"Everyone is working together and in unison and that's the true spirit of the city and its residents."
Nearly 1,000 people showed up at the Islamic Center of Louisville, Kentucky, on Friday to paint over anti-Muslim graffiti that appeared Wednesday night, according to a center director.
Representatives from all major faith groups and congregations were there to show support, along with students from private, public and Catholic schools, Ozair Shariff, a board of directors member, told The Huffington Post.
"I think it's very apparent that whatever the intended message the perpetrator had, it certainly backfired," Shariff said. "Everyone is working together and in unison and that's the true spirit of the city and its residents."
After Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer, the mosque president and other faith and community leaders made brief comments, volunteers took turns painting brush strokes over the messages that read, "this is for France" and "Moslems leave the Jews alone." Supplies for the painting were donated by local residents and organizations, Shariff said.
Matt Goldberg, development director of the Jewish Community of Louisville, joined the cleanup crew, along with more than 100 volunteers from the Jewish community.
The full article is available here
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Exxon Knew Fossil Fuel's Role in Global Warming in 1977 - Climate News
At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.
"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.
It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.
Exxon responded swiftly. Within months the company launched its own extraordinary research into carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and its impact on the earth. Exxon's ambitious program included both empirical CO2 sampling and rigorous climate modeling. It assembled a brain trust that would spend more than a decade deepening the company's understanding of an environmental problem that posed an existential threat to the oil business.
Then, toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial. It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions. It helped to erect a vast edifice of misinformation that stands to this day.
The full article is available here
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Donald Trump and the Ghost of Totalitarianism - Rabbi Michael Lerner in Tikkun Magazine
Identifying Trump as a fascist is accurate, but not enough. What is necessary are analyses in which the seeds of totalitarianism are made visible in Trump’s discourse and policy measures.
In the current historical moment in the United States, the emptying out of language is nourished by the assault on the civic imagination.
A resurrection of historical memory in this moment could provide important lessons regarding the present crisis, particularly the long tradition of racism, white supremacy, exceptionalism, war mongering, and the extended wars on youth, women, and immigrants.
Identifying Trump as a fascist is accurate, but not enough. What is necessary are analyses in which the seeds of totalitarianism are made visible in Trump’s discourse and policy measures.
A new thoughtlessness drapes the U.S. public in the abyss of ignorance, infantilism, consumerism, militarism, and environmental stupidity. Against this, there is a need to create those pedagogical spaces in which shared faith in justice replaces the shared fears of precarity, hatred of the other, and a fear of the demands of justice.
Against the savage brutalism of the new totalitarianism, there is a need to develop new discourses, vocabularies, values, desires, and a sense of spirituality that brings people together around a need for critique, passion for justice, and a desire for new modes of collective resistance and struggle.
We may be in the midst of “dark times” but the light of hope is never far off and while it offers no guarantees, it posits the possibility of a future that will not mimic the horrors of the past and present.
The full article is available here
In the current historical moment in the United States, the emptying out of language is nourished by the assault on the civic imagination.
A resurrection of historical memory in this moment could provide important lessons regarding the present crisis, particularly the long tradition of racism, white supremacy, exceptionalism, war mongering, and the extended wars on youth, women, and immigrants.
Identifying Trump as a fascist is accurate, but not enough. What is necessary are analyses in which the seeds of totalitarianism are made visible in Trump’s discourse and policy measures.
A new thoughtlessness drapes the U.S. public in the abyss of ignorance, infantilism, consumerism, militarism, and environmental stupidity. Against this, there is a need to create those pedagogical spaces in which shared faith in justice replaces the shared fears of precarity, hatred of the other, and a fear of the demands of justice.
Against the savage brutalism of the new totalitarianism, there is a need to develop new discourses, vocabularies, values, desires, and a sense of spirituality that brings people together around a need for critique, passion for justice, and a desire for new modes of collective resistance and struggle.
We may be in the midst of “dark times” but the light of hope is never far off and while it offers no guarantees, it posits the possibility of a future that will not mimic the horrors of the past and present.
The full article is available here
Friday, July 17, 2015
Monday, June 15, 2015
Drone Victim Family to Obama: "What's The Value of Innocent Life?" - Common Dreams
Seeking official apology, Faisal bin Ali Jaber says, 'Imagine that your loved one was wrongly killed by the U.S. government. Imagine they would not even admit their role in the death of your family members.'
The family of two U.S. drone victims is refusing to keep their pain silent as they seek an official apology by U.S. President Barack Obama for the deaths of their kin.
In a CNN op-ed published on Friday, Faisal bin Ali Jaber, a Yemeni civil engineer, issued a public challenge to the U.S. leader—who recently made public statements about the deaths of two westerners killed by U.S. drone strikes, but has refused to acknowledge Yemeni civilian casualties.
"What is the value of a human life?" Jaber asks.
In the column, Jaber describes how following the August 2012 strike that killed Waleed and Salem bin Ali Jaber, the family had to identify them "from their clothes and scraps of matted hair."
And how in the wake of the strike, while the family awaited an official apology, they were instead presented with "$100,000 in sequentially-marked U.S. dollars in a plastic bag."
Jaber writes: "A Yemeni security service official was given the unpleasant task of handing this over. I looked him in the eye and asked how this was acceptable, and whether he would admit the money came from America. He shrugged and said: 'Can't tell you. Take the money.'"
"The secret payment to my family represents a fraction of the cost of the operation that killed them," he continues. "This seems to be the Obama administration's cold calculation: Yemeni lives are cheap. They cost the President no political or moral capital."
The full article is available here
The family of two U.S. drone victims is refusing to keep their pain silent as they seek an official apology by U.S. President Barack Obama for the deaths of their kin.
In a CNN op-ed published on Friday, Faisal bin Ali Jaber, a Yemeni civil engineer, issued a public challenge to the U.S. leader—who recently made public statements about the deaths of two westerners killed by U.S. drone strikes, but has refused to acknowledge Yemeni civilian casualties.
"What is the value of a human life?" Jaber asks.
In the column, Jaber describes how following the August 2012 strike that killed Waleed and Salem bin Ali Jaber, the family had to identify them "from their clothes and scraps of matted hair."
And how in the wake of the strike, while the family awaited an official apology, they were instead presented with "$100,000 in sequentially-marked U.S. dollars in a plastic bag."
Jaber writes: "A Yemeni security service official was given the unpleasant task of handing this over. I looked him in the eye and asked how this was acceptable, and whether he would admit the money came from America. He shrugged and said: 'Can't tell you. Take the money.'"
"The secret payment to my family represents a fraction of the cost of the operation that killed them," he continues. "This seems to be the Obama administration's cold calculation: Yemeni lives are cheap. They cost the President no political or moral capital."
The full article is available here
Saturday, June 6, 2015
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Why Is TPP So Hard For Obama To Sell? Stan Sorscher in Common Dreams
We have accumulated over $10 trillion in goods trade deficits since NAFTA. Our lived experience tells us the 99% are getting burned by our trade policy, while global companies are doing great.
Barack Obama is cool and personable -- no-drama Obama. Then suddenly, he scolds critics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, his NAFTA-style trade deal. He accuses them of being "wrong," unable to look at the facts, fighting the last war and confusing this new improved trade deal with NAFTA.
The Trans Pacific Partnership critics are right. They are looking straight at the facts. The critics know exactly what a good trade policy would look like, and it's nothing like NAFTA or TPP.
So what's wrong with TPP?
Will TPP create jobs? No. Economic models predict a tiny increase in GDP from TPP. Globally, tariffs are already low. That deal is done. In the past, these same models have been wildly optimistic, so when they predict "no gain," that says a lot.
We can't walk away from trade. We are told that 95 percent of the consumers in the world are outside the US. That's a big scary number. On the other hand, that number for Belgium is 99.8 percent, and Belgium is still OK.
Is TPP a secret? President Obama says TPP is not a secret. Any member of Congress can look at it. .... as long as they don't take notes -- no pictures, no copies and they can't discuss what they see. However, if Senator Elizabeth Warren tells her constituents about TPP's language protecting corporations, she would be violating national security secrecy laws! Ridiculous.
Exports go up. Exports go up. Of course, imports go up faster.
What have we learned from NAFTA? The labor and environmental standards are so ineffective that a country as violent as Colombia can get a trade deal with favorable access to our country, while hundreds of labor activists are killed for speaking up for workers. Our US Trade Representative is struggling to decide if murders are a violation of the labor protections in previous agreements.
Will TPP set higher new standards? Not the way we might hope. Hundreds of corporate lobbyists are actively involved in the negotiating process. TPP will produce very favorable terms for global investors and global companies.
Barack Obama is cool and personable -- no-drama Obama. Then suddenly, he scolds critics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, his NAFTA-style trade deal. He accuses them of being "wrong," unable to look at the facts, fighting the last war and confusing this new improved trade deal with NAFTA.
The Trans Pacific Partnership critics are right. They are looking straight at the facts. The critics know exactly what a good trade policy would look like, and it's nothing like NAFTA or TPP.
So what's wrong with TPP?
Will TPP create jobs? No. Economic models predict a tiny increase in GDP from TPP. Globally, tariffs are already low. That deal is done. In the past, these same models have been wildly optimistic, so when they predict "no gain," that says a lot.
We can't walk away from trade. We are told that 95 percent of the consumers in the world are outside the US. That's a big scary number. On the other hand, that number for Belgium is 99.8 percent, and Belgium is still OK.
