Author: Slingshot Collective

Federal agents carried out raids in Oregon, Arizona, Virginia and New York Dec. 7 during which they arrested six activists on charges that they were involved in a number of arson attacks blamed on the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Daniel McGowan, Sarah Harvey, Chelsea Gerlach, Kevin Tubbs, Stanislas Meyerhoff and William Rodgers were arrested. The Catalyst Infoshop in Prescott, Arizona where Rodgers lived was thoroughly searched. The arrests were apparently part of a nine year federal investigation and it is possible that more arrests will be made. Most of those arrested are being charged with multiple felonies and could face life in prison if convicted.

Support groups for those arrested have asked the alternative media to be very careful about what we write regarding these cases. In an Orwellian twist on “innocent until proven guilty,” the government has been using media reports about the arrests to smear those arrested. We have every reason to assume that all those arrested are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused, and that they will eventually be found innocent and released.

We also have every reason to believe that people everywhere will continue to resist industries and institutions that destroy the earth. Finally, we have every reason to believe that the government will do everything it can to frighten the environmental movement by infiltrating our circles, recording our conversations, and framing-up innocent activists. We won’t be scared and we won’t stop our activism. Many of us know some of the folks who have been arrested and our hearts reach out to them through the prison bars. Stay strong.

Events have moved quickly since the arrests. On December 21, Rodgers, 40, allegedly committed suicide in his jail cell with a plastic bag. (See obituary, page 6.) His supposed suicide came on the heels of the release of an affidavit from a federal agent in mid-December. The affidavit revealed that a cooperating government witness (snitch), believed to be Jacob “jake the snake” Ferguson, had worked closely with the government. Ferguson allegedly taped numerous conversations with a number of the arrestees. Also in mid-December, arrestee Meyerhoff was reported to be cooperating with the police by accusing his co-defendants of involvement in some of the alleged crimes in order to save himself. There are unconfirmed reports that another one of the arrestees may also be cooperating with the police.

Currently McGowan, 31, Gerlach, 28, and Tubbs, 36, are being held in Oregon and are seeking support.

Court papers filed in connection with bail hearings included a 25 page affidavit from FBI special agent John L. Ferreira who has apparently worked on the investigation for years. The text of the affidavit is available and makes very interesting reading for those interested in FBI investigative practices.

The document describes a detailed, 3 day long debriefing by an un-named cooperating witness (CW), believed to be Ferguson, describing the CW’s involvement in a number of arsons claimed by the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. The document also describes how the CW wore a body recording device to secretly tape conversations with McGowan, Tubbs, Meyerhoff and Rodgers during numerous encounters over a one year period.

Gerlach’s public Defense attorney Craig Weinerman has attacked the credibility of the cooperating witness (Ferguson) since by his own admission he was involved in a number of the arsons, actually setting the fires in a number of instances. Photographs of a tattooed and pierced Ferguson show how he could pass easily through activist circles. The affidavit names a number of other individuals implicated by Ferguson who have not yet been arrested. Ferguson was reported addicted to heroin over the past several years. The arrestees are charged with involvement in a number of ALF/ELF actions (not all arrestees are charged in all of the following) : • A June 21, 1998, arson at the Animal and Plant and Health Inspection Services facility in Olympia, Washington. • An attack on a Bonneville Power Administration transmission tower near Bend, Oregon on December 31, 1999. • A January 2, 2001 fire at the Superior Lumber Co. in Glendale, Oregon • A May 21, 2001 fire at the Jefferson Poplar Farm in Clatskanie, Oregon. • A Dec. 27, 1998, fire at U.S. Forest Industries in Medford, Oregon. • A May 9, 1999 fire at the Childers Meat Co. plant in Eugene, Oregon. • A March 30, 2001, arson at Romania Chevrolet in Eugene which destroyed 35 vehicles.

In addition, media reports and court papers have indicated that the government seeks to charge some of the arrestees with involvement in an October, 1998 arson attack which did a reported $12 million in damage to a ski-resort in Vail, Colorado that threatened lynx habitat — one of the most destructive ALF/ELF actions.

Daniel, Chelsea and Kevin deny any involvement in any of these actions and so far it appears that there is no physical evidence connecting any of them to any crime. The arrests — and especially revelations about FBI informants and secretly recorded conversations — have spread fear in some activist communities, which may be precisely what the government wants. For many, the arrests underline the gravity of what we are struggling for and the lengths the government will go to protect corporate destruction of the earth. Any ALF/ELF actions against corporate property pale in comparison to the daily massive corporate attacks on the planet, its plants and animals, and ultimately its human inhabitants.

In the post 9-11 climate, it may be difficult for the arrestees to get a fair trial given sensational media coverage and government attempts to paint ALF/ELF actions as “terrorism.” In fact, no one was injured in any of the actions listed above. Despite the “property destruction only” nature of ALF/ELF tactics, John Lewis, the FBI’s deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, told a Senate committee in 2004 that environmental and animal-rights activists are the nation’s top domestic-terrorism threat.

Support information:

Daniel, Chelsea and Kevin need our support! You can send them letters of encouragement and/or contact their support groups. If you send a letter, keep in mind that all mail is read by prison officials. Do not use any nicknames or include any incriminating information. (See more tips, below.)

• Kevin Tubbs: Kevin Tubbs #1213751, Lane County Jail, 101 W 5th Ave, Eugene, OR 97401; Write to PO BOX 3025, Eugene, OR 97403, supportkevintubbs.org, supportkevintubbs@gmail.com.

• Daniel McGowan, # 1407167, Lane County Jail, 101 West 5th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, FriendsOfDanielMcG@yahoo.com.

• Chelsea Gerlach #1308678, Lane County Jail, 101 W 5th Ave, Eugene, OR 97401, freechelseagerlach@hotmail.com

Tips for writing to prisoners:

* Use only black/blue ink or type on plain white paper

* Use a white envelope. Avoid: tape, stickers, or markings beyond addresses

* DON’T USE NICKNAMES

* Don’t discuss people’s pending cases.

* Even if you are a lawyer, don’t discuss legal information or offer legal advice.

Slingshot is an independent, radical, quarterly newspaper published in Berkeley since 1988.

Welcome to issue #89, still running! We apologize to all our readers for our delayed publication.We planned to have an issue in December but after the deadline, the collective felt that we did not have enough good articles to spend the time, money and energy required to create the paper. Sooo, thanks for waiting! Here we are with more information about the crazy world out there, spending a rainy weekend using our hands and brains to lay out this paper.

In agonizing about the poor selection of articles a month ago, it became clear that the context surrounding radical publishing is changing in an internet dominated world. Ten years ago, if a non-mainstream voice wanted to be heard, they had to make a zine and then make as many copies as money or copy-scams would allow. Or, one could mail it to Fifth Estate, the Earth First! Journal or Slingshot. Nowadays, anyone with an opinion can make a blog or post to a website in a few minutes. Thus, when the Slingshot collective asks around to get some articles, a lot less people are willing to put in the energy because they’ve already satisfied their need to write.

We think the development of the internet and the way it democratizes information is great. BUT, publishing stuff on paper is still important. The collective process and editing — less common with the internet — often improve ideas and information. Plus, a publication on paper permits distribution to people who might not otherwise be looking at radical blogs or websites. In an internet dominated world, strongly opinionated people increasingly spend time talking to themselves and other people who already agree, rather than reaching out to new communities and individuals. We hope talented writers with smart politics and good organization skills will save a little bit of their writing energy for us and other paper-based media. Nuf said.

What else to write? Ohhhh yeahhhh!!! Guess whattt!!! Slingshot is having its 18th B-day on March 9 . . . that meannnnnnnsss . . . we are old enough to have sex and watch tons of porn and smoke millions of cigarettes but instead, we ain’t doing that ‘cuz we are here making the paper.

Slingshot is always looking to promote growth, change, and dialogue out in this big world and we are always on the lookout for new writers, artists, editors, photographers, translators, distributors and independent thinkers to help us make this paper. If you send something written, please be open to editorial changes. We hope to resume translating some articles into Spanish next issue.

Editorial decisions are made by the Slingshot collective, but not all the articles reflect the opinions of all collective members. We welcome debate, constructive criticism and discussion.

Thanks to the people who worked on this: Artnoose, Heafty Lefty, Cara, Eggplant, Gregg, Glenn, Maneli, MisTakE, Molly and PB.

Slingshot New Volunteer Meeting

Volunteers interested in getting involved with Slingshot can come to the new volunteer meeting on February 19th at 5 p.m. at the Long Haul in Berkeley (see below).

Article Deadline and Next Issue Date

Submit your articles for issue 90 by March 25, 2006 at 3 p.m. We expect the next issue out in April 9th .

Volume 1, Number 89, Circulation 14,000

Printed January 19th, 2006

Slingshot Newspaper

Sponsored by Long Haul

3124 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley, CA 94705

Phone: (510) 540-0751

slingshot@tao.ca • www.slingshot.tao.ca

Back issue Project

We’ll send you a random assortment of back issues for the cost of postage: send us $2 for 2 lbs or $3 for 4 lbs. Free if you’re an infoshop or library. Or drop by our office. Send cash or check to Slingshot to: Slingshot 3124 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley, CA 94705.

Circulation Information

Slingshot is free in the Bay Area and is available at Long Haul and Bound Together Books (SF), plus lots of other places. Contact us or come by if you want to distribute Slingshot for free in the Bay Area.

Subscriptions to Slingshot are free to prisoners, low income and anyone in the USA who owns a Slingshot organizer, or cost $1 per issue. International is $2.50 per issue. Back issues are also available for the cost of postage. National free distribution program: Outside of the Bay Area, we’ll mail a stack of free copies of Slingshot to distributors, infoshops, bookstores and random friendly individuals for FREE in the US if they give ‘em out for free.

Thanks to everyone who bought a 2006 Slingshot organizer — selling the organizer pays for us to publish this paper. We still have some organizers available — see the end of this for information on purchasing one. Please note: we are currently out of the spiral bound size but we may get some returns. If you are a bookstore and you have extra spiral size, please return them now so we can re-distribute them to the many people who have been asking for one.

Folks with a spiral bound organizer may have noticed a minor binding problem – 16 pages at the end of the book (starting with “Heroin overdose prevention” and ending with “Apocalypse Now”) are out of order! You can fix the problem Do It Yourself style in about 2 minutes, and at the same time laminate your cover so the whole thing doesn’t fall apart so easily.

Use a small pair of pliers (needle nose work great) to unbend the crimped end of the spiral wire, then spiral the wire out of the book. Then, reorganize the pages that are out of order so they make sense. The correct order of the pages on the right side of the book should be: (1) Booklist (2) Herbs and natural healing (3) Foot reflexology (4) How to tell if you are ovulating (5) Heroin/downer overdose prevention (6) page 2 of the police feature (starts with small text “to tell them anything other than your name and address”) (7) Radical contact list (8) Midwest USA (9) continuation of Canada section (starts with “The sprout (Veg restaurant)”.

While you have the whole thing apart, you can protect your cover by laminating it at a copy store or by covering it with clear packing tape or clear contact paper. Use a sharpened pencil or nail to poke holes through the plastic. Then, spiral the wire back into the book and re-crimp the wire.

We also recommend covering the covers on the small pocket organizers with clear packing tape or contact paper to protect them.

We’ll be working on the 2007 Organizer starting in June and going to print in August – let us know if you want to work on it with us. Send us your suggestions, contacts for the contact lists, and art. Please note: we now have about 10-20 historical dates per day, so not all dates can go in each year’s organizer — we try to print different dates each year.

Ordering Information:

Contact us if you want to order 20 or more copies (10 small plus 10 spiral equals 20). 20 pocket organizer is just $60 with fee shipping: Slingshot Collective: 3124 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley, CA 94705 • 510 540-0751 ex. 3, http://slingshot.tao.ca, slingshot@tao.ca.

If you want to order less than 20 copies, please visit your local infoshop or independent bookstore or try one of the following mail order distros:

•Whoop! Distro PO Box 3885, Berkeley, CA 94703 www.whoopdistro.org

•Microcosm 5307 N. Minnesota Ave, Portland, OR 97217 503 249-3826 www.microcosmpublishing.com

•AK Press 674 A 23rd Street Oakland, CA 94612, 510 208 -1700 www.akpress.org

•Last Gasp 777 Florida, San Francisco, CA 94110 800 848-4277 www.lastgasp.com

By m(A)tt – CLASH Collective (with shortening from slingshot)

We are fast approaching the third anniversary of the war in Iraq and the annual protests on the anniversary of the war. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions have suffered, and the situation becomes worse every day — indeed, every second. And in over three years of protest, we have by and large gone unheard in any practical sense. We may make some headlines now and again by winning celebrities to our cause, but regardless, our cries for peace and justice have gone unheeded.

Make no mistake: this war will come to an end, sooner or later. The hatred this unprovoked war has sewn is so entrenched, and the people of Iraq are so determined to be rid of an illegitimate, foreign rule, that it is simply impossible for the US to win in any sense of the word.

However, if we allow this war to run its course, the cost may be higher than we realize. The steady stream of broken bodies and damaged minds eats away the social fabric. The economic cost of the war — hundreds of billions of dollars — further cripples social welfare at home. The mainstream antiwar movement expresses concern for the war’s affect on society, but limits itself to liberal tactics and strategies incapable of stopping the war. Gradual tactic could take years to stop the war – similar tactics during the Vietnam war era permitted that war to continue for ten long years, which saw millions dead. The deep societal scars from Vietnam are still felt today by hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and millions of southeast Asians. Today, the consequences for the rest of the world, which will bear the brunt of an invigorated fundamentalist movement being bred in Iraq, will be far greater than anything the US government has yet to unleash upon the world. Another ten year war is not acceptable.

We must be clear about what the powers that be believe the stakes of this war are. While they are not sure if this crusade can be salvaged, they believe that no cost is too high to maintain US world supremacy in the twenty-first century. This includes the leadership of the Democratic Party every bit as much as it includes the Republicans, and we simply cannot depend on any anti-war candidates (like Richard Nixon) to do our dirty work for us. Campaign promises that run diametrically opposed to the status quo are unlikely to be honored. Fundamental change, which is the only worthwhile goal in this era, never in history has come from above and within the system — it has always come from below and without. The fact is that the government must be forced to cease its aggression by regular people of all walks, and we must intervene with our own bodies. We must end this war before it ends us.

Because of the urgency of the situation, the anti-war movement should abandon permitted mass protest and lobbying of so-called government representatives. It may be unrealistic to expect this of the whole mainstream movement immediately, but tactics that haven’t worked for three years should not be repeated blindly. We must wage war on the war-makers. Wage it in whatever ways that are consistent with our own beliefs through the use of direct action. But please, wage. We are not fighting for merely the moral imperative of the situation; it is a matter of self-preservation. If we continue to obey, we dig our own grave.

The US government is capable of waging war in the first place because it has a stable base from which to operate. That base is what is know as our society. From our society, it takes troops, weapons, goods, land for bases, and moral support, all in order to hold other peoples captive. We, the citizens of the empire, are therefore in a unique position to deprive the war machine of what it requires to continue its crimes. If we withhold troops through continued and intensified counter-recruitment work, they have no one to kill and die for them. If we block the development, manufacture and distribution of weapons, they have no implements of violence. If we put even the home bases of the military on the defensive, it will make it all the more difficult to go on the offensive. And already, the moral support for this war is steadily disintegrating. The application of these concepts are, in our opinions, very much up for debate — a debate that at the moment is very difficult to have in the broader antiwar movement, as dialogue is very much framed by the movement leadership and celebrities, who are decidedly against any such ideas.

In the last several decades, direct action has been often organized in a democratic fashion through organs of popular power known as spokescouncils. Spokescouncils are generally directly democratic (as opposed to democratic centralism) where all participants in the actions of a certain time frame and geographic area make decisions on general guidelines, agreements and policies for action, while maximizing freedom of movement and action for individual groups. Some spokescouncils are varyingly private, while others are open to the public, based on the level of police state mobilization. Concerns such as the vulnerabilities of some activists to state repression are discussed and addressed.

We realize that the repercussions for arrest are simply too high for some to risk, and so we recognize the strong and often urgent need for solidarity to our more vulnerable comrades. However, that doesn’t mean everyone must limit themselves to permitted protest. That one reality does not erase the other — that permitted protest has a bad track record in terms of making us heard by the war-makers. We believe the first priority in the struggle against the war is to use effective tactics and stop the war — they the chips fall where they may.

People who are unable to risk arrest can play pivotal supporting roles for those who do, such as providing medical, legal, media, communication, and other kinds of assistance. Other direct actions can even be legal, such as counter-recruitment work. If fulfilled, these can make an effective movement a sustainable one, and are therefore every bit as important. Maintaining visibility for people doing work behind the scenes and/or in supporting roles can be a challenge, but is by no means impossible, so long as we have organizations that are anti-hierarchical, participatory and radically feminist.

Further, practical on the ground solidarity can have a major impact on the safety of those who are more vulnerable to arrest and brutality, but risk arrest anyway. Some such examples are the tactics of forcible un-arresting, jail house solidarity, and generally being mindful of the vulnerabilities of others when planning and carrying out direct action. We also recognize that the escalation of the struggle can potentially mean that all of those who are more vulnerable in the movement become therefore more at risk, regardless of the roles they consciously play. However, we believe that any movement that effectively challenges the status quo, regardless of the tactics employed, will always receive state repression, of which we have already gotten a taste. Repression is inevitable. But if we concede effectiveness, we risk repression for nothing.

We desire a movement that is completely out of control, like a force of nature, or a wild, cornered animal. In our experience, direct action that is organized autonomously and non-hierarchically is generally the most effective kind. This effectiveness has been demonstrated at countless actions, most infamous in the streets of Seattle in November 1999, when hundreds of affinity groups blocked streets, the paths of WTO delegates, and in many cases successfully fought off police repression. We also believe too much is at risk to simply hand over command to any leadership, which may have very different priorities and ideas about what is at stake, just so they can negotiate us away with the State. What’s there to negotiate about? Either the war continues (and with it the march to apocalypse) or the war is over. What could
be simpler? Further, when those in the street are allowed to call their own shots, based on their own priorities and the mutual aid and solidarity of their comrades, they invariably call the right ones. It is only through autonomous direct action that we can foster an American insurgency capable of halting the war machine, and ultimately building the framework for a new democratic, cooperative, peaceful society.

Up the Ante!!

In attempting to secure a fair contract, the transit workers of New York City not only shut down the largest public transportation system in the country, but inadvertently brought to light the obstacles facing today’s labor movement. The negotiations, the previous spending habits of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the media onslaught, and the lack of solidarity from other unions all expose the disregard many people have towards workers. The contract reached between Transit Workers Union (TWU) Local 100 and the MTA does include some improvements for the workers. The way in which the negotiations and the strike played out reveal the overwhelming power wielded by the ruling class and yet the ability of the people to rally together in solidarity, bring a city to its knees, and achieve some measure of victory.

NEGOTIATIONS

The previous contract between the MTA and its workers expired on December 16, 2005. On that day, a limited strike began against two private bus lines in Queens. Unable to agree on a contract, the TWU 100 extended the deadline to December 20. Still unable to reach an agreement, the TWU 100 went on strike at 3:00 am that day. Joining the TWU 100 were Local 726 (Staten Island) and Local 1056 (Queens) of the Amalgamated Transit Union. @Key demands of the workers included:

• an 8% salary increase per year for 3 years

• lowering the age of retirement from 55 to 50

• pay for maternity leave

• more money spent on station maintenance Key demands of the MTA included:

• 3.0, 4.0 and 3.5% raises over the next 3 years

• a two-tiered pension system which would raise the retirement age from 55 to 62 for newly hired workers (the MTA offered to drop this if new employees paid for 6% of their pensions instead of the current 2%)

• to have new employees pay for 1% of their health insurance (current employees pay nothing for their health insurance)

The two-tiered pension plan was the main point of dispute for the workers. If the MTA had hoped the current workers would be willing to sell out future hires, one would think they’d at least have enough sense to offer current employees a decent raise. Nevertheless, they refused to come even close to the 8% demand made by the workers, and considering current inflation rates, the offer of an average 3.5% annual raise was barely a raise at all. Meanwhile, the proposed raising of the retirement age to 62-years-old would have made new hires lifelong workers. While the MTA noted an increased life expectancy as a reason for wanting to raise the age, transit workers live significantly shorter lives due to harsh working conditions. The average transit worker in New York City lives six years past retirement; upping the retirement age by seven years would thus make them workers until death. Contributing to the shortened life span is the fact that transit workers have to deal with conditions not dealt with in other sectors. Many workers develop health problems they’d never had before, such as allergies and asthma, plus they deal with dirty restrooms and rat-infested workspaces on a regular basis. This, combined with other problems such as long hours and lack of bathroom breaks, has significant effects on the workers after years on the job.

Furthermore, the MTA’s attempt to negotiate pensions wasn’t even legal under New York’s Taylor Law. Officially called the Public Employees Fair Employment Act, it was passed in 1967 after transit workers struck the previous year. Section 201, part 4 lays out the basic definitions to be used in the law. According to this section, employers are allowed to negotiate only certain aspects of a contract. For example, wages, salaries, and hours are all included in what employers are allowed to negotiate. Other aspects, such as retirement funds, are not to be handled through collective bargaining, but are instead decided by the state legislature. While the MTA blatantly violated one portion of the Taylor Law, officials blasted the workers for violating another section of it. Section 210 of the law forbids public employees from striking and penalizes them two days pay for every day on strike. Thus, the MTA was able to put the focus on the illegality of the strike and simultaneously ignore the fact that they, too, were in violation of the same law.

Indeed, the MTA’s actions towards the workers were hostile every step of the way. The directors at the MTA did not feel they had to justify any of their actions. Instead, they sought to take as much as possible from their workers without even trying to appear sympathetic. All the while, they have been giving themselves huge raises while claiming to have a deficit.

QUESTIONABLE SPENDING

When raising ticket prices, denying worker demands for improved safety, and negotiating contracts, the MTA cites a deficit, yet these supposed money problems have a way of disappearing during other times. In 2004, while the MTA sought to raise fare prices and institute a new state tax, it approved a 22% raise for executive director Katherine N. Lapp, raising her salary from $192,500 to $235,000. In addition, MTA directors have voted themselves a 20% pay increase over the last five years.

After claiming to have a very modest surplus in 2005, it was discovered the MTA actually had a surplus totaling, at the very least, a whopping $833 million. TWU 100 estimated the surplus to be as much as $1 billion. Hours before the December 16 contract expired, the MTA voted to spend the entire surplus.

LITTLE SUPPORT

Despite the reasonable demands made by the workers and the financial surplus available, the workers had insufficient public support to continue the strike over a long period, perhaps because of its crippling effects on daily life.

The reaction of the ruling class was typical. Billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg called the strikers thugs. The MTA tried to make the workers look greedy. Major Democrats failed to support the strikers: Senator Hillary Clinton declared herself neutral on the issue and said she supported the Taylor Law. The mainstream media presented a brutally anti-worker depiction of the situation: they treated the strike as a rash decision that wasn’t worth it; they pitted workers against each other by focusing on the problems faced by commuters and the losses experienced by retailers; they emphasized the illegality on the part of the workers; the much talked about cover of Rupert Murdoch’s NY Post superimposed bars over the face of TWU 100 President Roger Toussaint with the words “JAIL ‘EM.”

The mainstream’s response to the strike was appalling but not surprising. What is most disappointing about the way this strike played out was the lack of support the strikers received from other unions. Not one union struck in solidarity with the workers, and other union leaders failed to so much as verbally support the transit workers, let alone join them on the picket lines. Even the workers’ own union turned on them, when the TWU International informed Toussaint it would not support a strike at the last minute of negotiations. TWU International called the strike illegal and unsanctioned, instructed the workers to scab during the strike, and sent lawyers to argue on the city’s behalf.

