Grand Rapid Growth video presents one-sided view
A new short documentary produced by Grand Valley State University students takes a look at what has been happening in downtown Grand Rapids in recent years. The two-part video hosted on Vimeo is upbeat and celebrates what appears to be a revival of the downtown area of Grand Rapids.
The video features Mayor George Heartwell, Sharon Evoy of the Downtown Alliance, Rob Bliss and a variety of on the street interviews with random citizens. Well, not completely random, since everyone interviewed for this video is White, which should tell you something about what most of these people think about what is going on in the downtown area.
The video begins with Heartwell discussing how downtown Grand Rapids was the retail hub up until the highway system was built. Heartwell rightfully points out that the highways system is what brought the rise of suburbs and shopping malls. However, what the Mayor fails to point out is that the highways were also part of a national military strategy under President Eisenhower, whom even called the highway project the National Defense Highway System.
Another consequence of the highway system was that it destroyed some traditional neighborhoods and displaced hundreds of working class families. This is a point often ignored historically and is repeated with today’s “development.”
Heartwell and Evoy both attribute much of the downtown’s revitalization to things like ArtPrize and events created by Rob Bliss, but they never articulate the real concrete benefits of such events. As we have pointed out before, ArtPrize and the Rob Bliss created events have been beneficial for businesses downtown because of the revenue that came with the people.
However, there is no discussion in the video of how these events have impacted some of the people living in downtown Grand Rapids, nor does it address the larger economic realities of this kind of “development.” The video doesn’t address that some people are being displaced because of the gentrification of downtown Grand Rapids, the increased police presence to keep poor and homeless people away from shoppers and the increased rental fees, which limits who can even afford to live in or near downtown.
The short film also does not point out that much of the downtown “development” has been funded by taxpayers through Downtown Development Authority projects or through tax breaks and subsidies to businesses in the downtown area, all of which are essentially paid for by the public.
There is one critical voice in the video, but his comments are pretty much drowned out by the endless praise of Rob Bliss and ArtPrize. Interestingly enough, at one point in the video Rob Bliss says that he is just giving people what they want. Bliss also says that he is primarily motivated by culture and pride.
Imagine how the recent changes in downtown would be viewed if the video producers had interviewed working class people, people making minimum wage, people living in shelters, minorities and recent immigrants? Would Grand Rapids be seen as the most economically stable city in the state, as Mayor Heartwell claims in the video?
To view the two-part video, go to this link on Vimeo.
Update: As of Sunday (Jan. 10) morning the link to this video on Vimeo is no longer accessible. It says, “Do you have permission to watch this video? If you do please first log in to Vimeo to watch this video.” Whether or not our criticism had anything to do with the change, it is unfortunate that those who posted it on Vimeo no longer want the general public to view it.
GR Chamber of Commerce claims it will promote sustainability
The Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce held a press conference today to announce their “launch of a major program aimed at helping local companies large and small make sustainability a business priority.”
Roughly 25 members of the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce gathered at the offices of Progressive AE to hear about the new initiative. GR Chamber President Jeannie Englehart said the Chamber’s Partnership for a Sustainable Community, “was established to focus the Grand Rapids business community on voluntary solutions that will preserve the environment and promote energy efficiency.”
Also speaking at the press conference were representatives from other businesses and a spokesperson from the City of Grand Rapids who conveyed a message of support from Mayor Heartwell.
The initiative so far seems to be providing tools to area businesses to help them map their own carbon footprint and then use that data to make some decisions on ways to reduce waste and save on energy. However, when it came to details on what businesses could do the only concrete ideas that were shared were for businesses to recycle, not provide bottled water for their employees, consider using mass transit and the benefits of LEED building certification.
Englehart said that the Chamber is also promoting a “30-Day Challenge” to all business members. This 30-Day Challenge involves online enrollment, a January 14 Webinar, and a 10% off on recycled paper from Office Depot. In addition, participating businesses would receive a window decal advertising your involvement to the community.
