Alice Embree : Easter Weekend at the Ranch

Alice Embree, with Jeff Shero (left) and Duncan Echelson, shown at LBJ Ranch during a peace vigil on Easter in 1965. This UPI telephoto was reproduced in Prairie Radical, a memoir by former Austin activist Robert Pardun.

An Activist History of Easter in Texas:
Camp Casey and the LBJ Ranch

By Alice Embree / The Rag Blog

[Three years ago, Austin activist and Rag Blog contributor Alice Embree spent Easter weekend at Camp Casey near George Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. She describes this experience and reflects on an earlier Easter vigil at another presidential ranch in 1965. The Rag Blog is publishing her remembrance this Easter weekend.

Embree, who was a founder of The Rag — Austin’s legendary underground newspaper from the 60s and 70s that served as inspiration for The Rag Blog — originally posted this article on April 24, 2006 to The Rag’s website.]

President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, was a retreat until last August when Cindy Sheehan brought the war protest there. The President stayed away this Easter weekend as peace activists converged from around the country.

On Good Friday morning, we gather on the small triangle of dirt where Cindy Sheehan asked the world why her son Casey died – “For What Noble Cause?” We then march single file past the point where the Secret Service usually blocks the road, past the entrance to Bush’s ranch with its ironic “Dead End” sign, past the Secret Service enclave, the peaceful pastures, the wildflowers, the calves and spirited horses, arriving finally at our destination, Camp Casey Two.

Fourteen people lead the march with large wooden crosses. Sheehan carries one of them. We stop 14 times. Each time a station of the cross is observed: Jesus falls, Jesus speaks to his mother, Jesus dies. The deaths in Iraq seem as close as the spring breeze.

Camp Casey Two is on a small patch of land, leased from a cousin of the disgruntled Crawford neighbor who shot his gun off last August. A field of white crosses is there, some with boots beside them, some with names on them. In a large tent, we are greeted as family and directed to a long table of food.

The faces of soldiers are on the walls, pictures of those who have died in this mistaken war. Photos of flag draped coffins are there – the ones the U.S. media doesn’t show. A large banner has a color picture of Sheehan’s son and the words, “In Loving Memory of Army Specialist Casey A. Sheehan.”

At Camp Casey, the war is personal.

Forty-one years ago, on another Easter weekend, in front of another Texas president’s ranch, I was part of a vigil to end another horrific war. It was April 17, 1965. Students for a Democratic Society had organized an antiwar march in Washington, D.C. Those of us in SDS at the University of Texas didn’t go to Washington. We went instead to Ranch Road 1 outside Johnson City, Texas, where President Lyndon Johnson had come for the Easter weekend. I was nineteen. For my generation, the Vietnam War was personal. The draft made it so.

My friends made life decisions about whether to serve or to avoid service by conscientious objection, marrying or going to Canada. The war escalated with its terrible toll of casualties. We watched with tears in our eyes as the body counts were reported on the nightly news, as Buddhist monks set themselves on fire in protest, as the defoliants fell over Vietnam’s tree canopy, as the napalm stuck to the skin of civilians, as the cluster bombs exploded in the villages. We saw in the faces of many vets what would later be called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). We saw the flag draped coffins return.

Better minds than mine have surely thought about how this war in Iraq is different, have wondered why the opposition in the opinion polls isn’t also in the streets. The antiwar movement I was part of in the sixties was fueled by youth. At that vigil in 1965, we were all young. Our parent’s generation told us, “You don’t understand. You haven’t lived through a war.” But the draft made the war inescapable for my generation.

My peers were awakened and emboldened by the civil rights movement. We learned direct action from the lunch counter sit-ins that brought down segregation. We learned moral courage from the people who braved water cannons to claim the right to vote. The country’s soul was stirred, roused from its post-WWII doze by the civil rights struggle.

Perhaps as a nation we weren’t as afflicted with attention deficit disorder then. There were only three major TV networks. We didn’t surf endless channels. We didn’t watch sound-bite news on 24-hour channels, while competing news scrolled across the bottom of the screen. We gathered in the student union to watch the nightly news. Together, we heard the body counts and saw the flag draped coffins return. We were together. We didn’t search for Internet news in isolation.

Now, I see that same sense of community in the Camp Casey tent. The Iraq vets describe it as finally coming home. Here they find each other and share their pain and anger. It is a place dominated by those most affected by the war. It is led by Gold Star Families for Peace, the families of Iraq military who have died. Other groups – Military Families Speak Out, Iraq Vets Against the War, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and Veterans for Peace – are also represented.

In the car on the way to Camp Casey One, Tina tells her story. Her son was a first gunner at Fallujah. He was ordered to fire at a group of insurgents and then to recover weapons from the dead. She says that as he turned the bodies over, he found women and children. There was just one weapon among them all. He came back unable to look at his mother and sister. He would call Tina with a gun in his mouth to say he didn’t deserve to live. She brought him with her to an antiwar march from Mobile to New Orleans. He found other veterans like himself. Tina says it was healing for their entire family. Later, she tells her story from the stage for the first time.

At Camp Casey, the pain is palpable. Voices break. Tears fall. Families embrace each other. An Argentine man who came to this country escaping a right wing dictatorship talks about his son who died in service to his adopted country. One of the Gold Star mothers says, “It’s personal for us. But it isn’t personal for anyone else.”

That is the truth I brought home from Camp Casey.

Rev. Dr. Joseph E. Lowery arrives at Camp Casey as part of a March to Redeem the Soul of America. Rev. Lowery spoke at Coretta Scott King’s funeral and was a founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. He is 84. Rev. Lowery reminds us that Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke out against the war in Vietnam on April 4, 1967, that he was shot to death on a Memphis balcony on April 4, 1968, and that Casey Sheehan died in Iraq on April 4, 2004. He draws the parallel of simple acts of courage – of Rosa Parks sitting down on a Montgomery bus, of Cindy Sheehan sitting down on a Texas ranch road. His message is the Easter message of resurrection and hope. He tells us that we are in a sacred place, a place where the soul of America can be healed.

I show Sheehan pictures of the 1965 vigil at LBJ’s ranch from Robert Pardun’s book, Prairie Radical. I tell Daniel Ellsberg about the vigil as well. On Good Friday, he got arrested for sitting in the ditch. He remembers that Paul Potter spoke to 50,000 people at that first major mobilization against the war on April 17, 1965. Ellsberg’s strongest memory, recounted in his memoir, Secrets, is that he asked his wife on their first date that weekend, 41 years ago.

At Camp Casey, we get a piece of tape with the number of dead to put on our shirt. Everyone wears 2,360 on the first day. The six is marked out on the second day. Ten more U.S. soldiers are dead. By Monday, at the University of Texas rally, the number is 2,376.

Beatriz, a member of the Gold Star Families for Peace, has come from Dallas to speak at the UT forum. Her nephew died in Iraq before his infant daughter was born. Beatriz is angry and eloquent. She says she wants Bush to have three terms – the third term in prison. She tells me that she was a Republican and a supporter of Bush until the war came home to her in a body bag.

The movement to prevent the war in Iraq was large and spirited before March of 2003. Now, it seems gut punched as the war grinds on, demoralized by Bush’s “victory” in the 2004 election. I remember in 1965, only a handful of students demonstrated on Ranch Road 1. It took years of organizing and linking struggles. It was too many years before the war’s end in 1975. Too many more names on the Vietnam Memorial. Too much more devastation and death for a small country to bear.

The UT crowd marches to the nearby military recruitment center. We chant: “Recruiters Lie; Soldiers Die.” CodePink’s Pink Police put yellow crime scene tape across the door. An angry gray-haired woman marches up.

“You can’t do that,” she says.

“It’s a crime scene,” I answer.

“I lived through Vietnam,” she says, expecting that response to dismiss me.

“So did I,” I tell her.

The Rag Blog

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

Kos : The Newspaper Execs’ Hissy Fit

Newspaper, aka the “Dinosaur Blog.” Graphic from Exhibit 5a.

The industry’s woes are self-inflicted, and its continued arrogance and superiority complex continue to blind its executives from potential solutions in a world where quite frankly, they are no longer quite relevant.

By kos / April 9, 2009

Newspaper executives are suddenly strutting around making demands of all sorts of people:

In addition to discussing whether and how to charge for the expensively produced content that today is available for free at most newspaper websites, publishers familiar with the agenda for the private session said other topics were:

  • How to recover some of the classified advertising business that has been usurped by Craig’s List and others.
  • Whether to demand payment from aggregators who now freely link to content from their sites.
  • How newspapers might get a greater share of the $10.8 billion in search revenues that represented 46% of all U.S. online advertising revenues in 2008.

Yeah, good luck with that. The response around the web has been fierce.

First off is the most righteous rant I’ve ever seen leveled against the dinosaur newspaper industry now lashing out because of its inability to adapt and survive. A definite must-read:

Let’s go on up to Rupert Murdoch, who says Google’s stealing his copyright in a recent Forbes article:

“Should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyrights?” asked the News Corp. chief at a cable industry confab in Washington, D.C., Thursday. The answer, said Murdoch, should be, ” ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’ “

Let me help you with that, Rupert. I’m going to save you all those potential legal fees plus needing to even speak further about the evil of the Big G with two simple lines. Get your tech person to change your robots.txt file to say this:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

Done. Do that, you’re outta Google. All your pages will be removed, and you needn’t worry about Google listing the Wall St. Journal at all.

Oh, but you won’t do that. You want the traffic, but you also want to be like the AP and hope you can scare Google into paying you. Maybe that will work. Or maybe you’ll be like all those Belgian papers that tried the same thing and watched their traffic sadly dry up.

Perhaps all the papers should get together like Anthony Moor of the Dallas Morning News suggests in the same article:

“I wish newspapers could act together to negotiate better terms with companies like Google. Better yet, what would happen if we all turned our sites off to search engines for a week? By creating scarcity, we might finally get fair value for the work we do.”

Please do this, Anthony. Please get all your newspaper colleagues to agree to a national “Just say no to Google” week. I beg you, please do it. Then I can see if these things I think will happen do happen:

  • Papers go “oh shit,” we really get a lot of traffic from Google for free, and we actually do earn something off those page views
  • Papers go “oh shit,” turns out people can find news from other sources
  • Papers go “oh shit,” being out of Google didn’t magically solve all our other problems overnight, but now we have no one else to blame.

Jeff Jarvis:

Yesterday, you delivered a foot-stomping little hissy fit over Google and aggregators. How dare they link to you and not pay you? Oh, I so want Eric Schmidt to tell you today that you’re getting your wish and that Google will no longer link to you. Beware what you wish for. You’d lose a third of your traffic overnight. If other aggregators (I work with one) and bloggers (I am one) and Facebook all decided to follow suit, you’d lose half your traffic. On most of your sites, only 20 percent of the audience in a day ever sees your homepage and its careful packaging; 4 of 5 readers instead come in through search and links. In the link economy – instead of the outmoded content economy in which you operate – Google and aggregators and bloggers are bringing value to you; they should be charging you for the value they bring. You should rise up today and give Mr. Schmidt a big thank you for not charging you. But you won’t, because you’ve refused to understand this new business reality.

I’d love to know what percentage of a newspaper’s readership actually would even notice if the main news section disappeared. How many pick up newspapers just for the sports? For the style section? For the horoscopes? For the crossword puzzle or sudoku? Heck, I remember when newspapers were useful to check on the weather, look up TV listings, and box scores. All of this is easily replaceable or is already history. Sports? I may be biased given the other company I founded, but I think sports bloggers are doing a superior job of covering their teams and sports than the newspapers they’re quickly replacing, not to mention the proliferation of sports media on TV, from ESPN, to networks that focus specifically on single sports (NFL, MLB, NHL networks) and less popular ones (Versus).

What about news from DC? Who needs the newspapers when we’ve got adequate to great coverage from CQ, Politico, TPM, Washington Independent, HuffPo, and the Hill?

Local news? Newsroom cuts in search of ever-higher profit margins have decimated local coverage in the age of corporate ownership. Local TV is filling many of those gaps, as are citizen bloggers. Don’t laugh at the notion of citizen journalists — the best Oakland coverage anywhere, bar none, comes from the muckrakers at A Better Oakland. It truly beats the shit out of anything the Oakland Tribune or local TV stations are doing. It’s a model I fully expect to organically emerge in cities and towns all over the country.

Business news? What’s left of the newspaper business sections are a joke, supplanted by cable business networks and online business publications (like Motley Fool and The Street). Remember when newspapers ran stock tables? In fact, some are still stupid enough to be running them despite the proliferation of real-time stock tickers for the masses.

Opinion? Ha ha ha ha ha! This site exists precisely because of the drivel they’ve force fed us the last few decades. When David Broder is the pinnacle of the newspaper world’s editorial pages, you’ve given up that ghost a long time ago.

Newspapers like to see themselves as “essential to democracy” or some other such bullshit, but they’ve long been part of a much broader media landscape, in which broadcast and the internet have become the most efficient delivery mechanisms. And pretty soon, with convergence, they’ll be one and the same. Newspapers have refused to adapt, or they’ve pissed away money buying baseball teams, or they’ve squeezed the value out of their product by demanding 30 percent profit margins, or they’ve expanded at unsustainable rates, or all of the above.

But they aren’t the only player in town, and there are plenty of other media operations that are already mimicking the content they product, or can quickly rush in to fill the void if a true market need exists. And while we may miss having all that disparate information packaged into one convenient portable (and disposable) product, fact is that we can get just about everything newspapers provided elsewhere, and no trees have to die in the process.

Will it be sad to see venerable operations like the Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, and Boston Globe bite the dust? Of course. It won’t be an occasion to gloat or celebrate. But the industry’s woes are self-inflicted, and its continued arrogance and superiority complex continue to blind its executives from potential solutions in a world where quite frankly, they are no longer quite relevant. As Jarvis reminded the execs:

Your Google snits don’t even address your far more profound problem: the vast majority of your potential audience who never come to your sites, the young people who will never read your newspapers. You all remember the quote from a college student in The New York Times a year ago, the one that has kept you up at night. Let’s say it together: “If the news is that important, it will find me.” What are you doing to take your news to her? You still expect her to come to you – to your website or to the newsstand – just because of the magnetic pull of your old brand. But she won’t, and you know it. You lost an entire generation. You lost the future of news.

More from newspaper exec Steve Buttry, and also Jeremy Littau, at the Missouri School of Journalism. Meanwhile, Steve Yelvington looks at some of the barriers to enacting a pay wall, while Martin Langeveld at Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab, ran the numbers and found that erecting a paywall doesn’t make financial sense.

Update: Someone sent over a link to Voice of San Diego, which is doing a fantastic job covering the city. Goes to show that newspapers don’t have a monopoly on great coverage of their towns.

Update II: Anthony Moor of the Dallas News, quoted above as wanting newspapers to block Google en masse, emails me to say that his quote was mischaracterized by the reporter writing that piece:

My conversation with him was much more nuanced and I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about “turning off” to Google. We don’t matter much to Google. rather, I was musing about what might happen if all news sites went dark for a week. What would people think? Would we matter? It’s hard to know how relevant news and information sites are unless they’re not there, and that kind of experiment would help us find out.

Source / Daily Kos

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Danny Glover : Barack Obama Must Support the Global Struggle Against Racism

Danny Glover.

This should be a moment for the United States to rejoin the global struggle against racism, the struggle that the Bush administration so arrogantly abandoned. I hope President Obama will agree that the United States must participate with other nations in figuring out the tough issues of how to overcome racism and other forms of discrimination and intolerance…

By Danny Glover / April 8, 2009

In 2001 I traveled to Durban, South Africa, to join the tens of thousands of people who came to participate in the United Nations-sponsored World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. More than 2,000 came from the United States, a rainbow of people crossing all lines–racial, ethnic, national, language, immigration status, religious and much more–joining an equally diverse crowd from across the globe. It was an extraordinary opportunity to meet, discuss, argue and strategize over how to rid the world of these longstanding evils.

Our participation paralleled that of the official US delegation. And that’s where we faced a huge challenge. The Bush administration team, having only grudgingly agreed to participate at all, made clear they had no real commitment to fighting racism or offering leadership on other challenging issues of discrimination. When they didn’t like a few small parts of the sixty-one-page text, they packed up and walked out of the conference. It was a sad but hardly surprising moment, exposing once again the history of US failures to take seriously the consequences of its own legacy of racism, a point most recently made by Attorney General Eric Holder.

The 2001 Declaration expressed powerful truths. It stated: “We acknowledge and profoundly regret the massive human suffering and the tragic plight of millions of men, women and children caused by slavery, the slave trade, the transatlantic slave trade, apartheid, colonialism and genocide, and call upon States concerned to honour the memory of the victims of past tragedies and affirm that, wherever and whenever these occurred, they must be condemned and their recurrence prevented.” Another part declared, “We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion.”

Now, eight years later, the United Nations is convening the Durban Review Conference in Geneva April 20 to 24 to review and assess the progress since 2001. Member nations have toiled for two years to craft an outcome document that assesses the current analysis and challenges. This document–which called for particular measures to provide support and reparations to all the victims both of long-ago histories, like the descendants of the European-Atlantic slave trade, and those facing contemporary forms of discrimination and apartheid policies, such as the Roma, the Dalits (India’s “untouchables”) and the Palestinians–was rejected by the Obama administration.

This year we thought things would be different. Our country has taken a huge step in our long struggle against racism: we have elected our first African-American president. And perhaps more important, the mobilization of people who made Barack Obama’s election possible brought more young people of color into political action, with others of various ethnic and political backgrounds, than perhaps any campaign before. It is a moment not to sit on our laurels; certainly, we have much farther to go. But it is certainly a moment for our nation’s political leadership to acknowledge a new marker in the long and painful struggle for justice, and a time to offer global leadership in the United Nations forum organized to combat bigotry and injustice.

In an effort to address the administration’s concerns, the United Nations has released a new “outcome document,” stripped of all language deemed offensive or controversial. Yet we face the sad reality that our president, the first African-American to lead this country, who has galvanized hope among victims of injustice around the world and encouraged them to stand up with dignity for their rights, has yet to indicate if he will send an official delegation or continue to abstain from the entire process.

Our historical struggle against racism can claim great progress as a legacy of the civil rights movement led by the likes of Fanny Lou Hamer and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but this 2009 review of the 2001 Durban conference against racism should still be a moment in which the administration of President Obama returns to the world stage to join deliberations aimed at making even further progress against injustice.

For twenty years, Congressman John Conyers, dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, has annually introduced a bill urging the United States to form a commission to study whether reparations are an appropriate response to the continuing legacy of slavery in our country. Would not the Durban Review Conference be a perfect venue to the administration to support the remedies recommended by the global community of nations to overcome the impacts of racism, slavery, anti-Semitism, apartheid and other forms of discrimination?

Would this United Nations conference not be exactly the right place for our new president to show the world that his administration’s commitment to “change we can believe in” means rejecting our country’s tarnished legacy of violating international law, undermining the United Nations and using American exceptionalism to justify walking away from the leadership responsibility many in the world expect of the United States? To make that change clear, wouldn’t this be a great opportunity to remind the world that even if the final document does not call out the name of every perpetrator government, the United States at least believes that every group of victims facing discrimination or worse based on their identity, especially the most vulnerable, and those who are stateless and thus in need of special attention by the international community, should be named and promised assistance?

This should be a moment for the United States to rejoin the global struggle against racism, the struggle that the Bush administration so arrogantly abandoned. I hope President Obama will agree that the United States must participate with other nations in figuring out the tough issues of how to overcome racism and other forms of discrimination and intolerance, and how to provide repair to victims. Our country certainly has much to learn; and maybe, for the first time in a long time, we have something by way of leadership to share with the rest of the world in continuing our long struggle to overcome.

[Danny Glover is an actor/activist and chair of the TransAfrica Forum Board of Directors, and a founder of ‘Progressives for Obama.’]

Source / The Nation

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Texas Republican to Asian-Americans : Please Simplify Your Names

Texas Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell, made the remark during House testimony on Tuesday. Photo from the Houston Chronicle.

Here’s a classic Texas story! It was published by the Houston Chronicle and is being circulated by the Huffington Post. — Jeff Jones / The Rag Blog

Lawmaker defends comment on Asians
Call for voters to simplify their names not racially motivated

By R.G. Ratcliffe / April 9, 2009

AUSTIN — A North Texas legislator during House testimony on voter identification legislation said Asian-descent voters should adopt names that are “easier for Americans to deal with.”

The comments caused the Texas Democratic Party on Wednesday to demand an apology from state Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell. But a spokesman for Brown said her comments were only an attempt to overcome problems with identifying Asian names for voting purposes.

The exchange occurred late Tuesday as the House Elections Committee heard testimony from Ramey Ko, a representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans.

Ko told the committee that people of Chinese, Japanese and Korean descent often have problems voting and other forms of identification because they may have a legal transliterated name and then a common English name that is used on their driver’s license on school registrations.

Easier for voting?

Brown suggested that Asian-Americans should find a way to make their names more accessible.

“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.

Brown later told Ko: “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?”

Democratic Chairman Boyd Richie said Republicans are trying to suppress votes with a partisan identification bill and said Brown “is adding insult to injury with her disrespectful comments.”

Brown spokesman Jordan Berry said Brown was not making a racially motivated comment but was trying to resolve an identification problem.

Berry said Democrats are trying to blow Brown’s comments out of proportion because polls show most voters support requiring identification for voting. Berry said the Democrats are using racial rhetoric to inflame partisan feelings against the bill.

“They want this to just be about race,” Berry said.

Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

Source / Houston Chronicle

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Pittsburgh Cop Killer Egged on by Alex Jones, Right Wing Conspiracy Media

Alex Jones broadcasting from Austin’s KLBJ.

Richard Poplawski’s photo from MySpace.

Poplawski was a neo-Nazi wannabe who railed against blacks, Jews, ‘Zionists,’ and gun control. And like many members of the far-right fringe, he allegedly visited Jones’ Web sites and posted alarming reports by Jones’ writers on the white supremacist message board, Stormfront.

By Max Blumenthal / April 8, 2009

Richard Poplawski, the man who allegedly murdered three Pittsburgh cops, was clearly influenced by Fox News’s Glenn Beck and right-wing radio.

On April 6, two days after the 22-year-old Richard Poplawski allegedly murdered three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a radio host named Alex Jones settled in before a microphone in his studio in Austin, Texas to do some damage control. “The mainstream media has certainly enjoyed tying me into this story,” Jones complained. “They’re attacking me and saying I’m delusional and there’s no New World Order The Second Amendment, what the country’s founded on–it’s all my fault!”

Poplawski was a neo-Nazi wannabe who railed against blacks, Jews, “Zionists,” and gun control. And like many members of the far-right fringe, he allegedly visited Jones’ Web sites and posted alarming reports by Jones’ writers on the white supremacist message board, Stormfront. (Poplawski’s posts are here, authored under the handle, “Braced For Fate.”) While Alex Jones generally avoids overt racism, he has found an eager audience on Stormfront by conjuring dark visions of an impending New World Order, claiming FEMA is secretly building a national concentration camp network, and announcing that President Barack Obama has planned mass gun seizures on his way to establishing a leftist dictatorship. “Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens,” warned a March 13 commentary on Jones’ website, Prison Planet.

In the wake of Poplawski’s alleged murder spree, the killer’s friends and family members painted a portrait of a paranoid young man whose worldview was informed almost totally by the kind of conspiratorial themes entertained by Jones. Poplawski’s best friend, Edward Perkovic, who also spouted white supremacist rhetoric, Source” target=_blank>told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that his friend “grew angry recently over fears Obama would outlaw guns.” Poplawski’s mother remarked to police investigators that her son targeted cops “because he believed that as a result of economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society.”

But hysterical warnings of government gun grabs and a socialist takeover of the U.S. are no longer the sole proprietary interest of fringe players like Jones. In the Obama era, Jones’ conspiracy theories have graduated to primetime on Fox News. And radicals like Poplawski are tuning in. Indeed, according to the Anti-Defamation League, the alleged killer posted a YouTube clip to Stormfront of top-rated Fox News host Glenn Beck contemplating the existence of FEMA-managed concentration camps. (“He backed out,” Poplawski wrote cryptically beside the video.) Three weeks later, Poplawski posted another Youtube clip to Stormfront, this time of a video blogger advocating “Tea Parties,” or grassroots conservative protests organized by Beck and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich (see here and here) against President Barack Obama’s bailout plan.

Jones has gradually come to be accepted by the right-wing media. In September 2007, Jones interrupted a live broadcast by Fox News host Geraldo Rivera (Rivera was reporting at the time on “the secret world of restroom gay sex”) by shouting into a megaphone, “9-11 was an inside job!” He was hauled away by NYPD officers soon after. On March 18, however, Jones became a guest of honor inside Fox studios, introduced as “the great Alex Jones” by Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano during a lengthy segment on the online show, The Strategy Room. Towards the end of his spot, Jones celebrated his sudden and dramatic influence on the conservative movement’s biggest media personalities.

“I’ve never seen an awakening this big. I’m seeing Glenn Beck talk about the New World Order on Fox, I’m seeing you talk about it,” Jones told Napolitano. “We’re seeing Lou Dobbs talk about it, we’re seeing mainline hosts–Limbaugh’s even talking about global government. Michael Savage is talking about how Obama may stage crises to bring in martial law. So all the things that I was talking about in the wilderness ten plus years ago are now hitting mainstream, and it is great!”

David Neiwert, a veteran reporter on right-wing militia movements and author of the forthcoming book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, explained that by co-opting conspiratorial rhetoric from the farthest shores of the right, mainstream conservative talkers can inflame the passions of paranoiacs like Poplawski to a dangerous degree. “It’s always been a problem when major league demagogues start promulgating false information for political gain,” Neiwert told me. “What it does is unhinge fringe players from reality and dislodges them even further. When someone like Poplawski hears Glenn Beck touting One World Government and they’re gonna take your gun theories, they believe then that it must be true. And that’s when they really become crazy.”

For Jones, whatever bad publicity he incurred from a fan’s alleged killing spree paled in significance to the sudden cachet he has gained among conservative media bigwigs. During his April 6 broadcast, two days after the murders, he boasted, “Now, if you listen to [Sean] Hannity’s show, if you listen to Savage; you listen to Limbaugh, it’s almost like Alex Jones is hosting the show.”

[Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.]

Source / Daily Beast / AlterNet

Thanks to David Hamilton / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

Music Video : Arlo Guthrie is (Still) Changing His Name to Chrysler

I’m Changing My Name to Chrysler
Performed by Arlo Guthrie. Lyrics by Tom Paxton.

“Corporate welfare-the enormous and myriad subsidies, bailouts, giveaways, tax loopholes, debt revocations, loan guarantees, discounted insurance and other benefits conferred by government on business-is a function of political corruption. Corporate welfare programs siphon funds from appropriate public investments, subsidize companies ripping minerals from federal lands, enable pharmaceutical companies to gouge consumers, perpetuate anti-competitive oligopolistic markets, injure our national security, and weaken our democracy.”Ralph Nader in “Cutting Corporate Welfare.”

Thanks to Roger Baker / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

A Sermon : The Political Meaning of Easter

Crucifixion scene by Chinese artist He Qi from Mustard Seed Journey.

Especially on Easter I feel called to preach in a way that reminds us that if we take the text and our tradition seriously, we will be uncomfortable in our imperial society.

By Jim Rigby / The Rag Blog / April 9, 2009

Even in progressive churches that challenge the political and theological orthodoxy, Easter is a day many people want to find comfort in the traditions of Christianity — a special day for putting on one’s sharpest-looking outfit for church and the family gathering. But especially on Easter I feel called to preach in a way that reminds us that if we take the text and our tradition seriously, we will be uncomfortable in our imperial society.

So, I can’t give a traditional Easter sermon, one that makes us comfortable about Christianity, about our nation, about ourselves. On a day when people typically want to take a break from politics, I feel compelled to talk politics.

A sermon for Easter Sunday

When I was young and heard about the Nazi holocaust, I didn’t ask the question many of my classmates asked. I didn’t ask “how could Germans do such a thing?” I asked, “how could Christians do such a thing? How did the holocaust happen in the very cradle of the Reformation?” The Lutheran faith was born in those same places that eventually embraced fascism. How is it possible, in our own country, that Christians would go to church every week and not realize there was something deeply evil about slavery? What kind of theology allowed that to happen?

Those Christians said the same creeds we say. They sang many of the same hymns. And yet, their theology did not trigger an alarm when an atrocity was happening. And so I asked myself a question: “Do I have that same theology? Have I been propagandized in a way that I will turn against my brother and sister if they happen to be born in a different country or different religion?”

