EYEAM4ANARCHY

September's Radical Movie Night Features a Free Screening of "If a Tree Falls"

Sept. "Radical Movie Night"

September 12th marks the debut of Las Vegas' own Radical Movie Night, hosted by the Sunset Activist Collective, co- Sponsored by Nevada Cop Block and Food Not Bombs Las Vegas, and officially endorsed by the Las Vegas A-Cafe. This will be a monthly free showing of either a documentary or a movie with significant social value. 

The main purpose of Radical Movie Nights will be to connect local community members and encourage active participation within the local community by those within it to promote and empower those wishing to make positive grassroots-based improvements where they live and within their personal workplaces.


The location where Radical Movie Nights will take place is The Sci Fi Center, which many locals already know from its longstanding tradition for showing independent movies and cult classics that are often not available in a large screen setting. (Disclaimer: the Sci Fi Center is not actually involved in the Radical Movie Nights, outside of permitting us to use it as a venue for showing movies.)

In order to coincide with actions against the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (for more info about the AETA and local actions in response to it, see:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/07/animal-enterprise-terrorism-act_n_5659893.html) beginning in September, the first movie that will be shown is " If A Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front," a documentary about the Earth Liberation Front, in general, and one of its members, Daniel G. McGowan, who was characterized as a terrorist by the US government after his arrest for environmental activism actions, in particular.


The movie, which was nominated for an Academy  Award and won numerous other awards, shows the history and personal reasons why those involved in the ELF actions did what they did and how they became "radicalized," during previous less militant actions. In addition it addresses issues involving the declaring activists, who never actually harmed or ever tried to harm people, terrorists, based solely on property damage.
However, it also interviews and discusses the perspective of the targets of those actions and the effects they had on them. As a result, it is a fairly even handed presentation of the facts involved, which allows viewers to decide for themselves who was right or wrong and why.

About the Movie (via http://www.ifatreefallsfilm.com/):

"In December 2005, Daniel McGowan was arrested by Federal agents in a nationwide sweep of radical environmentalists involved with the Earth Liberation Front-- a group the FBI has called America's "number one domestic terrorism threat."
For years, the ELF—operating in separate anonymous cells without any central leadership—had launched spectacular arsons against dozens of businesses they accused of destroying the environment: timber companies, SUV dealerships, wild horse slaughterhouses, and a $12 million ski lodge at Vail, Colorado.
With the arrest of Daniel and thirteen others, the government had cracked what was probably the largest ELF cell in America and brought down the group responsible for the very first ELF arsons in this country.
IF A TREE FALLS: A STORY OF THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT tells the remarkable story of the rise and fall of this ELF cell, by focusing on the transformation and radicalization of one of its members.
Part coming-of-age tale, part cops-and-robbers thrilller, the film interweaves a verite chronicle of Daniel on house arrest as he faces life in prison, with a dramatic recounting of the events that led to his involvement with the group. And along the way it asks hard questions about environmentalism, activism, and the way we define terrorism.
Drawing from striking archival footage -- much of it never before seen -- and intimate interviews with ELF members, and with the prosecutor and detective who were chasing them, IF A TREE FALLS explores the tumultuous period from 1995 until early 2001 when environmentalists were clashing with timber companies and law enforcement, and the word "terrorism" had not yet been altered by 9/11."

Chalk Washes Off, Injustice Never Will!

Emma Goldman once stated that if voting actually changed anything they would make it illegal. The rapid progression of new laws designed (or existing laws twisted) to prevent different forms of direct action bears out the truth of that sentiment.

Direct action truly does "get the goods" and whenever the establishment recognizes that something is an effective method of exposing them for what they really are the crackdown is inevitable.

Among the terrorist cameramen, illegal milk traffickers, outlaw food sharers and cancer patients using unauthorized treatment methods another group has recently joined the ranks of the recipients of this treatment of making mundane, harmless actions illegal. This dangerous, scary group consists of people that draw on sidewalks with (gasp!) "sidewalk chalk," something that (spoiler alert) is packaged for, marketed as, and primarily used to write on sidewalks.

