InfoJournals
Independent Blogs

Even before it was announced that 35-year Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware (that's a state?) would join Senator Barack Obama's ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate, the commentary almost entirely surrounded Biden's foreign policy experience and his chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Obama has had sharp words for the democratically mandated process in Venezuela and supports current policies meant to destabilize or punish Cuba. He has spoken in favor of tactical strikes against Iran, and his alleged opposition to the occupation of Iraq is belied by his consistent votes in favor of war spending. Obama's international policies are largely the same old-hat reactionary ones we can find from any one else, all the way to died-too-old Jesse Helms and the Bush presidency. And with the announcement that Biden will be his running mate, we have even stronger evidence. So here, I offer you, just some of Biden's so-called seasoned foreign relations experience. You can go somewhere else to seejust how many times he voted in favor of the DOMA, the FBI and the RIAA and against your bourgeois liberties.

Central America

Along with Kennedy, Kerry, and Gore, Biden was among the ninety-nine Senators that gave Bush I the go ahead for the 1989 invasion of Panama. Jamas olvidaremos.

Biden consistently voted in favor of bills and amendments through 1989 that called for millions (actually, a minimum was set at one million) to be sent to the opposition to the Sandinistas and for any and all 'non-lethal' aid (see amendments to S. 760). He voted to call for democratic elections in Nicaragua (H.R. 3385), even though they had had them in 1985, under the duress of a United States-sponsored war. And, how exactly are elections free and fair when a foreign superpower sponsors one of the parties in an election after having sponsored ten years of war and having sponsored the dictatorship that was ousted at the beginning of that decade? And for the record, Al Gore-lovers, he voted the very same way.

In 1989, Biden voted on the losing side of S.Amdt. 1188 to H.R. 3743 which called for restrictions of military aid to El Salvador until investigations of the deaths of the four North American nuns by government-sponsored death squads were completed. In other words, he voted in the reactionary minority.

West Asia/North Africa

Biden voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and consistently votes for war funding. His only regret in voting for the war was the Bush administration's execution of it, and he takes the same tact as many liberal politicians who put the onus for their 'mistaken impression' that Saddam Hussein had WMDs on Hussein, not the Bush regime. Will liberals be happy to know that Obama has a Vice President who will plan out more successful imperial adventures than Bush's veep did?

Biden is thoroughly pro-Israel, and sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, a failed bill to punish Palestinians for voting for Hamas through economic and political sanctions. He also supports sending troops into the Sudan.

Elsewhere

In other parts of Latin America, Biden votes consistently for strengthening the embargo against Cuba and US intervention. He also attacks Hugo Chavez and the democratic process that is taking Venezuela out of the grips of United States and capitalist control, and voted for Plan Colombia and its extensions. In 1993, Biden voted for NAFTA, but joined most Senate Democrats in voting against CAFTA-DR in 2005, though they all made it clear that they would have voted for it under a Democratic president. Elsewhere, Biden has supported strengthening the anachronistic NATO, glossed over Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia, and admonished China for things that the United States does.

And now for something I'm sure all the anarchists will avoid. In the following, I indulge in Panamanian patriotism in celebrating our 2008 Beijing Olympics win, and call for a trivial sort of justice from NBC.

In the beginning of the modern Olympics, only white western countries were able to compete. But as third worlders began joining the ranks of the competitors, they still found that, lacking the privileges and access that an unfair world had delivered to their opponents, the wins were often beyond their grasp. It was not until 1948, fifty-two years after the beginning of the modern Olympics, that Panama (and Central America) saw its first medals. They were two bronze medals in 100m and 200m sprints by Lloyd La Beach. It was not for another forty-eight years that any more Central Americans one, two Tico sisters in the Atlanta Olympics.

Irving Jahir Saladino Aranda, whose paternal name is somewhat appropriately reminiscent of the Kurdish commander that led many defeats against the Crusaders, was born in raised in the poor Canal-side city of Colon. If you read this blog regularly, you might remember that Colon has been for sixty years home to the world's largest free trade zone outside of Hong Kong, and is known for poverty, unemployment, and gangs. Saladino is now said to have been a young man with his sights on baseball, one of Panama's most popular sports along with boxing and soccer. He wasn't a strong hitter, so eventually he followed his brother into athletics/track and field. Eventually, he decided to focus on the Long Jump, which, in twenty-six Olympics, the United States had won twenty-two times.

A few years ago, after not making it to the Athens Olympics, Saladino moved from Colon to the Sao Paulo Regional Training Center in Brazil, a part of the Olympic Solidarity Program for athletes from poorer countries. His skills skyrocketed, and he became known as the Colon Cangaru, winning eight out of nine major competitions. This included the longest jump in the world in fourteen years, and the Gold Medal of the non-Olympic IAAF competition.

He went into the Olympics as the favorite. In the qualifying round on August 16th, the three estadounidenses did not make the final, but some great competitors did. NBC had a website that told you when each competition would be shown on its broadcast channel, and they never took down the notice that the Long Jump final would be shown Monday night between 7pm-8pm EST. But without North Americans even in the competition, and without warning, they pushed the broadcast of the event to a random moment at 1:38am EST, giving it ninety seconds in the middle of the much longer steeple race, and showing just four of the over seventy jumps made.

But in the end, Saladino made his country proud, taking the Gold Medal with a fourth leap of 8.34 meters. A South African took the silver and a Cuban took the Bronze.

Pirate radio is a model project throughout the world in efforts to subvert capitalist and anti-direct democratic institutions, but pirate television, from what I've heard, has never caught on.

Wiki tells me that there are still a few infrequent models to work off of. In 1977, for example, a pirate TV station in Syracuse, NY brought viewers Star Trek and porn. Okay, not the most radical example out there. Other North American examples have included Pirate Cat TV in California, Star Ray TV in Ontario, and W10BM in Kentucky. But these include formerly licensed stations, or eventually defeated projects. There are also a small number of cases of broadcast signal intrusion dating back to at least the 1980s. Wiki also notifies me that the means of pirating an analog TV signal were made much easier in 2004, though no details. Well, thanks anyway, Wiki.

But here's the thing. On February 19, 2009, as commercials on every broadcast station have been alerting me, all television in the United States will go digital. Analog broadcasting will be turned off on that date. Every analog television in the country (the overwhelming majority sold before a few years ago) will become obsolete, unless they are connected to a digital box that you can purchase subsidized by the government or many local stations.

Well, that leaves zero signals on analog television. And lots of analog TVs will not be hooked up to these digital boxes for one reason or another. We're probably talking millions.

So, here are the questions. And remember, I don't know technology or techno-speak. You've heard of 'dumb it down'? Well, put on the Lupe Fiasco track and lay it down for a total layman.

1.) If analog broadcasting will be turned off, does that mean analog broadcasting can no longer be done? Is there a machine or a network of machines that allow broadcasting to happen, that, if turned off, would end analog TV broadcasting? Or does that just mean the antennae or whatever will be turned off, but analog could still be done by someone else?

2.) What will the stations be doing with their analog equipment? If it's all obsolete, will they throw it away? Sell/send it to subsidiaries or companies in other countries? Sell it here? Will people have access to the old analog equipment, and wouldn't it be extra cheap?

3.) Is FCC, government, and private property control of analog broadcasting going to completely end, in this country, on February 19th?

4.) So, drawing a conclusion from these questions, will it be possible to set up a network of pirate or bootleg analog television stations across this country? Could this be ready by March of 2009? Could it be ready within a few months or years from the big "turn off" date?

I mean, just imagine. Millions of TV sets returning to use for any number of progressive and radical local uses. Documentaries, all public access, or collections of Democracy Now/Indymedia/Infoshop/etc videos filling the surviving analog TVs. I've been wondering about all of this ever since I'd heard about the government-instituted transitio, and yet I haven't heard answers, or even questions about this possibility. Could be I'm just not on the right geek messageboard or techie listserv (okay, I'm not on any), and I don't want to blow anyone's cover who might be clandestinely working to take advantage of just such an opportunity. But, if we can get some answers, I'm sure the idea could spread.

You've probably heard this story already, but I thought it worth the post for those who may not have heard yet...

At the last Critical Mass ride in NY, there was a cop who spotted one rider, eyed him as he approached and then bodychecked him. The rider flew off his bike and was then arrested for assault in the third degree, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. And then he's kept in jail for 26 hours.

The copper is now being investigated and has been relegated to desk duty. The cop, by the by, has only been an official cop for three weeks. Makes you wonder how they really amp up the testosterone and garbage in police academy to prepare the city's finest to really serve and protect.

Anyways, the best part of the story is that a tourist filmed the whole shenanigan and put it up on youtube. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAkRweEQxxI&feature=related

Now it really really makes you consider how often this police shit happens. But with no video evidence. So let this be a reminder to us all to keep on filmin', at even the most docile of demonstrations.

- e.

The idea of marriage

I don’t think that the decision not to get married is a radical one. It makes sense that anarchists would participate in as few contracts with the State as possible. For women, we know that the idea of marriage began as a contract between a man and the state that he owned his wife. This tradition continues today when a man gives a woman a ring when proposing engagement (he buys her commitment) and when the father “gives away” his daughter at the marriage ceremony, and (less common) when the potential groom asks permission of the woman’s father to ask her for her hand in marriage. The western tradition of a white wedding dress shows that the bride is a virgin but there is no equal tradition for man.

When I tell people that I’m never going to get married, no one believes me, and when I tell them I don’t want kids they believe me even less (being a woman my biological clock will surely kick in one of these days)

People brush away my political decision not to marry and I’m seen as either not serious enough about my relationship to get married, or I’ll change my mind about marriage after I change your mind about having kids. It blows my mind that most people still take a state sanctioned marriage more seriously than long-term relationships, romantic or otherwise. Even if the people getting married have only known each other for a short time, the marriage certificate immediately legitimizes the relationship.

I’m surprised when others are uncomfortable or confused about me not wanting to get married. More couples are living common-law than are married, and the divorce rate is over 50%. Yet we desperately hold onto marriage as the only way to go and for sure the only worthwhile way to end up.

A true story.
The setting: a car ride home after a co-ed soccer game.

Him: So, are you and him a couple?

Me: Yes

Him: Are you married?

Me: We live together but we’re not married. We’ve been together for 14 years and we don’t want to get married.

Him: Ever?

Me: No. We don’t believe in the government and marriage is just a contract with the state. We’re anarchists.

Him: Anarchists? (makes a rock symbol with his hand)

Me: Ummm…not that kind…

Him: Well what about kids? When you have children you’ll get married.

Me: I don’t want kids and even if I did, I still wouldn’t get married.

Him: Well, ya, but, people with kids get married to make a long term commitment…

Me: I think 14 years together is a pretty long commitment, longer than most marriages.

Him: Ya, it’s a long time. I guess that, don’t take this the wrong way, but you’ve missed out on other experiences, like people who get married usually have many experiences before they get married…

Me: (???) Part of not getting married is that I don’t believe in a lifelong commitment. We’ll stay together while it’s still good instead of being trapped in a loveless marriage. What about you? Do you want to get married and have kids?

Him: Oh ya. I think it’s so great to give your life to your child and watch it grow. (No mention of what he’s hoping his relationship with his wife will be like)

Me: Are you dating anyone?

Him: No, I was but she was crazy and we broke up. It’s ok, she’s got a new boyfriend now and he’s really nice. But I do miss having certain male needs met…

The End

"Policing ourselves to be less offensive to the
majority is to be part of our own oppression."
-Jane Rule

- c.

Sitting at Jonathan Larson's Rent in the Cadillac Palace Theater the other night, I took in the same strange contradiction that I notice too often: the audience of the musical, though adoring the show, surreptitiously despises the politics. But they don't really discuss it.

A mid-1990s liberal take on evil developers, HIV, Manhattan poverty, sexuality, and nothing too deeply, Rent quietly includes a radical asset in Tom Collins, whose radicalism is little more than one of his characteristics. Actually, he's an anarchist, whose anarchism rarely comes out in the lyrics, and arguably only once puts his anarchism into practice, robbing an ATM machine.

The audience, far whiter than the cast, is made up overwhelmingly of the wealthy and the very wealthy and the upper middle class who don't think they're wealthy. It includes a lot of suburbanites, tourists, and the usual fodder for downtown Chicago's big theater ticket merchants.

There are almost undoubtedly people in the crowd employed by the very development, real estate, and research firms that Benny, who is mostly the villainous yuppie landlord, represents. And I would guess that the vast majority of the audience can relate to him and his family better than almost any of the other characters. And these audience members might have participated in the reactionary campaigns to oppose the creation of lower-income housing for those infected with HIV, as in the Andersonville neighborhood. I don't think Rent is waking these folks up.

I had the same sentiment in Fiddler on the Roof, which employs both reactionary and progressive politics, but plays up the Marxist agitator in the character of Perchik, a more stereotypical but completely sympathetic radical asset. In that theater, I felt the audience likely far more in line with the Zionism at the end and the general sexual progressivism of the play than with the anti-capitalism of Perchik. Still, I heard no disapproving mumblings out in the lobby.

And again, though a far more liberal example, Wicked likely brought no great awakening at the strengths of identity politics and progressivism in higher education to the throngs of wealthy white elites and white suburban school children that I was surrounded by in the Oriental Theater a couple of years ago.

In essence, as long as we remain characters and themes in musical theater productions, we are a kosher (or halal) morsel on the plate of the conservative boss class. But don't bring up these characters too much, or you're over-politicizing Buffy and Muffy's night out.

When Green Superheroes Go FARC

The FARC, Colombia's largest Marxist rebel group, has taken a beating in recent weeks. There was an extremely rare clash with Panamanian police that left three wounded and six captured. And then the Colombian government invaded Ecuador to kill seventeen FARCistas.

This never would have happened with a few subtle Hollywood re-writes. Huh? What am I talking about? Hollywood hates the FARC. Both Russell Crowe and Arnold Schwarzenegger have massacred them, Arny doing so even Mike Tysoning one guerrilla's ear off. Well, that's what they show us adults. But as it turns out, those Hollywood Pinkos are telling an opposite story to our little ones. Do you deny a conspiracy? Entonces, don't come to me when your eight year old's run off to go fight in Putumayo.

Exhibit A: Ang Lee directs the 2003 picture of The Hulk, turning it into an allegory on the "War on Terrorism", in which when the United States military hits this thing (which they kind of created) it only gets stronger. Well, it was kind of a weak, over-the-top movie, and there is debate to this day as to if it grossed enough for a sequel (and yes, there are "Save 'The Hulk'" websites).

Well, fast forward to the ending (Spoiler Warning) after The Hulk (do I always have to refer to him that way?) saves the world from an uninterestingly godly villain and everyone thinks him dead. Bruce Banner (played by Eric Bana, hm? hm?) needs to go somewhere he can both hideout, and do some good. Cut to some South American forest village where a gringo doctor is helping the impoverished villagers. Some paramilitarios arrive and crudely abuse these poor people, and demand all of the resources of the gringo for the government. Bana (er, Banner) looks up, in Spanish telling them not to make him angry. They wouldn't like it when he is angry. Well, you get the implication. Then the camera pans up until you see this was Colombia.

Exhibit B: As the 2007 animated TMNT opens, we are treated to some strange ancient story from Andean South America. The Ninja Turtles are divided up in different circumstances (a la Ghostbusters 2), until their reporter friend with a heart of bestiality gold, April O'Neil, finds Leonardo where Splinter sent him- some Andean South American country (the Andes run through Colombia). And he's fighting paramilitaries for the defense of impoverished villagers.

Where did this come from? Well, there is some precedent. Some movies used to start or end their norteamericano protagonists saving Mexican villagers in a way befitting Pancho Villa. Naturally, Villistas were never present, but the gringo heroes were always playing their role.

How did this get past us? How did these two flicks squirm their way into our children's hearts and turn them into Marulandistas? What kind of South American guerrilla hijinks are Dora the Explora or Mr. Snufalupagus getting themselves into unbeknownst to those very parents who should be supervising what their children watch (remember, everything is the fault of parents!)? The answer is simple- our children are too clever for these red commie pinko coke head script doctors in Hollywood. Our young'ns saw through them, and that's why neither of these movies were big commercial successes.

But we must remain vigilant. Green, mean, fighting machines were revealed to be fighting our Colombian neo-Nazi allies in a FARC Lite-role in a sign that McCarthyism has regressed, and yet I remember hearing of no outcry from Hannity or The Rush? They're slippin'.

The press had been having a ball with the writers strike, but by now it has largely looped through the news cycle. But much of the petty banter of the press (writers themselves, who went in and far out of verbal solidarity) was playing up the idea of a creative class on strike, and particularly the irony of Hollywood, where writers striking won't bring down the already sub-zero creativity level.

So there were many jokes. Most papers ran faux scabbing articles where they offered up reality shows to the networks, none of which were really more outrageous than the ones already dreamed up (or stolen from the Brits). And a lot surrounded the lack of originality in Hollywood- political cartoons of writers unable to come up with even slogans from their signs, plagiarizing other strikes' ideas.

Har har.

I have not had a chance to join a picket line, though I haven't even heard of any where I reside. But I remember the advertisement actors strike in 2000, and those pickets were not quite what you would have expected. Comrades and myself, though not members of SAG or AFSTRA, would come up with all sorts of chants to the tune of various corporate jingles or the sound of commercial slogans. Curiously, the performers we walked with, though laughing, wouldn't take up the script.

That said, strikes have a history of being great places for cultural development. A strike of University service workers (e.g. librarian, custodial, and cafeteria staff) had different workshops on some picket lines each day- from origami folding to dance lessons. Or picket lines where different styles of cooking have been melded.

They can be a great place for lingual bartering, as speakers of Spanish, French, Polish, or Korean trade chants and slogans of their homelands. Songs of other lands are sung, traditional or pop hits are rewritten, and sometimes even original pieces are premiered (and no, I'm not specifically referencing Lisa Simpson).

I remember one night a while back, where I was heading to a club, but saw the waste disposal (garbage men) pickets. I didn't go to my club. Gramsci said everyone is sort of a philosopher, and sometimes on the picket line, everyone is a writer.

Don't hate me for my priorities, but I'm choosing to begin with Panama. As I have occasionally reported on, there have been two sets of unsettling developments in Panama over the years that this blog has existed.

On the one hand, Panama's ruling PRD has placed people important to the Manuel Noriega regime back in government. The United States imposed a constitutional ban on a military on Panama, which instead has a coast guard and a (increasingly paramilitary) national police force. This imposition, though an insult, isn't such a bad thing- as with most other Central American countries, Panama's armies have generally only existed to repress the populace. But the National Police has become more and more militarized, with increasing US aid, camo uniforms, more powerful automatic weapons. Well, one more law has been trampled to ramp this up. The National Police are constitutionally barred from being led by a career officer- the director has to be civilian. President Martin Torrijos has ignored this by placing a career officer as interim National Police director, an appointment which he appears to have no plan of replacing.

