Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 12.04.05

[David Shove (shove001]

            P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R     12.04.05

1. Chomsky/Israel/CTV 12.04 6pm

2. Franken here       12.05 11am
3. Roseville/big box  12.05 6pm
4. US medicine/film   12.05 6pm
5. Peavey Park        12.05 7pm

6. Robert McChesney - Bush's war on the press
7. Patrick Martin   - US press/ruling elite/slaughter in Iraq

--------1 of 7--------

Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 08:11:24 -0600
From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com>
Subject: Chomsky/Israel/CTV 12.04 6pm

Tonight/Sunday Dec 4, 6pm, NOAM CHOMSKY and AKLAN DERSHOWITZ debate the
Israel and Palestinians conflict on C-SPAN's BOOK TV (In Minneapolis/St
Paul that's basic cable channel 19 Mpls, 20 St Paul)


--------2 of 7--------

From: Matt Gladue <gladuem [at] tcrln.org>
Subject: Franken here 12.05 11am

Al Franken's National Live Radio Talk show will be airing live from the
Pantages Theatre at 710 Hennepin Avenue in downtown Minneapolis, next
Monday, December 5 from 11:00 am - 2:00 pm.

Al Franken is the author of The Truth (with Jokes) and Rush Limbaugh is a
Big Fat Idiot and will bring his live talk show, the Al Franken Show, live
to Minneapolis.  This is your chance to watch his hilarious but biting
criticism first hand.  Come on your lunch hour or stay for the whole show!

100% of all proceeds will benefit two important organizations that stand
up for social justice in our city: The Twin Cities Religion and Labor
Network and Chrysalis.

The Twin Cities Religion and Labor Network's mission is to foster
understanding, promote dialogue, and encourage cooperative action between
religious communities and organized labor for the promotion of social and
economic justice.

And since 1973 Chrysalis has provided effective health and human service
programs to women, children and families.

Tickets can be purchased at the State Theatre box office or at
Ticketmaster. If you purchase in person at the State Theatre box office,
the price is $25.00 dollars. If you purchase with Ticketmaster by phone,
online or at their outlets, the price is $34.50 You can go online at
www.ticketmaster.com or call locally at 651-989-5151. It's first come,
first served, so call early! Doors open for general seating at 10:00 am.

The Live Broadcast is sponsored by the Minneapolis Central Labor Union
Council, the Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82, and AM 950 Air
America Minnesota.

pax Matt Gladue, Director Twin Cities Religion and Labor Network
Longfellow Resident


--------3 of 7--------

[In Roseville today; coming to a street near you tomorrow - ed]

From: Amy Ihlan <amyihlan [at] comcast.net>
Subject: Roseville misdevelopment 12.05 6pm

Two items of interest on Monday night's agenda:

1.  Truth in Taxation Hearing, beginning at 6pm.
This is the opportunity for members of the public to be heard on the
City's proposed tax levy and budget.  If you would like to speak on the
council's recent decisions spending millions of dollars in public money to
support the private, for profit Twin Lakes development (or other city
spending or taxation issues) I encourage you to attend and let the council
know what you think.

2.  Proposed Eminent Domain Ordinance
I remain concerned that the council will vote to approve eminent domain
for Twin Lakes at our last council meeting in December (the 19th).  I'm
trying to have a policy discussion on an eminent domain ordinance before
that happens.  I have proposed a specific ordinance -- see memo pasted
below.  I have been allotted 10 minutes of agenda time at the end of the
meeting.  If you are able to attend the meeting or e-mail the council to
support the proposed ordinance, please do.  Also please be ready to attend
on December 19, if the council does try to vote on approving eminent
domain before the end of 2005.

Thanks -- feel free to e-mail or call me (651-635-9152) with questions on
either of these issues. -Amy

Memo to Council Re:  Proposed Eminent Domain ordinance

I propose that the council adopt the following ordinance restricting the
use of eminent domain in Roseville.  I am proposing the ordinance at this
time because the council appears likely to move forward very soon to vote
on eminent domain for the Twin Lakes project - and it is vital for the
council to consider and adopt a policy on eminent domain before that
occurs.

PROPOSED EMINENT DOMAIN ORDINANCE

(1)  Eminent domain shall not be used to take property for private
commercial, retail, business or industrial development or redevelopment.

(2)  Private property acquired through eminent domain shall not be
dedicated, sold, leased in substantial part, or otherwise transferred to a
private person, partnership, corporation or any other entity for a period
of 10 years following the acquisition of property by the City, except that
property may be transferred or leased: (a) to private entities that are
public utilities or common carriers, or (b) to private entities that
occupy an incidental area within a public project.


--------4 of 7--------

From: Tessa Eagan <teagan [at] umn.edu>
Subject: US medicine/film 12.05 6pm

"Hold Your Breath" Film Screening followed by Discussion with Filmmaker
6pm Monday December 5
3-120 Molecular and Cellular Biology Building, 420 Washington Av SE Mpls

Maren Grainger-Monsen, M.D., Director, Program in Bioethics and Film
Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University School of Medicine

Contacts: Karen Sue Taussig, Anthropology, 612-625-3366
                 Tessa Eagan, College of Liberal Arts, 612-625-3781

HOLD YOUR BREATH is a riveting documentary exploring the dramatic journey
of Mohammad Kochi, refugee from the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, and
his encounters with American medicine. An intensely religious man
struggling to cope with progressing cancer, Mr. Kochi relies on his
daughter to translate for him as he navigates his way through Islam and
western medicine. A discussion with the filmmaker, Dr. Maren
Grainger-Monsen, will follow the viewing.

The event is free and open to the public.

Tessa Eagan Media and Public Relations College of Liberal Arts University
of Minnesota 225 Johnston Hall 101 Pleasant St. S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455
Tel: 612.625.3781 Fax: 612.625.3504 http://www.cla.umn.edu


--------5 of 7--------

From: Svattheriver [at] aol.com
Subject: Peavey Park 12.05 7pm

I and many others have been working on keeping year round programming and
facilities at Peavey Park.  In a process designed to gather community  input,
there is a School Board meeting about the building disposition,  scheduled:
Monday,
Dec 5, 7-9pm
Andersen Open
1098 Andersen Lane

Having met last week with 26 community leaders and elected officials, I
would like to express the need to develop a plan for this property that
meets the long term needs of the community in this area. We need a public
process to work on the criteria for disposition of this land that can be
advantageous to the School Board and the community.

Selling or giving the gym portion of the building to the Park Board or
working with a buyer that is willing to work on a shared facility are
things we need to include in this process.

I urge folks to attend this meeting. If you cannot attend send your
request to open this process to _MPSReusePlan [at] mpls.k12.mn.us_
(mailto:MPSReusePlan [at] mpls.k12.mn.us)

Scott Vreeland 2437 33rd Ave. S. Mpls. MN 55406 (612) 721-7892


--------6 of 7--------

From: "Robert W. McChesney, President" <list [at] freepress.net>
Subject: Update: Bush's War on the Press

A host of recent developments have made it clear that the Bush White House
is doing battle with the journalistic standards and practices that
underpin our democracy. With its unprecedented campaign to undermine and
stifle independent journalism, Bush & Co. have demonstrated brazen
contempt for the Constitution and considerable fear of an informed public.

Free Press has launched a campaign at http://www.freepress.net/presswar to
chronicle and combat Bush's war on the press. Today, we published a new
report showing the scope and intensity of the administration's assault on
press freedoms. The growing list of attacks on the press is truly
astonishing:

Infiltrating Public Broadcasting

White House loyalists inside the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have
launched a crusade to remake PBS, NPR and other public media into official
mouthpieces. Kenneth Tomlinson's tenure at the CPB was characterized by
targeting journalists like Bill Moyers who dared to air dissenting voices
or prepare investigative reports on the administration.

Tomlinson's goal was clearly to fire a shot across the bow of all public
stations so managers would shy away from the sort of investigative
journalism that might expose Bush administration malfeasance. Tomlinson
resigned in disgrace but left behind a cast of cronies to carry out his
partisan crusade. And we still don't know the extent to which Karl Rove
and others at the White House orchestrated his efforts.

Manufacturing Fake News

Under Bush administration directives, at least 20 federal agencies have
produced and distributed scores of "video news releases" out of a $254
million slush fund set up to manufacture taxpayer-funded propaganda. These
bogus and deceptive stories have been broadcast on TV stations nationwide
without any acknowledgment that they were prepared by the government
rather than local journalists.

The segments - which trumpeted administration "successes," promoted its
controversial line on issues like overhauling Medicare, and featured
Americans "thanking" Bush - have been repeatedly labeled "covert
propaganda" by investigators at the Government Accountability Office.

Bribing Journalists

The administration has paid pundits to sing its praises. Earlier this
year, TV commentator Armstrong Williams pocketed $240,000 in taxpayer
money to laud Bush's education policies. Three other journalists have
since been discovered on the government dole; and Williams admits that he
has "no doubt" that other paid Bush shills are still on the loose.

The administration has even exported these tactics. According to the Los
Angeles Times, the U.S. military is now secretly paying Iraqi newspapers
to publish stories written by American troops.

Lying about the Iraq War

The White House saw the battle for domestic popular opinion as one of the
main fronts in the war in Iraq. With the help of a compliant media, truth
became the first casualty in their campaign to whip up support. But rather
than admit to their lies and misinformation, the administration continues
to attack those reporting the truth.

As Frank Rich recently wrote in the New York Times, the administration's
"web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by
accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a P.R.
operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House."

Eliminating Dissent in the Mainstream Media

Bush has all but avoided traditional press conferences, closing down a
prime venue for holding the executive accountable. On those rare occasions
when he deigned to meet reporters, presidential aides turned the press
conferences into parodies by seating a friendly right-wing "journalist,"
former male escort Jeff Gannon, amid the reporters and then steering
questions to him when tough issues arose.

They have effectively silenced serious questioners, like veteran
journalist Helen Thomas, by refusing to have the president or his aides
call on reporters who challenge them. And they have established a
hierarchy for journalists seeking interviews with administration
officials, which favors networks that give the White House favorable
coverage.

Gutting the Freedom of Information Act

The administration has scrapped enforcement of the Freedom of Information
Act and has made it harder for reporters to do their jobs by refusing to
cooperate with even the most basic requests for comment and data from
government agencies. This is part of a broader clampdown on access to
information that has made it virtually impossible for journalists to cover
vast areas of government activity.

Consolidating Media Control

The administration continues to make common cause with the most powerful
broadcast corporations in an effort to rewrite ownership laws in a manner
that favors monopoly control of information. The Federal Communications
Commission will announce plans to rewrite the ownership rules soon - it
could happen as early as February - with aims of unleashing a new wave of
media consolidation. The administration's desired rules changes would
strike a mortal blow to local reporting and further squeeze journalists.

In a famous 1945 opinion, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said that "the
First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible
dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is
essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition
of a free society." In other words, a free press is the sine qua non of
the entire American Constitution and republican experiment.

We started Free Press because our democracy demands a diverse and
independent media. The Bush administration's attack on the foundations of
self-government requires a response of similar caliber. I hope you'll join
me in the year ahead as Free Press works to hold the administration
accountable for all its attacks on journalism and see that such abuses
will not be repeated in the future.

Please take a moment to visit our online campaign to defend democracy from
the White House assault on the media. Go to
http://www.freepress.net/presswar

Onward,
Robert W. McChesney President Free Press www.freepress.net

P.S. Know more people who would like to keep updated on this and other
media reform issues? Urge them to join our e-activist list. The more
people you enlist in the movement for media reform, the better our chances
of success. Go to http://www.freepress.net/action/signup.php


--------7 of 7--------

US press echoes consensus in ruling elite to continue slaughter in Iraq
By Patrick Martin
3 December 2005
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/iraq-d03.shtml

The American government is inextricably committed to military victory in
Iraq. That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the response of the
major media to Bush's November 30 war speech.

The most prominent editorial voices of corporate America, from the
ultra-right Wall Street Journal to the New York Times, the leading voice
of upper-class liberalism, despite disputes over tactics and methods,
agree that there is no alternative to using whatever level of violence is
required for the United States to remain in control of the oil-rich
Mideast country.

The December 1 editorial in the Wall Street Journal was typically
unrestrained in its celebration of the war, hailing Bush's speech as a
rededication of the administration to "complete victory" and a repudiation
of the growing public disaffection with the war. "Our reading of history
is that the American people will accept casualties in a war, even heavy
casualties, as long as they think their leaders have a strategy to win,"
the Journal declared, thus announcing its approval in advance of the
increased bloodletting which continued occupation will produce.

