Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 02.06.06

[David Shove (shove001]

           P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R      02.06.06

1. Indigenous summit  2.06 7:30pm

2. KFAI/Lydia Howell  2.07 11am
3. Climate change     2.07 12:15pm
4. Peace/justice      2.07 4:45pm Bemidji MN
5. Big talk salon     2.07 6:30pm
6. War on the poor    2.07 6:30pm
7. Steelworker/energy 2.07 7pm
8. Health/mn uhcan    2.07 7pm

9. Mike Whitney - The tyranny that follows economic collapse
10. Rabbi Michael Lerner - The immorality of lesser evilism
11. Paul Street - George (Or)W(ell) Bush II and "freedom"
12. PJ Watson   - Halliburton detention camps for political subversives
13. ed          - Dog's butt whoop-te-doodoo (poem)

--------1 of 13--------

From: Pangea Public Relations <pr [at] pangeaworldtheater.org>
Subject: Indigenous summit 2.06 7:30pm

Pangea World Theater presents
Global Indigenous Peoplesı Summit: A Dialogue on Land, State and Empire

Monday, February 6, 7:30pm, Pangea World Theater, 711 West Lake Street,
Suite 101, Minneapolis, MN 55406.

FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

- a panel of local and international guest/leaders, including Juanita
Espinosa, Executive Director of the Native Arts Circle in MPLS, Nuri el
Okbi, Israeli Bedouin leader and activist and founder of the Association
for the Support and Defense of Bedouin Rights in Israel, Kani Xulam,
Washington, DC-based activist and leader of the global Kurdish community
and founder of the American Kurdish Information Network [AKIN], and Jesus
³Chucho² Garcia, Afro-Venzuelan leader and activist and anti-FTAA
spokesperson, founder and director of the Afro-Venezuelan Network.  A
conversation and analysis of comparative issues, facilitated by Jesse
Benjamin, of St. Cloud State University.

The central organizing themes center around themes such as: Colonialism
and Imperialism, landlessness, statelessness, resource exploitations,
cultural identity struggles, human rights abuses, and
resistance/organizing.

Biographies

Nuri el Okbi is a senior Bedouin community leader who has been serving the
southern Israeli Bedouin community for more than thirty years.  Nuri is an
Israeli citizen, and a member of the Negev Bedouin [Palestinian]
communities that historically lived in and around the city of Beer Sheva
[Bir Saba], the capital of the region. In the early 1980s, together with
leading sheiks from the area, he founded and became director of the
Association for the Support and Defense of Bedouin Rights in Israel
[ASDBRI]. The Association is the primary secular Bedouin organization
working for Bedouin rights in Israel, where the Negev Bedouin community
exceeds 120,000 people.

Jesus "Chucho" Garcia is the founder and director of the Afro-Venezuela
Network, and a world expert on the impacts globalization and militarism on
Latin America. He is a well-known and incredible speaker, able to combine
impressive intellectual analysis with diverse lived experiences to inspire
audiences to engage in the struggle for global justice.

Kani Xulam is a Kurd from northern Kurdistan who established the American
Kurdish Information Network (AKIN) with the intent of offering a public
service to foster Kurdish- American understanding and friendship.  In
Washington, he has worked closely with the members of United States
Congress to seek the freedom of imprisoned Kurdish parliamentarians from a
Turkish prison, highlighting in particular the plight of Leyla Zana.

Juanita Espinosa (Dakota-Ojibwe) is a community organizer, mother,
administrator, radio producer, and member of the recently renamed Spirit
Lake Nation in North Dakota. She is a founder of the Native Arts Circle in
Minneapolis, Minn., which began as the Native American Cultural Arts
Program, to create a statewide Native arts agency designed to educate the
public about Native art and build a support system for Native artists of
Minnesota.

Jesse Benjamin is an Israeli/American/Canadian Jewish activist and an
associate professor in the Human Relations and Multicultural Education at
St. Cloud State University.  He has worked with Nuri el Okbi on Bedouin
issues in Israel since 1987, and with Kani Xulam on the Kurdish struggles
in the Middle East since the 1990s.  His research is on East Africa and
Middle Eastern history and the Indian Ocean, and his current work focuses
on anti-racist education, dismantling whiteness, and deconstructing
western epistemology.


--------2 of 13--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com>
Subject: KFAI/Lydia Howell 2.07 11am

"A Raisin in the Sun" interview with Dawn Jones and actors from the NORTH
HIGH production on TUES FEB 7, 11am, on "Catalyst" on KFAI Radio, 90.1fm
Mpls 106.7fm ST Paul

Alchemy Theater presents In association with Starting Gate Productions
A Raisin In The Sun
by **Lorraine** Hansberry
February 3rd-26
North Community High School Auditorium
1500 James Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN


--------3 of 13--------

From: humanrts [at] umn.edu
Subject: Climate change 2.07 12:15pm

February 7, 2006 - Climate Change and Intergenerational Fairness:
Reconciling Ethics and Economics.  Time: 12:15 pm - 1:30 pm.  Cost: The
event is free and open to the public. Reservations are strongly
encouraged.

The Lunch Series on the Societal Implications of the Life Sciences will
present Prof. Richard B. Howarth, PhD (Dartmouth College).  Prof. Howarth
will lecture on Climate Change and Intergenerational Fairness: Reconciling
Ethics and Economics.  Continuing education credit is offered (see below).

Abstract: Moral theories emphasize the importance of stabilizing the
Earth's climate to protect the rights or interests of future generations.
Economic models, however, often discount the future at a rate that implies
that comparatively little weight is attached to the benefits of climate
change mitigation. This lecture will explore and seek to resolve the
tensions that exist between these two points of view, arguing that the use
of high discount rates is inappropriate in this context on both
philosophical and empirical grounds.

Richard B. Howarth is Professor of Environmental Studies at Dartmouth
College, a position he has held since 1998.  His work focuses on energy
use, climate change, and ecological conservation and emphasizes the use of
rigorous economic analysis in understanding the causes of environmental
problems and the design of solutions that take into account the multiple
objectives of environmental policy.  Prof. Howarth s research program
explores themes that include the role of discounting, sustainability, and
intergenerational fairness in evaluating long-term environmental policies;
mathematical models of the relationship between economic growth, the
natural environment, and human well-being; the role of public policies in
promoting energy efficiency and the adoption of clean energy technologies;
and the valuation of ecosystem services and the role of economic, social,
and moral values in managing natural systems.

This lecture is intended for students, faculty, researchers, scientists,
policymakers, and interested members of the community.  Following this
lecture, participants should be able to:
 -Understand the contrasting points of view on how best to mitigate
climate change.
 -Discuss specific proposals to stabilize climate change that reconcile
differing views.

The series is cosponsored by the University of Minnesota's Consortium on
Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life Sciences
(www.lifesci.consortium.umn.edu) and Joint Degree Program in Law, Health &
the Life Sciences (www.jointdegree.umn.edu).

Lunches are provided to those who RSVP by January 31, 2006 to
lawvalue [at] umn.edu or 612-625-0055 (please indicate if vegetarian/vegan).
Registration is required if you wish to receive continuing education
credits (CLE or general CEU). Those without reservations are welcome to
attend, but should bring a lunch. Coffman Union parking is available in
the East River Road Garage on Delaware Street behind Coffman Union. Maps
may be found at http://onestop.umn.edu/Maps/index.html.

The program provides 1 contact hour of general University of Minnesota
continuing education (.1 CEU).  Continuing legal education credit (CLE)
for attorneys will be requested (1 hour). Location: Mississippi Room at

Thanks to Consortium members Prof. Daniel J. Philippon (Program in
Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Ethics), Prof. Kenneth H. Keller
(Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy), and Dr. Jennifer Kuzma
(Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy) for taking the lead in
planning this year's series.
Coffman Memorial Union


--------4 of 13--------

From: audreythayer <athayer [at] paulbunyan.net>
Subject: Peace/justice 2.07 4:45pm Bemidji MN

Peace/Justice Planning Meeting to be held on Feb 7, 4:45-6pm at the Cabin
Cafe, 3rd Street, Bemidji, MN.  We are inviting the community to become
involved with the Community "Honor The Dead, Heal The Wounded and End The
War".


--------5 of 13--------

From: Patty Guerrero <pattypax [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: Big talk salon 2.07 6:30pm

This Tuesday, February 7 we will have Open Discussion.  Please come and
share your thoughts about worldly affairs.

ps.  if you have a chance, you can read a little story in the Villager
newspaper this week about the Salons.

Pax Salons ( http://justcomm.org/pax-salon )
are held (unless otherwise noted in advance):
Tuesdays, 6:30 to 8:30 pm.
Mad Hatter's Tea House,
943 W 7th, St Paul, MN

Salons are free but donations encouraged for program and treats.
Call 651-227-3228 or 651-227-2511 for information.


--------6 of 13--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: War on the poor 2.07 6:30pm

Tuesday, 2/7 6:30 to 8 pm, Welfare Rights Committee activists report
"Fighting Racism, Discrimination & the War on the Poor: from MN to New
Orleans," Sabathani Community Center room J, 310 E. 38th St, Mpls.
612-823-2841.


--------7 of 13--------

From:    "Cooper, Rebecca" <rcooper [at] steelworkers-usw.org>
Subject: Steelworker/energy 2.07 7pm

Moving the Midwest Toward Energy Independence!
A Win-Win for the Minnesota Economy & the Environment!

Community Forum on Renewable Energy sponsored by
* White Bear Lake Commission on Environmental & Sustainable Practices
* White Bear Racquet & Swim

Please join us for the panel discussion led by Michael Noble, Minnesota
for an Energy Efficient Economy, Mark Eilers, General Electric Corp, Jerry
Fallos of the United Steelworkers Union, and local business operator Paul
Steinhauser of White Bear Racquet & Swim.

A question and answer session will follow with panel members and local
legislators:

Tuesday, February 7
7-8:30pm
White Bear City Hall
4701 Highway 61
White Bear Lake, MN 55110

For more information please contact Gina Vermilyea at 651-653-0742.


--------8 of 13--------

From: joel michael albers <joel [at] uhcan-mn.org>
Subject: Health/mn uhcan 2.07 7pm

MN UHCAN activists,
Next meeting to plan actions TUESDAY, February 7, 7PM
  
Walker church Basement, 3104 16th ave s. (near lake street and
bloomington ave in Mpls)
  
Items;
1. Welcome new people, orientation

2. Reportbacks:
 - Progress on Sanat and Joel's film about HC crisis in MN.
 - Michael Moore's collecting stories for his next film on the HC crisis.

3. Medicare Part D "Crisis" , & Fed crackdown on seniors importing
Canadian Prescription drugs to MN; Continue networking w/ The Gray
Panthers. Mark Dayton is having a press conference at Schneider Drug on
Medicare Part D, saturday Feb 11, time TBA.

4. Organizing our own HC fund cooperative; How and why it is possible to
build our own pool from the grassroots.  Continue networking with Artists'
Groups, upcoming mtg w/ non-profits.

5. Briefing  electoral candidates on how to frame single-payer, and
what resonates with the public based on public survey results.

www.uhcan-mn.org 612-384-0973 joel [at] uhcan-mn.org


--------9 of 13--------

The Tyranny that follows Economic Collapse
by Mike Whitney
http://www.opednews.com
February 2, 2006

What do "permanent" tax cuts mean?

The Bush administration has reiterated its support for perpetuating the
tax cuts which are currently costing the American people $400 to $500
billion per year. To make these cuts permanent is to make deficit spending
an enduring function of government.

Imagine someone stealing your credit card and running up a $450,000 bill
year after year and then defending the theft as necessary to "create more
jobs" as the "trickle-down" theorists do?

Deficits are theft; and the determination to make these lavish tax cuts
for the wealthy permanent proves beyond a doubt that it is part of a
larger strategy to precipitate an economic meltdown that will change the
political complexion of the country.

What else could it mean?

Dick Cheney recently opined, "Reagan proved that deficits don't mean
anything."

Liar.

In fact, Cheney was part of the Reagan administration when Reagan's tax
cuts produced monstrous $200 billion deficits, up 75% from 1980. The
effects were devastating. Unemployment jumped to 10%, the 30 year mortgage
skyrocketed to 15%, the economy ground to a standstill, and the nation
plunged into the deepest recession since the 1930s. Cheney fully
understands the suffering that deficits produce. Now, he wants to continue
that misery as a permanent function of government.

Why?

Is it really so important to reward the "fortunate 1%" that the
administration would risk the economic well-being and solvency of the
nation?

And, what is the relationship between the yawning chasm of debt produced
by the Bush team and their strengthening of police-state institutions like
unlimited spying on Americans, the NSS (Bush's new Secret Police), the
uniform Federal ID program, the Patriot Act, and Halliburton's $385
million contract from Homeland Security to construct new detention and
processing facilities within the United States?

Is the ascendancy of the police-state intended to balance the catastrophic
effects of economic destruction? Or, do the new instruments of repression
anticipate the "political turmoil" (Warren Buffet's words)  that naturally
results from financial collapse?

The Bush master-plan is no different than the economic shock-therapy the
United States has directed at the third world for decades. The strategy is
simple and straightforward, but virtually foolproof in achieving its
objectives; the crushing of the middle class and the subsequent shifting
of the nation's wealth to the "oligarchy of racketeers" who run the
system.

The levers of power have all been faithfully assembled while America's $3
trillion trade deficit looms overhead like the sword of Damocles. As the
underpinnings of economic wellbeing continue to deteriorate; causing
further job-flight, credit spending, and soaring energy prices; the
power-brokers at the head-of-state calmly arrange the instruments of
repression they'll need to maintain order.

Did we really imagine the chickens would never come home to roost?

Regardless of what the public-relation gurus on the business channel say,
the state of the union is wretched. Bush has racked up an astonishing $3
trillion of debt in just 5 years; intentionally torpedoing America's
future. Federal Reserve chief, Alan Greenspan cooperatively kept interest
rates low so the greatest swindle in history could take place while the
drowsy American public snoozed away.

Thanks, Alan.

Americans refuse to believe that bubbles (housing or stock market) are
brought about by the deliberate and politically-motivated actions at the
Federal Reserve.

Huh?

Everyone agrees about the effects of high interest rates; why would there
be so much uncertainty about low interest rates?

Just as high interest rates slow the economy by making loans on investment
more expensive; so too, low interest rates naturally produce increased
speculation by making cheap money available to a greater number of people.
Greenspan knew as early as 1996 that the stock market was over-inflated
when he warned that "there was a stock market bubble at this point" that
is "a problem we should keep our eye on". Still, he accommodated his
friends in Washington and Wall Street by waiting until tens of thousands
of Americans had lost their savings (and retirement)  before ratcheting up
interest rates and cooling down the spec-market.  The final loss to
investors was an estimated $7 trillion dollars, an amount that pales in
comparison to the current housing bubble which "The Economist" calls "the
largest bubble in history". Again, it was Greenspan who instigated the
housing bubble by dropping rates to a paltry 1.5% following the decline in
the stock market. Regrettably, the results will be even more disastrous
this time.

Never the less, low interest rates are an effective way of creating
bubbles and thereby transferring wealth from one class to another. The
other two "tried-and-true" methods are tax cuts and hyperinflation; both
parts of the Greenspan legacy. (Expect a weakening dollar as the effects
of the massive trade deficit set in)

To argue that the Federal Reserve does not support a political agenda that
favors elite interests, is to say that it is not a privately-owned
institution (which it is) which operates in conjunction with major
investors; particularly the energy giants, the mainstream media,
arms-manufacturers, and the political establishment. The Federal Reserve
is joined at the hip with the Bush White House. In fact, the
administration is merely a reflection of the values and goals of the
financial powerbrokers at the central banks.

Don't expect any complaints from Alan Greenspan about the rough-treatment
of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The cadres of elites are of "one mind" on
the current global crusade for a new world order.

                               Doomsday

Now, the stars are suitably aligned and the free ride will soon be over.
Gold is skyrocketing as perceptive investors see the cracks and fissures
appearing in the economic foundation that binds the debtor-kingdom
together. Twitchy investors are watching for news about Iran, rebel
attacks in Nigeria, or a sell-off of greenbacks in China. Market analysts
may feign equanimity but they are walking barefoot on the knifes-edge
expecting the worse.

But, the worse is unavoidable; the country is dead broke. Last year alone
Americans not only spent more than they earned for the first time since
the great Depression; they also borrowed an additional $600 billion from
their home equity to pay off credit card debt and consumer loans! This
tells us that the all signs of growth in the economy are the result of
credit spending. Home equity has become the new personal ATM card,
demonstrating once again that the country is running on fumes.

This quarter's slow growth of 1.1%, shows that the well has run dry and
consumer spending (which accounts for 70% of GDP) is down for the count.
Interest rates are going up, the dollar will soon be sinking, energy costs
are soaring, and the unemployment line is getting longer.

Time to find a nice comfy spot beneath the freeway on-ramp - and bring
your own cardboard.

The Clinton strategy would have made the transition more agreeable, but
the result of globalization is roughly the same. Businesses and jobs pack
up and leave driving wages through the floor, while the social safety net
continues to worsen by congressional edict. The main difference with
Clinton is that he strengthened the dollar by balancing the budget and
showed little appetite for creating the police-state apparatus that the
Bush claque relishes.

The Bush administration is set up for a quick but agonizing transition.
They have painstakingly removed whatever laws stood in the way of
autocratic government. The courts will brandish the rubber stamp for the
supreme executive, the congress will languish as a ceremonial institution,
and the compliant media will shower praise on the Dear Leader's
iron-fisted methods of keeping the peace.

Economic disintegration is the requisite catalyst for changing the
fundamental institutions of American government. The globalists in the
White House have played a role in numerous coups across the planet, all
producing the same basic result; a military dictatorship with a strongman
at the head of state. This one should be no different.

Mike lives in Washington State with his charming wife Joan and two spoiled
and overfed dogs, Cocoa and Pat-Fergie.


--------10 of 13--------

The Immorality of Lesser Evilism
By Rabbi Michael Lerner
November 03, 2000   [note the date]

Even in the final days of the presidential election, a substantial part of
the population expresses dismay at the major candidates, feels closer to
Nader in terms of the issues he raises, but fears that a vote for him
might increase the chances for a Bush presidency. And the same issue
arises for those who respond to the message of a Buchanan or John
Haegelin. I've seen friends and families rent apart by the anger of some
Gore supporters who believe that Nader supporters have lost their moral
compass in their inability to see how disastrous a world with
Bush-appointed Supreme Court justices might be.

Yet lesser evilism may do more to destroy the moral fabric and political
viability of a democracy than any real or imagined evil that might be
achieved through the electoral victory of whoever we imagine to be the
"bad guy" beneficiary of voting our conscience. Here are some reasons why:

First, Lesser evilism leads to a moral and spiritual corruption of our
souls. The habit of voting lesser evil in politics is a slippery slope. We
start by giving our vote to a candidate who supports and is a product of a
social reality that we actually deplore, and we end up learning to
accommodate ourselves to moral corruption in other aspects of our lives.
Just as lesser evilism teaches us to accommodate to "reality" in politics,
so we accommodate to the reality of our economic marketplace, with its
ethos of materialism and selfishness. Since everyone else is "looking out
for number one," we learn that the way to "make it" is to go along with a
set of practices that involve cheating or hurting others in our pursuit of
success, making environmentally destructive or morally insensitive
choices, and using the excuse that we must focus on "the bottom line" and
not on the fine points of moral behavior. To the extent that we come to
believe that we have no alternative but to accept the lesser evil, we lose
the inner quality of soul that makes it possible to fight for anything
against the odds. We forget how to stand up for our own ideals, and soon
we don't see the point in even thinking about what kind of a world we
really believe in ("it's so unrealistic"). Internally we may feel cynical
about the world we live in, but as long as we've adopted the attitude that
we can't really fight it and must accept its terms, we have cast our vote
in favor of keeping what is. Moral courage and hope begin to feel like
anachronistic concepts.

Not surprisingly, as people become used to making this choice in daily
life, they become most angry not at the forces of evil to which they
accommodate, but at those who retain their commitment to fight for their
highest ideal. Thus, the rage in liberal circles at Nader supporters or in
conservative circles at Buchanan supporters - both of whom insist on
standing for their ideals even when they are unlikely to win.

Second, lesser evilism disempowers liberal and progressive forces because
it gives the Democratic Party no incentive to respond to progressive
ideals. Secure in the certainty that liberals will always respond to the
demand of lesser evilism, the Democrats can put their full attention at
repositioning their party to accommodate those who might otherwise vote
Republican, thus dramatically decreasing the differences between the two
parties. And your vote for a lesser evil gives the corporate media the
excuse they seek to ignore progressive views throughout the next four
years - because the media will say that your progressive views were shown
to have no real constituency since you and others didn't vote for the
candidates who articulated those views, but chose to empower people who
champion the status quo.

Third, lesser evilism is based on an arrogant certainty about the
consequences of your lesser evil winning. In fact, those of us who voted
for Clinton as the lesser evil in 1992 found that eight years later the
gap between the rich and the poor had increased and the social supports
for the poor had decreased. Conversely, much as Richard Nixon hurt me
personally (by indicting me and sending me to prison for anti-war
organizing), the dynamics of his "greater evil" presidency were
significantly constrained by an idealistic social movement - and in that
context, Nixon responded by recognizing China and by supporting powerful
environmental and worker-safety legislation that were whittled down under
the Clinton administration. It is the absence or presence of the very kind
of social movement that is decisive - and lesser-evilism destroys. Instead
of being so sure that "the other guy" is going to destroy the world,
better to have a little humility and vote your conscience rather than your
crystal ball, because in so doing you make possible a whole different
configuration of political possibilities.

Fourth, lesser evilism weakens faith in democracy. If people consistently
feel obliged to vote for candidates in whom they do not believe, they end
up feeling they are without representation, and hence feel that our
government itself is less legitimate. Many stop voting altogether. Others
feel dirtied by a process in which they have authorized through their vote
the actions of an elected official who, acting in their name, supports
policies like the death penalty and acceleration of the worst aspects of
globalization, which they actually find morally and environmentally
reprehensible.

Finally, voting for a lesser evil entails abandoning and helping to
dispirit those who share your principles. Many Nader people are standing
up for the principles that you believe in, and instead of supporting them
for doing so you are attacking them. Don't be surprised if many these
people eventually give up on trying to change the world. So the next time
you look around for allies for some visionary idea or moral cause that
inspires you, you will find fewer people ready to take risks, and
ironically you may then use that to convince yourself that nothing was
ever possible and that's why you "had" to vote for the lesser of two
evils.

None of this is an argument against those who really are excited by Gore
or Bush - they should vote their beliefs. But those who succumb to the
fear tactics that intimidate us into voting for someone whose policies are
often far from our own beliefs are actually doing a great disservice to
their country, their fellow citizens, and their own inner moral integrity.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of TIKKUN Magazine, author of Spirit
Matters: Global Healing and the Wisdom of the Soul, and rabbi of Beyt
Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco. www.tikkun.org

[If full fascism comes to America, the lesser-evil folks will be the
cause. Fiddling while Rome burns, screaming at all real reform, hobbling
change till the police state club and and boots descend. If you don't
share Hillary's views, don't vote for her in 2008. If you don'd share
other Dems's views, don't vote for them. Don't wait for elections to get
active. -ed, voter for Nader in 2000 and 2004, member Green Party]


--------11 of 13--------

George OrWell Bush II and "Freedom"
By Paul Street
ZNet Commentary
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-02/04street.cfm
February 05, 2006

Among George Orwell's most enduring essays is his "Politics and the
English Language." Reflecting on the licentious use of the honored western
key word "democracy" (as in "people's democracy" or the oxymoronic
"capitalist democracy"), Orwell observed that "words of this kind are
often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses
them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he
means something quite different."

When the speaker is a leading imperial and corporate-plutocratic
figurehead and the "hearer" is the public at large, de-coding the
difference between hidden ("private") definition and artificially
constructed public meaning means critically engaging ideology, propaganda,
and the crass manipulation of language to cloak class rule and global
inequality.

And when the speaker is former Yale History major George [Or]W[ellian]
Bush, the master keyword the public is likely to hear is "freedom."

Speaking to a group of history students last week, I put the "over-under"
(betting) line on how many times Bush II would use the word "freedom"
(and/or its twin "liberty") in last Tuesday's State of the Union address
at fifteen.

Not bad. Bush used "freedom" fifteen times and "liberty" three times.

I don't know if Bush II actually has used this word more frequently than
did presidents Reagan, Carter, or Kennedy, but his attachment to these
wonderful but potentially dangerous (see below) words seems unusually
strong. Read any of his major speeches during the last few years and
you'll see what I mean.

It's no accident, of course, that Bush II leans so heavily on
"freedom"-talk. "No idea," as the prolific and brilliant American
historian Eric Foner observes, "is more fundamental to Americans' sense of
themselves as individuals and as a nation than freedom. The central term
in our political language, freedom - or liberty, with which it is almost
always used interchangeably - is deeply embedded in the record of our
history and language of everyday life."

Who doesn't avowedly support "freedom" in modern America? Nobody who
wishes to be taken even remotely seriously in the American political realm
would proclaim herself an enemy of "liberty" and "freedom."

But beware. "The very universality of the idea of freedom," Foner reminds
us, "can be misleading. Freedom," he counsels, "is not a fixed, timeless
category with a single unchanging definition. Indeed, the history of the
United States is, in part, a story of debates, disagreements, and
struggles over freedom." Furthermore: "over the course of our history,
American freedom has been both a mythical ideal - a living truth for
millions of Americans, a cruel mockery for others."

During their long, contentious, and conflict-filled history, Foner reminds
us, Americans have engaged in repeated epic conflicts over "(1) the
meanings of freedom; (2) the social conditions that make freedom possible;
and (3) the boundaries of freedom that determine who is entitled to enjoy
freedom and who is not" (Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty! An American History,
Volume I [2005], p. xxiii).

During the 1960s, to give one example among many, Americans of various
different social and ideological backgrounds faced off on (1) whether the
massive U.S. assault on Vietnam was consistent with a meaningful and just
(truly "American") concept of "freedom;" (2) whether social conditions at
home were permitting all of America's own citizens to enjoy "liberty's"
blessings; and (3) who deserved to be receive freedom's gifts.

For the martyred social justice and antiwar activist Martin Luther King,
Jr., America's claim to be the leading agent and epitome of human freedom
on earth rang hollow along all three lines. You'd never know it from the
tepid language used by American political and cultural authorities in
their by-now ritual sanctification of King's officially whitewashed
memory, but the fallen civil rights leader was rather unimpressed by the
extent to which his movement's mid-1960s triumphs over southern racism had
extended freedom throughout the nation.  He viewed the Voting Rights and
Civil Rights acts as relatively partial bourgeois accomplishments that
dangerously encouraged mainstream America to think the nation's racial
problems "were automatically solved." He saw these early victories as
falling short of his deeper "freedom" objective: advancing social,
economic, political, and racial justice and liberty across the entire
nation (including its northern, ghetto-scarred cities) and (of increasing
important to him late in life) around the world.

Thus he quickly followed up on the movement's significant defeat of open
racism in the South by "turning North" in an effort to take the "freedom
struggle" to a radical new level. It was one thing, King told his
colleagues, for blacks to win the freedom to sit at a lunch counter. It
was another thing for black and other poor people to get the money that
gave them the freedom to actually buy a lunch.

It was one thing, King argued, to open the doors of economic opportunity
for some few and relatively privileged African-Americans. It was another
thing to move millions of black and other disadvantaged people out of
economic oppression and tyranny. It was another and related thing to
dismantle slums and overcome the deep structural and societal barriers to
freedom and equality that continued after public bigotry was discredited
and open discrimination was outlawed.

Beneath King's official canonization (the great pacifist actually received
an official U.S. Air Force military fly-over on King Day), few Americans
know that King who linked racial and social freedom at home to the end of
(American) imperialist oppression and social disparity abroad, denouncing
what he called "the triple evils that are interrelated": "racism, economic
exploitation [capitalism], and war."

Along the way, King proclaimed the U.S. "the foremost purveyor of violence
in the world" and proclaimed that American had no business claiming to
"fight for the so-called freedom of the Vietnamese people when we have not
put even our own [freedom] house in order."

