A CALL TO ACTION -- PAST FEATURES

October - November

"Jingoes, Media Junkies, and the War Against Their Ignorance" -- by Julie
November 2001

America was wrong. Osama bin Laden did not lead the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11.

If this headline were true, would the mainstream media be willing to run it? More importantly, if this headline were true, would the American public be willing to believe it and thus willing to end violent strikes against Afghanistan? ...

The New York Times reports that “More than seven in 10 Americans in a recent poll said they support military action against the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks even if it means thousands of American military personnel are killed.” America’s willingness to drop the bomb as a solution has shown adverse effects. Recently, a bomb that was “misguided” killed four civilians and injured eight in Afghanistan. We must convince ourselves that violence is wrong - that we can serve the United States better by being neither aggressors nor pacifists but by acting peacefully.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate John Hume explains, “It is absolutely right that in the defense of [freedom and democracy] the U.S. should seek to bring those responsible to justice, but they must do so without causing suffering among innocent people.” With the recent retreat of the Taliban from Afghanistan’s capital city, Kabul, it is evident that citizens of Afghanistan by no means support the Taliban. However, with the anti-Afghani sentiments infiltrating the minds of Americans, killing anyone who lives among the Taliban hardly seems a crime, regardless of either innocence or ideals. Despite numerous Afghani citizens chanting “Long live America!” after the Taliban’s retreat, many Americans remain unwilling to end the air strikes. Perhaps the greatest threat to America’s acting violently is simply that its people think rather than unknowingly believe...

As the United States engages itself more intensely in air strikes, moving further and further away from its original plan of merely bombing the “enemy” Taliban sites, we as a nation must question whether what we read, what we hear, and what we see is truth. And if what we read, hear, and see is true, what can we do to change it? Though it may not be an end to violence, a solution to battling the ignorance of the jingoes and the media junkies is simply the denial of the mainstream media. Rejection in itself could prove to be a radical way to rebel against the false ideals that are mutual among many Americans. For now, we can take the advice of six-time presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche and “turn off CNN.”

Click here to read the entire essay.

Week of August 17

"Withdrawing from an agreement which took two years to arrive at, only five days after republicans declared it as historic, can only play into the hands of those sceptics who have always doubted their intentions." - Northern Ireland secretary John Reid

About two weeks ago, Northern Ireland seemed so "tantalisingly close" to achieving peace. The IRA had offered to disarm their weapons in return for the creation of a local government that would allow the Catholic minority to share power with the Protestant majority. But then, David Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, rejected the proposal because the secret plan offered no timetable and means for when and how the IRA would decommission. Since the power-sharing government cannot function without the cooperation of the UUP, and now that the IRA has withdrawn its proposal, they're all screwed.

Based on what little knowledge I have about the dealings, I still want to say that I feel really ambivalent about these new revelations. On one hand, I do agree with most people that the IRA's retraction of their promise to put the arms beyond use is cowardly and contradictory to their claim of their commitment to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. But on the other, I think it was brash of David Trimble and the UUP to so quickly decline the IRA's bid. To take such a huge step toward peace, you have to put your ego aside and take a leap of faith. In that case, the IRA doesn't want to look like the bad guy, especially with the three men arrested down in Colombia for training guerillas to make bombs and suspected to be associated with the Provos, but I genuinely believe that they want this peace deal to work. Trimble needs to believe that they do and should give them time to carry out their promise. The conflict has taken over 3,600 lives over the last 30 years; everyone has to suck it up and take it like a woman(!) so that they can finally have peace. [I just wish Bono could help me make sense of all this.]

Week of August 10

“National missile defense is the most expensive possible response to the least likely threat we face.” -Democratic Senate Majority leader, Tom Daschle

In a nation so concerned with its own safety, it seems strange that the President of the United States would implement policies similar to those of the Reagan administration that would consciously increase the threat of nuclear weaponry spreading into currently un-nuclearized nations. At least it seems strange to Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader for the Democratic Party, and most people with a heart, a soul, and more importantly, a brain. Daschle accuses Bush’s missile defense plan as “single-minded.” Bush plans on requesting $8.3 billion, money that could largely reduce or even eliminate many global problems such as world hunger and the growing AIDS plague in the third world, for missile defense. This is a lot of money, a 57 percent increase of the current budget for missile defense. Profoundly, and sadly on America’s part, Daschle stated that, “Instead of asserting out leadership, we are abdicating it.” He also pointed out, and this is a news flash to many Republicans, that the Cold War, the “it-never-really-did-exist” Cold War, is over. He insisted that power should “inspire respect instead of resentment.” And with a 57 percent increase in missile defense, resentment and, inevitably, hostilities will be formed against the United States. Republican counterparts argue that they are supporting the national interest. If the national interest is a nuclear time bomb waiting to explode, consequently destroying most or all of the world, America is not the nation many envision it to be. So we have a decision to make as a nation. Are we merely the brainwashed citizens that believe we are or should be involved in a nuclear and political arms race that never existed but supposedly ended with those infamous words, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”? Or are we stronger, more human? Do we want to preserve lives or annihilate them? As a nation we can stand up and fight against this disgraceful, unresourceful, and uneconomical plan. Our lives and money do not have to be staked for a self-preserving ignorant plea against a nonexistent threat.

Week of August 3

Late Thursday night, 88 pounds of explosives went off in Ealing, England, leaving at least 7 injured in the West London town. The police believe that the Real IRA planted the car bomb to express their objection to the Ulster peace plan. While the actual Irish Republican Army is currently observing a ceasefire and Sinn Fein, its political arm, remains invested to the Good Friday Agreement, the splinter group has committed another cowardly act of atrocity, adding to their notoriety from bombing Omagh. The monstrosity comes in the wake of the proceedings to develop a formula to make the pact negotiated in 1998 by David Trimble and John Hume work. Apparently concerned that they had lost their voice, the Real IRA, playing the part of the sore loser, let out a resonant shout that only served to reinforce the will of the delegates involved in the peace deal and to remind everyone that they must make the agreement work. Labour MP Clive Soley said, "They aren't going to achieve their ends, whether in Northern Ireland by shooting people or by trying to bomb London. It's out of date, it's stupid, it's wrong." Ulster Secretary John Reid adds, "Far from deflecting us, last night's barbaric attack should strengthen our resolve to reach agreement."

The British and Irish governments are currently awaiting the judgments of the rival parties - including Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionist Party - on the new take-it-or-leave-it peace proposals. Though the details have not been made public, the plans are believed to incorporate police reforms which will reduce the numbers of British troops on the condition that the IRA disarms. The decision is expected by Monday, August 6. I guess we can only hope they come to their senses and realize that guns have NO place in our society.

Week of July 26

"The Kyoto Protocol can and should be the spark that sets off the coming green revolution," Greenpeace said in a statement.

ONLY if the United States is involved, that is.

However, about four months ago, President Bush rejected the climate-change treaty, which was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 and is with 10 years in the making, as a "fatally flawed" plan. He suggests that if the United States is held to the provisions in the agreement, its economy, which is already experiencing a slowdown, will suffer much more.

Contrary to that claim, the World Wildlife Fund released a study two weeks ago that projects savings to U. S. consumers of $50 billion annually on gasoline and electricity bills by 2010 and $135 billion each year by 2020. Cumulatively, the U.S. will save $114 billion by 2010 and $576 billion by 2020. Ratification of the Kyoto Accord will be the first step in reducing the world's dependence on fossil fuels, but it needs the participation of the United States to be especially effective.

First of all, I have to say that I'm pretty damn proud of this country but not when we (meaning Bush and his conservative pals) are being arrogant arseholes like this. With such a superiority complex, you'd think that the United States would take a primary role in putting the Kyoto Accord into effect, even if just to take credit for its success. Instead, Bush has decided that since China and India, two developing countries that are major polluters, are exempted from the agreement, the U. S. would take no role in the protocol. To me, this seems like a big brother throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy's playing favorites with the baby sisters. The United States should instead, in true older sibling fashion, set the example for the rest of the countries. The United States is the biggest polluter in the world, accounting for 25% of greenhouse emissions, and without its participation, Japan, which is the second biggest polluter, and Australia, which is the world's biggest emitter per head of population, refused to cooperate. Loopholes have been created in the Kyoto Accord, including emissions trading (the sale of permits to pollute) and the creating of carbon "sinks" (forests to offset emissions), just to try to get the U. S. to agree to it. The treaty requires that 55 countries, which must be responsible for at least 55% of greenhouse emissions, to ratify it before it can come into effect. With the U.S. on board, it would have all the chances for success.

Now, it's your turn. Share the statistics, share your thoughts. As long as you spread the news and make sure people are informed about this issue, you'll have made it hard for people not to care. (And if you're up for a challenge, try convincing any of those hard-headed conservatives you meet to change their position. Apathy sucks, but obstinacy to their ideas can be much worse.)

Week of July 19

Let's rewind to the October 25th episode of West Wing, in which President Nimbala, who is representing the nations of Africa has come to the White House for President Bartlet's help. Together, they are trying to appeal to the drug companies' sense of humanity to bring treatment to the 26 million AIDS victims in Africa, but the companies only want the African nations to honor the patent laws by blocking the flow of black market AIDS treatments into those countries. Though the talks have stalled, here are some points made.

• The same drug that costs around $10 in Norway, where very few need it, costs around $90 in Africa where everyone needs it.
• A drug that can be purchased from the American companies for $4 per unit can be bought from Pakistan for 40¢ per unit. The Africans know that the Americans will not lower their prices for them, so what is their incentive to buy those drugs from the Americans?
• The drugs cost about $150 per week. The average police officer in Kenya makes about $43 per MONTH!!
• Toby, the deputy chief of staff I think, says: "I think what President Nimbala is saying is that there's more money in giving a white guy an erection than curing a black guy of AIDS."
• The pills cost 4¢ to make. (..even if the first pill cost $400 million for R & D to make.)

The drug companies fire back with these points:

• They've already given $120 million worth of free medicine to Africa, some of which treat eye infections. (Counterpoint: "They're not dying of eye infections.")
• "The HIV drugs are a triple cocktail. It's a complicated regimen that requires ten pills to be taken every day at precise times." So what's the problem: "They don't own wristwatches. They can't tell time."

Ahhh, so that's where U2 comes in!! At the Boston concerts we went to, Bono launched into a diatribe about how USAID couldn't help the African AIDS patients, because they don't have wristwatches. Bono suggests we send our own to them. Though the West Wing characters could not appeal to drug companies, we hope these facts have appealed to your humanity and even more that they will infuriate you to action.