Therefore it is extremely dispiriting to read his recent bitter blasts (here and here) at any and all of those "on the left" who might even contemplate refusing to support Barack Obama for re-election. Such people, he tells us, are vain, preening perfectionists who care more for their own self-righteousness than the fate of the world. Indeed, "leftists" who have refused to support the Democratic candidate -- no matter who he is, no matter what he has done -- are complicit, we’re told, in all the atrocities perpetrated by Republican presidents since 1968.
(Apparently, no Democratic president has ever perpetrated any atrocities; they are just "imperfect" politicians who might sometimes "do some rotten things" but always "fewer rotten things than the other guy.")
Parry believes he is preaching a tough, gritty doctrine of "moral ambiguity." What he is in fact advocating is the bleakest moral nihilism. To Parry, the structure of American power -- the corrupt, corporatized, militarized system built and sustained by both major parties -- cannot be challenged. Not even passively, not even internally, for Parry scorns those who simply refuse to vote almost as harshly as those who commit the unpardonable sin: voting for a third party. No, if you do not take an active role in supporting this brutal engine of war and injustice by voting for a Democrat, then it is you who are immoral.
You must support this system. It is the only moral choice. What’s more, to be truly moral, to acquit yourself of the charge of vanity and frivolity, to escape complicity in government crimes, you must support the Democrat. If the Democratic president orders the "extrajudicial" murder of American citizens, you must support him. If he chairs death squad meetings in the White House every week, checking off names of men to be murdered without charge or trial, you must support him. If he commits mass murder with robot drones on defenseless villages around the world, you must support him. If he imprisons and prosecutes whistleblowers and investigative journalists more than any other president in history, you must support him. If he cages and abuses and tortures a young soldier who sought only to stop atrocities and save the nation’s honor, you must support him. If he "surges" a pointless war of aggression and occupation in a ravaged land and expands that war into the territory of a supposed ally, you must support him. If he sends troops and special ops and drones and assassins into country after country, fomenting wars, bankrolling militias, and engineering coups, you must support him. If he throws open the nation's coastal waters to rampant drilling by the profiteers who are devouring and despoiling the earth, you must support him. If he declares his eagerness to do what no Republican president has ever dared to do -- slash Social Security and Medicare -- you must support him.
For Robert Parry, blinded by the red mist of partisanship, there is literally nothing -- nothing -- that a Democratic candidate can do to forfeit the support of "the left." He can even kill a 16-year-old American boy -- kill him, rip him to shreds with a missile fired by a coddled coward thousands of miles away -- and you must support him. And, again, if you do not support him, if you do not support all this, then you are the problem. You are enabling evil.
And that doesn't surprise me in the least. Since 2008, Robert Parry has been an idiot. Mr. Parry decided that journalism means whoring for the Democratic Party and that is why no one reads him anymore.
He is shallow and he has destroyed his standing with the nonsense he has put on display at his awful website.
Once upon a time, you could go there and get a real treat, real journalism. But those days no one checks in on his crazy.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Wednesday,
August 15, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri continues spying
on Iraqis, the stalemate continues as well, an Iraqi who came to the US
(after snitching on his own father) is charged in a rape, Australians
begin to lobby for an inquiry into the Iraq War, we look at two
presidential campaigns, and more.
It's
war, war, war all the time thanks to no real change in the Oval Office
in years. As Syria remains targeted, international law expert Francis
A. Boyle weighed in today:
Professor
of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law in
Champaign, Boyle said today: "Without authorization by the United
Nations Security Council and express authorization from the U.S.
Congress pursuant to the terms of the War Powers Resolution, for
President Obama to establish any type of so-called 'no-fly zone' over
Syria would be illegal, unconstitutional, and impeachable." While
serving as the Lawyer for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in
1993, Boyle procured the NATO no-fly zone over Bosnia. He is the author
of The Bosnian People Charge Genocide (Aletheia Press: 1966).
Staying on the topic of Syria, on yesterday's Flashpoints Radio on KPFA (here for KPFA archive -- after 14 days, the show will only be archived at Flashpoints
site), guest host Kevin Pina spoke with a Syrian correspondent. His
name was something like Al'a Ibrahim. (Something like? I'm not sure of
the spelling.) We'll do an excerpt.
