 |
Morning Jolt December 15, 2014
Before we get started . . . Nine shopping days until Christmas. Hanukkah starts tomorrow. If your holiday shopping isn't done yet, trust me, you'll want to get it done early this week. You don't want to find that the gift you intended is out of stock or won't arrive in time. I sent out another inscribed copy of The Weed Agency this morning. E-mail me if you want the address to send your copy and a self-addressed stamped envelope. Organizational Meeting for Anarchists Ends in ChaosLet's start with a fascinating story about division in the ranks in the post-Ferguson protests, which flared up at the "Justice for All" March in Washington D.C. this weekend: Though there were moments of great emotion during Saturday's Justice For All March---particularly when the families of Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Akai Gurley, Jonathan Crawford, III, Amadou Diallo, Brown and Garner, voiced their gratitude for [Al] Sharpton and the sea of supporters who have kept their loved ones names alive---the criticism that has followed the event largely proved to be true and young protesters all the way from Ferguson, Mo., made sure to let the world know it. Johnetta Elzie, 25, an activist on the ground in Ferguson and St. Louis who has emerged as a leading voice in the movement, stormed the stage with other young organizers after [National Action Network] officials reportedly denied them access. When I caught up with Elzie via phone after the march she said that they came to participate in a protest, not be denied access to a "VIP section." "When we first got there, two people from NAN told us that we needed a VIP pass or a press pass to sit on the ledge," said Elzie in disbelief, the frustration still resonating in her voice. "If it is a protest, why do you need to have a VIP pass?" According to Elzie, once she finally did get a chance to speak, they cut her microphone. "I was glad to get the support of the some in the crowd who chanted, 'Let them speak, let them speak.' One lady in the crowd said that I was being disrespectful. I think it's disrespectful that black people are being killed every 28 hours. So what they're telling me does not matter. It's not our job to convince them that all black lives matter."
Does this complaint represent Al Sharpton taking credit for the work of younger activists and refusing to share the spotlight? Or are the young activists presumptuously claiming the right to address the crowd at a rally that Sharpton and his organization organized? We're always hearing the chant, "The people . . . united . . . will never be defeated" -- but who really speaks for "the people"? To score a point for the young protesters, they're starting to explicitly make the case that Al Sharpton is not an authentic, convincing, or idealistic representative of their cause, as this spectacular Tweet from one of the young protesters illustrates:
On the other hand, at a rally or protest with speakers, somebody's got to decide who holds the microphone and when. Otherwise, the privilege of addressing the assembled is dominated by whoever can grab the microphone first and hold off everyone else the longest. Most large, organized protests target those in positions of authority (politicians, police, business owners) and a key element of their argument is that those who are in power do not have legitimate authority over others. Now the young post-Ferguson protesters are starting to regard the self-appointed or self-proclaimed leaders of the movement with the same skepticism and lack of trust or respect previously reserved for official authorities. Either one of two things will happen: A leader with the trust of the young protesters will emerge, or the movement will try to advance without anyone in any position of authority and capable of deciding who speaks and how. The last movement to so explicitly reject the notion of a leader with authority over others was . . . Occupy Wall Street? The Latest from Sydney, and a Silly Side Debate An opening paragraph like this one in USA Today can drive a man batty: More than 10 hours after a gunman took control of a cafe in central Sydney, seizing an unknown number of hostages, Australian police said Monday they still don't know his motivation. Five hostages fled the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Martin Place, in the heart of the city's financial and shopping district, Monday. An undisclosed number of hostages remain in the cafe. "We have not yet confirmed it is a terrorism-related event," New South Wales state police Commissioner Andrew Scipione said. "We're dealing with a hostage situation with an armed offender." Then, in the ninth paragraph: Television video shot through the cafe's windows showed several people with their arms in the air and hands pressed against the glass, and two people holding up a black flag with the Shahada, or Islamic declaration of faith, written on it. This led to a lot of debate on Twitter Sunday night about whether this