Global
“We who believe in freedom cannot rest
We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes (repeat chorus)
Until the killing of black men, black mothers’ sons
Is as important as the killing of white men, white mothers’ sons (chorus)
That which touches me most is that I had a chance to work with people
Passing on to others that which was passed on to me (chorus)
To me young people come first, they have the courage where we fail
And if I can just shed some light as they carry us through the gale (chorus)
The older I get the better I know that the secret of my going on
Is when the reins are in the hands of the young, who dare to run against the storm (chorus)
Not needing to clutch for power, not needing the light just to shine on me
I need to be just one in the number as we stand against tyranny (chorus)
Struggling myself don’t mean a whole lot, I’ve come to realize
That teaching others to stand up and fight is the only way my struggle survives (chorus)
I’m a woman who speaks in a voice and I must be heard
At times I can be quite difficult, I’ll bow to no man’s word. (chorus)
Given the magnitude of the global crises we face, we'd hope the key nonprofits trying to address them would use every appropriate tool to maximize their impact.
Yet, Seattle's Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which does much good with its programs (particularly its global immunization efforts), is missing a significant opportunity by not aligning the foundation's investment commitments with its larger social goals. Its choices offer a lesson for other foundations, for pension funds, college and university endowments, and all other nonprofit institutions that control financial capital.
If Gates Foundation wanted to consider a different approach, it might learn from institutions like California's massive CalPERS (California Public Employees' Retirement System) pension fund, which has combined first-rate financial returns with investments that put its dollars in service of socially responsible values.
Yet, Seattle's Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which does much good with its programs (particularly its global immunization efforts), is missing a significant opportunity by not aligning the foundation's investment commitments with its larger social goals. Its choices offer a lesson for other foundations, for pension funds, college and university endowments, and all other nonprofit institutions that control financial capital.
If Gates Foundation wanted to consider a different approach, it might learn from institutions like California's massive CalPERS (California Public Employees' Retirement System) pension fund, which has combined first-rate financial returns with investments that put its dollars in service of socially responsible values.
A cooling tower at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant has collapsed.
A broken 54" pipe there has spewed 350,000 gallons per minute of contaminated, overheated water into the Earth. "The river water piping and the series of screens and supports failed," said a company spokesman. They "fell to the ground."
The public and media were barred from viewing the wreckage for three days. But when a Congressional Energy Bill conference committee takes up Senate-approved loan guarantees for building new nukes this fall, what will reactor backers say about this latest pile of radioactive rubble?
This kind of event can make even hardened nuke opponents pinch themselves and read the descriptions twice. Who could make this up?
Vermont Yankee has been in operation---more or less---since the early 1970s. Its owner is Entergy, a multi-reactor "McNuke" operator that last year got approval to up VY's output by 20%.
A broken 54" pipe there has spewed 350,000 gallons per minute of contaminated, overheated water into the Earth. "The river water piping and the series of screens and supports failed," said a company spokesman. They "fell to the ground."
The public and media were barred from viewing the wreckage for three days. But when a Congressional Energy Bill conference committee takes up Senate-approved loan guarantees for building new nukes this fall, what will reactor backers say about this latest pile of radioactive rubble?
This kind of event can make even hardened nuke opponents pinch themselves and read the descriptions twice. Who could make this up?
Vermont Yankee has been in operation---more or less---since the early 1970s. Its owner is Entergy, a multi-reactor "McNuke" operator that last year got approval to up VY's output by 20%.
"Made Love, Got War" is the title of Norman Solomon's latest book, an autobiographical account of the peace and disarmament movements in the United States over the past half century. Better than his other books, I think, this one achieves the level of artistic composition found in Solomon's brilliant and frequent columns on the media, war, and peace. But the value of "Made Love, Not War" lies in the lessons it provides for current and future activism, the accounts of pitfalls and seductive detours encountered in the past, the insights gained, and the analysis of how one can push on without hope or optimism or the desire for them, all as told by one of the most morally decent people we are privileged to live alongside today.
The simple statement on nuclear power and climate has gathered almost 900 signatures since it went online Tuesday evening, including nearly 200 organizations from across the U.S. and the world (Lists of the organizational signers are available on NIRS homepage, www.nirs.org). The statement already has been translated into French, Russian and Ukrainian, and a Spanish translation will be available soon.
If you haven’t signed yet, please do so at:
Nuclear power
The statement is plain and straightforward: "We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power." The more signatures we get, the faster the media and pro-nuclear politicians will get the message that the only people who want more nuclear power are those who are paid by the nuclear power industry!
Nuclear power
The statement is plain and straightforward: "We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power." The more signatures we get, the faster the media and pro-nuclear politicians will get the message that the only people who want more nuclear power are those who are paid by the nuclear power industry!
As he heads for the office these days, Nouri al-Maliki should
bid his family especially tender farewells. If the patterns of
U.S. foreign policy are any guide, the Iraqi prime minister is
a very poor insurance risk.
On Monday, Aug. 20, a leading Democratic senator, Carl Levin of Michigan and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, returned from a weekend outing to Iraq and declared publicly that Iraq's parliament should remove al-Maliki from power. "The Maliki government is nonfunctional," Levin declared, "and cannot produce a political settlement because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders."
The next day, Hillary Rodham Clinton, front-runner of Democrats seeking the nomination of their party for the presidency, went before the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and reiterated her senate colleague's call. She said that al-Maliki should be replaced by a "less divisive and more unifying figure."
The final grim news for al-Maliki came on Wednesday when President Bush affirmed confidence in the prime minister, declaring him to be a fine fellow.
On Monday, Aug. 20, a leading Democratic senator, Carl Levin of Michigan and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, returned from a weekend outing to Iraq and declared publicly that Iraq's parliament should remove al-Maliki from power. "The Maliki government is nonfunctional," Levin declared, "and cannot produce a political settlement because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders."
The next day, Hillary Rodham Clinton, front-runner of Democrats seeking the nomination of their party for the presidency, went before the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and reiterated her senate colleague's call. She said that al-Maliki should be replaced by a "less divisive and more unifying figure."
The final grim news for al-Maliki came on Wednesday when President Bush affirmed confidence in the prime minister, declaring him to be a fine fellow.
"To address the war in Iraq as unwinnable is ludicrous, the only issue is the resolve of the people and how many believe the misinformation pandered by the far left" (Marty Scott, News & Advance, Aug. 22).
Contrary to promises, we are LESS SAFE here at home since the US invasion of Iraq: al-Qaeda is more active and dispersed than before the war and the US presence in Iraq breeds extremist violence and puts our service people in harm’s way. According to figures from the Brookings “Iraq Index” and the Institute for Policy Studies, as of November 2003 the number of resistance fighters in Iraq was estimated at 5,000; as of March 2007 the estimate is 70,000.
Furthermore we have seen and are seeing the dire consequences and strategic nightmares that then former Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney predicte4d in an April 15, 1994 interview:
Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
CHENEY: No.
Q: Why not?
Contrary to promises, we are LESS SAFE here at home since the US invasion of Iraq: al-Qaeda is more active and dispersed than before the war and the US presence in Iraq breeds extremist violence and puts our service people in harm’s way. According to figures from the Brookings “Iraq Index” and the Institute for Policy Studies, as of November 2003 the number of resistance fighters in Iraq was estimated at 5,000; as of March 2007 the estimate is 70,000.
Furthermore we have seen and are seeing the dire consequences and strategic nightmares that then former Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney predicte4d in an April 15, 1994 interview:
Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
CHENEY: No.
Q: Why not?
I'm continually amazed by the connections between seemingly unrelated threads in my life. I've already mentioned various times that I love to read audio books to replace the bad-news-all-the-time radio. Right now, I'm reading Garlic and Sapphires: The Secret Life of a Critic in Disguise, the memoir of Ruth Reichl, the former New York Times restaurant critic. It's a lot of fun reading about someone whose life is so different from my own and about scads of meals that I couldn't or wouldn't ever eat. It's hard to think of a topic more removed from the state of our elections. And yet, both yesterday and today, her book touched on topics that seemed uncannily relevant.
It's been two years. And America's media is about to have another tear-gasm over New Orleans. Maybe Anderson Cooper will weep again. The big networks will float into the moldering corpse of the city and give you uplifting stories about rebuilding and hope.
Now, let's cut through the cry-baby crap. Here's what happened two years ago - and what's happening now.
This is what an inside source me. And it makes me sick:
"By midnight on Monday, the White House knew. Monday night I was at the state Emergency Operations Center and nobody was aware that the levees had breeched. Nobody."
The charge is devastating: That, on August 29, 2005, the White House withheld from the state police the information that New Orleans was about to flood. From almost any other source, I would not have believed it. But this was not just any source. The whistle-blower is Dr. Ivor van Heerden, deputy director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center, the chief technician advising the state on saving lives during Katrina.
Now, let's cut through the cry-baby crap. Here's what happened two years ago - and what's happening now.
This is what an inside source me. And it makes me sick:
"By midnight on Monday, the White House knew. Monday night I was at the state Emergency Operations Center and nobody was aware that the levees had breeched. Nobody."
The charge is devastating: That, on August 29, 2005, the White House withheld from the state police the information that New Orleans was about to flood. From almost any other source, I would not have believed it. But this was not just any source. The whistle-blower is Dr. Ivor van Heerden, deputy director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center, the chief technician advising the state on saving lives during Katrina.