From
MSNBC:
Nov. 14 — When Greenpeace activists illegally scrambled aboard the cargo ship APL Jade, it was the start of a pretty typical day. Convinced the ship was hauling contraband mahogany from Brazil, the environmentalists aimed to draw attention to it by unfurling a banner with this message: “President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging.” Their arrests by the Coast Guard were also part of a day’s work. But the later use of an obscure 19th century law to charge the entire organization with criminal conspiracy has Greenpeace defenders claiming that they are the target of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s attempts to stifle political criticism of the government.
It appears the administration is trying to remove
Greenpeace as an active concern by invoking a maritime statue last cited in 1890. While I tend to look at Greenpeace as the PETA of the environmental movement (see my last post below), they still get the same civil disobedience rights as everyone else. John Ashcroft can jail the protestors for illegal entry or whatever the legitimate charge is, but he can't launch an offensive against protest in general. Fortunately, the
ACLU and
People for the American Way are on board with Greenpeace's defense team. Expect another DoJ/Everyone Else slugfest.
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 4:19 PM
|
Not usually my sphere of interest, but this has got to be one of the most effective anti-Factory Farm pieces I've ever seen.
What is the Meatrix?
I'm sure
PETA will show up and demand it be taken down because it's not pissing enough people off. I read an article recently - and unfortunately, I can't remember where - about the animal rights movement, and how its center of gravity has shifted over recent years from moderate
ASPCA-type organizations to the PETA radicals. As such shifts tend to do, all they've done is make the cause go supernova, exploding in a great bright flash of high-powered rhetoric and internecine bickering as the great mass of the country that used to form its core is expelled into the void .
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 3:28 PM
|
So, I haven't been blogging too much lately. Well, what're you gonna do about it? Huh?
Huh? Ah, the advantages of not having a boss. Anyway, I figured I'd weigh in on this week's
Tom Tomorrow controversy. Sometimes, I just don't get what he's trying to say. This is one of those times. What does he have against warbloggers, armchair or otherwise? They have a right to express their opinions as much as he does. And while he's allowed to make fun of whoever he wants, it seems that this week's point (that warbloggers think they're the equivalent of soldiers) is both too ad hominem and too unsubstantiated for my tastes.
It didn't take long for warblogger and real-life reservist
L.T. Smash to register his discontent. In my opinion, such discontent was delivered in a reasonable, if legitimately offended, tone. Tom responded in his usual rather defensive/dismissive tone. No offense to the guy, but he seems to take criticism a bit too personally. Smash, as expected, was not particularly satisfied. And from there, it's been open war in the blogosphere. I'm staying neutral. I think it was a dumb comic. Everyone's entitled to say something dumb every once in a while. This one's not worth fighting over.
On the other hand, I think Ted Rall's been off the deep end for a little while now. As
Instapundit Glenn Reynolds puts it, when Rall writes something like
this, you almost have to beleive he means it. Rall to me is like Ann Coulter to a moderate conservative. We're supposed to be on the same side, but I think he's doing more damage to the doves and peaceniks with his constant misfires than he is to anyone on the right.
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 2:35 PM
|
