Archive for March 2010
What makes this man guilty for doing exactly what President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have men doing all over the world — Killing innocent people? People they consider to be “‘Untermensch‘ (sub-human) or in opposition” to the governments of America and Israel such as, “those persons of any other cultural, racial, political or religious affiliation deemed” as a “terrorist.”
ACHEN, Germany – A German court on Tuesday convicted an 88-year-old of murdering three Dutch civilians as part of a Nazi hit squad during World War II, capping six decades of efforts to bring the former Waffen SS man to justice.Heinrich Boere, number six on the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s list of most-wanted Nazis, was given the maximum sentence of life in prison for the 1944 killings.
Again we find justice tied to a person’s supposed “intent.” Boere testified:
He said he had no choice but to follow orders to carry out the killings.
“As a simple soldier, I learned to carry out orders,” Boere testified in December.
“And I knew that if I didn’t carry out my orders I would be breaking my oath and would be shot myself.”
But the prosecution said:
Judge Nohl noted that there was no evidence Boere ever even tried to question his orders.
He characterized the murders as hit-style slayings, with Boere and his accomplices dressed in civilian clothes and surprising their victims at their homes or places of work late at night or early in the morning.
“The victims had no real chance,” Nohl said.
What “real chance” has any of the hundreds of innocent civilians had killed by rockets and bombs from helicopters and planes? More importantly from unmanned drones, manned by coldblooded killers someplace in Nevada, etc.? Drones are nothing more than a sophisticated gun used just like Boere used, “silent” and lethal.
Is there any evidence that any member of these hit squads questions their orders? Or does the evidence show that they are all enthusiastic and willing participants in the murders they commit? This is a representative comment regarding lawyers representing GITMO prisoners published here:
“Many of the lawyers who freely took on the task of defending al Qaeda’s killers or advocating on their behalf not only undermined the legal underpinnings for detaining their clients, but also endangered our troops in combat against them abroad. Some call that indefensible; I call it treason.”
Here’s another dealing with military lawyers quoted from “The New McCarthyism”:
But rather than portray the dispute as a conflict over what is and isn’t within constitutional bounds, conservatives argue that anyone who opposed the Bush administration’s policies is a traitor set to undermine America’s safety from within the Justice Department.
“Terrorist sympathizers,” wrote National Review’s Andrew McCarthy in September, “have assumed positions throughout the Obama administration.”
This is the misleading statement you read in the newspaper where I live. The Report has written extensively on this matter in the Joe Blow Report.
John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
Posted: 03/19/2010 01:32:42 AM PDT
A Eureka Police officer shot a reportedly armed man in an alley off Summer Street at around 11 a.m. Thursday after a resident wrestled the man to the ground.
First, this statement by John Driscoll is extremely misleading and absolutely not substantiated in anything reported by the “resident” to him or Chief of Police, Garr Nielsen, in the Times-Standard or TV news to what actually happened at the time of the killing. The had absolutely no idea who the “resident” was or who or what the victim was. All they knew is that TWO men were on the ground struggling over a gun. So, what about that man told them who the “aggressor” was?
The officer’s that shot this man did not know before confronting him that he was armed, or that he was the actual owner of the gun. All they knew was two men were fighting on the ground. When he refused to release the gun as reportedly ordered, they, the two officers, summarily executed him, “‘The officer took his gun, put it at the base of Sequoia’s head, and fired a round into Sequoia’s head,’ he said, adding that the second shot ended the struggle and likely killed Sequoia instantly.”
Notice the attitude as reported in the paper on Tuesday, March 23, 2010, that had absolutely NO relevance at the time of the shooting demonstrating a negative bias toward them dead man:
Nielsen said Friday that the shots-fired call was made after Sequoia fired two shots at an acquaintance from whom Sequoia had allegedly stolen more than $1,500.
On Saturday, Nielsen reiterated his belief that his officers acted appropriately in the face of a grave threat.
At a press conference Thursday, Nielsen said that an armed man, later identified as Sequoia, pointed a gun at the officers and refused to drop the weapon.
This same reasoning and biased insinuations are backed up over on the popular blog Humboldt Herald: “Slain suspect acquitted of murder in 2008”. Read the comments on that posting and it will make the hair stand up on your head when you realize the attitudes that similarly allowed for Nazi hit-squads to operate in the open daylight.
If this guy was guilty of the crimes as charged in 1944 then so is everyone else that commits the same crimes today.
– Learned from the Jew
That’s the AMERICAN WAY. Their face; that of a hypocrite and a born liar. The tragedy is that millions of honest and sincere people put their trust in him to carry their load in the hope that a lot less of them would have to die. Too bad they wasted their time and votes. You think I’m talking about President Barach Obama, don’t you? I could be.
How many things has President Obama said he was for and wanted to do, only to do exactly what the Republican’s wanted? Once this health care bill is passed the so-called “Conservatives” in this country will have a lock on “pay-as-you-go” health care. These money-mongering, worthless insurance companies and their elitist owners will show all those sub-human peasants how to pay to die.
Just the same way the Jew’s in Israel are teaching those interloper Palestinians to pay to die too. Notice how the Jew’s say that they want piece, while the wage war on the innocent women and children. They deny it’s war, merely self-defense. Against women and children through decades of starvation, bombs and bullets? Then they lie about their desire for peace while all the time illegally taking land to build homes. If anyone thinks for a second that the Jews will ever deal with the Palestinians in a “two-state” way as equals, you hallucinate. To recognize and accept the Palestinians as legitimate equals after all these years of rejection would be to defacto admit their, the Jew’s, legitimate right to exist as a singular nation-state. That is why it is so important for the Jews to get the Palestinians and other Arab holdouts to unilaterally recognize Israel’s right to exist BEFORE the Jews will make peace. So what does any of this have to do with health insurance legislation?
This is how the mooch and pay conservatives think and deal with the progressives. Listen to the words of Dennis Kucinich talking about his discussions with President Obama and the Democrat leaders of the House and Senate: “” They would not budge a fraction of an inch! Not that way with the conservatives. Obama and his colleagues bend over backwards to accommodate them.
By the way, this article is about Dennis Kucinich letting President Barach Obama get away with selling out those American’s that voted for him. Kucinich says he didn’t want to be the one accused of bringing down Obama’s presidency. That really wasn’t his choice. Obama made that choice when he decided to set the “pay-as-go,” pay the insurance companies for some health care limits. When he decided to screw, America he made that decision. In the end Kucinich’s gutless, effeminate act was a sellout that cost him whatever credibility he had regarding the war, banking, the economy and single-payer health care.
The Democrats had one, maybe two chances to redeem themselves and this country after Bush and Cheney. They had to impeach Bush and Cheney and prosecute their conspirators. The Speaker of the House refused, stating she did not want to do anything that might handicap a Democratic president after Bush. That meant no impeachment, but it could allow the new president the opportunity to indict and prosecute Bush, Cheney and all the other responsible criminals. Instead, history and Barach Obama speak for themselves.
If you think that the War on Drugs is worth the price to enforce an ideology or some kind of religious belief you need to read what Charles Bowden says about “The War Next Door.” I’ve posted his complete interview below. The numbers of people killed are absolutely astounding!
Charles Bowden, reporter who has extensively covered the drug violence in Mexico. He is author of the forthcoming book, Murder City: Ciudad Juárez and the Global Economy’s New Killing Fields. His latest article for High Country News is called The War Next Door.
Here is the conversation as posted on Democracy Now:
AMY GOODMAN: Overall, nearly fifty people died over the weekend in Mexico in drug-gang violence, the latest victims of a conflict that’s killed nearly 19,000 people since Mexican President Felipe Calderon took office in 2006. The US has backed Calderon with hundreds of millions of dollars on military training and equipment. But critics say the increased militarization of the so-called drug war will only lead to more deaths.
Well, for more, we’re joined now by Charles Bowden. a reporter who has extensively covered the drug violence in Mexico, author of the forthcoming book Murder City: Ciudad Juárez and the Global Economy’s New Killing Fields. His latest article for High Country News is “The War Next Door”, available at hcn.org. Charles Bowden joins us now on the phone from Las Cruces, New Mexico, just across the border from Ciudad Juárez.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Charles Bowden. What happened this weekend?
CHARLES BOWDEN: Well, thank you. It’s my pleasure.
What happened is what happens every weekend: death. What is different, or was the reason you’re calling me, is because US citizens were killed, who worked for the consulate.
It’s impossible to see this as, one, an accident or ignore that it’s a provocation. The actual thing to compare it to is the abduction of DEA agent Enrique Camarena in February 1985 from in front of the US consulate in Guadalajara, in which he was then tortured for thirty hours, slaughtered and secretly buried, and caused an explosion in the US government. Now, you have to ask yourself, given that experience, why anybody in the drug business would want to repeat it. And I don’t have an answer to that, nor do I know why these people were killed or who killed them.
What I do know is that on Friday twelve people were slaughtered in Juárez, and nobody in the US paid any attention. What I do know is, on Saturday, there were eleven people slaughtered; three of them worked for the embassy. What I do know is, on Sunday, there were eight slaughtered, that Juárez is the most violent city in the world. It’s breaking down for various reasons.
What our response will be, I suspect, is more of the same. We’ll try and shore up the Mexican military, which has been killing people in the city busily for a year now. There’s hundreds of official complaints filed with the human rights office in the government. And we will announce our rededication to the war on drugs, which has imprisoned—created the largest prison population in the world in our own country.
I think that what your listeners should realize is the President of Mexico has said repeatedly that there’s no part of Mexico he doesn’t control. We have proof positive of his claim today. He’s arriving in Juárez for a visit. When he arrives is a secret. Where he goes is a secret. Who he sees is now a secret. That’s how much control he has over his own country.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And President Obama, he denounced what he called the brutal murders of these people in Juárez. And what is the role of the US in all of this? They have funded the so-called war on drugs in Mexico to the tune of more than a billion dollars. Where does this money go? And what is the role of the Mexican military in all of this?
CHARLES BOWDEN: Well, where the money goes is mainly, if you look into it, we’re selling them our hardware. This is part of our beloved military-industrial complex. That’s what they get for the money. But the Mexico military has historically been involved in drugs, I mean, going back decades. This is no secret. They were supervising Rancho Bufalo in Chihuahua, a huge marijuana plantation in the ’70s.
What we’re doing is what the—you know, we have three policies that affect Mexico. One, we have the free trade agreement, which has bankrupted small farmers in the country and destroyed small industry in the country. Two, we have an immigration policy which means a Mexican would have to live 150 years to get a visa to move to the United States, which has unleashed the largest human migration on earth. And three, we have our war on drugs, which over the course of forty years has made drugs in our country of higher quality more available and enriched a bunch of criminals in Mexico and the United States. That’s our policy.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And can you paint a picture of Ciudad Juárez? How has it changed over the years?
CHARLES BOWDEN: Well, you know, what’s changed is—this is simple. Twenty-seven percent of the houses in the city are abandoned. That’s 116,000 units. This is in a city where people live in cardboard boxes sometimes. Ten thousand businesses have given up and closed in the last year. Thirty to sixty thousand people from Juárez, mainly the rich, have moved across the river to El Paso for safety, including the mayor of Juárez, who likes to bunk in El Paso. And the publisher of the newspaper there lives in El Paso. Somewhere between 100,000 and 400,000 people simply left the city. A lot of the problem is economic, not simply violence. At least 100,000 jobs in the border factories have vanished during this recession because of the competition from Asia. There’s 500 to 900 gangs there, estimates vary.
So what you have is you have—and then you lay on top of it 10,000 federal troops and federal police agents all marauding. You have a city where no one goes out at night; where small businesses all pay extortion; where 20,000 cars were officially stolen last year; where 2,600-plus people were officially murdered last year; where nobody keeps track of the people who have been kidnapped and never come back; where nobody counts the people buried in secret burying grounds, and they, in an unseemly way, claw out of the earth from time to time. You’ve got a disaster. And you have a million people, too poor to leave, imprisoned in it. And they’re going to be the people that the Mexican army and the Mexican police will make sure the President never meets today when he descends on Juárez for his sort of official visit. That’s the city.
AMY GOODMAN: Charles Bowden, Hillary Clinton said last March, “We know very well that the drug traffickers are motivated by the demand for illegal drugs in the United States and that they are armed by the transport of weapons from the United States.” What is your response?
CHARLES BOWDEN: Well, to start with, it’s—drugs are sold in the United States because we have customers. But Hillary Clinton doesn’t think American citizens can consume substances she doesn’t approve of.
As far as the guns, that’s an open question. What you’re referring to is an ATF report which tracked guns that have been seized in Mexico. In that report, somewhere between 20 and 40 percent came from the US. The reason we don’t know where the others came from is the Mexican army, who has seized them, won’t let ATF agents examine them. Now, what you have to understand is, in a six-year period, out of an army of 250,000, about 150,000 deserted. I suspect some of the boys and girls who fled the Mexican army took guns with them. But if you shut down every gun shop in the United States, criminals in Mexico would still be armed.
So what we’re facing is a failed drug policy, but we can never admit that. That’s a sacred cause here. We’re a twelve-pack nation that won’t let anybody have a joint.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: In your latest article in High Country News, you write, “There is no serious War on Drugs. Rather, there is violence, nourished by the money to be made from drugs. And there are U.S. industries whose primary lifeblood comes from fighting a war on drugs.” Explain what you mean by that.
CHARLES BOWDEN: Well, certainly. We’re spending $30 to $40 billion a year on narcotics officers in this country. Every state in the union, if you get out of the house and drive, is now studded with little prisons, some private. They’re all dependent on the—on laws outlawing drugs. The income from drugs in Mexico exceeds all other sources of foreign currency, except possibly oil, and that’s debatable. In other words, if President Calderon succeeded in his claimed goal of eradicating the drug industry in Mexico, Mexico would collapse in a minute. That’s what I mean.
I mean, why don’t we face the fact that drugs are like alcohol? They’re part of our culture now. They’re not going away. If we want to make them illegal, we can continue to live the way we have: imprisoning our own people, creating a police state, having prisons everywhere. But no matter what we do, they’re going to be in the neighborhood, just as they are.
There was an interesting government study released a while ago that said 232 American cities now have the presence of Mexican drug organizations. Well, look, I’m a little older, possibly, than some of your listeners, but if you bought a joint in 1975, it wasn’t coming from Finland or some place. They’ve always been here. It’s a market. All we’ve got to decide is whether it’s legal or illegal. That’s it. It’s like gambling. It’s got a life of its own.
But we are destroying, or helping to destroy, a country next door by our policies. Although there are many explanations for the problems in Mexico, and most of them lie with Mexicans, but certainly our economic policy, NAFTA, our drug policies, the war on drugs, and our militarization of the country have proven to be nothing but a disaster for the Mexican people.
AMY GOODMAN: Charles Bowden, how does this relate to the hundreds of women who have been murdered in Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua over the last, oh, fifteen years? We’re talking nearly 500 or more.
CHARLES BOWDEN: Well, we’re talking nearly 500 in a fifteen-year period in a city that had a million and a half. Here’s how it relates. Essentially, none of those crimes have never been solved. During that same period, 95—between 90 and 95 percent of the murders have been males. None of those crimes have been solved. Last year, of those 2,600-plus murders in Juárez, there were thirty arrests. Not solutions, just arrests. The way they figure in is, if you’re a Mexican citizen, anybody can kill you, and nothing’s going to happen to them. And it doesn’t matter if you’re a child, a man or a woman, that their justice system is broken. I can understand, because of the sort of cause célèbre quality while people are focused on the dead women, but I think we ought to focus on the dead human beings. This city kills people, and nothing happens to the killers.
“This city kills people, and nothing happens to the killers.” Why? Because this “War on Drugs” has failed. Do we have to wait until this kind of butchery comes to America for these Authoritarian Elite’s are brought to their senses?
Long before this man became President of the United States Joe Blow predicted his systemic betrayal. It wasn’t until nearly a year into his presidency that people began to talk betrayal and actually use the word. When it came to George W. Bush doing the same thing, all you ever heard was that he is “stupid,” or misunderstood. More often than not, you heard that he probably made a mistake. So, we ended up with either a stupid or incompetent President and that was okay. Problem Barack Obama is he’s too smart and speaks too well to pass him off as an incompetent buffoon. He was and is malicious and deliberate all the way. He’s not interested in the reasons people voted for him. He’s only cares for his elitist buddies interests. The only ones that are stupid and incompetent are all those millions of people that voted for a corrupt and failed system.
