The People Speak (links included)
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: Howard Zinn - TV - and - WebSite information
Topic: POLITICS

The People Speak airs on History

On Sunday, December 13, at 8 PM Eastern and Pacific / 7 PM Central

 THE PEOPLE SPEAK

The long awaited documentary film inspired by Howard Zinn's books A People's History of the United States and, with Anthony Arnove, Voices of a People's History of the United States will air on History 

Tune in!

More details are at

 http://www.history.com/peoplespeak

ABOUT THE PEOPLE SPEAK

Using dramatic and musical performances of the letters, diaries and speeches of everyday Americans, the documentary feature film THE PEOPLE SPEAK gives voice to those who spoke up for social change throughout U.S. history, forging a nation from the bottom up with their insistence on equality and justice.

Narrated by acclaimed historian Howard Zinn and based on his best-selling books, A People's History of the United States and, with Anthony Arnove, Voices of a People's History, THE PEOPLE SPEAK illustrates the relevance of these passionate historical moments to our society today and reminds us never to take liberty for granted.

THE PEOPLE SPEAK is produced by Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Chris Moore, Anthony Arnove, and Howard Zinn, co-directed by Moore, Arnove and Zinn, and features dramatic and musical performances by Allison Moorer, Benjamin Bratt, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Chris Robinson, Christina Kirk, Danny Glover, Darryl "DMC" McDaniels, David Strathairn, Don Cheadle, Eddie Vedder, Harris Yulin, Jasmine Guy, John Legend, Josh Brolin, Kathleen Chalfant, Kerry Washington, Lupe Fiasco, Marisa Tomei, Martín Espada, Matt Damon, Michael Ealy, Mike O'Malley, Morgan Freeman, Q'orianka Kilcher, Reg E. Cathey, Rich Robinson, Rosario Dawson, Sandra Oh, Staceyann Chin, and Viggo Mortensen.

_{MORE INFORMATION}

http://www.PeoplesHistory.us

http://www.facebook.com/Voices.Live

http://www.HowardZinn.org

http://www.facebook.com/HowardZinn

WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN
Mood:  lyrical
Now Playing: its all in the song....
Topic: POLITICS

THE WHO

WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN

 

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals when they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they'd all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are out-phased, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And their beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Swarzenegger hits new low with hidden message
Mood:  chatty
Now Playing: Arnold's opinion delivered with obscenity and hidden in veto message
Topic: POLITICS

Original story found on Oregon Catalyst

http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2769-Swarzenegger-hits-new-low-with-obscenity-hidden-in-veto-message.html

Swarzenegger hits new low

with obscenity hidden in veto message  

Congress Approves Release of SOA/ WHINSEC Names But Serious Concerns Remain
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: SOA - for the first time in US History....
Topic: POLITICS

Partial Legislative Victory!

Congress Approves Release of SOA/ WHINSEC Names

But Serious Concerns Remain

10.8.09  sent to my email
For the first time in the history of the SOA Watch Legislative Campaign, the U.S. Congress has approved legislative language opposing the negative practices and secrecy at the School of the Americas (SOA), now renamed WHINSEC. Congratulations and thanks go to all who worked so hard this year to achieve victory! SOA Watch is encouraged and hopeful about the outcome, however serious concerns remain.

On June 25, 2009, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill by a vote of 224 - 190 that required the Pentagon to release information about students and instructors at the SOA/ WHINSEC. This language was not passed by the Senate, so for the past three months, human rights advocates embarked on a multi-level pressure campaign to ensure the House-Senate conference committee included the amendment language in the final version of the bill. It was the second year in a row that the House passed this amendment by a wide margin, giving hope to many that the practice of secrecy at the SOA/WHINSEC would finally end this year.

Today the House of Representatives approved the conference report that includes the amendment language, but not in the exact form that was passed by the House.

The new language requires that the Secretary of Defense release the names of students and instructors but with two clarifications: names are only released for FY 2009 and FY 2010, and the Secretary of Defense can waive this provision should it be deemed to be in the national interest.

While the release of names for FY 2009 and FY 2010 is a welcome first step, the decision by the conference committee to maintain secrecy about who has attended the SOA/ WHINSEC for the past 4 years raises a red flag about what the Pentagon may be hiding. From FY 2005 to FY 2008, hundreds of serious human rights crimes, including the San José de Apartadó massacre among many others, implicated Latin American military officials throughout the region. The gap in knowledge about what role U.S. military training played in the practices of Latin American militaries for 4 years undermines the pursuit of a just foreign policy by denying the public and Congress the very information they need to make important foreign policy decisions.

In addition, the waiver granted to the Pentagon to deny the release of this vital information in the name of national interest ignores the many reasons why it is in the national interest for public disclosure of SOA/ WHINSEC graduates and instructors. What could be more of a national interest than human rights, democracy and transparency?!

SOA Watch is hopeful that in the next few weeks human rights advocates will receive the names of SOA/ WHINSEC attendees and begin the important human rights oversight work of the school that has been missing for the past 4 years.

In the next few weeks, SOA Watch will continue to press forward on a number of legislative campaigns, so watch for our alerts with new information that you and your local group can take action on.

Click here for the next step to take action NOW!

Tyranny of the Majority: 3 wolves & 6 goats
Mood:  mischievious
Now Playing: Democracy ... I dont think so
Topic: POLITICS
Tyranny of the Majority:
If you ever found yourself in a vastly outnumbered minority, and the majority voted that you had to give up something as necessary to your life as water and air, would you comply? When it comes down to it, does anyone really believe it makes sense to accept the authority of a group simply on the grounds that they outnumber everyone else? We accept majority rule because we do not believe it will threaten us – and those it does threaten are already silenced before anyone can hear their misgivings.

[...]

Three wolves and six goats are discussing what
to have for dinner. One courageous goat makes
an impassioned case: “We should put it to a vote!” The
other goats fear for his life, but surprisingly, the wolves
acquiesce. But when everyone is preparing to vote, the
wolves take three of the goats aside.
“Vote with us to make the other three goats dinner,”
they threaten. “Otherwise, vote or no vote, we’ll eat you.”
The other three goats are shocked by the outcome of
the election: a majority, including their comrades, has
voted for them to be killed and eaten. They protest in
outrage and terror, but the goat who first suggested the
vote rebukes them: “Be thankful you live in a democracy! At least we got to have a say in this!”

More from author here... http://www.celticbear.com/weblog/2009/10/04/beyond-democracy-thoughts-on-anarchy/

building ready and resilient nation
Mood:  accident prone
Now Playing: So...get ready for anything .... and I mean ANYTHING
Topic: POLITICS

http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2009/09/building-ready-and-resilient-nation.html  Over the past few months I have been laying out the five main areas of responsibility of the Department. In July, I outlined our approach to our first priority – countering the threat of a terrorist attack. In August, I spoke about the new approach we’re taking to border security. Today, in remarks at the American Red Cross, I’m speaking about another important mission: readiness and resilience. Our nation may be better prepared than we were before 9/11. But there is much more we can – and should – do. And to get there, we must treat our nation’s preparedness as a shared responsibility, one where everyone has a role to play. Civilians are usually the first to arrive in a crisis, and history shows that they are critical in those important first minutes. And these citizen responders can be an even more potent force by: Taking CPR training from the Red Cross Training with a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Knowing when to take shelter or evacuate Pre-planning evacuation routes and where to meet after a disaster strikes If a disaster struck your hometown, that training, those skills, and those plans would free up first responders and emergency personnel to focus on those most in need. So today, I’m calling on all Americans, across the country, to do two things. First, take these basic steps: get an emergency kit; make a family reunification plan; and become informed about the types of emergencies your community is most likely to encounter. Second, I’m asking all of us who are in book clubs, prayer groups, school boards, alumni associations, or other community organizations, simply to raise your hand and ask, “What’s our plan?” Together, we can build a culture of readiness and resilience, and together we can build a more secure future. Janet Napolitano Published by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.

Larry King & Hugo Chavez
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: Hugo explains it with no spin September 2009 Interviews
Topic: POLITICS

You Got To See These... hot subjects... !

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEJcAl75CYQ

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa6zJqTjUwM

Part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMqZ_k4cBD8

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8tTXEcUIC0

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgBwippF-fY

Nuclear-Free Seas ...a NY Times article brings up a good point
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: Stopping Nukes on the High Seas
Topic: POLITICS

Nuclear-Free Seas

_{http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/opinion/24muzinich.html?_r=1&th&emc=th}

9.23.09  President Obama is scheduled to preside over a United Nations Security Council meeting on nuclear nonproliferation. He should use the occasion to address a critical weakness in the effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons: the international community’s inability to stop and inspect a ship suspected of carrying nuclear materials without first getting permission from the country whose flag the ship is flying.

Despite a host of United Nations nonproliferation initiatives like this year’s Resolution 1874, which calls on countries to allow such inspections, international law still prohibits interfering with another nation’s ship in international waters without permission. Additionally, the resolution does not authorize the use of force if a country refuses to let its ship be inspected. Thus, if a North Korean ship is transporting nuclear weapons to Myanmar, little can be done to stop it in international waters without North Korea’s permission.

This principle of “flag-state jurisdiction” has generally been accepted since the 17th century, when Hugo Grotius wrote “The Freedom of the Seas,” arguing for Holland’s right to use trade routes monopolized by the Spanish and Portuguese. It’s codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. And it has meant that a number of ships suspected of carrying nuclear materials have not been stopped.

Flag-state jurisdiction should now be amended to allow exceptions to combat nuclear proliferation and terrorism. A precedent for this already exists: in the Law of the Sea, the principle does not apply to ships involved in piracy or the slave trade, which can be detained. The freedom of the seas has to be balanced against modern security needs.

Today, the Security Council should discuss how to go about changing the law. But potential proliferators may not agree to a treaty allowing their ships to be boarded. Fortunately, there is another means of changing maritime law: state action.

While there is no precise analogy in domestic law, a new maritime law can come into being simply through general international consensus. For example, in 1945 President Harry Truman declared that the United States would have exclusive use of its continental shelf. Other states accepted this and made similar declarations, and this principle became an accepted part of maritime law.

A comparable approach should be taken if proliferators block United Nations efforts to amend flag-state jurisdiction. When the threat is great enough, the United States or one of its allies should notify the Security Council and board a ship that it has reason to believe is transporting nuclear materials to dangerous recipients, without the permission of the flag-state.

The danger, to be taken very seriously, is that the offended country will respond aggressively. To minimize this risk, the first interdiction must be one whose moral logic is so strongly compelling to the international community that there is near universal support. Additionally, a system of liability should be established. If a ship is wrongly stopped, the owner should be compensated justly for the trouble.

While there can be no guarantee of how the flag-state will respond, if the ship is chosen wisely and there is a promise of compensation, both the offense taken by the flag-state and its motivation to respond with violence will be reduced. If the ship resists, force may be necessary to ensure nuclear weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands.

There are already exceptions to flag-state jurisdiction. The United Nations meeting today should spur thinking about how nations can work together to devise a similar exception to prevent nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Wise diplomacy must allow for this before it’s too late.

Compromising Democracy in Honduras
Mood:  don't ask
Now Playing: An article by Shamus Cook from Portland Oregon
Topic: POLITICS

Z3 Readers here is an articel afriend of mine wrote this morning:

Compromising Democracy in Honduras 

by shamus cook
  

Can a solution to the crisis in Honduras — itself the result of a military coup — be “mediated,” where on one side sit coup leaders and on the other a democratically elected but ousted President? Does any “middle ground” exist? Of course not. If President Zelaya unconditionally returns to finish his term in office, democracy will be restored; anything short of that will have democracy “compromised” into its opposite.

Obama is the behind-the-scenes organizer of this negotiated farce, even though he has no legal or moral right to undermine the democratic process in Honduras. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, brought the parties together and chose an “objective” mediator, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias — someone who has obviously aligned himself with the United States.

And while Arias is the “official” mediator, Obama will be the one calling the shots, using U.S. economic and military clout to bully the opposing sides into an “acceptable deal.”

 

For example, when some members of the coup leadership were still using obstinate language against a deal with ousted President Zelaya, the U.S. finally announced it would withhold $16.5 million in military assistance to the country.

 

If this announcement were made the day the coup took place — as it was legally required to under U.S. law — the coup would have been crushed. Now, the money is simply being used to cajole the coup plotters into a more pliable position at the bargaining table; a place at which they obstinately refused to sit previously. It was also announced that $165 million in aide to Honduras could be in jeopardy. That is, if the coup leaders don’t do exactly as the U.S. demands.

 

And this highlights a stark fact that many Obama supporters are refusing to see: the origins of the coup, and indeed its resolution, lie squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. When a country [the U.S.] trains and funds another nation’s military [Honduras], while also purchasing the vast majority of that country’s exports, and supplying it with enormous financial aid, there is little ground for “equal footing.”

 

In fact, all of Obama’s rhetoric about leaving South America to the South Americans is a conscious ploy at public relations. In reality, the economic and military screws continue to be tightened, and U.S. foreign policy continues as it always has.

 

After the coup first happened, the entire world reacted with horror, condemnation, and sanctions of various kinds, while everyone understood that only one country had the economic and military influence to actually reverse it…instantly.

 

Obama purposely dragged his feet. He cleverly tagged the U.S. name on U.N and O.A.S resolutions, while doing absolutely nothing in the realm of guns, trade, or aid — the places where actual power is wielded.

 

The New York Times correctly noted that “the mixed messages have emboldened Honduras’s de facto government…” (July 7, 2009).

 

Also emboldening the coup leaders is Obama’s virtual silence around the fact that Honduras has been transformed into a democracy-free zone, where anti-coup media has been silenced, a military curfew enforced, basic rights suspended, and unarmed protestors killed.

 

Ousted President Zelaya correctly noted that “if they [the U.S.] decide to live with the coup, then democracy in the Americas is over."

 

This is a bold yet correct assessment of the situation in Latin America, carrying with it enormous implications. Zelaya described in vivid detail one such consequence while talking to Hillary Clinton about his kidnapping at gunpoint. He asked her, “What have Latin American presidents learned from Honduras? To sleep with our clothes on and our bags packed.”

 

And while media outlets treated the comment as a mere joke, the truth of it will reverberate throughout Latin America. If a military coup against a democratically elected government is not completely reversed, elites in the region will be profoundly encouraged to follow the Honduran formula and return to a time where U.S.-backed military coups and mass repression were commonplace.

 

And while Obama has recently repeated that President Zelaya should be returned to finish out his presidential term, Hillary Clinton “…stopped short of calling for his reinstatement, a departure from statements by President Obama earlier Tuesday…” (New York Times July 7, 2009).

 

This good-cop-bad-cop routine isn’t by accident, but appears to be an emerging signature of Obama’s forked tongue political method: he says what he thinks people want to hear, while others close to him pursue a different course.

 

It is unclear at this time what type of rotten compromise will emerge. Zelaya will either be prevented from returning to his Presidency, or as a senior U.S. official leaked to the press, “…Zelaya would be allowed to return and serve out his remaining six months in office with limited powers…” (Associated Press, July 7, 2009).

 

Either scenario will have democracy severely eroded, so that those who previously dominated Honduran society — the local super-wealthy and rich U.S. investors — will remain all powerful.

The average, working class Honduran, however, is acting independently. A mass march of at least 100,000 congregated at the airport last week during President Zelaya’s failed attempt to re-enter the country, a fact heavily obscured or ignored by the U.S. media.

 

The country’s school teachers are also jointly striking until Zelaya is returned, while talks of a general strike continue. If such a strike were successfully carried through, all the maneuvers of Obama and the native Honduran elite will have been for naught, and the unconditional return of President Zelaya will be assured.

If that were to happen, the working class would be further forced to defend democracy, by arresting all those who conspired to overthrow the democratically elected Zelaya, including any implicated members of the military, the Honduran business elite, foreign corporation representatives, and members of Congress.

Joe Anybody's Hero Ralp Nader is at the helm
Mood:  energetic
Now Playing: Ralph Nader in Courts - working for change in a Corrupt System
Topic: POLITICS

Z3 Readers, family and frinds, This just came in from my hero Ralph Nader. There is a YouTube video to watch, as well as the text that copied from the YouTube page:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsVvrGk3PH0

 

Where is Ralph Nader these days? In court, taking his battle to reform ballot access laws in the United States to the judiciary. Nader is fighting an alleged conspiracy hatched against him in Boston at the time of the 2004 Democratic National Convention held in the city.

Ralph has successfully defended his federal appellate win in Arizona over the state's unconstitutional restrictions on petition circulators. Arizona banned out-of-state petitioners, a practice that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found to be unconstitutional. Not giving up easily on challenges to the 2-party system that dominates American politics, state officials had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appellate decision striking down Arizona's restrictive ballot access law but the high court today decided to let the decision stand.

A leftover from Nader's 2008 presidential campaign? No, the case is a holdover from the 2004 electoral bid by America's most famous consumer protection advocate.

In 2004, Ralph Nader was the target of an unprecedented legal attack in almost two dozen states with 29 legal actions brought, financed or instigated by the Democratic Party. The lawsuits, many of them frivolous, were brought to keep Ralph in court and not on the campaign stump.

After the dust settled, it was clear to Nader that he had been the target of an abuse of the court system by a major political party to deprive him of ballot access. Ralph then filed suit against the Democratic National Committee for the legal conspiracy.

The lawsuit was dismissed at the District Court level of the federal court system and Nader appealed to the District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals where oral argument is scheduled for later in the month.

Nader's brief to the appellate court addresses some of the pending issues. Nader charged the Democrats were guilty of "overtly corrupt and even unlawful conduct."

Nader argued the appeal should go forward because, "Defendants denied and fraudulently concealed their tortuous conduct, and because they remain engaged in ongoing acts in furtherance of their unlawful conspiracy."

"Defendants wrongfully invoked state statutes and federal campaign finance laws as a pretext to bankrupt their competitors by forcing them to incur litigation costs in the defense of a pattern of baseless and repetitive claims."

Nader alleges that in Pennsylvania the political conspirators "planted approximately 7,000 fake signatures" in his petitions so they could later claim the petitions were fraudulent. The Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett has indicted a dozen Democrats for illegal work on petition challenges in 2004 in a scandal dubbed "Bonusgate" because the state legislative workers were paid a bonus for their dirty work.

Nader continued his assault on his Democrat opponents, "Conspirators engaged in sabotage and other unlawful acts intended to manufacture grounds for their otherwise baseless litigation."

Nader likened the Democratic lawsuits against him to "malicious prosecution" which were only filed to advance "baseless claims" designed to bankrupt his campaign. The lawsuits were "wrongful and abusive" of the judicial process.

Nader says the conspiracy against him came together in July 2004 in a meeting of thirty-six conspirators at the Four Seasons hotel in Boston. Oral argument is scheduled in the case for March 20th in Washington, D.C.

Audio:
Ralph Nader speech at the Nader / Camejo 2004 campaign rally in San Francisco.

Brief intro by Matt Gonzalez, President of the SF Board of Supervisors.