Author: Slingshot Collective

The recent elections in Iraq — all of the feel-good pictures on TV and rhetoric about freedom and democracy — can’t change the reality that the US military is bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq for which there is no exit strategy. Recall that even though the US organized elections in South Vietnam in 1967, fighting dragged on for another 8 years anyway. There are more and more parallels between the war in Iraq and Vietnam — the US Army may be the most powerful in the world with overwhelming firepower and lots of gadgets, but in a guerrilla war, no amount of violence or killing can bring victory against a determined population. In fact, the presence of 150,000 US troops is widely believed to fuel and unite the insurgency.

While there are parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, there is one huge difference which may turn out to be the Achilles heel for the US regime — this time there is no draft: the Army is an “all-volunteer force.” Here in the US, those of us who stand against the US imperial machine need to seize on this weakness and figure out ways to corrode away US military might from the inside by depriving it of what it hungers for the most — fresh American men and women to fill the body bags.

Just like in Vietnam, American troops who originally went to Iraq hoping to help “rebuild” and “bring democracy and freedom” are now coming to realize that the Iraqis don’t want them there, that there is never rebuilding — only killing and destruction — and that all the glorious reasons for the war have turned out to be lies. Most troops just hope to get through their time in Iraq and make it home alive.

There are huge opportunities for US-based opponents of a Yankee empire to cooperate with US troops who are increasingly skeptical about the war. Vietnam ultimately became unwinable because the troops refused to fight — instead, they killed their officers, deserted, claimed Conscientious Objector status, published underground military papers, went on strike, or just stopped trying in a million tiny ways. Folks at home helped where they could — setting up anti-war coffee houses outside bases, doing draft and pre-enlistment counseling, assisting deserters along an underground railroad and undermining domestic support for the war.

A month before the Iraq war, millions of people around the world demonstrated — but Bush held the power, and his ears were closed. As the war drags on, we need to shift from a short-term strategy to a long-term one. Huge turnouts at grandly orchestrated demonstration rituals have not been effective in breaking Bush’s ability to fight. A majority of the population does not support the war — 54 percent according to a January 19 Los Angeles Times poll — yet it continues. Those in power won’t stop it. But if the troops stop fighting — or if the army can’t get fresh troops — Bush will be unable to continue. The troops have the ultimate power in this situation — we need to support our troops by supporting their resistance. The US is risking their lives for nothing — it’s time for them to fight back!

In addition to cooperating with troops already in the military, US-based activists can help cut off the supply of fresh recruits. The US’s military recruiting machine operates in every town, in every high school, across the USA. (See list of recruiting stations, page 14.) The recruitment machine is a soft-target. By carrying out actions at military recruiting outposts all over the US, we can bring the war home and make the real connections between the pointless war in Iraq and our own communities. Why should the US military machine get a free pass here at home?

Since the government ended the draft, the US military has depended on a “poverty draft” to fill the ranks of the military. While the military is theoretically “all-volunteer,” lack of economic opportunities push poorer people into the military — sometimes to get elusive money for college — while middle class kids go straight to college. The military spends $2.5 billion a year on recruiting efforts which primarily target low-income communities selling the message that the military is a good way out of poverty.

As a result, the highest number of recruits come from the poorest communities. For example, according to the American Friends Service Committee, “Puerto Rico is the Army’s number one recruiting territory. With an unemployment rate on the island of more than 40 percent, Army recruiting offices in Puerto Rico garner more than 4 times the number of recruits US based recruiting offices average on a yearly basis.” Blacks are also recruited disproportionately: 29.8 percent of those serving in the first Gulf War were black versus about 12 percent of the US population.

But with over 1,400 US troops killed and over 10,000 wounded in a pointless war — and more getting killed almost every day — the poverty draft is getting less and less effective. For the first time in 10 years, the Marines Corps, which has taken heavy casualties in Iraq, missed its monthly recruiting goal for January. The Army National Guard missed its goal of recruiting 56,000 troops for fiscal 2004, signing up only 49,210. Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said on January 26 that the Guard is 15,000 troops short of its normal strength of 350,000. In response, the National guard will add an additional 1,400 recruiters, and offer $15,000 signing bonuses. The regular army has so far met its recruitment goals, but all is not well in the ranks.

Stars & Stripes, a government-funded, military newspaper, surveyed 1,935 soldiers in Iraq during August 2003 for a series of articles published in October 2003 and found that 49 percent said they intended to leave the military as soon as possible. Only 18 percent said it was “very likely” they would remain. 55 percent of National Guard Reserve troops surveyed said it was “unlikely” or “very unlikely” that they would re-enlist. Since the article, the military has kept a tight lid on any other polls that would contradict Bush’s official version of reality.

One way the military has tried to maintain troop strength is by issuing “stop loss” orders that prevent soldiers from leaving the military when their contracts expire. Some troops have called the stop loss orders a “backdoor draft.”

Estimates of desertions from the war or AWOL troops range from 600 to 5,500 — the Pentagon refuses to provide any data. Canada is currently considering whether to grant refugee status to a handful of US soldiers fleeing service in Iraq.

Moreover, reports of resistance amongst US troops are beginning to surface. On October 13, 2004, 19 National Guard troops refused orders to drive unarmored fuel tankers to Baghdad — they considered it a “suicide mission.” It was the first reported mutiny in Iraq and was only made public because the soldiers called their families from a detention tent. We’ll probably never know about other mutiny incidents in Iraq.

