CNN reporter says the poor are the problem
CNN reporter Carol Costello invited African American intellectuals Cornel West and Tavis Smiley to be part of a Live show to talk about their Poverty Tour. West and Smiley are traveling across the US to hear from people living in poverty, “so they will not be forgotten, ignored, or rendered invisible during this difficult and dangerous time of economic deprivation and political cowardice.”
Instead of discussing what West and Smiley have been hearing from people, the CNN pundit took a very reactionary position, first by reading a comment from someone who claims the poor are the problem, second by citing a Heritage Foundation report and then claiming the rich pay all the taxes.
The behavior of the CNN reporter showed no journalistic integrity and demonstrated that CNN is fundamentally no different than FOX News in that they represent an elite perspective and don’t have the slightest idea what it means to be part of the working class in this country.
Despite the ridiculous claims made by the CNN reporter, West and Smiley do an excellent job with their responses.
Obama’s Holland visit, electric cars and lithium mining
In the last week there have been several news stories about this week’s Holland visit by President Barack Obama. He will be visiting the Johnson Controls-Saft battery factory for a second time within the last 13 months.
The coverage in local news has primarily been positive with little criticism of the Presidential visit because it is believed that the push to manufacture electric cars and batteries for those cars will create jobs and benefit Michigan’s economy.
First, it seems a bit strange that there has been little discussion about the fact that Johnson Controls-Saft battery factory received $168.5 million in tax incentives from the state. This huge tax incentive was on top of $300 million the company received from federal grants. Johnson Controls-Saft claims they will create 500 jobs from this endeavor, but this is somewhat misleading rhetoric.
Johnson Controls-Saft eliminated an estimated 1,000 jobs just from Holland (MI) in the past 15 years and moved them abroad with the passing of NAFTA and other trade agreements, according to the data-based created by Public Citizen. If 500 jobs are indeed being created with their new electric battery factory then that is a good start to replacing the 1,000 jobs they eliminated.
Another aspect of this deal is that the $300 million from the federal government and the $168.5 million in state tax incentives are essentially a form of corporate welfare. Public tax dollars are being used to subsidize a private company that will no doubt make substantial profits in the coming years, yet has made to promise to keep the electric car battery production in Michigan.
New Lithium Report
Beyond the “jobs” aspect of the President’s visit on Thursday is the information now coming out about a new report from U of M on projected global lithium deposits. MiBiz ran a story last week praising the news that there is enough global lithium production to supply the new electric car boom that Michigan companies are hoping to cash in on.
The MiBiz article states that the new report from the University of Michigan (in partnership with the Ford Motor Company) estimates that there is 39 million tons of lithium globally, enough to power electric vehicles through 2100. “We believe our assessment is a timely and comprehensive study that settles the question of whether the global resources are sufficient for electric vehicles using lithium-ion technology,” said one of the report’s main researchers.
However, the jubilant article does not explore what this will mean in terms of the environmental impact of lithium mining nor the need to reduce global carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.
There are a variety of mining companies engaged in lithium mining in numerous countries around the world, such as the US, Canada, China, Australia and several Latin American countries. One of the Latin American countries with some of the largest known lithium deposits is Bolivia.
Bolivia is a country that has seen its share of resource extraction, particularly from the mining industry. However since the anti-water privatization uprising in Cochibamba, Bolivia in 2000, that South American country has taken strong measures to resist future resource extraction, especially since lithium mining depletes local water sources and is very toxic. Indigenous President Evo Morales has even made it a point to challenge the rich countries of the world, like the US, to stop generating the bulk of the pollutants that are causing global warming for the entire world.
For serious environmentalists the idea that we need to reduce global carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050 should drive whatever policies they would endorse. The majority of the global scientific community is pretty much in agreement on the need to have significant carbon reduction over the next forty years, as has been stated by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).
This new report on global lithium deposits seems to be celebrating the fact that we can supply electric batteries for cars til 2100. There is no evidence that this will be sustainable and it doesn’t address how it fit into the need to reduce global carbon emissions by 80% over the next forty years. The news coverage doesn’t even ask what will the world do for transportation in 90 years when the lithium supply is depleted.
This is not the kind reporting we need. We need journalists that will ask hard and probing questions that can benefit all of us who are living in the age of global warming. However, considering that MiBiz is a pro-business publication it is no surprise that they would be thinking about short-term gains instead of long term sustainability.
61 Years of living with and lying about the Bomb
“History is a set of lies agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte
Any current public discourse on history that deviates from the “official history” is usually seen as revisionist history. New interpretations of history are generally denounced by the government and media pundits. A recent example of this was found in a Grand Rapids Press editorial entitled “History and Heresy.”
In the Press editorial the writer states, “the historical record is comprised of facts and truth that endure for all time. It is not a mass of putty to be turned and twisted to fit what any generation’s captains of political correctness might want.” We beg to differ.
