A Challenge

Over the years, Glenn Beck has had a successful career spreading fear, hate, lies, and promulgating himself as some sort of Messiah-like voice for his brainwashed conservative viewers. He has launched hateful campaigns against some influential progressive individuals, sometimes even going as far as to smear their names with misinformation and false accusations in order to derail their careers. This was undoubtedly his mission with former "green jobs" czar Van Jones, whom Beck and other radical talking heads accused of being a violent extremist, communist, and otherwise danger to "American values." They claimed that his views, which included a criticism of the Republican party and a call for truth about the attacks of September 11th, were proof that he was too partisan to be effective in the White House. As if no one in Washington has ever held a personal opinion, or sought out truth in the face of endless lies. They accused him unfairly in such a radically exaggerated measure that what followed was a resignation, not a resolution.The result of Beck's haterade campaign resulted in the removal of a social and environmental visionary from a position of potential influence.

Now, two years after resigning from his post, Van Jones is challenging Glenn Beck to a debate. Not that Mr. Jones needs to clear his name or prove anything to the manic Beck, but perhaps this proposed debate would allow him to give Beck the intellectual spanking that the outgoing anchor so greatly deserves on behalf of the American people.

Watch Jones' Challenge here:

Retreat

In the aftermath of this past weekend's tragedy in Arizona, many people have been pointing fingers at our political leaders over their incidiary language and "toxic rhetoric." Because our political spectacle has become a proper fiasco, and gotten to a point where violent language is not only acceptable, but ubiquitous, we now find ourselves in a place where we do not know whether or not one person's violent actions have been influenced by the language they hear from our leaders. That is a truly scary thought.

People have specifically focused on Sarah Palin's map, featured on her website with cross hairs placed over the districts of Democratic congress members who voted for health care reform, Ms. Giffords included. When Palin posted the image back in March, she included the message: "Commonsense Conservatives and lovers of America: Don't retreat, instead RELOAD!" It is indeed a terrorizing image, one that induces fear and repulsion at the sight of it. It is insolent, small-minded, and exactly what is wrong with our status quo.

Sarah Palin is a lost cause. But whether she is culpable for the shootings in Arizona is inscrutable; it's a bit unfair to say that she is directly responsible for such a deliberate attack. However, she IS a central figure in our mainstream political circus, and her words have a significant resonance with those who hear them, as do the words of all of our leaders. I'm glad that this tragedy in Arizona has brought to light the great casualness with which we treat violence and violent rhetoric, of all things.


It is sad that it takes something so terrible happening in order for people to realize their mistakes, but perhaps this examination of the way we use our language, and the damage we can inflict with mere words, will have a real and powerful effect on our nation's leaders. And maybe this time they'll retreat, instead of reloading to fire another round of hateful speech. Because I think we all would rather live in a world that values peace and understanding, not violence.

associated press

Insanity, Made to Order

It seems as if those rascally republicans in the House of Representatives haven't missed a beat in laying a thick layer of hateful crazy onto the capitol since taking power earlier this week. They've already taken a number of damaging, damning actions and are threatening to do much more to our environment, our health care, and to our voter's directly.

It's hard to choose from the array of craziness just which measure proposed by the republicans is the craziest. Is it the exhaustive, but ultimately futile promise to repeal a health care reform law that the American people actually favor when words like "ObamaCare," "Government Option," and "Death Panels" are excluded from the rhetoric, and the true intention of the bill is explained? After all, a new finding by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that repeal of the health care reform law would actually increase our federal deficit by $230 billion. It is only the thick-pocketed favorite children of the insurance industries who so fervently defend this repeal (see Fox News' 5 Reasons Repealing ObamaCare Won't Increase the Deficit -ha!).

Then there is the republicans' outright assault on the environment. In just one week, they've managed to eliminate the House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, declared that greenhouse gases should not be subject regulation under the Clean Air Act (despite the Supreme Court ruling them so back in 2007), announced intentions to block funding for government agencies who support cap and trade, and ultimately pushed to limit the power of the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gases and methane emissions. Meanwhile, the head of the house committee on oversight and government reform has reached out to energy companies and other business executives, asking them how they would like the government to be re-shaped.

But perhaps the insanity plat-du-jour is the blatant and vile racism that the republicans have shown towards citizens in the District of Columbia and in other U.S. Territories. Despite paying full federal taxes, residents in Washington, D.C. are not provided with any full representation in Congress. The one representative that they do have, Eleanor Holmes Norton, was stripped of her already limited voting rights in congress by House Republicans this week. Previously, the D.C. representative was allowed to vote on amendments and procedure, and could serve on committees, but could not vote to enact legislation. However, the Republicans in power have squashed even those limited rights that were previously allowed to the DC representative. And it is more than just a little suspicious that D.C., along with another 5 U.S. territories denied voting rights, is a Democratic area with a large number of minority constituents.

