|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 6 users and 51 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 7:48pm.
This conversation has been amazingly sincere and on topic. I'm starting a new thread to avoid the confusion of the two pages.
» |
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Good quote Merwyn
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 8:29pm.We might need to use a little of our own violence to stop a lot more of theirs.
At the bottom he's listed with PMR, so if they didn't authorize his comments that's one thing but otherwise he's speaking for them.
Drew may not be the official spokesperson, but I'm sure he's not the only member of PMR who agrees with this statement.
Cmon Norm
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 8:34pm.Notice my wording...
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 8:55pm."but I'm sure he's not the only"
Not, "but I know, for a fact, he's not the only"
How about this one, prove me wrong.
OK
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 9:37pm.know - To regard as true beyond doubt
Being sure of something and knowing something are the same things.
Not always
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 10:15pm.certain(p): having or feeling no doubt or uncertainty; confident and assured; "felt certain of success"; "was sure (or certain) she had seen it ...
I'm not a detective, and really don't feel like investigating PMR, I'm sure there are enough people out there doing that. If someone asked me, "Do you feel that there are members, other than Drew, who hold violent intentions toward police?" I would reply, "Why yes, I do." Maybe sure wasn't the word you would use, it sounded about right to me.
whatever
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 11:05am.Seriously, Norm. What are you basing your opinion on? What evidence that you've seen leads you to believe that PMR is a violent group? If you are talking about the views of one individual within the group, then that does NOT reflect the values of the group as a whole. Unless you've heard them talking at meetings about cannonading or dynamiting it's simply irresponsible for you to say they're violent. It's the same thing you get upset about when gun-control folks start labeling all gun owners as this or that. Exactly the same.
So Rob,
Submitted by JT on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 11:53am.are you claiming there is no one in PMR that is violent?
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
Can't speak for Rob (not good looking enough)
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 11:58am.Now hold on there...
Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 12:31pm.If you can find a single incident of a Quaker throwing rocks at police in the last five years, I'll buy you half a dozen drinks.
This is exactly where the breakdown is with the PMR. You don't hear of violence, vulgarity, insults, or even rowdiness at FOR events. Granted that FOR does little to no civil disobedience around here, but likewise I've never heard of such behavior from Ground Zero, which organizes civil disobedience at Bangor three times a year. The cops and the protestors at Ground Zero events seem to be perfectly friendly with each other, for the most part.
PMR's problem is not that it promotes violence, it does not (as a body). However, the atmosphere of PMR events, the opinions and worldviews of many PMR members (see Drew's quote above), and the general culture of the organization make for lousy conditions for promoting respect and preventing violence.
Rev. King wrote occasionally about rowdy young protesters who violated his organization's pledges to non-violence at events. These protesters were confronted immediately, and Rev. King made it clear that preparation had been made for such a problem. His tone in speaking of such problems was sincerely apologetic and conciliatory. I have seen little of this response from the PMR. For the most part, I've heard excuses and the typical shifting of responsibility onto the police ("they started it", "they provoked it", etc.), as though the police are responsible for the actions of an organized and pre-planned event.
There is a context in which these things happen. The context is built by the organization. If the PMR sincerely opposes violence at its events, it would do well to spend some long, hard meetings contemplating its own approach.
The Canaanite's Call
Off the top of my head
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 12:42pm.Sure...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 9:46pm.You are mighty testy today
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 10:17pm.first amendment
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 11:21pm.responding to:
Protesters occupied roadways in an effort to: A) halt an unlawful military action, and B) to express political speech.
While blocking roadways, the protesters were attempting to stop a war that many allege to be wrongful. In fact to wage an aggressive war is most heinous and wrongful action possible (according to international rules).
Additionally, the protesters' blockades may have been protected by the first amendment because they were an attempt to petition for redress of grievances (first amendment - free speech).
Most importantly, the protesters, in many if not all of the various situations in which the pepper spray was dispersed, were passively resisting
That's my argument.
Sorry Rob
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 5:19pm.Of course, the bottom line, as we agree, is that the protesters were passively resisting and the use of OC was not justified. That's the crux.
But I am equally as serious when I say that we have a responsibility to oppose the illegal actions of our government.
Just because the war, or its executors, haven't been prosecuted in a court of law doesn't mean that it isn't illegal.
Just because a bank robber hasn't been prosecuted in a court of law doesn't mean that he shouldn't be apprehended. That's the situation that we're in today with the Bush Administration.
We are the sheriffs (according to law professor Francis Boyle).
You guys are just being ignorant
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 3:31pm.I'm not saying there aren't members of PMR who would act violently under certain stimuli. I'm saying that you 1.) are making an unfair generalization of an entire organization based on the personal opinions of one member, and 2.) None of you can prove that the rock throwing, or any violent act at the port was committed by a member of PMR. I get that you don't like civil disobedience, OK, it's not your cup of tea, I'm alright with that. What I don't understand is how you can continue, over and over again to spread these baseless untruths about PMR as a whole.
Rob,
Submitted by JT on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 4:14pm.when one of PMR's own leaders, Drew Hendricks advocates for violence, it shoots holes in you argument.
Maybe PMR should be more selective about who they recruit, and how they conduct business.
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
You're wrong right out of the gate on that one.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 4:17pm.Well if he isn't,
Submitted by JT on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 4:26pm.he sure has a lot of the members following his direction, suggestions, and listening to his opinions.
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
Rob,
Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 4:22pm.I don't think that I'm drawing generalizations from the opinions of one PMR member. Behavioral problems have become a repetitive problem at PMR events, both here and in Tacoma. What I'm suggesting is that there is a cultural problem at PMR that allows for the problem to exist. If you can come up with an alternative explaination as to why these problems have happened at PMR events, and not at, say, Ground Zero events, I'd love to hear it.
The Canaanite's Call
I want to hear specific behavioral problems.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 6:04pm.Uh
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 6:07pm.I endorse violence. I heard about it on OlyBlog!
Submitted by Phan on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 7:23pm.The problem with OlyBlog is everyone's an expert. I often joke that OlyBlog should be renamed "Ask Norm," because whenever anyone posts anything, someone like Norm will respond. And unless you spend 24 hours a day on OlyBlog, Norm will have the final say. So it's almost like an advice column, regardless of whether you're soliciting advice.
I hate posting to OlyBlog, because it always results in tons of responses/questions/retorts. I'm willing to back up whatever I say or write, but I don't have the time to devote the rest of my life to qualifying any single statement I might make. I imagine that I'm not the only one in this position.
In this instance, someone emailed me a link to this page to alert me about what people are currently saying about PMR. So I'll address some of the prior pronouncements:
1. "At the bottom [Drew]'s listed with PMR, so if they didn't authorize his comments that's one thing but otherwise he's speaking for them."
It's great that Merwyn gets to decide who speaks on behalf of PMR. The logic is this: If PMR doesn't issue a public statement denouncing Drew's article, then Drew is speaking for PMR. Wrong. The byline is "Drew Hendricks," not "PMR." The article was written by Drew. Nowhere in or around the article is it stated or even implied that Drew was speaking on behalf of anyone or anything else. In fact the only place where that is suggested...is on OlyBlog.
2. "Drew may not be the official spokesperson, but I'm sure he's not the only member of PMR who agrees with this statement."
Norm is sure. No evidence required. No names need to be produced. And then Norm expects other people to "prove me wrong." Since Norm hasn't provided any proof that he's right, how can anyone prove him wrong?
3. "when one of PMR's own leaders, Drew Hendricks advocates for violence, it shoots holes in you[r] argument."
Observe how the comments get more and more ridiculous as the citizen pundits feed off of one another. First Merwyn attributes an article written by Drew to PMR. Now JT has appointed Drew as PMR leader. Last I heard, Drew doesn't even consider himself part of PMR anymore. The extent of his involvement with PMR is up to him. PMR is not a formal organization. There is no official membership.
4. "If the PMR sincerely opposes violence at its events, it would do well to spend some long, hard meetings contemplating its own approach."
Attend any PMR meeting and hear it get contemplated to death.
5. "What I'm suggesting is that there is a cultural problem at PMR that allows for the problem to exist. If you can come up with an alternative explaination as to why these problems have happened at PMR events, and not at, say, Ground Zero events, I'd love to hear it."
Keep in mind that 99% of the violence at the Port was perpetrated by police. As well, all incidents of "protester violence" occurred only after days of police violence.
I was at the Port almost every single day, all day, during the protests. I personally did not witness any rock throwing or other violence directed at the cops, because it happened so rarely. However, I saw over and over again, cops agressively attacking nonviolent demonstrators.
Yet the focus is always on "protester violence." One rock negates all the pepper spray, batons, and guns that were unleashed prior.
If cops beat the shit out of Ground Zero activists instead of arresting them, the situation might be different. If Stryker vehicles going to or from Iraq were driving through Bangor, you'd see hundreds of people protesting there. And shit would happen regardless of whether PMR was involved.
Personally, I believe that you would have seen a lot more "protester violence" at the ports if PMR wasn't there.
Keep in mind that I am not writing on behalf of PMR. I am only one participant out of many.* I do know, however, that many of us are concerned about "protester violence" and discuss it and argue over it quite a lot. It's just that the facts are blown out of proportion here, and it still says nothing about the much greater police violence and the violence of the Iraq occupation. We certainly don't need to justify it or make amends to Norm and others here on OlyBlog who will make up crap about us and condemn us anyway.
There's a reason why cops are willing to utitilize unnecessary and excessive force. It's because they know they can get away with it.
(*I can imagine one of the clever pundits here responding that since I can't speak on behalf of PMR, nothing I wrote is relevant, and therefore they are still 100% right. You just can't win on OlyBlog.)
You complain about olylbog..
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 7:28pm.and then you post here. How about I make this real simple for you Phan, because you seem to have some issues going on here.
Can you, as a member of PMR, guarantee that ALL members of PMR are non-violent and would never consider using violence against police, or anyone else? YES or NO?
as for "Ask Norm" I've always wanted to start my own column, like a Dear Abby for the local folks. I think I may try that tonight.
Nonviolence and PMR
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 7:36pm.That doesn't answer my question
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 7:45pm.And I was expecting an answer from Phan. He seems to know all about this and thinks that the rest of us have no room to talk, I'm waiting for his response.
EDIT: Look at this
1) We seek to win over our opposition by changing their minds rather than through
degradation and humiliation.
2) We are willing to make personal sacrifices in order ensure freedom and justice
for all people – even our opponents.
3) We shall refrain from physical assaults, verbal harassment, and malicious sabotage.
4) We remember the need for forgiveness and humility, and always seek to understand
each other’s actions, and the actions of our opposition.
5) We shall ensure that all our events and meetings are transparent, inclusive, and
democratic.
So, Phan, looking at this charter I would say, that with your previous post, you broke rules #1 and #4. Personally being at some of the protests and watching some of the videos of others (including Tacoma) I would say that you must have many infiltrators in your protests, because there was a few instances of breaking rule #3 along with the other 2 rules I mentioned. I suppose you could cop out and say, "Oh! Those weren't members of PMR!" but considering that PMR was the one sponsoring the event I would say it falls back into PMR's lap here. Take your time Phan, I'll work on my "Ask Norm" column while waiting.
Norm,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 8:28pm.I'm responding to someone who sounded hostile toward myself
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 11:32pm.We're all winners
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 7:34pm."What people are saying on Olyblog?"
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 11:14pm.And folks wonder what's
Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 7:20am.I was going to respond to Phan's post,
Submitted by JT on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 8:18am.but I don't have to because Ehver Green summed it up very well.
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
Phan -I've had Hot Topic
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 9:56am.I've had Hot Topic Letters-to-the-Editor printed in The Olympian and Sitting Duck. I've posted blogs all over the net that are sure to piss off someone, somewhere (and usually many someones.)
Each and every time I speak for myself but if ever I identify where I work, or have it listed in my bio, I run the risk of getting fired for bringing bad PR and/or losing business for my employer.
If I identify myself as an ** employee while posting something controversial and my boss does nothing after reading it, then he endorses, through his silence, what I said.
Phan's absolutely right...
Submitted by Rick on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 9:28am....about the dynamic on OlyBlog.
I happen to agree that the PMR didn't help itself, beginning as it did with the slogan: "Tear it Down," that was chanted ad nauseum during the first port protest. I warned them then that is would create a terrible PR problem, and so it has.
That being said, he is right on target about what keeps so many people off this blog, people who would contribute much to the discussion here (including Phan himself, who I've found to be a clear thinker and very good at expressing those thoughts). If you have someone down your throat after the first post, it kinda puts you off the idea of returning.
> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract
Of course he's right.
Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 9:44am.Of course he's right. We've been discussing it for several weeks now. Sarah mentioned it several months ago when I questioned why new members weren't sticking around. I think what you are seeing is a more balanced Olyblog as a broader range of Olympians find out about it. It's not a bad thing from my point of view.
Regardless of Phan's presentation, dropping in when you want to refute an idea or a comment or anything, you'd better stick around and be prepared to answer questions (in an adult conversation kind of way). The one-stop thing is bogus.
Rob, don't forget to remind Phan this is an all ages venue, ya know? =) What's up with his slam on Norm? That was low - right where Phan ranks on my respect meter.
If you have someone down
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 9:50am.That is true; however Phan jumped in with both guns blazing. He can't expect the first reaction to be a plate of cupcakes.
I will give him credit for not going the route of another KAOS programmer who privately accused me of betraying the station for believing what I do (as if KAOS is a political group)