POLITICAL PLAY of the WEEK: Al-Qaeda in Santa Barbara
An adage of diplomacy --American at least, and especially Israeli-- is that if one gives in to threats and intimidation, such as kidnapping for ransom, then The Terrorists have won the battle and therefore grow even more emboldened to commit more acts of terrorism, kidnapping, and the like. Accordingly, the policy should be not to give in to threats and terrorism, as a direct means to discourage future terrorist acts.
By now, most news followers have learned that the backers of the Light Blue Line project have given up and withdrawn their plans, apparently permanently. An irony or tragedy is that only a few hours earlier, a clear, calm explanation of what this public art project is and is not was published by them as an Independent Voice, an opinion piece in the Independent.
In a viral email message sent out Thursday evening to their list of 265 interested people (and all with their email addresses revealed through a CC), the proponents of the Light Blue Line project wrote this explanation about why they caved in to The Terrorists:
“The whole idea of lightblueline is to foster an informed
conversation about our local vulnerability to future sea level
rise due to climate change. This public conversation requires
a local media that can sustain a civil discourse.
At the current time, a certain local media outlet
has poisoned the flow of information to its public.
Lightblueline does not have the resources to effectively
respond to this unfortunate situation. We will continue
to work with residents in other cities who want to mark
their local vulnerability to future sea-level rise.
We will continue to work with local environmental groups.
But we have no plans to paint the line on the streets
of Santa Barbara.”
Translation: we give up and instead are taking our Classic Greek wave stencils and our 140 stainless steel medallions to San Francisco and New York, and maybe even the entire nation of Argentina, all places that have invited us and have no “certain media” and their Castoroid-inspired operatives to terrorize us.
A Thursday morning Blogabarbara comment by a 'Trekking Left' perhaps best encapsulated the irony of this entire Light Blue Line frenzy:
“Doesn't the blue line project really show the problem with the global warming debate in general? ... People are concerned about it, but they don't want to take any action if it adversely affects them in any way. In this case, it's just the "idea" of global warming's effect on SB that has these people up in arms. Shouldn't they (and all of us) be more worried about the real effects?”
Does even the perception of market-bubble-deflating property values decreasing make everyone go nuts when they usually are quite rational?
Why did The Terrorists win this time and intimidate, bully, harass, and/or scare away the Light Blue Line project and its proponents and allies?
Of course, the political effect here is that The Terrorists won this one and now will be more encouraged, emboldened, and empowered to install more IEDs and dispatch more suicide bombers into the usually staid and rational enviro-socio-political discourse of Santa Barbara.
Will the once-sensible politics and culture of Santa Barbara now cut and run even more quickly as a result of this surge from The Terrorists? What will be the next manifestations of terrorist acts from “a certain local media outlet,” now that this truck bomb has been so successful blowing up the Blue Line Embassy?
Will the Santa Barbara establishment, movers, and shakers ever grow a pair and not back down anymore?
This issue already is yielding a huge overlay effect for the ongoing City Council election, but that analysis here apparently would be too many words for some Blogabarbara readers.And --posted a couple of days early because we know it won't get any better-- that’s the Political Play of the Week.