| Volume 11, #7 | December 7, 2006 | POLITICS WITH BITE! | CONTACT | HELP | 
BACK ISSUES
|
|
Backtalk ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org. Whose Authority?ETS!,I am not so sure if you made your position on anti-authoritarian very clear. From your cited definition I assume it is somewhere close to "opposed to blind submission to authority". While theoretically this allows for several interpretation I hope only one, namely "opposing authority," makes sense to you. Opposing only the "blind" would be quite disturbing because whether blind or knowingly, submission remains submission. Opposing only "submission" does not really work since it is just equivalent with opposing authority; either ceases to exist without the other. You are right though that opposing authority does not require ignoring people who, during election season, are most engaged in the making of authorities. However, I think that it requires at least some critique if not advice against this and a bright display of general opposition to authority which I feel is hardly visible in ETS! From your reply and numerous articles in ETS!, it seems that criticizing, teaching, and pressuring office holders or getting people to do it, is the major goal for ETS! which, and here I am siding with Virgil, is by no means anti-authoritarian because it does not question their position but only their conduct. all the best, Patrick Theer G.P. replies: Fair enough on the definition; "blind" is, in fact, superfluous. However--without rehashing my last reply too much--which is anti-authoritarian: urging people to choose less authority, or none at all? Since the latter isn't a practical option in our society, it's a false choice; the only sustainable answer (for those of us who are no longer 19 and able to live in a squat...) is the former, and the rest is a matter of degrees. Which brings me back to my original point: you have to start where people are. Plus, the country has plenty of theoretical (and occasionally pragmatic) "reject all authority" newspapers and zines, which, with respect, few people read. ETS! has become a fairly widely read publication, here and around the country and world, and this is how we choose to try to make an impact. Plus, keeping our definition of "anti-authoritarian" loose enables us to not have to have an ideological litmus test for our core group or tedious "positions" we must foist upon the world. People who want to write for us, write for us, and we publish it. That simple. If you or Virgil want to write for us and inject your own vision into the mix, go right ahead. We'd welcome it. Here's Your Fucking War CrimesGeov Parrish, Re: "But Clark, in a more just world, would have been tried for war crimes by now, given his roles in Panama, Haiti, and especially the Balkans." When you make an outlandishly loaded charge like this, you should be specific. --Roses Prichard, via e-mailG.P. replies: Not outlandish; fact, and well-documented. It was peripheral to my point about the 2008 presidential election completely lacking progressive candidates right now. But since you mention it: * In the 1980s, Clark presided over the incarceration in Miami of Haitian refugees fleeing the odious, US-supported dictatorship of "Baby Doc" Duvalier. That period includes numerous allegations of cruelty and mistreatment of prisoners, including the segregation and abuse of HIV- infected refugees and the spraying of refugees with toxic chemicals that have allegedly led many refugees to subsequently develop cancers and physical malformations. * Clark went from there to Guantanamo Bay, where he was chief of operations of the US Navy's internment camps and where allegations of mistreatment and abuse grew, including physical abuse and malnourishment. * In 1993, Clark commanded the cavalry division at Fort Hood, Texas, near Waco--when tanks from Fort Hood were among the US government's tools for its fatal assault on the Branch Davidian compound. Senior army officials were part of the planning for that raid, and Clark aides met before the assault with then-Gov. Anne Richards, and then with the head of the Texas National Guard, to brief them on possible plans. * Next stop for Clark: Head of the US Southern Command, where by 1996-97 Clark was instrumental in implementing US military assistance to Colombia. At that time, with the US army advising the Colombians, paramilitary death squads closely linked with Colombia's military began rampaging through Colombia's countryside, compiling the worst record of human rights atrocities in the Western Hemisphere. * And, of course, there's Yugoslavia. Clark, after repeated promotions under Clinton, became supreme NATO commander in time to coordinate the bombing of Serbia and Kosovo. That campaign was in many ways the military's training ground for its post-9/11 assaults in Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly in its targeting of civilian infrastructure and its use of depleted uranium and other experimental weaponry. Clark targeted bridges, highways, tunnels, railway stations, utilities, water treatment plants, and other civilian facilities, all of it barred under the Geneva Conventions and all of it done as well in Dubya's subsequent campaigns. Attacks on Yugoslavian state TV, the Chinese Embassy, and the Petrovaradin bridge (cutting off civilian water supplies) were eerily similar to some of the worst moments of the Afghan and Iraqi invasions. Clark's diplomatic performance during his bombing--touting KLA opposition figures with dubious human rights records of their own and sneering at European military, political, and civilian critics--were also remarkably Dubyaesque. Serbian officials estimated that over 1,000 civilians died in a bombing campaign based on dubious claims and which left that year's designated paragon of evil, Slobodan Milosevic, more firmly in power than ever. It would take a rigged election and massive nonviolent protests a year later to actually bring Milosevic down (and, eventually, to trial). The efforts of the US never did lead to Milosevic's capture. Specific enough? Mind you, virtually any president or top US military leader since WWII can be credibly accused of war crimes. But Clark is worse than many. Since he's never held elective office and runs solely on his military credentials, which would you rather believe: his Madison Avenue soft-focus public image, or his actual record? Looking at our presidents in the last generation, trusting the image hasn't worked very well, has it? A Slogan for Dubya, Nor IraqETS!,Yeah, it is obvious that Alfred E. Neumann never uttered the phrase "Stay the course," as evidenced by all of the videos I have seen on YouTube which capture the hundreds of just such utterances by Monsieur DumbAss. Forthwith, I would like to suggest the following slogan for our Iraq disaster: "Oblivius Maximus." It really rolls off the tongue, n'est ce pas ?!?! OM, for short. After seeing Mr. DumbAss speaking to the international press after the election, it is profoundly obvious that he has the mental acuity of either a brick, or a potato, therefore "Oblivius Maximus" is perfect. And, it is much easier to pronounce than "nuke-yooler." --David Engler, via e-mail |
subscribe /
donate /
tiny print /
guidelines for writers /
help /
index
© 2006 Eat the State! All rights reserved.