Pennsylvania's Kickback Judges
Ruining Young Lives for Profit
By NICOLE COLSON
"I felt like I had been thrown into some surreal sort of nightmare. All I wanted to know was how this could be fair, and why the judge would do such a thing."
Hillary Transue had good reason to question how the judge overseeing her case could have to come to the decision he did.
In 2007, after a hearing lasting just 90 seconds, the 17-year-old found herself hauled away from court in handcuffs and thrown into a juvenile detention center. She was sentenced to three months for the crime of harassment after she created a mock site on the social networking Web site MySpace that made fun of the assistant principal at her high school.
The sentence was incredibly harsh considering that Hillary was a stellar student who had never been in trouble before--and that she put a disclaimer on the site itself stating that it was a joke.
But now, it's clear why Hillary and hundreds of other kids like her received sentences in a juvenile detention center that were totally disproportionate to their crime.
In a word: money.
Earlier this month, two Luzerne County, Pa., judges--Mark Ciavarella Jr. and Michael Conahan--pled guilty to taking $2.6 million in kickbacks in exchange for throwing juveniles into two for-profit private detention centers, PA Child Care and a sister company, Western PA Child Care. Under a plea agreement, both judges will serve 87 months in federal prison and be disbarred.
* * *
BEGINNING IN late 2002, Conahan, as the president judge in control of the budget, and Ciavarella, overseeing the juvenile courts, moved to close the county-run juvenile detention center, arguing that it was run-down. They argued that the county had no choice but to send juveniles to the then newly built PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care.
The two facilities, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "are [partially] owned by Greg Zappala, brother of Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. and son of former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Stephen A. Zappala Sr."
Conahan apparently secured contracts worth tens of millions of dollars for the two facilities to house juveniles, while Ciavarella made sure the centers stayed full--by railroading vulnerable teens into the centers after trials that sometimes lasted just a minute or two.
In the state of Pennsylvania, juvenile proceedings are closed to the public, and teens can waive their right to counsel at trial. It appears as though some of those who appeared in front of Ciavarella unknowingly waived their right to counsel--only to find themselves suddenly locked up after the abbreviated hearings.
In one case, a 17-year-old who stole a bottle of nutmeg appeared without a lawyer before Ciavarella--and ended up spending more than seven months at three different detention facilities.
Jamie Quinn, was sent away to PA Child Care and several other detention centers for 11 months when she was just 14 years old, after she got in a fight with a friend, and they both slapped each other. "[A]ll that happened was just a basic fight," Quinn told Democracy Now's Amy Goodman. "She slapped me in the face, and I did the same thing back. There [were] no marks, no witnesses, nothing. It was just her word against my word."
The effect on her life was devastating. "People looked at me different when I came out, thought I was a bad person, because I was gone for so long," Quinn said. "My family started splitting up...because I was away and got locked up. I'm still struggling in school, because the schooling system in facilities like these places is just horrible."
While in detention, Quinn was forced to take medication and began to suffer depression. She resorted to cutting herself. "I was never depressed," she said. "I was never put on meds before. I went there, and they just started putting meds on me, and I didn't even know what they were. They said if I didn't take them, I wasn't following my program."
Jesse Miers appeared before Ciavarella when he was 17. He had tried to return a stolen gun after seeing a friend's 13-year-old brother wave it around. When he couldn't find the owner, he turned the gun over to his boss, who later handed it over to police.
A year later, Miers was a passenger in a car that was pulled over for a moving violation--and when police checked his name, he was surprised to find he had a warrant for his arrest. Though Miers says he asked for a public defender, none was present at his hearing in front of Judge Ciavarella.
Because he had heard of Ciavarella's reputation for not letting defendants have a chance to speak, Miers asked to be allowed to write a letter to the judge. "I wanted to state my case, but they only gave me five minutes to write it, and the judge didn't even read it anyway," Miers said.
"I had maybe 45 seconds in front of [Ciavarella]," he told the Post-Gazette. "He just said 'Remand him,' and they put me in shackles. I was shackled for 13 hours while I waited for them to take me" in a van from the Luzerne County Courthouse to the juvenile detention center in Allegheny Township, 270 miles away from his home.
* * *
ACCORDING TO the New York Times, youth advocates had been raising concerns about Ciavarella for years. Between 2002 and 2006, Ciavarella sent juvenile defendants to detention centers at 2.5 times greater rate than the state average. Fully a quarter of the children who appeared before him were locked away, and he routinely ignored pleas for leniency, even when they came from prosecutors and court probation officers.
In all, some 5,000 juveniles were sentenced by Ciavarella since the kickback scheme began in 2003. As the Times noted, "Many of them were first-time offenders and some remain in detention."
Moreover, when the Pennsylvania-based Juvenile Law Center began investigating after being contacted by Hillary Transue's mother, it found that Luzerne County had half of all waivers of counsel by young people in juvenile court in Pennsylvania. Despite the fact that the juvenile court in Luzerne County processes about 1,200 juvenile defendants a year, there is just one public defender on staff for juveniles.
"I've never encountered, and I don't think that we will in our lifetimes, a case where literally thousands of kids' lives were just tossed aside in order for a couple of judges to make some money," Marsha Levick, an attorney with the Juvenile Law Center, told the Associated Press.
Clay Yeager, the former director of the Office of Juvenile Justice in Pennsylvania, told the Times that Ciavarella and Conahan shouldn't have gotten away with railroading kids for as long as they did.
Although juvenile hearings are usually kept closed to the public, "they are kept open to probation officers, district attorneys and public defenders, all of whom are sworn to protect the interests of children," said Yeager. "It's pretty clear those people didn't do their jobs."
While both Ciavarella and Conahan are now headed to federal prison, the case exposes the way in which the trend towards privatization in the U.S. prison system has made money for some, at the expense of justice.
For-profit privatized prisons have become commonplace around the U.S. since the 1980s, when an explosion in the prison population due to the "war on drugs" left state facilities overcrowded. Today, corporations like GEO Group, Corrections Corporation of America and others run private facilities that promise to house prisoners for less than states are able to--by paying guards lower wages and fewer benefits, and cutting costs on inmate housing and care.
Whether anyone affiliated with PA Child Care or Western PA Child Care will face punishment for their role in locking up thousands of kids remains to be seen. So far, no official from either detention center has been charged with any crime. In fact, a letter sent last week from U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson to attorneys for the two detention centers stated that their corporate clients aren't the target of a probe and won't be indicted by a grand jury.
Although two class-action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the teens who were wrongfully imprisoned, real justice won't be served as long as PA Child Care and other detention centers like it are allowed to remain open--and as long as the U.S. justice system is set up to prioritize profit over the lives of young people.
Nicole Colson lives in Chicago, where she works as a reporter for the Socialist Worker.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
dennis has a rod, man
WASHINGTON - February 27 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who led the effort in the House of Representatives against the war in Iraq as far back as 2002, today made the following statement after President Obama announced that the combat mission in Iraq will end by August 31, 2010. The President also indicated that between 35-50,000 troops will remain in Iraq to advise and train Iraqi security forces and protect American civilian and military personal.
"I support President Obama for taking a step in the right direction in Iraq, but I do not think that his plan goes far enough. You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can't be in and out at the same time.
"America must determine at some point to end the occupation, close the bases and bring the troops home. We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history where war was waged under false pretense against an innocent people. Taking troops out of Iraq should not mean more troops available for deployment in other operations.
"In February of 2007 I presented H.R. 1234, legislation that would end the war in Iraq, and the process I outlined is still necessary. We should immediately bring home American service members and contractors, convene a regional conference to prepare an international peace-keeping force and accelerate Iraq-driven reconstruction."
Congressman Kucinich led opposition to the Joint Resolution on Iraq, known as the Iraq war resolution, beginning in 2002, and has consistently opposed funding the ongoing war.
this is good stuff from kucinich, but there is a line in here that interested in me. he said "you can't be in and out at the same time." yes, that's true, but it's something that describes kucinich as well. kucinich is in the democratic party, a party of war and capitalism, and yet, he is an also an anti-war and pro-worker voice. hence, he is both in and out at the same time. this is, essentially, a contradiction that kucinich has been living with for years. cynthia mckinney was once a democrat, and has since gone out on her own as an independent political voice. kucinich remains in the fold. it is a curious posture. in any case, he says a lot of good things, and should be recognized for doing so. still, it seems that he should try, along with others of a similar politics, to leave the democratic party and to try to build an independent political party. radical thinkers, progressive media, commnunity activists, and politicians could all come together to make this happen. it will take a ton of work, but at least a spark may ignite that future generations can build on. as it is, kucinich makes a living. that's about it. he's got a little forum where he releases press statements and gets to pretend that he's making a difference. he isn't. this is so because the democratic party, as an institution, is working against the very things that kucinich stands for. good people in bad institutions can't do much good. therefore, the thing to do is to create better institutions.
and it is up to the good people to do that.
kucinich in 2012?
sure.
as long as he's a third party candidate.
that would be fun, because i could go after lindork all over again.
"I support President Obama for taking a step in the right direction in Iraq, but I do not think that his plan goes far enough. You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can't be in and out at the same time.
"America must determine at some point to end the occupation, close the bases and bring the troops home. We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history where war was waged under false pretense against an innocent people. Taking troops out of Iraq should not mean more troops available for deployment in other operations.
"In February of 2007 I presented H.R. 1234, legislation that would end the war in Iraq, and the process I outlined is still necessary. We should immediately bring home American service members and contractors, convene a regional conference to prepare an international peace-keeping force and accelerate Iraq-driven reconstruction."
Congressman Kucinich led opposition to the Joint Resolution on Iraq, known as the Iraq war resolution, beginning in 2002, and has consistently opposed funding the ongoing war.
this is good stuff from kucinich, but there is a line in here that interested in me. he said "you can't be in and out at the same time." yes, that's true, but it's something that describes kucinich as well. kucinich is in the democratic party, a party of war and capitalism, and yet, he is an also an anti-war and pro-worker voice. hence, he is both in and out at the same time. this is, essentially, a contradiction that kucinich has been living with for years. cynthia mckinney was once a democrat, and has since gone out on her own as an independent political voice. kucinich remains in the fold. it is a curious posture. in any case, he says a lot of good things, and should be recognized for doing so. still, it seems that he should try, along with others of a similar politics, to leave the democratic party and to try to build an independent political party. radical thinkers, progressive media, commnunity activists, and politicians could all come together to make this happen. it will take a ton of work, but at least a spark may ignite that future generations can build on. as it is, kucinich makes a living. that's about it. he's got a little forum where he releases press statements and gets to pretend that he's making a difference. he isn't. this is so because the democratic party, as an institution, is working against the very things that kucinich stands for. good people in bad institutions can't do much good. therefore, the thing to do is to create better institutions.
and it is up to the good people to do that.
kucinich in 2012?
sure.
as long as he's a third party candidate.
that would be fun, because i could go after lindork all over again.
Friday, February 27, 2009
dave lindork
Doesn’t bother me. I voted with eyes open. Like it or not, things would be much worse under McCain. I look at things the way I’d have looked at them in 1933 CGermany. Would we have been better off voting back then for the socialists, sell out and corrupt as they were at the time? Damned straight we would have been. Would they have posssibly joined in a Western European and American assault on the Soviet Union. Probably. Maybe not. But Hitler was clearly the worse alternative.
Under McCain, the march to American fascism would have continued. Now at least there’s some space.
I’m not one of those who believes that you progress forward by "making the contradictions worse."
As for third parties, I’ve written a piece on that. Just scroll down on my website. I think the answer is using the current crisis to build a mass movement and to strengthen and radicalize the labor movement. But third parties by themselves are a waste of time.
On 2/26/09 12:05 PM wrote:
So Dave Lindorff, how's that vote you casted for Obama working out for you?
maria pinko
first of all, let me congratulate pinko on calling lindorff on his vote. if i were him, i would have taken the opportunity to ask him why his name ends with two f's, but one can't have it all. silberg reminded me that i also challenged king david at one time in a blog ironically titled "dave vs dave." one could refer to that, as could two or three, but for now, i would like to respond to lin-dork's response to the pink man, who can then respond in kind, or in mean, or in whatever mode he prefers. or he can call two people, and they can call two people, and then someone can run up a big phone bill.
lindork starts off by telling us that his vote "doesn't bother him." well, he has sounded agitated in his recent articles. so, he voted with "eyes wide open." i would think so; otherwise, he might have circled the wrong box. here, lindork is basically saying "i know i voted for an asshole, but one who is not as much of an asshole as the guy i didn't vote for." sorry, but this line of reasoning doesn't impress me. perhaps he knows it's weak, as he then mentions the german election of 1933. of course the reader sees that and is supposed to think "well, of course i would have voted in that election." funny, but i don't recall mccain drawing up plans to invade russia and to round up and kill millions of american citizens. yes, mccain was a stiff and he likely would have been worse than obama, but that doesn't mean that the 2008 election in the u.s was akin to the german election of 1933.
supposedly, we are always marching toward fascism, but we never actually reach it. we are a militaristic society controlled by corporate power. essentially, that's what fascism is. no, we are not a bunch of crazed nazis. no, fascism isn't the only element that dominates within our society. but elements of fascism certainly exist here. we see it in the warfare state. we see it in the prison system. we see it in corporate domination. we see it in institutionalized racism.
with obama, there is supposedly "some space." is there space for the pakistanis being blown up by pilotless drones? is there space for venezuela? is there space for afghanistan? is there space for the poor and homeless and uninsured and unemployed and imprisoned? they tell us that electing democrats give us "space," that they are not fascist, and the like. tell it the vietnamese. tell it to the japanese. tell it to the serbs.
the answer is always to build mass movements. if that is the case, then why did lindorff bother to vote at all, since voting is clearly "not the answer?" lindorff says that third parties have no significance compared to building social movements, but who says the two are mutually exclusive? eugene debs ran for president on a third party ticket, and was a leader of the labor and anti-war movements. does lindorff think it "meant nothing" for debs to run for president, and it "meant nothing" to vote for him? of course, there were lindorks then too, who argued that the democrats had to be supported, despite debs's presence in the election, as there were those in 1948 who said the same about truman, despite the exciting third party run of henry wallace. truman had already destroyed hiroshima and nagasaki, but no matter; it was still important to elect him in order to "hold back fascism" and to allow the american people "some space." a year later, he had us in korea, and a couple more million people would be killed.
in any case, we can have third parties and build mass movements. in fact, movements should run third party candidates. they should fund them, support them, and vote for them. then, maybe they won't be third parties anymore. wouldn't lindork rather vote for someone that represents his views? oh yeah, i forgot; his vote doesn't bother him. in any case, the way to build movements is to go out and build them. you don't do this by voting for candidates who will then go and work against the very movements you are attempting to build. you don't build a peace movement by voting for someone who pledged to bomb, and has since bombed, pakistan and afghanistan, threatens iran and venezuela, and blindly supports israel. you don't build a labor movement by voting for someone who endorses throwing billions of dollars at banks. you don't build a poor people's movement by voting for someone who never mentions the poor, and has nothing to offer them.
people like lindork tell us we are unreasonable, but how reasonable is it to vote for people who don't represent your views? so, if third parties, "by themselves," are a waste of time, let us get to work and build movements that will make third parties well worth the time. and one way to make them worth the time is by voting for them. lin-dork, don't you see that it's a self fulfilling prophecy? you say that third parties are a waste of time, then you don't vote for them, thereby proving that they are indeed a waste of time.
but they aren't a waste of time, dave.
you are.
Under McCain, the march to American fascism would have continued. Now at least there’s some space.
I’m not one of those who believes that you progress forward by "making the contradictions worse."
As for third parties, I’ve written a piece on that. Just scroll down on my website. I think the answer is using the current crisis to build a mass movement and to strengthen and radicalize the labor movement. But third parties by themselves are a waste of time.
