November 5 is around the corner... predictions anyone?Does Mondale win Minnesota?Does Van Hollen defeat Morella?Does Jeb get thrown out of Florida?Do the Democrats keep the Senate?

WOW! Smells like you just dropped a load on this website, sweet jesus.The war is good for some parts of the economy like the arms industry. Not so hot if you're actually trying to get funds for highway repair, education, law enforcement, or balance the budget. You do care about that, don't you?Thanks for checking out our website. Keep coming back for more!!

sweet jesus christ! you guys have no fucking idea what in god name you are talking about. so what if we (the US that is, not canada where blowback is from)drop a bombs on some raghead cameljocky motherfuckers wartime spending is good for the economy you stupid cunt licking sons of fat ass bitches. i mean god damnit this website just fucking pissed me off and now you're never going to hear the end of it. seriously if you would pull your heads out of each others cunts you might be able to think about one fucking thing clearly. what the fuck were you thinking making this website you should grow a dick out of your vagina right the hell now other wise some big fucking arab is going to put his dick in it because thats what i would do if i was one of those stupid terrorist cocksucking pieces of shit and i read this web page. in fact i would probably drop a fucking massive load in your god damn eye and then give you the donkey punch twice you white trash untalented dick sucking wannabe musician motherfucker. to summarize this shit (if you dont get it already) I FUCKING HATE YOU!!!!!

I'm not sure, but I think it was All Things Considered. I was driving in my car listening sometime between 5:30 and 6;30 pm yesterday. The segment started off talking about a protest to be held thisweekend in San Francisco, then talked about the earlier protest in DC.On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:36:18 -0500 (CDT) QT - BIII wrote:"That's All, Folks!"< replied-to message removed by QT >

Hack, any idea which news show it was on? Trying to find it on NPR's website.

Hey guys, in case you don't already know, NPR played some of your recent performance during a news segment on the anti-war movement yesterday. The commentator mentioned protests and punk rock, then I heard what sounded like Senor or maybe Bob say, "This next one is called 'Gotta Resist.'" The commentators talked over most of the song, but I could hear it in the background. Way to go!

Nice Wilbur.This from the NY Times 10/23/02:"I think if it will help find this guy and bring him to be arrested, then it will be good, of course."- Charlton Heston, President of the National Rifle Association, discussing "ballistic fingerprinting", a proposed step opposed by the NRA

Another blowback. What do Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, and the DC Sniper have in common? They have all killed Americans, and they were all trained by the US military.

i've been intrigued by the instant runoff voting idea for some time. what are its downsides? what would be valid arguments against it?

Conspiracy Theory # 57:Bush never intended to go to war but to disillusion the Left with the Democrats in time for the election, ensuring that the Republicans keep the House and re-take the Senate.By the way, Hitchens is wrong. The US has no business invading Iraq.

Letters to the Editor, today's NYTimes.Are the Greens Pure, or Elitist?[T] o the Editor:"A Gray Future for California Voters," by Clancy Sigal (Op-Ed, Oct. 17), points out the twisted logic of Green voters who loathe our corrupt two-party system and are willing to destroy it at the expense of the most vulnerable.In 2000 Mr. Sigal voted for Ralph Nader and now loses sleep because of what happened. I voted for Mr. Nader in 1996, but I decided that he was not worthy of my vote in 2000 after he said that it would be O.K. if a loss by Al Gore resulted in the overturning of Roe v. Wade because women could always travel to a pro-choice state like New York to get a safe, legal abortion.Good for Mr. Sigal for rejecting this elitist attitude on the part of Greens who are willing to ignore the plight of those who would suffer under a Republican agenda. EMILY FEINERNyack, N.Y., Oct. 17, 2002? To the Editor:"A Gray Future for California Voters," by Clancy Sigal (Op-Ed, Oct. 17), echoes many other contributors to the bitter debate between Democrats and Greens by ignoring the one reform that would end the need for this argument and make our elections more democratic. That reform is instant runoff voting, a system in which voters rank their candidates, allowing a No. 2 preference to be counted if a voter's No. 1 choice can't achieve a majority.This eliminates the "spoiler" problem while still allowing voters to express their true choices, instead of being frightened into voting for a poor candidate just because a worse one might win.Leftists, liberals and anyone else who loves democracy should concentrate on winning this reform rather than continuing the pointless bickering over who is more pure and who more pragmatic. JAKE WERNERChicago, Oct. 17, 2002

It's not an interrogation. It's (supposed to be) a discussion. I'm asking for clarification, or for your opionion. But your responses are either tangential or non-sequitors. And I read Hitchens, and all should, whether they agree or not; he raises some interesting points. So it's posted below. His new book was also favorably reviewed in the Post today. I'm out.Is That All That's Left?So Long, Fellow Travelers[Outlook]By Christopher HitchensSunday, October 20, 2002; Page B01George Bush made a mistake when he referred to the Saddam Hussein regime as "evil." Every liberal and leftist knows how to titter at such black-and-white moral absolutism. What the president should have done, in the unlikely event that he wanted the support of America's peace-mongers, was to describe a confrontation with Saddam as the "lesser evil."This is a term the Left can appreciate. Indeed, "lesser evil" is part of the essential tactical rhetoric of today's Left, and has been deployed to excuse or overlook the sins of liberal Democrats, from President Clinton's bombing of Sudan to Madeleine Albright's veto of an international rescue for Rwanda when she was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Among those longing for nuance, moral relativism -- the willingness to use the term evil, when combined with a willingness to make accommodations with it -- is the smart thing: so much more sophisticated than "cowboy" language.Actually, the best case for a regime change in Iraq is that it is the lesser evil: better on balance than the alternatives, which are to confront Saddam later and at a time of his choosing, trust him to make a full disclosure to inspectors or essentially leave him alone.You might think that the Left could have a regime-change perspective of its own, based on solidarity with its comrades abroad. After all, Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party consolidated its power by first destroying the Iraqi communist and labor movements, and then turning on the Kurds (whose cause, historically, has been one of the main priorities of the Left in the Middle East). When I first became a socialist, the imperative of international solidarity was the essential if not the defining thing, whether the cause was popular or risky or not. I haven't seen an anti-war meeting all this year at which you could even guess at the existence of the Iraqi and Kurdish opposition to Saddam, an opposition that was fighting for "regime change" when both Republicans and Democrats were fawning over Baghdad as a profitable client and geopolitical ally. Not only does the "peace" movement ignore the anti-Saddam civilian opposition, it sends missions to console the Ba'athists in their isolation, and speaks of the invader of Kuwait and Iran and the butcher of Kurdistan as if he were the victim and George W. Bush the aggressor.Some peaceniks clear their throats by saying that, of course, they oppose Saddam Hussein as much as anybody, though not enough to support doing anything about him.But some don't even bother to make this disavowal. In the United States, the main organizer of anti-war propaganda is Ramsey Clark, who perhaps understandably can't forgive himself for having been Lyndon Johnson's attorney general. However, he fails to live down this early disgrace by acting as a front man for a sinister sect -- the International Action Center, cover name for the Workers World Party -- which refuses to make any criticism of the Saddam regime. It is this quasi-Stalinist group, co-organized by a man with the wondrous name of Clark Kissinger, which has recruited such figures as Ed Asner and Marisa Tomei to sign the "Not In Our Name" petition. Funny as this may be in some ways (I don't think the administration is going to war in the name of Ed Asner or Marisa Tomei, let alone Gore Vidal), it is based on a surreptitious political agenda. In Britain, the chief spokesman of the "anti-war" faction is a Labour MP named George Galloway, who is never happier than when writing moist profiles of Saddam and who says that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst moment of his life.For the democratic and libertarian Left, that same moment was a high point and not a low one. But there were three ruling parties in the world that greeted the liberation of Eastern Europe with unreserved gloom. These were the Socialist Party of Serbia, the Ba'ath Party of Iraq and the Workers' Party of North Korea, guided by their lugubrious yet megalomaniacal leaders. Since then, these three party-states and selfish dictators have done their considerable best to ruin the promise of the post Cold War years and to impose themselves even more ruthlessly on their own peoples and neighbors. It took a long time for the world to wake up to Slobodan Milosevic and even longer to get him where he belongs, which is in the dock. It will probably be even more arduous ridding ourselves of the menace of Saddam Hussein.The most depressing thing, for me at any rate, has been to see so much of the Left so determined to hamper this process, which is why, after 20 years, I have given up my column in the Nation magazine. The Left has employed arguments as contemptible as those on whose behalf they have been trotted out. It maintained that any resistance to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo would lead to a wider war, chaos and/or the rallying of the Serbs to Milosevic. It forecast massive quagmires and intolerable civilian casualties. If this sounds familiar, it may be because you are hearing it again now and heard it last year from those who thought the Taliban-al Qaeda base in Afghanistan was not worth fighting about.But the element of bad faith in the argument is far worse than the feeble-minded hysteria of its logic. In the Balkans, those on the Left and Right who favored intervention could not live with the idea that Europe would permit the extermination of its oldest Muslim minority. At that point, the sensibilities of Islam did not seem to matter to the Ramsey Clarks and Noam Chomskys, who thought and wrote of national-socialist and Orthodox Serbia as if it were mounting a gallant resistance to globalization. (Saddam, of course, took Milosevic's side even though the Serb leader was destroying mosques and murdering Muslims.)Now, however, the same people are all frenzied about an American-led "attack on the Muslim world." Are the Kurds not Muslims? Is the new Afghan government not Muslim? Will not the next Iraqi government be Muslim also? This meaningless demagogy among the peaceniks can only be explained by a masochistic refusal to admit that our own civil society has any merit, or by a nostalgia for Stalinism that I can sometimes actually taste as well as smell.There is, of course, a soggier periphery of more generally pacifist types, whose preferred method of argument about regime change is subject change. The same people, in other words, who don't think that Saddam has any weapons of mass destruction will argue the next moment that, if attacked, he will unleash them with devastating effect. Or they say that a Palestinian solution should come first, which would offer Saddam a very long lease, given the prospects of a final settlement with Israel (which, meantime, he would have the power and incentive to disrupt). Or they say we should try deterrence or containment -- the two terms most ridiculed by the Left during the Cold War. And what about the fact that "we" used to be Saddam's backers? And, finally, aren't there other bad guys in the region, and isn't this a double standard?The last two questions actually have weight, even if they are lightly tossed around. The serious response to the first one would be that, to the extent that the United States underwrote Saddam in the past, this redoubles our responsibility to cancel the moral debt by removing him. The serious response to the second one would involve noticing that the Saudi Arabian and Turkish oligarchies are, interestingly enough, also opposed to "regime change" in the region. And since when is the Left supposed to argue for preservation of the status quo? Even a halfway emancipated Iraq would hold out at least the promise of a better life for the Kurds (which annoys the Turks). Its oil resources, once freed up, could help undercut the current Saudi monopoly. Excellent. This is presumably unintelligible to those content to chant, "No war for oil," as if it were a matter of indifference who controlled the reserves of the region, or who might threaten to ignite or even irradiate these reserves if given the chance.As someone who has done a good deal of marching and public speaking about Vietnam, Chile, South Africa, Palestine and East Timor in his time (and would do it all again), I can only hint at how much I despise a Left that thinks of Osama bin Laden as a slightly misguided anti-imperialist. (He actually says he wants to restore the old imperial caliphate and has condemned the Australian-led international rescue of East Timor as a Christian plot against Muslim Indonesia). Or a Left that can think of Milosevic and Saddam as victims.Instead of internationalism, we find among the Left now a sort of affectless, neutralist, smirking isolationism. In this moral universe, the views of the corrupt and conservative Jacques Chirac -- who built Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor, knowing what he wanted it for -- carry more weight than those of persecuted Iraqi democrats. In this moral universe, the figure of Jimmy Carter -- who incited Saddam to attack Iran in 1980, without any U.N. or congressional consultation that I can remember -- is considered axiomatically more statesmanlike than Bush.Sooner or later, one way or another, the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples will be free of Saddam Hussein. When that day comes, I am booked to have a reunion in Baghdad with several old comrades who have been through hell. We shall not be inviting anyone who spent this precious time urging democratic countries to give Saddam another chance.Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and professor of liberal studies at the New School in New York. His most recent book is "Why Orwell Matters" (Basic Books).

