Bradley Manning: Ruled by Conscience, Not Law
Alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning again made headlines recently, this time for being forced to strip naked in his prison cell at the US Marine base in Quantico, Virginia. Continuing to pay for his alleged crimes, Army Private Bradley Manning is locked in solitary confinement while being subjected to sleep deprivation and other humiliation tactics. But is it right for him to be forced to pay such a cost?
After public outcry at this act of humiliation, as well as harsh comments from the now-fired State Department spokesman PJ Crowley, many more people are aware of the abuse of Manning and are rallying for him to be treated justly. Nevertheless the media most often portray Manning as someone who indiscriminately stole the hundreds of thousands of secret documents without reason. But from what is known about Manning, this is utterly false.
Manning’s apparent motive in leaking the secret documents was not vindictiveness, but a sincere belief that public awareness would help right wrongs. In the partially released chat logs that are purportedly between Manning and hacker Adrian Lamo (who turned Manning in), Manning writes:
I want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public . . . I don’t believe in good guys vs bad guys anymore . . . I only [see] a plethora of states acting in self-interest . . . with varying ethical and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless.
This supports what friends and family have said about Manning’s moral convictions and political ideas. Always intelligent and opinionated, Manning then started to get into politics in high school. Frontline correspondent Martin Smith, who interviewed Manning’s family and friends, recently told NPR: “He opposed the war in Iraq and talked about that with friends. And he also start[ed] to get a reputation for being somewhat hot-headed.”
For Manning, whose job allowed him to spend hours digging through military databases while stationed in Iraq, the abuses of power he uncovered perhaps collided with those opinions. Documented abuses of power, including possible war crimes committed by the American military in Iraq and US diplomatic manipulations around the world, as well as the infamous Collateral Murder video showing the killing of Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists by the crew of a US military helicopter. All of these could have been what pushed Manning into the realm of principled law-breaking. In defense of such law-breaking, historian and political activist Howard Zinn writes: “Can a decent society exist. . . if people humbly obey all laws, even those that violate human rights? And when unjust laws and policies become the rule, should not the state (in Plato’s words) ‘be overthrown’?” Manning felt he had to do his part to bring about this “decent society,” even at great personal risk, which is currently being borne out in his imprisonment.
Meanwhile, human rights activists continue to advocate for an end to the military’s campaign of discrimination, torture, and humiliation against Manning. The military accuses Manning of thirty-four charges related to the document leak. At this time, Manning has not been convicted of any crimes, but a pre-trial hearing is tentatively set for late May 2011. Many see the punitive measures Manning is being subjected to as an effort by the Obama administration to intimidate other potential whistleblowers, saying quite clearly, “Your actions will not be tolerated”. While candidate Obama pledged to protect whistleblowers, his actions as president contradict his promise, as his administration deals with whistleblowers more harshly than any prior administration.
Others suggest that the treatment of Manning for such crimes is an attempt to wear down his resistance in order to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, because if evidence of collaboration between Manning and Assange is unearthed, the US can then charge and prosecute Assange. These suspicions seem warranted and would explain the lengths to which the US government has gone to imprison the 5’2″ physically harmless man in the conditions usually reserved for Supermax prisoners.
The military’s treatment of Manning is not so different in character from the corruption and war crimes he has been accused of exposing, as both are morally wrong and unlawful. In a public letter, around 300 of the nation’s leading law educators have decried the abuse of Manning as a direct violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, which protect due process and prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. Manning’s lawyer will also use Article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in Manning’s case, according to which he is not to be “subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him.” The US military and the Obama administration are ignoring these foundational laws, while simultaneously upholding other laws in an effort to further their own self-protection. The US government continues to imprison Manning for allegedly breaking laws that, in comparison, pale utterly to their law breaking he may have exposed and their law breaking they are using to imprison him.
Beyond the legal questions of the Manning case, the moral issues are at stake as well. Is breaking the law to expose such unlawful acts as corruption, war crimes, and backdoor dealings wrong? Our political tradition often upholds laws as a foundation for moral decision, yet this is often not the case. Departing from this tradition, whistleblowers adhere not to the laws made and upheld by corrupt institutions and people but to a higher law, a moral code. This is right. Laws are made to protect people, not serve as cover ups and a retaliatory means to condemn whistleblowers, so when these laws are being abused, it is the right of the people to seek to alter the law. The laws of our country should serve those who seek to right the wrongs at great personal risk, for it is these people who challenge our unjust laws that keep our democracy and freedoms alive and growing. Bradley Manning was willing to put himself at risk to right wrongs, and we owe it to him and every other whistleblower to hold our government accountable.
