From dr_broccoli at hotmail.com Wed Sep 4 13:14:26 2002 From: dr_broccoli at hotmail.com (Shawn G) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:49 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] AGR Portland protest Message-ID: Asheville Global Report www.AGRNews.org Bush gets money, protesters get pepper-spray By Sean Marquis Aug. 28 (AGR)— Police in Portland, Oregon used teargas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and batons to disperse a crowd of protesters outside a hotel where president George W. Bush was attending a Republican party fund raising event last week. The demonstrators, numbering about 3,000 from various points around the Hilton hotel, were attempting to confront Bush and his donors and voice their opposition to many of his policies including his terror war, the invasion of Iraq, and Bush’s newly announced “Healthy Forests Initiative” -- a timber industry giveaway disguised as environmentalism. The mainstream local and national corporate media went into full spin control over the Aug. 22 protest after some had initially reported “thousands” of protesters, they later changed the estimates to “a few hundred,” and also did not challenge many police statements about the firing of rubber bullets. Bush’s Portland stop was aimed at raising money for the re-election of Oregon Senator Gordon Smith and the Republican Party in general.    According to a report by the Portland Tribune, “About 600 contributors paid $1,000 for a fund-raising reception. Others paid $5,000 each for a more exclusive meeting and still others paid $25,000 per couple to have their picture taken with Bush. Party officials say the various events could add as much as $1 million to Republican campaign accounts.” Thousands of protesters clogged the streets of Portland, blocking downtown traffic and bus services during rush hour chanting “Drop Bush, Not Bombs” and holding signs like “It’s the Economy, Stupid.” By many accounts, the police outside the hotel seemed completely unprepared for the size of the crowd -- likely the reason they quickly resorted to the use of force to break up the crowd. Pepper spraying lawyers and babies The following day, Aug. 23, Alan Graf, the Chair of the Portland Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, held a press conference on the steps of city hall where he stated that he had personally been pepper sprayed the day before and demanded Mayor Vera Katz fire Portland police Chief Mark Kroeker. Graf said that when police attacked the crowd outside the Hilton it was an “aggressive and irresponsible” act and amounted to “gestapo like conduct,” that showed “complete disregard for the health and safety of the citizens of Portland.” He said the police declared a “state of emergency” and ordered the crowd away from the hotel. “About twenty seconds after their announcement the police proceeded to move around the barricades to the other side where the protesters were stationed and started to push and beat people with their nightsticks while spraying pepper spray in the faces of the crowd. “It was clear to me that the police could see that there were young children in strollers within the crowd, yet the police ignored that fact and continued to spray pepper spray indiscriminately so that the spray hit the children and their mothers,” said Graf. Graf noted the crowd was, “loud, noisy, exercising their First Amendment freedoms -- but never threatening.” He then pointed the finger at the police chain of command saying, “Whoever issued the orders yesterday is clearly out of touch with Portland, the fundamental principles of democracy, and their own humanity.” Graf also said that, “many of the officers involved in these actions did not wear name tags or I.D. numbers.” In a press release, Donald Joughin, father of a 10-month-old baby who was pepper-sprayed by the police, thanked fellow protesters who aided him and his family. Joughin said that when a police officer sprayed him and his family, other protesters “shielded us with their bodies…putting themselves in danger, to secure our safe passage through the cordon. Their actions stand in beautiful contrast to the savage inhumanity of the police.” Joughin said that he and his wife brought their children to what was a peaceful protest, but the situation changed rapidly when, according to Joughin and many other eyewitness accounts, the police began spraying and clubbing the crowd. He said he and his wife approached a police barricade and asked to be let through, “because we had three small children. He [the police officer] looked at me, and drew out his can from his hip and sprayed directly at me. “I was at an angle to him and the spray hit my right eye and our three year-old who I was holding in my right arm. In the same motion he turned the can on my wife who was holding our 10-month-old baby and doused both of their heads entirely from a distance of less than 3 feet. My six-year-old daughter was holding my left hand and was not hit directly.” He said that eventually one officer did let the family through the cordon and then, “I immediately called 911…I explained that a baby had been directly pepper sprayed and that I needed an ambulance. They informed me that they would not send one and that all protesters were to report to a first aid tent on the other side of the police lines.” According to Joughin, medical volunteers from the Black Cross, a street-medic organization, treated the family, and two staffers from a local radio station drove them to Emmanuel Emergency Room where, “The children were examined for respiratory problems and chemical burns. The pediatrician kept us a little longer so that she could call poison control to check for other recommended procedures as she had never in her career seen an infant pepper spray victim,” Joughin said. Of the Portland protest and the police reaction to it, William Rivers Pitt, a reporter for Truthout wrote, “Bush is protested wherever he goes these days…The streets of Portland were filled on Aug. 22 by average American citizens seeking to inform the President of their disfavor regarding the manner in which he is governing their country. “If America needed one more example of the cancer that has been chewing through the guts of our most basic freedoms since Mr. Bush assumed office, they can look to Portland. The right to freely assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances has been rescinded at the point of a gun,” Pitt wrote. ‘Healthy Forests’ = No trees Many people attending the anti-bush protest were angry over Bush’s “Healthy Forest” Initiative, formally announced that morning. Bush made his announcement at a photo-op after touring swaths of recently burned Oregon forests. More than half of his speech focused on his terror war as he tried to make a link between timber industry jobs, an improved economy and fighting his terror war. The crux of his “Healthy Forests” initiative is to aggressively increase logging to thin out forests to prevent them from burning and to decrease the ability of citizens and environmental groups to use lawsuits to prevent destructive logging practices. According to Marty Bergoffen of the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, Bush’s “Healthy Forest” plan is “nothing but a gift to Bush’s timber cronies, who gave millions to his election campaign and will reap billions in profits.” The plan will allow logging unregulated by public input or court oversight, in violation of the Constitution and democratic ideals. The most advanced scientific research available indicates that commercial logging will not prevent fires, but will, in fact, make them worse by removing large trees and leaving small diameter brush which easily desiccates and burns, Bergoffen said. In a press statement, the Cascadia Forest Alliance (CFA) said that, “Forest and fire ecology provide evidence that years of commercial logging of healthy older forests and aggressive fire suppression and drought are the key sources of insect, disease and wildfire outbreaks.” “Bush’s latest proposals to ‘streamline’ environmental laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and to subsidize fuel reduction projects with logging mature and old forests will only increase fire risks while providing taxpayer subsidized logs to the timber industry,” added CFA volunteer Carrie Taylor. Bush reiterated his new forest policy two days later on Aug. 24 saying, “Forest policies have not focused on thinning, the clearing of the forest floor of built-up brush and densely packed trees that create the fuel for extremely large fires like those experienced this year.” “We need a different approach,” Bush said. “I have directed Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton to reduce bureaucracy and speed up the process of thinning on public lands.” According to a report by the Environmental News Service, “There is general agreement that decades of fire suppression in our forests have resulted in an unnatural buildup of dead wood that provides an ample fuel source for wildfires. Forests are designed to withstand regular fires that clear the ground and keep the impact of subsequent fires to a minimum…There is a difference between clearing small trees and underbrush to reduce fuels and the logging of large trees under the guise of fuels reduction.” Mike Dombeck, Retired US Forest Service Chief wrote in Fire Management Today, Winter 2001, that “Some argue that more commercial timber harvest is needed to remove small-diameter trees and brush that are fueling our worst wildland fires in the interior West,” but he said that commercial logging of taller, older trees led to a proliferation of smaller trees and underbrush, “precisely the small diameter materials that are causing our worst fire problems.” “In fact,” Dombeck added, “many large fires in 2000 burned in previously logged areas laced with roads. It seems unlikely that commercial timber harvest can solve our forest health problems.” Media spin Much of the corporate media reporting on the police attack outside the Hilton did say that police used batons and pepper spray to disperse the crowd, the same media for the most part gave the police-initiated violence little attention, such as CNN stating simply that “the protest turned violent with the arrival of police in riot gear.” The media focused instead on protesters banging on and “attacking” police cars, which prompted the police to fire rubber bullets and “Sage” baton guns at the protesters to back them off of the police cars. According to the police department, and corporate media accounts, the police were compelled to use those weapons to perform an “officer rescue” because the officers in the vehicles were “endangered” by the crowd. This account is only partly true. Eyewitness testimony, photographs, and video footage all posted to the Portland Independent Media Center’s web site showed another part of the story. The police cars were surrounded by protesters, but only because those vehicles became mired in the crowd when they attempted to drive through it, thus actually running into people and creating the situation they found themselves in. This is also backed up, in part, by a report in the Oregonian: “Things grew more tense when three police cars with reserve groups of officers tried to move through the crowd and inside the barricades to safeguard the cars from potential vandalism, [Assistant Chief Greg] Clark said. “But as they drove into the crowd -- which police recognize might not have been the smartest move -- some demonstrators leaped on top of one car and banged on its windows. And that’s when police started shooting,” according to the Oregonian. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From dr_broccoli at hotmail.com Wed Sep 4 13:16:13 2002 From: dr_broccoli at hotmail.com (Shawn G) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:49 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] AGR Nazi's protested in DC Message-ID: Asheville Global Report www.AGRNews.org 1,000 oppose Nazi march on Capitol Building By Shawn Gaynor Washington, DC, Aug. 25 (AGR)—On Saturday, about 800 neo-Nazis, accompanied by heavy DC Metro and Capital Police and Secret Service forces, marched from Union Station to the Capitol Building, “Seig-Heiling” and shouting a variety of white supremacist and anti-Semitic slogans. The event, sponsored by the National Alliance (NA) was met by an aggressive crowd of protesters estimated by the police at around 1,000, including a large Anti-Racist Action contingent. This gathering was the largest, public, white supremacist meeting since World War II in the United States. The National Alliance had come to Washington to protest US funding of Israel, and rant about the “Zionist conspiracy” to rule the world. Nazis chanted, “What do we want? Jews out! When do we want it? Now!” The march was led by the National Alliance deputy membership coordinator, Bill Roper. Roper was beaten with a crowbar last year at a National Alliance event in front of the German embassy. The head of the National Alliance, William Pierce, author of The Turner Diaries (a fictional account of a future race war), could not make the event as he died this month in his West Virginia compound. Earlier, anti-Nazi protesters blocked the parking deck entrance to Union Station preventing several National Alliance members from entering. In this area Nazi cars were turned away by a crowd of “black bloc” anarchists, while shoppers and travelers were permitted to enter. Metro police, unprepared for protests in this area, stood by for a half hour before asking protesters to disperse. As more police arrived, protesters relented and moved around to the front of Union Station, where the Nazi march was to begin. As the march from Union Station to the Capitol Building began, the crowd of counter-demonstrators became unruly. Despite a heavy presence, police were unable to contain counter-demonstrators, who repeatedly took the streets and boldly maneuvered through and around police lines. Despite this, government security forces maintained a buffer between the neo-Nazis and the protesters, though small groups of anti-Nazis confronted isolated National Alliance members. By mid-day police appeared exhausted in their heavy gear as temperatures climbed well into the 90s, and often responded slowly to crowd movements. After the event ended, small groups of anti-Nazis dispersed through the area, confronting the neo-Nazis as they left town. Several neo-Nazi stragglers were allegedly assaulted during and after the Washington march, though Assistant Police Chief Terrance Gainer of the US Capital Police said no injuries were reported. The only reported arrest of the day was that of a Chicago man for throwing rocks at the neo-Nazis. He was released after paying a $50 fine. According to Baltimore media, earlier in the day, Nazis were confronted by dozens of protesters at the Baltimore Travel Plaza. It is unclear how fighting began, but the ensuing melee, or “mini-riot” as characterized by Baltimore police, left several neo-Nazis bloodied, one hospitalized, and a disabled a charter bus, which had been slated to carry the Nazis to the demonstration in Washington, DC. Several sources reported that the bus tires were slashed, and the Baltimore Sun reported “either pepper stray, or camouflaging smoke” was discharged in the bus. Baltimore police arrested 26 anti-Nazi protesters and two members of a New Jersey Indymedia collective near the scene of the plaza. No Nazis were reported arrested or detained. The early morning protest prevented scores of neo-Nazis from traveling to the Washington, DC event. Neo-Nazi skinheads returned to the suburbs of Baltimore after the DC rally Saturday to hold a “white power” concert. The event was held at the White Marsh National Guard Armory, though no explanation could be given for the use of the armory as a white power venue. Several activists and local community residents rallied in front of the building to protest the event. Local police, FBI, and Secret Service agents stood by outside the concert to respond to any confrontation. It was unclear why the Secret Service was present, as their role typically revolves around the protection of the president and other federal elected officials. Though local media reported that a confrontation was expected, none developed. That evening, police raided and searched a Baltimore venue looking for anti-Nazi activists and attempted to gain entry to the Progressive Action Center (a local press center and library), but were turned away when they were unable to produce a warrant. Indymedia also reported that the raided venue, which was searched by police twice, was entered without a warrant. Police maintained a presence outside the Progressive Action Center, until a news helicopter arrived and network news crews began interviews with the building’s occupants. On Monday, the last of those arrested in Baltimore had been released on bail. Charges against the anti-Nazis varied, but included disorderly conduct, aggravated assault, rioting, and weapons possession charges. One local minor has been charged with an outlandish 23 counts of aggravated assault in connection with the conflict. A solidarity vigil of up to one hundred Baltimore residents spoke out for the arrested anti-Nazis, under the banner “Anti-Racists under Siege.” The vigil was ongoing for the two days between the arrests and the release of the last activist Monday evening. Baltimore activists say funds are urgently needed for the legal defense of those accused in the Travel Plaza incident, and are asking those concerned to donate to a local “Anti-Fascist Solidarity” Fund. Checks to the fund should be written out to Black Planet Books, with ‘Anti-fascist solidarity’ written in the ‘Memo’ line, and sent to the following address: Black Planet Books 1621 Fleet St. Baltimore, MD 21231. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From dr_broccoli at hotmail.com Wed Sep 4 13:17:42 2002 From: dr_broccoli at hotmail.com (Shawn G) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:49 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] AGR Ashcroft Camps Message-ID: Asheville Global Report www.AGRNews.org Ashcroft's detention camps for US citizens By Liz Allen Asheville, North Carolina, Aug. 27 (AGR)— US citizens now may be subject to being labeled “enemy combatants” and placed in detention camps. The new category created and defined by the executive branch would deny citizens labeled “enemy combatant” basic rights afforded an ordinary criminal defendant or a foreigner facing a military tribunal, such Fifth Amendment rights as well as rights to due process. A “high level” committee composed of the attorney general, secretary of defense and the director of the CIA would make recommendations to the president as to who gets the label. The Bush administration is laying the foundation to go beyond the system of checks and balances and allow only the executive branch, which includes the military, to have access to the detainees. Currently, a special wing is being prepared in Goose Creek, South Carolina to hold 20 US citizens labeled as combatants. Attorney General John Ashcroft has announced his desire to see camps built solely for the purpose of detaining this new category of criminals. In the camps “enemy combatants” would be subjected to indefinite incarceration. Part of the purpose, justified in terms of the war on terrorism, is to facilitate the extraction of information. Newsweek quoted an “administrative official” explaining the current incarceration of Jose Padilla by saying, “If this guy thinks he might be there for 20 years with no recourse, he might just say, ‘OK, let’s talk.’” Padilla has been held as an “enemy combatant” on the Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina since May 8th and is one of the cases currently being used to set precedent for legally denying the prisoners right to counsel. The other case is that of Yaser Esam Hamdi who has been held at a Naval brig in Norfolk, VA since April 5. Hamdi’s case was heard earlier this month before Federal District Court Judge Robert G. Doumar to decide if Hamdi has the right to meet with his counsel. Throughout the trial the judge displayed overt disgust with the government’s position. Assistant to the solicitor general, Gregory Garre, told the judge Hamdi had been afforded regular meetings with a brig commander and a chaplain, to which Doumar snapped, “He just can’t meet with a lawyer.” Mr. Garre claimed that courts “have a role” in deciding what happens with the prisoners, but that role is more for the president. The government’s argument relied on a two page statement, written by Michael Mobbs, a special advisor to the Defense Department, known as the “the Mobbs declaration.” The document served as the basis for determining Hambi’s status as an “enemy combatant.” Finding the document vague and lacking in defining what criteria determines enemy combatant status; Judge Doumar explained, “I’m challenging everything in the Mobbs declaration. If you think I don’t understand the utilization of words, you are sadly mistaken.” The court decided in Hambi’s favor; however, the Bush administration has appealed it to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a historically conservative court, where it is now awaiting reconsideration. Both Hamdi and Padilla are United States citizens and there is evidence of their innocence. Ashcroft claimed Padilla was involved in “an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive dirty bomb,” but government officials who are close to the case now report there is no evidence a plot was under way. Hamdi’s father has petitioned Congress, asserting his son’s innocence and pointing out that he had been in Pakistan for less than two months prior to September 11, not long enough to receive any military training. The American Bar Association has put out a resolution and a preliminary report by the Task Force on the Treatment of Enemy Combatants, condemning the Bush administration’s “enemy combatant” policies. The ABA says the current policies are in violation of the right to judicial review and Act 4001 of the United States Criminal Code, which provides “no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress. ” The ABA also condemns the action on the basis of international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, which include the right to legal counsel. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From dr_broccoli at hotmail.com Wed Sep 4 13:22:44 2002 From: dr_broccoli at hotmail.com (Shawn G) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:49 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] AGR SOA watch Message-ID: Asheville Global Report www.AGRNews.org SOA Watch activists to serve their time in county jail By Melissa Fridlin Crisp County, Georgia, Aug. 27 (AGR)— Three School of the Americas Watch prisoners who were due to be transferred to a federal prison will be held in a county jail for the duration of their six-month sentence. The prisoners were among 10,000 who gathered last fall to call for the closure of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC), formerly known as the School of the Americas. They were charged with trespassing after peacefully crossing onto the property of Fort Benning, the site of the school, on November 18, 2001. The SOA/WHISC is a combat training school for Latin American soldiers that operates at Fort Benning, Georgia. Many human rights organizations have published reports that directly link graduates of the school to human rights abuses and atrocities. In December 2000 Congress passed legislation which created the WHISC to replace the SOA. The renaming of the school was widely viewed as an attempt to diffuse public criticism and to disassociate the school from its reputation. Critics say that the school has changed little of its notorious curriculum. On July 12th, 2002, a federal court in Georgia found 36 SOA Watch activists guilty and sentenced them for committing civil disobedience on the Fort Benning military reservation. Twenty-nine received prison terms ranging from three to the maximum of six months. Toni Flynn, 56, a Catholic Worker and mother of four from Valyermo, CA, Peter Gelderloos, 20, an activist from Harrisonburg, VA, and Father Jerry Zawada, 65, a Franciscan priest from Cedar Lake, IN refused the option to self-surrender at a later date. On the day of sentencing, they were taken to Crisp County Jail in Georgia. Based on previous experience, SOA Watch organizers and the three prisoners assumed that this was to be a brief stop in transit to a federal prison near their homes. However, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has designated Crisp County Jail as the location where the three will serve the remainder of their six-month sentence. SOA Watch has charged that the Crisp County Jail does not comply with federal standards for the treatment of prisoners. Code of Federal Regulations sections 540.41 and 540.42 provide requirements for proper visitation facilities and visiting times for inmates, stating that “at a minimum, the Warden shall establish visiting hours at the institution on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.” It is also the policy of the BOP “to encourage visiting by family, friends, and community groups to maintain the morale of the inmate and to develop closer relationships between the inmate and family members or others in the community.” “The Crisp County Jail does not permit visits on weekends and the visitation facilities do not meet the BOP criteria,” said Jeff Winder of School of the Americas Watch. A BOP official said, however, that inmates are frequently placed in halfway houses or county jails when they are considered a low risk and have a short sentence. “The Bureau of Prisons has a joint contract with Crisp County Jail to house federal inmates when needed. Under this contract, visitation is conducted in accordance with county jail regulations, not federal regulations,” stated the official. “We can’t change their visiting hours around just because there are a few federal inmates there.” The three prisoners have also reported major concerns with the health and sanitation conditions in the Crisp County Jail, including a lack of access to health care. One inmate, Toni Flynn, wrote from the jail that “a woman in my cell block has for weeks complained of ‘sores and bugs’ on her body. The only response was to be given a can of Lice Spray for us to use on our bodies… the label says ‘dangerous for humans & animals’ and further instructs that it is toxic if inhaled or absorbed. Our cell was nonetheless sprayed & some women sprayed their bodies. The infected woman was isolated for one day and then returned, still infected. We are all at risk and the woman is as yet untreated or at best treated ineffectively.” The BOP says that “medical care is provided under our contract, and it is up to community standards.” Officials do plan to make a site visit to Crisp County this week to check conditions and investigate Flynn’s complaint. “If we find that conditions are not up to our contract specifications, the inmates will be placed in a Federal facility. However, it may take four to six weeks for a transfer,” the BOP official said. “We are still concerned about conditions in this county jail. Regardless of what happens with the SOA Watch prisoners, the situation at Crisp County Jail has to change for all prisoners,” Winder stated. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From dr_broccoli at hotmail.com Thu Sep 5 14:49:55 2002 From: dr_broccoli at hotmail.com (Shawn G) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:49 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] AGR Green Wash Message-ID: Asheville Global Report www.agrnews.org Times Magazine's green wa$h century By Sean Marquis Sept. 4 (AGR)— In what amounts to 62 pages of pro-corporate green wash, Time Magazine turned the world on its head by claiming that environmentalists are to blame for the sorry ecological state of the planet and that capitalists, industry, and free marketeers have the solutions to global environmental woes. Introducing the “Green Century” issue (Aug. 26), Time’s Executive Editor, Adi Ignatius wrote that the answers for the world’s environmental problems include: “New technologies …market-based incentives…a new Industrial Revolution…high tech buildings…incentives to speed the switch to clean energy sources [and] fast and safe cars that don’t pollute.” Ignatius also encouraged readers to “take a look at Andrew Goldstein’s provocative indictment of the green movement …[environmentalists] Goldstein argues, are probably causing more harm than good.” The corporate sponsorship for such ideas is apparent in the advertising: six full-page ads for cars (Toyota four, Honda 2), two full pages for Beyond Petroleum (formerly known as British Petroleum, but still goes by “BP”) and two full pages for the Council for Biotechnology Information -- all touting their own role in helping to save the planet. It is no wonder then that in the article “Mean clean machines” Time has the gall to print: “Of course, the best way to conserve energy and reduce pollution would be to phase out cars in favor of mass transportation. But let’s face it: that’s not going to happen.” Five little words simply and quickly dismissed “the best way to conserve energy and reduce pollution.” The article then essentially turned into an ad for the auto industry, highlighting different makes and models of “green” cars and other techno-solutions for individual transportation. Auto industry ads translate into auto industry solutions. The biotech industry also received a reciprocal boost from Time in the section on food in the “Challenges we face” article. Time states that “agricultural policies now in place define the very idea of unsustainable development.” A true statement, but without addressing the culpability for this problem the statement becomes misleading. Time never says that these “agricultural policies now in place” were put into practice 50 years ago as part of the “Green Revolution” -- another industrialist/capitalist scheme that was going to feed the world, but which has become an abysmal failure for the poor and the hungry whom it was supposed to help. But this isn’t mentioned because there is a new industrial solution to remedy the ills of the last industrial solution: genetic engineering. According to Time, “better crop rotation and irrigation can help protect fields from exhaustion and erosion…But in a world that needs action fast, genetic engineering must still have a role.” There you have it. The beauty of advertising. It isn’t until 24 pages later that Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva received a one-page highlight where organic farming is discussed. But the article here was more cautious, with no statements such as: “but organic farming must have a role.” Organic farming is presented as a limitedly successful cautionary tale, that tellingly, “agribusiness must show it can outperform.” While “highlighting” organic farming, Time’s article on Shiva still mangages to further the cause of big industry by stating, “the challenge for genetic engineers is to create seeds adapted to particular locales that enable farmers to reduce, not increase, the use of chemicals.” It would seem Time needs to check up on some of Shiva’s own writings (Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge and Stolen Harvest: The Highjacking of the Global Food Supply) to