Anti-government activists are not allowed to express themselves in Iranian media, so theses activists have taken their expressions to another high circulation mass-medium, banknotes. The Central Bank of Iran has tried to take these banknotes out of circulation, but there are just too many of them, and gave up. For the activists’ people it’s a way of saying “We are here, and the green movement is going on”.

Following are examples of such banknotes, mostly written in green ink:

Posted by Joe Anybody at 7:40 PM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Friday, 30 July 2010

Grandmothers For Peace (Arizona Chapter)
Now Playing: Joe Anybody in Solidarity with Grandmothers for Peace, a non-profit organization

http://www.grandmothersforpeace.org/

Grandmothers for Peace

Grandmothers for Peace, a non-profit organization, was formed in May of 1982 at the height of the Cold War. In 1981, I became aware of 150 nuclear weapons at Mather Air Force Base — just 15 minutes from my home in Sacramento, California. Those weapons, aimed at the Soviet Union, and similar weapons in the USSR aimed at the US, made me realize that if things did not change, my precious grandchildren could be part of the last generation on earth. That thought catapulted me “out of my kitchen” to join others at the gates of Mather in protest of the nuclear arms race. My granddaughter made me a sign that read “Grandmother for Peace” which I held at weekly protests. That sign attracted a great deal of attention from the public and the media.

In April of 1982 I was arrested (the first of many times) for an act of non-violent civil disobedience. The media was captivated by the image of a grandmother risking jail in an effort to save the planet from nuclear annihilation! During my 5 days in jail, I realized that grandmothers have a very powerful and important role to play in the struggle to eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. I decided to form a group called “Grandmothers for Peace.” In May, eleven women gathered in my living room to declare ourselves “Grandmothers for Peace” — we had $11.00 in our treasury at the end of the meeting!

In the beginning we felt our most important role would be to support other local peace organizations in their work, and to maintain a weekly vigil at Mather. Very soon it became clear that we also had a unique voice of our own and that our group had universal appeal. News of our activities spread rapidly by word of mouth and news reports. Soon we had members & supporters across the nation and around the globe. We added a Men's Auxiliary, and by 1990 we officially added “International” to our name reflecting our international scope.

Our work has expanded to include the dangers of nuclear power plants; radioactive waste; sub-critical and computerized nuclear testing (now that underground testing has been banned); the nuclearization and weaponization of space; global militarism that continues to drain desperately needed resources from programs that enhance life; and other peace and justice issues that effect the human family. In spite of some progress, nuclear weapons continue to threaten the fate of our planet. The abolition of nuclear weapons remains a top priority.

Those of us with the time and the energy have become activists — marching; protesting; visiting our elected officials; giving speeches to motivate others to action; publishing international newsletters and other materials; and even committing acts of civil disobedience when all else fails. “Stay at home” members help keep our work alive by writing & calling elected officials, circulating petitions, keeping us in their prayers, guiding their grandchildren in the ways of non-violence, and helping to raise funds for our Peace & Justice Scholarship Awards, plus other specific humanitarian efforts we adopt.

GFP has helped a multitude of good causes around the globe, e.g., The Jabalya Maternity Clinic in Gaza; Hospital San Carlos, serving the poor Mayan Indians in Chiapas, Mexico; The City of Hope and Reconciliation in Matagalpa, Nicaragua; Women's Centers in refugee camps in the former Yugoslavia; and poor and ailing widows in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan, the former Russian nuclear test site.

In most cultures around the world, grandmothers are revered as the “keepers of the peace.” We are inspired and motivated by that fact, but realize that in today's dangerous world we can no longer keep or promote peace by sitting in our rocking chairs!

We remain an all-volunteer organization and prefer to maintain an informal structure that encourages others to start, with very little effort, Chapters in their communities.

The world is a safer place “in grandma's arms,” but one need not be a grandmother to participate in our work. Join us!

Barbara Wiedner, Founder (1928-2001)

Growing Number of Prosecutions for Videotaping the Police

Prosecutions Draw Attention to Influence of Witness Videos

By RAY SANCHEZ

July 19, 2010—

^{http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/videotaping-cops-arrest/story?id=11179076}

That Anthony Graber broke the law in early March is indisputable. He raced his Honda motorcycle down Interstate 95 in Maryland at 80 mph, popping a wheelie, roaring past cars and swerving across traffic lanes.

But it wasn't his daredevil stunt that has the 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard facing the possibility of 16 years in prison. For that, he was issued a speeding ticket. It was the video that Graber posted on YouTube one week later -- taken with his helmet camera -- of a plainclothes state trooper cutting him off and drawing a gun during the traffic stop near Baltimore.

In early April, state police officers raided Graber's parents' home in Abingdon, Md. They confiscated his camera, computers and external hard drives. Graber was indicted for allegedly violating state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent.

Arrests such as Graber's are becoming more common along with the proliferation of portable video cameras and cell-phone recorders. Videos of alleged police misconduct have become hot items on the Internet. YouTube still features Graber's encounter along with numerous other witness videos. "The message is clearly, 'Don't criticize the police,'" said David Rocah, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland who is part of Graber's defense team. "With these charges, anyone who would even think to record the police is now justifiably in fear that they will also be criminally charged."

Carlos Miller, a Miami journalist who runs the blog "Photography Is Not a Crime," said he has documented about 10 arrests since he started keeping track in 2007. Miller himself has been arrested twice for photographing the police. He won one case on appeal, he said, while the other was thrown out after the officer twice failed to appear in court.

"They're just regular citizens with a cell-phone camera who happen to come upon a situation," Miller said. "If cops are doing their jobs, they shouldn't worry."

The ACLU of Florida filed a First Amendment lawsuit last month on behalf of a model who was arrested February 2009 in Boynton Beach. Fla. Her crime: videotaping an encounter between police officers and her teenage son at a movie theater. Prosecutors refused to file charges against Sharron Tasha Ford and her son.

Videotaping as a Tool for Citizens

"The police have cameras in their cars. I watch cops on TV," Ford said. "I'm very hurt by what happened. A lot of people are being abused by police in the same way."

Ford's lawyer, James Green, called videotaping "probably the most effective way to protect citizens against police officers who exaggerate or lie."

"Judges and juries want to believe law enforcement," he said. "They want to believe police officers and unless you have credible evidence to contradict police officers, it's often very difficult to get judges or juries to believe the word of a citizen over a police officer."

In Palm Beach County, Fla., Greenacres resident Peter Ballance, 63, who has Asperger's syndrome and has to record conversations to help his memory, settled a civil lawsuit for $100,000 last year. In August 2005, police officers tackled and arrested Ballance for refusing to turn off his tape recorder.

"You know what," said the officer, according to court documents, "I still don't want that recording device on."

"Well, it's on," Ballance replied.

"It is a third-degree felony," the cop said. "If you want to push it, you can go to jail for it."

"Well, I'm pushing it now," Ballance said.

Ballance snapped pictures of the officers. One of the cops delivered a blindside tackle. Ballance had to be treated for injuries and cardiac symptoms at a hospital on the way to the county jail. At the hospital, officers refused to let Ballance use his recorders to communicate with doctors, court papers said.

In Portsmouth, N.H., earlier this month, Adam Whitman, 20, and his brother were charged with wiretapping, a felony in the state for videotaping police on the Fourth of July when they were called to a party and ended up arresting 20 people, many for underage drinking.

A police spokesman told ABCNews.com that the wiretapping charges were being dropped.

Witness Videos on the Rise

Across the country, arrests such as these highlight the growing role of witness video in law enforcement. A dozen states require all parties to consent before a recording is made if there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Virginia and New York require one-party consent. Only in Massachusetts and Illinois is it illegal for people to make an audio recording of people without their consent.

"The argument is, 'Well, can a police officer beside the highway have a private conversation with somebody that they pull over?'" said Joseph Cassilly, the Harford County prosecutor handling Graber's case.

Cassilly added, "Suppose a police officer pulled you over and he wanted to have a talk with you. 'Sir, I smell alcohol on your breath. Can you talk to me about how much you've had to drink? Would you want somebody else to stop by and record that and put it on the Internet?"

Rocah of the ACLU disagreed. "It's not that recording any conversation is illegal without consent. It's that recording a private conversation is illegal without consent," he said. "So then the question is, 'Are the words of a police officer spoken on duty, in uniform, in public a 'private conversation.' And every court that has ever considered that question has said that they are not."

Rocah said actual wiretapping prosecutions, though rare, are happening more frequently. But intimidation with the threat of arrest for taping the police is much more common.

"Prosecution is only the most extreme end of a continuum of police and official intimidation and there's a lot of intimidation that goes on and has been going on short of prosecution," he said. "It's far more frequent for an officer to just say, 'You can't record or give me your camera or give me your cell phone and if you don't I'm going to arrest you. Very few people want to test the veracity of that threat and so comply. It's much more difficult to document, much more prevalent and equally improper."

New Video, Old Debate

In many jurisdictions, the police themselves record encounters with the public with dashboard cameras in their cars.

"Police and governmental recording of citizens is becoming more pervasive and to say that government can record you but you can't record, it speaks volumes about the mentality of people in government," Rocah said. "It's supposed to be the other way around: They work for us; we don't work for them."

Graber's YouTube video, meanwhile, has helped renew the old debate about whether government has a right to keep residents from recording the police. There is even an "I support Anthony Graber and his right to freedom of expression" Facebook page with close to 600 friends.

"Suffice it to say that our client is terrified at the prospect of these criminal charges," Rocah said.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 5:06 PM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Sunday, 25 July 2010

Dead Mind Concert
Mood:

celebratory
Now Playing: I have this concert on file contact me for the download
Topic: SMILE SMILE SMILE
Subject: 5/8/77 - The truth at lastNewsgroups: rec.music.gdeadView: Complete Thread (10 articles) | Original FormatDate: 1999/04/23 Contact me at iamjoe-anybody.com if you know this didnt happen or if it did.

There's been a lot of talk lately about the legendary fake show on 5/8/77. I've kept my silence on the subject for 22 years ... now it's finally time to come clean on the whole subject. The whole idea began back in late 1969/early 1970. The Department of Defense and the CIA were very disappointed by the way the Vietnam Warwas progressing. Not only were we losing but, more importantly, the US public did not approve of the war and, worse yet, weren't believing everything the military said about what was happening. This was an unprecidented event. Every other recent war was viewed positively by the public ... or at least with apathy in the case of Korea. Something had to be done. They decided to take a page from the Soviets and experiment with mind control. Together with Disney and a fledgling computer company called Microsoft, they set out to prove that brainwashing could really work on the very people who opposed them: the hippies. It isn't widely known but Cornell was actually the second test of these mind control procedures. The first occurred in mid-1975 and was a dismal failure. 2 major mistakes were made. First, they picked the one time that the Deadwere not touring. This created all sorts of problems with the subject audience. The more serious mistake was in not updating the criteria of the experiment. Due to typical government inefficiency, they used the 1969 version of the Dead that was playing when the program was conceived. The sudden appearance of Pigpen, who had died 2 years earlier, litterally blew the minds of those in attendance. 6 months were spent erasing all traces of the "show" and carefully rebuilding as much of their minds as possible.The subjects were eventually released and most of them became evangelists, their only lingering memory of the whole experiment being an unshakeable belief that they'd witnessed a true miracle. Unfortunatly, no tapes have been found from this first experiment. That's a real shame because the version of Dark Star->St Stephen->Eleven->Lovelight used was supposedly the best ever. After a few drinks, the originalscientists still speak in awe about the music heard that day. By Nov 1977, everyone was ready for the second test. This time, they learned from their mistakes. A small group of college students (including yours truely) were hired to attend shows from 1976 through 1977. Our job wasto collect tapes of the Dead's performances, select which tunes to use, and to help identify subjects for the upcomming experiment. The location and date were chosen with equal care. It was a off-day during the tour and thelocation close enough to the real concerts to be believed. Of more importance was the late snowfall that day. That unusual and easily confirmed event provided the glue that would hold the implanted memories together. Even now 22 years later, people "remembering" that concert use almostidentical words to discribe leaving the show. Overall, the experiment was a great success. Of course, some people were given slightly different memories. Some, like Teddy Goodbear, "remember" taping the show and were even provided "Audience" tapes to further cement the hoax. Still others remember getting "horribly smashed" up front. None of this actually occured. A week after the "concert" experiment, a 2nd test was done on the town of Cornell itself. In order to perfect this hoax, the town itself must also be convinced that the concert took place. Disney had acquired owner- shipof all the local TV and radio stations through dummy corporations. Using special chips developed by Microsoft, they played sublimbminal messages to every man, woman and child in a 100 mile radius of Barton Hall. For the most part, this programming still holds today although somepeople did prove resistant to the message. As far as the source of the music, for the most part the list posted by "brew ziggins" is correct. The only mystery remaining is the Scarlet-> Fire. That was actually performed by the Dead specifically for this experiment.Since Jerry worked for the CIA, it was easy to convince him and the rest of the band to go along. Plus he liked the idea of "pranking" a large group of people like this. The fabled 2/6/77 "take a step back" rehearsal tape isalso from material taped for these experiments. The soundboard tapes in circulation were leaked by Betty O'Connell who edited the orginal tapes. I don't know if it was just a coincidence or not, but they were leaked at about the same time as the tapes recorded by Betty Cantor were found. In any event, they became part of the so-called "Betty Boards". Leaking these tapes also provided the first cracks in the hoax to appear since the tapes were distributed to people who were not in the experiment and who knew that no show was performed that day. It was necessary to obtain their silence through blackmail, bribery and in extreme cases, mind control itself. That's also how this "show" came to be listed in all the popular Dead show guides like DeadBase. So what's happened to these mind control techniques used in this experiment? I got out of the program in 1978 but it's obvious that they are still being used today. Microsoft has used this power to become one of the biggest, most influencial companies in history. They sure didn't become that big by providing quality products. It was used to shape public reation to the Gulf War. It's also clear that George Bush never understood the full power of these methods. After the Gulf War, the technology was leaked to a young governer who used them to be sucessfully elected to 2 terms as president and remain in power dispite facing numerous charges that should have seen him removed from office or even thrown in prision. There are also indications that this technology might explain the otherwise unbelievable popularityof rap music. That's the whole story. I'll probably end up in jail (or worse) for revealing this but it feels good to finally get the whole thing off my chest.

o well..

(GooD Golly - Joe Anybody)

Posted by Joe Anybody at 12:52 AM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Karl Rove talks about his biggest mistake in the White House
Mood:

irritated
Now Playing: Turd Bloosom speaks into the wind on July 15 2010
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT

My Biggest Mistake in the White House

Failing to refute charges that Bush lied us into war has hurt our country.

By KARL ROVE

^{http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365793062101552.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop}

Seven years ago today, in a speech on the Iraq war, Sen. Ted Kennedy fired the first shot in an all-out assault on President George W. Bush's integrity. "All the evidence points to the conclusion," Kennedy said, that the Bush administration "put a spin on the intelligence and a spin on the truth." Later that day Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle told reporters Mr. Bush needed "to be forthcoming" about the absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Columnist John Fund says you'll never guess who's funding ads critical of Obama's agenda. And, Columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady looks into whether the just-passed Dodd-Frank financial reform measure is a quota bill.

Thus began a shameful episode in our political life whose poisonous fruits are still with us.

The next morning, Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards joined in. Sen. Kerry said, "It is time for a president who will face the truth and tell the truth." Mr. Edwards chimed in, "The administration has a problem with the truth."

The battering would continue, and it was a monument to hypocrisy and cynicism. All these Democrats had said, like Mr. Bush did, that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Of the 110 House and Senate Democrats who voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of force against his regime, 67 said in congressional debate that Saddam had these weapons. This didn't keep Democrats from later alleging something they knew was false—that the president had lied America into war.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham organized a bipartisan letter in December 2001 warning Mr. Bush that Saddam's "biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs . . . may be back to pre-Gulf War status," and enhanced by "longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Yet two years later, he called for Mr. Bush's impeachment for having said Saddam had WMD.

View Full Image

Getty Images

On July 9, 2004, Mr. Graham's fellow Democrat on Senate Intelligence, Jay Rockefeller, charged that the Bush administration "at all levels . . . used bad information to bolster the case for war." But in his remarks on Oct. 10, 2002, supporting the war resolution, he said that "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America."

Even Kennedy, who opposed the war resolution, nonetheless said the month before the vote that Saddam's "pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated." But he warned if force were employed, the Iraqi dictator "may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists."

Then there was Al Gore, who charged on June 24, 2004, that Mr. Bush spent "prodigious amounts of energy convincing people of lies" and accused him of treason, bellowing that Mr. Bush "betrayed his country." Yet just a month before the war resolution debate, the former vice president said, "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Top Democrats led their party in making the "Bush lied, people died" charge because they wanted to defeat him in 2004. That didn't happen. Several bipartisan commissions would later catalogue the serious errors in the intelligence on which Mr. Bush and Democrats relied. But these commissions, particularly the Silberman-Robb report of March 31, 2005, found that the "Bush lied" charge was false. Still, the attacks hurt: When they began, less than a third of Americans believed the charge. Two years later, polls showed that just over half did.

About Karl Rove

Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is the author of the forthcoming book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).

Email the author atKarl@Rove.comor visit him on the web atRove.com. Or, you can send a Tweet to @karlrove.

The damage extended beyond Mr. Bush's presidency. The attacks on Mr. Bush poisoned America's political discourse. Saying the commander-in-chief intentionally lied America into war is about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a president. The charge was false—and it opened the way for politicians in both parties to move the debate from differences over issues into ad hominem attacks.

At the time, we in the Bush White House discussed responding but decided not to relitigate the past. That was wrong and my mistake: I should have insisted to the president that this was a dagger aimed at his administration's heart. What Democrats started seven years ago left us less united as a nation to confront foreign challenges and overcome America's enemies.

We know President Bush did not intentionally mislead the nation. Saddam Hussein was deposed and eventually hanged for his crimes. Iraq is a democracy and an ally instead of an enemy of America. Al Qaeda suffered tremendous blows in the "land between the two rivers." But Democrats lost more than the election in 2004. In telling lie after lie, week after week, many lost their honor and blackened their reputations.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Original Article is here:

^{http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365793062101552.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop}

Posted by Joe Anybody at 12:01 AM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Saturday, 24 July 2010

The ISO and BP how Capitalism is destroying
Mood:

quizzical
Now Playing: Capitalism - Socialism discussion from Indy Media
Topic: POLITICS

_{The ISO and BP how Capitalism is destroying
the planet do you agree?}

^{_{The ISO and BP how Capitalism is destroying
the planet do you agree?}}

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/07/401078.shtml

author: A green Anarchist

The ISO (Internationalist Socialist Organization) is having a discussion about the
BP oil spill and how Capitalism is destroying the planet. They
are saying that Socialism would be better and if oil
production was state controlled then we would not have these
disasters happen. I don't agree an here is why.

Socilaism is a moral philosophy as is
capitalism. Today we tend to think of them both as sciences
but they started as moral philosophies and remain so today.
Socialism shares with captalism as far as I can tell, and I am
not the only one saying this a economic growth worldview.
Which is to say Industrialization is inevitable and we can and
must continue to grow the economy.
The big problem that I
see with this is that we live on a finite planet and that
there is only so much stuff that we can chew up and spitt out.
A lot of people believe that science is going to save us, and
I think that not only is this not possible it is foolish. This
is coming from someone who has been studying peak oil for the
last six years and believe it to be resl snd believe that we
have already past it.
What are your thaughts on the
matter? And does anyone want to go with me on the 29th to
debate tgis with the ISO? Thanks

Here is a link to the
event http://portlandsocialists.org/

contribute to this article

I'm afraid I have to
disagree

20.Jul.2010
22:59

Thorn

link

As much as I despise the ISO (and I do) there
is an important distinction between Capitalism and Socialism in any
form. Capitalism by its very design requires the production of
Capital and the expansion of Industry. When that expansion and
production declines, you have a Recession. When it stalls, you have
Market Failure/Depression. Industrialization and economic growth,
while interrelated, are not interchangeable. In Marxian thought the
Proletariat revolution shall occur when Capitalism produces a
sufficiently industrialized and uniform global economy. The
following stage of social development, Socialism, is intended to
mark the period in time where the means of production - Industry -
are used only to sustain the human race; rather than under
Capitalism where they are used to expand and destroy Capital. While
depletion shall continue under Socialism, the truth of the matter is
that consumption is an inevitability of existence. They key point to
focus on is the DIFFERENCE in depletion - like taking a sip of water
in comparison to gorging yourself at an all you can eat buffet,
Socialism is, in comparison, significantly less consumptive than
Capitalism. This is to say nothing of how workplace democracy and
decentralization (none of that Leninist garbage, genuine Socialism)
will give us a far greater control of how much we consume than a
continued reliance on a Bourgeoisie/Managerial class under
Capitalism would.

Thorn is essentially
right

21.Jul.2010
04:47

Mike Novack

link

Continuously pointing out how destructive
capitalism is for the argument does NOT (by itself) make that
socialism WILL be better in that regard.

Continuously
pointing out that it is necessarily a characteristic of capitalism
to require expansion and that THIS property might not be present
under socialism does NOT mean that it will be absent. That's just an
argument that socialism COULD POSSIBLY be better. But the people who
keep making this argument refuse to specify any better model; in
fact trefuse to specify ANY model. That makes their argument "any
form of socialism would be better" and that simply is not the case.

Besides -- a major logic flaw thinking that arguing against
capitalism is the same as arguing FOR socialism. For that to make
sense you have to have already bought in to a theory of history that
is purely linear with a directed arrow of "progress". In other
words, have to BELIEVE (as in religious beliefs) that the only
alternative to capitalism is socialism. Clearly in the past we
humans have managed to organize our societies in ways that were
neither (capitalism is at most a few hundred years old).

Don't take that wrong --- All I mean by that is "historical
determinists" can't ASSUME all of us out here accept that theory of
history as truth. Need to always be including in your arguments "and
assuming that historical determinism is true and that we humans have
"progressed" to the point where the only social arrangements
possible are capitalism or socialism" THEN arguing against
capitalism is arguing FOR socialism.

Re: Thorn is essentially
Right

21.Jul.2010
20:50

Thorn

link

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree
with Mr. Novack. "Historical Determinism" is a pejorative applied to
Marxism by those who don't fully understand the nature of Marx's
work. This is partly because Marxism is a complex subject, partly
because it has been politicized, and partly because Leninist
organizations like the ISO have really screwed it up. The "laws"
that define progress in Marxist thought were not intended to serve
as some supernatural endorsement of a particular ideology over
another. Rather they were meant to emphasize the fact that as a
system operates over an extended period of time, participants within
that system begin to recognize certain consequences of that system
as being inherent to it. Marx's Theory (emphasize on the word
theory) was that Capitalism was going to produce a particular set of
consequences as the masses, in turn, would come to several general
conclusions about the desirability of Capitalism itself. The
consequences of these realizations, the ensuing conflict and
paradigm shift, were what Marx called Socialism.

Marx's
critics have often derided his work for the conspicuous absence of a
concise definition of Socialist society and its instrumentations.
But that lack of definition is crucial to Marxist thought when you
consider all of the aforementioned. Marx didn't believe we walk down
the path of Socialism because "History" commanded us to, because we
all became adherents to Marxist thought, because it is the "only"
option available to us, Rather he argued that we build a society in
contrast to Capitalism and in an effort to succeed where it fails.
By taking the same system, projecting its consequences, Marx made a
guess as to the qualities of that future society.

The
accuracy of Marx's conclusions are undeniable. If you look at the
sum of Anti-Capitalist thought and the forms of Anti-Capitalism
which have prospered by means of the extent to which they resonate
with the common man, you find a great deal of consistent and
overlapping themes that are perfectly in line with the
characteristics of Socialism as outlined by Marx. Many of these
anti-capitalist philosophies have been critical of Marx and Marxism,
many have been designed to account for the perceived failings of
Marxism and yet none of them departed from the crucial elements of
Marxism. Is this because we have been forced by the Party to
formulate all Anti-Capitalist thought in a manner that coincides
with Marx or is it because that in the process of formulating any
alternative to Capitalism one inevitability is going to the very
kind of conclusions Marx is talking about? Whether we have a
successful Anarchist revolution, a PareCon revolution, the success
of any revolution that comes from the working class in the way Marx
talks about is going to be a vindication of Marxist thought.

And from that I'd disagree the argument that "rejecting
Capitalism doesn't mean Socialism will be better in terms of the
environment". If Capitalism gets so bad that some sort of global
awakening takes place, you can rest assured that environmental
degradation will play a role in it. If we're going to overthrow
Capitalism and not establish a system that is inherently better than
it, what is the point of overthrowing it in the first place? I know
I - along with the millions of other ecologically-minded people out
there - will continue to push for a sustainable future during the
revolution and through the democratic channels of a Socialist
society.

contribute to this article

add comment to discussion

more discussion

Is the Person or Profit
Central?

21.Jul.2010
06:37

marc

link

In Marx' understanding, persons are
commodified and degraded under the fetishism of market, capital and
money where the market or profit are made central. Reductionism and
alienation occur when life is reduced to the market economy, CEOs
are stylized "job creators" and workers degraded as "cost factors."

In the 50s, we had a guns-and-butter economy without limits.
Pushing the workers and increasing productivity was the panacea. In
the 80s with the neoliberal counter-revolution, Reagan reduced the
top tax rate from 71% to 24% and gave capital all freedom in the
"trickle down" mythology. In the current financial crisis,
pyromaniacs are called fire-fighters and speculators "investors."
Trust will be more distant than a star until the financial sector is
shriveled, working hours are reduced and redistribution occurs from
top to bottom.

As the Sabbath was made for man and not man
for the Sabbath, the economy should be a part of life, not a
steamroller crushing creativity and self-determination.

Here
is a link to an essay on Erich Fromm. The future will be brighter
when we overcome our estrangement and send the architects of crisis
back to the golf course!

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/07/400819.shtml

http://www.submedia.tv/

http://www.socialistproject.ca

The ISO are $ocialists,
not socialists

21.Jul.2010
23:55

link

I don't currently have the time to type the
book that it takes to properly get into the subjects raised here,
but let me point you to an excellent talk that addresses why
socialism is necessary to save humanity and the planet.

http://www.revolutionbooksnyc.org/Lotta060810.mp3

Video at -

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GNFJC51X

Socialist Worker on A
truly sustainable Society

22.Jul.2010
16:13

Meredith (ISO)

link

Socialist Worker has excerpts from the new
Haymarket book "Ecology and Socialism" that fit well into this
thread. I encourage people to check out the article and let us know
what you think.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/07/22/truly-sustainable-society

This still does
not..

22.Jul.2010
21:01

answer my question.

link

How to solve the growth problem. Some of you
said that I was wrong and then went on to say that Socialism would
be like sipping oil from a glass rather than gorging at an all you
can eat buffet. Then still others tried to make yourselves sound
very intelligent and used a lot of big words.

The bottom
line is this oil and fossil fuels ot finite and will run out this is
an undisputed fact which we have known for a long time. Today most
of out energy is made using fossil fuels. So with demand rising
"growth" and this would happen in a socialist country as much as a
capitalist country which is why the Soviet Union fell. The Soviet
Union could not provide for the basic demands of it's population
furthermore the educated class demanded more materials and a higher
standard of living. Not to mention what happened to tha Arial Sea
which is one of the worst enviromental disasters in history.

I don't believe science will save us so I refuse to believe
in any political idialiogy thst believes in growth as the answer to
societies proplems, and thank you Steve I totally agree.

um	22.Jul.2010 22:02

(a)

link

The socialists seem to be forgetting or
denying that BURNING OIL by itself is a global catastrophe. No
leaking needed. A socialist economy could run a completely
leak-proof, worker safe, even egalitarian etc., oil economy and the
environment would still fall apart around us. Burning any fossil
fuels IS JUST OUT OF THE QUESTION.
Hydroelectric dams will
destroy all of the global salmon runs if global warming doesn't.
Dammed up rivers also produce huge amounts of greenhouse gasses by
creating big anaerobic decaying pits of organic matter. Sometimes
more greenhouse gasses than coal burning power plants. Look it up.

But let's be clear here, producing and maintaining solar
panels, or windmills, or thermal generators, or whatever is also
needlessly polutive, wasteful and harmful.
Metal mining requires
the destruction of huge tracts of land and poisons streams and
rivers. It increasingly requires the use of large quantities of
cyanide and other toxic chemicals. The production of plastic
releases Dioxins (some of the most deadly compounds known), and then
the plastics that we use continue to leak dioxins and other harmful
chemicals into the general environment (wherever it is that they
happen to be, in your home, outside, wherever).
Recycling is
also a chemical and energy intensive industrial process that harms
the environment and is wasteful to the degree that eventually, as a
system, it will run out of raw materials to circulate.
Any way
you cut it, fossil fuel and electric infrastructures are not
sustainable. And by "not sustainable" I do not mean just mean "dirty
and regrettable but still an option, if only a not so good one"
that's not what "not sustainable" means! It doesn't mean "yucky, but
workable." It means that IT PHYSICALLY CANNOT CONTINUE. A
non-sustainable practice will stop itself from continuing either by
completely depleting the resources it needs to continue OR by
destroying the environment to the degree that human life cannot be
sustained- whichever comes first.
Heck, even a steam industry is
not sustainable... most of the U.S. was deforested during or even
before the early industrial revolution alone. Early Middle Eastern,
African and European civilizations that practiced intensive grain
agriculture were not sustainable (while it would appear on the other
hand that indigenous milpa -maize, squash, beans, etc.- farming is
rather sustainable). Most of the lifestyles that we have come to
think of as "civilized" are just not sustainable.

But don't
sweat it. Biologically modern humans have been around for 200,000
years. Large-scale industrial energy infrastructures have been
around for roughly 100 years. That's less than 0.1% of the time that
humans have been around. Meaning that I'm sure we'll be able to
figure out how to live just fine again without that utterly
frivolous, completely unnecessary crap.
The ghosts of
essentially all of your ancestors going back to the earliest humans
would probably laugh in your face if you tried to tell them that "I
can't imagine living without electricity! Certainly it can't be
done!"

Re: This still does
not...

23.Jul.2010
20:22

Thorn

link

Whoa whoa whoa. Slowdown there. The person
asking this question - who I assume to be you - asked for
clarification, from a Socialist standpoint, about industrialization.
Not the use of Fossil Fuels. The consumption of natural resources is
an inevitability but the consumption of Fossil Fuels is not.
Throughout this discussion I have maintain the orthodox Marxist view
(which is not sustained by Leninist organizations) that Socialism is
not possible without Capitalism first reaching a particular level of
development. It is from the Capitalist's mindless industrialization
that the peoples of the world become members of the Proletariat and
in turn the conditions for a Socialist revolution are eventually
made possible.

In Marx's time the issue of environmentalism
wasn't nearly as pronounced and so it wasn't really an element of
his work. But considering the fact that Marx did believe Capitalism
would produce a set of conditions so terrible that it would cause a
global class movement, its rational to say he would have included
environmental degradation in his theory had he been living today.
consumerism, global warming denial, and general complacency towards
our environment are deeply ingrained in the Capitalist system. It is
these characteristics, necessary to sustain the demand for consumer
goods that fuel growth of the Capitalist system, that will
invariably prevent the ruling class from acting in a manner that
prevents some sort of catastrophe down the road. When this
catastrophe occurs, it WILL indisputably demonstrate that Capitalist
development is at the heart of the declining integrity of our
planetary ecosystem. When this catastrophe occurs, Capitalism will
be unable to cope with the massive, destabilizing strain it places
on Global Markets. When this catastrophe occurs, it will compact
with all the other insidious tyrannies that exist to maintain the
system and burden the working class - political, social,
intellectual, economic, etc.

It figures that such a
culmination of events would be the spark that lights the proverbial
fuse - causing that global awakening that precedes the true
Socialist revolution predicted in Marx's work. This environmental
catastrophe will inevitability be a crucial element and focus of the
democratic, non-hierarchial reorganization of our planet; as the
masses will seek to establish a system which will not repeat the
disaster that was so horrific that it helped cause a historically
unequaled paradigm shift the world over.

Because we are
unavoidably moving towards a totally industrialized world today, by
the time such an event occurs its logical to assume that
industrialization will be even more prevalent. On a planet with a
human population of billions - all of whom who are trained to
operate and dependent on industry - it would be impossible to
immediately abandon industry without causing starvation that in
unlike any of our most horrible nightmares. But because these
industries will be operated to SUSTAIN humanity rather than to
simply perpetuate growth for profit, immediate steps - such as the
abolition of Fossil Fuels and the mass adoption of Alternative
Energies - will be immediately possible. As the jump in awareness
that is necessary to operate a democratic, non-hierarchal society
spurs on infinitely greater and more socially-mindful education, as
the prosperity inherent to operating industry for need affords the
masses more time to develop other skills, the process of slowly
reducing the need for industrial dependency will steadily alter our
economies and in turn the size/composition of the human race as
whole. Conversely the depletion of the Earth's resources - slowed
but ever present - will never allow a global society of
collectively-orientated people to simply ignore the state of the
Earth - thus insuring energies will be consistently dedicated to
mitigating humanity's impact on the Earth.

Although all of
the aforementioned is quite complicated (and will be even more so in
practice), the fact that such a future is possible and well within
the operating confines of SOME socialist thought I hope I have
successfully helped you understand how it is simply not realistic to
put Socialism on the same level as Capitalism. And to reiterate my
emphasis on the world "some" large elements of what I've outlined
here are simply structurally impossible under some forms of
Socialist thought - primarily Leninist ones. As you have correctly
stated the Soviet Union unilaterally failed to distinguish itself
much less the "greatness" of Capitalism despite its barbarity.
Leninist thought retains one of the most crucial and powerful
elements of the Capitalist system - the necessity of hierarchal
power structures due to what the perceive as the incompetency of the
masses. When you keep hierarchy, you keep an unequal distribution of
power. When you keep an unequal distribution of power, you establish
the basis of a class system and when you have a class system you
have class interests which compel some to control and exploit the
people. It is this basic principle that has rendered all attempts at
Leninist Socialism miserable failures with unforgivable loses of
life. The ruling class of the Soviet Union - the beloved
"professional revolutionaries" and "People's Party" worshiped by the
Leninists - never care about the people just like their Capitalist
counterparts; only the perpetuation and defense of their power and
wealth. When these inherently selfish elements are steering the
ships of our nations, they cannot be convinced to avoid the icebergs
of ecological devastation that threaten to hurt everyone but them.

Get a grip Thorn

23.Jul.2010
21:36

link

Thorn,you sound more like Bill O'Rilley or
some of the others on Fox 'News.'

add comment to discussion

Posted by Joe Anybody at 3:28 PM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Tuesday, 20 July 2010

FIlming in Public and the "Law"
Mood:

lyrical
Now Playing: Cops - Cameras - And your right to film
Topic: MEDIA

Taking Photos In Public Places Is Not A Crime:

Analysis too many officials think taking photos is a crime.

Here’s why they’re wrong.

By Glenn Harlan Reynolds 7.20.10.

Today, most people walk around with a camera of some sort in their possession. Point-and-shoots, DSLRs and tiny video cams--not to mention cellphones--have become ubiquitous. And yet it seems that in many public locations, security officials are touchier than ever about letting people actually use those cameras. Our guardians of public safety often have the idea that shooting pictures in public places might be a precursor to some sort of terrorism. It's an understandable concern, but misguided. I believe there is a good case to be made that having lots of cameras in the hands of citizens makes us more, rather than less, safe.

Here's how bad it has gotten: Not long ago, an Amtrak representative did an interview with local TV station Fox 5 in Washington, D.C.'s Union Station to explain that you don't need a permit to take pictures there--only to be approached by a security guard who ordered them to stop filming without a permit.

Legally, it's pretty much always okay to take photos in a public place as long as you're not physically interfering with traffic or police operations. As Bert Krages, an attorney who specializes in photography-related legal problems and wrote Legal Handbook for Photographers, says, "The general rule is that if something is in a public place, you're entitled to photograph it." What's more, though national-security laws are often invoked when quashing photographers, Krages explains that "the Patriot Act does not restrict photography; neither does the Homeland Security Act." But this doesn't stop people from interfering with photographers, even in settings that don't seem much like national-security zones.

Tennessee law student Morgan Manning has compiled a list of incidents in which individuals were wrongly stopped. Cases like that of Seattle photographer Bogdan Mohora, who was arrested for taking pictures of police arresting a man and had his camera confiscated. Or NASA employee Walter Miller, who was stopped for photographing an art exhibit near the Indianapolis City-County Building and told that "homeland security" forbade photos of the facility. More recently, a CBS news crew was turned back from shooting the oil-fouled gulf coastline by two U.S. Coast Guard officers who said they were enforcing "BP's rules."

Unfortunately, Manning notes, although such hassling is generally illegal, it's hard for the average citizen to get redress in court--how do you calculate the value of deleted snapshots or photos never taken in the first place?

As the examples above demonstrate, it's a problem that stems as much from cluelessness at the bottom of the chain of command as from heavy-handedness at the top. The officers who crack down on photographers no doubt believe they are protecting public safety. But evidence that photography might be useful to terrorists is slim. According to security expert Bruce Schneier, head of security technology for British Telecom, terrorists don't typically photograph targets in advance. "Look at the 9/11 attacks, the Moscow and London subway bombings, the Fort Hood shooting--no photos," he says. "I'm not seeing a whole lot of plots that hinge on photography." On his blog, Schneier advises: "If you're harassed, it's almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority."

Not surprisingly, police tend to be particularly sensitive about being photographed themselves. And many of the cases cited by Manning involve officers discouraging citizens from filming them while they go about their duties. Though one can understand their skittishness, the fact is, our ability to document the actions of public officials is an important freedom, one that can serve as a check against abuses.

Police and prosecutors in Maryland have been taking a particularly hard line. In one case, motorcycle rider Anthony Graber left his helmet cam on while he was pulled over by a state trooper. A grand jury indicted him on several violations of the state's wiretapping laws. If convicted on all charges, Graber could face up to 16 years in prison. In alleging that the GoPro video camera on Graber's helmet constituted a "surreptitious" wiretapping device, prosecutors are making the claim that a person recording his own arrest is violating the police officer's right to privacy.

This is the sort of thing you might be tempted simply to toss in the crazy file. But, in fact, this is one of the comparatively few issues that could merit a new federal civil rights law. Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Congress is empowered to pass laws protecting civil rights against infringement by state and local officials, and that seems to be what's happening here. A clear federal law would limit cases, like Maryland's, in which local officials use their power to harass those who might keep an eye on them. Passing such a law would make us all safer.

Even in potential terrorism cases, the presence of lots of ordinary folks carrying cameras actually enhances public security. In the hours after the failed Times Square car-bomb attempt, officials searching for clues didn't just look at their own security-camera footage, they also sought out home movies shot by tourists.

So what should you do if you're taking photos and a security guard or police officer approaches you and tells you to stop? First, be polite. Security people have tough jobs and probably mean well. Ask them what legal authority they have to make you stop. (If you're in a public place, like a street, a park, etc., they have none; if you're in a private place, such as a shopping mall, they may have a basis for banning pictures.) Krages advises those hassled by security guards to threaten to call law enforcement. If it's an actual police officer who's telling you to stop shooting, ask to speak to a superior. And remember--you never have a legal duty to delete pictures you've taken.

More importantly, we need better education among security guards and law enforcement. In Britain, the country's police chiefs' association is attempting to educate officers about the rights of photographers. So far, nothing like that has happened in the U.S., but it should. Trying to block photography in public places is not only heavy-handed and wrong but, thanks to technology, basically useless. With the proliferation of cameras in just about every device we carry, digital photography has become too ubiquitous to stop. Let's have a truce in the war on photography and set our sights on the real bad guys. Who, it seems, don't carry cameras anyway.

Popular Mechanics contributing editor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, author of An Army of Davids (Nelson Current, 2006), teaches law at the University of Tennessee and blogs at Instapundit.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 12:01 AM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Wednesday, 14 July 2010

Marc 20 Anti Aer Protesters go to court - 3 Convictions and 3 Acquitals
Mood:

bright
Now Playing: Ant War March - Peace of the Action - John Gold, Cindy Sheehan, and Jim Veeder
Topic: POLITICS

March 20 White House Arrest Trial Ends with 3 Convictions, 3 Acquittals

Monday, I spent a day in DC Superior Court supporting six anti-war activists on charges that arose from March 20 arrests at the White House while protesting the 7th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Elaine Brower and Matthis Chiroux were found guilty in a bench trial of "failure to obey a police order." LeFlora Cunningham-Walsh was found guilty of "crossing a police line." John Gold, Cindy Sheehan, and Jim Veeder were found not guilty of crossing the police line.

Read the reports, see the photos and watch the videos from the protest March 20, 2010 in DC

Arrested in DC There are legal questions involved in the convictions which will likely be appealed. In the course of a permitted, peaceful march, at which symbolic cardboard coffins were left in front of buildings of the Veterans Affairs Offices and Halliburton, marchers dropped about a dozen of the coffins in front of the White House, in the designated "picture postcard" zone where tourists are always allowed, but political protest is not.

The prosecution produced a US Park Police video of the S.W.A.T. team leader Lieutenant Beck announcing, on a barely-audible bullhorn that the protest permit was revoked, and that everyone inside of an arbitrary police line of yellow tape and bike racks had to move. Police already had a continuous line of these bike racks and cops directly in front of the White House fence with plenty of safe space for them to "protect persons and property", that no one was attempting to challenge.

Where was the emergency or dangerous situation that the prosecution referred to which allegedly gave the park police the right to declare the "permit revoked?" Where was the threat to the area? Elaine Brower, who testified in her own defense, talked of years of opposition to the wars in which her son was deployed. She explained that she lay down on the sidewalk next to the symbolic coffins demanding an end to these illegitimate wars that have so adversely affected those military family members who stood beside her that day crying over the death of their sons. She argued that if tourists can be there at one moment taking photos unimpeded, why can't a permitted political protest be there at another?

Outside Court Cindy Sheehan choked up on the stand, recounting her efforts after her son Casey was killed to stop the wars -- many miles of marching, thousands of speeches and interviews, her radio show, and even a run for Congress -- only to have a new, Democratic Congress and president expand the war in Afghanistan.

These activists all did the right thing in making visible non-violent protest, stepping beyond the bounds of what the government arbitrarily permits, and also refusing to accept any offer of a "plea bargain" in the process leading up to and on the day of the trial. All six defendants stood together in solidarity to demand their right to be heard and that all bogus charges are dismissed. Unfortunately, the end result was that three were ultimately convicted, and three were able to walk away with an acquittal.

That Saturday afternoon in March, Elaine and Matthis were calling on many more of the protesters standing there to join their impromptu action of lying on the sidewalk in front of the White House. If hundreds would have joined in, there likely would have been no arrests and no situation where the six arrested for basically a "traffic violation" were roughed up and held on cement floors in torturous conditions for 50+ hours. Given the max penalty for the infractions were fines, and no jail time, the government clearly was delivering a message that such protest will be riskier and more dangerous. None of them should have been convicted!

Dissent, truth-telling, and daring to speak about why these wars continue, through the Bush regime, escalating into the "change" we should be resisting, has to be our mission. While the Peace of the Action events attracted very few people last week, I applaud Cindy and those who came to protest. I also applaud those that were convicted who could have accepted the plea bargain from the government which ultimately allowed three others to have their charges dismissed.

We need more of this!