|
FOCUS | The Last War Crime: Indicting Cheney for Torture |
|
|
Thursday, 12 July 2012 13:43 |
|
Molloff writes: "Apparently, there are some things that Viacom won't accept money for - namely any film or story which exposes the regular torture ordered by Vice-President Cheney."
Former Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington, 10/06/11. (photo: AP)

The Last War Crime: Indicting Cheney for Torture
By Jeanine Molloff, Nation of Change
12 July 12
uring this summer of Occupy and subsequent police brutality, the subject of torture is hotly denounced by protesters and conveniently ignored by candidates. Like that ostrich diving head first into the sand of political expediency–Americans want to focus on the alleged debt crisis or gay marriage–anything that absolves us from the messy subject of tortures committed in our names by the Bush/Cheney administration and which continue under Obama to the present day. The entire Bradley Manning debacle speaks volumes to this accusation.
In spite of strong evidence identifying Dick Cheney as the mastermind behind this torture regime–the subject remains taboo, both in the ‘news’ business and in Hollywood–that is until Hollywood executives watched trailers for the anti-war documentary–The Last War Crime.
Written, produced and directed by a new talent known only as ‘The Pen,’ this film documents the torture protocol ordained by the Bush-Cheney administration. Since it first circulated a trailer on the web; it has been heavily censored and cyber attacked. You Tube has removed it at intermittent intervals and MTV (which is owned by Viacom) has refused to sell air time for a commercial.
Apparently, there are some things that Viacom won’t accept money for—namely any film or story which exposes the regular torture ordered by Vice-President Cheney. Curious about this documentary and the blatant censorship–(I couldn’t download it)–I contacted the artist aka The Pen. Here is the interview.
JM : What are you hoping this film will accomplish in terms of genuine political change?
The Pen:” The Last War Crime Movie is about indicting Cheney for torture. And isn’t that something billions of people want to see? They say sometimes life can imitate art. But first we felt it was important that we retrace our country’s steps as to how torture was used to get the false intelligence to sell us on a war with Iraq. The real story of how this happened has been buried under an avalanche of pseudo history. They want people to forget the Downing Street minutes and the foreknowledge that the British had that Cheney and Bush were determined to invade Iraq, even if they had to “fix the facts around the policy” to do so. They want to obliterate the memory of the flimsy legal arguments in the torture memos. So we dig out all the true facts, and put them on the big screen, together with an entertaining narrative story about what it would have been like if justice had already prevailed.
The people who committed these war crimes believe they can escape accountability by changing the way people think, by selling the American people on the idea that torture was a great thing that got us wonderful intelligence to protect us. But the only people making these arguments are the torturers themselves and their propaganda advocates. All other percipient witnesses confirm the opposite, which we knew already, that torture does not even work, and that any actionable intelligence they got was obtained before they started torturing people. So part of the mission of this movie is to counter their ongoing lies initiative, to change the way people think back to the truth, and then we can have good policy change, which is political change.
JM : Do you expect more interference, and if so–in what form?
The Pen: Based on what we have run into already, the attempted YouTube censorship (which we forced them to reverse after more than 7,000 direct protests), the rejection of the ad submitted to MTV (Viacom Inc.), it is clear that we are encountering serious censorship interference from the very beginning. Obviously we are telling a story that certain people don’t want heard. The American people believe that we have free speech. It was on that justification that the Supreme Court said in the Citizens United decision that the gloves were off, and that corporations with unlimited war chests should be permitted to flood our political process with money favoring their point of view. But now we see that the other side of that bargain was a fraud, that these same corporations believe they can discriminate against points of view they disagree with. So for the actual people, we find that even if we have the money, we cannot even BUY “free” speech.
This is not a tolerable situation. Must we generate thousands of protests every time we want to run an ad when it is rejected for political reasons?
Already Viacom has received over 12,000 protest messages in response to our call to action there, and in that situation apparently they think “we the people” can just be ignored. We are seriously considering a federal lawsuit, the argument has to be made, that if they accept political advertising of any kind, at least in that case, it must be some kind of 14th Amendment equal protection violation to practice what we would call “speech discrimination”. Only by bringing such a case can we determine if we actually have free speech or not.
