Dee's 'Dotes

The price of oil: It only affects some of us

deesings@livejournal.com — Mon, 12 May 2008 01:39:46 GMT

While the price of fuel keeps climbing:

big business owners advertise like oil was going to be around forever:

I have seen planes like the ones above, as recently as today (May 11, 2008) pulling banners behind them advertising sports teams like Utah's Jazz (basketball) and the Bees (Baseball).

I think we should be calling these people and getting on their cases about this. What an irresponsible, wasteful thing to do!

Mother's Day: Reclaiming and Standing With women Globally

deesings@livejournal.com — Sun, 11 May 2008 12:29:06 GMT

Arise then…women of this day! Arise, all women who have hearts! Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!Say firmly:”We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,For caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We, the women of one country,Will be too tender of those of another country To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.” From the bosum of a devastated Earth a voice goes up withOur own. It says: “Disarm! Disarm!The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.”Blood does not wipe our dishonor,Nor violence indicate possession.As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil at the summons of war,Let women now leave all that may be left of homeFor a great and earnest day of counsel.Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the meansWhereby the great human family can live in peace…Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,But of God -In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly askThat a general congress of women without limit of nationality, May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenientAnd the earliest period consistent with its objects,To promote the alliance of the different nationalities, The amicable settlement of international questions, The great and general interests of peace. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if on some distant Mother’s Day, the wishes of Julia Ward Howecould be fulfilled and the human race could celebrate a day when, all over the world, nomother would have to mourn the death of her child lost in war or terrorist attacks… To all of the mothers whose children are fighting in wars - and to mothers whosechildren are growing up with wars raging around them or with terrorism threatening theirsafety… Wishes of strength, peace and hope for this Mother’s Day…

Please stand with us for five minutes of silence at 1 p.m. your local time on May 11, 2008, in your local park, school yard, gathering place, or any place you deem appropriate, to signify your agreement with the statement below. Please stand at a different hour with a different time zone if 1 p.m. is not your preferred time.We ask you to invite the men who you care about to join you. We ask that you bring bells to ring at 1 p.m. to signify the beginning of the five minutes of silence and to ring again to signify the end of the period of silence. During the silence, please think about what you individually and we collectively can do to attain this world. If you need to sit rather than stand, please feel free to do so. Afterwards, hopefully you and your loved ones can talk together about how we can bring about this world.

WILL YOU STAND WITH US?

Wonder Woman Kat Swift, Green Party Presidential Candidate

deesings@livejournal.com — Wed, 07 May 2008 01:39:36 GMT

Happy May Day

deesings@livejournal.com — Thu, 01 May 2008 11:14:09 GMT

The Brief Origins of May Day

by Eric Chase

Most people living in the United States know little about the International Workers' Day of May Day. For many others there is an assumption that it is a holiday celebrated in state communist countries like Cuba or the former Soviet Union. Most Americans don't realize that May Day has its origins here in this country and is as "American" as baseball and apple pie, and stemmed from the pre-Christian holiday of Beltane, a celebration of rebirth and fertility.

In the late nineteenth century, the working class was in constant struggle to gain the 8-hour work day. Working conditions were severe and it was quite common to work 10 to 16 hour days in unsafe conditions. Death and injury were commonplace at many work places and inspired such books as Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and Jack London's The Iron Heel. As early as the 1860's, working people agitated to shorten the workday without a cut in pay, but it wasn't until the late 1880's that organized labor was able to garner enough strength to declare the 8-hour workday. This proclamation was without consent of employers, yet demanded by many of the working class.

At this time, socialism was a new and attractive idea to working people, many of whom were drawn to its ideology of working class control over the production and distribution of all goods and services. Workers had seen first-hand that Capitalism benefited only their bosses, trading workers' lives for profit. Thousands of men, women and children were dying needlessly every year in the workplace, with life expectancy as low as their early twenties in some industries, and little hope but death of rising out of their destitution. Socialism offered another option.

A variety of socialist organizations sprung up throughout the later half of the 19th century, ranging from political parties to choir groups. In fact, many socialists were elected into governmental office by their constituency. But again, many of these socialists were ham-strung by the political process which was so evidently controlled by big business and the bi-partisan political machine. Tens of thousands of socialists broke ranks from their parties, rebuffed the entire political process, which was seen as nothing more than protection for the wealthy, and created anarchist groups throughout the country. Literally thousands of working people embraced the ideals of anarchism, which sought to put an end to all hierarchical structures (including government), emphasized worker controlled industry, and valued direct action over the bureaucratic political process. It is inaccurate to say that labor unions were "taken over" by anarchists and socialists, but rather anarchists and socialist made up the labor unions.

At its national convention in Chicago, held in 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (which later became the American Federation of Labor), proclaimed that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labor from and after May 1, 1886." The following year, the FOTLU, backed by many Knights of Labor locals, reiterated their proclamation stating that it would be supported by strikes and demonstrations. At first, most radicals and anarchists regarded this demand as too reformist, failing to strike "at the root of the evil." A year before the Haymarket Massacre, Samuel Fielden pointed out in the anarchist newspaper, The Alarm, that "whether a man works eight hours a day or ten hours a day, he is still a slave."

Despite the misgivings of many of the anarchists, an estimated quarter million workers in the Chicago area became directly involved in the crusade to implement the eight hour work day, including the Trades and Labor Assembly, the Socialistic Labor Party and local Knights of Labor. As more and more of the workforce mobilized against the employers, these radicals conceded to fight for the 8-hour day, realizing that "the tide of opinion and determination of most wage-workers was set in this direction." With the involvement of the anarchists, there seemed to be an infusion of greater issues than the 8-hour day. There grew a sense of a greater social revolution beyond the more immediate gains of shortened hours, but a drastic change in the economic structure of capitalism.

In a proclamation printed just before May 1, 1886, one publisher appealed to working people with this plea:

Workingmen to Arms!
War to the Palace, Peace to the Cottage, and Death to LUXURIOUS IDLENESS.
The wage system is the only cause of the World's misery. It is supported by the rich classes, and to destroy it, they must be either made to work or DIE.
One pound of DYNAMITE is better than a bushel of BALLOTS!
MAKE YOUR DEMAND FOR EIGHT HOURS with weapons in your hands to meet the capitalistic bloodhounds, police, and militia in proper manner.

Not surprisingly the entire city was prepared for mass bloodshed, reminiscent of the railroad strike a decade earlier when police and soldiers gunned down hundreds of striking workers. On May 1, 1886, more than 300,000 workers in 13,000 businesses across the United States walked off their jobs in the first May Day celebration in history. In Chicago, the epicenter for the 8-hour day agitators, 40,000 went out on strike with the anarchists in the forefront of the public's eye. With their fiery speeches and revolutionary ideology of direct action, anarchists and anarchism became respected and embraced by the working people and despised by the capitalists.

The names of many - Albert Parsons, Johann Most, August Spies and Louis Lingg - became household words in Chicago and throughout the country. Parades, bands and tens of thousands of demonstrators in the streets exemplified the workers' strength and unity, yet didn't become violent as the newspapers and authorities predicted.

More and more workers continued to walk off their jobs until the numbers swelled to nearly 100,000, yet peace prevailed. It was not until two days later, May 3, 1886, that violence broke out at the McCormick Reaper Works between police and strikers.

For six months, armed Pinkerton agents and the police harassed and beat locked-out steelworkers as they picketed. Most of these workers belonged to the "anarchist-dominated" Metal Workers' Union. During a speech near the McCormick plant, some two hundred demonstrators joined the steelworkers on the picket line. Beatings with police clubs escalated into rock throwing by the strikers which the police responded to with gunfire. At least two strikers were killed and an unknown number were wounded.

Full of rage, a public meeting was called by some of the anarchists for the following day in Haymarket Square to discuss the police brutality. Due to bad weather and short notice, only about 3000 of the tens of thousands of people showed up from the day before. This affair included families with children and the mayor of Chicago himself. Later, the mayor would testify that the crowd remained calm and orderly and that speaker August Spies made "no suggestion... for immediate use of force or violence toward any person..."

As the speech wound down, two detectives rushed to the main body of police, reporting that a speaker was using inflammatory language, inciting the police to march on the speakers' wagon. As the police began to disperse the already thinning crowd, a bomb was thrown into the police ranks. No one knows who threw the bomb, but speculations varied from blaming any one of the anarchists, to an agent provocateur working for the police.

Enraged, the police fired into the crowd. The exact number of civilians killed or wounded was never determined, but an estimated seven or eight civilians died, and up to forty were wounded. One officer died immediately and another seven died in the following weeks. Later evidence indicated that only one of the police deaths could be attributed to the bomb and that all the other police fatalities had or could have had been due to their own indiscriminate gun fire. Aside from the bomb thrower, who was never identified, it was the police, not the anarchists, who perpetrated the violence.

