January 28, 2008 Volume VII, Number 5
A PROJECT OF THE CASCOGREENS
Paul Stephens, Editor and Publisher 406.216.2711 greateco@3rivers.net
THIS BULLETIN IS NOT AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF ANY GREEN PARTY (see disclaimers and selected resources at end)
Much of the content of this Bulletin is now being posted at
and http://www.myspace.com/greateco
Table of Contents:
UPCOMING AND ONGOING EVENTS
Conservation Council meets Thursdays at noon, Penny's Gourmet to Go, 815 Central Avenue (New location!!)
FROM TAPS - Taking Action for Peaceful Solutions - Butte
US TO ATTACK IRAN UNLESS THE PEOPLE ACT
http://www.nowaroniran-chicago.org/statement.htm
SIGN ON TO CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON US AGROFUELS
Deadline: Monday 28 January http://ga3.org/campaign/agrofuelsmoratorium
A conference based on the Lean & Green book for business types http://www.leanandgreensummit.com/resources.asp
A TALE OF TWO COMMENTARIES (from KUFM/KGPR)
Great Falls’ Rush to Coal for Electricity by Prof. Tom Power, University of Montana
http://www.mtpr.net/commentaries/494
Highwood Plant - Reply by Brett Doney, Great Falls Development Authority
http://www.mtpr.net/commentaries/496
GREEN SOLUTIONS by Paul Stephens, CasCoGreens
The Strange Case of Brett Doney
Voices from the Wild: The Canada Goose and the Cutthroat Trout
Who are the Bois Brûlé?
The Grand Inquisitor as Pope
ECONOMICS: Stimulus Gone Bad by Paul Krugman http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/25/6622/
GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.gp.org/
Video links for Green Party Presidential candidates http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/presidential-videos.php
Greens: Tactical retreat by pro-Democrat fake antiwar lobbies is setting back the peace movement
FROM GREEN LISTSERVS
Essay on what to do about the economy - Greg Gerritt, GP Rhode Island
Greens - Who we are by Steve Welzer, GP New Jersey
Is science "the answer?" by Aimee Smith, GP Michigan (former GPAX Peace Action Committee co-chair)
Eight More Years?
by Ralph Nader
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/26/6641/
FROM MAZIN QUMSIYEH http://qumsiyeh.org http://justicewheels.org
Palestinian issues and links
FROM Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power In Space
http://www.space4peace.org
Top Ten Points about StratCom
FROM MISSOULA INDEPENDENT
Promises, promises: Land Board pursues Swan River timber harvest
By: George Ochenski 01/24/2008
http://www.missoulanews.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=A8384229-C8AF-C3F6-5E1DCEBEE2B3ECFD
FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
Environmentalists out on a limb By Erica Rosenberg
For a seat at the negotiating table, they are jeopardizing their true role.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rosenberg24jan24,1,1457111.story
FROM NEWWEST.NET
After FDA Approval, Input Sought from Montanans on Cloning By Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel, 1-22-08 http://www.newwest.net/city/article/after_fda_approval_input_sought_from_montanans_on_cloning/C8/L8/
The Climate Change Debate that Shouldn't Be: Steve Running on the Perils of Pseudo Science By Jessica Mayrer, 1-18-08 http://www.newwest.net/city/article/steve_running_and_the_perils_of_pseudo_science/C8/L8/
FROM ZNET
Reflections: 60 years of empire
By Saul Landau
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2008-01/14landau.cfm
A NOTE ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION
WEBSITES AND OTHER RESOURCES
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE GREENS SUPPORT:
HEALTH CARE DOLLARS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS -- NOT INSURANCE COMPANIES AND CORPORATE PROFITS
STOP THE WARS! BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ARE NOT A LOCAL GROWTH INDUSTRY!
COAL DEVELOPMENT MUST BE MINIMIZED, NOT MAXIMIZED: GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL! http://www.ipcc.ch/
END CORPORATE DOMINATION AND PREDATION: CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE, AND THEY DON'T HAVE "PROPERTY" OR OTHER RIGHTS! http://reclaimdemocracy.org/
For an introduction to Green Party philosophy and programs, go to
You can join the Montana Green Party at the NEW MONTANA GREEN PARTY WEBSITE!! http://www.mtgreens.org
Please read the Platform to find out what we support and oppose:
http://www.mtgreens.org/node/25
New section on Instant Runoff Voting with model bills/initiatives:
http://www.mtgreens.org/node/22
Please help us circulate petitions to regain our ballot status. Information is available at http://www.mtgreens.org/node/104
CYNTHIA MCKINNEY The rising star of the Green Party, with a firm political base already established in Washington, D.C.! Check her out!
____________________
If you would like to join the Billings or Great Falls Green Party forums/listservs, here are the links:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/YCGForum/ (Billings)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CascadeCoGreens/ (Great Falls) phone (406) 216-2711
We have reactivated the Great Falls listserv, in hopes of establishing an active local Green Party group. Click on or paste the link, and join! (Spammers are now excluded).
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
UPCOMING AND ONGOING EVENTS
Do you support the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement?
Some local municipalities get it on the climate crisis and have been working to meet these objectives. There are now over 500 city, town and county governments representing over 50 million people that have signed onto the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement,
________________
GF Conservation Council
************************************
NEW MEETING PLACE: Penny's Gourmet (Central Avenue between 8th and 9th)
******************************************
January 2008 -
1/31/2008 Graham Taylor, FWP Region 4 Wildlife Manager "Proposed MT Wolf Hunting Program"
===================
FROM TAPS, BUTTE
PALESTINE, IRAQ OCCUPATION FILMS TUESDAY AT TECH
NOTE A COMPLETELY NEW VENUE IN THE ELC BUILDING
"Stolen Freedom: Occupied Palestine" is the 7 pm Tuesday January 29 documentary in the continuing Citizens Education Project of the Montana Tech Peace Seekers Club, co-sponsored by Butte's Taking Action for Peaceful Solutions group and Sacred Ground.
A 2005 release from producer Tony Kandah, "Stolen Freedom" is termed "the most powerful film ever made concerning the Palestinian question." It is centered on the refugee camp of Deheisha, showing not only the violent consequences of Israel's occupation, but also the hope found among the camp's young people. The film is timely in regard to U.S. foreign policy given President Bush's recently announced goal to resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict before he leaves office.
The evening's program also includes "Shocking and Awful," a compilation of short independent documentaries focused on the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
New venue for the films is room 203 on the main floor of the Engineering Lab/Classroom (ELC) building. It is located directly north of (behind) the Tech Library with parking adjacent to the east or in the Library lot at the end of Park Street. For more information call 723-3851.
_______________
US TO ATTACK IRAN UNLESS THE PEOPLE ACT
The US window of opportunity to attack Iran is March to June of 2008, declared Scott Ritter, former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, in an appearance in Chicago last week. It will happen unless the people of the US say a resounding NO! against another war of [aggression], he said.
ACTIONS
1. * Support the Statement of Conscience*. Gather signatures and help publish "No Attack On Iran - A Statement of Conscience "…In conscience, we hold ourselves responsible for this crime about to be committed in our name. We will not remain silent. We will resist this machinery of aggression and terror and rally others to do everything possible to stop any attack against Iran." Contact Bob Bossie at 8th Day Center for Justice, 312-641-5151 or bob_bossie@claret.org
2. *Contact your representative* urging them to stand against a war on Iran under any circumstances, support the Webb bill restricting Bush's ability to act without congress, or support impeachment and tie the hands of this administration before they attack. More info at
3. *The Million Signatures Campaign for Iranian Women. * Iranian women's rights activists are initiating a wide campaign demanding an end to discriminatory and unequal laws against women in the Iranian law. This is a follow-up effort to the peaceful protest of the same aim, which took place on June 12, 2006 in Haft-e Tir Square in Tehran. The campaign's courageous activists seek the support of global civil society ・not of foreign governments but of human rights and women's rights organizations, writers and intellectuals, and people of conscience across the globe. More info at
---------------------------------
IRAQ WAR PROSPECTS
1 . Meetings with Montana's Senators:
The coalition (MSTWI - Montanans Support Troops and Withdrawal from Iraq) that successfully put forward resolutions to three city councils and referenda for votes of the people in two other major Montana cities met with Senator Max Baucus on January 8 and with Senator Jon Tester on January 17. Both said they agree with the resolutions and referenda that call for an orderly withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. However, both senators voted additional 80 billion dollars to the war in December, even though they say they cannot learn the timetable for the use of those dollars nor where the dollars are going. Neither senator is willing to vote to stop funding the war.
The excuse for continuing to send dollars is Fear. Each senator said it is a dangerous world out there, particularly because of Bush Administration actions. Both senators said a vote to de-fund the war would be symbolic only because they do not have the 60 votes to override a veto. And even if they did, the Bush Administration would find the money elsewhere within the Defense budget, leaving our senators to worry that George W. Bush would not fund body armor for the troops nor armored vehicles. Thus, they say they must continue to fund the war. Another Fear that forces votes for funding according to Senator Baucus is the worry that China or Iran or Russia might see the U.S. as weak if we left Iraq, and that could bring new conflict.
At least Senator Tester identified an area where citizens can help. He is calling for a type of Truman Commission whereby the Senate might learn where the money goes and for what time period.
=================================
Art that Turns Dark to Light
Jan 25 - Apr 13, Holter Museum, Helena
After the Montana Human Rights Network acquired 4,000 volumes of white supremacist propaganda from a defecting official of the World Church of the Creator they approached the Holter Museum with the idea to use the books to create art for an exhibition.
More than 100 artists from coast to coast responded to the Holter Museum of Art's open invitation to reflect upon or transform white supremacist propaganda. The astonishing and moving result - in sculpture, video, painting, photography, collage, printmaking, book arts, beadwork, fiber, and performance - is thought-provoking, insightful, and turns dark to light.
More than 60 pieces were selected and will be on exhibition at the Holter Museum of Art from Jan. 25 to April 13.
Exhibition Images:
http://www.holtermuseum.org/exhibitions/exhibitions_sv_images.htm
Helena IR Story:
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/01/25/entertainment/top/01yt_080124_speakingvolumes.txt
---------------------------------------
The Emerging Science of Intention
Monday, January 28th, 7-9 pm, Helena
St. Paul's United Methodist Church (music room downstairs)
Come see a video and participate in discussion based on Lynne McTaggart's highly acclaimed works The Field and The Intention Experiment.
Growing evidence suggests that energy follows thought, and emphasizes the importance and power of intention. The next Helena Noetics meeting will include a DVD presentation by the author of "The Intention Experiment" about the emergence of this new science. There is no charge.
-----------------------------------------
TAPS - Taking Action for Peaceful Solutions, is Butte's affiliate of the Montana Peace Seekers Network:
=================
SIGN ON TO CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON US AGROFUELS
Deadline: Monday 28 January
With the recent passage of the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act, the U.S. is now under mandate to accelerate the use of agrofuels 5-fold, to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022. This will put enormous pressure on agricultural lands, food supplies, forests, biodiversity and rural and indigenous peoples. Ultimately, it will worsen rather than mitigate climate change. Yet, government and industry incentives and policies are resulting in a very rapid expansion of the agrofuels industry regardless of consequences.
Numerous organizations and individuals from different regions worldwide are calling for moratoria on further expansion of agrofuels, with calls emanating from the EU, Africa and Latin America. The UN Special Rapporteur on Right to Food (Jean Ziegler) and Lester Brown (World Resources Institute), pointing to the consequences of diverting food to fuel, have also called for a moratorium. The U.S., as the world's leading consumer of transport fuels, leading (per capita) emissions of greenhouse gases, and a leading producer of agrofuels and technologies, plays a key role.
Global Justice Ecology Project, Rainforest Action Network, Grassroots International, Food First, Family Farm Defenders and Student Trade Justice Campaign have therefore joined in calling for an immediate moratorium on U.S. incentives for agrofuels, U.S. agroenergy monocultures and global trade in agrofuels.
For more information on why to oppose large-scale production of agrofuels, go to:
Please join us! To sign on use the following URL/link:
====================
A conference based on the Lean & Green book for business types
This book dispels the myth that a business or organization has to choose between making a profit and protecting the environment.
For employees at every level, it provides over 100 examples of environmental practices that bring savings or new sources of revenue.
It also coaches readers to make their environmental cases to management using business language -- leading their argument with profitability.
Russell L. Doty, CEO/General Counsel
New World WindPower LLC http://www.newworldwindpower.com/
/\/\/\/\/\
A TALE OF TWO COMMENTARIES (from KUFM/KGPR)
Tom Power - January 21, 2008
Great Falls’ Rush to Coal for Electricity
http://www.mtpr.net/commentaries/494
Great Falls is known as the Electric City because of the concentration there of hydroelectric facilities along the Missouri River. Those hydroelectric dams, that helped industrialize Western Montana in the early 20th century, were built there, as the city’s name makes clear, because of a 20 mile reach of the Missouri that was dominated by five waterfalls and steep rapids. It was here that Lewis and Clark had to pull out all of their boats and gear and drag it twenty miles around those falls and rapids. Since 1966 the remnants of that Lewis and Clark portage site have been recognized as a National Historical Landmark.
Now, however, the City of Great Falls and a group of rural electric cooperatives want to build a coal-fired generating facility, the Highwood Generating Station, adjacent to that portage site. The open farmland would be converted into an industrial site complete with a tall smokestack, a railroad spur, coal chutes, transmission lines, water and waste water mains, and various buildings and maintenance yards. From that smoke stack will come tons of greenhouse gases as well as particulate pollution scattering the light and obscuring the view as well as mercury and other pollutants.
The justification that Great Falls has offered for building this coal-fired facility on the banks of the Missouri, adjacent to the Lewis and Clark National Historical Landmark, is that buying a share of the Highwood plant will stabilize electric prices at relatively low levels and that will contribute to economic development and improved local economic well being. Great Falls sought to get the cities of Missoula and Helena to also buy into this facility, but they wisely refused.
If building a conventional coal-fired electric generator assured customers of low and stable electric prices, every utility in the region and around the nation would be planning to build such plants. But that is not what utilities have been doing. During 2007 53 coal-fired plants in 20 states were canceled or delayed. The primary cause of this move away from coal for electric generation was the uncertainty about what the impending regulation of carbon emissions would do to the cost of electricity from coal-fired plants. In addition, the cost of building the plants and the cost of the coal itself have also been rising steeply. This has created the potential that coal will become the highest cost source of electricity rather than the lowest. If, for instance, the carbon dioxide emitted by a coal-fired plant had to be captured and sequestered, the cost of coal-fired electricity has been estimated to be above that of nuclear power and natural gas plants even after the expected escalation in natural gas prices is taken into account.
Those uncertainties about what coal-fired electricity will actually cost recently led PacifiCorp to cancel two coal plants in Utah. In Nevada, Sierra Pacific decided to delay building a coal plant and, instead, move up a planned natural gas plant in the schedule. In NorthWestern Energy’s newly released electric supply plan for Montana, there are no new coal plants planned. NorthWestern is not alone in steering clear of coal for now. Avista Utilities in Idaho and Washington, Puget Sound Energy in western Washington, and Portland General Electric in Oregon have also put a hold on any development of new coal-fired generators until the risks and uncertainties about the true costs associated with coal-fired generation have been clarified. It is not just the electric utilities that are worried. The financial markets to which the utilities would have to turn to raise the money to build new generators are also skittish about investing in risky coal.
The Great Falls and rural co-op proponents of the Highwood plant, inexplicably, think they and their customers will not be exposed to that risk. That is a dangerous fantasy.
But the risks associated with the costs that the imminent regulation of carbon emissions will impose is just one of the financial risks that the captive customers who are forced to take power from this plant would face. If Great Falls forms an electric utility around this plant, it will serve its customers exclusively from just this one source of power. As the history of thermal-electric plants such as Colstrip in Montana and Coyote Springs 2 in Oregon demonstrate, generators can fail for extended periods of time forcing utilities to turn to other sources of generation. If the utility has no other sources, it is forced to go into the market and pay whatever is necessary to serve its customers’ needs. The Highwood Plant is also much too large for the customers that Great Falls and the co-ops have lined up. As a result, those utilities will count on paying for the plant by selling large quantities of electricity into volatile regional electric markets at unknown prices.
None of this suggests that the proposed power plant will provide electricity at low and stable electric rates to its customers. It is highly likely to do the opposite, imposing a serious economic burden on customers and the region in the process. In addition it will add to the global warming problem rather than moving in the direction of mitigating it. Finally, it will trash a remarkable part of Great Falls’ historical heritage.
One has to ask, what’s the point? Why are Great Falls’ political leaders committed to this risky proposition just when utility leaders are stepping back from coal? It may take financial markets to sober those political leaders up and put an end to this economic and environmental gamble.
KUFM/KGPR
T.M. Power
================
Highwood Plant - Reply by Brett Doney - January 23, 2008
Great Falls Development Authority
http://www.mtpr.net/commentaries/496
As President of the Great Falls Development Authority, I am responding to Dr. Power’s commentary broadcast Monday evening questioning the Highwood Generating Station project in Cascade County.
Over the past several years, Dr. Power’s commentaries on this station have attacked many aspects of the Highwood Generating Station, coal and other natural resource development, and efforts to create high wage jobs in Montana. In the five minutes provided by Montana Public Radio, I have time to respond to only a few of these attacks, but it is clear that Dr. Power and I see the world and the Montana economy from very different perspectives.
As a professional economic developer, I believe creating higher wage job opportunities for the citizens of Montana, and for the Great Falls region in particular, is a worthy pursuit. There was a time when I was a child that my family struggled to make ends meet. It forced me to grow up much more quickly than I would ever want for my kids. Dr. Power, with all due respect, it sucks to be poor.
Dr. Power has called for public power in Montana so long as it is democratically controlled. The Highwood Generating Station is being developed by Southern Montana Electric which is made up of five nonprofit rural Montana electric cooperatives and Electric City Power. The rural coops are run by boards democratically elected by their members. Electric City Power is a municipal utility run by a board appointed by the democratically elected Great Falls City Commission.
Southern Montana Electric is losing the power it currently buys from the Bonneville Power Administration. The coops conducted an exhaustive analysis looking at the various options they had to replace that power. They decided that they would rather control their own destiny to protect their member owners, ranchers, farmers and rural residents across central and eastern Montana, rather than trying to purchase power in the volatile open markets or being dependent on utilities owned by out of state investors. SME believes that dependable and affordable electricity is critical to its members. Dr. Power believes that energy prices have not risen high enough, that they should rise much higher, and that we should not worry about the impact of much higher prices on rural Montanans because the government will somehow take care of them. We’ve heard these types of promises before. The answer, according to Dr. Power, is for rural Montanans to conserve more because evidently we waste so much electricity at our farms and ranches. Does he think we’re the Las Vegas strip?
SME considered a wide range of generation types. Wind generation does not work for base power loads. In central Montana, we are trying to build as many wind farms as possible, but have to fight environmentalists to construct each and every wind turbine and transmission lines to transport the electricity to where it is needed. Dr. Power points to natural gas generation, but natural gas prices have been extremely volatile. The National Energy Technology Lab states that forecasts of North American natural gas supply to the U.S. are flat to declining and that added gas-fired generation needs to rely on imported liquefied natural gas. Yet, efforts to build LNG terminals on both coasts have been strongly opposed and the LNG must come from mostly unfriendly nations, potentially putting us into future wars for natural gas as today we fight for oil. The National Energy Technology Lab says that new coal fired generation is increasingly required for maintaining minimal regional electricity capacity margins.
Dr. Power spoke of proposed coal electric generation plants that have been delayed or cancelled. What he failed to mention is that new coal generation plants are currently under construction in 18 states across the country. He also referred to the technology of Highwood Station as old technology. Actually, the fluidized bed technology that Highwood Station will employ is the newest technology in the field. It’s emissions will be far, far less than Colstrip where we and Missoula get much of our electricity.
Natural gas generation plants generate only half of the CO2 emissions of coal generation plants, which could result in lower carbon taxes or cap and trade fees in the future. However, experts estimate that 8% of natural gas is lost to the atmosphere from the gas field to the generation plant, and it is 20 times more powerful than CO2 as a global warming agent. So if future carbon tax legislation takes this into account, the savings of natural gas are suspect. In fact, SME has proposed that the Highwood Generating Station be a national demonstration site for carbon capture and sequestration in partnership with the Montana State University Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Project.
Lastly, Dr. Power attacks the Highwood Generating Station because it will be built within the viewshed of the Lewis & Clark Portage Route National Historic Landmark. Well, most of the Great Falls region is within the viewshed of the portage route. Malmstrom AFB sits on top of the route. The Landmark is private property. The National Park Service has never offered to buy the thousands of acres that comprise the Landmark. In fact, Federal law specifically prohibits Landmark status from affecting the development rights of private property owners.
The Highwood Generating Station is a project being built by Montanan’s for Montanans. It will use the newest coal generation technology commercially available today. It will provide dependable power for rural Montanans with far less pollution than the rest of us generate from our power consumption. It will meet or exceed all state and federal environmental regulations. It will create high wage union jobs and increase the property tax base of Cascade County by over 25%. We think it should be built and built without further delay.
===================
[And who is "we"? Does he have a mouse in his pocket? I've known Prof. Power for nearly 30 years, and he has always supported organized labor and high or higher-paying jobs for all Montanans. It is Mr. Doney who is doing the "attacking" here.
I find it incredible that someone with Doney's intelligence and experience understands nothing about renewable energy and global warming. However, if he really is that ignorant, here's a chance for him and the rest of the "we" to redeem themselves. Spend an hour reading this, and then tell us that the Highwood Station "should be built and built without further delay." -- PHS] http://www.uspirg.org/reports/CoalRushUS.pdf
/\/\/\/\/\
GREEN SOLUTIONS
The Strange Case of Brett Doney
When the Great Falls Development Authority hired Brett Doney as its director a couple of years ago, most of us were thrilled. The GFDA and its predecessor organizations (originally established, as I recall, to spend or "invest" the $6 million which Atlantic Richfield paid to mitigate the closing of the former Anaconda Company smelter in the late 1970's) have always been plagued with bad leadership. Two previous directors imported from North Dakota were, by their own testimony, "run out of town" either for bankruptcy or for "creating too many high-paying jobs"). All they talked about was the need for "right to work" laws, and plans to bribe low-wage corporate employers to move their phone rooms or other low-wage jobs here, while being given millions of local taxpayer dollars to do so. The few real successes were attributable to the connections of Great Falls natives who worked for major companies elsewhere.
From the beginning, the GFDA was a Chamber of Commerce gig dominated by existing businesses whose primary mission has been to expand local military spending and other corporate welfare pork as well as to prevent any dynamic, progressive companies offering high-wage, environmentally sustainable jobs from locating here.
I've made this charge many times, and even my intimate friends in the business community deny the motive, while agreeing that, while they'd like to pay living wages competitive with, say, Denver or Spokane, they simply can't afford to do so. QED. What they understand very well is that if some company(ies) employing hundreds or thousands of people in the $12-25/hour range were to locate here, existing businesses (often in the same families for generations) would either have to match those wage levels or lose most of their key employees to these new arrivals. But that's what "the free market economy" is all about, isn't it? Competition for the best workers to make the best products and provide the best services to consumers. But who in Great Falls has ever heard of a "free market" or understands the basic principles of full-cost pricing, opportunity cost, sustainability (it must be just as good for the 7th generation), etc.? If they did, they were locked up, "re-habilitated" (as I was), or simply "run out of town on a rail" - and these days, it is "a rail" - the Burlington-Northern-Santa Fe monopoly.
One of my own economics professors at UCLA used to say that no business person is really in favor of competition or free markets - witness Bill Gates. Adam Smith said much the same in his "Wealth of Nations" (Glasgow, 1776) - something to the effect that business people never meet or discuss anything that doesn't amount to a conspiracy against the public interest. Brett Doney and his Great Falls bosses (I'm thinking particularly of Owen Robinson, whom I've known since high school) are following this tradition precisely. More's the pity because I don't think Brett really wants to do this. He was hired on the basis of his resume from Maine, where he was successful in two projects which were very relevant to the situation in Great Falls - developing clean, renewable energy projects, and converting a closed military base to civilian uses. And, he is a native Californian (UCSB graduate) as well as having earned a Master's in Public Administration from Harvard. Perfect! He certainly would have been my first choice for the job.
But it has taken less than two years to grind him up and spit him out as a clone of John Kramer or Ron Oberlander, the North Dakotans. The anti-development, elitist, authoritarian rustbelt business community in Great Falls could think of nothing better to do with Doney's vast experience and intelligence than shut it down. I think we can read his reply to Tom Power's excellent comments on the Highwood Station as his letter of resignation - in spirit, if not in fact. He has met the enemy, and he is theirs. There is no possibility, now, that he can actually do the right thing and support sustainable development for Great Falls. He's done, here. -- PHS
================
Voices from the Wild: The Canada Goose and the Cutthroat Trout
One of the perils of being a real, wilderness-trekking environmentalist, is that like our Native forebears, we tend to associate ourselves with some sort of "totem animal." Those guys who go and live with grizzly bears and consider them their friends are the best examples. That the bears should fatten them up and eat the nature-loving human beings prior to hibernation is by far the best part of the story - a true sharing of love and bodily substance with the animal "objects of desire."
So we should celebrate these deaths as being deaths of the very best kind - a continuation of Alexander Pope's "Essay on Man" (also the key to the mystery in the book and film, "The DaVinci Code").
FROM EPISTLE II
Know, then, thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused, or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!
FROM EPISTLE III
Nothing is foreign: parts relate to whole;
One all-extending, all-preserving soul
Connects each being, greatest with the least;
Made beast in aid of man, and man of beast;
All served, all serving: nothing stands alone;
The chain holds on, and where it ends, unknown.
>>>Read the complete work at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2428/2428-h/2428-h.htm
=================
Who are the Bois Brûlé?
In my story last week about the Metis, I neglected to mention the name that they originally applied to themselves. Although the Metis People now use that term honorably, it was originally more or less the French equivalent of "half-breed" and etymologically the same as "Mestizo". After a century of racism and Nazi (and other) ideas of "racial purity", the idea of "mixed blood" people had some sort of stigma attached to it, even though biologists have always known that expanding the genetic pool is an evolutionary benefit, not a liability. It is the inbred "pure" strains which lose their vitality, intelligence, and functionality, while the natural selection of interbreeding leads to all sorts of magnificent successes and improvements to the gene pool and the future potentiality of our species. Witness Tiger Woods!
The name the Metis first applied to themselves was, interestingly enough, the "Bois Brûlé", or "scorched wood" people - because of their color. So, we "woodlanders" have another great ally, here. One wonders if the fashionability of sun-tanning had something to do with the Bois Brûlé. In all the history of the world, white Americans were among the very few to actively seek to get "toasted" in the open sun, over most or all of their skin surface. Traditional peoples living in hot, desert areas have always preferred the shade, and to protect their skins from the devastating, carcinogenic effects of direct exposure to the mid-day sun. Would that I had been so wise in my youth. I could break out in a mass of skin cancers at any time, now. Fortunately, I need no such induction into the Bois Brûlé. -- PHS
==============
The Grand Inquisitor as Pope
When Cardinal Ratzinger's name first came into prominence around the time of John Paul II's death, I made a joke that Celestial Seasonings' "Red Zinger" tea had been named for him. It's probably not that far from the truth. And I predicted that he would be the next Pope, which few of my Catholic friends believed at the time. He seemed way too conservative, too old, and with apparent Nazi connections (he had been in the Hitler Jugend, among other things). And, as the chief advisor and speechwriter for John Paul II, he had inherited the position that used to be called "the Grand Inquisitor", fighting heresies, burning books, etc. So, that's what we have now - a Grand Inquisitor as Pope. It's like promoting a Supreme Court justice to President. Not much of a promotion, really. Except for the money and power. Indeed, this begs the question of the "separation of powers" principle.
It's more like the head of the FBI or CIA becoming President. Vlady, are you out there? Come in from the cold! George II knows your soul! But whatever happened to Democracy?
Well, we certainly know that it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Except for some dissident strains like St. Francis, Teilhard de Chardin, and Jesuits without number. Has there ever been a Jesuit Pope, or is that feared above all? They'd make us into goddam communists!
The one great hope we had for Pope Benedict XVI was peace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI He took his name (one of the few real prerogatives the Pope has - to choose his own papal name) from Benedict XV, the Pope who made a valiant effort to prevent World War I, and then to bring it to a quick conclusion. But the Bismarckian Kulturkampfers were having no part of it. Basically, World War I was a continuation of the Thirty Years War, with variations. And that, as we know, precipitated the Holocaust and the overall shape of the world, today. A dismal thought, indeed..... -PHS
===============
Another piece of the puzzle?
Georg Ratzinger (politician)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Ratzinger_%28politician%29
Georg Ratzinger (born April 3, 1844 in Rickering at Deggendorf, died December 3, 1899 in Munich) was a German Catholic priest, political economist, social reformer, author and politician. He saw the gospel and Catholic social teaching as a means of empowering the poor but was also responsible for shaping anti-Jewish attitudes among 19th century German Catholics[1].
Ratzinger was a pupil at the gymnasium at Passau during the years 1855-63, studied theology at Munich, 1863-67, and was ordained priest in 1867. In 1868 he received the degree of Doctor of Theology at Munich. During the following years he devoted himself partly to pastoral, partly to journalistic work. In 1869 he was chaplain at Berchtesgaden; 1870-71 he was editor of the journal "Fränkisches Volksblatt" at Würzburg; 1872-74, chaplain at Landshut, then editor, until 1876, of the "Volksfreund", at Munich.[2]
He was a member of the Bavarian Landtag (parliament) from 1875 to 1878 and of the German Reichstag from 1877 to 1878. During this period he belonged to the Centre Party. He combined the roles of priest and politician in a way which his grandnephew, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, rejected.
With exception of a pastorate of three years at Günzelhafen, 1885-88, he lived for a number of years at Munich, where he devoted himself to journalism and research.
In 1893 Ratzinger was again elected to the Bavarian Landtag, where he was now a moderate adherent of the "Bayerischer Bauernbund (Bavarian Peasant Union) party, his views of social politics having caused him in the meantime to sever his connections with the Centre Party. In 1898 he was again elected a member of the Reichstag. He remained a member of both bodies until his death.
As a literary man Ratzinger deserves much credit for his scholarly work in political economy and in historical subjects. His chief works, distinguished by erudition, richness of thought, and animated exposition, are: "Geschichte der Armenpflege" (prize essay, Freiburg, 1868, 2nd revised ed., 1884); "Die Volkswirtschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen. Ethnischsociale Studien über Cultur und Civilisation (Freiburg, 1881; 2nd. completely revised ed., 1895).
The later work maintains the ethical principles of Christianity as the only sure basis of political economy and opposes the materialistic system of what is called the "classical political economy" of Adam Smith.
"Forschungen zur bayerischen Geschichte" (Kempten, 1898); this contains a large number of studies on early Bavarian history and on the history of civilization, based on a series of unconnected treatises, which had first appeared in the "Historisch-politische Blätter". Of his smaller works the following should be mentioned: "Das Concil und die deustche Wissenschaft" (anonymously issued at Mainz, 1872) appeared first in the "Katholik", 1872, I; "Die Erhaltung des Bauernstandes" (Freiburg, 1883).
His nephew was the police officer Joseph Ratzinger, Sr., father of Pope Benedict XVI (born Joseph Ratzinger) and Georg Ratzinger, the priest and church musician.
References
1 Uriel Tal, Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion, Politics, and Ideology in the Second Reich, 1870-1914 (Cornell, 1975)
2 Georg Ratzinger
Georg Ratzinger (politician)
/\/\/\/\/\
ECONOMICS
[Ever since I studied economics in college, I've been mystified by the tendency of government and corporate economic policy makers to seemingly always do the wrong thing - and to keep making the same mistakes over and over, again. Part of the problem is institutional - most of the money and banking system, fiscal policy, the stock market, etc., is fundamentally flawed. It was designed to serve very different purposes than "providing for the general welfare" - namely, for elitist, statist, militaristic, profit-maximizing, imperialistic control and domination by "the two party system of denial and blame." So long as voting is governed by what Nobel Prize winner James Buchanan called "the calculus of consent," where people vote their perceived selfish economic interests instead of for the best candidates and policies for the country as a whole, we're doomed to perpetual wars, corporate welfare, and a government entirely controlled by organized corporate interests and their K Street lobbyists and bill brokers.
The U.S. has never been "socialist" in any sense of the word. And so, to evaluate any particular policy or program in isolation leaves us frustrated and confused. Why would the Bush Administration (and the Democrats in Congress) pass a "stimulus package" which is almost sure to fail? Because that's what they always do. And why do voters keep electing them? It's largely because of the New York Times, and the rest of the corporate media. They've taken over the government, and won't allow any sound thinkers and policy makers to be heard - or elected. -- PHS]
Stimulus Gone Bad
by Paul Krugman
Published on Friday, January 25, 2008 by The New York Times
House Democrats and the White House have reached an agreement on an economic stimulus plan. Unfortunately, the plan - which essentially consists of nothing but tax cuts and gives most of those tax cuts to people in fairly good financial shape - looks like a lemon.
Specifically, the Democrats appear to have buckled in the face of the Bush administration’s ideological rigidity, dropping demands for provisions that would have helped those most in need. And those happen to be the same provisions that might actually have made the stimulus plan effective....
On the other hand, money delivered to people who aren’t in good financial shape - who are short on cash and living check to check - does double duty: it alleviates hardship and also pumps up consumer spending.
That’s why many of the stimulus proposals we were hearing just a few days ago focused in the first place on expanding programs that specifically help people who have fallen on hard times, especially unemployment insurance and food stamps. And these were the stimulus ideas that received the highest grades in a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
There was also some talk among Democrats about providing temporary aid to state and local governments, whose finances are being pummeled by the weakening economy. Like help for the unemployed, this would have done double duty, averting hardship and heading off spending cuts that could worsen the downturn.
But the Bush administration has apparently succeeded in killing all of these ideas, in favor of a plan that mainly gives money to those least likely to spend it.
Why would the administration want to do this? It has nothing to do with economic efficacy: no economic theory or evidence I know of says that upper-middle-class families are more likely to spend rebate checks than the poor and unemployed. Instead, what seems to be happening is that the Bush administration refuses to sign on to anything that it can’t call a "tax cut."
Behind that refusal, in turn, lies the administration’s commitment to slashing tax rates on the affluent while blocking aid for families in trouble - a commitment that requires maintaining the pretense that government spending is always bad. And the result is a plan that not only fails to deliver help where it’s most needed, but is likely to fail as an economic measure.
The words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt come to mind: "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics."
And the worst of it is that the Democrats, who should have been in a strong position - does this administration have any credibility left on economic policy? - appear to have caved in almost completely.
Yes, they extracted some concessions, increasing rebates for people with low income while reducing giveaways to the affluent. But basically they allowed themselves to be bullied into doing things the Bush administration’s way. And that could turn out to be a very bad thing.
We don’t know for sure how deep the coming slump will be, or even whether it will meet the technical definition of a recession. But there’s a real chance not just that it will be a major downturn, but that the usual response to recession - interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve - won’t be sufficient to turn the economy around. (For more on this, see my blog at
And if that happens, we’ll deeply regret the fact that the Bush administration insisted on, and Democrats accepted, a so-called stimulus plan that just won’t do the job.
Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most recent book is The Conscience of a Liberal
/\/\/\/\/\
FROM GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
The Green Party recently opened a new web page featuring videos of Green presidential candidates and debates
The party will choose its presidential and vice presidential nominees at the 2008 Green National Nominating Convention in Chicago, July 10-13.
_____________________
Greens: Tactical retreat by pro-Democrat fake antiwar lobbies is setting back the peace movement
. Substituting goal of electing Democrats for goal of immediate US troop withdrawal will lead to more war, say Greens
WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders called on Americans who oppose the Iraq War to rebuff an agreement among pro-Democratic 'antiwar' lobbies to scale back pressure to end the war.
"MoveOn.org, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and other groups have decided that passing legislation in Congress that does nothing to end the war makes their favorite Democratic candidates look better than demanding action to end the war quickly," said Jason Wallace, Green candidate for the US House in Illinois' 11th District <
<
According to Politico <
several mainstream antiwar groups in a recent K Street meeting have decided on a tactical retreat in the face of Congress's failure to reverse the Bush war agenda.
Greens have sharply criticized Democrats in Congress and leading Democratic presidential candidates for offering vague and deferred timetables for withdrawing US troops from Iraq; refusing to cut off funding for the war; criticizing President Bush solely on the basis of strategic mistakes in Iraq; for signing on to Mr. Bush's military threats against Iran; having voted to surrender Congress's constitutional war powers to Mr. Bush in 2002; and refusing to rescind the war authorization after the 2006 election.
Greens also noted that the Democratic Party leadership, including most presidential candidates, have rejected calls for impeachment despite evidence that the Bush Administration's fraudulent justifications for invading Iraq, war crimes, authorization of torture and warrantless surveillance of US citizens, broken treaties, and other abuses of power and violations of the US Constitution.
"Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both said they'd maintain a permanent US military presence in Iraq with only a limited draw-down of combat troops that could then be redeployed 'just over the horizon.' This military misadventure is not in the best interests of Americans or Iraqis and only benefits the oil and weapons industries. Groups like MoveOn that divert the energies of peace activists towards Democrat candidates who
fail to push for a prompt and total withdrawal only undermine the peace movement and advance the war agenda. Voters need genuine peace candidates like those from the Green Party," said Titus North, Green Congressional candidate from Pennsylvania's 14th District <
MoveOn has called on the Democratic presidential candidates to "be unequivocal in their commitments to remove all US troops within eighteen months of taking office"
"The position of Green candidates is that we are not willing to accept any more dying by violence -- American or otherwise. It has been the willingness of US military policy to accept collateral damage in the hundreds of thousands and forcing people to live under governments of our choosing, which drives hostility towards us and decreases our own security. The recent statement by NATO leaders urging maintenance of a first strike nuclear policy is one more example of a dangerous position that has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats," said Bob Kinsey, Colorado Green candidate for the US Senate <
"The election of a couple of Greens to Congress and a strong showing for the Green presidential nominee on Election Day 2008 would end the war quickly by showing Democratic and Republican politicians that they can no longer take votes for granted, especially votes from Americans who want peace," said Deanna Taylor, Desert Greens/Green Party of Utah and participant in the Green Party Peace Network
<
MORE INFORMATION
Green Party of the United States
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193
. Video of Green presidential candidates
. Green candidate database for 2007 and other campaign information:
. Green Party News Center
. Green Party Speakers Bureau
. Media credentialing
Green Party Peace Action Committee
/\/\/\/\/\
FROM GREEN LISTSERVS
Essay on what to do about the economy - Greg Gerritt, GP Rhode Island
Greens will never get elected to higher office until enough people are convinced that a Green economy will work. Greens will not get elected unless they can credibly promise prosperity. It creates a bind. No one has ever seen a post industrial Green economy in action. Greens may believe it will work, I most definitely do, but making the case is difficult without nation states to point to as an example. Ecocommunities, while great, are not viewed as a sufficient example.
Pundits and candidates are all jumping into the recent brouhaha over the economy. Everyone has a program to return us to good times. Each of these programs is based on some old and dysfunctional way of growing the economy faster so as to create jobs and wealth. On some level this is logical, more is more and it goes around more. But on a planet with crashing ecosystems and a climate regime being pushed through massive changes we are seeing limits to such a strategy. I cannot say the American public, or any public in the world, is ready to fully hear the message that we shall as a global community be using less very soon, but that time approaches. That poses a dilemma for the Green Party, to be clear about the changes needed or to skate over the difficulty of the transition. It can be difficult to show the public how less is more, so it is ever more critical that our candidates really articulate a clear agenda for creating a green economy, and find ways to point out the bridges sprouting up that are leading the way.
Here is today's take on some imaginary Green candidate's 5 point plan to be sent out in response to the current madness.
Immediately cut spending on the military by 50% and bring all American service personnel back to US soil with the minor exceptions of UN missions, the protection of embassies and similar functions. Phase in further cuts over the next 3 to 4 years. The reduced reliance on violence by Uncle Sam will send a clear message to the world and lead to a world in which large militaries are ever more superfluous. Asymmetrical warfare will dry up.
Use 75% of the money saved by reducing military spending for the building and rebuilding of American infrastructure, with the goal of eliminating all fossil fuel use in 10 years, and the reduction of fossil fuel use by 50% within 3 years. This size investment will prevent unemployment, actually start to reverse global warming, and demonstrate to the world how serious we are about changing our place in the world. The global good feeling will create tangible results and prosperity.
Institute a single payer health care system that covers everyone. We would immediately see a boom in small business and everyone would be healthier.
Build super energy efficient housing that people can actually afford. Every new building in America should be fossil fuel free and generate a surplus of energy from clean and renewable sources such a solar and wind. If everyone has a decent home, many of our other social ills are greatly diminished and that saves us even more money. Immediately convert every subprime and adjustable mortgage into a low interest fixed rate loan. All the people who made money selling improper loans or monkeying with the financial system should bear the burden of the fallout. Homeowners should not be losing their homes to financial manipulation.
Grow food locally. With global warming and overdevelopment irrigation water is disappearing, and it makes no sense to use fossil fuels to expensively ship food when that just makes the problems worse. Grow food at home, in cities, in suburbs, everywhere. Grow jobs in our neighborhoods. With the dramatic drop in auto use, we can return much to greenspace, and rebuild our soils. Building soil may be the best thing we an do to help ecosystems and stop global warming, as well as provide a truly nutritious and healthy diet to everyone in our communities. Related to growing food locally is the restoration of forests. Healthy communities have healthy forests. Forests provide water, healthy soil, building materials, food, spiritual renewal, and recreation.
===============
Greens - Who we are by Steve Welzer, Green Party of New Jersey
Some people view Green politics as representing the next phase of leftism. Some people feel that the Green worldview transcends the old left/right spectrum and defines a new political paradigm. This is a "point of view" kind of question, and I think both types of people can fruitfully work together for social change under the Green banner.
But it's important to understand that Green politics -- whether you think that it continues or transcends leftism -- is offering a new analysis and a new way forward. That's what justifies the launching of parties that are very distinct from the existing parties of the left, right, and center.
How can we sum up what's distinctive? Personally, I think it's an emphasis on ecology and community that sets the Greens apart.
Our appreciation for ecological limits and balances is an antidote to the preoccupation with "Progress and Development" which characterized the old ideologies. Apologists for big business (conservatives and libertarians) would never advocate living lightly on the earth, but neither would enthusiasts for big government (liberals and socialists). Greens recognize that big business and big government have both been anti-ecological/anti-communitarian forces in our society.
The political parties of the traditional left have been locked into the worldview of industrial modernism just as much as the parties of the right -- despite the fact that the condition of our environment, cities, towns, schools, work life, and family life suffer from its consequences. The mainstream parties can't face up to the facts because they have no answers to the ongoing malaise. Only the Greens dare to question the mystique of progressive development, the irresponsible and unsustainable path our civilization has been on for too long. We call for a whole new direction: toward the restoration of humanly-scaled institutions, technologies, and communities; a renewal of our relationship with the land; simplification of life; a grassroots-participatory form of democracy and egalitarianism that will require the breakup and decentralization of concentrated power.
In some ways the "left-right" political discourse of the 19th and 20th centuries served to mask a misguided consensus about some of the most critical issues of our times (such as an unquestioning promotion of growth, development, and industrialism) while ignoring a whole range of major problems (such as pollution, depletion, and the withering of local self-reliance). For almost two centuries the debates centered on: Capitalism or Socialism? Big Business or Big Government? But then the Green politics movement emerged, proclaiming: The old systems and paradigms have all been destructive of human and ecological communities. The old ideologies are bankrupt.
On this basis I like the slogan: "Greens choose to go neither left nor right but forward to a sustainable, just, and satisfying way of life."
Steve Welzer
Green Party of New Jersey
=================
Greens - Who we are by Steve Welzer, Green Party of New Jersey
Is science "the answer?" by Aimee Smith, GP Michigan (former GPAX Peace Action Committee co-chair)
Science is not the answer to our problems.
I don't come at this from any religious or fundamentalist background, but the truth is our society is obsessed with science and technology and treats technology as a god. That is the fundamentalism of the dominant US society in fact.
Science has its place and all cultures engage in science and technology. Our local was fortunate to host a technology study group aided by a professor of philosophy (and former Lt. Governor candidate) Dave Skrbina. Some of the authors we read included Diamond, Joy, Mander and others. I also recommend the works of David Noble, one of which tackles the myth that Christian fundamentalism and technology worship are mutually exclusive - they actually are quite intertwined. I consider this line of inquiry part of what deep ecology requires us to examine.
I have a PhD in Materials Science and a Masters in Applied Physics. I thought I could make a difference by working in the silicon based photovoltaic industry. I spent some time working in that industry. But I am now convinced that developing solar cells is like putting a band aid on a cancer. We will not be able to technologize ourselves out of the finite limits of our ecosystem (and you can be sure I pin that "faith" on my studies of thermodynamics, not religion. But I am not certain that various religions don't have useful things to say on this as well.)
We need to look squarely at our obsession with technology, from medical science to alternative energy to communications which are 100% surveilled, etc. And how fear is tied up in it all.
We need to reject the notion of human "progress" going along and accumulating technological "know-how." Know-how is lost, such as when scientists violently uprooted midwifery and supplanted it with "modern science."
Also, when we talk about revering indigenous American peoples for their respect for the earth, is it a shallow PC gesture of inclusion? Or are we willing to look at radically different ways of relating to the earth and each other?
This is my biggest stumbling block with communism/socialism - technology worship and a false notion of "progress" by further detaching ourselves and killing off our environment. This is coupled with a western supremacist baggage that facilitates colonial conquest.
I don't think communism/socialism *has* to be that way, the dialectic process could bear fruit, but it needs to be engaged to bear fruit... "worship" and "faith" in technology, when there is so much compelling evidence of the horror show that an uncritical promotion of technology creates, will bear nothing but more death. How many species are wiped out per hour these days? How many acres of habitat lost per day? I heard in a documentary that if everyone on the planet lived like an "average" American, we would need 12 or was it 18 planets. If everyone lived like an "average" Swede we would need three. How many planets do we have to last for 7 and more generations? One.
Solar cells or no solar cells, throwing out as much as we do, energy consumption that we use, etc. it is all completely unsustainable and only "progress" toward ecocide and species-cide along with it.
Now, how to raise these questions in the public sphere is another question entirely, but knowing how deep the sickness is *is* a necessary first step.
Sincerely,
Aimee Smith
PS my journey on looking into the nature of technology began as an undergrad at Caltech. I was influenced by learning about feminism and what I learned in anthropology classes. I spent a year studying women in physics after undergrad in four different countries. I have studied a bit of the work of Vandana Shiva about the impact of World Bank development projects. At MIT, I first became "active" in the wake of Seattle WTO protests - in Boston, we protested the Biotech industry that Winter and the WB in DC that spring. In the wake of the invasion of Jenin, my antiwar activism expanded to include Palestine. And in that process, I began looking at the many other ways colonial conquest is manifested. I say this only because apparently some Islamophobe on the Eco Action list is saying I am a fundamentalist Muslim. I am neither Muslim nor fundamentalist.
I wear a headscarf in solidarity against religious intolerance since a bit after 9/11 and I planned/plan(?) to keep wearing it until the war on terror is ended (since they will need to be demonizing Islam as long as it is "on.") My life has been truly enriched by the many Muslim friends I have made since then. Many Muslim women wear the hijab and it is not easy to tell what role Islam plays in their life by that fact alone. And to call the Muslim world "backward" as that particular Islamaphobe does is odious bigotry routed in ignorance and hatred. All societies that have been subject to colonial conquest have an added "burden" on their societies and may not be as technologically "advanced."
I hope someone forwards this to the Eco Action list. I will also note that that Islamaphobe also seems to call for benevolent US imperialism to "spread human rights" throughout the world. I mean, the US has been so exemplary on that front with the genocide of Indigenous peoples, the genocidal promotion and participation in chattel slavery and things like Guantanamo. Such an idea is as wrong-headed as technology worship. Only good sense and the 10 key values can possibly save us - and it doesn't talk about technological salvation in those, nor does it talk about benevolent imperialism. Respect for diversity, future focus, personal responsibility, but I know you all know the rest...
PPS Read "The Lorax" by Dr. Suess. I guess that was really my first introduction to a radical critique of technology worship... that and all the episodes of NOVA my dad made us watch...
===================
Eight More Years?
by Ralph Nader
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/26/6641/
For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the ultimate American dream is eight more years. Yet how do you think they would react to having dozens of partisans at their rallies sporting large signs calling for EIGHT MORE YEARS, EIGHT MORE YEARS?
Don't you have the feeling that they would cringe at such public displays of their fervent ambition which the New York Times described as a "truly two-for-the-price-of-one" presidential race? It might remind voters to
remember or examine the real Clinton record in that peaceful decade of missed opportunities and not be swayed by the sugarcoating version that the glib former president emits at many campaign stops.
The 1990?s were the first decade without the spectre of the Soviet Union. There was supposed to be a "peace dividend" that would reduce the vast, bloated military budget and redirect public funds to repair or expand our
public works or infrastructure.
Inaugurated in January 1993, with a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton sent a small job-creating proposal to upgrade public facilities. He also made some motions for campaign finance reform which he promised during his campaign when running against incumbent George H.W. Bush and candidate Ross Perot.
A double withdrawal followed when the Congressional Republicans started roaring about big spending Democrats and after House Speaker Tom Foley and Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell, told Clinton at a White House meeting to forget about legislation to diminish the power of organized money in elections.
That set the stage for how Washington politicians sized up Clinton. He was seen as devoid of modest political courage, a blurrer of differences with the Republican opposition party and anything but the decisive transforming leader he promised to be was he to win the election. He proceeded, instead, to take credit for developments with which he had very little to do with such as the economic growth propelled by the huge technology dot.com boom. Bragging about millions of jobs his Administration created, he neglected to note that incomes stagnated for 80% of the workers in the country and ended in 2000, under the level of 1973, adjusted for inflation. A brainy White House assistant to Mr. Clinton told me in 1997 that the only real achievement his boss could take credit for was passage of legislation allowing 12 weeks family leave, without pay.
There are changes both the Clinton Administration actively championed that further entrenched corporate power over our economy and government during the decade. He pushed through Congress the NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that represented the greatest surrender in our history of local, state and national sovereignty to an autocratic, secretive system of transnational governance. This system subordinated workers, consumers and the environment to the supremacy of globalized commerce.
That was just for starters. Between 1996 and 2000, he drove legislation through Congress that concentrated more power in the hands of giant agribusiness, large telecommunications companies and the biggest jackpot-opening the doors to gigantic mergers in the financial industry. The latter so-called "financial modernization law" sowed the permissive seeds for taking vast financial risks with other peoples? money (ie. pensioners and investors) that is now shaking the economy to recession.
The man who pulled off this demolition of regulatory experience from the lessons of the Great Depression was Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who went to work for Citigroup-the main pusher of this oligopolistic coup-just before the bill passed and made himself $40 million for a few months of consulting in that same year.
Bill Clinton?s presidential resume was full of favors for the rich and powerful. Corporate welfare subsidies, handouts and giveaways flourished, including subsidizing the Big Three Auto companies for a phony research partnership while indicating there would be no new fuel efficiency regulations while he was President.
His regulatory agencies were anesthetized. The veteran watchdog for Public Citizen of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, said that safety was the worst under Clinton in his twenty nine years of oversight. The auto safety agency (NHTSA) abandoned its regulatory oath of office and became a consulting firm to the auto industry. Other agencies were similarly asleep-in job safety (OSHA) railroads, household product safety, antitrust, and corporate crime law enforcement.
By reappointing avid Republican Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Clinton assured no attention would be paid to the visible precursors of what is now the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Mr. Greenspan, declined to use his regulatory authority and repeatedly showed that he almost never saw a risky financial instrument he couldn't justify.
Mr. Clinton was so fearful of taking on Orrin Hatch, the Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that he cleared most judicial appointments with the Utah Senator. He even failed to put forth the nomination of sub-cabinet level official, Peter Edelman, whose credentials were superb to the federal appeals court.
Mr. Edelman resigned on September 12th, 1996. In a memo to his staff, he said, "I have devoted the last 30-plus years to doing whatever I could to help in reducing poverty in America. I believe the recently enacted welfare bill goes in the opposite direction."
Excoriated by the noted author and columnist, Anthony Lewis, for his dismal record on civil liberties, the man from Hope set the stage for the Bush demolition of this pillar of our democracy. To justify his invasion of Iraq, Bush regularly referred in 2002-2003 to Clinton's bombing of Iraq and making "regime change" explicit U.S. policy. But it was Clinton's insistence on UN-backed economic sanctions in contrast to just military embargos, against Iraq, during his term in office. These sanctions on civilians, a task force of leading American physicians estimated, took half a million Iraqi children's lives.
Who can forget CBS's Sixty Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl's tour through Baghdad's denuded hospitals filled with crying, dying children? She then interviewed Mr. Clinton?s Secretary of State, Madeline Albright and asked whether these sanctions were worth it. Secretary Albright answered in the affirmative.
Bill Clinton is generally viewed as one smart politician, having been twice elected the President, helped by lackluster Robert Dole, having survived the Lewinsky sex scandal, lying under oath about sex, and impeachment. When is it all about himself, he is cunningly smart. But during his two-term triangulating Presidency, he wasn't smart enough to avoid losing his Party's control over Congress, or many state legislatures and Governorships.
It has always been all about him, Now he sees another admission ticket to the White House through his wife, Hillary Clinton. EIGHT MORE YEARS without a mobilized, demanding participating citizenry is just that-EIGHT MORE YEARS. It?s small wonder that the editors of Fortune Magazine headlined an article last June with the title, "Who Business is Betting On?" Their answer, of course, was Hillary Clinton.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
=================
No comments:
Post a Comment