WikiLeaks Battles for the Future of Journalism
The organization WikiLeaks continues to be attacked by the very pillars of free society it is seeking to reform, much to the detriment of good governance and free press. WikiLeaks, with its staggered release of 250,000 US diplomatic cables working in tandem with the world’s most respected newspapers, has brought to light the power abuses by the world’s governments and corporations. WikiLeaks seeks to build a more transparent and honest system of government and media by shaking the corrupt foundations of political and journalistic structure to its core.
The leaked US embassy cables continue to draw attention around the world, revealing everything from systematic torture in India, to oil giant Shell’s infiltration of the Nigerian government, to United States’ efforts to force Spain to drop a murder investigation in the case of a Spanish cameraman killed by US soldiers. The cables have turned the world inside out, enabling us all to see the gruesome innards of government and diplomacy as usual.
Because of this, Julian Assange and his large WikiLeaks organization have come under repeated attack. First have been the attacks by the US government itself, whose acts of arm twisting and political bullying, as revealed in the leaked diplomatic cables, have brought it under the judging eyes of the world. In an effort to regain credibility, politicians in Washington are currently looking into prosecuting WikiLeaks under laws they are frantically working to revise or propose, such as the SHIELD Law. This raises suspicions about the ethics of US lawmakers, as ex post facto laws are expressly prohibited by the Constitution. However, Assange can only be tried if extradited by the United States, which is proving difficult as lawmakers are unable to pin a specific charge on him. If Assange were to be tried under current law, it might follow that the New York Times, which has published the classified documents, would also be affected by the outcome of that decision. A report by the Congressional Research Service doesn’t paint this as a very likely possibility:
“Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it. There may be First Amendment implications that would make such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based on concerns about government censorship.”
Currently, the United States government is seeking to prove Army Private Bradley Manning, who is suspected of leaking the cables, and Julian Assange worked together to gather the secret documents. If they can prove that Assange collaborated with Manning to release the information, the US may have a case against Assange as a co-conspirator. This theory has journalists and law professors in an uproar, as the relationship between reporter and confidential source lies at the heart of investigative journalism. Former Bush Justice Department official and now Harvard Law Professor Jeff Goldsmith wrote:
“But it [the prosecution theory] would not distinguish the Times and scores of other media outlets in the many cases in which reporters successfully solicit and arrange to receive classified information and documents directly from government officials. Prosecution of Assange on this theory would therefore raise awkward questions about why DOJ [Department of Justice] does not bring charges against the American media for soliciting classified information on a regular basis. It would be a fateful step for traditional press freedoms in the United States.”
Recent revelations about the conditions Manning is being held under show the seriousness of US efforts to indict Assange. Bradley Manning, a 23 year old Army Private, has never been convicted of a crime. Yet he has been held in solitary confinement in a US Marine prison in Virginia for the past 5 months, where his life is severely restricted and regimented. Here are just a few examples: Manning is unable to exercise in his cell; if he tries, he is forced to stop. Every 5 minutes during waking hours a guard asks Manning if he is ok; Manning must answer or the guards will come in and check on him. Manning is only allowed a few visitors and has been unable to speak to his family face to face. Those restrictions pale in comparison to the psychological toll that prolonged solitary confinement has been shown to have on prisoners. (This has led some countries to classify solitary confinement as a form of torture.) The journalist who exposed Manning’s prison conditions, Constitutional attorney and blogger Glenn Greenwald, provides an excellent analysis of solitary confinement. Some people believe the government hopes to so wear Manning down, that he will incriminate Assange as part of a plea bargain.
Meanwhile unlawful government censorship is continuing, despite the fact that WikiLeaks, like Manning, has not been officially charged with a crime. When WikiLeaks began its drawn out release of the diplomatic cables, their site, WikiLeaks.org, was shut down by its US based DNS provider. At the time of this writing, it is still not functioning. To keep the information accessible, WikiLeaks was picked up by other hosts around the world, but it needs to bounce around to avoid being shut down. (The most reliable mirror site so far has been http://wikileaks.ch/ .)
After the website itself was attacked, several large companies, such as Amazon, Visa, PayPal, and, most recently, Bank of America withdrew their services to WikiLeaks, saying that WikiLeaks had violated their “Terms of Service” by publishing illegally obtained documents. Though with warning comments from Senator Joseph Liebermann about aiding WikiLeaks, the motive behind the companies suddenly dropping their services seems curious at best. This blatant attack on free speech and internet freedom has prompted several cyberattacks by WikiLeaks supporters Anonymous. These attacks have not been condoned by Mr. Assange.
WikiLeaks is also being discredited by some in the media. Consider, for example, the falsehood in some media outlets that says WikiLeaks dumped all of the 250,000 cables online without any concern for journalistic ethics. This story has been repeated on NPR and TIME, among others. Again, WikiLeaks has only published cables that have first been published by the newspapers and only after they have been redacted and vetted by those journalists and by Assange’s team (Assange even sought US government assistance in this). Glenn Greenwald strongly opposes such careless reporting:
“That’s why this cannot-be-killed lie about WikiLeaks’ ‘indiscriminate’ dumping of cables has so consumed me. It’s not because it would change much if they had done or end up doing that — it wouldn’t — but because it just so powerfully proves how mindlessly subservient the American establishment media is: willing to repeat over and over completely false claims as long as it pleases the right people — the same people to whom they claim they are ‘adversarial watchdogs.’ It’s when they engage in such clear-cut, deliberate propagandizing that their true function — their real identity — is thrown into such stark relief.”
The attacks continue with calls from prominent politicians and media personalities for Mr. Assange to be taken down or even assassinated.
For instance, Democratic Party consultant and Fox Business commentator Bob Beckel:
“We’ve got special ops forces. I mean, a dead man can’t leak stuff. This guy’s a traitor, a treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. The guy ought to be—and I’m not for the death penalty, so if I’m not for the death penalty, there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a [bleep].”
The logical gymnastics Beckel had to go through to come to that conclusion are astounding. Or read this gem of twisted logic from ex-governor Sarah Palin:
“He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?”
But the biggest attack of all is on the First Amendment’s rights of free speech and free press. The hypocrisy that the US, the world’s supposed leader in matters of democracy and rights, is displaying in relation to WikiLeaks is extremely unnerving. This also has many Europeans confused by the US government’s reaction, as reported in the New York Times:
“For many Europeans, Washington’s fierce reaction to the flood of secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks displays imperial arrogance and hypocrisy, indicating a post-9/11 obsession with secrecy that contradicts American principles.”
Some criticize WikiLeaks due to the supposed security threat. But the fear that leaked documents automatically put American lives at risk may be unfounded, as a Pentagon study found no lives were put in danger with the publishing of the Afghanistan war logs. Also, the vetting process the diplomatic cables undergo, including the redaction of sensitive information, before being published by the newspapers and WikiLeaks will continue to keep this fact applicable.
What about other lives that have been negatively affected due to American foreign policy? The media and political attacks have mainly been centered on the supposed damage caused by WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange, but scant attention has been given in the mainstream media to the lives lost, environments destroyed, and the economic disasters caused by reckless and power-hungry American interests shown in the leaked embassy cables. The United States’ worries about lives in jeopardy are looking towards the wrong lives, says human rights activist and reporter Jemima Khan: “The best justification governments can find to shut down information is that lives are at risk. In fact, lives have been at risk as a result of the silences and lies revealed in these leaks.” The embassy cable coverage itself also differs greatly, as the New York Times reportage is more optimistic as compared to the more critical London Guardian or Germany’s Der Spiegel. The public’s eyes are being diverted by the mainstream media, in particular by the politicians and military officers they continually use as their talking heads. A recent Guardian editorial addresses just that:
“In times when big business and governments attempt to monitor and control everything, there is a need as never before for an internet that remains a free and universal form of communication. WikiLeaks’ chief crime has been to speak truth to power. What is at stake is nothing less than the freedom of the internet. All the rest is a sideshow distracting attention from the real battle that is being fought. We should all keep focus on the true target.”
And what exactly is the true target? What is the point of WikiLeaks exposing governments and corporations? What drives this organization, even at great risk to itself?
The best place to start would be to look at the manifesto published by Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange and WikiLeaks back in 2006. Using computer programmer analogies, Assange points to the conspiratorial relationships (here meaning acts done in secret without public knowledge) between major world players that seek to hold onto their power at any cost. Assange’s way of disrupting this abusive power is “to address the aggregative process itself, by impeding the principle of its reproduction: rather than trying to expose and cut particular links between particular conspirators (which does little to prevent new links from forming and may not disturb the actual functioning of the system as a whole), he [Assange] wants to attack the ‘total conspiratorial power’ of the entire system by figuring out how to reduce its total ability to share and exchange information among itself, in effect, to slow down its processing power.” (More of this deep analysis of the WikiLeaks’ manifesto can be found here.) However, it is important to note from a recent TIME interview that Mr. Assange does believe that secrecy is important, yet “it shouldn’t be used to cover up abuses.”
Making the conspiratorial links ineffective is just part of WikiLeaks’ mission. Julian Assange, who rose to fame as an Australian journalist and hacker, helped start WikiLeaks to begin a new type of journalism, a “scientific journalism.” Assange wrote recently in an editorial for The Australian:
“WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?”
