All progress is through faith and hope in something. The measure of a poet is in the largeness of thought which he can apply to any subject, however trifling. -Lafcadio Hearn-
Thursday, April 28, 2011
MLB Speaks Out
Players, managers, and officials across Major League Baseball have been been courageously speaking out against SB 1070:
Carlos Beltrán (New York Mets–OF)
“I’m against this law. There are a lot of Latinos who come here and try to have a better future. It’s hard for the people who come here from Mexico to this country.” — July 20, NY Daily News
Albert Pujols (St. Louis Cardinals–1B)
“I’m opposed to it. How are you going to tell me that, me being Hispanic, if you stop me and I don’t have my ID, you’re going to arrest me? That can’t be.” — July 12, USA Today
Yovani Gallardo (Milwaukee Brewers–P)
“If the game is in Arizona, I will totally boycott.” — July 12, Associated Press
José Valverde (Detroit Tigers–P)
“To me, it’s the stupidest thing you can ever have. [...] Us Latinos have contributed so much to this country. [...] We’re the ones out there cleaning the streets. Americans don’t want to do that stuff. [...] As a public figure and with the heart I have, this affects me a lot. Because they’re not thinking about the children this effects. We’ve accomplished our goals. But what about the young kids who have only been here for a year or for months? They’re unable to make their way in the world.” — July 12, MLB.com
Miguel Batista (Washington Nationals–P)
“Because I have an accent, you have a right to ask me for my papers? Because I’m not blonde with blue eyes? What do you actually base the stereotype on to have to ask me for my papers?” — July 12, ESPN
Jerry Hairston Jr. (San Diego Padres–2B/SS)
“It’s not right. I can’t imagine my mom — who’s been a U.S. citizen longer than I’ve been alive, who was born and raised in Mexico — being asked to show her papers. I can’t imagine that happening. So it kind of hits home for me.” — July 12, ESPN
Edwin Rodriguez (Florida Marlins–Manager)
“I will tell you, as a minority, I’m concerned about the law.” — July 12, ESPN
Heath Bell (San Diego Padres–P)
“If Adrian is voted in next year and doesn’t go, I wouldn’t be surprised if I wouldn’t go to stick up for my teammate. [...] I have a lot of friends that are not white. Sometimes you need to stick up for your friends and family.” — July 12, ESPN
Jose Bautista (Toronto Blue Jays–OF)
“We have to back up our Latin communities.” — July 12, Associated Press
Joakim Soria (Kansas City Royals–P)
“They could stop me and ask to see my papers. I have to stand with my Latin community on this.” — July 12, Associated Press
Jorge Cantú (Florida Marlins–3B)
“This hits me in the heart. I do not accept it. It’s a shame. It is sad news for my country, but not only Mexicans. Latin people. It’s just a shame for all those people here looking for a better life. They are looking for a better standard of living, and this knocks down their dreams. It is really upsetting.” — May 17, Miami Herald
Augie Ojeda (Arizona Diamondbacks–SS)
“If I leave the park after a game and I get stopped, am I supposed to have papers on me? I don’t think that’s fair.” — May 17, Miami Herald
Michael Young (Texas Rangers–3B)
“You can quote me. It’s a ridiculous law. And it’s an embarrassment for American citizens.” — May 12, Sporting News
Frank Francisco (Texas Rangers–P)
“I put myself in that situation and it is scary. No way you are going to carry your passport everywhere you go because that is a very important document and, if you lose it, you endanger your ability to work. This [law] does not feel like America to me.” — May 12, Sporting News
Alexei Ramírez (Chicago White Sox–SS)
“I’m against it.” — May 6, Sports Illustrated
Adrian Gonzalez (San Diego Padres–1B)
“It’s immoral. They’re violating human rights. In a way, it goes against what this country was built on. This is discrimination. Are they going to pass out a picture saying “You should look like this and you’re fine, but if you don’t, do people have the right to question you?’ That’s profiling.” — May 1, San Diego Union-Tribune
Ozzie Guillén (Chicago White Sox–Manager)
“I’m not going. I have to support my people, people I believe in.” — May 1, NY Post
César Izturis (Baltimore Orioles–SS)
“It’s a bad thing. Now they’re going to go after everybody, not just the people behind the wall. Now they’re going to come out on the street. What if you’re walking on the street with your family and kids? They’re going to go after you.” — May 1, ESPN
Rod Barajas (New York Mets–C)
“If they happen to pull someone over who looks like they are of Latin descent, even if they are a U.S. citizen, that is the first question that is going to be asked. But if a blond-haired, blue-eyed Canadian gets pulled over, do you think they are going to ask for their papers? No.” — May 1, NY Times
Scott Hairston (San Diego Padres–OF)
“I definitely disagree with it, can’t really see anything positive about it, and I just hope it doesn’t lead to a lot of chaos. It just wasn’t necessary to pass a bill like that.” — May 1, San Diego Union-Tribune
Joe Saunders (Los Angeles Angels–OF)
“We’re behind you guys 100%.” — May 1, LA Times
Bobby Abreu (Los Angeles Angels–OF)
“You’re not going to be on the street every time with your passport, because you’re afraid you might lose it.” — May 1, LA Times
Yorvit Torrealba (San Diego Padres–C)
“This is racist stuff. It’s not fair for a young guy who comes here from South America, and just because he has a strong accent, he has to prove on the spot if he’s illegal or not. [...] I don’t see this being right. Why do I want to go play in a place where every time I go to a restaurant and they don’t understand what I’m trying to order, they’re going to ask me for ID first? That’s bull. I come from a crazy country (Venezuela). Now Arizona seems a little bit more crazy.” — May 1, San Diego Union-Tribune
Adrián Beltré (Boston Red Sox–3B)
“For an older guy, we can handle it. But you have guys 17 or 18 years old there for spring training. If they forget their papers, something could happen.” — May 1, FGNPR
José Guillén (Kansas City Royals–DH)
“I’ve never seen anything like that in the United States, and Arizona is part of the United States. I hope police aren’t going to stop every dark-skinned person. It’s kind of like, wow, what’s going on.” — April 30, Yahoo Sports
Kyle McClellan (St. Louis Cardinals–P)
“The All-Star game, it’s going to generate a lot of revenue. Look at what it did here for St. Louis. It was a huge promotion for this city and this club and it’s one of those things where it’s something that would definitely leave a mark on them if we were to pull out of there. It would get a point across.” — April 30, CBS News
MLB Players’ Association President Michael Weiner
“The Major League Baseball Players Association opposes this law as written. We hope that the law is repealed or modified promptly. If the current law goes into effect, the MLBPA will consider additional steps necessary to protect the rights and interests of our members.” — April 30, CNN
2011 Readout of the President's Meeting with Stakeholders on Fixing the Broken Immigration System
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release April 19,
In a meeting in the State Dining Room this afternoon, the President and members of his Cabinet and senior staff met with a broad group of business, law enforcement, faith, and former and current elected leaders from across the political spectrum to hear their ideas and suggestions on how to tackle our shared challenge of fixing our nation’s broken immigration system in order to meet our 21st century economic and security needs.
The President reiterated his deep disappointment that Congressional action on immigration reform has stalled and that the DREAM Act failed to pass in the U.S. Senate after passing with a bipartisan majority in the U.S. House in December. The President listened to stakeholders describe a variety of problems that result from the broken system, including: educating the best and brightest but then shipping that talent overseas; concerns over the ability of businesses to reliably hire and retain a legal workforce; and the need to level the playing field for American workers by ending the underground labor market. In addition, local law enforcement officers expressed concern that without reform, enforcing federal immigration laws is a distraction from their important public safety and crime fighting mandates to keep their local communities safe, and faith leaders highlighted the damage to families and communities when families are separated, including parents who are taken away from their U.S. Citizen children.
The President reiterated his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform that both strengthens security at our borders while restoring accountability to the broken immigration system, and pointed out that perpetuating a broken immigration system is not an option if America is to win the future.
The President made it clear that while his Administration continues to improve our legal immigration system, secure our borders, and enhance our immigration enforcement so that it is more effectively and sensibly focusing on criminals, the only way to fix what’s broken about our immigration system is through legislative action in Congress. The President noted that he will continue to work to forge bipartisan consensus and will intensify efforts to lead a civil debate on this issue in the coming weeks and months, but also noted that he cannot be successful if he is leading the debate alone. The President urged meeting participants to take a public and active role to lead a constructive and civil debate on the need to fix the broken immigration system. He stressed that in order to successfully tackle this issue they must bring the debate to communities around the country and involve many sectors of American society in insisting that Congress act to create a system that meets our nation's needs for the 21st century and that upholds America's history as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. The President further committed that his Cabinet and White House team will follow up with each participant to maximize the outcome of this meeting in order to elevate the immigration debate.
