Activism

That's Religulous

davidswanson — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:13:49 -0400

By David Swanson

According to an Associated Press story on Friday, more than a half-million people have toured the creationism museum in Kentucky since it opened in May 2007. However, at least one of those people was there to make fun of it with a video camera.

In fact, a lot of what Bill Maher's new film, "Religulous", does is make fun of people. But by no means does Maher single out fringe religious believers. He interviews one of the few top scientists in the world who believes, a priest at the Vatican who believes, and plenty of random typical believers in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Maher's conclusion: these people (including the vast majority of Americans) are all enablers of neurologically disordered killers who are going to destroy the planet.

It takes a two part argument to get to that conclusion. The first part runs like this. A lot of religious believers want the world to end or are indifferent to its ending or are less opposed to it than they would be as atheists. As evidence, Maher interviews a bunch of cranks who think the end of the world, even if brought about by nuclear war or global warming, wouldn't be all that bad, and some who think it would be fantastic. Disturbingly, these cranks include people like U.S. Senator Mark Pryor who comes off looking dumber than a sea sponge but a lot more dangerous. Maher also interviews people who say they don't know anything about politics but voted for Bush because he's religious. Cute but deadly.

The film was clearly made before Sarah Palin came on the national scene. If you don't buy this first part of the argument after watching the movie, Palin should clinch it for you. The Associated Press reported on Saturday on her use of public money, in the Bush-Cheney tradition, to fund religious causes. Bloggers have reported on the belief of some of Palin's supporters that she has been chosen by God. Palin has taken intentional steps to facilitate global warming rather than curtailing it. She has, like Bush, said she believes God wanted war in Iraq.

The second part of the argument is that by failing to denounce religion, hundreds of millions of relatively secular religious people are enabling the lunacies of the religious fanatics, which -- according to Maher -- we must outgrow or all die together. We risk, he says, perishing as a species because we've invented the means of self-annihilation (nuclear and environmental) before managing to overcome the mental disease that makes us wish for self-annihilation. It is indisputable that at least some people tend to be more religious if others around them are religious, and that the opposite is true as well. And it is indisputable that humans commit mass murder in the name of religion. I think it's nearly beyond dispute, as well, that the attacks of 9-11 would not have occurred had Americans all been Muslims, and that the attacks on the Middle East by Americans before and after 9-11 would not have happened, at least in the same vicious way, had all the people there been Christian. Of course, without religion people can invent other justifications for slaughtering each other, but not for martyrdom, not for holy suicide, and not for blissful acceptance of environmental or nuclear catastrophe.

I think Maher's case is solid, and I think his movie tells his story in a compelling and often very funny way. But it has some shortcomings. For one thing, Maher is hardly ever nice to anyone in the movie, except as a pretense to get them to look stupider on film. He's a comedian, and he sees his job as mocking people. The cruelty of this is more apparent than usual, because the people he's being cruel to are there on film being humiliated before the world. It would have been helpful, for example, to include a serious conversation with someone who had recently overcome religion and who was able to explain how they'd done it. Maher does include snippets of a conversation with a scientist who's studied the brain activity of people praying and meditating, but he's only there as a straightman for Maher's jokes; we never learn whether he has anything useful to say. It might have made sense to include, as well, a relatively rational believer arguing against Maher that religion benefits the world. But that wouldn't have been funny.

Perhaps it was the way Maher made the film. Perhaps it was just the fact that he made the film. But for some reason, according to the Desert Sun newspaper a theater in California just shut down after receiving a death threat for Maher. One of the topics addressed in the film is, in fact, the insanity and cruelty of religiously motivated death threats. But Maher shies away from nothing, and asks why it should be that atheists (OK, he does shy away quite wimpishly from the word atheist, but that's what he means) should not feel safe expressing their views in public.

According to a survey Maher cites, and according to quite a few polls, atheists and non-believers are a sizable group in America -- smaller than in many countries, but still sizable. Other minorities, Maher points out, including African-Americans, gays and lesbians, gun owners, Jews, etc., all have organizations and spokespeople and at least sometimes get what they want or manage to be part of the debate. Why not atheists? But Maher stops short of pointing out any of the fledgling groups that do exist, most of which -- like Maher -- tend to avoid the word atheist. There's the Secular Coalition for America, The Brights, the Council for Secular Humanism, the American Humanist Association, the American Atheists, and more.

Either Maher is wrong, or our lives depend on joining and promoting the work of these groups. Watch his movie and decide for yourself. Think for yourself.

Chicago ACORN Is Braver and Better Than McCain

davidswanson — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:07:52 -0400

By David Swanson

The McCain-Palin campaign is running an advertisement "accusing " Barack Obama of once training ACORN members in Chicago. Obama should be proud of that. I've done it myself and am proud of it. I trained Chicago ACORN members in how to talk to the media about the wonderful work they do.

What sort of work? Chicago ACORN has worked to improve local schools, reducing class sizes, providing teachers with mentors and assistants. Chicago ACORN has worked to prevent predatory lending and reform predatory lending corporations, the opposite of what ACORN is accused of in the right-wing myth that blames Wall Street's troubles on Wall Street's victims. Chicago ACORN and its partner, Service Employees International Union Local 880, have worked to raise wages and working conditions for everyone -- yes, including all immigrants; there's no other way to do it. And ACORN has done work we should all appreciate in registering citizens to vote.

Here's something I wrote about Chicago ACORN five years ago that gives an idea of the creative and successful work they were engaged in:

Turning Up the Heat on Bush
January 9, 2003
By David Swanson, Democratic Underground

Yesterday afternoon three elderly women out of a group of 50 protesters were arrested in Illinois Republican Party headquarters in Chicago where they had settled in with blankets and declared that they were spending the night. These families, many without heat in their homes, were demanding that President Bush release money for energy assistance and not slash funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) this year. At least the jail had heat.

Bush is speaking in Chicago today about how he can pretend to try to stimulate the economy without doing the only thing that might work, namely putting money in the hands of people who need it. Bush believes that those who work for a living should go on being taxed, but that money gained from investments in the stock market should not be taxed. And why not? Surely there's nothing useful our government could do with $600 billion. I guess no one would be pleased if this money were used, for example, to create good public schools?

This president has an amazing power to make people feel physically ill by the sheer force of his cynical cruelty. But some people are ill for a less intellectual reason: they have no heat.

Mahaley Somerville, 81; Gwendolyn Stewart, 68; Beatrice Jackson, 53; and Virginia Goldman, 27, were arrested for trespassing at 32 W. Randolph, 17th floor, the offices of the Illinois and Cook County Republican Party yesterday when they went to call on President Bush to rescind his proposed cuts in federal energy assistance.

"I'm 81 years old, and these old bones would be more comfortable in my own bed tonight," said Mahaley Somerville, longtime leader of the community group ACORN and organizer in Chicago's Westside Lawndale community. "But as long as there are other senior citizens living without heat tonight, we will not stop until the President hears us."

Because President Bush will make his national speech on the economy in Chicago today, ACORN members called on him to add two things to his speech: Release the $500 million in emergency energy assistance funds that are at his disposal; Fund the Low Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP) at the same level as last year: $1.7 billion (instead of the $1.4 billion or less that Bush has threatened).

"It's too bad when the Republicans have to put senior citizens in jail and leave other seniors without heat," said Beatrice Jackson, president of Illinois ACORN. "But we won't stop until Bush understands that a leader should not let his people freeze."

More than 50 members of ACORN joined in the sit-in at Republican headquarters on Monday afternoon. The security guard in the lobby stood with his arms out as everyone trooped in, got in elevators, and headed to the 17th floor. The ACORN members went in, put down their blankets and pillows, and announced they were spending the night.

The leaders, Mrs. Somerville, Gwen Stewart and Bea Jackson, made statements. "We're willing to go to jail if that's what it takes to win heating assistance for seniors and children and families who are freezing," they said.

Doris Rodgers spoke. She is 81, has been without heat for two years, and still owes $2,400 on her bill, though the gas company confirmed today that she had been paying every month.

The police arrived and arrested four ACORN leaders on charges of misdemeanor trespassing.

While the 50 ACORN members were in the Republican Party headquarters, the phone rang, and an ACORN member answered it "ACORN, Can I help you?"

On the other end, they said, "What, ACORN? Wait a minute, this is the Republican Party in D.C. calling the Republican Party in Illinois."

The ACORN member said, "ACORN has taken over the Republican Party in Illinois. Can I help you?"

The response: "Oh my God."

But the heart and soul of the Republican party will not be taken over so easily by decency or kindness.

A cold winter and high fuel prices mean hard times for working families who struggle to keep their heat on. Home heating oil prices in the Northeast are expected to increase by 42% from last winter. Propane in the Midwest is predicted to increase by 21% and natural gas prices in the Midwest are predicted to increase by 17% over last winter's bills. Reports from around the country show that the number of households being disconnected are on the rise.

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is a federal block grant program that provides money to help low-income families heat and cool their homes. LIHEAP is essential for protecting the health and safety of low-income children, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

For low-income people, whose incomes are often fixed, the increased cost of energy is a huge burden and getting heavier. In FY 2001, when LIHEAP received a total of $2.25 billion (regular plus emergency funds), states were only able to serve 17% of eligible households. The current economic downturn further exacerbates LIHEAP funding shortfalls. Unemployment is on the rise, the U.S. poverty rate increased last year for the first time in eight years, and household income declined in 2001 after remaining flat a year earlier.

The demand for LIHEAP is on the rise. President Bush has $500 million dollars in emergency LIHEAP funds at his disposal but refuses to release it. $200 million of these funds are leftover from the $300 million Congress appropriated for energy emergencies in FY 2002. $300 million of it has been approved by the Senate and requested by Bush himself for this fiscal year. President Bush has the sole authority to release these funds to low-income consumers.

FY 2003 appropriations must be finalized by Congress in January, and LIHEAP advocates are urging Congress to provide funding at no less than $1.7 billion, plus the $300 million in emergency appropriations. The President has proposed cutting funding to $1.4 billion (plus $300 million in emergency funds) for FY 2003. In FY 2002, Congress appropriated $1.7 billion (plus $300 million in emergency funds) for LIHEAP. The Bush Administration's proposed cuts in LIHEAP funding would mean that approximately 500,000 fewer low-income families would receive assistance. And according to the Energy Information Administration, last year's $1.7 billion regular LIHEAP budget would have to be increased by $345 million this year just for the program to provide assistance to the same number of households as last year.

The 108th Congress will complete FY 2003 appropriations when it convenes this month. In the event that Congress cuts LIHEAP funding, states are considering several actions to implement the Administration's proposal, including reducing eligibility ceilings, cutting benefits, and limiting program sign-up periods. In other words: a lot more people will be a lot colder this winter.

This needn't be. The president could promote LIHEAP funding as a payoff to fuel companies if it makes him feel better about doing something that actually helps people, but he needs to release this money or people are going to freeze.

ACORN won that struggle. LIHEAP funding went up, not down. But John McCain voted against it.

In 2002, ACORN held its biennial national convention in Chicago. We staged a big march through the city for immigrants' rights, and we headed out to the unbelievably wealthy suburbs north of Chicago. Victims of predatory loans from Household Finance from around the country simultaneously poured out of busses by the hundreds and thousands onto the lawns of the board members and CEO of Household. They knocked on the doors and spoke to those who had hurt them from a distance. When the police made them leave, ACORN members plastered "Wanted" posters all over the neighborhood telling the board members' neighbors what crimes the Household executives were guilty of. Below is an account of the many-faceted campaign that resulted in Household restoring a half a billion dollars to its victims. During the negotiations for that settlement, it was this action at the board members' homes north of Chicago that Household's negotiators brought up again and again.

Flame-Broiled Shark: How Predatory Lending Victims Fought Back and Won
By David Swanson
Published in "The Wealth Inequality Reader" by Dollars and Sense and United for a Fair Economy

If someone told you that a bunch of low-income people, most of them African-American or Latino, most of them women, most of them elderly, had been victimized by a predatory mortgage lender that stripped them of much of their equity or of their entire homes, you might not be surprised. But if I told you that these women and men had gotten together and after three years of work brought the nation's largest high-cost lender to its knees, forced it to sell out to a foreign company, and won back a half a billion dollars of what had been taken from them -- one of the largest consumer settlements ever -- you'd probably ask me what country this had happened in. Surely it couldn't have been in the United States of the Second Gilded Age, the land of unbridled corporate power and radical government activism on behalf of the rich and the greedy.

And yet it was. These victims of predatory lending identified the problem and named it "predatory lending" in the late 1990s, and their campaign to reform Household International (also known as Household Finance and as Beneficial) played out from 2001 to 2003, concluding with a settlement that includes a ban on badmouthing the company. That's part of why more people haven't heard about this. The families who fought back and defeated Household are barred from bragging about it or teaching the lessons they learned, because that would require recounting the damage that Household did to homes and neighborhoods. These families are members of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. I was ACORN's communications coordinator during much of the Household campaign but left before it ended. No one has asked me not to tell this story.

In low-income minority neighborhoods in the United States, what little wealth there is, is in home equity. Home equity makes up 74.9 percent of the net wealth for Hispanics in the bottom two income quintiles (0-40 percent), and 78.7 percent of the net wealth for African-Americans in the second income quintile (20-40 percent). There have been gains in minority home ownership over the past few decades, in part as a result of the work by community groups like ACORN and National People's Action to force banks to make loans in these communities. But the home ownership is fragile and not protected by additional savings. Lenders in the past decade have focused on stripping away equity, and community groups have been forced to focus on keeping out loans that are worse than no loans at all.

Most high-cost loans are refinance loans. Too often they are marketed aggressively and deceptively, including through live-checks in the mail that result in very high-cost loans that the lender will be only too happy to refinance into a new mortgage. Often these loans are made with excessive, sometimes variable, interest rates, outrageously high fees, and fees financed into the loans so that the borrower pays interest on them and often is not told about them. They are made with bogus products built in, on which the borrower also pays interest. Hidden balloon payments force repeated refinancings for additional fees each time. Mandatory arbitration clauses attempt to prevent borrowers from taking lenders to court. The practice of loaning more than the value of a home traps borrowers in loans they cannot refinance with a responsible lender. Consolidation of additional debts further decreases equity, placing the home at greater risk. Quiet omission of taxes and insurance from a mortgage that previously included those charges results in a crisis when the yearly bills arrive.

Predatory lenders turn the usual logic of lending upside down. They make their money by intentionally making loans that the borrowers will be unable to repay. They charge fees for each refinancing until finally seizing the house. Fannie Mae has estimated that as many as half of all borrowers in subprime (high-cost) loans could have qualified for a lower cost mortgage. High-cost loans are not just made to people with poor credit. They're often made, rather, to people who have poor banking services in their neighborhoods. After HSBC bought Household, it announced that 46 percent of Household's real estate-backed loans had been made to borrowers with 'A' credit. Household made no 'A' loans.

ACORN members don't take abuse of their neighborhoods lying down, and Household was a leading cause of the rows of vacant houses appearing in ACORN neighborhoods in the 1990s. ACORN launched a campaign to reform Household that included numerous strategies. One, an old ACORN stand-by, was direct action. Repeatedly, ACORN members in numerous cities around the country simultaneously protested in Household offices to demand reform. At the same time, ACORN was working to pass anti-predatory lending legislation in local and state governments and Congress. ACORN members made sure that in each case the victims testifying were victims of Household and that Household's abuses were highlighted. When ACORN released major reports on predatory lending, the examples included were always from Household.

ACORN also worked with the Coalition for Responsible Wealth to advance a shareholder resolution that would have tied Household's executives' compensation to ending its predatory lending. In 2001 Household held its shareholders meeting in an out-of-the-way suburb of Tampa, Florida. A crowd of ACORN members was there with shark suits and shark balloons to protest. The resolution won 5 percent. Over the next year, ACORN pressured state pension funds and other shareholders. Household held its 2002 meeting an hour and a half from the nearest airport in rural Kentucky. ACORN members made the trip by car from all over the country. The protest may have been the biggest thing the town of London, Ken., had seen in years. The resolution won 30 percent.

As a result of ACORN agitation, various local and state governments threatened to divest from Household. ACORN also put pressure on stores like Best Buy that used Household credit cards. At the same time, ACORN Housing Corporation was assisting many Household victims in either refinancing out of their Household loans or at least canceling some of the rip-off services built into their loans, such as credit insurance. And ACORN was getting the word out through local ethnic media to stay away from Household.

ACORN wrote up numerous accounts of Household predatory loans and took them to the attorney generals in state after state urging investigations. ACORN similarly pressured federal regulators to act. And ACORN assisted borrowers in filing a number of class-action suits against Household targeting those of its practices that were clearly illegal even under existing law. ACORN let Wall Street analysts know what Household stood to lose from these law suits, as well as from various reforms that Household periodically announced in its attempt to hold off the pressure from ACORN.

But ACORN members never let up. They protested again and again at Household offices and held press conferences in front of homes about to be lost to Household. They protested the secondary market that was putting up capital for these predatory loans. And they held a major protest at the trade group that lobbied in Washington for Household and its fellow sharks. Then, in the summer of 2002, ACORN members took the step that Household executives would bring up again and again in later negotiations. On a beautiful summer day in the unbelievably wealthy suburbs north of Chicago, victims of Household from around the country simultaneously poured out of busses by the hundreds and thousands onto the lawns of the board members and CEO of Household. They knocked on the doors and spoke to those who had hurt them from a distance. When the police made them leave, ACORN members plastered "Wanted" posters all over the neighborhood telling the board members' neighbors what crimes the Household executives were guilty of.

Through all of this, we worked the media. I kept a database of victims' stories and contact info and put them in touch with reporters whenever the reporters were willing to tell not just the victimization story but also the story of fighting back. We generated several hundred print articles and several hundred TV and radio stories about Household's predatory lending practices. We worked the small neighborhood papers, flyers in churches, posters on walls. We produced lengthy articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Forbes Magazine. We kept up an endless barrage in the trade press: the American Banker, National Mortgage News, etc. We maintained an enormous website about Household that no longer exists.

A handful of ACORN staff people with great expertise and unrelenting effort organized thousands of members to drive this campaign until Household agreed to pay victims $489 million through the 50 states attorneys general, and later agreed to pay millions more through ACORN, as well as to reform its practices.

This campaign was an example of what can be done if enough different angles are pursued at once and the company ripping you off is put on the defensive and constantly hit with the unexpected. And this campaign was a success by the one and only measure ACORN judges campaigns by: it increased the size and power of ACORN to effect future progressive change. This is good news for low-income neighborhoods, but bad news for Wells Fargo, the predatory lender who is next on ACORN's list.

The world

justin murray — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:13:17 -0400

This video says it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odqcIMMe60Q

After Hope

davidswanson — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:07:32 -0400

By David Swanson

John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine, has a new book out called "You Can't Be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America." Sort of an odd topic at the very moment that we're expecting to elect the first African-American president. But this is probably going to be a very valuable book for a lot of people to read on November 5th, if McCain wins, if McCain steals it, and -- especially -- if Obama wins the White House.

While I spend most of my life complaining about eternal election seasons, this really is an appropriate election season right now, and there really is a need not to elect anyone as crazy as McCain or Palin, and it really does make sense to obsess over electoral work and election protection work during the coming weeks. But when that's over and we can all think straight again, we will have to build a movement to compel our government to do what we want. When, for the first time in years, we defeated the forces of money, party, and media in the first House vote on Paulson's Plunder, our victory lasted a week. We have to be stronger, better informed, better organized, and more serious about our most important roles as citizens, which begin after elections, regardless of who wins them.

If we are going to have any influence on a President Obama, we are going to have to understand what he intends to do if left to his own devices. Debating Senator McCain, Obama declares that he will end the occupation of Iraq, which he calls a "war." But here's an interesting passage from MacArthur's book:

"Obama's campaign had attracted great numbers of antiwar Democrats with his proposal to withdraw all combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration as president. But there were signs that Obama's utterly conventional foreign-policy entourage -- led by Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Anthony Lake -- didn't really believe their candidate's declarations on Iraq. A former Latin American foreign minister who knows Lake told me privately, 'If Obama is elected you're not leaving Iraq. He'll draw big crowds in the Third World, like Kennedy in Berlin, which will be good for America's image abroad. But you're not getting out of Iraq."

Plenty of other comments from the candidate and his staff confirm this prediction. At best, Obama plans to decrease the U.S. presence in Iraq while increasing it in Afghanistan and elsewhere, enlarging the overall imperial forces with which to pursue such occupations. While that is not -- let me stress v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y -- a reason to vote for McCain, it is a reason not to take the last three weeks of November or the month of December off. This will be the most important time ever for the peace movement to be organized and active.

"You Can't Be President" is an unusual book. The opening chapters suggest the same theme maintained in the title and the table of contents. I expected a list of legal or cultural barriers to entry in politics, followed perhaps by a set of recommendations to remove those barriers. The recommendations never materialize at all, and the middle chapters of the book wander off into accounts of local battles against big-box stores, and essays on the Horatio Alger myth, our segregated education system, corporate chain stores, corporate media, and militarism. They're all good topics very well handled, but I recommend more highly the opening and concluding chapters of the book.

Where MacArthur distinguishes himself is in his analysis of the damage done to democracy by parties. If the very topic offends you, please try setting this aside and reading it on November 5th. MacArthur is not interested in criticizing any particular party, much less promoting some "third party." His critique is simply of the power and influence now held by parties. This includes an account of the recent Democratic Party presidential primaries as a competition between the established party power of the Clintons and Obama's power in the Daley machine and in his ability to poach powerful Clintonites. These forces are apparently still battling. The Secretary of State of Nevada who ordered a recent raid on an ACORN office to challenge the registration of new voters there is not a Republican, but a Democrat apparently representing the concerns of resentful Clinton backers.

While MacArthur offers no prescriptions for limiting the power of parties, or money, or lobbyists, or the corporate media, or any other corrupting influences, he does manage to suggest some things as an essayist and a historian that may inspire action. There is a section of his fourth chapter that I would label "The Positive Shock Doctrine." MacArthur manages to point out a number of instances in our history when moments of crisis have allowed popular campaigns for progressive legislation and positive changes in government to succeed, notably including the Homestead Act and the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act of 1862 passed during the Civil War, during a burst of activity by Radical Republicans that saw legislation freeing slaves, prohibiting the return of slaves, abolishing slavery in Washington D.C. and territories, and passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which had their full impact during a later positive shock: the Civil Rights Movement.

"It's fair to say," MacArthur says, "that most of the other outstandingly popular congressional legislation in American history took place during times of national upheaval, when the normal political order could not resist change."

There's that word: change. This may be the time for it. It's going to take a lot more than hope.

Bugliosi on Radio and on Tour

davidswanson — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:15:32 -0400

By David Swanson

Vincent Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson. He is the author of bestsellers including "Helter Skelter" and his latest: "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." In his new book, Bugliosi makes a devastating, well documented case that President George W. Bush is guilty of the murder of U.S. soldiers as a result of the lies he told to justify the invasion of Iraq, and can be prosecuted by any state attorney general or county prosecutor.

As a Los Angeles prosecutor, Bugliosi represented the state in 106 major cases and won 105, including each of his 21 murder cases. Since his first book, "Helter Skelter," he's been one of the top true crime writers with three number one best sellers and numerous awards. In his best known case, Bugliosi convicted Charles Manson of murder even though Manson was not present at two of the crime scenes when the victims were murdered.

Bugliosi's argument is simple. Bush wanted a war with Iraq. He had to show that a preemptive invasion of Iraq was justified. To do this Iraq had to be an imminent threat to the United States. There were two major problems. Bush couldn't prove any connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. More importantly, Bush's own 2002 classified intelligence estimate found that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the United States. Bush simply reversed the findings of the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, and sent men and women off to fight a fraudulent and unnecessary war, knowing full well that some of them would come home in boxes.

TALK WITH BUGLIOSI YOURSELF WEDNESDAY NIGHT

I'll be interviewing Bugliosi with your help this Wednesday evening, October 8, 2008, 8:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Eastern. Go to http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/listen-live to listen live. You'll find instructions there to enter a paltalk chat room where you can post questions.

You can also phone in and ask your questions on the air. Call in tollfree from anywhere in the United States or Canada at 888-228-4494 or anywhere else in the world at 877-489-6350.

Following the show, the audio file will be posted at http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/audio/2008 and you can find there now the recordings of numerous shows with amazing guests, including Cindy Sheehan, Lincoln Chafee, Brad Friedman, Shirin Ebadi, Phil Donahue, Mark Crispin Miller, William Odom, Byron DeLear, John Dean, Elizabeth Kucinich, etc.

To support The People Speak Radio please donate at http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/donate

MEET BUGLIOSI IN PERSON ON THE LOCK-UP-BUSH TOUR

Vincent Bugliosi in Virginia and Washington, D.C.

WHAT: Vincent Bugliosi to Speak and Take Questions from Audience

WHEN AND WHERE:

Richmond: Monday, October 13, 2008, 7:00 p.m., The Camel, 1621 Broad Street, Richmond, 804-347-7945, www.thecamel.org

Norfolk: Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 7:30 p.m., NARO Cinema, 1507 Colley Avenue, Norfolk, 757-625-6275, www.narocinema.com

Charlottesville: Thursday, October 16, 7:00 p.m., Albemarle Co. Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, 434-961-6278, www.charlottesvillepeace.org

Washington, D.C.: Friday, October 17, 6:00 p.m., David A. Clark School of Law, 4200 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC, Building 38, 2nd Floor, R.S.V.P. -202-274-7341, Virginia@washingtonpeacecenter.net, www.washingtonpeacecenter.net

More on how to lock Bush up:
http://convictbushcheney.org

Why a City Should Oppose Attacking Iran

davidswanson — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:00:42 -0400

By David Swanson

Tonight, Monday, October 6, 2008, a group of citizens in Charlottesville, Va., organized by the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice, will attend the City Council's meeting to urge the Council to take up at its November meeting a resolution opposing a U.S. attack on the nation of Iran. Some members of the Council and of the public can be expected to respond with some well-intended but confused reasons to resist taking such a step. In hopes of clarifying the issue, let me suggest briefly three things: 1.-Why the United States should not attack Iran; 2.-Why there is a serious danger that the United States will attack Iran; 3.-Why Charlottesville City Council should pass a resolution opposing such an attack.

1.-Why the United States should not attack Iran.

We can begin with the fact that wars of aggression are illegal under international law and under treaties, including the United Nations Charter, that are the supreme law of the land under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Were the nation of Iran to attack the United States, everything I'm saying could be ignored. But nobody, as far as I know, is even fantasizing about the possibility of such a suicidal action.

Wars are illegal because nothing is worse than them, and because wars do not work as a tool for preventing wars. If the United States attacks Iran -- and let's say it honestly: if WE attack Iran -- at a very minimum millions of people will very probably die, be wounded, be displaced, and have their environment rendered uninhabitable.

Numerous claims have been proven false that alleged the Iranian government was participating in attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, but let's assume for the sake of argument that Iran is conducting such attacks. We already know that Saudi Arabia is doing the same. Should we attack both Iran, which powerful people in Washington have long wanted to attack, and Saudi Arabia, which powerful people in Washington would never attack in a million years? And as we occupy Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan, having reinstituted the draft here at home, what should we do if additional nations aid the resistance there? You can see where this leads. Legally, morally, and practically aiding a population against a foreign occupation is not grounds for war. The United States aided France against a German occupation and considers that action its most legal, moral, practical, and glorious ever engaged in.

And, yes, the United States at the time was developing nuclear weapons. Possession of weapons is simply not grounds for war. The United States has more nuclear weapons and more illegal chemical and biological weapons than anyone else. This is not grounds to attack the United States. A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate in 2005 said that 2015 was the earliest Iran could possibly have a nuclear weapon. An improved National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 said that Iran had actually not worked on developing nuclear weapons at all since 2003. The best way to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is not war. U.S. threats and provocations are boosting support in Iran for a militaristic leader. Bombing would do the same, as well as resulting in massive death and destruction and likely retaliation against U.S. troops in Iraq and against U.S. client state Israel.

It's not always remembered that inspections worked in Iraq. Our government declared the inspections flawed, ordered the inspectors out, and bombed the nation flat, later dishonestly claiming that Iraq had ordered the inspectors out. If we want to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, we need to keep the inspectors in, and we need ourselves to begin adhering to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which bars new nations from developing nuclear weapons and requires that existing nuclear nations disarm.

Iran is open to negotiations. In 2003, Iran proposed negotiations with the United States with everything on the table, including its nuclear energy technology. President Bush refused. This past month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited New York. While he is not the top of the government in Iran and does not control the Iranian military, he is an important member of that government. While presidential candidate John McCain claimed falsely during a debate that Ahmadinejad was in New York proposing the destruction of Israel, Ahmadinejad while in New York actually told the radio program Democracy Now that he was open to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. He said that such a solution should be up to the Palestinian people to accept. We already know that most Palestinians are, indeed, open to a two-state solution. You'd think all Americans would consider this good news, but there are Americans who want war.

During his visit to New York, Ahmadinejad also met with U.S. peace activists. Phil Wilayto of the Virginia Antiwar Network attended the meeting and reported that Ahmadinejad made a very similar statement on Israel and Palestine and also said the following:

"Neither the Iranian people nor nation will start a war … We've helped security in Iraq. The best help for security by the U.S. is to withdraw its troops from the region. … The Iranian people have good relations with people around the world. … The American people are friendly and lovable. One million Americans should visit Iran, and a million Iranians should visit the United States."

Perhaps Charlottesville should form a twinship with a town in Iran and create a student exchange. We do this with other nations. Why not Iran?

Polls show that strong majorities of Americans are opposed to attacking Iran, and you can be certain that a strong majority of Iranians are opposed to being attacked. Make no mistake that an attack on Iran would not be motivated by humanitarian concerns. The motivation for attacking Iran was laid out in 2000 by the Project for a New American Century, and as early as 1992 in defense planning guidance -- written for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney by then-Pentagon staffers I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, World Bank Chief Paul Wolfowitz, and Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad.

The people promoting an attack on Iran are the same ones who lied to us about Iraq. The results of those lies have been disastrous, including for Charlottesville.

2.-Why there is a serious danger that the United States will attack Iran.

The two major candidates for president of the United States have refused to commit to not aggressively attacking Iran. One of them has excited his supports by singing "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran."

Our representatives in Congress seem intent on escalating conflict with Iran, up to and including authorizing acts of war. A resolution that would encourage a blockade of Iran has enough cosponsors in both houses to pass if brought up for a vote. Thus far, public opposition has prevented that from happening.

However, the House this past month passed a bill requiring sanctions and divestment against Iran, including by local governments like the City of Charlottesville. The bill passed by a voice vote, so we do not know how our representative in the House voted, but I can guess. The bill failed to pass the Senate last week, but it is a safe bet that it will return. The Democratic leadership in the House has publicly expressed outrage at the Senate's action.

So, local governments may soon be banned from making certain investments because there are those in Washington who want to antagonize Iran. I have not heard any voices in Washington objecting to this on the grounds that local governments are separate entities from Congress.

3.-Why Charlottesville City Council should pass a resolution opposing such an attack.

In February 2003, the Charlottesville City Council was wise and responsible enough to pass a resolution opposing an attack on Iraq. In retrospect, that was the right thing to do. At the time only 60 some cities had taken that step. Now hundreds have opposed the invasion and/or occupation. And while the occupation of Iraq continues, these actions by city, county, and state governments have helped to educate the public and to increase and organize citizen involvement on behalf of peace and justice. It is that citizen involvement that has prevented the resolution on blockading Iran from coming up for a vote.

Citizens of Charlottesville has thus far paid over $64 million for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That's not counting further expenses already authorized, the cost of veterans' care, the effects of the rise in oil prices, the debt payments that will have to be made, etc. Based on the calculations in Joseph Stiglitz' and Linda Bilmes' book "The Three Trillion Dollar War," it is a very conservative estimate to place the true cost to Charlottesville citizens at closer to $640 million. I wonder if Charlottesville City Council Members can think of some useful things they might be able to do with $640 million.

Of course, we haven't seen our taxes raised this amount -- yet. Much of the money has been borrowed and will be paid back to China and other lenders by our kids. But some of the money has been found by cutting back on useful spending here at home. I'm sure the city council members know what I'm talking about.

If a federal action has a significant negative impact on a city, then it is appropriate for the city to defend itself, its budget, and the lives of local members of the military and the National Guard. In fact, the National Guard should be available to protect this city and surrounding areas from natural disasters, and should not be sent to invade and occupy foreign nations.

Now, it is true that we are supposed to be directly represented in Congress. But our representative in Congress represents over 650,000 people and was not elected by a majority of the citizens of our city. He, like all members of Congress, is further removed from us than are our locally elected officials. He must represent more people than anyone can ever reasonably represent, and he must do so while also dealing with the enormous influences of money, party, and media. Local elected officials are under the same influences, especially if they aspire to grander things within a party structure, but the influences are much reduced, and responsiveness to people is much greater.

And this is as it should be. This is how our republic is supposed to work. Corrupting influences should be removed from all levels of government. But if they were, our local governments would remain more responsive to us. Our Mayor has admirably and appropriately supported a resolution against attacking Iran at the U.S. Conference of Mayors. At least 15 cities, large and small, that I know of have admirably passed resolutions opposing an attack on Iran. Charlottesville ought to get on this list early, once again, rather than late. And we ought to consider our city council members' willingness to do so during our next local elections.

Most city council members in the United States take an oath of office promising to support the U.S. Constitution. In the state of Virginia, public officials, including at the local level, typically take this oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all of the duties incumbent on me as
_____________ according to the best of my ability."

City Council members don't take an oath to fix potholes. If the Constitution is in danger, then their primary duty is to defend it. If it is safe, and they have time on their hands, then they can fix potholes. Right now it is in danger.

Cities and towns routinely send petitions to Congress for all kinds of requests. This is allowed under Clause 3, Rule XII, Section 819, of the Rules of the House of Representatives. This clause is routinely used to accept petitions from cities, and memorials from states, all across America. The same is established in the Jefferson Manual, the rule book for the House originally written by Thomas Jefferson for the Senate.

In 1798, the Virginia State Legislature passed a resolution using the words of Thomas Jefferson condemning federal policies penalizing France.

In 1967 a court in California ruled (Farley v. Healey , 67 Cal.2d 325) in favor of citizens' right to place a referendum on the ballot opposing the Vietnam War, ruling:

"As representatives of local communities, board of supervisors and city councils have traditionally made declarations of policy on matters of concern to the community whether or not they had power to effectuate such declarations by binding legislation. Indeed, one of the purposes of local government is to represent its citizens before the Congress, the Legislature, and administrative agencies in matters over which the local government has no power. Even in matters of foreign policy it is not uncommon for local legislative bodies to make their positions known."

Abolitionists passed local resolutions against U.S. policies on slavery. The anti-apartheid movement did the same, as did the nuclear freeze movement, the movement against the PATRIOT Act, the movement in favor of the Kyoto Protocol (which includes at least 740 cities), etc. Our democratic republic has a rich tradition of municipal action on national and international issues.

Karen Dolan of Cities for Peace writes:

"A prime example of how direct citizen participation through municipal governments has affected both U.S. and world policy is the example of the local divestment campaigns opposing both Apartheid in South Africa and, effectively, the Reagan foreign policy of “constructive engagement” with South Africa. As internal and global pressure was destabilizing the Apartheid government of South Africa, the municipal divestment campaigns in the United States ramped up pressure and helped to push to victory the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. This extraordinary accomplishment was achieved despite a Reagan veto and while the Senate was in Republican hands. The pressure felt by national lawmakers from the 14 U.S. states and close to 100 U.S. cities that had divested from South Africa made the critical difference. Within three weeks of the veto override, IBM and General Motors also announced they were withdrawing from South Africa. This movement also serves as a model for the current local divestment campaigns from Burma and Sudan."

Charlottesville City Council Member Holly Edwards recently wrote in a letter to the Daily Progress:

"I don't think it's appropriate to get involved with national issues when locally there is so much work to be done to stop gun violence here at home. My prayer is let there be peace on earth, let it begin with me and my neighborhood."

Edwards expressed a desire to eliminate racism and violence in Charlottesville first, and only then to comment on national matters. But there is no local solution to either of those problems. Our representative in Congress, Virgil Goode, is perhaps the leading proponent of racism in the nation. For our city council not to formally condemn his racism is shameful and harmful. Similarly, Goode should be thanked for his vote against Paulson's Plunder and censured for his votes on war. The same goes for our senators, who should be censured for their votes on both the so-called bailout and wars. Both major presidential candidates have said they would cut money for education in order to pay for Wall Street, rendering hopeless any argument that spending military levels of money on non-military matters is any less a local issue than wars are.

Gun violence cannot end with guns coming into the city from outside it, with state and national governments failing to control guns, with funding being cut for jobs, health, and education, and with our federal government daily teaching us that the best way to solve disputes is to shoot people. So, I think Council Member Edwards' proposal to solve Charlottesville's problems first is admirable but quixotic. And were it not, were we able to create an island of paradise in Charlottesville in the short run, nothing would protect Charlottesville from global warming or nuclear war. We might long to be an island. But such a dream is not humble or wise.

Over 1,500 people in Charlottesville have signed a petition advocating for passage of a resolution opposing an attack on Iran. There is no doubt that a majority of the people here oppose such an attack. Passing such a resolution is the work of five minutes at zero public expense. The Charlottesville City Council could draft its own resolution or use this one from the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice:

RESOLUTION:
OPPOSING PRE-EMPTIVE U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAN

WHEREAS, the President and members of his administration have alleged that Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States, U.S. troops in the Middle East and U.S. allies; and

WHEREAS, these allegations are similar to the lead-up to the Iraq War and U.S. occupation, with the selective use of information and unsubstantiated accusations about Iran’s nuclear program and its supply of weapons to Iraqi forces as centerpieces of a case to the American people for aggression against Iran; and

WHEREAS, Iran has not threatened to attack the United States, and no compelling evidence has been presented to document that Iran poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States that would justify an unprovoked unilateral pre-emptive military attack; and

WHEREAS, we support the people of Iran who are struggling for freedom and democracy, and nothing herein should be misconstrued as support for the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it should be understood that a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran could well prove counterproductive to the cause of promoting freedom and democracy there; and

WHEREAS, a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) representing the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and an earlier NIE concluded that Iran’s involvement in Iraq “is not likely to be a major driver of violence” there; and

WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to cause untold thousands of American and Iranian casualties, lead to major economic dislocations, and threaten event greater destabilization in the Middle East; and

WHEREAS, a pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran would violate international law and our commitments under the U.N. Charter and further isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world; and

WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to inflame hatred for the U.S. in the Middle East and elsewhere, inspire terrorism, and lessen the security of Americans; and

WHEREAS, the Iraq war and occupation has already cost the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers, the maiming and wounding of over 38,000 American soldiers, the death and maiming of over one million Iraqi civilians; and

WHEREAS, the Iraq War and occupation has cost Charlottesville taxpayers more than $61 million before adding the costs of interest payments, care for veterans, or the increased price of oil, thus depriving us of much-needed funds for services and infrastructure; and

WHEREAS, except at our peril, we cannot ignore the history of U.S. government mis-information used to inspire U.S. aggression in Vietnam, and again in Iraq, as embodied in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and more recently in the false claims of weapons of mass destruction; and

WHEREAS, any conflict with Iran is likely to incur far greater costs and divert more precious national resources away from critical human needs; now therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, hereby urges the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran on nuclear issues and ending the violence in Iraq; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, urges Congress to prohibit the use of funds to carry out any military action against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that suitable copies of this resolution be forwarded to President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Senator John Warner, Senator James Webb, and Congressman Virgil Goode.

This makes a beautiful, if horrifying, poster. Click it for large, high-resolution version:

Designed by Rian Chandler-Dovis.

No Weapons in Space

davidswanson — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:38:31 -0400

SPACE WEEK ACTIONS EVERYWHERE
October 4 – 12, 2008
Keep Space for Peace Week: International Week of Protest to Stop the Militarization of Space

No Weapons in Space! Stop U.S. First-Strike Star Wars Deployments in Poland and Czech Republic! Convert the Military Industrial Complex! Fund Human Needs!

* Adelaide, South Australia (Sept 24) Monthly vigil on steps of Parliament House with leafleting by Women in Black and South Australian branch of WILPF cpicone@westnet.com.au

* Adelaide, South Australia (Oct 11) Presentation and discussion at local Australian Section of WILPF cpicone@westnet.com.au

* Baltimore, Maryland (Oct 3) Peace vigil by Jonah House at the new Northrop Grumman weapons production plant in Linthicum Heights (1570 W. Nursery Rd) at 11:00 am disarmnow@verizon.net or (410) 233-6238

* Baltimore, Maryland (Oct 4) The Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore will hold a demonstration at the Headquarters of the National Security Agency (NSA) between 5-6 PM. (410) 366-1637 mobuszewski@verizon.net

* Bath Iron Works, Maine (Oct 4) Vigil across from administration building on Washington Street 11:30 am Smilin’ Trees Disarmament Farm 207-763-4062

* Bath Iron Works, Maine (Oct 18) Veterans for Peace march & rally at Aegis destroyer “Christening” featuring Granny D. Aegis is outfitted with "missile defense" systems Assemble Waterfront Park on Commercial St. at 9:00 am jafabussell@gwi.net

* Bend, Oregon (Oct 10) Presentation by Jackie Hudson at Central Oregon Environmental Center jackiehudson123@yahoo.com

* Blair, Nebraska (Oct 7) Former editor of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Mike Moore, speaks at Dana College about his new book The Twilight War: The Folly of US Space Dominance in the Durham Classroom Center 7:00 pm walterinne@neb.rr.com

* Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 4) Vigil and leaflet at Park Street train station (Park Street at Tremont) with WILPF at 2:00 pm clagos@verizon.net

* Boston, Massachusetts (Oct 11) Posters and leafleting at regional anti-war mobilization on Boston Common clagos@verizon.net

* Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (Oct 4) Presentation and discussion at local Australian Section of WILPF cpicone@westnet.com.au

* Cambridge, Massachusetts (Oct 2) Showing newly revised space video “A Space 4 Peace” at Central Sqauare Library by WILPF and Cambridge Peace Commission 6:45pm clagos@verizon.net

* Colorado Springs, Colorado (Oct ) Panel discussion at Colorado College on the “Military Influence in Colorado Springs” bsulzman@juno.com

* Colorado Springs, Colorado (Oct 7) Bannering in downtown area at noon bsulzman@juno.com

* Copenhagen, Denmark (Oct 4) Presentation and discussion at "The Poetic Bureau" (Griffenfeldsgade 52) 20:00 juhauski@gmail.com

* RAF Croughton, England (Oct 4) “No Missile Defence” march and rally at U.S. Space Communications Base with speakers and music oxonpeace@yahoo.co.uk

* Damascus, Syria (Oct 11) Public meeting on space issues at cultural center ghassan.dr@gmail.com http://www.anrolm.org/an/

* Fylingdales, England (Oct 11) Demonstration at U.S. Star Wars radar facility by Yorkshire CND info@yorkshirecnd.org.uk

* Grand Rapids, Michigan (Oct 5) Marywood Campus Health Center presentations by Ardeth Platte and Carol Gilbert disarmnow@verizon.net

* Grand Rapids, Michigan (Oct 6) Aquinas College presentations by Ardeth Platte and Carol Gilbert disarmnow@verizon.net

* Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (Oct 7) Film showing of Arsenal of Hypocrisy space video at the Just Us Café tlorincz@dal.ca

* Hampton, Florida (Oct 5) FCPJ’s “Remember our Roots” Day on the coalitions’s land. FCPJ was a co-founder of the Global Network bob@fcpj.org

* Jalgaon, India (Sept 23) Address in the North Maharastra University jnrao36@sify.com

* Jalgaon, India (Sept 24) Address in the Nutan Marathi Mahavidyalaya jnrao36@sify.com

* Kirtland AFB, New Mexico (Oct 4) Demonstration at Space War Center Truman Gate in Albuquerque Stopthewarmachine@comcast.net (505) 401-4808

* Las Vegas, Nevada (Oct 4) Peace Concert and Fair jim@nevadadesertexperience.org

* Mankato, Minnesota (Sept 29) “A Space 4 Peace” video showing at the Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation meeting with the School Sisters of Notre Dame gschmitz@ssndmankato.org

* Mankato, Minnesota (Oct 6) Afternoon showing and discussion of “A Space 4 Peace” video with the School Sisters of Notre Dame and open to the public. gschmitz@ssndmankato.org

* Mankato, Minnesota (Oct 8) Weekly noon vigil will include signs to Honor the Space Treaty, and Keep Space for Peace gschmitz@ssndmankato.org

* Mankato, Minnesota (Oct 8) Evening showing and discussion of “A Space 4 Peace” video with School Sisters of Notre Dame and open to the public. gschmitz@ssndmankato.org

* Menwith Hill, England (Oct 4) Demonstration at NSA Spy Base in Yorkshire www.caab.org.uk mail@caab.corner.org.uk

* Nagpur, India (Oct 4) Meeting in the Matru Sewa Sangh Institute of Social Work at 2:30 p.m. jnrao36@sify.com

* Nagpur, India (Oct 4) Joint demonstration at Variety Square at 5 p.m. jnrao36@sify.com

* Nagpur, India (Oct 6) Meeting in the Providence Jr. College at 9:30 a.m. jnrao36@sify.com

* Nagpur, India (Oct 6) Space issues forum at Dharampeth Science College yugalrayalu@yahoo.com

* Nagbhir, India (Oct 10) Meeting organised by the Municipal Council at noon jnrao36@sify.com

* Nagpur, India (Oct 11) Meeting in the Mahila Mahavidyalaya at 1:30 p.m. jnrao36@sify.com

* Nagpur, India (Oct 11) Meeting in the BP National Institute of Social Work at 3 p.m. jnrao36@sify.com

* Nagpur, India (Oct 12) Round table discussion of intellectuals on space security issues at Panch Sheel Library jnrao36@sify.com

* New York, New York (Oct 3) Joel Landy’s musical presentation at The Yippie Museum Café will include space issues joellandy@yahoo.com

* New York, New York (Oct 5) Film showing of Arsenal of Hypocrisy space video in the Bronx ag@annegibbons.com

* New York, New York (Oct 6) Protest at L-3 Communications, a prime contractor in space Command, Control and Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, 600 Third Avenue (at E. 39th) 12:00-1:30 pm ag@annegibbons.com

* New York, New York (Oct 21) Space issues forum at United Nations hosted by Reaching Critical Will of WILPF and others. Begins at 1:15 pm ray@reachingcriticalwill.org

* Oakville, Canada (Oct 8) Public educational forum on space issues at St. Jude’s Anglican Church by Oakville Community Centre for Peace, Ecology, and Human Rights 7:30 pm (905) 849-5501

* Omaha, Nebraska (Oct 7 & 9) Demonstrations at Quest Center, home of annual aerospace Strategic Space & Defense convention mmwells1@cox.net

* Omaha, Nebraska (Oct 7) Former editor of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Mike Moore, speaks at Creighton University about his new book The Twilight War: The Folly of US Space Dominance 3:30 pm in Skutt Center walterinne@neb.rr.com

* Omaha, Nebraska (Oct 8) Former editor of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Mike Moore, speaks at University of Nebraska-Omaha in Milo Bail Student Center about his new book The Twilight War: The Folly of US Space Dominance 7:00 pm walterinne@neb.rr.com

* Omaha, Nebraska (Oct 8) “Die-In” CD/Nonviolent direct action at Quest Convention Center during annual aerospace Strategic Space & Defense convention cwomaha@gmail.com

* Oswestry, England (Oct 25) Market stall to promote awareness about the militarization of space mgt2800@hotmail.com

* Oxford, England (Oct 2) No Missile Defence public meeting at Friends Meeting House with Caroline Lucas MEP oxfordcnd@btinternet.com

* Penny Farms, Florida (Oct ) Forum at Penney Memorial Church

* Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia (Oct 2) Peace Concert at Temple University edaguilaresq@aol.com

* Portland, Maine (Oct 8) Showing newly revised space video “A Space 4 Peace” and talk by Mary Beth Sullivan at Meg Perry Center 7:00 pm danny@peaceactionme.org

* Prague, Czech Republic (Oct 8) Protest happening tour in front of Russian, Chinese and U.S. embassies 11:00 am (CET) toni@vol.cz http://www.nenasili.cz/en/1781_keep-space-for-peace-week

* Rome, Italy (Oct 12) Video presentation and discussion at Centro Umanista La Svolta - via degli equi, 25 at 5.00 p.m. isabelstella@gmail.com

* Queensland, Australia (Oct 6) Demonstration at University of Queensland’s Center for Hypersonics technology at noon maxigar@iinet.net.au

* Saco, Maine (Oct 5) Showing newly revised space video “A Space 4 Peace” at First Parish Congregational UCC 9:00 am tkircher@maine.rr.com

* Sacramento, California (Oct 8) Space issues leafleting by Peace Action, WILPF, and Grandmothers for Peace from 11-1 pm at rail stations in city downtown. Will also have people use cell phones to call White House opposing space militarization. ellen@nicetechnology.com sacpeace@dcn.org (916) 835-4330

* San Mateo, California (Oct 7) Lecture with Andy Lichterman from Western States Legal Foundation at Unitarian Universalists at 7:30 pm smpa@sanmateopeaceaction.org

* Santa Rosa, California (Oct 7) War in Space presentation at Santa Rosa Junior College Newman Auditorium by Physics Instructor Lynda Williams spinor64@hotmail.com

* Santa Rosa, California (Oct 8) Sonoma County Astronomical Society will show “A Space 4 Peace” video at the Proctor Terrace Elementary School in a public event at 7:30 pm (1171 Bryden Lane) spinor64@hotmail.com

* Seoul, South Korea (Oct 9) Showing of Arsenal of Hypocrisy with Korean translation in script, Neutinamu Hall, PSPD with Korean Committee of Int’l Meeting armha5156@gmail.com

* Sebastopol, California (Oct 18) “Cosmic Cabaret” live multimedia musical theater with Lynda Williams at Sebastopol Center for the Arts at 7:30 spinor64@hotmail.com

* Sunnyvale, California (Oct 24) Vigil at Lockheed Martin weapons production plant http://wevigil.org/

* Tampa, Florida (Oct 10 & 11) Holly Gwinn Graham will be talking about Keep Space for Peace Week on two WMNF radio shows at 9am and 10am on those two days. hollypatrice@comcast.net

* Tampa, Florida (Oct 12) Holly Gwinn Graham will sing space for peace songs in her show at Unitarian Church Dome Concert at 3:00 pm hollypatrice@comcast.net

* Toledo, Ohio (Oct 4-12) Daily space issues leafleting at Lucas County Courthouse rkmarovitz@hotmail.com

* Traverse City, Michigan (Oct 4-12) Space week posters put up around the region, flyers and Space Alert newsletters put in several local churches and handed out throughout the week. Plans to go to Sen. Carl Levin's office to give him materials, including latest Space Alert. ipjn.1@charter.net

* Tucson, Arizona (Oct 3) Space Ecology: The Final Frontier of Environmentalism talk led by physics instructor Lynda Williams. University of Arizona Steward Observatory, Room 204 at 5:00 pm spinor64@hotmail.com

* Tucson, Arizona (Oct 4) Showing newly revised space video “A Space 4 Peace” and Raging Grannies will sing at Martha Cooper Library at 2:00 pm patbirnie@gmail.com

* Valley Forge, Pennsylvania (Oct 4) Nonviolent resistance at Lockheed Martin, the world's largest weapons corporation and space weapons contractor brandywine@juno.com www.brandywinepeace.com

* Vandenberg AFB, California (Oct 11) Vigil at front gate of Star Wars missile launch base 1:00 pm (831) 206-5043 macgregoreddy@gmail.com www.vandenbergwitness.org

* Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts (Oct 9) Martha’s Vineyard Peace Council shows “A Space 4 Peace” video at Grace Church 6:30 pm kingraye@hotmail.com

* Walpole, Massachusetts (Oct 4) Lemonade Stand Informational on the corrosive effects of the MIC ericlee45@comcast.net

* Washington, D.C. (Oct 6) Weekly vigil at the Pentagon to incorporate Keep Space for Peace theme. Dorothy Day Catholic Worker (202) 882-9649

* Washington, D.C. (Oct 10) Weekly vigil at the White House to incorporate Keep Space for Peace theme. Dorothy Day Catholic Worker (202) 882-9649

* Wellington, Florida (Oct 4) Rally against space weapons at Wellington Green, 2:00 pm by Palm Beach WILPF and Peace & Justice Coalition susanm4peace@yahoo.com

Use this link to view the Space Week poster
http://mpjen.org/uploads/docs/keepspaceforpeace2008poster1.pdf

and this link to see the flyer
http://www.space4peace.org/actions/GN%20Flyer%20KS4Peace%20Week%202008%2...

Vincent Bugliosi's Lock-Bush-Up Tour

davidswanson — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:11:42 -0400

He's coming to Virginia next. Why not set up a tour in your state too?

Vincent Bugliosi in Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Prosecutor of Charles Manson
Author of Bestsellers including "Helter Skelter" and his latest:
"The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"

WHAT: Vincent Bugliosi to Speak and Take Questions from Audience

WHEN AND WHERE:

Richmond: Monday, October 13, 2008, 7:00 p.m., The Camel, 1621 Broad Street, Richmond, 804-347-7945, www.thecamel.org

Norfolk: Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 7:30 p.m., NARO Cinema, 1507 Colley Avenue, Norfolk, 757-625-6275, www.narocinema.com

Charlottesville: Thursday, October 16, 7:00 p.m., Albemarle Co. Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, 434-961-6278, www.charlottesvillepeace.org

In his new book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," Vincent Bugliosi makes a devastating, well documented case that President George W. Bush is guilty of the murder of U.S. soldiers as a result of the lies he told to justify the invasion of Iraq, and can be prosecuted by any state attorney general or county prosecutor.

In his best known case, Bugliosi convicted Charles Manson of murder even though Manson was not present at two of the crime scenes when the victims were murdered.

More on how to lock Bush up:
http://convictbushcheney.org

No Surprise in the Senate Bailout Vote

dlindorff — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:30:41 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The US Senate did what the Founding Fathers expected it to do when
they devised the idea of an upper house of Congress. Playing the role
of Britain’s House of Lords to the House’s House of Commons, it ignored
the rabble (that’s us, the voters) and voted the opposite way of the
House of Representatives, which on Monday had voted down the Bush
Administration’s proposed $700-billion to $1-trillion give-away to Wall
Street financial companies.

The Senate vote in support of the measure, which went 74-25 (the
ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy missed the vote), reflects the fact that, first
of all, Senators, who run representing entire states, are very
difficult to unseat because of the huge cost of mounting a media
campaign against an incumbent, and second that two-thirds of them even
don’t face voters this November, (and one third not for another four
years).

The House, in contrast, which defeated a similar bill earlier in
the week by 228-205, while still largely an incumbent’s sinecure, is
still a place where every member faces the voters every two years.

So now the bill goes back to the House for a second round of voting
tomorrow, this time in a version devised in the Senate to try and
convince 12 of Monday’s nay voters to switch to yea. The sweeteners: a
rise in the size of bank deposits insured by the (already
over-stretched) Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. from the current
$100,000 to $250,000, and some $115 billion in new tax breaks, some for
business, and some for wealthy taxpayers (a raising of the threshold
for applying the alternative minimum tax).

In other words, the minimum cost of this bailout, has been raised
from the $700 billion that the House rejected last time to $815
billion! And it’s a fair bet that more sweeteners will be added once
the bill goes to the House floor. (It should be noted that neither of
the measures added in the Senate has anything to do with a rescue.
Moreover, the first, upping the FDIC insured deposit limit, is simply a
time-saver for the rich, who could have simply moved around money to
separate banks to accomplish the same thing, while the second only
succeeds in driving the US budget further into the hole.)

The pressures on House members from lobbyists, House leaders of
both parties, and from the White House, will be enormous. The question
is whether public pressure, which was unprecedented over the past week,
jamming the Capital switchboard and crashing the Capital website, will
be equally enormous.

If voters again flood their representatives with calls and emails
demanding that they not support this rip-off bill, it is still possible
that the bailout will die and Congress and the White House will have to
go back to square one to work out a more reasonable and fair way to
salvage the US financial system than simply putting the results of 15
or more years of reckless Wall Street greed all on the backs of average
taxpayers.

As I have written earlier, the proper way to go about this would be
for both the Senate and the House to schedule and hold hearings on the
crisis and on ways to develop a rescue of the economy and the financial
system. Such hearings should include testimony from the victims of Wall
Street’s misdeeds—the homeowners who are losing their houses, the small
businesses that can no longer borrow funds to finance expansion or to
meet short term cash needs, the retirees and workers who are seeing
their pensions pillaged. They should include testimony from the
hundreds of economists, including Nobel Laureates like Joseph Stiglitz,
who are warning that the bailout as currently designed will not work
and could make things worse. And they should grill executives of the
major financial institutions about how they drove things to this
perilous state.

Then they should craft a response that meets the needs of the
public, not just the bankers and their investors, that will help to
rebuild the economy and the financial system on a sounder footing, and
that will punish those who abused the system and who have brought it to
its knees.

The Senate vote (which included yes votes from both major party
presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, both the
beneficiaries of large campaign donations from Wall Street interests)
was a victory for those who caused this crisis, and who hope to receive
all the money being put on the table.

The House vote will be a test of whether the public still has any
power at all to have its interests considered in what is still referred
to as this American democracy.

The advocates of this ripoff, from the President on down, have been
using cheap scare-mongering to try to win the day, claiming that if a
bill isn’t passed immediately, the country will spiral into a
depression like the 1930s. This is ridiculous. The country has been in
a credit crisis for months, and if Congress spend another month or two
deliberating and devising a good bill, it would not put the country in
any greater danger of collapse than it is already in. In fact, this
rush to pass a bad bill is far more likely to lead to disaster.

So once again, whether or not you have called your US
representative, get on the phone and do it again. Demand that they vote
“No” and say if they do not, you will vote against them in November.
The numbers to call are: 202-225-3121, 202-224-3121 or 800-828-0498. If
you cannot get through, look up in your local phone book blue pages the
number of a local constituent office for your representative, and call
there. In fact, do that anyway, too. You can also send an email to your representative.

Today and tomorrow are the last chance to stop this travesty from happening. Act today, and don't forget to spread the word.
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36551';
digg_title = "No Surprise in the Senate Bailout Vote";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n The US Senate did what the Founding Fathers expected it to do when they devised the idea of an upper house of Congress. Playing the role of Britain’s House of Lords to the House’s House of Commons, it ignored the rabble (that’s us, the voters) and voted the opposite way of the House of Representatives, which on Monday had voted down the Bush Administration’s proposed $700-billion to $1-trillion give-away to Wall Street financial companies.\r\n\r\n The Senate vote in support of the measure, which went 74-25 (the ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy missed the vote), reflects the fact that, first of all, Senators, who run representing entire states, are very difficult to unseat because of the huge cost of mounting a media campaign against an incumbent, and second that two-thirds of them even don’t face voters this November, (and one third not for another four years).\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Project Uncensored

davidswanson — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:16:11 -0400

By David Swanson

Project Censored has released a valuable new book called "Censored 2009: The Top 25 Stories of 2007-08".

The book includes summaries of the censored stories, in some cases citing multiple small and independent sources that told the stories, plus updates on new developments in the stories. Also included are substantial updates on the top censored stories of the previous year, most of which are still making news except that they're not making news: they're still ignored by the U.S. corporate media cartel. Meanwhile it's so easy to waste our energy complaining about how the corporate media reports stories, while greater harm is done by it not telling stories at all.

"Censored 2009" also includes hundreds of pages of analysis of corporate media conduct on a variety of issues from numerous talented authors. Here are the best recent concrete examples of how debates are conducted in a manner that completely shuts out important and popular positions.

This week we're being lied to about a bankers' bailout. We're being told that the stock market is the same thing as the economy, that both are about to implode unless we borrow more money than most national budgets and give it to banks with no questions asked. And the public is being ridiculed for interfering in our democracy by telling our representatives that we don't believe the lies.

Yet, too many of us do believe the lies. After the media outlets told us Monday's No vote was a disaster, they polled us on which party was more responsible for it, not on who should get the most credit for it. Then they reported that huge numbers of us blamed this party and huge numbers blamed that party. And I don't need a poll to tell you that huge numbers of people heard those reports and FORGOT the possibility that someone might be given credit rather than blame for a vote that, for once, matched the will of the public.

Small and independent media outlets are trying to do the work of a democratic communications system right now on this issue, as always. And grassroots groups that understand the problem are buying advertisements stating their admirable viewpoints in the New York Times, funding a company that daily defends the military-banker complex. They hate to do it, of course. They feel really, really bad about doing it. But what choice do they have? The smaller outlets are too small. And all the money we aren't giving to message ads we're giving to political campaigns to spend on election ads on corporate television -- more than enough money every election to have gone out and created new television networks from scratch.

Here's an idea that must be more brilliant than it sounds, since nobody seems capable of grasping it: small media outlets are small because WE DON'T FUND THEM. The right-wingers have the Washington Times and Fox News because THEY FUND THEM.

Think about it.

I'm serious.

Stop.

Now.

And think about it.

Here are some media outlets that show up in "Censored 2009" as having reported the news: Truthout, Alternet, The Progressive, Global Research, In These Times, The Nation, Pacifica Radio, Inter Press Service, Common Dreams. Why not support these media outlets? Why not advertise with them? Why not hold events to promote them, and Seven Stories Press, the publisher of "Censored 2009" and many other great books? How can the thrill of seeing your ad in the New York Times begin to compare to the importance of this?

I was happy to see that the first story honored by "Censored 2009" was one that I published on After Downing Street, which -- yes -- operates on your generous donations! Here's that story:

Is The United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month? Or Is It More?
By Michael Schwartz
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/24310

Other sources of the story of Iraqi deaths cited by Project Censored were also posted on After Downing Street. So was this other story that made the top 25:

The FBI Deputizes Business
By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/30856

In fact, readers of After Downing Street, despite its relatively narrow focus, have been well informed by multiple stories and discussions of several other topics that made Project Censored's top 25 list:

Bush claiming the right to seize private assets
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/25497

The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/29063

Human trafficking
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36296

Secret laws
http://afterdowningstreet.org/comment/reply/35227

Winter soldier
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/31447

The American Psychological Association's support for torture
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/31608

$9 Billion Lost in Iraq
http://afterdowningstreet.org/comment/reply/26694

NATO's consideration of first-strike nuclear policy
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/30338

Eliot Spitzer, Bush, and Predatory Lending
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/32010

But these stories have all been better summarized by this new book, and added to by a collection of critical but censored news from a wide variety of areas. Below is the list. Check out how timely #25 is.