Subject: [SocialistWorker.org] Views in brief
-----
View original article here:
http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/08/views-brief
Readers' Views
======== VIEWS IN BRIEF ======================================================
January 8, 2013
-------- THE REALLY FASCINATING PEOPLE OF 2012 -------------------------------
LET'S THINK about this. What does it take to be named in the top 10 list of
the "most fascinating people of the year"? Some of the lists that have been
announced leave a lot to be desired.
Does it take writing a sex book, or being an exploited-for-TV child, or does
it mean you have to be the sister of a Duchess, or in the one of those
Hollywood families where no one can figure out why you are famous, or if you
have ever accomplished anything of value? The lists that have been announced
so far are a sad commentary on our culture and values.
There are some who really do deserve recognition. They have earned respect
because of their accomplishments. Actually, there are many who would qualify
for the list. Here are 10 with very fascinating stories to be told. They
should have been nominated.
1. At the top of the list would be Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. Few in
history can match their contribution to humanity.
2. The West Memphis Three--Jessie Misskelley, Charles Baldwin and Damien
Echols. How about being falsely convicted and then on death row for 18 years?
Not many can top that (except those who were falsely convicted and then
executed, such as Troy Davis). Also to be remembered are the families of the
three murdered children: Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.
Lynne Stewart, Leonard Peltier and other victims of the legal system should
make the list. Think of the interesting stories they could tell if they are
ever released from prison.
3. Then there are those who dedicate their lives to working for justice. The
Innocence Project and all the lawyers who volunteer their time and talent to
free the falsely convicted should make the list. Maybe the ACLU should be on
the list. (I'm not too sure about that one yet. I am waiting to see how much
support they will give for First Amendment Rights and freedom of political
speech, which has been under attack in Vermont.)
4. Think about all those in the Occupy Movement. They really came through
when FEMA and the Red Cross failed to help the victims of Superstorm Sandy.
5. There are many who work tirelessly to spread the truth: Bill Blum, Glenn
Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Tavis Smiley, Cornell West, Amy Goodman, William
Quigley, Ward Churchill...the list is endless.
6. There are those who maintain, at their own expense, websites where
information can be shared. Thanks, your contribution to humanity is
appreciated everyday by many.
7. There are those brave souls who risk their personal safety and face
imprisonment because they support peace and justice: the Hancock Drone Base
protesters, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant protesters, the protesters at
the Fort Benning School of Assassins.
8. What about Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Peta Lindsay, and all other
candidates whose names were on the ballot so that voters would have a choice
for president that would be an alternative to the Democratic and Republican
Party candidates?
9. Think about Ralph Nader. He just keeps on working for peace and economic
justice. His legacy is unmatched. He should be on the list and we should have
a national "Ralph Nader Day."
10. And then there are the anonymous, nameless people in our community who
work to help the homeless, the hungry, the abused--those who recognize the
impact of disenfranchisement, and try to do something about it. They often
work without pay--true examples of altruism. We owe them our gratitude.
There is no shortage of fascinating people, which is why the lists that are
out there are so troubling.
*Rosemarie Jackowski*, from the Internet
-------- HAGEL DOESN'T DESERVE THE LEFT'S SUPPORT ----------------------------
LATELY, THE Democratic Party has done a thoroughly good job convincing
progressives why there must be an alternative to the two-party system--with
only 19 members in the party voting against the exceptionally bad fiscal deal
agreed to in Congress.
Recently, however, the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) has truly
abandoned any "left" or "progressive" principles with an e-mail declaring its
support for Chuck Hagel, Barack Obama's new nomination for secretary of
Defense.
Perhaps they should also endorse John Kerry for secretary of State? He was at
least anti-war for a part of his life before he wasn't and ran for President.
Hagel is a former Republican senator from Nebraska who voted with the Bush
platform almost 100 percent of the time. He voted to authorize the Iraq war
and voted for all of its funding.
As the public sentiment grew more critical of the war and casualties rose and
the war dragged on, Hagel opportunistically criticized Bush's handling of the
Iraq war. This does not he mean he supported ending it.
Perhaps the Obama Administration is nominating Hagel because of token
"bipartisanship," but the PDA, a so-called progressive group, is dead wrong
to go anywhere close to supporting Hagel or even supporting a post for the
secretary of Defense at all. The very job description of a secretary of
Defense is "secretary of war."
When founded, PDA initially proposed establishing a department of peace and
severely cutting the military budget. It is something any progressive should
spend time fighting for--while spending no time at all endorsing any
so-called secretary of Defense.
*Greg Morse*, Providence, R.I.
-------- A COAL PORT THAT'S SAFE ---------------------------------------------
IN RESPONSE to "Portland says no to coal" [1]: I work at the coal mine that
will supply the coal for this project. I have worked there for 37 years as a
heavy equipment operator and can feel the concern that you have for this
development.
First, let me say that whatever happens, I believe that this company will use
the best technology available to complete this port. And you should demand
it. There are a lot of issues in producing coal and transporting it, but I
believe it can be done with everyone's concerns taken into account.
Second, this coal is of high quality: high BTU, low sulfer, no mercury. This
may not sound reassuring, but there are a lot of other coals that are not of
this quality and that are less environmentally sound.
Finally, don't oppose this project because other companies are also proposing
ports. This should be looked at as a standalone port/project, and the other
companies can speak for themselves. If you make this company do what is right
in protecting the environment and quality of living, then I think it will be
a win-win situation for job growth, the tax base and industry. Thanks for
letting me voice my opinion.
*Larry Deeds*, Sheridan, Wyo.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Published by the International Socialist Organization. Material on this Web
site is licensed by SocialistWorker.org, under a Creative Commons (by-nc-nd
3.0) license, except for articles that are republished with permission.
Readers are welcome to share and use material belonging to this site for
non-commercial purposes, as long as they are attributed to the author and
SocialistWorker.org.
[1] http://socialistworker.org/2012/12/13/portland-says-no-to-coal
