Mercenaries, Cooks, & Truck Drivers: Crazy Expensive

Posted by Pinky.

If you've been following the news, I'm sure you've been hearing a lot about "private contractors" like Blackwater, DynCorp, and Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) for a few years now. It's no secret that wars (illegal wars included) are insanely profitable, but do you know much these guys are actually getting paid to do their thing?

According to a newly released report from the Congressional Budget Office, the government will have paid these privately held "security firms" a hundred billion dollars by the end of 2008 for their work in Iraq. Now that might not mean much to ordinary people - you know, people who get excited every time they find a quarter lying on the sidewalk - but seriously, that's a lot of money! As expected, the size of the payout is only matched by the level of corruption that follows. Currently there are about 200,000 of these so-called "private contractors" in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing everything from shooting people to driving trucks to cooking eggs. It's kind of like the world's largest and most violent catered event.​

View fullsize

Please read the rull report. (You already paid for it.)

Take care,
pinky

Picturing Politics 2008 Exhibition Opens!

Posted by Pinky.

Today is finally September 15 - opening day of the exhibition Picturing Politics 2008: Artists Speak to Power at the Arlington Arts Center in Arlington, Virginia! As we mentioned in some previous posts, we are very excited to have some of our art, videos, and ephemera in this exhibition. I hope someone who lives in the Washington, D.C.-area will be able to attend and let us know how our stuff looks in the show. If anybody sends us photographs we'll post them here!

Later this year (November) we will be participating in another art/radical education exhibition, this one at the Musuem of Modern Art in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Of course we are excited about that one too - they will be showing some of our videos and we are also making a special episode specifically for that exhibition. When we have more details we will be posting them on this website. Looks like the last quarter of 2008 will be pretty crazy! ^__^

Take care,
pinky

Wikipedia Vandalism

Posted by Pinky.

Here's an e-mail we received today from Ricsen:

Hi Pinky, your wikipedia page was spoiled by a stupid person. It make me sad to see that.​ 

Don't stop your good work!
Best regards. Ricsen

View fullsize

​First of all, thank you to Ricsen for pointing this out to us. I think it's kind of cool that the Pinky Show has an entry in the Wikipedia.

Second, this kind of thing doesn't bother me. I think I might feel a little excited (in a good way) if the vandalism was very clever or funny, because then that would suggest that we have critics out there who are actually smart, instead of this. I think Kim is the only one who gets upset when we receive threats or hate mail. Maybe someone will clean this up, but if not, that's okay too. ~pinky

....................................

Posted by Bunny: One of more interesting things about the edits is how much it reveals about the author:

• White, male, heterosexual, mid-20's to mid-30's. Probably a college graduate.

• Not smart. He's trying but can't pull it off. Totally unaware as to how easy it is for others to see his intellectual shortcomings.

• Preoccupied with sex and women but doesn’t have a good relationship with either.

• Desperately seeking attention. Insecure.

• People like this are usually oblivious to their own privilege. In fact they imagine that they’re members of a persecuted class, supposedly by the very people whose oppression they actively participate in. Because they don't understand the concept of resistance, they see any opposition to the oppression they dish out as whining, illegitimate, violent, or nonsensical. These people can only drink beer with 'friends' who’re equally insecure about their place in the world. Unfortunately no amount of beer can erase the creeping suspicion that they’re assholes. ~B.

....................................

Posted by Pinky: Gee, thanks for the analysis Dr. Bunny! And by the way, is 'asshole' the clinical term?

....................................

Posted by Bunny: I'm just saying. What, do you disagree with anything I wrote?

....................................

Posted by Pinky: Not really lol

Who is Ruben Salazar?

Posted by Bunny.

Yesterday I got a letter in the mail with a Ruben Salazar stamp on it. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, here's a picture:​

View fullsize

I don't know anything about journalism (or journalists) so I had to go look him up, and what I've been learning so far this afternoon has really been eye-opening.

Mini-summary: Ruben Salazar was a Los Angeles Times reporter and news director at KMEX (radio station). He was covering the historic Chicano Moratorium protests against the Vietnam War on August 29, 1970 when he was murdered - or assassinated, depends who you ask - by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (they shot him in the head at short range with a tear gas canister). Even though his death was a ruled a homocide, no one was ever held responsible for his death. Here's a photo taken a few seconds before Salazar was killed.​

​Getting back to the stamp, I think it's more than a bit awkward how it reads: "during Chicano protest rally in East Los Angeles". What's that supposed to mean? Wouldn't "Murdered by LA Sheriff's Dept." be more to the point?

I'm always fascinated by how hegemony works. Like how government agencies will, from time to time, memorialize an individual who are instrumental in directing critical attention towards the government itself. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a stamp. Hell, even Malcolm X had a stamp. I'm sure one day Noam Chomsky will have one too. I can only conclude that stamps with naughty people on them is a nice (i.e., harmless) way to show that we live in an open society that welcomes dissent. While our government continues to develop mechanisms to monitor and suppress dissent, publicly it's celebrated. The message is clear: dissent and resistance are ‘important’ - but if you take it too far you might get shot in the head.

