HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » appal_jack » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »

appal_jack

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: North Carolina
Member since: Wed Aug 11, 2004, 06:57 PM
Number of posts: 2,476

Journal Archives

Black artist will burn, bury the Confederate flag across the South on Memorial Day

Black artist will burn, bury the Confederate flag across the South on Memorial Day
Opinion
by David A. Love | May 22, 2015 at 12:16 AM


Can you think of a better way for a black man to spend Memorial Day than to burn a Confederate flag?

As was reported in the Orlando Sentinel, an artist will do exactly that, with plans to make it happen in all the states throughout the former Confederacy.

John Sims, an artist from Sarasota, Florida, is honoring the constitutional right of self-expression by staging burnings and burials of the Rebel flag, that troublesome symbol of the Old South that many, particularly African-Americans, associate with slavery, white supremacy and state-sponsored terrorism and lynchings.

“We are in America, and people have the right to fly whatever flag ,” Sims said. “And I have the right to bury whatever flag, and to burn whatever flag.”

Sims noted that the Dixie flag, which the South flew during the Civil War, is associated with many toxic memories of the American experience, especially from the black perspective. “There’s a notion of ‘Southern Heritage’ and who owns , but a very important part of Southern culture is the African-American experience.… The Confederate flag is a flag of terror from its use by the Klan in the ’20s to the anti-civil-rights movement in the ’50s and ’60s,” Sims said.

“The flag is almost too toxic to handle, and for those who do, I’m suspicious of their engagement. Are you in denial?”

(snip)

To be sure, a number of people will disapprove of Sims’ form of artistic expression, but their own sentiments in support of that flag are misplaced and indefensible.

Although the Confederacy lost the Civil War and surrendered 150 years ago, some white folks refuse to let it go. Still fighting a war to keep blacks down and poor whites in poverty — because the slave system did not need white labor — they simply cannot escape the nineteenth century. As Euan Hague wrote in Politico Magazine in April, the passion for the Confederate flag has not ended for many Americans. Neo-Confederate sentiments seemed to be in relative hiding until the 1980s and 1990s.

Today, the symbols of the Confederacy are all around us. The state of Texas just went before the U.S. Supreme Court and defended the placement of the flag on Texas license plates.

Recently, students at the University of Texas at Austin passed a resolution to remove a statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis from its prominent spot on campus. And at the University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Students for Education Reform are demanding the renaming of Saunders Hall — a university building which honors Confederate colonel and KKK Grand Dragon William Saunders — to Hurston Hall, in honor of Zora Neal Hurston, the first black UNC student prior to integration.

(snip)

Although defenders of that flag may want to convince us that it has nothing to do with slavery, or segregation, or hating black people, we know better. After all, aside from serving as an official flag of the Confederacy and a symbol used by groups such as the Klan, the Confederate battle flag played a prominent role against the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. After the Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation decision, states such as Georgia reintroduced the flag in protest, while other states incorporated the secessionist symbol into the state flag, and others flew the battle flag on top of the state house. After Georgia changed its flag in 2003, Mississippi remains the only state flag to incorporate the Confederate emblem.

(more at link)



http://thegrio.com/2015/05/22/artist-john-sims-burn-bury-confederate-flag/

I think that this is wonderful, particularly Sims' statement that "We are in America, and people have the right to fly whatever flag ...And I have the right to bury whatever flag, and to burn whatever flag.” Too many white southerners try to pretend that they can revere the Confederate flag and also be patriotic Americans. Sorry racists, you can do one or the other, but not both.

-app

Nonsense, Mike. And you should know better.

Bt was used as a spray by organic growers for more than 40 years without observable resistance increasing among target insect pests. Why? Because natural Bt has a very short persistence in the environment. Depending upon weather conditions, within 24-48 hours, the BT has degraded into carbon dioxide, water, etc.

Splice a Bt gene into a corn plant, on the other hand, and you wind up with something quite different. The Bt is in every single cell, all the time. Stems? Bt. Roots? Bt. Corn kernels? Bt. Even root exudates and pollen? Bt. This is NOTHING like an organic farmer using a Bt spray one to three times a season (probably rotating at least once in there to a pyrethrum or spinosad to further reduce resistance), which is why Bt resistance was NOT a problem for more than four decades prior to the widespread adoption of GMO crops.

And about that "matter of knowingly committing to a short term solution for a long term problem?" Funny how all the costs are borne by farmers (especially organic growers who are losing an important tool from an already quite limited repertoire), yet all the profits and other benefits accrue to Dow, Monsanto, Syngenta, etc. Funny how that works, eh?

I think you need to reexamine your bias here if you wish to retain a shred of credibility on the biologist / scientist front.

-app

In so doing, he would alienate true progressives, who value the whole Bill of Rights.

Gun control is a losing issue.

Your statistics include suicides. While any suicide is a tragedy, is the gun really to blame? A tall building, an oncoming train, piped car exhaust, or a tank of nitrogen could just as easily be employed toward the same end.

We already have more than 20,000 gun laws on the books at various local, state, and federal levels. Is that not control? What level of control would you deem sufficient? How many more laws would make you happy?

The Bill of Rights is pretty clear about the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yet you want a Democratic candidate to call for further infringements. This will alienate voters who value and respect the Bill of Rights as a cornerstone of our government. Many of us are Bernie fans because he generally shares this respect, although (on-edit) I see down-thread that he voted in favor of an Assault Weapons Ban, which is a pointless gun control measure that I disagree with entirely.

We have a gun control proponent candidate in Hillary. Aren't you in her Third Way camp anyway? Why are you proposing to give (bad) advice to Bernie?

-app

There should be only two categories of products:

1) All products that require disposal or recycling should require a refundable deposit (similar to but larger than those for soda cans at present in many states). Manufacturers would be responsible for receiving and properly recycling these materials once they are collected. From cars, to computers, to plastic water bottles to plastic tarps: the state holds the deposit until they are redeemed, then the manufacturer (or an association of manufacturers) recapture the resources of said materials.

2) Products and packaging could only forego the required deposit and return requirements if they are 100% biodegradable within one year of exposure to the environment.

If it's not either quickly and safely biodegradable or recyclable, with the attendant funding and cradle-to-grave plan for such recycling, we don't need to be manufacturing it.

-app

What, exactly, is the Constitutional status of a "Congressional-Executive Agreement"?

It seems to me that TPP supporters are trying to have it both ways. They want the TPP and other trade agreements to supersede the Constitution, yet they are unwilling and unable to muster the votes necessary to pass an actual treaty, much less a series of Constitutional Amendments.

The author, Joe Firestone, does grapple with these questions further down in the article:

Treaties are the law of the land, and they trump previously passed legislation. But, first, according to the Constitution a Congressional – Executive Agreement is not a treaty. And second, even if it were, it would not trump the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. So, Federalism, as expressed in Amendment 10, means that the states of the union have a limited sphere of state sovereignty that cannot be breached by either the Federal government, or by treaties or international agreements concluded by it.

And that sphere of state sovereignty is precisely in the area of providing for the general welfare of its citizens. If a state in the US decides, for example, that the Federal minimum wage isn’t high enough for the general welfare of its citizens, it is free, right now, to pass a minimum wage at any level exceeding the Federal minimum that it thinks is desirable. Multinational corporations have nothing to say about this in any tribunal, but under the TPP they could sue the State for lost profits and collect damages.

So, if enacted, the TPP would violate Federalism, state sovereignty, and therefore the Constitution of the United States, in a way that the Federal Government cannot now do. It is clearly an unconstitutional treaty, which the United States has no right to conclude.


This is an important column. K&R,

-app

Clinton was 'like a son' to the BFEE long before he was president.

?w=550

This was 1983. That is segregationist George Wallace and his (third?) wife at the table with Bill Clinton and George H W Bush. I honestly believe that Slick Willy was being groomed to cover for Iran Contra crimes even then.

The Clintons as an alternative to Republicans is a sham of a mockery of a travesty of a farce of some lowbrow kabuki theater.

-app

How many of those nations had robust free speech protections prior to said tragedies?

I don't think that Rwanda or the Balkans were known for press freedoms prior to the tragedies that unfolded in those areas.

The US has had a remarkable 200+ year history where press freedom has always been the ideal, even if we have strayed from honoring it during certain dark times. Incendiary language can be countered with better language.

-app

NC is a bellweather of the south.

Please, if you care about anywhere outside your own area, donate to a progressive cause in NC. The Republicans are in control here, and they are wielding their power with a vengeance. This state has many progressives. In fact, many more Democratic votes were cast than Republican in the last election. Yet, thanks to partisan redistricting, the power consolidates further. We want to fight back, but look at circumstances like the OP, and realize that we are fighting long odds.

Some of you reading this may know me as one of the 'gungeon dwelling apes' (to borrow a quote from, DU'er Triana ). And it's true, I ike firearms collecting, target shooting, and a libertarian (note small 'l') interpretation of the Second Amendment. But in addition to all that, I know that I have neighbors who believe that Democrats are gun-grabbing nanny staters. And here I am desperately trying to convince them that believing in a social safety net, women's control over their own bodies, and people's right to marry whom they please is anything but anti-American. Guns are an unnecessarily divisive issue. NC needs to fight poverty, support education, build its public infrastructure, protect its environment, and otherwise enact a progressive future. And it's my view that gun control issues will only alienate too much of the NC populace to make this progressive future ever come to fruition.

Anyway, whether you agree with me on the 2nd Amendment or not, please realize that there are many, many issues in NC, and we need all the help (and rational prioritization) we can get.



-app

Roundup - a converging pattern of toxicity from farm to clinic to laboratory

Roundup - a converging pattern of toxicity from farm to clinic to laboratory
Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji / ISIS

25th February 2015

Glyphosate, perhaps surprisingly for a chemical so ubiquitously associated with our food, was not first used as an agricultural chemical.

Instead it was first patented as a metal chelator in 1964 by Stauffer Chemical company (US 3160632 A) and used as an industrial pipe cleaner.


(snip)

Glyphosate is teratogenic - according to Monsanto's own data

Monsanto's own toxicology tests submitted to the EU commission showed evidence of teratogenicity (see EU Regulators and Monsanto Exposed for Hiding Glyphosate Toxicity, SiS51). The submitted test reports describe rats and rabbits with skeletal abnormalities including the development of a 13th rib in offspring, as well as cardiac abnormalities.

Scientific studies such as that of the late Professor Andrés Carrasco reporting neural tube birth defects in frog and chick embryos exposed to agricultural concentrations of glyphosate have validated both Monsanto's findings and clinical observations (see also Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects, SiS48).

Probing into the mechanisms underlying the defects, Carrasco discovered that glyphosate disrupted retinoic acid activity, a well-known regulator of developmental processes.


Much, much more in the full article:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2769439/roundup_a_converging_pattern_of_toxicity_from_farm_to_clinic_to_laboratory.html

The author's organization, ISIS (no, not the Islamist Terrorists... the 'Institute of Science In Society') is often considered controversial, but has also been mighty prescient at times on GMO issues, etc. Posted here for discussion.

My own take thus far is that Glyphosate appears to be considerably less toxic than many other herbicides (Atrazine, 2,4 D, etc.). However, we presently use so much more glyphosate than any other herbicide that caution and further investigations are warranted. I certainly won't use the stuff on my own property, but many of my neighbors do.

-app

Did the GOP Just Give Away $130 Billion of Public Property

Did the GOP Just Give Away $130 Billion of Public Property?

A giant Anglo-Australian mining company is getting the rights to a huge copper reserve - and we don't know what US taxpayers are getting in return.

In December, two Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, pushed Congress and the president into giving away what could amount to over $130 billion in public property.

That's enough to provide every single unemployed American a minimum-wage job for an entire year. That's enough to pay for a year of tuition at a public institution for every college student in the US.

And yet the GOP big-shots call themselves "fiscal conservatives"! "Fiscal conservatives," my you-know-what.

I'm talking about the huge giveaway to the mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton in the Defense Authorization Act. It was splayed across ten pages of the bill, pages 441 to 450 (out of 697).


Much more at link:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/29182-did-the-gop-just-give-away-130-billion-of-public-property

Infuriating! The public comment period of the EIS seems like the main way to exert pressure on this, with letters to Obama & Vilsack also being worthwhile.

-app

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »