By Bob Ray Sanders
You won't need a calculator, but get ready to decipher a bunch of numbers — data that ought to make Americans feel both sadness and shame.
For those of us who've kept up with our criminal justice system the past three decades, these numbers I'm about to share are neither surprising nor shocking, but they do paint a startling picture of the impact our high incarceration rate is having on individuals, families and our society as a whole.
In a report issued last week by the Pew Charitable Trusts, researchers document the scale of incarceration in the United States and its direct effect on the earning power of former inmates and their children.
Collateral Costs: Incarceration's Effect on Economic Mobility, a collaborative effort between Pew's Economic Mobility Project and its Public Safety Performance Project, also breaks down the impact imprisonment has on those of different races. Again, while that news isn't amazing unto itself, it should sound an alarm that will awaken us from our deep sleep of complacency.
The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, with 2.3 million Americans behind bars, a 300 percent increase since 1980, the report states. This country has more inmates than the top 35 European countries combined.
While the costs of housing prisoners -- $50 billion annually for state correctional costs alone -- should be enough to cause us to rethink our way of doing things, the overall societal and human costs should be even more convincing.
The study shows that "One in 87 working-aged white men is in prison or jail, compared with 1 in 36 Hispanic men and 1 in 12 African-American men. More young (20-34) African-American men without a high school diploma or GED are currently behind bars (37 percent) than employed (26 percent)."
Perhaps most disturbing is the 2.7 million American children who have a parent behind bars, a massive increase from 25 years ago when 1 in 125 kids had an incarcerated parent compared to 1 in 28 today. And, "two-thirds of these children's parents were incarcerated for non-violent offenses," the report says.
"One in 9 African-American children (11.4 percent), 1 in 28 Hispanic children (3.5 percent) and 1 in 57 white children (1.8 percent) have an incarcerated parent," according to Collateral Costs.
We've known for some time that imprisonment makes it tough for an individual to get a job or find housing once he or she is released.
The report notes that "serving time reduces hourly wages for men by approximately 11 percent, annual employment by 9 weeks and annual earnings by 40 percent." The typical former inmate, by age 48, will have earned $179,000 less than if he had never been incarcerated.
Before being imprisoned, more than two-thirds of male inmates had jobs and more than half were the primary source of financial support for their children, the study shows. When a released inmate can't take care of his family, guess who bears the costs?
According to the study, "Children with fathers who have been incarcerated are significantly more likely than other children to be expelled or suspended from school (23 percent compared with 4 percent).
And noting that education and parental income are strong indicators of children's future economic mobility, the report points out: "Family income averaged over the years a father is incarcerated is 22 percent lower than family income was the year before a father is incarcerated. Even in the year after the father is released, family income remains 15 percent lower than it was the year before incarceration."
The study didn't just talk about the problems, but offered solutions, such as: proactively reconnecting former inmates to the labor market; helping the person's economic condition by capping the percent of offenders' income subject to deductions for court-ordered fines, fees, etc.; screening and sorting convicted people by the risks they pose to society; and shorten prison stays by the use of earned-time credits.
As a society we must come up with an alternative to lifetime punishment for those who make mistakes. Otherwise, we're dooming a large number of offenders and their children to a lifetime of failure.
Source
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
More FBI dirty tricks on MN human rights defenders
By Deborah Dupré
Amidst widespread Cointelpro rampage on human rights defenders and peace workers this season, in Minneapolis, MN, FBI agents continued their campaign against anti-war activists in the Twin Cities on Oct. 8. Because more people have become self-learned about the suppressed history of Cointelpro, the old "dirty tricks" may not be working for them.
"FBI agents came to my work and wanted to talk to me about activists in the anti-war movement," said Jennie Eisert, an Anti-War Committee member according to Fight Back News.
Eisert shed light on the same tactic Targeted Individuals consistently report: Black operatives or their organized vigilantes sneaking meetings or communications with family and friends to turn them away from the target. This tactic is successful, all too often leaving the target isolated and thus vulnerable for attacks.
Eisert did not fall for the FBI's dirty trick.
"I was called away from my desk and when I refused to talk to them, they tried to turn me against my friends and fellow activists," said Eisert.
"They said that Jess Sundin, Meredith Aby and Mick Kelly had manipulated me and others in the anti-war movement. The only ones trying to manipulate me are these FBI agents."
Fight Back News staff reports that "Sundin, Aby and Kelly were among those who had their homes raided and were served with grand jury subpoenas when the FBI moved against anti-war and international solidarity activists on Sept. 24."
"It is insulting that federal agents would try to make me talk to them by attacking the personal and political relationships that I've had with Jess and the others for more than ten years," Eisert said. "To do this while I'm at work is harassment, plain and simple. These attempts to divide us will not work personally and it will not work in the movement."
Cointelpro has always used tricks to divide and thus dissolve peace groups, as the young human rights defenders are seeing first-hand.
Jess Sundin stated, "The FBI is clearly trying to carry out a smear campaign in order to divide the movement."
"If that's their aim, it's going to blow up in their faces. We are people's neighbors, co-workers and friends . A few lies by FBI agents cannot undo the years that we have invested in our community. Instead, it will make people all the more sure that this investigation is nothing more than a fishing expedition."
Fight Back News reports that "two other individuals in Minneapolis were also targeted by the FBI for visits earlier in the week and that local activists have continued reminding the community that they are not required to speak to FBI agents.
"They added that the FBI has tried using smear campaigns to damage movements in the past."
Fight Back News says that exposing these standard operating tactics to the light of day is the best defense.
Source
Amidst widespread Cointelpro rampage on human rights defenders and peace workers this season, in Minneapolis, MN, FBI agents continued their campaign against anti-war activists in the Twin Cities on Oct. 8. Because more people have become self-learned about the suppressed history of Cointelpro, the old "dirty tricks" may not be working for them.
"FBI agents came to my work and wanted to talk to me about activists in the anti-war movement," said Jennie Eisert, an Anti-War Committee member according to Fight Back News.
Eisert shed light on the same tactic Targeted Individuals consistently report: Black operatives or their organized vigilantes sneaking meetings or communications with family and friends to turn them away from the target. This tactic is successful, all too often leaving the target isolated and thus vulnerable for attacks.
Eisert did not fall for the FBI's dirty trick.
"I was called away from my desk and when I refused to talk to them, they tried to turn me against my friends and fellow activists," said Eisert.
"They said that Jess Sundin, Meredith Aby and Mick Kelly had manipulated me and others in the anti-war movement. The only ones trying to manipulate me are these FBI agents."
Fight Back News staff reports that "Sundin, Aby and Kelly were among those who had their homes raided and were served with grand jury subpoenas when the FBI moved against anti-war and international solidarity activists on Sept. 24."
"It is insulting that federal agents would try to make me talk to them by attacking the personal and political relationships that I've had with Jess and the others for more than ten years," Eisert said. "To do this while I'm at work is harassment, plain and simple. These attempts to divide us will not work personally and it will not work in the movement."
Cointelpro has always used tricks to divide and thus dissolve peace groups, as the young human rights defenders are seeing first-hand.
Jess Sundin stated, "The FBI is clearly trying to carry out a smear campaign in order to divide the movement."
"If that's their aim, it's going to blow up in their faces. We are people's neighbors, co-workers and friends . A few lies by FBI agents cannot undo the years that we have invested in our community. Instead, it will make people all the more sure that this investigation is nothing more than a fishing expedition."
Fight Back News reports that "two other individuals in Minneapolis were also targeted by the FBI for visits earlier in the week and that local activists have continued reminding the community that they are not required to speak to FBI agents.
"They added that the FBI has tried using smear campaigns to damage movements in the past."
Fight Back News says that exposing these standard operating tactics to the light of day is the best defense.
Source
The Ecuadorian Coup: Its Larger Meaning
By James Petras
Global Research, October 10, 2010
The abortive military-police coup in Ecuador, which took place on September 30, has raised numerous questions about the role of the US and its allies among the traditional oligarchy and the leftist social movements, Indian organizations and their political parties.
While President Correa and all governments in Latin America, and significant sectors of the Ecuadorian public described the violent actions as a coup, the principle organ of Wall Street – The Wall Street Journal – described it as a “police protest”. Spoke persons for Goldman Sachs and the Council of Foreign Relations referred to the police and military power grab against the democratically elected government as a self-induced “political crises” of the President. While the coup was underway the “Indian” movement CONAIE, launched a manifesto condemning the government, while the “Indian” party Pachakutik supported the ouster of the President and backed the police coup as a “just act of public servants”.
In summary, the imperial backers of the coup , sectors of the Ecuadorian elite and Indian movement downplayed the violent police uprising as a coup in order to justify their support for it as just another “legitimate economic protest”. In other words, the victim of the elite coup was converted into the repressor of the peoples’ will. The factual question of whether their was a coup or not, is central to deciding whether the government was justified in repressing the police uprising and whether in fact the democratic system was endangered.
The Facts about the Coup
The police did not simply “protest” against economic polices, they seized the National Assembly and attempted to occupy public buildings and media outlets. The air force – or at least those sectors collaborating with the police – seized the airport in Quito, concerted actions seizing and blocked strategic transport networks.. President Correa was assaulted and seized and kept hostage under police guard by scores of heavily armed police, who violently resisted the Special Forces who eventually freed the president resulting in scores of wounded and ten deaths. Clearly the leaders of the police uprising had more in mind that a simple “protest” over cancelled bonuses – they sought to overthrow the president and were willing to use their firepower to carry it off. The initial economic demands of public sector employees were used by the coup leaders as a springboard to oust the regime.
The fact that the coup failed is, in part, a result of the President’s vigorous and dramatic appeal to the people to take to the streets to defend democracy - an appeal, which resonated with thousands of supporters and denied the coup makers public support in the streets.
The facts on the ground all point to a violent attempt by the police and sectors of the military to seize power and depose the president – by any definition a coup. And so it was immediately understood by all Latin American governments, from right to left, some of whom immediately closed their frontiers and threatened to break relations if the coup leaders succeeded. The only exception was Washington – whose first response was not to join in the condemnation but to wait and see what would be the outcome or as presidential spokesperson Philip Crowley announced “we are monitoring events”, referring to the uprising as a “protest” challenging the government. When Washington realized that the coup was actively opposed by the Ecuadorian public, all the Latin American governments, the bulk of the armed forces and doomed to failure, Secretary of State Clinton called Correa to announce US “backing” for his government, referring to the coup as merely an “interruption of the democratic order”.
In the run-up to the restoration of democracy, the trade unions were by and large passive observers, certainly no general strikes were discussed or even active mobilizations. The response of top military officials in the army were by and large opposed to the coup, except perhaps in the air force which seized the principle airport in Quito, before handing it over to anti-drug units of the police force. The anti narcotic police were in the forefront of the coup and not surprisingly were under intense US training and indoctrination for the past five years.
Explanation for the Varied Responses to the Coup
The responses to and interpretations of the coup varied according to different sets of objective interests and subjective perceptions. Latin American regimes unanimously rejected the coup fearing a coup multiplier effect in the region, in which other successful coups (after last year’s in Honduras) would encourage the military and police to act in their countries. The memories of the recent past in which the military dismantled all representative institutions and jailed, tortured, killed and exiled political leaders was a key factor in shaping Latin America’s resounding rejection. Secondly, the existing political order benefits the capitalist class, in almost all of Latin America and provides the bases for political stability and elite prosperity. No powerful mass movements threaten capitalist socio-economic hegemony, which might require the economic elite to back a coup.
Correa supporters were in the streets, though not in the numbers of his previous calls to action ousting ex-President Lucio Gutierrez, .They were mainly party loyalists. Others supported his “anti-imperialist” measures (expelling the US military base from Manta) or were defending democratic institutions even as they have become critical of his recent policies.
The US vacillation, shifting from an initial refusal to condemn to later denouncing the failed coup, was based on longstanding ties to the military but especially the police. Between 2006-2011 US military and police aid will have totaled $94 million, of which $89 million was channeled to the “war on drugs”. From 2006-2008, Ecuadorian military and police trainees numbered 931, 526 of whom were incorporated in the “counter-drugs programs”. It was precisely the anti-drug sector of the police which played a major role in seizing the airports in Quito during the abortive coup. The US certainly had plenty of motives for the coup. Correa came to power by ousting pro-US client Lucio Gutierrez and decimating the oligarchical parties who were responsible for dollarizing the economy and embracing Washington’s free market doctrine. Correa called into question the foreign debt, declining to pay debts incurred under fraudulent circumstances. Most of all Correa was an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a member of ALBA and a strong opponent of Colombia, Washington’s main ally in the region. Ecuador’s policy weakened Washington’s strategy of “encircling Venezuela” with hostile regimes. Having already backed the successful coup against Honduras President Zelaya, an ally of Chavez, Washington had everything to gain from a military coup which ousted another member of ALBA. Washington is pursuing a “triple strategy” of 1/diplomacy, offering to improve relations,2/ subversion by building subversive capacity by financing the police and military and3/ financing via AID, NED, World Bank and NGO’s sectors of the Indian movement especially Pachacutik and dissident groups linked Lucio Gutierrez.
The leadership of the Indian movement varied in its response to the coup. The most extreme position adopted by the near moribund electoral party Pachacutik (US aid recipient) actually endorsed the police coup and call on the masses to form a “united front”, a call which fell on deaf ears. The bulk of the Indian movement (CONAIE) adopted a complex position of denying that a coup was taking place, yet rejecting the police violence and setting forth a series of demands and criticisms of Correa’s policies and methods of governance. No effort was made to either oppose the coup or to support it. In other words, in contrast to its militant anti dictatorial past, CONAIE was virtually a marginal actor.
The passivity of CONAIE and most of the trade unions has its roots in profound policy disagreements with the Correa regime.
