|Progressive Calendar 02.26.06||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: David Shove (shove001tc.umn.edu)|
|Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 05:45:55 -0800 (PST)|
P R O G R E S S I V E C A L E N D A R 02.26.06 1. Sensible vigil 2.26 12noon 2. Reconstruction/TV 2.26 12noon/1:30pm 3. Why we fight/film 2.26 12noon 4. FNVW 2.26 1pm 5. Black pioneers/TV 2.26 3pm 6. KFAI/Indian 2.26 4pm 7. Fidel/Stone/film 2.26 6pm 8. Crisis intervene 2.27 8am 9. Housing/homeless 2.27 9:30am 10. Capitol tour 2.27 11am 11. PoF/GLBT/RC 2.27 6:30pm 12. Cohousing/>55 2.27 7pm 13. Warming/Steger 2.27 7pm Morris MN 14. Venez/Colombia 2.27 7pm 15. AI Augustana 2.27 7pm 16. Airport dike 2.27 7pm 17. Sami/Iraq 2.27 7pm 18. Black clubs/TV 2.27 7pm 19. MLK III activist 2.27 7:30pm 20. WhoopiGoldbergTV 2.27 8pm 21. Michael Keefer - Understanding the planned assault on Iran (1 of 2) 22. ed - Bush dreams pretty nukes (poem) --------1 of 22--------- From: skarx001 <skarx001 [at] umn.edu> Subject: Sensible vigil 2.26 12noon The sensible people for peace hold weekly peace vigils at the intersection of Snelling and Summit in StPaul, Sunday between noon and 1pm. (This is across from the Mac campus.) We provide signs protesting current gov. foreign and domestic policy. We would appreciate others joining our vigil/protest. ---------2 of 22-------- From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com> Subject: Reconstruction/TV 2.26 12noon/1:30pm American Experience: Reconstruction: The Second Civil War tpt2 Part 1: Revolution Sunday, Feb. 26 at noon In the chaos following the Civil War, a revolution takes shape in the South. Former slaves move to take control of their lives, setting up their own communities, churches and schools. Southern whites, deeply threatened, resist - often violently. Congress finally acts to stem the violence and safeguard blacks' rights, and passes Radical Reconstruction, imposing military rule on the South and giving black men the vote. tpt2 Part 2: Retreat Sunday, Feb. 26 at 1:30pm Radical Reconstruction, the world's first large-scale experiment in interracial democracy, sweeps across the South; white resistance flares into violence. Northern commitment to Reconstruction wanes as the white Southern version of Reconstruction, the "lost cause," captures the Northern imagination. By l877, Reconstruction is over, but it has laid the groundwork, both in legislation and in black memory, for the great Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. --------3 of 22-------- From: David Strand <mncivil [at] yahoo.com> Subject: Why we fight/film 2.26 12noon [Listed for 2.25; now we have times. -ed] "Why We Fight" is said to be a great exploration of american militarism beggining with exploration of Eisenhower's warning that we "beware the military industrial complex". Showtimes Sun. Feb. 26th at 12:00 pm, 2:20 pm, 4:40 pm, 7:00 pm, 9:20 pm and Monday Feb. 27th thru Thursday March 2nd at 4:40 pm, 7:00 pm, and 9:20 pm. http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/ ---------4 of 22-------- From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] HOTMAIL.COM> Subject: FNVW 2.26 1pm Sunday, 2/26, 1 to 3:30 pm, Friends for a Nonviolent World annual meeting, Twin Cities Friends Meeting, 1725 Grand Ave, St. Paul. info [at] fnvw.org --------5 of 22-------- From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com> Subject: Black pioneers/TV 2.26 3pm North Star: Minnesota's Black Pioneers tpt2 Sunday, Feb. 26 at 3PM tpt17 Tuesday, Feb. 28 at 7PM This tpt-produced documentary traces the history of African Americans in Minnesota through 12 individual stories that take us from George Bonga, a voyageur and trader, to Frederick McGhee, the state's first black attorney and one of the founders of the NAACP, to the 1963 March on Washington. --------6 of 22-------- From: Chris Spotted Eagle <chris [at] spottedeagle.org> Subject: KFAI/Indian 2.26 4pm TREATY OF 1805. On October 14, 2005, two Dakota men were ticketed after entering the Minneapolis Coldwater campus area, without government permits, to exercise their treaty rights. The $125-offense was described as not complying with a federal police officer. Inside the fenced-off area, Jim Anderson (Dakota) led a Pipe Ceremony with Professor Chris Mato Nunpa (Dakota) and ten supporters. During the ceremony 25 more held a prayer circle outside the fence. Mato Nunpa, Indigenous Studies at Minnesota State University at Marshall, and Anderson, Cultural Chair of the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community, each received a U.S. District Court violation notice. Their first court appearance is on Thursday, March 2, in U.S. Federal District court at 9:00 a.m., Courtroom 5, St. Paul, 180 East Fifth Street. A rally has been planned by supporters to be at the federal court house at 8:00 a.m. with speakers, Attorney Larry Leventhal, Howard Vogel of the Hamline Law School, and Mendota Dakota Community attorney Barbara Nimis. The Treaty of 1805 was the first of several treaties signed between the Dakota Oyate and the United States. Coldwater Spring is in the ceded area according to the Treaty. Article 3 of the treaty states, "The U.S. promise on their part to permit the Sioux to pass, re-pass, hunt and do other things as they have formerly done in said district." "We know that the falls which came to be known as Minnehaha Falls, was a sacred place, a neutral place, a place for many nations to come" And that the spring from which the sacred water should be drawn was not very far "a spring that all nations used to draw the sacred water for the ceremony," Anishinabeg spiritual elder Eddie Benton Benais told Minnesota officials during court ordered testimony in March of 1999. Benais said the mile and a half between Minnehaha Falls and Coldwater Spring "sacred grounds that were mutually held to be a sacred place" by Upper Mississippi tribes who regularly gathered there including Dakota, Anishinabeg, Ho Chunk, Iowa, and Sauk and Fox nations. Coldwater, south of Minnehaha Park, is an ancient spring, an acknowledged sacred site, and the last spring of size in the Twin Cities flowing at about 100,000 gallons a day. Hydrologists say Coldwater Spring is 10,000-years-old, flowing under the last glacier. The spring forms a creek, wetland, and waterfall descending 130-feet down the Mississippi gorge. Program guests are Jim Anderson, Susu Jeffrey, (Friends of Coldwater) and Professor Chris Mato Nunpa. * * * * Indian Uprising is a one-half hour Public & Cultural Affairs radio program for, by, and about Indigenous people & all their relations, broadcast each Sunday at 4:00 p.m. over KFAI 90.3 FM Minneapolis and 106.7 FM St. Paul. Current programs are archived online after broadcast