see how for centuries farmers in India cultivated and saved seeds -- kinds which were particular to locales and water conditions and used no chemicals. The Green Revolution came and destroyed that practice for many farmers (who were put under pressure to grow crops for export and commodity value rather than for subsistence). But that side of the story is absent in Time. Indian peasant farmers don’t have the advertising clout of the biotech industry. Blame the environmentalists The bluntest piece in Time’s “Special Report” is Goldstein’s “Too green for their own good?”, in which he began with the question: “How come, at a time when the environmental movement is stronger and richer than ever, our most pressing ecological problems just get worse?” The premise Goldstein assumed is that money solves problems, which he then went on to re-emphasize, saying that US environmental groups have received donations of “$6.4 billion in 2001,” but the environment has not gotten any better, which lead him to the notion that “environmentalists [are] vulnerable to charges that green groups have prospered while the earth has not.” Goldstein’s advice to environmentalists: “Business is not the enemy” and “embrace the market.” Goldstein never explained his logic of just how money translates into a cleaner environment. Goldstein never said -- which would have been an interesting use of his own logic -- how much money polluting industries have at their disposal (hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars), if its a money war environmentalists haven’t a chance. At least not in Time Magazine anyway. Goldstein continued the corporate-sponsorship line saying “the planet needs profitable, innovative businesses even more than it needs environmentalists.” Again technology is the answer. The world needs Monsanto and Ford now; Greenpeace and Earthfirst!, thanks for coming, but you’re just not needed. Goldstein employed a twisted little logic to say that environmental groups should not have attacked Ford Motor Co., “Detroit’s most environmentally friendly carmaker” -- according to Goldstein, when Ford lobbied Congress to not increase fuel efficiency standards. Attacking Ford, he argues, was an act of “conservation purity” and such acts only push away environmental “supporters” and keep polluting industries willing to keep polluting. So the pollution and global warming problems are the fault of the environmentalists, not the fault of the industries and corporations actually doing the polluting. The article also gives a leg up to its biotech advertisers by taking a few sentences to dismiss the inherent, and also the unknown, risks of genetically engineered crops and then presents these crops as the solution to the food shortage (more honestly, food distribution) and chemical intensive agriculture problems. As for those who don’t think that’s the proper solution, Goldstein writes: “But what’s needed now are not crop tramplers and lab burners,” and that environmentalists “should lobby hard for the resources of Big Agriculture to be plowed into discovering crop varieties that can handle drought and thrive on small-scale farms.” Big Agriculture, Big Industry, Big Money. Time Magazine has given the solution to the environmental question. Don’t ride the bus, buy a new “green” car instead. Don’t stop using chemicals in favor of organic farming, use copyright-protected genetically engineered seeds instead. And when all else fails, blame the environmentalists. The only “green” evident about Time’s “Green Century” issue is the amount of money Time’s advertisers paid for it. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From dr_broccoli at hotmail.com Thu Sep 5 14:55:51 2002 From: dr_broccoli at hotmail.com (Shawn G) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:49 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] AGR Green Wash Message-ID: Asheville Global Report www.agrnews.org Start Worm Composting By Shawn Gaynor Asheville, North Carolina, Sept.4 (AGR)— By now it seems like most people know about recycling. This by now means is to say that everyone recycles everything that is recyclable, but rather that it is in the mass consciousness of our culture that recycling is generally a good idea and a benefit to the environment. It reduces the amount of garbage that ends up in landfills, reduces impact on forests and mines, and saves fuel by having to put less energy into processing raw materials. Likewise, composting seems to have largely entered the mass consciousness as a way to reduce waste. However many people, although they know that composting and building soils from your food waste, helps make the world more fertile, reduces our dependencies on the chemical industry (who provides ‘fertilizers’), and counters the massive top soil loss happening worldwide, still don’t do it. Of course they have all kinds of reasons; however, one that seems to come up often is that they have no space for a big pile of compost in their apartment, or small yard. Well, if you’re one of these people, worm composting is for you. In just a few easy steps that you can take on any evening of your life, you can begin worm composting. You’ll need a few things to start. First is a bin. It should have a lid that sits on it, but is not airtight. I recommend the retail shipping bin myself. It has a hinged lid and is about two feet by two and a half feet by one foot deep--the perfect size for an apartment worm compost. They are the milk crate of the new millennium. Plastic makes it easy to clean, and it needs only one major alteration—that a few dozen ¼ inch holes be drilled in the bottom for it to drain. Drain? Your worm compost is going to produce worm castings. As fertilizers go this is top notch. It should be diluted before using on your house or garden plants. To catch the castings, you will want to elevate the bin (with bricks, tin cans, other post-industrial ‘waste’) and have a tray beneath that catches the castings. A worn out Tupperware dish or baking sheet should work fine.Before adding your worms, the bin should have some starter soil (maybe an inch of it) in it and some bedding to regulate moisture. Old card board or newspapers shredded up works just fin. The bedding should go on top of the dirt and fill the bin more then halfway. Now time for the worms. Lots are better. Some sources say about two thousand for a box this size, but you can start with a couple of containers from the local bait shop. Red worms are the ones you’re looking for. They are common and voracious eaters. Adding new bedding every so often will keep the box from smelling. It can be kept beneath a sink for easy access, or in a garage, basement or other underutilized space. Now its time to feed the worms your garbage. Don’t put in dairy or meat, as these will attract pests, bugs, smell and a general aura of evil. A bin this size should be good for a household, however if you started with less worms, you need to let them multiply by feeding them steadily without filling up the bin. The food waste should be mixed in. One worm composter I know blends the waste for faster consumption by the worms. Worms like it between 40 and 80 degrees and moist but not wet, so make sure they’re getting what they want. For more information on worm composting visit look up worm composting on the Internet, or in your local library. The following Internet sites will be very useful: www.cityfarmer.org/wormcomp61.html, www.cfe.cornell.edu/compost/worms/basics.html, www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/AppalFor/bins.html or your local library. Also the book Worms Eat My Compost by Mary Appelhof provides many helpful insights and facts. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From dr_broccoli at hotmail.com Thu Sep 5 15:01:44 2002 From: dr_broccoli at hotmail.com (Shawn G) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:49 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] AGR Hip Hop Peace Summit Message-ID: Asheville Global Report www.agrnews.org Hip Hop Peace Summit lands at Civic Center By Liz Allen Asheville, North Carolina, Sept. 3 (AGR)— “Party in Peace” was the theme last Saturday for the Hip Hop Peace Summit/Petey Pablo concert. The Petey Pablo concert had originally been scheduled for July 25, to be held at McCormick stadium during the Bele Chere festival. It was canceled at the last minute by the Asheville Parks and Recreation Department and Buncombe County, out of fear that urban entertainment sparks violence. Ray Mapp of Purpose Publications, who put on the event, said the concert was difficult to reschedule. The purpose of the Hip Hop Summit was to remove the fear, demonstrated in the sudden cancellation, through emphasizing the positive, nonviolent side of Hip Hop. “We came up with the ‘Party in Peace’ slogan for one reason,” explained PR person and MC for the event Michael Hayes, “that’s like, to come in, party your ass off and when you leave outta’ there you leave like this [holds up two fingers], throwing up the peace sign.” The summit included vendors who served to educate attendees on entrepreneurship as a positive outlet. Gene Eddison of Platinum T-shirt and Design said his two year old business doing screen printing and heat transfers grew out of his experience making T-shirts for different neighborhoods. Eddison said being African American can make finding start-up capital difficult, but he succeeded by seeking out other Black entrepreneurs who were interested in supporting him and his project. He tells young people “staying focused is the toughest thing….basically believe in yourself, don’t let others try and bring you down.” The Peace Summit included a talent show, which, according to Hayes, received an overwhelming response. The event included groups from the Asheville area as well as those from all over North Carolina, and was recorded to send to industry representatives. The winner of the talent competition was Shatura featuring YGB (Young, Gifted, and Black). Shatura, one of the handful of female artists performing, said at 16 she felt “blessed to be experiencing things” and that “people have been encouraging and respectful” of her efforts. Other artists included NWO (Nationwide Outlaws), a Goodie Mob-esque six piece group from different parts of the country who record their own beats and tracks at their studio in Hendersonville. Also included was the Assassins, whose style interlaced singing harmonies with rapping lyrics, a la Bone Thugs and Harmony, but with sweeter and prettier vocals. The artists who performed in the talent show also opened up later that night for Petey Pablo in front of an audience of almost a thousand. The talent show encountered difficulties when it began to run over the scheduled time of five o’clock. Civic Center employees said people had to clear out so they could set up for the concert -- an assertion refuted by Richard Ball, the lighting technician, who claimed that the stage changes involved “nothing really since everything [stage, lights, etc.] stays up,” but that the employees “have to close the doors so we can count how many people show up.” The Summit crew was told that they would have to wait for the arrival of the union workers who ran the equipment before the show could continue. Ball explained that the union was in charge of running the spotlight, an item that was not being used for that segment of the event. “Since we are paying for the lights, the stage, we should be able to do it how we should have it…if the Civic Center was having one of these heavy metal groups, these wrestling groups, they get to do what they want to, they pay for whatever. But the way I’m looking at it, it’s a black and white thing. If we were white we probably would be able to do it the way we want to,” explained Ali Beaird, who was filming the event. The response to being cut short was quickly running through shortened sets and Hayes leading a short call and response of “Can’t Stop Hip Hop.” Hip Hop has received a lot of negative press recently, being blamed in the Asheville Citizen-Times for causing the shooting deaths that occurred earlier this summer at the Patton Avenue Pub, a misconception re-emphasized in an article calling the summit a failure because it didn’t draw large crowds. Ray Mapp said Parks and Recreation and the City were responsible for the low turnout because they canceled the original concert. “[We] had a challenge to show it was really going to happen, it was an uphill battle.” He said the Civic Center manager, David Pisha, was very cooperative and reasonable, and even spoke to the police in an effort to get security reduced to a reasonable amount. According to Officer R.H. Lance, there were fourteen Asheville Police Department officers working the event, the same number usually present at a sold-out show. Mapp said there were others involved in hindering the success of the concert. For example, there are reports that the Civic Center told callers interested in tickets that the concert was sold out. However, there are more Hip Hop shows and Peace Summits planned for the future. Mapp says they hope to hold the summit annually. He believes that the summit was influential just by putting out the message “Party in Peace.” Summit organizers are now in the process of compiling information from a questionnaire handed out to students to see what can be done to ensure young people attend future events. Richard Cooper, also of Purpose Publications, plans on booking big Hip Hop shows twice a year in Asheville. Purpose Publications’ biggest seller is a poster listing over 200 inventions by Black inventors, and is currently part of the school curriculum in the Columbus, Ohio city school system. In business for several years, its focus is “on educating the public that unity is stronger than being separated.” This point was reinforced by the diversity of the crowd at the concert, which consisted of people of all ages, but had a large number of young people. Mapp also added that both the summit, the concert and the after party went on without a violent incident. Azariyah of Space Mountain, a group out of Morganton who performed that evening, said he felt the message got across and explained that with Space Mountain, as with other Hip Hop groups, “the essence of our message is positive.” _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From dr_broccoli at hotmail.com Thu Sep 5 15:03:13 2002 From: dr_broccoli at hotmail.com (Shawn G) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:49 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] AGR Worm Composing Message-ID: Asheville Global Report www.agrnews.org Start Worm Composting By Shawn Gaynor Asheville, North Carolina, Sept.4 (AGR)— By now it seems like most people know about recycling. This by now means is to say that everyone recycles everything that is recyclable, but rather that it is in the mass consciousness of our culture that recycling is generally a good idea and a benefit to the environment. It reduces the amount of garbage that ends up in landfills, reduces impact on forests and mines, and saves fuel by having to put less energy into processing raw materials. Likewise, composting seems to have largely entered the mass consciousness as a way to reduce waste. However many people, although they know that composting and building soils from your food waste, helps make the world more fertile, reduces our dependencies on the chemical industry (who provides ‘fertilizers’), and counters the massive top soil loss happening worldwide, still don’t do it. Of course they have all kinds of reasons; however, one that seems to come up often is that they have no space for a big pile of compost in their apartment, or small yard. Well, if you’re one of these people, worm composting is for you. In just