unaired fox news footage

one of the more satisfying interviews from Occupy Wall Street!

unfortunately, but not surprisingly, never aired on TV....

"Something Has Started": Michael Moore on the Occupy Wall St. Protests That Could Spark a Movement

This is worth watching. Today is day 12 of the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York. Haven't heard too much about it? That's because the corporate media is BARELY covering it. Democracy Now IS covering it, though, and amateur videos of the protest are all over YouTube.

Follow the link for video:

"Something Has Started": Michael Moore on the Occupy Wall St. Protests That Could Spark a Movement

friday anthems!

the more she sneers, the more i love her !!!





"yeah. i'm not such a sweet thing. i want to do ev - er - y - thing. what a beautiful feeling"

sunshine

oh god, rye rye is my girl!

i guess this came out last fall, but hell, this is my summer jam!!!!!! featuring the indelible MIA.

TO BAY AREA FOLKS:  let's do some dance this weekend. bring yr tunes out...



---
IT IS NOW A LITTLE LATER:   been listening to more rye rye, and have been fully affirmed. i'm hearing some of my fav lady girls from hip hop in "shake it to the ground", below....missy, salt and pepa, M.I.A, and even thought of ladytron, the electro band from a few years back. the styling and dancing is very "push it", updated 20-ish years...

shake. it. totheground.

Speaking and talking

Brian Ang held an event on "gender" as part of his talk series this past weekend, in response to criticism around the perception that he hadn't invited women to participate. This opened a huge can of worms and I'd like to share my experience of the event, as well as the talk I wrote for the event. The first is an email to a group of women who had been discussing how to approach and if we should approach this event at all. I've edited out names of people who had responded in private email, while maintaining critiques of tactics or appreciation of their contributions. My talk is below the letter. I'm happy to hear anyone's thoughts and look forward to hearing about reactions in general.
Love,
Sara

Hi everyone,


I wanted to write you all and let you know that things went really well at Brian’s yesterday. I was sorry that many people did not show up for one reason or another, but I really want to share the success of what went down.

A group of us had strategized both on the phone and in person ahead of time about how we would intervene in the space and hold the discussion in way that was equitable and civilized, but also - and most importantly - firmly on our terms. I won’t speak for everyone who participated, but the people who I spoke with the most about this previous to the event were Jen Manzano, Lindsey Boldt and Jackqueline Frost. Per Jack’s suggestion, some of us brought texts with us, and some of us didn’t. I did bring a text, and I am sharing it both below in this email, and on my blog at www.sara-larsen.blogspot.com . There was also a lively discussion following the reading of prepared texts. The people who attended were me, Lindsey, Jackqueline, Jen, David Brazil, Wendy Trevino, Stephanie Young, Derrick Clemons, Zack Tuck, and Brian.

We decided to insist on an anarchist model of discussion, a discussion not “held” by Brian, but where a facilitator is elected by the group. There was some debate on this at first, but our demand was strong and collective, and this did end up being how things went down. We also insisted that the facilitator be a woman to begin with. We decided we were open to male facilitators later in the conversation, but as it happened, when we switched facilitators, it was again a woman. The job of the facilitator was to make sure that there was enough space for everyone to speak and that people weren’t emotionally talking over each other. This worked super-well. I was really, really happy about the form, and my only wish was that more people had showed up to the talk to witness and experience that the model for these kinds of things doesn’t have to be one of “drama”.

As I mentioned earlier, the only thing I found disappointing was the lack of attendance at this event. If, for one reason or another, you would have liked to have been there, but were otherwise engaged, I’m sorry you couldn’t make it – it would’ve have been great to have you as part of the discussion.

For those of you who stayed home as a “political action”, I respectfully disagree with your tactics. In my view, it’s a tactic that, in the end, gets nothing productive done. In terms of being on someone’s “turf”, I’d question when we do feel we are on “our own” or “neutral” turf. What constitutes “our own” turf? When is it neutral? And is it always productive for things to take place on so-called neutral turf? I think it is misguided to think that that is the only way to have a conversation, and I’m a proponent of intervention – if power does not cede space, sometimes you have to take it. And I think that yesterday we strategized ahead of time and then employed successful tactics to make that happen.