Is TPP a secret? President Obama says TPP is not a secret. Any member of Congress can look at it. .... as long as they don't take notes -- no pictures, no copies and they can't discuss what they see. However, if Senator Elizabeth Warren tells her constituents about TPP's language protecting corporations, she would be violating national security secrecy laws! Ridiculous.
Exports go up. Exports go up. Of course, imports go up faster.
What have we learned from NAFTA? The labor and environmental standards are so ineffective that a country as violent as Colombia can get a trade deal with favorable access to our country, while hundreds of labor activists are killed for speaking up for workers. Our US Trade Representative is struggling to decide if murders are a violation of the labor protections in previous agreements.
Will TPP set higher new standards? Not the way we might hope. Hundreds of corporate lobbyists are actively involved in the negotiating process. TPP will produce very favorable terms for global investors and global companies.
We have accumulated over $10 trillion in goods trade deficits since NAFTA. Our lived experience tells us the 99% are getting burned by our trade policy, while global companies are doing great.
The full article is available here
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Happy Radical Mother's Day - Diana Butler Bass
Mother's Day honors a progressive feminist, inclusive, non-violent vision for world community.
At first glance, Mother's Day appears a quaint holiday, a sort of greeting card moment, honoring 1950s values, a historical throw back to old-fashioned notions of hearth and home. However the story of it's founding is decidedly less Hallmark.
Beginning the late 1800's, radical Protestant women had been agitating for a national Mother's Day hoping that it would further a progressive political agenda that favored issues related to women's lives.
The original Mother’s Day Proclamation was made in 1870. Written by Julia Ward Howe, it was an impassioned call for peace and disarmament.
In May 1907, Anna Jarvis, a member of a Methodist congregation in Grafton, West Virginia, passed out 500 white carnations in church to commemorate the life of her mother - Anna Reeves Jarvis, who had died in 1905. Although now largely forgotten, Anna Reeves Jarvis was a social activist and community organizer
In 1858, she had organized poor women in Virginia into "Mothers' Work Day Clubs" to raise the issue of clean water and sanitation in relation to the lives of women and children. She also worked for universal access to medicine for the poor. Reeves Jarvis was also a pacifist who served both sides in the Civil War by working for camp sanitation and medical care for soldiers of the North and the South.
In the early 1900's, many progressive and liberal Christian organizations -- like the YMCA and the World Sunday School Association -- picked up the cause and lobbied Congress to make Mother's Day a national holiday.
Although I've never seen it on a pastel flowered greeting card, Mother's Day honors a progressive feminist, inclusive, non-violent vision for world community.
The full article is available here
At first glance, Mother's Day appears a quaint holiday, a sort of greeting card moment, honoring 1950s values, a historical throw back to old-fashioned notions of hearth and home. However the story of it's founding is decidedly less Hallmark.
Beginning the late 1800's, radical Protestant women had been agitating for a national Mother's Day hoping that it would further a progressive political agenda that favored issues related to women's lives.
The original Mother’s Day Proclamation was made in 1870. Written by Julia Ward Howe, it was an impassioned call for peace and disarmament.
In May 1907, Anna Jarvis, a member of a Methodist congregation in Grafton, West Virginia, passed out 500 white carnations in church to commemorate the life of her mother - Anna Reeves Jarvis, who had died in 1905. Although now largely forgotten, Anna Reeves Jarvis was a social activist and community organizer
In 1858, she had organized poor women in Virginia into "Mothers' Work Day Clubs" to raise the issue of clean water and sanitation in relation to the lives of women and children. She also worked for universal access to medicine for the poor. Reeves Jarvis was also a pacifist who served both sides in the Civil War by working for camp sanitation and medical care for soldiers of the North and the South.
In the early 1900's, many progressive and liberal Christian organizations -- like the YMCA and the World Sunday School Association -- picked up the cause and lobbied Congress to make Mother's Day a national holiday.
Although I've never seen it on a pastel flowered greeting card, Mother's Day honors a progressive feminist, inclusive, non-violent vision for world community.
The full article is available here
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Agency Overseeing Obama Trade Deal Filled With Former Trade Lobbyists
CD Review: Before We Get Buried - Emergency Broadcast
Based on the six tunes on Emergency Broadcast, the future certainly looks bright for Before We Get Buried.
Hailing from Austria, Before We Get Buried plays intricate yet accessible metal core reminiscent of bands like Shai Hulud, As I Lay Dying and Zao. Though their influences are recognizeable, these Austrian gents aren't derivative. Their songs are well-constructed, creative and adeptly arranged.
Their latest EP, Emergency Broadcast, is now available on Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, Spotify and Deezer. It features 6 songs that flawlessly navigate the transitions between sung and screamed vocals. While countless mediocre metal core bands do one or either ok but the other poorly, Before We Get Buried are clearly songwriters, not clumsy song section compilers.
Further, vocalist Stefan Jakober is not a one-trick pony on the screamed vocals; showing terrific range from guttural lows to piercing highs that perfectly suit the song's needs. Lyrically, Before We Get Buried deal with themes like the quest for truth and meaning, the frustrations of imperfect relationships and stubborn hope in the midst of dark times.
The opening track Epiphany is a great choice to get things started. It features guest vocals by Ricky Amellino. The two singers weave their parts together well while the band alternately rocks and pummels. Next up is Truth and Other Rumors, which begins methodically with some nice guitar interplay.
The workman-like chugging continues on A Southern Cry. Dining on Ashes features another guest singer, Richard Sjunnesson, whose vocals also nicely compliment Jakober's. It begins at break neck speed, then instantly jolts into thunderous riffing. It finishes off with a nice acoustic picking part.
The 5th track Burnt and Built (see embedded Soundcloud player below) is my personal favorite from the EP. It features some tasty dissonant riffing with complementary climbing and falling lead guitar. Midway through, the band hammers you over the head with an intense breakdown while Jakober howls, "I am my own god and I hate it. I am my own god, it makes me so sick." That section is sure to inspire pile-ons and mosh mania when played live.
The closing track Copenhagen is the heaviest on the EP, seething with down tuned muscle and bristling with righteous fury. The tune shows Before We Get Buried exploring new sonic territory and is a sign of good things to come.
Based on the six tunes on Emergency Broadcast, the future certainly looks bright for Before We Get Buried. On their own, they've produced a stand out EP that I found myself giving repeated listens, which for me is always the litmus test for new music.
You can follow the band on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/BeforeWeGetBuried) and find them online at http://www.beforewegetburied.com.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Reforming Money and Banking: Keys to Debt and Jubilee - Tikkun Magazine
A moral component is currently lacking in all platforms in high-frequency trading, derivatives, and dark pools in today’s electronic global financial casino.
Clearly we need to explore new options. The movement for Jubilee is pragmatic since history proves that as borrowed money flows upward to the lenders, debts become unrepayable.
As in the game of monopoly, the upward accumulation of money, power, and information inevitably ends in “game over.” The calls for Jubilee are a way to restart the game. They also reintroduce the moral component missing from economic textbooks and mathematical models, which have been raised to dangerous levels of abstraction in artificial intelligence and computerized, algorithm-based trading.
A moral component is currently lacking in all platforms in high-frequency trading, derivatives, and dark pools in today’s electronic global financial casino. Ironically, these new platforms were all made possible by taxpayers through their subsidization of communications technologies, satellites, the internet, and financial infrastructure, as documented in The Entrepreneurial State (2013).
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
13 Year Old Yemen Boy Who Feared Drones Killed in CIA Strike - Common Dreams
"In their eyes, we don’t deserve to live like people in the rest of the world,' said the victim ahead of his ultimate death, 'and we don’t have feelings or emotions or cry or feel pain like all the other humans around the world."
Just weeks after speaking with western journalists about his pervasive fear of the U.S. drones flying overhead in his home country of Yemen, 13-year-old Mohammed Tuaiman was reportedly killed in a CIA-directed bombing on January 26.
His family vows that it will demand justice for Mohammed and insists, "He wasn’t a member of al-Qaida. He was a kid."
When the Guardian interviewed Mohammed last September, he spoke of his anger towards the U.S. government for killing his father. "They tell us that these drones come from bases in Saudi Arabia and also from bases in the Yemeni seas and America sends them to kill terrorists, but they always kill innocent people. But we don’t know why they are killing us."
"In their eyes, we don’t deserve to live like people in the rest of the world,' said the victim ahead of his ultimate death, 'and we don’t have feelings or emotions or cry or feel pain like all the other humans around the world."
The full article is available here
Just weeks after speaking with western journalists about his pervasive fear of the U.S. drones flying overhead in his home country of Yemen, 13-year-old Mohammed Tuaiman was reportedly killed in a CIA-directed bombing on January 26.
His family vows that it will demand justice for Mohammed and insists, "He wasn’t a member of al-Qaida. He was a kid."
When the Guardian interviewed Mohammed last September, he spoke of his anger towards the U.S. government for killing his father. "They tell us that these drones come from bases in Saudi Arabia and also from bases in the Yemeni seas and America sends them to kill terrorists, but they always kill innocent people. But we don’t know why they are killing us."
"In their eyes, we don’t deserve to live like people in the rest of the world,' said the victim ahead of his ultimate death, 'and we don’t have feelings or emotions or cry or feel pain like all the other humans around the world."
The full article is available here
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Was Obama Right About Crusades & Islamic Extremism? Jay Michaelson at Religion News Service
![]() |
| Crusaders massacering Jews in Rhineland |
In his recent speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama said that Christians, as well as Muslims, have at times committed atrocities. This would seem to be Religious History 101, but it was nonetheless met with shock and awe by right wing pundits.
Yes the Crusades were a thousand years ago, the Inquisition ended 200 years ago and Jim Crow legally ended in the 1960s. But the president specifically noted that “humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.”
1. The Crusades
Tens of thousands of people (both soldiers and civilians) were killed in the conquest of Jerusalem. The Crusaders themselves suffered; historians estimate that only one in 20 survived to even reach the Holy Land. It is estimated that 1.7 million people died in total.
Along the way, the Crusaders massacred. To take but one example, the Rhineland Massacres of 1096 are remembered to this day as some of the most horrific examples of anti-Semitic violence prior to the Holocaust. (Why go to the Holy Land to fight nonbelievers, many wondered, when they live right among us?) The Jewish communities of Cologne, Speyer, Worms, and Mainz were decimated. There were more than 5,000 victims.
And this is all at a time in which the world population was approximately 300 million — less than 5 percent its current total. Muslim extremists would have to kill 34 million people (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) to equal that death toll today. As horrific as the Islamic State’s brutal reign of terror has been, its death toll is estimated at around 20,000.
2. The Inquisition
The Inquisition refers to a set of institutions within the Roman Catholic Church that operated from the mid-13th century until the 19th century.
It saw the execution and torture thousands of suspected witches, converts from Judaism (many of whom had been forced to convert), Protestants, and all manner of suspected heretics, particularly in the 15th and 16th centuries. Historians estimate that 150,000 people were put on trial by the Inquisition, with 3,000 executed.
Arguably, the Islamic State’s methods of execution — including crucifixion, beheading, and, most recently, burning a prisoner alive — are as gruesome as the Inquistion’s, with its infamous hangings and burnings at the stake. ISIS is also committing systematic rape, which the Inquisition did not, and enslaving children.
As for torture, however, it’s hard to do worse than the Inquisition, which used torture as a method of extracting confessions. Methods included starvation, burning victims’ bodies with hot coals, forced over-consumption of water, hanging by straps, thumbscrews, metal pincers, and of course, the rack.
3. Slavery and Jim Crow
More recently, though the vast majority of Christians abhor it, the Ku Klux Klan, to the present day, still insists that it is a “Christian organization.” There’s a reason the Klan burned crosses alongside its lynchings and acts of arson, after all.
Of course, there was also organized Christian opposition to slavery and to Jim Crow, and Christianity is at least as much the property of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., as of the segregationists and slaveholders of the Old South.
There are two narratives about radical Islamists, and indeed about enemies of any sort, that coexist in American culture. According to one, they are different from us — Muslims, Palestinians, Israelis, Communists, you name it. Thus, in the battle against Islamic extremism, Islam is, in part at least, the enemy.
The other narrative is that all peoples, all creeds, all nations contain elements of moderation and extremism. Thankfully, racist Christian extremists are today a tiny minority within American Christianity. But only 100 years ago, they were as popular among American Christians as the Islamic State is among Muslims today. Thus, in the battle against Islamic extremism, it is extremism that is the enemy.
Hysterical commentary notwithstanding, no one is suggesting that Christians are just like the Islamic State. But Obama did suggest that Christianity is like Islam; both faiths have the capacity to be exploited by extremists.
Christians should not be insulted by the facts of history. All people of faith should be inspired by them to recognize the dangers of extremism — wherever they lie.
The full article is available here
Friday, January 30, 2015
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Subsidizing Contractor Misconduct: Government Contracts Despite Egregious Labor Violations - Chris Thompson in Corpwatch
In effect, the federal government has been subsidizing contractor misconduct with our tax dollars.
Rodney Bridgett was killed when a piece of Tyson Foods’ heavy equipment crushed him. Calvin Bryant was crippled in a Imperial Sugar plant explosion in Georgia that also killed 14 of his co-workers. When Alma Aranda tried to exercise her legal right to take unpaid time off to care for her dying mother, Verizon harassed her with so much paperwork that her hair fell out in clumps.
What do these 3 cases have in common? The federal government handed out tens of millions of dollars in contracts to these companies, without regard to how they treated their workers.
In effect, the federal government has been subsidizing contractor misconduct with our tax dollars. As long as federal contractors have known that their lawbreaking would not jeopardize the next contract, they have had little financial incentive to stop mistreating their workers.
Government rules that require it to contract only with companies that have a “satisfactory record of performance, integrity, and business ethics.” In practice, the contracting system does not effectively review companies’ records for responsibility, nor does it ensure—before awarding contracts—that violators reform their practices.
As a result companies have continued to receive billions of dollars, despite long records of violating workplace laws. They may neglect legally required safety standards and maim a worker on the job, systematically engage in age or gender discrimination, refuse to pay overtime in violation of the law, or ignore the Americans with Disabilities Act and demote or fire disabled employees.
The full article is available here
Rodney Bridgett was killed when a piece of Tyson Foods’ heavy equipment crushed him. Calvin Bryant was crippled in a Imperial Sugar plant explosion in Georgia that also killed 14 of his co-workers. When Alma Aranda tried to exercise her legal right to take unpaid time off to care for her dying mother, Verizon harassed her with so much paperwork that her hair fell out in clumps.
What do these 3 cases have in common? The federal government handed out tens of millions of dollars in contracts to these companies, without regard to how they treated their workers.
In effect, the federal government has been subsidizing contractor misconduct with our tax dollars. As long as federal contractors have known that their lawbreaking would not jeopardize the next contract, they have had little financial incentive to stop mistreating their workers.
Government rules that require it to contract only with companies that have a “satisfactory record of performance, integrity, and business ethics.” In practice, the contracting system does not effectively review companies’ records for responsibility, nor does it ensure—before awarding contracts—that violators reform their practices.
As a result companies have continued to receive billions of dollars, despite long records of violating workplace laws. They may neglect legally required safety standards and maim a worker on the job, systematically engage in age or gender discrimination, refuse to pay overtime in violation of the law, or ignore the Americans with Disabilities Act and demote or fire disabled employees.
The full article is available here
Friday, January 16, 2015
2 New Studys: 4 Ways We're Pushing Earth Past Limits - Oliver Milman
All of these changes are shifting Earth into a "new state" that is becoming less hospitable to human life, researchers said.
Humans are "eating away at our own life support systems" at a rate unseen in the past 10,000 years by degrading land and freshwater systems, emitting greenhouse gases and releasing vast amounts of agricultural chemicals into the environment, new research has found.
Two major new studies by an international team of researchers have pinpointed the key factors that ensure a livable planet for humans, with stark results.
Of nine worldwide processes that underpin life on Earth, four have exceeded "safe" levels: human-driven climate change, loss of biosphere integrity, land system change, and the high level of phosphorus and nitrogen flowing into the oceans due to fertilizer use.
Researchers spent five years identifying these core components of a planet suitable for human life, using the long-term average state of each measure to provide a baseline for the analysis.
They found that the changes of the last 60 years are unprecedented in the previous 10,000 years, a period in which the world has had a relatively stable climate and human civilization has advanced significantly.
All of these changes are shifting Earth into a "new state" that is becoming less hospitable to human life, researchers said.
The full article is available here
Humans are "eating away at our own life support systems" at a rate unseen in the past 10,000 years by degrading land and freshwater systems, emitting greenhouse gases and releasing vast amounts of agricultural chemicals into the environment, new research has found.
Two major new studies by an international team of researchers have pinpointed the key factors that ensure a livable planet for humans, with stark results.
Of nine worldwide processes that underpin life on Earth, four have exceeded "safe" levels: human-driven climate change, loss of biosphere integrity, land system change, and the high level of phosphorus and nitrogen flowing into the oceans due to fertilizer use.
Researchers spent five years identifying these core components of a planet suitable for human life, using the long-term average state of each measure to provide a baseline for the analysis.
They found that the changes of the last 60 years are unprecedented in the previous 10,000 years, a period in which the world has had a relatively stable climate and human civilization has advanced significantly.
All of these changes are shifting Earth into a "new state" that is becoming less hospitable to human life, researchers said.
The full article is available here
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
13 Year Afghan War "Over" - Dierdre Fulton in Common Dreams
2 Trillion dollars later and hundreds of thousands dead or displaced, the world is predictably less safe for the west than it was - and jihadism is much more entrenched.
With little fanfare, the United States and NATO formally ended the longest war in U.S. history with a ceremony in Kabul, Afghanistan on Sunday, leaving observers to wonder what—if anything—was achieved.
With little fanfare, the United States and NATO formally ended the longest war in U.S. history with a ceremony in Kabul, Afghanistan on Sunday, leaving observers to wonder what—if anything—was achieved.
Over 13 years, U.S.-led war in Afghanistan claimed the lives of about 3,500 foreign troops (at least 2,224 of them American soldiers) and an estimated 21,000 Afghan civilians; most experts agree that the country is as violent as ever and that the death toll will continue to rise. Many say the war is over in name only.
In late September, the U.S. and Afghanistan signed a controversial Bilateral Security Agreement that allows for U.S. training, funding, and arming of the Afghan military; establishes long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan with access to numerous bases and installations in the country; and extends immunity to U.S. service members under Afghan law.
There will still be roughly 11,000 American troops in Afghanistan next year as part of the Resolute Support mission to train, advise and assist Afghanistan’s roughly 350,000 security forces.
Writing for The Guardian, Will Hutton argues: "At a meta strategic level, the U.S. was wrong. The war against terrorism developed by George W Bush after 09/11 is a great failure. The reflex reaction to a heinous act of mass terror was not to outsmart, out-think and marginalize a new enemy - it was to get even by being even more violent, lawless and vicious. This lead NATO into the Afghanistan quagmire and a coalition into the other quagmire; Iraq.
2 Trillion dollars later and hundreds of thousands dead or displaced, the world is predictably less safe for the west than it was - and jihadism is much more entrenched.
The full article is available here
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Drones & Discrimination - Kathy Kelly in Tikkun
The U.S. is the undisputed world leader in incarceration, as it is the world leader in military dominance.
On December 10 - International Human Rights Day, federal Magistrate Matt Whitworth sentenced me to 3 months in prison for having crossed the line at a military base that wages drone warfare. The punishment for our attempt to speak on behalf of trapped and desperate people, abroad, will be an opportunity to speak with people trapped by prisons and impoverishment here in the U.S.
The trial was based on a trespass charge incurred on June 1, 2014. We carried a loaf of bread and a letter for Brig Gen. Glen D. Van Herck. In court, we testified that we hadn’t acted with criminal intent but had, rather, exercised our First Amendment right (and responsibility) to assemble peaceably for redress of grievance.
A group of Afghan friends had entrusted me with a simple message, their grievance, which they couldn’t personally deliver: please stop killing us.
It’s one thing to read about the shameful racism and discrimination of the U.S. criminal justice system. It’s quite another to sit next to a woman who is facing ten or more years in prison, isolated from children she has not held in years, and to learn from her about the circumstances that led to her imprisonment. Many women prisoners, unable to find decent jobs in the regular economy, turn to the underground economy.
The U.S. is the undisputed world leader in incarceration, as it is the world leader in military dominance. Each time I’ve left a U.S. prison, I’ve felt as though I was leaving the scene of a crime. When I return to the U.S. from sites of our war making, abroad, I feel the same way.
Emerging back into the regular world seems tantamount to accepting a contract, pledging to forget the punishments we visit on impoverished people. I’m invited to forget about the people still trapped inside nightmare worlds we have made for them.
The full article is available here
On December 10 - International Human Rights Day, federal Magistrate Matt Whitworth sentenced me to 3 months in prison for having crossed the line at a military base that wages drone warfare. The punishment for our attempt to speak on behalf of trapped and desperate people, abroad, will be an opportunity to speak with people trapped by prisons and impoverishment here in the U.S.
The trial was based on a trespass charge incurred on June 1, 2014. We carried a loaf of bread and a letter for Brig Gen. Glen D. Van Herck. In court, we testified that we hadn’t acted with criminal intent but had, rather, exercised our First Amendment right (and responsibility) to assemble peaceably for redress of grievance.
A group of Afghan friends had entrusted me with a simple message, their grievance, which they couldn’t personally deliver: please stop killing us.
It’s one thing to read about the shameful racism and discrimination of the U.S. criminal justice system. It’s quite another to sit next to a woman who is facing ten or more years in prison, isolated from children she has not held in years, and to learn from her about the circumstances that led to her imprisonment. Many women prisoners, unable to find decent jobs in the regular economy, turn to the underground economy.
The U.S. is the undisputed world leader in incarceration, as it is the world leader in military dominance. Each time I’ve left a U.S. prison, I’ve felt as though I was leaving the scene of a crime. When I return to the U.S. from sites of our war making, abroad, I feel the same way.
Emerging back into the regular world seems tantamount to accepting a contract, pledging to forget the punishments we visit on impoverished people. I’m invited to forget about the people still trapped inside nightmare worlds we have made for them.
The full article is available here
Friday, December 19, 2014
Santa's Real Workshop: Town in China Makes World's Decorations - Oliver Wainright
Inside the ‘Christmas village’ of Yiwu, there’s no snow and no elves, just 600 factories that produce 60% of all the decorations in the world.
Our yuletide myth-making might like to imagine that Christmas is made by rosy-cheeked elves hammering away in a snow-bound log cabin somewhere in the Arctic Circle.
Our yuletide myth-making might like to imagine that Christmas is made by rosy-cheeked elves hammering away in a snow-bound log cabin somewhere in the Arctic Circle.
But it’s not.
The likelihood is that most of those baubles, tinsel and flashing LED lights you’ve draped liberally around your house came from Yiwu, 185 miles south of Shanghai – where there’s not a (real) pine tree nor (natural) snowflake in sight.
Inside the ‘Christmas village’ of Yiwu, there’s no snow and no elves, just 600 factories that produce 60% of all the decorations in the world. They're staffed primarily by migrant laborers, working 12 hours a day for a maximum of $200-300 a month.
Aiming at the lower end of the market, Yiwu’s sales thrived during the recession, as the world shopped for cut-price festive fun, but international sales are down this year.
Inside the ‘Christmas village’ of Yiwu, there’s no snow and no elves, just 600 factories that produce 60% of all the decorations in the world. They're staffed primarily by migrant laborers, working 12 hours a day for a maximum of $200-300 a month.
Aiming at the lower end of the market, Yiwu’s sales thrived during the recession, as the world shopped for cut-price festive fun, but international sales are down this year.
Still, according to Cai Qingliang, vice chairman of the Yiwu Christmas Products Industry Association, domestic appetite is on the rise, as China embraces the annual festival of Mammon. Santa Claus, says the Economist, is now better known to most Chinese people than Jesus.
The beaming sales reps of Yiwu market couldn’t sound happier with their life sentence of eternal Christmastime. According to Cheng Yaping, co-founder of the Boyang Craft Factory, who runs a stall decked out like a miniature winter wonderland: “Sitting here every day, being able to look at all these beautiful decorations, is really great for your mood.”
It’s somehow unlikely that those on the other end of the production line, consigned to dipping snowflakes in red-swamped workshops for us to pick up at the checkout for $.99, feel quite the same way.
The beaming sales reps of Yiwu market couldn’t sound happier with their life sentence of eternal Christmastime. According to Cheng Yaping, co-founder of the Boyang Craft Factory, who runs a stall decked out like a miniature winter wonderland: “Sitting here every day, being able to look at all these beautiful decorations, is really great for your mood.”
It’s somehow unlikely that those on the other end of the production line, consigned to dipping snowflakes in red-swamped workshops for us to pick up at the checkout for $.99, feel quite the same way.
The full article is available here
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
The Hunger Games Economy - Jebediah Purdy in The Daily Beast
The enormous resonance of the story in The Hunger Games suggests it’s caught something many Americans sense: the rules we are currently living by are not the best we can do. We are living with our own Hunger Game.
What are our Hunger Games? I’d start with the economy. The fact that tens of millions of Americans still can’t afford health care—especially but not only in states that have resisted Obamacare—means that losing the game can literally mean dying. Statistically, rejecting the Medicaid expansion means more than a thousand early deaths every year in my state, North Carolina, mostly among the working poor. That’s just one rule of the game.
Because it’s hard to unionize, a worker who asks for more is likely to be replaced by someone who will ask for less. Solidarity is harder, and people are pitted against one another. The 29 coal miners who were killed in the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia four years ago were non-unionized, which made it easier for their bosses to ignore safety rules and press for ramped-up production over human life. Don Blankenship, then-head of the company, has just been criminally indicted, but it’s five years too late. His policies made the workplace a Hunger Games arena of its own.
At the start of each Hunger Games, the contestants scramble for a pile of survival gear and weapons before taking off for the woods to hunt one another. In America, black children are born into families with about 10%—one-tenth—the average wealth of white families. They are born in neighborhoods with fewer business owners, fewer professionals—fewer of the patrons who can spot their talent and send the real-world version of those little silver parachutes that drop into the Hunger Games arena to save our heroes.
The Hunger Games Mockingjay’s moral core is solidarity: the Gamers start caring about one another and resisting the rule that only one contestant can survive the Hunger Games.
The political pivot comes when they realize that there could be a world without Hunger Games at all. The rules of this game are man-made. They benefit some people and hurt many others—even the so-called winners, who survive by becoming killers, then become the celebrity playthings of Capitol elites.
But once we understand that it’s the rules of the game that are the problem, we can see that no one needs to be racist for the system to keep spitting out racist results. No one needs to hate for a game to be hateful. Even “fair” rules, which treat every person alike, are not really fair if the contestants scramble across the starting line in very unequal situations, some with swords and bows, some with a little rope and a box of matches. The problem is that being a decent person in an indecent situation is not enough, even though it may also be all you can do.
This is especially hard to see because Americans, even more than other people, tend to see the rules of the market as natural and unchangeable facts. In American life, the familiar version of market competition is often treated as like the Law of Gravity, the kind you can’t change and defy only if you don’t mind falling on your face.
The full article is available here
Ebola Coverage Puts Old Fears in New Virus - Janine Jackson
Ebola is less a story about a bizarre new disease and its unpredictably disastrous capacities, and more a sad old story about poverty and priorities.
The epidemic has so far killed at least 4,800 people in West Africa. There is no reason to believe Ebola will or could exact analogous tolls here, because, despite ooga-booga stories about Africans carrying tainted “bushmeat” in their luggage (Newsweek, 8/21/14; FAIR Blog, 8/28/14), the forces behind the viral outbreak largely have to do with infrastructure deficits and lack of access to healthcare.
But sober and data-driven isn’t exactly US media’s style, particularly when dealing with a disease associated with There that is seen to be coming Here. The concoction of ignorance and breathlessness has generated some truly terrible coverage.
“Fears of the other” have attended perceptions of disease “ever since the germ theory first associated microbes with illness,” Washington told FAIR’s CounterSpin (10/24/14), citing “Typhoid Mary,” an Irish woman when they were a “despised minority,” along with accusations that Chinese people were spreading plague in 1900s San Francisco and charges that Jews fomented disease in Polish ghettos.
No one suggests that journalists should know more than medical professionals about a disease that is largely unfamiliar to most people, or strive to speak definitively about evolving events.