was an ISIS flag or a different flag: But it is not thought to be an actual IS flag. Dr Matthew Gray, from the Centre of Arabic and Islamic Studies in Canberra, said he believed it to be the Shahada, or declaration of faith. He said it was similar but not identical to that used by IS. "It's based around a black flag with white text that supposedly the Prophet Muhammad would carry, including into battle when he was fighting on behalf of the religion," Dr Gray told Sky News. "This banner takes different forms. It looks vaguely like the IS flag. "The one we're seeing in the window is a little bit different. The IS flag has just the beginning of the Shahada at the top, whereas this one has what looks to me like it could have the full Shahada, the full declaration of faith on the bottom of the flag. Guys. Guys. If an armed perpetrator brings a black flag with Islamic writing to a hostage situation, and makes the hostages hold it up in the windows so the media can see it . . . it isn't to protest against the Islamic State or Islamic extremism. He's not a confused Oakland Raider fan who really likes cursive writing. Maybe the guy couldn't stop by the Islamic State Merchandising Shop on his way to the hostage site. Maybe he's not detail-oriented. But Occam's Razor would suggest that a guy who makes hostages hold up an Islamic flag so the media can see it is acting in the name of an Islamist agenda. Greenpeace, Joining the Ranks of Indiana Jones Villains Greenpeace. I hate these guys. Peru will seek criminal charges against Greenpeace activists who it says damaged the world-renowned Nazca lines by leaving footprints in the adjacent desert during a publicity stunt. "It's a true slap in the face at everything Peruvians consider sacred," said Luis Jaime Castillo, the deputy culture minister, after the action by the environmental group on Monday, at the famed drawings etched into Peru's coastal desert, a UN world heritage site. He said the government was seeking to prevent those responsible from leaving the country while it asks prosecutors to file charges of attacking archaeological monuments, a crime punishable by up to six years in prison. The activists entered a "strictly prohibited" area beside the figure of a hummingbird, the culture ministry said. They laid big yellow cloth letters reading: "Time for Change! The Future is Renewable." The message was intended for delegates from 190 countries at the UN climate talks being held in Lima. Castillo said no one, not even presidents and cabinet ministers, was allowed where the activists had gone without authorisation and anyone who received permission must wear special shoes. The Nazca lines are huge figures depicting living creatures, stylised plants and imaginary figures scratched on the surface of the ground between 1,500 and 2,000 years ago. They are believed to have had ritual functions related to astronomy. To promote the preservation of the environment, Greenpeace did damage to the environment. It belongs in a museum!
Beyond the sheer stupidity of the Greenpeace activists' actions, a broader question—not addressed by the New York Times or much of the press—was what the purpose of the Greenpeace action was. Certainly, perpetrators said on video that they were motivated by the fight against climate change, but it seems so often that Greenpeace stunts are motivated far more by a desire to promote Greenpeace than do anything for the environment. Naidoo and other Greenpeace executives cannot plead ignorance, for they embraced and encouraged the behavior that led to the vandalism at Nazca. So, Greenpeace trained the activists whom it later sent to vandalize the UNESCO site. What happened in Peru symbolizes not only the hypocrisy of some in the environmentalism industry, but also exposes international NGOs for what they are. No longer are groups like Greenpeace motivated by a desire to heal the world. Instead, they scam well-meaning donors to fund for plush executive lifestyles, overhead, international travel, and an endless quest for publicity to grease further fundraising. Not all NGOs are the same, but Greenpeace seems, increasingly, like the rule rather than the exception among some of the biggest and best-known organizations. Of course, this isn't the first time we've seen an extremist group with an apocalyptic, faith-based ideology and no regard for dissenting views or outsiders trashing major historical landmarks of other cultures and faiths in the name of their holy cause. We're just used to seeing this from the Taliban and the Islamic State. Too bad the Hovitos don't know you the way we do, Greenpeace. ADDENDA: Tomorrow morning in the 7 a.m. hour I'll be joining Tony Katz on WIBC in Indianapolis.
Organizational Meeting for Anarchists Ends in Chaos
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Breaking News: Tejano star Selena Quintanilla’s dad Abraham dead at 86͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ... 
Popular PostsThank you God
Make America Great Again ‼️ 
|
No comments: