Month: September 2002

UPI ‘Journalist’ Defends Ecoterrorism

One of the things that frustrates me to no end is that very few reporters publish their e-mail addresses, so it is impossible for me to contact them and let them know just how inadequate they are. This morning it is United Press International’s Dan Whipple who wrote an op-ed on environmental terrorism that soft pedal’s the phenomenon based largely on his inability to actually do any research on the topic.

According to Whipple,

Despite a bonfire of publicity, and apocalyptic warnings from property rights activists and congressional committees, the list of ELF’s “accomplishments” is small: Two “actions” in 1996, three in 1997, eight in 1998, three in 1999, nine in 2000 and four in 2001.

In fact, ELF committed at least 22 actions in 2001 causing at least $1.6 million in damage (the actual damage total was probably closer to double that). How do I know this? Because the North American Liberation Front Press Office published a report listing all 2001 actions. Apparently Whipple prefers to just pull his numbers out of the air rather than go to the source.

Moreover, Whipple wonders if ELF terrorism is really terrorism,

Having pulled up a few survey stakes myself, I’m not in a position to take the high moral ground. But is it terrorism? Is even burning a restaurant — and we all know how tough it is to find a good restaurant — on the same level as blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Okla., or leveling the World Trade Center?

Is burning down an abortion clinic or a black church the same thing as flying a plane into a building? Of course not, but it is nonetheless still terrorism, as is environmental terrorism.

I also find it odd that UPI has hired as an environmental journalist someone who admits engaging in illegal acts to disrupt logging. Would they hire someone who admitted illegal acts in anti-abortion protests to cover women’s issues?

Whipple continues,

There is an enormous difference between principled civil disobedience — including monkeywrenching — and murder. The word “terrorism” has been thrown around too loosely.

I wonder if he’d feel that way if people burned down his house or the office where he works because of ideological reasons. Somehow, I doubt it.

Source:

Blue Planet: Ecoterrorism redefined. Dan Whipple, United Press International, Sept. 13, 2002.

Jonah Goldberg’s Straw Man about the Importance of Web Logs

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg has an article in the American Enterprise in which he tries to bring the hype about weblogs down a notch or two. But Goldberg seems to be tilting at windmills. Goldberg’s thesis can be summed up by the final paragraph of his article,

Should the marketplace show its appreciation by generating significant revenue for a blogger, you know what will happen? A big newspaper or magazine will offer him or her a job. ThatÂ’s why McDonaldÂ’s sells fajitas now. And thatÂ’s why bloggers arenÂ’t going to put serious media publications out of business.

But who, other than Dave Winer and Doc Searls, thinks that weblogs are going to replace the traditional media anytime soon?

What weblogs are going to do is gradually take the sort of niche market that magazines like National Review and The Nation currently occupy. Goldberg vastly underestimates the reach that weblogs have in those niches.

Look at the whole Michael Bellesisles controversy, for example. The National Review has certainly done a lot of original reporting on that controversy, but when Glenn Reynolds posted a link to a PDFed law review article on the topic, around 100,000 people (including myself) downloaded it. Does National Review have that kind of reach? I doubt it?

Besides, most of the right and left weblogs represent versions of liberalism and conservatism that often fly in the face of the orthodoxy that afflicts The National Review and The Nation and acts as a filter on what they publish (besides which, those magazines are just plain boring. When Reynolds posted about how much more fun conservatives have, surely he wasn’t talking about the boring folks who inhabit NR’s universe).

More 9/11 Nonsense Statements

First Presbyterian Rev. Gretchen Graf managed to create a predictable controversey with a speech she gave at a memorial for 9/11 in Grand Forks, North Dakota. At that event, Graf opened her speech by saying,

One year ago today, 19 young men on a mission profoundly changed our lives and the life of our nation. This was an act of faith and courage, a carefully planned statement against what they saw as the evils of a corrupt and oppressive nation. They were willing to give their lives so that the world would see their outrage.

I suppose she thinks nutball fanatics who torch abortion clinics are engaging in acts of faith and courage as well.

Anyway, Graf tries to convince a reporter at the Grand Forks Herald that this quote needs to be understood in the context of her entire speech, but her other comments suggest it stands alone pretty well.

From the final two paragraphs of the Grand Forks Herald Story,

She avoids referring to the terrorists and their actions as evil, Graf admits. “I will say what they did does not promote good. But I want to make it clear, in no way do I condone what they did. But I think we miss the opportunity if we don’t try to understand why they did it.

“We may disagree with what they believe their faith has led them to do, but for them, it was a faith-based action,” Graf said. “I’m not brave enough to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building, knowing that I would die. They gave their lives to make their point. It may be misplaced courage, but it wasn’t an act of weakness.”

That is the worst possible reaction, and I don’t see how non-brain dead adults can make such an argument.

Okay, a small group of men feel they’re not getting enough attention for their pet cause. So they blow up a building, and then Graf and those who agree with her suddenly do all they can to understand the pet cause.

What’s the message? Terrorism works. As Alan Dershowitz told Salon.Com recently, this is the one of the reasons that Palestinian terrorism has escalated so much over the past 30 years — because it worked at drawing the world’s attention (especially in Europe).

Sorry, but I don’t think Al Qaeda’s slaughter of civilians requires us to think deeply about their cause anymore than Timothy McVeigh’s slaughter of civilians requires us to think deeply about his cause.

Source:

REMEMBERING SEPT. 11: Pastor’s speech at 9/11 observance sparks woman’s outrage. Stephen J. Lee, Grand Forks Herald, September 12, 2002.

The Stan Lee Solution

This turns out to be many months old, but just randomly surfing today was the first time I’d seen Meryl Yourish’s The Stan Lee Solution:

The problem: The world media is extremely biased against Israel, choosing to yammer about massacres without evidence while subsequently ignoring the evidence that there was no massacre. People like Robert Fisk make up facts on a regular basis, while Oxford poets discuss their desires to see “Brooklyn-born Jews” shot. American newspapers ignore major pro-Israel rallies and put on the front page pro-Palestinian rallies, even if only sparsely attended.

The solution: Hulk smash puny newspaper men! Hulk smash puny editors! Hulk hate Daily Bugle! Daily Bugle mean to Hulk! Hulk SMASH!

And she’s got more problems that all involve similar solutions by the green guy. ROTFLMAO!

Unloading on Salon.Com’s Scott Rosenberg

Salon.Com’s managing editor Scott Rosenberg made the mistake of castigating weblogger Damian Penny, who was the first to draw attention to Salon’s 9/11 feature that includes dozens of tasteless and crass thoughts about the terrorist attacks. In one letter, for example, an anonymous writer complains that he hates his dad and wishes he hadn’t survived the World Trade Center attack. Another letter simply says, “2001 was a great year for me; I hated the twin towers and I hated the Taliban and now they’re both gone!”

Rosenberg offers an extremely lame justification for running this feature on the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks, and the warbloggers are unloading on him in the comments section of his weblog.

Penny asked what Salon.Com could have been thinking running this, and Rosenberg responds that,

We were thinking precisely this: That an orthodoxy has coalesced around 9/11, and that one good role of journalism is to puncture orthodoxies. That the range of human response to 9/11 was a lot wider than that reflected in the media orgy of 9/11 retrospectives. And that it’s probably a lot healthier to air such responses than to pretend that they don’t exist.

The “one good role of journalism is to puncture orthodoxies” is a standard excuse used by journalists to justify bad decisions. I’m surprised that Rosenberg didn’t follow it up with the other standard excuse, that the American public has “a right to know” (you know, CBS had to show the Daniel Pearl videotape — the public had a right to know. Didn’t have anything to do with ratings, no sir).

Rosenberg then takes issue with Penny’s suggestion that it would be a good thing if Salon.Com went bankrupt.

But before you wish that Salon goes bankrupt, may I ask how you pay your bills, and how you’d feel if someone wished the same on the source of your livelihood? When did political disagreement turn into a license to wish that your opponents lose their jobs, or worse (cf. Ann Coulter’s comment, “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building”)? Good night.

See, this is where it’s obvious that the whole “puncturing orthodoxies” line is nonsense. When Salon.Com publishes dozens of tasteless letters about 9/11, it’s simply doing its job. But when someone directs a mildly offensive statement at Salon, all bets are off the table. How dare this mere weblogger try to puncture Salon.Com’s orthodoxies. That’s just uncalled for.