books..............

ARKANSAS PUBLISHER REFUSES TO PUBLISH RUPPERT BOOK CITING MORAL/ RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS OVER AUTHOR’S ADVOCACY OF HEMP LEGALIZATION DAYS AFTER ANNOUNCING IT WOULD BE IN BOOKSTORES IN NOVEMBER 

“A Presidential Energy Policy will be released November 24, 2009 from Variance Publishing.” -- Ascot Media Press Release (for Variance Publishing), Oct. 13^th, 2009. 

October 21, 2009 – On October 19, just six days after issuing a press release announcing that “A Presidential Energy Policy: Twenty-five Points Addressing the Siamese Twins of Energy and Money” would be in bookstores on November 24^th, Variance Publishing owner Tim Schulte notified me by telephone that his company was refusing to publish the book because Point Twenty-four called for legalization of the hemp plant as a partial solution to the energy and economic crises. Schulte cited moral and religious grounds for his decision. “I run a moral and ethical company. I don’t allow drug use to be advocated. I don’t allow rampant sexuality or profanity in my books”, Schulte said. 

Schulte’s reversal came as headline stories around the country were reporting that President Obama had just ordered federal law enforcement agencies to stop raiding medical marijuana facilities in states where its use has been legalized. No prior objections to the point have been raised by the book’s reviewers who have all offered extensive praise for the work. Personal letters to me from many credible sources have expressed thanks for the book and welcoming it, including one from former President Jimmy Carter. 

Schulte’s decision made it impossible for book buyers to go to bookstores and find the book after seeing the critically-acclaimed buzz-film CoLLapse which is scheduled for theatrical and video-on-demand release in November. (Hemp is not mentioned in the film but the film is based upon the book and says so both in the film and on its poster.) 

Schulte admitted that he had read the entire book after receiving it in June, felt the hemp objection at the time, but did not object to me because “he thought that would be taken care of in editing.” He offered no explanation as to how I was expected to rewrite Point Twenty-Four and another small section of the book in the few days left before he was committed to send it to the printer. Schulte added that he was aware that I had an agreement with the book’s digital publisher New World Digital to have the same book on both ends and that for me to substantively change the book would violate my agreement with New World. 

As a matter of principle I refused to remove Point Twenty-four and also said that I would not break the agreement with New World. Schulte then announced that he was voiding the contract “because he could”. Schulte was unable to offer any other explanation as to why he had waited until the last minute to raise his objection. 
 

In the book I clearly outlined a multitude of uses for the hemp plant as a means to stimulate local food production, for soil restoration and for the plant’s wide variety of energy-saving uses from nutritional supplements, to lamp oils, to paper, to clothing. None of this makes any sense. Variance had the book for months and had gone to the expense of cover design, layout and issuing the press release before raising the issue. 

Variance’s decision came three weeks after Oregon State Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian issued a misleading and inaccurate press release (for which he later apologized) stating that I had personally been fined in an Oregon sexual harassment case which he had not read and which was filled with legal and ethical errors. I continue to maintain my complete innocence in that case which is now under appeal. I was never a named defendant in that case. 

The only conclusion I can reach is that there is a concerted effort to keep the American people and readers around the world from reading this book. There is only one way to fight back. 

OPTIONS – I have been involved in legal battles for five years now. In 2005-06 I fought and won a civil case in California showing that a former employee, Chris Fusco, had deliberately attempted to sabotage “From The Wilderness (FTW). From 2006 until now I have spent an estimated $45,000 proving that I did not ransack FTW offices and smash all seven computers while publishing the Pat Tillman exposé and to fight the harassment charges. I have also fought a malicious and libelous campaign by a local Oregon newspaper to smear my reputation, even after the editor was convicted of having sex with a minor and remains under ongoing investigation for racketeering and fraud.  A legal action will do nothing to get the book into stores in time to benefit from CoLLapse’s success. I am broke as a result of these non-stop attacks and cannot afford a retainer for yet another lawyer. I am also personally out of energy to engage in another legal battle that cannot solve the immediate problem. 

As a result of Variance’s decision, all rights to the book have reverted to me (except for digital and print-on-demand) rights which belong to New World Digital -- now the only source for this vitally important book which is available from Amazon. Retail book vendors will not buy print-on-demand books because unsold copies cannot be returned for credit. I do not have an agent but will happily talk to any literary agents or publishers who step forward. My original agent was fired for a series of egregious miscommunications.  Any attempt to try and secure a new publisher for this critically-acclaimed book might take months and no publisher could have the book in stores in less than six months. I have decided to focus on the movie as the only way to get around this newest unfounded attack on my life’s work – the only motive for which is to save lives. Widespread reading of “A Presidential Energy Policy“ remains the ultimate objective of all the work I put into CoLLapse. For that I will need help. 

NORML – After the developments I immediately contacted the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). Yesterday, I taped a radio interview with NORML’s Russ Belville on Variance’s actions. Please contact NORML as to how you can hear it. If you have contacts in any local NORML chapters please bring this to their attention immediately. This ridiculous attack cannot go unanswered. 

FLOOD THE SCREENINGS! – The only way to save the book now is to promote the film. CoLLapse has been mentioned by one critic as an Oscar candidate for the 2011 Oscars. That means it will have a long shelf life.

Tackling Terrorism

Wednesday, 14 October 2009

Edited extracts from his recent interview with Channel 4’s Jon Snow

The lesson is that terrorism has causes ? unless the causes are addressed; you’re not facing the problem. Now a lot of it is criminal activity, and criminal activity should be punished in the legal system fairly and honestly. But unless you address the grievances, you are more or less in the position of a doctor who’s injecting a patient with poison and then asking what’s the best way to deal with the symptoms.

That doesn’t make any sense — first stop administering the poison. There were real grievances in Northern Ireland and Britain had a substantial responsibility for them. When Britain finally stopped responding to terror with more violence, and responded to terror by addressing the grievances, there was substantial amelioration.

The response to September 11

After 9/11 there was overwhelming sympathy for the United States, including inside the jihadi movement. There were fatwas coming out?condemning Osama bin Laden. How did the US respond? By alienating the people who were sympathising. By invading Afghanistan and Iraq and energising the support for terror.

That’s injecting the patient with poison. Now they’re surprised there’s an increase in terror. The response to 9/11 — as historian Michael Howard pointed out almost straight away — should have been: it’s criminal, let’s try to identify the culprits, bring them to justice and give them fair trials.

The Bush administration refused. It’s possible that they might have been able to extradite al-Qaida and bin Laden. In fact the Taliban made ambiguous offers of extradition if the US provided evidence, which of course any country would do. The Bush administration rejected that attempt, and [said] we’re going to bomb you because you’re not handing him over to us. Well that’s a major crime that welded the jihadi movement back together; the invasion of Iraq completed the task of reconstructing a massive worldwide terrorist movement.

Non-violent resistance in Iraq

As late as November 2007 the official US position as stated by Bush was that any Status of Forces Agreement would have to permit an indefinite US military presence, including of course huge military bases all over, and a privileged role for US investors.

A couple of months later, Bush was compelled to back down on all of that and, at least on paper, accept withdrawal. Well, these are tremendous victories for non-violent resistance. The US could kill insurgents, but they couldn’t deal with hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating in the streets.

The US approach to Iran

If someone was watching this from Mars, they’d collapse in ridicule. The United States is telling Iran to stop its aggressive militarism? I mean we occupy two countries on their border, US spending on arms is approximately equal to the rest of the world combined, we’re threatening them with attack and violation of the UN Charter and on and on. Iran hasn’t invaded anyone for, probably, centuries, except for two Arab islands that the Shah conquered with the support of the United States.

Israel’s security problems

Israel’s invasion of Gaza in January hadn’t the slightest pretext. They claim they had to defend themselves against rockets and that’s accepted by human rights groups and fairly generally, but it’s perfect nonsense. You don’t have a right to use force in self-defence unless you’ve exhausted peaceful means. They could have accepted a ceasefire for the first time ever.

When they partially accepted one for a few months in 2008 there were no Hamas rockets. They do not have a security problem, except for what they are creating, so as long as they choose expansion over security, they’re going to have a security problem.

Barack Obama’s burden of expectations

If Barack Obama fails to live up to expectations, there are two possibilities. Kennedy also generated enormous enthusiasm, and he quickly disappointed the expectations. He had a good propaganda apparatus, but if you look at what he did, he was maybe one of the most dangerous presidents of the 20th century.

But the energy that was generated then turned into something quite constructive: the activism of the 1960s. Kennedy certainly did not support the civil rights movement, but it was inspired by the rhetoric and it went on and ultimately he had to sign on to it. That’s one possibility.

The other possibility is cynicism. The constructive choice is going to have to be based on a realistic understanding of what is happening, not the illusions based on marketing.

The US democratic deficit

The irrelevance of popular opinion in the US is quite dramatic. Take the leading domestic issue right now, which is healthcare; it’s a catastrophe. The debate that’s going on is in fact surreal in many ways, not just Sarah Palin and the death panels, but there was a front-page story in the New York Times, reporting that the Obama administration had made a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry in which it promised not to allow the government to use its purchasing power to negotiate drug prices, as is done in every other country and as, for example, the Pentagon can do for buying paper clips.

But it’s legally barred in the United States and that’s the major reason why drug prices are twice as high as in most of the world. About 85% of the population think we should negotiate drug prices – but they’re not even mentioned, in fact I don’t think you can even find a report of the polls.

Progress in South America

It’s commonly said that one of the faults of the Bush administration was that they didn’t pay attention to Latin America. That’s probably one of the greatest boons to Latin America. If the United States would stop paying attention to them, the way it does pay attention to them, they would at least have a little window for maybe moving forward.

The US supports democracy if and only if it conforms to strategic and economic interests. In fact, what’s been happening in South America is quite impressive.

For the first time in hundreds of years, South America is beginning at least to face some of its huge problems. In fact, in many ways, it’s the most exciting region of the world.

The lack of action on climate change

The climate catastrophe will mostly harm the poorer countries. It’ll be pretty awful for everyone — Boston may go under water for example — but the rich countries have ways of dealing with it. The poor countries don’t.

The rich countries have to make a choice: are we going to choose a future in which our grandchildren can survive, or are we going to choose short-term profit for the corporate sector? So far, overwhelmingly, it’s the latter.

The state of human rights

I’ve always been more or less an optimist, which means starting from a very low level of expectation. I think if you look at the trajectory over a longer period, including the recent period, there is a general improvement [in human rights], not only in the Third World but even in the rich countries.

Take say the last US election. The Democratic Party fielded two candidates, a woman and an African-American, inconceivable 30 years ago, even 20 years ago. Intellectuals don’t like to talk about it, but it’s the result of the activism of the 1960s.

Noam Chomsky’s new book, Hope and Prospects, will be published by HamishHamilton on October 29