Filtering by Category: 2008
Your Money or Your Health
Posted by Mimi.
My friend Corie went to the vet today because her tail was sore and swollen (she got bitten by a dog). She needed surgery, and luckily her big one had $500. Imagine what happens to people who don't have health insurance. (believe me - human being surgeries don't cost "only" $500!)
Healthcare is a right. Yet 47 million Americans are uninsured and millions more are underinsured. 18,000 people die every year because they are uninsured. People with insurance are bankrupted when they have a serious illness. People want universal healthcare and physicians want universal healthcare. We cats don't understand why American people still don't have universal healthcare. Watch this video!
>> Health of the Nation – Coverage for All Americans <<
In the video, the panelists discuss problems with the current health care system. Seems like everyone is dissatisfied with the current system.
Currently, about 60% of the U.S. healthcare system is financed by the government (taxes). These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA (Veterans Administration), and coverage for public employees (including police and school teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. About 20% is financed by the people directly through out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays, deductibles, and insurance premiums. About 21% is financed by private employers. Under the current system, the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for healthcare than higher income individuals.
In fact, American people can have universal healthcare at essentially no additional cost. A universal public healthcare system can be funded by savings from eliminating administrative wastes under the current system (at least 30% healthcare costs). People may pay a little more in taxes, but this would be more than offset by all current out-of-pocket payments. For the vast majority of people, the cost would be less than the current system. See Physicians for a National Health Program: http://www.pnhp.org.
Shouldn't a government take care of its people? Is it more important to save lives (for no additional cost) than to save Wallstreet (for $700 billion)? We would've been very sad if Corie had died today because of a stupid little bite.
....................................
Posted by Bunny: Just so you know, Mimi is a practicing physician and before that worked as an economist.
Everything Has a Spirit + I Can Hear Gandhi
Posted by Kim.
Pinky & Bunny are busy audio recording today so I'm bored and blogging.
First thing I want to say is "Everything has a spirit." I have no proof of this, but I think it's totally okay to write diary entries about things that are not yet proven as facts but maybe fall under the big category of "beliefs". Question though - how can something like this be proven? I have no idea and I don't really care. When I was younger I could hear almost everything talking to me, even fruit and staplers. Everybody thought I was crazy, even Mimi. Or they said "She's just a kitten." It's not just cats who like to pretend that we are so unique in the spirit-world, I notice human beings are the same way. Actually, deep down I think lots of people want to believe everything has a spirit but if they stop and think about it using the officially approved thinking methods, then they make conclusions, "No, only we are so special to have a spirit" which to me is totally ridiculous. But as I said earlier I have no proof. This is funny though - if you put fake eyes on a picture of anything suddenly people will say "Hey look at that talking stapler!", no problem.
Related topic: Here is a very, very rare audio recording of Gandhi. Everybody's heard of Gandhi but almost no one has heard his voice before. Maybe you saw a movie about him but that's not the same thing.
Come to think of it how do we know this is really Gandhi's voice? Unless you were there and made the recording yourself, why would you believe me that this is Gandhi? Do you believe me just because I showed you an old album cover?
I think it's very unpredictable what we are willing to accept as proof of something on a day to day basis.
~kim
1:1 Relationships
Posted by Pinky.
You ever get the idea that your life is trying to teach you something? Recently I've had a bunch of separate things happening to me that, taken all together, is making me rethink what I value about relationships. I won't bore you with all the details of the individual occurrences, but still, I think I'd like to write about it a little if you don't mind, so I can figure it out a bit.
The past couple of years Bunny and I have put a lot of effort into trying to make The Pinky Show more popular. Especially this last year, we've spent an enormous amount of time writing e-mails or talking on the telephone with people making working relationships that we think will help get the word out. We think our message is important so we want a ton of viewers. (I hope that doesn't sound too arrogant, I just mean that we have an important job to do and we take it very seriously.) Recently we went over 6 million PS episode views, so it does look like something is working, but one of the things that I've been thinking about more is this: Are we approaching relationship building the right way? What kind of relationships do we want?
