RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Can MSM Handle the Contra-Cocaine Truth Print
Monday, 13 October 2014 07:42

Parry writes: "The mainstream news media’s reaction to the new movie, 'Kill the Messenger,' has been tepid, perhaps not surprising given that the MSM comes across as the film’s most unsympathetic villain as it crushes journalist Gary Webb for digging up the Contra-cocaine scandal in the mid-1990s after the major newspapers thought they had buried it in the 1980s."

Investigative reporter Gary Webb in 1997. (photo: Randy Pench/The Sacramento Bee)
Investigative reporter Gary Webb in 1997. (photo: Randy Pench/The Sacramento Bee)


Can MSM Handle the Contra-Cocaine Truth

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

13 October 14

 

“Kill the Messenger” tells the tragic tale of journalist Gary Webb who revived the Contra-cocaine scandal in the 1990s and saw his life destroyed by the mainstream media. The question now is: Will the MSM continue its cover-up of this sordid part of Ronald Reagan’s legacy or finally accept the truth?

he mainstream news media’s reaction to the new movie, “Kill the Messenger,” has been tepid, perhaps not surprising given that the MSM comes across as the film’s most unsympathetic villain as it crushes journalist Gary Webb for digging up the Contra-cocaine scandal in the mid-1990s after the major newspapers thought they had buried it in the 1980s.

Not that the movie is without other villains, including drug traffickers and “men in black” government agents. But the drug lords show some humanity and even honesty as they describe how they smuggled drugs and shared the proceeds with the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, President Ronald Reagan’s beloved “freedom fighters.”

By contrast, the news executives for the big newspapers, such as the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, come across as soulless careerists determined to maintain their cozy relations with the CIA’s press office and set on shielding their failure to take on this shocking scandal when it was playing out in the 1980s.

So, in the 1990s, they concentrated their fire on Webb for alleged imperfections in his investigative reporting rather than on U.S. government officials who condoned and protected the Contra drug trafficking as part of Reagan’s Cold War crusade.

Webb’s cowardly editors at the San Jose Mercury News also come across badly as frightened bureaucrats, cringing before the collective misjudgment of the MSM and crucifying their own journalist for the sin of challenging the media’s wrongheaded conventional wisdom.

That the MSM’s “group think” was upside-down should no longer be in doubt. In fact, the Contra-cocaine case was conclusively established as early as 1985 when Brian Barger and I wrote the first story on the scandal for the Associated Press. Our sourcing included some two dozen knowledgeable people including Contras, Contra supporters and U.S. government sources from the Drug Enforcement Administration and even Reagan’s National Security Council staff.

But the Reagan administration didn’t want to acknowledge this inconvenient truth, knowing it would sink the Contra war against Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government. So, after the AP story was published, President Reagan’s skillful propagandists mounted a counteroffensive that elicited help from editors and reporters at the New York Times, the Washington Post and other major news outlets.

Thus, in the 1980s, the MSM treated the Contra-cocaine scandal as a “conspiracy theory” when it actually was a very real conspiracy. The MSM’s smug and derisive attitude continued despite a courageous investigation headed by Sen. John Kerry which, in 1989, confirmed the AP reporting and took the story even further. For his efforts, Newsweek dubbed Kerry “a randy conspiracy buff.”

This dismissive treatment of the scandal even survived the narcotics trafficking trial of Panama’s Manuel Noriega in 1991 when the U.S. government called witnesses who implicated both Noriega and the Contras in the cocaine trade.

The Power of ‘Group Think’

What we were seeing was the emerging power of the MSM’s “group think,” driven by conformity and careerism and resistant to both facts and logic. Once all the “smart people” of Official Washington reached a conclusion – no matter how misguided – that judgment would be defended at nearly all costs, since none of these influential folks wanted to admit error.

That’s what Gary Webb ran into in 1996 when he revived the Contra-cocaine scandal by focusing on the devastation that one Contra drug pipeline caused by feeding into the production of crack cocaine. However, for the big newspapers to admit they had ducked such an important story – and indeed had aided in the government’s cover-up – would be devastating to their standing.

