I agree with you that my example is fatally flawed with respect to the Constitution. If States' rights are defined according to the tenth amendment, my examples fail. However, I was considering States' rights in the general sense, that is, that the State derives its authority from the will of the people it represents, and that it should therefore represent the will of the people that it immediately governs.
However, I should have made this explicit, because the default interpretation is naturally the tenth amendment. Thanks. =)
The ACLU does not believe in States' rights. The ACLU believes in civil liberties. You must be thinking of the ASRU (American States' Rights Union.) I don't think that organization exists, though. You should feel free to create it.
Then, when a state wants to implement slavery, your organization could say, "Hey, the people of this fine state want slavery, so our organization supports it." Or, when a state wants to ban guns, your organization could say, "Well, the state should do what it wants." You would need to be consistent, of course.;)
I did not articulate my point clearly enough. I believe that the government is run by the wealthy power elite in their own interests. The aristocrats make as few concessions as possible to maintain their iron grip on the workers. All reform is an attempt to placate enough voters to avert revolution.
I don't think the Greens have a shot at the national level. Nobody seriously thought that Cobb would win the presidential election: the idea was not to have a Green candidate elected! The idea was not to have you take the Green party seriously! The idea WAS to get parts of the Green platform into the national dialogue. Should the Green party wait until they have strong local support before trying to let the world know what they believe, or before trying to have parts of their platform adopted for the national agenda?
The people who control (notice the lack of quotes) the presidential debates do not want to take the Green party seriously. These people do not want to take anybody else seriously. As long as they can feed off of the Republican-Democrat dichotomy and serve their rich campaign donors relatives, they'll be happy.
I didn't vote for any of our elected officials. My preferred candidates weren't even able to debate with the big boys, because the Republicans and the Democrats control the debates. How are my candidates going to get elected if their voices are never heard?
Further, how are we to own the media? I don't watch American Idol, and I have a lot more than 10 minutes to invest. How can I help you take back this country for the voters?
Well, it worked for Deep Throat. However, the media don't appear to be working too well today. Even when someone's name is dragged through the mud, like Tom DeLay's, these Teflon-coated politicians seem to manage just fine. The system has been manipulated so much that even the truth won't set us free. When Rush Limbaugh and Fox News can argue that they're entertainment providers and not news organizations, the truth doesn't stand much of a chance.
In addition, even if a politician is found to be a bad guy, he's somebody's bad guy. "Sure, this guy is a crook, but he's better than those crooks from the other party."
I haven't resigned myself to passive acceptance, though. Often, civil disobedience is the only appropriate tool available to us. I believe that electoral politics is really just a clever way of tying up our political energy, which prevents us from focusing on ways that we could bring about meaningful and lasting progress in our society.
A couple of theists tried to use this argument in a Philosophy of Religion course I took. I couldn't contain my laughter because the theists were all wearing glasses. 'Perfect eye, huh.'
My favorite glaring error was an episode of Spin City I caught in passing. After the fire alarm sounded, the workers were instructed to take their computers with them on the way out of the building. In the next scene, everyone is shown walking down the stairs with their PC monitors!
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across that way. I sincerely do wish for a world where people can agree on basic definitions of words and stick to them. It bothers me to no end that some fish-eating, chicken-eating people refer to themselves as vegetarians. From your posts, I thought that you might agree.
I made a statement about one point and you take that to mean that I don't believe any of them?
No, I didn't mean to give that impression. Rather, I felt that it is difficult to draw the line when defining people, instead of letting them define themselves. I'll lay my cards on the table. I say that a person who eats fish is not a vegetarian. I also say that a person who thinks birth control is acceptable or that the Mass should be in Latin is not Catholic. That's why I tend to ask people about their actual beliefs, and not rely on the labels they apply to themselves.
Me: How would you respond to a Catholic that argues that birth control is acceptable?
You: "Thanks for finally being reasonable?"
Ha! =)
Me: The issue is further complicated because Judaism is orthopraxic.
You: As far as I can tell, what you are saying is "Judaism uses mechanical devices/appliances to fix physical deformities."
