Category: Articles

Its amazing that Bush & Co. have been so successful in whipping up the current war frenzy given the hollowness of their main justifications for the proposed war. While we don’t want to rehash information that’s abundantly available everywhere, we thought a few “talking points” for discussing the war would be helpful as people everywhere continue, in millions of conversations with friends, neighbors, loved ones, co-workers, etc. to turn public opinion against the war. We believe the indications of general public support for the war are a mile wide and an inch deep, if a majority of the public supports war at all. When you really talk to people, its obvious that this is not our war — its a war pushed by elites for their own reasons, not a war necessary to “protect American freedom.” The crucial question is whether the raw public opinion, skepticism or opposition will really make any difference. In times like these, only mass, broad based popular non-cooperation may be capable of blocking the rush to war.

MYTH #1: The government needs to invade Iraq to protect the population of the United States

Governments always claim to act to protect their own populations when going to war, but this is seldom the case. More typically, the real beneficiaries of war are a tiny economic elite who stand to benefit from victory, military contractors, and government officials who increase their powers during time of war.

In the case of Iraq, the justifications for war are especially absurd. Iraq is a tiny country, thousands of miles from US soil. Even the government concedes that Iraq is incapable of directly attacking US soil. Instead, Bush & Co. pull out manufactured dangers — that Iraq will arm terrorists (see discussion below). Bush even argues that Iraq is a threat to US pilots who are flying missions over the no-fly zone in Iraq — not much danger if they weren’t there in the first place!

MYTH #2: The government needs to invade Iraq to free the oppressed people of Iraq and promote freedom and democracy abroad

Governments in general don’t promote freedom and democracy — they are created to constrain individual freedom to permit economic elites to dominate. In the case of the United States, this is especially easy to see. The US has a remarkable history of propping up brutal dictators when it fits US interests, without regard to legitimacy, freedom, human rights or democracy. The crucial question for US government officials is whether the dictator in question is willing to play ball, not whether a particular regime was elected or whether it tortures or murders its own people.

Moreover, the United States has a terrible history when it comes to using covert or overt military force for “regime change.” More often than not, the US installs extremely brutal dictators who will create stability for US economic interests. For example, the CIA assisted in the coup that deposed the democratically elected (but leftist) government of Salvador Allende in Chile. Following “regime change” Augusta Pinochet ruled Chile with an iron first for decades.

US officials have tacitly admitted that following “regime change” their main interest will be installing a government to keep Iraq from splitting apart. Iraq was artificially created by colonial powers and includes Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims and Kurds — competing ethnic groups that could splinter the country without a strong central authority. The US is not going to let democracy prevail in a post invasion Iraq if that means civil war and turmoil in the region, threatening the security of US ally Turkey and aiding US enemy Iran.

MYTH #3: The government needs to invade Iraq to prevent another September 11 because Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda

Bush administration officials have repeatedly claimed that Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda, but have refused to provide evidence or have provided misleading evidence. On October 7 Bush claimed: “We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making, poisons, and deadly gases.”

In response to these claims, Rahul Mahajan, author of The New Crusade: America’s War on Terrorism, notes “Saddam Hussein sees the radical Islamist terrorist networks like al-Qaeda as a huge potential threat to his own rule, something that concerns him far more than any unrealistic ideas of revenge against the United States. Anything that could allow al- Qaeda (which, in its turn, is likely more concerned with replacing regimes in the Middle East with new radical Islamist regimes) to blackmail him would be the last thing he would give them.”

James Jennings, president of Conscience International, further observed “The claim that al-Qaeda is in Iraq is disingenuous, if not an outright lie. Yes, the U.S. has known for some time that up to 400 al-Qaeda-type Muslim extremists, the Ansar al-Islam, formerly ‘Jund al-Islam,’ a splinter of the Iranian-backed Islamic Unity Movement of Kurdistan, were operating inside the Kurdish security zone set up under U.S. protection in the North of Iraq. For some reason this was kept quiet and has not been much reported in the mainstream media. Finally last Spring the Kurds themselves attacked and killed most of the terrorists in their territory, sending the rest fleeing for their lives across the border into Iran. Since this area was under U.S. protection, and not under Saddam Hussein’s rule, it’s pretty hard to claim that al-Qaeda operates in Iraq.”

The reality is that if Bush could show ANY concrete ties between Iraq and the September 11 terrorists or Al Qaeda in general, he would be anxious to offer specific evidence as justification. Unfortunately for Bush, Saddam and al Qaeda aren’t cooperating because they aren’t allies. Just because people are anti-American doesn’t make them friends.

MYTH #4: The government needs to invade Iraq to protect people in the United States from weapons of mass destruction held by Iraq

In fact, there is abundant evidence that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq will endanger, not protect, US citizens from the use of WMD because Saddam would have “nothing to lose” should he be pre-emptively attacked .

October 8, Senator Bob Graham, the chairman of the Senate panel, read from a letter sent to him by CIA chief George Tenet. In that note, Tenet reported the CIA had concluded that “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological weapons] against the United States.” The CIA, according to Tenet, also had determined, “Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.” And the Agency found, “Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.” The bottom-line: Saddam is not likely in the near future to hit the United States or share his weapons with al Qaeda or other anti-American terrorists, unless the United States assaults Iraq, because his main priority is protecting his own power in Iraq.

Its also crucial to point out that a US attack is likely to destabilize the middle east, if not the whole world. Latent tension between Arab states and Israel could easily be inflamed as the bombs fall.

MYTH #5: The US has no alternative to attacking Iraq because they are tying to develop weapons of mass
destruction

In fact, many countries around the world have developed or are developing weapons of mass destruction, yet Bush is only pushing an attack on Iraq. North Korea’s recent announcement of their weapons of mass destruction program is particularly instructive — no preemptive US strike is under consideration. If possessing nuclear weapons were such a concern, the U.S. would be pushing the UN to authorize weapons inspectors to enter Pakistan, Israel, China, France and Britain. Its also interesting to note that the US has the world’s largest stockpile of all forms of WMD. These weapons — no matter which government possesses them — are a huge threat to human beings seeking to live in peace everywhere. Bush doesn’t care about removing weapons or limiting militarism generally — just using it as a pretext when its convenient.

Its outrageous that Bush argues its necessary to preemptively attack Iraq because of the dangers posed by its development of Weapons of Mass Destruction when the US government was so instrumental in helping Iraq develop its weapons of mass destruction program in the first place.

During the 1980s, the Reagan and first Bush Administrations sought to “contain” Iran by funding and supporting Iraq’s war of aggression against Iran. The support included intelligence assistance and the facilitation of arms sales. The US also helped Iraq obtain international loans to finance the war. As part of this effort, the US government permitted Iraq to purchase computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Much of this purchasing was from private US firms who profited from the slaughter of Iranians and Iraqis alike. Moreover, many of the persons involved with this deadly trade are now ironically pushing for war against Iraq. For example, Secretary of Defense and war hawk Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1985 and met with Saddam Hussein as a private businessman on behalf of the Reagan administration.

In the 1980s, Brent Scowcroft, chairman of the president Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, served as Vice Chairman of Kissinger Associates until being appointed as National Security Advisor to the first President Bush in January 1989. Congressperson Henry Gonzalez concluded that “Until October 4,1990, Mr. Scowcroft owned stock in approximately 40 U.S. corporations, many of which were doing business in Iraq.” Scowcroft’s stock included that in Halliburton Oil, also doing business in Iraq at the time, which was until recently run by current Vice President Dick Cheney. Scowcroft companies, according to Gonzalez, “received more than one out of every eight U.S. export licenses for exports to Iraq. Several of the companies were also clients of Kissinger Associates while Mr. Scowcroft was Vice Chairman of that firm.”

Kissinger Associates helped US companies obtain US export licenses so Iraq could purchase US weapons and materials for its weapons programs. US government approved sales of large varieties of chemical and biological materials to Iraq. These included anthrax, components of mustard gas, botulinum toxins (which causes paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing and is often fatal), histoplasma capsulatum (which may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules), and a host of other nasty chemicals materials.

The contemplated war on Iraq is just another example of the US belatedly seeking to destroy the dictator/security threat which it, in fact, created. The US corporate, military industrial machine favors dictators because they provide internal political stability for US economic interests, as well as sources of cheap labor and materials. As was the case in Afganistan, the US policies of the 80s are now coming back to haunt the world, once again showing how the cure is worse than the problem, or at least just as bad.

The United States government sees it all as a big geo-political game, in which dictators and bullies get armed to fight other dictators, and then must be knocked down. People, life, human rights, democracy — none of it really seems to matter as the US deals death and destruction like it was boxes of widgets.

The real danger to world security — to your personal safety as you sit at home in the United States — is the United States government. The US has the world’s biggest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, and we’re supporting nuclear armed regimes around the world who oppress their people, just like Saddam. When you play violent games that emphasize power and violence and death, you create a world in which the chickens may come home to roost.

Natural gender

This is the third in a series of diary entries written by trans folks for Slingshot about their experiences.

Transsexuals’ use of hormones and surgery is particularly misunderstood within the anarchist community and without. Changing one’s gender to man, woman, androgyne, etc. is perhaps somewhat understandable as some hip anarcho-queer phenomenon, but physically, permanently changing one’s body seems like a capitulation to patriarchal views of the body, little more than the ‘beauty myth’. Perhaps transsexuals really are just a product of 20th century plastic surgery and endocrinology, confused souls who are taking their resistance to traditional gender roles a bit too far. Shouldn’t we strive towards erasing gender roles from our minds, instead of modifying our bodies? In fact, by changing bodies, are transsexuals actually perpetuating traditional relations of gender to body type? Can’t you just accept your body and be yourself, naturally?

The desire to change gender and/or sex is probably a combination of genetic and cultural factors. In a utopian anarchist world, some of these factors, like strict gender roles, would not exist. Even these days, surgery and hormones are not the answer to silly ideas of binary gender. But people are pressured by the requirements of gender in existing society, to conform for safety, using existing tools. Society holds on to gender ideals strongly; people are very threatened by breach of these ideals. Even people who would like an ambiguous or self-defined body, may be forced to modify body for safety to fit current realities. To ask people not to do this, in the name of revolution, is asking people to face potential violence, gang rape and death. Activists who feel conflicted about a person’s use of surgery, hormones, and other body modifications should direct their critical energy at the society that forced confinement within specific gender roles and body types, rather than at the person trying to break free and respond to their true self. We should understand ourselves beyond our survival aids.

People have always changed their gender and bodies in response to both personal feeling and cultural beauty standards. Instead of seeing people as the norm or the other, a revolutionary vision should consider a whole spectrum of body types, of ways of being human. In a revolutionary society people would have complete control over their own bodies and have full responsibility for modifying, creating, and destroying them as they see fit. We have to subvert western allopathic medicine and the system that dictates gender and sex roles. Isn’t surgery just one more body modification, one more art?

In a brutal attack, Bay Area transgendered teenager Gwen Araujo was murdered by classmates at a party in her hometown of Newark, 50 miles south of Berkeley.

She is not alone. Hate crimes have significantly risen since September 11, 2001. Violence against transgendered people went up 41% between 2000 and 2001, according to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.

Across the country, and the world, people continue to believe that others– trans or not– are less than human, and that their lives are cheap. Would it be less shocking if a trans person was murdered in Montana or Mexico? Is this murder more tragic than the rash of homicides– approaching 100– in Oakland this year? The transgender revolution fights on all fronts.

People everywhere are struggling against the social demons that get in the way of people living their lives freely. We call for solidarity between people hurt and outraged by Gwen Araujo’s murder and all others. There were thousands of people in the streets of both Fremont and San Francisco protesting Araujo’s death. What if people took to the streets each time somebody was killed, making homicides not just one more aspect of everyday life? Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown’s proposal to put 100 more cops on the streets will only further ingrain violence and repression into the fabric of life. People coming together in the streets send messages of support to survivors of violence and of intolerance to people who think violence is a necessary part of society. It also reminds city administrations that they should focus on the community support, not on community repression.

We respectfully stand up for Gwen Araujo and all others who have been attacked for living true to themselves.

Disabled People Within the Anarchist Vision

Ben is an anarchist who has been a personal care attendant for several years, and is not physically disabled herself.

Imagining how disabled people would get along in an anarchist society is a useful reality check for anarchist visions. Buildings and organizations– society as whole– can be organized to be accessible to the widest section of society possible. The questions shift focus from specific groups, from “Can wheelchairs get in? Can blind people use it?” to “Can everybody use it?” These principles, called universal design, do not pretend to meet every single person’s needs. Instead, the idea is for design to be fluid. Every time you encounter a barrier, you tweak the design to serve a broader population without cutting anybody out.

These days, people have a whole range of disabilities, including mental, physical, visible, and invisible disabilities, and an equally great range of needs. Instead of thinking in black and white terms of disabled vs. able-bodied, for an anarchist vision it is more useful to think about a whole spectrum of ways of being human.

Manual wheelchairs are not that different from bicycles, ever popular in low-tech visions of the future. To get around, physically disabled people rely on a range of mobility equipment: wheelchairs, walkers, ventilators, etc. While all these things can be built as simple mechanical devices, equipment is increasingly computerized. More sophisticated technology can meet more specific needs, but requires more specialized repair and parts. While some of this sophistication is helpful, some of it is pushed by corporations at the expense of the disabled person. For example, a sensitive, light-weight, programmable joist-stick means that somebody with a limited range of movement can drive their own wheelchair. If a person can pull more easily than they can push with their hand, the joist stick can be programmed so that pulling it backwards makes the chair go forward. But some people might want less specialized, less expensive equipment that is easier to repair.

Would an anarchist society include more generalized equipment, expecting other people to step in where machinery won’t do the trick? How would an anarchist society balance resource use and technological advancement with the potentially oppressive nature of technology? What is appropriate technology in this context?

People set their own limits for how much they are willing to rely on others. Communities and ecosystems limit resources and time available for technological tinkering. Philosophically speaking, appropriate technology balances these limits. In a society based on both individual freedom and community cooperation, it is easy to envision utopian engineers designing equipment to meet each persons’ needs, out of eco-friendly materials, and scores of friendly, respectful, skilled attendants on time every morning to get their client out of bed.

But to people already potentially burned by insensitive aspects of the anarchist community, this vision seems little more than a pipe dream. Chanting ‘Fuck the Corporations” might mean little more than frustration to somebody who relies on corporations to make a wheelchair, ventilator, tubing, leg bag, etc. Like all profit-oriented corporations, equipment producers don’t necessarily have the best interest of their clients in mind; they make disabilities into products. But where else are these things available? There are few, if any, anarchist or independent equipment manufacturers. These things are rarely available in dumpsters, and cannot be made in an afternoon free school class. Anarchist communities’ slow process of organizing community support infrastructure is laughable to people who rely on attendants to get out of bed each morning.

Community understanding and support is essential as disabled people refute the medicalization of their bodies. Western alopathic medicine, and to some extent western society as a whole, views disabled people as broken humans who, because they are ‘unfixable’ and ‘nonstandard’, are provided substandard healthcare. For instance, there are very few breast cancer clinics that will see women with disabilities. Doctors are concerned first with the person’s disability, and often completely ignore other health problems. Hospital staff rarely has the training to work with disabled people’s bodies, transfering them from chair to exam table, etc. The disability rights movement continues to fight for visibility, in healthcare and all parts of life.

While diagnosing a problem is an important step in solving it, healthcare issues are only one aspect of many that define every person’s life. In this sense, people with disabilities are links in a spectrum of humanity, encompassing a whole range of bodies and minds. When you consider the vast range of conditions that are labeled disabilities-mental, physical, visible, invisible-the spectrum is clear. Who does not need assistance at one time or another?

Many of us become active because we see things that outrage us. We want to change them. Unfortunately, our good intentions tend to dissolve in a reactionary activism that falls short of recognizing the depth of what we are fighting against. If we see a homeless person and have a surging feeling that we need to help them we may do one of several things. We can give them change from our pocket, give them a less insulting sum of money, or become truly affected and strive to change the system that creates this situation. The eradication of the root causes, hierarchy and capitalism, is the only fight that will bring revolution as opposed to revolutionary acts which will not necessarily create fundamental change.

Dedication to eradication of hierarchy and capitalism requires that one follow a certain course.

The first step to revolution is confronting yourself. Many people tend to disregard this step or claim that they have experienced it while in reality they are shamelessly perpetuating hierarchy within their radical community. Oftentimes knowledge of current events and history is mistaken for awareness.

Looking at oneself and changing socialized behaviors that reflect fears and insecurities which are partially responsible (along with structural factors) for institutions such as sexism, homophobia, and racism is no small task. This means confronting fears, studying dynamics in relationships, and if followed through it means having a transformative experience and breaking free of the power of socialization. In doing so one gains control over his/her own socialization (it never disappears) and is able to change his/her behavior. Like any major life transformation there is a high price to pay. The difficulty of facing personal flaws and affecting and losing relationships are two examples why many radicals do not fully realize this step before becoming involved in activism.

Being social beings, once awareness has been raised there is a desire to share what has been learned with others. The next step is to take that feeling and educate as many people as possible. It is not going to a demonstration but the impassioned education of those in ones community that will change the system. This step can be characterized as interpersonal transformation or simply as raising awareness.

Once awareness has been raised in a community the question of those who have taken personal responsibility becomes “what can we do?” This is the closest we have ever come to seeing revolution. This joining together of dedicated revolutionaries can and has led to amazing organizing and group work. The Zapatistas are a formidable example of revolutionary organizing. This is the difference between an activist and a revolutionary.

This leads us to the unknown final step in reaching revolution. Unknown because it has never existed. When a large enough transformation takes place and it is a movement of people who truly have experienced the aforementioned steps, then there is a strong basis for a true revolutionary movement: a movement that is truly committed to changing the system and eradicating hierarchy. A revolution under any other circumstances will only be a tiring repetition of age-old struggles for power with varying levels and appearances of oppression.

Portland Anarchist Black Cross’ Community Transport Project

The Anarchist Black Cross seeks to bring attention to the plight of all prisoners and to inspire an Anarchist resistance and support movement on the outside. We fund-raise on behalf of prisoners or defense committees in need of funds for legal cases or otherwise, and organize demonstrations of solidarity with imprisoned Anarchists and other prisoners.

What could bring Socialists, Anarchists, Feminists, and Marxists together? A collaborative project developed by the Anarchist Black Cross in Portland (ABC-PDX) called the Community Transportation Project.

The program addresses the dilemma of prisoners from urban areas who are serving their time in prisons located in far-away rural areas. If an inmate’s family or support persons can’t afford a car, they have to ride a bus for hours and then take a cab to the prison, which are rarely served by city bus routes. This in itself is financially problematic for many people; families who labor under economic challenges find visiting nearly impossible on a regular basis. Prisoners who cannot maintain a connection with their family and community are more likely to be sent back to prison after they’re released.

The project is designed to encourage frequent visits to prisons by families and support people by providing transportation at little or no cost. In doing so, ABC-PDX believes that prisoners who wish to stay tied into their community can. “We also aim to be a vehicle of advocacy for family and friends who often feel confused and disempowered or fear that questioning the authorities will harm their incarcerated loved one. More importantly, we bring families and concerned individuals together to talk about problems they encounter. It is from these conversations that solutions are designed and implemented by those affected,” says a volunteer for the project.

To find out more about the Community Transportation Project and how you can help please contact: ABC NET-PDX at: (503)449-8287, abcpdx@yahoo.comPO Box 4392 Portland, OR 97208-4392.