RE: [CF] If You Recycle, It's Peachy Fine To Otherwise Kill The P lanet
- I would say I am pretty much a pacifist -- I don't like to say never about
anything, but it has been my experience that most of the bad done in the
world is often done as a response to some other perceived bad done. I am
opposed to capital punishment. These feelings are based on my religion, in
which I am instructed -- temple tantrum not withstanding -- to love my
neighbor in the example of the Good Samaritan and to turn the other cheek.
When the war on Iraq was pending, I hung a sign on my window which is still
there: War Is Not the Answer. My window was egged. I am not sure if the
vandal was making a statement about my sign or if it was just youthful
hijinks. But I didn't like being vandalized, and it did not convince me to
take down my sign. Indeed, it made me that just more adamant to hang it
there. And it is still there.
My 14yo son has had a bicycle stolen from our front porch while he came
inside to use the bathroom. It was an expensive, well-built bike, intended
to last through several years of commuting to junior high and high school.
One acquaintance on a progressive-minded list-serv suggested that our bike
was stolen because the thief needed it and that is the price we must be
willing to pay for our conspicuous consumption.
It is not OK to drive a Hummer. It is not OK to vandalize. (Besides the
moral ramifications, I feel it is an ineffective protest unless one is
willing to vandalize every such vehicle in your community.)
I think being willing to respond to an injustice with violence puts me in
the same philosophical camp as those who shoot abortion doctors, pilot
passenger planes into buildings and bomb countries out of a hidden agenda
- On 1 Oct 2003 at 8:59, Fitzsimmons, Diane wrote:
> I would say I am pretty much a pacifist -- I don't like to say never aboutI think there is a very big difference between fighting to defend
> anything, but it has been my experience that most of the bad done in the
> world is often done as a response to some other perceived bad done.
something; family, country or whatever and taking part in a colonial
war to grab some assets. Most people will do the former if they feel
they are in a corner, perhaps because few are saintly enough to do
Being prepared to take part in a colonial war to seize something is a
different matter. I note the lies told by the UK and especially the US
government and also their failure to correct misinformation. Thus many
of those who invaded Iraq appeared to sincerely believe that they were
defending their country against aggression. Mass deception on this
scale is very disturbing.
> It is not OK to drive a Hummer. It is not OK to vandalize. (Besides theIt is also likely to stiffen the resolve of those driving such cars.
> moral ramifications, I feel it is an ineffective protest unless one is
> willing to vandalize every such vehicle in your community.)
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will *always* explain why I revoke a key, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
>Some people and activities pollute more than others. I think thatI should have mentioned a somewhat less morally reprehensible way to make your SUV displeasure known. Try bumper stickers, namely the "I'm changing the climate" stickers http://www.changingtheclimate.com/. Instructions on applying and removing the stickers are included on the site.
>Hummers are a symbol of the worst. Vandalize away!
I feel the bumper stickers don't go far enough. The campaign only targets SUVs and only one facet of the wrong that SUV driving causes. A bumper stickers campaign should target all internal combustion vehicles with "I'm changing the climate and sending soldiers to die and kill foreigners in another country".
This message is confidential and is intended only for the individual named. It may contain privileged information. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Any unauthorized disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail from your system.
- I'm of two minds about the SUV thing. On the one hand, yes, they are in
many ways the ultimate symbol of overconsumption. (And while it's true that
just about everything we do causes some kind of pollution, there's a big
difference between using non-renewable resources to say, heat your home in
the winter, and using them to drive a four ton military vehicle in a city.)
On the other hand, I think that we can tend to get so worked up about
Hummers that we forget that the real problem is that there are just too many
cars on the road, SUVs and sedans alike. Just as in De's example of how
civil disobedience and radical acts can make moderate activists look more
reasonable, I think we are unintentionally making it seem okay for people to
drive regular cars, because they can say, "At least it's not an SUV."
And I think that's a shame, because as pervasive as SUVs and trucks have
become on the roads today, the relative damage done by an SUV compared to a
regular car, not just in terms of pollution but also in terms of simply
taking up space and diverting resources toward automobile infrastructure, is
insignificant compared to the difference between driving even a hybrid and
not driving at all.
If people would actually use these seven-passenger vehicles to carry seven
passengers, or even two or three, rather than all driving by themselves in
sedans, that would be a step in the right direction. I've even seen stretch
Hummer limos that look like a short school bus. And they probably don't
pollute as much as some of the old clunky buses out on the roads now. How
about using those for mass transportation? ;o)
So, while I also get that twinge of irritation when I pass a Hummer on my
bicycle (which is more likely than having one pass me in the city), I try to
remember that all the other cars on the road are just as capable of killing
me, either quickly or slowly, as the SUV is. The main problem with cars is
their sheer numbers, not their size.
- On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:47:56 -0700 Lenard Segnitz <lsegnitz@...>
>I've seen that site. Is it there or another one that lets you post
> >Some people and activities pollute more than others. I think that
> >Hummers are a symbol of the worst. Vandalize away!
> I should have mentioned a somewhat less morally reprehensible way to
> make your SUV displeasure known. Try bumper stickers, namely the
> "I'm changing the climate" stickers
> http://www.changingtheclimate.com/. Instructions on applying and
> removing the stickers are included on the site.
messages? On the one that does the pro-SUV posts are always full of
"ME" and "MY" and the anti-SUV posts use "our".
I think that says something!
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- Fitzsimmons, Diane (dcfitzsimmons@...) wrote:
> One acquaintance on a progressive-minded list-serv suggested that our bikethe local cops tell me most bikes (at least where I live) are stolen
> was stolen because the thief needed it and that is the price we must be
> willing to pay for our conspicuous consumption.
as a business proposition, not for personal use -- they're parted out
overnight and the parts sold in a neighbouring city or reassembled into
new bikes which are sold elsewhere. maybe where you live, a needy person
might succumb to temptation while walking through a more affluent 'hood
and grab an unguarded bike, but around here most bikes are stolen by
pros working out of pickup trucks, equipped with bolt cutters etc.
around here bike theft is "nothing personal, it's strictly business."
> It is not OK to drive a Hummer. It is not OK to vandalize. (Besides thenow that would be a project <whew> there are a LOT of FUVs where I live.
> moral ramifications, I feel it is an ineffective protest unless one is
> willing to vandalize every such vehicle in your community.)
I personally would prefer leafletting or bumper stickering.
> I think being willing to respond to an injustice with violence puts me inhere I think there is a conflation which I can't endorse: all the actions
> the same philosophical camp as those who shoot abortion doctors, pilot
> passenger planes into buildings and bomb countries out of a hidden agenda
> for oil.
listed here involve harming or killing human beings, whereas scratching some
paint on an expensive car merely annoys the owner. if anyone suggested
sabotaging the brake lines on FUVs I would call that "violence" -- and
stupid violence too, as it would quite likely result in death or injury
to some totally innocent ped or cyclist or dog -- and I would condemn
it without reservation. but I think when we conflate mere superficial
property damage with violence to living critters (including our own
kind) we come perilously close to investing inanimate artifacts with
human qualities, making property as important as people. "harassment"
might be a more suitable word for property damage directed specifically
at personal property and expressing political anger -- egging a window
where a sign is displayed w/which one strongly disagrees for example.
but there is also a question of numbers and power: supppose you're the
only Black family in town and some whiteboys burn a cross on your lawn,
that's definitely harassment -- but it's also terrorisation because of
your vulnerable position, because of the pre-existing climate of racism
and racist violence, etc. -- it would be reasonable to interpret this act
as a threat of real violence to come. it would be very intimidating,
not merely annoying. it would be a threat from power to vulnerability
(like a SUV bullying a cyclist on the road -- the bullying is backed up
by lethal force).
if you're a multinational corporate chain and someone writes an animal rights
slogan on your front window in spray paint, the power relationship between
you and that lone vandal is quite different -- it barely makes a penny-sized
dent in your bottom line and your existence is in no way threatened. nor
(imho) is a corporation a human being, no matter how insane US law may be
on this point. having your window egged because of an antiwar poster would
not be scary if you live in a very progressive town where the pro-war contingent
is in the minority; but if you were the only person who didn't vote for
Bush II in the entire town, it might make you real nervous, and constitute
frightening harassment rather than mere nuisance. if the only other known
anti-war bigmouth in town had recently been savagely beaten, the trivial
incident of egging would be terrifying, and could reasonably be interpreted
as an imminent threat of violence.
even the law, grudgingly, admits that gross differences in physical strength
and size should mitigate our interpretation of such legal concepts as ADW
vs 'mere' battery -- if you're built like Arnold, your fists and pecs
are at least as deadly as a 2x4 in the hands of, say, an elderly lady.
so an elderly lady who uses a 2x4 or frying pan to defend herself against
a much larger and stronger attacker should not be charged with ADW as
an equal-sized opponent would be if in a "fair fight" he resorted to
as of today I think the balance of power, physically (on the road) and
politically and financially, is firmly tilted (to an extreme angle) in
favour of the FUV owner -- and hence trivial vandalism of a FUV does not,
to me, have the feel of scary harassment, but more of minor nuisance.
[whereas (speaking as one cyclist who has to share the road (what little
they leave me of it) with these things, driving a FUV does represent an
imminent threat to others.]
if there were a history of FUV drivers being dragged from their cars and
beaten to death by angry mobs, or assassinated in their homes, then having
an anti-FUV graffito scratched on the door would be terrifying (and imho
more comparable to violence, because it would evoke the very real threat
of violence). as it is, it's the snook-cocking of the disempowered at
their invulnerable, arrogant masters. ROMANI EUNT DOMUS, as it were :-)
there is OTOH a documented history of FUV drivers killing and wounding others
in greater proportion than the drivers of less monstrous vehicles; I think we
could without gross exaggeration consider a "self defence" or mitigation model
for weighing the ethics of anti-FUV property damage.
as to whether harassment merely stiffens resolve -- I think this all depends
on the nature of the activity being criticized. if a person is holding
steadfastly to a point of principle, such as displaying an anti-war sign,
then harassment may inspire them to "stick to their guns" because their
self-respect and core beliefs are at stake. if the FUV owner associates
his FUV with his patriotism, let's say, then he may feel (this seems insanely
warped to me, but I know there are people who do feel this way) that by
driving his FUV he is making a statement about loving his country and being
proud of it. in that case, harassment might make him all the more determined
to stick to his FUV. a more pragmatic approach might be to try to convince
him that wasting precious energy resources is the reverse of patriotism, and
makes his country more vulnerable rather than stronger.
OTOH, a lot of people just do whatever is convenient or strikes their
fancy or (most importantly) is fashionable and "chic" at the time.
FUVs are popular far outside the demographic of people who stick US
flags on everything they own -- they are also a fad, a social blip,
the product of a successful marketing hype-event, like the Hula Hoop.
for large numbers of Hula-Hoop type consumers, if they sense that they are
ridiculed or considered uncool for driving a FUV -- especially by "young"
or "hip" persons -- then the attraction of the product may wear off and
the lifetime of the fad be shortened. which could only be a good thing.
recent achievements like a reduction in the acceptability of racism
and homophobia are partly realised by sober, plodding appeals to facts
and fairness; but to be honest (and this is discouraging), they are
also realised by a shift in pop culture that makes overt racists and
homophobes into buffoons and figures of fun in entertainment media.
being racist becomes 'uncool' and that helps to discourage people from
asserting their racism in public (which, short of total mind control,
is about the best one can hope for). Kalle Lasn and the gang would say
we need to "uncool" the FUV.
the argument can always be made that by vigorous opposition to some
offensive behaviour, or by mockery and sarcasm, one only strengthens
it -- at the extreme edge of this philosophy is the advice that women
should never try to fight off a rapist because "it will only make him
angry and he will hurt you worse." [btw police stats instead indicate that
vigorous resistance is strongly associated with successful escape.]
in less extreme forms the argument counsels "keeping your head down" and
"not offending people" in order to win hearts and minds. unfortunately,
at some point it may become impossible to avoid offending people w/out
silencing oneself entirely.
this tension between being "too offensive" and being "assertive and
visible", has caused infighting, division, and much bitterness among
activists for at least 3 centuries of Western political life. the first
gay people who "came out" were accused by closeted friends and family
of "just making things worse" and "endangering all of us". those who
engaged in civil disobedience (Stonewall et seriatim) were often chided
for "giving us all a bad name". but my reading of history is that
concessions are not won from people in power without open confrontation
and struggle; and that while being nice is a worthy goal, being too
nice for too long gets you nothing but an unmarked grave. at some point
it may become neceessary to go to the barricades or dump the tea in the
harbour or block motor traffic, in order to protest or prevent far greater
wrongs. exactly where that point is, is difficult to determine. waiting
too long to determine it can sometimes be literally fatal.
well, here we go round that same old mulberry bush again :-)
we may be advised not to bear a grudge, to turn the other cheek and not
to return evil for evil [and I for one solemnly promise never to drag
any SUV drivers over the asphalt and crush their torsos with my mighty
bicycle]... but we are also advised to bear witness, even when it puts us
into direct conflict with the dominant culture. whether keying FUV doors
is an appropriate method of bearing witness is debatable -- I don't love
it as a tactic -- but I wouldn't put it in the same league with mass
murder or even targeted assassination.
:De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
:Mail: de@... | Your planet's immune system is trying to get rid :
:Web: www.ucolick.org | of you. --Kurt Vonnegut :
:1024D/B9C9E76E | F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
- De Clarke wrote:
>Rapid Transit Cycleshop in Chicago gives away free vinyl stickers that say
> I personally would prefer leafletting or bumper stickering.
"Your Hummer Won't Help Your Pecker"
"How many lives per gallon does your SUV get?"
I don't know if they have any more left and they are off my regular route, so if you want some you'll have to contact them yourselves http://www.rapidtransitcycles.com/ and make arrangements!
"Save a Tree, Remove a Bush."