When I first began in ministry, I was popular. I remember someone once said, “Jim, I’ve never heard anyone say anything bad about you.” At the time, that seemed like a compliment, but is it really? If we really love other people, we need to love them enough to risk offending them. Paul tells us to speak the truth in love. We have to do that for each other. You have to do that for me, and I have to do it for you, because we cannot see ourselves from the outside. We cannot always step outside of ourselves and realize when we’re doing crazy or cruel things.

Most people, inside the church and out, were taught a view of the resurrection that had no ethical implications at all. You were probably taught a theology that’s not immoral, but it’s amoral. In that view, the biblical is about magic tricks. A man is born of a virgin, and then, gets up from his grave. If you believe the story, you’re saved, if you don’t you’re damned. And I want to say, that’s bad theology. When we study the life of Jesus, there are clear ethical implications from the day Jesus says he has come to announce good news for the poor, to the day he tells Peter to love Him by caring for other human beings. The story of Jesus has clear ethical and political implications. And Easter is no exception.

I think Paul is giving us three warning labels for doing theology: The first warning is never let religion talk you into surrendering responsibility for your life. The second warning is never to let theology reduce down to hypothetical truth claims. And finally, Paul warns us never to reduce your worldview down to your own group.

Our text today is a passage in Colossians where Paul tells us, “Because you have been resurrected with Christ, set your heart on higher things.” (Col 3:1) Paul says something very interesting here. He says: “Because you have been resurrected with Christ.” He doesn’t say, “Because Jesus was resurrected.” He’s talking about your life. What kind of a theology tells you to surrender responsibility to Jesus? Jesus didn’t say that. What happens when we do that is that someone else always steps in on Jesus’ behalf.

If you’re Catholic, it may be the church hierarchy; a priest, bishop, or pope may step in to tell you what Jesus wants you to do. So, you’re not surrendering responsibility to Jesus so much as to a cleric. In a Protestant church, we’re cleverer than that. We say, “It’s all about the Bible. Just believe in the Bible.” But then we step in to tell you the right way to interpret the Bible. That’s how we disguise what we are doing. We can pretend that it’s the Bible we care about, but if you’re watching, our interpretation of the book always puts us in power and control over other people. We aren’t trying to control others — it’s just one of those darn things that just keeps happening.

In Colossians, Paul is explaining the Resurrection in a different way than the gospels do. The gospels tell you a story at a level that a child can understand. Even when you’re tired, even when you are afraid, the story gives you a compass. What Paul does is unpack the story and show you how to apply it in particular situations. But you can’t take either version of the story literally.

There are types of theology that completely dis-empower the follower. I would suggest that is what happened in Germany when they told people that obedience was a virtue, no matter what. So the first thing we should know about theology is that it would lead us to our own core. Christ is a symbol of your own soul in its fullness. Christ is your own best self that you can’t always find. Yes, Jesus was a person, but a person who completely died into love, and held nothing back. So in following Christ, we should always discover ourselves as well.

The second warning is not to let theology become a set of theoretical assertions about reality. Notice that Paul now moves to a plea for unity in the early church. The symbols of religion should not point outside our experience to hypothetical beings but should waken us to the real people in our lives. So Christ is a symbol not only of your life, but of the life of your friends and your enemies. Paul tells us to bear with each other, to forgive each other as a way of making love real.

When religion becomes hypothetical, we are disoriented from ourselves and each other. The resurrection didn’t take place when a body got up. That would be a theoretical historical claim. The resurrection took place when the disciples could see Christ in each other. Believing that Jesus got up from the grave does not mean that one has experienced the risen Christ. That we find in the eyes of each other.

There is a hidden life in us all. A radiant being, that permeates every plant, animal, and person that you will ever meet. Christ is a symbol of that hidden life in us all. To be a Christian does not mean to join the Christian sect, it means to be irradiated by that one life. It means to live out of that life and for that life.

The third “warning label” is not to reduce your allegiance to any one group. Paul says in Colossians as in Galatians, “in Christ there is neither Greek nor Hebrew, neither Jew or Gentile, neither barbarian or Scythian, neither slave or citizen. There is only Christ, who is all in all.”

When we hear our leaders say that they will do whatever is in the best interest of America no matter what, or when we hear Christians say that people are saved through Christ alone, we should hear and recoil from the same rhetoric that leads to a holocaust. The words are not purified because they come through our lips. Whenever we put sectarian brackets around our ethics, then we have no ethics. When I am ethical only to those within my brackets, I am unethical to anyone outside them. When I only serve America, and you have the bad judgment to be born on the other side of that boundary, guess who pays for my arrogance?

Paul is talking about a universal humanity into which we become members. He is talking about the common body of humankind. If you look at the text, it seems clear to me that the salvation that’s being talked about is not just joining the Christian church. We are being called to the common body of humankind beyond race, gender, or religion.

What good does it do to take up the Christian label, and then serve the selfish needs of any one group? Two thousand years is enough to know that sectarian Christianity doesn’t lead to peace. But what if we loved universally the way Jesus did? What if we saw, neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female?

This is the ethical content of Easter. If I think that Christians are better than Jewish people, then the resurrection hasn’t fully happened for me yet. If I think the rich are better than the poor, the Resurrection hasn’t fully happened for me. If I think my group is superior to other groups just because I was born in it, the resurrection has not yet happened in my life.

When we awaken to our common life, something happens to our fear. Our greatest fear is no longer that someone will hurt us, but that we might harm another. Our only fear is of losing the universal love that Christ has given us. So I need not fear that someone will rob me of my life. If I am true to the virtues of patience, kindness, love — the things that Paul lists there — there is nothing on earth that can rob me of that basic, core energy that early Christians called “eternal life.”

And that is why, even though it’s Easter, I’m not going to say that the resurrection is when Jesus got up from the grave. Or that, if you believe in Jesus’ resurrection, then your body will get up too someday. That’s a religion for children. We all start out as children and that’s fine. But if our faith does not grow, then when we are afraid our immature religion will cause us to hurt other people, our immature religion will cause us to reject those who are different, our immature religion will be capable of taking advantage, enslaving, or even killing other people.

That kind of immature, cruel Christianity is a mockery of the One who died and rose again in a small band of Easter people. To be Easter people means to live out of a radical solidarity with our whole human family. To be an Easter people means to have a radical hope that can look at our dangers and unblinkingly affirm that love is stronger than any empire, stronger than any weapon. You know the Easter has happened when, for human betterment, you are willing to face death itself.

[Jim Rigby is pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin. This March his sermons are about the Biblical roots of activism. Jim Rigby is also an activist for universal human rights. He can be reached at jrigby0000@aol.com.]

Thanks to Robert Jensen / The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Time Warner Singles Out Geek-Rich Austin for Metered Broadband Trial

Penny-pinching broadband. Graphic from DVICE.com

Austin is not a city that takes its broadband lightly. It’s home to supercomputers, digital media studios and online gaming companies. Thanks to that, it’s now a microcosm for a battle against consumption-based broadband attempts around the country.

By Stacey Higginbotham / April 6, 2009

When it comes to trialing its metered broadband service, Time Warner Cable’s choice to do so in the tech-savvy city of Austin, Texas, was no accident. And residents may not be able to do much about it.

