[I don't usually send out discussions about globalization, but since this case involved Politech, I'll make an exception. Thomas Leavitt, who is quoted extensively below, says: "I don't have time, immediately, to translate my immediate response into a worthwhile communication. I do, however, have some comments that I feel would further the dialogue, and I will convey them at a later time." You can find Thomas' earlier post below . Background: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=chuck0 --Declan] ********* From: "Aaron Lukas" <aaronlat_private> To: <politechat_private>, <declanat_private> Cc: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavittat_private> References: <F23d28kIN4MmXKCnzNw00019dbcat_private> Subject: Re: FC: FBI is investigating an alleged "Black Bloc" threat sent to Politech Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:58:02 -0400 [Note: I meant to send this to Politech over a week ago, but I destroyed my knee in a soccer game and was hospitalized. So here's my response to Thomas Leavitt (and others who emailed my directly) in regards to my National Review article. apl.] Declan: As a matter of policy, I generally don't respond to unsolicited emails. Practicality demands this: If I wrote to everyone who emails, I wouldn't have time to do anything else. I also hesitate, as many of my would-be correspondents obviously do not, to waste precious spare time tapping out gassy manifestos that the recipient will immediately discard. I'm breaking my rule this time not only because of the volume of responses I've received, but because of the vehemence of my detractors. Indeed, the anti-globalization faithful seem to thrive on rage (or "righteous anger," as the Rukus Society training manual puts it). Even for basically sensible folks like Thomas Leavitt, light-hearted insults become "slander" and "a deliberate attempt to create a false idea of [the Rukus Society's] mission and purpose, due to their extraordinary effectiveness" (snicker). And here I thought I was merely poking fun at silly people who do silly things like hang themselves from billboards, march with oversized puppets, or chain themselves to trees. Sometimes ridicule is directed at the ridiculous and isn't part of a broader smear campaign based on fear. Clearly the tight underwear crowd needs to lighten up. None of this is meant to imply that Leavitt isn't a smart guy. After all, he founded a Web company and is a friend of yours--how dumb could he be? His response--which I think you distributed on Politech--was among the more thoughtful and substantive I received, which is why I'm taking the time to address his points. It's perplexing to me that sharp fellows like Mr. Leavitt buy into the anti-globalization nonsense, but that's a different story. On the other hand, not everyone in the "movement" is a deep thinker. Quite the contrary. When they're not worrying about fluoridation or metal strips in dollar bills, Leavitt's ideological allies are fatuously cursing the evil--and greedy, don't forget "greedy"--corporations that allegedly force them to buy hormone-saturated burgers, high-top basketball shoes, and Michael Jackson action figures. (Actually, the critics are too clever to have fallen for corporate mind control tricks themselves, but they fret that everyone else has been duped.) Such behavior is not indicative of great minds at work. On the other other hand, it's unfair for me to say that everybody on the anti-globalization scene is a crank. Obviously, that's not true. But you'll forgive me if I don't go searching for pearls among swine. I'm not going to apologize for calling protestors nut-jobs or lunatics or snot-nosed crybabies because that's what *most* of them are. I hate to break it to the Rukus Society, but the world just doesn't take you that seriously. And well the world should not. To the extent that there is any economic scholarship associated with the anti-globalization movement, it's limited to laughably inaccurate "research" papers (sneer quotes mandatory) published by activist groups and a few isolated professors in academia, many of who's work was long ago discredited. There are, of course, some legitimate issues to be discussed, but few, if any, serious points have been raised by people in "the movement." Now on to the substance of Leavitt's critique. Did I "slander" the Rukus Society? In my National Review article, I wrote that "vandalism, violence, and harassment are acceptable behavior for the Black Blockheads and Ruckus-Societarians of the world." That's a wide range of actions that doesn't necessarily entail hurting someone. And while the Rukus Web site uses the phrase "non-violent" precisely 256 million times, it also has a section called "How to Hang Yourself from an Urban Structure." There are also little gems like, "Crane lifts are of particular interest to action aficionados due to their vulnerability to direct action," peppered throughout Rukus materials. That may not be a call to throw bricks at Starbucks employees, but it definitely gives at least tacit approval to vandalism and harassment, and it sure as hell ain't "mainstream". Besides, since when did "non-violent" become the yardstick for civilized behavior? I may not like the garden gnome my neighbor puts in his yard. And it may not cause him physical harm if I let the air out of his tires as punishment for his bad taste. But that's still a nasty, juvenile thing to do. Then there's the central subject of my article: the Public Citizen/SSC email that encouraged activists to "send large numbers of e-mails, faxes, and phone calls to corporate free-traders." Ignore for a moment that a reasonable person would interpret "large numbers" as a call to harass the people on the list. Mr. Leavitt defends the email by noting that he personally has written numerous emails, and made phone calls, to the members of the Board of Directors of the Pacifica Foundation. Well, good for him. But his comparison is flawed: Mr. Leavitt is an individual, not an organization. I work for the Cato Institute and it's fine--though pointless--for me to personally call, say, Ralph Nader and tell him that I think he's a socialist weenie. It would be another matter entirely for Cato to send a dispatch to its donors urging them to call Nader a "large number of times" to tell him what they think of his anti-consumer agenda. Perhaps that wouldn't be illegal, but it *would* be sleazy. Finally, the rosy picture that Mr. Leavitt paints of anti-trade protests--that of a few radicals tarnishing the image of a thoughtful majority--simply isn't true. I've attend most major gatherings since Seattle and each one of them has been dominated, perhaps not by the Black Bloc, but by thuggish, self-interested labor unions, budding young communists, leftover 60s leftists, and hipster college students seeking to escape the oppressive reality of being ordinary. Politically, the short-term aim of all those factions is to deny the elected representatives of the people the opportunity to conduct their business. They don't want a debate; they want to shut dissenters down. Their larger goal is even less laudable: to restrict the economic freedom of their fellow citizens by promoting an intellectually bankrupt leftist agenda. Their "unorthodox" tactics would be questionable even if the issues involved were weighty and the motives of the protestors were noble. But they aren't. Organized labor, obviously, wants to squelch foreign competition. They don't care if free trade is good for society as a whole because they're not interested in society as a whole. They care about retaining favored tariff treatment, pure and simple. The student contingent is generally well intentioned, but woefully under-informed. That's partially a commentary on the state of America's education system, but it also reflects the natural tendency of youth to oversimplify world's problems and how they can be solved. It's comforting to think that poverty is a creation of multinational companies and can be legislated away, but unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. Worst of all is the not insignificant number of neo-Communists, fringe Socialists, and other pinko fossils that infest the anti-globalization movement. These are the folks who march with pictures of Castro, Mao, or Stalin and pass out Xeroxed pamphlets that make Ted Kaczynski seem reasonable. Whether explicitly violent or not, they promote an ideology that is the antithesis of human freedom and dignity. They're apologists for the most brutal, murderous governments that have ever existed. I used to hope that people who excuse or defend Communism are merely ignorant. But I've come to realize that many of them simply crave the power to oppress behavior and people with whom they disagree: on trade, the environment, or whatever. They may be tolerant in the narrow sense that they aren't racists, but they simply can't stand the thought that somewhere, somehow consenting adults might be making an unregulated economic exchange. (Good Lord, a doctor might be accepting payment for his services or a trader hauling goods across a national border without being penalized at this very moment! To the barricades!) These are the people that make dictatorships possible. Their ideas have led to untold human misery and tragedy throughout the world. Their agenda is neither moderate, mainstream, nor innocent. God help us ever they ever come to power. Finally, as to "preaching to a converted choir," well, it would be tough for me to publish in National Review and have that not be the case. One could make the same complaint about just about anything that appears in a ideologically-oriented publication. When writers for The Nation expound ad nauseum about the supposed dangers of Social Security privatization, does anyone seriously think that many Nation readers disagree? There's nothing wrong with presenting evidence that confirms suspicions that people already have. I'm guilty as charged on this count, but so what? Should conservatives and libertarians take the anti-globalization movement seriously? Absolutely... in the same way one should take it seriously when cockroaches invade your kitchen. But the Luddite policies pushed by the majority of the protestors don't deserve genuine consideration. The packaging and tactics have reached novel heights of childishness, but the ideas are as stale as ever. Regards, Aaron Lukas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavittat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: Re: FC: FBI is investigating an alleged "Black Bloc" threat sent to Politech > Declan, > > > Also, the conflation of the Ruckus Society and the Black Bloc by the Cato > Institute commentator is a slander against the former group: > > http://www.ruckus.org/about.html > > ... ********* From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavittat_private> To: declanat_private Cc: chuckat_private, aaronlat_private Subject: Re: FC: FBI is investigating an alleged "Black Bloc" threat sent to Politech Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 19:40:24 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F23d28kIN4MmXKCnzNw00019dbcat_private> Declan, I invite ChuckO to clarify whether his statement represents a threat of violence (which is certainly something that I, personally, initially read into it), or a mere declaration of intent to target the Cato Institute as a part of a mass protest - the statement below, absent the historical assocation of Black Bloc actions with violence against property, says nothing explicit about violent intentions. It seems rather absurdly stupid to telegraph one's intentions in this manner and create personal liability. To me, ChuckO sounds eerily similar to the thirteen year old script kiddies that took Steve Gibbon's web site down after he inadvertently insulted them... ChuckO's statement certainly does nothing to disprove the Cato Institute commentator's disparaging remarks. I wonder if other Black Bloc members would care to comment about their intentions - I somehow doubt ChuckO represents anyone but himself. Also, the conflation of the Ruckus Society and the Black Bloc by the Cato Institute commentator is a slander against the former group: http://www.ruckus.org/about.html "Focus and Mission The Ruckus Society provides training in the skills of non-violent civil disobedience to help environmental and human rights organizations achieve their goals." "Wherever the location, regardless of the subject, we condemn and do not train activists in any technique that will harm any being." Many people I know work with the Ruckus Society, and none of them are people who would contemplate violence, intimidation, or harassment of the sort implied by the Cato commentator. His comments, in my view, are a deliberate attempt to create a false idea of that organization's mission and purpose, due to their extrodinary effectiveness in "aid[ing] and abet[ing] a growing number of organizations in action planning, logistics and tactics, preparing staff and volunteers for high-profile direct actions." I.e., acting in a way that threatens the ability of the multi-national elite to perpetuate their hold on power. Their actions are well within the "mainstream" of protest in America. Also, again, his attempt to defame the anti-globalization movement, as I pointed out in an earlier email to Declan, by tarring 50,000 peaceful with the brush of a few hundred violent protestors doesn't hold water. See: http://www.orionsociety.org/pages/oo/sidebars/front/index_front.html for an example of what is really going on with the anti-globalization movement, and how the press has failed to properly report on it. Again, the I call the original commentator on his slanderous attempts to conflate the entire anti-globlization movement (which is really a movement against a global deregulation process which lacks balance, as even the Director General of the WTO admits [see link to speech you distributed earlier today]) with the actions of the Black Bloc. First and foremost, the incident described in no way can be equated with the direct violence against property engaged in by the Black Bloc. Secondarily, one incident does not demonstrate a consistent pattern of behavior, as can be documented with regards to the Black Bloc. On the merits of his complaint: I've written numerous emails, and made phone calls, to the members of the Board of Directors of the Pacifica Foundation, using information distributed over the Internet via advocacy organizations. I'd never contemplate calling someone at a home phone number, but again, it is well within the "mainstream" of public protest to contact corporate officials, at work numbers or via email, about the actions of corporations and organizations they are associated with. This is a hazard of being a public figure. Even calling people at home, ala Howard Zinn's "we must not let the perpetrators of these crimes sleep peacefully" (a very rough paraphrase, I'm sure), does not equate the to physical violence, threats, and intimidation implied by the article's author. On a personal note, the original commentator's article struck me as being as much of a "tantrum" as anything he mentions... material of this sort preaches to a converted choir, displays an ignorance of the true nature of one's opposition, and, if it represents the true views of it's proponents, in my opinion, bodes well for the anti-globalization movement ... anyone this blithely ignorant and dismissive of the true nature of the movement opposing them, is likely to significantly underestimate their opponents. In summary, Aaron Lukas' article represents a careless and sloppy screed - I would expect far better work from a member of any organization as prestigous as the Cato Institute, and especially a published article. Regards, Thomas Leavitt ********* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jul 19 2001 - 19:46:11 PDT