VA-Charlottesville

Obama About to Win Virginia

davidswanson — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:46:13 -0500

McCain and Hate Mongering DVDs in Virginia

davidswanson — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:15:19 -0400

By David Swanson

Unrequested and unwanted, this notorious fear and hate mongering DVD arrived today, October 23rd, in my mailbox in Charlottesville in the swing state of Virginia: http://obsessionthemovie.com

The DVD seeks to teach people that an entire religion, Islam, is aimed at terrorizing and killing them. The distributors of the DVD have clearly determined by some respectable and scholarly method that this information is most edifying for residents of swing states.

The DVD did not arrive inserted in a newspaper ad, the way it arrived in so many homes in other swing states a month or two back. It arrived by itself in a little postcard-sized envelope with nonprofit postage from The Clarion Fund. The Clarion Fund could have gotten my name and address from any list, but not from any religious or rightwing political list, because I'm not on any -- with one exception. I recently entered my address on the Virginia McCain website in order to obtain tickets for a Sarah Palin rally in Richmond, at which I made this video of my own, which is also full of hatred and bigotry, but which does not approve of those attitudes:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vf_R3hQGYT4

I only subscribe to one newspaper, the Charlottesville Daily Progress. I called and asked them if they'd sent the DVD or sold their mailing list, and the person I spoke with said they did not know and would get back to me. Clarion Fund doesn't answer their phones. Chances are the Daily Progress had nothing to do with it, but if it did then chances are very good that Media General, the parent company owning lots of newspapers in Virginia and North Carolina, among other places, is hitting more than this one little town.

According to a story posted yesterday on MSNBC, thousands of people around Hampton Roads, Va., have received the DVD, and the McCain campaign claims to have nothing to do with the DVD or its distribution, refusing to comment on it even to condemn its vicious and destructive lies:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27326021

For those who've forgotten or don't know what "Obsession" is about and what it is being used for, here are a couple of articles:

***

National outcry over 'Obsession' DVD
By ANICK JESDANUN • AP Business Writer • October 4, 2008

NEW YORK-- Newspapers that carried an advertising supplement in recent weeks containing a DVD critical of radical Muslims have faced complaints from readers and questions about whether newspapers should offer a platform to everyone willing to pay for distribution.
Advertisement

Although a few papers refused to carry the DVD, about 70 including The New York Times distributed it on the grounds that rejecting it would violate the sponsor's right to free speech. The decision generated letters, cancellations and even a protest.

[AND OF COURSE THE TIMES' CLAIM IS NOT TRUE, SINCE THE TIMES AND OTHER PAPERS REJECT ADS FOR REASONS Of POLITICAL CONTENT, CONFLICTS WITH THE CLAIMS OF LARGER ADVERTISERS, AND FOR NO STATED REASON AT ALL]

The Clarion Fund, a nonprofit founded in 2006 to address "the most urgent threat of radical Islam," spent millions of dollars distributing the DVDs mostly in battleground election states. That targeting led to further outcry about the group's motives.

"This is definitely the most feedback that I've gotten to an ad," said Ted Vaden, public editor for The News & Observer in Raleigh, N.C. "It's among the heaviest reaction I've gotten to anything. The great majority of the reaction was negative."

Vaden said the paper received about 500 e-mail and phone messages and had some 50 cancellations. He said the paper may have sparked some of the complaints by writing a front-page story calling attention to "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," the DVD insert that critics have denounced as anti-Muslim propaganda.

The decision over running the ad was similar to what online services like Google Inc.'s YouTube and Yahoo Inc.'s Flickr face when they let users freely share provocative video or photos. They get complaints of promoting unpopular viewpoints when they try to uphold free-speech principles; they get complaints of censorship when they don't.

Newspapers generally insist on giving a platform to a variety of viewpoints, but readers who complained were largely critical.

"I cannot believe that I was sent the hate-inflaming, fear-mongering video disk 'Obsession' in my newspaper!" Margaret Lewis of Durham, N.C., wrote to The News & Observer. "What will you enclose next? KKK robes?"

Kelly McBride, head of the ethics faculty at the journalism think tank Poynter Institute, said papers generally reject ads only if they promote illegal activity or might incite violence. The "Obsession" DVD, at most, makes people angry, she said.

"It's pretty hard to make an argument to reject it," she said. "It's hard to articulate a standard that would give you the opportunity to reject something like the 'Obsession' DVD but allow other types of political, religious or anti-religious speech."

The Clarion Fund, which has declined to identify all of its board members or the sources of its funding, is working with the Endowment for Middle East Truth on "The Obsession Project," which is to include research publications and issue forums.

Clarion Fund spokesman Gregory Ross said the group spent several million dollars in donations from individuals he would not name, and he said running the ad in swing states was a means of drawing media attention and not meant to influence the election's result, a move barred by federal tax law covering nonprofits.

"We found (newspapers were) the most economical and best way to get it out there," Ross said.

Dozens of people protested outside The Oregonian's offices on Monday, the morning after the Portland, Ore., newspaper carried the DVD. One said he canceled his subscription. Mayor Tom Potter had tried to persuade the paper not to run the ad.

Publisher Fred Stickel, who did not return phone calls from The Associated Press for comment, has said The Oregonian tries to keep its advertising channels open, regardless of whether the paper agrees with the sponsor's message.

But Elizabeth Brenner, the publisher of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, told reporters at the Milwaukee Press Club that based on complaints from its readers, the paper likely would not carry it again if faced with the same decision. She declined further comment to the AP, saying she didn't want to re-ignite the issue.

"Obsession," an hour-long movie that features graphic images of terrorism, video of anti-American speeches from Mideast television and comparisons with Nazi Germany, has been sent to about 28 million households through newspapers and direct mail.

Ross questioned whether many of the video's critics actually had seen it, and he noted that it carried a disclaimer saying it was not about the majority of Muslims, who are peaceful.

Some readers expressed support.

"It's refreshing to see something other than the 'politically correct' drivel most Americans seem to accept as fact," Steven Earle of Clifton, Colo., wrote to The Denver Post, which distributed a half million copies.

The News & Record of Greensboro, N.C., rejected the DVD, considering it inflammatory and hateful without contributing much educational value.

"We got a lot of e-mails from across the country applauding the decision," Editor John Robinson said, adding that most feedback for and against came from outside his paper's region.

The Detroit Free Press, The Plain Dealer of Cleveland and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch also declined to carry the ad.

The glossy color insert to which the DVD was attached described it in tiny print as a "Paid Advertising Supplement."

As at other newspapers, The New York Times' decision to run the ad in some markets outside New York came from its advertising department, not the newsroom.

"Just as we print advertisements that rebut New York Times editorials, news articles or critical reviews, we print ads that differ from our editorial position," spokeswoman Diane McNulty said. "We do so in the belief that it is in the best interests of our readers for our pages to be as open as possible."

The Miami Herald got dozens of letters and e-mails, mostly critical. But Anders Gyllenhaal, the newspaper's executive editor, said the outcry led to good discussions with the region's Muslim community about the principles of free speech.

***

Obsession DVD Distributors: Would We Try To Influence Election? Never!
By Eric Kleefeld - September 25, 2008, 10:59AM
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/obsession_dvd_di...

We've finally gotten to speak with the people behind the mass distribution of Obsession, a DVD warning viewers of the threats of radical Islam. And they're actually claiming that their mailing of the DVD to millions of households in swing states, and paying to have it inserted in local papers in places like Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, is not an attempt to sway voters in swing states.

And get this: They're saying the swing-state focus is simply an effort to get the attention of reporters in swing states, because the media is heavily focused on swing states and if they distributed the DVD in non-swing states it wouldn't get any attention.

The movie is being distributed by Clarion Fund, a right-wing group founded by filmmaker Raphael Shore, in partnership with the Endowment for Middle East Truth. Since these organizations are 501(c)(3) non-profits, it would be illegal for them to use the DVD as an express effort to win people's votes -- but they can embark on educational campaigns.

Nonetheless, this "educational campaign" -- which would seem to be helpful to John McCain -- is heavily focused on swing states. Why?

"If we were to distribute only in Hawaii and Maine, the press would be like, 'Look we're in Pennsylvania, we're in Florida, we're not covering something in Hawaii now,'" said Gregory Ross, Clarion Fund spokesman, in an interview with Election Central.

Ross explained. "So to capture the press and get interviews just like you're calling me, that why we're sending it to the swing states."

"We do not consider this electioneering," Ross added, "because we're not telling anyone how to vote."

Still, Ross appeared to accidentally concede that politics might be behind the campaign.

In a reference to the Endowment for Middle East Truth, which is helping push the DVD, Ross said: "They use our movie Obsession as a vehicle to help foster political -- well I should say, discussion in general."

Ari Morgenstern, spokesman for EMET, concurred that this is not about influencing the election: "Well, this is in no way an effort to influence the election. The goal is to help educate the American public about radical Islam's war with the West."

Neither Ross or Morgenstern would disclose the identities of any of their donors who are helping with this effort, but Ross did say they "span the political spectrum." He declined, however, to say if one or more were backing Barack Obama or John McCain.

Ross said that Clarion Fund has another movie coming out, The Third Jihad, about the threat of radical Islamists right here in America, set to premiere in October. There are not currently any plans to distribute it in swing states in the same way as they are doing for Obsession -- but he's not ruling anything out.

***

In other Virginia for McCain news, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani will be appearing (and possibly cross-dressing) at a McCain rally in Midlothian, Va., this Saturday, but unbeknownst to McCain, Rudy has already begun raising funds for a 2012 presidential run against Obama:

http://joinrudy2012.com

Warming to Palin

davidswanson — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:53:53 -0400

By David Swanson

It's the second week of October. When I was a kid it would sometimes snow and always be cold by now. I'm typing this on my laptop sitting outdoors in the warm sun with no sweater or jacket on the downtown mall, a pedestrian street in Charlottesville, Va. Flowers are blooming, and butterflies and hummingbirds are hanging out, several states out of their old territory. We haven't had the heat or the air conditioning on in our house for months. The weather is perfect and we're saving money. Global warming is making it easy for us to take steps to reverse global warming. So why does the perfect summer breeze on the back of my neck scare the hell out of me?

Because I'm not a fundamentalist hoping for the end of the world, a raving lunatic unclear on the concept of science, or a certified moron who claims to read every newspaper in the country but reads and knows essentially nothing. In other words, I'm not Sarah Palin. The entire damn planet is in danger, ecosystems are collapsing, the mild warming is getting dangerously close to entering a vicious cycle that nobody will be able to reverse, species are vanishing at an ever faster pace, and the town I live in, no matter how pleasant it may be at the moment, is not an island. If it were, it would be in danger of going under, as real islands are.

So, it comes to this: Are we a nation of complete and utter imbeciles? It's been the better part of a century since H.L. Mencken predicted this danger with these words:

"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

I'd be the last to question the moronicity of George W. Bush, but Sarah Palin is substantially dumber, bizarrely crazier, and dangerously and arrogantly less aware of her own shortcomings.

At the moment, polls that are conducted in ways that tend to favor McCain and Palin (including polling disproportionate numbers of Republicans, not polling cell phone users, not polling newly registered voters, etc.) are forecasting a decisive victory for Obama and Biden. That gap is likely to expand of its own dumb momentum, as people prefer to vote for the winners. But there are two things that could change it.

The first possibility is that something could happen or be made to happen to SCARE everybody. It could be terrorism or war or economic collapse or martial law or assassinations. Americans are not actually morons when they're not scared. But when they are scared, they make lemmings look like heroes. So, in this moment of clarity prior to the possible BIG SCARY THING that could happen during the next few weeks, I would like to urge all Americans to vote early, vote absentee, and/or swear on whatever we hold dear not to alter our votes because we've been caused to pee in our pants.

The second possibility is that we will all try to elect the candidates who are less like Bush and Cheney, but that our votes will be blocked, suppressed, erased, stolen, miscounted, and lost. The elimination of thousands of names from voting rolls is in process all over the country. The propagation of false rumors regarding voter eligibility, voter rights, and the date of the election (it's November 4th, Tuesday!) is underway. Completely unverifiable electronic voting machines are in place and ready to miscount your votes. This is a much bigger issue than a single election, and any irregularities must be challenged even if we think the official outcome turns out to be accurate. To get involved in this now go to http://bradblog.com and http://velvetrevolution.us To join in a massive protest to reclaim our democratic republic immediately upon and in the event of a fraudulent election, sign the pledge right now at: http://nomorestolenelections.org

Don't be an idiot!

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.

Vincent Bugliosi in Charlottesville, Virginia, October 16th

davidswanson — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:14:26 -0400

Vincent Bugliosi: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

WHEN: Thursday. October 16, 2008 7 pm

WHERE: Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road

COST: $5 Suggested Donation-no one turned away!

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 murder as a result of the lies he told to justify the invasion of Iraq.

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 never 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, his own 2002 classified intelligence estimate found that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the United States. He simply reversed the findings of the National Intelligence Estimate (NEI) of 2002.

Sponsored by the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice

For more information visit www.charlottesvillepeace.org or call 434-961-6278

Emma's Revolution

davidswanson — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:04:25 -0400

Why Can't They Count Our Votes?
More Below.

Do What I Have to Do - Phil Ochs

Women Say No to War

Has Anybody Seen the Choir?

Peace Salaam Shalom

Keep on Moving Forward

Brand New Song

Ann Wright on Peace, War, and Protesting

davidswanson — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:41:50 -0400

MORE BELOW

Speak With Ann Wright and Emma's Revolution Tonight Online and On Radio

davidswanson — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:45:55 -0400

Ann Wright is a retired U.S. Army colonel and retired official of the U.S. State Department, who publicly resigned the day the United States invaded Iraq. She has led the peace movement since that day. She is the author, with Susan Dixon, of DISSENT: Voices of Conscience: Government Insiders Speak Out Against the War in Iraq."

Emma's Revolution is the duo of award-winning, activist musicians, Pat Humphries & Sandy O.

Showtime: Wednesday, September 17, 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.

*****

You can also catch Ann and the Revolution in person next week in Virginia:

Click for PDF flyer. -- Click for large image.

Ann Wright will speak and Emma's Revolution will play in an event beginning at 7 p.m., Monday, Sept. 22, 2008, at the Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Rd., Charlottesville, Va. The event is free and sponsored by the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice.

"This illuminating and remarkably impressive book should be leaked into the government. If you're at all like me, you will have a whole set of new heroes when you finish reading this." -- Daniel Ellsberg, on Ann Wright's book.

Copies of the book will be available for sale. Here's a video about the book and a review.

"Pat's songs will be sung well into the 22nd century." -- Pete Seeger, on Emma's Revolution.

Listen to:
Vote.
Peace, Salaam, Shalom.
Silence and Lies.

"Across from the White House, we paused. . . We were arrested several hours later, having sung 'Peace Salaam Shalom' and 'All We Are Saying . . .' the entire time." -- Alice Walker

More songs and information at: http://www.emmasrevolution.com

*****

And catch Ann Wright and David Swanson on September 23rd in Staunton, Va.

The Augusta Coalition for Peace and Justice and Mary Baldwin College have invited Ann Wright and David Swanson to speak at Mary Baldwin College's Francis Auditorium at 101 E. Frederick St. at 6:30 p.m. Sept. 23.

Swanson is a well-known speaker and writer. He has publicly spoken out against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's actions surrounding the Iraq war.

This event is free and open to the public. Copies of Wright's book will be available for purchase.

For more information on the Staunton event, e-mail acpjva@gmail.com

Ann Wright and Emma's Revolution in Charlottesville, Va., Sept. 22nd

davidswanson — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:16:04 -0400

Click for PDF flyer. -- Click for large image.

Copies of the book will be available for sale. Here's a video about the book and a review.

Cindy Sheehan and Ann Wright spoke about Iraq on May 17, 2006, at an event in Charlottesville hosted by the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice. Here's video.

Emma's Revolution is the duo of award-winning, activist musicians, Pat Humphries & Sandy O.

"Pat's songs will be sung well into the 22nd century." -- Pete Seeger

Listen to:
Vote.
Peace, Salaam, Shalom.
Silence and Lies.

"Across from the White House, we paused. . . We were arrested several hours later, having sung 'Peace Salaam Shalom' and 'All We Are Saying . . .' the entire time." -- Alice Walker

More songs and information at: http://www.emmasrevolution.com

Carah Ong on Alternatives to Attacking Iran

davidswanson — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:13:25 -0400