When the question and answer period came, none of the mainstream news sources asked a question out loud, instead they waited to ask questions privately. A story in the Grand Rapids Press pretty much provides a summary of what was said at the press conference, but doesn’t question or challenge what this campaign is all about. A few TV stations were present for the news conference, but as of this writing they had not posted any stories online.
The Chamber does have a new section on their website devoted to this “new initiative,” which didn’t information different from what was presented at the press conference. However, one thing that seemed to be clear at today’s press conference was that this initiative was about promoting the corporate bottom line. The Chamber website states, “Businesses and institutions join the collaboration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because they have a shared interest in making economic investments that can potentially improve the environment while improving their bottom line.”
Furthermore, there was no discussion or investigation into what any of the businesses do that are members of the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce and whether or not their existence is contrary to real sustainability. This initiative seems to be an opportunity for the Chamber and the businesses it represents to present themselves as GREEN, by making minor adjustments to what they currently do. However, unless there is a willingness to question what these companies do/produce and whether or not the function of these businesses are sustainable, then this initiative seems to be nothing more than a public relations ploy to convince the rest of the community that they are doing something that is significant.
The Case of Jean Montrevil
Think about a child who has to live in fear every day that her parents and her siblings will be sent away—back to a dangerous country where her father could be shot and the rest of the family sent into exile. And the child herself could be left alone, because alone among her family she is the only U.S. citizen.
That child was my mother. But soon, this could also be the children of community activist Jean Montrevil. He may be going home to Haiti. Problem: His home is actually in the United States.
Montrevil’s story starts in 1986, when he came legally to this country as a teenager with his family. His father died, his family was in disarray, and he made some bad choices. He ended up with a drug conviction, and served an eleven-year sentence.
He was supposed to be deported, but at the time, Haiti was refusing all deportees. Montrevil was released and remained in the United States.
He started a new life: got married, became the father of four children, and was a leader in the Haitian community in New York City. His activist work extends to Families for Freedom, an immigration rights group, and the New Sanctuary Movement, also a group advocating for changes in immigration laws. He’s also done work for a variety of charities. He ran his own business. In other words, his contributions to his community are extensive and his ties to the United States are deeply rooted.
And it wasn’t like Montrevil tried to hide from immigration authorities. He did regular check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. They knew all about his history and his current situation. And right before New Year’s Eve, during one of those routine check-ins, ICE officers, with no explanation, suddenly arrested him.
The Kafka-esque scenario, the one so feared by my mother growing up, began. Montrevil’s children were deprived of their father, their questions unanswered. No one would tell his wife anything, which is often standard procedure during these arrests. Later, she discovered he’d been taken to a jail in Pennsylvania, where she cannot visit him. It can be impossible to find out any information at all: detention facility locations are often kept secret.
A week later, there is still no definite word on Montrevil’s fate, although a statement has been made saying that in cases like Montrevil’s, deportation is automatic. Montrevil was referred to as an “aggravated felon with a significant criminal record.” In point of fact, ICE has the discretion to simply ignore status anomalies of people who are living peacefully and productively within the United States. Clearly they’d done that with Montrevil for years. Since he’d already done time for his adolescent drug conviction, this begs the question: was Montrevil’s sudden arrest triggered by his activist activities?
Consider that his deportation is not even supported by the Haitian government itself. Haiti’s president, Rene Garcia Preval, has asked that the United States give temporary protected status to all Haitians in the U.S. This has been done in the past for other nationals from war-torn countries or those who have escaped oppressive regimes, and Haiti is suffering from political and economic upheaval. But President. Obama has remained silent in response.
In fact, Obama’s silence on this whole issue is deeply troubling. He ran on a platform that included immigration reform, gaining a lot of voter support as a result. Early in 2009, he promised to move forward with plans with changes to laws that were first introduced under Clinton and further tightened during the Bush regime. But now he’s retreated from his original timetable. White House sources imply that the health care bill and the economy have delayed attention to immigration reform.
But what could be more important than ensuring that people who play valuable roles in our communities can’t be spirited away without explanation or appeal?
And what could be more important to our country’s future than making sure that the children of all families live with the same security—so that they can grow up whole and undamaged and make their own contributions to our shared life together?
Universal Healthcare talk opens Calvin’s January Series
T. R. Reid, author of the book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Healthcare opened the 23rd annual Calvin College January Series Wednesday, Jan. 6 with a recap of his ten-country tour of healthcare systems, all which do a better job of caring for their citizens than the United States.
Reid opened with the question, “How is it that Americans pay so much more but get so much less than people of other industrialized nations?”
He surmised that current bills before congress render the idea that of universal access to affordable healthcare a hopeless goal, even though other countries recognized as “free market democracies” provide health coverage for all while spending half as much money in the process. “I went around the world to figure out how they do it . . . It’s not a secret. You can go there and ask them.”
Reid found that the answer wasn’t always socialized medicine. Many countries successfully providing universal healthcare have private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance companies. Single-payer systems weren’t the common denominator either. Germany has 220 payers, Switzerland 70 and Japan, 3,000.
Reid went on to classify the different healthcare systems he saw at work into four models.
1. The Beveridge model. At his government’s request, twentieth century British social reformer, William Beveridge, put this model into practice near end of World War II. A national health service takes care of people’s health in the same way that their firemen put out fires or libraries lend out books. National health service taking care of peoples’ health is the government’s job. Healthcare is free, paid for by taxes. The government owns the hospitals, employs the doctors, and runs the medical labs. “97% of people in Britain never have a doctor or hospital bill. Government provides the care, pays for the care,” Reid said. “It’s socialized medicine–we know it’s bad bit we don’t know what it means.”
Spain, Italy, New Zealand, Cuba and Scandinavian countries successfully follow this model.
2. The Bismarck model. When the first chancellor of Germany wanted to woo the people of the countries assimilated into the new Deutschland in the late nineteenth century, he invented the old age pension (1871), workman’s compensation (1873) and the first national healthcare system (1883). Providers and payers are private, but government pays the bill. “You can have universal coverage in a private system,” Reid said. “Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, Japan and 150 million Americans have this kind of healthcare coverage.”
3. The national health insurance model. Used in Canada since 1944, this model has private providers paid by government insurance. People pay their premiums through tax withholding. Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Mexico and, soon, Malaysia also run healthcare on this model.
When asked that perennial question about Canadians having to wait so long for some modalities of care, Reid replied that the long waits are “not a function of the system. They’ve done this to save money. Taiwan has same model and has shorter waiting times than the U.S. However, the rich Canadian and the poor Canadian wait the same amount of time.”
4. The out-of-pocket model. The most common model, found here in the U.S. and in poverty stricken, developing countries, this model, simply put, means if you have money, you get treated. If you don’t have money, you don’t get treated.
Reid, however, asserts that the U.S. has all four models. If you are a veteran or Native American, you live in Britain. If you are a senior on Medicare, you live in Canada . . . If you buy private insurance through your job, you live in Germany. If you are one of the 45 million with no insurance, those people live in Angola or Afghanistan.”
Reid observed that a main difference between the U.S. and those industrial countries with successful universal healthcare was that those countries stick to one model, whereas the U.S. uses all four. Reid outlined three reasons why following one model makes universal coverage viable.
- It’s simpler and, therefore, “vastly cheaper in administrative terms,” Reid said. “You have one set of rules, one set of forms, one set of prices. You spend vastly less on paperwork.” He gave the example of a 900-bed hospital in Canada that employs two people part-time to handle billing. In a U.S. hospital of that size, 200 full time people would need to be employed to do the billing
- Having one model provides incentive to invest in preventive medicine. The average American stays with an insurer for 5.8 years. The insurer has no incentive to cover preventive care that won’t pay off until the client is insured by someone else.
- It’s fairer. Other countries believe that everyone having the same access to the same healthcare is the fairer, just, decent, ethical thing to do. “The design of any country’s healthcare system is a moral question. Do you want to be a society where everybody who gets sick has access to a doctor? If you make that commitment, you can do it. All the other countries are doing it . . . The U.S. has never made that moral commitment.”
Reid concluded his presentation by asking, “Do we want to be a nation where everybody has access to healthcare? Because we are not, 22,000 people die every year from treatable diseases because they cannot afford treatment. The poorest can get some treatment, but people who had a job, got sick, who didn’t qualify for public health but have too little to pay don’t. 700,000 to 800,000 people go bankrupt because of medical bills. 60 % of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills. It’s appalling. How many in Canada went bankrupt? Zero.”
At the conclusion of the presentation, a few minutes remained for audience questions. The first was whether partisan politics were what prevented the U.S. from attaining universal healthcare access. Reid answered, “Our political structure has caused us to lose sight of the fundamental issues. Healthcare is a huge business, $l 2.3 trillion dollars last year. That means hundred of companies making more than billion dollars a year. They are doing great off our current system.”
Then, Reid was asked if he had opportunity to present his findings to Congress. He answered that he had made a presentation to 16 members of a Congress committee on healthcare—and that the 16 congressman “recoiled in horror.” He explained, “In other countries they have private insurance but they are nonprofit. Insurance companies don’t make a profit. How would we convince the insurance companies to give up their profits? In Switzerland in 1994 . . . they passed a law, and said insurance could no longer make a profit.”
Another audience member asked if it wasn’t really malpractice suits that were driving up our healthcare costs. Reid replied that all the countries he visited had malpractice issues and these costs are not the source of our skyrocketing medical costs. As an example, Reid cited the State of Texas, where medical costs soared after malpractice suits were limited
In answer to a question about costs associated with Medicare and Medicaid fraud, Reid pointed out that all countries have similar problems with medical fraud, even Japan, which has a reputation as a very law abiding country.
The next question fielded asked if universal healthcare was impossible in the U.S. because Americans are so individualistic. Reid pointed out that Germans and British share this quality and that U.S. government run medical programs are very popular with those who make use of them, e.g. Medicare and the V.A.
Last of all, Reid was asked if the problem wasn’t that Americans want everything—and that a universal plan would mean rationing healthcare. Reid stated, “The U.S. rations healthcare every day . . . No country can pay for everything that modern medicine can do. (In other countries) there is a basic floor of care. In the U.S., some people have no ceiling but tens of millions never even get in the door. That’s the harshest form of rationing.”
Washington Post Lets Lobbyists Write Its Stories
(This Media Alert is from the group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting – FAIR)
The Washington Post‘s publication of a “news” article written by an organization created to advance an ideological agenda is a troubling reminder of the declining ethical standards at one of the nation’s most influential newspapers.
The article, headlined “Support Grows for Tackling Nation’s Debt” (12/31/09), was a product of the Fiscal Times, described in an accompanying note as “an independent digital news publication reporting on fiscal, budgetary, healthcare and international economics issues.” More accurately, it’s a propaganda outlet created and funded by Peter G. Peterson, a Wall Street billionaire and Nixon administration cabinet member who has long used his wealth to promote cuts in Social Security and other entitlement programs (Extra!, 3-4/97; Nation.com, 1/4/10).
Peterson has advanced this agenda by launching groups like the Concord Coalition and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation; he’s also funded media projects like the public television show World Focus (FAIR Action Alert, 2/10/09) and the deceptive documentary IOUSA (CEPR, 10/8), which aired on CNN.
Now Peterson has a new vehicle, the Fiscal Times, which he describes (PR Newswire, 12/17/09) as “a new entity whose time has come, an independently supported publication comprised of top journalists and opinion makers covering the critical economic issues of our time.” The Fiscal Times‘ initial news release said Peterson “helped found the publication and will provide its initial funding”; editor-in-chief Jackie Leo (formerly of Reader’s Digest) said she aimed to make it “the most trusted news source for unbiased journalism covering government policy and economic issues.”
