Last weekend something unexpected happened. Veterans and active duty soldiers who served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan spoke of their experiences at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD. Dubbed Winter Soldier (modeled after the Vietnam Veterans Against the War event of the same name in 1971), the event meant to bring about awareness of what most Americans havent' heard about "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and the horrors that they faced while serving there.
If you didn't know this happened, don't be surprised. The mainstream media pretty much ignored the meeting or its intended purpose. Caught up in the election news, a bad economy, and the fallout from the Elliot Spitzer sex scandal, many Americans seem more willing to tune out the news and focus on their own lives. The pundits would rather focus on supposed "experts" rather than the words of many of the people who saw the reality of this war. With the exception of Democracy Now and some web sites, the American media pretty much pretended it never happened.
It's sad really. When the current war started, the government told us we had all that weneeded to know about how it happened. However, when we need to know the truth, those forces who are supposed to clue us in are caught not doing their job.
If you're interested in learning more about the latest Winter Soldier, Democracy Now has some great coverage of the event. (The main page right now has links to th elast several days of stories as well as audio of the programs.)
Some readers may disagree with me on why this is important. That's your perogative, but at least find out more about it.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Issue 87 Reviews Up
Just wanted to let you guys know that the record reviews for the new issue are now up on the website. To get to the page to access the reviews click here.
The War Turns Five (Time to Get Ready for Kindergarten)
As you all know, the war in Iraq is nearing the fifth anniversary since it officially started (I'm still trying to figure out how all the no fly zone bombings meant we still weren't at war with them between 1991 and March 2003). It doesn't take a genius to realize what has gone down since then and how little the reality there resembles what the first term of Dubya's administration tried to sell us.
In the next week or so there are probably going to be vigils and rallies regarding this. Those in the Columbia and MId MO are may want to check this out.
Check your local area to see what's going on if you want to speak out against the past five years of bullshit.
In the next week or so there are probably going to be vigils and rallies regarding this. Those in the Columbia and MId MO are may want to check this out.
Check your local area to see what's going on if you want to speak out against the past five years of bullshit.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Happy Birthday Peace Sign
According to Democracy Now, today marks the 50th anniversary of the Peace Sign. Created as a semaphore of the letters for Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, it has become both revered and demonized depending on ones religious or political point of view. Still, it's ecome something pretty much instantly recognizable to most people in the world. So, happy birthday !
Sunday, February 3, 2008
TTWN Website Updates
Hey! Hope all is well. Just wanted to let you know that we've just updated the TTWn website. In honor of Valnetine's Day we're reptined "Love Is Fucked" our article from the theme issue on that pesudo holiday. We've also included my current commentary on that article as well.
Hope you like them.
Hope you like them.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Assume This Phone Is Tapped - Politics Law and the Like
I think you probably guess what this post is about.
Currently, Congress is at loggerheads with the Bush administration over the warrantless wiretapping law. Mainly, Democrats having a rare show of spine and not wanting retroactive immunity granted to telecom companies. AS a result Senate Republicans (who are trying to get a new bill passed with that immunity) and the current adminitration find themselves in a weird place. The HOuse has approved an extension for 15 days. Senate Democrats are asking to extend the current law, the Protect America act, for another 18 months. Dubya, on the other hand, has said he'd veto any law that didn't include immunity for the telecom companies.
So we find Republicans in the mode of willing the let the law expire rather than not have immunity for phone companies. The current law ends in two days. What will happen is hard to say?
Will the Democrats cave and give in to Dubya -like they have on almost everything else the past seven goddamn years? I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this went down. I hope there are some actual signs of opposition to Dubya and comapny - but I'm not expecting it. For now all we literally can do is wait and see.
Currently, Congress is at loggerheads with the Bush administration over the warrantless wiretapping law. Mainly, Democrats having a rare show of spine and not wanting retroactive immunity granted to telecom companies. AS a result Senate Republicans (who are trying to get a new bill passed with that immunity) and the current adminitration find themselves in a weird place. The HOuse has approved an extension for 15 days. Senate Democrats are asking to extend the current law, the Protect America act, for another 18 months. Dubya, on the other hand, has said he'd veto any law that didn't include immunity for the telecom companies.
So we find Republicans in the mode of willing the let the law expire rather than not have immunity for phone companies. The current law ends in two days. What will happen is hard to say?
Will the Democrats cave and give in to Dubya -like they have on almost everything else the past seven goddamn years? I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this went down. I hope there are some actual signs of opposition to Dubya and comapny - but I'm not expecting it. For now all we literally can do is wait and see.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Roe Turns 35. What Next?
As I type this it's January 22, 2008. 35 years ago today the Supreme Court made Roe v. Wade the law of the land, ruling that state laws against abortion were unconstitutional. Since that fateful day, a procedure that should be a decision between a woman, her doctor, and her conscience has become a polarizing political issue that appears to become more of a chasm with each passing year.
Since Roe, abortion access has been slowly taken out from under the American people. The recently released study by the Alaqn Guttmacher Institute found that 87% of U.S. counties have no abortion provider. In addition, parental consent and, in some places, spousal consent, laws have made what should be a personal decision one that can be placed in the hands of other people to make (and, by the way - if anyone reading this calls themselves "pro life", this can also mean forcing abortion on someone).
Right now a number of state legislatures are seeing bills emerge that, if passed into law, would basically outlaw a woman's right to reproductive freedom. Waiting periods and forcing a woman who made this decision to undergo alleged "Counseling" adds to this by taking one view in mind - a naive (at best) and extremely sexist belief that a woman is too vulnerable tomake decisions regarding her own body.
Today a lot of bloggers are taking part in Blog For Choice Day. WHile I support the basic premise of it, I do have one reservation about the theme (this year - the importance of voting pro choice). I agree that voting for pro choice candidates on this issue is necessary and important. However, I do have one concern - mainly the worry that some politicians (many in this case being mainstream Democrats but some Republicans who haven't completely jumped the shark into the dark side [once the GOP elite find out, they'll likely be escorted out]) may be pro choice now but may be more than willing to throw a woman's right to choose under a bus if it means getting a few extra votes. I hope I'm totally wrong and off base on this, but I've learned to be a bit skeptical over the years on anything regarding politics. Should one who wants to vote choose a pro choice candidate? Yes. However, let's remember that we must be on guard against anyone in office who says what we want to hear solely for the vote only to do the opposite thing when elected (this includes other issues such as the war, economy, health care, etc as much as this issue).
We're living in scary times right now. Hopefully, we don't head too far back into the dark ages. That said, my best recommendation can be to watch our backs and keep the pressure on for anyone in office to make sure they do the best they can for all of us - not just their own interests.
Whoa! This turned out to be a little longer than expected. I guess I had a lot on my mind regarding this issue. If you disagree with me, fine - that's your right. But I will not allow you to force your vision of what life is down my throat.
That's it for now. Feel free to disagree amongst yourselves. I have other things to do.
Since Roe, abortion access has been slowly taken out from under the American people. The recently released study by the Alaqn Guttmacher Institute found that 87% of U.S. counties have no abortion provider. In addition, parental consent and, in some places, spousal consent, laws have made what should be a personal decision one that can be placed in the hands of other people to make (and, by the way - if anyone reading this calls themselves "pro life", this can also mean forcing abortion on someone).
Right now a number of state legislatures are seeing bills emerge that, if passed into law, would basically outlaw a woman's right to reproductive freedom. Waiting periods and forcing a woman who made this decision to undergo alleged "Counseling" adds to this by taking one view in mind - a naive (at best) and extremely sexist belief that a woman is too vulnerable tomake decisions regarding her own body.
Today a lot of bloggers are taking part in Blog For Choice Day. WHile I support the basic premise of it, I do have one reservation about the theme (this year - the importance of voting pro choice). I agree that voting for pro choice candidates on this issue is necessary and important. However, I do have one concern - mainly the worry that some politicians (many in this case being mainstream Democrats but some Republicans who haven't completely jumped the shark into the dark side [once the GOP elite find out, they'll likely be escorted out]) may be pro choice now but may be more than willing to throw a woman's right to choose under a bus if it means getting a few extra votes. I hope I'm totally wrong and off base on this, but I've learned to be a bit skeptical over the years on anything regarding politics. Should one who wants to vote choose a pro choice candidate? Yes. However, let's remember that we must be on guard against anyone in office who says what we want to hear solely for the vote only to do the opposite thing when elected (this includes other issues such as the war, economy, health care, etc as much as this issue).
We're living in scary times right now. Hopefully, we don't head too far back into the dark ages. That said, my best recommendation can be to watch our backs and keep the pressure on for anyone in office to make sure they do the best they can for all of us - not just their own interests.
Whoa! This turned out to be a little longer than expected. I guess I had a lot on my mind regarding this issue. If you disagree with me, fine - that's your right. But I will not allow you to force your vision of what life is down my throat.
That's it for now. Feel free to disagree amongst yourselves. I have other things to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)