Cameraman
brutally arrested while filming Sunsara Taylor making a statement
Sunday 10:30 a.m. at Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago On Sunday,
November 1st, plainclothes and uniformed police who had been called in
earlier by officials of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago (EHSC)
dragged out, maced and arrested a man for videotaping Sunsara Taylor as
she stood near her seat and made a statement before the start of that
morning’s program about the shameful cancellation of her long planned
talk to EHSC that day on the topic “Morality without Gods.” The
shocking incident took place at the insistence of the president of
EHSC. About 40 people witnessed the videographer being brutalized by
the police in the foyer of the facility. An attorney demanded that the
police stop brutalizing him when five officers piled on him as he lay
face down on the floor. 6 police cars arrived within minutes. The
day before, during a workshop on the same premises which the president
and other board members of the EHS were at, Sunsara explained very
clearly that she would be attending the opening of the EHS's Sunday
gathering and giving the EHS the opportunity to do the right thing and
allow her talk to go forward, up until the last minute. If the EHS
still refused to let her give her talk, she explained that she would
leave and give her talk in “exile” at the nearby home of one of the EHS
members. [this statement can be viewed on http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2009/11/call-for-ethical-humanist-society-of.html] In
her brief statement at the EHS on Sunday morning, Sunsara Taylor
challenged the very wrong decision to cancel her speaking engagement
and pointed out how this is contributing to a chilling atmosphere in
society as a whole and has happened all too frequently to people who
challenge the dominant narrative (like Ward Churchill, Noman
Finkelstein and the director of Milk who was recently “disinvited” from
Hope College, etc.). Taylor stated that while the group had the
“bureaucratic right” to disinvite her, it didn’t make it any more
“right” than the voters in California passing Prop 8. She also invited
those who wanted to hear her speak to come to her “talk in exile” at
the home of a member of the EHSC. At no point during her brief
statement was Sunsara asked to stop speaking or to leave the premises.
And at no point was anyone who was there to support her, including the
photographer, asked to leave. It is telling that the only person
singled out by the police, at the request of the president of the
Society, was the man documenting what Sunsara was saying. The
videographer was simply trying to document and guard the truth of what
Sunsara was saying in her brief statement. Sunsara’s words had been
grossly distorted and taken out of context by some members of the EHSC
who were the driving forces behind canceling her speech. What kind of
ethics and morals is the EHSC upholding and modeling through the great
lengths it has gone to in suppressing Sunsara Taylor’s talk on Morality
without Gods? A number of their own members expressed disagreement with
the cancellation and a number of prominent people from around the
country wrote statements in support of Sunsara’s speaking and called on
EHSC to rectify its wrong-headed decision. Instead, the board fortified
and increasingly defended its decision and created an atmosphere of
anti-communist hysteria, fear and rumor-mongering that had no
relationship to reality. The EHS had no legitimate basis to feel the
police needed to be there in the first place, except for the rumors and
hysteria that they themselves had created. Then, by choosing to set the
police upon the person filming they went after the one person who was
documenting the truth of Sunsara's words and the fact that Sunsara and
others there to support her were acting in no way to disrupt the
replacement talk the EHS had planned. What kind of Ethical Humanist
group would create a situation that led directly to the brutal arrest
of someone simply for filming Sunsara giving a statement at that point
with simply a cell phone? In their zeal to suppress Taylor they went
repeatedly against the stated purpose of the Ethical Humanist Society
of Chicago which includes “the supreme aim of human life is working to
create a more humane society...Our commitment is to the worth and
dignity of the individual and to treating each human being so as to
bring out the best in her or him.” This attack was in stark contrast
to the day before at the EHSC where Sunsara led a well-attended and
lively discussion with much audience participation on "Women’s
Liberation and the Emancipation of Humanity." This whole program was
videotaped by the same volunteer photographer. To call upon the EHSC
to drop charges against the photographer and to continue to express
their disagreement with their decision to dis-invite Sunsara Taylor
contact: office@ethicalhuman.org 847-677-3334. To find out how to make contributions to the legal defense, contact: sunsaratour@yahoo.com. Link to video of Sunsara's statement on Oct. 31st at EHS-Chicago. http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2009/11/call-for-ethical-humanist-society-of.html
if
you're thinking 'what the f**k?', i was too. i had an e-mail on this
that i saw early this morning and i couldn't figure out what was going
on. reading the above, i still can't.
i don't know what this
'ehs-chicago' is but does it sound like any place you'd want to be?
they cancel someone's speaking engagement - and, no, i don't know why
so i'll leave that alone except to say their loss - and then attack
someone for shooting some video?
who runs 'ehs-chicago'? george w. bush and his twin brother barack?
here's the e-mail i saw this morning:
Call for Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago to Reverse Their Decision to Dis-Invite Sunsara Taylor
sunsara Donations
are needed including for travel expenses. Show your support for Sunsara
and help make it possible for her to continue her work and spread her
critical and uncompromising voice far and wide: Checks payable to
"Sunsara's World" can be sent c/o Revolution Books, 146 West 26th
Street, New York, NY 10001. Joan Hirsch Assistant to Sunsara Taylor Tour Coordinator 917-520-6963
Sunsara Taylor campus speaking tour. A Talk on Away With All Gods! Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the World www.awaywithallgods.com
if
you don't know sunsara taylor, she's an incredible speaker and some 1
who is not afraid to call out what needs to be called out. she was
calling out guantanamo when most were still afraid to criticize it
would mean risking getting tossed in there.
sunsara is a communist and a proud 1. and she should be.
there's nothing wrong with being a communist.
and
good for her for being public with it because that's the only way the
communist party is ever going to be able to build. so many people spent
so many decades hiding. and that accomplished nothing. sunsara doesn't
pretend to be a democrat to get on tv or be listened to. (and she does
get booked on tv even without hiding who she is.) so when she speaks,
people who are new to her can look her up and learn more.
think
of ms. x who pretends to be a democrat (i can think of 5 right now off
the top of my head) but is a communist or socialist. some 1 sees her on
tv and thinks, 'great! i agree with that!' they think she's a democrat
so they go learn about democrats or the democratic party. ms. x helps
no 1 including herself.
people like sunsara are genuine and
deserve to be praised for their courage. deserve to be heard? in a
democracy, every point of view should be heard. apparently chicago
doesn't know a great deal about democracy.
Thursday,
November 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, no election law
continues, Nouri's attacks on the press continues, a US House Armed
Services subcomittee's lack of interest in Iraq continues, and, of
course, the war itself continues.
Earlier today Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports that Parliament finished today's session (Thursday's session) "without agreeing" to any election law. Nothing has been passed. Xiong Tong (Xinhua) reveals,
"The Council of Representatives postponed the voting on the elections
law to Saturday after the lawmakers agreed on a proposal submitted by
the parliament's legal committee." Warren P. Stroble (McClatchy Newspapers) adds,
"The standoff is jeopardizing plans for national elections in
mid-January, as well as the timetable for an orderly drawdown of the
120,000 U.S. troops here, even as President Barack Obama weighs sending
tens of thousands more soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan." I believe
the only known count was given by the GAO Monday and that was 128,000.
Considering that the press has been lazy asses for months now and
tossed around the 120,000 INACCURATELY you'd think now that the GAO has
presented a hard number, they'd get off their candy asses and try using
the correct number. In addition, there's no "drawdown of the 120,000"
-- the White House and press ran with 50,000 since the November 2008
election and we stated here the number would be 70,000. The number the
White House uses now is 70,000. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports,
"Lawmakers said they would meet again on Saturday, but big differences
over the legislation remained. After a meeting Thursday evening, the
country's election commission decided it would wait until Saturday to
make a final decision on whether the polls should be delayed,
commission chairman Faraj al-Haideri said. He added that even if a law
is passed on Saturday, the commission could still recommend that the
elections be delayed depending on which voting system the parliament
ends up choosing." Oliver August (Times of London) explains
that the Iraqi Constitution mandates the elections be held no later
than January 31st and, in addition "[a]n important Shia religious
holiday in early February makes it difficult to push back the poll by
only a few weeks." Timothy Williams and Sa'ad Izzi (New York Times) report,
"Hamdia al-Hussaini, a member of the Independent High Electoral
Commission, the government agency that organizes elections here, said
she would wait until Parliament met on Sunday to decide whether to
postpone the election. Earlier in the week, Faraj al-Haideri, the head
of the electoral commission, warned that if a law was not passed by
Thursday, he would recommend a delay because there would be
insufficient time to print ballots and perform other prepatory work." Sammy Ketz (AFP) quotes
election commission head Faraj al-Haidari stating, "We can no longer
organise elections on January 16 -- that would have been difficult even
if we had received the law today. Whether they retain the old electoral
law, amend it or adopt an entirely new one is a matter for members of
parliament but we are the ones who will have to implement their
decisions according to the timetable. We hope that MPs will resolve
their dilemma but we are not going to sacrifice international norms and
criteria -- we're obliged to respect the rules so that these elections
are transparent." Iraqi MP Ayad Jamal Aldin wrote a letter to the editors of the Guardian on the issue of the elections:
I
have written to the head of the UN expressing concern over the
possibility of "free and fair" elections taking place in Iraq next
January. Repeating the much-publicised vote-rigging seen in
Afghanistan, since the last national Iraqi election in 2005, political
factions have placed supporters on the Iraqi Electoral Commission to
assist them in manipulating the result in the upcoming election. This
self-interested action must be defused now, and I am calling on the UN
to replace Iraq's Electoral Commission with fresh faces, unaligned and
unbeholden to the factions in Baghdad. This could take place
immediately, with no disruption to the political process, and would
give the best possible chance of a fair vote in January. A free, fair
and properly supervised election in January is absolutely vital for our
country's young democracy and the wider region. As has been witnessed
in Afghanistan, failure to ensure a free vote is too damaging to
imagine. Ayad Jamal Aldin is running for re-election and promises, at his website,
"A better life for Iraqi families" via three steps: "1 million new
jobs, especially for our young, Make the electricity system work within
2 years, Major upgrades to deliver running water."
While the election's at a stand-still, the greed factor keeps corporations lusting Iraqi oil. David Gauvey Herbert (National Journal) notes
the foreign monies being thrown at Iraqi oil in a long thing piece
whose observations include: "Even with more investment, Iraq still
doesn't have enough engineers or institutional experience. While Saudi
Arabia has half a century of oil expertise under its belt, brain-drain
robbed Iraq of plenty of talent under Saddam Hussein and scared off
more talent during the turbulent aftermath of the 2003 invasion." This
morning AFP reported
that the Iraqi Oil Ministry announced today the awarding of a contract
to Exxon Mobil for West Qurna 1 field: "West Qurna 1 currently produces
about 279,000 bpd and has reserves of around 8.5 billion barrels,
according to oil ministry figures." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) observes,
"Major oil companies have been eyeing Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion
in 2003, but the Iraqi government has acted slowly to encourage them.
That changed earlier this year as falling oil prices and lagging
exports put a squeeze on the national budget. But the June auction
fizzled after it emerged that Iraq wasn't willing to pay the fees
demanded by the oil companies." Ernesto Londono and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) note
the next auction is scheduled for December and that today's contract
and the BP-CNPC one indicate "that foreign companies that initially
balked at the terms the ministry offered at a public auction in June
now think the prospect of eventually tapping into Iraq's vast oil
reserves outweighs the risks." Away from the big dollar figures tossed
around -- 'oh, so impressive' -- what's it like? Owen Fay (Al Jazeera) investigates
(link is video, transcript to video follows):Owen Fay: Children play on
a street filled with sewage, live in homes surrounded by rubbish and
grow up in villages displaying all of the signs of abject poverty. This
is southern Iraq, just outside Basra and, by any measure, one of the
wealthiest pieces of land on earth. Iraq has the world's third largest
reserves of oil and the bulk of it is located right here. The
government in Baghdad is in the middle of signing a series of deals
with major oil companies from around the world worth billions and
billions of dollars but people here have seen none of it. Female
Resident of Basra: We have not benefited from anything, we have nothing
to show for it at all. Own Fay: Instead, what they do have is
widespread unemployment, intermittent electricity and wells filled with
septic water. Male Resident of Basra: Is this Iraq? This is an oil rich
country? It is true that there is security now and that's much
improved. Security is there but what's the use of that? It is true this
is an oil country but as you can see can anyone live in this sewage
water? Owen Fay: Local government officials are circumspect about the
major new deals being announced in Baghdad. They say they're not
opposed to the oil companies coming here but they do have conditions.
Jabaar Amin (Head of Basra Provincial Council): If the contracts are
beneficial to Iraq, we welcome them. If they subjugate us and take
Iraq's oil wealth, we do not. Owen Fay: Another set of oil auctions is
due to take place next month. Big names like Exxon will get a chance to
invest billions and right now assurances are being made that one of the
conditions for any successful bid will be local and regional
investment. Shiltag Aboud (Governor of Basra): These companies will not
only be contributing to the oil sector but will contribute to the
economic, cultural and environmental situation in Basra too. They're
not just going to be based at the fields far from everyday life. The
impact on the city will be felt. Owen Fay: If that does happen, it will
be warmly welcomed but people here say they'll believe it when they see
it. For now, they're deeply skeptical because as they look around what
they see are international companies far more interested in what lies
beneath this land than in the people who have to live on it. Owen Fay,
Al Jazeera.
Friday's snapshot noted Nouri's latest attack on the press: "On the latter, Azzaman reports
he has 'banned movement by press vehicles with equipment to broadcast
live. [. . . ] The order has been issued by the military command of
Baghdad operations which specificially denies television broadcasters
the right of live coverage'." And it never ends. Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports
today that there are "journalists cliaming to have been beaten by
security forces and ministers issuing warnings about media coverage"
while Farqu Abd al-Qadir, the Communications Minister, is insisting
that all broadcast media apply for a $5,000 permit: "Observers say the
move appears to have been prompted by official anger at recent coverage
of a string of devastating bomb attacks on government ministries, which
caused about 250 deaths and seriously eroded the government's security
credentials." And the coverage may have hurt installed thug Nouri
al-Maliki's chances at re-election. Meanwhile journalist Mohammed Jabar
explains he was attempting to report on a bombing but instead was
attacked by Iraqi forces who "attacked me with the butts of their
rifles. They saw I had all the right badges and knew I was entitled to
be there. They beat me till I was unconscious. I am sure they didn't
behave like this on their own. It's obvious they have orders to block
any coverage of explosions."
Turning to some of today's violence which did get coverage . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded two people and another one
which wounded three people, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the
life of 1 police officer and wounded three more, a Ramadi sticky
bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer ("in the
investigations department") and was followed by a second bombing which
claimed 2 lives and wounded seven people, and a Kirkuk "assassination
attempt" by roadside bombing on Brig Gen Adnan Khairu.
Shootings?
Reuters notes US and Kurdish forces killed 1 'suspect' and "freed three child hostages".
Today
the Oversight and Ivenstigations Subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee held a hearing entitled Iraq and Afghanistan:
Perspectives on US Strategy, Part II. It certainly lived up to Part I
and, no, that wasn't a good thing. That October 22nd hearing was
covered in the October 23rd snapshot and, as we asked then, "Where the hell was Iraq?"
Let's
go with a big moment which raised no eyebrows. This is US House Rep
Duncan Hunter (elected for the first time last year, fills his father's
seat) opening remarks. He supports sending more troops to Afghanistan,
just FYI.
Duncan Hunter: We're not at the ground floor of this
debate anymore. We'we're kind of talking like we are. And my question,
one is, we're over there, we're committed, we're on the 50th floor, so
what now? And I don't think that our commanders over there are ignorant
of anything you are saying. I think they all -- they all -- Do you
think they're ignorant of this? I think that they have heard probably
every point of view and-and the State Department involved -- I was
stationed in Afghanistan for my third deployment in 2007. I just went
back this last weekend, it was fun. The State Department involvement
and the civilian and Smart Person involvement now with the military in
Afghanistan is unprecedented. Never happened before. It's quintupled
since July -- the State Department, US AID personnel. And there's a
two-star civilian for every two-star military person there, there's a
whole chain of command for the civilian side along with the military
side, everybody's confident, they're asking for a troop surge, I mean
that's what everybody's asking for. But my question is: So what now
then? I mean they -- there's -- we're talking a lot, we're at the 50th
floor, not the ground floor anymore. We're over there. We're committed.
Dr. Khan might have us pull out but not on the basis that we can't win,
on the basis that you don't think we'll stay
Muqtedar Khan: Yes.
Duncan Hunter: Right?
Muqtedar Khan: Yes, exactly.
Duncan
Hunter: Okay. So what now. That's-that's all I got. And that's the big
. . . What do you recommend if we do want it stable and we do want it
so that we can leave in the next two to five years, leave it relatively
stable, not abandon it totally and we'll probably leave troops there
like we will in Iraq. But so what now?
Excuse me, "and we'll
probably leave troops there like we will in Iraq"? I don't disgree with
Hunter but there has been a big effort to deny that was planned. That
statement should get attention but don't wait for the press to pick it
up. The same press that sold you the illegal war on Iraq really isn't
interested in that war ever ending -- as long as they don't have to
cover it, they're hap-hap-happy.
There's another obvious moment that should be addressed. It's not Iraq related and Kat's
grabbing it for her site and will write about it tonight. So let's move
over to US House Rep Mike Coffman and whether he was attempting to spit
on Jonathon M. Sylvestre's memory or if he was just damn stupid? We'll
go with bulb nose being damn stupid -- and possibly the WC Fields like
nose was a tip off? Two days ago, DoD announced:
"Spc. Jonathon M. Sylvestre, 21, of Colorado Springs, Colo., died Nov.
2 in Kut, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related
incident. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 10th Field Artillery
Regiment, 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort
Benning, Ga." Does he not matter to Coffman?
Because Coffman
supports the continued war on Iraq? No, Coffman probably still supports
that continued war, he supported it back when he could actually
remember a war was going on there. But Coffman's lost interest in Iraq
long, long ago. And it was disgusting to watch him do an exchange where
he cited 'recent' deaths in Afghanistan from his home state and he
didn't have a damn thing to say about Jonathon M. Sylvestre who, for
the record, is Colorado's most recent service member to die in Iraq or
Afghanistan. But Coffman wasn't interested in that. It should be noted
US House Rep Susan Davis wasn't interested in Iraq either and our
state, California, saw two deaths announced this week in Iraq; Lukas C. Hopper of Merced and Christopher M. Cooper of Oceanside.
The
subcomittee heard from retired Maj Gen Paul Eaton, Professor Christine
Fair (Georgetown), Professor Muqtedar Khan (University of Delaware) and
Marin Strmecki (Smith Richardson Foundation). Eaton and Strmecki were
aware of the Iraq War as evidenced by their opening remarks. In his
opening remarks, Eaton noted speaking to US President Barack Obama over
a year ago, being asked what the army wanted and replying, "Senator, we
want your Secretary of Agriculture to be at least as interested in the
outcome in Afghanistan and Iraq as is your Secretary of Defense." Does
anyone get the idea that this interest is present in the Secretary of
Agriculture? That's Tom Vilsack. And, just for example, click on this page (US Agricultural website) and note just what's been 'done' (covered) in 2009 compared to 2008. See an increase? No. And click here for archives and you'll see more efforts noted in every year of the Iraq War except 2004 and 2005. So where's the increase? Wait, you're saying, Barack had all those problems getting qualified people (and a few tax cheats) confirmed, right?
Wrong.
Not with Vilsack. He was nominated December 17, 2008 and he was
confirmed by the US Senate January 20th -- the day Barack was sworn in
as president. Vilsack did his swearing in January 21st. So let's not
pretend like Vilsack showed up late. He was there from the first day of
this administration.
Now Eaton told that story in his opening
remarks. At any point did any member of the Subcommittee ever ask him,
"Do you think what you asked for happened or is happening?" No. And no
one ever explored it. Remember, it was about Iraq and the hearing,
though including Iraq in the title, really wasn't interested in Iraq.
Congress can vote, in 2002, some form of authorization or approval for
an impending Iraq War they just don't seem able to focus on it while it
continues. That seems to be the tricky part and may be why they've
become so lousy about providing oversight on it?
(Or for that matter, pulling the plug on it.)
If
there's an exception to that it's been the Senate Democratic Policy
Committee. Tomorrow there will be another hearing held by them, this
one looking into the burn pits:
Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
announced Wednesday the Senate Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) will
conduct a congressional oversight hearing on Friday, November 6, to
examine the health risks associated with the continued use of open-air
burn pits by the U.S. military and contractor KBR in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The hearing is set for 10:00 AM and will be held in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Although
military guidelines allow the use of burn pits to dispose of waste only
in emergency situations, most large U.S. military installations have
continued to use burn pits for years, despite growing evidence that
exposure to burn pit smoke may be causing an increased incidence of
chronic lung diseases, respiratory ailments, neurological disorders and
cancer. Hearing witnesses are expected to testify that plastics,
paints, solvents, petroleum products, rubber, and medical waste have
been burned in the pits. The hearing will also examine whether military contractor KBR operated the burn pits in a safe and cost-effective manner. Witnesses
will include the Air Force's former Bioenvironemental Flight Commander
at Joint Base Balad, who warned three years ago about health hazards
associated with burn pit smoke at the base, two KBR whisteblowers, and
a medical expert who will describe the adverse health consequences
associated with burn pit smoke inhalation.
Details follow: WHO: Senators: Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Chairman, and others Witnesses:
Lt. Colonel Darrin Curtis, former Air Force Bioenvironmental Flight
Commander at Joint Base Balad; Rick Lamberth, former KBR employee;
Russell Keith, former KBR medic; Dr. Anthony Szema, MD, expert on
health impact of burn pit smoke. WHAT: Congressional oversight hearing. WHERE: Room 628 Dirksen Senate Office Building WHEN: 10:00 AM, Friday, November 6, 2009 WHY:
To examine the health impact of burn pit smoke on U.S. troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan, whether the Army is providing exposed soldiers and
veterans with accurate information about the risks, and whether
contractor KBR is safely operating burn pits.
We'll try to cover
that hearing in tomorrow's snapshot (but we're juggling our schedule
because we only just learned of it). In other oversight news, Josh
Rogin's "Exclusive: Did the U.S. government buy favorable coverage of Iraq's Anbar Province?"
(Foreign Policy) reminds that a lot of money has gone into the sinkhole
that is the illegal war and for a lot of questionable activities:U.S.
taxpayer money that was supposed to be used for emergency purposes in
Iraq was spent to buy a special advertising issue for an Anbar
businessman in a British trade magazine, a U.S. government
investigation has found. FDI magazine, a bimonthly print publication
and website owned by the Financial Times, nearly simultaneously
showered Anbar Governor Qasim Abid Muhammad Hammadi Al Fahadawi with
positive coverage, praising the dangerous Anbar province as "a hot
place to invest in" and giving the businessman an award as "Global
Personality of the Year for 2009." FDI's award was announced three days
before the "Special Report" on Anbar, entitled, "Bridge to the Future,"
was published on its website. The award was immediately praised by the U.S. military
in Iraq, without mention of the U.S. funds spent on the supplement, and
the website makes no mention of it having been paid for by the American
government. Then again last month, FDI magazine Editor Courtney Fingar
handed the governor another award
naming Anbar province one of FDI magazine's "standout regions of the
year." Reached by The Cable, Fingar confirmed the U.S. government had
spent "in the neighborhood of $50,000" on the special supplement but
denied her magazine's content had been bought and paid for, calling the
report on Anbar "balanced and accurate." The investigation was
disclosed in the October quarterly report
of the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction
(SIGIR), which is tasked with monitoring U.S. expenditures and projects
in Iraq, but has so far not been publicly reported. Sources told The
Cable that after the report is submitted to Congress, it's up to that
body to determine if the payment violated funding rules or the law.
And now . . . It
could playfully be argued that by performing this concert Joni Mitchell
was the attending mid wife at the birth of Greenpeace. It is a fact,
however, that the music on this CD has been donated and approved by the
artists and their publishers for a limited period with all proceeds
from sales going to Greenpeace in support of our work.
What is that? Joni Mitchell, Phil Ochs and James Taylor did a 1970 concert to benefit Greenpeace. Starting November 10th, the concert is out on CD for a limited time. Click here for more information.
Joni Mitchell is, of course, a legendary, one of kind songwriter and
artist. The late Phil Ochs left his mark with "I Ain't Marching
Anymore," "Changes" and many others and James Taylor is the name of a
man who was once married to the legendary artist Carly Simon
and whose intense vanity was documented by both Joni and Carly
("watching your hairline recede my vain darling," as Joni put it in
"Just Like This Train"). On the live album, Joni's songs include "For
Free," "Woodstock," "Big Yellow Taxi," "My Old Man," "Cactus Tree,"
"The Gallery," "The Circle Game" and "A Case Of You." Phil Ochs
contributions to the live album include "Changes," "Chords of Fame,"
"I'm Gonna Say It Now," "The Bells" and "I Ain't Marching Anymore." Not
having yet begun doing vanilla covers of R&B classics, James offers
"Fire and Rain," "Sweet Baby James" and a few other songs he wrote
(James last recorded a batch of new songs he'd written on 2002's
October Road). Carly Simon's latest album is a reimagining of some of
her classics as well as two new songs and is entitled Never Been Gone
(an amazing album, Kat praised it here). Yesterday, Carly was a guest on NPR's Soundcheck.
Finally, with Aimee Allison (co-host of KPFA's The Morning Show), David Solnit authored the must read Army Of None. David Solnit has now teamed up with his sister Rebecca Solnit, of Courage to Resist, for a new book and there's a new action. Two things I'd like to tell you about: ACTION: A Global Day of Action for Climate Justice on the ten year anniversary of Seattle WTO shutdown, Nov 30, 2009. Yesterday African delegates walked out of
pre-Copenhagen trade talks in Barcelona demanding the US and rich
countries commit themselves to deeper and faster greenhouse gas
emission cuts and European activists blockaded the talks.
The key fight over the future of the planet is taking place right now
around climate; corporate market solutions are the new WTO and the US
and the rich countries are undermining any efforts at climate solutions
to avert even more catastrophic impacts. What could shift things right
now is people in the US (doing what we did ten years ago) showing mass
resistance to the US government and corporate capitalism's obstruction
and false solutions. Please join one of the regional actions being
planned in SF and around the US (details here soon) and sign up to take or support direct action and get your folks together now! BOOK:
AK Press asked me to make a book reflecting on the Seattle WTO shutdown
from an organizers view. With my sister Rebecca Solnit, Kate and the AK
Press collective workers, designer Jason Justice and contributions from
fellow organizers we did it just in time for the ten year anniversary.
Please support by buying a book , get ten at half-off, and pass on the announcement below. hope and resistance, David Solnit
About the book:
From
dawn to dusk on November 30, 1999, tens of thousands of people shut
down the World Trade Organization meeting, facing cops firing tear gas
and rubber bullets, the National Guard, and the suspension of civil
liberties. An unexpected history was launched from the streets of
Seattle, one in which popular power would matter as much as corporate
power, in which economics assumed center-stage, and people began
envisioning who else they could be and what else their economies and
societies might look like. The Battle of the Story of the Battle of
Seattle explores how that history itself has become a battleground and
how our perception of it shapes today's movements against corporate
capitalism and for a better world. David Solnit recounts activist
efforts to intervene in the Hollywood star-studded movie, Battle in
Seattle, and pulls lessons from a decade ago for today. Rebecca Solnit
writes of challenging mainstream misrepresentation of the Seattle
protests and reflects on official history and popular power. Core
organizer Chris Dixon tells the real story of what happened during
those five days in the streets of Seattle. Profusely illustrated, with
a reprint of the original 1999 Direct Action Network's "Call to Action"
broadsheet-- including key articles by Stephanie Guilloud, Chris Borte,
and Chris Dixon -- and a powerful introduction from Anuradha Mittal,
The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle is a tribute to the
scores of activists struggling for a better world around the globe.
It's also a highly-charged attack on media mythmaking in all its forms,
from Rebecca Solnit's battle with the New York Times to David Solnit's
intervention in the Battle in Seattle film, and beyond. Every essay in
this book sets the record straight about what really happened in
Seattle, and more importantly why it happened. This is the real story.
For more on the book, including ordering it, click here and last night Ann noted the book and the importance of the issues the book is covering.