Four unoccupied multimillion-dollar homes burned in a Seattle suburb Monday in what officials have reason to believe was eco-related arson. Explosives were found in the homes, and a spray-painted sign out front -- "Built green? Nope black! McMansions in RCDs r not green" -- bore the initials of radical environmental group the Earth Liberation Front. The Woodinville, Wash., homes were built with water-pervious sidewalks, efficient insulation, and recycled materials, but critics had raised concerns that the development could have a negative impact on a nearby creek and wetlands. Said the president of the targeted "Street of Dreams" development, "My understanding is that it was an act of terror." Time for everyone to get hot and bothered about "eco-terrorism" again!
Know Thy ELF
‘Eco-terrorism’ suspected in Seattle-area arson 80
-
Posted 12:18 PM on 3 Mar 2008
-
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 4:52 am
03 Mar 2008
Call me suspicious...but would a group that stopped acting in 2001 suddenly pull a stunt like this?
I would focus on the investors who, in this market, probably couldn't find a schmuck dumb enough to sign up for a Jumbo Mortage in a declining Puget Sound real estate market...
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:40 am
03 Mar 2008
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:26 am
03 Mar 2008
and...
"It's very disappointing to take a situation where we're tying to promote good building practices -- Built Green practices -- and that it's destroyed," said Doug Barnes, the Northwest division president of Centex Homes in Kirkland and the immediate past president of the Master Builders Association of King & Snohomish Counties."
The houses were apparently not "green" enough.
Sadly, they were actually trying to build and sell smaller houses... isn't that a good thing?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:33 am
03 Mar 2008
Acceptance of such behavior, at any level, is abhorrent. If you are inspired by or hope others will be inspired by ELF's actions, you should be ashamed of yourself. You are reinforcing the cycle of violence that plagues our species.
If your beliefs are valuable enough for others to adopt them and live their lives accordingly, you should be able to present strong rational defense of those beliefs. You should be able to persuade the majority to follow your lead.
The violence displayed by the ELF activists is a reflection of their intellectual and physcial laziness. They preferred the scare tactics of a bully over the power of education.
Arson is not a small matter. It is terrorism.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:58 am
03 Mar 2008
"For those of us who think that life is far more important than property, acts like this couldn't be farther from "terrorism.""
I've posted the following before, but do not recall whether someone provided a good reply. So, I'll try again. For those who might consider the described arson as something for the greater good, just a small matter, and inspiration for those who truly value life, please consider the following.
Suppose I created and wish to distribute a GM plant that will eliminate the manufacture and use of a particularly nasty chemical, a chemical that shortens lives, causes cancer, or causes birth defects... not just to protect humans, but to protect wildlife. And suppose there is an environmental organization spreading misinformation and standing in the way of release of this GM plant that will save lives and reduce suffering. Would it be okay for me to walk down to their office and lob a molotov cocktail through the front window... just as a warning? After all, the office building is just property and the goal would be to protect human and other creatures' lives.
Who needs law and order when every single one of us knows, really KNOWS, what's best for all of us and the rest of Earth's inhabitants? Right?
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 7:02 am
03 Mar 2008
On the other hand, wouldn't all those eco-conscious Microsofties be lining up to buy those houses? I can't imagine they wouldn't sell, even in this housing market.
But we ought not to jump to conclusions until we have proof of the perpetrators. If it was ELF, I'd expect a press release. Given that a young woman is on trial for a 2001 blaze, it's hardly likely to be them.
Can we expect more of these suspicious fires as the housing market continues to faulter?
Permalink
kmp Posted 7:04 am
03 Mar 2008
That said, if this is an act by ELF, or another purported "eco" group, it would appear that terror was the object. Burning down a home is not likely to inspire happy feelings. What it will likely inspire is higher insurance premiums for all who live in the area, higher taxes to pay for increased police surveillance, higher ecological impact to rebuild these homes and a backlash against green building that will never be "good enough."
To this end, not only were the acts terror, they were terrifyingly stupid.
Of course, it could be that the psuedo-green McMansion homes didn't sell, and the builder burned them for the insurance cash and decided to lay the blame on some well known "eco-terrorists."
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:07 am
03 Mar 2008
"When I was undercover, there were plenty of people who may have been sympathetic to a group but were very clear they didn't want to break the law or get involved in violence. And we didn't go after them." Blurring that distinction by opening the door for prosecutions of people who do little more than express sympathies for a group, argues German, "that's where the material-support provisions go off the rails. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/03/departmen ...
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:25 am
03 Mar 2008
"Earth Liberation Front" as the name of a functioning group of people even meeting for coffee has about as much validity as Bush's claims of Al Quaida activity in Iraq prior to 2001. Harassment of environmental and peace groups by the feds goes back to the days of the Palmer raids.
Arson in construction projects has been a problem at least since I was a kid in the 70's as vacant houses with exposed wood are a tempting target for pyromaniacs. There is also, as JB mentioned, considerable financial incentive to burn those houses as they can't sell in a falling market.
As far as environmental group objections to the project; they object to every project that breaks living soil. That's right, all of them. Unless you're building on a brownfields site you are displacing habitat for something. So objections and demands for mitigation measures are common.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:51 am
03 Mar 2008
Those "smaller" houses were over 4,000 sq. feet. And they were in a rural development cluster. most of their "green tech" was PR piecemeal that was aimed mored at energy savings than an actual environmental agenda. They were also in a rural development cluster...not very efficient as far as land use goes.
Supposedly, there was also concerns that the development would harm a nearby creek and the development company has mis-managed some wetland mitigation efforts.
I don't agree with the ELF's methods, but they were right in that these houses were not very green at all.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:13 pm
03 Mar 2008
Can we expect more of these suspicious fires as the housing market continues to faulter?
Remember San Diego last fall?
All the fires in the most tony neighborhoods...
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:57 pm
03 Mar 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:58 pm
03 Mar 2008
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:51 pm
03 Mar 2008
It is actually quite brilliant as far as organizing criminal activity is concerned. The person with the website can serve as leader but avoid accountability for his crimes.
However, rights come with responsibility. The leader of ELF has a right to free speech. He is also responsible for the violence it invokes. He cannot simply say he is concerned about life on Earth, the harm resulting from sprawl, post "suggestions", and then deny responsibility for what unfolds.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:58 pm
03 Mar 2008
"No one was hurt in the arson at UW, but its Center for Urban Horticulture was destroyed and rebuilt at a cost of $7 million. It was targeted because the ELF activists mistakenly believed researchers there were genetically engineering trees, investigators said."
Yep. Those activists are really smart and know what's best for all of us. They are in touch with TRUTH. If I recall correctly, the fire at UW destroyed about ten years of research dedicated to encouraging urban gardening, research it is very difficult to find funding for, that had absolutely nothing to do with GMOs. Damn idiots!
Do you folks really trust ELF to select suitable targets, work for the protection of Earth, and ensure no lives are lost? Or do you consider collateral damage to human and animal life just the cost of doing business and celebrate involuntary martyrdom for THE CAUSE?
Permalink
jolly roger Posted 12:47 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
2wheeler Posted 1:25 am
04 Mar 2008
That said, not all fires are arson, and probably not all arson would equate to terrorism. A property loss, however massive, does not equate morally to a human life threat or loss. Is a forest fire-starting lazy camper a terrorist? Maybe from the standpoint of the animals who perish in the blaze. What if a human being is also killed in the fire? If the fire is caused by lightning, is that different? What if forest management practices contributed to the "tinderbox" in the woods? The timber value of the trees that burn may surpass these few show houses. Hmm, suddenly I see many shades of gray in the picture.
I'd love to see permeable pavement and energy conserving technology, extra insulation etc. (green building construction) used widespread in new and old retrofits of residential and commercial buildings! Those are part of the solutions to the challenge of living sustainably.
How big is Amory Lovins' home? a 4000 sf home may use zero net energy if it is done right.
An unsold, unoccupied house probably isn't a "home" until it's been lived in. I'm guessing these were unsold commercial show houses built speculatively. Not eligible to be covered under homeowner's insurance policies anyway. The tragic loss of greener buildings here would likely not impact anyone's homeowners policies.
Woodinville is a typical cascadian suburb with people and nature right up next to each other. I heard a wonderful screech owl in the trees outside the window during the night when visiting a relative there a few years ago. I understand that sometimes a cougar or coyote wanders through the area and picks off some unsuspecting house pets... There's a popular winery and microbrewery there and some local gardens and farms in the river valley. The main problem, like most of the Seattle area and most other cities, is the residents' unhealthy overdependence on the automobile.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 2:07 am
04 Mar 2008
Where can we find reliable info on the lack of a real ELF organization?
Question for the readers: where can we find reliable info on the nonexistence of Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny?
Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so we can never be totally sure there's no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny.
The "ELF" is an urban legend spread by people who want to believe that the technocratic nightmare currently dismantling Earth's ecosystems can be stopped by direct action tactics and that there's some kind of organization, "ELF," which somehow magically commands a number of disparate actors (with no real material connections to each other) to take part in such direct action tactics.
Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so just because we can't find a material organization out there called "ELF" (not that the participants in such action would need one) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can't find material evidence for a jolly overweight guy who lives at the North Pole and hires elves to make everyone's Christmas presents, either, but what are you, some kind of Grinch who would ruin the spirit of Christmas? Parents tell their kids about Santa Claus all the time -- how do you know it's not some kind of conspiracy?
Some believers in the "ELF" urban legend, however, have concocted an urban legend of their own: "eco-terrorism." The burning of unoccupied houses is, of course, mere arson, but "eco-terrorism" is a special category requiring more than a criminal prosecution -- why, "eco-terrorism," like any "terrorism," requires a witch-hunt!
Of course, "terrorists," like witches, fall into a category of their own, and so any action deemed necessary against "terrorists" is to be thoroughly endorsed. This is why our government operates, with our consent, a "war on terror" (never mind the illogic of declaring war on a tactic) which operates a global gulag of secret prisons in which APA-designed tortures are applied to people for whom, in real life, no criminal convictions are being obtained.
So here we are, through the looking glass, in a world where burning down an unoccupied building or three counts as "terrorism" but destroying the psyches of people in the mode publicized of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay is something we all consent to, just like we consent to the steady destruction of Earth's ecosystems by enforcing the urbanization of wild habitats with the force of law.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 2:40 am
04 Mar 2008
You missed an opportunity to enlighten me and instead went off on a sarcastic screed. I'm an environmentalist and didnt know there was no such thing as ELF. I was legitimately asking for more info (like an investigative article from the NY Times, for example) so I can make more informed choices.
Other posters here continued to assume ELF was responsible while I listened to the doubts and asked questions. And you attack me?
You might do well to recognize potential allies and watch that chip on your shoulder. If you can give me a source I'll post it in my blog
http://web.mac.com/cjohnsonla
Permalink
ImagesAndAdjectives Posted 3:01 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
bobmaginnis Posted 3:26 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 4:31 am
04 Mar 2008
Here's a thought: the world doesn't revolve around you, and not every criticism of every idea you mention is an attack on you personally.
Permalink
evangolfmaster3000 Posted 4:58 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:59 am
04 Mar 2008
Dude, you quoted me. Are you drinking? Of course you were addressing me.
Nice job. Now you've lost the interest of the one person here who thought you may have had a point about ELF being nothing more than an urban legend. Now, I don't believe you do.
Your preaching to choir here about Abu Ghraib.
The common understanding is that there is indeed a small radical, fringe, and emotionally immature element of the environmental movement. Nothing you have said has led me to believe differently.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:29 am
04 Mar 2008
We don't give a damn about your property. You are killing the Earth and the rest of us with your incessant population increase, your ridiculous consumption of crap, and your generally ecocidal behavior.
Destruction of natural open space is killing. How much did those disgusting houses kill, which were built not only on natural open space, but also in an environmentally sensitive area? This is a question of life v. property, and all moral humans should stand squarely on the side of life.
