This blog is closed
First, they kill your dog
Antitoxics activist Paula Siemers remembers the night two men attacked and knifed her on a Cincinnati street near her home, following earlier incidents of harassment in which she’d been stoned and knocked unconscious, her dog had been poisoned, and her house too had been set on fire.
That’s a line from my friend David Helvarg’s extremely important book The War Against The Greens,
“They ran up behind me and they punched me and hit me. They just came out of nowhere and I didn’t even know I was stabbed. I just thought they’d beat me and they ran off, and someone screamed and said you’re bleeding and I don’t remember much after that.”
Siemers’ dog had been killed in the previous attack.
In the same chapter, Dave offers the story of Jack Woodard, a doctor in Albany, Georgia who worked with Tony Winter, a Republican environmentalist. Winter was suing Merck for heavy metal pollution from a local factory, which had likely caused a stillbirth in the Winters family. For his efforts, Winter suffered an attempt at murder when the bolts were loosened on his van’s front axle. Jack Woodard was an outspoken advocate of the Winters family in meetings with Merck lawyers: unknown assailants stole his forty-pound mixed-breed dog in March 1993, killed it and drained its blood, then dumped it on Woodard’s driveway.
Two examples pulled from a book I happened to have within ten feet of my computer. There are more. In the Spring of 1992, investigative journalist Jonathan Franklin wrote an article for The Muckraker, the newsletter of the Center For Investigative Reporting, on the burgeoning attacks against environmentalists. Franklin’s article — sadly, not available online — was an important precursor to Helvarg’s book, detailing a rather astonishing number of threats and attacks against grassroots environmental activists. Even in those days before most of us environmentalists had email accounts, Franklin’s article was copied and forwarded widely. I think I got a dozen copies in the mail.
The title of Franklin’s article, from a sentence spoken by one of his interviewees: “First They Kill Your Dog.”
What happened this past weekend here at Creek Running North was neither shocking nor new. It wasn’t even the first time Zeke has been threatened in comments here. (According to site statistics, one of Jeff Goldstein’s readers dropped the little gem to be found in this thread.) Most such threats are spurious, offered up by cowards as a way of shutting down discussion and never to be backed up with any of the actual risks involved in leaving Mom’s basement and venturing out into the bright, bright sun. But some of the threats are serious, and some attacks come without warning. We environmental activists — the people Kos derides as frivolous detractors from the important issue of getting DNC anti-environmentalists elected — we have faced this shit for a long time. We have martyrs.
My sense of this latest threat is that it sprung from the same source from which, I’ve decided, much of the seemingly pointless internecine warfare in the progressive blog community in recent weeks derives: deliberate pot-stirring by rightist thugs.
Some informers and infiltrators quietly provide information while keeping a low profile and doing whatever is expected of group members. Others attempt to discredit a target and disrupt its work. They may spread false rumors and make unfounded accusations to provoke or exacerbate tensions and splits. They may urge divisive proposals, sabotage important activities and resources, or operate as “provocateurs” who lead zealous activists into unnecessary danger. In a demonstration or other confrontation with police, such an agent may break discipline and call for actions which would undermine unity and detract from tactical focus.
— COINTELPRO Revisited, Brian Glick
I’m not necessarily suggesting an organized campaign of disruption by the right. For one thing, it wouldn’t need to be organized. We are a fractious, quarreling people, and a few free-lance online provocateurs could easily set huge battles raging across the left blogopshere’s ridiculous landscape.
Further, we on the left possess all the flaws and frailty we need to do ourselves in without help from the “other side.” An example springs to mind. Marc Faletti, the first-among-equals at Punkass Blog, recently suffered the death of a dog he loved, his ex-girlfriend’s sweet dog Calla. Just four days after Calla died, Marc’s co-blogger R. Mildred decided she could use Marc’s grief to her rhetorical advantage:
Oh and your scaving tonage is justified, someone is being mean to you, you can fucking bring it or you can whack off with your politeness and shoot your dog (again).
And while you and others may find that offensive, I choose to believe otherwise, and I posit that as I am a femme, and heterosexual and white white white, my made up out of wholecloth contextless analysis of reality is as good as the real thing.
When called on her callousness, R, Mildred upped the ante:
Hey! He says he went to a funeral, I say he didn’t, can’t we just agree to disagree?
