LA Premiere of "Sir, No Sir" about Vietnam GI Antiwar Movement ' - Synopsis

• For those not in LA, 'Watch' for and Request this Film be shown in a Theater Near You and Read the Synopsis that is Linked Below! Forgotten History or Revisionist History as it's called now by the 'Neo-Con Chickenhawks'!
  
  
• Please join us for the world premiere of
  Sir! No Sir!
  At the Los Angeles Independent Film Festival
  Sunday, June 19, 7 pm
  Directors Guild Theater
  7920 Sunset Blvd
  Second screening Thursday, June 23, 5:30 pm
  
  
• Read This Synopsis of Film and Those Times-Reality
• Synopsis
  http://www.sirnosir.com/synopsis.htm

Film 'Premier' In LA - Documentary In NYC- Both, Must See and Watch For In Other Areas

LA Premiere of "Sir, No Sir" about Vietnam GI Antiwar Movement

• Please join us for the world premiere of
  Sir! No Sir!
  
• At the Los Angeles Independent Film Festival
  
• Sunday, June 19, 7 pm
  
• Directors Guild Theater
  7920 Sunset Blvd
  
• Second screening Thursday, June 23, 5:30 pm
  
• There is no more appropriate time than now to tell the riveting, incendiary story of the GI Antiwar Movement during the Vietnam War. Help us launch this crucial film into the world by spreading the word and attending the premiere.
  
• "In the 1960's an anti-war movement emerged that altered the course of history. This movement didn't take place on college campuses, but in barracks and on ships. It flourished in army stockades, navy brigs and in the dingy towns that surround military bases. It penetrated elite military colleges like West Point. And it spread throughout the battlefields of Vietnam. It was a movement no one expected, least of all those in it. Hundreds went to prison and thousands into exile. And by 1971 it had, in the words of one colonel, infested the entire armed services. Yet today few people know about the GI movement against the war in Vietnam."
• Opening narration of Sir! No Sir!
  --
  
• Displaced Films3421 Fernwood AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90039323-906-9249www.displacedfilms.com

................

• 6/22 showing of "Gulf War Syndrome: Aftermath of a Toxic Battlefield"
  
  
• RESISTANCE CINEMA PRESENTS:
• "GULF WAR SYNDROME; AFTERMATH OF A TOXIC BATTLEFIELD"(62 min, 2005)
• WHERE: The Community Church of New York, 40 east 35thstreet (between Madison and park Avenues)
• WHEN: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 Reception with light refreshments 6:30p.m.Film showing 7:00 p.m.
• ADMISSION: Free
• This is a special screening of this powerful and disturbing documentary on Gulf War syndrome, the result of the 1991 Desert Storm war in Kuwait and Iraq. Over 200,000 veterans of the Gulf War are now suffering from chronic health problems that in many cases make it impossible for them to work and support their families. This film captures their plight and pain in a compelling and unforgettable way through interviews with a group sick veterans. It also presents an analysis of the many toxic exposures our soldiers faced in the Persian Gulf.New Yorkers will find provocative parallels between the health consequences of prolonged exposure to toxins in the Persian Gulf, including the oil well fires that burned for months, and the exposure of workers and residents in Lower Manhattan to the toxic fumes from the World Trade Center fires.
• A Johnson/Startzman film.
• Producer and director,Alison Johnson.
• Please remain after the film for a post-screening discussion with Alison Johnson who will also sign copies of her companion book Gulf war syndrome; Legacyof a perfect War.
• A Not IN Our Name Project in Collaboration with The Community Church of New York

The 'I' Word: Impeachment & Impeachment Fever and Media Politics

• Published on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 by the Boston Globe
  
• Mirror URL: http://tinyurl.com/8dkwf
  
• The 'I' Word: Impeachment
  
• by Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese
  
  
• The impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.
  Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing.
  President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution.
  Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the president whether intelligence was manipulated to lead the United States to war. The letter points to British meeting minutes that raise ''troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war." Those minutes describe the case for war as ''thin" and Saddam as ''nonthreatening to his neighbors," and ''Britain and America had to create conditions to justify a war." Finally, military action was ''seen as inevitable . . . But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
  Indeed, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor any imminent threat to the United States:
  The International Atomic Energy Agency Iraq inspection team reported in 1998, ''there were no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goals of producing a nuclear weapon; nor were there any indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for production of amounts of weapon-usable material." A 2003 update by the IAEA reached the same conclusions.
  The CIA told the White House in February 2001: ''We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has . . . reconstitute[d] its weapons of mass destruction programs."
  Colin Powell said in February 2001 that Saddam Hussein ''has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
  The CIA told the White House in two Fall 2002 memos not to make claims of Iraq uranium purchases. CIA Director George Tenet personally called top national security officials imploring them not to use that claim as proof of an Iraq nuclear threat.
  Regarding unmanned bombers highlighted by Bush, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center concluded they could not carry weapons spray devices. The Defense Intelligence Agency told the president in June 2002 that the unmanned aerial bombers were unproven. Further, there was no reliable information showing Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether it had established chemical agent production facilities.
  When discussing WMD the CIA used words like ''might" and ''could." The case was always circumstantial with equivocations, unlike the president and vice president, e.g., Cheney said on Aug. 26, 2002: ''Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
  The State Department in 2003 said: ''The activities we have detected do not . . . add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing . . . an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."
  The National Intelligence Estimate issued in October 2002 said ''We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory."
  The UN, IAEA, the State and Energy departments, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, US inspectors, and even the CIA concluded there was no basis for the Bush-Cheney public assertions. Yet, President Bush told the public in September 2002 that Iraq ''could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." And, just before the invasion, President Bush said: ''Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
  The president and vice president have artfully dodged the central question: ''Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda, suppressing contrary intelligence, and deliberately exaggerating the danger a contained, weakened Iraq posed to the United States and its neighbors?"
  If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed ''high crimes and misdemeanors." It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ''I" word.
  
• Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate. Kevin Zeese is director of DemocracyRising.US.
  
• © 2005 Boston Globe
  
• ###############
  
• Published on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
  
• http://tinyurl.com/dlkoa
  
• Impeachment Fever and Media Politics
  by Norman Solomon
  
  
• If you think President Bush should be impeached, it's time to get serious.
  We're facing huge obstacles -- and they have nothing to do with legal standards for impeachment. This is all about media and politics.
  Five months into 2005, the movement to impeach Bush is very small. And three enormous factors weigh against it:
• 1) Republicans control Congress.
• 2) Most congressional Democrats are routinely gutless.
• 3) Big media outlets shun the idea that the president might really be a war criminal.
  
• For now, we can't end the GOP's majority. But we could proceed to light a fire under congressional Democrats. And during the next several weeks, it's possible to have major impacts on news media by launching a massive educational and "agitational" campaign -- spotlighting the newly leaked Downing Street Memo and explaining why its significance must be pursued as a grave constitutional issue.
  The leak of the memo weeks ago, providing minutes from a high-level meeting that Prime Minister Tony Blair held with aides in July 2002, may be the strongest evidence yet that Bush is guilty of an impeachable offense. As Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote in late May:
  
• * "First, the memo appears to directly contradict the administration's assertions to Congress and the American people that it would exhaust all options before going to war. According to the minutes, in July 2002, the administration had already decided to go to war against Iraq."
  
• * "Second, a debate has raged in the United States over the last year and one half about whether the obviously flawed intelligence that falsely stated that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was a mere 'failure' or the result of intentional manipulation to reach foreordained conclusions supporting the case for war. The memo appears to close the case on that issue stating that in the United States the intelligence and facts were being 'fixed' around the decision to go to war."
  
• The May 26 launch of www.AfterDowningStreet.org comes from a coalition of solid progressive groups opting to take on this issue with a step-by-step approach that recognizes the need to build a case in the arena of media and politics. The coalition is calling for a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives that would require a formal investigation by the Judiciary Committee.
  "The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq," attorney John C. Bonifaz recently wrote to Conyers. "If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: 'The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'"
  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war -- and the argument can be made that White House deception in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq amounted to a criminal assault on that constitutional provision. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a very general term. And history tells us that in Washington's pivotal matrix of media and politics, crimes of war have rarely even registered on the impeachment scale.
  In 1974, President Nixon avoided impeachment only by resigning soon after the Judiciary Committee, by a 27-11 vote, approved a recommendation that the full House impeach him for obstruction of justice in the Watergate scandal. Only 12 members of the committee voted to include Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambodia -- and his lies about that bombing -- among the articles of impeachment.
  Another war-related impeachment effort came in response to the Iran-Contra scandal. You wouldn't have known it from media coverage or congressional debate, but the Reagan administration's Iran-Contra maneuvers were part of a Washington-driven war that enabled the U.S.-backed Contra guerrillas to terrorize Nicaraguan civilians, killing thousands in the process. When Rep. Henry Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas, pushed for impeachment of President Reagan (and, for good measure, Vice President George H. W. Bush) in 1987, he stood virtually alone on Capitol Hill.
  Gonzalez was back on high moral ground the day before the first President Bush launched the Gulf War. On Jan. 16, 1991, the maverick Democrat stood on the House floor and announced he was introducing a resolution with five impeachment charges against Bush. The National Journal reported: "Among the constitutional violations Bush committed, according to Gonzalez, were commanding a volunteer military whose 'soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor white, black and Mexican-American or Hispanic-American,' in violation of the equal protection clause, and 'bribing, intimidating and threatening' members of the United Nations Security Council 'to support belligerent acts against Iraq,' in violation of the U.N. charter."
  In the past, attempts to impeach presidents for war crimes have sunk like a stone in the Potomac. If this time is going to be different, we need to get to work -- organizing around the country -- making the case for a thorough public inquiry and creating a groundswell that emerges as a powerful force from the grassroots. Only a massive movement will be strong enough to push over the media obstacles and drag politicians into a real debate about presidential war crimes and the appropriate constitutional punishment.
  
• Norman Solomon's new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," comes off the press in June.
• For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com

Ret. Lieutenant Colonel Gives Scathing Speech

Honor The Fallen

• Monday, May 30, 2005
• Retired lieutenant colonel gives scathing speech on Iraq policy
  By CHRIS BERG
• http://tinyurl.com/bv7lz
  
• May 27, 2005
  
  
• What was coined as a discussion on real patriotism sounded more like a case for why the Bush administration has failed in foreign policy.
  “I will not stand by and watch an appointed president send our sons and daughters around the world to kill terrorists for the oil companies,” Robert Bowman said.
  The retired lieutenant colonel spoke in front of a group of about 50 people Thursday evening at Stotler Lounge in MU’s Memorial Union. Bowman said that he wore his former dress white uniform as a way to honor his brothers and sisters in arms for the upcoming Memorial Day holiday.
  In his speech Bowman urged the audience to question the federal government’s justification for going to war in Iraq.
  “Let those of us not called upon to fight in this war give our troopswhat they deserve, the thanks of a grateful people and the promise that we will never again allow our representatives in Congress to issue a president a blank check to conduct an unnecessary, illegal, and unconstitutional war,” Bowman said.
  Bowman spoke out against the Pentagon’s decision to prohibit photographers from taking pictures of dead U.S. soldiers as they are transported.
  “Those who give their lives deserve to be honored, not swept under the rug,” Bowman said.
  Bowman told the audience that the biggest threat to the American way of life comes from within the country. He said instead of the battle lines being overseas, they were right here at home.
  “The war protesters are the shock troops gathering to preserve our freedoms by exercising those freedoms in spite of obvious objections.”
  Bowman concluded his speech by saying that patriotism means supporting the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and other nations all over the world. The military veteran also called for an overhaul in Washington.
  “It is time for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the whole political mafia to be removed from office and indicted with trea-son,” he said.
  
• Comments? Contact us or sound off on our message boards
• ++++++++++++++++++
• Call for Resolution of Inquiry
  
• AfterDowningStreet.org
  
• ADS is a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.
  John Bonifaz, a Boston attorney specializing in constitutional litigation, sent a memo to Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, urging him to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to impeach President Bush.
  The organizations forming the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition include: Global Exchange, Gold Star Families for Peace, Democrats.com, Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, and Democracy Rising.[Many more organizations and individuals have been signing on!] These organizations, beginning today, will be urging their members to contact their Representatives to urge support of a Resolution of Inquiry.
  
• Join Us At: http://tinyurl.com/dv3lk
  

The Silent Media Curse of Memorial Day

Arlinton West - Santa Monica Calif.

• The Silent Media Curse of Memorial Day
  
  
• Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t
• Perspective Posted 2005-05-29 12:10:00.0
• http://tinyurl.com/bo5fy
  
• Mirror URL: http://tinyurl.com/dyupj
  
• Memorial Day weekend brings media rituals. Old Glory flutters on television and newsprint. Grave ceremonies and oratory pay homage to the fallen. Many officials and pundits speak of remembering the dead. But for all the talk of war and remembrance, no time is more infused with insidious forgetting than the last days of May. This is a holiday that features solemn evasion. Speech-makers and commentators praise the "ultimate sacrifice" of American soldiers -- but say nothing about the duplicity of those who sacrificed them. War efforts are equated with indubitable patriotism. Journalists claim to be writing the latest draft of history, but actual history is no more present than the dead. In the truncated media universe of Memorial Day, the act of remembering bypasses any history that indicates an American war was not inevitable and unavoidable. The populace is made to understand that God and nature must be death dealers. We are encouraged to extol those who bravely gave their lives and took the lives of others -- but not confront those, high in the U.S. government's executive and legislative branches, who cravenly gave their fervent blessings to gratuitous carnage. It has become popular to describe the U.S. invasion of Iraq as some kind of anomaly, a departure from Washington's previous record of seeking peaceful alternatives to war and refusing to engage in aggression. Such depictions amount to a kind of pseudo-historical baby food, chopped up and strained so it can be stomached. But during the last half century -- when, for days or months or many years, U.S. troops and planes assaulted the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq again -- the rationales from the White House were always based on major falsehoods, avidly promoted by the U.S. mass media. In the light of real history, the U.S. soldiers who are honored each Memorial Day were pawns of methodical deception. Media spin and the edicts of authorities induced them to kill "enemy" combatants and civilians, for whom Pentagon buglers have never played a single mournful note. The Orwellian process of rigorous forgetting is not only about past wars. It's also about the next war. Aldous Huxley observed about "triumphs of propaganda" long ago: "Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth." I thought of that comment the other night while watching a TV network. No, it wasn't Fox or MSNBC or CNN. It was PBS -- the "Frontline" show, airing a report about Iran's nuclear program. Every word of the May 24 broadcast may have been true -- yet, due to the show's omissions, the practical effect was to participate in laying media groundwork for a military attack on Iran. "Frontline," let's remember, is supposed to be a quality show on a quality network. But predictably, the reporting bypassed key elements of nuclear proliferation dangers in the Middle East: No mention of the Israeli nuclear arsenal, now estimated at more than 200 warheads. No mention of Mordechai Vanunu, imprisoned for 18 years by the Israeli government for exposing Israel's stockpile of nuclear bombs, now facing the prospect of a return to prison for daring to speak to journalists. No mention of the U.S. government's plunge forward with development of new nuclear weapons, in violation of the same Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran is now condemned for skirting. High-tone media outlets claim to excel at providing context. But context is exactly what "Frontline" did not offer the viewers of its report on Iran's nuclear development. Such "silence about truth" is a prerequisite for the kind of self-righteous hypocrisy that's likely to propel a military assault on Iran. Memory with integrity should inform our understanding, on Memorial Day and every day. If we remember the Americans who were killed but forget the people they killed -- if we remain silent while media scripts exclude crucial aspects of history that demolish Washington's claims of high moral ground -- the propaganda system for war can remain intact. When journalists defer to that silence, they're part of the deadly problem.
• ====================
  
• Call for Resolution of Inquiry
  
• AfterDowningStreet.org
  
• ADS is a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.
  John Bonifaz, a Boston attorney specializing in constitutional litigation, sent a memo to Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, urging him to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to impeach President Bush.
  The organizations forming the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition include: Global Exchange, Gold Star Families for Peace, Democrats.com, Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, and Democracy Rising.[Many more organizations and individuals have been signing on!] These organizations, beginning today, will be urging their members to contact their Representatives to urge support of a Resolution of Inquiry.
  
• Join Us At: http://tinyurl.com/dv3lk

Doctors Without Borders - In Memorium

A year ago, five of our colleagues were murdered in Afghanistan. The consequences of this horrific act haunt us still. Doctors Without Borders/M�decins Sans Fronti�res (MSF) is no longer present in Afghanistan � the impunity shown towards those responsible makes it impossible for us to work there, despite clear humanitarian and medical needs. One year later, we continue to struggle to deal with what happened.
Below, MSF's General Director in Amsterdam, Geoff Prescott, writes about the difficult task of balancing humanitarian needs with the protection of our staff; family and friends describe how they remember Pim, Egil, Helene, Fasil, and Besmillah with pride, even as they mourn their loss; and our loyal Afghan staff witness in despair the consequences of MSF's withdrawal from Afghanistan.

• Remembering Our Colleagues in Afghanistan -One Year On
• http://tinyurl.com/bv9pc
• Murdered in Cold Blood
• Geoff Prescott General Director, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Amsterdam
• On June 2, 2004, five MSF aid workers were murdered on the road between Khairkhana and Qala-i-Naw in Badghis, northwest Afghanistan.
  The killings had no discernible motive and crossfire was discounted. The Taleban were quick to claim responsibility, but though we cannot be sure, we now believe that the Taleban were sending an opportunistic warning to western non-governmental organizations and are not, in fact, responsible for the murders.
  A month later, all sections of MSF withdrew from Afghanistan. It was a reflection of the gravity with which MSF viewed the murders, that we were prepared to leave a population we have served for over twenty years. Although we did, in general, manage to hand over our programs satisfactorily, there is no doubt that our patients suffered by our departure.
  Over the course of the last year, information about the murders has slowly emerged. Crucially, the Afghan authorities indicated to us that they had prime suspects for the crime. Despite these claims, MSF has still not received any credible official explanation of the murders and no suspect has yet been brought to trial.
  As an organization, and as colleagues, we need to have a legal or official report establishing responsibility for this terrible crime. MSF and the families of the victims have tried various means to apply pressure on the Afghan authorities to pursue this matter, so far without success. In April 2005, we decided to step up our pressure on the Kabul government by commencing legal action both inside and outside Afghanistan. This route will take time, but we intend to keep up the pressure to find some form of resolution.
  
• What do these murders mean for MSF?
  
• First, they are a tragic reminder that much of our work is dangerous. Indeed, we have traditionally prided ourselves on being present to witness and do our best to help relieve suffering in some of the worst places in the world. Over the years, this has had its cost, not only in those instances where volunteers have been physically wounded in the field, but also in the high number of staff psychologically affected by their experiences.
  It reminds all of us, that volunteering to work for MSF is a life choice that is far more than a job. It is something that sometimes entails high personal risk and as such, it needs to be balanced by the importance to bear witness, and provide health care to others. This balance of risk and benefit is something the organization needs to constantly review throughout the world.
  Second, it means that until we have exhausted all possible steps to resolve these murders, Afghanistan is not a place for us to work. This policy may be controversial but on the other hand, the inaction of the Afghan authorities sends a signal of impunity for the murderers of Helene, Pim, Egil, Fasil, and Besmillah. Murder of civilians in the context of a war is war crime. Murder during a time of peace is crime. Both require action by the authorities with de facto control of the area.
  Third, until we are aware of the main motives behind the murders, it is hard to speculate about the causes. Indeed, it is a dishonor to our five colleagues to use their premature deaths to advance subjective theories about the situation in Afghanistan. That is why we are pushing for a complete and detailed investigation. Opinions have been expressed, for example, that the blurring of the lines between humanitarian workers and soldiers was a decisive factor. There is a question whether this was a political assassination connected to the war in Afghanistan. And there is another suggestion that the murders were something more criminal and local. The reality is we do not know why these dreadful events took place; we only have suspicions and hypotheses.
  
• The future
  
• This year, we will commemorate our five colleagues in a dignified and respectful manner. As we remember them, we also remind ourselves that working to bring health and hope in some of the most desperate places in the world is a noble cause. The individuals who do it give much of themselves and in return, we as an organisation must do all we can to be deserving of the commitment of Pim, Hélène, Egil, Fasil, and Besmillah.
  Justice or satisfactory resolution of the murders is being sought; it has not yet been gained.
• There are a Number of Personal short letters written following this at site, visit http://tinyurl.com/bv9pc to read them!
  

ISIS Press Release

• ISIS Press Release 17/05/05
• Sustainable World Global Initiative Update
• http://tinyurl.com/8wwjt
• World crops yields have been falling for three successive years as temperatures soar, and water and oil - on which industrial monoculture are heavily dependent - are both rapidly diminishing. The day of reckoning has come for the "environmental bubble economy" built on the unsustainable exploitation of our natural resources. The task of turning our food production system sustainable must be addressed at "war-time" speed.
  Unfortunately, our elected representatives are committed to the neo-liberal economic model that created the "bubble-economy" in the first place. They lack the wisdom and the political will to make the structural and policy changes necessary for implementing the wealth of existing knowledge that not only could make our food production system sustainable, but would also ameliorate the worst excesses of global warming and provide food security for all.
  The Sustainable World Global Initiative, launched by the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) and the Independent Science Panel (ISP) on 6 April 2005, presents a unique opportunity for prominent scientists across the disciplines to join forces with all sectors of civil society in a bid to make our food production system sustainable. Since our launch, the experts are predicting that global warming is set to do far worse damage to global food production than "even the gloomiest of previous forecasts."1
  Please join us now if you haven’t yet done so, by signing up as a sponsor here: http://tinyurl.com/9wqrq We need the widest representation from civil society.
  We are convening a special ISP group on Sustainable Agriculture (ISP-SA) plus a task force of sponsoring organizations and individuals who will make direct input into a comprehensive report on sustainable agriculture at the end of a year. The report will include a series of recommendations for government and inter-governmental agencies on the social, economic and political policy and structural changes needed to implement a sustainable food production system. It will form the basis of a concerted worldwide campaign.
  The Independent Science Panel (ISP) membership was 19 strong at launch. The three new members are: economist Martin Khor (director of Third World Network based in Penang, Malaysia) a famous spokesperson and commentator at the World Trade Organisation; soil scientist Dr. Ingrid Hartman (resource management researcher at Humboldt University, Germany), member of many important international committees and networks; and agronomist and farmer Dr. Per Kølster (board member of Practical Ecology, Denmark). A nomination has just been received for Dr. Bruce Pearce, research scientist at Elm Farm to join the ISP, and nominations are awaited from the New Economics Foundation and HDRA Organics. These are major research organisations that have a great deal to offer the ISP.
  Some important sponsoring organisations came on board at the last minute, among them, The Soil Association and the New Economics Foundation (both UK), and Yoko Civilization Research Institute (Japan), making a total of 15 so far. An original sponsoring organisation, Fondation pour une Terre Humaine, Switzerland, has become a partner for the initiative, and is offering us funding on a three-year rolling basis. Also since the launch, the Weston A. Price Foundation based in the United States - a highly regarded whole foods organisation - has joined us, as has Konphalindo (the National Consortium for Forests and Nature Conservation in Indonesia). Konphalindo is one of the pioneers in advocating the precautionary principle in genetic engineering and appropriate regulatory framework for biosafety; it also advocates and facilitates the movement for sustainable agriculture through education, workshops and publication.
  Dr. Caroline Lucas Member of European Parliament - a prominent spokesperson against globalisation and other issues - is among the 13 new individual sponsors, many of whom organic farmers.
  Our launch was reproduced in the Handstand, an online magazine (www.handstand.org), and in straightgoods.com, said to be "Canada’s leading independent online newsmagazine".
  First consultation and conferenceWe are producing an outline report for a launch conference this July.
  As a first step, we have asked our sponsors to provide succinct answers to two key questions:
  What do you or your organisation regard as the most important obstacle(s) to making our food production system sustainable? What changes would you like to see in national and international policies to address the obstacle(s)? Sustainable World launch conferenceOur launch conference is set for mid-July. The exact date will be announced later. It will be in Central London for the greatest ease of access, and will last one-and-a-half days. We hope to see all of you at the conference and to make it a successful press event. There will be a conference dinner and get together.
  Let us know if you would like to come to this conference or support it by special donations.
• Join up now for a special concession of registration fee and have your say for this important conference: http://tinyurl.com/9wqrq
  
• 1. "Climate change warning over food production", Fred Pearce, NewScientist.com news service 26 April 2005 http://tinyurl.com/dsfez