A. Banks asks, “is this a high point or a low point for our democracy?”

A high point I say. Colbert is an artist, whose fictional character addresses fundamental real-life truths, whereas most politicians are fictional characters who tell lies masquerading as truths. Yet, we know Colbert is in character, while most political spectacle is still taken at face value. Colbert’s testimony/performance, reveals the true nature of the masquerade that is America’s political media spectacle by revealing the tattered edges of the trompe l’oeil, just as Toto revealed the man behind the curtain, unmasking the Wizard of Oz.

Joey G. asks, “Did this really happen?”

Yes, it did happen. And it didn’t happen. Just like how the Gulf War didn’t happen. Baudrillard would have a field day (or perhaps more apropos, an intellectual fête champêtre) with this, whereas I am just high on cold medicine, watching YouTube clips and ranting away one of the last summery days of the year.

Eddie (friend from college) shared on Facebook today an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by John Mackey, co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, “The Whole Foods Alternative To ObamaCare”:

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America

Similarly in “Health Care, Why Call it a Right?” on the HuffPost, Duke University professor John David Lewis writes:

The reason is that advocates of government medicine are upholding health care as a moral right. The moral goal of a “right” to health care is blinding people to the cause and effect relationship between government actions and rising prices.

But the very idea that health care — or any good provided by others — is a “right” is a contradiction. The rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Each of these is a right to act, not a right to things. “To secure these rights governments are instituted,” which means to secure the rights of each person to exercise his or her liberty in pursuit of his or her own happiness.

They are wrong.  The United States has adopted the  Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), which asserts in Article 25, Section 1:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

While the UDHR is largely an aspirational document, many international lawyers argue that it is now legally binding under international customary law.  The US has also signed (but not yet ratified) the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which guarantees in article 12:

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;
(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;
(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;
(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

Whole Foods is leaving a bad taste in my mouth right now.  I have been a frequent shopper there, but now I have my doubts.  Boycott?

Mackey continues:

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

<sarcasm>Well, I’m glad I have the “right” to pay a premium at Whole Foods for my healthy food fix.</sarcasm>  DJ, another Facebook friend, puts things into perspective: “of course, good food (like good health care) should take all of your paycheck. that’s the whole paycheck way.”  Telling poor people to spend more money that they don’t have to eat healthy food they can’t afford so they don’t get sick and require health care they can’t pay for is just a sick sick way of asking “why don’t they eat cake?”  I know the attribution to Marie Antoinette is apocryphal, but you get my point.

Mackey tries to bring Canada and the UK into his argument:

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

Unlike the US, Canada and UK have ratified the ICESCR, so there is a legally binding right to health in those countries.  Healthcare rationing and long wait times are some of the typical talking points of those opposed to national health care in this country.  But let’s look at the real numbers.  A June 2009 Gallup Poll found that 16% of US adults over age 18 are without health insurance.  The US Census Bureau estimates that there are about 307 million people in the US.  So 16% of 307 million is about 49 million Americans without health insurance.  That’s more than the entire population of Canada. I wonder how long those 49 million Americans have to wait when they need health care.  How about forever?

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund.

That’s great John Mackey, but how about this idea: “In the United States, we allow the people to vote on what health plan they most want the government to fund.” And by “the people”, I mean including those 49 million American adults without health insurance, not just CEOs who probably have very good health insurance for themselves spouting off about “what the people need” in an op-ed.

The ad was made by Americans Against Food Taxes, an interest group that includes some big agro-businesses and industrial fast food producers who are opposed to a proposed tax on soft drinks and juice drinks, in other words, beverages that contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

Pardon the pun, but this ad, like HFCS found in soft drinks and juice drinks, is pretty corny stuff.  Let’s cut through the saccharine images of an All-American family and the folksy populist spin.  First, “juice drinks,” as defined by the USDA is different from “100% juice.”  Juice drinks only constitute a small percentage of actual fruit juice, and can contain added water, sugar/HFCS, coloring, and vitamins.  In these USDA health guidelines (PDF), the example juice drink only contains 5% juice.  The proposed tax is on soda and juice drinks, NOT on 100% juice or fresh fruit.  Last time I checked, soda and juice drinks were not essential foundations in the food pyramid.

I’m no fan of big agro-business lobbies or a Federal nanny state, but guaranteeing all Americans basic access to health care is an important issue that needs funding.  So where do we go from here? Well, if we follow the money (and the trail of corn kernels), we find that soft drinks and juice drinks are able to be sold relatively cheaply because of existing government intervention in the form of subsidies.  These government subsides—our taxpayer money— artificially lower the price of corn and corn derivatives like high fructose corn syrup.  When we buy a soda, we aren’t paying the REAL market price because the cost of producing corn syrup, a major ingredient, is subsidized by our tax dollars.  Hey, isn’t that soda socialism or something?

Now here’s the part where I might even get mistaken for a conservative:  Instead of levying taxes on soda and juice drinks to fund health care, why not just cut costs by reducing or even eliminating the corn subsidies, and use the savings to fund health care reform?  These subsidies are taxes that we have already paid that are a standing government bailout that props up an essentially non-market-based business model.

Insert folksy Fox News-worthy soundbite:  “Calm down about socialized medicine ’cause corn subsidies ain’t so capitalist either!”

The Environmental Working Group’s Farm Subsidy Database shows that there were $21.6 billion in corn subsidies in the four-year period from 2003-2006 (inclusive).  The Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University found that HFCS producers received an implicit $234 million dollar a year subsidy derived from overall corn subsidies.  Meanwhile, the WSJ reports that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that “adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years.”  If the amount of money spent on four years of corn subsidies were redirected towards health care, we would already be 90% of the way to the potential $24 billion that could be raised by new taxes on soda and juice drinks.

Why bother with new taxes on struggling American families when the government can just stop using our taxpayer money to subsidize artificially-cheap corn, the staple of the industrial agro-businesses, and use it as a down payment on health care reform?

Listen to my latest musical composition, NO2H8, based on audio I recorded of speeches at the Protest Against Prop 8 this Sunday and some organ and synth tracks of “deconstructed” Mendelsohn’s Wedding March.

[MP3] [AIFF]

See all my photos on Flickr.

Joy Garnett painted the Molotov Man (above) based on a photograph that Susan Meiselas had taken (below) of Pablo Arauz, who was taken part in the Sandinista movement in Nicaragua.  When Garnett presented the work in an exhibition, she was hit with a potential lawsuit from Meiselas’ lawyer, although Meiselas says that she did not end up suing in the end.  Garnett believes that the Molotov Man had become a culture symbol, a part of the visual vocabulary and fair game for reappropriation, while Meiselas argues that specificity and context are everything.

The blogger nmazca poses the question, “Who owns the rights to this man’s struggle?”  Nobody asked Pablo Arauz whether or not his image could be reproduced.  His struggle belongs not just to him, but to a collective anyway.  The image of Pablo Arauz as the Molotov man is now an icon and not the same thing as the reality of Arauz the Sandinista, the family man, and the truck driver.  He is the symbol of a struggle that transcends his own personhood, much like Tank Man (AKA the Unknown Rebel) in Tiananmen Square.

The claiming of Arauz’s image as a form of exclusive intellectual property just seems ridiculous to me.  By threatening to sue Garnett, Meiselas was not so much protecting the context of Arauz’s of struggle in so much as protecting her own economic interests in the form of her claim to intellectual property.  Molotov Man, in becoming an icon, belongs to everyone and no one.  Like language itself, it is part of the Commons, and it is not something that should (or can) be privatized.

I believe images and symbols should be available for artists (and everybody else) to remix and mash-up, but the fact that two relatively privileged content creators in New York are debating ownership over the image of a Nicaraguan Sandinista strikes me as a phenomenon similar to what Lethem, in last week’s reading, called “imperial plagiarism.”  I’m glad Molotov Man inspired Meiselas to snap the photo and Garnett to paint, but reading the article I can’t help but to feel a like I want to shake them both and say, “IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU!” It’s not about your photography or your painting, but ultimately it is about Pablo Arauz – the person, not the icon – and his personal struggle.  Let it inspire you to tell stories, take pictures, and make, but don’t try to claim what has become part of the Commons.

Video: People celebrating Obama’s victory in New York City’s Union Square

Photos on Flickr

Last night I watched history in the making.  The American people elect Obama, embracing racial reconciliation, while the anti-gay sentiments behind the propositions that passed in Florida, Arizona, and California represent a punch in the stomach, a kick in the balls, and a knife in the back of another group of minorities seeking equality.

Until the philosophy,
Which holds one race AND ONE KIND OF LOVE superior
And another inferior,
Is finally and permanently
Discredited and abandoned,
Everywhere is war.

That until the basic human rights,
Are equally guaranteed to all,
Without regard to race, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION
I’ll say “war”

I was part of the brainstorming, implementation and localization team of the original Stop the Clash video in 2007, when I worked at Avaaz.org.

I worked with Ruxy on this week’s Comm Lab assignment, which was to tell a story using 4-10 sequential images. We created our comic using Photoshop and images we found online. The final assembly of the comic was done with Comic Life.

We were inspired by an article published in the LA Times on September 28, 2008, that cites a conversation Sarah Palin had with Wasilla, Alaska resident Philip Munger in 1997, in which Palin said, “dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time…she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks.”

Click here or on the image above to download the hi-res PDF version of the comic.  Also available as a T-shirt!

I watched the Obama-McCain debate tonight, while chatting on AIM with my ITP classmates.  Rather amusing indeed, the best part was when both candidates compared their accessories collection.

“I HAVE A BRACELET TOO!”  Are bracelets from military families the new yellow ribbons or flag pins?

Show your patriotism with an “I HAVE A BRACELET” T-shirt.  Buying stuff is patriotic too.

More on the bracelet battle from Reuters.

And from Michelle Malkin of all people.

Click here to send a letter to your Senators and Representatives, demanding them to take a stand against public liability for private debt.

Learn more at EndBailouts.org.

CITIZENS STAND AGAINST BAILOUTS WITH PETITION AND INTERNET SITE

EndBailouts.org established 24 hours after bailout plan was announced

A group of outraged American businesspeople and academics from Arizona, New York, and California are taking a stand against the proposed $1 trillion plan to use taxpayer dollars to absorb bad debts from private corporations.

EndBailouts.org, the volunteer advocacy group they formed 24 hours after the announcement from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, has launched an online resource and petition as a means to give a voice and support to Americans who oppose the bailout plan.

“Don’t give our children more debt and our creditors more power over us,” says Stacy Seger, an Arizona schoolteacher who helped launch the movement. “Don’t be afraid to speak out against these unprecedented government moves.”

The group circulates the petition online and on foot, planning to deliver it in person to Congress.  Public demonstrations are planned to draw more people to the issue.  EndBailouts.org is reaching out to combine efforts other taxpayer advocacy groups, and will provide information to taxpayers through online and other media channels.

For more information, or to schedule an interview with an EndBailouts.org representative, please call Nicholas DiBiase at 480-734-9983 or email ActNow[at]EndBailouts[dot]org.

As the Beijing Olympics begin, the world looks on with mixed emotions. It’s a moment which should bring us closer together, and Chinese citizens deserve their excitement — but the Chinese government still hasn’t opened meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama, or changed its stance on Burma, Darfur and other pressing issues.

Even worse, extremists in China are promoting the view that Olympic activism like ours is anti-Chinese. We can’t stay silent, but we also can’t let our efforts be abused to divide people. So what can we do? The answer comes from the Dalai Lama himself, in an unambiguous gesture of Olympic spirit and friendship: a handshake.

It began in London, passed hand to hand by thousands of us — now the handshake has gone online, and is criss-crossing the globe on its way to Beijing. All of us can join, Chinese and non-Chinese, and it comes with a promise: to hold ALL our governments accountable where they fall short, in Tibet, Iraq, Burma or beyond. We’ll deliver our message in a bold media campaign in Hong Kong and around the world: Click below to see how the Olympic handshake started, sign up to join in, and watch it circle the globe –

http://www.avaaz.org/en/handshake

The handshake idea is nice (with all of the banality of that word fully intended), but let’s not forget to extend the dialogue to the Uighurs or with Taiwan.  Ok, I concede, the “round-the-world” map animation showing virtual handshakes is pretty rad, but I digress.

There’s not a lot of hope for the kind of openness that allows for fruitful dialogue on the Chinese side when they beat up and harass foreign journalists trying to cover the attack in Kashgar.  Then there is the systematic internet censorship.  The guarantee of press freedoms for foreign journalists was part of the contract that the Chinese government agreed to in order to host the Games.  The Chinese government isn’t living up to their side of the bargain.

And those missiles aimed at Taiwan aren’t too friendly or conducive to dialogue either, are they?  Or how about that attempted Chinese weapon shipment to Zimbabwe?  Not very peaceful either.

And then there are those Beijingers who were forcefully and unlawfully evicted from their homes without proper compensation to make way for the Olympics.  And the peaceful Chinese civil society activists (and regular residents of Beijing) who are living under lockdown as a result of the games.  Their grievances can hardly be considered anti-Chinese; since they ARE Chinese.  Same goes for the repression of Falun Gong practitioners and other religious groups.

Ok, so I’ve given a handshake for peace, but what is the Chinese government going to give its own citizens and the international community in return?  Do Chinese leaders and hardline nationalists even want a handshake?  Or do they want the world to kowtow in reverence and awe at the “new” China’s coming-out party?  As much as we all wished that the Olympics were about sports and international goodwill, the truth is, they are also about state-sponsored political propaganda (and uncomfortable displays of nationalism if you ask me) as well as corporate bottom lines.

Yesterday, I attended a forum on democracy, politics and participation online hosted by OneWebDay at NYU Law School. The forum was part of Internet Week in New York. I have uploaded the entire panel discussion as a podcast for you to experience yourselves.

The Panelists:

Baratunde Thurston – Comedian, Pundit; Web Editor, The Onion

Andrew Rasiej – Founder, Personal Democracy Forum

Jay Rosen – Professor, NYU Department of Journalism; Founder, New Assignment.net

Moderator: Allison Fine – Author, Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age

Photos of the Forum on Flickr.

Human Rights Watch Media Director Minky Worden on Democracy Now!

The Olympic Torch Relay dates back to the Nazi Olympics in 1936.

Minky Worden:

There is a wonderful new academic book called Nazi Games, which gives a concise history of this. The torch relay itself is essentially a PR invention of the Nazi era, and the point of it was to run the torch through parts of Europe that Nazi Germany hoped to take over, including the Sudetenland. So I think if the corporate sponsors of the torch relay really knew the history of this, I can’t imagine that they would want to be associated with it. And the sponsors are Coca Cola, Lenovo, and Samsung…There certainly will be a price to pay in terms of corporate reputation if the torch relay inside China turns into a major human rights debacle.

Minky’s upcoming book: China’s Great Leap: The Beijing Games and Olympian Human Rights Challenges.

My view: The Olympics are essentially about political propaganda and making money. The role of activists and people who are simply engaged and concerned with the issues, both in China and people standing in solidarity with the people living in/under the PRC, is to exploit the inherent weaknesses and flaws of authoritarian propaganda (and it’s private sector corollaries, corporate branding and marketing) and to communicate an alternative message of respect for rule of law, human rights, and basic universal freedoms. We need to brand-jack and culture jam the marketing/propaganda of the Olympics to refocus attention on real issues of human rights and freedoms.

Burma, China, North Korea – should travelers visit oppressive countries with bad human rights records?  I read this article this morning while I was waiting at the dentist’s office.

In her April 2008 article, “See Mo’ Evil,” Outside senior editor Stephanie Pearson rebuts Nobel Prize Winner Aung San Suu Kyi’s call for tourists to stop visiting Myanmar. What does Pearson think is the best way to respond to a travel boycott in a human-rights-violating country ruled by an oppressive regime? Go there and check it out.

Every country in the world, including the US, is guilty of human rights abuses to one extent or another, so if I wanted to be totally consistent, then I wouldn’t travel anywhere. With all the photos, video and reports of human rights abuses in Burma, I don’t think it is necessary to go and visit to “see for myself.” I find the whole idea of “disaster tourism” a little bit distasteful. I guess it is ultimately an individual choice. Personally, I would respect the wishes of Aung San Suu Kyi and avoid traveling to Burma until there is real substantive change.

Here is an update direct from Avaaz:

Great news — our video “Stop The Clash of Civilizations” is one of six films nominated for “Best Political Video” at the 2007 YouTube Awards. Dismantling the false clash between Islam and the West, this 2-minute clip shows how global people power can bridge cultures and change things for the better — starting with a real peace process for the Middle East. The video has already been seen by milliions of people, and shown in hundreds of schools.

In the YouTube Awards, unlike the Oscars, the public decides which video wins — but we only have 24 hours to cast our votes, so now’s the time to act. If enough people vote for “Stop the Clash” in the next 24 hours, and we win, we can spread our message of hope like wildfire around the world. Click this link now to watch the video and cast your own vote:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_the_clash_award/5.php

Stop The Clash’s message is that the people of the world don’t buy, and don’t want, the “clash of civilizations” that the extremists are dragging us into. Beyond Bush and bin Laden, the world desperately needs us to join together across divides if we are ever to solve the shared challenges of climate change, poverty, tyranny and conflict. The clash of civilizations lie hides the bigger picture — where there’s far more to unite than divide us.

The winner of the YouTube award will get a lot of media attention, so we could spread the “Stop the Clash” message to many millions more. It’s up to us –- click here to watch the video and vote:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_the_clash_award/5.php

With hope,

Paul, Ricken, Galit, Esra’a, Ben, Pascal, Graziela and the whole Avaaz team

ABOUT AVAAZ
Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means “voice” in many languages.) Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a global team based in London, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Paris, Washington DC, and Geneva.

Don’t forget to check out our Facebook and Myspace pages!

LS outside the UN with Human Rights Watch colleagues

I went to the New York launch of the Yogyakarta Principles on LGBT rights in the international human rights context on Wednesday. It was my first time inside the UN, so it was very exciting. I was very upset by a very rude and racist security guard working at the security entrance, but it did not damper my spirits at this historic event in the struggle for international human rights for ALL people.

From the Yogyakarta Principles website:

In 2006, in response to well-documented patterns of abuse, a distinguished group of international human rights experts met in Yogyakarta, Indonesia to outline a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. The result was the Yogyakarta Principles: a universal guide to human rights which affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply. They promise a different future where all people born free and equal in dignity and rights can fulfill that precious birthright.

So here is the story of the security guard: He was a white man and most likely an Eastern European immigrant based on his heavy accent. There was a woman ahead of me in line wearing metal bracelets. He told her to lift her hands up while going through the metal detector, because the machine indicates where the metal objects are. If she beeps only because of her bracelets, then he would let her through. But he did not convey this in a clear manner, or the woman did not understand him well. So the security guard cracks a not-so-funny comment: “You know, I’m not speaking Japanese here you know!” I cringe.

Then it is my turn to go through the metal detector. I take off my coat and empty my pockets and place my belongings on the conveyor belt x-ray. Then I walk through the metal detector. My belt buckle sets off the metal detector. He tells me to take off my belt. “What!?” I retort. I have been in airports countless times, and NEVER have I had to take off my belt or seen anybody take off their belts. That is why they have wands. Taking off one’s belt in public is 1 step too close to a strip search. Ok, maybe that is overexagerating, but it is undignified in any case. “Don’t you have a wand?” I ask. “No, I’m kidding when I tell you to take off your belt!” he snaps back. I would have gladly taken off my belt the first time if he had asked nicely, without sarcasm and spite in his voice. I say, “well, you could at least ask nicely…”

“Please, thank you” was his curt reply.

If I were to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, perhaps his English abilities were not good enough to convey instructions in a polite way. Or maybe he is just rude. Either way this is still unacceptable, especially at an institution such as the UN. In addition, we were not tourists; we were invited guests to a special event. Not that we should get preferential treatment in any way, but the UN does belong to the people of the world after all. Racist comments and unnecessary rudeness have no place. Also, if you are going to work in a customer service position that deals with the public, it should be expected that you can communicate politely.

Sorry for the rant. In any case you can read more about the Yogyakarta Principles New York launch on the Human Rights Watch website and visit the official Yogyakarta Principles homepage.

Dear friends,

Our emergency petition to stop the crackdown on peaceful protesters in Burma is exploding, with nearly 500,000 signers from every nation of the world. But the situation in Burma remains desperate, with reports of hundreds of monks being massacred and tortured. Burma’s rulers have also killed and expelled international journalists, cutting off global media coverage of their cruelty.

China is still the key – the country with the most power to halt the Burmese generals’ reign of terror. We’re delivering our message this week with a massive ad campaign in major newspapers, beginning Thursday with a full page ad in the Financial Times worldwide, and in the South China Morning Post. The strength of the ad comes from the number of petition signers listed – can we reach our goal of 1 million signatures this week? The link to sign the petition and view the ad is below, forward this email to all your friends and family!

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/u.php

China continues to provide key economic and military support to Burma’s dictatorship, but it has been openly critical of the crackdown. Now we need the government to match words with actions. Our ad paints a powerful moment of choice for China in its relationship with the world – will it be a responsible and respected member of the global community, or will it be associated with tyranny and oppression?

People power, on the streets of Burma, and around the world, can triumph over tyranny. Our strength is in our numbers, spread the word!

With hope and determination,

Ricken, Paul, Ben, Graziela, Pascal, Galit and the whole Avaaz team.

For the best local reporting on the situation in Burma, try these links:

http://www.irrawaddy.org

http://www.mizzima.com

From Avaaz.org:

After decades of military dictatorship, the people of Burma are rising – and they need our help. Marches begun by monks and nuns have snowballed, bringing hundreds of thousands to the streets. Now the crackdown has begun…

When the Burmese last marched in 1988, the military massacred thousands. But if the world stands up and supports their struggle, this time they could succeed. We’ll send our petition to United Nations Security Council members (including the dictatorship’s main backer China) and to media at the UN, while also alerting the Burmese to our support:

To Chinese President Hu Jintao and the UN Security Council:

We stand alongside the citizens of Burma in their peaceful protests. We urge you to oppose a violent crackdown on the demonstrators, and to support genuine reconciliation and democracy in Burma. We pledge to hold you accountable for any further bloodshed. (Sign this petition)

Amnesty’s letter-writing campaign to George W. Bush:

Ask President Bush to urge the UN Security Council members, especially the Permanent members like China, to immediately deploy a UN Security Council mission to Myanmar (Burma). This mission should act to resolve the human rights crisis and avert the risk of further violence and bloodshed. The Council should also consider the possibility of imposing an arms embargo and to address the dire human rights situation in Myanmar. The peaceful mass demonstrations taking place compare in scale to those in 1988, when security forces broke up massive pro-democracy demonstrations with deadly violence, killing thousands. (Take Action)

David Miliband/Avaaz.org Chatham House Speech (Highlights) from lee-sean on Vimeo.

The image is a scan of the framed Progressive Source Communications Award certificate that we received at the Avaaz New York office today. Avaaz’s Stop the Clash of Civilizations won the people’s choice for Best Awareness-Raising Video.

Thanks to Progressive Source Communications and for internet voters around the world for the recognition. Props also to Agit-Pop Communications, who co-produced the video, and special thanks to DJ Spooky for providing the music.

Hi, my name is Lee-Sean and I am from Taiwan, one of the most robust democracies in Asia, and a major trade partner with the European Union and the United States. However, due to diplomatic bullying and intimidation on the part of the People’s Republic of China, only a handful of countries have formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan and the more than 22 million people in Taiwan no longer have a voice in international organizations like the UN or the World Health Organization.

Why doesn’t the UK have official diplomatic ties with Taiwan and treat Taiwan as an independent country? And why not urge the Chinese government in Beijing to plan peace talks with Taiwan, just as the London government has done on the issue of Northern Ireland and in other conflict zones in the world?

After 10 years under Tony Blair, Britain has a new government — and its new Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, promises to “listen as well as lead”. This could be a new beginning for British foreign policy — and the UK has a huge effect on the global issues we care about, climate change, global poverty, Iraq, Israel-Palestine and more.

Remarkably, impressed by our momentum, Miliband has asked Avaaz to co-host his first major speech this Thursday — and agreed to take questions and comments from all of us as Avaaz members. He promises “A New Diplomacy”, and wants to get off on the right foot by making our community – and global public opinion – his first audience. Do you have a question for the new British foreign affairs chief? A statement, piece of advice, warning or encouragement? We’ll put Avaaz members’ questions to him after his speech, and compile your words of advice into a book that he will keep in his office and consult when looking for the views of people around the world. Click below now to contribute a question or comment:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/ask_miliband

Miliband is asking himself some questions too: what Britain’s foreign priorities should be, how to be more multilateral. It’s fine to be challenging (you might want to ask what he’ll do about one of our campaigns!) but please keep it appropriate and respectful. We’re also hoping that some Avaaz members will submit their questions via video – it would be particularly powerful for our members from the Middle East, Asia or Africa to ask questions by video. (Just email comments@avaaz.org for help if you need it.) And a webcast of the whole event will be on the site after Thursday.

The best time to influence a government is in its first few days in power. We’ll judge David Miliband by his actions — and take nothing for granted. But if we are to make the views and values of the world’s people shape global decisions, we need to engage openly and honestly with the people who decide. This is a great opportunity for our community to do just that.

So let’s test the waters — and give this Foreign Secretary some food for thought

http://www.avaaz.org/en/ask_miliband

In hope,

Paul, Iain, Ricken, Graziela, Galit, Ben, Lee-Sean and the whole Avaaz team

For more information on Miliband, check out the links below:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/julian_borger/2007/06/the_appointment_of_david_milib.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miliband

PS YouTube is the best place to post a video response – email comments@avaaz.org if you have a webcam but don’t know how to upload video!

And to watch the webcast of the event at any time, just visit the same link after Thursday: http://www.avaaz.org/en/ask_miliband

Economic Left/Right: -8.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10