“In All Seriousness” Podcast #3: Universal Basic Income


TZMOfficialChannel
Published on Oct 13, 2017

“In All Seriousness” Podcast #3, October 2017

Subject: Universal Basic Income

Guests: Scott Santens and Larry Cohen

http://www.scottsantens.com/
https://buildthefloor.org/

Host: Peter Joseph

Roundtable: Rob Dew & Michael Jordet

“In All Seriousness” is the new (2017), roundtable format for The Zeitgeist Movement’s official podcast.

Itunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/i…

Soundcloud Channel: https://soundcloud.com/user-148391635

About TZM:The Zeitgeist Movement is a global sustainability activist group working to bring the world together for th common goal of species sustainability before it is too late. Divisive notions such as nations, governments, races, political parties, religions, creeds or class are non-operational distinctions in the view of The Movement. Rather, we recognize the world as one system and the human species as a singular unit, sharing a common habitat.

LIKE The Zeitgeist Movement @ www.facebook.com/tzmglobalFOLLOW The Zeitgeist Movement @ twitter.com/tzmglobalJOIN THE MAILING LIST: www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/SUBSCRIBE TO THIS CHANNEL: www.youtube.com/channel/UCEwoFdqY…ub_confirmation=1

Share This Item

“In All Seriousness” Podcast #4 | Subject: Blockchain


TZMOfficialChannel
Published on Feb 25, 2018
“In All Seriousness” Podcast #4, Feb. 2018

Subject: Blockchain

Guests: Brigida Santos and Danette Wallace

Host: Peter Joseph
Roundtable: Summer Perry, Michael Jordet

Itunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/in-al…d1268815530?mt=2

Soundcloud Channel: @user-148391635

About TZM:
The Zeitgeist Movement is a global sustainability activist group working to bring the world together for the common goal of species sustainability before it is too late. Divisive notions such as nations, governments, races, political parties, religions, creeds or class are non-operational distinctions in the view of The Movement. Rather, we recognize the world as one system and the human species as a singular unit, sharing a common habitat.

————————————————————————————————
LIKE The Zeitgeist Movement @ https://www.facebook.com/tzmglobal
FOLLOW The Zeitgeist Movement @ https://twitter.com/tzmglobal
JOIN THE MAILING LIST: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEwo…

Share This Item

Protesters Block Google Buses in San Francisco, Citing ‘Techsploitation’

Image
Protesters used scooters to block at least a dozen tech-industry buses Thursday in San Francisco.CreditDavid Streitfeld/The New York Times

SAN FRANCISCO — They’re back.

Anti-Google protesters blocked at least a dozen private buses for tech industry workers on Thursday morning in their first significant demonstration here in several years.

About 15 activists clad in white Tyvek coveralls dumped scooters in front of the buses at an intersection in the Mission District, a formerly low-income, mostly Latino neighborhood whose rents are now punishing.

The scooters, owned by tech start-ups who see the ride-sharing company Uber as a role model, have become the latest flash point in the simmering anger against the tech industry in its hometown. The scooter companies want to use the sidewalks as a place to store their vehicles until the next customer comes along.

The sidewalks in the Mission and throughout much of the city are increasingly home to the homeless. London Breed, a leading candidate in next week’s mayoral elections, has promised to sweep the streets of homeless encampments within a year. Ms. Breed is the candidate favored by the tech community.

To the activists, privileging the scooters over the homeless is another example of what they call “techsploitation.” “Sweep tech not tents,” was one of the rallying cries of the blockade. Another sign: “They call it ‘Disruption.’ We call it displacement.”

The first bus protests began in late 2013. They were a reaction to the fact that the big tech companies — Google but also Facebook, Apple, Yahoo and others — had campuses in Silicon Valley but their employees preferred to live in San Francisco. The buses, paid for by the companies, allowed even more employees to live in the city, which pushed rents higher. The fact that the buses used the city’s bus-loading zones was a further aggravation for critics.