There are many other examples, going back before the American Revolution
and leading up through the 1960s and beyond, showing that "freedom" and
"liberty" have always been and remain highly and hotly contested words in
the American historical experience.

You'd never know this, however, from our history major president's "State
of the Union address."

The president might be in love with talking about "freedom," but he never
puts any but the most superficial substance on the skeleton of his
favorite key word.

"In this decisive year," he proclaimed Tuesday, "we will choose to act
confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom - or retreat from our
duties in the hope of an easier life."

No elaboration required: "freedom's" enemies are America's enemies because
(incidentally corporate-plutocratic America, the "best democracy that
money can buy" and possessor of the world's highest incarceration rate) is
self-evidently the land of "freedom." We will chase down the terrorist
enemies of liberty.

"Far from being a hopeless dream," Bush said, "the advance of freedom is
the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely
democracies in the world. Today, there are 122. And we're writing a new
chapter in the story of self-government - with women lining up to vote in
Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink,
and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals
and the necessity of freedom. At the start of 2006, more than half the
people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the
other half - in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and
Iran - because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world,
require their freedom, as well."

Here "freedom" is simplistically equated with the formal act of casting a
ballot, the existence of formally elected representatives, and the
attainment of basic civil liberties. There's no required concern (ala
King) with the purchase of "democracy" by concentrated economic power, the
class and/or racial-ethnic identity and agenda of the specific
representatives elected, or the limiting effect of economic and other
social inequalities on meaningful "freedom" and civic power for the
majority.

"Islamic terrorists'" aim, Bush said last Tuesday, "is to seize power in
Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the
world" and thereby to "break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the
Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight
to keep it."

Here "freedom" apparently means security from "violent" others, who want
to attack us. It's hard to imagine anyone not wanting to be free of such
attack, though it might be worth mentioning that many Iraqis and others
reasonably follow the counsel of Martin King by wondering if Americans are
"the violent" who "inherit the Earth" and noting that we deny Iraqi's the
right to coverage under this definition of "freedom" since we've liberated
tens of thousands (the precise body count is a subject of debate) of them
from the burden of biological existence.

"America rejects the false comfort of isolationism," Bush announced,
adding that "we are the nation that saved liberty in Europe." Saved
Europe, that is, from European fascism-Nazism.

There's no remotely imaginable mention here, of course, of the fact that
U.S. policymakers in the interwar period (1919-1939) concluded that
America's (false) conflation of freedom with capitalism required them to
appease and otherwise enable the rise of European fascism. As is apparent
from the relevant historical literature, the US watched with approval as
fascist darkness set over Europe. American policymakers saw Italian,
Spanish, German and other strains of European fascism as welcome counters
to the truer (for them) threat to "freedom": the Soviet danger
(essentially the demonstration Russia made of the possibilities for
modernization capitalist world system) and anti-capitalist social
democracy within European nations.

"We're continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government
to fight corruption and build a modern economy," Bush said, "so all Iraqis
can experience the benefits of freedom."

Here "freedom" refers to "modern" political economy, presumably (it is
certainly safe to assume) corporate-state-capitalist (falsely described as
"free market" in dominant elite usage) and material "reconstruction," with
a hint of anti-corruption thrown in. There's no room in such a usage for
the considerable extent to which "modern" (currently corporate/state-
capitalist) economies have consigned vast swaths of the global populace to
material immiseration, poverty (un-freedom), and related forms of
oppression over centuries of world-capitalist dominance. There's no room
to grasp Iraqis' legitimate concerns about the significant extent to which
their social, economic, and political freedom is assaulted by the
specifically corporate-globalizationist form of "modern economy" -
dominated by foreign, largely U.S.-based multinational corporations that
are free to buy up Iraqi's economy - that "liberty-"loving Uncle Sam is
insisting that Iraqis adopt. Sticklers might like to remind the president
that the main thing Iraq needs to be "reconstructed" from is the
monumental devastation imposed by savage ongoing U.S. over the last two
decades.  "We're striking terrorist targets while we train Iraqi forces
that are increasingly capable of defeating the enemy," Bush said. "Iraqis
are showing their courage every day, and we are proud to be their allies
in the cause of freedom."

Here "freedom" simply means defeating the resistance to America's brazenly
imperialist occupation. This resistance is the "enemy" equated with
"terrorism" and what Bush described as "radical Islam's" "ideology of
terror and death" and "totalitarian control." There's no room in that
usage for acknowledging the significant extent to which many strictly
nonviolent and non-"terrorist" Iraqis see the illegal occupation of their
country by history's most lethal military power (the U.S.) as the ultimate
enemy of their "freedom."

"Democracies in the Middle East," Bush announced, "will not look like our
own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet
liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty
is the right and hope of all humanity."

To "the citizens of Iran," Bush said "America respects you, and we respect
your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your
own freedom."

"Together, let us protect our country," Bush said, adding: "support the
men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom" - a
reference to the soldiers of the U.S. military.

"America is a great force for freedom and prosperity," the president said.
"Before history is written down in books," Bush noted in conclusion, "it
is written in courage. Like Americans before us, we will show that courage
and we will finish well. We will lead freedom's advance."

Bush did not elaborate on the meaning of his concept of "freedom." The
president is content to cloak what careful de-coders know to be his richly
authoritarian and radically reactionary sentiments on (1) what "freedom"
really means; (2) the "social conditions that make it possible;" and (3)
"the boundaries of who is entitled to enjoy" it and who is not. He is more
than pleased to "allow his hearer to think he means something quite
different."

He opened his address, finally, with a reference to "the good life" of the
recently passed Coretta Scott King, wishing her "a glad re-union with the
husband who was taken so long ago." He and handlers were more than happy,
however, to leave us in the dark on where the administration really stands
in relation to Martin King's freedom-killing "triple evils that are
interrelated."

Of course, such misunderstanding is precisely the point. If the majority
of the American populace fully grasped the extent of the Orwellian chasm
between (a) the privately-held meanings and values of the power "elite"
and (b) the superficial shadow-discourse concocted for the citizenry's
diversion, confusion, and public "consumption," we'd probably have another
American Revolution on our hands - and a new twist in the continuing
American and related global struggle over the meaning of the words
"freedom" and "liberty."

Paul Street (pstreet [at] niu.edu) is a Visiting Professor in American History
at Northern Illinois University. He is the author of Empire and
Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm
Publishers, 2004, order at www.paradigmpublishers.com);Segregated Schools:
Race, Class, and Educational Apartheid in the Post-Civil Rights Era (New
York, NY: Routledge: 2005); and Still Separate, Unequal: Race, Place,
Policy, and the State of Black Chicago (Chicago, IL: Chicago Urban League,
2005).


--------12 of 13--------

Halliburton Detention Camps For Political Subversives
By Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet.com | February 1 2006
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/index.html>

In another shining example of modern day corporate fascism, it was
announced recently that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root had
been awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to
construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national
emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk
of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps
will also be used "as the development of a plan to react to a national
emergency."

Discussions of federal concentration camps is no longer the rhetoric of
paranoid Internet conspiracy theorists, it is mainstream news.

Under the enemy combatant designation anyone at the behest of the US
government, even if they are a US citizen, can be kidnapped and placed in
an internment facility forever without trial. Jose Padilla, an American
citizen, has spent over four years in a Navy brig and is only just now
getting a trial.

In 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to
construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical,
biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.

Okanogan County Commissioner Dave Schulz went public three years ago with
his contention that his county was set to be a location for one of the
camps.

Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills
across the US where role players were used to simulate arresting American
citizens and taking them to internment camps.

The move towards the database state in the US and the UK, where every
offence is arrestable and DNA records of every suspect, even if later
proven innocent, are permanently kept on record, is the only tool
necessary to create a master list of 'subversives' that would be subject
to internment in a manufactured time of national emergency.

The national ID card is also intended to be used for this purpose, just as
the Nazis used early IBM computer punch card technology to catalogue lists
of homosexuals, gypsies and Jews before the round-ups began.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act in Britain enables police to obtain name
and address details of anyone they choose, whether they are acting
suspiciously or not. Those details remain on a database forever. To date,
119,000 names of political activists have been taken and this is a figure
that will skyrocket once the post 7/7 figures are taken into account. At
the height of the Iraq war protests, around a million people marched
across the country. However, most of these people were taking part in a
political protest for the first time and as a one off. Even if we take a
figure of half, 500,000 people being politically active in Britain, that
means that the government has already registered around a quarter of
political activists in the UK.

In truth the number is probably above half because we are not factoring in
those already on MI5 'subversive' lists and those listed after the 7/7
bombings, when the powers were used even more broadly.

Concurrently in the US, a new provision in the extended Patriot Act bill
would allow Secret Service agents to arrest and jail protesters accused of
breaching any security perimeter, even if the President or any other
protected official isn't present. The definition of 'free speech zones'
can be shifted around loosely and this would open the floodgates for
protesters to be grabbed and hauled away in any circumstance at the whim
of the Secret Service.

During the 2004 RNC protests, thousands of New Yorkers were arrested en
masse in indiscriminate round-ups and taken to Pier 57, a condemned,
asbestos poisoned old bus depot, where they were imprisoned without charge
for 24 hours or more.

The existence and development of internment camps are solely intended to be
used to round up en masse and imprison 'political dissidents' (anyone who
isn't prepared to lick government boots) after a simulated tactical nuke or
biological attack on a major US or European city.


--------13 of 13--------

 State of the Union:
 dog's butt whoop-te-doodoo where
 the press scoops the poop


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

   - 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