If I say he fucked his dog to death, and he says he didn’t, well both opninons are equally valid, we’re all fair and balanced here.
Zeke and I got — literally — hundreds of notes wishing us well, expressing horror at the notion that anyone would deliberately use a person’s love of a dog to inflict emotional distress in the service of online political argument, and asking what kind of horrible person would do such a thing. Above is one answer. No one but Marc’s friends Quin and Amanda objected on his or his ex-‘s or Calla’s behalf: R. Mildred is a popular, edgy, progressive blogger. As far as I’m concerned, her act was worse than the threat against Zeke: I was quickly able to write that threat off as irrelevant, and Zeke is still here. But R. Mildred has a posse.
Blind spots are amazing things.
Blind spots are complemented, in many cases, by tunnel vision. The threat having been made against Zeke, many people were all too ready to interpret the situation to support their view of their own pet issue. It’s proof that anonymity is important or dangerous. It shows how wrong or right Ann Bartow was. (Need I actually say that Zeke’s friend Ann bears no responsibility for the threat against him?) My taking the blog down temporarily was an act of appeasement to the terrorists or an understandable and sadly permanent acquiescence to appallingly bad people out there on whatever side is opposed to the observer. And on and on.
I am soul-searingly grateful for all the good wishes, and I will presume upon your goodwill to ask that Zeke’s admirers — and detractors — try not to make this episode some sort of Internet Rorschach test. I see precious little black and white here. As I said at Pharyngula, I am not so naive as to think that the police have any interest in tracking down the source of an anonymous online threat against a dog. Trying to subpoena the records of the anonymizing web proxy the threatener used would earn me more, and more credible, threats from the Slashdot crowd. It is over, and all I can do is:
1) take steps to block access to this site from such proxy servers, which plan is underway;
2) pet Zeke and give him London broils on demand;
3) forgive, as the boundary between dog-threatener and respected online presence is sufficiently diffuse that I cannot discern it with any real confidence.
There is something else I’ve done, and if you are angered enough at these events that you want to do something concrete to make things better, you can do it too. It’s easy and straightforward.
This person, whether misguided progressive or malevolent wingnut, sought to build and deepen rifts in the left online world. Mary Beth and Eric Williams and Dwight [i don’t know Dwight’s last name] Meredith over at Wampum run the Koufax Awards, which more than any other single online event builds a remarkable unity and camaraderie across the left-progressive-feminist blog world. They are doing it again this year, Mary Beth says, despite some misgivings after some nominees violated their trust last year. (That’s one more thing I found more disheartening than the threat Zeke got. Cheating in the fucking Koufaxes?)
There is a tool that would make the Wampum folks’ work on the Koufax Awards much easier this year, and it’s pricy enough that they cannot really afford it without some help. The awards will go on without it, but this tool — a generator to run their off-the-grid tech setup — would make it happen at a lower human cost, and more environmentally sound to boot.
The person who made the threat against Zeke tried to erode our community. You have all responded with truly touching emotional generosity to this threat. Let’s slap that thug’s face, in a non-violent metaphorical sense. Drop a few bucks on Zeke’s behalf to buy the Wampum folks that generator. The threatening asshole brought us all together here: let’s take advantage of that to accomplish the opposite of what he or she had in mind.
And thanks to all of you who wrote, blogged, spoke, and IMed me about this, most of all Zuzu, who was first in line to rip the miscreant a new one. Y’all are mensches.
San Dimas High School Football Rules!
Posted by: Chris Clarke
Note: A database glitch in 2008 ate a bunch of archived comments. Don't be offended if yours isn't here, or confused if the conversation seems disjointed. Thanks!
“My sense of this latest threat is that it sprung from the same source from which, I’ve decided, much of the seemingly pointless internecine warfare in the progressive blog community in recent weeks derives: deliberate pot-stirring by rightist thugs.”
Wow. I was going down the same path in comments here—starting with _The War Against the Greens_, from which I got quote-hits from your site, by the way—and I was wondering whether I was being too paranoid. I thought of mentioning COINTELPRO too, but I thought that would be the kiss of death for anyone taking the idea seriously—nothing like an actual, proven-to-exist government conspiracy to make people hear only the word “conspiracy”.