Eight anarchists - Albert Parsons, August Spies, Samuel Fielden, Oscar Neebe, Michael Schwab, George Engel, Adolph Fischer and Louis Lingg - were arrested and convicted of murder, though only three were even present at Haymarket and those three were in full view of all when the bombing occurred. The jury in their trial was comprised of business leaders in a gross mockery of justice similar to the Sacco-Vanzetti case thirty years later, or the trials of AIM and Black Panther members in the seventies. The entire world watched as these eight organizers were convicted, not for their actions, of which all of were innocent, but for their political and social beliefs. On November 11, 1887, after many failed appeals, Parsons, Spies, Engel and Fisher were hung to death. Louis Lingg, in his final protest of the state's claim of authority and punishment, took his own life the night before with an explosive device in his mouth.

The remaining organizers, Fielden, Neebe and Schwab, were pardoned six years later by Governor Altgeld, who publicly lambasted the judge on a travesty of justice. Immediately after the Haymarket Massacre, big business and government conducted what some say was the very first "Red Scare" in this country. Spun by mainstream media, anarchism became synonymous with bomb throwing and socialism became un-American. The common image of an anarchist became a bearded, eastern European immigrant with a bomb in one hand and a dagger in the other.

Today we see tens of thousands of activists embracing the ideals of the Haymarket Martyrs and those who established May Day as an International Workers' Day. Ironically, May Day is an official holiday in 66 countries and unofficially celebrated in many more, but rarely is it recognized in this country where it began.

Over one hundred years have passed since that first May Day. In the earlier part of the 20th century, the US government tried to curb the celebration and further wipe it from the public's memory by establishing "Law and Order Day" on May 1. We can draw many parallels between the events of 1886 and today. We still have locked out steelworkers struggling for justice. We still have voices of freedom behind bars as in the cases of Mumia Abu Jamal and Leonard Peltier. We still had the ability to mobilize tens of thousands of people in the streets of a major city to proclaim "THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!" at the WTO and FTAA demonstrations.

Words stronger than any I could write are engraved on the Haymarket Monument:

THE DAY WILL COME WHEN OUR SILENCE WILL BE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE VOICES YOU ARE THROTTLING TODAY.

Truly, history has a lot to teach us about the roots of our radicalism. When we remember that people were shot so we could have the 8-hour day; if we acknowledge that homes with families in them were burned to the ground so we could have Saturday as part of the weekend; when we recall 8-year old victims of industrial accidents who marched in the streets protesting working conditions and child labor only to be beat down by the police and company thugs, we understand that our current condition cannot be taken for granted - people fought for the rights and dignities we enjoy today, and there is still a lot more to fight for. The sacrifices of so many people can not be forgotten or we'll end up fighting for those same gains all over again. This is why we celebrate May Day.

Cynthia McKinney in the News

deesings@livejournal.com — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:37:01 GMT

POLITICS-US: Outspoken War Critic Poised for Green Party Run

By Matthew Cardinale*

In Congress, Cynthia McKinney noted the similarity between the food aid packages and cluster bombs dropped by the U.S. on Afghanistan in 2001.

Credit:Pan-African News Wire

ATLANTA, Apr 22 (IPS) - With media attention focused almost exclusively on the dramatic contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, millions of U.S. voters probably have no inkling that there is a ballot option beyond the Democratic and Republican Parties.

"There needs to be room for a lot of policy threads in American discourse. But the corporate media is not informing the people," Cynthia McKinney, the front-runner for the Green Party presidential nomination, told IPS during a rare 90-minute interview.

Founded in 2001 as the successor of the Association of State Green Parties, the party's platform revolves around environmentalism, non-violence, social justice and grassroots organising. It has slightly more than 300,000 registered voters nationwide, and a standing ballot line in 20 states plus Washington, DC. In other states, the party must circulate petitions to get its candidates on the ballot.

McKinney, a former congressional representative from Georgia, abandoned the Democratic Party last year in disgust at its failure to end the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and is now poised for a presidential run on the Green Party ticket.

She has won Green Party primaries in Arkansas, Illinois, and Washington, DC. Ralph Nader, who gave the party national stature as its candidate in 2000, won in California and Massachusetts, prior to announcing he is running as an Independent instead.

McKinney also won the Green state caucuses in Wisconsin and Rhode Island, and has a total of 71 delegates. Trailing candidates include Kent Mesplay (10 delegates), Howie Hawkins (8), Jesse Johnson (2) and Kat Swift (2).

The likelihood of McKinney winning the nomination at the party's national convention in Chicago this summer is "very high", Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, told IPS, although he added that the Green Party will have a "one in a million" chance of winning the presidency this November.

"This country, even though it claims to be such a model, is one of the least democratic countries because election laws, campaign finance laws, and laws around debates openly discriminate against all parties except two parties [Republican and Democrat]," Winger said.

"In other countries, there is one set of [ballot access] laws," instead of 51 sets governing the 50 states and the capital, he said. "This is the only country that exempts the two biggest parties from having to qualify."

Scott McLarty, the national Green Party spokesperson, told IPS, "We would like to see our presidential ticket get five percent of the vote."

Despite the fact that winning is pretty much out of the question, many party activists are excited by the prospect of McKinney's campaign inspiring a "Black-Brown-Green Coalition".

"Of course you've got the situation that the Green Party is basically a party of whites. So they are extremely aware of that fact, except in Massachusetts and DC where they merged with the Rainbow Party. You have a little more people of colour in those two states," McKinney, who is African American, told IPS.

"There is a real need of the values of the Green Party to be known among all people of the country, not just a few," she said.

The Green Party admits this problem. "That's true except in certain locations. In DC, the Green Party membership is mostly black. Among leaders, there's a lot of diversity," said McLarty.

"Over the past couple decades, there has been a belief that the environmental movement is a white phenomenon and the Green Party has been associated with the environment even though we cover other things like health care and the war," he told IPS.

"On top of that, a lot of black voters have felt a very strong loyalty to the Democratic Party. When people feel strong loyalty to one party, they are less likely to support start-up parties," McLarty said.

"It's always been true of minor parties in U.S. You'd think African Americans would have been angry enough to leave the two major parties. Tradition goes back 100 years ago that African Americans are not interested in other parties," Winger said.

McKinney, McLarty, and Winger each have different ideas of how the Green Party should approach its political development.

"I asked for candidate recruitment because the purpose of a political party is to win office. They have successfully recruited more than 500 candidates," McKinney said.

However, the fact that the Green Party is not on the ballot in McKinney's home state "looks weak", Winger pointed out. Georgians will need to collect over 40,000 signatures by July to get McKinney on the ballot, Winger said, and they've only collected about 3,000.

"Some people have been out of the political system for a very long time," McKinney noted. "They made a choice to not be involved in the political process. After a series of disappointments, people made a rational choice. Unfortunately, the U.S. participation rates are well below that of other countries."

In recent years, Green parties have been racking up electoral successes around the world, particularly in Europe.

"The Green Party participated in the coalition that led in Germany and in Ireland and in the Kenyan Parliament," McKinney said. "The Green Party is international."

"We have a winner-take-all system in the U.S. that pushes conformity," she added. "Regressive ballot access laws in Georgia [and other states] prevent candidates from getting on the ballot."

"The Green Party is a political entity that deserves to be built," she said.

*This is the first of two articles about the U.S. Green Party and the 2008 elections.

(END/2008)

Retailers in U.S. - Food Rationing?

deesings@livejournal.com — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:07:43 GMT

It's kind of creepy to see that retailers have the power to ration food....

http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994
Food Rationing Confronts Breadbasket of the World
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 21, 2008

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - Many parts of America, long considered the
breadbasket of the world, are now confronting a once unthinkable
phenomenon: food rationing. Major retailers in New York, in areas of New
England, and on the West Coast are limiting purchases of flour, rice, and
cooking oil as demand outstrips supply. There are also anecdotal reports
that some consumers are hoarding grain stocks.

At a Costco Warehouse in Mountain View, Calif., yesterday, shoppers grew
frustrated and occasionally uttered expletives as they searched in vain
for the large sacks of rice they usually buy.

"Where's the rice?" an engineer from Palo Alto, Calif., Yajun Liu, said.
"You should be able to buy something like rice. This is ridiculous."

The bustling store in the heart of Silicon Valley usually sells four or
five varieties of rice to a clientele largely of Asian immigrants, but
only about half a pallet of Indian-grown Basmati rice was left in stock. A
20-pound bag was selling for $15.99.

"You can't eat this every day. It's too heavy," a health care executive
from Palo Alto, Sharad Patel, grumbled as his son loaded two sacks of the
Basmati into a shopping cart. "We only need one bag but I'm getting two in
case a neighbor or a friend needs it," the elder man said.

The Patels seemed headed for disappointment, as most Costco members were
being allowed to buy only one bag. Moments earlier, a clerk dropped two
sacks back on the stack after taking them from another customer who tried
to exceed the one-bag cap.

"Due to the limited availability of rice, we are limiting rice purchases
based on your prior purchasing history," a sign above the dwindling supply
said.

Shoppers said the limits had been in place for a few days, and that rice
supplies had been spotty for a few weeks. A store manager referred
questions to officials at Costco headquarters near Seattle, who did not
return calls or e-mail messages yesterday.

An employee at the Costco store in Queens said there were no restrictions
on rice buying, but limits were being imposed on purchases of oil and
flour. Internet postings attributed some of the shortage at the retail
level to bakery owners who flocked to warehouse stores when the price of
flour from commercial suppliers doubled.

The curbs and shortages are being tracked with concern by survivalists who
view the phenomenon as a harbinger of more serious trouble to come.

"It's sporadic. It's not every store, but it's becoming more commonplace,"
the editor of SurvivalBlog.com, James Rawles, said. "The number of reports
I've been getting from readers who have seen signs posted with limits has
increased almost exponentially, I'd say in the last three to five weeks."

Spiking food prices have led to riots in recent weeks in Haiti, Indonesia,
and several African nations. India recently banned export of all but the
highest quality rice, and Vietnam blocked the signing of a new contract
for foreign rice sales.

"I'm surprised the Bush administration hasn't slapped export controls on
wheat," Mr. Rawles said. "The Asian countries are here buying every kind
of wheat." Mr. Rawles said it is hard to know how much of the shortages
are due to lagging supply and how much is caused by consumers hedging
against future price hikes or a total lack of product.

"There have been so many stories about worldwide shortages that it
encourages people to stock up. What most people don't realize is that
supply chains have changed, so inventories are very short," Mr. Rawles, a
former Army intelligence officer, said. "Even if people increased their
purchasing by 20%, all the store shelves would be wiped out."

At the moment, large chain retailers seem more prone to shortages and
limits than do smaller chains and mom-and-pop stores, perhaps because
store managers at the larger companies have less discretion to increase
prices locally. Mr. Rawles said the spot shortages seemed to be most
frequent in the Northeast and all the way along the West Coast. He said he
had heard reports of buying limits at Sam's Club warehouses, which are
owned by Wal-Mart Stores, but a spokesman for the company, Kory Lundberg,
said he was not aware of any shortages or limits.

An anonymous high-tech professional writing on an investment Web site,
Seeking Alpha, said he recently bought 10 50-pound bags of rice at Costco.
"I am concerned that when the news of rice shortage spreads, there will be
panic buying and the shelves will be empty in no time. I do not intend to
cause a panic, and I am not speculating on rice to make profit. I am just
hoarding some for my own consumption," he wrote.

For now, rice is available at Asian markets in California, though
consumers have fewer choices when buying the largest bags. "At our
neighborhood store, it's very expensive, more than $30" for a 25-pound
bag, a housewife from Mountain View, Theresa Esquerra, said. "I'm not
going to pay $30. Maybe we'll just eat bread."

Happy Earth Day - Take a Stand

deesings@livejournal.com — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:54:10 GMT

Happy Earth Day

deesings@livejournal.com — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:46:04 GMT

Happy Earth day

deesings@livejournal.com — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:31:06 GMT

Human rights rally video - counter protestors confront peace walkers

deesings@livejournal.com — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:05:20 GMT

Human rights rally video - end of peace walk

deesings@livejournal.com — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:04:34 GMT

My speech from human rights rally

deesings@livejournal.com — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:58:58 GMT

Human Rights Torch Relay Rally Event

deesings@livejournal.com — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:27:13 GMT

Despite biting northwest winds with extreme wind chill factors, about 150 people came out for the Human Rights Torch Relay Rally today. A peace walk occured around Salt Lake city, followed by a rally with speakers. There was supposed to be music, but it was so cold that the program was cut short. I got to deliver my speech, but I cut it very short due to the temperatures.

The event did not go without incident. "Counter-protestors", most likely bussed in to SLC and all cities along the route, supporters of the Chinese government, appeared along the peace walk route. I will be posting videos as I get them uploaded to portray what I cannot convey in words.

Here are some photos:
Chinese Government Supporters:

Human Rights Advocates

Giving my speech

News Coverage

China Tibet controversy comes to Salt Lake
Salt Lake protesters trade harsh words on Tibet

Human Rights Torch Relay Rally in Salt Lake City

deesings@livejournal.com — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:20:37 GMT

The Human Rights Torch Relay is an international campaign that seeks to bring an end to all human rights abuses against the people of China, while highlighting the persecution of Falun Gong - the most severely persecuted group in China today. During the run up to the 2008 Olympics, the HRTR will host events in 37 countries across six continents to present its message: The Olympics and crimes against humanity cannot coexist in China. The Tibetan, Burmese, and Vietnamese communities, the Darfur Support Network (Sudan), Chinese democracy groups, student groups, former Olympians, and representatives from sports and politics are among the relay participants. The HRTR was initiated by the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFG).

