BLOGORAMA- updated 8/3/08

POST ONE


Anyone who made it to the sixth grade probably remembers thrilling to the account of the Boston Tea Party in their history books. That night in 1773 when American colonists invaded a ship in Boston Harbor, and dumped 45 tons of tea to protest unfair taxes by the British, is revered as an example of social dissent and patriotism. This dramatic chapter in our past taught us that certain principles (in this case liberty and independence) are more precious than property and institutions.

This lesson in civic values seems newly relevant today, as our government takes an increasingly hard line on property sabotage by environmental activists. It seems what was admirable and patriotic about social protest in our colonial past no longer holds in the present.

Like those angry Bostonians who destroyed a boatload of British tea, today’s radical environmentalists target interests that have symbolic meaning for their struggle. Suburban sprawl, SUVs, the logging industry, and bioengineering labs are some of the iconic objects of their sabotage.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Patriot Act, the federal government has stepped up their offense on these eco-motivated acts of arson and vandalism. Playing on the public’s fear of random violence—and driven by a desperate need to capture “terrorists” of any stripe—it has cleverly demonized radical eco-activism as “domestic terrorism.”

This rabid persecution of radical environmentalism is playing out in the media and courtrooms with a shocking intensity and bias. Environmentalists refer to it as Green Scare, citing frightening parallels with the Communist-baiting, McCarthy-era Red Scare. They vehemently reject the government’s definition of crimes against property—with no loss of life—as “terrorism.” As Jeffrey St. Clair wryly notes, this draconian portrait of ecotage isn’t just about national security, it’s about defending corporate interests:

Even the feds can’t cite a single death resulting from an alleged act of eco-terrorism. But that doesn’t matter. After the horrors of New Orleans, it should be clear to all that it’s the protection of property, not people, that really gets the feds going.

What’s most appalling is that the court can apply a “terrorism enhancement” statute to crimes of vandalism committed as social protest, but defined as terrorism. This can multiply a prison sentence six-fold. As St. Clair laments,

Destruction of property in the name of a political cause is now deemed an act of terrorism that can carry with it prison terms equivalent to first degree murder…

There’s a cruel irony in the government’s punitive sentencing of environmental protest:

The same arson or sabotage that would get anyone else a mischief charge and a suspended sentence is considered domestic terrorism if committed by people who care about the environment. (Emerald City Scion)

No doubt in some cases the vandalism and arson committed by green activists is more extreme than good old-fashioned tea-dumping…and deserves to be punished by law. But a double-standard of justice that ups the penalties for environmentally-motivated protest is blatantly undemocratic. If a prankster only gets 6 months’ probation for spray painting “CLEAN ME” on your dirty SUV, why should a green activist get 5 years in prison for scrawling “POLLUTER” on it? Punishment based on ideology has no place in our Constitution’s guarantee of “equal justice for all.”

Having failed spectacularly at combating genuine political and religious terrorism, the government’s witch hunt of environmental activists comes off as a misplaced and desperate attempt to appear tough on “domestic terrorism.” But it’s a trumped up war it’s fighting. This blog examines some of the battles being waged in this war.


POST TWO


One of the most engaging and articulate bloggers on radical environmental activism is the journalist Will Potter. Based in Washington, D.C., where he is pursuing a master’s degree in writing at Johns Hopkins University, Will blogs weekly, often bi-weekly, about animal rights and topical green issues on his website, GreenIsTheNewRed.com. As a respected journalist whose work has appeared in mainstream textbooks and newspapers, and is referenced in non-partisan web news articles, Will manages the near-impossible: to wear his radical sympathies on his sleeve and remain a legitimate, respected voice in today’s heated environmental debates. His blog has an authority ranking of 73 on Technorati.

The dozens of essays featured on Will's website demonstrate his gift for synthesizing facts into insight, and tooling insight into powerful argument. A post from April, 2006 entitled, “The New War on Terror,” is probably one of his best known essays. It’s included in the popular Thomas Gale series Opposing Viewpoints, which pairs pro and con arguments on controversial topics; it also appeared in Z and Counterpunch. This essay analyzes the FBI’s pursuit of seven activists who shut down an animal testing lab through lobbying and grass roots demonstrations. Although the activists committed no violence or vandalism, the government indicted them as “terrorists.” Will brilliantly skewers the ludicrous logic behind this “terrorist” charge:

That’s like saying the Montgomery bus boycott, a catalyst of the civil rights movement, was terrorism because it aimed to "intentionally damage and cause the loss of property" of the bus company.

He concludes that the “War on Terror” is actually a front for corporate interests:

This is what the War on Terror has become: the Bush Administration can’t find real terrorists abroad, yet it spends law enforcement time and resources protecting corporations from political activists.

A recent post from March 2008, entitled “Before the Smoke Even Clears, Bringing Out the T-Word,” showcases Will’s rousing but cool-headed tack in the environmental debate. When four mansions in a model home development outside Seattle burned to the ground on March 3, investigators and the press rushed to judgment, claiming the fire was the work of “eco-terrorists.” Not surprised that the FBI would stoop to unfounded speculation, Will aims his sword instead at the press:

Nobody injured, nobody home. But before the smoke had even settled, before the ashes had even cooled, before the Feds had even sorted through the debris, a chant of “Terrorists! Terrorists! Terrorists!” had started rising from politicians, corporations and, most disturbingly, the press.