I agree about not making this an Internet Rorschach test. It’s not like I’m saying that everything bad should be blamed on a convenient and unitary set of bad guys—most provocateurs are freelance, remember alt.syntax.tactical?. However, a certain degree of very limited paranoia may be useful insofar as it contributes to scepticism, rather than keeping you from doing anything. I thought that it was not really proven that this was part of a left-wing blog spat, and I’m glad that to a limited sense you seem to agree.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2006 10 25
Oh, and I’ll go ahead and contribute to Wampum too.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2006 10 25
Oh, heck, now that this seems to have calmed down a little, I’ll bite: What does San Dimas high school football have to do with this?
By: By Charles on 2006 10 25
Hey, Chris, I’m glad to see you’re back. And I applaud Zeke’s pluck.
The attacks on environmentalists you described—were they really just carried out by random right-wing thugs, or were the thugs hired and instructed by the companies being sued? Did any law enforcement agencies ever investigate any of this?
Oh, and not that it’s terribly important, but I have no problem believing that the ingrown asshair who made the threat was on the “left.” As you yourself noted, there’s plenty of callousness and ugliness for everyone.
By: By Heraclitus on 2006 10 25
My advice to activists, agitators, or any politically conscious person has always been to avoid pets. They can’t consent to the risk. I think the Godfather made this point fairly clear.
(I’m not slagging you for having a dog btw, but you may want to reconsider having another)
However, I am certainly one of those freelance provocateurs you speak of - if of a gentler nature. I fax-bombed government offices in the 80s (and contributed to destroying the Canadian freedom of information act - a youthful accomplishment I still regret), I’ve been arrested on various mischief charges, helped organize various union actions, and even did a stint in Greenpeace (it’s practically a Canadian right of passage at this point - and yes, I was assaulted while doing so). Generally, I tend to engage with those I disagree with, but only slightly disagree with. The question is: why am I, and those like me, such splitters?
Well, for some time now I’ve been under the impression that our problems don’t come from an inability to form mobs, but from an inability to co-exist as factional individuals. The solution isn’t to stop splitting and start joining, but to split as often as possible. Splitting *is* nuanced. The hard part is splitting compassionately.
As you’ve noted: coercion, veiled threats (which is exactly what threatening a pet is), and vilification are not great mechanisms for splitting. Honest, humourous, even passionate objections are the solution - even the occasional mockery.
By: By Central Content Publisher on 2006 10 25
Donation done. Maybe we can also take up a collection to buy Zeke some pig ears. Scritch scritch. Good boy!
By: By Jane on 2006 10 25
Zeke was using poetic license. He doesn’t really do pig ears. It’s just that “dried chicken breasts” doesn’t rhyme with “fears.”.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 25
“My advice to activists, agitators, or any politically conscious person has always been to avoid pets. They can’t consent to the risk.”
Really really bad advice. No one should think that being politically active means that you give up being alive.
When you decide to have children, you put them at potential risk of every bad thing in the world, and a nonpotential 100% chance that something bad will eventually happen to them. They can’t consent to that.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2006 10 25
I thought that having my son read that Atrios thought I was the Worst Person In The World was going to be the low point of my weekend, but the threat on Zeke literally made me vomit. You know I’ll help you any way I can.
lots of love,
Ann
By: By Ann Bartow on 2006 10 25
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 25
Thank you, Chris, for your compassion. And thanks for reminding us of the the big picture. Engaged political activists threaten powerful interests, whether they are corporate and organized or ideological and irrational, like our sense of entitlement. I can understand the impulse to mock, but I cannot condone the cruelty.
I love your idea of making a material contribution to the folks who work to create positive community—I’ll be heading over to Wampum now.
By: By Joanna on 2006 10 25
Welcome back, and I’m so sad to hear what happened. I did not see the threat (I was internets-free the past day and a half), but I did see the message from the troll-who-shall-not-be-named on Michael’s blog, and it made me sick to my stomach.
So I’m very glad you and Zeke are back with your poetries to cheer us all up. (The WAAGNFN Party is greatly diminished without the services of our illustrious wingnut-bashing Poet General). Does Zeke take requests? If so, will you ask him if he’ll do a smack-down poem with the word “neutered” in it?
And count me in for the Wampum donation.
By: By Oaktown Girl on 2006 10 25
(sigh)
By: By zhoen on 2006 10 25
Well said, zhoen.
Still, I wonder if you might expand on that.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 25
Donation made, and prayers continue for you and Zeke.
I’ll blog this all soon.
By: By Hugo on 2006 10 25
Rich: Our actions have consequences. We are ethically obligated to consider the impact of those consequences on others. This isn’t bad advice. It’s a moral imperative. If considering others makes you feel like you’re “giving up being alive”, you have concerns far more serious than bad advice.
By: By Central Content Publisher on 2006 10 25
CCP, I wondered where you were coming from, checked out the link to your blog, saw “And much like the flak I get from feminists (including Chris Clarke and bitchphd) who believe I have a problem with women because I have a problem with feminist ideology, it’s delusional”, and decided that I certainly wasn’t going to contribute to the mindless blogspattery that Chris has just spoken about here, now.
So you’re just going to have to continue believing that I’m advising against consideration of others.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2006 10 25
Chris,
Delurking at last to let you know how much I love your blog, not to mention your dog. You write with such ease and grace that I am constantly in awe. Thank you for returning; I spent too much of the last couple of days wandering in a blue funk through comment threads at Pharyngula and Berube’s place, trying to understand what happened. The voluminous contributions of narcissists and other cranks became wearing after a bit. It amazes me how even fellow lefties seem so sure of their ethical (or practical) tenets that they feel confident prescribing them for people they know only through their blog posts—or even, in a couple of particularly verbose cases, through others’ references to their blog posts—apparently without having read the original.
Be well, and thanks again.
By: By M Patterson on 2006 10 25
I had no idea that being an environmental activist was so potentially dangerous. Shows what a bubble I’ve been living in, I guess. It also makes me feel rather cowardly, for which I (sincerely) thank you, Chris. You got da power, man.
The link to last year’s spat with Jeff G was a healthy reminder that wingnuts are as subtle as tertiary syphilis, and half as funny (no, I’m not writing from personal experience. I’ve seen pictures). Actually, that goes for most ideologues.
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 25
I’m sorry if I misunderstood your intent. I thought you were fairly clear.
By: By Central Content Publisher on 2006 10 25
I am so very glad you’re back. And I thank you, and Zeke for your very kind flogging of our evil (according to PG&E) plan of running the Koufaxes off the grid this year.
But I also want you to know that it was the amazing outpouring of warmth and kindness from your readers for Zeke over the past months which in part led to my change of heart regarding actually running the awards again this year. I’d been feeling really disheartened, and just reading CRN reminded me of how good I always felt while putting together the nomination posts and reading the comments in voting. I guess that’s also why the bad behavior of a few made me feel so bad that I thought of giving it up. Thanks for reminding me the sea of positives are worth so much more than the few negatives.
And not to let the negatives win.
Gee, it is December yet? Can I start calling for nominations?
By: By MBW on 2006 10 25
Welcome back. Dwight’s last name is Meredith. (Not a secret. And I’m glad Ann has already read this post!)
By: By Elayne Riggs on 2006 10 25
San Dimas High School Football Rules! = Some of what’s polluting the Leftosphere lately is so very high school.
By: By Roxanne on 2006 10 25
CCP, you’re right about signing other people up for risks, which is part of why Becky and I aren’t having kids.
But only part of why. If we really wanted to have kids, the activism wouldn’t be much more than something to consider. Same goes for adopting Zeke. In terms of having made a difference to someone, taking Zeke in is likely the most effective activism I’ve ever done. (Just becase I get something out of it doesn’t disqualify it from being activism.)
There’s a larger issue here too: as long as activists are separate from the rest of society, we’re going to be ineffective. And as long as we don’t have lives outside our activism, we’ll be ineffective. Asceticism has its place (hi, Kat!) but it’s been my experience that those activists who don’t have dogs, or kids, or violin lessons, or meditation, or hikes or birding or something outside la causa burn out pretty damn quick.
And even if they don’t, they become really boring and I don’t want to go on road trips with them.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 25
Re San Dimas High School: I’m very slow, sometimes. I suppose I could have used that there Wikipedia thingamabob all by myself. Oh, well.
By: By Charles on 2006 10 25
Thanks, Elayne! I meant to include Dwight’s last name and got swept away in the mushy moment. Dwight’s been sort of MIA lately, but I have no fear he’ll reappear for the ‘06 Koufaxes.
By: By MBW on 2006 10 25
Not adopting a pet means that another pet gets killed at the pound. Adopting a pet as an activist means that the pet has a happy life with a small additional risk of it being shorter than usual (Chris gets one or two threats of violence a year, or so he’s said, and Zeke is still as fine as an old dog can be, so the actual risk isn’t that great). As risk analysis, it’s lousy advice to tell activists not to adopt pets.
