Island Nation of Maldives Holds Cabinet Meeting Underwater to Highlight Danger of Global Warming

Check out the Maldives President, he pulled a great PR stunt but also speaks so well at the United Nations:

president of Maldives on Climate Change

This is worth checking out!
The Yes men who have pulled pranks on Dow Chemical, Exxon, the US government, and others to expose issues they feel important have pulled another stunt, this time on the US Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber has spent $300,000 a day lobbying against climate change legislation, even causing many of its biggest members to pull out of the chamber.
The Yes men held a fake press conference pretending to the the Chamber and telling reporters that they changed their mind and that they do now support efforts to fight climate change. The news spread around the world before it was discovered to be a hoax and even Fox news reported it live, until being interupted with a note saying it was a hoax.
see it all at: Yes Men Prank on Chamber of Commerce

peace,
Danny

Nobel Speech Prize plus Obama and Zinn on the prize

So I heard this morning that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. The reason given was his reaching out to the Muslim world and his work towards non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. My first reaction, talk is cheap.

I like Obama and hope that by the end of his Presidency he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. I had actually never considered it a possibility based on his rhetoric involving our "wars of necessity".

After thinking about it for a moment I had a couple other thoughts. One is that Bush/Cheney brought the standards for US leadership to such an all time low, that Obama, simply by making a speech to the Muslim world and by suggesting we should reduce nuclear weapons he has been given the Nobel Peace Prize! Since this award was given for Obama's words more than actions I think a better name for it would be the Nobel Speech Prize.

Obama has inspired hope and along with the encouragement of the Nobel Committee it is MY hope that he does take actions which will lead to more peace in the world.

I do think that the committee should have waited until Obama has lived up to more of his promises, ie: closing Guantanamo, securing nukes, actually ending the war in Iraq (not just replacing our troops with private military contractors), dealing with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran in a way that promotes peace, taking a more even handed approach and getting results in the Palestine/Israel conflict, he has a lot on his plate!

I also had to think that there must be people in the world who at this point are more deserving of the prize.

I hope he will live up to this honor. In order to do this he has a lot of work to do!

Post Script:

here is Obama's email regarding his award, it is a good one, check it out.

daniel --

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Howard Zinn's reaction: less positive but a true and accurate perspective:

Nobel Prize for Promises?

Saturday 10 October 2009

by: Howard Zinn, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

I was dismayed when I heard Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on wars in two countries and launching military action in a third country (Pakistan), would be given a peace prize. But then I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel Peace Prizes. The Nobel Committee is famous for its superficial estimates and for its susceptibility to rhetoric and empty gestures, while ignoring blatant violations of world peace.

Yes, Wilson gets credit for the League of Nations - that ineffectual body which did nothing to prevent war. But he also bombarded the Mexican coast, sent troops to occupy Haiti and the Dominican Republic and brought the US into the slaughterhouse of Europe in the first World War - surely, among stupid and deadly wars, at the top of the list.

Sure, Theodore Roosevelt brokered a peace between Japan and Russia. But he was a lover of war, who participated in the US conquest of Cuba, pretending to liberate it from Spain while fastening US chains around that tiny island. And as president he presided over the bloody war to subjugate the Filipinos, even congratulating a US general who had just massacred 600 helpless villagers in the Phillipines. The Committee did not give the Nobel Prize to Mark Twain, who denounced Roosevelt and criticized the war, nor to William James, leader of the anti-imperialist league.

Oh yes, the Committee saw fit to give a peace prize to Henry Kissinger, because he signed the final agreement ending the war in Vietnam, of which he had been one of the architects. Kissinger, who obsequiously went along with Nixon's expansion of the war with the bombing of peasant villages in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Kissinger, who matches the definition of a war criminal very accurately, was given a peace prize!

People should not be given a peace prize on the basis of promises they have made (as with Obama, an eloquent maker of promises) but on the basis of actual accomplishments towards ending war. Obama has continued deadly, inhuman military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Nobel Peace Committee should retire, and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some understanding of history.

--------

Howard Zinn is a historian, playwright and social activist, and has received the Thomas Merton Award, the Eugene V. Debs Award, the Upton Sinclair Award and the Lannan Literary Award. He is perhaps best known for "A People's History of the United States."

still against the war, 8 years later

Hi,
On this 8th anniversary of the beginning of the war in Afghanistan all I have to time to say is this:
I was against this war before it began and I am still against it! Bring all our troops (and private contractors) home NOW!
If you want to combat terrorism help people don't kill 'em. Build schools, hospitals, and farms don't bomb 'em. Simple really.
And don't let the Generals decide, war is good for them.
peace ya'll

Robert F. Kennedy on what GNP means.

Robert F. Kennedy on what GNP means.

Below is a quote from Bobby Kennedy on what the Gross National Product means and more importantly what it does not mean. He would have a made a fine economist...

"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

Robert F. Kennedy Address, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, March 18, 1968

Big Oil and Racism take out Van Jones

Well the news was disheartening. A local (and international) hero of the sustainability and human rights issues was unfairly taken out by the right wing political machine.
Van Jones, co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Green For All and author of the best seller The Green Collar Economy, had been tapped by the Obama administration to be an advisor on green jobs and sustainable energy. Time magazine had named Van one of the world's 100 most influential people (see their write up about him HERE)

Unfortunately the first time most of the nation has heard his name in main stream media was recently when he was forced to resign. Americans For Prosperity (a fake grass roots organization funded by big oil) began the witch hunt for Van Jones. It was brought to a wider audience when Glenn Beck took towards smearing Van as a communist, black nationalist, crazy.

This is upsetting on so many levels.

First Van Jones is an amazing guy who has dedicated himself to bettering this country like few have. Glenn Beck is a lying racist pig who should be locked up, not in a position of influence over information or politics. After saying Obama has a deep hatred for white people, Glen Beck's program lost some of its advertising sponsorship. This happened after an organization Van Jones helped to start, called on advertisers to boycott his show. Walmart among others pulled their ads. Glenn beck continually railed against Van as an example of the crazy black guys that Obama surrounds himself with. The message: THEY are taking your country away and we have to stop them!

His evidence was a petition Van signed which called for an investigation into 9/11 to see if high officials of our government were responsible. This petition was signed by many progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Thomm Hartman as well as many families of the victims of the September 11 attacks. Van and others say they did not agree with the final wording of the petition and that it did not reflect their personal views on the issue.

The other evidence thrown around were statements taken out of context where Van said Republicans are assholes. He went on to say he too can sometimes be an asshole. He also apologized for the statement, unlike President Bush who called members of the press assholes and said he regretted people heard him say that but refused to apologize.

If calling someone an asshole is enough to keep you out of Washington I doubt many would be there.

After Fox "News" and Glenn Beck's hammering and the pushing from dirty energy companies, some Republicans actually called for a hearing into Van Jones' past behaviour.

So he resigned rather than draw negative attention to Obama or the issue of Green Jobs.

Troubling point number two. A strong, positive voice for change goes to Washington and the racist conservative talk show hosts and the crooked politicians who's pockets are lined with oil and blood drenched money have the power to take them down. And the Democrats, who are supposed to be the alternative to the Republican party, can't even stand up and defend that voice. It may be true that politically it was the best move to let Van go, but morally?

If anything is to change we need Democrats in the white house and leadership that will take on the Glenn Becks and the Americans for Prosperity of this world and expose them for what they are. Lying, racist, extremists who are promoting dangerous hatred and are only harming this country. Their actions should be considered treason. With free speech comes responsibility and when that responsibility is abused at least their microphone should be taken away. And the Obama administration, following a long trend, allowed the target of the right to be thrown under the bus, rather than to stand up and defend what he knows is right. This weakness may not serve him in the end as the conservatives have walked all over his attempt to reform health care.

Troubling point number three: Money has such influence in Washington that true health care reform, energy reform, you name it, can not happen as long as politicians are concerned with raising money for their campaigns. We see this in the current failure to get any real health care reform. What the politicians finally call reform will be drafted carefully as not to piss off the Insurance Industry as they are the ones who pay for the politicians re-election campaigns.

Solutions:

Get the money out of politics before we can fix this country.

Fight the racist conservative backlash to Obama's presidency any way you can.

Read the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights' comment on Van Jones resignation HERE and sign their petition regarding green collar jobs HERE

recent letter the editor of Sac Bee

I had to cut a third of this letter out to get it down to 200 words but here is a letter I whipped out last night so I could sleep after reading an idiotic commentary.

Dear Editor,
I just received the viewpoints page from Saturday August 15th in the mail from my grandfather who has subscribed to the Bee for years. I was blown away by the commentary by Rich Lowry regarding what he calls a grass roots populist movement against ‘Obamacare’.
I would like to thank Rich for making a very accurate comparison between the political right and left in this country. He said, “The same distrust of power that had the left-wing activists spinning feverish theories about George W. Bush’s eavesdropping has the right agitated about Obama’s death panels.”
This illustrates the difference between the left and right extremely well. The left protested when Bush spied on Americans. It was a real policy, which the left had serious intellectual issues with (like the fact that it was illegal and against our Bill of Rights). Now the right is making a fuss at town hall meetings over death panels, which do not exist. The idea of death panels is a complete lie invented by the right wing to control the uneducated in this country, using their old stand by: fear. (They used fear to explain why they had to eavesdrop on Americans as well).
The idea of death panels grew out of an amendment to include end of life counseling for people that was introduced by a Republican senator in fact. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Steel have all supported this lie.
So the left was upset for things the Republicans actually did and the right is upset over what the Republicans untruthfully say the Democrats are doing.
Thank you Rich for pointing out the difference between the activists at either end of the political spectrum. Now if only the rest of what you said had a grain of truth in it.

Danny Boyer
Half Moon Bay, CA