Nonviolence & the Road to Independence

Each year, as fireworks celebrate the Declaration of Independence and people discuss how the United States began, the spotlight normally turns to “revolutionary” leaders and the “armed struggle” waged more than two centuries ago. But as usual, the real story is a bit different. The movement toward independence in the “new world” actually began a decade before the “shot heard round the world” and involved thousands of people. By the time things turned violent, substitute governments and firm alliances were operating in nine colonies.

Early colonial campaigns weren’t mere passive pleading. They were demands, backed by nonviolent actions that forced Britain to change its laws. Through economic boycott and the development of new government structures, John Dickinson wrote in 1767, colonists could pressure parliament by “withholding from Britain all the advantages they get from us.” One pamphlet circulating at the time urged colonists to “bid defiance to tyranny by exposing its impotence.”

Many colonists were already following this advice, refusing to comply with the new Stamp Act, a direct tax on all sorts of licenses, publications and legal papers, by resisting use of the stamps. According to Britain, the duty would be used to finance British troops “protecting” colonists from Indian “hostility” and French expansionism. Resistance began even before the Act was official. This grassroots movement, which essentially nullified the law, involved a massive refusal to import British goods and the beginning of economic self-sufficiency in North America.

The forms of political defiance and direct action included civil disobedience and, in some cases, threats aimed at stamp distributors. No one was killed, but the threats and scattered attacked on property were effective deterrents. By November all the stamp distributors resigned, while ports and newspapers remained open despite the absence of stamps. Debts to British merchants were left unpaid. The Rhode Island Assembly resolved that only colonists could tax colonists. In order to avoid mass prosecution of resisters, however, George Washington advised that colonial courts be closed.

Despite the absence of violence, the threat to British rule was obvious. Power was swiftly being diffused through many substitute governments. Town meetings took to passing laws that were more widely obeyed than British regulations. By early 1768 more than four million pounds was owed to Britain’s merchants, who pressured the King and parliament for action. The Stamp Act was repealed, but Britain simultaneously proclaimed that the right to tax the colonies still and would always exist. What couldn’t be defended on the ground was brandished on paper.

The Townshend Acts, a 1768 attempt by new British Prime Minister Charles Townshend to impose an external levy, met just as much resistance. The new Acts placed a tax on imported goods such as lead, paint, paper, glass, and tea. This time it wasn’t merchants who initiated the campaign but mechanics, artisans and workers. The main method was non-consumption, along with development of economic alternatives along self-sufficient lines. When goods weren’t bought and those on household shelves weren’t used, merchants were forced not to import the boycotted items. Within a year the Massachusetts legislature denounced the law, calling for united action, and Virginia voted for strict non-importation, notifying other colonies of its decision.

Non-importation put a squeeze on British merchants until the Acts died in 1770. But this time Britain was a bit more clever: All taxes - except the duty on tea – were repealed. Falling short of total victory the colonists became divided about the success of their campaign. In the confusion resistance disintegrated as Britain doggedly held onto its right to tax.

Despite the setback colonial fervor persisted in other resistance efforts. The Committees of Correspondence, established years earlier as underground governments, maintained a network for expressions of solidarity, protests, mutual aid, and new ideas. In 1773, Britain provided the catalyst to test these emerging organs of popular power.

The East India Company, an early international monopoly, was in financial trouble. To help the influential business, Britain’s parliament passed an Act controlling prices in order to give East India a colonial monopoly. The law manipulated the market so that even smuggled tea was more expensive. The Boston Tea Party was an early response; Bostonians in Indian garb dumped 342 chests of tea overboard. Britain responded by closing the Port of Boston and increasing repression.

The colonies mobilized, helped by their previous experiences with united action and Paul Revere’s rides to “give you all the news.” Many communities – New York, Philadelphia, Charlestown, Wilmington and Baltimore among them – pledged moral and economic support. Money, rice and sheep flooded into Massachusetts as Britain tried to undermine self-government.

Defying Britain, a Massachusetts Town Meeting resolved to cut off imports and exports, and called again for economic boycott. Revere rode to New York and Philadelphia with news of the Suffolk Resolves, soon adopted by the Continental Congress. All coercive laws were unconstitutional, the Congress had ruled, and are not to be obeyed. People were urged to form their own governments and deny taxes to the so-called “legal” governments in their regions.

Although the Resolves raised the possibility of war, the thrust remained nonviolent – boycott, tax resistance, non-importation (sometimes including slaves), and development of substitute local governments. The Continental Association, formed at the end of 1774, incorporated these approaches and added legal enforcement of “non-intercourse” along the lines used earlier in Virginia.

As this brief review suggests, the movement for US independence emerged from the grassroots, from people in neighborhoods and communities, colonists who made personal commitments and participated in hunger strikes, non-consumption and other heroic acts of resistance. It was an enormous and sustained struggle, one of many nonviolent campaigns that have profoundly influenced world history, although “official” accounts rarely give them recognition.

Civil resistance – also known as “nonviolent action” or “people power” – has proven effective, though not always successful on its own, in many colonial rebellions, struggles for labor, civil and women’s rights, campaigns to resist genocide and dictatorship, and other battles for independence and freedom. Indian nationalists used it in their struggle against British domination, various European countries used it to resist Nazi occupation, dissidents in Communist-ruled countries used it to increase freedom – and ultimately end dictatorships in Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. "Arab Spring" uprisings in the Mid-East and North Africa used the same tactics.

These movements weren’t passive or submissive, and most of the people involved weren’t pacifists, saints or natural leaders. They were ordinary people in extraordinary situations, using diverse methods – from protests and vigils to the creation of parallel or “de facto” governments – to challenge and ultimately overturn illegitimate authority. In the American colonies two centuries ago, people were well on their way to winning the War of Independence before the shooting even started. There are clearly lessons here for the domestic and global struggles we face today.

Happy Independence Day!

To learn more about recent nonviolent struggles and the potential of civil resistance, consult the work of Gene Sharp, founder of the Albert Einstein Institution, author of Waging Nonviolent Struggle and other books.

REBEL NEWS, 4/12/2013: Drone Free or Die Trying

Maverick Media’s Rebel News airs 9-10 a.m. (more or less) on Fridays on WOMM (105.9-FM/LP – The Radiator and streaming).  

TOP STORY: Drone Free or Die Trying

Overcoming the Surveillance State

     The US is at the dawn of “a new era in police surveillance,” the Associated Press revealed casually last week. In a Chicago-based story about the growing use of drones and other sophisticated, unmanned aircraft for aerial surveillance, it noted that the Congressional Research Service considers their future use "bound only by human ingenuity."

     

TF/DF Florentino

The story focused on one Illinois legislator who has proposed a limit on how far law enforcement agencies can go. But bills have been introduced in almost 40 states, and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee has two model ordinances to assist communities in the emerging movement against domestic surveillance drones.

     This isn’t science fiction, although the threat of an emerging Surveillance State does figure in my forthcoming novel, Dons of Time. As I learned while researching, drones already fly pretty freely in US airspace. Law enforcement groups use them for search and rescue operations, for security along the border (mainly the one with Mexico so far), for weather research and scientific data collection. In fact, last year Congress authorized the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to open the nation’s airspace to widespread drone flights by 2015.

     The FAA estimates that more than 7,000 civilian drones could be surfing the sky by 2020.

     As Bill of Rights Defense Committee Executive Director Shahid Buttar explains, "Because the legal landscape governing drones is essentially barren, law enforcement agencies around the country are currently making policy to suit their interests. But we live in a constitutional Republic, meaning that We the People hold the opportunity — and responsibility — to petition our local representatives for legal protections that Congress is too timid to provide.”

     In Seattle, the police department purchased two drones through a federal grant, but opted not to use them after protests in February. A bill barring Virginia law enforcement from using drones for two years passed the General Assembly months ago, but awaits a response from the governor. The National Conference of State Legislatures has heard about more than 70 bills in around 40 states that address the use of drones.

     The Defense Committee’s legislative models are designed to satisfy diverse interests. One creates a drone-free zone, while another establishes strict requirements limiting their use by law enforcement agencies and other public officials. The model regulating drone use (rather than outlawing it) allows them to be used with a judicially issued warrant or for limited non-law enforcement purposes like fire detection, hazardous material response, search & rescue, and natural disasters.

     Beyond constitutional concerns, proposed legislation also addresses some safety issues. According to Buttar, many of the drones currently available to law enforcement have limited flying time, can’t be flown in bad weather, must be flown in sight of an operator, and can only be used during daylight hours, “making them ill-suited to search and rescue missions and best suited for pervasive surveillance.”

     On the other hand, AP points to some of the attractions driving the rush to drone use. Unmanned aircraft vary widely in size and capability. They can be as small as a bird or look like a children's remote-controlled toy, and yet can be equipped with high-powered cameras, microphones, heat sensors, facial recognition technology or license plate readers. Similar technology has been used by the US military and CIA to track down Al-Qaida operatives abroad.

     Law enforcement likes drones because they’re relatively cheap; they reportedly keep down the price by cutting fuel and maintenance costs, as well as reducing manpower. Look at it this way: A police helicopter can cost from $500,000 to $3 million, and about $400 an hour to fly. It's snooping on the cheap for those with the means of surveillance.

     To learn more, contact Shahid Buttar, (202) 316-9229, or Nadia Kayyali, a legal fellow, (510)  207-1040, media@bordc.org. Model legislation is available online.

THIS WEEK ON REBEL NEWS: overcoming the surveillance state, tax resistance strategies, musical “workercide,” too big to jail banks, an Iranian TV blackout, the Gitmo hunger strike, studying conspiracies for credit, America’s mini-monarchs, things smart people say, and Vermont’s media convergence. Here are highlights:

Tax Day Resistance: No $ for Missiles

Speaking of drones -- and following up on last week’s discussion of military spending and withholding taxes -- here’s a suggestion from the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee (NWTRCC): Refuse to Pay for Cruise Missiles and Drone Strikes

     How to do that, you may ask? On April 15 people across the country will be explaining the various strategies in leaflets, marches, street theater, various acts of civil disobedience, and pickets outside post offices, IRS offices, federal buildings and other public spaces, all of them calling attention to the effects of military spending.  A list of US Tax Day events with links to international actions is available at NWTRCC (very catchy).

     April 15 is also the third annual Global Day of Action on Military Spending. In the evening, in Berkeley, for instance, members of Northern California War Tax Resistance and the People's Life Fund will present grants of resisted war taxes totaling at least $20,000 to local social service, peace, and justice organizations. That event and others from Maine to Kentucky to Washington are posted online.

     Thirty years ago President Ronald Reagan set off a military buildup. This motivated thousands of taxpayers to resume the civil disobedience begun during the Vietnam War by refusing to pay taxes to buy those weapons, which led to the 1982 formation of NWTRCC. That year Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle risked censure and withheld half his income tax to protest nuclear weapons, calling on others to do the same.

     On March 30, 1983, an ad placed in a Massachusetts weekly began, “We refuse to pay taxes for the violence of war preparations and other military expenditures including present military involvement in other countries. Over half of the federal income taxes are used for military expenses.” Many of the 120 signers still refuse today and protest on tax day, joined by new people protesting taxes for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the “war on terror.”

     Massachusetts residents Randy Kehler and Betsy Corner signed the 1983 ad. Despite a house seizure and other actions by the IRS, they still believe that, with the federal government running up huge deficits by spending trillions on weapons and war -- at the expense of its own people (especially soldiers) and those in other countries – “citizens should say 'No!' and re-direct their federal tax money to local projects that meet genuine human needs.” 

     The spike in military spending since 2001 surpasses the Reagan years. Today we fund even more expensive systems, new nuclear weapons plants, and assassinations by unmanned drones, along with soaring interest payments on the national debt and burgeoning health care costs for thousands of wounded veterans. For more email nwtrcc@nwtrcc.org, or visit www.nwtrcc.org - Ruth Benn, Coordinator.

Setting Workercide to Music

(a new tune from Dave Lippman)

ROUND UP
RUN UP TO WAR: The Iranian TV Blackout

The US and its Western partners have banned Iranian TV from North America and various European countries. Heard about it? Not very likely – unless you’re on the mailing list for PressTV, a 24-hour English-Language Iranian news channel.

     PressTV claims that the Iranian film channel, iFilm, as well as Iranian radio stations, have also been banned from Western eyes and ears. In February all such media were removed from the Galaxy 19 satellite platform serving the US and Canada. In December the Spanish satellite company, Hispasat, terminated the broadcast of Iranian Spanish-language channel Hispan TV.

     A Lexis-Nexis search indicates that not one English-language print newspaper, broadcast station, or news agency in the world reported on the PressTV news story after it appeared February 8. One Internet newspaper, Digital Journal, ran the story on February 10.

     The use of sanctions to prevent foreign media from saying things Washington doesn’t want said can be viewed as an improvement. Compared to what? On October 8, 2001, the second day of the US bombing of Afghanistan, the transmitters for the Taliban government’s Radio Shari were bombed. Shortly after that the US bombed 20 regional radio sites. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended this by saying: “Naturally, they cannot be considered to be free media outlets. They are mouthpieces of the Taliban and those harboring terrorists.”

     And in Yugoslavia, during the 78-day bombing in 1999, state-owned Radio Television Serbia (RTS) was targeted because it was broadcasting things the US and NATO consider propaganda, including the extent of civilian casualties the bombing was causing. So, look on the bright side: it's blackout, not bombs. 

Collective Despair: The Gitmo Hunger Strike

From a New York Times editorial - The hunger strike that has spread since early February among the 166 detainees still at Guantánamo Bay is again exposing the lawlessness of the system that marooned them there. The government claims that around 40 detainees are taking part. Lawyers for detainees report that their clients say around 130 detainees in one part of the prison have taken part.

     The number matters less than the nature of the protest, however: this is a collective act of despair. Prisoners on the hunger strike say that they would rather die than remain in the purgatory of indefinite detention. Only three prisoners now at Guantánamo have been found guilty of any crime, yet the others also are locked away, with dwindling hope of ever being released.

     … Congress outrageously has limited the president’s options in releasing them, through a statute that makes it very difficult to use federal money to transfer Guantánamo prisoners anywhere. Fifty-six of those approved for release are Yemenis. The government, however, has said it will not release them to Yemen for the “foreseeable future,” apparently because they might fall under the influence of people antagonistic to the United States. That false logic would mean that no Yemenis could ever travel to this country, but that is not the case.

Conspiracy for Credit: Welcome to SOC 497 

If you happen to be on the West Coast this summer, you might sit in on a new course at Sonoma State University. It’s SOCI 497, also known as “Sociology of Conspiracies,” an upper division class on the history and cultural understandings of conspiracies by elites and the powerful in society.

     Here’s the blurb: “We will ask the question: do elites and the powerful make plans and take actions that may harm others or democracy? We will study the theories “State Crime Crimes Against Democracy” (SCAD) and “Power Elite Theory.” We will explore how people in the US have long held conspiracy theories going back to the Revolutionary War. We will take a look at contemporary efforts by elites to use media to discredit research regarding the origins of 20th century wars, political assassinations, 9/11, and US election fraud. We will focus on solid academic research for discussion and challenge those whose explanations go beyond available evidence.”

     The texts include Conspiracy Theory, by Lance deHaven Smith, University of Texas Press, 2013; 9/11 and American Empire, Intellectuals Speak Out, David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, Olive Branch Press, 2007; and a Course Reader. The classes will feature guest lectures, films and discussions with Instructor Peter Phillips. Four credits for a fee of $1280. Campus housing is available.

America’s mini-monarchs

From Sam Smith – If Hillary Clinton wins the White House for two terms, we will have had 28 of America’s most recent 64 years – or 44% - in which the occupants of the White House were immediate relatives of other presidents. If the Kennedy bothers hadn’t been assassinated, we might have added another 16 years to the total, or two thirds of all the period’s presidencies.

     There are several distant parallels in the previous 170 years, but only the Adams’ were as close as the Kennedys, Bushes, and Clintons. The Roosevelts were 5th cousins and of different parties. Benjamin Harrison was William Henry Harrison’s grandson and James Madison and Zachary Taylor were second cousins. Only in the case of the Adams could one say that the presidency was inherited.

     And all that was before we passed a constitutional amendment limiting a presidency to two terms. We just forgot to keep it out of the family.

VERMONT: MEDIA CONVERGENCE

WRIF Brings Transmedia to White River

The 2013 White River Indie Festival, running April 26-28 in -- you guessed it -- unique and colorful White River Junction, will feature hands-on "transmedia" workshops and presentations, examining the intersection of filmmaking, writing and web design for interactive and user-generated storytelling. As a result they’re calling this year's venture "iWRIF," and also the "Transmedia" storytelling festival. Check out www.wrif.org for the full schedule of events.

     Beside seven feature films, WRIF and The Vermont Movie are bringing back last year's smash hit: The Local Filmmaker's Brunch, where local films will be served up with breakfast treats for a fun and celebratory morning. Looking to win some cash? Yeah, cash! Participate in the 48-Hour FILM SLAM and you could win up to 1,000 bucks! Sign up at: http://catv8.org/film-slam/

VIFF Sinks Global Roots in Burlington

On the west coast of the state, the Vermont International Film Festival is meanwhile launching a new monthly series of exciting films originating from the mother countries of many of the state’s New American communities. Part of VTIFF’s mission is to work with and for the community. The six films in the 2013 Global Roots Series reflect the richness and diversity of the population: From Serbia, Nepal, Iraq, China, Mexico and Rwanda. Starting April 14, and every second Sunday of the month through September at North End Studios – at 294 N. Winooski Ave, Burlington.

    NOTE: Films not suitable for small children. Screenings are FREE! (Donations accepted)  Sponsored by Old Spokes Home and by Anonymous, Reid & Jane Grayson, Marcia Hemley, Joe & Susan Hasazi, Sherrill Musty, Sultana Group H.

Sunday, April 14, 5 pm: THE PARADE (PARADA)

Director: Srdjan Dargojecvic; Croatia-Macedonia-Serbia-Slovenia | Comedy | 115 min | 2011

Sunday, May 12, 5 pm: HIGHWAY

Director: Deepak Rauniyar; Nepal | Drama | 80 min | 2012

Sounds great. Wish I didn't have a conflict that first Sunday. Personally, I'll be listening to my friend Robin Lloyd, who just returned from the World Social Forum in Tunisia.  Sunday, April 14, from 3 – 5 pm, at Burlington Friends Meeting, 173 N. Prospect, Burlington. Hear Medea Benjamin (Code Pink), Robin Lloyd (Toward Freedom and WILPF), Elizabeth Jesdale and Autumn Martinez (U.E., The Workers Center and Global Grassroots Justice). Tunisian tea and refreshments will be served. ALSO...Medea Benjamin will be speaking at 7 pm Monday, April 15 at the UU Church in Burlington on DRONES. Plans for a march up Church St. starting at 6:30 from City Hall.

Vermont Yankee: Taking Back the Power

3/23 Update: More than 1,000 people turned up in Brattleboro on Thursday to march the 3.5 miles from the town common to Entergy’s offices at Vermont Yankee. Dozens trespassed on the company’s property and were arrested. Continue reading

^^^

Calling all citizens,

Defying the will of Vermonters, Entergy Nuclear has successfully won the first stage of its strategy to break its word and to usurp the authority of the Vermont legislature. 

In their negotiations to get permission to buy Vermont Yankee, corporate officials agreed to abide by future state statutes, and promised to forgo the right to sue the state over statutes that might be contrary to Entergy's interests. But they were lying, sued the state, and have won the first round in a federal court suit that reverses the state legislature's refusal to extend Vermont Yankee's operating license.

Judge J. Garvin Murtha effectively said that [contrary to prior Supreme Court rulings] the legislature has no authority to regulate the operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor. The Public Service Board is now the only state entity with the power to decide Yankee's future.

The judge also bought Entergy's argument that he should base his ruling not on the written legislation, but rather by retroactively reading the minds of the legislators to judge what they were thinking at the time.

This ruling goes hand in glove with current Federal policies that enrich the 1% and keep power firmly in the hands of large corporations. It affirms that corporate power and influence trump the interests of the citizenry. And it reinforces the notion that only the federal government can be trusted to keep us safe from radiological accidents caused by corporate malfeasance and profit-driven lax practices.

More significantly, the ruling should serve as the catalyst to spark Vermonters who have been watching the struggle from the sidelines to join the citizen effort to shut down VY before an accident shuts it down for us.

A majority of Vermonters know that Vermont Yankee has run its course and needs to be shut down, as originally licensed. Now is the time to turn to your neighbors.

With as few as five to ten friends, you can form an affinity group that takes non-violent training to help in the effort to shut down VY. You customize your affinity group to match the interests and willingness of its members, from pledging to engage in direct action/civil disobedience, to standing quietly on the sidewalk or organizing other actions. While a coalition of organizations IS working to coordinate these diverse efforts, don’t wait to engage in any way that seems appropriate to you.

Entergy has the judge's approval to continue operating past its March 21 close down date. But Vermont can (and may) appeal the decision, and the Public Service Board should be encouraged to deny a Certificate of Public Good.

But more important…

The region is mobilizing to descend upon Entergy's presence in southern Vermont and engage with a campaign of rallies, marches, direct action and political engagement to make it increasingly difficult for Entergy to conduct business as usual.

THE MOBILIZATION BEGINS

Civil disobedience and direct action will continue as needed. The State of Vermont will continue to assert its right to control the state’s energy generating future. But it needs the help of everyone. Only with a strong partnership of people power and government action can we assure victory over the entrenched interests of the money powered corporate oligarchy.

Starting now, every American who lives anywhere near an Entergy related establishment should know the truth about the company – and how they use their influence with the federal government (they brag about it on their website) to increase profits and deny the sovereign rights of communities and governments.

Together, we can take actions and create a narrative that resonates with people across the country and contributes to the growing political consciousness that the Occupy Movement has nurtured. Let’s keep up the momentum. The expiration date of Vermont Yankee’s license provides a sharp focus for the months ahead.

Contact www.sagealliance.net for help organizing an affinity group and staying connected. Take back the power from federal overreach and take back Vermont from those who would put us all at risk for the sake of profit. The Arab Spring and the Occupy movement demonstrate the potential power of the people. When we stand by and watch, we often find ourselves in peril. When we assert our sovereign power we take the first step towards building a better future.

Never Violence, Only Victory.

The SAGE Alliance  sagealliance.org

Will Maverick Go to Netroots? You decide

Democracy for America and America's Voice are teaming up to provide financial scholarships to 40 bloggers and activists so they can attend this year's Netroots Nation conference, to be held June 7-10 in Providence, RI.  Netroots Nation provides bloggers, progressive activists and candidates a forum to strengthen the online community and grow progressive movements.

     If you think I should be there, please add your support to my scholarship application.

The scholarship winners will be decided over the course of three rounds. The first round runs through 11:59 PM PST on March 21. The three applicants with the most support from DFA Members and Netroots will automatically win a scholarship in each round. Others will be chosen by a selection committee.

     The competition is tough and I need your help. Please support my application in the Netroots Nation Scholarship Competition. Also, spread the word over the next two weeks through your social networks.  Here’s the link: Greg Guma’s NetrootsScholarship Page.

     Early votes are extra important, since they can help to build momentum. So, if you think I ought to be there, let them know. Sound like a plan? Thanks in advance. – GG aka Maverick Media

In case you wondered….

To apply, I answered a series of interesting questions. I don’t know if this qualifies as transparency, but here are most of my responses:

A little about me: Questioning illegitimate authority and assisting new social movements has been my privilege for decades. Since returning home to Burlington in 2010, I've been challenging the corporate media consensus through my blog (Maverick Media), reporting and investigations for VtDigger.org, and articles on sites like Alternet, Truthout, Common Dreams, ZNet, and many more. 

      Starting out as a reporter in the late 60s, I launched several alternative publications in the 1970s, including as editor of The Vermont Vanguard Press, which set the stage for the election of Bernie Sanders and the launch of Vermont's modern progressive movement. In the 80s and 90s I was a syndicated columnist, launched community bookstores in Vermont and Santa Monica, coordinated Burlington's Peace and Justice Center and New Mexico's leading immigrant legal services organization. 

     Returning to Vermont, I edited Toward Freedom, a respected international affairs magazine, and supervised its digital transition. I also organized one of the first Indy Media conferences in 2000 and participated in the Quebec Mobilization against corporate globalization. In 2004 I co-founded Vermont Guardian, a print and online weekly. In 2006 I became Executive Director of Pacifica Radio, attempting to promote its national programming and internal reconciliation. 

      I'm the author of The People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution; Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization, and What We Can Do; Big Lies: How our corporate overlords, politicians and media establishment warp reality and undermine democracy; and the radio play, Inquisitions (and Other Un-American Activities). I currently work for VTDigger.org, a Vermont news website, as its Burlington correspondent.

Why I deserve a scholarship: To begin, I am a 65-year old activist of long-standing living on a fixed income. Over the years, fighting centralized and entrenched power has required some sacrifices. In 1974, for example, I was blacklisted from public service for becoming a whistle blower on misuse of federal funds. Several years later, while teaching at a Vermont college, I was improperly fired for standing up for student rights and fair pay.

     But more relevant, I have decades of on-the ground organizing experience -- and have also kept pace with major technological innovations. From alternative publications, photography and community radio to documentary films, books, a CD on nonviolence, a radio drama on civil liberties that has been aired in more than 20 states -- I use many techniques and platforms to investigate, educate and create a counter-narrative of resistance and liberation.

     I continue to participate in the evolution of Vermont's progressive and independence movements, and write several widely-read stories weeklies on everything ranging from financial scandals, elections and education to Vermont's Yankee and significant historical events.
     Without a scholarship, my limited income and current commitments make hard for me to deal with transportation and housing. But I'd be excited to attend and exchange ideas.

What first inspired me to get involved: In a way it began in high school, defying arbitrary authority in a repressive parochial school. But being a reporter in the turbulent 60s revealed deep social injustices, and later work in government exposed the bankruptcy of the current social order. By the mid-70s I'd become a full-time organizer and media activist. By the end of the 80s the head of the local Republican Party called me a "serious professional revolutionary anarchist." I turned it into a campaign button.

How I’ve gotten others involved: I've been mentoring young writers and activists for more than 30 years, initially as editor of Vermont's leading alternative newspaper. Then, and later with Toward Freedom, I worked with hundreds of young reporters, in the US and later around the world, some of whom went on to do significant work. While in print TF stressed connections with writers in Africa, Asia and Latin America. I have also organized campaigns on civil liberties issues, local democracy, energy, militarization, corporate globalization, and the environment. Beyond that, I use my research and writing to challenge conventional thinking and motivate constructive action.

A Twitter manifesto? Bringing us together globally, new media challenge the management of mass perceptions and the knowledge monopoly of elites, fueling hope and direct action to make another world possible.

Bumper Sticker:  

THE EMPIRE ENDS HERE!