Noam Chomsky on Charlie Rose (2003)

Mike Gravel considered too dangerous for NBC debate

Why NBC and the DNC Want Me Out of the Debate

In the past year, I have attended 11 national Democratic debates of which two were sponsored by corporate media giant NBC. However, last week, the network suddenly conjured up arbitrary polling and fundraising requirements specifically designed to exclude me. None of the previous debates I attended held such requirements.

When my staff called NBC directly to find out why I was now barred from attending, Chuck Todd, NBC news' political director, told us that there were three criteria we did not meet, namely that I had not campaigned in New Hampshire and/or Iowa at least 14 times in the past year, that I was not polling at 5% and that I hadn't raised $1 million.

It is abundantly clear that NBC just wants me out of the race. This was made evident by the fact that NBC did not even inform me of its arbitrary criteria before making the decision to stifle my campaign. NBC's Todd waited until 5 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 19, to inform my staff that I was not invited to the Oct. 30 debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

Since I announced my candidacy for the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States on April 17, 2006, I have certainly traveled to New Hampshire and Iowa at least 14 times. And, according to a recent CNN poll, I am tied with Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd.

NBC claims I haven't raised enough money to qualify. I'm proud of the fact that I don't collect millions from special interests (or fugitives like Norman Hsu). The reason why Senator Hillary Clinton seems to have a fundraising scandal every month is because money has corrupted our democracy. By stifling my voice on the basis of fundraising dollars, NBC is reinforcing the power of money over our national political discussion and our freedom.

But why has NBC suddenly come up with "requirements" designed to exclude me from the debate?

NBC's decision is proof that our corporate media do not want a genuine debate over our impending war with Iran. During the last debate I was the only one to aggressively confront Senator Clinton over her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Had I not brought up the subject, seasoned NBC commentator Tim Russert, the moderator of the Sept. 26 debate, would not have even asked about it.

Most Americans still don't appreciate the gravity of that vote and they don't understand that our government is intentionally raising roadblocks to diplomacy. Corporate media have once again failed to investigate how Bush and a compliant congress have set us on the warpath. Instead the media simply parrots the demonization of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the administration's unproven accusations against Iran. NBC and the other corporate media have jumped on the war bandwagon and they are determined to shut up anyone who tries to stop it.

The fact that NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the world's leading military contractors, is frightening and certainly smacks of censorship directed at the most outspoken critic of the influence that the military-industrial complex holds over this great nation. In the past decade, GE has benefited financially from the global war on terrorism and currently holds almost $2 billion in military contracts.

So I ask that anyone, who is as concerned as I am about the power of the mainstream media and the military-industrial complex, speak out in support of my campaign today. And, even if you support another candidate, surely you understand the implications of NBC's decision for our democracy and the future peace and security of our nation.

And since the powers that be now require that I raise $1 million in order to participate in the debates, please make a donation to my campaign. Unlike my fellow candidates, I am not focused on raising million of dollars; I am focused on fixing representative government. Help us reach that arbitrary threshold, and I will continue to fight for democracy and peace.

Senator Mike Gravel

"Stand fast and fight to the last": The Spanish Anarchist Collectives

A stock criticism of Anarchism is that it's just too damn Utopian, a romantic fairytale for academics, a whimsical land of Oz located somewhere between Haight-Ashbury and Sesame Street. But these charges of Anarchism's impracticality fall apart when one examines the nuts and bolts of the Spanish Anarchist Collectives. It's no secret that good ideas are hard to suffocate, and this idea had been blossoming in the minds of Spanish workers for decades, one of self-management and self-governance. It wasn't difficult to look at their environment and imagine how there could be a better world. Property ownership was the only way to gain access to the means of life, and with 67% of the land in the hands of 2% of the population peasant farmers had to labor under the wealthy landowners to survive. In those days, the men who held the deeds made the rules. But the people taught themselves about the transformative potential of solidarity, and acknowledged their ability to create equality through their own collective power. From here the Spanish Anarchists produced a functional bottom up society whose ghost plutocrats worldwide still must confront.

In the 1930s, Spain was begging for revolution. A third of the country's workforce, or about 1 million people, suffered from unemployment. With a primarily agrarian economy, barring Catalonia which was the only region that had successfully industrialized, growth had screeched to a halt. Because of the wide sustenance gap, starvation became prevalent amongst the peasants. While the lower classes went without food the Catholic Church retained an indefensible 30% of the total wealth of Spain and colluded with the big landowners by charming its patrons with fantastic stories of supernatural visions as to exaggerate its relevance in people's lives and ensure their obedience. The working class found no relief from their recently created Republican government, who promised to redistribute the country's wealth but wouldn't be able to fully enact this reform in under a century. Government, industry and the Church failed the Spaniards.

Harsh crackdowns on dissent followed the formation of the Republican government. A collection of organized workers called the CNT actively opposed the cruelty of the bourgeois, and were massacred as a result. During the next election, the CNT and its socialist ally, the UGT, boycotted the polls. They no longer wanted to elect an autocrat derived from a shallow pool of candidates who would decide the best way of exploiting their class. Instead, they held strikes across the country, demonstrating in every major city and converting new members en mass. As a response, a rebel group of fascists helmed by Franco promised to crush the worker's resistance. This would be the beginning of the revolution.

Franco's fascist rebellion was pushed back in many parts of Spain by workers who took over the means of production and collectivized the land. There were even reports of soldiers deserting the Republican Army and joining their fellow workers in the revolution. But all the bloodshed would have been meaningless if there wasn't a new model that could replace the old. This moment was what mattered most about the Spanish Revolution.

All remnants of hierarchy were dispensed with. In this world, there were no bosses to be obeyed or gods to be worshiped. The workers decided everything through frequent assemblies where they discussed and voted on issues. Everything was shared and distributed equitably. No longer were people forced into degrading arrangements with masters due to fear of unemployment. There were no homeless on the streets. Words that signified authority like "Sir" were replaced with "Comrade" and tips in restaurants were banished. Area churches were gutted and replaced with schools, beauty parlors and movie theaters which were free to everybody even non-Anarchists.

The new worker-managed workplaces were called syndicates, and innovated better than when they were under Capitalist control. Bakeries which suffered from rodent infestations and disease were updated and improved under the workers' guidance. Dilapidated bridges, canals and roads were fixed and developed by combining the resources of each member of a Collective. Farm Collectives grew oranges by cleaning the soil themselves, while under the old rule a chemical fertilizer was added to the earth reducing the quality of the harvest. Potatoes were also planted in the shade of the orange orchards, an idea the previous landowners never allowed. Because the workers were no longer encumbered by the effects of wage slavery and the specter of starvation they were able to increase the quality of their yields and products without the incentive of competition.

This is not to say everybody got along. There were those who didn't want to be apart of a Collective. In many areas up to 30% rejected Anarchism and kept their private property. Did the unions coerce these individuals into accepting their philosophy? Of course not, that would run counter to what Anarchy stands for. In fact, there are examples of the Anarchist Collectives offering these people the best land in the region just so the Anarchists could consolidate their land and leave non-Anarchists free from their influence. At times, members of a syndicate didn't want to share the products of their labor with other members of the Collective. Disagreements like these were aired at assembly meetings. Here, the majority did not impose their will on the minority but utilized persuasive debate. Typically, the worker who refused to share was reminded of how the former bosses also refused to share their property, and created unemployment and poverty. This memory most likely hadn't lost its sting for the worker who lived day to day under hideous conditions. Usually, he or she would have been convinced to share with the rest of the Collective.

A popular battle cry of the Anarchist militia was: "Stand fast and fight to the last". And that's what many of them did for as long as they could. But supplies ran low due to the Communist's fear of empowering the Anarchists, and Franco's Rebel Army had intensified. Eventually, amid much protest from some of its members, the CNT was absorbed into the government which ultimately fell to Franco. But the defeat of the Anarchist Collectives was not a result of their Anarchist principles, it was due to their betrayal of them. The CNT and the other Spanish Anarchists should have refused arms from the Communists and decapitated the government while they had the chance. Fortunately, we inherit the optimism of that era. Buenaventura Durruti, a famous Anarchist militiaman, summarizes:

"We have always lived in slums and holes in the wall. We will know how to accommodate ourselves for a time. For, you must not forget, we can also build. It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute." (source)

Maher personally removes Truthers from his show

Of course I don't agree with the suppression of free speech, but on Maher's show, if he wants to eject a few disruptive members then that's his prerogative. Besides, what do you want him to do, stop the show and discuss this bullshit issue? Sorry, folks, the world is a messy and complicated place and not everything can be explained through this type of specious reasoning.

By the way, this is what happened to building seven...

Burma: "Panties for Peace"

Activists send female underwear to Burmese embassies


Activists exasperated at the failure of diplomacy to apply pressure on Burma's military regime are resorting to a new means of protest against the regime's recent crackdown: sending female underwear to Burmese embassies.

Embassies in the UK, Thailand, Australia and Singapore have all been targeted by the "Panties for Peace" campaign, co-ordinated by an activist group based in Chiang Mai, Thailand.

The manoeuvre is a calculated insult to the junta and its leader, General Than Shwe. Superstitious junta members believe that any contact with female undergarments - clean or dirty - will sap them of their power, said Jackie Pollack, a member of the Lanna Action for Burma Committee.

"Not only are they brutal, but they are also very superstitious. They believe that touching a woman's pants or sarong will make them lose their strength," Ms Pollack told Guardian Unlimited.

So far, hundreds of pairs of pants have been posted, according to another campaigner, Liz Hilton. "One group sent 140 pairs to the Burmese embassy in Geneva," she said.

The campaign was a serious attempt to allow ordinary women to express their outrage at the regime's response to democracy demonstrations led by Buddhist monks, Ms Pollack said.

"Condemnation by the United Nations and governments around the world have had no impact on the Burmese regime. This is a way of trying to reach them where they will feel it," she said.

"The junta is famous for its abuse of women: it is well documented that they use rape as a weapon of war against ethnic minorities. This is a way for women around the world to express their outrage."

The Burmese government has claimed that 10 people were killed and nearly 2,100 arrested, but dissident groups estimate that dozens or even hundreds died during the recent crackdown and its aftermath.

A message on the activists' website reads: "This is your chance to use your Panty Power to take away the power from the SPDC. You can post, deliver or fling your panties at the closest Burmese Embassy any day from today. Send early, send often."

An official at the Burmese Embassy in London was unable to confirm if any garments had yet been delivered.

Friday Flashback: Les Paul & Mary Ford - "How High The Moon" (Live on CBS in 1953)

How to masturbate in public

It was Howard Zinn who said we need to stop looking at reform movements in terms of their immediacy and start thinking of these undercurrents of change as slow, progressive thrusts forward which occur over generations. I like to think of them as building a medieval cathedral. During the middle ages, if a township wanted a place of worship they needed to plan ahead - far ahead - in fact, those who began construction did so knowing full well that neither they nor their children would live to see its completion.

Ideas such as American Exceptionalism and religiosity need to be delegitimized, but are so deeply seated that these dogmas seem to be encoded in our DNA. Yet, we've overcome such ingrained paradigms in the past. Monarchies and slavery existed for centuries until they were recognized as being dehumanizing and eventually shed like sheets of dead skin.

The problem I've been fencing with, however, is that of voting. I've voted ever since I turned 18 in 2000, and have participated in both local and national elections, but I've matured politically since then. The ideology which best describes my world view is libertarian socialism otherwise known as anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism. How can somebody exist in this society as an "anarchist" without being a hypocrite? I contend you can't. But if you hold anarchist sympathies, which I do, there are certain institutions you need to condemn namely Uncle Sam.

Voting has been described as public masturbation. We step into the booth, push the magic buttons and our ballot is spirited away. Afterward we feel satisfied (and a little guilty) but nothing seriously changed. But everywhere I turn people are telling me to vote, that my vote is my voice. No. My voice is my voice. However, the culture is seductive, and I can't say with any certainty that I won't vote again. We anarchists in training need to start a support group: Voters Anonymous. Fortunately, with Rudy and Hillary being the most likely candidates in 2008 I can't exactly hear the siren's song of "revolution" courting me anytime soon.

But if Nader runs, that'll be a different story. Just like a five-finger wankfest I might not be able to resist myself.