"Eco-Terror"? More Newspeak is More Like It

The word "eco-terror" is being used with increasing ease and frequency by corporate media and the general public as shorthand for acts of anti-industrialism and anti-corporatisim via direct destruction, sabatoge and vandalism committed by individuals and organized groups.

The word "eco-terror" is Newspeak, and progressive bloggers should consciously avoid using it.

While some ELF acts have been extremely stupid and counter-productive (prime example being the arson at the UW Center for Urban Horticulture which destroyed years of scientific research focusing on ecological restoration projects), and some of these acts have been more thoughtful and tightly targeted, I can't think of one act that comes close to justifiably labeling it an act of "terrorism."

Vandalism and sabotage--absolutely. Terrorism--not.

According to Wikipedia, the term "ecoterrorism" was coined by radical pro-business, anti-government right-wingers, presumably to equate those who take direct, non-violent action to promote preservationism, conservationism and ecological protection with the acts of political and religious terrorists.

ELFers' core belief in acting non-violently towards people and animals is in stark contract with the armed, angry, power-mad whackjobs and religious zealots who either don't care if somebody is hurt or killed, or really, desperately do want to kill people to get their way.

There's a world of difference between them.

Goldie's Right (Once Again)

Goldie over at HorsesAss has an excellent post up that pretty much captures my own sentiments about the fevered, mean-spirited pro and anti candidate opinion pieces rapidly suffocating the progressive blogosphere.

To quote Goldie:

No doubt my friends in the establishment press are looking forward to a bitter and divisive brawl between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all the way up to the Democratic National Convention, but the truth is that even at its nastiest, the 2008 presidential nominating process has thus far been an extraordinarily civil war compared to previous campaigns. Still, while the candidates have mostly managed to stay out of the muck, their partisan supporters in the blogosphere are now poised to march into combat rakes in hand, the posts and comment threads of many of our leading blogs serving as battlefields in an increasingly bloody war of words.

To which I caution my comrades in the progressive netroots… who the hell cares?

There isn’t a nickel’s difference between Obama and Clinton on most policy issues, at least not substantive enough that it can’t be overcome by a commanding congressional majority, and both candidates arguably occupy the same center/center-left ideological niche. We may prefer one candidate’s health care plan over the other, or one candidate’s historical record on the occupation of Iraq, but both Obama and Clinton largely share the same agenda, and either would be far preferable to the Republican alternative. But most important to movement progressives like me, while both are good Democrats, and both have clear paths toward victory in November, neither is exactly what we would call a “netroots candidate,” and thus neither deserves the sort of unrelenting partisan passion that now threatens to distract our ranks, if not actually split them.

Cascadia Drinking Song

Josh Mahar over at Cascadia Rising penned the lyrics to a great drinking song. He's looking for a tunesmith.