It's so fitting that I just came home from one of the most fascinating political movies I've ever seen only to have in my mailbox, a notice of the outcome of the Zapatista consulta and the publication of the 6th declaration of the Selva Lacandona. This new declaration, which gives a brief history and explanation of the Zapatistas' organizing since 1994 is the product of a consulation with over one thousand indigenous communities in Southern Mexico. It is not clear what the next step will be, but the declaration says that it is necessary or the movement will really come to an end.
The movie that I just saw, Pom Poko, is a tale of magical racoons of Japanese fable who fight, through creative non-violence and guerilla warfare to try to save their forest from suburban development. The film is a really clever mix of Japanese lore and commentary on capitalism. Norman A. Rubin describes the magical powers attributed to raccoons in Japanese folklore: The ‘tanuki’ is a small hairy animal, and it is believed that he can transform into a frightening creature. Sometimes he is depicted humourously, having a gigantic scrotum which he drags behind him or wears it as a kimono. In some Netsuke figures the ‘tanuki’ appears as a Buddhist monk dressed in robes and banging on his scrotum as if it were a temple drum. “There is a fable that tells of an incident by the abbot of the Morinji Temple. He bought a tea-kettle and instructed one of the monks to clean it. Suddenly a voice spoke from the kettle, ‘Ow that hurts, please be more gentle.’ When the abbot wanted to boil some water, out popped the tail, legs and arms of a ‘tanuki’ and the vessel started to run about the room. It dumbfounded the poor abbot and he tried to catch the kettle, but it eluded him.”
The film is very true to the fables of racoon magic, for when the raccoons are being trained in transformation in Pom Poko, their first step is practicing the tea-kettle. As for that other bit, the "raccoon's pouch" is used in all kinds of bizarre and surprising transformations in the movie. It is quite an amazing film,and not just because it features furry cartoon animals with visible testicles. Since Disney has brought this movie out in the US, it will be interesting to see how some parents react. More important in the movie is the way it addresses the serious problem the animals face as their forest is bulldozed and replaced with housing for humans. The fights between the animals over strategy reminded me of old revolutionary political meetings at times.
I don't want seem insulting by comparing a movie about shape-shifting raccoons to a real, ongoing struggle of human beings...so let me explain. There's a way that Marcos' Durito character and the raccoons of Pom Poko are similar - animals used to give the story of a political struggle charm and universal appeal. I think that Marcos would wholly approve of "Pom Poko" if he were able to see it.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Too Cold inside in Summer
So, today as I sit here typing, I'm still coming off the effects of a summer cold, which has had me spending the last few days groggy, coughing, and sucking vitamin c tabs. I initially thought that the pain in my lungs might be related to high ozone levels, but apparently, NYC's been not that bad. Then, contemplating the upcoming, icy trip into Manhattan, I thought it might be the air-conditioning in the city's various libraries, theaters, restaurants and subways. According to at least one website, it might be. For people with low blood pressure and lower body fat especially, air-conditioning seems to be a health risk!
The fact that higher levels of body fat contribute to a desire for a chilled environment also makes me wonder if lower and lower indoor summer temperatures might somehow be connected to the increasing average weight of Americans. And then, as I thought about the especially frigid temperatures in the city's museums, snotty NYer that I am, I began blaming suburban tourists, who come to our land of pedestrians and public transportation from the land of driving, fast-food, and couch-sitting. I plan to discuss this over my lunch time salad with the nice woman from Central America who wears the heavy sweater to work behind the cash-register at my favorite mid-town lunch place. There is something so unnatural about these extreme interiors, something so galling about having to bring a sweater along when it's 90 degrees outside, that I get agitated just thinking about it.
If you want to complain to the MTA about how cold it is on the friggin' subway, here are some tips from the straphangers campaign.
The fact that higher levels of body fat contribute to a desire for a chilled environment also makes me wonder if lower and lower indoor summer temperatures might somehow be connected to the increasing average weight of Americans. And then, as I thought about the especially frigid temperatures in the city's museums, snotty NYer that I am, I began blaming suburban tourists, who come to our land of pedestrians and public transportation from the land of driving, fast-food, and couch-sitting. I plan to discuss this over my lunch time salad with the nice woman from Central America who wears the heavy sweater to work behind the cash-register at my favorite mid-town lunch place. There is something so unnatural about these extreme interiors, something so galling about having to bring a sweater along when it's 90 degrees outside, that I get agitated just thinking about it.
If you want to complain to the MTA about how cold it is on the friggin' subway, here are some tips from the straphangers campaign.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Statement from USLAW and Iraqi union leaders
Given the controversy, I figured it was worth posting this message I just got from USLAW....
I'll make comments on it later.
Joint Statement by Leaders of Iraq's Labor Movement and
U.S. Labor Against the War
June 26, 2005 Washington DC, USA
At the invitation of U.S. Labor Against the
War, a delegation of six Iraqi labor leaders
representing three of that country's major labor
organizations toured the United States between June 10
and June 26, 2005. They visited 25 cities, attended
45 events and 10 press conferences, met with thousands
of working people, union leaders, members of Congress
and other public officials, religious and community
leaders, and antiwar and other social justice
activists. They have given voice to the people of Iraq
whose voices have been largely unheard in this country.
They brought a story of courage, hope, struggle and
resistance on the part of Iraq's working people that
has been absent from the mainstream U.S. media. The
following statement was drafted and signed at the
conclusion of their visit. It represents the
consensus view of all the Iraqis and their U.S. hosts:
We, the representatives of the Iraqi Federation of
Trade Unions (IFTU), the Federation of Workers Councils
and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI), the General Union of Oil
Employees (GUOE), and U.S. Labor Against the War
(USLAW) issue this statement at the conclusion of an
historic 25-city tour by leaders of the three Iraqi
labor organizations in the United States. We speak in
the spirit of international solidarity and respect for
labor rights around the world.
We speak in the spirit of opposition to war and occupation
and for the right of self-determination of nations and peoples.
On behalf of the Iraqi labor movement, we met and spoke
directly to thousands of Americans, including workers,
union, religious and political leaders, anti-war
activists and ordinary citizens. All of us, both
Iraqi and American, were deeply heartened at the
solidarity expressed throughout the tour. We have seen
with our eyes and felt with our hearts that the people
of the United States do not want the war and occupation
of Iraq to continue. We are strengthened in our
understanding of the deep commitment of organized labor
and workers in Iraq to a unified democratic,
independent Iraq, with full equality between women and
men in terms of rights and duties, and based on full
respect for the human identity without discrimination
on any basis.
The tour was an expression of the following key
principles:
The principal obstacle to peace, stability, and the
reconstruction of Iraq is the occupation. The
occupation is the problem, not the solution. Iraqi
sovereignty and independence must be restored. The
occupation must end in all its forms, including
military bases and economic domination. The war was
fought for oil and regional domination, in violation of
international law, justified by lies and deception
without consultation with the Iraqi people. The
occupation has been a catastrophe for both our peoples.
In Iraq, it has destroyed homes and industry, national
institutions and infrastructure - water, sanitation,
electric power and health services. It has killed many
thousands, and left millions homeless and unemployed.
It has poisoned the people, their land and water with
the toxic residue of the war.
In the United States, more than 1700 working families
have suffered loss of loved ones and thousands more
have been wounded, disabled or psychologically scarred
in a war that serves no legitimate purpose. The cost
of the war has led to slashing of social programs and
public services. It has militarized our economy,
undermined our own liberties and eroded our democratic
rights.
We believe it is the best interest of both our peoples
for the war and occupation to end and for the Iraqi
people to determine for themselves their future and the
kind and extent of international aid and cooperation
that suits their needs and serves the interests of the
Iraqi people. We strongly and unambiguously condemn
terrorist attacks on civilians and targeting of trade
union and other civil society leaders for intimidation,
kidnapping, torture and assassination. The occupation
is fuel on the fire of terrorism.
The national wealth and resources of Iraq belong to the
Iraqi people. We are united in our opposition to the
imposition of privatization of the Iraqi economy by the
occupation, the IMF, the World Bank, foreign powers
and any force that takes away the right of the Iraqi
people to determine their own economic future.
We call on nations across the globe to help Iraqis
regain their economic capacity, including full
reparations from the US and British governments to
rebuild the war-ravaged country.
We call for the cancellation of Saddam's massive
foreign debt by the IMF and other international lenders
without any conditions imposed upon the people of Iraq
who suffered under the regime that was supported by
these loans. The foreign debt of Iraq is the debt of a
fallen dictatorship, not the debt incurred by the
Iraqi people.
Further, we call for the cancellation of reparations
imposed as a result of wars waged by Saddam Hussein's
regime, and call for the return of all Iraqi property
and antiquities taken during the war and occupation."
The bedrock of any democracy is a strong, free,
democratic labor movement. We are united in our
commitment to build strong, independent, democratic
unions and to fight to improve the wages, working and
living conditions of workers everywhere. We confront
the same economic and corporate interests that have
mounted a global assault on workers and labor rights.
We demand strong labor rights in Iraq at the same time
that we strive to reverse the erosion of labor rights
in the United States and elsewhere around the world
where they are threatened. We call for free and
independent labor unions in Iraq based on
internationally recognized ILO conventions guaranteeing
the right to organize free of all government
interference and including full equality for women
workers. We support the direct participation of labor
and workers' representatives in drafting the new labor
code, in determining government policies affecting
unions and workers' interests, and in drafting the new
constitution. We condemn the continued enforcement of
Saddam's decree number 150 issued in 1987 that
abolished union rights for workers in the extensive
Iraqi public sector and call for its immediate repeal.
We commit ourselves to strengthening the bonds of
solidarity and friendship between working people of our
two countries and to increase communication and
cooperation between our two labor movements. We look
forward to delegations of Iraqis and Americans visiting
each other's countries for mutual support, and to
strengthen international understanding and solidarity
in our common struggle for peace and establishment of
a democratic civil society that respects human rights
and freedom.
With the strength and solidarity of workers across the
US, in Iraq and internationally, we are confident that
we can build a just and democratic future for labor in
Iraq, the US, and around the world.
Signed: June 26, 2005
Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq Iraqi
Federation of Trade Unions General Union of Oil
Employees US Labor Against the War
==
http://uslaboragainstwar/
I'll make comments on it later.
Joint Statement by Leaders of Iraq's Labor Movement and
U.S. Labor Against the War
June 26, 2005 Washington DC, USA
At the invitation of U.S. Labor Against the
War, a delegation of six Iraqi labor leaders
representing three of that country's major labor
organizations toured the United States between June 10
and June 26, 2005. They visited 25 cities, attended
45 events and 10 press conferences, met with thousands
of working people, union leaders, members of Congress
and other public officials, religious and community
leaders, and antiwar and other social justice
activists. They have given voice to the people of Iraq
whose voices have been largely unheard in this country.
They brought a story of courage, hope, struggle and
resistance on the part of Iraq's working people that
has been absent from the mainstream U.S. media. The
following statement was drafted and signed at the
conclusion of their visit. It represents the
consensus view of all the Iraqis and their U.S. hosts:
We, the representatives of the Iraqi Federation of
Trade Unions (IFTU), the Federation of Workers Councils
and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI), the General Union of Oil
Employees (GUOE), and U.S. Labor Against the War
(USLAW) issue this statement at the conclusion of an
historic 25-city tour by leaders of the three Iraqi
labor organizations in the United States. We speak in
the spirit of international solidarity and respect for
labor rights around the world.
We speak in the spirit of opposition to war and occupation
and for the right of self-determination of nations and peoples.
On behalf of the Iraqi labor movement, we met and spoke
directly to thousands of Americans, including workers,
union, religious and political leaders, anti-war
activists and ordinary citizens. All of us, both
Iraqi and American, were deeply heartened at the
solidarity expressed throughout the tour. We have seen
with our eyes and felt with our hearts that the people
of the United States do not want the war and occupation
of Iraq to continue. We are strengthened in our
understanding of the deep commitment of organized labor
and workers in Iraq to a unified democratic,
independent Iraq, with full equality between women and
men in terms of rights and duties, and based on full
respect for the human identity without discrimination
on any basis.
The tour was an expression of the following key
principles:
The principal obstacle to peace, stability, and the
reconstruction of Iraq is the occupation. The
occupation is the problem, not the solution. Iraqi
sovereignty and independence must be restored. The
occupation must end in all its forms, including
military bases and economic domination. The war was
fought for oil and regional domination, in violation of
international law, justified by lies and deception
without consultation with the Iraqi people. The
occupation has been a catastrophe for both our peoples.
In Iraq, it has destroyed homes and industry, national
institutions and infrastructure - water, sanitation,
electric power and health services. It has killed many
thousands, and left millions homeless and unemployed.
It has poisoned the people, their land and water with
the toxic residue of the war.
In the United States, more than 1700 working families
have suffered loss of loved ones and thousands more
have been wounded, disabled or psychologically scarred
in a war that serves no legitimate purpose. The cost
of the war has led to slashing of social programs and
public services. It has militarized our economy,
undermined our own liberties and eroded our democratic
rights.
We believe it is the best interest of both our peoples
for the war and occupation to end and for the Iraqi
people to determine for themselves their future and the
kind and extent of international aid and cooperation
that suits their needs and serves the interests of the
Iraqi people. We strongly and unambiguously condemn
terrorist attacks on civilians and targeting of trade
union and other civil society leaders for intimidation,
kidnapping, torture and assassination. The occupation
is fuel on the fire of terrorism.
The national wealth and resources of Iraq belong to the
Iraqi people. We are united in our opposition to the
imposition of privatization of the Iraqi economy by the
occupation, the IMF, the World Bank, foreign powers
and any force that takes away the right of the Iraqi
people to determine their own economic future.
We call on nations across the globe to help Iraqis
regain their economic capacity, including full
reparations from the US and British governments to
rebuild the war-ravaged country.
We call for the cancellation of Saddam's massive
foreign debt by the IMF and other international lenders
without any conditions imposed upon the people of Iraq
who suffered under the regime that was supported by
these loans. The foreign debt of Iraq is the debt of a
fallen dictatorship, not the debt incurred by the
Iraqi people.
Further, we call for the cancellation of reparations
imposed as a result of wars waged by Saddam Hussein's
regime, and call for the return of all Iraqi property
and antiquities taken during the war and occupation."
The bedrock of any democracy is a strong, free,
democratic labor movement. We are united in our
commitment to build strong, independent, democratic
unions and to fight to improve the wages, working and
living conditions of workers everywhere. We confront
the same economic and corporate interests that have
mounted a global assault on workers and labor rights.
We demand strong labor rights in Iraq at the same time
that we strive to reverse the erosion of labor rights
in the United States and elsewhere around the world
where they are threatened. We call for free and
independent labor unions in Iraq based on
internationally recognized ILO conventions guaranteeing
the right to organize free of all government
interference and including full equality for women
workers. We support the direct participation of labor
and workers' representatives in drafting the new labor
code, in determining government policies affecting
unions and workers' interests, and in drafting the new
constitution. We condemn the continued enforcement of
Saddam's decree number 150 issued in 1987 that
abolished union rights for workers in the extensive
Iraqi public sector and call for its immediate repeal.
We commit ourselves to strengthening the bonds of
solidarity and friendship between working people of our
two countries and to increase communication and
cooperation between our two labor movements. We look
forward to delegations of Iraqis and Americans visiting
each other's countries for mutual support, and to
strengthen international understanding and solidarity
in our common struggle for peace and establishment of
a democratic civil society that respects human rights
and freedom.
With the strength and solidarity of workers across the
US, in Iraq and internationally, we are confident that
we can build a just and democratic future for labor in
Iraq, the US, and around the world.
Signed: June 26, 2005
Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq Iraqi
Federation of Trade Unions General Union of Oil
Employees US Labor Against the War
==
http://uslaboragainstwar/
More News on the Zapatistas
Thanks to "chanders" for posting that link to the IMC's latest posting on the Zapatistas. In New York, following the first discussion, the group made the move to join the Austin-based network called "Accion Zapatista" and are hosting a second organizing meeting that will be held in Tompkins Square park's "grassy area" at 6:30 tomorrow. For a fuller news update, here's another imc article. Beyond leaving these areas in preparation for possible government raids, Marcos has announced that the Zapatistas may be about to change their approach and emphasis, moving from primarily indigenous struggle, to something else,a broader, national effort that embraces the concerns of "farmers, workers, students, teachers, and homosexuals."
I'm happy to see new life breathed into Zapatista solidarity, but can I make one suggestion please?... Maybe you all can drop everything and run off to a meetting on one day's notice, but some of us have stuff to do and plans made long in advance. Especially in NY, especially if you want Brooklyn/Queens people to come, you've gotta give people some advance notice. One day's notice is not enough, especially for revolutionaries over 30. Meetings are great, but meetings with a week's notice are even better. So, I Still haven't heard from anyone on the first meeting: Did anyone reading this go? Who was at the meeting? How many people? What was it like?
I'm happy to see new life breathed into Zapatista solidarity, but can I make one suggestion please?... Maybe you all can drop everything and run off to a meetting on one day's notice, but some of us have stuff to do and plans made long in advance. Especially in NY, especially if you want Brooklyn/Queens people to come, you've gotta give people some advance notice. One day's notice is not enough, especially for revolutionaries over 30. Meetings are great, but meetings with a week's notice are even better. So, I Still haven't heard from anyone on the first meeting: Did anyone reading this go? Who was at the meeting? How many people? What was it like?
More news on Peak Oil
I'm off to the library basement and its microfilm stash, but before heading off for circa 1927, I ran into this "tomgram" in my electronic mailbag. Yes, it features more about the Chinese bid for Unocal, and an article by oil-scarcity scholar, Michael Klare, who is discussing the new book "Twilight in the Desert" by Matthew Simmons, which suggests that Saudi reserves are not as plentiful as is often said.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Does Attacking Other Anti-War Groups Help the Movement?
I was just over at the Indymedia site looking for new information on the Zapatista info meeting held on Wednesday night (found nothing) and was frustrated by a long set of comments referring to UFPJ and USLAW as sell-out, democratic party insiders supporting a pro-occuapation labor tour of the USA. I have plenty of criticisms of UFPJ and its choices, especially regarding how it handled the 2004 convention protests, but this discussion of USLAW's tour as "pro-occupation" is a real misprepresentation of a tour, which includes not just the IFTU, but two other labor organizations in Iraq: The General Union of Oil Employees and the FWCUI, both of which the ISO has described favorably in the same bulletin in which they denounce the IFTU.
I had the feeling, when reading the ISO's attack on the IFTU as pro-occupation that there was a certain misrepresentativeness in the posting. I wrote a long post about it on this blog under the headline "What's Behind the Conflicts," which apparently didn't clue people in that it was about the IFTU controversy. I attended the meeting and the IFTU people were asked repeatedly whether they opposed the occupation and what steps they saw leading to that, and every time the answer was that they opposed the occupation and supported immediate withdrawl. However, as ISO people have pointed out, mainly because of sources in the London SWP, the IFTU played an instrumental pro-occupation role there in October 2004, when courting the support of the British labor party. The critiques of the IFTU as playing political games seem merited to me. However, if the two other major labor organizations in Iraq agreed to be on a tour with them, is it possible that their position has actually changed? I found no recent sources linking the IFTU to pro-occupation forces. Everything was almost a year old.
Since ULSAW included IFTU as one of three groups, I think it's more important to ask, what is the reason for denouncing USLAW as if they are the backers and promoters of IFTU instead of covering the actual tour, mentioning the presence of independent groups on the tour, etc.
It seems to me that there is a terrible fear that the more broadly based anti-war groups will cave in to the fear of the two-party system and become democratic party puppets. Based on what I read on the marxism-list, I found what I believe is a message from Stan Goff, posted by Carlos Rivera: Watch it, after this tour the anti-war movementis going right and the slogan will be: "Listen to the Iraqis." And everyone that opposes that will be called a "sectarian". Of this I am as sure as that water gets you wet...Complete with a media blitz in the NYT and The Nation.
Want to bet? No? You know you'll lose."
I know a lot of folks in USLAW and none of them seem to me to be either the nimble wheeler-dealers of the Democratic party, nor do they seem simply to be its idle pawns. If we want to keep larger anti-war mobilizations from becoming pro-occupation mobilizations, it seems to me that the answer is to participate in anti-war organizing in a way that builds an anti-war movement. Does attacking the most widely recognized movement (instead of perhaps offering constructive criticism in the proper spaces for that) as secretly a sell-out imperialist force do that effectively? I don't see how.
I had the feeling, when reading the ISO's attack on the IFTU as pro-occupation that there was a certain misrepresentativeness in the posting. I wrote a long post about it on this blog under the headline "What's Behind the Conflicts," which apparently didn't clue people in that it was about the IFTU controversy. I attended the meeting and the IFTU people were asked repeatedly whether they opposed the occupation and what steps they saw leading to that, and every time the answer was that they opposed the occupation and supported immediate withdrawl. However, as ISO people have pointed out, mainly because of sources in the London SWP, the IFTU played an instrumental pro-occupation role there in October 2004, when courting the support of the British labor party. The critiques of the IFTU as playing political games seem merited to me. However, if the two other major labor organizations in Iraq agreed to be on a tour with them, is it possible that their position has actually changed? I found no recent sources linking the IFTU to pro-occupation forces. Everything was almost a year old.
Since ULSAW included IFTU as one of three groups, I think it's more important to ask, what is the reason for denouncing USLAW as if they are the backers and promoters of IFTU instead of covering the actual tour, mentioning the presence of independent groups on the tour, etc.
It seems to me that there is a terrible fear that the more broadly based anti-war groups will cave in to the fear of the two-party system and become democratic party puppets. Based on what I read on the marxism-list, I found what I believe is a message from Stan Goff, posted by Carlos Rivera: Watch it, after this tour the anti-war movementis going right and the slogan will be: "Listen to the Iraqis." And everyone that opposes that will be called a "sectarian". Of this I am as sure as that water gets you wet...Complete with a media blitz in the NYT and The Nation.
Want to bet? No? You know you'll lose."
I know a lot of folks in USLAW and none of them seem to me to be either the nimble wheeler-dealers of the Democratic party, nor do they seem simply to be its idle pawns. If we want to keep larger anti-war mobilizations from becoming pro-occupation mobilizations, it seems to me that the answer is to participate in anti-war organizing in a way that builds an anti-war movement. Does attacking the most widely recognized movement (instead of perhaps offering constructive criticism in the proper spaces for that) as secretly a sell-out imperialist force do that effectively? I don't see how.
China Bids for Unocal
Remember Unocal? That's the company that had that pipeline deal in Afghanistan that meant the US first supporting the Taliban in 1995 (as a force of political stability) and now supporting Hamid Karzai, a onetime unocal consultant. Unocal was also involved with the Baku-Tbilsi-Ceyhan pipeline deal. Initially Chevron made a $16.5 billion dollar bid for the company in April and was expected to buy it.
Now, China has made a larger bid for Unocal, and the US, dependent on China to buy US treasury bonds, is in a pickle. Should Unocal become a Chinese-owned company, that would bring the US business's investment share in the BTC pipeline down from 12% or so to about 2.5% - at least if I understand what I read correctly. If you read this article in "Petroleum News" you can find out even more indepth info on the possible effect or non-effect of the sale. As the articles will tell you, the US government can block the bid by declaring it to be bad for state security. I look forward to reading Michael Klare's comments on this latest development, and the US reaction to it, which begin to make resource wars - even between superpowers sound increasingly immiment and scary.
On the production end, go to USLAW's page to read about the oil employees union portion of the US tour of Iraqi labor activists.
Now, China has made a larger bid for Unocal, and the US, dependent on China to buy US treasury bonds, is in a pickle. Should Unocal become a Chinese-owned company, that would bring the US business's investment share in the BTC pipeline down from 12% or so to about 2.5% - at least if I understand what I read correctly. If you read this article in "Petroleum News" you can find out even more indepth info on the possible effect or non-effect of the sale. As the articles will tell you, the US government can block the bid by declaring it to be bad for state security. I look forward to reading Michael Klare's comments on this latest development, and the US reaction to it, which begin to make resource wars - even between superpowers sound increasingly immiment and scary.
On the production end, go to USLAW's page to read about the oil employees union portion of the US tour of Iraqi labor activists.
Friday, June 24, 2005
DMC and Chuck D's Comments on Current Music
Once again, I awoke early in order to see Marc&Mark of Morning Sedition at the ever-so-comfortable Tea Lounge. The guests of honor Nelson George, who has a new book, Chuck D, who showed up by surprise, and DMC of Run-DMC. It was worth sticking around to the very end for them. When asked what he listened to these days, DMC confessed that he didn't listen to hip-hop anymore, but rather, was listening to classic rock, and specified who he meant as Creedence Clearwater Revival, Dylan, and Bruce Springsteen. He has recently made a record in which he covers Jimi Hendrix's "Machine Gun," and he said that he thought it was important that contemporary artists make music relevant to the war, and that GIs can relate to. Hip hop, he said, is all about parties, not about anything important that's going on. That is true of most contemporay hip-hop, though there are few out there still talking about the issues.
One of them is .... Chuck D, who was lamenting the depature of the oldies format on NY's CBS radio station, and talked about how the music of the eighties (he mentiond the Cure and Scritti Politti as examples) were why he started making rap records himself. He doesn't listen to hip-hop when his children are around becase, he says, it's "too grown" for them.
To read about "Machine gun" go here: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/loudfast/writeweb/mgun.htm
For Nelson George's new book "Post-Soul Nation," go here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670032751/qid=1119640822/sr=8-3/ref=pd_csp_3/103-2942250-5324647?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
(Sorry, for some reason, my handy html commands don't work on the public library computer. Just one more way that the digital affects us.)
And so kids, to comment...what are your views on hip hop or other music new or old? What are you listening to these days? For me, it's been Chet Baker, Charles Mingus and PJ Harvey.
One of them is .... Chuck D, who was lamenting the depature of the oldies format on NY's CBS radio station, and talked about how the music of the eighties (he mentiond the Cure and Scritti Politti as examples) were why he started making rap records himself. He doesn't listen to hip-hop when his children are around becase, he says, it's "too grown" for them.
To read about "Machine gun" go here: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/loudfast/writeweb/mgun.htm
For Nelson George's new book "Post-Soul Nation," go here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670032751/qid=1119640822/sr=8-3/ref=pd_csp_3/103-2942250-5324647?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
(Sorry, for some reason, my handy html commands don't work on the public library computer. Just one more way that the digital affects us.)
And so kids, to comment...what are your views on hip hop or other music new or old? What are you listening to these days? For me, it's been Chet Baker, Charles Mingus and PJ Harvey.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Just How incompetent is the Dept. of Homeland Security:?
Pretty damn incompetent. For the past two days, I've been racing around my apartment looking for important mail that they had sent to my former room-mate, who is a legal, permanent resident of the United States. In case you didn't know, if you are such a person, you have to inform the authorities of any moves you make from house to house, which my very law-abiding room-mate did. Nonetheless, they mailed vitally important mail to her former address, where it got promptly buried and took several days to locate.
In the meantime I wondered, how many of the people languishing in our patriotic prisons are there because of some similarly stupid bureaucratic incompetence, some case of mistaken identity?
In the meantime I wondered, how many of the people languishing in our patriotic prisons are there because of some similarly stupid bureaucratic incompetence, some case of mistaken identity?
Open Thread: Comment on the Zapatista Info Meeting if you went
Hi folks,
Some of you may have noticed that my weekday blog entries are getting shorter lately. I hate to admit it, but it's because I'm working on my book and I just can't procrastinate the way I used to. However, I'm very eager to hear from anyone who went to the meeting last night in Tompkins Square park. Please post your thoughts, and any updates if you have them.
As for me, I'll be back with a rambling post about something by next week, I promise.
Some of you may have noticed that my weekday blog entries are getting shorter lately. I hate to admit it, but it's because I'm working on my book and I just can't procrastinate the way I used to. However, I'm very eager to hear from anyone who went to the meeting last night in Tompkins Square park. Please post your thoughts, and any updates if you have them.
As for me, I'll be back with a rambling post about something by next week, I promise.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Zapatista Red Alert: Meeting in Tompkins Square Park Wednesday 7pm
I received this message in my email today.
Read on:
The Zapatistas have declared a Red Alert.
What does this mean?
What can we do in solidarity?
Information sharing and discussion
WEDNESDAY JUNE 22, 7pm, Tompkins Square Park Bandshell area.
Here is the communique:
Originally published in Spanish by the CCRI-CG of the EZLN
************************************
Translated by irlandesa
Communiquй from the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee
General Command of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.
Mexico.
June 19, 2005
To the People of Mexico:
To the Peoples of the World:
Brothers and Sisters:
As of today, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation has declared,
throughout all rebel territory, a
GENERAL RED ALERT
Based on this, we are informing you:
First - That at this time the closure is being carried out of the
Caracoles and the Good Government Offices which are located in the
zapatista communities of Oventik, La Realidad, Morelia and Roberto
Barrios, as well as all the headquarters of the authorities of the
different Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities.
Second - That also being carried out is the evacuation of the members of
the different Good Government Juntas and the autonomous
authorities, in order to place them in shelter. Now, and for an
indefinite time period, they will be carrying out their work in a
clandestine and nomadic manner. Both the projects as well as the
autonomous government will continue functioning, although under
different circumstances than they have been up until now.
Third - That basic community health services will continue functioning in
the different Caracoles. Civilians will be in charge of these
services, and the CCRI-CG of the EZLN is distancing them from any of our
future actions, and we are demanding that they be treated as
civilians and with respect for their life, liberty and goods by
government forces.
Fourth - That there has been a call-up of all members of our EZLN who have
been engaged in social work in the zapatista communities and those of our
regular troops who have been in their barracks. In a similar fashion, all
broadcasts by Radio Insurgente, Ñ–The Voice of Those
Without VoiceІ, in FM and in short wave, have been suspended for an
indefinite period of time.
Fifth - That, simultaneous with the publication of this communiquй,
national and international civil societies who are working in peace camps
and in community projects are being urged to leave rebel
territory. Or, if they decide freely of their own volition, they remain on
their own and at their own risk, gathered in the caracoles. In the case of
minors, their departure is obligatory.
Sixth - That the EZLN announces the closing of the Zapatista
Information Centre (CIZ), not without first thanking the civil
societies who have participated in it, from the time of its creation until
today. The CCRI-CG of the EZLN formally releases these persons from any
responsibility for the future actions of the EZLN.
Seventh - That the EZLN releases from responsibility for any of our future
actions all persons and civil, political, cultural, citizens and
non-governmental organizations, solidarity committees and support
groups who have been close to us since 1994. We thank all of those who
have, sincerely and honestly, throughout these almost 12 years,
supported the civil and peaceful struggle of the zapatista indigenous for
the constitutional recognition of indigenous rights and culture.
Democracy!
Liberty!
Justice!
From the Mountains of the Mexican Southeast.
By the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee General Command of
the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos
Mexico, in the sixth month of the year 2005.
Read on:
The Zapatistas have declared a Red Alert.
What does this mean?
What can we do in solidarity?
Information sharing and discussion
WEDNESDAY JUNE 22, 7pm, Tompkins Square Park Bandshell area.
Here is the communique:
Originally published in Spanish by the CCRI-CG of the EZLN
************************************
Translated by irlandesa
Communiquй from the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee
General Command of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.
Mexico.
June 19, 2005
To the People of Mexico:
To the Peoples of the World:
Brothers and Sisters:
As of today, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation has declared,
throughout all rebel territory, a
GENERAL RED ALERT
Based on this, we are informing you:
First - That at this time the closure is being carried out of the
Caracoles and the Good Government Offices which are located in the
zapatista communities of Oventik, La Realidad, Morelia and Roberto
Barrios, as well as all the headquarters of the authorities of the
different Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities.
Second - That also being carried out is the evacuation of the members of
the different Good Government Juntas and the autonomous
authorities, in order to place them in shelter. Now, and for an
indefinite time period, they will be carrying out their work in a
clandestine and nomadic manner. Both the projects as well as the
autonomous government will continue functioning, although under
different circumstances than they have been up until now.
Third - That basic community health services will continue functioning in
the different Caracoles. Civilians will be in charge of these
services, and the CCRI-CG of the EZLN is distancing them from any of our
future actions, and we are demanding that they be treated as
civilians and with respect for their life, liberty and goods by
government forces.
Fourth - That there has been a call-up of all members of our EZLN who have
been engaged in social work in the zapatista communities and those of our
regular troops who have been in their barracks. In a similar fashion, all
broadcasts by Radio Insurgente, Ñ–The Voice of Those
Without VoiceІ, in FM and in short wave, have been suspended for an
indefinite period of time.
Fifth - That, simultaneous with the publication of this communiquй,
national and international civil societies who are working in peace camps
and in community projects are being urged to leave rebel
territory. Or, if they decide freely of their own volition, they remain on
their own and at their own risk, gathered in the caracoles. In the case of
minors, their departure is obligatory.
Sixth - That the EZLN announces the closing of the Zapatista
Information Centre (CIZ), not without first thanking the civil
societies who have participated in it, from the time of its creation until
today. The CCRI-CG of the EZLN formally releases these persons from any
responsibility for the future actions of the EZLN.
Seventh - That the EZLN releases from responsibility for any of our future
actions all persons and civil, political, cultural, citizens and
non-governmental organizations, solidarity committees and support
groups who have been close to us since 1994. We thank all of those who
have, sincerely and honestly, throughout these almost 12 years,
supported the civil and peaceful struggle of the zapatista indigenous for
the constitutional recognition of indigenous rights and culture.
Democracy!
Liberty!
Justice!
From the Mountains of the Mexican Southeast.
By the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee General Command of
the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos
Mexico, in the sixth month of the year 2005.
White Collar Crime Blotter: Are these really long sentences?
According to today's news, John Rigas the founder of Adelphia is getting 15 years in prison , which is just three years longer than the average sentence for posession of crack cocaine, and almost twice as long as the average sentence for simple robbery. The newspaper headlines all are discussing the sentences as "long" and much longer than usual in white-collar crimes.
However, lawyers seem to be arguing that the sentences are actually somewhat short - at least they are about ten times shorter than what the federal sentencing guidelines would suggest. Here are some interesting blogs with comments on the sentences that relate them to the important Supreme Court ruling in United States Vs. Booker, which provided judges with more discretion in sentencing. There's the "sentencing law and policy" blog and the "white collar crime prof" blog.
The most interesting of all these commentaries is on the white-collar crime prof blog, and argues that white collar criminals have a good reason to expect more leniency in sentencing from judges.
However, lawyers seem to be arguing that the sentences are actually somewhat short - at least they are about ten times shorter than what the federal sentencing guidelines would suggest. Here are some interesting blogs with comments on the sentences that relate them to the important Supreme Court ruling in United States Vs. Booker, which provided judges with more discretion in sentencing. There's the "sentencing law and policy" blog and the "white collar crime prof" blog.
The most interesting of all these commentaries is on the white-collar crime prof blog, and argues that white collar criminals have a good reason to expect more leniency in sentencing from judges.
Monday, June 20, 2005
News Flash: The Smoking Axe
The headline is slightly wrong in the details, (it was an ice-axe, not an ice-pick), but go here to read about what may happen to the ice-axe used to kill Trotsky.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Open Thread: Heard on the Street
Last night on the subway, 2 am, I was reading, "Homage to Catalonia." I was deeply irritated by three guys discussing some woman who'd gotten into Juliard drama school. This made her more of a catch than they'd realized. They talked about how competitive it was, what the slaughter was like every year as the class was pruned down by 50%, etc. etc. They seemed to be in the know. They were a little theatrical, self-congratulatory. "Theater people," I thought, "harrumph."
Imagine my surprise as one of them said quietly, just before he got off the train, "great book" and as I turned to see who he was, he gave me a winning smile, "that's a great book," he repeated, louder this time. Not knowing what to say, I responded brightly, but idiotically, "yeah, it's classic!" oooph.
Your turn.....
Imagine my surprise as one of them said quietly, just before he got off the train, "great book" and as I turned to see who he was, he gave me a winning smile, "that's a great book," he repeated, louder this time. Not knowing what to say, I responded brightly, but idiotically, "yeah, it's classic!" oooph.
Your turn.....
Friday, June 17, 2005
What's Behind the Conflicts?
I just returned from US Labor Against the War's "Iraq labor tour" which in NYC hosted the controversial Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). The other groups on the tour, which is visiting "two dozen cities" in the US according to USLAW are the Federation of Workers' Councils (FWCUI) and the General Union of Oil Employees (GUOE). I had wondered about the IFTU, because I was reading news about assasinations of them by resistance fighters. I did wonder, were they somehow part of an official state union structure? It seemed fairly obvious that they were CP affiliated. Were they really independent? From what I could tell at the time, it seemed that they were the remnants of the Iraqi Communist Party, which I had always understood to have been severely repressed by the Baath regime and had been underground for years.
I was unable to find anything else about them at the time, but finally, thanks to some tendentious ISO organizers who handed out fliers critical of the IFTU at the event, now I have more information about them.
I want to write this post in a way that is informative to whoever's reading this without trashing either USLAW or the ISO. I do want to say at the outset that I increasingly find that the ISO's positions on the issues posit the world as a rather black-and-white place, in which choices are simple. "Support the Resistance!" for example, without reflecting on what/who "the resistance" (which is not a unified organization or coalition) is, instead of a more principled position of "support the right to resist." Theirs is also a sectarian world that is all too familiar, where rival organizations are supposed to engage in deliberate plots to thwart worldwide revolution. Perhaps I am reading too much into things, but when I read, for example at the beginning of the ISO pamphlet that "USLAW is sponsoring a Northeast tour for the IFTU," I found it curious that they didn't mention that the USLAW's tour also included two other unions - two of the main unions that the ISO have quoted in their pamphlet critiquing the IFTU, and, by implication, USLAW. There are some inaccuracies, misrepresentations and inconsistencies in the flier that you may find if you check the footnotes. For example, the ISO flier cites Tariq Ali's Bush in Babylon to support their claim that "from 1972-1978 the ICP belonged to Sadaam's cabinet." While this was technically true, as Ali presents it, the ICP, because of their subservience to the USSR, joined the Baath regime and stayed in it until the protested treatment of the Kurds and were subsequently ejected from the government and their leadership executed. While it doesn't speak to the ICP's independence or political smarts, it doesn't implicate them as completely as the ISO pamphlet does with Sadaam, and the ISO's pamphlet failed to mention why the stay in the cabinet ended in '78.
Interestingly, one of the organizations (FWCUI) that the ISO cites as a source of accurate information on IFTU has also pretty seriously denounced the ISO! The reason that the FWCUI opposes the ISO's position is that their organization, the Workers-Communist Party takes a position that socialist revolution is essential, uses quotation marks when referring to the "Resistance," and argues that there is an equal need to oppose "the Islamists" and the US occupation. Similarly, the GUOE, whom the ISO describes as a genuine and legitimate union does not take the kind of absolute position that the ISO calls for. In their discussion on the Socialist Unity website, GUOE said:
We hope that the elected government, though not fully legitimate, will take us forward. We don't think this government will have a magic wand to stop all violence. But certainly there will be some change. We hope that the new government will provide security.
They also remkared, just as the other two unions have, that "There is confusion between the resistance and those who carry out acts of violence, the suicide bombers etc., who are hurting Iraqis more than the Americans." When I see this many people who actually live in Iraq saying the same thing, I find it hard to understand the ISO's argument that the only correct position for US leftists to take is to blindly support something called "the resistance."
Now, those matters aside, what is the story with the IFTU? It seems pretty clear, if you read reports about their visits to England in 2004, that they have a history of being supportive of either a military occupation by the US and Britain, or a replacement of those forces by the UN. However, it also seems pretty clear that the IFTU does support the rights of workers to organize, that they have faced tremendous repression, and even murder, and that they came out against the war. My guess is that what they really want is a UN force to follow the departure of US troops. The ISO and British allies who seem to be their main source of info (Sami Ramadani) seem correct to me in their depiction of labour friends of Iraq," which strongly backs the IFTU as an essentially pro-occupation group.
Given the situation on the ground, I don't doubt that a lot of Communists are almost as afraid of the "resistance," as they call it (and that's not just the IFTU, but the FWCUIC who uses those quotation marks), as they are of the US. However, as all three groups are currently on tour of the US, I'll look for reports from the rest of the tour and hope to learn more.
I was unable to find anything else about them at the time, but finally, thanks to some tendentious ISO organizers who handed out fliers critical of the IFTU at the event, now I have more information about them.
I want to write this post in a way that is informative to whoever's reading this without trashing either USLAW or the ISO. I do want to say at the outset that I increasingly find that the ISO's positions on the issues posit the world as a rather black-and-white place, in which choices are simple. "Support the Resistance!" for example, without reflecting on what/who "the resistance" (which is not a unified organization or coalition) is, instead of a more principled position of "support the right to resist." Theirs is also a sectarian world that is all too familiar, where rival organizations are supposed to engage in deliberate plots to thwart worldwide revolution. Perhaps I am reading too much into things, but when I read, for example at the beginning of the ISO pamphlet that "USLAW is sponsoring a Northeast tour for the IFTU," I found it curious that they didn't mention that the USLAW's tour also included two other unions - two of the main unions that the ISO have quoted in their pamphlet critiquing the IFTU, and, by implication, USLAW. There are some inaccuracies, misrepresentations and inconsistencies in the flier that you may find if you check the footnotes. For example, the ISO flier cites Tariq Ali's Bush in Babylon to support their claim that "from 1972-1978 the ICP belonged to Sadaam's cabinet." While this was technically true, as Ali presents it, the ICP, because of their subservience to the USSR, joined the Baath regime and stayed in it until the protested treatment of the Kurds and were subsequently ejected from the government and their leadership executed. While it doesn't speak to the ICP's independence or political smarts, it doesn't implicate them as completely as the ISO pamphlet does with Sadaam, and the ISO's pamphlet failed to mention why the stay in the cabinet ended in '78.
Interestingly, one of the organizations (FWCUI) that the ISO cites as a source of accurate information on IFTU has also pretty seriously denounced the ISO! The reason that the FWCUI opposes the ISO's position is that their organization, the Workers-Communist Party takes a position that socialist revolution is essential, uses quotation marks when referring to the "Resistance," and argues that there is an equal need to oppose "the Islamists" and the US occupation. Similarly, the GUOE, whom the ISO describes as a genuine and legitimate union does not take the kind of absolute position that the ISO calls for. In their discussion on the Socialist Unity website, GUOE said:
We hope that the elected government, though not fully legitimate, will take us forward. We don't think this government will have a magic wand to stop all violence. But certainly there will be some change. We hope that the new government will provide security.
They also remkared, just as the other two unions have, that "There is confusion between the resistance and those who carry out acts of violence, the suicide bombers etc., who are hurting Iraqis more than the Americans." When I see this many people who actually live in Iraq saying the same thing, I find it hard to understand the ISO's argument that the only correct position for US leftists to take is to blindly support something called "the resistance."
Now, those matters aside, what is the story with the IFTU? It seems pretty clear, if you read reports about their visits to England in 2004, that they have a history of being supportive of either a military occupation by the US and Britain, or a replacement of those forces by the UN. However, it also seems pretty clear that the IFTU does support the rights of workers to organize, that they have faced tremendous repression, and even murder, and that they came out against the war. My guess is that what they really want is a UN force to follow the departure of US troops. The ISO and British allies who seem to be their main source of info (Sami Ramadani) seem correct to me in their depiction of labour friends of Iraq," which strongly backs the IFTU as an essentially pro-occupation group.
Given the situation on the ground, I don't doubt that a lot of Communists are almost as afraid of the "resistance," as they call it (and that's not just the IFTU, but the FWCUIC who uses those quotation marks), as they are of the US. However, as all three groups are currently on tour of the US, I'll look for reports from the rest of the tour and hope to learn more.
Pre-Crime Detention, Deportation
A friend sent me a story from today's NYT about a teenaged immigrant girl who has been deported because she visited an internet chat room. Based on this visit, the FBI has decided that she and another girl, presented "an imminent threat to the security of the United States based upon evidence that they plan to be suicide bombers." The document [provided to the New York Times] cited no evidence. And in background interviews, federal officials were quick to play down the case as soon as reporters called, characterizing the investigation as a pre-emptive move against potential candidates for recruitment, not the disruption of a plot.
The young woman interviewed by the Times also wears a veil, and says that she sees an Islamic state as ideal because in it "you don't pay for water...you don't pay for transport." This should be a clear example of how privatization has contributed to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Regardless of the girl's politics and beliefs, this case is an example of the increasing adoption of the "legal" theories of Carl Schmidt, who said that preventive arrest was legitimate. No... he wasn't a character in Phillip K. Dick's "The Minority Report," in which people are arrested for "future crimes," but the legal bulwark of the Third Reich.
And...Good news. The AP covered the Downing Street Memo hearings and they're in today's Chicago Tribune, The so-called liberal New York Times also covered the DSM hearings, though they refer to John Conyers, a senior membeer of the house judiciary committee as an "anti-war group." in their headline. The Times story also makes it sound as if the document, which is the minutes from a meeting between Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence agency M1-6 and the Prime Minister, is somehow second-hand, reporting thatThe memo said Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, had said in the meeting that Mr. Bush had already decided on war, "but the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."...... and say that "Activists have accused mainstream news organizations of playing down the document's significance, even as antiwar bloggers have seized upon it as evidence."
But as we know, it's not the "memo" written by some outside person which "says" anything about Richard Dearlove and Tony Blair. The memo is a set of minutes of a meeting between them. Argggh!
There's an interesting story about the DSM from the Fort Wayne Gazette, which discusses the criticisms made of the mainstream media by activists who have demanded that the story be covered, and in the story, the response is exactly what Ray McGovern noted in the hearings yesterday. There are two responses: "it's not true" and "we already knew that." Nowhere in the story does it explain why the people on the left say it's a smoking gun...nowhere in the story is the memo itself printed. It's enough to make you think that there must be very severe pressure being brought by the whitehouse to keep the memo from being printed in full.
The young woman interviewed by the Times also wears a veil, and says that she sees an Islamic state as ideal because in it "you don't pay for water...you don't pay for transport." This should be a clear example of how privatization has contributed to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Regardless of the girl's politics and beliefs, this case is an example of the increasing adoption of the "legal" theories of Carl Schmidt, who said that preventive arrest was legitimate. No... he wasn't a character in Phillip K. Dick's "The Minority Report," in which people are arrested for "future crimes," but the legal bulwark of the Third Reich.
And...Good news. The AP covered the Downing Street Memo hearings and they're in today's Chicago Tribune, The so-called liberal New York Times also covered the DSM hearings, though they refer to John Conyers, a senior membeer of the house judiciary committee as an "anti-war group." in their headline. The Times story also makes it sound as if the document, which is the minutes from a meeting between Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence agency M1-6 and the Prime Minister, is somehow second-hand, reporting thatThe memo said Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, had said in the meeting that Mr. Bush had already decided on war, "but the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."...... and say that "Activists have accused mainstream news organizations of playing down the document's significance, even as antiwar bloggers have seized upon it as evidence."
But as we know, it's not the "memo" written by some outside person which "says" anything about Richard Dearlove and Tony Blair. The memo is a set of minutes of a meeting between them. Argggh!
There's an interesting story about the DSM from the Fort Wayne Gazette, which discusses the criticisms made of the mainstream media by activists who have demanded that the story be covered, and in the story, the response is exactly what Ray McGovern noted in the hearings yesterday. There are two responses: "it's not true" and "we already knew that." Nowhere in the story does it explain why the people on the left say it's a smoking gun...nowhere in the story is the memo itself printed. It's enough to make you think that there must be very severe pressure being brought by the whitehouse to keep the memo from being printed in full.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
the State of the Anti-War Movement
I'm on the "portside" email list and thus just read a long piece by Van Gosse about the "state of the anti-war movement" based on a talk he gave at a big UFPJ steering committee meeting. In it, he argues: that the
Republican hold on power, while apparently commanding,
is extremely fragile, the Right's apparent hegemony is illusory, there
is no realignment (yet), their control of
the institutional levers of power is real but insecure. I wasn't totally clear about what Van Gosse was suggesting, but it seemed mostly to be that people in the anti-war movement have to get more involved in electorial and legislative politics. He also said that it was disorganization early on that led the sectarians of ANSWER to be the initial leaders in the anti-war movement. (more on that in a future post)
Tom Hayden said something very similar back in 2004, right after the election: In short: pinch the funding arteries, push the Democrats to become an opposition party, ally with anti-war Republicans, support dissenting soldiers, make "Iraqization" more difficult, and build a peace coalition against the war coalition. If the politicians are too frightened or ideologically incapable of implementing an exit strategy, the only alternative is for the people to pull the plug. Where do mass demonstrations and civil disobedience fit into this framework? Certainly Bush's inauguration will be an appropriate time to dissent in the streets. Nationwide rallies are an important way to remain visible, but many activists may tire if they see no strategic plan... Care will have to be taken during such militant actions to send the clearest possible message to mainstream public opinion.
Van Gosse's electoral strategy involves getting states to pass resolutions for "out now" resolutions. Not quite there, but close, Wisconsin's state legislature has passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld based on the lie that sent us to war. I think that's good and I'm also greatly encouraged by Conyers' hearings on the Downing Street Memo, which will be held on Capitol Hill this afternoon at 2:30 and broadcast on CSPAN-3 and Pacifica Radio.
However, while I think that it's very important for people who are active Democrats to push the party to act against the war, I have to agree with Ron Jacobs' comments from May 2nd in Counterpunch, ....groups like the US organization UFPJ are in real trouble. This trouble does not come from a lack of antiwar sentiment, nor does it come from apathy. Instead, it comes from a growing sense that the leadership of this organization (and others like them) are attempting to lead those of us who attend their demonstrations into the arms of the dead-end process known as mainstream politics. By this, I mean that the UFPJ leadership wants to lobby Congress to end the war. While this is certainly a noble thought, it has about as much possibility of success as me turning into a frog.
A strong anti-war movement, well organized, with chapters in schools, unions, and other locations articulating its own clear positions on issues, reaching the broad public, etc. will ultimately force the political establishment to respond. SDS did not gain its strength by writing to letters to congressmen, as I recall - largely because the escalation of the war began under a Democrat and because SDS activists had staked out early territory in opposing JFK's aggression against Cuba, and because SDS was active in community already used to direct action because of the growing strength of the Civil Rights Movement, which had been building for ten+ years by the time that SDS began organizing.
No matter how much Van Gosse wants to argue that the right is not strong, I think that the reason people are so determined to work within the Democratic party is that the right wing is in fact very strong and very powerful in the US. Their control of the media, which Van Gosse doesn't mention in his article, is very significant and demoralizing. The most important thing that the anti-war activists can expect and should be prepared for is that their efforts and strategies will be described as "way out on the left" and crazy no matter what they do. If we base our actions on avoiding media distortions, etc., we will be completely paralysed. I am dubious about Democratic party's willingness to act courageously in the face of bad coverage in teh media when I look at how many in the party responded to Howard Dean, who is far from taking an "out now" position on the war.
People who are the base of the broad anti-war movement, those who are against the war in principle, but not experienced activists, also worry about how to get the best "spin" from the media, and are afraid of "looking like wackos" (just read the Dailykos and you'll see what I mean). I think that the negative commentaries and baiting of groups like ANSWER has contributed greatly, particularly at the beginning of the anti-war movement in 2001, to the generally negative characterization of people on the left as "way out" "fringe" and "wacky." There was a more principled way to respond to that group than what Michael Lerner, whose actions were terribly damaging, did. These attacks ulimately hurt anti-war organzing, in my opinion.
While I disagreed strongly with ANSWER's tactics, I think that a lot of the pressure brought to bear against them had more to do with their positions on the issues and their un-corporate-media-friendly style than it had to do with their top-down structure. While certainly there are better ways to relate to people than carrying leftoid jargon-filled signs around, trying to build a media-friendly movement is not going to succeed in winning over the corporate media, and it is unlikely to succeed in "diversifying" the leadership or the base of the anti-war movement beyond the white and middle-class, highly educated world of progressive activism. Wading more deeply into democratic party activism and lobbying is even more likely to take the group down the white-middle class, bureaucratic, slow, slow, slow road to change. I don't feel as negative as Jacobs does about UFPJ, however, and I think some of the elements of their program are directed at building a real grass-roots anti-war organization, such as the "grassroots education campaign" and the "local costs of the war" plan.
Within this strategy, I think that the fear of looking like a freak really should not be underestimated. It's something that I think people have to confront when they move from holding opinions to taking action collectively. It has to do with our media climate. The media's reporting on politics is often based on predicting how people will react to statements, demonstrations, etc. These predictions then become prescriptions to the public about how they should feel about events. (For example, the coverage of the Dean scream predicted how people would react, and then created that reaction. There are plenty of other examples.) People on the left must come to recognize that the way they get talked about in the media is not the measure of their real success.
Look at what anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, of Gold Star Mothers for peace said to the president at a rally in Kentucky yesterday:
"Hard work is seeing your son's murder on CNN one
Sunday evening while you're enjoying the last supper
you'll ever truly enjoy again. Hard work is having
three military officers come to your house a few hours
later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son,
your first-born, your kind and gentle sweet baby. Hard
work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th
birthday. Hard work is holding your other three
children as they lower the body of their big (brother)
into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave
with him and having the earth cover you both,"....
"We're watching you very carefully and we're going to
do everything in our power to have you impeached for
misleading the American people," she said, quoting a
letter she sent to the White House. "Beating a
political stake in your black heart will be the
fulfillment of my life ... ," she said, as the audience
of 200 people cheered.
I'm glad to see someone willing to say something that negative is about to be a witness at John Conyers' hearings today. However, even as I'm excited about the anti-Bush organizing, the agitation around this memo, and its focus on the war's illegality, in the rush and the excitement, it's important for us to talk about the war in a way that encourages probing how this war fits into American foreign policy in general and doesn't just focus on the deaths of Americans. Iraq Vets Against the War have done this, and when I've heard them speak, they talk a lot about US imperialism. It can be done...and not just by college professors.
Republican hold on power, while apparently commanding,
is extremely fragile, the Right's apparent hegemony is illusory, there
is no realignment (yet), their control of
the institutional levers of power is real but insecure. I wasn't totally clear about what Van Gosse was suggesting, but it seemed mostly to be that people in the anti-war movement have to get more involved in electorial and legislative politics. He also said that it was disorganization early on that led the sectarians of ANSWER to be the initial leaders in the anti-war movement. (more on that in a future post)
Tom Hayden said something very similar back in 2004, right after the election: In short: pinch the funding arteries, push the Democrats to become an opposition party, ally with anti-war Republicans, support dissenting soldiers, make "Iraqization" more difficult, and build a peace coalition against the war coalition. If the politicians are too frightened or ideologically incapable of implementing an exit strategy, the only alternative is for the people to pull the plug. Where do mass demonstrations and civil disobedience fit into this framework? Certainly Bush's inauguration will be an appropriate time to dissent in the streets. Nationwide rallies are an important way to remain visible, but many activists may tire if they see no strategic plan... Care will have to be taken during such militant actions to send the clearest possible message to mainstream public opinion.
