Sarah van Gelder

Americans Say No to War with Iran: Will Washington Listen?

2008-07-10T15:13:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago, I was alarmed to learn that congressional Democrats were sponsoring Resolution 362, which encourages what amounts to an act of war against Iran.

Today, there are more than 230 co-sponsors of the House resolution, but there is also growing mobilization to stop passage of Res. 362.

What is especially stirring opposition is the provision that calls for:

"Prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

Implementing this would require a blockade, according to a letter from three retired Pentagon officials, and, unless sanctioned by a Security Council resolution, would constitute an act of war.

The good news is that a growing outcry from the American people is causing some co-sponsors to have second thoughts, and the momentum for passage of the resolution may be weakening.

Among them is Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), who says in a July 9 blog:

"Given my growing concerns regarding this resolution, including its failure to advocate for direct American engagement with Tehran and open language that could lead to a US blockade of Iran, I will lead an effort to make changes to this resolution before it comes to the Foreign Affairs committee for a vote."

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts has gone one step further: "I'm all for stricter sanctions against Iran, but the blockade part goes too far," he told the Valley Advocate of Northampton, MA. "I'm going to call the sponsors and tell them I'm changing my vote."

Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) withdrew his co-sponsorship on July 9.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, editorialized against the resolution on June 24:

"... we are casually giving our government the right to control Iran's borders using naval blockades. Might that be construed as an act of aggression? Only if we pay any mind to the rules set forth by the United Nations ... stating that such a unilateral blockade constitutes an act of war.

So, are supporters of Res. 362 asleep at the wheel, or are they just anxious to drag us into another illegal war?"

This is a familiar discussion to those who watched the build-up to war in Iraq. This time, however, former secretaries of state from both Democratic and Republican administrations are on the same side. According to The Los Angeles Times, five of them -- Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, and Madeleine Albright -- agreed at a recent round-table discussion that it is time to open a dialogue with Iran.

The outcry against an attack on Iran is already having an effect, and there are plans for more. United for Peace and Justice, for example, is organizing "Days of Action" across the U.S. July 19-21.

What are the threats against Iran really about?

Despite what you may have read, this issue is not about nuclear proliferation -- in fact an attack would increase the likelihood that Iran would acquire a nuclear weapon, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. The Nobel Peace Prize winner told Al Arabiya television last month that if there was a military attack on Iran, he would resign:

"I don't believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time ... it would make me unable to continue my work...

"A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball ...

"If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West."

It's also not about how much extra we are all paying for gasoline and oil as a result of our threats against Iran, although the National Security Network estimates that U.S. saber-rattling is already driving up prices by $30-$40 per barrel of oil. If threats turns into active conflict, oil prices will really take off.

The question now is whether we will pursue another illegal and disastrous war, which the American people -- including Jewish Americans -- don't want. Will we destroy more American lives and those of Iranians. (You can see a slide show of life in Iran here as a reminder of the human beings who are in the crosshairs.)

We have a crucial choice before us: Will we continue a unilateral strategy of global domination? Or will we switch to a post-superpower strategy that can actually deal with the threats of nuclear proliferation, extreme poverty, and climate disruption. This is the option we explore in the Summer 2008 issue of YES! Magazine.

Will we continue spending billions on the military in order to control the world's declining fossil fuel resources and shipping channels (and to make sure our corporations have access to both)? Or will we invest those funds in the safe, clean, domestic sources of energy that can create jobs at home and power our future without compromising our moral standing, the stability of our climate, and human lives?

This is a critical choice point for all of us. And this time, we can't say we didn't see the consequences of our actions.

What Americans Want: National Health Insurance

2008-07-03T14:35:00.000-07:00

It doesn't have to be this way. A video of a woman dying in a hospital waiting room after nearly 24 hours waiting for treatment is just one more heartbreaking piece of evidence that our health care system is not only broken, it has become a hazard.

Few Americans needed more evidence. We know our health care system is broken, and a majority of us know what to do about it, even though our views are largely absent from the mainstream news and the political debate.

The 47 million without health insurance know they may not be able to see a doctor or get admitted to a hospital when they need help.

Those who do have health insurance know that deductibles, exceptions, and limits can quickly bring out-of-pocket costs for an illness or injury beyond their means. In the upcoming issue of YES! magazine, we report that 68 percent of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills among those with insurance.

Health coverage forces people to stay with jobs they don't like and to compromise on getting the care they need. Thirty percent of those surveyed in a November 2007 Gallup poll put off getting treatment they needed because of cost.

The system is not working for those paying the insurance premiums, either. Businesses have seen premiums more than double since 2000. And we aren't getting much bang for all these bucks. In the YES! Fall 2006 "Health Care for All," we reported that Americans spend twice per capita as much as other industrialized countries, yet our life expectancy is lower than 27 countries. Little wonder, since having private insurance costs us an estimated 25 cents for each health care dollar for the additional paperwork and bureaucracy, fat CEO pay packages, marketing, and profits.

Although the national political season has seen few mentions of national health insurance, that is exactly what a majority of Americans say they want. Here are the figures:

In a CNN News poll, 55 percent preferred a system "administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers" -- just 29 wanted to hold on to the current private insurance system that leaves some without coverage.
When asked: "Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?" 64 percent said yes.
And Americans are impatient for change; 17 percent of those polled by Gallup at the end of 2007 said the rising cost of health care is a crisis; another 56 percent called it a "major problem." Listen up, candidates. That's a total of 73 percent.

Support for national health insurance is not coming just from the progressives who all along have supported Representative John Conyers' single-payer health care bill. (Single-payer means the government provides the insurance, but health care services remain as they are -- combinations of private, public, and non-profit.)

Support is also coming from people across the political spectrum and the country. In her upcoming piece in YES! magazine, Daina Saib talks to physicians like Dr. Rocky White, who tell her: “Any time a state has studied it, they find that single-payer is the most cost-effective and covers everyone." Dr. White is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, but he is also pressing for action in his state of Colorado, hoping that when the states lead the way, national policy will follow as it did in Canada.

Daina also talks to entrepreneur, Jack Lohman, a lifelong Republican and co-founder of Business Owners for Single Payer, who tells her: “For the same 16 percent of GDP that we are spending on health care in the U.S., we could provide first-class health care to 100 percent of the people.” And a single-payer system would “get health care off the backs of corporations so they can be more competitive with products made overseas.”

In an election season, you often see candidates run for the middle, and ignore proposals that seem risky — even if they are the best policies. That's the reason YES! magazine will be focusing on a "purple agenda" during this election season. Instead of concentrating solely on the candidates' platforms, the next issue of YES! will look at what the American people are supporting. When we are clear on what we want, we have a much better chance of getting people elected who can be held accountable.

It turns out many of the things Americans want do not fall along polarized "red/blue" lines; we tend to be pragmatists first of all. And, as with single-payer health care, it turns out many of our proposals are fair, smart, and do-able.

Are Congressional Democrats Leading Us to War with Iran?

2008-06-26T10:34:00.000-07:00

Until recently, the power struggle within the Bush administration over whether to attack Iran seemed to be going badly for the hawks. Their disastrous record in Iraq coupled with flimsy arguments for attacking Iran meant they were gaining little support. But now it appears congressional Democrats may be riding to the rescue of those pushing for war.

In the fall of 2007, top Bush administration officials began stoking up the rhetoric about the danger of Iran and its nuclear weapons program. But then the National Intelligence Estimate came out showing that efforts to develop nuclear weapons were dropped in 2003, in large part because of international pressure. Wow -- diplomacy does work!

Claims that Iran was arming insurgents fell apart due to flimsy evidence -- weapons that were supposedly supplied by the Iranian government appear to have been purchased on the open market or acquired through means other than official Iranian support.

So with the case for attacking Iran in tatters, why are congressional Democrats taking up the cause?

House Resolution 362, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, is moving quickly through the House. The resolution urges the Bush administration to prohibit the export to Iran of refined petroleum products, impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran," and to prohibit all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program from travel outside the country.

Imposing "stringent inspection requirements" would amount to a naval blockade, many believe, and thus constitute an act of war. At the very least, it would be perceived by Iranians of all political persuasions as a hostile act, further marginalizing moderate voices, unifying the country behind the most belligerent leaders, and bolstering the argument of those within Iran who are pushing for the rapid development of nuclear weapons as a defense against U.S. attack.

Why are 96 House Democrats (along with 111 House Republicans) co-sponsoring this resolution? Aren't these the Democrats who rode into majorities in both houses on public revulsion against war in the Middle East?

According to a recent story on CBS News, the answer seems to be a "full-court press" by the government of Israel and the American-Israeli lobby AIPAC. CBS ran the story Tuesday as Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen was on his way to the Middle East to confer with Israeli government officials. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next [U.S.] administration vis-à-vis Iran," CBS consultant Michael Oren says in the report.

Hence the rush to war?

There are alternatives. In his article in the foreign policy issue of YES! Magazine, Robert Naiman, of JustForeignPolicy.org shows that we avert the killing and maiming of Iranian civilians, by talking with Iran instead of bombing their country. Doing that could avert taking Middle East mayhem to a new level. Even better, we could actually work with Iran in an international effort to bring stability back to the region.

Indeed, Iran offered to negotiate peace in 2003 -- including a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict (thereby recognizing Israel's right to exist), full cooperation with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and pressure on Hizbollah to join the political process in Lebanon, rather than act outside the law. In exchange, Iran asked for a halt to hostile U.S. actions, an end to sanctions, and recognition of Iran's security interests. We ignored their overtures.

What about the nuclear threat? In my interview with George Shultz, secretary of state under Ronald Reagan, Shultz calls for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. He's not alone. His partners in this effort include former Senator Sam Nunn, William Perry, who was secretary of defense under Bill Clinton, and Henry Kissinger.

How much easier it would be to hold Iran accountable to the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if we complied with it ourselves, including the provisions calling for the nuclear powers to reduce stockpiles eventually to zero. How extraordinary it would be to, as Shultz says, do "something that people feel good about."

Such a move would not be naive. In fact, it may be naive to think we can allow nuclear fuels and weapons to continue to fall into the hands of governments that are feeling cornered by U.S. threats and into the possession of stateless militants. Even during the time Shultz held office, when there were fewer fingers on fewer nuclear triggers, "there were more close calls than you were comfortable with," he told me. An international agreement to abolish nuclear weapons could bring these dangerous loose nukes back under control and eventually eliminate them.

The reduction in the world's nuclear stockpiles, combined with an assurance that the U.S. will not attack Iran unless Iran attacks another country, would be major steps towards building the foundations for peace and the restoration of stability and security for all parties in the Middle East. And it would begin repairing the damaged reputation of the United States, showing that we can be a leader for global peace and democracy.

Whatever your views on war with Iran, now may be your last best chance to speak out.

Note:
As has become the norm lately, the most sane policies are coming not out of Washington, DC, but out of state and local government. In her article in YES! with Ben Manski, Karen Dolan, of Cities for Peace, shows local governments setting a different direction on issues ranging from climate change to foreign policy; in her recent op-ed, she tells of the 32 U.S. mayors who have passed resolutions opposing war on Iran.

You can find additional resources on stopping the next war here.

Offshore drilling-No! Smart energy-YES!

2008-06-19T09:06:00.000-07:00

Proposals by presidential hopeful John McCain and Florida Governor Charlie Crist to drill for oil offshore is the wrong direction for the United States, and most Americans know it.

We have only a short time to make a turnaround on climate change or the weather disasters we're seeing in the Midwest could become the norm, and we could find ourselves in runaway cycles that could make much of the planet inhospitable to human life.

Instead of drilling for more of the very carbon-based fuel that is causing the problem, the American people by large majorities favor conservation and the development of renewable energy. And the alternatives are well within our means.

Buildings are responsible for 30-40 percent of the climate impact. By retrofitting existing buildings and making new construction climate friendly, we'll create green jobs where they are most needed, and jump start a stalling economy, while reducing our carbon footprint.

Americans are driving much less then they were a year ago -- 1.4 billion fewer highway miles in April 2008 compared to April 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Many are scrambling to find alternatives, and public transportation and electric vehicle are available, as we outlined in the YES! Climate Change issue. But a bit of leadership at the federal level would go a long way towards softening the blow of high fuel prices while reducing our climate impact.

To make sure that there is enough clean electricity to run these climate-friendly forms of transportation, we need a major investment in wind, solar, geothermal, tidal energy. This is all quite do-able. Sweden is making progress on its pledge to go oil free in 15 years. And Germany is a leading country in solar installation, not because it is especially sunny, but because it made the commitment. Many of the best energy policy ideas we found as we researched our climate change issue are being implemented in Germany. All of these policies are well within our reach here in the U.S. All of them would provide new areas for economic growth and buffer us from the long-term shock of high oil prices.

Despite all these option, you'll still hear people say that increasing offshore drilling would be a favor to American families. But what do the American people say?

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken June 6-9 shows 27 percent of us favor the development of wind and solar power, while just 16 percent favor offshore exploration.
A March 2008 Gallup poll shows that 61 percent of Americans favor conservation of existing energy supplies over production of more oil, gas, and coal supplies.
Sixty-four percent of those surveyed last year (I don't have 2008 numbers) were even willing to pay higher energy taxes if the money was used for the development of renewable energy alternatives.

On this issue, like a number of others, the American people are out ahead of their leaders.

Maybe this will be the election season when the American people offer our representatives clarity about what we want, and insist that they do their jobs representing us--not big oil and coal--and our aspirations for a sustainable future for all.

Correction: Two states (not one) have apologized to Native people

2008-06-13T12:33:00.000-07:00

In my earlier blog on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's apology to Canada's First Peoples, I wrote that "one state" in the U.S. had also apologized to Native People. A commenter on the Common Dream posting of this blog points out that another state legislature also apologized. Virginia's House and Senate, in March of 2007 adopted a resolution of regret to both Native Americans and African Americans.

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly hereby acknowledge with profound regret the involuntary servitude of Africans and the exploitation of Native Americans, and call for reconciliation among all Virginians; and, be it

RESOLVED FURTHER, That on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the settlement at Jamestown, the General Assembly call upon the people of the Commonwealth to express acknowledgment and thanksgiving for the contributions of Native Americans and African Americans to the Commonwealth and this nation, and to the propagation of the ideals of liberty, justice, and democracy

Other states have considered such apologies, but so far as I know, only Colorado and Virginia have actually adopted resolutions apologizing for the treatment of Native peoples.

Please correct me if I missed any others!

Canada says "sorry." Will we?

2008-06-12T08:35:00.000-07:00

Canada said sorry on Wednesday. Four months earlier, it was Australia. Now it's our turn.

All three countries have a history of mistreatment of the original peoples of their respective lands. All three forcibly separated children from their families, communities, and cultures. And ironically, these same three countries were among the four (including New Zealand) who voted against the recently adopted UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Wednesday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper did what was long overdue. The Conservative leader in a speech in the House of Commons apologized for Canada's policy of forcing First Nations children into residential schools. He acknowledged the suffering of individual children who were often abused, inadequately housed and fed, prevented from speaking their language and learning their culture. And he recognized that the harm has had far-reaching ripple effects. You can watch the Canadian Prime Minister's apology here.

"We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions, that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that, in separating children from their families, we undermined the ability of many to adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow, and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that, far too often, these institutions gave rise to abuse or neglect. ..."

And, addressing the First Nations' leaders who listened to his statement on the floor of the House of Commons, he added:

"You have been working on recovering from this experience for a long time and in a very real sense, we are now joining you on this journey. The government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly."

The day was marked by ceremonies in 30 locations across Canada, where First Nations people gathered to remember and to commemorate the apology.

Canada's apology follows a similar one by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the Aboriginal peoples in February of this year. Like in Canada, young Aboriginals were taken from their families, often by force, and sent to schools and homes where they were often abused, exploited, and prevented from speaking their language or practicing their way of life.

The United States has a similar legacy, but has yet to apologize. One state has stepped up and issued a somewhat different sort of apology, though. In a non-binding resolution, the Colorado Legislature apologized in late April for the intentional deaths, "cruelty, and inhumanity" inflicted on Native peoples. According to an article in Indian Country Today, the resolution specifically mentions the forced removal of the Cherokee Nation in 1838 and the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, when as many as 200 Native people -- mostly elderly men, women and children -- were killed by members of the Colorado militia.

That's one state that's acted, 49 to go, plus the federal government. There's some good news from Washington, D.C., though. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican, and Michigan Democrat Dale Kildee, head of the House's Native American Caucus, are pressing for congressional action, and they could succeed.

An apology to Native peoples is an important first step, but it should be accompanied by a commitment to discontinue the old practices of taking Native land and taking away Native peoples' political rights. And there are a lot of old wrongs that we can still make right.

While we're at it, the United States also owes an apology to the descendants of the slaves whose uncompensated labor built so much of the wealth of this country.

Barack is in, air travel is out

2008-06-05T14:29:00.000-07:00

Today marked the beginning of one era and the ending of another.

Today is the first day in U.S. history that an African-American will carry the banner for president from one of our major political parties. It wasn't long ago that African Americans in many parts of the U.S. couldn't even register to vote without risking their lives. And even today, the suppression of voting in communities of color continues. This moment does not mean we have vanquished the mean spirit of racism and all the selfish opportunism that goes with it. In fact, we could see much more in the general election.

Yet it is a moment when people of all the colors chose a nominee based on the content of his character, his intelligence, his nuanced understanding of policy and politics, and perhaps most important, his evident passion that we as a nation reach for the best of who we are. His unwillingness to pander or to fling mud has already raised the bar of this campaign season--already made it easier to get into the political fray without feeling the need to shower immediately after.

Barack Obama represents many things to many people, but perhaps most importantly, he represents a tipping point--a moment when we realize how much stronger our nation can be when we can draw for leadership on all the communities that make up the United States, not just on those who have led in the past.

And we're going to need that strength, creativity, and unity of purpose as we confront the crises caused by eight years of the Bush administration and also caused by our collective denial of the world we have all helped to create.

Which brings me to what may be another tipping point reached today. United Airlines joined American and Continental Airlines in announcing major cutbacks in staff, routes, or the number of planes they'll be flying. USA Today has a good summary of who is affected as the high price of fuel hits an already unstable airline industry. The lower supply of airplane seats will likely lead to higher prices and shortages of seats for those outside business class.

We may look back at the summer of 2008 as the time when cheap travel ended in the United States.

Many, including YES!, have been predicting the end of cheap oil for some time. In the Fall of 2004, we published an issue entitled: Can We Live Without Oil? As I read about the airlines, I reread my opening editorial, written when oil was still about $25 a barrel (it had nearly doubled that by the time we went to press):

Can we live without oil? Can I?
Like it or not, I'm realizing that before long, we're going to have to learn how to live with a lot less. This is true for several reasons, any one of which would be motivation enough, but together, the picture is stark:
Scientists, normally wary of emotional appeals, are issuing alarming warnings about the dangers of climate change. [See the Spring 2008 issue of YES!]
The war in Iraq is not going well, and the continued use of military force to guarantee access to oil supplies is deeply problematic.
Exploration and exploitation of oil supplies continues to degrade what remains of pristine habitats and the lands of indigenous peoples.
Production of oil is at or near its peak, and even the most optimistic estimates say production will begin an inexorable decline within a generation. Meanwhile, consumption continues to rise, notably in the U.S. and China. It is difficult to imagine that oil will remain cheap and available as this gap between supply and demand widens. [Italics added]

What will it mean to live in a 21st century that is phasing out dependence on fossil fuels? No one knows the answer to that, but as we enter this new world, we do know one thing. We'll need to work together if we are to have a chance. Barack Obama's nomination is an important sign that we might in fact be able to do that.

Purple America

2008-05-13T20:58:00.000-07:00

The summer issue is just going out to subscribers and newsstands. It's called Superpower? Get Over It -- Time to Join the Community of Nations. I was surprised as we worked on it how many practical win-win ideas are readily available that would vastly improve our standing in the world, our economy, the sustainability of the natural world, in fact most aspects of life.

We'll post it later in the month, but you can get your own copy (which is really the best way to read YES! and to support YES!) here.

Meanwhile, here's a heads up on our fall issue, as described by managing editor Doug Pibel:

YES! Issue 47
Purple America

The United States didn't used to be a country starkly divided into blue people and red people whose political affiliations automatically marked them as disagreeing on everything. And it still isn't.

The "Red State/Blue State" idea fills the air, especially during campaign years. It's an easy, lazy way to categorize people, dramatize political races, and reinforce the notion that the United States is verging on a civil war. What it's not is connected to reality—and that's becoming increasingly clear as people on both sides of the red-blue divide cross over to express support, especially for Obama and McCain.

We've run "Signs of Life" on a couple of polls (Winter 2007, page 9; Fall 2007, page 9 and here ) that show what we all know, when we stop to think about it: The bitter disagreements are at the edges. They're about issues that get inflated in importance, that drive wedges between us. But on many issues, we all agree, regardless of political color.

In this issue of YES! we want to look at a purple U.S. What are the things we agree on? Where can we find common ground? What values lie below the issues that seem to divide, and do these deeper values sometimes point to possible ways forward? How can we reach out and break through the artificial divide that says we've got nothing to say to one another?

Surveys say that more than two-thirds of us want federally funded healthcare. Nearly 90 percent want more investment in renewable energy. More than three-quarters favor gender equality in the workplace.

In our "Purple America" issue, we want to showcase stories where people are acting on these common interests; where people are reaching out to their supposed polar opposites and finding that they can set aside their differences and work together to bring about the changes that a majority of us favor. We invite pitches for stories, contact information for potential story subjects, opinion poll results, and discussion aimed at refining this topic.

Send your ideas to submissions [a t] yesmagazine [ d o t] org

How to Come Out of the Food Crisis

2008-04-28T13:57:00.000-07:00

Here's one of the most chilling facts I heard about the current food crisis. People in Haiti living on $2 a day are paying more than $1 for a bowl of rice. Sparse diets are becoming starvation diets, and people who were just barely holding on before are facing desperation.

Even in the United States, land of abundance and charity, people are scrambling to keep up with rising food prices. KUOW, Seattle's NPR affiliate, invited people to call in today about how they are coping, and the voices ranged from resigned (we just have to consider meat a condiment, not a staple) to desperate (I got sick, lost my job, and now I'm trying to feed four children on the $400 per month I get from welfare.)

The immediate need is for emergency measures to get food to prices that the poor can afford.

But there is the longer term question, also, about the industrial agriculture model we've come to rely on. As John Nichols points out in a recent article in The Nation, the policies of trade liberalization, agribusiness, and genetically modified crops have brought us to this point. Growing genetically modified, fertilizer-hungry crops for international trade has been richly rewarded. Growing locally-bred crops for local subsistence has been undermined by these global policies.

Economics 101 tells us that everything, including food, should be sold to the highest bidder. But the highest bidder at the moment may be the biofuel industry, which is converting vast quantities of corn into ethanol and other biofuels.

Here's another chilling fact, this one from Lester Brown, of the Earth Policy Institute. The amount of corn needed to fill up an SUV with ethanol would feed someone for a year.

SUVs are competing with human beings for grain, and grain-fed farm animals are also. As more people, especially the Chinese, demand more meat, there is less available to feed people.

The laissez-faire economics breaks down at this point. Poor people have less cash, so they can't compete in the global marketplace with SUVs or steak dinners. There is no ethical way to justify this.

Instead, we need to take a page from Naomi Klein's new book, The Shock Doctrine. Her book shows that disasters--natural and human made--often provide openings for policies that people would never accept under ordinary circumstances. She calls this anti-democratic practice, disaster capitalism.

Perhaps we need to do the inverse. Use disastrous times to create the bottom-up, deeply democratic alternatives that, during ordinary times, might seem more trouble than they're worth. These alternatives may be small scale at first, but they can function like seeds in a supersaturated solution. Without these particles, a solution can remain in a dissolved state. But add the "seeds" and crystals rapidly take shape and grow.

On KUOW this morning, people talked of planting more gardens, going to the farmers market, hooking up with local farmers. Local food is not expected to get more expensive, one farmer said.

Rather than follow the advice of World Bank president Robert Zoellick, who is calling for more of the same trade liberalization and instead of pushing GM crops on more farmers and consumers, we should turn to local production for local, human consumption. Biofuels should be made from waste crops and manure, not from food. The Farm Bill has provisions we should support and others we need to resist. We should be developing the local capacities to feed ourselves, turning lawns into "victory gardens," supporting local farmers, helping new farmers to get a start, creating farm incubators.

Via Campesina, an international organization of farmers, has been pressing for these changes for years. Also Food First and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

YES! has been covering the emergence of this local, sustainable food movement for many years.

Local food was a big part of our Go Local! issue in winter 2007. Back in 2000, we reported on the rapid growth of the local foods movement. Even in the current issue on climate solutions, we focus on the contribution to climate solutions we can make by reducing our consumption of meat.

With increasing consensus that peak oil is nearly upon us, these local food systems will soon be recognized as the life boats they are.

Cesar Chavez Day

2008-03-31T12:13:00.000-07:00

He would have been 81 today -- Cesar Chavez, an organizer of farmworkers, some of the most marginalized people living and working in the United States, and a hero to those who believe nonviolence can change the world. The United Farmworkers is pushing for legislation to make his birthday a national holiday. It's already a state holiday in California, Texas, Arizona, and several other states. Senator Barak Obama called for making March 31 a national holiday in a statement issued today.

Democracy Now's Amy Goodman interviewed United Farmworker co-founder Dolores Huerta today. You can find the transcript here.

Obama raises the stakes—and Americans respond

2008-03-27T09:02:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama took a big gamble in his speech on Reverend Wright and race, last week. And it appears that Americans rose to the call. Instead of giving us a dumbed-down response to the controversy over Rev. Wright's inflammatory preaching, Obama spoke of the complexity, the good and bad, the hardships--and the triumphs that only sometimes result from lifetimes of struggle on uneven playing fields.

I didn't hear the speech as it was delivered. I was in Washington, DC, at a panel at the Take Back America conference on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., headed up by Rev. Jesse Jackson. I expected that the controversy with Rev. Wright would be discussed, but, bizarrely, there was not a single mention.

Instead, I read Obama's speech on the plane on the way home, in part to see if the words, read critically without his charismatic presentation, would be persuasive.

I felt then, and I feel now after having also watched the speech, that this is one of the most important speeches of our time.

Americans are deeply torn by the issue of race. Obama offered blunt honesty, pain, and hope, coupled with an expectation that we do have it within us all to struggle with an issue that lacks easy answers. No scapegoats were offered for people of any race. No turning a back on anyone, even when they say things we may not like. No easy answers, and no writing off the anger of black people or white people -- who have good reasons to be angry even though people of color are not the source of their pain nor should they be subjected to its expression.

We need to understand and address the causes of the deep disquiet so many feel in this country, and our inability to untangle the issues of race have kept us from doing that -- until now.

Did the gamble pay off? That will be up to all of us. Good leadership, like Obama's, is not a substitute for our own work on this issue. But he showed us it can be done and showed us how. And, according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal post-speech poll, the American people continue to admire and support Obama. He, unlike Hillary Clinton, continues to lead McCain in a hypothetical one-on-one contest.

Whatever you think of his candidacy, Obama is offering us a way forward in the difficult, but ultimately deeply hopeful, process of taking on one of the big challenges of our time -- how we get along across the many lines that divide us.

How to Measure What Really Matters

2008-03-12T13:53:00.000-07:00

Forty years ago this week, Robert Kennedy gave his famous speech questioning the GDP. An economic yardstick sounds like a topic of -- shall we say -- limited interest for most people.

But it turns out to be a critical question. If you orient your policies around one measure of success, it better be a good one, and the Gross Domestic Product is not.

Kennedy points out in his speech that it is not "economic growth" that matters most, and that economic growth does not necessarily result in the things that do matter -- like healthy children, clean air, a meaningful life. If you care about those things, you make different sorts of policies -- ones that invest in long-term well being which may, or may not, be associated with economic expansion.

It's a topic YES! has been on about for years. YES! board chair, David Korten, wrote about it in the summer '06 issue of YES! Living Wealth: Better than Money, and in Money Versus Wealth back in our spring 1997 issue, and more recently, contributing editor Jon Rowe wrote about it in his article entitled The Hidden Commons.

Jon Rowe will be among those testifying this week at a congressional hearing on the shortcomings of the GDP. The Glaser Progress Foundation is focusing on this question, and a new video of a portion of Robert Kennedy's speech, with images that illustrate why this matters so much, is now up on YouTube.

Beyond Empire: A Just U.S. Foreign Policy

2008-02-11T12:13:00.000-08:00

Here's what we are thinking about for the summer issue of YES! Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

In the latter part of the 20th century, the U.S. moved into an increasingly powerful empire role. After the fall of the USSR, it became the sole superpower, the largest military spender, by far, with close to 800 foreign bases and a mammoth stockpile of nuclear weapons. We also have among the highest per capita rates of consumption of the world's resources, and the U.S. is increasingly placing itself above international law.

In the presidential debates, the candidates and parties differ about foreign policy. But none of them is questioning that the U.S. will continue its imperial course.

This issue of YES! begins with the premise that the American empire cannot last much longer:

It is fast moving beyond the means of the American people. The U.S. can no longer sustain the massive drain on its resources of maintaining two foreign wars, pork-barrel weapons systems, hundreds of foreign bases. The under-investment in human, social, capital and infrastructure at home is undermining our security.
The rising oil prices (and limited supply), coupled with the rapidly expanding reach of the Chinese economy and competition for energy and raw materials, are constraining our economic dominance.
The loss of stature of the U.S. in the wake of the Iraq occupation has undermined the international legitimacy of the U.S. empire.

If the U.S. empire can't be sustained, what comes next? An economic collapse as overreach comes home to roost? A hand-off to other power-centers (China/India/Russia or the E.U.)? All-out war as we attempt to protect our global dominance?

Can we imagine instead that the U.S. leads the way to a post-empire world?

What would it mean to voluntarily step back from empire and join the community of nations? In particular:

What is our real source of security? Multi-million dollar jet fighters designed for air battles with the USSR? Or sustainable energy technologies widely shared and locally controlled? A generation of veterans and civilians traumatized by the occupation of Iraq? Or populations with reliable access to education and health care, food and water? Garrison states, with secrecy as official policy and limited civil liberties? Or transparency, rule of law, rights for all?
Can we be secure with a military that is at the same scale as those of other wealthy regions, such as the E.U.? What will it take to unlearn what we've been taught about being under siege?
Can we dismantle our nuclear stockpile, as recently proposed by Kissinger, Shultz, and other former cold warriors (and by peace advocates for many years), and keep our promises in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to rid ourselves and the world of the existential threat of nuclear weapons?
How can our economy thrive without the economic stimulus of massive military spending and without the privileged access to the world's resources that comes with super-power status? What resources would be released, and how might that build the foundations of a strong, sustainable domestic economy?
How can we change our trade policies so migration is less driven by the economic disruptions brought about by NAFTA, CAFTA, the IMF, World Bank, and corporate domination? What is our fair share of the world's resources, and might living within our means reduce the impetus for a global military presence?
How do climate change, peak oil, and other signs of a "full planet" affect the future of international relations?
How can our policies help unlock the Israel-Palestinian stalemate, instead of perpetuating it? What can we do to under-cut the causes of terrorism, rather than spending billions and compromising democracy at home and abroad to counter a relatively small group of violent criminals?
How can we end the occupation of Iraq and prevent an attack on Iran?
How can we support nonviolent grassroots power to counter tyranny (in other words, how can we support real democracy), rather than supporting despots friendly to the U.S. to counter leaders who aren't? When is outside assistance constructive?
How can the diversity of cultures complement each other and enrich everyone's lives rather than set the stage for violent misunderstandings.
How does the trauma of one war set the stage for the next round of violent conflict, and are there ways to interrupt and heal this deadly cycle of trauma?
How can ordinary people get involved in creating foreign policy through their cities, states, or tribal governments and through citizen-to-citizen diplomacy?

We are especially interested in creative responses, diverse voices, and a variety of forms of articles (essays, profiles, stories, poems, info-graphics).

Please query asap, and before sending submissions: editors [at] yesmagazine.org. Include the number 46 in the subject line.

Just, green economic stimulus

2008-01-21T14:56:00.000-08:00

It's the perfect opportunity. Democrats and Republicans agree that an economic stimulus package is needed. So the government is getting ready to inject cash, quickly, into the economy. With markets plummeting, foreclosures up, this is urgent, right?

Here's another thing that's urgent: Getting the U.S. to kick the addiction to fossil fuels before we toast the planet. Building green, retrofitting buildings to reduce their climate footprint, weatherizing the homes of the poor and elderly, installing solar panels and wind mills. And making sure that the people who have been left out up until now, are part of this rebuilding of economy.

It all adds up to a great idea, being pressed by the people at 1Sky and others: Lets spend the economic stimulus money on greening the country, and lets put lots of people to work making it happen.

What better way could there be to address three of the most pressing issues of our time?

The moment things shifted in Bali

2007-12-18T21:27:00.000-08:00

Check out this amazing account of the moment the U.S. agreed to accept the worldwide pressure to end it's obstruction of climate change progress. This moment, captured by an eye witness in Bali, may be one of the most important historic moments of our lifetimes.

News from Bali on Averting Climate Catastrophe

2007-12-03T15:02:00.000-08:00

I'm not there -- in Bali, I mean. I'm here on rain-drenched Bainbridge Island working on our coming issue on how to avert climate catastrophe. But through the miracle of the internet, and some intrepid bloggers, you and I can nonetheless follow the action at what might turn out to be the most important confab of the century. Here's the link to a series of Bali blogs.

Responding to our Climate Emergency

2007-11-24T09:04:00.000-08:00

Now I'm beginning to understand why there is panic just under the surface when climate scientists explain what's happening to our planet.

For years they have been trying to get through to us. They've used the careful, measured language of science, couching their worries in the uncertainty that is intrinsic in a system as complex as the global climate. NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen refers to this as the problem of "scientific reticence."

Some special interests (particularly those funded by the oil and coal industries) have taken advantage of this reticence, suggesting it means the greenhouse phenomenon, and the human causes, remain in doubt. The reality is that scientists continue to refine and test their models, but if anything, the behavior of the climate is following the worst-case scenarios.

Some changes associated with the climate happen in a gradual, linear way. More carbon leads to more warming, which expands the volume of the oceans, for example, and gradually raises sea levels. But Hansen is among those who shows that the effects of greenhouse gases on climate can have an abrupt, non-linear quality. When a little bit of warming melts the reflective ice covering the Arctic Ocean, the dark sea beneath absorbs heat. A warming ocean hastens the melting of ice, and you have a positive feedback loop in which the warming climate is fueling still more warming.

Likewise, when rising temperatures cause permafrost to melt, methane is released into the atmosphere -- a gas more than 20 times more powerful in its greenhouse effect than carbon. More methane, more warming, more melting permafrost, still more warming.

A third example of this run-away effect is the drying of the Amazon, which, when healthy, is an extraordinary recycler of moisture and a carbon sink (that is, it absorbs and safely stores carbon). As the Amazon dries, it burns, dies, and becomes a source of carbon. There are other examples of this dynamic.

Fortunately, there are also some negative feedback loops -- more warming should result in more cloud cover, for example, which can deflect the warming effects of the sun. But so far, the feedback loops that cause further warming appear to have the upper hand.

We appear to be very near a tipping point, after which the effects of global heating feed on themselves, and it may be that by the end of the century, the Earth will be, as Jim Hansen puts it, a very different planet.

Our editorial team is pouring over studies and reports as we work on the spring issue of YES! on climate change. We will be forthright about what the science is telling us. We don't plan to try to spin the story for the benefit of the oil and coal industry--or to avoid alarming people.

We are skirting very close to danger, and what we do in the next few years (Hansen says less than 10 years) may determine whether we get caught up in run-away effects that will mean a new climate equilibrium of gases and temperature on Earth that may or may not support human life.

Most agree that we can still avert the worst. But the needed changes really are "inconvenient" as Al Gore says. Business as usual -- new coal plants, more cars, exploiting the tar sands, the continuation and spreading of the "American dream" -- any of these could be disastrous for many species of life, including our own. And some of the responses could also set us on a destructive path that does more to benefit narrow private interests than to solve the climate problem—so-called "clean" coal plants, most bio-fuels, nuclear power.

On the other hand, the changes we make that rise to this global emergency could also have spin-off benefits, including providing millions of jobs, restoring community, reducing poverty, giving us a fresh start on building the infrastructure of our societies. And especially heartening, people worldwide are ready to "step up" to the challenge.

The spring issue of YES! will lay out a path to averting disaster and restoring the health of our planet home, while we still have time. Here's a preview: what we in the wealthy part of the world -- especially the U.S. -- decide to do will make the difference—and the tools, will power, and intelligence are already with us. More on that soon.

How to Stop War on Iran

2007-11-10T20:37:00.000-08:00

Do you hear the drum beat of war? Does it sound like déjà vu all over again?

This time the target is Iran, the country President Bush recently referred to, jokingly, as a possible cause of World War III. There are two rationales for a U.S. attack--that we need to attack before Iran develops nuclear weapons, and that Iran is killing Americans in Iraq. Both are as questionable as the rationales for invading Iraq.

The plan? Veteran journalist Seymour Hersh spells it out in The New Yorker. Since the U.S. can't handle another ground war, this assault is likely to be a massive bombing attack. Congress recently appropriated funds to retrofit B-2 Stealth bombers to handle the enormous 15-ton bunker buster bombs slated for use in Iran.

The possible effects are terrible to imagine: Huge numbers killed and maimed, retaliations on U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, an even more inflamed Middle East, possibly retaliatory strikes against Israel, disruption of oil markets already pushing $100 a barrel, and further shocks to the U.S. economy, which is suffering from sub-prime mortgage debacle.

The majority of Americans know that there is a better way; according to a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll, 73 percent support diplomatic or economic engagement with Iran, and just 18 percent support military action. Likewise, Iran has made overtures to the U.S. to settle the differences by talking.

But the Bush administration has been unresponsive to both, and Congress has been unwilling to stand up to the out-of-control administration. So now is the time for "we the people" to educate ourselves and speak loud and clear. But what can we do? The worldwide protests prior to the Iraq war did not deter the invasion.

In the winter 2008 issue of YES!, veteran activists David Solnit and Aimee Allison make a critical strategic point. We cannot stop the war in Iraq or prevent war against Iran simply by appealing to the Bush administration. Instead, we have to put pressure on those who enable the war.

These enablers in this case include:

The media, whose unquestioning repetition of the administration’s rationale for war in Iraq set the conditions the invasion. Now, many in the media are doing it again. But unlike the president, media decision-makers care what we think. We can write to the news sources we use, asking them to be critical, balanced, and factual, and we can express our own views in letters to the editor, blogs, and by calling in to talk shows.

The Congress. Despite the anti-war mandate of the 2006 elections, Congress has done little to discourage administration from attacking Iran. In fact, the Senate adopted the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a “terrorist” organization. But there are some signs of backbone. On the first of November, 30 members of the Senate sent a letter to the president stating that no authorization exists for a unilateral US attack on Iran. Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia) and Representative Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) have each proposed amendments that require the approval of Congress before the administration can launch an attack on Iran. You can have an influence on your representative by talking to them in person, if possible, or writing. Get your town or city to adopt a resolution for diplomacy, not war, with Iran. Ask candidates for president and Congress for their positions on Iran as well as Iraq. If they say “all options are on the table,” challenge them to justify the use of nuclear weapons in our volatile world. And remember, Congress doesn't need a veto-proof majority to take action--all they need to do is withhold funds for unwise policies.

The military. A call has gone out to members of the military to refuse an order to bomb Iran—especially if it is an order to use nuclear bombs. Some believe there is already deep division within the military about administration plans for war. If you know people in the military, forward them this link.

International law. When the U.S. fails to abide by international law, we lay the groundwork for others to operate outside the law. If we want Iran to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we will have to also. The U.S., as a signer of the treaty, agreed to phase out our mammoth nuclear stockpile, by far the largest in the world. Instead, our government has been developing new nuclear weapons systems. But there's new momentum for getting serious about our obligations under the Treaty. Cold warriors George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry, and Sam Nunn are leading the charge, calling for a world without nuclear weapons.

A unilateral attack on Iran is a violation of international law. And it is immoral. Are we to become like the “good Germans” who did nothing while the Holocaust was taking place in their name? Now is the time for each of us to act on the four strategic pressure points and stop this madness.

Read more on what's being planned in Iran and what to do about it here.

Opportunities in disasters

2007-09-11T09:25:00.000-07:00

The anniversary of September 11 brings back memories of a world, shocked by a tragedy, standing together with the U.S. -- in the famous words of Jean-Marie Colombani, of Paris' Le Monde, "We are all Americans."

But instead of leading to greater wisdom about our place in the world -- as tragedies can do -- or getting smarter about police work, we embarked on wars that ramped up the tragedy, spreading death, maiming, even torture in their wakes. Sadly, there are few people outside the U.S. who would now say "we are all Americans."

Naomi Klein newest book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, excerpted in The Guardian, claims that worst excesses of capitalism frequently come into play following natural disasters, like Hurricane Katrina, and human-made disasters like the war in Iraq and the violent overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. These events result in shock and disorientation, according to Klein, and democratic processes and independent action fall by the wayside. Large corporations and their partners in right-wing governments use such moments to sweep away obstacles to centralized power and profit.

But it doesn't have to go that way. With climate change, there will be more and more natural disasters of all sorts. We need to get smarter about how to recover after disasters in ways that strengthen our capacity to take care of each other (including the vulnerable in our communities), preserve our commons, and build for our future.

The Common Ground collective in New Orleans is not only working to rebuild the grassroots strength of hard-hit neighborhoods in that city -- they are teaching other communities around the country how to prepare for disasters. The Community Solutions group is working on how to build resilient communities, and their annual conference is coming up in October. In Britain, communities are calling themselves "transition communities," and undertaking the process of shifting to a post-carbon way of life. In addition to contributing to the solution to global heating, this level of organization and resilience will position them to weather an increasing disrupted world.

As for me, I'm heading to Washington DC on Friday to attend the International Forum on Globalization's teach in on climate change, peak oil, and resource depletion.

Here's my thought on peak oil going in -- perhaps it will change once I listen to the international cast of speakers, including our own David Korten.

I think there is sufficient coal in the ground to keep the industrial world functioning for a long time after petroleum goes into decline. True, coal functions differently than liquid fossil fuels, but burned to generate electricity, coal can fuel transportation, and it can be liquefied. There is now a boom in the building of coal-fired plants across China and the United States, and Appalachian mountain tops are being removed to feed these plants.

To me, this is the danger -- not that we run out of energy, but that we switch to a fuel that is so poisonous to life. I am not at all confident in the claims that we can sequester the CO2 emissions from these plants, which is evidently what the NRDC believes, but we had better find out.

Meanwhile, at YES! we are looking at what it will take to transition to ways of life, transportation, land use, buildings, and policies that will avert the global emergency we now face with global heating. Stay tuned for our spring issue.

Two years after Katrina

2007-08-31T09:18:00.000-07:00

Two years after Katrina and Rita slammed the Gulf Coast, there are still too many unanswered questions and too many people whose lives are still on hold.

On the People's Freedom Caravan to the US Social Forum, we spent a day in New Orleans hearing stories of communities working to recover, including the people of the Lower Ninth Ward, which is still in shambles.

We learned that this was once among the top neighborhoods in the U.S. for African-American home ownership. Families who had lived there for generations are still struggling to return with the help of others in the neighborhood, but with little help from government.

We learned of public housing projects, unaffected by the storm, that have not allowed tenants to return, even to pick up their belongings. Some are calling the post-storm policies "ethnic cleansing."

The questions about why the levies broke, where the federal disaster money is going, what the new New Orleans will look like—way too many of these questions remain. An International Tribunal is meeting now in New Orleans to look for answers to why a moderate natural disaster became an unspeakable human tragedy that continues two years later.

(One thing I learned in Cuba is that people on that island, although frequently battered by hurricanes, rarely lose their lives. Here's a piece on how they manage.)

News on the continuing struggles can be found at the Katrina Action Network. And we continue to follow Common Ground and its visionary leader, Malik Rahim, and their work for the long-term recovery of poor communities in New Orleans and the restoration of wetlands that form a natural buffer to storms.

Other pieces from the YES! archive:

The rights of internally displaced people to return under international law, by Ajamu Baraka and Tonya M. Williams of the US Human Rights Network.

Katrina and the US Social Forum, by Alice Lovelace, organizer of the USSF.

Leave Us Alone ... to Drown? by YES! contributing editor Frances Moore Lappé.

Resurrect New Orleans: A Better City is Possible, by YES! contributing editor Van Jones.

Where FEMA Feared to Tread, by Tim Shorrock

Economic Rebirth After the Storm, on the Houma Tribe's struggle for recovery, by Meizhu Lui of United for a Fair Economy.

Katrina's Climate Chaos, by your editor and blogger.

Just received this email from the Miami Workers Center:

Community organizations and public housing residents from across the nation, along with Miami Workers Center and Power U Center for Social Change, stormed the Housing Agency of New Orleans (HANO) office at around 12:30 PM today. The organizations we are acting in solidarity with displaced residents of New Orleans public housing. HANO, under federal HUD leadership, has fenced off four public housing projects and will not let people return to their homes even though the units were not damaged by the storm two years ago.

After a three-hour standoff, surrounded by police, the National Guard and the SWAT team the residents and activists gave up their occupation of the building and held a national press conference. They put out the message that housing is a human right, not only in New Orleans but throughout the country, and that communities faced with displacement will not go down without a fight. The action was also a move to claim dignity for public housing residents from New Orleans, most of whom are African-American, who have been criminalized, disregarded, and robbed of their homes.

Below is an account of the takeover from Ms. Yvonne Stratford, LIFFT leader, and Tony Romano, Organizing Director of the Miami Workers Center.

Ms.Yvonne

People from New York, from Chicago, from Miami, and California, we all went into the HUD office. We were looking for the director of HUD. They said he wasn't there. They said he was out of town. So we decided we wanted to see the second in charge.
A lot of people around here don't have places to go. They need housing down here. We said we were going to stay down here until 5 PM. We were occupying the place. They told us that if we left we wouldn't be arrested. We decided that since the media was there we could hold a press conference and tell people about what is going on instead of getting arrested, so we did.
We were demanding to get the housing back. I wasn't scared. I didn't back down. I would have gone to jail. People are getting displaced everywhere. You know, you get tired, and when you get really tired that's when you got to take a stand.

Tony Romano

This was a national action of groups from around the country. We are calling for justice for public housing residents in NOLA. We all stormed the HANO office. The key objective was to meet with the man in charge. He has played a strong role in keeping public housing residents out of public housing. All the military was there. This is the beginning, this is part of a national movement of public housing residents, not just for justice in NOLA, but through out the country. After a three-hour standoff we held a press conference.
We see today as victory even though we didn't meet with the head of HANO because of the unity and the message that got out. Housing is a human right and this wont go down without a fight.

Liberating spaces

2007-08-09T18:01:00.000-07:00

The fall issues of YES! on standing up to corporate power have not yet arrived from the printer, but we're already deep at work on the next issue. Here's our thought about what the issue might involve (and a request for your ideas), and afterwards, there is a question for you.

YES! #44: Winter 2008

Liberated Spaces
or
Whose Space? Our space.
or
DIY—creating free spaces

People ask the powerful for what they already have. There exists another notion of power: the idea that the people already have it. In this conception, power has another name. It is called dignity.
-Gustavo Esteva

I believe it to be perfectly possible for an individual to adopt the way of life of the future. . . without having to wait for others to do so.
-Mahatma Gandhi

In the game of chess, you win by confronting and vanquishing your enemy. In the game of Go, you win by taking over spaces. You simply surround territory and make it yours.

The “liberated spaces” issue of YES! magazine is about taking the game of Go into the way we live our lives. Instead of waiting for the world to change so we can live as we would like to live, we create the spaces where we can make it so, now.

Instead of looking for policy changes or the right job, we create the lives we want, along with others, without waiting for permission of the authorities. This is the approach of the autonomists, the street artists, the tent city dweller. Some people are on the fringes of society because they have been excluded -- because they are poor, a sexual minority, undocumented. Some because they choose not to fit in. In either case, they can, together or separately, create a different world within which to live their lives.

Spaces that can be liberated include physical spaces, virtual spaces (on line), and consciousness spaces (the freed mind).

Examples of possible article topics:

The Critical Mass bike rides — taking over the streets for bicycles
Street art that creates community space
Egalitarian communities
Villages in Colombia that declared themselves peace zones
A death-row inmate who has found inner freedom although he remains behind bars.
Your idea here (leave it as a comment or email: editors ( at ) yesmagazine ( dot ) org. Put the word "free" in the subject line.)

OK, here's the question: Where have you felt most free? Leave your answer in the comment field below or email as above. By participating in this process, we assume that you are giving us permission to publish your response in YES! or on our website.

Taking on corporate power: it's not only possible, it's patriotic

2007-08-03T17:10:00.000-07:00

The talented and hard-working editorial interns, Catherine and Zach, came to work last Friday wearing ugly ties. They were celebrating the completion of work on the fall issue of YES! on corporate power, which comes with an assortment of ugly ties on the page corners, each accompanied by a shocking, but true, fact about corporations.

If you're a YES! subscriber, you will soon be receiving a copy of this issue. (If you're not a subscriber, try it out for free here.)*

We worked with a team of leading activists who each have won some important victories in human rights, the environment, globalization. But each also came to see that their victories are short-lived or partial if we don't take on one of the root causes -- the overwhelming power of corporations.

As it turns out, taking on corporate power is not only possible, it's patriotic

In addition to articles on corporations, we have a piece by Barbara Kingsolver on growing her own food, a piece I wrote on the US Social Forum, humor, up-to-date news and reviews, No Comment on the latest from the YES Men, and of course, the Page that Counts.

Like the health care issue, this issue highlights an emerging movement to take on corporate pwer, which has yet to be recognized by the mainstream press -- and probably won't be recognized by the corporate press.

*(Note: You probably gathered, given the topic, that YES! doesn't get funding from corporations, and we don't take ads. We rely on you to subscribe and make donations to support our work.)