I have been asked to be a speaker on behalf of the Green Party, to address environmental injustice in China.
Sunday, April 20, 10am – Peace Walk followed by Rally
City County Buidling at Washington Square400 South State Street, Salt Lake City: Events starts with a peaceful march followed by speakers and musicians.
Speakers include: Chinese Olympic Basketball player Kai Chen, a Falun Gong former prisoner of conscience (whose speech will be read for her, so that she can remain anonymous for her safety), Tsewang Rinzin, president of Tibetan association, Erika George, U of U law professor, Deanna Taylor of Green Party of Utah Desert Greens and more.; —-—-——-; Deanna Taylor is a local peace activist who is also a co-coordinator of the Green Party
of Utah Desert Greens. Deanna also serves as a delegate to the Green Party of the United
States and participates on several committees. Deanna was a candidate for Salt Lake
County Council in 2006. She also co-founder of the Green Party Peace Network.

A public school teacher by profession, Deanna, along with her husband Tom King, is a co-founder of Blue Sky Institute, a grassroots educational non-profit organization that focuses on peace, justice and sustainability issues. Deanna has been to peace events all over the country and was a
featured speaker at a peace rally last September in Los Angeles. She has also
participated in several civil resistance events in protest to war and nuclear testing and
has been arrested at the Nevada test site in May, 2006 in the move to stop the Divine
Strake test.
: ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE IN CHINA; by Deanna “Dee” Taylor

Greetings from the Green Party of Utah Desert Greens, the Green Party of the UnitedStates, and the Green Party Peace Network.

The count down to the 2008 Olympics in China has brought with it assurances by the Chinese government that the development of human rights would be strengthened. However the Chinese government continues to restrict its citizens? fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. Labor rights, Children?s rights, Women’s rights, and access to health care to patients with HIV/AIDS, a very serious health issue in China, all are also compromised by the restrictions on the people living under the Chinese regime.

I will focus, today, though, on the how the Chinese government engages in human rights abuses by virtue of its unregulated environmental practices.

The BBC in August 2007 reported that some of the Olympic games in the Bejing games in 2008 could be postponed due to pollution. The president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was quoted that “It is an option.?Sports with short durations would not be a problem, but endurance sports like cycling are examples of competitions that might be postponed or delayed.”

Billions have been spent in an attempt to reduce pollution without success.

The Human Rights in China Olympics Campaign, in a February 2007 article called China?s Environment and Situation of Water reported that , and I quote:

With a record high of US$177.47 billion in trade surplus last year, China is one of the world’s economic powerhouses. However, this economic growth comes at the expense of the environment and public health. Researchers estimate that pollution in China causes more than 300,000 premature deaths every year. In addition to human costs, pollution has brought economic losses at an estimated 10 percent of China’s GDP. According to the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), China will need to spend a projected 1.6 percent of its GDP, totaling about 1.3 trillion yuan (US $167 billion) to clean up the environment and prevent further degradation between 2006 and 2010. Extensive environmental damage has also fueled rising social unrests. In 2005, SEPA reported that severe pollution prompted 51,000 public disputes, while the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has identified pollution as one of four social problems linked to social disharmony.

China’s environment is deteriorating on all fronts: air, land and water and is negatively affecting biodiversity and the health and quality of life for individuals. The statistics on air pollution, loss of farmland, toxic waters, and biodiversity are alarming.

The Chinese government’s lack of sustainable water management policies has contributed to water pollution that significantly harms public health, water shortage and contamination, and loss of community livelihood and local income.

Polluted water not only has a significant impact on public health in China, but also the livelihood of farmers and fishermen . Additionally, coastal waters have become polluted to the point of rendering the water uninhabitable for coastal species and organisms. The management of water in china does not reflect the regard for water being used as a communal resource, resulting in several hundred thousand displaced residents.

Under international laws, all people have the right to basic human needs, such as water, health and an adequate standard of living. These rights are protected in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which has been ratified by 155 countries, including China in 2001. Ratification dictates that countries must adopt effective measures to realize, without discrimination, the right to sufficient, safe, acceptable, accessible and affordable water. In China, however, this still remains out of reach for much of its population.

Various human rights organizations have discovered that, while for the 2008 Beijing Olympics Games, China has committed to a “Green Olympics,” (giving top priority to environmental protection, including preventing air pollution and protecting drinking water sources. A reported $7 billion has been spent on environmental clean-up for the Olympic Games, and the government has committed to replacing coal with clean energies), the overall preparation for the Olympics has been plagued by corruption, forced relocations, and lack of transparency and independent monitoring mechanisms.

In other words, the Chinese government does not walk the talk.

How can we in the United States make a difference in this situation? Get active.

Participate in movements to boycott corporately controlled events like the Olympics. Boycott sponsors that promote the Olympics – especially those that are linked to human rights violation practices. Help support celebrities like Stephen Speilberg who, in a bold move, withdrew from his role as an artistic adviser to the 2008 Olympic Games in Bejing, because of his opposition to China’s support for the Sudanese regime responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. He has accused China of not doing enough to press Sudan to end the “continuing human suffering” in the troubled region. Write to the Chinese embassy to demand the release of political prisoners for exercising the right to speak out against human rights abuses. Support the environmental movement in China. Research, read and absorb all the information you can about environmental human rights violations to become better informed. Support groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, whose missions are to work to defend the rights of humans worldwide. Urge your representatives to defend human rights world wide. When exercising your right to vote, vote for politicians who value human and environmental rights in our world. I became a member of the Green Party because of its key values of non-violence, environmental justice, and advocacy for human rights. Seek out organizations which value life on our planet.

I’d like to end with this Pledge to Life, which my husband, Tom King, wrote:

I pledge allegiance to all life in its interdependent diversity;
and to the Planet upon which it exists,
one World,
under the sky,
undividable with harmony and balance for all.

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

deesings@livejournal.com — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:50:05 GMT

Congressman Wexler on Petraeus

deesings@livejournal.com — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:48:02 GMT

Here are examples of things I like about Robert Wexler's voting record:
(info obtained from ON THE ISSUES)

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

Here are examples of t things I don't like about Robert Wexler's voting record:

Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)

But recently, a colleague of mine forwarded a letter she received from Congressman Robert Wexler, D-FL, who is also up for re-election, regarding the Petraeus Hearings. Here is his response, which I am pleased to see:

I want to thank you for the overwhelming response we received to my request for questions for General Petraeus. Thousands of emails poured in from all over the nation. My staff and I examined every suggested question and we were truly impressed with the passion, sophistication, and knowledge of the submissions. Choosing a few questions out of so many excellent entries was an extraordinarily difficult task.

One of the most commonly suggested questions centered on how General Petraeus defines victory in Iraq. This question struck a chord with me - as it no doubt did with so many of you - because it demands that the Administration actually define its goals (which, as you'll see below, are totally unrealistic).

Underscoring the tragedy of the Administration's failed policy, one of my constituents died in an attack on the Green Zone on Monday. I spoke with his parents yesterday, and they asked me to ask General Petraeus a simple question: For what? For what had they lost their son?

I asked him this question, and then asked him to define "victory."

I did not expect General Petraeus to answer either directly, but he did.

He stated that we were fighting for national interest, including region's "importance to the global economy." (In my mind, a stunning admission of the true motives behind this war.)

He stated that they were trying to achieve a country that is "at peace with itself and its neighbors," "could defend itself" that was "reasonably representative of and broadly responsive to its citizens."

These are not reasonable objectives. Half the countries around the world are not able to defend themselves. Many have internal and external conflict - and few - including our own, are broadly responsive to its citizens.

(I find that last objective sadly ironic, as the Bush Administration, by continuing this misguided war, is broadly unresponsive to American citizens.)

I was out of time before I could ask a follow up… but if you read between the lines, his answer is vast in its scope. Clearly, their goals for Iraq and interpretation of "national interest" are wholly at odds with a swift redeployment of forces.

It has been a year and a half since the 2006 elections - more than enough time for us to have required, through provisions attached to funding, a phased withdrawal. At the least, we could have forced a genuine showdown with President Bush that would have forced him to defend his policies.

There is no excuse for even one more American casualty in Iraq. Our troops must be redeployed. The Bush/Petraeus policy that denies reality must not carry the day.

I urge you to remain active and steadfast in your opposition to this open-ended, vaguely guided war.

Please read my exchange with General Petraeus below.

Congressman Robert Wexler

www.wexlerforcongress.com

TRANSCRIPT

Congressman Wexler:

Thank you. General Petraeus, last week in anticipation of this hearing I sent an urgent e-mail asking my constituents and other Americans: if they were serving on this committee, what is the one question they would pose to you.

There was an extraordinary response, with more than five thousand questions submitted, these e-mails and phone calls expressed deeply held frustrations about the war in Iraq, and reflect the concerns of millions across the nation who feel their opinions and concerns were cast aside by the Bush Administration.

I want to thank everyone who responded and submitted a question for today's hearings. While many of the respondents rightfully-highlighted the bravery of our troops, a majority of the e-mails expressed a strong desire to see withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, and an end to this five year war, that has cost our nation so dearly.

Most of the question! s boiled down to this: General we often hear President Bush and Senator McCain say we must win in Iraq. What is the definition of winning? What would a military victory look like, that was sufficient enough, to allow us to begin leaving?

Then, in a horrific turn of events, two of my constituents: Hester and Linn Wolfer of Boca Raton Florida, learned that this past Sunday their son had been killed for this war. Major Stuart Wolfer was a thirty six year reservist on his second tour. He was married with three young children ages five, three, and twenty months. His family was relieved that he was in the green zone, for they hoped he would be safe there. He was not.

I spoke to Mr. Wolfer yesterday last night, who asked me to ask you, simply: For What, for what had he lost his son? So allow me to combine if you will, the questions from the people that responded to me and Mr. Wolfer: What has all this been for? And please, respectfully, don't tell us as you told Senator Warner yesterday: to remove a brutal dictator. That's not good enough.

There are many dictators in the world. For what did Stuart Wolfer and the other four thousand and twenty four sons and daughters die for? And how will we define victory, so we can bring this never ending war to a close?

And if I will, when Mr. Burton asks for a definition of what is failure, we get a litany of items. But when Mr. Ackerman asks what is the definition of victory, we get little. Please tell us General, What is winning?

General Petraeus: First of all, Congress, let me tell you that what we are fighting for is national interest.

It is interest that as I stated have to do with Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States and the free world, has to do with the possible spread of sectarian conflict in Iraq, conflict that had engulfed that country and had it on the brink of Civil War.

It has to do with regional stability, a region that is of critical importance to the global economy, and it has to do with certainly the influence of Iran, another obviously very important element, in that region.

In terms of what it is that we are trying to achieve, I think simply it is a country that is at peace with itself and its neighbors, it is a country that can defend itself, that has a government that is reasonably representative and broadly responsive to its citizens, and a country that is involved in and engaged in, again the global economy.

Ambassador Crocker and I, for what it's worth, have typically seen ourselves as minimalists, we're not after the Holy Grail in Iraq and we're not after Jeffersonian Democracy.

We're after conditions that would allow our soldiers to disengage, and that is in fact what we are doing. As we achieve progress, as we have with the Surge, and that is what is indeed allowing us to withdraw the Surge forces, again well over one quarter of our ground combat power five of 20 brigade combat teams plus two marine battalions and the marine expeditionary unit by the end of July.

Congressman Wexler: Thank you.

The Freeway Blogger

deesings@livejournal.com — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:29:12 GMT

I found the video below of the Freeway Blogger, who I had the privilege of meeting when Tom and I went to Camp Casey in August, 2006. We attended his workshop at Camp Casey and learned of a great and easy way to get peace messages out.

More videos on the Freeway Blogger can be seen at You Tube.

Martin Luther King, Jr.: BEYOND VIETNAM: A TIME TO BREAK SILENCE

deesings@livejournal.com — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 20:32:26 GMT

A friend of mine reminded me of this speech, in reflection of the anniversary of Dr. King's death, April 4, 1968:

MARTIN LUTHER KING:

THE RIVERSIDE SPEECH

(See images and hear his speech in segments.)

Forty-one years ago, April 4, Dr. Martin Luther King gave his most prophetic speech to an assemblage of Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, at Riverside Church in New York City.

Forty years ago, April 4, he was murdered.

The full text of that speech follows.

MLK: Beyond Vietnam--A Time to Break Silence

A year to the day before his assassination, King gave this speech at the Riverside Church in New York

Friday April 4th, 2008

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, some of the distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it’s always good to come back to Riverside Church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it is always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and this great pulpit. I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.

And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?" "Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people," they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.

Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellowed [sic] Americans, *who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision.* There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath --
America will be!

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954** [sic]; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission -- a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I'm speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

And finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence *in 1954* -- in 1945 *rather* -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States' influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. *Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies.* What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than *eight hundred, or rather,* eight thousand miles away from its shores.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism (unquote).

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.

*I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.

Five: *Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement.

Part of our ongoing...part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary. Meanwhile... meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

*As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors.* These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality...and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.

And so, such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

*This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations.* These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. *We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.*

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word" (unquote).

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on."

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message -- of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,

In the strife of Truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;

Some great cause, God's new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,

And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet 'tis truth alone is strong

Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong

Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown

Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace.

If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

Utah's Rad Cheerleaders make it into Mike Palacek's book!

deesings@livejournal.com — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:51:58 GMT

Pom Poms Not Bomb Bombs, Utah’s Radical Cheerleaders, have a photo included in Mike Palacek’s book THE ANTHOLOGY OF PEACE AND ACTIVISM (p. 94). The Photo is from the September 24, 2005 Anti-War Rally in Salt Lake City. I am the 2nd cheerleader from the left, after Radical Jenni, followed by Radica Shea, Radical Raphael and Radical Michelle.

Halliburton poisoning US occupation forces in Iraq

deesings@livejournal.com — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:01:30 GMT

This 4 minute video describes how Halliburton is poisoning the troops in Iraq through their water supply.