–Joe–Everything Is About Something Different—
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about what seemed to be a glaring (and quite typical) scam perpetrated by Congressional Democrats: all year long, they insisted that the White House and a majority of Democratic Senators vigorously supported a public option, but the only thing oh-so-unfortunately preventing its enactment was the filibuster: sadly, we have 50 but not 60 votes for it, they insisted. Democratic pundits used that claim to push for “filibuster reform,” arguing that if only majority rule were required in the Senate, then the noble Democrats would be able to deliver all sorts of wonderful progressive reforms that they were truly eager to enact but which the evil filibuster now prevents. In response, advocates of the public option kept arguing that the public option could be accomplished by reconciliation — where only 50 votes, not 60, would be required — but Obama loyalists scorned that reconciliation proposal, insisting (at least before the Senate passed a bill with 60 votes) that using reconciliation was Unserious, naive, procedurally impossible, and politically disastrous.
But all those claims were put to the test — all those bluffs were called — once the White House decided that it had to use reconciliation to pass a final health care reform bill. That meant that any changes to the Senate bill (which had passed with 60 votes) — including the addition of the public option — would only require 50 votes, which Democrats assured progressives all year long that they had. Great news for the public option, right? Wrong. As soon as it actually became possible to pass it, the 50 votes magically vanished. Senate Democrats (and the White House) were willing to pretend they supported a public option only as long as it was impossible to pass it. Once reconciliation gave them the opportunity they claimed all year long they needed — a “majority rule” system — they began concocting ways to ensure that it lacked 50 votes.
All of that was bad enough, but now the scam is getting even more extreme, more transparent. Faced with the dilemma of how they could possibly justify their year-long claimed support for the public option only now to fail to enact it, more and more Democratic Senators were pressured into signing a letter supporting the enactment of the public option through reconciliation; that number is now above 40, and is rapidly approaching 50. In other words, there is a serious possibility that the Senate might enact a public option if there is a vote on it, because it’s very difficult for these Senators to vote “No” after pretending all year long — on the record — that they supported it. In fact, The Huffington Post‘s Ryan Grim yesterday wrote: “the votes appear to exist to include a public option. It’s only a matter of will.”
The one last hope for Senate Democratic leaders was to avoid a vote altogether on the public option, thereby relieving Senators of having to take a position and being exposed. But that trick would require the cooperation of all Senators — any one Senator can introduce a public option amendment during the reconciliation and force a vote — and it now seems that Bernie Sanders, to his great credit, is refusing to go along with the Democrats’ sham and will do exactly that: ignore the wishes of the Senate leadership and force a roll call vote on the public option.
So now what is to be done? They only need 50 votes, so they can’t use the filibuster excuse. They don’t seem able to prevent a vote, as they tried to do, because Sanders will force one. And it seems there aren’t enough Senate Democrats willing to vote against the public option after publicly saying all year long they supported it, which means it might get 50 votes if a roll call vote is held. So what is the Senate Democratic leadership now doing? They’re whipping against the public option, which they pretended all year along to so vigorously support:
Senate Democratic leaders are concerned about the amount of mischief their own Members could create if or when a health care reconciliation bill comes up for debate. And sources said some supporters of creating a public insurance option are privately worried that they will be asked to vote against the idea during debate on the bill, which could occur before March 26.
Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill. “We have to tell people, ‘You just have to swallow hard’ and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen,” Durbin, who supports a public option, told reporters.
If — as they claimed all year long — a majority of Congressional Democrats and the White House all support a public option, why would they possibly whip against it, and ensure its rejection, at exactly the moment when it finally became possible to pass it? If majorities of the House and Senate support it, as does the White House, how could the inclusion of a public option possibly jeopardize passage of the bill?
I’ve argued since August that the evidence was clear that the White House had privately negotiated away the public option and didn’t want it, even as the President claimed publicly (and repeatedly) that he did. And while I support the concept of “filibuster reform” in theory, it’s long seemed clear that it would actually accomplish little, because the 60-vote rule does not actually impede anything. Rather, it is the excuse Democrats fraudulently invoke, using what I called the Rotating Villain tactic (it’s now Durbin’s turn), to refuse to pass what they claim they support but are politically afraid to pass, or which they actually oppose (sorry, we’d so love to do this, but gosh darn it, we just can’t get 60 votes). If only 50 votes were required, they’d just find ways to ensure they lacked 50. Both of those are merely theories insusceptible to conclusive proof, but if I had the power to create the most compelling evidence for those theories that I could dream up, it would be hard to surpass what Democrats are doing now with regard to the public option. They’re actually whipping against the public option. Could this sham be any more transparent?
UPDATE: One related point: when I was on Morning Joe several weeks ago, I argued this point — why aren’t Democrats including the public option in the reconciliation package given that they have the 50 votes in favor of the public option — and, in response, Chuck Todd recited White House spin and DC conventional wisdom (needless to say) by insisting that they do not have the votes to pass the public option. If that’s true — if they lack the votes to pass the public option through reconciliation? — why is Dick Durbin now whipping against it, telling Senators — in his own words — “You just have to swallow hard’ and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen”?
No discussion of the public option is complete without noting how much the private health insurance industry despises it; the last thing they want, of course, is the beginning of real competition and choice.
The Declaration Of Independence starts out by saying:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” [source]
This Declaration was developed and presented to the other nation states by a group of white men as their moral basis and legal justification for rebelling against their rightful government. They assert that “Governments are instituted among men” by those they govern to “secure” certain “rights.” That because these governments are empowered by these same people to govern, the people, should the Government cause the destruction of these, “ it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” that Government and institute a new Government.” Some people believe that is what happens every four years in America when they can elect a new President. This is NOT what the Declaration Of Independence was about. It was about the very problem existing most noticeably in the past twenty years, even more striking in the last year, everything stays the same regardless the President or Party governing.
When that group of men secured their new government one of the things they did was provide the means for the governed to address their governing representatives, or so everyone believed. They believe in their rights to peaceful protest and demonstration when all other methods fail to promote necessary changes. Changes may come, but they are mostly slow and laborious and not always what serves the people best. Many people justify this method of redress by the works and words of Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi and Martin Luther King. While he did advocate and use non-violence and peaceful resistance he also us non-cooperation considered non-violent activism.
Non-cooperation is extremely effective when properly employed. It requires first, a mindset based upon a strict set of guiding principles and governing rules. This produces and inherent attitude that is self-manifesting of that reality or base way of thinking. When someone says something or advocates a position contrary to your beliefs you immediately resist, object and stop the automatic acceptance of the matter. You simply do not cooperate with their assertions of authority and legitimacy to promote themselves, their opinions, ideas or beliefs. They may have certain rights to those thoughts or beliefs, but they do not have the “unalienable Right” impose them on others. Specially, when they are trying to use those so-called rights to justify getting everyone to go along with their legitimate right to exist.
A good example of this is the Nation of Israel that by force of arms self-ordained its existence declaring the right and legal title to certain lands in Palestine owned and occupied by the Palestinian people. Israels illegal occupation of that land has produced one atrocity after another. Whatever legitimacy they and others may claim the Jew had for occupying that land, their self-same existence decries any of those rights. The only reason Israel is still occupying that land is because of the Palestinians overt and passive cooperation with the Jews. They still think there is a “two-state solution” in the offing. That was joke to start with and used to delay and obfuscate all effort to legitimize the Palestinians. Some Palestinians, however, have figured out that “what goes around always comes around.” In 2005 they started to program for “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” of Israel. On Passover Day, March 30, 2010, this BDS movement is calling for a uniting day of action. You can learn more about the movement and action day here, at the BDS Campaign. [http://www.bdsmovement.net/]
For more on this same subject there was a good discussion between Omar Barghouti and Rabbi Arthur Waskow here. [http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/4/bds] Both men were essentially in agreement, just with a different perspective. Ribbi Waskow, the older man, looked at the issue as it was in the past, compared the Omar Barghouti’s present day reality. Personally, it’s been my judgment that the day for reconciling the two peoples with the Jew’s recognizing the Palestinians legitimate right to exist, specially with some sort of worthless two-state solution defined by the Jews and the US for the Palestinians, has long passed.
Another good example of non-cooperation is set out by Johann Hari a columnist for the Independent in London and a contributing writer for Slate. I am always impressed by these rare young people that are inspiring, knowledgeable, articulate and unafraid to speak truth. You can read or watch the complete interview here, “The Real Climategate: Conservation Groups Align with World’s Worst Polluters.” [http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/9/the_real_climategate_conservation_groups_align]
Here’s the final part of what Johann said about the direct action that works in England:
AMY GOODMAN: Johann Hari, you quote Jim Hansen, the world-renowned climatologist from the NASA Institute—the Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA. You start by referring to Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel, David Bookbinder, ridiculing the center’s attempts to make 350 parts per million a legally binding requirement. He said it was a “truly pointless exercise” and headed to “well-deserved bureaucratic oblivion.” And you ask, “Why would the Sierra Club oppose a measure designed to prevent environmental collapse? The Club didn’t respond to my requests for an explanation,” you said. But you went on to say, “Climate scientists are bemused. When asked about this, Hansen said, ‘I find the behavior of most environmental NGOs to be shocking… I [do] not want to listen to their lame excuses for their abominable behavior.’”
Now, could it be that groups don’t have to receive this money, it’s just kind of insider Washington mentality, even if it’s in the rest of the world, like with the health insurance debate, that they accept the premises of the opposition and they don’t want to go outside of a very small range of what they can ask for, they just don’t believe they can get things done?
JOHANN HARI: I think you’re absolutely right. That is part of it. It’s part of a political culture. Jim Hansen, great man, is not alone. Virtually everyone who doesn’t work for these corporate environmental groups, and a lot of people who do, can’t understand this behavior, except as a result of the combination of corruption and exactly what you say, a kind of dysfunctional political culture.
But again, I don’t want to leave your viewers with a downer, because it’s really important they understand, it doesn’t have to be this way. Here in Britain, we’ve had a really good example of how you work very differently on environmental change, and it works. Instead of trying to work within a corrupt system, instead of constantly praising the pathetic efforts of our governments, a huge coalition of people here in Britain took direct action. An organization called Climate Camp, a very loose, democratic organization, began to physically blockade new airports and coal power stations. They said, “We will not let this pass.” They stood in front of coal trains. And when they were arrested, they said they were acting in their own self-defense, and a jury of their peers acquitted them, saying they were right, this is an emergency, we have got to act. (Emphasis mine.)
And it’s had an amazing effect. All new coal power stations in Britain are under very serious political trouble. They probably won’t happen. And airport expansion, that was seen as absolutely dead cert, supported by all the main political parties, is now dead in the water.
The model of compromise compromise, praise the Democrats, say how wonderful they are, even when they’re kicking you in the face, doesn’t work. The model of really directly taking to the streets, the way that change has always happened in America and in all of the world—Martin Luther King did not praise every peripatetic morsel that came from the Democratic Party. He called people to the streets, and they fought for it. And it took a long time.
Then there are the local folks training and gearing up:
Tribal members train with Earth First! in Six Rivers National Forest showdown
You can read the complete story as detailed in the North Coast Journal here. The following is an excerpt:
Tree climbs were only one part of the three-day KJC (Klamath Justice Coalition) training camp. There were discussions of the history and effectiveness of non-violent civil disobedience and demonstrations as well as diagrams of many ways to block a log road or a timber sale. One handout was ambitiously titled “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action” and it ranged from 1) Public Speeches to 30) Rude gestures to 173) Nonviolent obstruction. This was a monkey wrench grad school.
The training was attended by members of Hupa, Karuk and Yurok tribes as well as many non-natives from neighboring communities.
As an old logger that worked for years with local Indian loggers and someone that had first-hand dealings with how the Bureau of Indian Affairs worked with local timber companies to divest local tribes of their old growth Redwood timber lands, I have mixed feelings about what they are doing. Personally, it is the young people that continue to impress me with their ingenuity, resourcefulness and courage. Something their predecessors did not show. Nor did mine.
Non-cooperation works! It all starts with yourself and your neighbor.
[ADDENDUM :: Tuesday, March 9, 2010]
This is a lesson NOT learned in British Columbia, The water war – Okanagan logging blockade.
“Instead of trying to work within a corrupt system, instead of constantly praising the pathetic efforts of our governments — The model of compromise compromise, praise the Democrats, say how wonderful they are, even when they’re kicking you in the face, doesn’t work.” -Johann Heri
Notice what Mike Geoghegan is a political commentator for Vancouverite News Service says: “Tolko (a timber company) is not the enemy in this situation, government mismanagement and indifference is. The only thing that will change that is if the politicians in Ottawa and Victoria see that there are actually enough people who care about the issue of safe drinking water to make them resolve this conflict.”
He hasn’t come to terms yet with the fact you can’t do business with a corrupt system.