thomascwaters.com

A friend on Facebook had posted the linked article below from the KDKA site concerning protests during the upcoming G20. I expected to be more involved in G20-related stuff than I have been, but I did apply for press credentials, and over the past week or so, I’ve been pondering why I have been so reluctant to get more involved. Possibly I haven’t been/won’t be credentialed and thus not too close to anything. On the other hand, maybe I will.

Another Pittsburgh blogger had been commenting upon the City’s plan to block PVC pipe and it was just yesterday, that I heard a report about why that was. I know that some organizations are really getting ready , and the G20 provides an opportunity for various causes and issues to get some important air time and media spotlight. But I’ve also been wondering what the point is to protesting something like this. What is the intended impact? I’m not criticizing it, just expressing my own lack of understanding and looking for some reasonable dialogue.

The August of disruptive town halls and the previous tea parties and such have left me wondering what value comes from disruptive activism. Perhaps the goal is simply to disrupt, and in that sense, this type of action can be successful. However, if the same actions will happen again and again, a disruptive strategy will mean the need to disrupt over and over again too. Is it possible that another approach where change occurs may be a more effective strategy in the long run? If we can get people to do something differently, then we don’t have to continually try to disrupt what they are doing. Creating a space for change to occur requires dialogue, compromise, mutual respect and a willingness to find a win-win solution.

But activism at something like the G20 seems to only get portrayed in the mainstream media as disruptive (maybe it is or isn’t, I don’t know). This quote sums up the stories “scare” tactic pretty well:

He also says the American Resistance Movement is not a violent organization, but on its Website, there is an individual posing with an AK-47. As for whether he’ll be attending or not, he says it is a matter of money, but is still calling for mayhem when the G-20 begins.

When I looked at the website, I found no man with a gun of any type, so it is unclear if it was there and removed, I am too stupid to see it, or what. But what I did find as I bumped around links was the fact that there is plenty of information out there about this Jim Stachowiak, the subject of the article. and gun or no gun, he is a real specimen of crazy.

So in my naive or ignorant mind, I would have thought that protesters would be liberals demanding change from the status quo (represented by the governmental elites) perpetrated behind closed doors. but in reality, maybe protestors are from all sides ranging from the far left to the far right and probably a number that are outside of even that paradigm.

So, things like this, and the recent town halls have had me thinking quite a bit about freedom, and freedom of speech. I’m wondering if there are times that not speaking are as important as the times to speak. What about when speech is hateful or all lies- how does that change anything. If I am able to say whatever I want 500 yards from a building, but unable to get next to the building itself, have my free speech rights been taken from me?

These are probably more questions than answers, and  this may be one of the most rambling things I’ve written in a while, but it is some of the things I’m thinking about as the city prepares for the G-20.

via Masked Man Jim Stachowiak Calls For Mass Protest Of G-20 – kdka.com .