Deleted by author 10-20-2002 08:46 PM

Your interrogation is not much of a dialogue.You might enjoy today's Hitchens piece in Washington Post's Outlook section.Thanks for posing your questions. Enjoy answering them!

I thought this was supposed to be for dialogue. If you're not going to address the question(s), what's the point?Is there some nation out there whose intelligence services you would suggest as a model [for the US]?Do you believe that the Kurds should have a homeland of their own, or at the least some degree of autonomous rule w/in Iraq?Should Hussein be tried for crimes against humanity for gassing civilian Kurds? How do you propose that that happen?And just for the hell of it, in terms of whom I choose to support overseas, morally, politically, or financially, when is it my business? And when is it not?

For a just peaceful world.I don't support an invasion of Iraq by the US. Period. Didn't think i needed to clarify that.I don't see anything in my answer saying anything about you and the Kurds.Sharon and I don't agree on the fact that US support for Israel should cease. Period. Don't you agree?

You're accusing me of deflecting? I've been the one answering the questions. I thought I'd put the shoe on your foot. Anyone can be a critic. Why don't you propose something? You make clear what you're against, i.e. the CIA. What are you for? You sound like Daschle and Gephardt -- gripe, gripe, gripe, but never propose an alternative.You want an example of deflection? You still haven't answered my original question about your apparent weasel wording, "under current circumstance" regarding Iraq. I pointed that out in my last post.You've assumed that I support a Kurdish homeland or some sort of self-rule; I didn't say that. I asked what you thought about it.And if the Palestinians want a homeland, your view also would be that it's none of my, or your, or anyone else's business? Congrats. You and Sharon now agree on something -- the rest of the world has no business getting involved in the situation.And just for the hell of it, in terms of whom I choose to support overseas, morally, politically, or financially, when is it my business? Like it or not, and personally I don't, Sharon was democratically elected. For that matter, so was Rios Montt. Either one is a far cry from Saddam Hussein, who was not. And what happened to the Kurds is a far cry from Sabra and Shatila.

Sure Hussein is guilty of crimes against humanity just like Sharon is for the Sabra Shatilla (sp?) massacres. But a US operation like "Just Cause" is a bullshit way of doing business, especially since it's always hypocritical. In this case, we'd go after Hussein and keep wining and dining Sharon in the White House.

Why don't YOU answer the question of what a legitimate intelligence service is instead of trying to deflect?And no, i don't mean Reich should go back to Cuba but that he should leave office. For starters, I'd like to see anyone who wasn't involved in Iran Contra.And if the Kurds want their homeland in Iraq and Turkey and the other parts of that area, that's their business. Not yours or the monkeyboys.

I'm open to hearing your definition of a "legitimate" intelligence service. I'm presuming your view is that the CIA and other services are out of control and beyond hope of any true deep reform, and therefore need to be replaced by something, no? Is there some nation out there whose intelligence services you would suggest as a model?I'm also hoping that you're not suggesting that Reich should go back to Cuba. That's the sort of thing that could come back to bite you.As for Iraq, you didn't answer the question. Then again, you didn't address the point about who'd replace Reich either. BTW, do you believe that the Kurds should have a homeland of their own, or at the least some degree of autonomous rule w/in Iraq? Should Hussein be tried for crimes against humanity for gassing civilian Kurds? How do you propose that that happen? And try to stick to the question instead of telling all the other people who should be tried for crimes against humanity. Or at least answer the question while you're doing it.

please define "legitimate" intelligence serviceReich may be right on Guatemala right now, but it still doesn't mean he shouldn't go homeand no, we should not attack Iraq; in fact we should stop all current attacks

Yes. One should take a clear and justifiable stand.I presume you're not saying that we don't a need a real and legitimate intelligence service? War on Iraq, right now, is wrong. But you seem to be leaving yourself some wiggle room; that it might be justifiable at some point. You say, "in the current circumstances..." Or am I misreading you?Reich is right. If he's going to continue to be right, I'll support him when he is, and I'll blast him when he's not. It's not likely they'd find anyone either of us would really approve of to fill his slot. And if they did, we'd say he/she had been morally compromised.

but while there are always devils in the details, one still has to take a clear stand. in the current circumstances, war on Iraq is wrong. and the CIA should be shut down. and Reich should just go home.

I think Carlos's reply illustrates the various attempts I've tried to make here, on different issues, to argue that things just aren't so easily designated black or white.To get back to Guatemala for a moment, as an example. Otto Reich, former State Dept. propagandist for the contras, and thorougly contemptible, blasts the Guatemalan gov't as a kleptocracy. The GOG and its genocidal power behind the throne, Rios Montt, object to the intervention in its sovereign affairs. The CACIF, the right-wing business organization, supports Reich, but the Catholic Church agrees with Rios Montt. OK, so the GOG is almost always wrong, but in this case, the Church is also wrong, but CACIF and Reich are right. Strange days indeed.

the Tower question is a good one - at what point is one enabling a corporate structure or potentially reaching new people? and where is the fine line??perhaps one of the ways of thinking is to answer Bob's question: did they listen to it? yes, but only to see if it fit a certain level of quality. the content was irrelevant to them.the point is pretty moot because no one has picked it up!!!

Good question Craig. I don't believe we're enabling Tower records to label themselves anything by having our CD on sale there. You can already find Fugazi, Rage, Public Enemy, etc. CDs on sale there. I was actually amazed they even agreed to stock our record. I'm not sure any Tower personel ever listened to the CD, (I'll ask Carlos who got it stocked in DC) let alone read the lyrics, before stocking it. Our goal is to get our message out to people, many of the people we need to "reach" only shop at places like Tower.Unfortunately, speaking of the little guys, I've walked door to door to numerous "progressive" record and book stores here in New York City trying to get them to sell our CD on consignment and have been turned away. In some ways it makes sense, the small guys definitely need to stock artists on "known" labels to be able to sell and survive. We have been able to get into quite a few independent stores (click the CD link to the left and scroll down) and yes this is where most of our sales have come from.Quite frankly record stores are dying. Soon I think the only place we and other small bands/labels will be "sold/traded", will be the internet.

BIII, I didn't mean to suggest you were in it for the money. Though we haven't met, you've probably heard that Carlos and I have known each other for a while, so I know that's not the case, and I know it's not what you all are about. Help me out with the Tower records bit though. Are you enabling them by letting them say they sell anti-establishment anti-corporate (whatever you want to call it) music, or are they selling the rope by which they will eventually hang themselves? Why not stick to independent progressive marketers only? Wouldn't folks looking for your tunes thereby be more likely to patronize such places rather than corporate monstrosities like Tower?

Craig, I must agree with you on one point. We should be giving our music away for free. Actually, it's what we've been doing all along. We have yet to make a penny on any music we've put out, and we probably never will. We've paid for our own recording, mixing, mastering, marketing, tours, transportation, meals, lodging, gas, etc, etc, etc. The most money we've ever made as a band was from a show we were cancelled from doing. Carlos sent a flyer to the club owner that was deemed "too political" (please see http://www.blowbacknet.com/site.html goto the bottom, click Northeat Tour #2-April 2002 and scroll down to see the "controversial" flyer) I believe the owner gave us $100 for our troubles after we'd paid to ferry all our gear out to that sorry shithole. If you think we're in this for the money please feel free to come heckle us at our next paying gig. Or better yet, come to our next gig with everyone you know and I will personally give each and every friend, foe or family member a copy of our CD. FOR FREE!!! They're taking up space in my kitchen, I need to get them out of here NOW!!!ThanksP.S. Sincerely, I do appreciate your participation in the debates on this site and your interesting, articulate, well informed information. This is what we invisioned when we setup this forum and are happy to have people like you participating. Please feel free to voice your opinion.BIII

The US is doing some good there, I've seen it; there's a long way to go before we even get close to balancing it out. If in your view the US is incapable of doing anything positive in any regard, maybe you're closer to those isolationists than I thought. Why then do you bother to lobby the USG and speak at briefings on Capitol Hill? Wallerstein's basic premise (and this was during the Cold War) was that the whole world economy is basically a capitalist enterprise (and I would argue basically always has been in some form), and that nation-states serve only to regulate the relationship between capital and labor w/in their borders.Replacing capitalism entails changing some very basic elements of human nature. See Cuba's effort to promote "the New Communist Man" in the late 1960's -- which not only didn't work, but could only have a chance of succeeding in the short to medium tern within a police state.Another thought: Why are you guys selling your CDs instead of giving them away to the masses? And at Tower among others? Aren't they sort of the Starbucks of the music industry?

On Guate, I wonder how much "good" the US continues doing there. Maybe a truth commission here might be a good start, if we really are serious about making amends for Guate. Closing down the CIA Station there and sending the military mission home. And freezing the visas and assets of all Guate elites and military until impunity is broken.Tell me about Wallerstein, I'll tell you about Crimethink.

Well, I would say we have a hell of a debt to Guatemala, and moral and political obligation to help out as much as possible. The US can never change its responsibility for what it did. Are you saying we should just wash our hands of it and walk away?As for capitalism, read Wallerstein. To paraphrase Churchill, it's a lousy system, except for all the others.

Hack said: "For what it's worth, the band NOFX suggests registering Green, then voting Democratic, on the premise that this will make the Democrats take the Green agenda seriously."You think so Hack? If you vote Democrat,the only ones who'll profit from the vote would be Democrats,in my opinion.I voted Green because I liked what Nader had to say concerning labor policy.If you want to vote Green,vote Green.If you want to vote Libertarian,vote Libertarian.If you want to vote Democrat,then vote for them.But to vote for one party to steal votes away from another party even if you believe in a third party is in my opinion a wasted vote.Vote for who you think is the best candidate for the job.I think I'll vote for Carlos this time 'round heh heh.

Guatemala is a good example. What is the balance when you add up the military and intelligence aid that got the ball rolling and kept it steamrolling? With regards to the IMF/World Bank, I think the question might be framed as one of whether or not capitalism can serve basic human needs - all humans - and not some at the expense of others. IMF/World Bank are the tip of the iceberg, kind of like the School of the Americas is the tip of the US military training iceberg.

Depends. The isolationists want to get rid of the IMF and World Bank no matter what. Don't you prefer to reform them as institutions which actually serve basic human needs?Isolationists also oppose the UN, the Int'l Criminal Court, and other multilateral institutions. Internationalists at least feel some sense of responsibility for the rest of the world, even if some/many of them are occasionally/sometimes/frequently wrong (depending on the politician and issue in question).BTW, if you check the Yahoo discussion board on Otto Reich's recent comments on Guatemala, you'll find that several Guatemalans concur that the US should mind its own business. I'd say the US has a historic responsibility to be engaged, since we can't turn back the clock to 1953 and prevent the USG from keeping out in the first place.

I think i also agree that a politician with principle is a better person than a politician who follows the prevailing winds. Here we get into a question of what it means to "represent" people. A quick rejoiner is that "representing" is very different from "manipulating."The isolationists also want to end OPIC, Ex-Im Bank, the IMF, and the World Bank. I wonder how it balances out...

These isolationists who think the US should "mind its own business" also think the US should cancel all foreign aid. Not just the ESF and military aid you oppose, but aid for women's education, family planning, microcredit programs, UN support, refugees, and whatever other (few) programs funded by the US which actually help the poorest of the poor. As for the Iraq vote, I'll take an elected representative who's wrong but sincerely believes over one who votes however the wind is blowing. The first can (sometimes) be educated, and at least can be debated and refuted on open terms. The latter just votes however they feel with no consistent argument or philosophy.

I agree with your assessment that not all who voted FOR war are "gutless" people. Some of them are just plain wrong. While I don't necessarily agree with the isolationsists, i much prefer people to want the USG to mind its own business than go around starting wars.But I dount that Clinton really believes that war with Iraq is a good thing - or even necessary. Which in a sense makes her vote a lot worse than Lieberman's who I suspect really believes war with Iraq is a good turn of events.

The Frank Rich column which I mentioned in my previous message appears at the end of this post.Carlos, of course it matters what motivated someone's vote. A vote for authorizing force may always be wrong in your view; I'm just suggesting that not all those who voted that way did so because they are too "gutless" to stand up for what (you think) is right. There is a difference. As for the flip side, and here I think motivation is especially relevant, the three House Republicans I cited earlier, who voted no, basically believe we should construct a missile defense system, wall of the borders, stop all immigration, and to hell with the rest of the world. Of the other three House Republicans who voted against, I can personally attest that at least one of them honestly believes that we must always pursue every possible avenue of peaceful resolution before taking any decision about resorting to military force. As for Democrats versus Republicans, I'd still say the Democrats, for all their inadequacies and incompetence, are not as bad. Two examples: Gore wouldn't have proposed this ridiculous tax cut and certainly wouldn't be trying to stack the federal judiciary with a bunch of Scalia wannabes. That's not much of a defense, but then the Democrats aren't deserving of one.Here's the column, from the 10/12 NYTimes:It's the War, StupidBy FRANK RICH[A] s soon as President Bush rolled out his new war on Iraq, the Democrats in Washington demanded a debate, and debates they got, all right. There was the debate between Matt Drudge and Barbra Streisand about the provenance of an antiwar quote she recited at a party fund-raiser. There was the debate about whether Jim McDermott, Democratic Congressman from Washington, should have come home from Baghdad before announcing on TV that we can take Saddam Hussein's promises at "face value." There were the debates about why Al Gore took off his wedding ring, why Robert Torricelli took a Rolex, and why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson took noisy offense at so benign and popular a Hollywood comedy as "Barbershop."But as for the promised debate about Iraq, it became heated only after Congressional approval of the president's mission was a foregone conclusion. Though the party's leaders finally stepped up, starting with Mr. Gore, most of them seemed less concerned with the direction of the nation in 2002 than with positioning themselves for the White House in 2004 (or '08). They challenged the administration's arrogant and factually disingenuous way of pursuing its goal, then beat a hasty retreat to sign on to whatever fig-leaf language they could get into the final resolution. (Mr. Gore, after his Sept. 23 Iraq speech, dropped the subject altogether.)Even at their most forceful they failed to state their qualified, Bush-lite case for war with anything like the persistence, eloquence and authority of Chuck Hagel, the Republican Vietnam War hero. Speaking with almost mournful resignation from the floor on Wednesday, the senator was naked in his doubts about what lies ahead. "We should not be seduced by the expectations of `dancing in the streets' after Saddam's regime has fallen," he said.That Democratic leaders added so little to the discussion is attributed to their intimidation by the president's poll numbers, their fear of being branded unpatriotic and their eagerness to clear the decks (whatever the price) to return to the economy, stupid, before Election Day. None of these motives constitute a profile in courage; no wonder George W. Bush was emboldened to present himself as the new John F. Kennedy in his Iraq speech on Monday night.Agree with him or not, the president does stand for something. He led, and the Democrats followed. The polls, far from rationalizing the Democrats' timidity, suggest they might have won a real debate had they staged one. Support for an Iraq war is falling, with the dicey 51 percent in favor in the latest CNN/USA Today survey dropping to a Vietnam-like 33 percent support level if there are 5,000 casualties, as there could well be. But even so, the Democratic leaders never united around a substantive alternative vision to the administration's pre-emptive war against the thug of Baghdad. That isn't patriotism, it's abdication.Perhaps more than he intended, Tom Daschle summed up the feeble thrust of his party's opposition on "Meet the Press" last weekend when he observed, "The bottom line is . . . we want to move on." Now his wish has come true ? but move on to what? The dirty secret of the Democrats is that they have no more of an economic plan than they had an Iraq plan.Nor do they want to dwell on Iraq and the economy in the same breath. No one really knows how many billions are needed to pay for both the war itself and the years to follow of shouldering what James Fallows in The Atlantic calls "The Fifty-first State," post-Saddam Iraq. The Democrats are in lockstep with the president in refusing to say that we will have to sacrifice anything to pay these bills, because that would mean 'fessing up to the unpleasant truth that either domestic spending will have to be cut or taxes will have to be raised.The economic rant the Democrats offer instead is the safely generic one they've used in war and peace, regardless of the state of the economy, since the Reagan years. As befits a clownish approach, it is all too fittingly presented this election season in the form of a cartoon ? a now notorious ad in which Mr. Bush is depicted pushing Social Security recipients in wheelchairs to their doom. It's a funny example of its "South Park" genre, and we do get the point: Privatized Social Security accounts could hurt Our Seniors. As indeed they could.But such accounts are likely less imminent than a Saddam nuclear attack; even Republican ideologues are running away from them in this economic environment. The real wolves at the door today are rising unemployment and falling consumer confidence, a cratered stock market that may soon be mirrored in the real estate market and . . . well, every Democratic candidate (and most American voters) can recite the litany. But in the words of Fritz Hollings, a Democratic senator so old that, like Robert Byrd, he sometimes commits the political sin of speaking the truth: "Our problem is the Democrats whine and whine. Everybody knows what the trouble is. The question is, `What's the solution?' " The solution seems to be the same as that for Iraq ? call for a debate and pray. Here is what Richard Gephardt had to say last week: "I have asked the president for nine months to have a summit on the economy to try to figure out a new economic game plan for this country." On Thursday Mr. Daschle asked for Congress to extend unemployment compensation and help bail out teetering budgets in the states (without saying where the money would come from), floated the whimsy that Mr. Bush might replace all his economic advisers with Clinton administration alumni and, yes, again called for an "economic summit." This kind of visionary leadership and a tin cup will get an unemployed American another presidential economic conclave of fat cats in Waco.You might think that Mr. Gore, who has much to gain by showing political spine, would seize the moment. But fresh from his Iraq oration, he trotted out an economic address that offered only the familiar recitation of woes, followed by a few boilerplate bullet points largely remaindered from the 2000 campaign (including, of all musty Gore golden oldies, a plea for maximizing Internet bandwidth).Like his party's Congressional leaders, he conspicuously avoided suggesting any kind of rollback of the Bush tax cut that now looms over the nation's economic future like the sword of Damocles. Pressed in a subsequent Q/A to take a stand on this fiscal elephant in the room, Mr. Gore said: "This is the time when we ought to be making some tough choices and reassessing what parts of the plan work and don't work." Far be it from him to offer his own reassessment at a time of national crisis. With or without his wedding ring or beard, the current new Al Gore is the same old Al Gore who fudged tough choices on issues like gun control and the death penalty during the 2000 debates.As if to complete the picture of Democratic bankruptcy on what is supposed to be its signature issue, the party's chairman, Terry McAuliffe, was sitting in the front row for Mr. Gore's talk. No one is a more brazen role model for pseudo-populist hypocrisy at a time when corporate corruption has undermined fundamental American faith in the integrity of capitalism. Forever decrying the crooks of the dot-com bubble, Mr. McAuliffe has made millions (all legally, of course) from his serial insider's status at two telecom companies, Global Crossing and Telergy (where he was a director). While both subsequently went belly up, costing many Americans their jobs, their retirements or both, he was long gone when those non-insiders took the hit, much as Mr. Bush was at Harken.In Washington, the main question about such Democratic fecklessness is: How will it play on Nov. 5? Is the economy so bad that despite everything, the party might hold onto the Senate and retake the House? I have no idea, and, I suspect, neither does anyone else in a punditocracy that with near unanimity erroneously predicted a G.O.P. sweep during the impeachment midterms of '98. But we're not in the frivolous 90's any more, and as we hurtle into war a better question might be: Do the Democrats stand for anything other than the next election?As Congress prepared to sign off on the war resolution Thursday, Mr. Daschle sounded relieved, predicting that Americans would start brooding over the economy "once we get this question of Iraq behind us." Behind us? Given that he just signed on to a policy that by the C.I.A.'s estimation may increase the likelihood that a ruthless foe will attack us with biological and chemical weapons, you have to wonder just what America he is living in.

Good question on the motivation of the vote. Does it actually matter though if they voted against the war for the "wrong" reasons? I would also say that a vote for the war is a wrong vote, regardless of the reasons, regardless of the sincerity. In the end, it is still a vote FOR war. And those who voted FOR the war, thinking it's the right way are worse than "gutless." I'm thinking of Lieberman.Would you mind posting the Rich op-ed?

Thanks, I didn't know there was a Green Party candidate for governor in my state, I think I'll vote for him. For Congress and Senate, however, I'm stuck with a choice between the two major parties (unless maybe there's a Libertarian or someone out there). For what it's worth, the band NOFX suggests registering Green, then voting Democratic, on the premise that this will make the Democrats take the Green agenda seriously. The band has set up a website you might want to check out, www.punkvoter.com. On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:54:47 -0500 (CDT) QT - BIII wrote:< replied-to message removed by QT >

My personal opinion:VOTE GREEN!!!http://www.greenpartyus.org/Feel free to disagree. There's no difference between Republicans and Democrats anymore.

Carlos et al --Your page provides a list of Democrats "who didn't have the guts" to vote against the authorization of force against Iraq. You are misreading (some of) these votes. Perhaps some know its wrong but didn't have the guts. But others likely sincerely believe that it's the right thing to do. That's a different political issue, but it's important to consider. It's also important to consider that some who voted no may think that Bush should have the authorization but didn't have the guts to vote that way. It's also worth noting the Republicans in the House and Senate who voted against the authorization. Again, at least three of these people (Paul, Hostettler, and Duncan) have little to recommend them. Many of your constituency would likely conclude that they voted the "right" way for all the wrong reasons.In short, it's not just how you voted, but why you voted that way. And as for the lameness of the Democrats in general, everyone should read Frank Rich's column in the 10/12 NYTimes.

That's a tough one!BTW, reply to postings on this board, that way the discussion will flow.So, what DOES one do when both parties are FOR war? Goes to the question of "wasted" votes.

Good question. In South Carolina, there's a close Senate race between GOP Rep. Lindsey Graham and Democrat Alex Sanders (President of the College of Charleston). The seat is open because 99-year-old Strom Thurmond is finally retiring (hey Carlos, remember when he spoke at our junior high school?) But on Meet the Press yesterday, both men endorsed the war resolution. But I'll probably still vote for Sanders, lest the Republicans regain the Senate and thereby a virtual monopoly on federal power. As you mentioned earlier, it's a good thing the founding fathers wrote checks and balances into the Constitution -- especially given that they did not really forsee politicalparties.[Can one reply to postings in this forum by email or does one have to go to the chatroom? I don't want to clutter the message board with unnecessary repetition.] On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:29:09 -0500 (CDT) QT - carlos wrote:< replied-to message removed by QT >

An interesting article in today's Washington Post describes the GROWING anti-war movement. Particularly interesting is info on weekly protests at Rep. Tom Lantos's office in California. A person by the name of Alpesh Patel is leading them and his contact info is (650) 281-2429. If you're in the area, San Mateo, CA, call Alpesh and help. Lantos is a Holocaust Survivor and Co-Chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that not only was an early supporter of the War in Iraq resolution but also an early supporter of the War in Colombia efforts.

So a question: do the Democrats deserve "taking" the House or "retaining" the Senate given their sorry acquiescence to war? And would anyone like to tell us about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the War Powers Act, and the Constitution?

Check out an essay entitled Blowback .223 concerning the D.C. serial sniper.www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich6.htmlRemember, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Lots of people!

fuck war!not 4 MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYY!!fuck war!I saw you guys at the anti IMF \^/orld Bank rally.you kicked some ass! keep at it.....some say we'll see armaggeddon soon....I certainly hope we will..sure could use a vacation from thisbullshit 3 ring circus side show. dain-TX

Hey guys, congratulations on the C-Span appearance. I didn't know about it till yesterday and am really bummed I missed it. I watched some of the rally live and even caught about the first ten minutes of Michelle Shocked, then I left for a social engagement. But if I'd known you guys were going to be on, I would have waited! And judging by the postings to this forum (which I read only last night), C-Span probably repeated the coverage for several days afterwards, as it often does. But, again, I didn't know about it till yesterday. Did any of you tape the re-broadcast, or have you looked into obtaining a copy from C-Span? Were you jamming with Michelle the whole time you were on stage, or did you get to perform some of your songs in their entirety?Looks like the exposure has provoked quite a bit of commentary in this forum. "Wobbly" Bob emailed me a few days ago to that effect, but when I looked then, my screen was filled with a message consisting of links to other bands' websites. It was only last night that I explored further into the "previous postings" and became aware of some of the reaction to your performance. Though much of it is vitriolic, you seem to be handling it well, and it's good to see a lively discussion. Seems like you struck a nerve!

Intolerance is a plague. If you don't believe that, check what intolerance did to the World Trade Center towers. Or the Jews (and Gyspies and Gays and Communists) in Nazi Germany. Or midwives in New England. Just to name a few.Calling someone with a different opinion a cockroach is precisely what the likes of Osama and the Taliban do. They call them "infidels." And good thing the founding fathers thought of the Constitution and the principle of checks and balances. Precisely to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

"I come from a very proud pro-union family,with the excetion..." Sorry,meant to spell exception.You know how some people are,the nazi spelling police.

Mike,that's cool.I didn't really get angry or anything.I was just voicing my opinion just as you were.I'm glad we found a common ground though!My brain heh heh,I'm not really pro anarchist or pro communist.I'm still very much the conservative I always was with the exception that I'm pro industrial-unionism.If you believe that people don't have a right to better themselves and their workplace through collective bargining,then I think you got the problem.I come from a very proud pro-union family,with the excetion that we for the most part voted republican...er...republicrat."The truth of the matter is that there are more of us than there are of you."What,you're a bunch of lawyers?

Hey Bob,You and your ideas are a plague on our society. This is going to sound so cliché but, If you don’t like it here in America move to a land with a dictatorship!!! Stop trying to change things here for the worse. Anarchism is a viable government… Give me a break.. You surely are selective about your history. You are real good about picking and choosing the kind of historical ideas & events that suit your warped views of how the world should be. It is a shame that you will, upon reading this turn up your nose and laugh, judging from all of your previous messages. The truth of the matter is that there are more of us than there are of you. You are like cockroaches lurking in the shadows. We will always come up with ways to flush you out and squash you. There is such a thing as good and evil. Although you think you are on the side of good, some day you will find out that you are not. You are not the solution to the problems of the world; you are a contributing part of the problems of the world. Please wake up man and focus.

punk is not my cup of tea...and that's ok...but blowback sounds nothing like the sex pistols...and that's ok too...i'm not saying anything bad about the band...their sound just doesn't sound like punk to me. my cup of tea is melodic, emotional, scream-your-feelings, emocore...stuff...it doesn't really have a label...i know that i like it... evelynn and hopesfall, norma jean, how did we start talking about punk anyway?...oh yeah...i expressed my opinion that they don't sound like punk rock to me (not necessarily a bad thing) and you got mad. i didn't mean to start a whole debate. and blowback...sorry i took up so much room in your guestbook with leters that aren't even to you...i have nothing against you or bob...

The Columbia 3 need your help.... Fundraiser at Arise! Bookstore *Sunday, October 6* 7-9 pm *2441 Lyndale Ave S., Minneapolis Irish Music, Dance, and Speakers Irishmen Niall Connolly, Martin McCauley, and Jim Monaghan were arrested on August 11, 2001 atthe Bogota airport after returning from a visit to an area in Columbia under control of FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia). The men had travelled there to study and assist in the peace process. They were held without charge by the Columbian government for six months. Then in January 2002 they were charged with travelling under falseidentication documents, and training members of the FARC. They are currently being held in a Bogota prison. The Columbian gov't is one of the most brutal and repressive in the world. The country is in the throes of a bloody civil war. Right- wing paramilitary death squads aligned with the government threaten, torture and murder human rights workers, lawyers, journalists, union leaders and woman activists. Negotiations aimed at bringing about a peaceful settlement to this conflict have broken down. *These men cannot get a fair trial given the political and military interests involved. Prejudicial media coverage has violated their right to a fair trial. *Their lives are in constant danger. The men have had repeated threats made against their lives.Attempts have been made to poison them in jail. A gun was found in a nearby cell. *Their Human Rights Have Been Violated. The men have been held in unconstitutional detention. Their access to lawyers has been serverly resticted. Their lawyers have been threatened. http://www.bringthemhome.ie/ Your Contribution is Appreciated! Sponsored by Minnesotans for a United Ireland FFI or to make a Contribution, Please contact Arise! Bookstore tel. (612) 871-7110

How could I forget The Big Boys? a band that mixed hardcore and funk and was the inspiration for the Red Hot Chili Peppers!http://members.fortunecity.com/bigboyswebsite/ Gay Cowboys In Bondagehttp://www.thisispunkrock.btinternet.co.uk/ps/us/3/gay.htm Gang Greenhttp://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=gang_greenMinor Threathttp://move.to/MinorThreatThe Meatmenhttp://www.geocities.com/meatking2000/The Damnedhttp://www.officialdamned.com/ Crasshttp://www.southern.com/southern/label/CRC/Subhumans/Citizen Fishhttp://www.citizenfish.com/The Crucifuckshttp://www.angelfire.com/ca/ebr/cf.html More to come!

"i meant the sound of their music isn't punk"Give me examples of what you consider punk.Have you ever listened to MDC (which is in my opinion,the main influence in Blowback's sound)? http://free.freespeech.org/deadcops/http://www.inmusicwetrust.com/articles/51p11.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/mypinkmagazine/mdc.htmlOr how about the Feederz? http://www.feederz.com/Maybe Black Flag? http://www.ipass.net/~jthrush/rollflag.htmhttp://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/31/2001:-babcock.shtmlhttp://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/31/2001:-babcock.shtmlHow about Fear? http://www.flash.net/~ving/ Maybe the Avengers? http://members.aol.com/aytab2/houston.htmlOr the Dead Kennedys? http://www.deadkennedys.com/ Or the Clash? http://www.angelfire.com/doc/general/angelfire_popunder.html?search_string=the+clashhttp://www.epicrecords.com/theclash/Sex Pistols? http://www.sex-pistols.net/ Circle Jerks? http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/8903/jerks.htmlI'm sure you heard of this,the band credited with being the first band to be called "punk"http://www.officialramones.com/Or how about this one,who is continuing in the great hardcore punk tradition:http://www.blowback.orgI could go on and on and on.I've included links to not only what I consider punk,but is punk.You can't deny what punk is.And what has come before.Punk rock is punk rock pure and simple.And Blowback is the genuine thing! You better believe it!Maybe it's not your cup of tea,and that's ok.Just play music and have fun.That's punk rock's ultimate message!Bob

and biii...thanks...i think that's great...i meant the sound of their music isn't punk

when did i ever meantion christian punk?...most punk is about nihilism or anarchy...which goes against the teachings of Christ...i said Christian sxf hxc...which stands for spirit filled hardcore. and about blowback not being punk, their attitudes and messages might be punk...but their SOUND doesn't resemble punk. i know you're gonna read something from the dictionary and try to make me sound ignorant...but it's beyond me...we just have two vastly different views of this world.

Main Entry: [1]Chris·tianPronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-Function: nounEtymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from ChristosDate: 15261 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : DISCIPLE 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961 2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's ProgressMain Entry: [1]punkPronunciation: 'p&[ng]kFunction: nounEtymology: origin unknownDate: 15961 : archaic : PROSTITUTE 2 : [probably partly from [3]punk] : NONSENSE, FOOLISHNESS 3 a : a young inexperienced person : BEGINNER, NOVICE; especially : a young man b : a usually petty gangster, hoodlum, or ruffian c : a youth used as a homosexual partner Hmm.Christian Punk? Does that mean a prostitute for Christ?A foolish Christian? An inexperienced Christian? Maybe a gangster Christian.Imagine that! Or the kicker,a passive homosexual Christian!Very clever!

Nice little site with classical anarchist pamphlets in .pdf form.Turns into nice little booklets to pass out at shows.Just a suggestion.http://www.radio4all.org/redblack/

"tell me one socialist country where the rich don't get richer while the poor (the ones that do the work) get poorer..."It happened briefly in Spain during the Spanish Civil War.Unfortuantly,it was the Communists that palyed a great deal in defeating the worker's revolution.But the fact remains that "anarchism","anarcho-communism","syndicalism" or whatever label you prefer is a viable system.State socialism,on the other hand,that's what doesn't work.http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/spancivwar/Spanishcivilwar.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9820/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.htmlhttp://burn.ucsd.edu/scwtable.htm

Which party is in-charge of this strike? It's not a strike,it's a lockout!Two very different things!

Lets see now… Who controls the unions? Democrats. Yes,for the AFL-CIO and their like,but the IWW is non-political and doesn't support ANY politicians nor does it encourage their membership how to vote one way or the other.They assume their membership is smart enough to make that decision on their own.As to whether or not Blowback is punk,consider the fact that the band has all played in punk rock bands as far back as the early eighties,when most of the people posting here were being conceived.Carlos (the singer) and I formed the Colombian Neckties after we hooked up in 1986 at a DRI show in Charleston SC.We originally met at a GG Allin show in middle 1985.Blowback happens to cover a few Colombian Neckties tunes,by the way.I had been playing in punk rock bands as far back as 1983.And Carlos a few years earlier than that.And just for the record,my supposed left leanings had only surfaced in the past few years.As Carlos can attest,I was a diehard Republican for the most part,and yes,I voted for Reagan and Bush (twice).

You know what's Punk, Mike. Forging ahead with something you believe in despite what others think or say.

that calihardcore page in your links is cool...lotsa good Christian hxc bands...Christian hxc is the best kind...mmm...hopefall...no innocent victim...zao...dead poetic...AsILayDying...IronSharpensIron...UnderOath...it's weird...Christian hardcore is always so much better...have you noticed?...and almost every popular hardcore band out there (as popular as hardcore gets) is christian...look up some of those bands...you'll pee yourself at how good they are...especially http://www.deadpoetic.com and http://www.hopesfall.com (click the white dots at the bottom if you visit hopesfall's site) you'll love it...trust me

can bob please shut up...they aren't punk...they don't even vaguely resemble punk...dude...blowback...i don't agree with your ideas but i'd like to appologise for the things i've said towards YOU guys...not that socialist guy down there...i know what it's like for people to say dumb things in your guestbook...we have some guy who thinks he's a satanist bugging my band's guestbook. we don't play the same genre of music but if you want to check out my band's site it's www.roseofsharononline.com i have an online sXf hXc webzine too if you want to check it out...the address is www.abovethemoon.moonfruit.com. sign our guestbooks and get back at me if you want haha... xspirit-filled-hardcorex-mike www.hxc.com

socialists?! HAHAH! i know that you're going to think that i'm a "corporate lemming" or "swine feeding at the trough of conformity" for saying this but...socialism is the worst idea in all of history. tell me one socialist country where the rich don't get richer while the poor (the ones that do the work) get poorer...socialism is a failure...i hope you come to realize that America has plenty of faults...i know that well...but we live in the best country in the world...you go to the rock quarries in India and tell me that we don't live in a good country

Lets see now… Who controls the unions? Democrats. Which party has (once again) NO issues to run on? Democrats. Which party says they are for fixing the cyclical economy? Democrats. Which party is in-charge of this strike? Democrats. Which party would like to make political hay of these so-called labor issues costing our country’s economy one thousand million dollars a day? Democrats. Which party is the party of the rich but claim to be the party of the workingman? Democrats. Which party is going to loose it’s illegitimate majority in the Senate this fall? The Democrats. Your Socialist party for the future!

That article was a little dated.Sorry.

Strikers as TerroristsArticle by Alexander Cockburn & Jeffrey St. ClairSubmitted: - (Global) - News | laborArticle Summary: right wingers use old patriot club to bash labor, solidarity needed for union that boycotted Chilean products after US engineered overthrow of an elected social democrat on 9/11 1973.Reference URL: http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/06/27/4887593ARTICLE:At the rate things are going, it won't be long before labor organizers are being thrown into military prisons, held without warrant as "enemy combatants". Tom Ridge, director of the Office of homeland Security has been phoning Jim Spinosa, head of the West Coast's Longshoremen's Union, saying that a strike would be bad for the national interest. Next Monday sees the expiration of the current three-year contract between the Longshoremen and the employers, grouped in the Pacific Maritime Association. If the 10,000-strong longshoremen go on strike, ports from Seattle to San Diego could shut down, meaning a big jolt to the already floundering US economy. A call to Spinosa by the Secretary of Labor would not be surprising, given the stakes, but a call from the man in charge of coordinating the battle against terrorism on America's home turf confirms all the Left's deepest fears that, as so often throughout the twentieth century, national security is being used to justify strike-breaking, invocation of the Taft-Hartley Act and declarations of national emergency to shut down labor activism and if necessary throw labor organizers in jail. Longshoremen don't need to be told this. They know it's what happened to their most famous leader, Harry Bridges. In World War II the US government, particularly through the US Navy, cut deals with the Mob (mainly involving a hands-off posture on the drug trade), giving the Mobsters specific orders on which labor leaders to rough up and murder. Between 1942 and 1946 there were 26 unsolved murders of labor organizers and dockworkers, dumped in the water by the Mob, working in collusion with Navy Intelligence. (For more, reade our book Whiteout, which contains a chapter on this nasty affair.) Jack Heyman, business agent of the San Francisco Longshore Union (ILWU), tells CounterPunch that Ridge called Spinosa, the ILWU international president, about 7 to 10 days ago in the midst of negotiations. "He said that he didn't think it would be a good idea if there was a disruption in trade and went on to say that it is important to continue negotiating." Since then, according to Heyman, Spinosa has been talking not only to Ridge but also to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Ridge's astounding and sinister intervention comes in the midst of tense negotiations between the Pacific Maritime Association representing shipowners and stevedores operating on the West Coast and the ILWU. The prime issue is technology, where the employers seek change in work rules. Today, Thursday, Longshore workers are staging a rally in Oakland. "The big thing," Heyman says, "is the hiring hall. The PMA wants to computerize the hall. Longshore workers died in the 1934 strike for the hiring hall. It dictates who controls distribution of jobs, who controls the waterfront. We eliminated corruption and favoritism with establishment of union hiring hall. They want to put computer cards. When you go to hiring hall you schmooze, see what is going on. Employers don't want that." The trans-Pacific trade has grown to become one of the largest in the world. The West Coast now has four of the top six U.S. container ports. Wages for full-time longshoremen range from $105,278 for general longshoremen to $125,058 for marine clerks to $167,122 for foremen. Longshoremen have always made it a rule in negotiations not to make any concession without an equivalent concession from the employers. Heyman mentions the push by European unions for shorter work weeks as one model for demands here. The PMA is also demanding that the workers begin paying for part of their health insurance coverage, a demand that would slice into rights won by the Longshoremen in the 1960s. "It's not fair that all these foreign-owned shipping lines want American workers to pay more for health coverage," said Ramon Ponce de Leon Jr, head of the ILWU's local for the Los Angeles-Long Beach port. This year's contract disputes are particularly fraught. The rapid gains in trade volume are over for the moment, as both the U.S. and Asian economies struggle to emerge from recession. Shipping revenues are down. Since Sept. 11, security has replaced commerce as the transportation industry's main priority. Residents of port communities beef about the long lines of trucks at container terminals that cause gridlock on their roads and pollute the air. With the huge new container ships now being built, such problems will get worse. According to the Journal of Commerce, "Over the past year, PMA President Joseph Miniace has publicly called for the introduction of contemporary technology to increase the efficiency of cargo-handling activities at West Coast ports. ILWU President James Spinosa responded that the union would never accept the type of robotics he personally witnessed at the Port of Rotterdam." Ridge's call comes in the context of urgent PMA lobbying in Washington. Again according to the Journal of Commerce, "Management forces, pointing out that shipments through West Coast ports account for 70 per cent of the nation's gross domestic product, have been trying to line up support in Washington, D.C. PMA President Joseph Miniace has been a frequent visitor to the nation's capital, meeting with members of Congress and administration officials. Importers and exporters have also joined the fray. They note that what happens on the West Coast will affect companies across the country. They're trying to keep the pressure on the PMA to stand firm in the bargaining." There are other sinister signs that "homeland security" is being used as a club to bash labor. The right wing is working fiercely to make the prospective new umbrella Homeland Security Agency non-union, again citing the paramountcy of national security. Once again this takes us back to the darkest days of domestic repression at the dawn of the Cold War.

Subject: [Iww-news] Fwd: U.S. Union Resolutions Against U.S. War on Iraq Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:23:54 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:56:41 -0700To: Recipient List Suppressed:;From: OWC Subject: U.S. Union Resolutions Against U.S. War on IraqOWC CAMPAIGN NEWS - distributed by the Open World Conference in Defense of Trade Union Independence & Democratic Rights, c/o S.F. Labor Council, 1188 Franklin St., #203, San Francisco, CA 94109. to SUBSCRIBE, contact the OWC at . To UNSUBSCRIBE, contact the OWC at . Phone: (415) 641-8616 Fax: (415) 440-9297. Visit our website at www.owcinfo.org - Notify if any change in email address. (Please excuse duplicate postings, and please feel free to re-post.) ------------------- IN THIS MESSAGE: 1) California Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO) Resolution Against War on Iraq -- Passed by the CFT State Council on September 21, 2002 2) United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) Resolution Against Invasion of Iraq, from UE's 67th National Convention ********** 1) California Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO) Resolution Against War on Iraq (Passed by the CFT State Council on September 21, 2002) Whereas, the United States and Britain have been bombing Iraq on a virtually continuous basis since the end of the Gulf War, and Whereas, the Bush administration has presented no credible evidence that Iraq has intentions of harming the citizens of this country or that Iraq presents a threat to the United States, and Whereas, the Bush administration is seeking any pretext to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation, in violation of international law, and Whereas, a war with Iraq would require the re-direction of vital resources and funds to a destructive, senseless, and illegal goal while further strengthening an administration that has restricted the civil liberties of its citizens, and Whereas, this administration is using the so-called "War on Terrorism" to distract the American people from the vital issues they confront, Therefore, be it resolved that the California Federation of Teachers goes on record as strenuously opposing the Bush administration's march toward war with Iraq, And be it further resolved that the California Federation of Teachers urge its members and affiliates to get involved with organizations working toward stopping the Bush administration's march toward war with Iraq. ********** 2) United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) Resolution Against Invasion of Iraq from UE's 67th National Convention Oppose U.S. Invasion of Iraq Despite the lack of any evidence linking the Iraqi regime to the September 11 terrorist attacks, George Bush is pressing for an invasion of Iraq. All U.S. allies except Great Britain, and even many in Bush's own party, are opposed to this. Scott Ritter, former head of the UN Weapons Inspection team in Iraq, has denounced Bush's outlandish claims about the threat posed by Iraq to the rest of the world. Military experts warn than an invasion will inevitably be followed by a costly, years-long occupation, leaving large numbers of U.S. military personnel in a hostile environment. An invasion of Iraq is not in the interest of workers. As in the Vietnam War, working people will be forced to pay for this war with our lives and our pocketbooks. The government will continue to cut funds for already economically distressed states and vital government programs. The administration is jacking up next year's military budget by $48 billion, bringing it to a staggering $383 billion. Programs that benefit working people and the poor are being threatened by budget cuts, and yet the airline industry receives a bailout of $15 billion and corporate America receives $25 billion in tax cuts. While there is an urgent need for genuine multilateral action to eliminate weapons of mass destruction world wide, this has become less likely as we alienate our necessary allies over the question of Iraq. The Bush Administration is cynically using inflated claims of Iraq's threat to vastly increase the military budget, to help his friends in the oil business control oil production in the Middle East, and to boost his own popularity and prop up the electoral fortunes of the pro-corporate Republican Party. None of these will help to prevent terrorism, but all of them will hurt workers in the U.S. and abroad. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THIS 67TH UE CONVENTION: 1. Opposes a U.S. invasion of Iraq, but supports instead a genuinely multilateral diplomatic approach to the Iraq situation, sanctioned and directed by the United Nations; 2. Encourages UE at all levels to educate our members on the history and issues underlying the disputes in the Middle East. Bruce J. Klipple General Secretary-Treasurer Yours for the One Big Union, Steve Ongerth x344543, IWW Web Site AdministratorJoin the One Big Union - http://www.iww.org/Have labor news, announcements, or events? Post them at http://media.iww.org/

Subject: [Iww-news] Lantos's Plan For Iraq Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 22:55:10 -0700 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=214159They're jumping in head firstBy Akiva Eldar"My dear Colette, don't worry," said Tom Lantos, the California congressman, as he tried to calm MK Colette Avital of the Labor Party, who was visiting Capitol Hill last week as part of a delegation of the Peace Coalition. "You won't have any problem with Saddam," the Jewish congressman continued. "We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you." Lantos explained to his guest from Israel that there's no lack of Iraqi opposition figures in exile, but until they learn how to run a state, "we'll be there." According to Lantos that interim period, with an American-sponsored dictator in power, should last between five to six years. Avital says she asked how one can talk about a dictator in Iraq and at the same time demand "democratic reforms" in the territories as a precondition for renewing the peace process. Lantos said that democratization in the territories is just a general "road map." He reminded her that "the U.S. didn't turn into a democracy overnight." In any case, he promised her that after America gets rid of all the regimes of evil, it will go straight to Syria, "and tell young Assad that's what will happen to him if he doesn't stop supporting terrorism." It's important to emphasize that Lantos is not a Bush administration spokesman, and not even part of the Republican leadership. The 11-term congressman is the leader of the Democratic Party caucus in the House of Representatives' International Affairs Committee. His approach, which says an agreement with the Palestinians can wait, like his party's support for semi-lunatic anti-Palestinian legislation, eases the work of the Middle East experts in the State Department. The expectation that as soon as Bush gets rid of Saddam Hussein he'll show the same determination to advance a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians - as his people are constantly whispering to Bush's Arab friends - has as much chance of fulfillment as the hope that Sharon will withdraw from the territories after getting rid of Arafat. As Lantos says, in the best case, which means the war ends with a "new order" in Iraq, there's a long line of terrorists after Saddam. In the worst case, meaning the war destabilizes Iraq, and perhaps the entire region, the U.S. will be bogged down for the coming years in a Vietnam-like morass. Unfortunately, Palestinian suicide bombers will presumably continue to keep Israelis atop the list of terror victims around the world, thereby keeping the issue of the occupation and the settlements, let alone tens of thousands of hungry Palestinian children, off the international agenda. All those issues will have to wait at least until Bush finishes his "war on terror." Then, sometime in the first part of the second half of his first term in office, like all presidents, he'll begin thinking about the coming elections and Jewish donors. Bush has memories from his father's experience, about how a conflict between the president and a right-wing government in Israel can affect an American president's career. Apparently, the administration doesn't have a clue what will happen the morning after Saddam is gone. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked over the weekend if he can guarantee the next government in Iraq will be preferable to Saddam's said frankly, "there aren't many guarantees in life." In other words, the deluge is ahead of us and we're jumping in head first. That's precisely how Sharon behaves, as well. First we'll get rid of Arafat and break up the Palestinian Authority and then, well, God is great. There's nothing new with Sharon, other than the fact that while as housing minster he greeted every American peace envoy visiting the region with new settlements, and now he greets every Palestinian initiative for a cease-fire with an attack on the heart of Gaza, and puts a siege on the Muqata just as the closest thing to a coup d'etat starts against Arafat. As far as he's concerned, and for that matter, Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon is concerned, "the democratic reforms" are just a euphemism for erasing any trace of Oslo and getting rid of all those who represent it. It is very difficult to understand how Oslo architect Shimon Peres, and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, who formally adopted the Saudi peace plan, lend their support to this policy. Now the leaders of Colette Avital's party, she of the the Peace Coalition, will pat themselves on the back and explain that because they stayed in the government, a crisis in relations with the U.S. was avoided. It's hard to believe they aren't aware of the fear that keeps some of the highest ranking security officers awake at night: that on the morning after the last remnants of the central authority in the territories has been erased - and they are active participants in its erasure - we can expect a flood of terrorism. And we won't even have anyone left to besiege.

[Iww-news] Supporters Join ILWU On Docks Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 16:59:59 -0700 http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/4202338.htmPosted on Thu, Oct. 03, 2002Small break in port impasseMEDIATOR, RIVALS TO MEET TODAYBy Jennifer BjorhusMercury NewsBitterly divided port workers and shipping-line executives agreed to go back to the table today with a federal mediator at a secret location, but it could be days before they reach an agreement that enables ships idling off the West Coast's 29 ports to deliver the cargo essential to America's business.``We hope this signals a breakthrough,'' said Tom Edwards, Northern California manager for the Pacific Maritime Association, in a statement Wednesday.But neither side shows signs of budging on the technology-job issues that so deeply divide them.The lockout has halted vehicle assembly lines in Fremont, stalled hundreds of truckers and stranded billions of dollars of cargo -- including grapes, Apple Computer components, Fisher-Price toys, Blue Diamond almonds, Nike sneakers and steaks -- at ports and on ships.The Pacific Maritime Association, which represents 79 ocean ship lines and marine terminal operators, shut down all 29 West Coast ports Friday, claiming port workers were intentionally slowing down. Although they reopened for a short time Sunday, the ports remain closed. They handle one-third of the nation's imports and exports. Experts estimate the cost of the shutdown at more than $1 billion a day.Global economy, meet the waterfront.The heart of the dispute is who controls the new port jobs that come with installing centralized new logistics systems at terminals to improve operations. That includes software to manipulate shipping data from around the world, optical technology to scan containers, global positioning satellites to track containers and software to dispatch cranes.The companies want unfettered, centralized logistics systems so they can better meter and control the ever-expanding flow of equipment and cargo inside ports. The jobs are currently performed by powerful union clerks.Fighting against eroding union membership, port workers want a written agreement that Pacific Maritime Association members won't shift the new technology port jobs to non-union workers in cheaper locales. The union wants jurisdiction over those jobs. The PMA doesn't want to give the union blanket jurisdiction over jobs that haven't yet been defined and might not be the types of jobs that have historically been union-covered.``We've been down here for years. Why should we let someone else come in and take away our jobs?'' said a 40-year-old Oakland dockworker among those gathered around an oil drum Wednesday outside the dock gates in Oakland. Pickets were dwarfed by stacks of blue, orange and red shipping containers that had nowhere to go.The ports are a decidedly Old World place to glimpse a key 21st-century labor issue, experts say. But the dispute crippling some businesses here is one of the most pointed battles yet over farming out, or ``outsourcing,'' of information-technology jobs to contractors either in the United States or overseas. Such outsourcing has become a common practice among Silicon Valley tech companies and a growing trend nationwide.While some of the technology that the terminal operators and ocean carriers want to adopt, such as optical scanners for containers, would be used right on the docks, much of the tech work could be performed outside California, Oregon or Washington.``The issue running through this dispute which is so associated with container ships and cranes and hooks is the same issue that runs through the outsourcing of IT in many other industries,'' said Harley Shaiken, a University of California-Berkeley professor specializing in labor in the global economy. ``That's what's so fascinating about this. This is a dispute about how IT is handled.''Some watchers argue that it's a losing battle.``I think they're probably too little, too late in terms of their ability to stop the process,'' said Los Angeles employment attorney Arthur Silbergeld. ``I don't think that companies outsourcing IT work are going to stop doing it. Fighting globalization is, I think, foolhardy.''But Bay Area members of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union, which represents 10,500 port workers up and down the coast, say they're settling in for the long fight. You can't give up jurisdiction like that, said port workers picketing at the Port of Oakland Wednesday.``We're in a battle,'' said Pamela Romez, a 42-year-old American Canyon resident whose father, also a longshore worker, was killed on the docks in a crane accident. Romez said the port workers feel bad that the lockout has blocked the delivery of auto parts and thus thrown workers off the truck assembly line at the New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. plant in Fremont. But two NUMMI workers at the port picket lines expressed their support.``We face the same problem of outsourcing,'' said Carolyn Lund, a United Auto Workers trustee who operates a plastic-parts machine at NUMMI. ``Our members could understand we have to stand together.''That doesn't make things any easier, however, on Richard Coyle.Coyle, a principal at Devine & Peters Intermodal, a Sacramento-based trucking company that hauls in and out of the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland, has had to park 150 trucks and furlough nearly 200 employees.``They're either burning vacation time or it's time off with no pay,'' Coyle said.The company hauls inbound components for Apple's plant in Elk Grove and outbound almonds for Blue Diamond. Neither of the loads is going anywhere.Coyle said he's worried that when the two sides finally reach an agreement that shipping will be a nightmare.``When it resumes, it's going to be a coagulated mess on the waterfront,'' Coyle said. ``It's amazing, the domino effect that people don't realize.''

If this was 1969,I'd be in diapers now,not fleeing to Canada.Besides,there's no draft as of yet for youths to worry about.Maybe you are one of the fortuant ones who served in Vietnam unscathed,but my Uncle came back bitter and wild.He eventually became very bitter towards american policy and was a rabid anti-conservative.It had to do with killing children over there,which he told me he had to do to survive.If he was given a CHOICE about whether or not to serve in Vietnam,he would have told the politicians to have fuck off.He passed away a few years ago,so pay your respect!I'll tell you what though,if America is invaded by foreign armed forces I'll be the first to sign up to defend my country ie "self defense".Besides,the only war really worth fighting is the class war!ps I'm too old to join the military.I went to join the National Guard a few years ago but was told I missed the cutoff age.And for another thing,I work for a living.Crappy jobs that no one would want to do.Freeloader? I think not.So take your advice and apply it to yourself!

If this were 1969, you cowards would be in Canada right now… Freedom is something worth fighting for and something worth dieing for. It scares me to think you freeloaders are the ones who will be running the country when I am retired.

Speaking about the upcoming war with Iraq,I'd like to share a Wobbly poem printed by it's newpaper(the Industrial Worker---still going strong too!) April 14th 1917.Dedicated to all those considering a stint in the military. "I Love My Flag"I love my flag,I do,I do,Which floats upon the breeze,I also love my arms and legs,And neck,and nose,and knees.One little shell might spoil them allOr give them such a twist,They would be of no use to me; I guess I won't enlist.I love my country,yes I do,I hope her folks do well.Wihout our arms,and legs and things,I think we'd look like hell.Young men with faces half shot offAre unfit to be kissed,I've read in books it spoils their looks; I guess I won't enlist.Speaking of the Wobblies,I bet most of the people posting here take freedom of speech for granted.But there once was a time when even the mentioning of the Declaration of Independance on a street corner would have you labled a "red agitator" and land you some jail time.Don't believe me? The Industrail Workers of the World engaged in what is now known as the "Free Speech Fights".Many were thrown in jail simply reciting the Declaration.I've included some links that go into this in more detail,and don't forget to go to the IWW site and join in the fight for worker emancipation!http://www.generalstrikeband.com/history.htmlhttp://history.binghamton.edu/hist356/lec19.htmlhttp://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/vol2no3/history.htmhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAiww.htmhttp://www.labornet.org/viewpoints/meister/joehill.htmlhttp://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/articles/dave_flynn.shtmlhttp://people.clemson.edu/~pammack/lec323/radical.htmhttp://digital.library.arizona.edu/bisbee/http://www.iww.org

For those of you in the NY Metro area this weekend, a major Anti-War rally will be happening in Central Park this Sunday, Oct. 6th. Here's some info:Sunday October 6, NOT IN OUR NAME rally.JOIN thousands at the great gathering in Central Park 1-5 pm. Rally is at East Meadow, Central Park (enter at Fifth Avenue/96 St.) Music and Speakers planned.Oct 6 is the day before U.S. bombs started falling on Afghanistan one year ago. Say no to the imminent war on Iraq!VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED FOR EVERY ASPECT OF event. Call (212) 969-8058.See www.notinourname.net for more details.

Man Terry...you sure have a lotta brains. Even those who are high...can still be in reality enough to realize this band sucks. Live with it you stupid bitch.

I'm sure you've read this before but in case you haven't:Murder in Colombia puts Coca-Cola in court battle By SUSAN FERRISS [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:6/6/02]Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer BOGOTA, Colombia -- Nobody disagrees that on Dec. 5, 1996, gunmen walked into a Coca-Cola bottling plant in this South American country, asked for union leader Isidro Gil and promptly shot him dead. Marcelo Salinas / Special Javier Correa, president of the Colombian union suing Coke, says: "We want justice. We want people to know the truth about what is going on in Colombia against Coke workers. We want reparation for the victims." Nobody disputes that Colombia's right-wing paramilitary squads kill with impunity in some cities and may have kidnapped and threatened other labor activists at Coke bottling plants.But there is strong disagreement over whether the Coca-Cola Co. and some of its bottling partners should be held liable for these crimes.Today, a U.S. District Court judge in Miami is expected to hear initial arguments in four unusual lawsuits filed against the Atlanta-based beverage giant by a small, embattled labor union in Colombia, one of Latin America's most violent and politically tumultuous countries.The judge is to decide whether to let a trial linking all the lawsuits proceed.A key point of contention in the suits is whether local managers working for Coke and its bottling partners deliberately allowed or encouraged rightist gunmen to harass and kill union members."We want justice. We want people to know the truth about what is going on in Colombia against Coke workers. We want reparation for the victims of all these crimes," said Javier Correa, the Bogota-based president of the National Union of Food Industry Workers, five of whose leaders have been killed since 1994."Why are we doing the lawsuit in the United States? Because all of these cases, without exception, are known to the Colombian justice system, and all we've seen is total impunity," said Correa, who added that nobody has been prosecuted for any killings or harassment of the workers.The union is represented in the United States by lawyers from the Pittsburgh-based United Steelworkers of America and a Washington-based nonprofit group called the International Labor Rights Fund.The union's lawyers said U.S. law allows foreigners to seek redress from U.S. companies that operate abroad.Rodrigo Calderon, a Coca-Cola executive based in Mexico, said the lawsuits contained "outrageous allegations" designed to grab headlines and promote "a political agenda."Coke has asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuits."What we're saying is, this is very tragic," Calderon said, "but the company and the bottlers had nothing to do with these attacks."The Coke Colombia case already has stirred some attention in the United States. Members of the Teamsters union, which is involved in the lawsuits, protested in April at Coca-Cola's annual meeting. The Teamsters also have seized the opportunity to criticize the company on unrelated issues, including complaints about working conditions at Coke plants elsewhere.Payoffs for protectionCoke's Calderon said that because of the killing of employees, burning of trucks and extortion by Colombia's left-wing armed groups, Coca-Cola distributors have dropped 3 percent of their buyers and are unable to operate in more than 80 municipalities in Colombia.People familiar with Coke's operations in Colombia said employees have met with right-wing paramilitary groups, hoping to keep them from demanding protection pay- ments.It is widely known that in some areas of Colombia, illegal armed groups exert control because of an absence of effective local government and police.The lawsuit in connection with the killing of Gil names Richard Kirby, the American owner of a bottling plant in Carepa, in northern Colombia, where the union leader was killed in 1996. The lawsuit alleges, in detail, that Kirby's plant manager at the time consorted with gunmen prior to the murder and made public comments that the gunmen would wipe out the union."I don't know if we met or not with them," Calderon said of Coke employees and right-wing paramilitary groups. But he said Coca-Cola had not negotiated with any factions in Colombia's war.James McDonald, an attorney for Kirby, who lives in Key Biscayne, Fla., and Bogota, said, "Everyone recognizes the lawlessness in some parts of Colombia. Does that mean that Coke et al. are responsible for the violence perpetrated? I think that's a stretch. . . . The bottom line is, we deny these allegations."The suit stemming from Gil's slaying seeks compensation for his children, who now live in hiding with relatives because their mother also was killed -- by paramilitary gunmen, union leaders suspect.Trade unionists targetedIn Colombia, a country mired in civil war, more union activists are killed than in any other part of the world, according to the AFL-CIO. More than 1,500 Colombian trade unionists have been killed over the past 10 years.Trade unionists are a frequent target of Colombia's outlawed right-wing paramilitary group, the United Self-Defense Forces, known as the AUC, its Spanish initials.Using profits from its participation in Colombia's cocaine trade, the AUC hires mercenaries to kill or threaten those it believes sympathize with the left-wing guerrilla armies, human rights groups say.Fighters from both sides are on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations.The union claims that it sent a letter to Kirby and Coca-Cola about two months before Gil's killing -- pleading that the threats be ended. The union said the company ignored the letter.Calderon said Coke was unaware of such a document, a copy of which was submitted to the U.S. court."The compelling question is, why doesn't Coca-Cola intervene to stop the violence?" said Terry Collingsworth, an attorney with the International Labor Rights Fund."Coca-Cola, like many companies, is trying to have it both ways -- they control the product and reap the profit, but they claim to have no responsibilities to the workers," he said.Juan Carlos Galvis, a union activist who also has filed suit, said in an interview that because he has received so many death threats, he is under constant guard by federal agents in the city where he lives, Barrancabermeja.Police and military officials interviewed in Barrancabermeja admit that AUC gunmen kill suspected leftist sympathizers in the city."Every day it's more tense. I just got permission to use an armored car," said Galvis, who is suing Coke and Panamerican Beverages, a bottler that operates in a number of Latin American countries.Coke owns 25 percent of Panamerican Beverages.Luis Adolfo Cardona, a Colombian bottling worker who witnessed Gil's murder, is now living in Washington under an AFL-CIO program offering temporary refuge to threatened Colombian trade unionists.Cardona said the men who shot Gil had been inside the factory before."They are the same men who grabbed me on the street the same day they killed Isidro," Cardona said.Fearing for his life, Cardona broke away from the men and ran into a police station. He and his family fled the area under Colombian government protection.Cardona said local managers, not Kirby, seemed to run the business in Carepa."What they wanted most of all," he said, "was to get rid of the union."

