Advertisement

You Know His Name with photo of Matt Damon

Jason Bourne is the fifth installment in the Bourne film franchise derived from Robert Ludlum’s espionage novels that began with 2002’s The Bourne Identity. Ludlum’s original Bourne trilogy began in 1980 but didn’t reach the big screen until shortly after 9/11, when the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies turned to what author Jane Mayer called The Dark Side. The latest sequel continues the Bourne formula of nonstop action combined with criticism of the Central Intelligence Agency and is the fourth movie starring Matt Damon as the title character and the series’ third feature helmed by British director Paul Greengrass, starting with 2004’s The Bourne Supremacy.

Jonathan Beard is the energy and inspiration behind Issue 1, the vote to end the at-large city council which has been in-place for over a century. Beard is the president and CEO of the Columbus Compact Corporation. He’s co-chair of Represent Columbus, the grass-roots group behind Issue 1. In his own words Issue 1 is the “citizen-initiated proposed Columbus Charter Amendment to change our city council to a form that better represents the interests of the people of all Columbus.” A summer of violence in a long-neglected east side neighborhood, he says, is when and where Issue 1 was born.   

I personally became involved to initiate Issue 1 when Columbus City Council would not act to support 22 neighborhood groups – two area commissions, plus umpteen civic associations, business associations and block watches – during a summer of horrific drug-related gun violence on E. Main Street where all the violence was caught on video and shared with city council.

 

The last time a Clinton tried to get into the White House, his campaign motto was "It's the economy, stupid!"

If you engage with peace organizations, you will very quickly be told repeatedly that nobody gives a damn about distant mass murder, and that consequently a smart organizer will talk to them about something local, such as the local impact of the financial burden of war, or perhaps the militarization of the police, or local recruitment, or local environmental damage from military bases, etc., but mostly the financial cost.

The reasoning behind all such thinking is that people are often busy, overworked, overstressed, concerned with their day-to-day struggles, etc., and so, while some of them might occasionally also take a mild interest in the affairs of others in distant corners of the globe, virtually everyone can be appealed to using local community concerns and, in particular, economic concerns related to their own needs and greed.

The evidence that this line of thinking misses something includes the following:

 

 

A Statement from Advancement Project

 

WASHINGTON – In a landmark ruling issued today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned North Carolina H.B. 589, a monster voter suppression law with sweeping implications for voters. Presented with clear evidence that provisions of the measure would disproportionately burden voters of color, the three-judge panel struck down the law, finding that it violated the Voting Rights Act, the United States Constitution and that it was enacted with discriminatory intent. The court stated that it “cannot ignore the record of evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina History.” Advancement Project, a national multi-racial civil rights organization among the groups that brought suit challenging the law, released the following statement:

 

Dirty nuke plant

The New York Times published an astonishing article last week that blames green power for difficulties countries are facing to mitigate climate change.

The article by Eduardo Porter, How Renewable Energy is Blowing Climate Change Efforts Off Course, serves as a flagship for an on-going attack on the growth of renewables. It is so convoluted and inaccurate that it requires a detailed response.

As Mark Jacobson, director of Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University, pointed out to me via email:


 

The level of hatred and hostility towards Hillary Clinton is staggering. This is not just “nattering nabobs of negativity”: what is occurring now is more like verifiable vitriolic vehemence that is unprecedented in my lifetime. I think back to the hatred for Lyndon Johnson for perpetuating the Vietnam War or for Nixon and Kissinger for bombing Cambodia, or even the antipathy and contempt for George Bush II for his grudge matches in the Middle East coupled with the anger towards Cheney and Halliburton for thinly veiled profiteering in the Foreign Policy arena: none of these add up put together to the level of hostility towards the Democratic nominee, despite the smooth words of the soothsayers, which have no effect on those recalcitrant citizens of whom I speak now.

These were instructions passed around during the last night of the Wells Fargo Arena Anti-Russia Don't-Say-TPP Call-It-Debt-Free-College-Not-Free-College Democratic Party Extravaganza. Noise Makers were deployed. Lights could be switched off on people as needed. Delegates were prevented from walking out. And chants like "Black Lives Matter" and "Love Is Love" were joined in by the corporatists.

However, if you chanted "Ban Fracking Now," they would chant "Hillary" back at you, as if having Hillary as their beloved leader was better than banning fracking. Also if you chanted "Stop TPP" or "Walk the Walk" you'd be greeted by screams of "Hillary!"

But what if you shouted "No More War"? Wouldn't they join in and try to own that one? Don't Christmas decorations even today still sometimes say "Peace on Earth"? Didn't Tim Kaine pretend in his speech that Woodrow Wilson was a peace maker? Doesn't the Pentagon claim that it kills people for peace? Wouldn't trying to shout down opposition to war be a step too far even for a pro-fracking, pro-corporate-trade, cult of personality?

“I believe that the risk of a nuclear catastrophe today is greater than it was during the Cold War – and yet our public is blissfully unaware of the new nuclear dangers they face.” William J. Perry, U.S. Defense Secretary (1994-1997), January 2016

As I watched “unity” take hold of the Democratic Party this week, the believer in me wanted to be imbibe it — bottoms up.

Michelle Obama ignited the crowd. “That is the story of this country,” she said. “The story that has brought me to the stage tonight. The story of generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of servitude, the sting of segregation, who kept on striving, and hoping, and doing what needed to be done.”

And the Big Party opened its arms.

“So that today, I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves.”

Slaves?


 

According to supporters of Hillary Clinton, anything other than a vote for her is "a vote for Trump," and according to supporters of Donald Trump, anything other than a vote for Trump is "a vote for Hillary." Whether you declare that you will vote for Jill Stein, vote for Gary Johnson, write in LeBron James, swear off elections, move to Canada, commit suicide, or take a job for a corporate media outlet that frowns on participation in democracy, no matter what it is you do, it's "a vote" for the undesired candidate. (Sorry to go morbid with that corporate media option!)

What is the appropriate reply to this?

Pages

Subscribe to ColumbusFreePress.com  RSS