Click for larger image
Monday, June 06, 2005
Just Another Day In Hell...
Here is a rap video from a group of American warriors on the ground in besieged Iraq.
I find the warning about graphic language and violent images ridiculous coming from MSNBC. If they and the other corporate media were actually doing their jobs, the warning would be redundant, since graphic language and violent images would be constant fixtures in our newspapers and on our televisions.--Pete
I find the warning about graphic language and violent images ridiculous coming from MSNBC. If they and the other corporate media were actually doing their jobs, the warning would be redundant, since graphic language and violent images would be constant fixtures in our newspapers and on our televisions.--Pete
Sunday, June 05, 2005
News from the Homefront
PARENTS TELLING KIDS NOT TO ENLIST
New York Times Article Here
NY TIMES - No Child Left Behind, which was passed by Congress in 2001, requires schools to turn over students' home phone numbers and addresses unless parents opt out. That is often the spark that ignites parental resistance. Recruiters, in interviews over the past six months, said that opposition can be fierce. Three years ago, perhaps 1 or 2 of 10 parents would hang up immediately on a cold call to a potential recruit's home, said a recruiter in New York who, like most others interviewed, insisted on anonymity to protect his career. "Now," he said, "in the past year or two, people hang up all the time.
New York Times Article Here
NY TIMES - No Child Left Behind, which was passed by Congress in 2001, requires schools to turn over students' home phone numbers and addresses unless parents opt out. That is often the spark that ignites parental resistance. Recruiters, in interviews over the past six months, said that opposition can be fierce. Three years ago, perhaps 1 or 2 of 10 parents would hang up immediately on a cold call to a potential recruit's home, said a recruiter in New York who, like most others interviewed, insisted on anonymity to protect his career. "Now," he said, "in the past year or two, people hang up all the time.
WHY THE E.U. CONSTITUTION DESERVED A NO VOTE
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/28/news-ireland.php
Via The Progressive Review Undernews
[If you woke up to NPR telling you ever so objectively what a terrible thing the Dutch rejection of the E.U. constitution was, you might find the following useful]
DOUG IRELAND, LA WEEKLY - The new European Constitution was not a step toward a stronger Europe, and would have actually lessened European influence on the world stage. In it, subordination of European security and military policy (and thus foreign policy) to NATO was set in concrete. And, as the former socialist defense minister of France, Jean-Pierre Chevenement (who resigned in protest over France's support for the first Gulf War), repeatedly pointed out during the referendum
campaign, under the Constitution the crucial role France played at the United Nations in opposing the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq would no longer have been possible. The Constitution would have restricted the ability of any member of the U.N. Security Council that is also an EU country (like France — or, as in proposals for Security Council enlargement now being considered, Germany) to take a position contrary to that adopted by the European Commission. And any single EU country could veto a position contrary to Washington's. Thus, one would only need to buy a corrupt little country — like, say, Bulgaria — to block any EU action that would counter the American imperium.
Moreover, the constitution was anti-democratic, for it kept real power in the hands of the unelected European Commission (whose members are appointed by their national governments) rather than giving it to the elected Europarliament in Strasbourg. The EU's presidency, currently a rotating one, was given a longer term - but the president, too, would have been appointed by the commission. The 300-page constitution - the longest ever in the world's history, and written in obscure legalese incomprehensible to the average voter - would have irremovably enshrined matters of policy, including conservative economic policies, that would normally be decided by democratically elected governments. And it could only have been amended by a unanimous vote of all 25 EU countries — another boon to the multinationals, which also easily could have purchased a veto from a small country's government-for-sale.
Via The Progressive Review Undernews
[If you woke up to NPR telling you ever so objectively what a terrible thing the Dutch rejection of the E.U. constitution was, you might find the following useful]
DOUG IRELAND, LA WEEKLY - The new European Constitution was not a step toward a stronger Europe, and would have actually lessened European influence on the world stage. In it, subordination of European security and military policy (and thus foreign policy) to NATO was set in concrete. And, as the former socialist defense minister of France, Jean-Pierre Chevenement (who resigned in protest over France's support for the first Gulf War), repeatedly pointed out during the referendum
campaign, under the Constitution the crucial role France played at the United Nations in opposing the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq would no longer have been possible. The Constitution would have restricted the ability of any member of the U.N. Security Council that is also an EU country (like France — or, as in proposals for Security Council enlargement now being considered, Germany) to take a position contrary to that adopted by the European Commission. And any single EU country could veto a position contrary to Washington's. Thus, one would only need to buy a corrupt little country — like, say, Bulgaria — to block any EU action that would counter the American imperium.
Moreover, the constitution was anti-democratic, for it kept real power in the hands of the unelected European Commission (whose members are appointed by their national governments) rather than giving it to the elected Europarliament in Strasbourg. The EU's presidency, currently a rotating one, was given a longer term - but the president, too, would have been appointed by the commission. The 300-page constitution - the longest ever in the world's history, and written in obscure legalese incomprehensible to the average voter - would have irremovably enshrined matters of policy, including conservative economic policies, that would normally be decided by democratically elected governments. And it could only have been amended by a unanimous vote of all 25 EU countries — another boon to the multinationals, which also easily could have purchased a veto from a small country's government-for-sale.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
China's defense spending questioned by Rumsfeld, of all people
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/04/international/asia/04rumsfeld.html?th&emc=th
Today the New York Times tells us that Donald Rumsfeld, in a speech in Singapore, has delivered a "sharp rebuke" to the Chinese government for their defense spending, saying that it threatens the security balance in Asia.
He said no "candid discussion of China" could neglect to address these military concerns directly, and criticized China for not admitting the full extent of what he described as its worrisome military expansion. He called for an emphasis instead on political freedom and open markets.
"Since no nation threatens China, one wonders: why this growing investment?" Mr. Rumsfeld asked.
I'll let that sink in for a moment...
It is common knowledge that China has 20 missiles capable of reaching the United States. This is certainly cause for concern. It would be more so if the U.S. weren't China's best customer on the planet, a fact easily verified by a trip to Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, etc.
If that weren't enough to ease your mind, consider that the American WMD's pointed China's way number slightly under 8000, that China's defense spending is dwarfed by that of the United States, and that we are in effect "containing" China by building and maintaining a series of permanent military bases on China's Western border.
The article adds:
It would seem that China's attempts to retain (or regain) sovereignty over Taiwan are coming to more than words, and that they expect action from the U.S. in the event of an invasion, but to students of recent history know, the bases referred to above are a major thorn in the side of Chinese officials.
The article goes on to say that:
Hmmm...
Of course this could all be a smokescreen, the corporate media being the plaything of the ruling class, but it is a very interesting one, albeit quite dangerous if there is even a grain of truth contained therin, which is usually the case.
We'll see...
Today the New York Times tells us that Donald Rumsfeld, in a speech in Singapore, has delivered a "sharp rebuke" to the Chinese government for their defense spending, saying that it threatens the security balance in Asia.
He said no "candid discussion of China" could neglect to address these military concerns directly, and criticized China for not admitting the full extent of what he described as its worrisome military expansion. He called for an emphasis instead on political freedom and open markets.
"Since no nation threatens China, one wonders: why this growing investment?" Mr. Rumsfeld asked.
I'll let that sink in for a moment...
It is common knowledge that China has 20 missiles capable of reaching the United States. This is certainly cause for concern. It would be more so if the U.S. weren't China's best customer on the planet, a fact easily verified by a trip to Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, etc.
If that weren't enough to ease your mind, consider that the American WMD's pointed China's way number slightly under 8000, that China's defense spending is dwarfed by that of the United States, and that we are in effect "containing" China by building and maintaining a series of permanent military bases on China's Western border.
The article adds:
In recent weeks, American officials have compiled reports detailing how China has carefully analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the United States military to focus its growing spending on weapons systems that could exploit perceived American weaknesses in case the United States ever responds to fighting in Taiwan.
These military and intelligence officials say China has purchased or built enough amphibious assault ships, submarines, fighter jets and short-range missiles that pose an immediate threat to Taiwan and to any American force that might come to Taiwan's aid.
Asked about the speech before Mr. Rumsfeld delivered it, Scott McClellan, press secretary for President Bush, declined to discuss any change in tone in the way that the administration is talking about China. Referring to Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. McClellan added: "He speaks for the administration as secretary of defense. I haven't seen his remarks."
How to assess the Chinese military buildup has been the source of some debate within the administration. Mr. Rumsfeld's speech here, to a forum held by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, was circulated among senior administration officials, including Ms. Rice, before delivery, one Pentagon official said.
It would seem that China's attempts to retain (or regain) sovereignty over Taiwan are coming to more than words, and that they expect action from the U.S. in the event of an invasion, but to students of recent history know, the bases referred to above are a major thorn in the side of Chinese officials.
The article goes on to say that:
In recent weeks, American officials have compiled reports detailing how China has carefully analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the United States military to focus its growing spending on weapons systems that could exploit perceived American weaknesses in case the United States ever responds to fighting in Taiwan.
These military and intelligence officials say China has purchased or built enough amphibious assault ships, submarines, fighter jets and short-range missiles that pose an immediate threat to Taiwan and to any American force that might come to Taiwan's aid.
Hmmm...
Of course this could all be a smokescreen, the corporate media being the plaything of the ruling class, but it is a very interesting one, albeit quite dangerous if there is even a grain of truth contained therin, which is usually the case.
We'll see...
Friday, June 03, 2005
Economists Call for Marijuana Reform
Jun 3 - Arguing that legalizing and regulating marijuana in a fashion similar to alcohol would save the nation billions of dollars, over 500 economists released a letter yesterday urging public officials to tackle the issue in an "open debate."
Citing a report released by economist and visiting Harvard University professor Jeffrey Miron, the letter says that regulating marijuana could yield ten to nearly $14 billion a year in savings and taxes. They predict that engaging in a debate on the practical aspects of legalized marijuana may lead to legalization of the drug on a cost-benefit basis alone.
"The fact that marijuana prohibition has these budgetary impacts does not by itself mean prohibition is bad policy. Existing evidence, however, suggests prohibition has minimal benefits [at halting the flow of drugs] and may itself cause substantial harm," the economists wrote.
Miron's report was conducted for the Marijuana Policy Project and compared the costs incurred by the legal and criminal justice system at local, state and federal levels with potential tax revenues at both average and "sin" tax rates.
The report concluded that monetary considerations, though but one of several considerations to be taken into account, were enough to demand serious policy debate.
--Brendan Coyne
© 2005 The NewStandard.
Citing a report released by economist and visiting Harvard University professor Jeffrey Miron, the letter says that regulating marijuana could yield ten to nearly $14 billion a year in savings and taxes. They predict that engaging in a debate on the practical aspects of legalized marijuana may lead to legalization of the drug on a cost-benefit basis alone.
"The fact that marijuana prohibition has these budgetary impacts does not by itself mean prohibition is bad policy. Existing evidence, however, suggests prohibition has minimal benefits [at halting the flow of drugs] and may itself cause substantial harm," the economists wrote.
Miron's report was conducted for the Marijuana Policy Project and compared the costs incurred by the legal and criminal justice system at local, state and federal levels with potential tax revenues at both average and "sin" tax rates.
The report concluded that monetary considerations, though but one of several considerations to be taken into account, were enough to demand serious policy debate.
--Brendan Coyne
© 2005 The NewStandard.
No Gulags Here
Jason Burke of the Observer runs by some of the highlights of our own little archipelago:
So remember: This system is not comparable to the Stalinist version. It is built by God-fearing American free-marketeers, and as such, can only speed the planet's way toward peace, security, liberty and understanding by eliminating the threat of terrorism through terrorism. If the War On Terror is as successful as The War On Drugs and the War On Poverty, we will have much to be proud of, soon. Why, one can't find any drugs or poor people anywhere, anymore!
We are America. We are right. That's just the way it is.--Pete
The United States government, in conjunction with key allies, is running an 'invisible' network of prisons and detention centres into which thousands of suspects have disappeared without trace since the 'war on terror' began. In the past three years, thousands of alleged militants have been transferred around the world by American, Arab and Far Eastern security services, often in secret operations that by-pass extradition laws. [...]
The ghost prison network stretches around the globe. The biggest American-run facilities are at the Bagram airbase, north of Kabul in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, where around 400 men are held, and in Iraq, where tens of thousands of detainees are held. Saddam Hussein and dozens of top Baath party officials are held in a prison at Baghdad airport.
However, Washington is relying heavily on allies. In Morocco, scores of detainees once held by the Americans are believed to be held at the al-Tamara interrogation centre sited in a forest five miles outside the capital, Rabat. Many of the detainees were originally captured by the Pakistani authorities, who passed them on to the Americans. [Observer]
So remember: This system is not comparable to the Stalinist version. It is built by God-fearing American free-marketeers, and as such, can only speed the planet's way toward peace, security, liberty and understanding by eliminating the threat of terrorism through terrorism. If the War On Terror is as successful as The War On Drugs and the War On Poverty, we will have much to be proud of, soon. Why, one can't find any drugs or poor people anywhere, anymore!
We are America. We are right. That's just the way it is.--Pete
Still Winning The War! Yay!
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen on Friday killed a city council official in Kirkuk, a contractor renovating a mosque in Samarra and a man standing outside a Baghdad hospital, while several car bombs that targeted U.S. convoys in the capital wounded six civilians, authorities said.
The new bloodshed came a day after 48 people were killed in a particularly violent day in Iraq — including more than 30 in four suicide bombings — raising to at least 825 the number of people slain since the new Shiite-led government was announced April 28.
In the past 18 months, 12,000 Iraqi civilians were killed, including more than 10,000 Shiites, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said, citing figures from a research center. But he said he analyzed the figures on the basis of areas where the victims lived, not data explicitly stating the branch of Islam to which they belong.
Separately, Australia's top Muslim cleric, who trying to secure the release of 63-year-old Australian hostage Douglas Wood, said he hoped to receive news of the captive's imminent release. He did not elaborate.
(More here...)
The new bloodshed came a day after 48 people were killed in a particularly violent day in Iraq — including more than 30 in four suicide bombings — raising to at least 825 the number of people slain since the new Shiite-led government was announced April 28.
In the past 18 months, 12,000 Iraqi civilians were killed, including more than 10,000 Shiites, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said, citing figures from a research center. But he said he analyzed the figures on the basis of areas where the victims lived, not data explicitly stating the branch of Islam to which they belong.
Separately, Australia's top Muslim cleric, who trying to secure the release of 63-year-old Australian hostage Douglas Wood, said he hoped to receive news of the captive's imminent release. He did not elaborate.
(More here...)
Just Sayin'...
"A true patriot is one who loves his country enough to call to account those who shame the flag by despicable actions that in no way reflect the guiding principles of this republic. This is not a liberal idea, a radical idea, or a treasonous idea. It is, in fact, a rather traditional, all-American idea. Making excuses for torture is common practice in banana republics and authoritarian regimes, but it is alien and antithetical to our constitutional democracy."--David Horsey
Click pic for larger image
Reactionary conservatives say, "none of that fancy book-learnin' for us, thanks!"
Click pic for larger image
BTW...
"The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,"...
--Excerpt from a July 23, 2002 British government memo summarizing a meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his security advisers that indicates President Bush had already made a decision to attack Iraq.
It appears that the corporate media haven't found this smoking gun to be very important. What does this tell us?--Pete
--Excerpt from a July 23, 2002 British government memo summarizing a meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his security advisers that indicates President Bush had already made a decision to attack Iraq.
It appears that the corporate media haven't found this smoking gun to be very important. What does this tell us?--Pete
GREAT MOMENTS PUBLIC EDUCATION
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/11777621.htm
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS EDITIORIAL - Maybe Democrats in the state Assembly should just go ahead and write textbooks for California's students. They're so confident they know what constitutes a good one.For instance, who knew that making a textbook longer than 200 pages was such a bad idea that there needs to be a law against it?
Well, 42 Assembly Democrats knew. On Thursday they approved AB 756, a bill by Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, that says: Neither the State Board of Education nor a local school district "may adopt instructional materials that exceed 200 pages in length."
Textbooks, the bill's supporters argued, should sum up the basics and then refer students to the Internet and to libraries for the rest. Plus, shorter is lighter and cheaper. . .
The bill doesn't jibe with other instructions (some from the Legislature) that textbook publishers have been getting to avoid textbooks that are just dry columns of words. They must be full of pictures and charts. And in each subject, they have to cover the state's comprehensive curriculum requirements. This makes them longer. The bill now goes to the Senate.
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS EDITIORIAL - Maybe Democrats in the state Assembly should just go ahead and write textbooks for California's students. They're so confident they know what constitutes a good one.For instance, who knew that making a textbook longer than 200 pages was such a bad idea that there needs to be a law against it?
Well, 42 Assembly Democrats knew. On Thursday they approved AB 756, a bill by Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, that says: Neither the State Board of Education nor a local school district "may adopt instructional materials that exceed 200 pages in length."
Textbooks, the bill's supporters argued, should sum up the basics and then refer students to the Internet and to libraries for the rest. Plus, shorter is lighter and cheaper. . .
The bill doesn't jibe with other instructions (some from the Legislature) that textbook publishers have been getting to avoid textbooks that are just dry columns of words. They must be full of pictures and charts. And in each subject, they have to cover the state's comprehensive curriculum requirements. This makes them longer. The bill now goes to the Senate.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Look Kids! Demos In Their Natural Habitat!
Senate Democrats: insulated, chamber-dwelling invertebrates-viewed during typical behavior patterns. Click pic for larger image.
Governor Schwarzenegger Sells Junk Food In Political Ads for Corporate Donors
Consumer Group Calls For Ads' Removal, Gov. To Re-Pay State
Just when you thought our celebrity governor couldn't get any more shameless than referring to hard-working nurses and public employees as "special interests" whose asses he always kicks, calling his California Recovery Team - a group of wealthy industrialists bent on eliminating labor laws - a "grassroots" organization, there's this--Pete
Santa Monica, CA -- Governor Schwarzenegger should pull a political commercial off the air that promotes the junk food products of his campaign donors, consumer advocates said today. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) called on Schwarzenegger to return the quarter-million dollars he received from companies featured in the ad, and for the corporations to pay the market value of the advertising to the state because it is improper for the governor to use public office to sell corporate products.
The TV ad, released in May, features Schwarzenegger talking to people in a lunchroom, and places Pepsi and Arrowhead Water in prominent spots next to the governor for 1/3 of the ad. Donors connected to Pepsi Co. and Arrowhead Water's parent company, Nestle, gave the governor a total of $279,800 in campaign contributions. Also recognizable on-screen are Ruffles, Sun Chips, Cheetos and a SoBe Beverage, all brands owned by Pepsi.
View the ad at: http://www.JoinArnold.com
The practice, known as "product placement," is unheard of in political advertising. In fact, political ads typically avoid using logos because companies may not want to be associated with a particular candidate or issue. However, studios receive significant payments for featuring a product in a film or television show.
"Schwarzenegger has turned the governor's office into a vending machine. It is inconceivable that Schwarzenegger didn't know that Pepsi and Arrowhead were in his commercial, or that the free air time and lucrative association with the Governor of California would benefit them. The governor should return their quarter million in campaign cash, and repay the state for misusing his office as a corporate spokesman for his political donors," said Carmen Balber, consumer advocate with FTCR. "Every second of a political ad is important, so every second is planned. As a Hollywood actor and businessman, Governor Schwarzenegger knows that product placements are worth millions to corporate sponsors."
Pepsi gave the governor $30,000 in campaign contributions. The CEO of Nestle, the parent company of Arrowhead, gave Schwarzenegger $21,200. Another Nestle family company, Dreyer's Ice Cream, and company executives gave the governor $228,600.
In March, at the Arnold Fitness Weekend, Schwarzenegger proposed a ban on all junk food in schools.
"Governor Schwarzenegger said he wanted to remove junk food from our schools -- he should be willing to pull political ads off the air that hawk junk food for his donors at California's expense," said Balber.
Schwarzenegger should disclose who the people are in the advertisement, whether they were paid, and where the ad was shot, said FTCR.
Governor Schwarzenegger has received attention for appearing to promote his donors' products in the past, including: a campaign-style stop at Galpin Ford where the governor urged Californians to buy cars -- Galpin & owners gave the governor $97,000; and an appearance at a groundbreaking at Dole's corporate headquarters -- Dole and affiliated companies gave Schwarzenegger $421,600.
Pepsi was also promoted in Schwarzenegger's movie, Terminator 2, with a marketing plan described by one film magazine as "the sledgehammer approach taken to promote Pepsi in T2."
Just when you thought our celebrity governor couldn't get any more shameless than referring to hard-working nurses and public employees as "special interests" whose asses he always kicks, calling his California Recovery Team - a group of wealthy industrialists bent on eliminating labor laws - a "grassroots" organization, there's this--Pete
Santa Monica, CA -- Governor Schwarzenegger should pull a political commercial off the air that promotes the junk food products of his campaign donors, consumer advocates said today. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) called on Schwarzenegger to return the quarter-million dollars he received from companies featured in the ad, and for the corporations to pay the market value of the advertising to the state because it is improper for the governor to use public office to sell corporate products.
The TV ad, released in May, features Schwarzenegger talking to people in a lunchroom, and places Pepsi and Arrowhead Water in prominent spots next to the governor for 1/3 of the ad. Donors connected to Pepsi Co. and Arrowhead Water's parent company, Nestle, gave the governor a total of $279,800 in campaign contributions. Also recognizable on-screen are Ruffles, Sun Chips, Cheetos and a SoBe Beverage, all brands owned by Pepsi.
View the ad at: http://www.JoinArnold.com
The practice, known as "product placement," is unheard of in political advertising. In fact, political ads typically avoid using logos because companies may not want to be associated with a particular candidate or issue. However, studios receive significant payments for featuring a product in a film or television show.
"Schwarzenegger has turned the governor's office into a vending machine. It is inconceivable that Schwarzenegger didn't know that Pepsi and Arrowhead were in his commercial, or that the free air time and lucrative association with the Governor of California would benefit them. The governor should return their quarter million in campaign cash, and repay the state for misusing his office as a corporate spokesman for his political donors," said Carmen Balber, consumer advocate with FTCR. "Every second of a political ad is important, so every second is planned. As a Hollywood actor and businessman, Governor Schwarzenegger knows that product placements are worth millions to corporate sponsors."
Pepsi gave the governor $30,000 in campaign contributions. The CEO of Nestle, the parent company of Arrowhead, gave Schwarzenegger $21,200. Another Nestle family company, Dreyer's Ice Cream, and company executives gave the governor $228,600.
In March, at the Arnold Fitness Weekend, Schwarzenegger proposed a ban on all junk food in schools.
"Governor Schwarzenegger said he wanted to remove junk food from our schools -- he should be willing to pull political ads off the air that hawk junk food for his donors at California's expense," said Balber.
Schwarzenegger should disclose who the people are in the advertisement, whether they were paid, and where the ad was shot, said FTCR.
Governor Schwarzenegger has received attention for appearing to promote his donors' products in the past, including: a campaign-style stop at Galpin Ford where the governor urged Californians to buy cars -- Galpin & owners gave the governor $97,000; and an appearance at a groundbreaking at Dole's corporate headquarters -- Dole and affiliated companies gave Schwarzenegger $421,600.
Pepsi was also promoted in Schwarzenegger's movie, Terminator 2, with a marketing plan described by one film magazine as "the sledgehammer approach taken to promote Pepsi in T2."
BAY AREA OFFERING FREE TRANSIT ON SMOGGY DAYS
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE - Twenty-one public transit agencies around the Bay Area will give morning commuters free rides on as many as five smog-choked weekdays this summer. . . The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is coordinating the free-ride program and paying the bulk of the approximately $4 million cost. The money will cover five Spare the Air days.
GREENPEACE ACTIVISTS SHUT DOWN RANGE ROVER
From Car-Free News
On May 16, 35 members of Greenpeace UK shut down an assembly line in Great Britain that was making Range Rover SUVs. The volunteers cut power to the assembly line and handcuffed themselves to unfinished vehicles along the 500-foot-long assembly line. Using yellow "crime scene" tape, they labelled the area a "climate crime scene." According to Greenpeace, this is the first time anywhere in the world that protesters have shut down a factory making Sports Utility Vehicles.
The activists did not shut down production of the Land Rover Defender, which they consider a vehicle for legitimate agricultural and industrial purposes. The point was to call attention to the wasteful nature of "off-road" cars built mainly for on-road personal transport and which have a fuel efficiency of just 12 miles per gallon. The new Range Rover Sport, says Greenpeace, has fewer miles to the gallon than the Model T Ford built 80 years ago.
On May 16, 35 members of Greenpeace UK shut down an assembly line in Great Britain that was making Range Rover SUVs. The volunteers cut power to the assembly line and handcuffed themselves to unfinished vehicles along the 500-foot-long assembly line. Using yellow "crime scene" tape, they labelled the area a "climate crime scene." According to Greenpeace, this is the first time anywhere in the world that protesters have shut down a factory making Sports Utility Vehicles.
The activists did not shut down production of the Land Rover Defender, which they consider a vehicle for legitimate agricultural and industrial purposes. The point was to call attention to the wasteful nature of "off-road" cars built mainly for on-road personal transport and which have a fuel efficiency of just 12 miles per gallon. The new Range Rover Sport, says Greenpeace, has fewer miles to the gallon than the Model T Ford built 80 years ago.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
To Serve and Protect?
I wonder how many of you have seen this. It is typical of the sort of violence against resistance that has become de rigeur in our increasingly fascist corporate state. I no longer feel outrage at these scenes because of the glaring naivete shown in them. Craven savagery such as is depicted here isn't an aberration, it actually shows that the system is, in fact, working! This is its explicit function! Do what we say or you'll get your ass kicked!
A group of citizens petitioning their government for redress of their grievances, as per the Constitution, always ends with the same result -- violent countermeasures by those whose charge is to serve and protect. What we aren't taught in the compulsory schooling system is that their true function is to serve the elite and to protect private property over civil rights in our corporate/capitalist polyarchal "democracy". Any sort of resistance has become ever more futile.
The one hope is in the documentation. The cameras seen again and again hold the real hope for the end of such fascist thuggery. Arm yourselves with cameras and document!
I truly believe that WE can be the government that WE were indoctrinated to believe that WE are. WE certainly have the numbers.
Time to remove the blinders, put on the gloves and raise the black flags...--Pete
A group of citizens petitioning their government for redress of their grievances, as per the Constitution, always ends with the same result -- violent countermeasures by those whose charge is to serve and protect. What we aren't taught in the compulsory schooling system is that their true function is to serve the elite and to protect private property over civil rights in our corporate/capitalist polyarchal "democracy". Any sort of resistance has become ever more futile.
The one hope is in the documentation. The cameras seen again and again hold the real hope for the end of such fascist thuggery. Arm yourselves with cameras and document!
I truly believe that WE can be the government that WE were indoctrinated to believe that WE are. WE certainly have the numbers.
Time to remove the blinders, put on the gloves and raise the black flags...--Pete
WATCHING THE COUNT
NORTH CAROLINA APPROVES IRV TRIAL RUN
NC GREEN PARTY - The North Carolina House voted in favor last week of a bill that would allow some counties to begin using instant-runoff voting in primaries. The bill passed on May 18 by a bipartisan vote of 79-32. "This was such a surprise," said Elena Everett, chair of the state Green Party. "We didn't expect this bill to come up for a vote in the House this year. This is such important legislation. It could save the state millions of dollars in election years and encourage more democratic
participation in government."
Instant-runoff is a form of balloting that prevents expensive runoff elections and, if used in partisan elections, encourages third-party participation while preventing "spoiling" by non-major party candidates.
On an IRV ballot, voters rank the candidates for each office in order of preference. If the first round of ballot counting does not yield a winner, the candidate with the fewest votes is thrown out and the second choices on those ballots are counted. This process continues until one candidate has received a winning portion of the votes. Although not all elections in North Carolina require a majority vote to declare a winner, if desired, instant runoff can assure a majority winner in any election.
The IRV bill passed by the House last week would allow a certain number of counties to give the procedure a try: "The counties will be volunteering," said Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina, "and then the state Board of Elections would have to approve the counties' plans and would oversee the whole thing. Up to 10 counties could be approved by the Board of Elections to participate in what is essentially a pilot program."
http://www.ncvce.org
NC GREEN PARTY - The North Carolina House voted in favor last week of a bill that would allow some counties to begin using instant-runoff voting in primaries. The bill passed on May 18 by a bipartisan vote of 79-32. "This was such a surprise," said Elena Everett, chair of the state Green Party. "We didn't expect this bill to come up for a vote in the House this year. This is such important legislation. It could save the state millions of dollars in election years and encourage more democratic
participation in government."
Instant-runoff is a form of balloting that prevents expensive runoff elections and, if used in partisan elections, encourages third-party participation while preventing "spoiling" by non-major party candidates.
On an IRV ballot, voters rank the candidates for each office in order of preference. If the first round of ballot counting does not yield a winner, the candidate with the fewest votes is thrown out and the second choices on those ballots are counted. This process continues until one candidate has received a winning portion of the votes. Although not all elections in North Carolina require a majority vote to declare a winner, if desired, instant runoff can assure a majority winner in any election.
The IRV bill passed by the House last week would allow a certain number of counties to give the procedure a try: "The counties will be volunteering," said Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina, "and then the state Board of Elections would have to approve the counties' plans and would oversee the whole thing. Up to 10 counties could be approved by the Board of Elections to participate in what is essentially a pilot program."
http://www.ncvce.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)