May 8, 2013

Musings on Why it's Not Easy Being Green



The Maine Green Independent Party held its annual state convention Sunday, in Belfast. Jill Stein, 2012 presidential candidate, delivered the keynote address. While many of the looming threats Stein outlined in her speech are dire (economic collapse, exploding student debt, a permanent low-wage economy, environmental crisis), she also offered attendees reason to take hope. Indeed, after nearly 30 years of struggling to defend our political legitimacy, it seems voters are finally listening to what the Greens have to say.

“We are not powerless,” Stein told the crowd. “We are so powerful the corporate media is afraid to talk about us.”

Media coverage of the Green Party tends to follow the pattern outlined in Gandhi’s famous saying, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” The corporate media tried to ignore us for years. Now they seem to have moved on to the “laugh”phase.

This was largely the case with Stein’s campaign last year. ABC News political blogger, Matt Negrin dismissed not just the Greens but third-parties in general, claiming their ideas “tend to be a bit radical”(06/06/12). Those “radical” ideas include cutting the bloated, wasteful military-spending budget, legalizing marijuana (a concept now supported by a majority of Americans) and creating decent, well-paying jobs. He’s right--such common sense policies are way too radical for Disney-owned, ABC. In a follow-up article some weeks later (07/11/12), Negrin condescendingly calls third-party candidates a “fun footnote in U.S. presidential elections.”

In a rigged, one-party system where it is virtually impossible to vote against a Wall Street sponsored, corporatist candidate, the Green Party is the only genuine grassroots party that speaks for the citizens.“The politics of fear has given us everything we were afraid of,” Stein said. She is right: The corporate media are afraid of us. That is why they go out of their way to mock, ridicule and belittle us. The last thing they want is for informed, morally conscious voters to take us seriously.

And this sort of negative coverage is not limited to the national media. Bollard editor and Bangor Daily News blogger, Chris Busby has been waging a personal vendetta against recently elected Portland School Board member and Green, Holly Seeliger for several months now.

Two weeks ago, he devoted an entire column to discrediting her (“Taking ‘sexist’ back,” 04/25/13). In it Busby writes, without a hint of irony, of his detractors, “…the people who resort to personal attacks and name-calling are morons.” Yup. You’ve got that right, Chris.
To date, I have not read one substantive criticism Busby has of Seeliger’s politics, school reform proposals, or votes. His comments are almost exclusively about Seeliger’s hobby of burlesque dancing. If Busby has a legitimate gripe with an elected official, that is one thing. But he doesn’t. In fact, the man has nothing of substance to say about anyone or anything. If Holly were not a Green I highly doubt he would devote nearly as much ink to her.

Democratic apparatchiks like Maine Rep. John Hink persist in baselessly blaming Ralph Nader for throwing the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. This argument ignores the fact that Al Gore won the election. It was the Supreme Court—engaging in the same sort of “judicial activism” its conservative members constantly decry by those on the left—that voted to end the Florida recount, thus handing the presidency to Bush. More importantly, this entire argument hinges on the presupposition that, had Nader not been an option on the ballot, Green voters would have automatically selected Gore as their default candidate. Some of them likely would have done so, yes. But most Greens I know do not compromise so easily. Had Nader not been running, it is more conceivable those voters would have simply stayed home.

Yet 13 years later this bogus notion that Nader“stole votes” from Gore refuses to die. (Point of clarification for liberals: Greens do not “steal” votes. They earn them.) Democrats hysterically trot it out every election cycle to scare progressives into voting against their own interests. Democrats’marginalization of Nader comes directly out of the Republican playbook: Shoot the messenger, ignore the message. It is the same tactic they have used more recently to smear Julian Assange (“Rapist!”) and Bradley Manning (“Angry gay!”). Nader’s public transformation from honored consumer advocate, to egomaniacal “spoiler” was no accident. The corporate-controlled Democratic Party orchestrated it.

As John Stauber writes in a recent article for Counterpunch (“The Progressive Movement is a PR Front for Rich Democrats,”March 15-17, 2013):

“After the 2000 presidential election…rich liberal Democratic elite began discussing, conspiring and networking together to try and make sure that no scruffy, radical political insurgency like the Nader 2000 campaign would again raise its political head. They generally loved Al Gore, the millionaire technocrat, and they put in play actions which led to the creation of a movement of their own that aped the right-wing’s institutions.”

Being Green makes you something of a pariah not only in politics, but even in everyday social interactions. A recent encounter with BDN blogger, Carol McCracken at the grocery store, serves as a perfect example. “You’re a Green, huh?” McCracken sneered upon seeing my Maine Greens pin on my jacket. She then proudly informed me, “I never vote Green.”

I responded as I always do in these sorts of exchanges. I asked her, “Which of our Ten Key Values do you disagree with?”McCracken did not respond to my question, which indicates to me she is not familiar with any of the Key Values. (In other words, she has completely dismissed a political party she knows next to nothing about. Good to know she is such an informed voter.)
Instead she repeated robotically, “I never vote Green!” After Mrs. McCracken lectured me on how marijuana is the “gateway drug,” Congress Square Park should “absolutely” be sold to private realtors, and would-be City Councilor Wells Lyons (I hear he’s running again this year) is a “covert Green,” I managed to cordially end the conversation and escape to the check-out line.