Permalink
Russ Doty Posted 5:29 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 6:40 am
04 Mar 2008
Oh, and you're the ONE PERSON HERE who has an open mind! You're so special!
Permalink
christophersj Posted 6:44 am
04 Mar 2008
How old are you? Isn't this a school day?
LOL!
Moving on...
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 7:01 am
04 Mar 2008
We justify stuff all the time. We justify, for instance, consuming 85 million barrels per day of crude oil (as a world-society). Hey, we tell ourselves, we're just doing our jobs. We're about to justify a "fortress society" response to the resultant abrupt climate change problem. We're just protecting what we've got, we tell ourselves. We justify an extinction rate about a thousand times the norm throughout most of natural history (see Leakey and Lewin's The Sixth Extinction for clarification). We did our part, we say to ourselves. If you want wilderness, go visit a national park.
So justifying stuff isn't a problem. The problem is in how actions are perceived to have consequences.
The mainstream view is to create consequences for arsonists. Burn an SUV, get 23 years in prison like Jeffrey Luers did.
The alternative view is that world-society is destroying planetary ecosystems all over, eventually resulting in its own self-destruction. Bad consequences for everyone regardless of what you do.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 7:09 am
04 Mar 2008
How old are you? Isn't this a school day?
Didn't you just call another group of people "emotionally immature"?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:12 am
04 Mar 2008
Suppose I created and wish to distribute a GM plant that will eliminate the manufacture and use of a particularly nasty chemical, a chemical that shortens lives, causes cancer, or causes birth defects... not just to protect humans, but to protect wildlife. And suppose there is an environmental organization spreading misinformation and standing in the way of release of this GM plant that will save lives and reduce suffering. Would it be okay for me to walk down to their office and lob a molotov cocktail through the front window... just as a warning? After all, the office building is just property and the goal would be to protect human and other creatures' lives.
I assume ELF supporters and defenders would consider this a good idea.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 7:22 am
04 Mar 2008
what's a "GM plant"? Is it a General Motors factory? Is it a genetically modified plant?
how is a "plant" going to "eliminate the manufacture and use of a particularly nasty chemical"?
And suppose there is an environmental organization spreading misinformation and standing in the way of release of this GM plant that will save lives and reduce suffering.
why would an "environmental organization" spread "misinformation"? What would their motives be?
Are there any real-life examples of your scenario (once you clarify some of its wordings, that is) actually taking place?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:36 am
04 Mar 2008
Let's assume I know I'm right, there are others who agree with me, and, well, it doesn't really matter whether I can defend my view. Assume I've studied the issue. I know the truth. The environmental organization does not know the truth. Heck, perhaps most people on Earth are not able to see the truth. They've been mislead by charismatic leaders or selfish desire. The action is intended to override resistance based on ignorance. So... would ELF supporters and defenders applaud my effort to protect the Earth and all of its inhabitants?
This is purely hypothetical. I've mentioned I do not approve of violence. But if ELF can resort to violence for the greater good, what stops others from employing violence to further their own views regarding the greater good? How does an individual make such a decision? What convinces others that he or she is a freedom fighter and not a terrorist?
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 7:48 am
04 Mar 2008
No need for dialogue?
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:54 am
04 Mar 2008
Which method is more efficacious and convincing to middle America for really transforming society? Acts of violence or advocating for public policies and private behavior through media, the marketplace, elections, and frickin cool plug-in hybrids that rock?
This web site and the people who tend to gather here believe in the second path, and its working in case you haven't noticed.
Its normal to be angry and hurt about the sick parts of our society. All of us concerned about the environment are. But what we do with those emotions can make or break a chance at real widespread change. Violence begets violence.
Besides, its neither mature nor clever and doesn't deserve the respect of the environmental movement.
-Christopher
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:57 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:20 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:31 am
04 Mar 2008
Someone working on one of the houses was jealous that he or she couldn't buy one.
Someone who recently got divorced drank a lot and went on an arson rampage.
Someone saw a sign of the devil and tried to save humanity by torching the houses.
Someone just went nuts.
Some kids were just having a bit of fun.
Someone who lost their job at a local factory was upset that the builder was using imported materials.
Someone who happens to be a racist saw a bunch of Mexican working on the houses.
Someone who believes violence is the only way to save Earth saw a chance to get some publicity.
Someone who lost their job because the company CLAIMED it was too difficult to meet environmental standards decided to give the granola heads a bad name.
... what do the known facts point to?
Regardless, folks are defending ELF as though they had actually done it to get their message across. Perhaps the lesson for Grist is to not post stories until all the facts are in. It appears the entire discussion is now detached from reality and focused on a hypothetical. I happen to find it frightening that there are intelligent environmentalist who wouldn't mind if it is found that ELF is responsible for the arson.
Did the guy with the website deny involvement? I admit I might have missed that point. Why doesn't he condemn the activity regardless of who is responsible?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:36 am
04 Mar 2008
Best to wait for the facts to figure it out. Why jump to the conclusions that the media or certain radicals have jumped to?
Non-violent action could get this GHG disaster in hand really quickly. Millions turning off their power and not driving for awhile. Peaceful million environmentalist march. Camp out until the government breaks. Even millions writing their reps.
We all know that non-violence is the one and only way, it has been demonstrated in the biggest political battles. just accept it fellow radicals.
Disavow all violent actions. that is truly radical. Pure zen...
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 10:26 am
04 Mar 2008
I agree with ChristopherS that the idea is to get everyone to want to live in an environmentally friendly manner. If your only objection to this action is that you think it was counterproductive, that's another discussion, the conclusion to which has not yet been determined. (I strongly disagree with Amazngdrx: major changes are usually effected by violent acts such as revolutions and assassinations, though non-violent changes happen too. I agree that it would be infinitely better to get people to share our world view, but to say that violence cannot be effective is just plain wrong.)
However, the vast majority of humans have devolved in the wrong direction, away from the wisdom of the hunter-gatherer traditional indigenous people who feel at one with all of nature and respect all life, and toward a selfish, materialistic, greedy attitude toward life that places money, business, and human comfort & convenience above all else. I don't know whether ELF-type actions are productive or counterproductive -- neither does anyone else, despite the whining here -- but I totally agree with their point of view.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 11:27 am
04 Mar 2008
Thats something else native peoples were in touch with. The energy you put in is sometimes the energy you get back.
Lets vote.
Lets have campaign finance reform
Lets support businesses who can profit from green tech, encouraging other businesses
Lets make our own greening look cool and inviting to others to join in.
But lets not create a police state backlash against environmentalists
-Christopher
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:09 pm
04 Mar 2008
Not this one. In fact by arguing this point you are actually hurting this blog. As you would hurt any group if you started in with this in person.
I would immediately ask you to leave any meeting where you brought this up, accusing you of being a police informant trying to get the group in legal trouble.
I guess I should qualify my previous statement somewhat. Everyone knows non-violence is the only way to get this energy revolution going, especially the agent provacateur informants. They are proposing violence to do their part in stopping us from succeeding.
Wether you are an informant or not doesn't really matter. I ask the group to assume that is so and shun you. Can't afford to take a chance. Other government operatives in the group can seize on your profanity as an excuse to target us.
If you are not a government plant you could maybe renounce violence? But why should we believe you once you have touted it?
Vote all who propose violence off the island,and thus expunge their profanity.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:28 pm
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 1:53 pm
04 Mar 2008
So, it's OK to commit extreme violence against the Earth and everything that lives on and in it, but not against humans? What anthropocentric baloney!
This is a discussion group, not an action one. Nowhere in my post did I advocate that anyone do anything. I merely stated the FACT that violence is usually the only way major changes take place. Sorry if you don't like that fact; to be honest, neither do I, but it's reality.
It is HUMANS that need to renounce violence against nature. All animals and even some plants use violence to defend themselves, it's totally natural, and I see actions like those of ELF as those of the Earth defending itself.
Why is it that even here, on a supposedly environmental blog, people are far more upset with destruction of property than with the environmental destruction that the property caused?
Again, destruction of property per se is NOT violence.
Christopher:
It's funny you should bring up "native peoples," though I'm not exactly sure who you mean. But I can tell you that, to put it diplomatically, my Native American friends do not believe in non-violence. They may use it and claim it publicly for strategic reasons, but they basically don't understand why anyone under attack would not want to fight back and think it's completely unnatural. You are right about action/reaction, but it's more complicated than that. Everyone who demands non-violence should declare what they would do about the Hitlers and Cheneys in the world, who are causing immense amounts of killing of humans and everyone else.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:27 pm
04 Mar 2008
Even as Americans worry about the destruction of a few houses, we are all participating, via our proxies, in the destruction of many many houses in Iraq. But they don't count. Sigh. Even though we do it.
The most likely reason for their destruction (as for most arsons) is money. Follow the money, John B. is correct (Which must amaze him!!) (joking).
I do not believe that there is an ELF as such. Wiscidea, just because someone creates a website, doesn't mean that everything on it is true. Or do you now believe in Creationism because so many websites say so? Or that Rev. Moon is God?
If you want to attack ELF, you first need to prove that it exists.
Fine job creating a straw man and getting everyone to joust at it, though!!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:38 pm
04 Mar 2008
I realize this is hypothetical here, a blog. that is why I am in favor of giving you a chance to repent. Embrace non-violence or face the peaceful wrath of ... zen. Hehey.
At least admit that in this case non-violence is the only way to proceed.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:43 pm
04 Mar 2008
Modern
Light Impact
Sustainable
Carbon Free
And I would add: fun and popular
Tricking the ignorant into green living will be much more fun than burning down their houses. Join us!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:36 pm
04 Mar 2008
"major changes are usually effected by violent acts such as revolutions and assassinations"
Are most of those major changes positive or negative? What one builds by violence can be torn down by violence.
I guest on a radio program -- I wish I could recall his name -- pointed out that violent revolutions do no create long-term change. Slow and steady wins the race. The violent pendulum that swings to the left has enough momentum to soon wing back to the right. And it kills innocent beings as it swings back and forth.
I believe Gandhi, King, Tutu, and others have clearly demonstrated that non-violence is the most effective approach in our modern world toward stable long-term positive change.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:51 pm
04 Mar 2008
"Wiscidea, just because someone creates a website, doesn't mean that everything on it is true. Or do you now believe in Creationism because so many websites say so? Or that Rev. Moon is God?"
No. I do not belieive that just because someone creates a website everything on it is true. You know that. However, if someone creates a website devoted to creationism and condemns non-believers, I'm fairly certain that most of those people believe their website is true. If Mr. Moon creates a website declaring himself God, I'm fairly certain Mr. Moon believes or at least wants people to believe he is God.
Let's assume you're correct... the ELF website is simply parody or satire.... completely made up. Then the creator of that website, who has the right to free speech, is, in my opinion, still very irresponsible. He or she can see that it is harming people. He or she can see that the attempted humor has turned deadly. And no sane person, no sincere environmentalist, no practical individual who want to live in a stable society, should support or approve of such behavior.
The creator of the ELF website is free to exercise his right to express his views and I'm free to say he is a fool and that no one should support him or her.
Regarding...
"If you want to attack ELF, you first need to prove that it exists."
I'm not really attacking ELF, as much as the concept of ELF. Are you suggesting I can discuss the validity of an organization's behavior ONLY if the organization already exists and has engaged in violent activity? I hope ELF does not exist. And, if it does not, I hope discussions like this will ensure ELF never exists. Violence should not be an option. We must break the cycle of violence now.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 7:55 am
05 Mar 2008
Why have a dialogue with them when you can dismiss them out of hand?
We understand Gaia theory but we also understand smart grids. This is the 21st Century.
Yep, a little minor tinkering with the system, and everything will be OK! Sure, the world-society will still consume 85 million bbls./day of crude oil, leading at some point to the destruction of all of the wild ecosystems, leading then (after abrupt climate change raises the average temperature a few degrees) to uncontrollable famine, which at some point will result in the collapse of world-society itself amidst increased competition for the remains of "natural resources" after the current economic system has picked planet Earth clean... but, hey, why worry about the ecological unsustainability of capitalist world-society when you can score debating points on the Internet and walk away with a clear feeling of mental superiority!
Btw, to say that something is "21st century" is not exactly a mark of praise. Bush's invasion of Iraq and the collapse of the housing bubble are "21st century."
Mud huts and horses aren't the goal anymore.
Mud huts and horses are inevitable -- it's the route by which we get to them that matters. Some folks would prefer cob building; others close their eyes, stopper their ears, and wait for the default path that lies ahead when abrupt climate change controls the agenda.
Now the emphasis is:
* Modern
* Light Impact
* Sustainable
* Carbon Free
And I would add: fun and popular
Right! And I might add that anything can be advertised that way. If you don't understand ecology, "sustainable" can be held to mean "sustainable profits for our corporation." And what's "carbon free"? Nothing is "carbon free."
Those who really want to understand anarcho-primitivism might take the time to read Derrick Jensen and Stephanie McMillan's comic novel As the World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Stay In Denial. I don't think "christophersj" will be among their number. See, the "nonviolent humanist rationalist" crowd on this thread has shown too much of its hand already. It's basically uninterested in dialogue, and it really doesn't want to understand why people would burn down unoccupied housing developments in the middle of Cascadian rainforests. Now, it's a real question to ask "why would people do such a thing?" -- but not from people who have shown that they are uninterested in the answer.
On the other hand, it's easy to understand the arguments of the "nonviolent humanist rationalist" crowd as regards all that horrible destruction of property. It's the whole John Locke trip. It's OK to destroy nature; but once nature has become property, then it's no longer OK. This, of course, was the rationale for destroying the native populations of this continent -- since they didn't have "our" notions of property, they were mere nature, and could then be wiped out for the sake of "taming the land" and imposing "civilized" notions of property upon the "frontier." Our history books are full of unquestioned reiterations of this ideology.
"Nonviolence" has an ambiguous legacy. It works when empowered publics are there to support nonviolent demonstrators, as when Martin Luther King Jr. tried it in the mid-1960s. It doesn't work when it has to confront forces which are committed to violence no matter what. The Nicaraguan revolution of 1979 started out along a nonviolent path, but it turned to violence after the Somoza regime responded to protests by killing 50,000 civilians in cold blood. And from there, it won, and liberated Nicaragua from the Somozas.
This is not to say that violence is always justifiable in the right cause; it is to say that there are no absolute single principles and that everything is to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes "nonviolence" is a mere form of domestication; in other cases it's the one true revolutionary path.
As for "ending the cycle of violence," are we suggesting, here, that nature itself commits acts of violence upon its conquerors, thus justifying the violence of the conquest of nature?
Tricking the ignorant into green living will be much more fun than burning down their houses.
I'm sure that the ignorant can be sold any bill of goods one cares to name if a "green living" label is slapped on it.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:20 pm
05 Mar 2008
Dear Wiscidea,
Because someone puts in on the web doesn't mean it's true. Ever notice how every time there is a bombing, about ten groups claim credit? They didn't all do it.
We live in a time where the US government has encouraged folks to engage in terrorist activities so they can have prosecutions so they can justify homeland fear (er, security).
We know that intelligence agencies regularly plant stories to discredit people the white house doesn't like. (How strange, that the Colombians just found "proof" of Chavez support for FARC and someone unnamed (probably the Israelis) found proof of Iran's perfidy in an election season when the rethugs are in trouble!!).
It doesn't mean that there isn't terrorism, but it does mean that we should look for proof. A banner with a name isn't proof.
A web site isn't always proof either. Let's instead look at criminal trials and prosecutions, at the evidence presented, weigh and judge it fairly.
At this point, no one knows how committed those arson attacks. So, to attack one group without any proof doesn't make sense.
And no, it is not okay to attack a non-existent group on the basis of a conceptual possibility that such a group might exist.
This is a dangerous path if you study some history and think about the implications. Look at the American "red scares" or the attacks on various candidates for things that never happened.
Hopefully, we can be better than that.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:28 pm
05 Mar 2008
And the "fun and popular" shtick is an insulting delusion.
LegumeSam, my hero from ages past, is as ever brilliant on mud houses and horses. Provided we are nice to the horses! LS sounds a bit too cynical, though, from time to time. Regarding nonviolence, he needs to get away for a bit on retreat.
Thanks to my friends WiscIdea and Patrick. You have both made terrific observations. We are all in agreement that Somebody did Something Bad. I think we are also all in agreement that any agent that wants to use this case of arson as a way to discredit environmentalists must be discovered and denounced.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:51 pm
05 Mar 2008
"And no, it is not okay to attack a non-existent group on the basis of a conceptual possibility that such a group might exist. This is a dangerous path if you study some history and think about the implications. Look at the American "red scares" or the attacks on various candidates for things that never happened."
I had wrote...
"I'm not really attacking ELF, as much as the concept of ELF. Are you suggesting I can discuss the validity of an organization's behavior ONLY if the organization already exists and has engaged in violent activity?"
Notice I indicated I was attacking the CONCEPT of ELF. This is not at all similar to accusing people of being communists and rounding them for interrogation! I think the intention of my statement was quite clear. Are you really saying that unless an organization already exists and is engaged in activity we shouldn't "discuss the validity of an organization's behavior"?!
I understand why one might be confused. There are several lines of discussion in this thread...
(1) Did ELF do it?
(2) Does ELF even exist?
(3) Are there times when this sort of violence might be justified?
(4) Is ELF a government plot to discredit environmentalism?
I don't know enough... I don't think anyone knows enough... information to discuss points 1, 2, and 4. It would be almost pure speculation. I find point 3 very interesting and I am still shocked that there are intelligent environmentalists who would, if ELF exists, applaud their acts of violence and not worry if ELF occasionally strikes an inappropriate target.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:06 pm
05 Mar 2008
Pour n'en rien dire des americains.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:14 pm
05 Mar 2008
When someone makes a decision to torch a building they also make the decision to kill or harm innocent people. ELF and those who claim to act on their behalf cannot wiggle out of this by saying they have no intention of harming humans or other animals. They are responsible for the consequences, intentional or not, of their actions.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:59 pm
05 Mar 2008
One more thing... Violence is an action with the intent to harm another. Whether that harm is physical or property damage, it IS still harm. The intent is still there.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 12:33 am
06 Mar 2008
Violence is an action with the intent to harm another. Whether that harm is physical or property damage, it IS still harm.
So if I were to claim a title deed to the whole world, if it were, by law, MY PROPERTY, then hurting anything in the world would be an injury against ME. And that, for the "nonviolent" propertarians, would be "violence."
However, if I decide I wish to destroy all of the living creatures on MY PROPERTY so that I can, say, erect a copper mine, or create subdivisions for commodified real estate with its monotonous "ecosystems" of lawn grass, then that's not "violence" because, after all, it's MY PROPERTY. Anyone trying to stop me from doing so, however, is doing "violence" against ME.
Property IS violence.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:51 am
06 Mar 2008
All I did was offer my definition of violence. You didn't have to get all "medieval" on my soul, mon.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:01 am
06 Mar 2008
Non-violently.
As you can see we have chased the purveyors of violence away. Nothing to see here, informants and provacateurs, just move on.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:04 am
06 Mar 2008
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/inde ...
Not, or not yes.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:12 am
06 Mar 2008
However, that says nothin' of the web site host company or various searh engines.
Permalink
2wheeler Posted 2:56 am
06 Mar 2008
Meanwhile it seems there is general consensus that ad hominem attacks are a waste of webspace and don't further the dialogue in a civil manner.
Isn't ELF a movie in the dramatic tradition of The Santa Clause?
I do dispute the notion that one needs to move to suburbia "to raise their children", as the builder of one of these homes seems to have postulated. Sustainability needs to be fostered in place for all age groups in a manner that does not equate to undue dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:36 am
06 Mar 2008
Believe me, I'd love to discuss the 20% of things we disagree on. We could start with the partialness of anarchy philosophy and the child-like counter-productiveness of throwing bottles at cops and a history and psychology lesson on nonviolence, and regressiveness of the radical environmental movement.
And I would love to explain how it was YOU who cut off the dialog early on when I asked genuine questions about documentation on ELF and received an insulting reply that cut off the conversation.
But instead I'd really, really, much rather focus on the 80% that we DO agree on: We have to ween society into a sustainable position with the biosphere. It may not look like the picture you want to see or that I want to see. It may not use the language or economic politics you favor or the 21st Century sheen I favor, but we all agree it has to happen soon and a super majority of the population has to play along.
So, what if we put our two different styles to work and move on in this endeavor?
- Christopher
PS: And yes I am an elitist. I KNOW that you and I know more about the relationship between mankind and the biosphere than a purposefully ignorant citizen who purposefully looks the other way. I include friends and family in this description.
There isnt enough time to rationalize with EVERYBODY on the slow train. So yes, "tricking" them with awesome low-carbon producing products and lifestyles and money saving efficiencies and profitable green businesses that seem "cool" in the culture, is definitely a strategy. And I'm proud to be a part of it.
I'm a video editor, and when I have an opportunity to use a shot that makes something green look "cool", then I do it, adding my drop to the cultural bucket.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:44 am
06 Mar 2008
Or is Love something that you have discarded as bizarre, antique and obsolete?
Pax, Christopher. Yes, we should meet and talk at some point, that would be lovely.
Then again, I may be the only person in the US who liked the (Jesuit) Georgetown alumnus Bill Clinton's notorious sentence, "It depends on what the meaning of 'Is' is." (As though the Jesuits indoctrinate their pupils!)
2wheeler, good point about the idiocy behind identifying suburbia with the American Dream.
Of course, back in the 1850s, Thoreau already understood that most things associated with America and the American Dream were not just idiotic but positively destructive.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 2:00 pm
06 Mar 2008
Just wondering ...
Permalink
christophersj Posted 2:58 pm
06 Mar 2008
You're not going to find anyone in here who supports felling 1000 acres of forest.
Your also not going to find a majority of environmentalists who support wanton destruction of property.
The whole gestalt of "you are either a radical with us or your a poser and a fake environmentalist" is just absurd.
I know you're not saying this directly and so I apologize for the leap. But you imply it.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 7:54 pm
06 Mar 2008
Nobody needs "support" to fell 1000 acres of forest. All they really need is to have the property laws on their side. This, I presume, is how MAXXAM corporation did it.
Your also not going to find a majority of environmentalists who support wanton destruction of property.
Easy recipe for environmental destruction: divide the environment into "property"; it's gone.
The whole gestalt of "you are either a radical with us or your a poser and a fake environmentalist" is just absurd.
So is environmentalism about the identities and egos of the environmentalists, or is it about what happens in an actual, real-life, environment out there?
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 8:38 pm
06 Mar 2008
Since the "strawman" word has already been let loose on this thread, without IMHO any real understanding of what a "straw man" is, I suppose it's a little less impertinent, then, for me to ask what "throwing bottles at cops" has to do with anything?
And I would love to explain how it was YOU who cut off the dialog early on when I asked genuine questions about documentation on ELF and received an insulting reply that cut off the conversation.
Did I actually forbid you from responding? If so, then why are you responding now? Don't you see me down there next to the plug, threatening to unplug your computer if you reply? What, I'm not there? Then how do you figure that I "cut off dialog"?
Now go back and look at my reply. Does this reply mention you by name or identify you personally (except by quoting your post)? Is the fact that you took my reply "personally" really my fault? Not that I really care; see, I start from the presupposition that debate is NOT about me, whereas you...
But instead I'd really, really, much rather focus on the 80% that we DO agree on: We have to ween society into a sustainable position with the biosphere.
Yes, we are the superheroes who make history move. And, as you suggested, persuading everyone will be a long, hard process. Eventually, however, everyone will be on our side. But here's the catch; by that time, everything will be dead because, in our slow, steady efforts to "persuade" everyone by selling them consumer products, the consumer-society itself will have forced the disintegration of Earth's ecosystems. So we will all be environmentalists, but there will at that point be nothing left to defend. Check out Mark Lynas' book Six Degrees. After five degrees of heating, world society itself collapses; but at some earlier point the process becomes a runaway process, with smaller devastations contributing to bigger ones. The melting of the icecaps, for instance, will greatly reduce the Earth's albedo, thus resulting in far greater absorptions of solar energy than would otherwise be the case, thus making Earth much hotter. Also see the recent piece on Lynas in the Guardian. Lynas, who has read all of the pertinent scientific literature, figures world-society has maybe eight years to solve the problem. The problem, however, is not really solved by persuading consumers of anything but, rather, by keeping the fossil fuels in the ground. And that's something capitalist society won't do. The reason that world-society burns crude oil, for instance, at the rate of 85 million barrels per day (multiply that by 42 gallons per barrel to get a more down-home number) is because, under capitalism, doing so is profitable. Never mind its foreclosure of the future.
Now, I am not really in a position to defend those who would destroy "property" (which is, after all, only that land which its "owners" have stolen from the Earth, not to mention the native populations who inhabited and took care of Washington State before the Europeans came and named it after their favorite dead President.) I, after all, don't have the ganas to do what they did. But I can at least sympathize with their impatience to "get on with" the violent end waiting for the great majorities in world-society when (at some future point) its members realize that their consumerist, capitalist, so-called civilization has screwed the planet so badly that there really isn't much time left even for them. Do you seriously imagine that your disdain for their tactics has any meaning for them?
It may not use the language or economic politics you favor or the 21st Century sheen I favor,
To repeat myself again: to say that something is "21st century" does not constitute a compliment. The war against Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the mass desertions of America's profit-obsessed health care system, genetic engineering of our food w/o labels, and the collapse of the housing bubble all have that "21st century sheen." Shall we, then, favor these things?
As for "economic politics," more commonly known as political economy, well, political economy is about the relationship between people. To give up on the hope for a better political economy is to give up. Even Albert Camus' novel "The Plague" is a testament to the virtues of not giving up.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:36 pm
06 Mar 2008
I want to criticize the actions of the Fascist Environmental Defense Organization for all of its attacks on government programs. Their desire to enslave all of us good thinking folk is disgusting. I call on all Gristers to denounce them immediately, and their attempts to combine environmentalism with fascism!!!
I await the denunciations!!!!
patrick in Beijing (get it yet??)
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:26 pm
06 Mar 2008
Can I call you Patrick?
I hereby denounce the notion of combining environmentalism and fascism. I believe the efforts to preserve the diversity of life that sustains our civilization must be conducted in a manner the takes into consideration the preservation of human rights, free speech, the dignity of each individual, et cetera. A top down approach by which a fascist government might impose protection of the environment and life in harmony with the rest of nature would not be a sustainable solution. First, there is the inevitable corruption of the elite power structure. Second, there is the inevitable arrogance of the elite power structure that prevents them from listening to knowledgeable individuals with different opinion. Third, people would eventually rebel and the result would be a far worse than what we see now.
I do not know if such an organization exists, but I think it would be a bad idea and should be discouraged.
WiscIdea (get it yet??)
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:53 pm
06 Mar 2008
Look at what has happened here? The POSSIBILITY that so-called environmentalists torched a couple houses has set people who generally agree we have to find ways to preserve biodiversity and live in harmony with the rest of nature against one another. Intelligent people are wasting their energy arguing about strategies none of them would actually carry out themselves. They should be discussing viable solutions. Others are observing this conversation and, probably, frightened by the fact that there are environmentalist defending the use of arson as a tool. This further undermines the work of the majority of environmentalists, who work peacefully to educate and motivate people to adopt environmentally friendly views and habits.
This is the fruit of resorting to violence.
And this is just one case where someone thinks their ideas are so important and so ignored by the rest of humanity that they must resort to violence. What if we ALL, when ignored by those around us, resorted to violence? Would you really want to live in that world? Would the rest of nature be better off?
Protection of the environment, in my opinion, is not compatible with the use of violence.
Why didn't the ELF activists, if they exist, chain themselves to the construction equipment or to the houses to get publicity and show people how much they truly value living in harmony with the rest of nature?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:58 pm
06 Mar 2008
Instead, ELf, if it exists, provided the media with a far more fascinating story to present in the newspapers, on the TV, and on the internet. The public gets to see crazy environmentalists torching houses instead of developers destroying wetlands. Not a very good use of the media.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:21 am
07 Mar 2008
The POSSIBILITY that so-called environmentalists torched a couple houses has set people who generally agree we have to find ways to preserve biodiversity and live in harmony with the rest of nature against one another. Intelligent people are wasting their energy arguing about strategies none of them would actually carry out themselves. They should be discussing viable solutions.
How is time wasted on debate about the environment? It seems to me that, given the general nature of the global capitalist system (especially in its most pernicious, neoliberal stage) that getting people to debate strategy is getting them to reflect further upon the ineffectiveness of current strategies for "saving the Earth." Have we "saved the Earth" yet? Are we really "saving the Earth" at present? Perhaps the real waste of time is in debates which end with the conclusion of, "we should sell everyone a magic environment-saving device, and then the environment will be saved."
Others are observing this conversation and, probably, frightened by the fact that there are environmentalist defending the use of arson as a tool. This further undermines the work of the majority of environmentalists, who work peacefully to educate and motivate people to adopt environmentally friendly views and habits.
Now, arsonists are, arguably, asking for it. They should expect the full weight of the US military-capitalist juggernaut to come down upon them, to be tried under Bush's vast expansion of "anti-terrorist" law and sentenced to prison for a few decades, or maybe just to be sent to the CIA's global gulag of prisons. The thing of it is this: from their perspective, the violence of the system is always expanding. Perhaps these arsonists wish to feel, for one brief moment (and as the rest of us are looking 24/7 for ways to avoid getting screwed), to "fight back." Whatever. To quote Jimi Hendrix, "I got my own world to live through/ And I ain't gonna copy you."
And this is just one case where someone thinks their ideas are so important and so ignored by the rest of humanity that they must resort to violence. What if we ALL, when ignored by those around us, resorted to violence?
Indeed it is easy in this world to worry about how to avoid being the victims of violence. What are the statistics, again, on sexual rape? Spousal battery? Police abuse? And how about those realities of war? The question that remains, then, is one of what counts as "violence."
Why didn't the ELF activists, if they exist, chain themselves to the construction equipment or to the houses to get publicity and show people how much they truly value living in harmony with the rest of nature?
This is a good practical question, and it deserves to be asked of those who would contemplate arson. I suppose the answers you'd get would vary with each situation.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:16 am
07 Mar 2008
Dear Wiscidea,
Of course you may call me Patrick (or even patrick (smile)).
You actually denounced a non-existant organization?? Wow!! I am impressed. Props to you.
But the problem is this. Non existant organizations are straw-men. We use them to distract us from real organizations and real ideas.
Discussing the mythical ELF helps us avoid discussing what should be the real issues. One is global warming, another is whether houses like this qualify as green, a third is suburban sprawl, a fourth is tactics to change society.
While arson is terrible (or silly if you prefer), it is unlikely that organizations exist to promote it. And there is little evidence of such. There will always be deranged individuals who will commit acts of violence because they hear voices in their heads, they are immature and lack enough education to find alternative outlets for their anger, they work for the US government, and so on.
But we should be careful to avoid creating imaginary demons (except for fun). There is enough of that in the world. We need instead to focus on the real things that are happening.
This is an old political tactic (still in use, sadly). It involves creating a minor diversion as a means of distracting from discussion of the major issues. (Does Clinton show too much cleavage, is Obama a Muslim?)
This kind of discussion reminds me of the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
As someone who doesn't believe in angels, it seems moot to me.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:24 am
07 Mar 2008
The discussion on this thread is one example of why arsons such as this are not a useful tactic. No one is really discussing the housing, the environment, global warming, sprawl, or environmental justice. Instead the discussion has been diverted to the question of violence as a tactic.
Such diversion shows that the tactic has failed. Unless the promotion of such discussion was the main desired result!!
Even if one believed in violence as a potential tactic, this kind of violence is counter-productive.
1) The houses will be rebuilt by the insurance money (if not there, then elsewhere).
2) Since the resources were destroyed, more resources will be required to re-build.
3) It may actually boost the local construction industry and create jobs.
4) It has not protected nor saved the environment in any way.
5) It has not created support for the environmental movement in any way, au contraire, it has reduced support.
If there was such a movement as the ELF, they would spend their time preparing educational materials, knocking on doors, holding house parties (and spaghetti dinners and picnics), collecting signatures on petitions, building local opposition to oppose such housing, and finally putting pressure on the local government.
The violence committed so far is an expression of frustration and immature posturing. As a tactic, it has clearly not been thought through.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:33 pm
07 Mar 2008
2) Since the resources were destroyed, more resources will be required to re-build.
That assuming that they do rebuild...they may not. Or they may build it in a different way that requires less resources.
3) It may actually boost the local construction industry and create jobs.
If it was a larger-scale attack, it might. But it was just a few large McMansions...I don't think it'll have much of an effect on the construction industry, even at the local scale.
4) It has not protected nor saved the environment in any way.
Once again, that'll depend on whether or not the decide to rebuild, and how they decide to rebuild.
5) It has not created support for the environmental movement in any way, au contraire, it has reduced support.
I'm not quite sure ya can claim that. Some people may publicly decry the attacks, but there could also be an equal number of people who may be secretly contemplating copycat actions. Likewise (if the ELF exists) then it's gotten at least some publicity from this incident, and it'll be more likely that like-minded individuals will support their cause as a result.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:00 pm
07 Mar 2008
Dear Tasermons Partner,
Good points. But even if they do rebuild, and in a greener way, the total resources must be added to those destroyed, so it will come out a negative. But you may be arguing that in the long run, it could be more resource friendly, you are correct. Still, not much of a resource bargain.
And if they don't rebuild? Well, if they give the money to an environmental cause. But more likely, they will build SOMEPLACE.
You are correct about the jobs, no major impact. Still, for the 20 or so folks who rebuild, it is money, real money in their pockets.
As far as building support. It seems to me that whatever support they derive, they will lose more among moderates and those who object to violence. So, I don't understand how they can come out ahead in the support department?
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
titanTv Posted 12:57 am
11 Mar 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:24 am
11 Mar 2008
Re whether violence is ever appropriate, Legume Sam said it best: there are clearly times when non-violence will not be effective and those who want significant change or who don't want to get crushed by violence must resort to stronger means. Were U.S. slaves freed by non-violence? No, they were freed by a war that killed more U.S. citizens than any other. Were the French peasants freed from rule by the aristocracy, which was causing them so much misery, by non-violence? No, they were freed from it by violent revolution. These were both significant and permanent changes. Was Hitler stopped by non-violence? No, he was stopped by a war so violent it's called a "World War."
And, as Sam and I have said, what about the extreme violence that humans have caused and are still causing to everything non-human? Why is there no outrage here about that? And why is destruction of property even close to being as important or harmful as that? Sam is also right here: property is violence when plants, animals, the land, air, and/or water are turned into property. THAT is the violence with which we should be concerned, not the phony, so-called violence of burning a few structures that were not even being lived in.
Permalink
mountaingirl Posted 12:19 pm
02 Apr 2008
now, maybe folks will begin to understand how those in appalachia feel everyday as their homeplaces are being destroyed by the likes of Massey, Arch and Peabody Coal.
Permalink