Based on the Fiscal Times‘ first offering in the Post, though, what it actually offers is a bias that’s widely shared by corporate media outlets. The piece, by Elaine S. Povich and Eric Pianin, takes it as a given that the “tough decisions that will be required to dig the nation out of debt” include “painful spending cuts and tax increases”–and when they say “spending cuts,” they’re talking about the “skyrocketing spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” not the $663 billion military budget. (See Guardian, 1/4/10, for Dean Baker’s debunking of the piece’s Petersonian economics.)
Of course, this kind of deficit-mongering is par for the course in outlets like the Post (Extra!, 9/09). But it’s doubtful that the Post on its own would have made controversial claims about powerful politicians–like the assertion that “President Obama has voiced support” for an entitlement-slashing commission, or that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “has signaled in recent weeks that she could accept the establishment” of such a panel–without offering any substantiation (Fire Dog Lake, 1/5/10).
And it’s remarkable that no one at the Post objected when a news outlet funded by Peterson managed to plug two of its benefactor’s other ideological projects–the Concord Coalition and the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform–without noting the financial connection. (The Post ran a correction noting that it should have noted the tie to Concord, but didn’t say anything about Peterson-Pew.) Completely missing from the piece was any balance to the Peterson-approved perspective, save an analyst from the AARP, misleadingly cited to suggest that “critics” objected to a deficit commission because it wouldn’t be strong enough when “the choices are so hard–and getting harder.”
Far from “unbiased journalism,” the Fiscal Times article reads like the smoothly written propaganda you’d expect to get from a well-funded lobbying outlet. The Post‘s “partnership” with this outfit is an ill-advised experiment that ought to be brought to a swift conclusion.
ACTION:
Please ask Washington Post ombud Andy Alexander to recommend that the paper terminate its relationship with the ideologically motivated Fiscal Times.
CONTACT:
Andy Alexander, Washington Post Ombud
202-334-7582
Media Bites – Blackberry and Media Technology
In this week’s Media Bites we look at a Blackberry commercial that is part of their new, “Look what love can do” campaign. The spot uses hip and attractive youth to sell their product and how it can make your life better.
We look at what recent studies show are some possible consequences of the use of smartphones like Blackberry. Portable electronic media is having greater and greater impact on people, particularly youth, something that is never presented in the promotion of such products.
Hoekstra on Gitmo, Yemen and Al Qaida
It was reported yesterday in the Grand Rapids Press that Congressman Pete Hoekstra spent New Year’s Day in Yemen at intelligence briefings in the US Embassy.
Hoekstra is apparently blaming President Obama for the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day, when a Nigerian man was caught in Yemen who was in route to Detroit. Hoekstra believes that the terrorist activities being originating in Yemen are made up of men who were once prisoners being held at the US military prison in Guantanamo.
“One of the key core groups that forms al-Quaida are former Gitmo detainees. The president just sent six or seven more back to Yemen. That’s a disastrous policy and it’s just plain dumb.”
The article states that the Bush administration had released 14 detainees to Yemen, but apparently Hoekstra had no response to this. According to Press reporter Jim Harger, Hoekstra was scheduled to be on the ABC show “This Week” on Sunday afternoon to discuss terrorism, along with President Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan.
Hoekstra had several interesting things to say. First, Hoekstra believes that Al Qaida is now recruiting Americans to “attack the US.” Hoekstra does not substantiate this claim and the host of the ABC show does not question the Congressman’s statement.
The second comment worth mentioning from Hoekstra was his response to the issue of intelligence gathering, when he said, “the challenge that we now face is that we are collecting so much information, we are sharing it, we now need to develop the capabilities to do a better job of analysis.” It seems that the Congressman is making an admission that the US does not do a good job of analyzing intelligence information. One question that could come from such an admission would be what has the Congressman done as head of the House Intelligence Committee since 1994 to address the issue of intelligence analysis?
The rest of the Press article deals mostly with comments from President Obama in regards to Yemen, which underscores the supposed partisan tension on this issue. However, when looking at non-partisan and independent sources, the Gitmo prisoners, Yemen and Al Qaida connection seems a bit different that what Congressman Hoekstra or President Obama claim.