While every facet of the mainstream turned its back on the strikers, certain groups and individuals stepped up to do all they could to support the strike. The New York Metro Area Anarchists formed an ad hoc group to support the TWU 100 and called for a four hour a rally at the Brooklyn Bridge on the second day of the strike. The Troops Out Now Coalition organized a rally on the third day of the strike and handed out leaflets to motorists. These are just a few of the many groups who came out in support of the workers, not to mention the various individuals who dropped banners, called Pataki and the MTA, signed petitions, and stood on the picket lines with the workers.

CONCLUSION

Given the odds stacked a
gainst the workers, they were able to at least have some successes in the contract. While they accepted the MTA’s low pay raise, they were able to reject the two-tiered pension plan, plus they got maternity pay, state disability coverage and Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a holiday. @When TWU 100 went on strike, the goal was not to overturn the Taylor Law or challenge the capitalist system; they simply wanted a fair contract. Despite such moderate demands, they had no choice but to strike due to the MTA’s initial refusal to compromise on their offers. The fact that the workers were met with resistance from so many different angles, despite having such reasonable demands, shows the hostility this country has towards workers.

This was a struggle that revealed the priorities of those who claim to be friends of labor. The transit workers learned the hard way that union leaders cannot be depended on. While various leaders failed to come through for the workers when it mattered most, it was the people, who are not bound by political or business interests, who came through and stood in solidarity with fellow workers.

n a cowardly, middle of the night police raid, University of California at Berkeley workers tore out a brand new, steel free clothing exchange box Nov. 16 that volunteers had built in Berkeley’s People’s Park Nov. 12-13 — the third free box destroyed by the University in three months. People’s Park — a park built by Berkeley residents on land seized from the University in 1969 — has contained a free clothing box for most of the last 30 years. To this day, the university claims that they “own” the park and thus have the right to control and manage it.

Folks in Berkeley, however, do not recognize university ownership of the park and practice “user development” of the park — planting and maintaining gardens, hosting events, serving free Food Not Bombs meals, and building and maintaining the community free box. The university claimed they owned the park in 1969 and went so far as to occupy Berkeley with 3,000 National Guard troops and shoot over 100 residents with shotguns — killing one person — to enforce their claim. The university’s claim is covered in blood — the park, like all the world’s resources, belongs to everyone. The standoff between community members and the university bureaucracy has gone on for 36 years — with occasional flair-ups like the current dispute over the free box.

When a free box exists, anyone with extra clothes can bring them to give away, and anyone who needs clothes can come pick them up. The free box is thus a perfect form of non-structured recycling and economic mutual aid.

In April 2005, the previous wood free box burned down. When community members mentioned to university officials that they were planning to construct a replacement, university officials indicated that they would not permit replacement of the box. They implied that the box attracts the wrong element to areas near the university, i.e. poor and homeless people. As if poverty would go away if only no resources for poor people existed.

Of course, members of the community went ahead and started to build a replacement box anyway — the foundation of which was promptly torn down by the university in September. And we built another one in October which was also removed by police. And we’ll keep building new free boxes until the university gets too embarrassed to continue to pull them down.

Why is the university so threatened by a free clothing box? And why do we want one so much that we’ll keep building new ones even though they might get torn down? The free box and the park are key battlegrounds between the kind of world the university wants to impose and the kind of world we envision.

The free box is an example of anarchistic exchange in the best sense — exchange controlled by no one, un-mediated by money and operating on the principal “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. The world we envision is one of sharing, cooperation to meet human needs, and decisions made by users from the bottom up, not disconnected authorities from the top down.

In contrast, the university’s world view is threatened when people do anything for themselves — without permission from authorities, without expert planning, and without money. The university is threatened by any act of sharing or any formation of community. The university — and much of the city of Berkeley machinery which quietly tolerates university attacks on community in People’s Park — seeks to promote a world ruled by money in which those with the most money are constantly showered with more, while those in need are denied access to basic items that exist all around them in abundance.

The cops acted in the middle of the night because they are afraid — afraid that people would be outraged if they knew that the university and the city were spending thousands of dollars to rob used clothes from the poor. They didn’t want any pictures of their bulldozer cutting into the brand new shiny steel free box.

University and city leaders always imply that they need to “clean up” People’s Park — by which they mean “remove the visual indications of the inequality of a class society.” The University of California doesn’t want the future social leaders who attend the university to understand the ugly effects of capitalism, inequality and business as usual. But even more, they don’t want these future leaders to see that there are viable and beautiful alternatives to their system of greed — that people can share; that folks can use just what they need rather than accumulating property as an end in itself.

What would the world look like if everything was “cleaned up” and everyone conformed to a work-shop-die world? Do we even want everything to be clean, middle class, sterile and standardized? Do we want everything to be run on commerce and money?

The struggle to rebuild the free box — and with it to strengthen community that exists outside the economy — will continue because this is the key struggle of our age. This is the same struggle as the struggle against inhumane corporate power, globalization, sweatshops and the New World Order. It is a struggle that emphasizes direct action — communities getting together to construct the world we want to live in — not asking permission or submitting to a role as a passive consumer.

What you can do:

Folks will be getting together in People’s Park soon to build another free box — contact 510 390-0830 or People’s Park website if you want to be part of it. Or better yet, call Irene Hegarty at the Unviersity’s Office of Community Relations and tell her to let the free box live: 510 643-5296.

Punk began as a reaction to mainstream culture; defining itself not just by its fast, discordant music, but also by its politics. Punk rockers oppose dominant, capitalist mainstream lifestyles. Bands like Discharge, The Germs, Millions of Dead Cops, and Crass, took a stand against the status quo, not just with their shocking names, but with their lifestyles as well. Bands and punk rock fans alike, often went to great lengths to show their opposition to mainstream music and lifestyles. From starting squats in abandoned buildings to putting together benefit shows against animal testing in laboratories, they believed in the tenet “do it yourself,” or DIY. Besides making music, many punks were involved in promoting equality for all people, and doing so in the face of big business.

Since the first mainstream American feminist movements, in the 1960s and 1970s, pornography has been a subject of contention between people who view any kind of pornography as another form of capitalism and patriarchy working to keep women trapped in exploitative relationships, and people who believe that erotic performance can be utilized as a tool to encourage a healthy enjoyment of sex in the face of oppressive mainstream cultural views of sex and sexuality. Regardless of what views you take on the issue of porn, it is an undeniable fact that pornography makes a lot of money, and that the largest pornography business are run by men who are more interested in making money than in changing our society’s perceptions of sex and power. According to one report, Americans spend around $10 billion a year on the (legal) sex industry. What happens when punk rock aesthetic meets up with pornography’s money machine on the internet?

Part of a new kind of internet porn claims to have brought porn and punk rock together at last. Sites like Suicide Girls, Burning Angel and SuperCult profess to combine mainstream visual erotica with subculture looks and ideas. How successfully they do this, however, is a question that remains in the forefront of many people’s minds. What’s empowering about a new aesthetic in porn? Is it possible to broaden mainstream standards of beauty, and would punk porn help? Can punk porn maintain any of its radical ideals or is it just a niche market?

Porn on the internet reaches all the markets of porn viewers, from people who look at Playboy to “hardcore” porn buffs. Many social activists and other feminists believe that porn is “not so much about sex per se as about male power exerted against females.” The creators of “alternative” porn sites say that they are reclaiming porn for women, using punk rock DIY ethics. They say that by providing a space for women who are pierced or tattooed to make porn, they are encouraging the societal acceptance of kinds of beauty that are not seen in mainstream porn. But in a world where you can find any kind of porn you want on the internet, from “all redheads” to “biker girls” to “latina ass,” are photos of naked, tattooed girls so subversive? These proprietors are exploiting a lifestyle without making anyone feel uncomfortable about the political implications of punk.

A few of the sites like Suicide Girls and Burning Angel are run by women, which is unusual in the world of internet porn. The creators claim that their sites celebrate female sexual freedom. In an interview Spooky, one of the founders of Suicide Girls, stated that “These girls are not being paid to play the part in member’s fantasies, they are being paid to be themselves.” Under the premise of letting the viewer “really” get to know each model, the girls write entries about their fantasies, their favorite foods, and what music they like to listen to, some models even keep a daily online journal. This seemingly “subversive” personalization of their porn profiles actually started in mainstream porn as a way to develop the girl next door fantasy. By providing “true” information about a model, the viewer will feel more connected to the model, and then pay for more images of her. And, by giving the model the impression of empowered autonomy, the site owners are able to pay less per model than in mainstream porn. This pretext of intimacy isn’t subversive—it’s good marketing.

Embracing at least part of the DIY idea, many of these sites don’t employ professional photographers. Rather, they encourage the girls to take pictures themselves and then upload them to their profile page. While the models get to pick what sort of photos they want shown, it really just lowers overhead and increases profit. And, like all pay per view porn sites, punk porn offers “teaser” pictures for free, encouraging the viewer to pay with a credit card to see full nude shots. While models on Suicide Girls and other sites have some creative say in their photos, they do not get paid as much as models for other sites. Instead, a mystique had been built around these “punk porn stars.” There are Suicide Girls and Burning Angel parties held frequently in major cities around the US, and each profile has a place where viewers can rate the model. It may seem that punk pornography must be liberating to the models who, since they don’t make much money off of it, must do it for the love of posing naked. However, I don’t think that this is actually the case. In my encounters with models, both in real life and on their websites, the models and owners of the sites did not seem to get involved as a reaction to dominant porn, or as a way of turning the ideals of beauty and feminity on their heads.

