U of O Professor Assaults Activist Students During Bizarre Tirade at Demonstration

Details

Written by Angus Johnston Angus Johnston

Published: 15 March 2013 15 March 2013

Hits: 4200 4200

http://studentactivism.net/2013/03/15/professor-assaults-activist-students-during-bizarre-tirade-at-demonstration/

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/police-charge-u-oregon-instructor-violent-assault-student-palestine-activists

A man who has been identified as James Olmsted, an adjunct professor of law at the University of Oregon, instigated a bizarre confrontation with UO student activists this week, in the course of which he shoved one student and snatched another’s cell phone. Videos of the incident — including one recorded on the stolen phone — have gone viral in recent hours.

The altercation took place at a mock border checkpoint established by Students Against Imperialism, a newly-formed UO group concerned with “US imperial attitudes on the border with Mexico and in Israel/Palestine,” which it calls “examples of racial and imperial conflicts with gendered and class implications.”

In the video taken on the stolen phone, Olmsted is first seen aggressively lecturing a group of female activists about human rights in pre-Columbian America before urging them to “start a fucking war” if they “want the country back.” He then goes on to offer them disjointed and patronizing organizing advice before taking off his jacket and daring the students to “move” him. When a male student intervenes in an attempt to defuse the situation, Olmsted shoves him twice, calling him a “prick” and removing his own glasses before daring the student to “do something.”

Less than a minute later, he grabs a female student’s phone and places it, still recording, in his pocket.

Throughout the incident, the students are calm, reasonable, and cautious, while Olmsted — who appears as if he may be drunk — veers between instigation, sophistry, and defensiveness. The video taken on the stolen phone ends as Olmsted, having failed to negotiate an erasure of the recording, removes it from his pocket.

The only media coverage of this incident so far is a short piece from the UO student newspaper, and I haven’t seen a statement from the university yet.

But the blogs are all over it. Stay tuned…

Update | It’s not entirely clear that this is a result of Wednesday’s events, but Olmsted used to be on the UO Law School’s adjunct faculty directory, and he’s not anymore.

Second Update | According to a statement from the university posted on Twitter by a local journalist, Olmsted has been fired. The statement says that Olmsted’s “teaching responsibilities” have been “reassigned.” Though the statement goes on to say that the university is “unable to discuss details of this situation at this time,” it concludes that “we expect all members of the campus community to conduct themselves with the highest degree of respect for public discourse.”

Third Update | A UO blog has the text of a mass email sent out by the law school’s dean an hour and a half ago confirming Olmsted’s dismissal.

Fourth Update | The website Electronic Intifada reports that Olmsted will face criminal charges. No details were available from their source, though I have heard similar reports from eyewitnesses. More soon.

Fifth Update | Local news site KVAL reports that Olmsted was arrested at the scene of the altercation, and cited for theft and harassment. The stolent phone belonged to UO junior Jaki Salgado, who told KVAL that it was not returned to her until after police arrived. Reached by telephone on Friday afternoon, a “very upset” Olmsted declined to comment.

__._,_.___

A Deconstruction of S.RES 65

Details

Written by Gilbert Schramm Gilbert Schramm

Published: 14 March 2013 14 March 2013

Hits: 7570 7570

Introduction:

The article that follows is a point by point commentary on S. RES 65, an initiative put forth by AIPAC which has already garnered more than 40 co-sponsors in the US Senate. The resolution is not just a show of force by AIPAC; it also makes a US war with Iran (at a time and place of Israel’s choosing) much more likely. A show of legislative support like this, even if it does not ostensibly commit the US to war with Iran, certainly makes such a commitment in the future much more likely.

The dynamics are simple: with such a show of US Senate support for US action in the case of a confrontation between Israel and Iran, it will become much easier for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to convince his cabinet that a pre-emptive strike by Israel will actually receive US support in the event that Israel decides to exercise its military options.

Let us be clear. The position of the US President, under advisement from US intelligence, is that such an Israel first strike is not only unnecessary, but that even the threat of it undermines the administration’s already robust efforts to discourage Iran from weaponizing its still peaceful nuclear program.

Another point should be well understood. If Israel were to stage a pre-emptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, even using only conventional weapons, it would still, arguably, be a case of using nuclear weapons in a “first strike” capacity. An attack with conventional weapons on a functioning nuclear facility has enormous consequences. Since it would likely release highly radioactive materials over a wide area, it would be, for all practical purposes, the equivalent of a terrorist group detonating a “dirty bomb” in a populated civilian area.

Since, after the fact, it would be almost impossible to sort out whether Israel had used a nuclear weapon in the initial strike, or whether the resulting radiation were the result of radioactive material from the facility itself, the Israeli military, doing a simple cost/benefit analysis, might well be tempted to use a nuclear weapon in the initial attack and then make excuses later. Tragically, the results for civilians in the area would still be devastating…

In any case, as I hope readers will see, reasonable assessments conclude that S. RES 65 is another step closer to a US war with Iran. As such I hope readers of this document will reject it utterly, and communicate their views to their various representatives as quickly and forcefully as possible.

Read more: A Deconstruction of S.RES 65

Israel to launch 'Palestinians-only' bus service

Details

Written by Conal Urquhart Conal Urquhart

Published: 10 March 2013 10 March 2013

Hits: 4428 4428

Call Your Senators on S. Res. 65! Wyden supports pre-approval of Israeli attack!

Details

Written by Peter Miller Peter Miller

Published: 10 March 2013 10 March 2013

Hits: 4712 4712

Call Your Senators on S. Res. 65!


You can report your call to:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/sres65-call-in

Call your Senators today to express your opposition to S. Res. 65, the AIPAC/Lindsay Graham bill that tries to "pre-approve" US participation in an Israeli attack on Iran and tries to move the "red line" for war from "preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon" to "preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability"—whatever that means.

Here's what you do:

Check whether your Senator is a co-sponsor. Below is a list of current co-signers and the date that they co-signed:

Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] - 2/28/2013
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] - 3/6/2013
Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 3/5/2013
Sen Begich, Mark [AK] - 2/28/2013
Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] - 3/5/2013
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 2/28/2013
Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] - 2/28/2013
Sen Boozman, John [AR] - 3/5/2013
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 2/28/2013
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 2/28/2013
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 3/5/2013
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 2/28/2013
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] - 2/28/2013
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] - 3/5/2013
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 2/28/2013
Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE] - 3/6/2013
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 2/28/2013
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] - 2/28/2013
Sen Cruz, Ted [TX] - 3/5/2013
Sen Donnelly, Joe [IN] - 3/5/2013
Sen Fischer, Deb [NE] - 3/5/2013
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 2/28/2013
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 3/5/2013
Sen Hagan, Kay [NC] - 3/5/2013
Sen Heller, Dean [NV] - 3/5/2013
Sen Hirono, Mazie K. [HI] - 3/5/2013
Sen Hoeven, John [ND] - 2/28/2013
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 3/6/2013
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 3/5/2013
Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] - 3/5/2013
Sen Kirk, Mark Steven [IL] - 2/28/2013
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 2/28/2013
Sen Manchin, Joe, III [WV] - 2/28/2013
Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] - 3/5/2013
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 2/28/2013
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 3/5/2013
Sen Moran, Jerry [KS] - 3/5/2013
Sen Portman, Rob [OH] - 2/28/2013
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] - 3/5/2013
Sen Rubio, Marco [FL] - 2/28/2013
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 2/28/2013
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 3/5/2013
Sen Tester, Jon [MT] - 3/5/2013
Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] - 3/5/2013
Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] - 3/5/2013
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] - 2/28/2013

Call the Capital Switchboard at 202-225-3121.
Ask to be connected to your Senator's office.
When you are connected to your Senator's office:
If your Senator hasn't co-sponsored the bill, thank them for staying off, and urge them to resist pressure to sign the bill, noting that the bill
tries to "pre-approve" US participation in an Israeli attack on Iran; and
tries to move up the "red line" for war
Urge them to press that the bill go through committee-mark up.

If your Senator has co-sponsored the bill, express your disappointment with their position, noting that the bill
tries to "pre-approve" US participation in an Israeli attack on Iran; and
tries to move up the "red line" for war
Urge them to counterbalance their action by publicly affirming support for diplomacy, and by insisting that the bill go to committee mark-up so concerns about it can be addressed.