No Longer Preaching to the Choir

[ed_rex]

colinmarshall's often cryptic somewhat objections aside, I'm not used to my political posts getting too much of a reaction, beyond maybe a few huzzaas from the Usual Suspects. (Actually, I'm not used to getting too many responses to my Words of Wisdom^(TM) at all, but that is no doubt more of comment on your Humble Author than it is upon the attention paid by my Gentle Readers. And also, I digress.) And so it is refreshing, disconcerting and frustrating (yes, all at once) to suddenly find among my LJ-Friends someone as consistently contradictory and argumentative as paul_carlson.

But I actually do like a good debate, if only because it often forces me to think through more thoroughly my positions — and even, sometimes, to change them.

For the past week or more I've been struggling with a piece on the intellectual deficits of certain feminists, minority activists and others with whom I am in general philosophical agreement, but with whom in large part I disagree about such things as group vs. individual rights, the importance of language and other matters I'm not going to get to in this entry — but which I do intend to get to soon. I expect my enemies to use falsehoods, half-truths, irrelevant innuendo and old good old-fashioned shouting down to support an agenda they know would be rejected if the mass of the people actually understood that the interests of the likes of Blackwater and General Motors are not their own, but those on my side are supposed to be the Good Guys and so willing to face facts, to admit to truths, even when they are uncomfortable ones, and not to behave like the enemy.

But that's going to have to wait, because paul_carlson has asked me some questions that warrant more than just a reply to his reply to my last substantial post, concerning the demonization of protest in the United States (and elsewhere).

(But first, click the link below and Let the Music Play. What Neil Young's song lacks in subtlety it more than makes up for in appalling accuracy. Also, it makes a good soudtrack for what is to follow.)

I had said that protest was being routinely treated as synonymous with treason in the US and Paul quite rightly called me me on it.

Routinely?

Okay, rhetorical over-kill and not technically true (or at least not proven) — but I stand by the statement as indicative of an authoritarian — if not quite a gloves-off fascist — trend, both here in Canada and (especially) south of the border.

When the "free world's" treatment of protesters starts to resemble that of China, I simply find it unbelievable that any freedom-loving man or woman can just shrug their shoulders indifferently. When the police are used not just to protect the peace, but to instigate violence and to pre-emptively arrest not only protesters but observers, something is very wrong with a nation's democracy.

Certainly my impression from the press is that the police here in Canada are far more likely to use agents provocateurs and other nefarious means than they were when I was more often out on the street in the (my) "good old days" of the 1980s. As an example, please see this article from last year or the related video below.

Or this one, in which the Sureté admit the agents were cops but ludicrously maintain they were there to "maintain the peace".

Speaking of the good old days, back in the '80s I was involved in numerous protests, some of them numbering in the 10s of thousands of people, yet the cops were dressed in standard uniforms, not the anonymous storm-trooper masks and shields they routinely don today. Who started wearing masks? In this country at least, it was the police, if memory serves, around the time the Berlin Wall came down.

Prior to that, protest was seen (or at least tolerated) by the powers-that-be as more or less a right (fancy that!) that went along with citizenship. I was never tear-gassed, nor was I bludgeoned or arrested. In fact, the police tended to be little more brusque and were sometimes known to smile at a camera instead of smashing it.

But in the wake of the Soviet collapse and the subsequent neo-conservative triumphalism that saw Pinochet's murderous dictatorship as a as a good thing (a "miracle", even!) not a war crime by a government against its own people, western "leaders" became more open about their "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" vision of democracy.

Police confronting protesters and demonstrators like masked and shielded storm-troopers is a recent trend and one — to the best of my recollection — which was not started by so-called "anarchists" but by the police themselves, somewhere around the time the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the neo-con triumphalists were brooking no opposition to their march to a brave new world of free markets for capital and, er, well, that was pretty much it.

So yes, Paul, to say that protesters are routinely treated like "traitors" was a little strong, but not by much.

Meanwhile, I think that, rather than directly addressing my specific points, you muddied the waters by bringing up alleged help-wanted ads in the San Fran Cisco bay area papers, which, "routinely run want ads for paid full-time protester positions," and then made presumptions about the positions of my "friends" on everyone's hot-button issue, abortion.

But what the hell, I'll nibble, if not bite. Can you document one of these ads for "paid full-time protesters"? I've never heard of such a thing.

As the abortion protests, which specific limitations are you talking about? Are anti-choice protesters in the Bay area routinely harassed, assaulted and arrested before they get out onto the street? When they do make it there, are they herded into "protest zones"?

