Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Radical Activists Respond to Ejection frm Fresno Community Alliance Newspaper
After seven months of collaboration, the Fresno Community Alliance newspaper editorial board ejects a radical youth collective frm the paper. Activists repond by confronting editorial board members at their monthly meeting.
After seven months of effective collaboration, a collective of radical activists has been ejected from the Fresno Community Alliance newspaper by the paper’s editorial board. Most of the content submitted by the activists for the July issue was also rejected. In response to their removal from the paper nine activists and contributors to the paper read a prepared statement condemning the board’s decision at the board’s June 30th meeting (a copy of the statement is provided below).
In an e-mail dated July 28th Mike Rhodes, the editor of the Community Alliance, wrote that “It is clear, after seeing your 7 page section, that Rancor and the Youth Collective and the Community Alliance are just not on the same page. Rancor and the Youth Collective might want to consider publishing your own newspaper.” Rhodes’ e-mail contained numerous criticisms of activists’ content but left no time or opportunity for the concerns to be addressed.
In addition, Rhodes’ e-mail stated that “Several of the editorial board members, staff, and volunteers of the Community Alliance have expressed concern that the section you sent would target us as supporters of ‘domestic terrorism.’" Activists, in response, were alarmed that, especially in these times, unsubstantiated allegations about terrorism from within the progressive community only serve to endanger activists and deepen suspicions both within and outside the left community.
The severance of ties with the radical collective occurred in spite of a November 1994 agreement between Rhodes and Stephen Gamboa. Gamboa was promised a position as co-editor with full control over the development of a youth culture, arts, and music section. Gamboa and Frank Sanchez provided layout and design work for the paper and, along with the radical culture, arts, and music section, the paper experienced a resurgence. A series of meetings to resolve emerging conflicts over editorial control were upended when the board announced their decision to remove the collective from the paper.
Below is a copy of the statement read by the activists, photos of activists at the Community Alliance board meeting where the statement was read, a copy of Rhodes’ e-mail, and a response to Rhodes’ e-mail by Doug Gilbert of the DAAA collective of Modesto (also a contributor to the activists’ section).
Response to the Community Alliance written by those involved with the culture and arts section and presented to the board at their meeting on June 30th.
These words are addressed to the editorial board of the Community Alliance newspaper and especially to its so-called editor-in-chief, Mike Rhodes.
The future of the Community Alliance newspaper is clear…It has no future. You have betrayed the fundamental principles of community and alliance-building at every turn. You have placed control and self promotion before the interest of the community. You have disrespected our work, reneged on agreements, and looked down your noses at those who are different from you. When we offered to form a collective, you rejected that. You could not accept actual equality and personal responsibility. Now you can’t even live up to your commitment to allow a space for the voices of the future, and you use pretense and hypocrisy to drive us off the paper. You truly are a whimpering echo of the advantaged and powerful that you claim to oppose.
If it is possible for you to be honest with yourselves, you know that the resurgence of interest in the Community Alliance newspaper was due almost exclusively to our work. Because of the graphic arts and layout and design work of Frank Sanchez and Stephen Gamboa, the newspaper became visually interesting. Because of the thought-provoking content of the articles and photographs submitted by radical activists, the newspaper gained authenticity. Our people, people actually committed to building a better world – Teresa Hele, Dallas Blanchard, the DAAA Collective, Nick DeGraff, Michael Becker, Shawn Putnam, Carmella Peeler, Rick Petinak, Eatcho and Josh Wigger, Stephen and Frank – made the new Community Alliance compelling because our words and photos were backed by dedicated and principled action. You held meetings; we went into the streets. You planned endlessly; we took action. You talked; we moved. The reports back from our actions opened a window for readers to historic events. Your rejection of us has slammed the window shut. Without us, you are ghosts; you have a newspaper without a future.
It’s true, we support courageous figures from the Zapatistas to Jeff Leurs. You pretend to be the Ghandis and Kings, but risk nothing. Using unfounded fear of the law as an excuse, you run away from the actual political conflict of the day with your tails between your legs. The tensions that we create spark the basis for real change; it is the same tension that Ghandi and King intentionally created. Fearing any threat to your bourgeois comfort and privilege, you won’t even write about these political realities. You thereby condemn the principles of Subcommandante Marcos, Jeff Leurs, Ghandi, and King. Not to mention the principles of those revolutionaries who won us rights of free expression, free association, and a free press. Even worse, you seek to extend your comfort and privilege from the proceeds of the paper and reject those who, lacking your wealth, contributed voluntarily. Now the paper has no future because you condemn the future.
We are filled with bitter regret when we contemplate how your venal cowardice has squandered an opportunity to form a genuine left Community Alliance in Fresno. You are diversity fakers – all for difference as long as everyone agrees with your views and tactics. You are unwilling to tolerate others, unwilling to take risks, unwilling, most of all, to recognize that those you claim to speak for are your equals. In these historic times, you do the work of the corporate state by undermining the basis of our commonality.
While you scheme about how to profit from the newspaper, we know that one of the main bases of your financial position is derived from the Vanguard Grant, written by Shawn Putnam. We will be contacting the Vanguard organization; we will urge them to revoke your grant and demand repayment of the grant monies. Just as you reneged on your agreement with us, you have violated the terms of the grant by failing to bring together progressive community groups and by stifling youth involvement.
Because of the plight facing the enslaved animals in the circus, this issue of the Alliance will remain on the news stands, but future Community Alliance newspapers are subject to confiscation in the name of the community you claim to represent. Finally, we will utilize every other form of media to expose you for the self-serving, back-stabbing, stale reactionaries that you are.
The time for lies is past; the future is our horizon; the ghosts will be dispersed.
From: "Mike Rhodes" <mikerhodes [at] comcast.net>
To: "Stephen Gamboa" <stephengamboa [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: The arts, music, and entertainment section
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:18:40 -0700
Stephen:
After a lot of discussion with editorial board members, staff, and volunteers, we have come to the conclusion that we can't print the 7 page section you sent. We were expecting an arts, music, and entertainment section. What you sent is a series of articles, many of which are unsigned or from people using pseudonyms that lay out the foundation for radical environmentalism and animal rights. The articles give a clear ideological justification that would lead readers to the conclusion that violence is justified to defend animal rights and our environment. To me, the section reads more like a manifesto than an arts, music, and entertainment section.
There are many problems with the pages you sent and we have concerns of legal liability. Many of the articles are personal opinion pieces, written in the first person, and are not signed or from someone using a pseudonym. Several of our editorial board members and supporters were outraged that an article was included that trivialized what happened in Nazi death camps by comparing it to what animals in circuses experience. We believe that many of our readers would also be outraged at the comparison.
Several of the editorial board members, staff, and volunteers of the Community Alliance have expressed concern that the section you sent would target us as supporters of "domestic terrorism." We are particularly concerned, because the writer of the articles are not identified, leaving us to be legally responsible for the content. If a writer believes in what she/he writes, and they want to have it printed in the Community Alliance, the writer has to use their real name.
There are also questions about who took the elephant pictures. Who took them? Do you have the photographer's permission to use them? But, at this point, the photos are way down the list of my concerns.
The bottom line is that we are not going to run the entire section. We will use Rick and Shawn's article. In future months we are open to receiving articles from the youth collective and Rancor for publication. Writers need to use their real names and the editor will decide what material is published.
It is clear, after seeing your 7 page section, that Rancor and the Youth Collective and the Community Alliance are just not on the same page. Rancor and the Youth Collective might want to consider publishing your own newspaper. You have enough material and a clear political direction. I would be happy to share with you what I know about how to make it a financially viable project.
If you are interested in discussing an arts, music, and entertainment section - we will be meeting on Thursday night, 7 PM at the Fresno Center for Nonviolence center. We want an arts, music, and entertainment section and would be more than happy to discuss it with you. This section will be one or two pages each month and will include a broad range of arts, music, and entertainment.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance newspaper
P.O. Box 5077
Fresno Ca 93755
(559) 978-4502 (cell)
AllianceEditor [at] comcast.net
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/
Subject: RE: FW: The arts, music, and entertainment section
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:51:41 -0500
It has come to my attention of the situation that exists now between the RANCOR collective, (or should I say former contributers to the Alliance), and also Mike Rhodes, and supposedly the other editors on the Alliance, (which I have never met however). Although I think that RANCOR has allready written a good response to MR, (and I agree with it), bellow is my response, and opinion in support of RANCOR.
"The articles give a clear ideological justification that would lead readers to the conclusion that violence is justified to defend animal rights and our environment." -
Most working people except that change will not simply come from writting letters to the editor, voting, and generally giving up your politicial power to statist entities. Further more, I don't think that any violence was acutally advocated in the work that RANCOR people handed in. The two pieces on Jeff Luers simply advocated for the release of Jeff Luers, in defense of property destruction, and also on the problems facing us from global warming.
While I don't think that any of the articles came close to advocating violence, (or violence as I understand is, as in I hit you, you hurt), I think that Mike Rhodes does a disservice to the community by assuming that readers of the paper will be angered by articles that make a clear justification of something completely different than actual violence in my mind: property destruction in the case of Jeff Luers. If Mike Rhodes and others are going to follow not only the party line of the established powers in promoting that idea that eco-radical action in the form of property destruction is violence, then they are not only doing the work of the FBI etc for them, but also not allowing the aboveground supporters of underground action to at least present their side of the story in an intelligent way for a supposed "progressive" audience.
Noone is writting articles on guerrilla violence of the revolutionary war which created America, the massive amounts of violence caused by both political parties, (one of which many Alliance readers voted for), or the violence that is transacted everyday by various industries. In this context, by not allowing space for at least the civil discussion of radical action simply because of fear of state repression, then at least in some part, we are supporting the actions of the state.
Eco-defense, ELF, and ALF actions are seen as the biggest domestic terrorist threat, (as opposed to the fact that diary farms are now the #1 polluter in the valley, global warming is a reality, and thousands of species go extict every year), and if we on the opposition are going to work to try to build a better world, we should be working to expose the real violence peretuated by a system based on private ownership of property and wage slavery, not simply condeming those that take radical action against it. ]
What angers me most however, is the typical liberal view that many of those that work on the Stanislaus Connections here in Modesto share, that people are too stupid to understand something that breaks out of convention, and that they need to be talked down to like children, and they ultimately are to unintelligent to geniuenly realize and deal with the problems that face us. For anarchists who desire community participation to the maximum, and ultimately want to create fully autonomous, directly democratic, and self-managed workplaces and communities, therefore we must have complete transparencey in our projects, non-hierarchal organizing structures, and ideas and projects that are community based organs, and not top down lofty ideas that exist outside of ordinary people's lives.
To wrap up: To not counter the FBI spin of racial eco/animal defense, to communities, is allowing the government to win to a certain degree.
"trivialized what happened in Nazi death camps by comparing it to what animals in circuses experience. We believe that many of our readers would also be outraged at the comparison." -
This is only problematic if you consider animals to be on a lower plane than humans.
"Several of the editorial board members, staff, and volunteers of the Community Alliance have expressed concern that the section you sent would target us as supporters of "domestic terrorism." We are particularly concerned, because the writer of the articles are not identified, leaving us to be legally responsible for the content. If a writer believes in what she/he writes, and they want to have it printed in the Community Alliance, the writer has to use their real name." -
Warcry is a well known anarchist activist. She has appeared on Democracy now! and several other programs and documentaries. The only other non-named people I saw was DAAA Collective, and we are an organization.
"There are also questions about who took the elephant pictures. Who took them? Do you have the photographer's permission to use them? But, at this point, the photos are way down the list of my concerns." -
Peta's website. Peta has a non-copywrite law, as long as you use them for good.
To end - the community alliance gained alot when it stopped being largely the project of Mike Rhodes. Mike Rhodes is an excellent community based activisit, that engages in alot of on the ground direct labor, community, racial justice, etc work, and should be commended for that. It should be noted however that this work was complimented well with the addition of the fine graphic arts work done by Steven and others, (which made the paper in my opinion), and the articles submitted by many people, including many anarchists.
- Doug Gilbert
In an e-mail dated July 28th Mike Rhodes, the editor of the Community Alliance, wrote that “It is clear, after seeing your 7 page section, that Rancor and the Youth Collective and the Community Alliance are just not on the same page. Rancor and the Youth Collective might want to consider publishing your own newspaper.” Rhodes’ e-mail contained numerous criticisms of activists’ content but left no time or opportunity for the concerns to be addressed.
In addition, Rhodes’ e-mail stated that “Several of the editorial board members, staff, and volunteers of the Community Alliance have expressed concern that the section you sent would target us as supporters of ‘domestic terrorism.’" Activists, in response, were alarmed that, especially in these times, unsubstantiated allegations about terrorism from within the progressive community only serve to endanger activists and deepen suspicions both within and outside the left community.
The severance of ties with the radical collective occurred in spite of a November 1994 agreement between Rhodes and Stephen Gamboa. Gamboa was promised a position as co-editor with full control over the development of a youth culture, arts, and music section. Gamboa and Frank Sanchez provided layout and design work for the paper and, along with the radical culture, arts, and music section, the paper experienced a resurgence. A series of meetings to resolve emerging conflicts over editorial control were upended when the board announced their decision to remove the collective from the paper.
Below is a copy of the statement read by the activists, photos of activists at the Community Alliance board meeting where the statement was read, a copy of Rhodes’ e-mail, and a response to Rhodes’ e-mail by Doug Gilbert of the DAAA collective of Modesto (also a contributor to the activists’ section).
Response to the Community Alliance written by those involved with the culture and arts section and presented to the board at their meeting on June 30th.
These words are addressed to the editorial board of the Community Alliance newspaper and especially to its so-called editor-in-chief, Mike Rhodes.
The future of the Community Alliance newspaper is clear…It has no future. You have betrayed the fundamental principles of community and alliance-building at every turn. You have placed control and self promotion before the interest of the community. You have disrespected our work, reneged on agreements, and looked down your noses at those who are different from you. When we offered to form a collective, you rejected that. You could not accept actual equality and personal responsibility. Now you can’t even live up to your commitment to allow a space for the voices of the future, and you use pretense and hypocrisy to drive us off the paper. You truly are a whimpering echo of the advantaged and powerful that you claim to oppose.
If it is possible for you to be honest with yourselves, you know that the resurgence of interest in the Community Alliance newspaper was due almost exclusively to our work. Because of the graphic arts and layout and design work of Frank Sanchez and Stephen Gamboa, the newspaper became visually interesting. Because of the thought-provoking content of the articles and photographs submitted by radical activists, the newspaper gained authenticity. Our people, people actually committed to building a better world – Teresa Hele, Dallas Blanchard, the DAAA Collective, Nick DeGraff, Michael Becker, Shawn Putnam, Carmella Peeler, Rick Petinak, Eatcho and Josh Wigger, Stephen and Frank – made the new Community Alliance compelling because our words and photos were backed by dedicated and principled action. You held meetings; we went into the streets. You planned endlessly; we took action. You talked; we moved. The reports back from our actions opened a window for readers to historic events. Your rejection of us has slammed the window shut. Without us, you are ghosts; you have a newspaper without a future.
It’s true, we support courageous figures from the Zapatistas to Jeff Leurs. You pretend to be the Ghandis and Kings, but risk nothing. Using unfounded fear of the law as an excuse, you run away from the actual political conflict of the day with your tails between your legs. The tensions that we create spark the basis for real change; it is the same tension that Ghandi and King intentionally created. Fearing any threat to your bourgeois comfort and privilege, you won’t even write about these political realities. You thereby condemn the principles of Subcommandante Marcos, Jeff Leurs, Ghandi, and King. Not to mention the principles of those revolutionaries who won us rights of free expression, free association, and a free press. Even worse, you seek to extend your comfort and privilege from the proceeds of the paper and reject those who, lacking your wealth, contributed voluntarily. Now the paper has no future because you condemn the future.
We are filled with bitter regret when we contemplate how your venal cowardice has squandered an opportunity to form a genuine left Community Alliance in Fresno. You are diversity fakers – all for difference as long as everyone agrees with your views and tactics. You are unwilling to tolerate others, unwilling to take risks, unwilling, most of all, to recognize that those you claim to speak for are your equals. In these historic times, you do the work of the corporate state by undermining the basis of our commonality.
While you scheme about how to profit from the newspaper, we know that one of the main bases of your financial position is derived from the Vanguard Grant, written by Shawn Putnam. We will be contacting the Vanguard organization; we will urge them to revoke your grant and demand repayment of the grant monies. Just as you reneged on your agreement with us, you have violated the terms of the grant by failing to bring together progressive community groups and by stifling youth involvement.
Because of the plight facing the enslaved animals in the circus, this issue of the Alliance will remain on the news stands, but future Community Alliance newspapers are subject to confiscation in the name of the community you claim to represent. Finally, we will utilize every other form of media to expose you for the self-serving, back-stabbing, stale reactionaries that you are.
The time for lies is past; the future is our horizon; the ghosts will be dispersed.
From: "Mike Rhodes" <mikerhodes [at] comcast.net>
To: "Stephen Gamboa" <stephengamboa [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: The arts, music, and entertainment section
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:18:40 -0700
Stephen:
After a lot of discussion with editorial board members, staff, and volunteers, we have come to the conclusion that we can't print the 7 page section you sent. We were expecting an arts, music, and entertainment section. What you sent is a series of articles, many of which are unsigned or from people using pseudonyms that lay out the foundation for radical environmentalism and animal rights. The articles give a clear ideological justification that would lead readers to the conclusion that violence is justified to defend animal rights and our environment. To me, the section reads more like a manifesto than an arts, music, and entertainment section.
There are many problems with the pages you sent and we have concerns of legal liability. Many of the articles are personal opinion pieces, written in the first person, and are not signed or from someone using a pseudonym. Several of our editorial board members and supporters were outraged that an article was included that trivialized what happened in Nazi death camps by comparing it to what animals in circuses experience. We believe that many of our readers would also be outraged at the comparison.
Several of the editorial board members, staff, and volunteers of the Community Alliance have expressed concern that the section you sent would target us as supporters of "domestic terrorism." We are particularly concerned, because the writer of the articles are not identified, leaving us to be legally responsible for the content. If a writer believes in what she/he writes, and they want to have it printed in the Community Alliance, the writer has to use their real name.
There are also questions about who took the elephant pictures. Who took them? Do you have the photographer's permission to use them? But, at this point, the photos are way down the list of my concerns.
The bottom line is that we are not going to run the entire section. We will use Rick and Shawn's article. In future months we are open to receiving articles from the youth collective and Rancor for publication. Writers need to use their real names and the editor will decide what material is published.
It is clear, after seeing your 7 page section, that Rancor and the Youth Collective and the Community Alliance are just not on the same page. Rancor and the Youth Collective might want to consider publishing your own newspaper. You have enough material and a clear political direction. I would be happy to share with you what I know about how to make it a financially viable project.
If you are interested in discussing an arts, music, and entertainment section - we will be meeting on Thursday night, 7 PM at the Fresno Center for Nonviolence center. We want an arts, music, and entertainment section and would be more than happy to discuss it with you. This section will be one or two pages each month and will include a broad range of arts, music, and entertainment.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance newspaper
P.O. Box 5077
Fresno Ca 93755
(559) 978-4502 (cell)
AllianceEditor [at] comcast.net
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/
Subject: RE: FW: The arts, music, and entertainment section
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:51:41 -0500
It has come to my attention of the situation that exists now between the RANCOR collective, (or should I say former contributers to the Alliance), and also Mike Rhodes, and supposedly the other editors on the Alliance, (which I have never met however). Although I think that RANCOR has allready written a good response to MR, (and I agree with it), bellow is my response, and opinion in support of RANCOR.
"The articles give a clear ideological justification that would lead readers to the conclusion that violence is justified to defend animal rights and our environment." -
Most working people except that change will not simply come from writting letters to the editor, voting, and generally giving up your politicial power to statist entities. Further more, I don't think that any violence was acutally advocated in the work that RANCOR people handed in. The two pieces on Jeff Luers simply advocated for the release of Jeff Luers, in defense of property destruction, and also on the problems facing us from global warming.
While I don't think that any of the articles came close to advocating violence, (or violence as I understand is, as in I hit you, you hurt), I think that Mike Rhodes does a disservice to the community by assuming that readers of the paper will be angered by articles that make a clear justification of something completely different than actual violence in my mind: property destruction in the case of Jeff Luers. If Mike Rhodes and others are going to follow not only the party line of the established powers in promoting that idea that eco-radical action in the form of property destruction is violence, then they are not only doing the work of the FBI etc for them, but also not allowing the aboveground supporters of underground action to at least present their side of the story in an intelligent way for a supposed "progressive" audience.
Noone is writting articles on guerrilla violence of the revolutionary war which created America, the massive amounts of violence caused by both political parties, (one of which many Alliance readers voted for), or the violence that is transacted everyday by various industries. In this context, by not allowing space for at least the civil discussion of radical action simply because of fear of state repression, then at least in some part, we are supporting the actions of the state.
Eco-defense, ELF, and ALF actions are seen as the biggest domestic terrorist threat, (as opposed to the fact that diary farms are now the #1 polluter in the valley, global warming is a reality, and thousands of species go extict every year), and if we on the opposition are going to work to try to build a better world, we should be working to expose the real violence peretuated by a system based on private ownership of property and wage slavery, not simply condeming those that take radical action against it. ]
What angers me most however, is the typical liberal view that many of those that work on the Stanislaus Connections here in Modesto share, that people are too stupid to understand something that breaks out of convention, and that they need to be talked down to like children, and they ultimately are to unintelligent to geniuenly realize and deal with the problems that face us. For anarchists who desire community participation to the maximum, and ultimately want to create fully autonomous, directly democratic, and self-managed workplaces and communities, therefore we must have complete transparencey in our projects, non-hierarchal organizing structures, and ideas and projects that are community based organs, and not top down lofty ideas that exist outside of ordinary people's lives.
To wrap up: To not counter the FBI spin of racial eco/animal defense, to communities, is allowing the government to win to a certain degree.
"trivialized what happened in Nazi death camps by comparing it to what animals in circuses experience. We believe that many of our readers would also be outraged at the comparison." -
This is only problematic if you consider animals to be on a lower plane than humans.
"Several of the editorial board members, staff, and volunteers of the Community Alliance have expressed concern that the section you sent would target us as supporters of "domestic terrorism." We are particularly concerned, because the writer of the articles are not identified, leaving us to be legally responsible for the content. If a writer believes in what she/he writes, and they want to have it printed in the Community Alliance, the writer has to use their real name." -
Warcry is a well known anarchist activist. She has appeared on Democracy now! and several other programs and documentaries. The only other non-named people I saw was DAAA Collective, and we are an organization.
"There are also questions about who took the elephant pictures. Who took them? Do you have the photographer's permission to use them? But, at this point, the photos are way down the list of my concerns." -
Peta's website. Peta has a non-copywrite law, as long as you use them for good.
To end - the community alliance gained alot when it stopped being largely the project of Mike Rhodes. Mike Rhodes is an excellent community based activisit, that engages in alot of on the ground direct labor, community, racial justice, etc work, and should be commended for that. It should be noted however that this work was complimented well with the addition of the fine graphic arts work done by Steven and others, (which made the paper in my opinion), and the articles submitted by many people, including many anarchists.
- Doug Gilbert
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Ummm...that's an interesting take. Here's what actually occurred.
After seven months of waiting for the "youth collective" to provide the promised monthly arts and entertainment section (the reason they ostensibly joined the Community Alliance newspaper), the CA board held a meeting Thursday night, June 30, to which the youth collective was invited (just as other volunteers and staff were invited), to discuss the arts and entertainment section.
Alternatively, if they were NOT interested in participating in the paper (since they were very displeased when their little group didn't get 6-7 pages of political coverage this month in a 28-page paper, under the guise of calling their political articles "arts and entertainment"), Mike Rhodes, editor of the Community Alliance, offered to help the group start its own newspaper if they preferred. As Rhodes acknowledged, after several months it was becoming clear that the two groups were not on the same page. If the "youth collective" preferred to end their association with the paper, he was offering to help them do something else.
This is quite a far cry from being "ejected" from the newspaper. They were never ejected from the paper, by any stretch of the imagination. Although it makes a more "exciting" story to make themselves into martyrs and say they've been "ejected" (and perhaps it makes them feel more important and powerful), it's just not true. They chose not to participate.
Instead of choosing to come to discuss an arts an entertainment section, or meeting with Rhodes to discuss how he could help them start their own newspaper, the "youth collective" stormed into the meeting fifteen minutes after it was to have begun, snarling comments such as, "IT'S OUR TIME TO TALK."
The last one entering the room physically blocked the door--perhaps he was worried that the one-year-old baby at the meeting--you can see the horrid little bourgeois piglet in their third picture!--might try to "escape" before the group was done bellowing its bizarre statement and making threats to the paper. (The meeting, ironically, was being held at the Fresno Center for Nonviolence.)
By the way, I'm sure the baby's parents did NOT grant permission for their child's photograph to be used in a news article and posted on the Web. I'M CERTAIN THE BABY'S PARENTS WANT THE CHILD'S PICTURE REMOVED FORTHWITH. (Do you see why these people need help with legal issues, and why they need to submit to the same editorial process as everyone else who works on the paper?)
The "youth collective" stood in a line, side-by-side, facing the seated editorial board, staff, and volunteers (and baby), with their arms crossed and hostile glares on their faces. One of the group loudly read their "statement" and then....rather anticlimactically... left, without engaging in any dialogue, despite EVEN THEN being invited to stay and engage in dialogue.
Most of the content submitted by the group for the July issue was rejected, as they say. What they don't seem to understand is that the rejected content had nothing to do with arts and entertainment, and everything to do with promoting a narrow political agenda.
As for the ridiculous claim that "Rhodes’ e-mail contained numerous criticisms of activists’ content but left no time or opportunity for the concerns to be addressed," the group itself was responsible for the fact that they turned in the section at the last minute (at the end of the month, a couple of days before the paper was to go to the printer, which would have been okay for "arts and entertainment" content). They knew full well that the deadline for political articles is on the 15th of the month, SPECIFICALLY SO THAT there is "time and opportunity for the concerns to be addressed." How laughably disingenuous of them to complain about this, when in fact what happened is that the Board did not allow a bunch of unedited political articles to "sneak in" to the paper in this underhanded way.
NOTE: Political articles have always been welcome from the group, but these need to be submitted to the appropriate editor, by the appropriate deadline, so they can undergo some editorial review (for such things as timeliness--for instance, one article they submitted was about a year-and-a-half old, not exactly breaking news). Articles need time to be copyedited and checked for accuracy. They also sometimes need to undergo rewrites, with the writers' input and approval, when libel or plagiarism or other potential legal problems are at issue.
As for the equally ridiculous claim that "A series of meetings to resolve emerging conflicts over editorial control were upended when the board announced their decision to remove the collective from the paper." This is simply an untruth. No such decision was ever announced, because no such decision was ever made. This one little indymedia article shows exactly why material from this group NEEDS some editorial review, cuz some people in the world take it unkindly when you libel or defame them. This, in turn, tends to put a newspaper out of business quickly--then no one in the community is served.
Despite their false claims to the contrary, these people were never "removed" from the paper. They removed themselves. The board, even AFTER the bizarre display at the meeting on Thursday--when they stormed in, engaged in a spate of angry, pointless name-calling, and stormed out again, refusing to talk--agreed that the group is still welcome to submit articles, even now (political, entertainment, whatever), if they submit them to the appropriate editor by the appropriate deadlines.
The bottom line was this: The Board was not willing to roll over and (1) give the "youth collective" a disproportionately huge political voice, compared with the voice of other progressive groups in the Valley; (2) let them--alone among all groups in the community-- submit political articles that were not subject to editorial review; (3) let them submit, unchallenged, an "arts and entertainment" section that contained almost entirely political articles promoting their ideology, and then publish it (again, unedited); and (4) let them (again, alone among all other groups in the community) publish legally questionable material.
In short, the Board has offered, and continues to offer, the same advantages to this group, and the same access--no more no less---as ALL the other diverse community groups who participate in the paper. In contrast, the youth collective felt entitled to special access and 25% of the space in the paper for their political agenda, when they number about 15 in a metropolitan area of more than 900,000 people.
Just because some members of the group provided some admittedly nice layout and design work, that does not entitle this small group to have 6 or 7 pages promoting their political agenda (in space intended for arts and entertainment, no less) in a 28-page paper that is intended to represent the WHOLE community.
OTHER volunteers on the paper, including the board and the editor, do not get "extra space" to promote their political agendas, just because they volunteer. That's what a VOLUNTEER is: Someone who isn't looking for a quid pro quo.
The group is still welcome to volunteer. They are still welcome to submit articles. Mike Rhodes will still help them get their own paper going. But apparently, rather than doing any of these productive things, they prefer to complain about, and blame others for, a choice that they themselves made.
After seven months of waiting for the "youth collective" to provide the promised monthly arts and entertainment section (the reason they ostensibly joined the Community Alliance newspaper), the CA board held a meeting Thursday night, June 30, to which the youth collective was invited (just as other volunteers and staff were invited), to discuss the arts and entertainment section.
Alternatively, if they were NOT interested in participating in the paper (since they were very displeased when their little group didn't get 6-7 pages of political coverage this month in a 28-page paper, under the guise of calling their political articles "arts and entertainment"), Mike Rhodes, editor of the Community Alliance, offered to help the group start its own newspaper if they preferred. As Rhodes acknowledged, after several months it was becoming clear that the two groups were not on the same page. If the "youth collective" preferred to end their association with the paper, he was offering to help them do something else.
This is quite a far cry from being "ejected" from the newspaper. They were never ejected from the paper, by any stretch of the imagination. Although it makes a more "exciting" story to make themselves into martyrs and say they've been "ejected" (and perhaps it makes them feel more important and powerful), it's just not true. They chose not to participate.
Instead of choosing to come to discuss an arts an entertainment section, or meeting with Rhodes to discuss how he could help them start their own newspaper, the "youth collective" stormed into the meeting fifteen minutes after it was to have begun, snarling comments such as, "IT'S OUR TIME TO TALK."
The last one entering the room physically blocked the door--perhaps he was worried that the one-year-old baby at the meeting--you can see the horrid little bourgeois piglet in their third picture!--might try to "escape" before the group was done bellowing its bizarre statement and making threats to the paper. (The meeting, ironically, was being held at the Fresno Center for Nonviolence.)
By the way, I'm sure the baby's parents did NOT grant permission for their child's photograph to be used in a news article and posted on the Web. I'M CERTAIN THE BABY'S PARENTS WANT THE CHILD'S PICTURE REMOVED FORTHWITH. (Do you see why these people need help with legal issues, and why they need to submit to the same editorial process as everyone else who works on the paper?)
The "youth collective" stood in a line, side-by-side, facing the seated editorial board, staff, and volunteers (and baby), with their arms crossed and hostile glares on their faces. One of the group loudly read their "statement" and then....rather anticlimactically... left, without engaging in any dialogue, despite EVEN THEN being invited to stay and engage in dialogue.
Most of the content submitted by the group for the July issue was rejected, as they say. What they don't seem to understand is that the rejected content had nothing to do with arts and entertainment, and everything to do with promoting a narrow political agenda.
As for the ridiculous claim that "Rhodes’ e-mail contained numerous criticisms of activists’ content but left no time or opportunity for the concerns to be addressed," the group itself was responsible for the fact that they turned in the section at the last minute (at the end of the month, a couple of days before the paper was to go to the printer, which would have been okay for "arts and entertainment" content). They knew full well that the deadline for political articles is on the 15th of the month, SPECIFICALLY SO THAT there is "time and opportunity for the concerns to be addressed." How laughably disingenuous of them to complain about this, when in fact what happened is that the Board did not allow a bunch of unedited political articles to "sneak in" to the paper in this underhanded way.
NOTE: Political articles have always been welcome from the group, but these need to be submitted to the appropriate editor, by the appropriate deadline, so they can undergo some editorial review (for such things as timeliness--for instance, one article they submitted was about a year-and-a-half old, not exactly breaking news). Articles need time to be copyedited and checked for accuracy. They also sometimes need to undergo rewrites, with the writers' input and approval, when libel or plagiarism or other potential legal problems are at issue.
As for the equally ridiculous claim that "A series of meetings to resolve emerging conflicts over editorial control were upended when the board announced their decision to remove the collective from the paper." This is simply an untruth. No such decision was ever announced, because no such decision was ever made. This one little indymedia article shows exactly why material from this group NEEDS some editorial review, cuz some people in the world take it unkindly when you libel or defame them. This, in turn, tends to put a newspaper out of business quickly--then no one in the community is served.
Despite their false claims to the contrary, these people were never "removed" from the paper. They removed themselves. The board, even AFTER the bizarre display at the meeting on Thursday--when they stormed in, engaged in a spate of angry, pointless name-calling, and stormed out again, refusing to talk--agreed that the group is still welcome to submit articles, even now (political, entertainment, whatever), if they submit them to the appropriate editor by the appropriate deadlines.
The bottom line was this: The Board was not willing to roll over and (1) give the "youth collective" a disproportionately huge political voice, compared with the voice of other progressive groups in the Valley; (2) let them--alone among all groups in the community-- submit political articles that were not subject to editorial review; (3) let them submit, unchallenged, an "arts and entertainment" section that contained almost entirely political articles promoting their ideology, and then publish it (again, unedited); and (4) let them (again, alone among all other groups in the community) publish legally questionable material.
In short, the Board has offered, and continues to offer, the same advantages to this group, and the same access--no more no less---as ALL the other diverse community groups who participate in the paper. In contrast, the youth collective felt entitled to special access and 25% of the space in the paper for their political agenda, when they number about 15 in a metropolitan area of more than 900,000 people.
Just because some members of the group provided some admittedly nice layout and design work, that does not entitle this small group to have 6 or 7 pages promoting their political agenda (in space intended for arts and entertainment, no less) in a 28-page paper that is intended to represent the WHOLE community.
OTHER volunteers on the paper, including the board and the editor, do not get "extra space" to promote their political agendas, just because they volunteer. That's what a VOLUNTEER is: Someone who isn't looking for a quid pro quo.
The group is still welcome to volunteer. They are still welcome to submit articles. Mike Rhodes will still help them get their own paper going. But apparently, rather than doing any of these productive things, they prefer to complain about, and blame others for, a choice that they themselves made.
With friends like these, who needs real enemies?
Come back with a real crisis. But remember the Boy who cried Wolf. And Krystallnacht. Shattering unity and trust in local progressive group relations is quite the effective result, isnt it? nice.
Come back with a real crisis. But remember the Boy who cried Wolf. And Krystallnacht. Shattering unity and trust in local progressive group relations is quite the effective result, isnt it? nice.
non-violence is not a fetish, it is a legal and moral high ground that you HAVE to take to sustain credibility and garner support. Any act, even contrived, cajoled or falsified cointelpro tactics and enticements to act stupid, of violence automatically puts you in the dustbin of public opinion. Your beliefs may be more highly evolved (somehow) than the LCD of society such as it is, but anything that falls short of uniting the masses behind justice is wasted or stolen effort, and any negative repercussions form the chains you will carry throughout eternity in hell and a brick wall towards solidarity and progress for all the people who spend their lives (not just their youth) attempting to make our world better. If no one can tell the difference between a cointelpro tactic and an act of resistance, than there is no inherent positive value in that act, other than negative energy and mindless destruction that might fit into some childish ideology constructed in some FBI office. You want positive environmental change? Show some respect and maturity and make the right arguments for the right changes in the right places. Stop kicking shins and throwing fits like the spoiled first world children you might just be mistaken for.
seriously. just do it. it's not that hard.
ask newyorkrat [at] riseup.net for advice
ask newyorkrat [at] riseup.net for advice
Non-violence becomes a fetish in the way that the concept/tactic is abused by many "liberals." Thoreau, Ghandi, and King used non-violent civil disobedience as a tactic to provoke tension and compel negotitation when those in power refused to seriously address fundamental issues. No justice, no peace.
History demonstrates that group in power rarely respond solely to non-violence. Even King recognized as much when he said that "I am only truly effective as long as there is a shadow on white America of the black man standing behind me with a Molotov cocktail." Similarly the end of colonialism in India and the end of slavery in the US were accompanied by considerable violence. Given this history those proclaiming non-violence had better be a little less self-righteous in their condemnations of those who use tactics they disagree with.
From what I can tell, the paper in Fresno got cold feet. Looking at the PDF files it's pretty clear that there is nothing there that warrants rejection of the material.
So the bottom line is "community." Everybody on the left better get used to at least tolerating each other. There are good reasons to agree to disagree on some things not the least of which is politics.
I hope the collective takes up NewYorkRat's suggestion and starts its own paper. And I hope the mainstream liberals in Fresno can adopt a non-patronizing tone toward the younger and more radical part of the movement.
History demonstrates that group in power rarely respond solely to non-violence. Even King recognized as much when he said that "I am only truly effective as long as there is a shadow on white America of the black man standing behind me with a Molotov cocktail." Similarly the end of colonialism in India and the end of slavery in the US were accompanied by considerable violence. Given this history those proclaiming non-violence had better be a little less self-righteous in their condemnations of those who use tactics they disagree with.
From what I can tell, the paper in Fresno got cold feet. Looking at the PDF files it's pretty clear that there is nothing there that warrants rejection of the material.
So the bottom line is "community." Everybody on the left better get used to at least tolerating each other. There are good reasons to agree to disagree on some things not the least of which is politics.
I hope the collective takes up NewYorkRat's suggestion and starts its own paper. And I hope the mainstream liberals in Fresno can adopt a non-patronizing tone toward the younger and more radical part of the movement.
For sevent months the "youth" collective delivered exactly what it promised, a youth "culture, arts, and music" section. Radical politics is part of all three which is why youth started reading the Community Alliance again.
Guess what, when you reject the content that is submitted according to your own guidelines and then suggest that those rejected start thier own paper that would be construed as being ejected by most normal people.
Talk? Meet? We did that over and over in e-mails, in person, and in meetings. A follow up to one meeting was cancelled, then you rejected us and our material and asked to come to another meeeting. Sorry. Game over.
We blocked the door because we knew it was the only way that the board, and especially Rhodes, would hear us out.
"The person" assumes the audience's ignorance regarding the photograph. Consent is not required when photographs are taken in public places, including public meetings--which the editorial board meeting is.
We read our statement and left. You cut off dialogue by rejecting our monthly submission and suggesting we form our own paper.
Rhodes asked for our submission by the 24th. We provided it by that time. He and the board then waited until the night before going to press to alert us of alleged problems. These problems would have been easily answered or adressed as Doug Gilbert's response makes clear.
"The person" again accuses us of libelous and defamatory statements but provides no actual instances or evidence of this. Our writers can cite sources for each of their claims.
The last three paragraphs of "the person's" comments are contrary to the original agreement made with Stephen Gamboa in November 2004.
As for the last paragraph, an apology to the collective is in order not false magnanimity (the tone of "the person's" comments tells the real story). As it stands, "the person's" response has only deepened my resolve to take the steps outlined in the final paragraphs of the collective's statement.
Guess what, when you reject the content that is submitted according to your own guidelines and then suggest that those rejected start thier own paper that would be construed as being ejected by most normal people.
Talk? Meet? We did that over and over in e-mails, in person, and in meetings. A follow up to one meeting was cancelled, then you rejected us and our material and asked to come to another meeeting. Sorry. Game over.
We blocked the door because we knew it was the only way that the board, and especially Rhodes, would hear us out.
"The person" assumes the audience's ignorance regarding the photograph. Consent is not required when photographs are taken in public places, including public meetings--which the editorial board meeting is.
We read our statement and left. You cut off dialogue by rejecting our monthly submission and suggesting we form our own paper.
Rhodes asked for our submission by the 24th. We provided it by that time. He and the board then waited until the night before going to press to alert us of alleged problems. These problems would have been easily answered or adressed as Doug Gilbert's response makes clear.
"The person" again accuses us of libelous and defamatory statements but provides no actual instances or evidence of this. Our writers can cite sources for each of their claims.
The last three paragraphs of "the person's" comments are contrary to the original agreement made with Stephen Gamboa in November 2004.
As for the last paragraph, an apology to the collective is in order not false magnanimity (the tone of "the person's" comments tells the real story). As it stands, "the person's" response has only deepened my resolve to take the steps outlined in the final paragraphs of the collective's statement.
Tell that to the Jews who survived the Holocaust by killing their guards and burning Treblinka to the ground.
As for the law, it was the law that sent them to Treblinka in the first place. It was also the law that nailed Jesus to the cross. So screw the law, I say. Do the right thing, legal or not. If it happens to be legal, so much the better. If it it is not, then do the right thing anyhow. Just don't get caught.
If you really want to end the war, you're going to have to be willing to break a few laws. Even non violent resistance often results in arrest. But the anti-war movement is going to have to go a lot further than that if it's going to stop the war. If civil disobedience could have stopped the war, it would have happened already.
Stopping this war is going to take a lot more than that. It will probably take the physical disruption of the supply chain on which it depends for its life. That means strikes and sabotage in the defense industries and in the industries that support it. The anti-war movement also needs to set up a decentralized underground railroad to get deserters safely out of the country. There aren't that many deserters yet, but there are more every day. When the draft is reinstated, there will be a flood of draft dodgers. Draft dodgers will need a social infrastructure in place to help them escape. And yeah, it's against the law. So what? So was the underground railroad that helped slaves escape slavery. And what is a draft if not slavery? Are you, personally, ready, willing and above all able, to operate a station on the underground railroad? If not, why not? And what are you doing instead to save these young lives?
As for the law, it was the law that sent them to Treblinka in the first place. It was also the law that nailed Jesus to the cross. So screw the law, I say. Do the right thing, legal or not. If it happens to be legal, so much the better. If it it is not, then do the right thing anyhow. Just don't get caught.
If you really want to end the war, you're going to have to be willing to break a few laws. Even non violent resistance often results in arrest. But the anti-war movement is going to have to go a lot further than that if it's going to stop the war. If civil disobedience could have stopped the war, it would have happened already.
Stopping this war is going to take a lot more than that. It will probably take the physical disruption of the supply chain on which it depends for its life. That means strikes and sabotage in the defense industries and in the industries that support it. The anti-war movement also needs to set up a decentralized underground railroad to get deserters safely out of the country. There aren't that many deserters yet, but there are more every day. When the draft is reinstated, there will be a flood of draft dodgers. Draft dodgers will need a social infrastructure in place to help them escape. And yeah, it's against the law. So what? So was the underground railroad that helped slaves escape slavery. And what is a draft if not slavery? Are you, personally, ready, willing and above all able, to operate a station on the underground railroad? If not, why not? And what are you doing instead to save these young lives?
"Tell that to the Jews who survived the Holocaust by killing their guards and burning Treblinka to the ground"
yeah sure, like that really happened
yeah sure, like that really happened
nice haystack there. I realize I left plenty to your imaginations, but there are inarguable facts that you may draw on if you wish contemplate the wisdom of non-non-violent acts of resistance. Im sorry the simple analogy of cointelpro patterns and overlapping actions of free thinking types isnt enough to discourage like action. While somehow the "law" got brought in here as though I am on the side of our system of justice, thats a mistake on your part. The "law" is there though, and they ARE just waiting to pounce on you for things you havent even done. It takes a fool to give them something to use against you or your cause, and ANYONE STUPID ENOUGH to think that violence will bring about needed change must be living in the free state of Palestine.
Go ahead and be stupid, its possibly your only remaining freedom. But when the secret police drag people away because threats of terrorist nature (use your imagination here, they will!) were made, who are you going to cry to? Go ahead and do the plowshares and SOA actions, take up a cot in one of the cells the Berrigans kept warm for you. But DONT fantasize that you or anyone you know can possibly put the hurt on a militarized police force and their captains of corruption who dont give a damn about your personal issues. The only weapon you can truly wield against the evil we face is unity. We dont really have the luxury of time to waste waiting for loud angry voices to grow brains and learn from their mistakes. Dont want to be talked down to? Grow up.
Go ahead and be stupid, its possibly your only remaining freedom. But when the secret police drag people away because threats of terrorist nature (use your imagination here, they will!) were made, who are you going to cry to? Go ahead and do the plowshares and SOA actions, take up a cot in one of the cells the Berrigans kept warm for you. But DONT fantasize that you or anyone you know can possibly put the hurt on a militarized police force and their captains of corruption who dont give a damn about your personal issues. The only weapon you can truly wield against the evil we face is unity. We dont really have the luxury of time to waste waiting for loud angry voices to grow brains and learn from their mistakes. Dont want to be talked down to? Grow up.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/israeli/yad-vashem/yvs-camps-02-01.html
At night the prisoners were shut up in the barracks, which were guarded by Ukrainian sentries. The intensified punitive measures -- the torture and hanging of the captured escapees and the announcement that for each prisoner who escaped ten others would be executed--also had their effect. The snow and the tracks left in the snow, which gave the escapees away. also made escape more difficult. The last escape attempts were made at the beginning, of the winter, in December 1942, but they ended in failure. It became evident that the ways of escape that had been tried heretofore now stood virtually no chance of succeeding. It became necessary to search for different ways, more organized and complex. Indeed, at the beginning of 1943, new ideas began to take shape regarding struggle, escape and rescue.
The Organization of the Underground
In the winter of 1942/1943, a change occurred in the intensity of the activity in Treblinka. The number of transports gradually diminished and almost stopped altogether in February/March 1943. The annihilation of the Jews of the General-Government was completed for the most part, although from time to time a few transports did arrive from the Bialystok-Grodno district (Generalbezirk). The vast piles of possessions taken from the murdered, which had been heaped up in the square near the platform and had been part of the permanent scenery of the camp, disappeared. They had been packed and sent off to destinations in Germany and elsewhere. As the stream of transports ceased, it was no longer necessary to sort the belongings of the dead, and the fear descended on the Jewish prisoners that they were slated to be liquidated soon, together with the camp as a whole. Rumors about a selection in which some of the men would be taken to the gas chambers hovered in the air constantly. Moreover, the reduced number of transports led to a shortage of food and clothing, which had been obtained from what the victims left behind. Starvation and the typhus that broke out in the winter claimed many victims, and that added to the gloom among the prisoners.
The news from the front about the German military defeat at Stalingrad--which the prisoners learned about from newspapers smuggled to them by the boy prisoners who worked in the quarters of the SS--was received with joy. At the same time fears intensified that with the end of Nazi Germany approaching, the last of the Jews would be liquidated. (Sereny, op. cit., pp. 210-212; testimony of Strawczynski, op. cit. p.. 26, 47; Wiernik, op. cit., p. 37; J. Rajgrodzki, "Jedenascie miesiecy w obozie zaglady w Treblince--Wspomnienia," Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego (BZIH), No. 25, 1958, p. 109.)
That was the atmosphere in which the idea of escape and rebellion gradually took shape in talks among the prisoners in the work places and barracks. The lessons of previous acts of resistance in the camp and the recent unsuccessful escape attempts made it clear that new ways had to be found. The only realistic possibility seemed to be a mass revolt and organized escape by all the prisoners by means of force.
When and within which group the idea of rebellion first occurred cannot be stated with any certainty. (According to Strawczynski, op. cit., p. 47, the idea of revolt was first raised by the carpenters' group.) It seems reasonable to assume that the idea occurred to several groups at more or less the same time in talks among the "court Jews" and among the "square Jews." In preparation for the rebellion, an "organizing committee" was formed, comprised of prisoners from both groups. On this committee were Dr. Chorazycki, who was physician to the SS men, Zeev Kurland, the Capo of the Lazarett, Zelo Bloch, a lieutenant in the Czech army who had arrived in a transport from Theresienstadt, Salzberg of the tailors' group, the agronomist Sadowicz and others.
Even before the plan for the uprising was formulated, the "organizing committee" tried to acquire arms by bribing the Ukrainian guards. These guards used to slip food to the prisoners in exchange for money and gold, and it was hoped that they would also agree to supply weapons. The Jewish prisoners, especially the "gold Jews," maintained caches of money and valuables that had been taken from what had been left by the victims. Even though the Germans often threatened that prisoners possessing money and valuables would be executed, the prisoners were not deterred and continued to hide sizable quantities of money and valuables, Now these holdings were to serve as a source for the acquisition of arms. One of the first attempts was made by a Jewish prisoner named Moshe, who served as the Capo of the carpentry shop. He gave an Ukrainian with whom he was in contact money and asked him to get him a pistol. The money was taken, but the gun was not brought. In spite of this failure, the efforts to acquire arms via the Ukrainians continued, but it was decided that in addition an attempt would be made to remove weapons from the camp arms store. In this luck was with the prisoners. One day a Jewish locksmith was ordered to repair the lock on the arms store door. In the course of the repair, he prepared a key for the underground "organizing committee." (Dokumenty, op. cit., Vol. I, Obozy, p. 188; Wilenberg, op. cit., p. 46; Tanhum Greenberg, "Ha-Mered be-Treblinka--Kitei Edut," Yalkllt Mo-reshet, No. 5, April 1966, p. 61)
In the second half of March 1943, the underground suffered a serious loss. Zelo Bloch, the military man on the "organizing committee," was transferred to the extermination area. The reasons for his transfer are not clear. It is very unlikely that it was in any way related to his underground activity, for had there been the slightest suspicion against him the Germans would have immediately killed him. His transfer was most likely a result of the lessened activity in the camp and the need for more men in the extermination area. After Himmler visited the camp at the end of February or early March 1943, the burning of the corpses was begun in the "extermination area" so as to remove traces of the murder that had taken place there; for this more men were needed. Typhus also had claimed many victims in the extermination area, which further increased the manpower shortage there. (Sereny, op. cit., pp. 210-211) Another underground activist, Adolf Friedman, was transferred together with Block.
The efforts to get arms from the Ukrainian guards continued. This time Dr. Chorazycki, one of the heads of the "organizing committee" who by virtue of his work had daily contact with the Ukrainians, took upon himself the handling of this matter. As a bribe for the guards he carried on him a sum of money. One day early in April 1943, the deputy camp commander, Kurt Franz, entered the infirmary and discovered the money (possibly after being informed by the Ukrainians). When Chorazycki realized that his situation was hopeless, he rushed at Franz with a surgical knife. A struggle ensued in which Chorazycki did not manage to injure Franz, but did succeed in swallowing poison that he kept on him for just such an occasion. The Germans' efforts to revive him were to no avail. In order to deter the other prisoners from thinking about escape they were called to a roll-call at which the dead body of Chorazycki was abused. A thorough search was conducted among the "gold Jews" who were suspected of having supplied the money. They were threatened that if they did not confess they would be executed. They were severely beaten and tortured, but denied any connection with the affair. (Greenberg, op. cit., p. 60; Wilenberg,, op. air., pp. 52-53; testimony of Strawczynski, op. cit., p. 38)
In spite of Chorazycki's death and Zelo Bloch's transfer to the other part of the camp, the "organizing committee" continued with the preparations for the uprising. The "camp elder" Rakowski was now brought in on the secret of the underground activity. Rudek Lubernicki, who was in charge of the garage and later played an important role in the uprising, now also joined the underground. The members of the underground, who numbered several score, were organized into several groups.
In the latter part of April 1943, it was decided to remove weapons from the arms store by using the key in the committee's possession. The arms store was located between two barracks where Germans lived; there was access to it also from within the barracks. The job of removing the weapons, during the daytime, when the barracks' occupants were not there, was given to a group of Jewish boys who worked in the SS quarters cleaning up and polishing the Germans' boots. A group of boys headed by Markus, a young man from Warsaw who was in charge of them, and three other boys removed two cases containing grenades from the storeroom and surreptitiously got them to the shoemakers' workshop. When the grenades were examined. it was discovered that the detonators, which were kept in a separate box, were missing. The grenades were returned in the same way they had been removed so that the Germans would not find out that they were missing. This failure led to a postponement of the uprising. (Greenberg,, op. Cit., pp. 61-62.)
After the uprising planned for the latter half of April 1943 failed to take place, there was a decline in the underground's activity. Once again there were thoughts of individual escape. One of those who planned to escape was Rakowski, together with his girlfriend Cesia Mendel and others. Seeking collaboration. they bribed a Ukrainian guard, but the SS began to get suspicious. They conducted a search in the room where the Capos lived and found large quantities of money and gold in the blankets and walls. Rakowski claimed that the treasure they found did not belong to him and that he was unaware of its existence. He claimed that the money and gold had probably been hidden by Chorazycki, who had since died but who had lived in that room before. But his arguments were not accepted, and he was taken to the Lazarett where he was shot. After Rakowski's death the Germans, at the beginning of May 1943, appointed Galewski "camp elder." (Galewski, an engineer by profession, served as camp elder before Rakowski [see Greenberg, op. cit., p. 61]; see also testimony of Strawczynski, op. cit., pp. 51-52; Sereny, op. cit., p. 195)
In May and the beginning of June the activity of the "organizing committee" and underground activity in general continued to slacken. But the cessation of the transports and the information from the extermination area that the removal of the bodies from the pits and their cremation was nearing completion and that soon there would be no more work led to a reawakening of underground activity.
At this time the "camp elder" Galewski joined the underground leadership, and with him came Monik, an energetic Warsaw youth who was Capo of the skilled workers, and others as well. The "organizing committee" was reactivated. It was headed by Galewski and had about ten members, most of whom had been members of the previous "committee." The activity was conducted in the greatest possible secrecy, and the camp authorities did not learn of it despite the informers they had among the prisoners. The fact that the committee was headed by the "camp elder" and that its members included most of the Capos and heads of work groups (Kurland, Monik, Sadowicz and others) made its activity somewhat easier. 'The meetings generally took place in the tailors' workshop. The number of members in the underground grew steadily. On the eve of the uprising, in Camp A there were about sixty people, who comprised about 10 percent of the camp's prisoner population. They were organized by places of work into sub-units of five to ten people, headed by a commander. (Testimony of Strawczynski, op cit., pp. 50-55; Stanislaw Kon, "Ha-Mered be-Treblinka," 'Sefer Milhamot ha-Geta'ot, 1954, pp 536-537)
(snip)
* * * * *
Continued at:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/israeli/yad-vashem/yvs-camps-03-00.html
At night the prisoners were shut up in the barracks, which were guarded by Ukrainian sentries. The intensified punitive measures -- the torture and hanging of the captured escapees and the announcement that for each prisoner who escaped ten others would be executed--also had their effect. The snow and the tracks left in the snow, which gave the escapees away. also made escape more difficult. The last escape attempts were made at the beginning, of the winter, in December 1942, but they ended in failure. It became evident that the ways of escape that had been tried heretofore now stood virtually no chance of succeeding. It became necessary to search for different ways, more organized and complex. Indeed, at the beginning of 1943, new ideas began to take shape regarding struggle, escape and rescue.
The Organization of the Underground
In the winter of 1942/1943, a change occurred in the intensity of the activity in Treblinka. The number of transports gradually diminished and almost stopped altogether in February/March 1943. The annihilation of the Jews of the General-Government was completed for the most part, although from time to time a few transports did arrive from the Bialystok-Grodno district (Generalbezirk). The vast piles of possessions taken from the murdered, which had been heaped up in the square near the platform and had been part of the permanent scenery of the camp, disappeared. They had been packed and sent off to destinations in Germany and elsewhere. As the stream of transports ceased, it was no longer necessary to sort the belongings of the dead, and the fear descended on the Jewish prisoners that they were slated to be liquidated soon, together with the camp as a whole. Rumors about a selection in which some of the men would be taken to the gas chambers hovered in the air constantly. Moreover, the reduced number of transports led to a shortage of food and clothing, which had been obtained from what the victims left behind. Starvation and the typhus that broke out in the winter claimed many victims, and that added to the gloom among the prisoners.
The news from the front about the German military defeat at Stalingrad--which the prisoners learned about from newspapers smuggled to them by the boy prisoners who worked in the quarters of the SS--was received with joy. At the same time fears intensified that with the end of Nazi Germany approaching, the last of the Jews would be liquidated. (Sereny, op. cit., pp. 210-212; testimony of Strawczynski, op. cit. p.. 26, 47; Wiernik, op. cit., p. 37; J. Rajgrodzki, "Jedenascie miesiecy w obozie zaglady w Treblince--Wspomnienia," Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego (BZIH), No. 25, 1958, p. 109.)
That was the atmosphere in which the idea of escape and rebellion gradually took shape in talks among the prisoners in the work places and barracks. The lessons of previous acts of resistance in the camp and the recent unsuccessful escape attempts made it clear that new ways had to be found. The only realistic possibility seemed to be a mass revolt and organized escape by all the prisoners by means of force.
When and within which group the idea of rebellion first occurred cannot be stated with any certainty. (According to Strawczynski, op. cit., p. 47, the idea of revolt was first raised by the carpenters' group.) It seems reasonable to assume that the idea occurred to several groups at more or less the same time in talks among the "court Jews" and among the "square Jews." In preparation for the rebellion, an "organizing committee" was formed, comprised of prisoners from both groups. On this committee were Dr. Chorazycki, who was physician to the SS men, Zeev Kurland, the Capo of the Lazarett, Zelo Bloch, a lieutenant in the Czech army who had arrived in a transport from Theresienstadt, Salzberg of the tailors' group, the agronomist Sadowicz and others.
Even before the plan for the uprising was formulated, the "organizing committee" tried to acquire arms by bribing the Ukrainian guards. These guards used to slip food to the prisoners in exchange for money and gold, and it was hoped that they would also agree to supply weapons. The Jewish prisoners, especially the "gold Jews," maintained caches of money and valuables that had been taken from what had been left by the victims. Even though the Germans often threatened that prisoners possessing money and valuables would be executed, the prisoners were not deterred and continued to hide sizable quantities of money and valuables, Now these holdings were to serve as a source for the acquisition of arms. One of the first attempts was made by a Jewish prisoner named Moshe, who served as the Capo of the carpentry shop. He gave an Ukrainian with whom he was in contact money and asked him to get him a pistol. The money was taken, but the gun was not brought. In spite of this failure, the efforts to acquire arms via the Ukrainians continued, but it was decided that in addition an attempt would be made to remove weapons from the camp arms store. In this luck was with the prisoners. One day a Jewish locksmith was ordered to repair the lock on the arms store door. In the course of the repair, he prepared a key for the underground "organizing committee." (Dokumenty, op. cit., Vol. I, Obozy, p. 188; Wilenberg, op. cit., p. 46; Tanhum Greenberg, "Ha-Mered be-Treblinka--Kitei Edut," Yalkllt Mo-reshet, No. 5, April 1966, p. 61)
In the second half of March 1943, the underground suffered a serious loss. Zelo Bloch, the military man on the "organizing committee," was transferred to the extermination area. The reasons for his transfer are not clear. It is very unlikely that it was in any way related to his underground activity, for had there been the slightest suspicion against him the Germans would have immediately killed him. His transfer was most likely a result of the lessened activity in the camp and the need for more men in the extermination area. After Himmler visited the camp at the end of February or early March 1943, the burning of the corpses was begun in the "extermination area" so as to remove traces of the murder that had taken place there; for this more men were needed. Typhus also had claimed many victims in the extermination area, which further increased the manpower shortage there. (Sereny, op. cit., pp. 210-211) Another underground activist, Adolf Friedman, was transferred together with Block.
The efforts to get arms from the Ukrainian guards continued. This time Dr. Chorazycki, one of the heads of the "organizing committee" who by virtue of his work had daily contact with the Ukrainians, took upon himself the handling of this matter. As a bribe for the guards he carried on him a sum of money. One day early in April 1943, the deputy camp commander, Kurt Franz, entered the infirmary and discovered the money (possibly after being informed by the Ukrainians). When Chorazycki realized that his situation was hopeless, he rushed at Franz with a surgical knife. A struggle ensued in which Chorazycki did not manage to injure Franz, but did succeed in swallowing poison that he kept on him for just such an occasion. The Germans' efforts to revive him were to no avail. In order to deter the other prisoners from thinking about escape they were called to a roll-call at which the dead body of Chorazycki was abused. A thorough search was conducted among the "gold Jews" who were suspected of having supplied the money. They were threatened that if they did not confess they would be executed. They were severely beaten and tortured, but denied any connection with the affair. (Greenberg, op. cit., p. 60; Wilenberg,, op. air., pp. 52-53; testimony of Strawczynski, op. cit., p. 38)
In spite of Chorazycki's death and Zelo Bloch's transfer to the other part of the camp, the "organizing committee" continued with the preparations for the uprising. The "camp elder" Rakowski was now brought in on the secret of the underground activity. Rudek Lubernicki, who was in charge of the garage and later played an important role in the uprising, now also joined the underground. The members of the underground, who numbered several score, were organized into several groups.
In the latter part of April 1943, it was decided to remove weapons from the arms store by using the key in the committee's possession. The arms store was located between two barracks where Germans lived; there was access to it also from within the barracks. The job of removing the weapons, during the daytime, when the barracks' occupants were not there, was given to a group of Jewish boys who worked in the SS quarters cleaning up and polishing the Germans' boots. A group of boys headed by Markus, a young man from Warsaw who was in charge of them, and three other boys removed two cases containing grenades from the storeroom and surreptitiously got them to the shoemakers' workshop. When the grenades were examined. it was discovered that the detonators, which were kept in a separate box, were missing. The grenades were returned in the same way they had been removed so that the Germans would not find out that they were missing. This failure led to a postponement of the uprising. (Greenberg,, op. Cit., pp. 61-62.)
After the uprising planned for the latter half of April 1943 failed to take place, there was a decline in the underground's activity. Once again there were thoughts of individual escape. One of those who planned to escape was Rakowski, together with his girlfriend Cesia Mendel and others. Seeking collaboration. they bribed a Ukrainian guard, but the SS began to get suspicious. They conducted a search in the room where the Capos lived and found large quantities of money and gold in the blankets and walls. Rakowski claimed that the treasure they found did not belong to him and that he was unaware of its existence. He claimed that the money and gold had probably been hidden by Chorazycki, who had since died but who had lived in that room before. But his arguments were not accepted, and he was taken to the Lazarett where he was shot. After Rakowski's death the Germans, at the beginning of May 1943, appointed Galewski "camp elder." (Galewski, an engineer by profession, served as camp elder before Rakowski [see Greenberg, op. cit., p. 61]; see also testimony of Strawczynski, op. cit., pp. 51-52; Sereny, op. cit., p. 195)
In May and the beginning of June the activity of the "organizing committee" and underground activity in general continued to slacken. But the cessation of the transports and the information from the extermination area that the removal of the bodies from the pits and their cremation was nearing completion and that soon there would be no more work led to a reawakening of underground activity.
At this time the "camp elder" Galewski joined the underground leadership, and with him came Monik, an energetic Warsaw youth who was Capo of the skilled workers, and others as well. The "organizing committee" was reactivated. It was headed by Galewski and had about ten members, most of whom had been members of the previous "committee." The activity was conducted in the greatest possible secrecy, and the camp authorities did not learn of it despite the informers they had among the prisoners. The fact that the committee was headed by the "camp elder" and that its members included most of the Capos and heads of work groups (Kurland, Monik, Sadowicz and others) made its activity somewhat easier. 'The meetings generally took place in the tailors' workshop. The number of members in the underground grew steadily. On the eve of the uprising, in Camp A there were about sixty people, who comprised about 10 percent of the camp's prisoner population. They were organized by places of work into sub-units of five to ten people, headed by a commander. (Testimony of Strawczynski, op cit., pp. 50-55; Stanislaw Kon, "Ha-Mered be-Treblinka," 'Sefer Milhamot ha-Geta'ot, 1954, pp 536-537)
(snip)
* * * * *
Continued at:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/israeli/yad-vashem/yvs-camps-03-00.html
[The only weapon you can truly wield against the evil we face is unity. We dont really have the luxury of time to waste waiting for loud angry voices to grow brains and learn from their mistakes. Dont want to be talked down to? Grow up.]
Liberals have been talking to people this way for the last 30 years and you can see the results all around us.
Here's a golden rule of political activism: as soon as someone, or some group, responds to a different of opinion by saying that the only way to prevail is through "unity", it's time to get up and walk out of the room.
Because you know how the principles of "unity" are going to be defined, by people who disagree with you and how you do things. Otherwise, why would they talk about it?
Questions about violent versus non-violent actions are a lot more complicated that putting out nonsense statements like, the only way to prevail is through some idealized notion of non-violent unity (as a number of posts here indicate). And, it's especially ironic, given the urgency of this comment, as it's an open question as to whether such unity will emerge just before or after the second coming of Christ.
Just about every civil rights and social justice accomplishment in this country was associated with violence at one time or another, as the most cursory examination of the history of abolitionism, trade unionism and civil rights demonstrates.
Here's a hypothetical: it's 2007, there's another WTC type episode, and the President issues an Executive Order, requiring the "temporary" detention of all males of Middle Eastern descent over the age of 13. A group of males subject to the order gathers at a particular urban location, and publicly expresses their refusal to comply, asking for assistance. If local, state and federal law enforcement authorities come to seize them, should they limit their refusal to non-violence? Should they resist arrest and detention? Should they defend themselves with force? If not, why? Similarly, should their supporters limit themselves to non-violence? If so, why?
For me, the answer is not immediately obvious by reference to idealized notions of the suitability of non-violence in all situations, and would instead depend upon the detailed, specific aspects of the pending confrontation. One need only look to Iraq, where there was a global effort to resist the war based upon principles of non-violence. It failed.
Ongoing efforts to resist the occupation through non-violence have only been marginally effective. Thus, the Iraqis have decided that they are going to resist through violence, and they have every right to do so, free from the moralizing of people who have completely failed to protect them.
--Richard
Liberals have been talking to people this way for the last 30 years and you can see the results all around us.
Here's a golden rule of political activism: as soon as someone, or some group, responds to a different of opinion by saying that the only way to prevail is through "unity", it's time to get up and walk out of the room.
Because you know how the principles of "unity" are going to be defined, by people who disagree with you and how you do things. Otherwise, why would they talk about it?
Questions about violent versus non-violent actions are a lot more complicated that putting out nonsense statements like, the only way to prevail is through some idealized notion of non-violent unity (as a number of posts here indicate). And, it's especially ironic, given the urgency of this comment, as it's an open question as to whether such unity will emerge just before or after the second coming of Christ.
Just about every civil rights and social justice accomplishment in this country was associated with violence at one time or another, as the most cursory examination of the history of abolitionism, trade unionism and civil rights demonstrates.
Here's a hypothetical: it's 2007, there's another WTC type episode, and the President issues an Executive Order, requiring the "temporary" detention of all males of Middle Eastern descent over the age of 13. A group of males subject to the order gathers at a particular urban location, and publicly expresses their refusal to comply, asking for assistance. If local, state and federal law enforcement authorities come to seize them, should they limit their refusal to non-violence? Should they resist arrest and detention? Should they defend themselves with force? If not, why? Similarly, should their supporters limit themselves to non-violence? If so, why?
For me, the answer is not immediately obvious by reference to idealized notions of the suitability of non-violence in all situations, and would instead depend upon the detailed, specific aspects of the pending confrontation. One need only look to Iraq, where there was a global effort to resist the war based upon principles of non-violence. It failed.
Ongoing efforts to resist the occupation through non-violence have only been marginally effective. Thus, the Iraqis have decided that they are going to resist through violence, and they have every right to do so, free from the moralizing of people who have completely failed to protect them.
--Richard
I'll finish here, I cant seem to get the point across. The media landscape in Fresno is a wasteland. To bring grievances to the one outfit that gives non corporate point of views a voice is really sad. Isnt there something about the local corporate noise media that energy and time could be channeled into?
Does anyone think that MF'ing the Community Alliance is going to slow the cogs of war? Shortsighted selfish and worse than arrogant, purely destructive. If you dont value the opinions, needs and desires of the rest of your community in your discussions, decision making or goal setting, well we're definitely on different pages. Good luck, choose your actions carefully.
Does anyone think that MF'ing the Community Alliance is going to slow the cogs of war? Shortsighted selfish and worse than arrogant, purely destructive. If you dont value the opinions, needs and desires of the rest of your community in your discussions, decision making or goal setting, well we're definitely on different pages. Good luck, choose your actions carefully.
no dialectical analysis here. just a statement of support for the revolutionary act of the rancor collective.
First off, let me say that I am rather fond of pseudonyms..well obviously, though a lot of y'all know who i am and it wouldn't take much time to figure it out.
Second, let me just say that since i am not familiar with each side of the story, but know people from either side...THE PAPER LOOKS LIKE SHIT THIS MONTH...You can tell that something was taken away from it or is missing from it somehow.
Beyond that, it seems best to allow for a diversity of opinion and tactics...Or as the zapatistas say "un mundo donde quepan muchos mundos"
in struggle...
ps - i'm game for helping on creating an alternative paper...and think Fault Lines folks would be down to help...
Second, let me just say that since i am not familiar with each side of the story, but know people from either side...THE PAPER LOOKS LIKE SHIT THIS MONTH...You can tell that something was taken away from it or is missing from it somehow.
Beyond that, it seems best to allow for a diversity of opinion and tactics...Or as the zapatistas say "un mundo donde quepan muchos mundos"
in struggle...
ps - i'm game for helping on creating an alternative paper...and think Fault Lines folks would be down to help...
[forwards
by Divide N Conquer Wednesday, Jul. 06, 2005 at 3:12 PM
I'll finish here, I cant seem to get the point across. The media landscape in Fresno is a wasteland. To bring grievances to the one outfit that gives non corporate point of views a voice is really sad. Isnt there something about the local corporate noise media that energy and time could be channeled into?
Does anyone think that MF'ing the Community Alliance is going to slow the cogs of war? Shortsighted selfish and worse than arrogant, purely destructive. If you dont value the opinions, needs and desires of the rest of your community in your discussions, decision making or goal setting, well we're definitely on different pages. Good luck, choose your actions carefully.]
. . . . why shouldn't it be public? and, no, it isn't "arrogant, purely destructive" to express it, this is just more of that "unity" nonsense that you said earlier
so, indeed, we are on different pages, I think that it is better for people to aggressively push their perspectives, and work through disputes by being candid, honest and public, and you seem to consistently find ways to characterize such a process as immature, selfish and destructive
my sense is that there are some control issues here, falsely recast in terms of the "good of the cause", and if the parties here go their separate ways, then fine, maybe that's what should happen, and both will be more effective as a result
--Richard
by Divide N Conquer Wednesday, Jul. 06, 2005 at 3:12 PM
I'll finish here, I cant seem to get the point across. The media landscape in Fresno is a wasteland. To bring grievances to the one outfit that gives non corporate point of views a voice is really sad. Isnt there something about the local corporate noise media that energy and time could be channeled into?
Does anyone think that MF'ing the Community Alliance is going to slow the cogs of war? Shortsighted selfish and worse than arrogant, purely destructive. If you dont value the opinions, needs and desires of the rest of your community in your discussions, decision making or goal setting, well we're definitely on different pages. Good luck, choose your actions carefully.]
. . . . why shouldn't it be public? and, no, it isn't "arrogant, purely destructive" to express it, this is just more of that "unity" nonsense that you said earlier
so, indeed, we are on different pages, I think that it is better for people to aggressively push their perspectives, and work through disputes by being candid, honest and public, and you seem to consistently find ways to characterize such a process as immature, selfish and destructive
my sense is that there are some control issues here, falsely recast in terms of the "good of the cause", and if the parties here go their separate ways, then fine, maybe that's what should happen, and both will be more effective as a result
--Richard
Those pictures of the elephants remind me of the Fresno Zoo's treatment of Nosey back in the day, and i am sure that things aren't too much different for the animals stuck in the Zoo today.
Not to mention that things really haven't changed over the last 30 years or so, on the property destruction/sabotage vs absolute nonviolence debate.
check out Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill for a longer discussion on the debate...
Direct Action Gets the Goods!!
Not to mention that things really haven't changed over the last 30 years or so, on the property destruction/sabotage vs absolute nonviolence debate.
check out Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill for a longer discussion on the debate...
Direct Action Gets the Goods!!
Funny, Mike Rhodes e-mail makes a large deal about the use of pen-names by authors. (While only one of the many articles censored actually uses a pseudonym.)
Question to "person who was there": your obviously a member of the editorial board, why then are you using a pen name in your posts?
Seems kinda hypocritical to me with such a hard stance.
Question to "person who was there": your obviously a member of the editorial board, why then are you using a pen name in your posts?
Seems kinda hypocritical to me with such a hard stance.
Does anyone else see the irony in RANCOR’s complaining about being censored in the Community Alliance newspaper and the section of their statement where they write about confiscating future issues? Lets see, they are against censorship AND they are going to confiscate and destroy newspapers because they don’t like the content (or lack of content) in the paper?
If your going to charge someone in rancor with being a member of law enforcement, at least have enough honor to do it with your name. I'm sure any activist involved with rancor would be happy to publically debate your WEAK accusations; and have a right to confront their accuser and the allegations. Seems like liable to me...and also the last throes of people who know they are wrong.
wasn't 'operation potatohead jones' the name of the covert military effort responsible for the assasination of che guevara? or is potatohead jones the name of the new christina aguilera cd?
It is very impressive that Fresno seems to have a lot more going on progressively than Fremont or San jose that have a lot more money and resources. It is very bad if you all spend your energy on a difference of opinion like this. The people running that paper should be allowed to have a perspective. Have you guys ever noticed how many different communist newspapers there are due to their splitting over different opinions? Fresno anti-conservatives have room to have different camps as well. The whole country saw your situation with that ridiculous mayor in Fahrenheit 911. It should be your police infiltrator and not yourselves who make you spend all your energy on this.
There were, in fact, revolts and escapes from Treblinka -- although the camps were not burned as a result.
Can't we get on toward a constructive resolution? Those not contributing toward that end, it seems to me, have a different agenda. Let us, therefore, ignore them and continut to discuss healing wounds.
Can't we get on toward a constructive resolution? Those not contributing toward that end, it seems to me, have a different agenda. Let us, therefore, ignore them and continut to discuss healing wounds.
Sure, let's have a community forum to get all those lefties together for Chief Dyer and Sheriff Pierce to get in their police vans and take pictures of all who attend!
Maybe we can play "Spot The Fed" like the hackers do in Las Vegas!
Just look for the people with the military buzzcuts---that's always a giveaway on these infiltrators!
Maybe we can play "Spot The Fed" like the hackers do in Las Vegas!
Just look for the people with the military buzzcuts---that's always a giveaway on these infiltrators!
http://www.radio4all.org/aia/sec_cointelpro.html
(snip)
An actual agent will often point the finger at a genuine, non-collaborating and highly valued group member, claiming that he or she is the infiltrator.
(snip)
(snip)
An actual agent will often point the finger at a genuine, non-collaborating and highly valued group member, claiming that he or she is the infiltrator.
(snip)
"You are diversity fakers – all for difference as long as everyone agrees with your views and tactics."
And you're telling them to agree with you or else, right?
"...future Community Alliance newspapers are subject to confiscation in the name of the community you claim to represent."
All for difference, so long as everyone agrees with your views and tactics.
Yep, a real change from what you are accusing.
"Finally, we will utilize every other form of media to expose you for the self-serving, back-stabbing, stale reactionaries that you are."
I seem to recall that one of the first efforts of reactionaries is to shut down any publication that doesn't agree with them...in many cases by confiscating issues off the streets, but more typically to destroy the presses that publish them.
Add this to the threats made, and you seem to have a nice little group of brown shirt goons ready to goosestep into forced legitimacy...
Who needs to be an infiltrator when you have a private army to crush your opponents at will?
And you're telling them to agree with you or else, right?
"...future Community Alliance newspapers are subject to confiscation in the name of the community you claim to represent."
All for difference, so long as everyone agrees with your views and tactics.
Yep, a real change from what you are accusing.
"Finally, we will utilize every other form of media to expose you for the self-serving, back-stabbing, stale reactionaries that you are."
I seem to recall that one of the first efforts of reactionaries is to shut down any publication that doesn't agree with them...in many cases by confiscating issues off the streets, but more typically to destroy the presses that publish them.
Add this to the threats made, and you seem to have a nice little group of brown shirt goons ready to goosestep into forced legitimacy...
Who needs to be an infiltrator when you have a private army to crush your opponents at will?
That's not what Stangl said:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/resistyad3.html
(snip)
Stangl, the commander of the camp, relates about the outbreak of the revolt: Looking out of my window I could see some Jews on the other side of the inner fence--they must have jumped down from the roof of the ss billets and they were shooting . . . In an emergency like that my first duty was to inform the chief of the external security police. By the time I'd done that, our petrol station blew up. That too had been built just like a real service station, with flower beds round it. Next thing the whole ghetto camp was burning and then Matthes, the German in charge of the Totenlager, arrived at a run and said everything was burning up there too...(Sereny, op.cit., pp. 239-241)
(snip)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Whatever was left standing by the rebels, was soon after dismantled by the Germans themselves:
http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/maps.html
(snip)
Also most of the structures that remained standing after the revolt were dismantled or utilised as a decoy in order to make the area appear as an ordinary farm.
(snip)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Accounts vary, but somewhere between sixty and a hundred of the rebels survived the war. Not a single one of them would have survived the year, and most not the month, had they not been willing to commit violence. This is a fact of life, literally. Sometimes, violence is not just the right thing to do, it's the only thing to do. That, in itself, doe not mean we should be violent. But it does mean we shouldn't limit our options.
Violence or nonviolence should be a tactical decision made on the spot, at the time, by the people involved. Neither violence or nonviolence is a sound strategy in and of itself. Of all the world's great survival strategies, keep one's options as open as possible heads the list. The fewer options one has, the less likely one is to survive, let alone accomplish one's mission, whatever that mission may be. It's not an ethics thing. It's a math thing.
I, personally, favor using non violence whenever possible, for pragmatic reasons, not moral reasons. It's almost always safer and more cost effective. Also, it appeals to me because I talk better than I fight. But I can fight, and will when I have to, but only in self defense. Fighting the cops accomplishes nothing. I know. I tried repeatedly. It didn't work. Besides, the cops are not the enemy. The cops are not the enemy. Their masters are not the enemy. The system is the enemy. It doesn't live behind barbed wire, in hotels and conference centers, or even in plutocrats' mansions. It lives in the hearts and minds of our families, our friends, our neighbors, and our work mates. There is where we must fight it. Our struggle is not for the space between the world's sidewalks, but the space between its ears. Besides, in the morning, the cops *always* take the street back. But a mind beyond their grasp is free forever.
I'm 100% opposed to terrorism, also for pragmatic reasons. History has shown it only makes things worse. Terrorism serves only the state. Anarchists figured this out a hundred years ago. Apparently some people haven't gotten the word yet.
But to fetishize non violence to the extent of not defending oneself from physical threats is more than just foolish. It's wrong. We have a moral duty to defend ourselves and to defend those around us. If you let evil men prey on you, their success will embolden them to prey on others. When they do, it's part your fault. You should have stopped them, or at least tried. That's how I figure it. You should, too.
Always try prevent being preyed upon. Get help if you have to, but resist, resist, resist. Never give up. Better to nip evil in the bud than to let it grow. Twenty years before Treblinka, the entire Nazi party, all seven of them, could have been taken out in a single street brawl. How many lives would that have saved?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/resistyad3.html
(snip)
Stangl, the commander of the camp, relates about the outbreak of the revolt: Looking out of my window I could see some Jews on the other side of the inner fence--they must have jumped down from the roof of the ss billets and they were shooting . . . In an emergency like that my first duty was to inform the chief of the external security police. By the time I'd done that, our petrol station blew up. That too had been built just like a real service station, with flower beds round it. Next thing the whole ghetto camp was burning and then Matthes, the German in charge of the Totenlager, arrived at a run and said everything was burning up there too...(Sereny, op.cit., pp. 239-241)
(snip)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Whatever was left standing by the rebels, was soon after dismantled by the Germans themselves:
http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/maps.html
(snip)
Also most of the structures that remained standing after the revolt were dismantled or utilised as a decoy in order to make the area appear as an ordinary farm.
(snip)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Accounts vary, but somewhere between sixty and a hundred of the rebels survived the war. Not a single one of them would have survived the year, and most not the month, had they not been willing to commit violence. This is a fact of life, literally. Sometimes, violence is not just the right thing to do, it's the only thing to do. That, in itself, doe not mean we should be violent. But it does mean we shouldn't limit our options.
Violence or nonviolence should be a tactical decision made on the spot, at the time, by the people involved. Neither violence or nonviolence is a sound strategy in and of itself. Of all the world's great survival strategies, keep one's options as open as possible heads the list. The fewer options one has, the less likely one is to survive, let alone accomplish one's mission, whatever that mission may be. It's not an ethics thing. It's a math thing.
I, personally, favor using non violence whenever possible, for pragmatic reasons, not moral reasons. It's almost always safer and more cost effective. Also, it appeals to me because I talk better than I fight. But I can fight, and will when I have to, but only in self defense. Fighting the cops accomplishes nothing. I know. I tried repeatedly. It didn't work. Besides, the cops are not the enemy. The cops are not the enemy. Their masters are not the enemy. The system is the enemy. It doesn't live behind barbed wire, in hotels and conference centers, or even in plutocrats' mansions. It lives in the hearts and minds of our families, our friends, our neighbors, and our work mates. There is where we must fight it. Our struggle is not for the space between the world's sidewalks, but the space between its ears. Besides, in the morning, the cops *always* take the street back. But a mind beyond their grasp is free forever.
I'm 100% opposed to terrorism, also for pragmatic reasons. History has shown it only makes things worse. Terrorism serves only the state. Anarchists figured this out a hundred years ago. Apparently some people haven't gotten the word yet.
But to fetishize non violence to the extent of not defending oneself from physical threats is more than just foolish. It's wrong. We have a moral duty to defend ourselves and to defend those around us. If you let evil men prey on you, their success will embolden them to prey on others. When they do, it's part your fault. You should have stopped them, or at least tried. That's how I figure it. You should, too.
Always try prevent being preyed upon. Get help if you have to, but resist, resist, resist. Never give up. Better to nip evil in the bud than to let it grow. Twenty years before Treblinka, the entire Nazi party, all seven of them, could have been taken out in a single street brawl. How many lives would that have saved?
History Buff, you're right, accounts do vary and, yes , there were a number of uprising at both Treblinka and Sobibor. In fact, in Aug of '43 the camp at Treblinka was burned down. I was refering to the '42 uprising. No such burning was reported with that event.
But, the hell with this, can we get back to reconciliation efforts? Any communication that doesn't seek a mutually acceptable resolution must be suspected of being motivated by an alternate agenda. Let us step out from behind our egos and actually seek PEACE!
[However, anyone is welcome at Candy's on the Fulton Mall for Writers' Read. for info, click here:http://structure.myftp.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=231
or call me (442-4513]
Now, lets get down to the business of saving the world. Where is the Fellowship of Reconciliation when we really need them? Quakers, HELP !
But, the hell with this, can we get back to reconciliation efforts? Any communication that doesn't seek a mutually acceptable resolution must be suspected of being motivated by an alternate agenda. Let us step out from behind our egos and actually seek PEACE!
[However, anyone is welcome at Candy's on the Fulton Mall for Writers' Read. for info, click here:http://structure.myftp.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=231
or call me (442-4513]
Now, lets get down to the business of saving the world. Where is the Fellowship of Reconciliation when we really need them? Quakers, HELP !
True enough, it's easy to point a finger and accuse someone of being a police infiltrator.
It's also just as easy to don the martyr's robe and claim that pointing fingers is an attempt to deflect away from the real infiltrator. It makes great cover to sacrifice others to protect one's own identity.
The problem is, I don't associate in the same circles as this person, so I'm not in the various cliques and groups...I'm a complete outsider who has nothing to gain or lose here.
If I can see it, so can others more closely involved.
So, tell me again, how someone almost 30 years old, claiming to be the 'voice of youth' in Fresno, isn't remembered by anyone who went to school with a person of the same name, and walked in out of literally nowhere, suddenly is the Grand Poobah of All Things Progressive in Fresno, and urges his followers to violence against other progressives?
Not that the Community Alliance is any pristine culture either...we could go on and on about how certain people found it convenient to leave the country when the feds broke up a counterfeiting operation in an old firehouse, but that's another story for another time.
It looks more like both sides deserve each other.
It's also just as easy to don the martyr's robe and claim that pointing fingers is an attempt to deflect away from the real infiltrator. It makes great cover to sacrifice others to protect one's own identity.
The problem is, I don't associate in the same circles as this person, so I'm not in the various cliques and groups...I'm a complete outsider who has nothing to gain or lose here.
If I can see it, so can others more closely involved.
So, tell me again, how someone almost 30 years old, claiming to be the 'voice of youth' in Fresno, isn't remembered by anyone who went to school with a person of the same name, and walked in out of literally nowhere, suddenly is the Grand Poobah of All Things Progressive in Fresno, and urges his followers to violence against other progressives?
Not that the Community Alliance is any pristine culture either...we could go on and on about how certain people found it convenient to leave the country when the feds broke up a counterfeiting operation in an old firehouse, but that's another story for another time.
It looks more like both sides deserve each other.
Thursday, July 7, 2005; Posted: 8:27 a.m. EDT (12:27 GMT)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Four explosions in London's transport system have killed at least two people and wounded dozens more in what UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said was an apparent terrorist attack.
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Four explosions in London's transport system have killed at least two people and wounded dozens more in what UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said was an apparent terrorist attack.
We've got the "gatekeeper" of All Media Things Progressive telling "Youth Anarchists" to go form their own publication, and that he would help.
That's amazing, since nothing in progressive media is allowed to exist unless it gets approval from He Who Must Control All Progressive Media Or Be Destroyed.
But, rather than take up that extraordinary offer, we have "radical anarchists" who want to take over instead.
"Radical anarchists"...I understand anarchy to be the lack of organized government, so is "radical anarchy" taking over organized government so long as they are in control?
That sounds more like "reactionary fascism" than "radical anarchy".
I enjoy the "Hide The Cop" discussion, except that it seems to be "Which Cop?"
One promotes action so long as it is approved and controlled,
while the other promotes action so long as it is approved and controlled.
Maybe this is just a shell game to see which cop gets to be the biggest radical/activist in town and gaining control over all of the progressive media consolidated by our own "Leftist Gatekeeper". Create a big enough attraction, and there are those who will try to take it from you and take you down to that they can run it without you.
Would that then make it "Good Cop/Bad Cop"?
Either way, everyone left of center loses when egos collide.
Worse, because those egos have revealed themselves to the masses, so the "loyalty checks" and purges are coming next to eliminate those who will not submit and obey without question.
Here's to the inevitable victor...don't slip on your victim's blood.
That's amazing, since nothing in progressive media is allowed to exist unless it gets approval from He Who Must Control All Progressive Media Or Be Destroyed.
But, rather than take up that extraordinary offer, we have "radical anarchists" who want to take over instead.
"Radical anarchists"...I understand anarchy to be the lack of organized government, so is "radical anarchy" taking over organized government so long as they are in control?
That sounds more like "reactionary fascism" than "radical anarchy".
I enjoy the "Hide The Cop" discussion, except that it seems to be "Which Cop?"
One promotes action so long as it is approved and controlled,
while the other promotes action so long as it is approved and controlled.
Maybe this is just a shell game to see which cop gets to be the biggest radical/activist in town and gaining control over all of the progressive media consolidated by our own "Leftist Gatekeeper". Create a big enough attraction, and there are those who will try to take it from you and take you down to that they can run it without you.
Would that then make it "Good Cop/Bad Cop"?
Either way, everyone left of center loses when egos collide.
Worse, because those egos have revealed themselves to the masses, so the "loyalty checks" and purges are coming next to eliminate those who will not submit and obey without question.
Here's to the inevitable victor...don't slip on your victim's blood.
It doesn't really seem like any of the insinuations being lodged by anonymous sources towards particular people are helping this situation out at all. I don't even believe that these posts should be left up based on the way that they are attacking particular people based on baseless accusations.
And the fact that whoever is writing these accusations doesn't even care to use there real name or a pseudonym that any of us can associate with anything really...
Well come on, quit being so illogical and inflaming the situation. Your comments are not helping anything and seem to be hurting the situation more than anything, regardless of where you are in reality coming from. Whether you actually are a "progressive" in Fresno or merely a freeper trying to stir up trouble.
in struggle - upton
ps - i have short hair too, does that make me an infiltrator too, or could it be that it is hot in fresno and feels good to have short hair??
pps - adelante, siempre, adelante...
And the fact that whoever is writing these accusations doesn't even care to use there real name or a pseudonym that any of us can associate with anything really...
Well come on, quit being so illogical and inflaming the situation. Your comments are not helping anything and seem to be hurting the situation more than anything, regardless of where you are in reality coming from. Whether you actually are a "progressive" in Fresno or merely a freeper trying to stir up trouble.
in struggle - upton
ps - i have short hair too, does that make me an infiltrator too, or could it be that it is hot in fresno and feels good to have short hair??
pps - adelante, siempre, adelante...
Did I miss something?
If the agreement among folks was that RANCOR would produce an "arts and entertainment" section for the paper -- and I've heard nobody on either side contradict this, sofar -- then perhaps the RANCOR members should engage in some mutual edification and teach each other what the fuck "arts and entertainment" actually means.
The unpublished articles are alright... sure, I'd edit them pretty hard, they need more work, but they have potential.
But, other than the record review and the upcoming "circus" event, these articles are NOT "arts and entertainment" material. I don't care if you put the word "entertainment" in the title, it's still not A&E, mkay?
That doesn't mean that the articles suck. It doesn't mean that CA should (or shouldn't) publish those articles. But if CA has a clear and reasonable editorial policy on submissions, then it's reasonable that it be applied to everyone equally.
Perhaps the positions and/or tone of the RANCOR articles are more radical than CA is prepared to go. That may be. But instead of castigating the CA folks, why don't you simply accept that there are (perhaps) differences amongst you, and take Mike up on his offer to DIY. Doing your own thing will be lots of fun and a great experience. Instead of complaining about the liberals, and yelling at their meetings, do your own paper and show the liberals how awesome a radical publication can be.
Rawk Awn!
In Solidarity,
Eddy Tor
If the agreement among folks was that RANCOR would produce an "arts and entertainment" section for the paper -- and I've heard nobody on either side contradict this, sofar -- then perhaps the RANCOR members should engage in some mutual edification and teach each other what the fuck "arts and entertainment" actually means.
The unpublished articles are alright... sure, I'd edit them pretty hard, they need more work, but they have potential.
But, other than the record review and the upcoming "circus" event, these articles are NOT "arts and entertainment" material. I don't care if you put the word "entertainment" in the title, it's still not A&E, mkay?
That doesn't mean that the articles suck. It doesn't mean that CA should (or shouldn't) publish those articles. But if CA has a clear and reasonable editorial policy on submissions, then it's reasonable that it be applied to everyone equally.
Perhaps the positions and/or tone of the RANCOR articles are more radical than CA is prepared to go. That may be. But instead of castigating the CA folks, why don't you simply accept that there are (perhaps) differences amongst you, and take Mike up on his offer to DIY. Doing your own thing will be lots of fun and a great experience. Instead of complaining about the liberals, and yelling at their meetings, do your own paper and show the liberals how awesome a radical publication can be.
Rawk Awn!
In Solidarity,
Eddy Tor
I have been attending a workshop in Sacramento for the last couple of days and have had very limited Internet access. I can see we have been having a very lively conversation on Indymedia about the situation with the Community Alliance newspaper.
I just have a couple of comments:
The first is that all progressive groups in Fresno are invited to submit articles to the Community Alliance. Our deadline is the 15th of each month. There is absolutely nothing preventing RANCOR or anyone from the youth collective from submitting an article for publication. Articles sent to us will go through the same process all other articles we receive go through. They must be in on deadline, we must have a real name, and articles are subject to copy editing and proof reading changes. If we think anything substantial needs to change, we will contact the author. If we have a concern about libel issues, we will talk with you about it.
I want to make it very clear that we are open to printing articles about anarchism, animal rights, and radical environmentalism. I believe that RANCOR and individuals supporting these causes are a part of the progressive movement in Fresno and should have a voice in the Community Alliance. I will go out of my way to make sure we have space for articles on these subjects in the newspaper.
Keep in mind that the Community Alliance has a limited amount of space and there is no way that we can accommodate a seven page section from any one political group. We only have two groups with information in the newspaper that are guaranteed one page of space each month. Those groups are the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and the Fresno Center for Nonviolence. They pay us $150 per month each for their page. They have complete editorial control over their page. Perhaps the youth collective or RANCOR would like to talk with me about this sort of an arrangement.
All of the articles, calendar items, and other information we print about other progressive community groups and issues, other than paid advertising, is free. There is simply no way we could give a group (any group) seven pages of free space. We were expecting an arts and entertainment section. We were very surprised at the material we received and did not have time to resolve the differences. Unfortunately, we did not do a good job communicating the problems we encountered in that section to the youth collective and for that I apologize.
The only other thing I have to say at this time is that it is regrettably that someone has targeted Nick as an agent. Talk about throwing gasoline on a fire! Wow! I have no idea who posted the comment and hope that everyone who wants to help improve the situation will not continue with these accusations. For all anyone of us knows, it could have been law enforcement that posted the original comment just to get everyone stirred up.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance newspaper
I just have a couple of comments:
The first is that all progressive groups in Fresno are invited to submit articles to the Community Alliance. Our deadline is the 15th of each month. There is absolutely nothing preventing RANCOR or anyone from the youth collective from submitting an article for publication. Articles sent to us will go through the same process all other articles we receive go through. They must be in on deadline, we must have a real name, and articles are subject to copy editing and proof reading changes. If we think anything substantial needs to change, we will contact the author. If we have a concern about libel issues, we will talk with you about it.
I want to make it very clear that we are open to printing articles about anarchism, animal rights, and radical environmentalism. I believe that RANCOR and individuals supporting these causes are a part of the progressive movement in Fresno and should have a voice in the Community Alliance. I will go out of my way to make sure we have space for articles on these subjects in the newspaper.
Keep in mind that the Community Alliance has a limited amount of space and there is no way that we can accommodate a seven page section from any one political group. We only have two groups with information in the newspaper that are guaranteed one page of space each month. Those groups are the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and the Fresno Center for Nonviolence. They pay us $150 per month each for their page. They have complete editorial control over their page. Perhaps the youth collective or RANCOR would like to talk with me about this sort of an arrangement.
All of the articles, calendar items, and other information we print about other progressive community groups and issues, other than paid advertising, is free. There is simply no way we could give a group (any group) seven pages of free space. We were expecting an arts and entertainment section. We were very surprised at the material we received and did not have time to resolve the differences. Unfortunately, we did not do a good job communicating the problems we encountered in that section to the youth collective and for that I apologize.
The only other thing I have to say at this time is that it is regrettably that someone has targeted Nick as an agent. Talk about throwing gasoline on a fire! Wow! I have no idea who posted the comment and hope that everyone who wants to help improve the situation will not continue with these accusations. For all anyone of us knows, it could have been law enforcement that posted the original comment just to get everyone stirred up.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance newspaper
Appreciate the look at how CA "works."
I don't quite understand why a youth collective, including a group like RANCOR which is clearly political, was assigned to do "arts, entertainment and culture" in the first place. When there are so many artists in the community, and organizations like Mindhub, Creative Fresno, and Fresno Famous that heavily promote arts, entertainment and culture in Fresno, why assign this to a political group, rather than the people who DO "arts, entertainment and culture" ?!
It does seem to me it could be interpreted by those affected as an attempt to prevent the group from contributing to the progressive political discourse from a youth perspective. It does feel a bit like "ghettoizing" the active youth of Fresno.
On the other hand, they do need to understand the simple need for editing, space constrictions, and legal responsibility if they are deserving of the privilege -- and it is a privilege -- to publish their material in your newspaper's pages. Otherwise, they could do well to distribute unsigned flyers and that would be fine, First Amendment-wise. Or, as you suggest, start their own newspaper. Own their own means of production, as it were.
Dissention is part of our fabric as progressives though, isn't it? It is painful to see it play out in this way but hardly anything new, even in Fresno. The "circular firing squad" is well known and I remember only a few short years ago a similar struggle carried out against KFCF.
One of our comment people is named "Divide N Conquer" and it seems to me, in reading all these comments, that it would be wise to decentralize our progressive movement. It does seem that a vast majority of our information and actions come from a very few people, and that kind of centralized, top-down model is very susceptible to infiltration and disruption.
I have been a reader of Indymedia for a very long time, and more often than not, the center stories are Fresno-oriented, and written by Mike Rhodes. When I get the Community Alliance, I've already read most of the stories here. And I've heard the same stories on KFCF. I also note that in Community Alliance, that Mike is pressing for a Media Center from Comcast for producing public access programming. I think that's a fine idea, but is it really necessary to have control of a newspaper, Indymedia site, cable access and radio shows on KFCF?
With all due respect, Mike, perhaps it would better serve the growing community if you detached just a bit and let other voices set and drive their own agendas. Diversity of voices is what this community truly needs.
I say all of this as a Community Alliance subcriber, KFCF subscriber, Mother Jones subscriber, and card-carrying ACLU member, as well as a member of several local progressive organizations.
I won't sign my name, as I believe I speak for many people in the community, who have expressed to me the same concerns.
I don't quite understand why a youth collective, including a group like RANCOR which is clearly political, was assigned to do "arts, entertainment and culture" in the first place. When there are so many artists in the community, and organizations like Mindhub, Creative Fresno, and Fresno Famous that heavily promote arts, entertainment and culture in Fresno, why assign this to a political group, rather than the people who DO "arts, entertainment and culture" ?!
It does seem to me it could be interpreted by those affected as an attempt to prevent the group from contributing to the progressive political discourse from a youth perspective. It does feel a bit like "ghettoizing" the active youth of Fresno.
On the other hand, they do need to understand the simple need for editing, space constrictions, and legal responsibility if they are deserving of the privilege -- and it is a privilege -- to publish their material in your newspaper's pages. Otherwise, they could do well to distribute unsigned flyers and that would be fine, First Amendment-wise. Or, as you suggest, start their own newspaper. Own their own means of production, as it were.
Dissention is part of our fabric as progressives though, isn't it? It is painful to see it play out in this way but hardly anything new, even in Fresno. The "circular firing squad" is well known and I remember only a few short years ago a similar struggle carried out against KFCF.
One of our comment people is named "Divide N Conquer" and it seems to me, in reading all these comments, that it would be wise to decentralize our progressive movement. It does seem that a vast majority of our information and actions come from a very few people, and that kind of centralized, top-down model is very susceptible to infiltration and disruption.
I have been a reader of Indymedia for a very long time, and more often than not, the center stories are Fresno-oriented, and written by Mike Rhodes. When I get the Community Alliance, I've already read most of the stories here. And I've heard the same stories on KFCF. I also note that in Community Alliance, that Mike is pressing for a Media Center from Comcast for producing public access programming. I think that's a fine idea, but is it really necessary to have control of a newspaper, Indymedia site, cable access and radio shows on KFCF?
With all due respect, Mike, perhaps it would better serve the growing community if you detached just a bit and let other voices set and drive their own agendas. Diversity of voices is what this community truly needs.
I say all of this as a Community Alliance subcriber, KFCF subscriber, Mother Jones subscriber, and card-carrying ACLU member, as well as a member of several local progressive organizations.
I won't sign my name, as I believe I speak for many people in the community, who have expressed to me the same concerns.
Generally speaking-- I don't airing internal conflicts in public forums is usually helpful. It makes me want to stay the hell away from leftists.
Leftists? As opposed to Rightists?
yep uh huh buh bye
yep uh huh buh bye
To the person who wrote "sad but predictable": I appreciated your thoughtful contribution to the conversation and wanted to address a few of your questions /concerns about alternative media in the Central Valley.
RE:
>I don't quite understand why a youth collective, including a >group like RANCOR which is clearly political, was assigned >to do "arts, entertainment and culture" in the first place.
That's who offered to do an arts and entertainment section. They weren't assigned to do it. In fact, nothing is "assigned" on the Community Alliance. Contributors develop their own ideas for articles, work on whatever articles THEY want, and submit them to the appropriate editor by the appropriate deadline.
>When there are so many artists in the community, and >organizations like Mindhub, Creative Fresno, and Fresno >Famous that heavily promote arts, entertainment and >culture in Fresno, why assign this to a political group, rather >than the people who DO "arts, entertainment and culture" ?!
Again, nothing's assigned, and people who "do" arts, entertainment and culture weren't offering. I'm sure everyone on the Community Alliance would be thrilled if such folks wanted to work with us.
>It does seem to me it could be interpreted by those affected >as an attempt to prevent the group from contributing to the >progressive political discourse from a youth perspective. It >does feel a bit like "ghettoizing" the active youth of Fresno.
I can imagine that it MIGHT seem that way to them, if they genuinely believe that the problems with recent articles had nothing to do with the Board's ostensible and many concerns such as editing for clarity, substantiating claims, and using the a&e section for a&e.
Keep in mind, the Community Alliance has been publishing "their" political articles for a long time. And the Board has made abundantly clear that their political articles are still welcome. The accusations of being excluded only arose when a seven-page unedited political section (meant for a&e) was drastically cut, for a variety of standard and un-sinister reasons.
Please also bear in mind, these aren't "THE" (only) youth of the Central Valley. This is one small group, many of whom, yes, are younger than many of the existing staff and volunteers of the Community Alliance. (Their age has nothing to do with why the articles were problematic, anyway.)
There are lots of "other youth" in the Valley, with lots of other points of view. They TOO are welcome, encouraged, and invited to participate in alternative media in the Valley.
>On the other hand, they do need to understand the simple >need for editing, space constrictions, and legal >responsibility if they are deserving of the privilege -- and it is >a privilege -- to publish their material in your newspaper's >pages.
Agreed.
Do you know what I think, after reading all the comments to this article, and trying to imagine how the situation seems from Rancor's point of view?
I really believe that when both "sides" came to an agreement seven months ago, both of them were acting in good faith, but there were two major misunderstandings from the very start:
First, I think there was a fundamental difference in opinion about what constitutes a&e.
Second, I think Mike and the Board assumed that Rancor implicitly agreed (and apparently they did not) that "total control" over "their" section did not include skipping routine editing, fact-checking, and "legal-proofing."
I think, perhaps because of Rancor's inexperience with "professional" publishing (for lack of a better word), they were offended that the Board wanted their articles edited, just as everyone else's articles are edited (not censored, mind you; edited).
Professional writers all have their articles edited. Editors all have their articles edited (by someone other than themselves). Everyone does. I think "they" perhaps were suspicious of "us" and equated routine editing and fact-checking with "undue oversight" and "censorship."
>Otherwise, they could do well to distribute unsigned
>flyers and that would be fine, First Amendment-wise. Or, >as you suggest, start their own newspaper. Own their own >means of production, as it were.
Yes, I think if the group is suspicious of editorial oversight and feels too constrained by the rules of a newspaper that has chosen to "play the legal game," that's OKAY. It would be great if they start their own paper, and run it how they think is best. There really doesn't have to be all this hostility.
>I have been a reader of Indymedia for a very long time, and >more often than not, the center stories are Fresno-oriented, >and written by Mike Rhodes. When I get the Community >Alliance, I've already read most of the stories here. And I've >heard the same stories on KFCF. I also note that in >Community Alliance, that Mike is pressing for a Media >Center from Comcast for producing public access >programming. I think that's a fine idea, but is it really >necessary to have control of a newspaper, Indymedia site, >cable access and radio shows on KFCF?
To be fair to Mike, I wouldn't say he "has control" over all these things. He's no Rupert Murdoch. If he is involved heavily in various projects, it's because he is interested in alternative media and committed to bringing information to people. If there is a lack of other people involved, it's certainly not because Mike is the Alternative Media Kingpin of the Central Valley, preventing others from having a voice. It's because there is a lack of other volunteers who are interested and willing to do this time-consuming work.
I have worked with Mike for a few years, and I have worked with many other editors over the years. Honestly, he is the LEAST controlling editor, the LEAST ego-driven editor, the MOST respectfully listening editor that I've ever worked with. And overall, I've worked with some pretty good ones (life's too short to work with jerks).
>With all due respect, Mike, perhaps it would better serve >the growing community if you detached just a bit and let >other voices set and drive their own agendas. Diversity of >voices is what this community truly needs. . . . <snip> I >believe I speak for many people in the community, who have >expressed to me the same concerns.
Again, when you talk bout "letting" other voices in, that seems to imply that there are all these other people "out there" clamoring to be heard, clamoring to do this work, if only Mike would step aside a bit and "let" them. But this just isn't the case.
On the contrary, he is someone who knocks himself out providing information to the community, because there are way too FEW people who are WILLING to do this work.
If some energetic people came forward to provide more diversity of voices--whether by starting their own projects, or posting on indymedia, or participating in the Community Alliance or KFCF, or working on getting PEG cable access, I'm sure Mike for one would be really HAPPY.
If you know such people (perhaps you or some of the people you mentioned who share your concerns), please encourage them to volunteer and get involved.
RE:
>I don't quite understand why a youth collective, including a >group like RANCOR which is clearly political, was assigned >to do "arts, entertainment and culture" in the first place.
That's who offered to do an arts and entertainment section. They weren't assigned to do it. In fact, nothing is "assigned" on the Community Alliance. Contributors develop their own ideas for articles, work on whatever articles THEY want, and submit them to the appropriate editor by the appropriate deadline.
>When there are so many artists in the community, and >organizations like Mindhub, Creative Fresno, and Fresno >Famous that heavily promote arts, entertainment and >culture in Fresno, why assign this to a political group, rather >than the people who DO "arts, entertainment and culture" ?!
Again, nothing's assigned, and people who "do" arts, entertainment and culture weren't offering. I'm sure everyone on the Community Alliance would be thrilled if such folks wanted to work with us.
>It does seem to me it could be interpreted by those affected >as an attempt to prevent the group from contributing to the >progressive political discourse from a youth perspective. It >does feel a bit like "ghettoizing" the active youth of Fresno.
I can imagine that it MIGHT seem that way to them, if they genuinely believe that the problems with recent articles had nothing to do with the Board's ostensible and many concerns such as editing for clarity, substantiating claims, and using the a&e section for a&e.
Keep in mind, the Community Alliance has been publishing "their" political articles for a long time. And the Board has made abundantly clear that their political articles are still welcome. The accusations of being excluded only arose when a seven-page unedited political section (meant for a&e) was drastically cut, for a variety of standard and un-sinister reasons.
Please also bear in mind, these aren't "THE" (only) youth of the Central Valley. This is one small group, many of whom, yes, are younger than many of the existing staff and volunteers of the Community Alliance. (Their age has nothing to do with why the articles were problematic, anyway.)
There are lots of "other youth" in the Valley, with lots of other points of view. They TOO are welcome, encouraged, and invited to participate in alternative media in the Valley.
>On the other hand, they do need to understand the simple >need for editing, space constrictions, and legal >responsibility if they are deserving of the privilege -- and it is >a privilege -- to publish their material in your newspaper's >pages.
Agreed.
Do you know what I think, after reading all the comments to this article, and trying to imagine how the situation seems from Rancor's point of view?
I really believe that when both "sides" came to an agreement seven months ago, both of them were acting in good faith, but there were two major misunderstandings from the very start:
First, I think there was a fundamental difference in opinion about what constitutes a&e.
Second, I think Mike and the Board assumed that Rancor implicitly agreed (and apparently they did not) that "total control" over "their" section did not include skipping routine editing, fact-checking, and "legal-proofing."
I think, perhaps because of Rancor's inexperience with "professional" publishing (for lack of a better word), they were offended that the Board wanted their articles edited, just as everyone else's articles are edited (not censored, mind you; edited).
Professional writers all have their articles edited. Editors all have their articles edited (by someone other than themselves). Everyone does. I think "they" perhaps were suspicious of "us" and equated routine editing and fact-checking with "undue oversight" and "censorship."
>Otherwise, they could do well to distribute unsigned
>flyers and that would be fine, First Amendment-wise. Or, >as you suggest, start their own newspaper. Own their own >means of production, as it were.
Yes, I think if the group is suspicious of editorial oversight and feels too constrained by the rules of a newspaper that has chosen to "play the legal game," that's OKAY. It would be great if they start their own paper, and run it how they think is best. There really doesn't have to be all this hostility.
>I have been a reader of Indymedia for a very long time, and >more often than not, the center stories are Fresno-oriented, >and written by Mike Rhodes. When I get the Community >Alliance, I've already read most of the stories here. And I've >heard the same stories on KFCF. I also note that in >Community Alliance, that Mike is pressing for a Media >Center from Comcast for producing public access >programming. I think that's a fine idea, but is it really >necessary to have control of a newspaper, Indymedia site, >cable access and radio shows on KFCF?
To be fair to Mike, I wouldn't say he "has control" over all these things. He's no Rupert Murdoch. If he is involved heavily in various projects, it's because he is interested in alternative media and committed to bringing information to people. If there is a lack of other people involved, it's certainly not because Mike is the Alternative Media Kingpin of the Central Valley, preventing others from having a voice. It's because there is a lack of other volunteers who are interested and willing to do this time-consuming work.
I have worked with Mike for a few years, and I have worked with many other editors over the years. Honestly, he is the LEAST controlling editor, the LEAST ego-driven editor, the MOST respectfully listening editor that I've ever worked with. And overall, I've worked with some pretty good ones (life's too short to work with jerks).
>With all due respect, Mike, perhaps it would better serve >the growing community if you detached just a bit and let >other voices set and drive their own agendas. Diversity of >voices is what this community truly needs. . . . <snip> I >believe I speak for many people in the community, who have >expressed to me the same concerns.
Again, when you talk bout "letting" other voices in, that seems to imply that there are all these other people "out there" clamoring to be heard, clamoring to do this work, if only Mike would step aside a bit and "let" them. But this just isn't the case.
On the contrary, he is someone who knocks himself out providing information to the community, because there are way too FEW people who are WILLING to do this work.
If some energetic people came forward to provide more diversity of voices--whether by starting their own projects, or posting on indymedia, or participating in the Community Alliance or KFCF, or working on getting PEG cable access, I'm sure Mike for one would be really HAPPY.
If you know such people (perhaps you or some of the people you mentioned who share your concerns), please encourage them to volunteer and get involved.
From a comment above:
“I don't quite understand why a youth collective, including a group like RANCOR which is clearly political, was assigned to do "arts, entertainment and culture" in the first place.”
That is a good question. Actually, the Community Alliance newspaper did not invite RANCOR to provide an arts, music, and entertainment section. What happened is this: Last summer, the Community Alliance held a retreat to discuss our strategic vision and long term planning. One of the outcomes of the retreat was the acknowledgment that we had hit a plateau in our distribution of about 2 - 2,500 copies a month.
Our readers really liked the content we were providing, but it was clear that we were no longer growing. There was talk about “preaching to the choir” and that we really needed to have something in addition to the political content of the magazine (we were a magazine at that time). The content of the publication was indeed very political and decidedly left. Everyone at the retreat agreed that it would be good to bring in new readers by providing more music, arts, and entertainment information.
Several months after the retreat, a conversation developed between folks at the Community Alliance and Stephen Gamboa and Frank Sanchez. Stephen and Frank (who have some connection to RANCOR - I will let them identify what that relationship is) had worked on a local weekly newspaper that focused on arts, music, and entertainment. The paper was called The Vernacular and it was printed a couple of years ago for a month or two (sorry that I can’t be more specific about how long they published or for how long, but I just don’t have that info). In any event, here were two young energetic people that had experience in publishing an arts, music, and entertainment newspaper. They wanted to work with the Community Alliance and we were excited at the opportunity.
It was obvious that both groups had a lot to gain from the relationship. Stephen and Frank are very talented and good graphic designers. Most of the layout/design they did for the publication was brilliant. We switched to a newspaper format, started using four color art and photos on the front page, doubled our circulation, and tripled our content.
And that is how we developed the relationship with the “youth collective.”
If you would like to see what the entire July 2005 issue looks like, go here:
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/magazine/2005/2005_index.htm
“I don't quite understand why a youth collective, including a group like RANCOR which is clearly political, was assigned to do "arts, entertainment and culture" in the first place.”
That is a good question. Actually, the Community Alliance newspaper did not invite RANCOR to provide an arts, music, and entertainment section. What happened is this: Last summer, the Community Alliance held a retreat to discuss our strategic vision and long term planning. One of the outcomes of the retreat was the acknowledgment that we had hit a plateau in our distribution of about 2 - 2,500 copies a month.
Our readers really liked the content we were providing, but it was clear that we were no longer growing. There was talk about “preaching to the choir” and that we really needed to have something in addition to the political content of the magazine (we were a magazine at that time). The content of the publication was indeed very political and decidedly left. Everyone at the retreat agreed that it would be good to bring in new readers by providing more music, arts, and entertainment information.
Several months after the retreat, a conversation developed between folks at the Community Alliance and Stephen Gamboa and Frank Sanchez. Stephen and Frank (who have some connection to RANCOR - I will let them identify what that relationship is) had worked on a local weekly newspaper that focused on arts, music, and entertainment. The paper was called The Vernacular and it was printed a couple of years ago for a month or two (sorry that I can’t be more specific about how long they published or for how long, but I just don’t have that info). In any event, here were two young energetic people that had experience in publishing an arts, music, and entertainment newspaper. They wanted to work with the Community Alliance and we were excited at the opportunity.
It was obvious that both groups had a lot to gain from the relationship. Stephen and Frank are very talented and good graphic designers. Most of the layout/design they did for the publication was brilliant. We switched to a newspaper format, started using four color art and photos on the front page, doubled our circulation, and tripled our content.
And that is how we developed the relationship with the “youth collective.”
If you would like to see what the entire July 2005 issue looks like, go here:
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/magazine/2005/2005_index.htm
Some random thoughts...
First of all, I was not surprised this occurred. As a columnist for Community Alliance, I sensed a split was coming several months ago. I felt things had become tense when a discussion started a couple months ago about paying the editor to run the paper.
I was one who questioned the idea. Not because I objected outright. Granted, the proposal had come up as part of a "where do I want the Community Alliance to be in one year, in two years." Given the fact the Alliance had changed formats and was still feeling its way, I felt the discussion of pay was premature. My view was, let's focus on growing the publication.
Others reacted with some anger. They felt that, if anyone was paid, it should be the writers. That would be nice to do--in the future. It's not feasible to do right now.
One of the greatest controversy creators in the world is money. Who has it. Who controls it. Many wonderful groups and organizations have collapsed because of quarrels over money, power and prestige. The seed for the on-going brawl was planted some time ago.
Personally, I think the "youth collective" should move on. As stated before, anyone is welcome to contribute to the Community Alliance. I hope they will come to understand the paper is attempting to move from being an outlet where "almost anything goes" to being a much more professional media operation.
To have credibility, a newspaper and its staff must subscribe to professional ethics, and observe the laws that govern any other media outlet. That means, signing articles with the author's true name. That means identifying the source of any photos used for stories and giving credit--"photograph used with the permission of ..." when necessary.
If that makes the "youth collective" uncomfortable, fine. Just recognize the two groups aren't on the same page and should go their separate ways as organizations.
First of all, I was not surprised this occurred. As a columnist for Community Alliance, I sensed a split was coming several months ago. I felt things had become tense when a discussion started a couple months ago about paying the editor to run the paper.
I was one who questioned the idea. Not because I objected outright. Granted, the proposal had come up as part of a "where do I want the Community Alliance to be in one year, in two years." Given the fact the Alliance had changed formats and was still feeling its way, I felt the discussion of pay was premature. My view was, let's focus on growing the publication.
Others reacted with some anger. They felt that, if anyone was paid, it should be the writers. That would be nice to do--in the future. It's not feasible to do right now.
One of the greatest controversy creators in the world is money. Who has it. Who controls it. Many wonderful groups and organizations have collapsed because of quarrels over money, power and prestige. The seed for the on-going brawl was planted some time ago.
Personally, I think the "youth collective" should move on. As stated before, anyone is welcome to contribute to the Community Alliance. I hope they will come to understand the paper is attempting to move from being an outlet where "almost anything goes" to being a much more professional media operation.
To have credibility, a newspaper and its staff must subscribe to professional ethics, and observe the laws that govern any other media outlet. That means, signing articles with the author's true name. That means identifying the source of any photos used for stories and giving credit--"photograph used with the permission of ..." when necessary.
If that makes the "youth collective" uncomfortable, fine. Just recognize the two groups aren't on the same page and should go their separate ways as organizations.
The point of the article is to show that the CA has turned their back on agreements made. I voluntered after being asked to be apart of the CA and bring arts and CULTURE to the paper. Our youth culture is radical, it cares about the earth and the animals as well as the poor and voicless. We do not believe in capitalism as captialism has been responsible for the deaths of too many people and animals as well as the destruction of the earth. All we wanted to do was add to what the CA already puts out. No one cared about the publication outside of the few subscribers they had/have. No artists or musicians wanted to even contribute when we first started. But the ones who did really helped make the paper a little more interesting. We never wanted control of the paper or to be apart of the editorial board or its editors. Because we where promissed we could do everything ourselfs in our own collective. Anytime we said well lets discuss guidelines we where told oh its too complicated. It is not our fault if the editorial board members cannot understand something well enough to discuss it with others. We never wanted control we just wanted what was promised in the begining. If that promise was made by the editor without first consulting the board then that is on him.
We dont hate the left we value your tactics but we also value ours as a necessary part. Repect us and we will respect you. We dont need your help creating a new paper and we liked working together to build up the CA. Do not look down on us, just recognize that we work differently and that you too can learn some things from us. We understand the law and that is why we apear too radical for you, we can maneuver through it very well. Everything we wrote was factual and if any legal backlash where to take place it would have fallen on those sources not the paper. Remember that we are free to talk and print without fear, thats what haveing an independent newspaper is about. We can be profesional without looking like the bee or the times. Free yourself of what you are used to and you will have a more exciteing paper with valuable information that will reach people who care enough to do somthing.
MAke fun of this if you want, laugh at my grammer my spelling, it doesnt matter. Everyone is so sencative about their egos and power trips. All the CA had to do is realize that our culture and art is different. and thats why they asked us to join, to bring a different youth voice to the paper. We are not changing ourselfs because you are scared. IF you dont want radical culture and art thats fine go find someone alse that will do all the things we did for you for free and will be safe and exceptable to the 300 subscribers that you will never allow yourselfs to reach beyond.
We dont hate the left we value your tactics but we also value ours as a necessary part. Repect us and we will respect you. We dont need your help creating a new paper and we liked working together to build up the CA. Do not look down on us, just recognize that we work differently and that you too can learn some things from us. We understand the law and that is why we apear too radical for you, we can maneuver through it very well. Everything we wrote was factual and if any legal backlash where to take place it would have fallen on those sources not the paper. Remember that we are free to talk and print without fear, thats what haveing an independent newspaper is about. We can be profesional without looking like the bee or the times. Free yourself of what you are used to and you will have a more exciteing paper with valuable information that will reach people who care enough to do somthing.
MAke fun of this if you want, laugh at my grammer my spelling, it doesnt matter. Everyone is so sencative about their egos and power trips. All the CA had to do is realize that our culture and art is different. and thats why they asked us to join, to bring a different youth voice to the paper. We are not changing ourselfs because you are scared. IF you dont want radical culture and art thats fine go find someone alse that will do all the things we did for you for free and will be safe and exceptable to the 300 subscribers that you will never allow yourselfs to reach beyond.
The CA Editorial Board and especially its apparent editor could go a long way toward trying to salvage something here by admitting that they made serious mistakes. DEAL WITH THE FACTS. Rhodes made an agreement with Sephen on six pages of youth-oriented arts, music, and CULTURE with Stephen as co-editor of this section. We have always delivered that, including much of the radicalism that is youth arts, music, and culture. Jesus--wouldn't you be especially radical if you were young???!
But you reneged. Then you bargained in bad faith by canceling a key meeting and rescheduling it for AFTER the time when you rejected our submission and told us to form our own paper. On top of that you gave spurious reasons for rejecting the articles and photographs. To point out for about the fourth time, the concerns you raised could have been addresed easily and quickly just as Doug Gilbert explained in his e-mail. The submission was made by the deadline Mike Rhodes gave us, and there was time to address the issues.
But instead of facing facts you continue to malign us by charging US with a lack of profesionalism. I can tell you, having worked in many organizations, your handling of this matter is by far the most unprofessional thing I have ever seen. Instead of dealing with the facts, you hide behind distortions, intentional oversights, and bad arguments.
You had the opportunity for a presentation of views from more radical and youthful voices. You wasted it. Too bad.
On another note, to whoever it was who tried to flame Nick DeGraff all I can say is you better either come forward publicly with some real evidence or seriously watch yourself. You can engage in age-ism and call us "youth collective" or call us radicals or anarchists or whatever you like, but know this: we're not like the CA Editorial Board--we watch each other's backs.
But you reneged. Then you bargained in bad faith by canceling a key meeting and rescheduling it for AFTER the time when you rejected our submission and told us to form our own paper. On top of that you gave spurious reasons for rejecting the articles and photographs. To point out for about the fourth time, the concerns you raised could have been addresed easily and quickly just as Doug Gilbert explained in his e-mail. The submission was made by the deadline Mike Rhodes gave us, and there was time to address the issues.
But instead of facing facts you continue to malign us by charging US with a lack of profesionalism. I can tell you, having worked in many organizations, your handling of this matter is by far the most unprofessional thing I have ever seen. Instead of dealing with the facts, you hide behind distortions, intentional oversights, and bad arguments.
You had the opportunity for a presentation of views from more radical and youthful voices. You wasted it. Too bad.
On another note, to whoever it was who tried to flame Nick DeGraff all I can say is you better either come forward publicly with some real evidence or seriously watch yourself. You can engage in age-ism and call us "youth collective" or call us radicals or anarchists or whatever you like, but know this: we're not like the CA Editorial Board--we watch each other's backs.
The original agreement with Stephen Gamboa and Frank Sanchez was that they were going to design the new Community Alliance newspaper and come up with an arts, music, and entertainment section. Up until that time, the publication was a magazine that focused on building a more powerful progressive movement in this area. We were all optimistic and hopeful about the future. The first two issues were produced in a congenial and cooperative manner. Everyone was pretty happy.
The problem started with the 3rd issue. I was at the World Social Forum in Brazil at the time. Before I left, the editorial board had met and decided that we wanted to promote the Vagina Monologues (A theatrical performance that was going to be in town that month). Neither Stephen or Frank attended the meeting so they did not hear the discussion about how we came to that decision. Let me make it clear that I have always encouraged Stephen and Frank to attend the editorial board meetings and participate in the collective decision making process of the Community Alliance. They chose not to attend this and most of our other meetings. No wonder there are mis-communications.
I talked to Stephen and Frank about our desire to have a feature about the Vagina Monologues on the front cover. We (the Community Alliance) assigned a young woman to take the photographs for the cover. Marlena (our photographer) worked with the Vagina Monologue group and took some pictures. Faculty from the women’s studies department, the producers of the performance, and the photographer were very happy with the pictures. Stephen and Frank were told that we wanted the pictures on the front page. Stephen developed an analysis about why the pictures were degrading to women and passively resisted putting them on the cover saying he was looking for just the right image to promote the Vagina Monologues. By this time, one of our editorial board members, a member of the production team, and the photographer was trying to contact Stephen. He would not return their calls. I was in touch with Stephen by email from Brazil where he assured me, up until the last day, that everything would be OK. He sent me all of the .pdf files of the other pages of the February issue for me to look at except the front page. I was assured that everything would be ok and I trusted Stephen to do the right thing.
What Stephen and Frank put on the front cover was a picture of a street demonstration in New York or Washington DC that was totally unrelated to what we had collectively agreed to print. You can see the cover on the February issue by going here: http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/magazine/2005/2005_index.htm
Stephen believes he is a better judge of how to portray women’s bodies than women themselves. This was a power struggle in a pretty pure form.
When I got back to town people read me the riot act about what had happened. It was at that point that I met with Stephen and Frank and told them that we have a collective decision making process. They are invited and encouraged to attend those meetings but that from now on I will have the final word about all content in the newspaper. I had that meeting with Stephen and Frank at the insistence of the editorial board. They (the editorial board) were pissed off and felt that I was not being clear enough with Frank and Stephen about what should or should not be in the newspaper. I have email evidence that this relationship was understood, including an email from Stephen himself acknowledging that he was not a co-editor. Stephen says in this email that he is just a part of the graphic design and photo group with Frank.
By the time we got to the July issue there was no ambiguity that the editor had the decision making authority to print or not print any article or art work that was sent. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance newspaper
The problem started with the 3rd issue. I was at the World Social Forum in Brazil at the time. Before I left, the editorial board had met and decided that we wanted to promote the Vagina Monologues (A theatrical performance that was going to be in town that month). Neither Stephen or Frank attended the meeting so they did not hear the discussion about how we came to that decision. Let me make it clear that I have always encouraged Stephen and Frank to attend the editorial board meetings and participate in the collective decision making process of the Community Alliance. They chose not to attend this and most of our other meetings. No wonder there are mis-communications.
I talked to Stephen and Frank about our desire to have a feature about the Vagina Monologues on the front cover. We (the Community Alliance) assigned a young woman to take the photographs for the cover. Marlena (our photographer) worked with the Vagina Monologue group and took some pictures. Faculty from the women’s studies department, the producers of the performance, and the photographer were very happy with the pictures. Stephen and Frank were told that we wanted the pictures on the front page. Stephen developed an analysis about why the pictures were degrading to women and passively resisted putting them on the cover saying he was looking for just the right image to promote the Vagina Monologues. By this time, one of our editorial board members, a member of the production team, and the photographer was trying to contact Stephen. He would not return their calls. I was in touch with Stephen by email from Brazil where he assured me, up until the last day, that everything would be OK. He sent me all of the .pdf files of the other pages of the February issue for me to look at except the front page. I was assured that everything would be ok and I trusted Stephen to do the right thing.
What Stephen and Frank put on the front cover was a picture of a street demonstration in New York or Washington DC that was totally unrelated to what we had collectively agreed to print. You can see the cover on the February issue by going here: http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/magazine/2005/2005_index.htm
Stephen believes he is a better judge of how to portray women’s bodies than women themselves. This was a power struggle in a pretty pure form.
When I got back to town people read me the riot act about what had happened. It was at that point that I met with Stephen and Frank and told them that we have a collective decision making process. They are invited and encouraged to attend those meetings but that from now on I will have the final word about all content in the newspaper. I had that meeting with Stephen and Frank at the insistence of the editorial board. They (the editorial board) were pissed off and felt that I was not being clear enough with Frank and Stephen about what should or should not be in the newspaper. I have email evidence that this relationship was understood, including an email from Stephen himself acknowledging that he was not a co-editor. Stephen says in this email that he is just a part of the graphic design and photo group with Frank.
By the time we got to the July issue there was no ambiguity that the editor had the decision making authority to print or not print any article or art work that was sent. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance newspaper
If Stephen was not a co-editor then why did the 'Staff box' from the April issue of the Community Alliance (C.A) list him as such?
The cover of the February Community Alliance had a photo from the protests of the 2nd Innaugeration of Bush. Of which there were about 15 activists from Fresno in attendance. Also, the photo was taken by a Fresno Activist (me).
Stephen and RANCOR were/are not trying to take over the C.A. We are only adding to it. We have helped move the C.A. from a newsletter printed on 11 by 17 white paper folded in half to tabloid size newsprint. It looks a hundred times better.
It's to bad that the Editorial board could not speak with the several contributers of the seven pages which were completely removed. If they had some of the current problems may have been avoided. The 2 attachment is a photo from the April issue of the C.A. which list Stephen as the Co-Editor.
Dallas B
The cover of the February Community Alliance had a photo from the protests of the 2nd Innaugeration of Bush. Of which there were about 15 activists from Fresno in attendance. Also, the photo was taken by a Fresno Activist (me).
Stephen and RANCOR were/are not trying to take over the C.A. We are only adding to it. We have helped move the C.A. from a newsletter printed on 11 by 17 white paper folded in half to tabloid size newsprint. It looks a hundred times better.
It's to bad that the Editorial board could not speak with the several contributers of the seven pages which were completely removed. If they had some of the current problems may have been avoided. The 2 attachment is a photo from the April issue of the C.A. which list Stephen as the Co-Editor.
Dallas B
Were the pictures more degrading than having a man decide for women what is degrades and what does not?
From: Stephen Gamboa
To: Mike Rhodes
Subject: re co-editor
Well mike to be honest I stoped considering myself coeditor a while back. I just remembered that I'm still listed as coeditor. I can fix that this month. It just seemed to me that anything I set up still had to go through all of you so their was no point in me doing any of that. My editor is unused my writers have to stick to your deadlines and go through you so I just considered that I am apart of the graphic design and photo editor discription that frank sent.
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: "Mike Rhodes" <mikerhodes [at] comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 3:50 PM=20
To: "Stephen Gamboa" <stephengamboa [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: co-editor
Stephen:
I need to you to write a job description for your role as co-editor. This must be done. It is a part of our Vanguard Grant fulfillment. You are the only person who has not responded to the request for job descriptions. I heard from Frank that you are on a road trip and so you may not get this email for a while. Let me know, when you do read this, and write up a job description ASAP.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance newspaper
P.O. Box 5077
Fresno Ca 93755
(559) 978-4502 (cell)
AllianceEditor [at] comcast.net
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/
To: Mike Rhodes
Subject: re co-editor
Well mike to be honest I stoped considering myself coeditor a while back. I just remembered that I'm still listed as coeditor. I can fix that this month. It just seemed to me that anything I set up still had to go through all of you so their was no point in me doing any of that. My editor is unused my writers have to stick to your deadlines and go through you so I just considered that I am apart of the graphic design and photo editor discription that frank sent.
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: "Mike Rhodes" <mikerhodes [at] comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 3:50 PM=20
To: "Stephen Gamboa" <stephengamboa [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: co-editor
Stephen:
I need to you to write a job description for your role as co-editor. This must be done. It is a part of our Vanguard Grant fulfillment. You are the only person who has not responded to the request for job descriptions. I heard from Frank that you are on a road trip and so you may not get this email for a while. Let me know, when you do read this, and write up a job description ASAP.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance newspaper
P.O. Box 5077
Fresno Ca 93755
(559) 978-4502 (cell)
AllianceEditor [at] comcast.net
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/
<snip> We have always delivered that. <snip>
No you didnt.
<snip> But you reneged. <snip>
No they didn't.
<snip> told us to form our own paper. <snip>
No they didn't.
<snip> On top of that you gave spurious reasons for rejecting the articles and photographs. <snip>
No they didn't.
<snip> To point out for about the fourth time, the concerns you raised could have been addresed easily and quickly just as Doug Gilbert explained in his e-mail. <snip>
No they couldn't. Why keep on about that, like Doug who wasnt there, would know what could be done when? But the people really working on it down in Fresno wouldn't know?
<snip> The submission was made by the deadline Mike Rhodes gave us, <snip>
No the submission was made by the LATE deadline that your group said they had to have. Way I heard it, Mike has had a dealine of the 15th all along & wanted a 15th deadline for everthing. It was your group wanted the DIY editing & the last minute deadline. Sound like you made bad decisons that impacted whether your articles were able to be ready in time.
<snip> But instead of facing facts you continue to malign us by charging US with a lack of profesionalism. <snip>
Realy doesn't sound like anyone's been maligning YOU. Seem like they've been answering some mudslinging & lies that YOU decide to post in public when you didnt get your way. They've been patient & nice about it to. Most people would of told you fine, leave and dont come back. Since theyre too stable & fairminded & didnt tell you that, you have to pretend that they did.
<snip> I can tell you, having worked in many organizations, your handling of this matter is by far the most unprofessional thing I have ever seen.<snip>
More mudslinging. Anyone who knows anyone involved, knows better. Who are you trying to impress? Are you trying to slam the paper because your angry they didnt let you take over?
<snip> Instead of dealing with the facts, you hide behind distortions, intentional oversights, and bad arguments.<snip>
ROTF!!!!! Your talking about yourself!!!! The activists should mend fences with the Alliance and ditch YOU. Ciao.
No you didnt.
<snip> But you reneged. <snip>
No they didn't.
<snip> told us to form our own paper. <snip>
No they didn't.
<snip> On top of that you gave spurious reasons for rejecting the articles and photographs. <snip>
No they didn't.
<snip> To point out for about the fourth time, the concerns you raised could have been addresed easily and quickly just as Doug Gilbert explained in his e-mail. <snip>
No they couldn't. Why keep on about that, like Doug who wasnt there, would know what could be done when? But the people really working on it down in Fresno wouldn't know?
<snip> The submission was made by the deadline Mike Rhodes gave us, <snip>
No the submission was made by the LATE deadline that your group said they had to have. Way I heard it, Mike has had a dealine of the 15th all along & wanted a 15th deadline for everthing. It was your group wanted the DIY editing & the last minute deadline. Sound like you made bad decisons that impacted whether your articles were able to be ready in time.
<snip> But instead of facing facts you continue to malign us by charging US with a lack of profesionalism. <snip>
Realy doesn't sound like anyone's been maligning YOU. Seem like they've been answering some mudslinging & lies that YOU decide to post in public when you didnt get your way. They've been patient & nice about it to. Most people would of told you fine, leave and dont come back. Since theyre too stable & fairminded & didnt tell you that, you have to pretend that they did.
<snip> I can tell you, having worked in many organizations, your handling of this matter is by far the most unprofessional thing I have ever seen.<snip>
More mudslinging. Anyone who knows anyone involved, knows better. Who are you trying to impress? Are you trying to slam the paper because your angry they didnt let you take over?
<snip> Instead of dealing with the facts, you hide behind distortions, intentional oversights, and bad arguments.<snip>
ROTF!!!!! Your talking about yourself!!!! The activists should mend fences with the Alliance and ditch YOU. Ciao.
"The activists should mend fences with the Alliance and ditch YOU."
Now there's a solution I can get behind!
Now there's a solution I can get behind!
That was really a quite insightful post: "no they didn't"; "did not"; "no, they weren't." Haven't read anything quite so well reasoned and informed since third grade.I invited the board to deal with the facts. They have cited no actual instances of libelous content or copyright infiringement. This goes to the root of the problem--rejecting the submission, indeed rejecting the collective without reason.
Doug Gilbert knows about the issues because he has been a contributor; in fact he was one of the contributors to the latest issue. Deal with what he said in his e-mail.
"Take over the paper." That is interesting. We provided a section to the paper on a regular basis. You didn't like our style and content so, in the midst of discussion about this, you kicked us off. Who is taking over? Deal with the facts.
As far as the activists ditching me: Mike Robe is a pretty familiar penname for anyone who knows me. Maybe Fresno Observer is the same person who tried to create dissension by maligning Nick DeGraff. Good luck--we stick together.
Doug Gilbert knows about the issues because he has been a contributor; in fact he was one of the contributors to the latest issue. Deal with what he said in his e-mail.
"Take over the paper." That is interesting. We provided a section to the paper on a regular basis. You didn't like our style and content so, in the midst of discussion about this, you kicked us off. Who is taking over? Deal with the facts.
As far as the activists ditching me: Mike Robe is a pretty familiar penname for anyone who knows me. Maybe Fresno Observer is the same person who tried to create dissension by maligning Nick DeGraff. Good luck--we stick together.
Maybe Fresno Observer, Herbert Huncke, and Potato Head Jones (i must confess i am laughing out loud at this point)--are all the same person. In each instance there is an attempt to sow dissension. Like I wrote before, we watch each other's backs.
The record of our unity over the last year speaks for itself.
The record of our unity over the last year speaks for itself.
Theres that "UNITY" word again!
Everybody get out! theres a lobster loose!
Oh wait, is this the kind of unity where somebody gets hurt?
different useage.
Somebody explain to me the concept of
"energizing your dwindling base"?
is that like quantum physics or something?
Everybody get out! theres a lobster loose!
Oh wait, is this the kind of unity where somebody gets hurt?
different useage.
Somebody explain to me the concept of
"energizing your dwindling base"?
is that like quantum physics or something?
I guess this thread is getting harder to follow. Getting rid of Mike Robe was not what I could get behind. It is getting rid of Mike Rhodes that I could get behind.
Good People:
I have done my best to read the proposed articles, the RANCOR manifesto, and the responses as objectively and dispassionately as I could. Throughout, I am reminded of the theme that runs through the old story of Solomon, the great king, who is asked to solve the problem of a child claimed by two different mothers, each professing her motherhood and wanting her baby. Solomon, in his wisdom, says, "We will divide the baby equally between the mothers so that justice will be served." The one mother says, "Yes, yes, that's it, cut the baby in half so that I may have mine." The other mother says, "Oh no, let her have my baby then, for I could not bear to see my child butchered for the sake of this dispute." We have found the true mother, have we not? And a wise Solomon for revealing her.
It seems to me this theme runs well within this dispute. Despite the rather lurid and bitter claims made by the MANIFESTO, despite the arguably volatile and confrontational approach made by disenfranchised members, you still have Mike Rhodes telling you "I want you to participate, I just want you to submit to editorial review like everybody else."
So, who, I ask you, in this incident, comes across as the mother of Community Alliance? Who seems like they're bending over backwards to try and affect some reconciliation?
There is nothing preventing you both from getting together and working this thing out. Rather than focusing on "What we were promised," you might do better to remember you owe it to your readers and your cause to compromise, that three pages of a seven page set is better than nothing, and by submitting to an editorial process, you preserve the security and longevity of the Alliance itself.
When people and egos get in the way of our own collective action, the opposition smiles. This is why we fail.
Set a date. Talk. Be adult about this. I'm eager to read articles from both camps. C'mon ya'll.
Steve
I have done my best to read the proposed articles, the RANCOR manifesto, and the responses as objectively and dispassionately as I could. Throughout, I am reminded of the theme that runs through the old story of Solomon, the great king, who is asked to solve the problem of a child claimed by two different mothers, each professing her motherhood and wanting her baby. Solomon, in his wisdom, says, "We will divide the baby equally between the mothers so that justice will be served." The one mother says, "Yes, yes, that's it, cut the baby in half so that I may have mine." The other mother says, "Oh no, let her have my baby then, for I could not bear to see my child butchered for the sake of this dispute." We have found the true mother, have we not? And a wise Solomon for revealing her.
It seems to me this theme runs well within this dispute. Despite the rather lurid and bitter claims made by the MANIFESTO, despite the arguably volatile and confrontational approach made by disenfranchised members, you still have Mike Rhodes telling you "I want you to participate, I just want you to submit to editorial review like everybody else."
So, who, I ask you, in this incident, comes across as the mother of Community Alliance? Who seems like they're bending over backwards to try and affect some reconciliation?
There is nothing preventing you both from getting together and working this thing out. Rather than focusing on "What we were promised," you might do better to remember you owe it to your readers and your cause to compromise, that three pages of a seven page set is better than nothing, and by submitting to an editorial process, you preserve the security and longevity of the Alliance itself.
When people and egos get in the way of our own collective action, the opposition smiles. This is why we fail.
Set a date. Talk. Be adult about this. I'm eager to read articles from both camps. C'mon ya'll.
Steve
This controversy should NOT be played out on IndyBay. Our enemies are smiling at the self-destructiveness, especially by the RANCOR/youth collective folks.
The "youth collective" does not want to compromise anything. The mere fact they posted their article clearly indicates that. They didn't get their way, so they're being like the kid who took his ball and went home.
I believe Mike Rhodes still wants to work things out. I don't believe the other side does. If I had been Mike, confronted with this, I probably would've said "don't let the door hit you in the a@# on the way out." Thank God I'm not Mike.
Stuff like this is why the progressive community is not taken seriously by the larger Fresno community. We're laughed at. This fight is being talked about all over town in terms of "look at those stupid liberals!"
The "youth collective" does not want to compromise anything. The mere fact they posted their article clearly indicates that. They didn't get their way, so they're being like the kid who took his ball and went home.
I believe Mike Rhodes still wants to work things out. I don't believe the other side does. If I had been Mike, confronted with this, I probably would've said "don't let the door hit you in the a@# on the way out." Thank God I'm not Mike.
Stuff like this is why the progressive community is not taken seriously by the larger Fresno community. We're laughed at. This fight is being talked about all over town in terms of "look at those stupid liberals!"
I completely agree, Dan. Much of the criticism aimed at RANCOR and like-minded groups from the Right is that they are immature, demanding, inflexible, all or nothing. My God, I know a lot of these guys individually and respect them and yet I find myself asking, "Can this be true?" The comment above made by one that "we stand together," sounds almost US Marine-like in its resolve..... "Right or wrong, no matter what the cost WE stand together..," when the identity the group should be seeking is a global one, rather than one narrowly driven by the perceived slights of another.
It smacks of North Korea and a desire to isolate itself on the "My or the highway" principle.
Let's all hope these folks lick their wounds and come to some common good, rather than their separate anger and bitterness.
It smacks of North Korea and a desire to isolate itself on the "My or the highway" principle.
Let's all hope these folks lick their wounds and come to some common good, rather than their separate anger and bitterness.
Mike you told me that it was my decision to pick the cover of the feb issue. You told me that I was to make final decisions in what gets printed and left out. Jan I emailed you and asked you when you rehersals where so that we could take pictures, you even thought that was a good idea when I metioned it to you as you gave me the cd of photos and articles for the vagina monalouges. You never wrote back.
Mike you told me to go ahead and make decisions and when everyone got mad at the ones I made you sar back quietly as people yelled at me for taking up the authority (that you gave me) to do so. After that I decided I shouldn't make decisions as my role as co-editor really ment nothing. Then you asked me my opinion on running 2 articles in april. I told you to decide for yourself because I just piss people off and you told me you needed me to be able to say what I think and make decisions without haveing to worry about how those involved would feel about it. But you NEVER suported my role in front of the editorial board, so why should I have felt as if I was the co-editor, a position that you gave me when I voluntered to help out.
Power strugle my ass!!! My first analysis of the the proposed cover photos for feb was that they where terrible. They where boring, unoriginal, VERY unclear, and just poorly done. I showed them to other woman including a former particapent in the fresno state vagina monolouges and they said they would not ever pick up the CA again if one of those photos was on the cover. Guess what Jan you don't speak for all the woman in town and many other femanists did find the pictures to represent the same status quo position that any other half naked photo on a magazine promotes. I was not enforcing my belifes on woman, I made an editorial choice based on poor photos and the beliefs of those woman around me. Which mike told me was my job to do.
No support
The editorial board is the most unprofesional unsupportive group I have ever worked with. Rather than discuss problems and issues with the feb and march issue with constructive criticism they chose to laugh at the work submitted and yell at me for making,what they felt where poor choices. It was apparent to me that you did not want me to bring anything new to the table but rather you just wanted a work hoarse to do all the things you wanted to do but did not know how.
I feel that frank and I brought a new leval of professionalism to the paper by being strict with photo editing and design. if that is not how you all feel well that's fine you have already decided to use someone alse for design and layout. My problem is that you, mike, will not admit to the role that you asked me to take up and the agreement we had. It is obviouse to me now that you tell people one thing in a one-on-one basis without discussing it with the board. Then when the board is upset you sit quietly and leave that person to stand alone. You will not admit to this, but man that just really upsets me. You and I where so excited about the collaboration untill I excercied the rights you said that I had.
Mike you told me to go ahead and make decisions and when everyone got mad at the ones I made you sar back quietly as people yelled at me for taking up the authority (that you gave me) to do so. After that I decided I shouldn't make decisions as my role as co-editor really ment nothing. Then you asked me my opinion on running 2 articles in april. I told you to decide for yourself because I just piss people off and you told me you needed me to be able to say what I think and make decisions without haveing to worry about how those involved would feel about it. But you NEVER suported my role in front of the editorial board, so why should I have felt as if I was the co-editor, a position that you gave me when I voluntered to help out.
Power strugle my ass!!! My first analysis of the the proposed cover photos for feb was that they where terrible. They where boring, unoriginal, VERY unclear, and just poorly done. I showed them to other woman including a former particapent in the fresno state vagina monolouges and they said they would not ever pick up the CA again if one of those photos was on the cover. Guess what Jan you don't speak for all the woman in town and many other femanists did find the pictures to represent the same status quo position that any other half naked photo on a magazine promotes. I was not enforcing my belifes on woman, I made an editorial choice based on poor photos and the beliefs of those woman around me. Which mike told me was my job to do.
No support
The editorial board is the most unprofesional unsupportive group I have ever worked with. Rather than discuss problems and issues with the feb and march issue with constructive criticism they chose to laugh at the work submitted and yell at me for making,what they felt where poor choices. It was apparent to me that you did not want me to bring anything new to the table but rather you just wanted a work hoarse to do all the things you wanted to do but did not know how.
I feel that frank and I brought a new leval of professionalism to the paper by being strict with photo editing and design. if that is not how you all feel well that's fine you have already decided to use someone alse for design and layout. My problem is that you, mike, will not admit to the role that you asked me to take up and the agreement we had. It is obviouse to me now that you tell people one thing in a one-on-one basis without discussing it with the board. Then when the board is upset you sit quietly and leave that person to stand alone. You will not admit to this, but man that just really upsets me. You and I where so excited about the collaboration untill I excercied the rights you said that I had.
You know what? I think I agree with Dan. This “dialog” on Indymedia is not getting us anywhere. It is an embarrassment and darn good information for the trolls, law enforcement, Freepers and other right wing groups. I believe that any future communications about this issue should be done directly between the people involved and not on this public forum.
You can contact me at:
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance newspaper
P.O. Box 5077
Fresno Ca 93755
(559) 978-4502 (cell)
AllianceEditor [at] comcast.net
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/
You can contact me at:
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance newspaper
P.O. Box 5077
Fresno Ca 93755
(559) 978-4502 (cell)
AllianceEditor [at] comcast.net
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/
It seems like a lot of the older folks are abusing their age in this ongoing debate...And though one may be able to attribute certain ways of acting with our youth...It seems like the adults that are involved in this fued have been just as immature as any of the "youth collective" members...All the people involved in this whole fiasco should be taking time individually and collectively to reflect on what has happened and what is continuing to happen...Beyond that the main problem seems to be centralization and poor communication, which magnify the differences between the parties involved...A mediation process would be nice regardless of how folks feel on both sides, since it seems rather clear that there are problems with some of the processes involved in putting together and building Community Alliance...
At any rate, some of the different people posting allegations of infiltration and other various petty shit above this comment are privaledged to certain information, which leads a reasonable mind to think that either the Community Alliance is infiltrated or someone closely involved in Community Alliance needs to grow up and face up to the allegations and harm that they are causing the "youth collective" & RANCOR by posting this stuff...
Just a few thoughts from someone on the borderline of both of these communities...
in struggle - upton
ps - i really do hope that a lot of the bs involved in this struggle can be worked out, and doesn't just get continually aired out in this manner
At any rate, some of the different people posting allegations of infiltration and other various petty shit above this comment are privaledged to certain information, which leads a reasonable mind to think that either the Community Alliance is infiltrated or someone closely involved in Community Alliance needs to grow up and face up to the allegations and harm that they are causing the "youth collective" & RANCOR by posting this stuff...
Just a few thoughts from someone on the borderline of both of these communities...
in struggle - upton
ps - i really do hope that a lot of the bs involved in this struggle can be worked out, and doesn't just get continually aired out in this manner
I'm not sure if there is an agreement, at the very minimum - an understanding, of the inherently political nature of art. I believe that the dissident party in this matter (Rancor and the youth collective) understands the relationship between art and politics but I am not sure if the editorial board, either collectively or individually, does. From what I can gather from my limited interaction with today's youth culture (I'm in my sixth decade of this lifetime), art and music (especially music) is more political now than it was in the 1960's. This clear and inseparable relationship between art and politics must be (first) acknowledged and (second) nurtured. It appears that the Community Alliance wants an arts and entertainment section somewhat akin to what the Fresno Bee has, perhaps a just a bit more edgy. As a Community Alliance subscriber, I would like to see more of what the dissidents are offering.
[This controversy should NOT be played out on IndyBay. Our enemies are smiling at the self-destructiveness, especially by the RANCOR/youth collective folks.
The "youth collective" does not want to compromise anything. The mere fact they posted their article clearly indicates that. They didn't get their way, so they're being like the kid who took his ball and went home.]
. . . this isn't working things out, it's the old, "how dare you publicly make an issue of a dispute! don't you know it's supposed to be kept in house, where we have all the advantages? and, don't you know, you are only to show initiative when we approve of it!" mentality
yes, posting an article, what a heinous crime, it really shows their lack of integrity
as I said a long time ago on this thread, liberals have thrived with this technique of coerced silence for years, and look where it's gotten us
--Richard
The "youth collective" does not want to compromise anything. The mere fact they posted their article clearly indicates that. They didn't get their way, so they're being like the kid who took his ball and went home.]
. . . this isn't working things out, it's the old, "how dare you publicly make an issue of a dispute! don't you know it's supposed to be kept in house, where we have all the advantages? and, don't you know, you are only to show initiative when we approve of it!" mentality
yes, posting an article, what a heinous crime, it really shows their lack of integrity
as I said a long time ago on this thread, liberals have thrived with this technique of coerced silence for years, and look where it's gotten us
--Richard
OK: once again, the original agreement between Mike Rhodes and Stephen Gamboa was that Stephen would have editorial control over a youth-oriented culture/arts/music section (and G. Corso is right on about the political nature of youth arts/music--check out any lyric sheet for "Rage Against the Machine" for example). I would remind everybody that the CA is largely funded by a Vanguard Foundation grant written by Shawn Putnam, part of our collective. The grant was designed to fund just such a section.
For reasons outlined in these posts, conflict between the board and the collective began brewing. In a long series of e-mails we--the collective--offered to form a larger collective that would govern the whole paper. No dice.Then there was a discussion to more fully separate the two sections. At that point there was a meeting downtown at Masten Towers where Rhodes and Board Members started raising legal issues. We said, fine, give us legal guidelines to follow; you can review what we submit, and we can make any needed corrections. Then came the July issue when most of our section was rejected without good reason. We still have not had any response to the points raised in Doug Gilbert's e-mail on that.
Now, rather than call us North Koreans(!) how about if you propose a compromise. Mike Rhodes saying we can still submit articles is no compromise. That amounts to no distinct youth oriented culture/arts/music section--a complete repudiation of the original agreement and the terms of the Vangauard grant.
At the Masten Towers meeting Richard Stone, who I continue to respect, came over to Teresa and me and asked "do you think of us as old, stale, people whose time has come and gone?" We both said what we continue to believe about the left in general; we said "no, the left is a continuum and each part needs the others. The radicals need the mainstream to engage in lobbying, letter-writing, petitions, legal demo's, etc. And the mainstream needs the radicals to let the power dons know what is waiting for them if they remain completely pig-headed." We both said, too that the CA was growing as a powerful voice for the whole spectrum in the Valley. But when the going got rough you cut us off. Members of our collective never have and never will do that to each other--that is the unity that counts. To Steve Malm, whoever you are, that is what I am talking about--standing up for each other.
The collective said some very strong things in our statement; we believe those words are true based on your disrespectful treatment of us. But we still believe in the need for an uncompromising and fearless expression of the range of left voices in the valley. Look at the July issue. Compare it to the five or six issues previous to it. See a difference? The only hard-hitting pieces in this issue are written by people thousands of miles away. You are undercutting the Naomi Kleins and the Ingrid Newkirks that are trying to make constructive change right here in Fresno.
Mike Rhodes and the Board members: if you really believe you acted with respect and consideration toward us, if you really think that you treated us as equals in the struggle for peace, economic and social justice, and defense of the Earth; if you really think that you worked constructively with us to find solutions to problems on the paper--then just keep going ahead as you have been. We certainly will continue to take the steps we currently intend to take.
But, again, if you want to make some sort of constructive porposal between the Board and the collective that is up to you.
Finally, I don't give a shit what a bunch of moronic bubbas on the right think of this dispute. If they are stupid enough to spend their time, money, energy, and votes working against their own interests, that is their problem. Common people voting for the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush is like slaves kissing their masters. What I do care about and what I hear people on the left talking about is a powerful united left movement in this valley, state, and country. Do you think there would have been 500,000 people out on the street in NY City protesting the RNC if elders treated younger people the way the CA Board treated the youth collective?
