click on the title for the complete article.............
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
How the TeleCom Industry Plans to Take Over the Internet in Four Easy Steps
by Timothy Karr
Have you heard about the battle over the Internet?
It's a power grab that involves lawyers, lobbyists, unscrupulous legislators, phony front groups and the most powerful telecommunications companies in the world.
They've aligned themselves against the rest of us -- the millions of Americans who use the Internet every day, in increasingly inventive ways.
They've opened their wallets to Washington. It's an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars and it's being made right now by AT&T, Comcast and Verizon -- the companies that provide broadband access to the vast majority of Americans.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
No Age of Austerity for the Rich
click on the title for the complete article............
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
No Age of Austerity for the Rich
If austerity implies shared sacrifice to preserve a shared public sphere, America isn't really experiencing such an age
by Sasha Abramsky
We are, pundits frequently inform us, living through an "age of austerity". True, perhaps; but what that means, and what community responses it mandates, vary widely from country to country.
UK chancellor George Osborne's emergency budget was stark in the cuts that it laid out - and there's obviously a good case to be made that the notion of an impending debt crisis was largely used as a foil for an ideologically motivated attack on the public sector. But, to sell the cuts, the government couldn't resort to a simplistic "government-is-bad, welfare-is-awful" rhetoric. It wouldn't have worked with an electorate that still retains some affection for the redistributive, protective functions of government vis-à-vis the nation's poor; that still believes in a societal obligation to smooth out the roughest edges of a market system.
And so, in addition to cutting many public services by an eye-popping 25%, the budget also increased taxes. Most interestingly, it significantly raised the capital gains tax, a tax that falls largely on wealthier Brits.
For all its faults, Osborne's budget was one that made some attempt, both rhetorically and in reality, to share the pain. In that sense, the language of "austerity", with its deliberate historical linkage to the dreary, but socially cohesive, post-second world war years, wasn't entirely misguided. For in the aftermath of the second world war a shared sacrifice narrative developed that, in a powerful way, served as something of a societal glue, a cross-class bonding mechanism, keeping a devastated, in some ways humbled, country from fissuring as its imperial greatness waned; paving the way, eventually, for a return to prosperity in the 1950s.
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
No Age of Austerity for the Rich
If austerity implies shared sacrifice to preserve a shared public sphere, America isn't really experiencing such an age
by Sasha Abramsky
We are, pundits frequently inform us, living through an "age of austerity". True, perhaps; but what that means, and what community responses it mandates, vary widely from country to country.
UK chancellor George Osborne's emergency budget was stark in the cuts that it laid out - and there's obviously a good case to be made that the notion of an impending debt crisis was largely used as a foil for an ideologically motivated attack on the public sector. But, to sell the cuts, the government couldn't resort to a simplistic "government-is-bad, welfare-is-awful" rhetoric. It wouldn't have worked with an electorate that still retains some affection for the redistributive, protective functions of government vis-à-vis the nation's poor; that still believes in a societal obligation to smooth out the roughest edges of a market system.
And so, in addition to cutting many public services by an eye-popping 25%, the budget also increased taxes. Most interestingly, it significantly raised the capital gains tax, a tax that falls largely on wealthier Brits.
For all its faults, Osborne's budget was one that made some attempt, both rhetorically and in reality, to share the pain. In that sense, the language of "austerity", with its deliberate historical linkage to the dreary, but socially cohesive, post-second world war years, wasn't entirely misguided. For in the aftermath of the second world war a shared sacrifice narrative developed that, in a powerful way, served as something of a societal glue, a cross-class bonding mechanism, keeping a devastated, in some ways humbled, country from fissuring as its imperial greatness waned; paving the way, eventually, for a return to prosperity in the 1950s.
Move the Money, Starve the Empire
click on the title for the complete article............
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)
Move the Money, Starve the Empire
by Christine Ahn
June 26 may have been the last day of the U.S. Social Forum (USSF) in Detroit, but it might very well be the emergence of a more powerful antiwar movement in this country.
The U.S. Social Forum is a meeting place for progressive social justice organizations to discuss issues, strategies, and ideas for building a social movement in this country. The sessions on the antiwar and anti-militarism track made several linkages: between the domestic economic crisis and the bloated military budget, the expansion of U.S. bases and the displacement of farmers and indigenous peoples from their land and livelihoods, and the rise of militarism and violence against women.
We can't address the economic crisis blighting neighborhoods throughout the United States without moving money away from war. That's the only part of the national budget not being cut. Organizers at the USSF united two disparate sectors. One is comprised of grassroots base-building organizations with multicultural constituencies working to secure jobs, education, and services. The other includes national peace organizations with mostly white, middle-class membership.
These two groups largely organize separately. But they came together at the USSF because working poor people clearly can't get the jobs and services they need without challenging military spending. Likewise, peace groups can't end wars without a broad movement challenging the military-industrial complex.
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)
Move the Money, Starve the Empire
by Christine Ahn
June 26 may have been the last day of the U.S. Social Forum (USSF) in Detroit, but it might very well be the emergence of a more powerful antiwar movement in this country.
The U.S. Social Forum is a meeting place for progressive social justice organizations to discuss issues, strategies, and ideas for building a social movement in this country. The sessions on the antiwar and anti-militarism track made several linkages: between the domestic economic crisis and the bloated military budget, the expansion of U.S. bases and the displacement of farmers and indigenous peoples from their land and livelihoods, and the rise of militarism and violence against women.
We can't address the economic crisis blighting neighborhoods throughout the United States without moving money away from war. That's the only part of the national budget not being cut. Organizers at the USSF united two disparate sectors. One is comprised of grassroots base-building organizations with multicultural constituencies working to secure jobs, education, and services. The other includes national peace organizations with mostly white, middle-class membership.
These two groups largely organize separately. But they came together at the USSF because working poor people clearly can't get the jobs and services they need without challenging military spending. Likewise, peace groups can't end wars without a broad movement challenging the military-industrial complex.
Put Away the Flags
click on the title for the complete article............
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by The Progressive
Put Away the Flags
Remembering Howard Zinn on July 4th
by Howard Zinn
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by The Progressive
Put Away the Flags
Remembering Howard Zinn on July 4th
by Howard Zinn
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Holding BP Accountable
click on the title to see the video............
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Holding BP Accountable
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Holding BP Accountable
Maude Barlow: 'The World Has Divided into Rich and Poor as at No Time in History'
click on the title for the complete article..........
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by Democracy Now!
Maude Barlow: 'The World Has Divided into Rich and Poor as at No Time in History'
As world leaders gathered in Toronto for the G20 summit last week, leading activists from around the world joined thousands in Toronto's Massey Hall to oppose the G20 agenda. Maude Barlow was one of the key speakers at the event. She heads the Council of Canadians, Canada's largest public advocacy organization, and is a founder of the Blue Planet Project.
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by Democracy Now!
Maude Barlow: 'The World Has Divided into Rich and Poor as at No Time in History'
As world leaders gathered in Toronto for the G20 summit last week, leading activists from around the world joined thousands in Toronto's Massey Hall to oppose the G20 agenda. Maude Barlow was one of the key speakers at the event. She heads the Council of Canadians, Canada's largest public advocacy organization, and is a founder of the Blue Planet Project.
U.S. Experiencing Worst Episode of Prolonged Unemployment Since Great Depression
Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)
U.S. Experiencing Worst Episode of Prolonged Unemployment Since Great Depression
Adjusting for demographic factors, current labor market downturn steeper than '82-'83 recession.
Washington, D.C. - As the nation contends with a long and sustained labor market recession, a new study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research demonstrates that the current unemployment rate is higher than the conventional measure shows.
"An unemployment rate that has hovered above 9 percent for several months is striking, but the jobs picture is even worse than it looks," said report author and CEPR Economist David Rosnick.
The study, "The Adult Recession: Age-Adjusted Unemployment at Post-War Highs," adjusts the current unemployment rate to account for demographic differences and finds that the unemployment rate has not fallen below 10.8 percent in the last 12 months. During the worst episode of the recession of the 1980s -- the second half of 1982 and the first half of 1983 -- unemployment passed 10 percent for 7 months.
The analysis notes that the population is older today than it was in the 1980s, which has the effect of lowering today's unemployment rate relative to the past. Since they change jobs more frequently and are more likely to move in and out of the labor market, Young people have a higher unemployment rate than older workers. Adjusting for this older workforce shows that the United States is experiencing the weakest labor market since the Great Depression.
The severity of the current unemployment situation suggests that policy makers should consider measures that would slow or reverse this trend. Additional stimulus such as work sharing or the extension of unemployment benefits by Congress would go far in addressing the plight of the millions of unemployed Americans suffering as a result of this downturn.
The full analysis can be found here.
U.S. Experiencing Worst Episode of Prolonged Unemployment Since Great Depression
Adjusting for demographic factors, current labor market downturn steeper than '82-'83 recession.
Washington, D.C. - As the nation contends with a long and sustained labor market recession, a new study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research demonstrates that the current unemployment rate is higher than the conventional measure shows.
"An unemployment rate that has hovered above 9 percent for several months is striking, but the jobs picture is even worse than it looks," said report author and CEPR Economist David Rosnick.
The study, "The Adult Recession: Age-Adjusted Unemployment at Post-War Highs," adjusts the current unemployment rate to account for demographic differences and finds that the unemployment rate has not fallen below 10.8 percent in the last 12 months. During the worst episode of the recession of the 1980s -- the second half of 1982 and the first half of 1983 -- unemployment passed 10 percent for 7 months.
The analysis notes that the population is older today than it was in the 1980s, which has the effect of lowering today's unemployment rate relative to the past. Since they change jobs more frequently and are more likely to move in and out of the labor market, Young people have a higher unemployment rate than older workers. Adjusting for this older workforce shows that the United States is experiencing the weakest labor market since the Great Depression.
The severity of the current unemployment situation suggests that policy makers should consider measures that would slow or reverse this trend. Additional stimulus such as work sharing or the extension of unemployment benefits by Congress would go far in addressing the plight of the millions of unemployed Americans suffering as a result of this downturn.
The full analysis can be found here.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Live Dangerously: Ten Easy Steps to Becoming a Radical Homemaker
Monday 28 June 2010
by: Shannon Hayes YES! Magazine
When Shannon Hayes made a list of easy steps for becoming a radical homemaker, she didn't realize just how revolutionary they were.
When I first released Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture, I was advised to make a list of "easy steps for becoming a radical homemaker" as part of my publicity outreach materials. My shoulders slumped at the very thought: Three years of research about the social, economic, and ecological significance of homemaking, and I had to reduce it to 10 easy tips? I didn't see a to-do list as a viable route to a dramatic shift in thinking, beliefs, and behaviors. But since the objective of such a list was smoother discussion and communication of Radical Homemaking ideas with the public, I did it.
I came up with the simplest things I could imagine—like committing to hanging laundry out to dry, dedicating a portion of the lawn to a vegetable garden, making an effort to get to know neighbors to enable greater cooperation and reduce resource consumption. I would perfunctorily refer back to them when radio dialogues flagged, when interviews seemed to be getting off track, or to distract myself when an occasional wave of personal sarcasm (I do have them on occasion) threatened to jeopardize an otherwise polite discourse about the book. After about 40 media interviews, I was pretty good at rattling them off, and I began to see their power and significance beyond helping me to be polite.
Take hanging out the laundry as an example. At the outset, it is deceptively simple: It saves money and resources, and it's easy. As I spoke about line-drying laundry more, however, the suggestion took on more meaning. Of course everyone would like to hang out the laundry. But many people don't do it. They're too busy. Thus, the commitment to hanging out the laundry represents a commitment to slowing down—it means starting to align one's daily household activity with the rhythms of nature. In my mind, hanging out the laundry moved from being a simple chore to being an act of meditation and reflection on a deeper, more profound commitment that a person wanted to make. Thus, draping shirts and socks on a clothesline wasn't just about getting a chore done; it represented the new, sane world so many of us are working to create. Every time a person sticks a clothespin on a pair of undies, he or she is saying, "I want a better world. And I'm willing to do what it takes." Laundry may be a simple first step, but it ultimately leads to something bigger.
Laundry became the central theme of a talk I gave recently in an affluent community, where golf course-quality lawns are ready at a moment's notice as the backdrop for the season's latest fad: large screen outdoor television sets. I was speaking at a community eco-festival, where volunteers were teaching residents about the importance of composting, solar panels, buying locally, and changing light bulbs. In my session, I talked about the power of living by one's values, the misery of excessive consumption, the importance of social change, the deep fulfillment and happiness that results from living with less and having more.
To help me drive my point home, my husband Bob armed me with a seemingly endless collection of images of fellow radical homemaker's lives: pictures of happy kids showing off their homemade toys, families gathering for feasts, piles of tomatoes on a kitchen counter following an early fall harvest, a sink full of grapes ready for juicing, friends in their backyard gardens, smiling bike riders. At the end of my talk, I was presented with a single question from a man wearing an expensive watch: "Americans fall on a spectrum with money," he explained, holding his hands about a foot apart from each other. "Most of the people you're talking about fall on this end," he said, waving one hand. "And what you're talking about may work for them. But what about those of us on this end?" With that, he waved his other hand. "What are we supposed to do to be able to live like that?"
There were a number of snarky remarks on the end of my tongue. But this man's eyes were earnest. Perhaps he saw something in those slides that his affluence could not buy. Nevertheless, my sarcasm propensity meter was no longer registering on the dial. It was time to switch to the safety zone and draw from my 10 easy tips: "Grow some vegetables in your backyard. Try learning how to can," I chirped at him. Once I re-gained my bearings, I talked about changing the world by moving toward what we love, not running away from what we fear. I talked about the power of small changes to result in a deep personal shift. I suggested he hang out the laundry.
There were no further questions. People politely thanked me for my time and left the room. One other man, who sat in the back corner, lingered. A longtime activist, he expressed his despair at the lifestyles of his neighbors. The social pressure to have a perfect lawn is huge, he explained. For years, he'd been doing programs to encourage residents to allow parts of their lawn to go wild for habitat—an even simpler step than gardening. The majority of his efforts were unsuccessful. There was too much shame. "It's so much easier for you," he lamented. "You can hang out the laundry." I gave him a quizzical look. He went on to explain local zoning codes. By law, people in his community weren't allowed to hang clothes outside. It was trashy. It would diminish property values.
But what about home values? I felt deeply sad for his neighbors. They'd devoted their life energy in pursuit of the material affluence required to live in this particular community. At the same time, the number of people in attendance at this eco-festival suggested they truly wanted to play a role in healing the planet. Ironically, the very laws of their community—both social and written—compelled them to turn their backs on their personal values. Henry David Thoreau's observations about the imprisonment of wealth were spot on: "The opportunities for living are diminished in proportion as what are called the 'means' are increased," he wrote. That day, I saw people who cared about the Earth, who wanted a better world. But their power to act according to these concerns was limited to their purchases alone—to buying solar panels, buy local campaigns, buying new light bulbs. They could try to buy some of their beliefs. But they couldn't live them.
I suppose that is the deepest wealth in the radical homemaking lifestyle. By needing less, we are free to live our beliefs. To us, this seems ordinary. To someone else, a values-driven lifestyle might seem an extraordinary act of bravery.
We need that bravery. Now. Worrying about our planet while adhering to local zoning codes or social norms forbidding ecologically sensible behavior is a recipe for disaster. Such laws require citizens to commit an ecological injustice by using a disproportionate share of our Earth's resources. They scream out for civil disobedience. As Thoreau reminds us, "break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." Go on and live dangerously. Hang out the wash.
For those who might be curious:
10 Easy Steps for Becoming a Radical Homemaker
•Commit to hanging your laundry out to dry.
•Dedicate a portion of your lawn to a vegetable garden.
•Get to know your neighbors. Cooperate to save money and resources.
•Go to your local farmers' market each week before you head to the grocery store.
•Do some spring cleaning to identify everything in your home that you absolutely don't need. Donate to help others save money and resources.
•Make a commitment to start carrying your own reusable bags and use them on all your shopping trips.
•Choose one local food item to learn how to preserve for yourself for the winter. Get your family to spend more evenings at home, preferably with the TV off.
•Cook for your family.
•Focus on enjoying what you have and who are with. Stop fixating on what you think you may need, or how things could be better "if only."
Shannon Hayes wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Shannon is the author of Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture, The Grassfed Gourmet and The Farmer and the Grill. She is the host of grassfedcooking.com and radicalhomemakers.com. Hayes works with her family on Sap Bush Hollow Farm in Upstate New York.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
by: Shannon Hayes YES! Magazine
When Shannon Hayes made a list of easy steps for becoming a radical homemaker, she didn't realize just how revolutionary they were.
When I first released Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture, I was advised to make a list of "easy steps for becoming a radical homemaker" as part of my publicity outreach materials. My shoulders slumped at the very thought: Three years of research about the social, economic, and ecological significance of homemaking, and I had to reduce it to 10 easy tips? I didn't see a to-do list as a viable route to a dramatic shift in thinking, beliefs, and behaviors. But since the objective of such a list was smoother discussion and communication of Radical Homemaking ideas with the public, I did it.
I came up with the simplest things I could imagine—like committing to hanging laundry out to dry, dedicating a portion of the lawn to a vegetable garden, making an effort to get to know neighbors to enable greater cooperation and reduce resource consumption. I would perfunctorily refer back to them when radio dialogues flagged, when interviews seemed to be getting off track, or to distract myself when an occasional wave of personal sarcasm (I do have them on occasion) threatened to jeopardize an otherwise polite discourse about the book. After about 40 media interviews, I was pretty good at rattling them off, and I began to see their power and significance beyond helping me to be polite.
Take hanging out the laundry as an example. At the outset, it is deceptively simple: It saves money and resources, and it's easy. As I spoke about line-drying laundry more, however, the suggestion took on more meaning. Of course everyone would like to hang out the laundry. But many people don't do it. They're too busy. Thus, the commitment to hanging out the laundry represents a commitment to slowing down—it means starting to align one's daily household activity with the rhythms of nature. In my mind, hanging out the laundry moved from being a simple chore to being an act of meditation and reflection on a deeper, more profound commitment that a person wanted to make. Thus, draping shirts and socks on a clothesline wasn't just about getting a chore done; it represented the new, sane world so many of us are working to create. Every time a person sticks a clothespin on a pair of undies, he or she is saying, "I want a better world. And I'm willing to do what it takes." Laundry may be a simple first step, but it ultimately leads to something bigger.
Laundry became the central theme of a talk I gave recently in an affluent community, where golf course-quality lawns are ready at a moment's notice as the backdrop for the season's latest fad: large screen outdoor television sets. I was speaking at a community eco-festival, where volunteers were teaching residents about the importance of composting, solar panels, buying locally, and changing light bulbs. In my session, I talked about the power of living by one's values, the misery of excessive consumption, the importance of social change, the deep fulfillment and happiness that results from living with less and having more.
To help me drive my point home, my husband Bob armed me with a seemingly endless collection of images of fellow radical homemaker's lives: pictures of happy kids showing off their homemade toys, families gathering for feasts, piles of tomatoes on a kitchen counter following an early fall harvest, a sink full of grapes ready for juicing, friends in their backyard gardens, smiling bike riders. At the end of my talk, I was presented with a single question from a man wearing an expensive watch: "Americans fall on a spectrum with money," he explained, holding his hands about a foot apart from each other. "Most of the people you're talking about fall on this end," he said, waving one hand. "And what you're talking about may work for them. But what about those of us on this end?" With that, he waved his other hand. "What are we supposed to do to be able to live like that?"
There were a number of snarky remarks on the end of my tongue. But this man's eyes were earnest. Perhaps he saw something in those slides that his affluence could not buy. Nevertheless, my sarcasm propensity meter was no longer registering on the dial. It was time to switch to the safety zone and draw from my 10 easy tips: "Grow some vegetables in your backyard. Try learning how to can," I chirped at him. Once I re-gained my bearings, I talked about changing the world by moving toward what we love, not running away from what we fear. I talked about the power of small changes to result in a deep personal shift. I suggested he hang out the laundry.
There were no further questions. People politely thanked me for my time and left the room. One other man, who sat in the back corner, lingered. A longtime activist, he expressed his despair at the lifestyles of his neighbors. The social pressure to have a perfect lawn is huge, he explained. For years, he'd been doing programs to encourage residents to allow parts of their lawn to go wild for habitat—an even simpler step than gardening. The majority of his efforts were unsuccessful. There was too much shame. "It's so much easier for you," he lamented. "You can hang out the laundry." I gave him a quizzical look. He went on to explain local zoning codes. By law, people in his community weren't allowed to hang clothes outside. It was trashy. It would diminish property values.
But what about home values? I felt deeply sad for his neighbors. They'd devoted their life energy in pursuit of the material affluence required to live in this particular community. At the same time, the number of people in attendance at this eco-festival suggested they truly wanted to play a role in healing the planet. Ironically, the very laws of their community—both social and written—compelled them to turn their backs on their personal values. Henry David Thoreau's observations about the imprisonment of wealth were spot on: "The opportunities for living are diminished in proportion as what are called the 'means' are increased," he wrote. That day, I saw people who cared about the Earth, who wanted a better world. But their power to act according to these concerns was limited to their purchases alone—to buying solar panels, buy local campaigns, buying new light bulbs. They could try to buy some of their beliefs. But they couldn't live them.
I suppose that is the deepest wealth in the radical homemaking lifestyle. By needing less, we are free to live our beliefs. To us, this seems ordinary. To someone else, a values-driven lifestyle might seem an extraordinary act of bravery.
We need that bravery. Now. Worrying about our planet while adhering to local zoning codes or social norms forbidding ecologically sensible behavior is a recipe for disaster. Such laws require citizens to commit an ecological injustice by using a disproportionate share of our Earth's resources. They scream out for civil disobedience. As Thoreau reminds us, "break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." Go on and live dangerously. Hang out the wash.
For those who might be curious:
10 Easy Steps for Becoming a Radical Homemaker
•Commit to hanging your laundry out to dry.
•Dedicate a portion of your lawn to a vegetable garden.
•Get to know your neighbors. Cooperate to save money and resources.
•Go to your local farmers' market each week before you head to the grocery store.
•Do some spring cleaning to identify everything in your home that you absolutely don't need. Donate to help others save money and resources.
•Make a commitment to start carrying your own reusable bags and use them on all your shopping trips.
•Choose one local food item to learn how to preserve for yourself for the winter. Get your family to spend more evenings at home, preferably with the TV off.
•Cook for your family.
•Focus on enjoying what you have and who are with. Stop fixating on what you think you may need, or how things could be better "if only."
Shannon Hayes wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Shannon is the author of Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture, The Grassfed Gourmet and The Farmer and the Grill. She is the host of grassfedcooking.com and radicalhomemakers.com. Hayes works with her family on Sap Bush Hollow Farm in Upstate New York.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
Eight Ways the Great Recession Has Changed Americans
Wednesday 30 June 2010
by: Mark Trumbull The Christian Science Monitor Report
Fifty-five percent of Americans in the labor force have experienced a job loss, a pay cut, or a reduction in hours since the onset of the Great Recession in 2007, a new survey finds.
More than half of Americans in the work force have lost a job, taken a pay cut, or faced cutbacks in paid hours on the job as a result of the recession that began in 2007.
According to a newly released in-depth survey, some 55 percent of adults in the labor force have experienced at least one of those job-market impacts of the Great Recession.
By tallying this stark statistic and others, the poll by the Pew Research Center paints a fuller picture of America's deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Job conditions may be the most significant way the recession has affected American families – but it is not the only one. The survey also measured prominent effects on spending and saving habits, wealth, and even attitudes about the nation's future prosperity.
"Here is an effort to look more broadly" at the recession, beyond just the official unemployment rate, says Paul Taylor, a co-author of the Pew report on the poll. The survey covered a representative sample of roughly 3,000 Americans during May.
Eight key findings reveal significant negative impacts, even while optimism about the future persists:
•Thirty-two percent of adults in the labor force have been unemployed for some period during the recession.
•Among people who have jobs, 28 percent have had hours reduced, 23 percent have seen pay cuts, and 11 percent say they've been forced to switch to part-time rather than full-time work.
•A "new frugality" has emerged, with 62 percent of adults saying they've reduced spending since 2007. Looking ahead, 31 percent say they plan to spend less than they did before the recession began, while just 12 percent say they plan to spend more. A major reason: Households plan to boost savings.
•Retirement plans are less certain, with baby boomers perhaps the hardest-hit generation. One-third of adults say they lack confidence that they will have enough income and assets for retirement, up from 25 percent who said the same in February 2009. Among workers in their 50s, about 6 in 10 say they may have to delay retirement.
•Nearly half of homeowners say the value of their house has declined during the recession. Of those who say this, 39 percent say it will take six years or longer for home values – a key source of household wealth – to recover.•Some 26 percent of Americans say that when their children become the age they are now, their children will have a lower standard of living than they now have. A decade ago, just 10 percent said that.
•Optimism about the future persists, but with headwinds. Most Americans continue to view their country as a land of prosperity. But 63 percent expect it will take three years or more for their family finances to recover to prerecession levels.
•Partisan views on the economy have flip-flopped. During the Bush presidency, Republicans were more upbeat about their economic future than were Democrats. Now with one of their own in the White House, Democrats are markedly more optimistic. A majority of Republicans, but not of Democrats, say the country is still in recession.
That ambivalence is echoed by economists. An official panel has not yet said whether the recession is over, and some who believe it is over now fear a "double dip," or a second recession.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
by: Mark Trumbull The Christian Science Monitor Report
Fifty-five percent of Americans in the labor force have experienced a job loss, a pay cut, or a reduction in hours since the onset of the Great Recession in 2007, a new survey finds.
More than half of Americans in the work force have lost a job, taken a pay cut, or faced cutbacks in paid hours on the job as a result of the recession that began in 2007.
According to a newly released in-depth survey, some 55 percent of adults in the labor force have experienced at least one of those job-market impacts of the Great Recession.
By tallying this stark statistic and others, the poll by the Pew Research Center paints a fuller picture of America's deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Job conditions may be the most significant way the recession has affected American families – but it is not the only one. The survey also measured prominent effects on spending and saving habits, wealth, and even attitudes about the nation's future prosperity.
"Here is an effort to look more broadly" at the recession, beyond just the official unemployment rate, says Paul Taylor, a co-author of the Pew report on the poll. The survey covered a representative sample of roughly 3,000 Americans during May.
Eight key findings reveal significant negative impacts, even while optimism about the future persists:
•Thirty-two percent of adults in the labor force have been unemployed for some period during the recession.
•Among people who have jobs, 28 percent have had hours reduced, 23 percent have seen pay cuts, and 11 percent say they've been forced to switch to part-time rather than full-time work.
•A "new frugality" has emerged, with 62 percent of adults saying they've reduced spending since 2007. Looking ahead, 31 percent say they plan to spend less than they did before the recession began, while just 12 percent say they plan to spend more. A major reason: Households plan to boost savings.
•Retirement plans are less certain, with baby boomers perhaps the hardest-hit generation. One-third of adults say they lack confidence that they will have enough income and assets for retirement, up from 25 percent who said the same in February 2009. Among workers in their 50s, about 6 in 10 say they may have to delay retirement.
•Nearly half of homeowners say the value of their house has declined during the recession. Of those who say this, 39 percent say it will take six years or longer for home values – a key source of household wealth – to recover.•Some 26 percent of Americans say that when their children become the age they are now, their children will have a lower standard of living than they now have. A decade ago, just 10 percent said that.
•Optimism about the future persists, but with headwinds. Most Americans continue to view their country as a land of prosperity. But 63 percent expect it will take three years or more for their family finances to recover to prerecession levels.
•Partisan views on the economy have flip-flopped. During the Bush presidency, Republicans were more upbeat about their economic future than were Democrats. Now with one of their own in the White House, Democrats are markedly more optimistic. A majority of Republicans, but not of Democrats, say the country is still in recession.
That ambivalence is echoed by economists. An official panel has not yet said whether the recession is over, and some who believe it is over now fear a "double dip," or a second recession.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
The GOP's Genetic Link to Big Oil
Wednesday 30 June 2010
by: Jim Hightower, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed
If scientists were to compare the DNA of Republican congress-critters and of oil corporations, I'll bet they'd find that they match perfectly. After all, the two species have identical political instincts and seem to have a natural affinity for each other -- so I'm pretty sure they sprang from the same genetic pool.
How else can you explain the remarkable gusher of compassion that Republican lawmakers are presently directing toward Big Oil in general and BP in particular? For example, only hours after winning his party's nomination for a Kentucky Senate seat, GOP teabag darling Rand Paul was on national TV decrying Barack Obama as "un-American" for daring to demand that BP be held accountable for its human and ecological destruction in the Gulf of Mexico.
Next came Minnesota's Lioness of Loopiness, Michelle Bachmann, implying that the hard-hit people of the gulf are shiftless moochers who're using the oil disaster to grab corporate cash. Brimming with tears of compassion, the kooky congresswoman wailed that, "(BP) shouldn't have to be fleeced and made chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest."
And who can ever forget the astonishing public apology to BP's CEO by the oil-soaked Texas Republican Joe Barton? After Obama had gotten agreement from BP to set aside $20 billion to cover some of the damages it has caused, Barton called Obama's actions a presidential "shakedown." He asserted that it made him "ashamed" to live in America, and he obsequiously begged forgiveness from the reckless CEO whose faulty wells killed 11 American workers and continues to do inestimable economic and ecological harm.
Speaking of ecological harm, nature needs us to focus. All of us who love polar bears, whales, seabirds and other wildlife should put our minds together to send an urgent telepathic message to the animals in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska. Our message is blunt: Flee! Flee as fast as you can! Flee, because BP is coming!
While our public attention has been riveted on BP's disastrous blowout in the gulf, and the British oil giant has been quietly and quickly drilling another risky offshore well three miles off of Alaska's north coast.
Dubbed "Liberty," this project requires a technique called "extended reach," which is even more prone to explosions than the gulf process. First, BP is drilling down two miles under the Beaufort Sea, drilling sideways for up to eight miles to tap into one of our national oil reserves.
But wait -- didn't Obama impose a moratorium on such offshore drilling? Yes ... BUT: When Liberty was planned in the George W. Bush years, it was magically declared by his Republican devil-may-care regulators to be an "onshore project." How can that be? Because the rig sits on a tiny artificial island that BP built, so -- voila! -- it's "onshore" even though it's three miles offshore.
Also, just as in the gulf, industry-cozy regulators let BP write its own environmental impact statements for Liberty. And -- guess what? -- BP's 2007 statement said BP would cause no environmental problems. A-OK, said the winking regulators, as they rubber-stamped the project. And what about a disaster response plan, just in case, you know, something bad does happen? Not to worry, BP assured everyone, because the likelihood of a blowout is very remote. Didn't we hear that about BP's Deepwater Horizon well, too?
Meanwhile, as another oil giant drills away in the Beaufort Sea, GOP lawmakers are dutifully working in Congress to limit the legal liability of BP and its partners to a paltry $75 million each. For Republicans to continue marching in lockstep with Big Oil, despite public outrage at BP's greed, makes no sense at all. But they can't help it -- they're knee-jerk response is genetically programmed. They might even have oil in their DNA.
So, here we go again, putting Mother Nature at the mercy of insatiable oil profiteers. To learn more about BP's Liberty escapade, and to learn what you can do besides warning the sea animals to flee, call the Center for Biological Diversity in Alaska: (907) 274-1110.
National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book, Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow, Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.
Copyright 2010 Creators.com
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
by: Jim Hightower, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed
If scientists were to compare the DNA of Republican congress-critters and of oil corporations, I'll bet they'd find that they match perfectly. After all, the two species have identical political instincts and seem to have a natural affinity for each other -- so I'm pretty sure they sprang from the same genetic pool.
How else can you explain the remarkable gusher of compassion that Republican lawmakers are presently directing toward Big Oil in general and BP in particular? For example, only hours after winning his party's nomination for a Kentucky Senate seat, GOP teabag darling Rand Paul was on national TV decrying Barack Obama as "un-American" for daring to demand that BP be held accountable for its human and ecological destruction in the Gulf of Mexico.
Next came Minnesota's Lioness of Loopiness, Michelle Bachmann, implying that the hard-hit people of the gulf are shiftless moochers who're using the oil disaster to grab corporate cash. Brimming with tears of compassion, the kooky congresswoman wailed that, "(BP) shouldn't have to be fleeced and made chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest."
And who can ever forget the astonishing public apology to BP's CEO by the oil-soaked Texas Republican Joe Barton? After Obama had gotten agreement from BP to set aside $20 billion to cover some of the damages it has caused, Barton called Obama's actions a presidential "shakedown." He asserted that it made him "ashamed" to live in America, and he obsequiously begged forgiveness from the reckless CEO whose faulty wells killed 11 American workers and continues to do inestimable economic and ecological harm.
Speaking of ecological harm, nature needs us to focus. All of us who love polar bears, whales, seabirds and other wildlife should put our minds together to send an urgent telepathic message to the animals in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska. Our message is blunt: Flee! Flee as fast as you can! Flee, because BP is coming!
While our public attention has been riveted on BP's disastrous blowout in the gulf, and the British oil giant has been quietly and quickly drilling another risky offshore well three miles off of Alaska's north coast.
Dubbed "Liberty," this project requires a technique called "extended reach," which is even more prone to explosions than the gulf process. First, BP is drilling down two miles under the Beaufort Sea, drilling sideways for up to eight miles to tap into one of our national oil reserves.
But wait -- didn't Obama impose a moratorium on such offshore drilling? Yes ... BUT: When Liberty was planned in the George W. Bush years, it was magically declared by his Republican devil-may-care regulators to be an "onshore project." How can that be? Because the rig sits on a tiny artificial island that BP built, so -- voila! -- it's "onshore" even though it's three miles offshore.
Also, just as in the gulf, industry-cozy regulators let BP write its own environmental impact statements for Liberty. And -- guess what? -- BP's 2007 statement said BP would cause no environmental problems. A-OK, said the winking regulators, as they rubber-stamped the project. And what about a disaster response plan, just in case, you know, something bad does happen? Not to worry, BP assured everyone, because the likelihood of a blowout is very remote. Didn't we hear that about BP's Deepwater Horizon well, too?
Meanwhile, as another oil giant drills away in the Beaufort Sea, GOP lawmakers are dutifully working in Congress to limit the legal liability of BP and its partners to a paltry $75 million each. For Republicans to continue marching in lockstep with Big Oil, despite public outrage at BP's greed, makes no sense at all. But they can't help it -- they're knee-jerk response is genetically programmed. They might even have oil in their DNA.
So, here we go again, putting Mother Nature at the mercy of insatiable oil profiteers. To learn more about BP's Liberty escapade, and to learn what you can do besides warning the sea animals to flee, call the Center for Biological Diversity in Alaska: (907) 274-1110.
National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book, Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow, Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.
Copyright 2010 Creators.com
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
Summer in Iraq
Wednesday 30 June 2010
by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed
Afghanistan has been getting all the ink lately, and for good reason. General Stanley McChrystal's act of self-immolation by way of Rolling Stone magazine kicked off a genuine no-bones-about-it constitutional crisis over civilian control of the military, until President Obama sacked him at pretty close to the speed of light. The number of troop deaths has reached 100, making June the deadliest month for the coalition since this war began eight years ago. Civilians continue to die all over the place, the poppies continue to flourish, and there's talk about talks with the Taliban, but nobody really wants to talk about that. The so-called "mainstream" media was kind enough to wait for a Democrat to be in the White House before publicly coming to the conclusion that the war looks unwinnable. Somewhere, George W. Bush is smirking over that one, but that's just par for the course.
So, yeah, every day is a busy day in the dust and mountains of Afghanistan, and June has been exceptionally busy even by that high standard. For the longest time - the better part of a decade, actually - Afghanistan was the war that nobody heard about. People died every day, the Bush-era strategies failed and failed again, but all eyes were focused on the war in Iraq. The script has been flipped, Afghanistan gets the headlines now, and the ongoing war in Iraq has been relegated to the back pages, if it makes the papers at all.
It would be a hell of a thing if this country, its people and its "mainstream" media could focus on more than one thing at a time, wouldn't it? Because we are still at war in Iraq, too. Soldiers are still dying there - 38 this year, seven this month - along with dozens of Iraqi service members and policemen. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians are killed and wounded every month, just like in Afghanistan, but we have somehow allowed ourselves to accept the farcical notion that things are settled enough over there that we can ignore what's going on.
Think again, folks, because it's high summer in Iraq, and tempers are getting very short. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, the ugly effect of this ongoing conflict continues to grind the people into the ground:
At least three times a week, Maher Abbas brings one of his two young children or his elderly mother to the hospital to be treated for dehydration, stomach bugs or heat exhaustion. Lack of water and electricity are killing his family and his business, he said. Abbas's comments reflect a wave of fury that has erupted across this country of 30 million as Iraq's sweltering summer begins. Most people are having to deal with electricity shortages that leave them with no respite from the heat and no water when their household electric pumps shut off.
Seven years after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraqis are taking to the streets to demand basic services they have not received, despite many promises and the expenditure of billions of dollars by the U.S. and Iraqi governments. Their anger has forced the hand of Electricity Minister Karim Wahid, who resigned Monday. In a news conference the same day, Wahid said the ministry could not keep up with demand and did not have enough money, adding that the situation was out of its control.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki defended his government and Wahid. He blamed Iraqis for consuming too much electricity, squatters for tapping into and overwhelming the electrical grid, and the previous parliament for not approving billions of dollars for infrastructure projects to be undertaken with several foreign firms, forcing the government to take out about $2.1 billion in bonds this year. He also warned that Iraqis should expect power cuts for two more years.
Two years. Think about that. Americans will be voting in another presidential election before the Iraqi people can even begin to hope for more than a few hours of reliable electricity a day, and they've been dealing with this situation for a very long time already. Under the best of circumstances, a lack of basic electricity and water service for seven years would be an unbelievable burden on the people, but these are not the best of circumstances by any stretch of the imagination, because it's summer over there. Iraq in summertime is one of the hotter places on the planet; the average daily temperature during this season is 104 degrees, and on many days tops out at nearly 120 degrees.
The heat and lack of services has already led to an outpouring of violence in that already-violent nation. Earlier this month, a protest at the provincial government building in Basra over the lack of electrical service turned unruly; Iraqi police officers wound up firing into the angry, frustrated crowd after bricks and bottles were thrown, killing one protester and wounding three.
According to another Washington Post report, "Iraqis typically pay about $200 a month for generator power that can run one or two appliances in their homes when the electricity is out. Iraqis have taken to unconventional means to beat the heat. Some sit in their cars with the air conditioning on or drench themselves in water before sleeping on cool tile floors."
Of course, the heat is not the only thing causing violence in Iraq. In the last week, car bombs and shootings killed several Iraqi police officers, soldiers and civilians all over the country. But the heat is adding another dimension to an already-unstable and deadly situation. For the seventh time since we invaded, it is going to be another long, hot, murderous summer over there.
We might want to pay attention.
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed
Afghanistan has been getting all the ink lately, and for good reason. General Stanley McChrystal's act of self-immolation by way of Rolling Stone magazine kicked off a genuine no-bones-about-it constitutional crisis over civilian control of the military, until President Obama sacked him at pretty close to the speed of light. The number of troop deaths has reached 100, making June the deadliest month for the coalition since this war began eight years ago. Civilians continue to die all over the place, the poppies continue to flourish, and there's talk about talks with the Taliban, but nobody really wants to talk about that. The so-called "mainstream" media was kind enough to wait for a Democrat to be in the White House before publicly coming to the conclusion that the war looks unwinnable. Somewhere, George W. Bush is smirking over that one, but that's just par for the course.
So, yeah, every day is a busy day in the dust and mountains of Afghanistan, and June has been exceptionally busy even by that high standard. For the longest time - the better part of a decade, actually - Afghanistan was the war that nobody heard about. People died every day, the Bush-era strategies failed and failed again, but all eyes were focused on the war in Iraq. The script has been flipped, Afghanistan gets the headlines now, and the ongoing war in Iraq has been relegated to the back pages, if it makes the papers at all.
It would be a hell of a thing if this country, its people and its "mainstream" media could focus on more than one thing at a time, wouldn't it? Because we are still at war in Iraq, too. Soldiers are still dying there - 38 this year, seven this month - along with dozens of Iraqi service members and policemen. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians are killed and wounded every month, just like in Afghanistan, but we have somehow allowed ourselves to accept the farcical notion that things are settled enough over there that we can ignore what's going on.
Think again, folks, because it's high summer in Iraq, and tempers are getting very short. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, the ugly effect of this ongoing conflict continues to grind the people into the ground:
At least three times a week, Maher Abbas brings one of his two young children or his elderly mother to the hospital to be treated for dehydration, stomach bugs or heat exhaustion. Lack of water and electricity are killing his family and his business, he said. Abbas's comments reflect a wave of fury that has erupted across this country of 30 million as Iraq's sweltering summer begins. Most people are having to deal with electricity shortages that leave them with no respite from the heat and no water when their household electric pumps shut off.
Seven years after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraqis are taking to the streets to demand basic services they have not received, despite many promises and the expenditure of billions of dollars by the U.S. and Iraqi governments. Their anger has forced the hand of Electricity Minister Karim Wahid, who resigned Monday. In a news conference the same day, Wahid said the ministry could not keep up with demand and did not have enough money, adding that the situation was out of its control.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki defended his government and Wahid. He blamed Iraqis for consuming too much electricity, squatters for tapping into and overwhelming the electrical grid, and the previous parliament for not approving billions of dollars for infrastructure projects to be undertaken with several foreign firms, forcing the government to take out about $2.1 billion in bonds this year. He also warned that Iraqis should expect power cuts for two more years.
Two years. Think about that. Americans will be voting in another presidential election before the Iraqi people can even begin to hope for more than a few hours of reliable electricity a day, and they've been dealing with this situation for a very long time already. Under the best of circumstances, a lack of basic electricity and water service for seven years would be an unbelievable burden on the people, but these are not the best of circumstances by any stretch of the imagination, because it's summer over there. Iraq in summertime is one of the hotter places on the planet; the average daily temperature during this season is 104 degrees, and on many days tops out at nearly 120 degrees.
The heat and lack of services has already led to an outpouring of violence in that already-violent nation. Earlier this month, a protest at the provincial government building in Basra over the lack of electrical service turned unruly; Iraqi police officers wound up firing into the angry, frustrated crowd after bricks and bottles were thrown, killing one protester and wounding three.
According to another Washington Post report, "Iraqis typically pay about $200 a month for generator power that can run one or two appliances in their homes when the electricity is out. Iraqis have taken to unconventional means to beat the heat. Some sit in their cars with the air conditioning on or drench themselves in water before sleeping on cool tile floors."
Of course, the heat is not the only thing causing violence in Iraq. In the last week, car bombs and shootings killed several Iraqi police officers, soldiers and civilians all over the country. But the heat is adding another dimension to an already-unstable and deadly situation. For the seventh time since we invaded, it is going to be another long, hot, murderous summer over there.
We might want to pay attention.
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
Dennis Kucinich: Afghanistan, the Environment and Corporate Control of the Political Process
click on the title for the video...........
Hi, Dennis here.
As you know, I've been leading the effort to try to stop our country from continuing its tragic mistake in Afghanistan. We need to rally, America, to say it's time to end the war once and for all: To set a date and to stick by it to end the war and it can't be in 2011, 2012. We can slow-walk the end of this war for another decade.
That's not acceptable. It's not acceptable because of the loss of lives of our troops, because of the loss of lives of innocent civilians, because of the corrupt government of Afghanistan, because there is no way to win and establish a democracy in Afghanistan, because we can't afford the war, because we have things at home that need to be taken care of: to create jobs, to save homes, to help rebuild our cities. We cannot continue to afford this war in any way, shape or form.
And so, I'm going to continue my efforts to not only create a debate, but also to build the votes so that when the war appropriation comes up again, we will have garnered an even stronger vote to get out of Afghanistan.
I'm asking for your continued support in this effort, not just your financial support - but your moral support. I'm asking you to talk to your friends and neighbors, to spread the word that we need to get out of Afghanistan. We must take a new direction in our international position.
We have to end the War in Iraq. We know that the war was based on lies. Americans now need to continue to focus on what's occurring in Afghanistan - the level of corruption that keeps rising is damaging not only our nation's credibility, but also damaging any hopes that we might have to achieve peace in the world. Clearly, a new approach is called for.
As the oil continues to rise up from the seabed in the Gulf of Mexico, I brought to the floor of the House an amendment that would limit the ability of oil companies, who drill in the outer continental shelf, to be able to try to influence federal elections.
We are aware that the U.S. Supreme Court case (Citizens United) has been devastating to our ability to have real control over our political process. We know that the Buckley v. Valeo case - give speech to those that have money, but if you don't have money you don't have free speech - will have a severe impact on the election process.
This means now, more than ever, your participation in the political process, no matter how humble, needs to be felt. The voices of millions of individual Americans, acting out of concern for their government, can through a collective voice outweigh the tremendous influence of corporations. We must take a new direction with respect to campaign financing.
Finally, we need to let the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe be an opportunity to create a new direction with our energy policies. An opportunity to unite America in a grand cause to clean up, not just the Gulf, but to clean up our nation. To clean up not only its politics but to clean up America's environment. You'll be hearing more from me very soon about this endeavor.
But, for now, I want to say thank you for your help.
Please contribute generously as we strive to continue to serve the people of the United States of America and Ohio's 10th Congressional District in the Congress of the United States.
Thank you very much.
Hi, Dennis here.
As you know, I've been leading the effort to try to stop our country from continuing its tragic mistake in Afghanistan. We need to rally, America, to say it's time to end the war once and for all: To set a date and to stick by it to end the war and it can't be in 2011, 2012. We can slow-walk the end of this war for another decade.
That's not acceptable. It's not acceptable because of the loss of lives of our troops, because of the loss of lives of innocent civilians, because of the corrupt government of Afghanistan, because there is no way to win and establish a democracy in Afghanistan, because we can't afford the war, because we have things at home that need to be taken care of: to create jobs, to save homes, to help rebuild our cities. We cannot continue to afford this war in any way, shape or form.
And so, I'm going to continue my efforts to not only create a debate, but also to build the votes so that when the war appropriation comes up again, we will have garnered an even stronger vote to get out of Afghanistan.
I'm asking for your continued support in this effort, not just your financial support - but your moral support. I'm asking you to talk to your friends and neighbors, to spread the word that we need to get out of Afghanistan. We must take a new direction in our international position.
We have to end the War in Iraq. We know that the war was based on lies. Americans now need to continue to focus on what's occurring in Afghanistan - the level of corruption that keeps rising is damaging not only our nation's credibility, but also damaging any hopes that we might have to achieve peace in the world. Clearly, a new approach is called for.
As the oil continues to rise up from the seabed in the Gulf of Mexico, I brought to the floor of the House an amendment that would limit the ability of oil companies, who drill in the outer continental shelf, to be able to try to influence federal elections.
We are aware that the U.S. Supreme Court case (Citizens United) has been devastating to our ability to have real control over our political process. We know that the Buckley v. Valeo case - give speech to those that have money, but if you don't have money you don't have free speech - will have a severe impact on the election process.
This means now, more than ever, your participation in the political process, no matter how humble, needs to be felt. The voices of millions of individual Americans, acting out of concern for their government, can through a collective voice outweigh the tremendous influence of corporations. We must take a new direction with respect to campaign financing.
Finally, we need to let the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe be an opportunity to create a new direction with our energy policies. An opportunity to unite America in a grand cause to clean up, not just the Gulf, but to clean up our nation. To clean up not only its politics but to clean up America's environment. You'll be hearing more from me very soon about this endeavor.
But, for now, I want to say thank you for your help.
Please contribute generously as we strive to continue to serve the people of the United States of America and Ohio's 10th Congressional District in the Congress of the United States.
Thank you very much.
The Entabulator...
This sounds like something from a SciFi movie............whatever it is, I want one...........LOLOLOL.............Scott (click on the title)
A technical description of the 'NEW' Turbo Entabulator.
Before watching the video clip, PLEASE read the background below:
Several years ago, Rockwell International decided to get into the heavy duty automatic transmission business. They were getting ready to tape their first introductory video. As a warm up, the professional narrator began what has become a legend within the industrial training industry. This man should have won an academy award for his stellar performance. Now remember, folks, this is strictly off the cuff, nothing was written down.
I think you will enjoy this 'once in a lifetime performance' from this silver-tongued gentleman. He has the mind-clouding ablility of Chairman B.O. to exhibit the power of fluent and persuasive speech! ! ! Let me make this perfectly clear, people . . . This man is nothing short of being a bit more than totally eloquent ('most probably . . . on any chosen subject - ac) ! ! !
Entabulat...wmv (3.1 MB),
A technical description of the 'NEW' Turbo Entabulator.
Before watching the video clip, PLEASE read the background below:
Several years ago, Rockwell International decided to get into the heavy duty automatic transmission business. They were getting ready to tape their first introductory video. As a warm up, the professional narrator began what has become a legend within the industrial training industry. This man should have won an academy award for his stellar performance. Now remember, folks, this is strictly off the cuff, nothing was written down.
I think you will enjoy this 'once in a lifetime performance' from this silver-tongued gentleman. He has the mind-clouding ablility of Chairman B.O. to exhibit the power of fluent and persuasive speech! ! ! Let me make this perfectly clear, people . . . This man is nothing short of being a bit more than totally eloquent ('most probably . . . on any chosen subject - ac) ! ! !
Entabulat...wmv (3.1 MB),
The Entabulator...
This sounds like something from a SciFi movie............whatever it is, I want one...........LOLOLOL.............Scott
A technical description of the 'NEW' Turbo Entabulator.
Before watching the video clip, PLEASE read the background below:
Several years ago, Rockwell International decided to get into the heavy duty automatic transmission business. They were getting ready to tape their first introductory video. As a warm up, the professional narrator began what has become a legend within the industrial training industry. This man should have won an academy award for his stellar performance. Now remember, folks, this is strictly off the cuff, nothing was written down.
I think you will enjoy this 'once in a lifetime performance' from this silver-tongued gentleman. He has the mind-clouding ablility of Chairman B.O. to exhibit the power of fluent and persuasive speech! ! ! Let me make this perfectly clear, people . . . This man is nothing short of being a bit more than totally eloquent ('most probably . . . on any chosen subject - ac) ! ! !
Entabulat...wmv (3.1 MB),
A technical description of the 'NEW' Turbo Entabulator.
Before watching the video clip, PLEASE read the background below:
Several years ago, Rockwell International decided to get into the heavy duty automatic transmission business. They were getting ready to tape their first introductory video. As a warm up, the professional narrator began what has become a legend within the industrial training industry. This man should have won an academy award for his stellar performance. Now remember, folks, this is strictly off the cuff, nothing was written down.
I think you will enjoy this 'once in a lifetime performance' from this silver-tongued gentleman. He has the mind-clouding ablility of Chairman B.O. to exhibit the power of fluent and persuasive speech! ! ! Let me make this perfectly clear, people . . . This man is nothing short of being a bit more than totally eloquent ('most probably . . . on any chosen subject - ac) ! ! !
Entabulat...wmv (3.1 MB),
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
BP Turning Tykes Into Activists (With Exclusive New Video)
June 29, 2010 at 10:24:23
Permalink
BP Turning Tykes Into Activists (With Exclusive New Video)
By Daniel Tilson (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
opednews.com
For OpEdNews: Daniel Tilson - Writer
It's hard to know what to tell young children about the biggest news story of our time, the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Four-year-olds are curious by nature, to say the least. They're such indiscriminate information sponges that it can be darned difficult keeping big news of the "real world" out of their intake zone, even if you try.
Heaven knows must of us are careful not to sit them down in front of the evening news and go off to make dinner. But they still manage to catch wind of some of the more super-sized news stories of our day & age.
When that happens, it feels to this parent like the safest thing to do is offer some factual context, and some reassurance - enough information to create a basic understanding of what's happening, without nightmare-inducing levels of detail. Then let them question, comment, vent a little as needed, treating them like the little emerging citizens of the world that they are, complete with free speech rights (within reason, that is!).
That's what I ended up doing with my four-year-old this past weekend. She has been peripherally aware of the Gulf oil spill, especially living right near the coast in Florida. But we've shielded her from the more ugly aspects and images of the story, the way we do from any genuinely disturbing, scary input from this information overloaded world.
Early Saturday morning my daughter heard me talking on the phone about the Hands Across The Sand event, a fifteen-minute global happening where men, women and children would be gathering on coastal beaches worldwide, joining hands in peaceful opposition to the threat of continued offshore drilling.
When I got off the phone, Aliza was full of questions. So I carefully filled her in on what offshore oil drilling was, how BP's rig had exploded and sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, how oil had been gushing out ever since and how much trouble that was causing. I reassured her that it would get fixed, but I couldn't promise her it would never happen again.
That's where activism came into play.
Aliza was disturbed and dismayed when she heard about the oil spill and what it was doing to waters, wildlife and coastlines. She wanted to know if other kids knew about all this. And she wanted to know what she could do about it.
As she often does because she knows Daddy is a filmmaker, she asked me to grab the always handy little "Flip Video" camera and "take a movie", so she could "let the kids" know what was going on - and show them what they could do about it.
The thing of it is, once she felt like she had a better handle on this oil spill disaster story that been confusing her for a while, once she felt like she was able to have her say about it, and once she felt like she had done something to help prevent it from happening again...she seemed to feel much, much better.
Maybe The Next Generation Can Get Us Off Oil Once & For All...
http://www.youtube.com/user/dptilson
Daniel Tilson was born and raised in New York City, a graduate of Stuyvesant High School, and New York University's Film and Television School, with a double major in Film/TV Production & Broadcast Journalism. Tilson established his own first (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author
Permalink
BP Turning Tykes Into Activists (With Exclusive New Video)
By Daniel Tilson (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
opednews.com
For OpEdNews: Daniel Tilson - Writer
It's hard to know what to tell young children about the biggest news story of our time, the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Four-year-olds are curious by nature, to say the least. They're such indiscriminate information sponges that it can be darned difficult keeping big news of the "real world" out of their intake zone, even if you try.
Heaven knows must of us are careful not to sit them down in front of the evening news and go off to make dinner. But they still manage to catch wind of some of the more super-sized news stories of our day & age.
When that happens, it feels to this parent like the safest thing to do is offer some factual context, and some reassurance - enough information to create a basic understanding of what's happening, without nightmare-inducing levels of detail. Then let them question, comment, vent a little as needed, treating them like the little emerging citizens of the world that they are, complete with free speech rights (within reason, that is!).
That's what I ended up doing with my four-year-old this past weekend. She has been peripherally aware of the Gulf oil spill, especially living right near the coast in Florida. But we've shielded her from the more ugly aspects and images of the story, the way we do from any genuinely disturbing, scary input from this information overloaded world.
Early Saturday morning my daughter heard me talking on the phone about the Hands Across The Sand event, a fifteen-minute global happening where men, women and children would be gathering on coastal beaches worldwide, joining hands in peaceful opposition to the threat of continued offshore drilling.
When I got off the phone, Aliza was full of questions. So I carefully filled her in on what offshore oil drilling was, how BP's rig had exploded and sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, how oil had been gushing out ever since and how much trouble that was causing. I reassured her that it would get fixed, but I couldn't promise her it would never happen again.
That's where activism came into play.
Aliza was disturbed and dismayed when she heard about the oil spill and what it was doing to waters, wildlife and coastlines. She wanted to know if other kids knew about all this. And she wanted to know what she could do about it.
As she often does because she knows Daddy is a filmmaker, she asked me to grab the always handy little "Flip Video" camera and "take a movie", so she could "let the kids" know what was going on - and show them what they could do about it.
The thing of it is, once she felt like she had a better handle on this oil spill disaster story that been confusing her for a while, once she felt like she was able to have her say about it, and once she felt like she had done something to help prevent it from happening again...she seemed to feel much, much better.
Maybe The Next Generation Can Get Us Off Oil Once & For All...
http://www.youtube.com/user/dptilson
Daniel Tilson was born and raised in New York City, a graduate of Stuyvesant High School, and New York University's Film and Television School, with a double major in Film/TV Production & Broadcast Journalism. Tilson established his own first (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author
Sticking the public with the bill for the bankers' crisis
June 28, 2010 at 21:57:04
Permalink
Sticking the public with the bill for the bankers' crisis
By Naomi Klein (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
Become a Fan (24 fans)
opednews.com
For OpEdNews: Naomi Klein - Writer
My city feels like a crime scene and the criminals are all melting into the night, fleeing the scene. No, I'm not talking about the kids in black who smashed windows and burned cop cars on Saturday.
I'm talking about the heads of state who, on Sunday night, smashed social safety nets and burned good jobs in the middle of a recession. Faced with the effects of a crisis created by the world's wealthiest and most privileged strata, they decided to stick the poorest and most vulnerable people in their countries with the bill.
How else can we interpret the G20's final communiqué, which includes not even a measly tax on banks or financial transactions, yet instructs governments to slash their deficits in half by 2013. This is a huge and shocking cut, and we should be very clear who will pay the price: students who will see their public educations further deteriorate as their fees go up; pensioners who will lose hard-earned benefits; public-sector workers whose jobs will be eliminated. And the list goes on. These types of cuts have already begun in many G20 countries including Canada, and they are about to get a lot worse.
They are happening for a simple reason. When the G20 met in London in 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, the leaders failed to band together to regulate the financial sector so that this type of crisis would never happen again. All we got was empty rhetoric, and an agreement to put trillions of dollars in public monies on the table to shore up the banks around the world. Meanwhile the U.S. government did little to keep people in their homes and jobs, so in addition to hemorrhaging public money to save the banks, the tax base collapsed, creating an entirely predictable debt and deficit crisis.
At this weekend's summit, Prime Minister Stephen Harper convinced his fellow leaders that it simply wouldn't be fair to punish those banks that behaved well and did not create the crisis (despite the fact that Canada's highly protected banks are consistently profitable and could easily absorb a tax). Yet somehow these leaders had no such concerns about fairness when they decided to punish blameless individuals for a crisis created by derivative traders and absentee regulators.
Last week, The Globe and Mail published a fascinating article about the origins of the G20. It turns out the entire concept was conceived in a meeting back in 1999 between then finance minister Paul Martin and his U.S. counterpart Lawrence Summers (itself interesting since Mr. Summers was at that time playing a central role in creating the conditions for this financial crisis allowing a wave of bank consolidation and refusing to regulate derivatives).
The two men wanted to expand the G7, but only to countries they considered strategic and safe. They needed to make a list but apparently they didn't have paper handy. So, according to reporters John Ibbitson and Tara Perkins, "the two men grabbed a brown manila envelope, put it on the table between them, and began sketching the framework of a new world order." Thus was born the G20.
The story is a good reminder that history is shaped by human decisions, not natural laws. Mr. Summers and Mr. Martin changed the world with the decisions they scrawled on the back of that envelope. But there is nothing to say that citizens of G20 countries need to take orders from this hand-picked club.
Already, workers, pensioners and students have taken to the streets against austerity measures in Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Greece, often marching under the slogan: "We won't pay for your crisis." And they have plenty of suggestions for how to raise revenues to meet their respective budget shortfalls.
Many are calling for a financial transaction tax that would slow down hot money and raise new money for social programs and climate change. Others are calling for steep taxes on polluters that would underwrite the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change and moving away from fossil fuels. And ending losing wars is always a good cost-saver.
The G20 is an ad hoc institution with none of the legitimacy of the United Nations. Since it just tried to stick us with a huge bill for a crisis most of us had no hand in creating, I say we take a cue from Mr. Martin and Mr. Summers. Flip it over, and write on the back of the envelope: Return to sender.
http://www.naomiklein.org
Naomi Klein is the author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, now out in paperback. To read all her latest writing visit www.naomiklein.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Permalink
Sticking the public with the bill for the bankers' crisis
By Naomi Klein (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
Become a Fan (24 fans)
opednews.com
For OpEdNews: Naomi Klein - Writer
My city feels like a crime scene and the criminals are all melting into the night, fleeing the scene. No, I'm not talking about the kids in black who smashed windows and burned cop cars on Saturday.
I'm talking about the heads of state who, on Sunday night, smashed social safety nets and burned good jobs in the middle of a recession. Faced with the effects of a crisis created by the world's wealthiest and most privileged strata, they decided to stick the poorest and most vulnerable people in their countries with the bill.
How else can we interpret the G20's final communiqué, which includes not even a measly tax on banks or financial transactions, yet instructs governments to slash their deficits in half by 2013. This is a huge and shocking cut, and we should be very clear who will pay the price: students who will see their public educations further deteriorate as their fees go up; pensioners who will lose hard-earned benefits; public-sector workers whose jobs will be eliminated. And the list goes on. These types of cuts have already begun in many G20 countries including Canada, and they are about to get a lot worse.
They are happening for a simple reason. When the G20 met in London in 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, the leaders failed to band together to regulate the financial sector so that this type of crisis would never happen again. All we got was empty rhetoric, and an agreement to put trillions of dollars in public monies on the table to shore up the banks around the world. Meanwhile the U.S. government did little to keep people in their homes and jobs, so in addition to hemorrhaging public money to save the banks, the tax base collapsed, creating an entirely predictable debt and deficit crisis.
At this weekend's summit, Prime Minister Stephen Harper convinced his fellow leaders that it simply wouldn't be fair to punish those banks that behaved well and did not create the crisis (despite the fact that Canada's highly protected banks are consistently profitable and could easily absorb a tax). Yet somehow these leaders had no such concerns about fairness when they decided to punish blameless individuals for a crisis created by derivative traders and absentee regulators.
Last week, The Globe and Mail published a fascinating article about the origins of the G20. It turns out the entire concept was conceived in a meeting back in 1999 between then finance minister Paul Martin and his U.S. counterpart Lawrence Summers (itself interesting since Mr. Summers was at that time playing a central role in creating the conditions for this financial crisis allowing a wave of bank consolidation and refusing to regulate derivatives).
The two men wanted to expand the G7, but only to countries they considered strategic and safe. They needed to make a list but apparently they didn't have paper handy. So, according to reporters John Ibbitson and Tara Perkins, "the two men grabbed a brown manila envelope, put it on the table between them, and began sketching the framework of a new world order." Thus was born the G20.
The story is a good reminder that history is shaped by human decisions, not natural laws. Mr. Summers and Mr. Martin changed the world with the decisions they scrawled on the back of that envelope. But there is nothing to say that citizens of G20 countries need to take orders from this hand-picked club.
Already, workers, pensioners and students have taken to the streets against austerity measures in Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Greece, often marching under the slogan: "We won't pay for your crisis." And they have plenty of suggestions for how to raise revenues to meet their respective budget shortfalls.
Many are calling for a financial transaction tax that would slow down hot money and raise new money for social programs and climate change. Others are calling for steep taxes on polluters that would underwrite the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change and moving away from fossil fuels. And ending losing wars is always a good cost-saver.
The G20 is an ad hoc institution with none of the legitimacy of the United Nations. Since it just tried to stick us with a huge bill for a crisis most of us had no hand in creating, I say we take a cue from Mr. Martin and Mr. Summers. Flip it over, and write on the back of the envelope: Return to sender.
http://www.naomiklein.org
Naomi Klein is the author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, now out in paperback. To read all her latest writing visit www.naomiklein.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Latest Casualty of the BP Spill: Strip Clubs
To see the video click on the title...........for some reason I can't post things that I used to ...........like videos..........I just got a new computer with "windows 7"...........there are some features that I like but overall I still like XP best...........sorry, I digress..........LOLOLOL
Posted by Brian Merchant at 1:54 pm
June 28, 2010
Latest Casualty of the BP Spill: Strip Clubs
Cross-posted from Treehugger.
Lest you think the economic damage from the BP spill be limited to the seafood trade, tourism, and such industries directly dependent on an un-oiled Gulf of Mexico, we turn to one of the more unlikely institutions that’s seen its business dry up in the wake of the disaster: Strip clubs.
The Herald Sun reports:
An unlikely company has filed a claim for compensation regarding the disaster – a New Orleans strip club. The owners of The Mimosa Dancing Girls, located on the edge of New Orleans, claimed that the spill was bad for business as the fishermen who usually frequented the club cannot afford to spend money there …
Obviously, the impact of a disaster that puts entire industries out of commission is going to have a serious ripple effect — any business that previously relied on workers in the seafood industry is going to have a tough time, needless to say. And though many make the argument that some of these fishermen are getting paid by BP for doing cleanup work, it’s reasonable to assume that many will be saving that money, knowing that when BP no longer requires their services for cleanup, they may find themselves in dire financial straits.
Which is why it makes sense that many of the claims being filed now are not from fishermen, and that other industries may actually be getting hit harder right now: “officials at BP’s New Orleans claims centre said the bulk of claimants were no longer fishermen … As well as strip joint owners, restaurant waitresses, dock workers, plumbers and electricians also came to the centre, saying their livelihoods were severely hit,” the Sun reports.
For another example, just check out this CNN video of a business that is closing its doors tomorrow.
I’ll go ahead and state the obvious: the economic pain already being caused by the BP Gulf spill is already very real.
Posted by Brian Merchant at 1:54 pm
June 28, 2010
Latest Casualty of the BP Spill: Strip Clubs
Cross-posted from Treehugger.
Lest you think the economic damage from the BP spill be limited to the seafood trade, tourism, and such industries directly dependent on an un-oiled Gulf of Mexico, we turn to one of the more unlikely institutions that’s seen its business dry up in the wake of the disaster: Strip clubs.
The Herald Sun reports:
An unlikely company has filed a claim for compensation regarding the disaster – a New Orleans strip club. The owners of The Mimosa Dancing Girls, located on the edge of New Orleans, claimed that the spill was bad for business as the fishermen who usually frequented the club cannot afford to spend money there …
Obviously, the impact of a disaster that puts entire industries out of commission is going to have a serious ripple effect — any business that previously relied on workers in the seafood industry is going to have a tough time, needless to say. And though many make the argument that some of these fishermen are getting paid by BP for doing cleanup work, it’s reasonable to assume that many will be saving that money, knowing that when BP no longer requires their services for cleanup, they may find themselves in dire financial straits.
Which is why it makes sense that many of the claims being filed now are not from fishermen, and that other industries may actually be getting hit harder right now: “officials at BP’s New Orleans claims centre said the bulk of claimants were no longer fishermen … As well as strip joint owners, restaurant waitresses, dock workers, plumbers and electricians also came to the centre, saying their livelihoods were severely hit,” the Sun reports.
For another example, just check out this CNN video of a business that is closing its doors tomorrow.
I’ll go ahead and state the obvious: the economic pain already being caused by the BP Gulf spill is already very real.
Should I Quit Being Christian?
Tikkun / By Be Scofield 35 COMMENTS
Should I Quit Being Christian? Some Questions for the New Atheists
The new atheists negate the contributions of religious people in the reforming of religion and the resisting of injustice.
June 28, 2010
I want your opinion about something. I’m a liberal religious person who doesn’t believe in doctrines, dogma or a supernatural God. 19% of members in my tradition identify as atheist, 30% as agnostic and the rest Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Pagan or otherwise. Many of us have been wounded by the bigotry, homophobia and dogma in the religions we grew up in and find refuge, support and community in my tradition. We come together on Sunday mornings to enjoy music and hear sermons about social justice, the power of community and how to live inspiring and meaningful lives. Some ministers may use the word God in an all-inclusive way but most choose to avoid the term because of its troubled history. Here’s my question for you: Should I abandon my tradition because liberal and moderate religion serves to justify the extremes? Is my participation in this religious institution providing legitimacy and credibility for fundamentalism, violence, oppression and bigotry done in the name of religion? I’m studying to be a minister in this tradition. It’s called Unitarian Universalism. Am I guilty by association? Should I jump ship? What do you think?