Please provide some specifics, if you're going to argue the issues are parallel.

Meanwhile, if I recall correctly, here in Canada there have been some restrictions placed on anti-choice protesters, limits such as a requirement that they stay within 50 feet of the entrances, so that women going in for the procedure were not — as they routinely were for quite some time — jostled and screamed at and doctors and nurses were no assaulted and threatened.

And more to the point, the restrictions that were set in place came about about as a result of legal action and court orders obtained by the abortion clinics themselves, not through direct and clearly illegal state activity.

In other words, you're arguing apples against oranges and so evading the issues I was discussing.

(And you think it's bad now -- it was a "private army" of Pinkertons who busted heads, back then.)

Agreed, it isn't as bad now as it was then, but it's worse than it was 20 years ago and I don't like the trends I'm seeing. It's getting bad up here and — from what I read — getting worse south of the border, where mercenaries like those employed (on the tax-payers' dime) by the likes of Blackwater are not only patrolling the streets of Bagdhad but even some of the cities in your own country. Do you really think the employees of a private "security company" — no, let's call a mercenary a mercenary, shall we? — are more accountable to the people of the United States than police officers and soldiers? (Two can play the distraction game!)

Comments

[paul-carlson.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Geoff.

My supply of contrarian rhetoric is not endless, but it will suffice.

I did not recognize the song. At first I assumed it was vintage Vietnam War protest material, such as I grew up hearing around Berkeley. Then I picked out some contemporary references, so I guess this tradition does continue afresh.

Concerning anti-abortion protestors, the situation in the US and Canada must be similar. Fifty-foot distance restrictions, and the like. But -- because the protestors might actually get in your face? Oh my! How rude.
Think I'm going to get the vapors. (Tsk, tsk, kids these days.)

As for preemptively rounding up observers, however defined, that is crossing the line for sure. The police and their bosses ought to be severely reprimanded! The press is specifically guaranteed complete freedom to investigate and publish, in the US Constitution. (For that matter, it's the only private profession mentioned in that document.) I assume Canada has similar laws.

Nowadays there are activist bloggers, who might post with one hand and toss bricks with the other, so the line has unfortunately become blurred. (We'll need some judges who know what a blog is!)

Yes, those with the reigns of power will cling to them tightly. Perhaps become corrupt, and use illicit means to maintain and expand that power. It's a story as old as history itself.

Religious people understand that humans are fallen, and cannot be trusted with very much power, no matter how soaring their rhetoric or sweet their promises. This is what prompted the American Founders, Christian and Deist alike, to build in a Separation of Powers, and popular/representative elections, plus recalls and impeachments.
Anti-religious people often tend to assume that 'proper social conditions' are the answer -- and that the Vanguard of the Proletariat (by whatever current trendy name) can and should snatch all the power.
(But only until the state withers away, of course. )

Phew! (In Two Senses of the Term!)

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

I'm glad we're in closer agreement than I'd feared, Paul. And I'm tired and want to watch a little vintage (and only subtly political) Doctor Who before I retire from the interwebs for the night (not only did I write the above rather than work on my novel, but I somehow got involved with not just one — but two! — discussions about a woman's right to choose what happens to her body.

In other words, I'm going to try to keep this brief.

Then I picked out some contemporary references, so I guess this tradition does continue afresh.

Very contemporary. 2006, I believe. But also vintage. I'm a little surprised you didn't recognize the voice. Neil Young. In fact, back to gather with Crosby, Stills and Nash.

In terms of the anti-choice protesters, let's agree to disagree on the specifics (at least until I post my third and — I hope, final! — pro-choice "position paper"), since we agree that there is a difference between a specific, court-ordered, "keep your distance" order (or a search or arrest warrant, for that matter) and arbitrary arrest and seizure.

Nowadays there are activist bloggers, who might post with one hand and toss bricks with the other, so the line has unfortunately become blurred.

I don't see any blurring of lines. Your constitution doesn't (and shouldn't) permit reporters for the New York Times to toss bricks, so I don't see why bloggers should or will be treated any differently, activists or not. It's the brick-tossing that's illegal, not the activism.

Finally, I feel like I should reiterate that I'm a big fan of your Constitution — I don't quote it to be ironic or to play devil's advocate quoting Scripture. As imperfect as it is/was, it is the corruption of it that upsets me.

And by the way, while some atheists assume all would be solved with proper social condition(ing) and I am not and never have been one of them. I am not so naive as to believe the brain is somehow (and without a deity yet!) exempt from the genetic and developmental differences that go into making even identical twins into unique human beings, with innate aspects to their personalities, moods and desires.

Re: Phew! (In Two Senses of the Term!)

[paul-carlson.livejournal.com]

That was quick! Considering the time zones, might I assume you are a Night Person? :-)

I did indeed recognize Young. IIRC he lives here in the SF Bay area.
When I lived in the north woods, we had a record player that ran on six D batteries, and my second-favorite album was by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. (First favorite was from a local band, It's A Beautiful Day.)

Can you document one of these ads for "paid full-time protesters"? I've never heard of such a thing.

I'm looking at some local online job sites and not getting any relevant hits. I can only assure you that such 'want ads' are common in the San Francisco Chronicle, and have been for many years. Demonstrate, travel, full benefits! If I find one in this Sunday's paper, I suppose I could clip and scan it.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I'm interested in your claim that this phenomenon of governments suspending their willingness to allow people to protest (and the citizenry's willingness to let it happen) can be tied to the Berlin Wall. If correct, I don't suppose it was so much the neo-cons deciding to take up the march and brooking no opposition but more that the Soviet empire provided some moral compass against which the West defined itself. "We can't imprison protesters or impede them, that's what the communists do!" After the "West had won", so to speak, there was nothing left to prove, and government could fall back to doing what was more expedient. In any event, I think there two things have contributed fairly directly to this. The one is 9/11, and people's willingness to trade freedom for security. Not only were people willing to make such a trade, perhaps the govt. felt obliged to exploit to show that they were doing something. The economic globalization process was another, particularly when it looked like the protesters were starting to have an effect.

BTW, there's been a frustratingly muted response down here to a recent story revealing that the state police infiltrated anti-death penalty and peace activist groups.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.spy18jul18,0,3787307.story

The groups were spied on and names were put in a terrorist DB (thereby likely to impeded these people's future ability to travel). But nevertheless, "State police officials said they did not curtail the protesters' freedoms."

"Why are government agencies targeting pacifists?"

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Good for the Baltimore Sun! Something I find so bloody incomprehensible is that almost all of the crimes being committed by the powers-that-be are on the public record (eg, the lies that led the US into war — if having sex (or — sort of having sex) with an intern is grounds for impeachment, how can in the hell can starting a war under false pretences not be!?!

Ahem. Where was I?

I'm interested in your claim that this phenomenon of governments suspending their willingness to allow people to protest (and the citizenry's willingness to let it happen) can be tied to the Berlin Wall. If correct, I don't suppose it was so much the neo-cons deciding to take up the march and brooking no opposition but more that the Soviet empire provided some moral compass against which the West defined itself. "We can't imprison protesters or impede them, that's what the communists do!" After the "West had won", so to speak, there was nothing left to prove, and government could fall back to doing what was more expedient.

That's a good point — and during the Clinton era the robber-barons weren't quite as blatant as they have been since Bush II took (stole) power.

And certainly outfits like those which culminated in the Project For a New American Century were consciously laying the ground-work for a "hyper-power" imperialism, decades before the the collapse of the Soviet Union (see for instance, The Chicago School of Econmics as exemplified by Milton Friedman's brand of Mussulini-style "corporatism").

I wasn't thinking of her as I typed madly away last night, but my analysis is deeply influenced by Naomi Klein's brilliant book, The Shock Doctrine, which documents in great detail the decades-long neo-con attempts to roll-back the New Deal in the US and to impose the most brutal forms of (so-called) Darwinian capitalism on countries such as Chile and Argentina in the '70s and Russia in the '90s (to name only a few).

At the risk of sounding like a loon, we're dealing with genuine evil here, (mostly) men who do not believe in democracy when it threatens the (perceived — thank god, these people aren't too good with long-term thinking) self-interest of capital.

Frankly, from their point of view, peace activists and journalists are a threat to them, because the interests of the "Military-Industrial Complex" are in fact opposed to the interests of the average American citizen (let alone the interests of, say, the average Iraqi or Russian).

Anyway, Klein's book is a brilliant, well-documented history of that movement, as well as a convincing analysis.

"We can't imprison protesters or impede them, that's what the communists do!" After the "West had won", so to speak, there was nothing left to prove, and government could fall back to doing what was more expedient.

That's a good point, and ironically an excellent example of one of the good things about capitalism: the benefit of competition!

In any event, I think there two things have contributed fairly directly to this. The one is 9/11, and people's willingness to trade freedom for security...

Yeah, that certainly gave Bush, Chenney and Co. the excuse they needed to take the gloves off, both at home and abroad. And they played the fear card masterfully.

The groups were spied on and names were put in a terrorist DB (thereby likely to impeded these people's future ability to travel). But nevertheless, "State police officials said they did not curtail the protesters' freedoms."

No, of course not! Just as the cops in the videos I posted, masked and carrying rocks, weren't there to provoke a riot, but to protect the peace.

Thank god I'm a cynic, otherwise this culture of bare-faced lying might lead me to despair.

Re: Phew! (In Two Senses of the Term!)

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Considering the time zones, might I assume you are a Night Person?

Not entirely by choice, but de facto lately, yes. (I didn't manage to actually get to sleep until after six this morning, despite first trying around 2:00.)

As for Young, even when he was publicly supporting Reagan, I always respected his integrity. He's one of the few performers from the 60s and 70s who's managed to stay fresh and true to his muse, wherever it takes him.

Finally, I'd be most pleased to see an example of one of those ads. To be honest, until I do I'm going to have to assume your victim to some kind of hallucination; even Greenpeace saves its paid positions for fundraisers and (presumably) a few full-time organizers (not protesters).

Re: "Why are government agencies targeting pacifists?"

[paul-carlson.livejournal.com]

Geoff, it's often difficult for cynics. Perhaps I can be of assistance?

(If I can hold off these dratted newsprint hallucinations long enough . . . )

for instance, The Chicago School of Econmics as exemplified by Milton Friedman's brand of Mussulini-style "corporatism").

A bastion of the old left, The Nation, is warning about Obama's connections to the Chicago School.
Even before this came to my attention, I'd come across some of Goolsbee's 'official campaign' economic statements, and thought they made plenty of sense.
I told a Black writer friend so, and that this offered me a shred of comfort, in case Obama actually does get elected.

There, feeling better now?

Re: "Why are government agencies targeting pacifists?"

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

"Feeling better?" I suppose you've guessed that article wouldn't make me happy at all! But thanks for the link anyway — unlike the speed of light, cynicism has no theoretical limit and so there's always room for more.

I can't understand your support for the Chicago School but — honestly! — don't have the strength to get into a discussion about it now.

Mind you, if you give Klein's book a look and review it your own journal, I imagine I'd have no choice but to take up rhetorical arms with you about it.

Re: "Why are government agencies targeting pacifists?"

[paul-carlson.livejournal.com]

Hi Geoff,

Not saying I'm some kind of booster for that (or any) formal school of economics. If I had to pick one, it'd probably be the Austrian School, developed by Hayek and friends.

What frustrates me is, on this subject many people have potent opinions grounded on sand. Rich "versus" poor, tax rates and actual revenues, interest rates and inflation: all of these are easily misunderstood. Simpler to jump on some emotional bandwagon, and never mind the crunchy little facts.

Here's a post I made yesterday on the Asimov's board, with a popular example of a commonly demagogued issue, "tax cuts for the rich."

Re: "Why are government agencies targeting pacifists?"

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Hi Paul,

Considering all the angry, negative ranting I've been doing lately, this might be a good moment to give you some sense of what I do support, at least until the historical situation is one supporting something even better (yes, as per the icon, I've read some Marx).

For the time being, though, I support a balanced economy, one in which business is relatively free to do business, but not free to run the state. Business constrained, in other words, by rules and regulations, by limits on the movement of capital (so that capital is more likely to be invested than speculated).

The people running much of the world right now have had a hell of a run since Reagan and Thatcher started dismantling the welfare state. Some of those changes were necessary, some were neutral and some were extremely destructive — for the vast majority of the population.

In other words, there is a tension inherent in the relation between labour and capital. The latter, by the nature of the system in which it operates, seeks (at once and in self-contradiction) monopoly (which requires long-term thinking) and a profit on the next quarter's balance-sheet (which requires extremely short-term thinking).

Neither objective takes into consideration the lives of individual human beings, the long-term well-being of the commons (ie, the planet's ecosphere) or the political or moral Good.

Capitalism is — or can be — very good at making things, but making things has nothing whatsoever to do with running a government or providing social Goods, whether (publically-accessible) roads or welfare, clean air or safe streets, medical care or vibrant, competing newspapers.

We can argue about which goods should be public, but I, at least, can not compromise with those who believe the only business of the state is to run the army, the police and prisons, which is the libertarian position as I understand it, and which I believe is, and has been since Reagan and Thatcher, the long-term goal of the people who have hijacked your Republican and our Conservative Parties.

Whew.

