But he said to her, "You speak as any foolish woman would speak. Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips. - Job 2:10

Discounting the sexist remark that Job made (remember he lived a few thousand years ago and their culture was very different than ours is today), that scripture seems so fitting for these days.
posted by J.M. Branum at 1:23 AM | link

If you're looking for US flags with the peace sign interposed on top, you can grab them at:

1561x870 size graphic
750x418 size graphic
250x139 size graphic
120x67 size graphic

(Please save these files to your own server instead of using them in your site with absolute URL's.)
posted by J.M. Branum at 12:31 AM | link

I missed hearing President's Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress tonight, but just finished reading the transcript on CNN.com. I appreciate much of what the President said: his statement that terrorism and fundamentalism do not represent true Islam, that the real work against terrorism is living our lives, and the show of concern and support for those who have suffered so greatly.

But, that said I can not agree with his decision to go to war with Afghanistan and countries that support terrorism. Two wrongs do not make a right. The only way to respond to hatred is with love. I don't see bombing Afghanistan from the Iron age to the stone age as being very loving.

posted by J.M. Branum at 11:23 PM | link

TEXAS RALLY AGAINST WAR AND RACISM
A broad coalition of community groups and individuals will gather to
express concern that US responses to the 9/11 attack not give way
to calls for war. People are urged to come together and rally for
peace and to defend against racist attacks.
Start at Keeling park in East Austin.
Rally starts at the Capitol at 4:30.
Sponsored by Democracy Coalition. Endorsed by Austin CISPES, ISO
posted by J.M. Branum at 5:03 PM | link

• Austin IMC
  
• ProgressiveAustin.org
  
• NoWarCollective.com
  
• Austin Democracy Coalition
  

BTW, here is a sad, sad story I found on Jish.nu:

Australian stabbed saving Indian friend, in San Francisco:

Sean Fernandes and Robin Clarke were out night clubbing in the SOMA (South of the Market) district of San Francisco when they were attacked by a group of men . . .

"Robin asked why he was hitting us, and he said, 'Because your friend is a fucking Arab and you are a white nigger lover' ... I started yelling, 'I am not an Arab, I am not an Arab,' but he would not listen. Eventually someone kicked me in the back. I realized talking wasn't helping, so I joined in the fight. ... I pulled off (Robin's) jacket and there was a hole in his upper stomach, and there was blood pumping out ... San Francisco is one of the most tolerant and diverse cities in the entire country. I was completely shocked that it could happen out here."

It looks to me like the terrorists suceeded and this country is on straight ticket to hell. If we keep attacking our own people, we will destroy the very things that make this country great. America once upon a time was a land of tolerance, but I guess that dream is gone now.
posted by J.M. Branum at 4:41 PM | link

Skittish Girl - one quote that I like from her site is "It's the good girls who keep diaries; the bad girls never have time."
posted by J.M. Branum at 3:55 PM | link

blogthis.cjb.net
posted by J.M. Branum at 6:22 PM | link

posted by J.M. Branum at 6:19 PM | link

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


IN AN UNPRECENDETED MOVE AGAINST FREE RADIO , KJAL WAS SEIZED THIS WEEK BY THE FCC, THE SEIZURE COMES AS NO SURPRISE. BUT HOW THE SEIZURE TOOK PLACE IS VERY UPSETTING.


DURING A REMOTE BROADCAST IN SIOUX FALLS THIS WEDNESDAY, KJAL WAS SEIZED BY TO FCC AGENTS DISGUISED AS RESIDENTS OF SIOUX FALLS, DURING A REMOTE BROADCAST TO BENEFIT THE RED CROSS FOR THE VICTIMS OF NEW YORK, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO USE DONATED CRAFTS TO PRODUCE RED WHITE AND BLUE RIBBONS AND PINS TO SELL FOR 1.00 APIECE AT THE MALL PARKING LOT, WE HAD RAISED AROUND 300.00 BY TEN A.M. AND HAD JUST CALLED THE RED CROSS TO COME AND PICK IT UP FROM US, AT 10:20 AM THE FCC AGENTS CAME UP TO US TO “BUY A RIBBON OR TWO” AND IT WAS OVER VERY QUICKLY, WE HAD NO TIME TO GET HELP, THEY DID NOT GET THE STUDIO BECAUSE OUR ENGINEER WAS ABLE TO CUT POWER , BUT THEY DID GET THE TRANSMITTER THE REMOTE VAN AND THE REMOTE EQUIPMENT, AND WE ARE DEEPLY SADDENED TO REPORT THEY ALSO TOOK THE 300 BUCKS, WHEN THE RED CROSS SHOWED UP 30 MINUTES LATER WE JUST CRIED, HOW COULD A GOVERNMENT THAT WANTS TO PROTECT OUR WAY OF LIFE DO THIS


WE ARE ASKING ALL PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE IN THE FREEDOM IN AMERICA, TO HEAR OUR PLEA


WE ARE ASKING FOR A DONATION FROM ANY SOURCE AS FOLLOWS


20 WATT TREANSMITTER AND POWER SUPPLY (CAN BE BUILT OR DONATED) NOTHING FANCY


PLEASE HELP US IF ANYONE KNOWS WHAT TO DO OR KNOWS SOMEONE WHO CAN


THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS AMERICA


PS THE TOWER WAS CONFISCATED BUT A NEW ONE HAS GONE UP, AND THERE IS A AMERICAN FLAG FLYING AT THE TOP, BUT THE STUDIO REMAINS SILENT TODAY!

Pacifist Ammo #2
By James M. Branum
(Mass Communications graduate student)


It has been a week since we woke up to the news that hijacked airliners had crashed into two of America's signature landmarks. Despite the massive news coverage of the events, somehow it still seems like a dream, or rather a nightmare that we'll wake up from and find is not real.


In this surrealistic but very real world, we must come to grips with the concept that the old paradigms do not work anymore. This may not be “the first war of the twenty-first century” (as Bush mistakenly said), but it is a new kind of war, unlike any ever fought before. We can not assume that Bush's "war against terrorism" will be a sanitary high-tech battle like Desert Storm. Everything indicates that this will be a long protracted war on multiple fronts, including on American soil.


Tragically, I think the US is gearing up to fight a war that we will lose. Afghanistan (with US equipment and training) beat the Soviet Union in the 80's in a time when the Soviet military was the world’s finest. Today, the situation is even more grim with the ready availability of chemical and biological weapons and bin-Laden’s lack of restraint in using the most horrific methods of war possible.


In light of a possible full-scale war against Afghanistan and other countries deemed to be supporting terrorism, it is time for all Americans to consider what they believe about war in preparation for a possible military draft.


Admittedly, the likelihood of a draft in the near future is slim. However, the world is changing fast and what seems impossible today may be the future. (Nine days ago, who would have thought that highjacked airplanes would be used to level the World Trade Center?)


If a draft were instituted, the Selective Service System would rapidly gear up to deliver the first inductees to the military within 193 days. Current law applies to men ages 18 through 25, but in a crisis the ages and gender of persons drafted could be changed by Congress.


If you do not believe in war, or are uncertain whether you would feel right about fighting in this war, you must act now to protect your right to not fight.


Under current law, there are two kinds of conscientious objectors recognized by Federal law, classifications 1-0 and 1-A-O.


Draft classification 1-0 are given to persons “conscientiously opposed to both types (combatant and non-combatant) of military training and service.” If you are classified as 1-0, you will be given an assignment as a civilian alternative service worker, working in conservation, caring for the very young or very old, education, or health care for a period of time that corresponds with a military service commitment. (Most likely 24 months)


To be classified 1-A-0, you must prove that you are “conscientiously opposed to training and military service requiring the use of arms.” 1-A-0’s serve in non-combatant roles in the military, but will not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.


Under current Federal law, Selective Conscientious objectors (whose beliefs would not permit them to fight in an “unjust” war, but could fight in a “just” war) are not exempt from the draft. Federal law specifically denies objection to participation in war based on “political, sociological, or philosophical” views.


In the case of a draft, conscientious objectors will have very little time (as few as nine days) to document their CO claim after receiving their induction order. Now is the time to think through the basis of your claim before the draft begins, and to document them.


At this time, one of the best ways to document your CO views is to complete a simple three question worksheet prepared by the Center for Conscience & War (NISBCO). The questions are as follows:


1. Describe the beliefs which are the basis for your claim as conscientious objector. If appropriate, state whether those beliefs would permit you to serve in a noncombatant position in the armed forces, or pay taxes for war.


2. Describe how you acquired these beliefs.


3. Describe how your beliefs affect the way you live and the type of work you do or plan to do.


Once you’ve completed this worksheet, sign and date it. (Or better yet, have your signature notarized.) Then keep a copy for yourself, and mail a copy to the Center for Conscientious and War. (They can be contacted at www.nisbco.org.) You may also want to ask your pastor, a spiritual leader, or another person who knows of your moral/ethical beliefs to write a letter of recommendation to go with your personal statement.


Selective CO’s would be advised to document their views as well in case the law changes. However, if the draft goes into effect under the current guidelines, selective CO’s will be faced with a difficult decision; to fight in a war they don’t believe in, to refuse to fight and go to prison, or to leave the country.


Conscientious objection is a serious decision. Standing up as a CO will require courage and possibly jail time if your claim is rejected. You won’t be deemed a hero by society, or given a ticker-tape parade when the troops come marching home. However, you will be joining a long tradition of men and women who stood up for their convictions throughout history.


For more information on the draft, read “Military Draft a possibility if war escalates” in the September 18th edition of the University Star, or visit the SSS website at www.sss.gov.

www.think-peace.org - a collaborative pacifist blogger
posted by J.M. Branum at 5:48 PM | link

1. Why am I a conscientious objector?

Because I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and as such try (not very successfully because I'm human and a sinner) to live like he did. He lived a life of non-violence. (The closest thing you'll find to him using violence is when he threw out the money changers from the temple, and even then he didn't use lethal force.) Here are a two quotes of Jesus that articulate what I believe to be his philosophy concerning violence...

Matthew 5:9 - "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

Matthew 5:38-42 - "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."

2. Do I think terrorism is wrong?

I think my response to question one should answer that.

3. What besides waging war with terrorists do you think will work to keep people save around the world and to stop acts of terror against innocent lives?

Several things. First, we need to disengage from situations where we are contributing directly to the development of terrorism. We need to quit training terrorists and giving them weapons.

Secondly, we need to pursue true justice on those responsible. Osama bin Laden (assuming the evidence shows him to be responsible) and any who have assisted him in terrorism needs to be captured and brought to stand trial in the USA for what they has done.

Three, we need to combat the poverty and ignorance that is the breeding ground of terrorism.

Last of all, we as Americans must continue to be a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. We must rebuild the WTC but this time taller than it was before. The artists need to paint, the writers need to write, the carpenters need to build, the mothers and fathers raise their children. We must carry on, and carry on to live lives of love.

Bob, I hope I answered you sufficiently. If not, please email me back or post to the guest book again. I appreciate you contacting me and forcing me to articulate what I believe.
posted by J.M. Branum at 5:38 PM | link

As a proclaimed conscientious objector I feel you owe this country and explanation.
Can you please post on your web site why you have chosen conscientious objector.


Part two of my request is a two part questions:


1.) Do you think Terrorism is wrong?
2.) What besides waging war with terrorists do you think will work to keep people save around the world and to stop acts of terror against innocent lives?


I believe if you will not stand up and fight against terrorism then you should, as an America, offer another “workable” solution.


If you do not and simply want to live and feed off the freedom provided to you by the lives of other Americans then I must ask you to please leave our country.


I hope you do not take offense at my statement but understand where I am coming from.


Thanks and I look forward to your response.

I want to give this question some thought, but I will post a reply later today.
posted by J.M. Branum at 5:18 PM | link

Also I found out that Liane co-hosts the show "Loungecore" on 2kool4radio.com.
posted by J.M. Branum at 4:19 AM | link

Oh, the movie is directed by Allan Moyle who also directed Pump up the Volume and Empire Records.

posted by J.M. Branum at 4:05 AM | link

(It is so strange to see this image. In July I was on top of the Empire State Building taking pictures and I remember the WTC standing out as one of the main landmarks in the downtown skyline. And now it's gone...)
posted by J.M. Branum at 3:35 AM | link

(IMHO, that sign is a pretty powerful statement.)

posted by J.M. Branum at 3:23 AM | link

Also, if you need assistance on documenting your CO status please email me at jmb@jmbzine.com. (Bear in mind that I can not legally give you legal advice.)
posted by J.M. Branum at 2:55 AM | link

Special report: Terrorism in the US
by Seumas Milne of The Guardian
Thursday September 13, 2001


Nearly two days after the horrific suicide attacks on civilian workers in New York and Washington, it has become painfully clear that most Americans simply don't get it. From the president to passersby on the streets, the message seems to be the same: this is an inexplicable assault on freedom and democracy, which must be answered with overwhelming force - just as soon as someone can construct a credible account of who was actually responsible.


Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty. But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent. Perhaps it is too much to hope that, as rescue workers struggle to pull firefighters from the rubble, any but a small minority might make the connection between what has been visited upon them and what their government has visited upon large parts of the world.


But make that connection they must, if such tragedies are not to be repeated, potentially with even more devastating consequences. US political leaders are doing their people no favours by reinforcing popular ignorance with self-referential rhetoric. And the echoing chorus of Tony Blair, whose determination to bind Britain ever closer to US foreign policy ratchets up the threat to our own cities, will only fuel anti-western sentiment. So will calls for the defence of "civilisation", with its overtones of Samuel Huntington's poisonous theories of post-cold war confrontation between the west and Islam, heightening perceptions of racism and hypocrisy.


As Mahatma Gandhi famously remarked when asked his opinion of western civilisation, it would be a good idea. Since George Bush's father inaugurated his new world order a decade ago, the US, supported by its British ally, bestrides the world like a colossus. Unconstrained by any superpower rival or system of global governance, the US giant has rewritten the global financial and trading system in its own interest; ripped up a string of treaties it finds inconvenient; sent troops to every corner of the globe; bombed Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Iraq without troubling the United Nations; maintained a string of murderous embargos against recalcitrant regimes; and recklessly thrown its weight behind Israel's 34-year illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian intifada rages.


If, as yesterday's Wall Street Journal insisted, the east coast carnage was the fruit of the Clinton administration's Munich-like appeasement of the Palestinians, the mind boggles as to what US Republicans imagine to be a Churchillian response.


It is this record of unabashed national egotism and arrogance that drives anti-Americanism among swaths of the world's population, for whom there is little democracy in the current distribution of global wealth and power. If it turns out that Tuesday's attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden's supporters, the sense that the Americans are once again reaping a dragons' teeth harvest they themselves sowed will be overwhelming.


It was the Americans, after all, who poured resources into the 1980s war against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, at a time when girls could go to school and women to work. Bin Laden and his mojahedin were armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, as Afghanistan was turned into a wasteland and its communist leader Najibullah left hanging from a Kabul lamp post with his genitals stuffed in his mouth.


But by then Bin Laden had turned against his American sponsors, while US-sponsored Pakistani intelligence had spawned the grotesque Taliban now protecting him. To punish its wayward Afghan offspring, the US subsequently forced through a sanctions regime which has helped push 4m to the brink of starvation, according to the latest UN figures, while Afghan refugees fan out across the world.


All this must doubtless seem remote to Americans desperately searching the debris of what is expected to be the largest-ever massacre on US soil - as must the killings of yet more Palestinians in the West Bank yesterday, or even the 2m estimated to have died in Congo's wars since the overthrow of the US-backed Mobutu regime. "What could some political thing have to do with blowing up office buildings during working hours?" one bewildered New Yorker asked yesterday.


Already, the Bush administration is assembling an international coalition for an Israeli-style war against terrorism, as if such counter-productive acts of outrage had an existence separate from the social conditions out of which they arise. But for every "terror network" that is rooted out, another will emerge - until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed.

Seumas Milne
Guardian

Thursday September 13, 2001

Nearly two days after the horrific suicide attacks on civilian workers in New York and Washington, it has become painfully clear that most Americans simply don't get it. From the president to passersby on the streets, the message seems to be the same: this is an inexplicable assault on freedom and democracy, which must be answered with overwhelming force - just as soon as someone can construct a credible account of who was actually responsible.

Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty. But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent. Perhaps it is too much to hope that, as rescue workers struggle to pull firefighters from the rubble, any but a small minority might make the connection between what has been visited upon them and what their government has visited upon large parts of the world.

But make that connection they must, if such tragedies are not to be repeated, potentially with even more devastating consequences. US political leaders are doing their people no favours by reinforcing popular ignorance with self-referential rhetoric. And the echoing chorus of Tony Blair, whose determination to bind Britain ever closer to US foreign policy ratchets up the threat to our own cities, will only fuel anti-western sentiment. So will calls for the defence of "civilisation", with its overtones of Samuel Huntington's poisonous theories of post-cold war confrontation between the west and Islam, heightening perceptions of racism and hypocrisy.

As Mahatma Gandhi famously remarked when asked his opinion of western civilisation, it would be a good idea. Since George Bush's father inaugurated his new world order a decade ago, the US, supported by its British ally, bestrides the world like a colossus. Unconstrained by any superpower rival or system of global governance, the US giant has rewritten the global financial and trading system in its own interest; ripped up a string of treaties it finds inconvenient; sent troops to every corner of the globe; bombed Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Iraq without troubling the United Nations; maintained a string of murderous embargos against recalcitrant regimes; and recklessly thrown its weight behind Israel's 34-year illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian intifada rages.

If, as yesterday's Wall Street Journal insisted, the east coast carnage was the fruit of the Clinton administration's Munich-like appeasement of the Palestinians, the mind boggles as to what US Republicans imagine to be a Churchillian response.

It is this record of unabashed national egotism and arrogance that drives anti-Americanism among swaths of the world's population, for whom there is little democracy in the current distribution of global wealth and power. If it turns out that Tuesday's attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden's supporters, the sense that the Americans are once again reaping a dragons' teeth harvest they themselves sowed will be overwhelming.

It was the Americans, after all, who poured resources into the 1980s war against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, at a time when girls could go to school and women to work. Bin Laden and his mojahedin were armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, as Afghanistan was turned into a wasteland and its communist leader Najibullah left hanging from a Kabul lamp post with his genitals stuffed in his mouth.

But by then Bin Laden had turned against his American sponsors, while US-sponsored Pakistani intelligence had spawned the grotesque Taliban now protecting him. To punish its wayward Afghan offspring, the US subsequently forced through a sanctions regime which has helped push 4m to the brink of starvation, according to the latest UN figures, while Afghan refugees fan out across the world.

All this must doubtless seem remote to Americans desperately searching the debris of what is expected to be the largest-ever massacre on US soil - as must the killings of yet more Palestinians in the West Bank yesterday, or even the 2m estimated to have died in Congo's wars since the overthrow of the US-backed Mobutu regime. "What could some political thing have to do with blowing up office buildings during working hours?" one bewildered New Yorker asked yesterday.

Already, the Bush administration is assembling an international coalition for an Israeli-style war against terrorism, as if such counter-productive acts of outrage had an existence separate from the social conditions out of which they arise. But for every "terror network" that is rooted out, another will emerge - until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed.
posted by J.M. Branum at 1:52 AM | link

Dear Friends,


The following was sent to me by my friend Tamim Ansary. Tamim is an Afghani-American writer. He is also one of the most brilliant people I know in this life. When he writes, I read. When he talks, I listen.


Here is his take on Afghanistan and the whole mess we are in.
-Gary T.


Dear Gary and whoever else is on this email thread:


I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."


And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.


I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters.


But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan.


When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.


Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.


We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.


New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.


So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by?


You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?


Tamim Ansary