For those of you who wouldn’t attend because (as I heard throughout the weekend), you are concerned “only” with poetry and art or whatever, I would ask you if you think that poetry and art are not political? Or if the frames of discussion at talks, reading groups etc are just as important as the content of those discussions? If the frames are important, shouldn’t they be inclusive and intentional? For those of us in privileged positions in terms of discourse (white, male, straight, etc—and I admit that this can be very complicated, and this also should be openly reckoned with), are you content to chill in aesthetics….because you can? If the answer to that is yes, well, fine. But again, I find that I personally disagree with your position.

Brian was pretty open to the things that we talked about in general. I am not defending his past actions, but I thought his reactions to being “in the hot seat” were graceful. He did a lot of listening. He could’ve been a defensive asshole, but he wasn’t. He seemed to absorb and understand what we were saying, and eventually agreed that inclusive forms of curation and discussion are necessary, and that it’s important not to passively reproduce dominant sexist (or other –ist) models. While I felt that Brian’s talk series did need to be discussed, I wanted to emphasize MORE IMPORTANTLY that the behavior I’ve experienced in terms of underlying sexism in our community has been ongoing for a very long time, particularly the “who speaks” issue. A lot of people have recognized this previously, but it has never really come out into the open. On that note, I’m including my talk below, which discusses this further.

I’m open to all of your comments, either publically or privately. I’m posting my talk as well as a lot of this email (minus reference to specific people on this trail) on my blog, as well as sending it to other friends (in a separate email so as to respect this current email train as-is). I’d like people not included here, as well as the dudes in my life, to read this and be part of a discussion as well.

Thanks, and love, (talk copied below)

Sara

I do not want to talk to simply talk today about gender equality. I want to begin to practice it. It is only via disciplined, attentive practice that theories, abstractions and talk become manifest actions in the world.

At present, there are some underlying sexist behaviors in our community that need to be brought out into the open and dealt with directly. I insist that they begin to be dealt with today. I do not necessarily want to be here at Brian’s talk series in this context. I’d much rather have been invited here to discuss my work, or my thoughts around art and poetry. But since a group has been invited here in general to talk about the very large and complicated issue of gender (and it’s important to distinguish between gender and sex), I’m going to make use of the occasion to let you all know honestly and without reserve what some of the problems are. I’m not going to talk about gender per se. I’m going to talk about sexism.

I’m not going to pussyfoot around it. What I see is a talk series that has been pretty exciting, but at which so far no women have spoken. I’m also seeing that during discussions both at this talk series and at other talks, readings and reading groups in the past (AND I’D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS HAS BEEN ON ON-GOING, LONG-STANDING PROBLEM), women are also NOT SPEAKING or not speaking as much as men are. Is it coincidental that in these spaces women happen to have nothing to say? If you think that it is, how do you account for the coincidence? I’m asking you this seriously. I insist that you answer me. If it’s not simply a coincidence, and you cannot account for it, what else is at play here?

I resent that I am not here on account of the work that I am doing. I just had two chapbooks released. I have been making TRY magazine, along with David, for three years. I’ve curated or co-curated multiple reading series and events, including the Poetic Labor Conference. I’ve written and spoken about the wars, the ecosystem, feminism and labor continuously. I’m involved in radical reading groups, as well as an all day language free school that takes place on Sundays, and which I should be at right now, facilitating a Spanish class. I am an extremely active intellectual and cultural producer in this community. And I’m not the only one. Every woman in this room is an active intellectual and cultural producer in this community with their own laundry lists of what they COULD be here talking about. My point is not self aggrandizement but the fact that I am here and the other women in the room are here to talk about sexism creates an absence. It creates the absence of all the other things we could be here to speak about and that we should be here to speak about.

So why am I here? Why are WE here? You have to answer this question for me today. I’m holding you accountable for it. Why are we here in this room with this issue?

I look around the room and I see folks who are concerned with the overwhelming domination, repression, violence and inequity of the capitalist regime. Rightly so. Many people in our community have recently read the important book, Caliban and the Witch. This indispensible work by the Italian feminist marxist Silvia Federici tracks historically how the disempowerment and oppression of women in medieval Europe, particularly executed through the misogynist genocide of the witch hunts, was NECESSARY for the development and domination of capitalism as a global economic system of exploitation. Anyone who is reckoning with the misery of capitalism today, and I’m thankful that many of us are, should note that overwhelmingly those who suffer the most as a result of this system world-wide are women. Women and children. From now on, when you talk about capitalism or marxism or anything related, I want you to think of that. The people who suffer the most from the capitalist regime are WOMEN. I insist that you no longer be able to discuss these things abstractly without thinking about this reality.

What does this have to do with our poetry community? Everything.

We have never truly and meaningfully, publically, put on the table the thing that virtually everyone knows and what most women will tell you that they’ve experienced: and that has been a silencing. It may not have been done with malicious intent, but it has been done. And I’m sick of this subterranean sexism. It’s coming to the light of day. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat in intellectual or artistic conversations where the dudes, meaning to or not, just took over the conversation. Or worse, where women deferred to the dudes to “explain” something that they could explain very well themselves. Or where dudes were asked to talk about something that a woman could talk about with equal facility. This needs to be reckoned with, beginning today. You have now officially been told. And if things continue to proceed in the way that they have, you have no excuse. Everyone, women, men, trans, whatever identity, alike. We have to be conscious from here on out about how we curate, how we hold discussions, how we teach, etc. We need to think formally about how we talk, as well as think about the content of what we are saying.

Our community does not just reflect back onto itself. If it did, I probably wouldn’t want to be a part of it. It is active in the world and extends beyond its own scope, whether folks admit it or not. It is a place of creation – part of that creation is the creation of social activity and social norms. We like to think that we would not tolerate homophobia, transphobia or racism in this community. We strive not to tolerate these things. And we should not tolerate sexism either, whether explicit or implicit.

If this is uncomfortable for you, I hope we can work together to find a way to make it more comfortable – know that you will need to do work in making this happen. If you prefer to deny or ignore this, well, I guess after today I just feel like: fuck you. If you want to talk openly, honestly and in the spirit of community building, love, joy and equity, then I am totally with you, totally down, and I’m psyched to co-create a space and a conversation that benefits us all.

I’m looking forward to talking, but more importantly, I’m looking forward to the PRACTICE of equity.

angela davis

last night, i went with lindsey, david, salem and john to see angela davis at la pena in berkeley. angela is truly amazing, inspirational, and still as radical and graceful as ever.

she was inducted in la pena's "hall of fame" and gave a talk on contemporary revolutionary movements, and covered ALOT of ground, including calling for worldwide support of palistine and the abolition of the prison system. if you haven't yet read her book "Are Prison's Obsolete", i would HIGHLY recommend it. angela also gave a very concise and understandable breakdown of marx, in answer to an audience question concerning the paradox of capitalist democracy, which was wonderful.

in the meantime, with love and thanks to angela davis, who continues to be part of some of the most important revolutionary thinking in this country, here is a talk that angela recently gave at uc davis, very worth watching or listening to, even if just in part.

she relates some of her experiences growing up in segregated birmingham. here is a bit...

"Now I relate this bit of personal history because it helps me to understand how important it is to transmit certain habits of perception, certain habits of imagination. Just as it was once possible to and important for people to imagine a world without slavery, a world beyond slavery, just as it was important for me personally to learn how as a child to imagine a world without racial segregation, and then later to imagine a world where women were not assumed to be inferior to men, it is now important to imagine a world without xenophobia, and the fenced-in borders that are designed to make us think of the people of the south as the enemy. It is important now to imagine a world in which binary conceptions of gender no longer govern modes of segregation and association, and one in which violence is eradicated from state practices as well as from our intimate lives, regardless of how we position our sexuality….It is really important to work with your imagination, to use your imagination, to think beyond the moment. But it’s not enough simply to imagine a different future - we can walk around with these ideal words in our heads while everything crumbles around us. And so I would say that critical habits involve collective intervention as well."

pablo neruda wrote,

“Poetry is like bread; it should be shared by all, by scholars and by peasants, by all our vast, incredible, extraordinary family of humanity.”