May
18, 2013, Issue #191
HUDSON
VALLEY ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER
jacdon@earthlink.net,
P.O. Box 662, New Paltz, NY 12561
http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/
———————
CONTENTS:
1. “HANDS OFF THE MORNING-AFTER PILL!"
2. NEW HAVEN FLASHMOB ENTERS PHARMACY
3. THE WORLD OUR CHILDREN WILL INHABIT
4. ON REACHING 400PPM
5. THE LATEST CLIMATE THREAT
6. AFGHANISTAN WAR MAY END BY 2024.... MAYBE
7. OUTRAGEOUS CONVICTION BY MILITARY COURT
8. U.S. MILITARY RAPE EPIDEMIC
9. U.S. MILITARY FAILS WOMEN SOLDIERS
10. REPEAL
THE SEQUESTER
11. CHINA REFUTES U.S. CYBER-ATTACK CHARGE
12. IF
ISRAEL ATTACKED IRAN…
13. MANY
MAY DAY EVENTS IN U.S.
14.
DEMONSTRATORS MARK MUMIA’S BIRTHDAY
15.
UNDERSTANDING THE VENEZUELAN ELECTION OUTCOME
16.
NORMALIZATION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN?
—————————
NOTE - NEW HUDSON VALLEY CALENDAR IS
JUST BELOW NEWSLETTER — SCROLL DOWN
1. “HANDS OFF THE MORNING-AFTER PILL!"
By the Activist Newsletter
A nationwide week of protests began in many cities May
14 to demand access to emergency contraception without restrictions or ID
requirements, and at an affordable cost. Word (Women Organized to Resist and
Defend), National Women’s Liberation and other groups facilitated the
demonstrations.
Actions are taking place in In San Francisco, Los
Angeles, Sacramento, New Haven, Washington DC, New York City, Asheville,
Albuquerque, Chicago, Gainesville, Syracuse and other cities across the United
States.
Less than one month after the landmark Tummino v.
Hamburg decision in which a federal court ruled that emergency contraception
(known as Plan B) should be made available to all women without a prescription,
Justice Department attorneys have announced that they will file to overturn
that decision. The Obama administration is once again playing political
football with women’s right to control their bodies and their health.
A New York Times editorial declared scathingly May 3
that by this action the Obama “Administration betrayed both reproductive rights
and science.”
Shortly after the court’s ruling, the FDA announced it
would make Plan B available over the counter without a prescription, but only
to women over the age of 15. All women who purchase Plan B will be required to
provide identification – yet another unnecessary restriction on women’s right
to healthcare.
There are many ways in which this arbitrary,
unnecessary age restriction would hinder women’s right to access safe,
effective contraception. Many young women do not have such identification. This
restriction unfairly blocks access for undocumented women and all women who do
not wish to give their identification to pharmacy employees. Young women face
enough shame and difficulty in accessing contraception and reproductive
healthcare without additional arbitrary barriers set up at the whim of the
Obama administration.
Arguing that there is no scientific or medical reason
to restrict access to the Morning-After Pill, women took action to demand emergency
contraception without restrictions. They shouted, "Obama: Hands off the
Morning-After Pill!"
—
To contact the Mid-Hudson WORD, email Donna Goodman, donna0726@earthlink.net.
The New Haven event follows below, and information
about all the other actions this week is at WORD’s website,
http://www.defendwomensrights.org.
————————
2. NEW HAVEN FLASHMOB ENTERS PHARMACY
By the Activist Newsletter
New Haven activists joined many others across the
country in a May14 solidarity action to demand the placement of emergency
contraception on pharmacy shelves without restrictions. The action was
conducted as a small flashmob, with activists spread throughout a local
pharmacy.
When the first chant was heard – “When women's rights
are under attack, what do we do?” – responses came from all over the store:
“Stand up, fight back!” and activists filed into the family planning aisle to
continue chanting “Put Plan B on the shelves, or we will do it by ourselves!”
and “No ID for Plan B!”
An organizer with WORD delivered a short speech
decrying the Obama Administration's decision to demand government-issued ID
with the purchase of emergency contraception. “Do you have to show ID to buy
Tylenol?” she asked the group. “Do men have to show ID and prove that they're
over 15 years old when they want to buy condoms? No. This is a sexist position.
No woman should have to show ID to decide what to do with her own body.”
Activists then put mock Morning-After Pill boxes on
the shelves and filed out, chanting. Shoppers in the pharmacy were
very supportive of the action. “You guys are awesome,” one person said. “This
is really great work you're doing.”
—
Send a letter to President Obama now! Demand access to the morning-after pill
for all women, over the counter and without restriction! Go to: http://www.defendwomensrights.org/pages/action-alert-morning-after-pill.html.
————————
3. THE WORLD OUR CHILDREN WILL INHABIT
By Jack A. Smith, Activist Newsletter
The
front cover of the May edition of National Geographic has an intriguing
headline. Just over a large photo of a baby of several months are the words:
“THIS BABY WILL LIVE TO BE 120.” Wow. In smaller type an asterisk points out:
“It’s not just hype. New science could lead to very long lives.”
The
article inspires additional respect for the advances of science, genetics,
nutrition and other research and opens new possibilities for human development.
But in contemplating this new breakthrough in the quest for longer life it is
useful to examine the world into which our new babies are entering.
I’m
not just writing about the nuclear weapons, drone warfare, torture memos,
global hunger, or the plethora of needless inequality and injustice that exists
through the world. There’s also the impending catastrophe of global warming —
something few of us worried about a generation ago, but now the very health and
welfare of new generations is at stake.
A
day after finishing the National Geographic article, I picked up the New York
Times and on page one under a two-column headline was an example of the other
half of the contradiction of increased longevity:
“Heat-Trapping
Gas Passes Milestone, Raising Fears.” The article was chilling: “The level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, carbon
dioxide, has passed a long-feared milestone, scientists reported Friday,
reaching a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.
Scientific instruments showed that the gas had reached an average daily level
above 400 parts per million [ppm].”
Commenting
on the event, former Vice President Al Gore wrote: "We are reaping the consequences of our recklessness." (Gore’s
brief article is below.) And environmental leader Bill McKibben
declared:
“We’ve
known for a long time that we’d pass the 400ppm mark; the trouble is, we’re
passing it without any real national or international effort to slow down the
production of CO2. So it’s an entirely grim landmark. Before we can get back to
350ppm [the goal of the activist movement against climate change] we actually
have to stop increasing carbon concentrations. That’s a political task; it’s
why we’re trying to build a movement strong enough to stand up to the fossil
fuel industry. Their current business plans... take us to 600 or 700ppm, and
they’re spending $675 billion a year looking for yet more coal and gas and
oil.”
I
can’t help but think about the children who are coming into the world today
with a climate spinning out of control to the extent that the great majority of
all life on earth is jeopardized. As far as those who may live 120 years are
concerned, greenhouse gas concentration is projected to reach about 650ppm by
the end of their lifespan.
A
certain amount of deleterious climate change has already begun and will be with
us for thousands of years. This toxic process will continue to become much
worse until the key carbon producing industrialized nations implement an
extensive worldwide emergency campaign to replace the use of fossil fuel (oil,
coal, natural gas) with renewable energy resources (solar, wind, geothermal,
etc.).
This
is not so much a scientific problem. It is mainly a political problem. Science
understands climate change, recognizes what must be done to prevent an
impending catastrophe, and is ready to act. The political system of
industrialized societies also understands climate change by now, recognizes
what must be done, and refuses to act. Why is this?
The
political system dominating today’s world — from progressive social democratic
to reactionary dictatorial — is intimately bound to the capitalist economic
system. This system is based on profit, competition and the marketplace, with
little long-term planning. These days our financialized capitalist structure is
focused on short-term gain — calculated quarterly, monthly and even daily.
Halting
climate change is an urgent, expensive and long-term venture that may, in the
end, require reductions in consumption within the rich countries — an anathema
to capital. Higher profits may not be guaranteed in the beginning years (unless
subsidized by government, which goes against today’s prevailing conservative
ideology). Worldwide competition and the marketplace are extremely unpredictable
and risky in an endeavor of this kind. This means the capitalist class is
holding back until its profits can be assured. Thus, the political system is
dragging its feet, and the ppm rises higher and higher.
Over
the last 150 years the United States has pumped more greenhouse producing gases
into the atmosphere than any other country — by far. In the last couple of
years China (with four times the population) has exceeded the U.S. annual total
but cannot come near to America’s aggregate amount. As such — and because
Washington insists on being recognized as the leading global nation-state — the
U.S. has an important responsibility in regard to fighting climate change.
In
reality, the U.S. has not only ignored that responsibility but in effect has
thumbed its nose at the rest of the world and its peoples in the process. Until
the American government begins to fulfill its obligations there cannot be the
extensive worldwide emergency campaign required to save the Earth.
Democratic
President Barack Obama has a fairly good understanding of the dangers of
climate change. He mentioned the subject in his political campaigns of 2008 and
2012 and in his 2013 State of the Union message — usually by advocating
“market-based” initiatives (i.e., what’s good for business is good for America).
But in his five years in office he has done nothing of real significance to
halt global warming. Congress, of course, is a prime delinquent as well. The
fossil fuel industry has many representatives and senators on its campaign contribution
payroll.
For
every presidential gesture in opposition to fossil fuel consumption, such as
increasing gas mileage standards or a recommendation to cut a small portion of
outdated federal subsidies for oil and gas companies, there are many more moves
in the opposite direction. Obama has ordered greatly increased oil drilling on
land and offshore, championing hydro-fracking to expand production of natural
gas, and promoting illusions about “clean” coal and nuclear power.
Internationally,
the White House has been an obstruction, not a leader, in terms of curbing
fossil fuels. Its representatives to the annual UN meetings on climate change
have invariably stalled progress. The White House simply refuses to engage in a
confrontation with the go-it-slow American corporate and financial oligarchy.
The
Obama Administration has been so derelict that it appears to be embarrassed
about it in international circles. On an official trip to climate conscious
Sweden May 14, Secretary of State Kerry referred to climate change as a “life
and death” challenge. At a joint press conference with Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, he
confessed: “I have to say that I regret that my own country — and President
Obama knows this and is committed to changing it — needs to do more and we are
committed to doing more.” Who’s been in
charge for the last five years?
Obama
is lucky because the only viable “alternative” the American people have in
their two-party right and center right system is a Republican Party composed of
hypocrites, ignoramuses and lackeys to big business. Many Republican
politicians are well aware of the greenhouse danger, but would rather shut
their mouths than buck the big boys. Actually, neither party will even consider
taking appropriate action until the corporations, banks and Wall St. give the
go-ahead.
This
is not acceptable. There’s too much at stake. There’s so little time. We need a
determined mass movement, as we had in America in the 1960s and early ‘70s, to
break through this roadblock by every means at our disposal.
In
the long run — if there is to be a long run — we must build a society where
people come before profits, and where the masses of people come before the 1%
who possess enormous wealth at the expense of all others. That’s the only way
to avoid the global catastrophe that awaits future generations of children.
I
do not entertain the slightest illusion that capitalism can pull this off. Sooner
or later the system must be changed.
—
J.A.S.
—————————
4. ON REACHING 400PPM
By Al Gore
On May 9, for the
first time in human history, concentrations of carbon dioxide, the primary
global warming pollutant, hit 400 parts per million in our planet's atmosphere.
This number is a reminder that for the last 150 years — and especially over the
last several decades — we have been recklessly polluting the protective sheath
of atmosphere that surrounds the Earth and protects the conditions that have
fostered the flourishing of our civilization.
We are altering the
composition of our atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. Indeed, every single
day we pour an additional 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the
sky as if it were an open sewer. As the distinguished climate scientist Jim
Hansen has calculated, the accumulated manmade global warming pollution in the
atmosphere now traps enough extra heat energy each day to equal the energy that
would be released by 400,000 Hiroshima-scale atomic bombs exploding every
single day. It's a big planet—but that is a lot of energy. And it is having a destructive
effect.
Now, more than ever
before, we are reaping the consequences of our recklessness. From Superstorm
Sandy which crippled New York City and large areas of New Jersey, to a drought
which parched more than half of our nation; from a flood that inundated large
swaths of Australia to rising seas affecting millions around the world, the
reality of the climate crisis is upon us.
Our food systems,
our cities, our people and our very way of life developed within a stable range
of climatic conditions on Earth. Without immediate and decisive action, these
favorable conditions on Earth could become a memory if we continue to make the
climate crisis worse day after day after day.
—
This is from Gore’s website. The U.S. Supreme Court cheated Al Gore out of the
presidency in the 2000 election. He was just a so-so vice president during the
eight years Democrat Bill Clinton was just a so-so president, but he’s the best
ex-VP we’ve ever had (or even remembered), spending much of his time trying to
educate the American people about climate change. His new book “The Future” is
worth checking out. Despite sporadic reminders of his political limitations, many
of the facts, figures and observations are very useful.
—————————
5. THE LATEST CLIMATE THREAT
By Neela Banerjee, Los Angeles
Times
Climate
change could lead to the widespread loss of common plants and animals around
the world, according to a new study released May 12 in the journal Nature
Climate Change.
The
study’s authors looked at 50,000 common species. They found that more than half
the plants and about a third of the animals could lose about 50% of their range
by 2080 if the world continues its current course of rising greenhouse gas
emissions.
Climate
change affects the availability of nutrition and water for animals and plants.
The narrowing of the geographic range of different common species means that
plants and animals readily found in a given area could diminish markedly in
those areas over the next seven decades.
“This
study … tells us that the average plant and animal will experience significant
range loss under climate change,” said the study’s lead author, Rachel Warren,
of the Tyndall Centre at University of East Anglia, United Kingdom.
The new
study predicted that plants, reptiles and particularly amphibians would face
the greatest risks from climate change. It also concluded that sub-Saharan
Africa, Central America, the Amazon region and Australia would likely lose the
most species of plants and animals. It projected “a major loss of plant
species” in North Africa, Central Asia and South America.
————————
6. AFGHANISTAN WAR MAY END BY 2024.... MAYBE
By Jack
A. Smith, Activist Newsletter
Hamid Karzai
has let the Pentagon’s cat out of the bag — to the displeasure of the Obama
Administration. The Afghan president revealed inside information about
President Obama’s war plans after all U.S. “combat troops” completely withdraw
in 17 months at the end of 2014.
As was known
in recent years, the Obama Administration actually plans to keep troops in
Afghanistan after the “withdrawal” at least to 2024. They won’t be “combat troops,”
so Obama didn’t actually mislead the American people. Instead they are to be
Special Forces troops, who certainly engage in combat but are identified by a
different military designation, as well as U.S. Army trainers for the Afghan
military, CIA contingents, drone operators, and various other personnel.
The White
House has kept other details secret, such as troop numbers and basing
arrangements, until it is certain a final Strategic Partnership Declaration is
worked out with the Kabul government. When that occurs, the White House expects
to make the announcement itself at a time of its choosing, sculpting the
information to convey the impression that another 10 years of fighting is not
actually war but an act of compassion for a besieged ally who begs for help.
On May 9,
however, during a speech at Kabul University, President Karzai decided to
update the world on the progress he was making in his secret talks with the
U.S., evidently without Washington’s knowledge.
“We are in
very serious and delicate negotiations with America," Karzai said.
"America has got its demands, Afghanistan too has its own demands, and its
own interests.... They want nine bases across Afghanistan. We agree to give
them the bases.
"Our
conditions are that the U.S. intensify efforts in the peace process [i.e.,
talks with the Taliban], strengthen Afghanistan's security forces, provide
concrete support to the economy — power, roads and dams — and provide
assistance in governance. If these are met, we are ready to sign the security
pact."
Washington
evidently was taken aback by Karzai’s unexpected public revelations that made
it clear President Obama is anxious, not hesitant, to keep American troops in
Afghanistan. Few analysts thought there would be as many as nine bases. Neither
the White House nor State Department confirmed requesting them but both
emphasized that any bases in question were not intended to be permanent, as
though that’s the principal factor.
If American
engagement lasts until 2024 it will mean the U.S. has been involved in Afghan
wars for most of the previous 46 years. It began in 1978 when Washington (and
Saudi Arabia) started to finance the right wing Islamist mujahedeen uprising
against a left wing pro-Soviet government in Kabul. The left regime was finally
defeated in 1992 and the Taliban emerged as the dominant force among several
other fighting groups in the mid-90s.
The CIA
remained active in Afghanistan and was joined by the rest of the U.S. war
machine weeks after the Sept. 11, 2000, terror attacks in Washington and New
York. The objective was to overthrow the Taliban and destroy al-Qaeda, which
also emerged from the Washington-financed wars. The U.S. swiftly took control
of Kabul and al-Qaeda fled to Pakistan. Since then, the American foreign legion
has been fought to a stalemate by a much smaller poorly equipped guerrilla
force, which is where the situation remains today.
The U.S. has
engaged in secret talks with the Taliban off and on for a couple of years. The
hope is that the Taliban will agree to stop fighting and subordinate itself to
the Kabul government in return for money, and a certain amount of
administrative and political power within the national and certain provincial
governments.
The Taliban
will agree to nothing at this stage but an immediate and total withdrawal of
U.S. military forces and the closure of bases. The White House evidently thinks
that a combination of U.S.-trained Afghan forces plus the remaining Americans
might bring their opponents to the bargaining table. The nine bases also
provide the U.S. with a strong bargaining chip to relinquish at the right time.
Washington
has additional reasons for remaining in Afghanistan, as we wrote in the May 31,
2011, issue of the Activist Newsletter — and little has changed:
“The U.S. has
no desire to completely withdraw from its only foothold in Central Asia,
militarily positioned close to what are perceived to be its two main enemies
with nuclear weapons (China, Russia), and two volatile nuclear powers backed by
the U.S. but not completely under its control by any means (Pakistan, India).
Also, this fortuitous geography is flanking the extraordinary oil and natural
gas wealth of the Caspian Basin and energy-endowed former Soviet Muslim
republics such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Lastly, Iran — a possible future
imperial prize — is situated directly across Afghanistan’s western border.
“The U.S.
wants to keep troops nearby for any contingency. Washington’s foothold in
Central Asia is a potential geopolitical treasure, particularly as Obama, like
Bush before him, seeks to prevent Beijing and Moscow from extending their
influence in what is actually their own back yard, not America’s.” Soon after
this was written the Obama Administration revealed its “pivot” to Asia.
Remaining in Central Asia is now part of what we have called America’s “ring of
fire” around China, singeing North Korea as well.
Karzai
occasionally makes strong public statements that criticize the U.S. They seem
mainly intended to bolster his position by showing the Afghan people he is not
Uncle Sam’s total puppet, but he’s to be praised for these statements.
For example,
he often complains openly when the U.S. commits war crimes in his country,
which have been numerous. He has demanded the U.S. discontinue night raids on
homes. In late February, according to the Guardian, he ordered “U.S. Special
Forces to leave one of Afghanistan’s most restive provinces, Maidan Wardak,
after receiving reports from local officials claiming that the elite units had
been involved in the torture and disappearance of Afghan civilians.” He
recently charged that Washington was allowing the Taliban to increase its
violence to make it necessary for him to approve the U.S. demand to remain
until 2024.
Washington
named Karzai acting president soon after the Bush Administration’s aggressive
invasion 12 years ago. His job was to serve the interests of the United States
while governing Afghanistan. Karzai was elected president with decisive U.S.
backing two years later. The Obama Administration maneuvered to oust him in the
2009 election, charging him with gross corruption, but its candidate withdrew just
before the voting. Karzai legally cannot run for another term, but intends to
continue playing a powerful role if he can pull it off.
Karzai is
shrewd and realizes America’s intentions are far more corrupt than his own
because he only wants money, power and a somewhat better deal for Afghanistan,
while the hypocritical U.S. wants everything there is to grab for its own
geopolitical interests. He has long been on the CIA’s generous payroll and also
distributes payoffs to various warlords, some of whom are closer to the CIA
than to the government. A week before the 2001 invasion the CIA was inside the
country smuggling money to the warlords to join the impending war on the
Taliban.
The White
House dislikes the Afghan leader but he’s all they have at the moment. They
desperately need him now, particularly until signing a final agreement on
having U.S. troops remain until 2024. President Obama well remembers his
humiliation when Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki rejected demands to keep
troops in Iraq after the “withdrawal” date, Dec. 30, 2011.
Obama
pressured Maliki for years to permit up to 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq after the
“combat troops” pulled out. In mid-October 2011 the Iraqi leader finally
accepted 3,000 to 5,000 troops in a training-only capacity. The Iraqis then
insisted that they remain largely confined to their bases, and refused
Washington’s demand to grant legal immunity to the soldiers when they entered
the larger society.
That was the
deal-breaker. Washington routinely demands legal exemption for its foreign
legions as a matter of imperial hubris, and would not compromise. The day after
the deal collapsed, Obama issued a public statement intended to completely
conceal his failure. "Today,” he said, “I can report that, as promised,
the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year."
Several
important issues in the Washington-Kabul post-2014 negotiations seem to have been
decided, including a U.S. payment of at least $10 billion a year to train and
pay for some 400,000 Afghan soldiers and police officers. Among the remaining
issues are two of considerable importance — troop strength and legal immunity
for American personal (both for soldiers and tens of thousands of U.S.
“contractors” who will remain in the country).
Reports
circulated in the last few months that between 3,000 and 20,000 U.S. troops,
mainly Special Forces, CIA contingents, drone operators and contractors of
various kinds, will remain after 2014. The main air cover is expected to come
from Navy aircraft carriers probably stationed in the Arabian Sea or Indian
Ocean. Drones are expected to play a major role in battle as well as
surveillance. Last year there were some 400 drone attacks in Afghanistan and
that number is expected to continue increasing.
The New York
Times reported Jan. 3 that “Gen. John R. Allen, the senior American commander
in Afghanistan, has submitted military options to the Pentagon that would keep
6,000 to 20,000 American troops in Afghanistan after 2014…. With 6,000 troops,
defense officials said, the American mission would largely be a
counterterrorism fight of Special Operations commandos who would hunt down
insurgents. There would be limited logistical support and training for Afghan
security forces. With 10,000 troops, the United States would expand training of
Afghan security forces. With 20,000 troops, the Obama administration would add
some conventional Army forces to patrol in limited areas.”
The May 11
New York Times reported that “The Obama administration has yet to decide how
large a force it would like to keep in Afghanistan, but administration
officials have signaled that it is unlikely to total more than 10,000 service
members. They said it was more important now to hash out a range of issues,
like whether American troops would continue to have legal immunity in
Afghanistan after next year, than to talk about the specifics of where troops
would be based.”
The big
remaining issue is immunity for U.S. personnel. Our guess is that, unlike in
Iraq — where conditions are far different — Washington will find a way around
the issue. It is difficult to see how the Kabul government of Karzai or his
successor in next year’s elections can survive for long without substantial
American financial support for a prolonged period.
American
forces are engaged in Obama’s drone wars in western Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia
and soon Africa. Regime change in Libya would not have occurred had the Obama Administration
refused to participate. President Obama has been fanning the flames of regime
change in Syria for nearly two years, and now he’s about to up the ante. He’s
strangling Iran with unjust sanctions and keeps warning that war is possible.
He calls Hezbollah, the Shia self-defense organization in Lebanon, a terrorist
organization, as he does Hamas in Gaza, the victim of overwhelming Israeli
hatred and violence. And now Obama in moving more military power to East Asia
to confront China.
If George W.
Bush was in the White House today, a huge American peace movement would be out
on the streets demanding an end to America’s endless immoral wars. But now a
Democrat officiates in the Oval Office, his Nobel Peace Prize wisely hidden in
a dark closet lest his militarist propensities provoke an unseemly contrast.
Obama’s many
wars are but extensions of Bush’s wars plus killer drones, but the great
majority of Americans either seem to have forgotten or simply don’t care about
the wars, even though their tax money will amount to $80 billion for
Afghanistan in fiscal 2014. Meanwhile, Pentagon generals anticipate various new
wars of one kind or another well into the future. The battle against al-Qaeda
is expected to last 20 more years. The world has become America’s battlefield.
Afghanistan?
Didn’t we have a war there once? Oh, that’s right, it ended when we got rid of
Bush, didn’t it?
—————————
7. OUTRAGEOUS CONVICTION BY MILITARY COURT
By the Activist
Newsletter
Private
First Class Kimberly Rivera — a conscientious objector and pregnant mother of
four — was sentenced to military prison April 29 for refusing to serve in the
unjust Iraq War.
She
was sentenced to 10 months behind bars and a dishonorable discharge by the
military court in Ft. Carson, Colorado. Her fifth child is due in December. Her
husband, Mario Rivera, is now the primary caretaker of their four young
children.
Rivera
was on a two-week leave in December 2006 when she decided not to return to Iraq
for a second tour of duty. She and her family fled to Canada in February 2007,
living there until their deportation back to the United States last year.
A
text, video and full account of the case my be obtained from the April 30
edition of Democracy Now (linked below), on which this brief article is based.
Responding
to the sentencing during his interview, Mario broke into tears, saying, "I
think it was severely harsh, and I personally feel that the judge already made
up his mind before the trial had even started. It's just too much. The kids
need her."
Also
interviewed was James Branum, a lawyer who represents Kimberly and dozens of
other conscientious objectors. He said:
"The
judge doesn't really give the rationale for why he made the decision he did. We
do know there have been some resistance cases that have received greater
sentences," Branum says, “but many other resisters receive little jail
time or no jail time. And people that desert, generally, over 90% do no jail
time at all. And so, we feel that Kim was singled out.
"Another
thing, the prosecutor at trial said that he asked the judge to give a harsh
sentence to send a message to the war resisters in Canada. The Canadian
government, in deporting Kim, said she would not face any serious punishment
because of her political and conscientious objection to war. And in reality,
that's exactly what happened. That was the prosecution's argument, that because
she spoke out against the war, she therefore should be punished."
While
in Iraq, Kimberly has said she realized she couldn't morally continue with her
duty and sought advice from the military chaplain. Branum explains: "The
chaplain was very, very resolute that Kim needed to stay there, she needed to
fulfill her mission, instead of giving her the spiritual counsel she needed at
that moment. Instead, this chaplain told her basically, 'Suck it up. Continue
on.' And that was not the advice she needed at that moment. She needed to know
her rights. She needed to know AR 600-43 gives her the right to seek status as
a conscientious objector. She didn't know that."
A
broad and active movement of Canadians supported Rivera during her five-year
residence and was outraged by her sentence. According to NBC News online: “The
tremendous public outcry related to Rivera's case shows the deep and broad
support that Canadians continue to express for Iraq War resisters. In a period
of 10 days leading up to the Rivera family deportation, 20,000 people signed a Change.org petition supporting the
family. Faith, labor and human
rights organizations spoke out, Amnesty International adopted Kim as
a prisoner of conscience and Archbishop Desmond Tutu published an opinion piece in The Globe
and Mail newspaper calling the deportation order "unjust."
—
Check out Democracy Now’s coverage:
—————————
8. U.S. MILITARY RAPE EPIDEMIC
By Katie Halper
This was a bad month for the U.S. military. On May 5 a
serviceman was arrested for sexual assault. And in what sounds like an Onion headline, the
sexual assaulter really was the chief of the Air Force's sexual assault
prevention unit. On May 6 a Pentagon report revealed that sexual assault had jumped from 19,000 cases in 2010 to
26,000 in 2012 — an increase of 35%.
Another highlight from May 6 was testimony from the
Air Force's top commander, Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Welsh managed to trivialize sexual assault
both by emphasizing how common it was in society outside of the military and
comparing it to consensual sexual interactions. Welsh noted that 20% of women report they had been sexually assaulted “before they came
into the military…. So they come in from a society where this occurs…. Some of
it is the hookup mentality of junior high even and high school students now,
which my children can tell you about from watching their friends and being
frustrated by it.”