I ask this now because I've noticed I've been feeling weirder about people as our project gains popularity. It's not that people are becoming weirder (I'm not crazy - I do realize it's not everybody around me that's changed...), I just think the problem is I'm spending way too much time communicating with people I don't actually know. As our project has gotten more popular, Bunny and I find ourselves spending more and more time doing 'relationship building' with people we'll probably never meet. I'm sure most of these individuals are perfectly nice and in real life they'd be wonderful to chat with over coffee. But to be realistic, for 99.9% of the people we communicate with, we'll probably never have a chance to meet them face to face.
I know having allies is really, really important. We have common political objectives and I realize we all need to work together to achieve specific goals. But I also think I haven't thought enough about 'working relationships' via the internet and how that's connected to how I'm put together emotionally. Bunny, Mimi, Kim, and I are actually very private and introverted. We're not un-friendly but I know we all tend to like relating to less people more deeply, instead of a ton of people just a little bit (or not at all). And the latter is exactly the direction that our lives have gone in the past couple of years! My gut feeling is I think that's some kind of problem.
The bottom line is I think it's really important for me to keep 1:1 relationships the center of my life. Considering the nature of our work, I'm not really sure how I'm going to do that, but I think it's definitely a good idea.
I'm going to try to make it a priority to strike a better balance in our relationship-building activities. We're not going to stop working to increase our audience, because that really is a basic requirement necessary for the success of our project. But I also think I need to fundamentally change my mindset about how I interact with others. I need to be more picky-choosy about who we spend our time working with. I think it's okay if Bunny and I approach our work as if we are making all this stuff for ourselves and each other, and oh, by the way, it just so happens we have a few million people watching. Something like that.
Every day we get a ton of e-mails from people and a good number of them want something: can you do "X" for me/my organization, I need an answer regarding "Y", make an episode on subject "Z", and so on. It only occurred to me this morning that we don't really have a way to ask these people something simple like: "Who are you?"
~pinky
Day 2 of Not Blogging!
Posted by Pinky.
Okay, I know just yesterday Bunny said we're not gonna blog so much anymore and here I am making a diary entry for the second day in a row. (sorry?) But I wanted to post this very interesting YouTube video titled An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube. It's kind of long but also very fascinating. I think everybody intuitively knows that YouTube is somehow a very important social and cultural phenomena, but most of us don't really understand what it is, who it is, and why it is. So if that's you then here's a useful video.
Thank you to Lynette for telling me to watch this!
Okay I think I'm going to go to sleep early tonight. Goodnight everybody.
~pinky
Blogging vs. Videos; Young People Doing Good Things
Posted by Bunny.
A couple of weeks ago I launched our Teacher's Survey to help us collect data about what people think about our videos, our website, and other stuff. One of the things that quickly became apparent when we started analyzing the data returned from the survey: people really like videos. Nearly all the surveys we got back told us that they consider the videos on our site - not only videos we've produced but also videos by others we've re-presented - to be extremely useful, which I guess is very good news. This blog, on the other hand, received only a 'somehwat useful' rating from most site visitors.
Pinky and I had been assuming that people like this blog because the blog pages actually receive a lot of visitor traffic. But now that we have data to look at, we realize that a lot of people might be reading this blog without finding it too useful! And since we are all about doing work that others will hopefully find useful, I think it makes a lot of sense that we should spend less time writing in this blog and more time making or finding good videos for people to watch and use.
We'll probably just keep this blog on the website because there are a lot of times we just feel like writing something with no intention of further developing it into an episode. It's a relatively quick way to get an idea out there. But since neither of us are fast writers it does take time away from other things so probably we should use our time more wisely.
So! On that note, tonight I will post a nice YouTube video here that made me feel really good when I watched it. I know some of you think we (cats) are really down on human beings for all the stupid things they do, and to a certain extent I guess that's true, but I am also very impressed with some human activity from time to time. Like these people in the video, for example. They are young people who are taking the responsibility to make their life's work all about helping the planet. When the majority of people decide to make the majority of all their waking hours count - instead of thinking of service to humanity, animals, and the planet as some kind of spare-time activity - then I think this planet will survive. Thanks to Life of the Land for the video.
When the Anna Rose talked about her response to seeing the coal ships on the horizon exporting climate chaos to the rest of the world, I almost choked. Can't be that she was the only one to see that - which makes me wonder: Why is it that, presented with disturbing or otherwise challenging information, some people will change their lives in order to fight for change, while others will continue on, business as usual? Pinky and I have been trying to figure this one out for a few years but still have no real explanation.
~Bunny.
Educator's Survey
Posted by Bunny.
We've created a new survey for teachers/educators: [ link no longer active ]
Feedback is very important to us - it not only helps us to understand how people are using our work; positive quotes and testimonials are also very helpful when we submit grant applications. So if you do any kind of teaching - at a school, university, community center, your living room, or anywhere else for that matter - please help us to make a difference by taking a few minutes to fill out a survey.
So if you know any teachers that use/love/hate The Pinky Show, please send them the above link. Or, if you know any teachers who don't already know about the Pinky Show project, please introduce them to our website. We don't have a budget for advertising, public relations, or marketing - everything is 'word of mouth'. Thank you!
Hey America! Why Not Visit Runit?
Posted by Bunny.
Runit is a small island in the Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Where are the Marshall Islands? Here's a tiny reference map to orient you.
And why would you want to visit Runit? Well, for one thing, Runit is home to a very impressive concrete dome built there during the late 70's. After seeing the photo below, I'm sure you'll want to see it in person:
Spectacular, isn't it? The concrete cap is 18" thick and 350 feet wide. The tiny dots on the dome are people. So yes, it's big.
The dome was kind of like a gift from the United States to the people of the Marshall Islands. Why? Well, after World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union were both engaged in an unfriendly game of nuclear oneupmanship. As part of this competition the United States used various sites in the Marshall Islands from 1946-1958 to test nuclear weapons. Of course this resulted in enormous amounts of radioactive contamination to the environment and all life forms in the area, but fortunately 20 years later the U.S. was kind enough to scrape up some of the contaminated everything and dump it all into one of the atomic bomb craters. Then they poured concrete on the whole thing. The dome has developed lots of cracks in its surface and it's leaking toxic stuff into the environment, but the U.S. government says it has "no formal custodial responsibilities for the site", which I can only assume means that it's safe. So the next time you feel yourself desiring a tropical island getaway, don't forget Runit.
~Bunny.
P.S. Almost forgot - here's a short excerpt from a recent news story about the legacy of atomic testing in the Marshall Islands (The Sydney Morning Herald, Aug. 18, 2008). You might want to read it.
Later I meet Lemeyo Abon. She - like 90 per cent of the children from her island of Rongelap who were exposed to radiation during the test era - has cancer, in her case thyroid cancer.
She vividly describes the morning of March 1, 1954, when a flash of light eclipsed the sun and white powder drifted down from the sky.
"It was fallout from Castle Bravo, the largest nuclear bomb the US ever detonated and one of the world's worst radiological disasters," says the 68-year-old grandmother.
Her warm, weathered face speaks of a life lived but not of the anguish. "First, there were lots of miscarriages among the women," she says. "Soon afterwards came the deformed babies - the 'jelly babies' or 'octopus babies' we called them.
"The birth defects have passed down the generations. My own granddaughter was born with a tail," she says, as if this were scarcely out of the ordinary. "She was medevaced to Honolulu for surgery and now she's 14. Sue's her name ... what a smart girl."
Read the whole story here.
First Peek: PINKY SHOW installation at AAC
Posted by Pinky.
Exhibition curator Rex Weil sent us a snapshot of the Pinky Show section in the Picturing Politics: Artists Speak to Power exhibition at the Arlington Arts Center going on right now.
The vitrine on the left has Pinky Show zines and stickers in it. It's a bit weird to see something like zines encased behind plexiglass but if it wasn't probably the zines would walk away very quickly. The shabby Pinky Show poster ('laminated' with packing tape) on the left is the poster we usually have in our office - we take that poster with us every time we do a workshop or go somewhere to speak, so it's pretty beat up.
The only thing that concerns us about the installation is the apparent lack of wall text for the two large pieces. I wrote some text to be placed next to them - from the picture it looks like it wasn't included. (I wrote to the curator to ask - he wrote back to say that he wasn't sure it if was included or not; he's checking) It bugs me when museums don't include information that help explain the objects on display. If a context is not provided, I think it becomes too easy for the museum visitors to think of the art work only in terms of what it looks like. ~pinky
....................................
Posted by Bunny: The wall text that was supposed to be placed next to the art work is below. Anyone who wants to see the images more close-up can see them in our Commons Gallery - just click on the On Native Land series icon. ]
I'M ON UR LAND..., Version 2.0
Pinky & Bunny
Giclée on canvas, 24 x 30 inches
2008
Pinky notes: Among other things, maps are a fundamentally important instrument of conquest. In the case of the "New World", the mapping of native peoples and lands helped settlers conceptualize and orient themselves to their new and unfamiliar surroundings.
This image references John Smith's well-known map of the area now commonly referred to as Virginia. Comparisons with later maps of the same area clearly illustrate the extent to which settlers have succesfully erased Native people from the land - via displacement, forceful removal, introduction of diseases, and outright killing.
As you can see, there's not many English language place-names on this map. It's not unusual for documents to live multiple lives - at one time a useful tool to be utilized in the service of conquest, and now a document that helps to dispel commonly held settler myths - for example: "When we arrived, the land was vacant; there was hardly anybody here. There was no genocide."
Bunny notes: Looks like the native guy's quiver is made from the front half of a dog! lol
On Native Land triptych (left-side panel)
Pinky & Bunny
Giclée on canvas, 24 x 36 inches.
2008
Pinky notes: This piece is the left-side panel of a triptych (approximately nine feet across) titled On Native Land. Together the three panels name imperial culture, militarism, and occupation as basic structuring elements of the United States of America, currently the planet's most powerful settler state.
This image, with its huge columns and the D.C. Mall in the background, is a reference to how imperial culture and symbolic form are deployed to shape popular narratives and provide the empire with a strong sense of identity.
The middle image (not included in this exhibition), a nuclear explosion at the Nevada Test Site, refers to militarism and direct use of force (sometimes just the threat of force will do) in the service of building and maintaining an empire. The right-side image, a photograph of Arlington National Cemetery (also not included in this exhibition), is a reference to the seizure and use of native land by settlers for settler interests.
Of course there are other aspects of empire that warrant discussion, but we think talking about how these three mechamisms work together is a useful starting point.
The triptych may be viewed in its entirety at the Pinky Show website (www.pinkyshow.org) in our Commons Gallery.
....................................
Posted by Kim: Wow too bad they didn't put your text next to the paintings! Isn't it ironic that the show's title is "Picturing Politics 2008: Artists Speak to Power" and then they end up limiting what you can show and say? That's too funny!
....................................
Posted by Pinky: Kim, I don't have any information if the wall text has been included or not, if it was intentionally excluded, or what. As of today (8/29) I'm still waiting for a reply.
Beautiful Death From the Sky
Posted by Pinky.
The other night I was searching the internet for information on nuclear warheads when I came across this pretty photograph:
The first thing I thought was "Wow, that's beautiful... what is it?" Turns out it's a long-exposure photograph showing the descent of multiple warheads from a nuclear missile. I'd never seen a photograph that actually shows the warheads falling to Earth before. This particular photo is of a test of a MX intercontinental ballistic missile (a.k.a. LGM-118A Peacekeeper missile - yes, that's what they really named it) over the Marshall Islands. Each one of these missiles can carry up to 10 warheads, with each warhead carrying the destructive power of 25 Hiroshima bombs.
I'm sure it's not easy to design a machine as complicated as an intercontinental ballistic missile. I mean, think about it: a large, multi-stage rocket that's somehow able to shoot far up into the sky, so high that it skims the very edge of space, then maneuvers itself into position so that it can then rain 10 warheads down on 10 different cities, thousands of miles away, each nuclear explosion killing millions. In seconds. It's amazing. And it's not only a marvel of science, it's also a marvel of logistical planning. Someone had to coordinate the work of literally thousands of scientists and technicians, just to get the decades-long, enormously complicated project to move forward!
And actually I think that's the part that keeps me up at night. It's one thing to lay awake in bed, thinking of all the people and animals and plants that will be destroyed by the awesome destructive power of these weapons. But what really haunts me is the question of how so many smart people would be willing to completely give themselves - their minds, their hard work, their enormous creative potential - over to a process of developing weapons of mass destruction.
It seems so weird to me that if any of these people were acting alone, or maybe in a small group, to make a bomb to blow up a few dozen or even a few thousand people, everybody would say "Oh my goodness these people are terrorists, they need to be caught and executed!" But since these scientists are working for Lockheed Martin or Raytheon and they are trying to figure out how to incinerate millions at a time, this is respectable work. Is it the degree from MIT or Stanford that makes it okay? Or do we need these weapons simply because there are people in this world who deserve to be mass murdered via nuclear explosion and fallout?