According to TWC spokesman Jeff Simmermon, Austin’s dedication to all things digital was precisely why it was chosen as one of four cities where the company plans to trial consumption-based broadband plans, which range from 5 GB to 40 GB per month (TWC says it has plans for a 100 GB-per-month tier as well). “Austin is a passionate and tech-savvy city, and the spirit that we’re approaching this (metered broadband) test with is that if it’s going to work, it has to work in a tech-savvy market where the use patterns are different,” he told me.

So far, Austin isn’t impressed, but since the local cable franchise it grants only deals with video, there may not be much it can do. Chip Rosenthal, one of seven commissioners on the City of Austin’s Technology and Telecommunications Commission (a strictly advisory body), hopes that concerned citizens will show up at the meeting it’s holding at City Hall this Wednesday and talk about metered broadband. He wants to get the metered bandwidth issue added to the agenda of the commission’s May meeting as well.

But local efforts aside, Rosenthal says Austin will have to take a national approach, either through Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, or through a lawsuit to prevent or influence the deployment of metered broadband. “The city has much greater national influence than you or I as individuals, ” Rosenthal said.

He’s right, but for those wanting to express their individual disdain, here’s an online petition put forth by a local citizen. As for the city, it’s encouraging to note that within two days of the story breaking, two of the city’s mayoral candidates issued statements questioning such caps [Lee Leffingwell and Brewster McCraken]. One noted that downloading the first season of my hometown’s favorite TV show, “Friday Night Lights,” would require almost 31 GB and would subsequently put people in danger of violating the current top-tier cap of 40 GB. “Friday Night Lights” isn’t just about Texas football, it’s also shot in town, and an important showcase for film production here in Austin.

Austin is not a city that takes its broadband lightly. It’s home to supercomputers, digital media studios and online gaming companies. Thanks to that, it’s now a microcosm for a battle against consumption-based broadband attempts around the country. If metered broadband works in Austin, then it can work anywhere — even in your hometown.

Source / GigaOM

Thanks to Media Reform Daily / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

‘Wherever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there.’

Jane Darwell as Ma Joad and Henry Fonda as Tom Joad.

Above the din, Ma Joad’s voice still confident, clear
By Pierre Tristam / April 7, 2009

Homeless camps now sprawl instead of developments. Unemployment numbers are spilling off front pages into our lives. Employers are turning workers into modern-day sharecroppers (every man his own contractor). And next week, as if on cue, marks the 70th anniversary of the publication of “The Grapes of Wrath,” John Steinbeck’s novel of foreclosure and dispossession in the 1930s. How timely.

The Oakies at the heart of the story were sharecropper migrants drummed off their land by banks and the Dust Bowl only to be terrorized by locals across the West in what Time in 1939 called “one of the grimmest migrations of history.” By then the Depression and Franklin Roosevelt had shaken up the country’s conscience, but Steinbeck gave the decade’s angers its voice. It was outraged and lyrical — as revolted over the country’s exploitative instincts as it was hopeful of its redemptive capital. Have we lost something since? The din of hateful sanctimony mugs the airwaves, giving no chance to a voice like Steinbeck’s, at once protesting, confident and forgiving. But nothing has been lost, exactly.

“The Grapes of Wrath” resonated with American empathy as few works of art ever have. It sold 100,000 copies in less than a week and became the biggest-selling novel of 1939. Within six days of publication Twentieth Century-Fox had acquired the movie rights for $75,000, close to a record for a novel back then. Within 20 days Henry Fonda was cast as Tom Joad and the ending was rewritten, supposedly to make it less grim, but in fact to avoid the image of Tom’s sister, Rosasharn (who’s given birth to a stillborn baby), breastfeeding a stranger demolished by starvation. The most charitable image of the novel somehow turned, in the perverted little minds of Hollywood producers, into an objectionably unhappy ending.

In the movie ending, what’s left of the Joads amble down a road toward the promise of 20 days of cotton picking while Ma, played by the wonderful Jane Darwell, who won an Oscar for the role, sums it all up: “I ain’t never gonna be scared no more. For a while it looked as though we was beat. Good and beat. Looked like we had nobody in the whole wide world but enemies, like nobody was friendly no more. Made me feel kinda bad and scared, too. Like we was lost and nobody cared. . . . We keep a comin’. We’re the people that live. They can’t wipe us out, they can’t lick us. We’ll go on forever Pa, ’cause we’re the people.” The End.

Steinbeck loved it. “In fact,” he wrote his agent, “with descriptive material removed, it is a harsher thing than the book, by far. It seems unbelievable but it is true.” He couldn’t have objected to the ending because his books were nothing if not sentimental anyway. It was their weakness and their strength, what makes reading Steinbeck the kind of guilty pleasure that secretly wishes irony wasn’t every contemporary novel’s inside joke.

Judging from the bestseller list’s biggest titles of the past 40 weeks (a novel about one woman’s resistance to space aliens and comedian Chelsea Handler’s “Are You There, Vodka? It’s Me, Chelsea”) you’d think Tom Joad’s famous last words, in the book and the movie, would themselves sound like alien gibberish to contemporary ears: “Wherever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever they’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there . . .” Steinbeck took the lines from Eugene Debs, the social democrat and union founder who said, “While there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal class, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” Speak these words today — words that once redeemed America — and you’re more than likely branded a scumbag, a socialist, a loser, or worse.

But self-pity would be very un-Ma like. So would romanticizing Debs and Tom Joad as some sort of irrecoverable standard of decency. Recently I came across words similar to theirs: “Where there is injustice, we should correct it; where there is poverty, we should eliminate it; where there is corruption, we should stamp it out; where there is violence we should punish it; where there is neglect, we should provide care; where there is war, we should restore peace; and wherever corrections are achieved we should add them permanently to our storehouse of treasures.”

Those weren’t in any fiction. You can read the words on one of the most famous tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery — that of Earl Warren, the lifelong Republican and Chief Justice of the United States from 1953 to 1969. You can also see the line from Tom Joad’s last words to Ma Joad’s to Warren’s, with this difference: Warren and people like him, when they had the power, made them real. That voice, that instinct, is as American as grand old plagues of greed and exploitation. It was on the defensive for a few decades. But it was never absent. Last November, it was 10 million voices louder than the cynics’. There’s wrath in those grapes yet. And wine, too.

[Pierre Tristam is a Daytona Beach News-Journal editorial writer. Reach him at ptristam@att.net or through his personal Web site at www.pierretristam.com.]

Source / Smirking Chimp

Thanks to Jeffrey Segal / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Rudd: Put the War Budget Into Peace, Diplomacy, Law, and Sustainable Energy Development

Mark Rudd.

Pacifism and The Military-Industrial-University Complex: Interviewing Mark Rudd
By Bob Feldman / The Rag Blog / April 7, 2009

Mark Rudd was the chairman of the Columbia University chapter of Students for a Democratic Society [SDS] at the time of the 1968 Columbia Student Revolt; and Rudd’s autobiography, Underground: My Life with SDS and the Weathermen was finally published in March 2009.

In a recent email interview with Toward Freedom, Rudd responded to some questions about how U.S. pacifists might consider responding to the role U.S. universities play in the current historical era of “permanent war abroad and economic depression at home” and about his new book.

In 2009, some U.S. pacifists seem to regard elite universities like Columbia as institutions that have, both historically and currently, opposed war and opposed racism—since they hire both anti-war and African-American professors and administrators, implement affirmative action hiring programs, set up “peace studies” and “African-American studies” departments, steer foundation grants and scholarship money in the direction of students from historically oppressed communities and to local community groups, and provide free or low-rent meeting room space for anti-war students and off-campus pacifist groups.

Yet in the preface to your book, you write that between 1965 and 1968 you were “a member of SDS at Columbia University” and “made as much noise and trouble as possible to protest the university’s pro-war and racist policies.” In what ways were Columbia University’s policies “pro-war and racist” in 1968 and in what ways are the policies of Columbia University and other elite U.S. universities “pro-war and racist” in 2009?

Mark Rudd: The specific demands we raised leading up to the spring of 1968–training and recruitment of military officers for the war in Vietnam, weapons research for the war, the building of a gym in public park land–were only the tip of the iceberg of Columbia’s policies. Within months of the strike, the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) produced a book entitled “Who Rules Columbia,” in which they detailed the military, State Dept., and CIA contracts and connections with the School of International Affairs, the various geographical “area studies,” such as the East Asia Institute, as well as the revolving door between Columbia and the government; also Columbia’s expansion into the surrounding community at the expense of non-white residents. Most of these connections and policies are still in place; almost all major research universities are still major war contractors. The point is that student activists have their work cut out for them to research and expose what’s correctly called the military-industrial-academic complex.

In chapter 1 of your book, titled “A Good German,” you recall that when you first met the then-chairman of Columbia’s Independent Committee on Vietnam (ICV) anti-war student group–current U.S. political prisoner David Gilbert—in early 1966, Gilbert mentioned that in May 1965 his group had “held an antiwar protest at the Naval ROTC graduation ceremony” at Columbia. And later in the “A Good German” chapter you mention that in March 1967 you had “taken part in a sit-in at a Naval ROTC class” at Columbia.

Why did you oppose Naval ROTC at Columbia in the 1960s? And do you think U.S. pacifists should consider opposing ROTC on U.S. university campuses in 2009?

Mark Rudd: The issue is fundamentally moral. Is the training of people to wage war against other countries, carrying out a criminally aggressive military policy, appropriate in an institution that pretends to seek the truth? Our answer to this question was NO, because we believed in the necessity to oppose U.S. violence as a moral value. Remember, too, that the time we lived in was essentially post-World War II, and the problem of values in society was still being debated in the aftermath of Nazism. I have no doubt that contemporary students will be taking this up again in the near future.

In chapter 2 of your book, you mention that anti-war students at Columbia protested against recruitment on campus by external organizations like the CIA and the U.S. Marines. Why did you think that it was morally wrong for Columbia University to allow external organizations like the CIA and the U.S. Marines to recruit on campus in 1967? And do you think U.S. pacifists in 2009 should also protest against U.S. universities that allow the CIA and the U.S. Marines to recruit on campus while the Pentagon’s war in Iraq and Afghanistan continues?

Mark Rudd: Same response as #2 above. Whether recruitment is “external” (e.g., Marine recruiters) or “internal” (Military Science Dept. training future naval officers), it amounts to the same thing. The resources of the university are being used to help wage war.

In chapter 3 of your book, titled “Action Faction,” you write that on March 27, 1968 “SDS had fifteen hundred names on a petition calling for the severing of ” Columbia University’s “ties with the Pentagon think-tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA);” and “IDA…became the shorthand symbol for Columbia’s huge network of complicity with the war.”

In 2009, IDA still exists. Do you think that U.S. pacifists should consider demanding that IDA be finally shut down by the Democratic Obama Administration and that U.S. pacifists should consider demanding that U.S. universities like Columbia, MIT and Harvard stop performing war research for the Pentagon’s Defense Advance Research Projects Agency [DARPA] in 2009?

Mark Rudd: I believe that the entire US military budget should be cut back and the money used for social needs both in this country and around the world. Security would be much better served by the development of true international law, not more nuclear weapons. If that doesn’t happen in the 21st century, we’re doomed. All war research should immediately stop everywhere and the money be put into peace, diplomacy, law, and sustainable energy development. To do less now is not only suicidal, it’s downright dumb.

In your book, you mention that you and Abbie Hoffman were both arrested at a November 1967 anti-war protest in Midtown Manhattan against the Foreign Policy Association giving an award to then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

April 2009 marks the 20th anniversary of Abbie’s death. How would you characterize the role that Abbie Hoffman played in U.S. anti-war movement history and his historical relationship to U.S. pacifists and non-violent anti-war activists like Dave Dellinger?

Mark Rudd: Abbie was essentially a comedian and an organizer. He was not at all violent; he always encouraged mass organizing, though often in the form of provocative guerilla theater, like the Yippies nominating a pig for president in 1968. I forget how he and Dave Dellinger got along in Chicago, both in 1968 and during the conspiracy trial the next year. My guess is that they respected each other. Perhaps you know more specifics.

Speaking of Abbie Hoffman, how would you respond to Professor Jonah Raskin’s assertion in his review of your book which was posted on The Rag Blog that “like Abbie Hoffman, Mark Rudd wasn’t suited for the underground life—he needed attention, and attention is, of course, the last thing that any fugitive wants;” and “Underground suggests, implies, and shows that Rudd is up there, along with Abbie, near the top of the list of 1960s radicals who wanted attention, and who received far more attention than they needed…It undid Abbie, and it also helped to undo Rudd.”?

Mark Rudd: I wonder if Jonah actually read my book.

Why do you think the right-wing media monitoring pressure group” Accuracy In Media” [A.I.M.] apparently attempted to pressure Rupert Murdoch’s HarperCollins publishing firm to not promote your book, according to the” Accuracy In Media” web site?

Mark Rudd: Just another way for the far right to try get at Obama, but it’s so indirect that it makes zero sense to anybody else. There was a tiny connection between Obama and Bill Ayers, but that fact gained no votes for John McCain. These people are so stupid that they’re still pursuing a tactic that’s already failed. I find that a rather comforting fact.

Do you think it’s likely that Columbia University’s Pulitzer Prize Board will decide to give you a Pulitzer Prize for writing Underground—after Columbia University’s current president–a current board member of the Washington Post Company/Newsweek media conglomerate named Lee Bollinger—reads what you’ve written about Columbia University?

Mark Rudd: I’m a shoe-in.

[This interview was also posted on Toward Freedom.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The Torture Party

Cartoon by Ralph Solonitz / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Roger Baker : The Reality of ‘Peak Oil,’ Part 1

ASPO Ireland.

Peak Oil is the point at which the total world oil production reaches its high point and finally starts to decline… We at last have some pretty convincing data to indicate that world oil production probably peaked forever in the summer of 2008…

By Roger Baker / The Rag Blog / April 7, 2009

Has peak oil arrived yet, and how do we know when that happens?

Everyone has probably at least heard the term “peak oil” by now, but perhaps without understanding much about what that phrase means or implies. It is the point at which the total world oil production reaches its high point and finally starts to decline. This is something that almost all geologists have known was going to happen sooner or later. During the energy crisis of the 1970’s, Scientific American predicted that oil production was already going to have peaked by now. There are many good “peak oil” sites these days, but this primer from Energy Bulletin is as good as any place to learn the basics:

For those of us who have been warning of the economic implications of peak oil, we do have at last some pretty convincing data to indicate that world oil production probably peaked forever in the summer of 2008. For one thing, we know from the official OPEC and International Energy Agency data that there was a supply peak and decline about the same time as the price peaked in the summer of 2008. Go here and scroll down to the chart titled “Now it is beginning to look like world oil production is beginning to decline.” (Lots more good economic discussion at the same link.)

As a follow-up example, look at Tony Ericksen’s chart and the discussion on the Oil Drum, which is a leading and essential energy policy discussion website. Erickson’s conclusions were based on a combination of current production data together with knowledge of the new oil production projects scheduled to come on line. His conclusion of a peak in 2008 was supported by most of the Oil Drum’s staff of (pro bono) writers and researchers.

In addition, the highly respected ASPO International newsletter, edited by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil International director and geologist Dr. Colin Campbell, agrees with a 2008 world oil production peak. This fact is represented in the information on the second page of recent ASPO newsletters. Conventional oil produced from drilling on land probably peaked in 2005. The other more difficult and expensive sources like polar and deep-water and tar sand oil are now themselves falling short of being able to fill the widening oil demand shortfall left by the slow decline of the huge but aging fields that supply most of the world’s oil.

The argument for making the case that we have already hit world peak oil production is simple. First, oil production is known from the official data (see the second link above) to have reached a peak in July 2008 of about 86 million barrels per day. Since that time production declined, but not fast enough to match an even steeper drop in demand caused by the global economic crisis.

Up until July 2008, the bidding for the amount of oil globally available, including some element of speculation associated with a super-tight world market, raised the oil price to a historic high of $147 a barrel before the oil supply, oil price and the global economy collapsed, approximately together in their timing.

The July 2008 maximum production level was hugely expensive to reach. As one might imagine, vast amounts of capital were attracted in the past few years to the lucrative profits to be made in places like the Canadian tar sand fields from producing $100 plus oil.

Now that the price has collapsed to less than $50 a barrel, very many oil (and gas) drilling rigs previously devoted to trying to maintain maximum oil production have been shut down, or are falling into disrepair. Major oil projects around the world, including those in Saudi Arabia, have been canceled.

This collapse in current oil infrastructure investment due to a current lower price, together with the slow depletion of the biggest global super-giant fields, makes it very likely that oil production will now continue to contract. This no matter how much we might try to invest when the price shoots back towards $150 a barrel. Crash investments are unlikely to make much difference, assuming the capital is still available.

Since we don’t know the depth of what already amounts to a world depression, oil prices could remain at $50 a barrel for several years until a partial global economic recovery recreates a world market bumping up against the slowly declining ceiling in production once again. Nobody can accurately predict what will happen because the unpredictability of the current economic crisis makes the recovery of energy demand unpredictable. (See Heinberg in the upcoming Part 2 of this article.)

Oil is like nothing else in its role in the economy. Oil is the essential lifeblood of our modern fossil-fueled global economy, powering virtually all transportation, whether on land, or air, or sea. For this reason, the global economy is ultimately limited in its potential expansion by oil, and will for the foreseeable future. Just try to imagine the cost and difficulty of retrofitting the world’s jet aircraft to burn some other fuel than the kerosene-like jet fuel that they need now. We use a similar oil distillate fuel to launch rockets into space because nothing else can safely deliver more energy per pound when burned together with liquid oxygen. Less and more expensive oil means we will necessarily fly less and move fewer things around.

There are many important economic implications of our inconvenient industrial addiction, with most of them likely to be seen as unwelcome to conducting business as we have in the past. This is especially true when viewed in the context of a global capitalist economy.

By definition capitalism must always increase its production of goods, in order to earn interest on investment and remain economically healthy. Capitalism exists solely by virtue of its tendency to expand more strongly than competing modes of economic organization. When there is still lots of planet left to profitably exploit, capitalism tends to win out, at least in a Darwinian sense.

High oil prices act like a universal tax on all commerce. The price of oil is still poised to surge again whenever the desire to pay customers to move things around exceeds the amount of oil needed to accomplish that goal.

Not only is peak oil bad news to its users in a direct sense, but the evidence indicates this economic headwind, operating together with an unregulated and unwieldy mountain of poorly-secured global debt, probably initiated the economic collapse of 2008, as the Wall Street Journal indicates.

This is not the only source to implicate peak oil as a primary cause of the financial crisis. The crisis started to unwind in August 2007, beginning with the sub-prime mortgage problem, but it became acute in mid 2008. The following is from “Oil price and economic crash,” ASPO International, Feb. 1, 2009.

The German Financial Times features an article that links the record high oil prices of last July to the onset of the financial

No financial analyst managed to predict that 2008 would end in a recession. Generally the financial crisis has been described as the cause. However, it turns out that the initial suspicion was wrong. The chronology speaks against the fact that the September bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers crash caused the real economy. Key economic indicators were on descent weeks before Lehman Brothers collapsed.

In the United States, the number of new applications for unemployment benefits soared in the last week in July suddenly to recession levels – not mid-September. In August broke the upward trend in orders for U.S. companies, the orders fell within one month increased by four percent. Industrial production also fell abruptly in the month before the Lehman-crash – not afterwards. The same is true for America’s exports, which previously had boomed for months.

In the euro zone started in the mood indicators in June to time, with worsening in July. Even in China there was already weeks before Lehman signs of a serious economic setback. The crash of the summer of 2008 coincided with another global phenomenon: In June and July 2008, at the rise in oil prices, the first courses were almost twice as high as a year earlier. This also caused another shock as a result of the global: an inflation scare that led to just the interest rate in June shot up high expectations.

In agreement with the oil price theory, the sales of cars in the U.S. crashed at exactly the mid-July . With the oil price could also explain why no industry as a crisis like the car industry. In the euro zone fell to new registrations from June to July by 8.3 percent. The German car industry was almost 15 percent fewer orders than last year.

Oil production limits clearly initiated the bidding war that raised the world price to $147 a barrel before the oil price and the global economy collapsed approximately together. The ASPO newsletter has an oil price graph that strikingly shows the slow acceleration of oil price from 2000 to a soaring peak in summer of 2008. This chart can be seen as a visual representation of an irresistible economic force in direct collision with an immovable natural barrier.

Since liquid fuel production (most of which is oil) was running flat out at nearly 86 million barrels per day, any further bidding by an expanding economy, including some short term speculative forces, could only bid the price up still further, perhaps to $200 a barrel as some were anticipating in 2008.

At some point these very high fuel costs were bound to wreck the ability of the over-leveraged economy to expand and repay its debt. Cost-push inflation associated with the embedded cost of transportation was poised to diffuse throughout the economy within months of fuel price increases. Things just happened to hit the wall of financial reality when oil reached $147 per barrel.

This world fuel production level of 86 million barrels per day was a very expensive and difficult level of oil production to achieve and maintain. Now that the world oil price has collapsed to less than $50 a barrel, partly due to about a 4% reduction in yearly US oil demand, many oil and gas rigs have been forced to shut down.

This collapse in current investment together with slow depletion of the biggest global giant fields virtually assures that world oil production will now continue to contract. Since oil is the lifeblood of the modern world economy, powering virtually all transportation, the global economy will have to contract too, and probably for a long time to come.

There are many implications of peak oil. There are delayed effects, like the current economic crisis, but most of the results are likely to be seen as unwelcome. If things were bad when gasoline hit $4 a gallon last summer, what happens when it costs $10 a gallon?

[What to do about the current situation will be the focus of Part 2 of Roger Baker’s series, “The Reality of ‘Peak Oil.'”]

The Rag Blog

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