New Study Predicts the Downfall of Wikipedia, OneIndia News, August 2009
"Researchers at the Palo Alto Research Center in California have predicted the downfall of the internet encyclopedia- Wikipedia. The study shows that Wikipedia's ascendancy to the top of a large pool of online reference sites may be coming to an end because the community-created encyclopedia has become less welcoming to new contributors."
"It's easy to say that Wikipedia will always be here. This research shows that is not a given," New Scientist quoted Dr Ed Chi, a senior scientist at the Palo Alto Research Center, as saying."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wall Street Journal, TECH: Wikipedia on the Decline, 11/22/2009
WSJ's Julia Angwin interviews Andrew Lih, author of Wikipedia Revolution, about why volunteers are increasingly quitting Wikipedia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Decline of Wikipedia, MIT Technology Review, By Tom Simonite on October 22, 2013
"The sixth most widely used website in the world is not run anything like the others in the top 10. It is not operated by a sophisticated corporation but by a leaderless collection of volunteers who generally work under pseudonyms and habitually bicker with each other. It rarely tries new things in the hope of luring visitors; in fact, it has changed little in a decade...
Yet Wikipedia and its stated ambition to “compile the sum of all human knowledge” are in trouble. The volunteer workforce that built the project’s flagship, the English-language Wikipedia—and must defend it against vandalism, hoaxes, and manipulation—has shrunk by more than a third since 2007 and is still shrinking. Those participants left seem incapable of fixing the flaws that keep Wikipedia from becoming a high-quality encyclopedia by any standard, including the project’s own...
The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage..."
Newcomers Unwelcome...
"Without any traditional power structure, they developed sophisticated workflows and guidelines for producing and maintaining entries. Their only real nod to hierarchy was electing a small group of “administrators” who could wield special powers such as deleting articles or temporarily banning other editors. (There are now 635 active admins on the English Wikipedia.)
The project seemed laughable or shocking to many. Wikipedia inherited and embraced the cultural expectations that an encyclopedia ought to be authoritative, comprehensive, and underpinned by the rational spirit of the Enlightenment. But it threw out centuries of accepted methods for attaining that. In the established model, advisory boards, editors, and contributors selected from society’s highest intellectual echelons drew up a list of everything worth knowing, then created the necessary entries. Wikipedia eschewed central planning and didn’t solicit conventional expertise. In fact, its rules effectively discouraged experts from contributing, given that their work, like anyone else’s, could be overwritten within minutes. Wikipedia was propelled instead by the notion that articles should pile up quickly, in the hope that one Borgesian day the collection would have covered everything in the world."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community: How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its decline, by Aaron Halfaker, Scientist
"Open collaboration systems like Wikipedia need to maintain a pool of volunteer contributors in order to remain relevant. Wikipedia was created through a tremendous number of contributions by millions of contributors. However, recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in Wikipedia has been declining steadily for years, and suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause. This paper presents data that show that several changes the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have ironically crippled the very growth they were designed to manage. Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia's primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention. Further, the community's formal mechanisms for norm articulation are shown to have calcified against changes – especially changes proposed by newer editors.
------------------------------------------------------------------
What's Wrong with Wikipedia, Harvard Universsity
"Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation."
-------------------------------------------------
Askville
"So most people don’t consider Wikipedia to be a reputable source, since its contents come from unverified sources and are not only prone to contain mistakes, but also lack proper supervision and editing."
-------------------------------------------------
GIGAOM, The Decline of Wikipedia
"It’s no secret that the community behind Wikipedia is insular, methodical and bureaucratic. But the high barriers of entry that Wikipedians have established to keep the website’s millions of pages under control are now coming back to haunt them, according to an in-depth feature by MIT Technology Review. There simply aren’t enough people to regulate and edit the firehose of information — both correct and incorrect — to keep to the high standard the community sets for itself, much less be a reliable encyclopedia. That insular group is going to need to open up, or risk collapsing under the weight of its own system."
---------------------------------------------------
Mail Online, Is this the decline of Wikipedia?
"A third of editors have QUIT complaining site bosses have 'lowered the bar' on quality
Changes by Wikipedia to modernise the site have disenfranchised loyal 'Wikipedians', claims study
Volunteer editors believe that in making changes to its systems Wikipedia has been 'lowering the bar'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Raw Story, MIT report: Wikipedia has entered perpetual ‘decline phase’
"According to a recent MIT study, the volunteer editorial staff at Wikipedia has withered by more than a third since 2007, and its ranks are still declining.
At the same time, volunteer editors increasingly found themselves hamstrung by rules that became too arcane to police. In his study, Halfaker wrote that Wikipedia should change its motto from “[t]he encyclopedia that anyone can edit” to “[t]he encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economics of Information: MIT Technology Review has an article on the decline of Wikipedia.
"The article summarizes the challenges faced by the 'The Free Encyclopedia' and one of the top ten most visited websites in the world as:
When Wikipedians achieved their most impressive feat of leaderless collective organization, they unwittingly set in motion the decline in participation that troubles their project today."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So long as an illiterate drug addict can override the work of a Harvard professor, Wikipedia will never be an authoritative reference."
Credibility for Wikipedia, by BC Burleson Consulting.
VoterMarch, a grassroots organization for voter rights, founded on Nov. 14, 2000.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Saturday, January 18, 2014
NEW YORK CITY TO PAY HISTORIC $18 MILLION SETTLEMENT FOR VIOLATING CIVIL RIGHTS OF PROTESTERS AT 2004 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION
Release Date: January 15, 2014
For further information:
Martin R. Stolar
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD - NEW YORK CITY CHAPTER ON THE SETTLEMENT OF THE 2004 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION CASES
Today's announcement of the settlement of the 2004 Republican National Convention civil cases is the culmination of 10 years of work to protect the freedom to dissent from the Bush administration's war-mongering policies.
The National Lawyers Guild's Mass Defense Committee organized the criminal defense of the more than 1800 people arrested during the Convention, providing pro bono lawyers and legal support which resulted in dismissals or acquittals for over 90% of those taken into police custody.
Following the criminal cases, the Guild organized civil rights lawsuits on behalf of those wrongfully arrested and detained, providing legal counsel through its members and affiliated attorneys to vindicate those rights. The settlement agreed to by the City and the plaintiffs does exactly that.
We are pleased that a substantial portion of the attorneys fees from this settlement will be dedicated to the continued defense of the right to dissent and to express that dissent in a public forum. Speaking out about the government's infringements of fundamental human rights is an obligation of every citizen, and is a right which the Guild continues to defend and will defend in the future.
----------
STATEMENT BY RNC PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS:
January 15, 2014
City Hall, New York City
1800 PEOPLE ARRESTED DURING 2004 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION SETTLE LAWSUITS AGAINST NYPD
On behalf of the more than 1800 people who were unjustly arrested during the 2004 RNC, we are pleased to announce a global settlement of all but a handful of the lawsuits for false arrest and violation of first amendment rights. The City has agreed to pay out $18 million in this settlement. This is the largest settlement of civil rights cases arising from mass arrests of protesters in US history. The City will pay $6,400,000 to 430 individual plaintiffs; $6,600,000 to settle a class action on behalf of approximately 1200 people; and $5,000,000 to attorneys for the individual plaintiffs. The attorneys will be contributing 10% of their fees to a fund to protect the free speech rights of New Yorkers into the future.
The Arrests at the 2004 Republican National Convention
At the time of the 2004 Republican Convention, the invasion of Iraq had entered its second year. New York City had been chosen for the Convention site to align the nominee with the site of the tragic attacks of 9/11. It was widely known that the Convention would attract many Americans who opposed the war and other Bush administration policies, and intended to make their views known in a peaceful manner, just as people had protested at past political conventions.
Despite projected fears that peaceful protests would be disrupted by “anarchists,” and the Bloomberg administration’s mistaken conflation of large peaceful protest activity with terrorism and violence, nothing of the kind materialized during the days of protest around the Convention. Instead, hundreds of peaceful protesters were rounded up in mass arrests at numerous locations around the City during the Convention, most of them on one day, August 31, 2004. On that day, the first large group of protesters gathered near the World Trade Center site to conduct a peaceful sidewalk march that had been called by the War Resisters League, a pacifist organization – the protest had been featured in that morning’s newspapers as a place people could go to peacefully express themselves. The protesters discussed their plans with the police before setting off on their march with police approval, but 227 were arrested en masse before they had walked half a block on the Fulton Street sidewalk next to St. Paul’s Church, across the street from Ground Zero. The mass arrest is depicted on police videos that we have reproduced for distribution.
NYPD RNC arrests ruled illegal, RT America, Oct. 2, 2012
In 2012, Federal District Court Judge Richard J. Sullivan held that all 227 had been illegally arrested: “The Court therefore finds that the police lacked probable cause to arrest the Fulton Street protesters.” A thousand more people were arrested later that same day in similar mass arrests. The Bloomberg administration made a calculated decision to conduct preemptive arrests without probable cause, knowing that taxpayers would eventually pay for that decision.
Everyone arrested was held at a Pier on the Hudson River that had previously been used as an MTA bus repair facility – cyclone fencing was used to create cages in a warehouse-like area still covered with grease and brake fluid. Signs still hung from the walls warning workers to wear hazmat suits. There was no heat, no place to lie down, and a handful of port-a-potties. Protesters were held in these disgraceful conditions for up to 48 hours before being transported to court facilities – long enough to exhaust them and keep them off the streets until after George Bush was re-nominated. Many left with skin rashes and respiratory problems, and some developed more serious medical conditions. Even during the course of the RNC, a state court judge held the City in contempt for detaining arrestees longer than permissible.
Almost everyone arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and parading without a permit had their charges dismissed, or were acquitted at trials. We expect many of them to be available to speak directly to the media about their experiences.
The Lawsuits and the Settlement
Hundreds of people filed individual federal civil rights lawsuits. A class action was also filed. The Bloomberg administration viewed the claims as a political challenge to policing policies Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly were intent on defending, just as they have defended their stop and frisk practices. They deemed peaceful protesters, “anarchists,” and terrorists as a blended “tri-partite threat” to the City. But no terrorists were to be found among people protesting on the sidewalks of New York during the RNC. Instead, the City’s policies fell on people who, at worst, caused some crowded sidewalks and snarled traffic.
Just as the NSA has justified massive collection of information on millions of citizens on the grounds that it will help catch terrorists (although there is no evidence it has done so); and just as widespread surveillance of the private lives of peaceful Muslim New Yorkers has been justified on the same grounds; the surveillance of activists and the arrests at the RNC are a disgraceful example of disregard for the right to speak freely, an infringement of civil rights for partisan political purposes. Dissent has nothing to do with terrorism, and the RNC experience shows that widespread intelligence gathering on citizens paves the way to curtailing free expression. The arrests of 1800 people had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, and everything to do with a political agenda to silence protest while a political party nominated its candidate.
According to news reports, the City spent more than $16 million of taxpayer money defending these lawsuits. The transparent objective of dragging the cases out until Bloomberg left office has now been revealed, at a cost of $18 million more. The architects of the 2004 RNC policies are now gone – as a new Mayor takes office in New York City, this settlement stands as an emblem of the failure of those policies, from their initial inception to this settlement’s conclusion.
While the settlement announced today covers the vast majority of RNC cases, the City has yet to resolve some of the most egregious cases. We are hopeful that the new administration will work swiftly toward a just result in these cases, so that this tainted legacy of the Bloomberg administration can finally be put to rest.
Lastly, the new administration must seek to actively protect, rather than suppress, the exercise of free speech and association in this great city. Those who peacefully dissent from the actions of their government serve as the conscience of our community. They must be encouraged, not preemptively arrested, caged or otherwise discouraged or abused.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Boisterous Protests at Brown University Curtail Speech by New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly
Ray Kelly Lecture at Brown Shut Down By Protest, Brown Daily Herald, YouTube, Oct. 29, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Judge Rejects New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy
Judge Rejects New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy, New York Times, by Joseph Goldstein, August 12, 2013
"A federal judge ruled on Monday that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in the city, repudiating a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy...
But the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department resorted to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as it increased the number of stops in minority communities. That has led to officers’ routinely stopping “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.”
The judge called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms, including the use of body-worn cameras for some patrol officers, though she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk.”
In her 195-page decision, Judge Scheindlin concluded that the stops, which soared in number over the last decade as crime continued to decline, demonstrated a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, as well as the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause...
The judge found that for much of the last decade, patrol officers had stopped innocent people without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. But her criticism went beyond the conduct of police officers.
“I also conclude that the city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” she wrote, citing statements that Mr. Bloomberg and the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, have made in defending the policy.
The judge named Peter L. Zimroth, a partner in Arnold & Porter L.L.P., and a former corporation counsel and prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the United States Constitution. The installation of a monitor will leave the department under a degree of judicial control that is certain to shape the policing strategies under the next mayor."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unconstitutional: Federal judge slams 'stop and frisk', RT America, Aug. 12, 2013
"A federal judge ruled Monday that the stop-and-frisk tactics used by the New York Police Department violates the constitutional rights of minorities, much to the chagrin of city officials who insist it's a legitimate crime-fighting tool. Judge Shira Scheindlin said that the controversial policy practiced by the NYPD for years unconstitutionally singled out minorities, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he will appeal the court's ruling that would require the city to place a federal monitor to oversee the program.
Carl Dix, co-founder of Stop "Stop and Frisk," weighs in on the decision with RT's Meghan Lopez."
"A federal judge ruled on Monday that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in the city, repudiating a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy...
But the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department resorted to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as it increased the number of stops in minority communities. That has led to officers’ routinely stopping “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.”
The judge called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms, including the use of body-worn cameras for some patrol officers, though she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk.”
In her 195-page decision, Judge Scheindlin concluded that the stops, which soared in number over the last decade as crime continued to decline, demonstrated a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, as well as the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause...