Van Gosse's electoral strategy involves getting states to pass resolutions for "out now" resolutions. Not quite there, but close, Wisconsin's state legislature has passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld based on the lie that sent us to war. I think that's good and I'm also greatly encouraged by Conyers' hearings on the Downing Street Memo, which will be held on Capitol Hill this afternoon at 2:30 and broadcast on CSPAN-3 and Pacifica Radio.
However, while I think that it's very important for people who are active Democrats to push the party to act against the war, I have to agree with Ron Jacobs' comments from May 2nd in Counterpunch, ....groups like the US organization UFPJ are in real trouble. This trouble does not come from a lack of antiwar sentiment, nor does it come from apathy. Instead, it comes from a growing sense that the leadership of this organization (and others like them) are attempting to lead those of us who attend their demonstrations into the arms of the dead-end process known as mainstream politics. By this, I mean that the UFPJ leadership wants to lobby Congress to end the war. While this is certainly a noble thought, it has about as much possibility of success as me turning into a frog.
A strong anti-war movement, well organized, with chapters in schools, unions, and other locations articulating its own clear positions on issues, reaching the broad public, etc. will ultimately force the political establishment to respond. SDS did not gain its strength by writing to letters to congressmen, as I recall - largely because the escalation of the war began under a Democrat and because SDS activists had staked out early territory in opposing JFK's aggression against Cuba, and because SDS was active in community already used to direct action because of the growing strength of the Civil Rights Movement, which had been building for ten+ years by the time that SDS began organizing.
No matter how much Van Gosse wants to argue that the right is not strong, I think that the reason people are so determined to work within the Democratic party is that the right wing is in fact very strong and very powerful in the US. Their control of the media, which Van Gosse doesn't mention in his article, is very significant and demoralizing. The most important thing that the anti-war activists can expect and should be prepared for is that their efforts and strategies will be described as "way out on the left" and crazy no matter what they do. If we base our actions on avoiding media distortions, etc., we will be completely paralysed. I am dubious about Democratic party's willingness to act courageously in the face of bad coverage in teh media when I look at how many in the party responded to Howard Dean, who is far from taking an "out now" position on the war.
People who are the base of the broad anti-war movement, those who are against the war in principle, but not experienced activists, also worry about how to get the best "spin" from the media, and are afraid of "looking like wackos" (just read the Dailykos and you'll see what I mean). I think that the negative commentaries and baiting of groups like ANSWER has contributed greatly, particularly at the beginning of the anti-war movement in 2001, to the generally negative characterization of people on the left as "way out" "fringe" and "wacky." There was a more principled way to respond to that group than what Michael Lerner, whose actions were terribly damaging, did. These attacks ulimately hurt anti-war organzing, in my opinion.
While I disagreed strongly with ANSWER's tactics, I think that a lot of the pressure brought to bear against them had more to do with their positions on the issues and their un-corporate-media-friendly style than it had to do with their top-down structure. While certainly there are better ways to relate to people than carrying leftoid jargon-filled signs around, trying to build a media-friendly movement is not going to succeed in winning over the corporate media, and it is unlikely to succeed in "diversifying" the leadership or the base of the anti-war movement beyond the white and middle-class, highly educated world of progressive activism. Wading more deeply into democratic party activism and lobbying is even more likely to take the group down the white-middle class, bureaucratic, slow, slow, slow road to change. I don't feel as negative as Jacobs does about UFPJ, however, and I think some of the elements of their program are directed at building a real grass-roots anti-war organization, such as the "grassroots education campaign" and the "local costs of the war" plan.
Within this strategy, I think that the fear of looking like a freak really should not be underestimated. It's something that I think people have to confront when they move from holding opinions to taking action collectively. It has to do with our media climate. The media's reporting on politics is often based on predicting how people will react to statements, demonstrations, etc. These predictions then become prescriptions to the public about how they should feel about events. (For example, the coverage of the Dean scream predicted how people would react, and then created that reaction. There are plenty of other examples.) People on the left must come to recognize that the way they get talked about in the media is not the measure of their real success.
Look at what anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, of Gold Star Mothers for peace said to the president at a rally in Kentucky yesterday:
"Hard work is seeing your son's murder on CNN one
Sunday evening while you're enjoying the last supper
you'll ever truly enjoy again. Hard work is having
three military officers come to your house a few hours
later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son,
your first-born, your kind and gentle sweet baby. Hard
work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th
birthday. Hard work is holding your other three
children as they lower the body of their big (brother)
into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave
with him and having the earth cover you both,"....
"We're watching you very carefully and we're going to
do everything in our power to have you impeached for
misleading the American people," she said, quoting a
letter she sent to the White House. "Beating a
political stake in your black heart will be the
fulfillment of my life ... ," she said, as the audience
of 200 people cheered.
I'm glad to see someone willing to say something that negative is about to be a witness at John Conyers' hearings today. However, even as I'm excited about the anti-Bush organizing, the agitation around this memo, and its focus on the war's illegality, in the rush and the excitement, it's important for us to talk about the war in a way that encourages probing how this war fits into American foreign policy in general and doesn't just focus on the deaths of Americans. Iraq Vets Against the War have done this, and when I've heard them speak, they talk a lot about US imperialism. It can be done...and not just by college professors.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Memo Protests Continue -- Keep Hope Alive!
I didn't think I could get more annoyed about the lack of coverage of the "Downing Street Memo," but I got even more annoyed by it when I was listening to a lovely podcast of Counterspin this afternoon on the subway. FAIR has an action alert associated with the memo and the characterization of people who are interested in the minutes as "wingnuts."
Raw Story has published a nice little time-line of public statements connecting Bush to early Iraq war plans. It's nice, but doesn't include the kind of details that you get if you go check out Normon Solomon's Target Iraq, which is now online for free.
Brandon30721, of the Dailykos, suggested that the hearing should be held on the capital steps, not in the DNC. (That evil man, Sensenbrenner wouldn't give him a room on Capitol Hill.) People at afterdowningstreet.org are calling for CSPAN to broadcast the hearings, which will be on Thursday at 1:30pm.
Raw Story has published a nice little time-line of public statements connecting Bush to early Iraq war plans. It's nice, but doesn't include the kind of details that you get if you go check out Normon Solomon's Target Iraq, which is now online for free.
Brandon30721, of the Dailykos, suggested that the hearing should be held on the capital steps, not in the DNC. (That evil man, Sensenbrenner wouldn't give him a room on Capitol Hill.) People at afterdowningstreet.org are calling for CSPAN to broadcast the hearings, which will be on Thursday at 1:30pm.
Craziest Street Comments: Open Thread
What is the nuttiest, funniest, or most remarkable thing someone's said to you on the street? I ask because, at about 11am today as I was on my way to that celebrity hang-out, the NYPL, I heard a man muttering, in true a true Bowery-brogue,
"nice feet."
(I didn't respond)
"hey!" he got louder, "nice feet," he wanted me to KNOW, "Really! That's a beautiful foot you got there."
So, I took it in. I admit, I was pleased, but I didn't turn to see him. Maybe I should have, but I generally don't respond to comments from strange men. I was reminded of Trilby, whose feet were an erotic thrill among NY's elite in the gilded age.
So, how 'bout you.... comments from strangers?
"nice feet."
(I didn't respond)
"hey!" he got louder, "nice feet," he wanted me to KNOW, "Really! That's a beautiful foot you got there."
So, I took it in. I admit, I was pleased, but I didn't turn to see him. Maybe I should have, but I generally don't respond to comments from strange men. I was reminded of Trilby, whose feet were an erotic thrill among NY's elite in the gilded age.
So, how 'bout you.... comments from strangers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)