This is just the first week of the next two years of Republicans holding power in the House of Representatives. Over the course of this next Congressional session, we may anticipate more of such outrageous behavior. We could also maybe anticipate that the Republicans will continue, with the help of Fox News and other media puppets, to twist the truth and interject fearful, hateful language to further confuse and frustrate the American People. But perhaps we can also anticipate that this extremism will result in a powerful whip effect from progressives in the U.S., and that our citizens will become more informed, and thus more powerful to rally against this carefully pitched, well disguised agenda of the Republican lunatics.

The Power of Truth

The whistle-blowing organization Wikileaks has come under intense pressure recently in what is quickly and globally becoming an information battlefield. Wikileaks is being fervently cast away by various internet servers in Europe as well as in the U.S. It has had its funds frozen from its bank in Switzerland, and its post office box closed in Australia. The company PayPal, which had previously been processing Wikileaks' donations, has refused to continue to support the organization and has dropped Wikileaks from its service. All around the world, Wikileaks is being condemned as a treacherous group, even being likened to a terrorist organization. Sarah Palin has suggested that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, "be hunted down like Osama Bin Laden [read: let him go]"

These actions and statements from governments, private companies, and talking heads are an astounding denial and rejection of what Wikileaks ultimately stands to represent- the truth. The organization is being bombarded with hatred and fear, because officials are terrified of what it might reveal. As activist Naomi Klein stated today via her twitter account, "Few societies have defended their own ignorance as aggressively or as enthusiastically as ours."

And indeed, the general response to the leaked documents from Wikileaks has been aggressive and intense. The organization is being censored on the internet, cut off from its funds, even cut off from its mail, though it has not been subpoenaed or convicted of any crime. This is simply a not-for-profit organization that was simply making information available to the public- information that is pertinent to our lives and that we therefor have a right to access.

But there is growing support for the organization as well, with movements such as I am Wikileaks springing up around social media websites. I am Wikileaks vows to continue providing an outlet for the whistle-blowers, should their censorship intensify. And Wikileaks itself has found something of a secure server for now. They can be found at http://www.wikileaks.ch/, and the CEO of the Swiss provider now hosting them has said that "Wikileaks should be treated like any of our other clients. We would only stop hosting them if they broke Swedish law or failed to pay their bills."

And Mr. Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks who was arrested in London earlier today, wrote an op-ed for the Australian in which he asserts that:

Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.

People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.

This episode is a testament to the power of truth. Wikileaks has only released 1% of the 250,000 diplomatic wires it has received, and already look at the backlash it has created. Consider what would happen if all of the documents were released at once. What type of international frenzy would there be? It goes to show that just the tiniest bit of truth can have profound, reverberating consequences, making its power far stronger than that of apathetic ignorance. So perhaps Rupert Murdoch was right when he said, "in the struggle between truth and secrecy, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."

Media Heroes

The Nation Magazine has published a list of 30 top media heroes, as voted for and appointed by its readers. Surprisingly (or maybe not so much), although the pole was coming from a progressive online blog, many of the top spots went to TV personalities, mostly from MSNBC. I'm not so sure how I feel about MSNBC getting so much credit from liberal-progressive readers, but I'm at least glad that Amy Goodman made it to the [almost] top of the list:

1. Rachel Maddow (MSNBC)

2. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!)

3. Glenn Greenwald (Salon)

4. Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone and more)

5. Bill Moyers (formerly PBS)

6. Jon Stewart (The Daily Show)

7. Keith Olbermann (MSNBC)

8. Jeremy Scahill (The Nation)

9. Paul Krugman (New York Times)

10. Stephen Colbert (Colbert Report)

11. Chris Hayes (The Nation, MSNBC)

12. Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker and more)

13. Chris Hedges (The Nation and more)

14. Arianna Huffington (Huffington Post)

15. Jane Hamsher (FireDogLake)

16. Cenk Uygur (The Young Turks)

17. Naomi Klein (The Nation)

18. Dylan Rattigan (MSNBC)

19. Bill Maher (HBO)

20. Frank Rich (New York Times)

21. David Sirota (syndicated columnist)

22. Thom Hartmann (radio)

23. Julian Assange (WikiLeaks)

24. Digby -- i.e. Heather Parton (blogger)

25. Greg Palast (writer)

26. Ed Schultz (MSNBC)

27. Laura Flanders (GRIT TV and more)

28. Allison Kilkenny-Jamie Kilstein (Citizen Radio team)

29. Sam Seder (Huffington Post and Majority Report)

30. Jim Hightower (The Nation and more)

Also recieving honorable mention were Markos Moulistas, Lawrence O'Donnell, Katrina vandenHeuvel, Eric Boehlert, Bob Herbert, Josh Marshall, Marcy Wheeler, Robert Scheer, Helen Thomas, Dean Baker, Yves Smith, Nick Kristof, Ezra Klein, Atrios, Mike Malloy, Max Blumenthal, Joe Conason, Robert Fisk, Melissa Harris-Perry, David Swanson, Nate Silver, Ali Abuniman, Gail Collins, Dave Weigel, Eugene Robinson.

Kudos to these various journalists for having the cahones to tell it like it is! What do you say? Who are some of YOUR personal media heroes who perhaps did not make the list?

Pea's Peace is Up and Running [Again]

Blogging is rough. It requires daily commitments, incessant motivation, constant attention, and little bitty pieces of your heart and soul. It reveals a softened, private part of yourself to the enormity of the internet at large, and that can be a pretty daunting encumbrance.

Admittedly, I've struggled with my own focus and dedication to Pea's Peace. It's not that I haven't found enough interesting and inspiring things out there in this great big balanced world... it's just that I started to question my own reasoning and purpose for keeping up this blog. I felt dwarfed by the amount of information available to you all, and intimidated by the thought that there are blogs and bloggers out there who are much more seasoned and professional than I am. After all, I have a full-time job and a full-time life, how serious could I really be about this project?

So after 14 months and 112 blog posts, I took everything down out of sheer fragility of confidence. I systematically went through and removed my writings from public view, though I couldn't quite erase them completely because each word that they contain is a reflection of a little piece of myself... and that's just too valuable to give up.

But now they're back up, and their legitimacy is more personal to me than I need it to be justified. I'll keep on blogging, indifferent to my own impact or ripple in the world of online blogs... because the basic truth is that it's good for me. I enjoy doing it. And that is all that matters. I am going to be braver, and keep on bearing my everything on this humble web page, regardless of what others may think.

So here are all 112 reinstated pieces from Pea's Peace. I'm sorry for the interruption, and I hope that you enjoy :-)

Unfair and Unbalanced

Since the Supreme Court's landmark decision earlier this year that corporate expenditures could be used without limit and in any capacity to finance political campaigns, our elections process has seemingly become a special interest free-for-all. Although campaign spending was ludicrous as it were, with the 2008 presidential election costing a record $5 billion, now corporations literally have all of freedom they need to oversee our elections processes, and may under the protection of law, because somehow limiting their power would be a violation of freedom of speech.

And Newscorp was among the first big-time companies to cash-in, so to speak, on this convenient new allowance. Are you surprised? The parent company of FOX news and the Wall Street Journal, which over the years has blatantly revealed its conservative biases, has now openly admitted to their partiality: they have gifted a donation of $1 million to the Republican Governor's Association.

This is quite alarming for several reasons. First, Fox continues to be a major outlet for news stories covering this year's elections. And with this enormous open endorsement of Republican candidates, how can their "reporting" ever be "fair" or "balanced," as they claim? The radical right-leaning commentary that one hears on Fox news would not fool most informed viewers, but rather serve to the fire of misinformation and preexisting incendiary opinion. Still, this action further exposed Fox's position as being the most unfair, unbalanced news source in the nation.

But more importantly, this action is done within the confines of complete legality. Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision to lift a limit on the amount and type of corporate spending on campaigns, I would bet that donations such as Newscorp's $1 million to the Republicans will be given much more frequently, and in much higher numbers. Not that they haven't been happening already, but with the declaration of open season on campaign spending, all the money trails will be exposed, showing our political process for what it really is.

What Oil Spil...?

It was only a matter of time before the swarming, buzzing frenzy about the oil spill would slow, sputter out, and become only a faint murmur and a memory of what was once the most catastrophic corporate accident in our nations history. After weeks of basking in the spotlight of front-page articles, daily briefings, and consultations with Hollywood figures, alas... BP's oil spill has lost it's 15 minutes of fame. Sure, there are still scattered articles pertaining to the aftermath, but overall the media ship has sailed over the Deepwater Horizon. While BP's executives are likely wiping the sweat from their brow, thankful for the cooling of their fannies, the gulf coast's proverbial world remains upside-down, and unfortunately relief is a long ways away.

There are still massive amounts of non-degrading oil stewing in the gulf waters. According to researchers at the University of Georgia, 79% of the oil released by the massive spill has yet to be recovered, all of which poses a dire threat to local ecosystems, fishing industries, beaches, livelihoods, public health, etc... you name the aspect of peaceful living in the gulf, and more than likely the oil has disrupted it. And for an area of the country which seems to fall repeatedly on bad times, the impact could be devastating.

Many individuals living in the gulf are in need of assistance, from financial reimbursement for the loss of business, to emotional and social support for the damage to their homes and lifelines. In terms of mental health issues, BP has preemptively compensated gulf residents by providing $58 million to help treat those affected by the spill for stress, anxiety, and depression. However, the fund that BP set up as a voluntary trust for its oil spill victims was created with the clause that monies for the trust would be directly linked to BP's successful drilling endeavors in the gulf. Therefore, fickle BP would not be required to pay out a dime if the funds from gulf oil extraction were to somehow disappear- a fact that some awaiting payout might not be aware of.

Just because the oil spill situation is no longer a top news story in our mainstream media does not mean that this problem is going to go away any time soon. Even our president has warned us that the consequences of the spill are wide-reaching, and that the worst is far from over. But if you think that this disaster has taught our government a lesson about the dangers of desperate energy extraction, think again... after almost immediately overturning a moratorium on offshore drilling, the government is now considering lifting the moratorium on deep-water drilling imposed immediately after the spill as well. And if you think that BP would be more cautious in its endeavors to extract oil from the bottom of the ocean... wrong again! The company is now planning to commence deep-water oil drilling in Libya, a country with a limited action plan in the case of an offshore spill.

If the case of the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska 21 years ago has anything to teach us, its that the problems caused by massive oil spills are serious, and do not dissipate quickly. Residents living along the Prince William Sound are still experiencing environmental and social consequences of that terrible spill to this day, as gulf coast residents likely will experience decades from now, long after the noise around the event has quieted to a whisper.

"Be Evil"

Google, as a company, has seemed to adopt a somewhat warm & cuddly image in recent years, mostly thanks to its exhausted mantra of "don't be evil." The overly simplistic catchphrase, featured in Google's own code of conduct and heard repeatedly by Google followers, somewhat masks the enormity of Google's vastly unknown and incredibly consequential activities, resting our minds in knowing that our access and information on the internet are secure and protected; leaving us free to indulge in hours of Youtube videos, LOLcat pictures, and the like... untroubled, knowing that our trust is held in a corporation which is truly compassionate at its core.

After all, hasn't Google always been on our side? Haven't they advocated openly for net neutrality over the years? And don't they have a funny holier-than-thou type of public relations that make us want to trust them? For years Google has been snapping our images, filtering our information, and teaching us about the world. They have completely revolutionized the way we acquire information, and have become our go-to encyclopedia for everything from American history to favorite baking recipes. Sure, they got caught spying on us, but they fessed up and then apologized for it. They even vowed to benevolence when it comes to our personal information, stating that "maintaining people's trust is crucial to everything that we do." So our friends at Google would never truly betray our trust, right?

Wrong. Unfortunately, Google's pledge to maintain net neutrality (and consequently our trust) was severely wrinkled yesterday, as if all of a sudden their manta became "Don't be evil- unless it could potentially be profitable to be so." It's kind of like an Animal-Farm-type revision: "no animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets" and so on...

Well, for Google it appears that "the sheets"are synonymous with "Verizon," as the two are most certainly in bed together. After denying last week that they had any intention to alter the free state of the internet, Google has signed a proposal with one of the nations largest internet service providers, which introduces the concept of priority service to certain sites and hosts, and the ability of ISPs to effectively block content at their discretion; basically opening up the internet to a pay-to-play regime whereby the highest bidder gets the fastest connection speed.

There are several facets to the proposal which would undermine the unfettered nature of the internet, but the bottom line is this: Google and Verizon are moving in a direction that would ultimately change the internet as we know it forever. It would turn the net, which currently allows enormous space for a deluge of information from every corner of the world, into something more like a cable television system: where the premium channels come at a higher price, and content not suitable to the provider gets winnowed out. This is corporate takeover and self-regulation at its worst, and it simply cannot be allowed to happen. Voice your opinion today, and tell the Federal Communications Commission to do its job, and to save the internet!

If It Were My Home

For many of us, the lack of a direct or personal connection to an issue or event can too often lead to feelings of apathy and disregard. As long as it's happening over there, not here, we seem not to mind too much the travesties of the world that we read on the front page with our morning coffee, never to address again during the course of our days. Of course, this is not because people are inherently bad. On the contrary, as long as our media sources are sustaining interest in an issue, we might donate money, canned goods, people power, and picket signs in order to combat the evils that we see on T.V. But then again, once the problem is not longer in the news, too often it is no longer on our minds.

But for the people who are affected by these "stories" we hear and read, the struggle does not end when the camera crews up and leave. Especially in developing countries, natural disasters, wars, and famine, are issues that often bear consequences for a lifetime or more.

For the people who are living along the gulf coast, the life that they knew before the BP oil spill will be forever changed now in the wake of our biggest environmental catastrophe. While the damaged well will eventually be repaired, and over the upcoming months and years we will find new sensational news to divert our attention, these people, these ecosystems, will be living with the aftermath of the BP disaster for decades to come.

And unlike the survivors of the earthquake in Haiti, and the people of the ninth ward in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the people of the gulf must not be forgotten. For a frightening and somewhat jarring dose of reality, the website IfItWereMyHome.com allows its visitors to visualize the size of the oil spill by superimposing its image over their home town. This gives us a perspective on the disaster that we might not have previously had, and perhaps a glimpse of the severity of the problem, by showing us how this disaster might impact our own familiar grounds.

It is worth noting that even this shocking image is based only on surface oil, and does not take into consideration the unknown mass of oil underwater. It is also based on a rough estimate of the size of the spill, which could be larger or smaller depending on the source. Still, having a visualization of the spill's physical size might help imprint this disaster in our minds, and help us to call for sustained accountability and clean up throughout the entirety of this disaster- at least until life in the gulf is restored to normalcy. Because although it might seem as if we who do not live near the gulf are unaffected by this problem, it is something for which everyone in our country will face ramifications for years to come.

Tragedy

According to Sarah Palin, drilling for oil makes our country a "more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation." Sure. Except for when there are 25,000 barrels of crude oil pouring into the gulf of Mexico every day, slaughtering marine life, threatening 50% of our nation's wetlands, and compromising the livelihoods of countless fishing and coastal communities.

21 years after the infamous Exxon-Valdez oil spill in the northern gulf of Alaska, communities along the coast have yet to fully recover from the total environmental catastrophe that decimated their fishing industry, and left some species of marine life never to recover. In recent years, Alaskan sea otters and harlequin ducks have had traces of Exxon oil in their systems, oil remains a few inches below the surface on certain beaches, and coastal communities have reported increased rates of alcoholism, suicide, and violence. They are still awaiting a full clean-up, and it has been twenty-one years and counting.

Who knows what the effects of this recent spill will look like. But scientists are posturing left and right that this will be the worst oil spill in history, leaving Exxon Valdez to 'pale in comparison.'

Still, lunacy and denial prevail among those who support off-shore drilling. Sarah Palin herself, although claiming to be "heartbroken" over the disaster, noted on her facebook page that "accidents happen." Right. Oops! And never to be topped for the title of #1 moron, Rush Limbaugh is now claiming that the spill might have been triggered by environmentalists... because they wanted to "head off more oil drilling" and insinuated that this was somehow an earth day commemoration. Wow. What a wacko.

This event is a complete and utter environmental tragedy, an economic calamity, and a political minefield. What is truly heartbreaking about it is the lack of significance it has held in conservatives' attitudes toward energy policy. But how can it represent any action other than a full-fledged investment in alternative energies? How many more decimated ecosystems and toppled communities will it take before we learn that offshore drilling is unsustainable? As my friend Adam so wisely put it, we have to "start talking about alternative fuels as future fuels, because in reality, we have no alternative." Drill, baby, drill, is obsolete and irrelevant, and it's time we regarded it as such.

But for the United States to shift gears on offshore drilling policy, it would defer only a fraction of the tragedy that we are experiencing now along our southern gulf coast. Because spills like this happen all the time, with just as much intensity and at a higher frequency, wreaking environmental havoc all around the world. In Nigeria, for example, it is said that a spill equal to the Exxon Valdez spill has happened at least once every year since 1969, and the country is currently dealing with approximately 2,000 active oil spills. Other countries around the world have limited or no regulations on offshore drilling, and this is not just their problem, it is ours. We import approximately two-thirds of our oil supply from other countries, with half of this supply coming from unstable regions. And although the U.S. accounts for only 5% of the world's population, it is responsible for 25% of its oil consumption. So, this is not just an issue of extraction policy, although that is a central piece to achieving sustainability. This is also an issue of consumption and lifestyle in America, and hugely so.

The dangers and consequences of offshore oil drilling have been present for decades, but only now are they becoming real in Americans' minds, as the evidence is being brought right to our doorstep... our shoreline. It is time we reconsider our demand for these unsustainable forms of energy, and react in a way that will ensure no more tragedies like this one will ever happen again. But if we wait for total environmental destruction before we venture to make any changes, then it will certainly be too late.

Awareness thru the Ages

A compilation of some of my favorite AIDS prevention posters from as early as 1984, found on avert.org :

Discovering Truth Through Action

Today marks the ten-year anniversary of the monumental protests in Seattle, which rocked the city to its core, halted the odious goings-on of the World Trade Organization, and created the conflict which came to be known as the "Battle in Seattle," as a result of the violent outcome of police intervention on the streets. The protestors of those days have been praised for their tenacity and their bravery, as they clashed with officers, refused to back down, and refused to allow the imperialist agenda of the WTO to continue. At the time, the agenda of capitalist globalization was left largely unqualified, and it took hundreds of arrests and the shut-down of the down-town area of one of America's largest cities for people to take notice of the issue. For this, Walden Bello writes in Yes! Magazine about the truth that was brought to light because of these audacious protestors, who took a stand against injustice and put a temporary wrench in its works in his article "The Meaning of Seattle: Truth Only Becomes True Through Action." To read it is to reflect back on a time when the wool was removed from our eyes, and the outrage of thousands became the the burden of millions. It is to relive the shock that was experienced that day, and the lessons that have been learned thereafter. To read it is to remember a time when the concept of Democracy was ripped open and reconsidered, and people's freedom was a wild, unhinged force to be reckoned with.

He got it.

Another victory for grassroots human rights campaigners! The group Basta Dobbs, a faction of the immigration reform organization Presente.Org, is claiming victory over the resignation of right-wing political pundit Lou Dobbs from his regular post as a CNN news anchor. After a detailed, high-tech campaign involving a petition signed by over 100,000 people, a YouTube Video, a text-messaging campaign, radio PSAs and a series of events in 18 cities throughout the country, the group was successful in putting pressure on the president of CNN, claiming that Dobbs should be released due to his controversial and discriminatory opinions, particularly in regard to his vilifying views on immigrant groups in America. His remarks have often been racist and offensive, and his position on a trusted news network was considered to be dangerous for public opinion. But now he has gotten what was coming to him: the loss of his ability to disseminate inappropriate content to TV audiences. Basta Dobbs has released the following statement:

"Our contention all along was that Lou Dobbs -who has a long record of spreading lies and conspiracy theories about immigrants and Latinos - does not belong on the "Most Trusted Names in News," said Roberto Lovato, co-founder of Presente.org... "We are thrilled that Dobbs no longer has this legitimate platform from which to incite fear and hate."

This is a significant step in the name of community empowerment. Once again a small group of marginalized people have been effective in challenging seated power, refusing to accept or condone discrimination. And once again they have been listened to, and their concerns have been addressed. Hopefully other pundits with malevolent agendas will take a lesson from Dobbs' fate, and reconsider the propagandistic material that they distribute to the public, before someone drops a house on them, too!

Get What's Coming

Lou Dobbs forgets that journalism is a noble profession, one that implies a high mind of reasoning and integrity, commitment to fact, and above all respect for those who are being reported to. It might not be his fault, but he has completely lost sight of the meaning of his job, and has taken his position as a disseminater of information to a volatile and potentially dangerous level by prevaricating stories from a biased and highly subjective point of view. This is disrespectful to us as his viewers, who have the right to hear forthright and impartial news.

Specifically, Dobbs has made inappropriate and equivocal claims about the people who are at the pith of the immigration debate, and such behavior from a man who claims to sit on a pedantic high horse is threatening to the sovereignty of independent thinkers across the country. Quite frankly, Mr. Dobbs is a liar who has the potential to exacerbate violent racist tendencies in the United States against people of foreign decent.

But he is being called out. And like his fellow right-wing pundit Glenn Beck has taken it upon himself to call for the firings of government officials appointed by our voted-in representatives, now the people are calling for the firing of this slanderous man. The group presente.org has taken action, and released a video which focuses on CNN's hypocrisy. The network released a four-hour documentary focusing on Latino immigrants in the United States, yet still continues to employ a man who disseminates hateful and racist messages to his viewers. This truly is hypocritical, as was stated by El Diario, a Spanish-language newspaper based out of New York.

Over 100,000 people have already voiced their opinion by signing a petition calling for Dobb's release. And unfortunately this movement is not being documented by the mainstream news media. Instead they are publishing sob stories on how Dobbs now feels targeted because of his views. In response to Dobbs claiming that his first amendment rights have been challenged, the co-founder of presente.org, Roberto Lovato, has said the following:

"You and others have suggested that we are seeking to abridge your free speech. Such arguments exhibit a shallow understanding of what the First Amendment projects. You are free to voice your opinions, just as we are free to encourage CNN to cancel your program. There is, quite simply, nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you a national news platform from which to spread misinformation, and invoking its protections is only a distraction from the real conversation. That conversation is about the future of CNN." (read the full article here)

Very well said, indeed. It is obvious that the group is not backing down from its demands, and as the movement gains more momentum, hopefully it will also gain in more attention. If you would like to view or sign the petition being sent to Jon Klein, president of CNN, click here.

...Just a Prick?

So by now we are on, what? Like, month 6 of swine flu mania?

Like the Avian Flu and the West Nile Virus before it, the H1N1 virus has caused quite a stir in the U.S. over an ailment which in reality is on the mild side in terms of a true public health emergency. But the inconsistency of the swine scare with previously hyped health crises lies within the new implementation of mandated vaccinations.

So far, New York is the only state to have mandated that all health care workers be stuck with the vaccine, in preference to losing their jobs. That is quite a choice to give someone: take this medicine or you will be terminated. All across the state, hospital workers, home care attendants, and hospice workers alike are protesting this imposition on their health and on their right to choose.

Yet the Health Department has already allotted 5 million doses of the vaccine to New York City: a swarm of impending shots to make healthy nurses and doctors alike quiver in their scrubs. It's not that those who oppose the command are opposed to taking appropriate steps in the name of the greater good; it's simply a matter of rights. If a nurse feels that they are at risk for contracting the virus, and that they will in turn transmit this virus to their patients, then that is the personal responsibility of the individual to make an informed decision to be vaccinated or not. But allowing a person to choose... that's just proper Democracy.

Still, the controversy goes beyond the mandate, and even beyond the depth of the research and testing of the vaccine. In fact, the H1N1 vaccine was tested more rigorously this year than was the vaccine for the more common flu. While this fact is frightening in and of itself, another more harrowing consideration is what infectious disease specialists, such as Dr. Kent Holtorf has to say on the matter. In an interview with Fox News*, Dr. Holtorf revealed that the vaccine itself contains dangerous levels of a type of mercury that could seriously damage the nervous system (Try to ignore the fear mongering while watching the video, and pay attention to the facts that the doctor puts forth).

It is worth a minute of time to stop and think about what is being asked of (or rather, dictated to) these health care workers. While swine flu itself is undoubtedly a cause for concern, is it ever wise to insist on only one solution to any problem when it comes to our well-being? And is it worth it for a person to risk their own personal health in the name of regulating a relatively mild sickness that so far (like previous epidemic scares) has only harmed very small portions of the population? While it is understandable to make sacrifices for public well-being at large, must we force one solution onto people, or allow them to decide for themselves how to be healthy?

It's only public option... that's all I'm advocating here.

Peace.

*And yes, I know... FoxNews is usually not the most credible source of information. But this was the only online video I could find of this man, and he actually makes some sense, so I figured it was worth posting.

Let him be.

Kevin Jennings is the newly appointed Assistant Deputy Secretary at the Department of Education for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. He is also a teacher, an author, a human rights activist, and an openly gay man. He spent his formative years growing up in the strictly religious Baptist South, where he endured an adolescence of taunting, prejudice, and harassment because of who he was, and because people simply didn't understand. Although he is still somewhat bitter from his experiences (who wouldn't be?); Jennings rose above his negative past to become the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, an organization which preaches acceptance and understanding, as well as equal rights for all students. GLSEN has been making a difference in the lives of young people through grassroots outreach campaigns, research, and positive change in educational communities since the early 1990s. Because of his commitment to fairness and safety in schools, Jennings was appointed by President Barack Obama to his current position as "Safe Schools Czar" within the Education Department.

But the harassment has not stopped. Like environmental visionary Van Jones before him, Jennings is the newest target for right wing religious extremists and their slew of media henchmen. He has been labeled a "radical homosexual activist," and every word and action over the past 20 years of his career has come under severe scrutiny. On the conservative Christian website, humanevents.com, situated between a donation link for Sarah Palin's PAC (::shudder::) and a promotion of Newt Gingrich's weekly newsletter (it's free!), is an article titled "Kevin Jennings- Unsafe for America's Schools."

Their homophobic paranoia precedes them in this case, as they have diligently worked to convince themselves that Jennings is unsafe for our nations children. The Family Research council, who were at the forefront of Van Jone's smear campaign, have made the claim on their website that Jennings intends to make schools "safe for sexual predators," while the geniuses at human events are certain that Jennings wants to capture every sexually confused child and lock them away to a lifetime of gayhood.

Give me a break. This absurdity would be laughable if it weren't so disturbingly reminiscent of our general inability to see past the end of our own social noses. Jennings has stated nothing about his intent to make schools "gayer." He has simply pledged to reduce bullying caused by close-minded misunderstandings, and to promote education on Gay, Lesbian, and Straight identities so that our children don't live to become grown-up bullies like those at the FRC.

I beg the FRC, Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews, Human Events, all of these promoters of fear and mistrust... let the man be! Let's give him a chance to prove his worth as an effective protector of our children before we condemn him for his personal life.

And honestly, is it actually detrimental to teach our children about tolerance? Or would it lead to a more peaceful educational environment? Would an increased exposure to a controversial issue harm their delicate minds, or open their hearts to the reality of our beautifully diverse world?

Brooklyn Skillshare

Attention NYC Residents! In light of my prolonged internet absence, I would like to offer a recompense: a real-life event that is sure to nourish and enrich your life in such a way that you'll want to forget about the computer screen all together (well... for a while anyhow): The Brooklyn Skillshare. It's an all-day event that is to be held at the Gowanus Studio Space on 8th street in Brooklyn, this Saturday, October 10th.

It's a day of learning, sharing, and celebrating the unique skills that each and all of us possess. The teachers are all community members who have taken interest in a certain activity, like, say, bicycle repair and maintenance, and who come to the skillshare t0 offer up their knowledge to those who are open and willing. The atmosphere here is inclusive and non-judgmental; it is simply a space for people to connect with each other and offer up exchangeable life skills in the mode of sustainable and communal living; in a reciprocal relationship that benefits individuals as both students and teachers simultaneously. Here is the mission statement of the event:

Education is a right, not a commodity. We are all students and teachers, and we believe that everyone has something to teach and learn from each other. The Brooklyn Skillshare is a communal, hands-on learning experience that aims to serve as a jumping off point in the construction of an autonomous, nonexclusive, reciprocal learning community.

If this sounds good to you, and if you are interested in learning about any of the following skills, then the Brooklyn Skillshare is a great opportunity for you to connect your soul to others with purpose and creativity, and to learn something new! Here is a sampling of some of the classes to be offered:

• How to brew kombucha
• Massage Basics: taking care of yourself and others
• Bicycle Mechanics 101
• Screenprinting basics & DIY techniques
• Turning glass bottles into glasses and vases
• Basic raw food preparation: the art of "uncooking"
• DIY electronics

These are only some, there are plenty more! There is also FREE breakfast and lunch to be served, as well as tasty snacks, homemade ginger-ale, and a closing party to celebrate the day. The entrance fee is only a suggested donation of $10, which is wonderfully generous considering all the benefits to be gained from this glorious event.

I'd say see you there, but I'll be participating in another great event that day: the Washington, D.C. Green Festival, a cornucopia of sustainable businesses, innovative technologies, and enlightened speakers all corralled into a large convention center space for a weekend of knowledge to tickle you green!

Two great cities, two awesome events... I'll let you choose which one suits you best :-)

Peace.

Pouring on the Pounds

No one can deny the New York City government's dedication to public health goals. Seven years ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg caused a tidal wave of reaction when he decided to battle against the city's smoking culture. It started with a ban on smoking inside public areas such as bars and restaurants, a measure which now may be expanded to include some outdoor public areas as well. The offensive was then compounded upon by a hefty tax applied to all purchases of tobacco products in NYC. Although the unconventional taxation and social exile still brings furrows to the brows of many of NYC's smokers, there is no denying the positive impact of the counter-cigarette campaign, as at the time of its inception, help was offered by the city to any smoker willing to try and fight their addiction.

Now, Bloomberg is launching yet another public health battle. Along with Health Commissioner Thomas Farley, the mayor has released target health goals for 2012 which include a strategic health agenda to preemptively target preventable sickness and death, including lung disease and cancer, HIV, and heart disease. Recognizing that poor diet is directly related to poorer health, the city has released its newest campaign- against sugary beverages. The ads that are being run throughout the five boroughs feature the title "Are you Pouring on the Pounds?" and are accompanied by gag-inducing images featuring soda, sports drinks and other sugary beverages pouring greasy, fatty deposits into a glass.

Although the ads are somewhat sensationalized, they represent exactly the kind of shock doctrine which might just result in behavior change. As obesity and diabetes levels soar in the United States, at least one city is fighting back against one of the biggest adversaries to our health: high fructose corn syrup, found in most sodas and juice "drinks."

Is it enough, though? Some are suggesting that besides a media campaign, an economic extension should be included in the strategy to combat these sugary devils. Much like the formidable taxes placed against tobacco products, they think that taxing another harmful product would be a wise means of aiding public health goals, with a very opportunistic economic advantage tagging along right behind. It could be just what we need in these hard economic times. Then again, we have to wonder who this tax will effect. Like the smoking tax, a tax on sugary beverages would hit those of lower economic standing hardest, as their mobility to find alternatives is limited, and their budget for food products is more humble. As one friend put it, a 12 cent tax on a can of soda won't bother a guy who pays $3.50 for a latte each morning. And as Professor Edward L. Glaeser put it in the New York Times, comparing ads to taxes: "Both approaches try to reduce soda consumption by making it less pleasant to drink soda. One approach hits you in the wallet; the other hits you in the stomach."

Either way, the incentive for increasing public health is a legitimate one. As of yet no taxes have been imposed, but a sense of awareness about our bodies certainly has. The 'ick factor' of the city's newest ads are effective in their ability to inflict a sense of responsibility in our minds, so that maybe next time we will choose that water or that healthier option of drink. Basically, if it grosses you out, that means that it's working!

Fake Paper, Real Facts

The Yes Men have struck again! The culture jamming activist group distributed almost 1 million hoax copies of the New York Post this morning in New York City, all of which contained factual articles related to the climate change crisis. The articles in the post (which carry such titles as "Flopenhagen," referring to the the world climate conference to be held in Copenhagen this December, the outcome of which will be a "flop" if the U.S. doesn't front some real climate legislation soon; and the cover story, "We're Screwed," which warns of the environmental and public health catastrophes for which New York City is doomed from the consequences of climate change) are based on true facts and real reports by scientists and climate change experts. In fact, the fear-inducing cover story is based off of a report commissioned by the mayor's office in February of 2009 and carried out by a team of highly respected scientists.

Of course, the dramatic action of seizing one of NYC's most popular newspapers has brought heightened attention to the issues surrounding climate change, which are normally overlooked by news sources like the Post. But it is essential that the word is spread wide and often. As one of the Yes Men, Andy Bichlbaum put it: "This could be, and should be a real New York Post. Climate change is the biggest threat civilization has ever faced, and it should be in the headlines of every paper, every day until we solve the problem." A point very well made.

But the prankster paper wasn't completely devoted to doomsday warnings and frightening tales of our impending penance. There was also a congratulatory piece called "New York Fights Back," which detailed New York City's efforts at reducing carbon emissions and achieving sustainability. According to the article, residents of NYC produce only 1/3 of the emissions as the national average (probably thanks to our extensive bike lanes, public transport, and accessibility of provisions). It also mentioned the Million Trees NYC program, the new hybrid taxis and police cars, and the 1800 miles of bike paths that we boast here in the big apple. There were also whimsical advertisements for tote bags, bicycles, and tap water ("literally comes right out of your faucet!")

The paper had all of New York talking, and with close to 1 million copies distributed, it undoubtedly had some of us learning, as well. This amazing feat is highly commendable, and attracts some well needed attention to issues surrounding climate change as the G20 meetings take place in Pittsburgh this week, and as the U.N. gathers in New York to discuss the climate crisis. Like the Green Peace Activists who hung a large banner on Mount Rushmore during the G8 meetings earlier this summer, the Yes Men have found a way to make apathy seem boring, and dissemination of knowledge seem exciting, bringing climate change to the forefront of our newspapers and our minds.