Category Archives: Culture Jamming

South of the Border


A trailer for the new Oliver Stone documentary on the Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez. I plan on seeing his earlier documentary, Looking For Fidel first though. This goes hand in hand with Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story for left-wing, biased movies that I generally agree with and enjoy but criticize the tactics.

Chris

The Whole World Woke Up… Or Did They?

In the simply thrilling Bright Eyes number, ” At the Bottom of Everything,” singer/songwriter, Conor Oberst merrilly declares that the “the whole world’s waking up.” I’d love to agree with ya Conor, man, but the cynical side of me must toss you off the cloud your floating on bud. Don’t get me wrong, musically/artistically, this piece and the entire album will go down in the annals of exceptional entertainment. On an entirely different level, I completely disagree with the aformentioned assumption. Clearly, Oberst is referring to Americans waking up to the sad state of their country under George W. Bush and his hawkish policies. I agree, that within the past few years, we’ve seen an extremely rare political play. Finally, people were pointing fingers at the “bad guy,” as they rightfully should have. There was an entire mood of Anti-Bush! Even my grandparents, fairly moderate-conservative people viewed their comander in chief as a bumbling fool. With this new repudiation of Bush it became extremely palpable for a young, charming, eloquent, black man to rise to the top of an old, now foolish, white man’s empire. But, that’s an entirely different story. As much as I hated everything Bush represnted, I know he’s merely a puppet in a grand scheme of century after century of carnage. If you look closely, the wave of Anti-Bush actually painted the man as a sympathetic character. They say the War in Iraq was a mistake… no my friends it was and is a blatant CRIME against humanity: Ma$$ Murder, as any serious political commentator would inform you. Imagine, if the history books noted Ted Bundy’s and John Wayne Gacy’s crimes as mistakes. That would be an obscenity and neither Bush nor any other public figure should be treated any diffrently. The average American, who may have detested Bush, I seriously doubt will mention these basic flaws in their criticisms. Sure, now citizens and politicians alike are “against” the War in Iraq, but are they truly opposed to all American foreign policy, sadly most aren’t. So, did the world really wake up? Nahh, their (american) dreams turned into nightmares and they hopped out of bed to do some sleep walking. It is the job of the radical (the minority) to snap the conformed (the majority) into reality… by any means necessary.

Chris

AK Press!

http://www.akpress.org/2005/topics/Anarchism

CHECK IT OUT! Perhaps the greatest source for Anarchism and related subversion/dissidence. You can find just about anything, from Chomsky to Punk Rock. They have the Rage Against the Machine endorsement. Do iT!

…. I wish they didn’t charge money for incendiary material. That’s for the companies to do, while the artists merely accept money as a means of survival, but through their social commentary they fight Capitalism within Capitalism….. I guess.

Chris

The Art of the Human Body

AOL NEWS
NEW YORK (Aug. 27) – It seems the only nudes allowed at New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art are the ones in the collection.

Police say they arrested a 26-year-old woman who was posing naked for a photographer, and in full view of visitors, in the museum’s arms and armor department on Wednesday.Model Kathleen “K.C.” Neill faces a charge of public lewdness.

Defense attorney Donald Schechter says the museum is full of nude art, and to call what the model and her photographer were doing obscenity “is ridiculous.”

Photographer Zach Hyman directed the shoot. He’s been getting some attention locally for photographing nude models on subways.

Hyman has said he’s inspired by nude paintings at the Met and his photos are not pornographic.

Some people just can’t appreciate fine art.

Chris

Amnesty International on Peltier Denial

Amnesty International today regretted the US Parole Commission’s decision not to grant Leonard Peltier parole despite concerns about the fairness of his 1977 conviction for murder. The organization called for the immediate release on parole of the activist, who is serving two consecutive life sentences and has spent more than 32 years in prison.

A prominent member of the American Indian Movement (AIM), Leonard Peltier was convicted of the murders of two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, Jack Coler and Ronald Williams, during a confrontation involving AIM members on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota on 26 June 1975. While Leonard Peltier admits having been present during the incident, he has always denied shooting the agents at point blank range as alleged by the prosecution at his trial.

Amnesty International recognizes the seriousness of the crime for which Leonard Peltier was convicted. However, having studied the case extensively over many years, the organization remains concerned about the fairness of the process leading to his conviction, including questions about evidence linking him to the point-blank shootings and coercion of an alleged eye-witness.

One of Amnesty International’s concerns is that Leonard Peltier’s extradition from Canada in 1976 — where he had fled following the shootings — was secured on the basis of the coerced testimony of an alleged eye-witness which the FBI knew to be false. The witness, Myrtle Poor Bear, later retracted her testimony that she had seen Leonard Peltier shoot the agents but the trial judge did not allow her to be called as a defence witness at his trial. Other concerns include the withholding by the prosecution of evidence, including potentially key ballistics evidence that might have assisted Leonard Peltier’s defence.

“The interest of justice would be best served by granting Leonard Peltier parole,” said Angela Wright, US Researcher at Amnesty International. “Given the concerns around his conviction, the fact that appeals before the courts have long been exhausted and that he has spent more than 32 years in prison, we urge the Parole Commission to reconsider its decision.”

The parole hearing, which took place over four hours on 28 July, was the first full parole hearing to be held in the case since 1993. In addition to the concerns about the fairness of his conviction, parole was sought by Peltier and his lawyer based on his good conduct record in prison and arrangements made by the Turtle Mountain tribe to receive him into their community on his release.

Background Information
Leonard Peltier is an Anishinabe-Lakota Native American who was a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM), an activist group involved in promoting the rights of “traditionalist” Indians during a period of intense conflict in the 1970s. In the two years prior to the confrontation in which the agents were killed, more than 60 Indians on the Pine Ridge reservation had been killed, allegedly by paramilitary squads connected to the tribal government, without anyone being brought to justice for the crimes. AIM members who had come to the reservation to assist “traditionalists” opposing the tribal government were also allegedly threatened. Relations between AIM and the FBI were also tense, with accusations that the authorities had not done enough to protect those at risk on the reservation.

The confrontation in which the two FBI agents were killed took place after the agents entered the reservation with an arrest warrant for four people and started following a van. A fire-fight ensued. Evidence was presented at trial to show that the agents received multiple shots and were quickly disabled before being shot dead at point-blank range.
Two other AIM leaders, Darelle Butler and Robert Robideau, were initially charged with the agents’ murders and were tried separately: no evidence was presented to link them to the point-blank shootings.

The jury acquitted them after hearing evidence about the atmosphere of violence and intimidation on the reservation and concluded that, arguably, they might have been acting in self-defense when they were involved in the exchange of gunfire.

Following their acquittal, the FBI renewed its efforts to pursue Leonard Peltier, who had fled to Canada. At his trial, the prosecution alleged that the rifle which killed the agents belonged to Peltier. During post-trial investigations, the defence team discovered a teletex message suggesting that the rifle in question contained a different firing pin from the one used to kill the agents; this was raised on appeal and an evidentiary hearing held at which the significance of the teletex was contested by the government. On appeal, the government also argued that sufficient evidence had been presented to the jury at trial to show that Leonard Peltier had “aided and abetted” the killings even if he had not been the actual killer.

However, Amnesty International believes that the outcome may well have been different had Peltier been able to challenge the ballistics evidence linking him to the fatal shots more effectively.

http://www.reporterfreelance.info

Chris

Book Club Review: Catcher

Title: The Catcher in the Rye
Author: J.D. Salinger
Year: 1951
Pages: 214

Review:”If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth.” Arguably the greatest opening line to any novel. Well, Holden, if you do want to know the truth, we DO want to hear about it! In fact, for nearly 60 years our grandparents, parents, older siblings, and us have adored it. Why? What makes this novel so special? Well, Salinger masterfully captures an adolescent’s concern, fears, desires and instead of coming off as an adult attempting to represent this mentality of a teenager, he literally writes in the damn lingo of a buzzcock. Goddamit! As far as I’m concerned Salinger ain’t telling the story, it’s Holden who’s’ running the show. It’s his book entirely. Holden has become the Pied Piper for a whole slew of lonesome cowboys: Taxi Driver’s Travis Bickle, The Perks of Being a Wallflower’s Charlie, and that cute radical nerd fellow from Kids Like You & Me. In short, he’s a middle finger to the establishment or a haphazard, misanthropic messiah, trying to save everyone only if he can save himself… and all.

Why Subversive?: Catcher has the unfortunate privilege (how’s that for an oxymoron?!) of already being subversive before you even read one word. It’s subversive simply for it’s reputation of consistently being a victim of Banned Books Lists and Censorship Nazis. Apparently heavy drinking and cussing some naughty words is worse than trying to commit suicide, murder your father, and fuck your mother as we witness with Shakespeare. Also, since some weirdos decide to assassinate (or attempt) public figures (John Lennon and Ronald Reagan) after or while reading the book, doesn’t mean shit! Look at the millions that didn’t grab their guns! Why focus on the select few? Not that Reagan would have been a great loss, but Hinckley’s motives were hardly in the vein of Leon Czolgosz: impressing Jodie Foster. Really?! haha. And you can calm down I’m not advocating political assassination, I just think Leon had much better, humane reasons. Anyway, I’ve digressed into this tornado of off topic subjects. Simply, Catcher challenges the reader to question authority and reject social norms.

Questions to Ponder (or leave a comment to!): What will become of Holden Caulfield? or What became of him?
What ever happened to Jane Gallagher? Is she in any way related to the awful comedian of the same name?
Why was Holden placed in a mental institution? How did this ALL transpire?
Any others?

Grade: A+ My all time favorite!

Chris