Kevin
Pina: My last question is you've probably heard in Damascus the
increasing rhetoric by the Obama adminstration, Secretary [of State]
Hillary Clinton certainly raising the stakes, saying openly that they
are preparing for a post government, a government post-Assad
dictatorship -- as they're describing it. Has there been any reaction
in Damascua? Have people heard of it, these pronouncements by Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton?
Syrian
Correspondent in Damascus: Well though it's very useful to call on the
statements of the American Secretary of State Clinton and American
President Barack Obama, I don't know how much we can count on them.
Let's keep in mind, President Obama said last year, in June, that the
days of President [Bashir] al-Assad were numbered. Yet, a year later,
he's still in power. He still controls the army. He still controls the
country and everything seems to be at his hands right now. So as
important as these statemens may be as an indication of where the
American politics are going and what they will do, I wouldn't count on
this? I think one way or anorther we're seeing the events in Syria.
They're saying they've been preparing for the post-Assad era and they
should worry about all the free army. The Free Army is obviously linked
to al Qaeda, is obviously linked to jihadists. Everyone knows that.
You have people coming from all over the world to fight the Syrian
government, a secular government. [. . .] Who will they attack later
on? I've been speaking today with one of my sources inside the Free
Syrian Army and he told me something very interesting. There's a rift
growing right now between the Free Army and these and when we talk about
the when we talk about the Free Army, we're talking about mainy that
includes some deserting soldiers, some people who are against the
government, some people who have issues with authority one way or the
other.
And the other side? The
Islamic Movement, the Red Brigade and the front for al Qaeda. The
correspondent noted that in addition to the growing rift, he has also
observed this second side burying weapons. Why? They're convinced that
President Bashar al-Assad will be driven out of the country and that
when that happens, that's when they will need weapons to take over the
country.
That's who the US government has
gotten into bed with. And it does matter who you get in bed with. The
US government previously hopped into bed with Jasim Mohammed Hassin
Ramadon. The Iraqi should have sent off alarm signals and would have in
any thinking person's head. "Turncoat" is the only word for him. He
repeatedly turned over Iraqis, snitched on them, to the US military.
Some might applaud that but I think even those who applaud would pause
when they learned that among those who snitched and saw taken away was
his own father. Matt Stafford (KOAA) told
the tale of the snitch and as Iraq War veteran Delman Fletcher says in
that report, "13 years old; who would turn in their father?" Exactly.
The
snitch is making headlines again. The 22-year-old* is now accused of a
violent assault. [*22? In the KOAA story already linked to, he is
said to be 19. That was last October. All outlets today are reporting
he is 22.] AP explains
the turncoat "is one of five Iraqis accused of rape-related chartes
after a woman suffered serious injuries during a [. . .] assault in
Colorado Springs." Andy Koen (KOAA) reports
that the police say "a significant of blood" was all over the crime
scene and quotes police Lt Howard Black stating, "I would tell you that
this is one of the most horrific [. . .] assault crimes I've seen in my
career as a police officer." [What's missing? "Sexual." We say over
and over -- rightly -- that rape is not about sex. So why are we
calling these crimes "sexual assaults"? I don't know. I've heard it
questioned by others but only registered as a result of our noting
various assaults here. From this point forward, we're not including
"sexual" before assaults in these cases.] The other four suspects
arrested are Ali Mohammed Hasan Al Juboori, Sarmad Fadhi Mohammed, Yasir
Jabbar Jasim and Mustafa Sataar Al Feraji. And, yes, they all are
suspects at this point, even Jasim Mohammed Hassin Ramadon. But when
you snitch on your father, when you snitch on your own father and get
him turned over to foreign forces in your country, no one's going to
rush to give you too much benefit of the doubt. All five men are
Iraqis.
Jasim Moahmmed Hassin Ramadon has been charged with assault and with being an accessory. Charges are pending against the others. CBS Denver adds
that, "Police say she [the victim] sufered significant internal
injuries consistent with blunt force trauma and serious bodily injuries
that they say they rarely see. Because the men are Iraqis with
permanent resident status, the Colorado Springs Police Department says
they may be deported if they are convicted." On this story, the US
press would do well to stop referring to Ramadon as a "hero." In Iraq,
he's not considered a hero. You don't turn your own father over to
foreign, occupying forces and get to be called a 'hero.' If he is
found guilty, his attorney will most likely (he has a public defender at
present) argue against returning him to Iraq by insisting that
Ramadon's collaboration with the US military means he is at risk of
being killed if he returns to Iraq. Should that argument take place,
the American news consumer will grasp it a lot quicker if this 'hero'
nonsense was dropped.