I know what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins would tell me. They are two of the new atheists most responsible for spreading this idea about liberal and moderate religion justifying the extremes. Liberals are “aiding and abetting” the most dangerous religions because they give them credibility by participating in the institution of religion itself. Sam Harris states that moderates are “in large part responsible for the religious conflict in our world” and “Religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” And Richard Dawkins states, “The teachings of “moderate” religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” And when asked about why he lumps liberal religions like Unitarianism in with fundamentalism Hitchens responded a reference to Camus stating that he believes all religion is comparable to rats and vermin.
Believe it or not I’m open to their ideas. As someone who is committed to ending oppression against marginalized groups including atheists (see my post ”We’re All Born Atheists”. I listen very carefully to what they have to say. While I don’t have any plans to drop out of my graduate school and abandon my career path anytime soon I want to consider this question they raise very carefully. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.
The first question I have for Harris and Dawkins is this, do other liberal and moderate things justify their extreme forms? For example if Harris drinks liberally or moderately shall we conclude that he lends credibility or legitimacy to alcoholism? Does his liberal behavior justify the tens of thousands of deaths each year which are attributable to alcohol abuse? Why? Why not? Does the pot smoker give credence to the heroin addict? How about politics? Does the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich lend credibility to the Bush administration era policies that led to torture, war and occupation? Is Kucinich guilty for associating with the political system despite his fierce criticism of U.S. Imperialism? Was it enough for congressmen to speak out against the Vietnam War? Or should they have rid themselves of all government? Following Harris’ logic one could also say that the child building a baking soda volcano for her science fair legitimizes the most dangerous nuclear weapons that we have ever known because they both employ science. Can you think of any other real world examples that the logic of Dawkins or Harris would actually apply to? Or is this only true when it comes to religion? If so, what is unique about religion that makes this principle valid?
1 2 3 4 5 Next page » View as a single page 0
See more stories tagged with: christian, religion, christianity, bible, right-wing, atheism, conservative, liberal, christopher hitchens, atheists, intolerance
Should I Quit Being Christian? Some Questions for the New Atheists
The new atheists negate the contributions of religious people in the reforming of religion and the resisting of injustice.
June 28, 2010
I want your opinion about something. I’m a liberal religious person who doesn’t believe in doctrines, dogma or a supernatural God. 19% of members in my tradition identify as atheist, 30% as agnostic and the rest Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Pagan or otherwise. Many of us have been wounded by the bigotry, homophobia and dogma in the religions we grew up in and find refuge, support and community in my tradition. We come together on Sunday mornings to enjoy music and hear sermons about social justice, the power of community and how to live inspiring and meaningful lives. Some ministers may use the word God in an all-inclusive way but most choose to avoid the term because of its troubled history. Here’s my question for you: Should I abandon my tradition because liberal and moderate religion serves to justify the extremes? Is my participation in this religious institution providing legitimacy and credibility for fundamentalism, violence, oppression and bigotry done in the name of religion? I’m studying to be a minister in this tradition. It’s called Unitarian Universalism. Am I guilty by association? Should I jump ship? What do you think?
I know what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins would tell me. They are two of the new atheists most responsible for spreading this idea about liberal and moderate religion justifying the extremes. Liberals are “aiding and abetting” the most dangerous religions because they give them credibility by participating in the institution of religion itself. Sam Harris states that moderates are “in large part responsible for the religious conflict in our world” and “Religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” And Richard Dawkins states, “The teachings of “moderate” religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” And when asked about why he lumps liberal religions like Unitarianism in with fundamentalism Hitchens responded a reference to Camus stating that he believes all religion is comparable to rats and vermin.
Believe it or not I’m open to their ideas. As someone who is committed to ending oppression against marginalized groups including atheists (see my post ”We’re All Born Atheists”. I listen very carefully to what they have to say. While I don’t have any plans to drop out of my graduate school and abandon my career path anytime soon I want to consider this question they raise very carefully. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.
The first question I have for Harris and Dawkins is this, do other liberal and moderate things justify their extreme forms? For example if Harris drinks liberally or moderately shall we conclude that he lends credibility or legitimacy to alcoholism? Does his liberal behavior justify the tens of thousands of deaths each year which are attributable to alcohol abuse? Why? Why not? Does the pot smoker give credence to the heroin addict? How about politics? Does the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich lend credibility to the Bush administration era policies that led to torture, war and occupation? Is Kucinich guilty for associating with the political system despite his fierce criticism of U.S. Imperialism? Was it enough for congressmen to speak out against the Vietnam War? Or should they have rid themselves of all government? Following Harris’ logic one could also say that the child building a baking soda volcano for her science fair legitimizes the most dangerous nuclear weapons that we have ever known because they both employ science. Can you think of any other real world examples that the logic of Dawkins or Harris would actually apply to? Or is this only true when it comes to religion? If so, what is unique about religion that makes this principle valid?
1 2 3 4 5 Next page » View as a single page 0
See more stories tagged with: christian, religion, christianity, bible, right-wing, atheism, conservative, liberal, christopher hitchens, atheists, intolerance
"I'm a Nervous Wreck":
Mother Jones Online / By Mac McClelland 3 COMMENTS
"I'm a Nervous Wreck": Gulf Fishermen's Wives Face Trauma, Domestic Abuse, Economic Insecurity
The wives of the men whose livelihoods have likely been destroyed by the BP spill forever, grapple with an uncertain future and air their rage.
June 28, 2010
Oil stains cover the gloves of a Greenpeace official after he dipped them in oil floating on the surface in the Gulf of Mexico off Lousiana. Despite thick globs of oil that have coated their sandy beach, scared away tourists and forced fisherman to hang up their nets, Grand Isle residents insist the spill is no reason to stop drilling.
Inside a cool, shaded old plantation house in St. Bernard, Louisiana, we're all breathing in our favorite color and blowing out gray smoke.
This relaxation exercise is brought to a roomful of women by the St. Bernard Project, a nonprofit founded in 2006 to provide rebuilding services to Katrina-ravaged St. Bernard Parish as well as offer "psychological rebuilding" through its wellness and mental-health center. Since the oil spill started, the organization has been looking to vastly expand its services to meet the area's latest mental-health crisis: the unrelenting depression falling on families living and working on the Gulf Coast. Everyone here except the three clinic workers and me is a fisherman's wife.
Michelle, the clinical coordinator running this early-morning support group, asks the five wives who have come what the St. Bernard Project can do to help them.
"I don't know, because I don't know what's gonna happen."
"We need work. For the wives."
"Whatever happens needs child care. If wives are gonna start workin', someone has to take care of the kids. A lot of fishermen have kids."
"The biggest issue is that our situation is unknown," a woman named Tammy says.* She is tough and broad and has a soothing husk in her voice like phone sex or five packs of cigarettes. Tammy is dressed in white and is eight months pregnant. I hope never to get in a bar fight with her. "They haven't stopped the oil, huh? This is like a time bomb. You can't prepare for what you don't know. But I can tell you right now that we need toilet paper."
The claims checks BP is supposed to be sending are eight days late, which means everyone's out of cash for necessities. The day before, cars lined up and down the nearby highway for a 38,000-pound food giveaway. This morning, like every morning, there was a line outside a church center in New Orleans East, in a part of town where stray dogs scavenge trashy lots and industry makes the air smell like burning toast. There, and at four other locations around Southern Louisiana once a week, Catholic Charities is giving out $100 grocery vouchers. Though they don't open until nine, sometimes it takes being at the doors by four in the morning, when it's somehow already hot, to get one, because they always run out. But you can't buy toilet paper with the vouchers—food only.
I remember that about the $75 grocery vouchers the Red Cross gave us as Katrina evacuees in 2005. The checkout clerk at a grocery store in Ohio wouldn't let me buy vitamins, and boy was I mad about that. Had I not already cried myself out at the Gap looking at a shirt that I already owned but might be underwater back home, I would have pitched a sobby fit in Giant Eagle.
"They won't even let you buy Dawn," Brenda complains. It's difficult to describe Brenda without employing the phrase "fiery redhead." In January, she moved out of the 10-by-16-foot FEMA trailer she'd been living in with four kids and a husband and cats and dogs. In the new house, she can't stop the kids from sleeping in her bed, because they got used to doing it, out of necessity, for so long. She thinks almost everything, including the following statement, is funny: "I mean, Dawn is related to food."
1 2 3 4 Next page » View as a single page 0
See more stories tagged with: men, domestic violence, disaster, bp, spill, gulf, wives, fisherman
"I'm a Nervous Wreck": Gulf Fishermen's Wives Face Trauma, Domestic Abuse, Economic Insecurity
The wives of the men whose livelihoods have likely been destroyed by the BP spill forever, grapple with an uncertain future and air their rage.
June 28, 2010
Oil stains cover the gloves of a Greenpeace official after he dipped them in oil floating on the surface in the Gulf of Mexico off Lousiana. Despite thick globs of oil that have coated their sandy beach, scared away tourists and forced fisherman to hang up their nets, Grand Isle residents insist the spill is no reason to stop drilling.
Inside a cool, shaded old plantation house in St. Bernard, Louisiana, we're all breathing in our favorite color and blowing out gray smoke.
This relaxation exercise is brought to a roomful of women by the St. Bernard Project, a nonprofit founded in 2006 to provide rebuilding services to Katrina-ravaged St. Bernard Parish as well as offer "psychological rebuilding" through its wellness and mental-health center. Since the oil spill started, the organization has been looking to vastly expand its services to meet the area's latest mental-health crisis: the unrelenting depression falling on families living and working on the Gulf Coast. Everyone here except the three clinic workers and me is a fisherman's wife.
Michelle, the clinical coordinator running this early-morning support group, asks the five wives who have come what the St. Bernard Project can do to help them.
"I don't know, because I don't know what's gonna happen."
"We need work. For the wives."
"Whatever happens needs child care. If wives are gonna start workin', someone has to take care of the kids. A lot of fishermen have kids."
"The biggest issue is that our situation is unknown," a woman named Tammy says.* She is tough and broad and has a soothing husk in her voice like phone sex or five packs of cigarettes. Tammy is dressed in white and is eight months pregnant. I hope never to get in a bar fight with her. "They haven't stopped the oil, huh? This is like a time bomb. You can't prepare for what you don't know. But I can tell you right now that we need toilet paper."
The claims checks BP is supposed to be sending are eight days late, which means everyone's out of cash for necessities. The day before, cars lined up and down the nearby highway for a 38,000-pound food giveaway. This morning, like every morning, there was a line outside a church center in New Orleans East, in a part of town where stray dogs scavenge trashy lots and industry makes the air smell like burning toast. There, and at four other locations around Southern Louisiana once a week, Catholic Charities is giving out $100 grocery vouchers. Though they don't open until nine, sometimes it takes being at the doors by four in the morning, when it's somehow already hot, to get one, because they always run out. But you can't buy toilet paper with the vouchers—food only.
I remember that about the $75 grocery vouchers the Red Cross gave us as Katrina evacuees in 2005. The checkout clerk at a grocery store in Ohio wouldn't let me buy vitamins, and boy was I mad about that. Had I not already cried myself out at the Gap looking at a shirt that I already owned but might be underwater back home, I would have pitched a sobby fit in Giant Eagle.
"They won't even let you buy Dawn," Brenda complains. It's difficult to describe Brenda without employing the phrase "fiery redhead." In January, she moved out of the 10-by-16-foot FEMA trailer she'd been living in with four kids and a husband and cats and dogs. In the new house, she can't stop the kids from sleeping in her bed, because they got used to doing it, out of necessity, for so long. She thinks almost everything, including the following statement, is funny: "I mean, Dawn is related to food."
1 2 3 4 Next page » View as a single page 0
See more stories tagged with: men, domestic violence, disaster, bp, spill, gulf, wives, fisherman
Byrd's Life Of Learning
The Progress Report
June 29, 2010 by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Alex Seitz-Wald, Igor Volsky, and Tanya Somanader
CONGRESS
Byrd's Life Of Learning
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), America's longest-serving member of Congress and a "titan" of the U.S. Senate, died on Monday after 51 years and eight full terms in the Senate. Throughout his tenure, Byrd held a number of leadership positions, including majority and minority leader and president pro tem. "Raised by an aunt and uncle in grinding poverty and essentially self-taught, Byrd read deeply -- especially the US Constitution, the King James Version of the Bible, histories of the Roman republic, and English political history. He rose to leadership in the Senate by massive effort and an unrivaled grasp of Senate procedure, which he shared with colleagues on both sides of the aisle." "His life is the Senate," said former senator Bob Dole. "He knows more about it than anyone living or dead. He doesn't watch television. He doesn't follow sports. He's dedicated his life to the institution and his family." Indeed, Byrd's career was one of great evolution through education and learning. Despite his early and ugly involvement with the Ku Klux Klan, Byrd later became "a passionate advocate for civil rights, and he was one of the most vocal supporters of legislation making the birthday of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday." Later in his career, Byrd declared that he would change his vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he initially filibustered. With his early opposition to the Iraq war, his ability to shape the Senate and its rules, and his tenacity to take on the coal industry, Byrd undoubtedly shaped his legacy and left a lasting imprint on the institution and our nation.
AN EARLY OPPONENT OF THE WAR: The New York Times' obituary notes that when asked how many presidents he served under, Byrd said, "None." "I have served with presidents, not under them," he would say. It was this belief in the legislature as a co-equal branch of government that led Byrd to stake out an early and rather prophetic opposition to the Iraq war. At a time when many lawmakers cowered to President Bush, Byrd opposed the 2002 congressional resolution often and loudly. It "amounted to a complete evisceration of the Congressional prerogative to declare war," he wrote in "Losing America," "and an outrageous abdication of responsibility to hand such unfettered discretion to this callow and reckless president." "How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will -- a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term 'self-defense'? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election?" Byrd asked in an October, 2002 New York Times op-ed. "We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared." As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent observes, "Byrd's stand against the Iraq invasion is not just a testament to his own courage. It's also a testament to the cowardice of other members of his party at an absolutely critical moment -- an epic cave that may have altered the course of history and should never be forgotten." Byrd's opposition to the Iraq War "was made all the more forceful by the fact that he had staunchly supported the Vietnam War -- and could speak with the authority of someone who had an institutional memory of the consequences of that decision," Sargent added.
RESPECT FOR THE SENATE: A strong and loud defender of Senate rules and procedure, Byrd authored a multi-volume history on Senate procedure and often delivered lengthy speeches on the floor reminding his colleagues of the failures of the Roman Senate. "He was as much a part of the Senate as the marble busts that line its chamber and its corridors," President Obama said in a statement. "His profound passion for that body and its role and responsibilities was as evident behind closed doors as it was in the stemwinders he peppered with history." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) remembered Byrd as "one of the greatest minds the world has ever seen." "He was the foremost guardian of the Senate's complex rules, procedures and customs, and as leader of both the majority and the minority caucuses in the Senate, he knew better than most that legislation is the art of compromise." Known for his defense of the filibuster, Byrd still criticized the way in which Republicans manipulated the rules to thwart the legislative progress. "The right to filibuster anchors this necessary fence. But it is not a right intended to be abused," Byrd wrote in May of this year. "During this 111th Congress in particular the minority has threatened to filibuster almost every matter proposed for Senate consideration. I find this tactic contrary to each Senator's duty to act in good faith." "A true filibuster is a fight, not a threat or a bluff. For most of the Senate's history, Senators motivated to extend debate had to hold the floor as long as they were physically able. The Senate was either persuaded by the strength of their arguments or unconvinced by either their commitment or their stamina. True filibusters were therefore less frequent, and more commonly discouraged, due to every Senator's understanding that such undertakings required grueling personal sacrifice, exhausting preparation, and a willingness to be criticized for disrupting the nation's business. Now, unbelievably, just the whisper of opposition brings the 'world's greatest deliberative body' to a grinding halt. Why?"
GROWING SUPPORT FOR CHANGE: Once a strong proponent of the coal industry, Byrd began to advocate for reform of the industry towards the end of his career, working with other senators to craft global warming legislation that would smooth the transition for miners and the coal industry to a clean energy economy. In an op-ed published in December of last year, Byrd criticized mountaintop removal and urged the West Virginia coal mining industry to innovate and adapt to the growing threat of climate change. "To be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say 'deal me out.' West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table." "The truth is that some form of climate legislation will likely become public policy because most American voters want a healthier environment," Byrd predicted. "Major coal-fired power plants and coal operators operating in West Virginia have wisely already embraced this reality, and are making significant investments to prepare. The future of coal and indeed of our total energy picture lies in change and innovation." Byrd also characterized Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-AK) resolution to block the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon as a vote "to dismiss scientific facts" about climate change. He took Massey Energy to task for its "disregard for human life and safety" in refusing to fund a new school so students could move away from the company's coal processing plant. "Such arrogance suggests a blatant disregard for the impact of their mining practices on our communities, residents and particularly our children," Byrd said in a statement. "These are children's lives we are talking about." Following the explosion at the Upper Big Branch Massey mine in West Virginia on April 5, Byrd challenged Massey's statements about safety and "demanded explanations from the mine regulator for starting aggressive inspections after the disaster." "I cannot fathom how an American business could practice such disgraceful health and safety policies while simultaneously boasting about its commitment to the safety of workers," Byrd said. He also criticized the Mine Safety and Health Administration, saying he is "perplexed" as to how the tragedy could have happened "given the significant increases in funding and manpower" Congress has approved for the agency.
June 29, 2010 by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Alex Seitz-Wald, Igor Volsky, and Tanya Somanader
CONGRESS
Byrd's Life Of Learning
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), America's longest-serving member of Congress and a "titan" of the U.S. Senate, died on Monday after 51 years and eight full terms in the Senate. Throughout his tenure, Byrd held a number of leadership positions, including majority and minority leader and president pro tem. "Raised by an aunt and uncle in grinding poverty and essentially self-taught, Byrd read deeply -- especially the US Constitution, the King James Version of the Bible, histories of the Roman republic, and English political history. He rose to leadership in the Senate by massive effort and an unrivaled grasp of Senate procedure, which he shared with colleagues on both sides of the aisle." "His life is the Senate," said former senator Bob Dole. "He knows more about it than anyone living or dead. He doesn't watch television. He doesn't follow sports. He's dedicated his life to the institution and his family." Indeed, Byrd's career was one of great evolution through education and learning. Despite his early and ugly involvement with the Ku Klux Klan, Byrd later became "a passionate advocate for civil rights, and he was one of the most vocal supporters of legislation making the birthday of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday." Later in his career, Byrd declared that he would change his vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he initially filibustered. With his early opposition to the Iraq war, his ability to shape the Senate and its rules, and his tenacity to take on the coal industry, Byrd undoubtedly shaped his legacy and left a lasting imprint on the institution and our nation.
AN EARLY OPPONENT OF THE WAR: The New York Times' obituary notes that when asked how many presidents he served under, Byrd said, "None." "I have served with presidents, not under them," he would say. It was this belief in the legislature as a co-equal branch of government that led Byrd to stake out an early and rather prophetic opposition to the Iraq war. At a time when many lawmakers cowered to President Bush, Byrd opposed the 2002 congressional resolution often and loudly. It "amounted to a complete evisceration of the Congressional prerogative to declare war," he wrote in "Losing America," "and an outrageous abdication of responsibility to hand such unfettered discretion to this callow and reckless president." "How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will -- a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term 'self-defense'? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election?" Byrd asked in an October, 2002 New York Times op-ed. "We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared." As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent observes, "Byrd's stand against the Iraq invasion is not just a testament to his own courage. It's also a testament to the cowardice of other members of his party at an absolutely critical moment -- an epic cave that may have altered the course of history and should never be forgotten." Byrd's opposition to the Iraq War "was made all the more forceful by the fact that he had staunchly supported the Vietnam War -- and could speak with the authority of someone who had an institutional memory of the consequences of that decision," Sargent added.
RESPECT FOR THE SENATE: A strong and loud defender of Senate rules and procedure, Byrd authored a multi-volume history on Senate procedure and often delivered lengthy speeches on the floor reminding his colleagues of the failures of the Roman Senate. "He was as much a part of the Senate as the marble busts that line its chamber and its corridors," President Obama said in a statement. "His profound passion for that body and its role and responsibilities was as evident behind closed doors as it was in the stemwinders he peppered with history." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) remembered Byrd as "one of the greatest minds the world has ever seen." "He was the foremost guardian of the Senate's complex rules, procedures and customs, and as leader of both the majority and the minority caucuses in the Senate, he knew better than most that legislation is the art of compromise." Known for his defense of the filibuster, Byrd still criticized the way in which Republicans manipulated the rules to thwart the legislative progress. "The right to filibuster anchors this necessary fence. But it is not a right intended to be abused," Byrd wrote in May of this year. "During this 111th Congress in particular the minority has threatened to filibuster almost every matter proposed for Senate consideration. I find this tactic contrary to each Senator's duty to act in good faith." "A true filibuster is a fight, not a threat or a bluff. For most of the Senate's history, Senators motivated to extend debate had to hold the floor as long as they were physically able. The Senate was either persuaded by the strength of their arguments or unconvinced by either their commitment or their stamina. True filibusters were therefore less frequent, and more commonly discouraged, due to every Senator's understanding that such undertakings required grueling personal sacrifice, exhausting preparation, and a willingness to be criticized for disrupting the nation's business. Now, unbelievably, just the whisper of opposition brings the 'world's greatest deliberative body' to a grinding halt. Why?"
GROWING SUPPORT FOR CHANGE: Once a strong proponent of the coal industry, Byrd began to advocate for reform of the industry towards the end of his career, working with other senators to craft global warming legislation that would smooth the transition for miners and the coal industry to a clean energy economy. In an op-ed published in December of last year, Byrd criticized mountaintop removal and urged the West Virginia coal mining industry to innovate and adapt to the growing threat of climate change. "To be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say 'deal me out.' West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table." "The truth is that some form of climate legislation will likely become public policy because most American voters want a healthier environment," Byrd predicted. "Major coal-fired power plants and coal operators operating in West Virginia have wisely already embraced this reality, and are making significant investments to prepare. The future of coal and indeed of our total energy picture lies in change and innovation." Byrd also characterized Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-AK) resolution to block the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon as a vote "to dismiss scientific facts" about climate change. He took Massey Energy to task for its "disregard for human life and safety" in refusing to fund a new school so students could move away from the company's coal processing plant. "Such arrogance suggests a blatant disregard for the impact of their mining practices on our communities, residents and particularly our children," Byrd said in a statement. "These are children's lives we are talking about." Following the explosion at the Upper Big Branch Massey mine in West Virginia on April 5, Byrd challenged Massey's statements about safety and "demanded explanations from the mine regulator for starting aggressive inspections after the disaster." "I cannot fathom how an American business could practice such disgraceful health and safety policies while simultaneously boasting about its commitment to the safety of workers," Byrd said. He also criticized the Mine Safety and Health Administration, saying he is "perplexed" as to how the tragedy could have happened "given the significant increases in funding and manpower" Congress has approved for the agency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