This is the sort of treatment Greens receive on a regular basis. Even the seemingly innocuous act of grocery shopping turns into a political debate over our very right to exist. Of all my quirky, left-leaning pins and t-shirts, none provoke as much rage from liberals as the one that says simply, “Maine Greens,” with a hand-drawn dandelion flower.
To watch the video stream of the May 5, 2013 Maine Green Independent Party convention in Belfast, ME, click here.


May 6, 2013

May 2, 2013

[music] don't let'm lie



Does the money grow the food?
No. The Farmer grows the food.
Don't let them lie to you.
We don't need their money, not like they say we do.

If you like it, please donate --------->

Seattle Police get violent on May Day

They are probably still butthurt over the 1999 WTO protests

April 30, 2013

A Question of Torture




 
"Anyone who fights with monsters should take care that he does not in the process become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes back into you."
                                                                                          - Friedrich Nietzsche

Amid the frantic, nonstop media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, another equally horrific news story was, perhaps predictably, overshadowed. A nonpartisan, independent review commissioned by the Constitution Project confirmed what many of us had long known: The United States, in the years following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, deliberately and knowingly engaged in torture.

The nearly 600-page report concludes the U.S., in the aftermath of 9/11, “indisputably” engaged in “the practice of torture,” and that the highest officials within the Bush administration bear responsibility for it according to The New York Times(04/16/13). The authors of the report called the widespread use of torture unprecedented. “[There had never before been] the kind of considered and detailed discussions… directly involving a president and his top advisors on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody,” the report states.

The report’s authors find “no justification” for the use of torture. They add that it “damaged the standing of our nation, reduced our capacity to convey moral censure when necessary and potentially increased the danger to U.S. military personnel taken captive.”

This is certainly not news for most citizens. Most Americans—whether they approve of such heinous practices or not—at least have some inkling of the government’s use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” But the panel’s report should finally put an end to any remaining debate or uncertainty (most of it generated by the corporate media) that still surrounds the issue.

Regardless, Americans’ general response to these findings has been a collective shrug. Perhaps that is due to a general acceptance (among both conservatives and liberals) of torture as a legitimate interrogation technique in the “war on terror.”

A poll conducted last fall by Professor Amy Zegart of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution finds 41 percent of respondents support the use of torture in questioning designated “enemy combatants”—an increase of 14 points since 2007. An additional 25 percent believe it is acceptable to use nuclear weapons to combat terrorists, while a whopping 69 percent favor killing suspected terrorists outright through targeted assassination programs.

Zegart attributes the steady climb in support for torture (which, curiously has increased, rather than decreased during the Obama years) to popular portrayals in shows like 24 and this year’s Oscar nominated film, Zero Dark Thirty. I believe it has more to do with the simplistic dichotomization and overalldumbing down of our political culture. But pop-culture’s pervasive glorification of sadistic acts of torture by rugged heroes like Jack Bauer likely does not help.

Of course, torture’s widespread public acceptance and support does not change the fact such inhumane treatment is still illegal under dozens of international laws. While comedian Jon Stewart may disagree, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other prominent administration figures, according to the dictates of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture (both of which the U.S. is a signatory to), are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. They should all be in prison. Yet immediately after taking office, Barack Obama nixed any notion of criminal investigations for illegal acts committed by the members of the Bush administration, preferring to “look forward rather than backward.”

Not only was Obama’s refusal to prosecute Bush and Co. politically cowardly, legalistically speaking it was downright asinine. Law enforcement is, by its very nature, predicated on “looking backward” as that is precisely where the crime has occurred—in the past. Consider the utter absurdity of Jack Abramoff, Adam Lanza or even Boston bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev pleading to a courtroom, “Your honor, my crimes all occurred in the past. We need to look forward rather than backward so we can heal as a nation.”

Indeed, without justice, victims can never “move forward.” In the words of Saint Augustine, “Charity is no substitute for justice denied.”
Instead of a jail cell, George W. Bush received an honorary presidential library. As Ralph Nader observes in a recent article (“He is Comfortable in Bush’s Inferno,” 04/21/2013), the traditional rule of law that once governed our nation—which clearly lays out a formal process of impeaching criminal presidents—no longer seems to apply. “The American people have yet to come to terms with the reality that presidents are above the law,” Nader writes. “Presidents can commit repeated crimes in an outlaw presidency so long as they can invoke, however falsely and vaguely, national security.”

Torture is never justified. Never mind its proven failure to solicit accurate, useful information from its victims. Torture represents the ultimate debasement of one’s humanity. Those who resort to torture succumb to the most savage, sinister urges of human nature.

Torture, Chilean author Ariel Dorfman wrote, “presupposes, it requires, it craves the abrogation of our capacity to imagine others’suffering, dehumanizing them so much that their pain is not our pain. It demands this of the torturer, placing the victim outside and beyond any form of compassion or empathy, but also demands of everyone else the same distancing, the same numbness…”

But torture is more than just brute, physical harm. As Naomi Klein explains in her superb book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism the torturer’s ultimate goal is to psychically erase the prisoner’s identity and create a new one from scratch. Psychologist and shock-therapy innovator, Ewen Cameron, sadistically used electroshock treatment on his patients in an effort to literally wipe their minds clean—to create a “blank slate” onto which he could start anew.

This is how the totalitarian Party finally “reforms”Winston Smith in George Orwell’s 1984.

“We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves,” O’ Brien tells Winston during the novel’s grim and lengthy torture sequence. And so they do. By the dystopian novel’s end, the rebel Winston finally pledges his unwavering loyalty to Big Brother.

“Nothing in the world was so bad as physical pain,”Orwell wrote of Winston’s torture. “In the face of pain there are no heroes, no heroes, he thought over and over as he writhed on the floor…”

April 29, 2013

Left Forum: I'll be on a panel there.



I might also be selling t-shirts. Be sure to swing by and say hello.

Does the US Forest Service love fracking?

In case you didn't know, the US Forest Service is currently pursuing charges against environmental activst, artist (and Green Party member) Lmnopi for an anti-fracking parody she made.



You can check out her store here.

You can also send the US Forest Service a letter asking them if they love fracking or something. I've included below my letter to them:


SUBJ: Does the US Forest Service love Fracking?

Dear US Forest Service,
Just wondering if you guys love fracking or something.

It just seems weird that you would be pursuing charges against an environmental activst/artist who has a design that is CLEARLY a parody (and I'm confident you're going to lose your case), and not a plagery of your precious anti-forest fire cartoon bear spokesperson.

Is the environmental damage from fracking less permenant and widespread than forest fires?

I can't wrap my head around what your angle is here.

If smokey were a real bear, and could understand that fracking is the reason he's getting cancer from eating fish that swim in contaminated streams, he'd be PISSED.

So I have to ask again, does the US Forest Service love fracking?

You can ask them yourself by clicking here: http://www.fs.fed.us/contactus/

April 25, 2013

Abolish the Federal Government: a tactical plan

There is a formula that has worked over and over. It's working right
now in Spain. It worked in Iceland.

For your consideration, something I wrote on the Occupy Congress wiki
during the leadup to #j17 last year:

1) Create a series of demands that will work in the favor of the 99%
that Congress cannot agree to without systemically and radically
altering the way that politics works in the US. (things like
proportional representation, full public financing for elections,
Ranked choice or Approval voting to replace the "first past the post"
we currently have, ending corporate personhood, etc)

2) To avoid the appearance of being unhinged or radical or fringe, do
“what we're supposed to” and arrange for meetings with every member of
congress over a period of two or so days, centered on getting binding
agreements to those demands a la Grover Norquists pledge to never
raise taxes.

Those demands must strike a root problems, and be both short term
(commitment to introduce legislation within weeks, such as: mandatory
clean elections modeled on Maine's original clean election system (or
better), a repeal of the NDAA sections that regard indefinite
detention, a constitutional amendment stating clearly that
corporations are not people) as well as longer term (pledging to run
on clean elections funds in the next election).

(Long term beyond the next election is unnecessary. This is where we
will differ from nonprofits, who get pledges for things, like dropping
the keystone pipeline, and then are continually disappointed when
their issue gets thrown under the bus one election cycle later. We are
interested in systemic change, right now, not next election cycle. If
they do not comply by the time they adjourn for the next election
season, we will nonviolently remove them from office either through
electoral activism or demands for resignation (or both). But they
don't need to know that. We will give them the opportunity to fail.
Their arrogance will only make our case for their removal even
stronger in the public's eye, which is how we build the popular
support for their removal.)

3) those who refuse to make a binding agreement to any part of our
demands, or those who do not make good on their promises within the
timeline we set, we follow up with them, confronting them directly and
openly (and on tape).

4) we take direct action demanding they make good on their promises.
This includes, but is not limited to, occupations of their office
buildings.

5) when that fails (it will probably fail), we shift from filling
legislative demands to demanding immediate resignation. Special
elections be held in their home districts if they do resign. This part
is fun and sexy, and raises a ton of media attention around our
issues.

6) from local Occupy Movements in those congressperson's districts,
sevb>eral people are chosen to challenge our target congressperson in
the primaries, in ALL parties, so that both major party must face
challangers from within, as well as from outside (libertarian party,
green party, reform party, etc, depending on what third party has
ballot access-- OR running as independents.)

During this stage, there must be a real effort on the part of all
Occupy candidates to demonstrate solidarity across transpartisan
lines, and the focus MUST be exclusively on the narrow demands for
electoral reform.

Both primary and general election challengers who abides by the
narrowly focused Occupy demands for electoral reform.

Our delegate to congress must also, (obviously) make a binding agreement to:
a) run using clean election money
b) make their first act in office creating legislation that meets
whatever other demand there is (amendment to the constitution
declaring that corporations are not people and that money is not
speech, a law to make clean elections funds [based on Maine's original
clean elections law] the ONLY way to run for office, etc)
c) as soon as their narrow policy goal is achieved, RESIGN.

7) local occupations work their asses off electing their delegates in
every party primary, and then in the general election as well.

This is the transpartisan electoral strategy is exactly what has been
employed by the 1% and it works. We too must employ a transpartisan
stragey as well to counter.

Electoral activism becomes irrelevant if we are able to demand the
resignation of the entire government and call a constitutional
convention, as they did in Iceland, and as they are trying to do now
in Spain, but I don't think it should be removed from the toolbox.

April 22, 2013

Plant a Seed - Grow a Revolution

Stop CISPA

CLICK HERE, TAKE ACTION

Update: CISPA passed the House in a surprise vote on Thursday evening. You can still take action below, but now the fight moves to the Senate. We will have more updates soon.

***

On the heels of the SOPA and PIPA comes a new debacle, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which gives the intelligence community and private businesses free rein to delve into any citizen's everyday internet activity.

CISPA allows companies and the government to bypass existing laws in order to monitor our communications, filter content, or potentially even shut down access to online services for undefined “cybersecurity" purposes. But what it doesn't do is provide any new protections for critical infrastructure systems, like electrical grids and water supplies. Some security that is!

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill on Friday, April 27 Thursday evening, April 26. Send an email to your member of Congress telling him or her to vote no. (email can be edited)

CLICK HERE, TAKE ACTION

April 18, 2013

[quote] a well regulated militia

"I've changed my mind. Any person should be able to purchase any weapon they want. But in accordance with the constitution they should be part of a militia. So if you'd like to purchase an assault rifle please do. Directly after purchase you can hop on a plane and go serve our country on the front lines using whatever weapon you wish. If you think that sounds crazy...how's about reading what the reasoning of our founders was when they drafter the second amendment:

'In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about "organizing", "disciplining", "arming", and "training" of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.'

No need for a draft. All you basically need is an NRA membership and you're on the front lines right after boot camp."

--Nate Amadon

April 16, 2013

Goodbye Social Security


During the Sex Pistols’ final show on January 14, 1978, singer Johnny Rotten, in a last ditch snarl of punk-rock defiance, asked the crowd, tauntingly, “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?”
I could put the same question to supporters of Barack Obama.

President Obama’s proposed budget, which he unveiled this past week, calls for cuts to Social Security and Medicare. This makes Obama the first Democratic president in history to officially propose cuts to the cherished programs—often considered the political apex of liberalism. An editorial headline in the latest issue of The Socialist Worker (04/10/2013) sums it up best: “With friends like this, who needs Republicans?”

While liberals and many congressional Democrats cried out in dismay, Obama’s latest political maneuver should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. The president first offered Social Security and Medicare cuts during 2011’s debt negotiations as part of a so-called “Grand Bargain” with House Republicans. A Grand Betrayal is a more accurate term.

Yet most liberals must have missed this story two years ago, because protecting social programs was THE major reason progressives cited for backing Obama’s re-election last fall. “If you care at all about the social safety net,” the argument went, “you will vote for Obama.”

The Portland Phoenix summed up this liberal hyperbole in their endorsement for Obama’s re-election (“The Obama Imperative,” 10/31/2012), which the editors called one of two things “stand[ing] between almost certain economic and social catastrophe.” (The other thing, they claimed, was the Democrats “maintaining—or expanding—their majority in the Senate.”)

Well, turns out we got both those things and we are still headed for catastrophe. But remember: Mitt Romney would have been so much worse…!

As always, it is instructive to observe how the corporate media are spinning Obama’s budget. In fact, many liberal pundits are praising Obama’s “compromise” as a laudable “move to the center,” in an effort to stake out the politically coveted “middle ground.”

This is precisely how NPR’s Cokie Roberts portrayed the budget last week on Morning Edition(04/08/2013). “This is a move towards the middle,” she said, “to getting those independent voters who he [Obama] lost in the last election…by emphasizing deficits which is something they say they care about.”

Over at The Washington Post, meanwhile, Dana Milbank mocked socialist independent Sen. Bernie Sanders for his vocal denouncement of Obama’s plan to cut social services.“For Sanders,” Milbank writes, “…the betrayal stung so badly that he literally took to the streets, joining left-wing activists for a protest…outside the White House” (04/09/13).

By casting Sanders and any other progressives who would dare oppose the president’s budget as part of the “extreme left,” Milbank insinuates this is merely another traditional “left-right” issue—with “centrist moderates” presumably approving of the plan. He writes:

[I]n reality, the progressives’ street protest did Obama a favor. He needs to have the likes of Bernie Sanders against him. It strengthens his hand and helps him negotiate a better deal with Republican leaders, who can now see that liberal backbenchers and interest groups can sometimes be as intransient as conservatives.

Milbank goes on to claim Obama’s proposal “restores his credibility on the budget.”

“His previous budgets, which skirted entitlement cuts, weren’t taken seriously,” he writes. “Now Obama, by publicly defying liberals in his party, looks like the reasonable one…”

But “reasonable” to whom…? Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans—liberals, conservatives and independents alike—strongly support Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. In fact, a poll in Milbank’s own paper last summer (08/21/2012) found a mere 17 percent favor cuts to Medicare, while 21 percent support cutting Social Security. In other words, there is no middle on this issue. It is the president’s budget that is extreme—not those opposing it.

News surrounding Obama’s social services slashing comes as Wall Street hit record highs last week. USA Today, without a hint of irony, marked the occasion with the exclamatory headline (03/29/13), “We’re Feeling Rich Again.” Well, I’m glad someone is. Wish I could say the same, myself. Warren Buffett was right: “It is class warfare, and my class has won.”

Here is what readers need to know about Social Security and other earned income benefits, err… I mean “entitlements.”

Social Security does not contribute one dime to the federal deficit. And contrary to Washington talking points, there is nothing wrong with Social Security’s overall sustainability. (It may need some minor tweaking down the road, but the program is structurally sound.) Medicare, likewise, is projected to remain financially viable until at least 2024 and even then there will still be enough in the fund to pay 87 percent of benefits.