This statement reveals Mr. Assange’s mistrust of the media. The media has shown itself to be just as capable of being duped by the government as we are. (See: Iraq War.) Seeking to alter and address the corrupt power structures of media and government, WikiLeaks has consistently been changing the face of modern journalism. Rather than be a party to a system of corruption, of backdoor deals, and suppression of information, WikiLeaks is dismantling the status quo of reportage, leak by leak. Guardian journalist Simon Jenkins wrote:
“Disclosure is messy and tests moral and legal boundaries. It is often irresponsible and usually embarrassing. But it is all that is left when regulation does nothing, politicians are cowed, lawyers fall silent, and audit is polluted. Accountability can only default to disclosure.”
These secret disclosures of government memos are a necessary goad for change. The cozy relationship between the press and the government continues to invite more and more lies to the main discourse of the American public. Why does the press continually rely on official sources who specialize in spin? Perhaps the press should counteract official spokespeople with additional sources from outside the realm of power, in order to give an outsider’s perspective and to provide a view that does not have as its main objective the protection of power and those who profit from it. This more objective view is, in part, what the leaked documents help bring into the debate. These reports cannot and should not be ignored, for they have brought truth to light for the American people to read and understand, without the slant of a biased media and political meddling.
A sure sign the press is doing its job of not playing to those in power is, according to Julian Assange, censorship attempts:
“So, maybe where you see freedom in the press, you are actually seeing the basic power structures of society so sewn up that the press doesn’t matter much. And where you see aggressive attempts to censor things, it’s a positive symbol, because the power structures that control those attempts are revealing their fear of journalists or other people revealing that information.”
The censorship and other attacks faced by WikiLeaks reveal serious double standards that should alarm any American citizen who wants to protect free speech and a free press. Mr. Assange is being attacked for the slim possibility that he broke a yet-to-be-determined American law, whereas the documents released by WikiLeaks show evidence of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as outright lying by our politicians and corporations that could get them ousted by their constituencies or shareholders. Those who lie aren’t being held accountable for their actions, while those who speak truth are being torn apart. When are we going to demand justice?
Journalists and politicians are lashing out, not only because WikiLeaks is exposing their misdeeds, but also their weakness of character and morals in the gruesome face of power and money. The release of these secret documents is not about settling scores, or embarrassing American officials–nor are the leaks as damaging to the American image as WikiLeak detractors would have us believe. Rather the leaking of secret documents is about destroying the system of secrecy and revealing truths to the American people. Many of the more despicable actions of the United States are no secret to the world, yet they have long been kept from us, in whose name these actions are being perpetrated, to keep us from seeking reforming action. Finally, through WikiLeaks, we can see the cold, hard, and often embarrassing truth: This is who we really are in the world. This is how our power is won and twisted. This is why we are hated.
Perhaps America’s most famous whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, said it best:
“They [the American public] have not asked enough. They have not expected enough or demanded enough in the way of boldness, in the way of responsibility from their public servants. Make that known and I think our Constitution will continue to function better than it has in the past.”
WikiLeaks is tearing away the cloak of secrecy and lies that our media and politicians have shrouded US actions in for so long. WikiLeaks is not changing the power structures of media and government, it is destroying it with each and every leak released. In the place of this corrupt system, WikiLeaks hopes to bring about a new breed of journalism and a new fear of exposure instilled in power’s abusers. And for that, we should applaud Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks.
Urban Sprouting: Bringing Nature Back to the City
As the sun set on Wealthy Street on a Thursday night about twenty people gathered in an empty parking lot. With shovels, hoes, and trowels in hand, we began digging on the patches of weeds and grass that have stood neglected for so long. The garden activism had begun.
This was the first event of Urban Sprouting, a Grand Rapids guerilla gardening group that I started. Guerilla gardening, in its most basic form, is planting flora and fauna on abandoned city land in surprising and creative ways. More elaborate guerilla gardening sometimes involves the use of seed bombs and moss graffiti. Since the 1970s guerilla gardening has been used to provoke conversation about land use and can sometimes be a very politically charged statement against land neglect. Guerilla gardening has since branched out to over thirty countries, examples of which can be found here at the main hub of the movement.
The goal of Urban Sprouting is to get the citizens of Grand Rapids to reclaim the fallow land on the sides of our roads and next to the city’s abandoned buildings. We want people to ponder the place of nature in our world that has been confined by streets, houses, and skyscrapers, all in an effort to bring awareness to our disconnect from the soil and the sun. We want to bring color and joy into people’s lives in the simplest way possible: through the beauty and grace of nature.
Perhaps we accomplished that in some way this past Thursday night on the corner of Wealthy and Fuller. We picked up the trash that had gathered, dug out the asphalt embedded in the soil, and replaced it all with a variety of plants and flowers. Overall it is just a small gesture, but one that everyone there that night felt excited to be a part of. Guerilla gardening is a way for us to practice pro-activism and to take back land that has been left to waste.
Environmental activist and poet Wendell Berry says “a seed will sprout in the scar”. Therefore let us sow seeds in the soil scarred by neglect and bring beauty and vitality back to Grand Rapids.
For more information or if you want to get involved in future events, visit Urban Sprouting’s website or e-mail us at urbansprouting@gmail.com . We’re always looking for helping hands and plant donations.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Snyder came to Grand Rapids on Monday as part of his Reinvent Michigan tour. Under a sweltering sun about 200 people gathered at Rosa Parks for the town hall meeting at noon. Some of the people were lured there by the smell of free hot dogs, given in exchange for wearing a Snyder campaign sticker. Others came due to their involvement in the Republican party, including big time donor Peter Secchia and Bill Cooper, who is running for the 2nd Congressional District seat currently held by Republican gubernatorial candidate Pete Hoekstra.
Snyder began the meeting by outlining his reasons for running for governor, saying Michigan is in an economic disaster and Lansing is broken and overwhelmed by career politicians. Snyder often touts himself as being a nerdy businessman who is outside of the political world of Lansing.
In some respects that’s true. He doesn’t have much experience in Lansing, being an entrepreneur who has made millions by running Gateway Computers in the 90s and starting up Ardesta, a micro and nanotechnology firm.
But Snyder does have enough experience to use the popular Republican line, saying, “It’s time for bureaucracy to go.” He went on to say bureaucracy is a hundred year old system that should be replaced with a customer service government that is more transparent and regulates less. To continue his business rhetoric he said, “If Lansing was a business, we would have fired them a long time ago.”
Yet being a self-described nerd, Snyder sure doesn’t talk like it. At the town hall meeting his rhetoric often lacked substance, a common problem with political speak. Snyder didn’t offer much in the way of concrete plans of how to implement what he calls “Michigan 3.0“, or Michigan’s next era.
Snyder talked about the need to create more jobs but didn’t say much about how. Rather Snyder just said, “The government’s role is not to supply jobs but to create the environment for jobs.” It seems he hopes to create this environment by ridding Michigan of its current business tax and replacing it with a 6% flat corporate tax. But this isn’t certain if it would lead to more jobs or save the state money, and Snyder’s plan would reduce the state’s spending on public worker’s wages and benefits.
When asked about how to fix Michigan’s crumbling education system, Snyder said what needs to happen is a change in dialogue, making it more about the teachers and students rather than funding. Yet not much can be done to keep teachers in the state and schools open for students without money.
Many of these students later attend colleges in Michigan, though keeping them here after college is another issue. When asked about this by a young college student, Snyder replied that Michigan needs to build up a mentor network and to create better quality of place where young people want to flock to. But Michigan needs to create a lot more than that if it wants to keep its young people, namely diversified jobs.
Near the end of the meeting, Snyder labeled himself a Republican but said also that he doesn’t mention party anywhere in his political literature because he wants people to vote for him because of what he stands for. But what he stands for is the same old Republican ideas of limiting government, letting free markets reign, and cutting taxes.
Rick Snyder is running against fellow Republicans Attorney General Mike Cox, state Sen. Tom George, U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra and Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard in an August 3rd primary.
Barefoot Victory Garden: Growing Community
The juxtaposition of nature in the city is striking when you first stumble into Barefoot Victory Garden on Wealthy St. in Eastown. The two opposing worlds meld together as you enter into the garden through a trellis sitting atop stone steps and the rush of city life begins to fade away. The garden is currently in the awkward middle stage of planted but not yet producing, but as the rains and sunbeams pour down and the weeks pass, it will soon become a verdant land in a space that had stood empty for so long. And this has no one so thrilled as garden founder Kelley Heneveld.
Leave it to Heneveld to turn her imaginings of urban gardening into a reality. Always a driven individual, the dreaming began when 24 year old Heneveld left her city life and for one month took part in WWOOFing (World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms) down in the heart of Alabama. It was here that she embraced her love of dirt covered hands and her joy at seeing plants grow and flourish.
“I had a lot of peace with the world and how I was living: working in the earth and eating what we grew. It just felt really right, and it felt like a really good rhythm of living. And I fell in love with that.”
While away she visited an urban farm in Chattanooga, Tennessee, inspiring her to try something similar in Grand Rapids.
With only a little bit of gardening experience, Heneveld began to read up on urban gardening and to reach out to the community. She has already garnered community support in the forms of donations, helping hands, and working together with local organizations, like Our Kitchen Table, on issues of food justice and sustainability. But the biggest donation Heneveld received came from her friend April Hadley and the vacant plot of land she owns where Barefoot Victory Garden now grows.
“Community is what makes this happen. If the community didn’t get involved, it wouldn’t have even started. This shows the importance of working together; no one can really do this on their own,” Heneveld says.
