World Carfree Day
Bring an end to humanity’s toxic love affair with the car.
- The Staff
- |
- 21 Sep 2009
- |
- 12 comments
As the temperature climbs, the smog builds and our future grows increasingly uncertain, the time has come to end humanity’s toxic love affair with the car. We’ve become shackled to the idea of automobiles; forgetting the feeling of joy and independence that relying on our own two feet can bring. We’ve forgotten the excitement, dynamism and sense of human solidarity that riding shoulder to shoulder on public transportation can inspire. All along we’ve believed that our cars have set us free, but they have actually made us less so. An endless parade of solitary figures confined within blocks of metal and glass, we’ve become isolated not only from each other, but from our sense of responsibility to the natural world. World Carfree Day is chance to experience what our cities look, feel and sound like without cars. So join your fellow residents and leave your car in park this September 22.
Find out some background about World Carfree Day and check out events happening in your area on the World Carfree Network.
Carbusters magazine offers in-depth critiques of car culture and explores alternatives, carbusters.org.
James Howard Kunstler outlines how the coming age of energy scarcity will necessitate the breakdown of car culture, “We Must Imagine a Future Without Cars,” AlterNet.
An inspiring example of a car-free community, “In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,” New York Times.
Check out how some San Francisco activists are transforming parking spaces into public parks.
Cover design by Pedro Inoue, photo by Lyle Ashton Harris
Attention all jammers, activists and cultural creatives,
A specter is haunting the mind of the industrialized world – the specter of the virtual. — Metaverse Manifesto
How’s your online life? Are you happily learning, creating, interconnecting … or is your digital existence growing flatter, duller and ever more predictable?
As physical reality crumbles, the bluish glow of the virtual realm beckons and humanity is presented with a Faustian temptation: to abandon our evolutionary home (it’s too damn hot, messy and boring anyway) and become psychic hives of activity in cyberspace. This is the existential choice we explore in Adbusters #86. It hits newsstands around the world next week – check it out. And if you go to adbusters.org and subscribe right now, we’ll send you a bonus issue of Adbusters #85: Thought Control In Economics. You can also subscribe by calling us at 1-800-663-1243 (toll-free in North America).
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS FOR OUR YEAR-END ISSUE: THE BIG IDEAS OF 2010
Send us your most profound insights, your wildest designs, schemes and notions, your most deft détournments and slyest of spoofs. Tell us your choice for the best film, book, video and album of the year.
And tell us your picks for this year’s most glorious bastards of activism. Who are the most inspiring artists, designers, philosophers? Is Obama on track, or the biggest disappointment of 2009? And what are the most promising cultural undercurrents coursing just beneath the surface of human imagination waiting to weave their magic in the coming year?
Send to editor@adbusters.org.
POSTER CHALLENGE
We also want your input on the graphic side of things. Take up our Poster Challenge and submit your designs for these four posters:
• A Global General Strike poster for Buy Nothing Day, Nov. 27,
• Advertising is Brain Damage poster for schools,
• Three Strikes and You’re Out … We’re Revoking Your Corporate Charter,
• Let’s Have a Ramadan Christmas poster.
Send your designs to artdirector@adbusters.org
BUY NOTHING DAY
The annual day of consumer abstinence is just around the corner. This year we’re taking it to a new level by challenging people to face up to the root cause of our planetary crisis – overconsumption – AND to resist the global systems that promote that consumption. We’re thinking of calling for a Global General Strike on Nov. 27: no work, no school, no driving, no shopping … and for some of us, a Ramadan-inspired fast from sunrise to sunset. Instead of mindless consumption, we’ll dish up pranks, provocations and actions by day. At night we’ll celebrate like the fate of the whole world depended on us. What do you think? Can we pull it off? kono@adbusters.org.
THOUGHT CONTROL IN ECONOMICS
Deep in a recession and with scary ecological scenarios looming, NOW is the ripest moment we’ll ever have to power-shift global capitalism onto a new path. Adbusters #85 asks economics students around the world to join the movement to revamp Econ 101 curriculums and challenge the endemic myopia of their tenured neoclassical profs. Visit kickitover.org and download the Kick it Over Manifesto – and other posters – and whack them up in the corridors of your campus. Make sure your university is at the forefront of the paradigm shift from neoclassical to ecological economics now underway. If you’re interested in coordinating campus jams, teach-ins and protests, email kevin@adbusters.org.
BLACKSPOT
Amid all the financial doom and gloom, people are beginning to confront the current global capitalist system. They’re asking questions like: How have megacorporations come to dominate every aspect of our lives? Why are we responsible for bailing those corporations out when they collapse beneath the weight of poor judgment and greed? Why are they too big to fail?
A mega shift is now underway in our business culture: a move away from big corporations toward models that are more sustainable, independent and green. As this trend catches on, our Blackspot grassroots business model will be replicated everywhere. Go to blackspotshoes.org and check it out.
Also get ready for the Blackspot video mindbomb coming soon …
To stay up to date with Adbusters’ action, information on the legal front and future issues, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook.
Greetings from the gang at the Adbusters Media Foundation.
McCarriage of Justice
- Sarah Nardi
- |
- 09 Sep 2009
- |
- 96 comments
Fast food giant McDonald’s has just been handed a stunning defeat by a Malaysian high court in an epic trademark dispute. The ruling ended an eight-year battle in which the megacorporation attempted to prevent a small curry restaurant from using the prefix “Mc” in its name. McCurry (which stands for “Malaysian Chicken Curry”) argued that it had every right to use the two consonants and that McDonald’s claim that the two restaurants could be confused was unfounded. McCurry offers an Indian menu (including, among other things, fish head curry) while McDonald’s sticks to arguably less palatable “Western” fare. In addition to granting McCurry the rights to the disputed prefix, the court ordered McDonald’s to pay all legal costs incurred by the defendant. McDonald’s has a history of attacking anyone who dares string the two letters together: the company has previously brought legal action against a curry restaurant in Jamaica and the Oxford English Dictionary for listing the definition of “McJob.” Hopefully having its McAss handed to it by Malaysia’s highest court will end the corporation’s global monopoly on the two letters, allowing small business owners and a good part of Scotland to breathe easy.
But what can we do to prevent bullying megacorporations from treating the world like one giant school yard? For every Malaysian McCurry there are untold numbers of little guys slain by corporate Goliaths. For every staggering judgment (like Pfizer’s recent $2.3 billion settlement with the FDA) there are a slew of shady backroom deals in which corporations make a mint at the public’s expense. How many strikes should a corporation be allowed before we, the public, are allowed to revoke their charter? What are some effective ways for civil society to fight back against corporate power?
Sarah Nardi
Dear Kalle,
I received your letter about Adbusters’ ongoing battle with Leonard Asper. I have since made an online donation and will continue to do what I can to help fight against corporate media control.
Just a few months ago I graduated from journalism school and even there, in a supposedly open learning environment, the preference toward mainstream corporate journalism was clear. Future journalists – supposed government and corporate watchdogs in training – are being groomed to devalue the very interests they should stand for: freedom of speech and the maintenance of an open forum for conflicting ideas and views.
Since graduation I have been fortunate enough to find a job at a nonprofit online news site that focuses on hyper-local, issue-centered journalism based in Los Angeles. I do not know how long my work at OurLA.org will last, nor how successful we will be in our attempts to bring together concerned citizens, community activists and experts, and journalists from all walks of life to create a dialogue that enriches the lives of the citizens of LA But damn it I will try.
I believe that the success of independent journalism, and any other endeavor in the public interest, is rooted in public participation. Now more than ever, individuals’ full involvement as creators and contributors rather than just as consumers of news and information is crucial.
Media should be in the hands of “real people” rather than information being chosen and presented solely by media professionals and corporate interests. This world and everything that happens in it is, in one sense or another, created and owned by the public. For that reason alone, it is their interest that media should serve, not a small number of wealthy special interests.
Good luck to you as your continue in your fight against CanWest and other media superpowers. Adbusters has changed my life and the least I can do is throw my support behind you.
Thank you for everything you do.
Always,
Chelsea
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says every human being has the right to seek, to receive and impart information without hindrance. Please help us win the battle for our inalienable right to communicate.
There are many ways you can help. You can make a donation online, call us at 604-736-9401 or 1-800-663-1243 (toll-free in North America) or send a check along with the form provided.
We are also trying to get in touch with media lawyers in the US, Australia and the UK who are interested in launching Right To Communicate legal actions in their own countries. If you have ideas, want more information or wish to help in plotting strategy, email me at kalle@adbusters.org.
Dear Dov Yermiya
- Uri Avnery
- |
- 20 Aug 2009
- |
- 132 comments
Dear Dov Yermiya,
I have received the distressing letter that you recently sent to a limited number of friends. You paint the Israeli reality in dark – but true – colors, and end by cutting your ties with it.
“Therefore I, a 95 year old Sabra (native born Israeli Jew), who has plowed its fields, planted trees, built a house and fathered sons, grandsons and great-grandsons, and also shed his blood in the battle for the founding of the State of Israel,
“Declare herewith that I renounce my belief in the Zionism which has failed, that I shall not be loyal to the Jewish fascist state and its mad visions, that I shall not sing anymore its nationalist anthem, that I shall stand at attention only on the days of mourning for those fallen on both sides in the wars, and that I look with a broken heart at an Israel that is committing suicide and at the three generations of offspring that I have bred and raised in it.”
Since I first met you, Dov, some fifty years ago, I have always considered you the salt of the earth. You were born in a village, the son of a farmer, were a fighter in the 1948 war and later a Colonel in the army, a modest man, a moral person in every fiber.
In the first Lebanon War, you exposed the atrocities committed against the Palestinian refugees in the Tyre-Sidon area, and your courageous report shocked me no less than those of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. You did not hesitate to break the silence, as the “Breaking the Silence” youngsters are doing now, knowing full well that your peers in the officers’ corps would excommunicate you.
You are a man of my heart, Dov. That is why your words distress me so much. I think it important to share the statement of a man of your caliber with those in our camp who spend sleepless nights worrying about the situation of our state.
You start your letter by mentioning the founders of the Zionist movement.
“If Herzl could come to life again and see what those who claim to carry the flag of Zionism are doing, he would flee at once, miserable and shocked, back to his grave. So would Chaim Weizmann and most of the pioneers, the fathers and mothers of my generation. They were people of conscience and morality, who held to the axiom that human beings are decent and honest.”
Most of your fierce accusations concern Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. “And thus, for 42 years, Israel turned what should have been Palestine into a giant detention camp, and is holding a whole people captive under an oppressive and cruel regime, with the sole aim of taking away their country, come what may!!!
“The IDF eagerly suppresses their efforts at rebellion, with the active assistance of the settlement thugs, by the brutal means of a sophisticated Apartheid and a choking blockade, inhuman harassment of the sick and of women in labor, the destruction of their economy and the theft of their best land and water.
“Over all this there is waving the black flag of the frightening contempt for the life and blood of the Palestinians. Israel will never be forgiven for the terrible toll of blood spilt, and especially the blood of children, in hair-raising quantities.”
But I believe that the abysmal despair echoed in your words has other roots, too. It is a feeling that troubles the heart of many of your and my generation, the feeling that “they have stolen our state”, that there is no resemblance between the state which we dreamed of and fought for and the thing that has taken its place.
When I think of our youth, yours and mine, one scene is never far from my mind: the 1947 Dalia festival.
Tens of thousands of young men and women were sitting on the slope of a hill in the natural amphitheater near Kibbutz Dalia on Mount Carmel. Ostensibly it was a festival of folk dancing, but in reality it was much more – a great celebration of the new Hebrew culture which we were then creating in the country, in which folk dancing played an important role. The dancing groups came mainly from the kibbutzim and the youth movements, and the dances were original Hebrew creations, interwoven with Russian, Polish, Yemenite and Hassidic ones. A group of Arabs danced the Debka in ecstasy, dancing and dancing and dancing on.
In the middle of the event, the loudspeakers announced that members of the UN Commission of Inquiry, which had been sent by the international organization to decide upon the future of the country, were joining us. When we saw them entering the amphitheater, the tens of thousands spontaneously rose to their feet and started to sing the “Hatikva”, the national anthem, with a holy fervor that reverberated from the surrounding mountains.
We did not know then that within half a year the great Hebrew-Arab war would break out – our War of Independence and their Naqba. I believe that most of the 6000 young people who fell in the war on our side, as well as the thousands that were wounded – like you and me – were present at that moment in Dalia, seeing each other and singing together.
What state did we think of then? What state did we set out to create?
What has happened to the Hebrew society, the Hebrew culture, the Hebrew morality that we were so proud of then?
Yes, we did create a state. As the old song goes: “On the battlefield, a town is now standing”. We have brought millions of people to this country. From a Hebrew community of 650 thousand we have grown into a population of 7.5 million. A fourth and fifth generation speaks Hebrew as their mother tongue. Our economy is large and solid, even in these times of crisis. In several fields we are in the first rank of human endeavor.
But is this the society, is this the state, which we saw in our mind’s eye on the day it was set up? Is this the army that you and I swore allegiance to on the day it was founded?
Did we dream of this corrupt society, a society without compassion, where a handful of the very rich live off the fat of the land, with a large band of politicians and media people and other lackeys groveling in the dust at their feet?
Did we dream of a state that is an isolated and shunned ghetto in the region, lording it over an oppressed Palestinian ghetto-within-a-ghetto? There were days when we could stand up anywhere in the world and proudly declare “I am an Israeli.” No one can do that now. The name of Israel has become mud. Since the Gaza War, in which our army poured molten lead onto men, women and children, many Israelis avoid speaking Hebrew in the streets of foreign cities and the IDF has ordered the faces of some of its officers – those whose rank equals yours – be obscured in pictures published in the media.
Why did this happen? When did this happen?
My aim is not to start a discussion with you about the fundamentals of Zionism, both positive and negative. We might not agree. Nor shall I enter into the question of whether everything really started in 1967, with the intoxicating and corruptive victory, or whether the seeds of disaster were sown earlier. On one thing I agree with you entirely: that the fatal step was taken then, on the morrow of that war, when we had the choice between the shining gold of peace and the base metal of annexation, and stretched our hands out towards the latter.
My personal conscience is clean. I am proud that I was one of the few in the country, and the sole voice in the Knesset, who proposed even during the war to turn over the occupied territories to the Palestinian people, so as to enable them to set up their state. This unique opportunity was missed, as you point out in your letter, because of the greed of the founders of the settlement movement, the champions of a Greater Israel.
From there things rolled on, as in a Greek tragedy, to where we are now, with an assorted crew of settlers, racists, nationalists, messianic zealots and ordinary fascists in charge of the state, turning the Knesset into a circus, undermining the Supreme Court, perverting the army, imposing obscurantist religious laws, handing the public treasury to unbridled tycoons, polluting the education system with a primitive nationalist indoctrination, persecuting poor asylum seekers, oppressing the national minority and planning military attacks that will wreak death and destruction on civilian populations.
This is the state that you detest. I have no quarrel with you about that.
This is the state that you despair of. About that I do have a dispute with you.
You bear the name of the prophet who is nearest to my heart, Yirmiyahu, the prophet of anger who called out: “Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole world … every one doth curse me!” (Jer. 15:10)
But Jeremiah was not only an accuser, he was also a healer: “to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down – to build and to plant.” (Jer. 1:10)
You, Dov, have invested in this state much too much to turn your back on it in a gesture of anger and despair. The most hackneyed and worn-out slogan in Israel is also true: “We don’t have another state!”
Other states in the world have sunk to the depths of depravity and committed unspeakable crimes, far beyond our worst sins, and still brought themselves back to the family of nations and redeemed their souls.
We and all the members of our generation, who were among those who created this state, bear a heavy responsibility for it. A responsibility to our offspring, to those oppressed by this state, to the entire world. From this responsibility we cannot escape.
Even at your respectable age, and precisely because of it and because of what you represent, you must be a compass for the young and tell them: This state belongs to you, you can change it, don’t allow the nationalist wreckers to steal it from you!
True, 61 years ago we had another state in mind. Now, after our state has tumbled to where it is today, we must remember that other state, and remind everybody, every day, what the state should have been like, what it can be like, and not allow our vision to disappear like a dream. Let’s lend our shoulders to every effort to repair and heal!
You have voiced the message of Jeremiah, the prophet of anger. I beg you, give voice also to Jeremiah, the prophet of hope!
Uri Avnery
This article first appeared on Open Democracy: Free Thinking for the World, www.opendemocracy.net.Bring the Media Back to the People
- Craig Brannagan
- |
- 29 Jul 2009
- |
- 7 comments
In a recent landmark case, the Supreme Court of Canada tackled the thorny issue of whether “government entities, in managing their property, [could] disregard the right of individuals to political expression in public places.” The court responded with a resounding “no.” In one fell swoop, Canada’s top court effectively knocked the wind out of Canada’s media empires, resolving that Canadians now have an expanded right to express themselves in public places. This important decision ultimately means greater participation for the average Canadian in hotly debated and controversial issues, which have been previously excluded from the realm of mainstream media discourse.
The court unanimously denounced the advertising policies of both Vancouver’s BC Transit and TransLink public transportation corporations as unconstitutional for denying two public interest groups the right to purchase advertising space on the sides of their buses. After a careful and comprehensive review of the case law concerning the freedom of expression provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court decided that both BC Transit and TransLink were “government” for the purposes of the application of the Charter (meaning that the public transportation entities were subject to the constitutional requirements of the Charter), and concluded that “the side of a bus is a location where expressive activity is protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter.”
The court further stated that “rather than undermining the purposes of s. 2(b), expression on the sides of buses could enhance them by furthering democratic discourse, and perhaps even truth finding and self-fulfillment” – note that democracy, truth, and autonomy are the core principles underlying the right to free speech under s. 2(b) of the Charter. Therefore, by finding that the advertising space on the side of buses is “a public place where expressive activity is already occurring [and] is a location where constitutional protection for free expression would be expected,” the court has awarded a major victory to free speech advocates here in Canada.
As a corollary, this case has served as a successful testing ground for the media-access litigation that Adbusters Media Foundation has trumpeted for the better part of 15 years. Throughout its media democracy litigation, Adbusters has sought to test the constitutional waters surrounding the question of the extent to which Charter s. 2(b), the freedom of expression provision, applies in the context of access to broadcast media. In a series of litigation cases surrounding this very question, Adbusters has argued that the Charter should be interpreted to include the right for individuals to access broadcast media in Canada – broadcast media which operates on radio frequencies that are expressly acknowledged to be public property, pursuant to the federal Broadcasting Act.
And so, if the Supreme Court of Canada has accepted that the constitutional protection of freedom of expression on the sides of buses – which are publicly owned – is warranted, then why not also on the publicly-owned broadcasting airwaves to which private media corporations owe their livelihood? In the case noted above, the court held that “[t]he very fact that the general public has access to the advertising space on buses is an indication that members of the public would expect constitutional protection of their expression in that government-owned space. Moreover, an important aspect of a bus is that it is by nature a public, not a private, space.” In that context, then, would it not be analogous for the court to accept that television advertising using radio frequencies – which also constitutes advertising space to which the general public has access and which is by its nature a public and not a private space – would also merit the constitutional protection of freedom of expression? On this point, Adbusters’ “public space” arguments must succeed.
One hundred and fifty years ago, the great civil libertarian John Stuart Mill published On Liberty, perhaps his most well-known work. In that text, Mill expressed a profound truth about the diminishing value of human life in those societies where the diversity of opinion is silenced: “There have been, and may again be, great individual thinkers in a general atmosphere of mental slavery. But there never has been, nor ever will be, in that atmosphere an intellectually active people.” Mill was acutely correct in suggesting that societies, which encumber their people with the chains of mental slavery will not flourish intellectually. Bearing in mind that Mill wrote his treatise in 1859, there seems to be no better time than now (a full century-and-a-half later) to break free from this general atmosphere of imperial media rule, consumption memes and corporate advertising’s imprisonment of our mental environments. Support Adbusters’ efforts to bring the media back to the people.
Craig Brannagan is a third year law student at the University of Windsor’s Faculty of Law, and is CJAM 91.5 Windsor/Detroit Campus Community Radio’s Legal Advisor. He is also an advocate of community access to media broadcasting.
The Supreme Court decision discussed above is “Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component.”










































