OVER THE BOUNDING MANGE: Well the Hawai`i Superferry (HSf) continues to dominate this “you can’t make this stuff up” week of bizarre claims, anonymous press releases and of course silly claims by the HSf people themselves as well as attempts to tie Aloha Air’s demise into wishful and somewhat magical thinking that it will revive the dead-but-doesn’t-know-it HSf.
First, the laugh of the day came from Maui Tomorrow’s Dick Meyer who sent us an on-line copy of what he calls HSf’s “In Flight” magazine Hahalua.
Hahalua? or Ha Ha Lua? Is that the description of the toilet laughing at the customers as they barf in it? Or maybe it’s a different Hawaiian definition of lua- the hole... the one in your pocket when you pay the actual fares, rather than the advertised rates.
If we look again at the Alakai at almost 45 degree angles to the ocean in that Molokai video at You Tube, Dick seems to have pegged it as an “in-flight” adventure.
There’s a pretty good analysis by Brad Parsons destroying the arguments in the Honolulu and Maui newspapers trying to use HSf’s dependably-faked numbers to show that now they will make money because everyone will be flocking to save money (not) to spend hours not get to their destination or get there smelling like a Roman Vomitoruim.... good thing you can have your own car because Auntie isn’t going to let you into hers covered with a re-hashing of this morning’s corned beef hash and hash-browns
Then there’s yesterday’s Case of the Anonymous Press Release. which has now been published at. Andrea Brower’s Save Kaua`i web site.
Since it’s there, we can now show it to you and explain yesterday’s strange post where we avoided taking credit for someone else’s reporting in providing the 16,000 plus word National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filings in the Austal (yes, we thank Dick for pointing our propensity for misspelling) racism case as well as the article from 2002.
We received it literally fourth-hand and spent all day trying to track down its veracity and/or a contact and/or its origins, The “press release” contains quotes that might have been pulled from the NLRB complaint document but then again might have been made up by the mysterious release promulgator(s).
It only took a major all-day investigative effort to track down but we have been able confirms to our satisfaction through multiple sources who would prefer anonymity that the release originally came from a certain videographer who, apparently has no flair for publicity generation and who, we hear, doesn’t want to be connected with we rabble in the press or any HSf-related activism.
Hope you enjoyed the lyrical, though non-musical interlude while we tried to sort out sourcing, attribution and confirmations in a professional manner. It generated the provision of a great Phil Ochs blog in our comments section- well worth checking out for any Folk-Ochsmaniac. The latest article there is about the very song we quoted and had been posted the day before, apparently as the words sprung to mind with the shocking-shocking news that we’ve found race discrimination at an Alabama ship-building yard.
Somewhat related is another good piece by intrepid activist Jonathan Jay on the reports this week that the Kaua`i Police Department is getting ready for the next Superferry moment by beefing up their riot squad gear so they can use clubs and tasers next time people peaceably assemble to protest some other cockamamie mainland-hatched state-enabled boondoggling scheme to force some other monstrosity down our throats.
As Jay says “(w)hen the new Chief calls for greater transparency for the KPD, surely he does not mean plexi-glass riot shields”
So break out some of that organic pop corn, grab your portable Barf-O-Meter, tune to tune in the Weather Channel and enjoy another week (organ music swells) of Clowns In Paradise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
tasers probly not for peaceful assembly. Probly for bozos banging on cars and letting air out of tires.
Yeah, for protests that actually work....imagine that.
PS: hitting, shooting, clubbing stabbing, choking, bombing human beings = violence
shouting, hitting cars and letting air out of tires = property damage, not violence
violence = me kicking the ass of the bozo that dents my car hood
Is pounding on, rocking and deflating the tires on a car with people in it violence?
No. Hurting the people is.
kicking the ass of the person who DENTED your CAR? Who's the bozo now?
Several people I know who witnessed the event with the car at the Superferry protest have described it to me in a way that is at odds with the media depiction. I was on the other side of the harbor by the jetty at the time and didn't see it.
There was a person sitting on the ground in front of the car and the car was moving forward toward the person. In an emotional reaction, other people tried to stop the car.
In hindsight, we can all see that an effective way to stop that car which would have avoided an ugly confrontation with the driver and passengers would have been for the great crowd of people present to sit down en masse in front of the car. This is a well-worn civil disobedience technique and can be encouraged in a tense situation by a small handful of people beginning to chant "Sit down....sit down." So, next time, perhaps we'll all be more prepared in this way.