a few easy steps that you can take on any evening of your life, you can begin worm composting. You’ll need a few things to start. First is a bin. It should have a lid that sits on it, but is not airtight. I recommend the retail shipping bin myself. It has a hinged lid and is about two feet by two and a half feet by one foot deep--the perfect size for an apartment worm compost. They are the milk crate of the new millennium. Plastic makes it easy to clean, and it needs only one major alteration—that a few dozen ¼ inch holes be drilled in the bottom for it to drain. Drain? Your worm compost is going to produce worm castings. As fertilizers go this is top notch. It should be diluted before using on your house or garden plants. To catch the castings, you will want to elevate the bin (with bricks, tin cans, other post-industrial ‘waste’) and have a tray beneath that catches the castings. A worn out Tupperware dish or baking sheet should work fine.Before adding your worms, the bin should have some starter soil (maybe an inch of it) in it and some bedding to regulate moisture. Old card board or newspapers shredded up works just fin. The bedding should go on top of the dirt and fill the bin more then halfway. Now time for the worms. Lots are better. Some sources say about two thousand for a box this size, but you can start with a couple of containers from the local bait shop. Red worms are the ones you’re looking for. They are common and voracious eaters. Adding new bedding every so often will keep the box from smelling. It can be kept beneath a sink for easy access, or in a garage, basement or other underutilized space. Now its time to feed the worms your garbage. Don’t put in dairy or meat, as these will attract pests, bugs, smell and a general aura of evil. A bin this size should be good for a household, however if you started with less worms, you need to let them multiply by feeding them steadily without filling up the bin. The food waste should be mixed in. One worm composter I know blends the waste for faster consumption by the worms. Worms like it between 40 and 80 degrees and moist but not wet, so make sure they’re getting what they want. For more information on worm composting visit look up worm composting on the Internet, or in your local library. The following Internet sites will be very useful: www.cityfarmer.org/wormcomp61.html, www.cfe.cornell.edu/compost/worms/basics.html, www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/AppalFor/bins.html or your local library. Also the book Worms Eat My Compost by Mary Appelhof provides many helpful insights and facts. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From dr_broccoli at hotmail.com Thu Sep 5 15:07:02 2002 From: dr_broccoli at hotmail.com (Shawn G) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:49 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] Asheville City Council Message-ID: Asheville Global Report www.agrnews.org Asheville City Council OKs Shiloh development By Beth Trigg Asheville, North Carolina, Aug. 20 (AGR)— About sixty residents of the Shiloh community attended Asheville City Council’s last regular meeting on Aug. 13 to voice concerns about a new development proposed for the neighborhood. Developer Ron Hubbard, who famously renovated the downtown Kress building, installing luxury condominiums that sell for upwards of $300,000, was seeking a conditional use permit and rezoning from Council for a 168-unit condo development in Shiloh. Shiloh, a historic working class Black neighborhood in South Asheville, has a strong Community Association which opposes the development. Jonnie Walker, the president of the Shiloh Community Association, has been a resident of Shiloh for sixty-seven years. She told council that the “density is so great that it will cause problems in our community.” Walker cited the City’s Unified Development Ordinance’s seven conditional use findings, much in the news in recent months in connection with opposition to the Sayles Bleachery Super Wal-Mart development. “The proposed buildings are not at all compatible with our neighborhood,” said Walker. Anita White-Carter, another lifelong resident of Shiloh, pointed to conditional use permit number seven, which prohibits development when it causes an undue traffic burden on the surrounding neighborhood. “Traffic is a huge problem,” echoed Georgia Allen. Sophie Dixon of the NAACP also spoke in opposition to the development, voicing her concern for “the safety of all of the residents of Shiloh” if this development were allowed into the neighborhood. Hubbard says the condos will sell for between $69,000 and $99,000, and called the project an “affordable housing development.” Hubbard told council that his development was “the right thing for the community,” despite the fact that neighborhood opponents had filed a protest petition. Pointing to a map of the neighborhood with the homes of people who had signed the protest petition marked with black squares, Hubbard implied that the large number of petition-signers in the Wilson Creek Habitat for Humanity development were ungrateful charity recipients who had no right to oppose his development. Calling the development “an oasis,” Hubbard suggested that his project would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Shiloh resident Charles Williams defended the neighborhood, saying: “There seems to be a misconception that Shiloh is some sort of ghetto. What Shiloh is a community of hard-working people.” The development, on the other hand, Williams called “neighborhood terrorism,” saying “terrorism in this country was not limited to 9/11/01.” About a dozen members of the Faith Tabernacle Christian Church, which occupies property which adjoins the proposed development, spoke in favor of the project. William Robinson, the church’s pastor, said, “We are confident that the development will be of benefit to the church and to the Shiloh community.” The issue was further complicated by the fact that the Affordable Housing Coalition of Asheville and Buncombe County (AHCABC) supported the development, with its board of directors passing a unanimous resolution in support of Hubbard’s plan. AHCABC interim director Judy Chaet pointed to the dire need for affordable housing in the city and the fact that density helps provide more housing within city limits. Frieda Nash, a resident of Shiloh, countered this assumption: “The developer says that density is the only way to get affordability. Density is the only way to get profitability. We are people living there. You want to make profits.” Norma Baines added, “To say that you have to buy a condo to have affordable housing is not true. There can be affordable single-family homes. There are no three story buildings in Shiloh. Shiloh wants single family affordable homes so the people of Shiloh can be proud, so that we can plant that special tree or flower — we want to leave our children homes, not another project.” Baines suggested that Council should examine the size and layout of the condos, suggesting that they were the size of “an efficiency apartment, not a home.” Other speakers brought up concerns about affordable housing in Asheville; Leon Williams spoke about searching for a home to buy with his wife, saying “there wasn’t anything to be found” within city limits that was within their budget, even though he and his wife each work two jobs. “We ended up moving to Leicester,” said Williams, who supported the development “and commuting.” The only common ground between opponents and proponents of the project seemed to be the dire need for more affordable housing. But former mayoral candidate Mickey Mahaffey says the situation is more complex than just whether or not council supports affordable housing: “Yes, there are affordable housing issues here, but above all this is a community issue. Although I might be in favor of density as a means to create affordable housing, communities have a right to decide their own fate. It’s patronizing to say politicians or developers know what’s best for a community better than community members do.” Adds community activist Allie Morris: “The Shiloh Community Association and the clear majority of residents don’t want this development. This is about community empowerment.” In the end, Council voted unanimously to approve the development and rezoning. Council member Terry Bellamy qualified her vote by saying: “The good far outweighs the negative,” and, “we have to take into consideration only the seven conditional use findings. It’s only fair to the developer to look only at these issues.” Mayor Charles Worley was even less apologetic: “We are a growing community, a growing state, a growing nation,” said Worley, “growth we can’t stop.” Council member Joe Dunn, not known as a supporter of affordable housing, voted in favor of the project as well. Jeff Kelly, of Community Supported Development (CSD), pointed out that Dunn had blocked a density bonus for an affordable housing development of much smaller scale earlier in the year, saying: “Dunn could not support 37 units or so of affordable housing in white, conservative Chunns Cove but his only concern with the Shiloh development was that the City was asking the developer for too much money per unit— $500 — to be set aside in an escrow account for traffic mitigation. How he and Mumpower were so put out by this, when this was the neighborhood’s biggest concern, is beyond me.” Gregory Payne of Shiloh summed up the frustration that was palpable in the crowd: “This complex will change the character of our neighborhood and it seems like we can’t do anything to stop this. Our hearts are burdened. I spoke to an elder in the neighborhood the other day and she told me that she felt like her hands were tied and her voice was not heard.” Payne implored council to allow community members to have some power in determining the direction of their own neighborhood, closing his statement with a passionate demand: “Loose the chains. Loose the shackles.” _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From dr_broccoli at hotmail.com Thu Sep 5 15:08:41 2002 From: dr_broccoli at hotmail.com (Shawn G) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:50 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] AGR Vermont federal aid Message-ID: Asheville Global Report www.agrnews.org Vermont may reject federal aid By Liz Allen Asheville, North Carolina, Aug. 20 (AGR)— The state of Vermont may refuse $26 million offered through President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in order to avoid having to comply with the Act’s requirements. The act, set to take effect the 2002-2003 school year, consists of mostly Title I money aimed at helping disadvantaged children and serves as the most comprehensive overhaul of secondary and elementary education since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. NCLB’s testing requirements state that schools receiving federal money must test all students in grades 3-8 annually for proficiency, and must make adequate yearly progress or face reprisals. Currently, Vermont tests students in grades 4, 8 and 10 but does not have sanctions for schools that do not meet certain standards. Vermont Governor Howard Dean, a Democrat considering running for president in 2004, has called the act “a terrible mistake on the national level,” and estimates the burden of implementation to cost local school boards and taxpayers as much as $60 million to implement. Dean also fears the act will create incentive to “dumb down” Vermont’s testing system in order for some schools to avoid being sanctioned. According to Dean some schools are not reaching proficiency standards because the standards were deliberately set high. But, by NCLB regulations , those schools could be labeled as “failing” and risk losing federal money if they do not improve, creating incentive to simply create easier tests Dean also has apprehensions over the act’s provisions allowing the military access to student databases and the promotion of “constitutionally protected” school prayer by requiring local school districts to report to the state education agency any programs that could be a hindrance to prayer. Although the NCLB is promoted as respecting state and local control over education Dean criticizes it as being “incredibly top down and intrusive.” The Act requires states to implement a single, statewide accountability system to ensure adequate yearly progress. The Act requires all students to meet proficiency standards by the 2013 – 2014 school year through meeting incremental yearly goals. Locally, Asheville City Schools Superintendent Robert Logan responded to the requirement saying, “Is that realistic? What is magical about the next 10 – 12 years?” He suggests the goal of 100% proficiency by 2013 is simply public policy, not based on projections that consider the fact that students learn in a different ways and take different amounts of time. Asheville City School students, who are currently tested annually in grades 3 – 8, have an average of 81.6% proficiency in reading and 84.6% in math, would be required to increase their proficiency by 1.5% and 1.4% respectively per annum. NCLB requires “students who are disadvantaged, students from major racial ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency,” to have separate annual measurements and achievement goals in closing the achievement gap. Logan believes this aspect along with the mechanism necessitating higher teacher standards, “has the potential to have the greatest impact on public education since Brown v. Board of Education.” However, he does not believe there are going to be enough resources to close the gap. Ninety five percent of the students in each subgroup are to be assessed to find proficiency rates. Alternative assessments may be given to students who are considered to have “significant cognitive disabilities.” Presently, there is a proposal to limit the number of students who take the alternative assessment. Graduation rates are also a part of the adequate yearly progress measurement. If a school fails to meet annual goals for two consecutive years they must make available public school choice to all students enrolled in schools. After a third year they must offer supplemental education programs. Failing schools may be identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. If identified for improvement the school must develop or revise a plan for improvement using “not less then 10%” of funding to incorporate “scientifically based strategies” to improve core academics and professional development. Other requirements are “extended learning time strategies” and promotion of “effective parental involvement.” Corrective action involves continuation of all requirements failing schools are held to plus at least one of the following: “replacing school staff, implementing a new curriculum, decreasing management authority at the school, appointing an outside expert to advise school, extending the school day or year, and reorganizing the school internally.” Schools identified for restructuring must also must meet requirements for failing schools as well as prepare a plan for an alternative governance arrangement. Alternative governance arrangements include “reopening the school as a public charter school, replacing all or most of the school staff, entering into a contract with a private management company to operate the school as a public school, turning over the operation of the school to the state education agency or any other major restructuring of a school’s governance arrangements.” If in the next year the identified school fails to make adequate yearly progress they must implement the alternative governance plan. Local education agencies that are identified by the state education agencies for improvement may face deferred programming or reduced administrative funds, the appointment of a trustee in place of the superintendent and school board, and/or the restructuring or abolishment of the local education agency. For Vermont, the final decision on whether to accept the money and the ensuing requirements lies in the hands of the state legislature who will discuss the subject in their next session beginning the first week of January 2003. The US Secretary of Education Rod Paige has accused Dean as being unwilling to test children and ignorant of how well the students of Vermont are achieving. Spokeswoman for the governor’s office, Susan Allen maintains, “[Although] Secretary Paige has implied the governor is not concerned about testing, the governor very much supports assessment. Vermont has a very stringent testing and assessment program. It goes much further than the federal law requires.” Vermont is so far the only state proposing to reject the money. According to Allen, rejection of the money would not be because the state does not care about needy children but rather because of the cost of overhauling its testing program. Allen stated, “We love our children. We hope we have the same goals as the secretary – improving education.” _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From dr_broccoli at hotmail.com Thu Sep 5 15:10:49 2002 From: dr_broccoli at hotmail.com (Shawn G) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:50 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] AGR Hollywood 'bad guys' Message-ID: Asheville Global Report www.agrnews.org Hollywood debuts new 'bad guys' in XXX\ By Shawn Gaynor Hollywood has always strived to bring audiences in touch with the otherwise unbelievable. XXX, the new movie staring Vin Diesel as Xender Cage, delivers this. Never mind the 40 foot high motorcycle jump onto a barn roof, or the hero outrunning an avalanche on a snow board when everyone else (with a head start and on snowmobiles) gets crushed by a wall of ice. These are standard Hollywood spy movie fare. The really unbelievable part starts with the filthy rich Eastern European “anarchists”… yeah, that’s right, rich anarchists. Furthermore, these millionaire, boy’s club “anarchists,” instead of struggling for freedom and justice for the common person, spend their time in their mountain castle, bent on world destruction in the form of biological warfare. The film is (sometimes painfully) aimed at young Americans interested in counter culture. The music fits. The hero is tattooed, into extreme sports, and steals a senator’s car in the opening scene to dole out some justice in relation to something rather bad the senator did. The film is even named XXX despite its PG-13 flirtation, and is bound to draw adolescents. There’s no end of extras with blue hair, piercings, and mohawks. These are all things that young Americans seem to like the idea of. But how to twist it? How about the hero gets blackmailed, tricked, and forced into service by the government? All those expensive government-sponsored dinners and pleas to Hollywood ears to help with “the war effort” must have found their way into the hearts of Rob Cohen and his buddies at “revolution” studios. The movie plot reads more like a wish-list of right-wing foreign policy than an action film. The first of these comes when a National Security Agency (NSA) boss called Gibbson (Samuel L. Jackson) decides it is time to recruit some agents from a list of accomplished criminals. According to Gibbson, these agents will avoid detection because they don’t act trained (which they’re not) and are completely expendable, because nobody at the NSA, or presumably anywhere, really cares about these American boys overseas. This seems to mesh really well with the Bush administration’s post-Sept. 11 policy changes at the CIA for the need to work with “undesirables and criminal elements.” Use criminal elements for what, you ask? Well, the movie answers this clearly enough: to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, in this case a biological weapon that is set to destroy ten cities’ populations. But first these potential agents need to be tested, and where better to polish up some forces into fighting shape for a mission in the evil and scary former east bloc? Colombia, of course! Why not play the Colombians against each other to cause a shit-storm of explosions and killing in order to see if the agents have any kind of survival instinct? After that it’s off to Prague. Yes, that bastion of anarchist resistance, where the World Trade Orginization met the anti-globalization movement inside the convention center after protesters forced their way into the building. What are the dangerous Prague anarchists up to in the movie? Well, Washington will be happy to know that these fictional anarchists are planning to kill the whole city, including its tremendous counterculture. And where do these so-called “anarchists” come from? Not Prague, but the ex-Soviet Union. Yes, they gave up Russian democracy and/or communism, and their high positions in Russian intelligence and military, in favor of anarchism. Washington and Hollywood would like you to know that anarchists are really just communists that disliked the fall of the Soviet Union. What else these “anarchists” believe is up to the audience. The film never addresses it, presumably because the film makers know nothing about this. It could be speculated, though, that they do, and don’t want you to. Easier to have a mysterious, vaguely evil group of villains (led by an evil mastermind) than explain that some people believe deeply in direct democracy but really don’t like capitalism. On top of this, they are sexist. Sexist enough to pimp out their girlfriends, and to never let a woman into their inner circle. They even keep a veritable harem of women in their clubs and castle with the sole purpose of their sexual satisfaction after a long day of destroying civilization (back to the adolescent PG-13 fantasies). Despite all of this movies shortcomings, I like Xander as a character. Diesel’s presence on screen is believably self-assured, and willing to break the rules. He takes bold risks, and speaks like an ordinary person rather than a robotic Schwarzenegger. He fights to save the world, just like every young person wants to do. Just be careful who you’re doing it for and why, Vin. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From wires at the-alarm.com Fri Sep 6 22:45:04 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:50 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] Alarm!--Camp X-Ray Message-ID: <3215FB4A-C214-11D6-86B6-003065F4865E@the-alarm.com> On a little island rests a big problem: Wards of the War on Terrorism By Michelle Stewart The Alarm! Newspaper Collective In late 2001, word came from the White House that detainees captured in the War on Terrorism would be kept for interrogation on a US Naval Base. These individuals would be held for questioning about events surrounding 9/11 and/or their association with the al-Qaeda network and/or the Taliban. Classified by the government as ?detainees,? not ?prisoners? (you be the judge on that one), these individuals were transported beginning in January to a remote location in Cuba. The place is Guantanamo Bay; the holding facilities were called Camp X-ray. Since January 12, 2002 the population at the Camp has swelled to nearly 600 and renovations are underway to create more space. The expected total capacity for the camp is approximately 2,000. What is perhaps most troubling is that, unlike other prisons, you do not need to be charged to be held at the Camp, and there is no guarantee you will ever be released. Perhaps it is time we begin to get to know this camp of the permanently detained. The Camps and the Arrivals On January 12, 2002, twenty al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners arrived at a US Naval base located in Cuba?s Guantanamo Bay from a Khandahar airfield in Afghanistan. Dubbed Camp X-ray, the temporary facility housed detainees in kennel-like conditions with open-air cells. The wire/mesh cells were approximately two meters by two-and-a-half meters, with a cement floor and wood ceiling. Sprayed down with high-concentrate mosquito repellent, these open-air cells left these occupants susceptible to the elements twenty-four hours a day. Given two buckets on arrival, one for waste and another for water, inmates were placed in their cells with two blankets (one for warmth, another for prayer) and the Koran. No formal activities allowed them to be removed from their cells. In the opening months, visiting reporters said they could not see the detainees from their vantage point 100 feet away, save the occasional ?flash? of an orange jumpsuit. Left in their cells all day, every day, inmates would attempt to use their blankets as sun blocks to repel the hot Caribbean sun. Within a few months, Camp Delta opened its doors. Beginning to house captives on April 28, 2002, Delta boasts improved living conditions including running water, indoor toilets and intermittent air-conditioning?all the pleasantries needed for a permanent prison vs. temporary ?camp.? In Cuba? Fidel Castro would echo such a question considering US-Cuba relations and the history of the base. The base itself is approximately forty-five square miles located on a cliffy edge of the island, towering over the Caribbean Sea. The US acquired the land during the Spanish-American War and built a base in 1903 as part of treaty agreement. When Castro took Cuba in 1959, Eisenhower refused to turn the base over, citing the 1903 treaty, which gives the US the right to the land so long as it pays 2,000 gold coins annually (worth an estimated $4,000). Today, nearly 3,000 US military personnel and their families can be found on one side of the twenty-eight-mile long fence that separates the base from the rest of the island. It is a fittingly hostile environment to host these international wards of the War on Terror. The US federal government continues to pay the annual rent, now in checks, not gold coins. However, Castro reportedly has not cashed any of the checks. Where the Geneva Convention Does Not Apply A wave of controversy began in late 2001, when the detainees were being classified as ?illegal combatants.? The federal government refused to grant the detainees at Guantanamo Bay the status of prisoners of war?a classification that comes with a list of rights and guarantees under the Geneva Convention. According to Article Four of the Convention, the detainees likely fall into a category of military personnel, militia, volunteer corps, etc., including ?members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power.? Despite these loose categories, the federal government would not classify the detainees as POWs. For some, the most troubling aspect of this disregard for classification is that the Convention goes on to say, ?should any doubt arise, [the prisoner(s)] shall enjoy the protection of the present convention [until such time that] their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.? (Article Five Geneva Convention). The abstract classification the US has chosen for the Guantanamo Bay detainees leaves them in a precarious position whereby they are not granted status as POWs, they are stripped of all their rights accordingly, they are not granted the same rights as US citizens (held in the judicial system) and they seem to be at the whim and mercy of the military court and/or tribunal. All proceedings, questions/interrogations, etc. are being held as classified information: all that goes on at Camp Delta is for military personnel to know and for others to wonder about. Images Spark Further Controversy In January, images released by the US government of new detainees arriving to Guantanamo Bay sparked a mixed reaction from the international community. Members of the public and government alike were concerned when the new arrivals were photographed kneeling on the ground with their hands restrained and their eyes and ears covered. The military responded by defending the use of eye goggles (covered with black tape), ear muffs, thick gloves, restrained hands and feet and surgical masks, commenting that each detainee to Camp X-ray was subject to the treatment. The US defended its use of these restraints, claiming a combination of security precautions and health factors. Individuals destined for the camp were also shaved upon leaving Afghanistan, an action many human right?s groups pointed out as a violation of detainees? religious beliefs. The federal government responded by saying that the shaving of beards and hair was to reduce a lice outbreak, that detainees were allowed to grow their beards back upon arrival at the Camp and that a copy of the Koran was provided to each new arrival as part of their personal package. Life at Guantanamo Bay Military personnel purposefully arrange the inmates so that they are in cells located where others do not speak their language. The nearly 600 inmates are representative of over thirty nations. According to Brigadier General Rick Baccaus of Task Force 160?the man dubbed the warden of Camp Delta?inmates spend the entire day in their cells including mealtime. Meals are taken in the cells on trays. Only twice a week are they allowed out individually for a shower and outside exercise. Red Cross monitors have been on the island since the opening weeks, serving as both human rights monitor and mail carriers. The Red Cross population has dropped from six to only two. Detainees are given a choice of the Red Cross or Camp Delta as a mail handler. The military is priding itself on what it calls the Camp Delta mail system whereby inmates can write mail and receive up to six packages per month. Of course writing is strictly monitored and many inmates have opted to not pen a letter home?after each ?writing session? inmates are relieved of both their letter (for inspection) as well as the pen (possible weapon). Rapidly increasing in population, the camp housed less than 300 in April, at which point it announced additional cells were to be built by the end of May. By August, the Camp housed 600 detainees, with an announcement from General James Hill that an additional 200 cells would be built by October. Hill stated that as the War on Terrorism grows, so too will the Camp?speculation of a total capacity of 2,000 has been cited by military sources. A Permanent Fixture Void of Conclusive Answers Although the Camp is visible in many late night TV jokes and is the occasional focus of a cable news report, it is losing visibility both in the media and in the public?s collective memory. However, as the ?Top Ten Benefits of Being Held at Camp Delta? jokes are fading so too is the question of the validity of holding these individuals without trial, without (shown) evidence, without explanation of their daily lives and conditions and, perhaps most importantly, without a set release date. The population grows each month at Guantanamo Bay and begins to feel like a permanent penal colony paying tribute to 9/11. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. ----- The Alarm! Newspaper a local weekly newspaper for an engaged populace http://www.the-alarm.com/ info@the-alarm.com P.O. Box 1205, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 (831) 429-NEWS - office (831) 420-1498 - fax From wires at the-alarm.com Fri Sep 6 22:45:56 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:50 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] Alarm!