on becoming a writer, part two

Part One here.

I wrote a young-adult novel, and then another. Allan moved to New York, and continued writing about music, as he had been doing in Vermont. Free music! Free tickets to shows! Interviews with bands we loved! We both wrote, and both edited each other's work, and learned more about writing and about working together.

My first book was more like an exercise; I was learning how to write a book. The great success was having writen it at all, and completing it. It would have been a huge long shot if it had been published, and when it wasn't, it wasn't a big deal.

My second book was - is - very good. A literary agent agreed to represent it, and I thought I was on my way. I was not. At least not in the way I envisioned.

Part of the creative process - and part of being happy in our own lives - is figuring out how to define success. Is success making a lot of money? Is it acceptance within our field? Critical acclaim? Being able to quit our day-jobs?

When I first quit my theatre career in order to focus on writing, success was simply writing. In my very brief experience with yoga and meditation, I remember the instructor saying that a successful yoga practice meant showing up. That's what my first writing goal was: showing up. Sitting down to write. Writing.

Next, success became finishing a project. Writing a book.

Everyone told me that was a triumph of sorts, and it was. But as we grow, we want new challenges. And I wanted this book published.

When that didn't happen, I had to re-define my goals. I had to separate what I could control from what I couldn't. Being published was out of my control. Being published depended on so many things other than the quality of my work. It especially depended on market forces, and the market and my writing were not in sync.

I had some near-misses. An editor told my agent, "Fifteen years ago, we would have snapped this up. We used to publish 30 young-adult titles a year. Now we publish three."

Editors no longer edited. They simply acquired. Publishing houses would no longer find a good but flawed book and invest the resources into shaping it into a finished product. Books were expected to appear on editors' desks in finished form. Writers were expected to pay "book doctors" - what was once called an editor - to make that happen.

But in earlier times, when editors edited manuscripts, there was an understanding - a contract - that the book would be published. The house invested the time and then published the book. Paying a so-called book doctor comes with no such understanding. We didn't have the resources to gamble.

As the rejection letters rolled in, I breezed right along. I didn't take it personally, and I thought I could take it endlessly. I'd tell myself, "It doesn't matter how many rejection letters I get - as long as I get one acceptance."

I was working on the first draft of my next book, when my agent dumped me. I was heartsick.

There was a terrible moment in the young-adult section of Barnes & Noble, when I broke down crying. "All these books, and where is mine? Why is there no room for me?" It might seem comic now, but at the time there was no humour in it. I felt my dream was curling up and dying.

If I was going to keep writing, I would need to figure out how to define success on my own terms. Otherwise it was just too painful.

Meanwhile, I was working. I worked at a huge variety of jobs to support my writing. I loved the diversity of experience, and it was a huge confidence builder. As you know, I was a nanny. I was also: a proofreader, a textbook editor, a personal assistant to a crazy art dealer, an assistant to the director of a March on Washington, a data entry operator, a legal secretary, and probably half a dozen more that I can't even remember.

I had been volunteering for a long time at an amazing youth centre and community called The Door, and when a teacher went on maternity leave, I was offered a temporary position. From there I got a job at another alternative young-adult school. I gained invaluable experience as a teacher of, and support for, inner-city youth who had dropped out of high school. I loved it.

But teaching and writing was not a good mix. I always felt torn in two, being neither as good a teacher nor as a good a writer as I felt I could be. When the school was shut down because of budget cuts, I didn't look for another job, and stopped teaching.

While working with Osborn Elliott at the Citizens Committee for New York City, I wrote a personal essay about my recovery from rape. I gave it to Oz to read. He pronounced it "very moving," and showed me how to take my story and craft it into a finished piece. It was the first time I had ever worked with a professional editor, and I learned more about writing from that single lesson than I did in four years of university.

Oz helped me get the story read at his former magazine, Newsweek, and the editor enthusiastically published it. Thus my first publication was: in a national magazine, paid very well, and was about an extremely personal topic. A strange experience! You can read it here.

Among the letters I received about that essay, there were two offers: one from Reader's Digest, and one from an educational video producer. Reader's Digest wanted story ideas. They sent me a contract... and that eventually turned into one of the worst experiences of my writing life.

The video producer said, "We need writers who can speak to youth. We don't care about TV or video experience, we'll teach you that." They promised I could write about sexual assault from a strong, feminist, progressive perspective.

I jumped in.

So as I was losing all motivation and hope to continue writing fiction, I discovered there were other ways to define and meet my writing goals. I could write about the same topics, for the same youth audience, in different forms. And I loved it.

I had loved writing fiction. I found it tremendously challenging and satisfying. But other than personal essays, I had never really tried anything else. Now I found that nonfiction was also hugely satisfying. What's more, being published was so much more fun than not being published! Maybe in a perfect world, I'd rather write fiction than anything else, but if the choice was between writing fiction that no one reads and writing nonfiction that reached an audience... audience, please!

For Reader's Digest, I was (supposedly) writing about a wheelchair athlete, an idea spun off from my book. As that crazy deal was souring, I looked for another place to sell the story. I connected with New Mobility, at the time - and to this day - the best disability-lifestyle magazine. They didn't have much money, but they had scads of talent and great ideas, and an amazing editor named Barry Corbet took a chance on me. Now my writing career was born.

So what was success at this time? One, writing about subjects that I cared deeply about. Two, educating mainstream audiences, while also entertaining. Three, challenging myself as a writer and increasing my understanding of my craft.

This became my three-pronged requirement, and my goal was being published. Everywhere, all the time, as much as I possibly could.

Part Three coming soon.

it's not a wonderful movie

Here we are on December 24, and I haven't written the annual wmtc I Hate Christmas post!

I haven't found the season too oppressive this year, mainly because I'm so happy to be on my winter break from school, and have had very little contact with the so-called holiday spirit. I did have to hear the dreaded seasonal muzak while doing some errands, but mostly I've been in my own lovely Christmas-free bubble.

It helps that I don't turn on the TV. Back in the days before we could watch whatever we wanted whenever we wanted, my least favourite part of the Christmas season was the endless repetition of my least favourite movie in the world, "It's A Wonderful Life".

My loathing for this movie is partly fed by my extreme dislike of Jimmy Stewart. I grew up watching old movies, and I've had a nearly visceral disgust for Stewart probably since age 8 or 9. He's been in some excellent films, but for me any movie is marred by his ridiculous voice and pitiful, one-note acting.

But my hatred of "It's A Wonderful Life" goes way beyond Jimmy Stewart's irritating drawl. It's supposed to be the classic "one man can make a difference" movie, illustrating that we touch people lives in ways we will never know. If the world is a better place because of our presence, then everything we do does matter. Nice message, right? Sounds like something I should get behind.

But why does George Bailey want to end his life? Why is he so despondent, and what if an angel hadn't visited him? Because they usually don't, you know. When people tumble into the abyss of despair, seldom does an angel appear to pull them out. When dreams die, as George Bailey's dreams did, either we painfully construct new dreams, or live without dreams, or give up. When life sucks, some outsider telling us that really our lives are just peachy and wonderful does not usually brighten our day.

Beyond the saccharine and the treacle, the plot has holes wide enough to drive a Hummer through. Come on, am I the only person who thought Pottersville - the alternate-reality town that would have existed if Bailey had never been born - was a cooler, more fun place than Bedford Falls? No! Turns out I was not. Wendell Jamieson, who wrote this essay, loves the movie, but insists it's a different movie than most people know.

"It's a Wonderful Life" is a terrifying, asphyxiating story about growing up and relinquishing your dreams, of seeing your father driven to the grave before his time, of living among bitter, small-minded people. It is a story of being trapped, of compromising, of watching others move ahead and away, of becoming so filled with rage that you verbally abuse your children, their teacher and your oppressively perfect wife. It is also a nightmare account of an endless home renovation.

I haven't seen it on a movie screen since that first time, but on Friday it begins its annual pre-Christmas run at the IFC Cinema in Greenwich Village. I plan to take my 9-year-old son and my father, who has never seen it the whole way through because he thinks it's too corny.

How wrong he is.

I'm no movie critic, and I'll leave to others any erudite evaluation of the film as cinematic art, but to examine it closely is to experience "It's a Wonderful Life" on several different levels.

Many are pulling the movie out of the archives lately because of its prescience on the perils of trusting bankers. I’ve found, after repeated viewings, that the film turns upside down and inside out, and some glaring — and often funny — flaws become apparent. These flaws have somehow deepened my affection for it over the years.

Take the extended sequence in which George Bailey (James Stewart), having repeatedly tried and failed to escape Bedford Falls, N.Y., sees what it would be like had he never been born. The bucolic small town is replaced by a smoky, nightclub-filled, boogie-woogie-driven haven for showgirls and gamblers, who spill raucously out into the crowded sidewalks on Christmas Eve. It's been renamed Pottersville, after the villainous Mr. Potter, Lionel Barrymore's scheming financier.

Here's the thing about Pottersville that struck me when I was 15: It looks like much more fun than stultifying Bedford Falls — the women are hot, the music swings, and the fun times go on all night. If anything, Pottersville captures just the type of excitement George had long been seeking.

And what about that banking issue? When he returns to the "real" Bedford Falls, George is saved by his friends, who open their wallets to cover an $8,000 shortfall at his savings and loan brought about when the evil Mr. Potter snatched a deposit mislaid by George's idiot uncle, Billy (Thomas Mitchell).

But isn't George still liable for the missing funds, even if he has made restitution? I mean, if someone robs a bank, and then gives the money back, that person still robbed the bank, right?

There's only one good thing about "It's A Wonderful Life". Bing Crosby isn't in it. As my grandmother used to say, things can always get worse.

oram: "none of us are secure until we are all safe"

What could be more terrible than being persecuted or discriminated against for the basic, immutable facts of who you are or what you believe in?

Not being allowed to vote, or get an education. Fearing your home will be burned down, or your children beaten, or being thrown in jail. Because you are female, or have dark skin, or were born into a Jewish family. Or a Muslim family. Or a Catholic family. Or are gay. Or believe in peace.

To most of us it seems so obvious. It seems incredible, almost beyond belief, that in so many places in the world, people are still persecuted because of who they are. There is still discrimination here, of course, and there is still violence against women and LGBT people and Muslims. But state-sanctioned violence, institutional persecution - to me that is something far worse.

If my boss discriminates against me because I am female, I can take action. I have recourse. It might be very difficult, it might turn my life upside down, but the laws are on my side. Who do you turn to for recourse when the government itself is condoning for, even calling for, the discrimination? What if, for example, you are female in Afghanistan? What if you happen to be gay and Ugandan?

One thing you do, if you can: you try to leave.

ORAM International, the Organization for Refugee, Asylum and Migration, advocates for people fleeing sexual or gender based violence.

Among their work, they've created an innovative "adopt a refugee" program. It requires a substantial financial commitment - at least $500 - but on the other hand, that's not a fortune for a well-employed person over the course of a year.

From their website:

ORAM is a voice for vulnerable refugees who face compelling survival challenges. We are an international network locking arms across traditional divides. Like you, we are impassioned champions of human dignity and security.

We are able-bodied and disabled. Older and younger. Men, women, transgendered. Spiritual and atheist. Straight, gay and bisexual. Rich and poor. Geographically secure and displaced.

Those of us who are safe today may become refugees tomorrow. Our mission to protect one another is our greatest calling – none of us can be secure until we are all safe.

I love this statement. It seems like ORAM has great potential to change lives. Their Facebook page is here.

rodney watson: "honour your country's great traditions"

Rodney Watson writes in the Toronto Star:

I am from Kansas City, Kansas, and I joined the U.S. Army for financial reasons in 2004 after my steady job of seven years ended.

I enlisted for a three-year contract with the intention of being a cook and not in a combat role. I wanted to support the troops in some way without being involved in any combat operations.

A recruiter promised that I could do this.

In 2005 I was deployed to Iraq just north of Mosul where I was told that my duties as a cook would be to supervise and ensure that the local nationals in the dining facility were preparing meals according to military standards.

But instead of supervising in the dining facility, I was performing vehicle searches for explosives, contraband and weapons. I also operated a mobile X-ray machine that scanned vehicles and civilians for any possible explosives that could enter the base.

I had to keep the peace within an area that held 100 to 200 Iraqi civilian men who would be waiting for security clearances, and shoot warning shots at Iraqi children who were trying to set up mortars to fire at the base.

In Iraq I witnessed racism and physical abuse from soldiers toward the civilians.

On one occasion a soldier was beating an Iraqi civilian, called him a "sand nigger," threw his Qur'an on the ground and spat on it. The civilian man was unarmed and was just looking for work on our base. He posed no type of threat and was beaten because soldiers brought their personal racist hatred to Iraq.

This was not what I had signed up for.

After all the wrongs I witnessed in Iraq, I decided that once my one-year tour of duty was over I would never again be part of this unnecessary war.

When I returned home, my unit was informed that we would be redeployed within four months. This would put me beyond the term I signed up for. I was going to be stop-lossed and forced to serve past my contract.

While on two-week leave I made my decision to come to Canada and not return to my base at Fort Hood, Texas.

I have been here in Vancouver since early 2007. I have been self-sufficient. I have fathered a beautiful son whose mother is Canadian. I plan to marry her and to provide our son with a loving and caring family unit.

I have made many friends and I have built a peaceful life here.

My son and my wife-to-be are my heart and soul and it would be a great tragedy for my family and for me personally if I were deported and torn away from them.

I think being punished as a prisoner of conscience for doing what I felt morally obligated to do is a great injustice.

This Christmas I hope and pray that people will open their hearts and minds to give peace and love a chance.

I appeal to the Canadian government to honour your country's great traditions of being a place of refuge from militarism and a place that respects human rights by supporting my decision, and the decisions taken by my fellow resisters to refuse any further participation in this unjust war.

I ask that you urge your government to respect the will of the majority of Canadians by acting on the direction it has been given twice by Parliament to immediately stop deporting Iraq War resisters like me and to let us become permanent residents here.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones in this unnecessary war.

Rodney Watson is an Iraq War veteran who was ordered deported by the Harper government this fall. On Sept. 18 he took refuge in Vancouver's First United Church. Dec. 27 will be his 100th day in sanctuary. Watson's request to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds remains outstanding.

mfso: charley richardson legacy fund

In late 2003, Allan and I attended a peace rally and meeting at Judson Church, on Washington Square Park in New York City. The church was packed to the rafters, full of anger and energy and the power of determination. A man spoke whose son was in Iraq, and who opposed the war. I wish I knew who that man was. All I know is that he was with Military Families Speak Out.

That night, I decided I would join the movement to support war resisters. I didn't know how or when I would do that, but I knew I had to be part of it.

In Canada, I've learned how vital MFSO has been to the peace movement, and about the unstinting support they've given military members and their families - the real meaning of "support our troops". Now MFSO needs a different kind of support.

When Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) began in November, 2002, co-founders Charley Richardson and Nancy Lessin’s son was being deployed to Iraq. They shared with other military families a deep fear and worry about those who would be in harm's way for no good reason. They also share your deep commitment to bringing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to an end.

With their leadership, vision and hard work, combined with the support and involvement of a growing number of military families, MFSO grew to a powerful organization of more than 4,000 members, speaking out to end the wars in Iraq and now Afghanistan. It is the largest organization of military families speaking out against wars in the history of the country. MFSO helped to change the definition of what it meant to "support the troops," as MFSO's mantra "Support Our Troops – Bring Them Home NOW!" caught on across the country.

MFSO co-founders Charley Richardson and Nancy Lessin now face a very personal struggle. Charley has been battling an advanced, aggressive cancer and the prognosis is poor.

After working tirelessly to amplify the voices of military families in the larger movement to end the wars, this tragic personal situation is curtailing their continued leadership in the organization. Their need to pull back, combined with the economic recession, has put Military Families Speak Out in financial jeopardy.

In Charley's honor, MFSO is establishing the Charley Richardson Legacy Fund. And we need your help to make it a success. We have a donor who has committed to matching contributions dollar for dollar, up to $15,000.

This Fund will celebrate the work that he and Nancy have contributed to MFSO and will provide the core support for MFSO to continue building a movement to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The voice of military families opposing these wars makes a difference. Support Military Families Speak Out and build a legacy to honor Charley.

Click here to make a donation | Click here to read more about Charley & Nancy's story

This is from Charley Richardson and Nancy Lessin:

We, Charley and Nancy, are asking those who know and support the work of Military Families Speak Out to help solidify this vital organization that we have helped to build. The love and support of so many of you has kept us going, even as Charley’s battle with cancer has intensified. We are now asking that you help keep Military Families Speak Out going.

As we step back, we ask that you step up.

Many friends have asked us how they can help Charley and our family. This is how you can help. Your contributions to MFSO, and your words of support, will help build a legacy for Charley, and allow Military Families Speak Out to continue to be a leader in the movement to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

Charley Richardson and Nancy Lessin
Co-founders, Military Families Speak Out

Charley Richardson Legacy Fund.

somebody's child, a short film about peace

Please watch this wonderful film, featuring my dear friend, war resister Kim Rivera, and someone else, who is no friend of Kim's.

The whole thing is about 13 minutes. Please watch.

Part I:

Part II:

Support Bill C-440

to be young, criminal and from florida

In the entire world, as far as we know, there are slightly more than 100 people serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed as juveniles in which no one was killed.

All are in the United States.

Seventy-seven of them are in Florida.

In November, the US Supreme Court heard appeals from two such convicted offenders. From the New York Times:

Several factors in combination -- some legal, some historical, some cultural -- help account for the disproportionate number of juvenile lifers in Florida.

The state's attorney general, Bill McCollum, explained the roots of the state's approach in the first paragraph of his brief in Mr. Graham's case.

"By the 1990s, violent juvenile crime rates had reached unprecedented high levels throughout the nation," Mr. McCollum wrote. "Florida's problem was particularly dire, compromising the safety of residents, visitors and international tourists, and threatening the state's bedrock tourism industry." Nine foreign tourists were killed over 11 months in 1992 and 1993, one of them by a 14-year-old.

Mr. Snyder, the state legislator, put it this way: "Instead of the Sunshine State, it was the Gun-shine State."

In response, the state moved more juveniles into adult courts, increased sentences and eliminated parole for capital crimes.

Thomas K. Petersen, a semi-retired judge in Miami who spent a decade hearing cases in juvenile court, said that the state's reaction was out of proportion to the problem and that it has lately failed to take account of changed circumstances.

"Back in the 1990s, there were dire predictions about teenage super-predators, particularly in Florida," Judge Petersen said. "Florida, probably more than other places because of that rash of crimes, overreacted. It was a hysterical reaction."

"People still go around saying things have never been worse," he added. "But violent juvenile crime has gone down even as the juvenile population has grown."

The state's brief in Mr. Graham's case said juvenile crime fell 30 percent in the decade ended in 2004. It attributed the drop to its tough approach to the problem.

Shay Bilchik, who served as a state prosecutor in Miami from 1977 to 1993 and is now the director of the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown, said the state took a wrong turn.

"We were pretty aggressive in those years in transferring kids into criminal court," Mr. Bilchik said. "There was a feeling that we needed to protect our streets."

He said later research convinced him that his office's approach was much too aggressive and had not served to deter crime.

"My biggest regret," Mr. Bilchik said, "is that during the time I was in the prosecutor's office, we were under the false impression that we were insuring greater public safety when we were not."

obama & supreme court agree: detainees are not "persons" and torture is logical consequence of detention

[redsock guest post]

In the ever-growing list of ideologies shared by both Barack Obama and the Cheney administration - not to mention some of the most brutal dictators in history - we can add this:

The Obama administration had asked the [U.S. Supreme] court ... [to] let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -– a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" -– did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law. ...

Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad. ...

The circuit court ruled that "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military's detention of suspected enemy combatants."

The United States Supreme Court agreed with Obama's Justice [sic] Department lawyers and agreed not to hear the case, which had been brought by four British former Guantanamo prisoners against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others.

Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights found the decision more than a little similar to the Dred Scott decision of 1857. In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court answered what it believed to be a key question

... can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution?

with a "No".

Chris Floyd, who writes the Empire Burlesque blog, noted that the current Supreme Court let stand a ruling that

anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever ...

The Constitution is clear: no person can be held without due process; no person can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And the U.S. law on torture of any kind is crystal clear: it is forbidden, categorically, even in time of "national emergency." ...

And yet this is what Barack Obama -- who, we are told incessantly, is a super-brilliant Constitutional lawyer -- has been arguing in case after case since becoming president: Torturers are immune from prosecution; those who ordered torture are immune from prosecution. ... ... What's more, in championing the lower court ruling, Barack Obama is now on record as believing -- insisting -- that torture is an ordinary, "foreseeable consequence" of military detention ...

And still further: Barack Obama has now declared, openly, of his own free will, that he does not consider these captives to be "persons." They are, literally, sub-humans. ...

This is President Barack Obama believes -- believes so strongly that he has put the full weight of the government behind a relentless series of court actions to preserve, protect and defend these arbitrary powers. ...

Barack Obama has had the audacity to declare himself the heir and embodiment of the lifework of Martin Luther King. Can this declaration of a whole new principle of universal slavery really be what King was dreaming of? Is this the vision he saw on the other side of the mountain? Or is not the nightmarish inversion of the ideal of a better, more just, more humane world that so many have died for, in so many places, down through the centuries?

new court martial offense for u.s. troops: pregnancy

A U.S. Army general in northern Iraq has added pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier under his command could be court-martialed.

The new policy, outlined last month by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo and released Friday by the Army, would apply to both female soldiers who become pregnant on the battlefield and the male soldiers who impregnate them.

Civilians reporting to Cucolo also could face criminal prosecution under the new guidelines.

Army spokesman George Wright said the service typically sends home from the battlefield soldiers who become pregnant. But it is not an Army-wide policy to punish them under the military's legal code, he said.

However, division commanders like Cucolo have the authority to impose these type of restrictions to personnel operating under their command, Wright said.

At the same time, women in the military face great restrictions in terminating pregnancy. The Hyde Amendment makes it impossible to use federal funds for abortion services, which includes military hospitals at home or abroad. President Clinton reversed this ban, but Congress reversed the reversal - and cemented that as permanent in 1995.

more blog from gaza

In yesterday's post about David Heap and Wendy Goldsmith's blog from Gaza, I linked to their first post. Here's a better link to the whole blog. Today's entries are about the obstacles they're facing from Egypt.

is there anything the u.s. army won't do to its troops?

Jailed for performing a song, forced to go AWOL to get help for PTSD, separated from an infant baby... is there anything the US military won't do its troops?

I don't know if many of you get email updates from Courage To Resist. Courage is one of the principal organizations supporting military resisters in the US, and lately they've sent some really interesting information.

Marc Hall, an Army Specialist who was stop-lossed, was put in jail for speaking out against the policy that involuntarily re-upped him. As hip-hop artist Marc Watercus, Hall has written an angry and explicit song about stop-loss (listen here). Military personnel are not supposed to forfeit their First Amendment rights - and certainly not while off-duty.

Erick Jasinski was forced to go AWOL - to get treatment for his Iraq-related PTSD.

"In late 2008 they stop-lossed me, and that pushed me over the edge," Jasinski told IPS, "They were going to send me back to Iraq the next month."

During his pre-deployment processing "they gave me a 90-day supply of meds to get me over to Iraq, and I saw a counsellor during that period, and I told him "I don't know what I'm going to do if I go back to Iraq."

"He asked if I was suicidal," Jasinski explained, "and I said not right now, I'm not planning on going home and blowing my brains out. He said, 'well, you're good to go then.' And he sent me on my way. I knew at that moment, when they finalised my paperwork for Iraq, that there was no way I could go back with my untreated PTSD. I needed more help."

Alexis Hutchinson, a 21-year-old Specialist from Oakland, California, continues to live under restriction, and still faces court martial for choosing her infant over deployment. Alexis was not refusing to deploy. She was not speaking out against the war. She was asking for more time to find someone to care for her 11-month old son Kamani. Within a few days, however, the Army had tossed Alexis in the stockade and turned Kamani over to the Chatham County (Georgia) foster care system.

After the case garnered some media attention and a few congressional inquiries, the Army backed off - a little. But she's still in restricted custody and she still may be court martialed and forced to deploy.

You can read more about these soldiers, and what you can do to support them here.

happy everything

"is everyone who disagrees with stephen harper a taliban stooge, anti-semite or loony-left extremist?"

Excellent piece from the Toronto Star:

Shabby Tory smears

December 20, 2009

Is everyone who disagrees with Prime Minister Stephen Harper a Taliban stooge, a raving anti-Semite or a loony-left extremist? You'd think so, to hear the shabby low blows Harper and his cabinet are forever aiming at any and all who dare to criticize federal policy.

In Jerusalem this past week, Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney took aim at a Christian aid agency, KAIROS, in a speech that lauded Harper's support for Israel and railed against "anti-Semitic despots, terrorists and fanatics." KAIROS's sin, in Kenney's view, was its "leadership role in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign" against Israel. That's why the Tories "defunded" the agency, Kenney explained. (KAIROS denies favouring a boycott or disinvestment.)

Kenney's attack, sadly, was anything but an exception.

All through the Afghan detainee affair, the Conservatives have sought to brand Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and other critics as unpatriotic, hostile to Canada's troops, and Taliban dupes. Yet everyone from the U.S. government to our diplomats to the Red Cross had warned that Ottawa was taking a risk detainees might be tortured.

And it hardly ends there. Last month the Conservatives circulated flyers in opposition ridings with lots of Jewish voters implying that the Liberals are anti-Semites who back Hamas and Hezbollah. That led Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, a Jew, to accuse them of "false, misleading, prejudicial and pernicious slander."

Last year, they scrapped a $4.7 million travel program to promote Canadian culture abroad because past recipients, including journalists Gwynne Dyer and Avi Lewis, were "left wing" and "radical."

And a year before that, the Tories defamed then Liberal leader Stéphane Dion with attack ads implying he was a "sellout" or "traitor" to Quebec's interests, not to mention a criminal.

The Conservatives invite contempt with these endless, over-the-top smears. They discredit their party and its policies.

good news for jailed war resister cliff cornell

From James Branum, lawyer for war resisters in the US.

I have good news to report.

The commanding general at Fort Stewart granted Cliff Cornell a reduction of 30 days in his sentence in response to our 1105 Clemency request.

This is a huge development on two counts: (1) this will now mean that Cliff will NOT have a felony on his record (since his new sentence will be of 11 months, not 1 year), which will make it much easier to gain employment and to eventually return to his beloved community of Gabriola Island, and (2) 1105 requests are rarely granted!

On behalf of Cliff and those who care about him, I want to thank all of those who wrote letters on Cliff¹s behalf. I truly believe this is what made the difference. And especially want to thank the 40 or so folks who wrote from Gabriola and surrounding areas of British Columbia. Also huge thanks are due to Courage to Resist, Quaker House, the War Resisters Support Campaign, and Project Safe Haven for all of their work on this case.

I've talked to Cliff's supporters at Quaker House in Fayetteville, NC (they have been visiting Cliff pretty religiously - pun intended - while he has been at the Camp Lejeune Brig) and they are planning a celebration upon his release. As soon as I know more details, I¹ll let folks know.

For anyone who doesn't know Cliff's story, he fled to Canada to avoid an Iraq deployment due to reasons of conscience. After about a year, he established himself in the small community of Gabriola Island, in British Columbia. Cliff found a good job and a community that loved and supported him, but in the end the government of Canada decided to deport him anyway. I was his lead defense attorney when for his court-martial at Fort Stewart, where he received a 12 month prison sentence. Cliff has since been serving his sentence at the USMC Camp Lejeune brig.

Here, I wrote about Cliff's time in the brig.

We are all thrilled that James was able to secure this reduced sentence for Cliff, and we look forward to the day when Cliff is reunited with his beloved Gabriola Island.

blog from gaza

A contingent of peace activists from London, Ontario, will soon be traveling to Gaza as part of the Gaza Freedom March. Two members of the group - wmtc reader-commenter, and my friend and fellow activist, David Heap, and Wendy Goldsmith, another great peace and justice activist - will be blogging about their experiences on Rabble.

You can follow David and Wendy's blog here.

why i can't watch the olympics anymore

Last year, I wrote about not watching the Beijing Olympics. It turns out that was a symptom of a more general condition. I can't watch the Olympics in their present form at all.

For many progressive people, it's easy to get behind anti-Olympics sentiment, because sport doesn't budge the needle on their What's Important meters. It's not uncommon for progressives to disdain all sports, even to boast about their ignorance - sport seemingly the only avenue of human endeavour for which it's acceptable, even preferable, to be utterly ignorant. Those who aren't contemptuous will admit their lack of interest with a shrug. Think of Amy Goodman discussing being harassed by border guards, admitting she had no idea that Olympics were being held to Vancouver. I doubt many in the audience were too surprised.

But I appreciate sport. There are sports that I love watching, there are sports that bore me, and there are many in the middle that I enjoy to some extent. Beyond that, I appreciate - and I'm often in awe of - the talent, drive, dedication and incredible effort that goes into competing on the international level. Anyone who can qualify for the Olympics is a great athlete, and anyone who earns any medal is one of the best in the world.

There's also my connection to the Paralympics. I wrote about disability sports, especially wheelchair sports, for more than 20 years, including covering the 1996 Paralympics in Atlanta. From interviewing athletes with disabilities over so many years, I've developed an intimate understanding of their journeys and their issues. I can't help but feel connected to their events.

So unlike many of my progressive friends and colleagues, when I think about the Olympics, I have many competing thoughts and feelings at stake.

There are so many reasons to protest the 2010 games.

Perhaps first on my list should be the stifling of dissent, and the choking of the civil liberties of Canadians protesting the Games. The BC Civil Liberties Union is helping two activists who are challenging the constitutionality of Vancouver's new gag law, the "Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games By-law".

The city passed the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games bylaw in June to restrict the distribution and exhibition of unapproved advertising material and signs in any Olympic area during the Games.

It includes an exception for celebratory signs, which are defined as those that celebrate the 2010 Winter Games and create or enhance a festive environment and atmosphere.

In the statement of claim, Shaw said he intends to distribute information about his book, The Five Ring Circus, which is critical of the Olympics, with the intention of promoting sales.

He also said he intends to sell T-shirts, buttons, badges, hats and other apparel emblazoned with Olympic Resistance Network marks and messages critical of the costs imposed by the Games.

The pair are asking the court to declare the bylaw's provisions unconstitutional and order the City of Vancouver not to enforce them, but Westergard-Thorpe said she finds the whole exercise unfortunate.

"Going to court on a clear-cut free expression issue is a waste of time and money," Westergard-Thorpe said.

"We've all got better things to do, but if the city insists on passing bad bylaws, people who value free speech have no choice but to stand up and challenge them," she said.

As Cory Doctorow explains,

The bylaw includes a passage entitled "prohibitions regarding city land," which includes a clause that will almost surely trigger a Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge. Clause 4B makes it illegal during the Winter Games without authorization to:

"(a) bring onto city land any
(i) weapon,
(ii) object, including any rock, stick, or glass or metal bottle useable as a weapon, except for crutches or a cane that a person who is elderly or disabled uses as a mobility aid,
(iii) large object, including any bag, or luggage that exceeds 23 x 40 x 55 centimetres;
(iv) voice amplification equipment including any megaphone,
(v) motorized vehicle, except for a motorized wheel chair or scooter that a person who is elderly or disabled uses as a mobility aid,
(vi) anything that makes noise that interferes with the enjoyment of entertainment on city land by other persons,
(vii) distribute any advertising material or install or carry any sign unless licensed to do so by the city."

Protest signs usually are made using sticks, often are larger than subsection (iii) allows (as are puppets and other protest devices), demonstrations almost always employ megaphones or other voice amplification devices, and can well "interfere with the enjoyment" of the Olympic spectacle by who chose to be so offended. Protesters often pass out leaflets as well. Thus, any of the dozens of protests I've attended over the last few years would easily be in violation of five of seven subsections.

High on the list of reasons to protest the Vancouver Olympics should also be the billions of dollars wasted in a city that suffers from a housing crisis and some of the highest poverty rates in Canada. Environmental destruction and the continued appropriation of Native land go hand in hand with this arrogant, wasteful, entitled mentality.

As a footnote to all this, VANOC originally banned the excellent athlete-supported organization Right To Play from the athletes' Olympics village, because of - what else? - competing sponsorship. They were forced to reconsider after an onslaught of negative publicity.

These are all valid reasons to protest and shun the Olympics, and if I lived in BC I probably would have joined the fray long ago.

But as much as I stand in solidarity with the struggle for free speech and environmental preservation, what ultimately drives me away from the Games are the evil conjoined twins of nationalism and corporate consumerism.

Even when I loved the Olympics and Paralympics, I was never nationalistic about the competition. I never cheered for any country's medal count; I could never stomach the quasi-military pageantry of marching and flag-waving. But I overlooked it, because I loved the sport - and probably because I was less evolved in my thinking.

Now I've come to see nationalism as one of the most destructive forces in the world - an agent of division, an ever-present rationale for war, the enemy of the cooperative, international, universally-human mindset we need if human civilization is going to survive. And I can no longer distinguish between patriotism and nationalism as some do. If there was a way to see the world's most talented athletes compete another configuration, grouped in some other way than by national flag, I could get behind it. But rah-rah Canada is no better than rah-rah United States. It's us against them, and we're better than they are because we live on this piece of land and they live on that one.

When it comes to the Olympics, nationalism wears a bar code. The Olympics have become one gargantuan extended commercial for Love Of Country, as we are inundated with imprecations to buy, buy, buy - buy to show your pride.

This week I flicked on "The National" for the first time in a long time. They were doing a story on Olympic gear - what's hot, and what everyone is looking for at the various Hudson Bay Company stores, which of course have the exclusive rights to "official" Olympic merchandise. In other words, CBC was running an extended commercial disguised as a news story. The story goes like this. Canadians want to support "our" athletes. We can support our athletes by buying stuff. Buying stuff means you have pride in Canada. Do you love Canada? Do you cheer for Canadian athletes? Then buy stuff.

In this equation, patriotism is inextricable from consumerism. Canadians dutifully march to the store and announce their love of country by exchanging their hard-earned dollars for a bunch of crap with a Maple Leaf sewn on.

Pride in "our" athletes doesn't extend to "our" workers. HBC laid off 1,000 people earlier this year - and their Olympic gear isn't made in Canada. VANOC claims the gear is "produced according to a high level of ethical sourcing and social responsibility," but we have no way of verifying that. Knowing what I do of the garment industry and international standards, I wouldn't put the claim in my shopping basket.

Net proceeds from one item are "helping complete the funding of the five-year Own the Podium 2010 initiative, which provides Canadian athletes with top equipment and training for the 2010 Games". What about all the other items? Who do they help? HBC stockholders. HBC's parent company is the US firm NRDC Equity Partners. That's some slick sleight-of-hand that has Canadian believing that this is somehow a patriotic exchange.

Along with the orgy of nationalistic consumerism comes the corporate branding of Everything Olympic. And for me, nothing is worse than the ominipresent logos of McDonald's and Coca-Cola. Two companies whose names are synonymous with poor nutrition, bad health, environmental destruction and the corporate takeover of the planet are now as integral to the Olympics as starting blocks and skis. But in Canada, there's a Maple Leaf in the middle of that big golden M. See? It's patriotic!

* * * *

Someone will inevitably ask why I eschew the Olympics, but continue to watch major league baseball. Baseball, too, is rife with advertising and consumerism, in a way that often drives me completely around the bend. My answer is simple: I love baseball. Baseball is too important to me to give up, for any reason. I find a relaxation and renewal in the game - especially in the nightly ritual of baseball in our home - that nothing else in my daily life brings. I simply love it too much to allow prevailing cultural winds push me away. I don't claim moral purity. I'm only doing what feels right.

Shortly after we moved to Canada, the 2006 Torino Olympics began. I loved how in Canada "the Olympics" means the winter games. In the US, there are "the Olympics" and the "winter Olympics," which are less hyped and less popular. I was also thrilled to find the greater visibility the Paralympics enjoy here, compared with their near-invisibility in the US. I never cheered for U-S-A U-S-A, but I imagined I'd get into cheering for Canada.

Ah, well. I still think there are aspects of the Olympics worth celebrating. But some things are just more important.

do something

Everyone who feels that the problems of the world are so overwhelming that nothing can be done, and so, does nothing - everyone who wonders where to start, so never starts - everyone who confuses clicking on a Facebook group with creating change - this essay is for you.

And every activist who gets tired of explaining why activism is important, but still looks for new ways to explain, this is for you, too.

Derrick Jensen, in Orion, an excerpt:

I want you to make the time to find what or whom you love — whether it's salmon, sturgeon, a patch of forest, survivors of domestic violence, your own indigenous tradition, migratory songbirds, coral reefs, or Appalachian mountaintops — and I want you to dig in and defend your beloved with your life, and, if necessary, with your death. I want for your actions to positively contribute to the health and defense of the planet. I want for you to figure out how to make it so the world — the real, physical world — is a better place because you were born, and because you lived here.

All of this leads to the point, which is, put simply, to do something. Several years ago I was giving a talk to several hundred people about bringing down civilization. The audience was excited. The atmosphere was like a rock concert. I suddenly stopped and asked, "How many of you have ever filed a timber-sale appeal?" Four or five. "How many have worked on a rape crisis hotline?" Ten women. "How many have done indigenous support work?" Three or four. And so on. It's all well and good to talk about the Great Glorious Revolution, but what are you doing right now?

The big dividing line is not and has never been between those who advocate more or less militant forms of resistance, or between mainstream and grassroots activists. The dividing line is between those who do something and those who do nothing.

Do something.

That's what I want you to do. That's what the anadromous fish and the Appalachian mountaintops want you to do too.

So does peace. And free speech, and reproductive rights, and equality.

Read it here in Orion magazine.

jim prentice vs johann hari

The Globe and Mail says that Jim Prentice "lauds the Copenhagen pact" and wants us to do the same.

The federal government wasted no time Saturday trying to take some of the sting out of criticism that it failed to play a meaningful role in global climate change talks in Denmark that produced a shaky agreement.

Hours after returning home from Denmark Saturday, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice started the job of selling the agreement to the Canadian public, calling it a significant step toward reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

I got news for you, Jim. The only people buying have already been bought and sold. The rest of us know better.

The best wrap-up on Copenhagen I've seen so far is from Johann Hari, writing in The Independent (UK).

So that's it. The world's worst polluters – the people who are drastically altering the climate – gathered here in Copenhagen to announce they were going to carry on cooking, in defiance of all the scientific warnings.

They didn't seal the deal; they sealed the coffin for the world's low-lying islands, its glaciers, its North Pole, and millions of lives.

Those of us who watched this conference with open eyes aren't surprised. Every day, practical, intelligent solutions that would cut our emissions of warming gases have been offered by scientists, developing countries and protesters – and they have been systematically vetoed by the governments of North America and Europe.

It's worth recounting a few of the ideas that were summarily dismissed – because when the world finally resolves to find a real solution, we will have to revive them.

Discarded Idea One: The International Environmental Court. Any cuts that leaders claim they would like as a result of Copenhagen will be purely voluntary. If a government decides not to follow them, nothing will happen, except a mild blush, and disastrous warming. Canada signed up to cut its emissions at Kyoto, and then increased them by 26 per cent – and there were no consequences. Copenhagen could unleash a hundred Canadas.

The brave, articulate Bolivian delegates – who have seen their glaciers melt at a terrifying pace – objected. They said if countries are serious about reducing emissions, their cuts need to be policed by an International Environmental Court that has the power to punish people. This is hardly impractical. When our leaders and their corporate lobbies really care about an issue – say, on trade – they pool their sovereignty this way in a second. The World Trade Organisation fines and sanctions nations severely if (say) they don't follow strict copyright laws. Is a safe climate less important than a trademark?

Discarded Idea Two...

Go here; it's worth reading.

lyrics in disguise

Everybody's wearing a disguise
To hide what they've got left behind their eyes.
But me, I can't cover what I am
Wherever the children go I'll follow them

Bob Dylan, "Abandoned Love"

My current musical obsession, Bob Dylan's "Abandoned Love," on the Biograph collection, is reminding me how much I love the Rolling Thunder Revue sound, and the Desire album, in spite of some of the dubious songwriting. It makes me want to dig up all the Rolling Thunder music we have, although I fear admitting that, because Allan may soon appear with a mountain of bootlegs and outtakes that will quickly bury and kill my interest.

"Abandoned Love" is in turn reminding me of another musical obsession, REM's "Supernatural Superserious," a fascination that started the minute I heard the song, pre-release, in early 2008, and has only barely slacked off in nearly two years.

Everybody here
Comes from somewhere
That they would just as soon forget
And disguise

Peter Buck, Mike Mills, Michael Stipe, "Supernatural Superserious"

As I don't pay attention to a music scene anymore, I had no idea the song was originally titled "Disguised". Worlds collide!

the harper government drags canada through the mud, and it stinks

It's been quite a week for our ill-esteemed government.

Jason Kenney admitted that KAIROS was de-funded for purely political reasons.

Stephen Harper wasn't invited to the emergency closing meeting in Copenhagen, as Canada won its third consecutive Fossil of the Year "award".

Richard Colvin proved what we all knew: that Peter MacKay has been lying all along, and the government both knew about the torture of detainees and conspired to cover it up.

We learned that Canadian military police have been investigating Canadian troops for credible allegations of torture for more than a year.

And the rumour about another prorogation was just that.*

Who will bring Canada back from this insanity?

* Update. I've been informed that this is incorrect. Harper can still ask to prorogue.

what was that about canadian troops not torturing prisoners?

Conservative response to Canadian complicity in torture of Afghan people:

1. Attack the messenger, smear his name, slam his credibility. If that doesn't work, go to

2. People were tortured but we didn't know about it. If that doesn't work, go to

3. It's not really torture, it's just rough treatment. If that doesn't work, go to

4. It's not as if Canadians actually tortured anyone. If that doesn't work, go to

5. The prisoners are bad people. They deserved it. If that doesn't work,

6. See number one.

Conservative Canadians are completely hung up on item #4. Browse through the comments section on any mainstream news story, if you can stand it, and you'll find the usual suspects instructing you to "give your head a shake" because Canadians didn't torture anyone. Afghans roughed up other Afghans, and those people do stuff like that all the time, because they're barbaric.

Hey guess what?

Canada's military police have been quietly investigating allegations for more than a year that the country's troops abused Afghan detainees, CBC News has learned.

Canadian soldiers captured the detainees sometime in 2008 and the investigation into their conduct has been ongoing for at least a year.

It was uncovered in documents obtained by CBC News. The documents were written for Defence Minister Peter Mackay in March to prepare him for question period.

The documents reveal that in 2008, military police launched six separate investigations into allegations of abuse involving Canadian troops.

And by the way, knowingly handing over people to be tortured and torturing people your own self are not appreciably different - to the victim, to your ethical and moral responsibility, or to international law.

GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

This is not peculiar to Afghanistan. It's not peculiar to Canada. It's part of war. Canada is involved in this torture scandal because Canada is at war. War involves torture. The torture is wrong, and the war is wrong.

Canada out of Afghanistan NOW.

Thanks to Canadian Cynic for this post and this one. I don't know how they bring themselves to read that right-wing crap, but I'm glad they do.

photos: the world wants a real deal

Have you seen these photos?

350.org has collected photos from the climate change candlelight vigils that were held all over the planet last weekend.

There's so much great stuff to see and read at the 350.org site. If you haven't spent much time there, take some time to see what people are doing to create change.

canadian complaints choir

If USians are always bragging, Canadians are always complaining. Both are massive generalizations, of course, and subject to all the usual disclaimers. But damned if it isn't true eight times out of ten.

Wmtc reader David Heap sent me this great clip from "As It Happens". I was going to save it for the February doldrums, but it's just too good to wait. Enjoy.

colvin: their testimony is inaccurate and incomplete

Colvin's latest testimony here, on pdf.

Keep on rocking, Richard Colvin. Show us how it's done.

climate change activists occupying harper's office

Climate change activists occupied Stephen Harper's constituent office this morning. Go here for stories and photos.

what i'm watching: food, inc.

We watched "Food, Inc." last night, Robert Kenner and Eric Schlosser's documentary based on ideas popularized by Schlosser (Fast Food Nation), Michael Pollan (Omnivore's Dilemma) and the local food movement. I was skeptical that a 90-minute film could faithfully explore enough of these issues, but I was very impressed with the outcome. If you haven't seen Food, Inc., I highly recommend it. I think I'll add it to our small film collection, along with the companion book, so I can lend it out to interested folks.

I've written several times about Michael Pollan, and my own efforts to change our buying and eating habits. (See the "food issues" category.) We made a complicated and expensive switch to eating only locally-produced meat products. But more recently we haven't been able to continue that, because we simply can't afford it.

Then last night, watching footage of chickens, pigs and cows trapped in factory farms, I thought, that's it, I'll go back to being a vegetarian rather than be complicit in this exploitation. I need to remove myself from this system, just like we removed ourselves from the US war machine. I can't go back. We'll eat the more expensive, locally-produced meat, we'll just eat it less.

I woke up in the middle of night thinking about chickens, pigs and cows. This is not a voice I can ignore.

"Food, Inc." has a slightly different accent than Omnivore's Dilemma. Where Pollan focuses more on the connection between the industrial food chain and environmental destruction, Food, Inc. focuses more on the connection between exploited animals and exploited workers. All three are intimately intertwined, of course (and Pollan, Schlosser and Kenner all make that clear), but Food, Inc. puts a sharp emphasis on labour.

We see the deplorable conditions that industrial food workers endure as a reflection of the deplorable conditions the animals suffer for their entire lives. Joel Salatin of Polyface Farm - the hero of Omnivore's Dilemma - says (paraphrased), "A company that treats the earth and food and animals with contempt and disdain, in turn has disdain for the people of the community, and further, disdain for other peoples in the community of nations." Thus we see the connection between the stewardship of our planet, our health, our labour - and peace.

It was great to see Salatin - to see what he looks like and hear him speak. Although I know he and I would disagree on many issues, he is a true radical, living his ideals and blazing a righteous trail. I admire him so much. (And I want eggs from his farm!)

The connection between the industrial food chain and exploited labour is more direct than you might think. After NAFTA, cheap (government subsidized) US corn flooded Mexican markets, and thousands of Mexican traditional corn farmers were ruined. Meat packing companies then went to Mexico to recruit workers, bringing busloads of undocumented workers into the country. Obviously this could only happen by arrangement with governmental authorities.

In an excellent segment with a Latino labour organizer (another hero), we see how the anti-immigrant political climate plays out in this world. Smithfield workers who have been toiling under horrendous conditions for 10, 15 years, are arrested and hauled off like criminals. But there are no large-scale raids. A dozen or so workers are taken away each week - scapegoating the workers, but leaving the company's production untouched. Also obviously by prior arrangement.

The workers are used up and thrown back, not unlike the animals. The producers under contract to Tyson and Smithfield don't fare much better. Deeply in debt and slaves to the company's production methods, they are little more than sharecroppers. A producer who speaks out because she can no longer live with the horror of her job - and refuses to take the next step in the ever-worsening conditions for the chickens - soon has her contract cancelled.

And if you think it's "only" chickens and unskilled workers I'm crying for, watch this film, and tell me you want to eat chickens raised this way.

Four or five giant corporations control the entire industrial food chain - and not one of them consented to an interview for this movie.

The film includes some very dark, scary segments about the power these companies have over people's lives - investigating, harassing, threatening and suing farmers for practices farmers have used for generations. Monsanto, Cargill and ADM are suing ordinary people for speaking, but working to re-write laws so they cannot be sued. These giants can invest unlimited resources in a lawsuit against an ordinary farmer, who will exhaust all his savings and credit before he even gets to court. All it takes is one or two such examples to terrorize an entire community into silence.

And how can this happen? Because of the revolving door between industry and the so-called regulatory system - which is no longer a regulatory system at all, but an inside-government track for industry. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. It began under Reagan and the first Bush, didn't miss a beat under Clinton, and naturally continues to this day.

Meanwhile, a woman who lost a child to E. coli poisoning - in meat that was recalled only days later - has since become a food safety advocate. She says, "All we wanted was the company to say, 'We produced this defective food that killed your son, and we're sorry.' That's all we wanted. And they couldn't give that to us." "Kevin's Law" still has not been passed.

Do you know why there is E. coli in the food system? (Read Omnivore's Dilemma.) Cows are meant to eat grass. But cows who eat corn get fatter faster, so forced corn feeding allows more beef to produced. And guess what, there just happens to be a mountain - a mountain range - of surplus corn, thanks to US government subsidies.

Cows that live in feed lots eating corn are beset by a host of problems, one of which is that they stand up to their shins in manure all day. By the time they get to the killing floor, they are covered in shit.

Rather than fix the cause of the problem, and feed the cows their natural diet of grass, the industry shoots them full of antibiotics (which live on in the food chain, leading to antibiotic-resistant strains of E. coli), then douses the beef with ammonia.

The beef from Joel Salatin's farm is never contaminated by E. coli. It is never treated with ammonia. No one gets sick from eating it. Workers don't get sick processing it. And in my estimation, cows don't suffer during their lifetimes. They live like cows.

At the end of Food, Inc., Michael Pollan says, We need to spend more money for food. But many people simply can't do that, and that's why we need change at the policy level. So that carrots are a better deal than chips.

He evokes the battle over tobacco as a model for how consumers, activists and legislators can force an an industry to change.

Meanwhile, I have to go back to Beretta Farms. For me, it's the only way.

gerard kennedy: canada has failed war resisters

Yesterday, MP Gerard Kennedy, sponsor of Bill C-440, the private member's bill in support of US war resisters in Canada, visited Rodney Watson, the war resister who is living in sanctuary in First United Church of Vancouver. From Metro Vancouver:

Canada has failed a U.S. war resister who has spent the last three months claiming sanctuary inside the First United Church, a former federal Liberal leadership candidate said yesterday.

Gerard Kennedy, MP for Parkdale-Highpark (Ontario), met with Rodney Watson, a U.S. army deserter who has lived inside the Downtown Eastside church to avoid deportation since mid-September.

Kennedy, who came fourth in the 2006 Liberal leadership race, has introduced a private member's bill to amend the Immigration Act. It would allow U.S. resisters of the Iraq War to stay in Canada on compassionate grounds.

"It's about a Canadian sensibility," Kennedy said. "We're friends with the Americans, but we can't really be friends if we can't disagree with them."

Kennedy, whose bill comes before Parliament in February or March, said the tradition of allowing conscientious objectors to stay in Canada dates back to the 1960s.

Watson, whose Canadian son celebrated his first birthday yesterday, came to Canada in 2006 after he was "stop-lossed" — his military contract was extended and he would have been returned to a war zone in Iraq or Afghanistan.

There are believed to be a couple hundred war resisters in Canada, said Sarah Bjorknas with the War Resisters Support Campaign. Three have been deported.

blame canada, climate change edition

Sara Marlowe performing at the Planet First People First climate change rally in Toronto: "Sweet Home, Alberta," and "Blame Canada (Climate Change Edition)".

Bonus Track:

petition demanding resignation of defence minister peter mackay

Petition calling for the resignation of Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

reply to jared diamond: "we think we are the doctors. we are the disease."

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you know I love the work of Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse. GGS changed the way I look at the world, and was one of the best non-fiction books I've ever read. Collapse was a still-brilliant, but more accessible, continuation of the same ideas, and a book I recommend to everyone.

So it was with great dismay that I read the title of Diamond's most recent Op-Ed in the New York Times: "Will Big Business Save the Earth?" I know Diamond to be an intelligent, nuanced thinker, seemingly without a partisan agenda, and a scrupulous researcher. I certainly owe it to him to get past a headline. After all, headlines are meant to grab attention, and often misrepresent a story.

I read the story, and was just as dismayed.

In "Will Big Business Save the Earth?," Diamond profiles three companies that have adopted more sustainable business practices, and that are (he says) committed to even greener targets within the next few years: Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Chevron.

The hardest for me to swallow is Coca-Cola. Diamond writes:

The key ingredient in Coke products is water. The company produces its beverages in about 200 countries through local franchises, all of which require a reliable local supply of clean fresh water.

But water supplies are under severe pressure around the world, with most already allocated for human use. The little remaining unallocated fresh water is in remote areas unsuitable for beverage factories, like Arctic Russia and northwestern Australia.

Coca-Cola can't meet its water needs just by desalinizing seawater, because that requires energy, which is also increasingly expensive. Global climate change is making water scarcer, especially in the densely populated temperate-zone countries, like the United States, that are Coca-Cola's main customers. Most competing water use around the world is for agriculture, which presents sustainability problems of its own.

Hence Coca-Cola's survival compels it to be deeply concerned with problems of water scarcity, energy, climate change and agriculture. One company goal is to make its plants water-neutral, returning to the environment water in quantities equal to the amount used in beverages and their production. Another goal is to work on the conservation of seven of the world's river basins, including the Rio Grande, Yangtze, Mekong and Danube — all of them sites of major environmental concerns besides supplying water for Coca-Cola.

These long-term goals are in addition to Coca-Cola's short-term cost-saving environmental practices, like recycling plastic bottles, replacing petroleum-based plastic in bottles with organic material, reducing energy consumption and increasing sales volume while decreasing water use.

Now let's step back.

Coke takes a precious public resource, adds extremely inexpensive ingredients containing no nutritional value, packages the result in plastic, then markets and sells it back to the public at an enormous profit margin. Its product is a human-made creation that serves no useful purpose or need, unless we consider its boon to dentists, the diet industry and the advertising world. Coke products are laden with empty calories, or in the non-caloric versions, potentially harmful chemicals. They create or increase humans' addiction to artificially sweet, non-nutritive products, which has been proven to perpetuate a cycle of further unhealthy eating. In other words, the products are addictive. After the product is consumed, it litters the world with plastic, which in most areas of the world will never be recycled.

Savers of the Earth? Hardly.

This may seem strange, but I find it easier to accept Diamond's defense of Chevron than his plaudits for Coca-Cola. We all know the dangers of petroleum, and we understand the need to reduce our consumption of it. But in the world we live in right now, we need oil. We need it to heat our homes and we need it for transportation, including public transit. If Chevron can become a model for less environmentally destructive oil extraction practices, that's a good step (although insufficient). What value does Coca-Cola provide?

Then there's Wal-Mart. The behemoth is adopting greener practices for two reasons: to save money and to counter its well-deserved negative public image. Diamond writes:

Obviously, a business can save money by finding ways to spend less while maintaining sales. This is what Wal-Mart did with fuel costs, which the company reduced by $26 million per year simply by changing the way it managed its enormous truck fleet. Instead of running a truck's engine all night to heat or cool the cab during mandatory 10-hour rest stops, the company installed small auxiliary power units to do the job. In addition to lowering fuel costs, the move eliminated the carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to taking 18,300 passenger vehicles off the road.

Wal-Mart is also working to double the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet by 2015, thereby saving more than $200 million a year at the pump. Among the efficient prototypes now being tested are trucks that burn biofuels generated from waste grease at Wal-Mart's delis. Similarly, as the country's biggest private user of electricity, Wal-Mart is saving money by decreasing store energy use.

Another Wal-Mart example involves lowering costs associated with packaging materials. Wal-Mart now sells only concentrated liquid laundry detergents in North America, which has reduced the size of packaging by up to 50 percent. Wal-Mart stores also have machines called bailers that recycle plastics that once would have been discarded. Wal-Mart's eventual goal is to end up with no packaging waste.

One last Wal-Mart example shows how a company can save money in the long run by buying from sustainably managed sources. Because most wild fisheries are managed unsustainably, prices for Chilean sea bass and Atlantic tuna have been soaring. To my pleasant astonishment, in 2006 Wal-Mart decided to switch, within five years, all its purchases of wild-caught seafood to fisheries certified as sustainable.

What doesn't Diamond mention? Wal-Mart's growth far outstrips its planned energy savings. It has abandoned more than 300 buildings as retail outlets move to even bigger superstores. It contributes to untold water pollution with parking lots often three times the size of its stores. Its business model has led to a dramatic increase in the distances USians drive to shop: an increase of about 40% since 1990. All over the US, Wal-Mart faces fines for environmental violations: air pollution, water pollution and toxic waste dumping. (Details on all this and more are available from this Wal-Mart Watch environmental fact sheet (pdf).)

Wal-Mart also does a number of other things to save money. It pays poverty-level wages. It forces its employees to work "off the clock" (that is, without pay). It doesn't cover most employees' health benefits. Fires employees when they reach a pay ceiling - if you can consider $11/hour a ceiling; more like a crawl space. Busts unions. Violates basic labour laws. Forces workers to skip breaks. And on and on.

Hailing Wal-Mart's cost-cutting practices when they help the environment but turning a blind eye to its destructive labour practices (also aimed at cost-cutting) pretends we can separate people from the environment. But we can't. It's all connected. Wal-Mart workers who live in poverty also live in the degraded environment Wal-Mart creates. They have to eat cheap, industrially produced food, because that's all they can afford. They buy cheap, disposable goods shipped at great fuel cost from the other side of the globe, and can barely afford those. They turn to the military to provide health benefits and education that their Wal-Mart jobs can't afford, and thus become part of the global military-industrial complex that continues to ravage the earth.

In Collapse, Diamond shows what a difference sustainable business models can make. One story that sticks in my mind is of Home Depot's decision to purchase lumber made from sustainable forestry practices. Diamond chronicles the complex, labour-intensive process of ensuring that forestry actually is sustainable, the fragility of that process through the entire supply chain, and ultimately the great difference responsible buying practices can make. It's impressive. But it was also cautionary. These practices are difficult to create and take real commitment to maintain. And it's all voluntary. A new CEO, a less responsive board of directors, a slacking-off of public pressure, great economic pressures to lower prices - many factors can combine to whittle away those sustainable practices.

Any time any organization - private company, non-profit, government - adopts more environmentally friendly practices, it's a positive step. But capitalism will never be - can never be - the answer to environmental problems, because it is the cause.

Chris Hedges spoke to environmental activist and author Derrick Jensen. Hedges quotes Jensen:

"If all we do is reform work, this culture will grind away. This work is necessary, but not sufficient. We need to use whatever means are necessary to stop this culture from killing the planet. We need to target and take down the industrial infrastructure that is systematically dismembering the planet. Industrial civilization is functionally incompatible with life on the planet, and is murdering the planet. We need to do whatever is necessary to stop this."

The oil and natural gas industry, the coal industry, arms and weapons manufacturers, industrial farms, deforestation industries, the automotive industry and chemical plants will not willingly accept their own extinction. They are indifferent to the looming human catastrophe. We will not significantly reduce carbon emissions by drying our laundry in the backyard and naively trusting the power elite. The corporations will continue to cannibalize the planet for the sake of money. They must be halted by organized and militant forms of resistance. The crisis of global heating is a social problem. It requires a social response.

. . .

We can save groves of trees, protect endangered species and clean up rivers, all of which is good, but to leave the corporations unchallenged would mean our efforts would be wasted. These personal adjustments and environmental crusades can too easily become a badge of moral purity, an excuse for inaction. They can absolve us from the harder task of confronting the power of corporations.

The damage to the environment by human households is minuscule next to the damage done by corporations. Municipalities and individuals use 10 percent of the nation's water while the other 90 percent is consumed by agriculture and industry. Individual consumption of energy accounts for about a quarter of all energy consumption; the other 75 percent is consumed by corporations. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States. We can, and should, live more simply, but it will not be enough if we do not radically transform the economic structure of the industrial world.

"If your food comes from the grocery store and your water from a tap you will defend to the death the system that brings these to you because your life depends on it," said Jensen, who is holding workshops around the country called Deep Green Resistance to build a militant resistance movement. "If your food comes from a land base and if your water comes from a river you will defend to the death these systems. In any abusive system, whether we are talking about an abusive man against his partner or the larger abusive system, you force your victims to become dependent upon you. . . ."

Those who run our corporate state have fought environmental regulation as tenaciously as they have fought financial regulation. They are responsible for our personal impoverishment as well as the impoverishment of our ecosystem.

. . .

"We need to separate ourselves from the corporate government that is killing the planet," Jensen said. "We need to get really serious. We are talking about life on the planet. We need to shut down the oil infrastructure. I don't care, and the trees don't care, if we do this through lawsuits, mass boycotts or sabotage."

. . .

The reason the ecosystem is dying is not because we still have a dryer in our basement. It is because corporations look at everything, from human beings to the natural environment, as exploitable commodities. It is because consumption is the engine of corporate profits. We have allowed the corporate state to sell the environmental crisis as a matter of personal choice when actually there is a need for profound social and economic reform. We are left powerless.

Alexander Herzen, speaking a century ago to a group of Russian anarchists working to topple the czar, reminded his followers that they were not there to rescue the system.

"We think we are the doctors," Herzen said. "We are the disease."

war resister rodney watson: week 13 in sanctuary

CTV-BC has an excellent photo gallery of the First United Church of Vancouver, where war resister Rodney Watson - and about 150 homeless people - have found sanctuary. Go here for photos.

Later today, MP Gerard Kennedy will visit Rodney, who now has lived in the church for 12 weeks.

From the War Resisters Support Campaign:

On September 17, one day before Watson took refuge in the church to avoid deportation to and certain jail time in the United States, Kennedy introduced private member’s Bill C-440: An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (war resisters). If passed, Kennedy’s bill would allow U.S. Iraq War resisters to stay in Canada making our government’s actions consistent with Canadian sentiment.

Bill C-440, which was seconded by Vancouver Member of Parliament Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas), would make binding on the government the direction that Parliament has already given twice (on June 3, 2008 and March 30, 2009) by way of motions that resulted from studies of the war resisters’ situation by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM).

Watson arrived in Canada in 2006 and was ordered to leave Canada by September 11, 2009 following a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment. His application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds remains outstanding.

“Parliament has voted twice directing the Harper minority to stop deporting people of conscience like Rodney,” said Michelle Robidoux, spokesperson for the War Resisters Support Campaign. “Cliff Cornell, another BC war resister, is in jail today because Prime Minister Stephen Harper has neglected his responsibility to act as directed by Canadians and our representatives. The majority of Canadians and our MPs want Iraq War resisters to stay here and the Prime Minister has an obligation to act as directed by Parliament.”

A public opinion poll conducted by Angus Reid Strategies in June 2008 following the first vote in the House of Commons found widespread approval (64 per cent) for Parliament’s direction to the minority Harper government: to immediately stop deporting Iraq War resisters and create a program to facilitate the resisters’ requests for permanent resident status.

* * * *

Support Bill C-440!

huffpo: best protest signs of the year

[redsock guest post]

A few of the Huffington Post's Funniest Protest Signs of 2009:

More signs here.

None of them can top this classic, though.



Who is this guy? The protest was in Missouri and one of his possible co-workers posted here in 2005 -- but this now-famous sign-holder has apparently never been identified.