People or Sheeple On JFK and 'The Whole Mess'

[Ed Jewett]

I especially like the idea of "technically-illustrated" comic books combined with the idea of plays, scripts, mock trials (or Congressional hearings?) and the like. (There is such a person, a cartoonist, who has collaborated with Jensen.)

Perhaps one of the things we ought to do is, individually or collectively, to post links and invitations to readers and consider inviting, as contributing members to DPF and this discussion, key people from other groups, movements, research, etc.

#1) Derrick Jensen has a book from Seven Stories [Press], called As the World Burns: Fifty Simple Things You Can Do to Stay in Denial. It’s a graphic novel done with Stephanie McMillan, who does the wonderful cartoon “Minimum Security.” http://minimumsecurity.net/blog/

#2) "For those who have worried that, living in this place of astonishing peace and beauty, I will lose touch with what is going on in the real world, and all the work that needs to be done, my post tomorrow will describe what I intend to do, from my quiet place, to make a real difference, and to help others coalesce in ways that will bring the brightest progressive minds to bear on ways in which we can undermine and end the industrial economy and the brittle, cruel and devastating industrial society that holds the world in thrall.”

http://howtosavetheworld.ca/

Dave Pollard's environmental philosophy, creative works, business papers and essays.

In search of a better way to live and make a living, and a better understanding of how the world really works.

[Ed Jewett]

Design for community:


the art of connecting real people in virtual places

By Derek M. Powazek

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jhvfh6t...ne&f=false

[Ed Jewett]

In the Face of King Coal, Tree Sitters Triumph

By Kevin Gosztola

February 3, 2010

http://www.opednews.com/articles/In-the-...3-239.html

[Ed Jewett]

Minnesotans arrested during WH anti-war protest | StarTribune.com

http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.co...ibune-com/

It's an embedded video (not YouTube)

[Ed Jewett]

New England United Host Anti-War Conference at MIT

By Lauren Howland
On Saturday morning, around 300 people piled into a conference room at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to discuss the future of the anti-war movement in the New England area.
New England United, a regional anti-war network that was started in July of 2007, held a convention to address the ongoing war in the Middle East.
The crowd ranged from grey-haired men and women reflecting their fight to end the Vietnam War during their youth to Cambridge high school students wanting to voice their opinions.
Robert Hanson, an older man wearing a peace shirt was the first to speak. He warned the group that his generation had failed in continuing the peace movement, and now people see peace and anti-war activism the same way they see voting—something you only have to take part in once and awhile.
“If I can offer you some advice, if a suggestion comes up that sounds like the 60’s—put it on the backburner,” said Hanson.
The gathering lasted from 10:30 a.m. to 6:15 p.m., alternating between panels and workshops, and concluded with an organizational session to discuss ways to incorporate more people into a protest that will be held March 20 in front of the White House to support the return of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Glen Ford, editor of Black Agenda Report, an online journal of African American thought and action, was one of the first to speak.
“How did corporations, blacks, and leftist all end up on the same side?“ Ford comically asked the audience. Calling it a “trick of history” Ford expressed his dismay when in 2008 the capitalistic system started to fall apart and instead of people fighting, back they became completely demobilized.
The speakers covered a broad array of topics including the expansion of U.S. occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Palestine. They argued that this expansion uses resources, especially money, that could be better used in domestic and social issues. Lecturers also discussed the institution of new U.S. bases being set in Columbia and Honduras, and our nation’s decision on how and where to distribute money and aid to the people of Haiti after the earthquake devastated Port-Au-Prince and surrounding areas.
Ashley Smith, of the International Socialist Review, claimed that to end the wars, one needs to get the public to connect the dots between war spending and social progress.
“We should demand they do more then just talk about war opposition and block war spending,” Smith said of our government.
Workshops ensued where people broke off into smaller groups and held discussions about topics that were more closely related to the activist work they do, such as the war in Latin America, resistance within the military, global warming and its relation to current wars.
Seven UNH students attended the Student Organizing workshop in hopes of preparing themselves more thoroughly for the progression of the anti-war movement on and around campus.
“This is just the first step in connecting with the other students for peace and creating a more connected network of people working for peace in our world,” UNH junior philosophy major Vanessa Ruiz said after the conference.

[Peter Lemkin]

As far as software...there are internet 'university' programs - some free - that allow a group to meet as if in the same room using standard computers. There are fancier ones, but very costly. :call:

[Ed Jewett]

What Americans Really Have to Fear
Violation of Rights by Military
By Scott Fina

February 04, 2010 "Santa Barbara Independent" --Feb. 02, 2010 - I was among the several people arrested on Sunday, January 31, while protesting outside the main gate of Vandenberg Air Force Base. The purpose of my protest was to criticize the development, maintenance, and potential use of nuclear weapons by the United States.

I believe the nuclear arsenal of the United States—the largest and most advanced in the world—contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Consider the perspective of countries like North Korea and Iran. If the most powerful nation in the world with the greatest military capability finds it necessary to maintain several thousand nuclear warheads, why shouldn’t they have some? Moreover, the more prevalent nuclear weapons become, the more likely terrorists are to obtain the materials needed to construct one.

On Sunday I was also protesting the American development of a space-based, anti-missile defense system. This system undermines our previous and future efforts at negotiating nuclear treaties with Russia and China. So my protest on Sunday, at heart, concerned the security of the United States and the world.

The story of my arrest on Sunday (along with six other people) outside the gate of Vandenberg Air Force Base, however, had nothing to do with the security of our country—although we were cited for a “violation of a security regulation” (50 USC Sec 797). If convicted, my fellow protestors and I face a potential fine of $5,000 and up to one year in prison. The real story of our arrests concerns the United States Constitution.

Most of us were arrested for refusing to present government identification to the military security officials. All of us were orderly and peaceful. None of us was interrupting base operations. Most were elderly (several in their 70s and 80s). We were simply standing quietly along the shoulder of Route 1 holding peace signs. We were protesting in a location and at a time pre-arranged with Vandenberg Base security. Base security officials were expecting us and knew our purpose.

If there was one group of people that Vandenberg security officials did not have to be concerned about, it was the 11 grey haired protestors standing outside the gate under the scrutiny of at least a dozen soldiers in a place and time known in advance by the base.

Nonetheless, shortly after the protest began, the soldiers came out through the main gate of Vandenberg, and, while filming us, requested that we each provide government identification under the threat of arrest and criminal charges. While they confronted us outside the gate along Route 1, the soldiers ignored numerous people in civilian clothing that drove past us through the gate and onto the base. The soldiers did not know the purpose of these civilians or the contents of their cars. In fact, had I not been part of the protest, I could have driven my car 50 yards past the protest site onto the base and left it in a parking lot without being confronted and ordered to present identification. People in civilian clothing can also walk past the protest site onto the base to wait for a public bus without being stopped and ordered to present identification.

I and my associates, holding peace signs, provided the soldiers with no reason to believe (i.e., no probable cause) that we were a threat to base security or operations. We did make it obvious that we were critical of nuclear weapons and space-based, anti-missile systems.

We refused to comply with the orders of the soldiers because, as peaceful and orderly citizens, we are afforded a right to privacy inherent in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. By ordering us to present identification and then arresting us because we refused to do so—without probable cause that we were a security risk or were committing a crime—the soldiers violated our protection against unlawful search and arrests under the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the soldiers singled us out on the basis of our protest (while ignoring other civilians who actually penetrated the base gate) violated our right to free speech under the First Amendment.

When I was confronted by the soldiers, I declared that I had no intention of compromising base security and operations. I admitted that I had a government-issued identification on my person, but refused to present it because of my Constitutional protections. Ironically, no soldier or security official ever looked at my government issued identification while I was arrested, handcuffed, searched, had the contents taken out of my pockets (including my wallet with my identification); finger printed, photographed, and released. In fact, the soldier writing out my citation simply trusted me to state my correct name, age, address, and Social Security number.

If it was so vital for security purposes that my failure to present a government issued identification outside the base gate should lead to my arrest and possible imprisonment, why didn’t any Vandenberg base official look at my government-issued identification while I was in their custody for hours inside the base gate?

Nothing is more detrimental to American freedom and security than a military that ignores the rights of peaceful and lawful citizens. Americans don’t need intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads to keep them safe; they need their soldiers to uphold and defend the law of the land.

Scott Fina, of Santa Maria, is a former trooper with the New Jersey State Police. He served for several years on its special teams unit, where he worked with the Secret Service in protecting President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. Bush. He has a Ph.D. in political science from Temple University. This is the first time he has ever been arrested for anything.

Copyright ©2010 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e24589.htm

[Peter Lemkin]

Former State Trooper and worked with SS. Maybe there IS hope! But, given the way the military reacted, maybe there is NOT! I was at a number of demonstrations at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site and such nonsense went on. We were miles from the test site proper, outside the gate, peaceful, calm, and many arrested.....Another time at Dupont Circle in D.C. I was at an anti-Vietnam demonstration. We were near the S. Vietnamese Embassy, but peacefully assembled with signs doing nothing illegal [unless expressing one's opinions are illegal] with signs. I happened to be engaged in friendly conversations with a riot-gear armed policeman about things unrelated to the protest [things were that calm]. Suddenly, over his walkie-talkie I heard an order. He put down his faceshield, took out his truncheon and started to beat me and others. A tank just behind him pointed its canon directly in my face [about 3 yards from my face] and I was maced. Wonderful to live in a 'democracy' where one can freely express oneself and even petition the government for the address of grievances....not like in some nasty dictatorship where protest is not allowed or protesters beaten and mistreated. :ridinghorse:

[Dawn Meredith]

I'm quite sure MLK signed his own death warrant with the love and truth in the speech above. It was the one move too far for the Oligarchy and their profits from war and hate. They killed the dreamer. But not the Dream. Dream.

Agreed Peter. Peace+power=murder. History repeats over and over. But we must never give up. Our purpose on earth is to fight for love, justice and peace. The struggle gets tiring and depressing, but giving up means they win.

All last week as I basked in the ocean and sun of lovely Costa Rica, where the military was abolished the year I was born, how tempting it was to just want to leave America and one day retire to a country of peace. But...if everyone who thinks like we do did this then the powerful warmongers would have no opposition. Our efforts seem so minor and futile compared to their power.
BUT then I read that great quote you highlighted above by Howard Zinn: "...when people stop obeying (the powerful) have no power". YES!

Dawn

[Ed Jewett]

TRACKING A NEW KIND OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
By Kathleen Burge

Dodson concluded that Andrew and many like him were following the American tradition of civil disobedience - this time, against the economy - and creating a “moral underground.’’

Reprinted from BOSTON.COM
[URL="http://www.boston.com/yourtown/newton/articles/2010/02/18/bc_professor_lisa_dodson_tracks_economic_disobedience/"]
[/URL] As Newton resident Lisa Dodson, a Boston College sociology professor in the thick of a research project, was interviewing a grocery story manager in the Midwest about the difficulties of the low-income workers he supervised, he asked her a curious question: “Don’t you want to know what this does to me too?’’

She did. And so the manager talked about the sense of unfairness he felt as a supervisor, making enough to live comfortably while overseeing workers who couldn’t feed their families on the money they earned. That inequality, he told her, tainted his job, making him feel complicit in an unfair system that paid hard workers too little to cover basic needs.

The interview changed the way Dodson talked with other supervisors and managers of low-income workers, and she began to find that many of them felt the same discomfort as the grocery store manager. And many went a step further, finding ways to undermine the system and slip their workers extra money, food, or time needed to care for sick children. She was surprised how widespread these acts were. In her new book, “The Moral Underground: How Ordinary Americans Subvert an Unfair Economy,’’ she called such behavior “economic disobedience.’’

As Dodson’s questions grew more pointed, she began to hear fascinating stories. Andrew, a manager in a large Midwest food business, said he put extra money in the paychecks of those earning a “poverty wage,’’ punched out their time cards at the usual quitting time when they had to leave early for a doctor’s appointment, and gave them food.

Andrew had decided that by supervising workers who were treated unfairly - paid too little and subjected to inflexible schedules that prevented them from taking care of their families - he was playing a direct role in the unfair system, and so he was morally obligated to act.

Dodson concluded that Andrew and many like him were following the American tradition of civil disobedience - this time, against the economy - and creating a “moral underground.’’

But her book, which came out late last year, has provoked debate about the morality of such acts.

After Dodson talked about her book on a radio program, American Public Media’s “Marketplace,’’ some listeners posted comments on the show’s website arguing that supervisors like Andrew are cheating their employers.
Referring to the show’s host, a listener from Leesburg, Va., wrote, “I was surprised that throughout the entire interview, neither Tess Vigeland nor Ms. Dodson touched on what would seem to me a rather crucial point - that these ‘Ordinary Americans’ are stealing from the companies who employ them.

“The examples Ms. Dodson gave . . . are acts of theft from the companies, yet they are described as if somehow moral and virtuous. It’s one thing for me to see someone in need and open my wallet; its quite another to address that need by giving something I’ve stolen from my neighbor.’’
Although Dodson makes clear where she stands - the subtitle of her book includes the phrase “unfair economy’’ - she said she believes the debate is important.

“I think that this is a really important conversation that we should have in this country,’’ Dodson said. “What is the worst wrong here? Is it to break a rule or to pass some food over, or is it that we have tens of millions of children and people in families that are working as hard as they can and they can’t take care of their families?’’
Not all supervisors felt troubled by the plight of those who worked under them. Dodson interviewed supervisors who said they had no obligation beyond the bottom line of their company; some complained bitterly about the work ethic of those who filled low-wage jobs.

Dodson has had an unusual career trajectory for an academic. She was a union activist and an obstetrical nurse in Dorchester before she began teaching, first at Harvard and now at Boston College. In her first book, “Don’t Call Us Out of Name: The Untold Lives of Women and Girls in Poor America,’’ Dodson studied how women and their families coped in the face of welfare reform as their safety net vanished.

This time, though, she was drawn largely to the stories of those Americans who worked with the working poor, suggesting that the difficulties of that group also affect the lives of those who intersect with them.
“I feel as though there’s this tendency is this society to kind of think about low-income people as those people over there,’’ she said, “as though it’s an experience that’s sort of marginal and distant from those of us who are not poor.’’

In her new book, some of the most wrenching stories are about women who cannot afford child care and leave their children unattended at home, asking older children to watch the younger ones. They feared social service agencies would investigate them for neglect, but they felt they had no choice if they were going to keep their jobs.

“It was very common for parents to tell me that their kids spent a lot of time all by themselves at home,’’ Dodson said. “That puts the parent into just an untenable position: You’re a bad worker or you’re a bad parent.’’

http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/1535/1/