Post Modern Extremism: Steven Best, Civil War and Animal Rights

A post modernist world view is full with important conversations. The world as we know it is rife with uncertainty and instability is a way of life. The status quo of the Western world is political upheaval, economic turmoil, cultural clashes and a growing discontent with political and traditional social institutions. It is bleak picture, chaotic and at times simply terrifying. For some the obvious choice is to latch tight and hard to the familiar - religion, patriotism and a past who's sun has set. For others it is obvious that we must accept change, while working hard to minimize the chaos of inevitable extreme social transformation - holding onto the past as we develop viable new paradigms. But for some, nothing short of total revolution will suffice. A complete shredding of the past for a presumably bright new future, heretofore only viable on paper and in the classroom.

For some taking the important discussions fostered by postmodernism to an extreme is the only answer.

A couple of posts ago, I linked a clip of Dr. Steve Best discussing terrorism, which he euphemistically described as "direct action." The shorter clip I embedded in that post provides a taste of the linked clip from which it was edited. If you have not watched it and don't want to spend ten minutes of your life with Dr. Best, I highly recommend that you check it out now - it is only about three and a half minutes. The longer clip actually makes for a much more intensive watch, but the shorter clip encapsulates the points that I want to touch on here quite reasonably.

There are a lot of things that jumped out at me, but the most obvious and I suspect the most important involve the past of Dr. Best. As the chair of the philosophy department at the University of Texas, El Paso, Best teaches Anarchism, Marxism, Feminism and Postmodernism. Yet he feels that none of these philosophies is radical in the sense that animal rights is radical. What is striking is that he virtually throws the rest under a bus, completely marginalizing them with the statement that unlike animal rights activism, none of these philosophies requires us to change our daily habits.

While I am not an anarchist, Marxist or ultimately a postmodernist (I am, as I consider it, a feminist), I have a fair grounding in all of these. And ultimately I believe that if the human race survives, a responsible anarchy is inevitable - though a very long ways off. The thing is, one needn't even fully embrace any of these philosophies to find them changing their daily habits and behaviors. While the only one of these I would consider a part of my identity is feminism, all of these have changed my daily habits, in that they have significantly influenced my thinking and the decisions that I make. I suspect that I have rather more respect for the philos that Best has spent his life teaching, than he does.

What really strikes me and is rather a continuation of this point, is when best describes his relationship with his university, in the context of teaching animal rights. While I have little doubt that Best is a true believer, I also have little doubt that part of his reason for embracing animal rights, is that he finally found a philosophy that created conflict with his university. His whole demeanor changes when he is describing this, his mouth turning up into a smirk of obvious glee.

To be clear, I do not think that Best bases his support for animal rights on the controversial nature of his teaching. Nor do I think that Best has completely rejected the rest of what he has taught. I have no doubt that Best is passionate about human rights philosophies. What I suspect is that the quest for controversy has largely driven his movement through radical philosophies, until he landed on animal rights and the advocacy of full out civil war. I believe his passion for it is genuine and unwavering. But I suspect what brought him there was being a radical extremist in need of a Cause, a priest in need of a Faith.

The other thing that Best does that is extremely important, is that he is wedding himself and the AR movement to several other causes. In the video he is wedding it to the larger environmental movement. In this essay, he weds it to a great deal more, including the very important and very real struggle for civil liberties. This is a very important tactic to take, because it garners him and the AR movement peripheral allies. People who disagree with virtually everything that the AR movement stands for, are standing with him and with the AR movement on certain issues. This creates the illusion that the AR movement carries considerably more weight than it actually does.

Words define reality, and the animal and Earth liberation movements must resist being defined as violent fanatics and extremists. They must defend themselves rhetorically and philosophically, establishing a sharp distinction between animal and Earth liberation, property destruction, protests, and demonstrations on one side, and bona fide violence and terrorism on the other side.

Notice that he is including property destruction on the side of non-terrorist actions. This is important because the primary tactic of AR terrorists is to burn down or blow up cars, labs and businesses. These are actions that are meant to intimidate scientists and businesses that exploit non-human animals, to terrorize them into submission. And these actions are not happening in a vacuum. Right along side this, is rhetoric about escalation - Best engages in this himself, calling for acts of violence directly against scientists, businesses and institutions that use or engage in animal testing and other people who exploit animals.

It is one thing to engage in peaceful protest and even engage in acts of civil disobedience. It is quite another to terrorize people with carbombs and arson and threats against their person. While he is calling for a sharp distinction, the extremist AR movement (as well as the extremist environmental movement) actually does it's best to blur the lines and obfuscate, so that when the political arm of the movement is attacked by law enforcement, they can cry foul and scream about their civil liberties being violated. By mainstreaming the soft target terrorism, leaders of the AR movement create martyrs of virtually every member of the movement.

When this is all wedded to the very legitimate fight for civil liberties that we in the U.S. have seen destroyed by the patriot act and the war on terror, it often brings people like myself into the fray. And no matter how the AR movement has orchestrated it, when it comes to the issue of civil liberties, I cannot help but come down on the side of liberty and on the side of vast swathes of the AR movement.