Troop support for the policies underlying the war has also evaporated. In response to the Stars and Stripes question, “How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?,” 31 percent said it was of “little value” or “not worthwhile at all,” while 48 percent responded that it was “worthwhile” or “very worthwhile.” Thirty-five percent answered that they were either “mostly unclear” or “not clear at all” about why they were in Iraq.

Because of the war, there are increasing murmurs that an official draft — not just the poverty draft — may be needed if the US is to continue the occupation of Iraq. A draft may be even more necessary if the Bush Administration hopes to invade Iran, Syria and/or North Korea over the next four years, as they would clearly like to do. The prospect of a draft rightly scares a lot of draft-age people who don’t much like the idea of either giv
ing their lives for Bush’s adventures or going to jail.

But looking beyond the fear factor, if the military is forced into a draft, it could help crystallize opposition to Bush and his wars. The January 19 Los Angeles Times poll found that only 39 percent of respondents said the “situation in Iraq was worth going to war over,” — with 56 percent saying it was not. What if all segments of American society — not primarily the poor — had sons and daughters in Iraq or headed that way? If voluntary recruitment declines and troops returning from Iraq refuse to re-enlist, Bush is left with a real crisis — if he tries a draft in the context of such an unpopular war, he would be putting domestic social stability at grave risk.

When I saw the new movie about the Weather Underground last year, one line stuck with me. A guy tried to explain his state of mind during the Vietnam war by saying that for years and years, every day he woke up and the first thing he thought was that there was a war on, that people were getting slaughtered for nothing, that the government of the place where he lived was killing them. And so every morning he would think, “What am I going to do today to stop the war?”

And the last few months, I’ve increasingly been waking up the same way. What can I do — what will I do — today to stop the war? Stopping this particular war isn’t just about Iraq — this is about folks who live here in the United States joining the world against the US empire and figuring out how we can turn the fact that we’re here in the belly of the beast to maximum advantage. Even if the US starts to pull its troops out of Iraq, we have to assume that the US just hopes to regroup so it can invade somewhere else.

I like the idea of dogging the military recruiting stations around the country because every town and city has one and you don’t need a big budget or a huge scripted ANSWER rally or anything to go down there and give ‘em hell. You can pick a regular time — say every Saturday — and do a picket. Or you can go at an unpredictable time every week so they never know when it’s going to happen. You can go alone, or with friends, or organize a big group. You can send out a press release and make it a public thing, or you can make your action covert. It can be a picket, handing out flyers, holding posters with gory photos from Iraq à la anti-abortion protests, having street theater, running inside for some light disruption or total outrageous mayhem with fake blood, coffins and a marching band. A lot of different social groups in a community could all hassle the same station in a variety of ways. Perhaps one day there would be veterans, one day high school students, one day mothers, one day clergy, etc. Maybe if your town has 3 high schools, they could run a contest to see which one can do the best protest. And since military recruiters go out to high schools and colleges on a regular basis, students can confront them on campus, too. On January 20, community college students in Seattle surrounded and trashed a recruiters table. The cops had to escort the recruiter’s to safety.

You know how so many towns have a Food Not Bombs chapter and a critical mass bike ride, etc. — what if all these towns went after the recruiters? Anywhere where there’s radicals, punks, free thinkers, freedom lovers — the military recruiters are gonna get hassled. Diversity, spontaneity and creativity are our key strengths in such efforts.

Bush shouldn’t be able to get away with this war just because “only” the poor have to fight it. If an official draft would lead to a national uprising, why are we letting the government get away with a poverty draft — why can’t we have the national uprising now! An all-volunteer Army can be a shield against pointless wars of aggression. To exploit this Achilles heel, we need to support the troops in their refusal and shut down the recruiters!

For more information or for flyers, materials, etc.: contact some of these folks:

• Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, 405 14th Street #205 Oakland, CA 94612 510-465-1617, www.objector.org; sponsors the GI Rights Hotline (800) 394-9544; (215) 563-4620.

• War Resisters League 339 Lafayette Street New York, NY 10012 (212) 228-0450 fax (212) 228-6193 wrl@warresisters.org

• Veterans for Peace, 216 S. Meramec Ave., St. Louis, MO 63130, (314) 725-6005, www.veteransforpeace.org

Some radicals have intimate contact with Christian conservatism, through family or community. Others have seen it only on TV or as “opposition” at a protest, like the January anti-choice rally in San Francisco. Perhaps some people have even worked on issues with the more progressive Christians. Whatever we know, it is not enough. The breadth and pervasiveness of modern American Christianity make it imperative that we study in order to overcome. And, though the social repressiveness of Christianity is often touted, little is written on the left about why Christianity has become so successful.

One of the best marketing tools used in the last decade by the right has been the label “compassionate conservative.” This term has found a home along the economic spectrum of the right, demonstrating its flexibility. For those who are “conservative” and wealthy, it has come to mean “I want my cash but I don’t mean to screw anyone else.” For those who are social/moral conservatives, the message is more “When I impose the morals of Christ, I’m doing it for the good of those degenerate, sinning, murderous homosexuals.” Kind of like killing the Inca so they couldn’t sin after baptism. What this means for us is a united front of language and action that isn’t easily penetrated. Conservatives (in fact, all ruling power) have been ok with contradiction for a long time, and pointing out that war and the murder of doctors is at least as wrong as abortion isn’t liable to change anyone’s mind.

The other duality of conservatism (besides its fiscal/moral split), is its neighbor/enemy stance. Though the Gospels tell us that we should have compassion and find a way to humiliate rather than kill our enemies, the modern interpretation has been much more tribal. Christians are very likely to help you out in a pinch (this is good to remember if you are traveling cross-country), but their leaders are also likely to raid your ass in a crusade if you threaten the obesity of their empire.