Even if these social programs did add to the deficit (which, again, they don’t)…So what? The deficit is a red herring—a distraction. The notion that, in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, we must focus solely on paying down the national debt is idiotic. Paul Krugman is (mostly) right: The U.S. government should be paying more money to stimulate the economy and encourage job creation—not looking to cut benefits Americans have paid into all of their working lives.

The debt is a problem to be certain and we should deal with it at some point. Right now, however, it is a major distraction from our nation’s real dilemma—mass unemployment.

Meanwhile, as working-class, elderly, poor and disabled Americans are being asked to sacrifice these earned income benefits, corporations like General Electric and Pfizer continue to enjoy myriad, extravagant types of corporate welfare in the form of bailouts, subsidies, off-shore accounts and tax-cuts. As I write this, it is Tax Day and G.E. has not paid any income taxes since 2010—possibly even earlier. And G.E. is just one of dozens of other multinational corporations that make record profits but pay virtually no taxes. But you and I still have to.

Liberals’ feigned outrage over Obama’s budget is just that. The president is merely doing what he has, for two years now, said he would do. Chris Hedges is right: The liberal class believes in nothing. And now, it appears it is getting what it paid for.

Adam Marletta is a writer, activist and coffee-fiend. He is the former chair and current secretary of the Portland Green Independent Committee and editor of the political commentary blog, Guerrilla Press. He lives in Portland, Maine and supports all things Green Party.

April 8, 2013

Renegade Journalism from Mayflower, AK

If it's illegal to tell the truth, break the law.


via LiveLeaks

04/07/2013

Yesterday, activist indy news team JNL RadikalMedia did what the mainstream media won’t or can’t do, providing exclusive video from the scene of Exxon’s oil pipeline spill in Mayflower, Arkansas.

The video shows what can only be described as a lake of oil. Allegedly Exxon has been pumping the spill into this area. Exxon’s absorbent pads aka paper towels can also be seen scattered across the ground.







Video streaming by Ustream

Originally the FAA issued a no-fly zone over the area, but after major scrutiny, particularly from online activists, they partially lifted order, allowing news organizations interested in filming from the air to do so.

The same does not go for media trying to cover the scene from the ground. Reporters say Exxon has threatened to have them arrested for merely entering the spill site.

To which, the journalists have this to say:

April 3, 2013

Iraq All Over Again...?



I was in my sophomore year of college when the U.S. launched the Iraq War. I remember watching President George W. Bush’s U.N. address where he presented the dubious “evidence” concerning Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction.”

Even then, I was skeptical of the rationales for the invasion. I remember getting into heated debates with fellow students over the war. And I will never forget how even many of the campus liberals bought, hook, line and sinker, the bogus allegations of Iraq’s stockpiles of WMDs—how they too, waved the American flag in favor of war. Many of those same liberals have, in the years since the war’s start, naturally changed their tune. Some will even claim that they too, opposed the war from the start. But I was there. I know better.

In the ten years since the start of the Iraq War—an illegal, unjustified invasion based entirely on lies and deliberate fabrications of evidence—it is frustrating to watch the U.S. media repeat the same uncritical, stenographic reporting that helped launch the war. Indeed, recent news coverage of Iran and Syria—replete with renewed claims of both countries’ alleged nuclear and chemical weapons—suggest the corporate media have learned quite little.

The press’s failure to debunk—or even offer the remotest of skepticism—to the Bush administration’s bogus war rationales has been well documented.

In fact, it was the supposedly “liberal” outlets (The New York Times, MSNBC, CBS News) that campaigned the hardest for the war. (And yet the baseless “liberal media”myth nonetheless persists.)
Even the celebrated Bill Moyers was reprimanded by PBS (that’s right: the “non-commercial,” Public Broadcasting Network) for his critical coverage in the lead-up to the invasion. And MSNBC famously pulled the plug on Phil Donahue’s popular news show when he dared to feature critics of the impending war. As Donahue explained in a recent appearance on Democracy Now!, “I had to have two conservatives for every liberal on the show. I could have [neoconservative Bush consultant] Richard Perle on alone but not Dennis Kucinich.”

Now the saber-rattling media have turned their sights on Syria and Iran.

Reports of Syria’s government using chemical weapons on rebel fighters in the country’s ongoing civil war could lead to a more pronounced U.S. involvement in the conflict. Speaking in Israel last month, President Obama called the use of chemical weapons a “game changer,” according to The New York Times (03/21/13). With Israel now expressing concerns over Syria’s alleged chemical weapons, some fear a broader American commitment in Syria may be on the horizon.

Anybody else feeling a sense of deja vu, here?

As with Iraq, there is reason to doubt the media’s claims of chemical weapons in Syria—as indicated, perhaps inadvertently, by the NYT story itself. Reporters Mark Landler and Rick Gladstone make clear two paragraphs into the front-page article:

“American officials reiterated that they did not have independent evidence that chemical weapons had been used…”

Any logical person, after reading this sentence would, one imagines, wonder what accounts for the article’s remaining 23 paragraphs. If there is no actual evidence of chemical weapons use, then what is the story, here…? Well, in typical both-sides-are-valid-facts-be-damned, “objective”reporting, the story is that Israeli government officials, despite the complete lack of tangible, verifiable evidence, nonethelesscontend Syria possesses chemical weapons.

The report goes on:

“Two senior Israeli officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak, said that Israel was sure that chemicals were used, but did not have details about what type of weapons were used, where they came from, when they were deployed, or by whom.”

Well, that pretty much satisfies the five reporting “W”s. What is most curious about these anonymous “senior Israeli officials,” is their remarks seem to contradict those of Israeli cabinet ministers, Tzipi Livni and Yuval Steinetz. The story notes how both leaders have taken to the airwaves recently, claiming to have “credible evidence” of Syria’s use of chemical weapons.

“Ms. Livni, the new Israeli justice minister, said in an interview with CNN, ‘It’s clear for us here in Israel that it’s [chemical weapons] being used,’ adding, ‘This, I believe, should be on the table in the discussions.’”

This sort of “he-said-she-said” reporting essentially leaves it up to the reader to decide what the truth is. Regardless, it is pretty clear which side is really gunning for a U.S. invasion, here. Israel already launched an air attack on Syria earlier this year. According to Jason Ditz of Antiwar.com (03/17/2013),

Israel’s government is keen to move from the air strikes against Syria to a more full-scale offensive, with the possibility of seizing more Syrian territory as a “buffer zone” being raised, even though Israel already took a buffer zone in 1973 and never gave it back.

It is worth reminding readers of Israel’s role in pressuring the Bush administration to invade Iraq—an often overlooked aspect to the run-up to the war. In fact, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal in September, 2002 titled, “The Case for Toppling Saddam.”

As for the U.S. and Israel’s next potential target,Iran, again the media seems determined to repeat the mistakes of Iraq. Despite what you may have heard on mainstream television news, there is actually zero evidence that Iran is currently developing a nuclear weapon. Last year, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta publicly admitted as much. The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz even conceded the lack of evidence in a 2012 story. The article states: “The intelligence assessment Israeli officials will present later this week… indicates that Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb” (01/18/2012). And a 2011 reportissued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) offered the same conclusions.

Have the U.S. media learned nothing from the last ten years? Sad to say, but drumming up support for unnecessary, immoral and illegal wars seems to be one of the few things the corporate media can be counted on for.


Adam Marletta is a writer, activist and coffee-fiend. He is the former chair and current secretary of the Portland Green Independent Committee and editor of the political commentary blog, Guerrilla Press. He lives in Portland, Maine and supports all things Green Party.

March 28, 2013

Why the Green Party? Or: Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy



SUPPORT INDY MEDIA: ‪http://bit.ly/7OwKc2‬
BLOG: ‪http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com‬
FACEBOOK: ‪http://bit.ly/1OtiqI‬
TWITTER: ‪http://www.twitter.com/punkpatriot‬
SHIRTS: ‪http://punkpatriot.etsy.com‬
BECOME A SUSTAINER: Click here


So my computer has slowly been dying. Weird things have been happening. The screen is getting glitchy. And nowadays I can't edit a video without the harddrive seizing up and shutting off.

I am currently unemployed. No, wait. THIS IS my job. I make t-shirts, I make videos, I do interviews with interesting and intelligent people, and then make that content available to you.

I don't make any money via ad revenue. This is ad-free content.
I don't get paid by any corporation. I rely on the support of you, the audience (just like NPR does.)

While I am searching constantly for side-work to help pay the bills, the only callbacks I'm getting are for things like medical jobs I'm not qualified or suited for, and valet parking. I'm actually hoping to take a valet parking job, where I'll be making $5 an hour. That's where I'm at right now.

I'm not asking you to buy me a new computer. I'm asking for help with getting a computer so that I can continue to produce the content you apparently like (for some reason).

If everybody who "likes" the Punk Patriot's facebook page and reads this blog chipped in $0.50, It would be more than enough:
Donate

Raised so far:
View Progress

March 23, 2013

Another note from 2008.

Another facebook note somebody dug up from 2008:

"Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 10:04am

I voted my conscience this election. I refused to vote out of fear.

I refused to vote for a candidate who supported big coal, big nuclear.
I refused to vote for a candidate who advocated permanent military bases in Iraq.
I refused to vote for a candidate who supported Faith-Based initiatives.
I refused to vote for a candidate who has received millions of dollars from hedge fund managers and wall street speculators.
I refused to vote for a candidate who approved Telecom Immunity, overturning my 4th amendment rights.
I refused to vote for a candidate who supports the Neo-Con foreign policy of "First Strike Defense."
I refused to vote for a candidate who authorized and reauthorized the USAPATRIOT act.
I refused to vote for a candidate who supports NAFTA or the WTO, because I want to bring American jobs back home.
I refused to vote for a candidate who has repeatedly funded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I voted for a candidate who supports full marriage equality for all Americans.
I voted for a candidate who supports a humble non-interventionist foreign policy.

I voted for a candidate whose platform I believed in 100%.

I didn't vote for Obama. I couldn't have if I wanted to do any of the above.

I voted "Third-Party." I knew my candidate was going to lose, and I voted as I did because I refused to compromise my personal platform.

And the sky didn't fall.
In fact, Obama won in a landslide, just like all the polls predicted.
He won all four of Maine's 4 electoral votes, just as the polls predicted.
Obama won.
But did you win?

That remains to be seen. Now is the time that we must pay even greater attention and follow policy with ever increasing scrutiny.

Voting is not the end of your responsibilities as a citizen... it's only the beginning.

Now is the time that we need to shift our focus from the Presidency to the Legislative branch-- where the real power is. They have the ability to legislate. We need to start an active citizen lobby if we're going to change the course in Washington.

Prepare to be disappointed in Obama's policies, and prepare to work harder than ever for the things you believe in."

Damn it, I hate being right about this stuff. -- The Punk Patriot

March 19, 2013

My Interview with Will Hopkins, Exec Dir of NH Peace Action

I interview Will Hopkins, Exec Dir of NH Peace Action. We talk about his time in Iraq, drones, the constitution, and how the Democratic Party apparently hates its own base.

Part 1:


Part 2:


NH Peace Action's webpage: nhpeaceaction.org


SUPPORT INDY MEDIA: ‪http://bit.ly/7OwKc2‬
BLOG: ‪http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com‬
FACEBOOK: ‪http://bit.ly/1OtiqI‬
TWITTER: ‪http://www.twitter.com/punkpatriot‬
SHIRTS: ‪http://punkpatriot.etsy.com‬
BECOME A SUSTAINER: Click here



So my computer has slowly been dying. Weird things have been happening. The screen is getting glitchy. And nowadays I can't edit a video without the harddrive seizing up and shutting off.

I am currently unemployed. No, wait. THIS IS my job. I make t-shirts, I make videos, I do interviews with interesting and intelligent people, and then make that content available to you.

I don't make any money via ad revenue. This is ad-free content.
I don't get paid by any corporation. I rely on the support of you, the audience (just like NPR does.)

While I am searching constantly for side-work to help pay the bills, the only callbacks I'm getting are for things like medical jobs I'm not qualified or suited for, and valet parking. I'm actually hoping to take a valet parking job, where I'll be making $5 an hour. That's where I'm at right now.

I'm not asking you to buy me a new computer. I'm asking for help with getting a computer so that I can continue to produce the content you apparently like (for some reason).

If everybody who "likes" the Punk Patriot's facebook page and reads this blog chipped in $0.50, It would be more than enough:
Donate

Raised so far:
View Progress

Insight from 2008

I don't know what happened recently, but people have been going through notes and photos that I'd posted on my personal facebook page going all the way back to when I first joined (I was an early adopter).

And the things that have been coming up, are interesting. They are like time capsules.

This note was written the day I quit the Democratic Party  for good, and became a dedicated volunteer for the Green Party:

Monday, September 29, 2008 at 10:32am

Not surprisingly the League of Young Voters has endorsed almost all Democrats. Way to propagate the systems of control, League... But I didn't care so much about that, what really bugged me was this:

The Maine league's endorsement statement on Cynthia McKinney/ Rosa Clemente: 

"The League feels that these lesser-known candidates for the presidency deserve their close attention. Cynthia McKinney is a former Democratic legislator with two terms in the Georgia House and six terms in the U.S. House under her belt. She has sponsored legislation that seeks to pursue equality and justice for women, children, and racial minorities. In the late 90’s, President Clinton asked her to work abroad in Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, promoting diplomatic and economic ties. She has enthusiastically taken on the fight for many causes of the disenfranchised: Katrina evacuees, veterans, and families of 9/11 victims. Cynthia’s running mate, Rosa Clemente, is highly respected organizer in the hip-hop community as a fearless and eloquent champion of education and human rights. Their positions are firmly aligned with The League’s, yet we need candidates who have the clout to win."

And you refuse to work to bring them that clout. Ron Paul didn't "have the clout to win," and he was able to send a tidal wave through the political scene when he raised 6 million dollars in one day-- because people didn't care that they were being told he couldn't win-- they just worked FOR WHAT WAS RIGHT. That means something to some people. Not liberals apparently.

And here's their slightly slanderous statement on Ralph Nader:

After almost two decades of unsuccessful bids for the presidency and mounting controversy about stealing the presidential election in 2000, Nader is back and has received enough signatures to be on the ballot in all 50 states. This time he’s not reppin’ the Green Party; he’s an Independent who is running with Matt Gonzalez, an attorney and former President of the Board of Supervisors (think City Council) in San Francisco. Nader has spent the last 50 years working to change public policy and has been influential in creating these consumer protection agencies and laws: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. His major interests are to ensure that we end corporate welfare, to strengthen our civil rights and protections, and to cut the “bloated, wasteful military budget.” He’s proven that he has the power and influence actually to get himself on the ballot as an Independent, but unfortunately that doesn’t translate into having momentum to win."

Yeah, because that's what the League does-- THEY PICK THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO WIN ANYWAYS.

And the 2000 election? WTF? It was the League who introduced me to the film "unprecedented" which clearly shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the election was stolen by REPUBLICANS not Ralph Nader! That election was engineered by people in the Florida State legislature to be fraudulant. Leauge, HOW DARE YOU BLAME VOTERS FOR CHOOSING SOMEBODY THAT REPRESENTS THEM!!?

And ballot access is a herculean task, as ballot access laws largely favor the two parties (even when they break the law). For instance, Bob Bar was the only candidate who filed in time for the Texas Ballot. He is still the only one who is LEGALLY on the ballot. But the Texas Elections board illegally accepted the signatures of the Democratic and Republican parties PAST THE DATE. Can you imagine them doing this for a third party candidate?

For Nader to be on as many ballots as he he is (which is an historic amount for a third party candidacy) is a testament in and of itsself as to the organization and effectiveness of the campaign he is running. And the League should recognize this and push for his inclusion in the Debates as well!

Instead you endorsed the Bush-FISA approving, wiretapping expanding, faith-based initiative funding, Iraq War reauthorizing, Credit Card Company favoring, bankruptcy law changing, USAPATRIOT act reauthorizing, Bush Bailout pushing, Obama/Biden ticket?!?

I JUST LOST ALL RESPECT FOR YOU, LEAGUE!

You've become caught up in the same marginalizing politics of dispair that has crippled the Democratic party into compromising everything they stand for away.

March 16, 2013

Bradley Manning Vs. Oliver North



Subscribe to Dennis Trainor's Channel: - http://bit.ly/VUl21B

Broadcast United States vs. Pfc. Bradley Manning on C-Span petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/broadcast-united-states-vs-pfc-bradley-mannings-trial-c-span/JVY0DCT3

The trial of United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning is expected to begin on June 3, 2013. C-SPAN should be granted access to show the proceedings on television and the Internet, live or with a short delay to appease security concerns. No matter your opinion on this case, the fact remains that it is of very high interest to the public and should be made available for all, not just those who can attend. Bradley Manning is facing life in prison for an "Aiding the Enemy" charge, yet he has been nominated for 3 Nobel Peace Prizes. Being the largest government leak trial in our history, this is a highly controversial case with opinions of Manning ranging from traitor to hero. This would be a great resource for lawyers, law students, journalists, and those with limited access or means of travel.

March 14, 2013

March 12, 2013

How corporations are mixing sawdust into our food. [Lee Camp: Moment of Clarity #213 ]



Inch by inch, dollar by dollar, the corporate power elite chip away at a comfortable life for 99% of the population. It's not always noticeable at first, but it adds up. Here are some is some of the information referenced in the video- Walmart sued: http://aol.it/S7SvRt Christine Quinn says no paid sick leave: http://nydn.us/VS19bS

This kid is badass

I know him personally. He is a badass.

Watch a 9 year old boy testifies to the Maine Public Utilities Commission about the inappropriateness of a 45 year contract for Nestle's unfettered access to their municipal water supply. Because of Maine's weak groundwater protection laws, Nestle is using the MPUC to help drive their agenda in their control over Maine's water resources.

The Governor of Maine, Paul LePage appoints the PUC commissioners. The commissioners all have ties to Nestle or the law firm that represents them in Maine. Not Ethical...

Lee Camp on RT talking about the TPP

March 11, 2013

My Testimony at the South Portland City Council hearing on Tar Sands

Hi there.

My name is Asher Platts, I live in Portland.

I grew up in an oil family. I have been inside of the corporate offices of Exxon-Mobil in Dallas and Fort Worth. I grew up reading industry memos and publications. For that reason I want to thank all the oil executives for coming out here today to spread disinformation and thwart democracy.

Disinformation doesn't have to be false-- most of the information they presented tonight, like the stuff about the ambient temperature of the pipeline and so forth, while much if it may have been factually true, had nothing to do with tar sands. I thought that was clever of them to include so much irrelevant information to distract us from the issue at hand. Well done.

We hear a lot about how Portland Pipeline creates jobs here in South Portland. I happen to know that Portland Pipeline is hostile towards their union. I believe it's the USW. I think that's great. Because really-- why should workers get paid? I mean at all? And if you have workers falling off of the docks into freezing cold ocean water-- I say, "let the free market decide whether or not there is adequate guard rails."

Now one of the cardinal rules of business is that the opportunity for profit comes with risk-- to which I say, "so what?"

Let's remember what's really at stake here-- millions of dollars for a small number of corporate executives. I mean, are we going to let the health and safety of the people of Southern Maine stand in the way of THAT?

I know I personally would be glad to die of cancer so that an oil executive could make even one additional dollar. So long as they are able to turn a profit, I will know my untimely death will not have been in vain.

I would urge you to vote in favor of re-permitting these smoke stacks so that tar sands can be brought to South Portland from Canada. It's our duty as Americans to make sure that the people who have all the money always get exactly what they want, no matter how many people suffer because of it.

Thank you,
Asher Platts

March 5, 2013

[MUSIC] Cuddle Magic

I can't stop listening to this album.

Also, after discovering this band and not knowing who was in it, I found out that somebody my brother and I went to high school with is a member of this Brooklyn-based chamber ensemble. Small world. Especially when you're from Maine.


Bradley Manning and "Collateral Murder"

Dennis Trainor Jr sits down with journalist Alexa O'Brien to talk about Bradley Manning's testimony during his Court Martial.

March 3, 2013

[MUSIC] Lady Lamb and the Beekeeper

Lady Lamb aka Aly Spaltro came up in the music scene of my hometown, Portland Maine.

She moved away to NYC, and has been blowing up since then. She just played a CD release show here in Portland last night at Space Gallery, and brought down the house.

Here's a previous recording of hers:




You can get her new album at LadyLambTheBeekeeper.com

Alex Steed: Capitalism is Collapsing



DONATE: ‪http://bit.ly/7OwKc2‬
BLOG: ‪http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com‬
FACEBOOK: ‪http://bit.ly/1OtiqI‬
TWITTER: ‪http://www.twitter.com/punkpatriot‬
SHIRTS: ‪http://punkpatriot.etsy.com‬
Sustaining Donor page: Click here

March 1, 2013

[MUSIC] An Anderson

An Anderson: One of my favorite new bands from Portland Maine's local scene.