Anyway, I'll go to the library this weekend to try to see if I can find Hunter S. Thompson's article on the historical context surrounding the Salazar killing, Strange Rumblings in Aztlan.

There will be a remembrance and procession held on the anniversary of the Chicano Moratorium March on Friday, August 29 at Ruben F. Salazar Memorial County Park (3864 Whittier Blvd., East L.A.), at 2 p.m. Bring flowers and candles if you go. Contact David Sanchez if you need more info: (323) 263-3352.

~Bunny.

New Gallery: Hey Hetero!

Posted by Bunny.

We have a new art show in our Commons Gallery. Deborah Kelly and Tina Fiveash are two artists from Australia and this work is from their series 'Hey hetero!'. It's been shown in various cities around the world but not here in the U.S. Pinky deserves credit for organizing and assembling this mini-show, but a big 'Thank You' to Deborah & Tina for graciously allowing us to re-present their work to... everyone else reading this.

Before meeting Pinky I can't say I was particularly interested in "art" (whatever that is), but I like work like this. I think it's powerful and can really make people reflect in a way that's very different from reading an essay or hearing a lecture. Check it out.

Oh by the way, if you like what you see, you can go here for more from Tina and Deborah:

Tina Fiveash's website: www.tinafiveash.com.au

One of Deborah Kelly's project websites: www.bewareofthegod.com

If you like these mini-art shows send us an e-mail so that we'll know if we should make more or what.

~B.

Report: How Terrorist Groups End

Posted by Pinky.

One of the sources of information we like to read are the reports and documents that military strategists and governmental policy makers read in order to form their opinions about stuff. By studying (some of) what they're studying, I think it's easier to understand why the United States does what it does, what it might be doing next, and so on.

Recently the RAND Corporation released a report, partially funded by Department of Defense money, titled How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaida. It's part historical narrative, part political and military analysis, and 100% fascinating. Here's a few excerpts from the report summary from the RAND website:

"All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? Answers to this question have enormous implications for counterterrorism efforts. The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members. Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups...

Following an examination of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, we found that a transition to the political process is the most common way in which terrorist groups ended (43 percent)...

...in 10 percent of the cases, terrorist groups ended because their goals were achieved, and military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of the cases... Against most terrorist groups, however, military force is usually too blunt an instrument...

After September 11, 2001, the U.S. strategy against al Qa'ida centered on the use of military force. Indeed, U.S. policymakers and key national-security documents referred to operations against al Qa'ida as the war on terrorism...

Our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism. Military force usually has the opposite effect from what is intended: It is often over-used, alienates the local population by its heavy-handed nature, and provides a window of opportunity for terrorist-group recruitment..."

[ download the entire report here (3.1 MB) ]

Although the report is written from an imperialist/militarist perspective, it does provide several useful explanations as to why the U.S.-led "War on Terror" hasn't resulted in the dissolution of al-Qaeda so far, and based on an analysis of recent terrorism history, also predicts that continuing this so-called 'war' will not produce this result - ever. The report makes a bunch of recommendations as to how the U.S. could 'fix the problem' and eventually bring al-Qaeda under control, but reading the report the main question that kept popping into my head was whether or not it's really in the best interests of the U.S. leadership to dismantle al-Qaeda in the first place. Because if al-Qaeda were to disappear from the public imagination, I'm sure creating a new justifications for our own brand of state violence and terrorism would require a tremendous amount of hard work. And since the ruling elite profit so immensely from warring, without significant opposition from the American people I'm willing to guess that all other alternatives are fairly unlikely at this point.

Anyway, please read the report, or at least the summary. It's useful to see how at least one sector of the U.S. warring apparatus is thinking and talking about these issues.

Take care,
pinky

Buttons from Henry

Posted by Pinky.

Today we received an unexpected padded envelope from Henry in Bellrose Manor, New York. Inside we found two large, square buttons and two large, square magnets. Thanks Henry! They look like this:​

Cool huh? Henry sent us four so that all of us could have one but 2 minutes after opening the envelope Bunny and Kim were fighting over the second magnet. I had taken the other magnet to stick on the filing cabinet but had to give it to Kim so that we could have some peace around here. I'm surrounded by babies. -__-

~pinky

Bunny Mailbag: What About Afghanistan?

Posted by Bunny.

Today's E-mail of the Day:

Hey, I've watched your videos about the Iraq War and also the one about Crimes Against Humanity, but I was wondering why you guys haven't made a video about Afghanistan? Could it be because that war is justified? Seems like you are conveniently avoiding talking about it because you guys always just want to make the military look bad.

My reply:

Dear Joshua, We've only made about 30 episodes, which is considerably less videos than there are subjects to discuss.

However, we do realize that there is a lot of confusion surrounding the war in Afghanistan. Most Americans assume the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan was legal, which is understandable considering how hard the mainstream media has worked to lead the general public to this false conclusion.

I'm including a short essay by Marjorie Cohn below. She's a well-known expert on international law, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a few other nice things. The article isn’t unbearably long (I'm guessing the average reader may take about 10 minutes to read it), but if you can make your way through the title you’ll find the answer to your question.

[ begin Marjorie Cohn essay ]

Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War
by Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet
August 1st, 2008

So far, President Bush's plan to maintain a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq has been stymied by resistance from the Iraqi government. Barack Obama's timetable for withdrawal of American troops evidently has the backing of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Bush has mentioned a "time horizon," and John McCain has waffled. Yet Obama favors leaving between 35,000 and 80,000 U.S. occupation troops there indefinitely to train Iraqi security forces and carry out "counterinsurgency operations." That would not end the occupation. We must call for bringing home — not redeploying — all U.S. troops and mercenaries, closing all U.S. military bases and relinquishing all efforts to control Iraqi oil.

In light of stepped-up violence in Afghanistan, and for political reasons — following Obama's lead — Bush will be moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans see it as a justifiable response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the casualties in that war have been lower than those in Iraq — so far. Practically no one in the United States is currently questioning the legality or propriety of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. The cover of Time magazine calls it "The Right War."

View fullsize

The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information. In addition, it urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.

The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after Sept. 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.

Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States. The people in Latin American countries whose dictators were trained in torture techniques at the School of the Americas could likewise have attacked the torture training facility in Fort Benning, Ga., under that specious rationale. Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan is not the answer and will only lead to the deaths of more of our troops and Afghans.

The hatred that fueled 19 people to blow themselves up and take 3,000 innocents with them has its genesis in a history of the U.S. government's exploitation of people in oil-rich nations around the world. Bush accused the terrorists of targeting our freedom and democracy. But it was not the Statue of Liberty that was attacked. It was the World Trade Center, the symbol of the U.S.-led global economic system; and the Pentagon, the heart of the U.S. military, that took the hits. Those who committed these heinous crimes were attacking American foreign policy. That policy has resulted in the deaths of 2 million Iraqis — from both Bill Clinton's punishing sanctions and George W. Bush's war. It has led to uncritical support of Israel's brutal occupation of Palestinian lands, and it has stationed more than 700 U.S. military bases in foreign countries.

Conspicuously absent from the national discourse is a political analysis of why the tragedy of 9/11 occurred and a comprehensive strategy to overhaul U.S. foreign policy to inoculate us from the wrath of those who despise American imperialism. The "Global War on Terror" has been uncritically accepted by most in this country. But terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. You cannot declare war on a tactic. The way to combat terrorism is by identifying and targeting its root causes, including poverty, lack of education and foreign occupation.

There are already 60,000 foreign troops, including 36,000 Americans, in Afghanistan. Large increases in U.S. troops during the past year have failed to stabilize the situation there. Most American forces operate in the eastern part of the country; yet by July 2008, attacks there were up by 40 percent. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser for Jimmy Carter, is skeptical that the answer for Afghanistan is more troops. He warns that the United States will, like the Soviet Union, be seen as the invader, especially as we conduct military operations "with little regard for civilian casualties." Brzezinski advocates Europeans bribing Afghan farmers not to cultivate poppies for heroin, as well as the bribery of tribal warlords to isolate al-Qaeda from a Taliban that is "not a united force, not a world-oriented terrorist movement, but a real Afghan phenomenon."

We might heed Canada's warning that a broader mission, under the auspices of the United Nations instead of NATO, would be more effective. Our policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan should emphasize economic assistance for reconstruction, development and education, not for more weapons. The United States must refrain from further Predator missile strikes in Pakistan and pursue diplomacy, not occupation.

Nor should we be threatening war against Iran, which would also be illegal and result in an unmitigated disaster. The U.N. Charter forbids any country to use, or threaten to use, military force against another country except in self-defense or when the Security Council has given its blessing. In spite of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency's conclusion that there is no evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the White House, Congress and Israel have continued to rattle the sabers in Iran's direction. Nevertheless, the anti-war movement has so far fended off passage of HR362 in the House of Representatives, a bill that is tantamount to a call for a naval blockade against Iran — considered an act of war under international law. Credit goes to United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, Peace Action and dozens of other organizations that pressured Congress to think twice before taking that dangerous step.

We should pursue diplomacy, not war, with Iran; end the U.S. occupation of Iraq; and withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.

[ end of Marjorie Cohn essay ]

~B.

Make Your Own Tienanmen Square Memorial

Posted by Bunny.

We just received this neat thing from artists Deborah Kelly & Wei Lai:​

click to download PDF!

Here is a new work for you, a collaboration with Wei Lai, just in time for the Olympics. Please make it, and/or distribute, just as you see fit. If you print it, use the heaviest paper the printer will allow.

It's the first of works toward the Tienanmen protests anniversary in June 2009, which we sincerely hope you will take part in, wherever you are. There may be dancing.

with best wishes and solidarity -
Deborah Kelly & Wei Lai

~B.​

U.S. Warships Headed for Iran

Posted by Bunny.

I just received an e-mail with the following information, originally from Lord Stirling's Europe blog.

View fullsize

USS Roosevelt

"The lead American ship in [the just-concluded Operation Brimstone] war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan... They are joining two existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); and the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group...

The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy...

The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:

Carrier Strike Group Nine
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Two
Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines

Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assult ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer

Carrier Strike Group Two
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Eight
Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer

USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier
with its Amphibious Squadron Four
and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer

USS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

Carrier Strike Group Seven
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing 14
Destroyer Squadron 7
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship...

...The large and very advanced nature of the US Naval warships is not only directed at Iran. There is a great fear that Russia and China may oppose the naval and air/land blockade of Iran. If Russian and perhaps Chinese naval warships escort commercial tankers to Iran in violation of the blockade it could be the most dangerous at-sea confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis...

...A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The Republic of Georgia, with US backing, is actively preparing for war on South Ossetia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border. Russia has stated that [they] will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia. The Russians are great chess players and this game may not turn out so well for the [U.S.]..." (read the whole report here)

Shall we talk about this, or will everyone be too busy watching the Olympics? ~B.

....................................

Posted by Kim: Even if none of these ships actually attack Iran, this is exactly the kind of bullying that nobody should be doing. ]

....................................

Posted by Bunny: If another country tried to make a blockade of the U.S. with warships, I imagine most Americans would have a fit and demand that they all be sunk. But if we're the ones doing it then the experts on CNN will sit around and discuss whether or not the blockade is effective in achieving "our goals". ]

....................................

Posted by Pinky: Everyone here in the U.S. that understands the implications and consequences of a U.S.-led attack on Iran needs to do something now to stop our governmental and military leaders - phone calls, e-mails, demonstrations - anything and everything!

Ant 288b Report: Misc. Outer Space Trivia

As you know we (ants) are interested in cosmology in general and outer space in particular. On August 3rd myself and 1,006 others from Pinky's various AntFarms™ visited a science museum & planetarium to learn more about space. We now return with some facts that may interest you, the reader of this blog.

• Galileo first sighted Jupiter's moons on January 7, 1610. At first he thought he was looking at some stars, but after observing their movements for a little while he figured out they were actually moons in orbit around Jupiter. Galileo used a telescope he made himself. We are in the process of making a telescope for ourselves.

• Have you ever wondered how large the moon is, relative to the size of the Earth? Imagine this: if the Earth were the size of an inflatable beach ball, the moon would be roughly the size of a grapefruit. Also, the spherical shape of a grapefruit makes it impossible for us to lift and/or transport.

• The Earth has two moons. Everyone knows the big one, but there is also a much smaller one named Cruithne. It is about 3 miles across and makes a weirdly-shaped orbit around the Earth that takes about 770 years to complete.

• As of this writing there are 240 known moons in our solar system. Maybe more by the time you read this.

• Even though light travels very fast, the universe is so big that the light you see from many of the stars in the sky have taken billions of years to reach your eyeball. So looking up into the night sky is also looking back into the farthest reaches of time - what we are seeing now is how these stars looked billions of years ago.

We hope you enjoy thinking about the above information.

Signing off,
Ant 288b

View fullsize

Photo added Aug. 13

Boat People

Posted by Pinky.

Earlier today we received an e-mail from Deborah Kelly, an artist from Australia. One of the projects she works on (along with several others - an "art gang" if you will) really jumped out at me. Here's an image from that project:​

"In 1788 down Sydney Cove, The first boat people land, Said "sorry boys, our gain's your loss, We're gonna steal your land." (from the Boat People website)

Just change the details and suddenly it easily applies to the United States, don't you think?

The above image is an e-postcard - you can download it and send it around with all your e-mail. Go here to read about and see more pictures from this project!

Take care,
pinky

Q#2 for Daisy: Are Mexicans Native?

Posted by Pinky.

Here is Daisy's response to a second e-mail, also regarding the How To Solve Illegal Immigration video:

I just saw your video on illegal immigration and I found it very informative, interesting, and insightful. I just have a comment on something on it.

In it, you make a distinction between "Native Americans" and Mexicans. I don't know if you know enough of our history (Mexicans) but Mexicans for the most part ARE native peoples. About 30% of Mexicans in Mexico are pure indigenous and another 68% are mainly "mestizo" mostly Native-Mexican and Spaniard as compared to 1% of all "Americans" being pure (government recognized) indigenous. In Guatemala, native peoples are about 45% of the people. You can see these demographics in Wiki or the CIA factbook, among other places.

The brown race (not "red", known as "Native Americans") does not magically begin and end at the US/Mexico border. [...] When any discussion or reference is ever made of "Native Americans", it almost always refers to indigenous peoples of the U.S. or even Canada, but never Mexico. I am Chicano from East LA. My family has been in L.A. since 1920 on my mother’s side, and on my fathers just as long, but coming from Arizona. My family was Purepecha from Jalisco but you won't recognize that as well as Choctaw, Apache, Ute, etc. since again, the fallacy that Native peoples are solely from the U.S.

Many of the poorest of the poor from Mexico and Central America coming here are indigenous. They come from places like Puebla, Oaxaca, Yucatan, Chiapas, etc. and many speak mainly nahuatl and k'iche'. This big part of our history and identity not told or understood perpetuates the wrong belief that we are simply "aliens" as much as anyone else from anywhere in the world.

Thank you,
Randy

And here is Daisy's response:

Thank you, Randy, Your letter helps point out a problem in the video. I'd like to comment on this.

As an example, there is a part in the video during which I say:

"In the first group of course there are those people who are currently being labeled illegal immigrants. Most of them are recent immigrants, most notably from Mexico.

The second group are also immigrants, but they are immigrants who have been here longer, maybe a hundred years or maybe even going all the way back to the Mayflower or something like that.

And actually there's actually a third group, a forgotten group that's been made practically invisible over the past two hundred or so years, and that's the original Native inhabitants of these lands."

This way of explaining is actually potentially confusing because I am simultaneously using two separate, but overlapping, categorical systems: the so-called "legal resident vs. illegal immigrant" argument, and also the "native vs. settler" model. I chose to explain the situation in this way in an attempt to draw attention to the continued (imposed) invisibility of native people living within the territorial boundaries of the U.S., even as U.S. politicians and media commentators ask the question, "Who has a right to be here?" This can be confusing because the "legal resident vs. illegal immigrant" model is itself a settler construct, and, as you point out, does not take into consideration whether those 'immigrants' are native or not. In fact, we could say that the "legal resident vs. illegal immigrant" model is a favored way to frame the so-called 'immigration crisis' precisely because it conveniently leaves native people out of the equation. With native people out of the way, ruling class settlers are able to position themselves as legitimate owners and masters of this land; public outcries over how subsequent waves of 'illegals' are “ruining their country” is to be expected.

I decided to use the term 'illegal immigrants' in the video because this is a widely-used term at the moment here in the U.S. But in an attempt to keep things simple, the term itself manages to drag many other assumptions and problems into the discussion along with it. In hindsight, I probably should have, at the very least, noted that many of the so-called illegal immigrants from Mexico or elsewhere are also indigenous to their respective regions. This definitely complicates matters to a certain extent, but my failure to mention this created a lost opportunity - for example, an opportunity to raise many (generally) unconsidered implications regarding indigenous peoples' rights vis-à-vis certain settler constructs (in this case, 'national borders', citizenship, etc.).

It's my opinion that if enough people begin to challenge the legitimacy of oppressive settler constructs (for example, settler states [The United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, etc.], settler concepts [illegal immigration, the justice system, the Constitution, blood quantum, etc.], and so on), the conceptual and political terrain can be transformed and we will all be better positioned to turn our attention to righting the historical wrongs which we are now living and perpetuating. This is, as I understand it, one of the long-term objectives of The Pinky Show project.

~Daisy

....................................

Thank you Daisy, for replying to Randy. And yes, this is one of our long-term objectives. Looooooong term! I won’t live long enough to see it realized, but I know that all play and no work guarantees that absolutely nothing happens.

By the way, we have not forgotten about the episodes about colonialism, settler colonialism, nation states, and all that other stuff. I know it's been a long time since I mentioned that we are working on them but alas, we're still working on them. Some subjects are just very challenging to research and clearly present in a short-form cat video format (to me, anyway)! So although Bunny and I are constantly working and re-working these scripts we're not going to release them until we're as happy as we can be with them, even if we know that 5 minutes after we publish them to the internet we'll be unhappy with them and want to change them some more! We are being extra careful with these episodes because we think that they really do have the power to radically transform the way a viewer thinks about history and society. Once the perspective shifts, everything looks different.

But at any rate please stay tuned. We've been doing a lot of research/writing the past few months, but in August-October we'll be right back in the production phase of things, so we'll have more episodes rolling out as we finish them off. Please take care. ~pinky

....................................

Posted by Bunny.: This Q & A highlights something we're always struggling with here at The Pinky Show. In an attempt to make things as simple and widely accessible as possible, we often find ourselves leaving out huge amounts of extremely important information, ideas, and perspectives. Personally I see this as a form of intellectual violence. The only way we can justify it (barely) is to say that our mini-presentations are meant to instigate more curiosity, questioning, and dialogue. Anyone who thinks The Pinky Show is a good one-stop source for any final word on complex issues is not going to end up very smart. When more people become comfortable with the idea that anyone can do research - research of ALL kinds - into complicated matters, then hopefully The Pinky Show will become obsolete.

....................................

Posted by Pinky: Thanks for bringing that up, Bunny. You could say the same thing about schools.

....................................

Posted by Bunny: Yup.

Q#1 for Daisy: Slaves as Settlers?

Posted by Pinky.

Here is an e-mailed question we received yesterday that I forwarded to Daisy:

Hi - I very much liked your [How To Solve Illegal Immigration video], but I must point out that to me the two categories of settlers and indigenous peoples doesn't seem to apply to the predecessors of African Americans who were, literally, dragged here kicking and screaming... Have I missed something? (from Maryellen)

Daisy's response:​

There's no doubt that slaves from Africa were oppressed, murdered, and then some. But within the framework of settler colonialism, slaves brought from Africa are settlers. They certainly are not native. There are numerous examples of native peoples enslaved by settlers but I don't think that's what the e-mail is inquiring about. Practically all of Africa was colonized by European states - therefore (most) Africans in Africa were colonized. However African slaves brought to the Americas were not colonized; they were enslaved - which is also despicable but basically a different form of violence. So both groups - native peoples and slaves - were/are victims within the centuries-long historical trajectory of Euro-American Imperialism, but they're still different classes within the settler/native paradigm.

People get confused because they want to mix the native/settler dichotomy with other dichotomies - oppressed vs. oppressor, good vs. evil, etc., but this results in a faulty analysis. One can also make distinctions between different motivations or circumstances for settler mobility - for example, settlers who arrived in the New World seeking gold and other kinds of fortunes, settlers fleeing oppression elsewhere, settlers enslaved and brought kicking and screaming. It would be wrong to say that there aren't enormous differences regarding how and why these different groups of of non-indigenous people came (or who were unwillingly brought) to the "New World" from elsewhere. But these differences do not negate one's status as a settler within the settler colonialism paradigm. Just one example: historically speaking, the ruling class in the U.S. has treated black people as a threat and has responded with a thousand different mechanisms of oppression. But the perceived threat of black ascendancy to political and economic power is not based on African Americans' reclaiming of native land. This in itself is an important difference; please consider the implications.

The presence of slave labor almost guarantees the rapid economic development of settler states, which obviously benefits from the exploitation of that labor. And because this exploitation takes place on native land, this in turn generally accelerates the displacement, removal, assimilation, killing, etc. of native peoples living within the territorial boundaries of the newly formulated settler state. This is not to say that slaves from Africa were happy to participate in the genocide against Native Americans; you could say their status as settlers was forced upon them.

~Daisy

U.S. Strategy in Vietnam (continued)

Posted by Bunny.

Just received an interesting reply to my reply to Darren (July 23 entry). Here it is:

Bunny, Thanks for the reply....

I respect that your report was based on the enormous body of first hand documentation on the Vietnam War. It is disturbing how much information is available to the public but ignored in favor of convenient myths....

However, analysis of US foreign policy provides numerous case studies which support the idea that a campaign of brutal violence and destruction will promote cooperation out of necessity (beginning with Germany / Japan during WWII....and yes, I understand there is a huge difference between WWII and the Vietnam War).

Whether we supported a government friendly to US interests (El Salvador), a government installed by the US (Vietnam, Iran) or we simply destroy everything (Japan), the goal of submission seems secondary to creating an environment of pathetic desperation (West Bank and Gaza haven't submitted, but they are pathetically desperate).

I asked Noam Chomsky about this, and he agrees that, "In general US policy towards the third world — the former colonies - was to ensure that their markets and resources would be open to exploitation by Western, primarily US, concentrated capital. There's plenty of evidence on this, and it goes right to the present..." (Chomsky).

Domination and occupation are two different things- a country can be dominated without occupation, although an occupation cannot succeed without domination. The US failed to occupy Vietnam (literally or through a puppet govt), but we were able to dominate the country and eventually gain access to labor and markets.

Two main elements of colonialism are exploitation and pacification. The goal of colonialism is to exploit- generally, to the highest degree possible. Pacification is the method of control- to prevent the colony from using resources, labor, and markets for its own interests (occupation through domination).

Massive destruction- (natural, man made, economic or literal) can pacify a civilian population (domination without occupation). It may or may not achieve access to resources, labor or markets.... but if a country is in ruins, its rejection of predatory capitalism is usually destined to multiply suffering (North Korea...).

A united, communist Vietnam destroyed by the Vietnam War would not serve as a model for a popular communist movement in other third-world countries- no country wants to adopt a form of government that will instigate the US. At the very least, the Vietnam War persuaded other nations that communism (or socialism, which the US tried to equate with communism) wasn't a wise decision. In the best case scenario (for US policy makers) neo-colonialism takes hold very strongly- like in Latin America, SE Asia, or more recently, Iraq.

If you wanted to do an analysis of the Vietnam War's success/failure, it could be broken down this way:

objective- prevent the spread of communism SUCCESS
objective- To occupy Vietnam or install a government FAILURE
objective- To dominate Vietnam SUCCESS

Bunny: "When I said "the strategy failed" I was referring to the U.S. leadership's inability to get the Vietnamese - both in the South and in the North - to capitulate to foreign domination."

Once again, a country can be dominated without being occupied. We were unable to occupy Vietnam, but able to dominate them. In reality, it isn't even necessary to fight, let alone occupy- it is possible to get others to fight for you (El Salvador fought itself, we provided weapons and training) and it isn't even necessary to fight at all (sanctions, natural disasters, famine).

As Kim pointed out- "the main point is the US wanted to control Vietnam." To a certain degree, we did / do. Of course, to a certain degree, we didn't / don't, but this is assumed, since historically we lost. I think this is relevant to the Iraq War, since the objective of the War has changed from securing WMDs, to removing a brutal dictator, to bringing democracy to the region. The lack of a clear objective implies the intention of domination in Iraq as well.

Sorry for the lengthy reply....

-Darren

And here is my reply to the above:

Hi Darren,

Thank you for your reply. No need to apologize for its length - 95% of the e-mails we receive are brief and stupid, so I view your e-mail as a very good thing.

I agree with many of your points. I don't have any qualms with your assertion that the U.S. has found various ways to successfully infiltrate and control certain aspects of Vietnam's economy. But I think you are attempting to clarify something I wasn't talking about. My original point was only that in '75, the U.S. leadership did not order an evacuation of Saigon with a knowing smirk - saying "Ah, this is all going according to plan...!" I was not trying to access what we now know would come later. The U.S. evacuation from Vietnam is evidence of a failed military and political policy. I think it's extremely important to acknowledge that regardless of the current economic and political relationships that exist between the U.S. and Vietnam today, the Nationalists' ejection of U.S. forces from Vietnamese soil in 1975 was a powerful statement which holds many important historical lessons. It's too easy to say, "The strategy worked perfectly." This was a Third World nation throwing a military superpower off their land. Obviously the meaning or symbolism of this event cannot be the same for Americans (or other First Worlders) and for people of the colonies. Now, when you say that the domination did not end with the physical expulsion of U.S. forces, I agree with you. But I think this is a different (though historically linked) lesson that must also be studied.

At any rate, I'll post your reply in the blog. It makes many good points and it's good to have some back and forth. Hopefully a few people will feel intrigued enough to do some research of their own. That's the main thing.

Thanks,
Bunny

By the way, I also received a pissy e-mail today asking why I'm blogging so much instead of Pinky. The short answer is Pinky's real busy with episode research and writing and that takes priority over blogging. So in the meantime I do more blogging. I always try to put a little note like “Posted by Bunny” the beginning of every entry so if you see my name and don't like my entries, skip it. ~B.

Bunny Mailbag: U.S. Strategy in Vietnam.

Posted by Bunny.

We got an interesting e-mail the other day from a guy named Darren:

Pinky (and friends),

I love your show... I recently watched the movie about the American War, and I was thoroughly impressed (as usual).... However, I disagree with one of Bunny's conclusions....It is a very important point that is not in history books....

Bunny asks why the US "Chose to devastate Vietnam to such an extreme" driving them "to the brink of annihilation". Bunny then says the Vietnam War "was that way by design". All of this is correct. But Bunny says that "the strategy failed". However, it worked perfectly.

We bombed Vietnam to the brink of annihilation - it will take a hundred years for Vietnam to recover fully. Now, there are American sweatshops in Vietnam - we have access to the Vietnamese market, just as we wanted. And we guaranteed the failure of Communism as a political model for the region - which secured other Asian markets for the US.

The US involved Latin American coups / wars of the last 60 years or so also demonstrate this principal - we either secure Latin American markets, or open them to the US with ultra violence and destruction - which guarantee open markets out of simple desperation.

Best wishes,
Darren

My reply:

Hi Darren,

Actually, in my report, when I said "the strategy failed" I was referring to the U.S. leadership's inability to get the Vietnamese - both in the South and in the North - to capitulate to foreign domination. Since it was the U.S. that eventually had to evacuate Vietnam in 1975, I still stand by this statement.

On the other hand your comments suggest an interesting possibility - that U.S. leaders somehow had a decades-long strategy that linked total social, economic, environmental, etc. destruction of their country to eventually enable the U.S. to re-enter Vietnam as master to Vietnamese labor and markets. This would seem plausible to me, except that in my review of Vietnam War-era governmental documents I haven't been able to find a paper trail that clearly demonstrates this kind of long-term vision on the part of the U.S. leadership. I'm not saying I'm willing to completely rule this kind of logic out; I just don't have the documentary evidence here in front of me to say, "A-ha! Here it is, directly from the mouth of McNamara..." (or Johnson, or Kissinger, or Nixon, or whomever). If you could point me in the right direction with a list of citations that illustrate your point I would appreciate it.

I think the U.S. - at least for a while - really did believe that Vietnam could be brought under U.S. control through a combination of traditional military force ("if only we could bomb them hard enough...") and ideological coercion ("winning hearts and minds", etc.). It's easy to find documents that show how many brilliant (and I'm not being sarcastic here) policy makers and war planners at the State Department and Pentagon mistakenly believed this, especially during the earlier phases of the war. But by 1968, long before the U.S. would be physically ejected from Saigon (1975), many of these same planners were already reaching into their bag of tricks for new tools (especially triangular diplomacy with China and the Soviet Union, and much later, devastating trade embargoes) in search of ways to salvage the U.S.'s damaged reputation and political standing among other nations, economy, national culture, etc. So while I agree with you that the U.S. corporate elite currently enjoys very lucrative access to Vietnamese labor and markets, I don't think this is because of visionary planning. Rather I think it just proves that the U.S. wields an impressive diversity of coercive tools, and is capable of successfully changing to new strategies when others fail.

Bunny

....................................

Posted by Kim: I think it's good to point out though that Darren and Bunny are in agreement that the main point is the US wanted to control Vietnam. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" ]

....................................

Posted by Bunny: Yeah that's true but I just wanted to be clear that I like to start with documentary evidence and then proceed with an analysis from there. If Darren can provide some documentation that would point me towards other conclusions then of course I’m more than willing to change my thinking. There's no reason why we can't release The American War: The U.S. in Vietnam, Version 2.0 ]

....................................

Posted by Pinky: Thanks Bunny. Darren’s e-mail is interesting. And yes, it would be great to re-do that episode; it's one of my favorite ones we've done so far. But I think it would be easier to watch if we added more moving pictures and other stuff.

PS Art On Its Way To Virginia

Posted by Bunny.

Yesterday morning we shipped our Pinky Show stuff to Arlington for the Picturing Politics 2008 exhibition. I couldn't believe how expensive it was to ship - I think it was about $160 - more if you include the ridiculous amount of bubblewrap and coroplast Pinky used to wrap everything up. (Can you say "anal retentive"?)

View fullsize

​Dear Washington, D.C.,

To your eventual dissolution as a perpetrator of global violence.​

Sincerely,​

pinky & Bunny
July 2008

Anyway, if any of you live near Washington D.C., please go see the show (August 15-September 27). And if you could take a picture of our work in the show, that'd be great because we can't afford to actually travel to Arlington to see the show ourselves. If we get any good pictures of our work installed in the AAC galleries I'd like to include it in the On Native Land entry in our Commons Gallery.

By the way, in response to questions about the art pieces (For example, "But what does it mean???", etc.), Pinky has expanded the explanatory notes that appear as mouse-overs in the gallery. You have to put your cursor over the picture in order to have the notes pop up. ~B.

....................................

Posted by Kim: Lost in all this is Bunny forgot to mention that the art work came out really beautiful! Just wanted to say that! ^_^ ]​

Good Quote: Helen Keller

Posted by Bunny.

I came across this quote by Helen Keller today: "I don't give a damn about semi-radicals."

Think about it.

An Iraq-Monsanto Connection

Posted by Bunny.

Thank you Phiya for sending us this important report by F. William Engdahl called Iraq and Washington's 'seeds of democracy'. An excerpt:

"In May 2003 Paul Bremer III, was put in charge with the imposing title, Administrator, of a newly created Coalition Provisional Authority or CPA... As head of the CPA, Bremer moved swiftly to draft a series of laws to govern Iraq... One of the Orders mandates that no elected Iraqi government will have the power to alter the US-imposed laws. The new laws, or Orders, as they were called, would insure that the economy of Iraq would be remade along lines of a US-mandated 'free-market' economic mode... This ensured unrestricted foreign business activities in the country. Investors could also take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country. They would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed...

Buried deep among the Bremer laws was Order 81, 'Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law'. At the heart of Order 81 was the Plant Variety Protection (PVP) provision. Order 81, states: 'Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety mentioned in items 1 and 2 of paragraph (C) of Article 14 of this Chapter.'

In plain English, this gives holders of patents on certain plant varieties, i.e. large foreign multinationals, absolute rights for 20 years over use of their seeds in Iraqi agriculture. The protected plant varieties are Genetically Modified or Gene Manipulated (GM) plants, and an Iraqi farmer who chose to plant such seeds must sign an agreement with the seed company holding the patent that he would pay a 'technology fee' and an annual license fee for planting the patented seeds.

Any Iraqi farmer seeking to take a portion of those patented seeds to replant in following harvest years would be subject to heavy fines from the seed supplier. Iraqi farmers would become vassals, not of Saddam Hussein, but of multinational GM seed giants.

Iraq is part of Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, where the fertile valley between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers created ideal conditions for crop cultivation. Iraqi farmers have existed since approximately 8,000 B.C. and had developed the rich seed variety for almost every variety of wheat used in the world today. They did this through a system of saving a share of seeds and replanting, developing new naturally resistant hybrid varieties through the new plantings.

For years, the Iraqis had held samples of such precious natural seed varieties in a national seed bank, located, ironically, in Abu Ghraib, the city made infamous as a US military torture prison site in 2004. Following the US occupation and various bombing campaigns, the historic and invaluable seed bank in Abu Ghraib vanished, a possible further casualty of the Iraq war...

Order 81 on Intellectual Property Rights, was not negotiated between a sovereign government and the WTO, or another government. It was imposed on Iraq without debate, from Washington. According to informed Washington reports, the specific details of Order 81 on plants were written for the US Government by Monsanto Corporation, the world's leading purveyor of GMO seeds and crops..."

Please read the whole report here.

By the way, according to a scientific study we read in the journal Science last year, all "domestic cats" (hate that term) alive today are supposedly descended from ancient ancestors who roamed the area that now includes Iraq. So all you apathetic cats out there, why not put those stupid TV remote controls down and do something about the exploitation of your ancestors' home town.

~Bunny.​

Must-See Film: The W0r1d Acc0rd1ng t0 M0nS@nt0

Posted by Pinky.

Why is my title all weird-looking? Well, because every time this video has been posted somewhere on the internet, it's been pulled down very quickly. Hopefully using this top-secret, un-Google-able spelling tactic will help it stay under the radar a bit longer!

This eye-opening documentary was produced for French television by Marie-Monique Robin. It hasn't been shown to the American public yet (will it ever?) - which is too bad, because this documentary will blow your mind. Try to watch it as soon as possible (now is a good time!), as no one knows how long the video will be online before it's pulled again. The Hemowai Bros. are fighting corporate America and risking lawsuit in order to try to get everyone this information.

If you drag your feet and the video (below) is no longer available, please consider ordering the DVD from the filmmaker and hold screenings for your friends. Spread the word - M0ns@nt0 must be stopped, and can be stopped, but it will take the efforts of lots of ordinary citizens to do it. The future of the planet is in your hands!​

If the above video doesn't work, you can try going here.

Thanks,
pinky