Greeting and Salutations Once Again,
So, I am sitting in bed a while ago picking at my face, when I see breaking news come on the television. Now, the breaking news most often featured on our local TV stations here in Seattle, usually consist of puppies or kittens that get stuck in a drain pipe somewhere. Yet, this time it was somewhat different. Instead, it was the cruel Libyan dictator Kaddafi hiding in a drain pipe. I sat up when the flashy “breaking news” graphic flashed across the dusty screen of my RCA 18” tube television (it’s not that bad – it’s the lightest in the series, only weighing a measly 85 pounds). The anchorman announced over my headphones (the only thing that functions as speakers for my TV due to a mishap with Sunny Delight and vomit) that Omar Kaddafi was indeed dead. They immediately followed this report with a video of an extremely graphic nature, which despite my love of horror films and amateur wrestling, made me want to throw up. I was going to put the Omar death video I saw on here, but I decided that due to its graphic nature, I would instead post this video of bunnies.
Immediately after, it suddenly occurred to me that one really needs to be impressed with the abilities of Arabs to search random scattered holes in the ground and other subterranean edifices for the evil dictators who are fleeing their eventual judgment or demise. Indeed, if Elmer Fudd had an Arab ancestry, I am convinced he would have no problem tracking down that infamous wascially wabbit in his wabbit hole before the hare could surface and carry on with his mischievous shenanigans or hijinx.
I would like to offer my advice to all evil dictators in the future. Perhaps find a hiding place above ground. Maybe in a box car or something. They would blend in just fine with all the city hopping hobos, who all speak gibberish anyway, though admittedly the ex-dictator would have to settle for a somewhat lower quality harem.
Anyway, after this fascinating and somewhat, admittedly joyous news story, came one of the Ohio escaped animal fiasco. The anchorman was quick to warn the viewers that some of the following story would contain "disturbing images." Then, the narrator began to report the story with a long distance camera shot with a field containing several animals dead. Now they never showed blood on this particular report, only a collection of animals which could have been sleeping for all I would have known if it hadn't been for the narration. This was interesting to me because they had just showed Kaddafi getting his head blown off with no such warning, but were quick to label the animal involved story as "disturbing."
Although, the stories themselves were quite interesting, and truly tragic when it comes to the animals, but for some reason, perhaps because of my lack of social life and friends, I found this to be intriguing detail concerning the juxtaposition between the two subjects and their portrayal in the local news. Why is it that you can show a real person getting a bullet to his head, or the aftermath of it, and nobody is disturbed by human blood and brain matter, but showing a dead animal is assumed to have the ability throw people into conniptions without a cited warning before the footage is aired? I find there to be several reasons for this, including the desensitizing of society through movies or TV, and media ethics, which culminates to the eventually effect that human life seems to be increasingly devalued over that of animals. I think there are several more reasons, but number one, I believe I have narrowed it down to it somehow being the Disney corporations fault.
Truth be told, I am an animal lover (not in the gross sense). I like animals and despite my jokes or comments on here, I have never hurt an animal. While kids were frying ants and caterpillars on the sidewalk, I could never partake for some reason because I just felt bad for the insect, dying and tortured at my hands just for the sake of some form of twisted entertainment. So I would distance myself from such activity and go play with my sisters dolls instead. That in itself has led to many years of social awkwardness. I like household pets as long as they aren't mine and they don't relieve themselves on my carpet, any personal belongings, or my person. Yet, I am not a extreme animal lover either. That is, I don't mind hunting and fishing, as long as the carcass isn't just left there to rot and though there are examples of zoos or enclosures that seem somewhat like torture because of their limited size, I don't think a zoo, or enclosed habitat, is in and of itself terrible or by those facts alone we can presume that the animal is mistreated or tortured. Yet, again, a habitat does need to be of considerable size relative to the animal displayed within it. Further, I am not a vegan and frequently partake in the eating or wearing of the flesh of an animal, though my friends tell me I should really take the extra time to cure the flesh first before I wear it. Even what I don't use, like hide, legs, head and such, I find uses for. Like tossing it over an overpass for a cheap laugh and a brisk run immediately afterwards. I clarify my feelings towards animals just so nobody jumps to the wrong conclusion in these examples and concludes somehow that mistreatment of animals is somehow permissible in my view. I assure you it is not. Even with the overpass thing it wasn't mistreated while it was alive mind you.
In the case of Libya, and indeed within many countries in the region, humans are very much treated like animals, or worse. Their rights are stripped away to such a degree that even the basic human right, the one to survive, is stripped of them. Protests and riots have erupted from Africa to the Middle East proper as is evident every night in news broadcasts, and in these protests, the participants are not threatened with pepper spray or having a tent confiscated, but rather death at the hands of the dictatorial government. Though we have seen a number of corrupt autocratic government systems collapse within the last few years because of such uprisings, before it is all said and done, many of the protesters are tragically killed for declaring their dislike for government or policies. If one looks across the world at how many citizens or members of the press have been killed for stating or writing something against those in power, its truly astounding.
It is almost silly to juxtapose such horrible events with the protests of the current Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, where, in essence, all they have to worry about it getting booted out of a public park, maybe feel a little dope sick when their drugs are confiscated, and sent back home to occupy, once more, their parents basement. That may seem unfair, and though I will concede every individual still engaged in the movement may not hold to that globalization, I think it is the direction, what may be called, the dregs of the moment are going.