Correa’s Self-Induced Vulnerability: His Right Turn
During the emerging citizens-movement five years ago, Rafael Correa played an important role in deposing the authoritarian, corrupt and pro-imperialist regime of Lucio Gutierrez. Once elected President, he put in practice some of his major electoral promises: evicting the US from its military base in Manta; rejecting foreign debt payments based on illicit accounts; raising salaries, the minimum wage, providing low interest loans and credit to small business. He also promised to consult with and take account of the urban social and Indian movements, in the lead up to the election of a constitutional assembly to write up a new constitution. In 2007 Correa’s list running with his new party Alianza Pais (the country alliance) won a two thirds majority in the legislature. However facing declining revenues due to the world recession, Correa made a sharp turn to right. He signed lucrative contracts with multi-national mining companies granting them exploitation rights on lands claimed by indigenous communities without consulting the latter, despite a past history of catastrophic contamination of Indian lands, water and habitat. When local communities acted to block the agreements, Correa sent in the army and harshly repressed the protestors. In subsequent efforts to negotiate, Correa only heard his own voice and dismissed the Indian leaders as a “bunch of bandits”, and “backward elements” who were blocking the “modernization of the country”.
Subsequently, Correa went on the offensive against the public employees, pushing legislation reducing salaries, bonuses and promotions, repudiating settlements based on agreements between unions and legislators. In the same way Correa imposed new laws on university governance, which alienated the professoriate, administration and students. Equally damaging to Correa’s popularity among the organized sectors of the wage and middle classes, was his authoritarian style in pushing his agenda, the pejorative language he used to label his interlocutors and his insistence that negotiations were only a means to discredit his counterparts.
Contrary to Correa’s claim to be a pathfinder for “21st century socialism”, he was, instead, the organizer of a highly personal strategy for 21st century capitalism, one based on a dollarized economy, large scale foreign investments in mining, petroleum and financial services and social austerity.
Correa’s ‘right turn’, however; also depended on political and financial support from Venezuela and its Cuban and Bolivian allies. As a result Correa fell between two chairs: he lost support from the social left because of “pro-extractive” foreign economic policies and austere domestic programs and did not secure support from the US, because of his ties to Chavez and Cuba.
As a result, Correa so alienated the unions and the Indian and social movements that he was only able to secure very limited amount of “street power” in closing down the economy to thwart the coup. Equally important, the US and its collaborators saw in his declining organized support and the growth of social protest, an opportunity to test the waters for a possible coup, via their most dependable collaborators in the police and to a lesser degree in the air force. The police uprising was a test run, encouraged to proceed, without any overt, commitment, pending its success or failure. If the police coup secured sufficient military support, Washington and its civilian political oligarchs could intervene, call for a “negotiated outcome” which would either oust Correa or “turn him” into a “pragmatic” client. In other words, a “successful” coup would eliminate another Chavez ally, but even a failed coup would put Correa on notice for the future.
Final Reflections in the Way of a Conclusion
The unfolding of the police coup turned into a farce: the coup makers miscalculated their support within the military as well as among the protesting Indians and unions. They stood alone without glory or success. Lacking national leaders, or even a coherent strategy, they were put down in a matter of hours. They misjudged the willingness of the US to commit, once it became clear that the coup makers lacked any resonance among the military elite and were totally inept. What may have started as a coup ended as a comic opera with a brief shoot-out with the military at a police hospital.
On the other side, the fact that Correa, in the end could only rely on his elite special forces, to free him from police hostage, reveals the tragedy of a popular leader. One who started with immense popular backing, promising to finally fulfill the demand of the campesinos for land reform, the Indians demand for sovereignty to negotiate over mineral riches and urban labors’ demands for just remuneration, and ended returning to the Presidential Palace protected by military armored carriers.
The failed coup in Ecuador raises a larger political question: Does the near demise of Correa spell the end of the experiment of the ‘new center-left regimes’ which attempt to “balance” vigorous export-based growth with moderate social payoffs? The entire success of the center-left regimes has been based on their ability to subsidize and promote agro-mineral foreign and domestic capital while increasing employment, wages and subsistence payments (anti-poverty programs). This ‘political formula’ has been underwritten by the boom in demand from Asia and other world markets and by historically high commodity prices. When the crises of 2008 broke, Ecuador was the weakest link in Latin America, as it was tied to the dollar and was unable to ‘stimulate’ growth or cushion the economy. Under conditions of crises, Correa resorted to repression of the social movements and trade unions and greater efforts to secure support from petro-mining multi-nationals. Moreover, Ecuador’s police and military was much more vulnerable to infiltration by US agencies because of large scale funding and training programs unlike Bolivia and Venezuela which had expelled these agencies of subversion. Unlike Argentina and Brazil, Correa lacked a capacity to “conciliate” diverse sectors of social movements through negotiations and concessions. Of course, the penetration of the Indian communities by imperial funded NGO’s promoting “separatism” and identity’ politics did not make conciliation easy.
Nevertheless, despite the particularities of Ecuador, the failed coup underlines the relative importance of resolving basic socio-economic grievances, if the center-left macro-economic projects are to succeed. Apart from Venezuela, none of the center-left regimes are carrying out structural reforms (land reform) nationalizations of strategic sectors, income redistribution .Even the Chavez regime in Venezuela has lost a great deal of popular support because of neglect of essential services (public safety, garbage collection, delivery of water, electrical power and food delivery) because of corruption and incompetence. Over time, the center-left can no longer depend on “charismatic” leaders to compensate for the lack of structural changes. The regimes must sustain the improvement of wages and salaries and delivery of basic services in an ambience of ‘social dialogue’. The absence of continuous social reforms, while agro-mining elites prosper, opens the door for the return of the right and provokes divisions in the social coalitions supporting the center-left regimes. Most important the implosion of the center-left provides an opportunity for Washington to subvert and overthrow the regimes, reverse their relatively independent foreign policy and reassert its hegemony.
The institutional foundations of the center-left are fragile everywhere, especially the police and army, because officialdom is still engaged in government programs with US military, narco-police and intelligence agencies. The center-left regimes – except Venezuela – have continued to participate in all joint military programs. The center-left has not transformed the state. Equally important it has promoted the economic bases of the pro-US Right via its agro-mineral export strategy. It has ignored the fact that political stability is temporary and based on a balance of social power resulting from the popular rebellions of the 2000-2005 period .The center-left ignores the reality that as the capitalist class prospers, as a result of center-left agro-mineral export strategies, so does the political right. And as the wealth and political power of the export elites increase and as the center-left turns to the Right, as has been the case with Correa, there will be greater social conflict and a new cycle of political upheavals, if not by the ballot box then via the bullet – via coups or via popular uprisings.
The successful coup in Honduras (2009) and the recent failed coup in Ecuador are symptomatic of the deepening crises of “post-neo-liberal” politics. The absence of a socialist alternative, the fragmentation of the social movements, the embrace of “identity politics”, have severely weakened an effective organized alternative when and if the center-left regimes go into crises. For the moment most “critical intellectuals” cling to the center-left in hopes of a “left turn”, of a political rectification, rather than taking the difficult but necessary road of rebuilding an independent class based socialist movement.
Source
Global Research, October 10, 2010
The abortive military-police coup in Ecuador, which took place on September 30, has raised numerous questions about the role of the US and its allies among the traditional oligarchy and the leftist social movements, Indian organizations and their political parties.
While President Correa and all governments in Latin America, and significant sectors of the Ecuadorian public described the violent actions as a coup, the principle organ of Wall Street – The Wall Street Journal – described it as a “police protest”. Spoke persons for Goldman Sachs and the Council of Foreign Relations referred to the police and military power grab against the democratically elected government as a self-induced “political crises” of the President. While the coup was underway the “Indian” movement CONAIE, launched a manifesto condemning the government, while the “Indian” party Pachakutik supported the ouster of the President and backed the police coup as a “just act of public servants”.
In summary, the imperial backers of the coup , sectors of the Ecuadorian elite and Indian movement downplayed the violent police uprising as a coup in order to justify their support for it as just another “legitimate economic protest”. In other words, the victim of the elite coup was converted into the repressor of the peoples’ will. The factual question of whether their was a coup or not, is central to deciding whether the government was justified in repressing the police uprising and whether in fact the democratic system was endangered.
The Facts about the Coup
The police did not simply “protest” against economic polices, they seized the National Assembly and attempted to occupy public buildings and media outlets. The air force – or at least those sectors collaborating with the police – seized the airport in Quito, concerted actions seizing and blocked strategic transport networks.. President Correa was assaulted and seized and kept hostage under police guard by scores of heavily armed police, who violently resisted the Special Forces who eventually freed the president resulting in scores of wounded and ten deaths. Clearly the leaders of the police uprising had more in mind that a simple “protest” over cancelled bonuses – they sought to overthrow the president and were willing to use their firepower to carry it off. The initial economic demands of public sector employees were used by the coup leaders as a springboard to oust the regime.
The fact that the coup failed is, in part, a result of the President’s vigorous and dramatic appeal to the people to take to the streets to defend democracy - an appeal, which resonated with thousands of supporters and denied the coup makers public support in the streets.
The facts on the ground all point to a violent attempt by the police and sectors of the military to seize power and depose the president – by any definition a coup. And so it was immediately understood by all Latin American governments, from right to left, some of whom immediately closed their frontiers and threatened to break relations if the coup leaders succeeded. The only exception was Washington – whose first response was not to join in the condemnation but to wait and see what would be the outcome or as presidential spokesperson Philip Crowley announced “we are monitoring events”, referring to the uprising as a “protest” challenging the government. When Washington realized that the coup was actively opposed by the Ecuadorian public, all the Latin American governments, the bulk of the armed forces and doomed to failure, Secretary of State Clinton called Correa to announce US “backing” for his government, referring to the coup as merely an “interruption of the democratic order”.
In the run-up to the restoration of democracy, the trade unions were by and large passive observers, certainly no general strikes were discussed or even active mobilizations. The response of top military officials in the army were by and large opposed to the coup, except perhaps in the air force which seized the principle airport in Quito, before handing it over to anti-drug units of the police force. The anti narcotic police were in the forefront of the coup and not surprisingly were under intense US training and indoctrination for the past five years.
Explanation for the Varied Responses to the Coup
The responses to and interpretations of the coup varied according to different sets of objective interests and subjective perceptions. Latin American regimes unanimously rejected the coup fearing a coup multiplier effect in the region, in which other successful coups (after last year’s in Honduras) would encourage the military and police to act in their countries. The memories of the recent past in which the military dismantled all representative institutions and jailed, tortured, killed and exiled political leaders was a key factor in shaping Latin America’s resounding rejection. Secondly, the existing political order benefits the capitalist class, in almost all of Latin America and provides the bases for political stability and elite prosperity. No powerful mass movements threaten capitalist socio-economic hegemony, which might require the economic elite to back a coup.
Correa supporters were in the streets, though not in the numbers of his previous calls to action ousting ex-President Lucio Gutierrez, .They were mainly party loyalists. Others supported his “anti-imperialist” measures (expelling the US military base from Manta) or were defending democratic institutions even as they have become critical of his recent policies.
The US vacillation, shifting from an initial refusal to condemn to later denouncing the failed coup, was based on longstanding ties to the military but especially the police. Between 2006-2011 US military and police aid will have totaled $94 million, of which $89 million was channeled to the “war on drugs”. From 2006-2008, Ecuadorian military and police trainees numbered 931, 526 of whom were incorporated in the “counter-drugs programs”. It was precisely the anti-drug sector of the police which played a major role in seizing the airports in Quito during the abortive coup. The US certainly had plenty of motives for the coup. Correa came to power by ousting pro-US client Lucio Gutierrez and decimating the oligarchical parties who were responsible for dollarizing the economy and embracing Washington’s free market doctrine. Correa called into question the foreign debt, declining to pay debts incurred under fraudulent circumstances. Most of all Correa was an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a member of ALBA and a strong opponent of Colombia, Washington’s main ally in the region. Ecuador’s policy weakened Washington’s strategy of “encircling Venezuela” with hostile regimes. Having already backed the successful coup against Honduras President Zelaya, an ally of Chavez, Washington had everything to gain from a military coup which ousted another member of ALBA. Washington is pursuing a “triple strategy” of 1/diplomacy, offering to improve relations,2/ subversion by building subversive capacity by financing the police and military and3/ financing via AID, NED, World Bank and NGO’s sectors of the Indian movement especially Pachacutik and dissident groups linked Lucio Gutierrez.
The leadership of the Indian movement varied in its response to the coup. The most extreme position adopted by the near moribund electoral party Pachacutik (US aid recipient) actually endorsed the police coup and call on the masses to form a “united front”, a call which fell on deaf ears. The bulk of the Indian movement (CONAIE) adopted a complex position of denying that a coup was taking place, yet rejecting the police violence and setting forth a series of demands and criticisms of Correa’s policies and methods of governance. No effort was made to either oppose the coup or to support it. In other words, in contrast to its militant anti dictatorial past, CONAIE was virtually a marginal actor.
The passivity of CONAIE and most of the trade unions has its roots in profound policy disagreements with the Correa regime.
Correa’s Self-Induced Vulnerability: His Right Turn
During the emerging citizens-movement five years ago, Rafael Correa played an important role in deposing the authoritarian, corrupt and pro-imperialist regime of Lucio Gutierrez. Once elected President, he put in practice some of his major electoral promises: evicting the US from its military base in Manta; rejecting foreign debt payments based on illicit accounts; raising salaries, the minimum wage, providing low interest loans and credit to small business. He also promised to consult with and take account of the urban social and Indian movements, in the lead up to the election of a constitutional assembly to write up a new constitution. In 2007 Correa’s list running with his new party Alianza Pais (the country alliance) won a two thirds majority in the legislature. However facing declining revenues due to the world recession, Correa made a sharp turn to right. He signed lucrative contracts with multi-national mining companies granting them exploitation rights on lands claimed by indigenous communities without consulting the latter, despite a past history of catastrophic contamination of Indian lands, water and habitat. When local communities acted to block the agreements, Correa sent in the army and harshly repressed the protestors. In subsequent efforts to negotiate, Correa only heard his own voice and dismissed the Indian leaders as a “bunch of bandits”, and “backward elements” who were blocking the “modernization of the country”.
Subsequently, Correa went on the offensive against the public employees, pushing legislation reducing salaries, bonuses and promotions, repudiating settlements based on agreements between unions and legislators. In the same way Correa imposed new laws on university governance, which alienated the professoriate, administration and students. Equally damaging to Correa’s popularity among the organized sectors of the wage and middle classes, was his authoritarian style in pushing his agenda, the pejorative language he used to label his interlocutors and his insistence that negotiations were only a means to discredit his counterparts.
Contrary to Correa’s claim to be a pathfinder for “21st century socialism”, he was, instead, the organizer of a highly personal strategy for 21st century capitalism, one based on a dollarized economy, large scale foreign investments in mining, petroleum and financial services and social austerity.
Correa’s ‘right turn’, however; also depended on political and financial support from Venezuela and its Cuban and Bolivian allies. As a result Correa fell between two chairs: he lost support from the social left because of “pro-extractive” foreign economic policies and austere domestic programs and did not secure support from the US, because of his ties to Chavez and Cuba.
As a result, Correa so alienated the unions and the Indian and social movements that he was only able to secure very limited amount of “street power” in closing down the economy to thwart the coup. Equally important, the US and its collaborators saw in his declining organized support and the growth of social protest, an opportunity to test the waters for a possible coup, via their most dependable collaborators in the police and to a lesser degree in the air force. The police uprising was a test run, encouraged to proceed, without any overt, commitment, pending its success or failure. If the police coup secured sufficient military support, Washington and its civilian political oligarchs could intervene, call for a “negotiated outcome” which would either oust Correa or “turn him” into a “pragmatic” client. In other words, a “successful” coup would eliminate another Chavez ally, but even a failed coup would put Correa on notice for the future.
Final Reflections in the Way of a Conclusion
The unfolding of the police coup turned into a farce: the coup makers miscalculated their support within the military as well as among the protesting Indians and unions. They stood alone without glory or success. Lacking national leaders, or even a coherent strategy, they were put down in a matter of hours. They misjudged the willingness of the US to commit, once it became clear that the coup makers lacked any resonance among the military elite and were totally inept. What may have started as a coup ended as a comic opera with a brief shoot-out with the military at a police hospital.
On the other side, the fact that Correa, in the end could only rely on his elite special forces, to free him from police hostage, reveals the tragedy of a popular leader. One who started with immense popular backing, promising to finally fulfill the demand of the campesinos for land reform, the Indians demand for sovereignty to negotiate over mineral riches and urban labors’ demands for just remuneration, and ended returning to the Presidential Palace protected by military armored carriers.
The failed coup in Ecuador raises a larger political question: Does the near demise of Correa spell the end of the experiment of the ‘new center-left regimes’ which attempt to “balance” vigorous export-based growth with moderate social payoffs? The entire success of the center-left regimes has been based on their ability to subsidize and promote agro-mineral foreign and domestic capital while increasing employment, wages and subsistence payments (anti-poverty programs). This ‘political formula’ has been underwritten by the boom in demand from Asia and other world markets and by historically high commodity prices. When the crises of 2008 broke, Ecuador was the weakest link in Latin America, as it was tied to the dollar and was unable to ‘stimulate’ growth or cushion the economy. Under conditions of crises, Correa resorted to repression of the social movements and trade unions and greater efforts to secure support from petro-mining multi-nationals. Moreover, Ecuador’s police and military was much more vulnerable to infiltration by US agencies because of large scale funding and training programs unlike Bolivia and Venezuela which had expelled these agencies of subversion. Unlike Argentina and Brazil, Correa lacked a capacity to “conciliate” diverse sectors of social movements through negotiations and concessions. Of course, the penetration of the Indian communities by imperial funded NGO’s promoting “separatism” and identity’ politics did not make conciliation easy.
Nevertheless, despite the particularities of Ecuador, the failed coup underlines the relative importance of resolving basic socio-economic grievances, if the center-left macro-economic projects are to succeed. Apart from Venezuela, none of the center-left regimes are carrying out structural reforms (land reform) nationalizations of strategic sectors, income redistribution .Even the Chavez regime in Venezuela has lost a great deal of popular support because of neglect of essential services (public safety, garbage collection, delivery of water, electrical power and food delivery) because of corruption and incompetence. Over time, the center-left can no longer depend on “charismatic” leaders to compensate for the lack of structural changes. The regimes must sustain the improvement of wages and salaries and delivery of basic services in an ambience of ‘social dialogue’. The absence of continuous social reforms, while agro-mining elites prosper, opens the door for the return of the right and provokes divisions in the social coalitions supporting the center-left regimes. Most important the implosion of the center-left provides an opportunity for Washington to subvert and overthrow the regimes, reverse their relatively independent foreign policy and reassert its hegemony.
The institutional foundations of the center-left are fragile everywhere, especially the police and army, because officialdom is still engaged in government programs with US military, narco-police and intelligence agencies. The center-left regimes – except Venezuela – have continued to participate in all joint military programs. The center-left has not transformed the state. Equally important it has promoted the economic bases of the pro-US Right via its agro-mineral export strategy. It has ignored the fact that political stability is temporary and based on a balance of social power resulting from the popular rebellions of the 2000-2005 period .The center-left ignores the reality that as the capitalist class prospers, as a result of center-left agro-mineral export strategies, so does the political right. And as the wealth and political power of the export elites increase and as the center-left turns to the Right, as has been the case with Correa, there will be greater social conflict and a new cycle of political upheavals, if not by the ballot box then via the bullet – via coups or via popular uprisings.
The successful coup in Honduras (2009) and the recent failed coup in Ecuador are symptomatic of the deepening crises of “post-neo-liberal” politics. The absence of a socialist alternative, the fragmentation of the social movements, the embrace of “identity politics”, have severely weakened an effective organized alternative when and if the center-left regimes go into crises. For the moment most “critical intellectuals” cling to the center-left in hopes of a “left turn”, of a political rectification, rather than taking the difficult but necessary road of rebuilding an independent class based socialist movement.
Source
Monday, October 11, 2010
Stuxnet Computer Worm–Israel’s Attempt To Silence Iran on 9/11 or Veiled Threat to the Entire World?
In mid September, news stories from mainstream media sources featuring Israel as both creator and propagator of a new doomsday computer virus named Stuxnet swept the globe. Unlike the ordinary, run-of-the-mill colds afflicting today’s computers on a regular basis, this new super-bug was unlike anything seen before, literally a weapon of mass destruction given its capabilities of doing apocalyptic damage to the “critical infrastructure”–meaning electricity, water, sewage, oil refineries, telecommunications, national defense, food production, etc–of all industrialized nations.
The reasons for Israel being fingered as the lone gunman in this crime were several. First, the bug in question–while making its way to other parts of the world, nevertheless was disproportionally concentrated in Iran, and–more importantly–targeted the nuclear facility at Natanz whose destruction is numero uno on Israel’s wish list. Next were two “fingerprints” left on the would-be murder weapon, one of them being a reference to the biblical heroine Esther whose reputed actions (celebrated yearly in the Jewish religious festival known as Purim) saved the Jews of Persia (today’s Iran) from yet another in a seemingly-endless parade of persecution of God’s chosen people.
The other was a date left hidden in the code–May 9, 1979, the day that an Iranian Jew named Habib Elghanian was executed by the newly-formed government following the overthrow of the Shah (effectively marking the end of Zionist control over that country) and leading to the flight of tens of thousands of Iranian Jews.
Those experts who were asked to give their diagnoses concerning the who, what, where, when, why and how of this super-flu were near-unanimous in their assertion that the one culprit most likely to have cooked up this technological biological weapon was Israel. Furthermore, they were also in agreement that the virus in question–although concentrated in Iran, nevertheless, was something that directly threatened the fragile systems of the entire world, in that the Stuxnet worm gave hackers command-and-control ability of all critical infrastructure mechanisms of ALL industrialized nations. All the “big heavies” in terms of mainstream news outlets carrying info on this new-and-improved electronic plague have described it as nothing short of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, the scope and scale of which are eerily-reminiscent of the entire Y2K hysteria of over a decade ago. The picture they paint is one where every facet of modern life could be exploited in such a way as to bring about cardiac arrest and subsequent organ failure to the body-politic, where in just a few days’ time otherwise-peaceful/productive metropolises are turned into war zones.
In effect, any outside party with access to such systems is tantamount to someone holding a gun to the head of a nation while making demands.
In other words, according to the news stories as written and presented to the world at large, a Jewish plot to undermine the existing world order not only passed the Censor Judaica, but were allowed to profligate–AND WITH ABSOLTELY NO PROTESTS FROM ORGANIZED JEWISH GROUPS. Remember, this in a day and age when anyone mentioning the particulars concerning who owns the lion’s share of media, banking, and financial interests in the West results in an organized campaign of screeching and howling that leaves ears ringing for months on end. All the world need remember is the manner by which the banshees were set loose in full-force in a well-coordinated “HOW DARE YOU” crusade to shout down any intelligent, reasonable discussion concerning undeniable massacres such as Operation Cast Lead and the murder of 9 civilians aboard the Mavi Marmara.
And yet, news stories theorizing that Israel was the main culprit in the development and deployment of a computer virus (for all intents and purposes just as devastating as a nuclear weapon for all the mayhem it could directly bring to industrialized countries) and not a peep of protest from the Jewish state or her supporters…“Silent as death,” as the old saying goes, as people worldwide adopt the notion that a “Jewish conspiracy” is afoot threatening total meltdown of the world as we know it with just a computer keystroke…
Which can mean only one thing, which is that it is obviously in Israel’s interest for the world to believe she was/is responsible for releasing this Angel-of Death computer virus upon mankind’s fragile systems necessary for survival…
The reasons for Jewish interests allowing such “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” to not only receive the light of day but flourish without the typical theatrics all are accustomed to seeing and hearing range from typical run-of-the-mill hypocrisy to deeper, darker motives. In the first case, Israel loves the mystique and the mystery that such theories do for her image, as hers is a culture rooted in the kind of lore where an angry, vengeful god named Yahweh brings destruction upon entire peoples who deal with his chosen people in a manner displeasing and unacceptable.
Read more...
The reasons for Israel being fingered as the lone gunman in this crime were several. First, the bug in question–while making its way to other parts of the world, nevertheless was disproportionally concentrated in Iran, and–more importantly–targeted the nuclear facility at Natanz whose destruction is numero uno on Israel’s wish list. Next were two “fingerprints” left on the would-be murder weapon, one of them being a reference to the biblical heroine Esther whose reputed actions (celebrated yearly in the Jewish religious festival known as Purim) saved the Jews of Persia (today’s Iran) from yet another in a seemingly-endless parade of persecution of God’s chosen people.
The other was a date left hidden in the code–May 9, 1979, the day that an Iranian Jew named Habib Elghanian was executed by the newly-formed government following the overthrow of the Shah (effectively marking the end of Zionist control over that country) and leading to the flight of tens of thousands of Iranian Jews.
Those experts who were asked to give their diagnoses concerning the who, what, where, when, why and how of this super-flu were near-unanimous in their assertion that the one culprit most likely to have cooked up this technological biological weapon was Israel. Furthermore, they were also in agreement that the virus in question–although concentrated in Iran, nevertheless, was something that directly threatened the fragile systems of the entire world, in that the Stuxnet worm gave hackers command-and-control ability of all critical infrastructure mechanisms of ALL industrialized nations. All the “big heavies” in terms of mainstream news outlets carrying info on this new-and-improved electronic plague have described it as nothing short of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, the scope and scale of which are eerily-reminiscent of the entire Y2K hysteria of over a decade ago. The picture they paint is one where every facet of modern life could be exploited in such a way as to bring about cardiac arrest and subsequent organ failure to the body-politic, where in just a few days’ time otherwise-peaceful/productive metropolises are turned into war zones.
In effect, any outside party with access to such systems is tantamount to someone holding a gun to the head of a nation while making demands.
In other words, according to the news stories as written and presented to the world at large, a Jewish plot to undermine the existing world order not only passed the Censor Judaica, but were allowed to profligate–AND WITH ABSOLTELY NO PROTESTS FROM ORGANIZED JEWISH GROUPS. Remember, this in a day and age when anyone mentioning the particulars concerning who owns the lion’s share of media, banking, and financial interests in the West results in an organized campaign of screeching and howling that leaves ears ringing for months on end. All the world need remember is the manner by which the banshees were set loose in full-force in a well-coordinated “HOW DARE YOU” crusade to shout down any intelligent, reasonable discussion concerning undeniable massacres such as Operation Cast Lead and the murder of 9 civilians aboard the Mavi Marmara.
And yet, news stories theorizing that Israel was the main culprit in the development and deployment of a computer virus (for all intents and purposes just as devastating as a nuclear weapon for all the mayhem it could directly bring to industrialized countries) and not a peep of protest from the Jewish state or her supporters…“Silent as death,” as the old saying goes, as people worldwide adopt the notion that a “Jewish conspiracy” is afoot threatening total meltdown of the world as we know it with just a computer keystroke…
Which can mean only one thing, which is that it is obviously in Israel’s interest for the world to believe she was/is responsible for releasing this Angel-of Death computer virus upon mankind’s fragile systems necessary for survival…
The reasons for Jewish interests allowing such “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” to not only receive the light of day but flourish without the typical theatrics all are accustomed to seeing and hearing range from typical run-of-the-mill hypocrisy to deeper, darker motives. In the first case, Israel loves the mystique and the mystery that such theories do for her image, as hers is a culture rooted in the kind of lore where an angry, vengeful god named Yahweh brings destruction upon entire peoples who deal with his chosen people in a manner displeasing and unacceptable.
Read more...
Talmud Encourages Jews To Deceive
By Rev. Ted Pike
What kind of religion sanctions deception and immorality for the sake of political goals? Orthodox Talmudic Judaism. The Babylonian Talmud encourages Jews to cheat and deceive Gentiles whenever necessary! In fact, "by way of deception" is the motto of Israel's spy agency Mossad. Official license to deceive and even commit sexual immorality was seen in Israel this week.
EminentOrthodox Rabbi Ari Shvat responded to a female student's question about the morality of seducing and sleeping with an enemy. " I was asked a question by a student of mine who was a religious girl that had been recruited by the Mossad. She wanted to know if a woman was allowed to do this kind of work." Shvat ruled yes and published an essay in Tehumin, an annual collection of articles on law and modernity. The Jewish World summarizes: "A new Halachic study ruled that seducing an enemy for the sake of national security is an important mitzvah" It is, in fact, an "utmost mitzvah" (legal command). Shvat's work was published by the Tzomet Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to "seamlessly merging Judaism with modern Israeli life."
In the ruling, Shvat says women can be "used to seduce enemy agents in order to cajole information out of them or see them captured." Jewish World says such women were used to capture nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu and to assassinate a senior Hamas operative in Dubai last January. Such deception, says the rabbi, is "Halacha," or binding Talmudic law. Even with homicidal intent, he writes, "sexual intercourse with a Gentile for the sake of a national cause is not only sanctioned, but is a highly important mitzvahOur Sages of Blessed Memory elevate such acts of dedication to the top of the Halacha's mitzvahs pyramid."
Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, head of Tzomet Institute and editor-in-chief of Tehumin, called the study "daring and importantAlthough it is highly unlikely that Mossad agents will seek rabbinical advice, this essay is very important and courageous. The author is versed in religious discourse and even conservative rabbis would surely agree with his thesis."
Shvat's ruling, reported by a major Jewish news agency, is presented without criticism. It reveals a disturbing, even ominous fact: Talmudic Judaism encourages Jews to ensnare and deceive Gentiles in order to advance Jews and Jewish causes, as long as they can get away with it. If they are caught and Israel is embarrassed, the "holy name of God" (synonymous with Israel's good reputation) may be blasphemed. If that is a real possibility, the Talmud tells Jews to back off. But in order to save the Jewish nation it is even morally permitted to murder and commit adultery.
God "Outlawed" the Gentiles
The Talmudic position concerning deception of Gentiles is embodied in the Halachic dictum, "It is permitted to deceive a goy (Gentile)." [1] In legal and business matters, the Talmud says Gentiles are beneath equality with Jews. As the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia explains [2], the Gentiles were "outlawed" by God from the beginning.
The passage in Moses' farewell address: 'The Lord came form Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran'. . . indicates that the Almighty offered the Torah to the Gentile nations also, but, since they refused to accept it, He withdrew His 'shining' legal protection form them, and transferred their property rights to Israel, who observed His law. A passage in Habakkuk is quoted as confirming this claim: 'God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. . .He stood and measured the earth he beheld, and drove asunder ["outlawed"] the nations.' . . .the Talmud adds that He had observed how the Gentile nations steadfastly refused to obey the seven moral Noachian precepts, and hence He decided to outlaw them." (Baba Kama 38a).
The rabbis believed Gentiles demonstrated their stupidity by thinking their own laws were worthy of obeying. The Talmud denies the Gentile status as a "man," so they are also excluded from being the Jews' neighbor.
Read more...
What kind of religion sanctions deception and immorality for the sake of political goals? Orthodox Talmudic Judaism. The Babylonian Talmud encourages Jews to cheat and deceive Gentiles whenever necessary! In fact, "by way of deception" is the motto of Israel's spy agency Mossad. Official license to deceive and even commit sexual immorality was seen in Israel this week.
Eminent
In the ruling, Shvat says women can be "used to seduce enemy agents in order to cajole information out of them or see them captured." Jewish World says such women were used to capture nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu and to assassinate a senior Hamas operative in Dubai last January. Such deception, says the rabbi, is "Halacha," or binding Talmudic law. Even with homicidal intent, he writes, "sexual intercourse with a Gentile for the sake of a national cause is not only sanctioned, but is a highly important mitzvahOur Sages of Blessed Memory elevate such acts of dedication to the top of the Halacha's mitzvahs pyramid."
Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, head of Tzomet Institute and editor-in-chief of Tehumin, called the study "daring and importantAlthough it is highly unlikely that Mossad agents will seek rabbinical advice, this essay is very important and courageous. The author is versed in religious discourse and even conservative rabbis would surely agree with his thesis."
Shvat's ruling, reported by a major Jewish news agency, is presented without criticism. It reveals a disturbing, even ominous fact: Talmudic Judaism encourages Jews to ensnare and deceive Gentiles in order to advance Jews and Jewish causes, as long as they can get away with it. If they are caught and Israel is embarrassed, the "holy name of God" (synonymous with Israel's good reputation) may be blasphemed. If that is a real possibility, the Talmud tells Jews to back off. But in order to save the Jewish nation it is even morally permitted to murder and commit adultery.
God "Outlawed" the Gentiles
The Talmudic position concerning deception of Gentiles is embodied in the Halachic dictum, "It is permitted to deceive a goy (Gentile)." [1] In legal and business matters, the Talmud says Gentiles are beneath equality with Jews. As the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia explains [2], the Gentiles were "outlawed" by God from the beginning.
The passage in Moses' farewell address: 'The Lord came form Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran'. . . indicates that the Almighty offered the Torah to the Gentile nations also, but, since they refused to accept it, He withdrew His 'shining' legal protection form them, and transferred their property rights to Israel, who observed His law. A passage in Habakkuk is quoted as confirming this claim: 'God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. . .He stood and measured the earth he beheld, and drove asunder ["outlawed"] the nations.' . . .the Talmud adds that He had observed how the Gentile nations steadfastly refused to obey the seven moral Noachian precepts, and hence He decided to outlaw them." (Baba Kama 38a).
The rabbis believed Gentiles demonstrated their stupidity by thinking their own laws were worthy of obeying. The Talmud denies the Gentile status as a "man," so they are also excluded from being the Jews' neighbor.
Read more...
Columbus Day? True Legacy: Cruelty and Slavery
Once again, it's time to celebrate Columbus Day. Yet, the stunning truth is: If Christopher Columbus were alive today, he would be put on trial for crimes against humanity. Columbus' reign of terror, as documented by noted historians, was so bloody, his legacy so unspeakably cruel, that Columbus makes a modern villain like Saddam Hussein look like a pale codfish.
Question: Why do we honor a man who, if he were alive today, would almost certainly be sitting on Death Row awaiting execution?
If you'd like to know the true story about Christopher Columbus, please read on. But I warn you, it's not for the faint of heart.
Here's the basics. On the second Monday in October each year, we celebrate Columbus Day (this year, it's on October 11th). We teach our school kids a cute little song that goes: "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." It's an American tradition, as American as pizza pie. Or is it? Surprisingly, the true story of Christopher Columbus has very little in common with the myth we all learned in school.
Columbus Day, as we know it in the United States, was invented by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal service organization. Back in the 1930s, they were looking for a Catholic hero as a role-model their kids could look up to. In 1934, as a result of lobbying by the Knights of Columbus, Congress and President Franklin Roosevelt signed Columbus Day into law as a federal holiday to honor this courageous explorer. Or so we thought.
There are several problems with this. First of all, Columbus wasn't the first European to discover America. As we all know, the Viking, Leif Ericson probably founded a Norse village on Newfoundland some 500 years earlier. So, hat's off to Leif. But if you think about it, the whole concept of discovering America is, well, arrogant. After all, the Native Americans discovered North America about 14,000 years before Columbus was even born! Surprisingly, DNA evidence now suggests that courageous Polynesian adventurers sailed dugout canoes across the Pacific and settled in South America long before the Vikings.
Second, Columbus wasn't a hero. When he set foot on that sandy beach in the Bahamas on October 12, 1492, Columbus discovered that the islands were inhabited by friendly, peaceful people called the Lucayans, Taínos and Arawaks. Writing in his diary, Columbus said they were a handsome, smart and kind people. He noted that the gentle Arawaks were remarkable for their hospitality. "They offered to share with anyone and when you ask for something, they never say no," he said. The Arawaks had no weapons; their society had neither criminals, prisons nor prisoners. They were so kind-hearted that Columbus noted in his diary that on the day the Santa Maria was shipwrecked, the Arawaks labored for hours to save his crew and cargo. The native people were so honest that not one thing was missing.
Columbus was so impressed with the hard work of these gentle islanders, that he immediately seized their land for Spain and enslaved them to work in his brutal gold mines. Within only two years, 125,000 (half of the population) of the original natives on the island were dead.
Read more...
Question: Why do we honor a man who, if he were alive today, would almost certainly be sitting on Death Row awaiting execution?
If you'd like to know the true story about Christopher Columbus, please read on. But I warn you, it's not for the faint of heart.
Here's the basics. On the second Monday in October each year, we celebrate Columbus Day (this year, it's on October 11th). We teach our school kids a cute little song that goes: "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." It's an American tradition, as American as pizza pie. Or is it? Surprisingly, the true story of Christopher Columbus has very little in common with the myth we all learned in school.
Columbus Day, as we know it in the United States, was invented by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal service organization. Back in the 1930s, they were looking for a Catholic hero as a role-model their kids could look up to. In 1934, as a result of lobbying by the Knights of Columbus, Congress and President Franklin Roosevelt signed Columbus Day into law as a federal holiday to honor this courageous explorer. Or so we thought.
There are several problems with this. First of all, Columbus wasn't the first European to discover America. As we all know, the Viking, Leif Ericson probably founded a Norse village on Newfoundland some 500 years earlier. So, hat's off to Leif. But if you think about it, the whole concept of discovering America is, well, arrogant. After all, the Native Americans discovered North America about 14,000 years before Columbus was even born! Surprisingly, DNA evidence now suggests that courageous Polynesian adventurers sailed dugout canoes across the Pacific and settled in South America long before the Vikings.
Second, Columbus wasn't a hero. When he set foot on that sandy beach in the Bahamas on October 12, 1492, Columbus discovered that the islands were inhabited by friendly, peaceful people called the Lucayans, Taínos and Arawaks. Writing in his diary, Columbus said they were a handsome, smart and kind people. He noted that the gentle Arawaks were remarkable for their hospitality. "They offered to share with anyone and when you ask for something, they never say no," he said. The Arawaks had no weapons; their society had neither criminals, prisons nor prisoners. They were so kind-hearted that Columbus noted in his diary that on the day the Santa Maria was shipwrecked, the Arawaks labored for hours to save his crew and cargo. The native people were so honest that not one thing was missing.
Columbus was so impressed with the hard work of these gentle islanders, that he immediately seized their land for Spain and enslaved them to work in his brutal gold mines. Within only two years, 125,000 (half of the population) of the original natives on the island were dead.
Read more...
The Jewish Republic of Israel – Gideon Levy
Swearing an oath to a Jewish state will decide its fate. It is liable to turn the country into a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.
Remember this day. It’s the day Israel changes its character. As a result, it can also change its name to the Jewish Republic of Israel, like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Granted, the loyalty oath bill that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to have passed purportedly only deals with new citizens who are not Jewish, but it affects the fate of all of us.
From now on, we will be living in a new, officially approved, ethnocratic, theocratic, nationalistic and racist country. Anyone who thinks it doesn’t affect him is mistaken. There is a silent majority that is accepting this with worrying apathy, as if to say: “I don’t care what country I live in.” Also anyone who thinks the world will continue to relate to Israel as a democracy after this law doesn’t understand what it is about. It’s another step that seriously harms Israel’s image.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will prove today that he is actually Yisrael Beinteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman, and Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman will prove he is really a loyal member of Yisrael Beiteinu. The Labor party will prove it is nothing more than a doormat. And Israel today will prove that it doesn’t care about anything. Today the loyalty oath bill, soon the loyalty oath law. The dam will overflow today, threatening to drown the remnants of democracy until we are left perhaps with a Jewish state of a character that no one really understands, but it certainly won’t be a democracy. Those demanding this loyalty oath are the ones misappropriating loyalty to the state.
At its next session, the Knesset is to debate close to 20 other anti-democratic bills. Over the weekend, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel issued a blacklist of legislation: a loyalty law for Knesset members; a loyalty law for film production; a loyalty law for non-profits; putting the Palestinian catastrophe, the Nakba, beyond the scope of the law; a ban on calls for a boycott; and a bill for the revocation of citizenship. It’s a dangerous McCarthyist dance on the part of ignorant legislators who haven’t begun to understand what democracy is all about. It’s dangerous even if only a portion of the bills become law, because our fate and our essence will change.
It’s not hard to understand the Netanyahu-Lieberman duo. As sworn nationalists, they are not expected to understand that democracy doesn’t only mean the rule of the majority, but rather first and foremost that minorities have rights. It’s much harder to comprehend the complacency of the masses. Town squares should have been filled today with citizens who do not wish to live in a country where the minority is oppressed by draconian laws such as the one that forces them to swear a false oath to a Jewish state, but amazingly almost no one seems to feel affected.
Read more...
Remember this day. It’s the day Israel changes its character. As a result, it can also change its name to the Jewish Republic of Israel, like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Granted, the loyalty oath bill that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to have passed purportedly only deals with new citizens who are not Jewish, but it affects the fate of all of us.
From now on, we will be living in a new, officially approved, ethnocratic, theocratic, nationalistic and racist country. Anyone who thinks it doesn’t affect him is mistaken. There is a silent majority that is accepting this with worrying apathy, as if to say: “I don’t care what country I live in.” Also anyone who thinks the world will continue to relate to Israel as a democracy after this law doesn’t understand what it is about. It’s another step that seriously harms Israel’s image.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will prove today that he is actually Yisrael Beinteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman, and Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman will prove he is really a loyal member of Yisrael Beiteinu. The Labor party will prove it is nothing more than a doormat. And Israel today will prove that it doesn’t care about anything. Today the loyalty oath bill, soon the loyalty oath law. The dam will overflow today, threatening to drown the remnants of democracy until we are left perhaps with a Jewish state of a character that no one really understands, but it certainly won’t be a democracy. Those demanding this loyalty oath are the ones misappropriating loyalty to the state.
At its next session, the Knesset is to debate close to 20 other anti-democratic bills. Over the weekend, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel issued a blacklist of legislation: a loyalty law for Knesset members; a loyalty law for film production; a loyalty law for non-profits; putting the Palestinian catastrophe, the Nakba, beyond the scope of the law; a ban on calls for a boycott; and a bill for the revocation of citizenship. It’s a dangerous McCarthyist dance on the part of ignorant legislators who haven’t begun to understand what democracy is all about. It’s dangerous even if only a portion of the bills become law, because our fate and our essence will change.
It’s not hard to understand the Netanyahu-Lieberman duo. As sworn nationalists, they are not expected to understand that democracy doesn’t only mean the rule of the majority, but rather first and foremost that minorities have rights. It’s much harder to comprehend the complacency of the masses. Town squares should have been filled today with citizens who do not wish to live in a country where the minority is oppressed by draconian laws such as the one that forces them to swear a false oath to a Jewish state, but amazingly almost no one seems to feel affected.
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)