bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/04/84)
Rex (sanders?) recently wrote a couple of articles about his experience at Diablo, and commenting on some of the mail he received. He said that he'd received 7 replies to his original posting, and had replied to each. As he apparently missed my article (maybe he means 7 replies by personal electronic-mail?) I'm posting it again, prefaced by a remark on his latest articles. from sanders@menlo70.UUCP >>Mr. Sanders, if you are flamed for your actions, might it not >>be because a portion of the intelligent, ethical, educated people >>on the net thnk what you are doing is WRONG? (Keith Lofstrom) >You are entitle [sic] to your opinion - don't speak for others. Although I probably wouldn't use those words, he's speaking for me, too. Sam Hall, UCB ________________________________________________________________ (2nd posting) from Rex at menlo70!sanders: >In a few days, I will go down to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power >plant in central California and try to stop the workers from >getting to their jobs. >The people who are making a difference are the ones taking power >into their own hands, denying "the system" the power people have >been giving to the system for far too long. >This new way of making decisions and making social change has >transformed my life. Well, force and violence have their attractions, apparently. Since reason and logic can't seem to change peoples' minds, Rex & Co. are going to "stop the workers from getting to their jobs". In this case, it may even be questionable that reason or logic were ever attempted. Rex, are you thus disavowing any allegiance to the democratic process, or to the use of reason to persuade, as opposed to force? If I don't like your political beliefs, would you say that I'm morally justified in blocking your driveway on Election Day, in order to stop you from casting a "politically incorrect" vote? Please note that, as opposed to, say, Henry Thoreau, you are advocating using force against other people. If I recall correctly, there was an initiative in California a few years ago pertaining to nuclear power. The "anti-nuclear" position lost handily. You can't even claim to be "vigilantes", where the majority is being terrorized by a few. You seem to be saying that if you can't get the results that you want by using the ballot box, it's O.K. to use brute force. >For this, I will likely be arrested and sentenced to 4 days in >jail. I have never been arrested or put in jail before. Apparently, you recognize that using force against other citizens is not well thought of. Your tone, however, seems to indicate that you're getting some sort-of pleasure out of anticipating being arrested/put in jail: a pre-show enjoyment out of anticipation of being a "martyr"? a feeling that you'll have the esteem of your co-conspirators? something you'll be able to brag about (without really bragging, of course) during late nite rap sessions? Your thoughts/actions are to morality as Agent Orange is to trees. Sam Hall ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap
david@randvax.ARPA (David Shlapak) (03/08/84)
First of all, Rex, I think I have to take back most of the nice things
I've said and thought about you...
I think there's a very fine semantic distinction between "violence" and
"non-violence" that you're hiding behind...I'm sure neither you nor
any other Abalone bopped any construction worker with a brick; however,
by physically interposing yourself between them and their jobs you
forced them to make a choice between removing you, and hence themselves
resorting to violence, or standing around waiting for you to leave.
This is a positive incitement to violence, violenece for which you and
your cohorts would have to bear full responsibility...I would call
that "semi-violent."
> We have been struggling at the polls, writing to legislators,
> debating in courtrooms, etc., for years, and continue to do so.
> However, if you haven't learned the American Golden Rule yet:
>
> *******************************************
> * Them that has the gold makes the rules. *
> *******************************************
Sure Rex...that's why women got the vote, blacks got to sit at lunch
counters, and illegal immigrants get to send their kids to public
schools...cause they have all the money....sheesh!
>> If I don't like your political beliefs, would you say
>>that I'm morally justified in blocking your driveway on Election
>>Day, in order to stop you from casting a "politically incorrect"
>>vote?
> If my vote would cause you, or society, or this planet great harm,
>and you had not been able to persuade me any other way, I hope
>your convictions would be deep enough for you to block my driveway -
>we need more people like you!
Several points here.
First, it sure sounds like you and your fellow Abalones have a really
powerful commitment to democracy...if I'm convinced that you support
dangerous ideas or causes I'm entitled to try and stop you from
doing so, apparently by whatever means it takes so long as I utilise
the minimum necessary force.
That's just wonderful as a justification for anything, since it can
be extended infinitely. Why'd you shoot the President, Lee Oswald?
Well, he advocated opposing the Soviet Union and that's such a harmful
attitude he had to be stopped. I tried blocking the White House driveway
but the Secret Service took me away...I ran against him for president,
and everyone really wanted to vote for me, but
>Many times more money was spent on the usual dirty political campaigning
by the Democrats and the militarist contractors so he won...
Also, I question your absolute certainty that nuclear power "would
cause...this planet great harm," especially since (in a private letter
to me) you stated that you consider the facts of "nuclear physics and
energy" to be IRRELEVANT to the issue of the dangers of nuclear power.
I have found that this kind of certainty bred by ignorance is true
poison to the mind, the soul, and the body politic. It is this kind
of thinking that historically has and always will have the potential
to "cause you,...this society, or this planet great harm."
I also wonder about how you figure keeping workers off their jobs for,
by your own estimate, ten minutes (and even this delay, according to you,
is more credited to the plant security folks than you Abalones) consti-
tutes "saving the planet." I'm so tired of the arrogance that compels
people to attribute messianic qualities to their own emotional and
ignorant obsessions! Between you and Ronald "Evil Empire" Reagan
there's damn little to choose...oh, you have different windmills, but
the one tilts just as blindly as the other.
I'm not impugning your sincerity or anything like that...I just think
that you're a little short in the intellectual maturity department.
Oh yes...If you want to tell me to go f*ck off too, please feel free.
But lay down in front of my driveway and I'll run your face over...
Cheers.
--- dassanders@menlo70.UUCP (Rex Sanders) (03/11/84)
In reply to Sam Hall (ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap): >Well, force and violence have their attractions, apparently. Since >reason and logic can't seem to change peoples' minds, Rex & Co. are >going to "stop the workers from getting to their jobs". In this >case, it may even be questionable that reason or logic were ever >attempted. Rex, are you thus disavowing any allegiance to the >democratic process, or to the use of reason to persuade, as opposed >to force? Sorry it wasn't clear in my messages - the Abalone Alliance and all the groups I work with are totally committed to non-violent, direct action, in the traditions of Gandhi and King. We have an explicit non-violence code we require (as much as any non-hierarchical, non-violent, open group can 'require') everyone who participates in these actions to adhere to. We have been struggling at the polls, writing to legislators, debating in courtrooms, etc., for years, and continue to do so. However, if you haven't learned the American Golden Rule yet: ******************************************* * Them that has the gold makes the rules. * ******************************************* > If I don't like your political beliefs, would you say >that I'm morally justified in blocking your driveway on Election >Day, in order to stop you from casting a "politically incorrect" >vote? If my vote would cause you, or society, or this planet great harm, and you had not been able to persuade me any other way, I hope your convictions would be deep enough for you to block my driveway - we need more people like you! > Please note that, as opposed to, say, Henry Thoreau, >you are advocating using force against other people. Force or violence - please distinguish, and define force if different. We delayed a few hundred workers maybe 10 minutes in my particular situation - and most of that delay was caused by the security people bumbling around for a while. Can you suggest alternative, non-violent means of stopping the plant if all the "legal" means have been exhausted? > If I recall >correctly, there was an initiative in California a few years ago >pertaining to nuclear power. The "anti-nuclear" position lost >handily. You can't even claim to be "vigilantes", where the >majority is being terrorized by a few. You seem to be saying that >if you can't get the results that you want by using the ballot box, >it's O.K. to use brute force. The anti-nuke initiative lost for 2 reasons: (1) The Legislature passed, just a month or so before the election, a set of bills implementing some of what the initiative asked for, mainly to keep the more stringent requirements of the initiative out. (2) Many times more money was spent on the usual dirty political campaigning by the utilities, reactor manufacturers, and even the US Government (the last documented in several newspaper articles), than was spent by the supporters of the initiative. See "Golden Rule" above. I would bet that a poll taken now would show majority opposition to nuclear power statewide; I know such a pool shows a majority opposed to Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo county, the site of the plant. > Your tone, however, seems to indicate that >you're getting some sort-of pleasure out of anticipating being >arrested/put in jail: a pre-show enjoyment out of anticipation of >being a "martyr"? a feeling that you'll have the esteem of your >co-conspirators? something you'll be able to brag about (without >really bragging, of course) during late nite rap sessions? FYI, I was scared sh*tless of going to jail - it had taken me 2 1/2 years to work up the nerve. I got no pleasure; I don't need or want to be a martyr; I haven't been bragging; and since most of my friends have already been to jail (some in much worse conditions), they will not be interested in my stories. Isn't saving the planet a good enough reason for you? What is? >Your thoughts/actions are to morality as Agent Orange is to trees. F*ck you. (non-violently, of course :-). >Sam Hall >ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap -- Rex Sanders decvax!ucbvax!menlo70!sanders
cdanderson@watarts.UUCP (03/12/84)
In reply to the comment by das, re. >Sure Rex, that's why women got the vote, blacks got to sit at lunch >counters, ... cause they have all the money ... sheesh! The only reason they were able to gain these rights was that many thousands of people did break the laws as they then stood by doing the very thing that the Abalones and others are now engaged in. Do you think that the Blacks, for example, would have been able to sit at lunch counters or in the front of buses is some brave souls had not done so while it was still illegal to. I think the answer is NO. If the courts had not seen the massive, visible support for such reforms and that its own credibility, thus survival, was at stake, we may still be segregated now. I do agree however, that Rex was/is failing to recognize the extent of violence. However, I side with him in the issue that nuclear power plants and associated processes (mining,milling,waste disposal, and weapons manufacture) do pose a great and immediate threat to the well being of people. Here in Canada there is a principle in Common Law which states that one is justified in breaking a law providing that you are preventing a greater one from occuring (one meaning evil). "Unfortunately", the question of immediacy is given prime consideration. Sometimes it is better to prevent a far-off crime from developing than letting it grow. Before I forget, one more comment about das's statement must be made. It was the very fact that the women, Black, and illegal immigrants did/do not have the money that one uses methods of Civil Disobedience rather than going the very expensive Supreme Court route. This, and the fact that, to the greatest extent, the laws are set up for those with the money (that's why they have the money). History will judge whether I was correct or not, Cameron Anderson watmath!watarts!cdanderson