Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Lord Monckton Reveals Scientific Fraud at Copenhagen!

This came to me by way of a Union Brother of mine.............it's always good to look at both sides of the story..........basically I don't trust either side to present an unbiased assessment of the facts.........but then "SPIN" has always been the name of the game..........Scott


This is a must view interview series. This is important.
Please take the time to watch this in it's entirety and then share it with family and friends.
Take note that this latest draft of the Copehagen Climate Treaty calls for a 2 percent tax based upon our Nation's GNP. This is much more than a treaty that deals solely with the environment - this, has far reaching consequences. This will be a binding treaty in the same way NAFTA was a binding treaty - and will NOT go before a vote by the people!

- Alan

Lord Monckton Returns to Alex Jones Tv 1/5:Lord Monckton Reveals Scientific Fraud at Copenhagen!


Lord Monckton Returns to Alex Jones Tv 2/5:Lord Monckton Reveals Scientific Fraud at Copenhagen!


Lord Monckton Returns to Alex Jones Tv 3/5:Lord Monckton Reveals Scientific Fraud at Copenhagen!


Lord Monckton Returns to Alex Jones Tv 4/5:Lord Monckton Reveals Scientific Fraud at Copenhagen!


Lord Monckton Returns to Alex Jones Tv 5/5:Lord Monckton Reveals Scientific Fraud at Copenhagen!

Why Fake Optimism Is the Worst Way to Deal with Life's Problems


Why Fake Optimism Is the Worst Way to Deal with Life's Problems

Why Fake Optimism Is the Worst Way to Deal with Life's Problems
By Liz Langley, AlterNet
Looking at crap and calling it candy has become a growth industry. But experts say there are better ways to deal with crisis. Read more »

How the Religious Right Stole Christmas


By Sandhya Bathija, Church and State. Posted December 7, 2009.


Every holiday season, Christian conservatives moan about a "war on Christmas." Not surprisingly, this is tied to massive fundraising campaigns.

In Special Coverage

Belief:
How the Religious Right Stole Christmas
Sandhya Bathija

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Meet the Billionaire Brothers Funding the Right-Wing War on Obama

DrugReporter:
DEA Forced to Scrub Misleading Info on the American Medical Association's Position on Marijuana
Charmie Gholson

Environment:
Copenhagen Won't Be Enough -- Only a 'Human Movement' Can Save Civilization from the Climate Crisis
Fred Branfman

Food:
The 6 Weirdest, Scariest Processed Foods
Brad Reed

Health and Wellness:
The Public Option That Isn't Public At All
James Ridgeway

Immigration:
Studies Show Latinos Are Climbing the Socio-Economic Ladder of Success
Walter Ewing

Media and Technology:
10 Biggest Sports Sex Scandals of All Time: How Does Tiger Woods Rate?
David Rosen

Movie Mix:
Disney Apocalypse: Why 2012 Sucks
Alexander Zaitchik

Politics:
To the Hope and Change Crowd -- How's It Working Out for You?
Joe Bageant

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
What Happened When an Anti-Choice Catholic Woman Needed an Abortion at Dr. Tiller's Clinic
Amanda Mueller

Rights and Liberties:
The Swiss Minaret Ban: What Are They Really Trying to Outlaw?
Laila Lalami

Sex and Relationships:
Why Fake Optimism Is the Worst Way to Deal with Life's Problems
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
What the Frack? Poisoning our Water in the Name of Energy Profits
Peter Gleick

World:
Obama Far Outdoes Bush in Escalating War -- The Numbers Will Surprise You
David DeGraw

More stories by Sandhya Bathija

Last holiday season, Bill O’Reilly was fuming a little bit more than usual.

The bombastic Fox News host declared that Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire had "insulted Christians all over the world” when she "allowed” a Winter Solstice display to stand next to a Christmas tree and a Nativity scene in the state’s capitol building.

But what O’Reilly failed to acknowledge in his op-ed for The Washington Times was that Gregoire was just doing her job. She was enforcing a court order that stemmed from a case between the state and O’Reilly’s friends at the Alliance Defense Fund.

The ADF, a Religious Right group, had represented a local man who wanted to erect a Nativity scene in the state capitol rotunda, forcing the state in 2007 to broaden its policy on displays.

That meant that when the next holiday season rolled around, the capitol rotunda had to be open to an atheist sign that stated, "At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Even if he was aware of those facts, O’Reilly’s rant came as little surprise.

Every year during the holiday season, right-wing pundits and Religious Right groups rally their followers by claiming there is a "war on Christmas.” These groups are outraged annually by holiday displays, parades, music and anything else that has to do with the December holiday – unless a large dollop of Christianity is included.

Last year, it got so bad in Olympia that protestors began gathering outside the Capitol demanding that the Solstice sign come down. The demonstrators attacked Gregoire, carrying signs that portrayed her as the Grinch.

The Rev. Ken Hutcherson, a Religious Right leader in the community, announced at the protest that the governor had "led the state of Washington to be the armpit of America. And I’m afraid that our governor is the one adding the offensive odor to the armpit.”

After last year’s debacle over religious symbols in the capitol rotunda, state officials have issued new permanent rules barring all nongovernment displays inside the Capitol campus building.

The Washington Department of General Administration signed off on the policy after listening to testimony at hearings in September. Dennis Mansker, Americans United’s South Sound Chapter president, supported the proposed changes and provided suggestions for how the state should handle temporary displays on Capitol grounds.

"We do not need a repeat of last year’s holiday display embarrassment,” he said. "Though we support free speech, we all learned the potential hazards of an open public forum. Our Capitol building should be used to carry out the people’s business, which includes allowing people to petition their lawmakers. But space is limited, thus a prohibition on unattended displays makes perfect sense.”

Despite the ban on displays inside the Capitol rotunda, the new policy still allows religious displays outside the Capitol campus buildings, which could move last year’s dispute to the outdoors, Mansker said.

"As far as the new rule goes, I think it hasn’t really solved anything,” he said. "Now there will be Nativity scenes outside the Capitol building, which I think makes the problem worse. Outdoor displays are by their nature more visible and therefore much more likely to give the impression that the state is supporting religion.”

Situations like this are not isolated. As early as October this year, a Michigan resident claimed religious persecution because the government would not permit him to erect a stand-alone Nativity scene on public land.

John Satawa claims he has placed the crèche on the median of a public road in Warren, Mich., for decades. Last year, Warren’s road commission rejected the Nativity scene because Satawa had not requested a permit. This year, when he asked ahead of time, he was officially turned down because the tableau "clearly displays a religious message” and would violate the First Amendment.

Satawa, represented by the Religious Right’s Thomas More Law Center, filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s decision.

"Every Christmas holiday,” said Richard Thompson, Center president and chief counsel, "militant atheists, acting like the Taliban, use the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ – nowhere found in our Constitution – as a means of intimidating municipalities and schools into removing expressions celebrating Christmas, a national holiday.

"Their goal is to cleanse our public square of all Christian symbols,” he continued. "However, the grand purpose of our Founding Fathers and the First Amendment was to protect religion, not eliminate it.”


Digg! Share on facebook submit to reddit Bookmark on Delicious Stumble This TweetThis

See more stories tagged with: religious right, war on christmas, christmas, fundraising

December 8:


1980 : John Lennon shot

John Lennon, a former member of the Beatles, the rock group that transformed popular music in the 1960s, is shot and killed by an obsessed fan in New York City. The 40-year-old artist was entering his luxury Manhattan apartment building when Mark David Chapman shot him four times at close range with a .38-caliber revolver. Lennon, bleeding profusely, was rushed to the hospital but died en route. Chapman had received an autograph from Lennon earlier in the day and voluntarily remained at the scene of the shooting until he was arrested by police. For a week, hundreds of bereaved fans kept a vigil outside the Dakota--Lennon's apartment building--and demonstrations of mourning were held around the world.

John Lennon was one half of the singing-songwriting team that made the Beatles the most popular musical group of the 20th century. The other band leader was Paul McCartney, but the rest of the quartet--George Harrison and Ringo Starr--sometimes penned and sang their own songs as well. Hailing from Liverpool, England, and influenced by early American rock and roll, the Beatles took Britain by storm in 1963 with the single "Please Please Me." "Beatlemania" spread to the United States in 1964 with the release of "I Want to Hold Your Hand," followed by a sensational U.S. tour. With youth poised to break away from the culturally rigid landscape of the 1950s, the "Fab Four," with their exuberant music and good-natured rebellion, were the perfect catalyst for the shift.

The Beatles sold millions of records and starred in hit movies such as A Hard Day's Night (1964). Their live performances were near riots, with teenage girls screaming and fainting as their boyfriends nodded along to the catchy pop songs. In 1966, the Beatles gave up touring to concentrate on their innovative studio recordings, such as 1967's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band, a psychedelic concept album that is regarded as a masterpiece of popular music. The Beatles' music remained relevant to youth throughout the great cultural shifts of the 1960s, and critics of all ages acknowledged the songwriting genius of the Lennon-McCartney team.

Lennon was considered the intellectual Beatle and certainly was the most outspoken of the four. He caused a major controversy in 1966 when he declared that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus," prompting mass burnings of Beatles' records in the American Bible Belt. He later became an anti-war activist and flirted with communism in the lyrics of solo hits like "Imagine," recorded after the Beatles disbanded in 1970. In 1975, Lennon dropped out of the music business to spend more time with his Japanese-born wife, Yoko Ono, and their son, Sean. In 1980, he made a comeback with Double-Fantasy, a critically acclaimed album that celebrated his love for Yoko and featured songs written by her.

On December 8, 1980, their peaceful domestic life on New York's Upper West Side was shattered by 25-year-old Mark David Chapman. Psychiatrists deemed Chapman a borderline psychotic. He was instructed to plead insanity, but instead he pleaded guilty to murder. He was sentenced to 20 years to life. In 2000, New York State prison officials denied Chapman a parole hearing, telling him that his "vicious and violent act was apparently fueled by your need to be acknowledged." He remains behind bars at Attica Prison in New York State.

John Lennon is memorialized in "Strawberry Fields," a section of Central Park across the street from the Dakota that Yoko Ono landscaped in honor of her husband.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

General Interest
1980 : John Lennon shot
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihVideoCategory&id=7105
1542 : Mary Queen of Scots born
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=5582
1987 : Superpowers agree to reduce nuclear arsenals
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=5583
1993 : NAFTA signed into law
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=5584

American Revolution
1775 : Americans begin siege of Quebec
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=37

The Billionaires Behind The Hate‏

THE PROGRESS REPORT

December 8, 2009

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Lee Fang, and Alex Seitz-Wald



RADICAL RIGHT

The Billionaires Behind The Hate

Billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch are the wealthiest, and perhaps most effective, opponents of President Obama's progressive agenda. They have been looming in the background of every major domestic policy dispute this year. Ranked as the 9th richest men in America, the Koch brothers sit at the helm of Koch Industries, a massive privately owned conglomerate of manufacturing, oil, gas, and timber interests. They are best known for their wealth, as well as for their generous contributions to the arts, cancer research, and the Smithsonian Institute. But David and Charles are also responsible for a vicious attack campaign aimed directly at obstructing and killing progressive reform. Over the years, millions of dollars in Koch money has flowed to various right-wing think tanks, front groups, and publications. At the dawn of the Obama presidency, Koch groups quickly maneuvered to try to stop his first piece of signature legislation: the stimulus. The Koch-funded group "No Stimulus" launched television and radio ads deriding the recovery package as simply "pork" spending. The Cato Institute -- founded by Charles -- as well as other Koch-funded think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, produced a blizzard of reports distorting the stimulus and calling for a return to Bush-style tax cuts to combat the recession. As their fronts were battling the stimulus, David's Americans for Prosperity (AFP) spent the opening months of the Obama presidency placing calls and helping to organize the very first "tea party" protests. AFP, founded in 1984 by David and managed day to day by the astroturf lobbyist Tim Phillips, has spent much of the year mobilizing "tea party" opposition to health reform, clean energy legislation, and financial regulations.

STOPPING CLEAN ENERGY: David Koch presents himself as a champion of science. Next year, because of his donations, a wing of the Smithsonian will be named after him. Nevertheless, Koch has done more to undermine the public's understanding of climate change science than any other person in America. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, funded in part by Koch foundations, has waged an underhanded campaign to falsely charge that a set of hacked e-mails somehow unravels the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring. Koch finances the "Hot Air" tour, a nationwide roadshow using a balloon to depict climate change science as "hot air." Despite the brothers' extravagant wealth, Koch's Americans for Prosperity has run populist ads mocking environmentalists as spoiled brats more concerned about their "three homes and five cars" than about economic conditions. In addition to its efforts to misinform the public, Koch Industries has spent nearly $9 million dollars so far on direct lobbying, much of it on climate change legislation. With a team of Koch-funded operatives going as far as attempting to crash the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this week, the brothers may succeed in scuttling any prospect for addressing climate change.

STOPPING HEALTH REFORM: Much of the fierce opposition to health reform can be credited to Koch organizations. As the health care debate began, AFP created a front group, known as "Patients United," dedicated itself to attacking Democratic health care reform proposals. Patients United has blanketed the country with ads distorting various provisions of the health reform legislation, particularly the public option. Patients United even centered a media campaign around Shona Robertson-Holmes, claiming she had a brain tumor the Canadian system refused to treat. However, the Ottawa Citizen reported that Patients United has been exaggerating Holmes' case, and that she in fact had a benign cyst. In their quest to block health care reform, Koch-funded groups have fostered extremism. A speaker with the roving Patients United bus tour repeatedly compared health reform to the Holocaust while an eight-by-five foot banner at an AFP health care rally with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) read, "National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany" superimposed over corpses from a concentration camp. Although many were surprised at the level of anger AFP channeled into Democratic healthcare town halls in August, it wasn't the first time Koch groups have helped to hijack the health reform debate. Back in 1994, Americans for Prosperity, then known as Citizens for a Sound Economy, worked closely with then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich to bring mobs of angry men to health reform rallies with then-First Lady Hillary Clinton.

A LONG HISTORY OF STOPPING PROGRESS: The Koch brothers clearly have a financial stake in blocking reform. Koch Industry oil refineries are major carbon dioxide polluters, and George-Pacific, a Koch Industries timber subsidiary, is one of the largest contributors to the loss of carbon-sink capacity. According to the EPA, Koch Industries is responsible for over 300 oil spills in the U.S. and has leaked three million gallons of crude oil into fisheries and drinking waters. So there are clear business-related reasons why Koch would want to block regulatory enforcement, clean energy, labor, and other reforms. But part of their opposition stems from a long family tradition of funding conservative movements to shift the country to the far right. Fred Koch, father of Charles and David and the company's namesake, helped to found the John Birch Society in the late 1950s. The John Birch Society harnessed Cold War fears into hate against progressives, warning that President Kennedy, Civil Rights activists, and organized labor were in league with communists. By presenting progressive reform as a capitulation to the Soviet Union, Fred Koch and the other industrialists bankrolling the Birch Society were able to galvanize hundreds of thousands of middle class people into supporting their narrow agenda of cutting corporate taxes and avoiding consumer regulations.

Will the news survive?

Dec. 8, 2009, 12:01 a.m. EST ·

Will the news survive?

Commentary: Page views for reporters' stories nowhere near covering costs

Alert Email Print Share

By Brett Arends, WSJ.com and MarketWatch

BOSTON -- Can professional journalism survive in the age of the Internet? And if so, how?

I'm not talking about TV or radio, though each has its own issues. I'm talking about written news -- the kind that used to be read in newspapers and magazines, and which now is mostly read online.

On the Web, it's mostly given away for free. There, of course, lies the problem.

This chart shows the collapse of newspaper employment.

Take a glance at the adjacent chart. It shows the numbers employed by newspaper companies in America. They've been sliding for years, but recently they have just collapsed to their lowest levels in half a century.

For those in the business, things just keep getting worse. Layoffs seem to come weekly. Share prices have plunged across the board; many publishers are hemorrhaging money. Warren Buffett, a fan of the industry for decades, now says he would not invest in it at any price.

Last week the issue became big news itself. At a conference in Washington, D.C., Rupert Murdoch -- whose News Corp. /quotes/comstock/15*!nws/quotes/nls/nws (NWS 14.42, -0.15, -1.03%) owns MarketWatch, as well as The Wall Street Journal -- faced off against the likes of Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post. Murdoch thinks news organizations have to start charging to survive. (As Les Hinton, chief executive of Dow Jones & Co., put it himself a few days ago, "free costs too much.")

The Journal charges for much of its online content, unlike Huffington and others, but the market so far has been resistant. Even the New York Times /quotes/comstock/13*!nyt/quotes/nls/nyt (NYT 8.88, -0.13, -1.44%) , after an ill-fated, for-pay venture with its columnists, gives away its content free online.

What's the answer? Everyone is trying to work that out.

Consultants from McKinsey & Co. are here at News Corp., advising management on strategy. I should emphasize that I am not privy to what McKinsey is telling management. For the record, Howard Hoffman, Dow Jones' spokesman, says the McKinsey strategy study "is not about cutting costs, and you can quote me on that!" However, long before I began writing for the Journal, I was a McKinsey consultant. This seems to be a good moment to look at this industry through my old McKinsey magnifying glass.

The results are pretty stark.

If news Web sites give away their content, they must earn their revenues through advertising. A mainstream, general-interest news site typically earns around 2 cents in advertising revenue per page view. (You can play with that number somewhat, depending on the nature of your audience, the economy and so forth. But several analysts I spoke to agreed that it's a reasonable figure for analysis.)

So in the Internet age, free news sites will have to keep their costs below that. What does this mean?

For reporters, the conclusions are grim. They will have to live on the page views their stories generate, and the most they can earn is around 2 cents per story viewed. After factoring in the overhead for running a professional news organization -- editors, managers, offices, technology, benefits, support and the like -- they'll probably be lucky to earn 1.5 cents.

Someone hoping to earn, say, $40,000 a year as a professional journalist is probably going to need to generate around 2.7 million page views a year to do so. Assuming he or she works five days a week, 50 weeks a year, that's nearly 11,000 page views a day.

Someone hoping to earn, say, $100,000 a year will need to generate about 27,000 page views a day.


Page 1Page 2

Media Monsters Threaten Net Freedom

Media Monsters Threaten Net Freedom

by Laura Flanders

Comcast, the nation’s biggest cable and broadband Internet company, has plans to take over NBC Universal.

The result would be a new kind of media monster that would not only produce some of America’s most popular entertainment but also control viewers’ access to it.

Under the deal, which has been in the works for months, Comcast would pay $6.5 billion in cash up front and contribute $7.25 billion in cable assets to acquire a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal from its current owner, General Electric. Comcast would control the joint venture’s day-to-day operations but Pentagon contractor GE would retain a 49 percent stake.

The likely impact on consumer choices? Well you tell me: the Washington Post reports that all in all, the joint venture would control more than one out of every five television-viewing hours.

The $30 billion deal certainly has consumer groups and lawmakers worried. Will there be a big regulatory battle? Congress doesn’t have a great record. In 1996, a Democratic President OK’d the last great concentration of media power under the generous terms of the ‘96 Telecommunications Act.

Nonetheless, with almost one in four cable subscribers in the U.S. a Comcast customer and NBC Universal owning not only NBC but also dozens of cable channels, including Telemundo, MSNBC, CNBC and Bravo as well as theme parks, TV stations such as Washington’s WRC (Channel 4), and Universal movie studios, the NBC Comcast deal is a biggie.

Senators John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), of the Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, have called for hearings. Michael J. Copps, a Democratic member of the Federal Communications Commission, says the merger faces a “very steep climb” with him.

High on the list of critics’ concerns are worries about the impact on online video. Would Comcast/NBC continue to make other companies’ video available free, on their internet providers? Why would they? Only if government enforces Net Neutrality. In other words, only if there’s a law.

In the meantime, it’s time to cherish ever more all that remains in the way of independent media. And yes, that’s our self interest speaking.

The F Word is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders, the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtv or GRITlaura on Twitter.com.

December 7: Living in Shock and Infamy, Years Later


1941 : Pearl Harbor bombed

At 7:55 a.m. Hawaii time, a Japanese dive bomber bearing the red symbol of the Rising Sun of Japan on its wings appears out of the clouds above the island of Oahu. A swarm of 360 Japanese warplanes followed, descending on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in a ferocious assault. The surprise attack struck a critical blow against the U.S. Pacific fleet and drew the United States irrevocably into World War II.

With diplomatic negotiations with Japan breaking down, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his advisers knew that an imminent Japanese attack was probable, but nothing had been done to increase security at the important naval base at Pearl Harbor. It was Sunday morning, and many military personnel had been given passes to attend religious services off base. At 7:02 a.m., two radio operators spotted large groups of aircraft in flight toward the island from the north, but, with a flight of B-17s expected from the United States at the time, they were told to sound no alarm. Thus, the Japanese air assault came as a devastating surprise to the naval base.

Much of the Pacific fleet was rendered useless: Five of eight battleships, three destroyers, and seven other ships were sunk or severely damaged, and more than 200 aircraft were destroyed. A total of 2,400 Americans were killed and 1,200 were wounded, many while valiantly attempting to repulse the attack. Japan's losses were some 30 planes, five midget submarines, and fewer than 100 men. Fortunately for the United States, all three Pacific fleet carriers were out at sea on training maneuvers. These giant aircraft carriers would have their revenge against Japan six months later at the Battle of Midway, reversing the tide against the previously invincible Japanese navy in a spectacular victory.

The day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt appeared before a joint session of Congress and declared, "Yesterday, December 7, 1941--a date which will live in infamy--the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." After a brief and forceful speech, he asked Congress to approve a resolution recognizing the state of war between the United States and Japan. The Senate voted for war against Japan by 82 to 0, and the House of Representatives approved the resolution by a vote of 388 to 1. The sole dissenter was Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana, a devout pacifist who had also cast a dissenting vote against the U.S. entrance into World War I. Three days later, Germany and Italy declared war against the United States, and the U.S. government responded in kind.

The American contribution to the successful Allied war effort spanned four long years and cost more than 400,000 American lives.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Living in Shock and Infamy, Years Later

by James Carroll

When the waves of Japanese dive bombers flew in on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, the good news was that the US Navy had previously sent its Pacific fleet aircraft carriers out to sea. Otherwise, they would have been sunk or damaged at their moorings as the fleet's battleships were. It was those surviving carriers that turned the tables on Japan little more than a half-year later at the Battle of Midway.

The Japanese preemption marked what Franklin Roosevelt called "a day which will live in infamy,'' and in the American memory its character as a sneak attack has signified the height of political immorality. ("Now I know what Tojo felt like,'' Robert Kennedy remarked as he contemplated an attack on Cuba, "when he was planning Pearl Harbor.'')

The American public's rage at the blow's perceived unfairness was such that, had Hitler not "quixotically'' declared war against the United States four days later, it is possible, according to war historian John Keegan, that American forces could have been deployed "en bloc'' to the Pacific.

There is no doubt that Pearl Harbor inflicted a massive national trauma - the date is still marked on calendars - but its meaning transcends the actual scope of the attack, and its character. The emphasis on sneakiness, for example, ignores the ample precedence in war of unannounced initiative.

Indeed, surprise is a normal strategic asset. Japan and the United States had been openly making belligerent moves toward each other: the US Pacific fleet had been transferred from San Diego to Hawaii; US bombers had been forward-based in the Philippines. War readiness was the drill. The intensity of shock was rooted less in Japanese chicanery than in America's race-based assumption of technical and martial superiority. As for morality, the Japanese attack was aimed against genuine military targets. The US revenge attack, a bombing raid led by Jimmy Doolittle on Tokyo some months later, was aimed purely at civilians.

The deeper shock of Pearl Harbor, and why it lives on as a turning point in the American narrative, has to do with its significance as the event that jolted this nation into the wielding of power. Native Americans and Mexicans from whom Washington had forcibly seized much of the continent knew otherwise, but to most Americans it seemed that Pearl Harbor marked the radical shift from innocence to morally complex military engagement.

Leaving behind the ethical purity of isolation, we armed ourselves and entered the global arena to stay - a gladiator nation from then on. A world power. And we learned soon enough, as Reinhold Niebuhr would put it, that there is no exercise of power in the world without guilt. As our revenge assaults on Japan would show, especially at the end of the war, we would have guilt aplenty. The argument from Pearl Harbor on, of course - and no one made it better than Niebuhr - was that the renunciation of power for the sake of innocence involved "even more grievous guilt.''

Pearl Harbor was revived as a milestone in the American imagination on Sept. 11, 2001. Indeed, 9/11 replaced Pearl Harbor as the motivating trauma of American power, but once again the shock was mostly to our sense of national superiority. The anger sparked by the Japanese assault was in direct proportion to the fear it instilled, but in the conventional war that followed there were multiple channels into which that fear could run. Bloody as the battles were, the enemy was readily identified, and definitions of victory and defeat were clear.

Not so after 9/11. Instead of battleships and aircraft carriers, the real danger comes from variations on box cutters and explosive charges hidden in shoes. The revelation is that such small bore threat can frighten a nation as much as an armada. After Pearl Harbor, the scale and meaning of mobilization was crystal clear. After 9/11, with our futile, misdirected, ongoing wars of vengeance, which lay nary a glove on Al Qaeda, the mobilization has mainly been against ourselves.

The Niebuhrian argument about action leading to guilt versus inaction leading to greater guilt seems strangely outmoded because terrorists are unfazed by such distinctions. Our fear remains unchanneled, therefore unchecked. So also our rage. Pearl Harbor was a mark of the good old days.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.

Copenhagen Climate Conference Opens to Dire Warnings

Copenhagen Climate Conference Opens to Dire Warnings

by Richard Ingham and Marlowe Hood

COPENHAGEN - A landmark conference on climate change opened in Copenhagen on Monday, with grim warnings of the apocalyptic dangers for mankind if world leaders fail to agree a way to stave off global warming.

[A Danish policeman stands next to an art installation located near the exit of the Bella Center in Copenhagen December 6, 2009. The largest-ever climate talks formally opened on Monday in Denmark aiming to agree the outlines of global deal to stave off dangerous climate change, such as rising seas and more intense storms. (REUTERS/Bob Strong)]A Danish policeman stands next to an art installation located near the exit of the Bella Center in Copenhagen December 6, 2009. The largest-ever climate talks formally opened on Monday in Denmark aiming to agree the outlines of global deal to stave off dangerous climate change, such as rising seas and more intense storms.(REUTERS/Bob Strong)
The impact on humanity of man-made drought, flood, storms and rising seas were spelt out at the start of the 12-day meeting, which will climax with more than 110 heads of state or government in attendance.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen warned that the world was looking to Copenhagen to safeguard the generations of tomorrow.

"For the next two weeks, Copenhagen will be Hopenhagen. By the end, we must be able to deliver back to the world what was granted us here today: hope for a better future," he said.

Opening ceremonies began with a short sci-fi film featuring children of the future facing an apocalypse of tempests and desert landscapes if world leaders failed to act today.

"Please help save the world," said a terrified little girl at the end of the film. Poll: Public want action

A choir of Danish youngsters then sang a plaintive song to delegates, accompanied by a brass ensemble.

The negotiation marathon gathers members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the fruit of the 1992 Rio summit.

Its rollcall of 192 nations was joined this year by Iraq and Somalia, the conference heard.

Delegates must craft a blueprint for tackling manmade "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping solar heat and disrupting Earth's fragile climate system. Reducing carbon emissions: the options

They must also put together a funding mechanism able to channel hundreds of billions of dollars to poor nations most exposed to the effects of climate change.

If all goes well, world leaders on December 18 will agree a political deal that sets down the course of action, including a roster of national pledges.

Further negotiations are expected to take place in 2010 to fill in the details. A legally-binding treaty would take effect from the end of 2012.

Analysts, though, stress the deep gap between the demands of developing countries and the willingness of rich countries to dig both into their pockets and into their carbon emissions.

Connie Hedegaard, a Danish politician elected to chair the talks, said political will "will never be stronger."

"This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we get a new and better one -- if ever."

US President Barack Obama is hoping to push through a new deal after the United States -- the world's biggest economy -- rejected the Kyoto Protocol under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

But the US Congress is still hammering out legislation to cut emissions, and Obama's opponents have been emboldened by a scandal over hacked emails from British academics that they say raises questions on the science behind climate change.

The head of the UN's Nobel-winning panel of climate experts on Monday said he suspected the hack was an attempt to undermine his organisation.

"Given the wide-ranging nature of (climate) change that is likely to be taken in hand, some naturally find it inconvenient to accept its inevitability," Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told the conference.

"The recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC."

Saudi Arabia's top climate negotiator told the conference that trust in climate science had been "shaken" by the leaked emails.

"The level of trust is definitely shaken, especially now that we are about to conclude an agreement that ... is going to mean sacrifices for our economies," Mohammed al-Sabban told delegates.

Sabban, whose country is oil cartel OPEC's leading producer and exporter, called for an "independent" international investigation, adding that the UN climate science body was unqualified to carry it out.

But Pachauri proudly defended the IPCC's reputation as an arena for weighing evidence fairly and said: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

The Copenhagen conference venue has been declared UN territory, with about 15,000 delegates, journalists and observers attending.

More than half of all of Denmark's police force has been deployed to the capital and police warned they would act swiftly to quell any violent protests.

Across the globe, 56 newspapers published the same editorial telling their leaders to agree on action to limit temperature rises to 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or risk seeing climate change "ravage our planet".

Drill, Baby, Drill: Obama Administration OKs Oil Drilling in Arctic off Alaska

Drill, Baby, Drill: Obama Administration OKs Oil Drilling in Arctic off Alaska

by Erika Bolstad

WASHINGTON -- The Interior Department today gave the go-ahead for Shell Oil to begin drilling three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea, a move that opens the door for production in a new region of the Arctic.

[A Walrus sitting on melting ice, basks in the sun on the Chukchi Sea, between Alaska and Russia. (Photo: Greenpeace)]A Walrus sitting on melting ice, basks in the sun on the Chukchi Sea, between Alaska and Russia. (Photo: Greenpeace)
"This is progress," said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "Today's announcement from the MMS is an encouraging sign that Alaska's oil and natural gas resources can continue to play a major role in America's energy security."

The Interior Department's Minerals Management Service signed off on a plan that allows Shell to drill up to three exploration wells during the July-to-October open-water drilling season. The company's proposal calls for using one drill ship, one ice management vessel, an ice-class anchor-handling vessel and oil spill response vessels, the Interior Department said. The closest proposed drill site is more than 60 miles to shore and about 80 miles from Wainwright.

"Our approval of Shell's plan is conditioned on close monitoring of Shell's activities to ensure that they are conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today in a statement announcing his decision. "These wells will allow the department to develop additional information and to evaluate the feasibility of future development in the Chukchi Sea.

Shell, Conoco Phillips and other companies last year paid more than $2 billion for leases in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska. The companies and state officials believe the offshore reserves could power the Alaska economy for decades.

But the potential offshore development is of concern to native Alaskans and environmentalists. Native groups along the northern coast worry the noise of offshore development could chase away bowhead whales and other subsistence foods. They, along with environmentalists, are concerned about the limited technology for cleaning up oil spills in icy water.

"Obviously we're disappointed," said Marilyn Heiman, the U.S. Arctic program director for the Pew Environment Group. "A spill could happen from an exploratory well just as easily as it could from a production well. They have not yet demonstrated they have the ability and the expertise to clean up an oil spill, especially in the darkness, the extreme weather and the icy conditions."

The Bush administration's five-year plan for oil and gas exploration off the U.S. coast is under review by the Obama administration. Salazar has held public hearings, including a meeting in April in Anchorage where then-Gov. Sarah Palin and her replacement, Sean Parnell, spoke in favor of offshore development. The agency is still considering whether to let the plan continue through 2012 or write a new one.

Checkmate: How Joe Lieberman Turned The Public Option Fight On Its Head

Checkmate: How Joe Lieberman Turned The Public Option Fight On Its Head

by Brian Beutler

After Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) threw down the gauntlet on the public option, political observers and liberal critics had no shortage of theories. Lieberman was rebelling against the liberal base. Lieberman harbors animosity about 2006. Lieberman is an egotist and wants the spotlight. Any or all of these theories might be true, but they obscured the more important, strategic rationale for his decision: With a 60 member caucus, and little to no Republican support, every Democrat has a pocket veto of the health care bill. Lieberman's explicit threat to use his veto was, in effect, checkmate on the public option in the Senate, and created breathing room for other public option skeptics to create the bloc that is now negotiating away the public option entirely.

[From left to right Top: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) Bottom: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Center: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV. (TPM graphic)]From left to right Top: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) Bottom: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Center: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV. (TPM graphic)
"I think we all came to a similar conclusion. He came to the timing of his announcement, I think, pretty much on his own," conservative Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) told me of Lieberman's threat.

So you all sort of knew where each other stood?

"Yes of course. We continued to talk about it. Each of us had a problem, to one degree or another, with the public option."

I asked, "Did you see it as helpful to your own negotiating on the public option?"

"I don't think it hurt," Nelson said.

Lieberman's move could be used as a case study on the importance of leverage in political negotiations.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), another public option opponent, said Lieberman had always opposed the public option, and that his announcement prefigured the current behind-close-doors hand wringing over the provision.

"This has been going on for a long time, and so our caucus is in the process of negotiating with ourselves, because we need all 60 of us to get this done...we knew this day would come and it has come," she told me and another reporter last week.

For his part, Lieberman himself says he wasn't specifically trying to turn the public option momentum on its head, and help his centrist colleagues. But hey! All the better.

"I didn't actually think of it that way, if it had that effect, I'm not unhappy about it," Lieberman told me. "But I mean the progression here is that I felt from the beginning...the public option, government-created, run insurance company was not a good idea."

"As we came closer to the vote on cloture on the motion to proceed, and Senator Reid called me and he said, 'can you vote for it, I'm gonna put a public option in it,' and I said, 'you know I'm against the public option. But I want to start the debate and I want to be for health care reform.'"

And then there were some, my colleagues, who said, "well why don't you negotiate with Harry, see if you can get it out now," so I said, "I don't think he wants to negotiate." I talked to him again, it was pretty clear that he didn't, so I just thought it was very important to make that clear, to explain why I wanted to--I would vote to open debate on the bill--because I want to support health care reform, but that if there was a public option in it, the only recourse I have...is to vote against cloture.

Now, according to Nelson the opt-out public option isn't even part of the ongoing discussions between progressive and conservative Democrats, who either need Lieberman, or Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), or both on board for reform to pass. Still in the fold are the trigger compromise (which has Snowe's support, but not Lieberman's) and a new proposal to allow consumers to buy non-profit insurance with premiums negotiated by the federal government.

Conservative Democrats would like this latter plan--which isn't a public option--to replace the measure in the bill, though Snowe told reporters yesterday that the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, and that it's likely not a replacement for a trigger. On Saturday, she met with Obama to discuss triggers and other elements of the reform proposal. She described Obama's position on the triggers as "supportive."

Senators say they hope to reach a more concrete compromise early this week, perhaps as early as today.

Liberals Are Useless

Liberals Are Useless

by Chris Hedges

Liberals are a useless lot. They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them. The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject, cloying letters to Barack Obama—as if he reads them—asking the president to come back to his “true” self. This sterile moral posturing, which is not only useless but humiliating, has made America’s liberal class an object of public derision.

I am not disappointed in Obama. I don’t feel betrayed. I don’t wonder when he is going to be Obama. I did not vote for the man. I vote socialist, which in my case meant Ralph Nader, but could have meant Cynthia McKinney. How can an organization with the oxymoronic title Progressives for Obama even exist? Liberal groups like these make political satire obsolete. Obama was and is a brand. He is a product of the Chicago political machine. He has been skillfully packaged as the new face of the corporate state. I don’t dislike Obama—I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor—though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered.

“You have a tug of war with one side pulling,” Ralph Nader told me when we met Saturday afternoon. “The corporate interests pull on the Democratic Party the way they pull on the Republican Party. If you are a ‘least-worst’ voter you don’t want to disturb John Kerry on the war, so you call off the anti-war demonstrations in 2004. You don’t want to disturb Obama because McCain is worse. And every four years both parties get worse. There is no pull. That is the dilemma of The Nation and The Progressive and other similar publications. There is no breaking point. What is the breaking point? The criminal war of aggression in Iraq? The escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Forty-five thousand people dying a year because they can’t afford health insurance? The hollowing out of communities and sending the jobs to fascist and communist regimes overseas that know how to put the workers in their place? There is no breaking point. And when there is no breaking point you do not have a moral compass.”

I save my anger for our bankrupt liberal intelligentsia of which, sadly, I guess I am a member. Liberals are the defeated, self-absorbed Mouse Man in Dostoevsky’s “Notes From Underground.” They embrace cynicism, a cloak for their cowardice and impotence. They, like Dostoevsky’s depraved character, have come to believe that the “conscious inertia” of the underground surpasses all other forms of existence. They too use inaction and empty moral posturing, not to affect change but to engage in an orgy of self-adulation and self-pity. They too refuse to act or engage with anyone not cowering in the underground. This choice does not satisfy the Mouse Man, as it does not satisfy our liberal class, but neither has the strength to change. The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses.

Anyone who says he or she cares about the working class in this country should have walked out on the Democratic Party in 1994 with the passage of NAFTA. And it has only been downhill since. If welfare reform, the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which gutted the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act—designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis we are now undergoing—and the craven decision by the Democratic Congress to continue to fund and expand our imperial wars were not enough to make you revolt, how about the refusal to restore habeas corpus, end torture in our offshore penal colonies, abolish George W. Bush’s secrecy laws or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens? The imperial projects and the corporate state have not altered under Obama. The state kills as ruthlessly and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury as rapaciously to enrich the corporate elite. It, too, bows before the conservative Israel lobby, refuses to enact serious environmental or health care reform, regulate Wall Street, end our relationship with private mercenary contractors or stop handing obscene sums of money, some $1 trillion a year, to the military and arms industry. At what point do we stop being a doormat? At what point do we fight back? We may lose if we step outside the mainstream, but at least we will salvage our self-esteem and integrity.

I learned to dislike liberals when I lived in Roxbury, the inner-city in Boston, as a seminary student at Harvard Divinity School. I commuted into Cambridge to hear professors and students talk about empowering people they never met. It was the time of the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Spending two weeks picking coffee in that country and then coming back and talking about it for the rest of the semester was the best way to “credentialize” yourself as a revolutionary. But few of these “revolutionaries” found the time to spend 20 minutes on the Green Line to see where human beings in their own city were being warehoused little better than animals. They liked the poor, but they did not like the smell of the poor. It was a lesson I never forgot.

I was also at the time a member of the Greater Boston YMCA boxing team. We fought on Saturday nights for $25 in arenas in working-class neighborhoods like Charlestown. My closest friends were construction workers and pot washers. They worked hard. They believed in unions. They wanted a better life, which few of them ever got. We used to run five miles after our nightly training, passing through the Mission Main and Mission Extension Housing Projects, and they would joke, “I hope we get mugged.” They knew precisely what to do with people who abused them. They may not have been liberal, they may not have finished high school, but they were far more grounded than most of those I studied with across the Charles River. They would have felt awkward, and would have been made to feel awkward, at the little gatherings of progressive and liberal intellectuals at Harvard, but you could trust and rely on them.

I went on to spend two decades as a war correspondent. The qualities inherent in good soldiers or Marines, like the qualities I found among those boxers, are qualities I admire—self-sacrifice, courage, the ability to make decisions under stress, the capacity to endure physical discomfort, and a fierce loyalty to those around you, even if it puts you in greater danger. If liberals had even a bit of their fortitude we could have avoided this mess. But they don’t. So here we are again, begging Obama to be Obama. He is Obama. Obama is not the problem. We are.

Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, What Every Person Should Know About War, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

Meanwhile . . .


by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

photo
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: The U.S. Army, Larry Page)

Ever since President Obama's speech last Tuesday, all media, political and public attention has been focused exclusively on the war in Afghanistan. The president mentioned Iraq a few times in the speech, mostly to blame that situation for the situation in Afghanistan. At one point, however, he seemed to be making the shocking claim that the war in Iraq has been a success. "We have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people," he said.

Hm.

A 21-year-old American soldier died in Iraq last week of non-combat-related injuries. According to the Department of Defense, the circumstances of the incident are under investigation. Back home, a soldier from Fort Drum named Joshua Hunter was arraigned on Thursday in the stabbing deaths of two Army buddies. Family members and friends of the accused man described him as a "changed man" after returning from a tour of duty in Iraq. According to The Associated Press, relatives of Hunter say, "he saw his best friend 'blown to pieces' in Iraq and came back a changed man: abusive, violent, sleepless, edgy and plagued by flashbacks."

There are many stories like this.

In Iraq, the war is far from over. According to a report by McClatchy Newspapers:

Military casualties have plummeted and sectarian violence has ebbed in Iraq, but the country's power struggles among Sunni and Shiite Muslim Arabs and between Arabs and Kurds are unfinished. The question is whether it will turn violent again.

The combatants appear to be repositioning themselves in anticipation of the planned US combat troop withdrawal next year. Iraq's neighbors - Iran, Turkey, Syria and others - could try to fill the vacuum, politicians and analysts warn.

"Those who feel their rights have been taken, and the weak, will ask the help of anyone who can give them a hand," said Burhan Muzhir al Asy. He's a tribal sheik and a member of the northern city of Kirkuk's provincial council representing Arab citizens, who've suffered political and demographic setbacks here since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. "We say, 'A drowning man will grasp at a straw.'"

Many Iraqis say they think that US attention already is waning.

Iraqi elections, slated to take place in January, are in peril of being delayed, possibly for months. Political wrangling between Sunni and Shi'a factions over a new election law threatens to derail the entire process. Another McClatchy report explains, "Last week, Vice President Tareq al Hashemi, a Sunni Muslim, vetoed one version of the election law, complaining that it underrepresented Iraqis living abroad, most of whom are believed to be Sunnis who fled during the ethnic violence that raged after US troops toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. On Monday, Kurds and Shi'ite Muslim politicians responded to Hashemi's veto by passing an amended version of the law that cut Sunni Muslim voting power even more in several major provinces. More than 50 parliament members walked out in protest, most of them Sunnis, but including a smattering of secular lawmakers and Shiites as well."

Beyond the political chaos, the violence remains.

A suicide bomber killed five people, including the chief of riot police, in Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit. Another suicide bomber killed eight people in a Baghdad jewelry store, including the head of the anti-terrorism squad for the province. Also in Baghdad, gunmen assassinated a civilian and an Iraqi soldier. In Kirkuk, 26 civilians were wounded when attackers threw hand grenades at a celebration of Eid.

There are many such stories.

President Obama campaigned vigorously on the idea that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and that the war in Afghanistan deserved to be the sole focus in the so-called "War on Terror." He promised to increase America's military presence in that nation, and on Tuesday announced the fulfillment of that promise. As Mr. Obama endeavors to become the first world leader in two centuries to win a war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq will also continue despite his promise to have all US forces out in two years. That deadline, of course, is as malleable as the withdrawal timetable laid out for Afghanistan. If violence or political chaos breaks out in Iraq again, we won't be going anywhere.

Once upon a time in America, the war in Iraq was at the center of attention, and the war in Afghanistan was given very little public or political notice. Afghanistan is now the center of attention, and it appears Iraq is slowly being forgotten.

Don't let it happen.

Dean Baker | The Reason for 15 Million Unemployed: Poor Thinking at the Top


Dean Baker, Truthout: "The United States has more than 15 million people unemployed. This is not their fault. It is the fault of really bad policy decisions by people who get paid more than almost all of the unemployed ever did or ever will. The failure of economic policymakers to recognize and attack an $8 trillion housing bubble led to the downturn. The continuing failure of economic policymakers to think creatively is why 15 million people remain unemployed."
Read the Article

Kyle Berlin | The Curious Case of Anthony McKinney


Kyle Berlin, Truthout: "The prosecutor pursued the death penalty for McKinney, but he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1981. Now, over three decades later, McKinney - still incarcerated at the downstate Dixon Correctional Facility - maintains his innocence, and a powerful group of attorneys, from Northwestern University's Center for Wrongful Convictions, have come to his defense ... But this time the project made headlines for a different reason when, on November 10, a filing by Illinois State's Attorney Anita Alvarez raised serious questions about the methods students used to gather evidence in a case currently in Cook County Circuit Court."
Read the Article

Camillo "Mac" Bica | Revitalizing the Antiwar Movement


Camillo "Mac" Bica, Truthout: "With Nobel laureate Barack Obama's announced escalation of the occupation of Afghanistan, even those who believed his rhetoric of hope and change, who supported and voted for him in the last election, have realized at last that his administration represents neither, that the honeymoon is over and patience is no longer a virtue. Consequently, many peace-minded people are looking again to an antiwar movement and finding it somewhat in disarray, perhaps an understatement. If it is truly our intent to revitalize the antiwar movement, we must begin a dialogue to redefine our goals and to reevaluate and clarify our tactics and strategy. That is, we must become more focused on ending American militarism and imperialism, war and occupation, and we must build a coalition of voices by practicing tolerance and understanding for a diversity of views and opinions."
Read the Article

URGENT: Medicare For All Vote In The Senate, Tell Your Senators To Vote For It‏

Dear Friends And Activists,

We will indeed have a vote on Medicare for All (same thing as "single
payer", same thing as HR 676) in the Senate. Senator Bernie Sanders
will put forward Senate Amendment 2837 calling for Medicare for All,
the only health reform that means anything.

And when that vote is taken we will know two things, 1) who will
stand up for the interest of the people, and 2) whether WE have done
everything we could have done to speak out, and encourage everyone
else you know to do the same. This is a new action page, dedicated to
sending an instant fax to every one of your members of Congress.

Here is a new fax action page, to send your personal faxes to all
your member of Congress for no charge to you.

Medicare for All Fax Action Page:
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1021.php

And on the same page you can watch the fourth, count them, the fourth
in our series of "I'm A Democrat, I'm A Republican" humorous policy
advocacy videos, which nonetheless make the very serious point that
most of the tag team action going on in Congress is just a charade to
try to keep us from getting involved in our own public policy, and
all we have to do is just speak out in greater numbers and they will
have no choice but to listen to the voice of the people.

And if you want to spread the YouTube link for this directly, here it
is below, but it is much better to send people directly to the action
page above instead, where they can also watch the video, and send
their own faxes while they are inspired to do so.

4th Medicare For All Funny Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWO4SRCvGdA

Anyway, some of you have complained about "long winded" alerts from
time to time. So that's it for tonight. Except to let you know we in
the next couple days (so you will have everything in time for holiday
gifts) we will be doing another huge bulk shipment of the single
payer health care caps, and all the other policy activist gifts we
have made available literally for a donation of any amount. So please
get your requests in as soon as you can for whatever you want.

Activist Holiday Gifts: http://www.millionfaxmarch.com/all_gifts.php

And here is the one click Facebook page for this same fax action.

Single Payer Amendments Action:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1021

And the Twitter reply to send, to send this message to all your
members of Congress that way, is

@cxs #p1021

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.millionfaxmarch.com/in.htm



usalone358b:358946

Help defeat the War on Drugs with a few clicks!‏

To: The 140,276 signers of Obama: Fix U.S. Drug Policy!

Friends of drug policy reform:

We all know that the War on Drugs is a failure. Well, this is probably the simplest thing I'll ever ask you to do to help end it. And it will have a huge impact.

Chase Bank is giving $25,000 to 100 organizations who get the most votes on Facebook. Students for Sensible Drug Policy is in the top 100, and if we stay there until Friday, we'll win $25K and be entered into the next round of voting for a chance at $1 Million!

Please vote for us and ask your friends to do the same by visiting the following link: http://www.ClickForReform.com

This is a BIG opportunity for us to show how many people oppose the War on Drugs and to raise money that will fund our advocacy. I know that with your help we can make it happen!

You also have 19 votes left to support other organizations in the contest. Please vote for these two great organizations who are also very close to winning:

Marijuana Policy Project: http://apps.facebook.com/chasecommunitygiving/charities/1259089?m=cb570dc7

National Youth Rights Association: http://apps.facebook.com/chasecommunitygiving/charities/1112559?m=cb570dc7

Thank you for doing your part by clicking for reform!
Micah

Micah Daigle, Executive Director
Students for Sensible Drug Policy

P.S. Got a few extra minutes? Help us spread the word to your friends by...

-Entering ClickForReform.com into your Facebook or Twitter status.
-Forwarding this message to your friends.
-Joining this Facebook event and inviting your friends: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=180693771818
-Setting your profile photo to this image: http://ssdp.org/images/up/FacebookProfilePic2.jpg

P.P.S. I've never seen so much momentum toward ending the War on Drugs before this year. Click here for "10 Signs That the Failed Drug War is Finally Ending" by our friend Tony at the Drug Policy Alliance: http://www.alternet.org/media/144391/10_signs_the_failed_drug_war_is_finally_ending

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

3 on Copenhagen and "The Climate"

Here are 3 articles on "The Climate"...............Scott


The Physics of Copenhagen: Why "Politics-As-Usual" May Mean the End of Civilization
Bill McKibben, TomDispatch.com: "Most political arguments don't really have a right and a wrong, no matter how passionately they're argued. They're about human preferences - for more health care or lower taxes, for a war to secure some particular end or a peace that leaves some danger intact ... That's why standard political operating procedure is to move slowly, taking matters in small bites instead of big gulps.... When it comes to global warming, however, this is precisely why we're headed off a cliff, why the Copenhagen talks that open this week, almost no matter what happens, will be a disaster."
Read the Article

Climate Change Talks: What to Look For at Copenhagen
Peter Spotts, The Christian Science Monitor: "Delegates left the Bali climate change talks in December 2007 with high hopes that a grand bargain on reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be secured by now. But today, as the latest round of climate change talks begin with representatives from more than 190 countries gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark, expectations are far more modest. The biggest decision - a binding international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions - is likely to be pushed off until next December, when another round of climate talks is scheduled for Mexico City. Nevertheless, two weeks in Copenhagen will yield insights into global efforts to control industrial emissions and the warming of the planet."
Read the Article

Gender Missing in Climate Agreements
Sabina Zaccaro, Inter Press Service: "Women are known to be innovators when it comes to responding to climate change. The question is how to ensure that the role of women and gender equality are reflected in climate change agreements. Women in poor countries will be the most affected by climate change effects, according to the 2009 State of the World Population report, released last month by the United Nations Population Fund ... To understand how far women are involved in decision making on climate change, TerraViva spoke with Lorena Aguilar Revelo, global senior gender advisor to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) which is a part of the Global Gender and Climate Alliance launched at the United Nations climate change conference in Bali in December 2007."
Read the Article

BREVITAS

Religion

As the UN General Assembly
prepares to debate a proposal calling for nations to take action against the defamation of religion, majorities in 13 of 20 nations polled around the world support the right to criticize a religion. On average, across all countries polled, 57% of respondents agree that "people should be allowed to publicly criticize a religion because people should have freedom of speech." However, an average of 34% of respondents agree that governments "should have the right to fine or imprison people who publicly criticize a religion because such criticism could defame the religion." Of the seven nations where most people agree with that criticism of religion should be prohibited five have overwhelmingly Muslim populations -- Egypt (71%), Pakistan (62%), Iraq (57%), Indonesia (49%), and the Palestinian territories (51%). Another two -- India (59%) and Nigeria (54%)-- have historically been plagued by sectarian violence.

LA Times - An estimated $10 million a day is smuggled out of Afghanistan, most of it through Kabul International Airport, rather than through secret routes over the mountains or across the desert, the country's minister of finance said today. The amount of corruption, by public officials and officials of private companies, makes him embarrassed to admit while traveling that he is an Afghan, Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal said. "Corruption is a stronger threat than terrorism for Afghanistan," said Zakhilwal, who was appointed in February and is the top financial advisor to President Hamid Karzai. "It is a cancer, a disease. It has destroyed the reputation of Afghanistan."

Politics

TPM - At least one computer containing undercover recordings from the investigation of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich has been stolen from the offices of Blago's lawyer, reports a Chicago news outlet. . . It's possible the theft could delay Blago's trial, which is scheduled for June. He has been charged with seeking to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat, among other transgressions.

Civil liberties

The San Francisco Chronicle:
A novel anti-crime surveillance program that will record the license plate number of every car entering and leaving Tiburon should be up and running within six months, officials said Thursday. The Town Council voted 4-0 - with Vice Mayor Miles Berger absent - to install six cameras that recognize license plate characters on Tiburon Boulevard and Paradise Drive. Those are the only two roads that feed into the Tiburon peninsula, which also includes the smaller city of Belvedere on its southwestern edge. Tiburon will be the first community in the Bay Area, and perhaps the country, to line its borders with the cameras, which have drawn criticism from privacy rights advocates. Plates will be compared to databases of stolen or wanted cars, with matches triggering an immediate alert to local officers. If detectives are investigating a crime, they will be able to search the records to try to find possible suspects.

SF Bay Guardian - San Francisco Police Department officers have added a controversial tactic to their aggressive raids on house parties: they're seizing laptop computers from DJs at the events. While SFPD officials deny the laptop seizures is a new policy, they admit it has been condoned by Police Chief George Gascón, who took over in August . . . "The police chief is aware that officers are being proactive in gathering evidence," Sgt. Lyn Tomioka told the Guardian when asked about a string of laptop seizures by undercover cops over the last 10 months, most of them in cases in which the DJs weren't even charged with a crime.

Health & Science

MS Magazine - The Senate approved an amendment to the healthcare insurance reform legislation that requires insurance companies to provide women with free mammograms and other preventative screening services. The amendment was approved on a 61 to 39 vote.
Afghanistan

Sue Sturgis, Facing South - According to the Center for Responsive Politics' Open Secrets database, the top recipient of defense industry money in the 2008 election cycle was Barack Obama, whose haul of $1,029,997 far surpassed Republican contender Sen. John McCain's $696,948.

Drug busts

Change - It costs $48,000 a year to keep an addict in prison, compared to $4,000 to $5,000 for outpatient treatment. . . A Washington Post report demonstrated that the alternative courts -- which funnel people charged with drug crimes to specific judges and courtrooms equipped to handle their cases wisely and offer a range of alternatives to incarceration -- are working, if you can get into them. Only 10% of drug cases nationwide find their way into drug courts.

Science Daily - Scientists may not be able to tell a good book by its cover, but they now can tell the condition of an old book by its smell. In a report in ACS' Analytical Chemistry, a semi-monthly journal, they describe development of a new test that can measure the degradation of old books and precious historical documents based on their smell. The nondestructive "sniff" test could help libraries and museums preserve a range of prized paper-based objects, some of which are degrading rapidly due to advancing age, the scientists say.

Furthermore. . .

Rules of Thumb -
When going into a store, get a cart from the parking lot, odds are in your favor that it will not have a stuck or wobbly wheel since other shoppers should have exchanged them inside the store.
Af Pak War

ABOUT A QUARTER OF MODIFIED HOME LOANS STILL FALLING BEHIND

THINGS SCHOOL TEST SCORES DON'T TELL YOU

WHERE THE MONEY WENT

HOSTILITY BETWEEN BRITISH AND AMERICAN MILITARY LEADERS IN IRAQ REVEALED

WHY HELPING LOWER INCOME PEOPLE HELPS REVIVE THE ECONOMY

TRENDS: THE RURALPOLITANS

GALLERY: BEST PLACES FOR RELAXING AND KICKING BACK

POLL FINDS VOTERS LIKE INSTANT RUNOFF BALLOTS

TRYING 9/11 ATTACKERS IN MILITARY COURT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

REPORT: OBAMA USING BLACKWATER FOR PAKISTAN ASSASSINATIONS

ANOTHER GRIMM ECO PREDICTION

ONE IN FOUR HOME MORTGAGE HOLDERS ARE UNDER WATER

THE CASE FOR KIDS GETTING DIRTY

A FIFTH GRADE TEACHER'S TAKE ON 'FORMATIVE' ASSESSMENTS

ANTARCTIC ICE MELTING FASTED THAN THOUGHT

FREE EMAIL UPDATES
SEND US A DONATION
ABOUT THE REVIEW
NEW ARTICLES
READERS' PICKS
ALSO OF INTEREST
POCKET PARADIGMS
ESSAY ARCHIVES
SAM SMITH'S BIO
SAM SMITH'S BOOKS
SAM SMITH'S MUSIC

CATHOLIC CHURCH TAKES CHARGE OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT



NPR - Pope Benedict XVI is known for his conservative theology, but it's his predecessor's legacy that is playing out in U.S. politics today. A generation of U.S. Catholic bishops who were selected by John Paul II is conservative on social issues, and they are willing to mix it up in the public square to push their views.

Exhibit A: the health care overhaul. On Nov. 6, the night before the House of Representatives voted on heath care, Speaker Nancy Pelosi received some visitors. One was Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, an anti-abortion Democrat, who wanted to amend the House bill to permanently strip federal funding for abortion. Critics say that would make it harder for all women to pay for abortions. Stupak brought with him two representatives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who said they would not support any bill without that amendment.

As Stupak later put it, "We want to send a message: If you start messing with abortion and health care, you've got a problem."

The meeting was a turning point. Pelosi allowed a vote on the amendment the next day. It passed.

Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro, a pro-choice Catholic, says she was dismayed that the bishops seemed to be elevating abortion over every other issue, including the health care needs of the poor.

"In their quest to push on the issue of abortion," she says, "they failed in the church's mission. They really act like a bunch of lawyers who are instructing members how to vote on arcane House rules."

DeLauro says the bishops are rejecting the tradition established by John F. Kennedy that Catholic politicians vote according to their conscience, not the dictates of Rome.

"The activity that the Catholic bishops have engaged in implies that the church will determine and dictate public policy," DeLauro says. . .

And then there is the battle between Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., and his parishioner, Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy. Because of Kennedy's support of abortion rights, Tobin suggested to him, privately, that he refrain from taking Holy Communion. After Kennedy made the exchange public, the bishop took to the airwaves.

"The point is that for any Catholic in public office, his first commitment has to be to his faith," Tobin told MSNBC's Chris Matthews. "Not just for a Catholic, but for a member of any religious community. No commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith, because it involves your relationship with God."

THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT AND THE BIBLE

This appeared in the Progressive Review during the Reagan Administration.

Sam Smith, Progressive Review - The ultimate irony of the conservatives is that they pretend to be a bastion of Christian politics when, in fact, they are comprised in no small part of despoilers, usurers, war-mongers, hypocrites, idolaters and groupies of false prophets - all of whom are frowned upon by the book they profess to follow. And their opponents, who are more faithful to the words that the conservatives only quote, are often such good Christians that they never say a mumblin' word about it all.

A TIMELINE OF INCONSISTENT BUT INCREASINGLY CRUEL CERTAINTY

Conscience, 1996 - Most people believe that the Roman Catholic church's position on abortion has remained unchanged for two thousand years. Not true. Church teaching on abortion has varied continually over the course of its history. There has been no unanimous opinion on abortion at any time. While there has been constant general agreement that abortion is almost always evil and sinful, the church has had difficulty in defining the nature of that evil. Members of the Catholic hierarchy have opposed abortion consistently as evidence of sexual sin, but they have not always seen early abortion as homicide. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the "right-to-life" argument is a relatively recent development in church teaching. The debate continues today.

Also contrary to popular belief, no pope has proclaimed the prohibition of abortion an "infallible" teaching. This fact leaves much more room for discussion on abortion than is usually thought, with opinions among theologians and the laity differing widely. In any case, Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their personal conscience in moral matters, even when their conscience is in conflict with hierarchical views.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT ABORTION?

Freedom from Religion Foundation - The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible. Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth. . .

An honest reader must admit that the bible contradicts itself. "Thou shalt not kill" did not apply to many living, breathing human beings, including children, who are routinely massacred in the bible. The Mosaic law orders "Thou shalt kill" people for committing such "crimes" as cursing one's father or mother (Ex. 21:17), for being a "stubborn son" (Deut. 21:18-21), for being a homosexual (Lev. 20:13), or even for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-35)! Far from protecting the sanctity of life, the bible promotes capital punishment for conduct which no civilized person or nation would regard as criminal.

Mass killings were routinely ordered, committed or approved by the God of the bible. One typical example is Numbers 25:4-9, when the Lord casually orders Moses to massacre 24,000 Israelites: "Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun." Clearly, the bible is not pro-life.

Most scholars and translators agree that the injunction against killing forbade only the murder of (already born) Hebrews. It was open season on everyone else, including children, pregnant women and newborn babies.

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."--Psalm 137:9

The bible is not pro-child. Why did God set a bear upon 42 children just for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Far from demonstrating a "pro-life" attitude, the bible decimates innocent babies and pregnant women in passage after gory passage, starting with the flood and the wanton destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, progressing to the murder of the firstborn child of every household in Egypt (Ex. 12:29), and the New Testament threats of annihilation. .
Then there are the dire warnings of Jesus in the New Testament:

"For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."--Luke 23:29

The teachings and contradictions of the bible show that antiabortionists do not have a "scriptural base" for their claim that their deity is "pro-life." Spontaneous abortions occur far more often than medical abortions. Gynecology textbooks conservatively cite a 15% miscarriage rate. . .

The bible is neither antiabortion nor pro-life, but does provide a biblical basis for the real motivation behind the antiabortion religious crusade: hatred of women. The bible is anti-woman, blaming women for sin, demanding subservience, mandating a slave/master relationship to men, and demonstrating contempt and lack of compassion:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."--Genesis 3:16

What self-respecting woman today would submit willingly to such tyranny?

The antiabortion position does not demonstrate love for humanity, or compassion for real human beings. Worldwatch Institute statistics show that 50% of abortions worldwide are illegal, and that at least 200,000 women die every year--and thousands more are hurt and maimed--from illegal or self-induced abortions. Unwanted pregnancies and complications from multiple pregnancies are a leading killer of women. . . ?

Numerous Christian denominations and religious groups agree that the bible does not condemn abortion and that abortion should continue to be legal. These include:

- American Baptist Churches-USA - American Ethical Union - American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee - American Jewish Congress - Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) - Episcopal Church - Lutheran Women's Caucus - Moravian Church in America-Northern Province - Presbyterian Church (USA) - Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - Union of American Hebrew Congregations - Unitarian Universalist Association - United Church of Christ - United Methodist Church - United Synagogue of America - Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren - YWCA - Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice - Catholics for Free Choice - Evangelicals for Choice

Labels: ABORTION, BIBLE, CATHOLIC, CHRISTIAN
12/04/2009 | Comments []

TIMELINE

Compiled from Conscience journal and Religious Tolerance. Note that all these decisions were made by men.

100 AD: One of the earliest church documents, the Didache, condemns abortion but asks two critical questions: 1) Is abortion being used to conceal the sins of fornication and adultery? and 2) Does the fetus have a rational soul from the moment of conception, or does it become an "ensouled human" at a later point? The matter of "hominization" - the point at which a developing embryo or fetus becomes a human being - would become one of the cornerstones of debate about abortion, and it remains a subject of debate even today.

Prior to 380 CE: Many Christian leaders issued unqualified condemnations of abortion. So did two church synods in the early 4th century.

Circa 380 CE: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul.

St. Augustine (354-430) condemned abortion because it breaks the connection between sex and procreation. However, in the Enchiridion, he says, "But who is not rather disposed to think that unformed fetuses perish like seeds which have not fructified" - clearly seeing hominization as beginning or occurring at some point after the fetus has begun to grow. He held that abortion was not an act of homicide. Most theologians of his era agreed with him. In a disciplinary sense, the general agreement at this time was that abortion was a sin requiring penance if it was intended to conceal fornication and adultery.

Circa 675: The Irish Canons place the penance for "destruction of the embryo of a child in the mother's womb [at] three and one half years," while the "penance of one who has intercourse with a woman, seven years on bread and water."

Circa 8th Century: In the Penitential Ascribed by Albers to Bede, the idea of delayed hominization is again supported, and women's circumstances acknowledged: "A mother who kills her child before the fortieth day shall do penance for one year. If it is after the child has become alive, [she shall do penance] as a murderess. But it makes a great difference whether a poor woman does it on account of the difficulty of supporting [the child] or a harlot for the sake of concealing her wickedness."

In 1140, Gratian compiled the first collection of canon law that was accepted as authoritative within the church. Gratian's code included the canon Aliquando, which concluded that "abortion was homicide only when the fetus was formed." If the fetus was not yet a formed human being, abortion was not homicide.

Pope Innocent III (1161-1216):He determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not "animated" at the time.

Early in the 13th century,he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.

1312: The Council of Vienne, still very influential in Catholic hierarchical teaching, confirmed the conception of man put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas. While Aquinas had opposed abortion - as a form of contraception and a sin against marriage - he had maintained that the sin in abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was ensouled, and thus, a human being. Aquinas had said the fetus is first endowed with a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and then - when its body is developed - a rational soul. This theory of "delayed hominization" is the most consistent thread throughout church history on abortion.

1588: Concerned about prostitution in Rome, Pope Sixtus V issued the bull Effraenatam (Without Restraint) and applied to both contraception and abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, the penalty designated for homicide: excommunication. There was no exception for therapeutic abortion.6

1591: Only three years after Pope Sixtus V issued Effraenatam, he died. His successor, Gregory XIV, felt Sixtus's stand was too harsh and was in conflict with penitential practices and theological views on ensoulment. He issued Sedes Apostolica, which advised church officials, "where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does." This papal pronouncement lasted until 1869. . . Pope Gregory XIV (1591) reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy.

1679: Consistently, abortion had been considered wrong if used to conceal sexual sins. Taking this idea to its extreme, Pope Innocent XI declared abortion impermissible even when a girl's parents were likely to murder her for having become pregnant. The church was still teaching delayed hominization, sure only that hominization occurred some time before birth.

Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus." The soul was believed to have entered the pre-embryo at conception . . . Completely ignoring the question of hominization, Pope Pius IX wrote in Apostolicae Sedis in 1869 that excommunication is the required penalty for abortion at any stage of pregnancy. He said all abortion was homicide. His statement was an implicit endorsement -- the church's first -- of immediate hominization.

Leo XIII (1878-1903):He Issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used under crisis situations late in pregnancy. It is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman.

He issued a second decree in 1886 that prohitied all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, the first new edition since Gratian's code in 1140, required excommunication both for a woman who aborts and for any others, such as doctors and nurses, who take part in an abortion.

1930: In his encyclical Casti Connubii (Of Chaste Spouses), Pope Pius XI condemned abortion in general, and specifically in three instances: in the case of therapeutic abortion, which he called the killing of an innocent; in marriage to prevent offspring; and on social and eugenic grounds, as practiced by some governments.

1965: The Second Vatican Council, in Gaudium et Spes (section 51), declared: "Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes." Here, abortion is now condemned on the basis of protecting life, not as a concealment of sexual sin.

In 1974, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued the "Declaration on Procured Abortion," which opposes abortion on the grounds that "one can never claim freedom of opinion as a pretext for attacking the rights of others, most especially the right to life." The key to this position is that the fetus is human life from the moment of conception, if not necessarily a full human being. With this position, the church has fully changed the terms of its argument.

Canon law was revised in 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus." The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.

Today: The Catholic church hierarchy today does not permit abortion in any instance, not even in case of rape or as a direct way of saving the life of a pregnant woman

Labels: ABORTION, BIBLE, CATHOLIC, CHRISTIAN
12/04/2009 | Comments []

YOU CAN'T RECOGNIZE A RECOVERY IF YOU USE THE WRONG INDICATORS



Jonathan Rowe, Yes Magazine - One reason that the nation has not made more progress toward an economic "recovery" is that the people in charge really don't know what one would look like. The top economists in Washington don't appear to have asked the obvious question, "Recovery of what-and for what?" Instead they have followed the old drill, tried to rekindle the old flame, and remained wedded to the old guideposts that leave them looking at yesterday and trying to see tomorrow.

Just recently, the president of France realized the stupidity. He has decided that his nation's measures of economic health need to change to account for today's challenges instead of yesterday's. As Washington gears up to spend billions in more "stimulus," it would help to ask exactly what it is trying to stimulate-and most importantly, exactly what would constitute success.

Economic indicators are our national psyche's main gauges, the mirror into which we look to see how things are going. In a market culture-which is to say, a money culture-the prospects for money become the prospects for ourselves. Such metrics as the Gross Domestic Product have an oracular status; reporters watch them obsessively, policy experts steer by them, and politicians march to their command.

Yet for the most part the indicators are a crock and testimony to the grip of yesterday upon the expert economic mind. The prime example is the GDP, the anachronism of which is a secret, it seems, only within the media and policy establishments that invoke it constantly. Any measure that portrays an increase in car crashes, cancer, marital breakdown, kinky mortgages, oil use, and gambling as evidence of advance-as the GDP does-simply because they occasion the expenditure of money has a tenuous claim to being reality-based discourse. Metrics are silent rulers, in both senses of the word. In defining the task, they also define the steps we must take to carry it out. . .

Another example is "productivity," which, if anything, is even more totemic. An increase in output per hour worked-which is the reigning definition-is deemed the stairway to economic heaven, and the goal most devoutly to be sought, no further questions asked. Thus the excitement recently when the Commerce Department reported that productivity had increased at an annual rate of 9.5 percent during the third quarter of 2009.

But exactly why is this such good news? "Generally, when U.S. workers are more productive that's a really good thing for the economy," observed a writer on the Atlantic's website. "It means a higher GDP will result." The statement is standard issue, and remarkable only in its circularity (and that the ratio of fallacy to sentence is one to one. . .

Labels: ECONOMICS, GDP, PRODUCTIVITY
12/05/2009 | Comments []

Shirley Chisholm / Revisited

BOOKSHELF: UNBOUGHT & UNBOSSED

Shirley Chisholm

Take Root Media's republication of Shirley Chisholm's "Unbought and Unbossed" will be out in early January and it's both an instructive and enjoyable reminder of a time when activists consulted their hearts and minds more than PR advisors. Shirley Chisholm was the first African-American woman to elected to Congress. She served for 7 terms, beginning in 1969, and spoke out for civil rights, women's rights, the poor and against the Vietnam War. She was a co-founder of the National Organization for Women, the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Women's Political Caucus, and in 1972 ran for president.

Chisholm took on Washington almost from the first day she arrived from New York City. Assigned to the rural development and forestry subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee, she called up Speaker Jon McCormack to complain. Said McCormack, "Mrs. Chisholm, this is the way it is. You have to be a good soldier." When she tried to confront the matter on the floor, more senior members were repeatedly recognized, until she went down to the well in front of the podium and just stood there until she was allowed to talk. Said one sympathetic male colleague afterwards, "You've committed political suicide." She eventually ended up on the veterans committee thanks to the chair from Texas, Olin Teague, who said he'd be delighted to have her. Chisholm considered it a victory given that in her district there were a lot more veterans than trees.

She would become a major figure in the battle for the rights of women and blacks. And she understood the subtleties of how that battle was fought. At one point she writes, "The liberals in the House strongly resemble liberals I have known through the last two decades in the civil rights conflict. When it comes time to show on which side they will be counted, they suddenly excuse themselves." And she understood that a lot of black politicians were the same.

Anyone involved in activism today should read this book not just for the story about a wonderful woman, but for the style and tone of someone who really knew how to help bring change.

PRE-ORDER

Labels: BLACKS, POLITICS, WOMEN
12/07/2009 | Comments []

FOR BLACKS IT'S A DEPRESSION



Kevin Gray - By any economic measure the black community is in a severe depression. Unemployment among blacks was high before Obama took office. For blacks in the 16-24 age group it's been double-digit unemployment for decades. Nevertheless, in the time between Obama's inauguration and the present, the unemployment rates for the parents of many of those unemployed youth nearly doubled. As of September, the 'official' Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the overall black unemployment rate at 15.4 per cent: 16.5 percent for adult men, 12.5 for adult women and 40.8 per cent for teenagers. Some economists estimate that the actual overall rate is in the 30 to 35 percent range, with the 'unofficial' teenage rate far surpassing the 50 per cent mark. These rates remain unchanged even as the overall rate, as of the end of November, has dropped from 10.1 to 10 percent.

The $787 billion stimulus plan didn't do much for the unemployed. No targeted youth or adult jobs program was part of the package. The most that the jobless got out of the stimulus deal was extension of unemployment benefits, if they hadn't already dropped off the rolls. At best, stimulus dollars forestalled some teachers being laid off and kept road crews working. If hiring more cops is a good thing, ostensibly to ramp up their drug war and gang suppression activities, the bill did that as well. It must be noted that the share of public funds to the police-penal state has nearly doubled as a percentage of civilian government spending over the past 50 years and now stands at 15 percent.

Gray is author of the forthcoming book "The Decline of Black Politics: From Malcolm X to Barack Obama"

Labels: BLACKS, ECONOMY
12/07/2009 | Comments []

PODCASTS: THE REAL OBAMA

The Review was a lonely progressive voice raising serious questions about Obama during the campaign. Our coverage was based on the public record, but activist and author Paul Street also knew him from Chicago days and in this interview with George Kenney gives some interesting background as well as talking about some of the alternatives for progressives today.

Labels: OBAMA
12/07/2009 | Comments []

Pakistan & Afghanistan

THE SECRET WAR IN PAKISTAN

Jeremy Scahill, Nation - The use of private companies like Blackwater for sensitive operations such as drone strikes or other covert work undoubtedly comes with the benefit of plausible deniability that places an additional barrier in an already deeply flawed system of accountability. When things go wrong, it's the contractors' fault, not the government's. But the widespread use of contractors also raises serious legal questions, particularly when they are a part of lethal, covert actions.

"We are using contractors for things that in the past might have been considered to be a violation of the Geneva Convention," said Lt. Col. Addicott, who now runs the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, Texas. "In my opinion, we have pressed the envelope to the breaking limit, and it's almost a fiction that these guys are not in offensive military operations." Addicott added, "If we were subjected to the International Criminal Court, some of these guys could easily be picked up, charged with war crimes and put on trial. That's one of the reasons we're not members of the International Criminal Court."

Labels: CONSTITUTION, PAKISTAN, WAR
12/07/2009 | Comments []

WHY THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS ILLEGAL

Rich Whitney, Green candidate for Illinois governor - Any Presidential order to commit more troops to Afghanistan is illegal under established principles of international law, just as the initial invasion and occupation were illegal. The war against Afghanistan violates international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and international agreements dealing with the suppression and control of terrorism.

One of the principles that our nation championed during the Nuremberg War Crimes trials was the repudiation of aggressive war as an instrument of foreign policy. International law would have justified aggressive efforts to locate and apprehend Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists following the 9/11 attacks. But no international law or principle of self-defense justified invading an entire sovereign nation, overthrowing its government and continuing to occupy it, while attempting to control both the form and direction of its future government.
Such orders are also illegal under our Constitution. The Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, gave the President powers to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks" or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism"

This amounts to a permanent delegation of congressional authority to the President, with neither standards to rein in his actions, nor a clear means of regaining control in Congress. As such, it was, and is, an unconstitutional abdication of Congress's exclusive power to declare war.

Another principle established at Nuremberg is the principle that government officials have an overriding duty to disobey illegal orders. The Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal states that government officials have a responsibility not to commit or further "an act which constitutes a crime under international law."If elected Governor of Illinois, I would honor my commitment to the Constitution and established international law, and assert the Governor's right to veto any mobilization of the Illinois National Guard for service in Iraq of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Labels: AFGHANISTAN, CONSTITUTION, WAR
12/07/2009 | Comments []

OUR BETA CHART OF IMPORTANT SEX SCANDALS



This is quite extensive and too much for me to post here but the link is good and the info quite interesting and revealing.............check it out.............Thanks to "The Progressive Review" for this...........Scott


The sex life of politicians and other public officials has become so complicated that we have tried to reduce it all to an easy to read chart. This is only the beta version and we welcome any additions or corrections. \

Labels: CELEBRITIES, POLITICS, SCANDALS, SEX
12/05/2009 | Comments []

WHAT BASEBALL, POKER AND THE STOCK MARKET CAN TEACH US ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE




Sam Smith

One thing is clear as the climate change debate chugs along: we need to teach math better in our schools. And it wouldn't hurt if journalism schools taught some math as well.

For example, it is apparent that those who argue that one good snow storm destroys the case for climate change never got a good introduction to odds and averages.

An exception seems to be baseball. I have never heard a critic of ecological theory argue that a good hitter's failure to get to base in a particular game indicates that he should be immediately traded. Sometimes it's because he swings badly and sometimes because the pitch is low and outside, but nobody says that's proof he's a bad hitter.

Yet, have one cold winter and they want to dump climate change.

I'm mystified by this. How can a culture that understand formulas like


[]
have such a hard time with temperature variations?

My only explanation is that sports writers have done a far better job getting people to understand (or just accept) things like odds and averages than scientists or journalists. The unfortunate thing is that too many seem to think they only apply to sports.

Maybe we should forget about Copenhagen and have a Monday Night Climate Countdown.

There are some other people good at figuring out odds and averages, such as poker players.

Over a decade ago, I offered a poker player's guide to environmental risk assessment. Key points included:

1. Figure the stakes as well as the odds.

2. The odds of something happening at any moment are not the same as the odds of something ever happening. In ecological calculations - especially ones in which the downside could ruin your whole millennium - it is the latter odds that are important.

3. When confronted with conflicting odds, ask what happens if each projection is wrong. Temporary job loss because of environmental restrictions may come and go, but the loss of the ozone layer is something you can have forever.

4. When confronted with conflicting odds, remember that you don't have to play the game. There are other things to do with your time - or with the economy or with the environment - that may produce better results. Thus, instead of playing poker you could be making love. Or instead of getting jobs from some air or water degrading activity, the same jobs could come from more benign industry such as retrofitting a whole city for solar energy.

5. Don't let anyone - in industry, government, or the media - define an "acceptable level of risk" for your own death or disease. They may not have the same vested interest in the right answer as you do.

6. If the stakes are too high, the game is not worth it. If you can't stand the pain, don't attempt the gain.

Lately I've been wondering how a successful stock market investor might figure out whether global warming was a good investment.

Most stock market charts look much like climate records kept by NASA - an awful lot of detail in a small space that is hard for the impatient or untrained to figure out.

But there is one kind of chart that addresses the key issue: which way a stock really headed. It's called a point and figure chart. It consists of columns of Xs and Os - the former indicating a rising stock, the latter a falling one.

The neat trick is that you only change directions if the stock moves a certain amount - typically three points. What this does is to eliminate minor fluctuations and emphasizes the important stuff.

For example, let's say you bought a stock for 20 and it went up to 22. You would do nothing, but when it hit 23 you would show three Xs in a column.

Now let's say the stock goes down to 21 and then back to 23. You would do nothing because it hasn't moved three points. But let's say it goes down to 18. Then you would show five Os.

A normal chart of such things shows change in neatly divided time frames. Point & figure charts don't care much about time - mostly about movement.

I tried this approach on global temperatures since 1880 as reported by NASA. Using as the basis the average temperature for 1951-1980, here's what resulted:


[]

Note the consistency in the patterns until 1981. Then suddenly there is a breakout combined with rising peaks. This is known as an ascending triple top breakout - and in the stock market it's a really good thing. The stock continues to rise and fall but the peaks keep getting higher. If this is a stock you may well want to buy it, but if it's climate change you don't want it at all.

Note also that the temperature has bounced up and down 3-6 points about a dozen times since 1880 just like the stock market. And just like the rest of life, come to think of it.

Of course, to those who think climate change is a purely ideological or theological issue, none of this means much.

Still, if someone tells you that the snow outside proves there's no global warming, remind them that in 2009 Albert Pujols only got a hit 33% of the time.

Labels: BASEBALL, CLIMATE CHANGE, ECOLOGY
12/06/2009 | Comments []

And --- he was a Democrat!!!




Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 42 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.

The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in
Independence Missouri . His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.

When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a
U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year..

After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to
Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.

When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."

Even later, on
May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."

As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.

Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale. (sic.
Illinois )

Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!

I say dig him up and clone him!!







This is not sent for discussion...




If you agree, forward it. If you don't, delete it. I don't want to know one way or the other. By me forwarding it, you know how I feel.







Enjoy life now-it has an expiration date!

Copenhagen climate summit:

"We are now talking about a totally political product, with no basis in the real world or science." ... "The excess is nauseating." ... "P.T. Barnum and Chicken Little would have been proud of these people." ...

DCSIMG

Copenhagen climate summit:

1,200 limos, 140 private planes

and caviar wedges

By Andrew Gilligan, Telegraph Media Group (U.K.)
Published: 10:55PM GMT 05 Dec 2009

Opening of a climate summit in Copenhagen: Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges


Visitors watch a visual display about the environment before the opening of the summit in Copenhagen Photo: (Reuters)

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt concepts such as "economic growth".

The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. The local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.

According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.

The politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.

The entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.

The interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. And the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Ellen Goodman | Entitled to Their Own 'Facts'?

by: Ellen Goodman, Op-Ed

photo
(Image: Troy Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: laffy4k, p0ps Harlow,SnaPsi Сталкер)

Boston - If you ever wondered why God invented the delete button, let me pass along the e-mail that arrived on the wings of various listservs directed at the Mainstream Media.

"How much do we love you?" the author asked the MSM. "Let me count the ways: You lie, omit, distort and skew what otherwise should be unbiased accounts of ALL news, not just what furthers the interests of the 'fringe left.'"

As my finger hovered over "block sender," I scanned the list of wrongs. No. 1 was the charge that we, the MSM, had hidden the fact that Bill Ayers was the real author of "Dreams from My Father."

This myth had been careening around the Internet for some time, but came back to life after a conservative blogger confronted Ayers at an airport. In a fit of snark, Ayers "confessed." "Michelle asked me to ... I wrote it," he said, adding, "And if you can prove it we can split the royalties." GOTCHA!

Let it not be said that right-wing bloggers are encumbered by a sense of humor. Or a fact-checker. Ayers' authorship was about as true as the drive-a-stake-in-that-rumor that Obama had been born in Kenya. That fantasy was ranked in The New Yorker magazine as somewhere between "a belief in Santa Claus and 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'"

The birth myth was, in turn, matched by Glenn Beck's assertion that under Obamacare you could either buy coverage or go to jail. And neck and neck with the fanciful claim by Sarah Palin that health care reform would mean "death panels" for the elderly.

Well, I hold the lack of these truths to be self-evident. Which doesn't mean they aren't believed.

My amazement at this grows from a strange, lingering attachment to facts. This is probably a result of having begun as a fact-checker for Newsweek. Facts -- along with their enforcers, editors -- have long been the guides and saviors of my career that's more than 46 years long.

Now I'm planning the next phase of my life. This may be why I'm struck by how much hard facts have softened in this time, how much less they seem to matter.

"Truthiness" has exploded alongside a new media that is decidedly not mainstream, that flows into as many rivulets as there are cable channels, points on the radio dial, and unvetted bloggers.

It's now possible to find a group somewhere in Googleland that will agree with anything. Any outlier can find a tribe and a "fact" -- Global warming is a hoax! Evolution is a fraud! -- that reinforces his own belief.

There is a sense that we don't need science or editing or fact-checking as long as we have crowd-sourcing. We don't have to build opinions on facts; we can build facts on opinions.

This is not just common on blogs but on right-wing talk shows where hosts have gone rogue. What price exactly has Glenn Beck paid for playing loose with facts? Did only Jon Stewart catch Sean Hannity using video from one (large) teabag rally to illustrate another (small) rally?

This fact-free standard is held up (or down) by politicians who follow their lead. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, for example, isn't about to challenge those "death panel" believers who rally to his FreedomWorks flag: "If people want to believe that ... it's O.K. with me." Whatever.

I'm not suggesting that newspapers -- once defined as the first rough draft of history -- are without errors. But there are prices to pay and corrections to be made and standards to be met. When was the last time an Internet birther ran a correction or lost his job?

Those of us who have spent our lives in journalism wake up to daily reports of troubles: newsrooms cut, papers bankrupt. My first employer, Newsweek, no longer covers news. My second, the Detroit Free Press, has cut back home delivery. I have watched my third employer, The Boston Globe, grow and shrink.

Hardest of all is to witness the evaporation of a profession that's been the vetting agent for the "reality-based community." A craft that has struggled to be right as often and rigorously as possible.

In a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll last month, readers were asked what professions are likely to disappear. Of the likely candidates, 28 percent chose tobacco farmers, but 26 percent picked newspaper reporters. Only 3 percent thought fact-checkers would become extinct.

Well, I have "news" for you. When the reporters go, so do the facts. And their checkers.

(c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group

We All Breathe the Same Air and Drink the Same Water


by: Kyra Ryan | Inter Press Service

photo
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: NASA, BillRhodesPhoto )

Some 8,000 kilometres from the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Native American environmental experts from 66 tribes came together at a summit here this week to address the most pressing needs in their communities - problems, all emphasised, that know no geographic boundaries.

These include water and air pollution, superfund cleanup, mining and illegal dumping, as well as the impacts of climate change.

Increasingly frequent "100-year" floods in Oklahoma, the disappearance of medicinal plants, the uncharacteristic unreliability of monsoon season in New Mexico, and diminished snow pack on sacred peaks have left most tribal people with little doubt that climate change is already here.

"There are those who still rely on traditional agriculture for their livelihood and for ceremonial purposes - the growing of corn, the harmonious relationship between the seasons," said Milton Bluehouse of the New Mexico Environment Department, who is also a member of the Navajo Nation.

"Global warming impacts our cultures strongly. In Navajo country, for example, if there's no snow on the mountain, we can't have our yeibichei dances," he told IPS.

A yeibiche dance is a nine-day curing ceremony performed by specially trained medicine people.

"There are people who rely on these healing ceremonies," Bluehouse said. "Grandmothers who have physical ailments, veterans suffering PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families, all putting tremendous faith in the healing they feel can come through yeibichei dances."

The 300 participants at the Dec. 2-4 summit hail from sovereign nations found within the borders of the southwestern U.S. states of Oklahoma, where in previous centuries many eastern tribes were relocated to reservations, Texas and New Mexico, where many tribes still live in portions of their pre-conquest ancestral homelands.

Sponsored by the Inter-Tribal Environmental Council (ITEC) with funds from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it included representatives from state and federal agencies – who, while welcomed, faced some tough questions from the audience.

Dr. Al Armendariz, the EPA's new regional administrator, was asked, for example, how tribes could complete EPA objectives with limited financial resources. Many tribes must compete for EPA grant money and then match grants with up to 50 percent of their own money. For many, the cost of implementing needed programmes is prohibitive.

One assistant director of environmental affairs for his tribe, who preferred to remain anonymous, described the situation to IPS as "like throwing scraps to dogs".

The EPA's Region VI is a large area comprised of the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico, and of the 66 federally recognised tribes in these states. More than 750,000 Native Americans live on five million acres of tribal land in the region.

Although tribes share many values and goals, there is enormous diversity not only of ecosystems, but in language, customs, and history. New Mexico alone, where the summit took place, is home to 19 Pueblos, two Apache tribes, and part of the Navajo Nation. Some 20 percent of state land is tribally-owned.

But, as the governor of Santa Ana, Bruce Sanchez, put it in opening comments, "We all breathe the same air and drink the same water. There are no boundaries when it comes to the environment. The sooner we learn to survive on the mother earth, the better."

Others raised concerns about the lingering health effects of past uranium mining, as well as air, land, and water contamination from Los Alamos National Laboratories. Given the Barack Obama administration's support of nuclear energy as a so-called green alternative to coal and gas, these "legacy issues", many feel, must be addressed.

Armedariz agreed, and told IPS, "Pushing nuclear power has to happen hand in hand with addressing historical issues. Safety and water issues are very big."

Many tribal members, who preferred to remain off the record, disagreed with the idea that cleanup issues are "historical", and remain sceptical that nuclear power can ever be green. In a state with a long history of dealing with pollution from the nuclear industry, the issue won't go away.

All stressed that there is no single tribal perspective on how to deal with environmental problems because each tribe is unique, but that most tribe share values of protecting and preserving natural land, air, and water cycles for future generations.

Dozens of smaller sessions addressed specific initiatives, from a solar energy project on the small Pueblo of Jemez that offers promise for Indian Country's capacity to meet the energy needs of the entire U.S. and dramatically reduce its carbon footprint, to a project of the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC) to build a national database among the 596 state-recognised tribes, using simple Internet technology to share information with each other and, ultimately, the U.S. and other governments.

NTEC has called for the inclusion of Indian tribal governmental representatives on the U.S. delegation to Copenhagen, and will be bringing a representative of the Montana-based Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes to the Dec. 7-18 U.N. climate conference.

When most people think of how climate change is affecting Native communities, images of Arctic tribes losing habitat to melting ice caps jump to mind. In the southwestern United States, the main issue is - as it has long been - water.

Unaddressed, climate change will bring severe drought. "Water is life," says Michael Chavarria, former governor and current water quality officer for Santa Clara. "We need to water our corn, our chile, our melons, or they die off. The same for ourselves if we can't consume our water."

In New Mexico, river and spring water is used not only for subsistence agriculture, but for "cultural purposes", with many Pueblo people drinking water in rivers and streams that they consider sacred from the point of origin.

When water or land is threatened, Chavarria, says, "Where are we going to go? There's nowhere else for us to go. We've been on our reservations from time immemorial."

Genevieve McGeisey, a Seminole water quality scientist with the Santa Ana tribe in New Mexico, agrees that the main impact of climate change in the southwest is the inconsistency of water supplies.

She viewed her work, not just as benefiting one tribe, but as a collaborative effort to help "all the stakeholders in the watershed".

"We're supposed to leave something for our kids, not take from them. We're already five generations in debt. How are we going to fix it for our kids?" she asked.

Native Americans, she says, "need to become our own scientists, our own environmentalists. We can translate back to our tribe and speak to EPA or other government agencies in their terms, to make our concerns understood."

Bernardino Chavarria Assistant Director in the Office of Environmental Affairs for Santa Clara, refers to the tribal professionals in his field as "conservationists".

"All have PhD's," he said, clarifying that, while many actually do have degrees in environmental fields, "we are [also] all PhD's of our own people, our own history. There's so much knowledge in indigenous communities, which have been able to survive in harsh environments because of their knowledge of their land. We need to consult with them, to achieve mutual consent."

ITEC Director Nancy Johns agrees. "Across the world, diverse as we are, indigenous people have the same appreciation and respect for mother earth."

This veteran planner of conferences, asked if she could tell the planners of the Copenhagen one thing, answers readily. "Respect tribal sovereignty. Tribes are nations unto themselves. Include tribes in planning and thinking about these issues. Tribes should be right up there at the table."

The Secret to Legal Marijuana? Women

by: Daniela Perdomo | AlterNet

photo
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: pezpengelly)

Why women have signed onto marijuana reform -- and why they could be the movement's game-changers.

In September, ladymag Marieclaire ruffled some feathers when it published a piece about women who smoke weed. But its most interesting effect was not the "marijuana moms" chatter it unleashed, and instead the fact that it brought to the mainstream media a more open discussion of the fact that women can be avid tokers, too.

Public acceptance of pot is at an all-time high, and the fact that women have drastically changed their attitudes may be what is most fascinating about the sea change in public opinion -- and policy -- regarding marijuana. In 2005, only 32 percent of polled women told Gallup they approved legalizing pot, but this year 44 percent of them were for it, compared to 45 percent of men. In effect, women have narrowed what had been a 12-point gender gap.

Women are also smoking more weed. The most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows that current marijuana use increased from 3.8 to 4.5 percent among women, while there was no significant statistical change for men.

Indeed, it appears the growing acceptance of marijuana is fueled by women having joined the movement for reform.

Women "can reach people's hearts and minds," says Mikki Norris, co-author of Shattered Lives: Portraits from America's Drug War, managing editor of the West Coast Leaf, and director of the Cannabis Consumers Campaign. "I think we can really take it from the third- to the first-person, and make it personal."

Norris, who's participated in numerous successful marijuana campaigns, may be onto something. If pro-weed women are a new momentum behind the normalization of marijuana, they may also become the driving force behind game-changing drug reform.

If that's the case, then it's worth examining why some women have signed onto the marijuana reform movement -- because it may soon be why many others will as well.

'A Bigger Amygdala'

The avenue through which women have been foremost leaders in the movement is medical marijuana advocacy.

There are currently 13 states that have legalized medical marijuana use and at least 14 other states with pending legislation or ballot measures. In California, where cannabis has been legalized for medical use since 1996, a Field poll found 56 percent support for adult legalization -- and the matter may very well make its way onto the 2010 ballot.

Every woman I spoke to referenced cannabis' medicinal properties as a major reason they are so personally impassioned by the marijuana reform debate.

One of these is Valerie Corral, dubbed "the Mother Teresa of the medical marijuana movement," by Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Corral was introduced to the medical benefits of marijuana in 1973, when she was the victim of a car crash that left her an epileptic. At one point, while on pharmaceuticals, she was having up to five seizures each day.

In 1974, her husband read an article in a medical journal that described how positively rats had reacted to cannabis when treated for certain ailments. Soon thereafter, Corral started applying a strict regimen of marijuana, and kept a catalog of its effects.

"Within a few weeks, I noticed change," Corral said. And over time, she was able to control seizure activity in a way that allowed her to wean herself off the prescription drugs. To this day she does not take anything other than marijuana for her epilepsy.

Not only did medical marijuana change Corral's quality of life, it changed its course. She went on to found Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), a patient collective based in Santa Cruz, Calif. that offers organic medical marijuana and assistance to those who have received a terminal or chronic illness diagnosis.

WAMM currently serves about 170 patients. When I spoke to Corral, she was late to hit the road for her Thanksgiving holiday. She had spent the morning with a patient who was anxious about his radiation therapy. She then spent the afternoon delivering marijuana before counseling -- "and learning from" -- terminal patients.

While Corral knows first-hand the physical benefits of marijuana, she believes its most important effect is "the way it affects how we look at things that are difficult."

"No matter what else happens to us," Corral said, "the quality with which we live our lives is so important."

Cheryl Shuman, a 49-year-old optician in Los Angeles, would agree. Up until she started using cannabis therapy to treat her cancer, she was on a daily regimen of 27 prescription drugs, attached to a mobile intravenous morphine pump, and undergoing constant CAT and MRI scans. In 2006, her doctors told her she'd be dead by the end of that year.

"I had to make a decision [regarding] which way I was going to go and quite frankly, I thought if I am going to die, I want to control how my life is going to be," Shuman said, her voice breaking. "And the only side-effects were that I was happy and laughing."

It turns out those may not have been the only effects of her cannabis therapy. Her cancer has been in remission for 18 months now -- and that coincides precisely with the start of the marijuana treatment.

Shuman had previously used pot medicinally in 1994, when going through a harrowing divorce. Up to 80 milligrams of Prozac a day, coupled with multiple therapy sessions a week, did not help her get over the sense that she could barely make it through each day.

During one session, she says, "my therapist said, 'I could lose my license, but I think what would help you more than anything is just smoking a joint.' I didn't know how to respond! I said I couldn't do that -- I don't drink, I've never even smoked a cigarette!"

But after researching medical marijuana and realizing that cannabis had been available in pharmacies until the early 20th century, Shuman acquiesced and tried a joint. At 36 -- after learning to inhale -- Shuman says she found she "finally had some peace."

This year, Shuman became the founding director of Beverly Hills' National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) chapter -- and she hopes to attract women to the cause.

Corral, for her part, acknowledges that the role she fills within the marijuana movement is one that fits the traditional female archetype. "Maybe it's because we have a bigger amygdala," she laughs, referring to the part of the brain that processes emotions. "It probably is!"

Debby Goldsberry, director of the Berkeley Patients Group, a medical marijuana dispensary, feels similarly: "It's our job in our families and in our circles of friends to be caregivers. It makes sense that women would gravitate to cannabis."

In a recent study of a sample of patient reviews at a chain of medical marijuana assessment clinics in California, Craig Reinarman, a sociology professor at UC-Santa Cruz, found that only 27.1 percent of the patients were female. Another study, conducted on a sample of patients at Goldsberry's Berkeley dispensary, found that 30.7 percent of those patients were women.

Those numbers are close to the general expert estimate that women constitute about a third of marijuana consumers.

Mainstream Myth-Busting

Since more women are smoking weed, it's no surprise there has finally been an onslaught of girl stoner coverage in the corporate media.

It probably started with "Weeds" -- a Showtime series about a bodacious soccer mom who deals and smokes pot -- which is now readying for its sixth season premiere. But the big dam opener this year was the aforementioned publication of the Marieclaire article, "Stiletto Stoners," which paints the portrait of a whole class of "card-carrying, type A workaholics who just happen to prefer kicking back with a blunt instead of a bottle."

Julie Holland, a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the NYU School of Medicine, has been called onto NBC's Today Show twice now to explain why women are gravitating towards weed.

During one of her appearances, Holland seemingly shocks the hosts by telling them that 100 million Americans have tried weed -- 25 million of them over the past year. The most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows that 10.6 million women used marijuana in 2008.

Also surprising to the TV hosts was Holland's assertion that marijuana is the least addictive substance among many. According to a 1999 Institute of Medicine report, the rate at which people who try a substance and go on to become addicted is 32 percent for nicotine, 23 percent for heroin, 17 percent for cocaine, 15 percent for alcohol, and 9 percent for cannabis.

"Look at what the choices are. Cannabis isn't toxic to your brain, to your liver, it doesn't cause cancer, you can't overdose, and there's no evidence that it's a gateway drug," Holland said. "I believe that the majority of adults can healthfully integrate altered states into their lives, and it makes sense to do it with the least toxic substance you can. "

The public seems to agree.

Societal mores around marijuana are at their most progressive in at least 40 years, when Gallup first started asking Americans whether they believed marijuana ought be legalized. This year, 44 percent of those polled -- up from 36 percent in 2005 -- said they are in favor of legalization. A May Zogby poll found marijuana legalization was even more popular with its respondents, at 52 percent.

Harry Levine, professor of sociology at Queens College and co-author of Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice, attributes a lot of the mainstreaming of progressive views on pot to the medical marijuana movement.

"What it has done is change the image of marijuana from this tie-dye 1960s hippie-dippy kind of thing to a real drug, a real substance that has medical uses," he said. "You can separate it from the scary image of drugs."

Why Do Girls Smoke?

As weed is no longer considered by the public to be a "hard drug," three presidents -- 41, 42, and 43 -- have admitted to smoking marijuana. "The whole association of failure and dropouts [with marijuana] has been smashed in an important kind of way," Levine says.

In other words, you can smoke pot and be successful. Look at Natalie Angier, for example. In her book Woman: Intimate Geography, this Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer interjects a personal note of -- and case for -- female empowerment through weed:

All the women in my immediate family learned how to climax by smoking grass -- my mother when she was over thirty and already the mother of four. Yet I have never seen anorgasmia on the list of indications for the medical use of marijuana. Instead we are told that some women don't need to have orgasms to have a satisfying sex life, an argument as convincing as the insistence that homeless people like living outdoors.

As Angier writes, alcohol is a "global depressant of the nervous system" so marijuana can be a woman's best friend. In that vein, Holland has clinically observed that many of her female patients choose marijuana over alcohol -- for all kinds of social situations -- because it makes them "more present instead of absent."

"You can relax but not be incapacitated. You can keep your wits about you and protect yourself," Holland told me, adding that women don't always tolerate alcohol the way men do.

Diana, 37, a published writer in Madison is one such woman. She uses marijuana as a social lubricant: "If I drink, I know I'll be throwing up by night's end, even if it's only a couple of beers. But with weed, I know I can make it to closing time -- and keep up with all the steely-stomached drinkers."

Paloma, 25, a Bay Area union organizer, told me she smokes weed two to three times a week to "relax, sleep, work on arts and crafts or clean the house and cook" without being distracted by what she calls her "explosive" attention deficit disorder.

A few women smokers said they did not initially like the effects marijuana had on them. Tessa, 29, a doctoral student in Portland, said, she didn't enjoy weed in college "because I would not be able to do anything besides be high and stupid. Now I know to smoke less -- maybe a hit or two -- and then relax on that."

What a lot of women like Tessa don't know is that there are several kinds of weed that have different effects on the mind and body. Women who live in places where marijuana can be purchased at dispensaries are often more attuned to the fact that cannabis sativa gives a euphoric head high while cannabis indica results in a lazy body high. And then there are hybrids -- the equivalent to blends in wine culture.

Ally, 34, an architect and mother in San Francisco, sees weed as similar to vino: "Smoking a joint and taking a bath is what drinking a glass of wine and taking a bath was to my mom," she says, balancing a baby on her knee. "It's 'me' time!"

Think of the Children!

The acceptance of pot has led to discussion of how marijuana reform might positively impact families and children. This may change the debate because family values have long been employed by drug warriors as reasoning for why weed ought remain criminalized.

Enter Jessica Corry, a pro-life Republican from Denver. A mother of girls aged two and four, this 30-year-old newly-minted lawyer is widely hailed as a rising star in Colorado politics. She is currently working on her first book, which she described to me as an "analysis of how race consciousness and political correctness are silencing America's students and our entrepreneurial spirit."

A real conservative. Yet she is also one of the most outspoken proponents of marijuana legalization.

In 2006, she started a group called Guarding Our Children Against Marijuana Prohibition, which supported a statewide initiative to legalize marijuana.

"I had high-ranking Republicans politely encouraging me to write my political eulogy," Corry said. "Fortunately, they were wrong. While the initiative failed, it garnered more general election support than that year's Republican candidate for governor."

Corry doesn't smoke pot -- though she is open about past use. "As a mother," she says, "I'm far more concerned about my kids having access to a medicine cabinet than having access to a joint or a liquor cabinet. Marijuana, when consumed independently, has never been linked to a single death."

Mothers like Corry are drawn to marijuana regulation as part of a larger appeal that encourages the use of harm reduction to more pragmatically deal with substance abuse. Examples of harm reduction include providing designated drivers for drinkers and clean needles for heroin addicts.

Concerned moms may be moved to action by studies such as the Teen Survey, conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia. This year, there was a 37 percent increase in teens who said pot is easier to buy than cigarettes, beer or prescription drugs. Nearly one-quarter said they can get weed within the hour.

Those stats matter to women. In light of this, children and family will be included in the mission statement of the Women's Alliance, a group NORML will launch next year. The coordinator, Sabrina Fendrick, plans to include mention of how current marijuana policy undermines the American family and sends mixed messages to young people.

An Economic Savior?

The harm reduction approach extends itself from families and children to our ailing economy. With the largest economic recession since the Great Depression firmly in place, more people see the benefits of taxing and regulating marijuana for adults.

Economist Jeffrey Miron has calculated that, assuming a national market of about $13 billion annually, legalization would reap state and federal governments about $7 billion each year in extra tax revenues and save about $13.5 billion in law enforcement costs.

This kind of math attracts libertarian support, ranging from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California who recently called for an open discussion on legalization, to Rep. Ron Paul, a physician and Republican congressman from Texas, who has long advocated it.

The problem with a fiscal approach, however, might be that it could have more traction as a top-down rather than a bottom-up movement. Deborah Small, a drug reform veteran and founder of Break the Chains, a group that engages communities of color around drug reform policy, believes the reason the medical marijuana movement has been so successful is that its female leaders have made it a "real grassroots movement."

"Male-dominated libertarian philosophy and money has dominated" the general marijuana reform movement, Small says, and "there's a struggle in this next stage to see whether the movement will be driven by people with a lot of money or people on the ground -- or if they can agree to work together."

Perhaps male drug reform leaders can learn from the ladies. Jessica Corry, the GOP mom from Denver, turns the economic discussion back to the home: "It's generational child abuse to waste billions of dollars every year on marijuana prohibition."

Mikki Norris, the California marijuana activist, observed gender-specific focus groups in Oakland on Measure Z, a 2004 ballot initiative that ultimately succeeded in making marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority. She heard the women's group speaking on behalf of their children -- "they wanted money for their kids' education and they didn't want kids arrested for pot." Men, on the other hand, were more worried about children getting involved with drugs, she told me.

Norris said, "I just think women have a better grasp of home economics," or what's really important in a family.

Today's economic climate lends itself to easy parallels with the fight to repeal Prohibition in the 1920s, which was also framed as a family issue. Harry Levine, the sociologist, reminded me of Pauline Sabin, a high-society Chicago feminist who organized women in the fight to repeal the 18th Amendment.

"Sabin said that because of the violence, the corruption, the bootleggers, and all the resulting lost tax revenue, that alcohol undermined the home and therefore women should speak out for themselves and children," Levine said.

Many point to the moment when women joined the fight against Prohibition as the tipping point for the ultimate success of the movement.

Women as a New Force

The women in the marijuana reform movement have different reasons for trumpeting policy change. Some see cannabis as a medicinal wonder drug, others see tangible -- and sensible -- socio-economic benefits to taxing and regulating it.

Trends indicate that as more states legalize the use of cannabis for medical purposes, more people will discover first-hand that legalization of marijuana does not equate with anarchy and instead with more effective control of a substance so readily available to Americans -- and American kids -- across the country.

And as Californians may next year, Americans will soon be exposed to the choice between regulating marijuana for adult use or continuing a failed drug war that incarcerates 850,000 people a year -- tearing apart families, ruining futures, and siphoning from public funds that might otherwise benefit the next generation. All this for a relatively mild psychotropic that at least a third of us has tried.

As the recession continues to unravel communities across the country, the economic incentive to end this drug war will affect the opinions of many who might never otherwise have considered legalization. The time may very well be now.

Similar to the prohibition of alcohol in the early twentieth century, what we have today is a federal policy that is at odds with public opinion. It is a policy without a plurality of citizen supporters.

And many women are at the vanguard of the movement that recognizes this and is fighting for change.

Friday, November 27, 2009

The First Thanksgiving and a turkey named Glen Beck‏

From: newsviewsnolose@yahoogroups.com on behalf of DickM


Glen was preaching on his TV show last night that we need to tear down the wall of separation of church and state.

Help me jesus!!!

Fundalmentalist Christian radio talk show hosts have been saying that Thanksgiving was originally, declared by George Washington as a religious holiday and a day of prayer.

But..... according to anthropologist,, William B. Newell, the first official Thanksgiving wasn't a festive gathering of Indians and Pilgrims, but rather a celebration of the massacre of 700 Pequot men, women and children.

"Thanksgiving Day was first officially proclaimed by the Governor of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1637 to commemorate the massacre of 700 men, women and children who were celebrating their annual green corn
dance-Thanksgiving Day to them-in their own house," Newell said.

"Gathered in this place of meeting they were attacked by mercenaries and
Dutch and English. The Indians were ordered from the building and as they
came forth they were shot down. The rest were burned alive in the
building," he said.

Newell based his research on studies of Holland Documents and the 13
volume Colonial Documentary History, both thick sets of letters and
reports from colonial officials to their superiors and the king in
England, and the private papers of Sir William Johnson, British Indian
agent for the New York colony for 30 years in the mid-1600s.

Newell said the next 100 Thanksgivings commemorated the killing of the
Indians at what is now Groton, Ct.,rather than a celebration with them.

(Source: Community Endeavor News, November, 1995, as reprinted in
Healing Global Wounds, Fall, 1996
-----

In 1585, before there was any permanent English settlement in Virginia, Richard Grenville landed there with seven ships. The Indians he met were hospitable, but when one of them stole a small silver cup, Grenville sacked and burned the whole Indian village.

The Jamestown colony was established in Virginia in 1607, inside the territory of an Indian confederacy, led by the chief, Powhatan. Powhatan watched the English settle on his people's land, but did not attack. And the English began starving. Some of them ran away and joined the Indians, where they would at least be fed. Indeed, throughout colonial times tens of thousands of indentured servants, prisoners and slaves -- from Wales and Scotland as well as from Africa -- ran away to live in Indian communities, intermarry, and raise their children there.

In the summer of 1610 the governor of Jamestown colony asked Powhatan to return the runaways, who were living fully among the Indians. Powhatan left the choice to those who ran away, and none wanted to go back. The governor of Jamestown then sent soldiers to take revenge. They descended on an Indian community, killed 15 or 16 Indians, burned the houses, cut down the corn growing around the village, took the female leader of the tribe and her children into boats, then ended up throwing the children overboard and shooting out their brains in the water. The female leader was later taken off the boat and stabbed to death.

By 1621, the atrocities committed by the English had grown, and word spread throughout the Indian villages. The Indians fought back, and killed 347 colonists. From then on it was total war. Not able to enslave the Indians the English aristocracy decided to exterminate them.
And then the Pilgrims arrived.

When the Pilgrims came to New England they too were coming not to vacant land but to territory inhabited by tribes of Indians. The story goes that the Pilgrims, who were Christians of the Puritan sect, were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. They had fled England and went to Holland, and from there sailed aboard the Mayflower, where they landed at Plymouth Rock in what is now Massachusetts.

Religious persecution or not, they immediately turned to their religion to rationalize their persecution of others. They appealed to the Bible, Psalms 2:8: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." To justify their use of force to take the land, they cited Romans 13:2: "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

The pastor of the Pilgrim colony, John Robinson, advised his parishioners: "And surely there is in all children a stubbornness, and stoutness of mind arising from natural pride, which must, in the first place, be broken and beaten down; that so the foundation of their education being laid in humility and tractableness, other virtues may, in their time, be built thereon."

http://www.rense.com/general45/thanks2.htm


Is the Thanksgiving holiday at the heart of U.S. myth-building?

One vehicle for taming history is various patriotic holidays, with Thanksgiving at the heart of U.S. myth-building.

Everyone understands we (Americans) are an inherently benevolent one, but all our history contradicts that claim. The history of the US must be twisted and tortured to serve the purposes of the powerful.

The first president, George Washington, in 1783 said he preferred buying Indians' land rather than driving them off it because that was like driving "wild beasts" from the forest. He compared Indians to wolves, "both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape."

Thomas Jefferson -- president No. 3 and author of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to Indians as the "merciless Indian Savages" -- was known to romanticize Indians and their culture, but that didn't stop him in 1807 from writing to his secretary of war that in a coming conflict with certain tribes, "[W]e shall destroy all of them."

Theodore Roosevelt (president No. 26) defended the expansion of whites across the continent as an inevitable process "due solely to the power of the mighty civilized races which have not lost the fighting instinct, and which by their expansion are gradually bringing peace into the red wastes where the barbarian peoples of the world hold sway."

Roosevelt also once said, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of 10 are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the 10th."

U.S. elites have a clear stake in the contemporary propaganda value of that history.

http://www.alternet.org/story/108876?page=2

NOTICE: Material posted to this mailing list is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and/or educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml



A Jane Goodall Thanksgiving


by: Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed


Give thanks. Because this isn't one of those Thanksgiving lists of things for which we should be grateful - although health, family, friends, laughter etc. would certainly all be on mine.

And Jane Goodall.

Yes, that Jane Goodall, the woman we all grew up with watching those National Geographic specials on TV as she communed with the chimpanzees of Tanzania's Gombe National Park in East Africa. Everyone I know seems especially to remember those scenes of chimps ingeniously utilizing straw and blades of grass to poke around in mounds hunting for termites, proof that they know how to make and use tools. I still have trouble opening a can of tuna.

Goodall was interviewed by my colleague Bill Moyers for this week's edition of "Bill Moyers Journal" on PBS. She began her work in Africa in 1960 at the age of 26, spurred by the encouragement of her English mother and the great anthropologist Louis Leakey, as well as the African adventure books she read as a child. "I was in love with Tarzan," she told Moyers. "I was so jealous of that wimpy Jane. I knew I would have been a better mate for Tarzan."

I'm especially thankful to Jane Goodall after reading the passage in Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue" in which the erstwhile vice-presidential candidate and governor of Alaska writes that she doesn't "believe in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings - originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea. Or that human beings began as single-celled organisms that developed into monkeys who eventually swung down from trees."

She could learn a thing or two from the chimps. Goodall sees our affinity with them as like "the bond between mother and child, which really for us and chimps and other primates is the root of all the expressions of social behavior you can sort of see mirrored in the mother/child relationship."

But chimpanzees can be violent, too, and Goodall says, "Some people have reached the conclusion that war and violence is inevitable in ourselves. I reach the conclusion that I do believe we have brought aggressive tendencies with us through our long human evolutionary past. I mean, you can't look around the world and not realize that we can be, and often are, extremely brutal and aggressive."

But, she adds, "Equally, we have inherited tendencies of love, compassion, and altruism, because they're there in the chimp. So, we've brought those with us. So, it's like each one of us has this dark side. And a more noble side. And I guess it's up to each one of us to push one down and develop the other."

Jane Goodall has never seen a conflict between religion and evolution. "I don't think that faith, whatever you're being faithful about, really can be scientifically explained," she said. "And I don't want to explain this whole life business. Truth, science. There's so much mystery. There's so much awe.

"I mean, what is it that makes the chimpanzees do these spectacular displays, rain dances - I call them waterfall dances. At the foot of this waterfall, [they] sit in the spray and watch the water that's always coming and always going and always there. It's wonder. It's awe. And if they had the same kind of language that we have, I suspect that [they would turn it] into- some kind of animistic religion."

In 1986, after two and a half decades of quiet research in the African forest, Goodall's career took a dramatic turn at a conference of scientists studying chimpanzees. During a session on conservation, she said that it was "shocking" to learn that across Africa, because of deforestation, the explosion of human population and commercial hunting of animals for food, the chimpanzee population had "plummeted from somewhere between one and two million at the turn of the last century to, at that time, about 400,000. So I came out - I couldn't go back to that old, beautiful, wonderful life."

She now spends more than 300 days out of the year traveling, speaking out, rallying people to see ourselves as caretakers of the natural world, and inspiring us with word that all is not yet lost. Her Jane Goodall Institute works ceaselessly for the worldwide protection of habitat, and her program "Roots and Shoots" now has chapters in 114 countries, working to make young people more environmentally aware. "I could kill myself trying to save chimps and forests," she said to Bill Moyers. "But if we're not raising new generations to be better stewards than we've been, then we might as well give up."

The worldwide chimp population is down to fewer than 300,000 now, spread across isolated fragments of forest, Goodall says, in 21 African nations. Moyers asked, what do we lose if the last chimp goes? "We lose one window into learning about our long course of evolution," she replied.

"I've spent so long looking into these minds that are fascinating, because they're so like us. And yet they're in another world. And I think the magic is, I will never know what they're thinking ... And so, it's like elephants and gorillas, and all the different animals that we are pushing toward extinction ... There's a saying, 'We haven't inherited this planet from our parents, we've borrowed it from our children.' When you borrow, you plan to pay back. We've been stealing and stealing and stealing. And it's about time we got together and started paying back."

That's as good a Thanksgiving wish as I can imagine.

Additional research provided by producer Candace White and associate producer Diane Chang.

»


Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday nights on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.

Jim Hightower | Giving Thanks for America's Good Food Movement


by: Jim Hightower, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed


What better day than Thanksgiving to celebrate our country's food rebels!

I'm talking about the growing movement of small farmers, food artisans, local retailers, co-ops, community organizers, restaurateurs, environmentalists, consumers and others -- perhaps including you. This movement has spread the rich ideas of sustainability, organic, local control and the Common Good from the fringes of our food economy into the mainstream.

It began in earnest in the 1980s and 1990s as an "upchuck rebellion" -- ordinary folks rejecting the industrialized, chemicalized, corporatized and globalized food system. Farmers wanted a more natural connection to the good earth that they were working, just as consumers began demanding edibles that were not saturated with pesticides, injected with antibiotics, ripened with chemicals, dosed with artificial flavorings and otherwise tortured.

These two interests began to find each other and to create an alternative way of thinking about food. Today, more than 13,000 organic farmers produce everything from wheat to meat, and organic food sales top $23 billion a year. Some 4,800 vibrant farmers' markets operate in practically every city and town across the land, linking farmers and food-makers directly to consumers in a local, supportive economy. Also, restaurants, supermarkets, food wholesalers and school districts are now buying foodstuffs that are produced sustainably and locally.

No one in a position of power -- corporate or governmental -- made any of these changes happen. Instead, the movement percolated up from the grassroots, and it has become a groundswell as ordinary people inform themselves, organize locally and assert their own democratic values over those of the corporate structure.

Family by family, town by town, this movement has changed not only the market, but also the culture of food. That's a change worthy of our thanks -- and to do it up right, how about having an earth dinner?

Not that you'd eat earth, but that you and others would gather around a table for a social occasion to celebrate the bounty of our good, green earth. Whether you do it for Thanksgiving, Earth Day or just any old day, an earth dinner is a festive opportunity to have friends and family cook, eat and drink together while reveling in the culture of food.

Most of us don't realize that our dinner tells many stories, embodying our personal histories, family memories, music, art and other connections ... besides our tummies. To help reawaken those cultural links in a way that can be tasty, touching and fun, the folks at Organic Valley Family of Farms have come up with the novel idea of earth dinners.

The concept simply involves throwing some sort of dinner party at which the food is not merely consumed, but also is the focus of table talk, reminiscing, singing, laughing, game playing and whatever else you can dream up. It can be a potluck dinner, a buffet, a five-course gourmet meal, a backyard barbeque ... whatever suits you. The key is to know something about the food being served -- where it comes from, the history of some of the ingredients, songs written about it and so on.

The goal is to get everyone connecting in some personal or cultural way to the dinner as it progresses. Ask guests to tell about their very first food memory, or to recall any family member who was a farmer or a jolly cook. Invite people of diverse backgrounds and all ages. Ask a farm family to join you, or a cheesemaker or others involved in producing food. Then -- eat, talk, enjoy!

Organic Valley's Website offers a sort of earth dinner starter kit, with tips on everything from menus to party favors, as well as providing reports on successful dinners that others have put together. Check it out at www.earthdinner.org -- and have a good time!

Copyright 2009 Creators.com

»


Columnist, national radio commentator, public speaker and author of the forthcoming book, "Swim Against The Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow," Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses and just-plain-folks.

Unhappy Thanksgiving


by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed


The calendar has come around again to Thanksgiving, and families all over the country will be gathering around dinner tables to celebrate. Or try to, anyway. With unemployment above ten percent, and with actual unemployment closer to twenty percent, with foreclosures all over the place, with wages dropping and food prices rising, with the economy improving only for those who have lots of money, there will be millions of people without a whole hell of a lot to feel thankful for.

Ten months after the inauguration of Barack Obama, those "Yes We Can" and "Hope" slogans have begun to ring more than a little hollow. Of course, the man inherited a vast array of ongoing catastrophes from his predecessor, and it is a dead-bang certainty that ten months under a McCain administration would have left us in far worse shape than we find ourselves in today, but the realization that matters are only slightly better than they would have been under the worst-case scenario doesn't go very far anymore. Some things are better, but the fact of the matter is that some things are worse, and most things are exactly the same.

The news on Tuesday was filled with reports that Obama intends to announce his decision regarding America's ongoing war in Afghanistan on December 1, and the early word is "expansion." McClatchy News reported, "President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional US troops over the next year to what he's called 'a war of necessity' in Afghanistan. Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on December 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the US Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said."

So, there it is. The US military is in terrible shape after two wars, and sending more troops into the Afghan conflict will only add to the damage. The cost of sending additional troops will further undermine our economy and make Obama's domestic agenda all the more difficult to achieve. The Afghan people, already deeply resentful after eight years of American occupation and warfare, will not greet a new investment of troops gladly. We can all hold hands around the Thanksgiving table and pray to whatever God may be listening that Obama will provide some sort of coherent exit policy, but the fact remains that no occupying force in more than a century has employed any effective exit strategy from Afghanistan beyond utter defeat.

Speaking of domestic policy, the much-ballyhooed push to reform America's health care system has gone completely sideways in the hands of Congress people bought off by insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and in the hands of a president who demanded change but has taken three steps back for every one step forward. The result looks to be a watered down farce of a bill that could very well make matters even worse than they already are. Economist Robert Reich recently wrote about the current state of affairs in the health care debate:

So the compromise that ended up in the House bill is to have a mere public option, open only to the 6 million Americans not otherwise covered. The Congressional Budget Office warns this shrunken public option will have no real bargaining leverage and would attract mainly people who need lots of medical care to begin with. So, it will actually cost more than it saves.

But even the House's shrunken and costly little public option is too much for private insurers, Big Pharma, Republicans and "centrists" in the Senate. So, Harry Reid has proposed an even tinier public option, which states can decide not to offer their citizens. According to the CBO, it would attract no more than four million Americans.

It's a token public option, an ersatz public option, a fleeting gesture toward the idea of a public option, so small and desiccated as to be barely worth mentioning except for the fact that it still (gasp) contains the word "public."

Our private, for-profit health insurance system, designed to fatten the profits of private health insurers and Big Pharma, is about to be turned over to ... our private, for-profit health care system. Except that now private health insurers and Big Pharma will be getting some 30 million additional customers, paid for by the rest of us.

Upbeat policy wonks and political spinners who tend to see only portions of cups that are full will point out some good things: no pre-existing conditions, insurance exchanges, 30 million more Americans covered. But in reality, the cup is 90 percent empty. Most of us will remain stuck with little or no choice - dependent on private insurers who care only about the bottom line, who deny our claims, who charge us more and more for co-payments and deductibles, who bury us in forms, who don't take our calls.

Pretty much says it all right there.

With public attention focused on the economy, Afghanistan and health care, the White House is moving in stealth to renew some of the worst Patriot Act provisions enacted by the Bush administration. Specifically, the administration seeks to renew three parts of the Act that are set to expire on December 31, according to the Inter-Press Service:

National Security Letters (NSLs)

The FBI uses NSLs to compel Internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people.

The 'Material Support' Statute

This provision criminalizes providing "material support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since Sep. 11, this section criminalizes a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organizations.

FISA Amendments Act of 2008

This past summer, Congress passed a law that permits the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of US residents' international telephone calls and e-mails.

All we as Americans can do is work to push these elected officials away from the abyss they have us teetering over, and hope that there will be something to be thankful for next year. For now, however, just about everything before us is either worse or exactly as bad as it was before. Not much to be thankful about here.

»


William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence." His newest book, "House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation," is now available from PoliPointPress.