In the press release I see nothing objectionable. In light of the beatings, hate graffiti and Masjid fires that occurred after 9/11, the press release was prescient. LINK.
As for the second,
We oppose any and all efforts to increase the funding and authority of U.S. police and intelligence agencies as a "solution" to this crisis.
I wouldn't agree with the "any and all" but would say, "illegal and unconstitutional" instead as there are unconstitutional elements in the "Patriot Act". Even with the expanded provisions (and erosion of our privacy...like eavesdropping on soldiers conversations with their families back home) the former administration refused to request warrants (as required by law) and performed illegal wiretapping. As Ben Franklin wrote, "Those who trade freedom for security have neither for long", and the former administration illustrated the fear mongering aspect in order to grab more dictatorial powers, as well as manipulate secuity threat levels to defeat John Kerry in the election. Please don't deny it. It is fact and shameful fact at that.
As for 3. in the statement, I dislike the generalities a good deal. Yes, we haven't always acted well, but certainly don't deserve the blanket condemnation approach. That irritates me.
As for 4. I absolutely agree. I believe that there are wrong doers in every race/religion/ethnic/national...whatever group. Those individuals should be caught and punished. We should also try to learn why they enter terrorist groups in order to prevent problems in the future, if possible.
Doc, the whole thing was a perfect illustration of boorishness and tastelessness, typical of Van Jones throughout his illustrious carreer. This is a man who has had a policy of baiting the police, breaking through police barricades, and attacked them, and betrayed his friends and associates when convenient. When he turned "green" ( the watermelon effect; green on the outside, red on the inside), he muscled himself ahead of veterans of the environmental movement to get his hands on funding instead of them, "
But Jones also attracted a number of critics. During the conference, many environmental-justice groups were irritated by what they saw as Jones' attempt to appoint himself the leader of a movement in which he'd never before played a role.
In the aftermath of the event, seven of these groups wrote a letter to Jones expressing their concerns about the perceived glory-hogging of the Ella Baker Center team
. Henry Clark, the longtime executive director of the West County Toxics Coalition, and one of the signers, complained that Jones excluded the true leaders of the Bay Area movement. "They jumped out front to put themselves in the lead, to make contact with these funders, in more of an opportunistic way," he said.
Another incident involved the co-founders of the Appollo Alliance, who invited him to join:
Around that same time, the Apollo Alliance was launched in Washington, DC, with a catchy slogan: good jobs, clean energy. Modeled after President Kennedy's famous challenge to America to put a man on the Moon, the alliance is an effort to inspire the country into a frenzy of environmentally friendly inventiveness. But Jones approached the Apollo organizers because he believed that their original formulation of environmentalists plus labor unions wasn't ambitious enough. "I wanted to enrich their framework, which I thought started out with too little racial-justice understanding," he said. He was already working on the Ella Baker Center's own environmental program, but saw the Apollo Alliance as a useful partner, with a national platform. "I was met with absolutely open arms," he said.But while Jones continues to advance the ideas he developed along with the Apollo Alliance, the organization's cofounders Shellenberger and Nordhaus were both forced to remove themselves from the national board because of the controversy they stirred up.
Jones, with his message of effectiveness through solidarity, has come to embody the reaction against the two heretics.
It's been a little more than a year since two of Jones' fellow travelers dropped a bomb on the environmental movement in the form of a paper provocatively titled "The Death of Environmentalism.
Although the paper was primarily an assault upon the strategies of the left, Shellenberger and Nordhaus praised a few people and projects. One was Van Jones....
Jones and the authors met in 2005 and became close allies who brainstormed ideas for the new shape of the environmental movement.
Yet last spring, Jones spoke out against "The Death of Environmentalism...
He thereafter repeated his criticisms in stronger terms, and now calls the paper an "immoral attack."
The authors complain that Jones didn't begin critiquing their paper until he was surrounded by its detractors at the Apollo Alliance, a group whose strong ties to the Sierra Club guaranteed that it would take a stance against the two upstarts. Shellenberger said he saw Jones twice in the immediate aftermath of the shakeup. The first time, shortly after the paper was distributed, he said, "Van congratulated us; he praised the essay. He was very positive to us, privately." The next time, at a meeting of the California Apollo Alliance, Shellenberger remembers Jones saying, "Wow, a lot of people are really angry about this," before repeating his praise of the paper. But in the months after Jones joined the board, Shellenberger said, he began to criticize the paper and its authors.
Holding this event was like crashing a funeral; that's his style, or lack thereof.
I checked out your link, and based on that and my own personal observations, there was no outbreak whatsoever in anti-Muslim hysteria. Do you remember President Bush coming out with his statement in support of Muslims?
Look at the statistics in the article:
The most dramatic change noted by the report was a more than 1,600 percent increase in reported hate crimes against Muslims -- a jump from 28 hate incidents in 2000 to 481 last year.
But, look at this:
After African Americans, the most victimized groups included Jews (1,196 victims)
Considering the circumstances, it's a testament to the basic decency of the American people that there wasn't a severe backlash.
Your statement that the Bush administration "the former administration refused to request warrants (as required by law)" is incorrect; they pursued warrants in numerous cases, and there is a class of wiretapping that does not require a warrant. Spying on soldiers, or anybody that may be performing treasonous acts, as some soldiers in fact did, is standard operating procedure around the world; the degree of it may be arguable, but the practise isn't.
This, from you, " (the) former administration illustrated the fear mongering aspect in order to grab more dictatorial powers" is unintentionally amusing. Those of us not inspired by the new president, have a lot more to fear in this regard from him and his associates, considering their backgrounds. Mr. Bush was a pathetic failure if it was his intent to be dictatorial.
We should also try to learn why they enter terrorist groups in order to prevent problems in the future, if possible.
They enter these groups because they want to kill non-believers. Learning why will not prevent problems in the future.
