Tuesday, June 30, 2009

News Round-Up!

Obama holds gay pride reception, vows to overturn 'unjust laws'
I'm of four minds on the issue: [1] is that it's about fucking time, dude. [2] is that this is probably still too soon; to maintain these rights, enough people need to back them. I'm wary that pushing it too hard too soon will do more harm to the movement in the long term, but I don't plan on marrying any men, so I kind of have the luxury to say that. [3] is that we should just abolish "marriage" as a legal institution, and give everyone free choice from various civil union arrangements, in tangent with an overhaul of the tax system. [4] is that we should stop caring about reform and smash the state. I think [1] is the loudest of the four, at the moment.

Short fuse; 50,000 workers on the streets & 50 factories burning in Bangladesh
While this could prove short-sighted on the part of the workers, solely within the confines of the unfortunate context of capitalism, but I support the hell out of the workers making it damned clear that they're the ones keeping the machine going, and they can be the ones to stop it at a moment's notice.

Activist Accused of “Advocating Literature and Materials Which Advocate Anarchy”
More thought-crime, plain and simple. Tell me again about this Constitutional freedom of speech. About how we're too "enlightened" in the U.S. for such political repression. It's kind of quaint.

Two years
White pedophile adopts black children. Nobody cares. But racism ended back in January, right?

Obama contemplates Executive Order for detention without charges
Just a friendly reminder, he's just a really nice guy that works for the slightly less douchey half of the Two-Headed Capitalist Party. He's the President of a corrupt system, and no matter how decent he is, he will do corrupt things. He will grow accustomed to the culture of power, grow desensitized to what would get any of us "normal folk" jailed or mauled by an angry mob.

Monday, June 29, 2009

A Note on Cultural Relativism and White Guilt

In October last year, al-Shabab ordered a 13-year-old girl to be stoned to death in public in the southern city of Kismayo.

She was accused of adultery after reporting she had been raped by three men.

(source)

Cultural relativism doesn't excuse this. Sure, it's fringe. Sure, Somalia has been fucked up for a long time due to a bunch of different reasons. That does not excuse this kind of shit.

This notion that other cultures can't be criticized isn't borne of a solid grasp on privilege. It's borne of white guilt.

Fuck white guilt. If you feel guilty, you're missing the point.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

A note of appreciation from the rich

(shamelessly stolen from scroogle.org, via twentythree press)

Let's be honest: you'll never win the lottery.

On the other hand, the chances are pretty good that you'll slave away at some miserable job the rest of your life. That's because you were in all likelihood born into the wrong social class. Let's face it — you're a member of the working caste. Sorry!

As a result, you don't have the education, upbringing, connections, manners, appearance, and good taste to ever become one of us. In fact, you'd probably need a book the size of the yellow pages to list all the unfair advantages we have over you. That's why we're so relieved to know that you still continue to believe all those silly fairy tales about "justice" and "equal opportunity" in America.

Of course, in a hierarchical social system like ours, there's never been much room at the top to begin with. Besides, it's already occupied by us — and we like it up here so much that we intend to keep it that way. But at least there's usually someone lower in the social hierarchy you can feel superior to and kick in the teeth once in a while. Even a lowly dishwasher can easily find some poor slob further down in the pecking order to sneer and spit at. So be thankful for migrant workers, prostitutes, and homeless street people.

Always remember that if everyone like you were economically secure and socially privileged like us, there would be no one left to fill all those boring, dangerous, low-paid jobs in our economy. And no one to fight our wars for us, or blindly follow orders in our totalitarian corporate institutions. And certainly no one to meekly go to their grave without having lived a full and creative life. So please, keep up the good work!

You also probably don't have the same greedy, compulsive drive to possess wealth, power, and prestige that we have. And even though you may sincerely want to change the way you live, you're also afraid of the very change you desire, thus keeping you and others like you in a nervous state of limbo. So you go through life mechanically playing your assigned social role, terrified what others would think should you ever dare to "break out of the mold."

Naturally, we try to play you off against each other whenever it suits our purposes: high-waged workers against low-waged, unionized against non-unionized, Black against White, male against female, American workers against Japanese against Mexican against.... We continually push your wages down by invoking "foreign competition," "the law of supply and demand," "national security," or "the bloated federal deficit." We throw you on the unemployed scrap heap if you step out of line or jeopardize our profits. And to give you an occasional break from the monotony of our daily economic blackmail, we allow you to participate in our stage-managed electoral shell games, better known to you ordinary folks as "elections." Happily, you haven't a clue as to what's really happening — instead, you blame "Aliens," "Tree-hugging Environmentalists," "Niggers," "Jews," Welfare Queens," and countless others for your troubled situation.