The news cycle started today with Australia as Ninesmn reported former
Minister of Defense Robert Hill (2001 to 2006) was insisting that
Australia didn't need an inquiry into the Iraq War with him declaring,
"There's a lot of big challenges out there in the world today, including
challenges of peace and security." And that could have been the end of
it. Certainly after the miserable inquiry into the death of Jake
Kovko, no one can expect much in the way of honesty from the Australian
government on the topic of Iraq. But then other voices began weighing
in. Radio Australia notes, "Former defence secretary Paul Barratt has told Australia Network's Newsline
it is apparent now that in the lead-up to the war there was a great
deal of manipulation of intelligence within the US system." Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports:
Demands
for an inquiry are led by former Liberal prime minister, Malcolm
Fraser, former defence secretary, Paul Barratt, and former chief of the
Australian Defence Force, General Peter Gration.
In
a foreword to the publication "Why did we go to war in Iraq? A call for
an Australian inquiry", which says Australia was exposed to the
accusation of waging an illegal war, Fraser writes that an inquiry would
not rake over old coals but rather "develop a better understanding of
how warfare decisions are reached and to strengthen the governmental
structures against precipitous or ill-considered actions in future."
The
call for an inquiry is also supported by a statement signed by 30
leading academics in politics and law, retired senior diplomats and
experts in the field of war and conflict.
Ramesh Thakur (National Times) has come up with eight reasons why an inquiy is needed. Here are the first three reasons:
There
are several reasons why an inquiry would be timely, if not overdue.
First, 2013 will mark the 10th anniversary of the launch of the Iraq
War. A decade on is a good time to reflect back on the reasons,
circumstances and decision-making procedures by which a country went to
any war.
Second, there is by now
widespread, although not unanimous, international agreement that the
Iraq War was morally wrong, illegal, unjustified and had many seriously
damaging consequences for Western interests. The primary justification
for going to war was to destroy an alleged active program of building
weapons of mass destruction. This has been proven false. In 2008 former
secretary of state Madeleine Albright said that the invasion of Iraq was
''the greatest disaster in American foreign policy'', worse even than
Vietnam in its unintended consequences. We need to study the long-term
consequences of the war for Australia's security interests.
Third,
prime minister John Howard committed Australia to war by citing the
ANZUS Treaty. Yet the Iraq War may itself have been in violation of
Australia's international obligations under ANZUS. Its Article 1
obligates all members to settle any international disputes ''by peaceful
means in such a manner that international peace and security and
justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent
with the purposes of the United Nations''. Australia must reconcile its
ANZUS and UN obligations.
And in Iraq, multiple acts of violence. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports
a Baquba car bombing claimed 3 lives and left nine more people injured
while in Muqdadiya a car bombing was quickly followed by a second
bombing resulting in 7 deaths and twenty-seven people injured. al-Shorfa adds that Iyad Hussein Ahmed ("lead judicial investigator in Mosul) was shot dead in Mosul. All Iraq News reports
a police officer was shot dead in Mosul and a woman and her daughter
were left wounded due to an attack on the checkpoint by unknown
assailants. AP reports
2 Yazidis were shot dead in Qahataniya (the two were brothers). AFP
notes a Dohuk sticky bombing which left two people injured. In
addition, Alsumaria notes the PKK has announced they killed 2 Turkish soldiers near the Iraq border. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 13 people reported dead yesterday in Iraq and another seventeen reported injured. Also today, Ahlul Bayt News Agency reports another mass arrest, this time 7 were arrested in Anbar Province.
The big news out of Iraq today centers around spying. Al Mada reports
that Nouri al-Maliki has been provided with sophisticated spying
devices which allow him to gather information on his political rivals
and, the devices were provided by the US government. These devices are
said to have been used to record the recently released 2011 conversation
between Tareq al-Hashemi and Ayad Allawi. Along with speaking to
various MPs, Al Mada also spoke with security sources and they revealed
that the hidden camera was found in Tareq al-Hashemi's former office and
that this is one of many such devices Nouri has planted in the offices
of his rivals. (For more on the spying topic and for the al-Hasemi and
Allawi taped conversation, see "Iraq's sex tape rumors.")
As early as 2008, Parliament was sounding alarms that their private discussions did not appear to be so private. In the years since, it's only been more obvious that Nouri has been illegally spying. From the October 31, 2011 snapshot:
Mvelase Peppetta (Memeburn) reports alarm that the government of Syria has "internaet censorship equipment." It's illegal, according to US law, for it to have this Blue Coat Systems 'filter.' How did it get it? Apparently from Iraq. The US government okayed the sale of web censorship equipment to Iraq. Did the US government bother to run that past either the Iraqi people or the American people? No. Nor did it publicize the sale.
From the November 25, 2011 snapshot:
Today Khaled Waleed (Niqash) reports on the issue:
The US government says it is investigating how the devices got to Syria and Blue Coat Systems of Sunnyvale, the California-based company responsible for manufacturing the equipment, says it is cooperating fully. If the firm deliberately violated the sanctions -- which say special permission is required to import this kind of equipment into Syria -- then it could be liable for a fine of up to US$1 million.
Although the 14 web monitoring devices were shipped to Dubai late in 2010 from where they were supposed to be sent to Iraq, Iraq itself has denied any involvement in the transaction.
Nonetheless in Iraq, the issue is also causing concern. Since 2004, when the US put into effect the Syria Accountability Act, for what the US sees as Syria's support of "terrorism, involvement in Lebanon, weapons of mass destruction programs and the destabilizing role it is playing in Iraq", goods that contain more than 10 per cent componentry that is manufactured in the US have been prohibited from being exported there. However it is quite possible that Syria has been able to obtain embargoed goods through third parties. The question now is what Iraq had to do with the 13 Blue Coat web surveillance devices.
Now the US government is worried about supplying freedom suppressing techonology? Now that Syria has the technology and might use it to harm the people of Syria. But the US allowed despot Nouri to have the technology even though he has a long record of suppressing freedom.
In 2011, journalists and activists repeatedly spoke of how they were being spyed on. They noted that the Iraqi government seemed to know a great deal about them. They were threatened on their cell phones and told not to attend protests. A huge wealth of information appeared to be available to Nouri al-Maliki.
As early as 2008, Parliament was sounding alarms that their private discussions did not appear to be so private. In the years since, it's only been more obvious that Nouri has been illegally spying. From the October 31, 2011 snapshot:
Mvelase Peppetta (Memeburn) reports alarm that the government of Syria has "internaet censorship equipment." It's illegal, according to US law, for it to have this Blue Coat Systems 'filter.' How did it get it? Apparently from Iraq. The US government okayed the sale of web censorship equipment to Iraq. Did the US government bother to run that past either the Iraqi people or the American people? No. Nor did it publicize the sale.
From the November 25, 2011 snapshot:
Today Khaled Waleed (Niqash) reports on the issue:
The US government says it is investigating how the devices got to Syria and Blue Coat Systems of Sunnyvale, the California-based company responsible for manufacturing the equipment, says it is cooperating fully. If the firm deliberately violated the sanctions -- which say special permission is required to import this kind of equipment into Syria -- then it could be liable for a fine of up to US$1 million.
Although the 14 web monitoring devices were shipped to Dubai late in 2010 from where they were supposed to be sent to Iraq, Iraq itself has denied any involvement in the transaction.
Nonetheless in Iraq, the issue is also causing concern. Since 2004, when the US put into effect the Syria Accountability Act, for what the US sees as Syria's support of "terrorism, involvement in Lebanon, weapons of mass destruction programs and the destabilizing role it is playing in Iraq", goods that contain more than 10 per cent componentry that is manufactured in the US have been prohibited from being exported there. However it is quite possible that Syria has been able to obtain embargoed goods through third parties. The question now is what Iraq had to do with the 13 Blue Coat web surveillance devices.
Now the US government is worried about supplying freedom suppressing techonology? Now that Syria has the technology and might use it to harm the people of Syria. But the US allowed despot Nouri to have the technology even though he has a long record of suppressing freedom.
In 2011, journalists and activists repeatedly spoke of how they were being spyed on. They noted that the Iraqi government seemed to know a great deal about them. They were threatened on their cell phones and told not to attend protests. A huge wealth of information appeared to be available to Nouri al-Maliki.
In addition to the above, Al Mada notes the Ministry of Communication recently issued a warning that cell phones were being monitored by "international" bodies -- such as the CIA which remains in Iraq.
Guess what else
remains in Iraq? That's right, the political stalemate. It might be
something Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari would like to speak to the US
Ambassador to Iraq about. However, there is no US Ambassador to Iraq. All Iraq News reports he met instead with Robert Beecroft who is the Charge D'Affairs. Al Mada reports
that Kurdish MP Muhammad Qasim told them the questioning of Nouri
before Parliament and no-confidence vote has not been forgotten, merely
delayed until after Eid al-Fitr. Qasim notes that the Constitution
allows for the questioning of the PM and that they are doing things
according to the law. Earlier, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi
also noted that the questioning had not been disgarged. Eid al-Fitr is
a holiday to mark the end of Ramadan and of fasting during that holy
month. In Iraq this year, it starts on August 19th and continues on the
20th and 21st. It's a three day celebration. All Iraq News notes
that State of Law MP Abdul Slam al-Maliki has issued a statement
declaring that the names of the nominees for the Minister of Defense and
Minister of Interior will be announced after Eid al-Fitr.
Christophe Ayad (Le Monde via the Guardian) weighs in on the conflict between Nouri's Baghdad-based government and the Kurdistan Regional Government:
Baghdad and Erbil have an endless list of grievances, ranging from border controls and the integration of the peshmerga to the Iraqi national army, to the delimitation of Kurdistan and the sharing of wealth between the centre and the autonomous region – especially oil.
There is a fear that growing Kurdish independence will serve as an example to the Sunni provinces, or even to the oil-rich Shia province of Basra in the far south of Iraq, which produces 2m of the 2.5m Iraqi barrels a day. "Al-Maliki would far rather be the leader of a large country than the master of a 'Shia-istan' in the south of Iraq," was one western diplomat's analysis. Conversely, Barzani sees himself as the defender of Iraqi minorities in the face of Shia "hegemony". That is why he granted asylum to the Sunni vice-president Tariq al-Hashemi in December 2011, after he was judged in abstentia in Iraq for having headed a death squad during the civil war (2005-2008).
The much anticipated Reform Commission is really just a forthcoming list. Alsumaria notes that the KRG, via Mohammad Ehsan, has made clear that the list better include the issue of Article 140. Article 140 is in the Iraq Constitution -- hence its name -- and it requires that the disputed territories have a census and referendum. It also was supposed to be implemented by the end of 2007. This is not open to debate or dispute, this is written into the Constitution. Nouri al-Maliki becomes prime minister in Iraq in the spring of 2006. But Nouri ignored it, despite taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. He has repeatedly refused to implement this.
Turning to the US where the chair of the Black Is Back Coalition, Omali Yeshitela, spoke with Glen Ford on this week's Black Agenda Radio (here for that broadcast) which airs on Progressive Radio Network each Monday from 4:00 to 5:00 pm EST. Excerpt of interview:
Omali
Yeshitela: It is time for us to demand that we change the situation
where we have people who are running for office, and Barack Hussein
Obama is just a glaring example, that can speak to every constituency,
make all kinds of promises to every constituency, except the African
community. That has nothing positive to say. In fact, the only time he
speaks to the African community generally speaking has been negatively
while he can give the whole of Jerusalem to the Israelis in order to
court the Jewish vote and this country, while he can talk about
accepting and promoting same-sex marriages to win the gay vote in this
country, while he can even give platitudes to the so-called Latino
Hispanic, as he calls it, vote even while deporting more than even Bush
did, he cannot even make any promise, he cannot even make a promise
specific to the African community which suffers from severe
contradictions -- which is not to say that other communities don't.
But the fact is we can no longer tolerate a situation where somebody can
simply get our vote by being Black and being unwilling to address any
of the contradictions specific to our community.
Glen Ford: And isn't this distressing that for the first time Black folks are accepting not being directly spoken to?
Omali
Yeshitela: It is extraordinarly distressing and I'm concerned about
what it could mean in terms of a certain kind of precedent because how
do you come back and make demands on any other president when all we do
is make excuses for this guy? I hear people saying, 'Well he's
representing all the people so we can't make demands specific to us.' I
hear them saying, 'Well the power of the president is so limited so he
can't do this and that.' But that's now what people were saying about
Bush. And that's not even what a lot of people were saying about
Clinton. So this guy gets a free ride. And in doing so, I just hate
what it means in terms of politically immobilizing the African community
and I believe putting us in bad place in terms of being able to make
demands on any person who is in office and certainly the president. But
that is one of the things that I believe that makes the Black is Back
coalition so important at this juncture in history when the world is
going through such incredible transformation -- that the Black Is Back
Coalition has been there, has not deserted the African community, has
tried to arm the community so that despite the fact that so many are
currently less than before but caught up in the Obama Drama that people
will be able to have some kind of leadership that they can fall back on
as a consequence of what this coalition is doing.
In this year's US presidential election, four women make up two presidential tickets this year: Jill Stein has the Green Party's presidential nomination and her running mate is Cheri Honkala and Roseanne Barr has the nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party and her running mate is Cindy Sheehan.
Last week, while reporting on Jill Stein's campaign for WBUR, Todd Domke
may have come up with a campaign slogan for the Stein - Honkala ticket,
"We are the change we are still waiting for." Domke points out:
The New York Times reported
last month that the Green Party "expects to be on the ballot in at
least 45 states." And Stein "will be the party's first candidate to have
qualified for federal matching funds -- a milestone for this
11-year-old alternative party and potentially a major boost for a
campaign that does not accept corporate donations."
DC blogger (Corrente) notes of the Stein campaign, "Now hiring for the most exciting campaign of 2012." Today the campaign Tweeted:
jillstein2012 The #GreenNewDeal will make our communities sustainable, healthy & just. If that's a future you'd like, PLS RT. 2 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite
jillstein2012 It's time to end unemployment & debt in America. It's time to transition to a new #green economy. It's time for a #GreenNewDeal. 5 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite
Jill:
/ Well, there's one thing I should say which is just that the core of
the Green New Deal is actually creating jobs and for the cost of the
President's first Stimulus Package, which made a small dent but really
wasn't a solution. It was not a solution of the magnitude that we need.
This would really create the solution that we need for the same amount
of money but it would work, because instead of just giving it away to
corporations, which was the majority of that Stimulus Package. It was
basically tax breaks. That doesn't create jobs. Instead we would do
direct job creation like they did during the New Deal. It actually
worked. It substantially moved us forward out of the Great Depression.
This would put resources and money--
Rob: What does that mean? "Direct job creation?" That sounds like bottom up to me.
Jill:
Exactly. It's totally bottom up, so that it would provide the funding
from a national level. It would provide the funding, and I'll talk about
where the funding comes from in a second. But it provides the funding
to communities, so it's an extremely bottom up solution. It provides it
to communities. It's not a top down cookie cutter program. It provides
resources to communities and certain guidelines that allow the
communities to identify what kinds of jobs they need in order to become
sustainable; not just ecologically but also economically and socially.
So, it provides communities the ability to create jobs which are locally
based. So, we're not talking about bringing in a branch of Bank of
America or some mortgage foundation or some multi-national corporation:
Coca-Cola or whatever. It's about jumpstarting local small businesses
and worker cooperatives in a whole broad area of the Green economy and
areas that meet our social and economic needs so that we have local
economies where the dollars are being re-circulated. Where, as you
probably know, every dollars counts for much more because it's passing
through the hands--many hands within the community. Every dollar counts
for more and the profits are not being shipped overseas to corporate
headquarters in the Cayman Islands. They stay right there in small
businesses, who've been killed, been killed by both Democratic and
Republican policies over the last couple decades. So this re-establishes
local small business-based economies and businesses as well as worker
cooperatives, because we need to diversify this economy.
It
also creates public services and public works which allow you to just
go down to the employment office instead of the unemployment office and
at the employment office, you can get a job doing a whole variety of
services and works that serve your community. And again, this is within
that broad spectrum of jobs that range from local food supplies,
establishing a relocalized organic agricultural system, which is
resilient to the stresses of rising oil prices as well as climate change
and all that. There's just innumerable benefits to developing local
sustainable agriculture and supporting our small farmers, as well as
public transportation, including an active. What we call recreational
transportation components, so you can ride your bike to the train, get
on the train, have a place to take your bike with your or leave it
there, etc. That begins to create an infrastructure for health that
allows us to get our exercise, getting to where we need to go safely
and conveniently instead of having to go join a health club and pay a
big health fee. That's not how you get a healthy society. We need to be
able to be active as a component of transportation.
It
includes, of course, weatherization, insulation--all those things that
can put communities to work that have high unemployment rates but don't
have PhDs. You don't even need a high school degree in order to do that
insulation and sort of simple construction and weatherization work. So,
we can get the jobs into the communities that need them most and I
should mention that that is a provision also of the Green New Deal; that
it directs the resources to where they're need, not to the places that
have political influence, but rather particularly it prioritizes the
places with the worst unemployment so we can start providing the relief
where it is most needed. That includes, creating green energy as well,
solar and wind as well as the efficiencies and as well as the social
services, like teachers and nurses, after school daycare, elder care,
drug abuse prevention and rehabilitation, violence prevention and
affordable housing construction. So, it's a broad range of job.
Communities
have full leeway to decide what kinds of jobs are priorities for them
and are needed most in their communities. So, it's a win-win because it
not only solves the economic emergency, it also solves the climate
emergency, because it prioritizes that transition to green energy and it
also just so happens, it make wars for oil, obsolete. You don't need
oil when you've got green energy here at home. And in doing that, it
allows us to cut back on our military budget which has doubled over the
last decade without making us twice as secure. Hardly, in many ways, we
are not more secure at all. So, we're calling for downsizing and right
sizing the military, bringing the troops home and bringing the bases
home as well that are scattered around the globe.
Sunday, Roseanne Barr became the first presidential candidate to be roasted on TV. Kenneth Walsh [kenneth in the (212)] notes
his favorite moment of the roast was when Roseanne said, "I'd really
like to thank [ex-husband] Tom [Arnold] for showing up tonight . . . he
was very funny . . . but, Jesus Christ, how many [bleeping] jobs do I
have to get for that guy. If I can bury my rolling, boiling, ceaseless
hatred for the likes of Tom Arnold, maybe there's a chance we can have
world peace."
Thomas Fitzgeral (Philadelphia Inquirer) reports on Rosanne's run:
The
P&F Party describes itself as California's Feminist Socialist
Political Party and "opposes capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism and
elitism." Though she has no chance to win, she told CNN's Piers Morgan that she hopes to make "socialist solutions part of the narrative."
Answering a Green Party questionnaire
earlier this year, Barr says the issues closest to her heart were
obliterating the two party system (she calls them the "two-headed
beast"); ending corporate personhood; preventing the exportation of jobs
to "countries with immoral, inadequate and nonexistent labor laws;"
shutting down all U.S. military bases worldwide, and legalizing
marijuana.
On her Peace and Freedom platform she
also says she also will recognize Palestine, forgive all student loans,
and allow third-parties the right to ballot access in all 50 states.
This
weekend please join former Congresswoman and presidential candidate
Cynthia McKinney along with Roseanne Barr – who is running for President
this November! Both of these courageous women will be appearing on the
2nd day (Saturday, August 18) of this 3 day historical event.
The
Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails Conference will be held from August 17 –
19, 2012, at the historic Ebell Theater in Los Angeles. The entire
event will also be available live online; details for viewing are listed
on the website.
At the conference an
impressive roster of concerned citizens will examine the global
implications of manipulating the weather. In addition to Roseanne Barr
and Cynthia McKinney, international bestselling author and GMO expert
Jeffrey M. Smith, will discuss the alarming increase in genetically
engineered foods and there will also be the world premiere of Michael
Murphy's new film, "Why in The World Are They Spraying?"
Roseanne's running mate Cindy appeared on The Karel Show. With the host, she discussed her recent essay "No Dancing? No Thanks." Excerpt.
Cindy
Sheehan: It was relevant to say though because everybody thinks that
Roseanne Barr is not serious about running for president --
Charles Karel: Right.
Cindy
Sheehan: And she's very serious. She's not a clown, she's a comedian.
I think you know the difference between being a clown and a comedian. A
comedian can like dig down in these serious issues and make them
relevant and funny to people so they understand them better.
Charles Karel: Right.
Cindy Sheehan: It's just something that needed to be said.
[. . .]
Charles Karel: GIven that you may not win, what do you want to add to the dialogue of the campaigns?
Cindy
Sheehan: There's one very specific thing that we'd like for to happen
in California, of course we need to register 48,000 more people to the
Peace and Freedom Party and if we get 50,000 people to register to the
Peace and Freedom, that sends a message to the Democrats that they're
not doing their job. And another thing is my major issue is peace. Of
course, Roseanne is a big anti-war, anti-empire, pro-peace person
herself, but her big issue is medicinal cannabis.