The judge found that for much of the last decade, patrol officers had stopped innocent people without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. But her criticism went beyond the conduct of police officers.
“I also conclude that the city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” she wrote, citing statements that Mr. Bloomberg and the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, have made in defending the policy.
The judge named Peter L. Zimroth, a partner in Arnold & Porter L.L.P., and a former corporation counsel and prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the United States Constitution. The installation of a monitor will leave the department under a degree of judicial control that is certain to shape the policing strategies under the next mayor."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unconstitutional: Federal judge slams 'stop and frisk', RT America, Aug. 12, 2013
"A federal judge ruled Monday that the stop-and-frisk tactics used by the New York Police Department violates the constitutional rights of minorities, much to the chagrin of city officials who insist it's a legitimate crime-fighting tool. Judge Shira Scheindlin said that the controversial policy practiced by the NYPD for years unconstitutionally singled out minorities, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he will appeal the court's ruling that would require the city to place a federal monitor to oversee the program.
Carl Dix, co-founder of Stop "Stop and Frisk," weighs in on the decision with RT's Meghan Lopez."
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
ARCHIVES: Scalia Protests at Princeton University (2001)
University Welcomes Scalia amidst Student Protests, The Daily Princetonian, By MOLLY GULLAND, Feb. 23. 2001
When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia comes to the University to speak this afternoon, he will not be well received by every member of the community. A group calling themselves the F23 Ad Hoc Committee — F23 stands for Feb. 23 — will be staging a protest at 7:30 p.m. outside McCosh Hall.
"Basically, we wanted to make people realize we don't think it's ok for [Scalia] to be invited to campus to speak on our behalf," said Traci Schlesinger GS, who helped organize the event.
Originally, the committee — made up mostly of members of the Democratic Left — expected a small turnout, but received a large response to its e-mail announcing the event, according to Schlesinger.
Despite enthusiastic replies to the e-mail, the group has no estimate of expected participation because organizations that responded did not say how many members they would send. Yesterday's snowfall also may limit attendance.
"We're really unsure how big it will be . . . we think there will be a lot more support than we had originally expected," Schlesinger said.
Scalia — known as one of the most conservative members of the Court — has sparked controversy with many of his views on current political issues. Traditionally, Scalia has ruled against abortion and affirmative action. He also sat on the court during this year's election crisis.
Ian Rozdilsky, a post-doctorate fellow in ecology who is also involved in the event, said the 2000 election was the greatest motivating factor for the protest.
"We believe Scalia's decision over the election was a deathblow to democracy," he said.
According to Schlesinger, the College Democrats, Princeton Pro-Choice and Black Graduate Caucus were just a few of the campus organizations planning to send members to the protest.
Outside groups, including the New Jersey National Organization for Women and Democratic March, also plan to attend, Rozdilsky said. He added that the committee has received encouragement from groups as far away as Florida and Texas, and said there is "widespread support [for the protest] outside the Princeton campus."
The committee plans to hand out flyers with pointed questions to people attending the talk, hoping some audience members will make the justice answer them.
Protesters will also carry picket signs and chant protests throughout Scalia's appearance.
The committee has no other events planned after today's protest — it wants to send a specific message to the University about its decision to invite Scalia to speak here.
"We believe that Princeton shouldn't welcome someone who has acted as Scalia, against democracy," Rozdilsky said.
When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia comes to the University to speak this afternoon, he will not be well received by every member of the community. A group calling themselves the F23 Ad Hoc Committee — F23 stands for Feb. 23 — will be staging a protest at 7:30 p.m. outside McCosh Hall.
"Basically, we wanted to make people realize we don't think it's ok for [Scalia] to be invited to campus to speak on our behalf," said Traci Schlesinger GS, who helped organize the event.
Originally, the committee — made up mostly of members of the Democratic Left — expected a small turnout, but received a large response to its e-mail announcing the event, according to Schlesinger.
Despite enthusiastic replies to the e-mail, the group has no estimate of expected participation because organizations that responded did not say how many members they would send. Yesterday's snowfall also may limit attendance.
"We're really unsure how big it will be . . . we think there will be a lot more support than we had originally expected," Schlesinger said.
Scalia — known as one of the most conservative members of the Court — has sparked controversy with many of his views on current political issues. Traditionally, Scalia has ruled against abortion and affirmative action. He also sat on the court during this year's election crisis.
Ian Rozdilsky, a post-doctorate fellow in ecology who is also involved in the event, said the 2000 election was the greatest motivating factor for the protest.
"We believe Scalia's decision over the election was a deathblow to democracy," he said.
According to Schlesinger, the College Democrats, Princeton Pro-Choice and Black Graduate Caucus were just a few of the campus organizations planning to send members to the protest.
Outside groups, including the New Jersey National Organization for Women and Democratic March, also plan to attend, Rozdilsky said. He added that the committee has received encouragement from groups as far away as Florida and Texas, and said there is "widespread support [for the protest] outside the Princeton campus."
The committee plans to hand out flyers with pointed questions to people attending the talk, hoping some audience members will make the justice answer them.
Protesters will also carry picket signs and chant protests throughout Scalia's appearance.
The committee has no other events planned after today's protest — it wants to send a specific message to the University about its decision to invite Scalia to speak here.
"We believe that Princeton shouldn't welcome someone who has acted as Scalia, against democracy," Rozdilsky said.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Voter Registration in Supreme Court
Voter Registration in Supreme Court Spotlight, By Jake Grovum, Staff Writer, March 15, 2013
A key provision of the two-decade-old National Voter Registration Act hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court on Monday hears a challenge that, if successful, could make registering to vote more complicated.
The justices will once again weigh states’ rights against voting rights as the court hears the challenge, brought by the state of Arizona, against a provision of the voter registration law that is credited with streamlining the country’s voter registration process.
The case centers on a dispute over Arizona’s voter-approved Proposition 200, which was enacted in 2004 and requires voters to prove their U.S. citizenship before registering to vote. The law contradicts the federal measure, and the clash has grown to incorporate the broader arguments over state control of elections featured prominently in recent court battles over voter ID requirements and a challenge to the Voting Rights Act.
A key provision of the two-decade-old National Voter Registration Act hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court on Monday hears a challenge that, if successful, could make registering to vote more complicated.
The justices will once again weigh states’ rights against voting rights as the court hears the challenge, brought by the state of Arizona, against a provision of the voter registration law that is credited with streamlining the country’s voter registration process.
The case centers on a dispute over Arizona’s voter-approved Proposition 200, which was enacted in 2004 and requires voters to prove their U.S. citizenship before registering to vote. The law contradicts the federal measure, and the clash has grown to incorporate the broader arguments over state control of elections featured prominently in recent court battles over voter ID requirements and a challenge to the Voting Rights Act.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Sarah Silverman Mocks Voter ID Laws With 2012 Election PSA
Sarah Silverman Mocks Voter ID Laws With 2012 Election PSA
Voter ID laws aim to prevent in-person voter fraud. In person voter fraud basically never happens. So why are so many states passing these laws?
Five things you should know about voter ID laws:
1. These are not bipartisan efforts. They are initiated by Republicans, passed by Republicans, and signed into law by Republicans. The State House Majority Leader in PA asserted that these voter restrictions would allow Mitt Romney to win the state.
2. The voters most likely to be burdened by these new voting restrictions are Democrats. Consider which voters don't have ID. Among seniors and young voters, 18% don't have valid ID. Among African Americans, 25% don't have valid ID.
3. Restrictions on voting, like poll taxes and "literacy" tests, have a long history. They are used by one party to prevent supporters of another party from voting.
4. If someone were trying to steal an election, in person voter fraud, where a voter pretends to be someone they are not at the polls, is the last method anyone would chose. Absentee ballot stuffing is much easier. But more Republicans vote by absentee ballot. So no new restrictions on absentee voting.
5. The Brennan Center has estimated that as many as 3.2 million citizens could find it harder to vote because of new voter ID laws.
Website: Let My People Vote
Friday, August 10, 2012
ARCHIVES: In order to Preserve Our Democracy, We Believe Florida's Electors Should be Challenged, 1/1/2001
Story from the indymedia newswire. Checkout independent media coverage of politics, protest, and life at: http://www.indymedia.org, This message was sent to you by: Harel Barzilai, Comments: http://www.indymedia.org/email_display.php3?article_id=16406
Article by: Louis Posner, Chairman@VoterMarch.org, Monday 01 Jan 2001
Summary: In order to preserve our Democracy, we believe Florida's Electors should be challenged in 2001.
Article: On January 6 at 1 pm, Congress will meet in Joint Session to count the Electoral College votes.
Electors have been challenged twice in our history - 1877 and 1969.
In order to preserve our Democracy, we believe Florida\'s Electors should be challenged in 2001. We may not win, but we believe it is essential to make the effort for the following reasons:
1. A massive political crime was committed - the Presidency of the United States was stolen. For the sake of history, the record needs to show that members of Congress were willing to stand up and denounce the crime.
2. We also need the record to show that a lot of Members of Congress - perhaps even a majority - were willing to allow the Presidency to be stolen. In 2 years, we can use this vote against these Members.
3. We need to turn the Democratic Congressional minority into a fighting opposition party. If they fight this historic and just battle, they will find it infinitely easier to fight all of the battles to come - starting with the nomination of John Ashcroft, and eventually all of the substantive battles on the issues we care about.
It only takes 1 Senator and 1 Representative to file a challenge. After that, the Senate and House must debate the challenge for 2 hours and then vote.
Democrats.com have lined up several Representatives who are willing to file the challenge. They expect to have a Senator by Tuesday.
Democrats.com have organized all of the information - including a letter to Congress - at the www.TrustThePeople.com.
Voter March is making an urgent appeal to all of our supporters to visit the www.TrustThePeople.com site and show support for this important project!
Thanks so much for your help!!!
Louis Posner, Esq.
Chairman@VoterMarch.org
www.VoterMarch.org
Article by: Louis Posner, Chairman@VoterMarch.org, Monday 01 Jan 2001
Summary: In order to preserve our Democracy, we believe Florida's Electors should be challenged in 2001.
Article: On January 6 at 1 pm, Congress will meet in Joint Session to count the Electoral College votes.
Electors have been challenged twice in our history - 1877 and 1969.
In order to preserve our Democracy, we believe Florida\'s Electors should be challenged in 2001. We may not win, but we believe it is essential to make the effort for the following reasons:
1. A massive political crime was committed - the Presidency of the United States was stolen. For the sake of history, the record needs to show that members of Congress were willing to stand up and denounce the crime.
2. We also need the record to show that a lot of Members of Congress - perhaps even a majority - were willing to allow the Presidency to be stolen. In 2 years, we can use this vote against these Members.
3. We need to turn the Democratic Congressional minority into a fighting opposition party. If they fight this historic and just battle, they will find it infinitely easier to fight all of the battles to come - starting with the nomination of John Ashcroft, and eventually all of the substantive battles on the issues we care about.
It only takes 1 Senator and 1 Representative to file a challenge. After that, the Senate and House must debate the challenge for 2 hours and then vote.
Democrats.com have lined up several Representatives who are willing to file the challenge. They expect to have a Senator by Tuesday.
Democrats.com have organized all of the information - including a letter to Congress - at the www.TrustThePeople.com.
Voter March is making an urgent appeal to all of our supporters to visit the www.TrustThePeople.com site and show support for this important project!
Thanks so much for your help!!!
Louis Posner, Esq.
Chairman@VoterMarch.org
www.VoterMarch.org
ARCHIVES: VOTER MARCH TO RESTORE DEMOCRACY and VOTER RIGHTS, Wash. DC, 5/19/2001
5/19: FIVE THOUSAND PROTEST Bogus-President BUSH In DC, 34 posts by 17 authors in alt.politics.democrats.d
5/20/01, VOTERMARCH.ORG, VOTER MARCH TO RESTORE DEMOCRACY and VOTER RIGHTS, Saturday, May 19 2001 http://VOTERMARCH.ORG/May19/May19rr.html
Five thousand who believe democracy is worth the struggle rallied and marched from Lafayette Park, facing the White House, to the West Capitol steps in Washington on Armed Forces Day, Saturday, May 19, 2001.
The Voter Rights March to Restore Democracy - East Coast sponsored by VoterMarch.org and co-sponsored by over 50 different pro-democracy groups, gathered activists from as far as Connecticut, Florida, Illinois and of course, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Delaware.
Organized by Louis Posner, a New York attorney and leader of the group of volunteers, Voter Rights March produced the successful Anti-Inauguration Rally, and, via an internet call, created this Rally and its West coast twin that contemporaneously took place in San Francisco.
Led by an American flag, the March--peppered by protest banners ranging from the satirical through the clever to almost reverent statements of Democracy--moved past the Justice Dept. and the Supreme Court on its way to the West Capitol steps.
At the Court it was met by the Delaware Valley, Pennsylvania contingent. It had bussed in to first protest against the five who had sullied the Court by ignoring the law and the will of the voters and by appointing the Governor of Texas to sit in the White House.
Forming a round rosy single-file picket line in front of the Court building, the 50 Southeast Pennsylvanians chanted and raised their banners until they were met by and joined the March on its way to the Capitol.
Posner led off the speakers at the Capitol. Hundreds of tourists who had come just to visit the building stood and listened to electrifying statements of the meaning of Democracy.
Frequently applauding the speakers they heard what our "public servants" who we elected and pay to occupy the Building are failing to do.
Other well known progressive leaders speaking included Robert Borosage, Washington labor movement veteran and Co-founder of the Campaign for America's Future; Ted Glick, National Coordinator of the Independent Progressive Politics Network; Ronnie Dugger, Founder of the Alliance for Democracy, Michael Rectenwald, Founder and Chair of Citizens for Legitimate Government;. Phil Berg, the attorney who filed the Florida class action to overturn the Presidential Election, and the Rev. Sekou, on behalf of the Democracy Summer Coalition (NAACP, IPS, IPPN, Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Global Exchange, etc.)
Tears were brought to the eyes of many participants with the appearance of a group of WW2 veterans. Ranging in age from 76 to 92 they came from as far as Texarkanna, Texas to remind us, on this Armed Forces Day, that 14 million young Americans had fought, and many died, to protect what the Supreme Court, the amoral Florida and Texas twin governors and the Republican Party are destroying.
The day was just a day. But it was a rejuvenating and inspiring day:
* A day in which we promised to refer to the occupant in the White House by his only legitimate elected title, "Governor"
* A day in which we promised to continue the struggle for progressive causes.
* And a day in which we promised to work to elect a President of the United States at the end of this four- year hiatus.
---=Hal Rosenthal
_______________________________________________
The next action comes in the voting booth, beginning 2002.
Then comes 2004, when the boil on the butt of DEMOCRACY is finally excised and sent back to Texas.
If he isn't impeached before then .
C_S
=================================================
http://www.PresidentMoron.com
http://www.SmirkingChimp.com
http://www.LegitGov.org/
================================================
5/20/01, VOTERMARCH.ORG, VOTER MARCH TO RESTORE DEMOCRACY and VOTER RIGHTS, Saturday, May 19 2001 http://VOTERMARCH.ORG/May19/May19rr.html
Five thousand who believe democracy is worth the struggle rallied and marched from Lafayette Park, facing the White House, to the West Capitol steps in Washington on Armed Forces Day, Saturday, May 19, 2001.
The Voter Rights March to Restore Democracy - East Coast sponsored by VoterMarch.org and co-sponsored by over 50 different pro-democracy groups, gathered activists from as far as Connecticut, Florida, Illinois and of course, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Delaware.
Organized by Louis Posner, a New York attorney and leader of the group of volunteers, Voter Rights March produced the successful Anti-Inauguration Rally, and, via an internet call, created this Rally and its West coast twin that contemporaneously took place in San Francisco.
Led by an American flag, the March--peppered by protest banners ranging from the satirical through the clever to almost reverent statements of Democracy--moved past the Justice Dept. and the Supreme Court on its way to the West Capitol steps.
At the Court it was met by the Delaware Valley, Pennsylvania contingent. It had bussed in to first protest against the five who had sullied the Court by ignoring the law and the will of the voters and by appointing the Governor of Texas to sit in the White House.
Forming a round rosy single-file picket line in front of the Court building, the 50 Southeast Pennsylvanians chanted and raised their banners until they were met by and joined the March on its way to the Capitol.
Posner led off the speakers at the Capitol. Hundreds of tourists who had come just to visit the building stood and listened to electrifying statements of the meaning of Democracy.
Frequently applauding the speakers they heard what our "public servants" who we elected and pay to occupy the Building are failing to do.
Other well known progressive leaders speaking included Robert Borosage, Washington labor movement veteran and Co-founder of the Campaign for America's Future; Ted Glick, National Coordinator of the Independent Progressive Politics Network; Ronnie Dugger, Founder of the Alliance for Democracy, Michael Rectenwald, Founder and Chair of Citizens for Legitimate Government;. Phil Berg, the attorney who filed the Florida class action to overturn the Presidential Election, and the Rev. Sekou, on behalf of the Democracy Summer Coalition (NAACP, IPS, IPPN, Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Global Exchange, etc.)
Tears were brought to the eyes of many participants with the appearance of a group of WW2 veterans. Ranging in age from 76 to 92 they came from as far as Texarkanna, Texas to remind us, on this Armed Forces Day, that 14 million young Americans had fought, and many died, to protect what the Supreme Court, the amoral Florida and Texas twin governors and the Republican Party are destroying.
The day was just a day. But it was a rejuvenating and inspiring day:
* A day in which we promised to refer to the occupant in the White House by his only legitimate elected title, "Governor"
* A day in which we promised to continue the struggle for progressive causes.
* And a day in which we promised to work to elect a President of the United States at the end of this four- year hiatus.
---=Hal Rosenthal
_______________________________________________
The next action comes in the voting booth, beginning 2002.
Then comes 2004, when the boil on the butt of DEMOCRACY is finally excised and sent back to Texas.
If he isn't impeached before then .
C_S
=================================================
http://www.PresidentMoron.com
http://www.SmirkingChimp.com
http://www.LegitGov.org/
================================================
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Voter March Supports Greg Palast's Billionaires & Ballot Bandits
Investigative reporter Greg Palast, who busted the story of the purge of Black voters in Florida in 2000, is coming out with Billionaires & Ballot Bandits – Election Games 2012 – The Comic Book and voter guide.
Greg Palast -Billionaires and Ballot Bandits
Billionaires and Ballot Bandits - RFK Jr: "The Four Billion Dollar Election"
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
ARCHIVES: VOTER MARCH PROTESTS SCALIA AT HOFSTRA U. ETHICS CONFERENCE, 9/9/2001
SCALIA PROTEST
VOTER MARCH PROTESTS SCALIA AT HOFSTRA U. ETHICS CONFERENCE
Antonin Scalia, one of the five ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court Judges who stopped the legal hand count of votes in Florida in Election 2000, appeared at Hofstra University in Hempstead, Long Island, NY on Sunday, September 9th. To add insult to injury, Scalia was the keynote speaker and was honored at this Hofstra Law School Ethics Conference.
There were hundreds of protestors just outside the Conference, including a contingent from Voter March New York that came up by Charter bus. Inside the Conference, Voter March Chairman Louis Posner, Esq. introduced himself as a New York attorney and asked Scalia "Your Honor, you have discussed the ethics of lawyers, while little or nothing has been said about the ethics of Judges. There has been much controversy over your decision in Bush v. Gore including accusations that you acted unethically. Could you please respond to these accusations?" Justice Scalia responded "Yes, I didn't" in a smug and cavalier manner. Posner then responded "No further questions" to remind Scalia that he should be on trial for his crimes. Chris Acosta, Voter March National Steering Committee, never made it to the question and answer session as he was ejected from the Conference for exercising his First Amendment rights when he exclaimed "Ethics - Ha, Ha, Ha."
The protests and Acosta's encounter with Scalia were mentioned in News Day:
Question of Ethics for Scalia Election ruling sparks protest at Hofstra talk
By Bart Jones STAFF WRITER
September 10, 2001
Outside, nearly 100 people yesterday protested the appearance of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a conference at Hofstra University, saying the justice helped President George W. Bush "steal" last November's election.
But inside, he was warmly received by legal scholars and attorneys who came to hear him, and he later received a standing ovation.
Inviting Scalia to discuss judicial ethics is "like asking Idi Amin to talk about human rights," said Nancy Solomon, 44, of Roslyn.
But Hofstra officials defended Scalia, saying he has ccumulated an impressive record on the bench and has led a rilliant career.
"Someone who carefully looks at his career ... would find he's a highly principled judge," said David Yellen, dean of Hofstra University School of Law. He called the protest "severely misguided."
Scalia did not directly address the protesters during his 40-minute keynote speech. The protesters said Scalia let his conservative ideology dictate his support of the high court's majority opinion that stopped the presidential vote recount in Florida and effectively handed the presidency to Bush.
A heckler in the audience, Christopher Acosta, 50, of Manhattan, was asked to leave by Hofstra authorities after emitting several loud ha, ha, ha's in response to comments by Scalia. After one of the outbursts, Scalia stopped speaking. Staring at Acosta he said, "there is a lawyer joke right there." The audience broke out in laughter.
Scalia did not discuss in depth the court's vote on the November election in the close contest between Bush and former vice president Al Gore, saying it would be "inappropriate."
But generally, Scalia defended the court's decision to end the recounts, and said critics were divided on the issue depending on political persuasion.
In other areas, he argued that imposing a mandatory attorney ethics code could be problematic, but he said ethics are a critical part of the profession.
He also said too many lawyers work absurdly long hours, short-changing their responsibilities as parents, community leaders and members of churches and synagogues.
Lawyers, he said, have gotten the idea that if they're not working long hours seven days a week they're "not really big-time ... that's just silly."
Copyright © 2001, Newsday, Inc.
PETITION: Petition to the Dean of Hofstra Law School protesting Scalia at its Ethics Conference was personally delivered to Dean Yellin by Lou Posner at the Ethics Conference, along with over 700 signatures.
VOTER MARCH PROTESTS SCALIA AT HOFSTRA U. ETHICS CONFERENCE
Antonin Scalia, one of the five ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court Judges who stopped the legal hand count of votes in Florida in Election 2000, appeared at Hofstra University in Hempstead, Long Island, NY on Sunday, September 9th. To add insult to injury, Scalia was the keynote speaker and was honored at this Hofstra Law School Ethics Conference.
There were hundreds of protestors just outside the Conference, including a contingent from Voter March New York that came up by Charter bus. Inside the Conference, Voter March Chairman Louis Posner, Esq. introduced himself as a New York attorney and asked Scalia "Your Honor, you have discussed the ethics of lawyers, while little or nothing has been said about the ethics of Judges. There has been much controversy over your decision in Bush v. Gore including accusations that you acted unethically. Could you please respond to these accusations?" Justice Scalia responded "Yes, I didn't" in a smug and cavalier manner. Posner then responded "No further questions" to remind Scalia that he should be on trial for his crimes. Chris Acosta, Voter March National Steering Committee, never made it to the question and answer session as he was ejected from the Conference for exercising his First Amendment rights when he exclaimed "Ethics - Ha, Ha, Ha."
The protests and Acosta's encounter with Scalia were mentioned in News Day:
Question of Ethics for Scalia Election ruling sparks protest at Hofstra talk
By Bart Jones STAFF WRITER
September 10, 2001
Outside, nearly 100 people yesterday protested the appearance of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a conference at Hofstra University, saying the justice helped President George W. Bush "steal" last November's election.
But inside, he was warmly received by legal scholars and attorneys who came to hear him, and he later received a standing ovation.
Inviting Scalia to discuss judicial ethics is "like asking Idi Amin to talk about human rights," said Nancy Solomon, 44, of Roslyn.
But Hofstra officials defended Scalia, saying he has ccumulated an impressive record on the bench and has led a rilliant career.
"Someone who carefully looks at his career ... would find he's a highly principled judge," said David Yellen, dean of Hofstra University School of Law. He called the protest "severely misguided."
Scalia did not directly address the protesters during his 40-minute keynote speech. The protesters said Scalia let his conservative ideology dictate his support of the high court's majority opinion that stopped the presidential vote recount in Florida and effectively handed the presidency to Bush.
A heckler in the audience, Christopher Acosta, 50, of Manhattan, was asked to leave by Hofstra authorities after emitting several loud ha, ha, ha's in response to comments by Scalia. After one of the outbursts, Scalia stopped speaking. Staring at Acosta he said, "there is a lawyer joke right there." The audience broke out in laughter.
Scalia did not discuss in depth the court's vote on the November election in the close contest between Bush and former vice president Al Gore, saying it would be "inappropriate."
But generally, Scalia defended the court's decision to end the recounts, and said critics were divided on the issue depending on political persuasion.
In other areas, he argued that imposing a mandatory attorney ethics code could be problematic, but he said ethics are a critical part of the profession.
He also said too many lawyers work absurdly long hours, short-changing their responsibilities as parents, community leaders and members of churches and synagogues.
Lawyers, he said, have gotten the idea that if they're not working long hours seven days a week they're "not really big-time ... that's just silly."
Copyright © 2001, Newsday, Inc.
PETITION: Petition to the Dean of Hofstra Law School protesting Scalia at its Ethics Conference was personally delivered to Dean Yellin by Lou Posner at the Ethics Conference, along with over 700 signatures.
Jacob Appelbaum Speaks at Occupy Wall Street Forum on Security Research
Jacob Appelbaum argues the measures included in the proposed Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) would essentially legalize military surveillance of U.S. citizens. He is a developer and advocate for the Tor Project, a network enabling its users to communicate anonymously on the internet.
Live unedited video footage from April 26, 2012 from 56 Walker Street in Tribeca, New York.
Jacob Appelbaum Speaks at Occupy Wall Street on Security Research, Part 1 of 3
Jacob Appelbaum Speaks at Occupy Wall Street on Security Research, Part 2 of 3
Jacob Appelbaum Speaks at Occupy Wall Street on Security Research, Part 3 of 3
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Screening of Academy Award-Nominated Documentary Film on Radical Environmental Group on Sat. Feb. 25
"If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front"
Nominated for an Oscar for Best Documentary Film (2012)
Saturday, February 25, 2011, @ 7:00 p.m.
Epifaneo Collective
56 Walker Street, Tribeca, Manhattan 10013
(1 block below Canal St. between Broadway & Church Street)
See the Trailer for the film on YouTube at:
“IF a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” tells the remarkable story of the rise and fall of this ELF cell, by focusing on the transformation and radicalization of one of its members. And along the way it asks hard questions about environmentalism, activism, and the way we define terrorism. Drawing from striking archival footage — much of it never before seen — of dramatic arsons, and intimate interviews with ELF members and the prosecutor, “If a Tree Falls” explores the tumultuous period from 1995 until 2001 when environmentalists were clashing with timber companies and law enforcement.
Director/Producer Marshall Curry in the New York Times, Jan. 24, says: “It’s been amazing to me how much overlap there is between the unfolding story of the OWS movement and the story of the environmental movement in the 90s. This summer, when the film was first released, it was a historical film, but suddenly the issues it deals with are urgent and on the front pages of newspapers every day.”
A Q&A and discusion will follow the film.
Hollywood Reporter, FEINBERG FORECAST: Scott's Final Projections for the 84th Academy Awards, Feb. 19, 2012, Prediction for BEST DOCUMENTARY FILM (FEATURE): 1. If A Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front: "This wide-open race ... will go to Marshall Curry’s polished, even-handed look at “eco-terrorism,” a subject of the same social scope and significance as most previous winners."
Voter March blog, Academy Award for Best Documentary: Our Pick: If A Tree Falls,, Feb. 19, 2012, "Time Magazine chose "The Protester" as Time Person of The Year. We believe that this year's winner of Best Documentary will be the film that has as its central focus, The Protester...These environmental protesters, like many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, are pepper sprayed while they are engaging in nonviolent direct actions. Similar to how law enforcement destroyed the Occupy Wall Street encampments, we see how the Park Rangers destroyed the barricades and tents of the environmental protesters who were tree sitters protecting the ancient forests in Oregon... "If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front" is our choice and prediction for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature for 2012, because it is a social justice film that documents the lessons of history, as we grapple with the current developments of The Protester."
A donation of $5 is suggested.
Epifaneo Collective is affiliated with I.N.N. World Report, a not-for-profit alternative media organization. For over 10 years, we have been supporting the activist community through broadcasts, film screenings, speaker events, and special events.
Nominated for an Oscar for Best Documentary Film (2012)
Saturday, February 25, 2011, @ 7:00 p.m.
Epifaneo Collective
56 Walker Street, Tribeca, Manhattan 10013
(1 block below Canal St. between Broadway & Church Street)
See the Trailer for the film on YouTube at:
“IF a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” tells the remarkable story of the rise and fall of this ELF cell, by focusing on the transformation and radicalization of one of its members. And along the way it asks hard questions about environmentalism, activism, and the way we define terrorism. Drawing from striking archival footage — much of it never before seen — of dramatic arsons, and intimate interviews with ELF members and the prosecutor, “If a Tree Falls” explores the tumultuous period from 1995 until 2001 when environmentalists were clashing with timber companies and law enforcement.
Director/Producer Marshall Curry in the New York Times, Jan. 24, says: “It’s been amazing to me how much overlap there is between the unfolding story of the OWS movement and the story of the environmental movement in the 90s. This summer, when the film was first released, it was a historical film, but suddenly the issues it deals with are urgent and on the front pages of newspapers every day.”
A Q&A and discusion will follow the film.
Hollywood Reporter, FEINBERG FORECAST: Scott's Final Projections for the 84th Academy Awards, Feb. 19, 2012, Prediction for BEST DOCUMENTARY FILM (FEATURE): 1. If A Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front: "This wide-open race ... will go to Marshall Curry’s polished, even-handed look at “eco-terrorism,” a subject of the same social scope and significance as most previous winners."
Voter March blog, Academy Award for Best Documentary: Our Pick: If A Tree Falls,, Feb. 19, 2012, "Time Magazine chose "The Protester" as Time Person of The Year. We believe that this year's winner of Best Documentary will be the film that has as its central focus, The Protester...These environmental protesters, like many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, are pepper sprayed while they are engaging in nonviolent direct actions. Similar to how law enforcement destroyed the Occupy Wall Street encampments, we see how the Park Rangers destroyed the barricades and tents of the environmental protesters who were tree sitters protecting the ancient forests in Oregon... "If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front" is our choice and prediction for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature for 2012, because it is a social justice film that documents the lessons of history, as we grapple with the current developments of The Protester."
A donation of $5 is suggested.
Epifaneo Collective is affiliated with I.N.N. World Report, a not-for-profit alternative media organization. For over 10 years, we have been supporting the activist community through broadcasts, film screenings, speaker events, and special events.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Academy Award for Best Documentary: Our Pick: If A Tree Falls
Time Magazine chose "The Protester" as Time Person of The Year. A historical perspective of the protester was given, up to the more current developments in Egypt and Tunisia, to the Indignados in Spain to the Occupy Wall Street movement that spread from New York City to every city in the United States and throughout the world.
We believe that this year's winner of Best Documentary will be the film that has as its central focus, The Protester: "If A Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front," by Director Marshall Curry and Co-Director, Sam Cullman.
The title "IF A Tree Falls" has a double meaning. On the one hand, we see the pictures of beautiful trees from ancient forests being cut down by lumber companies. On the other hand, we also see how environmental protesters experience the adage "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
These environmental protesters, like many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, are pepper sprayed while they are engaging in nonviolent direct actions. Similar to how law enforcement destroyed the Occupy Wall Street encampments, we see how the Park Rangers destroyed the barricades and tents of the environmental protesters who were tree sitters protecting the ancient forests in Oregon.
We see how the protester's despair and disillusionment with their nonviolent direct action lead to the Earth Liberation Front, a radical splinter group from Earth First. The film depicts the human side of the protesters as they evolve from idealistic environmentalists to skilled arsonists causing millions of dollars of property damage. We are reminded of the aphorism "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.”
At the same time, the film achieves its purpose as a well balanced documentary by giving equal time to the viewpoints of the owners of the lumber companies who were targeted by the environmental activists, as well as law enforcement who vigorously pursued the arsonists. We gained firsthand insight into the methods that law enforcement uses to turn criminals into informants and to coerce plea deals.
Finally, we see how the environmental protesters are branded "Eco-terrorists" and subjected to enhanced prison sentences. While they undeniably committed criminal acts of arson and tremendous property damage, we are left wondering whether these protesters are really "terrorists."
"If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front" is our choice and prediction for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature for 2012, because it is a social justice film that documents the lessons of history, as we grapple with the current developments of The Protester.
We believe that this year's winner of Best Documentary will be the film that has as its central focus, The Protester: "If A Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front," by Director Marshall Curry and Co-Director, Sam Cullman.
The title "IF A Tree Falls" has a double meaning. On the one hand, we see the pictures of beautiful trees from ancient forests being cut down by lumber companies. On the other hand, we also see how environmental protesters experience the adage "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
These environmental protesters, like many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, are pepper sprayed while they are engaging in nonviolent direct actions. Similar to how law enforcement destroyed the Occupy Wall Street encampments, we see how the Park Rangers destroyed the barricades and tents of the environmental protesters who were tree sitters protecting the ancient forests in Oregon.
We see how the protester's despair and disillusionment with their nonviolent direct action lead to the Earth Liberation Front, a radical splinter group from Earth First. The film depicts the human side of the protesters as they evolve from idealistic environmentalists to skilled arsonists causing millions of dollars of property damage. We are reminded of the aphorism "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.”
At the same time, the film achieves its purpose as a well balanced documentary by giving equal time to the viewpoints of the owners of the lumber companies who were targeted by the environmental activists, as well as law enforcement who vigorously pursued the arsonists. We gained firsthand insight into the methods that law enforcement uses to turn criminals into informants and to coerce plea deals.
Finally, we see how the environmental protesters are branded "Eco-terrorists" and subjected to enhanced prison sentences. While they undeniably committed criminal acts of arson and tremendous property damage, we are left wondering whether these protesters are really "terrorists."
"If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front" is our choice and prediction for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature for 2012, because it is a social justice film that documents the lessons of history, as we grapple with the current developments of The Protester.