The protests were generally small and nonviolent, although when the actions spread to Oakland a tire was slashed and a window broken. An episode in which a demonstrator vomited onto the windshield of a Yahoo bus in Oakland quickly entered the annals of famous Bay Area moments of street protest.

On Thursday, someone sprayed a vulgar message on the side of one bus but otherwise the mood was largely respectful and inclusive. Aside from the buses, traffic continued to flow through the intersection. A microphone was passed around and people from the community spoke briefly.

“We’ve got lives and we don’t got nowhere to go,” one young man said. Another, addressing the workers in the buses, said, “Each one of you has taken the space away from someone who belongs here.” A third said the tech industry wanted “more money out of each square inch, and people are pushed out the sides.”

Some of the workers got off the buses and left. Others filmed the action on their phones. A half-dozen of the buses were Google’s. At least one was for employees at YouTube, a division of Google. Other buses belonged to Facebook.

Gina Scigliano, a spokeswoman for Google, said the company was a good corporate citizen.

“Google has contributed over $250 million to the Bay Area in the areas of homelessness, economic opportunity and education,” she wrote in an email. “And since 2014, specific to San Francisco, we have given $63 million to these causes.”

Facebook declined to comment.

The blockade was not publicized beforehand, so only a handful of people were present. After an hour, there was a prayer and the blowing of a conch. The action disbanded, the scooters went back to the sidewalk and the buses were able to move on.

(Submitted by Adrienne Fong.)

Share This Item

UPDATES ~ ACTION ALERT ~ POOR PEOPLE’S Campaign ~ Info on SF & CA Propositions (from Adrienne Fong)

UPDATES:

Palestine in Pictures: May 2018

https://electronicintifada.net/content/palestine-pictures-may-2018/24556?utm_source=EI+readers&utm_campaign=8655a58d2d-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e802a7602d-8655a58d2d-299173401 

ACTION ALERT: 

Petition

Tell Congress: Support the Preventing Preemptive War in North Korea Act.

Click here: https://act.credoaction.com/sign/Prevent_North_Korea_War?t=2&akid=28765%2E21110%2E3j42Ec 

~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~ 

Poor People’s Campaign – Bay Area

https://www.facebook.com/ppcbayarea/

Poor People’s Campaign Bay Area Transportation Signup & Info to Sacramento

 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfu1MaXjGt9n-3LN8tA1QDjwKZwexEIIw3ylEP1kxI0LX_gug/viewform

 Bus leaves West Oakland BART at 10:00am; returns at 8:00pm

Remaining dates and themes for actions are:

  Week 4 June 4 – Ecological Devastation and Health
Week 5 June 11 – Systemic Poverty Everybody’s Got the Right to Live: Jobs, Income and Housing
Week 6 June 18 –Challenging the Nation’s Distorted Moral Narrative – A New and Unsettling Force

June 23rd – Mass rally in Washington, D.C. and Global Day of Solidarity

~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~ 

INFO ON SAN FRANCISCO & CALIFORNA PROPOSITIONS from 3 different sources – click the site for explanations 

Broke-Ass-Stuart – Voters Guide on Local & State Propositions

https://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2018/05/08/the-june-2018-bas-voter-guide/

LOCAL PROPOSITIONS 

Proposition A – Public Utilities Revenue Bonds: YES
Proposition B – Prohibiting Appointed Commissioners from Running for Office: YES
Proposition C – Taxes on Commercial Rents to Fund Child Care: YES
Proposition D – Tax on Commercial Rents to Fund Housing & Homeless Services: SadlyNO
Proposition E – Prohibiting Flavoured Tobacco Products: NO POSITION
Proposition F – City Funded Representation for Tenants Facing Eviction: YES
Proposition G – Parcel Tax for San Francisco Schools: YES
Proposition H – Policy for the Use of Tasers by San Francisco Police Officers: NO
Proposition I – Relocation of Sports Teams: YES

REGIONAL MEASURES 

Regional Measure 3 – Bay Area Traffic Relief Plan: YES

STATE PROPOSITIONS

Proposition 68 – Authorizes Bonds Funding Parks, Natural Resources Protection, Climate Adaptation, Water Quality & Supply, and Flood Protection: YES

Proposition 69 – Requires That Certain New Transportation Revenues Be Used for Transportation Purposes.  Legislative Constitutional Amendment: YES

Proposition 70 –Requires Legislative Supermajority Vote Approving Use of Cap-and-Trade Reserve Fund.  Legislative Constitutional Amendment: NO

Proposition 71 – Sets Effective Date for Ballot Measures.  Legislative Constitutional Amendment: YES

Proposition 72 – Permits Legislature to Exclude Newly Constructed Rain-Capture Systems from Property-Tax Reassessment Requirement.  Legislative Constitutional Amendment: YES

Freedom Socialist Party Bay Area Site not known, rationalization provided. Prepared by Bob Price 

Statewide Ballot Measures

Proposition 68 (Bond funding for parks, natural resources and water quality)—Vote NO
This measure authorizes the state to sell $4.1 billion in bonds for the above purposes as well as climate adaptation, water supply, and flood protection. While all of these improvements and safeguards are essential, working taxpayers, struggling to make ends meet, would be on the hook for the $8 billion to repay bondholders. Instead, tax the biggest corporate polluters to pay for these services.

Proposition 70 (Requires legislative supermajority for spending cap-and-trade reserve funds)—Vote NO
This proposition requires a legislative two-thirds supermajority vote to approve the expenditure of cap-and-trade Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund revenue starting in 2024. After the spending is approved one time by two-thirds, all subsequent expenditures will be by simple majority.  This convoluted mechanism was a concession by Gov. Brown to secure Republican votes needed for an extension of the state’s cap-and-trade program. Under this, oil companies and other air contaminators must pay a fee to continue polluting. The revenue is used for programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with global warming.  This proposal gives a minority of conservatives and climate change deniers the power to limit spending on crucial environmental protections. The real solution is to prohibit industrial COemissions in the first place.

Proposition 72 (Permits exemption of rain-capture systems from property tax reassessment—Vote YES
Rain capture systems collect, store, and use otherwise wasted rain water for landscape irrigation and similar uses, saving more conventional water for personal use. In a drought-plagued state, collecting rain water makes sense. This measure is a first step to protect homeowners who do the right thing. Even better would be tax rebates for such water-saving devices and government-funded programs to install them in poorer neighborhoods.

San Francisco and Bay Area Regional Ballot Measures

NO to regressive parcel taxes. NO to regressive toll and rate increases.

Often, local politicians put regressive tax and fee increases on the ballot to pay for sorely needed programs and infrastructure improvements. While we’d like to support better transportation, development of clean power, and higher teacher salaries, it’s wrong to pay for them with taxes and fees that eat into the subsistence wages and pensions of many San Franciscans. For the most vulnerable, creeping tax rates and fee increases can mean there’s only enough left to pay for food or medicine, but not both. Instead of squeezing workers for overdue improvements, elected officials need to tax corporate profits and investments of the very rich. With 31 billionaires in San Francisco, and profits from the likes of Uber, Wells Fargo, and Twitter, there’s plenty of wealth to draw on.

Proposition G (Parcel tax that increases teacher pay, but funds charter schools)—Vote NO
San Francisco Proposition G implements a $298 tax on each parcel of property in San Francisco to increase teacher and paraprofessional (classroom aide) salaries and enhance technology in the schools. Worthy goals, but the tax also supports “public” charter schools, managed by profit-making corporations. Add to this the fact that the tax bill is the same for a retired home-owning grandmother in Hunters Point as it is for Salesforce, and we have to reject this measure.

Regional Measure 3 (Raises bridge tolls by $3 over next three years)—Vote NO
This proposal raises bridge tolls on nearly all Bay Area bridges by $3 over the next three years to pay for needed highway and mass transit improvement. Why arbitrarily penalize only bridge commuters who already suffer through long lines and slow traffic just to get to work! Instead, tax the big companies who depend on roads and transit to bring in employees and send out products.

Proposition A (Public utilities revenue bonds)—Vote NO
San Francisco Proposition A issues revenue bonds to build and improve clean electrical power facilities. Such bonds are paid back with funds received from electricity consumers’ bills. That’s better than bonds that draw payments from taxpayer general funds, but there is still a danger of increasing electricity rates on some of San Francisco’s most struggling working people.

YES to a tax on the rich to fund childcare
Proposition C (Additional tax on commercial rents mostly to fund childcare)—Vote YES
This measure increases taxes on the gross receipts of commercial landlords bringing in $1 million or more annually. 85 % of the income generated pays for childcare for low- to middle-income families. Childcare, its costs, and the near impossibility of finding affordable quality care falls primarily on mothers. That’s why we, as socialist feminists, believe in free, public, universal childcare. This measure takes an important step in that direction, paid for by those who can most afford it. We join with the Children’s Council of San Francisco, Chinatown Community Development Center, and the SF Labor Council in urging a YES vote.

Beware of cynical political maneuvering
Proposition D (Additional tax on commercial rents mostly to fund housing and homeless services)—Vote NO
Proposition C got to the voters as the result of a grassroots initiative petition campaign. Upon learning of it, a group of pro-business SF Supervisors placed a measure on the ballot to compete with C. Their Proposition D goes after the same source of funds, but at half the tax rate, and designates the funds to help the homeless and provide housing for low- and middle-income households. If both C and D pass, only the measure getting more votes takes effect. This cynical, dastardly political ploy must be roundly condemned! Elected leaders should not be pitting the need for childcare against the plight of the homeless and poor, just to give landlords a lower tax rate. Instead, Supervisors should be raising corporate taxes to fund both necessities. We reject the political shenanigans behind this measure by urging a NO vote.

No to prohibition of tobacco products
Proposition E (Prohibiting retailers from selling flavored tobacco products)—Vote NO
Throughout history, prohibition has been used with the stated intent to protect people from harm and perceived danger associated with commodities like liquor, marijuana, and other drugs. In every case, the results have been disastrous, leading to disproportionate arrests, conviction and imprisonment of people of color who have not harmed anyone. While it is true that youth are targeted by sellers of flavored nicotine products, the solution to protecting children’s health is more effective health education, access to nutritious foods, and increased CalWORKS food vouchers. Tobacco companies are against this measure to protect their bottom line; we are against it for the harm it will do to already-marginalized people by giving cops another excuse to step up their presence in neighborhoods like the Bayview, Mission, and Fillmore.

No tasers for the SFPD!
Proposition H (Policy for use of tasers by San Francisco police officers)—Vote NO
This measure is sponsored by the Police Officers Association, the cops’ union, because they want tasers now, without any precautions and rules that the Police Commission and Chief seek to impose before issuing the weapons. We are against cops carrying tasers, even with guidelines. Tasers are not the nonlethal alternative they’re being sold as. Arrestees have suffered great bodily harm and have died from being tased according to studies carried out by UCSF. We should not be adding another lethal weapon to the arsenal carried by SFPD. We really can’t trust them or any other police force with lethal weapons of any kind. Along with Wealth and Disparities in the Black Community – Justice 4 Mario Woods, the ACLU, Bar Association, and Coalition on Homelessness, we ask you to vote NO.

Yes to publicly funded lawyers for people threatened with eviction
Proposition F (City-funded legal representation for residential tenants in eviction lawsuits)—Vote YES
Proposition F is a worthy attempt to protect tenants from eviction in a city where rents have skyrocketed while the Mayor and Supervisors have catered to high tech corporations. Third and fourth generation Black and Latinx San Franciscans are being forced out of a city they built and infused with rich cultures. Landlords eager to make a killing on higher rents employ all kinds illegal maneuvers to evict long-term tenants. Typically, 90% of landlords have attorneys, while only 10% of renters do.

What we really need is guaranteed housing for all, with subsidies for those of modest means.. But Proposition F is a reform that will bring relief to working San Franciscans in the meantime. We urge a YES vote along with the SF Tenants Union, La Raza Centro Legal, and the United Educators of San Francisco.

SAN FRANCISCO LEAGUE OF PISSED OFF VOTERS

http://www.theleaguesf.org/

STATE PROPOSITIONS
Prop 68$4B Bond for Parks, Drought Protection, Climate Adaption – Yes
Prop 69Require Diesel Tax to Be Spent on Transportation Stuff – Yes
Prop 70Give Republicans & Corporate Dems Power on Cap’n’Trade Funds – No
Prop 71Delay Effective Date of Ballot Measures Until All Ballots Are Counted – Yes
Prop 72Rainwater Capture Systems Won’t Trigger Property Tax Assessments – Yes

REGIONAL MEASURES

Regional Measure 3Raise Bridge Tolls $3 Over 7 Years to Fund Transportation Projects – Yes

LOCAL PROPOSITIONS

Prop AAuthorize Public Utilities Commission to Issue Clean Energy Bonds – Yes
Prop BCommissioners with Conflicts Can’t Be Candidates – Yes
Prop CCommercial Rent Tax for Child Care & Early Education For All – Hell Yes!
Prop DDivisive Commercial Rent Tax for Too Little Housing – Disappointed No 🙁
Prop EUphold the Ban on Flavored Tobacco Products – Yes
Prop FRight to Counsel for Tenants Facing Eviction! – Hell Yes!
Prop GParcel Tax to Give Teachers a Raise! – Hell Yes!
Prop HLet Police Use Tasers on Nonviolent People?!? – Hell No!
Prop I: SF Shouldn’t Steal Sports Teams from Other Cities – Sure ¯\_()_/¯

Share This Item

The Zeitgeist Movement

The Zeitgeist Movement is a non-profit organization established in the United States in 2008 by Peter Joseph.[1][2] The organization advocates a transformation of society and its economic system to a non-monetary system based on resource allocation and environmentalism.[3][4][5]

Overview

In 2007 Peter Joseph produced and self-financed a live performance art piece which ran for six nights in lower Manhattan that he entitled “Zeitgeist”. According to Joseph in an interview in 2012, he was surprised after a version he made of this performance (Zeitgeist: The Movie), the first film in the Zeitgeist film series, went viral on social media with millions of views.[6]

The Zeitgeist Movement was formed in 2008[7] by Joseph shortly after the late 2008 release of Zeitgeist: Addendum, the second film in the ‘Zeitgeist’ film series.[8][9]The ideas were based on the Venus Project, a societal model created by social engineer Jacque Fresco.[8][10] In the Venus Project, machines control government and industry and safeguard resources using an artificial intelligence “earthwide autonomic sensor system”, a super-brain connected to all human knowledge.[11]

In its first year, the movement described itself as “the activist arm of the Venus Project.”[12] In April 2011, partnership between the two groups ended in an apparent power struggle, with Joseph commenting, “Without [the Zeitgeist Movement], [the Venus Project] doesn’t exist – it has nothing but ideas and has no viable method to bring it to light.”[8] In an interview, Fresco said that although the Zeitgeist Movement wanted to act as the ‘activist arm’ of Venus project, Joseph never clarified what that would entail, and Fresco’s ideas of how to change society were not followed. As a result, Fresco withdrew participation in the Zeitgeist Movement.[13]

The group is critical of market capitalism, describing it as structurally corrupt and wasteful of resources. According to The Daily Telegraph, the group dismisses historic religious concepts as misleading, and embraces sustainable ecology and scientific administration of society.[14][15][16][17][18]

The first Zeitgeist documentary which predates the organization Zeitgeist movement, borrowed from the works of Eustace MullinsLyndon LaRouche, and Austin radio host Alex Jones. Much of its footage was taken directly from Alex Jones documentaries,[19]such as his documentary Terrorstorm.[20]

VC Reporter’s Shane Cohn summarized the movement’s charter as: “Our greatest social problems are the direct results of our economic system”.[9]

More at:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement

Share This Item

Activists’ suit against cops over Cal Occupy rally dismissed in federal court

May 31, 2018

Police surround an Occupy Cal encampment after issuing a five minute warning to vacate on Thursday, Oct. 17, 2011, in Berkeley, Calif. At right, UC Berkeley student Alex Kim was one of two protesters arrested after refusing to leave. Photo: Noah Berger / Special To The Chronicle

Photo: Noah Berger / Special To The Chronicle.  Police surround an Occupy Cal encampment after issuing a five minute warning to vacate on Thursday, Oct. 17, 2011, in Berkeley, Calif. At right, UC Berkeley student Alex Kim was one of two protesters arrested after refusing to leave.

 

Saying UC Berkeley police were entitled to act against “organized lawlessness,” a federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit Thursday by students and activists who accused officers of using excessive force when they struck and jabbed them with their clubs during an Occupy Cal rally in 2011.

Thousands of demonstrators gathered at Sproul Plaza on Nov. 9, 2011, to protest rising tuition and University of California policies, and linked arms when police in riot gear moved in to dismantle tents they had set up. Videos that drew national attention showed officers jabbing protesters with clubs and yanking them by the hair. Several said they were clubbed on the arms and body. A few demonstrators were treated for bruises, and one for a cracked rib. At least 36 were arrested.

More than 20 demonstrators sued police and university officials, saying then-Chancellor Robert Birgeneau and his staff had given police a free hand to use force in breaking up unauthorized encampments. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in 2014 that the suit could go to trial, saying the protesters’ claims, if proven, could show that Birgeneau had tacitly approved a “violent response from the police.”

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said none of the allegations in the suit, even if true, would show that police had used excessive force or violated any protesters’ rights.

In most of the incidents, police used only “minimal force,” Judge J. Clifford Wallace said in the majority opinion, noting that officers had not struck anyone in the head. He said one demonstrator engaged in “acts of provocation” by shaking his fist at officers and throwing leaves in their faces and that school officials had “a legitimate interest in applying minimal force to maintain order and enforce university policy.”

In asking police to remove the tents, Wallace said, UC administrators “had no reason to assume that police would use force beyond the bounds of (official) policy.” And he said an officer who clubs a demonstrator’s body or limbs “for the purpose of moving a crowd actively obstructing the officer from carrying out lawful orders in a challenging environment” does not violate any “clearly established rights,” the legal standard for a suit against police.

W. Louis Sands, a federal judge from Georgia temporarily assigned to the appeals court, joined Wallace’s opinion. The third panel member, Judge Paul Watford, said he believed the officers had used excessive force to break up a largely peaceful protest and remove tents that “weren’t harming anyone.”

But he agreed with Wallace that the law and court rulings as of November 2011 had not “clearly established” that police were acting illegally.

“The decision is wrong and we will appeal,” said a lawyer for the demonstrators, Ronald Cruz, from the nonprofit United for Equality and Affirmative Action.

UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said, “The campus is satisfied with this outcome.”

The ruling did not affect the demonstrators’ ongoing suit against seven Alameda County sheriff’s officers who worked alongside campus police at the 2011 protest.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @BobEgelko

Share This Item

OccupyForum presents . . . Historical Context, United States Decline, and the Corporate-Owned Media

OccupyForum presents

Monday, June 4th from 6:45pm – 9:00pm

215 Golden Gate near Leavenworth, Civic Center BART

Wheelchair accessible, Free / Open to public

Information, discussion & community! Monday Night Forum!!

OccupyForum is an opportunity for open and respectful dialogue

on all sides of these critically important issues!

Historical Context, United States Decline,

and the Corporate-Owned Media

We will examine the United States’ attempts to prevent its Global Hegemonic decline and the implications of that effort by situating United States foreign policy within “Historical Context.”

The United States’ post-war Global Hegemony is rapidly declining partly because of its geo-political overreach as well as the rise of “Contender States” that are challenging that hegemony. However, the corporate-owned media (and the PBS News Hour) presenting the “News” about geo-political developments, reports them as isolated, never putting them into “Historical Context.”  The implication is that the public has very little, if any, idea of the actual context of those events. If they did, they might have a more objective understanding of current world events.

Current geo-political examples which need to be situated within “Historical Context” include: 1.) The United States violating the Iranian nuclear agreement by withdrawing from it; and, 2.) United States-North Korean relations, including the Trump administration pulling out of the scheduled June 12 summit.

This topic raises the following questions: 1.) What is meant by “Historical Context” and “Hegemony;” 2.) Why does the corporate-owned media (and the PBS News Hour) not situate United States foreign policy within “Historical Context;” and, 3.) What does situating United States foreign policy into “Historical Context” tell us?

To address these questions the talk will:  1.) Explain what is meant by “Historical Context” and “Hegemony;” 2.) Discuss the role of the corporate-owned media (and the PBS News Hour) in presenting “News” about United States foreign policy;  3.)Place the recent geo-political crises in “Historical Context,” with an emphasis on the Trump administration; and, 4.) Assess the geo-political contradictions that the United State policy operates in (and intensifies).

Professor George Wright taught Political Science at California State University, Chico from 1969 to 2003.  He also taught History at Skyline Community College from 2004 to 2013.  His major research includes United States Politics, International Political Economy, and the Politics of International Sport.  He has a Ph.D. from the Department of Politics at the University of Leeds (UK).

Time will be allotted for announcements.

Donations to Occupy Forum to cover costs are encouraged; no one turned away

Share This Item

Peter Joseph with Jimmy Dore. Full Interview, April 2018 [The Zeitgeist Movement]


TZMOfficialChannel
Published on May 29, 2018
Jimmy Dore Conversation. All 5 parts. Thanks to Jimmy. #thenewhumanrightsmovement

Original Uploads
Part 1 https://youtu.be/TgIbNIElE20
Part 2 https://youtu.be/TnouYE_8-zM
Part 3 https://youtu.be/kVPHDgbsAlw
Part 4 https://youtu.be/NbPPWMlxBRU
Part 5 https://youtu.be/I34BEknDijs

Peter’s book: http://www.thenewhumanrightsmovement….

Share This Item

Glenda Jackson launches tirade against Thatcher in tribute debate


Barnet Bugle
Published on Apr 10, 2013 (Thatcher died on April 8, 2013)

Causing howls of outrage, and grimaces on fellow Labour MPs faces, Glenda Jackson MP defies the respectful mood of the chamber by launching a nasty, angry and ferocious assault on ‘Thatcherism’ – earrings bouncing around – in a debate marked by calm tribute to the late great Lady Thatcher.

Tony Baldry shows his outrage, shared by many, to the Speaker if her comments were in order. Follow us @barnetbugle

Share This Item

UPDATE: – CANCELLED tomorrow 12 Noon Rally at S.F. ICE – Rally will be in Oakland (from Adrienne Fong)

San Francisco event for tomorrow at 12Noon is CANCELLED.  Event will be in Oakland

Oakland: National Day of Action for Children

June 01, 2018 • 12:00 PM

Alameda County Sheriff’s Office

1401 Lakeside Dr

Oakland, CA 94612

Petition: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/where-are-the-children

Image may contain: text

Graphic: National Domestic Workers Alliance

Join us for a National Day of Action for Children event on Friday, June 1st to tell the Trump Administraiton that families belong together! We’ll hear from kids, parents, and local leaders, and demand that the Trump Administration stop separating children from their families, and protect the well-being of all children — no exceptions.

Hosted by: Families Belong Together, United We Dream, National Domestic Workers Alliance, MomsRising.org

  Many other groups are co-sponsoring this event.

Share This Item
| Powered by Mantra & WordPress.