http://socialistworker.org/2012/03/14/treated-like-a-criminal
William Brown, a former Navy SEAL and Iraq war veteran, attended a town hall meeting on March 8 to raise his concerns about a takeover of the Rutgers-Camden law school by Rowan University--and for his troubles, he got called an "idiot" by Gov. Chris Christie, a rising star in the Republican Party establishment. Christie grew intolerant of Brown's questions and had state troopers "escort" him from the meeting. Brown spoke with fellow antiwar veteran Rory Fanning about his eviction.
Interview with William Brown:
WHY DID you come out to the town hall meeting with Gov. Christie last Thursday?
LAW STUDENTS at Rutgers are upset about the Rowan University takeover. Some 4,000 signatures have been collected in opposition to the plan. Not once did the governor consult students about this decision. He was insistent that the takeover was going to happen whether we liked it or not.
MEDIA REPORTS say you "calmly" raised your first point about your law degree being watered down as a result of the move. The governor responded, and then things escalated. When Christie lost his cool, he yelled, "Let me tell you something--after you graduate from law school, you conduct yourself like that in a courtroom, your rear end is going to be thrown in jail, idiot."
HE WASN'T giving a real answer or telling the truth. The governor disrespectfully referred to me as "pal" after my first question. Christie also said, "You don't represent the students." I said, "Have you read the newspapers?" Besides the papers, he hasn't talked to any of us, so how would he know what the students think?
ABC News called me after the event. Of course I wanted to talk about the Rowan takeover of Rutgers, but there are other issues that need to be addressed here.
Not only were the voices of the governor's constituents completely ignored on this issue, but I was also treated like a criminal in front of the entire country for speaking up. CNN, ABC and Fox News broadcast the governor having me escorted out of the room by police. It was humiliating. The whole thing is disturbing.
DID YOU see what happened when people peacefully protesting the Virginia bill mandating that a woman undergo an ultrasound before an abortion tried to march in front of Gov. Bob McDonnell's mansion? He called out the riot police and SWAT team.
I AGREE this is all part of a bigger narrative. It was extremely intimidating when I was taken out of that room. The state troopers wanted to lead me down some alley. I insisted on staying by the cameras.
Two of the troopers were grabbing my shoulders, then they had me backed up against the wall, and another had his hand pointed inches from my nose. I asked, "Why are your hands on me? Let go of me." The troopers said, "Why did you say you were a Navy SEAL?" I said, "Because I wanted to share a bit about my background." I had no idea what they were going to do. I can't imagine what would have happened if the cameras weren't there.
THE SAME day you were kicked out of that meeting, H.R. 347 was signed into law by Barack Obama. The law expands an existing federal statute to make it a felony to cause a disturbance at any event that has the Secret Service in attendance, whether you know the Secret Service is there or not.
THERE IS a reason the right to free speech is the First Amendment to the Constitution. We're in trouble when we don't have the ability to peacefully express our dissatisfaction with our government.
CHRISTIE WAS courted by big money in the hopes that he would run for president. The Koch brothers, Charles Schwab and Kenneth Langone, the founder of Home Depot, were all ready to get behind Christie. Christie has a lot of influence and very well could be president one day.
EXACTLY. THERE is still a good chance this guy could be vice president this election cycle. Do we want someone with a temper like his negotiating with Iran?
FOLLOWING THE financial meltdown of 2008, we were witness to history's largest transfer of wealth from working people to the rich. Trillions were spent bailing out the banks, and now they want us to shut up and accept the austerity measures, the housing crisis, the trillion-dollar wars, the prison industrial complex, etc. If you peacefully stand up against these measures, they try to publicly humiliate you or throw you in jail.
I AGREE with you. Anyone who tries to speak up risks what happened to me, or worse. It causes people to think twice about saying what is on their mind. Our elected "representatives" don't want to address the real problems in this county.
WHAT DO you plan on doing next?
THE GOVERNOR'S response to my questions speaks volumes about the current reality in this country. I am not the only concerned citizen. I will continue to speak up when I see an injustice. I will take things day by day, and we'll see what happens.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Udi Aloni with Slavoj Žižek
http://tickets.joespub.com/production/?perf=17942
Joe's Pub Reserved
ORDER TICKETS
What Does a Jew Want? is a remarkable series of visual Midrash presenting philosophy, video art, story-telling, and performance. The event portrays theological political fragments of a “split Jew” through the eyes of an outrageous philosopher and an obscure artist.
"Slavoj Žižek is the most dangerous philosopher in the West."
-Adam Kirsch of The New Republic
“Aloni’s secular theology is definitely one of the most fascinating innovations of our time. So if you want to dwell in your blessed secular ignorance...then do not come to this event – at your own risk”
-Slavoj Žižek
Slavoj Žižek is a Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic. His is one of the most original and influential figures in contemporary thinking. His books include "First as Tragedy, Then as Farce;" "In Defense of Lost Causes;" "Living in the End Times;" and many more. His recent book is Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism, (Verso 2012).
---
Udi Aloni is a writer, artist and filmmaker whose work explores the discourse between art, theory, and action. Among his films are Kashmir: Journey to Freedom (2009), Forgiveness (2006), and Local Angel (2003). His recent book: What does a Jew want? On Binationalism and Other Specters (2011 Columbia University Press)
Last fall The Public Theater presented his Arabic adaptation of Waiting for Godot.
More Info at Joe's Pub
Joe's Pub Reserved
ORDER TICKETS
What Does a Jew Want? is a remarkable series of visual Midrash presenting philosophy, video art, story-telling, and performance. The event portrays theological political fragments of a “split Jew” through the eyes of an outrageous philosopher and an obscure artist.
"Slavoj Žižek is the most dangerous philosopher in the West."
-Adam Kirsch of The New Republic
“Aloni’s secular theology is definitely one of the most fascinating innovations of our time. So if you want to dwell in your blessed secular ignorance...then do not come to this event – at your own risk”
-Slavoj Žižek
Slavoj Žižek is a Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic. His is one of the most original and influential figures in contemporary thinking. His books include "First as Tragedy, Then as Farce;" "In Defense of Lost Causes;" "Living in the End Times;" and many more. His recent book is Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism, (Verso 2012).
---
Udi Aloni is a writer, artist and filmmaker whose work explores the discourse between art, theory, and action. Among his films are Kashmir: Journey to Freedom (2009), Forgiveness (2006), and Local Angel (2003). His recent book: What does a Jew want? On Binationalism and Other Specters (2011 Columbia University Press)
Last fall The Public Theater presented his Arabic adaptation of Waiting for Godot.
More Info at Joe's Pub
Saturday, March 10, 2012
US Senate Rejects GOP Measure to Construct Keystone Pipeline
By Ben Geman and Josiah Ryan, The Hill
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/215051-senate-blocks-keystone-pipeline-approval-plan
The Senate has rejected a GOP plan to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline after President Obama made personal calls to Democrats urging them to oppose it.
The 56-42 vote staves off an election-year rebuke of Obama, but will give political ammunition to backers of TransCanada Corp.'s plan to build a pipeline connecting Alberta's massive tar sands projects to Gulf Coast refineries.
Despite Obama's efforts, 11 Democrats brushed off Obama on the vote and sided with Republicans.
The 11 Democratic defections were Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Bob Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Jim Webb (Va.).
[….]
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/215051-senate-blocks-keystone-pipeline-approval-plan
The Senate has rejected a GOP plan to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline after President Obama made personal calls to Democrats urging them to oppose it.
The 56-42 vote staves off an election-year rebuke of Obama, but will give political ammunition to backers of TransCanada Corp.'s plan to build a pipeline connecting Alberta's massive tar sands projects to Gulf Coast refineries.
Despite Obama's efforts, 11 Democrats brushed off Obama on the vote and sided with Republicans.
The 11 Democratic defections were Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Bob Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Jim Webb (Va.).
[….]
Thursday, March 8, 2012
UN top torture official denounces Bradley Manning’s detention
"Manning was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" and "excessive and prolonged isolation"
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/un_top_torture_official_denounces_bradley_mannings_detention/?source=newsletter
In December, 2010, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on torture announced a formal investigation into the conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention that endured for the eight months he was held at a Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia. The Army Private has been detained since May, 2010, on charges that he leaked classified documents to WikiLeaks, but has not yet been tried. Yesterday, the U.N. official overseeing the investigation pronounced that “Bradley Manning was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the excessive and prolonged isolation“ to which he was subjected at Quantico. That official, Juan Ernesto Mendez, heads the U.N. office created by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, bestowed with the mandate “to examine questions relevant to torture.”
The extreme conditions of Manning’s detention were first reported here in December, 2010, and included Manning’s being held 23 out of 24 hours a day in solitary confinement for what had then been five straight months, along with other plainly punitive measures. Thereafter, Manning was stripped of his clothing and forced to stand nude for morning inspection, and a special Marine investigation (ultimately rejected by brig officials) concluded that “that Manning’s jailers violated Navy policy by keeping him on suicide watch after psychiatrists concluded he was not a threat to himself.” In the wake of what had become a worldwide controversy that led to the resignation of the State Department’s spokesman, Manning was moved in April, 2011, to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where his detention conditions apparently improved.
Over the past year, the U.N. torture investigator repeatedly complained – including in official reprimands – that his investigation was being obstructed by the Obama administration, which refused to provide unmonitored access to interview Manning. About this refusal to allow an unmonitored interview with Manning, the U.N. official said: “Such a condition violates long-standing rules that the UN applies for prison visits and for interviews with inmates everywhere in the world.” In reporting on this U.N. grievance, The Guardian wrote: “It is the kind of censure the UN normally reserves for authoritarian regimes around the world”; indeed, “the vast majority of states allowed for visits to detainees without conditions.” Just to underscore how unusual was this obstruction: the Bush administration allowed investigators with the International Committee of the Red Cross private interviews even with the most “high-value” detainees at Guantanamo: that is, once they emerged from the CIA “black sites” where they were kept for almost three years beyond the reach of the ICRC (see p. 3 of the ICRC report).
Despite this obstruction of his investigation, the U.N. torture rapporteur, speaking at a U.N. Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, condemned Manning’s treatment as “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” specifically citing “the excessive and prolonged isolation he was put in during the eight months he was in Quantico.” He also rejected the defenses offered by Obama officials for what was done to Manning: “the explanation I was given for those eight months was not convincing for me.”
Once the oppressive conditions of Manning’s detention were reported here, an intense controversy resulted. In January, 2011, Amnesty International wrote a letter to then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates protesting that the conditions “are unnecessarily severe and amount to inhumane treatment” and “breach the USA’s obligations under international standards and treaties.” In March, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was asked at a small Q-and-A session at MIT by a PhD student: “There’s an elephant in the room during this discussion: Wikileaks. The US government is torturing a whistleblower in prison right now.” Crowley replied by denouncing the abuse of Manning as “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” That, in turn, led to President Obama’s being asked at a Press Conference about Crowley’s criticisms by ABC News‘ Jake Tapper (Obama replied that brig officials “assured” him Manning was being handled properly), and to Crowley’s “resignation” shortly thereafter.
Beyond human rights groups and the U.N., criticisms over Manning’s detention condition were widespread and vehement. Leading newspapers editorialized against it, with the LA Times denouncing it as “inhumane,” while The New York Times, under the headline “The Abuse of Private Manning,” editorialized that the Obama administration” has been treating [Manning] abusively, in a way that conjures creepy memories of how the Bush administration used to treat terror suspects. Inexplicably, it appears to have President Obama’s support to do so.” The NYT Editors added: “Far more troubling is why President Obama, who has forcefully denounced prisoner abuse, is condoning this treatment.”
