Rhode Islands Future: Politics & Culture - Recent Diaries

Endgame

Charles Drago — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:51:09 GMT

A little lite reading for a midsummer night.

To save our Fascist brothers and sisters a whole buttload of time and trouble: The material below was recommended by Ward Churchill, Howard Zinn, and the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.endgamethebook.org/index.html

Premises of Endgame

Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.

Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.

Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.

Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.

Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.

Another way to put premise Eight: Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence (as well as justice) requires the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.

Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.

Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.

Premise Fourteen: From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.

Premise Fifteen: Love does not imply pacifism.

Premise Sixteen: The material world is primary. This does not mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It means also that real world actions have real world consequences. It means we cannot rely on Jesus, Santa Claus, the Great Mother, or even the Easter Bunny to get us out of this mess. It means this mess really is a mess, and not just the movement of God’s eyebrows. It means we have to face this mess ourselves. It means that for the time we are here on Earth—whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die, and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here—the Earth is the point. It is primary. It is our home. It is everything. It is silly to think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is silly and pathetic to not live our lives as though our lives are real.

Premise Seventeen: It is a mistake (or more likely, denial) to base our decisions on whether actions arising from these will or won’t frighten fence-sitters, or the mass of Americans.

Premise Eighteen: Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology.

Premise Nineteen: The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.

Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.

Modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the monetary fortunes of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the power of the decision-makers and those they serve.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are founded primarily (and often exclusively) on the almost entirely unexamined belief that the decision-makers and those they serve are entitled to magnify their power and/or financial fortunes at the expense of those below.

Re-modification of Premise Twenty: If you dig to the heart of it—if there were any heart left—you would find that social decisions are determined primarily on the basis of how well these decisions serve the ends of controlling or destroying wild nature.

Israeli soldiers admit using human shields

PDM — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:17:51 GMT

The repulsive details of Israel's most recent "canned hunt" come to light.

Israeli soldiers admit using human shields

Twenty-six Israeli soldiers have risked retaliation from superiors and an angry public after coming forward to admit they used human shields and were given a “shoot first” policy during Israel’s three-week military incursion into Gaza at the start of the year.

The soldiers’ claims back up a recent Amnesty International report that made similar allegations.

Breaking the Silence, an Israeli human rights organization founded by former soldiers, spent the last several months recording testimony from 26 soldiers who agreed to speak about their experiences during Operation Cast Lead, which killed at least 1,100 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.

On Point on Texas vs. California economic model

Bottom Bracket — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:47:16 GMT

This morning’s episode of On Point with Tom Ashbrook featured the rise of Texas and the fall of California in our economy and the “American Dream.” Business is booming in Texas; its state budget is relatively healthy, and its unemployment rate is two points below the national average. Economists attribute Texas’ low tax, low regulation policies to its growth, coupled with the abundance of (almost free) land and real estate opportunities.
As reported on the show, California, on the other hand, is losing businesses and entrepreneurs (primarily to Texas), the state budget is in the trash barrel, and its unemployment rate is two points above the national average. California’s tax burden is among the highest in the country, there are many legal standards on doing business there, and real estate is very expensive.

At first glance, this makes it look like the Texas model is the way to go. But, as Tom Ashbrook correctly points out, Texas has an abundance of very real social problems.

Health care in Texas is the worst in the nation (and health care in Houston is the worst in Texas). High school drop out rates are exceedingly high. Texas is in the top three for childhood poverty. Voter turn out is among the lowest in the nation. There are many more. So basically, to sum it up, the current Texas climate supports big business and wealthy individuals at the expense of democracy, broad prosperity, and a well-educated public.

It should be understood in the opinion of someone who was born and raised in Texas, did business in Texas, worked, bought property, had children in Texas, and considers the Lone Star State home, that the politico-economic culture in Texas, especially in the past thirty years, is very much a state of corporatism. That is, the prevailing concept among politicians and pundits is this myth of free market and independence and that business interests ultimately take precedence in any local and state policies, whether its health care, education, environmental protection, poverty, etc. So, why would this corporatist model be so much more economically successful than a model based on strong principles of education, broad prosperity, environmental protection, etc.?

Perhaps a national and global economy based on the liquidation of resources for quarterly profit growth is ultimately set up to support the most corporatist economic systems in the world. The problem is, resources are becoming scarce, including the most basic resources: land and water.
As I look at state’s that are struggling and the politicians that are looking for the answers, I can’t help notice the lack thereof. One the one hand, do we want to live in a place where business, especially big-business runs the show? Remember, corporations are not democracies. At the same time, how do we afford increasingly expensive health care, transportation infrastructure, energy, education, etc.?

I believe it is a matter of resources. As long as we are dependent of extracting more resources, whether silicon for computers, oil for materials and fuel, wood for paper and construction, land for real estate and fuel, iron for steel, water for fast food kitchens, we are going to continue to go down the drain. Places like Texas that currently have resources to give away to big businesses while letting the average person struggle to make ends meet will be the sites of the latest economic boom.

But places like Texas will run out, and we will inherit a country that has been bled to death for a relatively few wealthy people for a relatively short period of time.

UPDATE! Support Providence City Council Resolution Against Honduras Coup

Shaun Joseph — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:16:08 GMT

UPDATE: WE WON! The City Council passed the resolution unanimously! Thanks to Councilman Luna for his leadership on this, and thanks to everyone who came out to show support.

THURSDAY, July 16, 7PM
Providence City Hall
25 Dorrance Street, Providence, RI (west end of Kennedy Plaza)

Join Councilman Miguel Luna to demand that the City Council:

Join the Organization of American States, the United Nations General Assembly, and leaders throughout the world in condemning the June 28, 2009 coup d’état in Honduras;
Call for the immediate reinstatement of President Manuel Zelaya for the remainder of his elected term;
Urge the United States Government to suspend all aid to the de facto Honduran government until President Zelaya is reinstated; and
Express its support for participatory democracy for citizens of every country, as well as for smaller-scale participatory democracy at the municipal level.

The resolution is scheduled as Point 20 on the Council agenda, and the full text appears below.

For more info visit ristopwar.com or email lunamiguel2002@gmail.com or shaun@risocialism.org.

Resolution in Support of Democracy, Condemning the Coup in Honduras, and Calling for the Unconditional Reinstatement of the Country’s Democratically Elected President

WHEREAS, On June 28, 2009, members of the Honduran military awoke President José Manuel Zelaya at gunpoint and forcibly removed him from his residence and exiled him to Costa Rica; and

WHEREAS, The following day, the speaker of the Honduran Parliament, Roberto Micheletti, was sworn in as President of Honduras by the National Assembly; and

WHEREAS, although the de facto military government has qualified these events as legal, they have clearly been defined as a military coup by the entire international community, recalling the region’s history of violent takeovers from the 1960s through the 1980s; and

WHEREAS, the most recent coup d’état represents a new and disturbing model for overthrowing a democratically elected government in Latin America; and

WHEREAS, The Organization of American States (OAS), which is comprised of all 35 sovereign countries in North and South America, adopted a resolution on July 1, 2009 condemning the coup d’état in Honduras, and on July 4, 2009 adopted a resolution suspending Honduras’ participation in the OAS; and

WHEREAS, The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on June 30, 2009 which condemned the coup and emphasized that the United Nations will not recognize any government other than that of President Zelaya’s; and

WHEREAS, Leaders from North and South America, as well as nations around the world, have rejected the military ouster of President Zelaya; and

WHEREAS, The forced removal and expulsion of a democratically elected president threatens democracy and stability, not only in Honduras and the region, but everywhere; and

WHEREAS, President Zelaya was striving for direct participatory democracy through a non-binding “public consultation,” permitted under the Honduran Constitution, to ask voters if they wanted to establish an elected National Constituent Assembly to craft a new Constitution; and

WHEREAS, Despite popular media reports, neither the poll, nor the work of any potential National Constituent Assembly would have permitted President Zelaya to remain in office beyond the end of his term in January 2010; and

WHEREAS, Participatory democracy gives citizens a direct voice in the operation of their government, and such engagement is a laudable goal that should be considered locally, nationally, and internationally, and

WHEREAS, Diplomatic efforts to date have been unsuccessful in bringing resolution to the crisis in Honduras.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the City Council of the City of Providence, Rhode Island does hereby:

Join the Organization of American States, the United Nations General Assembly, and leaders throughout the world in condemning the June 28, 2009 coup d’état in Honduras;
Call for the immediate reinstatement of President Manuel Zelaya for the remainder of his elected term;
Urge the United States Government to suspend all aid to the de facto Honduran government until President Zelaya is reinstated; and
Express its support for participatory democracy for citizens of every country, as well as for smaller-scale participatory democracy at the municipal level.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That upon adoption, a certified copy of this resolution shall be sent to the President of the United States; the United States Secretary of State; and the Rhode Island Congressional delegation.

Ex-FBI Agent: Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation

PDM — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:16:00 GMT

I could not agree more with Rowley. With multiple wars or conflicts launched and our entire form of government turned upside down, all due to this event, it is high time that we had a truly independent investigation.

Ex-FBI Agent: Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation

In the absence of my being there in New York City to stand with the 9/11 families, first responders and survivors, I offer the following statement in support of your goal of a new investigation into the attacks of September 11th and the NYC CAN campaign to place it on the ballot for November.

At the time of 9-11, I had been an FBI agent for over 20 years. My main responsibilities by then were teaching criminal procedure to FBI agents and other law enforcement officers, mostly about 4th Amendment search and seizure, 5th and 6th Amendment law of interrogation, right to attorney and constitutional protection of rights to “free speech”, due process, habeas corpus, and against cruel and unusual punishment. A week before 9-11, I and the rest of the FBI’s ethics instructors were mandated (as a result of an earlier public FBI scandal) to give a one hour PowerPoint presentation, a form of remedial training on “law enforcement ethics” which I accomplished in a fairly perfunctory way, just reading the slides.

After 9-11, with the knowledge I had of the bitter internal dispute inside the FBI that was being hushed up but had kept some of our better agents from possibly uncovering more of the 9-11 plot before it happened, I couldn’t forget two of the slides in that Law Enforcement ethics curriculum: “DO NOT: Puff, Shade, Tailor, Firm up, Stretch, Massage, or Tidy up statements of fact.” And “Misplaced Loyalties: As employees of the FBI, we must be aware that our highest loyalty is to the United States Constitution. We should never sacrifice the truth in order to obtain a desired result (e.g. conviction of a defendant) or to avoid personal or institutional embarrassment.”

The official dissembling and excuse-making about the true causes and prior mistakes that gave rise to and allowed the terrorist attacks to happen, almost immediately ushered in the Bush-Cheney Administration’s egregious and lawless, post 9-11 “war on terror” agenda which bore no connection to the original causes and no connection to the goal of reducing terrorism and making the world safer. When I got a chance, about 8 ½ months after 9-11 to tell what I knew, I did so and my disclosures led to further investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General and figured in the 9-11 Commission Report.

But it was way too late for this emerging bit of truth that has continued to leak out in dribs and drabs to have any impact. The laws themselves, especially the criminal procedure ones rooted in the Constitution that I had spent my career teaching to law enforcement, have largely gone up in smoke. Having seen the cost of remaining silent, I publicly warned, a few months after my first memo, against launching the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. But false agendas had already filled the vacuum created by lack of truth. And we are still dealing with the disastrous consequences of these unjustified, pre-emptive wars.

Let me therefore simply repeat the request I made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2002: “Foremost, we owe it to the public, especially the victims of terrorism, to be completely honest. I can only imagine what these crime and terrorism victims continue to go through. They deserve nothing but the complete, unfettered truth.”

Therefore, I fully support the 9/11 families, first responders, survivors and over 60,000 other New Yorkers who have endorsed a new 9/11 investigation in New York City as advanced by ballot referendum this coming November election.

Day 1 & 2 of the Sotomayor Hearings

Ted — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:49:19 GMT

I've collected random thoughts and initial reactions as the hearings have proceeded over the first two days.

LIVE from the Hart Senate Office Building: Political Theatre 101...

-First, I miss the Committee on the Judiciary from the 110th Congress. It just isn't a confirmation hearing without Teddy K and Joe Biden. Also Specter was a far stronger ranking member. The net result is these hearings are far less entertaining.

-Day 1: Each of the 20 Senators is given a 10 minute opening statement. After an exhausting 200 minutes, Judge Sotomayor gives her 8 minute opening statement for the record.

-Senator Leahy gaveled us in by citing MLK, Justices Marshall & Brandeis, and emphasizing Sotomayor's vast diversity of experience. Sessons then rattled off some of the GOP talking points in his slow Southern drawl. His main points of contention were over her now infamous wise latina comment and the "radical" notion that judicial decisions inform policy.

-Senator Kohl gave one of the weaker statements (no surprise) and Senator Hatch, now on his 12th S. Court confirmation gave one of the stronger ones. Hatch cleverly used Senator Obama's language against President Obama's nominee. This was followed by Feinstein resuming the Democratic emphasis on Sotomayor being a crime fighter, a crusader against child porn and overall a mainstream jurist with respect for stare decisis. Grassley (a non-lawyer) then launched into a lecture on what a good judge is.

-Following Grassley's absurd remarks, Russ Feingold gave an impassioned speech about the need for courage, safeguarding our sacred rule of law and that a judge is not mechanical. Kyl launched into his concern over foreign law and the possibility that it could inspire American jurisprudence. Schumer argued that Sotomayor was a case of judicial modesty (i.e. restrain--i.e. not an activist, i.e. not a crazy liberal.)

-Around this point I started to fall asleep, but was awakened by Lindsey Graham speaking the truth in saying that short of a MELTDOWN, the judge would be confirmed. Thus confirming that Republican objections were merely political theatre.

-Senator Cardin then rambled incoherently about his grandparents and his own personal story (which as you might of guessed is a little dry.) The Senator from Texas--Cornyn must have been playing to the base with his remarks on capital punishment and was then followed by Sheldon. Sheldon attacked all the code words of the hearings (good luck avoiding those) and made a partisan statement about the need for emphathy (i.e. Sheldon supported what the GOP has called the Obama standard. This standard merely says a jurist ought to have compassion. GASP...how revolutionary.)

-Now, I wanted to hear Senator Kaufman, Specter, and Franken...but missed those statements. So no comment there.

DAY II:

-The format being each Senator is granted 30 minutes for questioning. No surprise that they only got through half the committee. It began with Leahy ordering a premptive strike on his Republican colleagues by allowing the nominee to respond to many of the allegations against her. Leahy's questioning covered everything from the Tarzan murders in Harlem to the Ricci case in New Haven. While she was answering her questions, the Senator from Vermot was distracted at times as he passed notes to his Counsel on Nominations Noah Bookbinder. These questions ended with the nominee asserting that she has friends in the NRA.

-Session dives into a long series of questions centered on her controversial speeches rather than any cases she has ruled on. At one point, Sotomayor argued that she is not a robot or an umpire. Her answers continued to fall back on the idea that on the 2nd Circuit, she followed precedent (even if she didn't agree with the ruling.) She followed the law.

-During Senator Grassley's questions, a protestor disrupts the hearing, Leahy calls on the Cap Police to remove the heckler. Grassley then fires off his one-liner of the day that he has always had the ability to "turn people on."

-Lindsey Graham offers far harsher comments on day 2. He goes into a condescending tirade where he tries to force the Judge into his opinions. He lectures her on temperment and that she might need anger management (this coming from JOHN MCCAIN's biggest supporter?) Graham asks her questions on 9/11 and what she thinks of terrorists. Then Graham goes back to the good old "wise latina" comments. He claims that if he had made similar comments, the press and voters would have had his head. The implication here is that a latino woman cannot talk about being a wise latino woman. Apparently it makes some white male senators uncomfortable.

-After Senator Durbin's questions, the Committee adjourned. A lot of Senators still need to go before questioning is completed.

We'll see what happens on Day III.

ProJo's Pro-Cicilline Bias on (Subtle) Display -- AGAIN

Charles Drago — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:32:09 GMT

Or is it simply ignorance and/or incompetence?

Staff writer Philip Marcelo, with all the subtlety of a dock strike, is the latest in a long line of "reporters" to expose the Providence Journal's counter-intuitive (at first blush) championing of David Cicilline. Or has he been sandbagged by editors whose masters have so much to lose should the Little Mayor's personal and professional failures be exposed to Justice Brandeis's "best disinfectant" -- sunlight?

In his "Providence mayor proposes tax hike, more spending cuts" (ProJo, July 14), Marcelo appropriately solicits pro and con statements from members of the City Council.

He quotes "City Council President Peter S. Mancini, a Democrat who represents Wanskuck," and "Councilman John J. Lombardi, a Democrat who represents Federal Hill and the West End, [who] is among the minority faction of the council."

Get it? No? Then I'll spell it out for you in Journalism 101 terms.

If there is a valid argument of relevance for referencing the unwillingness of Councilman Lombardi and certain of his Legislative Branch colleagues to rubber-stamp Cicilline's lies, distortions, incompetence, and general under-handedness, then surely it is only fair to note that Council President Mancini is Cicilline's hand-picked puppet (or, if you prefer, "leader of the pro-Cicilline Council majority").

Perhaps Marcelo is not aware of the following:

1. Cicilline orchestrated a take-over of the City Council in 2006, one designed to remove the independent, competent, honorable Councilmen Lombardi and Luis Aponte from that body's presidency and majority leadership positions respectively, and to install in their steads the Little Mayor's wholly owned subsidiaries (Mancini, plus Terry "Johnny Ola" Hassett playing the role of Majority Leader; we won't even go into John "Gozintas" Igliozzi's recurring cameo as Finance Committee chair).

2. Cicilline is well into the planning stages of a 2010 offensive (in more ways than one) to create a controlled super majority in the Council. Targeted members include Lombardi, Aponte, Balbina Young, and the rest of the dinosaurs who remain enamored of the quaint "checks and balances" nonsense. If the Little Mayor is successful, "Councilman" Cliff "Can I Buy You a Drink, Baby?" Wood and his puppetmaster Buff "Hyman Roth" Chace will have their fondest wish granted. To paraphrase the master:

"Think of it, Cliffy ... We'll be protected, free to make our profits without Lombardi and the goddamn City Council ... a few blocks away, in partnership with a friendly government. A few blocks! It's nothing! Just one small step, looking to keep our man in the mayor's office. Cliffy, we're bigger than Kenny Dulgarian!"

Earlier I referenced the ProJo's continuing defense of the indefensible (not to mention execrable) Cicilline. Why do the brahmins desire to prop the hated wop?

Their calculation is a simple one (go figure): Their investments (financial and otherwise) in Providence cannot survive another mayoral scandal.

So to hell with the law! To hell with the taxpayers! To hell with all of us!

Let the voters of Providence be advised: If Cicilline has his way in 2010, their city will be governed -- no, make that ruled -- by avaricious developers and their amoral partners, and the most corrupt, incompetent mayor/puppet in its history.

Proud Day for the Episcopal Church

benjones — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:17:57 GMT

Just reported from the AP:

Episcopal church to affirm gay clergy

As a cradle Episcopalian, this is another proud day for me, even more powerful than the day Gene Robinson was consecrated Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire.

It also means a day of schism in a church that reflects a long standing and comparatively democratic alliance of Anglicans across the globe.

I feel for my Anglican brothers and sisters across the globe whose theology is joyful testament to love, but who feel there are some who should be excluded from full participation in all the sacraments. But I especially feel for those who will be excluded from love because of fear and hatred.

Part of the perspective of growing Anglican churches in Africa and Asia is that the Episcopal Church is demonstrating a colonial attitude towards people it considers simple in their theology, or for whom homosexuality, as for Ahmadinejad, simply does not exist.

The irony is that it would be colonial and racist to suggest that other churches in the communion simply deny the existence of their homosexual members, living in a world that doesn't even have a place for it. The way we did here for centuries. This is a blind eye no Christians should cast.

The opportunity is for the Anglican Church to take the lead on an issue that causes pain not only here, but globally. Beyond phobias around homosexuality, we need to get over the fact that humans are sexual beings.

I am saddened about the issue of the breaking of the Anglican church abroad, and the breaking again of the Anglican/Episcopal church at home, but incredibly proud of the Episcopal Church today.

As the signature of one the most intrepid justice warriors I know reads, "God will not make God's work manifest in cowards."

No change comes without pain. It's just a question here of pain to whom.

Fix The Voter Handbook

HarveyN — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:36:51 GMT

Just how can any thinking person object?

I suggested some time ago that the Secretary of State modify the Voter Handbooks that are distributed prior to elections to include more information about the Proposals that appear on the ballot. He didn't get back to me.

Currently the information is expressed in limited terms, too technical and confusing to the average voter and neglects to present any possible negative consequences of a proposal on the ballot.

I propose that the Handbook shall present deeper explanations of each proposal, pro and con, drafted by supporters and opponents, using language that is acceptable to the Secretary of State as being objective representations of each position.

Do we choose to know little or nothing about the matters before us or do we prefer making informed decisions on the matters that concern us?

If we read this and do nothing, I guess we have made our choice.

And They Wonder We Question...

clay shaw — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:40:13 GMT

Earlier this week the discussion was on McNamara and how he orchestrated our involvement in VietNam.

And of course, we've had the antics of President Cheney and Vice President Bush. Now more about the dirty bastards surfaces...

Just so the Mensa candidates at the Reichstag-blog don't complain, Cheney's not dead (perhaps, morally, but not in the way it matters to the nitwits at Cancor Rising). Nevertheless, it does invite the question: Who is more evil...Cheney or McNamara?

Insurance Companies threaten our Politicians.

rasputinkhlyst — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:58:35 GMT

It is just standard operating procedure for the parasitic insurance companies as discussed by Bill Moyers.

Kohn warns Congress on meddling in Fed's affairs

PDM — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:47:17 GMT

Kohn warns? Sounds more like a threat to me. An economic "Samson Option"?

Kohn warns Congress on meddling in Fed's affairs

The U.S. Federal Reserve on Thursday launched a robust defense of its independence and warned that efforts in Congress to put monetary policy under political sway would hurt the economy.

Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said opening up some of the U.S. central bank's most sensitive decisions to political scrutiny could result in higher long-term interest rates and hurt the United States' credit rating.

Testifying before a congressional panel, Kohn sought to beat back a proposed bill that would open the U.S. central bank's policy decisions to audits by a federal watchdog agency. More than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed as co-sponsors of the measure.