I wish Bunny & I had enough time to walk around and ring the doorbell of every scientist that works for the so-called 'defense industry'. I want to plead with them to please reconsider and maybe try to use their knowledge and talents for something less insane.
~pinky
Mercenaries, Cooks, & Truck Drivers: Crazy Expensive
Posted by Pinky.
If you've been following the news, I'm sure you've been hearing a lot about "private contractors" like Blackwater, DynCorp, and Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) for a few years now. It's no secret that wars (illegal wars included) are insanely profitable, but do you know much these guys are actually getting paid to do their thing?
According to a newly released report from the Congressional Budget Office, the government will have paid these privately held "security firms" a hundred billion dollars by the end of 2008 for their work in Iraq. Now that might not mean much to ordinary people - you know, people who get excited every time they find a quarter lying on the sidewalk - but seriously, that's a lot of money! As expected, the size of the payout is only matched by the level of corruption that follows. Currently there are about 200,000 of these so-called "private contractors" in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing everything from shooting people to driving trucks to cooking eggs. It's kind of like the world's largest and most violent catered event.
Please read the rull report. (You already paid for it.)
Take care,
pinky
Picturing Politics 2008 Exhibition Opens!
Posted by Pinky.
Today is finally September 15 - opening day of the exhibition Picturing Politics 2008: Artists Speak to Power at the Arlington Arts Center in Arlington, Virginia! As we mentioned in some previous posts, we are very excited to have some of our art, videos, and ephemera in this exhibition. I hope someone who lives in the Washington, D.C.-area will be able to attend and let us know how our stuff looks in the show. If anybody sends us photographs we'll post them here!
Later this year (November) we will be participating in another art/radical education exhibition, this one at the Musuem of Modern Art in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Of course we are excited about that one too - they will be showing some of our videos and we are also making a special episode specifically for that exhibition. When we have more details we will be posting them on this website. Looks like the last quarter of 2008 will be pretty crazy! ^__^
Take care,
pinky
Wikipedia Vandalism
Posted by Pinky.
Here's an e-mail we received today from Ricsen:
Hi Pinky, your wikipedia page was spoiled by a stupid person. It make me sad to see that.
Don't stop your good work!
Best regards. Ricsen
First of all, thank you to Ricsen for pointing this out to us. I think it's kind of cool that the Pinky Show has an entry in the Wikipedia.
Second, this kind of thing doesn't bother me. I think I might feel a little excited (in a good way) if the vandalism was very clever or funny, because then that would suggest that we have critics out there who are actually smart, instead of this. I think Kim is the only one who gets upset when we receive threats or hate mail. Maybe someone will clean this up, but if not, that's okay too. ~pinky
....................................
Posted by Bunny: One of more interesting things about the edits is how much it reveals about the author:
• White, male, heterosexual, mid-20's to mid-30's. Probably a college graduate.
• Not smart. He's trying but can't pull it off. Totally unaware as to how easy it is for others to see his intellectual shortcomings.
• Preoccupied with sex and women but doesn’t have a good relationship with either.
• Desperately seeking attention. Insecure.
• People like this are usually oblivious to their own privilege. In fact they imagine that they’re members of a persecuted class, supposedly by the very people whose oppression they actively participate in. Because they don't understand the concept of resistance, they see any opposition to the oppression they dish out as whining, illegitimate, violent, or nonsensical. These people can only drink beer with 'friends' who’re equally insecure about their place in the world. Unfortunately no amount of beer can erase the creeping suspicion that they’re assholes. ~B.
....................................
Posted by Pinky: Gee, thanks for the analysis Dr. Bunny! And by the way, is 'asshole' the clinical term?
....................................
Posted by Bunny: I'm just saying. What, do you disagree with anything I wrote?
....................................
Posted by Pinky: Not really lol
Who is Ruben Salazar?
Posted by Bunny.
Yesterday I got a letter in the mail with a Ruben Salazar stamp on it. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, here's a picture:
I don't know anything about journalism (or journalists) so I had to go look him up, and what I've been learning so far this afternoon has really been eye-opening.
Mini-summary: Ruben Salazar was a Los Angeles Times reporter and news director at KMEX (radio station). He was covering the historic Chicano Moratorium protests against the Vietnam War on August 29, 1970 when he was murdered - or assassinated, depends who you ask - by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (they shot him in the head at short range with a tear gas canister). Even though his death was a ruled a homocide, no one was ever held responsible for his death. Here's a photo taken a few seconds before Salazar was killed.
Getting back to the stamp, I think it's more than a bit awkward how it reads: "during Chicano protest rally in East Los Angeles". What's that supposed to mean? Wouldn't "Murdered by LA Sheriff's Dept." be more to the point?
I'm always fascinated by how hegemony works. Like how government agencies will, from time to time, memorialize an individual who are instrumental in directing critical attention towards the government itself. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a stamp. Hell, even Malcolm X had a stamp. I'm sure one day Noam Chomsky will have one too. I can only conclude that stamps with naughty people on them is a nice (i.e., harmless) way to show that we live in an open society that welcomes dissent. While our government continues to develop mechanisms to monitor and suppress dissent, publicly it's celebrated. The message is clear: dissent and resistance are ‘important’ - but if you take it too far you might get shot in the head.
Anyway, I'll go to the library this weekend to try to see if I can find Hunter S. Thompson's article on the historical context surrounding the Salazar killing, Strange Rumblings in Aztlan.
There will be a remembrance and procession held on the anniversary of the Chicano Moratorium March on Friday, August 29 at Ruben F. Salazar Memorial County Park (3864 Whittier Blvd., East L.A.), at 2 p.m. Bring flowers and candles if you go. Contact David Sanchez if you need more info: (323) 263-3352.
~Bunny.
New Gallery: Hey Hetero!
Posted by Bunny.
We have a new art show in our Commons Gallery. Deborah Kelly and Tina Fiveash are two artists from Australia and this work is from their series 'Hey hetero!'. It's been shown in various cities around the world but not here in the U.S. Pinky deserves credit for organizing and assembling this mini-show, but a big 'Thank You' to Deborah & Tina for graciously allowing us to re-present their work to... everyone else reading this.
Before meeting Pinky I can't say I was particularly interested in "art" (whatever that is), but I like work like this. I think it's powerful and can really make people reflect in a way that's very different from reading an essay or hearing a lecture. Check it out.
Oh by the way, if you like what you see, you can go here for more from Tina and Deborah:
Tina Fiveash's website: www.tinafiveash.com.au
One of Deborah Kelly's project websites: www.bewareofthegod.com
If you like these mini-art shows send us an e-mail so that we'll know if we should make more or what.
~B.
Report: How Terrorist Groups End
Posted by Pinky.
One of the sources of information we like to read are the reports and documents that military strategists and governmental policy makers read in order to form their opinions about stuff. By studying (some of) what they're studying, I think it's easier to understand why the United States does what it does, what it might be doing next, and so on.
Recently the RAND Corporation released a report, partially funded by Department of Defense money, titled How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaida. It's part historical narrative, part political and military analysis, and 100% fascinating. Here's a few excerpts from the report summary from the RAND website:
"All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? Answers to this question have enormous implications for counterterrorism efforts. The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members. Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups...
Following an examination of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, we found that a transition to the political process is the most common way in which terrorist groups ended (43 percent)...
...in 10 percent of the cases, terrorist groups ended because their goals were achieved, and military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of the cases... Against most terrorist groups, however, military force is usually too blunt an instrument...
After September 11, 2001, the U.S. strategy against al Qa'ida centered on the use of military force. Indeed, U.S. policymakers and key national-security documents referred to operations against al Qa'ida as the war on terrorism...
Our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism. Military force usually has the opposite effect from what is intended: It is often over-used, alienates the local population by its heavy-handed nature, and provides a window of opportunity for terrorist-group recruitment..."
[ download the entire report here (3.1 MB) ]
Although the report is written from an imperialist/militarist perspective, it does provide several useful explanations as to why the U.S.-led "War on Terror" hasn't resulted in the dissolution of al-Qaeda so far, and based on an analysis of recent terrorism history, also predicts that continuing this so-called 'war' will not produce this result - ever. The report makes a bunch of recommendations as to how the U.S. could 'fix the problem' and eventually bring al-Qaeda under control, but reading the report the main question that kept popping into my head was whether or not it's really in the best interests of the U.S. leadership to dismantle al-Qaeda in the first place. Because if al-Qaeda were to disappear from the public imagination, I'm sure creating a new justifications for our own brand of state violence and terrorism would require a tremendous amount of hard work. And since the ruling elite profit so immensely from warring, without significant opposition from the American people I'm willing to guess that all other alternatives are fairly unlikely at this point.
Anyway, please read the report, or at least the summary. It's useful to see how at least one sector of the U.S. warring apparatus is thinking and talking about these issues.
Take care,
pinky
Buttons from Henry
Posted by Pinky.
Today we received an unexpected padded envelope from Henry in Bellrose Manor, New York. Inside we found two large, square buttons and two large, square magnets. Thanks Henry! They look like this:
Cool huh? Henry sent us four so that all of us could have one but 2 minutes after opening the envelope Bunny and Kim were fighting over the second magnet. I had taken the other magnet to stick on the filing cabinet but had to give it to Kim so that we could have some peace around here. I'm surrounded by babies. -__-
~pinky
Bunny Mailbag: What About Afghanistan?
Posted by Bunny.
Today's E-mail of the Day:
Hey, I've watched your videos about the Iraq War and also the one about Crimes Against Humanity, but I was wondering why you guys haven't made a video about Afghanistan? Could it be because that war is justified? Seems like you are conveniently avoiding talking about it because you guys always just want to make the military look bad.
My reply:
Dear Joshua, We've only made about 30 episodes, which is considerably less videos than there are subjects to discuss.
However, we do realize that there is a lot of confusion surrounding the war in Afghanistan. Most Americans assume the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan was legal, which is understandable considering how hard the mainstream media has worked to lead the general public to this false conclusion.
I'm including a short essay by Marjorie Cohn below. She's a well-known expert on international law, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a few other nice things. The article isn’t unbearably long (I'm guessing the average reader may take about 10 minutes to read it), but if you can make your way through the title you’ll find the answer to your question.
[ begin Marjorie Cohn essay ]
Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War
by Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet
August 1st, 2008So far, President Bush's plan to maintain a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq has been stymied by resistance from the Iraqi government. Barack Obama's timetable for withdrawal of American troops evidently has the backing of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Bush has mentioned a "time horizon," and John McCain has waffled. Yet Obama favors leaving between 35,000 and 80,000 U.S. occupation troops there indefinitely to train Iraqi security forces and carry out "counterinsurgency operations." That would not end the occupation. We must call for bringing home — not redeploying — all U.S. troops and mercenaries, closing all U.S. military bases and relinquishing all efforts to control Iraqi oil.
In light of stepped-up violence in Afghanistan, and for political reasons — following Obama's lead — Bush will be moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans see it as a justifiable response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the casualties in that war have been lower than those in Iraq — so far. Practically no one in the United States is currently questioning the legality or propriety of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. The cover of Time magazine calls it "The Right War."
The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information. In addition, it urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.
The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after Sept. 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.
Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States. The people in Latin American countries whose dictators were trained in torture techniques at the School of the Americas could likewise have attacked the torture training facility in Fort Benning, Ga., under that specious rationale. Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan is not the answer and will only lead to the deaths of more of our troops and Afghans.
The hatred that fueled 19 people to blow themselves up and take 3,000 innocents with them has its genesis in a history of the U.S. government's exploitation of people in oil-rich nations around the world. Bush accused the terrorists of targeting our freedom and democracy. But it was not the Statue of Liberty that was attacked. It was the World Trade Center, the symbol of the U.S.-led global economic system; and the Pentagon, the heart of the U.S. military, that took the hits. Those who committed these heinous crimes were attacking American foreign policy. That policy has resulted in the deaths of 2 million Iraqis — from both Bill Clinton's punishing sanctions and George W. Bush's war. It has led to uncritical support of Israel's brutal occupation of Palestinian lands, and it has stationed more than 700 U.S. military bases in foreign countries.
Conspicuously absent from the national discourse is a political analysis of why the tragedy of 9/11 occurred and a comprehensive strategy to overhaul U.S. foreign policy to inoculate us from the wrath of those who despise American imperialism. The "Global War on Terror" has been uncritically accepted by most in this country. But terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. You cannot declare war on a tactic. The way to combat terrorism is by identifying and targeting its root causes, including poverty, lack of education and foreign occupation.
There are already 60,000 foreign troops, including 36,000 Americans, in Afghanistan. Large increases in U.S. troops during the past year have failed to stabilize the situation there. Most American forces operate in the eastern part of the country; yet by July 2008, attacks there were up by 40 percent. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser for Jimmy Carter, is skeptical that the answer for Afghanistan is more troops. He warns that the United States will, like the Soviet Union, be seen as the invader, especially as we conduct military operations "with little regard for civilian casualties." Brzezinski advocates Europeans bribing Afghan farmers not to cultivate poppies for heroin, as well as the bribery of tribal warlords to isolate al-Qaeda from a Taliban that is "not a united force, not a world-oriented terrorist movement, but a real Afghan phenomenon."
We might heed Canada's warning that a broader mission, under the auspices of the United Nations instead of NATO, would be more effective. Our policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan should emphasize economic assistance for reconstruction, development and education, not for more weapons. The United States must refrain from further Predator missile strikes in Pakistan and pursue diplomacy, not occupation.
Nor should we be threatening war against Iran, which would also be illegal and result in an unmitigated disaster. The U.N. Charter forbids any country to use, or threaten to use, military force against another country except in self-defense or when the Security Council has given its blessing. In spite of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency's conclusion that there is no evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the White House, Congress and Israel have continued to rattle the sabers in Iran's direction. Nevertheless, the anti-war movement has so far fended off passage of HR362 in the House of Representatives, a bill that is tantamount to a call for a naval blockade against Iran — considered an act of war under international law. Credit goes to United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, Peace Action and dozens of other organizations that pressured Congress to think twice before taking that dangerous step.
We should pursue diplomacy, not war, with Iran; end the U.S. occupation of Iraq; and withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.
[ end of Marjorie Cohn essay ]
~B.
Make Your Own Tienanmen Square Memorial
Posted by Bunny.
We just received this neat thing from artists Deborah Kelly & Wei Lai:
Here is a new work for you, a collaboration with Wei Lai, just in time for the Olympics. Please make it, and/or distribute, just as you see fit. If you print it, use the heaviest paper the printer will allow.
It's the first of works toward the Tienanmen protests anniversary in June 2009, which we sincerely hope you will take part in, wherever you are. There may be dancing.
with best wishes and solidarity -
Deborah Kelly & Wei Lai
~B.
U.S. Warships Headed for Iran
Posted by Bunny.
I just received an e-mail with the following information, originally from Lord Stirling's Europe blog.
USS Roosevelt
"The lead American ship in [the just-concluded Operation Brimstone] war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan... They are joining two existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); and the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group...
The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy...
The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:
Carrier Strike Group Nine
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Two
Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarinesPeleliu Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assult ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyerCarrier Strike Group Two
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Eight
Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyerUSS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier
with its Amphibious Squadron Four
and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyerUSS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
Carrier Strike Group Seven
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing 14
Destroyer Squadron 7
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship......The large and very advanced nature of the US Naval warships is not only directed at Iran. There is a great fear that Russia and China may oppose the naval and air/land blockade of Iran. If Russian and perhaps Chinese naval warships escort commercial tankers to Iran in violation of the blockade it could be the most dangerous at-sea confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis...
...A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The Republic of Georgia, with US backing, is actively preparing for war on South Ossetia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border. Russia has stated that [they] will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia. The Russians are great chess players and this game may not turn out so well for the [U.S.]..." (read the whole report here)
Shall we talk about this, or will everyone be too busy watching the Olympics? ~B.
....................................
Posted by Kim: Even if none of these ships actually attack Iran, this is exactly the kind of bullying that nobody should be doing. ]
....................................
Posted by Bunny: If another country tried to make a blockade of the U.S. with warships, I imagine most Americans would have a fit and demand that they all be sunk. But if we're the ones doing it then the experts on CNN will sit around and discuss whether or not the blockade is effective in achieving "our goals". ]
....................................
Posted by Pinky: Everyone here in the U.S. that understands the implications and consequences of a U.S.-led attack on Iran needs to do something now to stop our governmental and military leaders - phone calls, e-mails, demonstrations - anything and everything!