at www.kfai.org, for two weeks. Click Program Archives and scroll to Indian Uprising. --------7 of 22-------- From: Joan Malerich <joanmdm [at] comcast.net> Subject: Fidel/Stone/film 2.26 6pm Cuba and Venezuela Film and Discussion Group Oliver Stone's two fascinating interviews with Fidel Castro Arise Bookstore, 2441 Lyndale Av S 6pm Sundays Feb 26 and March 5. Apt in StPaul near Macalaster College, 7pm, Wednesdays, March 1 and March 8. Limit to 10. Contact Joan to register joanmdm [at] comcast.net 651-451-4081 If you are anti-Cuban revolution, this is not for you. This is only for those who are interested in learning the truth and reality of Fidel and of the revolution of the people. First Interview: Comandante (90 min.), In over 30 hours of interviews, Fidel never exercised his power to stop the cameras. Stone films Castro working at his office, touring a medical school and a museum and follows him through the streets where he mingles freely with the Cuban citizens. The film paints Castro as an engaging and intelligent leader, and looks beyond the familiar beard, cigar and jungle fatigues. Stone and Castro discuss pivotal moments in world history such as President Kennedy's assassination, the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis. Second Interview: Looking for Fidel (50 min). After the controversy of the April, 2003, arrest of the "dissidents" (really mercenaries taking money and gifts from the far-right extremists Cuban Exiles. Millions of taxpayer dollars go to these extremist groups every year.), and the terrorists attack on the ferry by 12 hijackers of which three were executed AFTER a fair trial, HBO and the New York Tribeca film festival postponed broadcasting the film, though it did show in other countries, including Canada. HBO requested (ordered) Stone to return to Cuba and interview Fidel again with these recent events in mind. Looking for Fidel gives a voice to all the major players, as Stone interviews not only Castro , but prisoners accused of hijacking, leading "dissidents," wives of prisoners and human rights advocates, all of whom express their view forcefully in the emotionally charged environment that is Cuba today. In one extraordinary roundtable, Stone brings together Castro, several accused hijackers, prosecutors and defense attorneys for a conversation that is both provocative and compelling. Film includes fascinating cover between Stone and Castro about Cuban politics, human rights and Cuba's future. Stone's unprecedented encounter with this highly controversial world leader provides a rare picture of Fidel Castro and illuminates his views on Cuba's unique position in the world. Eventually, both of these films showed sparingly on HBO. However, PBS refuses to air them. PBS has aired only the anti-Fidel, anti-Cuban revolution, films such as the Cuban exile's (Andriana Bosch) propaganda film on Fidel Castro. If PBS and other mainstream TV stations refuse to air Stone's interviews, it seems the interviews must have that which mainstream media does not like--truth and reality. --------8 of 22--------- From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com> Subject: Crisis intervene 2.27 8am First Annual Minnesota CIT (Crisis Intervention Team) Conference/ Conference for all Stakeholders in Mental Health Crisis Issues Barbara Schneider Foundation, BSF, and Minneapolis Police Department, MPD worked together on the creation of the first CIT (Crisis Intervention Team) Unit in Minnesota. CIT has since been widely adopted by law enforcement nationally. Now Barbara Schneider Foundation is sponsoring the First Annual /Minnesota CIT (Crisis Intervention Team) Conference /on Monday, February 27, 8 am-5 pm at the Holiday Inn Select, 3 Apple Treee Square, Bloomington, Minnesota. This conference is being organized with the MPD's CIT Unit with a key note address by U of M Police Chief Greg Hestness, who is a leader in the CIT movement in Minnesota. The conference will be an opportunity for stakeholders in mental health crisis response from health care, mental health, courts, criminal justice, corrections, social services and advocacy to learn more about CIT and have a chance to develop stronger relationships with law enforcement to improve the response to those in mental health crisis in their communities. It will include exciting speakers on CIT training, the overlap of mental health and public safety response, communication and de-escalation skills. It will also include breakouts on: combat stress, traumatic brain injury, scenario role plays in CIT training; hospital versus jail; responding to childhood and adolescent disorders; and customized training available for other stakeholders in mental health crisis. A highlight of the day will be a demonstration of role-playing by Crisis Company actors that simulate mental health crisis response scenarios and response techniques and strategies that are used in CIT training. Call: Mark Anderson, Executive Director, Barbara Schneider Foundation, 612 801 8572 * --------9 of 22-------- From: Joanna Dornfeld <jdornfeld [at] mhponline.org> Subject: Housing/homeless 2.27 9:30am Join HousingMinnesota, the Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless and Minnesota NAHRO at the State Capitol as we continue to work for all Minnesotans have a home they can afford. Meet with legislators to help shape policy decisions that will help our communities thrive. For more information about lobby day and to register go to www.housingminnesota.org/lobbyday or see the attached flyler to register. Please register early so we are able to schedule a meeting with your legislator. Affordable Housing and Homelessness Advocacy Trainings HousingMinnesota and the Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless are sponsoring a series of advocacy trainings designed for individuals, service providers and developers throughout the state to teach the tools and skills to develop meaningful relationships with your local policy makers. Policy makers need your expertise. Few organizations are closer to the real problems of people who need affordable housing than you: individuals, service providers, developers and local government staff. Personal stories are powerful tools for change. People and policy makers can learn from your story. Attend these trainings to learn how to communicate about the needs in your community and possible solutions. For more information about these events see the attached flyer or go to http://www.housingminnesota.org/events.cfm?PageID=6. St. Paul Feb 27, 9:30-11am Union Gospel Mission 77 East 9th Street St. Paul, MN Moorhead March 6, 2-3:30pm Clay County Family Service Center 715 11th Street North Moorhead, MN Minnetonka March 14, 7-8:30pm Adath Jeshurun Congregation 10500 Hillside Lane West Minnetonka, MN Owatonna March 3, 9-9:55am Owatonna Arts Center 435 Garden View Lane Owatonna, MN Anoka County Area March 7, 2-3pm 1201 89th Ave. NE Room 300 Blaine, MN Use these trainings as a springboard to participate in our annual Lobby Day. For more infomration about any of the events, please contact Joanna Dornfeld at (651) 649-1710 ext. 108 or jdornfeld [at] mhponline.org. Joanna Dornfeld Field Manager HousingMinnesota (651) 649-1710 ext. 108 www.housingminnesota.org HousingMinnesota is an initiative of the Minnesota Housing Partnership. ---------10 of 22-------- From: Stephen Eisenmenger <stephen [at] mngreens.org> Subject: Capitol tour 2.27 11am CAPITOL TOUR LEADER: Ken Pentel Monday Feb 27 11am-3:30pm LOCATION: Meet in the Transportation Building Cafeteria. (For detailed directions, call Ken at (612) 387-0601 or e-mail him at <kenpentel [at] yahoo.com>) If you come, itıs a good idea to bring his number with you for locating the group. In March Ken will be scheduling session days that we hope will lead to a legislative team and a statewide network on legislative issues that concern Greens. --------11 of 22-------- From: Heather Ferguson <fergusoh [at] stolaf.edu> Subject: PoF/GLBT/RC 2.27 6:30pm Monday February 27 6:30 to 8:30 pm, St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church, 4537 3rd Avenue south, Minneapolis People of Faith Roundtable* Monday, February 27 6:30-8:30pm Meeting at St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church 4537 3rd Ave. S. Minneapolis Just north of 46th St on the east side of 35W. "This month's People of Faith Roundtable will be gathering at St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church in South Minneapolis. Our featured speakers will be "Catholics for Equality" which is a coalition of various Catholic organizations supportive of GLBT rights. We will also have a break out session for work groups and further discussion. --------12 of 22--------- From: Sagesusan71 [at] aol.com Subject: Cohousing/>55 2.27 7pm Cohousing Informational Meeting Monday Feb 27 7-9pm StAnthony Park Library 2245 Como Av StPaul Over 55 group forming ---------13 of 22-------- From: Cesia Kearns <cesia.kearns [at] sierraclub.org> Subject: Warming/Steger 2.27 7pm Morris MN Global Warming and Minnesota's Energy Future With famous Arctic Explorer Will Steger in Morris, MN Arctic Explorer Will Steger shares firsthand accounts of climate change at the poles, and J.Drake Hamilton, Science Policy Director for Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy (ME3) discusses recent facts on global warming, the impact on Minnesota, and how we can slow climate change through local energy solutions Monday, February 27 7-8:30pm University of Minnesota, Morris, Science 2950 (Science Auditorium) This event is free and open to the public. Refreshments provided. Co-sponsored by the North Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, MPIRG, and Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ME3) For questions or more information, please contact Cesia (saysha) Kearns at 612-659-9124 or email cesia.kearns [at] sierraclub.org visit www.northstar.sierraclub.org www.me3.org --------14 of 22-------- From: Merideth Cleary <meriberry15 [at] hotmail.com> Subject: Venezuela/Colombia 2.27 7pm WORLD SOCIAL FORUM VI Monday Feb 27 7-8:30pm Steelworkers Union 2829 University Ave SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 Come hear a report back by Associate Member of the Steelworkers and Witness for Peace organizer, Merideth Cleary, delegate in the World Social Forum who traveled to Colombia where she took testimonies from social leaders and victims of violence in Colombia. Stay to see the premier showing of the short documentary about the delegation: "Venezuela and Colombia; Testimonies of Opportunity and Tragedy" Featuring testimonies of labor leaders of the UNT (Venezuela National Workers Union); worker occupied factories and the impacts of the Bolivarian Missions in Venezuela; leaders of SINALTRAINAL (Colombian union representing Coca Cola and NESTLE workers); indigenous, campesino, and Afro-Colombian leaders, and members of the Popular Movement of Women. Corporation for Community Training and FMI contact - Gerardo Cajamarca or Merideth Cleary at 612-623-8003 or at gentelatinauswa [at] yahoo.com. --------15 of 22-------- From: Gabe Ormsby <gabeo [at] bitstream.net> Subject: AI Augustana 2.27 7pm Augustana Homes Seniors Group meets on Monday, February 27, 7-8pm in the party room of the 1020 Building, 1020 E 17th Street, Minneapolis. For more information contact Ardes Johnson at 612/378-1166 or johns779 [at] tc.umn.edu. --------16 of 22-------- From: Bob Parker <bobpmn [at] earthlink.net> Subject: Airport dike 2.27 7pm [Yet another ripoff by the parasitical rich, aided and abetted by lapdog government, at the expense of the city and the citizens. Stop these SOBs. -ed] When something is very wrong in one neighborhood, sometimes it takes the whole village to participate in remedying it. When the stank was upon the west end, many voices combined to bring about action in the residents' favor. I believe that this airport issue is important to St Paul as a whole, in that it seems to be a situation tilted unfairly towards the convenience of an elite few, rather than the daily quality of life of many residents of Mounds Park, Dayton's Bluff and Downtown. There are a lot of us up here that feel a little voiceless sometimes. Some of us don't believe that we have the same political pull that other, wealthier neighborhoods might. I believe that increasing air traffic at this airport will do absolutely nothing for us. It will increase the already obnoxious noise of planes at all hours, directly over our homes, to say nothing of adverse environmental effects on the diverted flood plain, or the sight of a corrugated metal wall along the riverfront. A riverfront, I might add, that many would like to see made more beautiful and citizen-friendly. It is certainly not going to do anything to help us reverse the slumification of Dayton's Bluff. It won't help us redevelop East Seventh as an attractive commercial area. It will negatively affect potential home-buyers from moving in, re-habbing great old houses and raising their kids here. It will, however, shave something like 15 minutes off of the commute for 3M executives, so maybe that's good... Hmmm. I don't know... let's try to see this on balance. Neighborhoods.... or wealthy corporate executives..... Hmmm. Well, there I go, getting incendiary again. And, I'm sure, guilty of taking a simple view of this matter. But I can't see how else it can be portrayed. Perhaps a flood wall supporter can help us to see the benefit it would bring to our neighborhoods, and the city as a whole. How it will help us reclaim a wholesome vitality in Dayton's Bluff; raising our commercial and private property values, effectively contributing to the city's general health. Here is Karin's message: From: "Karin DuPaul" <Karin [at] DaytonsBluff.org> Subject: DBCC - Airport Dike - 2/27 meeting YOUR HELP IS NEEDED A floodwall has been proposed for the Downtown Saint Paul Airport. The Dayton's Bluff Community Council as opposed the building of a floodwall. Reasons include the fact that it will have negative impacts on the river, wildlife, increased airport usage above Dayton's Bluff neighborhoods, and add significant noise and air pollution. And it will lower property values in flight pattern areas, because of increased usage. If the floodwall is built more corporate jets will move to this airport. I am encouraging you (and bring your neighbors) to attend the Dayton's Bluff Community Council Board meeting on Monday February 27 at 7PM at 798 East Seventh Street (corner of 7th and Margaret). Mayor Coleman will be here and the dike is one of the issues that will be discussed. The Mayor has not made a decision on where he stands on the floodwall issues and he needs to see the neighborhood are against it. --------17 of 22-------- From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com> From: "katherine" <katherine [at] deltove.com <mailto:katherine [at] deltove.com>> Subject: Sami/Iraq 2.27 7pm An Eyewitness Report from Iraq Minnesotan Sami Rasouli Speaks About his Experience Monday, February 27 7pm St. John Neumann 4030 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN Contact Katherine at 952-432-3654 Curious about the situation Iraq? Confused by conflicting news reports? Sami Rasouli, a former Twin Cities restaurant owner with dual American and Iraqi citizenship, has spent the last six months working in Iraq. He returned to his homeland to help his country recover from the invasion. He will share stories of his work and of the effects of war on the Iraqi people as they go about their daily lives, including his insights about the continued violence, the Iraqi elections, the future of Iraq and the US debate about the war. --------18 of 22--------- From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com> Subject: Black clubs/TV 2.27 7pm Independent Lens: A Place of Our Own tpt17 Monday Feb 27 at 7pm Stanley Nelson is a third-generation upper middle-class African American who spent the past 40 summers in Oak Bluffs, an affluent African-American resort community on Martha's Vineyard. Building on personal stories of summers past, Nelson explores the world of black doctors, lawyers and journalists who created social clubs, professional organizations and a refuge for African Americans. --------19 of 22-------- From: humanrts [at] umn.edu Subject: MLK III activist 2.27 7:30pm February 27 - Social Activist Martin Luther King III: My Father s Dream, My Mission. 7:30pm. Cost: $10 for U of M students with a valid student ID; $15 for the general public. The University of Minnesota's Minnesota Programs and Activities Council (MPAC) will present My Father's Dream, My Mission, an evening with social activist Martin Luther King III, son of Martin Luther King Jr., at 7:30 p.m. Monday, Feb. 27, in the Great Hall of Coffman Union, 300 Washington Ave. S.E., Minneapolis. Doors open at 7 p.m. King's speech was to originally take place this Monday, but was postponed due to Coretta Scott King's death. All tickets purchased for the original date will be honored for the rescheduled date. If ticket holders wish to receive a refund, they may go to the Coffman information desk and present their ticket to receive a refund. During the event, King will address hallmarks of his father's vision such as the fight against poverty and social, political and economic injustice. He will also speak about his strategies to implement his father's ideas into today's society. King currently serves as president of the King Center, an organization dedicated to continuing the work and vision of Martin Luther King Jr. The King Center was founded in 1968 by Coretta Scott King. Tickets cost $10 for U of M students with a valid student ID and $15 for the general public. Tickets can be purchased at the Coffman information desk during regular business hours. Any remaining tickets will be sold at the door. If the event is sold out, tickets for overflow seating will be made available. Location: Great Hall, Coffman Memorial Union, 300 Washington Ave SE, Minneapolis --------20 of 22-------- From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com> Subject: Whoopi Goldberg/TV 2.27 8pm African-American Lives Part 1: Monday, Feb. 27 at 8PM on tpt17 Part 2: Wednesday, Feb. 8 at 8PM on tpt2 and Tuesday, Feb. 28 at 7PM on tpt17 Whoopi Goldberg Hosted by renowned Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and utilizing expert genealogical and historical research and DNA analysis, the series traces the lineages of Professor Gates and eight other prominent African Americans - neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, actress Whoopi Goldberg, Bishop T.D. Jakes, astronaut Dr. Mae Jemison, musician/producer Quincy Jones, sociologist Dr. Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot, comedian/actor Chris Tucker and TV pioneer/philanthropist Oprah Winfrey. Viewers will accompany them on a transformational journey of discovery as they unearth remarkable new truths about their family histories. --------21 of 22--------- Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran by Michael Keefer February 10, 2006 GlobalResearch.ca [1 of 2] Iran has been in the gun-sights of George W. Bush and his entourage from the moment that he was parachuted into the presidency in November 2000 by his father's Supreme Court. A year ago there were signs, duly reported by Seymour Hersh and others, that the United States and Israel were working out the targeting details of an aerial attack on Iran that it was anticipated would occur in June 2005 (see Hersh, Gush Shalom, Jensen). But as Michel Chossudovsky wrote in May 2005, widespread reports that George W. Bush had "signed off on" an attack on Iran did not signify that the attack would necessarily occur during the summer of 2005: what the 'signing off' suggested was rather "that the US and Israel [were] 'in a state of readiness' and [were] prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack [had] not been made" (Chossudovsky: May 2005). Since December 2005, however, there have been much firmer indications both that the planned attack will go ahead in late March 2006, and also that the Cheney-Bush administration intends it to involve the use of nuclear weapons. It is