Wow, this is more fun than I've had all day! I learned of the term in a Philosophy of Religion course. We learned that religions like Christianity have long been concerned with making sure adherents held correct beliefs (orthodoxy). The Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed are loaded with statements designed to specifically reject certain widely held "heresies." (Well, they were widely held until the Church got rid of them.)
In contrast, Islam has a very simple creed, "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His Prophet." Further, the Five Pillars of Islam lay out the basic behavior that adherents need to follow (orthopraxy). If you google the word 'orthopraxy', you'll find more information about it.
Also, not all christian sects are "orthodox." Mormons certainly are not.
The orthopraxic/orthodoxic focus is another wedge between Protestantism and Catholicism. Is faith alone sufficient, or are works necessary? However, both tend towards orthodoxy.
...unless you are one of those people who foolishly argue that atheism is a religion; it is not
I agree that atheism is not a religion, as it tends to lack those qualities that typify religions, such as the existence of scriptures, cultus, clergy, and the like.
Therefore the word Jew means only heritage in this context.
What about the Jew who expressed his feeling that God died when a young girl was hanged on the gallows during the Holocaust? Was he a theistic Jew before witnessing the girl's death, and an atheistic Jew when he made this remark? Maybe.
I don't know how any of this helps my point. I'm not even sure what my point is right now, I just enjoy talking about it.
I'm not sure about my point any more, either. However, I enjoyed talking about it as well. That's odd, because I haven't enjoyed talking about religion with anyone in quite some time. Thanks.
Then they are Jewish by heritage (ethnicity), not by religion.
I long for the black and white world that you describe. Unfortunately, things are not that clear. How would you respond to a Catholic that argues that birth control is acceptable? How about a Catholic that thinks the Mass should still be in Latin, and not in the vernacular? Are they Catholic or not? Does their opinion on the subject matter?
The issue is further complicated because Judaism is orthopraxic, in that it largely concerns itself with correct action, such as Torah observance. This is much different from the orthodoxic focus of Christianity, which focuses on correct thought. Try comparing the Christian and Muslim statements of faith, and you'll be able to see the difference pretty quickly.
So, is an observant atheist Jew not a Jew by religion? Who are we to decide?
"an incomprehensible and extremely powerful being that watches over everyone."
You're likley to get some disagreement among people over this definition, even at that high of a level. Of course, it only gets worse as you get more specific.
It's too bad that the Christian God's name is 'God', and not, say, "xyz." Then, if Christians wanted to put 'In xyz We Trust' on our money, we'd know they obviously meant the Christian God. Of course, there'll always be people that will tell you that Jehovah, God, and Allah are all the same Being, which may very well be true in a sense, but not in the sense that such people would have you believe.
Further, I've found that labels such as Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, and even Buddhist only give me the smallest bit of understanding about a person's beliefs. One can only meet so many atheistic Jews, pope-denouncing Catholics, pork-eating Muslims, and meat-eating Buddhists before realizing that every theist on this planet is probably practicing his or her own religion.
If the person has a picture of an invisible pink unicorn on their shirt, they are either atheists...
When someone says the word God, you know what they are talking about.
I'd argue the opposite. When someone says the word 'God', I'm never quite sure what they mean. This is true even if the person qualifies it by saying 'the Christian God.' I say this coming from a largely self-taught background in comparative religion.
I find that most people have only the most vague notions concerning this 'God.'
In all seriousness, would you care to say what you mean by the word 'God?'
(The reason I use the word "force" is because the commonly heard complaint in this area is that one's beliefs are being "crammed down the throat" of the offended.)
The "cramming" is usually down by the brownshirts on the walk home from school. Have you ever been beat up because you didn't say "under God" during the pledge?
For example, one argument about prayer in school or the phrase, "under God," in the U.S. pledge of allegiance is that the mere hearing of religious words has somehow tainted one's freedom to practice or not practice any kind of ritual or belief.
Of course, if this were the ONLY argument against the phrase "under God", it would make for a very weak case.
You might be able to see it here. I wasn't able to check it through the corporate firewall. Look for the link "Hacker has a plan."
It seems I gave a couple of people the impression that I'm a Brit. Perhaps my original post had a British sensibility to it? No, I'm just an American with a Netflix subscription.
Here's one of my favorite exchanges from the programme;), where Sir Humphrey is demonstrating to Bernard the nature of surveys.
Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes" Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes" Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes" Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes" Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes" Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?" Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be." Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes" Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one." Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?" Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result." Bernard Woolley: "How?" Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes" Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes" Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes" Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes" Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes... oh!" Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
That reminds me of an episode of 'Yes, Prime Minister' I saw recently. The PM had a very detailed plan to solve the education, unemployment, and security problems in the country. He was preparing to describe his plan in a television broadcast when his assistant suggested he change the wording.
Paraphrasing:
Assistant: 'Well, Prime Minister, why don't you say that we are examining a number of different proposals, evaluating each of them for their effectiveness, expense, and practicality, and will select the best from among them?'
PM: 'Bernard, you've used a bunch of words but you haven't managed to say anything!'
Has PETA thrown buckets of fake blood on people attempting to enter a restaurant? I haven't heard any such reports. David Nokak, the CEO of Yum! Brands (the parent company of KFC) was the victim of such an action, but not while attempting to eat at KFC.
While PETA encourages its members to protest outside of certain establishments, they most certainly do not encourage anybody to commit a crime while doing so. Besides, if any member were stupid enough to engage in such ridiculous and counter-productive behavior, the organization itself should not necessarily be maligned as a result.
I understand that you were probably just rattling off the first couple of examples that came to your mind. However, I feel that PETA receives a lot of bad press (some deserved, and some undeserved), and I thought that this was a case where PETA had done no wrong.
Thanks for letting me get that off of my chest. With regards to the rest of your post, I am in agreement (as if my opinion should matter to you;)
If you would be so kind as to answer a naive question: how is armed robbery "propaganda by the deed"?
My understanding of "propaganda by the deed" in anarchist history is that is was found to be largely ineffective in achieving its desired ends. Further, my understanding is that it involved the use of violence to eliminate individuals and institutions, but surely you could not have expected to take down the capitalist financial system by robbing a bank, right?
In "A People's History of the United States", Howard Zinn talks about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. The actual Supreme Court decision concerned the ability of a person to discuss the dangers involved in joining the army to fight a war. Zinn argues that the situation is more akin to saying, "Hey, there's a fire in that theatre. If you go in there, you might get hurt."
Ok, I see now that someone has posted the text of the press release, and that the FBI appears to be concerned about the IP addresses of users claiming to have involvement with "propaganda by the deed." If this indeed the case, then it is possible that a serious crime has been committed, and the State has a justification for investigating this matter.
Please forgive my "knee-jerk" reaction. I believe I'm understandably concerned about this matter, and did not have access to the Slashdotted informal press release when I posted. (And, since you're all in the forgiving mood, please forgive my responding to my own post.;)
You know, I may not agree with what these guys are talking about, but I do think they have the right to talk about it.
But, later:
Is there no line drawn at all between our rights and freedoms and the whim of the state?
You are expressing anarchistic thoughts yourself. I think it's fair to say you're an enemy of the state.;)
Seriously, though, I've read parts of the Anarchism FAQ (it is very, very, very long.) I've even read books on anarchism. Gee, I even refer to myself as an anarchist. Does that make me dangerous, or perhaps even a suspect?
Long gone are the days of "propaganda by the deed", when foolish anarchists used violence or the threat of violence to achieve their ends. If people on the website were actively plotting violence against the government, the State might have an interest in investigating the evidence against them. I'm not sure how knowing the IP addresses of the people who read the FAQ will help the FBI, though, if they decide to look at them.
I hear you. A couple of months ago, my Debian box started acting up. I got a message that a file could not be written to the disk because the root filesystem was read-only.
How'd that happen? The filesystem was set to switch to read-only in case of an error. (Fortunately, I was able to pull off all of the data before the drive died completely.)
It's sad to think, uh-oh, this stopped working: how much will it cost me to fix it? (And you know rebooting won't make the problem go away.)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you that my example is fatally flawed with respect to the Constitution. If States' rights are defined according to the tenth amendment, my examples fail. However, I was considering States' rights in the general sense, that is, that the State derives its authority from the will of the people it represents, and that it should therefore represent the will of the people that it immediately governs.
However, I should have made this explicit, because the default interpretation is naturally the tenth amendment. Thanks. =)
The ACLU does not believe in States' rights. The ACLU believes in civil liberties. You must be thinking of the ASRU (American States' Rights Union.) I don't think that organization exists, though. You should feel free to create it.
;)
Then, when a state wants to implement slavery, your organization could say, "Hey, the people of this fine state want slavery, so our organization supports it." Or, when a state wants to ban guns, your organization could say, "Well, the state should do what it wants." You would need to be consistent, of course.
I did not articulate my point clearly enough. I believe that the government is run by the wealthy power elite in their own interests. The aristocrats make as few concessions as possible to maintain their iron grip on the workers. All reform is an attempt to placate enough voters to avert revolution.
I don't think the Greens have a shot at the national level. Nobody seriously thought that Cobb would win the presidential election: the idea was not to have a Green candidate elected! The idea was not to have you take the Green party seriously! The idea WAS to get parts of the Green platform into the national dialogue. Should the Green party wait until they have strong local support before trying to let the world know what they believe, or before trying to have parts of their platform adopted for the national agenda?
The people who control (notice the lack of quotes) the presidential debates do not want to take the Green party seriously. These people do not want to take anybody else seriously. As long as they can feed off of the Republican-Democrat dichotomy and serve their rich campaign donors relatives, they'll be happy.
I didn't vote for any of our elected officials. My preferred candidates weren't even able to debate with the big boys, because the Republicans and the Democrats control the debates. How are my candidates going to get elected if their voices are never heard?
Further, how are we to own the media? I don't watch American Idol, and I have a lot more than 10 minutes to invest. How can I help you take back this country for the voters?
Well, it worked for Deep Throat. However, the media don't appear to be working too well today. Even when someone's name is dragged through the mud, like Tom DeLay's, these Teflon-coated politicians seem to manage just fine. The system has been manipulated so much that even the truth won't set us free. When Rush Limbaugh and Fox News can argue that they're entertainment providers and not news organizations, the truth doesn't stand much of a chance.
;)
In addition, even if a politician is found to be a bad guy, he's somebody's bad guy. "Sure, this guy is a crook, but he's better than those crooks from the other party."
I haven't resigned myself to passive acceptance, though. Often, civil disobedience is the only appropriate tool available to us. I believe that electoral politics is really just a clever way of tying up our political energy, which prevents us from focusing on ways that we could bring about meaningful and lasting progress in our society.
(I think it's time to take my meds.
Can anyone who has personally had success with this approach please let us know? Did you manage to do it without sending your representative a check?
A couple of theists tried to use this argument in a Philosophy of Religion course I took. I couldn't contain my laughter because the theists were all wearing glasses. 'Perfect eye, huh.'
My favorite glaring error was an episode of Spin City I caught in passing. After the fire alarm sounded, the workers were instructed to take their computers with them on the way out of the building. In the next scene, everyone is shown walking down the stairs with their PC monitors!
Netflix has MANY more distribution centers around the country then either Netflix or Blockbuster.
;)
I knew Netflix was good, but I didn't know they were THAT good!
From my experience, if I get the discs into the mail Monday morning, they'll be waiting for me when I get home Wednesday night.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across that way. I sincerely do wish for a world where people can agree on basic definitions of words and stick to them. It bothers me to no end that some fish-eating, chicken-eating people refer to themselves as vegetarians. From your posts, I thought that you might agree.
I made a statement about one point and you take that to mean that I don't believe any of them?
No, I didn't mean to give that impression. Rather, I felt that it is difficult to draw the line when defining people, instead of letting them define themselves. I'll lay my cards on the table. I say that a person who eats fish is not a vegetarian. I also say that a person who thinks birth control is acceptable or that the Mass should be in Latin is not Catholic. That's why I tend to ask people about their actual beliefs, and not rely on the labels they apply to themselves.
Me: How would you respond to a Catholic that argues that birth control is acceptable?
You: "Thanks for finally being reasonable?"
Ha! =)
Me: The issue is further complicated because Judaism is orthopraxic.
You: As far as I can tell, what you are saying is "Judaism uses mechanical devices/appliances to fix physical deformities."
Wow, this is more fun than I've had all day! I learned of the term in a Philosophy of Religion course. We learned that religions like Christianity have long been concerned with making sure adherents held correct beliefs (orthodoxy). The Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed are loaded with statements designed to specifically reject certain widely held "heresies." (Well, they were widely held until the Church got rid of them.)
In contrast, Islam has a very simple creed, "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His Prophet." Further, the Five Pillars of Islam lay out the basic behavior that adherents need to follow (orthopraxy). If you google the word 'orthopraxy', you'll find more information about it.
Also, not all christian sects are "orthodox." Mormons certainly are not.
The orthopraxic/orthodoxic focus is another wedge between Protestantism and Catholicism. Is faith alone sufficient, or are works necessary? However, both tend towards orthodoxy.
I agree that atheism is not a religion, as it tends to lack those qualities that typify religions, such as the existence of scriptures, cultus, clergy, and the like.
Therefore the word Jew means only heritage in this context.
What about the Jew who expressed his feeling that God died when a young girl was hanged on the gallows during the Holocaust? Was he a theistic Jew before witnessing the girl's death, and an atheistic Jew when he made this remark? Maybe.
I don't know how any of this helps my point. I'm not even sure what my point is right now, I just enjoy talking about it.
I'm not sure about my point any more, either. However, I enjoyed talking about it as well. That's odd, because I haven't enjoyed talking about religion with anyone in quite some time. Thanks.
Then they are Jewish by heritage (ethnicity), not by religion.
I long for the black and white world that you describe. Unfortunately, things are not that clear. How would you respond to a Catholic that argues that birth control is acceptable? How about a Catholic that thinks the Mass should still be in Latin, and not in the vernacular? Are they Catholic or not? Does their opinion on the subject matter?
The issue is further complicated because Judaism is orthopraxic, in that it largely concerns itself with correct action, such as Torah observance. This is much different from the orthodoxic focus of Christianity, which focuses on correct thought. Try comparing the Christian and Muslim statements of faith, and you'll be able to see the difference pretty quickly.
So, is an observant atheist Jew not a Jew by religion? Who are we to decide?
Ha. Well, we understood what you meant, for all intensive purposes.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
"an incomprehensible and extremely powerful being that watches over everyone."
You're likley to get some disagreement among people over this definition, even at that high of a level. Of course, it only gets worse as you get more specific.
It's too bad that the Christian God's name is 'God', and not, say, "xyz." Then, if Christians wanted to put 'In xyz We Trust' on our money, we'd know they obviously meant the Christian God. Of course, there'll always be people that will tell you that Jehovah, God, and Allah are all the same Being, which may very well be true in a sense, but not in the sense that such people would have you believe.
Further, I've found that labels such as Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, and even Buddhist only give me the smallest bit of understanding about a person's beliefs. One can only meet so many atheistic Jews, pope-denouncing Catholics, pork-eating Muslims, and meat-eating Buddhists before realizing that every theist on this planet is probably practicing his or her own religion.
If the person has a picture of an invisible pink unicorn on their shirt, they are either atheists...
=)
When someone says the word God, you know what they are talking about.
I'd argue the opposite. When someone says the word 'God', I'm never quite sure what they mean. This is true even if the person qualifies it by saying 'the Christian God.' I say this coming from a largely self-taught background in comparative religion.
I find that most people have only the most vague notions concerning this 'God.'
In all seriousness, would you care to say what you mean by the word 'God?'
(The reason I use the word "force" is because the commonly heard complaint in this area is that one's beliefs are being "crammed down the throat" of the offended.)
The "cramming" is usually down by the brownshirts on the walk home from school. Have you ever been beat up because you didn't say "under God" during the pledge?
For example, one argument about prayer in school or the phrase, "under God," in the U.S. pledge of allegiance is that the mere hearing of religious words has somehow tainted one's freedom to practice or not practice any kind of ritual or belief.
Of course, if this were the ONLY argument against the phrase "under God", it would make for a very weak case.
Talk about déjà vu.
You might be able to see it here. I wasn't able to check it through the corporate firewall. Look for the link "Hacker has a plan."
;), where Sir Humphrey is demonstrating to Bernard the nature of surveys.
... oh!"
It seems I gave a couple of people the impression that I'm a Brit. Perhaps my original post had a British sensibility to it? No, I'm just an American with a Netflix subscription.
Here's one of my favorite exchanges from the programme
Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
That reminds me of an episode of 'Yes, Prime Minister' I saw recently. The PM had a very detailed plan to solve the education, unemployment, and security problems in the country. He was preparing to describe his plan in a television broadcast when his assistant suggested he change the wording.
Paraphrasing:
Assistant: 'Well, Prime Minister, why don't you say that we are examining a number of different proposals, evaluating each of them for their effectiveness, expense, and practicality, and will select the best from among them?'
PM: 'Bernard, you've used a bunch of words but you haven't managed to say anything!'
Assistant: 'Yes. Thank you, Prime Minister.'
Has PETA thrown buckets of fake blood on people attempting to enter a restaurant? I haven't heard any such reports. David Nokak, the CEO of Yum! Brands (the parent company of KFC) was the victim of such an action, but not while attempting to eat at KFC.
;)
While PETA encourages its members to protest outside of certain establishments, they most certainly do not encourage anybody to commit a crime while doing so. Besides, if any member were stupid enough to engage in such ridiculous and counter-productive behavior, the organization itself should not necessarily be maligned as a result.
I understand that you were probably just rattling off the first couple of examples that came to your mind. However, I feel that PETA receives a lot of bad press (some deserved, and some undeserved), and I thought that this was a case where PETA had done no wrong.
Thanks for letting me get that off of my chest. With regards to the rest of your post, I am in agreement (as if my opinion should matter to you
If you would be so kind as to answer a naive question: how is armed robbery "propaganda by the deed"?
My understanding of "propaganda by the deed" in anarchist history is that is was found to be largely ineffective in achieving its desired ends. Further, my understanding is that it involved the use of violence to eliminate individuals and institutions, but surely you could not have expected to take down the capitalist financial system by robbing a bank, right?
What good are you to your cause if you aren't willing to risk incarceration or bodily harm for it?
An imprisoned or injured anarchist is not as useful as an unimprisoned and healthy anarchist.
In "A People's History of the United States", Howard Zinn talks about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. The actual Supreme Court decision concerned the ability of a person to discuss the dangers involved in joining the army to fight a war. Zinn argues that the situation is more akin to saying, "Hey, there's a fire in that theatre. If you go in there, you might get hurt."
Ok, I see now that someone has posted the text of the press release, and that the FBI appears to be concerned about the IP addresses of users claiming to have involvement with "propaganda by the deed." If this indeed the case, then it is possible that a serious crime has been committed, and the State has a justification for investigating this matter.
;)
Please forgive my "knee-jerk" reaction. I believe I'm understandably concerned about this matter, and did not have access to the Slashdotted informal press release when I posted. (And, since you're all in the forgiving mood, please forgive my responding to my own post.
You know, I may not agree with what these guys are talking about, but I do think they have the right to talk about it.
;)
But, later:
Is there no line drawn at all between our rights and freedoms and the whim of the state?
You are expressing anarchistic thoughts yourself. I think it's fair to say you're an enemy of the state.
Seriously, though, I've read parts of the Anarchism FAQ (it is very, very, very long.) I've even read books on anarchism. Gee, I even refer to myself as an anarchist. Does that make me dangerous, or perhaps even a suspect?
Long gone are the days of "propaganda by the deed", when foolish anarchists used violence or the threat of violence to achieve their ends. If people on the website were actively plotting violence against the government, the State might have an interest in investigating the evidence against them. I'm not sure how knowing the IP addresses of the people who read the FAQ will help the FBI, though, if they decide to look at them.
I hear you. A couple of months ago, my Debian box started acting up. I got a message that a file could not be written to the disk because the root filesystem was read-only.
How'd that happen? The filesystem was set to switch to read-only in case of an error. (Fortunately, I was able to pull off all of the data before the drive died completely.)
It's sad to think, uh-oh, this stopped working: how much will it cost me to fix it? (And you know rebooting won't make the problem go away.)