Welsh is a general and a social scientist who studies
sexual behavior. Somehow, he fails to grasp the distinction between consensual
sex and rape.
Sexual assault in the military is systemic and
rampant, not an isolated incident. In fact, a woman serving in Iraq or
Afghanistan is more likely to be raped by a fellow service member than to be killed in
the line of fire. Since 2006, more than 95,000 service members have been
sexually assaulted in the U.S. military. More than 86% of service
members do not report their assault. Less than 5% of all sexual assaults are
prosecuted, and less than a third of those cases result in imprisonment. There
are an estimated 13,000 homeless female veterans in the U.S. and 40% of them reported experiencing sexual assault. An Air force brochure on sexual assault
advises women how to respond to rape: “It may be advisable to submit [rather]
than resist.”
Instead of shifting the blame and responsibility onto
victims, attributing the epidemic to the prevalence of sexual assault outside
the military, or to a so-called "hook up" mentality, the military
must take responsibility and enact policy changes.
—
From AlterNet May 8.
————————
9. U.S. MILITARY FAILS WOMEN SOLDIERS
By Democracy
Now
A
third U.S. military official whose job was to prevent sexual harassment and
assault has been accused of carrying out precisely the type of behavior he was
supposed to stop.
Army
Lt. Col. Darin Haas ran the sexual harassment and assault response program at
Fort Campbell in Kentucky. He turned himself in late Wednesday on charges of
violating a protection order and stalking his ex-wife.
Just
one day earlier, it was revealed the Army coordinator of sexual assault
prevention at Fort Hood, Texas, is being investigated for alleged sexual
assault. There were reports Sgt. First Class Gregory McQueen had also been
running a small-time prostitution ring.
Just
days before that, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, head of the Air Force Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response Office, was arrested for allegedly groping a
woman in a Virginia parking lot.
President
Obama met with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and top military leaders May 16 to
address what he termed the "scourge" of sexual assault in the
military. His remarks came the same day lawmakers including New York Sen.
Kirsten Gillibrand introduced legislation to strip military commanders of the
ability to prosecute sexual assault, instead placing decisions about whether to
try such cases in the hands of independent military prosecutors.
According to last week’s Pentagon report, the
conviction rate for sexual assault in the military was less than 1% percent in
the last fiscal year. Gillibrand cited the report’s estimate that 26,000
service members were assaulted last year.
————————
10.
REPEAL THE SEQUESTER
By Robert Borosage
“Spending
cuts hold back U.S. growth,” warns a headline of the
conservative Financial Times. No surprise there. Americans are in trouble.
Wages are losing ground. Over 20 million need full-time work. The
percentage of working-age Americans with jobs is at its lowest level since 1979.
And
now cuts in government spending – led by the idiotic [and bipartisan] sequester
that was designed to be so abhorrent that it would never be adopted – are
crippling an already lame “recovery
Last
week, the Congress heard from businessmen and women stranded on flights delayed
because of the furloughs of air traffic controllers. Spurred by the anger of
the moneyed class, it took only four days for the supposedly gridlocked
Congress to “circumvent” the sequester for airline passengers.
Commentators
noted that the Republican House leadership couldn’t seem to hear the cries of 800,000
jobless workers in 19 states who suffered cuts of an average of $120 a month in
their unemployment checks. Or the thousands of children about to lose access to
Head Start programs. Or the 140,000 households who will be deprived of housing
vouchers. Or the 70,000 college students who will lose
access to grants they depend on.
It’s
no secret that when money talks, Congress listens. What is incredible is that
Congress seems intent on driving this economy back into recession, which will
lead to more unemployment and spreading misery.
The
sequester cuts are merely the most perverse of Washington’s austerity lunacies.
The economy is slowing. Exclude episodic spending on inventories, the growth in the first
quarter of 2013 was 1.5% (down from 2.4% in the third quarter of 2012 and 1.9%
in the fourth quarter).
Wages
aren’t keeping up with prices. Families have been saving less. Add the payroll
tax hike and consumers aren’t going to drive the economy. Exports are down
since Europe is sinking under austerity, Japan is a mess and China is slowing.
Business has been able to sustain profits by cost-cutting, moving jobs abroad,
or displacing them with technology. But that can’t keep up for long. The stock
market has soared, but can’t keep rising if the economy doesn’t follow.
This
is a poisonous mix. The Federal Reserve is taking extreme measures to fend off
economic decline, but it can’t do it alone. The situation, as The New York Times editorialized April 28,
“urgently calls for more federal spending, not less.”
It
is offensive that Congress should act with alacrity to relive the inconvenience
suffered by airline passengers while doing nothing for the agonies being
visited upon the weak and the impoverished. But it is both dumb and dangerous
that the Congress continues to inflict austerity on Americans who are already
struggling.
Enough.
The fight over what kind of America we want can go on. The partisan feuds can
continue. But it’s time to stuff the dumb and dangerous. Repeal the idiotic
sequester now.
—From
ourfuture.org, April 28, 2013
—————————
11. CHINA REFUTES U.S. CYBER-ATTACK CHARGE
By John Glaser
The Obama
Administration has again accused the Chinese government of conducting cyber-attacks against
U.S. government computer systems and defense contractors, but has yet to
make public any hard evidence to that effect.
“In 2012, numerous
computer systems around the world, including those owned by the U.S. government,
continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be
attributable directly to the Chinese government and military,” said the
Pentagon’s annual report to Congress, which was thoroughly coordinated from the
White House.
China has consistently
denied the accusations. On May 7, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Hua Chunying, said: “We resolutely oppose all forms of
hacker attacks. We’re willing to carry out an even-tempered and constructive
dialogue with the U.S. on the issue of Internet security. But we are firmly
opposed to any groundless accusations and speculations, since they will only
damage the cooperation efforts and atmosphere between the two sides to
strengthen dialogue and cooperation.” Even as the President chastises Beijing
for alleged cyber attacks, Washington is aggressively beefing up its own
offensive cyber capabilities and waging its own cyber warfare.
The largest
government-sponsored cyber attack to date came out of Washington — the Stuxnet
virus aimed at Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities. The U.S. routinely conducts
cyber espionage, as international
investigations have
shown. And China apparently feels just as targeted as Washington claims to be.
“China is one of the
world’s biggest victims of cyber attacks,” a Chinese news outlet reported in March.
“Major sources of
the attacks include the United States, South Korea, Japan and India,” China Daily reported, citing a
report released by Beijing Rising Information Technology Co.
The Obama
administration’s bluster over the supposed Chinese cyber threat should not be
viewed in isolation, but in the context of their explicit policy of military containment of China. The so-called Asia-Pivot consists
of aggressively surging U.S. military presence and activities in the
Asia-Pacific and bolstering China’s regional geo-political competitors.
The U.S.’s public
relations campaign denouncing China for cyber-warfare is sure to help garner
public support for aggressive U.S. policies toward China. But at the very least
the accusations are baseless until evidence is put forth, and seem only to
serve a political purpose, not a security purpose.
— From Antiwar.com,
May 7, 2013.
—————————
12. IF ISRAEL ATTACKED
IRAN…
[Israel has been
threatening to attack Iran for years. It charges the Islamic Republic is an
“existential danger” to the Jewish State because it is allegedly building a
nuclear weapon. The Tehran government denies this allegation, declaring its
intention is to build nuclear power plants. U.S. intelligence agencies maintain
Iran gave up any efforts to construct a nuclear weapon several years ago. What
would happen if Israel attacked Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities? Iran would
fight back. It has an air force and conventional missiles, but no nuclear
weapons. At that point, Israel’s response could be a nuclear retaliation. It
possesses some 200 nuclear weapons and delivery systems. No one can rule out
such an attack. Here is what it would look like.]
By Nick Turse
In those first
minutes, they’ll be stunned. Eyes fixed in a thousand-yard stare, nerve endings
numbed. They’ll just stand there. Soon, you’ll notice that they are holding
their arms out at a 45-degree angle. Your eyes will be drawn to their hands and
you’ll think your mind is playing tricks. But it won’t be. Their fingers will
start to resemble stalactites, seeming to melt toward the ground. And it won’t
be long until the screaming begins. Shrieking. Moaning. Tens of thousands of
victims at once. They’ll be standing amid a sea of shattered concrete and
glass, a wasteland punctuated by the shells of buildings, orphaned walls,
stairways leading nowhere.
This could be
Tehran, or what’s left of it, just after an Israeli nuclear strike.
Iranian cities —
owing to geography, climate, building construction, and population densities —
are particularly vulnerable to nuclear attack, according to a new study, “Nuclear War Between Israel and Iran: Lethality Beyond the Pale,”
published in the journal Conflict
& Health by researchers from the University of Georgia and Harvard
University. It is the first publicly released scientific assessment of what a
nuclear attack in the Middle East might actually mean for people in the region.
Its scenarios are
staggering. An Israeli attack on the Iranian capital of Tehran using five
500-kiloton weapons would, the study estimates, kill seven million people --
86% of the population—and leave close to 800,000 wounded. A strike with
five 250-kiloton weapons would kill an estimated 5.6 million and injure 1.6
million, according to predictions made using an advanced software package
designed to calculate mass casualties from a nuclear detonation.
Estimates of the
civilian toll in other Iranian cities are even more horrendous. A nuclear
assault on the city of Arak, the site of a heavy water plant central to Iran’s nuclear program, would potentially kill 93% of its
424,000 residents. Three 100-kiloton nuclear weapons hitting the Persian
Gulf port of
Bandar Abbas would slaughter an estimated 94% of its 468,000 citizens, leaving
just 1% of the population uninjured. A multi-weapon strike on Kermanshah,
a Kurdish city with a population of 752,000, would result in an almost unfathomable 99.9%
casualty rate.
Cham Dallas, the
director of the Institute for Health Management and Mass Destruction Defense at
the University of Georgia and lead author of the study, says that the
projections are the most catastrophic he’s seen in more than 30 years
analyzing weapons of mass destruction and their potential effects.
“The fatality rates are the highest of any nuke simulation I’ve ever done,” he
told me by phone from the nuclear disaster zone in Fukushima, Japan, where he
was doing research. “It’s the perfect storm for high fatality rates.”
Israel has never
confirmed or denied possessing nuclear weapons, but is widely known to
have up to several hundred nuclear warheads in its arsenal. Iran has no nuclear weapons and its
leaders claim that its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only.
Published reports suggest
that American intelligence agencies and Israel’s intelligence service are in
agreement: Iran suspended its nuclear weapons development program in 2003….
According to Paul Carroll of the Ploughshares Fund, a San Francisco-based foundation that advocates
for nuclear disarmament, “the results would be catastrophic” if major Iranian
cities were attacked with modern nuclear weapons. “I don’t see 75%
[fatality rates as] being out of the question,” says Carroll, after factoring
in the longer-term effects of radiation sickness, burns, and a devastated
medical infrastructure.
According to Dallas
and his colleagues, the marked disparity between estimated fatalities in Israel
and Iran can be explained by a number of factors. As a start, Israel is
presumed to have extremely powerful
nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery capabilities including long-range
Jericho missiles, land-based cruise missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and
advanced aircraft with precision targeting technology.
The nature of
Iranian cities also makes them exceptionally vulnerable to nuclear attack,
according to the Conflict & Health
study. Tehran, for instance, is home to 50% of Iran’s industry, 30% of
its public sector workers, and 50 colleges and universities. As a result,
12 million people live in or near the capital, most of them clustered in its
core. Like most Iranian cities, Tehran has little urban sprawl, meaning
residents tend to live and work in areas that would be subject to maximum
devastation and would suffer high percentages of fatalities due to trauma as
well as thermal burns caused by the flash of heat from an explosion.
Iran’s topography,
specifically mountains around cities, would obstruct the dissipation of the blast
and heat from a nuclear explosion, intensifying the effects. Climatic
conditions, especially high concentrations of airborne dust, would likely
exacerbate thermal and radiation casualties as well as wound infections….
— From TomDispatch, May 12, 2023. This article
continues at http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175698/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_israel%2C_iran%2C_and_the_nuclear_freight_train/#morehttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175698/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_israel%2C_iran%2C_and_the_nuclear_freight_train/#more
—Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Nation Institute. .
He is the author most recently of the New York Times bestseller “Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam.”
—————————
13. MANY MAY DAY EVENTS IN U.S.
By the Activist
Newsletter
May
Day rallies and marches took place throughout the United States this year —
including two in the Mid-Hudson Valley — as part of International Workers Day
celebrations around the world. May 1st is historically an occasion
for emphasizing the struggle for worker’s rights, the poor and oppressed.
May Day was revived
in the U.S. as a day for mass action in 2006, when immigrant workers and their
allies staged a huge one day general strike for their rights. Ever since, it
has emphasized the fight for full rights for all immigrants and working class
unity.
This year, tens of
thousands of people in countless cities and towns held events to commemorate
the workers’ holiday. The union movement played a big role in the actions. The
ANSWER Coalition was one of groups that organized rallies and marches
across the country.
The biggest
demonstration was in Los Angeles, where 50,000 marched. In New York City,
30,000 rallied in Union Square, then marched to City Hall.
The two May Day actions in the Mid-Hudson region included
labor and students, as well as faculty and community supporters.
The first event was
a campus rally at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, followed by a two-mile
“International Workers’ March for the Empowerment of Workers and
Immigrants." En route there was a second rally in the Latino community.
The march ended at the Family Partnership Center with a celebration.
Vassar May Day
Coalition and MEChA de Vassar organized the march and rally. About 150 people
participated in some part of the day. The event was endorsed by the Hudson
Valley Area Labor Federation, Somos la Llave del Futuro, La Voz, End the New
Jim Crow Action Network (ENJAN), Community Voices Heard, Nobody Leaves
Mid-Hudson (an anti-foreclosure group), and the Hudson Valley Activist
Newsletter.
The second event was a rally on the campus of the State
University of New York at New Paltz, which drew about 100 people. Members of a
new campus student-labor coalition organized the event along with three campus
unions — United University Professions, and two CSEA Locals. The rally was backed by NYPIRG, N.Y.
Students Rising, and the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter.
Among the speakers
was UUP chapter president Peter Brown, who criticized the low wages offered to
part time adjunct professors and called for minimum payment of $5,000 a course. UUP delegate Donna Goodman
deplored the absence of obligatory paid family leave for American workers.
————————
14.
DEMONSTRATORS MARK MUMIA’S BIRTHDAY
By Ethan Jury
Hundreds
of people gathered in Philadelphia April 24 to celebrate the 59th birthday of
Mumia Abu Jamal, America’s best known political prisoner.
Events
began early in the afternoon with a demonstration in front of the Philadelphia
District Attorney’s office, where attendees sang “Happy Birthday Mumia” and
waved banners reading, “Free Mumia, End Mass Incarceration!”
Activists
chanted “Brick by brick, wall by wall, we’re gonna free Mumia Abu Jamal!” while
a squadron of uniformed and plainclothes cops looked on from the sidelines and
drivers passing the scene honked in solidarity.
Mumia,
now 59, has been imprisoned on death row for some 30 years for a crime he
insists he did not commit — the killing of a police officer. Millions of people
throughout the world have come to his defense throughout these long years.
Angela
Davis spoke for many throughout the struggle for his freedom when she declared:
“Mumia has become a symbol for all of us. A symbol of struggle; a symbol of
hope. Our final goal is to bring Mumia home. He has spent too many years
in those dark chambers of death.”
Amnesty
International and such international leaders as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu
have condemned the conviction and imprisonment of the noted writer, broadcaster
and former member of the Black Panther Party. His trial has been condemned for
judicial racism.
Speakers
at the anniversary rally discussed the ties between Mumia’s wrongful
imprisonment and struggles against racism, police brutality, the
school-to-prison pipeline and mass incarceration.
“His
freedom would show the power of people united,” said Joshua Africa of MOVE. “It
would show the value of mass movement,” agreed Sam Pinto, an organizer involved
with the Students for Mumia coalition. “It would show that actions aren’t
fruitless and can inspire.”
Nancy
Monsour from the Existence is Resistance organization elaborated on the significance
of the movement surrounding Mumia’s struggle to the struggle of political
prisoners everywhere. “What is on trial is the conscience of all freedom-loving
people around the world,” she said.
The
day was not only a celebration of the enduring spirit of Mumia but also of the
hard work by dedicated activists and family members who continue to fight for
his freedom. Their organizing efforts recently won Mumia transfer off of death
row, and they have now begun a new campaign demanding his full release from
prison.
At
a public meeting following the demonstration, organizers announced a new
petition seeking 1 million signatures demanding Mumia’s immediate release, but
also stressed that “the petition alone” would not bring him home. Speakers
discussed the importance of building a mass movement and how justice for Mumia
would mean justice for all political prisoners and oppressed peoples, both in
the United States and abroad.
—
Originally published in Liberation newspaper, April 26,
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews.
—
For more information about Mumia Abu Jamal:
And
to listen to his “Prison Radio” broadcasts, http://www.prisonradio.org.
—————————
15.
UNDERSTANDING THE VENEZUELAN ELECTION OUTCOME
[Nicolas
Maduro, the elected successor to the late Hugo Chavez, did not attain the large
majority that had been expected against U.S.-backed opposition leader Henrique
Capriles in Venezuela’s April 14 presidential balloting. He won by a considerably
smaller margin. Given the popularity of Chavez — and the extreme importance of
the election throughout the hemisphere — why didn’t he obtain more votes? This
article, written just the day after the voting, provides some answers.]
By Tamara Pearson
Things
are chaotic here, as we recover from the surprise, disappointment, and a bit of
hurt from the election results, but also go out in the street to express our
support for those results, and to defend the national electoral system, one of
the best and most secure voting systems in the world in a country which just
loves to vote.
We
move quickly from sad last night to concerned and determined today, as the
caceroles sound around the neighborhoods and the opposition hangs outside the
National Electoral Council (CNE) here in Merida, hundreds of them walking
around with rocks and glass bottles in their hands, itching to have something
to react to.
Still,
as the pan clanging sounds around my neighborhood and people shout “Out! Out!”
[referring to the government], making it just a little hard to think, it is
important to understand yesterday’s results, as that helps us to understand the
situation we’re in now, and plan somewhat for the future.
With
the vote count updated this morning; 99.17% of votes counted, we see that
14,961,701 people voted this time, down just 214,552 from October’s
presidential elections. That makes it clear that around 630-705,000 voters
switched sides from voting for Chavez to voting for Capriles. The Chavista vote
went down from 8,191,132 votes last October to 7,559,349 yesterday, and
Capriles’ vote went up from 6,591,304 votes last year to 7,296,876 yesterday.
Maduro beat Capriles then by 1.77% of the vote- close, although other elections
around the world have been much closer.
The
question though that many are wondering, is why did those voters switch to
Capriles, rather than abstain? And secondly, how did the difference between the
two sides narrow so much in the last week, given polls leading up to the
election were predicting a 10-18% lead for Maduro?
It’s
not common for voting trends to change so quickly, especially in the short
amount of time that we had for this election. The election was called for five weeks after Chavez died, and there were
only 10 days officially allowed for campaigning, though Capriles started his
speaking tour of the country straight away. However, this wasn’t a common
election. It was brought about by Chavez’s passing. It started with us watching
millions of people queuing to say goodbye to him, and frankly, we felt
confident. We had won in October and in the December state elections, and we
saw the outpouring of love for Chavez. The sense of who we had lost was so
profound, it was hard to imagine people nonchalantly voting for his adversary in
just over a month’s time. Yet over the last week, I felt the mood change.
It seemed we started to get just a bit tired, after a month’s of campaigning
and mourning, and that Capriles’ supporters became incredibly confident.
The
campaign stakes became continuing the beautiful, dignified, and very
problematic revolution after Chavez, verses a tempting “change” after 14 years
of Chavismo. Those who switched over, who chose “change”, were tempted by the
“end to all problems” that Capriles promised. They believed you can just
vote away all the problems that have continued or arisen over the last 14
years. They were short sighted and affected by the sabotage, by the fairly
intense food shortages over the last month, the more frequent blackouts, and
other problems that the private media conjured up.
The
choice, this idea of voting for a revolution, for the dignity of the poor, and
of the third world, was a lovely thing to get to vote on. Most of us understood
it wasn’t about Maduro, about individual candidates, but about revolution v
capitalism and imperialism. Yet that sort of campaign is not easy in a world
where capitalism is still hegemonic. That sort of campaign requires, I think, a
higher ideological strength of most Venezuelans.
The
narrow victory draws our attention to some of the failures and challenges of
the revolution. Although Venezuelan political consciousness, discussion,
knowledge of history, interest in the media and so on is so much higher than in
other countries without a revolution, the government has still focused too much
on slogans, on key words like “imperialism” and socialism, and not enough on
broad participation in debate and deepening political understanding. That was
reflected in Maduro’s campaign, which focused on Chavez's memory, on continuing
basic government social achievements such as the missions, but which
de-emphasised just what Chavez stood for; his ideas, the battle for humanity,
for economic justice, etc.
Further,
the government hasn’t in the past, and didn’t during this campaign, explain the
economic situation. It did not explain the devaluation well (nor consult the
people on such a big economic decision, which might not have been a bad idea).
We’ve gone 4 to 5 months without toothpaste in the shops, and we don’t know why.
Further, the government either hasn’t done anything about the situation (found
the hoarders, come down on Colgate for it, redistribute the hoarded toothpaste)
or hasn’t told us what it has done.
When
people lack a high political consciousness, it’s easy for them to become a
little tired of no oil, or toothpaste, or margarine. Or the price of beer
doubling in a month. Or the occasional black out. The government’s
communication with the people needs to improve drastically. Further, in 14
years a lot has been addressed - we all know the list of inspiring
achievements, but some problems such as bureaucracy, crime, and corruption
persist, and it seems some people hope someone else will solve them.
Further,
there is the idea of Chavismo without Chavez. According to a GISXXI poll
conducted a few weeks before the elections, 20% of Chavez supporters believed
there is no Chavismo without Chavez. While that is positive, in that 80%
understand that its up to us to take responsibility and continue the
revolution, that’s 20% of the Chavista support base who saw Chavismo as being
about a specific leader, only, and would therefore be vulnerable to swinging
their vote. In Merida, the rally for Maduro was about the same size (perhaps 10
blocks or so long) as when Chavez spoke here before the October elections. It
gave me hope that most people understood that “we’re all Chavez” means that we
keep fighting. I think it’s the Chavez voters who don’t attend such rallies,
and some of the bureaucrats, who would likely have switched sides. That means
we can be clearer now about our real support base.
Maduro’s
campaign itself had its challenges and weaknesses. Unlike Capriles, who had
already run in February (in primaries), and in October, then in December to win
as governor of Miranda, Maduro had never campaigned before. He had little time
to learn how to do it, and to consolidate himself as a possible leader in
people’s eyes.
It
has been a general strategy of the Chavez government to tone down its radical
and ideological discourse in the lead-up to elections, and Maduro did the same
thing. However in light of Capriles basically promising an improved version of
the social aspects of the revolution, this time that might have meant that some
people found it hard to see the difference. Of course the difference is huge,
but I think Maduro failed to define what revolution without Chavez is. Rather
than spending 40 minutes at the Merida rally talking about the bird that talked
to him and spirituality, he should have talked about the meat of this
revolution, its humanity, its solidarity – things the opposition doesn’t
understand and doesn’t fight for.
On
the other hand, this time round, from the side of the grassroots, this campaign
was much more creative. Around Merida, clever, beautiful, and moving murals
popped up everywhere. The PSUV youth painted huge banners and stopped the
traffic in different points around the city. People worked really hard.
The
opposition however, had the advantage that it had been campaigning well before
Chavez died. Capriles, the Venezuelan (and international) private media,
opposition groups like Javu, began trying to delegitimize the government,
trying to create distrust of it- accusing it of lying about Chavez’s health and
so on, since he became sick again at the end of last year. We can see the
accumulated affects of that campaign now, as opposition supporters actually
believe that fraud was committed in yesterday’s elections, despite them
achieving their largest vote ever.
Once
the elections were called and Capriles registered as a candidate, he went on
the offensive. After initially screwing up and insensitively doubting the
timing of Chavez’s death, he then ignored Chavez altogether (a good tactical
decision for him) and attacked Maduro and the government again and again.
While
he insulted and lied about every aspect and person in the government he could,
at the same time his advisers seem to have given him acting classes, as he
began to impersonate Chavez in every which way. In his speeches, he talked
liked Chavez, he told anecdotes like Chavez, he tried to sound sincere, as
Chavez had been, and he promised to do the same things the revolution was
already doing, such as build 200,000 houses a year, and increase the minimum
wage.
Capriles
attacked the Supreme Court, then when elections began, the CNE too, as though
they are one and the same thing as the government. He was aggressive about it,
and promoted the idea that “we shouldn’t accept this anymore”. At the same
time, he blamed the food shortages on the government, and I guess those who
voted for him didn’t wander why most of the food shortages began during the
election campaign.
All
of this was massively backed up by private media (online, television,
newspapers) here and overseas, which not only added to Capriles’ legitimacy,
but gave his supporters confidence.
“They’re
[the CNE and the government] burning the electoral boxes, the ones with our
votes it in,” one opposition student told me today as they protested outside
the CNE.
“The
government will fall, the government has fallen, we’re not scared,” they
chanted, as they walked around with their rocks and glass bottles in their
hands, eager to have someone react so they could throw them somewhere. But the
police were few today, and peaceful, and the Chavistas near the protest reacted
a few times but largely were disciplined and held back.
It’s
ironic that the extremely high turnout at the voting centers yesterday
illustrates Venezuelans’ deep political interest and also their trust in their
electoral system, yet half of those Venezuelans believe Capriles when he
suggests that the CNE is biased or rigs the votes.
Capriles
waged a dirty campaign, but for his aims, it was well done. I remember
one night a few days ago overhearing someone talking to their girlfriend.
“Don’t worry, from Sunday things will be different,” he assured her. That
time, it felt like the opposition’s delusional belief election after election
that finally they’ll win, had changed. It had become a committed confidence, it
had become a cause.
Although
we technically won last night, even Maduro has recognized that we also lost.
Among other things, we wanted to send a message to the world that this
revolution goes on, yet the results show some doubt. However, it is more
complicated than that. We should recognize the problems and challenges, but
also feel some comfort that this time, 7 million people largely voted for the
revolution of the poor to continue. And they did that, despite most media being
against us, despite the distortions and lies, despite the minor, but real,
economic hardships, despite 14 years of marching and voting again and again,
despite the bureaucracy in the government. As one comrade of mine said, “Chavez
got us used to victories that were marvellously planned and masterfully lead by
him. This time it was up to us to do it alone, and we won”. We can only learn
from here.
— From
Venezuelanalysis.com, April 15. Tamara Pearson, previously a member of the
Australian Socialist Alliance and collaborator with Green
Left Weekly, has
been living in Merida, Venezuela, since 2007. She is active in the Bolivarian
revolution, including as a spokesperson for her communal council.
—————————
16. NORMALIZATION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN?
[One of the
significant aspects of the Nov. 11 presidential election in Pakistan is that it
may result in the beginning of a process eventually leading to normalization of relations
between India and Pakistan. Relations have been strained and frequently been hostile since partition
separated the countries in 1947. This is a development of international
significance, particularly to nations with a political stake in South Asian
affairs, such as the U.S.]
By M. K.
Bhadrakumar
The return of
former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to power in Pakistan after a hiatus of 14
years electrifies the regional politics of South Asia. Signals passing back and
forth between New Delhi and Lahore underscore a subtle change having already
appeared in the political vibes.
Typically, even
as the results from the previous day's parliamentary poll were pouring in,
Sharif told an Indian television channel on Sunday, "I will visit India
whether India invites me or not."
Indian Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh reciprocated within hours by breaking with protocol and
congratulating Sharif on his "emphatic" victory in the
"historic" elections and inviting him to visit India at a mutually
convenient time. Manmohan phoned Sharif and, according to the latter, a
"long chat" followed.
The two words –
"emphatic" and "historic" – capture the mood in New Delhi.
The Indian establishment has been keeping its fingers crossed that a strong
government would be taking shape in Pakistan.
The reading in
Delhi is that given the extremely complicated situation in Pakistan and the
dangerous regional environment, tough decisions are called for in steering the
ship of the Pakistani state through the shark-infested sea, which only a strong
government in Islamabad could undertake.
From the Indian
viewpoint, therefore, the outcome of Saturday's election has been
"historic" insofar as it signifies a triumphant march of democracy.
Pakistan's democratization profoundly impacts on the dynamics of the
normalization of relations between the two countries.
To be sure, the
prospect of Nawaz Sharif being at the helm of affairs in Islamabad comes as
great relief to the Indian leadership. Sharif is a known figure to the Indian
elites and Delhi knows it can do business with him.
In fact, things
were beginning to look up in India-Pakistan relations at that point in 1999
when Sharif was ousted from power in the military coup led by General Pervez
Musharraf.
In the Indian
estimation, one main reason why the military conspired against the elected
government led by Sharif was the apprehension in Rawalpindi that the
normalization process with India that he was actively pursuing might gain
traction….
— From Asia
Times, May 14. The remainder of this article is at
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/SOU-01-140513.html
———————————
17. RUSSIA, VIETNAM DEVELOP STRATEGIC RELATIONS
By Stratfor, May 16,
2013
Recent diplomacy between Vietnam and Russia shows the two countries
building momentum to take advantage of the considerable overlap in their
strategic interests. On May 15, Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung
concluded his visit to Russia, where he met Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, and
headed to Belarus to meet Prime Minister Mikhail Myasnikovich. Dung's trip to
Russia mostly consisted of routine bilateral discussions, but it shows the
solid foundations on which Russo-Vietnamese relations stand.
Vietnam has an interest in inviting a third power into the region to give
it an option for economic and military relations outside of U.S.-Chinese
competition. Meanwhile Russia views Vietnam as the most accessible strategic
foothold for its reviving interests in the Asia Pacific region.
Dung's itinerary highlighted two of the most important ongoing elements of
the relationship: arms and energy. He visited Svetly Port in Kaliningrad to
observe the diesel-electric Kilo class submarine that Russia is testing. Russia
will send the submarine to Vietnam as the first of six such submarines slated
to be transferred by 2016. These submarines will give Vietnam a more
advanced and yet still cost-effective means of deterring
more powerful states from taking advantage of its small navy and coastal
vulnerability.
Dung reportedly also visited a Russian nuclear power plant to get a preview
of the facility that Russia plans to build in Ninh Thuan by 2015, which Dung and
Medvedev claimed is on schedule. Russian planning, financing, construction,
technology and training will go into this plant — all of which Vietnam badly
needs to develop a viable and secure nuclear power program. Vietnam envisions
building eight nuclear power plants by 2030 to bring nuclear energy to 6.6% of
its domestic energy mix, according to the Ministry of Science and Technology.
While Vietnam is careful to diversify its nuclear energy sources — Japan is
slated to build its second nuclear plant at Ninh Thuan in
the same time frame as Russia — it still offers the chance of a growing market
for Russian nuclear exports.
Aside from these ongoing projects, the Vietnamese also want to increase the
momentum of trade negotiations that would grant Hanoi access to the Russian-led
Customs Union, which includes Belarus and Kazakhstan. The Customs Union hopes
to eventually morph into a large common market, the Eurasian Union, but it is
facing hurdles to expansion.
In Russia's immediate periphery, the country has started to woo the rapidly growing emerging markets in East Asia. Vietnam, with a long history of relations with Russia, has become a trial for this kind of free trade agreement. Other East Asian states, like South Korea, have shown interest in conducting trade agreements with the Union, but Vietnam is the first to openly contemplate someday joining it. Though Vietnamese membership may be a long way off, the first round of negotiations for a trade agreement began in March. Dung and Medvedev acknowledged these talks, and Dung's visit to Belarus after his visit to Russia underlines this process.
In Russia's immediate periphery, the country has started to woo the rapidly growing emerging markets in East Asia. Vietnam, with a long history of relations with Russia, has become a trial for this kind of free trade agreement. Other East Asian states, like South Korea, have shown interest in conducting trade agreements with the Union, but Vietnam is the first to openly contemplate someday joining it. Though Vietnamese membership may be a long way off, the first round of negotiations for a trade agreement began in March. Dung and Medvedev acknowledged these talks, and Dung's visit to Belarus after his visit to Russia underlines this process.
The trade relationship needs to be reinvigorated. Russian exports to
Vietnam have fallen since the global financial crisis, primarily due to lower
exports of iron and steel, while Vietnamese exports to Russia have not fallen
(electronic equipment especially has jumped). The Russians want to rectify this
situation and open more space for exports to Vietnam as part of their broader
economic policy of seeking growth in emerging markets. As for investment,
Vietnam has cash and needs technology that Russia has to offer. The two sides
signed more than 20 agreements, mostly in oil, natural gas, military
cooperation, banking, railroads and higher education.
The investment relationship is also roughly reciprocal -- while the stock
of Russian investment in Vietnam amounts to $2 billion as of 2013, the stock of
Vietnamese investment in Russia amounts to $1.7 billion. Russia has offered to
allow Vietnamese national oil company PetroVietnam to get involved in oil and
natural gas exploration and production in the Orenburg and Yamal-Nenets
regions. Russia does not need the cash but wants to strengthen the strategic
relationship. It also hopes to expand its energy development projects in
Vietnam's offshore oil and natural gas fields. Hanoi approves of increased
Russian involvement in its offshore fields on its business merits and as a
hindrance to China's attempts to assert its territorial claims and exercise
sway over offshore production in the South China Sea.
Strategically, Russia's and Vietnam's interests match quite nicely. Russia
is re-engaging with the Asia-Pacific economy just as Vietnam is trying more
intently to mitigate threats from its traditional and newly ascendant rival,
China, without having to become excessively dependent on its former foe and
possibly unreliable partner, the United States.
But constraints frame this relationship. Vietnam's high growth rates have
recently faltered due to weak demand abroad and a buildup of institutional inefficiencies,
forcing the Communist Party to contemplate pro-efficiency reforms that require
it to rethink the
party's and the state's roles in the economy. The process of
political and economic reorganization, which could become destabilizing, may
bring down growth rates and prevent Vietnam from realizing the potential that
foreign exporters anticipate. Still, Russia is operating in areas that fit with
Vietnamese strategic priorities, so it may avoid losing much business even if
Vietnam starts moderating its ambitions.
Russian interests in the region also have limits. Russia sees Vietnam as a
base for its interests in maritime East Asia, including having an asset on the
far side of China that can deny Beijing the full attainment of its regional and
maritime ambitions. The Russians continue to work toward a deal to return to
their old, and strategically valuable, resupply port
at Cam Ranh Bay. But Moscow will avoid any serious
East Asian entanglements unless they directly threaten Russian interests.
Still, Vietnam and Russia have compelling economic and militarily strategic
reasons to work together more closely. They also have the advantage of
distance, which prevents Russia from having to commit too deeply and Vietnam
from provoking China excessively. After all, Beijing sees Russia as a less
menacing Vietnamese partner than the United States.
Ultimately Hanoi will try to leverage its internal
market and its natural resources to draw in outside players. But Hanoi has few illusions regarding the willingness of outside powers
to hazard their security for its defense, and thus the submarines indicate the
essential element for Vietnam. In this way, Russia provides the perfect third
option for Vietnam outside of U.S.-Chinese bipolarity.
— Reprinted with permission from Stratfor,
http://www.stratfor.com.
Friday, June 7, KINGSTON: This month’s selection in the Films of Palestine Series is "Roadmap to Apartheid." A free public screening begins at 7 p.m. at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Catskills, 320 Sawkill Rd. This feature-length documentary by filmmakers Ana Nogueira (a white South African) and Eron Davidson (a Jewish American-Israeli), is an extremely ambitious project that is largely successful in achieving the difficult goals it sets for itself. The film is the very first documentary to offer an in-depth exploration of the parallels between South African and Israeli forms of apartheid. The screening will be followed by an audience discussion. Sponsored by: Middle East Crisis Response and Hudson Valley Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Information, Jane.toby7@gmail.com, (518). 678 2076.
