NO REST FOR THE AWAKE - MINAGAHET CHAMORRO

Last year, the attendees to the UN Committee of 24 Regional Seminar in Nicaragua got to meet the President of the country, Daniel Ortega. It was a surprise visit, and most of use weren't prepared as we had just spent the day driving around during tourist activities and weren't dressed for an official state visit. Several of the country representatives lamented their attire and that they couldn't officially share their photographs as their dress violated their official protocol. All in all, our meeting with Ortega lasted for more than two hours. With him speaking at length about his experiences with the United States, the United Nations, Leftist movements in Latin America, and also decolonization in Africa. I meant to write a post about that conversation, but never got the chance to. I'm hoping to do so this year, especially if we are fortunate enough to meet with him again. Several country reps and representatives from Non-Self-Governing Territories refused to take

The Greeks are Right! by Slavoj Zizek The New Statesman 7/6/15 The unexpectedly strong No in the Greek referendum was a historical vote, cast in a desperate situation. In my work I often use the well-known joke from the last decade of the Soviet Union about Rabinovitch, a Jew who wants to emigrate. The bureaucrat at the emigration office asks him why, and Rabinovitch answers: “There are two reasons why. The first is that I’m afraid that in the Soviet Union the Communists will lose power, and the new power will put all the blame for the Communist crimes on us, Jews – there will again be anti-Jewish pogroms . . .” “But,” the bureaucrat interrupts him, “this is pure nonsense. Nothing can change in the Soviet Union, the power of the Communists will last for ever!”. “Well,” responds Rabinovitch calmly, “that’s my second reason.” I was informed that a new version of this joke is now circulating in Athens. A young Greek man visits the Australian consulate in Athens and

There are so many interesting things when traveling to different parts of the world. Environments and landscapes change. Languages and cultures change. The sense of time can feel different. The referents that we use to pin down meaning, to create social and cognitive maps shift. It can be disorientating in a very fundamental sense. You rely on certain things to give a sense of stability. Certain things to be understood by those around you. When those shift it can be bewildering.  One thing that I've found most interesting from the two UN regional seminars that I've attended, both in Latin America, is the way the pantheon of historical referents shifts. In a Guam context, there are certain figures that can be safely and comfortably referred to and provide a stable sense of communal meaning. Magellan, Yokoi, Hurao, Kepuha, San Vitores, the Archbishop, various Governors, maybe some MMA fighter or a Chamorro musician. People may debate their legacy, their social value or pulsi

I've seen Slavoj Zizek use the example of "the red ink" many times over the years in many books. Interesting to see him now use it to describe what the Occupy movement is attempting to describe.  ************************** Published on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 by The Guardian/UK Occupy Wall Street: What Is To Be Done... Next? How a protest movement without a program can confront a capitalist system that defies reform by Slavoj Žižek What to do in the aftermath of the Occupy Wall Street movement, when the protests that started far away – in the Middle East, Greece, Spain, UK – reached the center, and are now reinforced and rolling out all around the world? In a San Francisco echo of the OWS movement on 16 October 2011, a guy addressed the crowd with an invitation to participate in it as if it were a happening in the hippy style of the 1960s: "They are asking us what is our program

Published on Tuesday, February 1, 2011 by The Guardian/UK Why Fear the Arab Revolutionary Spirit? by Slavoj Žižek What cannot but strike the eye in the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt is the conspicuous absence of Muslim fundamentalism. In the best secular democratic tradition, people simply revolted against an oppressive regime, its corruption and poverty, and demanded freedom and economic hope. The cynical wisdom of western liberals, according to which, in Arab countries, genuine democratic sense is limited to narrow liberal elites while the vast majority can only be mobilised through religious fundamentalism or nationalism, has been proven wrong. The big question is what will happen next? Who will emerge as the political winner? When a new provisional government was nominated in Tunis, it excluded Islamists and the more radical left. The reaction of smug liberals was: good, they are the basically same; two totalitarian extremes – but are things as simple as that? Is the true long

One of the listservs I'm on had a little bit of a spat recently over the Wikileaks and Julian Assange issue. The debate was over whether the sexual assault charges against Assange should be taken seriously or not. Some felt like the charges were more contrived than anything, while others felt that this was precisely a problem that movements have, is that they tend to look past any clear faults in their heroes and therefore perpetuate gendered systems of oppression. Many seemed to feel that this is one of the those moments where "identity politics" weakens or ruins the Left, because something small, minute and paticularistic, ends up tainting something which is hugely important and universal. For them, the issue is obviously made up by government who want to take Assange down, but the way identity politics has wormed its way into movements has made them susceptible to fake debates like this. From this perspective, even if the charges are true (and they are not rape charges

I like Keith Olbermann, because he is an angry nerd. Most nerds wilt and die, and swoon at the sight of almost anything, but Olbermann, is a nerd who is angry and not afraid to look a little bit foolish in order to seek some way of unleashing that anger and trying to mix it with some humor and intelligence. He just got suspended from MSNBC for making some campaign contributions to three Democratic candidates, without obtaining permission from his employer first.This has, for liberals and the left become a sort of mainstrem media "teachable moment." While Fox News  nurtures its commentators and anchors and hosts to be the media arm of the Republicans Party, MSNBC comes nowhere close to playing that role for liberals or for Democrats, and this is a clear example of that. The interview below was taken days before the suspension. The particular like the exchange where he talks about his dad's favorite not so well known baseball players from back in the day. **************

Even though I wish I was at the Rallies for Sanity and Fear today in Washington D.C., that desire to be there is more for the fact that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are funny shows and I enjoy watching them, and so a rally based on them, will most likely be ridiculous and hysterical. My desire to go isn't much of a political desire, after all, even though The Daily Show is about politics, it is not really supposed to be about politics, but about making jokes. Jon Stewart has shown regularly over the years, that he is a comedian and he has no political loyalties. Even though it is obvious he is more liberal than conservative, more Democrative than Republican, the worst thing you can do is approach him as if he should be on one side of the issue or the other, because then the comedian in him will want to irk you by completely bashing the things you thought he should respect. I can understand Jon Stewart not wanting to be reduced to a liberal fire-thrower or water-carrier,