JM: Has there been any direct retaliation or threats connected with the release of this film aimed at you? Any suspected retaliation?
The Pen : Gandhi is reputed to have said, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win”. At this point we are still mostly at the attempted “ignore you” stage.
JM: What has Hollywood’s reaction been to this film’s coming debut? Are you encountering the same kind of cowardice that Michael Moore experienced after his Oscar night comments about the war?
The Pen: We are just starting to get the word out about this film. The censorship attempts are doomed to fail, but we still don’t have enough visibility to where the rest of the Hollywood film community would be called on to react. It would not surprise me if some of the censorship we’ve been talking about was based in part on cowardice. Of course we all remember when Michael Moore called out the fiction of the basis for the war in Iraq at the Oscars. But in that case another reasonable possible explanation is that those who booed him then would object to any attempt to politicize the Academy Awards ceremony. The problem is that when you say you don’t want to hear about this political issue here, and you don’t want to hear about it there, you may end up with the dynamic we are confronting now with The Last War Crime movie, that the corporations that dominate our media really don’t want these issues talked about anywhere.
JM: Anything else you would want to add?
The Pen: “The soul of America is on trial right now. We have thrown not just international law overboard, we have repudiated our own long established law. We have always considered waterboarding to be torture. We have always prosecuted waterboarding in the past as torture. So what’s the difference now, that the war criminals have a big “R” after their names? We are called by history, the real history, to stand up and speak out about this, to bring America back to its highest calling. So if your readers are interested in participating in the Viacom action they can go to , where you can also see the ad that MTV
rejected. And there is a Facebook page where we are posting video clips, still shots from the movie, including behind the scenes shots, and more on a daily basis, so you can follow our progress and help get this movie out in real theaters where it belongs and deserves to be.”
It should be noted that as of May 22nd, 2012, The Last War Crime was presented at the Cannes Film Festival. There was no refusal to air the film, no censorship–corporate or otherwise. Apparently the independent artistic community in Cannes and similar venues knows something that evades the vapid corporate offices of Hollywood.

|
|
Play Offense, Obama! |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5903"><span class="small">Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 11 July 2012 16:54 |
|
Tomasky writes: "There are ways in which politics is the most reactionary arena there is. When it comes to customs and roles and so on, the political culture is still half stuck in the 1950s."
President Obama on the campaign trail. (photo: AP)

Play Offense, Obama!
By Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast
11 July 12
arack Obama surely does not think the Republican House is going to agree with him suddenly and pass an extension of the Bush tax cuts on dollars earned (not people, dollars earned; see my explanation of why) below $250,000 a year. But he’s right to keep this issue front and center. I hope that this is the first salvo in what will be an ongoing attempt to focus Americans on the tax choices they face, and to educate people a little bit about how taxes are actually paid in this country. It’s a debate he can win hands down, and one that will only tilt the polls even more in his direction and make Mitt Romney look more plutocratic than he already does. But he needs both more facts and more fire.
First, let’s have a few facts, because they help explain why continuing tax cuts for middle-income people is easier to justify. You can find the rates for 2012 here. You can find the rates for all of American history, all the way back to 1913, when the federal income tax was introduced, up to 2011, here. A person (a single filer) who was making $40,000 in 2000, the last year of the Clinton rates, and who might be making $50,000 now, has experienced very little tax savings. She’s actually paying more taxes in 2012, by a few hundred bucks, but that’s partly because her income went up. The percentage of income she’s sending to the IRS has decreased a bit.
Now imagine someone who made $250,000 then and $350,000 this year. He pays five different rates, and I won’t go through them all, but he paid a top rate of 39.6 percent on his last $106,000 earned in 2000. In 2012, though, he’s paying just 33 percent on every dollar from about $178,000 to $350,000. He’s making out awfully well—paying roughly $12,000 less per year than he would be at the old rates. A person making $1 million is paying more than $50,000 less.
I go into these numbers because it’s so important to have some reality in this conversation. Everybody talks about the billions, and they’re important. But we rarely write and talk about how we actually pay taxes. I submit that doing so illustrates the key substantive points on Obama’s side. First, in moral terms, the current rate structure is grossly inequitable. But second and more important, this is about stimulating the economy. The middle-income woman is almost certainly going to take her tax savings and spend it. She probably doesn’t have the luxury of saving or investing it. The $350,000 earner? Well, maybe he’ll spend it on a more tricked-out and suped-up Lexus. Or maybe he won’t. The $1 million earner? He’ll almost certainly sock away most of that $50,000, unless this happens to be yacht year.
That’s the substantive case. Extending the tax cuts for the working and middle classes will help stimulate the economy. And this is about the only stimulus we’re likely to get, as we know. As for the upper incomes, the GOP line that this will crush small businesses, trotted out tiresomely by the Romney campaign, is blather. The vast majority of small-business owners don’t have incomes like that and will not be affected by Obama’s proposal.
And even if they are, let me introduce a little more—and more revealing—tax reality into this conversation that no one ever, ever speaks of. Let’s say a small-business person, or anyone, does end up with $270,000 in taxable income. The way the media write about this, you would assume that Obama wants to increase the rate she pays on every dollar. But no! This is emphatically not true. She would pay the higher, 39.6 percent rate only on dollars earned above $250,000—in other words, only on her last $20,000. That’s a whopping tax increase of $1,320. And it’s something that a person who’s hauled in $270,000 in taxable income (that is, after taking deductions, meaning that her gross income was probably some tens of thousands higher than that) can probably handle.
Now. Politics. I’m well aware that it’s likely impossible for a politician to explain all this stuff to people. But it shouldn’t be impossible to take my second example and use it to illustrate the fact that the increase doesn’t even amount to much until you start talking about really rich people. And it shouldn’t hard to make the stimulative point, either. But in his remarks on Monday, Obama didn’t really make either point. Watching Obama make these pitches is sometimes like watching Peyton Manning line up behind center and hand the ball off to his fullback six times in a row. Dude, throw the ball! Play offense!
Put this squarely on Romney and the Republicans. I know I’m a broken record, but it’s a waste of time for Obama to talk about compromise. The House is not even going to have a vote on it. We all know this. So tell the American people that the House is the only thing standing between them and the current, lower tax rates, and that Mitt Romney is on the House’s side, not the American people’s, and for what? For the sake of making sure that people who make $1 million a year get that extra $50,000. That would get people’s attention. My guess is that John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Mitt Romney read Obama’s remarks from yesterday and thought: “Nothing to worry about here.”
Facts and fire. That’s what we need to see in the next four months.

|
|
|
America's Drug Habit Is Mexico's Burden |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=13817"><span class="small">Rebecca Solnit, TomDispatch</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 11 July 2012 16:50 |
|
Solnit writes: "The drug war is fueled by many things, and maybe the worst drug of all is money, to which so many are so addicted that they can never get enough."
The arm of a boy who was shot dead, a victim of drug cartel violence, on the pavement in Acapulco, Mexico. (photo: Pedro Pardo/AFP/Getty Images)

America's Drug Habit Is Mexico's Burden
By Rebecca Solnit, TomDispatch
11 July 12
ear Mexico,
I apologize. There are so many things I could apologize for, from the way the US biotech corporation Monsanto has contaminated your corn to the way Arizona and Alabama are persecuting your citizens, but right now I'd like to apologize for the drug war, the 10,000 waking nightmares that make the news and the rest that don't.
You've heard the stories about the five severed heads rolled onto the floor of a Michoacan nightclub in 2006, the 300 bodies dissolved in acid by a servant of one drug lord, the 49 mutilated bodies found in plastic bags by the side of the road in Monterrey in May, the nine bodies found hanging from an overpass in Nuevo Laredo just last month, the Zeta Cartel's videotaped beheadings just two weeks ago, the carnage that has taken tens of thousands of Mexican lives in the last decade and has terrorized a whole nation. I've read them and so many more. I am sorry 50,000 times over.
The drug war is fueled by many things, and maybe the worst drug of all is money, to which so many are so addicted that they can never get enough. It's a drug for which they will kill, destroying communities and ecologies, even societies, whether for the sake of making drones, Wall Street profits, or massive heroin sales. Then, there are the actual drugs, to which so many others turn for numbness.
There is variety in the range of drugs. I know that marijuana mostly just makes you like patio furniture, while heroin renders you ethereally indifferent and a little reptilian, and cocaine pumps you up with your own imaginary fabulousness before throwing you down into your own trashiness. And then, there's meth, which seems to have the same general effect as rabies, except that the victims crave it desperately.
Whatever their differences, these drugs, when used consistently, constantly, destructively, are all anesthesia from pain. The Mexican drug cartels crave money, but they make that money from the way Yankees across the border crave numbness (pdf). They sell unfeeling. We buy it. We spend tens of billions of dollars a year doing so, and by some estimates, about a third to a half of that money goes back (pdf) to Mexico.
The Price of Numbness
We want not to feel what's happening to us, and then we do stuff that makes worse things happen – to us and others. We pay for it, too, in a million ways, from outright drug-overdose deaths (which now exceed traffic fatalities, and of which the United States has the highest rate of any nation except tiny Iceland, amounting to more than 37,000 deaths here in 2009 alone) to the violence of drug-dealing on the street, the violence of people on some of those drugs, and the violence inflicted on children who are neglected, abandoned, and abused because of them – and that's just for starters. The stuff people do for money when they're desperate for drugs generates more violence and more crazy greed for the money to buy the next round. And drug use is connected to the spread of HIV and various strains of hepatitis.
Then there's our futile "war on drugs" that has created so much pain of its own. It's done so by locking up mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and children for insanely long prison sentences and offering no treatment. It does so by costing so much it's warping the economies of US states that have huge numbers of nonviolent offenders in prison and not enough money for education or healthcare. It does so by branding as felons and pariahs those who have done time in the drug-war prison complex. It was always aimed most directly at African Americans, and the toll it's taken would require a week of telling.
No border divides the pain caused by drugs from the pain brought about in Latin America by the drug business and the narcotraficantes. It's one big continent of pain – and in the last several years, the narcos have begun selling drugs in earnest in their own countries, creating new cultures of addiction and misery. (And yes, Mexico, your extravagantly corrupt government, military, and police have everything to do with the drug war now, but file that under greed, as usual, about which your pretty new president is unlikely to do anything much.)
Imagine that the demand ceased tomorrow; the profitable business of supply would have to wither away, as well. Many talk about legalizing drugs, and there's something to be said for changing the economic arrangements. But what about reducing their use by developing and promoting more interesting and productive ways of dealing with suffering? Or even getting directly at the causes of that suffering?
Some drug use is, of course, purely recreational, but even recreational drug use stimulates these economies of carnage. And then, there are the overdoses of the famous and the unsung on prescription and illicit drugs. Tragic, but those dismembered and mutilated bodies the drug gangs deposit around Mexico are not just tragic, they're terrifying.
GNP: Gross National Pain and the Pain Export Economy
Mexico, my near neighbor, I have been trying to imagine the export economy of pain. What does it look like? I think it might look like air-conditioning. This is how an air-conditioner works: it sucks the heat out of the room and pumps it into the air outside. You could say that air-conditioners don't really cool things down so much as they relocate the heat. The way the transnational drug economy works is a little like that: people in the US are not reducing the amount of pain in the world; they're exporting it to Mexico and the rest of Latin America as surely as those places are exporting drugs to us.
In economics, we talk about "externalized costs": this means the way that you and I pick up the real cost of oil production with local and global ecological degradation or wars fought on behalf of the oil corporations. Or the way Walmart turns its employees into paupers, and we pick up the tab for their food stamps and medical care.
With the drug economy, there are externalized traumas. I imagine them moving in a huge circulatory system, like the Gulf stream, or old trade routes. We give you money and guns, lots and lots of money. You give us drugs. The guns destroy. The money destroys. The drugs destroy. The pain migrates, a phantom presence crossing the border the other way from the crossings we hear so much about.
The drugs are supposed to numb people out, but that momentary numbing effect causes so much pain elsewhere. There's a pain economy, a suffering economy, a fear economy, and drugs fuel all of them rather than making them go away. Think of it as another kind of GNP – gross national pain – though I don't know how you'd quantify it.
A friend of mine who's lived in Latin America for large parts of the last decade says that she's appalled to see people doing cocaine at parties she goes to in this country. I mentioned that to an anthropologist who was even bleaker in describing the cocaine migration routes out of the Andes and all the dead babies and exploited women she'd seen along the way.
We've had movements to get people to stop buying clothes and shoes made in sweatshops, grapes picked by exploited farmworkers, fish species that are endangered, but no one's thought to start a similar movement to get people to stop consuming the drugs that cause so much destruction abroad.
Picture middle-class people here stuffing the blood of campesinos up their noses. Picture poor people injecting the tears of other poor people into their veins. Picture them all smoking children's anguish. And imagine if we called it by name.
America, No 1 in Pain
I don't know why my country seems to produce so much misery and so much desire to cover it up under a haze of drugs, but I can imagine a million reasons. A lot of us just never put down roots or adapted to a society that's changing fast under us, or we got downsized or evicted or foreclosed or rejected, or we just move around a lot. This country is a place where so many people don't have a place, literally or psychologically. When you don't have anywhere to go with your troubles, you can conveniently go nowhere – into, that is, the limbo of drugs and the dead-end that represents.
But there's something else front and center to our particular brand of misery. We are a nation of miserable optimists. We believe everything is possible and if you don't have it all, from the perfect body to profound wealth, the fault is yours. When people suffer in this country – from, say, foreclosures and bankruptcies due to the destruction of our economy by the forces of greed – the shame is overwhelming. It's seen as a personal failure, not the failure of our institutions. Taking drugs to numb your shame also keeps you from connecting the dots and opposing what's taken you down.
So, when you're miserable here, you're miserable twice: once because you actually lost your home/job/savings/spouse/girlish figure, and all over again because it's not supposed to be like that (and maybe thrice because our mainstream society doesn't suggest any possibility of changing the circumstances that produced your misery or even how arbitrary those circumstances are). I suspect that all those drugs are particularly about numbing a deep American sense of failure or of smashed expectations.
Really, when you think of the rise of crack cocaine during the Reagan era, wasn't it an exact corollary to the fall of African-American opportunity and the disintegration of the social safety net? The government produced failure and insecurity, and crack buffered the results (and proved a boon to a burgeoning prison-industrial complex). Likewise, the drug-taking that exploded in the 1960s helped undermine the radical movements of that era. Drugs aren't a goad to action, but a deadening alternative to it. Maybe all those zombies everywhere in popular culture nowadays are trying to say something about that.
Here in the United States, there's no room for sadness, but there are plenty of drugs for it, and now when people feel sad, even many doctors think they should take drugs. We undergo losses and ordeals and live in circumstances that would make any sane person sad, and then we say: the fault was yours and if you feel sad, you're crazy or sick and should be medicated. Of course, now ever more Americans are addicted to prescription drugs, and there's always the old anesthetic of choice, alcohol, but there is one difference: the economics of those substances are not causing mass decapitations in Mexico.
Roads to Destruction and the Palace of the Dead
When I think about the drug wars and the drug culture here, I think about a young man I knew long ago. He was gay, from Texas, disconnected from his family, talented but not so good at finding a place in the world for that talent or for himself. He was also a fan of the beat novelist and intermittent junkie William Burroughs, and he believed that line about how "the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." Maybe it was fine when William Blake said it in the 1790s, since Blake wasn't a crackhead. But my friend got from Burroughs – a man with family money and, apparently, an iron constitution – the idea that derangement of the senses was a great creative strategy.
This was all part of our youth in a culture that constantly reinforced how cool drugs were, though back then another beat writer, the poet David Meltzer, told me methamphetamine was a form of demonic possession. The young man became possessed in this way and lost his mind. He became homeless and deranged, gone to someplace he couldn't find his way back from, and I would see him walking our boulevards barefoot and filthy, ranting to himself.
Then, I heard he had jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge. He wasn't yet 30; he was just a sweet boy. I could tell four or five more stories like his about people I knew who died young of drugs. The meth that helped him down his road of no return was probably a domestic product then, but now vast quantities of it are made in Mexico for us – 15 tons of it were found earlier this year in Guadalajara, enough for 13m doses, worth about $4bn retail.
When I think about the drug wars, I also think about my visit to Santa Muerte (Saint Death) in Mexico City in 2007. A young friend with me there insisted on going. It was perilous for outsiders like us even to travel through Tepito, the black-marketeers' barrio, let alone go to the shrine where imposing, somber men were praying and lighting candles to the skeleton goddess who is the narcotraficantes' patron saint. They worship death; they're intimate with her; they tattoo her on their flesh, and there she was in person – in bones without flesh, surrounded by candles, by gifts, by cigarettes and gold, an Aztec goddess gone commercial.
My companion wanted to take pictures. I wanted to live and managed to convince him that thugs' devotional moments were not for our cameras. When it came time to leave, the warm patroness of the shrine locked up the stand in which she sold votive candles and medallions, took each of us by an arm – as if nothing less than bodily contact with death's caretaker would keep us safe – and walked us to the subway. We survived that little moment of direct contact with the drug war. So many others have not.
Mexico, I am sorry. I want to see it all change, for your sake and ours. I want to call pain by name and numbness by name and fear by name. I want people to connect the dots from the junk in their brain to the bullet holes in others' heads. I want people to find better strategies for responding to pain and sadness. I want them to rebel against those parts of their unhappiness that are political, not metaphysical, and not run in fear from the metaphysical parts either.
I want the narcotraficantes to repent and give their billions to the poor. I want the fear to end. A hundred years ago, your dictatorial President Porfiro Díaz supposedly remarked, "Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States", which nowadays could be revised to, "Painful Mexico, so far from peace and so close to the numbness of the United States."
Yours sincerely,
Rebecca
Rebecca Solnit lived through the inner-city crack wars in the 1980s and tried most drugs a very long time ago. A TomDispatch regular, she is the author of thirteen books, including, most recently, Infinite City: A San Francisco Atlas, which maps, among other things, the 99 murders in her city in 2008, most of them of poor young men caught up in the usual, and the lives of undocumented laborers in San Francisco.

|
|
Big Chase/CVS Threatens Small Town's Future and Soul |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=19487"><span class="small">Shepherd Bliss, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 11 July 2012 16:47 |
|
Bliss writes: "A fierce struggle since early last year over a proposed Chase Bank and CVS Pharmacy development that has been debated publicly in numerous meetings in small town Sebastopol may reach a climax."
National credit tenants CVS Pharmacy and Chase Bank are planning a redevelopment project at the main crossroads of the small town of Sebastopol, California, known widely for its green politics. (photo: Kellogg-Associates)

Big Chase/CVS Threatens Small Town's Future and Soul
By Shepherd Bliss, Reader Supported News
11 July 12
Reader Supported News | Perspective
fierce struggle since early last year over a proposed Chase Bank and CVS Pharmacy development that has been debated publicly in numerous meetings in small town Sebastopol may reach a climax at the July 17 and 19 City Council public hearing. The Council will either confirm previous decisions made by itself, the Design Review Board (DRB) and Planning Commission to reject the proposal at a downtown commons corner, or allow it to go forward.
On one hand, there are the good, loyal friends of the Pellini family, which owns the corner, and some Rotarians supporting the proposal by focusing on the past and private property, both of which are important. A recent letter to the editor of a local weekly in this town of some 8,000 people advocated this position regarding "the Pellini project," as if this important issue were merely a personal matter, rather than a larger issue about Sebastopol's small town character in Northern California.
The development's opposition focuses on Sebastopol's future, the consequences of what ends up on that key corner, and the bigger picture beyond any one family and its friends. Chase, the United States' largest bank, and its frequent partner, CVS, the 18th largest corporation, anchoring the center of our small town would threaten local businesses, including credit unions and local banks.
The Chase/CVS development has been appropriately rejected numerous times by the DRB, the Planning Commission and the City Council, for many valid reasons. Yet the millionaire managers of these two greedy Goliaths keep using their power to get the only thing they want - extracting more money from Sebastopudlians and our natural resources. GoLocal needs to be more than a slogan; it should be practiced.
The evening City Council meetings on Chase/CVS have moved to the large Sebastopol Community Center for what is expected to be a showdown. Opponents, who seem to be in the majority, will demonstrate on Friday, July 13, from 3 to 6 pm at the corner of Highways 12 and 116, the site of the intended development, in an action initiated by Occupy Sebastopol.
What is happening in Sebastopol with this development also is occurring elsewhere in the United States. Though the US economy is faltering, Wall Street banks and corporations are making record profits and paying their CEOs millions of dollars. The phrase "Banks got bailed out. We got sold out," is accurate. If Sebastopol residents defeat Chase/CVS in this one small town, it could be a message to such 1% corporations seeking to further concentrate their wealth that small Davids can defeat their Goliath power.
I love Sebastopol and its people, in spite of our differences. Chase/CVS does not care about us. They have plundered people around the globe for a long time, and paid millions of dollars in penalties.
JP Morgan/Chase received $94.7 billion in bailout funds, of which $64 billion is still on the backs of taxpayers. Chase is among the leaders in home foreclosures and is under investigation by the New York State Attorney General over allegations of its fraudulent foreclosure practices. They are also under investigation by the FBI and SEC regarding their recent loss of more than $9 billion dollars in London.
CVS has paid almost half-a-billion dollars to settle various lawsuits and fines, ranging from illegal labor practices and deceptive business practices to racketeering, corruption, and the mishandling of toxic wastes.
Chase CEO Jamie Dimon reported to Congress in June that his bank lost $2 billion dollars in the kind of derivative gambling that crashed the American economy. He now admits that it was over $9 billion. Ignorance, or malice? Is this the kind of boss we want anchoring our downtown?
Law-makers, including City Council members, should not do what law-breakers want, like Chase/CVS, just because they are powerful. They buy lobbyists, politicians and lawyers, and even US Supreme Court justices. It is time for our small town David to bravely stand up to these mighty Goliaths and be a model for other communities and local businesses threatened by them.
Sebastopol's next election for City Council is already being influenced by the Chase/CVS proposal. Two seats will be up for the vote on November 6. Two of the current candidates seem to favor Chase/CVS, where two oppose it. So, whatever happens in the next week is likely to linger into the City Council elections and influence what that body might decide. Opponents of the development have already submitted one lawsuit, saying that the development should prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Last week's letter in a local weekly wonders "what is best for the community." It is certainly not to ignore the damage Chase/CVS has done to people, their homes and health. These loan sharks and drug dealers, which is what they really are, leave trails of misery.
"Rules and regulations ... guidelines," concern the letter writers. Perhaps it is because I am a seminary-trained, ordained United Methodist minister that I believe that laws should be based on ethics and morality, and protecting people from harm.
The multiple criminal failures of CVS to clean up its toxic wastes, and Chase's predatory banking practices reveal their lack of ethics and morality. Allowing Chase/CVS to anchor our downtown would be a bargain with the devil, which would put our small town's soul at risk.
I favored the Northeast Area Proposal a few years ago, but through direct democracy, it was defeated. Instead, in that space we now have the Barlow Project, which is genuinely local. Waiting turned out to be best. Let us be patient and strengthen that Eastern entrance to Sebastopol, rather than weaken it with drive-throughs that would clog our downtown with more cars, thus making pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency vehicle movement more difficult.
Something nice at that busy corner would be good. But "nice" and Chase/CVS do not mix. Let's encourage our current City representatives to be patient until a better, ethical offer comes along. Otherwise, we could be in a long-term relationship with convicted white-collar criminals. Let us not sell an important part of our downtown commons to the highest outside bidder just because they have big bucks. Who knows what other corporate criminals might follow?
We would not allow a crack house or sexual predator to anchor our downtown. Nor should we allow Chase/CVS to do so, for they would be more harmful. Consider the bigger picture and the future of our beloved small town and its soul.
Meanwhile, Chase is one of the banks too big NOT to fail. Let us not go down with it.
Shepherd Bliss works with Occupy Sebastopol, farms, teaches college, and can be reached at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
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.

|
|