Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Then it happened again...

The Second Water War in Bolivia
By Jim Shultz
Cochabamba, Bolivia -- Five years ago the issue of water privatization exploded here when massive public protests forced out the California engineering giant, Bechtel. Within weeks of taking over the city's public water company Bechtel hiked up rates by as much as 200%, far beyond what the city's poor could afford to pay.

Now a new Bolivian water revolt is underway 200 miles north in the city of El Alto, a growing urban sprawl that sits 14,000 feet above sea level and is populated by waves of impoverished families arriving from the economically desperate countryside.

As in Cochabamba, the public water system of El Alto and its neighbor La Paz, the nation's capital, was privatized in 1997 when the World Bank made privatization of water a condition of a loan to the Bolivian government. The private consortium that took control of the water, Aguas del Illimani, is owned jointly by the French water giant, Suez, and a set of minority shareholders that includes, among others, an arm of the World Bank.

Community groups in El Alto charge that by pegging rates to the dollar, the company has raised water prices by 35% since it took over. The cost for new families to hook up their homes to water and sewage totals more than $445, an amount that exceeds more than six months of income at the national minimum wage.

More seriously, El Alto water advocates and the government say, the company has left more than 200,000 people with no possibility of access to water at all by failing to expand water infrastructure to the municipality's growing outskirts. "Without water there is no life so really it is life that the company is depriving the people of El Alto," says Julian Perez, an advisor to the Federation of El Alto Neighborhoods.

Lack of access to clean water is a chief cause of child illness in Bolivia, where nearly one in ten children dies before age five. Families living in El Alto's outskirts rely on water from wells which advocates say are contaminated with industrial waste.

"Aguas de Ilimani committed to cover all of the city of El Alto and they haven't done it," says Perez. Community organizations are now organizing for a massive public action in January to take back the water company by force, unless the Bolivian government initiates a process to cancel Suez' contract and put the El Alto water company back in public hands.

"Once the people begin to mobilize we will continue to the final battle," warns Perez. "We will win or we will lose."

The company disputes the charge that it has left large numbers of residents without water service. It estimates the number of people living in areas outside the network to be about 30,000 and says it is not required to extend service to them. "That's where the contractual obligations of the concession end," said Alberto Chávez Vargas, the company's director of operations. "You can't assign the company with obligations that are outside the contract."

Bolivian government officials agree with the community groups that the Suez contract has failed the people of El Alto. "The contract is unacceptable. It leaves 200,000 people without water," says Jose Barragán, the Vice Minister of Basic Services who has been negotiating with the El Alto groups. "If the company is willing to expand service to 200,000 people then we can talk about it. If Aguas de Ilimani isn't prepared to solve the problem I'll join with the people in El Alto and demand that the company leave."

Cochabamba's experience five years ago casts a shadow over the new water revolt brewing to the north. Both the government and community leaders say they want to resolve the dispute without the kind of government repression and violence that left one 17 year old boy dead and more than a hundred others wounded. Cochabamba water leaders are also in active communication with their counterparts in El Alto.

"The taking of installations by force would be a demonstration of legal insecurity and consequently could be considered a lack of compliance with the contract [on the part of the government]," adds Chávez Vargas. "That would obligate the company to take all of the legal actions required to claim its rights."

The Cochabamba revolt and its aftermath, however, also holds a lesson for Suez and its co-owners. After Bechtel was forced to leave, the company and its fellow shareholders filed a $25 million legal action against Bolivia, in a secretive trade court operated by the World Bank. That demand - which far exceeds all reasonable estimates of the company's investment - has drawn a firestorm of international protest and caused substantial damage to Bechtel's public reputation.

Last week Barragán, who is also in charge of dealing with the Bechtel case, revealed that the company wants to drop its demand, in exchange for a token payment equal to thirty cents. According to Barragán, Bechtel's exit is being held up by one its partners in the Cochabamba water company, the Abengoa corporation of Spain. Abengoa now finds itself in the sights of social justice groups worldwide who are pressuring the Seville-based corporation to drop its demand for millions of dollars from Bolivia's poor. El Alto groups warn that Suez will also soon find itself walking in Bechtel's footsteps - a target of both local protest and international pressure.

Regardless of whether the people of El Alto succeed in forcing Suez to leave, the issue will remain, as it has in Cochabamba - where will the funds come from to provide poor families basic access to safe water. The cost of providing water and sewage hookups to the homes that lack them in El Alto would cost as much as $25 million, on top of the costs of expanding the basic water infrastructure to the city's new neighborhoods.

In cities like Cochabamba and El Alto it is clear that poor water users can not pay the full costs of water at the market prices demanded by private companies. Cross-subsidies from wealthier water users to poor ones can help but still don't come close to covering the enormous costs of constructing water systems. Neither can a poor nation like Bolivia afford to cover water costs out of its national treasury, which already falls short of covering other basics such as heath and education.

In 2002 the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights declared, "The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. Water, and water facilities and services, must be affordable for all." In Bolivia and elsewhere the question remains: Who will help the poor pay the bill?

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Dark is still playing political resistance information catch up...

The Water War in Bolivia
Pablo Solon
Bolivia is a country located in the heart of South America. During 15 years in Bolivia were privatized nearly all the companies and services: electricity, air transportation, hydrocarbons, mining, forest resources, telecommunications, etc.

Until the Water War, Bolivia was an example for the World Bank and the IMF.


A great social conflict in the city of Cochabamba and other big battle in September of that year in La Paz stopped the privatization processes:

* The contract that privatized in favor of the Bechtel the water public service in Cochabamba was broken. The Bechtel is one of the biggest American Water Company.
* It was modified substantially the law of drinking water and sanitary sewer.
* The drinking water service returned to the municipality of Cochabamba.
* Another project of water law that wanted to privatize all uses of water was withdrawn.

Why the water awoke Bolivia?

If a person can't travel by plane, he travels by bus, if a person can't pay the electrical light he uses a sail, if a person can't eat meat, he just eats simple soup, but what happens if one loses the access to water? He die's! "The water is life and nobody can be taken out from life". This is the force of water.

This element that is present in most of the urban societies is reinforced in Bolivia by the vision of the peasant communities and indigenous groups.

For the Aymaras, Quechuas and Guaranies the water is the blood of the "Pachamama", of the mother earth. To speak of privatizing, commodification and giving price to water is going against centuries of social managing of water. When it was approved the water drinking law and was subscribed the contract with Aguas del Tunari-Bechtel they went against centuries of uses and mores of the indigenous and peasants communities.

Which were the causes of the conflicts?

* The privatization of the public service of drinking water in Cochabamba and the authorization to raise tariffs in an order from 40% to 300%.
* The attempt to expropriate hundreds of small suburban system of drinking water in order to assure the monopoly to the big Corporation.
* The intention to give to the transnational the water resources of the peasant communities.

These measures were established in the contract with Aguas del Tunari-Becthel and in the drinking water Law 2029 that was approved by the parliament in less than 48 hours. An important fact that explains why they were in such a hurry to approve this law is that leaders from the political parties of government and the opposition were part of the Aguas del Tunari-Bechtel Company.

The signature of the Contract was made in September 1999 and a month later was approved the law of drinking water. In December began the first protests, in January 2000 there was the first blockade in the roads, in February there was a great confrontation in the city and the land, and in April we had a real civil war.

The sectors that reacted were:

* The people that were opposed to the tariffs increase.
* The inhabitants of the neighborhoods that were afraid to lose their small water systems because the monopoly rights were given to the Transnational Company.
* The peasants, the coca producer and the communities that wanted to defend their water resources to which they had have access for centuries.

All these sectors were grouped in the "Coordinadora de Defensa del Agua y de la Vida de Cochabamba". This organization emerged in November 1999 and in a couple of weeks had absolute power.

In April 2,000 the contract with Aguas del Tunari-Bechtel was broken and the water drinking law was modified in 38 of its 82 articles. Today the new law carries the number 2066.

In September 2000, another conflict with blockades in the roads surrounding the City of La Paz toke place during 20 days, and withdrawn another privatizing water law project.


The social conflicts in April and September 2.000 had the result of 9 dead and a hundred of injured some very serious, dozens of prisoners and confined and a state of siege that lasted just a few days because of the protest strength.

Because of the destruction of highways and roads during the blockades the Country lost $90 million dollars and another $ 70 million dollars were lost in goods that couldn't be sold because of the blockades.

The responsibility of the WB, the IMF and the IADB

Certainly the responsible for this result were the national authorities that approved these contracts and laws. However, the government position was supported by multilateral institutions.

As an example of the international pressure let me read this press article published in the newspaper "El Diario" the 1 of July 1997.

Multilateral organizations press the Government


The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank will define the next week, the actions in favor of Bolivia, if the Government privatizes the water service in Cochabamba, says president of Bolivia Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada.

The condonation of 600 million dollars of multilateral debt from Bolivia, on be half of World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), could be executed until the next week, if it's concluded the privatization program of the water drinking company in Cochabamba (SEMAPA)

We want to outline the case of Bolivia in the World Water Forum of next year in order to demonstrate that the World Water Vision that was approved in the Netherlands drives to these wars and confrontations that none of us wants.


The biggest problem that the "Coordinadora" is facing is the management of the public drinking water company in Cochabamba (SEMAPA). One thing is to speak against the privatization and another to manage a company that has the challenge to go from 50% to 100% in the coverage of the service.

The enemy hasn't sleep since April 2000:

* The Bechtel Company tries to collect a compensation of 25 million dollars from Bolivia even dough they only invested during 7 months less than a million dollars.
* The government defers the approval of the bylaws for the new law we conquered in order to avoid its full implementation.
* The government and the neoliberal parties sabotage systematically the public drinking company SEMAPA to demonstrate that the "Coordinadora" is inefficient and that the privatization is the only way.
* The government is using more and more repression against the social protests and following up the American Embassy instructions in order to open trials against the principal leaders.

Political and private groups are trying to approve an underground exportation water law from a very dry part of Bolivia to the mining companies in Chile. Today, this is the new chapter of the water war in Bolivia. If the government and the corporations achieve to approve a water exportation law, even only in part of Bolivia, the privatization and commodification of water will have won a decisive battle.

We are conscious that our conquests can't be assured if we don't change the political system in Bolivia. Therefore, the "Coordinadora" is struggling for a Constituent Popular Assembly, so that people can decide without the need of political parties, how should our Country be organized and ruled.


The water war in Bolivia is a prelude of the water war in the world. During these two last years the warriors of life and water in Bolivia have arrived to the conclusion that it's not possible to defeat definitely the privatization of water within the national frontiers. The water is a vital resource that goes trough frontiers and continents. What we need is a Universal Statement of Water as well as there is a Universal Statement of Human Rights. We have to advance toward an International Treaty of Water that establishes:

* the water belongs to all the living species including humans and the earth it self
* nobody can privatized what belongs to everybody,
* the water can't be treated as a merchandise,
* The assignment of water resources must be given through solidarity mechanisms in harmony with the nature.

Dear audience. There is a danger that we must defeat before it's to late. This danger is the international exportation of water. If this continues under international corporate rules the privatization and commodification would have won. We need an international campaign in order to defeat this threat, and we must discuss concrete action in this sense.
To conclude allowed me to remember the soul and the courage of all the water warriors that have been killed in Bolivia and the world.

Thank you very much

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

I haven't drawn any cunts recently...maybe i'll colour some....

cunt coloring book

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

I don't need don't need labiaplasty...we don't need labiaplasty...

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Female genital circumcision is considered backward but...

...if the cutting is done not for religious reasons but for aesthetic ones, then wanting to be "neat" and "tidy" is more acceptable. yup. o. kay.

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

People ask questions that sound intelligent...

...but what they're not saying in a forthright manner is that the governments and corporations combined would only engage in this kind of commerce, putting price ahead of the public's health, the public good, if they thought we were dispensable...if they didn't mind killing many of us.

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

GMO corn, mean ass mercenaries, world wide computer systems and the amerikkkan state....

Machines of War: Blackwater, Monsanto, and Bill Gates

Silvia Ribeiro
La Jornada

A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation (Blackwater's Black Ops, 9/15/2010) revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto. Blackwater was renamed in 2009 after becoming famous in the world with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians. It remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State "security services," that practices state terrorism by giving the government the opportunity to deny it.

Many military and former CIA officers work for Blackwater or related companies created to divert attention from their bad reputation and make more profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training - for other governments, banks and multinational corporations. According to Scahill, business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, are channeled through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share Blackwater.

One of them, Cofer Black, known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA, was the one who made contact with Monsanto in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence, entering into the contract with the company to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant.

Contacted by Scahill, the Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, but later confirmed to The Nation that they had hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009, according to Monsanto only to keep track of "public disclosure" of its opponents. He also said that Total Intelligence was a "totally separate entity from Blackwater."

However, Scahill has copies of emails from Cofer Black after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become "Monsanto's intelligence arm," spying on activists and other actions, including "our people to legally integrate these groups." Total Intelligence Monsanto paid $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009.

No wonder that a company engaged in the "science of death" as Monsanto, which has been dedicated from the outset to produce toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds, is associated with another company of thugs.

Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of "philanthropy." Another association that is not surprising.

It is a marriage between the two most brutal monopolies in the history of industrialism: Bill Gates controls more than 90 percent of the market share of proprietary computing and Monsanto about 90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed. There does not exist in any other industrial sector monopolies so vast, whose very existence is a negation of the vaunted principle of "market competition" of capitalism. Both Gates and Monsanto are very aggressive in defending their ill-gotten monopolies.

Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really "donating" anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their "donations" finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. What a coincidence, former Secretary of Health Julio Frenk and Ernesto Zedillo are advisers of the Foundation.

Like Monsanto, Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the "Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa" (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM). To this end, the Foundation hired Robert Horsch in 2006, the director of Monsanto. Now Gates, airing major profits, went straight to the source.

Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates are three sides of the same figure: the war machine on the planet and most people who inhabit it, are peasants, indigenous communities, people who want to share information and knowledge or any other who does not want to be in the aegis of profit and the destructiveness of capitalism.

* The author is a researcher at ETC Group

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Forced to consent to completely draconian bail conditions or be placed in solitary confinement...

hmmm...i don't think that resistance post g20 occupation in toronto is ready to come of age. yes, i know this sounds inflammatory but that's how i feel. given the groundswell of interest and support he clearly has, he could have decided not to sign the bail conditions. he could have gone into solitary and riveted the attention of many to the causes he espouses. he could have become a defiant firebrand motivating many to once more take the streets. instead he signed the bail papers and walked back into house arrest...silenced. he went home to his family. which leads me to point out the obvious - there are people for whom going home is not a respite. going home is also a place of oppression where there is no safety from the state. there are people who do not have the privilege to just call uncle for a second. whether they sign the papers or not it's a life as watched, followed, criminalized. there are people who cannot rely on privilege when the going gets too rough. they go to jail not because they refuse to sign a document. nah. they go to jail because that's where the power structure, the state, the law has decided they belong. resistance is inevitable and unavoidable. resistance for them means having to draw their line in the sand saying NO multiple times a day just so they can survive and walk with head held high. i think that as a Black woman who has, to a certain extent, middle class/ed, who is very well educated, who is married and (read as) heterosexual but who does not experience the kinds of intimate male domination many wimmin do, i know that those people are not me. i know i cannot stand in the vanguard and say that life is as dangerous for me as for people who do not have various kinds of privilege combined to shield them. i always wonder about white activists, about white middle class activists, about white middle class male educated (read as) heterosexual activists and whether they think about their own privilege, more specifically about the privilege to just go home. i think the activists who are being fingered are all and have all been doing right work and pushing the limits of the state. nonetheless, i think they can take an example from the movements they track and follow and emulate all over the world, movements where strategic people have been targeted and jailed for their actions and beliefs. i think that these white and/or male and/or middle class and/or educated and/or (read as) heterosexual activists can take the fall. they can refuse to take the trap door/exit privilege offers. they can refuse to crawl through any systemically built cat doors/escape hatches allowing them safe passage away from evil uniformed things that go bump in the solitary night. don't get me wrong, i already respect their work and their courage and skills. i'm just saying, they could go there. they could make that choice. this man could make that choice. he could think about the massive amount of privilege he has and about how this has shaped and smoothed his relationships inside different communities of resistance. he could think about what it means to be seen as ally by different groups of people who do not have the privilege he does. he could decide to sit inside the crucible alongside the individuals, whole families with children, whole communities who have no choice, who have no say. he could refuse to sign or reneg because his signature was coerced anyways. he could bite the bullet rather than draw back. then maybe we'd all come out to "play" again, this time for good.
Alex Hundert “released” on bail

Thrown in solitary confinement and coerced into accepting outrageous bail conditions

Thursday October 15, Toronto, Mississauga New Credit - Less than 24 hours after refusing to sign outrageous bail conditions which included not expressing political views in public and non-associations intended to further isolate him, Alex Hundert was forced to consent to his release.

On the night of Wednesday October 14th, Alex was told by the security manager at the Toronto East Detention Centre that he had to sign the bail conditions or face solitary confinement in “the hole”, without access to phone calls or writing paper. He was put in solitary confinement after an initial confrontation with correction staff where he resisted initial attempts to make him sign. He was denied the right to call his lawyer, and told that if he didn’t sign now, they would revoke the bail offer and he would be held in solitary confinement until his eventual release from prison.

Coerced into signing these conditions, Alex was thrown out of Toronto East and left to find his own way home to his sureties’ house. The prison authorities forced him into a position where he could potentially be accused of further breaching his bail. Alex is now back on house arrest with an enforced curfew, with non-associations with co-accused and members of SOAR, AWOL, NOII and other community organizers. He also has the additionally imposed restrictions of no direct or indirect posting to the internet, no assisting, planning, or attending any public meeting or march, and no expressing of views on a political issue.

Over the past week, Alex has experienced a particularly malicious targeting. Last week, the criminal injustice system made the ludicrous finding that Alex had breached his previous ‘no-demonstration’ bail condition by speaking on a panel because he was supposedly engaging in the same kind of “behaviour that he exhibited in meetings leading up to the G20.” Then, he was forced to take a stand to go back to jail by refusing to sign fundamentally unjust and repressive bail conditions. And now, his right to refuse to accept such a blatant violation of his freedom to express political views and his freedom to associate has been further attacked through coercive and punitive attempts to force his own release.

In a previously published media statement, Alex has stated “They are targeting me because I am part of communities that are effectively organizing across movements. Whether it is the criminalization of anarchists and community organizers like me, or the daily demonization of Indigenous peoples, poor people and migrant communities, we have to show them that our resolve and our solidarity can be stronger than their intimidation and repression.”

Alex’s family, friends and allies are outraged and upset by the harassment and coercion Alex faced after refusing to set a dangerous precedent for our broader movements by choosing not to consent to egregious bail conditions. Outrage has been building across the country as the implications of politically-motivated G20 conspiracy charges become clear. The Crown, the prison, the police and the corporate and colonial interests they represent are clearly afraid of what we think and say, not only what we do.

Rallies in Kitchener-Waterloo, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Toronto on Tuesday echoed with chants of “this is what a demonstration looks like”. We continue to strengthen our resolve, and will fight these trumped-up charges until the end. One hundred conspiracy charges were dropped today against Montreal organizers arrested at gunpoint during a morning raid at the University of Toronto on June 27th. We cannot be silenced or intimidated, our resistance will only increase as we keep organizing for liberation for all people, especially those who daily bear the brunt of police, state, and corporate oppression.

Please stay posted for further updates.

For more information contact Jonah Hundert at

For the press release from last week, please read; and for further background information on Alex’s arrest and the numerous attempts by the police and Crown to throw him back in jail, read this press release:;

For ongoing G20 defence and fundraising visit:;

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

As the media invites fixation on the miners...

I remember that for most, myself included, context has, as per usual, been ignored...

The Roots of Mapuche Resistance

For Indigenous people in Chile, the struggle for life is labeled a terrorist activity

by Dawn Paley

VANCOUVER—More than 34 Mapuche political prisoners in Chile have entered into day 75 of a hunger strike. They are seeking significant changes in the way the Chilean state treats Indigenous Mapuche people.

The hunger strike has entered into a critical and possibly deadly phase: Bobby Sands, an Irish revolutionary and a well known casualty of hunger striking, died after 66 days. Other hunger strikers have survived for longer, including ex-political Mapuche prisoner Patricia Troncoso, who refused food for 112 days to protest the "predatory and inhumane economic model" in Chile and the still active anti-terrorist laws used to criminalize the Mapuche people.

The central demands of the hunger strikers and their supporters are that Mapuche people be tried in civil courts instead of in both civil and military courts, and that dictatorship-era anti-terrorist legislation not be used against them. Their struggle, at its roots, is in defense of Mapuche territory and culture, a plight common to Indigenous peoples around the world.

The Mapuche fight to maintain their freedom and independence dates back to the first Spanish invasion of their territory in 1541. Since then, their land base has been whittled down to a series of reserves, which, under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, were broken up into individually held parcels.

Since the end of the dictatorship in 1990, laws have been passed that recognize the rights of Indigenous peoples to land. However, these laws have not been honoured, and Mapuche people have continued to organize against transnational corporate activities in their lands.

Clare Sieber, an anthropologist who graduated from UVIC, has spent time working with the Mapuche people. "Although there have been many Chilean and international policies implemented to strengthen and support Mapuche communities… the dominant model of industrial development including foreign investment still imposes structures of power over, rather than collaboration with, the Mapuche people," Seiber explained in correspondence with the Vancouver Media Co-op.

Canada's relationship with Chile has long been based on mining and free trade, Canada having signed a bilateral Free Trade Agreement with Chile in 1997. In 2008, Canadian outward foreign direct investment in Chile totalled $8.346 billion. Canada's priority sectors in Chile are among those that have most aggravated the Mapuche conflicts, including "mining, forestry, fishing and agricultural industries."

Hydroelectric projects have also created tension and conflict between the Chilean state, private investors and the Mapuche people.

Dams have flooded vast expanses of Mapuche territory, displacing entire communities. In the 1990s, the Spanish owned Empresa Nacional de Electricidad (National Electricity Company, ENDESA) began a project of building six dams on the Bio Bio River in the South Andean region of Chile, home of the Mapuche Pewenche communities. Some of these dams were funded through loans from the World Bank's International Finance Corporation and the Inter-American Development Bank.

The effects of the damming and flooding of Mapuche territory continue to be felt, according to Sieber. "Although ENDESA supplied some Pewenche in El Barco with new homes and electrical appliances… they did so not taking into account the seasonal mobility and community organization of the Pewenche." Sieber says electrical appliances are of limited utility without electricity or employment opportunities to pay electricity bills. “I have seen gas ovens and laundry machines used as cupboards.” She also notes that the rectangular plots of land fenced with barbed wire offered by ENDESA are “contrary to the semi-nomadic and communal land organization of the Pewenche.”

Forestry disputes also flared up during the late 90s, and in December 1997, the police fought Mapuche protestors from the Pichi–Lincoyan and Pilil–Mapu communities.

“The communities were claiming their lands, and this generated a conflict because the government ignored Mapuche demands," explains Mapuche writer Aldisson Anguita Mariqueo. He notes that at this time:

The response of the ‘democratic’ government of Chile was to arrest twelve Mapuche under the legal umbrella of the Internal Security Law. This law, inherited from the military dictatorship, allows the security forces to search private residences and to arrest and interrogate any ‘suspicious’ individual without judicial intervention.

Road building and airport construction have increased the incursions into Mapuche territory, furher threatening the survival of the Mapuche people. In a 2008 report, Amnesty International noted that unresolved territorial disputes related to the extractive and logging industries have caused "tension resulting in violence":

Mapuche leaders have informed us that police officers have used excessive force, including tear gas and rubber bullets, and firing shots from moving helicopters, including lead shot, in order to suppress the protests…

The hunger strike that is ongoing in Chile today is a wake-up call to the world about the criminalization of Mapuche peoples who continue standing up to defend their lands.

Colombian supporter Manuel Rozental writes that for the Chilean state to put Mapuche resistance on trial "under anti-terrorist legislation is preposterous, and actually transforms the struggle for life into a terrorist activity, a precedent from Chile to the Continent and, indeed, the world."

A global day of action in support of political prisoners in Chile has been called for September 24, 2010.

Dawn Paley is a journalist in Vancouver. This article was originally published by the Vancouver Media Co-op.

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Banner dropped off lakeshore ave. (toronto) demanding freedom for G20 arrestee Alex Hundert...

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Liu Xiaobo - What I can do is share the seven sentences...

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Friday, October 08, 2010

Supreme Kangaroo Kourt of Kkkanada says miranda rights not necessary...

Today they demonstrated that there really is no bottom legally speaking by ruling that in kkkanada suspects do not have a right to have a lawyer present when they're being questioned. That's for amerikkkans.

OTTAWA - The American Miranda rule that gives a suspect the right to have a lawyer present during questioning has no place here, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

In three related decisions, a sharply divided court fine-tuned the rules on suspects' right to counsel.

In the main case, the justices ruled 5-4 that the Charter of Rights does not confer a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.

That means Miranda, a staple of TV cop shows where lawyers whisper to their clients while detectives ask questions, does not apply.

The court also held that suspects have no right to interrupt an interrogation to consult again with a lawyer except in some limited circumstances.

They said that while suspects generally have the right to a lawyer of their choice, they must accept another if they cannot contact their own within a reasonable time.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Louise Charron wrote for the majority in all three cases.

Justices Morris Fish and Louis Lebel wrote sharp dissents in two of the three cases, with Justice Rosalie Abella concurring. Justice Ian Binnie contributed his own dissent in the main decision.

McLachlin and Charron were clear in rejecting Miranda. They said there is a right for a suspect to consult a lawyer before questioning and to be informed of that right. But the reason for consultation is to give the suspect legal advice on whether to co-operate. There is no requirement that a lawyer be there for the questioning.

"We are not persuaded that the Miranda rule should be transplanted in Canadian soil,'' they wrote.

They said the Canadian and U.S. systems differ.

"Miranda came about in response to abusive police tactics then prevalent in the U.S. and applies in the context of a host of other rules that are less favourable to the accused than their equivalents in Canada."

The judges warned about grafting rules from other countries onto the Canadian system.

"Adopting procedural protections from other jurisdictions in a piecemeal fashion risks upsetting the balance that has been struck by Canadian courts and legislatures."

There is nothing to prevent having a lawyer present if all sides agree, however.

McLachlin and Charron said suspects can't interrupt questioning with demands for more legal advice except in certain, limited circumstances.

For example, if the charge is changed during questioning, or if police want to use a different procedure, such as a lineup or a lie-detector test, or if there are reasons to suspect that someone doesn't understand their rights, then the suspect should be able to get further advice.

The court also ruled that police can continue to ask questions even after a suspect has invoked the right to silence.

"While the police must be respectful of an individual's charter rights, a rule that would require the police to automatically retreat upon a detainee stating that he or she has nothing to say, in our respectful view, would not strike the proper balance between the public interest in the investigation of crimes and the suspect's interest in being left alone,'' the decision said.

On the question of a right to a counsel of one's choice, the court said that applies only if the lawyer can be contacted within a reasonable time.

A reasonable time, the court said, depends on the circumstances, including the seriousness of the charge and the urgency of the investigation.

"If the chosen lawyer cannot be available within a reasonable period of time, detainees are expected to exercise their right to counsel by calling another lawyer or the police duty to hold off will be suspended.''

The three cases, two from British Columbia and one from Alberta, all addressed aspects of the right to counsel. The court used one as a main case and then applied those findings to the other two.

In the two B.C. cases, the appellants lost their bids to have guilty verdicts overturned. In the Alberta case, a trial judge found the defendant's right to a lawyer had been breached and he was acquitted. The court of appeal overturned that and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court ruling means the new trial will go ahead.

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Monday, October 04, 2010

Donut eater fetishization...

Oh, I keep meaning to say that this was so gross. For someone who comes out of communities that have traditionally been criminalized, targeted and dominated by police in different ways, there is nothing sexy or cute about bullying thugs wearing armour. and carrying guns.

They are dangerous, disgusting, moronic fleshbots of the state.

Only the children of those with substantial amounts of protection usually afforded to them via their privilege (part of what shocked so many of them when they were incarcerated by police during the g20's occupation of toronto) who have never found themselves in the back of a police cruiser at the age of nine would think otherwise.

They are completely privileged and due to that privilege, clueless.

Cheups. let them come lap dance on my verandah when the police come to visit every few nights in order to attempt to enforce post g20 compliance and submission.

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Saturday, October 02, 2010

Film using oral history, interviews and archival footage sheds light on the contribution of native wimmin to the Red Power movement...

Warrior Women The story of Red Power
By Lorraine Jessepe, Today correspondent

VERMILLION, S.D. – During the height of political unrest in Indian country during the 1960s and ’70s, men such as Russell Means, Dennis Banks and Clyde and Vernon Bellecourt were the media-recognized leaders of Red Power, the grass roots movement marked by its activism and a resurgence of Indian cultural identity, pride and traditionalism.

But away from much of the media attention stood such women as Madonna Thunder Hawk, Lorelei DeCora, Janet McCloud, Pat Bellanger, Lakota Harden, and LaNada Means War Jack. These were just a few of the Indian women in the trenches of the Red Power movement.

Now, the untold stories of Native women activists will be documented in an upcoming film, “Warrior Women,” a one-hour documentary to be aired on PBS. University of South Dakota Assistant Professor Elizabeth Castle, the film’s writer and producer, eyes a 2012 completion date for the film, which is in pre-production. The project is the recent recipient of a grant from Native American Public Telecommunications.

Castle, of Shawnee descent, began learning about the Red Power movement some 12 years ago. The movement gained international prominence in 1968 with the founding of the American Indian Movement, in Minneapolis. Through activism and social protest, AIM addressed such issues as police brutality, broken treaties, Indian sovereignty and poverty. Among the defining events of AIM was the 1973 standoff with federal agents at Wounded Knee, S.D.

Drawn into the story of Red Power by its connection to family and community, Castle is out to preserve the knowledge and life experience of Indian women activists for future generations. Through oral history, interviews and archival footage, “Warrior Women” is bound to shed light on a once limited history of women’s involvement in the movement. “Visual media is so important. That’s one of the reasons this (film) had to happen.”

Old stereotypes

During the Clinton administration, Castle worked as a policy associate in the administration’s Initiative on Race Relations. There, she noticed not a single person on the nine-member advisory board was of American Indian descent. “They had absolutely no working knowledge of Indian country whatsoever.”

Even today, Castle said a frustrating lack of knowledge about American Indians still exists. “It never ever fails to blow my mind.”

The Western image of the Indian – a man on a horse with feathers and war paint – still dominates popular culture, and the Indian woman, with the exception of the “Indian princess,” is mostly invisible, irrelevant and powerless. “We’ve gotten it wrong for so long,” Castle said.

The media’s focus on the men in the movement allowed Indian women the freedom to get things done behind the scenes, Castle said. “The white media wasn’t going to recognize Native women’s voice.”

Castle, an assistant professor of American Indian studies, noted the many disruptive events that occurred in Indian country, not just in the 1880s, but in the 20th century: The massive loss of land and its spiritual impact, boarding schools and the policy of assimilation, Indian relocation and the termination era. She said many women in the movement were boarding school survivors and many, such as Wilma Mankiller, had a galvanizing experience that taught them how to direct their anger. “She (Mankiller) learned how to be an organizer on Alcatraz.”

In the aftermath of AIM’s occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973, women carried on their activism. “This is such an unknown area of history,” Castle said.

Many Indian women were at the forefront of looking at the connection between health and environment, said Castle, noting their involvement in the Black Hills Alliance, the formation of Women of All Red Nations, the fight against forced sterilization and the establishment of survival schools.

“It was a movement of family and community, and at the heart of family and community are women,” Castle said. “Women are the story of Red Power.”

Voice and accountability

Castle is guided by a concern with exploring ways that academic research could be of use to Native communities – a way to give back that would disrupt the historical pattern of removing indigenous knowledge from communities.

“It’s really important for people to know that they’re not your data,” said Castle, who interviewed women over the course of 10 years. Some were urban, and some were rez. Some had college educations. Others had no formal education. “We are seeking to be as inclusive as we can be to allow people to speak their own truth.”

In addition to the film’s airing on PBS, Castle envisions screenings of “Warrior Women” at film festivals and South Dakota reservations. “We want the film to be viewed as widely as possible.”

The film will be coming out at a good time, she said. “I think we have a global lack of knowledge on what it means to be indigenous.”

Lorraine Jessepe can be reached at

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Friday, October 01, 2010

Michaelle Jean, what happened when the G20 invaded this city is also on your head...

you've served well as governor general of kkkanada, representative to that disgusting white violent, power hungry, slaving, imperialist, in-bred family in england. you say your time is up? well, yo'll go down in the histories and herstories of those who watch and understand domination, as a self serving coward who gave way to a fascist dictator bully.

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

New internet censorship bill introduced...

some say the state won't be able to pull this off. i'm hoping they're right...

from mostly water...

New Internet Censorship Bill Introduced - by Stephen Lendman

Like most others in Congress, Senator Patrick Leahy is no progressive. He voted to fund imperial wars, regressive Obamacare, Wall Street-friendly financial reform, and other pro-business measures, including agribusiness-empowering bills, harming small farmers and consumers.

Now he's at it again. On September 20, he introduced S. 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), "A bill to combat online infringement, and for other purposes." Referred to committee, it awaits further action. In fact, it needs a dagger thrust in its heart to kill it.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Richard Esguerra:

If enacted, this bill lets the Attorney General and Justice Department "break the Internet one domain at a time - by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites."

Two online blacklists will be created:

-- one for web sites the Attorney General may censor or block, and

-- most disturbing, domain names the Justice Department decides (without judicial review) are "dedicated to infringing activities."

The bill doesn't mandate, but "strongly suggests" that second category domains be blocked "as well as providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators" that do it willingly at the behest of authorities.

Without question, "tremendous pressure" will be applied to comply, the alternative perhaps being recrimination for refusing.

Though fairly short, COICA may dangerously impair free expression, "current Internet architecture, copyright doctrine, foreign policy," and more. In 2010, "efforts to re-write copyright law (targeting) 'piracy' online" have been shown "to have unintended consequences."

Like other 2009 and 2010 bills, COICA "is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet," an outrageous First Amendment violation by "tr(ying) to define a site 'dedicated to infringing activities,' (by) block(ing) a whole domain," not that one part alone if legally proved, rather than by government edict.

The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) "already gives copyright owners legal tools to remove infringing material piece-by-piece." It also lets them get injunctions requiring ISPs block infringing offshore sites. Misusing these provisions "have had a tremendously damaging impact on fair use and free expression."

If enacted, Leahy's COICA will take a giant leap, "streamlin(ing) and vastly expand(ing)" existing damage. It'll let the Attorney General shut down domains, including their "blog posts, images, backups, and files." As a result, "legitimate, protected speech will be taken down in the name of copyright enforcement," and basic Internet infrastructure will be undermined.

For example: when users enter web site URLs into their browsers, the domain name system server identifies their Internet location. COICA will let the Attorney General "prevent the players in (those) domain system(s), (possibly including your ISP) from telling you the truth about a website's location."

It's also unclear what would be accessed - perhaps a message saying "a site or page could not be found, without explaining why? Would users receive some kind of notice," possibly saying "the site they were seeking was made inaccessible at the behest of the government?"

COICA will force Internet "middlemen" to act like the "Internet doesn't exist," even though the site or page wanted "may otherwise be completely available and accessible."

Like many other pre and post-9/11 bills, COICA is police state legislation. It says America "approves of unilateral Internet censorship," no matter that it's constitutionally illegal.

America is on a fast track toward despotism, civil liberties threatened by bills like COICA, mandating "Unilateral censorship of websites (Washington) doesn't like...."

Moreover, its "poorly drafted definitions....threaten fair use online, endanger innovative backup services, and raises questions about how new (Internet intermediary) with existing US secondary liability rules and the DMCA copyright safe harbor regime."

Also, it's easy to get blacklisted because COICA streamlines the procedure for adding domains - "including a McCarthy-like (one) of public snitching." Then, once on, it's hard getting off, just like persons unfairly vilified struggle to regain their reputations, often without success.

COICA takes but doesn't give in letting Washington "play an endless game of whack-a-mole, blocking one domain after another," even though sophisticated users will figure out a way to access censored sites. Maybe them, but not ordinary ones denied free access to constitutionally protected information.

Bottom line - COICA lets Washington "suppress truthful speech and could block access to a wealth of non-infringing" material. It will do little to end online infringement, but plenty of constitutional damage, besides other vast erosion in recent years heading toward ending democratic freedoms unless public awareness gets aroused enough to stop it in time.

On September 29, Tech Daily reported possible COICA changes, "addressing some of the concerns raised by technology and public interest groups," pertaining to online piracy and counterfeiting. COICA remains a work in progress. What emerges in final form demands close scrutiny.

Obama's Proposal to End Online Privacy - Another Police State Measure if Enacted

Merriam-Webster defines a police state as follows:

"a political unit characterized by repressive government control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures."

In other words: overt and covert hardline control, maintained by loss of personal freedoms, civil liberties, and constitutional protections though legislation, pervasive surveillance, lawless privacy intrusions, and midnight or pre-dawn arrests on whatever grounds authorities charge against which there's no defense.

In the last decade especially, America has recklessly gone that route, one government edict, pronouncement or congressional bill at a time. Obama has advanced the Bush agenda further for totalitarian control, including the right to imprison anyone for their beliefs, assassinate American citizens extrajudicially, and much more.

Since taking office, he's done the impossible, compiling a worse record than his fiercest critics feared, exceeding Bush in militarism, harshness, lawlessness, and betrayal of the public trust. Besides waging imperial wars, he wrecked the American dream, and hardened a police state apparatus to protect privilege from progressive change. He also waged war on free expression, dissent, due process, judicial fairness and privacy rights.

He calls heroic activism "violent extremism" and persecutes Muslims for their faith and ethnicity. He says anti-war supporters are anti-American, providing "material support to terrorism," a serious charge carrying 15 years imprisonment. It's why former Reagan administration Assistant Treasury Secretary, Paul Craig Roberts, says "the Bush and Obama regimes" wrecked the country. "America, as people of my generation knew it, no longer exists."

But wait, the worst is yet to come, including subverting privacy, what former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called "the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people." The Fourth Amendment and numerous laws embody it, requiring judicial warrants for most searches and seizures. Yet today's sophisticated technology enables lawless intrusions, absent congressional legislation prohibiting them.

New legislation, however, may mandate them, according to an Electronic Frontier Foundation alert saying:

"an Obama Administration proposal (will) end online privacy as we know it by requiring all Internet communication service providers - from Facebook to Skype to your webmail provider - to rebuild their systems to give the government backdoor access to all of your private Internet communications."

Planned legislation, so far not introduced or named is expected in 2011, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) saying "Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is 'going dark' as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone."

CDT's vice president, James Dempsey said:

"They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet. They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way" telephones work, making them simple to wiretap the same way but do it online digitally.

Currently, the 1994 Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act requires broadband networks to have intercept capabilities to permit digital and cellphone surveillance. However, for encrypted messages, ISPs must be ordered to unscramble them because they're not covered under the 1994 law. Further, providers can't unscramble some encrypt messages between users.

As a result, proposals may include the following:

-- mandate that communication services, including foreign-based ones doing business in America, have full unscrambling technology capabilities; and

-- require peer-to-peer software communication developers to redesign their intercept capabilities.

These ideas not only fly in the face of a free society, they contradict a congressionally-ordered 1996 National Research Council report that found back door access bad government policy, its committee chair, Professor Kenneth W. Dam, saying:

"While the use of encryption technologies is not a panacea for all information security policies, we believe that....our recommendation would lead to enhanced protection and privacy for individuals and businesses in many areas, ranging from cellular and other wireless phone conversations to electronic transmission of sensitive business or financial documents."

"It is true that the spread of encryption technologies will add to the burden of those in government who are charged with carrying out certain law enforcement and intelligence activities. But the many benefits to society of widespread commercial and private use of cryptography outweigh the disadvantages."

Further, according to government records, encryption rarely subverts law enforcement, statistics showing few case examples. In 1998, crytography expert, Professor Matt Blaze, questioned the technical capabilities of back door access. Now he says:

"This seems like a far more baffling battle in a lot of ways. In the 1990s, the government was trying to prevent something necessary, good and inevitable. (Now) they are trying to roll back something that already happened and that people are relying on."

Blaze added:

"We need to protect the country's information infrastructure....So how do you reconcile that with the policy of discouraging encryption broadly," or making it vulnerable to surveillance. Hackers and other experts have the same capabilities as government. Mandate back door access, and they'll find a way to block or otherwise subvert it.

According to computer expert Peter Neumann:

"The arguments haven't changed. 9/11 was something long predicted and it hasn't changed the fact that if you are going to do massive surveillance using the ability to decrypt - even with warrants, it would have to be done with enormously careful oversight. Given we don't have comp(uter) systems that are secure, the idea we will have adequate oversight is unattainable. Encryption has life-critical consequences."

Current and possible new legislation worries organizations like the CDT and its efforts "to keep the Internet open, innovative and free," what's fast eroding in America and may soon entirely dissappear. Apparently like Bush, Obama is committed to assuring it unless mass public outrage stops him. Even so, a kinder, gentler America "no longer exists."

Some Final Comments

On September 27, Tech Daily writer Eliza Krigman headlined, "Net Neutrality Bill Gives FCC No New Rulemaking Power," saying:

Leaked House Energy and Commerce Committee (chaired by so-called liberal Henry Waxman) draft bill information aims to subvert Net Neutrality, according to an unnamed source saying:

"This bill represents a giant retreat by some of those who claim to support net neutrality and sends the wrong signal to the FCC (that) will ultimately deal with this issue."

If enacted, it will let cable and telecom giants establish, among other provisions, premium higher-priced lanes (two Internets), effectively destroying Net Neutrality, subverting the last free and open space. Dirty politics and back room deals put the Internet up for grabs to the highest bidders, creating a two-tiered system, besides blocking entry for those who can't pay.

Waxman hopes for passage in the lame duck session. So far, efforts to advance Net Neutrality legislation have stalled, some congressional leaders saying anything this year is doubtful.

Post-election, cybersecurity will also come up in the form of a bill combining earlier ones introduced:

-- S. 773: Cybersecurity Act of 2009, and

-- S. 778: A bill to establish, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of National Cybersecurity Advisor

Information on them can be accessed through the following link:

The revised measure will let Obama shut down parts of the Internet, as well as businesses and perhaps organizations, not complying with national emergency declared orders. Specifically, his order will last 30 days, renewable for another 60 before Congress may, if it wishes, intervene.

At issue, of course, is whether government can unconstitutionally regulate, restrict, censor or suppress online free expression, the direction Congress and the administration are heading.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

101 Alternatives to Suicide for Teens, Freaks and Other Outlaws...

Celebrated transsexual trailblazer Kate Bornstein has, with more humor and spunk than any other, ushered us into a world of limitless possibility through a daring re-envisionment of the gender system as we know it.

Here, Bornstein bravely and wittily shares personal and unorthodox methods of survival in an often cruel world. A one-of-a-kind guide to staying alive outside the box, Hello,Cruel World is a much-needed unconventional approach to life for those who want to stay on the edge, but alive.

Hello,Cruel World features a catalog of 101 alternatives to suicide that range from the playful (moisturize!), to the irreverent (shatter some family values), to the highly controversial. Designed to encourage readers to give themselves permission to unleash their hearts' harmless desires, the book has only one directive: "Don’t be mean." It is this guiding principle that brings its reader on a self-validating journey, which forges wholly new paths toward a resounding decision to choose life.

Tenderly intimate and unapologetically edgy, Kate Bornstein is the radical role model, the affectionate best friend, and the guiding mentor all in one.

A celebrated pioneer for the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer/Intersex (LGBTQI) community, KATE BORNSTEIN is the author of two previous books, My Gender Workbook: How to Become a Real Man, a Real Woman, the Real You, or Something Else Entirely and Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and The Rest of Us. Her plays and performance pieces include Hidden: A Gender, The Opposite Sex Is Neither, and Too Tall Blondes In Love. She lives in New York City with her partner, Barbara Carrellas.

I've written this book to help you stay alive because I think the world needs more kind people in it, no matter who or what they are, or do. We’re healthier because of our outsiders and outlaws and freaks and queers and sinners. I fall neatly into all of those categories, so it’s no big deal to me if you do, or don’t. I’ve had a lot of reasons to kill myself, and a lot of time to do it in, and I stayed alive by doing things that many consider to be immoral or illegal. I’m glad I did it, because I’ve really enjoyed writing this book. This may be a scary time for you, and if that’s so, I hope I can help you find your courage again. If we meet some day, let me know what worked. —from Hello, Cruel World by Kate Bornstein

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

I have a difficulty with anarchist white boys and men...

They're so caught up in their european originated theories about what it means to be conscious and what it means to resist, they can be such know it alls when it comes to discussing the political. If the ways you discuss the political are markedly different than theirs, so often, too often they use the theories they understand to verbally attack and invalidate. I don't interact with any of them real time or online for that matter. But I do visit the sites and blogs they dominate searching for bits and pieces that speak to me. This morning I found this vid. It's part of a series. Since a lot of what is said lines up with what I believe, anyways, I thought I'd share...

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.

Call To Action - The G20 In Korea...

The G20 Summit is NO EXCUSE for Repression!

October 1st, International Day of Action against the pre-Summit attack on Democratic and Human Rights in South Korea

Dear Friends and Allies,

You have already received an email urging you to join protests against the G20 Summit, which will be held in Seoul, South Korea from November 11 to 12. As you know, the G20, originally formed to respond to the global financial crisis, is attempting to set itself up as the authority responsible for directing the world economy and defining world governance. While completely excluding most nations from decision-making, the G20 is attempting to make the world ‘safe’ for neoliberal capitalism by forcing emerging economies to shoulder part of the burden of the crisis, promoting trade and investment liberalization dressed up 'in new robes', negotiating weak financial reforms that largely allow financial speculation to go on unchecked, and reviving the ailing IMF and other IFIs. This agenda is being pursued despite the fact that neoliberal capitalism is clearly a failed model, which only increases poverty and inequality around the globe.

As if this was not enough, the Lee Myeong-bak administration is using the upcoming Summit as an excuse to strengthen repression of common people and social movements in South Korea. To fight this attack we need your support, even before November.

On October 1st tell the South Korean government and the world that the G20 Summit is NO EXCUSE for Repression by participating in the International Day of Action against the pre-Summit attack on Democratic and Human Rights in South Korea.


The government is carrying out its attack on democratic and human rights on many fronts.

Claiming they are “establishing public order to support the successful opening of the G20 Summit,” the Immigration Service and other government agencies have been conducting a massive crackdown on undocumented migrants, during which migrants are brutally arrested, imprisoned and then deported. Proclaiming to be “preemptively responding to foreigner crime,” the Seoul Metropolitan Police Department has been carrying out blatantly illegal and racist stop and search procedures, questioning anyone they think looks ‘suspicious’, which generally means anyone who looks foreign and dark-skinned.

The government has also formed a “special road maintenance crew” to “clean up the streets” before the G20 by cracking down on street vendors. The police have been patrolling areas where homeless people usually spend time, such as subway stations and neighborhoods where service organizations and temporary boarding houses are located. These measures are brutally destroying the livelihoods and wiping out the resting places of South Korea’s poor.

At the same time, the government has been carrying out a devastating attack against South Korean workers and labour unions, even going so far as to ignore commitments made at previous G20 meetings. At the 3rd G20 Summit held in Pittsburgh in September 2009, national leaders agreed that, "the current challenges [posed by the crisis] do not provide an excuse to disregard or weaken internationally recognized labour standards.” Despite this fact, the government has repeatedly defied ILO Committee of Freedom Association recommendations by repressing unionization by teachers and public employees, applying the Article 314(Obstruction of Business) of Penal Code to prosecute union officers, and attempting to control union activities through implementation of the ‘time-off’ system, which drastically limits the number of union staff that can paid on company salaries. The government is also violating the G20’s stated principle of putting the creation of ‘decent jobs’ at the center of economic recovery by pursuing labour flexiblisation policies including the weaken of restrictions on mass lay-offs and expansion of the industries in which agency workers can be legally employed.

To top all of this off, in May the ruling conservative Grand National Party forced the passage of a “Special Law on the Safe Escort of the G20 Summit,” which legalizes tools for the repression of the rights to freedom of expression and assembly. This law, which goes into effect on October 1, allows the government to mobilize the army “if necessary” to maintain public order. It also established ‘Safe Escort Zones’ around the G20 meeting site, the hotels where representatives will stay, the routes they will travel to the Summit, and other G20 related areas. Public officials are authorized to stop people from entering these zones and to carry out indiscriminate stop and search procedures within them. What is more, they are not required to publically announce which areas during what times are designated ‘Safe Escort Zones’. This law is clearly meant to squash all forms of criticism and protest against the G20.

On October 1st tell the South Korean government that the G20 is NO Excuse for Repression!

If we do not resist these measures, repression in South Korea will only grow stronger. This will have a devastating effect on the lives of common people and the people’s movement’s ability to fight for more equitable alternatives to the G20’s neoliberal agenda. We need your support and solidarity now more than ever.

This is way we have proclaimed October 1st, the very day the “Special Law on the Safe Escort of the G20 Summit” goes into effect, an International Day of Action against the pre-Summit attack on Democratic and Human Rights in South Korea.

We are asking allies around the world to organize solidarity actions on this day and deliver the following demands to the South Korean government.

1. The G20 Summit is NO excuse! Stop the crackdown on migrants, street vendors and homeless people!
2. Honour international labour standards and ILO recommendations! Stop labour repression and labour flexibilisation policies!
3. Repeal the “Special Law on the Safe Escort of the G20 Summit” and end repression of the rights to freedom of expression and assembly!

Solidarity actions may take the following forms:

1. Rallies or other actions in front of South Korean consulates and embassies
2. Meetings with consulate and embassy representatives to deliver protest statements
3. Press conferences
4. Rallies or other actions in public areas
5. Any creative action you wish to organize

Attached is a sample protest statement, which can be used in meetings with embassy and consulate representatives and/or as the basis for press statements.

Please let us know about actions you have planned and send reports of completed actions.

News about solidarity actions, as well as any questions or requests for additional materials may be sent to:

Endorsed by

Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU)

National Association of Professors for Democratic Society (NAPDS)

Citizen’s Movement for Environmental Justice

Korean Federation of Medical Groups for Health Rights

Korean Women's Association United (KWAU)

Global Call to Action against Poverty Korea (GCAP-Korea)

Korean Peasants’ League (KPL)

Civil Society Network for Financial regulation and taxation on speculative capital

Civil Society Organisation Network in Korea

People’s Solidarity for Social Progress (PSSP)

People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD)

Korea Alliance of Progressive Movements

National Students March

Korean Women Peasant Association

Joint Committee with Migrants in Korea (JCMK)

All Together

Green Korea United

Korean Urban Poor Association

Alternative Forum of University Students

National Democratic Association of Street Vendors

Citizen’s Coalition for Economic Justice

Institute for Global Political Economy

Imagine Institute

Corea Institute for New Society

New Community Institute

Institute for New World

SpecWatch Korea

Korean Clerical and Financial Workers Association

NANUMMUNHWA_ Global Peace Activities

Korean People's Solidarity against Poverty

Energy & Climate Policy Institute for Just Transition (ECPI)

Action for Energy Justice

Migrant Workers Rights Watch, Korea

Solidarity for Street Vendors and Informal Workers

Korea Progressive Academy Council

Progressive Strategy Council

Center for Energy Politics (CEP)

Korea Federation for Environment Movement (KFEM) / FOE Korea

The Committee for a Socialist Workers' party (CSWP)

Democratic Labor Party-Korea (DLP-Korea)

New Progressive Party-Korea (NPP-Korea)

Socialist Party-Korea (SP-Korea)

Transparency International_Korea

People not Profit

Workers Institute of Social Science, South Korea

Korea Labor&Social Network on Energy

Korea NGO's Energy Network

Revolutionary Workers' Front

Students' Alliance against G20

if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.