Monday, November 7, 2011
16 Protestors Arrested in Front of Goldman Sachs New York Headquarters
Occupy Wall Street - Police Arrests of Protestors in Front of Goldman Sachs Headquarters
Occupy Wall Street at Liberty Plaza on Nov. 3, 2011.
Unedited, live film of march from Liberty Square to Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan
Police arrests of 16 protesters including Reverend Billy Talen and author Chris Edges.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Occupy Wall Street Delivers Indictment to Goldman Sachs and Police Arrest 16 Peaceful Protesters
Occupy Wall Street at Liberty Plaza on Nov. 3, 2011.
Unedited, live film of march from Liberty Square to Goldman Sachs headquarters at 200 West Street in Manhattan. Professor Cornel West joins the protesters from Liberty Square.
The protesters were chanting "banks got bailed out and we got sold out."
The crowd then read the Indictment against Goldman Sachs for looting billions of dollars from the American people:
"Goldman Sachs is found by the People's Hearing on November 3, 2011 to be guilty of felony crimes of violating the securities laws, perjury before a Senate Commission, looting of $78 billion dollars of taxpayer money, and caused irreparable financial harm and deep distress to millions of American People.
At the People's Hearing, Goldman Sachs must return the $78 billion they took from the American taxpayers.
Its senior officials, including its CEO Lloyd Blankfein who it elected, must receive prison time for fraud and burglary.
The Senior Executive of Goldman Sachs must be barred forever from the world of investment banking.
Goldman Sachs must also be prohibited and barred from commodities speculation, from fraudulent manipulation of financial markets, from lying to investors and financial regulators, and must be barred from using its company funds to manipulate the political process for lobbying to influence legislation.
We the People, since no governmental authority from the judiciary to the Congress, is willing to seek justice will march today to the doors of Goldman Sachs, and as part of our verdict, demand the immediate return of the $78 billion dollars that was looted without consent from the U.S. Treasury.
And once this money is turned over to us, we will, we will, we will, return it to the American people."
A crowd of about 16 people, including the Reverend Billy Talen and author Chris Hedges, then sat down in front of the entrance to the Goldman Sachs headquarters under threat of arrest.
Monday, October 24, 2011
ARCHIVES: No Blood For Oil.org - Voter March Affiliate
Voter March organized the first protest against the pending Iraq War on September 12, 2002 at the United Nations in NYC, and formed affiliate No Blood for Oil.org
In October 2002, No Blood for Oil.org helped organize bus tours to Washington, DC to protest the pending War in Iraq. No Blood for Oil.org was very active during the height of the Antiwar movement from October 2002 to 2005.
See archives from No Blood for Oil.org on Oct. 19, 2002:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Archives from No Blood for Oil.org on Feb. 19, 2003
We support the pro-peace and anti-war movement and are adamantly opposed to the illegitimate Bush Administration's plans to wage unilateral war against Iraq to increase economic, political and military influence over the Middle East and its oil resources.
The President Must Have Congressional War Resolution Before Starting War, by Jesse Jackson, Jr., Congressman, February 13, 2003.
In October 2002, No Blood for Oil.org helped organize bus tours to Washington, DC to protest the pending War in Iraq. No Blood for Oil.org was very active during the height of the Antiwar movement from October 2002 to 2005.
See archives from No Blood for Oil.org on Oct. 19, 2002:
| NO BLOOD FOR OIL | |
NoBloodForOil.org is an affiliate of Voter March that fully supports the peace and anti-war movements and is adamantly opposed to the unelected, illegitimate, unmandated President Bush and his Administration's plans to wage unilateral war against Iraq. The initial National Steering Committee members are: BUSES from Grand Central Station, New York City:Louis Posner, New York metro - ny@nobloodforoil.org Jonathan Inskeep, Washington DC metro dc@nobloodforoil.org Jamie Murray, West Coast la@nobloodforoil.org Buses for the National March at Washington DC are leaving from East 42nd Street, between Third Avenue and Lexington Avenue (near Grand Central Station). Buses are departing at 6:00 AM sharp, so please arrive at least 15 minutes early for boarding and ticketing. Bring drinks and snack food with you as we will not stop on the way. Buses are Deluxe Coaches with bathrooms, recliner seats and movies. The buses are scheduled to arrive in Washington DC by 11:00 AM and will depart from Wash DC at 5:00 PM sharp and will arrive back in New York City (same location) at 10:00 PM. Tickets are not refundable, but may be exchanged, i.e. you may sell or transfer the tickets to another person, but you must provide us with the name of the person you sold or transferred the tickets to. All tickets are "electronic tickets" which are your PayPal receipts or receipt by email confirmation. If you do not have an email address, please provide a fax number. There are a limited number of bus tickets, and tickets are expected to sell out. Round trip bus tickets are $32.00 each. There is also a suggested tip of $2 to $3 per person for the bus driver. Group discounts are available for purchases of 15 or more tickets, | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Archives from No Blood for Oil.org on Feb. 19, 2003
We support the pro-peace and anti-war movement and are adamantly opposed to the illegitimate Bush Administration's plans to wage unilateral war against Iraq to increase economic, political and military influence over the Middle East and its oil resources.
To The Victors, Go the Oil. Credit: Winston Smith
Click on Protests Calendar for the latest info. on the Feb. 15th and 16th major anti-war protests in New York City, San Francisco and around the globe.
Click on Protests Calendar for the latest info. on the Feb. 15th and 16th major anti-war protests in New York City, San Francisco and around the globe.
For "No Blood For Oil," the anti-authoritarian coalition of New York-based activists
(not related to Voter March NoBloodForOil.org), click on NBFO.net
(not related to Voter March NoBloodForOil.org), click on NBFO.net
10 Million Join World Protest, Rallies From Africa to Antarctica, People Prepare to March for Peace, Common Dreams, February 13, 2003, by John Vidal
Up to 10 million people on five continents are expected to demonstrate against the probable war in Iraq on Saturday, in some of the largest peace marches ever known. link
The President Must Have Congressional War Resolution Before Starting War, by Jesse Jackson, Jr., Congressman, February 13, 2003.
Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., today said "U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and other congressional colleagues filed a lawsuit in a Boston Federal Court arguing that, according to the U.S. Constitution, President George W. Bush only has the authority to go to war in Iraq if Congress passes an official declaration of war - and Congress has not passed such a declaration. Congress cannot willingly or voluntarily relinquish its constitutional authority and responsibility in this critical area." link
Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. more
Nothin' from Nothin' Blah3.com. Humor and animation
Make Your Own Bush Speech UK. Humor, animation and audio.
Bush's Oil War on Iraq - Democracy Means You. Humor and animation.
Why We Must Invade Iraq, Mark Fiore, Humor and animation.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Occupy Wall Street, Liberty Plaza, Oct. 15, 2011 -- Peace Flags
Occupy Wall Street, Liberty Plaza, Oct. 15, 2011 -- Peace Flags
<a href="http://www.hypersmash.com/hostgator/" id="cU928">Hostgator Promos</a>
<a href="http://www.hypersmash.com/hostgator/" id="cU928">Hostgator Promos</a>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)