History is not set or static, since it should be made up of multiple points of view and experiences. Therefore, history can be fashioned on an ongoing basis, as long as new voices, analysis and information are brought into the discussion. Failure to allow a diversity of opinion on current or historical events often means that the current structures of power and their apologists fear that acknowledging a pluralistic may mean dismantling the present hegemonic reality.
The official position of the US government as to why it dropped the first generation of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima (Aug. 6) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9) was to prevent the deaths of American soldiers. Never mind the 200,000 Japanese civilians that died instantly and the thousands that died the years following due to radiation exposure. However, a reasonable question to ask at this point would be were the bombings necessary to save the lives of American soldiers?
A survey conducted by the US Department of War, which interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilians and military leaders after their surrender stated: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31, 1945 and in all probability prior to November 1st, 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” (Zinn, A People’s History of the US) If this was the case, why then were these deadly weapons used?
General Leslie Grover, head of the Manhattan Project, described President Truman fully committed to using the bomb no matter what. Historian Gar Alperovitz states that the Soviets had agreed to not enter the war in the Pacific until 90 days after the war in Europe ended. The war in Europe ended on May 8, so the Russians would have entered on August 8. Alperovitz states that on July 28, 1945, “Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal said of Secretary of State James Byrnes that he was most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got us.”
Had the Russians entered the Pacific war before August the Japanese might have surrendered to the Russians alone or to them jointly with the US, thus eliminating a complete US occupation of postwar Japan and subsequent control of its economic future. The Cold War rationale and policy was firmly in place even before the end of WWII. If this dissenting opinion does not seem sufficiently convincing then let’s return to the “official position” and examine it.
Remember, the “official position” was that the US dropped the bomb in order to prevent the loss of American lives. Official historians always try to appeal to the emotional relief that thousands of US servicemen an women might have lost their lives if a conventional war in the Pacific continued. This is a sentimental lie that holds no weight for the thousands of soldiers who have died and continue to die because of Truman’s decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Historian Martin Sherman notes that at least 12 US Navy fliers were in the Hiroshima city jail at the time of the bombing. On July 31, nice days before Nagasaki was bombed, the headquarters of the US Army Strategic Air Force in Guam sent a message to the War Department stating that an Allied prisoner of war camp was located just one mile outside of Nagasaki. They asked if the proposed target was to be changed and the reply came back, “Target previously assigned for Operation Centerboard remains unchanged.” Apparently those American lives were not relevant.
Shortly after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were annihilated, 1,000 US troops were sent to assess and clean up the damage. After 43 days of cleaning up the radioactive rubble, the Marines left. Soon after, many of them showed the same symptoms of radiation contamination as those of the bombing survivors.
Upon returning to the US many of them were discharged from the military hoping to lead normal lives. Unfortunately for many of those veterans life was increasingly abnormal. According to numerous studies of these first Atomic Veterans, many of them “died from leukemia, heart disease, lung disease and cancer. Many also suffered from pain in their bones and joints, chronic fatigue and odd skin disorders.” (Wasserman & Solomon, Killing Our Own)
None of these veterans knew of the danger that exposure to radiation posed for them. In fact, they were told by a US military command press release that, “scientists had found no lingering radiation worth worrying about in Nagasaki.” Therefore hundreds of these veterans had their lives shortened because the US government considered them expendable. But this was only the beginning.
Starting in the Pacific in 1946 and in Nevada in 1951, some 300,000 more US soldiers were used as nuclear guinea pigs, exposed to deadly effects of radiation. However, statistics alone don’t convey the disregard for life. It’s important that we hear the voices of those men who were used by the US military. Kenneth Triple, who was on the USS Quartz in the Pacific during the nuclear testing, said at the time he was so sick “with diarrhea and vomited for days. I went from 128 to 70 some pounds. I turned a funny color and lost all the hair on my body. Later I was taken to a hospital and fed intravenously.” (Wasserman & Solomon, Killing Our Own) Ever since severe weight loss plagued him, along with calcium deposits in his eyes impairing his sight and sharp hip pains.
In 1979, the National Association of Atomic Veterans was founded by former Army Sergeant Orville Kelly and his wife Wanda. “I believe I should have been warned about the possible danger of radiation exposure and that medical examinations should have been conducted on a regular basis after my exposure. The truth is that I was never warned nor were examinations ever performed. During all those years I left the Army I was never once told to get a physical because I participated in nuclear weapons testing.”
In November of 1979, Kelly won his claim of negligence against the US government and received some monetary compensation, but then died in April of 1980. Remember, the objective was to prevent the loss of American lives.
This is still only the tip of the iceberg. The US government’s decision to use nuclear weaponry did not prevent the loves of lives or any other lives. In fact, the decision cost an enormous number of Americans their lives. In addition to the Atomic Veterans whose lives were lost or seriously debilitated, thousands of American laborers have been working in nuclear facilities. A December 3, 1989 New York Times article estimates that 600,000 US workers have been exposed to high levels of radiation. This does not include the thousands of Native Americans who have been exposed to the deadly effects of radiation since half of all uranium deposits needed in the production of nuclear weapons are on Native lands.
When mineral companies extract the uranium they usually use Native labor, paying very low wages. They also abandon mining sites that are highly contaminated, most often near main water sources. (Eichstaedt, If You Poison Us) Because of their proximity to these mining operations, Native Americans have a higher rate of leukemia and cancer than any other population in the US. Some Native American even contend that the Nevada test site is legally, by treaty, still on Newe Segobia (Shoshone) land, thus making them the most bombed sovereign nation in the world, since over 650 nuclear bombs have been tested there since 1951.
In 1985, Dr. Rosalie Bertell wrote No Immediate Danger, a book that attempts to give a comprehensive assessment of radiation contamination globally. In it she contends that no one on earth has escaped at least low levels of radiation exposure, since we are all downwind. Nertell estimates that between 10 – 12 million people have died or have been seriously disabled from nuclear weapons testing and production.
So what are we to make of all of this 61 years after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Clearly it is not a closed case. There is new information that keeps coming to the surface. In 1980, the American public finally had access to 85,000 feet of 16mm film that the US occupation forces used to document the effects of the bombs dropped on Japan. This was information to which we were previously denied and it further puts a human face on the pain and suffering caused from that decision to use the bomb in 1945.
Therefore, we owe it to ourselves and to future generation to not blindly accept what we are taught in school about the 1945 US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or what the US government still proclaims today. The future of humanity could very well depend on our ability to question authority and official history.
Earlier today Wayne Pacelle, the President of the US Humane Society, spoke at the 28th Street Schuler Books while he made his way through the Midwest on a book tour. His book is entitled The Bond: Our Kinship with Animals, Our Call to Defend Them.
Pacelle talked about his own upbringing and how it influenced how he viewed animals. He developed at an earlier age, like many of us do, a bond with the family dog that led him to believe that we need to develop a bond with all creatures in order to respect them.
The President of the Humane Society also talked about how animals are also social beings and that like humans they need interaction with other creatures. Pacelle says that we even have a bio-chemical attraction to other people and species. These biological and bio-chemical reactions we have with other creatures also means we have the capacity to develop an emotional bond with animals.
Pacelle says that two-thirds of Americans have pets in their homes and 70% of the population engages in some sort of wildlife observation, whether that is looking at the birds in our backyard or going to designated parks and preserves to observe other animals.
However, on the other hand there are serious animal issues that we face in this country. The fact that we have animal rescue groups throughout the country is one indication that there is a nationwide problem. Pacelle says that there are groups that focus on all kinds of animal welfare issues such as the treatment of circus animals, zoo cruelty, the treatment of animals that are trapped, as well as groups responding to the fur industry and dozens more that focus on the well being of animals.
One recent incident that Pacelle cited underscores how Americans are responding to animal cruelty issues. He mentioned the grassroots organizing that developed after Hurricane Katrina to rescue animals. Pacelle said this was necessary because the federal government did not include animals in their rescue plan, but also because many people who were being rescued said they would not leave unless their dogs and cats would be rescued along with them.
However, despite all the compassion that people show towards animals Pacelle said there are thousands of puppy farms all around the country, where dogs are bred in a style similar to CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations). He also mentioned animal fighting as a major problem in the US.
When it came to what we can do, Pacelle focused on individual choices that people can make. What kind of food do we eat and how does that impact how animals are treated? Pacelle said that we have all participated in the exploitation of animals, but that should not deter us from make decisions about we do in the future. He also said that the choices available do not require much sacrifice.
However, Pacelle then seemed to contradict himself by talking about the history of struggle in this country, such as the fight against slavery, the outlawing of child labor and the fight to win the right for women to vote. It is on this tradition of struggle and resistance that the animal welfare movement is built, according to the Humane Society President.
This tension between individual choices and systemic change was further emphasized during the Q & A session where Pacelle said that “we can not do battle with every industry” and that “we must meet industry where they are.” This was in reference to a recent agreement the Humane Society made with the American Egg Board to craft legislation, which would require more space for egg laying hens. Therefore, Pacelle doesn’t seem to want to challenge the for profit food industry and their systemic murder of billions of animals annually for human consumption, he felt that just providing more space for the egg laying hens in their cages was adequate.
Most of the question surrounded the treatment of specific animals and some existing legislation both in Michigan and at the federal level, with virtually no discussion about animal liberation. People were more interested in what Michael Vick was doing with the Human Society than how humans might rethink our relationship to the non-human world as a whole.
While it was clear that the people in the room had a deeply passionate commitment to protecting some animals, there didn’t seem to be much interest in pushing the discussion outside of human-centered notions of what is means to challenge oppression that writers such as Jason Hribal (When Animals Fight Back), Anthony Nocella (Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals) and Carol Adams (Neither Man Nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals) explore in each of their books.
As housing crisis festers, mortgage servicers spend $8 million on political contributions
This article is re-posted from the iwatchnews.org.
As the financial markets roil, one of the critical factors weighing down the U.S. economy is the flood of home foreclosures. Thursday’s crash underscores how difficult it will be for the economy to make significant strides while the housing market is still in tatters.
The pace of the housing market recovery may depend in part on the outcome of intense negotiations underway among state and federal authorities and the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers.
Government officials are negotiating with the firms — Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Wells Fargo & Co. and Ally Financial Inc. — over allegations of widespread abuses in the foreclosure process. State attorneys general around the country have been investigating evidence that the big banks used falsified documentation to process foreclosures.
Four of the five companies under scrutiny—Bank of America, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo and Citigroup — are major donors for state and federal political campaigns. Between them, they have donated at least $8 million since the start of 2009 to candidates, party committees and other political action committees, according to an iWatch News analysis of campaign finance data. (Ally Financial hasn’t given money during that period to campaigns under its current name or is previous name, General Motors Acceptance Corp., or GMAC).
The fate of foreclosure negotiations could go a long way toward determining where the housing market will go in the next few years.
Normally, the housing market plays a leading role in any economic recovery. But that hasn’t been the case in the aftermath of the U.S. financial crisis of 2008.
“It’s has been a negative factor in this recovery — or lack of recovery,” housing economist and consultant Michael Carliner said.
Generally, when interest rates go down, that spurs the mortgage and housing markets and helps move the economy in the right direction. But that hasn’t happened this time around, said Carliner, a former economist for the National Association of Home Builders. “We have lowest mortgage rates since the early 1950s and it’s not doing anything,” he said.
Interest rates on 30-year fixed rate mortgages averaged 4.39 percent for the week ending Aug. 4, according to a survey by mortgage giant Freddie Mac.
What’s holding back the housing market, Carliner said, is a glut of available homes for sale, due in part to overbuilding during the housing boom and to continuing foreclosure woes. An “excess inventory” of perhaps 2 million homes is making it hard for the housing market to get going again, he said.
The inventory of foreclosures continues to grow. In June, one out of every 583 housing units in the United States received a foreclosure notice, according to data provider Realty Trac. The numbers are even worse in the hardest hit markets, where housing prices climbed the fastest during the housing boom and fell the most when the housing crash came. In Nevada, one out of every 114 housing units was the subject of a foreclosure filing in June.
Investigations and negotiations over allegations of fraudulent foreclosure practices by big banks have helped slow down the foreclosure process, making it harder for the market to work through defaults and readjust, Carliner said.
He would like to see a deal between government officials and mortgage servicers that would pave the way to swifter foreclosures that would help put the foreclosure problem in the past. “If people haven’t paid their mortgages in two years, they shouldn’t be able to keep their house,” Carliner said.
Not everyone agrees.
Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, a consumer attorneys group, argues that any national settlement should be about keeping people in their homes. He wants a settlement that would require banks to reduce the amount of mortgage debt held by distressed homeowners.
Reducing their payments and overall debts would help keep them in their homes and reduce the number of foreclosures, he said. It would also provide a measure of justice, he said, for homeowners who were defrauded via bait-and-switch salesmanship, falsified documentation and other predatory tactics that were common during the mortgage frenzy of the past decade.
Rheingold acknowledges, though, that extracting large concessions from big banks will be a “tough slog.”
The banks have high-powered legal talent and lobbyists on their side, and four of the top five mortgage services have given generously to state and federal political campaigns, according to an iWatch News analysis of election data provided by the subscription-only CQMoneyLine.
- Since the start of 2009, Bank of America has donated at least $3.2 million to candidates, party committees and other PACs. Among the top recipients was Rep. Jeb Hensarling (at least $17,500), a Texas Republican who is vice chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Another Texan Republican, Randy Neugebauer , received at least $16,000 from the financial giant. Neugebauer also serves on the Financial Services Committee, and chairs the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
- JPMorgan Chase has donated over $ 2.8 million to candidates, party committees and other PACs since the start of 2009. The firm has made donations to the Republican Governors Association (at least $50,000), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (at least $45,000) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (at least $45,000), the Democratic Governors Association (at least $25,000) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (at least $15,000). The firm also donated at least $15,000 to the Blue Dog PAC, the fundraising arm of the Blue Dog Democrats who were vital to financial corporations when the Democrats controlled the House.
- Wells Fargo gave over $1 million to candidates, party committees and other PACs since the start of 2009. Wells Fargo has given at least $45,000 each to the NRCC and NRSC and at least $30,000 each to the DSCC and DCCC. It also donated at least $17,000 to Rep. Ed Royce , a California Republican who serves on the Financial Services committee. Another top recipient was Democrat Carolyn Maloney of New York, the vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee and ranking member on the financial services committee’s Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
- Citigroup has given $850,000 to candidates, party committees and other PACs since the start of 2009. Among its top individual recipients is Democrat Gregory Meeks of New York. Meeks, who sits on the House Committee on Financial Services, has received at least $10,000 from Citi. Another is Ohio Republican Rep. Pat Tiberi (at least $15,000), a member of the powerful Ways and Means committee. Tiberi is currently the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue, which has jurisdiction over federal tax policy.
Over 1 Million have been deported under Obama
You will recall that one of the campaign promises that Barack Obama gave was to reform the immigration policies of this country to make them more humane.
Well, it is three years later and there have been more than 1 million people deported under his administration. This reality has not been lost on many Americans, particularly the Latino community, which has been hit the hardest by the increase in immigration raids by ICE.
Last week, Latino youth protested the President during a speech he gave at the National Latino Youth Conference in DC. Here is part of a Media Release that was released explaining the action:
Wearing shirts that read “Obama Deports DREAMers,” Latino youth demonstrated the Latino community’s growing frustration with President Obama. The students conducted the action while the President gave a speech today at a major Latino conference in Washington, DC.
“We stood up while President Obama gave another of his predictable speeches on immigration because we are outraged at his trying to promote his election among Latinos while continuing to deport us at a time when there is no legislative solution to the immigration crisis,” said Felipe Matos, an undocumented student from Florida and advocate with Presente.org. “The fact is that Obama has deported over one million immigrants, including DREAMers, since he arrived to the White House. It is inconceivable that he keeps giving political speeches to win the Latino vote for 2012 while dividing the Latino community with his inhumane immigration policies.” Presente.org, an online advocacy group that seeks to empower Latinos across the nation, joined forces today with United We DREAM, a national immigrant youth-led organization with the mission of achieving equal access to higher education for immigrants, to continue urging President Obama sign an executive order that would stop the deportations of DREAM Act eligible youth until there is a legislative solution to our human rights crisis.
“I grew up in this nation with the passion of becoming a doctor and give back to my community, but now I face the reality of being deported anytime soon,” expressed Mercedes Gonzalez, one of the near 20 DREAMers who stood up during Obama’s speech. Students participating in the action urging Obama to stop deporting them came from the states of Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arizona.
As shown on a recent poll by ImpreMedia/Latino Decisions, immigration is the most important issue for Latino voters – the fastest growing voting bloc in the nation. Because there is an immigration crisis in dividing our nation, Presente.org has been following and calling out the President Obama every time he addresses the Latino community.
“We organized the Latino and immigrant community during Obama’s recent appearances in Puerto Rico, Texas and now in Washington, DC urging Obama to use his executive power to stop deporting DREAMers. We won’t stop following him and organizing until he stops his inhumane deportation program,” concluded Felipe Matos.
According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as of May 23, 2011, the U.S. government has deported 1,026,517 immigrants since the beginning of fiscal year 2009. That figure includes noncriminal immigrants and DREAMers who are victims of our outdated immigration system.”
Some immigration groups are asking people to sign petitions to the President and get him to reverse his policy on deportation and targeting undocumented immigrants. However, since Obama is in the midst of a re-election campaign it seems unlikely that that White House will do anything substantive on this issue. Maybe it is time for people to say they won’t vote for him again until these kinds of life and death policies are changed?
Nearly 200 people march for equality in Holland
Last night people from all over West Michigan were in Holland to continue the campaign to pressure the Holland City government to adopt an anti-discrimination ordinance that would include gender identity and sexual orientation as part of the City’s anti-discrimination policy.
Initially people gathered at Smallenburg Park in Holland to share food, to get shirts from Until Love is Equal and to building community amongst those who believe in justice and equality for all the residents of Holland, Michigan. This action involved people from Until Love is Equal, Holland is Ready, Hope is Ready, West Michigan Pride and GLISEN.
At around 6:15pm people then marched through the city chanting and making it know to the downtown businesses and citizens that were encountered along the way.
Before the march began, GRIID had a chance to interview one of the organizers of this event, Max Singer.
Once the crowd gathered in City Hall they were joined by more supporters of this campaign for equality. The City Council dealt with other matters before the public comment period began.
Jack Hoffman, a Grand Rapids lawyer, was the first to speak and he responded specifically to the Holland Mayor’s comments on the ordination. Hoffman addressed numerous flaws in the Mayor’s comments, primarily from a legal point of view. Hoffman referenced the proposed ordinance that was put forth by the Holland Community Relations Commission and noted that the Mayor did not fully understand the legal implications of the anti-discrimination ordinance.
Many speakers followed, those speaking in favor of the anti-discrimination ordinance and those against. However, it should be noted that during the public comment period there were 31 comments in favor of the ordinance and only 4 against.
We were told by one of the organizers that some of those that voiced their opposition to the ordinance have been at every Holland City Commission meeting since the vote was first put to the commissioners. Their arguments were primarily rooted in their own interpretation of the Christian Bible, but they also made arguments that “homosexuality was a sin” and “an unacceptable lifestyle.”
Another man who spoke against the ordinance said that it was a prelude to the “gay community” wanting same sex marriage, which in his opinion would lead to “bestiality and people having multiple sex partners.” The only other specific argument from the opposition was that gay people should seek out the assistance of Exodus International, which can help people denounce their lifestyle and embrace a heterosexual life through Jesus.
Those in favor of the ordinance presented numerous arguments, some of them also including religious reasons. However, the most compelling comments spoke to the issue of harm being done because Holland is not an accepting community.
One young woman spoke about how her sister, who is a lesbian, is afraid to come out to people because of what might happen to her. Another young woman spoke about a gay friend of hers who has no come out to most people because of the fear and intimidation he believes he would have to endure under the current government sanctioned discrimination.
A member of the gay community in Grand Rapids then spoke about his own history and experience of discrimination. He doesn’t understand why the City voted for hate and said that gay people deserve the right to be protected.
Bill Freeman with Holland is Ready then followed by citing a Christian song, “they will know we are Christians by our love,” but says it ought to be “they will know we are Christians by our homophobia.” Freeman then addressed each of the council members that voted no on the ordinance, responding to each of their claims.
One woman spoke tearfully about her gay son who did go through the Exodus International program, renounced his identity and then later committed suicide. She urged the council members to recognize all the young people in the room and that they are the future of Holland.
A professor then told his story growing up gay. When he was a student at Hope and came out he remembers students praying outside his dorm room. He then stated that “people who feel free to engage in public comments of hate towards the LGBT community demonstrates the need for formal protections for those who identify as LGBT or Q. How many people have to tell you stories about the fear and harm they have endured?”
A 16 – year old from Rockford then spoke in favor of the ordinance to set an example to other communities in the state to make the right decision. She only found out about this that day and decided that she needed to come and speak in favor of this ordinance. “Even if you think that gay people are wrong, you have the obligation to protect them.”
A young woman then told her story of meeting a transgender person who committed suicide last year because of the discrimination that person faced. This young woman always wanted to raise children here, but now sees that there is “a tremendous amount of hate” and that may cause her to not want to live here in the future.
Another young woman who has a close friend that is gay said that her friend and many others that identify as LGBT will not want to grow old in Holland unless they vote for the ordinance.
A middle aged man then spoke about how he thought that “this issue doesn’t really affect him,” but while at the park he realized that if he gets on TV it will that impact how people see him. In fact, he said that people might begin to question his sexuality. He urged the council members to vote yes so the young people will not feel the fear he felt that day.
After nearly two hours of testimony it was clear that the majority of the people in the room were in favor of an anti-discrimination ordinance and that the bulk of those who spoke in its favor were young people who saw themselves as the future of Holland.
The other main point that was stressed throughout the night was the fact that harm is being done right now in Holland because there are no legal protections for people who identify as LGBTQ. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs report for 2010 says that acts of violence against the LGBTQ community increased by 13% across the country from 2009 to 2010. The question must be asked, how many people have to live in fear and suffer hate, intimidation and violence in Holland before they are legally protected?
At the end of the meeting the Mayor spoke and said that an anti-discrimination ordinance does not mean a city is welcoming and that religion did not inform his vote.
Councilman Dave Hoekstra, one of the four council members who voted in favor of expanding the ordinance, said he was impressed with all the young people who spoke up during the meeting and he encouraged other members of the council to make the right decision and support the ordinance.
Ruin-Nation: The Obama Catastrophe
This article by Glen Ford is re-posted from Black Agenda Report.
Barack Obama finally got the grand, bipartisan consensus he’s been working towards for two and a half years. His implacable, deep-seated hostility to the left half of the Democratic Party (“retarded,” said his boy, Rahm Emanuel) – which includes most of the Congressional Black Caucus – transformed a 2008 popular mandate for progressive change into its opposite: a de facto center-right governing coalition of Republicans, rightwing Democrats and Obama’s Executive Branch arrayed against roughly half the Democrats (on a very good day) in the House of Representatives, plus a handful of liberal Senators.
Obama’s unrelenting hostility to “entitlements,” which he vowed to put “on the table” for cutting two weeks before taking the oath of office in January, 2009, came to fruition this week, setting in motion a rolling implosion of Roosevelt’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society. It is a monumental catastrophe, worthy of a Mt. Rushmore in reverse (say, deep in a guano-filled bat cave). History will, without doubt, lay this ruin of a nation at the doorstep of Obama, the corporate Democratic Trojan Horse whose complexional characteristics neutered, neutralized or outright made insane the bulk of Black America and most of those whites that pass as “progressives.”
Black Agenda Report and author Paul Street, among a very few others, warned long before the 2007 launch of Obama’s campaign that his own words, deeds, financial contributors and political associations showed him to be an eager operative of Wall Street and the Pentagon. As president, Obama has embraced or launched so many wars, he feels compelled to deny that his latest aggression, against Libya, is a war at all, lest he seem too full of bloodlust. Under the austerity regime jointly imposed by Obama and the GOP (his “Big Plan”) through a manufactured debt crisis (abetted by Obama over the years), the actual reins of the legislative process will pass to a Super Committee, a formalized version of the center-right senatorial “gangs” (health care and debt) and appointed commissions (debt reduction) favored by Obama as embodiments of his “grand consensus” politics. The formula guarantees a shutout of the Left – although, as long as Obama is around, the corporate media will continue to claim, nonsensically, that he represents the Left.
The most pitiful picture to emerge from the mega-debacle just witnessed in Congress, is that of Black Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, standing on the House floor in mid-July, asking “Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully” by Republicans, in the debt debate. As if insults to Obama’s dignity were the crisis ravaging her constituents and the rest of Black America. A report had just confirmed that 30 years of (meager) Black gains were wiped out between 2005 and 2009. One-third of Black America is without assets or has negative wealth, including half of Black single women, the people that raise the majority of Black kids, one-third of whom live in poverty. Black unemployment sits at Depression levels. But Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee was upset because of perceived disrespect to Obama, who offers nothing to Black people but the corporate crap-line, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
The entire structure of social support for poor and working people was at issue, yet the Black congresswoman could think only of Obama: “Why is he different?” Jackson-Lee assured her audience that, “in my community, that is the question that we raise.”
To the extent that that is true, to the degree that Black America remains more concerned about how Obama is doing as he seeks another term in office, rather than how the African American people are doing under Obama’s center-right, Wall Street- and war-loving regime – Blacks are doomed to a period of suffering unprecedented in the modern age.
Presumably to protect the dignity of First Black President – her highest priority – Jackson-Lee joined the 95 House Democrats that voted for the certainty of losing trillions of dollars for tens of millions of needy citizens, rather than risk the possibility of unknown financial dislocations. The same number of Democrats said “No” to the president and his GOP interlocutors. Among the 40 full-voting, Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the split was 15 “Yes,” 24 “No” and one Non-Voting (NV).
“YES”: 15 “Obama Uber Alles”
Terri Sewell (FL), Karen Bass (CA), Frederica Wilson (FL), Sanford Bishop (GA), Hank Johnson GA), David Scott (GA), Danny Davis (IL), Bobby Rush (IL), Cedric Richmond (LA), “Lacy” Clay (MO), Gregory Meeks (NY), Chaka Fattah (PA), James Clyburn (SC), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX)
“NO”: 24 “Save the Safety Net”
Barbara Lee (CA), Laura Richardson (CA), Maxine Waters (CA), Corrine Brown (FL), Alcee Hastings (FL), John Lewis (GA), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL), Andre Carson (IN), Elijah Cummings (MD), Donna Edwards (MD), John Conyers (MI), Hansen Clark (MI), Keith Ellison (MN), Bennie Thompson (MS), Emanuel Cleaver (MO), Donald Payne (NJ), Yvette Clarke (NY), Charles Rangel (NY), Edolphus Towns (NY), G.K. Butterfield (NC), Mel Watt (NC), Marcia Fudge (OH), Al Green (TX), Bobby Scott (VA)
NV: 1
Gwen Moore, (WI)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is said to have released Members to “vote their conscience.” That means the 15 “Yes” Members looked the speeding GOP/Obama train directly in the headlights as it bore down on “hope” itself, and opted to side with their president instead of their constituents – the same president that had over the years methodically pushed Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to the edge of the cliff, and then invited the Republicans to join him in shoving “entitlements” into the void.
He is the enemy. Unequivocally. Cast him out.
This Day in Resistance History – The Chicago Eviction Riots
The Great Depression hit working people hard all over the country, especially in industrial cities like Chicago.
By 1931 there were roughly 750,000 unemployed living in Chicago and many municipal workers and public school teachers were not getting paid on time or at all beginning that spring.
With unemployment so high and people not getting paid for their work, landlords began giving out eviction notices all over the city. Some people left quietly, but many people started to resist the thought of being homeless and began to stay in the rental property they inhabited.
The landlords began to use the legal system and the Chicago police to physically force people out of their homes, but the more that people witnessed this kind of brutality the more it caused people to want to resist this injustice.
At times people would pile up their furniture near the entrance of the door so that it was nearly impossible for landlords or the police to get in. Other times people would stack their furniture in front of the house near the sidewalk as visible sign of protest. Often this kind of resistance was spontaneous, where people would get an eviction notice and then walk around in their neighborhoods telling people what would happen. This sometimes would lead to a march and clashes with cops.
People also took action that was more organized and in early August of 1931 an estimated 60,000 people marched to protest the new eviction laws in Chicago. The march turned ugly when police began attacking protestors. At least 3 protestors were killed and several cops injured, but the eviction uprising also led to the creation of unemployment councils and unions in Chicago and around the country.
From eviction riots to foreclosure crisis
Today, millions of Americans are faced with very similar circumstances with thousands of people being evicted daily across the country and millions confronted with home foreclosures.
Like the first Great Depression some people are responding to the foreclosure crisis by protesting and refusing to leave. There have even been stories where local law enforcement has refused to evict people as they see it as an inhuman act.
There are also organized groups that have sprung up all over the US since 2008 as a response to the foreclosures. Groups like Detroit Moratorium Now have organized homeowners and tenants to fight to keep their homes and they have engaged in organized resistance to the banks and other lending institutions that have profited from the foreclosure crisis.
This kind of a movement does not exist in Grand Rapids, but there is the group Foreclosure Response. Foreclosure Response connects people facing foreclosure to resources and advocates for change to stop foreclosure, which is important work. However, the local group doesn’t seem to be engaging the power structure or the banks that are the cause of the foreclosure crisis, nor are they advocating direct action as a response.
Maybe we need to reclaim the spirit of resistance that people engaged in after the 1929 economic crash, take to the streets, demand housing rights for all and organize tenant unions to counter the power of contemporary landlords.
Last Thursday, Milk for Thought’s “Latch On America Tour” Big Pink Bus brought together a host of breastfeeding advocates from across Kent County. Participants included area doulas, midwives, childbirth educators, La Leche League leaders and lactation consultants. The Kent County Health Department and Healthy Kent Breastfeeding Coalition provided information on the benefits of breastfeeding and various programs supporting breastfeeding mothers.
“It was a fun way to bring together our communities’ many breastfeeding resources. The event gave each an avenue to reach out to families so that more people may find the help and support they need,” said midwife, Shannon Pawson. “Breastfeeding isn’t always easy, but it’s always worth it!”
“I really appreciated the idea of coming together as a community to show there is a support mechanism for breastfeeding moms,” added Kelly Grieve, a Grand Rapids La Leche leader.
Also on hand, the “Free to Feed” campaign invites businesses to place the Free to Feed logo in their windows so that breastfeeding mothers know they are welcome to openly breastfeed in their establishments.
Speaking of openly breastfeeding, it is totally legally to expose the breast when breastfeeding. Indecent exposure laws do not apply to breastfeeding women. That’s one of the messages that Afrykahn Moon shared with the crowd. Moon was kicked off a public bus in Troy Michigan for breastfeeding her two-week-old son. The municipality has since “reminded” its 600 drivers that women are indeed allowed to breastfeed babies while on board public buses.
The Michigan Breastfeeding Network handed out flyers about Section 4207 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which state that “employers shall provide breastfeeding employees with reasonable break time and a private, non-bathroom place to express breast milk during the workday, up until the child’s first birthday.”
Ryan Comfort, CEO of Milk for Thought, rallied the crowd at the close of the event as a big pink star was placed on the large map on the side of the bus, indicating Grand Rapids had hosted the Pink Bus. When GRIID asked him why he, a man, was involved in the cause, he said, “My hope is to serve as an example. Breastfeeding is so much more than getting nutrition. It empowers women to meet their personal goals. I provide my skills in business and technology to a cause that has such an impact on women and families. We’re here to shine a big spotlight on breastfeeding.”
Another of the many males in the audience, Josh Dunigan shared that he was breastfed and, as the son of a midwife, had learned much about breastfeeding’s benefits. “The scientific research is in. Children who are breastfed do better in school, are more likely to go on to higher education and contribute to society. Breast milk or nurturing should be important to every living human being because of the way these affect society.”
10 – 11 a.m. Saturday Aug. 6 The Grand Rapids BIG LATCH ON
This Saturday, a follow-up event, “The Grand Rapids BIG LATCH ON, will be one of many across the country setting a new record for the most mothers latching and breastfeeding simultaneously. “We have chosen Rosa Parks Circle as a venue because we felt that nursing in public was an important issue to address,” says organizer, Juliea Paige. “We feel that the more people see nursing in public, the less of a big deal it will become. More than this, though, is the idea of society learning how to breastfeed through exposure such as this. It is known that breastfeeding is far more successful among cultures where it is not hidden and widely accepted. In response to the Surgeon General’s call to action, we believe that supporting not only breastfeeding, but breastfeeding in public, could serve as a strong start in getting new mothers to establish and continue nursing their babies successfully.”
12 Top Reasons to Breastfeed:
- Always fresh, clean, safe and at the right temperature, plus it’s free.
- Most nutritious –breast milk changes overtime to adapt to a growing baby’s needs.
- Breastfed babies are less likely to develop ear infections, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, asthma, SIDS or allergies.
- Breastfed babies have higher IQs.
- Breast milk contains endorphins that suppress pain and comfort a sick infant.
- Breastfed babies have better speech development.
- Helps moms shrink uterus back to pre-pregnancy size and lose pregnancy weight, especially off the thighs.
- Reduces mom’s risk of breast, endometrial and ovarian cancer.
- Can provide natural birth spacing for the first six months (with exclusive breastfeeding and no return of menstrual periods).
- Breast milk tastes better and doesn’t stain. Breast milk poop doesn’t smell bad!
- Release of prolactin allows mother to relax.
- Nights are less stressful for both mother and baby.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 