One question that was not raised in the Press article was why former Gitmo prisoners who are being sent back to Yemen might have issues with the US. Andy Worthington, a journalist and author of the book The Guantanamo Files, recently wrote that maybe the brutal treatment of Gitmo prisoners had something to do with their hatred for the US.
Writing on December 31st, radical historian Paul Street states, “On December 17, eight days before Yemen resident Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blast Flight 253 out of the sky, Yemen opposition forces testified that many dozens of civilians, including a large number of children, had just been killed in US air-raids in the southeast section of that country. The fighters reported the deaths of 63 people, 28 of whom were children, in the province of Abyan.” Could the attacks against civilians be a legitimate motive for people wanting to commit acts of terror against the US?
The notion that attacks against the US is rooted in other people’s harsh experience of US foreign policy, seems to be lost on US journalists. However, this is the main claim made by many groups the US has labeled as terrorist. Addressing this issue, Street points out three overriding grievances against the US, which have lead to attacks against the US.
1. Stop occupying and attacking the Middle East and South Asia.
2. Stop supporting vicious and authoritarian regimes (e.g. the Saudi Arabian terror state) there.
3. Stop backing Israel’s criminal and brutal occupation and apartheid policies toward the Palestinians.
Each of these points are well worth exploring, but lets look at the case of Yemen and the recent US missile strike against that country. President Obama’s claim for the recent attack was to go after Al Qaida terrorist cells, but independent reports see the attacks in a different light.
Ron Jacobs, writing for Dissident Voice, states, “In recent months, parts of Yemen have come under attack by Saudi Arabian forces backing the government there. In recent weeks, the Saudis have been supported by the US military. It seems quite likely that there is more to the growing likelihood of deeper US military involvement in Yemen than the visit of the wannabe bomber Mr. Abdulmutallab.”
The Press article did mention that the US had provided Yemen with $67 million in military aid, but offered no details of what that money was actually being used for. This lack of historical or policy context in the story is typical in the kind of reporting on foreign policy we have seen from the Grand Rapids Press is the past.
GRIID Classes for Winter 2010
We are pleased to announce that GRIID will be offering two classes beginning late January of 2010. The first class that is being offered is one that will explore the current US occupation of Afghanistan. The class will also be a 6-week session where we will explore the recent history of US involvement in Afghanistan, from the Soviet occupation of the 80s, to the rise of the Taliban and the current US/NATO occupation.
The primary text for this book will be Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence, but we will also be using online resources, recent reports, independent news & analysis and several documentaries.
The second class being offer is US Media & Propaganda. In this six-week class we will explore how the media functions in the US and what role it plays in society. We will look at the evolution of the public relations industry, the government US of propaganda, the function of journalism and the use of entertainment media as a means of pacification and social control.
There is no text for the US Media & Propaganda class, but we will be utilizing numerous articles, reports, documentaries, media literacy resources, film and current commercial and independent news media.
The cost for each class is $20 and participants are required to get their own copy of the Afghan class book. The classes will be held at 1134 Wealthy in Grand Rapids.
Afghan Class will be Mondays from 6 – 8pm beginning January 25.
US Media & Propaganda will be Wednesdays from 7 – 9pm beginning January 27.
To sign up contact: Mike Saunders outobol@gmail.com or Jeff Smith jsmith@griid.org.
Over the past week, protestors around the world have joined their voices to mark the anniversary of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, which left 1,400 Palestinians and thirteen Israelis dead a year ago. As Israel’s deadliest attack on Palestinians to date, the 22-day assault not only killed and maimed innocent men, women and children—it further destroyed Gaza’s infrastructure and reduced hundreds of family homes to rubble. A continuing Israeli blockade of Gaza has prevented Gazans from rebuilding their homes, accessing needed medical care, resuming livelihoods, and having enough to eat.
More than 1,000 people from 42 countries met in Cairo, Egypt for the Gaza Freedom March. Robert Naiman, policy director of Just Foreign Policy reported in the Huffington Post:
Hundreds of demonstrators gathered on both sides of the Israeli-Gazan border on Thursday to mark a year since Israel’s three-week war in Gaza, and to call for an end to the blockade of the area imposed by Israel and Egypt. About 85 of the several hundred demonstrators inside Gaza were foreigners, part of a group of more than 1,000 who arrived in Cairo in hopes of entering the territory but who were stopped by the Egyptian authorities. After days of negotiation, Egypt permitted a small delegation to cross the normally closed border at the southern Gazan city of Rafah. Hundreds of us – confined to Cairo – protested against the Israeli/Egyptian blockade where we were. Our protests in Cairo were front-page news in the Egyptian press – and were reported in the U.S. as well.
Actions in solidarity with the Gaza Freedom March that have reported back include:
- West Bank, Gaza 1-1-2010 More than 150 local activists protested in al-Masara and the neighboring villages against the illegal Apartheid Wall and settlements south of Bethlehem. The Israeli army fired tear gas and sound bombs. A child, hit by a sound bomb, was carried away while soldiers were still shooting. Several protestors suffered gas inhalation, and other injuries were reported. View video covergage.
- San Francisco, California 12-31-09 Five hundred supporters of breaking the siege on Gaza marched across the Golden Gate bridge .
- Erez, Israel 12-31-09 Organized by Israeli peace activists, some 1000 protesters called on Israel to lift the ongoing blockade of Palestinians in Gaza.
- Bethlehem, West Bank 12-31-09 A Vigil for the Children of Gaza next to the Nativity Church. Young children read the names of all the Gazan children murdered in last years massacre, while others climbed a tree and hung the names of those lost from the branches.
- Tulkarm, Gaza 12-31-09 A solidarity demonstration stopped by Palestinian Authority Policespoke out against the siege and Israel’s 11 chemical factories, which were forbidden to operate in Israel because of the environmental and health problems that they caused.
- Ramallah, West Bank 12-31-09 More than 250 Palestinians rallied in solidarity with the Gaza Freedom March.
- Boston, Massachussetts 12-31-09 More than 300 people held an evening candlelight vigil and marched through the streets of Boston.
- Minneapolis, Minnesota 12-31-09 Marchers chanted the words, “ “throughout several blocks of Minneapolis skyways.
- Eugene, Oregon 12-31-2009 Al-Nakba Awareness Project
- Adelaide, Australia 12-31-2009 Vigil at the busy intersection on New Year’s eve
- Washington DC 12-30-2009 Code Pink Vigil for Gaza
- Bernard, Iowa 12-29-2009
- Honolulu, Hawaii 12-29-2009 Clergy, vets, and Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and secular peace activists stood along a busy boulevard in front of the Federal Building in downtown Honolulu during rush hour with signs and banners.
- Bern, Germany 12-27-2009 Candlelight vigil on Bundesplatz
- Gainesville, Florida 12-27-2009 Activists hit the mall to raise wearing shirts that spelled out “Free Gaza.” They walked slowly and solemnly through the post-holiday sale rush, handing out literature, engaging interested shoppers and leaving boycott information at kiosks selling Ahava products.
- Seattle, Washington 12-27-2009 Un-forget the forgotten of Gaza, a silent procession throughout downtown Seattle, handed out several hundred leaflets and read poetry.
- Seoul, South Korea 12-27-2009 Rally denouncing Israel in front of the Israeli embassy
- New York City, New York 12-27-2009 More than 850 people joined a rally for Gaza: Arab-Americans, antiwar and social justice groups, and veterans.
- Providence , Rhode Island 12-31-2009
- Denver, Colorado 12-31-09 More than 100 people participated in an afternoon march, solidarity vigil and an evening march to the state capital.
- Blue Hill, Maine 12-30-2009 People marched through town with a banner, flags, kites and drums. The banner remains displayed at the Iraq War Dead Memorial on Main Street.
- Portland, Oregon 12-30-2009 Supporters from area Palestine solidarity groups, Green Party and peace activists held a two-hour vigil in downtown Portland.
