"the state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. you were born with it - like your eyes, like your ears. freedom is something that you assume, then you wait for someone to try and take it away. the degree to which you resist, is the degree to which you are free." ~utah phillips
i'm pretty upset right now. and tired. be warned.
i've caught wind of several reports of protesters being handed their asses at both the dnc and rnc. typically those targeted are of the anarchist varietal. mostly because these folks act as sort of a protection for other protesters. they will put themselves in the line of fire, so to speak. my experience has always been one that is radically different than what most people think of when they hear the words anarchist or anarchy. i can at least see how anarchists make people nervous, given the misguided media representation that reigns supreme. that still doesn't give anyone carte blanche to commence ass kicking. that is called police brutality. period.
with the exception of a few people that can be found in most any group, the anarchists i have encountered are fairly peaceful people - and a lot like me. they believe the system is flawed. they believe that our foreign and domestic policies are harmful to living beings and the planet. they have faith in humanity - that we can lead ourselves - that we don't need leaders. they think it is messed up that natural resources that really belong to no one are harvested, repackaged, and sold back to us in neat little boxes. they believe that we don't own anything, that we borrow stuff until we die...
in all fairness, i have questions. ones i've tried to raise for discussion to no avail in the past with different anarchists, at different points in my life. being the virgo that i'am, i want to know what it would look like. how it would work. we tend to want to have someone in charge - after all, we've been raised with this cultural construct all our lives. this country has known leaders since we ripped it away from the native peoples of this land so long ago. and i go back and forth with humanity. reading mccarthy's 'the road' did nothing to help. sometimes i think that if some terrible shit went down, we would band together. some days i see how truly horrible people can be to one another and wonder if that is even possible. i also encounter a fair amount apathy that factors into the equation.
i love the idea of anarchy - the idea that WE define how our lives and communities are led. we don't rely on leaders to change things for us, we are each actively involved in spurring that change. we work together, using such tools as concensus, for decision making. the western world is highly individualistic. though i have also witnessed complete strangers jumping to help when help is needed. without being asked. it is an organic response for many, myself included.
i know that there are many misconceptions about what anarchy means. and it is something that i struggle with myself, regularly. do i even bother to vote? am i simply supporting can the system be changed, or is it already too far gone? we don't live in a democracy. i encounter many on a daily basis that would prefer to have someone else make their decisions for them. to wave a flag around and blow up fireworks on the forth of july, but never get their hands dirty. it is difficult for me to get my brain around that.
this i know for certain. no matter who is elected in november, we will still have work to do. every minute of every day of our lives. democracy is not a spectator sport. you don't get to slap a flag sticker on your car and believe that your part is finished.
the right to peaceably assemble is a farce. in order to do so, one must obtain permits to gather. if there is a march, you need a parade permit. you need to carry a certain amount of insurance as well. sidewalks are supposedly safe places to air grievances, so long as you don't cross some magical, mystical line i've yet to figure out. but i digress.
what spurred this diatribe, you ask? the following. i've been to my fair share of protests where arrests were made. where rubber bullets were fired at close range. where people love to talk about how free we are in this country while i've seen the complete opposite. what you're about to watch and read is simply unacceptable. we've reached a new low. one where a reporter is cuffed and stuffed and the producers of her show are hurt, then arrested. while i've grown to expect that using your voice in a public manner can have consequences that are painful and unjust, this really stunned me, left me feeling angry.
yeah, i'll vote in november. i do think that there are certain people that are easier to work with than others - that more can be accomplished this way. yeah, there are really truly wonderful things about this country. yeah, i'll never stop fighting for what i believe is right. and someday i will live in a place that embraces what i embrace. it has to be out there somewhere. and it will be near an ocean. yeah, i still have faith and hope in "we the people."
but this. is. so. wrong.
Democracy Now! Host and Producers Arrested at Republican Convention
By Holly Watt ST. PAUL -- Democracy Now! radio host Amy Goodman and two producers were arrested while covering demonstrations at the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn. Goodman was released after being held for over three hours, but is still waiting to hear when Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar would be released.
"I was down on the convention floor interviewing delegates when I heard that two of our producers had been arrested," said Goodman. "I ran down to Jackson and 7th Street, where the police had moved in."
Goodman said that when she ran up to find out what was going on, she was also arrested.
"They seriously manhandled me and handcuffed my hands behind my back. The top ID [at the convention] is to get on the floor and the Secret Service ripped that off me. I had my Democracy Now! ID too. I was clearly a reporter."
Goodman, who was released after being charged with a misdemeanor, said that Salazar had been hurt in the face, while Kouddous had been thrown up against a wall and hurt his elbow.
"Nicole told me that as they moved in on three sides, she asked them 'How do I get away from this?' and they jumped on her."
Both Kouddous and Salazar could be held for up to 36 hours.
"One of the police kept shouting at me 'Shut up, shut up," she said. "It was extremely threatening."
on democracy now! today, amy goodman interviewed jon alpert, one of the last american journalists to have interviewed saddam hussein. i'm sending youover yonderto read the transcript. or watch. or listen. veeeeery interesting. be prepared for the final section of interview, though... heartbreaking is an understatement. i imagine that is the same now, if not worse.
i can't get this blood off my hands, no matter what i do. how easy it would be to just go with the flow and play follow the leader - parrot tony snow and root on bush's war(s). instead i'am left with the blood of thousands and millions, because i can't seem to make them stop... oh, every day is judgement day 'round these parts. if there really is a god, he won't have much left to do when i reach him that i have't already posed to myself. but i digress.
amy goodman is also now writing a syndicated column. i'll be writing the editor of my local paper to ask that it be added on a weekly basis - so that the paper will no longer be just a bunch of crap. no, silly, i won't say it quite that way. ;) if you're feeling so inclined, you should do the same with your own crappy papers, uh, i mean, pillars of journalistic integrity.
speaking of journalistic integrity, the most recent issue of utne magazine has a fantastic write up about i.f. stone! i first found stone in a course i took about the 1950's in school last year. i read many pieces of the haunted fifties. the parallels! the parallels!
why can't all the journalists be more like amy and fisk and stone? someday i will write like stone did...
"Under the supposed benevolence of our policy one soon detects a deep animosity to the Vietnamese and a vast arrogance. We assume the right to remold them, whether they choose to be remolded or not."
"The simple fact that occupying armies, whether allied or enemy, always become unpopular hardly ever figures in official calculation."
Stone on Robert F. Kennedy and the Vietnam War
"Honor requires the soldier to kill or be killed, whatever his scruples. But it is not regarded as dishonorable for the politician to swallow his misgivings and allow the young to go out to die without protest."
Stone on World War II
"Some of the causes of this war went deeper than any enemy men or movements. . . . Some of these causes lie in our own minds and hearts as well as in those of our defeated enemies."
"I wish it were possible to throw on some gigantic screen for all to see some fraction of the suffering, the treachery, the sacrifice, and the courage of the past decade. For how are we in America to fulfill our responsibility to the dead and to the future, to our less fortunate allies and to our children's children, if we do not feel a little of this so deeply in our bones that we will be unswervingly determined that it shall never happen again?"
Stone on the civil rights movement's March on Washington
"They carried upon them a story more plainly writ than any banner. These were, literally, the downtrodden and the treadmarks of oppression were visible upon their faces. They sang, 'We shall not be moved.' But those who saw them-and what life had done to them-were moved."
Stone on the Nazi persecution of Jews
"The essence of tragedy is not the doing of evil by evil men but the doing of evil by good men, out of weakness, indecision, sloth, inability to act in accordance with what they know to be right."
Stone on the hydrogen bomb
"Why should these matters be cloaked in secrecy, the decisions on them made without popular discussion? The lack of real debate has allowed a thick deposit of dubious ideological fallout to contaminate the public mind. A whole series of doubtful propositions have been rubbed in by official statement and their echoes in a well-coordinated press."
Stone on Barry Goldwater and his followers
"The frontier virtues they claim to embody are as synthetic as the frontier they inhabit. . . . In their favorite campaign photos, on that horse and under that ten-gallon Stetson, looking into the setting sun, is no cowboy or even rancher but a Phoenix storekeeper. The Western trade he caters to, in business as in politics, is dude ranch."
*remind you of anyone else much?
Stone on freedom of speech
"No society is good in which men fear to think-much less speak-freely."
on what the media chooses to show the american public
this morning, my girlpamposted up a very interesting photo collage of the different covers of newsweek from selected places in the world.
in europe, latin america, and asia, the covers were of "global warming's first victim." guess what's on the u.s. version? that's right. foley. cause this guy is apparently much more important than global warming. good ole usa! sex scandals outrank the biggest threat to our species. perfect.
got me thinking about u.s. media and what they choose to not show the american public. a few years ago, amy goodman of democracy now! did a tour to talk about the role of independent media in a time of war. what follows is just another of many examples of how this sort of selective reporting in the u.s. works - this time in regards to the toppling of saddam hussein's statue after the u.s. invasion.
AMY GOODMAN: The other morning I was invited on a commercial radio station, a little bit of a shock jockey station for a few minutes after the statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down by the U.S. Marines in Baghdad. One of their first questions was "how do you feel now?" They also asked me about what I think about the torture rooms that were found. In talking about the torture rooms, I could only think about how important it was to be aware of what torture is. How horrific it is. Whether Saddam Hussein does it, that military tyrant who assured up by the United States for so long. Or the fact that now, there is an actually acceptable debate in this country, in the mainstream media about whether the U.S. should torture people to get information. And if the U.S. doesn't do it, for example those at Guantanamo Bay, those at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, isn't it O.K. to send them to countries that do engage in torture? I thought, those torture chamber's of Saddam Hussein are very important lessons to all of us about what is not acceptable in a civilized society, neither here nor there.
There was a piece in the Wall Street Journal the other day about the difference between CNN and CNN International, two different networks owned by the same company. And they talked about the difference on that day, the day that the statue was pulled down. On CNN, all day we watched that statue pull down and went back up and pulled down again. AMY GOODMAN: On CNN International they also showed the statue pulled down but it was a split screen and on half the screen they showed the casualties of war and on the other half they showed the statue pull down. Now I'm not talking about the difference between CNN and Al Jazeera. I'm talking about the difference between CNN and CNN International. It means that that company knows exactly what it's doing. What they provide for domestic consumption and what they provide to the rest of the world. Now think about what the rest of the world sees and what we see here in the United States.
Some of you may have heard the hour discussion we had with CNN's Aaron Brown and we were asking him a lot of questions like "Where are the pictures of casualties in the U.S. media"?
AARON BROWN: I think there are actually legitimate questions here about have we over sanitized this?
AMY GOODMAN: And he said, "well some of them are tasteless". And we said, "well, war is tasteless". I was speaking at St. Mark's Church in New York and I talked about how Al Jazerra shows all these casualties pictures and a journalist came up to me afterwards from Berlin and said, "It's not just Al Jazeera that's showing these. All over Europe we see them day and night. It's just here in the United States that you don't see them". And so we asked Aaron Brown, "Why don't they show some of the shots", you know CNN was kicked out of Baghdad and he said "it's tough to get those shots". You have no trouble taking Al Jazeera's footage of the bombs over Baghdad, the kind-of fireworks display that we saw that night scape, but when it came to taking their pictures of casualties. Well, he said, "they're tasteless".
I really do think that if for one week in the United States we saw the true face of war, we saw people's limbs sheered off, we saw the kids blown apart, for one week war would be eradicated. Instead what we see in the U.S. media and it's just quite astounding, it's the video war game. Those gray-grainy photographs with a target on them looking down but you don't see, we don't see those people as the targets on the ground.
why? why is the rest of the world privy to information that the american public isn't? ratings? fear of loss of advertising revenue? fear of people turning against a war when they see numerous photographs of children that have bits of their faces and heads blown off? does the american public truly not want to see? personally, i feel it's every american's duty TO see and be informed of what is being done in their names - AND to knowthat there is a marked difference. yet, we wonder why the rest of the world is slowly beginning to hate us, if they don't already. if you'd like to watch this excellent talk, you can do sohere. it runs about 29 minutes.
all i know is this - i shouldn't have to go find news - and find it via the media of other countries, at that. so many don't have the luxury of internet access or a million channels through which to surf. they are dependent upon traditional methods of news reporting - infortainment reporting that is failing all of us miserably.
You are beyond wise. You are so smart, you're almost prophetic.
Your inner voice always speaks the truth, and you take the time to listen to it.
You are good at seeing who people are... including the darkness of others.
As a result, you tend to have a rather dark - yet realistic - outlook on life.
A: Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.
Q: Is the earth really getting hotter?
A: Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.
Q: Are warmer temperatures causing bad things to happen?
A: Global warming is already causing damage in many parts of the United States. In 2002, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon endured their worst wildfire seasons ever. The same year, drought created severe dust storms in Montana, Colorado and Kansas, and floods caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in Texas, Montana and North Dakota. Since the early 1950s, snow accumulation has declined 60 percent and winter seasons have shortened in some areas of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington. Of course, the impacts of global warming are not limited to the United States. In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1,500 deaths in India. And in what scientists regard as an alarming sign of events to come, the area of the Arctic's perennial polar ice cap is declining at the rate of 9 percent per decade.
Q: Is global warming making hurricanes worse?
A: Global warming doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and more dangerous. Because the ocean is getting warmer, tropical storms can pick up more energy and become more powerful. So global warming could turn, say, a category 3 storm into a much more dangerous category 4 storm. In fact, scientists have found that the destructive potential of hurricanes has greatly increased along with ocean temperature over the past 35 years.
Q: Is there really cause for serious concern?
A: Yes. Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and its full-scale impacts are hard to predict far in advance. But each year scientists learn more about how global warming is affecting the planet, and many agree that certain consequences are likely to occur if current trends continue. Among these:
1. Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.
2. Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.
3. Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
4. Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.
5. Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.
Q: Could global warming trigger a sudden catastrophe?
A: Recently, researchers -- and even the U.S. Defense Department -- have investigated the possibility of abrupt climate change, in which gradual global warming triggers a sudden shift in the earth's climate, causing parts of the world to dramatically heat up or cool down in the span of a few years.
Q: What country is the largest source of global warming pollution?
A: The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.
Q: How can we cut global warming pollution?
A: It's simple: By reducing pollution from vehicles and power plants. Right away, we should put existing technologies for building cleaner cars and more modern electricity generators into widespread use. We can increase our reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind, sun and geothermal. And we can manufacture more efficient appliances and conserve energy.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We have posted it here in an effort to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific,
social justice and other issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The material in this site is
provided for educational and informational purposes only.
