 |
Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Blogging from Cuba - Authorities threaten journalist bloggers
Mood:
 chatty
Now Playing: Cuba cracks down on "free speech" - will it get even worse?
Topic: MEDIA
Z3 Readers this blogger is getting the "shut up or else" treatment. From what I have read she is still blogging by writing ...then email her 'reports' to contacts that live outside of Cuba. There the 'report' is translated into a few languages and posted on the link below this text. Being told to quit it... or to what degree of "quiting it" is still to be decided. For now Yoani Sanchez continues to speak truth to power. On Mother Jones website I read the following paragraphs:
Havana-based writer Yoani Sanchez was recently named by Time magazine as one the 100 most influential people in the world, and she won the 2008 Ortega y Gasset award for digital journalism. But that didn't stop Cuban authorities from directly threatening her with jail last week. Or maybe that's precisely why the dictatorial Cuban regime finds the 33-year-old Sanchez so intolerable. Her lyrically and masterfully written blog, Generacion Y, is the most prominent online site in Cuba—if such a thing even exists. Access to the Internet is severely restricted there, and the Havana government shows no hesitation in censoring a long list of sites, including Sanchez's. Here is the post from 'Yoani Sanchez' blog
At nine in the morning an official looks, with boredom, at the citation we have presented at the door of the 21st and C station. We are left waiting on one of the benches for about 40 minutes, while Reinaldo and I take the opportunity to discuss all those things the dizziness of daily life always keeps us from talking about. At 9:45 they take my husband, asking first if he has a cell phone. Ten minutes later they return and take me to the second floor. The meeting is brief and the tone energetic. There are three of us in the office and the one who raises his voice in song has been introduced as Agent Roque. To my side another, younger one, watches me and says his name is Camilo. Both tell me they are from the Interior Ministry. They are not interested in listening, there is a written script on the table, and nothing I do will distract them. They are intimidation professionals. The topic was as I expected: We are close to the date for the blogger meeting that, with neither secrecy nor publicity, we have been organizing for half a year; they announce we must cancel it. Half an hour later, now far from the uniforms and the photos of leaders on the walls, we reconstructed an approximation of their words: We want to warn you that you have transgressed all the limits of tolerance with your rapprochement and contacts with counter-revolutionary elements. This totally disqualifies you for dialog with Cuban authorities. The activities planned for the coming days cannot be carried out. We, for our part, will take all measures, make the relevant denunciations and take the necessary actions. This activity, in this moment in the life of the Nation, recuperating from two hurricanes, will not be allowed.
Roque stopped talking–nearly shouting–and I asked if he would give me all this in writing. Being a blogger who displays her name and her face has made me believe that everyone is willing to attach their identity to what they say. The man lost the rhythm of the script–he didn’t expect my librarian’s mania to keep papers. He stopped reading what had been written and shouted at me even louder that, “They are not obliged to give me anything.” Before they send me off with a “get out of here, citizen” I manage to tell him that he won’t sign what he told me because he doesn’t have the courage to do it. The word “Cowards” comes out almost in a guffaw. At the bottom of the stairs I hear the noise of the chairs pushed back into place. Wednesday has ended early.  Read the 45 Comentarios »
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 4:16 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 10 December 2008 4:25 PM PST
Obama and appointing an Education Secretary that isnt qualified
Mood:
 don't ask
Now Playing: Is Obama setting Education to fail? (by picking a friend to run department)
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
Has Barack Obama forgotten, "Way-to-go, Brownie"? Michael Brown was that guy from the Arabian Horse Association appointed by George Bush to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Brownie, not knowing the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain from the south end of a horse, let New Orleans drown. Bush's response was to give his buddy Brownie a "way to go!" thumbs up. We thought Obama would go a very different way. You'd think the studious Senator from Illinois would avoid repeating the Bush regime's horror show of unqualified appointments, of picking politicos over professionals. But here we go again. Trial balloons lofted in the Washington Post suggest President-elect Obama is about to select Joel Klein as Secretary of Education. If not Klein, then draft-choice number two is Arne Duncan, Obama's backyard basketball buddy in Chicago. Say it ain't so, President O. Let's begin with Joel Klein. Klein is a top notch anti-trust lawyer. What he isn't is an educator. Klein is as qualified to run the Department of Education as Dick Cheney is to dance in Swan Lake. While I've never seen Cheney in a tutu, I have seen Klein fumble about the stage as Chancellor of the New York City school system. Klein, who lacks even six minutes experience in the field, was handed management of New York's schools by that political Jack-in-the-Box, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The billionaire mayor is one of those businessmen-turned-politicians who think lawyers and speculators can make school districts operate like businesses. Klein has indeed run city schools like a business - if the business is General Motors. Klein has flopped. Half the city's kids don't graduate. Klein is out of control. Not knowing a damn thing about education, rather than rely on those who actually work in the field (only two of his two dozen deputies have degrees in education), Klein pays high-priced consultants to tell him what to do. He's blown a third of a billion dollars on consultant "accountability" projects plus $80 million for an IBM computer data storage system that doesn't work. What the heck was the $80 million junk computer software for? Testing. Klein is test crazy. He has swallowed hook, line and sinker George Bush's idea that testing students can replace teaching them. The madly expensive testing program and consultant-fee spree are paid for by yanking teachers from the classroom. Ironically, though not surprisingly, test scores under Klein have flat-lined. Scores would have fallen lower, notes author Jane Hirschmann, but Klein "moved the cut line," that is, lowered the level required to pass. In other words, Klein cheats on the tests. Nevertheless, media poobahs have fallen in love with Klein, especially Republican pundits. The New York Times' David Brooks is championing Klein, hoping that media hype for Klein will push Obama to keep Bush schools policies in place, trumping the electorate's choice for change. Brooks and other Republicans (hey, didn't those guys lose?) are pushing Klein as a way for Obama to prove he can reach across the aisle to Republicans like Bloomberg. (Oh yes, Bloomberg's no longer in the GOP, having jumped from the party this year when the brand name went sour.) Choosing Klein, says Brooks, would display Obama's independence from the teacher's union. But after years of Bush kicking teachers in the teeth, appointing a Bush acolyte like Klein would not indicate independence from teachers but their betrayal. Hoops versus Hope The anti-union establishment has a second stringer on the bench waiting in case Klein is nixed: Arne Duncan. Duncan, another lawyer playing at education, was appointed by Chicago's Boss Daley to head that city's train-wreck of a school system. Think of Duncan as "Klein Lite." What's Duncan's connection to the President-elect? Duncan was once captain of Harvard's basketball team and still plays backyard round-ball with his Hyde Park neighbor Obama. But Michelle has put a limit on their friendship: Obama was one of the only state senators from Chicago to refuse to send his children into Duncan's public schools. My information is that the Obamas sent their daughters to the elite Laboratory School where Klein-Duncan teach-to-the-test pedagogy is dismissed as damaging and nutty. Mr. Obama, if you can't trust your kids to Arne Duncan, why hand him ours? Lawyer Duncan is proud to have raised test scores by firing every teacher in low-scoring schools. Which schools? There's Collins High in the Lawndale ghetto with children from homeless shelters and drug-poisoned 'hoods. They don't do well on tests. So Chicago fired all the teachers. They brought in new ones - then fired all of them too: the teachers' reward for volunteering to work in a poor neighborhood. It's no coincidence that the nation's worst school systems are run by non-experts like Klein and Duncan. Obama certainly knows this. I know he knows because he's chosen, as head of his Education Department transition team, one of the most highly respected educators in the United States: Professor Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University. So here we have the ludicrous scene of the President-elect asking this recognized authority, Dr. Darling-Hammond, to vet the qualifications of amateurs Klein and Duncan. It's as if Obama were to ask Michael Jordan, "Say, you wouldn't happen to know anyone who can play basketball, would you?" Classroom Class War It's not just Klein's and Duncan's empty credentials which scare me: it's the ill philosophy behind the Bush-brand education theories they promote. "Teach-to-the-test" (which goes under such pre-packaged teaching brands as "Success for All") forces teachers to limit classroom time to pounding in rote low-end skills, easily measured on standardized tests. The transparent purpose is to create the future class of worker-drones. Add in some computer training and - voila! - millions trained on the cheap to function, not think. Analytical thinking skills, creative skills, questioning skills will be left to the privileged at the Laboratory School and Phillips Andover Academy. We hope for better from the daddy of Sasha and Malia. Educationally, the world is swamping us. The economic and social levees are bursting. We cannot afford another Way-to-go Brownie in charge of rescuing our children. **************** Greg Palast is the father of school-aged twins and the author of, "No Child's Behind Left," included in his New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse. Palast is a Nation Institute Puffin Foundation Fellow for investigative reporting. Get a signed copy of Armed Madhouse for the holidays for a tax-deductible contribution to the Palast Investigative Fund at www.PalastInvestigativeFund.org Subscribe to Palast's reports at
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 2:55 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 10 December 2008 3:00 PM PST
Monday, 1 December 2008
Book Review of Military Recruiting Bullshit
Mood:
 loud
Now Playing: Truth about killing and screwing yourself good in the Military
Topic: WAR
America's Military Today: The Challenge of Militarism http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1565848837/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new 
REVIEW My local visiting crier of Armegeddon tells me that if Jesus had not departed and was still with us, he would tell us Americans that all practicing Christians should withdraw their support from the military and eliminate the income tax that funds their mayhem and bombing. Those who wish to make war should do so at their own cost and risk of God's wrath ("Thou shalt not kill" is recorded in the Pentateuch as one of God's Ten Commandments).