--USA PATRIOT Act Message-ID: <50F4AD97-C214-11D6-86B6-003065F4865E@the-alarm.com> One year under the USA PATRIOT Act, little sign of effects By Halie Johnson The Alarm! Newspaper Collective USA PATRIOT Act?So Much for Checks and Balances The Justice Department is giving Congress the brush-off in regards to how it has used its new anti-terrorist powers in the past year. Congress requested answers to fifty questions about new ?rover? surveillance, phone call tracking and interrogation of libraries, bookstores and newspaper records. According to The New York Times, some of the simpler questions regarding immigration on the Canadian border were answered; the Justice Department dodged the rest. On August 15, Adam Clymer of the New York Times reported: Probably the most complaints concern the Justice Department, with Republicans, including Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana and Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa among its severest critics. The Senate Judiciary Committee has sent twenty-seven unanswered letters to the Justice Department seeking information on topics including the PATRIOT Act civil rights and corporate fraud. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, who is chairman of the panel, said in an interview, ?Since I?ve been here, I have never known an administration that is more difficult to get information from that the oversight committees are entitled to.? The Act makes changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, altering over fifteen statutes in all. There is little to no information currently available explaining how and to what extent the powers extended to law enforcement, the FBI, the CIA and several other branches of government have been used. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation there is no public information granted regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act to make requests for surveillance, nor regarding what surveillance actually occurs, except for a raw annual report of number of requests made and number granted. In the past, certification was needed from the Attorney General that ?the purpose? of an order is the suspicion that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. According to he Electronic Frontier Foundation, now the Attorney General is not required to report anything to the court about what it does. What exactly is the USA PATRIOT Act? September 24, 2001?The Bush administration submitted anti-terrorism legislation to Congress. Just over one month later; anti-terrorism legislation was written into law. October 26, 2001?Bush signed the ?Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 into law. The bill was passed by a ninety-eight to one vote, with Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) as the only dissenting member. The ACLU criticized the PATRIOT Act and said, ?Among the Act?s most troubling provisions are measures that: ? Allow for indefinite detention of non-citizens who are not terrorists on minor visa violations if they cannot be deported because they are stateless, their country of origin refuses to accept them or because they would face torture in their country of origin. ? Minimize judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities. ? Expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches. ? Give the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any non-citizen who belongs to them. ? Grant the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime. ? Lead to large-scale investigations of American citizens for ?intelligence? purposes.? Due to the suspension of standard procedural processes, the Act was passed only five weeks after it was introduced to Congress. It did not go through the standard inter-agency review, the normal committee and hearing processes or the thorough voting that is normally employed. Among the provisions that the Act allows, the FBI and CIA may now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that a suspect is using either. In addition, the bill grants authority for enforcement agencies to retrieve voicemail messages with only a search warrant. The PATRIOT Act also amends US Codes defining terrorism, raising concerns among groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation about ?legitimate protest activity resulting in conviction on terrorism charges, especially if violence erupts.? Another significant change is an increase in information-sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Where, in the past, wiretaps were granted only in cases where an agent could provide proof of ?probable cause,? the new laws do not call for ?probable cause,? but only suspicion that a person is an agent of a foreign government. The new law also adds samples of DNA to a database not only for convicted terrorists, but also for people convicted of ?any crime of violence.? Many officials have defended the new bill saying that it includes a sunshine provision so many of the changes will expire on December 31, 2005 unless renewed by Congress. However, the Electronic Frontier Federation notes that there is no way for Congress to review how several of the provisions have been implemented because there is no reporting required to Congress. The Electronic Frontier Federation stated that, ?Without the necessary information about how these new powers have been useD, Congress will be unable to evaluate whether they have been needed about how they have been used? The Electronic Frontier Federation added that Congress cannot make an informed decision about whether the changes should continue or whether they should be allowed to expire without renewal. To find out more on the Patriot Act see the ACLU?s analysis from last November at www.aclu.org/congress/l110101a.html or AlterNet?s story at www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11854 or the Center for Constitutional Rights commentary at http://www.ccr-ny.org/whatsnew/usa_patriot_act.asp. The Electronic Frontier Foundation did a thorough analysis of the bill, which can be found at www.eff.org. The actual text of the bill can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov. Sidebar: A. The provisions that expire on December 31, 2005 (unless renewed by Congress include: ? Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism. ? Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses. ? Sec. 203(b), (d). Authority to share criminal investigative information. ? Sec. 206. Roving surveillance authority under the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978. ? Sec. 207. Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power. ? Sec. 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants. ? Sec. 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb. ? Sec. 214. Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA. ? Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. ? Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications. ? Sec. 218. Foreign intelligence information. ? Sec. 220. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence. ? Sec. 223. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures. B. The following provision do not expire: ? Sec. 203(a), (c): Grand jury sharing of information. ? Sec. 208. Designation of Judges: increases number of FISA judges. ? Sec. 210: ECPA scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications--clearly allowing e-mails routing information. ? Sec. 211: ECPA Clarification of scope: privacy provisions of Cable Act overridden for communication services offered by cable providers (but not for records relating to cable viewing) . ? Sec. 213: Sneak & Peek: delay notification of execution of a warrant ? Sec. 216: Modification of pen/trap authorities: (in original PATRIOT, would have sunsetted). ? Sec. 219: Single jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism. ? Sec. 222 Assistance to law enforcement. ? Sec. 225. Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap. Can continue all investigations active at the time of expiration.org. The actual text of the bill can be found sat http://thomas.loc.gov. Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation?s Analysis of the USA Patriot Act All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. ----- The Alarm! Newspaper a local weekly newspaper for an engaged populace http://www.the-alarm.com/ info@the-alarm.com P.O. Box 1205, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 (831) 429-NEWS - office (831) 420-1498 - fax From wires at the-alarm.com Fri Sep 6 22:46:49 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:50 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] Alarm!--It's the Stupid Economy Message-ID: <708D45DC-C214-11D6-86B6-003065F4865E@the-alarm.com> ?It?s the stupid economy? US Labor and the Economy in the wake of September 11 By Fhar Miess The Alarm! Newspaper Collective We Americans like to think that everything changed on September 11, 2001. Obviously, things have changed, but when it comes to the US economy, the assumption that everything has changed can be a particularly dangerous one. The fact of the matter is that the economy began its precipitous decline months before September 11. When financial and commodity markets were closed for several days following the attacks on the World Trade Center towers, an economy on the brink of disaster was given a brief reprieve. It would be all too easy to blame the country?s poor economic performance on the malice of foreign terrorists rather than over-valued stocks, inflated derivatives markets and ?creative? accounting practices by domestic agents. The latter reasons are, however, closer to reality, and, if anything, the attacks on the World Trade Center towers provided a much-needed distraction and buffer from this reality. Within a week of the attacks, hawkish voices began appearing on the editorial pages of such publications as the Wall Street Journal, calling for a swift retaliation against the perpetrators of this direct attack on American military and economic might. The Bush Administration was more than obliging to these interests and the US military was deployed in Afghanistan within the month. When the markets reopened on the Monday following the attacks, prices and trading were relatively steady. Economists were quick to note the urge for a return to ?normalcy? by the consumer public. Shoppers went to the malls in droves. They flocked to the video stores to distract themselves with Hollywood schlock. They packed the bookstores in search of answers in the printed word. Sales of cell phones surged in the face of mounting anxieties about staying in touch with loved ones. Meanwhile the stock values of security staffing and equipment manufacturers skyrocketed in resonance with the saber-rattling emanating from the White House. Soon afterward, the Bush Administration engineered and rushed through a $15 billion bailout of the crisis-stricken airline industry. That industry responded to the vote of confidence from the government by laying off workers by the thousands. This pattern of bolstering big economic players while ignoring the interests and needs of working people continued unabated in the Administration. In the midst of ?economic stimulus? packages (which even by conservative economic standards have been characterized as something less than stimulating) and moves to privatize Social Security, employers laid off some 800,000 workers across almost all industries while housing and health care costs continued their upward climb. In addition, it has taken longer than usual for unemployed workers to find new employment. Still, Bush has maintained that the ?fundamentals of the economy? remain strong (although, in a moment of understated candor, he managed recently to admit that times are ?kind of tough? for American workers). But the Bush Administration has not simply ignored the working class; it has actively fought to thwart it at every turn. Citing the need for executive ?flexibility? in the war against terrorism, Bush declared in early January that all collective bargaining agreements of workers previously represented by the American Federation of Government Employees in five Department of Justice divisions would be henceforth null and void. More recently, the Administration has refused to budge in its insistence that workers transfered to the new Department of Homeland Security abandon union representation. This insistence was the major sticking point that prevented Senate Democrats from approving legislation formalizing the new department before the summer recess. Workers in the transportation sector have been hit particularly hard, especially in air transportation. Tens of thousands of security personnel and staff have been laid off since September 11 and the situation grows worse as time progresses. The Bush Administration has been less than supportive. In December, 15,000 Machinists at United Airlines threatened a strike if their demands for better pay were not met?demands they had put off for four years, waiting for United to get its financial ducks in a row. A ?Presidential Emergency Board,? appointed by G. W., banned the workers from striking on December 20, severely restricting what leverage they had. On June 4 of this year, Bush abruptly signed an executive order paving the way for the privatization of the nation?s Air Traffic Control system, contrary to the interests of the controllers themselves, not to mention logic and common sense. The air traffic controllers had proven themselves when they safely landed several hundred aircraft within minutes of the order to do so on September 11, and over 5,000 aircraft over the next couple of hours. Britain, Australia and Canada, the only other nations to have privatized their own air traffic control systems, have had to bail out those private companies to keep them solvent and functioning, calling into question their ability to maintain safety in the skies. Poor working conditions in those operations have been met with labor strikes. All of this comes at a time when the Administration is moving away from privatization and toward the federalization of many other security-sensitive aspects of air travel to ensure that well-trained and well-compensated federal workers get the job done right (all concerns about the repressiveness of a ?job well done? in this area put aside for the moment). Another mammoth struggle in transport is coming to a head between Boeing and the International Association of Machinists (IAM). The Machinists were set to go on strike starting Labor Day, but they heeded the call of federal mediators to return to the negotiating table. Boeing management was considerably less obliging, showing up to the meeting only to refuse further negotiation. Business pages are appearing spelling doom for the Machinists. Their leverage is significantly weakened by Boeing?s financial position. Orders for new commercial aircraft have been slow due to the financial failings of the airline industry since September 11, and the company is awaiting payment on orders already delivered. While management insists that a strike is not good for them either, they have a clear advantage at the moment, despite the not insignificant strike fund of the Machinists, which could keep them out with strike pay for months. Union officials, however, appear eager for federal mediation, as evidenced by the fact that they risked alienating their rank and file by interrupting the strike vote as ballots were being cast in order to take the federal mediators up on their offer. Still, Boeing does have orders to fulfill, including a recent order for sixteen military helicopters from the government of Kuwait, valued at around $2 billion, and this could work in the union?s favor. Boeing has taken a stronger role in the production of military aircraft since its absorption of McDonnell Douglas in August of 1997. These labor problems in the air travel industry are by no means limited to the United States. Staff at Australian airline Qantas have gone on strike twice in the month of August. The International Transport Workers? Federation (ITF) has noted that workers in sea and air transportation around the world are among the hardest hit by security clampdowns in the wake of September 11. Security personnel in civil aviation remain the worst paid in the industry while workers at sea are increasingly denied shore leave due to security concerns. Transport workers on terra firma are not doing so well, either. Consolidated Freightways, a trucking company based out of Vancouver, Washington, filed for Chapter 11 (bankruptcy) protection on Tuesday, and Monday (Labor Day) announced that it would be laying off over 15,000 unionized workers, effective immediately. Carlos Ramos, a spokesman for Teamsters Local 776 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is quoted as saying, ?that?s like telling your wife you?re getting divorced on Valentine?s Day.? The liquidation of Consolidated Freightways comes after revelations following federal audits that the company funneled assets into a non-union subsidiary, Conway. In addition, the company was one of sixteen large firms that failed to meet the Securities and Exchange Commission deadline of August 14 for financial certification. The SEC required the certification of the bookkeeping practices of 691 such businesses following the collapse of Enron, WorldCom and others due to ?aggressive? accounting practices that inflated their paper value. Outraged members of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 206 staged a protest and picket outside the company?s headquarters, across the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon, on Tuesday. But the pinnacle of this generalized labor strife is the brewing conflict between the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), which represents shipping lines, and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). The ILWU is traditionally one of the strongest and most militant of mainstream unions in the United States, representing primarily workers at ports along the West Coast of the US. According to the PMA, those ports handled $260 billion worth of goods last year. The PMA has made virtually no concessions while the ILWU has already made compromises far beyond what they have been willing to accept in the past. Until Labor Day weekend, the parties had extended their existing contract since its expiration on July 1. On Sunday, September 1, talks broke down completely as the PMA reneged on previous agreements regarding the protection of union jobs as technology on the docks is introduced. This prompted the union not to renew the contract, paving the way to possible work slowdowns, which the union often uses to leverage its bargaining position. For its part, the PMA has pledged to lock out the union if it engages in work slowdowns. According to an ILWU press release, the PMA?s next move, after changing significant terms of the negotiations, was to call the Bush Administration. Over a month ago, the ILWU made it public that Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had both pressured ILWU International President James Spinosa not to strike the West Coast ports in the interests of national security. According to the union, the Bush Administration has also suggested that it may invoke the Taft-Hartley Act to mandate an eighty-day ?cooling-off? period, ordering longshore workers back to the job. This mandate is among four possible courses of action unionists claim the Administration has indicated it may take. The other three include running the ports with Navy personnel, placing the docks under the restrictive Railroad Labor Act and breaking up the coastwise contract into separate negotiating units for each port. The Administration is taking clear steps to make good on those threats. According to Spinosa, ?the Bush administration has informed us that it has assembled in San Diego trained Navy dock workers from bases around the world and have them ready to move on us. In a time when we are supposed to be in a war against terrorism,? he said, ?why is Bush using the military against American workers involved in a legitimate labor dispute?? Word of this federal meddling has outraged members of the ILWU and unionists around globe. The union has also managed to garner the support of port authorities and legislators at all levels of government. Members and leadership of the Teamsters (IBT), the International Longshoreman?s Association (ILA, which represents dock workers on the East Coast) as well as the five million-member International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) pledged solidarity with the ILWU under the union?s motto: ?an injury to one is an injury to all.? The Docker?s Section of the ITF recently passed a strongly-worded resolution that suggested that unionized longshore workers worldwide (an unfortunately dwindling breed) may refuse to unload cargo loaded by non-union scab labor on the West Coast, returning the favor that the ILWU has done for them on many occasions. The West Coast Waterfront Coalition (WCWC), which represents a number of large importers and exporters (see sidebar), has urged the PMA to take a strong stance against the union and has lobbied the government to intervene in the event of labor actions. The WCWC has cited possible ILWU job actions as threats to national security. According to Friends of Labor, a group supporting harbor workers in Los Angeles, Robin Lanier, Executive Director of the WCWC, sent out emails Tuesday to its membership, spreading rumors (subsequently debunked and recanted) of job actions already taking place on the docks, apparently in an attempt to spur that membership into calling on the Bush Administration to intervene. With the threat of government intervention, the PMA has little incentive to budge from its position in negotiations, many of which revolve around security issues brought to the fore since September 11. Members of the ILWU, however, have accused the shipping lines of ?wrapping themselves in the flag? to get their demands met at the bargaining table. They point out that the ILWU was immediately forthcoming with suggestions to improve security the day after the World Trade Center towers were struck, and the union was met by the PMA with silence. For many years, the ILWU and maritime transport workers generally have complained about the ?Flag of Convenience? system that allows ship owners to register their vessels in any country, making it difficult to determine the true origins of ships, personnel and even cargo. The lack of sufficient documentation also makes it difficult to determine who may have handled cargo between its origin and its destination. The ILWU notes this with concern as a safety issue, particularly since shippers such as Maersk?which owns the Los Angeles dock facilities, the largest in the US?ships high volumes of goods from countries such as Libya and Iraq, countries that the US government labels ?state sponsors of international terrorism.? The ILWU has not taken the intransigence of the PMA sitting down. Rallies of thousands have been held in Oakland and Los Angeles, while smaller rallies took place in other ports along the West Coast, with several solidarity rallies on the East Coast. Nor has the ILWU, along with much of the labor movement, limited its activism to ?bread and butter? issues or to the shop floor. ILWU members were out in force on August 22 when several thousand people took to the streets to protest the Bush Administration in Portland. Besides criticizing Bush?s poor record of supporting labor, unionists protested the USA PATRIOT Act, which they see as a threat against union organizing, particularly among immigrant communities. This act?s vague and broad language could easily be interpreted to define even labor organizing as ?domestic terrorism?. The protesters were met by the Portland Police Department with tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray. On Labor Day, ILWU Local 5, representing Powell?s Bookstore workers, filed two suits with the Independent Police Review Board against the Portland Police Bureau and officers ?due to their mishandling of the August 22nd, 2002 demonstration and subsequent use of excessive force.? In other recent developments, the Washington State Labor Council voted overwhelmingly in late August to support a resolution condemning President Bush?s ?war on terrorism,? his administration?s attacks on civil liberties and the broad cuts to social services enacted in deference to expanded defense budgets and bailouts and subsidies for industry at the expense of workers. It is becoming more and more clear in the ranks of organized labor, as it should be becoming clear to all of us, that the attacks of September 11, horrific as they were, provided an excellent opportunity for the Bush Administration to delay an inevitable economic disaster by syphoning vast sums of money away from public services and into private industry, particularly the defense industry, all while using the pretext of a ?war on terrorism? to thwart the resistance that organized labor and progressive activists would surely mount. Unlike in most previous wars, labor is being offered no concillation prizes for its sacrifices. Instead, conditions grow worse for most of us every day, despite the rhetoric of economic recovery. Many of us are baffled by the insane logic that drives the present Administration, but there is something of a rationale behind it. ?It?s the stupid economy.? We are engaged in an economic system that makes no sense for anyone but a very small elite. And we must resist the explanation that the recent turn of events is simply a ?correction? to an economy that remains fundamentally sound. Any economy that requires a permanent war, an oppressed populace and inexhaustible resources to maintain its health is not worth investing in. There are options, and we must learn to build and use them. Sidebar: CONSUMER ALERT: While the ILWU has not officially called for a boycott, the union?s supporters might consider where they put their consumer dollars based on the following list of importers, exporters and retailers backing the PMA. West Coast Waterfront Coalition Membership (also see http://www.friendsoflabor.com/thelist.htm) ? 3M ? Agilent Technologies ? Agriculture Ocean Transportation Coalition ? Best Buy Co., Inc. ? Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. ? Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad ? C.H. Powell Company ? California Cartage Company ? Chiquita Brands International ? Columbia Sportswear Company ? ContainerFreight EIT, LLC ? Del Monte Foods ? Don Breazeale and Associates, Inc. ? DPI ? DSL Integrated Logistics, Inc. ? Ernest & Julio Gallo Winery ? Evergreen America Corporation ? Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. ? Family Dollar Stores, Inc. ? Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America ? Gap Inc. ? Great Western Steamship Co. ? Hewlett Packard ? Intermodal West, Inc. ? International Mass Retail Association ? JCP Logistics L.P. ? Kellogg Company ? Kurt Orban Partners LLC ? Limited Logistics Services, Inc. ? MAERSK Pacific ? Marine Exchange of San Francisco Bay Region ? Mattel ? Mega Toys ? National Retail Federation ? Otis McAllister, Inc. ? Pacer Stack Train ? Pacific Maritime Association ? Pacific Merchant Shippers Association ? Panasonic Logistics Company of America ? Payless Shoesource, Inc. ? Rail Delivery Services, Inc. ? Target Stores ? The Home Depot ? Toy Shipping Association ? Toyota ? TransSolve, LLC ? U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel ? WAL-MART Stores, Inc. ? Yamaha Corporation of America All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. ----- The Alarm! Newspaper a local weekly newspaper for an engaged populace http://www.the-alarm.com/ info@the-alarm.com P.O. Box 1205, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 (831) 429-NEWS - office (831) 420-1498 - fax From wires at the-alarm.com Fri Sep 6 22:47:34 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:50 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] Alarm!--Eye on the INS Message-ID: <8B4F276C-C214-11D6-86B6-003065F4865E@the-alarm.com> Eye on the INS It?s been 1 year?it?s been 50 years By Michelle Stewart The Alarm! Newspaper Collective It is entirely discouraging to look back over the past year from the position of immigration and immigrants? rights. In the wake of the 9/11 event, many rights of noncitizens in the US were stripped, and in turn, the rights of those entering the US were reduced. In the past year, we have seen the Department of Justice explicitly state the need to racially profile visitors and immigrants entering and those in the US, as well as those already here. We have seen over 1,000 people detained in the name of the War on Terrorism. Many of these detainees vanished without a trace until their release. Many are still detained, with their names withheld from the public. We have to ask ourselves: do the ends justify the means, or for that matter what are the ends? It would be a rather tedious expedition to set out and systematically refer to each moment the INS/Department of Justice took aim at immigrants? rights in the past year. It would simply show good research skills. All of that information is out on the web and at your fingertips if you want it. In drafting a year in review since 9/11, I am stumped on what to say, for indeed there is too much to say. We cannot forget that while immigrants? rights have been squashed over the last year during the 9/11 crackdowns, programs like Operation Gatekeeper prove that the INS?s failures don?t begin and end with 9/11. The INS is being restructured: it is losing its latest director, it is being separated into two agencies and it is bolstered financially by an increased attention to border security. Many things can slip through the cracks of scrutiny when looking at this aging behemoth of an agency that dwells both in flawed policy and dated understandings of geopolitics. So, what then of the last year? What is the thing to focus on? It would be simple to compare the current detainments of noncitizens with the WWII detainment and relocation of Japanese, Italian and German immigrants. The parallels are rather apparent. We need to recognize that the larger catastrophe is that the lesson of history has not kept us from repeating our earlier mistake(s). Better technology allowed the government to seize up the last wave of detainees with relative secrecy. These detainees will not be released to find themselves landless, homeless or otherwise robbed by their opportunistic neighbors. Unfortunately, many of these recently detained face deportation for minor immigration infractions or assumed associations. So, the newer version of the ethnic target-and-detain game is, perhaps, more bittersweet. But if it is appropriate to compare, what purpose does that serve? It?s hard to look back on the last year and not be cynical. Those with an ear on INS policy and practice have become deafened by stories of families being torn apart. Of mothers being called in for ?interviews,? and, assuming their citizenship is coming up, they attend and are deported after being torn from their children?s arms. Their children are US citizens born in this country, their husbands are US citizens sponsoring their application, they are noncitizens who made a mistake on their forms or filings. They are deported and restricted from re-entry for five to ten years. How many of these stories need to be told-?when a single one should be enough to illustrate a flaw in the system? Our collective fear of another tower crumbling, of another day like September 11, 2001 has allowed us to wonder if the ends justify the means. Is it worth it for one mother to be deported in favor of stricter laws to keep terrorists out? I am afraid to answer that the laws are not going to guarantee we avoid another 9/11. The INS cannot safeguard the continental US period?why do we continue to permit the INS to strip the rights of others for an unattainable goal? At the end of the day, the alleged hijackers entered legally, and received clearance for training some eight months after the attack. Nearly every other week the INS, the Department of Justice or the Office of Homeland Security makes yet another statement that should shock our sensibilities. Instead, there is a small response that says, ?No, ethnic profiling is wrong.? These small voices are largely drowned out by a complacent general public that begins to wonder if it?s ?OK? to racially profile all men ages 18-35 from predominantly Muslim countries. How could that be OK? Is it just easier to assume that everyone of Middle-Eastern descent is a possible enemy than it is to lead a targeted investigation? I guess it is, especially when the general public does not rise up and speak out. The level of ethnic animosity is being covered up, as hate crimes against people of Arab descent (or apparent Arab descent) continue to occur, as the government targets young men who are visiting the US, as the government seizes the funds of aid agencies associated with the Afghan region, etc., etc. A year has passed and we are not out of the woods. When the WTC was car-bombed in 1993,the stage was set for immigration reform. One of the results was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. At the time, this sweeping legislation took immigrants (and immigration lawyers) by storm, stripping rights, increasing penalties and generally raising the stakes for those seeking to immigrate. Although these laws were confusing and often contradictory, they were at least explicitly on the books, giving people time to respond and strategize their actions. In the current INS environment, the ideas of yesterday are policy today, and you must have a finger on the pulse of the agency to keep up with the rate of change. The current environment slaps down the maximum penalty for each rather modest infraction. From change of address forms to assumed associations, today?s immigrant needs to devote time each week to keeping up with the INS. Thus comes one of the most obvious and least talked about problems with the INS. There is no system of dissemination. The INS disseminates through the media. But who has the time to read the paper each and every day to see what is changing in one agency, and, in turn, who guarantees that each newspaper will cover every change at the INS? We live in a world that guarantees nothing but death and taxes, yet we can penalize someone who did not respond to the information they were not given? Today?s immigrant is expected to know every law that applies to their status, yet there isn?t a centralized means to gather all of that information and distribute it. Until we solve this basic problem we will continue to read stories that make our heads ache with anger. But this leads to a false conclusion that a better bureaucracy will make for better immigration politics and policy. This is not the case. Last year, the Twin Towers were hit, over 1,000 people were placed in detention (their names were withheld), there is talk of the INS building larger detainment centers, the agency is receiving a larger budget and continuing to revise its rules and guidelines for students and visitors entering the US. That is the sound-bite overview of the last year. A more personal note might read: last year when the Twin Towers crumbled, dozens or perhaps hundreds of undocumented workers died and they will not receive federal funds for their families and their names are not mentioned as ?victims;? in the first six months of 2002, 167 immigrants died trying to enter the US, 117 of whom were Mexican; on an average day the INS is detaining 16,000 people, and by the end of 2002 it is estimated they will be detaining 23,000 people, with an annual budget of $1 billion dollars devoted to detention and detainment. In short, the last year has been dismal, with little immediate hope for recovery. So long as the US general public is complacent in these matters, people will continue to be held in detention, killed in the desert and subject to scrutiny and persecution based solely on their perceived ethnicity. The whole of the Muslim world did not attack the US on 9/11/01, just as each person from another country should not be subjected to possible death for entering the US ?illegally.? We need to stop and take notice of these laws we support through political apathy. The government efficiently has many members of the public swept up in its endless game of crying wolf at every country, every person, and all things Muslim. And if that is not offensive enough it is setting its sights on larger and larger targets. For the past year we have weathered the storm of paranoia and confusion following 9/11, many of the ill-deeds cannot be undone and will not be forgotten. That does not mean we need to remain complacent. The second year of the War on Terrorism is upon us?perhaps one year was enough, and the time has come to reinstate rather than further strip people of their rights. We cannot apply Machiavellian theory to the rights of immigrants and visitors in this country. The simplest of reasons is that we are unsure of what the ?ends? truly are in this high stakes game of cat-and-mouse dubbed the War on Terrorism. Endnote: Carlos Armenta will continue with the second part of his series on the Five Myths of Immigration in the next issue of the paper. Each week the paper plans to present both Michelle Stewart and Carlos Armenta?s views on immigration policy and practice in facing columns. Your comments are welcomed at michelle@the-alarm.com All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. ----- The Alarm! Newspaper a local weekly newspaper for an engaged populace http://www.the-alarm.com/ info@the-alarm.com P.O. Box 1205, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 (831) 429-NEWS - office (831) 420-1498 - fax From wires at the-alarm.com Fri Sep 6 22:48:21 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:50 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] Alarm!--Book Review: History of Iraq Message-ID: Review of Charles Tripp?s A History of Iraq by Graham Parsons The Alarm! Newspaper Contributor ?...those who are seeking to develop a new narrative for the history of Iraq must recognize the powerful legacies at work in the country if they do not want to succumb to their logic.? It has become clear that Iraq and Saddam Hussein will be the most likely focus of the next intense, sustained US military operation. In a recent article, New York Times correspondents Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger noted that the Bush administration is ?developing a potential approach for toppling President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.? The article makes it clear that the administration?s debate over policy towards Iraq is currently limited to practical questions like ?when? and ?how,? having moved beyond broader questions like ?if? or ?should? we forcibly remove Hussein and his regime. For many of Bush?s policy makers?despite growing international and domestic opposition, even among some senior Republicans?the issue of a military intervention in Iraq seems to be settled, and a US-led invasion appears to be imminent. For those who are interested in gaining a basic understanding of the significance of such an event, an examination of Iraq?s distinctive political and social nature is certainly necessary. In this pursuit, Charles Tripp?s book A History of Iraq is a valuable resource (Cambridge, 2002). A History of Iraq provides a comprehensive account of the Iraqi state from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate to the rule of Saddam Hussein in the post-Gulf war. It traces the ascendancy of a series of repressive, totalitarian regimes that have come in various political manifestations?first a monarchy, then a republic and then Saddam Hussein himself?and in the process, informs us of the extraordinary violence that has shaped Iraq?s political history. It is Tripp?s account of the concerns that have motivated this violence, however, that rewards the reader with knowledge of the more prominent themes in the story of Iraq. One such theme is the relevance of tribal and ethnic affiliations to Iraqi politics, exemplified by the conflict between the perpetually ruling Sunni minority and the majority Shi?a groups. Despite relentless attempts on the part of the Shi?a community to organize effective political opposition, the Sunni elites succeeded in thwarting their efforts, often by means of ruthless violence. This adversarial relationship has made the hold on power of all of Iraq?s Sunni-dominated regimes precarious and largely unpopular. Nevertheless, throughout Iraq?s history, and despite the numerous coup d?tat, successive governments have managed to maintain a Sunni character. Another example of the significance of ethnicity in Iraq is the question of the Kurds. Historically, this question has been solved by Iraq?s rulers with little less than brutal repression and marginalization. The horrific massacres that the armed forces have carried out on the Kurdish population are appalling. Both Shi?as and Sunnis alike view the Kurds as ethnic outsiders and are unwilling to grant them even elementary rights of citizenship. The treatment of the Kurds, as well as the Sunni-Shi?a conflict, illustrate some of the real interests of power in Iraqi politics. To his credit, Tripp maintains a purely descriptive tone throughout, and tells of these upsetting relations with a steady objectivity. There are, of course, other prominent themes in the story of Iraq. The systems of patronage on which the power of Iraq?s political elites have traditionally been based have simply reinforced the ethnic and tribal lines that mark divisions of power. This patronage system has made it exceedingly difficult for those left outside the patrimonial framework to enter the political arena and urge their interests, and led to the further proliferation of violence as a means of effecting the policies of those in power. Tripp?s insights into the increased importance of oil to the political economy are also interesting and illuminating. A dramatic increase in oil revenues has merely solidified the positions of those in power by making their systems of patronage more effective and left the conventional use of violence unchallenged. The final chapter on the rise of Saddam Hussein is where the above mentioned themes coalesce and find their most marked expression. Nepotism, patronage, oil and violence are integral components of the narrative of Hussein in Iraq. Helped by the income from Iraq?s healthy nationalized oil industry, which he made sure to have effective control over, Hussein has established expansive networks of economic dependents that completely rely on his position as dictator. He has used these networks?as well as violence?so efficiently, that during the near thirty years of his rule he has managed to contain repeated Kurdish and Shi?a revolts, as well as survive eight years of war with Iran, a devastating war over Kuwait and a decade of near-total economic strangulation. Indeed, the generation that has come of age under Hussein?s rule has seen Iraq?s most troubled and bleak times. Although clearly illustrating Hussein?s culpability, Tripp does not believe Hussein is solely to blame for the plight of the Iraqi people. Specifically, Tripp is critical of the sanctions imposed and maintained by outside powers (principally the United States and the United Kingdom) following Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait. He notes the ?cruel paradox? that exists between the official justification of the use of sanctions ?as leading to a weakening of Hussein?s hold on power and, in turn, allowing opposition to begin to operate and flourish?and their actual consequences, which have been to strengthen Hussein?s position and contribute significantly to the widespread suffering of the population. Tripp also brings to light the direct support Hussein received from the US prior to his invasion of Kuwait, and the virtual US-Iraq alliance that formed during the war with Iran. These points call into question the ostensibly benevolent intentions of United States policy towards Iraq, and raise deep concerns about the goals of the forthcoming invasion. The dramatic nature of Iraq?s history on its own makes Tripp?s book engaging, and its relevance to currently unfolding events make the story terrifically compelling. This, combined with Tripp?s intelligence and keen analytical style, makes A History of Iraq required reading for those who want to understand America?s next war. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. ----- The Alarm! Newspaper a local weekly newspaper for an engaged populace http://www.the-alarm.com/ info@the-alarm.com P.O. Box 1205, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 (831) 429-NEWS - office (831) 420-1498 - fax From wires at the-alarm.com Fri Sep 6 22:48:53 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:50 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] Alarm!--Volunteerism Message-ID: Volunteerism will save America? By Chris Kortright The Alarm! Newspaper Contributor EDITOR?S NOTE: In surfing the internet recently, contributor Chris Kortright came across the Citizen?s Corp website hosted by the US government. These were his thoughts on that discovery. Your country has never needed you more. ?John Ashcroft from the Citizen Corps? Citizens? Preparedness Guidebook George W. Bush has told the American public that volunteerism is one of the many answers to the terrorist threats we presently face. In his speeches and diatribes, we hear a ringing resemblance to John F. Kennedy?s ?Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.? So then, what exactly are we asked to do for this country? How is one to volunteer for this great nation? Well, according to the government web site there is a whole list of chores that daddy federal government wants us to do. Under ?Help Your Country,? we are told that the first thing we can do is Invest in America. And no surprise to the local skeptic, we are asked to buy Patriot Bonds. But let?s say that, like me, you are not a wealthy person. Is there a way to support the ?War on Terrorism? and our government?s ?Homeland Security?? Lucky for us there is, and it is a practice that most of us working class people are very used to doing ?Work for the USA. Work for the USA? Isn?t that what I do every day when I go to work? I certainly don?t work for myself. So, what kind of jobs are out there for those of us who desire to work for the good ol? US of A? Just a quick scan down the list of ?jobs? shows that all the opportunities are military and law enforcement related. The list is quite long and diverse if you have authoritarian or militaristic instincts: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. But the list doesn?t stop there, there are so many ?job? options: work for the INS, the Federal Air Marshals, the FBI or even the National Guard. If working isn?t your thing or maybe you are already too busy working, you can still help your country. There are still a few more chores that need to be done?. First, you can be a snitch. You know one of those people in prison who gets out early for telling the guards what they heard during pillow talk, or who is smuggling in drugs. Or if you relate to movies more, the gangster who kills seven people and then walks free because he tattletales to the federal government wh