In terms of your post at Asimov's, I take your point but I think, like so many abstractions, it is meaningless in the real world. Certainly in this world, the rich are in no danger of being taxed out of existence.

I do believe in progressive taxation. And I believe that countries like Finland and most of the Nordic countries provide a useful model of what might be done here in Canada, and maybe even in the much larger and more heterogeneous United States.

Re: "Why are government agencies targeting pacifists?"

[paul-carlson.livejournal.com]

Good points, Geoff.

Modern business is plagued by the 'next quarter's balance sheet' kind of thinking. I've supported liberal (Democratic Party) policies on worker's overtime pay. For some, 'flex time' might be the panacea that Big Business said it would be -- but I could do enough math to foresee a pay cut.

As for the rich, I'm not sure about Canada, but most of the USA's legislators are lawyers by trade, and most of the rest are businessmen. They are not going to create policies to kill their own golden geese, so to speak.
Even the reformers get to the capital, and are usually drawn into the system.
But you know what? I have millionaire relatives, and lawyer friends. They are just as human as me. We get along fine.

Ultra-libertarians would sell Yosemite to Disney -- some might even privatize the Army! I would not go anywhere near that far . . .

Do note that the ecosystem has very little regard for the welfare of any individual. Not even for individual species.
Mother Nature sends us warm breezes and howling hurricanes, plus rolling meadows and jouncing earthquakes. Not to mention lots and lots of various-sized bugs.

Re: "Why are government agencies targeting pacifists?"

[paul-carlson.livejournal.com]

By the way, an old friend of mine just did some color commentary on Sarah Palin's big debut speech, live from a convention skybox -- on Al-Jazeera TV's English-language network. Verrry interesting . . .

Re: "Why are government agencies targeting pacifists?"

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Uh oh. I think I'm going into multiple-thread shock (and confusion — forgive me if my last reply er, somewhere else, was a bit of a repetition of what I said above).

I think Canada's legislatures contain a somewhat higher proportion of "normal" people and perhaps fewer businessmen, but lawyers we got a'plenty!

And on the whole, they are or aspire to be, members of the (economic) ruling class. But that is also complicated by a number of factors.

1. The NDP, an avowedly (though tepidly, to my mind) "social democratic" party with its roots in genuine Socialism;

2. the Bloc Québecois, the one-issue, Québec seperatist party which also skews to the left; and

3. the good luck of having inherited the British parliamentary system which, as I see it, has two advantages of a republic, or at least, over a US-style republic.

The first is that there are no fixed electoral dates (despite our outgoing government's ironic passing of a bill setting fixed dates; ironic because they've just called an election despite not having been defeated in the House), so that we don't have to suffer your 2+ year-long campaigns, which require so much money to run.

And the second (and probably most Canadians will, if only tepidly, disagree with me here), our head of State is ... the Queen of England! How cool is that? Head of government — just some guy (and, so far, one woman) of almost no symbolic importance, so it's almost impossible for him to "wrap himself in the flag". Head of State? Almost completely symbolic, although in point of legal fact, her "Representative", the Governor General, does have a few extraordinary Constitutional powers, though I think the last time they were exercised was in the 1920s.

Anyway, before this turns into (another) novella, the short campaigns mean our politicians don't need to raise nearly the kind of money they do south of the border and so, a few more "average joes" make it into Parliament.

Do note that the ecosystem has very little regard for the welfare of any individual.

Granted. Although we've been enjoying some relatively stable conditions over the past 10,000 years or so, and stability is a Good Thing from the human perspective of a single life-time. (Was it in Analog that I read an article a while back suggesting that, according to the climate records of the past several hundred thousand years we "should" be in an ice-age right now? The suggestion was that the carbon-releasing effects of the agricultural revolution saved us from a resurgence of the ice-sheets.)

Re: "Why are government agencies targeting pacifists?"

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Al-Jazeeera's an interesting experiment. By all most accounts, it sounds like it's a genuinely legitimate news organization.

I imagine its absolutely loathed by the House of Saud, and just about every other Arab government.

Very cool for your friend. And that reminds me: I've downloaded both McCain and Palin's speeches and so, I guess, I should gird my loins and actually watch them. :)

Re: "Why are government agencies targeting pacifists?"

[paul-carlson.livejournal.com]

Okay, I've posted a newspaper clipping/scan on my LJ site.

It's unusual in that both ads name the employer and cause.

"Activism" is a normal Want Ad job category in the San Francisco Chronicle, and the spots don't always name names. (Not that it seems to matter.)