MEDIA ROOTS- Recently, a man walking by my car inquired about my anti-war bumper sticker. After a short conversation, I learned that this 81 year-old peace activist, Chuck, spends every Friday evening on a high school street intersection protesting the wars. With a solid handshake and fist bump, he was on his way.

Weeks later, I spotted Chuck at an anti-war rally down the street. When I approached him, a big warm smile greeted me, followed by another solid fist bump. Having developed a curiosity about his background and anti-war stance, I asked him for an interview to which he happily agreed.

As Chuck sat on my couch over a cup of coffee, it became clear that he is a slightly shy man, not seeking recognition. “I just care about people”, he exclaimed. This is how our conversation went down.

***

MR: Tell me a little about your background so people get an idea who you are and where you come from.

C: I was born in 1930 at my home in Diamond, Washington, which is the eastern part of the state. There were seven of us kids, and my parents owned a 206 acre farm. I worked really hard as a kid, and by my early teenage years I was already running heavy equipment and had quite a bit of responsibility.

MR: Have you always been politically aware or socially active?

C: I’d always been interested in politics, but something happened during the Great Depression that opened my eyes to the ideas of fairness and greed. My father’s mortgage on the farm was $1,735. A neighbor, Mr. Rock, owned the mortgage. When it became impossible to pay, he told my father “If you can just pay one dollar, I won’t foreclose on you.” His compassion and kindness enabled us to keep the farm, but a few months later when Mr. Rock passed away, his son took over the property, foreclosed immediately and started plowing our land. Thankfully, the Federal Land Bank under Roosevelt took over the mortgage and essentially saved our farm.

MR: Was your family always politically minded?

C: We didn’t have television back then, but we listened to the radio. My parents paid attention to what was happening in the world, and liked to help others. There was a train that would come through once a week and drop off food, coal and ice. We would save some of the coal for these four homeless people who migrated during the winter. They stayed in our shed, and the bits of coal we had saved over the course of the year supplied them with enough heat to get through the cold winter months. Without a refrigerator, we’d hang our meat on the windmill outside in the winter and the hobos would come slice pieces off to cook. They never bothered anybody or asked for much, we just liked to help them out. I was always impressed with how my parents recognized that some people need help– not everyone is as fortunate as the rest of us.

I was definitely inspired by my parents, but I’ve always been socially active. In school I always stuck up for the kids who were bullied, even though I was smaller. For example, this one kid in my high school had MS or was somehow disabled. I did whatever I could to stick up for him when he was picked on, which was often. His family had an orchard down on the Snake River, and would can hundreds of quarts of peaches and apricots to sell every summer. They would always tell my family “You guys don’t pay”.

[Chuck tears up as he tells me this]

MR: That’s how the world should work– we need to help each other out. When did you become an activist? Was there a specific time or event that inspired you to start protesting?

C: I was in the Army during the Korean War, but luckily I never had to go overseas. Instead I was sent all around the country on various assignments and even ended up working at the Pentagon in Washington DC. I was one of only a handful of guys from my squad who didn’t end up dead. Being in the military never really settled with me. I didn’t understand what I was doing and why, and it felt very unorganized. After serving I became aware of our military actions, and became an outspoken critic. I suppose that evolved into physically protesting.

MR: How long have you guys been protesting on the corner?

C: We have been protesting for about four and a half years, rain or shine. I’ve only missed about three meetings. It’s not part of a larger established organization– it’s just a few of us, but we are a committed group of concerned citizens. It’s all volunteer, but it’s not a political thing. Well, it’s somewhat political, but it’s really about doing what’s right.

MR: Do you align yourself with a paticular political party?

C: Yes– I’m a Democrat.

MR: Historically, Democrats are known for being a bit more compassionate, but what do you think about the idea that maybe the lines are blurring between the two, and that both parties are just spokespersons for Big Business and private interests?

C: I still feel that Democrats are much more “tuned in” to people. It is unfortunate though, what these corporations are getting away with. It’s a damn crime. At one point I had a small construction company. I thought I was smart and had a couple hundred dollars and grew that into a labor-union based company about 200 strong. Supporting union labor gave people a voice and enabled them to make enough money to feed their families. Sometimes I would get out of bounds, and they would kick me back into shape, but it was a good relationship.

MR: I’m sure you still ended up paying a vastly larger chunk of taxes than these corporations are doing nowadays. You say that your anti-war stance is not a political thing, but you have to admit that war and politics are intertwined– they’re almost inseparable. What do you see as the main problem with America’s current political system?

C: Simple: too much greed. It’s all about the dollars. Unless you have money or political clout, you don’t have a voice. But you must still protest, because maybe you’ll be heard.

MR: Or at least make somebody think critically on their way home from work. What do you see as the main reasons why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan?

C: Oil and greed, no doubt about it. We need to get out of their countries. War creates hate and animosity. You don’t make people love you by killing them.

MR: Do you see the US trend of aggressive war over resources slowing down anytime soon? We’ve basically achieved what we went over there for: the regions are in turmoil, and US-backed governments are being implemented. Do you think that the regions will eventually be restructured?

C: I don’t think it will be effectively restructured. We just have to get the military industrial complex out of the way. The biggest thing we have in America is guns: half of our budget goes to the military.

MR: Which makes it hard to slow down. Do you think it’ll take a long sequence of events, like getting the right people in office and slowly chipping away at it, or do you think it’ll take an overnight revolution?

C: I think it’ll take the chipping away approach. We have to protest. We can’t continue to have a military presence in 130 countries. We have to slowly get those troops out of there.

We also need to write our Senators and Congressmen. Don’t send an email– write a letter or send a fax. They read those things, and it could make a difference. But you have to recruit others to do the same thing. Talk about things, spread news and hand-write lots of letters.

The key is to get the next wave of young policy makers in office. The young people are so much more progressive and open-minded. We need young leaders and we need more of what’s happening  in Wisconsin. I think that peaceful protesting is really working.

MR: Once these people get into office, how realistic is it to expect them to do the things they set out to do?

C: I think it’s very difficult. They have to be concerned with re-election, and to do so you have to know where your boundaries are.

MR: When I talk to friends who support Obama, they think I have some sort of personal agenda against him. But for me it’s not personal– I’m sure he’s a compassionate person who genuinely wanted change. But after getting into office, he really has limited control over what happens.

C: I saw something similar happen with Roosevelt. In the election of ’38, he was politically stymied. It’s exactly the same thing that’s happening now: I think Obama really wants to do the right things, in his mind and his heart. But he needs to be much more vocal.

MR: What were some of the similarities between Obama and Roosevelt?

C: He got Social Security to go through the Supreme Court and pushed for labor rights and public works projects. It was all about groups, like the Works Progress Administration. He also helped establish the idea of a minimum wage, and Washington state was the first to adopt one. These things gave people dignity. Also, back then we had these supposed enemies, the “Commies” and “Fascists” and the worker’s parties that corporations demonized. We see the same sort of fear-mongering now, but it’s “terrorists” and “Muslim extremists”. Our leaders need to make a stronger effort to push for green jobs, which could be a critical path for us.

MR: As far as Obama needing to be more vocal– He seemed to genuinely want to go in there and instigate change. So what happened? He has an opportunity every single day to get up in front of the podium in the Rose Garden and say “This needs to stop”. But he doesn’t. Is is because he’s powerless or is he trying to play it safe to ensure his re-election?

C: I think he has great intentions, and has the potential to become very powerful if he can get into another term. But for now he has to go along with the pundits because there’s so much chaos and thing going on.

It’s a difficult job, and his hands are pretty much tied. As an individual, he is respected. But it’s really difficult to get things done in Washington, all they do is talk. But I definitely agree that he could be doing a much better job.

MR: What is the key to getting this country back on track?

C: I don’t think it’ll be one specific thing. What’s happening in Wisconsin is the beginning of the revolution. We need more of that and we need to keep the pressure on ‘em. We can’t let up. And we have to offer solutions, we can’t just bitch and moan.

MR: How would you respond to people who say that protesting won’t make a difference?

C: I would say “You’re noticing, arent’ you?” We’re pressuring all the time– you have to be consistent. All those little grains of sand, the seemingly small voices, all those bodies really does make a difference.  I’m seeing more activists now than ever, and it’s encouraging. I care about people, David. I built an orphanage in Honduras, and did work with Habitat for Humanity in the Philippines. We have to throw the balance in favor of the people. Change– it needs to start with the heart.

***

Interview conducted, article written by David Solmes

Photo by Abby Martin

CONSUMERIST– A group of art activists this week staged an unsanctioned protest inside the world-famous Tate Modern museum in London by pouring oil over a naked body lying on the floor.

Wearing black hoods, two of the artists slowly pour the oil from gas cans painted with the BP logo over the fetal form of a third member lying naked. A Bach piece in minor plays underneath the video, which is safe for work.

The group behind the protest is called Liberate Tate, whose aim is to get the museum to break off ties with BP and stop taking sponsorship payola from the oil giant. The group was formed in 2010 during a workshop on art and activism that the museum itself sponsored. “The art activists running the workshops,” says the group on its website, “were told by Tate curators that no interventions could be made against the museum’s sponsors. The workshop participants refused this censorship, ended the workshop with an intervention and decided to continue their work together, setting up Liberate Tate the following spring.”

“Liberate Tate believes Tate’s sponsorship by BP, a corporation engaged in socially and ecologically destructive activities, is incompatible with the museum’s ethical guidelines,” continues the group’s statement. “Tate’s stated vision in regard to sustainability and climate change and its reputation as a progressive institution is damaged by its association with oil companies. In addition, Tate’s mission is undermined if visitors to its galleries cannot enjoy great art without the museum making them complicit in creating climate chaos. Liberate Tate calls on the museum’s governing body to recognise this and end its relationship with BP.”

Human Cost, Tate Britain Performance (87 minutes), charcoal and sunflower oil 20 April 2011– First anniversary of the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

© 2011 Consumerist

LIBERATETATE– On the same day, 166 people who work in the arts published a letter in the Guardian calling on Tate to end its sponsorship relationship with BP. “In the year since its catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP has massively ramped up its investment in controversial tar sands extraction in Canada, has been shown to have been a key backer of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, and has attempted to commence drilling for oil in the Arctic Ocean. While BP continues to jeopardise ecosystems communities and the climate by the reckless pursuit of “frontier” oil, cultural institutions like Tate damage their reputation by continuing to be associated with such a destructive corporation.

The massive cuts to public arts funding in the UK have left hundreds of culturally important arts organisations in a position of great financial vulnerability, which means that the debate about the appropriateness of particular potential corporate sponsors like BP and Shell is more relevant than ever. As people working in the arts, we believe that corporate sponsorship does not exist in an ethical vacuum. In light of the negative social and ecological impacts of BP around the world, we urge Tate to demonstrate its commitment to a sustainable future by ending its sponsorship relationship with BP.”

‘End oil sponsorship of the arts’ on Facebook, @liberatetate on twitter

http://www.liberatetate.org

The subway, though surrounded with countless people, can be a very isolated and lonely place. In this video, Luke Rudkowski undertakes a personal project that starts with simply talking to the people around him. What do we hold valuable? What is life and love? What role does government and society play in our lives? Can we as a people reclaim our humanity?

http://twitter.com/lukerudkowski
http://www.facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange
http://www.wearechange.org/

SHAREABLE– Biology is destiny, declared Sigmund Freud.

But if Freud were around today, he might say “design is destiny”—especially after taking a stroll through most American cities.

The way we design our communities plays a huge role in how we experience our lives. Neighborhoods built without sidewalks, for instance, mean that people walk less and therefore experience fewer spontaneous encounters, which is what instills a spirit of community to a place. That’s a chief cause of the social isolation so rampant in the modern world that contributes to depression, distrust and other maladies.

You don’t have to be a therapist to realize all this creates lasting psychological effects. It thwarts the connections between people that encourage us to congregate, cooperate and work for the common good. We retreat into ever more privatized existences.

Of course, this is no startling revelation. Over the past 40 years, the shrinking sense of community across America has been widely discussed, and many proposals outlined about how to bring us back together. 

One of the notable solutions being put into practice to combat this problem is New Urbanism, an architectural movement to build new communities (and revitalize existing ones) by maximizing opportunities for social exchange: public plazas, front porches, corner stores, coffee shops, neighborhood schools, narrow streets and, yes, sidewalks. 

This line of thinking has transformed many communities, including my own World War I-era neighborhood in Minneapolis, which thankfully has sidewalks but was once bereft of the inviting public places that animate a community. Now I marvel at all the choices I have to mingle with the neighbors over a cappuccino, Pabst Blue Ribbon, juevos rancheros, artwork at a gallery opening or head of lettuce at the farmer’s market.

But while New Urbanism is making strides at the level of the neighborhood, we still spend most of our time at home, which today means seeing no one other than our nuclear family. How could we widen that circle just a bit?  Not a ‘60s commune (“pass the brown rice, comrade, and don’t forget your shift cleaning the toilet ”), but good neighbors with whom we share more than a property line.

That’s an idea Seattle-area architect Ross Chapin has explored for many years, and now showcases in an inspiring and beautiful new book: Pocket Neighborhoods: Creating a Small-Scale Community in a Large-Scale World.

He believes that groupings of four to twelve households make an ideal community “where meaningful ‘neighborly’ relationships are fostered.” But even here, design shapes our destiny. Chapin explains that strong connections between neighbors develop most fully and organically when everyone shares some “common ground”. 

That can be a semi-private square, as in the pocket neighborhoods Chapin designed in the Seattle area. In the book’s bright photographs, they look like grassy patches of paradise, where kids scamper, flowers bloom, and neighbors stop to chat.

But Chapin points out these commons can take many different forms—an apartment building in Cambridge with a shared backyard, a group of neighbors in Oakland who tore down their backyard fences to create a commons, a block in Baltimore that turned their alley into a pubic commons, or the residential pedestrian streets found in Manhattan Beach, California, and all around Europe.

The benefits of a living in a pocket neighborhood go farther than you might imagine. I lived in one while in graduate school, a rundown 1886 rowhouse with its own courtyard near the University of Minnesota campus.  At no other time in my life have I become such close friends with my neighbors. We shared impromptu afternoon conversations at the picnic table and parties that went into the early hours of the morning under Italian lights we strung from the trees. 

When the property was sold to an ambitious young man who jacked up the rents to raise capital for the eventual demolition of the building to make way for an ugly new one, we organized a rent strike. And we won, which would never have happened if we had not already forged strong bonds with each other. Because the judged ruled that the landlord could not raise our rents until he fixed up the building, he abandoned plans to knock it down. It still stands today, and I remain friends with some of the old gang that partied in the courtyard.

by Jay Walljasper

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Photo of Conover Commons in Redmond, Washington, designed by Ross Chapin, author of the book Pocket Neighborhoods: Creating Small-Scale Community in a Large-Scale World.

(Video below)

FREE LANCE STAR– Twice this weekend, police put plastic riot cuffs on Daniel Ellsberg’s hands.

The man who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971 was arrested Saturday in Washington and again Sunday in Quantico.

Ellsberg was one of about 35 protesters taken into custody for refusing to leave U.S. 1 in front of the main gate of the Marine Corps base.

Hundreds rallied in support of Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking classified documents to Wikileaks.

Manning has been in the Quantico brig since May, awaiting a court martial. Supporters said the 23-year-old Manning is confined to his cell for 23 hours each day. He is given a tear-proof smock to wear to bed, but until recently was required to sleep naked.

To decry these conditions, some protesters donned prison garb and carried signs saying “I am Bradley Manning.” Many wore masks with Manning’s boyish face and shy smile.

They kept their clothes on this time. But at earlier rallies, protesters stripped to their underwear as a visual protest of Manning’s treatment.

The rally began with a spate of speakers. Then the protesters marched to the intersection of U.S. 1 and Joplin Road. There police placed a barricade to keep the rally off the street.

The protest closed U.S. 1 for about four hours for the rally. Even some distance from Quantico, motorists on U.S. 1 encountered significant delays during and immediately after the rally.

©2011 Free Lance Star

Written by Amy Flowers Umble

Police brutality at Free Bradley Manning protest as Colonel (Ret.) Ann Wright and Daniel Ellsberg become victims of targeted assault