Punk Porn sites claim that they are presenting images of women who are nontraditionally beautiful. Sadly, there is little truth to the claim. The sites are all run similarly, using a screening process to find and approve models that fit into some beauty standard. Even if not all the models on SuperCult are blonde with DD cups, they all fit into the “normal” category of body types. On all these sites, I have not seen one obese woman, only a few women who were discernibly not white, and no women with visible physical disabilities. If, by showing women with a few tattoos, the creators of these sites believe that they are really blowing open mainstream beauty ideals, they should probably reevaluate. If they want a captive audience who will pay for pretty young women who look alternative, they’re doing it right. There’s also another problem. Defining beauty by a market, means that one can only be beautiful if the market agrees. It’s just not possible to sell social change, because the problem of capitalism persists.

Regardless of the spin that owners put on their punk porn sites, it’s still work that women do to pay the rent or get through med school or whatever, and there are still tons of men fantasizing about women they’ll never sleep with.

Since the advent of corporate “punk” tours like the Warped Tour, and shops like Hot Topic, the “punk” aesthetic has really taken off in mainstream fashion and music. With pop singers like Avril Lavigne and Ashlee Simpson showing how sexy and non-threatening punk-looking girls can be, it is easy to see how they have made punk rock look appealing to the very people it is actually revolting against. Rather than providing a site that is truly DIY and really does show all sorts of naked punks, these websites have simply adopted the aesthetics of punk, running a corporate machine underneath. Suicide Girls recently joined forces with Playboy. And, while at first they claim they were receiving many letters about how unattractive their models were, because they were so “alternative” looking, the Playboy.com members page now features a “Suicide Girl of the Week.” Websites like Suicide Girls, Burning Angel and SuperCult may provide a specific kind of aesthetic to the viewers, just as “hot asian chicks” websites or “young white trash” magazines do, but they are not actually punk. They might present images of models with tattoos or piercings, but the sites themselves do not have anything to do with the social concerns that punk rock often embodies

February

February 9-12 • noon

United Students Against Sweatshops annual conference. San Francisco Pre-register. (202) 667-9328 www.studentsagainstsweatshops.org

February 15-20

Earth First! Organizers’ Conference/Winter Rendezvous. Palm Beach County, South Florida, Everglades Youth Camp at the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area. See pg. 7.

February 19 • 5 p.m.

Slingshot new volunteer meeting – help brainstorm for issue #90 – 3124 Shattuck Ave., Berkeley

February 26 • 7:30 p.m.

Dinner / benefit for The Match, long-running anarchist zine. Donation. 3124 Shattuck Ave., Berkeley

February 28

Mardi Gras in New Orleans and in Berkeley. In Berkeley, link up with the parade at People’s Park at 2 p.m.

March

March 5 • Sunday • 7:30 p.m.

Dinner / benefit for Anarchy: a Journal of Desire Armed Donation. 3124 Shattuck, Berkeley

March 10 • 8 p.m.

Celebrate Slingshot Collective’s 18th birthday. Party, dancing, vegan chocolate cake after East Bay Critical Mass bike ride. Free. 3124 Shattuck, Berkeley

March 18 • 10 a.m. – 6 p.m.

11th Annual San Francisco Anarchist Bookfaire! County Fair Building, 9th and Lincoln in Golden Gate Park. Speakers, tables, kid space, valet bike parking. Free.

March 18

Global protests to Stop the War in Iraq on the anniversary of the invasion scheduled in numerous cities. In SF, gather at 11 a.m. at Civic Center. Sponsored by ANSWER. www.answercoalition.org

March 19 • 10 a.m. – 6 p.m.

Bay Area Anarchist Conference sponsored by Bay Area Students Toward Anarchist Research and Development (BASTARD). www.sfbay-anarchists.org

March 20

Youth & student day of resistance to imperialism – walk out, sit-in, conduct an event – www.answercoalition.org

March 25 • 3 p.m.

Deadline for Slingshot #90. 3124 Shattuck, Berkeley

April

April 13-15

International Anarchist Academics and Activists Conference – culture jamming, music, film, art, discussions and demonstrations. Pitzer College, Claremont, Calif (near LA).

April 20 • 4:20 p.m.

Light one up! In Berkeley @ People’s Park.

April 23 • 11 – 5 p.m.

Celebrate the 37th anniversary of People’s Park in Berkeley – music & fun!

May

May 1

May Day – celebration and protests around the globe.

June

June 2-4

Midwest Anarchist Conference – Kansas City Tentative. More info TBA.

June 23-25

8th annual Allied Media Conference – Bowling Green, Ohio – alliedmediaconference.com.

June 23-27

Anarchist Librarians events at the annual meeting of the American Library Association – New Orleans