Coming from Seattle I see the occasional protest, most notably the 1999 WTO protests and riots that caused havoc downtown. In that case, and indeed the case of the OWS protests, everything, for the most part, starts out alright. A notice is put out to invite people of like minds, to use their constitutional right to free speech and they quickly organize in a specific location in order to best profess whatever their mission statement may be. Though I may disagree with a particular groups ideology, the right to organize without the fear of death or violence is one protection this country gives us, and I particularly like the idea of ordinary citizens getting involved in the political process, no matter if it is OWS or the Tea Party. Yet, Tea Party excluded, there seems to be a pattern in these modern examples of protest. When the initial participates organize to protest, everything is somewhat and relatively calm. Those individuals within the group wave signs, maybe yell a little bit, but for the most part, everyone eventually goes separate ways after the rally dies down, though admittedly there might be a couple days of "camping out." After the movement gains momentum, and gets media attention, more people are attracted to the protest and rallies, some with pure motives, while still others are probably on so many drugs they think they are protesting for Denny's to cut their prices on their "Moon's Over My Hammy" meal.
Obviously, this isn't a absolute conclusion, but I do know that as of a few weeks ago, at least three people had to go to the hospital from Portland's OWS protest due to heroin overdoses. In addition, local Seattle protests have been shuffled around more than Air Force One when Obama has something important to do in Washington. These reasons are frequently reported to be health concerns due to needles being found in the area immediately surrounding the encampments. It has got to the point that though, at first, someone would know why are they are really there and give a coherent message to a reporter, that such questions from reporters are responded to now with incoherent and contradictory statements. In general, I would say when such protests move from daily rallies to camping indefinitely, the message gets lost and the movement becomes occupied by fist bumping, tattered clothing wearing college aged kids who raise their fists against the establishment, capitalism, and at the same time have no issues with demanding your spare change.
Recently while watching the news coverage of the Black Friday shopping madhouse, they briefly focused on some OWS protesters, protesting Black Friday. The man, who to his credit was standing their quietly with a sign, did say he and his colleagues were protesting consumerism. Now, if I wasn't so busy trying to teach my dog how to tap dance, I would have laughed outright at the screen. The man apparently had no concept of where his clothes came from, his Fox racing beanie, or how he got those markers to make the sign and which he sniffs on a nightly basis (Marker huffers are an untapped market. How you think you got those there genius?(When writing this it occurred to me that marker huffers are an uncapped market. Thus, I am currently in negotiations to make my own line of pen, "Snuffies.")
Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but its the best. No perfect system will exist as long as imperfect people exist. Its one of the harsh realities of our world, but we do have the ability to speak out and change the tide of "progress," but what makes it affective, is not only how much sense it makes in its message, but the methodology behind the protest. When we look at such affective protests of the past, in our country alone, it usually doesn't take people throwing things through mini-mart windows or random acts of violence. The most effective have been those that have been civil. For instance, most recently, when Bank of America announced their five-dollar debit card fee, people organized and encouraged people to move their money elsewhere. This was so effective that Bank of America eventually dropped the charge. Though the OWS movement at the beginning was charged with not having a coherent message, I think what was displayed with OWS and The Tea Party is quite clear, the frustration the public is having with their current political leaders and corporations. When it comes to corporations, I have no problem with the mere existence of corporations, but rather those economic powerhouses who make profit by price gouging the public. I understand due to inflation sometimes prices need to go up, but I perceive that the general public is increasingly under the impression that they are being taken for a ride by many corporate entities and politicians. This, above anything else, is an important message which should be heeded by those who provide services and those in power. However, if people like those who now have hijacked the OWS movement, continue to speak for such groups and propose to be under their banner, then the message or possible influence the rally might have had might as well be tossed out the window, for as the respect decreases, so does the power of a particular group to produce change.
You really need to feel bad for the police who are given the responsibility to keep such groups under control. I am sure on occasion a cop oversteps the bounds of his authority, but for the most part I feel cops are well trained to handle such situations and their actions display as such. Yes, being pepper sprayed isn't exactly pleasant, but when it comes down to it, its probably one of the most "humane" ways to control an unruly crowd, especially when considering all the other methods. I always hear people complaining about the police and their conduct to some reporter on the news, but the next moment footage shows some moron swinging a big metal bat or pole at police. What's to be done? Police hardly ever pepper spray without warning unless attacked or threatened, and ample warning, sometimes in fact for days prior, is given to the protesters to disperse.
If a cop rushed one of the protesters and beat him with a nightstick people would call foul, but still when a 84 year old woman is pepper sprayed by getting caught in the crossfire, people still call foul. I feel bad for the old woman, but pepper spray isn't as accurate as say a night stick, but that would be unacceptable. What was she doing there in the first place? Perhaps her family should look after her a little closer. To her credit though, she was rather humorous and good natured when asked about the whole ordeal. If cops threaten to arrest or spray then you should probably heed the warning and not consider it a joke. Most cities have been more then accommodating to the movement, but cops have a duty to make sure that nobody else's rights are infringed upon by their presence. The most tragic thing about all this was when I saw the elderly pepper sprayed woman doing a interview on TV and realized that it was Keith Olbermann interviewing her. Yes, Keith Olbermann is back! That is the most horrendous thing about this whole story and soon I expect protests to arise just from this fact alone. Horrible. Horrible.
In closing, finally, I would say in America the word to live by when protesting and speaking ones mind should be, "civil," or depending on the extent of which one is fighting for their rights and what that right is, possibly even, "civil disobedience." Of course, the extent of these can change relative to the cause, but I feel its a more than an essential rule of thumb especially if one considers what they want the eventual outcome to be, successful or unsuccessful. Basically, the ends must justify the means. The man who got this process exactly right was the brilliant Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which he outlined in his famous, "Letter From Birmingham Jail." His boycotts and protests changed the world profoundly and the methodology which made it so successful has been long since forgotten by those who stage protests and those who participate in them.
No comments:
Post a Comment