However, many Americans and many Christians included believe that an army is necessary to defend us from attack. For example, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is for a strong defense while he recognizes that the Tory warmongers in Washington, District of Criminals, are on a global offensive since partnering with the British for WW II. We Yanks have been providing the brawn to British empire ever since. Our troops are being sacrificed in every political hotspot created by the British prior to WW II including Afghanistan and Iraq.
Worse, ever since the Bush Crime Family blew up the Twin Towers and blamed it on the Arabs, Americans have been as war-frenzied as their forefathers were after FDR allowed the Japs to hit Pearl Harbor (see "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin). Have you heard of Marvin Bush? He was in charge of security of the Twin Towers when the power went off the day before for one hour the day before the planes hit. Disturbing questions like these are not considered by the Tories that have infiltrated the conservative movement in America. And their Toryism has led to the resurgence of WW III on behalf of American-powered British empire.
It is in this context that this book addresses what it is like for the recruit, the kid being lied to by the paid military recruiter, to join the military and risk his or her life on behalf of Darth Vader Bush and the British Emperors. Not only will the recruit not know that he or she will be morally bankrupt killing and fighting civilians rather than armies, they will get the shaft as well.
In Tod Ensign's chapter "Filling the Ranks", you see what the recruiters stoop to do to shake out the garbage and enlist whatever falls out. Many of your military buddies should never be enlisted but belong behind bars already. When you get to Iraq or Afghanistan and watch them kill kids in cold-blood, you'll wonder why you're in an army that Adolf Hitler would've loved. You learn about the backdoor draft where an enlistee can not separate when his or her time is up. Your backside belongs to the State!
And in another chapter "Military Justice", you learn that "military needs come first" - all that stuff the recruiter promised you about a job, pay, conditions, college, etc, etc, was sheer buffalo pucky! You get whatever your commanders and their bosses agree to give you IN THEIR DISCRETION. You play their game by their rules, do not get killed while killing people trying to defend themselves from your invasion of their towns and villages, THEN you can get out (if they do not extend your term of service) and maybe go to college - if you can keep yourself out of the night clubs while you try to drown out the statist screwing you just suffered.
In short, this is an important and accurate expose of how badly our troops are treated while being ordered to invade people who have never done anything to us. Every high school social studies teacher should have 150 copies of this book - you just might save a kid's life. http://www.ImpeachBlair.org ------- From Publishers Weekly -------
Ensign, director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, has compiled this primer for potential recruits and concerned citizens. Chapters by various contributors cover tactics used in recruitment and basic training, as well as the intricacies of policies on women and sexual harassment, minorities, "don't ask, don't tell" and exposure to hazardous materials. A 50-page compilation of letters from soldiers now serving in Iraq and their families makes up the book's third chapter of 10; chapters on "Military Justice: An Oxymoron?," a possible draft and the demographics of the infantry round things out.
If it all sounds a little disjointed, that is because it is. Perhaps because of its many authors, the book lacks a common analytical thread, and there are far too many instances where Ensign or another contributor offers a litany of facts as if they speak for themselves. As the subtitle makes clear, Ensign sees many current practices as needing reform, and his analysis, when it occurs, is pitched toward mobilizing forces for change. While they may find it a challenge, dedicated readers will be able to use this book in that capacity or as a compendium of aspects of service that are less likely to be discussed by recruiters.
Product Description
From the front lines in Iraq to the recruitment stations back home, a rare, unvarnished look at today's armed forces.
America's Military Today provides an eye-opening survey of the way the modern U.S. armed forces enlist, train, and deploy their all-volunteer force. Long-standing soldiers' rights attorney Tod Ensign brings together a range of expert commentators to examine key issues, including:
The techniques used by the Pentagon to recruit and train a required 200,000 volunteers each year
The controversial arguments being advanced for a return to the draft
The military's reputation as an exemplar in the promotion of racial minorities and the ongoing challenge of gender discrimination and sexual assaults
The appropriate role of the armed forces in policing America
The future shape of war fighting, particularly the continued relevance of the ordinary foot soldier.
The book also includes testimony from soldiers on active duty in Iraq, providing a harrowing picture of daily life at the sharp end of the armed services.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:44 PM PST
Updated: Monday, 1 December 2008 5:54 PM PST
A Banana A Day
Mood:
 accident prone
Now Playing: one a day
Topic: ANYBODY * ANYDAY
Bananas Containing three natural sugars - sucrose, fructose and glucose combined with fiber, a banana gives an instant, sustained and substantial boost of energy. Research has proven that just two bananas provide enough energy for a strenuous 90-minute workout. No wonder the banana is the number one fruit with the world's leading athletes. But energy isn't the only way a banana can help us keep fit. It can also help overcome or prevent a substantial number of illnesses and conditions, making it a must to add to our daily diet. Depression: According to a recent survey undertaken by MIND amongst people suffering from depression, many felt much better after eating a banana. This is because bananas contain tryptophan, a type of protein that the body converts into serotonin, known to make you relax, improve your mood and generally make you feel happier. PMS: Forget the pills -- eat a banana. The vitamin B6 it contains regulates blood glucose levels, which can affect your mood. Anemia: High in iron, bananas can stimulate the production of hemoglobin in the blood and so helps in cases of anemia. Blood Pressure: This unique tropical fruit is extremely high in potassium yet low in salt, making it the perfect way to beat blood pressure. So much so, the US Food and Drug Administration has just allowed the banana industry to make official claims for the fruit's ability to reduce the risk of blood pressure and stroke. Brain Power: 200 students at a Twickenham (Middlesex) school were helped through their exams this year by eating bananas at breakfast, break, and lunch in a bid to boost their brain power. Research has shown that the potassium-packed fruit can assist learning by making pupils more alert. Constipation: High in fiber, including bananas in the diet can help restore normal bowel action, helping to overcome the problem without resorting to laxatives. Hangovers: One of the quickest ways of curing a hangover is to make a banana milkshake, sweetened with honey. The banana calms the stomach and, with the help of the honey, builds up depleted blood sugar levels, while the milk soothes and re-hydrates your system. Heartburn: Bananas have a natural antacid effect in the body, so if you suffer from heartburn, try eating a banana for soothing relief. Morning Sickness: Snacking on bananas between meals helps to keep blood sugar levels up and avoid morning sickness. Mosquito bites: Before reaching for the insect bite cream, try rubbing the affected area with the inside of a banana skin. Many people find it amazingly successful at reducing swelling and irritation. Nerves: Bananas are high in B vitamins that help calm the nervous system. Overweight and at work? Studies at the Institute of Psychology in Austria found pressure at work leads to gorging on comfort food like chocolate and chips. Looking at 5,000 hospital patients, researchers found the most obese were more likely to be in high-pressure jobs. The report concluded that, to avoid panic-induced food cravings, we need to control our blood sugar levels by snacking on high carbohydrate foods every two hours to keep levels steady. Ulcers: The banana is used as the dietary food against intestinal disorders because of its soft texture and smoothness. It is the only raw fruit that can be eaten without distress in over-chronicler cases. It also neutralizes over-acidity and reduces irritation by coating the lining of the stomach. Temperature control: Many other cultures see bananas as a "cooling" fruit that can lower both the physical and emotional temperature of expectant mothers. In Thailand, for example, pregnant women eat bananas to ensure their baby is born with a cool temperature. Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD): Bananas can help SAD sufferers because they contain the natural mood enhancer tryptophan. Smoking: Bananas can also help people trying to give up smoking. The B6, B12 they contain, as well as the potassium and magnesium found in them, help the body recover from the effects of nicotine withdrawal. Stress: Potassium is a vital mineral, which helps normalize the heartbeat, sends oxygen to the brain and regulates your body's water balance. When we are stressed, our metabolic rate rises, thereby reducing our potassium levels. These can be rebalanced with the help of a high-potassium banana snack. Strokes: According to research in "The New England Journal of Medicine," eating bananas as part of a regular diet can cut the risk of death by strokes by as much as 40%! So, a banana really is a natural remedy for many ills. When you compare it to an apple, it has four times the protein, twice the carbohydrates, three times the phosphorus, five times the vitamin A and iron, and twice the other vitamins and minerals. It is also rich in potassium and is one of the best value foods around. So maybe its time to change that well-known phrase so that we say, "A banana a day keeps the doctor away!"
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 10:37 AM PST
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Is Joe Anybody a Marxist?
Mood:
 not sure
Now Playing: Tax the Super Rich
Topic: BIG MONEY PLAYERS
I found this article on Portland Indy Media 
GM, The NY Times, and Marxism 101 author: PDX Workers Action As Socialists, we are consistently asked to present our ideas in a clearer, easier to understand manner. To achieve this goal, I'll enlist the help of former Governor of Massachusetts and candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, who appeared in the New York Times Op-Ed section on Nov. 19th.
Romney's piece, entitled "Let Detroit Go Broke," laid bare the intent behind the angry rhetoric used by politicians against the proposed bailout for the "Big Three" automakers. Whereas the giant Wall Street banks received over
1 trillion dollars — so far— without barely having to ask, an industry that actually produces something has to beg for a handout. Why the difference? |
Romney doesn't mince words, and makes it known that money can't simply be thrown at the Big Three: they have to fix the problems that landed them in this mess. It soon becomes clear that the biggest problem needing fixing is the wages and benefits of the autoworkers.
"First, their [the automakers] huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers."
Conclusions such as these are inescapable within a market economy. Marx gave similar examples long ago to explain how competition between capitalists inevitably forced an attack on the workers, since it is more difficult to cut the costs of raw materials and machines.
To accomplish the destruction of workers' wages, Romney demands new management, too, and says that "the new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end." This has always been a dream of the capitalist: eliminating the hostility of workers towards management, especially when management is hell-bent on destroying workers' standard of living. Unfortunately for shareholders, class conflict is inherent in an economic system that is divided between workers and owners.
The bureaucracy that controls the autoworkers union (UAW) has done its best to dampen this intrinsic conflict. The UAW "leaders" have "cooperated" in drastically lowering workers' wages and benefits, and as recently as last year, pushed through a devastating contract for workers.
But it wasn't enough.
Romney — and the corporate establishment as a whole - are demanding that the Big Three declare bankruptcy so that existing labor contracts can be torn up. Then the real "restructuring" will begin.
The lack of compassion that the ruling class shows for the families that would be affected by such polices shouldn't come as a surprise. An economic system that produces goods for a market — instead of social need — will always produce similar outrages to the conscience.
As the economic crisis deepens, similar attacks on workers will develop. This is foreshadowed by Romney's comment, "Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th." In the same paragraph Romney implies that unions in general are to blame for the sad state of the economy. This is not merely the opinion of one man, but of one social class. Again it should be stated: the current crisis is being used as a justification for an unprecedented assault on the living standards of workers, beginning with the auto industry.
A defeat for the autoworkers in this fight will set a devastating precedent for workers all over the country. It is the absolute duty of every working-class person to stand in solidarity with the autoworkers in their coming struggle. It is likewise in the interest of all who work for wages to oppose the continuing bailout of the Big Banks at taxpayer expense. Taxing the Super Rich is the common sense solution to the problem you'll never hear from a politician's mouth. |
 homepage: http://www.workerscompass.org
More on Marxism can be found here Extra bonus link is the word " proletariat "
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:09 PM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 25 November 2008 11:15 PM PST
Monday, 24 November 2008
Uighurs community in USA will take GITMO detainees who are free
Mood:
loud
Now Playing: Guantanamo Bay Prison releasing 17 innocent men
Topic: TORTURE
OK FOLKS THIS IS NEWS FROM THE CUBA HELL HOLE
AS YOU READ THIS BEAR IN MIND THESE MEN ARE ALL
INNOCENT AND HAVE BEEN IN PRISON FOR YEARS  (GO USA!) The following article I found on: MotherJones.com There is a BlipTV video here: http://blip.tv/play/AdvTYIiAJw On a recent Saturday night, 200 or so members of Washington, DC's Uighur community gathered at the Northern Virginia Community College cultural center to celebrate Nation's Day. The event commemorated the Central Asian ethnic group's creation of the Republic of East Turkistan and declaration of independence from China—twice (once in 1933 and again in 1944). The Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gurz) spent the evening listening to traditional poetry recited by an elderly man in a sequined hat who occasionally burst into patriotic a cappella song, calling on people to throw off the yoke of oppression. Dark-suited men and women in elegant shiny head wraps clapped along with accordion music and consumed traditional Uighur party food: a whole lamb kebob, which was quickly stripped to the bone by hungry guests and their gaggle of children. The attendees represented a large chunk of the nation's tiny Uighur community. Yet the festive event was most notable for who wasn't there: 17 Uighur men who have been wrongly detained at Guantanamo Bay for nearly seven years. READ FULL STORY HERE
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/11/ex-guantanamo-detainee-next-door-uighurs-freed.html
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 9:44 PM PST
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Wikipedia discription of the words "direct action"
Mood:
 mischievious
Now Playing: Direct action and understanding the words and their meaning
Topic: PROTEST!
A Z3 Report Direct action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action Direct action tactics have been around for as long as conflicts have existed, but the theory of direct action developed primarily in the context of labor struggles. Lenin discussed changes in the aims of Direct action in Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism in 1910.[2] In his 1920 book, Direct Action, William Mellor placed direct action firmly in the struggle between worker and employer for control "over the economic life of society." Mellor defined direct action "as the use of some form of economic power for securing of ends desired by those who possess that power." Mellor considered direct action a tool of both owners and workers and for this reason he included within his definition lockouts and cartels, as well as strikes and sabotage. However, by this time the American anarchist and feminist Voltairine de Cleyre had already given a strong defense of direct action, linking it with struggles for civil rights:"...the Salvation Army, which was started by a gentleman named Bob Luker was vigorously practising direct action in the maintenance of the freedom of its members to speak, assemble, and pray. Over and over they were arrested, fined, and imprisoned ... till they finally compelled their persecutors to let them alone." (de Cleyre, undated) By the middle of the 20th century, the sphere of direct action had undoubtedly expanded, though the meaning of the term had perhaps contracted. Most campaigns for social change—notably those seeking suffrage, improved working conditions, civil rights, abortion rights, an end to gentrification,and environmental protection—employ at least some types of violent or nonviolent direct action.The anti-nuclear movement used direct action, particularly during the 1980s. Groups opposing the introduction of cruise missiles into the United Kingdom employed tactics such as breaking into and occupying United States air bases, and blocking roads to prevent the movement of military convoys and disrupt military projects. In the U.S., mass protests opposed nuclear energy, weapons, and military intervention throughout the decade, resulting in thousands of arrests. Many groups also set up semi-permanent "peace camps" outside air bases such as Molesworth and Greenham Common, and at the Nevada Test Site.Anti-globalization activists made headlines around the world in 1999, when they forced the Seattle WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 to end early with direct action tactics such as blocking traffic and destroying property.One of the largest direct actions in recent years took place in San Francisco the day after the Iraq War began in 2003. Twenty-thousand people occupied the streets and over 2,000 people were arrested in affinity group actions throughout downtown San Francisco, home to military-related corporations such as Bechtel. (See March 20, 2003 anti-war protest).Direct action has also been used on a smaller scale. Refugee Salim Rambo was saved from being flown from the UK back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo when one person stood up on his flight and refused to sit down. After a two hour delay the man was arrested, but the pilot refused to fly with Rambo on board. Salim Rambo was ultimately released from state custody and remains free today. Nonviolent direct action Nonviolent direct action (NVDA) is any form of direct action that does not rely on violent tactics. Mahatma Gandhi's teachings of Satyagraha (or truth force) have inspired many practitioners of nonviolent direct action, although the use of nonviolence does not always imply an ideological commitment to pacifism. In 1963, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. described the goal of NVDA in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored."One major debate is whether destruction of property can be included within the realm of nonviolence. This debate can be illustrated by the response to groups like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which use property destruction and sabotage as direct action tactics. Although these types of actions are often viewed as a form of violence, supporters define violence as harm directed towards living things and not property.In the United States, the term has come to signify civil disobedience, and protest in general, particularly where the organizers are not concerned with preventing violence. In the 1980s, a California direct action protest group called Livermore Action Group called its newspaper Direct Action. The paper ran for 25 issues, and covered hundreds of nonviolent actions around the world. The book Direct Action: An Historical Novel took its name from this paper, and records dozens of actions in the San Francisco Bay Area."Direct Action" has also served as the moniker of at least two groups: the French Action Directe as well as the Canadian group more popularly known as the Squamish Five. Direct Action was also the name of the magazine of the Australian Wobblies. The UK's Solidarity Federation currently publishes a magazine called Direct Action.Until 1990, Australia's Socialist Workers Party published a party paper also named "Direct Action", in honour of the Wobblies' history and because the paper promoted the collective organisation of the oppressed in order to change society. One of the group's descendants, the Revolutionary Socialist Party, has again commenced a publication of this name[3]. Politics of Direct actionAs a principle, direct action is often advocated by those seeking social change. It is central to autonomism and has been advocated by a variety of marxists and anarchists, including syndicalism, anarcho-communism, insurrectionary anarchism, green anarchism, Marxist Humanists anarcho-primitivist and pacifists.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 2:50 PM PST
Updated: Sunday, 23 November 2008 2:57 PM PST
Friday, 21 November 2008
What is Network Neutrality
Mood:
 chillin'
Now Playing: The Internet should be about ffeeedom - Not coportate control
Topic: MEDIA
Z3 Readers This is a fact sheet on the perils of Net Neutrality That I found at this linkhttp://savetheinternet.com/=faq Frequently Asked QuestionsWhat is this about?What is Network Neutrality?Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality? Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?Isn't the threat to net neutrality just hypothetical?Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations?What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about?What's at stake if we lose Net Neutrality? What's happening in Congress?Who's part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition?Who else supports Net Neutrality?What can I do to help? What is this about? When we log onto the Internet, we take a lot for granted. We assume we'll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want, at the fastest speed, whether it's a corporate or mom-and-pop site. We assume that we can use any service we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, sending instant messages -- anytime we choose. What makes all these assumptions possible is Network Neutrality. What is Network Neutrality? Network Neutrality -- or "Net Neutrality" for short -- is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination. Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Learn more in Net Neutrality 101. Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality? The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors. These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road. The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk. Is Net Neutrality a new regulation? Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vinton Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And "non-discrimination" provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1930s. But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet -- was put in jeopardy. Now cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality. Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor. Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical? No. By far the most significant evidence regarding the network owners' plans to discriminate is their stated intent to do so. The CEOs of all the largest telecom companies have made clear their intent to build a tiered Internet with faster service for the select few companies willing or able to pay the exorbitant tolls. Network Neutrality advocates are not imagining a doomsday scenario. We are taking the telecom execs at their word. So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like. This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good. The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband access market. And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there will be nowhere else for consumers to turn. Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations? No. Our opponents would like to paint this debate as a clash of corporate titans. But the real story is the millions of everday people fighting for their Internet freedom. Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly -- not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web. If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes. Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the "fast lane." What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about? AT&T and others have funded a massive misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising and "Astroturf" groups like Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org. Learn how to tell apart the myths from the realities in our report, Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction. What's at stake if we lose Net Neutrality? The consequences of a world without Net Neutrality would be devastating. Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives. On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control -- deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu. The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression. The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us. What's happening in Congress? The SavetheInternet.com Coalition applauds the recent introduction of the bipartisan “Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2008” (HR 5353). Introduced on Feb. 12, 2008 by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), this landmark bill would protect Net Neutrality and spark a much-needed public conversation about the future of the Internet. The new bill would enshrine Net Neutrality -- the longstanding principle that Internet service providers cannot discriminate against Web sites or services based on their source, ownership or destination -- into the Communications Act. It also requires the Federal Communications Commission to convene at least eight “broadband summits” to collect public input on policies to “promote openness, competition, innovation, and affordable, ubiquitous broadband service for all individuals in the United States.” Big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner have been lobbying furiously to kill Net Neutrality. They want to exploit their gatekeeper power to decide what you can do on the Web. But Markey and Pickering’s bill deals a blow to the gatekeepers by ensuring that the public -- not phone or cable companies -- control the fate of the Internet. Contact Congress today. Tell your representative to support the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2008” (HR 5353) to make Net Neutrality the law of the land. Who's part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition? The SavetheInternet.com coalition is made up of hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum that are concerned about maintaining a free and open Internet. No corporation or political party funds our efforts. We simply agree to a statement of principles in support of Internet freedom. The coalition is being coordinated by Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization focused on media reform and Internet policy issues. Please complete this brief survey if your group would like to join this broad, bipartisan effort to save the Internet. Who else supports Net Neutrality? The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Skype and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, every major Democratic presidential candidate, and FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections. Editorial boards at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Seattle Times, St. Petersburg Times and Christian Science Monitor all have urged congress to save the Internet. What can I do to help? Sign the SavetheInternet.com petition. Call your members of Congress today and demand that Net Neutrality be protected. Encourage groups you're part of to sign the "Internet Freedom Declaration of 2007". Show your support for Internet freedom on your Web site or blog. Tell your friends about this crucial issue before it's too late.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:25 PM PST
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
ACLU petition "Help Stop Torture"
Mood:
 amorous
Now Playing: Tell Obama "Thanks & Please Stop The USA Torturing"
Topic: TORTURE
Help Stop The Torture This link will take you to the following petition that is thanking and sending encouragement to Obama, for his remarks on 60 minutes TV show, in regards to closing down GITMO. The petition link is here: https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=close_gitmo_on_day_one&JServSessionIdr004=ip26osyii3.app26a The 60 minutes TV show has the Obama clip available and it is 18 minutes long, you can see it on this link here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4608192n Here is the petition that is available to be signed (by you) *** Dear President-Elect Obama, I was deeply moved by your recent affirmation that you will close the Guantánamo detention facilities and shut down the military commissions, which have been a stain on America here, at home and abroad.
Nothing would make me prouder than to see you act on your first day in office to restore America's moral leadership in the world. With one stroke of your pen, you can close Guantánamo Bay prison, shut down military commissions, and ban torture.
The Bush administration created a prison camp at Guantánamo - a place where they claimed the law didn't apply. They detained hundreds of men without charge or trial, authorized torture, and prosecuted some prisoners in military commissions that violate our Constitution and international law.
We can't let the system of injustice George W. Bush put in place stand - not for a single day. I want you to know that I will support your leadership on this vitally important issue in every possible way. And I will stand by you every step of the way to resist those calling for you to “go slow” or “wait for the right time” to act in defense of American freedom.
Please act on day one to make clear that the government you lead will be faithful to the Constitution.
The restoration of American freedom is in your hands. Give us back the America we believe in.
Signed,
[Your Name] More ACLU info on Torture here: http://closegitmo.com/resources.php Thanks Joe Anybody
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:57 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 6:01 PM PST
Hope n Change regarding USA Torture
Mood:
 happy
Now Playing: Will Obama allow the same torture that Bush allowed?
Topic: TORTURE
After the Torture Era By Eugene Robinson Tuesday, November 18, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111702920.html "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture, and I'm going to make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world." That unequivocal passage from President-elect Barack Obama's first extended interview since the election, broadcast on "60 Minutes" Sunday night, was a big step toward healing the damage that the Bush administration has done not just to our nation's image but to its soul. Amid the excitement of the election and the urgency of the economic crisis, it has been easy to lose sight of the terrorism-related "issues" that defined George W. Bush's presidency and robbed America of so much honor, stature and goodwill. I put the word issues in quotation marks because torture can never be a matter of debate. Yet the Bush administration sought to numb Americans to what has traditionally been seen as a clear moral and legal imperative: the requirement that individuals taken into custody by our government be treated fairly and humanely. This doesn't mean handling nihilistic, homicidal "evildoers" with kid gloves. It means being as certain as possible that the people we are holding are, indeed, real or would-be terrorists, not unlucky bystanders; and treating these detainees in accordance with international law, as we would expect detained U.S. personnel to be treated. At Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib and in a little gulag of secret CIA prisons overseas, the Bush administration failed to live up to these basic responsibilities and thus sullied us all. We will look back on the Bush years and find it incredible, and disgraceful, that individuals were captured in battle or "purchased" from self-interested tribal warlords, whisked to Guantanamo, classified as "enemy combatants" but not accorded the rights that that status should have accorded them, held for years without charges -- and denied the right to prove that they were victims of mistaken identity and never should have been taken into custody. A new study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, based on interviews with 62 men who were held for an average of three years at Guantanamo before being released without being accused of a crime, found that more than a third said they were turned over to their American captors by warlords for a bounty. Those who reported physical abuse said most of it occurred at the United States' Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where about half the men were initially held before being taken to Guantanamo. Two-thirds of the former detainees reported suffering psychological problems since their release, and many are now destitute, shunned by their families and villages. None has received any compensation for the ordeal, according to the report, titled "Guantánamo and Its Aftermath." Years from now, we will be shocked to see those pictures of naked prisoners being humiliated and abused at Abu Ghraib -- and we will be ashamed of a U.S. government that punished low-level troops for their sadism but exonerated the higher-ups who made such sadism possible. Years from now, we will know the full truth of the clandestine, CIA-run prisons where "high-value" terrorism suspects were interrogated with techniques, including waterboarding, that both civilized norms and international law have long defined as torture. From what we already know, it's hard to say which is more appalling -- the torture itself or the tortured legal rationalizations that Bush administration lawyers came up with to "justify" making barbarity the official policy of the U.S. government. Obama's clarity on the issues of Guantanamo and torture stands in contrast to his necessary vagueness about how he will deal with the economic crisis. Torture is wrong today and will still be wrong tomorrow, whereas today's economic panacea can be tomorrow's drop in the bucket. Who would have thought that these "war on terror" issues would be the easy part for the new president? Not that easy, though. More reports like the UC-Berkeley study will come out, but this is not a task that can be left to academic researchers alone. The new Obama administration has a duty to conduct its own investigation and tell us exactly what was done in our name. Realistically, some facts are going to be redacted. Realistically, some officials who may deserve to face criminal charges will not. But to restore our national honor and heal our national soul, we at least need to know
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 4:08 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 4:11 PM PST
Newer | Latest | Older
|
| « |
December 2008 |
» |
 |
| S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
| 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
| 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
| 28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