SATURDAY, MAY 18, 2013
05-18-13 Activist Calendar
HUDSON VALLEY
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
May 18, 2013, Issue #669
Send event announcements to jacdon@earthlink.net
———————————————————————
Sunday, May 19, WOODSTOCK: This is a very special occasion — read on: Tim DeChristopher is a young man who derailed an illegal federal oil and gas lease auction for 22,000 acres of public land in southern Utah in 2008. He was high bidder for the land at $1.7 million, but of course had no money. Ultimately, his action effectively safeguarded thousands of acres of Utah land. The land has been saved, a movement grown, and DeChristopher spent two years in federal prison for deceiving the system. He was released recently on Earth Day 2013 and will be at Upstate Films at 132 Tinker St. in Woodstock to talk about his actions and his perspective on the climate justice movement. The talk and a new 73-minute documentary, “Bidder #70, about Tim’s incredible exploit, will be begin at 2 p.m. Admission is $10. At 5 p.m., for those who are interested, there will be a reception at New World Home Cooking in Saugerties, 1411 Rt. 212. (Tickets for reception to be announced.) Frack Free Catskills, Catskill Mountainkeeper, and Woodstock Film Festival sponsor this event. A three minute film trailer is athttp://www.bidder70film.com/#!trailer/cxbx. Information, (845) 246-3449,rosenberg.sue@gmail.com.
Sunday, May 19, ELLENVILLE: The 2012 documentary "Heist: Who Stole the American Dream?" will be screened at 4 p.m. at Empowering Ellenville, 159 Canal St, Ellenville. A discussion and general meeting will follow the film. We’re told “Heist” traces “the development of the sociopathic plutocracy from the 1940s to present times, and names names.” Information, Barbara Kidney (
845) 313-8035.
Monday, March 20, RHINEBECK: A Rally for Justice and Dignity in support of the healthcare workers at Ferncliff Nursing Home will take place at 5 p.m. at Star Park, 80 W. Market St. The sponsor is 1199SEIU, backed by the Hudson Valley Area Labor Federation. Information, esoto@hvalf.org.
Wednesday, May 22, TROY: Award-winning journalist Jeremy Scahill, will speak at The Sanctuary for Independent Media at 7 p.m. He is the national security Correspondent for the Nation magazine and the author of the just published "Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield." (The documentary film "Dirty Wars,” based on the book, will be released next month.) Scahill also wrote "Blackwater: The World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army." The Sanctuary is located in a former historic church at 3361 6th Ave. (at 101st St.) in North Troy. A donation of $10 is suggested, $5 student/low income). Advance tickets are available. Information, (518) 272-2390, http://www.mediasanctuary.org.
Saturday, May 25, NEW PALTZ and INTERNATIONAL: Worldwide protests against the biotechnology company Monsanto will take place today in 36 countries and 47 states. One of many events in the U.S. will be a March Against Monsanto in New Paltz starting from Peace Park across from Village Hall, 25 Plattekill Ave., a block south of Main St. The event begins at 2 p.m. with sign making. A half-hour rally starts at 2:15 p.m. follow by the march through town. Monsanto has come under attack from environmentalists, agriculturalists and average consumers over the company’s genetically modified organisms and genetically engineered foods. Congress passed, and President Obama signed, a biotech rider known as the “Monsanto Protection Act” by its critics that allows companies to plant and sell genetically altered products without gaining federal permission or labeling. Speakers will include Liana Hoodes, Director of the National Organic Coalition; Joel Tyner, Dutchess County Legislator; Barbara Upton, New Paltz Women in Black; Billiam van Roestenberg, Liberty View Farm and Beth Dulay, who has a personal story to share on the dangers of GMOs. Sponsors include GMO? OMG! Hudson Valley for No GMO’s, Hudson Valley Seed Library, Occupy New Paltz, Occupy Poughkeepsie, Occupy Northern Dutchess, Gomen Kudasai, Climate Action Coalition, New Paltz Women in Black, Veterans for Peace of the Hudson Valley, Four Winds Farm,Liberty View Farm, Evolutionary Organics Farm, Occupy Kingston, Occupy South Ulster, the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter, the Hudson Valley Chapter of WORD. The official website for the global March Against Monsanto is http://www.march-against-monsanto.com. Information, Elizabeth Dulay ehdulay@gmail.com, Barbara Uptonanahatasun@aol.com.
Saturday, May 25, MONTGOMERY: The anti-Monsanto event in this Orange County town about a dozen miles east of Newburg will begin at 6:30 p.m. with a picnic and family activities at the Wallkill River School, Patchett House, 232 Ward St. We’re told it’s “featuring information tables, short documentaries, a speakers corner, GMO-free nibbles, tug-of-war, mask making, and bean bag toss. We encourage you to BYO Non-GMO picnic, blanket and/or chairs. At 8 p.m. there will be an outdoor movie followed by a discussion (indoors if rain).” Occupy Orange is the sponsor. Information, oorangeny@gmail.com. You may RSVP online athttps://www.facebook.com/OccupyOrangeNY.
Saturday, May 25, ALBANY: The 90-minute, 2011 documentary “Where Soldiers Come From” will be screened at 7:30 p.m. at First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany (FUUSA)
405 Washington Ave. From a snowy small town in northern Michigan to the mountains of Afghanistan and back, this Emmy award-winning documentary follows the four-year journey of childhood friends, forever transformed by a faraway war. It looks at these young men as they are changed from reckless teenagers to soldiers looking for bombs in Afghanistan and, later, to veterans dealing with the silent war wounds of traumatic brain injury and PTSD. The New Yoek Times reviewer said it was "quietly devastating.... The real cost of distant political decisions is softly illuminated, as well as the shame of a country with little to offer its less fortunate young people other than a ticket to a battlefield." The Solidarity Committee of the Capital District, Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace, and Upper Hudson Peace Action are the sponsors of this free public event. Information, (518) 426-0883, dbull34@verizon.com. About the film,http://www.wheresoldierscomefrom.com.
Monday, June 3, OLD CHATHAM: The documentary “Killing Us Softly” will be screened at 7 p.m. at Powell House Quaker Conference and Retreat Center, 524 Pitt Hall Rd., off County Rt. 13.We’re informed this film “takes a new and refreshing look at how advertising traffics in distorted and destructive ideals of femininity.” Refreshments will be served and a moderated discussion will follow. Free and public. Information (518) 766-2992.
Friday, June 7, KINGSTON: This month’s selection in the Films of Palestine Series is "Roadmap to Apartheid." A free public screening begins at 7 p.m. at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Catskills, 320 Sawkill Rd. This feature-length documentary by filmmakers Ana Nogueira (a white South African) and Eron Davidson (a Jewish American-Israeli), is an extremely ambitious project that is largely successful in achieving the difficult goals it sets for itself. The film is the very first documentary to offer an in-depth exploration of the parallels between South African and Israeli forms of apartheid. The screening will be followed by an audience discussion. Sponsored by: Middle East Crisis Response and Hudson Valley Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Information, Jane.toby7@gmail.com, (518). 678 2076.
Friday-Sunday, June 7-9, HIGH FALLS: The annual summer gathering of the People's Music Network (PMN) will take place this long weekend at the Epworth Camp and Retreat Center, 8 Epworth Lane,. Participants will swap songs, share experiences, attend workshops on music for social change and musical skills, and give music performances. The weekend will begin with a Friday evening concert featuring Pat Humphries and Sandy O, who together form “emma’s revolution.” Also performing will be Bev Grant, Bernardo Palombo, Evan Greer and Ted Warmbrand. There is a lot more information and details about all three days — lodging, prices, workshops, meetings, etc, on the website, http://www.peoplesmusic.org. Other info, Diane Crowe,diacrowe@yahoo.com, (413) 548-9394.
Sunday, June 9, GARRISON: The Hudson Valley Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is sponsoring a 7 p.m. screening of the 40-minute, 2010 documentary “Living for 32.” This free public showing “is about the 32 people murdered in the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, and how survivor Colin Goddard subsequently became a leading advocate for gun reform.” A moderated discussion will follow the showing. The venue is the Depot Theatre, 10 Garrison's Landing. Seating is limited. Reservations are strongly recommended via https://www.facebook.com/events/481496618585570/, ornyhudson.gd@momsdemandaction.org, (845) 323-3595.
Sunday, June 9, ELLENVILLE: “Hydrofracking: Environmental Impacts” is the topic of a talk by Karen Schneller MacDonald, an ecologist with Hudsonia. This 4 p.m. event is at Empowering Ellenville, 159 Canal St. Information, Barbara Kidney
(
845) 313-8035.
Wednesday, June 12, NYACK: The Hudson Valley Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is sponsoring a 7 p.m. screening of the 40-minute, 2010 documentary “Living for 32.” This free public showing “is about the 32 people murdered in the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, and how survivor Colin Goddard subsequently became a leading advocate for gun reform.” A moderated discussion will follow the showing. The venue is the Nyack Library, 59 South Broadway. Seating is limited. Reservations are strongly recommended via https://www.facebook.com/events/481496618585570/, ornyhudson.gd@momsdemandaction.org, (845) 323-3595.
Saturday, June 15, KINGSTON: the First Annual Juneteenth Celebration in Kingston, will take place 5-8 p.m. at New Progressive Baptist Church, 8 Hone St. Juneteenth, of course, is a celebration of the end of slavery and has deep roots and a long history in the African American community. The event is being put together by the church and ENJAN (End The New Jim Crow Action Network). Information, Odell Winfield at (914) 388-3092,odell_winfield@yahoo.com.
Thursday, June 20, DELMAR: "The Hyping of the North Korean Threat" is the topic of an important talk by Maud and David East, beginning at 7 p.m. at the Bethlehem Public Library, 451 Delaware Ave. They will discuss their experiences visiting North Korea in 1980, and share their analysis of the current hostilities between the United States and North Korea. There will be a Q&A discussion following the presentation. Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace is sponsoring this free public event. Information, (518) 466-1192,jlombard@nycap.rr.com.
