Political people are of two types. The first being one who seeks political office or notoriety for the sake of individual gratification. The other type is the movement person who may run for office or become an activists for a particular issue they are passsionate about. The difference in the two is with the formenr its all about them and the latter its about the common good.
The Waterbury Observer just published an interview with Julia Butterfly Hill. "Butterfly" is a name given to her when, as she tells it, as a "7 and a half" year old while hiking a butterfly landed on her and stayed for "hours and hours" to which the interviewer reminded her that butterflies "come to the peaceful people, so that must mean you're very peaceful". It's doubtful that the story is true but if true the meaning to it is utterly ridiculous but this is the gist of the interview: A fawning puff piece on a narcissistic subject.
Julia Butterfly Hill is famous for climbing a tree, giving it a name (Luna) and live on it, tick-like. for two years in order to protect it from loggers. So the message seems to be that loggers ought to be curtailed from taking trees to make paper and building material. Certainly an extreme and harsh way to get the message out. Julia lets us know that she organized a concert once and the audiance were fed vegan hot dogs and hambergers and the entire affair was done with little to no disposable waste. Fair enough. The logical question here is shouldn't Ms Hill have insisted that her interview not be published on parchment made out of the carcas of Luna's siblings?
With all the concern of saving Luna there is no mention at all about the evils of paper or lumber just a passing reference to deforestation. Instead Julia throughout the interview rambles on and on about what she knows best, Julia. "Part of the reason why people resonate with me is because I'm honest and I just speak from my own experience. I use my own experience. My life experiences are a big part of who I am." and how do people "resonate" with her? "I have the people that love me. I have the people that hate me. I have the people that don't care. I have the poeple that think I should save the world and the people that think I'm the devil, I get all kinds of feedback." her impression of how people see her is either a saviour or a destroyer of the world. How she thinks of herself?: "..."I'm good at being with myself. I loved playing by myself since I was a little girl...I like my alone time." and when she climbed the tree to draw atttention to the horrors of the process of wood and paper products (yea right) it
challenged whom I am as a person. People don't know that because they only know me for celebrity and the story that they herad about... When the spotlight came then everybody's stuff came along with it. I literally got to a point where I was starting to feel schizophrenic becuase I was taking the fall for all this different stuff. The beauty of that is that it made me put myself under a microscope and be willing to be really authentic and really true and really honest. That's all. And it was also a courageous thing. So I put myself under the micoscope and I got really clear aand continued to make this an ongoing journey and got really clear on what is it I'm called to be. What does my spirit call me to be? What does my heart...
Julila is so wonderful and you know what, the more she looks at her favorite subject the more she thinks she is even more awesome and cool. "I know this sounds weird to you. Trust me sometimees I question even myself." no trust us Julia we know we know. "Because the reason we react to people is partly because we don't want to own the ways we question ourselves. It somebody questions us we get triggered part of the reason we are getting triggered is because we doubt ourselves." Can't have that, more important we shouldn't "own it" whatever that means. She was courageous about herself and honest about herself and put herself under a microscope and got clear about her journey "I" "me" "my"...what does any of this have to do with the lumber business and climbing Luna, was all this a cover for an elaborate exercise in self-aggrandizement?
Julia Hill may mean well and the interviewer, Chelsea Murray, who were told is contemplating a trip to Africa also has a heart to do well in a cause. To this there there is somehting to be commmended. Also at 19 Murray has done an impressive job as a journalist in running a publication Young Voices and in getting this insightful interview however the insight may not be the one intended.
