No Time for Activism as Usual
By Ted Glick
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor
Wednesday 08 August 2007
"The Weather Makers," a book by Tim Flannery, is one of the best sources for those who want to understand the global heating process that is seriously destabilizing the world's climate. In it, Flannery explains the three main 'tipping points' "that scientists are aware of for Earth's climate: a slowing or collapse of the Gulf Stream; the demise of the Amazon rainforests; and the release of gas hydrates from the sea floor.... There is some geological evidence for all having happened in Earth's history.... Given the current rate and direction of change, one, two or perhaps all three may take place this century."
A climate "tipping point" is a point beyond which it will be very difficult if not impossible to prevent catastrophic climate change - truly apocalyptic climate change.
We may be seeing one unfolding right now. That is how serious the climate crisis is. And that is why, a month from now, on September 4, the day Congress returns to DC, a Climate Emergency Fast will be launched, which will see some of us go without food for weeks. For me personally, it will be open-ended with no set ending date.
A July 24th 2006 news story by Geoffrey Lean in Britain's Independent newspaper, "A disaster to take everyone's breath away," underlines why some of us are taking this admittedly dramatic - some would say extreme - action. Lean reported that "severe drought is returning to the Amazon for a second successive year. And that would be ominous. New research suggests that one further dry year beyond that could tip the whole vast forest into a cycle of destruction ...
"The consequences would be awesome. The wet Amazon Basin would turn to dry savannah at best, desert at worst. This would cause much of the world to become hotter and drier. In the long term, it could send global warming out of control, eventually making the world uninhabitable."
One year later and one week ago, the New York Times carried a major story, "Brazil, Alarmed, Reconsiders Policy on Climate Change," on page three. They quoted a Philip Fearnside of the National Institute for Amazon Research as saying, in reference to the drying out of the Amazon, "Obviously the uncertainty range is huge, but the momentum is pushing us in that direction, and the fact that it is close is important, because the process is like steering a big ship. People on the Titanic saw the iceberg, but they couldn't turn in time."
As I write this column, it is four years after one of the most disastrous single climate events this century - the deaths of 35,000 people in August 2003 in western Europe as a result of a summer heat wave. Something of this magnitude had never happened before in recorded history. This event forced me to undertake serious study to understand what was happening as far as global heating, which in turn has led to my full-time activism on this issue for the last three years.
In that time I've seen a lot of positive developments. There is no question but that there has been a political sea change on this issue in the US. Large majorities of the population - Democrat, Republican and independent - support moving rapidly to a clean energy economy. As a result, there is some movement on Capitol Hill - involving mainly Democrats but also a handful of Republicans - toward possible enactment of global warming legislation this fall.
The problem is that it is unrealistic in the extreme to expect this Congress, under normal circumstances, to adopt the kind of legislation needed, given the power of the coal, oil and automobile industries over legislators of both parties.
We need to make this fall a very "unnormal" circumstance.
We need a deep, wide grassroots political uprising demanding a major course correction on energy policy, a rapid shift to energy conservation, efficiency and clean, safe and jobs-creating renewable energy.
We need to demand that we fight climate change, not wars for oil!
Literally, we need our government to act as if the country were in mortal danger, on a war footing, declaring nonviolent war on behalf of our threatened ecosystem, joining forces with peoples and governments all over the world who will welcome us with open arms if we do.
The US could go from being the most hated country on the planet to a very different reality in just a few short years.
This is an issue that transcends politics, and there are many concrete examples of how this understanding is growing among our peoples. One of the most recent is a statement, "Scientists and Evangelicals Unite to Protect Creation," released in January of this year and signed by 30 prominent scientists and religious evangelicals, including conservatives. It stated:
"We declare that every sector of our nation's leadership - religious, scientific, business, political and educational - must act now to work toward the fundamental change in values, lifestyles and public policies required to address these worsening [climate and environmental] problems before it is too late. There is no excuse for further delays. Business as usual cannot continue yet one more day."
But in a war, including a morally just nonviolent war for survival, troops are needed who are willing to make sacrifices, willing to disrupt business as usual, willing to get in the faces of those who have their hands on the levers of power. Those hands must be reversed or removed to enable a great turning of our Titanic-like system which is moving rapidly toward that dangerous iceberg, that tipping point which we must do all in our power to avoid.
Can we do it? Is it too late?
Hard questions, very hard, because a sober assessment of the odds against us is not encouraging. It's not just the power of the corporate interests dragging the whole world toward the precipice; it's the uncertainty about whether we have enough time to make the dramatic changes necessary, or if the global heating process is so far advanced that we have little chance to reverse course.
There are days when I despair over these odds, these realities. But then I remember that there is really no one who knows for sure what the future holds. The vast majority of scientists believe that we do have enough time to avoid climate catastrophe if we move quickly now.
And I think of the lesson of history that, all of a sudden, seemingly from out of nowhere, massive uprisings of the people have ended laws allowing segregation that had been in place for centuries, or overthrown apartheid, or brought down a hated wall dividing the people of a country.
Mahatma Gandhi, probably the greatest nonviolent revolutionary of the 20th century, once said that, "Fasting is the sincerest form of prayer." Beginning now, deepening on September 4, and for some of us for weeks afterward, let us pray and act not just for future generations but for those living right now.
"There is no excuse for further delays. Business as usual cannot continue yet one more day."
--------
To join or for additional information about the Climate Emergency Fast, go to www.climateemergency.org.
Ted Glick is the coordinator of the US Climate Emergency Council and is in the leadership of No War, No Warming, which is planning mass nonviolent civil disobedience on Capitol Hill this October (www.nowarnowarming.org). He can be reached at indpol@igc.org or at P.O. Box 1132, Bloomfield, NJ 07003.
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
5/05/2007
Zinn on Activism
Published on Friday, May 4, 2007 by Yale Daily News
Historian Howard Zinn Calls for Activism
by Lea Yu
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Howard Zinn may be a historian, but he lives in the present.
As demonstrators for immigrant rights made their way around New Haven on May Day, Zinn assumed the stage at the Center Church on the New Haven Green, stressing the need for youth to engage in activism, to understand the darker aspects of American domestic and foreign policy, and to distinguish between allegiance to a government and allegiance to a country.
Evoking a rare mixture of political seriousness and light-hearted wit, the 84-year-old history professor spoke conversationally, prompting many audience members to laugh at his sense of humor or applaud when his musings culminated in calls for change.
“Our interests are not the same [as the government’s], despite our culture and the way it tries to indoctrinate us into thinking our interests are the same … we and the government, Exxon and me,” Zinn said to long, drawn-out laughter.
“Bush,” he then said with a pause, “and the young person he sends to war do not have the same interests.”
Strenuous clapping ensued.
The event, sponsored by Labyrinth Books, coincided with the release of Zinn’s “A Young People’s History of the United States,” a youth-oriented articulation of his seminal “A People’s History of the United States.” Though he emphasized that the two books do not differ substantially and that his message was the same to Americans both young and old, Zinn’s speech on Tuesday focused on the need for the “next generation of youth” to question the government and understand its complexities - an implicit criticism of what he sees as older Americans’ failures to do the same.
“We need something better,” he said. “With the situation we’re in, we can’t afford to have another generation that will go along with war. Or another nation that will go along with the nation’s enormous militarism.”
Youth today need to recognize the presence of social upheaval in America’s past in order to recognize the importance of activism, Zinn said, but history teaching has traditionally emphasized American unity while ignoring social movements and conflicts of interest that steered the country toward historical change.
As a result, he said, young people become discouraged when only 20 people show up for a war protest rally; they have no idea that the civil rights protests failed on multiple occasions before the movement saw even an inkling of attention or success.
Also lost upon American youth is the nation’s history of ignoring the interests of common people, Zinn said. He said events such as the Vietnam War exemplify the United States’s long record of using foreign policy to acquire needed resources, while operating under the guise of liberty, self-determination and freedom.
In short, youth today have the daunting task of separating themselves from a self-righteous national culture, Zinn said. In spite of the hubbub over America’s greatness, the historian said, the nation significantly trails many other countries when it comes to literacy rates, infant mortality and the promotion of human rights. Illustrating what he termed the hypocrisy of America’s condemnation of nuclear weapons, Zinn recalled a letter that his friend, the late Kurt Vonnegut, had sent to the New York Times.
“Not saying anything about Iran or North Korea, his letter just said this: ‘I know of only one country that has dropped nuclear weapons on defenseless people,’” Zinn said. “The Times did not print his letter.”
Most in the audience were old enough to have lived through the 1960s and ’70s, when Vonnegut first attracted a cult following, although young adults nearly composed a third of the audience. For New Haven resident Pat Topitzer, Zinn’s words reminded her of her own youth protest experiences and addressed what she considered a pressing issue.
“I think for people … it is startling [to see] the lack of involvement of young people,” she said. “We had [an anti-war] demonstration last year on the corner of Elm and York streets and it absolutely rocked me - there we were on the corner of two residential colleges and only one college student came out.”
Local resident Baub Biden said he found the youth turnout at the talk encouraging, but that it would take more than a re-evaluation of American history to change young people’s mentalities.
“You have a lot of people you are distracted by VH1, MTV, BET, and every time you turn on the TV there’s a reality show that’s kind of catchy,” Biden said. “So these people are at home, and they’re watching all of these distractions and they’re all talking about Britney Spears cutting her hair.”
Although he was not in attendance at Zinn’s speech, history professor Jean-Christophe Agnew said he had a great deal of respect for Zinn’s historical work, which he called highly influential and widely used. Though historians make it their work to study the past, it is not unusual for prominent professors such as Zinn to weigh in on current events, he said, citing a resolution opposing the war in Iraq that was recently ratified by the American Historical Association.
But that does not mean that all historians share the same point of view.
“In these moments of crisis, when the country is split … so historians are split,” Agnew said.
Copyright 1995-2007 Yale Daily News Publishing Company, Inc.
Historian Howard Zinn Calls for Activism
by Lea Yu
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Howard Zinn may be a historian, but he lives in the present.
As demonstrators for immigrant rights made their way around New Haven on May Day, Zinn assumed the stage at the Center Church on the New Haven Green, stressing the need for youth to engage in activism, to understand the darker aspects of American domestic and foreign policy, and to distinguish between allegiance to a government and allegiance to a country.
Evoking a rare mixture of political seriousness and light-hearted wit, the 84-year-old history professor spoke conversationally, prompting many audience members to laugh at his sense of humor or applaud when his musings culminated in calls for change.
“Our interests are not the same [as the government’s], despite our culture and the way it tries to indoctrinate us into thinking our interests are the same … we and the government, Exxon and me,” Zinn said to long, drawn-out laughter.
“Bush,” he then said with a pause, “and the young person he sends to war do not have the same interests.”
Strenuous clapping ensued.
The event, sponsored by Labyrinth Books, coincided with the release of Zinn’s “A Young People’s History of the United States,” a youth-oriented articulation of his seminal “A People’s History of the United States.” Though he emphasized that the two books do not differ substantially and that his message was the same to Americans both young and old, Zinn’s speech on Tuesday focused on the need for the “next generation of youth” to question the government and understand its complexities - an implicit criticism of what he sees as older Americans’ failures to do the same.
“We need something better,” he said. “With the situation we’re in, we can’t afford to have another generation that will go along with war. Or another nation that will go along with the nation’s enormous militarism.”
Youth today need to recognize the presence of social upheaval in America’s past in order to recognize the importance of activism, Zinn said, but history teaching has traditionally emphasized American unity while ignoring social movements and conflicts of interest that steered the country toward historical change.
As a result, he said, young people become discouraged when only 20 people show up for a war protest rally; they have no idea that the civil rights protests failed on multiple occasions before the movement saw even an inkling of attention or success.
Also lost upon American youth is the nation’s history of ignoring the interests of common people, Zinn said. He said events such as the Vietnam War exemplify the United States’s long record of using foreign policy to acquire needed resources, while operating under the guise of liberty, self-determination and freedom.
In short, youth today have the daunting task of separating themselves from a self-righteous national culture, Zinn said. In spite of the hubbub over America’s greatness, the historian said, the nation significantly trails many other countries when it comes to literacy rates, infant mortality and the promotion of human rights. Illustrating what he termed the hypocrisy of America’s condemnation of nuclear weapons, Zinn recalled a letter that his friend, the late Kurt Vonnegut, had sent to the New York Times.
“Not saying anything about Iran or North Korea, his letter just said this: ‘I know of only one country that has dropped nuclear weapons on defenseless people,’” Zinn said. “The Times did not print his letter.”
Most in the audience were old enough to have lived through the 1960s and ’70s, when Vonnegut first attracted a cult following, although young adults nearly composed a third of the audience. For New Haven resident Pat Topitzer, Zinn’s words reminded her of her own youth protest experiences and addressed what she considered a pressing issue.
“I think for people … it is startling [to see] the lack of involvement of young people,” she said. “We had [an anti-war] demonstration last year on the corner of Elm and York streets and it absolutely rocked me - there we were on the corner of two residential colleges and only one college student came out.”
Local resident Baub Biden said he found the youth turnout at the talk encouraging, but that it would take more than a re-evaluation of American history to change young people’s mentalities.
“You have a lot of people you are distracted by VH1, MTV, BET, and every time you turn on the TV there’s a reality show that’s kind of catchy,” Biden said. “So these people are at home, and they’re watching all of these distractions and they’re all talking about Britney Spears cutting her hair.”
Although he was not in attendance at Zinn’s speech, history professor Jean-Christophe Agnew said he had a great deal of respect for Zinn’s historical work, which he called highly influential and widely used. Though historians make it their work to study the past, it is not unusual for prominent professors such as Zinn to weigh in on current events, he said, citing a resolution opposing the war in Iraq that was recently ratified by the American Historical Association.
But that does not mean that all historians share the same point of view.
“In these moments of crisis, when the country is split … so historians are split,” Agnew said.
Copyright 1995-2007 Yale Daily News Publishing Company, Inc.
4/04/2007
Hot Activism In The Sandhills
Scotland County Of Tomorrow (SCOT) planned a Rally to be held before the Public Hearing which was to be April 2 nd at the regular April Board of Commissioner's meeting. Although the Public Hearing has been cancelled, communications from County Manager John Crumpton and Board Chair J. D. Willis indicate that, although negotiations are on hold, the Waste Management application remains on file, and Waste Management has been invited to reconsider the application at any time.
_______________________________
From the Fayetteville Observer on 4/3:
Tempers flair over landfill
By Allison Williams Correspondent
LAURINBURG — With a bagpiper leading the way, people protesting a regional landfill marched to the monthly meeting of Scotland County commissioners Monday night.
But when they got there, Chairman J.D. Willis would not allow any of the protesters — who had registered in advance — to address the board during its public forum. Protesters booed and Willis threatened to call police.
"Throw them out," one member of the audience called out, referring to county commissioners.
"If you don't get out, we're going to call police to come get you out," Willis replied, banging his gavel as protesters shook homemade signs and printed banners that said, "No Megadump."
Willis said that protesters would be allowed to speak when a public hearing on a proposed landfill is scheduled. The hearing had been set for Monday night, but when a state committee proposed more stringent landfill requirements, the county put the hearing on hold. Many people thought that the landfill was dead.
Waste Management Inc., said the new requirements would make a regional landfill in Scotland County too expensive to build. But protesters say Willis' comments that the public hearing will be rescheduled proves that it isn't over yet.
Protesters began the evening at a parking lot across the street from the county government building. They held a rally about an hour before the commissioners' meeting began.
Speakers came from across southeastern North Carolina, many of them from communities that are fighting or have fought landfills. A large group of women arrived in matching T-shirts that read, "Citizens for a Safe Vibrant Community," and carrying hand-lettered signs. The women fought a construction and demolition landfill in the small town of Sandyfield in Columbus County.
People came from Richmond, Duplin and Moore counties. Fred McQueen helped fight a proposed landfill in neighboring Richmond County.
He warned people in Scotland County not to be complacent because Waste Management has appeared to back away from the idea of building a landfill that would accept waste from six states and Washington. County commissioners are clearly still interested, he said.
"It's not J.D. and the county commissioners that backed down," McQueen said. "It was Waste Management that backed down."
A March letter from Chairman Willis to Waste Management says, "If and when your company is prepared to complete the negotiations over the host agreement, we would be glad to reconsider the application for the preliminary franchise at that time."
The idea of a landfill was first raised in 2005.
Proponents said the landfill would bring in much-needed revenue to a county with one of the highest tax rates in the state.
Opponents said the landfill would cause enormous environmental problems.
In July, the General Assembly passed a moratorium on building new commercial landfills. Some people thought that would mean an end to a regional landfill, but discussions continued.
Last month, the N.C. Division of Waste Management proposed guidelines that would require landfills to have two underground liners and expensive monitoring systems. Scotland County
Manager John Crumpton said the changes would mean an extra $80 million to build the proposed regional landfill.
Again, the idea of a landfill seemed to be dead.
Bob Davis is co-chairman of Scotland County of Tomorrow, one of the groups protesting the landfill.
"They called this off once before," he said, but the issue returned and he's not sure it won't happen again.
When Willis refused to let him or others speak Monday night, he said, it emphasized his point that the landfill is not dead.
Helen Livingston said protesters are celebrating some victories — the proposed guidelines for one — but won't rest until changes are signed into law and Waste Management closes up shop in Scotland County.
"It's not over," she said.
----------------------------------
The Fayetteville Observer reporter left before the Board returned from closed session. The Laurinburg Exchange article adds:
"Several citizens were allowed to address Commissioners after the Board returned from closed session but Willis had not informed them they would have the chance to speak during the meeting when he initially closed the public forum".
www.nomegadump.org
The SCOT RALLY:
THE PURPOSE OF THE SCOT RALLY IS THREEFOLD :
1) TO CELEBRATE
The new legislative landfill proposals have received thorough, detailed work. We rejoice in their filing last week, and thank legislators for their responsiveness to our requests for safer landfill regulations. Full relief from County Medicaid payments empowers low wealth counties to say no to undesirable economic development. We appreciate this step towards One North Carolina, and are grateful to legislators who understand the significance of this relief.
2) TO EDUCATE
Scotland County has turned away both a Hazardous Waste site and a Nuclear Waste site in the past. We can be proud of our role in turning away one of the top ten mega-dumps in the US.
Scotland County is one of the bright lights in the state in its recycling successes. Even though recycle pick-up has gone from every week to every other week, the volume has not dropped considerably. Our convenience centers are models for the state. We can utilize our past successes to create more progress to handle solid waste in ways that further promote reduce, reuse and recycle. The State is backing its efforts with funding to assist with the shift to the new solid waste plan.
We are fortunate that Scotland County has this opportunity to look to the future, rather than be one of the last to succumb to waste industry pressures for hosting a mega-dump … already antiquated technology.
We take this opportunity to request that Scotland County end all negations with Waste Management: Return the application on file, stop requesting that our representatives block the proposed new landfill safety regulations, and validate that immediate Medicaid relief places the county's financial outlook on a level where the risks of health and economic losses from a huge mega-dump are neither necessary, nor are they in the best interest of Scotland County
3) TO COLLABORATE :
SCOT works with other organizations around the state to insure that NC exercises a progressive, preventive approach to Solid Waste Management. Other counties supporting us today include Richmond, Moore, Duplin, Cumberland, Columbus, Brunswick and Camden. State wide environmental groups have joined forces to develop and support the new legislative bills.
_______________________________
From the Fayetteville Observer on 4/3:
Tempers flair over landfill
By Allison Williams Correspondent
LAURINBURG — With a bagpiper leading the way, people protesting a regional landfill marched to the monthly meeting of Scotland County commissioners Monday night.
But when they got there, Chairman J.D. Willis would not allow any of the protesters — who had registered in advance — to address the board during its public forum. Protesters booed and Willis threatened to call police.
"Throw them out," one member of the audience called out, referring to county commissioners.
"If you don't get out, we're going to call police to come get you out," Willis replied, banging his gavel as protesters shook homemade signs and printed banners that said, "No Megadump."
Willis said that protesters would be allowed to speak when a public hearing on a proposed landfill is scheduled. The hearing had been set for Monday night, but when a state committee proposed more stringent landfill requirements, the county put the hearing on hold. Many people thought that the landfill was dead.
Waste Management Inc., said the new requirements would make a regional landfill in Scotland County too expensive to build. But protesters say Willis' comments that the public hearing will be rescheduled proves that it isn't over yet.
Protesters began the evening at a parking lot across the street from the county government building. They held a rally about an hour before the commissioners' meeting began.
Speakers came from across southeastern North Carolina, many of them from communities that are fighting or have fought landfills. A large group of women arrived in matching T-shirts that read, "Citizens for a Safe Vibrant Community," and carrying hand-lettered signs. The women fought a construction and demolition landfill in the small town of Sandyfield in Columbus County.
People came from Richmond, Duplin and Moore counties. Fred McQueen helped fight a proposed landfill in neighboring Richmond County.
He warned people in Scotland County not to be complacent because Waste Management has appeared to back away from the idea of building a landfill that would accept waste from six states and Washington. County commissioners are clearly still interested, he said.
"It's not J.D. and the county commissioners that backed down," McQueen said. "It was Waste Management that backed down."
A March letter from Chairman Willis to Waste Management says, "If and when your company is prepared to complete the negotiations over the host agreement, we would be glad to reconsider the application for the preliminary franchise at that time."
The idea of a landfill was first raised in 2005.
Proponents said the landfill would bring in much-needed revenue to a county with one of the highest tax rates in the state.
Opponents said the landfill would cause enormous environmental problems.
In July, the General Assembly passed a moratorium on building new commercial landfills. Some people thought that would mean an end to a regional landfill, but discussions continued.
Last month, the N.C. Division of Waste Management proposed guidelines that would require landfills to have two underground liners and expensive monitoring systems. Scotland County
Manager John Crumpton said the changes would mean an extra $80 million to build the proposed regional landfill.
Again, the idea of a landfill seemed to be dead.
Bob Davis is co-chairman of Scotland County of Tomorrow, one of the groups protesting the landfill.
"They called this off once before," he said, but the issue returned and he's not sure it won't happen again.
When Willis refused to let him or others speak Monday night, he said, it emphasized his point that the landfill is not dead.
Helen Livingston said protesters are celebrating some victories — the proposed guidelines for one — but won't rest until changes are signed into law and Waste Management closes up shop in Scotland County.
"It's not over," she said.
----------------------------------
The Fayetteville Observer reporter left before the Board returned from closed session. The Laurinburg Exchange article adds:
"Several citizens were allowed to address Commissioners after the Board returned from closed session but Willis had not informed them they would have the chance to speak during the meeting when he initially closed the public forum".
www.nomegadump.org
The SCOT RALLY:
THE PURPOSE OF THE SCOT RALLY IS THREEFOLD :
1) TO CELEBRATE
The new legislative landfill proposals have received thorough, detailed work. We rejoice in their filing last week, and thank legislators for their responsiveness to our requests for safer landfill regulations. Full relief from County Medicaid payments empowers low wealth counties to say no to undesirable economic development. We appreciate this step towards One North Carolina, and are grateful to legislators who understand the significance of this relief.
2) TO EDUCATE
Scotland County has turned away both a Hazardous Waste site and a Nuclear Waste site in the past. We can be proud of our role in turning away one of the top ten mega-dumps in the US.
Scotland County is one of the bright lights in the state in its recycling successes. Even though recycle pick-up has gone from every week to every other week, the volume has not dropped considerably. Our convenience centers are models for the state. We can utilize our past successes to create more progress to handle solid waste in ways that further promote reduce, reuse and recycle. The State is backing its efforts with funding to assist with the shift to the new solid waste plan.
We are fortunate that Scotland County has this opportunity to look to the future, rather than be one of the last to succumb to waste industry pressures for hosting a mega-dump … already antiquated technology.
We take this opportunity to request that Scotland County end all negations with Waste Management: Return the application on file, stop requesting that our representatives block the proposed new landfill safety regulations, and validate that immediate Medicaid relief places the county's financial outlook on a level where the risks of health and economic losses from a huge mega-dump are neither necessary, nor are they in the best interest of Scotland County
3) TO COLLABORATE :
SCOT works with other organizations around the state to insure that NC exercises a progressive, preventive approach to Solid Waste Management. Other counties supporting us today include Richmond, Moore, Duplin, Cumberland, Columbus, Brunswick and Camden. State wide environmental groups have joined forces to develop and support the new legislative bills.
3/26/2007
Politicians or Citizens?
Published on Saturday, March 24, 2007 by The Progressive
Are We Politicians or Citizens? by Howard Zinn
As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration’s “surge” of troops, and the Republicans’ refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.
That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal, saying that progressives in Congress, “like many of us, don’t think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war.”
Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It’s as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.
We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.
We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.
Timetables for withdrawal are not only morally reprehensible in the case of a brutal occupation (would you give a thug who invaded your house, smashed everything in sight, and terrorized your children a timetable for withdrawal?) but logically nonsensical. If our troops are preventing civil war, helping people, controlling violence, then why withdraw at all? If they are in fact doing the opposite—provoking civil war, hurting people, perpetuating violence—they should withdraw as quickly as ships and planes can carry them home.
It is four years since the United States invaded Iraq with a ferocious bombardment, with “shock and awe.” That is enough time to decide if the presence of our troops is making the lives of the Iraqis better or worse. The evidence is overwhelming. Since the invasion, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, about two million Iraqis have left the country, and an almost equal number are internal refugees, forced out of their homes, seeking shelter elsewhere in the country.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But his capture and death have not made the lives of Iraqis better, as the U.S. occupation has created chaos: no clean water, rising rates of hunger, 50 percent unemployment, shortages of food, electricity, and fuel, a rise in child malnutrition and infant deaths. Has the U.S. presence diminished violence? On the contrary, by January 2007 the number of insurgent attacks has increased dramatically to 180 a day.
The response of the Bush Administration to four years of failure is to send more troops. To add more troops matches the definition of fanaticism: If you find you’re going in the wrong direction, redouble your speed. It reminds me of the physician in Europe in the early nineteenth century who decided that bloodletting would cure pneumonia. When that didn’t work, he concluded that not enough blood had been let.
The Congressional Democrats’ proposal is to give more funds to the war, and to set a timetable that will let the bloodletting go on for another year or more. It is necessary, they say, to compromise, and some anti-war people have been willing to go along. However, it is one thing to compromise when you are immediately given part of what you are demanding, if that can then be a springboard for getting more in the future. That is the situation described in the recent movie The Wind That Shakes The Barley, in which the Irish rebels against British rule are given a compromise solution—to have part of Ireland free, as the Irish Free State. In the movie, Irish brother fights against brother over whether to accept this compromise. But at least the acceptance of that compromise, however short of justice, created the Irish Free State. The withdrawal timetable proposed by the Democrats gets nothing tangible, only a promise, and leaves the fulfillment of that promise in the hands of the Bush Administration.
There have been similar dilemmas for the labor movement. Indeed, it is a common occurrence that unions, fighting for a new contract, must decide if they will accept an offer that gives them only part of what they have demanded. It’s always a difficult decision, but in almost all cases, whether the compromise can be considered a victory or a defeat, the workers have been given some thing palpable, improving their condition to some degree. If they were offered only a promise of something in the future, while continuing an unbearable situation in the present, it would not be considered a compromise, but a sellout. A union leader who said, “Take this, it’s the best we can get” (which is what the MoveOn people are saying about the Democrats’ resolution) would be hooted off the platform.
I am reminded of the situation at the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, when the black delegation from Mississippi asked to be seated, to represent the 40 percent black population of that state. They were offered a “compromise”—two nonvoting seats. “This is the best we can get,” some black leaders said. The Mississippians, led by Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses, turned it down, and thus held on to their fighting spirit, which later brought them what they had asked for. That mantra—“the best we can get”—is a recipe for corruption.
It is not easy, in the corrupting atmosphere of Washington, D.C., to hold on firmly to the truth, to resist the temptation of capitulation that presents itself as compromise. A few manage to do so. I think of Barbara Lee, the one person in the House of Representatives who, in the hysterical atmosphere of the days following 9/11, voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Afghanistan. Today, she is one of the few who refuse to fund the Iraq War, insist on a prompt end to the war, reject the dishonesty of a false compromise.
Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender their integrity, claiming to be “realistic.”
We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do.
Howard Zinn is the author, most recently, of “A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.”
Are We Politicians or Citizens? by Howard Zinn
As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration’s “surge” of troops, and the Republicans’ refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.
That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal, saying that progressives in Congress, “like many of us, don’t think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war.”
Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It’s as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.
We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.
We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.
Timetables for withdrawal are not only morally reprehensible in the case of a brutal occupation (would you give a thug who invaded your house, smashed everything in sight, and terrorized your children a timetable for withdrawal?) but logically nonsensical. If our troops are preventing civil war, helping people, controlling violence, then why withdraw at all? If they are in fact doing the opposite—provoking civil war, hurting people, perpetuating violence—they should withdraw as quickly as ships and planes can carry them home.
It is four years since the United States invaded Iraq with a ferocious bombardment, with “shock and awe.” That is enough time to decide if the presence of our troops is making the lives of the Iraqis better or worse. The evidence is overwhelming. Since the invasion, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, about two million Iraqis have left the country, and an almost equal number are internal refugees, forced out of their homes, seeking shelter elsewhere in the country.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But his capture and death have not made the lives of Iraqis better, as the U.S. occupation has created chaos: no clean water, rising rates of hunger, 50 percent unemployment, shortages of food, electricity, and fuel, a rise in child malnutrition and infant deaths. Has the U.S. presence diminished violence? On the contrary, by January 2007 the number of insurgent attacks has increased dramatically to 180 a day.
The response of the Bush Administration to four years of failure is to send more troops. To add more troops matches the definition of fanaticism: If you find you’re going in the wrong direction, redouble your speed. It reminds me of the physician in Europe in the early nineteenth century who decided that bloodletting would cure pneumonia. When that didn’t work, he concluded that not enough blood had been let.
The Congressional Democrats’ proposal is to give more funds to the war, and to set a timetable that will let the bloodletting go on for another year or more. It is necessary, they say, to compromise, and some anti-war people have been willing to go along. However, it is one thing to compromise when you are immediately given part of what you are demanding, if that can then be a springboard for getting more in the future. That is the situation described in the recent movie The Wind That Shakes The Barley, in which the Irish rebels against British rule are given a compromise solution—to have part of Ireland free, as the Irish Free State. In the movie, Irish brother fights against brother over whether to accept this compromise. But at least the acceptance of that compromise, however short of justice, created the Irish Free State. The withdrawal timetable proposed by the Democrats gets nothing tangible, only a promise, and leaves the fulfillment of that promise in the hands of the Bush Administration.
There have been similar dilemmas for the labor movement. Indeed, it is a common occurrence that unions, fighting for a new contract, must decide if they will accept an offer that gives them only part of what they have demanded. It’s always a difficult decision, but in almost all cases, whether the compromise can be considered a victory or a defeat, the workers have been given some thing palpable, improving their condition to some degree. If they were offered only a promise of something in the future, while continuing an unbearable situation in the present, it would not be considered a compromise, but a sellout. A union leader who said, “Take this, it’s the best we can get” (which is what the MoveOn people are saying about the Democrats’ resolution) would be hooted off the platform.
I am reminded of the situation at the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, when the black delegation from Mississippi asked to be seated, to represent the 40 percent black population of that state. They were offered a “compromise”—two nonvoting seats. “This is the best we can get,” some black leaders said. The Mississippians, led by Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses, turned it down, and thus held on to their fighting spirit, which later brought them what they had asked for. That mantra—“the best we can get”—is a recipe for corruption.
It is not easy, in the corrupting atmosphere of Washington, D.C., to hold on firmly to the truth, to resist the temptation of capitulation that presents itself as compromise. A few manage to do so. I think of Barbara Lee, the one person in the House of Representatives who, in the hysterical atmosphere of the days following 9/11, voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Afghanistan. Today, she is one of the few who refuse to fund the Iraq War, insist on a prompt end to the war, reject the dishonesty of a false compromise.
Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender their integrity, claiming to be “realistic.”
We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do.
Howard Zinn is the author, most recently, of “A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.”
3/17/2007
Weekend March on The Pentagon, One Man's Journey
Exploding Into Action
Posted on Mar 13, 2007
By Amy Goodman
The United States is entering the fifth year of its violent, failed occupation of Iraq, a war that has lasted longer than the U.S. was involved in World War II. Through the grimly deepening quagmire, a strengthening, pervasive U.S. antiwar movement is emerging. An increasingly powerful voice comes from soldiers and their families, turning grief into action. Take the Arredondo family.
On Aug. 25, 2004—Carlos Arredondo’s 44th birthday—a U.S. Marine van arrived outside his house. He thought that his son Alex had managed to come home from his second deployment to Iraq to surprise him. Instead, the Marines informed him that Alex had been killed in action in Najaf.
Carlos lost his mind. He asked, he begged, the Marines to leave. He pleaded. They didn’t leave, so he ran to his garage and grabbed a hammer, gasoline and a blowtorch. He began pummeling the van. He climbed in, pouring the gasoline. His mother, distraught and wailing, tried to pull him from the van. The blowtorch accidentally sparked, and Carlos was blown from the van into the yard, in flames.
Then his wife, Melida, arrived. She saw her husband burning. Carlos’ younger son, Brian, 16 years old, in Bangor, Maine, later saw the incident on television. This was the day he learned that the brother he loved and emulated was dead.
Carlos suffered burns on more than one-quarter of his body. The physical healing was the easy part. It is the emotional healing that he pursues in his tireless and remarkable odyssey to end the war. To honor Alex’s memory, he has been crisscrossing the country, from Capitol Hill to Crawford, Texas, pulling a flag-draped coffin. He calls it his public mourning: “I want the caskets coming home to be very public. The government doesn’t want you to see them.”
Carlos stopped for a few days this week in New York. He parked outside the military recruiting station in Times Square, where activists have established what they call the Endless War Memorial. For six days ending Friday, March 16, sunrise to sunset, hundreds of people are taking turns reading the names of the Iraq war dead—all the dead whose names could be discovered. The roughly 3,200 U.S. military fatalities, the other “coalition” casualties, the journalists and the 7,733 Iraqi names they were able to find. The organizers point out that there are 200 unnamed dead Iraqis for each of the thousands they have gathered (based on a study by the British medical journal Lancet that estimated more than 650,000 Iraqi dead).
The scene is surreal and unforgettable. Passers-by stop by the flag-draped coffin Carlos has rolled out of the back of his pickup truck. There are Army boots of loved ones lost, and large photos of grieving Iraqi women and one of Alex in an open casket. This is all set against the massive video display atop the recruiting station. Among its slogans: “There is nothing on this green earth stronger than the US Army.” Above that, an even larger display promotes Fox News and Bill O’Reilly and flashes phrases like “Gitmo justice.” The famous Dow Jones news zipper runs its endless recitation of stock quotes and the daily count of dead and injured. A video ad for sunglasses flashes the words “Never Hide.”
Carlos is heading next to Washington, D.C., to lead this weekend’s march on the Pentagon.
As we part, Carlos shows me the latest recruiting letter sent to his son Brian. It contains a fake red, white and blue credit card with Brian’s name on it. It says: “This is not a credit card. It is money in the bank.” An earlier letter promises him a bonus of up to $20,000. “What can you do with $20,000? A new car? Pay off credit cards? Help your family? ... Remember the decisions you are making right now will have a huge impact on how the rest of your life turns out.” Which is exactly why Carlos prays his surviving son will not join up.
Meanwhile, around the corner, each name read represents a once living, breathing, complex human being whose life was snuffed out as a result of this four-year-old war. Alongside the named dead are living people, like Carlos, following their consciences, making connections, building a movement, each day bringing the end of the war one day closer.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 500 stations in North America.
© 2007 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate
Posted on Mar 13, 2007
By Amy Goodman
The United States is entering the fifth year of its violent, failed occupation of Iraq, a war that has lasted longer than the U.S. was involved in World War II. Through the grimly deepening quagmire, a strengthening, pervasive U.S. antiwar movement is emerging. An increasingly powerful voice comes from soldiers and their families, turning grief into action. Take the Arredondo family.
On Aug. 25, 2004—Carlos Arredondo’s 44th birthday—a U.S. Marine van arrived outside his house. He thought that his son Alex had managed to come home from his second deployment to Iraq to surprise him. Instead, the Marines informed him that Alex had been killed in action in Najaf.
Carlos lost his mind. He asked, he begged, the Marines to leave. He pleaded. They didn’t leave, so he ran to his garage and grabbed a hammer, gasoline and a blowtorch. He began pummeling the van. He climbed in, pouring the gasoline. His mother, distraught and wailing, tried to pull him from the van. The blowtorch accidentally sparked, and Carlos was blown from the van into the yard, in flames.
Then his wife, Melida, arrived. She saw her husband burning. Carlos’ younger son, Brian, 16 years old, in Bangor, Maine, later saw the incident on television. This was the day he learned that the brother he loved and emulated was dead.
Carlos suffered burns on more than one-quarter of his body. The physical healing was the easy part. It is the emotional healing that he pursues in his tireless and remarkable odyssey to end the war. To honor Alex’s memory, he has been crisscrossing the country, from Capitol Hill to Crawford, Texas, pulling a flag-draped coffin. He calls it his public mourning: “I want the caskets coming home to be very public. The government doesn’t want you to see them.”
Carlos stopped for a few days this week in New York. He parked outside the military recruiting station in Times Square, where activists have established what they call the Endless War Memorial. For six days ending Friday, March 16, sunrise to sunset, hundreds of people are taking turns reading the names of the Iraq war dead—all the dead whose names could be discovered. The roughly 3,200 U.S. military fatalities, the other “coalition” casualties, the journalists and the 7,733 Iraqi names they were able to find. The organizers point out that there are 200 unnamed dead Iraqis for each of the thousands they have gathered (based on a study by the British medical journal Lancet that estimated more than 650,000 Iraqi dead).
The scene is surreal and unforgettable. Passers-by stop by the flag-draped coffin Carlos has rolled out of the back of his pickup truck. There are Army boots of loved ones lost, and large photos of grieving Iraqi women and one of Alex in an open casket. This is all set against the massive video display atop the recruiting station. Among its slogans: “There is nothing on this green earth stronger than the US Army.” Above that, an even larger display promotes Fox News and Bill O’Reilly and flashes phrases like “Gitmo justice.” The famous Dow Jones news zipper runs its endless recitation of stock quotes and the daily count of dead and injured. A video ad for sunglasses flashes the words “Never Hide.”
Carlos is heading next to Washington, D.C., to lead this weekend’s march on the Pentagon.
As we part, Carlos shows me the latest recruiting letter sent to his son Brian. It contains a fake red, white and blue credit card with Brian’s name on it. It says: “This is not a credit card. It is money in the bank.” An earlier letter promises him a bonus of up to $20,000. “What can you do with $20,000? A new car? Pay off credit cards? Help your family? ... Remember the decisions you are making right now will have a huge impact on how the rest of your life turns out.” Which is exactly why Carlos prays his surviving son will not join up.
Meanwhile, around the corner, each name read represents a once living, breathing, complex human being whose life was snuffed out as a result of this four-year-old war. Alongside the named dead are living people, like Carlos, following their consciences, making connections, building a movement, each day bringing the end of the war one day closer.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 500 stations in North America.
© 2007 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate
3/14/2007
3/07/2007
Pinehurst and Pine Trees in Conflict
[written by Paul Dunn]
The Village of Pinehurst and the axing of 92 trees
The Village of Pinehurst, at the request of Pinehurst Resorts, has entered into an agreement with DOT wherein DOT will remove 92 mature trees to make way for a traffic roundabout to be located at the intersection of Carolina Vista and Highway NC 2. This is the spot where Carolina Hotel guests walk, ride or cycle from the hotel to the famed Pinehurst Members Club, golf courses, tennis courts and back. The State will replace each axed tree with a tree of similar variety but of much smaller size.
Two weeks ago I asked DOT and Village officials just how many trees were going to be sacrificed upon the altar of progress, and believe it or not, they hadn’t a clue as to how many were to be removed until the trees were counted last week. In other words, the Village council members and Mayor of Pinehurst had no idea of how many trees they were causing to be destroyed when they agreed to a controversial DOT-built roundabout. Many of the town’s famed Longleaf Pines to be removed are well over 100 years of age. Some are up to 30 inches in size.
When I brought this somewhat startling fact to the attention of a council person who has expressed environmental interests, the reaction was, “The trees which are 100 years of age are going to die shortly anyway. And yes, I think most of us will be proud of the results.” I found that a somewhat startling statement, given that Federal and State Forestry experts advise that Longleaf Pines, Pinus Palustris typically grow until age 125 to 150 years and that healthy ones should live 200 or 300 years. Good specimens typically reach 55 to 80 feet. Some of the pines to be cut down were probably planted at the direction of Frederick Law Olmstead’s associates and James Walker Tufts, the founder of the community.
Pinehurst has a mixed record on the environment when it comes to trees and specifically pines. It has fostered civic interest in a public park and arboretum, while at the same time it did not lift a finger to protect not a hundred, but perhaps more than a thousand Longleaf Pines that were clear cut by the developer of the lands behind the Lawn and Tennis Club last year. You would think that a community named “Pinehurst” would have an unusual affinity for pine trees and do all in its power to protect them. Instead it has asked that some of its most beautiful ones be destroyed by the Department of Transportation to make way for a seriously flawed road project, flawed because it will neither improve traffic flow or safety, particularly as it has been designed without strong night lighting.
A recent mailing by the Village government to its citizens announcing this folly describes the project as having the “unanimous” approval of Village, DOT and the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office. Unfortunately, the facts are otherwise. Historic Preservation professionals have opposed the roundabout from the first moment they heard of it, and still object to it because, as they’ve indicated, it “adversely affects a Federal Historic Landmark District.”
The only reason that cut down trees will be replaced is because the Historic Preservation Office insisted upon it in mitigation of the significant damage to be caused to the Landmark District. In a recent teleconference meeting between Pinehurst, DOT and the Historic Preservation Office, the Village stipulated that the roundabout had “overwhelming citizen support.” This is a curious claim because there has never been research conducted in which the citizens were shown the exact plan proposed by DOT and asked to either comment or vote upon it. In the past, when citizens were asked to comment informally upon a multitude of transportation options for the Village, many favored roundabouts as a general concept, but none were ever given specific facts about the plan as now proposed by DOT for Carolina Vista and NC 2.
When Village officials were shown the DOT plans, instead of holding public meetings to get citizen input on the proposal, they simply gave DOT the green light to proceed. They also failed to ask its own, recently-appointed Pinehurst Historic Preservation Commission to comment on the plans and make recommendations.
Federal government officials, representing those who originally bestowed important US Landmark Status on Pinehurst are also concerned about the DOT project, but because no federal funds are being used by DOT to build the roundabout the feds have kept silent on the project. The newly created Pinehurst Historic Preservation Commission has also remained quiet at the direction of Village officials.
Meanwhile, a group calling itself the Concerned Citizens of Pinehurst has begun advertising facts about the roundabout. To date hundreds of Pinehurst residents have joined it to protest the project to Village and DOT. They object to the project on environmental and historic preservation grounds. They’ve pointed out that the roundabout will destroy much of George Marshall Park and significantly disturb the road designs of Frederick Law Olmstead. They’ve also raised myriad traffic safety concerns that remain unanswered by the Department of Transportation.
The Concerned Citizens of Pinehurst requested that the Mayor and Council “consider holding a public hearing on this important issue and… receive public comment” on the roundabout. Mayor Steve Smith predictably advised the citizens group that the “council has determined there is no need to have public hearings on this matter.” If Pinehurst residents or anyone who treasures the village’s historic traditions wish to stop the DOT roundabout it seems that they’ll either have to storm the village hall, or get the ear of Governor Easley.
One of the ironies of this sorry project is that when it is being constructed, traffic to and from the Pinehurst Country Club will probably be routed into and out of the Members Club area via Village Green East. That’s because the present day exit at Carolina Vista and NC 2 will be closed, perhaps for months. Many who’ve studied the traffic situation there have suggested to DOT, the Village and Pinehurst Resorts that Village Green East be used permanently to funnel traffic out of the club area so that dangerous left turns onto NC – 2 can be totally eliminated. Were such a low cost alternative plan adopted the roundabout would not be needed, and 92 valuable trees would still grace the Landmark Historic District.
Why worry about 92 old trees? Maybe just because they’re there.
Paul R. Dunn is co-author of Great Donald Ross Golf Courses You Can Play
paulandbj@nc.rr.com
The Village of Pinehurst and the axing of 92 trees
The Village of Pinehurst, at the request of Pinehurst Resorts, has entered into an agreement with DOT wherein DOT will remove 92 mature trees to make way for a traffic roundabout to be located at the intersection of Carolina Vista and Highway NC 2. This is the spot where Carolina Hotel guests walk, ride or cycle from the hotel to the famed Pinehurst Members Club, golf courses, tennis courts and back. The State will replace each axed tree with a tree of similar variety but of much smaller size.
Two weeks ago I asked DOT and Village officials just how many trees were going to be sacrificed upon the altar of progress, and believe it or not, they hadn’t a clue as to how many were to be removed until the trees were counted last week. In other words, the Village council members and Mayor of Pinehurst had no idea of how many trees they were causing to be destroyed when they agreed to a controversial DOT-built roundabout. Many of the town’s famed Longleaf Pines to be removed are well over 100 years of age. Some are up to 30 inches in size.
When I brought this somewhat startling fact to the attention of a council person who has expressed environmental interests, the reaction was, “The trees which are 100 years of age are going to die shortly anyway. And yes, I think most of us will be proud of the results.” I found that a somewhat startling statement, given that Federal and State Forestry experts advise that Longleaf Pines, Pinus Palustris typically grow until age 125 to 150 years and that healthy ones should live 200 or 300 years. Good specimens typically reach 55 to 80 feet. Some of the pines to be cut down were probably planted at the direction of Frederick Law Olmstead’s associates and James Walker Tufts, the founder of the community.
Pinehurst has a mixed record on the environment when it comes to trees and specifically pines. It has fostered civic interest in a public park and arboretum, while at the same time it did not lift a finger to protect not a hundred, but perhaps more than a thousand Longleaf Pines that were clear cut by the developer of the lands behind the Lawn and Tennis Club last year. You would think that a community named “Pinehurst” would have an unusual affinity for pine trees and do all in its power to protect them. Instead it has asked that some of its most beautiful ones be destroyed by the Department of Transportation to make way for a seriously flawed road project, flawed because it will neither improve traffic flow or safety, particularly as it has been designed without strong night lighting.
A recent mailing by the Village government to its citizens announcing this folly describes the project as having the “unanimous” approval of Village, DOT and the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office. Unfortunately, the facts are otherwise. Historic Preservation professionals have opposed the roundabout from the first moment they heard of it, and still object to it because, as they’ve indicated, it “adversely affects a Federal Historic Landmark District.”
The only reason that cut down trees will be replaced is because the Historic Preservation Office insisted upon it in mitigation of the significant damage to be caused to the Landmark District. In a recent teleconference meeting between Pinehurst, DOT and the Historic Preservation Office, the Village stipulated that the roundabout had “overwhelming citizen support.” This is a curious claim because there has never been research conducted in which the citizens were shown the exact plan proposed by DOT and asked to either comment or vote upon it. In the past, when citizens were asked to comment informally upon a multitude of transportation options for the Village, many favored roundabouts as a general concept, but none were ever given specific facts about the plan as now proposed by DOT for Carolina Vista and NC 2.
When Village officials were shown the DOT plans, instead of holding public meetings to get citizen input on the proposal, they simply gave DOT the green light to proceed. They also failed to ask its own, recently-appointed Pinehurst Historic Preservation Commission to comment on the plans and make recommendations.
Federal government officials, representing those who originally bestowed important US Landmark Status on Pinehurst are also concerned about the DOT project, but because no federal funds are being used by DOT to build the roundabout the feds have kept silent on the project. The newly created Pinehurst Historic Preservation Commission has also remained quiet at the direction of Village officials.
Meanwhile, a group calling itself the Concerned Citizens of Pinehurst has begun advertising facts about the roundabout. To date hundreds of Pinehurst residents have joined it to protest the project to Village and DOT. They object to the project on environmental and historic preservation grounds. They’ve pointed out that the roundabout will destroy much of George Marshall Park and significantly disturb the road designs of Frederick Law Olmstead. They’ve also raised myriad traffic safety concerns that remain unanswered by the Department of Transportation.
The Concerned Citizens of Pinehurst requested that the Mayor and Council “consider holding a public hearing on this important issue and… receive public comment” on the roundabout. Mayor Steve Smith predictably advised the citizens group that the “council has determined there is no need to have public hearings on this matter.” If Pinehurst residents or anyone who treasures the village’s historic traditions wish to stop the DOT roundabout it seems that they’ll either have to storm the village hall, or get the ear of Governor Easley.
One of the ironies of this sorry project is that when it is being constructed, traffic to and from the Pinehurst Country Club will probably be routed into and out of the Members Club area via Village Green East. That’s because the present day exit at Carolina Vista and NC 2 will be closed, perhaps for months. Many who’ve studied the traffic situation there have suggested to DOT, the Village and Pinehurst Resorts that Village Green East be used permanently to funnel traffic out of the club area so that dangerous left turns onto NC – 2 can be totally eliminated. Were such a low cost alternative plan adopted the roundabout would not be needed, and 92 valuable trees would still grace the Landmark Historic District.
Why worry about 92 old trees? Maybe just because they’re there.
Paul R. Dunn is co-author of Great Donald Ross Golf Courses You Can Play
paulandbj@nc.rr.com
3/05/2007
The Land Belongs
The Working Group on the Environment in Latin America presents
"The Land belongs to those who work it"
A film from the Chiapas Media Project
Duke University, LSRC B101, Love Auditorium
7 pm, March 8, 2006
This film depicts a tense meeting that pits Zapatista leaders against Mexican bureaucrats who sold their communal land to a private company intending to build an eco-tourist center.
This rare footage exposes the battle Third World farmers face in preserving their way of life.
The Chiapas Media Project (CMP) provides tools and training that enable marginalized indigenous communities in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas to create their own media. Working bi-nationally, CMP provides video cameras and editing equipment along with appropriate training to communities in Chiapas.
The project also provides computer technology and training. With the equipment and instruction, communities are empowered to tell their own stories in their own words.
We hope to see you there!
The Working Group on the Environment in Latin America (WGELA) is part of the The Consortium in Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University.
2/23/2007
Peace Rally, Fayetteville, March 17
FAYETTEVILLE PEACE RALLY AND MARCH
MARCH 17, 2007
MARCH 17, 2007
4TH ANNIVERSARY OF THIS ILLEGAL & IMMORAL WAR
CALLING ALL VOLUNTEERS
SIGN UP NOW TO HELP
NO TRAINING NEEDED
WE STILL NEED LOTS OF HELP, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED PLEASE
CALL ALLYSON AT 919-961-4130
OR EMAIL @ abcaison@bellsouth.net
Volunteer for an hour or more but please
help make this a huge success and a loud shout out to the Bush regime:
Support our troops , Bring them home NOW
Support our troops , Bring them home NOW
Take Action Tour, Fayetteville
On Monday February 26th NC Conservation Network's Take Action Tour will make its last stop in Fayetteville! We are crossing the state for the 3rd straight year to bring you the scoop on pressing environmental issues in our state. Our expert legislative monitor, Erin Kimrey, and I are stopping in six cities over the next two months to discuss pressing environmental issues up for debate during the 2007 legislative session. We hope this will be an opportunity to learn, discuss, and connect with other folks in your area interested in environmental problems facing our communities.
We hope you will join us Monday night, February 26th, at the Cumberland County Headquarters Library in Fayetteville to prepare for this year’s NC General Assembly legislative session. Find out what issues are hot (clean energy, landfills, etc.), how these issues could impact your community, and how YOU can make a difference!
CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS OR TO RSVP: http://ncconservationnetwork1.org/because_you_love_nc/events/Fayetteville_07TAT/details.tcl
WHAT: Cumberland County stop of the NC Conservation Network’s Take Action Tour. Learn about pressing environmental issues in NC and discover easy ways YOU can get involved.
WHEN: Monday February 26th 6:00pm-7:30pm
COST: FREE - Light refreshments will be provided.
We hope you will come out and meet the growing number of folks who are helping us to build a movement in North Carolina. We are working to connect people across North Carolina who take action on the most critical environmental issues in our state. Please join us!
Thanks and I hope to see you soon,
Veronica Butcher, Organizer
NC Conservation Network
919.857.4699 xt 104
http://www.ncconservationnetwork.org/
We hope you will join us Monday night, February 26th, at the Cumberland County Headquarters Library in Fayetteville to prepare for this year’s NC General Assembly legislative session. Find out what issues are hot (clean energy, landfills, etc.), how these issues could impact your community, and how YOU can make a difference!
CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS OR TO RSVP: http://ncconservationnetwork1.org/because_you_love_nc/events/Fayetteville_07TAT/details.tcl
WHAT: Cumberland County stop of the NC Conservation Network’s Take Action Tour. Learn about pressing environmental issues in NC and discover easy ways YOU can get involved.
WHEN: Monday February 26th 6:00pm-7:30pm
COST: FREE - Light refreshments will be provided.
We hope you will come out and meet the growing number of folks who are helping us to build a movement in North Carolina. We are working to connect people across North Carolina who take action on the most critical environmental issues in our state. Please join us!
Thanks and I hope to see you soon,
Veronica Butcher, Organizer
NC Conservation Network
919.857.4699 xt 104
http://www.ncconservationnetwork.org/
2/22/2007
Explosion Canceled
Divine Strake Canceled
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022207S.shtml
The Pentagon on Thursday canceled plans to detonate a 700-ton explosive charge in the Nevada desert that had drawn environmental protests and lawsuits.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022207S.shtml
The Pentagon on Thursday canceled plans to detonate a 700-ton explosive charge in the Nevada desert that had drawn environmental protests and lawsuits.
2/20/2007
Come To the Table
You're invited to "Come to the Table: A Conference on Food, Faith, and Farms."
Each one-day session will gather faith leaders, hunger advocates, farmers, and others for a conversation on how North Carolinians of faith can honor the land, feed the hungry, and seek justice together.
Regional sessions will allow participants to find partners and projects in their area.
In Cedar Grove, Anathoth Community Garden will share the story of how one congregation's garden fosters reconcilliation and provides nutritious, low-cost food to the community.
In Goldsboro, the field trip will feature the Center for Environmental Farming Systems, a project of NC State, NC A&T, and the NC Department of Agriculture that provides agricultural research, extension, and education for our state.
Registration of $10 includes a fresh, locally grown lunch. To register and get more information, visit www.cometothetablenc.org. If you have suggestions for groups or people who would like to learn about this conference, e-mail Claire Hermann at hermann@unc.edu.
To register by phone, call Rose Gurkin at (919) 828-6501.
"Come to the Table" is hosted by the North Carolina Council of Churches.
"A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: 'This business of settling differences is not just.' This business of ... filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. ... There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Each one-day session will gather faith leaders, hunger advocates, farmers, and others for a conversation on how North Carolinians of faith can honor the land, feed the hungry, and seek justice together.
Regional sessions will allow participants to find partners and projects in their area.
- Eastern session at St. Luke's United Methodist Church , Goldsboro, April 10.
- Central session at Cedar Grove United Methodist Church , Cedar Grove, April 11.
- Western session will be at Biltmore United Methodist Church , Asheville, April 13.
In Cedar Grove, Anathoth Community Garden will share the story of how one congregation's garden fosters reconcilliation and provides nutritious, low-cost food to the community.
In Goldsboro, the field trip will feature the Center for Environmental Farming Systems, a project of NC State, NC A&T, and the NC Department of Agriculture that provides agricultural research, extension, and education for our state.
Registration of $10 includes a fresh, locally grown lunch. To register and get more information, visit www.cometothetablenc.org. If you have suggestions for groups or people who would like to learn about this conference, e-mail Claire Hermann at hermann@unc.edu.
To register by phone, call Rose Gurkin at (919) 828-6501.
"Come to the Table" is hosted by the North Carolina Council of Churches.
"A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: 'This business of settling differences is not just.' This business of ... filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. ... There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war." Martin Luther King, Jr.
2/15/2007
Chicks' Big Grammy Win
"Shut Up and Sing": Dixie Chicks' Big Grammy Win Caps Comeback From Backlash Over Anti-War Stance
Perhaps no musical act has paid a bigger price for speaking out against war than the Dixie Chicks, the biggest selling female music group of all time and the big winners at the Grammy Awards on Sunday. They have been largely blacklisted since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. That's when the group's lead singer - Natalie Maines - said the group was against the war and ashamed that President Bush is from Texas. Barbara Kopple joins us to talk about her new documentary, Shut Up & Sing, which chronicles the period since.
Listen/Watch/Readhttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/15/1528222
Perhaps no musical act has paid a bigger price for speaking out against war than the Dixie Chicks, the biggest selling female music group of all time and the big winners at the Grammy Awards on Sunday. They have been largely blacklisted since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. That's when the group's lead singer - Natalie Maines - said the group was against the war and ashamed that President Bush is from Texas. Barbara Kopple joins us to talk about her new documentary, Shut Up & Sing, which chronicles the period since.
Listen/Watch/Readhttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/15/1528222
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)