important. The qualm at the end is there because people who might cause damage to the property of abortion doctors, for instance, could cite a similar sense of urgency--babies are dying. And if there is no way to argue about what sort of direct action is justified, then it all is.
On the other hand, if the debate over what to do regarding the environment results in something like passing the tipping point, then I, personally, am all for extreme and unilateral actions to try to redress the situation. Whether any such actions are really effective or not is another subject, but of course also an important one.
Ultimately, I think that direct action is very important--see my post about voting.
In response to Chris,
You wouldn't presume to make a list of limits? Well I sure would. Certain actions are unacceptable under any circumstances. I think you would agree. I realize that I may not have communicated very clearly. I was merely trying to point out the dangers of "making lists." It can lead to dogmatic and alienating behaviors such as strict veganism (not that strict veganism is always alienating and dogmatic, just often) We have both walked the path for many years and faced it's perils.
I do think however, that on some level it is necessary for me to create my own sense of what is, for lack of better terminology, ethically sound behavior.
....e
Post a Comment