Kate Braun : Samhain Begins ‘The Time that Is no Time’


Samhain is the Third Harvest

And over the ashes the stories are told, of witches and werewolves and Rock Island gold…

By Kate Braun / The Rag Blog / October 20, 2010

Sunday, October 31, 2010 is Samhain (Halloween, Third Harvest, All Hallows Eve). This begins “the time that is no time,” the dark of the year that lasts until Yule (the Winter Solstice), when once again Lord Sun emerges from his slumbers to warm and renew Mother Earth. Lady Moon is in her fourth quarter, in Leo, suggesting an emphasis on nurturing our histories, sharing our stories, using that knowledge to prepare for the coming year.

Array yourself and your surroundings using the colors black and orange. Red, brown, and golden yellow may be used as accent colors. Pumpkins, cornstalks, cauldrons, apples, black cats, and images of the waning moon are only some of the typical decorations for this celebration.

Since this is Third Harvest, your menu can be bountiful: beef, pork, poultry, apples, nuts, turnips, gourds of all kinds, mulled wine, and especially pumpkin. Pie is not the only way to serve this vegetable. Other pumpkin possibilities include: soup, sauteed, stuffed, and muffins. If you choose to use fresh, not canned, pumpkin, remember that toasted pumpkin seeds are also a tasty and nutritious food.

A favorite activity for this season is bobbing for apples. As with many of the Samhain traditions, this activity can be used for receiving insights from “the other side.”

Set a large tub, preferably wooden, on the floor (with a waterproof tarp under it if you set it up indoors) and fill it with water. Add lots of apples and stir them with a long pole or wooden spoon to set them spinning. Participants kneel around the tub, and get 3 tries each to grasp an apple in their mouths as the apples swirl by.

If an apple is captured, s/he who caught it should, before the stroke of midnight, sit before a mirror in a room lit by only one candle while holding the apple and contemplate the apple while focusing inward and asking a question. The candle flame should not be reflected in the mirror.

The apple should then be cut into nine pieces and, while sitting facing away from the mirror, eat eight of the apple pieces, then throw the ninth over the left shoulder. Turning the head to look over the same (left) shoulder into the mirror can show in the mirror an image or symbol that will answer the question.

This is the season to tell and re-tell stories from your past. Encourage your guests to tell the tales they heard from their grandmothers. The past lays the foundation for the future; sharing this sort of lore keeps us in a never-ending loop of remembrance, preparation, and action that, ideally, avoids repeating mistakes.

[Kate Braun’s website is www.tarotbykatebraun.com. She can be reached at kate_braun2000@yahoo.com.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Paul Beckett : Mahmoud Abbas and the Ubiquitous Pen

Does Hillary Clinton carry with her an elegant Montblanc pen?

Mahmoud Abbas:
‘Is This A Pen I See Before Me?’

What a minefield Abbas must now traverse… How can he be the one now to legitimize more than 40 years of oppression and land theft by Israel?

By Paul Beckett / The Rag Blog / October 20, 2010

Once again, the great charade. The endless shuttles, the brinksmanship. A Middle East “peace process” is, well, in process.

It is all so familiar now. All the details — including the lack of details — are there, warmed over from Oslo, from Madrid, from Clinton’s Camp David.

But IS it a charade? Maybe not. Perhaps Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thinks she can finish the work her husband Bill failed to finish at Camp David in 2000.

The big question (as ever) is: can the Palestinians be made, this time, to sign the unconditional surrender document that is there on the table?

Mahmoud Abbas with visage of Yasser Arafat in background. Image from Palestine Chronicle.

Does Hillary perhaps carry in her purse or briefcase the very pen — an elegant Montblanc fountain pen, perhaps — that poor old Yasser Arafat finally refused to take up with his palsied hand at Camp David? Does she think that Mahmoud Abbas, another old man, can be made to take the pen and sign?

She seems to. The effort is serious. The Europeans have been arrayed. The ever-serviceable Tony Blair was moved into position three years ago, as the Special Envoy representing the Quartet (the U.S., the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations). Blair is thus able to tell Abbas he can expect no help to come from other quarters.

Mubarak as well is in position, presumably with the same message. Meanwhile, George Mitchell, yet another old man, toggles between Ramallah and Jerusalem pretending tirelessly that this is a process of negotiation between equals.

How does Abbas feel about it all? Is it my imagination that he looks profoundly sad as he is made to walk with the real power-holders down a White House hallway?

He surely worries about that pen, ready for his hand. He must remember so well the fate of his old comrade-in-arms, Yasser Arafat. Arafat was brought to Camp David with a promise that, should the talks fail, the failure would not be hung around his neck.

He was presented with a deal which, the Americans would have said, was the best deal the Palestinians could ever hope for. (Undoubtedly the Palestinians are frequently reminded that each deal they rejected in the past was better than the next one to come.)

President Clinton seemed to believe. He apparently trusted his two managers of the Camp David process (Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk) even though both had long and deep ties to Israel’s expansionist governments. Big, bluff, charismatic Bill Clinton held the pen and urged Arafat to sign. Surely Bill would not lend himself to a shameful and dishonest deal.

But it WAS a shameful and dishonest deal. The Israelis had not really made any solid commitments at all, either to the Americans or the Palestinians. The maps were vague. The percentages of withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories were dishonestly calculated.

In fact, Palestinian territory would be broken into enclaves divided by the inexorably expansive processes of settlements, roads, nature preserves, security reserves, etc. [See map below.]

Map from UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2007.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

And, while words like sovereignty and independence were grandly used, the reality was that a Palestinian “state” would not have any of the essential attributes of sovereignty. It would be permanently disarmed. It would not have control of international boundaries (the Jordan valley would remain under Israeli control).

It would not control its own airspace and sea space. It would not have security power over its “state” territory except over its own people, whom the “state” would be expected to keep under control. Astonishingly, the “state” would not even control Palestinian water resources, large proportions of which now go to Israel.

On top of that, as Arafat saw, all the obligations falling on Palestinians were front-loaded. Palestine would give up rights under international law immediately and for all time. (And these rights, and the refusal to surrender them, represent the only thing the Palestinians have to negotiate with.)

Obligations falling on Israel, such as withdrawal of a large proportion of the smaller and more isolated settlements, not only were vague, but they were back-loaded: things that might happen in the future. Or might not. They would be dependent not only on the realities of Israeli politics (“Withdraw settlements? –are you crazy?”), but on the good behavior of Palestinians. Good behavior defined and judged by Israel, that is.

Unlike virtually every case of new statehood since 1945, Palestinian “statehood” would be probationary, not immediate. Quite possibly, for a very long time.

Arafat could not sign. He didn’t. Immediately, the “failure” of Camp David WAS hung around his neck. Subsequently, with no effective protest from the U.S., this aged nationalist leader was imprisoned in his offices, with Israeli bulldozers making the space smaller and smaller and uglier and uglier. The most humiliating circumstances of existence, including overflowing toilets, were arranged for his old age.

Still he remained, an obstacle to the unconditional surrender that Israel wanted the Americans to arrange. Ariel Sharon was impatient, wanting to impose his own “final settlement” before he died. Arafat, old, palsied, maltreated, and seemingly feeble, did not cooperate by dying. Finally he did die, in France, in a way that seems to have mystified the French doctors who examined him before and after. We may never know the cause of death.

What a minefield Abbas must now traverse. If, in the face of Israel’s continued seizure of Palestinian land (humiliating for himself as also for the U.S.) he breaks off negotiations, how much different from Yasser Arafat’s will be his own fate? And how much more misery will be visited on the people of the West Bank and Gaza in Israel’s never ending (and so far never successful) effort to break their will?

But what else is possible for Abbas? He is Abu Mazen, for most of his life a representative of the anti-colonial aspirations of the Palestinian people. How can he be the one now to legitimize more than 40 years of oppression and land theft by Israel?

Poor Mahmud Abbas. Perhaps this is a charade, soon to pass. But what if it’s not? If not, and if Hillary and Tony have their way, the pen WILL be put before him. When it is, the most powerful men and women of the world will be there, smiling and radiating good faith as they nudge him gently but oh-so-firmly in the pen’s direction. What to do? What to do?

(A later article will explore in more detail the shape of a final settlement that the leadership of Israel could accept, whether as part of the present “peace process,” or a later one.)

[Dr. Paul A. Beckett is a specialist on international politics who lives in Madison, Wisconsin. He can be reached at beckettpa@gmail.com.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ted McLaughlin : Americans Believe Afghan War Is ‘Lost Cause’

U.S. marine at a military camp in Fallujah. Photo by Roslan Rahman / AFP.

Public opinion strong against war:
Afghan nation-building is ‘lost cause’

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / October 20, 2010

Right after the 9/11 tragedy there was a great desire to strike back at the criminals who destroyed the Twin Towers and killed thousands. We knew at the time that the culprits were members of a shadowy group of fanatics called al-Queda, but you can’t use military power to attack a group of terrorists that move from country to country to save themselves and carry out their nefarious plans. We should have used the FBI and the CIA to fight these terrorists, two groups that are trained to deal with criminals and criminal groups.

But the American government (and most of the people) wanted to make a show of attacking those responsible, and nobody puts on a show of power like the United States military. Since the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan, were known to support al-Queda and had allowed them to set up training bases in that country, the Bush administration decided to make an example of that country. They would kick the Taliban out and do a little democratic nation-building. After all, didn’t the first Gulf War prove no one was a match for our military?

The problem was the government forgot the lessons of history — lessons that were learned hard in the bloody jungles of Vietnam (our first disastrous effort at nation-building). While it was true that our military demonstrated superiority in the first Gulf War, that was a limited conventional warfare against another nation’s military — not an effort at nation-building (and the Iraqi government was left in power).

Nation-building is a different matter, and we showed in Vietnam that we are not very good at it (and I doubt that any other country is either). You simply can’t force another country and its people to adopt the government you want them to have by using military power, especially when you have a problem distinguishing between enemy combatants and innocent civilians. It turns out that that is just as difficult in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan as it was in the jungles of Vietnam.

There is little doubt that George Bush mismanaged the war in Afghanistan (by withdrawing many troops before the fighting was over and sending them to Iraq), but even if he hadn’t made that mistake it is doubtful that our military could be successful in the Afghan nation-building effort. We replaced a group of religious criminals with a gang of corrupt criminals and then expected the Afghan people to thank us for that. They didn’t. They fought back as we killed innocents and created more enemies than we killed.

Now we find our country engaged in what seems to be an endless war in Afghanistan. And we are accomplishing nothing. After we clear an area of combatants and move to another area to do the same, the enemy returns to the first area. The only thing that was accomplished was a loss of life on both sides and among innocent civilians. In spite of our best efforts, it still looks like the Taliban hasn’t been eradicated, can’t be eradicated, and will probably take over the country again if we ever leave.

It has taken the American people a long time to realize this truth, but they finally have. A recent Bloomberg Poll shows that a clear majority of Americans now believe than the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause — a futile military effort that cannot result in victory. The poll, conducted October 7th through October 10th, has a maximum margin of error of 3.7%.

When the people were asked if America can win the Afghan War or whether it is a lost cause, the following answers were received:

Can win the war……………31%
It’s a lost cause……………60%
Not sure……………9%

Those numbers are not even close. We are not only not winning the Afghan War, the American people no longer believe it can be won. Why then, does the government plan to keep on fighting this “lost cause” war for at least another 15 months (and the military is already saying they want to stay even longer)?

Some might think that admitting the truth and coming out for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan would cost a politician votes. But this poll shows that is not true either. In fact it might actually help a candidate to have that position in the coming election.

Here are the results when the people were asked if they would be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, regardless of whether conditions are getting better or worse:

More likely……………48%
Would not matter……………15%
Less likely……………34%
Not sure……………3%

Since the numbers far exceed the margin of error on both questions, it leaves me wondering why we continue this silly war. Here are the facts:

  1. The government we installed is corrupt, misogynistic, and not supported by the people.
  2. We don’t have the resources to fight the Taliban in all areas of the country at the same time.
  3. If we attack one area, the Taliban goes to another area or hides in Pakistan.
  4. Our attacks, including unmanned drone attacks, kill many innocent civilians and create new enemies to fight.
  5. It is extremely unlikely that the government we installed could survive our withdrawal, regardless of how long we stay.
  6. A significant majority of Americans consider the war a “lost cause.”
  7. Only 34% of voters would vote against a candidate who favored withdrawal.

Considering those facts, it doesn’t make sense to go on fighting this ridiculous war. President Obama has promised to end this war at the end of 2011 — maybe. That’s a mistake. He should withdraw all American troops immediately (and while he’s at it, withdraw the rest of our troops from Iraq). Delaying will only cost more American and Afghan lives while accomplishing nothing.

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

THE CIA, KKK, & USA

By Sherwood Ross

By assigning covert action roles to the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA), it is as if the White House and Congress had legitimized the Ku Klux Klan to operate globally. That’s because the CIA today resembles nothing so much as the “Invisible Empire” of the KKK that once spread terror across the South and Midwest. Fiery crosses aside, this is what the CIA is doing globally.

The CIA today is committing many of the same sort of gruesome crimes against foreigners that the KKK once inflicted on Americans of color. The principal difference is that the KKK consisted of self-appointed vigilantes who regarded themselves as both outside and above the law when they perpetrated their crimes. By contrast, the CIA acts as the agent of

the American government, often at the highest levels, and at times at the direction of the White House. Its crimes typically are committed in contravention of the highest established international law such as the Charter of the United Nations as well as the U.S. Constitution. What’s more, the “Agency,” as it is known, derives its funding largely from an imperialist-minded Congress; additionally, it has no qualms about fattening its budget from drug money and other illegal sources. It is a mirror-image of the lawless entity the U.S. has become since achieving superpower status. And it is incredible that the White House grants license to this violent Agency to commit its crimes with no accountability. The Ku Klux Klan was founded shortly after the end of the U.S. Civil War. Klansman concealed their identities behind flowing white robes and white hoods as they terrorized the newly emancipated blacks to keep them from voting or to drive them from their property.

Allowing it to operate in secret literally gives the CIA the mythical Ring of Gyges. In Plato’s Republic, the owner of the ring had the power to become invisible at will. As Wikipedia puts it, Plato “discusses whether a typical person would be moral if he did not have to fear the consequences of his actions.” The ancient Greeks made the argument, Wikipedia says, that “No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men.” The CIA, like Hitler’s Gestapo and Stalin’s NKVD before it, has provided modern man the answer to this question. Its actions illuminate why all criminal entities, from rapists and bank robbers, to Ponzi scheme swindlers and murderers, cloak themselves in secrecy.

There are innumerable examples of how American presidents have authorized criminal acts without public discussion that the preponderant majority of Americans would find reprehensible. Example: it was President Lyndon Johnson who ordered the CIA to meddle in Chile’s election to help Eduardo Frei become president. If they had known, U.S. taxpayers might have objected to such a use of their hard-earned money to influence the outcome of another country’s elections. But the public is rarely let in on such illegal foreign policy decisions. Where the KKK after the Civil War terrorized blacks to keep them from voting, the CIA has worked to influence the outcome of elections all over the world through bribery and vote-buying, dirty tricks, and worse. According to investigative reporter William Blum in “Rogue State”(Common Courage Press), the CIA has perverted elections in Italy, Lebanon, Indonesia, The Philippines, Japan, Nepal, Laos, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Portugal, Australia, Jamaica, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, among other countries. If they had known, taxpayers might also object to the CIA’s numerous overthrows of foreign governments by force and violence—such as was done in Iran in 1953 by President Eisenhower and Chile in 1973 by President Nixon. Both overthrows precipitated bloodbaths that cost tens of thousands of innocent civilians their lives. Blum also lists the countries the CIA has attempted to overthrow or has actually overthrown.

His list includes Greece, The Philippines, East Germany, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iraq, Viet Nam, Laos, Ecuador, The Congo, France, Cuba, Ghana, Chile, South Africa, Bolivia, Portugal, and Nicaragua, to cite a few. As I write, today, October 11th, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina called on President Obama to revise U.S. (imperialist)policies toward Latin America. He questioned why the U.S. continues to plant its military bases across the region. That’s an excellent question. If the U.S. is a peace-loving nation, why does it need 800 bases the world over in addition to 1,000 on its own soil? Americans might recoil in disgust if they knew of the CIA’s numerous assassinations of the elected officials of other nations. Is it any wonder Americans so often ask the question, “Why do they hate us?” As historian Arnold Toynbee wrote in 1961, “America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defense of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for. Rome consistently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign communities that fell under her sway; and, since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been more numerous than the rich, Rome’s policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number.”

The CIA’s protective secrecy resembles nothing so much as the KKK, which proudly proclaimed itself “the Invisible Empire”

and whose thugs killed citizens having the courage to identify hooded Klansmen to law enforcement officials. Today, it is

our highest public officials that protect this criminal force, said to number about 25,000 employees. It is actually a Federal

offense to reveal the identity of a CIA undercover agent—unless, of course, you happen to be I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby,

and are employed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame to punish her

husband Joseph Wilson for publishing a report that undercut the White House lie that Saddam Hussein had purchased

“yellowcake” from Niger to fuel WMD. Today, high public officials direct the CIA’s criminal policies and protect its agents’

identities the better to enable them to commit their crimes.

According to journalist Fred Cook in his book “Ku Klux Klan: America’s Recurring Nightmare”(Messner), “The Klan was

inherently a vigilante organization. It could commit the most atrocious acts under the guise of high principle and

perpetrators of those acts would be hidden behind white masks and protected by Klan secrecy… (The Klan) set itself up as

judge, jury and executioner”—a policy adopted by the CIA today. CIA spies have conducted their criminal operations

masquerading as officials of U.S. aid programs, business executives, or journalists. Example: The San Diego-based Copley

News Service’s staff of foreign correspondents allegedly was created to provide cover to CIA spies, compromising

legitimate American journalists trying to do their jobs. While the murders committed by the KKK likely ran into the many

thousands, the CIA has killed on a far grander scale and managed to keep its role largely secret. As Tim Weiner, who

covered the CIA for the New York Times noted in his book “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA” (Anchor): “In

Guatemala, 200,000 civilians had died during forty years of struggle following the agency’s(CIA) 1954 coup against an

elected president.” Weiner adds, “the CIA’s officers in Guatemala still went to great lengths to conceal the nature of their

close relations with the military and to suppress reports that Guatemalan officers on its payroll were murderers, torturers,

and thieves.” When it comes to murder, the CIA makes the KKK look like Boy Scouts.

Like the KKK, CIA terrorists operate above the law. KKK members committed thousands of lynchings yet rarely were its

members punished for them. In 2009 at a speech at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, President Obama revealed he

was not intent on punishing CIA agents for their crimes but would rather “look forward.” This seemingly charitable

philosophy may be driven by the fact that Obama worked for Business International Corporation, a CIA front, at least in

1983 and perhaps longer, and allegedly is the son of a mother and father both of whom also worked for the CIA, as did

Obama’s grandmother! I could find none of this in Obama’s biography when he ran for the presidency, when a gullible

American public elected a CIA “mole” to the White House. Consider this, too: an agency President Truman feared would

become “an American Gestapo” when he signed the enabling legislation into law in 1947 has become just that, and it casts

a lengthy shadow over the White House. Ominously, it has in Barack Obama one of its own former employees sitting in the

Oval Office—a man who, according to news reports, has vastly expanded the frequency of the CIA’s assassinations by

drone aircraft in Pakistan and who illegally claims the “right” to assassinate any American citizen abroad as well. What’s

more, from 1989 to 1993 George Bush Sr., the CIA’s own former Director, sat in the White House. Additionally, from 2001

to 2009, the CIA had that Director’s son, George W. Bush, in the Oval Office giving the CIA a blank check after the 9/11

massacre. Bush Jr., according to The New York Times, in the summer of 1974 worked for Alaska International Industries,

which did contract work for the CIA. The Times noted that this job did not appear in his biography when he ran for the

White House in 2000, terming it “The Missing Chapter in the Bush Bio.” Thus, two presidential candidates with CIA ties—

Bush Jr. and Obama—both neglected to mention them. And in Bill Clinton, who presided from 1993 to 2001, the CIA had

a go-along president who satisfied the Agency’s blood-lust when he authorized the first illegal “rendition,” a euphemism

for what KKK thugs once knew as kidnapping and torture. Is there any question that the Agency has not played an

influential, behind-the-scenes or even a direct role in the operations of the U.S. government at its highest level? It may

indeed be a stretch to argue that the CIA is running the country but it is no stretch to say that year after year our

presidents reflect the criminal philosophy of the Agency.

Other parallels with the KKK are striking. As Richmond Flowers, the Attorney General of Alabama stated in 1966, “I’ve

found the Klan more than just another secret society… It resembles a shadow government, making its own laws,

manipulating local politics, burrowing into some of our local law-enforcement agencies…When a pitiable misfit puts on his

$15 sheet, society can no longer ignore him.” Yet the descendants of those misfits have moved up today where they feel

comfortable as operatives in the shadow government run by the White House. One of the CIA’s illicit duties has been to

serve as a conduit for funneling U.S. taxpayer dollars to corrupt dictators and strongmen bent on suppressing the popular

will of their citizenry. As Noam Chomsky wrote in “Failed States”(Metropolitan/Owl), in Honduras, “military officers in

charge of the battalion (3-16) were on the CIA payroll.” This elite unit, he says, “organized and trained by the United States

and Argentine neo-Nazis,” was “the most barbaric of the Latin American killers that Washington had been supporting.”

Like the KKK, the CIA kidnaps many of its victims with no thought ever of legal procedure. It exhibits utter disdain for the

rights of those individuals, the sovereignty of foreign nations, or respect for international law. At least hundreds of

foreigners, mostly from the Middle East, have been the victims of “renditions” just as the KKK kidnapped and flogged and

lynched blacks, labor leaders, Catholics, Jews, or wayward wives whom it felt to be morally lacking. In September, 1921,

The New York World ran a series exposing the KKK. It pointed out that, among other things, the KKK was violating the Bill

of Rights wholesale. This included the Fourth amendment against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” the Fifth and the

Sixth amendments, guaranteeing that no one may be held without a grand jury indictment or punished without a fair trial.

And these rights today are similarly trampled by the CIA against American citizens, not just foreigners. Apparently, only

foreign courts care to rein in the CIA. The 23 CIA agents that it took to render one “suspect” in Italy are wanted there by

the magistrates. (The spooks, by the way, ran up some fabulous bills in luxury hotels on taxpayers’ dollars in that

escapade.) Former President Jimmy Carter wrote in his book “Our Endangered Values”(Simon & Schuster), the CIA

transferred some of those it kidnapped to countries that included Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Morocco, Jordan, and

Uzbekistan where “the techniques of torture are almost indescribably terrible, including, as a U.S. ambassador to one of

the recipient countries reported, ‘partial boiling of a hand or an arm,’ with at least two prisoners boiled to death.” The

KKK’s methods of punishment were often as ugly: the brutal flogging of blacks in front of vicious crowds, followed by

castration and burning their victims alive, and then lynching of the corpses. As for the CIA, “Why?” asks investigative

reporter William Blum, “are these men rendered in the first place if not to be tortured? Does the United States not have any

speakers in foreign languages to conduct interrogations?”

That the CIA is a terrorist organization was upheld in the famous “CIA On Trial” case in Northampton, Mass., in 1987,

when a jury acquitted 14 protestors who tried to stop CIA recruitment on campus, according to Francis Boyle, the

University of Illinois international law authority who defended the group. The defense charged the CIA was “an organized

criminal conspiracy like the SS and the Gestapo.” Boyle said, “You would not let the SS or the Gestapo recruit on campus at

the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, so you would not permit the CIA to recruit on campus either.”

Another shared characteristic of the KKK and CIA is greed, the desire to loot the hard-earned wealth of others. Often,

Klansmen terrorized African-Americans who had amassed property to frighten them off their land. Law-abiding black

citizens who had pulled themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps were cheated out of their homes and acreage by the

night riders. Similarly, the CIA across Latin America has aligned itself with the well-to-do ruling class at every

opportunity. It has cooperated with the elite to punish and murder labor leaders and clergy who espoused economic

opportunity for the poor. The notion that allowing the poor to enrich themselves fairly will also create more wealth for an

entire society generally, including the rich, has not permeated CIA thinking. I emphasize what historian Toynbee noted:

“America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests. She now

stands for what Rome stood for.”(Italics added.)

In sum, by adopting the terrorist philosophy of the KKK and elevating it to the operations of government at the highest

level, the imperial Obama administration, like its predecessors, is showing the world the worst possible face of America.

Foreigners do not see the goodness inherent in the American people—most of whom only want a good day’s pay for a

good day’s work and to educate their children and live at peace with the world. Every adult American has a solemn

obligation to demand that its government live up to international law, punish the CIA criminals in its midst, and become a

respected citizen of the world. This will not come to pass until Congress abolishes the CIA, putting an end to its KKK-style

terrorism which threatens Americans as well as humankind everywhere.. #

(Sherwood Ross is an American who has worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News, a columnist for wire services and

as the News Director of a national civil rights organization. He currently operates the Anti-War News Service from Miami,

Florida. To contribute to his work or reach him, email sherwoodross10@gmail.com)


Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Marc Estrin : Into the Flames

“Paulus in Ephesus” by Gustave Doré, circa 1883. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

INTO THE FLAMES

By Marc Estrin / The Rag Blog / October 19, 2010

Late last month, Pentagon officials stood around supervising the scene as St Martin’s Press destroyed the entire first run of Anthony Schaffer’s new book on spycraft and special operations in Afghanistan.

Was there a good old bonfire — as with the Nazis, or the anti-Harry Potterites? Somewhere in the center pentagon of the Pentagon? Or was there a festive scene roped off over at Madison Square Park with folks peering down from the Flatiron Building?

I queried my editor about how publishers “pulp” books, and he, in his innocence, never having pulped one, suggested that perhaps they feed the books into a large machine which turns the shreds into packing material, new paper and jiffy bags.

I suspect publishers don’t actually burn books these carbon-conscious days, but offer them up as sacrifice to the chemical companies to deal with. And for a hardback book, that’s a multi-step process, tearing off the covers, and dealing with them separately, cloth, cardboard, glue, and possibly plastic.

But whatever the process, “book-burning” is a description more accurate than an anodyne “recycling of printed material,” and 9,600 copies met their maker as brass looked on, checking to make sure the deed was done.

Interesting, too, was the price we taxpayers forked up for the party. The book retails at $25.99, and Amazon sells it for $14.21 plus $3.99 shipping. The Department of Defense twisted St. Martin’s arm to sell them the first run — none to bookstores or Amazon — for only $47,000. If you do the math, that’s only $4.90 a copy. What a buy we got!

Not to be accused of censorship, our Freedom Fighters allowed St. Martins to publish a heavily redacted copy of the second edition. The great Russian writers had to deal with this all the time, so who are we to complain?

I once tried to burn a book. New in grad school, I thought I could make the world a better place with a ritual burning of Kafka’s The Trial. I went out and splurged on a new, hardcover, Modern Library edition, along with a hefty tin pail in which to make the fire. With the LA Times for kindling, and some good Los Angeles brush and sticks, I had a nice blaze going, said an anti-blessing, and consigned the book to the flames.

Kafka smothered the blaze in billows of smoke with no significant damage to self, and unhip neighbors upstairs called the fire department — which didn’t quite get the issue. Also I melted a hole in the floor’s shellac. So you see it was a good idea for our defenders to check to see that the job was done, and done right.

Why am I telling you all this? Most commentators have deplored the censorship aspect of this chapter of national-security mania. But I want to use these events to draw your attention to a story by that dark spirit of Salem, Nathaniel Hawthorne, a tale frequently left out of anthologies — “Earth’s Holocaust” — an incisive cautionary to would-be reformers, radicals, or revolutionaries like me, or possibly you.

Once upon a time, the inhabitants of the world determined to rid themselves of the evil accumulation of “worn-out trumpery,” by heaving it all into an enormous bonfire. Into the flames went

coats of armor, nobility
sceptres of emperors and kings
hogsheads of liquor
bank notes
enamored sonnets
diplomas
weapons and ammunition
machinery to inflict the punishment of death
marriage certificates
daybooks and ledgers
statute books and printed paper in general
priestly garments
the Bible


Interesting list.

As the fire burns down, and the satisfied reformers leave to go to bed to wake to their new world, a little party — convivial, but despondent — is left hanging around the fire. It is the last murderer, the last thief, the last drunkard and the hangman.


”The best counsel for all of us is,” thought the hangman, “that, as soon as we have finished the last drop of liquor, I help you, my three friends, to a comfortable end upon the nearest tree, and then hang myself on the same bough. This is no world for us any longer.”


The despair of the wicked at the new-created world.

“Poh, poh, my good fellows!” said a dark-complexioned personage, who now joined the group — his complexion was indeed truly dark, and his eyes glowed with a redder light than that of the bonfire; “be not so cast down, my dear friends; you shall see good days yet. There’s one thing that these wiseacres have forgotten to throw into the fire, and with which all the rest of the conflagration is just nothing at all; yes, though they had burned the earth itself into a cinder.”


“And what may that be?” eagerly demanded the last murderer.


“What but the human heart itself?” said the dark-visaged stranger, with a portentous grin. “And, unless they hit upon some method of purifying that foul cavern, forth from it will reissue all the shapes of wrong and misery — the same old shapes or worse ones — which they have taken such a vast deal of trouble to consume to ashes. I have stood by this livelong night and laughed in my sleeve at the whole business. Oh, take my word for it, it will be the old world yet!”

You can see, perhaps, why this is rarely anthologized.


Call it depraved or misguided, but it is this “foul cavern” — foul, if often sublime — that continues to attract and orient my attention. It’s why I write novels.

Oh, btw, the title of the book the DoD recently burned was Operation Dark Heart.

[Marc Estrin is a writer and activist, living in Burlington, Vermont. His novels, Insect Dreams, The Half Life of Gregor Samsa, The Education of Arnold Hitler, Golem Song, and The Lamentations of Julius Marantz have won critical acclaim. His memoir, Rehearsing With Gods: Photographs and Essays on the Bread & Puppet Theater (with Ron Simon, photographer) won a 2004 theater book of the year award. He is currently working on a novel about the dead Tchaikovsky.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Robert Jensen : Saving Soils and Souls

Top, 2009 Prairie Festival. Image from landlogics. Below, Prairie Festival 2010. Image from The Land Institute.

Soils and souls:
The promise of The Land

By Robert Jensen / The Rag Blog / October 18, 2010

Stop me if you’ve heard this one: A poet, an economist, and a biologist walk into in a barn in Kansas and start talking. What do you get when you cross their ideas?

Answer: Hybrid vigor.

OK, the joke might not quite work unless you’re an agronomist (and maybe even the agronomists aren’t laughing), but it captures the importance of the conversations at The Land Institute’s annual gathering in Salina, Kansas.

In the search for alternatives to our dead-end industrial agriculture system, Land Institute researchers are pursuing plant breeding programs that just may be the key to post-oil farming.

But beyond the science, “The Land” — that’s how everyone there refers to the Institute in conversation — provides a fertile space for mixing the ideas of people as well as the genes of plants. In both cases, the hybrid vigor — the superior qualities that result from crossbreeding — is exciting.

With the rain providing an intermittent backbeat on the barn roof throughout a Saturday in late September, the 2010 Prairie Festival began with three talks — by poet/novelist Wendell Berry, economist Josh Farley, and biologist Sandra Steingraber — that were insightful on their own, but even more intriguing as an intellectual mash-up. The three were telling the story of how sin brought us to this place, how we must redefine success if we are to atone, and how essential that change is for our own safety.

I had come expecting those kinds of insights and analyses, but surprisingly I left the barn that day with one revelation burning in my brain: While evil lurks in many places, it is most concentrated in fossil fuels.

On Sunday morning, Wes Jackson, The Land’s co-founder and president, played the role of ecologically evangelical preacher. We do indeed face challenges, Jackson testifies, but there is a better way to be found in Natural Systems Agriculture. Perennial polycultures can deliver us from that evil.

But before getting to the solutions, we have to understand the problem, which starts with sin.

Wendell Berry. Image from Peace by Peace.

Sin

Wendell Berry, who farms in his native Henry County, Kentucky, has become a kind of poet laureate of the sustainable agriculture movement, exploring culture and agriculture in verse, short stories, and novels. Establishing himself as a leading critic of industrial farming with his 1977 non-fiction book The Unsettling of America, he has been relentless in his analysis of the disastrous consequences of a consumption-obsessed, profit-driven society on both the human and the natural world.

The lanky Kentuckian began his talk by noting that he is not from Kansas, and therefore would speak about his home state, the place he knows and loves. That reflects one of Berry’s core themes, that the universal principles we articulate must be lived in intensely local fashion; one of his best-known sayings is, “If you don’t know where you are, you don’t know who you are.”

Wherever we are living, Berry argues, we’re in trouble as a consequence of a “land-destroying economy” that pursues “production-by-exhaustion.” That’s most clearly visible in the rapacious destruction of the land’s biotic communities in mountaintop-removal coal mining in his part of the world, Berry says, but also true of agriculture most everywhere. Extracting fossil fuels from the ground is dangerous, and so is the way those fuels are used to work the ground in farming.

The mining of the forests and soil, along with the extraction of fossil fuels, may have started innocently, but since the European conquest of the Americas, “It took us only a little more than 200 years to pass from intentions sometimes approximately good to this horrible result, in which our education, our religion, our politics, and our daily lives all are implicated,” Berry tells the packed house in The Land’s barn.

“This is original sin, round two.”

The sin comes not just in the greed that drives exploitation but the lack of attention we pay to “what is not obvious” — the way we so often ignore the complexity of the world beyond our powers of observation and our failure to recognize the consequences of our inattention. Berry argues that when it takes 1,000 years for nature to produce one inch of topsoil, human farming practices that erode that soil are not simply bad practices but an act of desecration.

While Berry doesn’t hesitate to condemn the corporate henchmen who direct much of this destruction and the politicians who enable them, his point is that “the carelessness of our economic life” means we all play a part in that desecration. We are, in fact, all sinners against the integrity of the ecosystem.

Despite the severity of the critique, Berry articulates “authentic reasons for hope” that sound simple but require much of us.

“We can learn where we are, we can look around us and see,” he suggests. We also can rely on land health, “the capacity of the land for self-renewal,” and work at conservation, “our effort to understand and preserve that capacity.”

Berry doesn’t look to educational, political, or corporate institutions for much help in those efforts, suggesting that we instead look to “leadership from the bottom” that can be provided by groups and individuals “who without official permission or support or knowledge are seeing what needs to be done and doing it.”

As a writer, Berry thinks not just about our actions but about our words. He argues that slogans such as “think globally, act locally” are of little value and that terms such as “green,” which are too easily exploited by corporations for marketing, are downright dangerous.

“What gives hope is actual conversation, actual discourse, in which people say to one another in good faith, fully and exactly, what they know, and acknowledge honestly the limits of their knowledge,” he advises

Josh Farley. Image from Picasa.

Success

Josh Farley found that saying exactly what he knows has rarely helped his career as an economist. Walking the grounds of The Land before his talk, he told me that the more he studied neoclassical economics, the more he realized that free-market ideology couldn’t account for ecological realities.

Most of his advisers counseled him to stick to the dogma of the discipline, but Farley managed to finish a Ph.D. and stay true to his calling. Seeking out other mentors, he hooked up with Herman Daly, a central figure in “ecological economics” and ended up co-writing with Daly the 2003 text Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications.

Now teaching at the University of Vermont, Farley is part of a small but growing group of economists who don’t simply treat the “environment” as a component of the economy but instead ask how we can construct an economy that can balance what is biologically and physically possible with what is socially and ethically desirable.

The first step in that, Farley told the Prairie Festival audience, is to dispense with some of the mythologies and mistakes of neoclassical economics.

High on the list of mythologies is the notion that our affluence is the product of the wonders of the capitalist market economy. Farley reminds us that capitalism developed alongside the exploitation of fossil fuels, first coal and then oil and natural gas.

Our productivity is the result not of the magic of the market so much as the magic of fossil fuels. Given that a barrel of oil can do the work of 20,000 hours of human labor, Farley says, such dramatic expansion of productivity is not so magical after all.

Markets also make mistakes. Humans use all that energy to transform our ecosystems faster than they can recharge or be restored. Resources are mined and waste is spewed according to the dictates of the market, not the limits of the natural world.

Farley points out that there’s no feedback loop in the market economy that stops us from destroying the planet, nothing that resets the prices of goods to reflect that destruction. That’s a problem, Farley says, in his trademark understated fashion.

As a result, we get confused about terms such as efficiency, Farley says. Before fossil fuels, when humans lived almost exclusively on the energy of contemporary sunlight, one calorie burned by a worker could create 10 calories of food, but now we use 10 calories from oil to create one calorie of food.

And remember that the market has no way to account for the disastrous consequences of burning all those fossil fuels. And we’re increasingly dependent on non-renewable resources for the food we need to live. That’s efficiency?

But perhaps most dangerous is the story capitalism tells us not about the natural world but about us. Glorifying greed, capitalism tells us we are nothing more than “atomic globules of desire” and that “we’re individuals, apart from community, and all we want is more and more and more.” We need, Farley explains, a different conception of success.

To cope with these problems, Farley sets a modest goal: “A fundamental redesign of our economy.” Sounds naïve, but if we don’t find a way to do that, well, remember that the economy is based not on the “laws of economics” dreamed up by free-market ideologues but on “laws of nature” that we can’t dream away.

Sandra Steingraber Image from Steingraber.com.

Safety

As a biologist, Sandra Steingraber has long studied the negative consequences of human intervention into the natural world, for individuals and ecosystems. She describes those two different trunks of the environmental movement: The focus on toxins’ effects on organisms, which first hit the public radar with the publication of Rachel Carson’s 1962 classic Silent Spring; and the focus on larger ecosystem effects, of which global warming/climate disruption are the gravest threat and which hit the public consciousness first with Bill McKibben’s book The End of Nature in 1989.

Steingraber is best known for her inquiry into the effects of those toxins, an investigation that has been intensely personal; she is a cancer survivor, and her 1997 book, Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment, examined the lines of evidence that establish connections between cancer and chemical contamination.

Recognizing that both trunks amount to a “de-creation of life,” Steingraber has decided to turn to what she believes is the source of the problems.

Says Steingraber: The two trunks — “the toxification of all life” and “the dissolution of the whole life support system on which the planet rests” — have one root, fossil fuels.

“When you light [fossil fuels] on fire, you destroy our life-support system through the creation of heat-trapping gases,” she explains. “When you turn them into synthetic chemicals with the power to break chromosomes and tinker with brain cells and hormones, you destroy children.”

This realization has led Steingraber, a visiting scholar at Ithaca College living in upstate New York, to get involved with the movement to stop hydrofracking, a controversial method of getting at natural gas in shale that involves blasting millions of gallons water, sand, and chemicals deep into the ground to force gas out of the rock.

That process, she says, is another version of mountaintop-removal and deep-water drilling, another desperate attempt to extend a fossil-fuel economy that is fundamentally unsustainable. In such a world, no one is safe. We all live downstream.

Wes Jackson. Image from The Land Institute.

Nature as measure

In the talks of Berry, Farley, and Steingraber — three very different people with very different backgrounds and training — the common thread is the recognition of the centrality of fossil fuels: to the desecration of land and communities, to the economy’s distortion of our sense of success, to the threats to the health of each of us and the ecosystem.

In that Kansas barn, friends of The Land gathered out of a belief that there are alternatives, and that nowhere is the pursuit of those alternatives more important than in agriculture, the way in which we feed ourselves. For many at Prairie Festival, the research being conducted at The Land is a key to our hopes, and those hopes are bolstered in Wes Jackson’s talk, which traditionally closes out the festival.

Jackson, who grew up on a Kansas farm before earning a Ph.D. in plant genetics, gave up a comfortable university teaching position to start The Land in 1976. His talk reflects both his roots on the farm and his specialized training, but there also are strains of the preacher in his presentation, as he speaks of both sin and redemption.

That redemption in agriculture can come, Jackson preaches, from recognizing that industrial farming — annual plants cultivated in monocultures, dependent on fossil fuel-based fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides — has greatly expanded yields but at the cost of increased soil erosion and decreased soil fertility.

That “failure of success” as Jackson calls it, leaves us no choice but to look to nature for guidance. Rather than mimicking industrial processes, farmers have to ask how natural ecosystems hold soil and ensure fertility. Wheat farmers in Kansas should be looking at the prairie for inspiration, not a factory assembly line.

That is the core of Natural Systems Agriculture, taking nature as measure. The key to The Land’s research program is breeding perennial grains — whose deeper roots help hold the soil in place — that can produce adequate yields to feed us. Those perennials would ideally be planted in polycultures — mixtures of plants that help control insects, pathogens, and weeds without petrochemicals.

While this research is the heart of The Land, Jackson speaks as much about solidarity as he does about science, about the commitment it will take to see this through. Prairie Festival is in part about an exchange of information among the invited speakers, The Land’s staff, and guests.

But equally important is the role of this annual gathering in creating what Jackson calls “a consecrated community” that is committed over the long haul to the project of an agriculture that can reverse the erosion and depletion of the soil and provide a model for reversing the larger degradation of the planetary ecosystem.

If that project is to succeed, it will have to combine the traditional wisdom that farmers acquire in the fields with the specialized knowledge that scientists develop in the laboratory. But Jackson knows it also requires faith, and he ends with a preacher’s charge to the congregation.

Our task, he says, is to “save the soils as we save our souls.”

This article was also posted at Texas Observer online.

[Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin. He is the author of All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice, (Soft Skull Press, 2009); Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege(City Lights, 2005); Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2002). Jensen is also co-producer of the documentary film Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing, which chronicles the life and philosophy of the longtime radical activist. Robert Jensen can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.]

  • For more information on the work of The Land Institute, go here.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Akwasi Evans : Standing Up to the Corporate Bully

Photo by Anton Tang / Flickr.

Corporate bullying:
It’s time to stand together

Big corporations charge citizens extra for making mistakes and penalize them unjustly for being the suckers who fall for their sales pitch.

By Akwasi Evans / The Rag Blog / October 18, 2010

There has been an increasing amount of talk taking place around the issue of bullying. Several young children and college students have recently committed suicide as a result of what many feel was bullying.

On Oct. 1 a 13-year-old boy committed suicide at his home in Houston after being bullied at the Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District. Asher Brown’s parents blamed the school for their son’s death, saying that he shot himself in the head after being tormented by classmates for being gay.

Tyler Clementi, a first year student at Rutgers University in New Jersey, jumped off a bridge to his death after his roommate and another student secretly filmed him engaging in a sexual act with another male student.

Kevin Morrissey committed suicide near the University of Virginia campus after being tormented on the job. At least two co-workers said they warned university officials about his growing despair over alleged workplace bullying at the award-winning Virginia Quarterly Review.

On July 30, Morrissey, the Review‘s 52-year-old managing editor, walked to the old coal tower near campus and shot himself in the head.

Bullying can take many forms, but one of the most lethal and least recognized is corporate bullying. Corporations treat citizens like commodities and charge them for services they don’t even render.

Recently National Public Radio ran a podcast about a couple that was charged $15 for paying their bills on time. The story talked about corporate automation and how corporations are charging customers extra fees for making payments in any form other than the one they dictate. And their dictation changes with every upgrade in their automation.

If and when automation shuts down we are all screwed. I was in an HEB a couple of months ago in Killeen when their computers shut down and they couldn’t sell food. Not even to people paying with cash.

Several large banks are now coming under fire for the arbitrary way they foreclosed on thousands of American homes. Many didn’t even examine the forms before forcing people out of their homesteads.

Last week my truck was repossessed a day after the payment had been made. When I inquired I was told that the payment may have been received, but it hadn’t been posted so they sent someone to sneak into my driveway in the middle of the night and repossess the truck.

But, they didn’t just take the truck; they also took all my possessions that were in the truck. In order to retrieve my property and the corporation’s truck that I am making monthly installments on I had to pay the equivalent of four months payment.

If you walk into a supermarket to purchase some food and you write a check without sufficient funds to cover the purchase the supermarket will charge you up to $40 in penalties, but if your check does clear and you learn from your receipt that the market had overcharged you, all you get is a refund and your time wasted.

One problem with corporate bullying is that big corporations charge citizens extra for making mistakes and penalize them unjustly for being the suckers who fall for their sales pitch. But, the bigger problem with corporate bullying is that they steal. I’m not talking petty theft here; I’m talking grand theft larceny.

Do you remember Enron? How about Bernie Madoff? These are two examples of corporate thieves who got caught. There are countless thousands of corporate bullies ripping us off more efficiently than the Tea Party can organize around hatred of President Obama.

Once when I was visiting Atlanta with some fellow publisher I attempted to purchase a tailor-made suit that was on sale because the short guy who ordered it never picked it up. When I gave the clerk my debit card he told me it had been declined. Embarrassed, I slinked out of the store with my head down wondering what had happened to the deposit I had just made before leaving Austin.

Upon my return I learned that the deposit wasn’t credited until the following day and when a large check came through without sufficient funds available they charged me a penalty. Then they ran the large check through a few more times and when some smaller checks came in they ran they through several times. When I closed the account out I still owed Chase Bank $800 in service fees.

It would be easy to site numerous other examples of how I have been ripped off by corporate bullies and easier still to acknowledge similar experiences by thousands of other citizens in corresponding or worse situations than my own.

My point is that bullies pick on people who don’t stand up to them. Editorializing is one way I can stand up even though doing so often gets me smacked further down. Still I stand, choosing to suffer rather than kowtow. Soon, I suspect, many others — thousands, and maybe millions — are going to start to stand up to corporate bullying. And when we band together we will force the bully to leave the schoolyard.

If we expect ever to improve our quality of life, if we hope to stabilize our communities, if we really want to educate our children, if we truly want to insure our future, it is becoming increasingly necessary for more of us to stand up to corporate bullying or accept the inevitable peonage, poverty, and anomie that awaits us.

Let’s stand together against all forms of bullying and let’s demand an end to the deterioration in the quality of our lives.

[Akwasi Evans is a progressive journalist and civil rights activist. He is publisher and editor of NOKOA, the Observer, a progressive Austin weekly newspaper which he founded in 1987, and also hosts a weekly radio show on KAZI-FM in Austin. Evans marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and has been involved with the civil rights movement for most of his life.]

Listen to Thorne Dreyer‘s Oct. 5, 2010, interview with Akwasi Evans and Joe Dubovy on Rag Radio, here.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Harvey Wasserman : Hemp Is no Paper Tiger

Image from Hemp & Chocolat.

California’s Prop. 19:
With legal pot comes legal hemp,
history’s most profitable industrial crop

By Harvey Wasserman / The Rag Blog / October 18, 2010

Hemp is the far bigger economic issue hiding behind legal marijuana.

If the upcoming pot legalization ballot in California were decided by hemp farmers like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, it would be no contest. For purely economic reasons, if you told the Constitutional Convention in 1787 that the nation they were founding would someday make hemp illegal, they would have laughed you out of the room.

If California legalizes pot, it will save the state millions in avoided legal and imprisonment costs, while raising it millions in taxes.

But with legal marijuana will come legal hemp. That will open up the Golden State to a multi-billion-dollar crop that has been a staple of human agriculture for thousands of years, and that could save the farms of thousands of American families.

Hemp is currently legal in Canada, Germany, Holland, Rumania, Japan, and China, among many other countries. It is illegal here largely because of marijuana prohibition. Ask any sane person why HEMP is illegal and you will get a blank stare.

For paper, clothing, textiles, rope, sails, fuel, and food, hemp has been a core crop since the founding of ancient China, India, and Arabia. It’s easy to plant, grow, and harvest, and farmers — including Washington and Jefferson — have sung its praises throughout history. It was the number one or two cash crop on virtually all American family farms from the colonial era on.

If the American Farm Bureaus and Farmers Unions were truly serving their constituents, they would be pushing hard for legal pot so that its far more profitable (but essentially unsmokable) cousin could again bring prosperity to American farmers.

Hemp may be the real reason marijuana is illegal. In the 1930s, the Hearst family set out to protect their vast timber holdings, much of which were being used to make paper.

But hemp produces five times as much paper per acre as do trees. Hemp paper is stronger and easier to make. The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper, and one of Benjamin Franklin’s primary paper mills ran on it.

But the Hearsts used their newspapers to incite enough reefer madness to get marijuana banned in 1937. With that ban came complex laws that killed off the growing of hemp. The ecological devastation that’s followed with continued use of trees for paper has been epic.

As canvas, hemp has long been essential for shoes, clothing, rope, sails, textiles, building materials and much more. It’s far more durable than cotton and ecologically benign compared to virtually any other industrial crop. Hemp needs no pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizers, and can grow well without much water.

Hemp’s use for rope was so critical to the U.S. war effort that in the 1940s, the U.S. military lifted the bans and blanketed virtually the entire state of Kansas with it. The War Department’s “Hemp for Victory” is the core film on how to grow it.

Henry Ford produced an entire automobile made from hemp fiber stiffened with resin. Like the original diesel engine, it was designed to run on hemp fuel .

Powder from hemp seeds is extremely high in protein and in omega-3 oils, now mostly gotten from fish.

Hemp could be key to the future of bio-fuels. Growing food crops like corn and soy to make ethanol and diesel is extremely inefficient and expensive. They force hungry people to compete with cars for fuel.

Fast-growing hemp stalks and leaves are well-suited for cheap fermentation into ethanol, and for compression into fuel pellets. The seeds produce a bio-diesel that’s far superior to what comes from soy.

Alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical, and law enforcement/prison-industrial industries — not to mention entrenched narco-terrorists — are leading the fight against legal pot.

But the industrial production of hemp would also transform the industries for paper, cotton, textiles, plastics, fuel, fish oi, and more. The economic, ecological, and employment benefits would be incalculable.

When Californians go to the polls November 2, they may end a marijuana prohibition that’s had devastating impacts on states’ public health and civil liberties, while costing it billions.

They’ll also decide whether California — and, ultimately, the U.S. — will resume production of history’s most powerful, versatile, and profitable industrial crop, one ultimately certain to be worth far more than marijuana.

One that was essential to this nation’s founding — and that could be central to its economic, ecological, and agricultural revival.

[Harvey Wasserman’s History of the United States is at www.harveywasserman.com, along with Passions of the Potsmoking Patriots by “Thomas Paine.” His “George Washington Was America’s First Stoner…” is in the December issue of Hustler Magazine.]

Former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. Image from El Porvenir.

Joycelyn Elders supports legal pot

Former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders told CNN Sunday she supports legalizing marijuana.

The trend-setting state of California is voting next month on a ballot initiative to legalize pot, also known as Proposition 19. The measure would legalize recreational use in the state, though federal officials have said they would continue to enforce drug laws in California if the initiative is approved.

“What I think is horrible about all of this, is that we criminalize young people. And we use so many of our excellent resources … for things that aren’t really causing any problems,” said Elders. “It’s not a toxic substance.”

Supporters of California’s Prop. 19 say it would raise revenue and cut the cost of enforcement, while opponents point to drug’s harmful side-effects….

CNN

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Jay D. Jurie : Behind the Chilean Mine Disaster

Drills are seen outside the San Jose Mine in Copiapo, Chile, where 33 miners were trapped 2,000 feet under the ground for more than two months. Photo by Roberto Candia / AP.

What’s caused it and what’s next?
After the Chilean mine rescue

By Jay D. Jurie / The Rag Blog / October 18, 2010

Besides focusing on one miner with a wife and a mistress, much has been made by major media outlets about the lucrative opportunities awaiting the 33 miners recently rescued from the San Jose copper and gold mine in Copiapo, Chile.

Little attention has been devoted to what led to the disaster, or what the future may hold for Chile’s thousands of other miners. Chile has a mining fatality rate of over 30 per year, and the Chilean government has not yet signed the International Labor Organization’s Convention 176 that establishes safety and health protocols for mining.

The owner of the San Jose Mine is the San Esteban Mining Co., a privately-owned firm that, like Massey Energy or BP in the U.S., has a poor safety track record. Like much “penny wise and pound foolish” management philosophy these days, it has been claimed the company did not want to fund inexpensive measures that would have prevented the disaster.

Early in the disaster San Esteban stated they didn’t have the funds to launch a rescue. They stopped paying the 33 trapped miners and laid off 200 others. San Esteban’s assets were frozen by the Chilean government in order to pay for the rescue operation.

Chilean miners, including those who worked at San Jose, are represented by a union, CONFEMIN (Confederacion Minera de Chile), that claims safety complaints they filed with San Esteban were consistently ignored. Labor representation. coupled with the promise of Chilean President Sebastian Pinera to improve workplace safety across the country, offers at least a small measure of hope.

[Jay D. Jurie is a proud Rag Blogger who teaches public administration and urban planning and lives near Orlando, Florida.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

One hundred years ago Hannah Shapiro, known as “Annie” to her fellow workers, rose up and stormed off her job as a garment worker in Chicago because her meager wages had just been cut even further. To her surprise, her fellow workers followed her out the door, and what resulted was the great Hart, Schaffner, and Marx strike of 1910 that eventually involved 40,000 workers. Annie’s story has been told in a new illustrated book for children (written, as Harry is quick to point out, by his sister). Targ discusses the importance of educating our children about the progressive history that is generally left out of their textbooks, and points out that children’s books have historically succeeded in addressing these subjects — even when writers in other fields were blacklisted or censored.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

William Michael Hanks : Net Neutrality / Stop Thief!

Stop thief!
How the internet happened
and why it’s in danger now

By William Michael Hanks / The Rag Blog / October 15, 2010

  • Also see Mike Hanks’ companion article: Net Neutrality / Open Internet Under Fire
  • And see ‘Save the Internet’ video and Net Neutrality resources, Below
  • Somebody is trying to steal your shiny new bicycle and I know who it is. What you can do about it depends on being able to dissuade their accomplices from participating in the crime.

    Your bicycle is the Internet. It takes you to far away places, on adventures, to see friends and family, and it informs your opinions. Right now you can hop on it and go anywhere you want. But if five monopolistic corporations have their way you’ll have to ask their permission first.

    A few short years ago there were thousands of local Internet Service Providers (ISP’s). They sold, for a monthly fee, telephone modem access to the Internet. Beep beep, whistle, buzz, long wait. Then cable service providers began to offer the service over much faster cable lines. Cable companies merged and consolidated so that now four or five corporations operate in protected monopolies across the entire country.

    The biggest are Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, and Cox. It’s not enough that they have a monopoly in your community, or that you pay them for the use of your Internet highway. They want to control where and how fast you can go and who you can do business with as well.

    Why is this a theft? After all it’s their cables. Because, if you have ever paid taxes, the Internet belongs to you. It was conceived with tax dollars spent on your behalf by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Like most bureaucratic projects, it began with a memo:

    Dated April 23, 1963, the memo was dictated as its author, Joseph Carl Robnett Licklider, was rushing to catch an airplane. Licklider’s task might have been easier if he had been pursuing a more conventional line of computing research — improvements in database management, say, or fast-turnaround batch-processing systems. He could have just commissioned work from mainstream companies like IBM, who would have been more than happy to participate. But in fact, with his bosses’ approval, Licklider was pushing a radically different vision of computing.

    His inspiration had come from Project Lincoln, which had begun back in 1951 when the Air Force commissioned MIT to design a state-of-the art, early-warning network to guard against a Soviet nuclear bomber attack. The idea — radical at the time — was to create a system in which all the radar surveillance, target tracking, and other operations would be coordinated by computers, which in turn would be based on a highly experimental MIT machine known as Whirlwind: the first “real-time” computer capable of responding to events as fast as they occurred.

    Licklider, who was then a professor of experimental psychology at MIT, had led a team of young psychologists working on the human factors aspects of the SAGE radar operator’s console. And something about it had obviously stirred his imagination.

    By 1957, he was giving talks about a “Truly SAGE System” that would be focused not on national security, but enhancing the power of the mind…. he imagined a nationwide network of “thinking centers,” with responsive, real-time computers that contained vast libraries covering every subject imaginable. And in place of the radar consoles, he imagined a multitude of interactive terminals, each capable of displaying text, equations, pictures, diagrams, or any other form of information.

    By 1958, Licklider had begun to talk about this vision as a “symbiosis” of men and machines, each preeminent in its own sphere — rote algorithms for computers, creative heuristics for humans — but together far more powerful than either could be separately.

    By 1960, in his classic article “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” he had written down these ideas in detail — in effect, laying out a research agenda for how to make his vision a reality. And now, at ARPA, he was using the Pentagon’s money to implement that agenda.

    Licklider’s research program was so successful, in fact, that it’s now hard for us to remember just how visionary it was. IBM and the other major computer manufacturers were going in a completely different direction at the time, emphasizing punch cards and batch-processing machines suited to the needs of the business world. Mainstream computer engineers tended to see the ARPA approach as totally wrong-headed. Use precious computer cycles just to help people think? What a waste of resources!

    Thus his memo on April 23, 1963, which he addressed to “the members and affiliates of the Intergalactic Computer Network” — they would have to take all their time-sharing computers, once the machines became operational, and link them into a national system. “If such a network as I envisage nebulously could be brought into operation,” Licklider wrote, “we would have at least four large computers, perhaps six or eight small computers, and a great assortment of disc files and magnetic tape units — not to mention the remote consoles and Teletype stations — all churning away.”

    Leave aside the primitive technology and the laughably small number of machines: The vision that lay behind that sentence is still a pretty good description of the Internet we have today. Indeed, Licklider’s Intergalactic Network memo would soon become the inspiration for the Internet’s direct precursor, the ARPANET.”

    — “DARPA and the Internet Revolution,” by Mitch Waldrop

    Project Sage’s Whirlwind computer, developed at MIT, was the first computer to operate in real time. Image from History of Computers.

    One big problem remained and that was how to get all these computers physically linked to one another. The job of laying wires to each computer even in the U.S., much more so to computers all over the world, was monumental. However, a simple solution was found in using existing AT&T telephone wires.

    Essentially the network leased long distance lines and kept them perpetually open as in a never ending long distance call. But static in the system posed another problem. When data was being transmitted, if the stream broke, the data was useless — mere bips and beeps without meaning.

    To solve that, a method of correcting errors was developed along the lines of the U.S. Postal Service. The data stream was broken up into packets, each with the address of the sender and recipient. That way if a packet were unreadable it would be resent and added to the coherent data stream. After some hardware and software design accommodations, the inter-network system — the Internet — was a reality. It was a pretty small reality then but it had profound implications. With simple scalability it could be extended anywhere in the world, or, as in Linklider’s original, perhaps tongue in cheek memo, to the Galaxy.


    The content was primitive by today’s standards — ones and zeros — computer code. But that soon changed. Standards were developed to translate the bits and bytes into letters and numbers. The first email programs were written. And the whole system met it’s design criteria — no single node was necessary to exchange information. It could just be rerouted. So if those darn commies blew up a computer somewhere in the system — no problems mate. The world went merrily on as if nothing happened.

    But the thing that really made the Internet what it is today — the thing we all love and the main reason we use it — was the Graphic User Interface (GUI). That’s why we can send Aunt Martha pictures of the kids, why we can see animation of the space station construction, and why we can read and write blogs like this. The ability to see pictures and hear sounds, to tell a story, to research a term paper, to do all the things and go to all the places our shiny new bicycle will take us — it all depends on the GUI.

    The GUI was a gift. We didn’t pay for it like we did the design, architecture, hardware and software that put the Internet in place. It was a gift of a few good geniuses who wanted to do a few good things. Tim Berners-Lee, while at CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory, invented a way to transmit images over the Internet — and the World Wide Web was born. He could have patented his invention, protected it with copyrights, and made a bizzillion dollars. But he didn’t. He gave it to us, free of charge — a gift to the people.

    So not only is the foundation of the World Wide Web — the Internet — yours because you paid to develop it, but the World Wide Web itself — the Graphic Interface — is yours because it was a gift.

    So what’s the problem? The problem is a bunch of fat cats who can barely tie their shoes and could never in a million years create it themselves want to steal it and sell it back to you. Who would have the presumption, the hubris, the unmitigated gall to try such a thing? I’ll give you a clue. It’s who you make your check out to each month for your Internet connection.

    It’s the huge corporate vultures who are not content to simply have a monopoly on your Internet business — they want more. They want to leverage their monopoly to sell you services that you would otherwise freely choose on the open market where their limited abilities and lack of innovation make them uncompetitive.

    Here’s how it works. Lets say you use Vonage or Skype for phone service. You pay the modest fees, they give you good service, you save money. But the company that you use — that you pay to use — to connect to Vonage — your Internet Service Provider (ISP) — sees that’s a good business and wants to offer it too. So mysteriously your calls with Vonage buzz with static, get dropped, aren’t as clear as they used to be.

    Then, here comes your Internet Service Provider to the rescue. They have a service. It costs a little more but it’s more reliable so you switch. But because they have their foot on the hose — your Internet connection — they have just turned down or turned off your connection to Vonage without your knowledge. They think people are stupid enough not to notice.

    Well, people do notice. So now they have a problem. They have just hijacked your freedom to choose but how do they get away with it? Enter the accomplices — your representatives. You see, if the law doesn’t forbid this practice — or worse, if it encodes it into law — then there’s nothing you or anybody else can do about it.

    They have just stolen your shiny new bicycle and are offering to sell it back to you and it’s all perfectly legal. Well, after all, Representatives and Senators have to fly in jet planes and live high on the hog too. What’s a little graft in the free market. So what if they are selling you out to line their pockets. What are you going to do about it — complain? Take a number.

    There’s only one currency that is slightly more valuable to elected officials than dollars and that is votes. And that’s what you have. You may spend every dime every month just to live or send your kids to school but you still have what your representatives want just a little more than money — a vote. Or more exactly lots of votes. So if you exercise your oversight over your representatives and you convince enough other people to do the same, you win. If not, you lose. It’s just that simple.

    The theft of Net Neutrality is only one crime that moneyed corporations have tried to legitimize by recruiting your representatives as accomplices. But it’s one of the most important because if they can control your access to services that you choose to purchase on the Web they can also control your access to any kind of information about the world that you live in. They can tell you where you can and cannot ride your shiny new bicycle because now they own it.

    Net Neutrality is non-negotiable if you want to go where you want to go, see what you want to see, and continue to create and have access to ideas of your own choosing. Act now. Sign the petitions. Call your Senators and Representatives. Write them, email them. Get your friends together, make signs and march in the streets. Because once your freedom to ride your bike wherever you want to go is gone you may never get it back. Don’t let ’em steal the Internet — it belongs to you and to the generations to come.

    [William Michael Hanks lived at the infamous Austin Ghetto and worked with the original Rag gang in the Sixties. He has written, produced, and directed film and television productions for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, The U. S. Information Agency, and for Public Broadcasting. His documentary film The Apollo File won a Gold Medal at the Festival of the Americas. Mike lives in Nacagdoches, Texas.]

    Also see:

    Net Neutrality Resources:

    • Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): Anyone who watched John Hodgman’s famous Daily Show rant knows what Net Neutrality means as an abstract idea. But what will it mean when it makes the transformation from idealistic principle into real-world regulations? 2010 will be the year we start to find out, as the Federal Communications Commission begins a Net Neutrality rulemaking process.

      But how far can the FCC be trusted? Historically, the FCC has sometimes shown more concern for the demands of corporate lobbyists and “public decency” advocates than it has for individual civil liberties. Consider the FCC’s efforts to protect Americans from “dirty words” in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, or its much-criticized deregulation of the media industry, or its narrowly-thwarted attempt to cripple video innovation with the Broadcast Flag.

      With the FCC already promising exceptions from net neutrality for copyright-enforcement, we fear that the FCC’s idea of an “Open Internet” could prove quite different from what many have been hoping for.

    • Democracy Now: The internet and telecom giants Verizon and Google have reportedly reached an agreement to impose a tiered system for accessing the internet. The deal would enable Verizon to charge for quicker access to online content over wireless devices, a violation of the concept of net neutrality that calls for equal access to all services. The deal comes amidst closed-door meetings between the Federal Communications Commission and major telecom giants on crafting new regulations.

    Net Neutrality Petitions:

    Some You Tube Videos:

    The Rag Blog

    Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

    William Michael Hanks : Net Neutrality / Open Internet Under Fire

    Cartoon from Schrier Blog.

    Is FCC dropping the ball?
    The fight for a free internet

    By William Michael Hanks / The Rag Blog / October 15, 2010

  • Also see Mike Hanks’ companion article: Net Neutrality / Stop Thief!
  • And see Net Neutrality Timeline, Below
  • A strong right punch from the DC Appeals Court in April stunned the FCC, leaving it dazed and staggering. The champion of the people’s Internet entered the ring with a good fight plan and a righteous score to settle with the opponent.

    But, in a strong defense by a heavy-muscled corporation, the court delivered a near knockout punch to the open Internet defender. Blocking the FCC’s regulatory blow to Comcast, the court held the FCC had no authority to regulate Comcast’s Internet bandwidth management policies.

    The fight started brewing in 2007 when the Associated Press (AP) discovered that Comcast was blocking transmission of BitTorrent Peer-to-Peer file exchanges without notifying customers. A complaint was filed with the FCC by Internet and legal advocates and the FCC held public hearings on the issue. But at the first bell Comcast was caught wearing brass knuckles under the gloves.

    Then FCC Chair Kevin Martin called for public comments. The first hearing was at Harvard and was packed with shills, hired by Comcast, who filled the available seats. Advocates of an open Internet could not be seated and the campus police blocked their entry. Public outcry and overwhelming evidence moved the FCC to sanction the media giant anyway. That’s when the battle got bloody.

    Comcast punched back with a suit in federal court that demanded a stay of the FCC sanction. The court held in early April that a change during the Bush administration shifting the authority in such matters from Title II to Title I of the Communications Act resulting in the commission being powerless in the matter.

    That left the current FCC Chair Julius Genachowski with only one backup punch — to switch the authority back to Title II of the Communications Act and reassert control over Internet services. But so far the Commission seems dazed and unable to react.

    In August, while the Commission was still seeing stars, Google and Verizon proposed a “compromise” that called for unhindered Internet access for wired customers while leaving the door wide open for wireless providers to decide whatever they like, regardless of customer demands. They insist that their ambitious plans to enter the wireless business had nothing to do with their suggestion.

    Another blow to Net Neutrality came in September when Sen. Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, announced he was dropping the push for a Net Neutrality bill in Congress. This came after the Open Internet Coalition pulled it’s support and it seemed unlikely the bill would receive Republican support.

    Calls for Chairman Genachowski to act on the promises made by President Obama to vigorously fight for a free and open Internet have gone unheeded. It’s looking more like a free-for-all — a fight where the referees seem to be bought and the champ’s taking a fall.

    Unless the FCC gets off the mat, the next round will be when Congress reconvenes after the elections. By then the ringside tickets will be sold out, the fix will be in, and the citizens — the real owners — will get the cheap seats where they can’t be heard. But, hey, maybe it’ll all be on television, if you paid your cable bill.

    [William Michael Hanks lived at the infamous Austin Ghetto and worked with the original Rag gang in the Sixties. He has written, produced, and directed film and television productions for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, The U. S. Information Agency, and for Public Broadcasting. His documentary film The Apollo File won a Gold Medal at the Festival of the Americas. Mike lives in Nacagdoches, Texas.]

    Also see:

    Super highway: Traffic jam ahead? Photo by Sean Nel. Image from Robin Good.

    Timeline of recent events (from SaveTheInternet.com).

  • 2007. Comcast gave us a glimpse of a world without Net Neutrality when an Associated Press investigation found that the company was blocking the file-sharing application BitTorrent. Despite mounting evidence of Internet blocking, the company refused to come clean and disclose its “network management” practices. A coalition of Net Neutrality supporters and legal scholars filed a complaint with the FCC urging the agency to stop the cable giant from meddling with our ability to share information online.
  • 2008. The FCC took complaints about Comcast’s blocking seriously and convened a series of hearings across the country so that interested citizens could weigh in. Fearful that the public would lay into Comcast for violating Net Neutrality, the company hired people off the street to pack the first hearing at Harvard. The seat fillers took up so many chairs that Comcast critics and other members of the public were denied entry by campus police.
  • In response to the public outcry and a mountain of evidence, FCC Chair Kevin Martin sanctioned Comcast for violating Net Neutrality. The complaint was brought to the agency after a coalition of Net users and activists caught the cable giant red-handed, jamming use of popular file-sharing applications. Martin ruled that Comcast had “arbitrarily” blocked Internet access and failed to disclose to consumers what it was doing. But the ink was barely dry on the FCC order before Comcast filed an appeal in federal court, challenging not only the FCC’s ruling but the agency’s entire authority to protect Web users.

  • 2009. Buried deep in President Barack Obama’s American Reinvestment and Recovery Act is a line that brought a smile to the faces of Net Neutrality supporters — and a scowl to phone and cable industry lobbyists. It requires that billions of dollars directed to connect more Americans to broadband be spent on services that meet “nondiscrimination and network interconnection obligations.” The stimulus package stipulated that federal money earmarked for high-speed Internet services be spent the right way: building networks that abide by Net Neutrality.
  • The fight for Net Neutrality gained ground when Julius Genachowski, the newly appointed FCC chair, announced plans to expand existing agency rules to protect the free and open Internet. Genachowski said the FCC must be a “smart cop on the beat,” preserving Net Neutrality against increased efforts by providers to block services and applications over both wired and wireless connections. The chairman cited a number of examples where network providers had acted as gatekeepers and concluded, “If we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late.

  • 2010. As the FCC began its Net Neutrality inquiry, the phone and cable industry that controls Internet access for 97 percent of Americans went into a spending overdrive. They funneled tens of millions of dollars to nearly 500 Washington lobbyists. Their mission: further consolidate industry control over Internet access and kill Net Neutrality, before the public gets a say. Untold sums have also been spent on Astroturf groups, fake grassroots operations that are funded by corporations to manufacture the impression of public support and that generate misinformation designed to sway policymakers and the media.
  • In early April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC lacks the authority (under the jurisdiction it claimed) to protect Internet users against network operators. The case was brought by cable giant Comcast after it was sanctioned by the FCC for blocking Net users’ access to file-sharing applications. The ruling effectively gave corporate gatekeepers control over Internet users’ online experience, and it called into question the FCC’s ability to act as a public interest watchdog over our country’s communications media.

    We now wait to see whether the FCC will reclassify the Internet Service Providers from Title I to Title II and thereby reassert jurisdiction or whether Congress will act with legislation to preserve Internet Neutrality. Nothing is likely to happen before the mid-term elections. The outcome of those elections will undoubtedly affect the vitality of efforts to save the Internet from corporate piracy.

    The Rag Blog

    Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment