To maintain an army, one needs a minimum size of population from which to fill those army uniforms and to stand on the front lines of battle. When the United States ended the 'draft', we cut the available 'man' power by a substantial amount.
Until 1973, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the United States military that could not be filled with volunteers. Even with the end of the draft, the Selective Service System remains in place as a back-up. All male civilians between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register so that a draft can be readily activated if deemed necessary.
The draft was never popular. African-Americans protested the system. The Nation of Islam was opposed and many Black Muslims were jailed for refusing the draft. Their leader, Elijah Muhammed was sentenced to 5 years in prison for inciting draft resistance (think of Muhammad Ali).
Organized draft resistance also developed in the Japanese American internment camps. Why would minorities fight for people's rights 'over there' when they didn't have those rights for themselves, here?
Richard Nixon promised to end the draft as a method of defeating the anti-Vietnam war movement. He thought youths of affluent families would stop protesting against the war if they themselves didn't have to serve.
To keep up with the front-line needs of the military, the Pentagon opened front-line combat roles to women.
Also, the pentagon intentionally targets recruitment for low socioeconomic neighborhoods and makes enlistment look especially attractive to those who don't have opportunities in the shrinking United States workforce. Because of this the U.S. military is disproportionally men and women of color from poverty backgrounds.
The truth about the problem of maintaining an army is that we have 'solved that problem' by shifting almost all industrial and manufacturing jobs out of this country.
In the 'real' world of employment ...the vast preponderance of job openings these days consists of low-skill, hourly wage work with high turnover - and no benefits. As a result of a very poor national economy, military service seems like a 'good' choice.
We have somewhere around 1.5 million people actively on duty in the United States military. With that number of people, it is important to keep them busy - give them something to do. The common denominator among all of those people is that they have been trained in some aspect of fighting a war - whether actively firing a gun at other human beings, or providing support for those who are actively firing a gun at other human beings.
As a nation, we seem dedicated to making sure that we provide a war to keep all of these trained, armed people busy at their activities. That our educational system hasn't taught us much about the world or the people of the world makes it difficult for the average citizen to even know where in the world we are currently slaughtering people. And, to our corporate dominated government system, it really doesn't matter where these wars are located.
As of May 2013 the United States was Currently Fighting 74 Different Wars… Wars That It Will Publicly Admit - And Many More Covert Wars Without Congressional Oversight… And Certainly Without Public Knowledge. And, what for? In many of these countries we aren't even stealing their resources. The important point is simply to have more wars in more places, it's our entire economy, the totality of our national budget.
Plus, for the poor, join the army, "it's the best job in town", and that's the truth !!!
Rank is no protection from death: U.S. Army Major General Harold Greene, at 55, is the highest-ranking fatality in the war in Afghanistan. His body was buried at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors, including a caisson, two escort platoons, casket team, firing party, colors team, and a caparisoned horse.
The American War Machine Is Already on the
Death March Across the African Continent The root causes of the conflicts are the same as elsewhere: environmental destruction, joblessness, war. from AlterNet By Vijay Prashad On October 4th, US military personnel were on their way back to their forward operating base in Niger. They had been on a reconnaissance mission to the village of Tongo Tongo, near Niger’s border with Mali. US Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph Dunford says that fifty ISIS fighters ambushed them. The soldiers did not call for air support for the first hour, said General Dunford, thinking perhaps that they could handle the attack. By the time the drones came along with French fighter aircraft, ISIS had disappeared. Tongo Tongo is in the middle of a belt that is ground zero for the illicit trade that defines the Sahara. West of Tongo Tongo is Gao (Mali) and to its east is Agadez (Niger). These are the main ports for South American cocaine, flown in on various kinds of aircraft (Air Cocaine, as they are called) and then driven across the Sahara Desert in trucks to be taken by small boats across the Mediterranean Sea into Europe. Evidence of the cocaine trade is everywhere – whether in Gao’s neighborhood known as Cocaine Bougou or in the nickname of one of the leading chiefs in Agadez – Cherif Ould Abidine – known as Cherif or Mr. Cocaine. Cocaine is one dramatic commodity. There are others: refugees and guns. This belt of towns just below the Sahara played a historic role as caravanserais for the old trades in gold, salt and weaponry. The creation of nation-states closed off some of these routes. In particular, Libya – under the previous regime of Muammar Gaddafi – largely shut down the illicit commerce from Mali and Niger. NATO’s war against Libya, which created chaos in that country, opened these routes up. Fleets of white Toyota trucks arrived in the desert to carry refugees and drugs to Europe and to bring weapons into central and western Africa. The trucks run from Agadez to Sabha (Libya) before they find their way to the port cities. There are several kinds of refugees – the adventurers (les aventuriers), many single young men who are leaving behind deserts of opportunity for Europe, and war refugees. Both are desperate, fodder in the hands of the smugglers who must get them – and the drugs – across the forbidding sands. Firmly opposed to the refugee traffic across the Mediterranean, the European Union (EU) has joined hands with governments in Niger and elsewhere to make this southern border of the Sahara their frontier. Niger passed a draconian law in 2015 against smuggling. The EU provided funds to Niger’s military and police, which have started an all-out war against the smugglers. In 2016, Niger arrested over a hundred smugglers and confiscated their vehicles. People in towns like Agadez, a World Heritage site for its beautiful red buildings, say openly that they are vulnerable to extremist groups. There are many to chose from – al-Qaeda in southern Mali and southern Algeria, ISIS in southern Libya and Boko Haram in northern Nigeria and into areas near Lake Chad. No wonder that the United States calls the belt from Mali through Niger the ‘ring of insecurity.’ It is notable that the pressure on the traffickers has not decreased the terrible situation for the refugees and the ‘adventurers.’ They continue to come for reasons that have nothing to do with an open border or a closed border. But the new military presence has meant – as the International Organisation of Migration says – that the smugglers are abandoning the refugees at the first sign of trouble in the dangerous desert. The United Nations has rescued over a thousand abandoned refugees and many hundreds are said to have died along this route. The Nigerien Red Cross says that one group of forty refugees died in May when their truck broke down. It is legible to believe that the death count will never really be known as the European border moves south, from the northern edge of the Mediterranean to the southern edge of the Sahara. Five hours drive north of Agadez is the town of Arlit, one of the key sources of uranium. Readers might remember that the United States had accused Saddam Hussein’s government of procuring yellowcake uranium from Niger. This turned out to be a hoax, uncovered by Ambassador Joe Wilson when he went to Niger and met its former Prime Minister Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. The accusation against Iraq was false, but the Arlit mines are real. The town is a fortress of European mining companies, from Niger’s own government company to a series of French firms, most prominently Areva. The road out of Arlit is known as Uranium Highway. It is this road that was used by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb when it came and kidnapped five French employees of an Areva mine in 2010. The Areva mines were also attacked by a car bomb in 2013. French Special Forces operate to protect these mines and the close to two thousand Europeans who live in this uranium town. ‘One of every three light bulbs is lit thanks to Nigerien uranium,’ noted Oxfam in 2013. It is too precious for the French to be ignored. That is why France’s Operation Barkhane runs from across the Sahel, from Mauritania at one end to Chad at the other. It has its headquarters in Chad’s capital of N’Djamena. The French are not alone. The Americans not only have thousands of troops across Africa, but also have many bases. The most public base is in Djibouti (Camp Lemonier), but there are also bases in Ethiopia and Kenya as well as forward operating positions across the Sahel. The United States is also building a massive base at the cost of $100 million in Agadez. Air Base 201 will be mainly a drone base, with the MQ9 Reapers flown out of Agadez to collect intelligence in this resource-rich and poverty-stricken area. This base is being constructed in plain sight. It is, therefore, surprising to hear Senator Lindsey Graham – who is on the Committee on Armed Services – say, ‘I didn’t know there were 1000 troops in Niger.’ He meant US troops. There has been no evidence presented to the public that those who killed the US forces near Tongo Tongo were from ISIS. Privately US intelligence officials say that this is a guess. They are not sure about the combatants. In fact, US Africa Command (AFRICOM) official concur, saying that it is ‘inappropriate’ to speculate about the incident and those who attacked the US forces. There is a particularly dangerous soup at work here. Certainly extremist groups operate in the region, such as the militants who freed over a hundred prisoners from a prison in Mopti (in central Niger). The dreadful desiccation of the Sahel has produced various feuds amongst herder communities in eastern Niger, where these have morphed into ethnic conflicts (and where certain groups – such as the Mohamid and Peuls – have used the opportunity to accuse the Boudouma of being, therefore, part of Boko Haram). Such opportunism was frequently used in Afghanistan, where tribes used American airpower to settle scores with their old adversaries (to blame someone for being Taliban was sufficient to call in an air strike). The root causes of the conflicts are the same as elsewhere: environmental destruction, joblessness, war and the commodities (such as Cocaine and Uranium) that are essential to the West. None of this will be addressed. More troops will arrive in Niger. More destruction will follow. More sorrow. More anger. More war. There will be no interest in the newly formed North African Network for Food Sovereignty (formed in Tunis on July 5th) and in its sensible charter of demands. Nor will there be any reflection on the assassination of hope for the Sahel, when Thomas Sankara – president of Burkina Faso – was killed thirty years ago on October 15th. ‘We must dare to invent the future’, said Sankara. What is before us from the American and French Special Forces and the militaries of Niger and Chad is not the future. It is wretched. Vijay Prashad is the Chief Editor of LeftWord Books (leftword.com) and the Director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is the author of 20 books, the most recent being The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution(University of California Press, 2016). His columns appear at AlterNet every Wednesday. |
They didn't give up, and they understood the probable consequences of their actions, and took their action with joyful hearts and were fully prepared to accept those consequences. Supposed justice was “blind” to the wrong things in this case, and every other case of this kind. The judge’s intention by giving such long prison terms for such minor offenses was to dissuade others from doing the 'right' thing. We should all 'do the right thing'. Remember that the jails aren't big enough to hold all of us...Read More at the end of this blog...
Just lie down and die. Concede defeat. Surrender.
Under present circumstances, it appears that there are no 'good' options - no 'real' choices. The corporate run free enterprise system has taken over completely and we can only 'go along' to see where it takes us. We can easily see where we are headed. Environmental degradation is progressing at alarming rates and the list of projected extinctions of species grows with each new study. As global warming proceeds at accelerated speed, our own extinction is a distinct possibility - and is extremely likely. From almost every angle, it seems to already be 'too late' to take corrective action of any kind.
Under present circumstances, it appears that there are no 'good' options - no 'real' choices. The corporate run free enterprise system has taken over completely and we can only 'go along' to see where it takes us. We can easily see where we are headed. Environmental degradation is progressing at alarming rates and the list of projected extinctions of species grows with each new study. As global warming proceeds at accelerated speed, our own extinction is a distinct possibility - and is extremely likely. From almost every angle, it seems to already be 'too late' to take corrective action of any kind.
And, that just brings us back to the starting conclusion... yield, submit, 'raise the white flag'...
So, in the face of 'no hope', we could embark on the impossible. We could aim to make 'our dreams come true'. That we are destined to fail shouldn't be a factor in our decision because failure is already the only outcome we can see in front of us. "Damned if we do & damned if we don't" presents us with doing as the best path forward. Let's collectively do it.
Doing 'it' requires recognizing our goals as a society and gathering ourselves together and moving directly toward those goals.
As the most inequitable society in the modern industrialized world, seeking equality is the most natural thing for us to pursue. The divide between rich and poor in this nation is inexcusable in the first place and, when we stop to think about it, only exists this way because we have permitted it.
We voted for the wrong people while knowing it was against our own self interest. We failed to group ourselves together for the strength of our collective energy. We turned the other way when the injustice was effecting 'someone else'. We avoided facing the distress of others because we were focused on 'getting ahead' for ourselves. We stepped past poor people seeking assistance with an attitude of distain as the media has directed us to do. When dead soldiers were returned from some far off battlefield, we weren't concerned since it wasn't our own child that had been killed.
It is almost like we have been on drugs for a very long time. Comatose describes the nature of our society. And now we look up and realize that the 'game' is just about over - and we have lost. But, fortunately, there may still be a few seconds left on the 'play clock'. We may be able to pull off a 'hail Mary' with our last effort. Or, we could just lay down and die.
To achieve our stated goal of reversing the inequity that dominates our country today, we want to understand the actions that have produced our current situation. Recognizing and understanding are our primary tools.
History is a surprisingly good friend. And as we look at our own history, we can see that we have squandered everything in our national quest for 'world empire'. Our military surrounds the entire planet. Our military budget spends our every penny. We've got to change that. We absolutely must bring home those overseas troops (who haven't been able to win a war, anyhow) and we absolutely must transform military spending into social spending.
We actually have the resources necessary to do the job. We simply need to re-prioritize.
With whatever time is left, we need to collect ourselves into groups large enough to withstand the assault that we know will be directed at us for wanting to change directions. As large as the prison system is, it is not large enough to contain all of us. As brutal as 'law enforcement' is, even they are not capable of 'gunning down' all of us. We must stand together. We know what it is that we want.
|
We will no longer tolerate the total control of all of our wealth by a tiny number of corrupt people who have installed themselves at the top. We will no longer dedicate all of our resources to murdering random populations around the world. First and foremost, we will eliminate poverty and suffering right here at home. Education, healthcare, housing, and nutrition will become the focus of our efforts. We will transform our swords into plows.
Perhaps we will surprise ourselves and find some level of success - it's possible, and that's the truth !!!
How Can We Turn Military Spending Into
a Budget for the People?
from Truth Out by Frida Berrigan, Waging Nonviolence
One year of military spending could hire every unemployed person in the United States and put them to work in a high paid infrastructure rebuilding job.
Connecticut is the only state in the union that does not have a budget, and the state's bills are being paid in emergency supplementals -- or going past due. The state is budget-less, so my town of New London -- one of its smaller urban communities -- doesn't have a budget either. That means a hiring freeze at our local schools, budget cuts and tax increases from City Council, the farmer's markets not accepting senior citizen vouchers this summer, the downtown library cutting its hours, a smaller pool of money to pay for the heating needs of low-income people this winter and several other important city-funded offerings.
So far, this belt tightening has resulted in longer lines at the food pantries and an added weight of stress to already vulnerable and burdened people. Eventually, if it goes on long enough, the people impacted by these cuts -- and the bigger ones on the horizon -- will look across our river to the big industrial facilities that mar our otherwise beautiful view. The General Dynamics Electric Boat corporation isn't tightening its belt or trimming its excess or trying to make more with less. It just got a $5 billion contract to build a new class of nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed submarines.
Have you been worried about the United States not having enough nuclear submarines? Me neither. But Electric Boat is booming. The same can be said for most of the bad old military-industrial complex. President Trump's 2018 budget is a brutal behemoth that proposes giving more than $700 billion to the military -- a lot of it going right into the very pockets of the military-industrial complex.
That would be bad enough, but the problem isn't that we are spending more on the military -- it's that it comes at the expense of just about every social good imaginable. Over the next decade, the Republican-held White House and Congress are planning over $5 trillion in cuts to the safety net.
Comparisons to the military budget abound: We spend more than the next seven nations combined; one year of military spending could hire every unemployed person in the United States and put them to work in a high paid infrastructure rebuilding job; if you took the military budget in $100 bills it would circle the equator 500 times. (OK, I made that last one up.) But here is one that is pretty profound: According to the math of Alex Emmons, a reporter for The Intercept, just the increase to the military budget from 2017 to 2018 ($80 billion) that the Senate approved would be enough to make "public colleges and universities in America tuition free."
Let's pause here. The budget situation in Connecticut is so severe that one version of the budget being promoted by state Republicans would cut hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding for the University of Connecticut system. University representatives and Democratic leaders responded by saying that such cuts would essentially shutter institutions where lower-income, first generation students seek higher education. Why cry poverty when there are billions that could be gleaned out of the military-industrial complex?
Getting there is the hard part, but -- thanks to the People's Budget -- we have a map to follow.
More than 100 representatives voted for the People's Budget earlier this month, which limits investment in the military and pumps money into jobs, education, health care and climate resiliency. Of course, the resolution was not binding and was voted down by the House. Nevertheless, the ideas in the People's Budget provide a clear, concise plan for mobilizing the significant resources of the United States in the service of its people -- which is kind of how it is supposed to be, right?
The document comes courtesy of the Congressional Progressive Caucus -- they compile it every year -- but it is more than a Washington effort. The breadth of organizational support for the People's Budget is impressive: from Planned Parenthood to Network: The Catholic Social Justice Lobby to VoteVets to Peace Action to dozens of other organizations representing the interests of hundreds of thousands of people, all setting aside policy differences to work together to achieve a different kind of national security.
Their aims include a $2 trillion investment in America's energy, water and transportation systems; higher taxes on Wall Street firms and corporations that offshore jobs; a minimum wage hike and stronger union rights; auditing the Pentagon budget; and making debt-free college "a reality for all students."
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the People's Budget would add 2.4 million jobs and increase GDP by 2 percent in the near term. And when it turns its attention to the military, the Progressive Caucus' budget "prohibits any expansion of US combat troops in Syria, prohibits an increase in defense spending and slashes wasteful Pentagon spending."
Peace Action senior director for policy and political affairs Paul Kawika Martin sees something fundamentally hopeful in this annual process. "Every year, it gets better," he said in a recent interview. "More Democrats vote for the People's Budget and we push the party closer to representing our ideals."
Up against the Pentagon's pervasive reach and endless resources -- not to mention the military-industrial complex's practice of strategically citing its manufacturing in key congressional districts and spending millions on lobbying every year -- this has to count as real progress.
Still, it can't just happen inside the Beltway. The People's Budget also provides an opportunity to organize locally and to ask the questions: What is security? How much should it cost? Is it walls? Impregnable borders? Militarized police forces? Pervasive surveillance? Guns? Or is it local autonomy, affordable housing, accessible medical care, livable wages, truly representative government, and a sense of well-being that doesn't cost a lot, but sure is priceless? With the war in Afghanistan entering its 17th year, swaths of our country digging out of damage from fires and hurricanes, and communities trying to find sanity in the wake of another mass shooting, it is a critical question.
Frida Berrigan serves on the board of The War Resisters League, a 90-year-old pacifist organization, and helped to found Witness Against Torture, a nonviolent direct action group focused on shutting down Guantánamo and ending torture. She long served as a researcher at the New America Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative in New York City, writing and speaking on the topic of militarism. She writes the "Little Insurrections" blog for Waging Nonviolence.
Related Stories
War, What Is It Good For? Absolutely Nothing: The Literal Truth When It Comes to War, US-Style
By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch
A Preemptive Strike on North Korea Would Be Catastrophic and Illegal
By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout
Under Trump, Neocons Push for Massive Military Spending and Global Domination
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout
a Budget for the People?
from Truth Out by Frida Berrigan, Waging Nonviolence
One year of military spending could hire every unemployed person in the United States and put them to work in a high paid infrastructure rebuilding job.
Connecticut is the only state in the union that does not have a budget, and the state's bills are being paid in emergency supplementals -- or going past due. The state is budget-less, so my town of New London -- one of its smaller urban communities -- doesn't have a budget either. That means a hiring freeze at our local schools, budget cuts and tax increases from City Council, the farmer's markets not accepting senior citizen vouchers this summer, the downtown library cutting its hours, a smaller pool of money to pay for the heating needs of low-income people this winter and several other important city-funded offerings.
So far, this belt tightening has resulted in longer lines at the food pantries and an added weight of stress to already vulnerable and burdened people. Eventually, if it goes on long enough, the people impacted by these cuts -- and the bigger ones on the horizon -- will look across our river to the big industrial facilities that mar our otherwise beautiful view. The General Dynamics Electric Boat corporation isn't tightening its belt or trimming its excess or trying to make more with less. It just got a $5 billion contract to build a new class of nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed submarines.
Have you been worried about the United States not having enough nuclear submarines? Me neither. But Electric Boat is booming. The same can be said for most of the bad old military-industrial complex. President Trump's 2018 budget is a brutal behemoth that proposes giving more than $700 billion to the military -- a lot of it going right into the very pockets of the military-industrial complex.
That would be bad enough, but the problem isn't that we are spending more on the military -- it's that it comes at the expense of just about every social good imaginable. Over the next decade, the Republican-held White House and Congress are planning over $5 trillion in cuts to the safety net.
Comparisons to the military budget abound: We spend more than the next seven nations combined; one year of military spending could hire every unemployed person in the United States and put them to work in a high paid infrastructure rebuilding job; if you took the military budget in $100 bills it would circle the equator 500 times. (OK, I made that last one up.) But here is one that is pretty profound: According to the math of Alex Emmons, a reporter for The Intercept, just the increase to the military budget from 2017 to 2018 ($80 billion) that the Senate approved would be enough to make "public colleges and universities in America tuition free."
Let's pause here. The budget situation in Connecticut is so severe that one version of the budget being promoted by state Republicans would cut hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding for the University of Connecticut system. University representatives and Democratic leaders responded by saying that such cuts would essentially shutter institutions where lower-income, first generation students seek higher education. Why cry poverty when there are billions that could be gleaned out of the military-industrial complex?
Getting there is the hard part, but -- thanks to the People's Budget -- we have a map to follow.
More than 100 representatives voted for the People's Budget earlier this month, which limits investment in the military and pumps money into jobs, education, health care and climate resiliency. Of course, the resolution was not binding and was voted down by the House. Nevertheless, the ideas in the People's Budget provide a clear, concise plan for mobilizing the significant resources of the United States in the service of its people -- which is kind of how it is supposed to be, right?
The document comes courtesy of the Congressional Progressive Caucus -- they compile it every year -- but it is more than a Washington effort. The breadth of organizational support for the People's Budget is impressive: from Planned Parenthood to Network: The Catholic Social Justice Lobby to VoteVets to Peace Action to dozens of other organizations representing the interests of hundreds of thousands of people, all setting aside policy differences to work together to achieve a different kind of national security.
Their aims include a $2 trillion investment in America's energy, water and transportation systems; higher taxes on Wall Street firms and corporations that offshore jobs; a minimum wage hike and stronger union rights; auditing the Pentagon budget; and making debt-free college "a reality for all students."
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the People's Budget would add 2.4 million jobs and increase GDP by 2 percent in the near term. And when it turns its attention to the military, the Progressive Caucus' budget "prohibits any expansion of US combat troops in Syria, prohibits an increase in defense spending and slashes wasteful Pentagon spending."
Peace Action senior director for policy and political affairs Paul Kawika Martin sees something fundamentally hopeful in this annual process. "Every year, it gets better," he said in a recent interview. "More Democrats vote for the People's Budget and we push the party closer to representing our ideals."
Up against the Pentagon's pervasive reach and endless resources -- not to mention the military-industrial complex's practice of strategically citing its manufacturing in key congressional districts and spending millions on lobbying every year -- this has to count as real progress.
Still, it can't just happen inside the Beltway. The People's Budget also provides an opportunity to organize locally and to ask the questions: What is security? How much should it cost? Is it walls? Impregnable borders? Militarized police forces? Pervasive surveillance? Guns? Or is it local autonomy, affordable housing, accessible medical care, livable wages, truly representative government, and a sense of well-being that doesn't cost a lot, but sure is priceless? With the war in Afghanistan entering its 17th year, swaths of our country digging out of damage from fires and hurricanes, and communities trying to find sanity in the wake of another mass shooting, it is a critical question.
Frida Berrigan serves on the board of The War Resisters League, a 90-year-old pacifist organization, and helped to found Witness Against Torture, a nonviolent direct action group focused on shutting down Guantánamo and ending torture. She long served as a researcher at the New America Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative in New York City, writing and speaking on the topic of militarism. She writes the "Little Insurrections" blog for Waging Nonviolence.
Related Stories
War, What Is It Good For? Absolutely Nothing: The Literal Truth When It Comes to War, US-Style
By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch
A Preemptive Strike on North Korea Would Be Catastrophic and Illegal
By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout
Under Trump, Neocons Push for Massive Military Spending and Global Domination
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout
“YOU CAN JAIL THE RESISTERS BUT NOT THE RESISTANCE.”
Read More about those who were jailed for 'doing the right thing'. We all need to get involved and to act - while there still may be time enough to make a difference. And many thanks to these 3 heroes who stood up for all of the rest of us. Let's learn to stand up for ourselves.
Read More about those who were jailed for 'doing the right thing'. We all need to get involved and to act - while there still may be time enough to make a difference. And many thanks to these 3 heroes who stood up for all of the rest of us. Let's learn to stand up for ourselves.