"Any substantial erosion of the Federal Reserve's monetary independence likely would lead to higher long-term interest rates as investors begin to fear future inflation," Kohn told a House subcommittee.

SIP Summer Awareness Initiative Continues

Stop Internet Predators Rhode Island — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:20:45 GMT

The Stop Internet Predators’ Summer Awareness Initiative continues to gain statewide attention. We kicked off our summer initiative when we awarded Attorney’s General in six states including our own Patrick Lynch with the “Champion of Internet Safety” Award. However, new and emerging Internet technologies also continue to grow, including Google ‘Street View’ and these technologies enable children to more easily become targets of predators. This is why we must all stay educated including parents, law enforcement, policy-makers and child safety advocates; we must respond quickly to these threats with comprehensive approaches to protect children online. That is why we will continue to work not only nationally but with Rhode Island parents, law enforcement, policy-makers and child safety advocates to help provide the tools needed to protect children. For more information on Stop Internet Predators and ways to protect your children online including an easy to follow “how to” guide for opting-out of Google ‘Street View’, please visit www.stopinternetpredators.org.

To get involved with Stop Internet Predators in Rhode Island email RI@stopinternetpredators.org.

Obama's Conservativism?

danbass — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:31:55 GMT

Contrary to the right wing echo chamber's desperate efforts to label Obama a "socialist," the director of a conservative think tank in Norway explains how conservative Obama is considered there. As the author paraphrases:

So I would have to say to thoughtful Republicans: even if you don't like the Nordic blend of capitalism and socialism, with its virtual abolition of poverty, free university education, and enlightened environmentalism, you're only confusing the issue when you try to label the President with the "S"-word. You may think his policies are wrong, but in Norway even conservatives would say the Democrats and Obama don't go nearly far enough.

This all begs the question, is Obama really that conservative, or is really the country that's so conservative? My answer: neither.

The real problem is the overwhelming role and influence that money plays in U.S. electoral politics (how much did Obama receive from the financial industry?) and of course the influence of high-priced (corporate) lobbyists.

For example, health care reform. Without exception, every single other industrialized nation has some type of universal health care, and the vast majority of those being single-payer. Then you look at the U.S. and Obama's efforts to include a national public health care option, which would drastically drive down costs for individuals and businesses, keep the private insurance industry honest (think 17% rate increases), and provide coverage to most of the 47 million Americans without health insurance.

Seems like a no-brainer, right? And the overwhelming majority of Americans support it. Should be the easiest thing in the world to pass it. Well, not in the U.S. with high-powered lobbyists' influence of Congressional recipients of the industry's largesse. And of course, there's the insurance industry throwing a hundred million dollars into a misinformation/scare campaign (aided naturally by the right wing echo chamber).

The real problem with American politics is the role money plays. Too often, legislation and reform isn't really debated on its merits. Of course, in the right's defense, it makes sense for them to fight real health care reform tooth and nail. Effective health care reform with a national public option would completely derail the very idea that the market always works best. And also, Republicans (and too many Democrats) must do the bidding of their major corporate donors.

But when it comes to certain things, like health care, the environment, and education, it's absurd to think that the profit-motive is the answer to our problems. Actually, isn't it the cause? Again, think 17% health care rate hikes. Even the right can't seriously get behind that.

ISRAELIS CELEBRATE 9-11

Charles Drago — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:44:25 GMT

Only the ignorant, the complicit, and/or the criminally insane can deny the truth.

ISRAELIS CELEBRATE 9-11

The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11

Complete story, including irrefutable citations, here.

As the world watched in disbelief and asked the question...

...Mossad operatives were seen dancing with joy.

A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.

The New York Times reported Thursday (9-13-01) that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.

Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery.

"They were like happy, you know ... They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness.

They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact. Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot.

"It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

One anonymous phone call to the authorities actually led them to close down all of New York's bridges and tunnels. The mystery caller told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that a group of Palestinians were mixing a bomb inside of a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel. Here's the transcript from NBC News:

Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.
Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He's dressed like an Arab.

(QUESTION: Why would this mystery caller specifically say that these "Arabs" were Palestinians? How would he know that? Palestinians usually dress in western style clothes, not "sheikh uniforms")

Based on that phone call, police then issued a "Be-on-the-Lookout" alert for a white mini-van heading for the city's bridges and tunnels from New Jersey.

White, 2000 Chevrolet van with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals.

When a van fitting that exact description was stopped just before crossing into New York, the suspicious "middle-easterners" were apprehended. Imagine the surprise of the police officers when these terror suspects turned out to be Israelis!

According to ABC's 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers:

"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."

Why did he feel Palestinians were a problem for the NYPD?

The police and FBI field agents became very suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosive.