Will claims that the headlines of the L.A. Times, N.Y. Times and the London Telegraph rushed to scream “eco-terrorists!”—despite the fact that no incendiary devices were found at the scene. He condemns these newspapers for not raising the alternative possibility—that the homebuilders set the arson themselves, because the houses had been sitting on the market for months. By the end of his post, the astute Mr. Potter has indulged in some indicting of his own.

Obviously GreenIsTheNewRed.com is a touchstone for this writer, and will be a major source of information and inspiration for this blog. I expect I’ll be checking in with Will regularly, for his authoritative and trenchant take on breaking green news.


POST THREE


If she was a track star, Judith Lewis would compete in both the 26 mile marathon and the 50 yard dash. She’s a respected journalist who writes in-depth articles on complex environmental issues for the L.A. Weekly—and she’s also a witty, engaging blogger. Her blog AnotherGreenWorld is a forum for her personal, shorthand takes on green affairs. Judith began blogging four years ago and tackles an array of topics, from nuclear energy and alternative biofuels to eco-activism and environmental politics.

Judith’s posts are fact-based arguments, and as such they don’t take many poetic turns—but they do feature powerful, hard-hitting language and a blistering logic. There are a number of recurring literary devices: snazzy titles, conversational opening remarks, serial questions that construct her case, alliteration and word repetition for dramatic effect, and punchy concluding sentences.

A case in point is "Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back In The Tap Water," from August 2007. In this essay Judith recounts her eco-minded switch from bottled water to tap water, and her subsequent appall over the government’s impending fluoridation plan.

True to form, the blog’s title is a wry allusion to an exasperating dilemma. And its opening lines set its withering tone:

That nutjob senator from Oklahoma had it wrong. It’s not climate change that’s the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American People. It’s bottled water.

Judith uses sarcasm to evoke the impossibly long journey of such so-called natural water, “transported from Australia/Fiji/England/France/Venus in plastic.” Then she repeats the word “plastic,” evoking a sense of its ubiquitous danger:

…after reading about plastic in the oceans, plastic in the landfills, the environmental cost…of plastic bottles…I’ve become a tap-water fascist.

Judith playfully admits, “I gently lecture everybody…,” and she proceeds to cloak a bunch of dry facts about bottled water in a first-person recitation. “I recite statistics about…,” “I remind them that,” etc. Casting boring information in friendly confidences, Judith makes her complex case against bottled water engaging …and easy to agree with.

The second phase of her argument begins with a metaphor:

But just as this movement (of drinking tap water) was gaining steam, along comes the Metropolitan Water District, hell-bent on going through with its four-year plan to fluoridate Southern California’s tap water.

The image of a steam engine stopped cold by the Metropolitan Water District effectively conjures the overpowering negative impact the fluoridation plan will have on tap water.

Judith then frames her position against fluoridation in a series of rhetorical questions:

Why?. . Does it matter if children…get little white spots on their enamel…called ‘enamel fluorosis’? Or if several studies have strongly suggested that fluoridated drinking water may disrupt thyroid function…?

The alliteration of the phrase “several studies have strongly suggested” adds to the prose's dramatic impact; this subtly underscores Judith’s argument, as does the use of repetition in her conclusion: "This is crazy. The more I read about it, the crazier it gets."

Judith posits that the American Dental Association is behind the fluoridation plan—because it will prevent low-income people from getting cavities, and thus free up dentists to perform expensive cosmetic procedures on their better-off patients. She tugs on her audience’s heartstrings by linking her charges against the ADA to two hot-button minorities—Indians and children:

Better that adults should come in to have their teeth capped…than that a dentist should have to fill another child’s cavity on an Indian reservation in Alaska.

It’s an effective, if clichéd, manipulation.

Another post, entitled "Enviros to Container Ships: Slow the Fuck Down," employs similar literary devices in its argument that sonar exercises by the Navy are the likely cause of whale disorientation and death along California’s coast. With its eye-catching obscenity, the post’s title is attention-grabbing to say the least. The column’s opening lines then set Judith's familiar conversational tone:

Okay, those aren’t exactly the words the Center for Biological Diversity used in its…press release today. But it’s the basic sentiment.

As in the previous post, Judith builds drama with devices like alliteration:

If you live in Southern California and pay any attention at all, you know that three blue whales…have turned up dead…

And with word repetition:

This exact sonar has killed other whales before…Three of those dead whales had bloodied eardrums, another had bleeding on the brain.

Just as she argued against the government's fluoridation plan with probing questions, so does Judith protest the Navy's sonar exercises:

What causes a deftly echolocating beast to collide with a speeding tanker that can be heard three days away?... How the hell are they plowing into ships…?

She dismisses alternative excuses for the whales’ problems, hammering away with still more questions: “Could it be that…? But has…? Or could it be that…?.” Her final query drips with sarcasm: “Or could it be that our brave Navy has been blasting noise into the ocean for three weeks…?”

Judith ends the post with her signature flourish, this time with the catchy brevity of a bumper-sticker:

Stop Navy sonar testing now, and in all whale migration seasons in the future. It’s insane.

The intelligence and passion behind Judith's blog posts make for an incisive and exciting voice in the often dim and dreary eco-blogosphere.