Even though the action with the car was less than sophisticated protest behavior, and could easily have lead to an escalation of police violence (clubs, pepper spray), I don't think that in itself it was a horrible thing, as the media and gullible members of the public obsessively insist.
It's important not to let the definition of "violence" expand to include "anything that makes us uncomfortable."
Right now, the Kaua'i Police Department is asking for riot gear. Why? The Department cites the protests. So, instead of finding a way to train properly for protest situations in order to de-escalate real violence, utilizing what exists in our community, like the very real tempering effect of small town relationships, the police want to put on masks and hold shields and tasers, making themselves appear threatening, anonymous and inhuman.
My involvement in the protests and the movement-building around them showed me that people were absolutely committed to effective, non-violent direct action. I am almost certain that this is no secret to the police, since there were viable reports of undercover police attending meetings and gatherings. (Plus, those guys stick out and are easy to spot!)
I believe that implementing a riot-gear mind-set is intended as a form of intimidation against protest, period. It sets up a wall between citizens and the decision-makers who apparently want to be insulated from the voice of the people.
I am disappointed that those who disagree with protesters on any given topic would support a more militarized police approach to protest, since they generally tend to be people who swaddle themselves in the American flag. Unfortunately, they are often the first people to demand that anything and everything be done to restrict democracy in the streets.
-Katy
Was blowing up black churches in the south violence?
Who thinks violence only applies to hurting people? Open your dictionary!
"It's important not to let the definition of "violence" expand to include "anything that makes us uncomfortable.""
It's important to not change the meanings of words to be self serving. If you're uncomfortable with violence, then don't use violence.
When there were people in them, yes. Otherwise, they were acts of property destruction and intimidation.
Look, property damage and destruction can be good or bad, depending on your perspective of a given act. The point is that we should be clear that it is not the same as "violence."
I'm interested in your opinion: why do you consider property damage violence?
-Katy
Because the dictionary definition and the common everyday understanding of the word violence does not limit it to harm to people. That's just silly. The question is why do you want to artificially limit the meaning of violence to harm to people?
is cutting down monkeypod trees violence or property damage? Is it property damage if its your own property?
Under the dictionary definition of the word violence, saying violence only means hurting people does violence to the meaning of the word violence.
Okay, whose undergrad critical studies TA told them violence only applies to hurting people?
Okay then, give a definition then. And can you explain how damage to an inanimate object, with no consequent damage to people and animals, is violence?
-Katy
And - why do you need a dictionary or a teacher to define words for you? This is the problem, is it not, that we allow "authorities" to define words for us? For example, the government is now defining for us what "terrorism" is, and they're so damn thorough that their definition includes people performing direct action and civil disobedience that challenges the state.
It seems that many compliant citizens are happy to play along. Even "liberals" with their new-agey "non-violent communication" drivel.
Yeah, words can be threatening, insulting, stinging, embarrassing and a million other things, but they are words, not fists, clubs, guns or anything else which can literally hurt, maim or kill.
My point is that it's a good idea to watch those slippery slopes because they don't only slip up the people you disagree with.
-Katy
swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.
c.1290, "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. violence, from L. violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violate). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1596. Violent is attested from c.1340. In M.E. the word also was applied in ref. to heat, sunlight, smoke, etc., with the sense "having some quality so strongly as to produce a powerful effect."
the property of being wild or turbulent; "the storm's violence" [syn: ferocity]
3. a turbulent state resulting in destruction etc.
"why do you need a dictionary or a teacher to define words for you? This is the problem, is it not, that we allow "authorities" to define words for us?"
We should let you define words for us rather than the dictionary? What makes you a better authority on the meaning of words than the dictionary? And why do you want to change the definition of violence anyway?
Who said I thought you should use my definition? I'm simply stating my opinion, not claiming authority.
I'm also questioning the way citizens tend to cede their autonomy and authority to others.
My interest in this topic is from the perspective of one who is committed to social change. I think there is a tremendous pressure to keep social movements boxed in and fearful of acting effectively, and one of the tools used is the expansion of the term "violence" to include everything in a protest situation which goes beyond holding a candle and signing "We Shall Overcome."
Particularly in the period since the pivotal 1999 WTO protests in Seattle, there has been vigorous debate about the parameters of effective protest. As you may recall, some groups in Seattle smashed the windows of Nike, Starbucks and other stores, partly to demonstrate that the property of corporations engaged in global oppression of the poor was not sacrosanct and certainly worthless when compared to the human beings being impacted by corporate practices.
There is significant disagreement between various activist groups about the appropriateness and/or efficacy of what is now known as "trashing." (ZNet has a bunch of pieces on different sides of this debate which make for great reading:
http://www.zmag.org/trashing.htm)
I admire the fact that, for the most part, this disagreement has been principled and respectful, and in the service of building stronger and more effective movements for social change. The left has made great progress in moving beyond the old "circular firing squad."
In any case, this is not just an idle intellectual exercise for me but a real examination of our relationship to the state and to the powerful who have every interest in preventing social movements from succeeding.
-Katy
okay well the definition of violence still doesn't mean harm to only people and animals.
I agree that if you are using the word in a poetic or symbolic way, such as "a violent storm," sure. But I am referring to interactions between people and institutions, and in that context, I see violence being something which causes physical harm to a sentient being and has the potential to maim or kill.
But I see what you're saying.
-Katy
Well, its not merely poetic or symbolic to say a volcanic eruption is violent, or a storm that blows down hudreds of trees is violent even if nobody is hurt.
It sounds to me like your saying some people want to change the meaning of violence to meaning only harm to people or animals so they can commit violent acts involving inanimate objects without having to think of themselves as violent.
But why play semantic games with yourself?
It's not a semantic game. It connects very materially with the development of effective movement tactics, and not allowing a hegemonic and expanding definition of "violence" to hamper our imagination.
When some protest tactics are dismissed out of hand because they don't conform to the current and moribund definition of "nonviolence," then, in my opinion, we lose critical ground in our ability to be strategic and effective.
It is quite common now for advocates of "nonviolence" to discourage breaking the law. This is because they have allowed themselves to believe that breaking the law, by definition, violates some principle of "nonviolence." This is patently absurd, particularly when the law in question is unjust.
The debates posted at the site I linked above can detail this much better than I can.
Happy reading!
-Katy
It's totally a semantic game. The definition of violence was not expanded to include more than harm to people. It has meant more than harm to people since before Shakespeare and Milton.
Clearly you want to restrict the meaning of violence so that you can expand what can be thought of as "nonviolent action". That's rank semantics.
If you want to embrace violence, embrace violence. But don't lie about what you're doing.
Now I'm lying?
Okay, fine, call it violence when protesters climb a fence at a nuclear testing facility and dismantle a bomb...I don't care.
Maybe I can call it violence when you sit by and do nothing while your tax dollars go to build a bomb that is then dropped on an Iraqi village.
Sound okay to you?
-Katy
Who said anything about climbing fences? You said violence only referred to harming people and animals and that bombing a church was not violence. You are wrong on both those claims.
The lying part comes when you want to blow stuff up but claim it's not violence because nobody got hurt. Of course it's violence.
I said something about destroying a bomb (property of the US government); the climbing the fence part is incidental.
And I still don't think that property damage or destruction is violence. That doesn't mean I think it's GOOD. I don't think littering is violence, but I don't condone it, either.
In my opinion the word "violence" in political and social terms should be applied specifically to injuring, maiming, and killing sentient beings, or it loses its meaning altogether and begins to mean anything that challenges the status quo in a significant and effective way. It justifies the use of force by police or the military against all manner of civil disobedience, including sitting on a surfboard in front of the superferry.
The slippery definitions of "violence" and "terrorism" have created a climate in which many of the actions taken by civil rights activists in the sixties could now be prosecuted under anti-terrorism laws. Ask yourself what this means for social justice movements.
None of this is to say that violence and terrorism are imaginary, just that we need to be very careful about not ceding our intelligence to the state and a powerful elite and allowing them to define these controversial concepts for us.
-Katy
It's funny to hear you advocate for changing the definition of violence based on, "The slippery definition of "violence"."
BTW, I don't think "violence" necessarily has negative or positive connotations.
Also, arbitrarily defining violence to include only harm to "sentient beings" won't cause throwing rocks through windows or blowing up churches to suddenly become legal.
Sigh....I'm not arguing about whether or not things should be legal. That's a completely different thing.
Anyway, I've said enough on this for now.
-Katy
It's true. You've said why you want to change the meaning of the word violence. Good luck with it. I don't think it will stick though.
Post a Comment