surf the gerf turf

Socialized Health Care: Why Not?

2011-01-24T13:29:00.000-05:00

Last week, after watching this segment on Democracy Now!, I found myself pleasantly surprised by the forward-thinking approach of newly-elected Vermont governor Peter Shumlin. Check it out:

This single-payer architecture that Shumlin is pushing for is essentially the type of health care system in place in most of Europe and in Canada, in various incarnations. But talk of a 'single-payer' system has been effectively locked out of the debate both on Capitol Hill and in the major news media. It was never 'on the table' when the congress was debating Obama's health care bill to begin with. The debate is limited by and, thus, controlled by those on the right and far-right and the congress and the major news media organizations all land somewhat to the right of the American population, though they would insist vehemently otherwise.

Perhaps it's the "culture of medicine" that is the root of the problem, as my step-father, an ER doctor working in Indiana, has suggested. How do we change that? It's not going to change on its own. What, other than legislation, can effectively move the "culture of medicine" in the right direction?

I think the first and obvious step is relatively simple. Perhaps not easy, due to the immense power of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbies, but simple nonetheless: remove insurance company profits from the equation. In other words, every health care dollar would go towards health care, rather than being divvied up between health care and profits for insurance companies. This would make the health care system cheaper and more efficient, while simultaneously improving the quality of care across the board.

You will get those on the right, and even in the center and center-left, who will cry 'socialism.' Those who will say that this goes against the free market values of this country. But we must remember that public schools, police forces, and firefighters, among others, are already socialized and have been for as long as we can remember. These organizations don't operate with the purpose of turning a profit and answering to shareholders-- they operate with the purpose of providing a service for citizens. As it should be too for health care, without a shadow of a doubt.

Liberalism or Radicalism: What Will It Take To Move America Forward?

2010-12-18T13:43:00.003-05:00

The WikiLeaks saga has awakened a surge of anger and disbelief on the true-left. The clear contempt for transparency displayed by the Washington and media establishment is despicable, though perhaps not surprising.

There are those who have said, "some information ought to remain secret." And they would be correct: not all government secrets should be revealed without consideration for the nuanced effects of such actions. But the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables are decidedly not the variety of documents that should be kept from the public. These documents have painted a clear picture of how the US government and military do business-- a picture that the networks refuse to paint-- and, therefore, are indispensable if we are to hold true that government transparency begets a functional democracy.

But the establishment is too entrenched. The decision makers in Washington have nothing to gain from the publishing of such information and everything to lose. This is not our government.

"[President Obama] had two years of full Congressional support to get measures such as health care reform passed: that’s two years that any NUMBER of progressive measures could have been enacted, such as immigration reform (which, thankfully, is on its way regardless), the repeal of DADT (which could have been ended via simple Executive Order), or an improved version of the Food Safety act," wrote a good friend of mine, Charlie Olvera, on his blog last Friday. "Instead, we got an administration more concerned with bi-partisanship and appeasing the will of its most vocal critics than with actually performing progressive governance..."

I share his feelings of disenfranchisement.

"Liberals in this country have a reputation grounded in 60s peacenik culture, which unfortunately gives us, in the public estimation, the impression that we are all Prius-driving, Whole Foods-shopping, spaced-out, over-educated wimps," he continues. "If I have to, I will stand as a one-man testament to the contrary. I’m a liberal. I’m about as liberal as they come. And you know what? I’m fucking ANGRY. And I’m going to kick and fight and yell and scream about my rights and the rights of American citizens, and about the moral and ethical responsibility American governance has to its constituency, until somebody sits up and listens and starts yelling with me."

We liberals have tried to play nice. We've tried to play by the rules and compromise and debate and discuss and cater to all people from all income brackets and from all ends of the spectrum.

I say enough of that. I, for one, am starting to believe that the only thing that will really make any difference-- in the face of the deeply-entrenched and disingenuous 'republi-crat' establishment and the deafening idiocy of FOX News, CNN, and the like-- is radical action, and not just liberal opinion. Radical action such as a reclamation of the congress by ordinary citizens or a forced return of the public airwaves used by for-profit media into the public's hands.

"If these Tea Party buffoons can have their media circus," my friend closes, "so can I." Count me in, Charlie.

Is there a difference between Obama and Clinton?

2008-02-01T19:05:00.000-05:00

This quote, from Ted Glick's article below, perfectly sums up my current position:

"I’m not going to vote for Obama in the Democratic Party primary because I’m a registered Green. I’m not going to vote for him if he’s the Democratic nominee in November. I’m not going to send him any money. But I’ll be rooting for him to defeat Hillary Clinton, and if he does I hope he defeats the Republican candidate."

The only difference being that I am not a registered Green (though I did vote Green in 2004), rather I am unregistered.

This is another key statement:

"We’ve been there, done that with Hillary and Bill Clinton in the White House."

Though the '90s were a far cry from the dire straights we're in currently, they weren't without crimes and atrocities. And no, I'm not talking about that whole BJ thing. That's personal. Whatever. I'm talking about his support for the brutal Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia and his bombing of civilian targets in Serbia, among other things.

Term limits and other protections were put in place to shield us from one family or one elite group taking over our government, as it was with the monarchies that the Founding Fathers so despised. If we put Hillary in the White House in 2009, that will be a mere two political powerhouse families controlling the executive for at least 24 years-- 28 if Hillary were to be re-elected-- more than a quarter century! (Bush I - 4 yrs, Bill - 8 yrs, Bush II - 8 yrs, Hillary - 4-8 yrs)

Obama is no 'ideal' candidate, but he is less linked to the traditional power structures and special interests-- though he is certainly linked to some degree-- than Hillary, and Ted Glick's analysis may offer some insight:

Future Hope column, Feb. 2, 2008

Obama vs. Clinton, A Second Thought

By Ted Glick

Three weeks ago in a Future Hope column I wrote about how similar Obama and Clinton are when it comes to positions on issues. That hasn’t changed. But I also said this:

“It may be that if Obama becomes President, the political forces he has unleashed—particularly among young people and the African American community—will come to constitute a progressive political bloc that, by means of independent pressure from below, will make it difficult for him to accommodate to the conservative and corporate interests—with whom he has significant connections—who will undoubtedly lean on him.”

I’ve been thinking more and more about this, and I know that other activists who have the same distrust of the Democrats—distrust based on a great deal of empirical evidence and bitter experience—are doing the same. Last night, for example, I heard Amiri Baraka, a leading radical African American activist, articulate the reasons why he believed the progressive movement should get behind Obama.

Then there was the Obama quote in this week’s issue of Newsweek. Asked what he wants to accomplish by the end of his Presidency, he said “end(ing) the war. . .universal health care . . . and we will have a bold energy agenda that drastically reduces our emissions of greenhouse gases while creating a green engine that can drive growth for many years to come.”

As someone who fasted for 107 days last fall trying to push the federal government to take action on the climate crisis, it was no small thing to read those words.

Finally, there was this insight from a John Pierce, who I don’t know, in an email that showed up in my inbox today. As part of a piece on the Obama candidacy, comparing him to Abraham Lincoln, Pierce said “he [Lincoln] even invited political foes to serve in his cabinet. Because of his policy of ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer,’ his allegiances were maddeningly unclear. He led by gathering input from all sides, then made decisions based on how far he believed he could push the nation towards change, and not an inch farther. Ideologues thought him weak, wobbly, unsure of himself. Similarly, there’s FDR, a man who entered the White House fully opposed to permanent benefits for the downtrodden, and was won over to that cause by liberal advisors.”

Could Obama be a Lincolnesque or FDR-type figure?

I can see it. I cannot, absolutely cannot see it for Hillary Clinton.

But it won’t happen with Obama unless the progressive movement continues building up its independent, issue-oriented, outside-the-corporate-parties strength.

Lincoln and FDR were elected in times of great national crisis and political upheaval. As those crises deepened and unfolded, they were both pushed by events and movements from below to take steps they had not planned to take prior to their election. Lincoln’s solution to the slavery crisis prior to the Presidency was to send enslaved Africans back to Africa. Yet, two years after taking office and because it was seen as a military necessity to win the Civil War, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

And FDR was President during the decade which saw the greatest upsurge of workers organizing themselves into unions that this nation has ever seen, before or since. That is the primary reason why he undertook the policies that he did.

Obama’s Newsweek quote is instructive. From all that I can see, the three most broadly-based and active mass movements on issues are the anti-war movement, the universal health care movement and the climate movement. Is it a coincidence that he lists these as the three areas where he wants to bring about positive change?

When I got a chance to ask a question of Amiri Baraka last night, it was about Cynthia McKinney, the likely nominee for the Green Party nomination who is also being supported by African American activists working to build a Reconstruction Party. McKinney is the candidate who I am supporting for the Presidency, a strong black woman whose positions on the issues are the best and most reflective of my beliefs. She is not going to take office in 2009, but her candidacy can be a leading component of a multi-faceted, multi-tactical, multi-issue progressive movement that builds all through 2008, that engages in not just electoral activism but nonviolent civil disobedience and other tactics of struggle for justice, peace and clean energy.

Baraka had nothing but positive things to say about McKinney, while standing by his position that the African American and progressive movement should support Obama.

I’m not going to vote for Obama in the Democratic Party primary because I’m a registered Green. I’m not going to vote for him if he’s the Democratic nominee in November. I’m not going to send him any money. But I’ll be rooting for him to defeat Hillary Clinton, and if he does I hope he defeats the Republican candidate.

We’ve been there, done that with Hillary and Bill Clinton in the White House. Obama, despite all of his similarities on issues to Billary, is not the same thing. There are reasons to have some hope for the brother. We should be upfront and forthright with our criticisms, but we should also be open to the possibility that an Obama Presidency might lead to a similar kind of political, social and economic realignment as we saw in the USA in the 1860’s and 1870’s and then again in the 1930’s and 1940’s. If this comes to pass, and if the independent progressive movement gets organized over the coming years into a powerful third force/alliance/party, we may well be at the beginning of a very exciting and historic period.

Ted Glick is the coordinator of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council (www.climateemergency.org) and is active with No War, No Warming (www.nowarnowarming.org) and the Independent Progressive Politics Network (www.ippn.org). He can be reached at indpol@igc.org.

Thoughts on Social Interaction in the Digital Age

2007-12-12T15:10:00.000-05:00

Almost immediately after I sat down at the bar at the Hollywood Diner for lunch today, the elderly woman next to me struck up a conversation. She told me she was in Manhattan from her home in Jersey visiting her brother. We made small talk for a few minutes, noted the weather (naturally), and then the conversation turned to politics. She told me her thoughts on the 2008 presidential candidates, among other things, and so on and so on.

The topics of our conversation is not what interested me though. As we talked I considered a long-time observation of mine that elderly people tend to be more apt to conversation with strangers than their younger counterparts. And I am no better than my peers: once she initiated conversation with me I gave her my full attention, but if she had not spoken first we would have sat the entire duration of our meals in silence.

My question is, what is the primary reason why elderly people are more inclined towards casual conversation with strangers than younger folks?

As individuals age do they become more sociable or is it a generational thing? Has the woman I chatted with today always been so conversational? If so, then perhaps the change is a generational one-- as my generation ages, we may not necessarily become more sociable and a critical element of societal interaction may become largely lost.

Perhaps this generational shift also has something to do with changes in the very ways people interact with each other now? Email and AIM and MySpace and Facebook and World of Warcraft and blogs and Wikipedia and forums and message boards-- all these are avenues for 'social' interaction and the sharing of information, ideas, and even emotions. But, as we become ever more immersed in such things do we begin to lose our desire or even our ability to interact politely and pleasantly with complete strangers?

Keith Olbermann: The Beginning of the End of America

2007-11-27T17:26:00.000-05:00

A bit old, but nevertheless a poignant statement on the 'slippery slope' of fascism in the United States today:

Related: Olbermann on Waterboarding.

Chomsky on Concision in the US Media

2007-11-04T12:11:00.000-05:00

A must see:

Today In New York - Displacing Conflict

2007-10-22T09:06:00.000-05:00

Tonight, the Brecht Forum is hosting a conversation on the humanitarian crisis that has arisen as a result of US occupation of Iraq. It is estimated that 2 million Iraqis are now refugees and "another 1.5 million are internally displaced, living in camps without water, electricity or medical services."

Despite its responsibility for creating this massive refugee population, the United States had admitted only 800 Iraqi refugees from the beginning of the war until May of this year-- only one in every 4,000 refugees and less than Sweden.

Details:

The Brecht Forum

7:30 p.m.

451 West Street (between Bank & Bethune Streets)
New York, NY 10014
Tel: 212-242-4201

Suggested donation: $6/$10/$15
Free for Brecht Forum Subscribers

Today In New York - Meeting Resistance

2007-10-17T09:08:00.000-05:00

Tonight, a special screening* of "Meeting Resistance", a groundbreaking film on Iraqi resistance to US occupation. From the film's website:

    What would you do if your country was invaded? "Meeting
    Resistance" raises the veil of anonymity surrounding the
    Iraqi insurgency by meeting face to face with individuals
    who are passionately engaged in the struggle, and
    documenting for the very first time, the sentiment
    experienced and actions taken by a nation's citizens when
    their homeland is occupied.

Watch the trailer:

Details:

Downtown Community Television Center, 3rd Floor

6:30 p.m.

87 Lafayette Street (between White & Walker in Chinatown)
New York, NY 10013

Free and open to the public!
Please RSVP to cmevents@mnn.org or call (212) 757-2670 x352

* This is an advanced screening. The film officially opens in NYC at Cinema Village (on E. 12th St) that Friday, October 19th.

Today In New York - Prayer for the Morning Headlines: On the Sanctity of Life and Death

2007-10-15T09:39:00.000-05:00

Tonight, peace activist, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and priest Daniel Berrigan will be at the Cooper Union for a discussion in honor of his new book, "Prayer for the Morning Headlines: On the Sanctity of Life and Death". The event will be hosted by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!.

The book features an introduction by Howard Zinn, photographs by Adrianna Amari, and endorsements from the late Kurt Vonnegut, Ramsey Clark, Martin Sheen, James Carroll, Amy Goodman and others.

Details:

The Cooper Union - The Great Hall

6:30 p.m.

7 East 7th Street (at Third Ave)
New York, NY 10003

Free and open to the public!

Today In New York - Reportback from Oaxaca

2007-10-11T10:04:00.000-05:00

Oaxaca (pronounced 'wa-ha-ka'), a state in southern Mexico, has long been the scene of unrest. Every year for the past 26 years, Local 22 of the Teacher's Union (SNTE) has gone on strike to ask their government for better wages, more resources, and better conditions in public schools.

Last year, after 2,000 police were sent in to break up the strike by local governor Ulises Ruiz Ortiz of the right wing PRI party, the teachers were joined in their protest by the newly-formed Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO), an organization of unions, non-governmental groups, cooperatives, social organizations, and parents.

Events continued to escalate and in late October Brad Will, an American journalist who was filming the protests, was shot and killed, along with two residents-- Professor Emilio Alonso Fabián and Esteban López Zurita-- by local police.

Shortly thereafter, then-president Vicente Fox sent in thousands of federal police to crush the popular uprising.

In New York on Tuesday, Vicente Fox made an appearance at a Barnes & Noble bookstore to promote his new book, "Revolution of Hope". Frustrated with the spoon-fed questions Fox was receiving, audience members spoke up and asked him, among other things, why there was no federal investigation into the murder of Brad Will. The scene intensified and those attempting to question Fox were ultimately forced to leave or ejected by security.

Tonight, the Brecht Forum is hosting a presentation on "the latest trends and developments of Oaxaca's popular movement that have managed to weather successfully one of the most violent repressions in recent Mexican history."

Details:

The Brecht Forum

7:30 p.m.

451 West Street (between Bank & Bethune Streets)
New York, NY 10014
Tel: 212-242-4201

Suggested donation: $6/$10/$15
Free for Brecht Forum Subscribers

Today In New York - Swimming Up the Tigris: Real Life Encounters with Iraq

2007-10-10T10:15:00.000-05:00

Tonight at the Brecht Forum, a discussion about Barbara Nimri Aziz's new book, "Swimming Up the Tigris", which "reveals disparities between news reports of unfolding events and what Iraqi men and women were actually experiencing in the months preceding the U.S.-led invasion in 2003" by "[d]rawing on intimate sources inside Iraq."

Details:

The Brecht Forum

7:30 p.m.

451 West Street (between Bank & Bethune Streets)
New York, NY 10014
Tel: 212-242-4201

Suggested donation: $6/$10/$15
Free for Brecht Forum Subscribers

Today In New York - Viva Che! Behind and Beyond the Icon

2007-10-09T09:17:00.000-05:00

Tonight at the Brecht Forum, a conversation on Che Guevara featuring Tariq Ali, Chesa Boudin, Juan Gonzalez & Greg Grandin.

Details:

The Brecht Forum

6:30 p.m. Exhibit Opening & Reception
7:30 p.m. Forum

451 West Street (between Bank & Bethune Streets)
New York, NY 10014
Tel: 212-242-4201

Suggested donation: $6/$10/$15
Free for Brecht Forum Subscribers

Christopher Columbus: Brave Explorer or Cruel Conqueror?

2007-10-08T14:30:00.000-05:00

Conventional wisdom in the United States hails Christopher Columbus as a great explorer who sought a shorter route to the eastern world by traveling west at a time when most people believed the world to be flat. He is credited with 'discovering' the Americas, though it is difficult to imagine how a land can be discovered when it is already inhabited.

Today, in honor of Columbus Day, we should take a moment to reflect upon the realities of the historical events surrounding Columbus' journey. October 12, 1492 marked the beginning of a long and violent oppression of the native population of America that led to their near complete eradication, and we should not let this day pass without acknowledging this tragic reality.

Historian Howard Zinn has written at length about the largely untold story of American history in his acclaimed "A People's History of the United States" and its supplement, "Voices of a People's History of the United States", which includes many of the primary historical documents that Zinn references in the former.

It is important-- not only with regards to Columbus, but for other critical topics as well-- to question the 'official' story fed to children by their teachers, to citizens by their media, and to people by their governments. 'History is written by the victor', as they say, but we would do well to remember another history as well-- that of the loser. By learning the stories of the oppressed and the subjugated we can be better equipped to oppose similar atrocities in the future.

Today In New York - Who is the Terrorist? A Critical Conversation on Empire and Resistance

2007-10-04T09:09:00.000-05:00

Tonight at the Brecht Forum, a conversation and film about the July 2006 War on Lebanon.

Bilal El-Amine, a current resident of Beirut, Lebanon, will be sharing personal experiences of Israel's War on Lebanon last year.

Also, A Summer Not To Forget, a film by Lebanese film maker Carol Mansour, tells the story of yet another devastating war on Lebanon.

Details:

The Brecht Forum

7:30 p.m.

451 West Street (between Bank & Bethune Streets)
New York, NY 10014
Tel: 212-242-4201

Suggested donation: $6/$10/$15
Free for Brecht Forum Subscribers

Elections in America: You can vote for anyone you want to... except 'those' guys

2007-10-03T10:14:00.000-05:00

We have already seen how limited our choice really is at the polls. Examples of the 'pre-filtering' process that candidates are forced through are all around us.

In the latest instance, online right-wing news outlet Pajamas Media recently removed Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul from their weekly straw polls. Kucinich and Paul were consistently winning their straw polls-- to the point where "many readers [had] been complaining to [Pajamas Media] about the increasing inutility of the poll because of vote-swarming by second tier candidates."

"Second tier" candidates winning polls? Maybe "second tier" isn't quite the appropriate label, huh?

So they removed Kucinich and Paul. Go to their website right now, scroll down... the poll lives just below the skyscraper banner ad in the right margin. No Dennis Kucinich, no Ron Paul.

Online music magazine and liberal news outlet Lost At Sea is another perpetrator. They host a similar straw poll on their homepage, but the choices are severely limited-- only Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney make the cut.

If you are so inclined, feel free to contact Pajamas Media and Lost At Sea to express your disappointment. Of course, your feedback will be most effective if you are professional and respectful.

These are but minor symptoms of a much broader issue-- and only two examples of many-- and the chicanery shows no signs of stopping. If you know of a similar instance of voter disenfranchisement, leave it in the comments!

Fool Me Once...

2007-10-02T13:34:00.000-05:00

It's no longer a surprise to anyone paying the least bit of attention to the actions of the Bush administration and their rubber stamping comrades on Capitol Hill that citizens of the United States and of the world were severely misled-- about almost everything-- in the build up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In January of 2003, for example, "White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush continues to work with other countries on a peaceful solution [for Iraq].

'But if Saddam Hussein will not disarm peacefully and it becomes necessary to disarm him by force, then what we would be doing is not only disarming a real and growing threat, but liberating Iraqi people from a brutal, oppressive regime,' McClellan said."

Almost a year before-- in July of 2002-- according to the Downing Street Memos, "Bush had made up his mind to take military action [in Iraq]" and to facilitate this "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Now, in 2007, there is growing tension between the US and Iran. Yesterday, Helen Thomas asked White House spokesperson Dana Perino if President Bush would consult congress before attacking Iran.

    HELEN THOMAS: Did [President Bush] consult -- would
    he tell Congress before attacking Iran -- before he attacks Iran?

    DANA PERINO: Helen, we are pursuing a diplomatic
    solution with Iran.

    HELEN THOMAS: I'm asking you, does he feel committed
    to ask Congress for permission?

    DANA PERINO: We are pursuing a diplomatic solution in
    Iran.

Déjà vu.

Have we learned our lesson? Previous disasters have an uncanny tendency to slip the minds of Americans, but it's been a mere four years. The warmongers continue to push for military action in Iran while spewing lies about their 'diplomatic efforts'.

Congress certainly won't curb the executive's war plans. It's up to the American people to speak out in any forum and by any means available to them if we are to avoid a sequel to the Iraq debacle.

Judge Rules Part of PATRIOT Act Unconstitutional

2007-09-27T10:45:00.000-05:00

A federal judge ruled yesterday that two components of the USA PATRIOT Act-- the controversial legislation rushed into law in late 2001 that has been compared to Nazi Germany's Enabling Act-- are unconstitutional.

    U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act,
    "now permits the executive branch of government to
    conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens
    without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the
    Fourth Amendment."

Is this the beginning of a larger movement to check the executive's post-9/11 power grabs or will this ruling be brushed aside by the White House as a mere nuisance?

Democracy Now! on Ahmadinejad's Visit

2007-09-25T18:08:00.000-05:00

Today's broadcast of Democracy Now! featured excellent coverage of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly and his appearance yesterday at Columbia University.

Democracy Now! - Tuesday, September 25 2007

* Watch (128k)
* Watch (256k)
* Listen (mp3 - right click to download)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York

2007-09-24T10:44:00.000-05:00

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in New York today. The front page headline in the New York Daily News this morning read "The Evil Has Landed" in massive block letters ('Evil' was in red) and the New York Post called him "madman Iran prez" and "guest of dishonor".

Coverage of Ahmadinejad's visit in the New York Times was, predictably, significantly less sensational and more professional. The Times ran a story on page A4 purportedly discussing the head of state's visit to the U.S. from a Iranian perspective, as well as a story on page B1 (The Metro Section) about New York City's often reluctant diplomacy and hospitality towards 'controversial' visitors. There was no front page coverage.

Ahmadinejad has recently sparked controversy in the Big Apple after he requested permission to lay a commemorative wreath at Ground Zero during his visit.

All the hype surrounding Ahmadinejad-- today or otherwise-- is unfounded, however, when a few important factors are taken into account:

1.) Though Ahmadinejad is the highest directly elected official in Iran, his power and influence pales in comparison to that of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It appears that Ahmadinejad is more of a figurehead than anything else.

2.) Ahmadinejad's inflammatory remarks allegedly calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" (and repeated ad nauseam by the mainstream media) may have been largely exaggerated and mis-represented.

3.) Mainstream pundits and politicians in the U.S. greatly exaggerate (again, ad nauseam) Iran's potential nuclear threat.

4.) If the 'principle of universality' is accepted (the principle that we should hold ourselves to the same standards that we apply to others), Ahmadinejad and his government's threat to the West or to 'stability in the Middle East', real or perceived, is laughable when compared to the actions of the U.S. regime. Who are Bush and Co. to deny Iran their right to nuclear weapons when the United States itself stockpiles nearly ten thousand nuclear warheads (not to mention that the U.S. is the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons on their fellow humans, and against civilian targets no less)? One would be hard pressed to find a more explicit example of hypocrisy.

Watch Ahmadinejad's speech:
More videos from Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University.

Save The Clocktower Internet!

2007-09-21T15:46:00.001-05:00

"Net Neutrality", the basic principle that all Internet users have equal access to all internet destinations, has been under attack for some time now. Net Neutrality, a founding principle of the Internet, ensures that all websites-- from Google to MySpace, from DemocracyNow.org to FOXNews.com, from The Daily Kos to Surf The Gerf Turf-- are treated equally.

Imagine one day opening your browser to log onto your favorite website only to encounter a frozen progress bar or a "Server not found" notice. Checking your internet connection, you find everything to be in order. You click 'refresh' and wait... but, alas, still nothing.

You then navigate to a different site. Say, for example, a popular search engine like Yahoo or Google. The page loads immediately. Ok, you think, my connection is fine. You then attempt yet again to view your favorite website, but to no avail.

This imagined scenario is likely what many internet users will experience if Net Neutrality were to go the way of the dinosaurs. For a more familiar example of what Internet access may look like in the absence of Net Neutrality, think of your Cable Television access, which is 'tiered'. Access to certain channels is only available at higher price points.

[Click image to enlarge]

Look familiar?

As the world moves away from the local and isolated model of the past to the global and increasingly-connected paradigm of the future (whether this is to our collective benefit or not is the subject of another conversation), the explosion of the Internet has increasingly become a tool for democratic movements and an instrument of grassroots activism, communication, and progress.

Without Net Neutrality, the Internet will lose its value as a vehicle for democracy, and that is simply not something that we can allow to happen.

Visit SaveTheInternet.com for more information.

Don't Forget Your Black Armband On Friday

2007-09-19T23:19:00.000-05:00

This Friday marks the first Iraq Moratorium of many, a day for Americans to express their opposition to the disastrous occupation of Iraq. Participation may be drastic-- such as civil disobedience, walkouts, and school closings-- or simple-- such as wearing a black armband throughout the day. Surely at the very least we can all do the latter!

Via The Daily Kos.
For more information visit IraqMoratorium.org.

Today In New York - Naomi Klein

2007-09-18T14:10:00.000-05:00

Naomi Klein, the renowned journalist, author and activist, will be appearing tonight at Barnes & Noble in Chelsea for a discussion on her new book, released yesterday, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

Details:

Barnes & Noble, Chelsea

7:00 p.m.

675 Sixth Avenue @ 21st St.
New York, NY 10010
Tel: 212-727-1227

This event is free.

Watch "The Shock Doctrine (Short Film)" by Naomi Klein and "Children of Men" director Alfonso Cuarón:

For more information visit www.NaomiKlein.org

People & Power - al-Anbar Progress?

2007-09-11T23:21:00.000-05:00

Part 1:

Part 2:

Via Al Jazeera

The Jena Six - Racial Injustice in Louisiana

2007-09-05T13:23:00.000-05:00

I ordinarily don't do this-- there are just so many examples of injustice in the world that I don't like to focus on any one in particular-- but I think this case is extraordinary in its gravity and its scope.

The 'Jena Six' are a group of six black high school students from Jena, Louisiana, who have been charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. They were arrested and charged after assaulting Justin Barker, a white student, who was "taunting them with racial slurs" and voicing his approval of nooses that had previously been hung in a tree outside their school.

Bail for each of the Six was set at $70,000 to $138,000 and at least one of them is facing up to 100 years in prison. This incident taken by itself and without broader context is certainly punishable, but the punishment is, by any reasonable standard, quite extreme.

The real story, however, lies in events leading up to and surrounding the assault of Barker. Democracy Now's coverage has been exceptional, and there is also an online petition on behalf of the Six, as well as a website dedicated to their plight that features a concise timeline of events.

Read their story, spread it around, and sign the petition.

Remember Vietnam? Bush Does... Sort Of

2007-08-23T22:09:00.000-05:00

It is perhaps the perfect irony that Jon Stewart's telling satirical history lesson on American foreign policy in the middle east from last night's Daily Show came less than 24 hours before President Bush's speech today, in which he invoked Vietnam-- to support his continued opposition to a troop withdrawal from Iraq.

In a sickening act of historical cherry picking, Bush has attempted to use one of many previous American foreign policy faux pas to justify the continued occupation of Iraq. Bush presumes to take the 'moral high ground' by saying, "hey, remember Vietnam? When we left, bad things happened! Therefore, we need to stay in Iraq," but he conveniently ignores the elephant in the room-- we should not be in Iraq in the first place, nor should we ever have been in Vietnam. It's a bit more complicated than Bush appears to realize-- a brief history lesson would do him and his administration right:

Elections in America: Choice or Chicanery?

2007-08-16T17:13:00.000-05:00

Who is this Ron Paul guy? How did he get in the mix with all the other cookie-cutter, trigger-happy, pro-corporate-welfare, big government 'conservatives' who populate today's Republican party? According to this chart, he differs with the majority positions held by the other Republican presidential hopefuls on 12 out of 25 issues including capital punishment and virtually every facet of foreign policy and so-called 'homeland security'.

The Republican 'debate' on August 5th in Iowa was, as these proceedings usually are, little more than an exercise in bombastic lip flapping. The candidates took turns disagreeing on minutiae while offering virtually nothing in the way of honest, intellectual, or direct discourse. They are like different heads of the same political hydra.

Ron Paul was the lone voice of dissent. "Just come home," he said, to much applause, when asked what his strategy would be for ending the war in Iraq. The most notable moment came later when Paul said, "those individuals who have predicted these disastrous things to happen if we leave Iraq are the same ones who said, 'As soon as we go in, it will just be duck soup, it’ll be over in three months and it won’t cost us anything because the oil will pay for it.'":

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's response-- no, interruption of Paul was just short of comical. Romney's winning presidential smile, pleading hand gestures and his funny-if-it-weren't-so-tragic utterance, "Have you forgotten about 9/11?" illustrates perfectly the neo-cons' contempt for the intelligence of the American public.

Let's be clear-- Paul is far from the 'ideal' candidate. He is against universal health care, same-sex marriage, amnesty for immigrants, and stem-cell research. But, in the current political climate he is surely a breath of fresh air-- for the true conservative and even for a progressive socialist. He is real and he is honest.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that candidates like Ron Paul and his liberal doppelgängers Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have no significant chance at being elected. Not because their positions and ideas don't (or wouldn't) resonate with voters, but because they can't overcome a key roadblock for presidential hopefuls. Because of their policies, they are a 'bad investment' for corporate donors and campaign financiers, who are the critical deciders of which candidates are 'credible'.

It's a classic 'catch-22'-- in short, voters will not get any meaningful choice at the polls until campaign finance reform is introduced banning corporate donations and making elections truly free and open, but campaign finance reform is certainly not on the agenda of the current political elite, who, upon passing such legislation, would secure the final nail in the coffin of their political careers.

Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki

2007-08-06T18:44:00.000-05:00

On this, the sixty-second anniversary of the infamous day "Little Boy" wreaked its atomic destruction upon the people of Hiroshima, the United States remains the only nation ever to have attacked their fellow human beings with nuclear weapons. In spite of this, American policy makers and the political elite largely maintain a holier-than-thou attitude when confronting nuclear proliferation around the globe.

Those who walk the corridors of power in Washington like to put America on a pedestal-- the usual cliche is that we are the world's police. But are we so benign? This perception of US foreign policy as good and noble-- the rhetoric of liberty and freedom-- shatters when held to the mirror of history. Not the history as America remembers it or, as is so often the case in this United States of Amnesia, forgets it. No, rather, I speak of another history-- the history of an extraterrestrial observer, history as it actually happened.

In honor of the 200,000 fellow men, women, and children who perished at the hands of an American military that was flexing its nuclear muscles in anticipation the coming stand off with the Soviet Union, I bring you this article by Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and her brother, David Goodman.

"The Hiroshima Cover-Up"

Religions of the World

2007-07-22T13:04:00.000-05:00

There are thousands of religions and sub-religions around the globe. Religion is as much a cultural characteristic as diet, music, and other wonderful traditions. Religion has been the impetus of many great developments in art, music, architecture, and literature-- to name a few-- throughout human history. It has commissioned for us the Sistine Chapel, the Taj Mahal, and the great Buddhas.

At its best religion offers community, morality, comfort and hope. At its worst, however, religion contributes to war, conflict, violence, intolerance, hate, and suffering. We must ask ourselves: do the benefits truly outweigh the limitations? More importantly, are the benefits of religion a uniquely religious offering? Can we not find community, morality, comfort and hope elsewhere, such as from family, friends, science, and introspection? As it has been so eloquently expressed before, 'religion does not have a monopoly on morality."

Organized religions are often exclusive-- from the perspective of a Christian the Muslim is indeed wrong and vice-versa. There is a logical fallacy at play here. If I happen to be born into a Christian culture odds are I will 'accept Jesus Christ as my savior'. If I am born into an Islamic culture chances are I will grow up to follow the prophet Muhammad. And thus it is more or less a game of chance: if Islam is 'right', Christians lose; conversely, if Christianity is 'the one true religion', the life of a Muslim has been spent in vain. (I am using only the two most popular religions in this example for the sake of simplicity, but the principals are universal)

Perhaps the principle of 'freedom of religion' should be augmented to include 'freedom from religion'. Furthermore, it is absolutely inexcusable and morally reprehensible any time religion or its progeny interfere in the lives of others to their disservice or detriment.

Alternate Futures

2007-07-18T19:41:00.000-05:00

Evidently this image was commissioned for a feature in Scientific American, but I can't locate the relevant article on their website. It's a stunning juxtaposition of two drastically opposed notions of what the future could look like. The two imagined futures are somewhat sensationalized but because of this the image makes its point.

The image comes to us via Mondolithic Studios.

Looking at this I can't help but be reminded of a drawing I came across many years ago at the Indiana State Fair. The drawing-- one of the most interesting I've ever seen-- depicted an epic landscape that gradually morphed from an ancient world at one end to a post-modern cityscape on the other.

The vantage point of the drawing was from within a stone temple-- picture a stone floor the length of the drawing in the immediate foreground augmented by a handful of stone pillars that served to break up the landscape into segments. On the left-- the 'ancient' portion of the landscape-- the temple in the foreground is new and pristine; on the right-- the 'post-modern' cityscape-- it is crumbling and in ruins. In the 'middle ground' of the image we see the bulk of the landscape itself-- a lush primeval rainforest at the extreme left, an ancient civilization at middle-left converging on a modern city at middle-right and finally a futuristic metropolis at extreme right. In the background we have a mountain range, a vast ocean, and a beautiful orange sunset.

I don't recall the name of the artist, who was no more than a high school student at the time. In fact I had asked for a print of the drawing, but these apparently never materialized and I have since lost touch. If you ever come across a drawing matching that description, you know who to talk to!

The Corporate Machine

2007-05-10T13:34:00.000-05:00

Thanks to NiNjASLiCE for this.

Senate Rejects Minimum Wage Increase

2006-06-22T21:19:00.000-05:00

Central to a functional republic or 'representative democracy' are-- not surprisingly-- representatives.

Let's look at the definition of 'representative':

from Merriam-Webster-- representative: a.) standing or acting for another especially through delegated authority b.) of, based on, or constituting a government in which the many are represented by persons chosen from among them usually by election

When we elect our representatives to congress, we expect them to represent our best interests. Indeed it is their responsibility and obligation to do so. When they do not, what is our recourse? Should not the people have the right to remove their representative(s) from office at any time should they fail to uphold their commitment to the best interest of their constituents?

Certainly scores of such allegations against representatives by the represented could be cited; below is but one-- albeit quite exemplary-- instance.

"[T]he Senate rejected a measure Wednesday that would have raised the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade. The proposal called for a 40 percent increase from the current wage of Five Dollars and Fifteen cents an hour. A study released this week by the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says the real-dollar value of the minimum wage is now at its lowest level in more than fifty years. But Congress has not rejected all federal pay hikes: last week, House lawmakers voted to increase their salaries by more than Three Thousand Dollars. It was their seventh straight pay raise."

Via Democracy Now!

Noam Chomsky on al-Zarqawi

2006-06-15T21:06:00.000-05:00

The following is excerpted from a recent interview with the legendary linguist, philosopher, and political activist Noam Chomsky:

"[al-Zarqawi] was certainly a leading gangster and I don't think there's many people outside of his village in Jordan that mourn him. He's had a horrible role that was basically created by the Iraq invasion, which [the United States] can't escape responsibility for. He had a loose connection with al-Qaeda, mostly symbolic, with each trying to exploit the other. But that whole system which we call al-Qaeda is not an organisation, it's a network of networks, a lot of loosely interconnected people. What the effects [of killing al-Zarqawi] will be in the massive terrorist apparatus that's been created by the Bush-Blair invasion, one can only guess. The invasion was an enormous stimulant for terrorism, as was anticipated."

[...]

The third crucial sign of America's failure, he says, is that "there's a huge gap between public opinion and public policy. Both political parties are well to the right of the population on a host of major issues, and the elections that are run are carefully designed so that issues do not arise."

Read the full interview.

Quote of the Day

2006-06-14T21:23:00.000-05:00

"Money doesn't buy you anything, it's an illusion. If there was no money on this planet there wouldn't be any less food. It's a big cocksuck, man."

-- The Late Great Bill Hicks

Goodbye Civil Liberties

2006-05-13T21:13:00.000-05:00

Many average Americans are more than willing to give up their civil liberties and privacy, to one degree or another, if it means they will be 'safer'. And they would certainly be reasonable in doing so in light of the fear mongering and general paranoia that has become part of the collective consciousness of this country since 2001.

What we in the United States must come to realize is that this surrender of civil liberties-- fundamental rights on which this country was founded-- truly is the slippery slope to fascism. Fascism doesn't happen overnight and it is not necessarily obvious to a population when it does occur. Many average Americans believe that they would certainly notice if their government began to reflect the qualities of fascism- it would be quite obvious, would it not?

The language and rhetoric of the Bush administration (and the political elite in general) does not seem-- at least to the average American (*)-- to be the language of fascism. But if we are to understand the motives of the Bush administration, if we are to look beyond the rhetoric and peer deeper into the forces and influences that drive them to do what they do, to say what they say, and, more importantly, to say what they say in the way they say it, we must have historical context (see my previous entry, The United State of Amnesia).

The average German in 1939 did not consider the language of the Third Reich to be the language of fascism. It was the language of nationalism-- patriotism-- and a language that was quite appealing to the average German. Many parallels can be drawn between the erosion of civil liberties in Nazi Germany following the Reichstag Fire of 1933 and the erosion of civil liberties we are facing today in the United States following the terrorist attacks of 2001. Both the Reichstag Fire and the September 11th attacks are invoked again and again by the Third Reich and the Bush Regime, respectively, in a calculated method of fear mongering with the goal, whether consciously or subconsciously, of achieving a consolidation of power within the executive (see my previous entry, Signing Statements).

The surrender of our civil liberties is not a solution to terrorism. If we wish to take the problem of terrorism seriously, we must examine why we were attacked. We must take an honest, objective look at the world and how we exert our influence on it. Military aggression and a 'war on terror' are not the answer-- this only stokes the fires of American resentment. The attacks of September 11th were 'blowback', a direct result of American influence and foreign policy.

I challenge the reader to look beyond FOX News and the Bush rhetoric to find a deeper historical context for the current condition of the United States and our position in the world. Maybe surrendering our civil liberties now will lead to a safer tomorrow, but we must look beyond tomorrow. We must look to next week, to next year, to the next generation. We need long-term solutions and ideas, and it is up to each of us to educate ourselves. FOX isn't going to do it for us.

---

* I use this phrase 'average American' persistently not to be condescending, not to put myself in any way above the 'average American'. Quite the opposite, I believe the average American is more than competent but that it is the mainstream media, the rhetoric of the Bush Regime, and lack of historical context (again, see my previous entry, The United State of Amnesia) that lead to a general misunderstanding of the position of the US in today's geo-politcal climate.

Socialism = Hope

2006-05-04T21:08:00.000-05:00

Click here for a clear, logical, comprehensive explanation of Socialism. If you know a little bit about socialism, but would like to understand it better, click the link. If you don't know anything about socialism, and would like to know more, click the link. If you are one of the majority in this country who blindly believe that socialism is bad and capitalism is good, click the link. If you think socialism is communism, click the link. If you think socialism is 'evil', click the link. My favorite: if you think that 'socialism is a good idea in theory, but it will never work', click the link (this is, in a way, how I view capitalism).

We in this country have been conditioned to subscribe to the status quo. We have been convinced by cold war era propaganda that socialism is a threat to freedom. Even before the cold war, anti-socialism propaganda was common in the US. Anti-socialism dogma has been so persistent in the United States that the word itself is now almost taboo.

A professor once told me that and introjection is something we are told as children by a person in a position of authority that we believe to be true until we reach the so-called 'age of reason'. In other words, an introjection can be something a child is told by a parent or teacher that she then accepts as undeniable truth until she reaches an age where she begins to question the validity of said introjection. She will then look elsewhere for insight and information that will help her to make up her own mind about the issue.

The notion that socialism is bad or that it isn't practical or that capitalism is somehow superior is an introjection that many in this great nation share. It is an introjection that is so strongly burned into the collective consciousness of Americans that it has almost become a universal 'truth'.

Capitalism was a step forward from the feudalism that largely preceded it, just as democracy has been a step forward from monarchy many times throughout history. (I should note here that many people believe socialism to exclude democracy-- another common introjection. In fact quite the opposite is true. Socialism and democracy go hand-in-hand, they are fundamentally inseparable.) We are ready to take the next step, but we can only hope to take this step if people begin to educate themselves on the merits of socialism.

Educate yourself. Click the link. It's a small step, but at least it's in the right direction.

200,000 dead in Iraq

2006-05-03T21:05:00.000-05:00

The death toll in Iraq is, by all reasonable estimates, likely to be near or even in excess of 200,000 since the invasion began in 2003.

Via CounterPunch

God's Mercenaries

2006-05-03T21:00:00.000-05:00

I saw this United States Marine Corps bumper sticker today:

It's God's job to judge the terrorists
It's our job to arrange their meeting

Any thoughts?

Signing Statements

2006-05-03T20:55:00.000-05:00

President Bush has issued some 750 of these official statements, in which he lays out his interpretation (the 'official executive interpretation') of laws passed by congress.

Three important points to understand about these signing statements:

1. Bush has issued 750 in his five years in office (ave. 150/year). This is in comparison to H.W. Bush, who issued 232 (ave. 58/year over 4 years) and Bill Clinton, who issued 140 (ave. 17.5/year over 8 years).

2. Unlike his predecessors-- who used signing statements to clarify their understanding or interpretation of a law-- Bush has used his signing statements to put the executive branch above the law. Bush will sign legislation into law and then quietly issue a signing statement saying that he reserves the right to ignore the law if he decides it is in the best interest, for example, of national security. Essentially, Bush has allowed the checks and balances of our government to appear intact while undermining them and concentrating more and more power within the executive branch.

3. In his five years in office Bush has never vetoed a bill. This is the longest a president has gone without vetoing a bill (which would give congress a chance to consider and override his objections-- one of the critical 'checks and balances' of our government) since Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809). Bush is ignoring the executive right to veto in favor of his dictatorial signing statements.

Via Media Matters for America

The Real News is Coming!

2006-05-03T20:46:00.000-05:00

I urge anyone who is concerned about the state of the media in the US and around the world to spend a few minutes with The Real News.

Also, Stephen Colbert's performance at Saturday's White House Correspondents Association Dinner was phenomenal.

I was surprised (and excited) to see that Democracy Now! covered Colbert's speech. Click here for today's episode.

United States of Amnesia

2006-04-22T20:50:00.000-05:00

For tragic, unjust, horrible events in history not to repeat themselves, people must remember an event which has taken place, recall that what happened was bad, and recognize developing situations that are similar. In this way, our collective consciousness will ultimately avoid repeating the atrocities of the past.

A simple analogy can explain this idea well: Gina remembers placing her hand on the hot stove, recalls that it was painful, and recognizes the probability that it will be painful if she repeats this action.

Now, I know I am oversimplifying things here. But the point in this is that we must remember past atrocities to avoid future atrocities. On this I think most people would agree with me.

So now the question becomes: Why do we seem to have trouble remembering the past?

Not only do we lose sight of history's lessons with each new generation, but we seem to have trouble remembering the past even within a generation.

I submit that this 'amnesia' is largely the fault of the media. For an historical event to be recalled by our collective consciousness, it must have been part of the collective consciousness in the first place. I contend that we don't remember many events of history because, as far as the mainstream press was concerned, they didn't happen.

And that's another problem altogether- it is a fundamental failure of the media. Remember, a 'free and diverse press' is critical for democracy to function properly and we have seen continued consolidation of this country's accessible media outlets into the hands of a few conglomerates, especially since the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

By now you may be saying to yourself, 'to what forgotten historical atrocities is he referring?' Or, 'get to the point asshole.'

Ok, here it is:

Threats to the national security of the United States are a natural and inevitable result of this country's historical record of abysmal foreign policy. Terrorist attacks against the US are not 'pre-emptive' or 'unprovoked', but instead they are the result of decades, indeed centuries, of American oppression, exploitation and aggression abroad.

American Imperialism and foreign intervention is all quite well documented (here, here, here, more recently here, and many, many other places). Much has been written on the subject and many have studied it. But you won't find much about it in the mainstream press, today or in the past. Sure, if you look hard enough you are bound to come across a story or two in the mainstream that sheds some light on the reality of US foreign policy. But these instances are so rare that the true nature and extent of the matter never enters the 'collective consciousness', and that is the crucial factor.

And so it is my belief that wars of aggression-- like the current one in Iraq (which is an illegal war anyway) and the one that is looming ominously on the horizon against Iran-- do not and fundamentally can not ever achieve the supposed goal of fighting and eliminating terrorism (or the 'red menace'- communism- as was the Imperial Mantra before the wall came down). On the contrary, such wars only stoke the fires of resentment for American Imperialism and will lead to more, not less attacks against the United States and, ultimately, the demise of the American Empire.

Again, we must turn to the lessons of history. Just as every other aggressive imperial power in history has collapsed under its own weight, so too will it be with the United States if it does not re-evaluate and re-think its foreign policy.

Bill-O, Bill-O, Bill-O

2006-04-22T20:21:00.000-05:00

From mediamatters.org:

During the April 18 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Bill O'Reilly asserted that homeless people will "not support themselves" because they "want to get drunk, or they want to get high ... or they don't want to work [because] they're too lazy." Although drug and alcohol abuse is prevalent among the homeless, most cases of homelessness are the result of a variety of factors. According to the National Resource and Training Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness (NRTCHMI), among the leading causes of homelessness in America are debilitating mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and manic depression, physical and sexual abuse, abject poverty, and other involuntary health conditions such as diabetes and cancer. Nearly 39 percent of the homeless report mental health problems, and nearly 25 percent of them meet the criteria for serious mental illness. In fact as many homeless people report mental illnesses as report problems with alcohol use, and similarly as many people report sexual and physical abuse as report drug use problems. In addition, 25 percent of the homeless population is reportedly under the age of 18.

O'Reilly added that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a "hidden agenda" to "force society to house people who will not support themselves." O'Reilly's comments came in response to an April 15 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that police officers cannot arrest people for loitering in homeless encampments in the section of Los Angeles known as Skid Row.

From the April 18 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: OK, and that's exactly what happened in Los Angeles. The ACLU sued, saying that the police could not arrest or remove any homeless person on the street. Sleeping on the street, blocking the street, urinating or defecating on the street or anything. Now, they sued because the ACLU knew that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco would eventually hear the case, which it did. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as you may know, the most liberal court this country has ever seen. Its rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court 75 percent of the time. But you take it there and you'll get probably a loony ruling, a loony ruling.

Now, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-to-1 that Los Angeles' policy of arresting homeless people for sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks violates the Eighth Amendment, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, ladies and gentlemen. Cruel and unusual punishment. An estimated 80,000 homeless are in L.A. County on any given night. An estimated 12,000 homeless live in Skid Row, a 50-block area in downtown L.A., the highest concentration of homeless in the USA. OK? Now, this lawsuit will be overturned by the Supreme Court if they hear it, and I believe they will. Because, just think about it, and the, and the [Los Angeles city] councilwoman, Ms. [Jan] Perry, made a very interesting point. This could happen anywhere in the United States.

[...]

The ACLU wants to force society to house people who will not support themselves, who will not do it, because they want to get drunk, or they want to get high, or they want -- they don't want to work, they're too lazy. They say, "OK, that's a person's choice. The government should give them a house, and food, and walking-around money, and everything else." That's what it's all about. This is the hidden agenda.

NRTCHMI reported that people who are homeless frequently report health problems:

38 percent report alcohol use problems.
26 percent report other drug use problems.
39 percent report some form of mental health problems (20-25 percent meet criteria for serious mental illness).
66 percent report either substance use and/or mental health problems.
3 percent report having HIV/AIDS.
26 percent report acute health problems other than HIV/AIDS, such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, or sexually transmitted diseases.
46 percent report chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or cancer.
Also, according to NRTCHMI, homeless adults also have high rates of other characteristics:

23 percent are veterans (compared with 13 percent of the general population).
25 percent were physically or sexually abused as children.
27 percent were in foster care or institutions as children.
21 percent were homeless as children.
54 percent were incarcerated at some point in their lives.

And They Lived Happily Ever After

2006-04-15T20:14:00.000-05:00

From www.washingtonpost.com:
Half a century ago, Iran was very close to a real democracy. It had an elected legislature, called the majlis, and it had a repressive monarch, called the shah, and power veered uncertainly between them. In 1951, over the shah's objections, the majlis voted in a man named Mohammad Mosaddeq as prime minister. His big issue was nationalizing the oil companies.

But in 1952 the United States had an election for president, and the winner (Dwight Eisenhower) got more votes than anyone in Iran. That must explain why in 1953, in the spirit of democracy, the CIA instigated a riot and then staged a coup. Mosaddeq was arrested, the majlis was ultimately dissolved and the shah ran things his way, which involved torture and death for political opponents, caviar and champagne for an international cast of hangers-on, and no more crazy talk about nationalizing the oil companies.
Am I missing something? Maybe I don't grasp this guy's (Washington Post Op-Ed Columnist Michael Kinsley) sense of humor, but I don't think I like it. Even worse (or 'funnier') than the above statement is what Mr. Kinsley leaves us with at the end of his article, which you will find out soon...

Particularly troubling is his assertion that the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew popular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq was 'in the spirit of democracy' because US President Eisenhower 'got more votes than anyone in Iran'. This statement is true, of course, because Eisenhower received nearly 34 million votes in 1952 (source) while the population of Iran in 1951 was a mere 16 million people (source).

At least Mr. Kinsley is honest in his description of the coup as 'instigated' and 'staged' by the CIA. Not that the United States' long history of questionable foreign policy implemented by the CIA is news (questionable being a rather polite word- more appropriate may be 'criminal' or 'inhumane' or 'illegal').

But then Mr. Kinsley goes on to mention the US-backed Shah's inclination to "torture and [kill] political opponents". I guess I am just confused about Mr. Kinsley's direction. I find myself wondering where he stands on the issues he mentions and, more importantly, where he stands on similar issues that are materializing around Iran today.

As promised, here is the conclusion of Mr. Kinsley's little essay:
...we [the United States] marched in [to Afghanistan] and got rid of the Taliban. Then we marched into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. Now we're -- well, we haven't figured out what, but we're hopping mad and gonna do something, dammit, about Iran.

And they lived happily ever after.
And they lived happily ever after!? Who did? I am still having trouble understanding Mr. Kinsley's sense of humor. Perhaps he would like to enlighten me?

Patriotism?

2006-04-14T19:52:00.000-05:00

Today I saw a sign on the back of a truck.

It said:

"Support our troops
Wherever they go
No aid or comfort to the enemy, ever"

I almost cried...

The Red Menace?

2006-04-06T19:51:00.000-05:00

The Danger of Hugo Chávez's Successful Socialism
NEW YORK--When the hated despots of nations like Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan loot their countries' treasuries, transfer their oil wealth to personal Swiss bank accounts and use the rest to finance (in the House of Saud's case) terrorist extremists, American politicians praise them as trusted friends and allies. But when a democratically elected populist president uses Venezuela's oil profits to lift poor people out of poverty, they accuse him of pandering.

Bush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools

2006-03-22T19:34:00.000-05:00

The Mission Was Indeed Accomplished

The Guardian– — Get off it. All the carping, belly-aching and complaining about George Bush’s incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is just dead wrong.
On the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq’s border, most of the 59 million Homer Simpsons who voted for Bush are beginning to doubt if his mission was accomplished.

But don’t kid yourself — Bush and his co-conspirator, Dick Cheney, accomplished exactly what they set out to do. In case you’ve forgotten what their real mission was, let me remind you of White House spokesman Ari Fleisher’s original announcement, three years ago, launching of what he called,

“Operation

Iraqi

Liberation.”

The Death of Hope

2006-03-22T17:40:00.000-05:00

Post-Cold War, New-World-Order time, it looks good for the Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex and their global partners in crime, the World Bank and the IMF. They've got their NAFTA, and soon their World Trade Organization. They're dictating economic, poltical and social development all over the Third World and Eastern Europe. Moscow's reaction to events anywhere is no longer a restraining consideration. The UN's Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations, 15 years in the making, is dead. Everything in sight is being deregulated and privatized. Capital prowls the globe with a ravenous freedom it hasn't enjoyed since before World War I, operating free of friction, free of gravity. The world has been made safe for the transnational corporation.

Will this mean any better life for the multitudes than the Cold War brought? Any more regard for the commmon folk than there's been since they fell off the cosmic agenda centuries ago? "By all means," says Capital, offering another warmed-up version of the "trickle down" theory, the principle that the poor, who must subsist on the table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.

The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century-- without exception-- has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement-- from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador-- not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.

It's as if the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly.

William Blum - from the 1995 edition of Killing Hope

Words Of Wisdom From Howard Zinn

2006-03-15T22:27:00.000-05:00

On the third anniversary of President Bush's Iraq debacle, it's important to consider why the administration so easily fooled so many people into supporting the war.

I believe there are two reasons, which go deep into our national culture.

One is an absence of historical perspective. The other is an inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism.

If we don't know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives. But if we know some history, if we know how many times presidents have lied to us, we will not be fooled again.

President Polk lied to the nation about the reason for going to war with Mexico in 1846. It wasn't that Mexico "shed American blood upon the American soil" but that Polk, and the slave-owning aristocracy, coveted half of Mexico.

President McKinley lied in 1898 about the reason for invading Cuba, saying we wanted to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control, but the truth is that he really wanted Spain out of Cuba so that the island could be open to United Fruit and other American corporations. He also lied about the reasons for our war in the Philippines, claiming we only wanted to "civilize" the Filipinos, while the real reason was to own a valuable piece of real estate in the far Pacific, even if we had to kill hundreds of thousands of Filipinos to accomplish that.

President Wilson lied about the reasons for entering the First World War, saying it was a war to "make the world safe for democracy," when it was really a war to make the world safe for the rising American power.

President Truman lied when he said the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it was "a military target."

And everyone lied about Vietnam - President Kennedy about the extent of our involvement, President Johnson about the Gulf of Tonkin and President Nixon about the secret bombing of Cambodia. They all claimed the war was to keep South Vietnam free of communism, but really wanted to keep South Vietnam as an American outpost at the edge of the Asian continent.

President Reagan lied about the invasion of Grenada, claiming falsely that it was a threat to the United States.

The elder Bush lied about the invasion of Panama, leading to the death of thousands of ordinary citizens in that country. And he lied again about the reason for attacking Iraq in 1991 - hardly to defend the integrity of Kuwait, rather to assert U.S. power in the oil-rich Middle East.

There is an even bigger lie: the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior.

Tears

2006-02-28T22:26:00.000-05:00

Each day I shed a tear for our men and women in uniform, many of whom have unwittingly become the Bush Regime's pawns in its' not-so-hidden policy of economic imperialism.

Each day I shed a hundred tears for the Iraqi people, who have become the victims of a devastating war of aggression. I weep for the dead, the wounded, the tortured. Why don't we hear their stories in the media?

But, most of all, I weep for the future. Will the United States continue to expand its' global economic empire, enriching the rich and exploiting the poor? Where is the U.N.? Why haven't they charged the Bush Regime with high crimes of war? What are they waiting for? Plain and simple- the Bush Regime has violated the Geneva Convention- not to mention the basic human rights of the Iraqi people- and they must be held accountable.

Let History Judge

2006-02-27T20:51:00.000-05:00

Well, this is certainly fitting:

In a recent article, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter spoke about his testimony before the Bush Crimes Commission [sessions held last month in New York]:

President Bush has tried to justify his embrace of hegemony and pre-emption as a tragic necessity in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. But the facts do not add up. The triple-threat outlined by the Bush administration as the justification for this new policy -- Saddam Hussein's WMD, the Hussein-Osama Bin Laden alliance, and the transfer of WMD technology from Iraq to Al Qaeda for the purpose of attacking America -- could not be backed up either in the form of intelligence data or intelligence analysis. The fact that the Bush administration pushed so aggressively for pre-emptive war in the face of no viable threat speaks volumes about the nature and intent of the President and those who advise him.

In 1946, the Nuremburg Tribunal rejected the German defense of pre-emption when it came to the invasion of Denmark and Norway in 1940. The Germans had cited the imminent occupation of these two nations by the armed forces of France and Great Britain, which would have threatened the German northern front, as just cause. This defense was rebuked by the tribunal, led by US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who instead identified the German action as constituting a "war of aggression." Judge Jackson went on to say that "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Judge Jackson's words, and my steadfast allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, motivated me to give testimony this past Saturday at the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration, in particular in support of the first count put forward by the commission: that the Bush administration authorized a war of aggression against Iraq.

I'm not a big fan of un-mandated tribunals, but given the absolute lack of attention on the part of Congress regarding the decision to invade Iraq (a lethargy encouraged somewhat by Congress's own culpability in abrogating its responsibilities under the Constitution when it comes to war powers and holding the Executive Branch in check), I felt that my participation in the Commission's work would help create a record that might someday in the future motivate the representatives of the American people who occupy the Legislative Branch of government to carry work that not only serves the interests of their respective constituencies, but also defends both the letter and intent of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend. America should not be looking to any international commission or tribunal to hold President Bush and his administration to account; that is the job of the American people.

When historians look back on the policies enacted by the Bush administration in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, starting off with the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003, they will be passing judgment on a United States that has violated international law as egregiously as any power in modern history. The final chapters have yet to be written on the Presidency of George W. Bush, but even if time stopped still at the present, the crimes of America and its leader are many, and terrible.

Where do I live?

2006-02-27T20:38:00.000-05:00

So I just got home- haven't been home since Thursday. Or maybe it was Friday morning, I can't remember. I didn't intend to be gone that long, but Allston really sucks you in. Heh...

What the hell am I doing in Norwood? Anyone? Kelly? Nothing wrong with Norwood, but right now my heart is in Allston. That's where all the action is kids. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

Anyway, I finally saw Why We Fight tonight. Definitely worth seeing, but good luck if you don't live in a major market. You might have to wait for the DVD if the film doesn't make it to all theaters.

The film really takes a step back from the 'America-as-savior' dogma and examines modern economic imperialism through a removed, un-embedded, objective, historical lens- the kind of presentation we are likely to see in a history text centuries or even mere decades from now.

The corporate elite and the political elite are quickly becoming one and the same in the United States- a sort of post-democratic aristocracy to rule the post-democratic pseudo-facist global economic empire of America. Now there's a mouthful...

Let's just call it the rich-old-white-guy-club for short.

These 'American aristocrats' are war profiteers- imperial conquerors- and the United States military is their mercenary army. We must denounce the unprovoked invasion and imperial occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq and wars of aggresion in general. We must voice our objections to the ongoing establishment of permanent garrisons in Iraq.

Do you find my choice of words a bit zealous or excessive? Maybe you've been watching too much FOX News.

Oh and while we're on the subject, I want to again recommend "Killing Hope" by William Blum. You might be surprised at how frequently the United States intervenes (and has done so for decades) around the world to protect and promote the economic interests of our corporate establishment, all at the expense of countless lives and endless suffering.

Why We Fight

2006-02-25T20:34:00.000-05:00

I would like to encourage everyone to check out this trailer for Why We Fight, an award winning war documentary.

Find showtimes near you.

What is the secret to advertising?

2006-02-23T20:27:00.000-05:00

Repetition.

"Fascism [as a post-democratic political system] learned from democracy the value of popular support for national policies, and it sought to manufacture popular support by propaganda and fear."

An examination of Bush facism...

The Venezuelan Revolution : 100 Questions-100 Answers

2006-02-21T20:14:00.000-05:00

I just had the privilege of hearing Chesa Boudin speak in Brookline about Venezuela and about his new book, "The Venezuelan Revolution: 100 Questions- 100 Answers", which he co-authored with two Venezuelan natives: Gabriel Gonzales and Wilmar Rumbos.

Boudin, an extremely bright and well-spoken young man, has recently returned from spending a year in Venezuela after traveling there with the intent of staying for only a couple weeks.

I encourage anyone who is interested in the situation in Venezuela to pick up his book, especially in light of recent statements from the Bush administration seeking to demonize Chavez and his government.

By the way, Citgo (with all of their roughly 14,000 filling stations in the US owned by Venezuela's state oil company- Venezuela is the world's 5th largest producer of oil), has recently begun offering oil for home heating to poor families in the northeastern US (including Boston, Delaware, New York, Chicago, etc.) at a 40% discount. Citgo has invited many American owned oil companies to participate in this program, all of which have declined.

The Cartoons And The Neocon

2006-02-20T20:04:00.000-05:00

Let me tell you a few things about blasphemy. Been there, done it. Got expelled from high school for it.

That was a few decades ago, and for those seeking titillation, I'll give you the details at the end of this screed. First I have to tell you about a massive propaganda coup. You've been had by some of the most bigoted people in the world -- and I'm not talking about Muslim fundamentalists.

Just another reality check for you

2006-02-04T23:40:00.000-05:00

It Would Be Funny, If It Weren't So Tragic -- Rumsfeld on Venezuela: "Overspending"
by Dave Lindorff

Enjoy.

-g-

Arts Advocacy

2006-01-26T23:20:00.000-05:00

Many would agree that the arts are an integral and fundamental component of any culture but, unfortunately, this view is not universal. As you may be aware, there are those who would cut funding for arts and art education–in many cases these are the same people who support increased military spending.

Everyone is familiar with the orthodox images of the ancient Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta. Athens is thought of as a culturally rich, enlightened society that embraces art, intellect, and humanity, while Sparta is often portrayed as a militaristic society that places war and military prowess above all else. We must ask ourselves, to which ideal should we be aspiring? (On a side note, these familiar characterizations of the famous city-states are not quite historically accurate, but that is not the topic of this essay.)

In 2005, the Pentagon received nearly 700 times as much funding as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Gallery of Art combined. The total funding for all art related organizations at the federal, state, and local levels was just over $10 billion in 2004, according to the National Endowment for the Arts. This may seem like a lot of money, but it is 40 times less than what the Pentagon received. Clearly the tax dollars are available, they are simply being spent in the wrong place. Government spending on the arts could be doubled at the expense of less than 3f our annual military budget.

Again, we must ask ourselves where our priorities lie. Athens or Sparta?

In Canada, in 1990 the Cultural Industries Development Fund was established to "target entrepreneurs working in book and magazine publishing, sound recording, film and video production and multimedia."

Then, the Broadcasting Act of 1991 was passed, which:

1. emphasizes the importance of bilingualism, multiculturalism and the special place of Aboriginal people in Canadian society

2. promotes employment equity for women, aboriginal people and visible minorities

3. emphasizes the importance of programming which is Canadian in both content and character

In 1992, the Report of the Federal Standing Committee on Communications and Culture was released. The report recommends:

1. a five per cent increase in government funding for the arts

2. increased support for the Canada Council for the Arts

3. amendments to the Copyright Act to ensure compensation for Canadian artists

4. stable funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Also, the Status of the Artist Act in Canada recognizes "the importance of the contribution of artists to the cultural, social, economic and political enrichment of Canada."

Clearly, Canada places an emphasis on the arts in their society and recognizes the cultural importance in doing so. We should do the same.

The United Kingdom also recognizes the importance of arts advocacy. According to Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport in England:

“One of the wonderful things about great art is that true lovers of it never want to keep it to themselves – they want all the world to know. There is nothing selfish or exclusive in their enthusiasm, nor does wider appreciation weaken the force of the art. The argument for public subsidy accordingly rests above all on the desire that all, not just a minority, should have access to the thrill of engagement with great art.”

She reveals another interesting thought in the following statement:

“[W]hen [the] government spends the nation’s marginal income – taxation – on 'culture'…it cannot avoid…making…value judgments. Why is it right for the Royal Opera House, to receive huge public subsidies? Why do we subsidize symphony orchestras but not pub bands or pianists? Why do we subsidize performances of Shakespeare and Mahler but not Coldplay or Madonna?”

This is something I have given considerable thought to. It is so difficult–nearly impossible–for a band to devote a few weeks or months to touring. Often, it is not possible to take time off work or it is simply too expensive for a band without the necessary capital to pay for a tour. Of all the touring bands in the US, I would imagine that a negligible percent of them profit by touring. There should be government subsidies for musicians, as well as other artists, who don’t have the necessary financial means to pursue their craft.

We are growing ever closer to the Spartan military society. If you have ever seen the way the military is glamorized in television commercials then you know exactly what I mean. We need to avoid this, we need to strive for a more Athenian ideal in our society. We should be supporting education and the arts rather than global military conquest.

To conclude, I’ll leave you with a quote from Elliot Eisner–professor of education and art at Stanford University. He says,

"To neglect the contribution of the arts in education, either through inadequate time, resources, or poorly trained teachers is to deny children access to one of the most stunning aspects of their culture and one of the most potent means for developing their minds."

-g- (written Spring 2005)

State of Fear - The Politics of Global Climate Change

2006-01-21T22:39:00.000-05:00

In his recent techno-thriller State of Fear, Michael Crichton "builds a fantasy world where global warming is not a real threat, but global warming scientists are". Crichton's novel contains footnotes and a bibliography, which he uses to present the information in the book as science rather than science fiction. Crichton is not a scientist or a climatologist, but State of Fear has been widely distributed and there are many who see the novel as more than mere fiction. Capitalists and industrialists are using the novel to advance their own agenda; Capitalist Magazine says the book is "long overdue".

Popular authors and celebrities such as Crichton have a social and moral responsibility when they publish a book. Crichton has acted irresponsibly. Certainly more Americans will read State of Fear than would read a scientific journal or other responsibly researched scientific article. Crichton's book may be the only exposure some Americans get to the issue of climate change and this is bad news, especially when some of these Americans are journalists or government officials. State of Fear is dangerous and harmful to the environmentalist movement. Crichton even goes so far as to compare global warming to eugenics, and this comparison is found in the authors note at the end of the novel, not in the actual text.

Despite what Michael Crichton would have us believe, climate change is a very real and very critical issue. Climate change refers to not just global warming, but cooling as well. According to Richard B. Alley, professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University, "gradual warming could lead to a sudden cooling of many degrees." (Scientific American, Nov. 2004) Also, according to GlobalClimate.org, "English farmers have seen their growing season shrink by around two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation."

Every day there is more and more evidence suggesting that global climate change is occurring and that humanity is to blame. According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), "expert concerns about global warming are growing steadily, as more and more evidence pours in supporting the conclusion that heat-trapping pollution -- from fossil fuels and other sources -- is warming the planet at an unprecedented rate. Theories put forward over a decade ago are playing out in changes to the Earth's climate as predicted, and climate models designed by NASA and others are more and more conclusive in their findings and accuracy. What's truly troubling is the willingness of many major U.S. media outlets to accept a sweeping dismissal from a novelist of scientists' conclusions drawn from decades of research."

The political implications of the global climate issue are enormous. According to Ross Gelbspan, "nothing is being done about [global warming] in the United States, but in other countries they're extremely aware of it. In the U.S. the issue is not being discussed because of the lock the oil and coal industry have on our Congress and especially on the Bush administration."

Though global warming is a real problem and must be addressed accordingly, dramatic climate change is certainly nothing new. In fact, the collapse of many ancient cultures has been blamed on naturally occurring climate shifts. Indeed, the global climate has never been exactly stable. The last Ice Age and the more recent Little Ice Age (ca. 1400 CE - 1900 CE) are perfect examples of natural climate shifts. However, the current warming trend has been shown to be a direct result of human activity.

Unfortunately, there exists a powerful disinformation campaign led by those invested in the coal, oil, and automobile industries. These wealthy capitalists and careless politicians are prepared to sacrifice the global climate for their own greed.

We need a change; we need a solution. We need a new approach to the issue. The solution must begin at the individual level. If everyone who recognizes the problem makes a few changes in their lives, then we are on the right track. This includes conservation and recycling, driving smaller, more efficient cars (which are becoming readily available) and encouraging others to follow the same path.

Beyond this, we must begin to attack the oil, coal, and automobile industries. We must encourage our policymakers to demand stricter emissions laws for cars. We must abandon fossil fuels altogether within the decade and immediately pursue alternative, renewable forms of energy. According to Ross Gelbspan, "[w]e need to cut our emissions by 70% in order to stabilize the climate."

Though it may seem so, it isn't hopeless; things are being done. There are several scattered examples of change. According to the NRDC, "[I]n December, Board members of California's two public pension funds requested a meeting with auto executives, asking them to make vehicles that emit less global warming pollution rather than sue the state for its global warming vehicle emissions reduction bill." Also from the National Resources Defense Council, "mainstream business magazines Fortune, Business Week, and The Economist have called for a sounder energy policy to address global warming and oil dependence and encourage American competitive development of technology." This is certainly a step in the right direction, but it is not enough.

There are still those who would have the world believe that climate change is a non-issue and should simply be ignored. Case in point: in 2004 the Bush administration ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to strike language about global warming from a report. The administration is stalling, calling for continued research and corporate volunteerism instead of taking meaningful steps toward a solution.

Ultimately, government officials answer to the people (at least in theory). Though our democracy is less than perfect, we must take advantage of what opportunities we have and alert policymakers to our concerns as citizens. The more people get behind the environmentalist movement the better. Educated individuals must remind their friends who have been exposed to disinformation about global warming, whether it be State of Fear or conservative media or another source, that global warming is a real threat to the world and to humanity. Any intelligent person should realize that decades of painstakingly recorded research cannot be discredited by an author of science fiction.

Those of us who recognize climate change as a critical issue must be vocal and persistent. We have a social and moral responsibility to do so.

-g- (written Spring 2005)

Another Great Hoosier

2006-01-16T22:27:00.000-05:00

Cold Turkey by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

Enjoy.

-g-

Hail Bush, Our Valiant Emperor

2006-01-16T22:18:00.000-05:00

Did anyone see this?

US soldiers in Iraq asked to pray for Bush

They may be the ones facing danger on the battlefield, but US soldiers in Iraq are being asked to pray for President George W Bush.

Thousands of marines have been given a pamphlet called "A Christian's Duty," a mini prayer book which includes a tear-out section to be mailed to the White House pledging the soldier who sends it in has been praying for Bush.

"I have committed to pray for you, your family, your staff and our troops during this time of uncertainty and tumult. May God's peace be your guide," says the pledge, according to a journalist embedded with coalition forces.

The pamphlet, produced by a group called In Touch Ministries, offers a daily prayer to be made for the US president, a born-again Christian who likes to invoke his God in speeches.

Sunday's is "Pray that the President and his advisers will seek God and his wisdom daily and not rely on their own understanding".

Monday's reads "Pray that the President and his advisers will be strong and courageous to do what is right regardless of critics".

No further comment...

Quote of the Day

2006-01-16T22:15:00.000-05:00

"As long as there is a lower class, I am in it. As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it. As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

-Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926) of Terra Haute, Indiana. Five-time Socialist Party candidate for President of the United States, winning 900,000 votes (6%) in 1912.

-g-

Noam Chomsky on Iraq

2006-01-15T22:09:00.000-05:00

As always, Chomsky is a voice of reason in a sea of madness.

The acclaimed critic of U.S. foreign policy analyzes Bush's current political troubles, the war on Iraq, and what's really behind the global 'war on terror.'

Chomsky: 'There Is No War On Terror'

Enjoy.

-g-

The Solution To Our Media Problems?

2006-01-14T21:49:00.000-05:00

Everyone should really check out Independent World Television. These guys are really on to something and we should all do what we can to support them.

-g-

Democracy?

2005-11-15T21:43:00.000-05:00

A story with absolutely shattering implications for the future of what's left of democracy in this country: Democracy?

-g-

"UN troops deployed in Washington to remove Bush from office; liberate America."

2005-06-23T02:31:00.000-05:00

Alright, so that headline was fake. But what if this actually happened? Would you be surprised? Relieved? Scared?

If you said you'd be surprised, I would like to point out to you that the Bush administration is directly responsible for the deaths of some 22-25 thousand (well over 100,000 by some counts) Iraqis since the war officially began in 2003. If this is not a crime, then what is?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

-g-

Thoughts for the day...

2005-06-16T21:34:00.000-05:00

Here are a few things I have written over time that I just stumbled upon (some of the ideas are those of Victor Wallis)...

1. (on free speech) Conservatives haven't been able to maintain an iron grip on universities precisely because this is one place where free speech persists. If free speech were universal, falsely held conservative (and, for that matter, liberal) views would lose merit and support.

2. (on the American Dream) The original American ideology suggests that people should not be limited in their endeavors by the family and/or social class they are born into. However, family, class, and situation do indeed have a significant impact on one's opportunities. In other words, an indirect relationship between one's origins and one's level of 'success' has (in the US) replaced the historical relationship which was more direct. In order to advance beyond this, we need to move in a direction where the relationship between one's origins and one's level of success is nonexistent. (any ideas?)

3. (on emergency healthcare) One's access to life-saving and critical healthcare services should not be a factor of that individual's financial well-being. By the same token, one should not be forced into debilitating debt by receiving such healthcare.

-g-

Correspondence with LostAtSea.net regarding their presidential straw polls

2000-01-01T00:00:00.000-05:00

Survey Says... Presidential Candidates

from    Geoff Summers
to    news@lostatsea.net
date    Sep 17, 2007 12:07 PM
subject    Survey Says... Presidential Candidates

Hi there,

Not sure if you are responsible for the 'polls' on LAS, please pass on to the relevant party...

I must say that I take exception to your exclusion of, to quote from the poll itself, "several viable candidates" from this survey.