Of course, the fact that someone is writing on a sidewalk isn't really the issue as evidenced by the masses of children playing hopscotch, public events featuring chalk drawing areas, and even businesses that use it for advertising on sidewalks nearby. It's really the content of what people have written that have gotten them in trouble, which is pretty much the definition of a First Amendment violation (in spite of what Jeff Olson's judge would have you believe).

When a friendly game of four-square turns into an airing of the local police department's record of police brutality and unwillingness to hold anyone accountable for that record of violence and murder, well then we have to protect the public's property from an easily washed off, non-staining, material that will disappear on it's own within a matter of a few days. It's all fun and games until someone starts pointing out the crimes of the State's enforcers and then the next thing you know people will be writing about how they steal people's homes only to turn around and sell it to billion dollar corporations for less than market value or to people pretending to build stadiums nobody even wants and no local team can fill.

"Second Saturdays" with NVCopBlock.org

The reason that I know that chalking is an effective way of protest is because about a month ago, on June 8th, I along with two other members of the Sunset Activist Collective were cited during a Nevada Cop Block monthly protest for "graffiti" while listing the crimes and paying tribute to the many victims of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. After nine months of "Second Saturdays" and other events calling for the accountability that is sorely missing within Las Vegas area police departments, we were told by a "graffiti expert" that drawing with chalk on a sidewalk is now illegal, in spite of us having been explicitly told by some of his own co-workers that sidewalk chalk is in fact legal previously.

Inevitably, the upside to when the state cracks down on legal forms of protest is that they generally overreach and in the end often the public spotlight and embarrassment generated by their heavy-handed methods backfire in a big way. Such was the case when Jeff Olson wrote stuff about how corrupt the system was in favor of banks and then the San Diego police proved his point by bowing to the pressure of a bank manager to charge him in a case they didn't even want to prosecute (and that even the mayor called stupid) with the outrageous potential of 13 years in prison for writing on a sidewalk with something that was manufactured for that explicit purpose.

Our  case, of course, doesn't involve a penalty anywhere near that level of ridiculousness, although there are some bribery demands (i.e. fines) that could amount to as much as $1000, forced slave labor (AKA "community" service), and for some bizarre reason the removal of our legal ability to drive around for two years. Personally, I'm not particularly concerned about any of those things because the case is not just silly, it's already been ruled in courts that chalking is legal and constitutionally protected as free speech.

Solidarity Rally for the "Sunset 3"

What has me looking forward to our court date on July 18th is the fact that this case and the subsequent lawsuit will bring more attention to the unchecked crimes of the LVMPD and their cohorts in and around Las Vegas than we ever did in those nine months of writing our demands on the sidewalk surrounding their (fancy new) headquarters buildings.

And regardless if the outcome isn't what I expect (and common sense dictates) it to be, I will continue chalking until Metro decides to stop allowing their employees to murder people without consequence. In fact, I won't even be waiting until the current case is decided. The next "Second Saturday" is July 13th and we will be there chalking again. We will also be holding a solidarity rally on the morning of the 18th, prior to the trial starting, and there will be chalking that day.

Unjust laws need to be challenged, especially when those unjust laws are themselves being used to hide the injustices of those in power and their enforcers. That's why I won't be putting down my chalk any time soon and you should pick up yours. The best way to overturn a bad law that violates basic human rights, such as the ability to protest injustices, is to violate those laws en masse in order that their true nature can't be ignored. It's even more true when the laws are silly and obviously being used in ways they were never intended to be.

At 11:00 am (PST) on July 18th, join us at the Regional Injustice Center (see map below)to let them know that you want accountability instead of paid vacations for cops that murder people in your community and that they can't silence you with petty, misapplied laws. If you aren't in Las Vegas, then be with us in spirit, draw out some stuff on the sidewalk where ever you are, and join us in a lively round of hopscotch.

We'll see if they have the nerve and the room to haul all of us "graffiti artists" away.


View Larger Map

My most recent article on Meefers.com concerning the local anti-Prop. 8 rally:

Feelings of anger and disappointment at the upholding of Prop. 8's ban on same-sex marriage in California were quickly overcome by a renewed sense of energy and determination to continue the fight for marriage equality during a rally at the Southern Nevada LGBT Community Center in Las Vegas...continue reading

Here are some of the pictures I took at U.C.I.R.'s March for Immigrant Rights which was held on May 1st along the Strip in Vegas. The full pics (all 143 of them) can be seen on my facebook profile in the photo section. I also have most of them posted on myspace, but some of the files were too big to add there, so there are only 98 of them. It was a rather good (but busy) afternoon and I got some good shots.