We're also very pleased that many of you still embrace the "work ethic," even though most jobs in our economy degrade the environment, undermine your physical and emotional health, and basically suck your one and only life right out of you. We obviously don't know much about work, but we're sure glad you do!

Of course, life could be different. Society could be intelligently organized to meet the real needs of the general population. You and others like you could collectively fight to free yourselves from our domination. But you don't know that. In fact, you can't even imagine that another way of life is possible. And that's probably the greatest, most significant achievement of our system — robbing you of your imagination, your creativity, your ability to think and act for yourself.

So we'd truly like to thank you from the bottom of our heartless hearts. Your loyal sacrifice makes possible our corrupt luxury; your work makes our system work. Thanks so much for "knowing your place" — without even knowing it!

Monday, June 15, 2009

links

Neo-Nazis are in the Army now

Chicago Police attack Queers in Boystown; four arrests, many injuries

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Werther

"The human race is but a monotonous affair. Most of them labour the greater part of their time for mere subsistence; and the scanty portion of freedom which remains to them so troubles them that they use every exertion to get rid of it. Oh, the destiny of man!"

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. The Sorrows of Young Werther, 1774.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Piracy: What You're Not Being Told

My prior post on the "situation" regarding piracy in the Gulf of Aden, apparently, wasn't very clear. I suppose a litany of f-bombs isn't exactly the most effective method of communication. While I still won't shy from the fuck-word, I'll try to temper my incendiary rhetoric with plainly stated facts.

First, one must understand that the Somali pirates are not one cohesive group. It's not an organized crime syndicate that hates mom's apple pie. Some of the pirates work for Al-Shabaab, which translates as "The Youth," whom are most notable for their status as militant Islamic dominionists trying to take over Somalia. Some are opportunist pricks that either act alone or work for the kind of douchebags that make lots of money off of the poaching of endangered species, human trafficking, and other such nasty shit. Many, if not most, are generally known as the Somali Coast Guard. These are the guys that took the Ukrainian vessel with all of those tanks and such, which were totally not at all destined for Kenya, from which they would never have been smuggled into Sudan for use in continuing the genocide that isn't really happening. Anything you read about the pirates that does not clearly distinguish is absolutely not to be trusted, as it's dishonest and/or uninformed. Most of the pirates, no matter where they fall in those categories, are between the ages of 17 and 23.

To understand the Somali Coast Guard, one must know some backstory. A good majority of people in Somalia lived off of fishing. It was pretty much the only thing that most folks had going for them. This is largely due to centuries of colonialism and neo-colonialism at the hands of the self-styled "First World," which also served to corrupt their culture in such a manner that has rendered many young children proficient at using AK-47s, most of which came from the old Soviet block. After the government fell in the '90s, various (mostly European) private corporations were sending medical waste, toxic waste, and, yes, nuclear waste to the Gulf of Aden. It's speculated that the Italian mafia was pretty heavily involved in this, but I'm not 100% on that bit right now. So, all of this nasty shit in their water killed a lot of fish and poisoned a lot more; this results in less food, less money, and a serious problem with rampant illnesses that have killed quite a few people. In tangent with this, in other parts of the Gulf of Aden (which is fucking huge, so ya' know), private corporations were illegally overfishing their waters. So we've got a bunch of starving, dying people with old Russian and U.S.American weapons, some fishing boats, and nothing else to lose. So they hooked up with some militias and warlords, as we in the "First World" call them (but they're heros and freedom fighters when we like them) to take matters into their own hands. "First World" nations have been far more kind to the corporation than those that the corporation exploits since the emergence of the 16th century trading companies, so there's no chance in hell that they would suddenly grow an intellectually honest conscience and put a stop to things. So this Somali Coast Guard goes after ships that look suspicious, make some good money off of ransom, and recognize an opportunity.