The tragic human implications of the Journal's glib endorsement of "heavy
casualties" to secure US control over the region's oil resources were
driven home on Friday, when the government announced that at least 10
Marines had been killed by a single explosion in Fallujah. Meanwhile, the
US military is preparing to slaughter hundreds more Iraqis in a new
offensive in Ramadi.

The Journal praised the performance of Iraqi troops in Tal Afar, when
mainly Shiite forces rampaged through the predominately Sunni city near
the Syrian border. It called for strengthening the interior ministry,
although that agency is now believed responsible for some of the worst
atrocities, including the underground torture chamber in Baghdad uncovered
last week when it was raided by US troops.

The newspaper essentially declared any debate over the origins of the war
to be irrelevant, observing, "as military analyst Andrew Krepinevich put
it to us yesterday, whether Iraq was a 'war of choice' or a 'war of
necessity' at the beginning, it certainly is the latter now. Our
adversaries the world over-from North Korea to Syria's Bashar Assad to
Iran's mullahs-are watching to see if America has the will to win in
Iraq."

While denouncing congressional and media criticism of the Bush
administration's conduct of the war, the newspaper made one suggestion for
change: "One area that could still use improvement is procurement policy."
The Journal observed that Iraqi military forces had been equipped with
outdated Soviet-bloc weaponry, much of it from former Warsaw Pact
countries now enrolled in NATO, such as Poland and Romania. "Iraq should
have top-of-the-line US equipment whenever possible," the newspaper
complained. In other words, the US arms industry should be allowed to join
in the orgy of plunder and profit in Iraq, along with Halliburton, Bechtel
and Big Oil!

The newspaper made a point, as did Bush, of paying tribute to Senator Joe
Lieberman, the Democratic Party's vice presidential candidate in 2000,
pointing to a column by Lieberman published by the Journal on the eve of
Bush's speech, which was headlined "Our Troops Must Stay."

The New York Times editorial on Bush's speech, headlined, "Plan: We Win,"
was critical of Bush's evident isolation and indifference to public
opinion, comparing him to Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon during the
Vietnam War. Commenting on the "Plan for Victory" issued by the White
House, the Times declared: "The document, and Mr. Bush's speech, were
almost entirely a rehash of the same tired argument that everything's
going just fine. Mr. Bush also offered the usual false choice between
sticking to his policy and beating a hasty and cowardly retreat."

In its search for a "middle way" between Bush's policy and withdrawal from
Iraq, however, the Times called upon the same military expert cited
approvingly by the Wall Street Journal. "What Americans wanted to hear was
a genuine counterinsurgency plan," the Times claimed, "perhaps like one
proposed by Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., a leading writer on military
strategy: find the most secure areas with capable Iraqi forces. Embed
American trainers with those forces and make the region safe enough to
spend money on reconstruction, thus making friends and draining the
insurgency. Then slowly expand those zones and withdraw American forces."

This paints an utterly false picture of average Americans, in office
cubicles, shop floors or supermarket checkout lines, clamoring for "a
genuine counterinsurgency plan." What they want is an end to the
slaughter. The Times echoes a line in Bush's speech, in which he claimed,
"Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win,
and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible."

The Times, which generally articulates the position of the Democratic
Party, does not advocate an "antiwar" position; it rather seeks a more
effective tactic for winning the war. The military expert it cites, Andrew
Krepinevich, published a much-cited article in the current issue of
Foreign Affairs, rejecting both "stay the course" and immediate
withdrawal, calling instead for "a real strategy built around the
principles of counterinsurgency warfare," and citing the lessons of the
guerrilla wars in Vietnam, Malaya and the Philippines in the 1950s and
1960s.

Krepinevich calls for refocusing the military effort from "search and
destroy" operations aimed at locating and killing insurgents, to the
creation of secure zones completely denied to the insurgents. In Vietnam,
such efforts by successive foreign occupiers involved the creation of what
the French called "agrovilles" and the Americans "strategic hamlets." Both
were essentially concentration camps into which the local population was
herded and kept at gunpoint to prevent them from giving material support
to the insurgency.

Somewhat provocatively, Krepinevich calls this plan for Iraq the "oil-spot
strategy," using the "o-word" that has been virtually banned in
discussions of the Iraq war in the major US media, precisely because it
suggests the real motivation for the US invasion and occupation. He wrote
in Foreign Affairs that his strategy "would require a protracted
commitment of US resources, a willingness to risk more casualties in the
short term, and an enduring US presence in Iraq..." He added: "Even if
successful, this strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and
hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer US casualty
rolls."

This is what the "critical," pro-Democratic New York Times proposes for
the American and Iraqi people. The New York Times is calling for - along
with virtually the entire leadership of the Democratic Party - a
reorientation of the military effort in Iraq that could well produce an
even greater bloodbath. (Krepinevich also suggests dispensing with Bush's
rhetoric about democratizing Iraq, arguing that local elections in
contested areas like Baghdad and Anbar province should not be held until
"the population sees the benefits of security and reconstruction-and not
until then.")

The Washington Post occupies a middle position in the right-wing political
spectrum of the American ruling elite - advocating what today passes for
moderate to liberal positions on domestic policy, while firmly supporting
the war in Iraq. Its position corresponds most closely to that of
Democratic senators like Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, who flatly reject
all calls for withdrawal from Iraq and declare that the United States must
prevail militarily.

The Post editorial on Bush's speech began with an accurate observation:
"Though you wouldn't know it from the partisan rhetoric, there is
substantial agreement in Washington on the strategy for Iraq outlined
yesterday by President Bush."

The newspaper dismissed the rhetorical differences, saying: "The president
denounced those who would 'cut and run' from the country and in turn was
lambasted by Democrats for inflexibly staying the course. In fact, many
Democrats in Congress agree with the principal elements of Mr. Bush's
'strategy for victory'..."

The Post cited the 79-19 vote in the US Senate two weeks ago endorsing the
broad outlines of the Bush administration policy in Iraq, and the
opposition by leading Senate Democrats, including Clinton and Joseph
Biden, to an immediate pullout.

"The agreement flows not from converging views over a war that has
polarized the country but from a simple absence of choices. To abandon
Iraq while the country's emerging leaders are still trying to hammer
together a workable political system would be a disaster for US interests
around the world. At the same time, the US military cannot maintain its
present force levels in Iraq much longer without unpalatable measures,
such as sending units for fourth and fifth tours or mobilizing more of the
National Guard."

As the Post explains, both parties proceed from the same starting point:
"US interests around the world" - i.e., the economic and strategic
interests of American capitalism - and both parties recognize that the
Iraq war has produced enormous strains on the US military, the principal
instrument for securing imperialist interests.

The newspaper continues: "Real question about Mr. Bush's strategy, which
few in Congress dare to ask, is whether the means meet the ends. Every
plan the administration has prepared, starting with the original invasion,
has been based on overly optimistic assumptions and insufficient
resources."

The Post's concern is that military victory in Iraq, which the entire
ruling elite considers indispensable, may require more rather than fewer
troops. Democratic criticism of Bush's conduct of the war, insofar as it
encourages and legitimizes popular demands for troop withdrawals, may make
such a military escalation politically unviable.

"Victory" for the American government is not in the interests of the
American people or of the world. Such a victory means concretely an
escalation of death and destruction in Iraq - by means of bombs, death
squads, concentration camps, torture - that will further devastate that
country, and consume the lives of untold numbers of American soldiers. The
resulting regime would be a dictatorship no less brutal than that which
preceded it, only entirely subservient to American oil companies and the
US government. The American ruling elite has no problem inflicting such
carnage, so long as it continues to believe it can produce unchallenged US
control over the oil wealth and the vast profits and strategic advantages
that go with it.

An American military success in Iraq would only embolden the war criminals
in the White House and Pentagon to engage in new wars of aggression in
Syria, Iran or elsewhere, just as the initial military success in
Afghanistan encouraged the attack on Iraq.

The goal of the American people must be to put an end to this unprovoked,
illegal and aggressive war. This means the immediate and unconditional
withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, an end to the
squandering of human lives and waste of billions of dollars, the
mobilization instead of massive resources and manpower to meet critical
social needs, and holding the war conspirators in the White House, the
Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA legally accountable for their
war crimes.

[If the Dems nominate another pro-war candidate in 2008, eg Hillary, what
will you do? - ed]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments