Sunday, June 26, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
ACTIVISM: World-Wide Hippies.com
http://godsaie.ning.com/forum/topics/activism-worldwide-hippies
Dear friends (Boomers and otherwise),
Help us revive the Boomer-conscience!
Here is a big question for you: Will Baby Boomers—some of the 77 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964—become a powerful force by reconnecting to the ideals of our youth? Could Boomers, desperate for moral and political vision, join forces in our society and say: "We are going to be a positive force for change as we age"?
Of course, if you are reading this, you are probably already engaged, making positive contributions to change. But it will require banding together to leverage our power. Wouldn't it be inspiring if Boomers came full circle? If we used the strength of our enormous numbers, and our idealism? If we embraced the economic, environmental and social justice issues that will unite generations and help to create the better world that we so desperately need?
It Is Possible. It Is Necessary.
As a Boomer, I think it is possible. And given the direction in which our country is headed, it is a necessity!
We can see it as a generational responsibility for Boomers to play a strong, positive role in society, for our younger friends, colleagues and families, for our children and grandchildren, for everyone. It is vital that we develop a broader awareness, that we celebrate our roots and our history.
In fact, I think it is so important that we aspire to positive Boomer-consciousness that we at AlterNet are planning to establish a special Boomer Web site of thinkers, writers and participants—like you—to explore the exciting potential of a more liberated Baby Boomer generation, to jumpstart some creative Boomer thinking and discussions.
No one is really doing this. We can be ahead of the curve. But we need to do it together. I need you to participate, and I need your help. More about that in a moment.
An Antidote to Generational Conflict
It is easy to get the feeling that in some circles, like corporate media pundits, there is a conspiracy to blame Baby Boomers for economic fears about the future. Boomers are being scapegoated for being greedy and wanting more than our fair share at the expense of future generations.
As the blogger Karoli writes, "I am a Baby Boomer and lately that means I'm viewed as a piggy citizen who wants more than my fair share at the expense of...gasp!…my children. And my future grandchildren, of course."
That doesn't make too much sense, and in fact, it is a pack of lies.
But this is why Boomers have to be politically awake. The scapegoating pundits are the same forces that are spreading lies about Social Security and Medicare—and those are direct attacks on Boomers. But the generations that follow us will also suffer. That is why we need to stick together.
A Familiar Name: The Koch Brothers and a Pack of Lies
Our friends at Brave New Films recently documented how the right-wing echo chamber, funded lavishly by the Koch brothers, is at work to scapegoat Boomers with fear-mongering. Lies are generated and repeated countless times, often featuring the relentless repetition of two words: collapse and bankrupt.
The first lie is: "We must raise the retirement age, or the economy will collapse."
The second lie is: "Social security is bankrupt."
These two statements have been repeated thousands of times in and on American media. Yet there is not one scintilla of evidence that either one is accurate.
AlterNetters Are of All Generations
Of course, AlterNet readers are all ages, from teenagers to septuagenarians. And many of AlterNet's staff members are young people.
It is our common AlterNet experience that we want to make the world a better place by being well-informed and taking action, and enjoying life fully, while doing the right thing. This set of values crosses all generations. But a lot of AlterNet readers are Boomers. And I bet you have thought about this question: "How will I contribute as I get older?"
It is time to step up. That's why we are creating a "Boomer fund." It will help generate stories, ideas, cover inspirational examples, create discussions and debates, and generally raise the consciousness of America's huge Boomer cohort. It will help fight the battles to protect Medicare, Social Security and pensions, and come up with even better ideas for the future.
This Is a Startup
We are starting from scratch. This is something altogether new. All the money raised from this and future appeals will be used to work toward the goal of a progressive Boomer generation playing a positive role in the future of our society. Will you help? We are confident that we can raise enough startup money: $25,000 is a modest goal that will get us rolling. Then we will launch in September, after the summer, when we will all need to hit the ground running for the next stage to ensure a better future.
So please, think about this idea. If it makes sense to you, join us at the beginning. Break new ground with us and make a contribution.
And start thinking about what you want to share. In fact, if you don't want to wait, write us at Boomers@alternet.org and tell us what you think.
How we can make this work for the future? And what are your ideas? A contribution will help a lot, too.
Thanks for hearing me out,
Don Hazen
Executive Editor
Dear friends (Boomers and otherwise),
Help us revive the Boomer-conscience!
Here is a big question for you: Will Baby Boomers—some of the 77 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964—become a powerful force by reconnecting to the ideals of our youth? Could Boomers, desperate for moral and political vision, join forces in our society and say: "We are going to be a positive force for change as we age"?
Of course, if you are reading this, you are probably already engaged, making positive contributions to change. But it will require banding together to leverage our power. Wouldn't it be inspiring if Boomers came full circle? If we used the strength of our enormous numbers, and our idealism? If we embraced the economic, environmental and social justice issues that will unite generations and help to create the better world that we so desperately need?
It Is Possible. It Is Necessary.
As a Boomer, I think it is possible. And given the direction in which our country is headed, it is a necessity!
We can see it as a generational responsibility for Boomers to play a strong, positive role in society, for our younger friends, colleagues and families, for our children and grandchildren, for everyone. It is vital that we develop a broader awareness, that we celebrate our roots and our history.
In fact, I think it is so important that we aspire to positive Boomer-consciousness that we at AlterNet are planning to establish a special Boomer Web site of thinkers, writers and participants—like you—to explore the exciting potential of a more liberated Baby Boomer generation, to jumpstart some creative Boomer thinking and discussions.
No one is really doing this. We can be ahead of the curve. But we need to do it together. I need you to participate, and I need your help. More about that in a moment.
An Antidote to Generational Conflict
It is easy to get the feeling that in some circles, like corporate media pundits, there is a conspiracy to blame Baby Boomers for economic fears about the future. Boomers are being scapegoated for being greedy and wanting more than our fair share at the expense of future generations.
As the blogger Karoli writes, "I am a Baby Boomer and lately that means I'm viewed as a piggy citizen who wants more than my fair share at the expense of...gasp!…my children. And my future grandchildren, of course."
That doesn't make too much sense, and in fact, it is a pack of lies.
But this is why Boomers have to be politically awake. The scapegoating pundits are the same forces that are spreading lies about Social Security and Medicare—and those are direct attacks on Boomers. But the generations that follow us will also suffer. That is why we need to stick together.
A Familiar Name: The Koch Brothers and a Pack of Lies
Our friends at Brave New Films recently documented how the right-wing echo chamber, funded lavishly by the Koch brothers, is at work to scapegoat Boomers with fear-mongering. Lies are generated and repeated countless times, often featuring the relentless repetition of two words: collapse and bankrupt.
The first lie is: "We must raise the retirement age, or the economy will collapse."
The second lie is: "Social security is bankrupt."
These two statements have been repeated thousands of times in and on American media. Yet there is not one scintilla of evidence that either one is accurate.
AlterNetters Are of All Generations
Of course, AlterNet readers are all ages, from teenagers to septuagenarians. And many of AlterNet's staff members are young people.
It is our common AlterNet experience that we want to make the world a better place by being well-informed and taking action, and enjoying life fully, while doing the right thing. This set of values crosses all generations. But a lot of AlterNet readers are Boomers. And I bet you have thought about this question: "How will I contribute as I get older?"
It is time to step up. That's why we are creating a "Boomer fund." It will help generate stories, ideas, cover inspirational examples, create discussions and debates, and generally raise the consciousness of America's huge Boomer cohort. It will help fight the battles to protect Medicare, Social Security and pensions, and come up with even better ideas for the future.
This Is a Startup
We are starting from scratch. This is something altogether new. All the money raised from this and future appeals will be used to work toward the goal of a progressive Boomer generation playing a positive role in the future of our society. Will you help? We are confident that we can raise enough startup money: $25,000 is a modest goal that will get us rolling. Then we will launch in September, after the summer, when we will all need to hit the ground running for the next stage to ensure a better future.
So please, think about this idea. If it makes sense to you, join us at the beginning. Break new ground with us and make a contribution.
And start thinking about what you want to share. In fact, if you don't want to wait, write us at Boomers@alternet.org and tell us what you think.
How we can make this work for the future? And what are your ideas? A contribution will help a lot, too.
Thanks for hearing me out,
Don Hazen
Executive Editor
CHINESE ACTIVIST AI AND GOD'S AIE
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137413887/a-chinese-dissident-is-freed-but-hes-still-not-free?ft=1&f=1001
Simon Says by Scott Simon
A Chinese Dissident Is Freed, But He's Still Not Free
by Scott Simon
June 25, 2011
AP Activist artist Ai Weiwei speaks to journalists gathered outside his home in Beijing, China, Thursday.
Ai Weiwei, the Chinese artist and human rights activist, was released from prison late Wednesday night, and told western reporters, "In legal terms, I'm — how do you say? — on bail. So I cannot give any interviews. But I'm fine."
The state news agency says Mr. Ai was released after 80 days "because of his good attitude in confessing his crimes," which the state says is tax evasion, though he was held by the internal security bureau.
Mr. Ai, who is 54, has bluntly accused the Chinese government of corruption, coercion, and cover-ups. But this week Ai Weiwei has refused to speak publicly and shut down his Twitter account.
"He has a Damocles sword hanging over his head," says Nicholas Bequelin of Human Rights Watch in Hong Kong. "Any time he opens his mouth, he puts himself in danger."
It's understandable why Mr. Ai would try to elude that sword. His arrest provoked strong statements from presidents and parliaments. But the Chinese government is not much swayed by speeches, petitions, polls, or even shame. They kept Lu Xiabo in prison last year while officials in Oslo placed his medal for the Nobel Peace Prize on an empty chair.
Several recent cases suggest the Chinese might be developing what amounts to a policy of "catch and release"—with restrictions.
Zhao Lianhai, who criticized the Chinese government for covering up a tainted milk scandal, was released from prison last year after he said, "I support and thank the government, and I feel deeply sorry for the remarks I made against the government in the past."
He agreed not to speak about his case. But just three months later, Mr. Zhao tweeted, "I'm ashamed of myself. I cannot stay silent anymore. I'm ready to go back to prison. I would rather die than give in."
We use that phrase—"I'd rather die"—so casually in America. We can scream to the press, sue the government, and try to get rid of corrupt or brutal public officials without ever thinking that we will really die for it. But in China, people already have.
Ai Weiwei's sister has told reporters, "All I care about is that he's home now." She knows that you can never assume that anyone inside a Chinese prison will be safe, or ever get out.
But Ai Weiwei's art goes on talking.
His piece, Circle of Animals, is on display at London's Somerset House this weekend: the 12 animal heads of the Chinese zodiac. But the mouths of the dragon, rat, and other animals of the Chinese calendar are open and animated—like they're talking. And Ai Weiwei has carved below, "Without freedom of speech there is no modern world, just the barbaric one."
Simon Says by Scott Simon
A Chinese Dissident Is Freed, But He's Still Not Free
by Scott Simon
June 25, 2011
AP Activist artist Ai Weiwei speaks to journalists gathered outside his home in Beijing, China, Thursday.
Ai Weiwei, the Chinese artist and human rights activist, was released from prison late Wednesday night, and told western reporters, "In legal terms, I'm — how do you say? — on bail. So I cannot give any interviews. But I'm fine."
The state news agency says Mr. Ai was released after 80 days "because of his good attitude in confessing his crimes," which the state says is tax evasion, though he was held by the internal security bureau.
Mr. Ai, who is 54, has bluntly accused the Chinese government of corruption, coercion, and cover-ups. But this week Ai Weiwei has refused to speak publicly and shut down his Twitter account.
"He has a Damocles sword hanging over his head," says Nicholas Bequelin of Human Rights Watch in Hong Kong. "Any time he opens his mouth, he puts himself in danger."
It's understandable why Mr. Ai would try to elude that sword. His arrest provoked strong statements from presidents and parliaments. But the Chinese government is not much swayed by speeches, petitions, polls, or even shame. They kept Lu Xiabo in prison last year while officials in Oslo placed his medal for the Nobel Peace Prize on an empty chair.
Several recent cases suggest the Chinese might be developing what amounts to a policy of "catch and release"—with restrictions.
Zhao Lianhai, who criticized the Chinese government for covering up a tainted milk scandal, was released from prison last year after he said, "I support and thank the government, and I feel deeply sorry for the remarks I made against the government in the past."
He agreed not to speak about his case. But just three months later, Mr. Zhao tweeted, "I'm ashamed of myself. I cannot stay silent anymore. I'm ready to go back to prison. I would rather die than give in."
We use that phrase—"I'd rather die"—so casually in America. We can scream to the press, sue the government, and try to get rid of corrupt or brutal public officials without ever thinking that we will really die for it. But in China, people already have.
Ai Weiwei's sister has told reporters, "All I care about is that he's home now." She knows that you can never assume that anyone inside a Chinese prison will be safe, or ever get out.
But Ai Weiwei's art goes on talking.
His piece, Circle of Animals, is on display at London's Somerset House this weekend: the 12 animal heads of the Chinese zodiac. But the mouths of the dragon, rat, and other animals of the Chinese calendar are open and animated—like they're talking. And Ai Weiwei has carved below, "Without freedom of speech there is no modern world, just the barbaric one."
YES WE CAN CHANGE THE WORLD
From YES! Magazine---the last part of a speech (to students, i think....ed. note)
We are at one of history’s great turning points. During your lifetime you will see world changes more significant in scope than human beings have ever witnessed before. You will have the opportunity to participate in the redesign of the basic systems that support our society—our energy system, food system, transport system, and financial system.
I say this with some confidence, because our existing energy, food, transport, and financial systems can’t be maintained under the circumstances that are developing—circumstances of fossil fuel depletion and an unstable climate. As a result, what you choose to do in life could have far greater implications than you may currently realize.
Over the course of your lifetime society will need to solve some basic problems:
How to grow food sustainably without fossil fuel inputs and without eroding topsoil or drawing down increasingly scarce supplies of fresh water;
How to support 7 billion people without depleting natural resources—including forests and fish, as well as finite stocks of minerals and metals; and
How to reorganize our financial system so that it can continue to perform its essential functions—reinvesting savings into socially beneficial projects—in the context of an economy that is stable or maybe even shrinking due to declining energy supplies, rather than continually growing.
Each of these core problems will take time, intelligence, and courage to solve. This is a challenge suitable for heroes and heroines, one that’s big enough to keep even the greatest generation in history fully occupied. If , every crisis is an opportunitythen this is the biggest opportunity humanity has ever seen.
Making the best of the circumstances that life sends our way is perhaps the most important attitude and skill that we can hope to develop. The circumstance that life is currently serving up is one of fundamentally changed economic conditions. As this decade and this century wear on, we Americans will have fewer material goods and we will be less mobile. In a few years we will look back on late 20th century America as time and place of advertising-stoked consumption that was completely out of proportion to what Nature can sustainably provide. I suspect we will think of those times—with a combination of longing and regret—as a lost golden age of abundance, but also a time of foolishness and greed that put the entire world at risk.
It’s a time when it will be possible to truly change the world, because the world has to change anyway.
Making the best of our new circumstances will mean finding happiness in designing higher-quality products that can be re-used, repaired, and recycled almost endlessly; and finding fulfillment in human relationships and cultural activities rather than mindless shopping. Fortunately, we know from recent cross-cultural psychological studies that there is little correlation between levels of consumption and happiness. That tells us that life can in fact be better without fossil fuels.
In the Face of this Truth
It’s time to talk honestly about collapse–no matter how others may respond.
So whether we view these as hard times or as times of great possibility is really a matter of perspective. I would emphasize the latter. This is a time of unprecedented opportunity for service to one’s community. It’s a time when it will be possible to truly change the world, because the world has to change anyway. It is a time when you can make a difference by helping to shape this needed and inevitable change.
As I travel, I meet young people in every part of this country who are taking up the challenge of building a post-petroleum future: a 25-year-old farmer in New Jersey who plows with horses and uses no chemicals; the operator of a biodiesel co-op in Northampton; a solar installer in Oakland, California. The energy transition will require new thinking in every field you can imagine, from fine arts to banking. Companies everywhere are hiring sustainability officers to help guide them through the challenges and opportunities. At the same time, many young people are joining energy and climate activist organizations like 350.org and Transition Initiatives.
So here is my message to you in a nutshell: Fossil fuels made it possible to build the world you have inhabited during your childhood and throughout your years in the education system. Now it’s up to you to imagine and build the world after fossil fuels. This is the challenge and opportunity of your lifetimes. I wish you good cheer and good luck as you make the most of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Heinberg is a senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute and the author of The Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies, Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines, and The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality.
Interested?
Rocky Times Ahead: Are You Ready?
This isn't a future you can, or should, face alone. How to make sure you don't have to.
Crash Course In Resilience
How to prepare for the uncertain world of failing economies, climate change, and oil depletion.
How We Saved the Climate (and Ourselves)
Bill McKibben imagines himself in the year 2100 and asks what it took to save the world.
YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. Heinberg, R. (2011, May 12). Peak Oil: A Chance to Change the World. Retrieved June 24, 2011, from YES! Magazine Web site: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/peak-oil-a-chance-to-change-the-world. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
We are at one of history’s great turning points. During your lifetime you will see world changes more significant in scope than human beings have ever witnessed before. You will have the opportunity to participate in the redesign of the basic systems that support our society—our energy system, food system, transport system, and financial system.
I say this with some confidence, because our existing energy, food, transport, and financial systems can’t be maintained under the circumstances that are developing—circumstances of fossil fuel depletion and an unstable climate. As a result, what you choose to do in life could have far greater implications than you may currently realize.
Over the course of your lifetime society will need to solve some basic problems:
How to grow food sustainably without fossil fuel inputs and without eroding topsoil or drawing down increasingly scarce supplies of fresh water;
How to support 7 billion people without depleting natural resources—including forests and fish, as well as finite stocks of minerals and metals; and
How to reorganize our financial system so that it can continue to perform its essential functions—reinvesting savings into socially beneficial projects—in the context of an economy that is stable or maybe even shrinking due to declining energy supplies, rather than continually growing.
Each of these core problems will take time, intelligence, and courage to solve. This is a challenge suitable for heroes and heroines, one that’s big enough to keep even the greatest generation in history fully occupied. If , every crisis is an opportunitythen this is the biggest opportunity humanity has ever seen.
Making the best of the circumstances that life sends our way is perhaps the most important attitude and skill that we can hope to develop. The circumstance that life is currently serving up is one of fundamentally changed economic conditions. As this decade and this century wear on, we Americans will have fewer material goods and we will be less mobile. In a few years we will look back on late 20th century America as time and place of advertising-stoked consumption that was completely out of proportion to what Nature can sustainably provide. I suspect we will think of those times—with a combination of longing and regret—as a lost golden age of abundance, but also a time of foolishness and greed that put the entire world at risk.
It’s a time when it will be possible to truly change the world, because the world has to change anyway.
Making the best of our new circumstances will mean finding happiness in designing higher-quality products that can be re-used, repaired, and recycled almost endlessly; and finding fulfillment in human relationships and cultural activities rather than mindless shopping. Fortunately, we know from recent cross-cultural psychological studies that there is little correlation between levels of consumption and happiness. That tells us that life can in fact be better without fossil fuels.
In the Face of this Truth
It’s time to talk honestly about collapse–no matter how others may respond.
So whether we view these as hard times or as times of great possibility is really a matter of perspective. I would emphasize the latter. This is a time of unprecedented opportunity for service to one’s community. It’s a time when it will be possible to truly change the world, because the world has to change anyway. It is a time when you can make a difference by helping to shape this needed and inevitable change.
As I travel, I meet young people in every part of this country who are taking up the challenge of building a post-petroleum future: a 25-year-old farmer in New Jersey who plows with horses and uses no chemicals; the operator of a biodiesel co-op in Northampton; a solar installer in Oakland, California. The energy transition will require new thinking in every field you can imagine, from fine arts to banking. Companies everywhere are hiring sustainability officers to help guide them through the challenges and opportunities. At the same time, many young people are joining energy and climate activist organizations like 350.org and Transition Initiatives.
So here is my message to you in a nutshell: Fossil fuels made it possible to build the world you have inhabited during your childhood and throughout your years in the education system. Now it’s up to you to imagine and build the world after fossil fuels. This is the challenge and opportunity of your lifetimes. I wish you good cheer and good luck as you make the most of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Heinberg is a senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute and the author of The Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies, Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines, and The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality.
Interested?
Rocky Times Ahead: Are You Ready?
This isn't a future you can, or should, face alone. How to make sure you don't have to.
Crash Course In Resilience
How to prepare for the uncertain world of failing economies, climate change, and oil depletion.
How We Saved the Climate (and Ourselves)
Bill McKibben imagines himself in the year 2100 and asks what it took to save the world.
YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. Heinberg, R. (2011, May 12). Peak Oil: A Chance to Change the World. Retrieved June 24, 2011, from YES! Magazine Web site: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/peak-oil-a-chance-to-change-the-world. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Friday, June 24, 2011
NBC'S EDUCATION NATION: MUSIC MATTERS! (Duh...)
This week on EducationNation.com: Music Matters
Education Nation // June 24, 2011 // 10:16 AM EST
It's hard to escape headlines about the damages wrought by sweeping budget cuts in the nation's school districts these days. Teachers are being laid off in droves, schools are being closed and consolidated, and non-core programs are being slashed to make up the shortfalls. In many cases, the first of those programs on the chopping block is music.
This week on Education Nation's The Learning Curve, we're taking a closer look at music and its place in our schools. We've asked five questions of psychologist Dr. Frances Rauscher, whose studies on music and its effects on the brain led to the discovery of the Mozart Effect. We've learned about a music program created (against economic odds) last year in one of the poorest sections of New York City. We've heard from Joseph Polisi, president of The Juilliard School, about the importance of music in public schools. And later today, we'll post a video of the band Dispatch, who are dedicating their tour this summer to education initiatives.
It's music education week in Washington, D.C and at EducationNation.com.
GUEST BLOG: Music Empowers Special Education Students
Joshua Renick began a music program in one of the poorest neighborhoods of New York City last year. He found that instruments provided a unique way for special ed students to escape their labels. More
Your Brain on Music: 5 Questions for Dr. Frances Rauscher
Dr. Rauscher, a researcher in the area of music cognition, tells us what Mozart does to our brains (and the brains of rats.) More
GUEST BLOG: Put the Arts Back into Schools
Joseph Polisi, president of The Juilliard School, went to a junior high school in New York City that tested students for musical skills, and selected some for a special music class. On Education Nation's The Learning Curve, Polisi explains why attention to the arts needs to be re-instilled in our schools. More
Education Nation // June 24, 2011 // 10:16 AM EST
It's hard to escape headlines about the damages wrought by sweeping budget cuts in the nation's school districts these days. Teachers are being laid off in droves, schools are being closed and consolidated, and non-core programs are being slashed to make up the shortfalls. In many cases, the first of those programs on the chopping block is music.
This week on Education Nation's The Learning Curve, we're taking a closer look at music and its place in our schools. We've asked five questions of psychologist Dr. Frances Rauscher, whose studies on music and its effects on the brain led to the discovery of the Mozart Effect. We've learned about a music program created (against economic odds) last year in one of the poorest sections of New York City. We've heard from Joseph Polisi, president of The Juilliard School, about the importance of music in public schools. And later today, we'll post a video of the band Dispatch, who are dedicating their tour this summer to education initiatives.
It's music education week in Washington, D.C and at EducationNation.com.
GUEST BLOG: Music Empowers Special Education Students
Joshua Renick began a music program in one of the poorest neighborhoods of New York City last year. He found that instruments provided a unique way for special ed students to escape their labels. More
Your Brain on Music: 5 Questions for Dr. Frances Rauscher
Dr. Rauscher, a researcher in the area of music cognition, tells us what Mozart does to our brains (and the brains of rats.) More
GUEST BLOG: Put the Arts Back into Schools
Joseph Polisi, president of The Juilliard School, went to a junior high school in New York City that tested students for musical skills, and selected some for a special music class. On Education Nation's The Learning Curve, Polisi explains why attention to the arts needs to be re-instilled in our schools. More
Thursday, June 23, 2011
SCANDAL IN SANTA BARBARA: Police Misconduct
And so it begins!
Paste in browser for Peter Lance's exposure of Santa Barbara police corruption:
http://api.ning.com/files/U3aHe*JFZ6MeSKYQd9fPj3R-WYccCvEqbXpWEgbksy3mDhx8Jc43Q3MXVij5pYuWdSk4Cd6c4wyH9RSag8U5VwpJooDwr9hP/SB_DUI_Intro_Part_One_6_22_11.pdf
www.peterlance.com
Tags: corruption, exposure, peterlance.com, scandal
Paste in browser for Peter Lance's exposure of Santa Barbara police corruption:
http://api.ning.com/files/U3aHe*JFZ6MeSKYQd9fPj3R-WYccCvEqbXpWEgbksy3mDhx8Jc43Q3MXVij5pYuWdSk4Cd6c4wyH9RSag8U5VwpJooDwr9hP/SB_DUI_Intro_Part_One_6_22_11.pdf
www.peterlance.com
Tags: corruption, exposure, peterlance.com, scandal
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
CORPORATISM DOMINATING AMERICAN DIPLOMACY ABROAD
AlterNet / By Rania Khalek
5 WikiLeaks Revelations Exposing the Rapidly Growing Corporatism Dominating American Diplomacy Abroad
One of WikiLeaks' greatest achievements has been to expose the exorbitant amount of influence that multinational corporations have over Washington's diplomacy.
� One of the most significant scourges paralyzing our democracy is the merger of corporate power with elected and appointed government officials at the highest levels of office. Influence has a steep price-tag in American politics where politicians are bought and paid for with ever increasing campaign contributions from big business, essentially drowning out any and all voices advocating on behalf of the public interest.
Millions of dollars in campaign funding flooding Washington's halls of power combined with tens of thousands of high-paid corporate lobbyists and a never-ending revolving door that allows corporate executives to shuffle between the public and private sectors has blurred the line between government agencies and private corporations.
This corporate dominance over government affairs helps to explain why we are plagued by a health-care system that lines the pockets of industry executives to the detriment of the sick; a war industry that causes insurmountable death and destruction to enrich weapons-makers and defense contractors; and a financial sector that violates the working class and poor to dole out billions of dollars in bonuses to Wall Street CEO's.
The implications of this rapidly growing corporatism reach far beyond our borders and into the realm of American diplomacy, as in one case where efforts by US diplomats forced the minimum wage for beleaguered Haitian workers to remain below sweatshop levels.
In this context of corporate government corruption, one of WikiLeaks' greatest achievements has been to expose the exorbitant amount of influence that multinational corporations have over Washington's diplomacy. Many of the WikiLeaks US embassy cables reveal the naked intervention by our ambassadorial staff in the business of foreign countries on behalf of US corporations. From mining companies in Peru to pharmaceutical companies in Ecuador, one WikiLeaks embassy cable after the next illuminates a pattern of US diplomats shilling for corporate interests abroad in the most underhanded and sleazy ways imaginable.
While the merger of corporate and government power isn't exactly breaking news, it is one of the most critical yet under-reported issues of our time. And WikiLeaks has given us an inside look at the inner-workings of this corporate-government collusion, often operating at the highest levels of power. It is crystal clear that it's standard operating procedure for US government officials to moonlight as corporate stooges. Thanks to WikiLeaks, here are five instances that display the lengths to which Washington is willing to go to protect and promote US corporations around the world.
1. US officials work as salespeople for Boeing. The merger of state and corporate power is striking in a slew of cables detailing US State Department officials acting as marketing agents on behalf of one lucky corporation. Earlier this year the New York Times revealed details about how US diplomats have actively promoted the sale of commercial jets built by the US company Boeing.
Hundreds of cables from WikiLeaks show that Boeing had a sales force of US diplomats that went up to the highest levels of government, even going as far as sabotaging sales for Boeing's European rival Airbus. Enticing deals for the jetliners were offered to heads of state and airline executives in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Turkey and other countries. The WikiLeaks documents also suggest that demands for bribes, or at least payment to suspicious intermediaries, still take place.
In a deal that was valued at about $3.4 billion, the US Embassy in Istanbul pushed for the sale of Boeing jetliners to Turkish Airlines (THY), according to a cable from January 2010. In return, the president of Turkey asked the Obama administration to let a Turkish astronaut sit in on a NASA space flight.
The most puzzling and ironic tidbit in the cable is the US ambassador's bewilderment at the "conflation of USG-GOT interactions and what is ostensibly a commercial sale between private firms," which he complains is "an unwelcome, but unsurprising degree of political influence in this transaction." The accusation that inappropriate political influence exists among the Turkish government and a private airline is laughable considering that the US State Department is the one pitching the sale on behalf of a private firm.
The cable goes on to say, “We probably cannot put a Turkish astronaut in orbit, but there are programs we could undertake to strengthen Turkey’s capacity in this area that would meet our own goals for improved aviation safety. In any case, we must show some response to the minister’s vague request if we want to maximize chances for the sale.”
In November of last year, Saudi Arabia announced a deal with Boeing to buy more than $3.3 billion worth of airliners, a deal that WikiLeaks reveals was preceded by years of intense lobbying by American officials of the highest order.
In late 2006, then President George W. Bush wrote a personal letter he had hand-delivered to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, practically begging the king to buy as many as 43 Boeing jets to modernize Saudi Arabian Airlines and 13 jets for the Saudi royal fleet.
King Abdullah responded by asking the US government and President Bush to trick out his private airplane with the same high-tech equipment used on Air Force One. He hinted that if the US fulfilled his request, he would make a large purchase of Boeing planes for the royal family's fleet and Saudi Arabian Airlines. And lo and behold, King Abdullah got his airplane upgrade, and Boeing made billions.
A cable from early 2008 details a plan that successfully sabotaged an Airbus sale. In December 2007, the Bahrain-owned airline Gulf Air announced plans to buy a new fleet of Airbus planes. Boeing officials alerted the State Department, which immediately intervened urging them to buy from Boeing instead. Following months of intense lobbying by the ambassador, the crown prince and king of Bahrain agreed to kill the Airbus purchase. They ordered Gulf Air to reopen negotiations with Boeing, ultimately winning the deal valued at $6 billion, which was signed while President Bush was visiting Bahrain.
2. US diplomats by day — Monsanto henchmen by night. Boeing isn't the only multi-billion-dollar corporation US diplomats have been shilling for. In a cable from late 2007, former ambassador to France, Craig Stapleton, advised Washington to launch a military-style trade war against any European Union country that opposed genetically modified (GM) crops.
"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory," he wrote.
Stapleton was reacting to efforts by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety. He specifically asked Washington to punish the EU countries that did not support the use of GM crops.
"Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices."
An embassy cable from 2009 written by the ambassador to Spain directly cites meetings with Monsanto executives, showing that US diplomats were taking orders directly from GM companies.
Monsanto's director for biotechnology for Spain and Portugal briefed embassy officials about the region, complaining that "Spain is increasingly becoming a target of anti-biotechnology forces within Europe. If Spain falls, the rest of Europe will follow."
In a random insult thrown into the cable, the ambassador says, "Within the agriculture sector, only left-wing farmers' unions have negative opinions of GMOs."
The cable ends with a dramatic call for intervention by the US government on behalf of Monsanto: "ACTION REQUESTED: In response to recent urgent requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] State Secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain's science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention."
3. Pharmaceuticals + US diplomats = best friends forever. In October 2009, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa issued a decree to improve access to medicines and support public health programs through a protocol that would reduce drug costs. Cables from US embassy personnel in Ecuador to the U.S. Department of State show the United States, multinational pharmaceutical companies, and three ministers within the government shared information and worked to undermine Ecuador's emerging policy.
In a cable dated October 13, 2009, before the decree was issued, the US ambassador was troubled by Correa's plans because it would prioritize local production and eliminate pharmaceutical patents. In other words, Ecuador was about to makes changes that would negatively impact the profits of US pharmaceutical companies.
Immediately following word of Correa's plans, the US embassy staff met with local representatives of US pharmaceutical companies Pfizer, Merck, Sharp and Dohme, Scering-Plough, and Wyeth to share strategies that would prevent or limit Ecuador's licensing changes.
US concerns intensified as revealed by a cable written days later, which refers to meetings with "well-placed contacts" with "potentially sympathetic ministries." In what sounds like attempted blackmail, Minister of Health Caroline Chang -- one of the "well-placed contacts" described as an ally — assured multinational pharmaceuticals that she was looking into financial irregularities and business dealings of some of the local producers with the intent of gaining some leverage.
Despite efforts to undermine Ecuador’s access protocol, Ecuador issued its first compulsory license in April 2010, enabling generic imports of the HIV/AIDS drug ritonavir.
4. Washington 'hearts' abusive mining companies in Peru. From Bolivia to Venezuela to Peru, American diplomats are obsessed with securing the profits of multinational mining corporations at the cost of indigenous rights and the environment. At least that is the impression given by WikiLeaks cables that detail the eruption of anti-mining protests near the Ecuador border against the mining firm Minera Majaz.
In August 2005, a group of protesters in northern Peru marched to the site of a copper mine operated by the firm Minera Majaz, a subsidiary of the British mining company Monterrico Metals. Of the hundreds of people who converged at the mine site from the surrounding communities, 28 were brutally tortured and three were shot, one of whom bled to death.
But you wouldn't know this from the WikiLeaks US embassy cables that describe the protests. The tone is one of sympathy for the mining company, while depicting the protesters as dark and sinister "militant anti-mining protesters" maliciously sabotaging Majaz.
In a cable following the protests, J. Curtis Struble, the former US ambassador to Peru, toes the Majaz line that communists and unions were to blame for sowing the seeds of rebellion, an accusation that reeks of Washington's typical red-baiting of anything opposed to abusive corporate practices in the developing world.
"The anti-mining forces in action in Majaz represent a strange group of bedfellows indeed -- the Catholic church, violent radical leftists, NGOs, ronderos and perhaps narcotraffickers. Working behind the scene are a combination of the Peruvian Communist Party/Patria Roja, national teachers, union SUTEP and perhaps opium poppy traffickers," says Struble.
Struble's glowing profile of the mining company reads: "Majaz has spent $20 million exploring for copper for over a year, building roads and providing services and employment to area residents. Militants still deny access to most of the pipeline route."
Not once does Struble acknowledge the long history of devastation that mining companies have caused throughout the region, such as pollution of the local water supply and land, the use of brutal paramilitaries in assassinating indigenous leaders who challenge them, or the displacement caused by theft of indigenous lands.
Just days after the blatant human rights violations committed against the protesters, another cable reveals that the US and Canadian ambassadors hosted a meeting with representatives from several international mining companies in Peru. Struble expresses his pan to reinforce security in the mines, to avoid the closing of highways by demonstrators which would disrupt commerce, and to encourage the Peruvian government to prosecute the protesters.
5. Diplomats as corporate spies. A more recent US embassy cable dated March 17, 2008, reveals that US diplomats spied on indigenous activists and their supporters who were organizing anti-summit protests against the European Union-Latin American Heads of State summit that was scheduled in Lima that year.
US ambassador to Peru James Nealon identified specific indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Quechua activist Miguel Palacin Quispe and other influential community leaders.
What do all these people have in common? Their unwavering support for indigenous rights and the environment along with their successful organizing tactics and popularity among indigenous populations, which has Washington's corporate masters shaking in their boots.
Nealon describes the anti-summit groups as "a variety of radical Peruvian social movements and European anti-globalization NGOs," citing specific peasant and indigenous groups along with the names of prominent organizers who the US embassy was keeping tabs on. The cable is riddled with insulting references to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales, particularly Morales and his supporters. One Bolivian social leader is described as a "pro-Morales ideologue" and another as a "top Evo Morales adviser and anti-free trade and globalization guru."
In almost all of the Peru cables, the US government interprets the enemies of corporate power as being enemies of the United States. As a result, leftist activists and community organizers, particularly those who threaten corporate profits, are regularly targeted. Unions, environmentalists and indigenous communities that challenge multinationals are consistently regarded with disdain and viewed as hostile villains. The US government's propensity at conflating threats to corporate interests as threats to US interests should alarm anyone who values democracy.
What don't we know about?
Besides getting a good laugh at watching pathetically corrupt diplomats whore themselves out to corporate executives, these cables give us a rare glimpse at American diplomatic subservience to corporate behemoths regardless of the costs to people and the environment.
It appears that the collusion between corporate executives and US diplomats is taking place at an ever accelerating rate around the globe, yet more and more, these shady endeavors are shrouded in secrecy. Transparency and accountability have taken such a devastating blow over the past decade, that whistleblowers and media outlets such as WikiLeaks are the only mechanisms left still capable of shedding light on the consequences of the unbridled corporate influence infecting our government.
With tens of thousands of WikiLeaks embassy cables still waiting to be published, there’s sure to be hundreds if not thousands of episodes involving US corporate and government collusion that have yet to be discovered.
Rania Khalek is a progressive activist. Check out her blog Missing Pieces or follow her on Twitter @Rania_ak. You can contact her at raniakhalek@gmail.com.
5 WikiLeaks Revelations Exposing the Rapidly Growing Corporatism Dominating American Diplomacy Abroad
One of WikiLeaks' greatest achievements has been to expose the exorbitant amount of influence that multinational corporations have over Washington's diplomacy.
� One of the most significant scourges paralyzing our democracy is the merger of corporate power with elected and appointed government officials at the highest levels of office. Influence has a steep price-tag in American politics where politicians are bought and paid for with ever increasing campaign contributions from big business, essentially drowning out any and all voices advocating on behalf of the public interest.
Millions of dollars in campaign funding flooding Washington's halls of power combined with tens of thousands of high-paid corporate lobbyists and a never-ending revolving door that allows corporate executives to shuffle between the public and private sectors has blurred the line between government agencies and private corporations.
This corporate dominance over government affairs helps to explain why we are plagued by a health-care system that lines the pockets of industry executives to the detriment of the sick; a war industry that causes insurmountable death and destruction to enrich weapons-makers and defense contractors; and a financial sector that violates the working class and poor to dole out billions of dollars in bonuses to Wall Street CEO's.
The implications of this rapidly growing corporatism reach far beyond our borders and into the realm of American diplomacy, as in one case where efforts by US diplomats forced the minimum wage for beleaguered Haitian workers to remain below sweatshop levels.
In this context of corporate government corruption, one of WikiLeaks' greatest achievements has been to expose the exorbitant amount of influence that multinational corporations have over Washington's diplomacy. Many of the WikiLeaks US embassy cables reveal the naked intervention by our ambassadorial staff in the business of foreign countries on behalf of US corporations. From mining companies in Peru to pharmaceutical companies in Ecuador, one WikiLeaks embassy cable after the next illuminates a pattern of US diplomats shilling for corporate interests abroad in the most underhanded and sleazy ways imaginable.
While the merger of corporate and government power isn't exactly breaking news, it is one of the most critical yet under-reported issues of our time. And WikiLeaks has given us an inside look at the inner-workings of this corporate-government collusion, often operating at the highest levels of power. It is crystal clear that it's standard operating procedure for US government officials to moonlight as corporate stooges. Thanks to WikiLeaks, here are five instances that display the lengths to which Washington is willing to go to protect and promote US corporations around the world.
1. US officials work as salespeople for Boeing. The merger of state and corporate power is striking in a slew of cables detailing US State Department officials acting as marketing agents on behalf of one lucky corporation. Earlier this year the New York Times revealed details about how US diplomats have actively promoted the sale of commercial jets built by the US company Boeing.
Hundreds of cables from WikiLeaks show that Boeing had a sales force of US diplomats that went up to the highest levels of government, even going as far as sabotaging sales for Boeing's European rival Airbus. Enticing deals for the jetliners were offered to heads of state and airline executives in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Turkey and other countries. The WikiLeaks documents also suggest that demands for bribes, or at least payment to suspicious intermediaries, still take place.
In a deal that was valued at about $3.4 billion, the US Embassy in Istanbul pushed for the sale of Boeing jetliners to Turkish Airlines (THY), according to a cable from January 2010. In return, the president of Turkey asked the Obama administration to let a Turkish astronaut sit in on a NASA space flight.
The most puzzling and ironic tidbit in the cable is the US ambassador's bewilderment at the "conflation of USG-GOT interactions and what is ostensibly a commercial sale between private firms," which he complains is "an unwelcome, but unsurprising degree of political influence in this transaction." The accusation that inappropriate political influence exists among the Turkish government and a private airline is laughable considering that the US State Department is the one pitching the sale on behalf of a private firm.
The cable goes on to say, “We probably cannot put a Turkish astronaut in orbit, but there are programs we could undertake to strengthen Turkey’s capacity in this area that would meet our own goals for improved aviation safety. In any case, we must show some response to the minister’s vague request if we want to maximize chances for the sale.”
In November of last year, Saudi Arabia announced a deal with Boeing to buy more than $3.3 billion worth of airliners, a deal that WikiLeaks reveals was preceded by years of intense lobbying by American officials of the highest order.
In late 2006, then President George W. Bush wrote a personal letter he had hand-delivered to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, practically begging the king to buy as many as 43 Boeing jets to modernize Saudi Arabian Airlines and 13 jets for the Saudi royal fleet.
King Abdullah responded by asking the US government and President Bush to trick out his private airplane with the same high-tech equipment used on Air Force One. He hinted that if the US fulfilled his request, he would make a large purchase of Boeing planes for the royal family's fleet and Saudi Arabian Airlines. And lo and behold, King Abdullah got his airplane upgrade, and Boeing made billions.
A cable from early 2008 details a plan that successfully sabotaged an Airbus sale. In December 2007, the Bahrain-owned airline Gulf Air announced plans to buy a new fleet of Airbus planes. Boeing officials alerted the State Department, which immediately intervened urging them to buy from Boeing instead. Following months of intense lobbying by the ambassador, the crown prince and king of Bahrain agreed to kill the Airbus purchase. They ordered Gulf Air to reopen negotiations with Boeing, ultimately winning the deal valued at $6 billion, which was signed while President Bush was visiting Bahrain.
2. US diplomats by day — Monsanto henchmen by night. Boeing isn't the only multi-billion-dollar corporation US diplomats have been shilling for. In a cable from late 2007, former ambassador to France, Craig Stapleton, advised Washington to launch a military-style trade war against any European Union country that opposed genetically modified (GM) crops.
"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory," he wrote.
Stapleton was reacting to efforts by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety. He specifically asked Washington to punish the EU countries that did not support the use of GM crops.
"Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices."
An embassy cable from 2009 written by the ambassador to Spain directly cites meetings with Monsanto executives, showing that US diplomats were taking orders directly from GM companies.
Monsanto's director for biotechnology for Spain and Portugal briefed embassy officials about the region, complaining that "Spain is increasingly becoming a target of anti-biotechnology forces within Europe. If Spain falls, the rest of Europe will follow."
In a random insult thrown into the cable, the ambassador says, "Within the agriculture sector, only left-wing farmers' unions have negative opinions of GMOs."
The cable ends with a dramatic call for intervention by the US government on behalf of Monsanto: "ACTION REQUESTED: In response to recent urgent requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] State Secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain's science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention."
3. Pharmaceuticals + US diplomats = best friends forever. In October 2009, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa issued a decree to improve access to medicines and support public health programs through a protocol that would reduce drug costs. Cables from US embassy personnel in Ecuador to the U.S. Department of State show the United States, multinational pharmaceutical companies, and three ministers within the government shared information and worked to undermine Ecuador's emerging policy.
In a cable dated October 13, 2009, before the decree was issued, the US ambassador was troubled by Correa's plans because it would prioritize local production and eliminate pharmaceutical patents. In other words, Ecuador was about to makes changes that would negatively impact the profits of US pharmaceutical companies.
Immediately following word of Correa's plans, the US embassy staff met with local representatives of US pharmaceutical companies Pfizer, Merck, Sharp and Dohme, Scering-Plough, and Wyeth to share strategies that would prevent or limit Ecuador's licensing changes.
US concerns intensified as revealed by a cable written days later, which refers to meetings with "well-placed contacts" with "potentially sympathetic ministries." In what sounds like attempted blackmail, Minister of Health Caroline Chang -- one of the "well-placed contacts" described as an ally — assured multinational pharmaceuticals that she was looking into financial irregularities and business dealings of some of the local producers with the intent of gaining some leverage.
Despite efforts to undermine Ecuador’s access protocol, Ecuador issued its first compulsory license in April 2010, enabling generic imports of the HIV/AIDS drug ritonavir.
4. Washington 'hearts' abusive mining companies in Peru. From Bolivia to Venezuela to Peru, American diplomats are obsessed with securing the profits of multinational mining corporations at the cost of indigenous rights and the environment. At least that is the impression given by WikiLeaks cables that detail the eruption of anti-mining protests near the Ecuador border against the mining firm Minera Majaz.
In August 2005, a group of protesters in northern Peru marched to the site of a copper mine operated by the firm Minera Majaz, a subsidiary of the British mining company Monterrico Metals. Of the hundreds of people who converged at the mine site from the surrounding communities, 28 were brutally tortured and three were shot, one of whom bled to death.
But you wouldn't know this from the WikiLeaks US embassy cables that describe the protests. The tone is one of sympathy for the mining company, while depicting the protesters as dark and sinister "militant anti-mining protesters" maliciously sabotaging Majaz.
In a cable following the protests, J. Curtis Struble, the former US ambassador to Peru, toes the Majaz line that communists and unions were to blame for sowing the seeds of rebellion, an accusation that reeks of Washington's typical red-baiting of anything opposed to abusive corporate practices in the developing world.
"The anti-mining forces in action in Majaz represent a strange group of bedfellows indeed -- the Catholic church, violent radical leftists, NGOs, ronderos and perhaps narcotraffickers. Working behind the scene are a combination of the Peruvian Communist Party/Patria Roja, national teachers, union SUTEP and perhaps opium poppy traffickers," says Struble.
Struble's glowing profile of the mining company reads: "Majaz has spent $20 million exploring for copper for over a year, building roads and providing services and employment to area residents. Militants still deny access to most of the pipeline route."
Not once does Struble acknowledge the long history of devastation that mining companies have caused throughout the region, such as pollution of the local water supply and land, the use of brutal paramilitaries in assassinating indigenous leaders who challenge them, or the displacement caused by theft of indigenous lands.
Just days after the blatant human rights violations committed against the protesters, another cable reveals that the US and Canadian ambassadors hosted a meeting with representatives from several international mining companies in Peru. Struble expresses his pan to reinforce security in the mines, to avoid the closing of highways by demonstrators which would disrupt commerce, and to encourage the Peruvian government to prosecute the protesters.
5. Diplomats as corporate spies. A more recent US embassy cable dated March 17, 2008, reveals that US diplomats spied on indigenous activists and their supporters who were organizing anti-summit protests against the European Union-Latin American Heads of State summit that was scheduled in Lima that year.
US ambassador to Peru James Nealon identified specific indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Quechua activist Miguel Palacin Quispe and other influential community leaders.
What do all these people have in common? Their unwavering support for indigenous rights and the environment along with their successful organizing tactics and popularity among indigenous populations, which has Washington's corporate masters shaking in their boots.
Nealon describes the anti-summit groups as "a variety of radical Peruvian social movements and European anti-globalization NGOs," citing specific peasant and indigenous groups along with the names of prominent organizers who the US embassy was keeping tabs on. The cable is riddled with insulting references to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales, particularly Morales and his supporters. One Bolivian social leader is described as a "pro-Morales ideologue" and another as a "top Evo Morales adviser and anti-free trade and globalization guru."
In almost all of the Peru cables, the US government interprets the enemies of corporate power as being enemies of the United States. As a result, leftist activists and community organizers, particularly those who threaten corporate profits, are regularly targeted. Unions, environmentalists and indigenous communities that challenge multinationals are consistently regarded with disdain and viewed as hostile villains. The US government's propensity at conflating threats to corporate interests as threats to US interests should alarm anyone who values democracy.
What don't we know about?
Besides getting a good laugh at watching pathetically corrupt diplomats whore themselves out to corporate executives, these cables give us a rare glimpse at American diplomatic subservience to corporate behemoths regardless of the costs to people and the environment.
It appears that the collusion between corporate executives and US diplomats is taking place at an ever accelerating rate around the globe, yet more and more, these shady endeavors are shrouded in secrecy. Transparency and accountability have taken such a devastating blow over the past decade, that whistleblowers and media outlets such as WikiLeaks are the only mechanisms left still capable of shedding light on the consequences of the unbridled corporate influence infecting our government.
With tens of thousands of WikiLeaks embassy cables still waiting to be published, there’s sure to be hundreds if not thousands of episodes involving US corporate and government collusion that have yet to be discovered.
Rania Khalek is a progressive activist. Check out her blog Missing Pieces or follow her on Twitter @Rania_ak. You can contact her at raniakhalek@gmail.com.
Chronic pain linked to obesity and lack of exercise
Obesity and lack of exercise linked to chronic pain
Eric Schultz
Reuters US Online Report Health News
Jun 20, 2011 17:25 EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - It may not be surprising, but people who exercise at least one hour per week have a lower risk of troublesome back, neck, and shoulder pain, a new study shows.
The new evidence supports the possibility that obesity and physical inactivity play a role in a person's risk of developing chronic pain in those areas, said study co-author Dr. Paul Mork, of Norwegian University of Science and Technology in an email to Reuters Health.
Mork and colleagues followed more than 30,000 adults who participated in a large Norwegian health study. They recorded participants' body mass index (BMI) - a measure of weight related to height - at the start of the study, as well as how often they exercised, and then tracked them over the next 11 years.
The authors divided the participants into four categories based on how often they exercised, and four categories based on their BMI. They also looked at how many people in each category developed chronic neck, shoulder, and lower back pain.
Overall, 1 of every 10 people in the study developed lower back pain, and nearly 2 of every 10 developed shoulder or neck pain.
After taking into account participants' age, BMI, whether or not they smoked, and whether they did manual labor at work,
the research team found that men who were exercising 2 hours or more per week at the start of the study were 25 percent less likely to have lower back pain 11 years later, and 20 percent less like to have neck or shoulder pain, compared men who didn't exercise at all. And women who exercised at least 2 hours per week were 8 percent less likely to develop lower back pain than women who were inactive, and 9 percent less likely to develop neck and shoulder pain.
Weight, not surprisingly, also affected the risk of chronic pain later on. Obese men were almost 21 percent more likely to develop chronic lower back pain than men of normal weight, and 22 percent more likely to develop neck or shoulder pain. Obese women were also 21 percent more likely to develop lower back pain than women of normal weight, and 19 percent more likely to develop neck and shoulder pain.
Based on the results, Mork believes that even moderate physical exercise - just one hour or more per week - "can, to some extent, compensate for the adverse effect of being overweight and obese on future risk of chronic pain."
"Chronic neck and back pain are important to public health due to their substantial influence on quality of life, disability, and health care resources," Dr. Adam Goode from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina told Reuters Health by email. Goode, a physical therapist, was not involved in the study by Mork's group.
Back in the mid-1990s, a study from the Netherlands estimated that low back pain cost that country nearly 2 percent of its gross national product. In their new paper Mork and colleagues write that "just a small reduction in the incidence of chronic lower back pain would have a profound economic impact."
Because of the way it was designed, the Norwegian study can't prove that lack of exercise and being overweight actually caused people's chronic pain, or that regular exercise and a more healthy weight prevented it. It could be that the people who did or didn't have chronic pain are different in ways the study did not measure.
However, given the known benefits of exercise and maintaining a healthy weight, Mork believes that "community based measures aimed at reducing the incidence of chronic pain...should aim at promoting regular physical exercise and the maintenance of normal body weight."
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/jaoix5, online June 11, 2011
Eric Schultz
Reuters US Online Report Health News
Jun 20, 2011 17:25 EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - It may not be surprising, but people who exercise at least one hour per week have a lower risk of troublesome back, neck, and shoulder pain, a new study shows.
The new evidence supports the possibility that obesity and physical inactivity play a role in a person's risk of developing chronic pain in those areas, said study co-author Dr. Paul Mork, of Norwegian University of Science and Technology in an email to Reuters Health.
Mork and colleagues followed more than 30,000 adults who participated in a large Norwegian health study. They recorded participants' body mass index (BMI) - a measure of weight related to height - at the start of the study, as well as how often they exercised, and then tracked them over the next 11 years.
The authors divided the participants into four categories based on how often they exercised, and four categories based on their BMI. They also looked at how many people in each category developed chronic neck, shoulder, and lower back pain.
Overall, 1 of every 10 people in the study developed lower back pain, and nearly 2 of every 10 developed shoulder or neck pain.
After taking into account participants' age, BMI, whether or not they smoked, and whether they did manual labor at work,
the research team found that men who were exercising 2 hours or more per week at the start of the study were 25 percent less likely to have lower back pain 11 years later, and 20 percent less like to have neck or shoulder pain, compared men who didn't exercise at all. And women who exercised at least 2 hours per week were 8 percent less likely to develop lower back pain than women who were inactive, and 9 percent less likely to develop neck and shoulder pain.
Weight, not surprisingly, also affected the risk of chronic pain later on. Obese men were almost 21 percent more likely to develop chronic lower back pain than men of normal weight, and 22 percent more likely to develop neck or shoulder pain. Obese women were also 21 percent more likely to develop lower back pain than women of normal weight, and 19 percent more likely to develop neck and shoulder pain.
Based on the results, Mork believes that even moderate physical exercise - just one hour or more per week - "can, to some extent, compensate for the adverse effect of being overweight and obese on future risk of chronic pain."
"Chronic neck and back pain are important to public health due to their substantial influence on quality of life, disability, and health care resources," Dr. Adam Goode from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina told Reuters Health by email. Goode, a physical therapist, was not involved in the study by Mork's group.
Back in the mid-1990s, a study from the Netherlands estimated that low back pain cost that country nearly 2 percent of its gross national product. In their new paper Mork and colleagues write that "just a small reduction in the incidence of chronic lower back pain would have a profound economic impact."
Because of the way it was designed, the Norwegian study can't prove that lack of exercise and being overweight actually caused people's chronic pain, or that regular exercise and a more healthy weight prevented it. It could be that the people who did or didn't have chronic pain are different in ways the study did not measure.
However, given the known benefits of exercise and maintaining a healthy weight, Mork believes that "community based measures aimed at reducing the incidence of chronic pain...should aim at promoting regular physical exercise and the maintenance of normal body weight."
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/jaoix5, online June 11, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
MoveOn MOVEMENT
Dear MoveOn member,
America's in a tough spot right now. So many people are hurting. Yet in Washington and our state capitols, the big debate is about how much more pain to inflict. How many teachers to fire. How many new tax breaks to give the rich.
It's pretty clear by now that we can't wait for Barack Obama, or the Democrats, to save us. But the one thing that might turn things around is an honest-to-God mass movement—something on the scale of the civil rights movement or the antiwar movement—built around a vision of an economy that works for all of us, not just the top 2%.
So today we're launching a $1 million fundraising drive for one of the biggest things we've ever tried—joining with dozens of other progressive organizations to lift up a new, grassroots movement to rescue the economy and bring the American Dream within reach for all Americans.
I can't promise you it'll work. But we have some good ideas and I know you'll have lots more. And with how bad things are going, we've got time to do something really big. Can you chip in to get this off the ground?
Yes, I can donate $5 to help rebuild the American Dream.
Here's how we'll start:
We can't will the fight to rebuild the American Dream until we unite around a clear, progressive economic vision. So in July we'll go from town to town and door to door to engage hundreds of thousands of people in a crowd-sourced process to build that vision from the ground up.
Then we need to go out and fight for that that vision—for new programs to create good jobs and rescue homeowners, for strengthening Medicare and Social Security instead of slashing them, for investment in green tech and infrastructure, for making sure corporations and the very rich pay their fair share so we can afford these things.
It'll require every ounce of energy and creativity we all have—so we'll build an "open source" campaign, with tactics and actions limited only by our imaginations. We'll use culture, art, direct action and mutual aid—and work simultaneously for change in our own neighborhoods and the national level.
We'll support the leadership of those on the front lines who can make the moral case for change: teachers like those who led the fight in Wisconsin, long-term unemployed folks, students graduating off a cliff without a prayer of finding a good job.
We know we can't do it alone, so in the last few weeks, we've been talking with organizations representing tens of millions of progressives about organizing together under the same banner. There's a ton of excitement—but we need the resources to get it going.
Can you chip in $5 to help launch this movement?It's been said that "we are the ones we've been waiting for." Well, it's time to stop waiting. Let's launch something big enough to turn the country around.
Thanks for all you do.
–Justin, Eli, Tim, Lenore, and the rest of the team
America's in a tough spot right now. So many people are hurting. Yet in Washington and our state capitols, the big debate is about how much more pain to inflict. How many teachers to fire. How many new tax breaks to give the rich.
It's pretty clear by now that we can't wait for Barack Obama, or the Democrats, to save us. But the one thing that might turn things around is an honest-to-God mass movement—something on the scale of the civil rights movement or the antiwar movement—built around a vision of an economy that works for all of us, not just the top 2%.
So today we're launching a $1 million fundraising drive for one of the biggest things we've ever tried—joining with dozens of other progressive organizations to lift up a new, grassroots movement to rescue the economy and bring the American Dream within reach for all Americans.
I can't promise you it'll work. But we have some good ideas and I know you'll have lots more. And with how bad things are going, we've got time to do something really big. Can you chip in to get this off the ground?
Yes, I can donate $5 to help rebuild the American Dream.
Here's how we'll start:
We can't will the fight to rebuild the American Dream until we unite around a clear, progressive economic vision. So in July we'll go from town to town and door to door to engage hundreds of thousands of people in a crowd-sourced process to build that vision from the ground up.
Then we need to go out and fight for that that vision—for new programs to create good jobs and rescue homeowners, for strengthening Medicare and Social Security instead of slashing them, for investment in green tech and infrastructure, for making sure corporations and the very rich pay their fair share so we can afford these things.
It'll require every ounce of energy and creativity we all have—so we'll build an "open source" campaign, with tactics and actions limited only by our imaginations. We'll use culture, art, direct action and mutual aid—and work simultaneously for change in our own neighborhoods and the national level.
We'll support the leadership of those on the front lines who can make the moral case for change: teachers like those who led the fight in Wisconsin, long-term unemployed folks, students graduating off a cliff without a prayer of finding a good job.
We know we can't do it alone, so in the last few weeks, we've been talking with organizations representing tens of millions of progressives about organizing together under the same banner. There's a ton of excitement—but we need the resources to get it going.
Can you chip in $5 to help launch this movement?It's been said that "we are the ones we've been waiting for." Well, it's time to stop waiting. Let's launch something big enough to turn the country around.
Thanks for all you do.
–Justin, Eli, Tim, Lenore, and the rest of the team
BIRTH 2012 with Barbara Marx Hubbard (SB!)
What's your Dream BIG Dream?
The Dream Team Players.....are looking for.....
America's Healthiest and Happiest People
to co-create and co-design
America's Healthiest and Happiest Towns.
The Ultimate Invitation
http://theultimateinvitation.com
Ps. I’d like to invite you to join me for an exciting free teleseminar
event with Barbara Marx Hubbard
on June 22nd! http://birth2012.com/feature/invitation/feature/invitation
It’s called Birth 2012: Co-Creating a Planetary Shift, and Barbara will
share a powerful vision along with key allies such as Jack Canfield, Neale
Donald Walsch, and Lynne Twist for how we can create a global Birth Day event
on Dec. 22, 2012 in a way that truly impacts the world. The event will help
build a global community of co-creators for this vision.
Happy Happy Happy Day
June 22, It's Makiah's Birthday!
Surf's UP!!!
Bobby O Bahama
The Dream Team Players.....are looking for.....
America's Healthiest and Happiest People
to co-create and co-design
America's Healthiest and Happiest Towns.
The Ultimate Invitation
http://theultimateinvitation.com
Ps. I’d like to invite you to join me for an exciting free teleseminar
event with Barbara Marx Hubbard
on June 22nd! http://birth2012.com/feature/invitation/feature/invitation
It’s called Birth 2012: Co-Creating a Planetary Shift, and Barbara will
share a powerful vision along with key allies such as Jack Canfield, Neale
Donald Walsch, and Lynne Twist for how we can create a global Birth Day event
on Dec. 22, 2012 in a way that truly impacts the world. The event will help
build a global community of co-creators for this vision.
Happy Happy Happy Day
June 22, It's Makiah's Birthday!
Surf's UP!!!
Bobby O Bahama
SETTING THE WORLD STAGE IN SANTA BARBARA
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
If katesmith2@earthlink.net bounces, try k8longstory@gmail.com. (805) 845-6950.
I was ARRESTED at a SBSD Board of Education meeting (May 26, 2011) at the Law Offices of Craig Price, Esq. (Griffith and Thornburgh). I was there TO SPEAK at PUBLIC COMMENTS for a CLOSED SESSION MEETING and TO SERVE CRAIG PRICE a Subpoena Duces Tecum for my Small Claims Court Case #1380118.
ARRAIGNMENT is June 24th---SB DA is planning to "throw the book" at me and I will THROW THE BRICK back at 'em. (Public Defender Jennifer Archer will attend to move the court to appoint her as counsel.)
(My Small Claims Court #1380118 against County Counsel for FALSE ARREST and VIOLATION OF ADA is postponed, hopefully, to August 1-8, 2011, when the Great Peace Marchers are in town for our 25th Reunion.)
My OPENING APPEAL BRIEF against the RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING ME FROM GOING INTO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION is due tomorrow, JUNE 21, 2011.
SHOULD I SUBMIT it to the SB County Government and County Counsel at the Board of Supervisors' meeting? I WOULD BE ARRESTED.
Got thoughts?
I NEED HELP:
MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO ("Santa Barbara County Government vs. Kate Smith")
APPEAL BRIEF: Katherine Peden-Pierce (k8edidski@yahoo.com) is writing the appeal brief; GREG RADER and ARCHIMEDES need to edit it.
WHISTLEBLOWER SUPPORT: k8e will create a website at www.katesmith.com where we'll focus on the 15 year EPIC BATTLE: First Amendment Rights Violations, LEGAL ABUSE, RETALIATION, and STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION at the hands of the TAX-PAYER-PAID lawyers.
There's our WORLD STAGE to EXPOSE SCHOOL AND GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION.
"Truth comes as a conqueror only to those who have lost the art of welcoming it as a friend." Rabindranath Tagore
"Truth is violated by falsehood but it is outraged by silence."
Kevin Gosztola and OpEdNews.com are the latest "cast" in my doctoral dissertation:
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Kall
Sent: Jun 19, 2011 8:09 PM
To: kate
Subject: Re: Kate Smith,
Opednews.com is the go-to site for whistle-blowers. I was even invited to their national meeting to orient the attendees on how to maximize use of the site.
Rob Kall
Publisher, www.opednews.com, a technorati top 100 site overall http://bit.ly/technoratitop100 (reaching 250-800,000+ unique visitors/month)
Host, The Rob Kall Bottom-Up Radio Show 1360 AM, reaching metro Philly & S. Jersey www.opednews.com/podcasts
Regular Contributor, Huffingtonpost.com
Ranked among the top 200 Print/Online Columnists by Mediaite
Consultant/trainer in Bottom-Up new media
211 N. Sycamore St. Newtown, PA 18940
215-504-1700, fax 215-860-5374
Follow me on twitter at www.twitter.com/robkall
www.twitter.com/opednews
www.twitter.com/bottomupmind
www.twitter.com/fhlt (futurehealth)
www.facebook.com/rkall
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up, Studs Terkel
"The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself."
~ Albert Camus
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:57 PM, kate wrote:
Dear Rob@opednews.com,
Please visit www.sbschooltalk.com and www.k8longstory.bogspot.com,
Santa Barbara is The Perfect Storm of Injustice; call me Katrina.
Kevin Gosztola wrote about "Obama DOJ's War on Free Speech and Activism." As Kate Smith, I 'm The Spearcatcher in Santa Barbara, where retaliation against whistleblowers is rampant and severe.
Got thoughts?
Namaste,
k8longstory.blogspot.com
k8longstory4sbschooltalk.ning.com
>OpEdNews - Quicklink: Overcoming Despair as the Republicans Take Over: A Conversation with Noam Chomsky & Michael Lerner
>
>
>
>I just received a request from you to send an email to your friend(s) recommending this page:
>OpEdNews - Quicklink: Overcoming Despair as the Republicans Take Over: A Conversation with Noam Chomsky & Michael Lerner
>
>Thank you very much. As the administrator of OpEdNews,let me express my gratitude to you for sharing our page
>at http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Overcoming-Despair-as-the-in-Life_Arts_Science-110615-88.html
>And thanks also for subscribing to the OpEdNews newsletter.
>
>...Rob Kall
>OpEdNews
>rob@opednews.com
>
>
>P.S. If the email was not sent by you, then someone else is using your email address.
>Here is the IP address of the person who used your email: 72.194.219.207
>
>
If katesmith2@earthlink.net bounces, try k8longstory@gmail.com. (805) 845-6950.
I was ARRESTED at a SBSD Board of Education meeting (May 26, 2011) at the Law Offices of Craig Price, Esq. (Griffith and Thornburgh). I was there TO SPEAK at PUBLIC COMMENTS for a CLOSED SESSION MEETING and TO SERVE CRAIG PRICE a Subpoena Duces Tecum for my Small Claims Court Case #1380118.
ARRAIGNMENT is June 24th---SB DA is planning to "throw the book" at me and I will THROW THE BRICK back at 'em. (Public Defender Jennifer Archer will attend to move the court to appoint her as counsel.)
(My Small Claims Court #1380118 against County Counsel for FALSE ARREST and VIOLATION OF ADA is postponed, hopefully, to August 1-8, 2011, when the Great Peace Marchers are in town for our 25th Reunion.)
My OPENING APPEAL BRIEF against the RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING ME FROM GOING INTO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION is due tomorrow, JUNE 21, 2011.
SHOULD I SUBMIT it to the SB County Government and County Counsel at the Board of Supervisors' meeting? I WOULD BE ARRESTED.
Got thoughts?
I NEED HELP:
MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO ("Santa Barbara County Government vs. Kate Smith")
APPEAL BRIEF: Katherine Peden-Pierce (k8edidski@yahoo.com) is writing the appeal brief; GREG RADER and ARCHIMEDES need to edit it.
WHISTLEBLOWER SUPPORT: k8e will create a website at www.katesmith.com where we'll focus on the 15 year EPIC BATTLE: First Amendment Rights Violations, LEGAL ABUSE, RETALIATION, and STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION at the hands of the TAX-PAYER-PAID lawyers.
There's our WORLD STAGE to EXPOSE SCHOOL AND GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION.
"Truth comes as a conqueror only to those who have lost the art of welcoming it as a friend." Rabindranath Tagore
"Truth is violated by falsehood but it is outraged by silence."
Kevin Gosztola and OpEdNews.com are the latest "cast" in my doctoral dissertation:
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Kall
Sent: Jun 19, 2011 8:09 PM
To: kate
Subject: Re: Kate Smith,
Opednews.com is the go-to site for whistle-blowers. I was even invited to their national meeting to orient the attendees on how to maximize use of the site.
Rob Kall
Publisher, www.opednews.com, a technorati top 100 site overall http://bit.ly/technoratitop100 (reaching 250-800,000+ unique visitors/month)
Host, The Rob Kall Bottom-Up Radio Show 1360 AM, reaching metro Philly & S. Jersey www.opednews.com/podcasts
Regular Contributor, Huffingtonpost.com
Ranked among the top 200 Print/Online Columnists by Mediaite
Consultant/trainer in Bottom-Up new media
211 N. Sycamore St. Newtown, PA 18940
215-504-1700, fax 215-860-5374
Follow me on twitter at www.twitter.com/robkall
www.twitter.com/opednews
www.twitter.com/bottomupmind
www.twitter.com/fhlt (futurehealth)
www.facebook.com/rkall
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up, Studs Terkel
"The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself."
~ Albert Camus
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:57 PM, kate
Dear Rob@opednews.com,
Please visit www.sbschooltalk.com and www.k8longstory.bogspot.com,
Santa Barbara is The Perfect Storm of Injustice; call me Katrina.
Kevin Gosztola wrote about "Obama DOJ's War on Free Speech and Activism." As Kate Smith, I 'm The Spearcatcher in Santa Barbara, where retaliation against whistleblowers is rampant and severe.
Got thoughts?
Namaste,
k8longstory.blogspot.com
k8longstory4sbschooltalk.ning.com
>OpEdNews - Quicklink: Overcoming Despair as the Republicans Take Over: A Conversation with Noam Chomsky & Michael Lerner
>
>
>
>I just received a request from you to send an email to your friend(s) recommending this page:
>OpEdNews - Quicklink: Overcoming Despair as the Republicans Take Over: A Conversation with Noam Chomsky & Michael Lerner
>
>Thank you very much. As the administrator of OpEdNews,let me express my gratitude to you for sharing our page
>at http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Overcoming-Despair-as-the-in-Life_Arts_Science-110615-88.html
>And thanks also for subscribing to the OpEdNews newsletter.
>
>...Rob Kall
>OpEdNews
>rob@opednews.com
>
>
>P.S. If the email was not sent by you, then someone else is using your email address.
>Here is the IP address of the person who used your email: 72.194.219.207
>
>
MLK on the Nature of Love and Hate
<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>
Your Inspirational Quote
Monday June 20, 2011
<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>
~~~
Today's Inspirational Quote:
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
~~~
Your Inspirational Quote
Monday June 20, 2011
<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>
~~~
Today's Inspirational Quote:
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
~~~
Sunday, June 19, 2011
OVERCOMING DESPAIR: A Conversation with Noam Chomsky and Michael Lerner
Overcoming Despair as the Republicans Take Over: A Conversation with Noam Chomsky & Michael Lerner
Quicklink submitted by M. Wizard
(Add your own quicklinks easily with the
OpEdNews Quick Link Browser bookmark)
SAVE AS FAVORITEVIEW FAVORITES
View Ratings | Rate It
Michael Lerner: You have made many excellent analyses of the power of global capital and its capacity to undermine ordinary citizens' efforts to transform the global reality toward a more humane and generous world. If there were a serious movement in the U.S. ready to challenge global capital, what should such a movement do? Or is it, as many believe, hopeless, given the power of capital to control the media, undermine democratic movements, and use the police/military power and the co-optive power of mass entertainment, endless spectacle, and financial compensations for many of the smartest people coming up through working-class and middle-income routes? What path is rational for a movement seeking to build a world of environmental sanity, social justice, and peace, yet facing such a sophisticated, powerful, and well-organized social order?
Read the rest of the story HERE:
Quicklink submitted by M. Wizard
(Add your own quicklinks easily with the
OpEdNews Quick Link Browser bookmark)
SAVE AS FAVORITEVIEW FAVORITES
View Ratings | Rate It
Michael Lerner: You have made many excellent analyses of the power of global capital and its capacity to undermine ordinary citizens' efforts to transform the global reality toward a more humane and generous world. If there were a serious movement in the U.S. ready to challenge global capital, what should such a movement do? Or is it, as many believe, hopeless, given the power of capital to control the media, undermine democratic movements, and use the police/military power and the co-optive power of mass entertainment, endless spectacle, and financial compensations for many of the smartest people coming up through working-class and middle-income routes? What path is rational for a movement seeking to build a world of environmental sanity, social justice, and peace, yet facing such a sophisticated, powerful, and well-organized social order?
Read the rest of the story HERE:
KEVIN GOSZTOLA (OpEdNews.com): OBAMA DOJ'S WAR ON FREE SPEECH & ACTIVISM
Obama DOJ's War on Free Speech & Activism
By Kevin Gosztola (about the author)
opednews.com
A few days ago, rallies were held in cities all over the United States in support of veteran Chicano activist Carlos Montes, who had his home raided by the FBI on May 17. The rallies coincided with Montes' arraignment hearing for felony charges, which were filed against him by the LA County Sheriffs and FBI after the raid.
The target of an ever-expanding government investigation into antiwar and international solidarity activists, Montes demanded that his charges be dropped. The District Attorney denied his request. Montes asked to see the search warrant and police report on the raid of his home. The District Attorney initially refused the request but then agreed to release heavily edited versions of the documents. Montes was also told he would not be allowed to show the documents to the press.
Tom Burke, a spokesperson for the Committee to Stop FBI Repression and a subpoenaed activist, explains that Montes allegedly was found to be in possession of a weapon that was not properly registered. Burke believes that if Montes hadn't been a political activist or organizer he would have been contacted about a problem on the gun permit. But, the LA sheriffs chose to make an example of Montes.
Burke also notes, like twenty-three other activists subpoenaed thus far, Montes has a link to the organizing of marches at the 2008 Republican National Convention.
The FBI raided the Antiwar Committee office in the Twin Cities in Minnesota in September 2010. On the warrant for the raid there were seventeen names. Burke says Carlos Montes' name appears on the warrant.
When Montes' home was raided by the FBI & SWAT team, they smashed Montes' front door, rushed in with automatic weapons while Montes was sleeping and proceeded to ransack his home, "taking his computer, cell phones and hundreds of documents, photos, diskettes and mementos of his current political activities in the pro-immigrant rights and Chicano civil rights movement." They did this at 5 am in the morning.
"For people who have had their homes raided, it's worse than being robbed because it's the government coming in and taking the things that are nearest and dearest to you � your own writing, your own diary," says Burke.
Rallies in eighteen cities were held in support of Montes and against ongoing FBI repression of activists. And because the judge did not drop the felony charges against Montes, another round of rallies will be held July 7 to again call for the charges to be dropped.
Recent articles in news publications like the Washington Post has given the repression against activists greater attention. At the Netroots Nation 2011 conference, a member of the audience asked at a panel session titled, "What the Government Wants to Know About You," if he could get more information on what he read on the recently published Post article.
Marcy Wheeler of Firedoglake, one of the speakers on the panel, described to the audience how the activists are alleged to be "material supporters of terrorism." She outlined how the grand jury investigation has been opened and recounted how an informant infiltrated the Antiwar Committee. She noted the activists are alleged to have connections to groups in Palestine and Colombia that perhaps have engaged in terrorist activities but concluded, "Chiquita has far closer ties to terrorism than any peace activists but nobody from Chiquita has gone to jail."
Essentially, the FBI now has all this data and is able to use it to start investigations. The FBI can turn over any rock that they want to turn over and they can seek out whatever they want to find and piece together a case.
With the FBI moving to expand surveillance powers, it is cases like this investigation into activists that the new powers will effectively make legitimate.
Burke reacts to the news that the FBI is claiming new powers, "The FBI has been violating their own guidelines and their own standard operating procedures and instead of saying we violated what we set out ourselves, they decided to expand what they were allowed to do.
Why does the government want these new powers? Why does the Justice Department under Obama support a growing investigation into activists?
Burke suggests with the economy getting worse the American people are getting more frustrated, with the Congress' approval rating getting lower and lower, the war in Afghanistan failing, stability in Iraq not being maintained and troops not being sent home, the Colombia war stagnating with no defeat of the insurgency--This "cumulation" is leading to more state repression against those fighting for change in the system.
The war on free speech and activism is apparent here at Netroots Nation as people like Lt. Dan Choi and Tim DeChristopher speak on panels and as individuals like David House are discussed during panel sessions.
Lt. Dan Choi, a soldier and gay rights advocate who engaged in an act of civil disobedience at the White House fence last year to push the Obama Administration to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," is facing federal charges for exercising his right to demonstrate. While most people receive misdemeanors for protesting, for the first time since 1917, the Department of Justice under Obama is taking him to trial this August for speaking out.
Tim DeChristopher, a climate activist who placed fake bids in a public land auction to disrupt drilling by energy companies, has been convicted of a crime. Although the land auction was ultimately declared illegal, the Obama Administration has gone ahead and pursued a case against DeChristopher. The prosecution pushed the jury in his trial to not consider his conscience but rather that he broke a law. They nudged the jury to obfuscate facts and, in fact, many key details on the auction were kept from the jury. And so, DeChristopher now faces up to ten years in prison.
And, David House, co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network, has been embroiled in a grand jury investigation that seeks to embroil him in espionage charges for being linked to WikiLeaks. House has been targeted consistently by the government for the past months. His lawful association with the Bradley Manning Support Network, which was created to raise funds for the legal defense of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the alleged whistleblower to WikiLeaks now being held at Ft. Leavenworth, has led the Department of Homeland Security stop him at airports and seize his laptop, camera and USB drive.
What is at stake with the targeting of activists is an American's right to protest against the government and sometimes take bold action that could be regarded as adversarial. Those who believe in free speech and support a person's right to protest must not ignore the cases the Department of Justice is pursuing against individuals in this country, who are being made examples to send a message to others that if they draw inspiration and display courage in the face of power they too might face the same punishment or harassment as these people.
*For video of Montes speaking at the rally on June 16, go here.
Kevin Gosztola is a multimedia editor for OpEdNews.com and a writer for WLCentral.org. He is currently serving as an intern for The Nation Magazine. And, he follows all things related to WikiLeaks, media, activism, the unfolding revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa and sometimes writes movie reviews for OEN.
He is a 2009 Young People For Fellow and a documentary filmmaker who graduated with a Film/Video B.A. degree from Columbia College Chicago in the Spring 2010. In April 2010, he co-organized a major arts & media summit called "Art, Access & Action," which explored the intersection of politics, art and media and was supported by Free Press. Chicago.
His work can be found on Open Salon, The Seminal, Media-ocracy.com, and a personal blog he started on Alternet called Moving Train Media.
OpEdNews Member for 199 week(s) and 3 day(s)
659 Articles, 302 Quick Links, 1520 Comments, 84 Diaries, 13 Polls
By Kevin Gosztola (about the author)
opednews.com
A few days ago, rallies were held in cities all over the United States in support of veteran Chicano activist Carlos Montes, who had his home raided by the FBI on May 17. The rallies coincided with Montes' arraignment hearing for felony charges, which were filed against him by the LA County Sheriffs and FBI after the raid.
The target of an ever-expanding government investigation into antiwar and international solidarity activists, Montes demanded that his charges be dropped. The District Attorney denied his request. Montes asked to see the search warrant and police report on the raid of his home. The District Attorney initially refused the request but then agreed to release heavily edited versions of the documents. Montes was also told he would not be allowed to show the documents to the press.
Tom Burke, a spokesperson for the Committee to Stop FBI Repression and a subpoenaed activist, explains that Montes allegedly was found to be in possession of a weapon that was not properly registered. Burke believes that if Montes hadn't been a political activist or organizer he would have been contacted about a problem on the gun permit. But, the LA sheriffs chose to make an example of Montes.
Burke also notes, like twenty-three other activists subpoenaed thus far, Montes has a link to the organizing of marches at the 2008 Republican National Convention.
The FBI raided the Antiwar Committee office in the Twin Cities in Minnesota in September 2010. On the warrant for the raid there were seventeen names. Burke says Carlos Montes' name appears on the warrant.
When Montes' home was raided by the FBI & SWAT team, they smashed Montes' front door, rushed in with automatic weapons while Montes was sleeping and proceeded to ransack his home, "taking his computer, cell phones and hundreds of documents, photos, diskettes and mementos of his current political activities in the pro-immigrant rights and Chicano civil rights movement." They did this at 5 am in the morning.
"For people who have had their homes raided, it's worse than being robbed because it's the government coming in and taking the things that are nearest and dearest to you � your own writing, your own diary," says Burke.
Rallies in eighteen cities were held in support of Montes and against ongoing FBI repression of activists. And because the judge did not drop the felony charges against Montes, another round of rallies will be held July 7 to again call for the charges to be dropped.
Recent articles in news publications like the Washington Post has given the repression against activists greater attention. At the Netroots Nation 2011 conference, a member of the audience asked at a panel session titled, "What the Government Wants to Know About You," if he could get more information on what he read on the recently published Post article.
Marcy Wheeler of Firedoglake, one of the speakers on the panel, described to the audience how the activists are alleged to be "material supporters of terrorism." She outlined how the grand jury investigation has been opened and recounted how an informant infiltrated the Antiwar Committee. She noted the activists are alleged to have connections to groups in Palestine and Colombia that perhaps have engaged in terrorist activities but concluded, "Chiquita has far closer ties to terrorism than any peace activists but nobody from Chiquita has gone to jail."
Essentially, the FBI now has all this data and is able to use it to start investigations. The FBI can turn over any rock that they want to turn over and they can seek out whatever they want to find and piece together a case.
With the FBI moving to expand surveillance powers, it is cases like this investigation into activists that the new powers will effectively make legitimate.
Burke reacts to the news that the FBI is claiming new powers, "The FBI has been violating their own guidelines and their own standard operating procedures and instead of saying we violated what we set out ourselves, they decided to expand what they were allowed to do.
Why does the government want these new powers? Why does the Justice Department under Obama support a growing investigation into activists?
Burke suggests with the economy getting worse the American people are getting more frustrated, with the Congress' approval rating getting lower and lower, the war in Afghanistan failing, stability in Iraq not being maintained and troops not being sent home, the Colombia war stagnating with no defeat of the insurgency--This "cumulation" is leading to more state repression against those fighting for change in the system.
The war on free speech and activism is apparent here at Netroots Nation as people like Lt. Dan Choi and Tim DeChristopher speak on panels and as individuals like David House are discussed during panel sessions.
Lt. Dan Choi, a soldier and gay rights advocate who engaged in an act of civil disobedience at the White House fence last year to push the Obama Administration to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," is facing federal charges for exercising his right to demonstrate. While most people receive misdemeanors for protesting, for the first time since 1917, the Department of Justice under Obama is taking him to trial this August for speaking out.
Tim DeChristopher, a climate activist who placed fake bids in a public land auction to disrupt drilling by energy companies, has been convicted of a crime. Although the land auction was ultimately declared illegal, the Obama Administration has gone ahead and pursued a case against DeChristopher. The prosecution pushed the jury in his trial to not consider his conscience but rather that he broke a law. They nudged the jury to obfuscate facts and, in fact, many key details on the auction were kept from the jury. And so, DeChristopher now faces up to ten years in prison.
And, David House, co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network, has been embroiled in a grand jury investigation that seeks to embroil him in espionage charges for being linked to WikiLeaks. House has been targeted consistently by the government for the past months. His lawful association with the Bradley Manning Support Network, which was created to raise funds for the legal defense of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the alleged whistleblower to WikiLeaks now being held at Ft. Leavenworth, has led the Department of Homeland Security stop him at airports and seize his laptop, camera and USB drive.
What is at stake with the targeting of activists is an American's right to protest against the government and sometimes take bold action that could be regarded as adversarial. Those who believe in free speech and support a person's right to protest must not ignore the cases the Department of Justice is pursuing against individuals in this country, who are being made examples to send a message to others that if they draw inspiration and display courage in the face of power they too might face the same punishment or harassment as these people.
*For video of Montes speaking at the rally on June 16, go here.
Kevin Gosztola is a multimedia editor for OpEdNews.com and a writer for WLCentral.org. He is currently serving as an intern for The Nation Magazine. And, he follows all things related to WikiLeaks, media, activism, the unfolding revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa and sometimes writes movie reviews for OEN.
He is a 2009 Young People For Fellow and a documentary filmmaker who graduated with a Film/Video B.A. degree from Columbia College Chicago in the Spring 2010. In April 2010, he co-organized a major arts & media summit called "Art, Access & Action," which explored the intersection of politics, art and media and was supported by Free Press. Chicago.
His work can be found on Open Salon, The Seminal, Media-ocracy.com, and a personal blog he started on Alternet called Moving Train Media.
OpEdNews Member for 199 week(s) and 3 day(s)
659 Articles, 302 Quick Links, 1520 Comments, 84 Diaries, 13 Polls
Saturday, June 18, 2011
John Jensen: "Finding Your Inner Lenin"
John Jensen to me, vlhamilton1, ascenddance
Hi Kate, Suzanne, and Lois--
It was good to talk with you a bit today, Kate. I'm not optimistic about the self-blinding direction the US overall seems to be pursuing in so many sectors of society. The Santa Barbara problems seem to have a lot of company.
Lois, I'm attaching a copy of my book, Finding Your Inner Lenin, that Kate and Suzanne already have. As I mentioned to Kate, I'm working in Yuma now till early September, and so could arrange a weekend round-trip to SB if it were warranted.
What would be warranted?
Let me explain my take on why changes seem so hard. In my book, I quote from Lenin: "If there had been a thousand headstrong people who knew what they wanted, we could not have taken power." We can tease some insights out of that sentence. It speaks to me about certain continua of development that do not occur by chance but only by conscious development. People need to see things in the same light, but also they need to be able to elaborate basic ideas into an ever more refined, on-target way of acting. The point of agreement about ideas (that in turn coalesce into a belief system) is that it should enable you to be better and better at doing something aligned with the beliefs. This is where simply a Progressive coalition (parallel to the Tea Party, etc.) meets a roadblock. What tends to happen is that a call goes out for all those who already agree about something. They come, they act, but they do not grow beyond their initial numbers because they don't understand the process of transmitting and growing. One of the markers of a healthy group is its capacity to replicate itself at a distance. So the Lenin quote essentially pictures the end-point of a process of growth--people who not only believe the same things but are so clear about them that they have a common frame of reference for acting--and acting then with personal sacrifice and commitment to their common belief.
The necessity of this growth process for a group that hopes to influence regional, state, or national policy is utterly basic. You start with just so many who agree up front and then you can't find any more. You face the fact that you don't have the numbers sufficient to determine overall policy directions. What then? Do you give up, or do you undertake a plan for increasing your numbers by actually changing people's thinking?
What people usually do is collect a small cohort of people who make great sacrifices just to get a toehold big enough to gather some money from contributors to broadcast some appeal to the larger society. This has happened over and over without success, so once realizing that this method doesn't work, you look at the alternative. You actually have to decide to have faith in people, that you're going to try to build people--help them increase their confidence, leadership, and knowledge, and then send them out to act in society while "having their back," while being there to support and sustain their efforts in common. So the effort of growth involves looking around at your own people and asking "What is the next step of personal development for every one of these folks?" and then undertaking those steps while simultaneously keeping them active in addressing the local, state, and national needs that call out for intervention.
This is what my book is about--the means of collecting the commitment and energy of people so that they can be more effective. A big factor in the beginning of an effort is that people can foresee a track of development, a means of taking steps one after another, that will get them somewhere. And this is what I believe is in my book. If a clutch of people committed to learning what's in it, I believe it would supply them the clues they need in order to have a powerful effect on their surroundings.
For the life of me, I can't think of anything else to do that has even a prayer of succeeding intentionally. Lots of things could happen by accident, and perhaps we "pray" for a deus ex machina to descend and set things right. But in regard to intentional behavior, I can't think of anything else likely to work.
Let me know what you think. Call me any evening at 928-726-2800 ext 220.
Best, John
Hi Kate, Suzanne, and Lois--
It was good to talk with you a bit today, Kate. I'm not optimistic about the self-blinding direction the US overall seems to be pursuing in so many sectors of society. The Santa Barbara problems seem to have a lot of company.
Lois, I'm attaching a copy of my book, Finding Your Inner Lenin, that Kate and Suzanne already have. As I mentioned to Kate, I'm working in Yuma now till early September, and so could arrange a weekend round-trip to SB if it were warranted.
What would be warranted?
Let me explain my take on why changes seem so hard. In my book, I quote from Lenin: "If there had been a thousand headstrong people who knew what they wanted, we could not have taken power." We can tease some insights out of that sentence. It speaks to me about certain continua of development that do not occur by chance but only by conscious development. People need to see things in the same light, but also they need to be able to elaborate basic ideas into an ever more refined, on-target way of acting. The point of agreement about ideas (that in turn coalesce into a belief system) is that it should enable you to be better and better at doing something aligned with the beliefs. This is where simply a Progressive coalition (parallel to the Tea Party, etc.) meets a roadblock. What tends to happen is that a call goes out for all those who already agree about something. They come, they act, but they do not grow beyond their initial numbers because they don't understand the process of transmitting and growing. One of the markers of a healthy group is its capacity to replicate itself at a distance. So the Lenin quote essentially pictures the end-point of a process of growth--people who not only believe the same things but are so clear about them that they have a common frame of reference for acting--and acting then with personal sacrifice and commitment to their common belief.
The necessity of this growth process for a group that hopes to influence regional, state, or national policy is utterly basic. You start with just so many who agree up front and then you can't find any more. You face the fact that you don't have the numbers sufficient to determine overall policy directions. What then? Do you give up, or do you undertake a plan for increasing your numbers by actually changing people's thinking?
What people usually do is collect a small cohort of people who make great sacrifices just to get a toehold big enough to gather some money from contributors to broadcast some appeal to the larger society. This has happened over and over without success, so once realizing that this method doesn't work, you look at the alternative. You actually have to decide to have faith in people, that you're going to try to build people--help them increase their confidence, leadership, and knowledge, and then send them out to act in society while "having their back," while being there to support and sustain their efforts in common. So the effort of growth involves looking around at your own people and asking "What is the next step of personal development for every one of these folks?" and then undertaking those steps while simultaneously keeping them active in addressing the local, state, and national needs that call out for intervention.
This is what my book is about--the means of collecting the commitment and energy of people so that they can be more effective. A big factor in the beginning of an effort is that people can foresee a track of development, a means of taking steps one after another, that will get them somewhere. And this is what I believe is in my book. If a clutch of people committed to learning what's in it, I believe it would supply them the clues they need in order to have a powerful effect on their surroundings.
For the life of me, I can't think of anything else to do that has even a prayer of succeeding intentionally. Lots of things could happen by accident, and perhaps we "pray" for a deus ex machina to descend and set things right. But in regard to intentional behavior, I can't think of anything else likely to work.
Let me know what you think. Call me any evening at 928-726-2800 ext 220.
Best, John
Friday, June 17, 2011
YES Magazine: Drug Warrior No More
Peace & Justice | Beyond Prisons | Social Investment | Community
Drug Warrior No More
Seattle’s ex-police chief now fights to end the war on drugs.
by Norm Stamper
posted Jun 03, 2011
It’s not hard to explain why I morphed from drug warrior to drug policy reformer. For more than three decades, I watched the drug war destroy values that, as a cop, I swore to uphold. I observed unnecessary suffering, justice gone wrong, and widespread corruption within policing. I witnessed the physical deterioration of whole neighborhoods—streets, homes, and schools made less safe.
And I saw myself and fellow police officers cast as the “bad guys” in the enforcement of drug laws.
In the late 1960s, I worked alongside one of the most dangerous cops I would ever meet. He didn’t beat people, didn’t even call them names. In fact, he was one of the most soft-spoken, decent cops you’d ever want to encounter. Unless he thought you were holding.
In which case he would find—or invent—cause to rip your car apart, invade your pants pockets or purse, or storm your dorm in quest of a leaf, stem, or seed that would justify a drug bust.
I also recall vividly a moment in 1988 when I responded to a drug raid gone bad. A 56-year-old civilian navy instructor, deeply opposed to drug use, made the mistake of opening his door with a TV remote in hand. When I got there, the body was just being bagged. His family would never understand. The cop who shot him would never be the same.
Heart-wrenching stories are inevitable in a nation that has chosen prohibition as its model for drug policy, a nation that has criminalized a disease—drug addiction.And some 35 years ago, my friend, Connie, a beautiful, slender woman, was dying. My wife, Patricia, and I drove her to dialysis three times a week. We took her to restaurants and movies (where, because of her illness, we sat in the front row so she could distinguish between Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in All the President’s Men).
As she grew thinner and weaker, Connie stopped venturing out of her dark, stuffy apartment. One hot summer afternoon, she took Patricia’s advice: She donned jeans and a halter top and left the apartment for the 7-Eleven a block and a half away. As she gave the clerk a 5-dollar bill for the iced tea she’d taken from the cooler, a hand violently seized her bird-like wrist. A voice demanded, “And what’s this?” Connie had not seen the uniformed cop standing behind her.
Terrified, shaking, and humiliated, our friend explained her medical condition and the reason for the tracks on her arm. The cop left in a huff, no apology. Connie would never again go out in public by herself. Three months later, she died alone at the age of 32.
Heart-wrenching stories are inevitable in a nation that has chosen prohibition as its model for drug policy, a nation that has criminalized a disease—drug addiction.
A Peaceful End to the War on Drugs?
The international war on drugs isn't stopping drug use or trafficking—but it is ruining lives.
Drug policy expert Sanho Tree on what we can do differently.
Over the past 40 years, we’ve spent a trillion dollars prosecuting the drug war. We’ve jailed tens of millions of Americans for nonviolent offenses, ruined countless young lives, turned neighborhoods into armed battlegrounds, done major damage to the Bill of Rights, destabilized the political and economic policies of foreign countries, and tacitly granted commercial and regulatory monopolies to traffickers from Afghanistan to Jamaica, L.A. to New York. U.S. drug policy is the proximate cause of 37,000 deaths in Mexico alone since 2006.Someday we’ll wise up. The only true solution to the horrific financial and human costs of the drug war is to end it—to legalize and regulate drugs.
According to Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, drug legalization would save $77 billion a year. It would free up close to half the nation’s prison cells, reserving them for violent offenders. We would be able to invest substantially more time, money, and imagination in prevention, education, and drug treatment. And, we would make our communities much safer and healthier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norm Stamper, Ph.D., wrote this article for Beyond Prisons, the Summer 2011 issue of YES! Magazine. Norm was Seattle’s police chief from 1994 to 2000, and a police officer for 34 years. He is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and the author of Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of Policing.
Interested?
Voices of Compassion
More stories of life beyond bars.
Just the Facts: It's a Locking-People-Up Problem
The American problem with mass incarceration is less about crime than it is about how—and who—we lock up.
Drug Warrior No More
Seattle’s ex-police chief now fights to end the war on drugs.
by Norm Stamper
posted Jun 03, 2011
It’s not hard to explain why I morphed from drug warrior to drug policy reformer. For more than three decades, I watched the drug war destroy values that, as a cop, I swore to uphold. I observed unnecessary suffering, justice gone wrong, and widespread corruption within policing. I witnessed the physical deterioration of whole neighborhoods—streets, homes, and schools made less safe.
And I saw myself and fellow police officers cast as the “bad guys” in the enforcement of drug laws.
In the late 1960s, I worked alongside one of the most dangerous cops I would ever meet. He didn’t beat people, didn’t even call them names. In fact, he was one of the most soft-spoken, decent cops you’d ever want to encounter. Unless he thought you were holding.
In which case he would find—or invent—cause to rip your car apart, invade your pants pockets or purse, or storm your dorm in quest of a leaf, stem, or seed that would justify a drug bust.
I also recall vividly a moment in 1988 when I responded to a drug raid gone bad. A 56-year-old civilian navy instructor, deeply opposed to drug use, made the mistake of opening his door with a TV remote in hand. When I got there, the body was just being bagged. His family would never understand. The cop who shot him would never be the same.
Heart-wrenching stories are inevitable in a nation that has chosen prohibition as its model for drug policy, a nation that has criminalized a disease—drug addiction.And some 35 years ago, my friend, Connie, a beautiful, slender woman, was dying. My wife, Patricia, and I drove her to dialysis three times a week. We took her to restaurants and movies (where, because of her illness, we sat in the front row so she could distinguish between Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in All the President’s Men).
As she grew thinner and weaker, Connie stopped venturing out of her dark, stuffy apartment. One hot summer afternoon, she took Patricia’s advice: She donned jeans and a halter top and left the apartment for the 7-Eleven a block and a half away. As she gave the clerk a 5-dollar bill for the iced tea she’d taken from the cooler, a hand violently seized her bird-like wrist. A voice demanded, “And what’s this?” Connie had not seen the uniformed cop standing behind her.
Terrified, shaking, and humiliated, our friend explained her medical condition and the reason for the tracks on her arm. The cop left in a huff, no apology. Connie would never again go out in public by herself. Three months later, she died alone at the age of 32.
Heart-wrenching stories are inevitable in a nation that has chosen prohibition as its model for drug policy, a nation that has criminalized a disease—drug addiction.
A Peaceful End to the War on Drugs?
The international war on drugs isn't stopping drug use or trafficking—but it is ruining lives.
Drug policy expert Sanho Tree on what we can do differently.
Over the past 40 years, we’ve spent a trillion dollars prosecuting the drug war. We’ve jailed tens of millions of Americans for nonviolent offenses, ruined countless young lives, turned neighborhoods into armed battlegrounds, done major damage to the Bill of Rights, destabilized the political and economic policies of foreign countries, and tacitly granted commercial and regulatory monopolies to traffickers from Afghanistan to Jamaica, L.A. to New York. U.S. drug policy is the proximate cause of 37,000 deaths in Mexico alone since 2006.Someday we’ll wise up. The only true solution to the horrific financial and human costs of the drug war is to end it—to legalize and regulate drugs.
According to Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, drug legalization would save $77 billion a year. It would free up close to half the nation’s prison cells, reserving them for violent offenders. We would be able to invest substantially more time, money, and imagination in prevention, education, and drug treatment. And, we would make our communities much safer and healthier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norm Stamper, Ph.D., wrote this article for Beyond Prisons, the Summer 2011 issue of YES! Magazine. Norm was Seattle’s police chief from 1994 to 2000, and a police officer for 34 years. He is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and the author of Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of Policing.
Interested?
Voices of Compassion
More stories of life beyond bars.
Just the Facts: It's a Locking-People-Up Problem
The American problem with mass incarceration is less about crime than it is about how—and who—we lock up.
THE WAR ON DRUGS: "Time to End the Madness"
40 Years of Drug War Hasn't Worked; "Time for a Change," Says 9-Year Veteran
The public understands how disastrous it's been -- now it's time for the politicians and law enforcement to change course
.
June 15, 2011 |
� The “War on Drugs” was launched by President Richard Nixon 40 years ago this week. In 1980, at the end of its first decade, I began a nine-year career as a “captain” in the war on drugs. I was the attorney in the U.S. House of Representatives principally responsible for overseeing DEA and writing anti-drug laws as counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime.
White House leadership
The heart of Nixon’s 5,300-word message to Congress on June 17, 1971 was a plan “to consolidate at the highest level a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America” in a White House Office. The office was dismantled soon after Nixon resigned having been resisted by Cabinet secretaries and anti-drug agencies.
Soon after the Reagan Administration took office in 1981, Democrats in Congress began attacking the disorganization of the anti-drug effort, and mocked administration witnesses who insisted that President Reagan was really in charge. Senator Joseph Biden’s (D-DE) proposal to create a “drug czar” passed Congress in 1982 but led to President Reagan’s only veto of an anti-crime, anti-drug package. The resulting political outrage led to appointment of then-Vice President George H.W. Bush to lead a South Florida anti-drug task force, a “mini drug czar.”
Hearings I set up for the House Judiciary Committee helped lead to the 1984 enactment of an anti-drug strategy board led by the attorney general, and then its replacement in 1988 with our current White House “drug czar,” the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). But, 40 years on, our anti-drug effort is no better managed now than when Nixon decried bureaucratic red-tape and jurisdictional disputes among agencies.
After 22 years, ONDCP has proven to be an ineffectual waste of money. Anti-drug efforts remain haphazard and uncoordinated. Federal anti-drug prosecutions are unfocused, wasteful and racially discriminatory. An examination of the 25,000 federal drug cases concluded each year reveals two outrageous facts. First, instead of high-impact investigations targeting the most dangerous and powerful drug traffickers, the typical federal cases target the lowest level offenders: local street dealers, lookouts, bodyguards, couriers, “mules,” etc. selling small quantities of drugs that are tiny specks in the picture of the national and global drug trade. Second, the defendants in these cases are overwhelmingly black and Hispanic. Only about one in four federal drug defendants is white.
This regular pattern of mostly unimportant cases with very long sentences imposed predominately on racial minorities makes out a prima facie case of a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. But this well-known pattern has been ignored by the attorney general and the director of ONDCP in an egregious abandonment of their leadership responsibilities.
Another issue crying out for high-level coordination reveals the fundamental failure of the drug war approach. For most of the history of ONDCP, it has campaigned against state medical marijuana laws. Since 1996, 16 states have passed laws that recognize patient use of marijuana for medical treatment. But this conflicts with current federal law. As the leader of the drug war, the drug czar has done nothing to coordinate federal research, regulatory and enforcement efforts necessary to resolve this conflict that leads medical patients and doctors to legal danger and unsatisfactory medical care.
ONDCP’s signature “achievement” has been to spend $1.4 billion in a youth anti-drug media campaign that has been demonstrated by the government’s independent evaluators and the GAO to be utterly ineffectual.
Death and Disease
In his 1971 message, Nixon lamented 1,000 narcotics deaths in New York City in 1970, then the epicenter of the heroin addiction problem. At the end of 1979, the annual number of drug abuse deaths was 7,101, which grew to 9,976 in 1986, the year basketball star Len Bias died from a cocaine-induced seizure. But the death rate from illegal drugs has exploded! In 2007, there were an estimated 38,000 drug overdose deaths nationwide. The death rate has grown from 3.0 per 100,000 in 1980 to 12.8 in 2006.
Since 1981, when HIV entered the bloodstream of America’s injecting drug users, epidemiologists’ projects to protect the lives of drug users have been stymied by drug warriors. In 1998, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala endorsed sterile syringe exchange as scientifically proven to prevent the spread of blood-borne disease among injecting drug users. But implementing this lifesaving approach was blocked by White House ONDCP director, General Barry McCaffrey.
In February 2005, Bush White House ONDCP director John Walters was found by the Washington Post to have completely misrepresented the scientific research supporting syringe exchange. The opposition of the White House directors of drug policy is due to the distorting effects of the language and values of war introduced by President Nixon. The emotional mobilization for war against drugs (and drug users) barred acceptance of scientific findings that sterile needle exchange protected drug users from HIV and hepatitis and other blood-borne disease. In a war on drugs, users weren’t supposed to be protected from disease and death, they were to be stopped from using drugs.
I recall a member of Congress in the late 1980s saying that America won’t have to worry about the heroin problem anymore since the addicts will all soon die from AIDS. This indifference to the lives and dignity of drug users has been a hallmark of the war on drugs. Indeed, between 1999 and 2007, over 48,000 persons died in the U.S. from AIDS due to transmission by infected needles. These deaths are in large part due to the absolutist ideology of the drug war that Nixon inspired.
Drug Use and Treatment
Nixon said his initiative “must be judged by the number of human beings who are brought out of the hell of addiction, and by the number of human beings who are dissuaded from entering that hell.”
Most school-based prevention efforts, such as D.A.R.E., have been proven to be ineffective. Yet hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on such efforts by federal, state and local governments and with private contributions. Not surprisingly, drug use has continued to grow, especially marijuana use. In 2009, there were 21.8 million users of illicit drugs.
Nevertheless, Nixon drove a dramatic expansion of federally funded drug treatment using methadone in many cities, and crime went down in time for the 1972 election. But over the long term, as the anti-drug effort conformed to the strident rhetoric of war that Nixon popularized, the supply of drug treatment has not kept pace with the demand. By 2008, an estimated 7,559,000 Americans needed drug treatment, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, but 6,351,000 did not receive any treatment. From 2002 to 2008, among youth aged 12 to 17, the number who received drug treatment declined from 142,000 to 111,000. Nixon’s goal to expand drug treatment to meet the need has never been met.
Federal Anti-Drug Costs
Nixon asked Congress for $159 million dollars for his initiatives, plus an unspecified amount to pay 325 additional agents for what became the DEA.
Over the past 40 years, the federal government has spent, cumulatively, roughly a half trillion dollars on the “war on drugs.” By FY 1975, federal anti-drug spending had climbed to $680 million. For the past 20 years, federal spending on drugs has exceeded $15 billion per year including the costs of imprisonment.
The costs are now so high, for a decade the “drug czars” seem to regularly conceal almost one-third of the anti-drug spending by excluding it from the formal anti-drug budget they report to Congress. ONDCP says that $14.8 billion was spent in FY 2009 to fight drugs. But another $6.9 billion was also spent in FY 2009 on anti-drug programs such as the incarceration of federal drug prisoners.
The FY 2011 formal anti-drug budget request is for $15.5 billion, excluding imprisonment and the many other costs which remain concealed in the budget submission.
The cost of imprisoning federal drug prisoners has been over $3 billion annually since FY 2008. On June 9, 2011 the total federal prison population exceeded 216,000. As of May 20, 2011, 50.8 percent of convicted federal prisoners were drug offenders.
Economic Impact
Nixon wanted research and “development of necessary reports, statistics, and social indicators for use by all public and private groups.”
Unfortunately, we do not have a clear idea of the cost to the economy from the unemployment and underemployment of tens of millions who have criminal records for drug use or distribution. With criminal records, many such men are unmarriageable and can’t obtain credit.
What has it meant to the shareholders and investment funds that own Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, and the union workers who build cars and components, that instead of the 200,000 prisoners in state and federal prisons in 1972, now there are about 1.6 million adults in prison (and another 600,000 in jails)? This is a population of about 1.4 million mostly young men (prime car owners) who can’t buy a car.
America’s economy is famously consumer driven and is terribly hurt when tens of millions of residents can’t work and can’t buy the goods manufactured and sold by American businesses. This constriction of our domestic market is not a problem our Japanese and German competitors face.
Veterans
Nixon asked for $14 million “to make the facilities of the Veterans Administration available to all former servicemen in need of drug rehabilitation.” SAMHSA, using data from National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2004-2006 indicate that out of a veteran population of 25.9 million persons, an annual average 7.1 percent of veterans met the criteria for a past year substance use disorder, and another 1.5 percent had co-occurring serious psychological distress and substance use disorder. We all know the population of veterans with physical and psychological injuries is rapidly growing and that substance abuse is growing in that population. The ONDCP focuses on the criminal cases, touting special criminal courts to treat veterans who commit crimes, while treatment in general languishes.
International initiatives
A major feature of Nixon’s message stressed the need for international cooperation. He had already stumbled badly when “Operation Intercept” in September 1969 created enormous traffic jams at the Mexico-U.S. border, and severely damaged trade and bilateral relations.
Opium grown in Turkey was the source of 80 percent of the heroin consumed in the U.S. in 1968. Nixon made an overture to Turkey and they cracked down on illegal opium growing and required cultivation licenses. Opium is now grown legally there to make morphine, and none is diverted to heroin. Instead of following this successful legalization strategy, Nixon’s successors tried to rely only on forceful crop eradication. But enforcement is like squeezing a balloon. The drug production shifts to new countries which render such successes meaningless. Sadly, expanding production of opium and heroin has become a disaster for other nations such as Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala and Afghanistan, fueling insurrection, wholesale corruption and widespread assassination.
Support for Prohibition Is Vanishing
In the face of threats of prosecution from the federal government, stuck in the ideology of the “war on drugs,” state legislatures and governors continue to pass medical marijuana laws. On May 10, 2011, Maryland’s governor signed a law creating a complete medical use defense to a marijuana prosecution and creating a state commission to write a model medical marijuana law. On May 13, 2011, Delaware’s governor signed a medical marijuana law, making it the sixteenth state with a comprehensive law to protect medical use of marijuana. On June 2, 2011, Vermont’s governor signed a law to add medical marijuana dispensaries to that state’s medical marijuana law.
On June 7, 2011, the Connecticut legislature voted to decriminalize possession of less than a half ounce of marijuana and the governor has promised to sign the law. In November 2010, in California, 46.5 percent of the voters supported legalizing marijuana, and polls revealed that 30 percent of “no” voters said they supported legalization but not in the form of Proposition 19 that was the regime on the ballot.
I have been involved in making drug policy professionally for more than 30 years -- three-quarters of the war on drugs. On June 14, I joined five veteran police officers (local, state and federal), a former judge, and a corrections commissioner -- all speakers from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition – to bring to ONDCP Director Gil Kerlikowske LEAP’s indictment of the failures of war on drugs policy. We held a press conference on the sidewalk outside his office near the White House. As it was breaking up, four construction workers asked my chief of staff what it was all about. She told them it was about legalizing drugs. Immediately they started telling her all the various reasons why our drug policy is a failure.
For 10 minutes they described the racial disparity in arrests, the drug violence in Mexico and in American neighborhoods, the deaths from drug overdose, the pointlessness of arresting a drug dealer who gets immediately replaced or putting drug users in jail. They noted the parallels between the failure of alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. They noted the tax revenues from drug sales that we are losing. This telling anecdote reveals how broadly the public understands that Nixon’s “war on drugs” has been a widespread failure.
The next step is for the drug policy reform community to present concrete proposals for analysis to legislators and the public. Surely most of us can agree with prestigious groups such as the Global Commission on Drug Policy that the facts of the war on drugs after 40 years are clear signs we need a very different strategy.
Eric E. Sterling has been president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a private non-profit educational organization, since 1989.
The public understands how disastrous it's been -- now it's time for the politicians and law enforcement to change course
.
June 15, 2011 |
� The “War on Drugs” was launched by President Richard Nixon 40 years ago this week. In 1980, at the end of its first decade, I began a nine-year career as a “captain” in the war on drugs. I was the attorney in the U.S. House of Representatives principally responsible for overseeing DEA and writing anti-drug laws as counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime.
White House leadership
The heart of Nixon’s 5,300-word message to Congress on June 17, 1971 was a plan “to consolidate at the highest level a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America” in a White House Office. The office was dismantled soon after Nixon resigned having been resisted by Cabinet secretaries and anti-drug agencies.
Soon after the Reagan Administration took office in 1981, Democrats in Congress began attacking the disorganization of the anti-drug effort, and mocked administration witnesses who insisted that President Reagan was really in charge. Senator Joseph Biden’s (D-DE) proposal to create a “drug czar” passed Congress in 1982 but led to President Reagan’s only veto of an anti-crime, anti-drug package. The resulting political outrage led to appointment of then-Vice President George H.W. Bush to lead a South Florida anti-drug task force, a “mini drug czar.”
Hearings I set up for the House Judiciary Committee helped lead to the 1984 enactment of an anti-drug strategy board led by the attorney general, and then its replacement in 1988 with our current White House “drug czar,” the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). But, 40 years on, our anti-drug effort is no better managed now than when Nixon decried bureaucratic red-tape and jurisdictional disputes among agencies.
After 22 years, ONDCP has proven to be an ineffectual waste of money. Anti-drug efforts remain haphazard and uncoordinated. Federal anti-drug prosecutions are unfocused, wasteful and racially discriminatory. An examination of the 25,000 federal drug cases concluded each year reveals two outrageous facts. First, instead of high-impact investigations targeting the most dangerous and powerful drug traffickers, the typical federal cases target the lowest level offenders: local street dealers, lookouts, bodyguards, couriers, “mules,” etc. selling small quantities of drugs that are tiny specks in the picture of the national and global drug trade. Second, the defendants in these cases are overwhelmingly black and Hispanic. Only about one in four federal drug defendants is white.
This regular pattern of mostly unimportant cases with very long sentences imposed predominately on racial minorities makes out a prima facie case of a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. But this well-known pattern has been ignored by the attorney general and the director of ONDCP in an egregious abandonment of their leadership responsibilities.
Another issue crying out for high-level coordination reveals the fundamental failure of the drug war approach. For most of the history of ONDCP, it has campaigned against state medical marijuana laws. Since 1996, 16 states have passed laws that recognize patient use of marijuana for medical treatment. But this conflicts with current federal law. As the leader of the drug war, the drug czar has done nothing to coordinate federal research, regulatory and enforcement efforts necessary to resolve this conflict that leads medical patients and doctors to legal danger and unsatisfactory medical care.
ONDCP’s signature “achievement” has been to spend $1.4 billion in a youth anti-drug media campaign that has been demonstrated by the government’s independent evaluators and the GAO to be utterly ineffectual.
Death and Disease
In his 1971 message, Nixon lamented 1,000 narcotics deaths in New York City in 1970, then the epicenter of the heroin addiction problem. At the end of 1979, the annual number of drug abuse deaths was 7,101, which grew to 9,976 in 1986, the year basketball star Len Bias died from a cocaine-induced seizure. But the death rate from illegal drugs has exploded! In 2007, there were an estimated 38,000 drug overdose deaths nationwide. The death rate has grown from 3.0 per 100,000 in 1980 to 12.8 in 2006.
Since 1981, when HIV entered the bloodstream of America’s injecting drug users, epidemiologists’ projects to protect the lives of drug users have been stymied by drug warriors. In 1998, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala endorsed sterile syringe exchange as scientifically proven to prevent the spread of blood-borne disease among injecting drug users. But implementing this lifesaving approach was blocked by White House ONDCP director, General Barry McCaffrey.
In February 2005, Bush White House ONDCP director John Walters was found by the Washington Post to have completely misrepresented the scientific research supporting syringe exchange. The opposition of the White House directors of drug policy is due to the distorting effects of the language and values of war introduced by President Nixon. The emotional mobilization for war against drugs (and drug users) barred acceptance of scientific findings that sterile needle exchange protected drug users from HIV and hepatitis and other blood-borne disease. In a war on drugs, users weren’t supposed to be protected from disease and death, they were to be stopped from using drugs.
I recall a member of Congress in the late 1980s saying that America won’t have to worry about the heroin problem anymore since the addicts will all soon die from AIDS. This indifference to the lives and dignity of drug users has been a hallmark of the war on drugs. Indeed, between 1999 and 2007, over 48,000 persons died in the U.S. from AIDS due to transmission by infected needles. These deaths are in large part due to the absolutist ideology of the drug war that Nixon inspired.
Drug Use and Treatment
Nixon said his initiative “must be judged by the number of human beings who are brought out of the hell of addiction, and by the number of human beings who are dissuaded from entering that hell.”
Most school-based prevention efforts, such as D.A.R.E., have been proven to be ineffective. Yet hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on such efforts by federal, state and local governments and with private contributions. Not surprisingly, drug use has continued to grow, especially marijuana use. In 2009, there were 21.8 million users of illicit drugs.
Nevertheless, Nixon drove a dramatic expansion of federally funded drug treatment using methadone in many cities, and crime went down in time for the 1972 election. But over the long term, as the anti-drug effort conformed to the strident rhetoric of war that Nixon popularized, the supply of drug treatment has not kept pace with the demand. By 2008, an estimated 7,559,000 Americans needed drug treatment, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, but 6,351,000 did not receive any treatment. From 2002 to 2008, among youth aged 12 to 17, the number who received drug treatment declined from 142,000 to 111,000. Nixon’s goal to expand drug treatment to meet the need has never been met.
Federal Anti-Drug Costs
Nixon asked Congress for $159 million dollars for his initiatives, plus an unspecified amount to pay 325 additional agents for what became the DEA.
Over the past 40 years, the federal government has spent, cumulatively, roughly a half trillion dollars on the “war on drugs.” By FY 1975, federal anti-drug spending had climbed to $680 million. For the past 20 years, federal spending on drugs has exceeded $15 billion per year including the costs of imprisonment.
The costs are now so high, for a decade the “drug czars” seem to regularly conceal almost one-third of the anti-drug spending by excluding it from the formal anti-drug budget they report to Congress. ONDCP says that $14.8 billion was spent in FY 2009 to fight drugs. But another $6.9 billion was also spent in FY 2009 on anti-drug programs such as the incarceration of federal drug prisoners.
The FY 2011 formal anti-drug budget request is for $15.5 billion, excluding imprisonment and the many other costs which remain concealed in the budget submission.
The cost of imprisoning federal drug prisoners has been over $3 billion annually since FY 2008. On June 9, 2011 the total federal prison population exceeded 216,000. As of May 20, 2011, 50.8 percent of convicted federal prisoners were drug offenders.
Economic Impact
Nixon wanted research and “development of necessary reports, statistics, and social indicators for use by all public and private groups.”
Unfortunately, we do not have a clear idea of the cost to the economy from the unemployment and underemployment of tens of millions who have criminal records for drug use or distribution. With criminal records, many such men are unmarriageable and can’t obtain credit.
What has it meant to the shareholders and investment funds that own Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, and the union workers who build cars and components, that instead of the 200,000 prisoners in state and federal prisons in 1972, now there are about 1.6 million adults in prison (and another 600,000 in jails)? This is a population of about 1.4 million mostly young men (prime car owners) who can’t buy a car.
America’s economy is famously consumer driven and is terribly hurt when tens of millions of residents can’t work and can’t buy the goods manufactured and sold by American businesses. This constriction of our domestic market is not a problem our Japanese and German competitors face.
Veterans
Nixon asked for $14 million “to make the facilities of the Veterans Administration available to all former servicemen in need of drug rehabilitation.” SAMHSA, using data from National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2004-2006 indicate that out of a veteran population of 25.9 million persons, an annual average 7.1 percent of veterans met the criteria for a past year substance use disorder, and another 1.5 percent had co-occurring serious psychological distress and substance use disorder. We all know the population of veterans with physical and psychological injuries is rapidly growing and that substance abuse is growing in that population. The ONDCP focuses on the criminal cases, touting special criminal courts to treat veterans who commit crimes, while treatment in general languishes.
International initiatives
A major feature of Nixon’s message stressed the need for international cooperation. He had already stumbled badly when “Operation Intercept” in September 1969 created enormous traffic jams at the Mexico-U.S. border, and severely damaged trade and bilateral relations.
Opium grown in Turkey was the source of 80 percent of the heroin consumed in the U.S. in 1968. Nixon made an overture to Turkey and they cracked down on illegal opium growing and required cultivation licenses. Opium is now grown legally there to make morphine, and none is diverted to heroin. Instead of following this successful legalization strategy, Nixon’s successors tried to rely only on forceful crop eradication. But enforcement is like squeezing a balloon. The drug production shifts to new countries which render such successes meaningless. Sadly, expanding production of opium and heroin has become a disaster for other nations such as Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala and Afghanistan, fueling insurrection, wholesale corruption and widespread assassination.
Support for Prohibition Is Vanishing
In the face of threats of prosecution from the federal government, stuck in the ideology of the “war on drugs,” state legislatures and governors continue to pass medical marijuana laws. On May 10, 2011, Maryland’s governor signed a law creating a complete medical use defense to a marijuana prosecution and creating a state commission to write a model medical marijuana law. On May 13, 2011, Delaware’s governor signed a medical marijuana law, making it the sixteenth state with a comprehensive law to protect medical use of marijuana. On June 2, 2011, Vermont’s governor signed a law to add medical marijuana dispensaries to that state’s medical marijuana law.
On June 7, 2011, the Connecticut legislature voted to decriminalize possession of less than a half ounce of marijuana and the governor has promised to sign the law. In November 2010, in California, 46.5 percent of the voters supported legalizing marijuana, and polls revealed that 30 percent of “no” voters said they supported legalization but not in the form of Proposition 19 that was the regime on the ballot.
I have been involved in making drug policy professionally for more than 30 years -- three-quarters of the war on drugs. On June 14, I joined five veteran police officers (local, state and federal), a former judge, and a corrections commissioner -- all speakers from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition – to bring to ONDCP Director Gil Kerlikowske LEAP’s indictment of the failures of war on drugs policy. We held a press conference on the sidewalk outside his office near the White House. As it was breaking up, four construction workers asked my chief of staff what it was all about. She told them it was about legalizing drugs. Immediately they started telling her all the various reasons why our drug policy is a failure.
For 10 minutes they described the racial disparity in arrests, the drug violence in Mexico and in American neighborhoods, the deaths from drug overdose, the pointlessness of arresting a drug dealer who gets immediately replaced or putting drug users in jail. They noted the parallels between the failure of alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. They noted the tax revenues from drug sales that we are losing. This telling anecdote reveals how broadly the public understands that Nixon’s “war on drugs” has been a widespread failure.
The next step is for the drug policy reform community to present concrete proposals for analysis to legislators and the public. Surely most of us can agree with prestigious groups such as the Global Commission on Drug Policy that the facts of the war on drugs after 40 years are clear signs we need a very different strategy.
Eric E. Sterling has been president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a private non-profit educational organization, since 1989.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
L.A. Times wins Pulizer for exposing corruption
L.A. Times wins Pulitzer for exposing corruption
Chris Hawley Associated Press
New York — The Los Angeles Times won a Pulitzer Prize for public service Monday for a series revealing that politicians in the struggling working-class city of Bell, Calif., were paying themselves enormous six-figure salaries.
The newspaper's reporting that officials in the 37,000-resident town were jacking up property taxes and other fees in part to cover the huge salaries led to arrests and the ouster of some of Bell's top officials.
The Times won a second Pulitzer for feature photography, and the New York Times won two Pulitzers, for international reporting and for commentary.
But in a year in which the earthquake in Haiti and the disastrous Gulf oil spill were some of the biggest stories, the Pulitzer Board decided not to give an award in the category of breaking news — a first in the 95-year history of the prize.
The board named three finalists for the award: The Chicago Tribune for coverage of the deaths of two Chicago firefighters, The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald for reporting on the Haiti earthquake and the Tennessean in Nashville, Tenn., for coverage of a devastating flood.
A cheer went up and cameras flashed when the awards were announced in the Los Angeles Times newsroom, where about 100 people were gathered.
"The real victors in this are the people of Bell, who were able to get rid of, there's no other way to say it, an oppressive regime," said reporter Jeff Gottlieb, clutching a bottle of champagne.
"At a time when people are saying newspapers are dying, I think this is the day when we can say, no, not really," said Ruben Vives, another staff writer on the story. "We gave a small town, we gave them an opportunity to speak out. That's what newspapers do."
The newspaper has been hobbled by the troubles of its owner, Tribune Co., which has been operating under federal bankruptcy protection for the past two years. Tribune Co. has been trying to shed most of the debt that it took on in an $8.2 billion buyout engineered by real estate mogul Sam Zell. The Times has also gone through wrenching staff cutbacks before and after the bankruptcy filing, and other turmoil in the newsroom.
In other awards, the nonprofit ProPublica won its first outright Pulitzer for national reporting. Reporters Jesse Eisinger and Jake Bernstein were cited for their piece exposing questionable Wall Street practices that contributed to the national economic meltdown. The judges cited their use of digital media to help explain the complex subject. (Last year, ProPublica and the Los Angeles Times won a Pulitzer together.)
Graphics and videos also accompanied the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's winning entry in explanatory reporting, an account of the use of genetic technology to save a 4-year-old boy ailing from a mysterious disease.
The competition's rules were changed this year to allow digital media to be considered along with text entries. Media were allowed to enter "any available journalistic tool," including videos, databases and multimedia presentations. In the past, most entries were print-only.
Over the years, the Pulitzer Board has declined to give awards 25 other times in particular categories, but this is the first year that no award was given for breaking news — long considered the bread-and-butter of daily journalism.
Paige St. John of the Sarasota (Fla.) Herald-Tribune was awarded the Pulitzer for investigative reporting for her examination of the property insurance system for Florida homeowners, which led to regulatory action.
Frank Main, Mark Konkol and John J. Kim of the Chicago Sun-Times won the local reporting Pulitzer for their documentation of crime-ridden Chicago neighborhoods.
Amy Ellis Nutt of the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., received the Pulitzer for feature writing for her story of the sinking of a commercial fishing boat that drowned six men in the Atlantic Ocean.
Clifford J. Levy and Ellen Barry of the New York Times won for international reporting for their coverage of the Russian justice system; David Leonhardt won for the newspaper in commentary for his columns on the economy.
Sebastian Smee of the Boston Globe received the Pulitzer for criticism for his writing about art. Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal was honored in the editorial writing category for his editorials challenging health care reform bills.
The Washington Post won in breaking news photography for their portraits from the Haiti earthquake.
The Los Angeles Times' Barbara Davidson received the award for feature news photography for her portraits of Los Angeles gang violence.
Mike Keefe of the Denver Post won for editorial cartooning.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110418/NATION/104180400/L.A.-Times-wins-Pulitzer-for-exposing-corruption#ixzz1PVaylqhE
Chris Hawley Associated Press
New York — The Los Angeles Times won a Pulitzer Prize for public service Monday for a series revealing that politicians in the struggling working-class city of Bell, Calif., were paying themselves enormous six-figure salaries.
The newspaper's reporting that officials in the 37,000-resident town were jacking up property taxes and other fees in part to cover the huge salaries led to arrests and the ouster of some of Bell's top officials.
The Times won a second Pulitzer for feature photography, and the New York Times won two Pulitzers, for international reporting and for commentary.
But in a year in which the earthquake in Haiti and the disastrous Gulf oil spill were some of the biggest stories, the Pulitzer Board decided not to give an award in the category of breaking news — a first in the 95-year history of the prize.
The board named three finalists for the award: The Chicago Tribune for coverage of the deaths of two Chicago firefighters, The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald for reporting on the Haiti earthquake and the Tennessean in Nashville, Tenn., for coverage of a devastating flood.
A cheer went up and cameras flashed when the awards were announced in the Los Angeles Times newsroom, where about 100 people were gathered.
"The real victors in this are the people of Bell, who were able to get rid of, there's no other way to say it, an oppressive regime," said reporter Jeff Gottlieb, clutching a bottle of champagne.
"At a time when people are saying newspapers are dying, I think this is the day when we can say, no, not really," said Ruben Vives, another staff writer on the story. "We gave a small town, we gave them an opportunity to speak out. That's what newspapers do."
The newspaper has been hobbled by the troubles of its owner, Tribune Co., which has been operating under federal bankruptcy protection for the past two years. Tribune Co. has been trying to shed most of the debt that it took on in an $8.2 billion buyout engineered by real estate mogul Sam Zell. The Times has also gone through wrenching staff cutbacks before and after the bankruptcy filing, and other turmoil in the newsroom.
In other awards, the nonprofit ProPublica won its first outright Pulitzer for national reporting. Reporters Jesse Eisinger and Jake Bernstein were cited for their piece exposing questionable Wall Street practices that contributed to the national economic meltdown. The judges cited their use of digital media to help explain the complex subject. (Last year, ProPublica and the Los Angeles Times won a Pulitzer together.)
Graphics and videos also accompanied the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's winning entry in explanatory reporting, an account of the use of genetic technology to save a 4-year-old boy ailing from a mysterious disease.
The competition's rules were changed this year to allow digital media to be considered along with text entries. Media were allowed to enter "any available journalistic tool," including videos, databases and multimedia presentations. In the past, most entries were print-only.
Over the years, the Pulitzer Board has declined to give awards 25 other times in particular categories, but this is the first year that no award was given for breaking news — long considered the bread-and-butter of daily journalism.
Paige St. John of the Sarasota (Fla.) Herald-Tribune was awarded the Pulitzer for investigative reporting for her examination of the property insurance system for Florida homeowners, which led to regulatory action.
Frank Main, Mark Konkol and John J. Kim of the Chicago Sun-Times won the local reporting Pulitzer for their documentation of crime-ridden Chicago neighborhoods.
Amy Ellis Nutt of the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., received the Pulitzer for feature writing for her story of the sinking of a commercial fishing boat that drowned six men in the Atlantic Ocean.
Clifford J. Levy and Ellen Barry of the New York Times won for international reporting for their coverage of the Russian justice system; David Leonhardt won for the newspaper in commentary for his columns on the economy.
Sebastian Smee of the Boston Globe received the Pulitzer for criticism for his writing about art. Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal was honored in the editorial writing category for his editorials challenging health care reform bills.
The Washington Post won in breaking news photography for their portraits from the Haiti earthquake.
The Los Angeles Times' Barbara Davidson received the award for feature news photography for her portraits of Los Angeles gang violence.
Mike Keefe of the Denver Post won for editorial cartooning.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110418/NATION/104180400/L.A.-Times-wins-Pulitzer-for-exposing-corruption#ixzz1PVaylqhE
Foreclosure Fraud (From Good Grief America)
2 States Probe Paperwork in Mortgage Bundling - http://nyti.ms/jPBgkf
Underwater Mortgages is Keeping America's Recovery Drowning http://dlvr.it/W7CMf
Fed number 2: No quick or easy solutions’ for housing woes http://t.co/0DtfLlo
--
Lisa Epstein
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Two States Ask if Paperwork in Mortgage Bundling Was Complete
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: June 12, 2011
Recommend
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
ShareClose
Linkedin
Digg
MySpace
Permalink
Opening a new line of inquiry into the problems that have beset the mortgage loan process, two state attorneys general are investigating Wall Street’s bundling of these loans into securities to determine whether they were properly documented and valid.
Enlarge This Image
James Leynse for The New York Times
Eric T. Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, is leading the investigation into Wall Street’s bundling of mortgage loans.
Add to Portfolio
Bank of New York Mellon Corp
Deutsche Bank AG
Go to your Portfolio »
Enlarge This Image
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Joseph R. Biden III, the attorney general of Delaware, has teamed up with Mr. Schneiderman for the investigation.
The investigation is being led by Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, who has teamed with Joseph R. Biden III, his counterpart from Delaware. Their effort centers on the back end of the mortgage assembly lines — where big banks serve as trustees overseeing the securities for investors — according to two people briefed on the inquiry but who were not authorized to speak publicly about it.
The attorneys general have requested information from Bank of New York Mellon and Deutsche Bank, the two largest firms acting as trustees. Trustee banks have not been a focus of other investigations because they are administrators of the securities and did not originate the loans or service them. But as administrators they were required to ensure that the documentation was proper and complete.
Both attorneys general are investigating other practices that fueled the mortgage boom and subsequent bust. The latest inquiry represents another avenue of scrutiny of the inner workings of Wall Street’s mortgage securitization machine, which transformed individual home loans into bundles of loans that were then sold to investors.
It follows months of sharp criticism of the mortgage foreclosure process, which produced an uproar last year over shoddy paperwork and possible forgeries of legal documents by banks, other lenders or their representatives.
The slipshod practices in foreclosures led to further questions about whether all the necessary documents were delivered to the trusts and properly administered by them.
Some of the nation’s biggest mortgage servicers are currently in negotiations with a group of state attorneys general to settle an investigation into foreclosure abuses. The new inquiry by New York and Delaware indicates the big banks’ troubles may not end even if a settlement is reached in the foreclosure matter.
The stakes are potentially high. If the trustees did not follow the rules set out in the prospectus, they may be liable for breaching their duties to investors who bought the securities. That could expose the banks to costly civil litigation.
Spokesmen from Bank of New York and Deutsche Bank declined to comment about the investigation, as did representatives from the offices of both attorneys general.
A complex process that produced hundreds of billions of dollars in securities during the lending boom, the issuance of mortgage securities began with home loans, which were then bundled into investments and sold to pension funds, mutual funds, big banks and other investors. The bundles were created as trusts overseen by institutions such as Bank of New York and Deutsche Bank; they were supposed to make sure the complete mortgage files for each loan were delivered within a specified time and with the proper documentation.
After the securities were sold, the trustees disbursed interest and principal payments to investors over the life of the trusts.
The trusts were governed by the laws of the states in which they were set up. Roughly 80 percent of the trusts are governed by New York law with the rest by Delaware law.
The rules governing the securitization process are labyrinthine, and there are steps required if the investment is to comply with tax laws and promises made by the issuer in its offering document. If the trusts did not comply with tax laws, for example, the beneficial treatment given to investors could be rescinded, causing taxes to be levied on the transactions.
The terms of these mortgage deals varied, but many of them required that the trustee examine each of the loan files as soon as they came in from the Wall Street firm or bank issuing the security. For a file to be complete, it would typically have to include all of the information necessary to establish a chain of ownership through the various steps of the bundling process, as when the originator transferred it to the issuer of the security who then moved it to the trustee.
Complete loan files were supposed to be delivered to the trusts within 90 days in most cases. If the trustee found any missing or defective documents, it was supposed to notify the loan originator so that it could either cure the deficiency or replace the loan. Such substitutions are typically allowed only in the early years of the trust.
By asking for documents relating to this process, investigators are trying to determine if the trustees fulfilled their obligations to the investors who bought the mortgage deals, according to the people briefed on the inquiry.
A version of this article appeared in print on June 13, 2011, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Two States Ask if Paperwork in Mortgage Bundling Was Complete.
Underwater Mortgages is Keeping America's Recovery Drowning
Mon, 2011-06-13 05:47 — Mortgage News Ticker
The latest CoreLogic data shows that 27.7% of mortgages are underwater. And no matter how low interest rates go, many U.S. mortgage holders with underwater mortgages are no longer eligible for refinancing, according to Societe Generale. This, along with a rise in uncertainty and reduction in mobility, is damaging the U.S. recovery.
From Societe Generale:
Negative equity by itself does not create a cash flow problem. In fact, any auto loan is “underwater” the minute the new car owner drives off the dealer’s lot. However, the problem with underwater mortgages is threefold:
First, homeowners with negative equity are more adversely impacted by income shocks, putting them at risk of foreclosure or a short sale. ...
... Second, homeowners with negative equity are less likely to successfully complete a consumer credit card, auto loan, small business loan or any other credit application process. ...
... Third, mobility is greatly reduced when the option to sell one’s house is no longer available. ...
Please read the full article on Business Insider, Inc.
Fed number 2: ‘No quick or easy solutions’ for housing woes
By Zachary Roth
Share
retweet
Email
Print
By Zachary Roth zachary Roth – Thu Jun 9, 3:17 pm ET
The deeply troubled housing market isn't likely to get better any time soon, the Federal Reserve's number 2 official has warned.
"Looking forward, I unfortunately can envision no quick or easy solutions for the problems still afflicting the housing market," Fed vice chair Janet Yellen (pictured) said in a speech today in Cleveland. "Even once it begins to take hold, recovery in the housing market likely will be a long, drawn-out process."
The Fed is working with other government agencies to avert foreclosures and clear the stock of vacant properties that's holding the sector back, Yellen said. Almost 2 million homes were vacant in the first quarter of the year.
The S&P/Case-Schiller index fell to its lowest level since 2003 in a survey released last week. And Fed chair Ben Bernanke warned in a Tuesday speech that the housing sector's ongoing woes are exerting a major drag on the rest of the economy.
Robert Schiller, who co-founded the index, said today that a further decline in home values of 10 percent to 25 percent over the next five years "wouldn't surprise me at all."
(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)
Underwater Mortgages is Keeping America's Recovery Drowning http://dlvr.it/W7CMf
Fed number 2: No quick or easy solutions’ for housing woes http://t.co/0DtfLlo
--
Lisa Epstein
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Two States Ask if Paperwork in Mortgage Bundling Was Complete
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: June 12, 2011
Recommend
Sign In to E-Mail
Reprints
ShareClose
Digg
MySpace
Permalink
Opening a new line of inquiry into the problems that have beset the mortgage loan process, two state attorneys general are investigating Wall Street’s bundling of these loans into securities to determine whether they were properly documented and valid.
Enlarge This Image
James Leynse for The New York Times
Eric T. Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, is leading the investigation into Wall Street’s bundling of mortgage loans.
Add to Portfolio
Bank of New York Mellon Corp
Deutsche Bank AG
Go to your Portfolio »
Enlarge This Image
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Joseph R. Biden III, the attorney general of Delaware, has teamed up with Mr. Schneiderman for the investigation.
The investigation is being led by Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, who has teamed with Joseph R. Biden III, his counterpart from Delaware. Their effort centers on the back end of the mortgage assembly lines — where big banks serve as trustees overseeing the securities for investors — according to two people briefed on the inquiry but who were not authorized to speak publicly about it.
The attorneys general have requested information from Bank of New York Mellon and Deutsche Bank, the two largest firms acting as trustees. Trustee banks have not been a focus of other investigations because they are administrators of the securities and did not originate the loans or service them. But as administrators they were required to ensure that the documentation was proper and complete.
Both attorneys general are investigating other practices that fueled the mortgage boom and subsequent bust. The latest inquiry represents another avenue of scrutiny of the inner workings of Wall Street’s mortgage securitization machine, which transformed individual home loans into bundles of loans that were then sold to investors.
It follows months of sharp criticism of the mortgage foreclosure process, which produced an uproar last year over shoddy paperwork and possible forgeries of legal documents by banks, other lenders or their representatives.
The slipshod practices in foreclosures led to further questions about whether all the necessary documents were delivered to the trusts and properly administered by them.
Some of the nation’s biggest mortgage servicers are currently in negotiations with a group of state attorneys general to settle an investigation into foreclosure abuses. The new inquiry by New York and Delaware indicates the big banks’ troubles may not end even if a settlement is reached in the foreclosure matter.
The stakes are potentially high. If the trustees did not follow the rules set out in the prospectus, they may be liable for breaching their duties to investors who bought the securities. That could expose the banks to costly civil litigation.
Spokesmen from Bank of New York and Deutsche Bank declined to comment about the investigation, as did representatives from the offices of both attorneys general.
A complex process that produced hundreds of billions of dollars in securities during the lending boom, the issuance of mortgage securities began with home loans, which were then bundled into investments and sold to pension funds, mutual funds, big banks and other investors. The bundles were created as trusts overseen by institutions such as Bank of New York and Deutsche Bank; they were supposed to make sure the complete mortgage files for each loan were delivered within a specified time and with the proper documentation.
After the securities were sold, the trustees disbursed interest and principal payments to investors over the life of the trusts.
The trusts were governed by the laws of the states in which they were set up. Roughly 80 percent of the trusts are governed by New York law with the rest by Delaware law.
The rules governing the securitization process are labyrinthine, and there are steps required if the investment is to comply with tax laws and promises made by the issuer in its offering document. If the trusts did not comply with tax laws, for example, the beneficial treatment given to investors could be rescinded, causing taxes to be levied on the transactions.
The terms of these mortgage deals varied, but many of them required that the trustee examine each of the loan files as soon as they came in from the Wall Street firm or bank issuing the security. For a file to be complete, it would typically have to include all of the information necessary to establish a chain of ownership through the various steps of the bundling process, as when the originator transferred it to the issuer of the security who then moved it to the trustee.
Complete loan files were supposed to be delivered to the trusts within 90 days in most cases. If the trustee found any missing or defective documents, it was supposed to notify the loan originator so that it could either cure the deficiency or replace the loan. Such substitutions are typically allowed only in the early years of the trust.
By asking for documents relating to this process, investigators are trying to determine if the trustees fulfilled their obligations to the investors who bought the mortgage deals, according to the people briefed on the inquiry.
A version of this article appeared in print on June 13, 2011, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Two States Ask if Paperwork in Mortgage Bundling Was Complete.
Underwater Mortgages is Keeping America's Recovery Drowning
Mon, 2011-06-13 05:47 — Mortgage News Ticker
The latest CoreLogic data shows that 27.7% of mortgages are underwater. And no matter how low interest rates go, many U.S. mortgage holders with underwater mortgages are no longer eligible for refinancing, according to Societe Generale. This, along with a rise in uncertainty and reduction in mobility, is damaging the U.S. recovery.
From Societe Generale:
Negative equity by itself does not create a cash flow problem. In fact, any auto loan is “underwater” the minute the new car owner drives off the dealer’s lot. However, the problem with underwater mortgages is threefold:
First, homeowners with negative equity are more adversely impacted by income shocks, putting them at risk of foreclosure or a short sale. ...
... Second, homeowners with negative equity are less likely to successfully complete a consumer credit card, auto loan, small business loan or any other credit application process. ...
... Third, mobility is greatly reduced when the option to sell one’s house is no longer available. ...
Please read the full article on Business Insider, Inc.
Fed number 2: ‘No quick or easy solutions’ for housing woes
By Zachary Roth
Share
retweet
By Zachary Roth zachary Roth – Thu Jun 9, 3:17 pm ET
The deeply troubled housing market isn't likely to get better any time soon, the Federal Reserve's number 2 official has warned.
"Looking forward, I unfortunately can envision no quick or easy solutions for the problems still afflicting the housing market," Fed vice chair Janet Yellen (pictured) said in a speech today in Cleveland. "Even once it begins to take hold, recovery in the housing market likely will be a long, drawn-out process."
The Fed is working with other government agencies to avert foreclosures and clear the stock of vacant properties that's holding the sector back, Yellen said. Almost 2 million homes were vacant in the first quarter of the year.
The S&P/Case-Schiller index fell to its lowest level since 2003 in a survey released last week. And Fed chair Ben Bernanke warned in a Tuesday speech that the housing sector's ongoing woes are exerting a major drag on the rest of the economy.
Robert Schiller, who co-founded the index, said today that a further decline in home values of 10 percent to 25 percent over the next five years "wouldn't surprise me at all."
(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)
A CALL FOR COMPASSION TEACH-IN
Subject: FW: A Call for Compassion Teach-in this Friday evening...
FAMILIES ACT and Moms United to End the War on Drugs are having a teach-in Friday night, June 17th, at the SBB&T Adobe building at 15 E. Carrillo Street from 5:30 to 7:30. They have asked me to spread the word to the Progressive Dems. I plan to attend. I think that we can all agree that the “War on Drugs” is not working and is causing death and misery to people on both sides of our border with Mexico. Please come to their meeting if you would like to get involved.
Forwarded message:
A Call for Compassion, 5:30 to 7:30, sponsored by Moms United to End the War on Drugs.
We will have a presentation involving video or power point, testimonials, a skit, hors d'oeuvres, followed by a SHORT vigil on nearby State Street with candles to commemorate the lives harmed and lost as a result of punitive policies.
Suzanne Riordan
Executive Director of Families Act
http://www.FamiliesACT.org
(805)637-1339
Thanks Progressive Democrats of Santa Barbara who came to our meeting tonight and voted to endorse our great Democratic City Council slate for the SB City Council elections coming up soon. This election will be ours if we just turn out the vote!
Santa Barbara City Council Endorsements
Progressive Democrats of Santa Barbara is proud to endorse Iya Falcone, Cathy Murillo and Deborah Schwartz for Santa Barbara City Council. We will be in contact with you on how you can support these candidates in this important election.
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Actions
Please contact the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors about TWO important items!
#1. 10am, Thursday, June 16th HEARING
10:00 AM
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, BOARD HEARING RM, 4TH FLOOR, 105 E ANAPAMU ST,
SANTA BARBARA SPECIAL HEARING
Consider recommendations regarding a briefing from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, as follows:
a) Receive a briefing from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff regarding the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant; and
b) Direct County staff as to “next steps” regarding the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Come to the hearing and let the Supervisors know WE do not support Nuclear Power in our backyard. We need to stop the re-licensing of these decades old Nuclear Power Plants before it is too late!
#2. RIGHT NOW! Contact the Board of Supervisors about your budget priorities. They will deliberate and adopt a budget THIS Friday.
This is the email that Progressive Democrats of Santa Barbara wrote to the Board of Supervisors. Please write your own email as an individual (contact information follows).
Santa Barbara County Budget Cuts-- A Plea For Compassion.
Dear Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors,
The Progressive Democrats of Santa Barbara and Families Act are dedicated to changing the way people with mental health issues and co-occurring substance abuse issues, are treated by the public and our county government. We are dedicated to maintaining the vital mental health programs in Santa Barbara County that effect these vulnerable members of our community.
We are deeply concerned about SB County budget cuts that will affect people with mental illnesses and substance abuse problems. Budget cuts to CARES, the Pro-pay program, the Community Services Work Program, the Social Worker position at the Public Defender’s office and the Deputy District Attorneys working in the treatment courts will move the county in the WRONG direction. The damage these cuts will do is not acceptable.
As you deliberate this week on the budget cuts, we hope that you will consider the many people in our communities who suffer from mood and thought disorders that drive them to self medicate and give the programs listed above the highest priority, base on the fact that they are working and saving lives. What kind of a society do you want? This is a critical moral decision that you are about to make. Please remember the need for courage and compassion. Santa Barbara cannot afford to see more suffering homeless people on our streets, and these programs are necessary to help prevent that from happening.
Thank You,
Lois Hamilton
Chapter Leader / Progressive Democrats of Santa Barbara
Advisory Board Member / Families Act
Email: vlhamilton1@cox.net
(805) 962-9332
CONTACT
YOUR SUPERVISORS
1st District: Salud Carbajal
(805) 568-2186
SupervisorCarbajal@sbcbos1.org
2nd District: Janet Wolf
(805) 568-2191
jwolf@sbcbos2.org
3rd District: Doreen Farr
(805) 568-2192
dfarr@countyofsb.org
4th District: Joni Gray
(805) 737-7700
jgray@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
5th District: Steve Lavagnino
(805) 346-8400
steve.lavagnino@countyofsb.org
FAMILIES ACT and Moms United to End the War on Drugs are having a teach-in Friday night, June 17th, at the SBB&T Adobe building at 15 E. Carrillo Street from 5:30 to 7:30. They have asked me to spread the word to the Progressive Dems. I plan to attend. I think that we can all agree that the “War on Drugs” is not working and is causing death and misery to people on both sides of our border with Mexico. Please come to their meeting if you would like to get involved.
Forwarded message:
A Call for Compassion, 5:30 to 7:30, sponsored by Moms United to End the War on Drugs.
We will have a presentation involving video or power point, testimonials, a skit, hors d'oeuvres, followed by a SHORT vigil on nearby State Street with candles to commemorate the lives harmed and lost as a result of punitive policies.
Suzanne Riordan
Executive Director of Families Act
http://www.FamiliesACT.org
(805)637-1339
Thanks Progressive Democrats of Santa Barbara who came to our meeting tonight and voted to endorse our great Democratic City Council slate for the SB City Council elections coming up soon. This election will be ours if we just turn out the vote!
Santa Barbara City Council Endorsements
Progressive Democrats of Santa Barbara is proud to endorse Iya Falcone, Cathy Murillo and Deborah Schwartz for Santa Barbara City Council. We will be in contact with you on how you can support these candidates in this important election.
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Actions
Please contact the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors about TWO important items!
#1. 10am, Thursday, June 16th HEARING
10:00 AM
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, BOARD HEARING RM, 4TH FLOOR, 105 E ANAPAMU ST,
SANTA BARBARA SPECIAL HEARING
Consider recommendations regarding a briefing from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, as follows:
a) Receive a briefing from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff regarding the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant; and
b) Direct County staff as to “next steps” regarding the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Come to the hearing and let the Supervisors know WE do not support Nuclear Power in our backyard. We need to stop the re-licensing of these decades old Nuclear Power Plants before it is too late!
#2. RIGHT NOW! Contact the Board of Supervisors about your budget priorities. They will deliberate and adopt a budget THIS Friday.
This is the email that Progressive Democrats of Santa Barbara wrote to the Board of Supervisors. Please write your own email as an individual (contact information follows).
Santa Barbara County Budget Cuts-- A Plea For Compassion.
Dear Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors,
The Progressive Democrats of Santa Barbara and Families Act are dedicated to changing the way people with mental health issues and co-occurring substance abuse issues, are treated by the public and our county government. We are dedicated to maintaining the vital mental health programs in Santa Barbara County that effect these vulnerable members of our community.
We are deeply concerned about SB County budget cuts that will affect people with mental illnesses and substance abuse problems. Budget cuts to CARES, the Pro-pay program, the Community Services Work Program, the Social Worker position at the Public Defender’s office and the Deputy District Attorneys working in the treatment courts will move the county in the WRONG direction. The damage these cuts will do is not acceptable.
As you deliberate this week on the budget cuts, we hope that you will consider the many people in our communities who suffer from mood and thought disorders that drive them to self medicate and give the programs listed above the highest priority, base on the fact that they are working and saving lives. What kind of a society do you want? This is a critical moral decision that you are about to make. Please remember the need for courage and compassion. Santa Barbara cannot afford to see more suffering homeless people on our streets, and these programs are necessary to help prevent that from happening.
Thank You,
Lois Hamilton
Chapter Leader / Progressive Democrats of Santa Barbara
Advisory Board Member / Families Act
Email: vlhamilton1@cox.net
(805) 962-9332
CONTACT
YOUR SUPERVISORS
1st District: Salud Carbajal
(805) 568-2186
SupervisorCarbajal@sbcbos1.org
2nd District: Janet Wolf
(805) 568-2191
jwolf@sbcbos2.org
3rd District: Doreen Farr
(805) 568-2192
dfarr@countyofsb.org
4th District: Joni Gray
(805) 737-7700
jgray@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
5th District: Steve Lavagnino
(805) 346-8400
steve.lavagnino@countyofsb.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)