- White Plains, New York 12-30-2009 People gathered at the Metro-North train station with banners, signs, and leaflets during rush hour.
- Rochester, Minnesota 12-29-2009 Vigil on the main street of the city during rush hour.
- Phoenix, Arizona 12-29-2009 People came together to view the film “Occupation 101”, followed by speakers.
- Belfast, Ireland 12-28-2009 Candlelit vigil outside Belfast City Hall to draw attention to the continuing illegal Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip.
- Marseille, France 12-27-2009 Manif Gaza Marseille
- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 12-27-2009 People gathered to view the film, “Sling Shot Hip Hop.”
- Sydney, Australia 12-27-2009 Gaza Freedom Vigil to remember all those killed in Israel’s bombardment of Gaza one year ago.
- Chicago, Illinois 12-27-2009 People with Jewish Voice for Peace-Chicago gathered to read aloud the names of the women and children killed during Operation Cast Lead.
- Redwood City, California 12-27-2009 Forum on Gaza/Palestine held a presentation and postcard signing calling on Congress to end the siege.
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada 12-27-2009 More than 1000 Gaza Freedom Marchers took ov
er the streets of Toronto, marching from the Israeli embassy to Dundas Square. - Rotterdam, Netherlands 12-27-2009 Rotterdam for Gaza, a platform of political parties, and human rights, religious and migrant organizations made an appeal to the government to endorse de Goldstone report and to demand the end of siege.
- Woodstock, New York 12-20-2009 Rally for the Gaza Freedom March
Positive Voices: A New Publication for Social Justice?
I just finished the inaugural issue of the publication Positive Voices. According to comments from the publisher, Positive Voices “is a new monthly paper dedicated to promoting social justice, civility, debate and honest dialogue.”
West Michigan can certainly use more media, particularly media outside of the commercial realm, so in that sense Positive Voices is a welcomed addition. However, after reading the first edition I was somewhat disappointed in the content.
The front cover features a picture of the ArtPrize entry known as Nessie, so right away I was somewhat confused as to how this was promoting social justice. There were several short stories that dealt with public transit, senior citizens and the Grand Rapids budget crisis which were interesting commentaries, but not hard news.
There were two articles that particularly caught my attention. First, local UAW director Sue Levy wrote a story about the 10th anniversary of the WTO protests in Seattle. In this short article, Levy comments briefly on the impact that the Seattle protest had, but does talk about what can be learned from that historic protest. Instead, Levy puts her hope in the current administration and a piece of legislation that has been endorsed by Michigan Senators Stabenow and Levin.
Introduced this past summer, the Trade Enforcement Priorities Act of 2009, a bill that is supposed to give the Federal government more enforcement authority when deal with trade partners to make sure that US workers and businesses benefit from trade. However, this legislation is weak and is too narrowly focused on a “Buy American” mentality, which doesn’t sufficiently protect American workers from losing their jobs. A more effective strategy would be for people to advocate that the administration re-negotiate NAFTA, CAFTA and other regional trade agreements which have been devastating for workers in the US and abroad. The Obama administration said they would renegotiate these treaties all throughout his campaign, but so far has not delivered.
Another article, which had me scratching my head, was by Jose Amoros, founder of The Washington and Marshall Institute Project. In this article Amoros is responding to the December 1 speech by President Obama calling for 30,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan. Amoros defends Obama by calling him a realist. The article is a superficial treatment of the President’s foreign policy and offers no real analysis nor does the writer support any of the claims he makes. Amoros does a show on Public Reality Radio called “Foreign Policy and You,” where more often than not he takes a right-leaning position on major foreign policy issues, particularly with Latin America.
Positive Voices is part of WPRR Public Reality Radio and features many of the same people writing for this publication that also have shows on the radio station. Again, we welcome any new efforts in non-commercial media that is attempting to explore issues of social justice, even though the first issue doesn’t seem to fulfill that intent. The publisher does welcome input and ideas for what to report on. Contact Positive Voices at (616) 656-2619 or e-mail rick@thepositivevoices.com.