On 2/26/09 12:05 PM wrote:
So Dave Lindorff, how's that vote you casted for Obama working out for you?
maria pinko
first of all, let me congratulate pinko on calling lindorff on his vote. if i were him, i would have taken the opportunity to ask him why his name ends with two f's, but one can't have it all. silberg reminded me that i also challenged king david at one time in a blog ironically titled "dave vs dave." one could refer to that, as could two or three, but for now, i would like to respond to lin-dork's response to the pink man, who can then respond in kind, or in mean, or in whatever mode he prefers. or he can call two people, and they can call two people, and then someone can run up a big phone bill.
lindork starts off by telling us that his vote "doesn't bother him." well, he has sounded agitated in his recent articles. so, he voted with "eyes wide open." i would think so; otherwise, he might have circled the wrong box. here, lindork is basically saying "i know i voted for an asshole, but one who is not as much of an asshole as the guy i didn't vote for." sorry, but this line of reasoning doesn't impress me. perhaps he knows it's weak, as he then mentions the german election of 1933. of course the reader sees that and is supposed to think "well, of course i would have voted in that election." funny, but i don't recall mccain drawing up plans to invade russia and to round up and kill millions of american citizens. yes, mccain was a stiff and he likely would have been worse than obama, but that doesn't mean that the 2008 election in the u.s was akin to the german election of 1933.
supposedly, we are always marching toward fascism, but we never actually reach it. we are a militaristic society controlled by corporate power. essentially, that's what fascism is. no, we are not a bunch of crazed nazis. no, fascism isn't the only element that dominates within our society. but elements of fascism certainly exist here. we see it in the warfare state. we see it in the prison system. we see it in corporate domination. we see it in institutionalized racism.
with obama, there is supposedly "some space." is there space for the pakistanis being blown up by pilotless drones? is there space for venezuela? is there space for afghanistan? is there space for the poor and homeless and uninsured and unemployed and imprisoned? they tell us that electing democrats give us "space," that they are not fascist, and the like. tell it the vietnamese. tell it to the japanese. tell it to the serbs.
the answer is always to build mass movements. if that is the case, then why did lindorff bother to vote at all, since voting is clearly "not the answer?" lindorff says that third parties have no significance compared to building social movements, but who says the two are mutually exclusive? eugene debs ran for president on a third party ticket, and was a leader of the labor and anti-war movements. does lindorff think it "meant nothing" for debs to run for president, and it "meant nothing" to vote for him? of course, there were lindorks then too, who argued that the democrats had to be supported, despite debs's presence in the election, as there were those in 1948 who said the same about truman, despite the exciting third party run of henry wallace. truman had already destroyed hiroshima and nagasaki, but no matter; it was still important to elect him in order to "hold back fascism" and to allow the american people "some space." a year later, he had us in korea, and a couple more million people would be killed.
in any case, we can have third parties and build mass movements. in fact, movements should run third party candidates. they should fund them, support them, and vote for them. then, maybe they won't be third parties anymore. wouldn't lindork rather vote for someone that represents his views? oh yeah, i forgot; his vote doesn't bother him. in any case, the way to build movements is to go out and build them. you don't do this by voting for candidates who will then go and work against the very movements you are attempting to build. you don't build a peace movement by voting for someone who pledged to bomb, and has since bombed, pakistan and afghanistan, threatens iran and venezuela, and blindly supports israel. you don't build a labor movement by voting for someone who endorses throwing billions of dollars at banks. you don't build a poor people's movement by voting for someone who never mentions the poor, and has nothing to offer them.
people like lindork tell us we are unreasonable, but how reasonable is it to vote for people who don't represent your views? so, if third parties, "by themselves," are a waste of time, let us get to work and build movements that will make third parties well worth the time. and one way to make them worth the time is by voting for them. lin-dork, don't you see that it's a self fulfilling prophecy? you say that third parties are a waste of time, then you don't vote for them, thereby proving that they are indeed a waste of time.
but they aren't a waste of time, dave.
you are.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
they sit here
talking about banal television shows. they sit here, eating tasteless food. they sit here, bitching about the "work" they do. as i try to watch youtube in peace. for the moment, it's the film of miles and trane playing so what. but their murmuring voices invade my serenity. trane tries to blow them off his back, but talk of csi remains on the premises. for this is the teacher's lounge, the place i go to not earn my money. this is where i go when i tire of telling the students such things as "if you must fail, fail with dignity," "come on guys, i'm trying not to work," and "hey, don't make me not keep you after school." yes, i have found a halfway decent gig. i don't give grades, i don't have department meetings, and i haven't shaved for a week. as bags and cannonball would say, "things are getting better," and i am "groovin high."
meanwhile, a fellow behind me with a half assed beard continues to pontificate, speaking but saying nothing. at the moment, he and a couple of other hacks are talking about various phone, cable, and internet packages. oh, what might be next on the verizon? with a comcast of coworkers like this, no wonder i am having a hard time sleeping. now, it's trane and dolphy. i have the impressions i have heard it before, but so what? it drowns them out. if only i could drown them. i guess all i can do is wait and sea if they go away.
why do people feel the need to talk? and if they must talk, can't they talk about something worthwhile? do they know a war is going on? that children are starving? fuck them and their wireless internet and their dish network and their precious cell phone plans.
the worst thing about schools are the teachers who work in them. the hours are great, the students cool, the duties light.
the people?
fuckheads.
yeah, i got to invest in some better headphones, for i can still hear them.
well, i am on the clock, and dolphy is blowing.
all in all, not too bad a deal.
meanwhile, a fellow behind me with a half assed beard continues to pontificate, speaking but saying nothing. at the moment, he and a couple of other hacks are talking about various phone, cable, and internet packages. oh, what might be next on the verizon? with a comcast of coworkers like this, no wonder i am having a hard time sleeping. now, it's trane and dolphy. i have the impressions i have heard it before, but so what? it drowns them out. if only i could drown them. i guess all i can do is wait and sea if they go away.
why do people feel the need to talk? and if they must talk, can't they talk about something worthwhile? do they know a war is going on? that children are starving? fuck them and their wireless internet and their dish network and their precious cell phone plans.
the worst thing about schools are the teachers who work in them. the hours are great, the students cool, the duties light.
the people?
fuckheads.
yeah, i got to invest in some better headphones, for i can still hear them.
well, i am on the clock, and dolphy is blowing.
all in all, not too bad a deal.
holder there for a second
Color Blind, Power Oblivious
Eric Holder and the Whitewashing of Racism
By TIM WISE
It was all too predictable that Attorney General Eric Holder would be attacked for his recent remarks about race in America. To suggest that the nation is still haunted by the specter of racism is unacceptable it seems, especially since, with the election of President Obama, we have ostensibly entered the "post-racial" era.
But in truth, the nation's chief law enforcement officer deserves criticism more for what he didn't say than for what he did.
Specifically, Holder blamed personal cowardice for our racial divide, rather than institutionalized inequities, thereby minimizing his own Department's role in solving the problem; and he blamed everyone (and thus no one in particular) for being cowards, thereby letting white Americans--who have always been the ones least willing to engage the subject--off our uniquely large hook.
This combination of power-obliviousness (ignoring discrimination and unequal access to resources, while focusing merely on attitudes) and color-blindness (suggesting that everyone is equally at fault and equivalently unwilling to discuss racism) is a popular lens through which to view these matters. Indeed, the Oscar-winning film "Crash" was based almost entirely on these two tropes. But such a lens distorts our vision, and obscures true understanding of the phenomenon being observed.
The racial divide about which Holder spoke, particularly in terms of the neighborhoods where people live, is not the result of some abstract cowardice to engage one another. Rather, it is about the racist fears of whites, who decades ago began leaving neighborhoods when blacks began to move in. They didn't move because of declining property values, as they often claimed (indeed economic logic dictates that the rapid white exodus, not the black demand for housing, would cause such an outcome), but because of racism.
And in their fears, these whites were assisted by government policy, which subsidized their flight via FHA and VA loans that were all but off limits to people of color. This is how (and why) the suburbs came to be. From the 1940s to the early 60s, over $120 billion in home loans were made to whites, preferentially, thanks to these government efforts, while blacks and other persons of color were excluded from the same. Indeed, about half of all homes purchased by white families during this time were financed thanks to these low-interest loans, while folks of color remained locked in cities, their dwellings and businesses often knocked down to make way for the very interstates that would shuttle their white counterparts to the suburbs where only they could live.
We remain residentially divided today because of the legacy of those apartheid-like policies, as well as ongoing race-based housing discrimination: between 2 million and 3.7 million incidents per year according to private estimates. It is the AG's job to do something about that by enforcing the Fair Housing Act, not pleading for more dialogue. As Elvis once said, albeit about a very different subject, we need "a little less conversation, a little more action, please."
Holder also pulled a punch by issuing his charge of personal cowardice indiscriminately, as if to say that everyone was equally averse to tackling the subject of racism. But people of color have always voiced their concerns about the matter. It is whites who have tended to shut down, to change the subject, or to minimize the problem by telling those who mention it to "get over it already," or by accusing them of "playing the race card."
As exhibit one for this charge, consider the way in which most of white America has reacted to the recent New York Post cartoon, in which police officers gun down a wild ape, meant to represent the author of the stimulus bill; and this, directly opposite a picture of President Obama signing that very piece of legislation. That such an image trades on longstanding racist stereotypes is apparent to most folks of color, and yet, most of white America has yawned through the controversy, or worse, accused blacks enraged by the image of hypersensitivity. Likewise, most whites reacted with unaffected diffidence at the New Year's day videotape from the Oakland subway, in which a white police officer coolly executed a black man by the name of Oscar Grant, despite Grant putting up no resistance, possessing no weapon, and posing no threat to the officer. On message boards in the Bay Area--supposedly filled with progressive types to hear locals tell it--whites regularly expressed more outrage at protesters demanding justice for the Grant family, than at officer Mehserle for committing cold-blooded murder.
Sadly, whites are rarely open to what black and brown folks have to say regarding their ongoing experiences with racist mistreatment. And we are especially reluctant to discuss what that mistreatment means for us as whites: namely that we end up with more and better opportunities as the flipside of discrimination. After all, there is no down without an up, no matter how much we'd like to believe otherwise.
It is white denial, as much as anything, which has allowed racial inequity to persist for so long, and it's nothing new. In the early 1960s, even before the passage of modern civil rights laws, two out of three whites said blacks were treated equally, and nearly 90 percent said black kids had equal educational opportunity. Matter of fact, white denial has a longer pedigree than that, reaching back at least as far as the 1860s, when southern slave-owners were literally stunned to see their human property abandon them after the Emancipation Proclamation. After all, to the semi-delusional white mind of the time, they had always treated their slaves "like family."
Until we address our nation's long history of white supremacy, come to terms with the legacy of that history, and confront the reality of ongoing discrimination (even in the "Age of Obama"), whatever dialogue we engage around the subject will only further confuse us, and stifle our efforts to one day emerge from the thick and oppressive fog of racism. For however much audacity may be tethered to the concept of hope, let us be mindful that truth is more audacious still. May we find the courage, some day soon, to tell it.
Tim Wise is the author of: White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull Press, 2005), and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He can be reached at: timjwise@msn.com
Eric Holder and the Whitewashing of Racism
By TIM WISE
It was all too predictable that Attorney General Eric Holder would be attacked for his recent remarks about race in America. To suggest that the nation is still haunted by the specter of racism is unacceptable it seems, especially since, with the election of President Obama, we have ostensibly entered the "post-racial" era.
But in truth, the nation's chief law enforcement officer deserves criticism more for what he didn't say than for what he did.
Specifically, Holder blamed personal cowardice for our racial divide, rather than institutionalized inequities, thereby minimizing his own Department's role in solving the problem; and he blamed everyone (and thus no one in particular) for being cowards, thereby letting white Americans--who have always been the ones least willing to engage the subject--off our uniquely large hook.
This combination of power-obliviousness (ignoring discrimination and unequal access to resources, while focusing merely on attitudes) and color-blindness (suggesting that everyone is equally at fault and equivalently unwilling to discuss racism) is a popular lens through which to view these matters. Indeed, the Oscar-winning film "Crash" was based almost entirely on these two tropes. But such a lens distorts our vision, and obscures true understanding of the phenomenon being observed.
The racial divide about which Holder spoke, particularly in terms of the neighborhoods where people live, is not the result of some abstract cowardice to engage one another. Rather, it is about the racist fears of whites, who decades ago began leaving neighborhoods when blacks began to move in. They didn't move because of declining property values, as they often claimed (indeed economic logic dictates that the rapid white exodus, not the black demand for housing, would cause such an outcome), but because of racism.
And in their fears, these whites were assisted by government policy, which subsidized their flight via FHA and VA loans that were all but off limits to people of color. This is how (and why) the suburbs came to be. From the 1940s to the early 60s, over $120 billion in home loans were made to whites, preferentially, thanks to these government efforts, while blacks and other persons of color were excluded from the same. Indeed, about half of all homes purchased by white families during this time were financed thanks to these low-interest loans, while folks of color remained locked in cities, their dwellings and businesses often knocked down to make way for the very interstates that would shuttle their white counterparts to the suburbs where only they could live.
We remain residentially divided today because of the legacy of those apartheid-like policies, as well as ongoing race-based housing discrimination: between 2 million and 3.7 million incidents per year according to private estimates. It is the AG's job to do something about that by enforcing the Fair Housing Act, not pleading for more dialogue. As Elvis once said, albeit about a very different subject, we need "a little less conversation, a little more action, please."
Holder also pulled a punch by issuing his charge of personal cowardice indiscriminately, as if to say that everyone was equally averse to tackling the subject of racism. But people of color have always voiced their concerns about the matter. It is whites who have tended to shut down, to change the subject, or to minimize the problem by telling those who mention it to "get over it already," or by accusing them of "playing the race card."
As exhibit one for this charge, consider the way in which most of white America has reacted to the recent New York Post cartoon, in which police officers gun down a wild ape, meant to represent the author of the stimulus bill; and this, directly opposite a picture of President Obama signing that very piece of legislation. That such an image trades on longstanding racist stereotypes is apparent to most folks of color, and yet, most of white America has yawned through the controversy, or worse, accused blacks enraged by the image of hypersensitivity. Likewise, most whites reacted with unaffected diffidence at the New Year's day videotape from the Oakland subway, in which a white police officer coolly executed a black man by the name of Oscar Grant, despite Grant putting up no resistance, possessing no weapon, and posing no threat to the officer. On message boards in the Bay Area--supposedly filled with progressive types to hear locals tell it--whites regularly expressed more outrage at protesters demanding justice for the Grant family, than at officer Mehserle for committing cold-blooded murder.
Sadly, whites are rarely open to what black and brown folks have to say regarding their ongoing experiences with racist mistreatment. And we are especially reluctant to discuss what that mistreatment means for us as whites: namely that we end up with more and better opportunities as the flipside of discrimination. After all, there is no down without an up, no matter how much we'd like to believe otherwise.
It is white denial, as much as anything, which has allowed racial inequity to persist for so long, and it's nothing new. In the early 1960s, even before the passage of modern civil rights laws, two out of three whites said blacks were treated equally, and nearly 90 percent said black kids had equal educational opportunity. Matter of fact, white denial has a longer pedigree than that, reaching back at least as far as the 1860s, when southern slave-owners were literally stunned to see their human property abandon them after the Emancipation Proclamation. After all, to the semi-delusional white mind of the time, they had always treated their slaves "like family."
Until we address our nation's long history of white supremacy, come to terms with the legacy of that history, and confront the reality of ongoing discrimination (even in the "Age of Obama"), whatever dialogue we engage around the subject will only further confuse us, and stifle our efforts to one day emerge from the thick and oppressive fog of racism. For however much audacity may be tethered to the concept of hope, let us be mindful that truth is more audacious still. May we find the courage, some day soon, to tell it.
Tim Wise is the author of: White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull Press, 2005), and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He can be reached at: timjwise@msn.com
no mormon, he.
"The Earth is not dying. It is being killed. And those who are killing it have names and addresses."
Utah Phillips.
Utah Phillips.
they tell us
they tell us we are in a crisis, but they never say why that is so. and through this "economic crisis," there have been billions for war. so, as we pontificate about the housing crisis, and the employment crisis, and the health care crisis, it is good to remember that if it were not for the war and military crisis, there would be no crisis in these areas. for, as always, there is money, but there is only for money for certain things. there is money to bail out banks. there is money to bomb children. there is money for the rich to travel to far off destinations.
as we wonder why there is no money for health care, housing, and jobs.
Where The Money Goes
by Norman Solomon
Early this winter, the PBS "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" interviewed the medical director at a community clinic in Northern California. He recalled the sight of military equipment moving along railroad tracks next to his office. "I've joked with my colleagues," Dr. David Katz said, "if we could just get one of those Abrams tanks we could probably fund all the primary care clinics for a year."
The comment didn't make it on the air - it was only included in video on a PBS Web site - and that was unfortunate. We need more public focus on what our tax dollars are buying.
As medical providers and patients struggle with low funding and high barriers to adequate health care, the nation's largesse for war continues to soar. Every day, the U.S. Treasury spends close to $2 billion on the military. Such big numbers are hard to fathom, but it's worth doing the math.
In Yolo County, for instance, where Dr. Katz watches Abrams tanks roll by his beleaguered clinic, taxpayers have already provided the IRS with $449.8 million to fund the Iraq war. That's enough to provide health care to 168,154 children for a full year.
Those figures come from the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan group with a nifty - and often chilling - online calculator (www. nationalpriorities.org). Type in the name of your locality, and huge military costs suddenly hit close to home.
More than 40 percent of federal tax dollars go to military spending. The outlays buy a mighty war machine while depleting our own communities.
In San Francisco, taxpayers have already sent the U.S. government $2.2 billion for the Iraq war - enough to provide health care to 828,378 children for a year. In Oakland, the figure is $826.7 million, costing out to a year of health care for 309,036 children. In San Mateo County, taxpayers' tab for the war in Iraq has reached $2.6 billion, enough to cover a year of health care for nearly 1 million kids.
To make matters worse, this money wasn't just squandered. It financed warfare that damaged - often fatally - the health of Americans and Iraqis.
When the National Priorities Project crunched the numbers for the entire Bay Area, it found that taxpayers have already sent the IRS a total of $22.6 billion for the Iraq war. In retrospect, other options for that money are heartbreaking. For a full year, it could have provided 9,284,504 people with health care. Or it could have paid for 67,522 affordable housing units.
In pursuit of green goals, the Bay Area's share of expenditures for the Iraq war could have provided upward of 10 million homes with renewable electricity for four years.
Mostly, the dividing line between foreign policy and domestic economy has narrowed to the vanishing point. As we know from our personal lives, priorities - whether openly examined or not - are pivotal. And government budgets tell the tale of social priorities writ large.
Here's a fact worth pondering: If the money that taxpayers in the state have already provided for the Iraq war - $83.1 billion - could somehow be magically rerouted to the state government's coffers, the lawmakers in Sacramento would now be faced with the problem of what to do with a massive surplus.
We shouldn't expect that a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq will do much to slow the rocketing costs of America's global military ventures. The Obama administration plans to double U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan by early 2010, which will set a new deployment baseline in that country for years to come. And a significant boost in the overall size of the U.S. armed forces is on the bipartisan agenda in Washington.
Meanwhile, along the railroad tracks near Katz's clinic in Yolo County, the Abrams tanks are likely to keep rolling. Each one has a price tag of $4.3 million. And we're paying for it.
What a community could buy for the cost of a war
To use the National Priorities Project calculator, visit: http://www.nationalpriorities.org
as we wonder why there is no money for health care, housing, and jobs.
Where The Money Goes
by Norman Solomon
Early this winter, the PBS "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" interviewed the medical director at a community clinic in Northern California. He recalled the sight of military equipment moving along railroad tracks next to his office. "I've joked with my colleagues," Dr. David Katz said, "if we could just get one of those Abrams tanks we could probably fund all the primary care clinics for a year."
The comment didn't make it on the air - it was only included in video on a PBS Web site - and that was unfortunate. We need more public focus on what our tax dollars are buying.
As medical providers and patients struggle with low funding and high barriers to adequate health care, the nation's largesse for war continues to soar. Every day, the U.S. Treasury spends close to $2 billion on the military. Such big numbers are hard to fathom, but it's worth doing the math.
In Yolo County, for instance, where Dr. Katz watches Abrams tanks roll by his beleaguered clinic, taxpayers have already provided the IRS with $449.8 million to fund the Iraq war. That's enough to provide health care to 168,154 children for a full year.
Those figures come from the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan group with a nifty - and often chilling - online calculator (www. nationalpriorities.org). Type in the name of your locality, and huge military costs suddenly hit close to home.
More than 40 percent of federal tax dollars go to military spending. The outlays buy a mighty war machine while depleting our own communities.
In San Francisco, taxpayers have already sent the U.S. government $2.2 billion for the Iraq war - enough to provide health care to 828,378 children for a year. In Oakland, the figure is $826.7 million, costing out to a year of health care for 309,036 children. In San Mateo County, taxpayers' tab for the war in Iraq has reached $2.6 billion, enough to cover a year of health care for nearly 1 million kids.
To make matters worse, this money wasn't just squandered. It financed warfare that damaged - often fatally - the health of Americans and Iraqis.
When the National Priorities Project crunched the numbers for the entire Bay Area, it found that taxpayers have already sent the IRS a total of $22.6 billion for the Iraq war. In retrospect, other options for that money are heartbreaking. For a full year, it could have provided 9,284,504 people with health care. Or it could have paid for 67,522 affordable housing units.
In pursuit of green goals, the Bay Area's share of expenditures for the Iraq war could have provided upward of 10 million homes with renewable electricity for four years.
Mostly, the dividing line between foreign policy and domestic economy has narrowed to the vanishing point. As we know from our personal lives, priorities - whether openly examined or not - are pivotal. And government budgets tell the tale of social priorities writ large.
Here's a fact worth pondering: If the money that taxpayers in the state have already provided for the Iraq war - $83.1 billion - could somehow be magically rerouted to the state government's coffers, the lawmakers in Sacramento would now be faced with the problem of what to do with a massive surplus.
We shouldn't expect that a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq will do much to slow the rocketing costs of America's global military ventures. The Obama administration plans to double U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan by early 2010, which will set a new deployment baseline in that country for years to come. And a significant boost in the overall size of the U.S. armed forces is on the bipartisan agenda in Washington.
Meanwhile, along the railroad tracks near Katz's clinic in Yolo County, the Abrams tanks are likely to keep rolling. Each one has a price tag of $4.3 million. And we're paying for it.
What a community could buy for the cost of a war
To use the National Priorities Project calculator, visit: http://www.nationalpriorities.org
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
strike against the state of the union
A New Class Struggle?
Teacher and Student
By NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN
In the old days there was a certain protocol to rural correspondence in India, owed almost certainly to the fact that many villagers, illiterate themselves, would have a professional letter-writer write their letters for them. Every communication, whether conveying the birth of a child or the loss of an elder, carried the same structural lilt: Each would begin with an elaborate greeting. Then came a detailed listing of everyone in the letter writer's family - he is well, she is well, they are well, we are all well. Following which an equally comprehensive inquiry as to the well being of the recipient and his loved ones from close and afar. Slipped in somewhere amidships was the payload: I am in urgent need. A sea of troubles has befallen me. Please send me five hundred rupees without fail by return of post.
Similar are the trappings that go with the State of the Union address: The Made-for-TV entrance by the president, the catwalk to the podium shaking hands and pecking cheeks along the way (a kiss if you are Joe Lieberman), the ascent to the rostrum, the exchange of pleasantries with the Speaker and the Vice President before turning to the audience for a standing ovation.
Then the speech itself with its own subpattern: We have many challenges but we shall overcome them (applause)... Americans always have(more applause)... I want to do this, that and the other, but will need the cooperation of this chamber (applause from half the audience)...I want to share with you the story of X whom I met in a small town in Alabama, of Y who did such and such a deed, and of Z who wrote to me -- please stand up (fulsome applause)... Our thoughts at this moment are with our brave men and women of the armed forces serving in countries A, B, C,...(long applause). Ladies and gentlemen, the path ahead is steep, but with everyone working together, we will cut the national deficit, provide quality education for everyone, affordable health care for all, cut oil imports, make the economy boom, vanquish our enemies and be the hope of the world once more. God bless you all, and God bless the United States of America (Prolonged applause). At which point the TV analysts take over to offer insights into who clapped, on which punchline, for how long, and what each might portend.
The main difference between the villager's letter and the president's address is that the former, having to pay from his own pocket to have his letter written, thought twice before sending one unless he really had something to convey. The whole point of the state of the union, on the other hand, seems to be to speak for an hour without conveying too much [see 1].
At the end of his elegantly phrased and superbly delivered speech, what did Barack Obama convey?
Iraq - we will withdraw completely (but in 19 months, and with 50000 troops left behind, according to reports). Bush tax cuts -- we don't like 'em, but we'll wait to let them expire next year as scheduled. Raising the social security cap? I must have missed it if he mentioned it. Charter schools - yes. The conventional inveighing against 'protectionism' - very much present, doubly reinforced by the coming appointement of free trader Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary. The problem of illegal immigration? Of the coming population 'surge'? Not a word. The days of corporate irresponsibility were over, thundered the president. OK, but how were we going to punish the malefactors? By going after their assets? No. Sending them to jail? Nope. How then? By biting our tongue and giving the same guys more money (but this time, by golly, we would watch 'em!). And about going after all the lawbreakers of the Bush administration? Ah, sorry I asked, I forgot we are all bipartisans now.
If Barack Obama wanted to make clear that his administration was a true break from the past, he could have begun by apologizing to the people of Iraq. He could have sought the forgiveness of the American people for their government illegally spying on them. Instead of merely decrying spending on obsolete weapons systems from the Cold War days, he could have pointed out the obsolete mentality of the Cold War and announced a slashing of the Pentagon budget. Also troubling were the stated motivations. Could such a gifted speaker not bring himself to declare that decent health care was the birthright of every American? Instead it was needed... because otherwise we would break the budget. Just as we should be educated so we may get a job in tomorrow's economy, not so that we might be better citizens today. Commerce, not politics, is still the driving force.
About the only significant new initiative to my mind was the promise to reveal the full cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But which cost, Mr. President, and to whom? Yesterday the Baghdad Museum reopened, minus many of the looted artifacts, treasures of all mankind, destroyed or vanished forever. When the Museum was ravished in the wake of the American Occupation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed it as "stuff happens". As someone wrote once, the true value of a book has never been paid, only the cost of its printing. Cynics are said to be those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. In the speech Obama dismissed some of his critics as being cynical. When his second address to the nation (the first being the inaugural) also remains silent on the war crime that is the Iraq invasion, who is the cynic?
Over the past quarter century essentially the same state of the union speech has been given albeit in different styles-- folksy (Reagan), goofy (Bush Sr.), empathetic (Clinton), mostly clueless (Bush Jr.). Tonight Barack Obama added a new style to this list. The term "Imperial Presidency" should now perhaps be supplemented by "Professorial Presidency". President Obama is the nation's new schoolmaster. This mindset was made even clearer the day before at the end of his Fiscal Responsibility Summit, when he called upon members of his audience in a manner reminiscent of a teacher calling upon children in a grade school class to stand and deliver by turns, "John...", "Susan...", "Max...", "Kent...", "Eric...". Only he was addressing members of the US Congress, and in an official and public setting. I kept wishing at least one of them would respond with a "Thank you, Barack..." But so ingrained is servility in that "co-equal branch" that each one of them began with "Mr. President".
With Obama turning Mwalimu[2], it is only apt that the reputed rising star delivering the Republican response should come across as a schoolboy straining every nerve to impress his teacher in a class presentation. Governor Bobby Jindal bore the overall aspect of a Dan Quayle who could spell potato. His chief point was to say that Government is bad. His example to make his point...its performance during Hurricane Katrina! [3]. Was this the "Republican" response or the Republican reminder? As Sarah Palin might say, "Thanks but no thanks."
If you must know the real state of the union, read Paul Craig Roberts' superb summation, How the Economy was Lost [4]. Neither Obama nor Jindal addressed the issue Roberts raises -- free trade -- a chief reason for the unraveling of the union's health. Indeed on this issue they both seem supremely united to stay the course. To paraphrase American Express, "Bipartisanship has its downsides".
Niranjan Ramakrishnan is a writer living on the West Coast. He can be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com. Some of his other writings can be found on indogram (http://www.indogram.com?centerpiece=gs-327&city=bay).
References
The purpose of a president, wrote Douglas Adams in Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, is "is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it".
Swahili for teacher, most famously used as a title for for Julius Nyerere of Tanzania.
The joke goes something like this: Cop stops speeding car. Husband is driving. Cop says, "Do you know what speed you were doing?" "70?" asks the man. Wife leans across and says, "Don't listen to him, officer. He's drunk."
Teacher and Student
By NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN
In the old days there was a certain protocol to rural correspondence in India, owed almost certainly to the fact that many villagers, illiterate themselves, would have a professional letter-writer write their letters for them. Every communication, whether conveying the birth of a child or the loss of an elder, carried the same structural lilt: Each would begin with an elaborate greeting. Then came a detailed listing of everyone in the letter writer's family - he is well, she is well, they are well, we are all well. Following which an equally comprehensive inquiry as to the well being of the recipient and his loved ones from close and afar. Slipped in somewhere amidships was the payload: I am in urgent need. A sea of troubles has befallen me. Please send me five hundred rupees without fail by return of post.
Similar are the trappings that go with the State of the Union address: The Made-for-TV entrance by the president, the catwalk to the podium shaking hands and pecking cheeks along the way (a kiss if you are Joe Lieberman), the ascent to the rostrum, the exchange of pleasantries with the Speaker and the Vice President before turning to the audience for a standing ovation.
Then the speech itself with its own subpattern: We have many challenges but we shall overcome them (applause)... Americans always have(more applause)... I want to do this, that and the other, but will need the cooperation of this chamber (applause from half the audience)...I want to share with you the story of X whom I met in a small town in Alabama, of Y who did such and such a deed, and of Z who wrote to me -- please stand up (fulsome applause)... Our thoughts at this moment are with our brave men and women of the armed forces serving in countries A, B, C,...(long applause). Ladies and gentlemen, the path ahead is steep, but with everyone working together, we will cut the national deficit, provide quality education for everyone, affordable health care for all, cut oil imports, make the economy boom, vanquish our enemies and be the hope of the world once more. God bless you all, and God bless the United States of America (Prolonged applause). At which point the TV analysts take over to offer insights into who clapped, on which punchline, for how long, and what each might portend.
The main difference between the villager's letter and the president's address is that the former, having to pay from his own pocket to have his letter written, thought twice before sending one unless he really had something to convey. The whole point of the state of the union, on the other hand, seems to be to speak for an hour without conveying too much [see 1].
At the end of his elegantly phrased and superbly delivered speech, what did Barack Obama convey?
Iraq - we will withdraw completely (but in 19 months, and with 50000 troops left behind, according to reports). Bush tax cuts -- we don't like 'em, but we'll wait to let them expire next year as scheduled. Raising the social security cap? I must have missed it if he mentioned it. Charter schools - yes. The conventional inveighing against 'protectionism' - very much present, doubly reinforced by the coming appointement of free trader Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary. The problem of illegal immigration? Of the coming population 'surge'? Not a word. The days of corporate irresponsibility were over, thundered the president. OK, but how were we going to punish the malefactors? By going after their assets? No. Sending them to jail? Nope. How then? By biting our tongue and giving the same guys more money (but this time, by golly, we would watch 'em!). And about going after all the lawbreakers of the Bush administration? Ah, sorry I asked, I forgot we are all bipartisans now.
If Barack Obama wanted to make clear that his administration was a true break from the past, he could have begun by apologizing to the people of Iraq. He could have sought the forgiveness of the American people for their government illegally spying on them. Instead of merely decrying spending on obsolete weapons systems from the Cold War days, he could have pointed out the obsolete mentality of the Cold War and announced a slashing of the Pentagon budget. Also troubling were the stated motivations. Could such a gifted speaker not bring himself to declare that decent health care was the birthright of every American? Instead it was needed... because otherwise we would break the budget. Just as we should be educated so we may get a job in tomorrow's economy, not so that we might be better citizens today. Commerce, not politics, is still the driving force.
About the only significant new initiative to my mind was the promise to reveal the full cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But which cost, Mr. President, and to whom? Yesterday the Baghdad Museum reopened, minus many of the looted artifacts, treasures of all mankind, destroyed or vanished forever. When the Museum was ravished in the wake of the American Occupation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed it as "stuff happens". As someone wrote once, the true value of a book has never been paid, only the cost of its printing. Cynics are said to be those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. In the speech Obama dismissed some of his critics as being cynical. When his second address to the nation (the first being the inaugural) also remains silent on the war crime that is the Iraq invasion, who is the cynic?
Over the past quarter century essentially the same state of the union speech has been given albeit in different styles-- folksy (Reagan), goofy (Bush Sr.), empathetic (Clinton), mostly clueless (Bush Jr.). Tonight Barack Obama added a new style to this list. The term "Imperial Presidency" should now perhaps be supplemented by "Professorial Presidency". President Obama is the nation's new schoolmaster. This mindset was made even clearer the day before at the end of his Fiscal Responsibility Summit, when he called upon members of his audience in a manner reminiscent of a teacher calling upon children in a grade school class to stand and deliver by turns, "John...", "Susan...", "Max...", "Kent...", "Eric...". Only he was addressing members of the US Congress, and in an official and public setting. I kept wishing at least one of them would respond with a "Thank you, Barack..." But so ingrained is servility in that "co-equal branch" that each one of them began with "Mr. President".
With Obama turning Mwalimu[2], it is only apt that the reputed rising star delivering the Republican response should come across as a schoolboy straining every nerve to impress his teacher in a class presentation. Governor Bobby Jindal bore the overall aspect of a Dan Quayle who could spell potato. His chief point was to say that Government is bad. His example to make his point...its performance during Hurricane Katrina! [3]. Was this the "Republican" response or the Republican reminder? As Sarah Palin might say, "Thanks but no thanks."
If you must know the real state of the union, read Paul Craig Roberts' superb summation, How the Economy was Lost [4]. Neither Obama nor Jindal addressed the issue Roberts raises -- free trade -- a chief reason for the unraveling of the union's health. Indeed on this issue they both seem supremely united to stay the course. To paraphrase American Express, "Bipartisanship has its downsides".
Niranjan Ramakrishnan is a writer living on the West Coast. He can be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com. Some of his other writings can be found on indogram (http://www.indogram.com?centerpiece=gs-327&city=bay).
References
The purpose of a president, wrote Douglas Adams in Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, is "is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it".
Swahili for teacher, most famously used as a title for for Julius Nyerere of Tanzania.
The joke goes something like this: Cop stops speeding car. Husband is driving. Cop says, "Do you know what speed you were doing?" "70?" asks the man. Wife leans across and says, "Don't listen to him, officer. He's drunk."
more from alan dickowitz
it seems that some have far more academic freedom than others. yesterday, i posted the piece by joel kovel about his firing, surely related to his views on zionism and israel. today, i have learned that dickowitz has once again utilized his robust academic freedom to degrade the students from hampshire college who are trying to get that university to divest in their partnerships with israeli companies and institutions. supposedly, the students are "bigots" and "anti-semites." for opposing them, no one ever calls dickowitz "anti-arab" or "anti-palestinian," though he never seems to support palestinians, no matter how many are killed. we hear often of left wing bias in the academy. if this is so, why has hampshire college felt the need to ball suck dickowitz, even going so far as to publish a letter in an israeli paper stating the college's "profound respect" for both dickowitz and the state of israel. dickowitz has the freedom to condemn every individual and institution who he feels is "bigoted" against israel, including such "extremists" as amnesty international, human rights watch, and jimmy carter.
of course, dickowitz is the real extremist. he condones every israeli military action, excuses every palestinian death, and supports the endless occupation and oppression of palestinian people and land. and yet, he continues to be a "respected" scholar. he continues to have his books published by mainstream publishing houses. he continues to teach at harvard. dickowitz is nothing less than an israeli zealot, and an apologist for a plethora of state crimes, as long as they are committed by the states that he favors. since he supports the "right" crimes, he gets to have all the freedom, money, and respect he wants, as the kovels, finklesteins, ward churchills, and even jimmy carters are insulted, degraded, and protested.
we still live in the old testament, where "thou shall not kill" seemingly only applies to the members of your own tribe. meanwhile, you are free to kill, or support the killing, of those outside of the tribe. by such standards, dickowitz fits right in.
unfortunately.
of course, dickowitz is the real extremist. he condones every israeli military action, excuses every palestinian death, and supports the endless occupation and oppression of palestinian people and land. and yet, he continues to be a "respected" scholar. he continues to have his books published by mainstream publishing houses. he continues to teach at harvard. dickowitz is nothing less than an israeli zealot, and an apologist for a plethora of state crimes, as long as they are committed by the states that he favors. since he supports the "right" crimes, he gets to have all the freedom, money, and respect he wants, as the kovels, finklesteins, ward churchills, and even jimmy carters are insulted, degraded, and protested.
we still live in the old testament, where "thou shall not kill" seemingly only applies to the members of your own tribe. meanwhile, you are free to kill, or support the killing, of those outside of the tribe. by such standards, dickowitz fits right in.
unfortunately.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
funny
but i've been watching tv and reading mainstream papers for over 20 years, and i've never heard of this book fair. perhaps this wasn't "fit to print."
you decide.
For the Love of Libros - A Book Fair and a Fortress
February 24, 2009 By Marina Sitrin
Marina Sitrin's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
Imagine yourself in front of a 16th century fortress facing the Malecon in Old Havana, Cuba. The fortress occupies a vast expanse of land with a wall that extends the length of the fortress, surrounded by a deep moat, once legend to have been filled with crocodiles. The fortress is comprised of underground tunnels, old dungeons and hundreds of ancient cannons. It is rumored to have been built to resist pirates, buccaneers and corsairs. Every evening, since the 18th century, there is a symbolic firing of the cannons at 9pm. Once a signal that the walls of the fortress were closing and population was to take refuge, it is now a reminder to Habaneros to check that their watches are in sync. This is an often-frequented spot for visitors to Havana. This week however there is a very different sort of crowd milling about the fortress.
I now bring you to another frequented tourist spot in Havana, el Capitolio. Similar in design to the Capital building in Washington DC, Capitolio was once the seat of Cuban government, but since the 1959 Revolution it is now the Cuban Academy of Science. Facing el Capitolio are a number of modern movie theaters, film being a very important pastime in Cuba. The sidewalk facing el Capitolio is usually filled with hundreds of people waiting on line to see the latest film. Not this week. For the past eleven days it has been witness to a constant flow of hundreds and thousands of people filling buses that never stop arriving and departing. This is the launching site for Habaneros on their way to the 18th Annual International Book Fair, taking place in the 16th century fortress - the Fortress of San Carlos de la Cabaña.
Excited to attend my first Cuban book fair, I piled onto a bus with hundreds of others: men, women, children and tons of young adults and adolescents. There is a feeling of going somewhere exciting, on a trip or to a concert. Once we go under the tunnel we drive along the water, as if on our way to the beaches of Playas del Este. There is that sort of vacation and celebration feel on the bus as well. The adults hold plastic picnic bags and the children their toys.
Now imagine thousands and thousands of people streaming up a hill towards the drawbridge of the fortress. The dirt road is lined with ice cream trucks and food stalls, and the moat is filled with free pony rides for children ... there is a buzz in the air. People are happy, no one is pushing, but there is a sense of anticipation. It is a combination of the excitement and numbers of a massive rock concert with all the calm and cheer of a folk festival.
But this is not a concert, nor is it a festival. This is a book fair. Over 300 publishing houses from over 43 countries have set up stalls and events in the fortress. The book fair happens in Havana for 11 days. It then travels to 30 other cities across Cuba. Last year over 5 million people attended the book fair and purchased over 6 million books. They expect many more this year. To put this in context, Cuba only has a population of 11 and a half million people. That means almost half of the entire population goes to the book fair. Imagine participation on that scale anywhere else in the world. Imagine what that would look like in the United States. That would mean no less than 152 million people coming out to attend, of all things, a book fair.
There were book stalls that held the least expensive books; those that were marked down even lower than the usual remarkably low prices. Many were selling for one peso in Moneda Nacional (the national currency). With 24 pesos in national money to a Convertible Cuban Peso, that translates to roughly $.05 in US dollars. Many of these books were children's books, some were propaganda, and there was an entire table of the collected works of Lenin in Spanish on the bargain table. For myself, I bought a copy of a book by Boaventura de Sousa Santos called "Reinventar la democracia - Reinventar el Estado", "Reinvent democracy - Reinvent the State", and another called Emancipatory Paradigms in Latin America. Cuban publishing houses publish both books. Together they cost less than forty cents US, a price that makes these books accessible to anyone. Along with politics and history, a wide range of topics could be found. A Cuban friend who accompanied me to the book fair bought mainly novels, one of which was written by Senel Paz, a famous Cuban author, globally known for having written the screen play for the acclaimed "Strawberry and Chocolate". This novel includes history, politics and romance, like the film, but in the novel it is a romance between two young men.
And then the children! Half the book fair had to be less than four feet tall. Really. There were countless children, families and children's events. There were readings for kids, spaces organized where they could just open books and look at them, touch them and have adults read to them. There were also play spaces, now reminding me of folk festivals I went to as a child. I can remember feeling like we, the kids, were the center of the festivals, the center of the universe. The book fair in Havana has that feel as well.
Each evening the book fair ended with a concert at sunset, sometimes going until well after midnight. While I enjoyed the first performance of Chilean folks singers, the book fair this year is co-sponsored by Chile, the line up of musicians for the rest of the night was for a much younger crowd. And they were arriving ... as we left the thousands coming up towards the drawbridge were all teenagers and 20-somethings. This modern concert for young people also impressed me. Once I got over my initial disappointment that the old nueva trova folks were not singing, people like Silvio Rodriguez of Cuba and Isabel Parra from Chile, and instead it was the "cool" salsa-meets-reggae and some modern something mix, I realized this was a fabulous thing. This is what was helping to bring in some of the really young people, youth who are sometimes referred to as "la generacion perdida" (the lost generation).
I cannot begin to express what I felt and feel. On the bus ride back to Havana I alternated with playing with the adorable toddler in the seat in front of me, and just gazing out the window, my eyes filled with tears, so moved. I love books. I prioritize books over most all other material things. Most people reading this probably have a love for books as well. But here, it is a nation, a people, who love, appreciate, prioritize and celebrate books.
I cannot paint a colorful enough picture of what the days of the book fair felt and looked like. One can see images of the famous fortress across the water from Havana. The stone walls, hundreds of cannons, dozens of acres ... Now add to the image tens of thousands of people, day after day, all sorts of people, and book stalls and book readings throughout the interior of the fortress. And imagine the grass acreage filled with tents with still more books, exhibits, beverages and food, most of it for sale in the national currency, at rates all could afford. People of all colors and ages. Children and old people. All there for books. Books! To look at what books were there. To buy a book. To listen to people reading from their books. To sit on the grass or on the wall and discuss the books they were holding or wanted to buy. It was all about ideas and imagination. It was a space filled only with the inspiration, passion, adventures and mysteries the written word. Day after day, with people numbering in the hundreds of thousands and then millions. That is the International Book Fair in Cuba.
I was moved deeply by the true love of ideas these past days. The importance placed on reading and imagination. And the clear respect regular people have for the written word. One can be critical and at the same time learn a great deal. There is something for us to learn here. Let us imagine together. Let us dream of how we could create a space of passionate desire for ideas and literature in our country. How might this take place, and who might support us in this endeavor?
Marina Sitrin is a writer, lawyer, dreamer and translator. She has edited "Horizonalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina", and the forthcoming "Insurgent Democracies - Latin America's New Powers."
Marina is currently living in Havana, Cuba. She can be reached by email at: Marina.sitrin@gmail.com
you decide.
For the Love of Libros - A Book Fair and a Fortress
February 24, 2009 By Marina Sitrin
Marina Sitrin's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
Imagine yourself in front of a 16th century fortress facing the Malecon in Old Havana, Cuba. The fortress occupies a vast expanse of land with a wall that extends the length of the fortress, surrounded by a deep moat, once legend to have been filled with crocodiles. The fortress is comprised of underground tunnels, old dungeons and hundreds of ancient cannons. It is rumored to have been built to resist pirates, buccaneers and corsairs. Every evening, since the 18th century, there is a symbolic firing of the cannons at 9pm. Once a signal that the walls of the fortress were closing and population was to take refuge, it is now a reminder to Habaneros to check that their watches are in sync. This is an often-frequented spot for visitors to Havana. This week however there is a very different sort of crowd milling about the fortress.
I now bring you to another frequented tourist spot in Havana, el Capitolio. Similar in design to the Capital building in Washington DC, Capitolio was once the seat of Cuban government, but since the 1959 Revolution it is now the Cuban Academy of Science. Facing el Capitolio are a number of modern movie theaters, film being a very important pastime in Cuba. The sidewalk facing el Capitolio is usually filled with hundreds of people waiting on line to see the latest film. Not this week. For the past eleven days it has been witness to a constant flow of hundreds and thousands of people filling buses that never stop arriving and departing. This is the launching site for Habaneros on their way to the 18th Annual International Book Fair, taking place in the 16th century fortress - the Fortress of San Carlos de la Cabaña.
Excited to attend my first Cuban book fair, I piled onto a bus with hundreds of others: men, women, children and tons of young adults and adolescents. There is a feeling of going somewhere exciting, on a trip or to a concert. Once we go under the tunnel we drive along the water, as if on our way to the beaches of Playas del Este. There is that sort of vacation and celebration feel on the bus as well. The adults hold plastic picnic bags and the children their toys.
Now imagine thousands and thousands of people streaming up a hill towards the drawbridge of the fortress. The dirt road is lined with ice cream trucks and food stalls, and the moat is filled with free pony rides for children ... there is a buzz in the air. People are happy, no one is pushing, but there is a sense of anticipation. It is a combination of the excitement and numbers of a massive rock concert with all the calm and cheer of a folk festival.
But this is not a concert, nor is it a festival. This is a book fair. Over 300 publishing houses from over 43 countries have set up stalls and events in the fortress. The book fair happens in Havana for 11 days. It then travels to 30 other cities across Cuba. Last year over 5 million people attended the book fair and purchased over 6 million books. They expect many more this year. To put this in context, Cuba only has a population of 11 and a half million people. That means almost half of the entire population goes to the book fair. Imagine participation on that scale anywhere else in the world. Imagine what that would look like in the United States. That would mean no less than 152 million people coming out to attend, of all things, a book fair.
There were book stalls that held the least expensive books; those that were marked down even lower than the usual remarkably low prices. Many were selling for one peso in Moneda Nacional (the national currency). With 24 pesos in national money to a Convertible Cuban Peso, that translates to roughly $.05 in US dollars. Many of these books were children's books, some were propaganda, and there was an entire table of the collected works of Lenin in Spanish on the bargain table. For myself, I bought a copy of a book by Boaventura de Sousa Santos called "Reinventar la democracia - Reinventar el Estado", "Reinvent democracy - Reinvent the State", and another called Emancipatory Paradigms in Latin America. Cuban publishing houses publish both books. Together they cost less than forty cents US, a price that makes these books accessible to anyone. Along with politics and history, a wide range of topics could be found. A Cuban friend who accompanied me to the book fair bought mainly novels, one of which was written by Senel Paz, a famous Cuban author, globally known for having written the screen play for the acclaimed "Strawberry and Chocolate". This novel includes history, politics and romance, like the film, but in the novel it is a romance between two young men.
And then the children! Half the book fair had to be less than four feet tall. Really. There were countless children, families and children's events. There were readings for kids, spaces organized where they could just open books and look at them, touch them and have adults read to them. There were also play spaces, now reminding me of folk festivals I went to as a child. I can remember feeling like we, the kids, were the center of the festivals, the center of the universe. The book fair in Havana has that feel as well.
Each evening the book fair ended with a concert at sunset, sometimes going until well after midnight. While I enjoyed the first performance of Chilean folks singers, the book fair this year is co-sponsored by Chile, the line up of musicians for the rest of the night was for a much younger crowd. And they were arriving ... as we left the thousands coming up towards the drawbridge were all teenagers and 20-somethings. This modern concert for young people also impressed me. Once I got over my initial disappointment that the old nueva trova folks were not singing, people like Silvio Rodriguez of Cuba and Isabel Parra from Chile, and instead it was the "cool" salsa-meets-reggae and some modern something mix, I realized this was a fabulous thing. This is what was helping to bring in some of the really young people, youth who are sometimes referred to as "la generacion perdida" (the lost generation).
I cannot begin to express what I felt and feel. On the bus ride back to Havana I alternated with playing with the adorable toddler in the seat in front of me, and just gazing out the window, my eyes filled with tears, so moved. I love books. I prioritize books over most all other material things. Most people reading this probably have a love for books as well. But here, it is a nation, a people, who love, appreciate, prioritize and celebrate books.
I cannot paint a colorful enough picture of what the days of the book fair felt and looked like. One can see images of the famous fortress across the water from Havana. The stone walls, hundreds of cannons, dozens of acres ... Now add to the image tens of thousands of people, day after day, all sorts of people, and book stalls and book readings throughout the interior of the fortress. And imagine the grass acreage filled with tents with still more books, exhibits, beverages and food, most of it for sale in the national currency, at rates all could afford. People of all colors and ages. Children and old people. All there for books. Books! To look at what books were there. To buy a book. To listen to people reading from their books. To sit on the grass or on the wall and discuss the books they were holding or wanted to buy. It was all about ideas and imagination. It was a space filled only with the inspiration, passion, adventures and mysteries the written word. Day after day, with people numbering in the hundreds of thousands and then millions. That is the International Book Fair in Cuba.
I was moved deeply by the true love of ideas these past days. The importance placed on reading and imagination. And the clear respect regular people have for the written word. One can be critical and at the same time learn a great deal. There is something for us to learn here. Let us imagine together. Let us dream of how we could create a space of passionate desire for ideas and literature in our country. How might this take place, and who might support us in this endeavor?
Marina Sitrin is a writer, lawyer, dreamer and translator. She has edited "Horizonalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina", and the forthcoming "Insurgent Democracies - Latin America's New Powers."
Marina is currently living in Havana, Cuba. She can be reached by email at: Marina.sitrin@gmail.com
academic freedom?
this is in line with what has happened recently to norman finklestein. in general, academic freedom in the u.s is a sometime thing. the more one opposes power, the less freedom one has. sometimes this means termination, sometimes it means never being hired at all. this is the case with michael parenti, a brilliant scholar who applied for over 100 teaching positions at universities, and never got one call back. parenti has a phd from yale, and has published a dozen or so books, but he is apparently too far left for the academic scene. in other cases, lefties are denied pay raises or teaching assistants, as zinn was at BU. in other cases, they are denied tenure. many of my favorite teachers at umass, including some who had been there for over 20 years, were still considered part time, nontenured faculty, despite the fact that they often taught 2 to 3 classes a semester. in every case, these teachers were progressive radicals.
and yet, we are told the academy is a bastion of leftism. bs. the academy encourages "identity" and cultural progressivism, including those who specialize in "transnational feminism," popular culture, gay cinema, and other issues that don't get to the heart of american political, economic, and military power. the graduate program in american studies at umass was filled with professors who babbled about indentity, "decoding" popular culture, and "engaging with problematic cultural manifestations." we sat around watching birth of a nation and the jazz singer, and read "blues legagies and black feminism," as the bombs fell. students wrote papers on the significance of britney spears. a final project that was lauded was on the history of korean restaurants in boston. we read about indigenous transexuals, but nothing on the holocaust of the native people. apparently, such studies would have been too "dry," and there would have been nothing for us to "decode," or to 'engage" with. perhaps it wouldn't have been "layered" enough.
in any case, academic freedom is another concept that is always honored in the abstract, but constantly dishonored in the real world. and when you begin to stand up to the state of israel, it's all over. but we still need to do it, for losing a job is nothing compared to the people of palestine losing their lives.
Statement Regarding Termination By Bard College
February 24, 2009 By Joel Kovel
Joel Kovel's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
INTRODUCTION
In January, 1988, I was appointed to the Alger Hiss Chair of Social Studies at Bard College. As this was a Presidential appointment outside the tenure system, I have served under a series of contracts. The last of these was half-time (one semester on, one off, with half salary and full benefits year-round), effective from July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2009. On February 7 I received a letter from Michèle Dominy, Dean of the College, informing me that my contract would not be renewed this July 1 and that I would be moved to emeritus status as of that day. She wrote that this decision was made by President Botstein, Executive Vice-President Papadimitriou and herself, in consultation with members of the Faculty Senate.
This document argues that this termination of service is prejudicial and motivated neither by intellectual nor pedagogic considerations, but by political values, principally stemming from differences between myself and the Bard administration on the issue of Zionism. There is of course much more to my years at Bard than this, including another controversial subject, my work on ecosocialism (The Enemy of Nature). However, the evidence shows a pattern of conflict over Zionism only too reminiscent of innumerable instances in this country in which critics of Israel have been made to pay, often with their careers, for speaking out. In this instance the process culminated in a deeply flawed evaluation process which was used to justify my termination from the faculty.
A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY
• 2002. This was the first year I spoke out nationally about Zionism. In October, my article, "Zionism's Bad Conscience," appeared in Tikkun. Three or four weeks later, I was called into President Leon Botstein's office, to be told my Hiss Chair was being taken away. Botstein said that he had nothing to do with the decision, then gratuitously added that it had not been made because of what I had just published about Zionism, and hastened to tell me that his views were diametrically opposed to mine.
• 2003. In January I published a second article in Tikkun, "Left-Anti-Semitism' and the Special Status of Israel," which argued for a One-State solution to the dilemmas posed by Zionism. A few weeks later, I received a phone call at home from Dean Dominy, who suggested, on behalf of Executive Vice-President Dimitri Papadimitriou, that perhaps it was time for me to retire from Bard. I declined. The result of this was an evaluation of my work and the inception, in 2004, of the current half-time contract as "Distinguished Professor."
• 2006. I finished a draft of Overcoming Zionism. In January, while I was on a Fellowship in South Africa, President Botstein conducted a concert on campus of the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, which he has directed since 2003. In a stunning departure from traditional concert practice, this began with the playing of the national anthems of the United States and Israel, after each of which the audience rose. Except for a handful of protestors, the event went unnoticed. I regarded it, however, as paradigmatic of the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel, one that has conduced to war in Iraq and massive human rights violations in Israel/Palestine. In December, I organized a public lecture at Bard (with Mazin Qumsiyeh) to call attention to this problem. Only one faculty person attended; the rest were students and community people; and the issue was never taken up on campus.
• 2007. "Overcoming Zionism" was now on the market, arguing for a One-State solution (and sharply criticizing, among others, Martin Peretz for a scurrilous op-ed piece against Rachel Corrie in the Los Angeles Times. Peretz is an official in AIPAC's foreign policy think-tank, and at the time a Bard Trustee—though this latter fact was not pointed out in the book). In August, Overcoming Zionism was attacked by a watchdog Zionist group, StandWithUs/Michigan, which succeeded in pressuring the book's United States distributor, the University of Michigan Press, to remove it from circulation. An extraordinary outpouring of support (650 letters to U of M) succeeded in reversing this frank episode of book-burning. I was disturbed, however, by the fact that, with the exception of two non-tenure track faculty, there was no support from Bard in response to this egregious violation of the speech rights of a professor. When I asked President Botstein in an email why this was so, he replied that he felt I was doing quite well at taking care of myself. This was irrelevant to the obligation of a college to protect its faculty from violation of their rights of free expression—all the more so, a college such as Bard with a carefully honed reputation as a bastion of academic freedom, and which indeed defines such freedom in its Faculty Handbook as a "right . . . to search for truth and understanding without interference and to disseminate his [sic] findings without intimidation."
• 2008. Despite some reservations by the faculty, I was able to teach a course on Zionism. In my view, and that of most of the students, it was carried off successfully. Concurrently with this, another evaluation of my work at Bard was underway. Unlike previous evaluations, in 1996 and 2003, this was unenthusiastic. It was cited by Dean Dominy as instrumental in the decision to let me go.
IRREGULARITIES IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS
The evaluation committee included Professor Bruce Chilton, along with Professors Mark Lambert and Kyle Gann. Professor Chilton is a member of the Social Studies division, a distinguished theologian, and the campus' Protestant chaplain. He is also active in Zionist circles, as chair of the EpiscopalJewish Relations Committee in the Episcopal Diocese of New York, and a member of the Executive Committee of Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East. In this capacity he campaigns vigorously against Protestant efforts to promote divestment and sanctions against the State of Israel. Professor Chilton is particularly antagonistic to the Palestinian liberation theology movement, Sabeel, and its leader, Rev. Naim Ateek, also an Episcopal. This places him on the other side of the divide from myself, who attended a Sabeel Conference in Birmingham, MI, in October, 2008, as an invited speaker, where I met Rev. Ateek, and expressed admiration for his position. It should also be observed that Professor Chilton was active this past January in supporting Israeli aggression in Gaza. He may be heard on a national radio program on WABC, "Religion on the Line," (January 11, 2009) arguing from the Doctrine of Just War and claiming that it is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel for human rights violations—this despite the fact that large numbers of Jews have been in the forefront of protesting Israeli crimes in Gaza.
Of course, Professor Chilton has the right to his opinion as an academic and a citizen. Nonetheless, the presence of such a voice on the committee whose conclusion was instrumental in the decision to remove me from the Bard faculty is highly dubious. Most definitely, Professor Chilton should have recused himself from this position. His failure to do so, combined with the fact that the decision as a whole was made in context of adversity between myself and the Bard administration, renders the process of my termination invalid as an instance of what the College's Faculty Handbook calls a procedure "designed to evaluate each faculty member fairly and in good faith."
I still strove to make my future at Bard the subject of reasonable negotiation. However, my efforts in this direction were rudely denied by Dean Dominy's curt and dismissive letter (at the urging, according to her, of Vice-President Papadimitriou), which plainly asserted that there was nothing to talk over and that I was being handed a fait accompli. In view of this I considered myself left with no other option than the release of this document.
ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INTELLECTUALS
Bard has effectively crafted for itself an image as a bastion of progressive thought. Its efforts were crowned with being anointed in 2005 by the Princeton Review as the second-most progressive college in the United States, the journal adding that Bard "puts the 'liberal' in 'liberal arts.'" But "liberal" thought evidently has its limits; and my work against Zionism has encountered these.
A fundamental principle of mine is that the educator must criticize the injustices of the world, whether or not this involves him or her in conflict with the powers that be. The systematic failure of the academy to do so plays no small role in the perpetuation of injustice and state violence. In no sphere of political action does this principle apply more vigorously than with the question of Zionism; and in no country is this issue more strategically important than in the United States, given the fact that United States support is necessary for Israel's behavior. The worse this behavior, the more strenuous must be the suppression of criticism. I take the view, then, that Israeli human rights abuses are deeply engrained in a culture of impunity granted chiefly, though not exclusively, in the United States—which culture arises from suppression of debate and open inquiry within those institutions, such as colleges, whose social role it is to enlighten the public. Therefore, if the world stands outraged at Israeli aggression in Gaza, it should also be outraged at institutions in the United States that grant Israel impunity. In my view, Bard College is one such institution. It has suppressed critical engagement with Israel and Zionism, and therefore has enabled abuses such as have occurred and are occurring in Gaza. This notion is of course, not just descriptive of a place like Bard. It is also the context within which the critic of such a place and the Zionist ideology it enables becomes marginalized, and then removed.
For further information: www.codz.org; Joel Kovel, "Overcoming Impunity," The Link, Jan-March 2009 (www.ameu.org).
To write the Bard administration:
President Leon Botstein
Executive Vice-President Dimitri Papadimitriou
and yet, we are told the academy is a bastion of leftism. bs. the academy encourages "identity" and cultural progressivism, including those who specialize in "transnational feminism," popular culture, gay cinema, and other issues that don't get to the heart of american political, economic, and military power. the graduate program in american studies at umass was filled with professors who babbled about indentity, "decoding" popular culture, and "engaging with problematic cultural manifestations." we sat around watching birth of a nation and the jazz singer, and read "blues legagies and black feminism," as the bombs fell. students wrote papers on the significance of britney spears. a final project that was lauded was on the history of korean restaurants in boston. we read about indigenous transexuals, but nothing on the holocaust of the native people. apparently, such studies would have been too "dry," and there would have been nothing for us to "decode," or to 'engage" with. perhaps it wouldn't have been "layered" enough.
in any case, academic freedom is another concept that is always honored in the abstract, but constantly dishonored in the real world. and when you begin to stand up to the state of israel, it's all over. but we still need to do it, for losing a job is nothing compared to the people of palestine losing their lives.
Statement Regarding Termination By Bard College
February 24, 2009 By Joel Kovel
Joel Kovel's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
INTRODUCTION
In January, 1988, I was appointed to the Alger Hiss Chair of Social Studies at Bard College. As this was a Presidential appointment outside the tenure system, I have served under a series of contracts. The last of these was half-time (one semester on, one off, with half salary and full benefits year-round), effective from July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2009. On February 7 I received a letter from Michèle Dominy, Dean of the College, informing me that my contract would not be renewed this July 1 and that I would be moved to emeritus status as of that day. She wrote that this decision was made by President Botstein, Executive Vice-President Papadimitriou and herself, in consultation with members of the Faculty Senate.
This document argues that this termination of service is prejudicial and motivated neither by intellectual nor pedagogic considerations, but by political values, principally stemming from differences between myself and the Bard administration on the issue of Zionism. There is of course much more to my years at Bard than this, including another controversial subject, my work on ecosocialism (The Enemy of Nature). However, the evidence shows a pattern of conflict over Zionism only too reminiscent of innumerable instances in this country in which critics of Israel have been made to pay, often with their careers, for speaking out. In this instance the process culminated in a deeply flawed evaluation process which was used to justify my termination from the faculty.
A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY
• 2002. This was the first year I spoke out nationally about Zionism. In October, my article, "Zionism's Bad Conscience," appeared in Tikkun. Three or four weeks later, I was called into President Leon Botstein's office, to be told my Hiss Chair was being taken away. Botstein said that he had nothing to do with the decision, then gratuitously added that it had not been made because of what I had just published about Zionism, and hastened to tell me that his views were diametrically opposed to mine.
• 2003. In January I published a second article in Tikkun, "Left-Anti-Semitism' and the Special Status of Israel," which argued for a One-State solution to the dilemmas posed by Zionism. A few weeks later, I received a phone call at home from Dean Dominy, who suggested, on behalf of Executive Vice-President Dimitri Papadimitriou, that perhaps it was time for me to retire from Bard. I declined. The result of this was an evaluation of my work and the inception, in 2004, of the current half-time contract as "Distinguished Professor."
• 2006. I finished a draft of Overcoming Zionism. In January, while I was on a Fellowship in South Africa, President Botstein conducted a concert on campus of the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, which he has directed since 2003. In a stunning departure from traditional concert practice, this began with the playing of the national anthems of the United States and Israel, after each of which the audience rose. Except for a handful of protestors, the event went unnoticed. I regarded it, however, as paradigmatic of the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel, one that has conduced to war in Iraq and massive human rights violations in Israel/Palestine. In December, I organized a public lecture at Bard (with Mazin Qumsiyeh) to call attention to this problem. Only one faculty person attended; the rest were students and community people; and the issue was never taken up on campus.
• 2007. "Overcoming Zionism" was now on the market, arguing for a One-State solution (and sharply criticizing, among others, Martin Peretz for a scurrilous op-ed piece against Rachel Corrie in the Los Angeles Times. Peretz is an official in AIPAC's foreign policy think-tank, and at the time a Bard Trustee—though this latter fact was not pointed out in the book). In August, Overcoming Zionism was attacked by a watchdog Zionist group, StandWithUs/Michigan, which succeeded in pressuring the book's United States distributor, the University of Michigan Press, to remove it from circulation. An extraordinary outpouring of support (650 letters to U of M) succeeded in reversing this frank episode of book-burning. I was disturbed, however, by the fact that, with the exception of two non-tenure track faculty, there was no support from Bard in response to this egregious violation of the speech rights of a professor. When I asked President Botstein in an email why this was so, he replied that he felt I was doing quite well at taking care of myself. This was irrelevant to the obligation of a college to protect its faculty from violation of their rights of free expression—all the more so, a college such as Bard with a carefully honed reputation as a bastion of academic freedom, and which indeed defines such freedom in its Faculty Handbook as a "right . . . to search for truth and understanding without interference and to disseminate his [sic] findings without intimidation."
• 2008. Despite some reservations by the faculty, I was able to teach a course on Zionism. In my view, and that of most of the students, it was carried off successfully. Concurrently with this, another evaluation of my work at Bard was underway. Unlike previous evaluations, in 1996 and 2003, this was unenthusiastic. It was cited by Dean Dominy as instrumental in the decision to let me go.
IRREGULARITIES IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS
The evaluation committee included Professor Bruce Chilton, along with Professors Mark Lambert and Kyle Gann. Professor Chilton is a member of the Social Studies division, a distinguished theologian, and the campus' Protestant chaplain. He is also active in Zionist circles, as chair of the EpiscopalJewish Relations Committee in the Episcopal Diocese of New York, and a member of the Executive Committee of Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East. In this capacity he campaigns vigorously against Protestant efforts to promote divestment and sanctions against the State of Israel. Professor Chilton is particularly antagonistic to the Palestinian liberation theology movement, Sabeel, and its leader, Rev. Naim Ateek, also an Episcopal. This places him on the other side of the divide from myself, who attended a Sabeel Conference in Birmingham, MI, in October, 2008, as an invited speaker, where I met Rev. Ateek, and expressed admiration for his position. It should also be observed that Professor Chilton was active this past January in supporting Israeli aggression in Gaza. He may be heard on a national radio program on WABC, "Religion on the Line," (January 11, 2009) arguing from the Doctrine of Just War and claiming that it is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel for human rights violations—this despite the fact that large numbers of Jews have been in the forefront of protesting Israeli crimes in Gaza.
Of course, Professor Chilton has the right to his opinion as an academic and a citizen. Nonetheless, the presence of such a voice on the committee whose conclusion was instrumental in the decision to remove me from the Bard faculty is highly dubious. Most definitely, Professor Chilton should have recused himself from this position. His failure to do so, combined with the fact that the decision as a whole was made in context of adversity between myself and the Bard administration, renders the process of my termination invalid as an instance of what the College's Faculty Handbook calls a procedure "designed to evaluate each faculty member fairly and in good faith."
I still strove to make my future at Bard the subject of reasonable negotiation. However, my efforts in this direction were rudely denied by Dean Dominy's curt and dismissive letter (at the urging, according to her, of Vice-President Papadimitriou), which plainly asserted that there was nothing to talk over and that I was being handed a fait accompli. In view of this I considered myself left with no other option than the release of this document.
ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INTELLECTUALS
Bard has effectively crafted for itself an image as a bastion of progressive thought. Its efforts were crowned with being anointed in 2005 by the Princeton Review as the second-most progressive college in the United States, the journal adding that Bard "puts the 'liberal' in 'liberal arts.'" But "liberal" thought evidently has its limits; and my work against Zionism has encountered these.
A fundamental principle of mine is that the educator must criticize the injustices of the world, whether or not this involves him or her in conflict with the powers that be. The systematic failure of the academy to do so plays no small role in the perpetuation of injustice and state violence. In no sphere of political action does this principle apply more vigorously than with the question of Zionism; and in no country is this issue more strategically important than in the United States, given the fact that United States support is necessary for Israel's behavior. The worse this behavior, the more strenuous must be the suppression of criticism. I take the view, then, that Israeli human rights abuses are deeply engrained in a culture of impunity granted chiefly, though not exclusively, in the United States—which culture arises from suppression of debate and open inquiry within those institutions, such as colleges, whose social role it is to enlighten the public. Therefore, if the world stands outraged at Israeli aggression in Gaza, it should also be outraged at institutions in the United States that grant Israel impunity. In my view, Bard College is one such institution. It has suppressed critical engagement with Israel and Zionism, and therefore has enabled abuses such as have occurred and are occurring in Gaza. This notion is of course, not just descriptive of a place like Bard. It is also the context within which the critic of such a place and the Zionist ideology it enables becomes marginalized, and then removed.
For further information: www.codz.org; Joel Kovel, "Overcoming Impunity," The Link, Jan-March 2009 (www.ameu.org).
To write the Bard administration:
President Leon Botstein
Executive Vice-President Dimitri Papadimitriou
Saturday, February 21, 2009
not in our name. or, for that matter, in our grandmother's name.
To the President of the State of Israel and the Director of the Yad Vashem Memorial
Remove Our Grandmother's Name from the Wall at Yad Vashem
By MICHAEL NEUMANN
and OSHA NEUMANN
Following the example of Jean-Moise Braitberg, we ask that our grandmother's name be removed from the wall at Yad Vashem. Her name is Gertrud Neumann. Your records state that she was born in Kattowitz on June 6, 1875 and died in Theresienstadt.
M. Braitberg delivers his request with excellent reasons and eloquent personal testimony. His words are inspiring, but they give you – and those who stand with you - too much credit. I will instead be brief. Please take this as an expression of my disgust and contempt for your state and all it represents.
Our grandmother was a victim of that very ideal of ethnic sovereignty in whose cause Israel has shed so much blood for so long. I was among the many Jews who thought nothing of embracing that ideal, despite the sufferings it had inflicted on our own race. It took thousands of Palestinian lives before, finally, I realized how foolish we had been.
Our complicity was despicable. I do not believe that the Jewish people, in whose name you have committed so many crimes with such outrageous complacency, can ever rid itself of the shame you have brought upon us. Nazi propaganda, for all its calumnies, never disgraced and corrupted the Jews; you have succeeded in this. You haven't the courage to take responsibility for your own sadistic acts: with unparalleled insolence, you set yourself up as spokesmen for an entire race, as if our very existence endorsed your conduct. And you blacken our names not only by your acts, but by the lies, the coy evasions, the smirking arrogance and the infantile self-righteousness with which you embroider our history.
In the end, you will give the Palestinians some scrap of a state. You will never pay for your crimes and you will continue to preen yourself, to bask in your illusions of moral ascendancy. But between now and the end, you will kill and kill and kill, gaining nothing by your spoilt-brat brutality. In life, our grandmother suffered enough. Stop making her a party to this horror in her death.
Michael Neumann
I join my brother, Michael Neumann, in asking that any reference to our grandmother be removed from Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial.
I have been to this memorial. Its buildings, paved courtyards and plazas spread themselves authoritatively over many landscaped acres. It frames the Holocaust as a prelude to the creation of the state of Israel. It embalms memorabilia of the death camps and preserves them as national treasures. That treasure does not belong to Israel. It is a treasure only if it serves as a reminder never to permit any nation to claim an exemption for its chosen people from the bounds of morality and decency.
Israel has twisted the Holocaust into an excuse for perpetrating more holocausts. It has spent the treasure of the world's sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust on a fruitless effort to shield itself from all criticism as it massacres and tortures Palestinians and suffocates them under a brutal occupation. I do not wish to have the memory of my grandmother enlisted in this misbegotten project.
I grew up believing that Jews were that ethnic group whose historical mission was to transcend ethnicity in a united front against Fascism. To be Jewish was to be anti-Fascist. Israel long ago woke me from my dogmatic slumber about the immutable relationship of Jews to Fascists. It has engineered a merger between the image of Jewish torturers and war criminals and that of emaciated concentration camp victims. I find this merger obscene. I want no part of it. You have forfeited the right to be the custodian of my grandmother’s memory. I do not wish Yad Vashem to be her memorial.
Osha Neumann
Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at a Canadian university. He is the author of What's Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche and The Case Against Israel. He also contributed the essay, "What is Anti-Semitism", to CounterPunch's book
Remove Our Grandmother's Name from the Wall at Yad Vashem
By MICHAEL NEUMANN
and OSHA NEUMANN
Following the example of Jean-Moise Braitberg, we ask that our grandmother's name be removed from the wall at Yad Vashem. Her name is Gertrud Neumann. Your records state that she was born in Kattowitz on June 6, 1875 and died in Theresienstadt.
M. Braitberg delivers his request with excellent reasons and eloquent personal testimony. His words are inspiring, but they give you – and those who stand with you - too much credit. I will instead be brief. Please take this as an expression of my disgust and contempt for your state and all it represents.
Our grandmother was a victim of that very ideal of ethnic sovereignty in whose cause Israel has shed so much blood for so long. I was among the many Jews who thought nothing of embracing that ideal, despite the sufferings it had inflicted on our own race. It took thousands of Palestinian lives before, finally, I realized how foolish we had been.
Our complicity was despicable. I do not believe that the Jewish people, in whose name you have committed so many crimes with such outrageous complacency, can ever rid itself of the shame you have brought upon us. Nazi propaganda, for all its calumnies, never disgraced and corrupted the Jews; you have succeeded in this. You haven't the courage to take responsibility for your own sadistic acts: with unparalleled insolence, you set yourself up as spokesmen for an entire race, as if our very existence endorsed your conduct. And you blacken our names not only by your acts, but by the lies, the coy evasions, the smirking arrogance and the infantile self-righteousness with which you embroider our history.
In the end, you will give the Palestinians some scrap of a state. You will never pay for your crimes and you will continue to preen yourself, to bask in your illusions of moral ascendancy. But between now and the end, you will kill and kill and kill, gaining nothing by your spoilt-brat brutality. In life, our grandmother suffered enough. Stop making her a party to this horror in her death.
Michael Neumann
I join my brother, Michael Neumann, in asking that any reference to our grandmother be removed from Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial.
I have been to this memorial. Its buildings, paved courtyards and plazas spread themselves authoritatively over many landscaped acres. It frames the Holocaust as a prelude to the creation of the state of Israel. It embalms memorabilia of the death camps and preserves them as national treasures. That treasure does not belong to Israel. It is a treasure only if it serves as a reminder never to permit any nation to claim an exemption for its chosen people from the bounds of morality and decency.
Israel has twisted the Holocaust into an excuse for perpetrating more holocausts. It has spent the treasure of the world's sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust on a fruitless effort to shield itself from all criticism as it massacres and tortures Palestinians and suffocates them under a brutal occupation. I do not wish to have the memory of my grandmother enlisted in this misbegotten project.
I grew up believing that Jews were that ethnic group whose historical mission was to transcend ethnicity in a united front against Fascism. To be Jewish was to be anti-Fascist. Israel long ago woke me from my dogmatic slumber about the immutable relationship of Jews to Fascists. It has engineered a merger between the image of Jewish torturers and war criminals and that of emaciated concentration camp victims. I find this merger obscene. I want no part of it. You have forfeited the right to be the custodian of my grandmother’s memory. I do not wish Yad Vashem to be her memorial.
Osha Neumann
Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at a Canadian university. He is the author of What's Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche and The Case Against Israel. He also contributed the essay, "What is Anti-Semitism", to CounterPunch's book
is there a doctor in the house?
the u.s war in iraq is one massive crime. one of the major crimes inherent in it is that iraq was once one of the more secular countries in the middle east. as such, it was a society that valued education, medicine, women's rights, and other manifestations of civilized, secular, modernity. our destruction of iraq has eliminated that sensibility within iraq, just as our destruction of cambodia helped pave the way for the brutalities of pol pot.
there are those who will tell us that the murder of saddam hussein was a good thing. i challenge them to read this piece, or many others like it, which document the horrors of post saddam, post u.s bombing iraq.
Iraqi Doctors in Hiding Treat as They Can
by Dahr Jamail
February 21st, 2009 | Inter Press Service
Dr. Thana Hekmaytar. Photo: Dahr Jamail
BAGHDAD — Seventy percent of Iraq’s doctors are reported to have fled the war-torn country in the face of death threats and kidnappings. Those who remain live in fear, often in conditions close to house arrest.
“I was threatened I would be killed because I was working for the Iraqi government at the Medical City,” Dr. Thana Hekmaytar told IPS. Baghdad Medical City is the largest medical complex in the country.
Dr. Hekmaytar, a head and neck surgeon, has now been practising at the Saint Raphael Hospital in Baghdad for the last five years.
It is difficult now both as woman and as doctor, she says. Most women are now living in repressive conditions because the government is less secular. And that is besides the chaotic conditions around Iraq.
“It is particularly difficult for female doctors,” Dr. Hekmaytar says. “Large groups in Iraq only want us to stay at home, and certainly not be professionals.”
“We’ve had doctors kidnapped, and so many others have fled,” said Khaleb, a senior manager at the hospital who requested that his last name not be used. He named several doctors who had been kidnapped. This IPS correspondent, he said, was the first media person allowed into the hospital since the U.S. invasion of March 2003.
Doctors and other professionals become targets for kidnapping since they earn more money than most, and so fetch higher ransom.
“I’ve had to ask for security to protect the hospital,” Khaleb said. “After this, I went to Amman and convinced many of our doctors there to return. They did, but now they live in the hospital and never go outside. This has been the case since 2005. Every two months they leave to go visit their families in Jordan.”
Saint Raphael is a 35-bed hospital, but sees more than a thousand patients daily, says Khaleb. “Of our specialist doctors, ten live here full time. In addition, we have three younger doctors living here full time.”
Large concrete blocks restrict entry to the street leading up to the hospital. Iraqi army personnel guard the front door. Everyone entering the hospital is searched.
The hospital is located in the Karrada area of Baghdad, just across the Tigris river from the Green Zone. The neighbourhood is relatively safe by Baghdad standards, although attacks and car bombings still take place.
The hospital is on a side street close to several apartment buildings and private homes. Unlike most government hospitals it is clean and well stocked.
Dr. Hekmaytar is one of the doctors Khaleb persuaded to return to Baghdad. “Of course nobody likes to leave her home country, I was so sad,” she said. “I am grateful to be back, but wish it wasn’t under these difficult circumstances.”
Sitting with several doctors outside an operating room, she told IPS that death threats have never gone away.
“This is common here even now, but was especially so during 2004,” she said, as other doctors nodded in agreement. “Now I live and work in the hospital, and never leave.”
Dr. Hekmaytar, a Christian, received death threats twice. One came by way of a note in an envelope telling her to convert to Islam, or else. The second time she received a note in an envelope instructing her to where hijab. The note was enclosed with a bullet.
Dr. Shakir Mahmood Al-Robaie, an anaesthetist, too lives on the premises of the hospital where he works. “I both live and work here because I was threatened,” he told IPS. “My family is in Jordan.”
The doctor said his family received an envelope containing just a single bullet. After this, he moved his family to Jordan, and then returned to Iraq to get an income for himself and his family.
“Common? These threats are not just common,” said Dr. Jafir Hasily, a surgeon sitting across from Dr. Hekhaytar. “They are routine. This happens all the time.”
The Iraqi government estimates there were 36,000 doctors and medical personnel in Iraq when the U.S. invasion was launched in March 2003. Most escaped to neighbouring Arab countries, especially Jordan and Syria.
In early 2008, the Iraqi Health Ministry said that 628 medical personnel have been killed since 2003. Many believe the real figure is far higher, and that there is additionally a very large number of doctors who have been kidnapped and tortured.
In the absence of the doctors who left, particularly of senior doctors, the medical system is on the brink of collapse. It is short not just of doctors but also of other qualified staff, equipment and drugs. Patients are often forced to buy their own medicines on the black market.
there are those who will tell us that the murder of saddam hussein was a good thing. i challenge them to read this piece, or many others like it, which document the horrors of post saddam, post u.s bombing iraq.
Iraqi Doctors in Hiding Treat as They Can
by Dahr Jamail
February 21st, 2009 | Inter Press Service
Dr. Thana Hekmaytar. Photo: Dahr Jamail
BAGHDAD — Seventy percent of Iraq’s doctors are reported to have fled the war-torn country in the face of death threats and kidnappings. Those who remain live in fear, often in conditions close to house arrest.
“I was threatened I would be killed because I was working for the Iraqi government at the Medical City,” Dr. Thana Hekmaytar told IPS. Baghdad Medical City is the largest medical complex in the country.
Dr. Hekmaytar, a head and neck surgeon, has now been practising at the Saint Raphael Hospital in Baghdad for the last five years.
It is difficult now both as woman and as doctor, she says. Most women are now living in repressive conditions because the government is less secular. And that is besides the chaotic conditions around Iraq.
“It is particularly difficult for female doctors,” Dr. Hekmaytar says. “Large groups in Iraq only want us to stay at home, and certainly not be professionals.”
“We’ve had doctors kidnapped, and so many others have fled,” said Khaleb, a senior manager at the hospital who requested that his last name not be used. He named several doctors who had been kidnapped. This IPS correspondent, he said, was the first media person allowed into the hospital since the U.S. invasion of March 2003.
Doctors and other professionals become targets for kidnapping since they earn more money than most, and so fetch higher ransom.
“I’ve had to ask for security to protect the hospital,” Khaleb said. “After this, I went to Amman and convinced many of our doctors there to return. They did, but now they live in the hospital and never go outside. This has been the case since 2005. Every two months they leave to go visit their families in Jordan.”
Saint Raphael is a 35-bed hospital, but sees more than a thousand patients daily, says Khaleb. “Of our specialist doctors, ten live here full time. In addition, we have three younger doctors living here full time.”
Large concrete blocks restrict entry to the street leading up to the hospital. Iraqi army personnel guard the front door. Everyone entering the hospital is searched.
The hospital is located in the Karrada area of Baghdad, just across the Tigris river from the Green Zone. The neighbourhood is relatively safe by Baghdad standards, although attacks and car bombings still take place.
The hospital is on a side street close to several apartment buildings and private homes. Unlike most government hospitals it is clean and well stocked.
Dr. Hekmaytar is one of the doctors Khaleb persuaded to return to Baghdad. “Of course nobody likes to leave her home country, I was so sad,” she said. “I am grateful to be back, but wish it wasn’t under these difficult circumstances.”
Sitting with several doctors outside an operating room, she told IPS that death threats have never gone away.
“This is common here even now, but was especially so during 2004,” she said, as other doctors nodded in agreement. “Now I live and work in the hospital, and never leave.”
Dr. Hekmaytar, a Christian, received death threats twice. One came by way of a note in an envelope telling her to convert to Islam, or else. The second time she received a note in an envelope instructing her to where hijab. The note was enclosed with a bullet.
Dr. Shakir Mahmood Al-Robaie, an anaesthetist, too lives on the premises of the hospital where he works. “I both live and work here because I was threatened,” he told IPS. “My family is in Jordan.”
The doctor said his family received an envelope containing just a single bullet. After this, he moved his family to Jordan, and then returned to Iraq to get an income for himself and his family.
“Common? These threats are not just common,” said Dr. Jafir Hasily, a surgeon sitting across from Dr. Hekhaytar. “They are routine. This happens all the time.”
The Iraqi government estimates there were 36,000 doctors and medical personnel in Iraq when the U.S. invasion was launched in March 2003. Most escaped to neighbouring Arab countries, especially Jordan and Syria.
In early 2008, the Iraqi Health Ministry said that 628 medical personnel have been killed since 2003. Many believe the real figure is far higher, and that there is additionally a very large number of doctors who have been kidnapped and tortured.
In the absence of the doctors who left, particularly of senior doctors, the medical system is on the brink of collapse. It is short not just of doctors but also of other qualified staff, equipment and drugs. Patients are often forced to buy their own medicines on the black market.
a day in the life of cyborg
still fighting a cold. and losing. the heath brothers, at 25 a ticket plus 3 buck ticket master fee, will have to wait. the whole thing leaves me feeling kenny barron. took a walk to the local grocery store, and picked up a globe. yes, that alone makes me a criminal, i admit. in it, i read that "covert attacks continue in pakistan." well, if they are covert, how do we know about them? page 2 in a major paper doesn't sound particularly covert to me. no, there is nothing secret about any of this. as far as those attacks go, i am quite sure that many of the guys we are killing wouldn't be fellows to bring home to mother, but that doesn't give us the right to kill them. there are millions of "militants" in this country, but i don't want our cities bombed as a result. and what of the children, and the dozens of regular people that we have killed in pakistan? what of the buildings destroyed, the sovereignty trampled upon, the violations of international law? and why is it that we can attack other nations, but they can't attack us? hey, we are fighting two wars at once and have killed millions. does that mean dc and virginia should be up for grabs? come on, it's only collateral damage.
if i were the picture of heath, then i could have gone to the music bar, jim. as it is, i blog. currently, i am listening to giant steps for the first time in an eternity. it is a great album, but there were many great albums. music should be seen as an organic, gradual thing, where individual recordings spring up from a shared base. the truth is, there were many giants, and they all took giant steps. just listen to booker with byard take us on a journey into space, or to hank and wynton as they drop us off at the soul station, or to gene and jackie as they make us smile with the happy blues. if you want to know jazz, you have to know it whole. to cherry pick certain "jazz essentials" is a half assed approach. it is a surface solution. the real truth lies deeper. coltrane, yes. by all means. but hundreds of others too. giants don't grow alone.
but isn't that our problem? we are always looking for heroes, the great people who are going to make everything well. we would rather follow an electoral map than join a picket line. we would rather wear a button than boycott a war hungry nation. but it will be collective solutions, not individual solutions, that will do it, if it is to get done. the problems are collective, so the solutions must also be. it ain't about bad apples folks.
the whole food chain is rotten.
as the man said, they are gonna try to get us through the food chain.
alright man, that's enough.
if i were the picture of heath, then i could have gone to the music bar, jim. as it is, i blog. currently, i am listening to giant steps for the first time in an eternity. it is a great album, but there were many great albums. music should be seen as an organic, gradual thing, where individual recordings spring up from a shared base. the truth is, there were many giants, and they all took giant steps. just listen to booker with byard take us on a journey into space, or to hank and wynton as they drop us off at the soul station, or to gene and jackie as they make us smile with the happy blues. if you want to know jazz, you have to know it whole. to cherry pick certain "jazz essentials" is a half assed approach. it is a surface solution. the real truth lies deeper. coltrane, yes. by all means. but hundreds of others too. giants don't grow alone.
but isn't that our problem? we are always looking for heroes, the great people who are going to make everything well. we would rather follow an electoral map than join a picket line. we would rather wear a button than boycott a war hungry nation. but it will be collective solutions, not individual solutions, that will do it, if it is to get done. the problems are collective, so the solutions must also be. it ain't about bad apples folks.
the whole food chain is rotten.
as the man said, they are gonna try to get us through the food chain.
alright man, that's enough.
freedom has come to iraq, including the freedom to be homeless
Still Homeless in Baghdad
February 21, 2009 By Dahr Jamail
Source: IPS
Dahr Jamail's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
BAGHDAD, Feb 19 (IPS) - "We only want a normal life," says Um Qasim, sitting in a bombed out building in Baghdad. She and others around have been saying that for years.
Um Qasim lives with 13 family members in a brick shanty on the edge of a former military intelligence building in the Mansoor district of Baghdad.
Five of her children are girls. Homelessness is not easy for anyone, but it is particularly challenging for women and girls.
"Me and my girls have to be extra careful living this way," Um Qasim told IPS. "We are tired of always being afraid, because any day, any time, strange men walk through our area, and there is no protection for us. Each day brings a new threat to us, and all the women here."
She rarely leaves her area, she says. Nor do her girls, for fear of being kidnapped or raped.
"I don't like being afraid all the time," says one of Um Qasim's daughters. "But my mother tells us to always be careful, and I can see her fear, so it scares me."
The compound, which was the headquarters of former dictator Saddam Hussein's son Qusay Hussein, was heavily damaged by U.S. air strikes during the invasion in March 2003. Buildings like this became shelters for thousands displaced then and later.
In all 135 families, about 750 people, live in this compound.
"It is living in misery," says Um Qasim. Home is a bare concrete room shared by eight of her family members. "The government gives us 50 litres of heating and cooking oil each month, but we run out of it very soon, and then we have to try to find money to buy more so we can cook and try to stay warm."
The bombed building is in a state of total disrepair. Concrete blocks hang precariously from metal bars, many ceilings are partially collapsed, and all of the outer walls are gone.
There is no water, no electricity, no sewage, and no garbage disposal. Piles of garbage, diapers, decaying food scraps and human excrement are scattered around the area.
"We have no water, no money, and no work," says Ahmed Hussein, 15. "How can a human live in this misery? We are so tired."
Opportunities to find a way out are few. Unemployment across Iraq is high, between 40-65 percent. And the price of oil, the source of 90 percent of government revenue, has fallen. The government has not much to give out.
Last month the government decided to evict all people who have been squatting in government buildings or on government land since the invasion. Local NGOs estimate that more than 250,000 squatters live on the streets or in such shelters all over Baghdad.
"The Iraqi Cabinet has decided to evict all squatters in or on government property - land, houses, residential buildings or offices. They will be given financial help to find alternative places to live," said a government statement Jan. 4.
The government gave squatters 60 days from Jan. 1 to leave or face legal action, but later decided to give them more time. No one knows when the next order might come.
"We want help from the Iraqi government," says Nasir Fadlawi, 48, unofficial manager of Qasim's compound. "I am asking the government to care for us, as we are the sons and daughters of Iraq. We would not be here if they would help us."
Fadlawi says most people in the area are either economic refugees, or those displaced from their homes during the sectarian violence that racked Baghdad in 2006. "The Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army often come here and threaten us," he said. "But we have a right to live."
Fadlawi says it is difficult to find work or alternative places to live in also because of the corruption. The last time he applied for a job he was asked for 700 dollars. "Where am I going to get that money when I don't have a job to begin with."
The government may have to delay plans to build new housing. The Ministry of Displacement and Migration is reported to have postponed some new housing projects until 2010.
"We asked for 40 billion Iraqi dinars (34.2 million dollars) for the ministry's investment budget but we were told that only 8 billion (6.85 million dollars) could be allocated," said Ali Shaalan, head of the Ministry's planning directorate in a statement Jan. 4. "This could prevent us from achieving our goals for this year."
The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) released a report Jan. 1 that estimated there are 1.6 million internally displaced persons in Iraq. The report said that almost two-thirds, just over a million, live in Baghdad, more than half of them women or girls. The report pointed out that displaced women are more prone to rape and other forms of sexual violence. (END/2009)
February 21, 2009 By Dahr Jamail
Source: IPS
Dahr Jamail's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
BAGHDAD, Feb 19 (IPS) - "We only want a normal life," says Um Qasim, sitting in a bombed out building in Baghdad. She and others around have been saying that for years.
Um Qasim lives with 13 family members in a brick shanty on the edge of a former military intelligence building in the Mansoor district of Baghdad.
Five of her children are girls. Homelessness is not easy for anyone, but it is particularly challenging for women and girls.
"Me and my girls have to be extra careful living this way," Um Qasim told IPS. "We are tired of always being afraid, because any day, any time, strange men walk through our area, and there is no protection for us. Each day brings a new threat to us, and all the women here."
She rarely leaves her area, she says. Nor do her girls, for fear of being kidnapped or raped.
"I don't like being afraid all the time," says one of Um Qasim's daughters. "But my mother tells us to always be careful, and I can see her fear, so it scares me."
The compound, which was the headquarters of former dictator Saddam Hussein's son Qusay Hussein, was heavily damaged by U.S. air strikes during the invasion in March 2003. Buildings like this became shelters for thousands displaced then and later.
In all 135 families, about 750 people, live in this compound.
"It is living in misery," says Um Qasim. Home is a bare concrete room shared by eight of her family members. "The government gives us 50 litres of heating and cooking oil each month, but we run out of it very soon, and then we have to try to find money to buy more so we can cook and try to stay warm."
The bombed building is in a state of total disrepair. Concrete blocks hang precariously from metal bars, many ceilings are partially collapsed, and all of the outer walls are gone.
There is no water, no electricity, no sewage, and no garbage disposal. Piles of garbage, diapers, decaying food scraps and human excrement are scattered around the area.
"We have no water, no money, and no work," says Ahmed Hussein, 15. "How can a human live in this misery? We are so tired."
Opportunities to find a way out are few. Unemployment across Iraq is high, between 40-65 percent. And the price of oil, the source of 90 percent of government revenue, has fallen. The government has not much to give out.
Last month the government decided to evict all people who have been squatting in government buildings or on government land since the invasion. Local NGOs estimate that more than 250,000 squatters live on the streets or in such shelters all over Baghdad.
"The Iraqi Cabinet has decided to evict all squatters in or on government property - land, houses, residential buildings or offices. They will be given financial help to find alternative places to live," said a government statement Jan. 4.
The government gave squatters 60 days from Jan. 1 to leave or face legal action, but later decided to give them more time. No one knows when the next order might come.
"We want help from the Iraqi government," says Nasir Fadlawi, 48, unofficial manager of Qasim's compound. "I am asking the government to care for us, as we are the sons and daughters of Iraq. We would not be here if they would help us."
Fadlawi says most people in the area are either economic refugees, or those displaced from their homes during the sectarian violence that racked Baghdad in 2006. "The Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army often come here and threaten us," he said. "But we have a right to live."
Fadlawi says it is difficult to find work or alternative places to live in also because of the corruption. The last time he applied for a job he was asked for 700 dollars. "Where am I going to get that money when I don't have a job to begin with."
The government may have to delay plans to build new housing. The Ministry of Displacement and Migration is reported to have postponed some new housing projects until 2010.
"We asked for 40 billion Iraqi dinars (34.2 million dollars) for the ministry's investment budget but we were told that only 8 billion (6.85 million dollars) could be allocated," said Ali Shaalan, head of the Ministry's planning directorate in a statement Jan. 4. "This could prevent us from achieving our goals for this year."
The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) released a report Jan. 1 that estimated there are 1.6 million internally displaced persons in Iraq. The report said that almost two-thirds, just over a million, live in Baghdad, more than half of them women or girls. The report pointed out that displaced women are more prone to rape and other forms of sexual violence. (END/2009)
international law?
there is no such thing. instead, the victors judge the defeated, and the powerful judge the powerless. often times, the big criminals judge the little criminals. who in america is even aware that the u.s committed massive crimes against the people of cambodia?
chomsky is fond of mentioning the fact that at nuremberg, the allies at first attempted to argue that the bombing of civilian populations was a war crime. however, the germans were able to show that the practice was done to a greater extent by the allied powers. once that was proven, it was no longer judged to be a war crime. this is of course, a farce, and has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with power. lenny bruce once joked that if america had lost world war 2, truman would have been strung up by his balls. and curtis lemay, who directed the fire bombing of japanese cities, said that he would have been tried as a war criminal if america had lost the war.
this state continues to the present, where milosevic is tried as a war criminal, and clinton is viewed as a humanitarian. noreiga is in prison, while bush the elder raises money for tsunami victims. saddam hussein is hung, while bush junior remains a free man.
as the cancer rates rise in iraq, as serbians are chased from their homes in kosovo, and as children still step on landmines in laos.
Cambodia's Empty Dock
International justice is a farce while those in the west who sided with Pol Pot's murders escape trial
by John Pilger
At my hotel in Phnom Penh, the women and children sat on one side of the room, palais-style, the men on the other. It was a disco night and a lot of fun; then suddenly people walked to the windows and wept. The DJ had played a song by the much-loved Khmer singer Sin Sisamouth, who had been forced to dig his own grave and to sing the Khmer Rouge anthem before he was beaten to death. I experienced many such reminders.
There was another kind of reminder. In the village of Neak Long I walked with a distraught man through a necklace of bomb craters. His entire family of 13 had been blown to pieces by an American B-52. That had happened almost two years before Pol Pot came to power in 1975. It is estimated more than 600,000 Cambodians were slaughtered that way.
The problem with the UN-backed trial of the remaining Khmer Rouge leaders, which has just begun in Phnom Penh, is that it is dealing only with the killers of Sin Sisamouth and not with the killers of the family in Neak Long, and not with their collaborators. There were three stages of Cambodia's holocaust. Pol Pot's genocide was but one of them, yet only it has a place in the official memory.
It is highly unlikely Pot Pot would have come to power had President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, not attacked neutral Cambodia. In 1973, B-52s dropped more bombs on Cambodia's heartland than were dropped on Japan during the second world war: equivalent to five Hiroshimas. Files reveal that the CIA was in little doubt of the effect. "[The Khmer Rouge] are using damage caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda," reported the director of operations on May 2, 1973. "This approach has resulted in the successful recruitment of a number of young men [and] has been effective with refugees."
Prior to the bombing, the Khmer Rouge had been a Maoist cult without a popular base. The bombing delivered a catalyst. What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot completed. Kissinger will not be in the dock in Phnom Penh. He is advising President Obama on geopolitics. Neither will Margaret Thatcher, nor a number of her retired ministers and officials who, in secretly supporting the Khmer Rouge after the Vietnamese had expelled them, contributed directly to the third stage of Cambodia's holocaust.
In 1979, the US and Britain imposed a devastating embargo on stricken Cambodia because its liberators, Vietnam, had come from the wrong side of the cold war. Few Foreign Office campaigns have been as cynical or as brutal. The British demanded that the now defunct Pol Pot regime retain the "right" to represent its victims at the UN and voted with Pol Pot in the agencies of the UN, including the World Health Organisation, thereby preventing it from working in Cambodia. To disguise this outrage, Britain, the US and China, Pol Pot's main backer, invented a "non communist" coalition in exile that was, in fact, dominated by the Khmer Rouge. In Thailand, the CIA and Defence Intelligence Agency formed direct links with the Khmer Rouge.
In 1983, the Thatcher government sent the SAS to train the "coalition" in landmine technology - in a country more seeded with mines than anywhere except Afghanistan. "I confirm," Thatcher wrote to opposition leader Neil Kinnock, "that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them." The lie was breathtaking. In 1991, the Major government was forced to admit to parliament that the SAS had been secretly training the "coalition".
Unless international justice is a farce, those who sided with Pol Pot's mass murderers ought to be summoned to the court in Phnom Penh: at the very least their names read into infamy's register.
© 2009 Guardian/UK
John Pilger was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He has been a war correspondent, film-maker and playwright. Based in London, he has written from many countries and has twice won British journalism's highest award, that of "Journalist of the Year," for his work in Vietnam and Cambodia.
chomsky is fond of mentioning the fact that at nuremberg, the allies at first attempted to argue that the bombing of civilian populations was a war crime. however, the germans were able to show that the practice was done to a greater extent by the allied powers. once that was proven, it was no longer judged to be a war crime. this is of course, a farce, and has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with power. lenny bruce once joked that if america had lost world war 2, truman would have been strung up by his balls. and curtis lemay, who directed the fire bombing of japanese cities, said that he would have been tried as a war criminal if america had lost the war.
this state continues to the present, where milosevic is tried as a war criminal, and clinton is viewed as a humanitarian. noreiga is in prison, while bush the elder raises money for tsunami victims. saddam hussein is hung, while bush junior remains a free man.
as the cancer rates rise in iraq, as serbians are chased from their homes in kosovo, and as children still step on landmines in laos.
Cambodia's Empty Dock
International justice is a farce while those in the west who sided with Pol Pot's murders escape trial
by John Pilger
At my hotel in Phnom Penh, the women and children sat on one side of the room, palais-style, the men on the other. It was a disco night and a lot of fun; then suddenly people walked to the windows and wept. The DJ had played a song by the much-loved Khmer singer Sin Sisamouth, who had been forced to dig his own grave and to sing the Khmer Rouge anthem before he was beaten to death. I experienced many such reminders.
There was another kind of reminder. In the village of Neak Long I walked with a distraught man through a necklace of bomb craters. His entire family of 13 had been blown to pieces by an American B-52. That had happened almost two years before Pol Pot came to power in 1975. It is estimated more than 600,000 Cambodians were slaughtered that way.
The problem with the UN-backed trial of the remaining Khmer Rouge leaders, which has just begun in Phnom Penh, is that it is dealing only with the killers of Sin Sisamouth and not with the killers of the family in Neak Long, and not with their collaborators. There were three stages of Cambodia's holocaust. Pol Pot's genocide was but one of them, yet only it has a place in the official memory.
It is highly unlikely Pot Pot would have come to power had President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, not attacked neutral Cambodia. In 1973, B-52s dropped more bombs on Cambodia's heartland than were dropped on Japan during the second world war: equivalent to five Hiroshimas. Files reveal that the CIA was in little doubt of the effect. "[The Khmer Rouge] are using damage caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda," reported the director of operations on May 2, 1973. "This approach has resulted in the successful recruitment of a number of young men [and] has been effective with refugees."
Prior to the bombing, the Khmer Rouge had been a Maoist cult without a popular base. The bombing delivered a catalyst. What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot completed. Kissinger will not be in the dock in Phnom Penh. He is advising President Obama on geopolitics. Neither will Margaret Thatcher, nor a number of her retired ministers and officials who, in secretly supporting the Khmer Rouge after the Vietnamese had expelled them, contributed directly to the third stage of Cambodia's holocaust.
In 1979, the US and Britain imposed a devastating embargo on stricken Cambodia because its liberators, Vietnam, had come from the wrong side of the cold war. Few Foreign Office campaigns have been as cynical or as brutal. The British demanded that the now defunct Pol Pot regime retain the "right" to represent its victims at the UN and voted with Pol Pot in the agencies of the UN, including the World Health Organisation, thereby preventing it from working in Cambodia. To disguise this outrage, Britain, the US and China, Pol Pot's main backer, invented a "non communist" coalition in exile that was, in fact, dominated by the Khmer Rouge. In Thailand, the CIA and Defence Intelligence Agency formed direct links with the Khmer Rouge.
In 1983, the Thatcher government sent the SAS to train the "coalition" in landmine technology - in a country more seeded with mines than anywhere except Afghanistan. "I confirm," Thatcher wrote to opposition leader Neil Kinnock, "that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them." The lie was breathtaking. In 1991, the Major government was forced to admit to parliament that the SAS had been secretly training the "coalition".
Unless international justice is a farce, those who sided with Pol Pot's mass murderers ought to be summoned to the court in Phnom Penh: at the very least their names read into infamy's register.
© 2009 Guardian/UK
John Pilger was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He has been a war correspondent, film-maker and playwright. Based in London, he has written from many countries and has twice won British journalism's highest award, that of "Journalist of the Year," for his work in Vietnam and Cambodia.
remember all those books written by liberals about how bush was disregarding the constitution? well, let me know if you can find them.
Obama: No Rights for Bagram Prisoners
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights
In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.
"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."
The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.
Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to contact an attorney. Their petition was filed by relatives on their behalf since they had no way of getting access to the legal system.
The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.
Embracing Bush policy
After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.
"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.
The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.
It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.
The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.
Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights
In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.
"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."
The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.
Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to contact an attorney. Their petition was filed by relatives on their behalf since they had no way of getting access to the legal system.
The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.
Embracing Bush policy
After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.
"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.
The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.
It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.
The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.
Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Friday, February 20, 2009
when thinking about that post cartoon
remember that the monkey was killed by police. anyone with a brain knows what the police have done to black people in this country.
also, it bears repeating that this is an attack on all black people, not just obama, though it is certainly that.
if this were a decent country, no one would buy that paper again. however, if this were a decent country, no one would buy any of the mainstream papers. for as bad as that cartoon is, surely it is no worse than the lies peddled daily about the war on terror, hugo chavez, hamas, and various other issues. our problem is not merely the extreme acts of a few, but the systemic workings of the many. yes, many of us are angry at that cartoon, but how many of us are angry at racial health disparities, unequal prison sentencing, and wars based on lies? it is the mundane workings of the system that create a base from which the more openly hateful actions arise. therefore, we need to oppose it all.
the problem isn't a cartoon in the post, though that certainly needs to be opposed. rather, it's our media. it's our culture.
it's our country.
also, it bears repeating that this is an attack on all black people, not just obama, though it is certainly that.
if this were a decent country, no one would buy that paper again. however, if this were a decent country, no one would buy any of the mainstream papers. for as bad as that cartoon is, surely it is no worse than the lies peddled daily about the war on terror, hugo chavez, hamas, and various other issues. our problem is not merely the extreme acts of a few, but the systemic workings of the many. yes, many of us are angry at that cartoon, but how many of us are angry at racial health disparities, unequal prison sentencing, and wars based on lies? it is the mundane workings of the system that create a base from which the more openly hateful actions arise. therefore, we need to oppose it all.
the problem isn't a cartoon in the post, though that certainly needs to be opposed. rather, it's our media. it's our culture.
it's our country.
the problem is us, not them.
Will Obama Change U.S. Policy Toward Latin America?
February 20, 2009 By Mark Weisbrot
Source: The Guardian Unlimited
Mark Weisbrot's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
U.S.-Latin American relations fell to record lows during the Bush years, and there have been hopes - both North and South of the border - that President Obama would bring a fresh approach. So far, however, most signals are pointing to continuity rather than change.
President Obama started off with an unprovoked verbal assault on Venezuela. In an interview broadcast by the Spanish language television station Univision on the Sunday before his inauguration, he accused President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela of having "impeded progress in the region" and "exporting terrorist activities."
These remarks were unusually hostile and threatening even by the previous administration's standards. They are also untrue and diametrically opposed to the way the rest of the region sees Venezuela. The charge that Venezuela is "exporting terrorism" would not pass the laugh test among almost any government in Latin America. José Miguel Insulza, the Chilean Secretary General of the OAS, was speaking for almost all the countries in the hemisphere when he told the U.S. Congress last year that "there is no evidence" and that no member country, including the United States, had offered "any such proof" that Venezuela supported terrorist groups.
Nor do the other Latin American democracies see Venezuela as an obstacle to progress in the region. On the contrary, President Lula da Silva of Brazil - along with several other presidents in South America -- has repeatedly defended Chávez and his role in the region. Just a few days after Obama denounced Venezuela, Lula was in Venezuela's southern state of Zulia, where he emphasized his strategic partnership with Chávez and their common efforts at regional economic integration.
Obama's statement was no accident; whoever fed him these lines very likely intended to send a message to the Venezuelan electorate before last Sunday's referendum that Venezuela won't have decent relations with the US so long as Chávez is their elected president. (Voters decided to remove term limits for elected officials, paving the way for Chávez to run again in 2013.)
There is definitely at least a faction of the Obama administration that wants to continue the Bush policies. James Steinberg, number two to Hillary Clinton in the State Department, took a gratuitous swipe at Bolivia and Venezuela during his confirmation process, saying that the United States should provide a "counterweight to governments like those currently in power in Venezuela and Bolivia which pursue policies which do not serve the interests of their people or the region."
Another sign of continuity is that Obama has not yet replaced Bush's top State Department official for the Western Hemisphere, Thomas Shannon.
The U.S. media plays the role of enabler in this situation. Thus the Associated Press ignores the attacks from Washington and portrays Chávez's response as nothing more than an electoral ploy on his part. In fact, Chávez had been uncharacteristically restrained. He did not respond to attacks throughout the long U.S. presidential campaign, even when Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden called him a "dictator," or Obama described him as "despotic" - labels that no serious political scientist anywhere would accept for a democratically elected president of a country where the opposition dominates the media. He wrote it off as the influence of South Florida on U.S. presidential elections.
But there are few if any presidents in the world that would take repeated verbal abuse from another government without responding. Obama's advisors know that no matter what this administration does to Venezuela, the press will portray Chávez as the aggressor. So it's an easy, if cynical, political calculation for them to poison relations from the outset. What they have not yet realized is that by doing so they are alienating the majority of the region.
There is still hope for change in U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, which has become thoroughly discredited on everything from the "war on drugs," to the Cuba embargo to trade policy. But as during the Bush years, we will need relentless pressure from the South. Last September UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations) strongly backed Bolivia's government against opposition violence and destabilization. This was very successful in countering Washington's tacit support for the more extremist elements of Bolivia's opposition. It showed the Bush administration that the region was not going to tolerate any attempts to legitimize an extra-legal opposition in Bolivia or to grant it special rights outside of the democratic political process.
Several presidents, including Lula, have called upon Obama to lift the embargo on Cuba, as they congratulated him on his victory. Lula also asked Obama to meet with Chávez. Hopefully these governments will continue to assert -- repeatedly, publicly, and with one voice -- that Washington's problems with Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela are Washington's problems, and not the result of anything that those governments have done. When the Obama team is convinced that a "divide and conquer" approach to the region will fail just as miserably for this administration as it did for the previous one, then we may see the beginnings of a new policy toward Latin America.
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net).
February 20, 2009 By Mark Weisbrot
Source: The Guardian Unlimited
Mark Weisbrot's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
U.S.-Latin American relations fell to record lows during the Bush years, and there have been hopes - both North and South of the border - that President Obama would bring a fresh approach. So far, however, most signals are pointing to continuity rather than change.
President Obama started off with an unprovoked verbal assault on Venezuela. In an interview broadcast by the Spanish language television station Univision on the Sunday before his inauguration, he accused President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela of having "impeded progress in the region" and "exporting terrorist activities."
These remarks were unusually hostile and threatening even by the previous administration's standards. They are also untrue and diametrically opposed to the way the rest of the region sees Venezuela. The charge that Venezuela is "exporting terrorism" would not pass the laugh test among almost any government in Latin America. José Miguel Insulza, the Chilean Secretary General of the OAS, was speaking for almost all the countries in the hemisphere when he told the U.S. Congress last year that "there is no evidence" and that no member country, including the United States, had offered "any such proof" that Venezuela supported terrorist groups.
Nor do the other Latin American democracies see Venezuela as an obstacle to progress in the region. On the contrary, President Lula da Silva of Brazil - along with several other presidents in South America -- has repeatedly defended Chávez and his role in the region. Just a few days after Obama denounced Venezuela, Lula was in Venezuela's southern state of Zulia, where he emphasized his strategic partnership with Chávez and their common efforts at regional economic integration.
Obama's statement was no accident; whoever fed him these lines very likely intended to send a message to the Venezuelan electorate before last Sunday's referendum that Venezuela won't have decent relations with the US so long as Chávez is their elected president. (Voters decided to remove term limits for elected officials, paving the way for Chávez to run again in 2013.)
There is definitely at least a faction of the Obama administration that wants to continue the Bush policies. James Steinberg, number two to Hillary Clinton in the State Department, took a gratuitous swipe at Bolivia and Venezuela during his confirmation process, saying that the United States should provide a "counterweight to governments like those currently in power in Venezuela and Bolivia which pursue policies which do not serve the interests of their people or the region."
Another sign of continuity is that Obama has not yet replaced Bush's top State Department official for the Western Hemisphere, Thomas Shannon.
The U.S. media plays the role of enabler in this situation. Thus the Associated Press ignores the attacks from Washington and portrays Chávez's response as nothing more than an electoral ploy on his part. In fact, Chávez had been uncharacteristically restrained. He did not respond to attacks throughout the long U.S. presidential campaign, even when Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden called him a "dictator," or Obama described him as "despotic" - labels that no serious political scientist anywhere would accept for a democratically elected president of a country where the opposition dominates the media. He wrote it off as the influence of South Florida on U.S. presidential elections.
But there are few if any presidents in the world that would take repeated verbal abuse from another government without responding. Obama's advisors know that no matter what this administration does to Venezuela, the press will portray Chávez as the aggressor. So it's an easy, if cynical, political calculation for them to poison relations from the outset. What they have not yet realized is that by doing so they are alienating the majority of the region.
There is still hope for change in U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, which has become thoroughly discredited on everything from the "war on drugs," to the Cuba embargo to trade policy. But as during the Bush years, we will need relentless pressure from the South. Last September UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations) strongly backed Bolivia's government against opposition violence and destabilization. This was very successful in countering Washington's tacit support for the more extremist elements of Bolivia's opposition. It showed the Bush administration that the region was not going to tolerate any attempts to legitimize an extra-legal opposition in Bolivia or to grant it special rights outside of the democratic political process.
Several presidents, including Lula, have called upon Obama to lift the embargo on Cuba, as they congratulated him on his victory. Lula also asked Obama to meet with Chávez. Hopefully these governments will continue to assert -- repeatedly, publicly, and with one voice -- that Washington's problems with Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela are Washington's problems, and not the result of anything that those governments have done. When the Obama team is convinced that a "divide and conquer" approach to the region will fail just as miserably for this administration as it did for the previous one, then we may see the beginnings of a new policy toward Latin America.
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net).
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
this stimulates me a lot more than any stimulus bill
Neighbors Helping Neighbors—to Break Into Vacant Houses
by Madeleine Baran
Poverty rights activists broke into at least a dozen vacant Minneapolis buildings this week and helped homeless families move in.
"This is the modern underground railroad," said Cheri Honkala, National Organizer for the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, the group organizing the "takeovers."
This week's actions are part of a growing national movement to illegally open up thousands of vacant, foreclosed homes to provide housing for the growing number of homeless people. Over 3,000 Minneapolis homes went into foreclosure in 2008. Advocates estimate that over 7,000 Minnesotans are homeless. Most Twin Cities' homeless shelters have been filled to capacity for months.
On a recent afternoon, organizers planned their next takeover while eating cabbage, rice, sausage, and corn bread prepared by Rosemary, a 59-year-old African American woman facing eviction from her home. Rosemary, who asked that her last name not be used, plans to remain in her house illegally after the March 31 eviction date. In the meantime, she spends her time organizing for tenant's rights.
"Welcome to the revolution," Rosemary said, greeting a homeless couple looking for housing.
Lonnetta and Dwayne took a seat on Rosemary's couch. Dwayne, 52, walking on crutches from a series of recent foot surgeries, explained that he lost his janitorial job in June when he broke his foot. The married couple asked that their last name not be used.
"Welcome to the Revolution!"
Forced to survive on Lonnetta's $637 a month Social Security check, the couple soon became homeless. Social service providers told them to stay at Harbor Light, a homeless shelter in downtown Minneapolis, where the couple would be housed on different floors. Lonnetta, 48, feared being separated from her sick husband who she said needs frequent reminders to take his medication. Instead, the couple started living out of their truck.
A relative put Lonnetta and Dwayne in contact with the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, a national anti-poverty organization based in Minneapolis.
Honkala, the group's National Organizer, became an activist in her teenage years when she and her young son lived in her car after becoming homeless. When a drunk driver hit the car one night, Honkala said she got fed up, and moved into a vacant Minneapolis HUD property for several months.
After years of anti-poverty work, Honkala rose to national prominence in the 1990s by founding the Kensington Welfare Rights Union in an impoverished Philadelphia neighborhood. The activist group helped move homeless families into vacant properties, and used the publicity from those occupations to force the city to issue housing vouchers.
Honkala moved back to Minneapolis two years ago and started matching homeless families with vacant buildings. She estimates that about forty families have been housed since her return, including twelve this week.
Honkala met Dwayne and Lonnetta last week. She offered to find them housing in a vacant home. The couple readily agreed.
The plan turned out to be more difficult than the couple anticipated. Activists first attempted to house the couple in a vacant South Minneapolis home. A city inspector and the police soon arrived and demanded they leave. The police issued trespassing citations to Lonnetta, Dwayne, Honkala, and Manuel Levinsholden, a 19-year-old organizer. Honkala said that a pro bono attorney will provide legal assistance.
Activists then led the couple to Rosemary's house, where they hoped to house the couple in one of the block's five vacant homes. While chatting in Rosemary's living room, Honkala received a phone call. "Well, that's not going to work," she said. "Burglar alarms."
However, with no shortage of properties to choose from, it only took a few phone calls to find a new location several blocks away. Within a few minutes, Honkala, Levinsholden, Lonnetta, and Dwayne were inside a large, empty yellow duplex.
Dwayne cautiously walked around broken glass on the kitchen floor and made his way into the dining room, surveying the hardwood floors and large windows. "I want it," he said.
"Look at that bathroom," said Lonnetta, turning on what appeared to be a brand new light fixture. "That's pretty." She then made her way into the living room, painted blue, but marked with dozens of white splotches to cover up graffiti.
When asked how the activists will get the heat and hot water turned on, Honkala grinned and said, "God turns on the utilities."
Rosemary, who came by to inspect the couple's new home, stumbled while walking up the steep staircase to the second floor. After dusting herself off, she looked around the upstairs kitchen: a row of old wooden cabinets and an empty space where a dishwasher might have been. "Not bad," she said.
Meanwhile, Honkala grabbed several documents left on the downstairs kitchen counter, including paperwork stating that HUD owns the house. One document indicated that the home was last inspected on February 3rd.
"This is just a waste," she said. "It's a waste to have thousands of empty homes like this and people with no place to live." Organizers plan to provide furniture and help the families with basic renovations.
Honkala said that the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign will continue to house the homeless in vacant buildings until the government can provide a safe, affordable alternative. More takeovers are planned for this weekend.
Meanwhile, Rosemary faces eviction in a few weeks, but has no plans to leave. "We'll pack my house with people," she said. "It'll be a showdown."
"Wait," Dwayne said, looking surprised. "You're going to lose your home, too?" He shook his head. "No man, we ain't gonna let them do that, no way. We're neighbors."
Madeleine Baran is a freelance journalist, specializing in labor and poverty issues. Her articles have appeared in The New York Daily News, Dollars & Sense, Clamor, The New Standard, and other publications.
by Madeleine Baran
Poverty rights activists broke into at least a dozen vacant Minneapolis buildings this week and helped homeless families move in.
"This is the modern underground railroad," said Cheri Honkala, National Organizer for the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, the group organizing the "takeovers."
This week's actions are part of a growing national movement to illegally open up thousands of vacant, foreclosed homes to provide housing for the growing number of homeless people. Over 3,000 Minneapolis homes went into foreclosure in 2008. Advocates estimate that over 7,000 Minnesotans are homeless. Most Twin Cities' homeless shelters have been filled to capacity for months.
On a recent afternoon, organizers planned their next takeover while eating cabbage, rice, sausage, and corn bread prepared by Rosemary, a 59-year-old African American woman facing eviction from her home. Rosemary, who asked that her last name not be used, plans to remain in her house illegally after the March 31 eviction date. In the meantime, she spends her time organizing for tenant's rights.
"Welcome to the revolution," Rosemary said, greeting a homeless couple looking for housing.
Lonnetta and Dwayne took a seat on Rosemary's couch. Dwayne, 52, walking on crutches from a series of recent foot surgeries, explained that he lost his janitorial job in June when he broke his foot. The married couple asked that their last name not be used.
"Welcome to the Revolution!"
Forced to survive on Lonnetta's $637 a month Social Security check, the couple soon became homeless. Social service providers told them to stay at Harbor Light, a homeless shelter in downtown Minneapolis, where the couple would be housed on different floors. Lonnetta, 48, feared being separated from her sick husband who she said needs frequent reminders to take his medication. Instead, the couple started living out of their truck.
A relative put Lonnetta and Dwayne in contact with the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, a national anti-poverty organization based in Minneapolis.
Honkala, the group's National Organizer, became an activist in her teenage years when she and her young son lived in her car after becoming homeless. When a drunk driver hit the car one night, Honkala said she got fed up, and moved into a vacant Minneapolis HUD property for several months.
After years of anti-poverty work, Honkala rose to national prominence in the 1990s by founding the Kensington Welfare Rights Union in an impoverished Philadelphia neighborhood. The activist group helped move homeless families into vacant properties, and used the publicity from those occupations to force the city to issue housing vouchers.
Honkala moved back to Minneapolis two years ago and started matching homeless families with vacant buildings. She estimates that about forty families have been housed since her return, including twelve this week.
Honkala met Dwayne and Lonnetta last week. She offered to find them housing in a vacant home. The couple readily agreed.
The plan turned out to be more difficult than the couple anticipated. Activists first attempted to house the couple in a vacant South Minneapolis home. A city inspector and the police soon arrived and demanded they leave. The police issued trespassing citations to Lonnetta, Dwayne, Honkala, and Manuel Levinsholden, a 19-year-old organizer. Honkala said that a pro bono attorney will provide legal assistance.
Activists then led the couple to Rosemary's house, where they hoped to house the couple in one of the block's five vacant homes. While chatting in Rosemary's living room, Honkala received a phone call. "Well, that's not going to work," she said. "Burglar alarms."
However, with no shortage of properties to choose from, it only took a few phone calls to find a new location several blocks away. Within a few minutes, Honkala, Levinsholden, Lonnetta, and Dwayne were inside a large, empty yellow duplex.
Dwayne cautiously walked around broken glass on the kitchen floor and made his way into the dining room, surveying the hardwood floors and large windows. "I want it," he said.
"Look at that bathroom," said Lonnetta, turning on what appeared to be a brand new light fixture. "That's pretty." She then made her way into the living room, painted blue, but marked with dozens of white splotches to cover up graffiti.
When asked how the activists will get the heat and hot water turned on, Honkala grinned and said, "God turns on the utilities."
Rosemary, who came by to inspect the couple's new home, stumbled while walking up the steep staircase to the second floor. After dusting herself off, she looked around the upstairs kitchen: a row of old wooden cabinets and an empty space where a dishwasher might have been. "Not bad," she said.
Meanwhile, Honkala grabbed several documents left on the downstairs kitchen counter, including paperwork stating that HUD owns the house. One document indicated that the home was last inspected on February 3rd.
"This is just a waste," she said. "It's a waste to have thousands of empty homes like this and people with no place to live." Organizers plan to provide furniture and help the families with basic renovations.
Honkala said that the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign will continue to house the homeless in vacant buildings until the government can provide a safe, affordable alternative. More takeovers are planned for this weekend.
Meanwhile, Rosemary faces eviction in a few weeks, but has no plans to leave. "We'll pack my house with people," she said. "It'll be a showdown."
"Wait," Dwayne said, looking surprised. "You're going to lose your home, too?" He shook his head. "No man, we ain't gonna let them do that, no way. We're neighbors."
Madeleine Baran is a freelance journalist, specializing in labor and poverty issues. Her articles have appeared in The New York Daily News, Dollars & Sense, Clamor, The New Standard, and other publications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