It is fair to insist that they delineate what they know from what they don’t, and resist speculation and rumor-mongering. Not just because these have no place in responsible public health reporting, but because misinformation has effects.
In this case, these include both the fanning of violent xenophobia —as we’ve already seen in the case of, for example, Senegalese-American boys in the Bronx being beaten up while their attackers shouted “Ebola!” (Gothamist, 10/27/14)—and the individual and societal problems resulting from a misunderstanding of relative risk.
The full article is available here
The epidemic has so far killed at least 4,800 people in West Africa. There is no reason to believe Ebola will or could exact analogous tolls here, because, despite ooga-booga stories about Africans carrying tainted “bushmeat” in their luggage (Newsweek, 8/21/14; FAIR Blog, 8/28/14), the forces behind the viral outbreak largely have to do with infrastructure deficits and lack of access to healthcare.
But sober and data-driven isn’t exactly US media’s style, particularly when dealing with a disease associated with There that is seen to be coming Here. The concoction of ignorance and breathlessness has generated some truly terrible coverage.
“Fears of the other” have attended perceptions of disease “ever since the germ theory first associated microbes with illness,” Washington told FAIR’s CounterSpin (10/24/14), citing “Typhoid Mary,” an Irish woman when they were a “despised minority,” along with accusations that Chinese people were spreading plague in 1900s San Francisco and charges that Jews fomented disease in Polish ghettos.
No one suggests that journalists should know more than medical professionals about a disease that is largely unfamiliar to most people, or strive to speak definitively about evolving events.
It is fair to insist that they delineate what they know from what they don’t, and resist speculation and rumor-mongering. Not just because these have no place in responsible public health reporting, but because misinformation has effects.
In this case, these include both the fanning of violent xenophobia —as we’ve already seen in the case of, for example, Senegalese-American boys in the Bronx being beaten up while their attackers shouted “Ebola!” (Gothamist, 10/27/14)—and the individual and societal problems resulting from a misunderstanding of relative risk.
The full article is available here
Thursday, November 13, 2014
“Distancing” From Democratic Policies Caused Democrats To Lose - Dave Johnson at Our Future
For some reason, Democrats candidates didn't seem to consider the possibility that
maybe being embarrassed to be a Democrat is not the
best way to appeal to the Democratic voters.
In the recent midterm elections, progressive policies won at the ballot box, while many Democratic candidates lost.
Many of those Democratic candidates ran on “centrist” (i.e. “corporate”) platforms that distanced themselves from core Democratic policies and positions. Now they are learning that lots of Democrats decided not to vote for them, while the Republicans they were trying to appeal to still voted for Republicans.
Oddly, despite Obama's overall success, candidates chose to distance themselves from their own President and many of his progressive policies — like health care reform, protecting the environment, and giving the millions of immigrants who are here without documentation a path to legal residence and citizenship.
Granted, the right wing media and Republicans in Congress who are beholden to it have been on a 6 year, scorched-earth campaign to smear the Obama brand; irrespective of factual accuracy or how he has actually performed as President.
But for some reason, Democrats candidates didn't seem to consider the possibility that maybe being embarrassed to be a Democrat is not the best way to appeal to the Democratic voters.
Voters who elected Obama in 2008 and 2012 expected delivery on change appropriate to the 21st century. The fact that the Democratic members in both houses failed to get behind the President when they had the votes to deliver changes in Education, Healthcare, and Energy Policies is not only bad governing, it's bad campaign strategy.
The full article is available here
In the recent midterm elections, progressive policies won at the ballot box, while many Democratic candidates lost.
Many of those Democratic candidates ran on “centrist” (i.e. “corporate”) platforms that distanced themselves from core Democratic policies and positions. Now they are learning that lots of Democrats decided not to vote for them, while the Republicans they were trying to appeal to still voted for Republicans.
Oddly, despite Obama's overall success, candidates chose to distance themselves from their own President and many of his progressive policies — like health care reform, protecting the environment, and giving the millions of immigrants who are here without documentation a path to legal residence and citizenship.
Granted, the right wing media and Republicans in Congress who are beholden to it have been on a 6 year, scorched-earth campaign to smear the Obama brand; irrespective of factual accuracy or how he has actually performed as President.
But for some reason, Democrats candidates didn't seem to consider the possibility that maybe being embarrassed to be a Democrat is not the best way to appeal to the Democratic voters.
Voters who elected Obama in 2008 and 2012 expected delivery on change appropriate to the 21st century. The fact that the Democratic members in both houses failed to get behind the President when they had the votes to deliver changes in Education, Healthcare, and Energy Policies is not only bad governing, it's bad campaign strategy.
The full article is available here
Friday, November 7, 2014
Yearning for a World of Love and Justice - Rabbi Michael Lerner in Tikkun
To successfully transform our society from its current obsession with acquiring material goods, we need to help connect people with their deepest yearnings for a world of meaning and purpose.
We live in a world filled with loving and caring people. We all crave a world filled with love and care.
Yet most of us doubt that we can experience a loving and caring world beyond our own private lives and homes.
Why? Because the ethos of the capitalist marketplace, which places greatest value on money and power, has infiltrated our personal lives, shaping our unconscious and conscious beliefs about “human nature.”
In the economic marketplace we are taught to look out for ourselves, maximize our profits, and do what we need to do to get ahead. Predictably, we then build walls around us to protect ourselves. The powerful drive within all of us to be loving and caring seems so “unrealistic” in this situation.
To successfully transform our society from its current obsession with acquiring material goods, we need to help connect people with their deepest yearnings for a world of meaning and purpose. We need to place priority on the extent to which institutions and policies nurture our capacity to respond to other human beings as embodiments of the sacred and to respond to the grandeur of the universe with gratitude, awe, and wonder.
Then we will begin to rebuild trust in each other’s goodness and start to believe that compassion and kindness can flourish not only in our homes but in our communities and our workplaces as well.
The full article is available here
We live in a world filled with loving and caring people. We all crave a world filled with love and care.
Yet most of us doubt that we can experience a loving and caring world beyond our own private lives and homes.
Why? Because the ethos of the capitalist marketplace, which places greatest value on money and power, has infiltrated our personal lives, shaping our unconscious and conscious beliefs about “human nature.”
In the economic marketplace we are taught to look out for ourselves, maximize our profits, and do what we need to do to get ahead. Predictably, we then build walls around us to protect ourselves. The powerful drive within all of us to be loving and caring seems so “unrealistic” in this situation.
To successfully transform our society from its current obsession with acquiring material goods, we need to help connect people with their deepest yearnings for a world of meaning and purpose. We need to place priority on the extent to which institutions and policies nurture our capacity to respond to other human beings as embodiments of the sacred and to respond to the grandeur of the universe with gratitude, awe, and wonder.
Then we will begin to rebuild trust in each other’s goodness and start to believe that compassion and kindness can flourish not only in our homes but in our communities and our workplaces as well.
The full article is available here
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Obama's Failure to Communicate - David Corn in Mother Jones
Republicans (many of whom don't want government to be considered as an
effective tool) benefit from public disgust—even if their constant obstructionism causes the sclerosis.
Obama has faced a structural problem. He hasn't been able to vanquish Republican obstructionism on his own. The anti-government forces of the GOP were in the happy position of knowing that if voters viewed Washington as dysfunctional Obama would bear much of that taint. Republicans (many of whom don't want government to be considered as an effective tool) would benefit from public disgust—even if their constant opposition caused the sclerosis.
The president and his party did not effectively present a competing story to counter the vague, fear-mongering, competence-challenging attacks Republicans mounted against Obama and his party. Referring to its messaging efforts, one Obama adviser recently told me, "We suck. We're good during the campaign when people are focused. It's hard when they are not."
Obama and his team succeeded in transforming campaigning, integrating an intense focus on data and metrics with on-the-ground organizing. And they did it twice. But the president has not transformed politics. To beat back the expected oppositional waves of 2010 and 2014, he needed a playbook as unconventional, imaginative, and effective as those he used in 2008 and 2012.
Perhaps it is nearly impossible for a president and his aides to govern well in difficult times (crafting complex and often not fully satisfying responses to knotty problems at home and abroad) and promote clear political messaging that consistently cuts through the chaff and connects with stressed-out voters freaked out about the future.
Yet elections work…for those who use them. And angry Republicans have once again taken advantage of Democratic disaffection, disappointment, apathy, or whatever. Now, in part because Obama could not convince voters in Iowa, Colorado, and elsewhere to stick with him and the policies he champions, many of his accomplishments are at risk, and the nation faces the prospect of more gridlock and chaos in Washington.
The full article is available here
Obama has faced a structural problem. He hasn't been able to vanquish Republican obstructionism on his own. The anti-government forces of the GOP were in the happy position of knowing that if voters viewed Washington as dysfunctional Obama would bear much of that taint. Republicans (many of whom don't want government to be considered as an effective tool) would benefit from public disgust—even if their constant opposition caused the sclerosis.
The president and his party did not effectively present a competing story to counter the vague, fear-mongering, competence-challenging attacks Republicans mounted against Obama and his party. Referring to its messaging efforts, one Obama adviser recently told me, "We suck. We're good during the campaign when people are focused. It's hard when they are not."
Obama and his team succeeded in transforming campaigning, integrating an intense focus on data and metrics with on-the-ground organizing. And they did it twice. But the president has not transformed politics. To beat back the expected oppositional waves of 2010 and 2014, he needed a playbook as unconventional, imaginative, and effective as those he used in 2008 and 2012.
Perhaps it is nearly impossible for a president and his aides to govern well in difficult times (crafting complex and often not fully satisfying responses to knotty problems at home and abroad) and promote clear political messaging that consistently cuts through the chaff and connects with stressed-out voters freaked out about the future.
Yet elections work…for those who use them. And angry Republicans have once again taken advantage of Democratic disaffection, disappointment, apathy, or whatever. Now, in part because Obama could not convince voters in Iowa, Colorado, and elsewhere to stick with him and the policies he champions, many of his accomplishments are at risk, and the nation faces the prospect of more gridlock and chaos in Washington.
The full article is available here
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Conservative Judge Rips Voter ID Laws - Brad Friedman in Salon
Conservative icon/federal judge changes mind on photo ID laws, issues blistering dissent against them.
Judge Richard Posner, the Reagan-appointed 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge, was the one who approved the first such Photo ID law in the country (Indiana’s) back in 2008, in the landmark Crawford v. Marion County case which went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Posner’s ruling was upheld.
His dissent includes a devastating response to virtually every false and/or disingenuous right wing argument/talking point ever put forth in support of Photo ID voting restrictions, describing them as “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government.”
This opinion, written on behalf of five judges on the 7th Circuit, thoroughly disabuses such notions such as:
Judge Richard Posner, the Reagan-appointed 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge, was the one who approved the first such Photo ID law in the country (Indiana’s) back in 2008, in the landmark Crawford v. Marion County case which went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Posner’s ruling was upheld.
His dissent includes a devastating response to virtually every false and/or disingenuous right wing argument/talking point ever put forth in support of Photo ID voting restrictions, describing them as “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government.”
This opinion, written on behalf of five judges on the 7th Circuit, thoroughly disabuses such notions such as:
- these laws are meant to deal
with a phantom voter fraud concern (“Out of 146 million registered
voters, this is a ratio of one case of voter fraud for every 14.6
million eligible voters”);
- that evidence shows them to be little more
than baldly partisan attempts to keep Democratic voters from voting
(“conservative states try to make it difficult for people who are
outside the mainstream…to vote”);
- that rightwing partisan outfits like True the Vote,
which support such laws, present “evidence” of impersonation fraud that
is “downright goofy, if not paranoid”;
- and the notion that even though
there is virtually zero fraud that could even possibly be deterred by Photo ID restrictions, the fact that the public thinks there
is, is a lousy reason to disenfranchise voters since there is no
evidence that such laws actually increase public confidence in elections
and, as new studies now reveal, such laws have indeed served to suppress turnout in states where they have been enacted.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Why Travel Ban Would Only Make Ebola Worse - Julia Belluz in Vox
Public health experts unanimously agree: sealing borders will not stop Ebola spread and will only exacerbate the crisis in West Africa — and heighten the risk of a global pandemic.
As Ebola panic peaks, conspiracy theories are spreading fast. So now is the time when we need to check our irrational reactions to this horrible crisis and avoid policies that will divert scarce resources from actual remedies. And we know from past experience that airport screening and travel bans are more about quelling the public's fears and political expediency than offering any real boost to public health security.
Public health experts unanimously agree: sealing borders will not stop Ebola spread and will only exacerbate the crisis in West Africa — and heighten the risk of a global pandemic.
There are three reasons why it's a crazy idea. The first is that it just won't work to stop the virus. The weeks following 9/11, when people stopped getting on planes, provided influenza researchers with a natural experiment in what a travel ban might do to viral spread. They found it didn't stop influenza from moving, it only delayed flu season by a couple of weeks.
In CDC Director Tom Freiden's words, "Even when governments restrict travel and trade, people in affected countries still find a way to move and it is even harder to track them systematically." In other words, determined people will find a way to cross borders anyway, but unlike at airports, we can't track their movements.
The second reason a travel ban won't work is that it would actually make stopping the outbreak in West Africa more difficult. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,said, "To completely seal off and don't let planes in or out of the West African countries involved, then you could paradoxically make things much worse in the sense that you can't get supplies in, you can't get help in, you can't get the kinds of things in there that we need to contain the epidemic."
The third reason closing borders is a bad idea is that it will devastate the economies of West Africa and further destroy the limited health systems there. The World Bank already estimates this outbreak could cost West African economies up to $33 billion. That's a lot for any country, but especially when you're talking about some of the world's poorest. World Health Organization director Margaret Chan reminded us that 90 percent of any outbreak's economic costs "come from irrational and disorganized efforts of the public to avoid infection."
The full article is available here
Monday, October 6, 2014
Students, Teachers Turn Out in Force Against Censorship of History - Deidre Fulton in Common Dreams
The proposal—to establish a committee that would review course materials to ensure they promote patriotism and avoid encouragement of "civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law"—was the catalyst for two weeks of student walk-outs and teacher 'sick-outs.'
Several hundred students, community members, and educators packed a Jefferson County Board of Education meeting in suburban Denver on Thursday night, lambasting the conservative-majority board's proposal to censor the district’s history curriculum.
The proposal—to establish a committee that would review course materials to ensure they promote patriotism and avoid encouragement of "civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law"—was the catalyst for two weeks of student walk-outs and teacher 'sick-outs,' the latter of which closed several high schools on two days in September.
While board member Julie Williams, who has cited the Texas Board of Education as a model, refused to recall the proposal entirely, the protests appeared to have brought about a partial victory.
"The controversy over a history curriculum in Colorado is an argument over a very much bigger issue," public education expert Jeff Bryant wrote Thursday at the Education Opportunity Network blog.
Several hundred students, community members, and educators packed a Jefferson County Board of Education meeting in suburban Denver on Thursday night, lambasting the conservative-majority board's proposal to censor the district’s history curriculum.
The proposal—to establish a committee that would review course materials to ensure they promote patriotism and avoid encouragement of "civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law"—was the catalyst for two weeks of student walk-outs and teacher 'sick-outs,' the latter of which closed several high schools on two days in September.
While board member Julie Williams, who has cited the Texas Board of Education as a model, refused to recall the proposal entirely, the protests appeared to have brought about a partial victory.
"The controversy over a history curriculum in Colorado is an argument over a very much bigger issue," public education expert Jeff Bryant wrote Thursday at the Education Opportunity Network blog.
"It’s about how we’re treating our nation’s youngest citizens with a substandard form of education that emphasizes fiscal efficiency over learning opportunity and standardization over individual needs and interests. And it’s about how we treat students as learners, imposing education as something done to them rather than with them."
The full article is available here
The full article is available here
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Reza Aslan Takes Down Bill Maher’s “Facile Arguments” On Islam - Prachi Gupta in Salon
“To say Muslim countries, as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same… it’s frankly, and I use this word seriously, stupid!”
Comedian Bill Maher recently made some comments about Islamic countries that characterized them as more prone to violence, misogyny and bigotry, and now religious scholar Reza Aslan has called Maher out on his own “bigotry.”
These arguments are not unique to Maher, making Aslan’s nuanced argument an essential one to keep in mind as we increase military action in the Middle East.
Here’s Aslan’s point: “To say Muslim countries, as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same… it’s frankly, and I use this word seriously, stupid!”
“The problem is that you’re talking about a religion of one and a half billion people,” he explained, “and certainly it becomes very easy to just simply paint them all with a single brush by saying, ‘Well in Saudi Arabia [women] can’t drive,’ and saying that’s representative of Islam. That’s representative of Saudi Arabia.”
Saudi Arabia’s laws are “extremist,” he noted, not just to Westerners, but even within the “the rights and responsibilities of Muslim women around the world.”
He also pointed out the U.S.’s own hypocrisy in calling out ISIS for its brutality while partnering with Saudi Arabia: “Look, Saudi Arabia is one of the most, if not the most, extremist countries in the world. In the month that we’ve been talking about ISIS and their terrible actions in Iraq and Syria, Saudi Arabia, our closest ally, has beheaded 19 people.”
Aslan explained, “Islam doesn’t promote violence or peace. Islam is just a religion, and like every religion in the world, it depends on what you bring to it. If you’re a violent person, your Islam, your Judaism, your Christianity, your Hinduism, is going to be violent.”
The full article is available here
Comedian Bill Maher recently made some comments about Islamic countries that characterized them as more prone to violence, misogyny and bigotry, and now religious scholar Reza Aslan has called Maher out on his own “bigotry.”
These arguments are not unique to Maher, making Aslan’s nuanced argument an essential one to keep in mind as we increase military action in the Middle East.
Here’s Aslan’s point: “To say Muslim countries, as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same… it’s frankly, and I use this word seriously, stupid!”
“The problem is that you’re talking about a religion of one and a half billion people,” he explained, “and certainly it becomes very easy to just simply paint them all with a single brush by saying, ‘Well in Saudi Arabia [women] can’t drive,’ and saying that’s representative of Islam. That’s representative of Saudi Arabia.”
Saudi Arabia’s laws are “extremist,” he noted, not just to Westerners, but even within the “the rights and responsibilities of Muslim women around the world.”
He also pointed out the U.S.’s own hypocrisy in calling out ISIS for its brutality while partnering with Saudi Arabia: “Look, Saudi Arabia is one of the most, if not the most, extremist countries in the world. In the month that we’ve been talking about ISIS and their terrible actions in Iraq and Syria, Saudi Arabia, our closest ally, has beheaded 19 people.”
Aslan explained, “Islam doesn’t promote violence or peace. Islam is just a religion, and like every religion in the world, it depends on what you bring to it. If you’re a violent person, your Islam, your Judaism, your Christianity, your Hinduism, is going to be violent.”
The full article is available here
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Who’s Paying the Pro-War Pundits? Lee Fang in The Nation
Talking heads like former General Jack Keane are all over the news media
fanning fears of ISIL. Shouldn’t the public know about their links to
Pentagon contractors?
If you read enough news and watch enough cable television about the threat of the Islamic State, the radical Sunni Muslim militia group better known simply as ISIL, you will inevitably encounter a parade of retired generals demanding an increased US military presence in the region.
But what you won’t learn from media coverage of IS is that many of these former Pentagon officials have skin in the game as paid directors and advisers to some of the largest military contractors in the world.
Ramping up America’s military presence in Iraq and directly entering the war in Syria, along with greater military spending more broadly, is a debatable solution to a complex political and sectarian conflict. But those goals do unquestionably benefit one player in this saga: America’s defense industry.
Keane is a great example of this phenomenon. His think tank, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which he oversees along with neoconservative partisans Liz Cheney and William Kristol, has provided the data on IS used for multiple stories by The New York Times, the BBC and other leading outlets.
Retired General Anthony Zinni, perhaps the loudest advocate of a large deployment of American soliders into the region to fight IS, is a board member to BAE Systems’ US subsidiary, and also works for several military-focused private equity firms.
CNN pundit Frances Townsend, a former Bush administration official, has recently appeared on television calling for more military engagement against IS. As the Public Accountability Initiative, a nonprofit that studies elite power structures, reported, Townsend “holds positions in two investment firms with defense company holdings, MacAndrews & Forbes and Monument Capital Group, and serves as an advisor to defense contractor Decision Sciences.”
“Mainstream news outlets have a polite practice of identifying former generals and former congressmembers as simply ‘formers’—neglecting to inform the public of what these individuals are doing now, which is often quite pertinent information, like that they are corporate lobbyists or board members,” says Jeff Cohen, an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College.
The full article is available here
If you read enough news and watch enough cable television about the threat of the Islamic State, the radical Sunni Muslim militia group better known simply as ISIL, you will inevitably encounter a parade of retired generals demanding an increased US military presence in the region.
But what you won’t learn from media coverage of IS is that many of these former Pentagon officials have skin in the game as paid directors and advisers to some of the largest military contractors in the world.
Ramping up America’s military presence in Iraq and directly entering the war in Syria, along with greater military spending more broadly, is a debatable solution to a complex political and sectarian conflict. But those goals do unquestionably benefit one player in this saga: America’s defense industry.
Keane is a great example of this phenomenon. His think tank, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which he oversees along with neoconservative partisans Liz Cheney and William Kristol, has provided the data on IS used for multiple stories by The New York Times, the BBC and other leading outlets.
Retired General Anthony Zinni, perhaps the loudest advocate of a large deployment of American soliders into the region to fight IS, is a board member to BAE Systems’ US subsidiary, and also works for several military-focused private equity firms.
CNN pundit Frances Townsend, a former Bush administration official, has recently appeared on television calling for more military engagement against IS. As the Public Accountability Initiative, a nonprofit that studies elite power structures, reported, Townsend “holds positions in two investment firms with defense company holdings, MacAndrews & Forbes and Monument Capital Group, and serves as an advisor to defense contractor Decision Sciences.”
“Mainstream news outlets have a polite practice of identifying former generals and former congressmembers as simply ‘formers’—neglecting to inform the public of what these individuals are doing now, which is often quite pertinent information, like that they are corporate lobbyists or board members,” says Jeff Cohen, an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College.
The full article is available here
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Six Steps To Beat ISIS Without War - Phyllis Bennis in Foreign Policy In Focus
There is no military solution to the problem of ISIS. Military actions will not set the stage for political solutions; they will prevent those solutions from taking hold.
The bottom line is there is no immediate action that will make ISIS disappear. You can’t destroy an ideology—or even an organization—through bombing
As horrifying as the beheading of the two U.S. journalists was, revenge is never a good basis for foreign policy.A military strike might bring some immediate satisfaction, but we all know revenge is a bad basis for foreign policy, especially when it has such dangerous consequences.
We have to recognize that military solutions really don’t work. Have we forgotten the failures of the U.S. wars in the Middle East over these many years? We need to keep our focus on the medium- and long-term solutions, something not so easy to do in an election year.
Weakening ISIS requires eroding the support it relies on from tribal leaders, military figures, and ordinary Iraqi Sunnis.
Step One: Stop the airstrikes. Airstrikes defeat the important goal of ending popular support for ISIS, and instead actually serve to strengthen the extremist organization.
Step Two: Make real the commitment for “No boots on the ground.” The U.S. must also stop flooding the region with arms that only result in more violence against civilians, and end its policy of ignoring the violations of human rights and international law committed by its allies.
Step Three: Organize a real diplomatic partnership to deal with ISIS. Iran has more influence in Baghdad than Washington does. If we are serious about wanting to encourage the Iraqi government to accept a truly more inclusive approach, joint pressure from the U.S. and Iran holds the best chance.
Step Four: Initiate a new search for broader diplomatic solutions in the United Nations. That means working to build a real coalition aimed at using diplomatic and financial pressures, not military strikes, at the international level in both Iraq and Syria.
Step Five: Push the UN, despite Lakhdar Brahimi’s resignation, to restart real negotiations on ending the civil war in Syria. That means everyone involved needs to be at the table
Step Six: Massively increase U.S. humanitarian contributions to U.N. agencies for the millions of refugees and displaced people from both Syria and Iraq. The U.S. has pledged significant funds, but much of it has not actually been made available to the agencies, and more should be pledged and given.
The full article is available here
The bottom line is there is no immediate action that will make ISIS disappear. You can’t destroy an ideology—or even an organization—through bombing
As horrifying as the beheading of the two U.S. journalists was, revenge is never a good basis for foreign policy.A military strike might bring some immediate satisfaction, but we all know revenge is a bad basis for foreign policy, especially when it has such dangerous consequences.
We have to recognize that military solutions really don’t work. Have we forgotten the failures of the U.S. wars in the Middle East over these many years? We need to keep our focus on the medium- and long-term solutions, something not so easy to do in an election year.
Weakening ISIS requires eroding the support it relies on from tribal leaders, military figures, and ordinary Iraqi Sunnis.
Step One: Stop the airstrikes. Airstrikes defeat the important goal of ending popular support for ISIS, and instead actually serve to strengthen the extremist organization.
Step Two: Make real the commitment for “No boots on the ground.” The U.S. must also stop flooding the region with arms that only result in more violence against civilians, and end its policy of ignoring the violations of human rights and international law committed by its allies.
Step Three: Organize a real diplomatic partnership to deal with ISIS. Iran has more influence in Baghdad than Washington does. If we are serious about wanting to encourage the Iraqi government to accept a truly more inclusive approach, joint pressure from the U.S. and Iran holds the best chance.
Step Four: Initiate a new search for broader diplomatic solutions in the United Nations. That means working to build a real coalition aimed at using diplomatic and financial pressures, not military strikes, at the international level in both Iraq and Syria.
Step Five: Push the UN, despite Lakhdar Brahimi’s resignation, to restart real negotiations on ending the civil war in Syria. That means everyone involved needs to be at the table
Step Six: Massively increase U.S. humanitarian contributions to U.N. agencies for the millions of refugees and displaced people from both Syria and Iraq. The U.S. has pledged significant funds, but much of it has not actually been made available to the agencies, and more should be pledged and given.
The full article is available here
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
The Truth About Sharia Law - Kevin Eckstrom in Religion News Service
Often what we try to ban is the very same thing we do not understand.
The story of Shariah in Indonesia's Aceh province is a telling lesson that what we think we know of Islamic law is often more complicated and nuanced in reality. It is the only province in the world’s most populous Muslim nation to impose Shariah.
But why was Shariah introduced in the first place?
Simple: politics.
Government officials in Jakarta were trying to delegitimize the separatist movement in Aceh, and by linking them with images of hard-line Islamic law, Jakarta calculated that the rebels would lose support at home and (especially) abroad.
Shariah is a daily fact of life in Aceh. But what does that actually mean?
For one, alcohol is hard to find, and public drunkenness is punishable by 40 lashes (how intense of a lash may be a matter of dispute between one end of the whip and the other). Intimate relations between unmarried adults can get you nine lashes, and gambling between 12 and 16. All Muslim women must wear a hijab in public. According to the Shariah Court, 53 cases were heard last year, down from 72 in 2012.
In more extreme (and rare) cases, human rights activists say women have been raped for suspected adultery, and proposals for implementing Shariah law have ranged from forcing women to ride side-saddle on motorbikes to requiring four witnesses to prove a rape.
But it’s important to note that Shariah law is only applied to Muslims; there is little to no threat of foreigners or non-Muslims being subjected to Shariah punishments. If you want a beer at your hotel, you can easily find one. Non-Muslim women can walk freely with their heads uncovered (except in a mosque).
The bottom line is that the imposition of Shariah was a cynical political ploy — and it worked. There were, and are, no wild-eyed fanatics seeking to impose their religious laws on other faiths. There is no Taliban running amok, guns blazing. Here, at least, Shariah mostly works in a democratic context, however imperfectly.
Back in America, a handful of states have moved to ban “foreign laws” from the courts — and by “foreign laws” they really mean Shariah. That, too, is a cynical political ploy designed to rally the base and alienate the opposition.
Too often, when we talk about Islam, we overlap religion with politics, or we see Islam through the distorted lens of Middle East turmoil or puritanical Arab culture. Still reeling from the trauma of 9/11, we project our own fears and misconceptions onto others, sometimes for our own purposes (political or otherwise).
Let’s be clear: Islam has its share of problems, as does Shariah. But often what we try to ban is the very same thing we do not understand. We see things in extremes, and fail to consider political, cultural or historical factors that shape the current context. When you pull back the veil a bit, you may be surprised by what you find.
The full article is available here
The story of Shariah in Indonesia's Aceh province is a telling lesson that what we think we know of Islamic law is often more complicated and nuanced in reality. It is the only province in the world’s most populous Muslim nation to impose Shariah.
But why was Shariah introduced in the first place?
Simple: politics.
Government officials in Jakarta were trying to delegitimize the separatist movement in Aceh, and by linking them with images of hard-line Islamic law, Jakarta calculated that the rebels would lose support at home and (especially) abroad.
Shariah is a daily fact of life in Aceh. But what does that actually mean?
For one, alcohol is hard to find, and public drunkenness is punishable by 40 lashes (how intense of a lash may be a matter of dispute between one end of the whip and the other). Intimate relations between unmarried adults can get you nine lashes, and gambling between 12 and 16. All Muslim women must wear a hijab in public. According to the Shariah Court, 53 cases were heard last year, down from 72 in 2012.
In more extreme (and rare) cases, human rights activists say women have been raped for suspected adultery, and proposals for implementing Shariah law have ranged from forcing women to ride side-saddle on motorbikes to requiring four witnesses to prove a rape.
But it’s important to note that Shariah law is only applied to Muslims; there is little to no threat of foreigners or non-Muslims being subjected to Shariah punishments. If you want a beer at your hotel, you can easily find one. Non-Muslim women can walk freely with their heads uncovered (except in a mosque).
The bottom line is that the imposition of Shariah was a cynical political ploy — and it worked. There were, and are, no wild-eyed fanatics seeking to impose their religious laws on other faiths. There is no Taliban running amok, guns blazing. Here, at least, Shariah mostly works in a democratic context, however imperfectly.
Back in America, a handful of states have moved to ban “foreign laws” from the courts — and by “foreign laws” they really mean Shariah. That, too, is a cynical political ploy designed to rally the base and alienate the opposition.
Too often, when we talk about Islam, we overlap religion with politics, or we see Islam through the distorted lens of Middle East turmoil or puritanical Arab culture. Still reeling from the trauma of 9/11, we project our own fears and misconceptions onto others, sometimes for our own purposes (political or otherwise).
Let’s be clear: Islam has its share of problems, as does Shariah. But often what we try to ban is the very same thing we do not understand. We see things in extremes, and fail to consider political, cultural or historical factors that shape the current context. When you pull back the veil a bit, you may be surprised by what you find.
The full article is available here
Friday, September 5, 2014
ISIS Is America's Legacy in Middle East - Tom Engelhardt in Mother Jones
Though the militants of ISIS would undoubtedly be horrified to think so, they are the spawn of Washington. 13 years of regional war, occupation, and intervention played a major role in clearing the ground for them.
When you think about it, from the moment the first bombs began falling on Afghanistan in October 2001 to the present, not a single US military intervention has had anything like its intended effect.
Each one has, in time, proven a disaster in its own special way, providing breeding grounds for extremism and producing yet another set of recruitment posters for yet another set of jihadist movements. Looked at in a clear-eyed way, this is what any American military intervention seems to offer such extremist outfits—and ISIS knows it.
All in all, the invasions, the occupations, the drone campaigns in several lands, the deaths that ran into the hundreds of thousands, the uprooting of millions of people sent into external or internal exile, the expending of trillions of dollars added up to a bin Laden dreamscape. They would prove jihadist recruitment tools par excellence.
Though the militants of ISIS would undoubtedly be horrified to think so, they are the spawn of Washington. Thirteen years of regional war, occupation, and intervention played a major role in clearing the ground for them. They may be our worst nightmare (thus far), but they are also our legacy—and not just because so many of their leaders came from the Iraqi army we disbanded, had their beliefs and skills honed in the prisons we set up (Camp Bucca seems to have been the West Point of Iraqi extremism), and gained experience facing US counterterror operations in the "surge" years of the occupation.
In fact, just about everything done in the war on terror has facilitated their rise. After all, we dismantled the Iraqi army and rebuilt one that would flee at the first signs of ISIS's fighters, abandoning vast stores of Washington's weaponry to them. We essentially destroyed the Iraqi state, while fostering a Shia leader who would oppress enough Sunnis in enough ways to create a situation in which ISIS would be welcomed or tolerated throughout significant areas of the country.
Americans prefer to believe that all problems have solutions. There may, however, be no obvious or at least immediate solution when it comes to ISIS, an organization based on exclusivity and divisiveness in a region that couldn't be more divided.
But we do have reasonable evidence from the past 13 years of what an escalating American military intervention is likely to do: not whatever it is that Washington wants it to do.
The full article is available here
When you think about it, from the moment the first bombs began falling on Afghanistan in October 2001 to the present, not a single US military intervention has had anything like its intended effect.
Each one has, in time, proven a disaster in its own special way, providing breeding grounds for extremism and producing yet another set of recruitment posters for yet another set of jihadist movements. Looked at in a clear-eyed way, this is what any American military intervention seems to offer such extremist outfits—and ISIS knows it.
All in all, the invasions, the occupations, the drone campaigns in several lands, the deaths that ran into the hundreds of thousands, the uprooting of millions of people sent into external or internal exile, the expending of trillions of dollars added up to a bin Laden dreamscape. They would prove jihadist recruitment tools par excellence.
Though the militants of ISIS would undoubtedly be horrified to think so, they are the spawn of Washington. Thirteen years of regional war, occupation, and intervention played a major role in clearing the ground for them. They may be our worst nightmare (thus far), but they are also our legacy—and not just because so many of their leaders came from the Iraqi army we disbanded, had their beliefs and skills honed in the prisons we set up (Camp Bucca seems to have been the West Point of Iraqi extremism), and gained experience facing US counterterror operations in the "surge" years of the occupation.
In fact, just about everything done in the war on terror has facilitated their rise. After all, we dismantled the Iraqi army and rebuilt one that would flee at the first signs of ISIS's fighters, abandoning vast stores of Washington's weaponry to them. We essentially destroyed the Iraqi state, while fostering a Shia leader who would oppress enough Sunnis in enough ways to create a situation in which ISIS would be welcomed or tolerated throughout significant areas of the country.
Americans prefer to believe that all problems have solutions. There may, however, be no obvious or at least immediate solution when it comes to ISIS, an organization based on exclusivity and divisiveness in a region that couldn't be more divided.
But we do have reasonable evidence from the past 13 years of what an escalating American military intervention is likely to do: not whatever it is that Washington wants it to do.
The full article is available here
Monday, August 18, 2014
From Left & Right: Calls to Demilitarize Police - John Nichols in The Nation
The restructuring of local police departments into what look like occupying military forces has become a national trend. Democratic and Republican members of Congress have begun to step up on the issue.
When Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill called this week for the "demilitarization" of Ferguson, Missouri, she could have been talking about hundreds of other communities across the country.
In recent years, as the American Civil Liberties Union details in its remarkable new report, "War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing," the restructuring of local police departments into what look like occupying military forces has become "a nationwide trend."
That trend was illustrated for America and the world by scenes from Ferguson where, after a police officer shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, tensions flared. Local police met protests not just with extreme tactics -- including the detention of journalists and the arrest of an elected alderman from neighboring St. Louis -- but with armored vehicles, heavy weapons and a show of military force that made matters worse.
With a bluntness that is rare for a U.S. Senator addressing the circumstances in a community in her state, McCaskill argued that "this kind of response by the police has become the problem instead of the solution."
"Since the 1980's the US government has enabled the militarization of the police force as part of its so-called War on Drugs. Post 9/11 politics opened the flood gates with grants from the federal government to prepare for the imminent terrorist threat.
Now, as combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have ended, the Pentagon is literally giving battlefield hardware away," says Kevin Martin, executive director of Peace Action, which has organized a campaign to press members of Congress on the issue. "The militarism of policing – both in terms of weaponry and tactics – is a threat to our freedom as great as any coming from outside our borders. It's time to put it to a stop."
Democratic and Republican members of Congress have begun to step up on the issue.
The full article is available here
When Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill called this week for the "demilitarization" of Ferguson, Missouri, she could have been talking about hundreds of other communities across the country.
In recent years, as the American Civil Liberties Union details in its remarkable new report, "War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing," the restructuring of local police departments into what look like occupying military forces has become "a nationwide trend."
That trend was illustrated for America and the world by scenes from Ferguson where, after a police officer shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, tensions flared. Local police met protests not just with extreme tactics -- including the detention of journalists and the arrest of an elected alderman from neighboring St. Louis -- but with armored vehicles, heavy weapons and a show of military force that made matters worse.
With a bluntness that is rare for a U.S. Senator addressing the circumstances in a community in her state, McCaskill argued that "this kind of response by the police has become the problem instead of the solution."
"Since the 1980's the US government has enabled the militarization of the police force as part of its so-called War on Drugs. Post 9/11 politics opened the flood gates with grants from the federal government to prepare for the imminent terrorist threat.
Now, as combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have ended, the Pentagon is literally giving battlefield hardware away," says Kevin Martin, executive director of Peace Action, which has organized a campaign to press members of Congress on the issue. "The militarism of policing – both in terms of weaponry and tactics – is a threat to our freedom as great as any coming from outside our borders. It's time to put it to a stop."
Democratic and Republican members of Congress have begun to step up on the issue.
The full article is available here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



