What this does is create a critical need on the part of advocates for civil liberties and the freedom of expression to a) be well educated about the people and movements they are defending and b) to make very clear distinctions between defending and supporting. I defend a great deal of expression I strongly disagree with, that does not mean that I support it.

Privilege and the Race Card (Updated)

I think to start, I should be very clear that no matter how introspective and aware I am becoming of privilege, in the context of race and gender, I am still prone to latent racism and misogyny. I can proudly say that I am working on it and that I am far more aware of these tendencies in myself, than a lot of people. But I am a Midwestern U.S. American - the folks who pretty much invented passive aggressive bigotry. Spending one's formative years in this environment is not terribly conducive to having a profound awareness race and privilege - it is likely to be a lifetime of effort to root all of that out.

But I am aware of this and working hard to change it. I think that most of the bloggers I regularly interact with are aware of my attitudes and where I am with all this - it certainly comes up regularly and I am not particularly shy about discussing it. I know that Greg Laden is aware of where I am with this topic, which is why I was rather dismayed about the assumptions he made during a discussion on his blog about a paper that tentatively concluded that carrying a gun in urban settings may make one less safe. My problem with the study, was that the authors evidence was collected in high poverty, high drug trafficking areas of Philly, areas that are pretty much overrun by gangs.

I should note; while this post is aimed rather directly at Greg, I decided to post it here because it is something that a lot of us are guilty of and need to consider. It is our responsibility to very seriously consider exactly what we are responding to and what it actually is, before we bring up racism or other bigotry.

All criticism of the paper itself aside, Greg then decided that I must be expressing racist attitudes. Didn't think to ask me about it - didn't think to consider my motivations or reasoning. Nope, the first thing that Greg Laden thought, was that I must be a fucking racist asshole, because I didn't think that data that by necessity would include a lot of career criminals, can be reasonably extrapolated to the general population - that DuWayne thinks he's "a different species from these inner city ghetto-troglodytes..."

I didn't say this on that post, because I was planning on writing this post. Fuck you Greg. Seriously, Fuck you. How Dare you make that kind of a vile accusation of someone you fucking well know isn't inclined to that kind of vile attitude? How fucking dare you say something that vile about a friend, without even considering asking them about what they actually think first?

I am very consistent in my absolute and utter derision for anyone who engages in the sort of vile behavior that gangbangers engage in. I have repeatedly held that any form of terrorism is reprehensible and utterly inexcusable - whether it be the Taliban, Hamas, the now defunct IRA, the ELF or fucking gangsters and many others. There isn't a single group on that list who's underlying cause I do not have a great deal of sympathy for - I sympathize with every one. I also say the same about ALF terrorists and many others, though I do not sympathize with their causes.

My absolute and utter disdain has absolutely nothing to do with race. It is all about their behaviors - behaviors that I find morally and practically reprehensible. There is no excuse for it - none. I am not and never have singled anyone out based on race or the cause they purport to support - no matter how very strongly I may feel about that cause or reasoning. And to be absolutely fucking clear, I do feel very strongly about race and poverty issues in the U.S. I am horrified by the cycle of poverty and a great many concurrent issues that the neighbors I have had most of my adult life face. But I will not - cannot countenance gang activity. Not because I hate or feel superior to brown, olive or poor people (I fit that last), but because I hate fucking terrorism.

I like you Greg, but this is absolutely disgusting behavior - and not just because it was a defamatory statement about me. Indeed I really don't care about the me in this - my attitudes about race, gender and bigotry in general speak for themselves - ultimately you sully yourself with statements like that, far more than you can sully me. So to be perfectly clear, beyond feeling somewhat betrayed (and yes, a little hurt) by someone I have generally considered my friend, this is not about me. This is about a rather ugly tendency that some people of privilege have, this tendency to use the race card as a chip in rhetorical gameplay - whether it is remotely appropriate or not.

Toaster pointed out something important, that I thought about and more or less ignored as I was writing this. When I am describing the experience of some POC and members of other outgroups, I am not speaking for ALL of them. I know many people who have absolutely NOT had the experience I am describing and sincerely apologize for implying they did. What I am describing is the experience of several people I know or aspects of their experiences, as none of them are the same.

Toaster is absolutely correct, this was inexcusable. But like I mentioned - I'm not perfect, I'm just trying...

Just think about this for a moment Greg. Consider being a person of color (or member of another outgroup). Consider growing up with the problems that implies - having to be better than everyone else, to be considered equal, having to smile and nod when people engage in passive aggressive racism - so as not to make anyone uncomfortable - your own comfort be damned, having to not only consider how your actions reflect on you, but how they reflect on everyone who has the same skin color or other out trait, having to put up with people making assumptions about you, based on their experiences with people who have the same color skin or other out trait. Consider this; This isn't a motherfucking game and the race card is not a motherfucking rhetorical device!

This is the life experience of real human beings that you are throwing out on the table, as a way to garner some self righteous, false sense of superiority. This is the shame they have endured, the anger they have endured, the pain they have endured. This is their life! It is not something that your privileged white ass has a right to bandy about as a cheap talking point and nonstarter.

Why don't you rethink that?

Prosecute the Officials Who Ordered Torture, not the Operatives Who Followed Their Orders

There has been a lot of discussion about the Obama administrations release of the torture memos and the decision not to prosecute the operatives who actually engaged in torture. The two that I've been involved in the most, is this one at Greg Laden's blog and this one at Dispatches.

Let me be very clear before I continue, as many folks seem to be making assumptions about my position that couldn't be further from the truth.

1) I do not condone torture - at all.
2) I do not want to leave operatives with the notion that they should commit acts of torture in the future, if they are ordered to.
3) I absolutely want to see the DOJ investigate and I want to see officials that made the legal recommendations, the officials who counseled the Bush administration and those who gave the orders to torture go to prison.
More...
The bottom line however (to borrow a phrase from Comrade Physio Prof), is that we do not live in a world that resembles a fucking care-bear picnic. While I absolutely do not want to see our intelligence operatives engaging in torture, I also don't want them to be put into a position where they will have to argue the law with officials who tell them to do something and make it clear to them that it is legal for them to do so. Intelligence operatives have to do a lot of things that are morally and legally dubious - and sometimes we need them to do those things.

Indeed, sometimes we need them to do things that are pretty clearly illegal - something that should be prosecuted in court and for which they should then be pardoned, unless it is found that they committed an egregious abuse that was either unnecessary or was outside their purview of protecting national security. I basically would consider the court proceedings an additional level of oversight that requires operatives to justify their actions and provide an accounting of why they felt it was necessary to operate outside the law.

I believe in the rule of law, but also recognize that there may arise occasions when the law would prevent intelligence operatives from preventing clear and present dangers to our national security, to the security of our allies, or the security of civilian populations of our enemies. Breaking the law should not be common, nor should actions that do be taken lightly. But pretending that there are never situations where breaking the law is not justified is complete and utter fucking bullshit.

Most importantly though, there are a lot of situations where the law is not so explicit and arguments could be made either way. Not to mention actions that while not necessarily illegal, would tax the conscience of most people. We need to make it clear to the operatives who are doing their damnedest to keep us safe, that they can follow orders given, without fear that we will turn around and decide that since the lawyers and officials who gave those orders were wrong, we must prosecute the operatives who followed those orders.

Now it's easy for you and me to say that this wasn't the least bit unclear. It's really easy to assume that the interrogators who engaged in acts of torture are just sadistic fucking bastards who get off on hurting people - and you know, I wouldn't argue that some of them probably qualify. But we aren't those people, people who we have trained to think and act differently than you or I would act. We push these people to the very limits and sometimes encourage them to go beyond, because what they do - what we need them to do sometimes requires skirting that line.

Rather than prosecuting them, we need to take steps to ensure that this never happens again. First and foremost, we need to make it clear to the people who gave the orders, the architects of this torture, that what they did was a crime against humanity. That if they are found guilty, they will go to prison. In effect, we need to ensure that the folks in power in the future, will never give these sorts of orders again. That they can and will be prosecuted if it is found that they ordered operatives to commit criminal acts. Second, we need to create fundamental interrogation guidelines that make it clear where the line is and make it clear that if this line is crossed, the operative who does will be prosecuted and punished, to the full extent of the law.

It is not easy to simply say that these folks should be let off of this. I am pretty certain that there are operatives who are sadistic fucks who wanted to do this. But I think that it's far more important to avoid sending operatives the message that they cannot simply trust the folks giving the orders, not to fuck them and leave them open to prosecution.

My first Research Paper

I was a bit nervous about it, because I found out that we do have some restrictions on the paper. Mainly that the first one has to be a MLA format paper. Given that my topics tend towards being rather science oriented, I wasn't sure I could get them to fly. But my instructor told me today that writing about addiction was going to be fine. I made it clear that there would be a fair amount of science involved, but as I can focus it on our social and political addiction paradigm, she let it slide. I think it helped that I have an interesting take on it.

So now I am going to work on my topic proposal and start throwing myself into more formal research. So the posting may get a little more sporadic and will probably tend towards a definite theme, as my reading material gets more focused.

The major upshot of it is, this is going to be a theme throughout my education. While I am sure that as an undergrad, I will be required to right a lot of class specific papers, this will be the early and short version of writing that will be revisited several times over the next several years. It will be especially relevant when I get my undergrad and move upward from here. I think it will be interesting to compare this paper to the versions that will come out towards the final stretch of my education. I suspect that in the middle, it will get far heavier on the science. I also suspect that (unless I drastically change gears somewhere) that my final dissertation will come full circle to a much longer version of the paper I am about to write, tempered by the next several years of intensive, formal education.