GVConsulting

The Anti-Biomass Incineration – Forest Protection Campaign is telling Congress and the Administration that the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) being promoted by industry groups and some members of Congress is “dirty energy” legislation because it promotes toxic incinerators that make people sick, pollute air and water, destroy forests, and dry up rivers.

“These dirty incinerators emit toxic air pollution that causes cancer, asthma and heart disease,” said Attorney Margaret Sheehan, of the Biomass Accountability Project, “and they don’t reduce global warming, they increase it.”

The Campaign delivered a letter to Congress signed by public health, social justice, and environmental organizations opposing any legislation that further subsidizes dirty incinerators, including the RES, and proposed energy and farm bill amendments.

Groundbreaking scientific reports issued in June 2010 by the Manomet Center for Conservation Science and the Environmental Working Group conclusively show that biomass incineration using forests as fuel will undermine efforts to curb carbon emissions.

Read more here: Anti-Biomass Press Release.

Access the letter to Congress here: Letter.

Chaffee County Tuesday afternoon issued a notice to Nestle that it could proceed with its plan to pump millions of gallons of water from springs next to the Arkansas River and cart it to Denver for bottling under the Arrowhead Springs label.

Nestle spent years negotiating with the Chaffee Board of Commissioners where water lives, buying land around the water, negotiating with the Aurora City Council for its lease to the water, fighting off protesters and finally constructing pipelines and a pumping station in Johnson Village near Buena Vista.

As of 07.27.10,  Nestle can turn the spigot and begin filling its fleet of twenty-five 8,000 gallon trucks each day.

Read more here: Nestle given the OK.

During the next several weeks prior to the November, 2010, election cycle, we would like to endorse, fund-raise, and generate grassroots support around aggressive, progressive campaigns and candidates.

We are willing to do this for issues as well as actual candidates.

There are a few guidelines:

1. Support will be cast after a candidate or campaign submits responses to a very brief survey.
(If you have items you want on this survey, please let me know.)

2. Candidates may fall under any political designation – priority, however, lies with 3rd parties and independents.

3. The deadline for endorsement requests is August 31, 2010.

Contact us: gregory @ gregoryvickrey.com

Please pass this along to any candidates, campaigns, and allies as you see fit.

The following piece was written by Matt Gonzalez, and discusses in detail how Fred Bekele won a parking garage contract in San Francisco, only to have it taken away.

In the summer of 2007, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) hired consultant Barbara Chance to address multiple issues concerning the city’s management and award of public contracts for city-owned parking facilities. The MTA was concerned that, among other things, the city was not maximizing the revenues it could derive from parking facilities, and that locally owned businesses were being denied entry into the competitive world of public parking contracts.

Also, concerns that parking garage contracts were being awarded amid charges of influence peddling were prevalent.

On June 19, 2007, Ms. Chance, a nationally recognized expert in parking, transportation and access management, presented her recommendations, which included a plan for revising the process for contract bidding to enable a more open and competitive process.

Read more here: Why Bother Bidding?

For the Want of Three Votes

The vote in the House of Representatives last Thursday (July 1, 2010) approved $33 billion more for Barack Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Most accounts of the vote in the progressive media viewed the vote positively, focusing on the various anti-war amendments that failed, but got sizable votes. The one with broadest support (162 “Yes” votes) would have required Obama to produce an exit plan. Its sponsors included Democrats David Obey (WI) and Jim McGovern (MA). Another would have funded the exit of the troops. It was sponsored by Democrat Barbara Lee (CA) and got 100 “Yes” votes. An even stronger anti-war amendment, however, got only 25 “Yes” votes.

But these progressive media accounts looking primarily at the breadth of support for the exit plan amendment have overlooked a couple of key numbers that reveal an entirely new view of the votes on the bill and its amendments.

The first key number is the vote on the main bill itself. Because all of the GOP voted against it in order to reject the domestic spending sweetners added by Nancy Pelosi, this vote was much closer. It passed by 215 to 210. If only 3 more “Yes” voters would have voted “No”, the funding bill would have failed (by 212 “Yes” vs. 213 “No”). Failure of the bill to pass would have been an earthquake in US politics.

The other key number overlooked by most progressive media accounts of the vote was this: enough leading anti-war Democrats voted for the actual funding bill that they could have defeated it had they voted “No”. Among leading anti-war Democrats, which ones voted for the war funding?

First, Barbara Lee voted for the war funds. She represents Berkeley, California, and part of Oakland. Being from this heavily anti-war district, many anti-war activists assume she votes against all war funding bills. She has been a heroine-of-sorts of the anti-war movement for years.

Next, we have the Out of Afghanistan Caucus, started in May 2010 by John Conyers. In the morning on the day of the vote, the caucus held a press conference to urge a NO vote on the war funding. Five of the eight Democrats conducting this press conference actually voted for the war funding that evening, after participating in the press conference about voting “No”! Conyers, Bob Filner (CA), and Alan Grayson (FL) voted “No”; voting “Yes” were Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Maxine Waters (CA), Mike Honda (CA), Judy Chu (CA), and Barbara Lee.

Next, we can look at the Democratic sponsors of the various anti-war amendments to the bill.

We would expect these Democrats to not only sponsor their anti-war amendments, but to also vote against the final war funding bill itself. But all three of the Democrat anti-war amendment co-sponsors mentioned above voted for the final war funding bill: David Obey (WI), Jim McGovern (MA), and Barbara Lee (CA).

Finally, we should mention Pete Stark, another San Francisco Bay Area Democrat. While he tends to keep a low profile, he often actually casts more progressive votes than Barbara Lee.

(For example, he was one of the few “No” votes in the House vote on heavier sanctions against Iran, which passed by 408-8 on June 24. Barbara Lee voted for those sanctions.) Even Pete Stark voted FOR the Afghan war funding last week.

If just three of these leading anti-war Democrats had switched their vote to “No” on the Afghan war funding bill, it would have failed. This would have given the anti-war movement a huge boost, even if war-funder-in-chief Nancy Pelosi had organized another vote and courted Republican support to guarantee its passage. Such a scenario would have exposed the Democratic leadership as co-equal pillars of the war (which they are), along with the GOP and the Democrat in the White House. Instead, when they had a golden opportunity to defeat the war funding bill, our leading “anti-war” Democrats betrayed us.

Notes:

1. The roll call vote on the war funding bill which passed by 215-210 is here; check to see how your representative voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll428.xml .

Young Protestor, Peace of the Action (POTA), Obomba Residence, July 4, 2010 from gregory vickrey on Vimeo.

“There is something abnormal here, and it sure as hell isn’t me.”

When I grabbed the bull horn to speak in the heat of Washington, DC, on the 4th of July, 2010, those were the first words out of my mouth.

Frustration made the oppressive heat and more oppressive city all the more so. When I first arrived near the White House, in Lafayette Park, a Secret Service blue-shirt shouted, then screamed, then shouted again, for me to “move back, move away!”, as I was apparently encroaching on sacred ground during the arrival of some esteemed BBQ guest. I meandered a bit amongst the tourists gawking at the gates to the hallowed halls of the presidential palace, smiling for the cameras, and standing oblivious to oblivion.

The circus continued and eventually I connected with colleagues and friends of POTA. There were so few of us, and I lamented in my head about the movements for peace, for civil justice, for health care. I muttered the Declaration of Independence preamble to myself, and thought of the Bill of Rights. I spoke aloud to a passing stranger, “Epic fail.”

Those of us who could ‘legally’ assemble on the White House walk grasped signs, recording equipment and the bull horn. We rose up for ourselves, for the movement, for the soldiers, for Afghanis, for Iraqis, for ecological systems, for you, for generations. We spoke to the obvious nature of corporate control and the obnoxious behavior of the powers that be. And we observed the people along the walk shunning us, posing instead for their most congenial photos with their best statist smiles.

The bomb threat came next; you did not hear about it through mainstream media because it was a fraud, perpetuated by your United States government.

First we were told we could not assemble – our bodies had to stay in motion. Mere minutes later a young man with a backpack and a guitar strolled through and as he spoke with rank authorities the message from the bull horn became righteous and powerful. The young man then moved to the edge of the walk, mumbled something, and immediately we were told to shut it down and get out of the park.

Amazing how that works, is it not? Read that last paragraph again.

The aggression from the agents in charge was directed towards us, not in dealing with a supposed bomb threat. As I moved slowly through the park I asked a relatively relaxed agent if, indeed, there was a bomb threat. He casually replied, “mmhmm.”

This was not an evacuation of any sort; it was a trampling of rights to assemble and to speak freely. You see, we were disturbing the BBQ and birthday celebration with the truth.

Just outside of the park, opposite the festivities at the Big House, we continued speaking and flyering and expressing other rights as provided in the Constitution; yet, again, we ruffled too many feathers and were forced to cross the street, and our “free speech zone” was officially a quarter mile away from the one man who needed to listen to us.

Oppression. Frustration. Epic fail.

Dripping with sweat, yet cold-hearted under the glares of people disgusted, ambivalent, or ignorant of our collective purpose, I took the mic and I roared. For several minutes I stormed and shouted and raved, and with each breath I listened for an echo from the masses walking by.

Only silence.

My stump-speech ended with a quote from the greatest truth-teller I know: “Turn on to politics, or politics will turn on you.” And I said it twice, because I swear by that statement.

Silence.

If it were not for POTA, no one would have heard. If it were not for POTA, my shoulders would have sunk. If it were not for POTA, I would have been alone in those words, and in that moment.

Where were you at 5pm on Sunday, 4th of July, 2010?

—–

Later that evening I returned to the White House. Of course, once POTA had dispersed for the day, the placated masses were allowed back in the park at Caesar’s door step. They had nothing to say, and only flash bulbs to burn.

A young girl, not yet three, walked with me. She was determined to protest.

“Protest! Protest! Fight the Power! Fight the Power!” she chanted along the walk.

“Yes, but what are you protesting?” I asked.

“Bad gas. BP. Bad people.” she stated matter-of-factly.

Fist-pump.

I had my echo.

The following piece appeared in OpEd News and was written by friend and colleague Kevin Zeese of Prosperity Agenda.

Independent Media, Independent Political Movements and Independent Electoral Activity is the Path to the Paradigm Shifting Change America Needs

If I had to pick one word for Americans who want real change, it would be independence.

Not only because the United States was founded on the idea of independence but because those of us who work to try and change the country for the better and have studied American history have learned this has always been the critical ingredient for real change.

First, we need independent media. Web based outlets like this one are a critical ingredient to the success of advocacy efforts. Like so many businesses in the United States, the media is controlled by concentrated group of corporations. A handful of companies own all the hundreds of television stations on your cable TV. The same is true of radio stations. More and more newspapers are part of syndicates. These conglomerates has resulted in homogenized that only reports a concentrated corporate perspective.

The media does not report on the incredible activism taking place all around the country. They don’t want America to have another Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Ralph Nader and so many others who in the past helped to move the United States in part because the media reported on their activities. Now we only hear about corporate CEO’s and elected officials elected due to corporate donations otherwise it is sports stars and entertainment. The truth is there is more activism and organizing going on than even those of us working for change realize. If you attended the U.S. Social Forum in Detroit this month you could see it at least 12,000 people attended, almost all were parts of organizations representing many more people, each working on a range of issues from housing and banking, to peace and criminal justice people working to transform the American economy and political system. Did the media report on this conference? Does the media report on the movements these people are part of?

This leads me to the second area of independence we need independent political movements. Throughout history it has been independent movements that made paradigm shifting change happen. Woodrow Wilson worked to prevent women from getting the right to vote. Leading suffragists were jailed and tortured during his presidency for protesting outside the White House. But in the end, woman got the right to vote while he was president. LBJ was a member of a political party dominated by southern segregationists. They opposed African American voting, ending Jim Crow, blacks and whites living together, going to school together, eating in the same restaurants but LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act because an organized, independent civil rights movement demanded it. Richard Nixon, a war hawk did not want to end the Vietnam War admitting defeat of the U.S. military. He was forced to by a persistent and independent anti-war movement that criticized both political parties for their support of the war. The peace movement and the people in Vietnam resisting U.S. aggression forced Nixon to end the war.

The Obama era has shown many Americans that advocacy groups that work hand in glove with the Democratic Party sell out their base and claim false victories. A prime example is the health care bill. This “reform” protected the status quo health care dominated by private insurance was the problem before reform and remains the problem. The bill will result in hundreds of billions of dollars going to the insurance industry every year in tax payer subsidies and Americans being forced to buy their flawed corporate products. The cost of health insurance was not controlled, tens of millions will be left without insurance ten years from now and every regulation of the insurance industry in the law contains a poison pill that protects the insurance industry. The coalition, Health Care for America Now, spent tens of millions of dollars, donated by donors allied with the Democratic Party, to support the Democratic leadership bill. It was a sell out of their constituents who needed real reform. Americans will not receive better health care, health care will devour more and more of the GDP, and deficit spending by government will continue because of a fraudulent “reform” that preserved market dominated health care. This is happening on issue after issue corporations win, the people lose, and organizations supposedly working for the peoples necessities claim victory while selling Americans out.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Americans need to declare their independence from two parties dominated by concentrated corporate power. Both parties take tens of millions from big business interests every year, elected officials, their staff members and sometimes their spouses profit going to work for corporations they “regulate” in the revolving door between government and concentrated corporate interests, receiving big checks for serving on their boards and feeding off the trough of crony capitalism.

This is not a new problem for America. Big business interests have always dominated government and the two parties have consistently represented status quo business interests, but throughout our history we have seen the people transform the government by creating independent political movements that challenged the two parties.

When the most valuable industry in the United States was slavery, the two parties the Democrats and the Whigs conspired to ensure that abolition of slavery would not be considered in Congress. The Democrats, dominated by slave holding plantation owners, and the Whigs, dominated by Northern industrialists who profited from cheap cotton, did not want to see slavery end. More than a hundred years of abolition advocacy was unsuccessful in breaking the grip of two parties whose political power came from slavery. Some of those who opposed slavery decided to challenge the two status quo parties. They formed abolition parties and ran to end slavery. They were called spoilers just as Ralph Nader is called a spoiler for challenging the corporate parties today but they ran and ran. They never won. But gradually the Whig Party weakened. Finally, the abolitionists evolved into the Republican Party and the most successful third party president in history, Abraham Lincoln, was elected president and slavery finally ended.

Looking back at this history would you have voted for either one of the slave parties? Or, would you have voted to end slavery even though your candidate had no chance of winning?

Look at many of the major paradigm shifts in history farmers fighting banks that were foreclosing on them, workers not allowed to unionize and forced to work long, unsafe hours, the creation of Social Security, health care for the poor, ending child labor the list goes on and on. All of these major changes in American history were first brought into the electoral arena by independent electoral efforts.

The government is dysfunctional today. It is unable to deal with pressing problems facing the country. People are losing their homes, declaring bankruptcy, dying from lack of health care, suffering from endless wars but elected officials are stuck in inaction or fake action that protects the status quo. Independent politics means recognizing we have two corporate dominated parties and that we need to have at least one party not dominated by concentrated corporate interests in order to make progress on the urgent necessities of the American people. Independent politics does not necessarily mean winning elections, at least not right away. It may mean that the greater evil gets elected an evil that will fund war and dole out taxpayer dollars to corporate interests much like the lesser evil will do. But the path to paradigm shifting change has always included people willing to fight in the electoral arena even if they lost the election. These parties lost the election, but won the argument and in the end won real reform.

It is becoming more and more evident to Americans that the issue of the day is concentrated corporate power. We are in the midst of a major paradigm shift that will end corporatism the combination of government and concentrated corporations working for their interest and not ours. Will you continue to vote for one of the corporatist parties? Or, will you do as our ancestors did and create the paradigm shift we need by challenging the powers that be.

So, on Independence Day remember the roots of the United States declaring independence from the most power imperial power of the day, remember Americans throughout history challenging two parties that protected the status quo and look at the lessons of the last year when the lack of independence has only led to change that corporations can believe in.

This weekend Declare Your Independence and work for the real change we need.

Kevin Zeese is director of ProsperityAgenda.US and VotersForPeace.US.