portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

actions & protests

fur protest debate on blueoregon.com

.
The fur protest is being smashed by Democrats on BlueOregon,com.

 http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/03/the_schumacher_.html#comment-15521675

If you are part of this please read what's being said there and give your opinion, but it's probably not in our best interest to make one or two sentence comments that will just be brushed off. Think about how you feel and say it well.

Tricky 29.Mar.2006 04:33

Mike Novack stepbysptefarm <a> mtdata.com

It's a tricky situation for them. To make it obvious why I will discuss this not from their point of view as from a point of view within the animal rights community.

Are YOU willing to be split apart (have your community split) in order to have the Democrats adopt an anti-fur position?

Because you won't be able to understand the animosity otherwise. Single issue folks are always a threat to those trying to organize political parties. Oh, I don't mean by single issue not caring at all about anything else, just what the list of priorities looks like. And the reality here is that from the point of view of the Democrats they could afford to absorb your antifurness -- few Democrats feel STRONGLY that they personally must wear furs.

<< remember -- it was REPUBLICAN women 100 years ago who led the antifeathers campaigns >>

But vegetarianism is another matter entirely. I understand, you sincerely believe that you will be able to convince all of us to give up eating dead animals. Whether that is a realistic belief (on your part) or not is irrelevant. What counts is what the Democrats believe. And I am telling you that most of them believe OF THEMSELVES that forced to make a ballot choice between a Democrat with a plank of vegetarianism and Bush but continuing to eat meat they would vote for Bush.

As an entirety, the "animal rights" interest group is not absorbable by the Democrats and to the extent you raise issues orthogonal to what they want to fight about you represent a threat

Republicans are leaders, Democrats are managers... 29.Mar.2006 08:41

Pravda or Consequences

By this I mean Republicans establish their purpose and go for it.

Democrats, trying to be all things to all people, end up being nothing to no one. And my proof is the situation we are in. Criminals, using the political process for obscene objectives, are unchallenged to any real extent and folks who protest are as always, marginalized.

If we go along, we're zombie sheep, if we demonstrate, we're lazy nobodies.

I think we need to accept the fact that our environment (however defined) is not healthy, we have really done nothing about it (forget the anecdotes), and for the sake of future generations, we need to change it at the risk of losing everything we thought was the most important.

wierd 29.Mar.2006 12:56

Fred L

This Jeff Alworth wrote a rather stupid article on the blue oregon site. I went and read it. It is his basic fear of conflict and having conflict affect how he is perceived in the public that has him in a fluster.

I wish progressives in general, (this does not apply to all, but it does apply to lots) would stop being worried so much about their personal image and roll up their sleeves and get to work. If people do not like the fur protest, work on something they do like.

I am quite shocked by the number of negative, condemning, and misinformational posts on the blueoregon site. Either the shumachers are busy posting there, or there are a lot of ignorant progressives. Unfortunately, it seems when there is some conflict, too many liberal progressive types run away from it or even actively oppose it because of fear.

I so look forward to the day when we have a movement that has some stamina, will, and is able to keep focused on important issues.

education vs the cudgel 29.Mar.2006 14:36

social libertarian

to make it a party plank is absurd waste of political effort and yes, its devisive.

The way to proceed is to devote energy to convincing others (Dems or not, its not a relevant distinction)that meat is a seriouys health hazzard. Why is the beef industry opposed to allowing productsd to be labeled Organic, and same question of the diary industry. Why do they drag heels over keeping tabs on individual carcases so we can control mad caw disease from spreading between cows, infecting plants and killing consumers.

Some would say its a demonic/capitalist plot. It is sufficient to say they are greedy and lazy and not concerned with consumers.

This approach can transcend politic. It resounds with anarchists, passivists, church goers, america firsters, internationalists, greens and even industrialists with a conscience (yes they do exist)

Soi why start out building fences and dividing people before they know enough to see the merits of this issue.

BTW, with peak oil upon us, the current mean industry is headed for steep decline. Add water being sold for profit not given away to the bigest users at the lowest price...well rocks and hard places will abound for industrial meat.

So preach the healthful and more sustainable, not to mention cheaper today, alternatives. And leave politics out of it

Fred L - 29.Mar.2006 14:44

---

I couldn't agree with you more. Fur not your issue? Fine, work on something else. We're defeated as progressives when the most useful thing we can think of doing is attacking one another for working on the wrong progressive cause out of fear of embarrassment or not getting approval. When he said something about "protesting the protesters" that really tells you where he's coming from. What's ironic is that he tells US (fur protesters) to go work on something important - so what does he find that's important to do with HIS time? Write articles criticizing the fur protesters.

Clarification 30.Mar.2006 11:50

Jeff Alworth

It is his basic fear of conflict and having conflict affect how he is perceived in the public that has him in a fluster. Just to be clear, I'm neither afraid of conflict nor in a fluster. I'm also generally pro-protest, and have participated in dozens over the years. But protests have a specific and limited function--they are good for raising awareness, demonstrating public dissent on issues, and uniting groups in a larger coalition. On the Schumacher protest, you've done all three. What they're not so hot at is changing law. Having accomplished the goals of a protest, you have to ask at what point the protest risks endangering the very goal you seek. We still have a pretty decent democracy going, and laws are still made through legal, legislative channels. These protests have been going on for months, and I called the question: to what end. Aside from the personal invective aimed at me, I still haven't heard a persuasive answer.

Here is the 30.Mar.2006 12:38

xoxo


What you wrote was.. 30.Mar.2006 13:30

Madam Hatter

Actually Jeff, what you wrote was:

"Are the protesters--presumably all lefty enviros--doing liberalism and environmentalism a disservice by this high-profile stunt? From where I stand, the answer looks to be yes."

and

"As liberals who make distinctions between effective and ineffective political efforts, I'm just wondering if others feel that this is a damaging spectacle."

By these comments, it's fair to say you're concerned with how these protests "affect how [you are] perceived in the public". Why are YOU "devolving" the conversation by claiming these statements are "personal invective"? Sorry, but you laid down the rhetoric first with terms like "damaging spectacle". It's disingenuous of you to play that card now.

I'll restate what a poster on Blue Oregon said:
"Why should everyone tow some imaginary line that you have created?"

You were right: "We still have a pretty decent democracy going, and laws are still made through legal, legislative channels."

Protesting is legal. It was made so through legal, legislative channels. I'd say that it's been pretty darn effective in raising awareness, as you admitted. So, your answer is for them all to pack up and go home now, mission accomplished? What a typical lame Democrat answer.

What exactly, have all your "effective political efforts" accomplished lately? The state legislature is a joke. The Dems at the National level are spineless morons. What have Dems done for us lately?

Invective 30.Mar.2006 17:09

Jeff Alworth

Madam, the invective I meant was stuff like being called stupid and gutless. Fair enough, but I was posing an open question; there's nothing open about calling people names.

Sorry, but you laid down the rhetoric first with terms like "damaging spectacle". It's disingenuous of you to play that card now..... The Dems at the National level are spineless morons.

Yeah, I think it may have become a damaging specatacle. And the language of "spineless morons" and "gutless" only make the cause less inclusive. When I posed the question, I was prepared to hear a rousing defense of why the protests were important. Instead, got called stupid. Where exactly does the divisive onus lie?

whoa Jeff, you're defensive. 31.Mar.2006 16:58

.

You start it with an attack of the protests. Then some people (who don't sound like the protesters, but who are objecting to your caricature of protests/protesters who you think embarrass you) call you gutless for worrying so much about your image. You defend yourself now by saying your caricature was actually true, so what's the problem. I guess people in response could say it's actually true that you are "gutless," so what's the problem. Anyway, I'd say the onus of divisiveness lies with you - and you are surprisingly blind to it!