So, just as many of us resist the blanket definitions of anarchist/radical/left-of-left, we must know what kind of Christian we are talking to. Are they pacifist, non-evangelizing soup kitchen folk or door to door bible salesmen with a message of apocalypse? Maybe they are permaculturing, off-the-grid survivalists who use alternative fuels, shelter travelers and make jam? It’s only respectful to find out who you’re speaking to or about. However, remember that it’s for Jesus.

TRAITS OF SUCCESS

The success of churches today rests on many pillars. First, the capitalist-libertarian erosion of the public safety net with the exportation of living wage jobs has forced hordes of families to seek refuge elsewhere. Churches have long been a staple fixture of inner city communities, and they are often one of the only meeting places in rural communities. Some church complexes (and this is Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, not “cults”) are comprised of sanctuaries, daycare, kindergarten to high school, bars, lounges, soup kitchens and pantries, shelters, gyms and fields, banquet halls and more. Many hospitals began as part of church work, and charities like Habitat for Humanity are still Christian run. What if you saw all that on an infoshop brochure?

Christianity provides (like many religions) comprehensive community. Rites of passage — especially birth, coupling and death — have a defined meaning and place. Rituals offer physical and spiritual satiation, whether communion, baptism, speaking in tongues, bible study, or holiday celebrations. Because there is a role for each generation, people can participate from their birth until death with uninterrupted transition.

Christian propaganda has become insidious, or at least, ubiquitous in pop culture. Christian rock, country and gospel have stations all over the country; television sitcoms portray the dilemmas of growing up Christian in a “secular” society; evangelizing radio dominates the airwaves and even recreation has gone Christian. Surfers, biker gangs and even punks have converted en masse. This obviates the message that being “for Jesus” is dowdy or dorky; in fact, it’s cool. Even fashion has evolved to reinforce Christianity. “What would Jesus Do?” adorns jewelry, bags and the trim on clothes.

BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN

I view the Christian empire with a mixture of awe and disgust. There is much to be admired in the organization, and just as much to abhor. The best expressions of Christianity have created a symbiotic community based on love and service, while the most repressive rely on fear and ignorance.

There are a few lessons which radical communities could take from the success of American Christianity. First, we will only be successful when we have no shame about what we believe. Broadcast is important, and people know when you’re scared. There is a fine line between information and evangelism, but silence will never attract more people to radical movements. Second, many Christian communities work to be self-sufficient. The libertarian idea of independence can only be realized when we have both the competence to support ourselves and the communities to pool resources in. As Miles Stair reminds us, the government “has no affirmative duty to protect us” so well-being is the responsibility of individual and community (1). However, beyond some organizing strategies and a wee bit of love, Christianity has tormented this hemisphere for centuries.

The morals of love and brotherhood purported to be such a part of the Christian experience often function as the rewards for good behavior. Churches allow anyone to “come as you are,” but staying that way is often out of the question. Conformity includes creed, behavior and identity and becomes repressive quickly if one is not looking for imposed order. To someone seeking order, it can even be comforting. Unfortunately, the story passed on by most Christian sects is contaminated by St Paul (the defamer of Mary Magdalene) and the racism which brewed in Europe and exploded in the colonial Americas. Sunday morning is still the most segregated time in the US, which says a lot if many people depend on church for community and social welfare. Connections between sexual repression and abusive behavior have also been documented (2). As much as Christian morality denounces over-stimulation as unhealthy, lack of stimulation — whether knowledge of our bodies or just good fucking — does a whole lot of bad, too. It would be impossible to blame the US’s “isms” entirely on Christianity, but the propaganda does certainly reinforces them.

Within the cocoon of the San Francisco Bay Area, it’s easy to believe that radicalism has a chance to shape our society. Collectives are alive here; there are queer and anarchist people of color scenes, and protests regularly draw tens of thousands. But even if there were 500,000 post-lefties in the country, we are vastly outnumbered by the volume and communities of the right. Isolated, small town radicals may have a better idea of the work it will take to challenge the power and ideology of conservatism than Berkeley gardeners. So, engage the next bible seller you see, tell new creation stories, and send a spy to church if you can’t stand to go yourself. We can’t confront the Christians until we know enough to offer a real alternative.

(1) Miles has a great right wing survivalist page, endtimesreport.com. Besides avoiding the “mark of the beast,” he’s actually got good tips on self-sufficiency. (2) Eric Schlosser’s book “Reefer Madness” has a whole section on the porn industry & American bipolar attitudes toward

A year-round swimsuit season? Cool! Global warming is now an American household concept, thanks to compelling doomsday scientific evidence, myriad legislative and technology-based ‘solutions’ — and a dominant culture of consumption that doesn’t give a fuck about the end results of catastrophic climate change.

Is this the point at which radical activists can safely hand over the campaign to progressive lobbyists and industry leaders, who float rosy tales of stellar fuel efficiency standards, clean coal technology, and industrial emissions trading — the ultimate in green capitalism?

Radicals, our work continues to be crucial: we can put the concept of stopping emissions back in the public mindset — demonstrating that gradual improvement ultimately doesn’t work within a context that continues to prioritize economic growth above all else. With creative thinking, radical activists can supplement pragmatic approaches, emphasizing global warming as a systemic flaw in capitalism joining racism, classism, poverty, and environmental concerns on global scales.

Strangely, after decades of study, and increasing evidence that humans are altering the earth’s climate, the subject is still debated. Conservatives papers, like the New York Post, use blizzards and winters storms to joke that “it’s not getting any warmer!” They’re missing the point. Warmer average global temperatures don’t mean more pleasant days at the beach; the sobering consequences extend far beyond longer growing seasons and expanded access to Arctic shipping routes. Rising temperatures mean atmospheric chaos, manifesting in erratic weather patterns: severe droughts, heavy rainstorms, heat waves, more frequent hurricanes, mud slides, floods. The sea does not rise smoothly.

National and international climate scientists, including analysts at the Pentagon, agree that humans have caused air and ocean temperatures to rise over the past 50 years — essentially ruling out natural climate variation as the cause. Greenhouse gasses, like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, are emitted by almost every facet of industrial life, including driving, power generation, mass-scale farming, waste disposal, and of course many industries. Carbon dioxide is by far the most common greenhouse gas. Others, like sulfur hexaflouride (SF6), a popular non-toxic insulating gas here at ground level, are less prevalent than CO2 but absorb far more heat in the upper atmosphere. Deforestation is a major contributor to rising CO2 levels, as CO2-absorbing rainforest is converted into cash crop fields.

Scientists long thought that climate change happened gradually — presumably giving society time to adapt. But recent evidence from Arctic ice cores suggests that in fact climate change can happen very quickly, over the course of a few years!

Rising global temperatures could paradoxically lead to another ice age in some areas as soon as 2010-2020, while other areas get warmer. Temperatures could fall 5-6 degrees F in the northeastern United States and northern Europe, as the warm gulf stream is disrupted by fresh water from melting glaciers. In parts of South America, Australia, and southern Africa, temperatures could rise 4 degrees F.

According to a 2003 Pentagon analysis, which classifies the possible ice age as a national security priority, global chaos and war could break out soon after 2010. Britain could resemble Siberia, intense droughts could hit food producing areas, and wars could be fought over water. According to the Pentagon, rich areas like the US and Europe could become “virtual fortresses” to keep out waves of migrating “boat people” from the rest of the world (as if this wasn’t happening already).

How likely is this doomsday scenario? It is, of course, hard to say. The Pentagon report was designed to “think the unthinkable.” Although it was commissioned by leading Pentagon planner Andrew Marshall, it was not passed on to his superiors and was suppressed by the Bush administration.

The Pentagon approach suggests that we in the US have to stretch our minds in inconceivable directions to even imagine weather-related disasters common in other parts of the world. From the American position at the top of the food chain, it’s not at all “unthinkable” for Haiti or Bangladesh or some low-lying Pacific atoll country — unheard of except by locals and rich adventure eco-tourists — to be devastated by rising sea levels, heavy rainfall, and flooding.

Villages in the Himalayas are already being washed away, as mountain lakes formed by melting glaciers burst their natural dams and flood valleys. The Inuit in the Arctic face imminent destruction of their way of life as ice and permafrost melts, ending their access to food and collapsing roads and runways. People in poor countries everywhere, living on deforested hillsides, risk death as heavier rains cause mud slides and flooding.

But it is somehow shocking when south Florida is wiped out by hurricanes, or when mud slides cover homes in southern California — even though similar events happen here every few years. The same economy that is driving global warming has created an infrastructure in the US that can withstand extreme weather far better than a tent city housing migrant factory workers in, say, China, Malaysia, or Ciudad Juarez. But even apparently sturdy societal infrastructure is only as solid as the land upon which it rests. Driven by growth, development in the US is continually expanding into unstable ecological areas — like floodplains and the desert hills and mountains around LA — that leave even suburban Americans disaster prone.

Here in California, we are already seeing the effects of global warming in our water system. It’s likely that dams will have to be raised all over the state to store drinking and irrigation water, as warmer temperatures lead to less snow pack in the Sierras, and precipitation patterns become more chaotic. The Colorado River basin is experiencing the worst drought in 500 years, with effects worse than during the Dust Bowl.

US culpability

Since there’s no question that humans are causing catastrophic climate change, why is the mere reduction in industrial greenhouse gas emissions offered by fuel efficiency standards, clean coal technology, and industrial emissions trading an acceptable goal? Perhaps the point is to merely attempt to postpone global disaster a little bit, till the seawalls and concertina wire guarding Fortress America have been beefed up. “Sorry guys, we tried to pass that fuel efficiency bill, but the political atmosphere just wasn’t working with us?”

Better fuel efficiency standards are an obvious, reasonable idea, but they will only guarantee that each individual vehicle emits fewer greenhouse gasses per mile of driving. Automobile industry executives, and the current presidential administration, would still be happy if more people bought more cars and drove more miles every day, driving not only their new vehicles but presumably The Economy. This, in fact, is the essence of Bush’s porous approach to global warming, which advocates reducing “greenhouse gas intensity” by emitting fewer greenhouse gasses per unit of economic output — still allowing the total greenhouse gas output to increase.

Bush hopes to achieve this false reduction with the development of new, environmentally benevolent technology. This is humorous, because technology development is always shaped by who controls the development — in this case, the same capitalist class hell bent on burning every last bit of fossil fuel. The Bush administration recently awarded $1.2 billion for hydrogen-burning car development — hardly environmentally benign, despite lower greenhouse gas emissions. New technology always has unintended negative side effects, often not diagnosed for years after the technology has been in everyday use.

Furthermore, the US gov
ernment is very specific about how it invests in more “environmentally-friendly” technology. For example, approximately 850 new coal plants are scheduled to be built in China, India, and the US by 2012, which would spew almost 5 times as much carbon dioxide as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce, according to a study done by the Christian Science Monitor. Of the 72 plants likely to be built in the US, only 2 are currently designed to use cleaner coal technology, called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology, which would siphon off CO2 before it goes up the smokestack. The US Department of Energy says they want to continue developing new technology by 2012 — but funding for a key IGCC experimental program is missing in action! Even US ‘dirty coal’ plants are more efficient than those in China or India, who are planning 562 and 213 new plants, respectively. Both countries are scrambling to fuel ballooning economies — to the pleasure of international investors.

Capitalists responded to global warming typically, by opening the Chicago Climate Exchange in 2003. Member companies can trade reductions in their emissions — commodifying, and therefore approving, the right to pollute. The atmosphere, something that moves fluidly around the globe, can now be portioned off to companies — privatized. “Americans always felt their air and water was free,” Richard Sandor, CEO and founder of the Exchange, noted in the Christian Science Monitor. “But that’s just not true anymore and we felt we could apply that to markets.” When Company A reduces their emissions and sells the reduction to Company B, the people living around Company A benefit with cleaner air to breath. But those around B continue to suffer, and the emissions themselves, “rightfully” emitted, cannot be controlled. This capitalist mindgame is highly popular: the US market for sulfur emissions is now worth more than the US wheat market, and companies will soon begin to trade mercury emissions and even endangered species!

Are we screwed?

What does a radical, anti-capitalist campaign against global warming look like? We are in the middle of a major war geared towards securing access to oil — which will all eventually be burned into the atmosphere. Fossil fuel consumption irrevocably links the Iraq occupation and global warming. The dead Iraqis ultimately caused by that SUV driving down the street are sadly matched by dead Haitians, Inuits, 3,000 French people killed by a heat wave in 2003, and countless others. This is an issue at the intersection of almost every single-issue campaign: the environment, poverty, racism and classism on global scales. The commercial trucks that emit 13% of US carbon dioxide emissions also spew asthma-causing compounds into the frequently low-income communities near shipping centers, like West Oakland.

It is hard not to find the United States responsible for the devastation of climate change, despite industrial and economic growth apologists. The US contributes directly — due to massive greenhouse gas emissions — and indirectly, through resource mining, labor, and trade policies that destabilize lower-impact ways of life in favor of engorged economic growth. It’s not just the policies of the Bush administration that are to blame. The Affluent First World lifestyle, epitomized by the popularity of the Hummer, fuels this near-term time bomb. Almost everybody living in the US contributes to the country’s effect on global warming, whether we intend to or not, because greenhouse gas sources are the structural basis of our society. Societies with fewer emissions are less industrialized. The fight is both cultural and structural — what will create the cultural change of everybody retiring their refrigerators in favor of “old-fashioned” cold boxes? What will create the structural change to make driving unattractive on a mass scale? Radicals are very good at effecting change within our own communities — how can we help this change ripple very quickly across mass US culture?

There are hundreds of legislation-based “good ideas” that would limit greenhouse gas emissions on a mass scale, from fuel efficiency standards, emissions limits, increased funding for non-fossil fuel energy sources, public transportation. But legislation that comes out of an industrial power structure won’t ever fully stop industrial emissions. Emissions are a waste product of industry; capitalism is only interested in limits if they produce value in some way, like on the Climate Exchange. The severity of the scientific evidence, of our global environmental and social predicament, is not matched by gradual, within-the-system solutions to global warming. These approaches are limited by the weakness of the hands applying them.

Any activist work done to counter first world consumption is work against global warming, and any community organizing against potential environmental disaster is valuable in countless ways. Cuba has a well organized system of neighborhood response to hurricanes that helps prevent disasters like that in Haiti last summer, where the government was already destablized with US help. Organizing for a coming disaster — figuring out how to get fresh water and food in a non-industrial context, for example — is a good way to bring the serious consequences of global warming home to our neighborhoods and daily lives.

The climate has inertia — it takes a long time to see the effects of climate change. Sea levels will continue to rise for several hundred years after CO2 emissions are stabilized. Clearly, the earth is responding powerfully to the current weight of first world living — not to mention the burgeoning capitalist growth in China, India, and other parts of the world. Can radicals organize for community sustainability — and for the very real possibility of industrial collapse?

Slingshot is an independent, volunteer-run, more-often-than-quarterly radical newspaper published in the East Bay since 1988.

Though it sometimes appears that repression is increasing nationally and internationally and there’s little hope of political relief in the States any time soon, we’re gonna continue on with the paper. Every stone you throw is important, even against armored tanks. Eventually, there will be enough of us to use catapults.

In March, Slingshot turns 17 years old! Never coquettish, we’re proud to be outspoken and wacky.

Last issue, we put out a call for more submissions, and we’ve been inundated with ‘em. Having more material to create the paper does at least three things: it lets us focus more on layout and editing, usually raises the quality of material in the paper, and improves the political and geographical diversity. This issue’s articles are from authors in Tennessee, Thailand and Japan — as well as Berkeley and Oakland. So, we again urge you to send us your articles. Slingshot is part-you, part-us.

As you’ll notice, there’s a Spanish page in this issue! Thanks to the translators!!! We’d love more (or any!) Spanish or bilingual submissions.

Thanks to Holi (www.kontravisual.com) for the poster on page 11 and to Nikki McClure for the cover art (www.stellamars.com). Nikki cuts her pictures from paper using an x-acto knife! We love it when people send us fantastic art. In publishing these two pieces of art, we once again saw our archaic, pre-computerized, wax and scissors production methods running up against the sad, modern reality that publishing is all computerized now. How long can we hold out against the micro-chip tide? We don’t know for sure, but whereas it once was about our lack of money to buy computers, now its about soul. A digitized world is a cold lifeless world.

This issue was brought to you by beer, hot tubs, New Zealand stripies, and a fabulous quiche made from dumpstered eggs. Never pay for eggs in Alameda County!

As always, 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.

Herbs not the only abortion option

Hi slingshot-ers,

Thanks for the new organizer, i’m glad for the update in the back pages! no more west coast astrology charts (finally!!) & plus the inclusion of the periodical table rocks!

i am a anarcha-single-mom. i am excited to see stuff on relationships & more sex positive info.

i am concerned about some of the reproductive health care information. i come from a fiercly-pro choice backgrand & as a young mama myself & am now in medical skool…so i have done TONS of research about contraception & options if you’re pregnant.

first, i hope that next year you’ll include more on contraception (and more alternatives to penis vagina sex)

mostly, tho, i am concerned about the over-reliance on herbs as effective forms of birth control/abortifcants. i’ve noticed in the ecoanarcho-scene that there is a vibe that looks down on hormonal birth control, or even the IUD etc, as “not natural”. basically i think that a lot of folks in our scenes judge herbs as being the ultimate form of health care. i’ve seen SO many women get prego using “natural family planning” and SO many women’s herbal abortions fail. the most optimistic data i’ve read is that 50 % of herbal remedies work in preventing pregnancy. but, elsewhere i’ve read that herbal remedies (vit C, carrot seed, cohosh etc) are no better than placebos. basically, women are gunna get seriously shafted if they rely soley on this herb information (which, hey, hopefully no one is doing…but…)

its really important for me to make sure that women who are maybe unexpectedly pregnant make sure that they have a health care provider & a support system. Plan B is readily accessible in most major cities & college campuses, but if women wait a few days to see if their carrot seeds kick in, they aren’t going to have the time to take Plan B. (Also, plan B works upto FIVE DAYS…not 3…and in some cities is available thru a pharmacist, not just thru a doctor’s visit & is covered by most Medical Assistance.) anyhow, if women don’t want to deal with a pregnancy crisis we should not advocate carrot seeds as a radical remedy.

women need to know what to do when/if herbs don’t work & they want to terminate their pregnancy. there have been cases of women thinking that herbals, like cohosh, are working, because they’re cramping, when actually they have an ectopic pregnancy. this has resulted in at least one woman dying.

word. please include more information about women’s health! please remember that herbs, in general, don’t prevent pregnancy with high accuracy. if they did i can guarantee that no one would be unexpectedly pregnant. women need information about medical and surgical abortions too! we need more accurate info on how to mimic Plan B with birth control pills

(http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/BIRTHCONTROL/EmergContra.htm)

can you add a page about consent & contraception? abortion? parenting?

thanxxx

rebecca

Thanks, “Junkie”

i just wanted to write to let you know that i really enjoyed reading the article, “Junkie: We the People” in issue 83, Autumn 2004. i have had a history with drug use and while fortunately i never got into using anything harder than marijuana, i still ended up spending a summer in rehab at the end of my freshman year in high school. after that i got into the whole underground scene and decided to claim edge and until i went to college this last fall i kept that edge. but yeah, i just really liked what you said about seeing people not as junkies or as the stigmas society has created, because having been edge even after experiencing some of the struggles of drug use myself, i started to lose sight of that, and it wasn’t until recently that i realized what a closed-minded person i had become. and i still see a lot of alienation from the straight-edge kids toward those who are not. i don’t know, this turned out to be really scattered and somewhat incoherent, but i just wanted to let you know that i thought it was cool that you would write an article on this subject especially within a community that is (ironically) many times very closed minded to the free-thinking that you have displayed.

– colin

Support Radical Education! Send your zines!

Hello,

I’d like to request a subscription to Slingshot for Special English Program (SEP), a post-high school program in Umpium Mai Refugee Camp, Thailand, for Burmese refugees. The school has 100 adult students and is trying to build up the periodical library so students can learn about progressive politics.

Material with progressive/anarchist politics are especially useful because many of the students will do activist work in the community after graduation. We have a very limited budget so we were wondering if you and other indy publishers could donate subscriptions? Back issues would also be great.

The postal address is:

SEP School PO Box 114 Mae Sot, 63110 THAILAND

Please contact me if you need any more information and happy New Year.

In solidarity,

Dave

Activists in Europe are calling for a Global Day of Action July 5-8 2005 to coincide with the G8 Summit at Gleneagles, Perthshire, United Kingdom (Scotland, around 40 miles / 70 km from Edinburgh). The G8 is made up of the world’s most powerful capitalist countries which meet annually to coordinate the global economy. The summit, and ongoing activities throughout the year, involves communication between central bankers, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, think tanks and government finance ministers. The G8 shapes the lives of workers around the world with scant public participation. Much of the increasing trend towards a globalized world economy based on lowering wages, gutting environmental protection, increasing privatization, destroying local farming and dividing workers across boarders while uniting their bosses can be traced to the G8.

Dissent! Network in the UK has called for people to join the convergence in Scotland to disrupt the Summit, and for people to organize and take part in simultaneous actions in villages, towns and cities around the world.

The plan: On July 2 in Edinburgh: “Make Poverty History March”. July 3: “Protest at Dungavel Detention Centre” (Ayrshire). July 4 “Blockade of Faslane Nuclear Weapons Base” (Argyll) July 5: “Convergence on Gleneagles G8” (Perth) July 6th-8th, Gleneagle Hotel “Alternative Summit and Big Protests G8” (Perth) July 9: Gleneagle Hotel “Alternatives Concert.” (Perth)

For info, check out: www.agp.

org or www.pgaconference.org and www.dissent.org.uk or email info-g82005@riseup.net

Following up a successful 2003 Anarchist People of Color conference in Detroit, Michigan, the next Anarchist People of Color conference is being proposed for October 7-9, 2005 in Houston, Texas. Stay to the 10th to march against 500+ years of colonization on Monday October 10th (formally Colombus Day)!

Since the 2003 event, there have been APOC regional gatherings, new collectives and many projects, and we’re still going strong. Where are we as a unified movement? Come discuss community action, theory, internal struggles, external struggles, with the larger theme of “We are one, we are many, and we are a part of something bigger…”

Anarchism offers a dynamic ideology and methods of struggle against racism, poverty, police brutality, and other issues affecting peoples of color. We add ideals about building movements based on the masses of people rather than charismatic leaders, and building a new kind of radicalism recognizing that the political government is not our friend, nor is electoral activity a way to obtain our freedom. We will get our freedom and justice in the streets when we stand up and take back our communities from the white power structure. Finally, we present a new method of uniting all peoples of color against the common enemy, not just capitalism and the state, but white supremacy/European domination in all its forms.

As with the 2003 conference, the 2005 event is only open to people of color. Those sympathetic to the conference are encouraged to offer political support, solidarity and deep and honest understanding while we hold this conference and build our movement.

The conference will be kid friendly and some housing and travel assistance is available. There is a conference fee; no one turned away. For conference materials, downloadable flyers, information on how you can help, or anything else, visit www.illegalvoices.org/conference/. To participate, send your name, level of interest, commitment and what skills/committee you would like to contribute: conference@illegalvoices.org.

BASTARD (Berkeley Anarchist Students of Theory And Research & Development) will be hosting their 5th annual anarchist conference on March 27th, 2005. It will be in the East Bay again this year, at UC Berkeley. There is no set theme this year and BASTARD is currently seeking proposals for workshops. Proposals on all topics of interest related to anarchist theory are welcome. For more information or if you would like to propose a workshop please visit http://sfbay-anarchists.org/conference/ . Or, if you prefer, send a proposal to: BASTARD, 3124 Shattuck Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705.

I have been having a lot of great sex lately. But why am I sharing that information with you in this format? Well, I’ll tell you. In this political and historical climate, great sex can be a quite subversive, expansive, and radical mode of dismantling socializations and creating alternatives to mainstream drone culture. More and more, the christian right’s morals and limits are seeping into the larger culture. Take a look at fashion, security precautions, what is being passed off as education, entertainment, etc. This nauseating wave of puritanism and conservative values hangs in the air, almost un-noticed like the stale salty grease cloud present when passing a McDonald’s. Subtle, toxic, bland, unhealthy, normative. So when I heard Slingshot wanted an article on how to have great sex, I thought, “Hell, let’s queer it up and discuss perverting this political culture…time to fuck shit up- literally.” I have a disclaimer, which is: These are merely my opinions and results of my experiences that are subject to change. If my experience doesn’t work for you, please feel free to ignore and move on with your life.

And another thing, for clarity’s sake, I am not discussing relationship models here: polyamory, monogamy or non, multi-fidelity, self-sexing, sleeping around, etc. Who we do it with and how we negotiate these relationships is indeed a part of having great sex, don’t get me wrong. These preferences evolve and fluctuate. The intricacies are limitless and differ based on individual experiences. Therefore, discovering which models work for us, who we are attracted to, how we show it and how often, are personal choices I’d rather keep distinct from the issues I am about to go off on.

Okay, Sex. Comfort in one’s skin and sexuality, consent and self-care are an essential backdrop to this discussion. For me there is no way to have freeing sex if I am not actively checking in with myself and whoever I am having sex with about emotional and physical comfort and openness. If folks are shutting down, going on to the ceiling, disassociating or not that into it, then how the fuck can it be any good? Knowing what one wants is not easy, as we are taught very boring and limited sexualities in this culture. Part of what can make sex so revolutionary is discovering what it is we like and pushing ourselves (consensually of course) to and beyond our limits.

Here is where I go into 5 components that enhance my sex life. Hopefully this information is useful or at least entertaining. Some elements I have recently noted as being helpful to my sex life are laughter, role-play, gender fucking, lube, and physical boundary pushing.

Laughter

I laugh a lot during sex. Solo laughing is a recent addition to my sex life. It can be diverse; from a coy giggle, to a belly laugh, to laughing at myself at an awkward moment or just as a way to communicate joy. Oftentimes, new lovers are curious about why I am laughing. Am I laughing at them? What sparked that chuckle? My answers vary as what inspires a giggle really depends on what is going on. However, I always explain that I am not laughing at them and try to relieve any insecurities or anxieties my gaiety may bring up. Usually this is well received and may even inspire peals of relieved laughter. Plus laughter is contagious and can put folks more at ease. One may laugh solo or in unison w/ sex partners. For me, laughing with lovers during sex is different than spontaneously laughing as a release. Sometimes I laugh to relieve tension- not get so caught up in my “performance”. You know, seeming slick and skilled and oh so sexy. I mean honestly, what we are doing is goofy and silly and in fact hilarious. There is a myth that we should act a certain way during sex; virile, coquettish, animalistic, blasé, submissive, dominant, alluring etc. Laughing helps me hush those “you should be fill in the blank” voices. It neutralizes the tape-loops that play in my head, freeing me from self-imposed expectations of hotness based on media-inspired sources. Laughing is also a good way to express sensation. Noise in general during sex is, in my opinion, a fabulous added layer to events. Sound can act as a reflection of what is going on and also act as a release for the sensations being experienced; crying, screaming, moaning, gasping are all marvelous additions to this sex symphony. Something about laughing, for me, just enhances the intimacy and the experience in general.

Role- Play

Adding some drama to the scenario can provide many things: lessen other social/psycho/dramas that folks tend to drum up when the issue of sex arises, keep things interesting and creative, help explore different identities, help approach taboo subject matters, and be healing from past traumas, just to name a few. I notice that sometimes we get stuck in sex roles or sex acts. I encourage myself and others to not get stuck in roles like butch or femme or top or bottom or daddy or slave. I think those roles are awesome, but anything gets boring if not tweaked or switched up from time to time. It is very easy to stick with what we’re good at or cling to a role or identity out of habit or just plain comfort. Role-play can be a great way to challenge one’s rigidities and discover hidden perversions in a safe context.

Switching up roles is exactly as it sounds; availing oneself the opportunity to receive when previously being the provider; taking turns sucking and being sucked, biting and being bitten, slapping and being slapped, holding and being held, fucking and being fucked, you get the picture.

Story telling is another version of role-play. For me this includes setting up characters in a setting with a plot. It can get intricate with scripts or songs, heck even a dance routine. The important thing here is that everyone is okay with where the story goes. Also these scenarios can leave the bedroom and social norms. Here is where many taboos can be explored; intergenerational sex, and inter-species sex (you’ll be the farmer and I’ll be the livestock) are a few examples of such taboos. These games could challenge political and social norms in positive and smarty-panted ways. For me it is important to remember that this is fantasy and that these role-play scenarios set up safe consensual spaces for folks to go there consciously, critically, humbly and with an open mind.

Reading aloud can also be a fun way to explore roles. Reading stories, erotic or not aloud can absolutely add a certain something to the moment. It gives an added activity and focus and brings in more opportunity for fetishes. For example, reading an entomology dictionary, political theory, or porn to each other adds a certain geeky quality that can really do it for folks.

And finally drag, props and outfit sex. These dramatic elements can really heat up a moment. Messing with outfits and identities and incorporating them into a sex scene can be so erotic. Beyond changing the physical location, adding new physicalities can heighten the reality and challenging nature of a scene. In my experience, I could get hotted-out just by someone’s outfit, so incorporating costume changes works wonders in the bedroom. Just imagine what the addition of a mermaid outfit, a map, and kitchen utensils could add to your sex life.

Of course all these examples are not mutually exclusive and often get mixed up altogether; outfits, role-playing, story telling, reading aloud and whatever else you can think of, the more the merrier, sillier, nastier.

Gender-queerness

One element of my sex-life, with or without other people involved is fluid gender. As someone who travels many gender identities beyond anatomy in my day-to-day life, it follows suit that my sex life is a stage for non-binary- gendered bodies. When re-learning to have sex, I switched my focus away from stereotypical notions of genitals and genital contact. (Boys get blowjobs and girls get finger banged.) There is so much to play with and destroy, pervert, re-name. One lesson I have learned is that it is respectful and sexy
as hell to ask people what they call their body parts and how they want them touched. When opening-up what we consider erogenous zones, more conversations about re-imagining bodies, gender, society may become possible. Anybody can get a blowjob anywhere on their body and the same goes for finger banging. I try not to focus on genitals and orgasms but nerve endings and what turns them on and works also on an emotional level for a person. This concept helps me move away from the dualities of gender often put onto sexual situations. Expansion, re-defining and being aware of people’s boundaries are key in this realm and essential to my sex.

Lube

Why is it so revolutionary to be wet? Because we get taught how to have sex wrong. It is astounding to me how many people have sex without lubrication. The orifice does not matter, what matters is that it feels good. As a youngster, figuring out what to do with my parts, I was unaware of adding moisture. In my opinion, everything is better with lubrication, lots of it. As I get older, my commitment to maintain moisture increases and that is why lube made it to this list. Different folks like different qualities of lube, from sticky to slippery, gummy to smooth, chunky to creamy even. I would love for more people to experiment with different wetnesses and see what works best for their bodies. I imagine the world would be a more joyous place if that happened. Slip it in.

Pushing Self Limits

Like dismantling racism, sex can push us beyond comfort zones bequeathed to us by the dominant culture. Many things we are taught are dangerous or scary, nasty or off-limits can be explored safely in a sexual situation. Personal stories of abuse, neglect, self-hatred and other of the myriad of private struggles surface in this practice and what is good limit pushing for me may not at all be good for you in your process. It is important to go at our own paces with boundary pushing and not go places inappropriate to our own experiences. Many issues can come out with consensual boundary pushing; power dynamics, stereotypes to be de-bunked, pain thresholds, ideological differences, and the concept of the comfort zone in general. As a person who challenges norms, I find sex a wonderful place to keep pushing myself beyond the comfort zones of society at large. Recently one of the boundaries I have being pushing for myself has been the issue of cutting. In an extended knife-play scene, I asked to be cut. Health, safety, safer sex and self care strategies were well established and adhered to in this scene. Since then I have explored the many levels of emotions, trust healing and comfort in my sexual self through this and other forms of personal bounadry pushing in bed. I have hope that if we hold enough space for each other to expand these concepts, then maybe other forms of social and environmental change can manifest.