Meanwhile, I have occasioned to mention temporary United States military presences in Panama, usually on large scales, either for 'humanitarian aid' (ahem) or war games (so close to Venezuela). Now, remember that thing about Panama not having a military? When US Congressional Democrats recently questioned how the US was sending military aid to the republic, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates responded that the National Police were "an army in all but name." In addition, the Bush administration is trying to pass the Merida Initiative, which would send 'anti-terrorist aid' to Mexico, the Central American countries and Panama. At the same time, the progressive President Rafael Correa is trying to make good on the campaign promise of evicting the US Air Force from Manta in his country, and neocons are looking to Panama to offer a replacement.

Now, the US military never completely left Panama. Through the magic of privatization, the Pentagon contracts with at least a couple of airports where its former bases were as a space for equipment, re-fueling, and launching Plan Colombia operations. They also tried to remilitarize before they left Panama in 1999 through the Multinational Anti-Drug Center which was rejected before it could become an unofficial means of the Pentagon remaining on the isthmus. In the end, there is no certain move set in stone, but the signs are all there.

AfriCom

In Africa, though, the Pentagon isn't so quiet in its motives. The United States has divided the world into five 'Unified Command' regions, basically: SouthCom in Latin America; NorthCom in the NAFTA states and Cuba; CentCom in the Persian Gulf/Middle East; PaCom taking up most of non-Russian Asia, Oceania and the Pacific; and EuroCom, which is Europe, Russia, and most of Africa (how appropriate!). But as part of the global reorganization of US military might, they want to create an AfriCom, carved from EuroCom and CentCom, of all of the African nations excepting Egypt. Dozens of number of African countries are against this, including Nigeria, South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique. The AfriCom Unified Combatant Command will be completely autonomous on September 30 of this year.

Now, the Pentagon officially has no plan to build an AfriCom headquarters on the continent, content with keeping it in Germany where the EuroCom base is. There is still speculation this is a lie, and that Ethiopia or Djibouti are in the running for a future headquarters base.

ResistAFRICOM is one of a number of activist groups opposed to this new project.

It's gardening time again. I've been slacking, I've planted only the root vegetables and greens and have yet to plant the tomatoes, peppers and beans. I have a reel mower and have mowed the lawn this season more times than I can remember due to all the rain. I finaly adjusted the mower and now it mows wonderfully where it had been choppy since last season. It takes 2-3 hours to mow the lawn. The city is serious. They will mow your lawn for you and then leave yo a bill for the work plus administrative fees. I hate parasites anyway and anything that cuts down on ticks and mosquitos is alright with me.

Still poor. Born poor, die poor. I make a good wage and good benefits but after the bills are paid and the benifits and retirement are accounted for, the take home is barely enough. Food budget is low and we pay for no creature comforts or extras such as TV, internet, movies, drinks at the bar, eating out etc., I bike to and from work daily so gas expense is low. Can't really cut anything else out. Had a good amount of medical expense over the last few months, that hurt, even after insurance picked up the majority of the bill.

I have built 3/4 of a 4 foot cedar gothic picket fence built to keep aggressive dogs out of the yard and my 2 year old in and away from the alley and street. Fence building is tough work. The gate was easier than I expected.

I will be 32 very soon. Most of the anarchists I've known have disavowed anarchism in the last three years. A handful are left and most are inactive in terms of national or regional matters, myself included. I've seen a good number of individuals, networks and federations disolve, disapear, self destruct and disavow over the last ten years.

It seems so easy to walk away and not look back but disavowing the notion that hierarchy and authoritarianism ought to be subverted and replaced so as to lessen and/or remove domination from human relationships seems betrayal at best.

A new regional netwrok has been brought to the table by comrades from Lawrence KS. I missed te big conference but heard that much of it was similair of past GPAN conferences. I hope something comes of it. We need a regional network or federation closer to home.

Oabama mania has swept hearts and minds, but will anything change? History says no. Is widening the floor of the cage as Chomsky advocates even possible through the ballot box? I have seen change voted through on a local level and I've also seen those in power turn around and destroy the legislation enacted through the popular vote. After all, thats the point of representative republican democracy.

The last ten years have been such a blur. So much activity, hopes, dreams and intentions seem so distant... another time and place. History washes all away. Just ghosts...