Carlos,you need to add this to your links page:http://www.cokewatch.org/And maybe this? http://www.iww.org (heh)

During the Colombian Neckties days Carlos wrote a song denoucing all sorts of EXTREME behavior called "Ku Klux Klowns".You might think "Oh,there's proof that he hates white males",but a verse went "Ku Klux Klan-Scum of the land,Meir Kahane and Farrakhan they're born in hate and breeding more...".In other words,Carlos isn't just singling out any one group of people,he's saying there's all sorts of people committing human rights violations.So please get the facts straight.Support the Longshoremans! http://www.ilwu.org/SolidarityDay_frame1.htm

YES!! Go to the lyrics portions and read! Do tell me where oh where in our lyrics it says that "white males" are the cause of all problems. Please, I'd love to know. Also, on personal responsibility, look at "Consumer Society." Perhaps we should write some songs about our personal responsibility in keeping the CIA and Pentagon well-fed while Americans go hungry. Good idea there, "wake up."

NOTE: You will not find anything about “personal responsibility” so don't waste your time reading through them twice.

If you don’t believe, go to the “Lyrics” portion of this website and read for yourself…

We are all doomed… According to BLOWBACK, all the problems in the world can be attributed to America and specifically white male politicians & businessmen. If you subscribe to this simple minded opinion, then we ARE all doomed…

For anyone unclear as to what BLOWBACK means, check this website. Hussein is a great example of BLOWBACK, if he in fact represented a threat to anyone other than US oil companies trying to take Iraqui oil. First Reagan then Bush Sr. pumped millions of dollars of support and intelligence assistance to Hussein and encouraged his war with Iran. Now we're worried about the weapons we gave him. If he actually represented a real tangible threat to the US, Hussein might actually be classic BLOWBACK.

You guys are not very nice. Why are you teasing the fellas from Blowback like that?? You know they sucked last weekend. Pull your mug away from the bong and breathe some clean air for a couple of minutes…

Later Rio, be sure to lube up good.

WOW! Carlos, what "Originality". You're so fuckin lame dude. you're whole band is a bunch of whiners and wimps. You talk about peace but scream in anger. Total hypocrisy, man. You said "Dish it out"? You will pay for your inproper use of dialogue!!! Serious, go to Iraq and hold the We Suck Tour, and then like that one guy said, we can get two birds with one stone, and that's a big mother fucking stone too. I dont think it will miss. Oh yea, the only worse than your singing and the music...is the name of your band. BlowBack...what the fuck does that mean? Anyways, I'm out BlowJob, later.

WOW! Some people can dish it out, huh?

Would you QUIT with the whole "ASSumption" shit...you keep saying ASS dude...it's fucking annoying. Maybe the people at SMASH like it in the ASS, so they say it all the time. Prolly like some weird code to know what's gonna happen during lunch the same day. Please just quit saying ASS and ASSumption and ASSume...and shit...it's really really getting annoying. Thanks. BlowJob still sux.

SMASH...by your words...you're makin' yourself look REALLY bad. Shut up about the whole freakin' pot comments. They're stupid and childish as hell.

Well okay then… Since it is obviously too much for you to address the issues handed to you, then all I have left to say is UNCLE…You win.No sense in trying to reason with fools. Have a nice life, fool.

Dear Confussed, you wrote to US first - calling us MEAN and stoners. You got my address off of Blowbacks chat site and wrote to us with your insults, ASSumptions, etc.... Swinging at you like a mad dog?????? That is hilarious, the pot must be depleating your brain cells if you can't even remember what you read a day ago. We honestly have had enough of your hate mail and must return to our real lives. Good luck to you.

Hey, You guys got a bad break at the C-SPAN deal. I’ve gone through and read some of your lyrics. You have great passion for your beliefs and I think that is cool. Too bad it didn’t come across on T.V. My guess is that if it did, you all would be getting more positive feedback. Keep up the fight! Terry McAuliffe

Please tell me where I am wrong. You came at me swinging like a mad dog and then ended with Peace be to you… If that is not a sign of Bi-polar disorder, I don’t know what is. My ASSumption that you were stoned still speaks for itself. You attacked me two fold and act as though you are just a nice, sweet peace-loving mommy. You are very defensive. Maybe you ought to look into dealing with anger issues. 14 or 15 years old??? Please. Can’t you come up with a better one than that? I’ve always thought it humorous that the self-proclaimed “Peace Loving People” are always the ones attacking and throwing stones. The true representatives of peace walk the walk. All I’ve heard from you are personal attacks. I pity your foolish narrow-minded vision of the world. Can’t wait to read all about it in your next issue. Peace be with you too….. Terry

Bi-Polar??? Stoned???? Constant insults on someone you don't even know...... without those type of ASSumptions your commentswould have recieved respect and honor .... but you sound like your about ... what? 15 maybe 14 years old. Perhaps suffering with anger issues? Check yourself and the way that YOU sound before you go bashing others. Our zine is read by peace lovers, kind folks with kind words even if their views are different. You probally wouldn't fit in. I've heard enough music and seen enough shows to know that most of what you consider to be vocalist problems were actually due to sound problems. The sound man lost the vocalist twice and had the drums turned up above the vocalist several times. The stage & sound was set for spokes persons not a grade A concert, give the guys a break. I clearly heard "1-2-3-4 we don't want your fucking war.... 5-6-7-8 we don't want to radiate". I thought the prayer sang in their native tongue was beautiful and powerful. You can pick up your copy of SMASH at any independent business or venue through out Ga., Fl., S.C, N.C, L.A, TENN., Italy, Swiz. Peace be to you. Charlotte & the SMASH Staff From: "Terry McAuliffe" To: "smash mckellar" Subject: RE: Blowback Chat Message Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:00:54 -0700 Wow!!!! You are a regular Ms. Bi-Polar aren’t you… I ASSumed that you were stoned because you would have had to be to understand (I didn’t say comprehend) the lyrics. Here is the scenario as I remember it: 1. A large group (about 2,500) of American citizens and foreign visitors gather to protest the World Bank and stand up for liberal causes. All of them exercising their first amendment rights and doing nothing wrong. This is one of the things that makes our country great. 2. C-Span decides to cover it, live and unedited on their cable program. C-Span broadcasts this great gathering to potentially millions whom might otherwise not hear and see what is happening. Another of the many things that makes ours the greatest country in the world. 3. BLOWBACK gets the gig, which gives them an opportunity to perform their art and get others (read T.V. Audience) thinking about their message. 4. They get up on stage and start their show. From my living room (I couldn’t afford to take the time off of work to travel to DC) I watch their performance. I could not understand one single word the singer was singing. 5. I think to myself….”Here these guys have a chance to get their message out to the great un-washed and I can’t understand a single word of it…” What a tragedy. What a blown opportunity. 6. At this point I conclude that these guys SUCK. (In my humble opinion) 7. I do however watch it in its entirety. At one point the singer gives the band’s web address and says, “Log on and tell us what you think…”. So I did. And I was not alone in my opinions about the band. 8. There I was, on the bands chat (Talk in their terms) room reading “You guys suck…” messages, one after another. Then, someone from the Band starts deleting many of these messages and claims that they are “Racist” even if there are no references to anyone’s ethnicity. 9. Being curios, I go back to their web site on Monday to see if they deleted any more critiques. There you are with your glowing ASSessment of the bands performance. I think to myself’ “She is stoned!! Was she watching the same performance as the rest of us? Did she have her headphones plugged into the monitor outputs on the mixing board? Is she magic? How did she understand the lyrics when no one else could? Payola?”. I was perplexed. 10. I then e-mailed you because you posted your e-mail address on a chat room message… (Which also made me think that you were stoned) I truly thought you were being sarcastic. I have never read your magazine but rest assured, you do have a new customer!!! Where can I get a copy? What stores carry your magazine? Sincerely, Your newest fan, Terry McAuliffe

Great to see we still got all your juices flowing!! Keep coming back and sharing your time with us. And of course, keep watching C-SPAN!

I'm sure I'm not the only one...but I'd REALLY love to know what month this SMASH magazine comes out with BLOWBACK in it so I know exactly when to NOT BUY IT! Thanks! Sorry SMASH...but you're just wasting paper. Poor trees :(