The FBI seized and developed their photos, one of which shows Sivan Kurzberg flicking a cigarette lighter in front of the smouldering ruins in an apparently celebratory gesture.

The Jerusalem Post later reported that a white van with a bomb was stopped as it approached the George Washington Bridge, but the ethnicity of the suspects was not revealed. Here's what the Jerusalem Post reported on September 12, 2001:

American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge. Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported.

"...two suspects are in FBI custody after a truckload of explosives was discovered around the George Washington Bridge ... The FBI ... says enough explosives were in the truck to do great damage to the George Washington Bridge."

It was reported the van contained tonnes of explosives.

What's really intriguing is that ABC's 20/20 , the New York Post (16), and the New Jersey Bergen Record all clearly and unambiguously reported that a white van with Israelis was intercepted on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel.

But the Jerusalem Post, Israeli National News (Arutz Sheva), and Yediot America,) all reported, just as clearly and unambiguously, that a white van with Israelis was stopped on a ramp leading to the George Washington Bridge, which is several miles north of the Lincoln Tunnel.

It appears as if there may actually have been two white vans involved, one stopped on each crossing. This would not only explain the conflicting reports as to the actual location of the arrests, but would also explain how so many credible eye-witnesses all saw celebrating "middle-easterners" in a white van in so many different locations. It also explains why the New York Post and Steve Gordon (lawyer for the 5 Israelis) originally described how three Israelis were arrested but later increased the total to five.

Perhaps one van was meant to drop off a bomb while the other was meant to pick up the first set of drivers while re-crossing back into New Jersey? If a van was to be used as a parked time-bomb on the GW Bridge, then certainly the drivers would need to have a "get-away van" to pick them up and escape. And notice how the van (or vans) stayed away from the third major crossing ~~the Holland Tunnel~~ which was where the police had originally been directed to by that anti-Palestinian 9-1-1 "mystery caller". A classic misdirection play.

From there, the story gets becomes even more suspicious. The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the The Record of New Jersey that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were joking about the attacks.

The employee, who declined to give his name said: "I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me." These guys were like, "Now America knows what we go through."

A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities.

Suter's departure was abrupt, leaving behind coffee cups, sandwiches, cell phones and computers strewn on office tables and thousands of dollars of goods in storage. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and suspected al-Qaeda sympathizers, suggesting that U.S. authorities felt Suter may have known something about the attacks.

The Jewish weekly The Forward reported that the FBI finally concluded that at least two of the detained Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. This was confirmed by two former CIA officers, and they noted that movers' vans are a common intelligence cover. The Israelis were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released.

"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11."

Several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11?

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots of the dancing Israeli Mossad agents - here's the most logical scenario:

1. The Israeli "movers" cheered the 9-11 attacks to celebrate the successful accomplishment of the greatest spy operation ever pulled off in history.

2. One of them, or an accomplice, then calls a 9-1-1 police dispatcher to report Palestinian bomb-makers in a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel.

3. Having thus pre-framed the Palestinians with this phone call, the Israeli bombers then head for the George Washington Bridge instead, where they will drop off their time-bomb van and escape with Urban Moving accomplices.

4. But the police react very wisely and proactively by closing off ALL bridges and tunnels instead of just the Holland Tunnel. This move inadvertently foils the Israelis' misdirection play and leads to their own capture and 40 day torture.

5. To cover up this story, the U.S. Justice Department rounds up over 1000 Arabs for minor immigration violations and places them in New York area jails. The Israelis therefore become less conspicuous as the government and media can now claim that the Israelis were just immigration violators caught in the same dragnet as many other Arabs.

6. After several months, FBI and Justice Department "higher-ups" are able to gradually push aside the local FBI agents and free the Israelis quietly.

Osama bin Laden was immediately blamed for the 9/11 attacks even though he had no previous record of doing anything on this scale. Immediately after the Flight 11 hit World Trade Center 1

CIA Director George Tenet said "You know, this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it." (27)

The compliant mainstream media completely ignored the Israeli connection. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks the media was filled with stories linking the attacks to bin Laden. TV talking-heads, "experts", and scribblers of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a steady diet of the most outrageous propaganda imaginable.

We were told that the reason bin Laden attacked the USA was because he hates our "freedom" and "democracy". The Muslims were "medieval" and they wanted to destroy us because they envied our wealth, were still bitter about the Crusades, and were offended by Britney Spears shaking her tits and ass all over the place!

But bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks and suggested that Zionists orchestrated the 9-11 attacks. The BBC published bin Laden's statement of denial.

A number of intelligence officials have raised questions about Osama bin Laden's capabilities. "This guy sits in a cave in Afghanistan and he's running this operation?" one C.I.A. official asked. "It's so huge. He couldn't have done it alone." A senior military officer told me that because of the visas and other documentation needed to infiltrate team members into the United States a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved.

Bin Laden is not named as the perpetrator of 9/11 by the FBI:

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted web page (30), [Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI] said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." (31)

"So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming" - Dick Cheney.

One final point; at 09:40 on 9-11 it was reported that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attacks. This claim was immediately denied by the DFLP leader Qais abu Leila who said it had always opposed "terror attacks on civilian targets, especially outside the occupied territories."

Why would a Palestinian organisation comprising of less than 500 people make the suicidal move of immediately claiming responsibility for the attacks?

Sharon and the other Israeli leaders aspire to fulfil what the goals of the political Zionist movement have been since its origin a century ago: to turn all of historic Palestine into an exclusively Jewish state. A central tenet of the Zionist ideology is expressed in the racist slogan, "A land without people for a people without a land." (38)

The implication of Palestinians in the 9/11 attacks would have handed Zionists a golden opportunity to achieve the above because all Palestinians would have been labelled terrorists.

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."-- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring.

"By way of deception, thou shalt do war"
Motto of the Mossad

Supreme Eugenics

PDM — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:43:18 GMT

Ruth Ginsburg has her "Let them (but not too many of them) eat cake" moment.

The Place of Women on the Court

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.

On the road to a healthy environment

jobhealth — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:46:45 GMT

The Rhode Island 2010 State Budget - through a 2 cents hike in the gas tax - will provide new revenues for public transit. This increase in transit funding will help ensure that transit service in Rhode Island will continue at current levels. However, these new revenues were appropriated to address loss of revenues from other sources (e.g. Rite Care) estimated at $9 million. As RIPTA ridership has soared there was a lingering threat of sweeping service cuts.

While this year’s budget action added vital financial support, relying on the gasoline tax to fund transit creates a significant conundrum. As more people use public transit they purchase less gasoline, as such revenues for RIPTA decline because less gasoline sold means less gasoline taxes collected – forging a scenario whereby transit funding declines as demand increases.

(The New Public Transit Alliance has proposed a wide-ranging financing portfolio to address this conundrum and to establish public transit on a fiscally secure foundation.)*

Another positive outcome of the session was the passage of a law allowing buses to use transponders to extend green light signals. (Transponders do not change lights from red to green, they only keep a green light green as a bus approaches.) The technology, called Transit Signal Priority, is intended to reduce bus idling time at traffic lights and improve bus schedule performance and reliability. Transit Signal Priority will make RIPTA operations more efficient by reducing the number of buses needed to serve a route through the more efficient use of thoroughfares. Transit Signal Priority, recommended by the Aquidneck Island West Side Master Plan and the Providence Transit 2020 Working Group, lays the ground work for Bus Rapid Transit as well. (Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT, is a form of rapid transit that uses buses for relatively long distance commutes (S County to Providence).

Currently, two major transportation studies are underway in Rhode Island. The Providence Metropolitan Transit Study, headed by a firm that specializes in modern streetcar design, is expected to present a comprehensive plan to connect commuters to the Providence area through rapid transit and modern streetcars. The Aquidneck Island Planning Commission is heading a multimodal transportation study for Aquidneck Island that include public transit technologies. These two major studies are expected to call for significantly expanded public transit in two critical urban centers of the state.

When we think of transportation we think of how to move goods and people from one place to another; and how to do this cheaply and quickly. End of discussion. But a subtle revolution is underway fueled largely by growing anxiety about epidemics of chronic diseases such as asthma, obesity, and diabetes, and recognition that the type and design of our transportation environment can cause or prevent illness, disability and injury, and degrade or preserve natural resources.

In addition, public transit acts to reduce global warming gases and provides “green jobs” (from constructing transit infrastructure to maintenance and operating transit systems); not only green but union jobs and living wages and benefits.

ProJo takes on AG Lynch's travel

brassband — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:09:57 GMT

Here's Kathy Gregg's story detailing AG Lynch's out-of-state travel over the past 18 months.

Deomcracy Now 7-6-09

rasputinkhlyst — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:30:23 GMT

Award-winning investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker, John Pilger discusses the US Health Care System with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.

The American People get it. How about the so-called leaders?

Satan, Robert McNamara is at the gate.

PDM — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:26:47 GMT

Ex-Defense Secretary McNamara dies

Robert S. McNamara, the cerebral secretary of defense who was vilified for prosecuting America's most controversial war and then devoted himself to helping the world's poorest nations, died Monday. He was 93.