That is what all of this is really about. So next time you're tempted to criticize the youths and the radicals for their "violence," stop and rededicate yourself to stopping the real violence of the corporate state. And, again, if you have some constructive proposal you can make it right here, out in what little public space is left in this increasingly fascist United States of Amnesia.
For reasons outlined in these posts, conflict between the board and the collective began brewing. In a long series of e-mails we--the collective--offered to form a larger collective that would govern the whole paper. No dice.Then there was a discussion to more fully separate the two sections. At that point there was a meeting downtown at Masten Towers where Rhodes and Board Members started raising legal issues. We said, fine, give us legal guidelines to follow; you can review what we submit, and we can make any needed corrections. Then came the July issue when most of our section was rejected without good reason. We still have not had any response to the points raised in Doug Gilbert's e-mail on that.
Now, rather than call us North Koreans(!) how about if you propose a compromise. Mike Rhodes saying we can still submit articles is no compromise. That amounts to no distinct youth oriented culture/arts/music section--a complete repudiation of the original agreement and the terms of the Vangauard grant.
At the Masten Towers meeting Richard Stone, who I continue to respect, came over to Teresa and me and asked "do you think of us as old, stale, people whose time has come and gone?" We both said what we continue to believe about the left in general; we said "no, the left is a continuum and each part needs the others. The radicals need the mainstream to engage in lobbying, letter-writing, petitions, legal demo's, etc. And the mainstream needs the radicals to let the power dons know what is waiting for them if they remain completely pig-headed." We both said, too that the CA was growing as a powerful voice for the whole spectrum in the Valley. But when the going got rough you cut us off. Members of our collective never have and never will do that to each other--that is the unity that counts. To Steve Malm, whoever you are, that is what I am talking about--standing up for each other.
The collective said some very strong things in our statement; we believe those words are true based on your disrespectful treatment of us. But we still believe in the need for an uncompromising and fearless expression of the range of left voices in the valley. Look at the July issue. Compare it to the five or six issues previous to it. See a difference? The only hard-hitting pieces in this issue are written by people thousands of miles away. You are undercutting the Naomi Kleins and the Ingrid Newkirks that are trying to make constructive change right here in Fresno.
Mike Rhodes and the Board members: if you really believe you acted with respect and consideration toward us, if you really think that you treated us as equals in the struggle for peace, economic and social justice, and defense of the Earth; if you really think that you worked constructively with us to find solutions to problems on the paper--then just keep going ahead as you have been. We certainly will continue to take the steps we currently intend to take.
But, again, if you want to make some sort of constructive porposal between the Board and the collective that is up to you.
Finally, I don't give a shit what a bunch of moronic bubbas on the right think of this dispute. If they are stupid enough to spend their time, money, energy, and votes working against their own interests, that is their problem. Common people voting for the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush is like slaves kissing their masters. What I do care about and what I hear people on the left talking about is a powerful united left movement in this valley, state, and country. Do you think there would have been 500,000 people out on the street in NY City protesting the RNC if elders treated younger people the way the CA Board treated the youth collective?
That is what all of this is really about. So next time you're tempted to criticize the youths and the radicals for their "violence," stop and rededicate yourself to stopping the real violence of the corporate state. And, again, if you have some constructive proposal you can make it right here, out in what little public space is left in this increasingly fascist United States of Amnesia.
thats a sizable collection of confusion youre attempting to pass off as Confuscious. Clearly the wisdom granted to you and denied the elderly oppressors will strengthen your resolve to seize what is rightfully yours, that which you have already so generously offered to take over peacefully in order to guide it with your aforementioned wisdom and insight. All too soon we will be basking in the free and fair future you will lead us to in all your glory.
Are you some sort of kids world cartoon quality end result?
Full of yourself and no respect for those who have already done a lifetimes worth of work? There were a lot more than 500,000 in NYC, were you there to count? One 94 year old grandmother alone achieved more in her trip through than all the youth put together, she will be remembered, will you? Get over yourself and get your head together. Your ambitions and bluster exceed your abilities and accomplishments. No matter whose efforts you claim as your own.
Are you some sort of kids world cartoon quality end result?
Full of yourself and no respect for those who have already done a lifetimes worth of work? There were a lot more than 500,000 in NYC, were you there to count? One 94 year old grandmother alone achieved more in her trip through than all the youth put together, she will be remembered, will you? Get over yourself and get your head together. Your ambitions and bluster exceed your abilities and accomplishments. No matter whose efforts you claim as your own.
In reply to the above post. Yes Mike Robe was in NY for the RNC As well as over a dozen of us from the collective. Also the 'Collective' is not entirely made up of youth. It also includes people who agree with the tactics of direct action and the enthusiasm created by the youth within the collective. Here is a photo I took of the 94 year old women.
I think most people familiar with what is going on here know that I use Mike Robe as a pen name. My given name is Mike Becker. So, what is your name Divide and Conquer? I'll bet you won't say.
You don't seem to think very clearly (you certainly do not write clearly). So for your sake I'll break my last post down a little more simply: if Mike Rhodes, the CA Ed. Board, and others who share their views think a compromise is in order, offer one. We'll respond.
Members of RANCOR, like Dallas, and others who are not in RANCOR but who have contributed to the youth section respect and have worked with people across the left spectrum. But we don't like being disrespected. Can you understand that?
Hopefully the future will be determined by the left. If so, it will be a more peaceful future for humans and our non-human animal companions on the planet. And it will be a more prosperous future, not for the mega-rich but for those who actually create value, the workers--especially those in the developing world who are currently the most abused wage slaves in the world capitalist economy.
By the way, you may want to read up a little on Confucious. Confucionism and anarchism are just about total opposites.
You don't seem to think very clearly (you certainly do not write clearly). So for your sake I'll break my last post down a little more simply: if Mike Rhodes, the CA Ed. Board, and others who share their views think a compromise is in order, offer one. We'll respond.
Members of RANCOR, like Dallas, and others who are not in RANCOR but who have contributed to the youth section respect and have worked with people across the left spectrum. But we don't like being disrespected. Can you understand that?
Hopefully the future will be determined by the left. If so, it will be a more peaceful future for humans and our non-human animal companions on the planet. And it will be a more prosperous future, not for the mega-rich but for those who actually create value, the workers--especially those in the developing world who are currently the most abused wage slaves in the world capitalist economy.
By the way, you may want to read up a little on Confucious. Confucionism and anarchism are just about total opposites.
A world of name calling has gone on here, Ive done my share, but only in response to some lurid accusations, destructive behavior and foolish actions on the part of RANCOR. This melodramatic insurrection/protest/standoff/strike whatever it is fractionalizes and damages the reputation of everyone involved, let me receive my fair share as well. Sentiments expressed by RANCOR's revolutionary media army have in fact frequently and without justification disrespected other parties and organizations, saying otherwise doesnt change the facts.
I see here a group of self interested individuals seeking inordinate power and influence, this following my first hand personal experiences in RANCOR's formation and activities through the RNC and afterwards. Hardly feeling victimized I still endured some very selfish, rude and unethical behaviors before during and after the event, by the very same people who seem to feel sleighted by potential oversight under the CA editorial board. The subscribers and readership of the CA are not losing a great deal if RANCOR members CHOOSE not to contribute, they may just be gaining a bigger forum for a broader perspective. RANCOR on the other hand can easily go start its own paper, if they cant manage a website, one with a tighter focus better shaped for the size of its audience. But to precede these logical conclusions with an online demonstration that only shows RANCOR's method of mediating a dispute, attempting to threaten distribution? What a crazy fight to start, what a terrible place to try to make a difference, good or bad.
own your actions and I'll try to own mine.
I see here a group of self interested individuals seeking inordinate power and influence, this following my first hand personal experiences in RANCOR's formation and activities through the RNC and afterwards. Hardly feeling victimized I still endured some very selfish, rude and unethical behaviors before during and after the event, by the very same people who seem to feel sleighted by potential oversight under the CA editorial board. The subscribers and readership of the CA are not losing a great deal if RANCOR members CHOOSE not to contribute, they may just be gaining a bigger forum for a broader perspective. RANCOR on the other hand can easily go start its own paper, if they cant manage a website, one with a tighter focus better shaped for the size of its audience. But to precede these logical conclusions with an online demonstration that only shows RANCOR's method of mediating a dispute, attempting to threaten distribution? What a crazy fight to start, what a terrible place to try to make a difference, good or bad.
own your actions and I'll try to own mine.
Y'all!
In the spirit of agreeing to coexist, let us start small and agree to this between the two opposing camps: it's spelled Confucius. And yes, Confucius was indeed a hierarchical guy, not an anarchical guy.
-Person, who (to answer the question posted after the earlier post) uses a pseudonym on indymedia because it's customary, and who uses a real name in newspapers because that's also customary. It's like wearing flip-flops at the beach versus hiking boots in Yosemite. Sorry if anyone mistakenly thought it was an attempt to hide.
In the spirit of agreeing to coexist, let us start small and agree to this between the two opposing camps: it's spelled Confucius. And yes, Confucius was indeed a hierarchical guy, not an anarchical guy.
-Person, who (to answer the question posted after the earlier post) uses a pseudonym on indymedia because it's customary, and who uses a real name in newspapers because that's also customary. It's like wearing flip-flops at the beach versus hiking boots in Yosemite. Sorry if anyone mistakenly thought it was an attempt to hide.
"At the Masten Towers meeting Richard Stone, who I continue to respect, came over to Teresa and me and asked "do you think of us as old, stale, people whose time has come and gone?" We both said what we continue to believe about the left in general; we said "no, the left is a continuum and each part needs the others. The radicals need the mainstream to engage in lobbying, letter-writing, petitions, legal demo's, etc. And the mainstream needs the radicals to let the power dons know what is waiting for them if they remain completely pig-headed." We both said, too that the CA was growing as a powerful voice for the whole spectrum in the Valley. But when the going got rough you cut us off. Members of our collective never have and never will do that to each other--that is the unity that counts. To Steve Malm, whoever you are, that is what I am talking about--standing up for each other. "
I apologize for dragging this any further, if I had stuck to my promise to cease and desist it would be better, however, Im going to explain myself and a thing or two more explicitly and then Im going to dissect the above statement a little.
A lot of what Ive tried to convey Ive kept shrouded in nonsense because I dont think its safe to explicitly discuss serious concerns publicly. One of the reasons this tirade against the reactionary oppressors on the CA editorial board is so over the top is because to believe that Mike Rhodes is keeping RANCOR down means that Richard Stone is in on this dark conspiracy as well. Yeah, its true they are both very shifty looking and who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? But it takes a big imagination to call people like Richard Stone underhanded or reactionary. Dont let it stop you though, youre on a roll.
What I really like about the above quote are all the big truths in little letters. For instance-"each part needs the others. The radicals need the mainstream to engage in lobbying, letter-writing, petitions, legal demo's, etc"
Yes indeed, these committed radicals need the "mainstream" to do ALL the work, because the scary big bad radicals are too busy scaring people to turn up for the "legal" demos, or anything that involves something besides talking, tough or not.
I've been through it with you guys, lots of great ideas, lets see if we can find someone to actually do the work. Or in other cases, look, those activists are famous! Let's ride their thunder, promote ourselves and the "work we do", but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should we actually join ranks, attend demonstrations, enlarge the body count of the street opposition, learn who else is in this continuum, that is to say, actually know who Steve Malm is, (that would require actually going outside in 106 degrees and standing up for whats right in the light of day with other less effective or wise activists who really "only eat cookies, attend four hour meetings, go home and do nothing") As used in this discussion, and as my own experience showed clearly the "radicals" need the "mainstream" to do the work, (thats not heirarchical?) no matter whose bad idea or who made the promises, somebody else is expected to actually do the work, often as a complete surprise at the last minute, I guess this is where anarchy comes in, it doesnt require proper planning just intent? But when it comes time for accounting, guess who gets the credit? Why it was the "radical" who stood there scaring everything into occurring.
None of you are actually scaring anyone, because nobody ever sees you, not at demos, not when big issues are steamrolling the state and local populace, you seem to think you can actually function as some threat (at this late date in the game) and call it an activists day. If you want to ride the PF coattails, covered with cookie crumbs though they may be, you should at least be willing to pitch in on their work. When it comes to doing nothing, RANCOR can teach Peace Fresno a lot. Fortunately PF doesnt know how to attribute credit RANCOR style or how to achieve concensus through threat of force. These are qualities that CA doesnt need on its editorial staff. Neither do I need to see pictures of elephants that only remind me of what stupid mistakes were made in RANCOR's early days regarding the Fresno Zoo. You GAVE Jerry Duncan Measure Z, the Fresno Zoo and Roeding Park because you did something that surprised a number of former RANCORites. Apparently I missed that meeting where you decided to attack Chaffee Zoo. In fact I never saw any minutes, was never consulted about this and for a number of very good reasons could not be a part of thickheaded posturing that left you no ground to stand on when the zoo needed defending from the right wing terrorists who were making their bones on it. I can imagine the complex rationalizations, but the fact is you have made major decisions regarding RANCOR without consulting other founding members and discouraged participation by other original members who believed your tough talk leading up to the RNC. Basically you have built a club and put some anarchist label on it and God knows what you really think youre doing.
Well I guess thats what Ive learned about radicals, the mainstream, and Confucious being heirarchical. The things you learn on the internets...
I apologize for dragging this any further, if I had stuck to my promise to cease and desist it would be better, however, Im going to explain myself and a thing or two more explicitly and then Im going to dissect the above statement a little.
A lot of what Ive tried to convey Ive kept shrouded in nonsense because I dont think its safe to explicitly discuss serious concerns publicly. One of the reasons this tirade against the reactionary oppressors on the CA editorial board is so over the top is because to believe that Mike Rhodes is keeping RANCOR down means that Richard Stone is in on this dark conspiracy as well. Yeah, its true they are both very shifty looking and who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? But it takes a big imagination to call people like Richard Stone underhanded or reactionary. Dont let it stop you though, youre on a roll.
What I really like about the above quote are all the big truths in little letters. For instance-"each part needs the others. The radicals need the mainstream to engage in lobbying, letter-writing, petitions, legal demo's, etc"
Yes indeed, these committed radicals need the "mainstream" to do ALL the work, because the scary big bad radicals are too busy scaring people to turn up for the "legal" demos, or anything that involves something besides talking, tough or not.
I've been through it with you guys, lots of great ideas, lets see if we can find someone to actually do the work. Or in other cases, look, those activists are famous! Let's ride their thunder, promote ourselves and the "work we do", but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should we actually join ranks, attend demonstrations, enlarge the body count of the street opposition, learn who else is in this continuum, that is to say, actually know who Steve Malm is, (that would require actually going outside in 106 degrees and standing up for whats right in the light of day with other less effective or wise activists who really "only eat cookies, attend four hour meetings, go home and do nothing") As used in this discussion, and as my own experience showed clearly the "radicals" need the "mainstream" to do the work, (thats not heirarchical?) no matter whose bad idea or who made the promises, somebody else is expected to actually do the work, often as a complete surprise at the last minute, I guess this is where anarchy comes in, it doesnt require proper planning just intent? But when it comes time for accounting, guess who gets the credit? Why it was the "radical" who stood there scaring everything into occurring.
None of you are actually scaring anyone, because nobody ever sees you, not at demos, not when big issues are steamrolling the state and local populace, you seem to think you can actually function as some threat (at this late date in the game) and call it an activists day. If you want to ride the PF coattails, covered with cookie crumbs though they may be, you should at least be willing to pitch in on their work. When it comes to doing nothing, RANCOR can teach Peace Fresno a lot. Fortunately PF doesnt know how to attribute credit RANCOR style or how to achieve concensus through threat of force. These are qualities that CA doesnt need on its editorial staff. Neither do I need to see pictures of elephants that only remind me of what stupid mistakes were made in RANCOR's early days regarding the Fresno Zoo. You GAVE Jerry Duncan Measure Z, the Fresno Zoo and Roeding Park because you did something that surprised a number of former RANCORites. Apparently I missed that meeting where you decided to attack Chaffee Zoo. In fact I never saw any minutes, was never consulted about this and for a number of very good reasons could not be a part of thickheaded posturing that left you no ground to stand on when the zoo needed defending from the right wing terrorists who were making their bones on it. I can imagine the complex rationalizations, but the fact is you have made major decisions regarding RANCOR without consulting other founding members and discouraged participation by other original members who believed your tough talk leading up to the RNC. Basically you have built a club and put some anarchist label on it and God knows what you really think youre doing.
Well I guess thats what Ive learned about radicals, the mainstream, and Confucious being heirarchical. The things you learn on the internets...
Hey Kelly--
First, I think my post basically had to do with compromise--still haven't heard from the CA folks.
Second, since you put it out here in public:
1. I don't think you have been to any RANCOR meetings since NY. Maybe one? As far as "founding members" are concerned--ummmm--whoever they are exactly, they have either contniued to be a part of RANCOR or, like you, stopped being a part of it. If we have gotten too far left for you or others, you could have simply let us know--we'll take your name off the e-mail list. Or you can start showing up at RANCOR meetings again and put in your two cents re/ the actions we take on any given isue. "Founding members" suggests some sort of special recognition or privilege. RANCOR respects those who take action, whenever they became a part of it.
2. Speaking of action, here is the work RANCOR has done in the last year or so (I am sure I am leaving out some things): NY RNC demo, DC counter-inauguration; anti-Bush music fest at H St. studio, smash Bush's lies (at Courthouse park for the anniversary of the war); Ringling protest (with Fresno Voices for Animals); anarchist prom; Arnold protests both at Bonadelle mansion and at KMJ; demo at SF counter-biotech; counter-recruiting at CSUFresno; Demo at Sanger High against Jesse Morrow mountain; put together Friends of Jesse Morrow Mt. website and have worked closely with them on various efforts; hung freeway banners against Measure Z--worked loosely with Kevin Hall on that; helped get activists to Scotland for anti G8; particpated in west coast anti G8 mobilization in SF; free market, fresh oj, much of food and prep, worked (along with J Hofer) to make all arrangements for 2005 Earth Day at Avacado Lake; participated in hunger strike at CSUF against campus surveillance; largely responsible for organizing and providing food and materials for Occupied Territory, reports back on various demos; helped provide articles/photos for CA issues, made RNC Not Welcome video and sent these out across the country to RNC activists and others; info shop at No River No Park; continuing to press lawsuit against NY city for civil rights violations; worked with ACLU Northern California on review of government surveillance activities; mmmmm--well there are other things I am not recalling at the moment
3. So, maybe none of that is really worthwhile in terms of real change, I honestly don't know. But the same can be said of all the more mainstream work that more mainstream liberals are doing. I do think that if all of us--radicals and mainstream alike across the country--were NOT doing what we are doing, the situation would be FAR worse.
4. I didn't mean anything disrespectful toward Steve Malm--just wanted to clarify that I in fact do not know him. You could just as easily say that he should join us in the 106 heat during a Ringling protest as I/we should join him in 106 heat somewhere, right?
5. Find me a statement where we said we thought Mike Rhodes and/or Richard Stone are holding RANCOR down. Our statement was (verbatim from statement) to the Board and especially Mike Rhodes for what we think were underhanded actions in ejecting the collective of RANCOR and non-RANCOR folks from the paper. In caving to unsubstantiated fear, repressing the only radical voice they had on the paper, and using FBI language against us--I would say that, yes, in this instance at least, they are being reactionary.
6. Measure Z passed by a large margin mainly because of the millions of dollars poured into the campaign by the likes of Pelco McDonald. Kevin Hall's analysis--as far as I have heard--is that we did well to make it as close at it was. If Kevin thinks radicals inadvertently torpedoed the campaign I haven't heard about it. Kevin also never asked us to tone down what we were doing.
To be honest, Kelly, I think your post is another instance of people disrespecting our work. Despite it, I am sure that everybody would love to se you at the Ringling protests starting Wednesday (through Sunday) or at the next RANCOR meeting.
Finally, I want to personally and publicly thank you for the solidarity you gave to me and the other arrestees in NY.
First, I think my post basically had to do with compromise--still haven't heard from the CA folks.
Second, since you put it out here in public:
1. I don't think you have been to any RANCOR meetings since NY. Maybe one? As far as "founding members" are concerned--ummmm--whoever they are exactly, they have either contniued to be a part of RANCOR or, like you, stopped being a part of it. If we have gotten too far left for you or others, you could have simply let us know--we'll take your name off the e-mail list. Or you can start showing up at RANCOR meetings again and put in your two cents re/ the actions we take on any given isue. "Founding members" suggests some sort of special recognition or privilege. RANCOR respects those who take action, whenever they became a part of it.
2. Speaking of action, here is the work RANCOR has done in the last year or so (I am sure I am leaving out some things): NY RNC demo, DC counter-inauguration; anti-Bush music fest at H St. studio, smash Bush's lies (at Courthouse park for the anniversary of the war); Ringling protest (with Fresno Voices for Animals); anarchist prom; Arnold protests both at Bonadelle mansion and at KMJ; demo at SF counter-biotech; counter-recruiting at CSUFresno; Demo at Sanger High against Jesse Morrow mountain; put together Friends of Jesse Morrow Mt. website and have worked closely with them on various efforts; hung freeway banners against Measure Z--worked loosely with Kevin Hall on that; helped get activists to Scotland for anti G8; particpated in west coast anti G8 mobilization in SF; free market, fresh oj, much of food and prep, worked (along with J Hofer) to make all arrangements for 2005 Earth Day at Avacado Lake; participated in hunger strike at CSUF against campus surveillance; largely responsible for organizing and providing food and materials for Occupied Territory, reports back on various demos; helped provide articles/photos for CA issues, made RNC Not Welcome video and sent these out across the country to RNC activists and others; info shop at No River No Park; continuing to press lawsuit against NY city for civil rights violations; worked with ACLU Northern California on review of government surveillance activities; mmmmm--well there are other things I am not recalling at the moment
3. So, maybe none of that is really worthwhile in terms of real change, I honestly don't know. But the same can be said of all the more mainstream work that more mainstream liberals are doing. I do think that if all of us--radicals and mainstream alike across the country--were NOT doing what we are doing, the situation would be FAR worse.
4. I didn't mean anything disrespectful toward Steve Malm--just wanted to clarify that I in fact do not know him. You could just as easily say that he should join us in the 106 heat during a Ringling protest as I/we should join him in 106 heat somewhere, right?
5. Find me a statement where we said we thought Mike Rhodes and/or Richard Stone are holding RANCOR down. Our statement was (verbatim from statement) to the Board and especially Mike Rhodes for what we think were underhanded actions in ejecting the collective of RANCOR and non-RANCOR folks from the paper. In caving to unsubstantiated fear, repressing the only radical voice they had on the paper, and using FBI language against us--I would say that, yes, in this instance at least, they are being reactionary.
6. Measure Z passed by a large margin mainly because of the millions of dollars poured into the campaign by the likes of Pelco McDonald. Kevin Hall's analysis--as far as I have heard--is that we did well to make it as close at it was. If Kevin thinks radicals inadvertently torpedoed the campaign I haven't heard about it. Kevin also never asked us to tone down what we were doing.
To be honest, Kelly, I think your post is another instance of people disrespecting our work. Despite it, I am sure that everybody would love to se you at the Ringling protests starting Wednesday (through Sunday) or at the next RANCOR meeting.
Finally, I want to personally and publicly thank you for the solidarity you gave to me and the other arrestees in NY.
Hi Kelly, et. all;
In Reply to Kellys post.
As to the Zoo / Earth Day controversy, RANCOR was not involved in it. It was Sierra Nevada Earth First (S.N.E.F.). RANCOR wasn’t really even organized yet. It had only had a couple of meetings at that point. Whereas S.N.E.F. had been around for about a year.
As to RANCORs lack of doing any real work and jumping on the coattails of others Here is a partial list of what RANCOR has worked on in the last year:
Local Events
Earth Day.
When we found out that the Earth Day committee wasn’t going to be doing anything this year RANCOR jumped to the task of organizing an event with little over a month to do so. We decided to put the politics back into Earth Day. We discouraged vending and we tied the event to a local environmental issue.
Jesse Morrow Mountain
RANCOR has been working on the issue of the mining of Jesse Morrow Mountain. We’ve attended meetings with folks in Sanger working on stopping the mining operation. We’ve helped organize fundraisers to address the issue. We’ve attended public hearings put on by governmental organizations, etc.
Counter Recruiting
In addition to conducting counter recruiting actions at Fresno City College, CSU Fresno and local High School graduations RANCOR activists also attended the counter recruiting hearing/workshop held at McLane H.S.
Circus Protest
We organized last years protests of the treatment of Circus Animals during the Ringling Brothers Circus. We are again organizing for the entire five days of the circus. In addition we traveled to Bakersfield to help activists there protest the circus as well.
Rally In The Valley
We had a fun, interactive event (Smash Bush’s Lies) during this years Rally In The Valley. At the same time we had members go to the Protests in San Francisco.
Occupied Territory
We helped organize a National Anarchist gathering in the mountains just outside Fresno. Which had about 80 people from throughout the United States in attendance.
At the same time that we’ve worked on these local activities RANCOR has also organized to attend National and International protests. Including the RNC protests in New York City, The counter inauguration demos in Washington D.C., The G8 actions in Scotland and several regional demos in San Francisco.
For all of these events we’ve invited the entire community to participate, have conducted report backs and have had fundraisers to help people go.
As for the Community Alliance RANCOR activists did all of the Layout and design of the paper. We solicited writers, photographers and wrote a grant which lead to a major source of funding for the paper. I don’t know if you’ve ever done layout and design work for a 28-page newspaper. It requires many hours of work.
We’ve purchased a truck and 20 foot travel trailer to use as a mobile infoshop and field kitchen.
All of this has occurred within the last year. And I don’t see where we’ve jumped on anyone else’s coattails and claimed credit for anything, which we have not been involved with.
As to the Cookie eating 4 hour meeting statement. The statement was not made in a public setting. It was in a private e-mail to you in response to a harsh statement about RANCOR activists on a public list serve.
In hindsight I shouldn’t have talked crap about another organization which isn’t part of the issue at hand. My bad.
Dallas
In Reply to Kellys post.
As to the Zoo / Earth Day controversy, RANCOR was not involved in it. It was Sierra Nevada Earth First (S.N.E.F.). RANCOR wasn’t really even organized yet. It had only had a couple of meetings at that point. Whereas S.N.E.F. had been around for about a year.
As to RANCORs lack of doing any real work and jumping on the coattails of others Here is a partial list of what RANCOR has worked on in the last year:
Local Events
Earth Day.
When we found out that the Earth Day committee wasn’t going to be doing anything this year RANCOR jumped to the task of organizing an event with little over a month to do so. We decided to put the politics back into Earth Day. We discouraged vending and we tied the event to a local environmental issue.
Jesse Morrow Mountain
RANCOR has been working on the issue of the mining of Jesse Morrow Mountain. We’ve attended meetings with folks in Sanger working on stopping the mining operation. We’ve helped organize fundraisers to address the issue. We’ve attended public hearings put on by governmental organizations, etc.
Counter Recruiting
In addition to conducting counter recruiting actions at Fresno City College, CSU Fresno and local High School graduations RANCOR activists also attended the counter recruiting hearing/workshop held at McLane H.S.
Circus Protest
We organized last years protests of the treatment of Circus Animals during the Ringling Brothers Circus. We are again organizing for the entire five days of the circus. In addition we traveled to Bakersfield to help activists there protest the circus as well.
Rally In The Valley
We had a fun, interactive event (Smash Bush’s Lies) during this years Rally In The Valley. At the same time we had members go to the Protests in San Francisco.
Occupied Territory
We helped organize a National Anarchist gathering in the mountains just outside Fresno. Which had about 80 people from throughout the United States in attendance.
At the same time that we’ve worked on these local activities RANCOR has also organized to attend National and International protests. Including the RNC protests in New York City, The counter inauguration demos in Washington D.C., The G8 actions in Scotland and several regional demos in San Francisco.
For all of these events we’ve invited the entire community to participate, have conducted report backs and have had fundraisers to help people go.
As for the Community Alliance RANCOR activists did all of the Layout and design of the paper. We solicited writers, photographers and wrote a grant which lead to a major source of funding for the paper. I don’t know if you’ve ever done layout and design work for a 28-page newspaper. It requires many hours of work.
We’ve purchased a truck and 20 foot travel trailer to use as a mobile infoshop and field kitchen.
All of this has occurred within the last year. And I don’t see where we’ve jumped on anyone else’s coattails and claimed credit for anything, which we have not been involved with.
As to the Cookie eating 4 hour meeting statement. The statement was not made in a public setting. It was in a private e-mail to you in response to a harsh statement about RANCOR activists on a public list serve.
In hindsight I shouldn’t have talked crap about another organization which isn’t part of the issue at hand. My bad.
Dallas
Actually all I remember about the Zoo issue is RANCOR being denied a table at the previous Earth Day event and asking to hang in another booth. This would be April long before NYC, right? I was out of the loop about all of this at that point. Somehow the next year the event is moved just a little ways out of town, which to me was a big "fuck you if you cant come out here" to people who would have otherwise attended a closer event. This actually seems to be a running theme, sort of one size fits all.
That fun, interactive event at the Rally in the Valley was illegal because it was environmentally hazardous. big time. Its almost more disturbing that you didnt get in trouble for doing something so toxic and unnecessary ("we dont give a fuck about environmental laws or exposing people to some really nasty shit"?) that it really shouldnt have been allowed to happen. What was that, before or after Earth Day?
I reacted just as quick as I blundered into the information about RANCOR et al putting this situation on Indy. About the same time it actually went up to my absolute disgust. I see people shitting in my bed, it upsets me. I go off. pretty simple.
Then people start explaining their feelings, its always nice to listen and know how someone else perceives a situation or the rest of a community. Lots of unkind condescending remarks, even some really vile insults like mainstream liberal,
I really like that one. I get more upset. Not so upset that I start identifying individuals, but enough that I feel free and fair to share what surely cant be an isolated sentiment in a group so bound by unity. Now if Dallas meant to hide that sentiment, its my fault for mentioning it. Goes straight to the point though, certain actors are so full of themselves, or inconsiderate of others to the point that people would be foolish to give anyone like that unbridled influence over something as precious as local progressive print media. Mike Rhodes has worked the media beat so thoroughly and for so long, for that alone he deserves better than this staged suckerpunch act of treachery. Did Steven REALLY pull Marlenas cover shot? That is SO wrong on so many levels outside of the legitimate beef that the CA would have with what happened, it probably tweaks me more than all the rest put together. Lets see, Marlena a young woman photographer who held a gallery exhibit the year before cant be trusted to take a non-degrading artistic shot of the involved participants as she seems to have been assigned to do? Not being blessed with the artistic and political sensibilities of other people she had her work YANKED FROM THE COVER?
Maybe she was too busy going out and actually doing stuff in this community to develop the sensitivities others displayed cutting her work? The RANCOR/"youth" collective eruption is going to affect CA, its readers and a lot of people, in some way. I hope it was a decision reached through a fair and democratic process, carried out equally by those who made the decision. Too bad for those who didnt get a say.
Fuck em.
That fun, interactive event at the Rally in the Valley was illegal because it was environmentally hazardous. big time. Its almost more disturbing that you didnt get in trouble for doing something so toxic and unnecessary ("we dont give a fuck about environmental laws or exposing people to some really nasty shit"?) that it really shouldnt have been allowed to happen. What was that, before or after Earth Day?
I reacted just as quick as I blundered into the information about RANCOR et al putting this situation on Indy. About the same time it actually went up to my absolute disgust. I see people shitting in my bed, it upsets me. I go off. pretty simple.
Then people start explaining their feelings, its always nice to listen and know how someone else perceives a situation or the rest of a community. Lots of unkind condescending remarks, even some really vile insults like mainstream liberal,
I really like that one. I get more upset. Not so upset that I start identifying individuals, but enough that I feel free and fair to share what surely cant be an isolated sentiment in a group so bound by unity. Now if Dallas meant to hide that sentiment, its my fault for mentioning it. Goes straight to the point though, certain actors are so full of themselves, or inconsiderate of others to the point that people would be foolish to give anyone like that unbridled influence over something as precious as local progressive print media. Mike Rhodes has worked the media beat so thoroughly and for so long, for that alone he deserves better than this staged suckerpunch act of treachery. Did Steven REALLY pull Marlenas cover shot? That is SO wrong on so many levels outside of the legitimate beef that the CA would have with what happened, it probably tweaks me more than all the rest put together. Lets see, Marlena a young woman photographer who held a gallery exhibit the year before cant be trusted to take a non-degrading artistic shot of the involved participants as she seems to have been assigned to do? Not being blessed with the artistic and political sensibilities of other people she had her work YANKED FROM THE COVER?
Maybe she was too busy going out and actually doing stuff in this community to develop the sensitivities others displayed cutting her work? The RANCOR/"youth" collective eruption is going to affect CA, its readers and a lot of people, in some way. I hope it was a decision reached through a fair and democratic process, carried out equally by those who made the decision. Too bad for those who didnt get a say.
Fuck em.
Regardless of the bad blood on both sides and all the different things that have contributed to alienating folks from each other. It would help if people didn't accuse other folks of being infiltrators so lightly, and if they would have the guts to answer for this and the "domestic terrorist" comment. Both labels have came whether directly or indirectly from the CA board and those folks should have the courage to admit these mistakes and own up to them. If they don't feel that these are mistakes, than the levelheaded folks on the CA board should deal with this collectively and face up to this mess that they have contributed to.
Why doesn't someone who feels aggrieved take it up with Mike pursuant to his offer, entries above?
Does it really matter who contacts who first?
It's better to do these things behind the scenes.
Does it really matter who contacts who first?
It's better to do these things behind the scenes.
To Steve Malm--
You seem like a cool person--hope we can meet and work together on something soon (maybe you can come out for the Ringling/Animal Abuse protests at Selland Arena, starting one hour before showtime through Sunday).
First, I want to say that I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR ANYONE BUT MYSELF HERE. I haven't talked any of this over with anybody in the collective, but I thought I would at least put it out there and see where it goes. It may be that the CA Board or our collective will look at it and say "forget it." But, again, I wanted to at least respond to your constructive comments.
1. the original deal: 6-8 pp. section of youth-oriented culture, music, arts
2. the original deal: independent editorial control by a separate editor of this section and independent control over design/layout of the section. The remainder of the paper to be designed and laid out by someone the CA Board chooses.
3. section to be governed by clear legal guidelines regarding libel, obscenity, copyright, etc.
4. completed section to be submitted to CA Board for review of legal matters by the 20th of each month. collective will provide sources for claims in articles and cover copyrights for any photos that we did not take. CA Board will only edit for specifically indicated and valid legal concerns.
5. if paper eventually generates revenue and income is paid to anyone working under the CA Board's direct control (except for income paid for distribution, sales, advertising, business/accounting), the "culture, music, arts" section will receive an amount of income proportional to the section's size (i.e., if $100,000.00 income is available to editors, writers, photographers, etc.--the culture section will receive $25,000 based on providing 1/4 (7 of 28 pages) of the newspaper's content.
5. respectfully, Steve, this negotiation (if it goes anywhere) should be handled in some sort of public forum. If anything worthwhile happens here it needs to be clearly understood by everyone involved--not just a few parties talking to one another privately.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Obviously, you may have to relay this to the folks at the CA as they seem to have dropped out of this forum.
You seem like a cool person--hope we can meet and work together on something soon (maybe you can come out for the Ringling/Animal Abuse protests at Selland Arena, starting one hour before showtime through Sunday).
First, I want to say that I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR ANYONE BUT MYSELF HERE. I haven't talked any of this over with anybody in the collective, but I thought I would at least put it out there and see where it goes. It may be that the CA Board or our collective will look at it and say "forget it." But, again, I wanted to at least respond to your constructive comments.
1. the original deal: 6-8 pp. section of youth-oriented culture, music, arts
2. the original deal: independent editorial control by a separate editor of this section and independent control over design/layout of the section. The remainder of the paper to be designed and laid out by someone the CA Board chooses.
3. section to be governed by clear legal guidelines regarding libel, obscenity, copyright, etc.
4. completed section to be submitted to CA Board for review of legal matters by the 20th of each month. collective will provide sources for claims in articles and cover copyrights for any photos that we did not take. CA Board will only edit for specifically indicated and valid legal concerns.
5. if paper eventually generates revenue and income is paid to anyone working under the CA Board's direct control (except for income paid for distribution, sales, advertising, business/accounting), the "culture, music, arts" section will receive an amount of income proportional to the section's size (i.e., if $100,000.00 income is available to editors, writers, photographers, etc.--the culture section will receive $25,000 based on providing 1/4 (7 of 28 pages) of the newspaper's content.
5. respectfully, Steve, this negotiation (if it goes anywhere) should be handled in some sort of public forum. If anything worthwhile happens here it needs to be clearly understood by everyone involved--not just a few parties talking to one another privately.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Obviously, you may have to relay this to the folks at the CA as they seem to have dropped out of this forum.
Absolutely true that "this negotiation (if it goes anywhere) should be handled in some sort of public forum". From open discussion comes understanding and presentation of ideas and solutions perhaps not thought of before. The readership of the Community Alliance can be interpreted as its owners and the owners should have a say in the way the CA is run.
any wanna be CA "owner" can step up and participate. Isnt that a little better than having some sort of makeshift stockholders association raising or lowering their thumbs from afar over an uprising by power vampires? This is a situation of a group deciding not to participate, taking their character charges public and finding out that character issues are a two way street. If anyone sees negotiating with threat making parties engaging in public assassinations of character, distortions of fact and any number of non-community oriented agendas as the correct response here, I suggest you widen your conflict resolution horizons. They are seeking the freedom to carry out further acts of selfish decision making without oversight, driven by among other things the need to be the most radical, because that is the one true path. They are not interested in covering the community as long as they can come up with something to say about themselves or their personal agendas. This is an absolute waste of time, Bush is out there on a limb tying a rope around his and his administrations necks. What does RANCOR do? They attack Mike Rhodes and the CA.
Everyone needs to think long and hard about what is in the best interest of the community. God knows the best interests of RANCOR whatever they be are always forefront in the minds of these pirates. This is a charade of tremendous proportions, giving no thought to the injury to one, they will indubitably injure all just as quickly. They know how to start their own paper, and they know how well that works. Thats why they want to conquer the CA through this sort of public chicanery. Dont be a sucker, been there, done that. Our community is full of people who will do right by the CA, and their work may end up in a trash can because thats how RANCOR wants to negotiate. Isnt that enough information?
Everyone needs to think long and hard about what is in the best interest of the community. God knows the best interests of RANCOR whatever they be are always forefront in the minds of these pirates. This is a charade of tremendous proportions, giving no thought to the injury to one, they will indubitably injure all just as quickly. They know how to start their own paper, and they know how well that works. Thats why they want to conquer the CA through this sort of public chicanery. Dont be a sucker, been there, done that. Our community is full of people who will do right by the CA, and their work may end up in a trash can because thats how RANCOR wants to negotiate. Isnt that enough information?
. . . . when you have enough strength of conviction to take your concerns public, and break free of the shackles of behind the scenes liberal coercion
yes, there is enough "information" here, and it reflects more poorly of the author than it does RANCOR
the old game, appear like you want to expand participation, while retaining the levers of power behind the curtain, and, then, when the new people object, and refuse to keep their concerns private, attack them for disrupting the movement, throwing out red herrings about how we all need to remain "united" to fight off Bush, which translates as, do as we say, not as we do, and don't challenge our power to tell you what to do
I'm at a loss to understand why publicly expressing your concerns about a situation is "political chicanery", unless, of course, it has the consequence of challenging people who exercise power covertly as I have expressed above
perhaps, CA and RANCOR cannot coexist, their values may not be reconciliable, so be it, and may both be successful in their endeavors, free of the type of condescension displayed in this comment
only liberals demand that people from the center to the left must walk under one banner, subject to the requirement that everyone acknowledge their authority to make all of the important decisions
if this comment is indicative of CA attitudes, I certainly wouldn't be interested in participating, been there, done that
--RWF
[lions and christians?
by kelly Friday, Jul. 15, 2005 at 6:08
any wanna be CA "owner" can step up and participate. Isnt that a little better than having some sort of makeshift stockholders association raising or lowering their thumbs from afar over an uprising by power vampires? This is a situation of a group deciding not to participate, taking their character charges public and finding out that character issues are a two way street. If anyone sees negotiating with threat making parties engaging in public assassinations of character, distortions of fact and any number of non-community oriented agendas as the correct response here, I suggest you widen your conflict resolution horizons. They are seeking the freedom to carry out further acts of selfish decision making without oversight, driven by among other things the need to be the most radical, because that is the one true path. They are not interested in covering the community as long as they can come up with something to say about themselves or their personal agendas. This is an absolute waste of time, Bush is out there on a limb tying a rope around his and his administrations necks. What does RANCOR do? They attack Mike Rhodes and the CA.
Everyone needs to think long and hard about what is in the best interest of the community. God knows the best interests of RANCOR whatever they be are always forefront in the minds of these pirates. This is a charade of tremendous proportions, giving no thought to the injury to one, they will indubitably injure all just as quickly. They know how to start their own paper, and they know how well that works. Thats why they want to conquer the CA through this sort of public chicanery. Dont be a sucker, been there, done that. Our community is full of people who will do right by the CA, and their work may end up in a trash can because thats how RANCOR wants to negotiate. Isnt that enough information?]
yes, there is enough "information" here, and it reflects more poorly of the author than it does RANCOR
the old game, appear like you want to expand participation, while retaining the levers of power behind the curtain, and, then, when the new people object, and refuse to keep their concerns private, attack them for disrupting the movement, throwing out red herrings about how we all need to remain "united" to fight off Bush, which translates as, do as we say, not as we do, and don't challenge our power to tell you what to do
I'm at a loss to understand why publicly expressing your concerns about a situation is "political chicanery", unless, of course, it has the consequence of challenging people who exercise power covertly as I have expressed above
perhaps, CA and RANCOR cannot coexist, their values may not be reconciliable, so be it, and may both be successful in their endeavors, free of the type of condescension displayed in this comment
only liberals demand that people from the center to the left must walk under one banner, subject to the requirement that everyone acknowledge their authority to make all of the important decisions
if this comment is indicative of CA attitudes, I certainly wouldn't be interested in participating, been there, done that
--RWF
[lions and christians?
by kelly Friday, Jul. 15, 2005 at 6:08
any wanna be CA "owner" can step up and participate. Isnt that a little better than having some sort of makeshift stockholders association raising or lowering their thumbs from afar over an uprising by power vampires? This is a situation of a group deciding not to participate, taking their character charges public and finding out that character issues are a two way street. If anyone sees negotiating with threat making parties engaging in public assassinations of character, distortions of fact and any number of non-community oriented agendas as the correct response here, I suggest you widen your conflict resolution horizons. They are seeking the freedom to carry out further acts of selfish decision making without oversight, driven by among other things the need to be the most radical, because that is the one true path. They are not interested in covering the community as long as they can come up with something to say about themselves or their personal agendas. This is an absolute waste of time, Bush is out there on a limb tying a rope around his and his administrations necks. What does RANCOR do? They attack Mike Rhodes and the CA.
Everyone needs to think long and hard about what is in the best interest of the community. God knows the best interests of RANCOR whatever they be are always forefront in the minds of these pirates. This is a charade of tremendous proportions, giving no thought to the injury to one, they will indubitably injure all just as quickly. They know how to start their own paper, and they know how well that works. Thats why they want to conquer the CA through this sort of public chicanery. Dont be a sucker, been there, done that. Our community is full of people who will do right by the CA, and their work may end up in a trash can because thats how RANCOR wants to negotiate. Isnt that enough information?]
Mike, thank you for your thoughtful response.
Let me say, first of all, that I have no power to generate any resolution to this issue other than perhaps the power of a good idea. It's simple, you guys need to talk. Mike, you certainly can't solve this thing over the internet because the wounds are obviously so deep much of that needs to be dealt with before a present solution can be reached. How can that happen with an email? The past needs to be dealt with, put to rest as best it can, and you guys need to go forward with a new agreement, assuming one can be forged.
Firstly, the public forum you seek would be the contract you hammer out. A contract offers protection and legitimacy and is available to all. Secondly, if you really insist about doing this in the open air, you could arrange a meeting (not a monologue) with Rhodes, the Board, and ask that it be open to the public, although the initial stages of negotitation might best be done privately, allowing everyone to vent their frustration.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of the slights I read here are misperceptions and miscommunications. I don't know anybody in the progressive community who doesn't make mistakes. You surely can hear a tone of reasonableness when you read Rhodes' posts. Gee, maybe Mike Rhodes is part of an Axis of Evil, but I doubt it, although it's pretty much human nature that when one side sits and throw stones at the other from afar, you're not gonna get much back other than stones.
As I have said, I know a lot of you guys individually respect all of your abilities for fairness. So, my question is, why wallow in anger when you can take direct action and try and effect some agreement? This, really, is what needs to be done.
There are many ways. Somebody emails Rhodes and asks for a meeting between he and two of the people who feel most aggrieved. You air the past and achieve some understanding for each other's point of view with safeguards to prevent this thing from happening again. Once done, you set up a wider meeting and hammer out some mutually beneficial contract in
an open forum, being fair to each other. (and everyone's readers and supporters, I might add) In doing this in this manner, everybody retains some honor and self-respect. Man, I don't have to tell you this, you're a smart guy.
But, it all begins with an email to Mike. Obviously, he's not here any more because this forum is polarizing and, in my opinion, the longer you stay here, the more polarized it will get.
You could be the one to try and resolve this thing, Mike. Think about what I've written here. Send Rhodes and email, surely a small token of the respect for what he's tried to do in the Community, and see where it leads.
That's my thought.
Let me say, first of all, that I have no power to generate any resolution to this issue other than perhaps the power of a good idea. It's simple, you guys need to talk. Mike, you certainly can't solve this thing over the internet because the wounds are obviously so deep much of that needs to be dealt with before a present solution can be reached. How can that happen with an email? The past needs to be dealt with, put to rest as best it can, and you guys need to go forward with a new agreement, assuming one can be forged.
Firstly, the public forum you seek would be the contract you hammer out. A contract offers protection and legitimacy and is available to all. Secondly, if you really insist about doing this in the open air, you could arrange a meeting (not a monologue) with Rhodes, the Board, and ask that it be open to the public, although the initial stages of negotitation might best be done privately, allowing everyone to vent their frustration.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of the slights I read here are misperceptions and miscommunications. I don't know anybody in the progressive community who doesn't make mistakes. You surely can hear a tone of reasonableness when you read Rhodes' posts. Gee, maybe Mike Rhodes is part of an Axis of Evil, but I doubt it, although it's pretty much human nature that when one side sits and throw stones at the other from afar, you're not gonna get much back other than stones.
As I have said, I know a lot of you guys individually respect all of your abilities for fairness. So, my question is, why wallow in anger when you can take direct action and try and effect some agreement? This, really, is what needs to be done.
There are many ways. Somebody emails Rhodes and asks for a meeting between he and two of the people who feel most aggrieved. You air the past and achieve some understanding for each other's point of view with safeguards to prevent this thing from happening again. Once done, you set up a wider meeting and hammer out some mutually beneficial contract in
an open forum, being fair to each other. (and everyone's readers and supporters, I might add) In doing this in this manner, everybody retains some honor and self-respect. Man, I don't have to tell you this, you're a smart guy.
But, it all begins with an email to Mike. Obviously, he's not here any more because this forum is polarizing and, in my opinion, the longer you stay here, the more polarized it will get.
You could be the one to try and resolve this thing, Mike. Think about what I've written here. Send Rhodes and email, surely a small token of the respect for what he's tried to do in the Community, and see where it leads.
That's my thought.
hey steve
you and i are in similar positions. what i have put out recently are just my own thoughts and responses to you. i too have little power to affect compromise. the offenses do go deep, espeially on the side of talented, deeply committed, highly active young people here in fresno whose actions frequently have been derided and not just by the ca.
at this point, i am very doubtful about anything constructive happening. my sense is that the CA and, perhaps, many people among the mainstream progressives, were ready to write us off a long time ago. antagonistic attitudes toward youths--at least those who don't follow their betters' lines--seem to run quite deep. is it fear? is it jealousy? is it a kind of mis-guided devotion to "peace" and "non-violence" that won't even acknowledge that King, Ghandi, and others were committed to non-violent RESISTANCE?
In any case, if you don't mind, could you copy the thread of these recent posts and send them to Rhodes to give him the opportunity to come up with a constructive response. At this point i don't think that my sending them would be worthwhile, though i am certainly happy to engage in a wide open dialogue on these matters.
these are the times that try men's and women's souls. Or, in a slightly different vein, speak out against animal abuse and get arrested!
you and i are in similar positions. what i have put out recently are just my own thoughts and responses to you. i too have little power to affect compromise. the offenses do go deep, espeially on the side of talented, deeply committed, highly active young people here in fresno whose actions frequently have been derided and not just by the ca.
at this point, i am very doubtful about anything constructive happening. my sense is that the CA and, perhaps, many people among the mainstream progressives, were ready to write us off a long time ago. antagonistic attitudes toward youths--at least those who don't follow their betters' lines--seem to run quite deep. is it fear? is it jealousy? is it a kind of mis-guided devotion to "peace" and "non-violence" that won't even acknowledge that King, Ghandi, and others were committed to non-violent RESISTANCE?
In any case, if you don't mind, could you copy the thread of these recent posts and send them to Rhodes to give him the opportunity to come up with a constructive response. At this point i don't think that my sending them would be worthwhile, though i am certainly happy to engage in a wide open dialogue on these matters.
these are the times that try men's and women's souls. Or, in a slightly different vein, speak out against animal abuse and get arrested!
At the right time and place and under the right circumstances, I am sure that the RANCOR and non-RANCOR folks who contributed to the CA as the "youth collective" and were cut off by the Board and Rhodes would be happy to meet in some sort of open forum with CA readers to discuss the paper.
To Mike Robe etal. I AM NOT speaking for and CAN NOT speak for Mike Rhodes. These are strictly my views:
If you and the RANCOR/collective folks want to sit down and calmly discuss issues (and not make threats about stealing the CA, or issue warnings to those involved with the CA to "watch their backs"), I suspect you will have to contact Mike Rhodes directly. He provided his email address in an earlier post in this thread, and encouraged those directly involved in the controversy to contact him.
In that same post, he made it clear that discussion of this controversy did not belong here on IndyBay. I agree with the comment that the longer this thread lasts, the more polarized things get.
As the Queer Eye... columnist, I'm getting questions from the local LGBT community about this situation and why should my community have anything to do with progressives/radicals. Some in my community feel this is potentially harmful. A few have suggested the community would be better off if we had no connection to you or this situation.
Tremendous harm has been done. It's time to set aside rad egos and end this stupidity.
If you and the RANCOR/collective folks want to sit down and calmly discuss issues (and not make threats about stealing the CA, or issue warnings to those involved with the CA to "watch their backs"), I suspect you will have to contact Mike Rhodes directly. He provided his email address in an earlier post in this thread, and encouraged those directly involved in the controversy to contact him.
In that same post, he made it clear that discussion of this controversy did not belong here on IndyBay. I agree with the comment that the longer this thread lasts, the more polarized things get.
As the Queer Eye... columnist, I'm getting questions from the local LGBT community about this situation and why should my community have anything to do with progressives/radicals. Some in my community feel this is potentially harmful. A few have suggested the community would be better off if we had no connection to you or this situation.
Tremendous harm has been done. It's time to set aside rad egos and end this stupidity.
Dan--
Thanks for responding. I would like to address a few points. First, people who anonymously and without cause or evidence accuse a member of our collective of being an infiltrator should watch their back because RANCOR people back each other up just as I would hope your community or any community backs up its own members. Second, I noticed Mike pulled out of this discussion when Stephen and Teresa Hele and others started calling him on some of his comments and distortions--most egregiously the implication that Stephen had "quit" as editor. (When in fact Mike had usurped Stephen's duties despite the original agreement, making Stephen's duties irrelevant.)
Third, I hope you will refer members of your community to this thread--all the postings all the way through--so they can get a full picture of what happened. As far as we are concerned neither you nor Mike nor anyone from the CA has addressed the core issues: Rhodes/he Board reneged on the original agreement, then they didn't want to form a collective to govern the paper, then in the midst of dealing with the problem they cancelled a key meeting and then rejected almost all of our July submission--using false allegations regarding the law and contending that our submission made the paper appear to support "dometic terrorism" (FBI terminology)--and told us to form our own paper. I hope members of your community would understand our serious concern--is this the way members of a community in alliance treat one another?
Will someone--you, Mike, somebody--address these real concerns?
OK--so, if it is possible for you or somebody to try to set up some open forum where anyone and everyone from the progressive community can be present to hash this out, I think RANCOR folks and others not with RANCOR but who also worked on the culture, arts, music section would attend. Frankly, we aren't interested in e-mailing Rhodes. We think he has dealt with us in a most unscrupulous manner in the past. In any case, hopefully some amends can be made and we can at least agree to support one another on the left, not bad mouth one another--yes, we did our share in the statement. But that was after a lot of shit was dumped on RANCOR, and not just fom the CA.
Finally, whatever your community might think of our actions, I can absolutely assure you of this: we are opposed to all forms of hierarchy--old over young, white over colored, men over women, rich over poor, humans over animals, and straights over gays. If you need someobody to support you in an action please do not hesitate to call on us.
I urge you as I urge Steve Malm and Kelly Borkert to try to be a go-between in this.
Thanks for responding. I would like to address a few points. First, people who anonymously and without cause or evidence accuse a member of our collective of being an infiltrator should watch their back because RANCOR people back each other up just as I would hope your community or any community backs up its own members. Second, I noticed Mike pulled out of this discussion when Stephen and Teresa Hele and others started calling him on some of his comments and distortions--most egregiously the implication that Stephen had "quit" as editor. (When in fact Mike had usurped Stephen's duties despite the original agreement, making Stephen's duties irrelevant.)
Third, I hope you will refer members of your community to this thread--all the postings all the way through--so they can get a full picture of what happened. As far as we are concerned neither you nor Mike nor anyone from the CA has addressed the core issues: Rhodes/he Board reneged on the original agreement, then they didn't want to form a collective to govern the paper, then in the midst of dealing with the problem they cancelled a key meeting and then rejected almost all of our July submission--using false allegations regarding the law and contending that our submission made the paper appear to support "dometic terrorism" (FBI terminology)--and told us to form our own paper. I hope members of your community would understand our serious concern--is this the way members of a community in alliance treat one another?
Will someone--you, Mike, somebody--address these real concerns?
OK--so, if it is possible for you or somebody to try to set up some open forum where anyone and everyone from the progressive community can be present to hash this out, I think RANCOR folks and others not with RANCOR but who also worked on the culture, arts, music section would attend. Frankly, we aren't interested in e-mailing Rhodes. We think he has dealt with us in a most unscrupulous manner in the past. In any case, hopefully some amends can be made and we can at least agree to support one another on the left, not bad mouth one another--yes, we did our share in the statement. But that was after a lot of shit was dumped on RANCOR, and not just fom the CA.
Finally, whatever your community might think of our actions, I can absolutely assure you of this: we are opposed to all forms of hierarchy--old over young, white over colored, men over women, rich over poor, humans over animals, and straights over gays. If you need someobody to support you in an action please do not hesitate to call on us.
I urge you as I urge Steve Malm and Kelly Borkert to try to be a go-between in this.
As a follow-up....
I honestly believe Mike Rhodes pulled out of this thread as a result of a suggestion I made last weekend, and not for any other reason. Until you approach him--I won't run interference for you--nothing will get done.
No one accused Nick DeGraff of being an infiltrator. You guys jumped to the conclusion that he was.
However, many people (independently of each other, by the way) in the progressive community--myself included--have had questions about a particular individual's activities. I have been uncomfortable about this person for close to a year now. So, there's been a lot of smoke billowing for a long time. And, as the old saying goes: "where there's smoke, there's likely fire."
I really hope this ends. The side effects of this could be really nasty. For example, my "day job" found some of the statements made (which I referenced in my posting last night) very troubling, and turned to State law enforcement for assistance. This matter, and the people involved, are being looked at.
I honestly believe Mike Rhodes pulled out of this thread as a result of a suggestion I made last weekend, and not for any other reason. Until you approach him--I won't run interference for you--nothing will get done.
No one accused Nick DeGraff of being an infiltrator. You guys jumped to the conclusion that he was.
However, many people (independently of each other, by the way) in the progressive community--myself included--have had questions about a particular individual's activities. I have been uncomfortable about this person for close to a year now. So, there's been a lot of smoke billowing for a long time. And, as the old saying goes: "where there's smoke, there's likely fire."
I really hope this ends. The side effects of this could be really nasty. For example, my "day job" found some of the statements made (which I referenced in my posting last night) very troubling, and turned to State law enforcement for assistance. This matter, and the people involved, are being looked at.
. . . . people have a disagreement, and they "turn to law enforcement for assistance"?
I reread the posts here, and, unless some of the posts were deleted by the editors, aside from a 'watch your backs' comment, which was pretty vague, I'm not seeing why anyone would do it
unless, of course, that's the way liberal progressives try to close down disputes when they get too contentious, by utilizing the police as their allies when the usual methods fail
what a great idea, getting upset with RANCOR because they publicized a dispute with CA, and then making sure that law enforcement scrutinizes them
perhaps, RANCOR really should go in another direction, as it appears that it's association with CA only serves the purpose of facilitating law enforcement surveillance of them
really, if the organizations affiliated with CA prefer a liberal, as opposed to radical, political approach, just show some backbone, and say that there's no basis for a coalition with RANCOR, that the disagreements are too great
and then, both can try to be successful independent of one another
there's no need to utilize such embarassing measures, like calling upon local law enforcement, the same local law enforcement that spies upon the peace movement in Fresno, and destroy your credibility, just part ways
the final comment is really disturbing, "This matter and the people involved, are being looked at"
hopefully, people involved with CA that are still monitoring this discussion will step forward and repudiate this kind of action, instead of engaging in character assassination, as some have done
that's what you would normally expect from a purported "progressive publication"
--Richard
[I really hope this ends. The side effects of this could be really nasty. For example, my "day job" found some of the statements made (which I referenced in my posting last night) very troubling, and turned to State law enforcement for assistance. This matter, and the people involved, are being looked at.]
I reread the posts here, and, unless some of the posts were deleted by the editors, aside from a 'watch your backs' comment, which was pretty vague, I'm not seeing why anyone would do it
unless, of course, that's the way liberal progressives try to close down disputes when they get too contentious, by utilizing the police as their allies when the usual methods fail
what a great idea, getting upset with RANCOR because they publicized a dispute with CA, and then making sure that law enforcement scrutinizes them
perhaps, RANCOR really should go in another direction, as it appears that it's association with CA only serves the purpose of facilitating law enforcement surveillance of them
really, if the organizations affiliated with CA prefer a liberal, as opposed to radical, political approach, just show some backbone, and say that there's no basis for a coalition with RANCOR, that the disagreements are too great
and then, both can try to be successful independent of one another
there's no need to utilize such embarassing measures, like calling upon local law enforcement, the same local law enforcement that spies upon the peace movement in Fresno, and destroy your credibility, just part ways
the final comment is really disturbing, "This matter and the people involved, are being looked at"
hopefully, people involved with CA that are still monitoring this discussion will step forward and repudiate this kind of action, instead of engaging in character assassination, as some have done
that's what you would normally expect from a purported "progressive publication"
--Richard
[I really hope this ends. The side effects of this could be really nasty. For example, my "day job" found some of the statements made (which I referenced in my posting last night) very troubling, and turned to State law enforcement for assistance. This matter, and the people involved, are being looked at.]
Some clarification is in order...
First of all, I have NO connection to the CA editorial board. I do NOT participate in any decisionmaking by anybody. I do NOT attend meetings, nor do I care to. My only involvement with the CA : I contribute a monthly column to the paper and do not participate in the internal politics (thank God!).
I work for a government agency that REQUIRES us to report anything that might affect my safety or the safety of other employees in the workplace. There were threatening remarks made. Remarks that made me feel personally unsafe.
When I discussed this with my immediate supervisor (who is definitely no reactionary), he was very concerned and insisted that I follow agency policy. My agency has turned to State of California law enforcement for assistance.
It's one thing to have a disagrement; it's another to threaten vandalism, theft, and suggest that people who have nothing to do with the hassle "better watch their backs." As far as I'm concerned, that is a threat to my personal safety; my agency agrees with that assessment so it is being looked into.
Ill advised statements sometimes have unanticipated results.
First of all, I have NO connection to the CA editorial board. I do NOT participate in any decisionmaking by anybody. I do NOT attend meetings, nor do I care to. My only involvement with the CA : I contribute a monthly column to the paper and do not participate in the internal politics (thank God!).
I work for a government agency that REQUIRES us to report anything that might affect my safety or the safety of other employees in the workplace. There were threatening remarks made. Remarks that made me feel personally unsafe.
When I discussed this with my immediate supervisor (who is definitely no reactionary), he was very concerned and insisted that I follow agency policy. My agency has turned to State of California law enforcement for assistance.
It's one thing to have a disagrement; it's another to threaten vandalism, theft, and suggest that people who have nothing to do with the hassle "better watch their backs." As far as I'm concerned, that is a threat to my personal safety; my agency agrees with that assessment so it is being looked into.
Ill advised statements sometimes have unanticipated results.
I do not believe it is possible to intervene in this affair because the wounds are so deep, they require the parties involved to make the effort. Go betweens would imply insufficient respect by each side toward the other. Man, if you guys think so little of each other that you can't pick up the phone and dial, what portent for success?
This whole thing with Dan and the cops is sheer nonsense and shows why you never try to solve something this complicated in a medium that lacks tone and voice. Things get all blown out of proportion.
I hope people who read all this stuff will try and keep some perspective on everybody's alleged dirty laundry. If any of us had our divorce papers blasted all over the internet, none of us would look very damn good.
And, Mike, all this BS about people being antagonistic toward youth? How weak. That's like people saying we criticize Bush simply because we hate him. It never seems to come up WHY PEOPLE HATE THE GUY. There is no substitute for good judgment and, lo and behold, sometimes experience does find right and better action. You may call a desire to effect good judgment hieretical, but I'm sorry, it just ain't so. Sometime we'll get together and I'll tell you about all the crap and demonstrations I did when I was young - same issue: injustice.
I think almost everybody recognizes a good idea.
I wish all of you well.
This whole thing with Dan and the cops is sheer nonsense and shows why you never try to solve something this complicated in a medium that lacks tone and voice. Things get all blown out of proportion.
I hope people who read all this stuff will try and keep some perspective on everybody's alleged dirty laundry. If any of us had our divorce papers blasted all over the internet, none of us would look very damn good.
And, Mike, all this BS about people being antagonistic toward youth? How weak. That's like people saying we criticize Bush simply because we hate him. It never seems to come up WHY PEOPLE HATE THE GUY. There is no substitute for good judgment and, lo and behold, sometimes experience does find right and better action. You may call a desire to effect good judgment hieretical, but I'm sorry, it just ain't so. Sometime we'll get together and I'll tell you about all the crap and demonstrations I did when I was young - same issue: injustice.
I think almost everybody recognizes a good idea.
I wish all of you well.
To Dan:
So are you saying that you or someone you know made the allegations about Nick DeGraff? Anyway, you said you have had long-standing concerns, "about a particular person". And the original posting about an alleged informer left no doubt that the reference was to Nick. If you have some solid evidence that Nick or someone in the proressive community in Fresno is up to something why not bring it out? " Believe me, if it is Nick you are talking about, having worked with him a fair bit on a variety of issues I would be the first person interested to know what he has allegedly done. Otherwise, it seems to me that you are engaging in written defamation of character--libel.
Regarding "watch your back"--you should keep in mind that both times I used the phrase I had no idea who the person was that made the charges against Nick. I still don't. But if you want me to be specific, this is exactly what I meant when I used the phrase: by attacking Nick you are attacking a RANCOR person and someone who has worked hard in the progressive community in Fresno. When you attack a member of our commuity and the broader Fesno progressive community then who is going to watch your back for you? You have to watch your own back. As much as we might be upset about how the CA Board and Mike Rhodes treated us, we have never and would never accuse them of being informers (unless there was solid evidence--and then we would do it publicly and we would identify ourselves). As a matter of fact, as I said in my post to you, RANCOR is still prepared to stand up for your community or any progressive group in Fresno or any group of marginalized and oppressed people (or animals, for that matter--witness our ongoing Ringling protest during which five people have experienced wrongful arrest). So anyway, somebody betrayed Nick and they should watch their back because now, if it becomes known who did it, nobody is going to be watching theirs.
To Steve--
So what is the beef against RANCOR or the radials/youths? I don't get it. We made a strong statement--we were very angry at being treated disrespectfully. And once again, the core issues in this dispute--reneging on the original agreement, CA board and Mike R not wanting to form a collective, cancelling a key meeting to deal with differences, and then rejecting our submission and kicking us off the paper--have never been addressed. Aside from our language in the statement--which, while strong is not unjustified given the circumstances--what is it that we did that causes people to be down on us?
I do hope we can get together sometime.
For now, I have to say that it seems that I was wrong and you were right. Attempting to carry out some sort of dialogue in this--a relatively public space--has failed.
At least there is still a space to present news. We'll have more--interesting news with extraordinary video--on the Ringling protest very soon.
Finally, as RANCOR has always held, the left is a continuum; respect us and we'll respect you. We are all in the same fight for human dignity, social and economic justice, defense of the earth and animal liberation.
Peace.
So are you saying that you or someone you know made the allegations about Nick DeGraff? Anyway, you said you have had long-standing concerns, "about a particular person". And the original posting about an alleged informer left no doubt that the reference was to Nick. If you have some solid evidence that Nick or someone in the proressive community in Fresno is up to something why not bring it out? " Believe me, if it is Nick you are talking about, having worked with him a fair bit on a variety of issues I would be the first person interested to know what he has allegedly done. Otherwise, it seems to me that you are engaging in written defamation of character--libel.
Regarding "watch your back"--you should keep in mind that both times I used the phrase I had no idea who the person was that made the charges against Nick. I still don't. But if you want me to be specific, this is exactly what I meant when I used the phrase: by attacking Nick you are attacking a RANCOR person and someone who has worked hard in the progressive community in Fresno. When you attack a member of our commuity and the broader Fesno progressive community then who is going to watch your back for you? You have to watch your own back. As much as we might be upset about how the CA Board and Mike Rhodes treated us, we have never and would never accuse them of being informers (unless there was solid evidence--and then we would do it publicly and we would identify ourselves). As a matter of fact, as I said in my post to you, RANCOR is still prepared to stand up for your community or any progressive group in Fresno or any group of marginalized and oppressed people (or animals, for that matter--witness our ongoing Ringling protest during which five people have experienced wrongful arrest). So anyway, somebody betrayed Nick and they should watch their back because now, if it becomes known who did it, nobody is going to be watching theirs.
To Steve--
So what is the beef against RANCOR or the radials/youths? I don't get it. We made a strong statement--we were very angry at being treated disrespectfully. And once again, the core issues in this dispute--reneging on the original agreement, CA board and Mike R not wanting to form a collective, cancelling a key meeting to deal with differences, and then rejecting our submission and kicking us off the paper--have never been addressed. Aside from our language in the statement--which, while strong is not unjustified given the circumstances--what is it that we did that causes people to be down on us?
I do hope we can get together sometime.
For now, I have to say that it seems that I was wrong and you were right. Attempting to carry out some sort of dialogue in this--a relatively public space--has failed.
At least there is still a space to present news. We'll have more--interesting news with extraordinary video--on the Ringling protest very soon.
Finally, as RANCOR has always held, the left is a continuum; respect us and we'll respect you. We are all in the same fight for human dignity, social and economic justice, defense of the earth and animal liberation.
Peace.
To Mike (and Steve and everyone else on this thread)
Mike Robe brought up RANCOR "standing up" with (I'm inserting here) the LGBT community. Mike, I hope you'll understand that many in the queer community are worried by unsolicited "support" from folks who wear black and who partially mask their faces.
For better or worse, many believe that RANCOR = anarchists (people in black engaging in vandalism and occasionally fracturing people's skulls in street demos--the recent anti-G8 demo in SF comes to mind).
The queer community in the Valley views things much differently than in SF. The sort of street theatre that goes on in SF simply will not play well with queers here.
It's my understanding that folks in black et al showed up in Tracy for the protest supporting the Gay Straight Alliance in the high schools there. Some of the organizers from the queer community were very uncomfortable with their presence. The queer community embraces non-violence, and the unannounced appearance of a group that carries the label of "violence" is unsettling.
I hope that (if it hasn't happened already) RANCOR et al would enter discussions with local queer community folks, such as the local Marriage Equality CA chapter. We welcome straight allies. But we also don't want any fallout from it either.
Mike Robe brought up RANCOR "standing up" with (I'm inserting here) the LGBT community. Mike, I hope you'll understand that many in the queer community are worried by unsolicited "support" from folks who wear black and who partially mask their faces.
For better or worse, many believe that RANCOR = anarchists (people in black engaging in vandalism and occasionally fracturing people's skulls in street demos--the recent anti-G8 demo in SF comes to mind).
The queer community in the Valley views things much differently than in SF. The sort of street theatre that goes on in SF simply will not play well with queers here.
It's my understanding that folks in black et al showed up in Tracy for the protest supporting the Gay Straight Alliance in the high schools there. Some of the organizers from the queer community were very uncomfortable with their presence. The queer community embraces non-violence, and the unannounced appearance of a group that carries the label of "violence" is unsettling.
I hope that (if it hasn't happened already) RANCOR et al would enter discussions with local queer community folks, such as the local Marriage Equality CA chapter. We welcome straight allies. But we also don't want any fallout from it either.
You have already called the Feds supposedly on some bs "threat" and you are obviously a little further right than most people once thought you were...
Are you and some of the other CA folks really capitalist pigs...
Oh, and though personally i think that the queer community should have the same rights as the straight community, you should maybe check out Gay Shame's website, since it seems like you need to expand your conciousness a little bit...
BTW, please stop trying to stab my homies in the back, as some of us still believe in a broader sense of community and hope you will come back to the proper side of things...
Forward, Always Forward - @
Are you and some of the other CA folks really capitalist pigs...
Oh, and though personally i think that the queer community should have the same rights as the straight community, you should maybe check out Gay Shame's website, since it seems like you need to expand your conciousness a little bit...
BTW, please stop trying to stab my homies in the back, as some of us still believe in a broader sense of community and hope you will come back to the proper side of things...
Forward, Always Forward - @
For more information:
http://www.gayshamesf.org/
Oh, a cheap shot!
I'm well aware of GayShame. I also am aware they don't endorse gay marriage--a position I agree with most of the time. If your reference was made to impress me, it didn't.
As for the bs threat. My employer is the one who turned this over to the California Highway Patrol (a state agency, not the feds--you better brush up on things like this--damages your credibility). Not everything that went on in June and July has been discussed on IndyBay (and it won't be). My supervisor (who is very involved in the progressive community insisted this be looked into.
My politics are not, and never have been, far left. I'm moderate left on social issues, and moderate right on fiscal issues. I don't believe in passing new laws when the ones already in place just need to be enforced.
As for "coming out" is concerned, I'm already one of the more visible queers in this town. My photo is plastered in Community Alliance, was plastered all over QueerFresno when I was contributing to that website, and my NewsLink column has made it up to the Bay Area. People stop me on the street to talk about what I do. I can't be more "out" than that. I've made no secret of my politics either--that's how I ended up doing Queer Eye for the Alliance.
I have nothing to feel guilty about in this situation. Let's move on to bigger and better things, like putting a stop to the attempt to do away with domestic partnerships in this state--or do you even care?
I'm well aware of GayShame. I also am aware they don't endorse gay marriage--a position I agree with most of the time. If your reference was made to impress me, it didn't.
As for the bs threat. My employer is the one who turned this over to the California Highway Patrol (a state agency, not the feds--you better brush up on things like this--damages your credibility). Not everything that went on in June and July has been discussed on IndyBay (and it won't be). My supervisor (who is very involved in the progressive community insisted this be looked into.
My politics are not, and never have been, far left. I'm moderate left on social issues, and moderate right on fiscal issues. I don't believe in passing new laws when the ones already in place just need to be enforced.
As for "coming out" is concerned, I'm already one of the more visible queers in this town. My photo is plastered in Community Alliance, was plastered all over QueerFresno when I was contributing to that website, and my NewsLink column has made it up to the Bay Area. People stop me on the street to talk about what I do. I can't be more "out" than that. I've made no secret of my politics either--that's how I ended up doing Queer Eye for the Alliance.
I have nothing to feel guilty about in this situation. Let's move on to bigger and better things, like putting a stop to the attempt to do away with domestic partnerships in this state--or do you even care?
One of the things we have learned from all this is that there are those who are selectively radical by their place as members of a group that is discriminated against. Sometimes we assume that because a person is a part of such a group then empathy with other marginalized groups will naturally follow. I am amazed that such a person can remain aloof to the fight for justice by others.
But here we learn that you can wear the badge of liberal but choose to ignore everything outside of your own little world. Are you an activist who can not get behind the struggles of others in the fight for equality? Is your activism ignoring the political and economic realities of the world around us? Do you fail to see that economic conservatism is the same thing as economic oppression? Is it ok to have healthcare for your partner at the workplace when the workplace won't pay a decent wage and fires people for organizing?
But here we learn that you can wear the badge of liberal but choose to ignore everything outside of your own little world. Are you an activist who can not get behind the struggles of others in the fight for equality? Is your activism ignoring the political and economic realities of the world around us? Do you fail to see that economic conservatism is the same thing as economic oppression? Is it ok to have healthcare for your partner at the workplace when the workplace won't pay a decent wage and fires people for organizing?
One of the things we have learned from all this is that there are those who are selectively radical by their place as members of a group that is discriminated against. Sometimes we assume that because a person is a part of such a group then empathy with other marginalized groups will naturally follow. I am amazed that such a person can remain aloof to the fight for justice by others.
But here we learn that you can wear the badge of liberal but choose to ignore everything outside of your own little world. Are you an activist who can not get behind the struggles of others in the fight for equality? Is your activism ignoring the political and economic realities of the world around us? Do you fail to see that economic conservatism is the same thing as economic oppression? Is it ok to have healthcare for your partner at the workplace when the workplace won't pay a decent wage and fires people for organizing?
But here we learn that you can wear the badge of liberal but choose to ignore everything outside of your own little world. Are you an activist who can not get behind the struggles of others in the fight for equality? Is your activism ignoring the political and economic realities of the world around us? Do you fail to see that economic conservatism is the same thing as economic oppression? Is it ok to have healthcare for your partner at the workplace when the workplace won't pay a decent wage and fires people for organizing?
I think my comments above say what needs to be said.
I abhor the radical Left as much as I do the radical Right. Their tactics are the same--repress those who don't agree with their position.
I equate the average politician of all political parties as being 10 notches below pedophile Catholic priests--pandering to their extremes, having the ethics of an alley cat.
I'd love to see the moderates reject the Dems and the Repubs and form a third party. Both the Left and the Right don't represent the great mass of people in this country--they don't represent me at all. If my fellow moderates could organize a viable party and toss the bums out, we just might get some things done in this country towards solving major issues.
I abhor the radical Left as much as I do the radical Right. Their tactics are the same--repress those who don't agree with their position.
I equate the average politician of all political parties as being 10 notches below pedophile Catholic priests--pandering to their extremes, having the ethics of an alley cat.
I'd love to see the moderates reject the Dems and the Repubs and form a third party. Both the Left and the Right don't represent the great mass of people in this country--they don't represent me at all. If my fellow moderates could organize a viable party and toss the bums out, we just might get some things done in this country towards solving major issues.
"I have nothing to feel guilty about in this situation. Let's move on to bigger and better things, like putting a stop to the attempt to do away with domestic partnerships in this state--or do you even care?" - dan
i am not asking you to feel guilty i am asking you to look at groups like gay shame and what they are saying about where the "queer" community is going with focusing on their own personal issue of wanting to get married to the state, like all the other sick straight people who want to be validated by the church and state(as if love and partnership comes from up high or from a courthouse). When it is obvious that rights are not given or guaranteed by the state, and that the only way one can have any overall rights and freedom is by not eroding the freedom and rights of others. So when you just try to fight for your own narrow cause and ignore, and actually attack a community of folks who believe in a broader sense of mutual aid and solidarity. You are in fact still in a closet and obviously somehow disconnected from the fight on the streets of NYC.
And I am not talking about being radical on the right or left, or at all trying to defend any improper behavior between people on either side...But i am questioning where you are standing, if you are standing at all, and what you standing for...Because it seems like you are on the wrong side brother
i am sure that you know that it is not a straight road to get to the other side of the mountain, and it takes a lot of people to either move that mountain or bring the community up and over it...and revolutionaries, or forward thinking people, do not need to work with people that work for same dept that infiltrated their peace group, much less get turned into another agency which is part of a much larger agency that you are petioning to get married to(whether state or fed, its all part of the same counter intelligence program)...
i hope that gets through to you somehow in your little bubble of a reality that you have created for yourself and i hope you realize why a lot of people just won't give a shit if you aren't figuring out that solidarity isn't a four letter word...and that real solidarity involves walking in others shoes and walking in their struggle...whether that be stonewall, or the workers and animals in the packing houses that are collectively led to slaughter in the name of consumption, or a community group or alliance that is supposed to work together and not turn its supposed allies into any particular authority that runs counter to the supposed collective goals of the group...
oh and by the way...i used to work with a group of queer folks and allies at the college i went to that was called Queer Liberation Front and we drew inspiration from stonewall and a long history of struggle in our various communities...
i am not asking you to feel guilty i am asking you to look at groups like gay shame and what they are saying about where the "queer" community is going with focusing on their own personal issue of wanting to get married to the state, like all the other sick straight people who want to be validated by the church and state(as if love and partnership comes from up high or from a courthouse). When it is obvious that rights are not given or guaranteed by the state, and that the only way one can have any overall rights and freedom is by not eroding the freedom and rights of others. So when you just try to fight for your own narrow cause and ignore, and actually attack a community of folks who believe in a broader sense of mutual aid and solidarity. You are in fact still in a closet and obviously somehow disconnected from the fight on the streets of NYC.
And I am not talking about being radical on the right or left, or at all trying to defend any improper behavior between people on either side...But i am questioning where you are standing, if you are standing at all, and what you standing for...Because it seems like you are on the wrong side brother
i am sure that you know that it is not a straight road to get to the other side of the mountain, and it takes a lot of people to either move that mountain or bring the community up and over it...and revolutionaries, or forward thinking people, do not need to work with people that work for same dept that infiltrated their peace group, much less get turned into another agency which is part of a much larger agency that you are petioning to get married to(whether state or fed, its all part of the same counter intelligence program)...
i hope that gets through to you somehow in your little bubble of a reality that you have created for yourself and i hope you realize why a lot of people just won't give a shit if you aren't figuring out that solidarity isn't a four letter word...and that real solidarity involves walking in others shoes and walking in their struggle...whether that be stonewall, or the workers and animals in the packing houses that are collectively led to slaughter in the name of consumption, or a community group or alliance that is supposed to work together and not turn its supposed allies into any particular authority that runs counter to the supposed collective goals of the group...
oh and by the way...i used to work with a group of queer folks and allies at the college i went to that was called Queer Liberation Front and we drew inspiration from stonewall and a long history of struggle in our various communities...
Frankly dear, I couldn't give a damn what you think of me.
However, your prattlings require a response.
I'm going to assume that you're up in the Bay Area, given your lack of knowledge about the Fresno queer community. So, here's some "Fresno Queer 101"
There are probably 25,000+ LGBTQ folks in the City of Fresno. The city is dominated politically and socially by born-again Christians. It is an article of faith that every high level city official praises Jesus when he/she is promoted to a higher level in city government.
The local LGBT community is tolerated as long as we don't make waves--"out of sight, out of mind." But, God help us if we upset the status quo. The vast majority of the community keeps a very low profile.
The local Pride parade draws around 2,000 people every year. The biggest event is our film festival, which pulls 7,500 queers in.
Many in the queer community wish the annual Pride event would just go away. Not because they believe it's too commercalized, but because they feel it makes queers too visible.
What do I care about? I care about the fact that gay men are arrested for lewd conduct if they don't pay off the cop who's blackmailing them.
I care about the queer kids who are being targeted for "conversion therapy" by the "nice" Christians. I care about the under-18s who are being charged with sex crimes because both kids are under the age of consent. I care about the homeless queer kids who sell their bodies to survive.
I care about gay men who are specifically targeted by our local gangbangers to be robbed and assaulted because they are queer. The 'bangers think we make prime targets because we're "weak"
I get pissed off when queer community leaders work to keep the national media out of Fresno following the Matt Shepherd killing--when a local young queer is gunned down outside a gay bar here during an apparent street robbery. Our local leaders didn't want the murder spun into a hate crime--would have made the queer community too visible.
I care when a gay-owned business catering to queers is harassed out of business.
I care when my community is targeted--by anybody.
I care when the queer community won't support the only LGBT domestic violence shelter in the country, located right here in Fresno.
Many in the community find me way too radical. I've been called a "cop hater" by queers upset with my criticism of the local police.
You criticized me for working for the State of California. Well, I've been protected by my employer. I can speak freely without having to worry about being harmed, like losing my job. Here in Fresno, "freedom" to speak is totally dependent on what one says. Say the wrong thing, you're out of a job.
Yes, I could care less about the streets of NYC. To me, that's b.s. There are enough real issues of survival--SURVIVAL--confronting the queer community for me to care about what a bunch of mostly straight lefties are up to.
However, your prattlings require a response.
I'm going to assume that you're up in the Bay Area, given your lack of knowledge about the Fresno queer community. So, here's some "Fresno Queer 101"
There are probably 25,000+ LGBTQ folks in the City of Fresno. The city is dominated politically and socially by born-again Christians. It is an article of faith that every high level city official praises Jesus when he/she is promoted to a higher level in city government.
The local LGBT community is tolerated as long as we don't make waves--"out of sight, out of mind." But, God help us if we upset the status quo. The vast majority of the community keeps a very low profile.
The local Pride parade draws around 2,000 people every year. The biggest event is our film festival, which pulls 7,500 queers in.
Many in the queer community wish the annual Pride event would just go away. Not because they believe it's too commercalized, but because they feel it makes queers too visible.
What do I care about? I care about the fact that gay men are arrested for lewd conduct if they don't pay off the cop who's blackmailing them.
I care about the queer kids who are being targeted for "conversion therapy" by the "nice" Christians. I care about the under-18s who are being charged with sex crimes because both kids are under the age of consent. I care about the homeless queer kids who sell their bodies to survive.
I care about gay men who are specifically targeted by our local gangbangers to be robbed and assaulted because they are queer. The 'bangers think we make prime targets because we're "weak"
I get pissed off when queer community leaders work to keep the national media out of Fresno following the Matt Shepherd killing--when a local young queer is gunned down outside a gay bar here during an apparent street robbery. Our local leaders didn't want the murder spun into a hate crime--would have made the queer community too visible.
I care when a gay-owned business catering to queers is harassed out of business.
I care when my community is targeted--by anybody.
I care when the queer community won't support the only LGBT domestic violence shelter in the country, located right here in Fresno.
Many in the community find me way too radical. I've been called a "cop hater" by queers upset with my criticism of the local police.
You criticized me for working for the State of California. Well, I've been protected by my employer. I can speak freely without having to worry about being harmed, like losing my job. Here in Fresno, "freedom" to speak is totally dependent on what one says. Say the wrong thing, you're out of a job.
Yes, I could care less about the streets of NYC. To me, that's b.s. There are enough real issues of survival--SURVIVAL--confronting the queer community for me to care about what a bunch of mostly straight lefties are up to.
I live here, in fresno, and i don't so much consider myself a lefty, nor do i at all strive to be or identify as straight.
And believe it or not I care about queer folks just as much as you, I just believe that all the different forms of oppression are so entertwined that we cannot focus on any single piece of the puzzle without paying attention to the rest.
Long Live the Jigsaw Youth!! The "political" is personal...
?? Do you know which side you will be on when the riots come ??
?? Do you eat twinkies ??
?? Do you like Feinstein ??
And believe it or not I care about queer folks just as much as you, I just believe that all the different forms of oppression are so entertwined that we cannot focus on any single piece of the puzzle without paying attention to the rest.
Long Live the Jigsaw Youth!! The "political" is personal...
?? Do you know which side you will be on when the riots come ??
?? Do you eat twinkies ??
?? Do you like Feinstein ??
Actually, I enjoy the fact I'm bothering you, Mr. "not so straight and narrow..." I don't know why, and I don't care. So, go away now.
Maybe it's cause i am under your skin as much as you are under mine. I understand survival only too well, but i also understand what happens to a person when they blame everything they do on the twinkies all around them. And if you want to talk about cops, and the history of police interactions with the queer community and other oppressed communities in this country....well then the story and struggle would obviously continue.
However, if you want to disconnect yourself from the struggles of other oppressed people, than go ahead and go fight for the state and get married to them.
I'll stop asking, but I will tell you that you are on the wrong path if you insist on going that way. For that path is very straight and narrow, and will only lead to your death and the same old story for those around you...
So Babble On...
And some of us will continue to be a virus in the system...
Celebrating Resistance and Dancing on the Graves of Apathy...
However, if you want to disconnect yourself from the struggles of other oppressed people, than go ahead and go fight for the state and get married to them.
I'll stop asking, but I will tell you that you are on the wrong path if you insist on going that way. For that path is very straight and narrow, and will only lead to your death and the same old story for those around you...
So Babble On...
And some of us will continue to be a virus in the system...
Celebrating Resistance and Dancing on the Graves of Apathy...
No, you're not under my skin, stonewall. I know I've gotten under yours. I enjoy doing that to people.
I follow my own path; I follow no one else's.
Did you see the column in September's NewsLink? The question has been posed to the queer community: are radical Leftists the sort of friends the community wants? Only the community can answer that.
Now, I have things to do--like help the fire department find the clown who's been burning down queer-owned businesses here in Fresno. That's a much better use of my time.
So, I now sign off this thread. I hope you find what you're looking for. I have. And, I'm comfortable in my own skin today.
Adios!
I follow my own path; I follow no one else's.
Did you see the column in September's NewsLink? The question has been posed to the queer community: are radical Leftists the sort of friends the community wants? Only the community can answer that.
Now, I have things to do--like help the fire department find the clown who's been burning down queer-owned businesses here in Fresno. That's a much better use of my time.
So, I now sign off this thread. I hope you find what you're looking for. I have. And, I'm comfortable in my own skin today.
Adios!
You are comfortable...I am never quit comfortable because people are always labeling me and other folks I know and trying to stereotype us into a box. And in your so called efforts to help one so called community, you are alienating another. That you get off on creating conflict is not a problem I want to deal with, nor do I wanna deal with your short sighted selfishness.
You might as well join an army of one...
and march off into the sunset to defend the state...
I'll continue to strive to find some comfort in the fact that at least I know that my own struggle is connected to the struggle I see in so many other people and communities around me.
and I do commend you on working on defending the businesses on Maroa cause I sure as hell think that the state and local govt isn't going to be too much help in trying to protect queer owned establishments, especially if they are not putting money in the politicians pockets.
You might as well join an army of one...
and march off into the sunset to defend the state...
I'll continue to strive to find some comfort in the fact that at least I know that my own struggle is connected to the struggle I see in so many other people and communities around me.
and I do commend you on working on defending the businesses on Maroa cause I sure as hell think that the state and local govt isn't going to be too much help in trying to protect queer owned establishments, especially if they are not putting money in the politicians pockets.
So, exactly...
The sense I got is that you've embraced the rad Left because you feel you and your friends are being stereotyped. Right? It sounds like you're really seeking conformity even as you say you're not. And, guess what, you still get stereotyped. What an oxymoron!
It's not in my job description as a commentator to be kissy-kissy. If I offend your sensitivities, too bloody bad. Frankly, it is very presumptuous of you to decide for the queer community whether it wants to be linked to folks who, at the very least, endorse domestic terrorism. I happen to believe the community, after being armed with the facts, should make that choice.
After the youth collective "took their ball and went home" at the end of June, everyone connected with the newspaper received a warning "not to turn your back on those guys." This warning did not, by the way, come from Mike
Rhodes. Given the fact I was not at the meeting, I had to rely upon information from people who were there or directly involved in the events. I had no reason to doubt what I was being told.
Given the actions (what was described by one person present as a "hostage taking") and statements by the youth collective or its spokesperson during the June meeting and since--some posted here, others not-- the warning I received made me feel personally threatened. Instead of taking the law into my own hands, I opted to follow my boss's orders to obey our agency's policy. .
The sense I got is that you've embraced the rad Left because you feel you and your friends are being stereotyped. Right? It sounds like you're really seeking conformity even as you say you're not. And, guess what, you still get stereotyped. What an oxymoron!
It's not in my job description as a commentator to be kissy-kissy. If I offend your sensitivities, too bloody bad. Frankly, it is very presumptuous of you to decide for the queer community whether it wants to be linked to folks who, at the very least, endorse domestic terrorism. I happen to believe the community, after being armed with the facts, should make that choice.
After the youth collective "took their ball and went home" at the end of June, everyone connected with the newspaper received a warning "not to turn your back on those guys." This warning did not, by the way, come from Mike
Rhodes. Given the fact I was not at the meeting, I had to rely upon information from people who were there or directly involved in the events. I had no reason to doubt what I was being told.
Given the actions (what was described by one person present as a "hostage taking") and statements by the youth collective or its spokesperson during the June meeting and since--some posted here, others not-- the warning I received made me feel personally threatened. Instead of taking the law into my own hands, I opted to follow my boss's orders to obey our agency's policy. .
if i am to see it the way you are painting it...i would think that my friends and i were some kind of crazy bomb wielding, arsonist, anarchists...
the problem is i don't believe everything "they" told me and i know that there is a subcontext to the story that is not even being talked about. personally, i do believe thinking outside of the box, so to speak. whether that be in the box that i often find myself painting myself into, or the one that big brother is trying to put us all in collectively. i don't think that what you are thinking adds up correctly because it does not get to the roots of the problem.
in the end we are all only as strong as we are in relation. so if we dismiss one person, or group of people as a small minority who is not worthy of respect...than obviously you are also disrespecting yourself in some sense of the equation/relation...
2+2=4 ... long live winston smith
crimethink lives...war is slavery is knowledge...no justice...
the problem is i don't believe everything "they" told me and i know that there is a subcontext to the story that is not even being talked about. personally, i do believe thinking outside of the box, so to speak. whether that be in the box that i often find myself painting myself into, or the one that big brother is trying to put us all in collectively. i don't think that what you are thinking adds up correctly because it does not get to the roots of the problem.
in the end we are all only as strong as we are in relation. so if we dismiss one person, or group of people as a small minority who is not worthy of respect...than obviously you are also disrespecting yourself in some sense of the equation/relation...
2+2=4 ... long live winston smith
crimethink lives...war is slavery is knowledge...no justice...
big brother...I'm not aware of any subcontext to what happened in June...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network