Community is a vital part of Heneveld’s hopes for the garden, as is evidenced by its description: “This is not your typical ‘rent a plot, grow your own food’ community garden. Rather, you and anyone you know are invited to join us anytime we are building, planting and harvesting. This is a family garden. You are family.”
The actual gardening is just the beginning. At the center of Barefoot Victory Garden lies an open space suited perfectly for shared meals and for classes on gardening and sustainable living. Those interested can also partake in trips to West Michigan farms to better understand the local food system. All of this serves as a way for an urban people to reconnect with the land, to appreciate the feel of dirt on your hands and the satisfaction of producing something for the betterment of those around you.
That, says Heneveld, is what she is striving towards, “I’m just a person, and I’m just living and in that everyone has their own opportunity of teaching everyone else what they know and to share that. This is something that I’m really passionate about and it’s not much, but it’s something I can offer to my neighbors and the community.”
As author Marilyn Chandler McEntyre puts it, “we can understand things rightly only if we understand them over time– that is, in terms of their stories of conception, growth, development, and death.”
So as Barefoot Victory Garden begins to stem and sprout, come and understand the joy and grace as nature grows in the city.
To get involved contact barefootvictorygarden@gmail.com or visit barefootvictorygarden.wordpress.com .
Women’s Health Under Attack
With the healthcare reform debate coming to a head this weekend, a group of women gathered in Grand Rapids earlier this week to discuss one of their major contention points in the current healthcare system: women’s health.
The panel discussion, put on by the Progressive Women’s Alliance, featured speakers Gayla Jewell of the Grand Rapids Medical Education and Research Center; Kary Moss, Executive Director, ACLU of Michigan; Sarah Scranton, Executive Director, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan; and State Senator Gretchen Whitmer (23rd District).
While most people think of women’s health revolving around the so-called “pro-choice vs pro-life” debate, the speakers touched on other problems women are facing in the current healthcare system.
Right here in Grand Rapids, the problems are rampant. Gayla Jewell believes that “we’re a microcosm of what’s happening nationally. We have segregated healthcare, we’ve rationed healthcare. Healthcare is not readily available to people.” She went on to say that in Kent County alone the infant mortality rate for black children is 2 to 3 times higher than for white children. Most of the women that need medical attention and cannot afford it are minority women in need of government assistance for health insurance, like Medicaid. Jewell pulled information about Medicaid from the internet, saying it was barely decipherable to her with high-level English, let alone to those who do not understand the language well. “If you don’t understand it, how can you go get it? So having things in a way that all women can understand is vitally important.” Even with Medicaid, that does not guarantee access to medical care. Jewell went on to say that only 22% of healthcare providers accept Medicaid, and they only choose so many to see so they can get reimbursed. While relating a story about a pregnant college student who received Medicaid, Jewell said the girl called every provider on the approved list and was told by all of them they could see her in 6 months.
With a more national perspective, Kary Moss of the ACLU of Michigan began by saying over 17 million women nationwide are without healthcare, which she says is a major issue considering women are 40% more likely to be on prescription drugs than men and often have a lower income than men. Her list of requirements for healthcare reform include, among other things: increased research funding, promoting reproductive health and rights, being “pro-choice”, increased availability of birth control, and comprehensive sex education including an end to abstinence only programs. While she admits the current healthcare bill is far from including her wish list, it may open the door to dealing with these issues.
And that was the common thread throughout the speeches of these women: the current healthcare bill leaves much to be desired in terms of women’s health equality but this may just be a launching pad to change.
This is change that Sarah Scranton of Planned Parenthood has begun to see in the Michigan legislature. In 2008 it was the first time in a decade that the majority of the Democratic caucus were “pro-choice”, along with a “pro-choice” Governor Granholm. With elections this year, that may very likely change. Scranton said Michigan is often used as a testing ground for the “anti-choice” movement to find out how to pass such measures in other states. The controversial Planned Parenthood lobbies mainly for “pro-choice” issues, including the Prevention First Initiative, which says it seeks to decrease unwanted pregnancies to avoid abortions.
The term “pro-choice” is saturated with political undertones and morality issues, just as the term “pro-life” is.
Jewell, however, wanted to make her stance clear: “I am pro-choice, I am not pro-abortion. I would like for there to be no need for abortion. The question is how do you create an environment that abortion is not necessary? That happens through choice, because the more choice women have, generally speaking the more responsible they become.” This choice involves insurance coverage of contraceptives, access to emergency contraceptives (often known as “the morning after pill”), the right to safe, legal abortions, and sex education that is both abstinence and contraceptive based.
All this finicky abortion language comes on the heels of the Stupak Amendment, which was added to the House’s healthcare bill to be voted on in the next few days. The language in this amendment has many “pro-choice” people upset, though recent news suggests it may not be included in the Senate version of the bill. If it is not, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) says he has other Democrats who will vote against the healthcare reform bill with him, which may very well stop the healthcare bill in its tracks. The women speakers urged those in attendance to really push their representatives to vote for the bill, so that change, of any kind, can begin to take place.
There were no “anti-abortion” advocates present on the panel discussion put on by Progressive Women’s Alliance.
Destroying the Happiness Machine.
Being controlled, manipulated, told what to buy and what to think: welcome to the modern world! Capitalism at its finest! Welcome to overstimulation, to the satisfying of all humanity’s supposed wants. Is this the culmination of human endeavors? Watching a documentary on Edward Bernays, the creator of public relations, showed how, in that industry, humans are viewed as irrational beings who can be told what to buy and think based on our subconscious desires. We are vehicles to be driven, empty shells until consumerism fills us. Once we have what we need, we are told what to want. This market of wants is what fills the malls, the supermarkets, and every inch of public space from television to the streets. That is if you consider television a public space any more, which with media conglomerates consolidating continuously makes that assumption highly suspect. This market of wants, of satisfying the individual not the group, is what drives our distraction from the important matters of living. It’s all about me! Everyone else be damned. That is what we are being told, what we have been told for decades. This facade is covering up the reality that those in power wish us not to see. The fact that we can be agents of change. That if we put an end to this endless consumerism, this continuous production of crap to fill the void, we might look around us and see the world we live in. See the Earth that needs to be taken care of, see our neighbors who could use a hand, and see the invisible cage we are living in. We need to put an end to our endless intake of their manipulations. Look at what you watch with a critical eye, listen to what you hear with a wary ear, and then act, act in a way that is true to the nature of humanity, a rational being with the light of God in you.
Secretive North Korea Unveiled
In a desperate shout for attention, North Korea, the world’s most elusive nation, continues to flaunt its nuclear abilities. Discussing this and other issues surrounding North Korea at Calvin College’s January Series was Tony Namkung, an expert on US-Asian relations who has visited North Korea over 30 times.
The lecture ranged from the policies that would have opened up North Korea under the reign of Kim Il-Sung, to the role of protestant Christians within North Korea’s history, to the current nuclear issues under Kim Jong-Il.
Around 1990 Kim Il-Sung began work on policies that would have turned around North Korea’s current trajectory. Namkung spoke of this as a “fundamental reversal of their long time policies. . .one was to normalize relations with long time foes the US and Japan, second was to seek peaceful coexistence, distinct from unification, which had been a long standing North Korea demand that the peninsula needed to be reunified immediately with South Korea, third was market reforms to a highly centralized market economy”. This was soon followed by the Agreement on Reconciliation between North and South Korea that would have seen a total reversal of policy including diplomatic recognition, arms reductions, and an end to nuclear testing and materials possession. As the current state of affairs between North and South Korea can tell us, these policies were never implemented. What happened? Namkung suggests a few reasons for the reversal, including the end of the Cold War, the democratic revival of South Korea, and the resurgence of China, all of which threatened the political stability of North Korea.
Speaking at a Christian Reformed college, Namkung discussed how protestant Christianity shaped the early life of Kim Il-Sung, as both his parents were active in the church. Many Christians in North Korea at this time were working against the Japanese occupation that finally ended in 1945. However, Christians continue to be persecuted in North Korea today, as any form of religion needs to be state approved and practiced.
The topic of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions wasn’t discussed as much as hoped, but Namkung did offer some insights into the veil of secrecy surrounding their motives. Namkung suggests, as do others in his field, that North Korea’s nuclear testing and missile launches are an elaborate chess game to them, used as a pawn in political negotiations. Diplomat Georgy Toloraya believes that “North Korean behavior is the consequence of dissatisfaction with the policies and the actions (or lack of them) of its adversaries. It cannot be explained simply in terms of the ‘unpredictability’ of the Pyongyang regime or its attempts at ‘blackmail.'”
Namkung said North Korea has consistently tried to garner a relationship with the United States, mainly to seek the protection of the United States against North Korea’s traditional foes, China and Japan. Strange thing then for this country to be thwarting all the requirements the United States has placed upon it. But Namkung sees this as North Korea’s attempt to jump start talks and negotiations, since the majority of the acts of aggression occur during stalemates. With a closed off society and a failing economy, the nuclear issue is the only real bargaining device left to North Korea.
So what’s next then? How should the world and particularly the United States approach North Korea, especially since the Six Party talks have been disbanded? With an open mind, says Namkung. The United States should not focus solely on the nuclear issue, as it has done in the past, but pay attention rather to the issues underlying this threat display, such as economic decline, a failing infrastructure, and humanitarian crises. Namkung thinks our new policies should keep in mind that we need “to abandon the sticks and carrots methods. . .and to get away from the notion that the end is near for North Korea, that they are only starving and selling arms to prop up their regime or prop up a corrupt elite and Kim Jong-Il’s only purpose in life is sheer survival using the nuclear card.” The United States should also serve as a facilitator between North and South Korea, though this may be difficult due to South Korea’s conservative new leader. But Namkung believes it would be of strategic importance for the US to have friendly relations with North and South Korea if China or Japan start vying for power in the region.
Little is known about North Korea, but what is known is that the United States needs to change how it deals with this elusive country while tensions continue to thaw.
Local Media Fails in Climate Summit Coverage
Right now the future of our world is being decided by 192 global delegates at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen. But what is West Michigan saying about this? Not much.
As previously reported the local coverage of the massive Summit is paltry at best and leaves much undiscussed.
Only one article was written by a local journalist, the rest of the coverage in the Grand Rapids Press , on WOOD-TV , and FOX-17 was from the Associated Press. On WZZM-13 only one short AP article was found, and over on WMMT-CBS there was nothing about the Climate Summit.
The AP articles used present the basic framework of the situation happening now in Denmark:
Any major environmental commitment hinges on the determination of developed nations, in particular the United States. A draft of a global climate treaty is being debated endlessly, as developing nations say they will be the ones hit hardest by the damage caused by global warming. Developing nations are demanding the major developed nations help pay for the climate damage caused mainly by their greenhouse gas emissions.
Out of the vast array of articles, local media chose only AP articles that convey part of what is going on in Copenhagen right now, leaving the rest of the debate undiscussed for West Michigan citizens.
- No articles speak of the massive demonstrations that have been taking place since the Summit began, including the demonstrations on the weekend of December 12th and 13th that saw 100,000 people take to the streets demanding action.
- No articles speak of how many environmental organizations have now been banned from entering the Bella Conference Center where delegates and world leaders are meeting.
- No articles speak of the mass arrests of protesters, often for less than credible reasons.
- No articles speak of the debates surrounding cap and trade carbon agreements.
Even if local media did not want to post stories from alternative media such as Democracy Now! or IndyMedia Denmark, there were plenty of AP articles for West Michigan media to choose from, including this one about the protests and arrests, about environmental groups being banned, or even the plight of island nations in the face of global warming.
Why is West Michigan’s media failing to pick up on these stories? Why do they deem them un-newsworthy? Whose interests are served by ignoring the real debate raging on the streets in Copenhagen?
A War of Words: Climate Change vs Global Warming
Climate Change = Global Warming, right? In the world of politics and corporate media, the equation is never that simple. In reality it looks more like this: (Global Warming – Blame) x Corporate Control = Climate Change.
The phrase “climate change” is just another example of euphemistic language used to cover up the reality hidden just beneath the surface. Of course, this is nothing new. Think how often the word “abuse” was used instead of “torture” when news of Abu Ghraib broke. Or how about “collateral damage” instead of civilian deaths when the destruction from US bombs in Afghanistan is mentioned?
The mainstream press more often than not choses to use the phrase “climate change” rather than “global warming.” Just look at the news coming out of Copenhagen.
But what is the reasoning behind this?
To start out with, the mental image conjured up when thinking about “global warming” (a sweltering Earth) sounds horrifying, whereas ‘climate change’ sounds much more pleasant, like going from this frigid Michigan winter down to the tropic warmth of Key West. It almost seems like a natural occurrence when saying “climate change,” which the majority of scientists claim it is not.
While NASA scientists argue that “global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect,” I don’t think this is the only reasoning behind the use of “climate change.”
Author and journalist Steven Poole points out in his book Unspeak: How Words Become Weapons that:
“it is clear that in the phrase ‘global warming’, after all, the word ‘warming’ implies an agent doing the warming. And once you accept that human beings might be the cause of the problem, again you will eye skeptically those with an interest in burning coal, oil, and gas. Thus the preference for the term that seems to assign no blame, ‘climate change’…”
And that hits on a key point. The assignment of blame to those in the coal, oil, and gas industries. It should come as no surprise that these big three industries have meddled with the framing of important issues like global warming, in particular oil industry giant Exxon Mobil. But these industries didn’t stop there. They went on to attack the very words themselves, as Poole says, “States with oil interests, including Saudi Arabia and the US. . .specifically lobbied for the elimination of the phrase ‘global warming’ in agreements.”
With the politically tepid “climate change” in mainstream use, the urgency of the situation is lost. And our nation’s industries that are the chief producers of greenhouse emissions are more easily let off the hook.
Perhaps this seems trivial to some, but words carry within them so much meaning. How can we understand something if we do not correctly label it? How can we get to the root of the problem if it is not known in its entirety? In order to understand this issue facing our country and our world, we need first to call this impending environmental catastrophe by its true name and come to grips with our nation’s culpability in it.
Chasing Truth 