Above one of the pages of the interview is an ad about a film being developed on Julia Hill. Really. Just what is it about a tree sitter does Hollywood think is particulary film worthy? Oh, just so we don't think this is a firvoulous project we're told it's with an "A-list cast." Without a doubt the lumber company will be portrayed as cigar smoking fat cat greedy figures up against poor B-fly Hill in a tree. Hill tells us in her own article that she was shot at by hunters and that loggers also tried to kill her (by what means were not told). A bit dramatic and extremely suspect. Surly crimminal charges could have been filed. Certainly with all the narcississm and self righteousness Hill and Hollywood are a perfect fit.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Peace And Blame
Self government brings together differences of opinion and with compromise, set policy. With a two party system, unlike parlementary style government, extremist rarely hold important offices. Instead, this fringe element are delegated to publishing their views in the media; whether it'd be electronic or traditional. To be sure this element of thought could not compromise on policy because they hold opinions that are based on a distorted view of the world. You can't find compromise on a solution when the problem is not agreed upon. In Waterbury we have one such writer in the name of Marilyn Aligata who is a regular columnist in The Observer who writes about the abolition of war and nuclear weapons.
Now Ms Aligata wants what everyone desires and that is peace in the world and no more nuclear weapons in particular. This is a noble cause few could disagree with. But why wars happen and why we defend ourselves and fight them and then posses nuclear weapons, for these questions Ms Aligata leaves reason behind.
Certainly the US and other nations could not simply abolish nuclear weapons for an assortment of reasons one being deterrence. Say what one will about the cold war it at least kept two sides from exchanging fire, the same could be said about Pakistan and India who are in a simular nuclear standoff. To be sure these weapons are awful things to have yet so are guns, cannons and bombs but in having them they do deter and in the last century when America was depleted in weapons and troops it was left short at the start of two major wars. The biggest lesson America learned in foreign policy is that readiness will always remain paramount because aggressors will simply strike us just when we are the most complacent in our need to protect ourselves. No serious major politician from each party argues that a strong defence is not necessary. Debates center around the degree of strength or a more efficient use of resources to make us stronger.
Indeed Ms Aligata wants peace and writes towards that goal but the obstacle to peace in the world. in her view, are not the enemies of America but America itself and President Bush and Joe Lieberman especially. In the October Waterbury Observer she notes that she supported Ned Lamont for senate over Joe Lieberman because, as she writes "Lieberman has become a war-monger". Taken literally this is ridiculous, but that's how she means it and this is why extremist don't hold office or once there don't accomplish much, there can be compromise. There can be no dialogue when one side is irrational or presents a problem that isn't there. We can agree or disagree with Leiberman on Iraq but the issue is are we more secure fighting Islamic terrorism via Iraq or are we not. To Aligata the issue is Leiberman wants war for war sake and she wants peace and that's that, so there.
She wins, of course because she has stacked the moral deck in her favor and to this we get the crux of her discourse, that is Aligata is right because she is morally superior. As long as she ignores issues of security then she can go on endlessly about war-is-wrong-that's- why- I'm-right. In September she alludes briefly to self-defense then excuses it with cliche, she writes:
Some people no matter how they are drilled and taught to kill, just cannot do it. We were not born to kill. In fact if you believe the 10 commandments are good rules to live by, it says, "thous shall not kill", it does not say unless there is a war, or a capital punishment, or to get back at someone. Thou shall not kill, period! As far as self-defense goes, our country has become so violent, I do not know what is best, but I do know that violence only begets more violence.
So if Aligata were sitting with president Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor she would say "Well they were violent, shame on them. Don't they know that's wrong, boy. Well if you want my advice I say do nothing, you know the ol saying violence begets violence."
Its no surprise that Aligata unleashes her greatest disdain on president Bush, another "monger" we presume, who is leading the world towards war. In fact she makes no bones about just who the aggressor is in the world stage, its one thing to be against war, quite another to lay blame which she does squarely on America's lap. Note how she treats two countries seeking an increase military budgets one being the US and then Russia, first the US:
Robert Ga[t]es, Defense Secretary cited the uncertain paths of Russia and China in urging congress to adopt Pres. Bush's $463.1 billion defense budget. Bigger and bigger and bigger until it has a life of its own and we are doomed. I ask you to see the danger developing and do something.
Now the Russian:
Putin has approved a $200 billion armament plan to revamp and modernize the military. I can understand why he would want to upgrade his military...he is in a Nuclear arms Race with the US.
Such wrong headed analysis undercuts even her own pacifist clap-trap. She certainly understands Putins military buildup, perfectly okay to her considering what he's up against. After all she scribes about weapons and war and how awful they are she comes full circle and somehow sees a glimer of justification for having them. When its them against us.
Now Ms Aligata wants what everyone desires and that is peace in the world and no more nuclear weapons in particular. This is a noble cause few could disagree with. But why wars happen and why we defend ourselves and fight them and then posses nuclear weapons, for these questions Ms Aligata leaves reason behind.
Certainly the US and other nations could not simply abolish nuclear weapons for an assortment of reasons one being deterrence. Say what one will about the cold war it at least kept two sides from exchanging fire, the same could be said about Pakistan and India who are in a simular nuclear standoff. To be sure these weapons are awful things to have yet so are guns, cannons and bombs but in having them they do deter and in the last century when America was depleted in weapons and troops it was left short at the start of two major wars. The biggest lesson America learned in foreign policy is that readiness will always remain paramount because aggressors will simply strike us just when we are the most complacent in our need to protect ourselves. No serious major politician from each party argues that a strong defence is not necessary. Debates center around the degree of strength or a more efficient use of resources to make us stronger.
Indeed Ms Aligata wants peace and writes towards that goal but the obstacle to peace in the world. in her view, are not the enemies of America but America itself and President Bush and Joe Lieberman especially. In the October Waterbury Observer she notes that she supported Ned Lamont for senate over Joe Lieberman because, as she writes "Lieberman has become a war-monger". Taken literally this is ridiculous, but that's how she means it and this is why extremist don't hold office or once there don't accomplish much, there can be compromise. There can be no dialogue when one side is irrational or presents a problem that isn't there. We can agree or disagree with Leiberman on Iraq but the issue is are we more secure fighting Islamic terrorism via Iraq or are we not. To Aligata the issue is Leiberman wants war for war sake and she wants peace and that's that, so there.
She wins, of course because she has stacked the moral deck in her favor and to this we get the crux of her discourse, that is Aligata is right because she is morally superior. As long as she ignores issues of security then she can go on endlessly about war-is-wrong-that's- why- I'm-right. In September she alludes briefly to self-defense then excuses it with cliche, she writes:
Some people no matter how they are drilled and taught to kill, just cannot do it. We were not born to kill. In fact if you believe the 10 commandments are good rules to live by, it says, "thous shall not kill", it does not say unless there is a war, or a capital punishment, or to get back at someone. Thou shall not kill, period! As far as self-defense goes, our country has become so violent, I do not know what is best, but I do know that violence only begets more violence.
So if Aligata were sitting with president Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor she would say "Well they were violent, shame on them. Don't they know that's wrong, boy. Well if you want my advice I say do nothing, you know the ol saying violence begets violence."
Its no surprise that Aligata unleashes her greatest disdain on president Bush, another "monger" we presume, who is leading the world towards war. In fact she makes no bones about just who the aggressor is in the world stage, its one thing to be against war, quite another to lay blame which she does squarely on America's lap. Note how she treats two countries seeking an increase military budgets one being the US and then Russia, first the US:
Robert Ga[t]es, Defense Secretary cited the uncertain paths of Russia and China in urging congress to adopt Pres. Bush's $463.1 billion defense budget. Bigger and bigger and bigger until it has a life of its own and we are doomed. I ask you to see the danger developing and do something.
Now the Russian:
Putin has approved a $200 billion armament plan to revamp and modernize the military. I can understand why he would want to upgrade his military...he is in a Nuclear arms Race with the US.
Such wrong headed analysis undercuts even her own pacifist clap-trap. She certainly understands Putins military buildup, perfectly okay to her considering what he's up against. After all she scribes about weapons and war and how awful they are she comes full circle and somehow sees a glimer of justification for having them. When its them against us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