A seventy percent rate of false positives is nothing to get alarmed about. Let's be optimists and think of the glass as thirty percent full.

Paul Harvey: Everyone's favorite homespun racist, homophobic neocon.

Forgive me if I don't get caught up in all the flowery tributes being offered up for Paul Harvey. First of all, he was less than the highest example of journalistic integrity. Many of his stories were urban myths, if not outright fabrications, passed off as actual fact. Others were true stories distorted to fit his political viewpoints.

The very style that he is so revered for was stolen from Bill Stern, something that he never acknowledged until previously unavailable tapes of Stern's "Colgate Sports Reel" were discovered showing that his style was a virtual copy of Stern's previous broadcasts. But, if plagiarism and deceptive reporting were his only transgressions, I could overlook him as yet another stuffed shirt who championed style over substance. However, it's the hatred and fear-mongering that makes all these Paul Harvey tributes painting him as the embodiment of Americana so inappropriate.

Note: this was originally published specifically as a response to a question that was posed recently by a member of another blog group, however more generally, this addresses criticisms of that type which are often directed toward feminists/feminism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Strawman Cometh

Not only is it unfair, it's extremely dishonest and intellectually lazy. It's your typical, garden variety strawman which is only meant to distract from legitimate issues involved in a subject or debate. Something that is akin to saying "feminist issues don't need to be addressed, because they are wrong in their attitude toward men." The obvious fallacy lies in the fact that feminism's legitimacy should be based on the actual validity of their positions. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that feminists don't care about violence against men, then that doesn't invalidate such issues as equal property and contract rights, equal voting rights, opposition to forced marriages, sexual and reproductive rights, economic and employment equality, and, of course violence toward women.

All of these, and many more, are issues that feminism has dealt with and none of them are dependent on feminist's attitudes toward men in order to have value as an issue. In fact, every one of them is an issue that could be debated, independent of feminism's advocacy for them, as a stand alone subject. You certainly don't have to be apathetic toward violence against men to believe that women should have a right to vote, receive equal pay, and not be sexually harassed or physically abused.

Men Are Big Boys

The reason that feminism is associated closely with those issues is because they are issues that profoundly affect women. For obvious reasons, feminists have a primary interest in issues that effect women. It really shouldn't be surprising that a group chiefly populated by women would take up matters that relate mostly to women. By the same token, why shouldn't men be the ones advancing uniquely male issues, such as violence (exclusively) aimed at men? It generally follows that the person or group most effected by discrimination drives the discourse surrounding that topic. All the more so, being that feminist issues generally involve women's treatment by, or in relation to, men.

Furthermore, men simply don't need feminists to run to their rescue, because they are very much capable of standing up for their own rights. Men are overwhelming represented within every segment of society, including government, business, and the media. There is no shortage of access to venues for men to address issues that predominantly effect men. By contrast, most feminist issues would receive little, if any, attention if not for the fact that a group devoted to issues effecting women exists.

Feminists Are Multi-taskers

Having established that men are the ones responsible for men's issues, yet another reason this isn't a fair question is because it assumes and/or falsely implies that feminists aren't in fact involved with issues that relate to violence against men or other non-female groups. Truth is that activists are rarely involved in one, singular group or issue. There are many subjects and political disputes that effect individual activists that might not necessarily be universally connected to women's issues. Thus, while they might appeal to certain feminists, they would not be a part of feminism itself. For instance, a vegetarian feminist is likely to be involved in animal rights groups; an Asian feminist is likely to be involved in anti-racism groups; a feminist, who is also a pacifist, is likely to be involved in anti-war groups, etc.

It's rather naive or simple-minded (if not both) to believe that people involved in one group are incapable of being involved with or having sympathetic feelings toward other groups and issues that might be outside the realm of the first group. In regards to violence, it would be unlikely that you would find a peace rally that did not have its share of feminist attendees. While that might not relate specifically to violence toward men, it certainly would include them. So, not only is it unfair to make such a statement, it is an expression of ignorance and probably willful ignorance at that.