[Fwd: Re: [CAE_Defense] after browsing critical art's site]

While i have to admit i was shocked when i first heard of the "investigation" of CAE. How it was handled, the media response, the fact that the investigation was done to begin with. it all made me want to puke (it still does). but, i have to say now that i shouldn’t have been surprised considering what i know about FBI investigations and state authority to begin with.

i think…

some of it can be chalked up to ill trained (culturally and otherwise) agents/police etc. looking to make a name for themselves and knowing that the media or their own bosses would never hold them accountable. When is the last time you saw any mass media criticize "law enforcement". I mean when you have stories like a child being shot because he had a squirt gun in the child’s own apartment building and the media asks "what was the kid doing with a squirt gun?" then you know your in trouble. Of course many people deal with police brutality (in various ways) everyday. The unique thing here is that it happened to a well-respected academic (which in no way makes it any less significant, but it should be looked at in relationship to other unwarranted attacks on civil liberties and the public happening everyday.) but for me what a situation like this illustrates beyond all else is the real definition of "Security" as it is currently practiced by the Gov. "Security" means State and Corporate security not individual or public security. The same is true about world affairs - when Bush said that the war with Iraq was about National Security he wasn't lying. Security means protection of the State and the powerful interests that construct it. Since the invention of "National Security" in 1948, "National Security" has never really meant anything other than the protection of State interests (whether it be Halliburton oil or United Fruit bananas). to perpetuate the State. Many people seamlessly align their individual interests with the State's interests - i don't. If "National Security" was meant for "the people" than maybe the people would have health care, decent paying jobs, etc. So if we are to be honest then the CAE case is a perfect example of what the State can do to those who question the structure of things effectively. And as far as admitting wrong-doing why would State Security forces do that - except on an individual whistleblower basis - they were doing their jobs - and that is serio!
usly dis
couraging anyone who may wish to follow in CAE’s footsteps.


Steve Kudlak wrote:

>
> Note This Issue Popped UP on the CAE Defense List.
> I thought I'd run it by here. Have Fun, Sends Steve
>
>
> —————————- Original Message
> —————————-
> Subject: Re: [CAE\_Defense] after browsing critical art's site
> From: "Steve Kudlak" <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, July 17, 2004 10:43 pm
> To: CAE\[email protected]
> ————————————————————————–
>
>
> The same thought has been drifting through my mind .
> When I listened to the NPR report this afternoon there,
> which I have on tape, so I can play back and get all the
> names correct, I was struck that many of the LE (Law Enforcement)
> folks still kind of felt that they were in some way "right" that
> these very various dangerous things and it was good they
> were discovered and such a tough astand was taken.
> So I think you have asked a good question and it would be
> nice to discuss that somewhere. If it is not reasonable here
> then maybe we should start another group or somrthing to
> discusss these and/or other iissues relating to encounters
> between Art and Authority.
>
> This does scare me, because it seems that the only socities that
> in the past that sought to heavily regulate art were those that were
> dictatorial or authoritarian I am starting to get worried that
> there is
> a movement in the same of protecting people from terrorism to
> actually try to control the materials that artists may use and the
> areas
> that they can explore. This seems to be the tone of the investigators
> they
> were alarmed that artist had these materials.
>
> My thought is there might have been some initial reason to be a little
> rattled just due to circumstances, but that after that, it should
> have
> been a "whoops we are sorry, it looked a little spooky, look at it
> from
> our side, and sorry for the intrusion on your life."
>
> I wonder if the fact that it was Buffalo that had something to
> do with it. I noticed that local newspaper editorial folks were
> pretty much pro police and one person actually chided Steve
> Kurtz as if he were a child that needed corrected.
>
> So indeed I would love to hear more "philosophical discussion"
> to stretch those words a bit. about all these things. I mean the
> CAE was something I viewed as a positive force, that there would
> evolve a rich sort of dialogue between Arts/Science and Technology.
> Right
> now it seems that CAE and folks like that were talking the
> first baby steps in the right direction. I am worried that this attack
> of
> anti-terrorist paranoia will shut this useful area of inquirt down.
>
>
> Have Fun,
> Sends Steve
>
> P..S. I have deiced to split up my message and I will publish the
> second
> part if it a little later all going wrll. This will involve my ideas
> why
> the authorities
> got so bent out of shape. (OH WELL I'LL PUT IN A HALF THOUGHT OUT
> PRECIS)
>
> I will admit that I am littlle biased here. The biomedical knowledge
> conveyed to first responders is limited and to be honest sort of
> watered down a bit to make it clear and easily understanable.
> Part of the problem is that it is thought that these people have to
> make
> quick decisions. Eductational levels vary but to be honest
> the best that can be counted on country wide is 8th or 9th grade.
> When I
> have looked over cicrucula for fire responders such as
> fire and police a lot of it is based on large amounts of rote
> learning
> and memorization to get a certificate. None of this involves having a
> rich
> and detailed and appreciative understanding of life sciences.
>
> This I think correspondens with a suspicipous world view that these
> people
> are trained to have picked up on the job this can cause strange
> results.
> For awhile until it was understood some neighbors once thought I was
> building a drug lab whereas I was just making my own vanilla.
>
> Umnderstanding microbiology and biology in general is something
> that requires some trarining and forethought. The Aniterrorism people
> lack
> this. Worse yet they maybe trained like drug enforcement people are
> trained. In other words they say the perti dishes, pippettes and
> biological equipment as paraphernalia.. So they are working in that
> mode.
> They can't see them as just plain old tools like their police radio
> and
> other forenesis eqiupment. Every once in awhile there would be someone
> would try to float a bill in congress that would make posession of lab
> equipment illegal.
>
> I don't know how to proceed from here. Is it possible to explain to
> these
> people
> that just because someone has some equipment that seems a bit
> strange,
> has some
> writings that sound a tad "reolvutionary" and maybe it is best we
> haul
> them in and
> bive them all a good scare. Besides these are just effete university
> nebbishes that
> got too much money to do silly things will we brave people who protect
> their unappreciative asses can get our newe engine funded. Don't laugh
> I
> have heard
> something very close to this in conversation.
>
> Perhaps Federal Law Enforcement people are just a bit too arrogant?
> Can
> we explain
> anything to them? Is that being too idealistic? Should we ask our
> representatives to pass
> an "artistic freedom to use biological material act?" I mean these
> questions are going to have
> to be answered. I mean this is pretty close to the most egrergious
> use
> made of the Patriot Act
> and the "September 1tth Excuse" that has been made. Does anyone have
> any
> ideas?
>
> By the way I may post this to Rhizome Raw….
>
> *****ANyT FIORELLI'S ORGINAL QUESTION************************
>
> Anyt Fiorelli wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >i have been browsing the site of critical art ensemble
> >and i was wondering what was it exactly the attorney
> >and fbi are deranged by in the activities of this
> >group. not exactly what is they claim against like
> >fraud or other , but what are your feeling they are
> >distrubed by in their activity. what kind of paranoia
> >is it triggered by? : is it a general impression on
> >the group, or rather something in their political
> >thinkings which you could interpret or explain?
> >
> >i am sending this not knowing if the group is
> >interested to join such like on answering these
> >question, i am here on an other continent and i don't
> >think the issue has been debated here. thanks.
> >Adline.
> *******************************************************
> >
> >
> >———————— Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ——————–~–>
> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
> >http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/xYTolB/TM
> >——————————————————————–~->
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> ><*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAE\_Defense/
> >
> ><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > CAE\[email protected]
> >
> ><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>