So, the obvious play was to nitpick Webb’s reporting and to destroy him personally, which is what the big newspapers did and what “Kill the Messenger” depicts. The question today is: how will the MSM react to this second revival of the Contra-cocaine scandal?

Of the movie reviews that I read, a few were respectful, including the one in the Los Angeles Times where Kenneth Turan wrote: “The story Webb related in a series of articles … told a still-controversial tale that many people did not want to hear: that elements in the CIA made common cause with Central American drug dealers and that money that resulted from cocaine sales in the U.S. was used to arm the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua.

“Although the CIA itself confirmed, albeit years later, that this connection did in fact exist, journalists continue to argue about whether aspects of Webb’s stories overreached.”

A normal person might wonder why – if the CIA itself admitted (as it did) that it was collaborating with drug dealers – journalists would still be debating whether Webb may have “overreached” (although in reality he actually understated the problem). Talk about missing “the lede” or the forest for the trees.

What kind of “journalist” obsesses over dissecting the work of another journalist while the U.S. government gets away with aiding and abetting drug traffickers?

Turan went on to note the same strange pattern in 1996 after Webb’s series appeared: “what no one counted on was that the journalistic establishment — including elite newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times — would attempt to discredit Webb’s reporting. The other newspapers questioned the shakier parts of his story and proving the truth of what one of Webb’s sources tells him: ‘You get the most flak when you’re right above the target.’”

Sneering Still

However, other reviews, including those in the New York Times and the Washington Post, continued the snarky tone that pervaded the sneering treatment of Webb that hounded him out of journalism in 1997 and ultimately drove him to suicide in 2004. For instance, the headline in the Post’s weekend section was “Sticking with Webb’s Story,” as in the phrase “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”

The review by Michael O’Sullivan stated: “Inspired by the true story of Gary Webb — the San Jose Mercury News reporter known for a controversial series of articles suggesting a link between the CIA, the California crack epidemic and the Nicaraguan Contras — this slightly overheated drama begins and ends with innuendo. In between is a generous schmear of insinuation.”

You get the point. The allegations, which have now been so well-established that even the CIA admits to them, are “controversial” and amount to “innuendo” and “insinuation.”

Similarly, the New York Times review by Manohla Dargis disparaged Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series as “much-contested,” which may be technically accurate but fails to recognize that the core allegations of Contra-cocaine trafficking and U.S. government complicity were true – something an earlier article by Times’ media writer David Carr at least had the decency to acknowledge. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT’s Belated Admission on Contra-Cocaine.”]

In a different world, the major newspapers would have taken the opening created by “Kill the Messenger” to make amends for their egregious behavior in the 1980s – in discrediting the scandal when the criminality could have been stopped – and for their outrageous actions in the 1990s in destroying the life and career of Gary Webb. But it appears the big papers mostly plan to hunker down and pretend they did nothing wrong.

For those interested in the hard evidence proving the reality of the Contra-cocaine scandal, I posted a Special Report on Friday detailing much of what we know and how we know it. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Sordid Contra-Cocaine Saga.”]

As for “Kill the Messenger,” I had the pleasure of watching it on Friday night with my old Associated Press colleague Brian Barger – and we both were impressed by how effectively the movie-makers explained a fairly complicated tale about drugs and politics. The personal story was told with integrity, aided immensely by Jeremy Renner’s convincing portrayal of Webb.

There were, of course, some Hollywood fictional flourishes for dramatic purposes. And it was a little weird hearing my cautionary advice to Webb – delivered when we talked before his “Dark Alliance” series was published in 1996 – being put into the mouth of a fictional Kerry staffer.

But those are minor points. What was truly remarkable about this movie was that it was made at all. Over the past three decades, many directors and screenwriters have contemplated telling the sordid story of Contra-cocaine trafficking but all have failed to get the projects “green-lighted.”

The conventional wisdom in Hollywood has been that such a movie would be torn apart by the major media just as Webb’s series (and before that the AP articles and Kerry’s report) were. But so far the MSM has largely held its fire against “Kill the Messenger,” relying on a few snide asides and knowing smirks.

Perhaps the MSM simply assumes that the old conventional wisdom will hold and that the movie will soon be forgotten. Or maybe there’s been a paradigm shift – and the MSM realizes that its credibility is shot (especially after its catastrophic performance regarding Iraq’s WMD) and it is losing its power to dictate false narratives to the American people.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
End the Embargo on Cuba Print
Monday, 13 October 2014 07:40

Excerpt: "Scanning a map of the world must give President Obama a sinking feeling as he contemplates the dismal state of troubled bilateral relationships his administration has sought to turn around."

Havana, Cuba. (photo: Desmond Boylan/Reuters)
Havana, Cuba. (photo: Desmond Boylan/Reuters)


End the Embargo on Cuba

The New York Times | Editorial

13 October 14

 

canning a map of the world must give President Obama a sinking feeling as he contemplates the dismal state of troubled bilateral relationships his administration has sought to turn around. He would be smart to take a hard look at Cuba, where a major policy shift could yield a significant foreign policy success.

For the first time in more than 50 years, shifting politics in the United States and changing policies in Cuba make it politically feasible to re-establish formal diplomatic relations and dismantle the senseless embargo. The Castro regime has long blamed the embargo for its shortcomings, and has kept ordinary Cubans largely cut off from the world. Mr. Obama should seize this opportunity to end a long era of enmity and help a population that has suffered enormously since Washington ended diplomatic relations in 1961, two years after Fidel Castro assumed power.

In recent years, a devastated economy has forced Cuba to make reforms — a process that has gained urgency with the economic crisis in Venezuela, which gives Cuba heavily subsidized oil. Officials in Havana, fearing that Venezuela could cut its aid, have taken significant steps to liberalize and diversify the island’s tightly controlled economy.

READ MORE


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Forgotten Victims of the Great Recession Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=28677"><span class="small">Joshua Holland, Moyers & Company</span></a>   
Monday, 13 October 2014 07:36

Holland writes: "These are the forgotten victims of the economic meltdown triggered by the crash of Wall Street’s grand casino. Their unemployment benefits exhausted, they live for as long as possible on whatever savings they may have accumulated."

 (photo: AP/J. Pat Carter)
(photo: AP/J. Pat Carter)


The Forgotten Victims of the Great Recession

By Joshua Holland, Moyers & Company

13 October 14

 

ashington greeted the latest jobs numbers with enthusiasm. In September, the unemployment rate fell below six percent for the first time since July, 2008. We’ve netted 2.64 million jobs over the past 12 months, and are on pace to add more jobs in 2014 than in any year since 1999.

But today, five years after the economy officially went into “recovery,” three million people remain among the ranks of the long-term unemployed — jobless for 27 weeks or more. That number is down from its 2010 peak, but as the Economic Policy Institute’s David Cooper noted earlier this year, it still “far exceeds pre-Great Recession levels in virtually every state.”

About a million Americans have been unemployed for two years or longer, and approximately 100,000 have been jobless for at least five years.

These are the forgotten victims of the economic meltdown triggered by the crash of Wall Street’s grand casino.

Their unemployment benefits exhausted, they live for as long as possible on whatever savings they may have accumulated. And then they turn to the underground economy, which Edgar Feige, an economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, estimated to have grown to $2 trillion by 2012. They scrounge and scrape to get by. Some turn to crime.

Los Angeles Times reporter Don Lee recently profiled one of these abandoned workers — a man whose story is typical of many of the long-term unemployed:

It has come down to this for Brian Perry: an apple or banana for lunch, Red Sox ballgames on an old Zenith TV and long walks to shake off the blues.

At 57, Perry has been unemployed and looking for work for nearly seven years, ever since that winter when the Great Recession hit and he was laid off from his job as a law firm clerk.

By his count, Perry has applied for more than 1,300 openings and has had some 30 interviews, the last one a good two years ago. With his savings running dry, this summer he put up for sale his one asset — a three-bedroom house his parents used to own in this suburb of Providence.

“I’m not looking for pity, just one last opportunity,” said Perry, a boyish-looking man with bright blue eyes and a nasal New England brogue…

Perry said his long unemployment continues to be seen by some employers as a big black mark on his forehead.

Perry became depressed. He started eating tons of junk food and stopped going to the gym. He put on weight, and eventually developed a heart condition that required surgery.

His experience isn’t unique. As The Fiscal Times reported earlier this year, a 2011 study of the long-term unemployed by Rutgers University’s John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development “found that the vast majority of unemployed workers experienced stress in their relationships with family and friends and that at least 11 percent reported seeking professional help for their depression within the previous 12 months.” Half of them reported that “they began avoiding friends and associates out of a sense of shame and embarrassment — a self-imposed isolation that hurt their ability to network to find work.” One researcher told The Fiscal Times that the effects of long-term unemployment represent “a silent mental health epidemic.”

Even with the falling jobless rate, there are still two people seeking work for every open position. And while finding a job can be hard for everyone, Mark Price, a labor economist at the Pennsylvania-based Keystone Research Center, tells BillMoyers.com that those who have been out of the labor market for long periods of time face unique challenges getting back in. “The biggest is bias on the part of employers against workers with long gaps in their work history,” says Price. “In the inevitable sorting that employers do of job applications, a worker with a long spell of unemployment is frequently excluded from further consideration regardless of their skill and work experience.”

It’s an observation that’s borne out by empirical studies. And that discrimination creates a vicious cycle, causing job seekers to give up hope and drop out of the labor market entirely.

Tragically, many of those who do manage to return to the workforce don’t remain in it for long. Their skills are rusty, or they may have grown unaccustomed to working within a hierarchical organization. A study released earlier this year by Princeton University economists Alan Krueger, Judd Cramer and David Cho found that 15 months after returning to work, the number of long-term unemployed who left the workforce again was twice as high as those who had settled into full-time employment.

And for those fortunate enough to find work and keep it, many have taken a huge financial hit — losing 40 percent or more of their pre-recession incomes, according to The Urban Institute.

It doesn’t have to be this way. An innovative program in Connecticut called Platform to Employment takes a multi-pronged approach to helping these workers ease back into the groove. The program offers intensive training, with mock job interviews, mental health services to combat depression and anxiety, and then places them in eight-week internships — with the first four weeks paid in full by Platform to Employment, and the last four weeks split 50/50 between the employer and the nonprofit. The program boasts a 90 percent success rate, but so far has received only a few million in state funding.

And while three million people face the intense pain of long-term joblessness, the issue doesn’t even appear to be on Congress’s radar.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
9 Good Reasons to Ban Fracking Immediately Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7118"><span class="small">Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 12 October 2014 14:32

Gibson writes: "The natural gas extraction method known as hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, has simultaneously become a cash cow for unimaginably wealthy energy companies, a brutally efficient destroyer of limited natural resources depended upon by the rest of us, and a disturbing new trend that will lead to massive social instability."

 (photo: Earth News Media)
(photo: Earth News Media)


9 Good Reasons to Ban Fracking Immediately

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

12 October 14

 

“When the last tree is cut, the last fish caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money.”


“The United States is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.”

he natural gas extraction method known as hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, has simultaneously become a cash cow for unimaginably wealthy energy companies, a brutally efficient destroyer of limited natural resources depended upon by the rest of us, and a disturbing new trend that will lead to massive social instability. Until we come together and put a stop to fracking by direct action, banning fracking in our cities and states and using clean energy, fracking will continue to deplete every everything we have until it’s too late.

Most important, fracking shouldn’t be seen as just a niche cause for environmentalists, but as a huge intersectional issue that affects everyone, no matter which issue you’re most passionate about. Fracking hurts all of us, and it will take all of us to come together and end it for good. Here are nine perfectly good reasons fracking needs to end immediately and permanently.

1. Fracking Results in Unprecedented Amounts of Earthquakes

Oklahoma, home to hundreds of fracking sites, is now more earthquake-prone than California. Between 1990 and 2008, Oklahoma had only three earthquakes per year that registered at 3.0 or more on the Richter scale. In 2013, Oklahoma had 109 earthquakes. That number has increased to 238 as of June 2014. One quake caused by drilling destroyed 14 homes in Oklahoma City, injured two people and buckled pavement. Additional, persistent quakes will undoubtedly cause more injuries, potential deaths, and damage to infrastructure, costing taxpayers millions. EPA seismologists acknowledge a very clear correlation between fracking and earthquakes, saying the quakes would stop as soon as wells were turned off.

2. Fracking Results in Extreme Water Contamination

Fracking wells, which inject water, sand, and chemicals deep into the ground to extract natural gas, inevitably create significant runoff into groundwater systems. 40,000 gallons of 600 different kinds of chemicals are used in each fracking well, including formaldehyde, mercury, uranium, and hydrochloric acid. To run all the fracking wells in the United States, it takes 360 BILLION gallons of those harmful chemicals. And only 30 to 50 percent of those chemicals are reclaimed, while the rest is left in the ground, not biodegradable. Pennsylvania, a major fracking state, has just admitted that fracking has contaminated local water supplies 243 times in 22 counties.

In California, where a historic drought has already started water rationing in major population centers (more on that in section 3), 3 billion gallons of fracking waste just leaked into aquifers containing precious drinking water reserves for residents. Josh Fox’s film “Gasland” illustrates that homes affected by fracking have flammable water. Drinking the water can cause respiratory, sensory, and neurological issues. And the situation in California is just a prelude to what’s to come if fracking is allowed to continue. In West Virginia, where 300,000 people had their drinking water contaminated by a chemical used by the coal industry this January, government officials are weighing proposals to frack under the Ohio River, which supplies drinking water to 3 million people.

3. Fracking Is Responsible for Record Droughts

Each fracking project in the United States requires as much as 8 million gallons of water to complete. Taking the U.S.’s 500,000 fracking sites into account, with each site being fracked 18 times, that translates to a whopping 72 TRILLION gallons of water to maintain every fracking well. That's over half of the water in Lake Erie. In the meantime, states with huge and growing populations like Texas and California are experiencing exceptional drought conditions, causing food prices to rise as more crops and livestock die off. Towns along the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas are seeing 45 to 50 percent of total water usage come from fracking companies. California’s water reservoirs are at less than 50 percent, and water officials say that there’s maybe 12 to 18 months of water left if strict conservation measures are implemented. Once those reservoirs run out, nobody is sure what will happen next, given how little rain California has seen in recent years.

4. Fracking Exacerbates Climate Change

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that as you deplete water supplies by the trillions of gallons, there’s less water in the ground to continue the natural cycle of water. An interrupted water cycle means less water in the air, which means fewer rain clouds, fewer crops, more deserts, and entire population centers without a critical resource, leading to widespread social instability. Fracking also puts an exponential amount of greenhouse gases into the air. Each of America’s 500,000 gas wells requires 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies to and from the site – that’s quantified to 200 million tanker trucks dumping tons of additional CO2 into the atmosphere every day. Methane, which traps even more sunlight in the atmosphere than CO2 and contributes even more to climate change, regularly leaks from fracking sites. As investigative journalist Steve Horn reported for DeSmogBlog, Mark Boling, an executive at Southwestern Energy, admitted that the amount of leaking methane at fracking sites concerned him greatly. One recent study that linked fracking to climate change illustrated that fracking was even worse for the climate than coal. So much for the “natural gas is cleaner than coal” argument.

5. Fracking Leads to Further Exploitation of Immigrant Workers

If you care about immigration, then you should care about fracking. Companies drilling new wells looking to skimp on labor costs have been caught trucking in undocumented workers to do the hard labor. These workers are often paid poverty wages and put in unsafe environments, with the underlying threat of deportation if they speak out about the insufficient pay and grueling working conditions. One example is GPX, of Sealy, Texas, which was accused of trucking in undocumented workers to perform seismic and surface surveying in Pennsylvania. A local pipe-building union fighting for its 700 members to have good-paying jobs claims the immigrant workers are given a less-stringent test on welding, which can lead to faulty well construction, greatly increasing the chances of a pipeline leaking into a water system. If GPX is found guilty of hiring undocumented immigrants, they face a $10 million fine, and five years of probation on each of the 20 counts.

6. Fracking Displaces Poor Communities

Pennsylvania, which houses the Marcellus Shale, is home to thousands of fracking operations. As more companies come in to drill new wells, they often displace entire communities of people who are then left homeless and broke, forced to uproot themselves for an out-of-state industry. One example is in Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, where 32 families didn’t even know they were going to be evicted from their trailer park until they read about it in the Williamsport Gazette. Aqua America, a water company dedicated to fracking, bought the piece of land that housed the trailer park, and families were told they would be paid $2,500 if they moved out by April 1, 2012; $1,500 if they moved out by May 1, 2012; and paid nothing if they moved out after that date. As Mother Jones reported, the cost of moving each family’s trailer was between $8,000 and $10,000 on average. Residents staged a blockade of the construction, and state troopers were eventually called in to arrest anyone who refused to move. Construction has since begun where those 32 families used to live.

7. Fracking Makes Economic Inequality Even Worse

By investing in some professions that are labor-intensive, like education and construction, you can be assured that the money will create lots of jobs. But fracking is an industry that’s capital-intensive, meaning most of the investment goes toward the equipment and technology, rather than the people. And when fracking wells become profitable, most of the profit goes to the owners of the equipment, not the workers who did the drilling. In addition, jobs on drilling sites are only temporary, since wells can only be fracked up to 18 times. Fracking makes it possible for people like Richard Kinder of Kinder Morgan to make out like bandits, whereas immigrants and other non-union employees who work on drilling sites get crumbs and are routinely exposed to lethal chemicals like benzene.

While there were 135,000 more people working in the oil and gas industry in 2012 than there were in 2007, that number of jobs is negligible compared to the jobs created through sustainable energy. The solar industry alone employs over 140,000 Americans and is outpacing national job growth in other sectors by a factor of ten. The U.S. economy added one million new green jobs in 2013 alone, for a total of 6.5 million green jobs in the U.S. today. If you want an energy source that’s great for job creation, look to wind energy – wind turbines alone create thousands of permanent jobs through their production, transportation, installation, and continued maintenance. More important, wind and solar power don’t contaminate water supplies.

8. Fracking Depletes the Value of Your Home

Exxon is one of the largest companies that engages in fracking. And in an ironic twist, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson became a fracking protester when well drilling was about to happen next to his home. Through his attorney, Tillerson said he wasn’t concerned about the environmental impact, but rather the impact to his property values. As I’ve written in the previous sections, Tillerson is obviously wrong to not be worried about the environmental costs of fracking, but he’s 100 percent correct about what fracking does to homes. A study by the University of Denver found that fracking can reduce a home’s value by 25 percent on average. And of 550 people surveyed, most wouldn’t buy a home near a fracking site. Researchers looking at 43 counties in New York and Pennsylvania also learned that a house within 0.6 miles of a fracking site that depends on wells for its drinking water rather than municipal sources saw the value of their home plummet by 16.7 percent.

9. Fracking Encourages Crony Capitalism and Monopolies

Right now, the incentives for using clean energy to heat and light our homes are next to none. Oklahoma and Arizona are even penalizing homeowners with fines for installing rooftop solar panels. This is the result of a model bill written up by the Koch Brothers-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) aimed at giving oil and gas companies a monopoly on residential markets.

Kansas governor Sam Brownback, a Republican, was originally for wind energy, before the Kochs twisted his arm. Kansas currently gets 11 percent of its energy from wind farms, and the state has invested $7 billion to date in installing and maintaining wind turbines. Kansas farmers receive a healthy $8 million in lease payments every year in exchange for allowing wind turbines to be built on their land. This all started in 2009, when Governor Mark Parkinson, who replaced Governor Kathleen Sebelius when she went to Washington, signed legislation stating that power companies must have power grids consisting of 20 percent sustainable energy by 2020.

But the Koch Brothers started aggressively lobbying against wind energy tax credits in 2013, and called for Kansas’ renewable energy benchmark to be frozen at 16 percent in 2016. Koch-funded groups spent $383,000 in ads calling for the repeal of the 2009 legislation. On July 23 of this year, Brownback began calling for a phase-out of the program, in the midst of his re-election campaign, likely caving to pressure from the Kochs. Even though Charles and David Koch are already worth over $100 billion, they still insist on closing off all avenues for cost-effective sustainable energy and steamrolling politicians who get in their way.

Whether you’re passionate about the environment, housing markets, immigration, economic inequality, or ending crony capitalism, ending fracking is a major step toward solving those social ills. It’ll take a combination of direct action, new ordinances and laws, and us generating our own sustainable energy to do it. Let’s get to work.



Carl Gibson, 27, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nonviolent grassroots movement that mobilized thousands to protest corporate tax dodging and budget cuts in the months leading up to Occupy Wall Street. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary We're Not Broke, which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. Carl is also the author of How to Oust a Congressman, an instructional manual on getting rid of corrupt members of Congress and state legislatures based on his experience in the 2012 elections in New Hampshire. He lives in Sacramento, California.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Listening to Nobelist Malala Yousafzai Instead of Just Honoring Her Print
Sunday, 12 October 2014 14:28

Cole writes: "There is always a danger that in honoring a figure like Malala Yousafzai, the world will drown out her more challenging views."

Malala Yousafzai. (photo: NBC News)
Malala Yousafzai. (photo: NBC News)


Listening to Nobelist Malala Yousafzai Instead of Just Honoring Her

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

12 October 14

 

alala Yousafzai has become the youngest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in history, sharing it this year with India’s Kailash Satyarthi, a children’s rights activist.

Ms. Yousafzai, from Pakistan’s picturesque Swat Valley, was shot in the head by a member of the Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan (TTP or Pakistani Taliban Movement) two years ago this month for standing up for girls’ education.

There is always a danger that in honoring a figure like Malala Yousafzai, the world will drown out her more challenging views. Martin Luther King, Jr. is now mainly lauded for his “I have a Dream” speech but his socialism, anti-imperialism, and opposition to the Vietnam War is little remembered. Likewise, Lila Abu-Lughod has warned against the use of Ms. Yousafzai by powerful white men as a symbol whereby they can pose as champions of Muslim women against Muslim men– an argument first made powerfully in a another context by Gayatri Spivak The real Malala Yousafzai is harder to deploy for those purposes than is Malala the symbol.

Islamophobes who use her story as an indictment of the religion of Islam have another think coming. She credits her religion with inspiring her values, the values that made here a nobelist: “What the terrorists are doing is against Islam because Islam is a religion of peace. It tells us about equality, it tells us about brotherhood, it tells us about love and friendship and peace, that we should – we should be nice and kind to each other.”

It should be remembered that Ms. Yousafzai told Barack Obama off about his drone strikes in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) of northwest Pakistan. She said of her meeting with the US president, “I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism… Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact.”

She appears to oppose military action against the Taliban: ‘If you hit a Talib with your shoe, then there would be no difference between you and the Talib. You must not treat others with cruelty and that much harshly, you must fight others but through peace and through dialogue and through education.’

She approvingly quoted her father as criticizing novelist Salman Rushdie for his book Satannic Verses, but as standing for freedom of speech for such authors. Her remarks caused her book to be banned in many Pakistani private schools, angering the country’s fundamentalists. She also criticized the denial of rights to Pakistan’s Ahmadi minority.

Honoring someone with the bravery and resiliency and ethical intelligence of a Malala Yousafzai is easy. Taking her more challenging positions seriously and engaging with them is much more difficult.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2681 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 2687 2688 2689 2690 Next > End >>

Page 2689 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN