Progressive Calendar 03.03.12 /2
From: David Shove (
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 11:35:55 -0800 (PST)
*P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R   03.03.12*

1. CUAPB                   3.03 1:30pm
2. Northtown vigil          3.03 2pm
3. Humanism               3.03 3:30pm
4. Working democracy 3.03 7pm
5. Iran hoax                 3.03 9pm

6. Universe from 0        3.04 9am
7. Stillwater vigil           3.04 1pm

8. Naomi Klein - Throwing out the free market playbook
9. ed               - bumpersticker

--------1 of 9--------

From: Michelle Gross <mgresist [at]>
Subject: CUAPB 3.03 1:30pm

Meetings: Every Saturday at 1:30 p.m. at Walker Church, 3104 16th Avenue
South <>

Communities United Against Police Brutality
3100 16th Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Hotline 612-874-STOP (7867)

--------2 of 9--------

From: Vanka485 [at]
Subject: Northtown vigil 3.03 2pm

Peace vigil at Northtown (Old Hwy 10 & University Av), every Saturday 2-3pm

--------3 of 9--------

From: AWE
Humanism 3.03 3:30pm

Saturday, March 3, 3:30pm  Habits of Humanism -- The Practice of Mindfulness
Hennepin County Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN, Gamble
and Skogmo Conference Room on fourth floor—N 402

--------4 of 9--------

From; Tom Dooley
Working democracy 3.03 7pm

Discussion Forum: Violence Vs. Non-Violence in the Revolution
Working Democracy Meetup Group
Saturday, March 3, 2012
7:00 PM Iran hoax 3.03 9pm

Mayday Books 301 Cedar Ave SMinneapolis, MN 55454

--------5 of 9--------

From: Eric Angell eric-angell [at]

"The Hoax Regarding Iran"

The 2006 doc film "Why We Fight" described the rise of the United States'
military–industrial complex, and its involvement with US led wars.  The
2007 film "War Made Easy" provided a fresh look at the machinations of the
United States' propaganda system and its ability to push the public's
acceptance for war.

Despite these and countless other attempts to build a media-savvy US
population, apparently, nearly half of the US population is still
susceptible to pro-war propaganda delivered through the US media system.

In a humble way, Our World In Depth contributes 2 additional episodes
dedicated to counter-propaganda regarding Iran, the current target of the
US pro-war propaganda machine.

In presentation, along with open Q and A, professor and Middle East expert
William Beeman debunks myths being propagated about Iran, including the
hyped-up rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program.  Beeman suggests an urgent
need to try to stop another lie-based attack on another country in the
Middle East.  (Feb. 2012, Minneapolis)

"The Hoax Regarding Iran"
available now at:

MTN 17 viewers:
"Our World In Depth" cablecasts on Minneapolis Television Network (MTN)
Channel 17 on Saturdays at 9pm and Tuesdays at 8am, after DemocracyNow!
Households with basic cable may watch.
** TODAY, Sat, 3/3, 9pm and Tues, 3/6, 8am

SPNN 15 viewers:
"Our World In Depth" cablecasts on St. Paul Neighborhood Network (SPNN)
Channel 15 on Tuesdays at 5pm, midnight and Wednesday mornings at 10am,
after DemocracyNow!  Households with basic cable may watch.
** Tues, 3/6, @ 5pm & midnight + Wed, 3/7, 10am
"The Hoax Regarding Iran"

"Our World In Depth" features analysis of public affairs with
consideration of and participation from Twin Cities area activists.  "Our
World In Depth" is locally produced and not corporately influenced.  Order
a dvd copy or contact us at ourworldindepth [at]

--------6 of 9--------

From: AWE
Universe from 0 3.04 9am

Sunday, March 4, 9:00am-10:00am  “Atheists Talk” Radio
AM 950 KTNF in the Twin Cities or stream live at

Guest:  Lawrence Krauss discusses “A Universe from Nothing”  Chris Stedman
discusses “Bridging the Religious-Secular Divide”  Contact us during the
show with questions or comments at (952) 946-6205 or radio [at]

--------7 of 9--------

From: scot b <earthmannow [at]>
Subject: Stillwater vigil 3.04 1pm

A weekly Vigil for Peace Every Sunday, at the Stillwater bridge from 1- 2
p.m.  Come after Church or after brunch ! All are invited to join in song
and witness to the human desire for peace in our world. Signs need to be
positive.  Sponsored by the St. Croix Valley Peacemakers.

If you have a United Nations flag or a United States flag please bring it.
Be sure to dress for the weather . For more information go to

For more information you could call 651 275 0247 or 651 999 - 9560

--------8 of 9--------

Naomi Klein: 'If You Take Climate Change Seriously, You Have to Throw Out
the Free-Market Playbook'
Published on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 by Common Dreams

Naomi Klein on ideological impediments to addressing climate change and how
to move forward
- Common Dreams staff

In an interview with Solutions, author and activist Naomi Klein discusses
how market-based solutions are not going to meet the needs required to
address climate change and how ideologies have hampered both the left and
right in climate action. She also states that the Occupy movement has been
"a game-changer." There is a way forward, Klein says, and it involves
"changing the mix in a mixed economy."

Throwing Out the Free Market Playbook: An Interview with Naomi Klein
from Solutions

Perhaps one of the most well-known voices for the Left, Canadian Naomi
Klein is an activist and author of several nonfiction works critical of
consumerism and corporate activity, including the best sellers No Logo
(2000) and Shock Doctrine (2007).

In your cover story for the Nation last year, you say that modern
environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the
political Left, including redistribution of wealth, higher and more
progressive taxes, and greater government intervention and regulation.
Please explain.

The piece came out of my interest and my shock at the fact that belief in
climate change in the United States has plummeted. If you really drill into
the polling data, what you see is that the drop in belief in climate change
is really concentrated on the right of the political spectrum. It’s been an
extraordinary and unusual shift in belief in a short time. In 2007, 71
percent of Americans believed in climate change and in 2009 only 51 percent
believed—and now we’re at 41 percent. So I started researching the denial
movement and going to conferences and reading the books, and what’s clear
is that, on the right, climate change is seen as a threat to the Right’s
worldview, and to the neoliberal economic worldview. It’s seen as a Marxist
plot. They accuse climate scientists of being watermelons—green on the
outside and red on the inside.

It seems exaggerated, but your piece was about how the Right is in fact

I don’t think climate change necessitates a social revolution. This idea is
coming from the right-wing think tanks and not scientific organizations.
They’re ideological organizations. Their core reason for being is to defend
what they call free-market ideology. They feel that any government
intervention leads us to serfdom and brings about a socialist world, so
that’s what they have to fight off: a socialist world. Increase the power
of the private sector and decrease the public sphere is their ideology.

You can set up carbon markets, consumer markets, and just pretend, but if
you want to get serious about climate change, really serious, in line with
the science, and you want to meet targets like 80 percent emissions cuts by
midcentury in the developed world, then you need to be intervening strongly
in the economy, and you can’t do it all with carbon markets and offsetting.
You have to really seriously regulate corporations and invest in the public
sector. And we need to build public transport systems and light rail and
affordable housing along transit lines to lower emissions. The market is
not going to step up to this challenge. We must do more: rebuild levees and
bridges and the public sphere, because we saw in Katrina what happens when
weak infrastructure clashes with heavy weather—it’s catastrophe. These
climate deniers aren’t crazy—their worldview is under threat. If you take
climate change seriously, you do have to throw out the free-market playbook.

"If you take climate change seriously, you do have to throw out the
free-market playbook."
What is the political philosophy that underscores those who accept climate
change versus those who deny it?

The Yale cultural cognition project has looked at cultural worldview and
climate change, and what’s clear is that ideology is the main factor in
whether we believe in climate change. If you have an egalitarian and
communitarian worldview, and you tend toward a belief system of pooling
resources and helping the less advantaged, then you believe in climate
change. And the stronger your belief system tends toward a hierarchical or
individual worldview, the greater the chances are that you deny climate
change and the stronger your denial will be. The reason is clear: it’s
because people protect their worldviews. We all do this. We develop
intellectual antibodies. Climate change confirms what people on the left
already believe. But the Left must take this confirmation responsibly. It
means that if you are on the left of the spectrum, you need to guard
against exaggeration and your own tendency to unquestioningly accept the
data because it confirms your worldview.

Members of the Left have been resistant to acknowledging that this
worldview is behind their support of climate action, while the Right
confronts it head on. Why this hesitancy among liberals?

There are a few factors at work. Climate change is not a big issue for the
Left. The big left issues in the United States are inequality, the banks,
corporate malfeasance, unemployment, foreclosures. I don’t think climate
change has ever been a broad-based issue for the Left. Part of this is the
legacy of siloing off issues, which is part of the NGO era of activism.
Climate change has been claimed by the big green groups and they’re to the
left. But they’re also foundation funded. A lot of them have gone down the
road of partnerships with corporations, which has made them less critical.
The discourse around climate change has also become extremely technical and
specialized. A lot of people don’t feel qualified and feel like they don’t
have to talk about it. They’re so locked into a logic of market-based
solutions—that the big green groups got behind cap and trade, carbon
markets, and consumer responses instead of structural ones—so they’re not
going to talk about how free trade has sent emissions soaring or about
crumbling public infrastructure or the ideology that would rationalize
major new investments in infrastructure. Others can fight those battles,
they say. During good economic times, that may have seemed viable; but as
soon as you have an economic crisis, the environment gets thrown under the
bus, and there is a failure to make the connection between the economy and
the climate crisis—both have roots in putting profits before people.

You write in your article, “After years of recycling, carbon offsetting,
and light-bulb changing, it is obvious that individual action will never be
an adequate response to the climate crisis.” How do we get the collective
action necessary? Is the Occupy movement a step in the right direction?

The Occupy movement has been a game changer, and it has opened up space for
us to put more radical solutions on the table. I think the political
discourse in the United States is centered around what we tell ourselves
the American public can handle. The experience of seeing these groups of
young people put radical ideas on the table, and seeing the country get
excited by it, has been a wake up call for a lot of people who feel they
support those solutions—and for those who have said, “That’s all we can
do.” It has challenged the sense of what is possible. I know a lot of
environmentalists have been really excited by that. I’m on the board of, and they’ll be doing more and more work on the structural barriers
to climate action. The issue is why? Why do we keep losing? Who is in our
way? We’re talking about challenging corporate personhood and financing of
elections—and this is huge for environmental groups to be moving out of
their boxes. I think all of the green organizations who take corporate
money are terrified about this. For them, Occupy Wall Street has been a
game changer.

"The Occupy movement has been a game changer, and it has opened up space
for us to put more radical solutions on the table."
What comes after communism and capitalism? What’s your vision of the way

It’s largely about changing the mix in a mixed economy. Maybe one day we’ll
have a perfect “ism” that’s post-communism and -capitalism. But if we look
at the countries that have done the most to seriously meet the climate
challenge, they’re social democracies like Scandinavia and the Netherlands.
They’re countries with a strong social sphere. They’re mixed economies.
Markets are a big part, but not the only part, of their economies. Can we
meet our climate targets in a system that requires exponential growth to
continue? Furthermore, where is the imperative of growth coming from? What
part of our economy is demanding growth year after year?

If you’re a locally based business, you don’t need continual growth year
after year. What requires that growth is the particular brand of corporate
capitalism—shareholders who aren’t involved in the business itself. That
part of our economy has to shrink, and that’s terrifying people who are
deeply invested in it. We have a mixed economy, but it’s one in which large
corporations are controlled by outside investors, and we won’t change that
mix until that influence is reduced.

Is that possible?

It is if we look at certain choke points like corporate personhood and
financing, and it makes sense for us to zero in on aspects of our system
that give corporations massive influence. Another is media concentration.
If you had publicly financed elections, you’d have to require public
networks to give airtime to candidates. So the fact that networks charge so
much is why presidential elections cost more than a billion dollars, which
means you have to go to the 1 percent to finance the elections. These
issues are all linked with the idea that corporations have the same
free-speech rights as people, so there would also be more restrictions on
corporate speech.

Entrepreneur and writer Peter Barnes has argued that what’s missing is
adequate incorporation of the “commons sector” in the economy—public goods
like natural and social capital. “Capitalism 3.0” he calls it, which we’d
achieve not by privatizing these goods but by creating new institutions
such as public-asset trusts. What’s your opinion of this approach?

I definitely think it’s clear that the road we’ve been on—turning to the
private sector to run our essential services—has proven disastrous. In many
cases, the reason why it was so easy to make arguments in favor of
privatization was because public institutions were so cut off and
unresponsive and the public didn’t feel a sense of ownership. The idea that
a private corporation has valued you as a customer was a persuasive
argument. Now it turns out both models have failed. So this idea that there
is a third way—neither private nor state-run public—is out there.

--------9 of 9--------

                                                             Throw the
bankers under the bus


  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.