Sandra Finley

2013-04-01 One year and $5 million later, Harper’s charity crackdown nets just one bad egg – – Guess Who?

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Peace or Violence, Sustainability  No Responses »
Apr 012013
 

Laugh or cry?

. . .  the scare of nuclear weapons – enough of them on the planet to blow us all to oblivion a few times over

. . .  the people around the world who have worked decade after decade toward “nuclear nonproliferation”?

THEN CHECK THIS OUT:

One year and $5 million later, Harper’s charity crackdown nets just one bad egg    (The text of the article is below, and I copied some of the Comments from readers).

WHO IS ‘THE BAD EGG’ that the charity crackdown caught?   . . .  PGS.   (Physicians for Global Survival, it’s been in the business of nuclear nonproliferation for 30+ years now.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dale wrote:

This article (BELOW) from the Metronews is too funny – especially with a photo of Warren!  So PGS was a “bad egg”!

Dale Dewar, MD, FCFP
Executive Director
Physicians for Global Survival

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Warren writes:

And here is my response (since my photo was used!):

One Bad Egg….

The federal government has just spent $5 million dollars on a totally terrific cause. They’ve caught a gang of Evil-Doers, a shadowy organization lurking around the edge of decent society, aiming to pounce on innocent politicians and corporations, eager to disrupt law and order and good governance.

One year ago, the government of Stephen Harper promised to spend $8 million to root out bad charitable organizations who were being “political” – that is, lobbying for changes in government behaviour that the government itself wasn’t ready to support.

Now Metronews-Vancouver reporter Katie Gibbs has found out what happened this year past.

After closely auditing 880 organizations, our Prime Minister and his trusty lieutenants Natural Resources Minister Joe “Tough Guy” Oliver and Environment Minister Peter “Sniff-‘em-Out” Kent have found a pretty bad criminal organization that was “getting political”.

What they found was a bunch of doctors, banded together in an organization brazenly called “Physicians for Global Survival” (I mean, who gives a fig about global survival when we’ve got the Oil (Tar) Sands on our side).

And the unspeakable actions this hardy band of rogue physicians were promoting were… well, nothing small potatoes like bombing the Parliament Buildings, or lying down on the train tracks, or naked protest marches.

Physicians for Global Survival were pushing to abolish nuclear bombs, and the uranium industry consortium that supports them.

No wonder they had to go.

And Physicians for Global Survival didn’t stop there. They were advocating for “the prevention of war, non-violent conflict resolution, social justice and a sustainable world.”

They didn’t even bother to hide it. They spelled it out, right in the open – on their website. If you don’t believe me, then go have a look.

You’ll see how really bad these guys are.

What’s more, it turns out that Physicians for Global Survival have been getting away with this kind of evil-doing for over 3 decades – flying under the radar, quietly undermining the work of the beloved military-industrial complex and corporate weapons manufacturers and the uranium industry for (gasp) 32 years – and all these years, previous weak-kneed, lily-livered governments had turned a blind eye.

But no more.

Stevie and Joe and Pete are on the job.

This is a good news story. Physicians for Global Survival have been caught and punished. They’ve been forced to give up their charitable status, and create a whole new organization that promises to never go rogue political again.

Now if they behave, then maybe their new organization can have charitable status and grant tax receipts to donors – as long as they behave.

But there’s more good news.

At the top I mentioned the government had set aside $8 million to catch more bad guys. It’s true. But they’ve only spent $5 million of it. So now Stevie and Joe and Pete can get more bad guys next year – or maybe they’ll just get the old ones all over again. Whatever.

And here’s one further piece of good news. The Fraser Institute, full of good guys who just love to tell it like it is, and appreciate nice donations from good old guys like the Exxon gang, and those Koch brothers who love to have Tea Parties – the Fraser Institute will never be shut down.

Because, you see, it isn’t political at all – it says so in Section C5 of its Charitable Intormation Return. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form22-eng.action?b=119233823RR0001&e=2010-12-31&n=THE+FRASER+INSTITUTE&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fadvancedsearchresult-eng.action%3Fn%3DFraser%2BInstitute%26amp%3Bb%3D%26amp%3Bq%3D%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bd%3D%26amp%3Be%3D%2B%26amp%3Bc%3D%26amp%3Bv%3D%2B%26amp%3Bo%3D%26amp%3Bz%3D%26amp%3Bg%3D%2B%26amp%3Bt%3D%2B%26amp%3By%3D%2B%26amp%3Bp%3D1#section_c

All the Fraser Institute does is explain why the government has to do what it does – things like catching evil-doers.

But now, I have to make a confession. I have a big fat conflict of interest.

I was once president of Physicians for Global Survival.

And I’m still a member.

And a supporter.

Sigh…..I’d better go down to the jail-house and turn myself in.

Or maybe…maybe….I’ll just let Stevie and Joe and Pete come and get me.

With those Three Amigos on the trail, it’s only a matter of time.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

www.pgs.ca

“It is time to abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue nuclear weapons, but morally acceptable for others to rely on them. Our aim must be clear:  a secure structure that is based on our shared humanity and not on the ability of some to destroy us all.”     Tariq Rauf, IAEA

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

One year and $5 million later, Harper’s charity crackdown nets just one bad egg, MetroNews, March 30

By Kate Webb

http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/613999/one-year-and-5-million-later-harpers-charity-crackdown-nets-just-one-bad-egg/

PGSOttawa/Flickr                 Salmon Arm, B.C. physician and former president of Physicians for Global Survival Dr. Warren Bell speaks at a 2009 conference in Montreal.

An $8-million pot of money included in last year’s federal budget to crack down on charities suspected of engaging in “excessive” political activities has so far resulted in only one having its charitable status revoked, out of nearly 900 that were audited.

Under the Canadian tax code, registered charities are permitted to devote a maximum of 10 per cent of their total resources to non-partisan political activities, defined as any type of call to political action.

The agency has already spent $5 million to educate charities and increase transparency and compliance around those limitations, and expects to spend the remaining $3 million in the coming year.

Environmental charities were widely reported to be the primary target of ramped up compliance measures after Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said environmental and other “radical groups” were trying to undermine the national economy by blocking pipeline and other fossil fuel projects.

But Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) spokesman Philippe Brideau said after roughly 880 audits in the last year, the only charity whose status was revoked for exceeding limits on political activity was Physicians for Global Survival, a group dedicated to the promotion of nuclear disarmament.

A CRA audit found the organization was using 26 per cent of its resources for political activities, including a letter-writing campaign urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper, party leaders and MPs to support an international treaty banning nuclear weapons.

Several high-profile B.C.-based charities, including the David Suzuki Foundation and ForestEthics, told Metro the CRA’s attention actually inspired them to become more politically active, because they realized they were not spending anywhere near the 10 per cent threshold.

ForestEthics split into two organizations after the March 2012 budget announcement, with a non-charitable branch dedicated solely to advocacy, while David Suzuki stepped down from the board of his own foundation so that he could publically denounce Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s policies.

“It wasn’t because there was any feeling like we were over that 10 per cent, I think it was actually that we wanted to do more than 10 per cent,” said Ben West, tar sands campaign director for the now one-year-old non-profit, ForestEthics Advocacy.

“I think a lot of groups there was this desire to not get bullied and instead to stand up and fight… but it wasn’t a defensive move, it was an offensive move.”

The CRA declined an interview request from Metro, and refused to divulge how many charities had received less serious reprimands for political activity, such as warning letters, compliance agreements, fines or suspension of tax receipting privileges.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

SOME COMMENTS BY READERS

CuJo YYC

And what of the Fraser Institute? Their entire raison d’etre is “political action”. They’re known to accept large donations from “foreign radicals” ( ExxonMobil and the US-based Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation as well as the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, both under the control of billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch two name but three groups) who do not work in the “interests of Canadians” and yet, under this petty and destructive government under Dear Leader™, the Fraser Institute gets a free pass from CRA. While calling for annual audits and accurate reporting and transparency of funding for organizations that are deemed to be opponents of Dear Leader™ and his acolytes, TRULY political so-called charities like the Fraser Institute are completely off the hook. Hypocrisy is the only kind of transparency we’ve actually seen from the so-called Conservatives since 2006.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Jean Chard

I didn’t realize that the Fraser Institute was a charitable org? Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and Council of Canadians are not.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Jean Chard

Indeed it is…check the CRA web-site. Pathetic, eh?

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Stewart Vriesinga

Pathetic is right. And if we{re not outraged we’re apathetic. Channel that rage!

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

MyPetGloat

Harper is the King of Waste.

In addition to the $10 million rent-2-pandas monstrosity….

– He took $50 million from the Treasury to essentially fund Tony Gazebo Fake Lake Clement’s election campaign.

– $56 million spent advertising his Economic Action Plan.

Nearly half of that he spent during the 2012 Super Bowl, Grammys & Oscars

– $5 million (initially) for an Office of Religious Freedom. Redundant since the Charter protects religious freedoms. Contradictory since he pulled non Christian pastors from Corrections.

– $1 billion for a G8 weekend (2 days!)

– $1 million to airlift two armoured limos to India which has the exact same

armoured limos for heads of state.

– $20 million a year for the PMs security budget, which is double what any other previous PM spent. Between 2009 and 2011 he spent $46 million, 70 times the amount spent on the entire cabinet and other VIPs

– Increasing the number of seats in the HOC.

– Appointing senators who breach ethics and take money that is not rightfully

theirs.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Ralph Torrie

It seems to me that a group like Physicians for Global Survival is exactly the type of group that should enjoy charitable status. There is no self-interest there, only concern for the future of mankind.

– – – – – – – – – –

GLessard

One wonders how many millions of charitable donations were spent by the organizations under investigation to defend themselves…

– – – – – – – –

purplelibraryguy

I think that was the real point, actually. If there’s one thing the Cons don’t want them doing, it’s spending their charitable donation money on, you know, helping or advocating for the environment. So they found a way to make them waste some of it.

– – – – – – – –

Bill Curry

PGS a ‘bad egg’?!! That’s blaming the victim.

In fact, the work of Physicians for Global Survival has been thoroughly educational, diagnostic and prescriptive – about the dangerous hair-trigger-alert status of nuclear weapons, about proliferation realities, about the accumulating evidence and modern medical understanding of radiation risks, and the absolute necessity of prevention.

Peace is a threat to pronuclear militarists, so PGS was deliberately attacked by the arms dealers’ political minions – source of that horrible rotten egg stench.

2013-03 Excellent! TED Talk, Ron Finley, A guerilla gardener in south central L.A.

 Economic Indicators, Empowerment, Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Health, Occupy Movement, Sustainability  2 Responses »
Mar 312013
 

I want to make sure this TED Talk  by Ron Finley is widely known.

Maybe you’ll experience the same high as I did, watching it?!

http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central_la.html 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  –

  • Ron Finley’s work is very positive and creative.  It is CONSTRUCTION;  this is what “the new” will look like.
  • Then I have to send you some DE-CONSTRUCTION of the old that has to be done simultaneously.  The battles against corporate takeover of the food supply have been waging for decades.   

Ron Finley:  “Just like 26.5 million other Americans, I live in a food desert, South Central Los Angeles, home of the drive-thru and the drive-by.  Funny thing is, the drive-thrus are killing more people than the drive-bys.  People are dying from curable diseases  . . .   Plus I got tired of driving 45 minutes round trip to get an apple that wasn’t impregnated with pesticides.  . . . “

If you know even a small fraction of the de-construction that good people are doing today, your heart will soar.   It pales in comparison to what we were doing a decade ago to stop GMO “Terminator Technology” in seeds, Herbicide-Resistant (GMO) Wheat,  GM alfalfa, etc.

 

Now back to  “A guerilla gardener in south central L.A.”:

The TED talk was posted in March 2013. By April 8: 728,389 Views. (The real number of views is typically double because of “other platforms” that pick it up).   A day later, April 9:  another 3,000 people have watched the video.

– – – – – – – – –

I  provided input to the TED conversation and received a reply from Ron Finley.

An important aspect I will draw out when I have time:  there is a very good lesson on economic indicators in what Ron Finley is doing.

CONTENTS

  1. TED Talk, RON FINLEY, A GUERILLA GARDENER IN SOUTH CENTRAL L.A.  http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central_la.html 
  2. MY NOTE TO RON FINLEY (INDUSTRIALIZED AGRICULTURE), see below.
  3. REPLY FROM RON FINLEY  (below)
  4. TRANSCRIPT:   2013-03-07  Transcript,  Guerrila gardener  (Ron Finley, TED Talk)
  5. EARLIER NOTE SENT TO PEOPLE IN BHUTAN, CROPLIFE’S EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE THEIR DETERMINATION TO BE A TOTALLY ORGANIC COUNTRY.   Please see  2012-12-16  Genetically Modified Crops with flavour  

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

2.  MY NOTE TO RON FINLEY (INDUSTRIALIZED AGRICULTURE)

(May 14, 2013 – updated)

Sandra Finley

2 days ago:

I cannot thank you, Ron Finley, enough. (Coincidentally, I too am a Finley!) 

I am from the agricultural province of Saskatchewan, Canada.  We produce bioteched food crops soaked in chemicals.

The consequences are very high disease rates and developmental problems locally, an environment into which we just keep pumping more and more poisons, compliments of the chemical-biotech corps.

The University of Sask. College of Agriculture was taken over by them decades ago, beginning by Monsanto.  Bayer CropScience and others now inhabit the University, too. The usurped University has become a “conditioning centre” for credentialing the agricultural specialists advising farmers.

The Govt has just given $15 million plus $35 million in corporate money to the University designated for the high-sounding “Global Institute for Food Security” (GIFS).  The Institute is to be headed up by Roger Beachy on interim basis (he’s be here one week a month for a year). 

“His research at Washington University in St. Louis,  in collaboration with Monsanto Company,…” (note, too, that the head offices of Monsanto are in St Louis).

Seems to me that the Govt is using the University as the conduit for sending public money to Monsanto and others (corporate welfare paid for by citizens), in an endeavour that is clearly NOT in the public interest.  Not to mention that the University loses its autonomy when the Govt sends DESIGNATED funding (money is supposed to come with no strings attached.  This is a public university.)

All is not bleak – bless you. 

Also, I am an elected member of the University Senate. With more info and help, maybe we can reclaim “Our soil” as you are doing in L.A.  If your inspired revolution fertilizes our efforts here, maybe we will be providing food grains that are developed by the criterion of their contribution to healthfulness, not by whether they can withstand chemical applications, and be “owned” (patented) by these very corrupt corporations.

My sincere best wishes to you & your group in L.A.   Perhaps you will come and visit us one day in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.   Vive le revolution!

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

 

3.  REPLY FROM RON FINLEY

thumb

Ron Finley      TED Speaker

Thank you cousin!  Wow you get to see both sides live & in color!  This has gotten so criminal.  It has to change!

Vive Le Revolution!! or Evolution. . .

AllgoodThings!

~r0N

 

2013-03-07 Transcript, Guerrila gardener (Ron Finley, TED Talk)

 Culture and Ethics, Economic Indicators, Empowerment, Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Health, Sustainability  No Responses »
Mar 302013
 

NOTE:  it is better to watch the video of this talk.   Please see  2013-04-08  Excellent!  TED Talk, Ron Finley, A guerilla gardener in south central L.A.

– – – – – – – – –

TRANSCRIPT

Showing Revision 3, created 03/07/2013 by Morton Bast.

Title:   Ron Finley: A guerilla gardener in South Central LA

Description:     Ron Finley plants vegetable gardens in South Central LA — in abandoned lots, traffic medians, along the curbs. Why? For fun, for defiance, for beauty and to offer some alternative to fast food in a community where “the drive-thrus are killing more people than the drive-bys.”

I live in South Central.

This is South Central:  liquor stores, fast food, vacant lots.

So the city planners, they get together and they figure

they’re going to change the name South Central to make it represent something else,

so they change it to South Los Angeles,

like this is going to fix what’s really going wrong in the city.

This is South Los Angeles. (Laughter)

Liquor stores, fast food, vacant lots.

Just like 26.5 million other Americans,

I live in a food desert,

South Central Los Angeles,

home of the drive-thru and the drive-by.

Funny thing is, the drive-thrus are killing more people than the drive-bys.

People are dying from curable diseases

in South Central Los Angeles.

For instance, the obesity rate in my neighborhood

is five times higher than, say, Beverly Hills,

which is probably eight, 10 miles away.

I got tired of seeing this happening.

And I was wondering, how would you feel

if you had no access to healthy food,

if every time you walk out your door you see the ill effects

that the present food system has on your neighborhood?

I see wheelchairs bought and sold

like used cars.

I see dialysis centers popping up like Starbucks.

And I figured, this has to stop.

So I figured that the problem is the solution.

Food is the problem and food is the solution.

Plus I got tired of driving 45 minutes round trip

to get an apple that wasn’t impregnated with pesticides.

So what I did, I planted a food forest in front of my house.

It was on a strip of land that we call a parkway.

It’s 150 feet by 10 feet.

Thing is, it’s owned by the city.

But you have to maintain it.

So I’m like, “Cool. I can do whatever the hell I ant,

since it’s my responsibility and I gotta maintain it.”

And this is how I decided to maintain it.

So me and my group, L.A. Green Grounds, we got together

and we started planting my food forest, fruit trees,

you know, the whole nine, vegetables.

What we do, we’re a pay-it-forward kind of group,

where it’s composed of gardeners from all walks of life,

from all over the city, and it’s completely volunteer,

and everything we do is free.

And the garden, it was beautiful.

And then somebody complained.

The city came down on me,

and basically gave me a citation saying that I had to remove my garden,

which this citation was turning into a warrant.

And I’m like, “Come on, really?

A warrant for planting food on a piece of land

that you could care less about?” (Laughter)

And I was like, “Cool. Bring it.”

Because this time it wasn’t coming up.

So L.A. Times got ahold of it. Steve Lopez did a story on it

and talked to the councilman,

and one of the Green Grounds members,

they put up a petition on Change.org,

and with 900 signatures, we were a success.

We had a victory on our hands.

My councilman even called in and said how they endorse

and love what we’re doing.

I mean, come on, why wouldn’t they?

L.A. leads the United States in vacant lots that the city actually owns.

They own 26 square miles of vacant lots.

That’s 20 Central Parks.

That’s enough space to plant 725 million tomato plants.

Why in the hell would they not okay this?

Growing one plant will give you 1,000, 10,000 seeds.

When one dollar’s worth of green beans

will give you 75 dollars’ worth of produce.

It’s my gospel, when I’m telling people, grow your own food.

Growing your own food is like printing your own money.

(Applause)

See, I have a legacy in South Central.

I grew up there. I raised my sons there.

And I refuse to be a part of this manufactured reality

that was manufactured for me by some other people,

and I’m manufacturing my own reality.

See, I’m an artist.

Gardening is my graffiti. I grow my art.

Just like a graffiti artist, where they beautify walls,

me, I beautiful lawns, parkways.

I use the garden, the soil, like it’s a piece of cloth,

and the plants and the trees,

that’s my embellishment for that cloth.

You’d be surprised what the soil could do

if you let it be your canvas.

You just couldn’t imagine how amazing a sunflower is

and how it affects people.

So what happened?

I have witnessed my garden become a tool for the education,

a tool for the transformation of my neighborhood.

To change the community, you have to change the composition of the soil.

We are the soil.

You’d be surprised how kids are affected by this.

Gardening is the most therapeutic

and defiant act you can do,

especially in the inner city.

Plus you get strawberries.

(Laughter)

I remember this time,

there was this mother and a daughter came,

it was, like, 10:30 at night, and they were in my yard,

and I came out and they looked so ashamed.

So I’m like, man, it made me feel bad that they were there,

and I told them, you know, you don’t have to do this like this.

This is on the street for a reason.

It made me feel ashamed to see people

that were this close to me that were hungry,

and this only reinforced why I do this,

and people asked me, “Fin, aren’t you afraid

people are going to steal your food?”

And I’m like, “Hell no, I ain’t afraid they’re gonna steal it.

That’s why it’s on the street.

That’s the whole idea.

I want them to take it, but at the same time,

I want them to take back their health.”

There’s another time when I put

a garden in this homeless shelter in downtown Los Angeles.

These are the guys, they helped me unload the truck.

It was cool, and they just shared the stories

about how this affected them and how

they used to plant with their mother and their grandmother,

and it was just cool to see how this changed them,

if it was only for that one moment.

So Green Grounds has gone on to plant

maybe 20 gardens.

We’ve had, like, 50 people come to our dig-ins

and participate, and it’s all volunteers.

If kids grow kale, kids eat kale.

(Laughter)

If they grow tomatoes, they eat tomatoes. (Applause)

But when none of this is presented to them,

if they’re not shown how food affects the mind and the body,

they blindly eat whatever the hell you put in front of them.

I see young people

and they want to work,

but they’re in this thing where they’re caught up —

I see kids of color and they’re just on this track

that’s designed for them,

that leads them to nowhere.

So with gardening, I see an opportunity

where we can train these kids

to take over their communities,

to have a sustainable life.

And when we do this, who knows?

We might produce the next George Washington Carver.

but if we don’t change the composition of the soil,

we will never do this.

Now this is one of my plans. This is what I want to do.

I want to plant a whole block of gardens

where people can share in the food in the same block.

I want to take shipping containers

and turn them into healthy cafes.

Now don’t get me wrong.

I’m not talking about no free shit,

because free is not sustainable.

The funny thing about sustainability,

you have to sustain it.

(Laughter) (Applause)

What I’m talking about is putting people to work,

and getting kids off the street, and letting them know

the joy, the pride and the honor in growing your own food,

opening farmer’s markets.

So what I want to do here,

we gotta make this sexy.

So I want us all to become ecolutionary renegades,

gangstas, gangsta gardeners.

We gotta flip the script on what a gangsta is.

If you ain’t a gardener, you ain’t gangsta.

Get gangsta with your shovel, okay?

And let that be your weapon of choice.

So basically, if you want to meet with me, you know, if you want to meet, don’t call me if you want to sit around in cushy chairs and have meetings where you talk about doing some shit

If you want to meet with me, come to the garden with your shovel so we can plant some shit.

Peace. Thank you.

Thank you.

 

2013-03-19 10th Anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq, March 20

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), George Bush war criminal  No Responses »
Mar 192013
 

RECOMMEND:   Canada’s No To Iraq War: What Leaders Said In 2003 (PHOTOS)

Click on   http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/19/canada-iraq-war-2003-what-leaders-said_n_2901483.html 

– – – – – – – – – – – –

Kerry writes:  I hope Canadians will pause for a moment and take notice of the tenth anniversary of a moment that made Canada into “Canada”. This moment was due to Prime Minister Jean Chretien. If we had been under the present repressive regime there is no doubt that we would be in different straits today and much Canadian blood and money would have been spilled in this illegal and useless war. Stephen Harper and Lyin Brian would have led us into the thick of it.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

TORONTO — Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien’s decision to break with U.S. President George W. Bush on the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a very public and rare expression of Canadian sovereignty that many critics here feared would jeopardize U.S.-Canada relations for years.

Privately for Chrétien, it was also one of the defining moments of his 40-year political career, including a decade as prime minister –- a bold declaration of independence and one that many Canadians supported despite this country’s record of joining previous U.S. military efforts, including the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan War and Korean War.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

LOOKING FURTHER ON THE HUFF POST PAGE:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/19/canada-iraq-war-2003-what-leaders-said_n_2901483.html   

  • There is a video below the photos,  “Iraq 10 years later:  Who got it wrong?”.   It is a valuable look at the propaganda machine, and at “the wisdom” of a relatively small group of people who do not tolerate diversity and independence of thought in decision-making.
  • From further down the page:

Arianna Huffington: 10 Years Later: Looking Back on the Iraq War So We Can Clearly Look Forward

“The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” It’s one of Milan Kundera’s most famous lines, from his novel The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. It’s one worth keeping in mind as we approach March 20, the 10th anniversary of one of the biggest disasters in the history of the United States. That was the day George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and a team of others — along with much of Washington and a very complicit mainstream media — took the nation to war against Iraq. The devastating consequences of that war will continue for decades, but a full accounting has still yet to happen. Allowing the toxic mixture of lies, deception and rationalizations that led to that war to go unchallenged makes it more likely that we will make similar tragic mistakes in the future. So I hope we can use this moment to assess what really happened, to look back in order to look forward.

 

– – – – – – – – – – – –

 

I am reminded, regarding

–        lack of diversity and independence of thought in decision-making, and

–        “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”:

Please see  Who is smarter – a group of people or one smart person?  The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki

 

= = = = = = = = =

 

TEXT FROM Canada’s No To Iraq War: What Leaders Said In 2003   (In case it goes missing later!)

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/19/canada-iraq-war-2003-what-leaders-said_n_2901483.html 

 

Let’s go back.

Let’s go back to March of 2003, when two men who will be studied in history books stood — like so many Canadians — at opposite ends of a spectacularly divisive issue.

One on side: Jean Chrétien. A lion in winter, he was less than a year away from retirement.

On the other: Stephen Harper. At just 43, he lead the coalition of Reform MPs and former Progressive Conservatives known as the Canadian Alliance.

Just 18 months earlier, the attacks of 9/11 prompted Canada to join the war on terror in Afghanistan. By 2003, U.S. President George W. Bush was pushing a preemptive strike in Iraq without the approval of the United Nations.

A “coalition of the willing” was being forged. Canadians from coast to coast wondered if we would be a part of it.

On March 17, Chrétien finally gave an answer.

The Iraq decision was a defining moment for Chrétien and arguably what he will be most remembered for.

As for the man who stood across from him that fateful day? Of course, he would eventually win a majority with a united Conservative Party.

But not before admitting in the 2008 federal election that the war in Iraq was “absolutely an error.”

2013-03-06 The peasants are revolting across Europe. … Ignore bankers’ howls of protest. If they leave the country, it would be no loss.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Empowerment, Peace or Violence  No Responses »
Mar 162013
 

Look at this!  Europe in revolt.  Changes in legislation mean:

“  . . .  EU bankers cannot get bonuses bigger than their salaries… This applies wherever EU bankers work, and to any overseas banker working in the EU. 

Meanwhile, a Swiss referendum now requires top executives to seek explicit shareholder approval for their pay, with a ban on golden hellos and goodbyes. The Netherlands is talking of a tighter 20% cap on bonuses. Even laissez-faire Britain has seen the National Association of Pension Funds demand that boards keep executive pay rises down to inflation.”

The author (below) thinks “the EU curbs could possibly see the start of the high-rollers moving out of over-regulated Europe towards the Americas and Asia.”

– – – – – –

 

Which makes me think I need to get an update out:

  • this same European battle, but, as it is being fought in the U.S.A. (Occupy is only one component of it.  There are many more.)

Maybe!  It’s not

  • The peasants are revolting across Europe.
  • But rather:  “The peasants, including ourselves, are revolting around the world”!

– – – – – –

 

TEN-YEAR OLD GIRLS IN AFRICA ARE REVOLTING!   (Sally Armstrong tells their story – – it’s remarkable.)

Sally Armstrong, “The Ascent of Women“, EXCELLENT interview with Anna-Maria Tremonti.  Plus quotes from Audre Lorde.

 

– – – – – –

 

HOW ABOUT THIS, RIGHT HERE IN CANADA?  An important challenge.

(Just one of hundreds of examples)

U Vic Enviro Law Clinic asks for investigation of government ‘muzzling’ of scientists 

 

 

= = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = =

THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/if-bankers-leave-it-would-be-no-loss

 

Ignore their howls of protest. If bankers leave the country, it would be no loss

They took home unheard of sums. Only in Britain do ministers dance to their tune. But public fury cannot be defied for ever

Simon Jenkins, The Guardian, Wednesday 6 March 2013

The peasants are revolting across Europe. They want bankers’ blood and mean to get it. Until now, public response to the credit crunch has been one of general bafflement and wrist-slapping. The banks persuaded the world it was all an act of fate. As it was, they were too big to fail and their leaders too saintly to atone for it. For four years, British banks were showered with nearly half a trillion pounds of public and printed money. They duly recovered and stayed rich, while everyone else went poor.

The worm has turned. The banks and government alike have failed to deliver recovery. The people want revenge, and have found it – of all places – in the European parliament. It has declared that EU bankers cannot get bonuses bigger than their salaries, or twice as big if shareholders approve. This applies wherever EU bankers work, and to any overseas banker working in the EU.

Meanwhile, a Swiss referendum now requires top executives to seek explicit shareholder approval for their pay, with a ban on golden hellos and goodbyes. The Netherlands is talking of a tighter 20% cap on bonuses. Even laissez-faire Britain has seen the National Association of Pension Funds demand that boards keep executive pay rises down to inflation.

Europe’s once omnipotent banking lobby has been all but neutered by the scale of scandal. The German government caved in to the EU parliament under pressure from the opposition Social Democrats. This was after the Libor scandal revealed Deutsche Bank cutting one trader’s bonus by £34m, thus implying a staggering original sum. The Swiss campaign was kicked into life by the drugs firm Novartis giving its departing chairman a $76m gift. Some 68% of Swiss voted for the new curb.

Only in Britain do ministers still dance to the bankers’ tune. Last month RBS executives brushed aside their state shareholder and paid themselves £600m in bonuses after posting a £5bn loss. Loss-making Lloyds dipped into its till and gave senior staff an extra £365m. Money-laundering HSBC announced 78 of its London executives would take home more than £1m each. They all say bonuses were unrelated to fines or losses, but they always say that. George Osborne was humiliated in Brussels on Tuesday by having to plead their fruitless cause.

Last year the City of London’s much-heralded “shareholder spring” got nowhere. Revolts against executive pay at WPP, Barclays, Trinity Mirror and elsewhere had little noticeable impact. While overall pay stagnated, that of top executives rose 12%. Opinion polls showed the public overwhelmingly hostile to top pay. Only the government and the London mayor stand between the very rich and a furious public. The peasants’ revolt means that even British ministers cannot defy opinion for ever.

The reality is that the banking community has allowed this thirst for revenge to build up for over four years, and it just did not care. Ever since the 1980s and financial deregulation, the profession took home sums of money unheard of in any other line of work.

This had nothing to do with free markets, except within a tight group of high-rolling traders. Modern bankers derive “economic rent” from exploiting oligopolistic cartels in financial services, with shareholders kept at one remove. The astronomical traders’ bonuses are asymmetric returns on cash that properly belongs to depositors and shareholders whose money bears the risk. In any other business such bonuses would be regarded as theft from the firm.

For four years the British government – Labour and the coalition – huffed and puffed but was too terrified of the banks to act. Regulators were suborned by lobbyists and ministers, their offices packed with seconded bankers, and did as they were told. They gave huge sums to the banks in the belief that this was benefiting the demand economy. In Britain, some £400bn of cash was “pumped into the economy” via the banks. They merely traded or hoarded it, to their ever greater enrichment. The money vanished. A thousand pounds handed to every British citizen would have had more impact on the economy.

Last year, as if learning nothing, the Treasury gave the banks another £80bn to boost business and mortgage lending. This week it was predictably revealed that lending to small businesses actually fell as result. It was like giving money to a drunk and telling him to support his children. Never in the history of money can policy have been so glaringly inept. The banks laughed.

No trade unions are fiercer in defending their interests than the rich professions. As we saw this week with lawyers, cut their largesse and they threaten to take it out on the poor, the economy, the government, everyone. The banks howl that the bonus cap means their greed will go “offshore”. This seems exaggerated. But the EU curbs could possibly see the start of the high-rollers moving out of over-regulated Europe towards the Americas and Asia.

This would not be wholly good news for Britain: finance has been the boom industry of the past quarter-century. But more likely is that the more toxic activities will go, and that is no loss. Either way, the banks have themselves to blame. They flew their golden wings too near the sun, and rage has melted them. They have only one plea on their side. The culture of greed in the City was nothing to the culture of ineptitude at the Bank of England and the Treasury. They pumped out the money. Never in British economic history can so much have been so wasted on so fruitless a cause. And still no hint of remorse.

2013-03-15 Enviro Law Clinic asks for investigation of government ‘muzzling’ of scientists

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Knowledge Base  No Responses »
Mar 152013
 

There is excellent (troubling) background documentation to the following action in 2013-02-28  MAY:  Tightening the grip: muzzling of scientists ramps up

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/03/15/government_muzzling/

Enviro Law Clinic asks for investigation of government ‘muzzling’ of scientists

By Crawford Kilian

 

The Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Victoria has published its request to the Information Commissioner of Canada, asking for an investigation of the muzzling of federal scientists, including a report detailing numerous cases in which either researchers were silenced or their findings were kept from the media.

In its letter of transmittal to Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault, the ELC wrote:

    We request that you initiate an investigation under s. 30(1)(f) of the Access to Information Act into the systematic efforts by the Government of Canada to obstruct the right of the media – and through them, the Canadian public — to timely access to government scientists. We ask you to take this step because of the deeply troubling findings in the attached report, Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy. 

The letter summarizes a number of cases involving scientists in Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Department of National Defence, and Environment Canada who were kept from speaking with media, or whose findings had to be filtered through media-relations officials before being released to reporters — often long after their deadlines had passed.

The report itself, after documenting these cases, divides them into “direct muzzling” and “indirect muzzling” — delaying answers to media queries until the deadline has passed and comments from scientists don’t matter. It also criticizes “content control and intimidation,” in which the media receive more information if their “tone” is expected to be positive, or interviews include media-relations staff who act as “minders” for the scientists. The report then concludes:

    The policy changes that have been implemented by the federal government of Canada under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper have dramatically affected the way government information is disseminated in Canada. The Obama administration has also made changes to Communications policies in the United States; however, these changes have been in the opposite direction. Many departmental communications policies now require all media inquiries to be routed through Communications departments. These departments dictate whether or not media inquiries will be responded to and also control all other aspects of the release of government information to the public.

    Federal civil servants in Canada, and in particular scientists, are being muzzled by the federal government. Muzzling occurs directly or indirectly; civil servants who are not permitted to speak with the media, or who are not permitted to speak with the media in a time frame that is compatible with the fast-paced media environment, are effectively being muzzled. The federal government is also manipulating the release of government information by selectively permitting or disallowing responses to media inquiries, using communications employees to craft “approved lines” or provide scripted answers to civil servants, and through subtle means of intimidation when allowing civil servants to respond directly to media inquiries, such as requiring all interviews to be recorded or for a communications employee to be present at the time of the interview.

    Canada was once recognized internationally as a country that encouraged its scientists to speak freely and openly to the public. However, the federal government is taking steps in the wrong direction and has drawn international criticism in recent years. Even more alarming is the fact that the federal government has ignored all such criticism and seems intent on continuing down this path. Access to government information is a vital part of a healthy democracy. As Nature journal once put it: “The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.”

 

Crawford Kilian is a contributing editor of The Tyee.

2013-03-11 Vermont’s Governor Peter Shumlin still bullied by Monsanto

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Mar 112013
 

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27170.cfm

by Will Allen

After three years of trying to get a law passed by the Vermont legislature to require mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Vermonters are once again up against a governor who continues to run scared from threats of a lawsuit by Monsanto and its gene giant allies. Vermonters are beginning to wonder: What’s the governor really afraid of?

 

Governor Peter Shumlin has repeatedly expressed reluctance to stand up to Monsanto. His excuse? That a previous state labeling law, requiring the labeling of rBGH, a synthetic bovine growth hormone used to increase milk production in cows, was struck down by a federal appeals court. The state simply can’t afford another lawsuit, Shumlin says. But the facts and circumstances surrounding the new proposed GMO labeling law are very different from the 1994 rBGH labeling law, according to the Vermont Right to Know Coalition which has worked closely with the Vermont Law School on the 2013 version of the bill. So what’s the hold-up?

 

Vermont passed a labeling law in 1994, requiring that all milk produced with the aid of rBGH must be labeled as such, either on the bottle or on the shelf. rBGH, also referred to as rBST, is manufactured by Monsanto. The state’s attorney general defended the 1994 law on the basis of “consumer’s curiosity” about what is in their milk products, rather than on the basis of a compelling state interest. The state failed to raise any potential health risks with rBGH, or even to dispute the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) notion that there is no difference between milk from rBGH-treated cows and milk from animals not treated with the hormone. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down Vermont’s labeling law.

 

Ohio took a different approach on rBGH labeling. Lawmakers there proposed a law stating that milk producers had the right to label their products “rBGH-free.” In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the law, ruling that the state could not ban “rBGH-free” labels. The Court determined that “rBGH-free” is not a misleading label because there are, in fact, compositional differences in milk from treated and untreated animals. The Ohio ruling contradicted the FDA’s claim of “no significant differences.”

 

Vermont is following Ohio’s lead with its latest proposed GMO labeling law. Consumer Union’s senior scientist, Michael Hansen, points out that “…there is a compelling state interest in labeling of genetically engineered foods and that is due to the potential human health and environmental impacts of genetically engineered foods.” He also argues that in the language of Codex Alimentarius, the international body regulating food and chemicals used on food, labeling serves “as a risk management measure to deal with the scientific uncertainty” associated with genetically engineered foods, and there most certainly is significant scientific uncertainty about the potential health impacts of Genetically Engineered foods.

 

In spite of the changes in case law since 1996, Vermont’s Governor Shumlin still hides behind the fear that if the federal court struck down Vermont’s labeling law once, they will do it again. He also expresses fear that specialty food producers will suffer economic loss because they will be forced to change their genetically modified ingredients, or label them.

 

The governor doesn’t stop there in his efforts to duck and dodge the issue. He recently argued that the labeling law should be a national law; that if Vermont loses the inevitable lawsuit, it will set a negative precedent for the national GMO labeling movement; and, most disconcertingly of all, that the FDA, after “extensive studies,” has determined that there is no difference between GMO products and non-GMO products. This, despite the fact that the FDA has relied on the biotech industry’s studies, not its own, for health safety testing of GMOs.

 

Shumlin’s fears are dubious and weak. Surely by now the governor knows that no progress is being made at the national level. The health and security of our food supply do not seem to be a government priority. Why would a popular governor, believed by some to be eyeing a national office, think that our comatose federal government is going to fix this when the FDA has failed consumers on the issue of GMOs for nearly two decades?

 

As for a loss in Vermont setting a negative precedent? The governor has only to look at what happened after Proposition 37, the GMO labeling initiative in California, failed in November, to realize that another loss, though unlikely, would only strengthen consumers’ resolve. Since Prop 37 failed, more than 30 states have launched their own GMO labeling law campaigns. Vermont, Connecticut, and Washington already have bills making their way through their respective houses and senates. That doesn’t look like a “negative precedent.” It looks more like Monsanto threw down the gauntlet, and the public is responding aggressively.That this otherwise progressive governor does not know at this late date that the FDA has never done any human, animal or environmental health and safety studies on GMO food, milk or seed is embarrassing. All the existing U.S. studies concerning health, safety and the environment were done by the corporations producing and selling the products. These corporations – Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, DuPont, Bayer and a few others – have outright refused to let independent researchers in the U.S. buy their seed for health, safety and environmental research studies. The corporations cite patent law in the U.S. to prevent qualified university researchers from conducting tests with GMO seeds.

 

Fortunately, researchers outside the U.S. are not as restrained by U.S. patent law in their research efforts, although researching genetically modified crops anywhere where problems are found can be – and has been – a career-ending move for some. In spite of Monsanto’s aggressive bullying of researchers, numerous studies have emerged recently which illustrate that there are serious health and safety concerns with GMO foods and animal feed. This is why 61 countries label GMO foods, including China, Russia, and South Africa. If China, where companies added melamine to watered-down baby formulas to fool the inspectors about the protein content, can label genetically modified foods, why can’t Vermont?

 

It’s time for Governor Shumlin to stop hiding behind a new contrived fear every week and do what 90% of Vermonters want. We want to know if genetically modified ingredients are in our food. Do your homework, catch up on the case law that has changed, and the health and safety research that has been done in the 19 years since the rBGH law was passed. Vermont’s Right to Know coalition has implored you to meet with our lawyers and scientists, and you have still not done so. Please take us up on this offer. We guarantee it will change your perspective. Vermont and national consumers have shown they will not be intimidated by Big Biotech, and have donated the necessary funds to fight Monsanto and their allies in several state legislatures.

 

More than 400 Vermonters turned out for a hearing on last year’s bill. More than 100 testified in favor of the bill. No one testified against it. Vermonters were waving their checkbooks and $20-bills at the agricultural committee members vowing that they would support the state in any lawsuit. Please stop letting Monsanto bully the state of Vermont. Stop protecting Monsanto’s ability to deceive consumers.

2013-03-06 Sally Armstrong, “The Ascent of Women”, EXCELLENT interview with Anna-Maria Tremonti. Plus quotes from Audre Lorde.

 Culture and Ethics, Economy / Political Economy, Empowerment, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Health, Peace or Violence  No Responses »
Mar 062013
 

Don’t miss appended quotes from Audre Lord.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

RE SALLY ARMSTRONG

I highly recommend click & listen:   http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/ID/2340427936/

Thanks to Janet for sending the link;  she writes:

Holy shit!   (if I may be so bold)

I have written & just recently — about the power of conversation CONVERSATION

You can read it here if U wish    http://janetsplanet.ca/?p=11295

but never mind

Instead, listen to this podcast of Sally Armstrong talking about her experiences in the world

(INSERT:  Janet’s posting is worth your while, too.)

OMG — “silence is violence” — what a quote, what an insight!

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/ID/2340427936/

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

QUOTES FROM AUDRE LORDE:

source:  http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/18486.Audre_Lorde

“Your silence will not protect you.”  ―    Audre Lorde,    Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches

“If I didn’t define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people’s fantasies for me and eaten alive.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“I have come to believe over and over again that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“I was going to die, sooner or later, whether or not I had even spoken myself. My silences had not protected me. Your silences will not protect you…. What are the words you do not yet have? What are the tyrannies you swallow day by day and attempt to make your own, until you will sicken and die of them, still in silence? We have been socialized to respect fear more than our own need for language.”

I began to ask each time: “What’s the worst that could happen to me if I tell this truth?” Unlike women in other countries, our breaking silence is unlikely to have us jailed, “disappeared” or run off the road at night. Our speaking out will irritate some people, get us called bitchy or hypersensitive and disrupt some dinner parties. And then our speaking out will permit other women to speak, until laws are changed and lives are saved and the world is altered forever.

Next time, ask: What’s the worst that will happen? Then push yourself a little further than you dare. Once you start to speak, people will yell at you. They will interrupt you, put you down and suggest it’s personal. And the world won’t end.

And the speaking will get easier and easier. And you will find you have fallen in love with your own vision, which you may never have realized you had. And you will lose some friends and lovers, and realize you don’t miss them. And new ones will find you and cherish you. And you will still flirt and paint your nails, dress up and party, because, as I think Emma Goldman said, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.” And at last you’ll know with surpassing certainty that only one thing is more frightening than speaking your truth. And that is not speaking.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.”  ―    Audre Lorde,    Our Dead Behind Us: Poems

“and when we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard nor welcomed but when we are silent we are still afraid So it is better to speak remembering we were never meant to survive”  ―    Audre Lorde,    The Black Unicorn: Poems

“The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”  ―    Audre Lorde

“Guilt is not a response to anger; it is a response to one’s own actions or lack of action. If it leads to change then it can be useful, since it is then no longer guilt but the beginning of knowledge. Yet all too often, guilt is just another name for impotence, for defensiveness destructive of communication; it becomes a device to protect ignorance and the continuation of things the way they are, the ultimate protection for changelessness.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“A Litany for Survival

For those of us who live at the shoreline standing upon the constant edges of decision crucial and alone for those of us who cannot indulge the passing dreams of choice who love in doorways coming and going in the hours between dawns looking inward and outward at once before and after seeking a now that can breed futures like bread in our children’s mouths so their dreams will not reflect the death of ours:

For those of us who were imprinted with fear like a faint line in the center of our foreheads learning to be afraid with our mother’s milk for by this weapon this illusion of some safety to be found the heavy-footed hoped to silence us For all of us this instant and this triumph We were never meant to survive.

And when the sun rises we are afraid it might not remain when the sun sets we are afraid it might not rise in the morning when our stomachs are full we are afraid of indigestion when our stomachs are empty we are afraid we may never eat again when we are loved we are afraid love will vanish when we are alone we are afraid love will never return and when we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard nor welcomed but when we are silent we are still afraid So it is better to speak remembering we were never meant to survive.”  ―    Audre Lorde,    The Black Unicorn: Poems

“I am my best work – a series of road maps, reports, recipes, doodles, and prayers from the front lines.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“I have a duty to speak the truth as I see it and share not just my triumphs, not just the things that felt good, but the pain, the intense, often unmitigated pain. It is important to share how I know survival is survival and not just a walk throught the rain.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“Our feelings are our most genuine paths to knowledge.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“But the true feminist deals out of a lesbian consciousness whether or not she ever sleeps with women.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“Revolution is not a one time event. ”  ―    Audre Lorde

“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“Pain is important: how we evade it, how we succumb to it, how we deal with it, how we transcend it.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“I find I am constantly being encouraged to pluck out some one aspect of myself and present this as the meaningful whole, eclipsing or denying the other parts of self.”  ―    Audre Lorde,    Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches

“The erotic is a measure between the beginnings of our sense of self and the chaos of our strongest feelings. ”  ―    Audre Lorde

“We have been raised to fear the yes within ourselves, our deepest cravings.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“Some women wait for themselves around the next corner and call the empty spot peace but the opposite of living is only not living and the stars do not care.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“Unless one lives and loves in the trenches, it is difficult to remember that the war against dehumanization is ceaseless.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“If you come as softly

As wind within the trees

You may hear what I hear

See what sorrow sees.

 

If you come as lightly

As threading dew

I will take you gladly

Nor ask more of you.

You may sit beside me

Silent as a breath

Only those who stay dead

Shall remember death.

And if you come

I will be silent

Nor speak harsh words to you.

I will not ask you why, now.

Or how, or what you do.

We shall sit here, softly

Beneath two different years

And the rich earth between us

Shall drink our tears.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“My silences had not protected me. Your silence will not protect you. But for every real word spoken, for every attempt I had ever made to speak those truths for which I am still seeking, I had made contact with other women while we examined the words to fit a world in which we all believed, bridging our differences.”  ―    Audre Lorde,    The Cancer Journals

“Without community, there is no liberation.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“I want to live the rest of my life, however long or short, with as much sweetness as I can decently manage, loving all the people I love, and doing as much as I can of the work I still have to do. I am going to write fire until it comes out of my ears, my eyes, my noseholes–everywhere. Until it’s every breath I breathe. I’m going to go out like a fucking meteor!”  ―    Audre Lorde

“I am deliberate and afraid of nothing.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“Sometimes we are blessed with being able to choose the time, and the arena, and the manner of our revolution, but more usually we must do battle where we are standing.”  ―    Audre Lorde,    Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches

“Those of us who stand outside the circle of this society’s definition of acceptable women; those of us who have been forged in the crucibles of difference – those of us who are poor, who are lesbians, who are black, who are older – know that survival is not an academic skill…For the master’s tools will not dismantle the master’s house. They will never allow us to bring about genuine change.”  ―    Audre Lorde

“Poetry is the way we help give name to the nameless so it can be thought.”  ―    Audre Lorde

 

 

2013-03-05 We Must Not Fail Wikileaks Whistleblower Bradley Manning (from Nation of Change)

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, Arjen Kamphuis, Peace or Violence  No Responses »
Mar 052013
 

All the world should read the report below and then weep for the U.S.A.   My heart aches for the goodness of this young man, Bradley Manning.

 

ADD:

Why share the information on Bradley Manning?

Because the Press is deliberately not telling his story:

  1. The article 2012-10-17 Media seek court-martial files in WikiLeaks case,  by Associated Press (AP), is about the trial of Bradley Manning, not about Julian Assange and Wikileaks.   AP does not mention the name “Bradley Manning”. He is referred to only as “an Army private”.
  2. 2012-09-30 The Globe & Mail doctored the video of Julian Assange’s address to the United Nations, changing his message.   ACTUALLY, the video was doctored by AP;  the G&M posted it to the G&M website.

   EXCERPT from the posting:

Anybody who listened to the video of Julian Assange’s address to the United Nations would know that it’s about failing democracy in the U.S.

The Globe & Mail  AP  edited the video to create:   “Assange accuses Obama of exploiting Arab Spring.” 

I placed markers in the 2012-09-26 Transcript; you can see

  • what was said in the video, and
  • what they edited it down to,  without ANY acknowledgement that the video was substantially changed.

  The Globe & Mail (AP) deleted – – – all mention of Sgt Bradley Manning,  for example.

Frankly speaking, it makes me nauseous to see the dishonesty and distortion.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

 

BY:  Kevin Zeese,  an attorney who serves on the steering committee of the Bradley Manning Support Network. He also serves a co-director of It’s Our Economy. His twitter is @KBZeese.

 

As I sat in court last Thursday at Fort Meade, watching Bradley Manning take responsibility as the Wikileaks whistleblower, two things struck me: (1) his thorough intelligence fueled by intellectual curiosity and (2) his empathy for other people when so many in war had lost their humanity.

 

This was the second time I had heard Manning testify. The first was his testimony about the abusive pre-trial incarceration he suffered for one year while being held in a cage in Kuwait and in solitary confinement in the Quantico Brig.  I’ve now seen him testify for a total of 15 hours.

 

His testimony leads me to wonder: what would have happened to Bradley Manning if we had a decent educational system that included affordable, preferably free, college education so that young people weren’t driven to the military for economic reasons? What could Bradley Manning have given the country if he had been able to pursue his interests and natural talents? Would Manning have joined the military if the country was honest about how the US Empire operates around the world?

 

But, that was not to be.  The country failed Bradley Manning.

 

I hope we do not fail him again.

 

Article image

Manning made it clear last Thursday that he leaked the documents to Wikileaks because he saw serious problems in US foreign policy. Problems which are as serious as they can be: war crimes, criminal behavior at the highest levels up to Secretary of State Clinton, unethical behavior and bullying of other nations.

 

Manning’s sole purpose was to “spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general.”* He hoped the debate “might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment every day.”

 

Regarding the collateral murder video which showed civilians, including two Reuters journalists being massacred, he said “I hoped that the public would be as alarmed as me about the conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan are targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare.”

 

When discussing the State Department cables Manning saw that the US was not behaving the way the “de facto leader of the free world” should act as the cables “documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity.” Again, he hoped for a change in policy as the “cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy” that would avoid conflict and save lives.

 

In some of these statements you get a hint of Manning’s empathy for fellow human beings. The incident that really showed it was his comments on David Frankel’s book “The Good Soldier,” where Frankel describes a seriously injured Iraqi civilian on the ground at the end of the Collateral Murder video. He lifts two fingers toward the soldier, a well-known sign of friendship, as he asks for help. The US soldier responds lifting his middle finger as the Iraqi died. Manning puts himself in the place of the Iraqi thinking his final act was an act of friendship only to be returned by a crude obscenity of unfriendliness. Manning acknowledges that this “burdens me emotionally.”

 

Manning was clear that he was solely responsible for his actions saying “The decisions that I made to send documents and information to the WLO [Wikileaks Organization] and website were my own decisions, and I take full responsibility for my actions.”  He described his conversations with an anonymous person at Wikileaks but made it quite clear there was no espionage conspiracy between Manning and Julian Assange.  His statement made it much more difficult for the US to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act.

 

There is no question that Manning will spend years in jail.  The ten charges he pled guilty to last week each carry two years for a total potential of 20 years incarceration. The government has announced it will still prosecute the espionage and aiding the enemy charges which could lead to a life sentence. This is an abuse of government power.  They may be able to prove their case, but that does not mean he is truly guilty of those crimes, if convicted it will be another example of laws written to favor the prosecution; another example of injustice in today’s United States.

 

Judge Denise Lind has beautiful judicial decorum in court and shows she is on top of the details of the proceedings and the law.  She is an impressive judicial figure but so far when there have been disputes between Manning and the government she has tended to split the difference, always giving a little more to the government. She has served in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps for 25 years, four as a judge.  She is a product of a system that does not blow the whistle, does not go outside the chain of command and views following orders as a way of life. She will do what she thinks is just when she considers Manning’s case, but I doubt it will seem like justice to those of us who support Manning.

 

How can we avoid failing Bradley Manning? Ongoing support through the Bradley Manning Support Network continues to be essential but more than that, we need to do what we can to disseminate the information he leaked and work to create a national debate on a foreign policy that is seriously off-track.

 

This will be a long term effort, and as we pursue that work, we should never forget the young man who put his life and liberty on the line to give the world a glimpse of US foreign policy, a person who was failed by a country that talks about its concern for the young but does not do enough for them. Now, it is our job to pick up the materials Bradley has provided and work to create the better world we urgently need and he sought in his own patriotic way.

 

* All quotations are taken from the transcript of Manning’s testimony prepared by Alexa O’Brien as the court has not released his written statement to the public.

2010-07-06 Collateral Murder, video leaked by Bradley Manning.

 Daniel Ellsberg, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, Arjen Kamphuis  No Responses »
Mar 052013
 

Please go to the link to see the videos:   http://www.collateralmurder.com/

 

Collateral Murder
Overview

Update: On July 6, 2010, Private Bradley Manning, a 22 year old intelligence analyst with the United States Army in Baghdad, was charged with disclosing this video (after allegedly speaking to an unfaithful journalist). The whistleblower behind the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, has called Mr. Manning a ‘hero’. He is currently imprisoned in Kuwait. The Apache crew and those behind the cover up depicted in the video have yet to be charged. To assist Private Manning, please see bradleymanning.org.

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad — including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

(Please go to the link to see the videos.)

Short version

Full version

WikiLeaks’ Collateral Murder: U.S. Soldier Ethan McCord’s Eyewitness Story

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own “Rules of Engagement”.

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries