Samuel Hayim Brody
If you only looked at her site on the Department of the Interior webpage (www.doi.gov/secretary/), you might not see what's so wrong. Just another government official with amorphous plans to do something about something, right? And there's a nice picture of her with the ocean in the background. But click on over to the National Resources Defense Council's website discussing the Bush Administration's record on the environment (www.nrdc.org/bushrecord), and you'll encounter the claim that "Gale Norton . . . has devoted her career to undermining the mission of the agency she has been nominated to lead." Let's see what they mean by that:
I could go on for some time. The information out there is overwhelming. (For more on the Bush/Norton environmental record, see Zeek, August 2002; for an excellent summmary of Gale Norton's own particular evil, see Jeff Woods, Norton vs. the Environment, Defenders of Wildlife Magazine. ). But at some point you have to stop reading and do something. So I decided to head over to Nicholas' house to meet the rest of the group that would be going up to Monticello. I knew most of them already, folks I knew from college, and protests of other things, but there were also a couple of older Charlottesville residents and a former Monticello employee who had been interested in the idea of using his lottery-won tickets to the Lewis and Clark bicentennial for something other than a celebration of imperialism.
We sat around in the living room for a while, using the consensus process (as activists are wont to do, or at least try to do, these days) to try and work out answers to some questions: What was our message to be at this event? What form would our action take? Who was the target? Some members of our group, seeing Norton as a representative of the Bush administration, and recognizing that the Lewis and Clark bicentennial would coincide with the huge protests in D.C. and San Francisco and the smaller one scheduled to take place in downtown Charlottesville, wanted to have a mainly antiwar message. A sort of "Let's remind all those Lewis and Clark lovers that there's a war about to start and they should stop celebrating racist imperialist evil" riff. Others thought we should single out Norton for her own evils, and maybe throw the anti-war bit in at the end somehow. Others thought mixed messages were bad and that while we loony left-wing activists might see the ultimate connections that can be drawn between Norton and Iraq, such connections would be impossible to make and express convincingly on a banner. And would decrying Lewis and Clark and Manifest Destiny as the ancestor of our administration's Iraq policy really be the right message to send? Would that win anyone over? Did we want to win anyone over?
the other rally
what the world is &
what to do about it
what is charlie kaufman doing?
josh visits the