important to understand the nature and scale of the war crimes that are being planned-and no less important to recognize that, as in the case of the Bush regime's assault on Iraq, the pretexts being advanced to legitimize this intended aggression are entirely fraudulent. Unless the lurid fantasies of people like former Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security and now Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton count as evidence-and Bolton's pronouncements on the weaponry supposedly possessed by Iraq, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela show him to be less acquainted with truth than Jean Harlow was with chastity-there is no evidence that Iran has or has ever had any nuclear weapons development program. Claims to the contrary, however loudly they may have been trumpeted by Fox News, CNN, or The New York Times, are demonstrably false. Nor does there appear to be the remotest possibility, whatever desperate measures the Iranian government might be frightened into by American and Israeli threats of pre-emptive attacks, that Iran would be able to produce nuclear weapons in the near future. On August 2, 2005, The Washington Post reported that according to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which represents a consensus arrived at among U.S. intelligence agencies, "Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years" (Linzer, quoted by Clark, 28 Jan. 2006). The coming attack on Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Its primary motive, as oil analyst William Clark has argued, is rather a determination to ensure that the U.S. dollar remains the sole world currency for oil trading. Iran plans in March 2006 to open a Teheran Oil Bourse in which all trading will be carried out in Euros. This poses a direct threat to the status of the U.S. dollar as the principal world reserve currency-and hence also to a trading system in which massive U.S. trade deficits are paid for with paper money whose accepted value resides, as Krassimir Petrov notes, in its being the currency in which international oil trades are denominated. (U.S. dollars are effectively exchangeable for oil in somewhat the same way that, prior to 1971, they were at least in theory exchangeable for gold.) But not only is this planned aggression unconnected to any actual concern over Iranian nuclear weapons. There is in fact some reason to think that the preparations for it have involved deliberate violations by the Bush neo-conservatives of anti-proliferation protocols (and also, necessarily, of U.S. law), and that their long-term planning, in which Turkey's consent to the aggression is a necessary part, has involved a deliberate transfer of nuclear weapons technology to Turkey as a part of the pay-off. Prior to her public exposure by Karl Rove, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, and other senior administration officials in July 2003, CIA agent Valerie Plame was reportedly involved in undercover anti-proliferation work focused on transfers of nuclear technology to Turkey that were being carried out by a network of crooked businessmen, arms dealers, and 'rogue' officials within the U.S. government. The leaking of Plame's identity as a CIA agent was undoubtedly an act of revenge for her husband Joseph Wilson's public revelation that one of the key claims used to legitimize the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein's supposed acquisition of uranium ore from Niger, was known by the Bush regime to be groundless. But Plame's exposure also conveniently put an end to her investigative work. Some of the senior administration officials responsible for that crime of state have long-term diplomatic and military connections to Turkey, and all of them have been employed in what might be called (with a nod to ex-White House speechwriter David Frum) the Cheney-Bolton Axis of Aggression. Thanks to the courage and integrity of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, there is evidence dating from 2002 of high-level involvement in the subversion of FBI investigations into arms trafficking with Turkey. The leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent may therefore have been not merely an act of revenge for her husband's contribution to the delegitimizing of one war of aggression, but also a tactical maneuver in preparation for the next one. George W. Bush made clear his aggressive intentions in relation to Iran in his 2002 State of the Union address; and his regime's record on issues of nuclear proliferation has been, to put it mildly, equivocal. If, as seems plausible, Bush's diplomats had been secretly arranging that Turkey's reward for connivance in an attack on Iran should include its future admission into the charmed circle of nuclear powers, then the meddling interference of servants of the state who, like Plame and Edmonds, were putting themselves or at least their careers at risk in the cause of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, was not to be tolerated. The ironies are glaring. The U.S. government is contemplating an unprovoked attack upon Iran that will involve "pre-emptive" use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapons-holding state. Although the pretext is that this is necessary to forestall nuclear weapons proliferation, there is evidence to suggest that planning for the attack has involved, very precisely, nuclear weapons proliferation by the United States. It would appear that this sinister complex of criminality involves one further twist. There have been indications that the planned attack may be immediately preceded (and of course 'legitimized') by another 9/11-type event within the U.S. Let us review these issues in sequence. Plans for a conventional and 'tactical' nuclear attack on Iran On August 1, 2005 Philip Giraldi, an ex-CIA agent and associate of Vincent Cannistraro (the former head of the CIA's counter-intelligence operations and former intelligence director at the National Security Council), published an article entitled "Deep Background" in The American Conservative. The first section of this article carried the following headline: "In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran." I quote the first section of Giraldi's article in its entirety: "The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing - that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack - but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." The implications of this report are breathtaking. First, it indicates on the part of the ruling Cheney faction within the American state a frank in-house acknowledgment that their often-repeated public claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and the 9/11 attacks are the rubbish that informed people have long known them to be. At a deeper level, it implies that "9/11-type terrorist attacks" are recognized in Cheney's office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system. (Though the implicit acknowledgment is shocking, the fact itself should come as no surprise, since recent research has shown that the Bush administration was deeply implicated not merely in permitting the attacks of September 11, 2001 to happen, but in actually organizing them: see Chossudovsky 2002: 51-63, 144-56; Chossudovsky 2005: 51-62, 135-46, 237-61; Griffin 2004: 127-46, 169-201; Griffin 2005: 115-35, 277-91; Marrs 134-37; and Ruppert 309-436.) And finally, Giraldi's report suggests that the recent U.S. development of comparatively low-yield nuclear weapons specifically designed to destroy hardened underground facilities, and the recent re-orientation of U.S. nuclear policy to include first-strike or pre-emptive nuclear attacks on non-nuclear powers, were both part of long-range planning for a war on Iran. Articles published by William Arkin in the Washington Post in May and October 2005 reported on what the U.S. military's STRATCOM calls CONPLAN 8022, a global plan for bombing and missile attacks involving "a nuclear option" anywhere in the world that was tested in an exercise that began on November 1, 2005; the scenario for this exercise scripted a dirty-bomb attack on Mobile, Alabama to which STRATCOM responded with nuclear and conventional strikes on an unnamed east-Asian country that was transparently meant for North Korea. Jorge Hirsch has outlined the deployment of key administrative personnel and of ideological legitimations in preparation for a nuclear attack on Iran (Hirsch, 16 Dec. 2005). And Michel Chossudovsky has described the command structure that has been set up to implement STRATCOM's current plans for preemptive 'theatre' nuclear warfare (see Chossudovsky 2006). But it must be emphasized that these plans, as tested in November 2005 in the exercise referred to by Arkin, involve the creation of an impression of what theorists of nuclear war call "proportionality." An attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely 'dirty' earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents. Yet as Giraldi indicates, although the bombing of Iran would follow and be represented as a response to "another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States," the planned pattern involves a cynical separation of appearance from reality: "the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in [this] act of terrorism.." Earth-Penetrator 'dirty bombs' Talk about "low-yield" nuclear weapons, by the way, means simply that the most recent U.S. nuclear weapons can be set to detonate with much less than their maximum explosive force. The maximum power of the B61-11 earth-penetrating "bunker-buster" bomb ranges, by different accounts, from 300 to 340 or 400 kilotons (see Nelson; Hirsch, 9 Jan. 2006). (By way of comparison, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August, 1945, killing some 80,000 people outright, and a further 60,000 over the next several months due to radiation poisoning and other injuries, had a yield of 15 kilotons.) The lowest-yield setting of the BL61-11 is reportedly 0.3 kilotons-equivalent, that is to say, to the detonation of 300 tons of TNT. But since these new weapons are designed as earth-penetrating "bunker-buster" rather than air-burst bombs, each one can be expected to produce large volumes of very 'dirty' radioactive fallout. Robert Nelson of the Federation of American Scientists writes that even at the low end of the B61-11 bomb's yield range, "the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area." The very intense local fallout will include both "radioactivity from the fission products" and also "large amounts of dirt and debris [that] has been exposed to the intense neutron flux from the nuclear detonation"; the blast cloud produced by such a bomb "typically consists of a narrow column and a broad base surge of air filled with radioactive dust which expands to a radius of over a mile for a 5 kiloton explosion." Yet wouldn't the "tactical" and "low-yield" nature of these weapons mean that civilian casualties could be kept to a minimum? A study published in 2005 by the National Research Council on the Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons offers estimates of the casualties that could be caused by these weapons. According to Conclusion 6 of this report, an attack in or near a densely populated urban area could be expected, depending on the B61-11's yield setting, to kill from several thousand to over a million people. An attack in a remote, lightly populated area might kill as few as several hundred people - or, with a high-yield setting and unfavourable winds, hundreds of thousands. But what kinds of yield settings might the U.S. military want to use? Conclusion 5 of the NRC report might seem to suggest that genuinely low-yield settings might be possible: the yield required "to destroy a hard and deeply buried target is reduced by a factor of 15 to 25 by enhanced ground-shock coupling if the weapon is detonated a few meters below the surface." Conclusion 2, however, is more sobering. To have a high probability of destroying a facility 200 metres underground, an earth-penetrating weapon with a yield of 300 kilotons would be required - that is to say, a weapon with twenty times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Extrapolating from the information the report provides, one might guess that a weapon in the 7-8 kiloton range - with half the power of the Hiroshima bomb - could be deployed against a facility like Natanz, the sensitive parts of which are buried 18 metres underground and protected by reinforced concrete (Beeston). A similar or smaller weapon might be used against the uranium fuel enrichment facility at Esfahan - a city of two million people which is also, by the way, a UNESCO World Heritage City. The NRC report, it should be noted, was written by a committee, and one that on the issue of civilian casualties seems to have had some difficulty in making up its collective mind. Conclusion 4 of the report informs us that "For the same yield and weather conditions, the number of casualties from an earth-penetrator weapon detonated at a few meters depth is, for all practical purposes, equal to that from a surface burst of the same weapon yield." But Conclusion 7 tells a different story: "For urban targets, civilian casualties from nuclear earth-penetrator weapons are reduced by a factor of 2 to 10 compared with those from a surface burst having 25 times the yield." The most charitable interpretation I can give to Conclusion 7 is that it was composed for a readership of arithmetical illiterates - who the authors assume will be unable to deduce that what is actually being said (assuming a linear relation between yield and casualties) is that an earth-penetrating weapon will cause from 2.5 to 12.5 times more casualties than a surface-burst weapon of the same explosive power. In light of the fact that the NRC report was commissioned by the United States Congress, we can ourselves conclude that the U.S. government is contemplating, open-eyed, a war of aggression that American planners are fully aware will kill - at the very least - many tens of thousands, and perhaps many hundreds of thousands of civilians. The pretexts The principal reason being advanced for an attack upon Iran is the claim that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear threat with the capacity and presumably the intention of launching nuclear ballistic-missile attacks upon Israel and even western Europe and the United States. Iran does possess ballistic missiles, including the Shahab-3, which with a range of 1300 kilometers is capable of striking Israel, as well as U.S. forces throughout the Middle East. (Why Iran would dream of initiating military aggression against the U.S. or against Israel, which possesses an arsenal of some 200 nuclear warheads, together with multiple means of delivering them, including ballistic missiles, is not explained.) A fear-mongering article published by The Guardian on January 4, 2006, included the information that the next generation of the Shahab missile "should be capable of reaching Austria and Italy." The leading sentence of this same article declares that "The Iranian government has been successfully scouring Europe for the sophisticated equipment needed to develop a nuclear bomb, according to the latest western assessment of the country's weapons programmes" (Cobain and Traynor). But neither this article nor a companion piece (Traynor and Cobain) published the same day provides any evidence that Iran actually has a nuclear weapons program, even though both articles were based upon a "report from a leading EU intelligence service," a "55-page intelligence assessment, dated July 1 2005, [that] draws upon material gathered by British, French, German and Belgian agencies." There is in fact very good evidence, in the form of exhaustive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency since 2003, that Iran does not have and has never had any such program. As the physicist Gordon Prather wrote in September 2005, "after two years of go-anywhere, see-anything inspections, [the IAEA] has found no indication that any special nuclear materials or activities involving them are being-or have been-used in furtherance of a military purpose" (Prather, 27 Sept. 2005). But what about intentions? The Guardian journalists inform us that "western leaders have long refused to believe Tehran's insistence that it is not interested in developing nuclear weapons and is only trying to develop nuclear power for electricity" (Cobain and Traynor). Perhaps it is time these "western leaders" - George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and whatever rag-tag and bob-tail of lesser luminaries they are dragging after them - began to attend to the facts. A good place to start might be with William Beeman's and Thomas Stauffer's assessment of the physical evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. (Stauffer, by the way, is a former nuclear engineer and specialist in Middle Eastern energy economics; Beeman directs Brown University's Middle East Studies program; both have conducted research on Iran for three decades.) Beeman and Stauffer note that Iran has three principal nuclear facilities. Of the first two, a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz and a deuterium research facility in Arak, they remark that "Neither is in operation. The only question of interest is whether these facilities offer a plausible route to the manufacture of plutonium-based nuclear bombs, and the short answer is: They do not." Beeman and Stauffer compare the third facility, the PWR pressurized "light-water" reactor under construction at Bushehr, with Israel's heavy-water graphite-moderated plant at Dimona. The Bushehr reactor is designed to maximize power output through long fuel cycles of 30 to 40 months; it will produce plutonium isotopes (PU240, 241 and 242) that are "almost impossible to use in making bombs"; and "the entire reactor will have to shut down - a step that cannot be concealed from satellites, airplanes and other sources - in order to permit the extraction of even a single fuel pin." Israel's Dimona plant, in contrast, produces the bomb-making isotope PU239; moreover, it "can be re-fueled 'on line,' without shutting down. Thus, high-grade plutonium can be obtained covertly and continuously." Claims emanating from the U.S. State Department to the effect that Iran possesses uranium-enrichment centrifuges or covert plutonium-extraction facilities are dismissed by Beeman and Stauffer as implausible, since "the sources are either unidentified or are the same channels which disseminated the stories about Iraq's non-conventional weapons or the so-called chemical and biological weapons plant in Khartoum." As Michael T. Klare remarks, the U.S. government's "claim that an attack on Iran would be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential should invite widespread skepticism." But skeptical intelligence appears to be the last thing one can expect from the corporate media, whose organs report without blinking Condoleezza Rice's threat that "The world will not stand by if Iran continues on the path to a nuclear weapons capability" (see [Rice]), and George W. Bush's equally inane declaration, following the IAEA's vote to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, that "This important step sends a clear message to the regime in Iran that the world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons" (see [Bush]). There is much to be said about the sorry process of propagandizing, diplomatic bullying, and behind-the-scenes blackmail and arm-twisting within the IAEA and in other forums - all of it strongly reminiscent of the maneuverings of late 2002 and early 2003 - that has led to the present situation, where in early March the Security Council will be called upon, as in the case of Iraq three years ago, to accept and legitimize the falsehoods on which the new war of aggression is to be based. The early stages of this process were lucidly analyzed by Siddharth Varadarajan in three fine articles in September 2005. Its more recent phases have been assessed by Gordon Prather in a series of articles published since mid-September 2005, and also, with equal scrupulousness and ethical urgency, by another well-informed physicist, Jorge Hirsch, who has been publishing essays on the subject since mid-October. I will not repeat here the analyses developed in their articles (the titles of which are included in the list of sources which follows this text). But Varadarajan's recent summary judgment of the diplomatic process is worth quoting: "Each time it appeases Washington's relentless pressure on Iran, the international community is being made to climb higher and higher up a ladder whose final rungs can only be sanctions and war. This is precisely the route the U.S. followed against Iraq in its quest to effect regime change there" (Varadarajan, 1 Feb. 2006). It is also worth saying something, however briefly, about the media campaign that has accompanied the diplomatic preparations for war. This has included, since mid-2005, accusations that that Iran was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, some of whose perpetrators are alleged (by members of the wholly discredited Kean Commission of inquiry into the events of 9/11) to have passed through Iran on their way to the U.S. (see Coman; Hirsch, 28 Dec. 2005; and also, if you believe The 9/11 Commission Report to have any credibility, Griffin 2005). A more relevant accusation surfaced in November 2005, when the New York Times reported that senior U.S. intelligence officials had briefed IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei and his senior staff on information gleaned from a "stolen Iranian laptop computer" which they said demonstrated that Iran had developed nuclear weapons compact enough to fit onto its Shahab missiles. But as Gordon Prather wrote, "'sources close to the IAEA' said what they had been briefed on appeared to be aerodynamic design work for a ballistic missile reentry vehicle, which certainly couldn't contain a nuke if the Iranians didn't have any. Furthermore, according to David Albright, a sometime consultant to the IAEA, who has actually had access to the 'stolen Iranian laptop,' the information on it is all about reentry vehicles and 'does not contain words such [as] 'nuclear' and 'nuclear warhead'" (Prather, 23 Nov. 2005). Sorry, boys: no biscuit. And yet the object of the exercise was evidently not to persuade the IAEA people, who are not idiots, but rather to get the story into the amplification system of that Mighty Wurlitzer, the corporate media. This strategy has evidently worked. The New York Times, for example, may have parted company with Judith Miller, the 'star' reporter whose sordid job was to serve as a conduit for Bush regime misinformation during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, but in Elaine Sciolino they have a reporter who is no less skilled in passing off neocon propaganda as fact (see Prather, 7 Jan. 2006). The New York Times also gave front-page space in mid-January to an article by Richard Bernstein and Stephen Weisman proposing "that Iran has restarted 'research that could give it technology to create nuclear weapons'" (quoted by Whitney, 17 Jan. 2006). "Perhaps," Mike Whitney suggests, "the NY Times knows something that the IAEA inspectors don't? If so, they should step forward and reveal the facts." The key facts, as Whitney wrote on January 17, are that there is no evidence that Iran has either a nuclear weapons program or centrifuges with which to enrich uranium to weapons-grade concentration. "These are the two issues which should be given greatest consideration in determining whether or not Iran poses a real danger to its neighbors, and yet these are precisely the facts that are absent from the nearly 2,500 articles written on the topic in the last few days." Add to these the further fact, noted above, that the August 2005 National Intelligence Estimate doubled the time American agencies thought Iran would need to manufacture "the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon" from the previous estimate of five years to a full decade. Why then is the American public being incited to ever greater anxiety in the face of a weapons program which - on the paranoid and unproven assumption that it actually exists - is if anything a receding rather than a gathering threat? Fox News has led the way among the non-print media in drum-beating and misinformation - to the extent, as Paul Craig Roberts observes, that a Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll can plausibly report "that 60% of Republicans, 41% of Independents, and 36% of Democrats support using air strikes and ground troops against Iran in order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons." Worse yet, an LA Times/Bloomberg poll apparently finds that 57% of the respondents "favor military intervention if Iran's government pursues a program that would enable it to build nuclear arms." Any civilian nuclear power program opens up this possibility (Canada, had it so desired, could have become a nuclear-weapons power forty years ago) - but the function of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is precisely to open the way to peaceful nuclear power generation while preventing the further dissemination of nuclear weapons. What the LA Times/Bloomberg poll therefore means, Roberts says, is that "if Iran exercises its rights under the non-proliferation treaty, 57% of Americans support a US military attack on Iran!" Numbers like these suggest that George W. Bush will indeed get the new war he so desires. And it appears that he will get it soon. As Newt Gingrich declared on Fox News in late January, the matter is so urgent that the attack must happen within the next few months. "According to Gingrich, Iran not only cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, but also Iranians 'cannot be trusted with their oil'" (Roberts). [The second/last part deals with the real reason for the planned war. -ed] --------22 of 22--------- Bush dreams pretty nukes; bright flowers whisk away unwhite meat blobs much like us. Congressional Dems fear each days' dark attack of creeping spinal bend. What can we do? they gasp. We must save ourselves for what counts - our dear seats. Everyone else will have to fend for himself - to each his own, we say. If you don't like your fate, why were you born into this world? It's your fault. If we never see you again, goodbye, and please get out of our light. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - David Shove shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu rhymes with clove Progressive Calendar over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02 please send all messages in plain text no attachments
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.