In fact, if the presidential hopefuls were to be closely examined, I think you would find that candidates such as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul are indeed more viable (if we are taking viable to mean 'capable of working successfully') than any of the six listed in your poll, and that's not even to mention candidates representing other parties.

I am not naive. I know that when you use the word 'viable', you do not mean it in its true sense. Rather, you mean it in the way that it has come to be used in describing candidates that pass through the media's rigorous 'filtering process'. Clinton is 'viable', in short, because she is a corporatist. Kucinich, for example, is not 'viable', because he is a populist, and because candidates like him are effectively removed from the process prematurely by the press (and other factors at odds with any sort of, erm, viable democratic process), would-be supporters feel disenfranchised and, ultimately, 'settle' for the next best choice (or the next best, or the next best).

For more on this phenomenon, see:

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-08/13herman.cfm

For a specific, archetypal example of this phenomenon, see Sean Hannity's disenfranchisement (and Alan Colmes' complicity) of voters (please excuse or ignore the pro-Paul angle in the latter part of the video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUxQadgSkoA
via:
http://openletter2foxnews.wordpress.com/

I intended to write a brief complaint about the poll on LAS, and I may have gotten a bit carried away. But I think it's important not to prematurely remove legitimate candidates just because the media is coercing us to do so. We should support the democratic process (or at least the idea of it) and not play into the hands of the powers that be.

Best,

--
Geoff Summers

surf the gerf turf
http://surfthegerfturf.blogspot.com

---------------------------------------------------

RE: Survey Says... Presidential Candidates (fwd)

from    LAS
reply-to    eric.j.herboth@lostatsea.net
to    surfthegerfturf@gmail.com
date    Sep 21, 2007 11:37 AM
subject    RE: Survey Says... Presidential Candidates (fwd)

Hello Geoff. Thanks for your email, and taking the time to compose it. We could surely go back and forth on American politics all day, both of us no doubt equipped with an arsenal of facts and well-composed points, but I would imagine that, in a very broad "liberal" versus "conservative" analysis (using those terms as loosely as possible and then only as a default to the current standards of discourse imposed by the media, which you appropriately point out), yourself and the majority of the LAS staff would settle on the same side of the fence, so that would probably be a waste of time and energy on both our parts.

Yes, indeed, we do/did use the term "viable" in reference to a candidate's chances, in ratio to those of a snowball's of surviving in the mythical realm of Hell, of actually being elected to office in a nation full of Americans. If we were to use the term in reference to a candidate's likelihood of being "successful" in furthering and bettering the cause of the Earth's occupants (the human race as well as plant and animal species), there certainly wouldn't be any scumbags like 9/11 flag fucker Rudy Giuliani or that Mitt Romney guy. But, alas, I don't even think Russell Means is running for those Libertarian weirdoes anymore, I don't think Noam Chomsky or Russ Feingold ever would run, and we don't even have the possibilities-slash-media spectacle of Howard Dean to consider.

Our poll is simply for demographic analysis purposes (and, it should be honestly said, entertainment value) in relation to what might be an actual event. I think more and more people are realizing that the United States (and unfortunately, as a result, much of the known natural world) is pretty much fucked in at least the short term and that most every disaster that befalls it - from 9/11 to the Iraq war to western wildfires and beyond - has been a long time coming simply as a matter of cause and effect in a world that is dynamic. I shan't veer off onto that thread of argument though, because I think we also all realize that innocent people needlessly and horrifically have lost their lives at the hands of other human beings, a list of victims that extends not only to upper middle class equities traders in the World Trade Center as well as to the inhabitants of places like Afghanistan, Honduras, Alabama, the Philippines, the Navajo nation, Chechnya, et cetera, both as the result of American interference and/or blind eye neglect. And just as a short but necessary point, we likely also all realize that all nations commit cruel and violent acts against their own people and others, but this topic is on the United States which, we also all recognize, is the country gallivanting around the world as a beacon of equality and dignity and human rights. If it was okay to just do what everyone else did the United States would have gulags and torture chambers and... er, wait a minute... never mind.

Basically, I can't speak for the rest of the staff, but as far as I'm concerned anyone in sanctioned state politics (the world over, it seems) is going to perpetuate the course of American political and social life which, lets face it, has been pretty shady all along (I'm sure you've done your share of reading). Who wants to risk protecting a bunch of Bronze Age villagers in mud huts and caves when there's a fucking McDonalds franchise at stake?

The last person I personally would have actually supported and endorsed with a vote for President of the United States was Robert Kennedy, who unfortunately was assassinated nearly a decade before I was born. By the way, that is a sentiment I wouldn't extend to his douchebag brother Ted, who is an appropriate and effective totem for the absurd hilarity that is the Democratic party. I personally maintain that Republican politicians are almost uniformly despicable human beings (damn if that John McCain doesn't, when not dry-humping George Bush's leg, seem like he could be a rational human being from time to time), but at the least they have far more palpable (of course not absolute) and proven level of integrity (in relation to doing what they say they'll do) and conviction of principle that one can almost respect. I'd rather drink turpentine and piss on a brush fire than vote for a Republican, but the guiding light for the Democratic party in the post-Camelot era (itself wrought with American excess and international meddling) is Bill Clinton, a fellow who had the chance to pardon or at least grant clemency to someone like Leonard Peltier and instead used his last minute signatures to benefit his cronies.

I've spent more than half my life living in the United States, as a citizen, and it is pretty clear to me that neither a woman nor a person of "color," no matter their merit, stand a very good chance of winning the support of a majority of Americans. At least in one instance we can thank goodness that prejudice extends to Jews and that weasley Lieberman. Who knows, I may be wrong, but the fact that most people are only very very vaguely familiar with the names Mike Gravel and Ron Paul and even Kucinich is probably testament to the fact that none of them have been making passionate and intelligent pleas for a dramatic change in American policy *in a logical and real-world practical way*. And in that regard they're the same as Obama or Clinton or Howard Dean or John Edwards or John Kerry or Al Gore and indeed Giuliani and McCain - none of them are going to so much as adjust CAFE standards to a "viable" (in the OTHER sense of the word) level (which would make gasoline engines non-viable), let alone cut off military and political support to Israel or normalize relations with Cuba and half of South America or even provide real and complete social and economic relief to their own citizenry of indigenous origins. I mean, c'mon - millions of people were running around three years ago with groups like MoveOn and operating under the very sincere belief that John Kerry was going to nationalize health care and save the world. It's like the dumb leading the retarded.

I kind of get the impression that Kucinich is effectively removed from the process prematurely by his own party, but I could be mistaken.

By the way, Ron Paul actually defeated Russell Means for the Libertarian nomination for president in the late 1980s and then, after having succeeded in displacing a candidate who would have at least been as "viable" (again, the other sense of the word) as Walter Mondale, switched to the Republican Party to suck up the last residual bliss of the Reaganomics coma that Americans were in. You sure you want to back THAT guy?

Again, I thank you for your correspondence and I salute your obviously passionate political arguments, even if I personally have different views. In that regard, America is still sort of cool, that we can say what we want (so long as its not over the phone or internet with any alarmist rhetoric!). In the end everyone, left and right and up and down, has to make their own decision, whether that be to vote for the lesser of many evils, move to a foreign country and watch from afar, incinerate a Hummer dealership, affix themselves to the bridge of FDR's nose on Mt. Rushmore with a 55-gallon drum of superglue adn waiving a banner that reads GAY ATHEIST MARIJUANA SEX FOR GHANDI, or what have you. Perhaps the options on our poll were not as open/fair as they could have been, for to do so we'd have to reasonably include the candidates from the National Socialist White People's Party (aka the American Nazi party), the Klu Klux Klan, Warren Beatty, Jessie Jackson, that dude from Law & Order, Grover from Sesame Street, Arianna Huffington, et cetera. We will for sure be running updated/similar polls closer to the country's political conventions and the run up to the November Oh-Ate elections, but those will also, unfortunately, need to reflect real-world scenarios for the information gathering they are intended for. Who knows, maybe Kucinich is going to adopt a platform that forbids federal aid money to any fungdark who builds his house in coastal Florida and then is found in a blubbering mass of remorse after a hurricane takes his wife and kids and custom Caloway (sp?) golf clubs and spreads them across half of Georgia, in which case he will assuredly be in a subsequent list of polling options. Heck, if he says he wants to give Florida to Cuba, he'll even get my vote! I think Castro could at least appreciate the Everglades as they once were...

By all means, if you'd like to compose an opinion piece on the state of American politics in relation to the current election cycle (or the politiscape in general), feel free to do so and I will seriously consider it for publication as a column - and there's no need to pander to my jaded reactionism if you do so. Give it to us straight. Regardless of how our individual or collective political or moral (now THERE is a word that has lost all meaning in modern American times) might play out, in no way would any of us wish to block anyone from the opportunity to share their views on how to right that sinking ship.

Thanks again, and don't let the bastards get you down.

PS - I've copied the staff on this email (and my parents, who are no doubt always overflowing with pride after hearing my astute political observations), just to ensure that I'm not in some way seen as speaking for anyone but myself, which I'm not. Oh, and while we're on the subject, to the staff I'll say that I'd love to see a female leader of the free world, aka US President, but anyone considering voting for Hillary Clinton might want to revisit her vote on the Iraq military powers authorization. My point being that I wholeheartedly believe she voted YES because she didn't think Bush was actually going to use that authority, and that is exactly why I don't think she should be entrusted with such an office. I mean, if she can't read and predict the level of theological fanaticism and moral bankruptcy and capitalistic opportunism in some clown like George Bush, how in the hell is she going to deal with the next Pol Pot, Manuel Noriega, Osama bin Laden or any other former CIA operative turned "rogue"? Actually, in his defense I should point out that Pol Pot was never on the US payroll...

And is it just be or does this Obama guy say all the right things but still seem kind of... I don't know, I can't put my finger on what I don't like about that guy... at least he'd probably get the US involved in African in a meaningful way... and isn't he down with two dudes engaging in hot, passionate sexual intercourse with each other and then adopting kids? I haven't heard, but that would be rad if he was.

--
Eric J Herboth :: Managing Editor

-----------------------------------
PLEASE NOTE: As of June 2006 our US mailing address (POB 7 IA 50010) is CLOSED.

MUSIC: For addresses in the US, Germany, UK, Portugal, Spain and Canada email music.editor@lostatsea.net. All press campaigns should be solicited individually to music.editor@lostatsea.net with a project overview, at which time a direct mailing address will be provided for each release that we are interested in checking out.

CINEMA/ART/MEDIA: Email editor@lostatsea.net with a project overview, screening/opening dates, et cetera and I will put you in touch with a writer.
-----------------------------------

LOST AT SEA MAGAZINE - updated daily!
read: http://lostatsea.net
socialize: http://myspace.com/lostatseamagazine
write: editor@lostatsea.net

Completely directionless since 1998.