Workers must unite for better immigration policy
By Richard Trumka - 04/28/11 09:22 AM ET
--thehill.com--
Arizona and Wisconsin may seem like a world apart. But they have more in common than you think. In these states and many others, working people – immigrant and native-born alike – are under fierce attack by corporate-backed politicians.
From Arizona laws that mandate racial profiling to Wisconsin laws that strip workers’ rights to collectively bargain for a middle class way of life, working families everywhere are under assault. Corporate CEOs and the politicians they finance benefit from creating a toxic environment where immigrants, public employees and working men and women are scapegoated for all the problems we face. They tell us immigrants steal our jobs – hoping we forget the millions of American jobs they ship overseas. They say firefighters and policemen are overpaid – hoping we ignore Wall Street’s colossal bonuses, million-dollar salaries and endless corporate greed. They say immigrants don’t pay taxes – hoping we don’t notice that corporations like GE and Exxon Mobil rake in billions in profit and pay nothing in taxes.
Never mind the $11.2 billion in taxes immigrants just paid in 2010 alone. For years, immigrant families have been unfairly targeted and scape-goated. We should never forget that today’s immigrants are tomorrow’s new Americans. The policies and attitudes that divide working people only set us further back.
As we work together to achieve common-sense immigration reform, we must also ensure that today’s immigration enforcement policies treat our nation’s immigrants with the respect they deserve. We need to support them when they take the same steps new immigrants have always taken when they arrive in this country – improving our economy by obtaining an education, enriching our nation’s workplaces by working hard and having a collective voice, and bettering our communities by advocating for safe neighborhoods.
Too many of today’s immigration enforcement policies run counter to these important goals. Last year, ICE deported almost 393,000 people from the U.S.– at a cost of nearly $5 billion. The current administration has deported the highest number of immigrants in the history of the United States—separating mothers from their children, expelling college students and tearing apart America’s working families. When we deport a DREAM Act-eligible student, destroy a unionized workplace, or deport a mother pulled over for going 35 mph in a 25 mph zone because of ICE’s misnamed “Secure Communities” program, we tear up the foundation that allows tomorrow’s new Americans to have the opportunity to achieve their own American success stories and contribute to our great nation.
While President Obama’s commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is vitally important, so much more can and should be done now to help ensure a solid foundation for tomorrow’s new Americans. The president can announce a policy of allowing DREAM Act-eligible young people to stay in America until Congress passes comprehensive immigration legislation – so we can stop deporting the next generation of America’s doctors, teachers and engineers.
President Obama can direct ICE not to interfere in workplaces where workers have fought to improve conditions or are currently doing so. ICE should target employers that exploit workers, not employers trying to do the right thing. And the President can implement a humane and common-sense new prosecutorial discretion policy in keeping with ICE’s existing enforcement priorities.
For five years now, immigrant communities around the country have responded to the scapegoating and broken policies by taking to the streets on May Day to demand fair treatment, respect and a voice. These events have brought out hundreds of thousands of people — immigrants, clergy, and working families – everywhere from small towns to our largest cities. These rallies are driven by the same spirit of activism and commitment that drives working people in Wisconsin and every other community that is now fighting back against partisan, political attacks.
Now, as in past years, working people from Arizona to Wisconsin are standing together on May Day to remind the President and Congress that the fight for workers’ rights and immigrant rights are cut of the same cloth. On May 1, working people – immigrant and native born alike – will speak in one voice to fight for better wages and benefits, job security and safer workplaces for everyone. Together, we urge the President to use his power and provide the leadership to fix these broken immigration policies.
We have a choice to make: Do we want a generation of new Americans who will become our nation’s workers, leaders, neighbors, and voters to succeed? Or the tragedy of denied Americans – immigrants who do the right thing, but are denied the opportunity to become new Americans by our broken immigration policies?
Richard Trumka is the president of the AFL-CIO.
State ignorance confused for State rights
--politico--
SCOTT WONG | 4/27/11 3:13 PM EDT Updated: 4/28/11 12:38
“It is a mistake for states to try to do this piecemeal. We can’t have 50 different immigration laws around the country,” Obama said Tuesday in an interview with Atlanta-based WSB-TV. “Arizona tried this and a federal court already struck them down.”
The ACLU, one of a handful of groups that sued Arizona last year to block the law from taking effect, has vowed to legally challenge attempts by states to pass so-called “copycat” immigration legislation. And other SB 1070 opponents are warning cash-strapped states that they’ll have to dig deep into their coffers to defend the laws.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Thanks to the controversy surrounding the Arizona immigration law that allows authorities to ask for proper documentation if a person appears to be in the country illegally, some Major League Baseball players - many of whom are Hispanic - have said they will boycott the All-Star game if the situation is not resolved.
By Dominic Genetti
Hannibal Courier-Post
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 03:07 PM
A note to fans of the Arizona Diamondbacks, bring your cameras to the games and take a lot of pictures because you may not see your favorite player in the All-Star Game.
For those fans who are curious, the “Mid-summer classic” will be held in Phoenix this season but the turnout in the stands won’t be an issue as much as the turnout on the field. Thanks to the controversy surrounding the Arizona immigration law that allows authorities to ask for proper documentation if a person appears to be in the country illegally, some Major League Baseball players - many of whom are Hispanic - have said they will boycott the All-Star game if the situation is not resolved.
And I don’t blame them one bit.
Phoenix is a very diverse city and for a law to be in place that would allow police or any public authority to ask for proper papers is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is racist and stereotypical for lawmakers to even consider such a law and for the stars of Major League Baseball to come out and say that they would boycott the 2011 All-Star game is very noble. It’s one thing for citizens to come out and protest, but when popular athletes of such a diverse game like baseball step up to the plate and say that they won’t participate in the All-Star game just because Arizona government is considering the immigration law is quite the statement. Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols is one of the players said to be avoiding the game.
But what really grinds my gears is that the head honchos of baseball wouldn’t even take the concerns of fans and players to heart when they said the All-Star Game would not be relocated. The statement will be huge if Hispanic ballplayers stick to their word and avoid the game entirely, but think of the statement that will be made if MLB removed the game from Phoenix all together. It won’t happen.
Big baseball fans like myself have to be reminded from time to time that our widely loved national pastime does have a business side and at this point especially MLB as a business more than likely has put too much money into having the All-Star Game at Phoenix’s Chase Field (the home stadium of the Diamondbacks) and to move the game to another city would be very costly. There are logos, marketing and local events that go into promoting the All-Star Game along with countless other things. A relocation is now, unfortunately, out of the picture.
Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig received a 100,000 signed petition to have the All-Star Game moved out of Arizona - and while I see the business side of his decision to keep the game in Phoenix - the commissioner could’ve at least considered it. Instead he put his foot down immediately and didn’t even go over the pros and cons. The game is scheduled for Phoenix and that’s where it’ll stay. He could’ve told reporters that he’s considering moving the event to another city; Kansas City would’ve been a nice relocation since they’re hosting the game in 2012. And there were plenty of other options. Washington, D.C. hasn’t hosted an All-Star Game since the second generation of the Washington Senators played there before leaving for Texas; the Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays haven’t even hosted an All-Star Game since they came into existence in the ‘90s.
The newer stadiums have been the top picks recently for the All-Star Game, but considering the situation in Arizona, any stadium would’ve done just fine, even if the ballparks in Florida are shared with football and played under a dome. Washington has a new stadium, again, a perfect setting, the nation’s game from the nation’s capitol.
I’m disappointed in Selig because he showed no sensitivity to the issue, but I loudly applaud the Hispanic players. Their absence will say much more than anyone could imagine. I hope a solution comes soon, Monday’s upholding of the Arizona immigration law in federal court in San Francisco already says a lot, but it’s not enough, the law needs to disappear.
You have my sympathy Arizona baseball fans, just be sure to clear the cards in your camera and take tons of snapshots, chances are some of the players that only come to Arizona for one road trip a year won’t be back, even if elected an All-Star.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Boehner gas gaffe creates opening
By: Jonathan Allen and Darren Goode
April 26, 2011 07:45 PM EDT
Democrats think Speaker John Boehner stepped in a tar pit when he tried to dance around a question about taxing Big Oil, and now a White House concerned about its own vulnerability to rising gas prices is working overtime to make sure he's stuck.
The Ohio Republican left the door open to hiking taxes on oil and gas companies during a Monday night interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl, saying Congress “certainly ought’ to take a look at it.” By midday Tuesday, the Democratic communications machine was pumping out an easily refined message: Agreed.
"It is almost too good to be true, but gas hitting $4 per gallon seems to have finally caused Speaker Boehner to see the light on the insanity of providing subsidies to profit-soaked Big Oil companies," New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic message maven in the Senate, said in a statement.
It's little wonder that Democrats were ready to pounce when they saw an opportunity to box Boehner into either defending oil companies or adopting Democratic-backed subsidy cuts. President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill already know they face serious voter backlash if gas prices don't settle down before the 2012 election.
Obama has addressed that vulnerability in the past, and a new Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests he's right to be worried. Sixty percent of independents who are feeling pain at the pump say they definitely will not back Obama for reelection, the survey found.
As Republicans prepare a series of hearings and votes intended to put heat on Obama over gas prices during the spring and summer months, Democrats hope the Boehner slip-up will give them a more even playing field on the issue. But Democrats still haven't explained how cutting profits would lead to lower — rather than higher — prices for consumers, and there's little chance that Boehner's half-dodge of an answer will turn the tables in the president's favor if gas prices remain high.
"Everybody's entitled to have a bad day. And he had a bad day," GOP strategist Mike McKenna said of Boehner's remark.
If nothing else, it turned Tuesday into a field day for Democratic politicians.
"I was heartened that Speaker Boehner yesterday expressed openness to eliminate these tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry," the president wrote to Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Republicans, worried about losing their advantage on an issue they have been hammering away on, sought Tuesday to make clear that they're not a bit interested in eliminating the tax breaks — which they say would lead to higher gas prices because oil companies would simply pass on their higher costs to consumers paying at the pump.
"The president's latest call to raise taxes on U.S. energy is as predictable as it is counterproductive," McConnell said in a statement. "If someone in the administration can show me that raising taxes on American energy production will lower gas prices and create jobs, then I will gladly discuss it. But since nobody can, and the president’s letter to Congress today doesn’t, this is merely an attempt to deflect from the policies of the past two years."
Tuesday's partisan blow up did nothing to lower the price of a gallon of gas, but it did reinforce two political realities of which both parties are well aware: There's almost nothing Washington can do to affect short-term gas prices, and voters become furious when a dollar doesn't get them as far as it used to.
Boehner's camp says the speaker won't raise taxes and that his intentions were misconstrued when he tried to avoid being pinned into defending oil companies. It's a sensitive topic for Republicans: Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) took bipartisan criticism after apologizing to BP in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill last year.
"The speaker made clear in the interview that raising taxes was a nonstarter, and he’s told the president that. He simply wasn’t going to take the bait and fall into the trap of defending Big Oil companies," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said. "Boehner believes, as he stated in the interview, that expanding American energy production will help lower gas prices and create more American jobs. We'll look at any reasonable policy that lowers gas prices. Unfortunately, what the president has suggested so far would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump.”
But the transcript shows that Boehner was open to the idea of raising taxes on oil companies. Asked whether he would favor eliminating some of the subsidies, he replied, "We certainly oughta take a look at it. ... We're in a time when — when the federal government is short on revenues. We need to control spending but we need to have revenues to keep the government movin'. And they oughta be payin' their fair share."
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and the likeliest source to take on any Republican who seeks to raise taxes, told POLITICO that he's satisfied that Boehner would not approve of a net tax increase.
It won't be long before Republicans are back on offense on energy policy. They are expected to bring a bill to the House floor next week that would require the Interior Department to decide within 30 days whether to grant offshore drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico. For permits that weren't approved before a moratorium was imposed last year, Interior could extend the window by 15 days twice.
Two more energy bills approved by the House Natural Resources Committee could be considered as early as the following week.
This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 7:33 p.m. on April 26, 2011.
Labels:
Economics,
Labor Rights,
Obama,
State of the Union,
U.S.A.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Kevin Galalae Hunger Strikes for Freedom of Education
19 April 2011
Mr. Thomas Hammarberg
Council of Europe
Commissioner for Human Rights
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
FRANCE
commissioner[at]coe.int
press.commissioner[at]coe.int
Dear Mr. Hammarberg,
A week has gone by since I first have hand delivered a letter to you at the fortified gates of the Council of Europe, where I wrote that upon arriving in France on the 12th of April I began a hunger strike on behalf of Freedom in Education.org, explained my reasons and that I need to speak to you. Next day I came to see you but I was told you are too busy. At your secretary's advice, I have followed my initial request for an audience with an email that very afternoon and then again on the 18th of April, but to no avail. I am now 20 pounds lighter, having lost 10% of my body weight, but tenfold stronger and more determined than ever to see to it that Europe rescinds its unlawful, discriminatory, divisive and unethical program of covert surveillance and censorship of students in universities, which I shall henceforth refer to by its acronym SAC.
The exigencies of your office must be great indeed, but if you are too busy to see a man who puts his life on the line so that the fundamental rights of our most vulnerable members of society, our children, are respected by the powers to be, then perhaps you ought to reconsider your priorities. It is bad form and bad manners, as well as callous and cruel to ignore a man who is starving at your door. It is also a breach of common and universal etiquette, especially since I am not appealing to you to push my own case, which is grinding its way through the European Court of Human Rights, but to make sure that SAC is shut down before other young men and women are hurt by it and to ensure that those young students whose lives have been damaged are properly compensated and apologised to. The latter point is particularly important since only a public mea maxima culpa from the EU leadership will ensure that SAC is not reincarnated under a different disguise or continues to exist under the cover of secrecy.
The men and women who have conceived this abominable program are as of today guests in your building for a three-day conference on how else to deprive the populace of their rights and liberties while maintaining a façade of democracy and law so as to allow the Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland and other officials to publicly and earnestly declare that:
"The Council of Europe has developed a unique three-pillar approach to fighting terrorism: strengthen the international legal framework, address the causes of terrorism and safeguard fundamental values. Our commitment to the rule of law and human rights is key in this approach".
Nothing could be further from the truth and I hope that you will give me the chance to show the participants the damage they have caused by allowing me to address them on the last day of the conference. What I shall tell them is that Europe does not need more counter-radicalisation measures but a psychological transformation within itself, a transformation that will allow it to embrace the world, not reject it. Continuing down the path of vindictive counter-radicalisation will lead only to the ghetoization of Europe's minorities and to yet another age of pseudo-Christians.
I speak now from bitter experience when I say that Europe's institutions have decayed to such an extent and have deviated from their true purpose - which is to serve the people - that Europeans consider themselves fortunate to be given the opportunity to beg for their constitutionally protected rights. Well, I do not beg for my rights. I am Canadian and we Canadians do not beg for our rights from those whom we pay from the public purse to serve us. We demand them and I am here to demand that our rights are respected. I should think that medieval barons were more considerate of their subjects than the public officials who make up the ranks of the EU nowadays. Adenauer would turn in his grave if he knew what had become of his noble dream.
Now that I have vented seven days worth of hunger strike frustration let me state a few inconvenient truths about Europe's counter-radicalization policies, their most abject progeny, SAC, and the EU institutions as a whole.
It has become clear to me from the evasive actions of the Council and the delays of the European Court that SAC is not only approved at the highest levels of the EU, but that it is also protected by the Council of Europe, the very institution entrusted with safeguarding legal standards, the rights of citizens, democratic development and the rule of law, all of which SAC tears into with impunity. Had this happened in Europe and not affected my fellow Canadians I would have let it go, but this unlawful, discriminatory, unethical and divisive program has violated my fundamental rights as a Canadian (see pp. 9-11 at https://wikispooks.com/w/images/1/19/Kevin_Galalae_vs._the_United_Kingdom%2C_
European_Court_of_Human_Rights.pdf.) and has deprived me and many others of parliamentary access and legal protection in my own country. I take that personally. More than this, it has perverted and corrupted the institutions of Canadian democracy, the freedom of the press, the impartiality of the courts, the humane activities of NGOs and civil society, and the inclusive nature of Canadian society, which is a society of immigrants that prides itself on multiculturalism and tolerance (for details see https://wikispooks.com/w/images/0/06/Covert_Censorship_at_Oxford_and_Leicester_University.pdf.) It has therefore damaged my country to the core.
This means that countless other Canadians and foreign nationals across the globe who are attending EU universities online or onsite are affected and their lives destroyed and dreams irrevocably altered by Europe's political decision to knowingly institute a program that is flawed in every way and that represents gross abuses of power directed at people and countries where the EU has no jurisdiction and no right to misshape public opinion by manufacturing consent or by imposing its cultural values.
Europe has no right to judge the religions, ideologies and thoughts of non-Europeans in the conceit that this will bring about peace, engagement and security, when Europe's religious schisms, ideologies and actions have been more violent, excessive and destructive than those of any other lands and cultures. Even today, Europe's and by extension the West's socio-economic system, which is being imposed on the globe, causes more pain and suffering through institutional manipulations, economic exploitation and immoral speculation than Al Qaeda could ever hope to achieve.
On a more philosophical level, no one, not even God (if He exists) has the right to interfere with man's thinking, for that constitutes an assault upon free will. No good practice manuals, however rigorously written and enforced, could possibly avoid the pitfalls of abuse on the part of the overseers and of humiliation on the part of the overseen. That is because the agents trained to apply the rules of surveillance and censorship, as indeed the writers of the manuals themselves, are conditioned by their own cultures and backgrounds, as well as unduly influenced by their own petty prejudices, political preferences, racist tendencies and religions or lack thereof.
At the very least, European universities must explicitly state that participation in their programs is subject to government interference and that the opinions expressed are censored by secret service agents according to the objectives of Europe's counter-radicalisation strategy. It should also clearly state what those objectives are and what one is allowed and not allowed to say in Europe's universities so that foreign students who choose to participate in studies at European universities can decide for themselves if they want thought control and ideological indoctrination to be part of their educational experience. I should think that most will opt out and will not pay the triple tuition fees that foreigners are charged. They will instead take their parents' hard earned money and study where the sanctity of the academic environment, free speech, and freedom of conscience are respected and not conditional on one's ability or willingness to conform to European norms and values.
The very least Europe can and must do is be honest and considerate of the fact that if it wants to profit from foreign students then it must respect their cultures and opinions. Europe cannot have its cake and eat it too; that is to say, it cannot secretly subject foreign students to thought control and ideological manipulation meant to purge the continent of foreign norms and values that are different or clash with those of Europeans while at the same time profit from the exorbitant tuition fees it charges its foreign students.
European universities are now in the business of exporting bigotry and prejudice instead of inculcating knowledge, mutual respect and a desire for truth. In the process, SAC is giving all Europe's universities a bad name for there is no way of knowing those that do not collaborate with SAC from those that do. In Britain alone, where SAC originates and has been fully operational since 2007, 2/3 have succumbed to SAC.
The fact that Europe has tried to get away with SAC without fully disclosing its perils to its foreign and, for that matter, its domestic students attests to the bigotry, prejudice, hypocrisy and arrogance of the European establishment of power; traits that have caused two world wars, a Holocaust and countless pogroms in the last century alone. Traits that have dragged the entire world into hell and that are once again threatening to cause a global conflict.
The crimes and abuses of the 3rd Reich, we must not forget, began with the burning of books written by Jews. SAC is eliminating the ideas and ideals of non-Europeans as they are expressed and before they have a chance to make it on paper, and it is doing this on the sacrosanct soil of its universities where free speech and freedom of conscience are supposed to be actively promoted and defended. This is happening despite the fact that the European constitution is crystal clear on that free speech gives one the "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers", that freedom of conscience gives everyone the right to publicly manifest their beliefs, and that education is for all and no one should be deprived of the right to education.
Well, on this last point it turns out that Europe makes a mockery of the right to education not only for counter-radicalisation reasons but also in the name of Chemical and Biological Weapons Convention and thus has given itself secret permission to pre-screen innocent foreign students from chemistry programs. The proof comes from a 2008 US embassy cable (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/nuclear-wikileaks/8297132/CWSBWC-CLOSE-
ALLIES-MEETING-JUNE-17-18-2008.html.)
"The Close Allies (U.S., UK, France, Germany) met in London on June 17-18 to discuss issues related to the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. ...both Germany and France also expressed reservations about proposals that would increase the numbers of students from developing countries studying chemistry in Western countries, noting that their governments went to considerable lengths to limit and manage the degree to which students from countries of concern had access to such programs."
The "considerable lengths" used by Germany and France to "limit and manage" access to chemistry university programs, while not specified, indicate that deserving young people are denied entrance to university on false grounds just because they might pose a danger in the distant future. This is a clear and gross violation of Article 2, the right to education, enshrined in the 1st Protocol of the European Convention, both of which Germany and France are signatories of, not to mention a terrible injustice perpetrated on the young and innocent. While SAC weeds out students post-enrolment in university, by engineering various expulsion methods, the prerogatives of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Convention are used to selectively deny students access to chemistry programs in the pre-enrolment phase.
Those who still refuse to believe the reality that EU countries subject foreigners to discriminatory treatment in education, a reality I have lived through as a student at Oxford and Leicester universities, will say that SAC and other counter-radicalisation programs that comprise Europe's prevent strategy are merely after extremists who promote violence. Well, I am no extremist and I certainly do not subscribe to violence. Nevertheless, I was expelled from these two universities by overzealous SAC agents and I am neither Muslim nor Arab. If anything I am the antithesis of Muslim fundamentalists, being European by birth, agnostic, apolitical, non-ideological, fiercely independent, outspoken and perfectly peaceful. If I could fall victim to SAC's censors than anyone can because the programme is out of control and is animated by racist tendencies.
Knowing that SAC cannot be defended in a court of law or even in the court of public opinion, Europe's politicians have given themselves the right to act outside the law and to do this without the consent of the people. More than this, and what is most frightening, is that in order to get away with it, Europe's politicians and security service agents have played on the fears and prejudices of those in key positions to selectively shut down any and all possibilities of SAC being exposed in the media or contested in a court of law. For the first time in history, even the fifth pillar of democracy has been corrupted, the NGOs, becoming fully complicit in this grotesque conspiracy of silence.
The fact that Europe's politicians have succeeded in obtaining the collaboration and silence of the entire civil society shows just how riddled with fear and hatred Europe's populace is and demonstrates that Huntington's dire prediction of civilizational conflict is upon us, for this kind of extrajudicial and unethical collaboration dwarfs the greatest conspiracies and can only be explained in terms of cultural divides. It is a coalition of the willing; those willing to be partners in crime and to cover up their misdeeds at all costs and in the name of preserving the integrity of their cultures under the pretext of national security.
But even this mighty coalition of the willing can be brought down, especially now that I have already shattered its ranks. Universities UK, the definitive voice of all British higher education institutions, has followed my lead only one month after I exposed SAC and its abuses on Cryptome and published a report, entitled Freedom of speech on campus: rights and responsibilities in UK universities (http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/FreedomOfSpeechOnCampusRights
AndResponsibilitiesInUKuniversities.pdf. ) in which it tells the government in no uncertain terms that their members will no longer perform surveillance and censorship functions on behalf of the nation's intelligence apparatus.
Despite my small victory, the cost to democracy and freedom remains greater than any damage terrorists could have ever done. That cost I have elucidated in my by now infamous paper The Great Secret: Surveillance and Censorship in Britain and the EU (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:The_Great_Secret.pdf.) That Europe thought it could get away with SAC shows a complete lack of good judgment on the part of those who make executive decisions, in that they should have known better that once policies that give every Dick, Jane and Harry the right to judge the expressions of others will bring the worse human instincts to the fore and prejudice, bigotry and hypocrisy will multiply like mushrooms after the rain and lead to abuse. It also shows their reckless arrogance that they could suppress the truth forever, as though a country could be turned into a tribe and a continent into the cosa nostra.
It is no secret that I have made but few friends anywhere in the West while exposing the incestuous agreements and backroom deals that have made SAC possible and knowledge of its existence a well-kept secret. But that is of little importance, for what the world now needs is not more corruptible friends but unapologetic human rights defenders and freedom fighters who can still see beyond the blinding cultural divides, and that is exactly who and what I am. I will continue to poke my fingers in the eyes of power until I am dead or get the free world back to being free…and fair and just; for I am an idealist who believes it is not too late, a humanist who knows that nothing matters more, and a realist who reasons that this is the only right way.
I was taught to treat others as I want to be treated myself and to stand up for the underdog. It is an unspoken truth that the entire counter-radicalisation agenda is directed at foreigners in general and Muslims in particular and I am an unlikely defender of Islam because I am agnostic and highly suspicious of organised religion. But I am just as suspicious of governments who set themselves above the law. For what is lost in the blindness of fear and prejudice is the simple fact that a Muslim life is as much worth as a Christian life and that a Muslim's dreams are as valuable and precious as a Christian's dreams. That is why I will not allow Europe and indeed the entire Western world to squash those dreams and ruin those lives, be they Muslim, Christian or otherwise at university, where lives are supposed to be made not ruined. The victims, we have seen, come in all colours, creeds and political orientations. I will also not allow Europe to divide my country in the name of its own safety.
And if I die here in France fighting for equality under the law, mutual respect and human rights, then so be it. For I have no desire to live among a people who can justify such injustice because they are led by hatred, fear and prejudice towards those who are not like them. Sadly, the entire western world seems to now fall in this category to various degrees and to resemble thus more than ever the intolerance, sectarianism and factionalism of the Islamic world.
Since my arrival here in Strasbourg I have contacted several French newspapers, the Council of Europe press office, and just about every human rights organisation on earth. I have yet to hear from any of them, which is what I expected knowing what I know about the extent to which democracy, truth, and justice have been annihilated by Europe's counter-radicalisation strategy. The reason they are not interceding on my behalf or publishing my story and revelations is because these good Christians have decided that I am not one of their own and that in exposing them and their state-sponsored discrimination I have dealt a deadly blow to their efforts to purge Europe of foreign and especially Muslim elements, which is the hidden agenda of Europe's counter-radicalisation strategy.
Civil society will not breathe a word or help for reasons of civilizational loyalty, to put it kindly, and Muslim organisations are petrified that if they do help they will be seen as aggressive and will suffer further reprisals from an overbearing super-state on the hunt for victims and a population crazed with vigilante fervour. In the process the rule of law and equality under the law have been shattered and with them the lives and wellbeing of countless people. That is why I stand alone in this struggle and why no one will help even though most people on either side of the cultural divide want me to win. But that is fine with me for all I need is for the law to be applied without prejudice so the innocent can be protected from the cultural and religious conceits of civilizations gone mad. As it is, I want no part in either the Muslim or the Christian camp since they both behave according to their worse instincts.
Europe's good Christians and secularists alike must get it through their heads that it is not possible to live in a globalized world and isolate the continent in order to preserve its cultural purity - even if there was such a thing to preserve. These days are over and everyone must get used to this new reality and move on down the path of tolerance, acceptance and inclusiveness. Otherwise shut down your borders and become an island, but live also on your own devices and resources and stop exporting your goods and services and drawing profit from peoples and nations you are reluctant to coexist with on an equal basis.
While the reality is that Europe's people have not been considered in either the design or implementation of the counter-radicalisation strategy, it is quite clear that any measures aimed at purging the continent of foreigners meets with the approval of a great many Europeans and that if SAC were to be put to a referendum it would probably pass in those countries that feel threatened by their large Muslim and foreign minorities, which are mainly former colonial powers that by now should have learned to live with the effects of their past occupations and abuses of foreign lands. Until such democratic test, however, the fault and the responsibility lie with those in power and it is their interests that SAC best represents. Instituting programmes of oppression like SAC reflects the attitude of people who are locked up in ivory towers and have little or no connection with the common people or a desire to coexist with them on an equal basis. This kind of elitism is alive and well at the EU institutional level and breeds disdain for the fundamental rights of citizens, creating new lines of division in society.
This kind of elitism has also given rise to secrecy in government. Secrecy is antithetical to democracy. Nothing good could ever come out of secrecy and nothing good has ever come out of it, yet secrecy has become the modus operandi of the EU institutions resulting in an embarrassing gap between their public pronouncements and the actual reality. This gap is so great that the EU as a whole is becoming a simulacrum, a counterfeit and fraudulent product, being neither democratic nor consensual, neither respectful of human rights nor kind to its people, neither transparent nor accessible, as it bulldozes its policies over an increasingly resistant population. As a result, their decisions and policies no longer command respect but instil fear.
But let me now return to the reality of my hunger strike, to the bizarre and embarrassing spectacle of being on public display. The hunger is the easy part. The difficult part is having to subject myself to the judgment of strangers and their derisive smiles, even though they have no idea that I am starving myself so that they can live in freedom and their children can still have rights in a kind and fair society that is creed-, color- and culture-blind. The even more difficult part is being ignored by those who come out of the rarefied and climate-controlled offices of European power, as though I did not exist and should not exist or as though I were the one trapped in some fiction, when they are the ones caged up in institutional bunkers, both literally and figuratively, where fictions are passed as facts.
The hardest part is having to live with the knowledge that the world is ignorant of what is going on and apathetic, yet these very ignorant and apathetic people look upon me and other protestors with whom I share the space in front of the Court or Council, as "loose cannons". They fail to remember that if it were not for "loose cannons" like us - that is to say, people who are willing to make great personal sacrifices in the name of justice and truth - the world would have long succumbed to the tyranny of those reasonable masses who always choose the easiest path, the path that compromises away everything their forefathers have bled and died for, a path that always ends up in corruption, decay, lies and hypocrisy. Does that sound familiar? Is SAC and the entire counter-radicalisation fiasco not the embodiment of such compromises? And if the regime of surveillance, censorship and secrecy that has been instituted in the last ten years is allowed to continue and proliferate will democracy and freedom not be lost for generations to come?
This generation of leaders thinks it can cage the beast but it can not. Already the beast is out of control and devouring everything sacred the West purports to defend from terrorists and extremists. It is in fact so out of control that Europe and its allies will do anything to keep SAC secret and its abuses unpunished.
No sooner do I take my place in front of the Court that I am visited by two policemen in civilian clothes. Every day two different men come by and they are invariably polite and amiable so much so that I actually look forward to see whom I will meet next. Nevertheless, their visits are not courtesy calls but security precautions. None of the other protesters get this kind of attention. The establishment of power must be truly afraid of me. But that need not be the case for my heart is not ruled by hatred or anger but by love and peace and my intention is not to wreak havoc but to spread goodwill among men. To achieve my goal I use the power of persuasion, be it through the written word or my self-less actions. I am guided by the light of truth and the strength of courage, for I have nothing to fear and nothing to hide. The law and lady justice are on my side and I also have the moral high ground. This may not mean much in a world controlled by heartless institutions, self-serving bureaucracies and the profit motive. But it means the world to me. I have also nothing to lose. What Europe could take from me it has already taken: my wife, my children, my rights and my protection under the law. But Europe has not robbed me of my dignity, honour, courage and self-respect. And it never will.
It is my responsibility as a father to ensure that I leave behind a better world than the one I inherited and it is my responsibility as a citizen to keep our public officials honest. I intend to fulfill both of my responsibilities to the best of my abilities and whatever the cost to me.
I hope, dear Mr. Hammarberg, that you have not closed your eyes to the truth and the suffering and humiliation of students injured by the actions of those who want to hang on to and expand their illegitimate powers at all costs, and that I will not have to sacrifice myself to force your and their eyes open by reawakening your consciences. The only other alternative would be violence and I am not a violent man. Besides, violence cannot cure Europe's ills or the cancer that has taken hold of its government; it would only aggravate them. So as you watch me decay into a walking cadaver, I will watch your heart bleed with remorse and will hope that you will be able to live with yourself for having had the power to stop it, but not used it. The longer you let me suffer for Europe's sins and conceits, the greater the damage to the EU institutions and to Europe's reputation as a society of justice, freedom, and kindness.
I hope that you will act in accordance with the values and norms expected of your position and publicly condemn SAC. If you do not have the courage to do it, then you must resign. That way, the world will know that Europe is once again in the clutches of fascism and the people will rise to make sure that they will not suffer the same dire consequences for a second time in only 70 years.
Your actions will determine if Europe's good Christians, who are so keen on preserving their values and norms from foreign influences, will let me die for their sins.
Respectfully yours,
Kevin Galalae
P.S. Please note that this letter has been posted on the Internet at the same time as you received it.
Labels:
Civil Rights,
France,
Human Rights,
Hunger Strike,
Labor Rights
Boehner opens door to cutting U.S. oil tax breaks
--reuters--
The U.S. Congress should "take a look" at multibillion-dollar subsidies to oil companies amid rising concern over skyrocketing gas prices, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Monday.
Standard and Poor's Ethics in Question
Written by Dean Baker
Tuesday, 19 April 2011 05:30
--Center for Economic and Policy Research--
S&P managed to capture the headlines yesterday when it announced that it had a negative outlook for the credit rating of the United States. After all, an actual credit downgrade for the United States government would be big news. While the immediate response was a boost to the deficit hawks’ efforts to cut programs like Social Security and Medicare, it is worth asking a few questions before we surrender these programs to the Wall Street numbers mavens.
The last time S&P was in the headlines it was for giving investment grade ratings to hundreds of billions of dollars of securities that were backed by subprime and ALT-A mortgages. These mortgages were used to buy over-priced homes at the peak of the housing bubble. Many of these mortgages not only carried high risks, but were fraudulent, with lenders having filled in false information to allow homebuyers to qualify for loans that their assets and income would not justify.
Serious people should ask what S&P has done to improve its ratings systems. Have they changed their procedures? Did the S&P analysts who gave AAA or other investment grade ratings to toxic junk get fired or at least get demoted? If not, should we assume that S&P used the same care in assigning a negative outlook to U.S. government debt as it did in assigning investment grade ratings to toxic assets?
Of course it was not just bad mortgage debt that stumped the S&P gang. It gave top quality investment grade ratings to Lehman until just before it imploded in the largest bankruptcy in history. The same was true of AIG, which would have faced a similar fate without a government rescue. Bear Stearns also had a top rating until the very end, as did Enron. In short, S&P has a quite a track record in missing the boat when it comes to assessing creditworthiness.
The markets seem to recognize S&P weak track record in assessing creditworthiness. It downgraded Japan’s government debt in 2002. The interest rate on 10-year government debt in Japan is currently under 1.5 percent, the lowest for any country in the world. Does S&P think that investors are mistaken in being willing to lend Japan money at such low rates?
It is worth noting that interest rates on U.S. bonds fell yesterday, suggesting that S&P’s negative outlook did not scare people who actually have money on the line. (Not to get too technical with our friends at S&P, but it is not even clear what a default on U.S. government debt would mean. After all, the debt is issued in dollars and as a practical matter we can print as many dollars as we want. But, we’ll leave that one for another day.)
Finally, we must remember that S&P is first and foremost a corporation that is run for profit. This is why they rated hundreds of billions of toxic trash as investment grade during the housing bubble. They were paid tens of millions of dollars to do it.
S&P and the other bond rating agencies had their lobbyists working overtime in the financial reform debate. The Senate had approved an amendment by Senator Franken, which would have taken away the power of the issuer to select the agency that rated its bonds. Under the Franken amendment this power would instead be given to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
This amendment removed an obvious source of corruption. If the company issuing debt gets to pick the agency that rates the debt, then the bond-rating agency has an obvious incentive to give the debt a positive rating. Otherwise they will lose business. This likely explains how hundreds of billions of subprime mortgage backed securities got investment grade ratings.
However, the Franken amendment never took effect. In the conference committee, Representative Barney Frank, who was then head of the House Financial Services Committee, got language that delayed the implementation for at least two years. In the mean time, the current system, in which the issuer picks the rating agency, remains in place.
This should raise the obvious question: does S&P hope to influence the final resolution of the Franken amendment with its negative outlook on U.S. debt? It’s a terrible thing that we have to ask if the umpire is taking payoffs, but we do have to ask.
After all, this is Washington and Wall Street, a truly toxic combination. And we all know that S&P’s first commitment is to its bottom line, not to provide accurate information to investors. So who is S&P serving in its negative outlook on U.S. government debt?
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Not because it was ugly but because it showed his terrible flaw so clear: reminding him it was not Moldweorp he hated so much as a perverse idea of what is clean; not the girl he sympathized with so much a her humanity. Fate, it occured to him then, chooses weird agents.-- Thomas Pynchon, Under the Rose
Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America --marxist.org--
Written: by Marx between November 22 & 29, 1864
First Published: The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 169, November 7, 1865;
Sir:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.
From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?
When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.
While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world. [B]
Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council:
Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;
George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary.
18 Greek Street, Soho.
Labels:
Civil Rights,
Human Rights,
Karl Marx,
Labor Rights,
State of the Union,
Truth,
U.S.A.,
Womens Rights
Friday, April 22, 2011
Tunisian Martyr Mohamed Bouazizi
Police abuse
And nearly everyday, he was bullied by local police officers. "Since he was a child, they were mistreating him. He was used to it," Hajlaoui Jaafer, a close friend of Bouazizi, said. "I saw him humiliated."
The abuse took many forms. Mostly, it was the type of petty bureaucratic tyranny that many in the region know all too well. Police would confiscate his scales and his produce, or fine him for running a stall without a permit. Six months before his attempted suicide, police sent a fine for 400 dinars ($280) to his house – the equivalent of two months of earnings. The harassment finally became too much for the young man on December 17.
That morning, it became physical. A policewoman confronted him on the way to market. She returned to take his scales from him, but Bouazizi refused to hand them over. They swore at each other, the policewoman slapped him and, with the help of her colleagues, forced him to the ground.
The officers took away his produce and his scale. Publically humiliated, Bouazizi tried to seek recourse. He went to the local municipality building and demanded to a meeting with an official. He was told it would not be possible and that the official was in a meeting. "It's the type of lie we're used to hearing," said his friend.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
The scam behind the rise in oil, food prices
Speculation on the futures market, rather than supply and demand, is driving up costs, analysts say.
--aljazeera--
Danny Schechter Last Modified: 19 Apr 2011 13:18
The global economy and its recovery, and the living standards of millions of plain folks, are now at risk from the sudden rise in oil and commodity prices. Gas at the pump is up, and going higher. Food prices are following.
The consequences are catastrophic for the global poor as their costs go up while their income doesn't. It's menacing American workers too, who in large part have not seen a meaningful raise since the days of Reagan (keeping it this way is clearly behind the current flurry of attacks on unions).
Already, unrest in the Middle East and many African countries is being blamed for these dramatic increases. It seems as if this threat to global stability is being largely ignored in our media, one that treats the oil business as just another mystical world of free market trading.
Why is it happening? Why all the volatility? Is oil getting scarcer, leading to price increases? Is the cost of food, similarly, a reflection of naturally increasing commodity prices?
Oil speculating
While it's true that natural disasters and droughts play some role in this unchecked price inflation, it also seems apparent that something else is attracting increasing attention, even if most of our media fails to explore what is a political time bomb, while most political leaders shrug their shoulder and ignore it.
President Obama recently said there is nothing he can do about the hike in oil and food prices.
Critics say the problem is that government and media outlets alike refuse to recognise what's really going on: unchecked speculation!
Not everyone buys into this suspicion. In fact, it is one of more intense subjects of debate in economics.
Princeton University economist Paul Krugman pooh-poohs the impact of speculation counter-posing the traditional argument that oil prices are set by supply and demand.
The Economist agrees, summing up its views with a pithy phrase, "Speculation does not drive the oil price. Driving does."
Others, like oil industry analyst Michael Klare of Hampshire College in the US, sees demand outdistancing supply:
Consider the recent rise in the price of oil just a faint and early tremor heralding the oilquake to come. Oil won't disappear from international markets, but in the coming decades it will never reach the volumes needed to satisfy projected world demand, which means that, sooner rather than later, scarcity will become the dominant market condition.
Usually you hear this debate in scholarly circles or read it in political tracts where orthodox views collide with more alarmist projections about the oil supply "peaking".
But officials in the Third World don't see the subject as academic. Reserve Bank of India Governor Duvvuri Subbarao charges that: "Speculative movements in commodity derivative markets are also causing volatility in prices".
The World Bank has held meetings on the issue, because it is seen as a matter of "utmost urgency".
"The price of food is a matter of life and death for the very poorest people in the world," said Tom Arnold, CEO of Concern Worldwide, the international humanitarian agency, ahead of his participation at The Open Forum on Food at World Bank headquarters.
"With many families spending up to 80 per cent of their income on basic foods to survive, even the slightest increase in price can have devastating effects and become a crises for the poorest," he said.
Journalist Josh Clark argues on the website "How Stuff Works" that much of the oil speculation is rooted in the financial crisis:
The next time you drive to the gas station, only to find prices are still sky high compared to just a few years ago, take notice of the rows of foreclosed houses you'll pass along the way. They may seem like two parts of a spell of economic bad luck, but high gas prices and home foreclosures are actually very much inter-related. Before most people were even aware there was an economic crisis, investment managers abandoned failing mortgage-backed securities and looked for other lucrative investments. What they settled on was oil futures.
Whistleblowers on oil speculation
The debate within the industry is more subdued, perhaps to avoid a public fight between suppliers and distributors who don't want to rock the boat.
But some officials like Dan Gilligan, president of the Petroleum Marketers Association, representing 8,000 retail and wholesale suppliers has spoken out.
"Approximately 60 to 70 percent of the oil contracts in the futures markets are now held by speculative entities," he argues. "Not by companies that need oil, not by the airlines, not by the oil companies. But by investors who profit money from their speculative positions."
Now, a prominent and popular market analyst is throwing caution to the wind by blowing the whistle on speculators.
Finance expert Phil Davis runs a website and widely read newsletter to monitor stocks and options trades. He's a professional's professional, whose grandfather taught him to buy stocks when he was just ten years old.
His website is Phil's Stock World, and stocks are his world. He's subtitled the site: "High Finance for Real People."
He is usually a sober and calm analyst, not known as maverick or dissenter.
When I met Phil the other night, he was on fire, enraged by what he believes is the scam of the century that no one wants to talk about, because so many powerful people armed with legions of lawyers want unquestioning allegiance, and will sue you into silence.
He studies the oil/food issue carefully and has concluded:
It's a scam folks, it's nothing but a huge scam and it's destroying the US economy as well as the entire global economy but no one complains because they are 'only' stealing about $1.50 per gallon from each individual person in the industrialised world.
It's the top 0.01 per cent robbing the next 39.99 per cent – the bottom 60 per cent can't afford cars anyway (they just starve quietly to death, as food prices climb on fuel costs). If someone breaks into your car and steals a $500 stereo, you go to the police, but if someone charges you an extra $30 every time you fill up your tank 50 times a year ($1,500) you shut up and pay your bill. Great system, right?
Phil is just getting started, as he delves into the intricacies of the NYMEX market that handles these trades:
The great thing about the NYMEX is that the traders don't have to take delivery on their contracts, they can simply pay to roll them over to the next settlement price, even if no one is actually buying the barrels. That's how we have developed a massive glut of 677 million barrels worth of contracts in the front four months on the NYMEX and, come rollover day – that will be the amount of barrels "on order" for the front 3 months, unless a lot barrels get dumped at market prices fast.
Keep in mind that the entire United States uses 'just' 18M barrels of oil a day, so 677M barrels is a 37-day supply of oil. But, we also make 9M barrels of our own oil and import 'just' 9M barrels per day, and 5M barrels of that is from Canada and Mexico who, last I heard, aren't even having revolutions. So, ignoring North Sea oil Brazil and Venezuela and lumping Africa in with OPEC, we are importing 3Mbd from unreliable sources and there is a 225-day supply under contract for delivery at the current price or cheaper plus we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that holds another 727 Million barrels (full) plus 370M barrels of commercial storage in the US (also full) which is another 365.6 days of marginal oil already here in storage in addition to the 225 days under contract for delivery.
These contracts for oil outnumber their actual delivery, a sign of speculation and market manipulation, as oil companies win government authorisations for wells but then don't open them for exploration or exploitation.
It's all a game of manipulating oil supply to keep prices up. And no one seems to be regulating it.
Danger met with silence
What Phil sees is a giant but intricate game of market manipulation and rigging by a cartel – not just an industry – that actually has loaded tankers criss-crossing the oceans but only landing when the price is right.
There is nothing that the conga-line of tankers between here and OPEC would like to do more than unload an extra 277 million barrels of crude at $112.79 per barrel (Friday's close on open contracts and price) but, unfortunately, as I mentioned last week, Cushing, Oklahoma (Where oil is stored) is already packed to the gills with oil and can only handle 45M barrels if it started out empty so it is, very simply, physically impossible for those barrels to be delivered. This did not, however, stop 287M barrels worth of May contracts from trading on Friday and GAINING $2.49 on the day.
He asks: "Who is buying 287,494 contracts (1,000 barrels per contract) for May delivery that can't possibly be delivered for $2.49 more than they were priced the day before? These are the kind of questions that you would think regulators would be asking – if we had any."
The TV news magazine 60 minutes spoke with Dan Gilligan who noted that investors don't actually take delivery of the oil. "All they do is buy the paper, and hope that they can sell it for more than they paid for it. Before they have to take delivery."
He says they make their fortunes "on the volatility that exists in the market. They make it going up and down."
Payam Sharifi, at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, notes that even as the rise in oil prices threatens the world economy, there is almost total silence on the danger:
This issue ought to be discussed again with a renewed interest – but the media and much of the populace at large have simply accepted high food and oil prices as an unavoidable fact of life, without any discussion of the causes of these price rises aside from platitudes.
News Dissector Danny Schechter made the film Plunder The Crime of Our Time (Plunderthecrimeofourtime.com) on the financial crisis as a crime story. He wrote an introduction to the recent reissue of a classic two-volume expose of John D. Rockefeller's The Standard Oil Company, one of the top ten works top works of investigative reporting in America. (Cosimo Books) Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The Tea Party Propaganda Factory You Probably Don't Know About
By David Rosen, --AlterNet--
Posted on April 19, 2011, Printed on April 20, 2011
The 2010 Supreme Court decision permitting unlimited campaign spending by corporations, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, is one of the most momentous rulings in U.S. legal history. It transforms the long but unspoken truth of American politics – corporate wealth buys legislative power -- into the law of the land.
The Court’s judgment adds one more nail to the coffin of transparent governance based on popular democracy. The unlimited financing and unreported accountability of the media message complements generous campaign contributions, well-paid lobbyists and effective regulatory capture to further ensure that corporate wealth maintains political influence. The Court’s decision is the icing on the cake to an era of unprecedented class polarization, with the rich seizing an ever greater share of the nation’s wealth.
As has been much reported since the decision was handed down in January 2010, the Court overturned a lower court decision and found that a corporation’s First Amendment protections overruled the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.
At issue was Hillary: The Movie, a film produced by Citizens United, a staunch rightwing political action group. Since its founding in 1988, Citizens United has matured into one of the nation’s leading documentary production companies. Its films are produced, written and directed by reputable industry professionals and hosted by well-known rightwing figures like Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson. To date, it has released 17 full-length documentaries on such topics as Ronald Reagan, Bill and Hillary Clinton, 9/11, Barack Obama, the UN, conservative womanhood, and religion.
Citizens United is a cornerstone member of a growing praetorian guard furthering the interests of the super-rich. This guard includes law firms, think tanks, policy groups, PR firms, astroturf organizations, co-opted civil-rights groups, talking-head bloviators and unquestioning reporters who further a well-orchestrated rightwing, corporatist propaganda agenda.
In the all-important areas of the media message, Citizens United is the leading voice and vision of the Tea Party agenda. Would-be “pranksters” James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart are creative hacks, having lost all credibility due to their ham-fisted manipulations of phony revelations.
In America’s secular-capitalist and corporate-religious society, the battle over ideas, beliefs and knowledge is the battle for the citizen’s soul. The Murdock enterprise and talk radio are the most obvious voices of rightwing propaganda. Citizens United is just as pernicious.
* * *
Sleaze runs deep in American politics. During the Revolutionary War, British propaganda circulated scurrilous rumors that General Washington engaged in a number of illicit relations. One alleged he had a mistress; another claimed he kept a corporal’s wife at his campsite; still another alleged he had an adulterous liaison with a neighbor’s wife and she bore his out-of-wedlock child.
In our modern era, the most controversial propaganda campaign is the notorious Willie Horton ad used in the 1988 presidential race. The election pitted George H.W. Bush against Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis. The ad assailed Dukakis’ “liberal” prison polices, effectively painting him with the racist brush, the Republican party's unspoken secret weapon.
Horton was a Massachusetts felon serving a life sentence for murder; he was mysteriously granted a weekend pass, and while out of prison committed an assault, armed robbery and a rape. The ad, the brainchild of Floyd Brown, linked Horton to Dukakis and played a critical role in Bush’s victory.
Brown was the founder and first president of Citizens United. Prior to founding Citizens United, he served as political director of Americans for Bush and was president of the board of the Reagan Ranch, a division of the Young America's Foundation. Ever the opportunist, he now serves as president of Excellentia, Inc., an Internet video venture "specializing in marketing to conservatives and Christians.” Brown continues to do battle in rightwing politics, most recently serving as the media adviser to Joe Miller’s ill-fated 2010 Tea Party campaign in Alaska to unseat incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski.
The Horton ad is the leitmotif of rightwing media propaganda; it is the template for all Citizens United subsequent media productions. While Floyd Brown created the Horton ad, Citizens United's current head, David Bossie, has pushed the documentary as the vehicle of rightwing propaganda.
Bossie has a checkered career as a Republican operative. He got his start joining a long-line of dirty tricksters, the most modern examples beginning with Chuck Colson and continuing on with Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. In 1996, Bossie was outed for leaking the confidential phone logs of a former Commerce Department official. In 1998, he gained national attention when then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich forced him out as chief investigator for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform pursuing the anti-Clinton Whitewater investigation. He took creative license selectively editing transcripts of recordings of phone conversations involving Hillary Clinton. Playing the dirty trickster’s game, Bossie edited the tapes to make it appear Clinton was complicit in billing irregularities.
Bossie hooked up with Brown and Citizens United in the early ‘90s. In 1996, in a fundraising letter, it promoted Bossie – then a Senate staffer -- as its "top investigator” and its insider “directing the [Whitewater] probe." This created quite a conflict-of-interest stir. So, when Bossie was booted off the Hill -- and in recognition of his invaluable dirty tricks against the Clintons – he was rewarded with a lucrative position at Citizens United, ultimately replacing Brown.
* * *
Over the last decade, Citizens United has become one of America’s major documentary production companies, with Bossie serving as either executive producer, producer or director of all its films. These docs frame the ultra-right’s propaganda campaign, set its agenda and give voice to the Tea Party. Its films are:
* Battle for America (2010) – a Tea Party promotion of "Constitutional Conservatives"; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Stephen Bannon is writer/director.
* Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman (2010) – a portrait of Tea Party women; Bossie is executive producer/ producer and Bannon is writer/director.
* America at Risk (2010) -- explores the “dangers” facing America in the post-9/11 decade; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Kevin Knoblock is writer/director.
* Nine Days That Changed the World (2010) -- a Tea Party morality tale hosted by Callista and Newt Gingrich; Bossie is executive producer/ producer and Knoblock is writer/director.
* Generation Zero (2010) – offers a conservative analysis of the causes of 2008-2009 global economic crisis; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Bannon is writer/director.
* Perfect Valor (2009) – a John-Wayneish portrait of six Marines who served in Iraq, narrated by Fred Thompson; Knoblock, Craig Haffner, Chetwynd and Bossie are co-executive producers; Matilda Bode, David Taylor and Bossie are co-producers; and Taylor is writer/director.
* Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny (2009) – an homage to Saint Gipper, hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie, the Gingrichs and Lawrence Kadish are co-executive producers; Bossie and Knoblock are co-producers; and Knoblock is writer/director.
* Rediscovering God in America II: Our Heritage (2009) – the title speaks for itself, hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie and the Gingrichs are co-executive producers; and Knoblock is writer/director.
* Rediscovering God in America (2008) – the original tale of “one nation under God,” hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie and the Gingrichs are co-executive producers; and Knoblock is writer/director.
* Hype: the Obama Effect (2008) – a Tea Party slam against Obama during the ’08 campaign; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Alan Peterson is writer/director.
* Blocking the Path of 9/11 (2008) – an “investigative” report into a 2006 ABC mini-series into 9/11 that was pulled by the network; Bossie is executive producer/producer and John Ziegler is co-producer, writer and director.
* Hillary: The Movie (2008) – Hillary, the bashing; Bossie is executive producer/producer, Peterson and Lee Troxler are co-writers and Peterson is director.
* We Have the Power: Making America Energy Independent (2008) – Citizens United’s examination of alternate power sources, including nuclear, hydrogen and wind, hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie, Newt Gingrich and Lawrence Kadish are co-executive producers; Bossie, Knoblock and Terry Moloney are co-producers; and Moloney is writer/ director.
* ACLU: At War with America (2007) – Citizens United war against the ACLU; Bossie is executive producer, producer, writer and director.
* Border Wars: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration (2006) – immigrants, the enemy; Bossie is executive producer/co-producer and Knoblock is co-producer, writer and director.
* Broken Promises: The United Nations at 60 (2005) – a dubious historical portrait of the UN; Bossie is executive producer/producer; Knoblock is the writer; and Knoblock and Ron Silver are co-directors.
* Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain … Begins to Die (2004) – Citizens United’s rejoinder to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 411; Bossie is executive producer/producer; Lionel Chewynd and Ted Steinberg are co-writes; and Knoblock is director.
* * *
In his role as head of Citizens United and executive producer of its production arm, Bossie has brought together some talented film industry pros to further the rightwing propaganda campaign. This distinguishes his efforts from those “adolescent” provocations by O'Keefe and Breitbart. Brief profiles of leading Bossie co-collaborators follow:
* Stephen Bannon runs Genius Products, a Hollywood production company, and is a co-founder of the National Tea Party Federation. He comes to filmmaking having served from 1976 to 1983 in the US Navy (including a stint at the Pentagon) and then 15 years in media investment banking and film financing at Goldman Sachs, Jefferies & Co. and his own firm. In addition to docs for Citizens United, he has a number of feature film credits.
* Kevin Knoblock is a documentary TV warhorse. In addition to docs for Citizens United, he has produced, written and/or directed programs for A&E, A&E Biography, TNN, The History Channel and the Travel Channel; he did magazine shows at NBC, MTV and KCBS was an executive at KABC-TV and "Entertainment Tonight."
* Terry Moloney is an established Hollywood writer/director who runs Proletariat Filmworks, an independent production company. In additional to work for Citizens United, his credits include a public-interest film featuring Sean Penn, a feature film and an executive position with PAX-TV.
* Alan Peterson is a Hollywood actor, producer and director. His all but forgotten 2004 doc, FahrenHYPE 9/11: Unraveling the Truth about Fahrenheit 9/11 and Michael Moore (2004), featured such luminaries as shoe-fetishist Dick Morris and former NYC mayor Ed Koch.
* David Taylor received a Peabody Award for a film about Lyndon Johnson following JFK’s assassination and an Emmy for a film exploring the rivalry between LBJ and Robert Kennedy. He has produced, written and/or director about 100 independent docs for everyone from the BBC and Channel 4 to PBS and the History Channel.
* Ron Silver was a well-known and respected actor in film, TV and on Broadway. He seems to have had an incoherent, if compelling, political outlook: He supported Bill Clinton, backed George Bush and voted for Obama.
* John Ziegler seems more a multimedia rightwing self-promoter than an established Hollywood media pro. He’s been a radio sportscaster talk-radio host, then moved to TV, authored a dubious book of the First Amendment, proudly promoted an attack on John Kerry’s presidential campaign, and has championed Sarah Palin while assailing Obama.
The Citizens United talented “team” of film industry professionals suggests how the propaganda battle has been professionalized.
Citizens United promotes what it -- and many among the conservative right and Tea Party movement -- consider “traditional values.” These values are grounded in what is known as an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution; an imperialist- and militaristic-based expansionist foreign policy; a monopolist (as opposed to a competitive, Adam Smith) concept of “free enterprise”; a belief in a white, Judeo-Christian notion of morality; and reverence to a heterosexual, monogamous patriarchal concept of the family as the basic social unit of American society. These values codify a 20th-century mindset in a 21st-century world. They distinguish Citizens United documentaries.
Citizens United films provide a false coherence to explain the real, complex history that is America and the postmodern life. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 411, Errol Morris’s Fog of War and Charles Ferguson’s Inside Job are outstanding calls-to-arms confronting Citizens United’s simplemindedness. However, their very success is witness to their weakness. They are one-shots in an era when maintaining a sustained message is critical.
America is in the midst of a profound economic, social and ideological battle. An oligarchy is taking control of the nation, refashioning democracy and popular values. The nation was once defined as welcoming those considered foreign, by a spirit of civility and community, of free social beings. But today, community has been replaced by self-interest, the body politic by personal greed.
Citizens United gives voice and vision to a concerted propaganda initiative attempting to reframe America from a nation of opportunity and mobility to one of social standing and privilege. It’s time for the progressive community to mobilize the infrastructure and to engage in the sustained ideological battle needed to challenge the new praetorian guard exemplified by Citizens United.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)