Now, I'm not going to deny the existence of selfish douchebags. There are more than a few "warlords" enjoying the profits. There are just as many, if not more of these "warlords" that have the support of their people. Think of it more like a patron system; the "warlords" funnel this money into their areas, building infrastructure, bringing in food and medical supplies, increasing education, and otherwise doing what needs to be done for the good of the people. The existence of the selfish douchebags cannot be used to discredit the pirates at large; every group of people of any size that come together for any reason at all will have a couple of assholes that make everyone else look bad. I call this the Law of Douchebags. If all pirates are criminals, so are all C.E.O.s, and when you consider how much more harm those C.E.O.s cause, we should kill them all first, right? Kill all of the politicians, activists, teachers, cab drivers, cops, pizza delivery drivers, and everybody on MySpace. Incidentally, the contents of the Ukrainian vessel were relinquished to the Somali Coast Guard, and were subsequently given to the Sudanese resistance to the genocide. People are killing the fuck out of them, they could seriously use some tanks and missile launchers.

When you put this in the context of the labor movements throughout the world in the late 19th / early 20th centuries, the Golden Age of Piracy (or Pirate Wars) of the late 16th / early 17th century (of which the jihadist Barbary Corsairs were not a part), the "Public Enemies" period of John Dillinger, and pretty much everything else ever, it should be assumed that the media and government alike are not only fibbing about things, but probably doing so deliberately. There's also the distinct possibility of murder (Haymarket Massacre, Sacco & Vanzetti). While I cannot divulge my source, I can say with 100% certainty that what we were told about the killing of those three pirates by snipers by U.S. Navy SEALs was absolute bullshit. Before the story broke on the news, a person whom is in such a position to know such things let slip that they sent frogmen to attack the boat from underneath while the still-living pirate was on a Navy vessel for "negotiation." It is on this same authority that I say that this captain's life meant precisely dick to the U.S. government. Fitting with history, one life is worth losing when stating to everyone that You Do Not Fuck With Capitalism. That dude is lucky that he wasn't inadvertently killed by U.S. troops.

When you consider that which has been done to nations such as Somalia since long before we chopped these regions into nations by us as the "First World," what ethical right do we have to pass judgment? Consider the classic story relayed by St. Augustine in City of God, in which Alexander the Great captures a pirate. He asks the pirate something along the lines of "who the hell do you think you are being a jerk on the seas?" The pirate responds with something akin to "who the hell do you think you are doing the same on land? I do it myself and I'm a robber, but you do the same shit with a whole fleet and you get to be an emperor? Get bent." Now, the ransom is paid by insurance companies whom are reimbursed by premiums which are paid by the shipping companies that pass the added cost along to those that have things to ship. Of course, they pass that cost to their employees and customers, but that's nothing new. The people on top have been screwing the people below forever; it's just business as usual. These companies are all propped up by the "First World." Those ships are global capital. The Gulf of Aden is the most direct route for the ruling class to take when exploiting everyone else to varying degrees, and still the most cost effective route. Global capital is the thing that has fucked Somalia up so bad in the past 15 or so years. Um, 500 or so years, rather. We as the people in the "First World" are those that are the least blatantly exploited; we're the fish swimming under the belly of a shark, nibbling on the bits and pieces of chocolate in plantations worked by child slaves and everything else made by enslaved Tibetan monks and children in China that fall our way. We're happy, the shark is happy, and the fish that get eaten were terrorists anyway, so who the fuck cares? What ethical right do we have to pass judgment? Employ some cultural relativism; the threat of violence is pretty much all they have. We have privileges that allow us to commit various acts of resistance and selfishness without needing that threat. We cannot honestly hold them to the same standards, because they do not have the same circumstances. Back to St. Augustine's story, what if the pirate is robbing from the emperor instead of people? The whole Robin Hood thing, ya' know?

Some people are griping about how some of the ships have aid. Really? Is it clearly posted on the side of the ships? If it was, wouldn't it likely be a ploy to save on insurance premiums? Ships rarely ever contain one thing. Saying that a ship contains aid is sort of like saying that a convenience store contains beer. Sure, but it also has candy, porn, batteries, shitty sandwiches, and air fresheners shaped like pine trees. A ship with aid looks like a ship with Ukrainian tanks looks like a ship with cheaply manufactured clothing or car parts. Anyway, the vast majority of aid rarely ends where we want it to. Most of it gets hoarded by corrupt douchebags, with bits skimmed off the top by every hand that touches it along the way, and occasionally sold on the black market for exorbitant prices. Anybody that's involved in policy or a 200-level sociology class knows this, so we really shouldn't kid ourselves with righteous indignation to justify an ill-informed opinion that was shaped by those whom stand to profit from you agreeing with whatever they tell you.

The Somali Coast Guard haven't really been all that violent, really. They hadn't killed anyone. Aside from the fact that even some of "those savages" can recognize that murder isn't exactly the cool thing to do, corpses don't fetch much of a ransom. It is in the direct personal interests of the pirates to not harm anyone. Most of 'em also know that the people on the ships don't own what's being shipped, have little interest in it, and are likely grossly underpaid by their rich bosses. Don't send in trained killers right off the bat. You don't send in SWAT as soon as you hear that a bank is being robbed, you negotiate. And including a "you will be arrested" clause is not effective negotiation.

I think this is long enough, and I think my points are clear enough. Anyway, it's late, I'm tired, and I've got a fairly early morning.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Comments on the Piracy in the Gulf of Aden

Fuck those Navy Seals and fuck Obama. Fuck the Democrats for sounding like a bunch of chest-thumping capitalist GOP-voting motherfuckers.

Here's a cursory glance at what's really going on with the piracy:
Johann Hari: You Are Being Lied to About Pirates
Pirates seen as not interested in raising violence

And even those two articles miss some pretty important parts of the picture.


Since when is it "good leadership" to have trained experts kill a handful of desperate fishermen striking back at those whom are responsible for their desperation with a couple of guns that they really don't want to use to begin with? Since when do "negotiations" hinge on the arresting of these fishermen so they can be "brought to justice"? Do you want justice? Arrest the motherfuckers that have been illegally overfishing Somali waters. Arrest the motherfuckers that have been dumping toxic waste off the coast of Somalia. Arrest the Islamofascist douchebags trying to impose a theocratic dictatorship in Mogadishu. Arrest the gov't PR people and the media that spread pro-capitalist propaganda.

By the way, the ransom money? Most of it is going to the building of infrastructure in northern Somalia. Food, medical care, education, et cetera. Does that sound like terrorism to you? Does that sound like a big fucking deal that we need to send in armed professionals to kill?

Fuck all.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

A Friendly Reminder

Webster's Dictionary is not the end-all and be-all resource for everything, ever.

Racism = power + prejudice. I don't care what the dictionary says. Look up "fibromyalgia" or "anarcho-communism," and I'm sure it'll feed you some oversimplified bullshit, with little resemblance to what doctors or students of political science say, respectively.

Anybody can be prejudiced. To be prejudiced is to have irrational, unfounded, uninformed, critical perceptions, without (proper) examination of the facts.

Only people that pass as the "dominant" race can be racist. Reverse racism does not exist, I don't care how uncomfortable you are when non-whites or white allies discuss race. There are still more white people, they still make more money, they still wield more power in government and private industry, they're still less likely to get hassled by the police, they're still more likely to have connections to people that can provide opportunities, they're still more likely to get hired, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Joke or not, racist is racist, and racism is not cool. Even if you're a white ally with a sense for the ironic, you run the risk of losing control of your words once they've left your mouth; the person that hears it may find their racist tendencies further legitimized. We all have a responsibility for what we put out for the world to digest, even if it trickles out through one conversation with one person. Intent doesn't matter, people interpret things in manners congruent with their pre-existing world view. Remember this, and consider if you could be doing the cause a disservice by forgetting that not all white people have read the same shit as you.

People of color experience racism on a daily basis. White people benefit from racism, except in cases such as botched affirmative action, which while not rampant, is used as justification for such ludicrous ideas as "white people are becoming the minority!" (we are occasionally the collateral damage of our own racist society). Given that white people largely benefit from what affects non-white people, it's safe to assume that people that experience it probably have a better idea of what is and isn't racist. You know, since it informs their very existence in society. White people? We just get irrationally defensive and reactionary whenever our privilege is accidentally alluded to. Sure, some small segment of minorities may play "the race card" disingenuously, but it's akin to the handful of men raped per year compared to the hundreds of women. It's an intellectually lazy distraction from the larger issue, and we as white people aren't properly equipped to know conclusively. Leave it up to minority communities to call out their own, while us white folk focus on the racism of our similarly melanin-challenged.

Here's a question or three: can you, in good conscience, accept respect from a person that wouldn't give the same respect to your non-white friends? If a friend of many years said something disgustingly bigoted, would you risk the friendship by calling them out? Why or why not?

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you!

(this was lifted from New York Metro Alliance of Anarchists)

Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it's one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist - you just don't realize it.

Let's start by taking a few examples from everyday life:

If there's a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

If you answered "yes", then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don't believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don't those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it's necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It's all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent - which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else's, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered "yes", then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don't believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person's particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist - even if you don't realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free - and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don't really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered "yes", then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today's society - at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don't think there's anything that can be done about it, or anyway - and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist - anything that won't end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren't true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society - that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

"It doesn't matter who started it." "Two wrongs don't make a right." "Clean up your own mess." "Do unto others..." "Don't be mean to people just because they're different." Perhaps we should decide whether we're lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we're willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don't make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we're always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other's needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that's improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there's no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That's why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn't really work that way. That's why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn't that be the greatest gift to one's children one could possibly give?

Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered "yes", then, well, it looks like you aren't an anarchist after all. But if you answered "no', then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can't even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we're confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles-which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

[written by author and anthropologist, David Graeber]

Other resources:

Wikipedia portal for Anarchism: Wiki's got a surprisingly thorough treatment of anarchism. I've probably given a few days of my life to it, and I've hardly scratched the surface.

libcom.org: A library of anarchist texts, classic and modern, as well as resources and news.

Monday, July 28, 2008

U.S. Army Covers Up Brutal Rape (from colorofchange.org)

LaVena Johnson was a 19 year old private in the Army, serving in Iraq, when she was raped, murdered, and her body was burned--by someone from her own military base. Despite overwhelming physical evidence, the Army called her death a suicide and has closed the case.1

For three years, LaVena's parents have been fighting for answers. At almost every turn, they've been met with closed doors or lies. They've appealed to Congress, the one body that can hold the military accountable. But, as in other cases where female soldiers have been raped and murdered and the Army has called it suicide, Congress has failed to act.

Will you join Mr. and Mrs. Johnson in calling on Congressman Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee, to mount a real investigation into LaVena Johnson's death and the Army's cover-up2? Will you ask your friends and family to do the same?

http://www.colorofchange.org/lavena/?id=2059-480458

From the beginning, LaVena's death made no sense as a suicide. She was happy and had been talking with friends and family regularly3--nothing indicated she could be suicidal. And when the Johnsons received her body, they noticed signs that she had been beaten.4 That was when they started asking questions.

After two years of being denied answers and hearing explanations that made no sense, the Johnsons received a CD-ROM from someone on the inside. It contained pictures of the crime scene where LaVena died and an autopsy showing that she had suffered bruises, abrasions, a dislocated shoulder, broken teeth, and some type of sexual assault. Her body was partially burned; she had been doused in a flammable liquid, and someone had set her body on fire. A corrosive chemical had been poured in her genital area, perhaps to cover up evidence of rape.5

Still the Army sticks by their story. They refuse to explain the overwhelming physical evidence that LaVena was raped and murdered and continue to claim that she killed herself.

For many Black youth, and working class young people of every race, the military is seen as an option for securing a better future. LaVena came from a deeply supportive family, and while the military wasn't her only option, she was attracted by its promise to help her pay for a college education and the opportunity to travel around the world. She also thought that by joining she could continue her lifelong commitment to serving other people in need. She made a decision to serve in the military, with all its risks, and expected respect and dignity in return.

LaVena's death is part of a disturbing pattern of cases where female soldiers have been raped and killed, and where the military has hidden the truth and labeled the deaths suicides.6,7 In virtually all cases, Congress has been slow to investigate or hold the military accountable in any way. Unfortunately, most families simply don't have the resources, time, and psychological strength to push back.

We can help the Johnsons, and other families, by holding Congress accountable in the LaVena Johnson case and by demanding it investigate the pattern of cover-ups by the military.

Please take a moment to join those calling on Congressman Waxman to investigate the cover-up of LaVena Johnson's death:

http://www.colorofchange.org/lavena/?id=2059-480458

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Gabriel, Clarissa, Andre, Kai, and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
July 28th, 2008

References:

1. "The cover-up of a soldier's death?" LavenaJohnson.com, March 6, 2007
http://www.lavenajohnson.com/2007/03/cover-up-of-soldiers-death.html

2. "Is There an Army Cover Up of Rape and Murder of Women Soldiers?" CommonDreams.org, April 28, 2008
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/28/8564/

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. "Suicide or Murder? Three Years After the Death of Pfc. LaVena Johnson in Iraq, Her Parents Continue Their Call for a Congressional Investigation," Democracy Now!, June 23, 2008.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/23/suicide_or_murder_three_years_after

6. See reference 2.

7. "2 Years After Soldier's Death, Family's Battle Is With Army," New York Times, March 21, 2006.
http://tinyurl.com/mzcvh

Other References:

"Justice for Pfc. LaVena Johnson," DailyKos, June 30, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/5bh73v

"Rapists in the Ranks, Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/2z2c8l