It’s also just bad advice in general. The purpose of activism is to make a better life for people. You can’t do that if you’ve systematically, preemptively eliminated everything that makes life worth living. If you can’t dance, what good is the revolution?
And Chris, I’m actually surprised that you’d list this as a reason not to have kids. I don’t think that if someone wanted kids and had a, let’s say, 1% chance of their child having a serious genetic disorder, that you’d tell them not to have kids, despite their children-in-potential’s complete inability to give consent to the risk.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2006 10 25
I would like to point out that it really is not appropriate (and yes, I still live in a world in which certain things, like uttering death threats against a beloved dog or crowing about the death of another is really not ok) to try to construct one size fits all rules regarding whether of not to adopt a pet or to bring a child into life or to blog under a real name or not. I respect people who say they couldn’t bear to bring a child into this world, and I respect people who feel that to do so is essential to their ability to “be.”
And thank you for this sobering and thought-provoking post Chris.
By: By sunrunner on 2006 10 25
Just bought $20 bucks worth of generator in honor of Zeke. And to anyone so craven as to threaten people’s loved ones, human or animal: may you rot in hell.
By: By Tsunami on 2006 10 25
“I would like to point out that it really is not appropriate [...] to try to construct one size fits all rules”
Well, I wouldn’t tell someone *to* adopt a pet if they didn’t want to. But if they wanted to, I wouldn’t tell them that they shouldn’t, just because they also want to live a slightly riskier than normal life. The same goes for kids, of course.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2006 10 25
i’m glad you and zeke are back. i don’t know what has gone on with the blogwars, but really can’t stand the thought of threats like that against zeke being thrown around. isn’t there enough wrong with the world already, enough to worry about, enough nastiness to grieve?
By: By kathy a on 2006 10 25
“were they really just carried out by random right-wing thugs, or were the thugs hired and instructed by the companies”
a little logging town in western canada: guys from the local “share” group (a pro-industry front with ties to the worst of US right-wing extremism) go to the local highschool with a slide show. what are they showing? photographs, candid portraits of the protestors at the previous summer’s blockade.
they’re not stupid. they know the odds are good that in a gymnasium full of strapping young lads, at least one or two will pick up on the suggestion.
my good friend wound up with a broken nose and worse. at the trial, the good ol’ boys got off, but not before their buddies vandalized the supporters’ cars in the lot outside the court.
where is the leader of the share group now? why, he’s BC premier Campbell’s press secretary!
By: By rob on 2006 10 25
Welcome back, Chris.
By: By Stephen Frug on 2006 10 25
Speaking of martyrs, don’t forget the bombing/sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, and killing of Fernando Pereira, on July 10, 1985 in Auckland Harbour. It was personally authorised by the French President, François Mitterrand.
By: By Mez on 2006 10 26
I think it’s worth pointing out that not all ill-feeling towards environmentalists is of corporate origin, or sponsored by corporations. Some people genuinely feel that their livelihoods are threatened. Again, not black and white, at least on an emotional level.
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 26
Rob G, that ill-feeling is deliberately manipulated and enhanced by corporate interests. It’s not like people have a natural, unpolluted discourse in which they “genuinely feel that their livelihoods are threatened” without ever having come across a Wise Use pamphlet (or whatever the successor to Wise Use is).
Within the First World, corporations generally don’t do direct violence unless the issue is very important, because they have a lot to lose if they ever get caught. That means that if they do ever do direct violence, it tends to be both highly serious (i.e. directed at people) and slickly covered up. Can you imagine the political hit that a major corporation would take if they got caught killing someone’s pet? It’s almost never worth it for them to directly do something like that. Instead, they work with cutouts, and inspire local thugs to act independently.
In the Third World, of course, it’s different.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2006 10 26
(or whatever the successor to Wise Use is).
That would be the Executive Branch.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 26
that ill-feeling is deliberately manipulated and enhanced by corporate interests
Of course it is, but that doesn’t render their concerns or their feelings irrelevant. Nor do their concerns arise only through the prodding of the corporate interests (I’m not sure you were actually saying this, but my reading comprehension, she not always so good).
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 26
Great post, Chris.
I heartily agree with one of your comments above that activists need to be whole in order to be truly effective. We all know that doctrinaire leftist ideology is both boring as hell and ineffective. And as I see it (here comes the controversial part), the left’s philosophical divorce from spirituality has probably been the most self-destructive intellectual act in its history.
By: By Kai on 2006 10 26
I agree on all counts. My point was only that one should consider avoiding dependants. I understand on the pet front too. I never look for them, but they seem to find me non-the-less.
Mind you, I’m no longer an activist - just an average run-of-the-mill complainer.
By: By Central Content Publisher on 2006 10 26
...the left’s philosophical divorce from spirituality…
Hey, when did that happen? I didn’t get the memo. Seriously Kai, what do you mean by that?
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 26
Rob G,
I probably spoke too broadly. I didn’t mean to condemn you if you’re a leftist who embraces spirituality (like me). Don’t get me wrong: I know about Dr. King and Gandhi. But in my own experience, there’s a strong current of rigid atheism that runs through socialist and related leftist thinking that has seriously hurt progressive populism. When did it happen? When Marx called religion an “opiate” and millions of people nodded their heads.
I’ll expand on that if you like. Thanks for your response.
Peace.
By: By Kai on 2006 10 26
Kai, I took no offense from your statement. My question was 90% curiosity, 10% confusion.
I think any dogma that is rigid and dismissive is also destructive. That includes a lot of atheists, and most organized religions IMHO. And agnostics are just a bunch of whiny, wishy-washy weenies :)
I tend not to use the word spirituality, as it’s one of those words that gets rather overloaded. I would just say I’m comfortable in a world I don’t understand, that contains far more than I could ever know, and that leaves me in awe at least once a day.
Yes, I would like you to expand.
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 26
Rob G,
Yeah, I agree with you that rigid dogma, including organized religion, is usually destructive. And I’ll let you take on the agnostics. ;-) I also agree that the word “spirituality” kinda sucks; it has become an excuse for all manner of intellectually-soft self-indulgence, more than an indicator of any serious thought or practice. However, I still haven’t found a better word to suggest the humbled awe at the unknowable cosmos which you describe. And I guess my original point was that progressive populism has probably been set back by this particular wrinkle in our discourse and dialogue.
Cheers.
By: By Kai on 2006 10 26
okay, i missed the business about PM’s dog before. and yeah: RM, much as i’ve appreciated what you’ve had to say in this last round of online hooha, that’s way over the line for me. some shit’s just below the belt.
By: By belledame222 on 2006 10 26
Can I just say welcome back as well? I haven’t much more to say, but yes.
By: By Nick Fagerlund on 2006 10 26
The Dems who embrace Harry Reid are no friends of feminists or women. Reproductive rights are subordinated to retaking power. Dem activists have more to gain than the right by thwarting feminist organizing and community building. Food for thought.
By: By marj on 2006 10 27
Chris:
My condolences. You bring up, incidentally, something that has troubled me for a while.
I decided recently not to post to lefty blogs for some indefinite time.
(Obviously this post is an exception.)
My decision was based on re-reading my own recent posts (mostly at Pandagon) in which I was spewing venom and cant in an R. Mildred-like fashion (I’m not as good as blog-flame rhetoric).
I didn’t like the person I became on-line.
There’s a stridency and rigidity on lefty blogs, esp. those that deal with cultural issues.
We just don’t seem to be able to shake off the excesses of 90s elite-college-campus identity politics, nor the knee-jerk atheism and scientism.
But I rant again. Which I don’t want to do just now. I want to listen.
I wish others would do the same. The aim is solve problems, right? We can’t do that with flame wars and posturing and hyperbole. We just do the work of our enemies for them.
Thanks for your thoughtful blog.
—wapsie (formerly scrutator, until I learned that some obscure fascists blogs under that name)
By: By wapsie on 2006 10 30
ugh… sorry for the typos above… not enough coffee yet… hopefully I make sense anyway
By: By wapsie on 2006 10 30
In lieu of a comment on the ‘Gone Fishing’ post.
Mr Clarke, I regret, but understand, partly from my own life, your putting this aside. Thank you so much, however, for keeping what I’ve elsewhere called “some of the most intelligent, deeply-felt and beautiful writing that I’ve seen” accessible for future and returning readers. And thank you very much for making and showing it.
My very best wishes to you and all your loved ones, including the ecosystems.
By: By Mez on 2006 11 04