The only support for Manning’s treatment came from far-right neocon outlets that have long reflexively supported torture [The Weekly Standard (“Don’t Cry for Bradley Manning”) and RedState (“Give Bradley Manning His Pillow and Blankie Back”)], along with Obama’s hardest-core, the-Leader-does-not-err followers who echoed those neocons almost verbatim, such as this front-page writer at the liberal blog Crooks & Liars (“the meme o the day seems to be on Manning’s so-called torture, to which I say ‘boo hoo“), and this former Obama campaign press aide and current daytime MSNBC contributor (“Bradley Manning has no pillow??? GTFOH!”). It’s revealing indeed how often those two factions are in lock-step agreement. Atrios asked the right question about such individuals here.
It is remarkable that the administration of President Obama, who repeatedly railed against and vowed to end detainee abuse, first obstructed the investigation of the U.N.’s top torture investigator, only to be now harshly condemned by that investigator for “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”: treatment that endured for eight full months until the controversy became too intense to permit it to continue any longer. Last month, it was announced that Manning was one of 231 individuals officially nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize by at least one person with formal nominating rights vested by the Nobel Committee. In a Guardian Op-Ed in December, I argued that the abuse of Manning was part of the larger war on whistleblowers being waged by the Obama administration, and that “for what he is alleged to have given the world, Manning deserves gratitude and a medal, not a life in prison.”
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/un_top_torture_official_denounces_bradley_mannings_detention/?source=newsletter
In December, 2010, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on torture announced a formal investigation into the conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention that endured for the eight months he was held at a Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia. The Army Private has been detained since May, 2010, on charges that he leaked classified documents to WikiLeaks, but has not yet been tried. Yesterday, the U.N. official overseeing the investigation pronounced that “Bradley Manning was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the excessive and prolonged isolation“ to which he was subjected at Quantico. That official, Juan Ernesto Mendez, heads the U.N. office created by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, bestowed with the mandate “to examine questions relevant to torture.”
The extreme conditions of Manning’s detention were first reported here in December, 2010, and included Manning’s being held 23 out of 24 hours a day in solitary confinement for what had then been five straight months, along with other plainly punitive measures. Thereafter, Manning was stripped of his clothing and forced to stand nude for morning inspection, and a special Marine investigation (ultimately rejected by brig officials) concluded that “that Manning’s jailers violated Navy policy by keeping him on suicide watch after psychiatrists concluded he was not a threat to himself.” In the wake of what had become a worldwide controversy that led to the resignation of the State Department’s spokesman, Manning was moved in April, 2011, to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where his detention conditions apparently improved.
Over the past year, the U.N. torture investigator repeatedly complained – including in official reprimands – that his investigation was being obstructed by the Obama administration, which refused to provide unmonitored access to interview Manning. About this refusal to allow an unmonitored interview with Manning, the U.N. official said: “Such a condition violates long-standing rules that the UN applies for prison visits and for interviews with inmates everywhere in the world.” In reporting on this U.N. grievance, The Guardian wrote: “It is the kind of censure the UN normally reserves for authoritarian regimes around the world”; indeed, “the vast majority of states allowed for visits to detainees without conditions.” Just to underscore how unusual was this obstruction: the Bush administration allowed investigators with the International Committee of the Red Cross private interviews even with the most “high-value” detainees at Guantanamo: that is, once they emerged from the CIA “black sites” where they were kept for almost three years beyond the reach of the ICRC (see p. 3 of the ICRC report).
Despite this obstruction of his investigation, the U.N. torture rapporteur, speaking at a U.N. Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, condemned Manning’s treatment as “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” specifically citing “the excessive and prolonged isolation he was put in during the eight months he was in Quantico.” He also rejected the defenses offered by Obama officials for what was done to Manning: “the explanation I was given for those eight months was not convincing for me.”
Once the oppressive conditions of Manning’s detention were reported here, an intense controversy resulted. In January, 2011, Amnesty International wrote a letter to then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates protesting that the conditions “are unnecessarily severe and amount to inhumane treatment” and “breach the USA’s obligations under international standards and treaties.” In March, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was asked at a small Q-and-A session at MIT by a PhD student: “There’s an elephant in the room during this discussion: Wikileaks. The US government is torturing a whistleblower in prison right now.” Crowley replied by denouncing the abuse of Manning as “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” That, in turn, led to President Obama’s being asked at a Press Conference about Crowley’s criticisms by ABC News‘ Jake Tapper (Obama replied that brig officials “assured” him Manning was being handled properly), and to Crowley’s “resignation” shortly thereafter.
Beyond human rights groups and the U.N., criticisms over Manning’s detention condition were widespread and vehement. Leading newspapers editorialized against it, with the LA Times denouncing it as “inhumane,” while The New York Times, under the headline “The Abuse of Private Manning,” editorialized that the Obama administration” has been treating [Manning] abusively, in a way that conjures creepy memories of how the Bush administration used to treat terror suspects. Inexplicably, it appears to have President Obama’s support to do so.” The NYT Editors added: “Far more troubling is why President Obama, who has forcefully denounced prisoner abuse, is condoning this treatment.”
The only support for Manning’s treatment came from far-right neocon outlets that have long reflexively supported torture [The Weekly Standard (“Don’t Cry for Bradley Manning”) and RedState (“Give Bradley Manning His Pillow and Blankie Back”)], along with Obama’s hardest-core, the-Leader-does-not-err followers who echoed those neocons almost verbatim, such as this front-page writer at the liberal blog Crooks & Liars (“the meme o the day seems to be on Manning’s so-called torture, to which I say ‘boo hoo“), and this former Obama campaign press aide and current daytime MSNBC contributor (“Bradley Manning has no pillow??? GTFOH!”). It’s revealing indeed how often those two factions are in lock-step agreement. Atrios asked the right question about such individuals here.
It is remarkable that the administration of President Obama, who repeatedly railed against and vowed to end detainee abuse, first obstructed the investigation of the U.N.’s top torture investigator, only to be now harshly condemned by that investigator for “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”: treatment that endured for eight full months until the controversy became too intense to permit it to continue any longer. Last month, it was announced that Manning was one of 231 individuals officially nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize by at least one person with formal nominating rights vested by the Nobel Committee. In a Guardian Op-Ed in December, I argued that the abuse of Manning was part of the larger war on whistleblowers being waged by the Obama administration, and that “for what he is alleged to have given the world, Manning deserves gratitude and a medal, not a life in prison.”
Discussion of “A Challenge from Raymond Lotta to Slavoj Žižek
http://calendar.insidebayarea.com/berkeley_ca/events/show/246200884-discussion-of-a-challenge-from-raymond-lotta-to-slavoj-zizek-lets-debate-the-nature-of-imperialism-prospects-for-revolution
Let’s Debate the Nature of Imperialism, Prospects for Revolution
Tuesday, Mar 27 7:00p to 9:00p
At Revolution Books, Berkeley, CA
Discussion of “A Challenge from Raymond Lotta to Slavoj Žižek: Let’s Debate the Nature of Imperialism, Prospects for Revolution, and the Meaning of the Communist Project.”
Let’s Debate the Nature of Imperialism, Prospects for Revolution
Tuesday, Mar 27 7:00p to 9:00p
At Revolution Books, Berkeley, CA
Discussion of “A Challenge from Raymond Lotta to Slavoj Žižek: Let’s Debate the Nature of Imperialism, Prospects for Revolution, and the Meaning of the Communist Project.”
Climate Change
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change/?gclid=CL2R_Ovxya4CFUlLpgodjUhbAQ
[….]
It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.
Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure – global temperature – the effects of climate change (such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events) will vary greatly from place to place.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which risks profound impacts on many marine ecosystems and in turn the societies which depend on them.
The Society has worked on the issue of climate change for many years to further the understanding of this issue. These activities have been informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations. Our work has taken the following forms:
[….]
[….]
It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.
Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure – global temperature – the effects of climate change (such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events) will vary greatly from place to place.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which risks profound impacts on many marine ecosystems and in turn the societies which depend on them.
The Society has worked on the issue of climate change for many years to further the understanding of this issue. These activities have been informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations. Our work has taken the following forms:
[….]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)