Upon that night, when fairies light
On Cassilis Downans dance,
Or owre the lays, in splendid blaze,
On sprightly coursers prance;
Or for Colean the route is ta'en,
Beneath the moon's pale beams;
There, up the cove, to stray and rove,
Among the rocks and streams
To sport that night.
Among the bonny winding banks,
Where Doon rins, wimplin' clear,
Where Bruce ance ruled the martial ranks,
And shook his Carrick spear,
Some merry, friendly, country-folks,
Together did convene,
To burn their nits, and pou their stocks,
And haud their Halloween
Fu' blithe that night.
The lasses feat, and cleanly neat,
Mair braw than when they're fine;
Their faces blithe, fu' sweetly kythe,
Hearts leal, and warm, and kin';
The lads sae trig, wi' wooer-babs,
Weel knotted on their garten,
Some unco blate, and some wi' gabs,
Gar lasses' hearts gang startin'
Whiles fast at night.
Then, first and foremost, through the kail,
Their stocks maun a' be sought ance;
They steek their een, and graip and wale,
For muckle anes and straught anes.
Poor hav'rel Will fell aff the drift,
And wander'd through the bow-kail,
And pou't, for want o' better shift,
A runt was like a sow-tail,
Sae bow't that night.
Then, staught or crooked, yird or nane,
They roar and cry a' throu'ther;
The very wee things, todlin', rin,
Wi' stocks out owre their shouther;
And gif the custoc's sweet or sour.
Wi' joctelegs they taste them;
Syne cozily, aboon the door,
Wi cannie care, they've placed them
To lie that night.
The lasses staw frae 'mang them a'
To pou their stalks of corn:
But Rab slips out, and jinks about,
Behint the muckle thorn:
He grippet Nelly hard and fast;
Loud skirl'd a' the lasses;
But her tap-pickle maist was lost,
When kitlin' in the fause-house
Wi' him that night.
The auld guidwife's well-hoordit nits,
Are round and round divided,
And monie lads' and lasses' fates
Are there that night decided:
Some kindle coothie, side by side,
And burn thegither trimly;
Some start awa, wi' saucy pride,
And jump out-owre the chimlie
Fu' high that night.
Jean slips in twa wi' tentie ee;
Wha 'twas she wadna tell;
But this is Jock, and this is me,
She says in to hersel:
He bleezed owre her, and she owre him,
As they wad never mair part;
Till, fuff! he started up the lum,
And Jean had e'en a sair heart
To see't that night.
Poor Willie, wi' his bow-kail runt,
Was brunt wi' primsie Mallie;
And Mallie, nae doubt, took the drunt,
To be compared to Willie;
Mall's nit lap out wi' pridefu' fling,
And her ain fit it brunt it;
While Willie lap, and swore by jing,
'Twas just the way he wanted
To be that night.
Nell had the fause-house in her min',
She pits hersel and Rob in;
In loving bleeze they sweetly join,
Till white in ase they're sobbin';
Nell's heart was dancin' at the view,
She whisper'd Rob to leuk for't:
Rob, stowlins, prie'd her bonny mou',
Fu' cozie in the neuk for't,
Unseen that night.
But Merran sat behint their backs,
Her thoughts on Andrew Bell;
She lea'es them gashin' at their cracks,
And slips out by hersel:
She through the yard the nearest taks,
And to the kiln goes then,
And darklins graipit for the bauks,
And in the blue-clue throws then,
Right fear't that night.
And aye she win't, and aye she swat,
I wat she made nae jaukin',
Till something held within the pat,
Guid Lord! but she was quakin'!
But whether 'was the deil himsel,
Or whether 'twas a bauk-en',
Or whether it was Andrew Bell,
She didna wait on talkin'
To spier that night.
Wee Jennie to her grannie says,
"Will ye go wi' me, grannie?
I'll eat the apple at the glass
I gat frae Uncle Johnnie:"
She fuff't her pipe wi' sic a lunt,
In wrath she was sae vap'rin',
She notice't na, an aizle brunt
Her braw new worset apron
Out through that night.
"Ye little skelpie-limmer's face!
I daur you try sic sportin',
As seek the foul thief ony place,
For him to spae your fortune.
Nae doubt but ye may get a sight!
Great cause ye hae to fear it;
For mony a ane has gotten a fright,
And lived and died deleeret
On sic a night.
"Ae hairst afore the Sherramoor, --
I mind't as weel's yestreen,
I was a gilpey then, I'm sure
I wasna past fifteen;
The simmer had been cauld and wat,
And stuff was unco green;
And aye a rantin' kirn we gat,
And just on Halloween
It fell that night.
"Our stibble-rig was Rab M'Graen,
A clever sturdy fallow:
His son gat Eppie Sim wi' wean,
That lived in Achmacalla:
He gat hemp-seed, I mind it weel,
And he made unco light o't;
But mony a day was by himsel,
He was sae sairly frighted
That very night."
Then up gat fechtin' Jamie Fleck,
And he swore by his conscience,
That he could saw hemp-seed a peck;
For it was a' but nonsense.
The auld guidman raught down the pock,
And out a hanfu' gied him;
Syne bade him slip frae 'mang the folk,
Some time when nae ane see'd him,
And try't that night.
He marches through amang the stacks,
Though he was something sturtin;
The graip he for a harrow taks.
And haurls it at his curpin;
And every now and then he says,
"Hemp-seed, I saw thee,
And her that is to be my lass,
Come after me, and draw thee
As fast this night."
He whistled up Lord Lennox' march
To keep his courage cheery;
Although his hair began to arch,
He was say fley'd and eerie:
Till presently he hears a squeak,
And then a grane and gruntle;
He by his shouther gae a keek,
And tumbled wi' a wintle
Out-owre that night.
He roar'd a horrid murder-shout,
In dreadfu' desperation!
And young and auld came runnin' out
To hear the sad narration;
He swore 'twas hilchin Jean M'Craw,
Or crouchie Merran Humphie,
Till, stop! she trotted through them
And wha was it but grumphie
Asteer that night!
Meg fain wad to the barn hae gaen,
To win three wechts o' naething;
But for to meet the deil her lane,
She pat but little faith in:
She gies the herd a pickle nits,
And two red-cheekit apples,
To watch, while for the barn she sets,
In hopes to see Tam Kipples
That very nicht.
She turns the key wi cannie thraw,
And owre the threshold ventures;
But first on Sawnie gies a ca'
Syne bauldly in she enters:
A ratton rattled up the wa',
And she cried, Lord, preserve her!
And ran through midden-hole and a',
And pray'd wi' zeal and fervour,
Fu' fast that night;
They hoy't out Will wi' sair advice;
They hecht him some fine braw ane;
It chanced the stack he faddom'd thrice
Was timmer-propt for thrawin';
He taks a swirlie, auld moss-oak,
For some black grousome carlin;
And loot a winze, and drew a stroke,
Till skin in blypes cam haurlin'
Aff's nieves that night.
A wanton widow Leezie was,
As canty as a kittlin;
But, och! that night amang the shaws,
She got a fearfu' settlin'!
She through the whins, and by the cairn,
And owre the hill gaed scrievin,
Whare three lairds' lands met at a burn
To dip her left sark-sleeve in,
Was bent that night.
Whyles owre a linn the burnie plays,
As through the glen it wimpl't;
Whyles round a rocky scaur it strays;
Whyles in a wiel it dimpl't;
Whyles glitter'd to the nightly rays,
Wi' bickering, dancing dazzle;
Whyles cookit underneath the braes,
Below the spreading hazel,
Unseen that night.
Among the brackens, on the brae,
Between her and the moon,
The deil, or else an outler quey,
Gat up and gae a croon:
Poor Leezie's heart maist lap the hool!
Near lav'rock-height she jumpit;
but mist a fit, and in the pool
Out-owre the lugs she plumpit,
Wi' a plunge that night.
In order, on the clean hearth-stane,
The luggies three are ranged,
And every time great care is ta'en',
To see them duly changed:
Auld Uncle John, wha wedlock joys
Sin' Mar's year did desire,
Because he gat the toom dish thrice,
He heaved them on the fire
In wrath that night.
Wi' merry sangs, and friendly cracks,
I wat they didna weary;
And unco tales, and funny jokes,
Their sports were cheap and cheery;
Till butter'd so'ns, wi' fragrant lunt,
Set a' their gabs a-steerin';
Syne, wi' a social glass o' strunt,
They parted aff careerin'
Fu' blythe that night.
Robert Burns
"I think if the younger people were able to vote, we would make a change in the country," said Joseph Detz, 14.
Students across the Lower Hudson Valley have been paying close attention to the presidential race these days, spurred by teachers who are incorporating the election into lessons about American politics, government and history.
One of the most popular activities is the mock election. Many schools do a simple paper-and-pencil ballot. But North Salem High School, Pearl River High and Hommocks Middle School in Mamaroneck are using real voting booths to add to the authenticity. Students at Suffern High spent one lunch period handing out election materials in a nod to old-fashioned pavement-pounding styles.
Others have branched out through technology. South Orangetown Middle School students are holding a videoconference debate with Suffern Middle School students, with each side playing either candidate or the media. Students at Pomona Middle School in East Ramapo and at Clarkstown North High School were doing their voting online through the National Mock Election yesterday.
"The kids are so into it. This is my sixth or seventh presidential election, and I've never seen kids so engaged, so aware," Pomona Principal Brenda Shannon said. "Each of our social studies classes represents a state, so the kids have to do the research on how many electoral votes they get. It drives home the point how a homeroom that only has seven kids in it gets fewer (electoral) votes. It's absolutely amazing."
Pollsters may want to start paying closer attention to these student polls.
At Lakeland school district's Benjamin Franklin Elementary School, students have selected the winning candidate in every election year since 1968. If that's any indication of how things will turn out Tuesday, then it looks like Obama will be the next president of the United States. Obama won the popular vote 324-280.
Obama also won the popular vote at Gerald Neary School in North Rockland 227-75.
But McCain took the kindergarten-through-fifth-grade Congers Elementary School 151-128 this past week, with McCain winning votes at each grade level, except kindergarten and fifth. Second-graders especially liked McCain, voting 31-18 for his ticket.
At Fox Lane High School in Bedford, McCain, Obama and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney have student representatives who are working to win over students for an online vote Monday.
Spring Valley High School's mock debate included not only the standard McCain and Obama speakers, but "guest visits" from students representing every candidate running for president on the New York ballot, including McKinney; Gloria La Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation; Roger Calero of the Socialist Workers Party; Ralph Nader, who is running an independent campaign; and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate.
Educators at Mahopac Middle School, meanwhile, have kicked it up a notch by requiring students to register before they can vote via an electronic system. More than 90 percent of the student body had registered as of early last week. Students at Rockland's private Blue Rock School will be out on the streets of downtown Nyack on Monday with homemade signs encouraging people to vote.
"The students feel very passionate about the power of the individual vote and want to spend some of their time encouraging people to vote," Blue Rock teacher Meredith Kates said in an e-mail.
All the election work has created a buzz among youngsters who normally don't pay much attention to national balloting and may mean a more informed electorate when these students get old enough to vote for real, educators said.
"The students' conversations about it are real," Mahopac Middle School Principal Ira Gurkin said. "They know the issues, and they're talking about them."
In Rockland, some schools have added Student Council and class representative votes or local initiatives to the presidential ballots.
Gloria La Riva and Eugene Puryear, presidential and vice presidential candidates for the Party for Socialism and Liberation, will be the featured speakers at a campaign rally on Saturday, November 1 at 5pm. The PSL has carried out a national campaign to say what the Obama and McCain campaigns won’t say: that the system is broken and can’t be fixed within the bounds of the profit-driven capitalist system. “Socialism is the only answer to the crises that poor and working people in this country have been living,” La Riva said. “We know what capitalism has in store for us in the next four years, no matter who wins next Tuesday: layoffs, cutbacks, police brutality and war.”...La Riva, and Puryear are active organizers in the movement calling for an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They call for the withdrawal of all U.S. military from the 800 bases it occupies around the world and to re-direct the billions wasted on war to programs that create jobs and pay for health and human services right here at home.
Come out to the Harlem YMCA in New York City on Saturday, Nov. 1 to hear testimony, presentations and reports that put the whole system on trial. Both Gloria La Riva and Eugene Puryear have been on separate speaking tours throughout the country, but they are converging in Harlem to address this forum. This is an exciting opportunity just three days before the general election.
The PSL Candidates are on the ballot in 12 states including, New York.
...
There is a Socialist candidate on the ballot in eight states, and it's not Barack Obama.
His name is Brian Moore, resident of Spring Hill, Fla., whose resume includes training at a Franciscan seminary, a stint in the Peace Corps and work in health-care consulting.
He's also a stay-at-home dad and a civil war re-enactor.
On his campaign site, Moore, 65, tells voters that "he comes from a working class background, of modest economic means, has worked in factories, is an all-around athlete and has protested wars and Wal-Mart salary levels in public demonstrations."
Top issues for the Socialist Party ticket, which also include vice presidential nominee Stewart Alexander, are developing renewable energy, creating a national health care plan, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, ensuring civil liberties ... and implementing worker control of industry and financial institutions.
The ticket has qualified for write-in status in 14 states in addition to the eight states that will specifically list Moore and Alexander.
In a Q-and-A with The New Republic reporter Kathleen Marsh and again on Tuesday's Colbert Report, Moore denies that Obama follows any Socialist principles. "His party is a capitalist party. They voted for the bailout," he said. "They're both capitalist parties."
Instead, the Socialist Party, according to his campaign site, "strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control -- a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community."
It also mentions an environmentalist side: "Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth."
There is one area, though, where the party's candidates don't seem that different from Obama or McCain. The ticket is made up of an older white man (Moore) and a black man (Alexander).
Sounds like a compromise ticket for those still undecided.
To the adherents of the Sixth Declaration and the Other Campaign:
To the adherents of the Zezta Internazional:
To the People of Mexico:
To the Peoples of the World:
Compañeras and Compañeros:
Brother and Sisters:
Once again we send you our words.
This is what we see, what we are looking at.
This is what has come to our ears, to our brown heart.
I.
Above they intend to repeat history.
They want to impose on us once again their calendar of death, their
geography of destruction.
When they are not trying to strip us of our roots, they are destroying them.
They steal our work, our strength.
They leave our world, our land, our water, and our treasures without
people, without life.
The cities pursue and expel us.
The countryside both kills us and dies on us.
Lies become governments and dispossession is the weapon of their
armies and police.
We are the illegal, the undocumented, the undesired of the world.
We are pursued.
Women, young people, children, the elderly die in death and die in life.
And there above they preach to us resignation, defeat, surrender, and
abandonment.
Here below we are being left with nothing.
Except rage.
And dignity.
There is no ear for our pain, that is not like what we are.
We are no one.
We are alone, alone with our dignity and our rage.
Rage and dignity are our bridges, our languages.
We must listen to each other then, learn to know each other.
So that our courage and rage grows and becomes hope.
So that our dignity takes root again and births another world.
We have seen and heard.
Our voice is small to be the echo of that word, our gaze small for so
much dignified rage.
The process of seeing each other, looking at each other, speaking to
each other, listening to each other, is still lacking.
We are others, the other.
If this world does not have a place for us, then another world must be made.
With no tool other than our rage, no material other than our dignity.
We still must encounter each other more, know each other better.
What is missing is yet to come…
II.
Now, three years after the Sixth Declaration of the Lacondon Jungle,
the EZLN has undertaken a collective reflection, nourished by the
broad horizon that our compañeros of the Other Campaign in Mexico and
in the Zezta Internazional across the world have given to us.
It is not little that we have seen and heard, sometimes directly,
sometimes through the words and the gaze of others.
The rage that we felt and the dignity that we found was so great that
we think now that we are smaller then we thought before.
In Mexico and on the five continents we have found what we intuited
when we began our sixth step: there is another world, there is another
path.
If the catastrophe that is coming can be avoided and humanity is to
have another opportunity, it will because these others, below and to
the left, not only resist, but are already drawing the profile of
something else.
Something different than what is occurring above.
In the impossible geometry of political power, the fundamentalists are
distributed evenly: the right becomes ultra-right and the
institutional left becomes the impossible cultured right. Those who
make up the progressive media complain that the fanatics of the
mainstream press censure them, twist their words and slander their
cause, but they at the same time censure, twist the words, slander,
and silence any movement that hasn’t bowed down to the dictates of
their ringleaders. And without shame they condemn and acquit to the
rhythm of a senseless media rating. Fanatics on all sides fight over
lies dressed as truths and crimes are measured by the media time that
they occupy. But this is nothing other than a pale reflection of what
is happening in politics.
Weariness of the cynicism and incompetence of the traditional
political classes has been converted into rage. Sometimes this rage is
oriented toward hoping for change in the same paths and places as
always, and it is there immobilized by disillusionment or trampled by
an arbitrary force. The unsettled and brutal north goes back to its
old ways. When it is not sponsoring electoral fraud (like in Mexico),
it is promoting, encouraging, and financing state coups (as attempted
now in Bolivia and Venezuela). War continues to be its primary and
favored form of international diplomacy. Iraq and Afghanistan burn,
but, to the despair of those above, are not consumed.
The impositions of hegemony and homogeneity on a global scale find in
nations, in regions, and in small locales, their witches’ apprentices
that try for that impossible historic return to a past where
fanaticism was law and dogma science. Meanwhile, the governing
political classes have found in the world of bright lights an adequate
disguise to hide their full participation in organized crime.
Sickened by so much greed, the planet begins to pay the unpayable bill
of its destruction. But “natural” disasters are also class issues and
their devastation is felt most by those who have nothing and are no
one. Faced with this, the stupidity of Power has no limits: millions
and millions of dollars are dedicated to manufacturing new weapons and
installing more military bases. The Power of capital does not worry
about training teachers, doctors, engineers, but rather soldiers. It
doesn’t prepare constructors, but rather destructors.
And those who opposed this are the pursued, incarcerated, murdered.
In Mexico, farmers who have defended their land are in prison (San
Salvador Atenco); in Italy those who opposed the installation of
military bases are pursued and treated as terrorists; in the France of
“liberty, equality, and fraternity,” humans are only free, equal, and
brothers if their papers say so; in Greece being young is a vice that
must be eradicated; again in Mexico, but now in that city of the same
name, young people are criminalized and murdered and nothing is done
because it is not on the agenda that those above dictate. Meanwhile, a
legitimate referendum is converted into a shameful way for an
assassin-governor to wash his hands of a situation. In the Spain of
the modern European Union, publications are closed and a language,
Euskera, is criminalized—they think that by killing the word they can
kill those who speak it; in that Asia that is so close, the peasant
demands are answered with armored injustices; in that arrogant
American Union, born in the blood of migrants, the “other colors” that
work there are pursued and killed; in the long wound that is Latin
America, the brown blood that sustains it is despised and humiliated;
in the rebellious Caribbean, a people, the Cuban people, are forced to
live under an imperial embargo that is nothing other than a punishment
without crime.
And in all of the corners of the world’s geography, and in all of the
days of its calendars, those that work, those that make things run,
are plundered, despised, exploited, and repressed.
But sometimes, many times, as many times as a smile sets it off again,
rage looks for its own paths, new paths, other paths. And the “no”
that these multiple rages raise now not only resists, but begins to
propose, to become.
Since our appearance in public, now almost 15 years ago, it has been
our goal to be a bridge on which the many rebellions in the world can
walk back and forth.
Sometimes we have achieved this, sometimes we haven’t.
Now we see and we feel not only the rebellious resistance that, as
sister and comrade, stays at our side and encourages our steps.
Now there is something that before wasn’t there, or that we weren’t
able to see before.
There is a creative rage.
A rage that paints all of the colors of the paths of below and to the
left on the five continents….
III.
FOR THESE REASONS, AND AS PART OF THE ACTS COMMEMMORATING THE 25TH
ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRTH OF THE ZAPATISTA ARMY FOR NATIONAL
LIBERATION, THE 15 YEARS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR AGAINST
FORGETTING, THE FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GOOD GOVERNMENT COUNCILS, AND
THE THIRD YEAR OF THE OTHER CAMPAIGN AND THE ZEZTA INTERNAZIONAL, THE
MEN, WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND ELDERLY OF THE EZLN CONVOKE ALL OF THE
REBELLIOUS OF MEXICO AND THE WORLD TO THE:
FIRST GLOBAL FESTIVAL OF DIGNIFIED RAGE
WITH THE THEME OF:
ANOTHER WORLD, ANOTHER PATH: BELOW AND TO THE LEFT
TO BE CELEBRATED ON THE FOLLOWING PLACES AND DATES
THE OTHER MEXICO CITY, FEDERAL DISTRICT, December 26, 27, 28, and 29,
2008. IN LIENZO CHARRO OF THE ASSOCIATION LOS CHARROS REYES DE
IZTAPALAPA, Frente Popular Francisco Villa Independiente-UNOPII,
Avenue Guelatao # 50, Colonia Álvaro Obregón, Delegación Iztapalapa,
close to the metro station Guelatao, where an exposition will be
presented. AND IN THE HEADQUARTERS OF UNÍOS, Dr. Carmona y Valle
street #32, colonia Doctores, close to the metro station Cuauhtemoc,
where other activities will be held.
THE CITY OF SAN CRISTÓBAL DE LAS CASAS, CHIAPAS, IN CIDECI, located
on the Camino Real de San Juan Chamula s/n, Colonia Nueva Maravilla.
SOME OF THE SUBTHEMES OF THE FESTIVAL WILL BE:
AN OTHER COUNTRYSIDE
AN OTHER POLITICS
AN OTHER CITY
AN OTHER SOCIAL MOVEMENT
AN OTHER COMMUNICATION
AN OTHER HISTORY
AN OTHER ART
AN OTHER CULTURE
AN OTHER SEXUALITY
THE FESTIVAL “ANOTHER WORLD, ANOTHER PATH: BELOW AND TO THE LEFT” WILL
HAVE THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
1. In Mexico City, a national and international exposition will be
installed where every struggle, every experience, every rage, will
have a space where it can set up and show its struggle and its
courage. This way we can all see, hear, and know each other.
2. In zapatista territory, dignity and rage will become art and
culture, music and song, because rebellion also dances. And with
words, pain will become hope.
3. In San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, the word will go back and
forth in order to give birth to new words and give strength and reason
to rage.
4. The national and international groups, collectives, and
organizations that participate in the festival will be only those who
are invited to do so. To this end, the Sixth Commission of the EZLN
has initiated consultations with political and social organizations,
as well as with groups and collectives of anarchists, libertarians,
alternative communication workers, human rights defenders, sexworkers,
intellectuals, social activists, ex political prisoners, all adherents
of the Sixth Declaration; and with groups, collectives, and
organizations of other countries, all part of the Zezta Internazional.
The criteria for invitations and participations will be made after
these consultations.
5. For the roundtables, the EZLN will invite social organizers,
thinkers, and leaders of anticapitalist projects from Mexico and
around the world. The list of invitees will be released later.
6. More details about what we are thinking the festival of dignified
rage could be will be made known at earliest convenience (that is,
when we have an approximate idea of the problem we have gotten
ourselves into).
That’s all for now.
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ATENCO!
From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast.
For the Indigenous Revolutionary Clandestine Committee—General
Command, of the Zapatista Army for National Liberation.
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos.
Mexico, September of 2008.
The United Nations General Assembly has voted to urge the US to lift its 46-year-old economic embargo on Cuba in a resolution adopted for the 17th consecutive year.
The non-binding resolution was passed by assembly on Wednesday by 185 votes to three.
The US, Israel and Palau voted against the resolution while Micronesia and the Marshall Islands abstained.
The financial and trade embargo, which Cuba calls an "economic blockade," was imposed in 1962 in response to Cuba's alignment with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
The Bush administration has tightened sanctions against the Caribbean island over the last eight years, citing the treatment of political prisoners.
'Obstinacy and cruelty'
Felipe Perez Roque, the Cuban foreign minister, has blamed the sanctions for damaging the island's economy by $93 billion over the decades.
He welcomed the assembly vote, but said he also looked ahead to future US-Cuban relations following next week's presidential election.
Perez Roque said the next US president "will have to decide whether to concede that the embargo is a failed policy which each time creates greater isolation and discredits his country or whether he continues, with obstinacy and cruelty, to try to wear out the Cuban people with hunger and diseases".
Barack Obama, the US Democratic presidential candidate, has said he might be willing to hold top-level negotiations with Raul Castro, the country's president, but Republican John McCain has said he would press the Cuban leadership to free political prisoners held there.
A national survey by the Zogby polling organisation, released on October 2, said 60 per cent of Americans believe the US should change its policy towards Cuba.
'Terrible conditions'
Ronald Godard, the US State Department's senior advisor for Latin American affairs, defended the embargo and blamed the government in Cuba's for its economic problems.
"The real reason the Cuban economy is in terrible condition, and that so many Cubans remain mired in poverty, is that Cuba's regime continues to deny its people their basic human and economic rights," he told the assembly.
The margin of support for ending the embargo has grown steadily since 1992 when 59 countries voted in favour of the resolution.
The figure was 179 in 2004, 182 in 2005 and 184 in 2007.
Tyger! Tyger! burning brightIn the forest of the nightWhat immortal hand or eyeCould frame thy fearful symmetry?In what distant deeps or skiesBurnt the fire of thine eyes?On what wings dare he aspire?What the hand dare seize the fire?And What shoulder, and what art,Could twist the sinews of thy heart?And when thy heart began to beat,What dread hand? and what dread feet?What the hammer? what the chain?In what furnace was thy brain?What the anvil? what dread graspDare its deadly terrors clasp?When the stars threw down their spears,And watered heaven with their tears,Did he smile his work to see?Did he who made the lamb make thee?Tyger! Tyger! burning brightIn the forests of the night,What immortal hand or eyeDare frame thy fearful symmetry?William Blake*http://www.llewellyn.com/free/tarot.phpFree tarot reading....
Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate and political activist, is running for president as an independent with running mate Matt Gonzalez. He has secured a place on the November ballot in Iowa with the Peace and Freedom Party. Nader delivered a campaign speech at Iowa State University on October 10, 2008. After his speech, Nader sat down with the Ames Progressive.
Nate Logsdon: In your speech, you criticized Obama and McCain for both supporting increased troop levels in Afghanistan. Is that to say that you oppose the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan altogether?
Ralph Nader: Well, surely after 9/11 if they had evidence that the backers of the attackers were over there [they could have sent] a multinational force of commandos using the international law doctrine of hot pursuit to go over there with language capabilities and bribes, and all as a focused laser beam. Instead, we overthrew the Taliban regime, which Bush had just given $40 million to earlier in that year because they had eradicated poppy growing – you know, in the war on drugs. Anyway, we overthrew them and now it’s chaos. There’s one principle in Afghanistan: if you bring in foreign soldiers to control that area, it will just breed its own resistance and the more brutal the soldiers, the more the resistance is going to grow. And that’s all those people have to do, is to liberate themselves from the occupiers. We have other things to do in our country. It’s not going to work. It hasn’t worked historically.
Mukund Premkumar: With the genocide in Darfur ongoing, what’s your view on humanitarian invasions? Are there conflicts that warrant the use of a military?
RN: This is what one country shouldn’t do; this is a UN function. There should be a highly professional, full-time UN peacekeeper force, that the full force of international law emanating from the UN charter can go in when there’s a major slaughter underway, like Rwanda and the Balkans and… southern Sudan is a slaughter, but it’s more complicated. It started out as a North-South civil war, then it broke out into more micro-struggles. But that doesn’t at all avoid an international presence of the African Union. They don’t have enough soldiers there – that’s the problem. Others have not provided them with the budget to pacify the area. And it could be pacified because the Janjaweed, they don’t have tanks and jet planes, it’s basically rifles and horses, with some machine guns and grenades. So, it wouldn’t be hard for a sufficient number of troops from the African Union to settle that and then move the whole area into mediation, because there are a lot of conflicts of rights there; it’s not just Khartoum, there are divisions in the south and oil is complicating it, which the Chinese have invested in.
NL: So, you would advocate the use of an international military force, not just a U.S. force?
RN: No, it can’t be unilateral, no, no, because then they’ll say the U.S. is an imperialist that wants the oil. You’ve got to have a multinational credibility. There’s got to be a standing, professional, permanent peacekeeping force, under UN control.
NL: You’ve said that in a Nader administration the U.S. would be out of Iraq within six months. After the pullout of the troops would you then advocate bringing in UN forces?
RN: Depends. If it can be stabilized with a modest amount of autonomy between Shiite, Sunni and Kurds within a unified Iraq, then they can take care of it. The insurgency melts away and you have a few criminal gangs. There’s a lot of authority in Iraq: the tribal leaders have great authority and the religious leaders have great authority. So, if you give them a stake by giving Iraq back to the Iraqis and the oil back and they can see the economic development and then they see the alternative of total disintegration and chaos, which one are they going to take? But as long as we’re there, we’re going to be pitting one against another because we’ll be preferring one group at a certain time in one province against the other and then you get the revenge killing and there’s a lot of hundred dollar bills passed out. That’s what happens when you have a foreign intrusion into a country that has a difference in… if some [military power] did this to us and they preferred Protestants to Catholics, let’s say, and the Catholics had been on top under Saddam – you know, the Sunnis – there’d be incredible back-and-forth struggle, bloodshed, fighting.
But we need to continue humanitarian aid, which would be a lot cheaper than spending $14 million an hour, which is what we’re spending to further destroy Iraq. And UN sponsored elections. These elections two, three years ago were garrisoned elections, they were clan elections, people voted for clans. A lot of people who wanted to run were disqualified because they had protested or weren’t considered safe enough ideologically.
MP: You’ve had a long history of being opposed to corporate welfare, you’ve been opposed to the bailout, but how would a Nader administration address this issue in the short term – immediately – and in the long term?
RN: By quarantining the real speculative people and Wall Street, let them take their medicine, and then build a firewall to protect from the fallout of the Wall Street swindles and speculation…. And then throw the money into public works to create jobs and retard the recession. That’s the best use of the money because that’s real, you know, it’s not just paper speculation; repairing schools and drinking water systems.
MP: Specifically, what jobs would you create?
RN: All jobs to repair [infrastructure, such as] construction crews. And what it does, it invigorates the local economy because you have activities. You have everything from accountants to people who are quality control inspectors and engineers and construction workers and people who work on repairs and people who supply the people who work on repairs. It’s got a high multiplier effect.
And of course, criminal prosecution and regulation and making the speculators pay for their own bailout through a … transaction tax of one tenth of one percent.
MP: There’s obviously a huge health care crisis, as you chronicled in your speech. How would you move from the privatized insurance system that we have today to a single payer, not-for-profit health care system in a potential Nader administration?
RN: Okay, similarly to what Medicare was in 1964, ’65, it replaced health insurance companies. It basically said, the government is going to supply insurance to elderly people and is going to give them free choice of doctor and hospital, private delivery of health care, and you’re not going to be able to sell insurance to elderly people. And what happened is incomplete so there’s a Medicare gap and the insurance companies filled the gap that Medicare didn’t cover.
But basically, it’s simply full government insurance, free choice of doctor and hospital. Now, all of the countries in the world that have had universal health insurance implemented do not allow private health insurance companies. Why? Because it’s a perverse incentive. They make money by denying claims, by exclusions, deductions, copayments.
Now, there’s going to be an unemployment problem, and HR676 – which is the single payer bill in Congress that has 93 House representative supporters – is addressing that. [In doing this] you’re going to unemploy a few million people that work for Aetna, Signa and so forth. On the other hand, you’re going to save a lot of lives.
NL: In your speech and on your website you’ve praised the work of peace organizations within both Israel and Palestine, so in a Nader administration would you actually engage diplomatically with peace organizations within Israel and Palestine?
RN: Of course. They represent former mayors, mayors, members of the Knesset, former generals, former security chiefs – very, very broad. Look, Obama and McCain don’t want to recognize Hamas, they say it’s a terrorist organization; it’s a resistance organization. … So, 64 percent of the Israeli people, on March 1, Ha’aretz poll, want direct negotiations with Hamas, that’s the way the question was phrased. So, Obama and McCain don’t even want to go with 64 percent; and 28 percent of the Israeli people do not want it.* So, that’s how bad it is.
Of course you negotiate with the peace groups and you’ll see a much bigger coming out of peace groups and peace supporters if the U.S. was behind them. It’s like in this country or any country, the militarists intimidate the peace groups if they’ve got hold of the power. But if the U.S., which has great leverage over Israel, and huge foreign aid to Israel, comes out, you’d see more people in the Knesset, for example, you’d see more retired military coming out to say it: this is the way to go, two-state solution, let’s get over it, back to the ’67 borders. The Arab League in 2002 put on Israel’s table full diplomatic and economic relations, if Israel would allow the Palestinians to go back to their ’67 borders under a viable, independent Palestinian state. You can’t have a better deal than that and the Israeli military government didn’t respond, did not even say let’s talk about it. So, the onus is on who? The onus is on the occupier and the occupier that resists peace talks.
* The poll asked participants “Should direct negotiations be carried on with Hamas for a cease fire deal and the release of soldier Gilad Shalit?” Gilad Shalit was captured in a cross border raid into Israel in June 2006 and has been held hostage by Hamas since that time.
Fuller wanted a tool that would be accessible to everyone, whose findings would be widely disseminated to the masses through a free press, and which would, through this ground-swell of public vetting and acceptance of solutions to society's problems, ultimately force the political process to move in the direction that the values, imagination and problem solving skills of those playing the democratically open world game dictated. It was a view of the political process that some might think naiie, if they only saw the world for what it was when Fuller was proposing his idea (the 1960s)--minus personal computers and the Internet. The playing field was not to be so much as leveled, or expanded, but the good 'ol boy political process was to subverted out of existence by a process that brings Thomas Jefferson into the twentieth century. In order to have this kind of power, the game needed to have the kind of information and tools for manipulating that information that empowers. It needed a comprehensive database that would provide the players of the world game with better data than their politically elected or appointed counterparts. They needed an inventory of the world's vital statistics--where everything was and in what quantities and qualities, from minerals to manufactured goods and services, to humans and their unmet needs as well as capabilities. They also needed an information source that monitored the current state of the world, bringing vital news into the “game room” live. None of this existed when Fuller began talking about a world game. And then something funny happened on the way to the twenty-first century:
This is a perfect moment.It's a perfect moment for many reasons, but especially because you and I are waking up from our sleepwalking, thumb-sucking, dumb-clucking collusion with the masters of illusion and destruction.Thanks to them,from whom the painful blessings flow,we are waking up.Their wars and tortures,their crimes against nature,extinctions of speciesand brand new diseases.Their spying and lyingin the name of the father,sterilizing seeds andtrademarking water.Molestations of God,celebrations of shame,stealing our dreams andchanging our names.Their cunning commercialsand blood-sucking hustles,their endless rehearsalsfor the end of the world.Thanks to them,from whom the awful teachings flow,we are waking up.*Their painful blessings are cracking open more and more gashes in the shrunken and crippled mass hallucinationthat is mistakenly called "reality." And through the fractures, ripe eternity is flooding in; news of the soul's true home is pouring in; our allies from the other side of the veil are swarming in,inspiring us to become smarter and wilder and kinder and trickier.We are waking up.As heaven and earth come together, as the dreamtime and daytime merge, we register the shockingly exhilarating fact that we are in charge of creating a brand new world. Not in some distant time or faraway place,but right here and right now.*As we stand on this brink, as we dance on this verge,we can't let the ruling fools of the dying world sustain their curses. We have to rise up and fight their insane logic; defy, resist, and prevent their tragic magic; erupt with our sacred rage and supercharge it.But overthrowing the living dead is not enough.Protesting the well-dressed monsters is not enough.We can't afford to be consumed with our anger; we can't be obsessed and possessed by their danger. Our mysterious bodies crave delight and fertility. Our boisterous imaginations demand fresh tastes of infinity.In the new world we're gestating, we need to be suffused with lusty compassion and ecstatic duty, ingenious love and insurrectionary beauty. We've got to be teeming with radical curiosity and reverent pranks, voracious listening and ferocious thanks.*So I'm curious, my fellow creators. Since you and I are in charge of making a new world-- not just breaking down the old world --where do we begin? What stories do we want at the heart of our experiments? What questions will be our oracles?Here's what I say:In the New World we're creating,We will ridicule the cult of doom and gloom. We will embrace the cause of zoom and boom. We will laugh at the stupidity of evil and hate; we'll summon the brilliance to praise and create. No matter how upside-down it all may appear, we will have no fear because we know this big secret: Pronoia is real. All of creation is conspiring to shower us with blessings. Life is crazily in love with us --brazenly and innocently in love with us. The universe always gives us exactly what we need, exactly when we need it.*The winds and the tides are on our side, forever and ever, amen. The fire and the rain are scheming to steal our impossible pain. The sun and the moon and the stars remember our real names, and our ancestors pray for us while we're dreaming. We have guardian angels and thousands of teachers,provocateurs with designs to unleash us,helpers and saviors we can't even imagine,brothers and sisters who want us to blossom.Thanks to them, from whom the blissful blessings flow, we are waking up.The roads they pave us,the places they save us,the tomatoes they grow us,the rivers they flow us.Their mysterious stories,and morning glories,their loaves and fishes,granting our wishes.The songs they sing us,the gifts they bring us,the secrets they show us,above and below us.Thanks to them, from whom the blissful blessings flow, we are waking up.*Postscript:I'm allergic to dogma. I thrive on the riddles. Any idea I believe, I reserve the right to disbelieve as well.But more than any other vision I've ever tested,pronoia describes the way the world actually is. It's wetter than water, stronger than death, and truer than the news. It smells like cedar smoke in the autumn rain,and if you close your eyes right now, you can feel it shimmering like the aurora borealis in your organs and muscles. Its song is your blood's song.Some people argue that life is strife and suffering is normal. Others swear we're born sinful and only heaven can provide us with the peace that passes understanding.But pronoia says that being alive on the rough green and brown earth is the highest honor and privilege. It's an invitation to work wonders and perform miracles that aren't possible in any nirvana, promised land, or afterlife.I'm not exaggerating or indulging in poetic metaphor when I tell you that we are already living in paradise. Visualize it if you dare. The sweet stuff that quenches all of our longing is not far away in some other time and place. It's right here and right now.Poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning knew the truth:"Earth's crammed with heaven."
In a recent scientific study conducted at the University of California Los Angeles, researchers examined the neurological processes surrounding short and long term grieving. The results, although partially speculative, provide an excellent backdrop for a conversation regarding meditation and its age old role in coping with sadness, depression and personal loss.
The study at UCLA examined 23 women who had lost a loved one within five years, eleven of whom still suffered from what psychologists call "CG" or "complicated grief": prolonged grieving resulting in depression, stress, fatigue, and lowered immune efficiency. While monitoring brain activity, researchers showed each woman pictures of her deceased loved one or words and phrases strongly associated with her deceased loved one. The results, as expected, showed that each woman in the study had social pain and grieving effects related to the images and words. But the interesting result was the commonality that all of the "complicated grievers" showed during the brain monitoring.
Each of the complicated grievers demonstrated high reward, pleasure, and addiction activity responses in the brain, in addition to the social grieving response. This finding suggests that brain interference could be responsible for "complicated grieving," and its fallout symptoms: fatigue, depression, stress, lowered immune efficiency and an inability to let go of the past. Some puzzling results, right?
Well, science is a funny thing. After all, it was the human mind that created the scientific method and rationalism, not the scientific method that created the rational mind. In other words, it's important to remember that human experience, in its full palette, inspired this kind of study in the first place. Therefore, interpreting the results of scientific data in a healthy conversation is the fertile ground where we might determine which seeds of cultural evolution are worth planting next. So what might this study imply about depression and how might it relate to meditation?
Let's make a few assumptions. Let's assume that being healthy and strong and "selfcentered" means that you are independently happy. In other words, you have established a healthy balance between the outside world (food, shelter, nature, clothing, jobs, people) and your inside world (emotions, thoughts, words, and actions). Now let's assume that people are thrown out of balance when they place too much emphasis on their internal world or the external world to create that sense of harmony and well being. In the case of the UCLA study, how would these assumptions about health filter out?
Let's say that your internal world feels terrible. You don't like who you are. You don't like your emotions, or they are too much to handle. Your mind moves too fast. You don't enjoy life. And you're always questioning what you say or why you said it. The immediate answer is often to look for another human or something outside to fix what is going on inside. It's not a terrible impulse. Sometimes it works. Sometimes when I'm feeling sad inside I will call a friend for a reminder that I am strong and special. Then something inside of me clicks over and I say, "Oh yeah, that's right. I am doing just fine." And in most of my friendships there is an equal balance of giving and taking from one another. We call each other for help about the same amount, or else we would start resenting each other.
But sometimes we get into relationships that are based around a constant and habitual need for something that we simply do not know how to do inside yet. It's as if we each have a muscle inside of us that must learn, as we grow up, to lift ourselves up when we need help and happiness. When this muscle has atrophied (because our parents didn't do a good job or because we got into a bad habit, or you believe in Karma, or sin, etc,) we often look for all of our strength in someone else, a relationship of some kind. It's human to need love, right?
On the surface this kind of relationship might seem perfectly normal. It might seem like love. When I'm weak my partner makes me strong and when my partner is weak I make them strong. However this isn't how it works. Instead it usually works like this: When I am weak my partner is strong, and when I am strong my partner is weak.
This unhealthy relationship looks like a seesaw. One person is always out of balance because of the other. This is not intimacy. Instead it is a constant and competitive swing between high and low that is most commonly associated with extreme behavioral disorders and addiction. Whereas the image of intimacy is more like a yoke of oxen. Life can be difficult and challenging. So it's important that if we're carrying a load, the ox on the left and the ox on the right have an equal amount of weight distributed between them. This means that each person has the same amount of internal muscle strength.
We often wonder why the divorce rate in our country is so high. Maybe it's because many relationships are unhealthy "seesaw" addictions instead of compatible teammates walking with equal weight distribution? And maybe when we see folks grieving for excessively long periods of time after losing a loved one it is because their relationship to that person was more like the see-saw addiction than a balanced relationship? In the wake of losing such a relationship a person might have to go through a prolonged period of sadness, just like a drug withdrawal.
How miserable would it be to withdraw from a person instead of appropriately mourning their passing? How confusing and painful. But it happens all of the time. So here's where meditation comes in. Because the obvious question to ask is, "How can we avoid these imbalanced relationships or how can we heal ourselves if we're coming out of an imbalanced relationship?"
I'm a meditation teacher, and I practice daily so perhaps I'm partial. But meditation is a way to develop the internal muscle that is needed to lift yourself off the mat when you feel like life is beating you up. Meditation has been proven to be of great help to people fighting or coping with behavioral disorders: people in AA or drug rehab, schizophrenics, terminally ill medical patients, and many others. By mediating and getting quiet inside we learn how to find happiness within ourselves, and we learn how to develop that internal muscle of self-love. As a healing technology, meditation is great for rehabilitating our wounds and could be a natural way for a person coping with prolonged grief to start reprogramming their mind and body to something new.
On the flip side, meditation is like preventative health care because strengthening that muscle makes it difficult to get into a co-dependent relationship in the first place (although the club might not be a fun place to meet people any longer, and you might become pickier about who you're thinking of spending your time with).
In closing it is interesting to think that since the dawn of time the indigenous peoples of our planet had ways of mending unhealthy relationships after death. In both the Hindu and Christian traditions, for example, early tribes and families had ritual times of mourning and releasing sadness. Beyond this it was thought of as inappropriate to mourn because it would tamper with the deceased soul's ability to travel forward beyond the earth. In fact, some cultures believed that excessive grieving trapped spirits on the earth and made them angry, causing a tribe to be haunted or cursed. In these situations special medicine men or religious authorities would sing songs and create additional healing rituals in order to detach a soul from the griever. Sometimes people would be sent into wilderness vision quest ceremonies to meditate for weeks and weeks in order to heal their minds and say a proper goodbye before they were allowed back into the community.
By Charles HardySeptember 25, 2003QUERE’TARO, ME’XICO; SEPTEMBER 2003: I heard my friend say over the telephone, “Tatik, Charlie just arrived on the bus. When would be the best time for us to visit you?” A few hours later at 4 p.m. on a Saturday afternoon, we rang the doorbell of his home and were greeted personally by Tatik.Tatik (meaning “father” or “elder”) is an affectionate Tzotzil title for Bishop Samuel Ruiz, the retired bishop of Chiapas, Mexico who now lives in the city of Quere’taro.Ruiz was appointed bishop of Chiapas in 1959 at the age of 35. Soon after arriving there, he became aware of the problem of the indigenous people and started defending them. In 1993, Rome asked that he resign from his position, but dropped the request when a few thousand indigenous marched in support of him. Having reached the mandatory age for retirement (75) and after serving in Chiapas for more than forty years, he resigned in March 2000.The purpose of my visit was an interview. I was a bit hesitant because I had read a 1998 article by Sergio Munoz in the Los Angeles Times. Munoz wrote about the bishop: “He cannot be called easy-going: He favors impassioned monologues and hates to be interrupted.” Maybe the five years since that interview have mellowed him or possibly it had something to do with the interviewer, but during the two hours we spent drinking coffee and sharing cookies at his dining room table I was visiting with a man far different from the one described by Munoz.At 79, Ruiz was not only friendly, but also intellectually sharp and willing to listen as well as to talk.Since I live in Venezuela, the events of the past several years there have been the focus of my attention. They have also overshadowed for me what has happened outside of Venezuela, including that of the Zapatista movement in Mexico. What little I knew of them, I had gained from international press reports.Following are two examples of that reporting cited in a recent Narco News report by Annalena Oeffner. On August 8, an Associated Press story claimed that “most Indian people even in the Zapatistas’ jungle heartland have declined to join the movement...” Another report in the Financial Times August 10 said that the absence of Subcomandante Marcos at the August 8-10 meeting in Oventic was seen as “a sign of his declining power within the Zapatista hierarchy.”Based on this type of reporting, I was looking for the bishop’s response to two principal questions: 1) Was the support of the Zapatistas declining? and, 2) Was the leadership of Subcommandante Marcos being replaced? By the end of the interview I would discover that both of my questions were very poorly worded.First, the bishop was quick to point out that the Zapatistas did not represent only people in Chiapas but were an expression of what was being felt throughout all of Mexico. He then painted the political scene that gave rise to the Zapatista movement.Ruiz said that there had been a nationwide rejection of the political maneuvering leading up to the elections that took place in July 1994, keeping the PRI party in power at that time. When the Zapatistas appeared on the scene, the dialog that followed showed clearly that their problems were felt throughout the country.According to Ruiz, the government tried to disparage the project in four steps. First they questioned why an indigenous group should feel that they represented the whole country. Nobody had elected the Zapatistas to represent them. Secondly, they said that they didn’t even represent the indigenous poor of the country. Thirdly, that they didn’t even represent the indigenous of Chiapas, not even the people in the municipalities where they came from. And finally, the government reached the extreme of denying them even the legitimacy that they had had with the previous government saying that the movement was just the result of some “guy” (Marcos) who infiltrated Chiapas and who wears a mask and smokes a pipe, thereby denying the indigenous any ownership of the movement.Because of the government’s version, the bishop said, “It must be said clearly that it is a movement centered in Chiapas but that has national origins.” And yet, he added, the mass media continue to spread the idea that the problem of the Zapatistas is only the problem of Chiapas.He also said that when President Fox assumed the “throne” of Mexico, he indicated that the problem of the Zapatistas was the problem of the previous government. But the Zapatistas replied, according to Bishop Ruiz, “No, no, no, Se~or. You have a problem with us and we have a problem with you because you are sitting in the same seat as previous governments. You can’t say that the foreign debt belongs to the previous government. Equally we have a problem with you and you have a problem with us. The difference is that we want to resolve the problem through dialog and not through force.”He emphasized that the problem of the indigenous was not just a Mexican problem but was present throughout the continent. The indigenous person is still being colonized. With few exceptions, “from Alaska in the United States to the Patagonia [in Argentina], the indigenous is on the floor under the rest of society. This would indicate that it is not by their own will that this is so but that the system itself places them on the margin of society.” But, because of the attempt to celebrate the 500 years of the conquest of America, the indigenous have risen up and now say that they want to be the subjects of their own destiny. Besides, he added, 500 years is nothing in comparison with their history.He also noted that what was happening in Cancu’n (the World Trade Organization was meeting the day I visited him) showed that even the rest of the world is recognizing that there are problems with the system. He said that “not only is a new world possible, but it is urgent and necessary.”My first question, in some ways therefore, had little meaning for him since he refused to focus the question on the Zapatistas. What was happening with them was only a small part of the consciousness that was rising throughout the Americas and throughout the world.Proceeding to my second question I said that I had read in Venezuela that Subcomandante Marcos was turning over his power to others. Once again, my question was off base. The bishop was quick to reply, “That’s a bad interpretation of the situation. He never was in power. The press has tried to say that he is the movement.”He then pointed out that Marcos is not indigenous himself and is only a “subcomandante.” He has a definite role in the security of the people, but a technical dimension. He never participated in the dialogs although he was present at the first because he was invited the night before so that he could communicate with the press what happened. He spoke better Spanish than the rest who were present.Referring to the absence of Marcos at the Oventic meeting in August, the bishop said that what is happening is something of a self-criticism to clarify to the world that Marcos is not the movement.When I asked him to explain what the Zapatistas meant by the terminology “govern by obeying” (mandar obedeciendo), he replied: “There’s nothing to explain. Any authority should obey his people. He is not to order but to ask, ‘What is it that the community wants?’ He shouldn’t look out for his own interests but ask what are the interests that will serve the community.”I then shared with him a story. I was told that in Venezuela there is a group of indigenous people where the leader (li’der is the word I used) is “he who listens.” The bishop took exception to the word lider saying that it was a word from North America. Recognizing that similar words exist in Spanish, he nevertheless preferred to talk in terms of “processes” in reference to Latin America. When there are leaders the problem is, he said, “take the leader away and the process comes to an end.”I also asked him his opinion about “participative democracy” in distinction to “representative democracy.” The term is used often in the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela. This he also placed in a worldwide context, saying that the war in Iraq had clearly shown that there was a “divorce” between the people and their elected representatives in the United States, England, Spain and even in Mexico. They had been chosen by their political parties, received their power through elections but afterwards were seeking their own interests. There were no demonstrations anywhere in the world in favor of these leaders, he noted.He said that it was now clear that it would not be the political parties that would guide the future of the world, but rather organizations not directly connected to the government.Concluding the conversation about the Zapatistas, I had some questions for the bishop about the situation of the Catholic Church in the world today.One was whether or not the Theology of Liberation still existed. He replied: “Is there a theology of slavery?” For Bishop Samuel Ruiz, the only theology worth its name is that which liberates.Following the interview I wanted to get another perspective on the Zapatista movement. I am no expert on the subject and, although I have visited Mexico several times, I have never been in Chiapas.A friend shared a book with me entitled, Marcos, La Genial Impostura (“Marcos, the Inspired Fraud”). The book was published in 1998 and written by two authors. One was a male French correspondent for Le Monde who arrived in Mexico in 1993, Bertrand de la Grange, and the other was a female correspondent for the Spanish newspaper El Pais since 1994, Maite Rico. The book presented a picture almost totally contrary to that which Bishop Ruiz had painted.In its 472 pages I was told the following: 1) There was nothing particularly unusual about the elections in 1994; 2) There was little support for the Zapatistas in Chiapas or elsewhere in Mexico; 3) Marcos was the leader of their every action - the indigenous had a small role to play; 4) Bishop Ruiz was at times so aligned with the Zapatistas that the Mexican secret services thought, for a while, that he was Comandante Aleman; and, 5) The Zapatistas had accomplished little for the people they supposedly represented.The book is full of interesting interviews and information. It is also a one-sided presentation that seems to represent the government position that Ruiz had described.A few sentences on page 282, however, especially impressed me. The authors knew what Ruiz was feeling and thinking on October 26, 1993 when he received the request from the Apostolic Delegate, Girolamo Prigione, asking him to resign. “He took the blow, but he felt dizzy. He was convinced, and he was right, that it was a settling of political accounts. He knew that the contents of the letter which he had sent to the Pope three months before, during his visit to Mexico, had irritated the government.” (The letter spoke about the political situation in Mexico and the oppression of the indigenous).I am always amazed at foreign reporters who are not only able to do interviews and gather information, but who are able to reach so far into the depths of any situation that they even know what people are thinking and feeling.Reading the book, I felt I was reading about Venezuela and not about Mexico. We, too, have been plagued with foreign correspondents and local reporters who sometimes make a foray into the barrios and emerge with a better knowledge of what is happening in them than those who have lived there for decades.Whose story about the Zapatistas is correct? That of Tatik? Or, that of the government and these reporters? I am in no position to say and in a few days I will return to Venezuela where I have lived for most of the past eighteen years.But I do worry about something: is it possible that Bertrand de la Grange and Maite Rico are now in Venezuela meeting with opposition leaders and preparing another book? I can see the title already, possibly chosen before going there: Cha’vez, Otra Genial Impostura (“Cha’vez, Another Inspired Fraud”).Charles Hardy, a native of Cheyenne, Wyoming, has resided in Venezuela for most of the past eighteen years. As a Catholic missionary priest, he lived in a pressed-cardboard and tin dwelling in a barrio of Caracas from 1985 to 1993. He is a professor of the Narco News School of Authentic Journalism (first and second sessions of 2003). His editorial columns appear frequently in www.vheadline.com and can be found in English and Spanish at www.cowboyincaracas.com. Comments may be addressed to him at Charlie@cowboyincaracas.com
Nader & Gonzalez in Debates in Battleground States
Ralph Nader will appear tomorrow (Thursday October 30, 2008, 4:30 to 5:30 EST) in a Third Party debate at the City Club of Cleveland. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin will participate in the debate. The three other electorally viable Presidential candidates have been invited.Then on Sunday November 2, 2008, Matt Gonzalez will appear in three-way a vice-presidential debate in Las Vegas with the Constitution and Libertarian VP candidates.That debate is being sponsored by Free & Equal.(By the way, in case you haven't seen it yet, check out Matt's most recent expose of the Obama-led corporate and militarist Democrats. We predict Obama will not address any of these issues head on tonight in his 30 minute, five network infomercial.)C-Span will tape the City Club of Cleveland debate and show it sometime this weekend. And the City Club will live stream the event on their website.So, tell your friends and family to watch tomorrow afternoon.Onward to November. The Nader Team
[Climate Progress has covered the Pickens Plan many times since Memo to T. Boone Pickens: Your energy plan is half-brilliant, half-dumb. Here Earl Killian makes a strong analytical case that the “half-dumb” part of the plan is in fact a wasteful, wildly impractical — if not outright absurd — distraction.]
Thomas Boone Pickens is a billionaire who made his money in oil and corporate takeovers. He began investing in natural gas in 1997, and in wind power in 2007. In 2008, he went public with the Pickens Plan via a website and a well funded advertising campaign. Here we analyze the Pickens Plan, as presented here, which begins by correctly observing:
America is addicted to foreign oil. It’s an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security.
The Pickens Plan as presented consists of two parts:
Take the natural gas that we currently use to generate electricity in the U.S., and use it to fuel transportation instead, and
Build wind power to produce the electricity lost in step 1.
The Plan As Presented — CNG vs. Electricity
The plan is not spelled out in detail, and already appears that it is being interpreted or misinterpreted to be whatever listeners want it to be. Let us for the moment accept this plan as presented, and look at what it means.
The Department of Energy (DOE)’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) publication Electric Power Annual 2006 has most of the information needed. Table ES1 has the power generated from Natural Gas (NG) as 813 Tera Watt hours (TWh, or million Megawatt hours). It gives the NG consumed as fuel for that as 6,869,624 million cubic feet (ft3). From these two numbers and the energy content of NG (its Lower Heating Value, or LHV) of 301 Wh/ft3, we can calculate the efficiency of generation as 39%. New Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) plants are up to 60% efficient in comparison, e.g. the GE H-System turbines and the Siemens Gas Turbine SGT5-8000H, but there are many older non-Combined-Cycle plants out there.
So Mr. Pickens proposes to divert 6,869,624 million ft3 of NG (about 20% of NG usage in the US) from generating electricity, and use it for transportation. In place of those NG power plants, Mr. Pickens proposes that we build wind turbines sufficient to generate at least 813 TWh/year. I say at least that much wind, because it is difficult for wind to substitute for NG electricity. NG power plants are often used to fill in gaps between supply and demand on the grid. Such “peakers” must quickly turn on and generate power whenever there is a mismatch. Wind on the other hand generates based upon weather, not the directives of grid engineers. Mr. Pickens does not spell out on his webpage how this mismatch is to be rectified. Nonetheless, let us proceed with a simple 813 TWh/year of wind.
We now compare how much of US passenger vehicle travel can be powered by 813 TWh of electricity and by 6,869,624 million ft3 of NG. To estimate the latter, go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm and click on first 2008, then Honda, then Civic CNG. You see 28 MPG, and the footnote
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is normally dispensed in “equivalent gallons” where one “equivalent gallon” is equals to 121.5 cubic feet of CNG. The fuel economy for natural gas vehicles is shown in miles per gallon-equivalent.
So dividing 28 by 121.5 you get 0.23 miles per ft3. So if you take the Table ES1 NG quantity, and multiply by 0.23 you get 1,588 trillion miles. That is 57% of the 2.76 trillion passenger vehicle miles traveled in the US in 2005. This is only for vehicles as small and aerodynamic as a Honda Civic; a smaller percentage of the US fleet could be powered by CNG. The rest would be presumably powered by gasoline under the Pickens Plan.
Now let’s estimate miles that could be powered by electricity. A Lithium-Ion EV the size of the Honda Civic CNG should require at most 250 Watt hours per mile (Wh/mi) at the garage plug, probably less. At the power plant that is 270 Wh/mi. So take the 813 TWh, divide by 270 Wh/mi, and you get 3.01 trillion miles, which is 109% of the 2.76 trillion miles driven in the US in 2005.
Which would you choose, 57% or 109%? It seems pretty straightforward that electric vehicles beat CNG vehicles almost 2:1, even using existing NG power plants. If the US upgraded its NG power plants to be 60% efficient, instead of 39% efficient, we would have 54% more TWh, or even better, use less 35% less NG.
Most importantly, while 813 TWh/year of wind energy would have a hard time substituting for 813 TWh/year of NG energy, because of intermittency. There are ways to address this, primarily by linking wind to hydro and solar, and building excess wind. However, intermittency would not be a problem for charging EVs. In a build-out of this scale, smart grid technology would be used to make sure that EVs wait to charge when wind power is producing beyond what the grid requires, and that they throttle back on charging when there is a lull in wind. This makes EVs an excellent consumer of wind energy. A vehicle driven 12,500 miles per year averages 34 miles per day of recharge, or 8,562 Wh at the plug. For a 208V, 32A circuit, this charge can be accomplished in just 1.2 hours. Since the vehicle is plugged in for approximately 9 hours a night, this represents flexibility to respond to wind conditions. If the wind fails to provide enough energy all night long, then either vehicles can remain undercharged (for PHEVs this just means using a little more gasoline), or for vehicles that require a full recharge for the next days usage, the NG “peakers” could be used at night to meet the demand (normally “peakers” are completely unused at night).
It seems particularly foolish to propose a massive infrastructure change to a fuel as inefficient as CNG. If we are to change technology, it is time to abandon Internal Combustion Engines, not change from one fossil fuel to another.
The Real Pickens Plan
Perhaps you noticed the really strange thing about the Pickens Plan. It calls for us to shut down all the NG power plants in the US. The investors in those plants would surely object. Politically, it would be necessary for the US to compensate them. In essence the US would have to buy the plants to shut them down. How likely is this? Moreover, how likely is the US to transition such a large fraction of its fleet to NG? If this part of the plan is unlikely, why is Mr. Pickens proposing it? What is the likely outcome of making this proposal?
What Mr. Pickens likely expects to happen from his proposal is: (1) get Congress to renew the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), and (2) convince a few additional Americans to use NG as a transportation fuel.
Renewal of the PTC is an urgent priority for the US, and Mr. Pickens plan could well succeed in unblocking Republican opposition to the PTC in Congress (the Senate has just done so on a 93-2 vote). The wind and solar industries in this country need a stable environment to receive private investment, but unfortunately Congress just barely manages to extend the PTC for a single year at a time, creating uncertainty for renewable energy investors, and slowing private investment here. As a wind investor, Mr. Pickens stands to benefit from a PTC extension. Thus half of the Pickens Plan is good for the Earth, for the US, and for Mr. Pickens.
The second half of the plan is to increase demand for NG by convincing more Americans to use it as a transportation fuel. As discussed above, the US is unlikely to close any NG power plants, so this has the effect of increasing total demand for NG in North America, and thus increasing the price. As an investor in NG, Mr. Pickens stands to profit from any increase in NG demand and price. This half of the plan is good for Mr. Pickens, but bad for the Earth and the US.
Climate progress readers already know that electric transportation is the answer to the multitude of problems facing the US and the world, including Peak Oil, Global Warming, national security, and economic security. The Pickens Plan is a diversion from electric transportation that wastes time.
Perennial presidential petitioner Ralph Nader drew a standing-room-only crowd Saturday at the Watertown Free Public Library, one of 21 towns and cities on his “whistle stop” stump-speech marathon through Massachusetts. (Note: there were not, in fact, any trains or whistles involved.)
More than 70 people attended the event, from both Watertown as well as surrounding communities. One attendee was from Calgary, Alberta; another was from New York. Nader’s brief — about 10 minutes — speech drew frequent rounds of enthusiastic applause and shouts of support from the crowd, who listened with apparent interest and focus on what Nader had to say.
Surprisingly composed and certainly not out of breath, Nader (whose running mate, Matt Gonzales, was not in attendance) faltered only once during the Watertown event, stumbling over his remarks stressing the need for a stronger three-party ballot. Though Watertown was only the mid-point of the campaign schedule, fatigue certainly was a factor, as he had started at 8:20 a.m. in Westfield. His staff reports he did not conclude until after 11 p.m. in Sheffield.
Nader is running as an independent. He is the nominee of various parties in different states, including the Peace and Freedom Party in California and the Ecology Party in Florida.
His message was two-fold. First, his campaign is trying to make it into the Guinness Book of World Records for the most campaign visits in one state in one day.
His staff said he did it; no word yet from the folks at Guinness.
Second, he spoke ardently about the need to increase grassroots involvement, particularly among voters who are “often overlooked in the political process because the candidates considered slam-dunks visit only those states and cities [where they feel a greater need to promote their own self-interests],” he said.
Nader focused on the need for a stronger “watchdog effort” to enforce greater accountability in Washington, as well as the need for government to more closely represent not themselves, but all citizens. His statement advocating “sovereignty of the people over the power of the corporations” came across loud and clear throughout Nader’s remarks.
Then, it was off to a stop in Newton, with 10 more to follow. Only portions of northwestern Massachusetts and the Cape were not part of the day’s itinerary.
Campaign staffer Rob Socket said the entire team was “blown away” by the attendance at each stop, citing crowds of 50-200 people at each stop.
Nader is on the ballot in 45 states for the 2008 election. This year marks his fourth run for president. He had previously run in 1996, 2000 and 2004.
There Markos goes again. Insulting and hating on Kucinich:
Here's what too many people still don't understand -- there's nothing loony about the netroots. This isn't fertile territory for the McKinneys and Kuciniches of our party.
Markos, are you trying to say that this blog is not fertile territory for:
Hopefully, most folks read Dennis' detailed policy proposals while he was running for President. They were far more progressive than the other candidates', including Obama, Edwards, and Clinton.
Dennis was the only candidate who has called for the full repeal of NAFTA, which has devastated communities on both sides of the border.
Dennis was the only candidate who has demanded we hold our elected officials accountable for their lawbreaking actions.
Dennis was the only candidate who had a plan to stop global warming, not just "do something" without doing enough.
(Obama's current plan is totally inadequate - the emission cuts are not enough; under the Obama plan, our coastlines will be flooded, unfortunately. Let's hope he drastically overhauls the plan when he's elected.)
Markos: why do you hate Dennis Kucinich?
We didn't rally around Webb, Tester, Schweitzer, Trauner, Brown, Massa, Burner and so many other moderate Democrats because they were little Kucinich clones,
"Little Kucinich clones"? Markos, don't you want to leave the ad hominem attacks to the Republicans?
Oh and how about this gem:
We are not the elites, we are America, and we're situated squarely in its ideological center.
Speak only for yourself, Markos. You might be America, like Stephen Colbert. I however - and I suspect, many likely - am a human being, whose ideology is not left, right, or center. My ideology is forward. I am a progressive. I believe in stopping climate change - really stopping it, not just pretending to - exiting from ruinous trade agreements, abolishing nuclear weapons, and holding elected officials accountable when they break the law.
I don't frankly give a shit what you or America or the media or the elite or the press thinks about any of these positions, ones that I believe in with every fiber of my being - and ones that are supported by scant few politicians, Dennis Kucinich being one. What matters to me is not whether these positions are popular, but that they are right.
I thought Markos was motivated by what's right not what's popular.
At one time, slavery was popular.
At one time, Jim Crow was popular.
At one time, the Iraq war was popular.
At one time, George W. Bush was popular.
We need politicians who will not simply advance positions that are supported by "America" and "The Center."
We need politicians who will stand up and tell the truth and propose policies that are right. And eventually, the people will support those policies.
That's what it means to be a progressive. And if Daily Kos is not fertile territory for that kind of politician, I hope someone will start a truly progressive blog.
. . .
Seems I've turned into a one-man "Kos hating on Kucinich" watchdog. Some of my past entries:
Update 1: Some commenters say I have "disparaged" and "taken a dump" on Obama. I did no such thing. My comments above are legitimate and appropriate criticisms of Obama's policy positions. If we actually want to accomplish key progressive goals - like stopping Global Warming - we will have to pressure Obama to take much better positions on energy and the environment once he's in office. We will have a small handful of elected officials who will apply that pressure - Kucinich is one. My criticism of Obama was meant to highlight that even this blog's current standard bearer politician, the democratic nominee for President, is not taking good enough positions... so is this blog going to be "fertile territory" for Kucinich and his ideas, or not? Without those ideas, how will we stop the seas from rising?
Led Zeppelin bassist John Paul Jones participated in a Q&A over the weekend at the Manson’s Guitar Show in Devon, England, in which he said he expects a reunited Led Zeppelin to tour…without singer Robert Plant.
Plant has been touring with Alison Krauss and pouring cold water on imminent Zep reunion prospects, but Jones said that he, guitarist Jimmy Page and drummer Jason Bonham (son of the late original drummer John Bonham) are moving forward nonetheless.
As you probably know, Jimmy, Jason and I are actually rehearsing and we've had the odd singer come in and have a bash….We really hope that something is going to happen soon because we really want to do it and we're having a lot of fun, actually, just rehearsing….We really wanna do something, and Robert doesn't want to do this, at least for the moment.
Ah, such intrigue…and many questions:
1. Should Led Zeppelin hire a tribute-band singer as Yes did to replace an ailing Jon Anderson?
2. Should Led Zeppelin hire Jon Anderson?
3. Is Led Zeppelin Led Zeppelin without Robert Plant?
4. Would you see this band regardless of the name and singer?
5. Do you think Jones and Page are just playing a game of chicken to pressure Plant to change his mind?
Our lives avoided tragedySimply by going on and on,Without end and with little apparent meaning.Oh, there were storms and small catastrophes.Simply by going on and onWe managed. No need for the heroic.Oh, there were storms and small catastrophes.I don't remember all the particulars.We managed. No need for the heroic.There were the usual celebrations, the usual sorrows.I don't remember all the particulars.Across the fence, the neighbors were our chorus.There were the usual celebrations, the usual sorrowsThank god no one said anything in verse.The neighbors were our only chorus,And if we suffered we kept quiet about it.At no time did anyone say anything in verse.It was the ordinary pities and fears consumed us,And if we suffered we kept quiet about it.No audience would ever know our story.It was the ordinary pities and fears consumed us.We gathered on porches; the moon rose; we were poor.What audience would ever know our story?Beyond our windows shone the actual world.We gathered on porches; the moon rose; we were poor.And time went by, drawn by slow horses.Somewhere beyond our windows shone the actual world.The Great Depression had entered our souls like fog.And time went by, drawn by slow horses.We did not ourselves know what the end was.The Great Depression had entered our souls like fog.We had our flaws, perhaps a few private virtues.But we did not ourselves know what the end was.People like us simply go on.We had our flaws, perhaps a few private virtues,But it is by blind chance only that we escape tragedy.And there is no plot in that; it is devoid of poetry.
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2008-10-28 01:43.Status of Forces in Iraq? Bring them Home!WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 27, 2008) -- After learning of reports that four U.S. helicopters conducted an attack inside Syrian borders on Sunday, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) denounced the attack and questioned its timing.The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported on Sunday that four U.S. helicopters conducted an attack on the Syrian side of the border with Iraq in which eight people were killed. SANA reports stated that American helicopters raided the village of Sukariya, 340 miles northeast of Damascus, and then returned to Iraqi airspace. The Syrian government claims that of the eight people who died, four were children."Saber rattling and attacks upon sovereign nations who did not attack us are unacceptable. We must question the timing. We are on the eve of national elections and we must be mindful of the Administration's past manipulation of security issues in order to influence public opinion," stated Kucinich. "We cannot stand by and let them use the lives of innocent people as pawns in their wrongful political objectives."The attacks in Syria come at a sensitive time as U.S. and Iraqi lawmakers are engaged in negotiations regarding the status of forces agreement, which would legitimize the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the expiration of the UN mandate governing the American presence.Kucinich opposed the war, offered a plan for withdrawal shortly after the US invasion, and opposes any agreement that would keep U.S. troops in Iraq."The Iraq war has already cost the lives of 4,189 Americans, more than a million innocent Iraqis and three to five trillion in ultimate costs. The only acceptable status of American forces is for the troops to immediately return to their homes and families," stated Kucinich."We must have an international peace-keeping and security force organized for the purposes of transitioning in to help secure Iraq as the U.S. leaves," he said, reciting one of the provisions of the Kucinich plan."Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and now Syria, instead of expanding an expensive war, we should be focusing on resolving our own financial crises' back home, putting Americans back to work and rebuilding our nation's infrastructure," added Kucinich.
And it really bugs me that one of the symptoms of taking an anti-depressant is thoughts of suicide...And it also bugs me that Ralph Nader or his campaign staff never answered my question to them...which was: What is an "official" link, besides the defunct AP link that there was ever a goole debate scheduled this campaign "season" and that Ralph was the only one to agree to show there...However..although Gloria La Riva spent her own time to care for storm victims this year, and Eugen Puryear wrote a kick ass article on Obama...I felt more of a connection with Ralph..and I met each of them during the same weekend at the Peace and Freedom Party..which is a rarity in itself..but Ralph's soul was felt when we connected eyes..and Gloria..well..without specifics she had two things that didn't appeal to me in the end...Ralph is elder..PSL began in 2004....I mean there could technically be one party for every platform statement in existence; Ralph has finally transcended Party affiliation this election time, and that is admirable to me. And he works for the common good in the majority of endeavors in his life. I appreciate his service to myself and the other humans...
Hungary has found itself at the sharp end of the global financial crisis, calling in the International Monetary Fund to support its struggling currency and economy after a 3% rise in interest rates last week failed to reassure the markets.
Gucci's new store in Budapest may find the months ahead tough
Hungary's problems are twofold.
The government had recently been trying to cut back borrowing and spending, but after years of high spending it has failed to make deep enough cuts to reassure the international markets.
The other problem is that many Hungarians have been borrowing money in foreign currencies to buy their homes, cars or even to support their businesses.
Those borrowings in euros, Swiss francs and even Japanese yen had the advantage that they were at much lower interest rates than those in Hungarian forints, and when the forint was a stable currency they looked very attractive.
But now that the forint is falling sharply the cost of repaying those loans is rising massively.
Speculators have found Hungary to be very weak and vulnerable
Dr Zoltan Pogatsa
The high level of private and state borrowing combined has left Hungary vulnerable to the credit crunch. Now the IMF, the European Central Bank and other EU institutions are going to have to step in and support the Hungarian economy with multi-billion dollar loans, and the price they will demand is likely to mean harsh economic reforms and cuts in government spending.
Dr Zoltan Pogatsa, an economist at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, says that "this is a double-edged sword - it shows that the IMF and the ECB are behind Hungary and the forint, but also that Hungary needs their help".
Grim picture
For the average Hungarian this also means that tougher times are ahead.
Unemployment here is already high, civil service jobs have been cut and there has been a wage freeze for those that have kept their jobs.
Krisztina Sarkadi was advised a Swiss franc mortgage would be more secure
But many ordinary people with mortgages or other loans now face the prospect of much higher payments as the forint falls, or converting their foreign loans into local ones and therefore paying sky-high Hungarian interest rates.
Krisztina Sarkadi was advised to take out a mortgage in Swiss francs to help buy a new flat in Budapest.
The teacher and translator, who is a young mother, borrowed 5m forints (about £15,000), in Swiss francs.
"That's what they recommended because they said that's probably the most secure one," she says.
But last month alone the repayments jumped by more than 10%.
"I think it will get a bit worse, even. It's not killing us, but I know some of my friends are being pretty much killed by it," she says.
"I know a friend who took out a loan for all of her flat - so that's a 60m loan - and imagine if that goes up 10%? She's raising a child by herself, so it's really tough - I'm sure she's struggling."
Economic reforms will also mean painful restructuring and possibly higher taxes, and falling demand from abroad means that local factories in Hungary have already shut down for lack of orders.
As for Hungarian aspirations to join the euro - that is looking further away than ever.
Its borrowing is too high, it has failed to introduce the free market reforms that other Central and East European countries have forced through in recent years, and its spending on social security payments is looking increasingly unaffordable.
Dr Zoltan Pogatsa Hungary's hopes of joining the euro are thin
It all adds up, says Dr Pogatsa, to a grim picture.
"Hungary is the weakest link in the new member states of the EU," he says.
"It doesn't meet any of the stability pact criteria, it has very high foreign debt, and the economic reforms that are necessary to bring Hungary into the eurozone have not gone through, which means that speculators have found Hungary to be very weak and vulnerable. "
However, Hungarians are keen to point out that they are not a second Iceland - most of their banks are foreign owned and well supported, and Hungary has not been speculating on foreign markets with borrowed money.
However, that will be cold comfort in the coming months, when the consequences of having to call in the IMF will be felt throughout the Hungarian economy.
Walid Muallem: We put the responsibility on the American government
Syria's foreign minister has accused the US of an act of "criminal and terrorist aggression" over what it says was a helicopter raid on its territory.
Walid Muallem said Sunday's attack saw four US aircraft travel eight miles inside Syrian airspace from Iraq and kill eight unarmed civilians on a farm.
He said those who died were a father and his three children, a farm guard and his wife, and a fisherman.
The US has not confirmed or denied the alleged raid.
However, a unnamed US official was quoted by the AFP news agency as saying that its forces had mounted a "successful" raid against foreign fighters threatening US forces in Iraq.
The US has previously accused Syria of allowing militants into Iraq, but Mr Muallem insisted his country was trying to tighten border controls.
'An opportunity'
Speaking at a news conference in London, Mr Muallem said the raid on the town of Abu Kamal was "not a mistake" and that he had urged the Iraqi government to investigate.
"We consider this criminal and terrorist aggression. We put the responsibility on the American government," he told reporters following talks with UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
He added: "All of them [the victims] are civilians, Syrian, unarmed and they are on the Syrian territories.
"Killing civilians in international law means a terrorist aggression."
Asked if Syria would use force if a similar operation was mounted, he said: "As long as you are saying if, I tell you, if they do it again, we will defend our terrorities."
Referring to the US presidential election, he said: "We hope the coming administration will learn the mistakes of this administration."
Mr Muallem and Mr Miliband were scheduled to hold a joint press conference, but Mr Miliband withdrew. The UK government has declined to comment on the raid.
The US official quoted by AFP said: "Look when you've got an opportunity, an important one, you take it.
"That's what the American people would expect, particularly when it comes to foreign fighters going into Iraq, threatening our forces."
High anxiety decision making, so blown out of your own mind or body that you cannot discern? Or maybe just wondering what's better for me: the red pill or the blue one, the steak or the lobster, the house in the mountains or the trip to Peru? Need help? Can't reach your shrink, psychic, best friend, and you really wanna know what's in your best interest without the filter of everyone else? Use a pendulum.
As the pace of life quickens, we often find ourselves overwhelmed with indecision and confronted by difficult choices. Could a hobby become a viable career? Is now a good time to sell those stock options? Is he the One? The answers to these questions often reside in our subconscious, waiting for a boosted confidence level to converge with opportunity.
I am a Libra. A double Libra. Ascending, descending. I don't know astrology; all I know is what it feels like to weigh the scales to the point of making all things equal. I can see the many facets of all choices, the positives and negatives, until I am in Buddhist state of equanimity. As valuable as this can be, I know what it feels like to fall into a frozen state of indecisiveness. The pendulum has saved me from the agony of decision-making by giving me a visceral demonstration of what's in my highest interest.
What's a pendulum?
Any weight hanging on a string, though you can get a beauty at the new age book store and there's a pendulum in my kits: THE ART OF THE PENDULUM or the POCKET PENDULUM available at Barnes and Noble, Borders, and other stores.
My brother, the lawyer, admires that I have made commerce out of a flaw, but considers working with the pendulum a charade and if not, well then it's cheating. However, if you work with the pendulum, what you discover is rather amazing. In a store filled with remedies, I can run the pendulum over a hundred bottles and the pendulum will choose what I need. I don't even have to read the labels. How is it that the pendulum would say no to most everything, but to one or two solutions? When I realize what the pendulum has chosen, it is exactly what I need.
In fact, my medical doctor, the one who's published a book, uses the pendulum for diagnosis and to choose remedies for treatment, as does a celebrated naturopath I know.
When my brother had his lawyer buddies over and they stood around mocking me about the pendulum, one decided to try it and to his amazement it immediately responded to his questions in a way he knew to be totally accurate. The whole argument went from "objection" to "case dismissed."
How do you use a pendulum?
Easy enough. Center yourself. Focus. Hold the pendulum in front of you and ask it to show you which way is the direction of yes and see which direction it moves in. Then ask it which is the direction of no. Then get very quiet and ask your question. You have to ask it without any mental interference. I know it's a challenge and for some the hardest part. Just breathe, you can do it. It is as simple as asking for a cup of coffee. It is important that you don't get invested in the outcome. If this is the case, you should remember the answer may be clouded by your personal investment. If you are quiet, the pendulum will tell you what's in your highest interest.
Before you start, it's best to test your ability with things you know to be true. "My name is Sandra." Does it go in the direction of "yes" or "no?" Then ask "is my name Maxi," or whatever your name is. Say, "I live at so and so address" or "I am a woman." And see if you get consistently correct answers to those basic questions. If not take a break.
You can't ask prophetic questions like "Will I be happily married?" You can only ask questions about right now. Example, "Is it in my highest interest to marry Larry?" It's extremely important how you ask the question, because the subconscious mind listens very carefully. Word things specifically. The pendulum is a be-here-now kind of friend.
Sometimes, you may have the feeling that there are questions you should not ask. You can reconcile that by asking, "Do I have permission to ask this question now?"
Your questions have to be in the present, and be able to answered by "yes" or "no." You can not ask why of your pendulum. However, you can ask multiple-choice questions or determine the value of something. An easy way to do this is to use my kits.
Commercial break:
THE ART OF THE PENDULUM contains a pendulum, 12 beautiful art cards that enable multiple and easy uses with your pendulum and a booklet that explains how to use the pendulum in depth. The POCKET PENDULUM contains a pendulum, 4 cards, and a booklet. It's great for carrying with you. The cards are images that can be used on your altar for contemplation or to use with the pendulum to demonstrate your inner wisdom as well as answer issues one has about timing -- when to do something; relationships -- what is really going on; where is my idea originating from -- ego or divine guidance; or resolve a dilemma when you're faced with many choices.
How does the pendulum work?
We often have all the information we need inside of us, but we don't always have access to it. The pendulum demonstrates before our eyes what's in our subconscious mind and what's in our best interest. I have read the research and there are many theories, but no one knows for sure. Even Albert Einstein who used it could not explain why or how it worked.
Who uses it?
When King Solomon visited the Queen of Sheba, he used a pendulum to find water along the way. Cleopatra and her dowsers used it to find gold. The Peruvians, Chinese, Hindus, and various other cultures have used a form of dowsing to find things. The Vatican employed a monk in the Middle Ages to find treasures that were missing using a pendulum. Our armed forces used it in the Vietnam War to locate landmines. Other great examples can be traced to corporations looking for resources, Nobel Prize winners, bonafide medical doctors, naturopaths, and acupuncturists.
Proof
There are many times that I receive answers from the pendulum that are oppositional to what I'm thinking. When it comes to an important issue, I have wondered if I should listen to the pendulum or my mind. (Sometimes I check by using the Divining Guidance card in THE ART OF THE PENDULUM, which has two choices: God or Ego with the question Who's Speaking? I check where is this advice coming from.) Professionals who use the pendulum say always trust what it tells you. By listening to it or not, I have found that to be true. However, you have to use it with respect, meaning that you cannot ask the same questions over and over again.
My own experiments of proof
I was introduced to a potential film investor. On the phone we got along great and I thought, here's my next best friend. I asked the pendulum about working with her and it said no, which made little sense. A week later I asked again and got the same answer. I asked more questions: "Is she professional?" "Is she trustworthy?" and kept getting negative answers. A few months later the potential investor flew me to LA to meet, providing a great opportunity to test the accuracy of the pendulum. As it turned out, my mind and intuition was wrong! The pendulum was right. (I was concerned that I did not have good intuition, but the Jungian psychologist Dr. James Hillman says your intuition is correct only 50% of the time.)
A friend, who was certain she knew what was in my best interest, sat across from me and silently asked herself questions about me. I held the pendulum and watched in awe. It would swing in the direction of yes and then stop. Then it would start up again, moving to yes or no, stop and continue. I had no control or influence over her questions. When she told me the answers she got for her questions, they resonated for me, despite opposing her suppositions.
You can always check your answer by consulting another form of divination that you know: the I Ching, or the Runes, muscle testing or the Tarot. You can also check how the answer feels in your body. You can trust your body.
When I haven't trusted the pendulum, when I have done the opposite of the guidance, I have still found the pendulum to be accurate. It's in your best interest not to tempt fate.
How to choose between the red pill and the blue pill?
Many years ago, I was sensitive and had allergic reactions to almost everything I ate. A health care practitioner taught me to put the pendulum over a particular supplement and ask if I needed it. I would get a yes response or a no. I would also put the pendulum in the middle of several supplement bottles and ask it which one to take first, and then which after that, and the pendulum would show me the order.
You can do this with food as well. I have a friend who picks golf clubs this way. I know someone who does this with dates on the Internet with good result.
What do you do when you need guidance and it's too public a place to be caught using a pendulum?
Use your body as a pendulum. There is a discrete way, but I'm not telling. God forbid you meet me in public.
This November, Americans face a choice. But the choice not between John McCain or Barak Obama; it is between submitting to the will of the corporate-military establishment or taking a moral stand in boycotting their rigged institutions of fake democracy.
Democracy, in any meaningful sense, is a system that allows people to have a say in decisions to the degree that they are affected. Do we have that? With popular support for the Bush administration continually hovering at around 20% and support for the mostly Democratic congress struggling to maintain double digits, you can decide whether we have a democratic system or not for yourself.
They tell us to vote if we care about the economy. Vote for whom? Obama could not reiterate enough times in the “debate” how much he “agreed” with McCain on the issue of the near trillion dollar Wall Street bailout, despite overwhelming public opposition to it. The message to the public was clear: “We don’t care what you think. Our job is to protect the wealth of those who own the country, not those who built it.”
They tell us to vote if we care about war, foreign policy, and the horrendous image of the US around the world. Vote for Obama or McCain, both who vow to enact a “surge” of US occupying forces into Afghanistan, in spite of the sharp rise in US-NATO bombings of civilians, most notably the massacre of 90 innocent people in late August, two thirds of which were under the age of 15.
We can vote on Iraq, but our choice is not between war and peace. The choice is between two war strategies. One continues the Bush-Cheney-Rice plan, and the other entails significant US troops, privately contracted mercenaries, and the maintenance of extravagant foreign (US) military bases, not to mention potential US operations in the future in Iraq. Both plans continue the aggressive war against the wishes of the Iraqi public, the American public, and the international community.
Not to be outdone by the Maverick’s burning passion for imperial violence, liberal Obama has declared that he strongly supports military strikes in Pakistan, further threatening the already trembling stability of the region by violating sovereign territory with killings and assaults.
Should we vote if we care about peace in Israel-Palestine, a conflict with global implications? Unlike the slight deviations of policy mentioned above between those who wish to rule over us, we have a truly bipartisan commitment to continue blocking a peaceful settlement through providing the overwhelming military, economic, and diplomatic support for the US-Israeli illegal military occupation of Palestinian land, illegal colonial settlement expansion, and the starvation and imprisonment of the 1.5 million human beings trying to stay alive in the Gaza Strip.
Either way we vote, we give money to kill Palestinians, support Israeli terror, and avoid peace based on international law and human rights. That has been US policy for decades.
Turning to the health care crisis, both candidates refuse to recognize what has been the population’s wish for decades: the abolition of for-profit healthcare. Thousands of insured Americans are going to die in the next four years because both candidates refuse to support preexisting legislation that guarantees all necessary medical treatment to everyone.1
America has the most prisoners of any country in the world. Our corporate built prisons are a reflection and symbol of a violently unequal and racist society where black men are incarcerated at a rate of nearly 400% more than whites. Black men in America are locked up at a rate nearly six times that of Black men under the notorious South African Apartheid regime in the early 90s.2
Our prisons are filled with the poor and disenfranchised: social conditions that transcend race in American dungeons. This socioeconomic/human rights issue is off the debating table. Neither exclusively Democratic nor Republican, this is an American policy.
Let us not forget either, that a vote for either presidential hopeful is a clear declaration of support for the continued Bush-Cheney anti-constitution program of illegal spying and wiretapping of American citizens. Are we really willing to accept this as a permanent American policy?
Elections in the US are nothing more than ratifications of illegitimate power and approval of concentrated wealth. So long as we continue to rationalize our vote by selecting the “lesser of two evils” vying for Chief Terrorist Commander and Upholder of Elite Interests, we will be giving our tacit approval to and consent of the continued human rights violations committed by the bipartisan power structure.
This business of selecting indentured servants of existing power is more symbolic as a means of conquest of the popular will rather than that of democracy. Perhaps we were never taught that the wonderful advancements our country has made over the years came as a result of popular struggle, not electoral politics.3
When we place our political energy into elections, power and privilege always win while our movements die. In our country, voting is the opium of the masses.
When we cast our ballots for the McCains and Obamas of this country, blood continues to be shed on the battlefields of justice, not only around the world as the US continues its imperial crusade to protect the world from the threat of democracy, but at home as well in America’s prisons, hospitals, factories, courts, ghettos, working neighborhoods—in essence, on America’s “main street.”
We cannot be, in good moral conscience, participants in this deceitful and superficial process legitimizing crimes of the powerful and an economic system erected for the wealthy. “After all, is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded?”4
Yes, let us make a choice in November, a choice to stop “tinkering with the machinery” of the Washington-Wall Street establishment of exploitation and violence and commit ourselves to taking matters into our own hands to bring about self-determination and justice for our countrymen/women and our fellow human beings around the world.5
House Resolution (H.R.) 676 is the bill introduced in February of 2005 by Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) which guarantees single payer, not for profit, healthcare to every American. In addition to its obvious humane benefits, it will save the US several billion dollars annually, according to The Citizens Alliance for National Health Insurance. [↩]
According to the organization, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, (LEAP), under South African Apartheid in 1993, Black men were incarcerated at a rate of 841 per 100,000. In the US in 2004, Black men were incarcerated at a rate of 4,400 per 100,000. [↩]
For a further discussion on social change, elections, and popular struggle in American history, please see Howard Zinn’s book, A People’s History of the United States. Using impeccable sources and research, Zinn illustrates to the reader how when mass movements in the US attempted to press their demands through the electoral process, the movements fizzled out with little or no results. [↩]
Quoted words are pulled from Henry David Thoreau’s 1849 essay, “Resistance to Civil Government” or also known as “Civil Disobedience.” [↩]
The quoted words, “tinkering with the machinery,” are the words of the late US Supreme Court Justice, Harry Blackmun, who famously noted that he would “no longer tinker with the machinery of death.” Blackmun was referring to the institution of the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment. [↩]
Senator Barack Obama said he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House. Mr. Obama, the clear front-runner of the presidential race siad “We're confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan.”
You don’t stick a knife in a man’s back nine inches, and then pull it out six inches, and say you’re making progress.
– Malcolm X
Another Election Day approaches and I’m reminded of something the late Pakistani dissident, Eqbal Ahmad said about Noam Chomsky in the book, Confronting Empire (2000): “He (Chomsky) has never wavered. He has never fallen into the trap of saying, ‘Clinton will do better.’ Or ‘Nixon was bad but Carter at least had a human rights presidency.’ There is a consistency of substance, of posture, of outlook in his work.”
But along came 2004…when Chomsky said stuff like this: “Anyone who says ‘I don’t care if Bush gets elected’ is basically telling poor and working people in the country, ‘I don’t care if your lives are destroyed’.” And like this: “Despite the limited differences [between Bush and Kerry] both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.”
Standing alongside Chomsky was Howard Zinn, saying stuff like this: “Kerry, if he will stop being cautious, can create an excitement that will carry him into the White House and, more important, change the course of the nation.”
Fast forward to 2008 and Chomsky sez: “I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions.” And once again, Howard Zinn is in agreement: “Even though Obama does not represent any fundamental change, he creates an opening for a possibility of change.” (Two word rejoinder: Bill Clinton)
This strategy of choosing an alleged “lesser evil” because he/she might be influenced by some mythical “popular movement” would be naïve if put forth by a high school student. Professors Chomsky and Zinn know better. If it’s incremental change they want, why not encourage their many readers to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney? The classic (read: absurd) reply to that question is: “Because Nader or McKinney can’t win.”
Of course they can’t win if everyone who claims to agree with them inexplicably votes for Obama instead. Paging Alice: You’re wanted down the goddamned rabbit hole.
Another possible answer as to why folks like Chomsky and Zinn don’t aggressively and tirelessly stump for Nader or McKinney is this: 2004 proved that the high profile Left is essentially impotent and borderline irrelevant. Chomsky and Zinn were joined in the vocal, visible, and vile Anybody-But-Bush ranks by “stars” like Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Medea Benjamin, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Manning Marable, Naomi Klien, Phil Donahue, Barbara Ehrenreich, Martin Sheen, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Vedder, Cornel West, etc. etc. and John Kerry still lost.
News flash: The “poor and working people in the country” that Chomsky mentions above are paying ZERO attention to him or anyone like him…and that’s a much bigger issue than which millionaire war criminal gets to play figurehead for the empire over the next four years.
Zinn talks about Obama and the “possibility of change.” It seems odd to be asking this of an octogenarian but: Exactly how much time do you think we have?
Every twenty-four hours, thirteen million tons toxic chemicals are released across the globe; 200,000 acres of rainforest are destroyed; more than one hundred plant or animal species go extinct; and 45,000 humans (mostly children) starve to death. Each day, 29,158 children under the age of five die from mostly preventable causes.
As Gandhi once asked: “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”
I promise you this: The human beings (and all living things) that come after us won’t care whether we voted for Obama or McCain in 2008…if they have no clean air to breathe, no clean water to use, and are stuck on a toxic, uninhabitable planet. They’d probably just want to ask us this: Why did you stand by and let everything be consumed or poisoned or destroyed?
Conclusion: A vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama is—at best—an act of criminal negligence.
By Marcela Valente
BUENOS AIRES, Oct 24 (IPS) - A new movement formed by a host of political, social, labour and cultural organisations of Argentina launched an action plan Friday to reduce poverty and child mortality and to promote more equal distribution of wealth.
The action plan was presented at a three-day meeting organised by the Central Federation of Argentine Workers (CTA) in the city of Jujuy, capital of the province of the same name in northwestern Argentina which is one of the most impoverished areas of the country.
Seven thousand delegates from 610 organisations and 23 provinces had confirmed their participation.
The CTA, a trade union federation of one million members, groups public servants, primary and secondary school teachers, judicial and health care workers, cooperatives, bankrupt companies salvaged by their employees, and retired and unemployed workers.
It was formed 16 years ago to counter the neoliberal, free market reforms implemented by the administration of Carlos Menem (1989-1999), and immediately applied for official recognition as a labour federation, with the support of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
But so far it has been denied such recognition, which perpetuates the monopoly held by the General Labour Confederation (CGT), formed primarily by industry, construction, commerce and service unions, and affiliated with the governing Justicialista (Peronist) Party.
Years ago, the CTA had already called for the formation of a National Front Against Poverty, and entrusted it with the preparation of a proposal that was subsequently submitted to public vote in a plebiscite that drew millions of voters in December 2001, on the eve of the worst economic, social and political crisis in the history of Argentina.
Part of the proposal was taken up by the government of Eduardo Duhalde -- the caretaker president appointed after Fernando de la Rúa resigned, who governed until May 2003 -- in his attempts to deal with the crisis. This resulted, for example, in the establishment of a small monthly income granted to unemployed heads of households.
But the initiative was modified after reports that it had become tainted with political clientelism.
The CTA is now arguing that the current global financial crisis cannot be used as a pretext for abandoning the fight against poverty and inequality, and is renewing its struggle with a broader movement that will put social issues back at the top of the agenda.
"Just as the Berlin Wall paradigm fell in 1989, now too, Wall Street, the paradigm of international financial capital, is falling. We believe that this opens up an opportunity to discuss this issue among a broader range of forces," Juan Carlos Giuliani, CTA Communications Secretary, said to IPS.
The purpose of the meeting, the trade unionist said, is to "form a new political, social and cultural liberation movement" that will focus on three goals: establishing a set of priority issues -- the ones that demand the most urgent attention -- devising an action plan, and designing a comprehensive strategy that will help us organise our future actions," he said.
The movement will include civil society organisations from every province, environmentalists and neighbourhood groups organised against industries and infrastructure works that pollute, trade unionists, human rights defenders, indigenous people, women’s rights activists, students, and religious and political leaders.
Except for the support of a few members of Congress, such as leftwing opposition lawmaker Claudio Lozano who has ties to the CTA, or of prominent human rights activists like Nora Cortiñas of the Asociación Madres de Plaza de Mayo-Línea Fundadora (Mothers of Plaza de Mayo - Founding Line), the organisers do not expect to be joined by "high-profile personalities."
"Our strength will be in the diversity of the organisations represented, coming from 720 cities in the country," the CTA spokesman said. "Church-based groups involved in social work, cooperatives, self-managed workers and organisers of soup kitchen initiatives" are all taking part.
The CTA, Giuliani explained, is not looking to create a political party or launch candidates. "What we want is to empower the people and push for more participatory democracy. If this later translates into an electoral platform, it will be merely as a secondary objective that will arise from the consensus of the participating organisations," he added.
The meeting, convened as a "Social Constituent Assembly," began on Thursday with an international seminar that included presentations by representatives of Brazil’s Landless Movement (MST) and Central Única dos Trabalhadores central trade union, Chile’s Unified Workers’ Confederation, members of the constituent assembly that rewrote Ecuador’s constitution, and trade unionists from Spain.
The Social Constituent Assembly was formally inaugurated Friday with a rally and a march through the streets of the provincial capital, San Salvador de Jujuy. On Saturday, participants will be divided into 20 working committees that will deliberate separately, coming together at the end of the day for a plenary session where each committee will share their initiatives with the rest.
"The main objective of the meeting is to promote unity in the popular front, like we’re seeing in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela; which is why we are calling on everyone who believes that it is unacceptable for Argentina to have 13 million people living in poverty or children dying from preventable causes," Giuliani declared.
Participants are also addressing other social issues of concern to the organisations, such as "the plundering of natural resources," or "the perpetuation of a distributive system that generates inequality," he said.
Third Party Presidential Debate to Take Place on Thursday, October 23rd - Nader to participate
Press AdvisoryFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Toby Heaps, 202-471-5833Attn: Politics Editors, Campaign 2008 Editors, National EditorsThird Party Presidential Debate to Take Place on Thursday, October 23rd - Nader to participateIndependent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader announced today that he will participate in the only third party debate being held this election cycle to take place on Thursday evening at 9:00pm EST on October 23 in Washington DC at the Mayflower Renaissance Hotel.The debate will last for 90 minutes and be conducted according to the following format:-No opening statements-There will be six of the following question and answer series: The moderator will pose a question. Each candidate will be permitted 90 seconds to respond. The candidates' preliminary answers will be followed by a 5-minute "discussion" period, during which the moderator will be permitted unlimited follow-up questions and the candidates would be encouraged to engage one another in actual debate. This will last about 60 minutes.
-After the above six question-and-answer series, each candidate will be permitted to ask a single question of one or more of the other candidates, with each candidate permitted 90 seconds to respond. This will last about 10 minutes.
-After this, submitted questions from the audience will be selected and presented by the moderator. This will last for about 10 minutes.
-Each candidate will be permitted a 2-minute closing statement.
This work is dedicated as a labor of love to the great wisdom teachers
who have left their footprints across trackless eternity
and to the others who, like Mohandas K. Gandhi,
have given their lives to show us how.
We aspire to a world community without enemy, without war. Man is not enemy of man except through lies of the State and State of the lie. Once violence is chosen as method, falsehood becomes principle. Our direct eyewitness experience shows that the State owes its existence to violence, and maintains itself by lies, coercion, and war.
Stateless society is essentially need-based, and not greed-based. It is essentially self-protecting and self-regulating, without institutionalized compulsion. So we are not going to be governed, knowing that to be governed is to be coerced and violated. We shall govern ourselves.
We must evolve to a higher level of consciousness, or die out on a wasted earth. We hold that Liberty with self-rule is a better way to that peace which is so essential for survival of the human species.
The battle is for the mind of man. The path is made by walking. We are taking steps. These words mark our footprints. We try to live by respect for life. We strive for a life that harms none.
We are declaring our birthright of individual liberty, free of State coercion. Our right to life includes the right to respect the lives of others, for we cannot live without society. Respect for life demands the right of non-cooperation in the tax-financing of State murder. We are advocates of non-political means to achieve freedom. We shall be free.
We feel that mankind is facing a moral and spiritual crisis, of which ecological, social and political problems are but symtoms of a deeper cause. We are working for solutions. We welcome ideas and participation. May you live long, live free.
The Cuban government announced there may be more than 20bn barrels of recoverable oil in offshore fields in Cuba's share of the Gulf of Mexico, more than twice the previous estimate. If confirmed, it puts Cuba's reserves on par with those of the US and into the world's top 20. Drilling is expected to start next year by Cuba's state oil company Cubapetroleo, or Cupet.
Pakistan’s financial crisis continues to worsen , leaving them on the verge of bankruptcy. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari visited China last week and received a pledge of help but failed to receive a firm commitment of cash, leading to increased speculation that they may be forced to turn to the International Monetary Fund for help.
[Weird I just knew this was coming...I put Marcos back in my auto-searches because I just had a little feeling that he was going to reappear soon...and BLAM! Here is is again...]CONFERENCE INVITATION FROM SUBCOMANDANTE INSURGENTE MARCOSEJÉRCITO ZAPATISTA DE LIBERACIÓN NACIONAL.MEXICO.October 2008To:Planet EarthFrom:Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos.Chiapas, Mexico.Receive the regards of the men, women, children and elders of the EZLN and my own.As we had already announced, we, the Zapatistas think that now (maybe even before) there is a rage against everything that is going on, in our country as well as in the world. This rage is not mere anger or resentment, but rather has two essential elements: it is a rage that is the consequence of an injured dignity and it is a creative rage, that is, it points towards a transformation of the situation.We also see that there are many differences between these proud rages that we see, listen to and feel. Not just in that which is obvious (such as geography), but also in the way and the path, destination, speed and rhythm of their steps. Nevertheless, we think they have something in common: the aggressor who causes this rage is the same one: a system, capitalism, which destroys dignity above all.That is why our idea of making some sort of encounter, came; a space where these rages could find, meet, learn and relate to each other. The Mexican Zapatistas have named this space the “FESTIVAL MUNDIAL DE LA DIGNA RABIA” and think the presence of you and your organization, your ear and word, is necessary.That is why we want to invite you to take part in this “Festival de la Digna Rabia” which is to be held in Mexico City, and in the Chiapas zapatista, from December the 26th 20a08 to January the 5th 2009.We hope that you are able to come.Vale. Salud and may ideas find and find each other.From the mountains of the Mexican SoutheastSubcomandante Insurgente Marcos.Mexico, October 2008.P.S.- Enclosed you will find a letter with the details of the event from the compañero Sergio Rodríguez Lazcano, director in chief of Rebeldía magazine.
Mexican authorities have arrested two activists in the murder of the independent journalist Brad Will. Speculation has long centered around police officers and pro-government militants in Will’s death. Some were initially arrested in the months after the shooting, but ultimately released. But today the government is accusing two members of the popular movement APPO, the group opposed to state governor Ulises Ruiz. Will’s family has criticized the charges, calling the arrests a sham.
Guest:
John Gibler, independent journalist who has extensively covered the uprising in Oaxaca, where he also knew Brad Will. He is author of the forthcoming book Mexico Unconquered: Chronicles of Power and Revolt, out in January from City Lights Books.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today in Mexico, where two people have been arrested in the murder of the independent journalist Brad Will. Will was shot and killed on October 27, 2006, while covering the popular uprising in Oaxaca. Will’s own camera captured his shooting.
[footage filmed by Brad Will]
AMY GOODMAN: Footage filmed by Brad Will right up until the moment he was fatally shot. For our radio listeners, you can go to our website at democracynow.org to see the video footage.
Far from satisfying the calls for justice, the arrests have only inflamed the controversy.
Speculation has long centered around police officers and pro-government militants in Will’s death. Some were initially arrested in the months after the shooting, but ultimately released. But today the government is accusing two members of the popular movement APPO, the group opposed to state governor Ulises Ruiz. Will was covering their struggle when he was killed. Will’s family has criticized the charges, calling the arrests a sham. In a statement, Amnesty International also said it’s “gravely concerned” Mexican officials are ignoring critical evidence, including "state agents potentially implicated.”
John Gibler is an independent journalist who has extensively covered the uprising in Oaxaca, where he also knew Brad Will. He’s author of the forthcoming book Mexico Unconquered: Chronicles of Power and Revolt, which is out in January from City Lights Books. John Gibler joins us now from San Francisco.
John, welcome to Democracy Now! Tell us, how did these arrests happen? How did this whole story unfold to this point?
JOHN GIBLER: Since the very beginning of the so-called investigation, both the state and the federal officials have focused singularly on fabricating a theory that the people who tried to save Brad Will’s life were the very ones who killed him. For the past several months, the federal attorney general in Mexico, who is now carrying the case, has been leaking stories slowly into the Mexican national press, letting the press know that they were about to make a conclusion to identify the witnesses and people who tried to save Brad’s life, who they say had pulled the trigger.
So, the arrests come after months of the federal attorney general leaking false information into the press, ignoring real evidence and also ignoring several independent studies, both governmental and non-governmental, that have strongly urged the federal attorney general to investigate the paramilitaries and the civilian-clad police officers who were widely photographed shooting on protesters on October 27. The arrests came on Thursday last week, arresting two people initially and then a third person the next day. Two of the people have since been released on bail, but the man whom they charge with actually pulling the trigger is still in jail.
AMY GOODMAN: John Gibler, start from the beginning and how Brad Will was killed two years ago.
JOHN GIBLER: Brad was on the street known as Juarez Street. Originally, he had been filming an attempt of the local officials of the Santa Lucia del Camino municipality, which borders Oaxaca City, their attempt to lift a protester barricade on October 27th. This comes at a time in the conflict in Oaxaca when the tension was incredibly high. Over seventeen people had already been assassinated by the paramilitary forces. Those paramilitaries had been photographed, they had been filmed, they had been shown on national television, and yet, in nearly five months of the conflict, absolutely no investigation had been carried out by the Mexican government, much less someone had been charged with one of these seventeen previous murders. So the time Brad was killed, it was very much a murder foretold, something that should never have happened if the other assassinations had been properly investigated.
Brad was on the street filming the violent attack of the Santa Lucia officials as they tried to scare protesters away from their barricades. Well, as happened for months throughout Oaxaca, the protesters did not scare easily. Instead of running away, they ran towards. They—I mean, not out in the open street, but they headed towards the men who were attacking them with firearms, throwing rocks and shooting bottle rockets, trying to force them away out of the street.
So, Brad was standing on Juarez Street, filming amongst protesters. There were several other journalists there. In fact, one journalist for the newspaper Milenio had just been shot in the leg and taken around the corner. Another newspaper photographer for the national paper El Universal had just taken a now-very-famous photograph where he shows one of the local officials, Pedro Carmona, shooting at him, pointing the gun straight at the camera. Raul Estrella, who took the photograph, told me later he took that picture and then heard a bullet whiz over his head, and that’s when he ran around the corner. Only moments later, Brad himself was shot and was carried around the corner by the APPO protesters.
As you see in the video, which you’ve shown today, which Brad filmed, and his camera was still running as people carry him away, he falls, and immediately all the people around him rush to help him. They rush to pick him up and carry him to safety. Coming around the corner, many newspaper photographers then took pictures of the witnesses who were trying to resuscitate him and then who rushed him off to the hospital. Those very people who risked their lives to pick him up and to carry him to safety, the Mexican government is now saying those are the ones who shot and killed him, instead of the paramilitary forces down the street who had been shooting at people all day, whose photographs have been published in the national and international press with them pointing their guns straight at the camera.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain as much as you know about those people who the photos show pointing their guns.
JOHN GIBLER: Several of these people are local municipal police officers in Santa Lucia del Camino. Others are local city council officials. One is a judge in Santa Lucia del Camino. In the photographs that have been widely shown in the international press, one is carrying a rifle, two are carrying pistols. In one photograph, again, Pedro Carmona, who is a regional director of one of the neighborhoods inside of the Santa Lucia municipality, he’s pointing the gun straight at the camera.
Again, these are all people who are members of the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, known as the PRI, or the P-R-I in Spanish. This is the party that ruled Mexico for seventy-one years, but continues to rule Oaxaca, has ruled uninterrupted since the party’s creation over eighty years ago. Throughout the Oaxaca conflict, members of the PRI party from different areas around Oaxaca City and around the state were involved in these paramilitary-type attacks against the Oaxaca protesters. Again, these were attacks that were widely photographed, widely filmed, and shown on both international and national TV.
AMY GOODMAN: And what is the response right now of APPO?
JOHN GIBLER: APPO categorically denies the involvement of any of their members in any crime against Brad Will. Quite the opposite, they were incredibly disturbed and saddened by his death. They were the ones who tried to save him.
The family is irate. Both Kathy and Hardy Will, Brad’s parents, have said to me that they think this is an obvious miscarriage of justice. Last night, on the phone, Hardy said that this just goes to show that the federal attorney general in Mexico and the special prosecutor are either corrupt or incompetent, or both.
International human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, have decried the recent arrests, saying that it shows that the federal attorney general is only continuing to ignore all the incredible body of evidence pointing to the involvement of the paramilitaries and, instead, trying to focus uniquely, focus singularly on creating the evidence necessary for the hypothesis that the APPO in fact killed Brad.
And their evidence is itself internally contradictory. They released a PowerPoint—the Mexican federal attorney general released a PowerPoint last week, where they say that the first shot took place at a distance of two meters. The image from Brad’s camera that they used to substantiate that claim shows that everyone in front of Brad is at least five to six meters away. Their second claim is that the second shot, the second gunshot, took place at a distance of two to eight meters, and yet their own computer-generated illustration that they show to substantiate that claim shows the killer at a distance of less than a meter, about a foot away. So their own illustrations don’t even substantiate their claims, whereas the evidence that has been gathered by the Mexican National Human Rights Commission, by the International Physicians for Human Rights group, shows very conclusively that the gunshot took place at a distance of between thirty-five and fifty meters away. The Mexican National Human Rights Commission concluded that the gunshot took place between thirty-five and fifty meters away. Now, on the street where Brad was filming, there’s a red truck parked across the street. That red truck is about thirty-five meters away from Brad. On the other side of that red truck is where the paramilitaries were all gathered and from which point they were firing at the APPO protesters.
AMY GOODMAN: So, John Gibler, you, who have known Brad well, you’re usually based in Mexico, joining us, though, from San Francisco now. What are you calling for now?
JOHN GIBLER: I’m calling for justice with the family, definitely calling for the immediate release of the innocent witnesses and people who tried to save Brad, and a serious, rigorous, impartial investigation that leads to identifying the person who actually pulled the trigger and those who have been covering up his involvement in the murder, and that the cover-up may go pretty high.
AMY GOODMAN: John Gibler, thanks so much for joining us. Your piece that really goes into detail into these accusations, the arrests and the story behind this, called “The Rule of Impunity: Mexican Government Ignores Overwhelming Evidence, Charges Oaxacan Activists with Brad Will’s Murder,” appears at The Indypendent, and we will link to it at democracynow.org.
Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American RevolutionariesNORTHCOMArmy TimesBN Synopsis: As the practice of democracy becomes a lost art, Americans are increasingly desperate for a restored nation. Many have a general sense that the "system" is in disorder -- if not on the road to functional collapse. But though it is easy to identify our political problems, the solutions are not always as clear. In Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries, bestselling author Naomi Wolf illustrates the breathtaking changes that can take place when ordinary citizens engage in the democratic system the way the founders intended and tells how to use that system, right now, to change your life, your community, and ultimately, the nation.
Read an ExcerptIntroductionThe summer before last, I traveled across the country talking about threats to our liberty. I spoke and listened to groups of Americans from all walks of life. They told me new and always harsher stories of state coercion.What I had called a "fascist shift" in the United States, projections I had warned about as worst-case scenarios, was now surpassing my imagination: in 2008, thousands of terrified, shackled illegal immigrants were rounded up in the mass arrests which always characterize a closing society;1 news emerged that the 9/11 report had been based on evidence derived from the testimonies of prisoners who had been tortured -- and the tapes that documented their torture were missing -- leading the commissioners of the report publicly to disavow their own findings;2 the Associated Press reported that the torture of prisoners in U.S.-held facilities had not been the work of "a few bad apples" but had been directed out of the White House;3 the TSA "watch list," which had contained 45,000 names when I wrote my last book, ballooned to 755,000 names and 20,000 were being added every month;4 Scott McClellan confirmed that the drive to war in Iraq had been based on administration lies;5 HR 1955, legislation that would criminalize certain kinds of political thought and speech, passed the House and made it to the Senate;6 Blackwater, a violent paramilitary force not answerable to the people, established presences in Illinois and North Carolina and sought to get into border patrol activity in San Diego.7 The White House has established, no matter who leads the nation in the future, U.S. government spying on the emails and phone calls ofAmericans -- a permanent violation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.8 The last step of the ten steps to a closed society is the subversion of the rule of law. That is happening now. What critics have called a "paper coup" has already taken place.Yes, the situation is dire. But history shows that when an army of citizens, supported by even a vestige of civil society, believes in liberty -- in the psychological space that is "America" -- no power on earth can ultimately suppress them.Dissident Natan Sharansky writes that there are two kinds of states -- "fear societies" and "free societies."9 Understood in this light, "America" -- the state of freedom that is under attack -- is first of all a place in the mind. That is what we must regain now to fight back.The two societies make up two kinds of consciousness. The consciousness derived of oppression is despairing, fatalistic, and fearful of inquiry. It is mistrustful of the self and forced to trust external authority. It is premised on a dearth of self-respect. It is cramped. People around the world understand that this kind of inner experience is as toxic an environment as is a polluted waterway they are forced to drink from; it is as insufficient a space as being compelled to sleep in a one-room hut with seven other bodies on the floor.In contrast, the consciousness of freedom -- the psychology of freedom that is "America" -- is one of expansiveness, trust of the self, and hope. It is a consciousness of limitless inquiry. "Everything," wrote Denis Diderot, who influenced, via Thomas Jefferson, the Revolutionary generation, "must be examined, everything must be shaken up, without exception and without circumspection."10 Jefferson wrote that American universities are "based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."11 Since this state of mind is self-trusting, it builds up in a citizen a wealth of self-respect. "Your own reason," wrote Jefferson to his nephew, "is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but the uprightness of the decision."12 After my cross-country journey, I realized that I needed to go back and read about the original Revolutionaries of our nation. I realized in a new way from them that liberty is not a set of laws or a system of government; it is not a nation or a species of patriotism. Liberty is a state of mind before it is anything else. You can have a nation of wealth and power, but without this state of mind -- this psychological "America" -- you are living in a deadening consciousness; with this state of mind, you can be in a darkened cell waiting for your torturer to arrive and yet inhabit a chainless space as wide as the sky."America," too, is a state of mind. "Being an American" is a set of attitudes and actions, not a nationality or a posture of reflexive loyalty. This tribe of true "Americans" consists of people who have crossed a personal Rubicon of a specific kind and can no longer be satisfied with anything less than absolute liberty.This state of mind, I learned, has no national boundaries. The Tibetans, who, as I write this, are marching in the face of Chinese soldiers, are acting like members of this tribe; so did the Pakistani lawyers who recently faced down house arrest and tear gas in their suits and judicial robes. Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, and Ida B. Wells, who risked their lives for liberty, acted like "Americans." When the crusading journalist Anna Politkovskaya insisted on reporting on war crimes in Chechnya, even though her informing her fellow citizens led -- as she knew it well could -- to her being gunned down on her doorstep as she went home to her fourteen-year-old daughter, she was acting like an American.13 When three JAG lawyers refused to sell out their detainee clients, they were being "Americans." When Vietnam vet David Antoon risked his career to speak out in favor of the Constitution's separation of church and state, he was being an "American." When journalist Josh Wolf went to jail rather than reveal a source, he was being an "American" too. Always, everywhere, the members of this tribe are fundamentally the same, in spite of the great deal that may divide them in terms of clothing and religion, language and culture. But when we quietly go about our business as our rights are plundered, when we yield to passivity and switch on the Wii and hand over our power to a leadership class that has no interest in our voice, we are not acting like true Americans. Indeed, at those moments we are essentially giving up our citizenship.The notion that "American-ness" is a state of mind -- a rigorous psychodynamic process or a continued personal challenge, rather than a static point on a map or an impressive display in a Fourth of July parade -- is not new. But we are so used to being raised on a rhetoric of cheap patriotism -- the kind that you get to tune in to in a feel-good way just because you were lucky enough to have been born here and can then pretty much forget about -- that this definition seems positively exotic. The founders understood "American-ness" in this way, though, not at all in our way.And today, I learned as I traveled, we are very far from experiencing this connection to our source. Many of us feel ourselves clouded within, cramped, baffled obscurely from without, not in alignment with the electric source that is liberty. So it is easy for us to rationalize always further and more aggressive cramping and clouding; is the government spying on us? Well...Okay...So now the telecommunications companies are asking for retroactive immunity for their spying on us? Well...Okay...Once a certain threshold of passivity has been crossed, it becomes easier and easier, as Benjamin Franklin warned, to trade liberty for a false security -- and deserve neither.What struck me on my journey was how powerless so many Americans felt to make change. Many citizens I heard from felt more hopeless than did citizens of some of the poorest and youngest democracies on the planet. Others were angrier than ever and were speaking up and acting up with fervor. I felt that all of us -- the hopeless and the hopeful -- needed to reconnect to our mentors, the founders, and to remind ourselves of the blueprint for freedom they meant us to inherit. I wrote this handbook with the faith that if Americans take personal ownership of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they can push back any darkness. The first two sections of this refresher guide to our liberties recall what America is supposed to be; the last third is a practical how-to for citizen leadership for a new American Revolution.There are concrete laws we must pass to restore liberty and actions we must take to safeguard it. You will find them in the last third of this handbook. But more crucial than any list of laws or actions is our own need to rediscover our role as American revolutionaries and to reclaim the "America" in ourselves -- in our consciousness as free men and women.Do we have the right to see ourselves this way? Absolutely. Many histories of our nation's founding focus on a small group, "a band of brothers" or "the Founding Fathers" -- the handful of illustrious men whose names we all know. This tight focus tends to reinforce the idea that we are the lucky recipients of the American gift of liberty and of the republic, not ourselves its stewards, crafters, and defenders. It prepares us to think of ourselves as the led, not as the leaders.But historians are also now documenting the stories of how in the pre-Revolutionary years, ordinary people -- farmers, free and enslaved Africans, washer-women, butchers, printers, apprentices, carpenters, penniless soldiers, artisans, wheelwrights, teachers, indentured servants -- were rising up against the king's representatives, debating the nature of liberty, fighting the war and following the warriors to support them, insisting on expanding the franchise, demanding the right to vote, compelling the more aristocratic leaders of the community to include them in deliberations about the nature of the state constitutions, and requiring transparency and accountability in the legislative process.14 Even enslaved Africans, those Americans most silenced by history, were not only debating in their own communities the implications or the ideas of God-given liberty that the white colonists were debating;15 they were also taking up arms against George III's men in hopes that the new republic would emancipate them. Some were petitioning state legislatures for their freedom; and others were even successfully bringing lawsuits against their owners, arguing in court for their inalienable rights as human beings.16 This is the revolutionary spirit that we must claim again for ourselves -- fast -- if we are to save the country.When Abraham Lincoln said that our nation was "conceived in Liberty"17 he was not simply phrasemaking; our nation was literally "conceived" by Enlightenment ideas that were becoming more and more current, waking up greater and greater numbers of ordinary people, and finally bearing on our own founders, known and unknown, with ever-stronger pressure.Key Enlightenment beliefs of the colonial era are these: human beings are perfectible; the right structures of society, at the heart of which is a representational government whose power derives from the consent of the governed, facilitate this continual evolution; reason is the means by which ordinary people can successfully rule themselves and attain liberty; the right to liberty is universal, God given, and part of a natural cosmic order, or "natural law"; as more and more people around the world claim their God-given right to liberty, tyranny and oppression will be pushed aside. It is worth reminding ourselves of these founding ideas at a time when they are under sustained attack.The core ideals, the essence, of what the founders imperfectly glimpsed, are perfect. I am often asked how I can so champion the writing and accomplishments of the better-known founders. Most of them were, of course, propertied, white, and male. Critics on the left often point out their flaws in relation to the very ideals they put forward. John Adams was never comfortable with true citizen democracy.18 "Jefferson's writings about race reveal that he saw Africans as innately deficient in humanity and culture."19 When a male slave escaped from Benjamin Franklin in England, Franklin sold him back into slavery.20 But the essence of the idea of liberty and equality that they codified -- an idea that was being debated and developed by men and women, black and white, of all classes in the pre-Revolutionary generation -- went further than such an idea had ever gone before. It is humanity's most radical blueprint for transformation.More important, the idea itself carries within it the moral power to correct the contradictions in its execution that were obvious from the very birth of the new nation. An enslaved woman, Mum Bett, who became a housekeeper for the Sedgwick family of Massachussetts, successfully sued for her own emancipation using the language of the Declaration of Independence;21 decades later a slave, Dred Scott, argued that he was "entitled to his freedom" as a citizen and a resident of a free state.22 The first suffragists at the Seneca Falls Convention, intent on securing equal rights for women, used the framework of the Declaration of Independence to advance their cause.23 New democracies in developing nations around the world draw on our founding documents and government structure to ground their own hopes for freedom. The human beings at the helm of the new nation, whatever their limitations, were truly revolutionary. The theory of liberty born in that era, the seed of the idea, was, as I say, perfect. We should not look to other revolutions to inspire us; nothing is more transformative than our own revolution. We must neither oversentimentalize it, as the right tends to do, nor disdain it, as the left tends to do; rather we must reclaim it.The stories I read and reread of the "spirit of 1776" led me with new faith to these conclusions: We are not to wait for others to lead. You and I are meant to take back the founders' mandate, and you and I are meant to lead. You and I must protest, you and I must confront our representatives, you and I must run for office, you and I must write the opeds, you and I must take over the battle. The founders -- the unknown as well as the well-known Americans who "conceived" the nation in liberty -- did not intend for us to delegate worrying about the Constitution to a cadre of constitutional scholars, or to leave debate to a class of professional pundits, or to leave the job of fighting for liberty to a caste of politicians. They meant for us to defend the Constitution, for us to debate the issues of the day, and for us to rise up against tyranny: the American who delivers the mail; the American who teaches our children; ordinary people.In my reading, I went back as if to contact our mentors. I looked for practical advice and moral support from those who had stood up for the ideal.We need a strategy for a new American uprising against those who would suppress our rights; we need what Lincoln would have called "a new birth of freedom."24 As readers of Tom Paine's Common Sense had to realize, we are not declaring war on an oppressor -- rather, we have to realize that the war has already, quietly, systemically, been declared against us.25 Today we have most of our rights still codified on paper -- but these documents are indeed "only paper" if we no longer experience them viscerally, if their violation no longer infuriates us. We can be citizens of a republic; we can have a Constitution and a Congress; but if we, the people, have fallen asleep to the meaning of the Constitution and to the radical implications of representative and direct democracy, then we aren't really Americans anymore.So we must listen to the original revolutionaries and to current ones as well, and explain their ideas clearly to new generations. To hear the voices of the original vision and the voices of those modern heroes, here in the U.S. and around the world, who are true heirs to the American Revolution is to feel your wishes change. "[Freedom] liberated us the day we stopped living in a world where 'truth' and 'falsehood' were, like everything else, the property of the State. And for the most part, this liberation did not stop when we were sentenced to prison," wrote Sharansky.26 "I was not born to be forced," wrote Henry David Thoreau. "I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest...they only can force me to obey a higher law than I."27 You want to stay in that room where these revolutionaries are conversing in this electrifying way among themselves. It feels painful but ultimately cleansing and energizing. You want to be more like them; then you realize that maybe you can be -- then finally you realize that you already are.Our "America," our Constitution, our dream, when properly felt within us, does more than "defend freedom." It clears space to build the society that allows for the highest possible development of who we ourselves personally were meant to be.We have to rise up in self-defense and legitimate rebellion. We need more drastic action than e-mails to Congress.We need the next revolution.Copyright 2008 by Naomi Wolf
Comedian Ellen DeGeneres has bought $100,000 of television airtime to urge Californians to vote to save the right to gay marriage in a November ballot, campaign organizers said on Friday.
Claiming that opponents of gay marriage are twisting the truth and trying to scare voters, DeGeneres will appeal in a television ad to vote for equality, compassion and fairness.
The chat show host and comic actress wed her long time partner, actress Portia de Rossi, in August in the most high-profile same-sex marriage since such unions were declared legal in California in May.
Her message will be broadcast on television as celebrities step up the fight to defeat Proposition 8 on the November4 state ballot that seeks to define marriage under the California constitution as only between a man and a woman.
"Hi, I'm Ellen DeGeneres. I got to do something this year I never thought I'd ever be able to do: I got married. It was the happiest day of my life. There are people out there raising millions of dollars to try and take that right away from me.
"You've seen their ads on TV. They're twisting the truth, and they're trying to scare you. I believe in fairness. I believe in compassion. I believe in equality for all people. Proposition 8 does not. Please, please, vote no on Prop. 8," the actress says in her appeal.
In recent weeks, opinion polls have shown a swing in the number of Californians who oppose same-sex marriage. Their campaign has raised $25.4 million, compared with $15.8 million for those who wish to maintain the right to gay marriage.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have stepped up their television advertising, warning that children will be taught about gay marriage in elementary schools.
Gay-marriage supporters call that argument misleading.
Singers Melissa Etheridge, who plans to marry partner Tammy Lynn Michaels, and Mary J. Blige will perform at a $25,000-a-plate dinner in Beverly Hills on Tuesday in support of the "No" campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_ai2LrgJ0
Pre-Election Message from Stewart A. Alexander Vice Presidential Nominee
Socialist Party USAThe 2008 General Election is only days away and millions of voters will have two choices to make; capitalism or socialism, and the voters’ choice for leadership will determine the destiny of the U.S. and world economy well beyond the next term of the U.S. president.The capitalists have two candidates with one agenda; to protect the profits and the wealth of the super rich. To the contrary, Socialist Party USA and Brian Moore stand for a fundamental transformation of the U.S. and world economy, focusing on production for need not profit. Brian Moore’s campaign is not about reforming the process, “the Moore campaign is about changing the process.”The economic changes that are being offered by the Moore/Alexander campaign are much broader than the New Deal that was introduced during the Roosevelt administration. Socialists believe only a global transformation from capitalism to democratic socialism will provide the conditions for international peace, justice, and economic cooperation based on the large-scale transfer of resources and technology from the developed to the developing countries.I am asking working people everywhere to vote for Brian Moore for president and Stewart A. Alexander for vice president and not to compromise your vote due to popular opinions or opinion polls. Much more is at stake than just the economy; our freedoms and our security as a nation.Every 75 years the capitalists ruling class devise an economic crisis which is always followed by a conflict between nations or a major war. We must end this cycle and support socialism and socialist candidates.In the upcoming General Election, “Get Out and Vote” for a new pathway for working people; vote for Brian Moore for President and Stewart A. Alexander for Vice President.Stewart A. AlexanderVice President NomineeSocialist Party USA, Moore/Alexander 2008
The troubled presidential debate for third-party candidates scheduled for Sunday at Columbia University in New York was canceled Friday after none of the four candidates had committed to the event.
"Due to circumstances beyond our control, several of the candidates decided not to participate in the debate at the last minute," said Lauren Salz, a student with the Columbia Political Union, which was hosting the debate.
Independent Ralph Nader, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin were expected to participate in what was billed as a "historic" event.
Barr claimed a conflict while McKinney opted for an online debate originally scheduled for that evening. Baldwin was reluctant to travel to New York. Nader was willing to participate, aides say, but, seeing the debate falling apart all week, held back.
McKinney, it turns out, also had another reason for staying in her hometown of Atlanta, said her running mate, Rosa Clemente. McKinney is attending the Black Panther Party annual reunion.
*
**The debate of 3rd-party candidates planned for Sunday afternoon was cancelled when everyone but Nader pulled out, for various reasons including schedule conflicts. A new date, with a different moderator, is tentatively set: Thursday 23 October 2008 in Washington DC, at 6 pm Pacific Daylight Time (9 pm Eastern). Some candidates have not yet confirmed, so the official announcement will not go out until tomorrow.
Dori's Channeled Messages and Astral AdventuresAs long as I have internet access, I usually update this blogsite Monday thru Friday, excluding holidays, and keep the last ten (or more) out here before I delete them. Want these blogs emailed to you? Just EMAIL me(see below). If you stay on my email list 30 days, you are entitled to one free personal question from my sources.
Year 2008 Day 291 October 17: A Message from Seth
Beginning Comments:
Soon after I published my latest blog, the doctor's office called.It seems that the specialist wasn't all that 'up-front' with me and I do have some disc bulges in the neck area.As they weren't 'surgical candidates', in his mind I suppose they were not important enough to mention.They are to my MD/osteopath, however, who wants me to see him to talk about them.
This week, on a whim, I sent a query to a literary agent, who actually took the time to read a few of my blogs. To make a long story short, this one took a look at my blogs and sent back a two line comment that made me feel like another 'nutcase'.
That I wasn't expecting.Rejection is one thing 'nutcase' pictures are another, and opens up some nasty wounds, but I have learned from this. In this day and age, there are a lot of self-publishing companies on the internet that do not require authors to endure the gauntlet of mainstream literary expectations, and, for me, this experience is a sign I would be better off avoiding that reality.
I am sure that the agent was not, in any way, consciously cruel the literary market is pretty dog-eat-dog, the people involved in it get all kinds of queries, some from people really off the 'deep end', and are likely to get very thick-skinned.
But I will take responsibility for having left blogs out on the blogspot.com site for months (3 surgeries and chronic back pain have left me derelict in some areas, such as keeping the number of blogs in history down to no more than 20). Unfortunately, since January of this year, I have posted a smorgasbord of blogs which bounce all over the place, and I realize that anyone reading them without knowing my background and intent could easily think I was another 'nutcase'.
This person had corresponded to the late Jane Roberts until she died, and with Robert Butts, her husband, who I hear died last year at the age of 87, so it is also possible that he is not familiar with some of the psychic exploration dynamics that have been happening since then.
As I review some of my postings, I realize I have not spoken much about the Seth stuff vs. the other stuff I have learned since Jane's passing in1984 (only about 30 of my 700+ postings even mention Seth or Jane Roberts). I also have some wonderful stories from that time of my life. So, unless more important issues intervene, I am going to add a 'Seth Segment' to my Psychic Methodology series, because it was the books Jane wrote that gave me hope that I wasn't a total 'nutcase'.
To begin this process, I have put out a request to Seth itself to be a 'guest speaker'.I have seen Seth 'around' a couple of times during my lifetime (I will tell the story about how I can identify it in a later posting).
As I put out this request,I need to be very clear that Seth and Jane 'contracted' to work together, that I have a very different 'filter' from Jane, and do not claim to have the connection both she and her husband had to this being.
But this is okay.I am not planning to channel the Seth entity, all I want to do is interview it.As a paranormal 'cub reporter' of sorts there is no harm in that.Preliminary connections suggest that I will only be connecting with it on abeing-to-being level, which anyone can do as long as one keeps one's ego and any levels of self importance out of the way. Self importance is a physical reality trait which most beings find somewhat distasteful. That is not a judgment of any sort, just a reaction to the energy.
Seth is a good teacher and my seems willing to connect as long as we both understand this is a one-time connection, and we both understand that I am not, in any way or form, expecting to become the next Jane Roberts.
Actually, it was Seth, in one of his books, who mentioned that a transitioned person (let me add to that astral traveler) has the right to meet anyone they considered a 'celebrity' while they were alive.I would add a caveat to that, however.These beings might turn out to be somewhat different from what one expects for a variety of reasons.
As an astral traveler, this has been my experience the few times I have run into 'famous' personalities and/or entities.
As this is a time in our spiritual development where more and more people are learning both how to cross between realities, and to get in touch with transitioned relatives, celebrities, spirit guides and/or religious figures, this is something to keep in mind.
I don't want to get into this subject deeply today, but I can telepathically see some questions coming at me already. So I will say this: it seems the closer a person was to the transitioned person or being, the more it will appear as remembered. But if, for instance, ones intent was to find Mozart, one might find the being very different from how people perceived him three centuries ago.
By the way, I am very comfortable with my 'cub reporter' role, one that interviews beings and takes 'snap-shots' of places from various nonphysical perspectives.I like it especially because it keeps me out of the 'guru' role. If those that read my postings don't like the 'fuzziness' in the pictures or my interpretation of the interviews, I encourage them to take out their cameras and notepads and do their own investigations. Actually, I write these postings for that reason to encourage individual paranormal exploration.
In spite of the risks of mainstream literary rejection, and being seen as a 'nutcase',this kind of work makes me feel as I am connected with my life's purpose.One of the perks I gained from the Monroe MC2 seminar was the time to sit back and look at what I am doing, and realize that, for the first time in my life, I am in line with my purpose and my goals.Though there are challenges remaining (and I am sure there always will be), I gain comfort in the work I do.
Unlike others before me, it is not a 'dramatic' purpose and does not introduce an 'ignorant' world to great new concepts and ideas. But I am one who sometimes introduces little ideas, and who has had training in a variety of systems and therefore can integrate paranormal concepts from different schools of thought.
At this point, I am giving the 'floor' to Seth. (One post dictation comment Seth always referred to Jane as Ruburt and her husband Rob as Joseph).
Beginning Time: MDT 10/16/2008 6:23 PM Location: Loveland, Co
Dictation:
"Good Evening!
Your normal greeting is within your construct and not mine.
You have contacted me with the implicit purpose of an interview, but this is something I would rather not do.Instead, I wish to only send a message.
There are too many who wish to contact me for their own grandiose purposes. In your case, your intent is for teaching purposes, not glory, but I have no desire to 'open the door', even a crack.Like Ruburt, who has incorporated with me, I respect my privacy.
So the message I wish to give to physical reality is that my connection with it, in terms set up between Ruburt, Joseph and myself, died the day that Ruburt transitioned.
There are many fine contacts that one can call on that are active with mediums living in physical reality.
I am no longer one of them, and I am grateful that you can understand that.
Anyone who wants to visit me after transitioning is more than welcome.
But, at this time, my efforts are concentrating on teaching in nonphysical reality, and I would prefer to keep it that way.
My Blessings to you all,
The entity Ruburt called Seth"
Ending Time: MDT 10/16/2008 6:28 PM
Ending Comments:
This was a surprise at one level, but not at another. Perhaps it will help any present day channelers who think they are 'bringing through' Seth, but are actually channeling beings who find it convenient to call themselves a name that will make the medium in question feel 'more important'; this is dangerous and, unfortunately, all too common.
What many don't know is that there are some entities that will use whatever means possible to get into a physical body. Unfortunately, they tend to damage both the medium and those who come in contact with it, so my caveat to anyone visiting a medium is to listen to its words less and check out the energy more particularly if the beings claim to be an 'incarnation' of a well-known spirit guide.
Some of you might have noticed that the Seth message was rather blunt.This is another quality one runs into over on the 'other side'.Nonphysical entities are polite, caring, and helpful but also say what they mean sometimes without the societal niceties of physical reality.
15/10/08For those of us who are antiwar, anti-government spying, anti-torture/rendition, and in favor of improving the lives of working people, this election season has been a nightmare. Most presidential elections are awful -- months/years of commericials, punditry, and lying -- but this year is particularly terrible.Contrary to the accepted "wisdom" of the electoral experts, Americans are not so divided as we might seem. More than 80 percent of us oppose the war in Iraq, with the majority wanting immediate withdrawl (not "redeployment"). Larger majorities want an end to government wiretapping (and vociferously opposed the wiretapping immunity bill), a scaled-back military budget, and universal health care that excludes the insurance industry. Further, almost no one outside the beltway or the NY financial district bought into the "crisis" that mandated a $850 billion bailout for Wall Street.These are not complicated positions, but we are given the "choice" between John "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain and Barack "Threats in 100 different countries" Obama. McCain is beyond the pale for any but the proto-fascists among us, and even they have reservations about his health and sanity. But to question whether the potential ascension of "Saint Barack" is a good thing, to put into the play of questions of his militarism and support for authoritarianism at home, or to outright oppose his candidacy based on lies and war-mongering, is to invite the wrath of the "good liberal" majority.Beginning with his 2004 convention speech when he called for "missile strikes" against Iran and Pakistan, through his 2008 convention speech imploring America to recognize the "threats of tomorrow," Mr. Obama has based his candidacy no less on fear and militarism than the dreaded Republicans. After explaining to a liberal friend that Mr. Obama called for an additional 92,000 troops for the military, for expansion of the genocide in Afghanistan into Pakistan, and an accelerated war on terror in 100 countries (up from Cheney's 60-country target list), she simply nodded and said, "This is what you have to say to get elected." Say what?I see. To appeal to the mass of the electorate, you have to take positions they oppose. This twisted "logic" would also seem to include supporting the Wall Street bailout and the wiretapping bill, in which Obama invested significant time and energy. In my naivete, I thought that any compromise geared toward "winning the election" by this logic meant taking populist positions that a candidate might otherwise not adopt. Yet here, Mr. Obama takes anti-populist positions to...win the election?A candidate for office can only be judged on what he/she says he believes and says he will do, and on his/her track recrod. We have nothing else. In the case of Obama, we are supposed to believe he says and acts on motives other than his core beliefs for unstated other reasons. This is, I respectfully submit, nonsense.When he voted for the wiretap bill, he said he wanted to have all "necessary tools" at his disposal for an Obama presidency. When he calls for more "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan, or for "missile strikes" in Pakistan, or "keeping the nuclear option on the table" in Iran, he means what he is saying. His vision is of an imperial America on the march, waging war in pursuit of unspecified "threats" with a bigger, better managed military. That vision includes domestic spying and austerity budgets for the foreseeable future.So where does this leave that part of America that opposes wars of aggression, torture, extraordinary rendition, and the war on terror? Where does it leave people who want to resist domestic wiretapping or oppose sacrificing our futures for Wall Street profits? I know thedrill: hold your nose and vote Democratic ...again.No, not this time, and never again. The majority of us do not have a dog in this billion-dollar electoral fight, and the majority will not vote at all, and why should they? If McCain wins, more war and more austerity. If Obama wins, even more war and even more austerity, but with no political opposition. By November 5, the same people will be controlling our lives, regardless of the election outcome. Real power never gets voted out of office. It must be confronted and overturned.--P Jerome is a civil rights attorney in Washington, DC
Mexican federal police arrested five Oaxacan activists on Thursday afternoon. At least two were arrested for supposedly murdering US citizen and Indymedia journalist Brad Will on October 27, 2006.
Brad Will was assassinated while reporting and filming the 2006 uprising in Oaxaca. Multiple witnesses say he was shot by paramilitaries who are seen in photos shooting towards Will. The paramilitaries are: Juan Carlo Soriano, municipal police officer; Manuel Aguilar, council personnel chief; Able Santiago Zarate; and Pedro Carmona, mayor of Felipe Carrillo Puerto de Santa Lucia del Camino.
The government claims that Will was shot at close range, therefore implicating the APPO activists around him. To prove this claim, the government at one point stated that the autopsy found powder burns on Will's body consistent with a close-range shooting. However, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy contradicted this claim, saying he did not find powder burns on Will's body.
The man the government accuses of being the intelectual author of Will's murder is Juan Manuel Martínez Moreno. Martínez Moreno has supported the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO in its Spanish initials). Martínez Moreno made headlines in 2007 when he was kidnapped along with two other APPO members while performing election observation in Santa Lucía del Camino, where Will was murdered in October 2006. The kidnappers beat the three APPOistas severely in the face and abdomen under a bridge and then dumped them in a community 38 kilometers from Oaxaca City.
Police also acknowledged arresting Octavio Perez Perez for covering up the crime. Perez participated in the 2006 uprising in Oaxaca.
The Angry White Kid blog reports that three other activists have been arrested: Lirio Lopez, Miguel Lopez, and Guadalupe (last name unknown). It is unknown if these activists are also accused of Will's murder or if the arrests are part of a larger crackdown on dissent in Oaxaca.
According to Angry White Kid: "Activists here first learned of the detention of Juan and joined his family this evening at the Penitenciaria Central de Santa Maria Ixcotel, Oaxaca. Juan's mother and wife have not been allowed in to see him. Later it was learned four others had been detained. A planton is planned at the Ixcotel penal beginning at 9am on Friday."
APPO activists and members of the Indigenous Popular Council of Oaxaca (CIPO) say the government is blaming activists for Will's murder in order to cover up its own involvement in the crime.
Unusually for me, a brief tangential comment on a political action.
I just discovered that a friend of mine, of deep religious persuasion, is enthusiastically in support of California’s Proposition 8, a voter initiative to amend their state constitution essentially to abolish same-sex marriages.
Without attempting to dive into the complex fray of the conflict among religious, social, political, and sexual beliefs, I just wanted to quote two authors who represent my views on sexual orientation.
In this correspondence with other practitioners, Hermetic practitioner Rawn Clark writes,
Is homosexuality an Elemental imbalance?
It is only we humans who divide sexuality into hetero-, homo- and bi-. This has nothing to do with sexuality itself since all species that express sexuality, naturally express all three of these human-defined types. Sexuality is sexuality, period, and its sub-type is not a matter of differing Elemental balances.
Sexuality is an aspect of the mental body. As the mental body incarnates, it seeks out a life circumstance that best expresses its nature and which will lead to the learning of the lessons needed during that incarnation. It is fundamental and not a matter of mundane choice that arises during the incarnation itself. With the human being, each type of sexuality brings a specific set of life lessons because we are social creatures who live within the context of specific culture. In human culture, a homosexual faces a very different experience than a heterosexual.
Sexual orientation is not an issue of Elemental balance. Where Elemental balance comes into play is in the individual’s response to, and enactment of, their sexuality, whether that be hetero-, homo- or bisexuality. This is the arena of concern so far as the impact of sexual orientation upon the Hermetic path.
A heterosexual person is no more or less suited to spirituality and Hermetics than a homosexual and vise versa.
Can a Homosexual person advance in the path to perfection or is that something they have to overcome?
Homosexuality, like hetero- and bisexuality, is not something to be overcome. The path of self-perfecting is built upon being your true self as completely and as clearly as possible. Since sexuality and sexual orientation are fundamental qualities that an individual possesses, striving for perfection would necessarily include manifesting one’s sexuality in a self-defined positive way. This is true regardless of one’s sexual orientation, and the specific type of sexual orientation makes this process no harder or easier than another. In other words, homosexuality itself presents no unique barriers to following a spiritual path. A bi- or homosexual individual faces the same basic issues of positivizing their sexual expression as does a heterosexual individual.
It’s only a recent judgement that homosexuality is something to be “overcome”… In many cultures (native American, Hindu) homosexuality was either accepted without comment or considered a spiritual asset. In particular, the berdache (cross-dressing homosexual) of the native Americans generally took the roll of diviner, healer, or shaman.
This is true of the majority of earth-based cultures. I know of one such culture on the African continent who consider homosexuals to be the spiritual “gatekeepers”. The impact that Gay people have had throughout the ages upon human culture is largely unrecognized by the heterosexual majority. Gay culture and Gay people are a powerful force in human mimetic evolution. ["Mimetic evolution" is a scientific term for the evolution of ideas and culture. For humans, this aspect of evolution plays an especially important role in the survival of our species and is, in many cases, now superceding our genetic evolution.]
So in my “opinion” I suggest not only is homosexuality not a sin to overcome, but perhaps even that many homosexual people are more spiritually centered and complete in their nature. Likewise the fear based fundamentalist show a real lack of spiritual maturity.
In my experience, one’s sexual orientation has little to do with their centeredness or their sense of completeness. One advantage that the Gay person does have however, is a direct experience of the ugly under-belly of society. The advantage here is that there’s perhaps less to un-learn! But the same can be said of anyone who lives with a barrage of constant prejudice and discrimination, such as women, the “over-weight”, the physically deformed, people of color, etc., etc. The ones at a true disadvantage in this regard, are white heterosexual men!
And from Seth’s book The Nature of the Psyche: Its Human Expression, by Jane Roberts:
The love and cooperation that forms the basis of all life … shows itself in many ways. Sexuality represents one aspect, and an important one. In larger terms, it is as natural for a man to love a man, and for a woman to love a woman, as it is to show love for the opposite sex. For that matter, it is more natural to be bisexual. Such is the “natural” nature of the species …
Heterosexual love is one important expression of bisexuality, and sexually represents the reproductive abilities. Heterosexuality, however, rests upon the bisexual basis, and without man’s bisexual nature, the larger frameworks of the family — the clan, tribe, government, civilization — would be impossible.
… Deeper bonds of biological and spiritual love lie at the basis of all personal and cultural relationships, a love that transcends your ideas of sexuality. Heterosexual love, as it is understood at least, gives you a family of parents and children — an important unit, about which other groups form. If only stereotyped ideas of female-male relationships operated, however, there would be no bond or stimulus great enough to forge one family to another. The antagonism between males would be too great. Competition between females would be too severe. Wars would wipe out struggling tribes before any traditions were formed.
In the social world as in the microscopic one,, cooperation again is paramount. Only a basic bisexuality could give the species the leeway necessary, and prevent stereotyped behavior of a kind that would hamper creativity and social commerce. That basic sexual nature allows you the fulfillment of individual abilities, so that the species does not fall into extinction. Man’s recognition of his bisexual nature is, therefore, a must in his future.
There are, again, obvious differences between the sexes. They are insignificant, and appear large only because you concentrate so upon them. The great human qualities of love, strength, compassion, intellect and imagination do not belong to one sex or the other.
Only an understanding of this inherent bisexual nature will release those qualities in each individual, regardless of sex …
Any deep exploration of the self will lead you into areas that will confound conventional beliefs about sexuality. You will discover an identity, a psychological and psychic identity, that is in your terms male and female, one in which those abilities of each sex are magnified, released, and expressed. They may not be so released in normal life, but you will meet the greater dimensions of your own reality, and at least in the dream state catch a glimpse of the self that transcends a one-sex orientation.
President Bush, as part of his ongoing diplomatic feud with the government of Bolivia, has now decided to take aim at the jobs of more than 20,000 innocent Bolivian workers. It is a mistake – morally, diplomatically and economically. It adds one more episode of turning innocent people into collateral damage, from an administration that has delivered such damage in abundance.
We have to stop him.
A Trade Agreement Everyone Likes
Nearly two decades ago, under President Bush’s father, the U.S. began the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPDEA). That program offers Bolivia and a handful of other Latin American nations reduced U.S. tarriffs, allowing them to develop new industries and jobs exporting products such as textiles and handmade furniture. For the U.S., the aim is to create opportunities for employment as an to alternative to growing coca for the illegal drug market.
In September, as part of the Bush administration’s diplomatic battles with Bolivian President Evo Morales, President Bush announced that he will use his executive authority to axe Bolivia out of those trade preferences.
The actual victims of President Bush’s move, however, won’t be President Morales, but women and men who eke out modest livings as weavers, jewelry-makers and carpenters, creating products for U.S. markets. The U.S. Congress knows that, and just two weeks ago approved a six-month extension for Bolivia. But yesterday in Washington President Bush repeated his intent to sidestep Congress and use his powers to cut Bolivian workers out of the program.
Listen to the Voices of the People who Will be Affected by Bush’s Plan
We profiled some of these workers for our new book, Dignity and Defiance, and after President Bush’s announcement last month we traveled out across Bolivia to ask them how his threat would affect their lives. Today we have posted a five-minute video of their own words on our website. We hope that you will take a moment to listen to what they have to say, here.
We also demanded and won the right to have their video testimony from Bolivia played next week in Washington when the Bush administation holds the public hearing required by law before he implements his plan. Administration officials told us that this will be the first time that video testimony like this has been played in such a proceeding.
On October 23 in Washington, those officials will hear directly from people like Joaquín Aquino, a carpenter in his 50s who hand-makes furniture for the U.S. market and Natalia Alanoca Condori, a 28-year-old mother who makes clothing sold in American stores. These are the people, along with thousands others like them, who will be the real victims of President Bush’s actions against Bolivia.
What You Can Do to Help
We have an opportunity and an obligation to these workers to take action and help stop President Bush’s plan. Here are three simple ways that you can help:
1. Share this request for action with others
All across the United States there are people and organizations that care about making U.S. policy in Latin America more just. Help us spread the word about the need to act on this now, by forwarding this email to others.
2. Sign the Democracy Center’s online petition
You can directly add your voice to the campaign to stop President Bush’s threat against Bolivian workers. In less than sixty seconds right now you can add your name to an online petition that the Democracy Center will be submitting as part of the formal public record against Bush’s anti-Bolivia policy. Sign that petition here. If your organization wants to join the petition please send us an email telling us so at: Bolivia@democracyctr.org.
We need your petition endorsements no later than midnight October 30.
3. Submit Formal Comments to the Bush Administration
If you or your organization want to do more, federal law guarantees the right to submit formal comments to the Bush administration’s Trade Representative. To do that you must submit your comments by e-mail no later than 5pm on October 31. Those comments must be sent in the form of an attachment and must include the subject line, “Review of Bolivia’s Designation as a Beneficiary Country Under the ATPA and ATPDEA.” The address is: FR0812@ustr.eop.gov. You must also include in the attachment a cover letter with your name, address, telephone number and e-mail address.
Even if we can’t make President Bush back down on his plan to put Bolivians out of work, taking action now helps build the case for Congress and the new President to reverse it. Those leaders need to see that people in the U.S. care about this issue.
Raising Up Voices from Latin America
President Bush’s move against the Bolivian people is just one more example of how we, as citizens, need to not only change leaders but also change the political winds that drive U.S. policy toward Latin America. To help do that the Democracy Center is launching a new campaign – Voices from Latin America.
Voices from Latin America marries new technology and old-fashioned organizing to build a bridge between citizens in the U.S. and Latin America. It is a platform from which we can work together to help educate one another and take joint action, like the one we are starting today on Bush’s assault on Bolivian workers. On the website you will find:
Briefing papers (in English and Spanish) on some of the main issues in U.S./Latin America relations, on topics such as trade, the ‘U.S. war on drugs’, and immigration.
Video testimonies from across the region in which people tell how U.S. policy affects their lives and their nations.
As citizens we have to be educated and involved in U.S foreign policy in ways that we never have before. That includes making sure that the people in other countries who are so affected by what the U.S. does have their voices heard in the U.S. Help us do that by visiting the Voices from Latin America web site.
Jim Schultz writes for the Democracy Center On-line
There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list of those deserving thanks know who they are.
I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they lookforward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.
So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don't worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer's company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.
I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life - where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management - with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.
On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government. Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man's interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft's near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.
Lastly, while I still have an audience, I would like to bring attention to an alternative food and energy source. You won't see it included in BP's, "Feel good. We are working on sustainable solutions," television commercials, nor is it mentioned in ADM's similar commercials. But hemp has been used for at least 5,000 years for cloth and food, as well as just about everything that is produced from petroleum products. Hemp is not marijuana and vice versa. Hemp is the male plant and it grows like a weed, hence the slang term. The original American flag was made of hemp fiber and our Constitution was printed on paper made of hemp. It was used as recently as World War II by the U.S. Government, and then promptly made illegal after the war was won. At a time when rhetoric is flying about becoming more self-sufficient in terms of energy, why is it illegal to grow this plant in this country? Ah, the female. The evil female plant - marijuana. It gets you high, it makes you laugh, it does not produce a hangover. Unlike alcohol, it does not result in bar fights or wife beating. So, why is this innocuous plant illegal? Is it a gateway drug? No, that would be alcohol, which is so heavily advertised in this country. My only conclusion as to why it is illegal, is that Corporate America, which owns Congress, would rather sell you Paxil, Zoloft, Xanax and other addictive drugs, than allow you to grow a plant in your home without some of the profits going into their coffers. This policy is ludicrous. It has surely contributed to our dependency on foreign energy sources. Our policies have other countries literally laughing at our stupidity, most notably Canada, as well as several European nations (both Eastern and Western). You would not know this by paying attention to U.S. media sources though, as they tend not to elaborate on who is laughing at the United States this week. Please people, let's stop the rhetoric and start thinking about how we can truly become self-sufficient.
Love is universal migraine,
A bright stain on the vision
Blotting out reason.
Symptoms of true love
Are leanness, jealousy,
Laggard dawns;
Are omens and nightmares -
Listening for a knock,
Waiting for a sign:
For a touch of her fingers
In a darkened room,
For a searching look.
Take courage, lover!
Could you endure such pain
At any hand but hers?
I got my absentee ballot this week, and I voted first on the state propositions because they matter more to me than any office. I left the presidential vote to the very end. When it came time for it, I just couldn't do it—I could not vote for Obama.
For me it is not about Obama vs. McCain. I consider each candidate on his or her own merits, not by comparison to the opponent. It basically came down to my conscience and Obama's own statements. I can't in good conscience vote for a candidate that supports military action in other countries. As Obama has repeatedly said, he will use military force in Pakistan if the government is unwilling or unable to combat the "militants," and he wants to increase our military presence in Afghanistan. When innocent civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan begin to die as "collateral damage," I do not want blood on my hands.
Obama does not represent real change, as many of you believe. He definitely does not stand for the kind of change I want to see. He will not work to abolish the death penalty, institute same-sex marriage rights, get rid of the Federal Reserve and eliminate the federal income tax on wages (we wouldn't this kind of tax of we get rid of the Federal Reserve system), withdraw our troops from ALL military bases around the world, and put an end to the Electoral College, among many others. Therefore, why would I vote for a candidate that does not stand for my beliefs? Only to prevent the another candidate from winning? That's not a good enough reason for me. I do not vote out of fear nor guilt.
I voted for Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzales of the Peace and Freedom Party. And just in case you were wondering, if Nader was not on the ballot, I still would not have voted for Obama. Nader did not "steal" Obama's vote. Obama did not get my vote simply because he is not my candidate. I did not vote for the Green Party because I don't trust them anymore after what happened in 2004 (running a "safe" campaign to help Kerry win, which was unacceptable to me).
A very close friend of mine said that he feared Obama would win and then be a disappointment by turning out to be just another politician. I'm sorry to say, but I believe that is exactly what will happen. I really hope I'm wrong.
Third-party candidates found a forum for debate last Monday night in the Thimann 1 lecture hall at UC Santa Cruz. The debate, organized by the UCSC College Democrats, featured representatives from five of the six presidential candidates who will appear on the ballot next month.
The debate featured three sections: the economy, the wars/foreign policy and domestic policy. Each representative was given 90 seconds to respond to the questions, which were chosen by the moderator, with up to three 30-second rebuttals after.
Bill Anderson, representing Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, opened the floor with a Ron Paul endorsement, followed by a call to action.
“If you don’t like Ron Paul or Bob Barr I urge you, don’t vote at all,” he said.
This middle-aged Barr representative intends to write in Paul on the ballot come Election Day.
The Peace and Freedom Party’s Louis LaFortune spoke on behalf of Ralph Nader, several times expressing outrage at the war and U.S. foreign policy.
“There is no war on terror,” LaFortune said. “The U.S. is probably the biggest purveyor of terror in the world.”
Third-year student John Williams was not far behind, representing the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney.
Williams pushed his candidate’s policy of instating green jobs and eliminating corporate power over natural resources.
“We’ve allowed corporate interests to rape and pillage across the globe,” Williams said.
The event, in the 100-capacity lecture hall, had a good turnout, with an audience ready to ask questions. The representatives sat in a line in front of the audience, coincidentally left-to-right in line with each’s political stances.
Health care was an important issue on the agenda. LaFortune condemned the “pay-or-die system” that forces Americans into paying for expensive private insurance in order to have health care coverage.
“It’s a cliché,” he said. “If you don’t have your health, you don’t have anything.”
Obama representative and recent UCSC graduate Heather Stephens gave standard Obama answers, skirting the issue of same-sex marriage by citing separation of church and state.
“The traditional definition of marriage doesn’t have any place in these debates,” Stephens said.
Stephens worked on Joe Biden’s presidential campaign before the Democratic National Convention nominated Obama. She was optimistic about the Obama ticket’s capacity to effect change in this country.
“Change comes in excruciatingly tiny steps in our government,” she said.
Stephens defended Obama against criticism of his current stance on the economy.
“In a crisis like this one, we’re often confronted with a lot of bad choices,” she said.
McCain spokesperson Derrick Seaver, a member of the Santa Cruz County GOP Central Committee, defended his candidate in clear terms, arguing for nuclear power and the United States’ role as a global leader in the war on terror.
Amanda Ryland, a first-year politics major who attended the event, said she believes third-party candidates should have a chance to be involved in debates and politics.
“I didn’t know too much about the third-party candidates,” Ryland said. “I liked what they were saying, but I like what Barack Obama has to say better.”
As Election Day draws near, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama repeatedly have focused their attention on such key foreign policy issues as the Iraq War and the global financial crisis. U.S. policy toward Latin America, on the other hand, has been notoriously absent from figuring in recent presidential debates or stump speeches, as both candidates seek to win over last-minute voters by reiterating their campaign platforms on domestic and foreign policy topics of high public concern. An exception to this was Obama’s brief reference to the Colombian government’s seeming indifference to the killing of labor leaders in that country with impunity, mentioned in the last presidential debate.
Nonetheless, Barack Obama has developed his policy agenda on U.S.-Latin American relations throughout the course of his presidential campaign. Beginning with an appearance at the Cuban-American National Foundation in May 2008, he set forth the proposal that the U.S. should foster a new era of hemispheric relations based upon mutual understanding and respect for national sovereignty. Similarly, the Senate voting record of vice presidential candidate Joe Biden reveals his position on regional matters, which over the years has seldom strayed from a standard approach to regional issues. This is not to suggest that there was a golden age sometime in the past when pundits came forth with erudite perceptions on how to advance enlightened U.S. regional policies fostering constructive engagement and a quest for equality and social justice.
The Obama Platform on Latin America
America is not only a member of the hemispheric chorus, but a player as well. Barack Obama’s first serious effort at exhibiting a position on U.S. policy toward Latin America occurred in May 2008. Following an appearance at the Cuban-American National Foundation, a conservative Miami exile group, Obama released his 13-page “A New Partnership for the Americas” plan, which outlines three major regional policy issues that his administration would tackle if elected to office: (1) political freedom/democracy, (2) freedom from fear/security, and (3) freedom from want/opportunity.
Obama’s aim to foster political freedom within the hemisphere relies on the necessity of governments to address the needs of their people “in a democratic and sustainable way.” Obama has stated that he will promote the expansion and reform of democratic institutions, and has stressed that the U.S. must work with democratic-left governments (including Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez). U.S.-Latin American relations under the Bush administration have languished as a result of “a misguided foreign policy with a myopic focus in Iraq…its policy in the Americas has been negligent to our friends,” Obama says. The U.S. must now re-establish a relationship with Latin America based on its willingness to promote democratic development, and abandon the tradition of supporting only those regimes which directly advance the U.S.’s narrowly defined national interests. In addition, according to the candidate, the U.S. must refrain from tying personal relationships to foreign policy initiatives, as epitomized by President Bush’s close ties with his ideological soul-mate, Colombia’s President Uribe. According to Obama, the strengthening of democracy will at its core address the protection of human rights, as well as support the rejection of de facto coups and autocratic practices. The U.S. will foster democratic institutions by strengthening democracy at home – habeas corpus will be restored, Guantanamo Bay will be closed, and torture and indefinite detention will end. Within Latin America, strong civil societies, accountable police forces, and organizational transparency will be promoted. Nonetheless, critics on the left of Obama’s Latin America program contend that his proposals neglect to effectively engage some of the most challenging new developments emerging in the hemisphere, despite the fact that Obama has attempted to break with prevailing U.S. policy toward the region in several fundamental ways.
Obama views Cuba as a case in point for the strengthening of democratic institutions in the Americas. He will work to free up the sending of remittances from family members in the U.S. to relatives on the island and the right to travel to the island by Cuban-Americans. He believes that the “empower[ment] of the Cuban people” should be prioritized in order to reduce their dependence upon the regime. Yet, Obama does not support a clear end to the U.S. embargo on Cuba, which he believes should remain in place to act as leverage in encouraging positive democratic change on the island. This same sense of caution reflects his thinking on Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela for which he has used somewhat harsh language to distance his campaign from Chavez’s fierce populism. With respect to U.S.-Cuba relations, critics of Obama’s Latin America platform cite that the Democratic candidate is lagging well behind the leading edge of revisionist thinking on the issue now taking place in this country.
Criminality
According to Obama, U.S.-Latin American security policy should focus on the issues of transnational gangs, violence, drugs, and organized crime. Gang activity has proliferated throughout the Central American countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, and into Mexico, and its impact has spilled over into U.S. civil society. The Democratic presidential candidate says he will step up U.S. security efforts in Central America to stem the flow of gang-related crime and narcotrafficking, as well as formulate regional strategic cooperation on personal security issues. The professionalizing of the police and judicial branches of these countries should be emphasized, corruption targeted for abatement, and a hemispheric pact on security issues signed. In breaking with more traditional views of U.S.-Latin American policy, which tend to view drug and arms trafficking, illegal immigration, and gang activity as agenda items which must be addressed by the U.S.’s southern neighbors, Obama realizes the need to create a “comprehensive strategy on regional crime that addresses the U.S.’s contribution to the problem.”
In dealing with security measures, Obama highlights the crucial roles of Mexico and Colombia in promoting regional cooperation. Mexico plays a central role in the production and shipment of drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines; Obama supports the continuation and expansion of the newly implemented Merida Initiative in order to roll back rampant violence, corruption, and drug and arms trafficking throughout the region. He believes that security cooperation should extend beyond U.S.-Central American relations to include further security measures developed in the rest of Latin America. He has committed himself to combat the Mexican drug cartels, and establish relations with other Latin American countries to decrease both the supply and demand for drugs. Additionally, he supports the continuance of U.S. aid to Colombia to fight narcotrafficking and strengthen civilian institutions. He also has defended Colombia’s recent incursion into a FARC guerrilla camp based in Ecuador, stating that Colombia has a “right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders.” Commentators argue that Obama has ignored the human rights violations countenanced by the Uribe government as well as its highly qualified and quasi-democratic regime, which include scandals involving both his own political party and right-wing death squads that still operate in the country.
Barack Obama’s stance on economic development in the Western Hemisphere centers on an increase in U.S. foreign aid, vocational training, micro-finance, and community development-which is little better than a conservative development plan. He will attempt to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, will work to decrease the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and increase global education. He will cancel the debts of Paraguay, Guyana, St. Lucia, Bolivia, Haiti, and Honduras, as well as those of other countries around the world which have been designated as “heavily-indebted poor countries.” Obama will seek to reform the IMF and World Bank, and establish fair trade that promotes labor and environmental standards. In addition, the WTO will be encouraged to enforce mutually advantageous trade agreements. Obama opposed CAFTA and a U.S.-Colombia FTA, and will seek to amend the provisions of NAFTA to increase its benefits for American workers.
The Democratic candidate believes that the U.S. immigration system must be reformed by creating tighter border security and ensuring a just path to citizenship which “reaffirm[s] our heritage as a nation of immigrants.” He seeks to work with Latin America on addressing climate change and energy security, taking particular note of expanding the partnership with Brazil to share technology, develop markets for biofuels, and create greener methods of energy consumption. Other important measures that the Obama administration must deal with include the preservation of the Amazon rainforest and the fight against deforestation through economic incentives.
What about Joe Biden?
Several of Barack Obama’s proposals consistently agree with those long entertained by Joe Biden. Like Obama, Biden disagrees with the detainment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. He believes that the rules of NAFTA must be reformed, and has opposed the FTA with Central America. Biden asserts that free trade agreements must include provisions for labor rights and environmental standards, echoing Obama’s arguments for fair trade. Washington Post staffer Marcela Sanchez’s recent article reports Biden’s concern over the rampant inequality faced throughout Latin American society, an issue also addressed by Obama in his “A New Partnership for the Americas” plan. According to Sanchez, Biden maintains that he “has fought to address the root cause of the…instability that has plagued the region, particularly in recent years: social inequality.”
On immigration reform, Obama and Biden seek to increase border security as well as enact provisions to absorb undocumented workers and their families presently living in the U.S. Similarly, both voted to create a 700-mile long fence along the U.S.-Mexico border under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Biden and Obama agree that the U.S. should ease up on restrictions limiting remittances and travel to Cuba for Cuban-Americans, as well as promote the development of small business on the island, without actually lifting the embargo. Both Biden and Obama are supporters of continued aid to Colombia, under the terms of Plan Colombia.
Analysis of the Democratic Platform: A Brighter Future for U.S.- Latin American Relations?
Public reactions to the Latin American component of the Democratic platform have been mixed. On one side, supporters of Obama have asserted that his stance on Latin America represents a fundamental break with the rigidity of past U.S. policies toward the region, a move which will cause the U.S. to view Latin America less as a junior partner with only localized military security issues and more as a sovereign highly pluralized neighbor that insists on autonomy. The Democrats emphasize that in the age of globalization, the U.S. cannot afford to nurture failed policies that treat Latin America solely as a strategic playing field for parochial U.S. regional interests narrowly defined. In the words of The Huffington Post’s Laura Carlsen, “U.S. relations with Latin America can no longer be seen as a regional foreign policy box.” President Bush has abandoned Latin America to concentrate on the promotion of U.S. national interests in the Middle East. An example of this is the lack of sufficient quality time allocated to allow for the full flowing of substantive development in relations between the U.S. and Latin America, which has created a power vacuum that has been filled by strong, often intensely ideological figures such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales, both populist politicians who have sought greater innovation and experimentation for Latin America as a function of the region’s reaction to George Bush’s unpopular presidency. To Obama’s Latin Americanist supporters, now is the time to communicate to the hemisphere that the U.S. must foster greater and more freely given political, economic, and security cooperation in a policy based on equality, respect, and mutuality.
Obama’s “A New Partnership for the Americas” plan reflects Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech, delivered in the wake of World War II and meant to provide a world vision based on political and religious freedom, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Roosevelt’s presidency was responsible for the formulation of the Good Neighbor Policy; by constructing his Latin American platform upon FDR’s legacy in the region, Obama has shown a willingness to foster a more cooperative and perhaps a more creative era for hemispheric relations. The Good Neighbor Policy grappled with issues of national sovereignty and development, renounced military intervention, and gave Latin America ample space to establish its own reforms free of heavy-handed U.S. interference accompanied by brazen diktats. Supporters of Obama’s pledge toward Latin America foresee that Obama’s initiatives and spirit could begin to reverse the U.S.’s reputation as the “colossus of the north,” ushering in an updated version of the Good Neighbor Policy that could carry U.S.-Latin American relations to a new level of sustainability and hemispheric autonomy, if he decided to do so.
Others are not so sure that an Obama administration would be willing or able to form a comprehensive, functional strategy with respect to U.S.-Latin American relations that will not be held hostage by some of the extremist ideologies found to be at work in Miami and exile centers in the U.S. and elsewhere. Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate due to his foreign policy expertise. Despite the fact that Biden has played a key role in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he only has traveled to Latin America on four occasions. As for Obama, he never has even been to Latin America. Biden states that NAFTA should be renegotiated and opposed FTAs with Chile, Peru, and Central America on the grounds that they failed to incorporate proper environmental and labor standards. Nevertheless, his critics fairly or unfairly argue that Biden is just pandering to the sectarian interests of U.S. labor unions. While Biden was campaigning for his presidential bid in 2006, he called Mexico an “erstwhile democracy” and a “corrupt system” that can be blamed for fostering illegal immigration and wielding a chaotic role in narcotrafficking. Biden’s statement, while containing more than a grain of truth, largely ignores the fact that the U.S. contributes to the illegal immigration and drug trafficking phenomena through the exploitation of grossly underpaid migrant workers needed for “cheap labor” enterprises in the U.S. and the insatiable domestic demand for illegal narcotics.
Obama supports the extension of the Merida Initiative to create a more comprehensive regional security bloc within the Western Hemisphere. The Merida Initiative was proposed by President Bush as the keystone of his U.S.-Central America security plan, and is focused on the provision of military and police aid to Mexico (with much smaller amounts to Central American countries) to fight organized crime and drug cartels. It is a complete truism that the military and legal structures in Mexico and Central America have suffered from a history of corruption and human rights abuses, and critics of current U.S. policy argue that increasing military aid to the region only increases the capacity of local authorities to abuse power of an already deeply flawed law enforcement system. The Merida Initiative is in many ways similar to Plan Colombia, which provides military and police aid to fight narcotrafficking and organized crime there.
In Colombia, human rights and labor violations have been committed by the military and paramilitary groups on a massive scale; the vast majority of the aid granted to Colombia by the U.S. is utilized for military purposes, and only a small fraction of Plan Colombia’s funds are allocated to the protection of human rights. Biden has voiced his support of Plan Colombia, and Obama seeks to continue the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, stating that “we need to continue efforts to support Colombia in a way that also advances our interests and is true to our values.”
It remains unclear, however, whether Senator Biden is even aware of the vast corruption of the Uribe presidency, the continued human rights violations that the present regime sanctions, and the autocratic tendencies chronically exhibited by Uribe, who is hardly a democratic figure. This is why last night’s reference to Colombia by Obama was so important. In 2007, he also had sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating that the U.S. must balance its military aid to Colombia with social and economic reforms. Nevertheless, four recent letters (two to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one to then-Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, and one to President Uribe himself) regarding human rights abuses in Colombia lacked his endorsement.
Obama has stated that he will open dialogue with democratic-left regimes to instill the notion throughout the Western Hemisphere that the U.S. will operate without an ideological litmus test, nor will it only engage with Latin America only when Washington considers U.S. national interests at play. Critics argue that Obama’s policy proposals toward Latin America are at times muddled – at the same time that Obama supports unqualified dialogue with leftist hemispheric governments, he defends Colombia’s raid on a guerrilla camp in Ecuador to track down members of FARC. Such an act on Bogota’s behalf has been viewed by a number of Latin American left-leaning regimes as well as some OAS members as a violation of international law and Ecuadorian national sovereignty. But Obama has insisted that Bogota has a right to go beyond its national borders to weed out terrorists who seek refuge in order to attack Colombia. Likewise, Obama promotes an extension of the Merida Initiative, but fails to mention that Colombia and Mexico–new prime recipients of U.S funds, are the two principal conservative governments in Latin America and are the only ones likely to be interested in such an initiative. While Obama may support discourse with democratic-left regimes, it is unclear whether he will be able to reach consensus in negotiating policy initiatives with Latin America’s more left-leaning governments, through a willingness to make meaningful concessions. Obama presents an invitation to create a new partnership with Latin America, but cites Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico as examples of countries with which the U.S. will forge new economic, political, and security ties. There is barely enough here for regional leaders to even take note of. Obama may not be so quick to partner with such candidates as Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia in strengthening U.S.-Latin American relations, whatever his new open door policy may seem to be.
Final Conclusions
While the complete nature of Obama’s Latin American platform remains to be seen, there is no doubt that Obama’s stance on hemispheric affairs will differ from that of the Bush White House, but not so much from Clinton’s regional policy which was barely discernable from Reagan-era area policy. At the same time, the Democratic nominee does not appear to be particularly sure-footed on regional affairs, and could disappoint avid U.S. Latin Americanists now associated with the Democratic Party. Drawing on the ideologies of FDR’s “Four Freedoms,” Obama could represent a break with the failed policies of the past. Obama has underscored the idea that the U.S. should be prepared to enter into dialogue with every nation in the region, be it friend or foe. Through it all, he has maintained his posture that the U.S. should speak to regional leaders without preconditions, despite outspoken criticism from right-leaning U.S.-based Cuban and Venezuelan exile groups. Yet, at other times he appears to hedge on this position.
Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his running mate raises many questions as to the ultimate pertinacity of Obama’s policy initiatives toward the region. Professor Greg Weeks, an innovative analyst based at the University of North Carolina has characterized Biden as “Mr. Status Quo” with respect to U.S. policy toward Latin America, and as such he may present a challenge to the implementation of the liberal reforms Obama has promised as the Democratic candidate for the presidency. At the same time, Biden and Obama have agreed on a variety of key issues with respect to the area. As Biden’s foreign policy experience lies primarily within the realm of Middle Eastern affairs, he may prove responsive to approaching Washington’s dealings with Latin America in a new and more imaginative approach.
Yet, it must also be remembered that U.S. authorities traditionally have sought to promote this country’s own national interests as projected onto Latin America, and not necessarily those of intrinsic interest to Latin America. In this respect, take the issue of Honduran President Zelaya’s extremely bold statement of a long overdue position on drug legislation after having met up with the U.S. philanthropist George Soros. Though Obama asserts that he will encourage a new era of U.S.-Latin American cooperation built on respect for sovereign governments, nevertheless, he will be forced to contend with competing influences in Washington which favor the maintenance of the U.S.’s current stance within the region, particularly in dealing with Cuba and Venezuela, and a prejudice in favor of orthodox development strategies.
Obama’s choice of Greg Craig as a foreign policy adviser may prove to be a valuable asset to his administration’s policy potential in formulating a more rational and innovative approach toward Latin America. Craig has voiced support for a multilateral approach toward dealing with the region, as well as stressed the need to encourage free elections and the recognition of democratic governments. Craig also has sought to promote fair trade standards that consider the heavy social costs of free market economics, and he favors hemispheric ties over bilateral agreements. He would have the Obama government concentrate on education, health care, poverty, and other social justice issues as major U.S. policy concerns within Latin America, instead of focusing mainly on traditional concerns such as trade opportunities, narrowly defined security interests, and northward drug flows. According to COHA Research Associates Michael Katz and Chris Sweeney, Craig can provide the vision that “Washington needs in order to mend the divide between the U.S. and the new left in Latin America” (see COHA’s “Obama Adviser Greg Craig: A Man of Merit,” August 19, 2008).
Dan Restrepo, an Obama senior adviser on Western Hemispheric affairs, has argued that the U.S. must work toward a “partnership with countries throughout the Americas so that democracy, opportunity, and security” are broadcast everywhere in the region. Like adviser Greg Craig, he asserts that the U.S. must encourage fair trade agreements throughout the region. Like Obama, he opposes the ratification of a U.S.-Colombia FTA, citing human rights abuses and violence committed against labor leaders as factors which must be considered in the negotiation of free trade deals. Greater opportunity for Latin America should come through “bottom-up” strategies of economic and social improvement.
If Obama is elected, the strengths and weaknesses of his policies toward Latin America will rely upon his ability to remain committed to a broad-range approach to the region in spite of conflicting interest groups and pressures. Whether he will move to the conservative or liberal side of his platform depends on his capability to work against tendencies resisting change among Washington policymakers. The policy position of the extreme right will remain clustered around Senator McCain’s Latin American adviser, the aptly designated Otto Reich; simultaneously, Obama will be forced to deal with moderate Clinton Democrats who favor free trade policies and a relatively hard line approach towards Castro’s Cuba and Chavez’s Venezuela.
Obama’s promises to induce reform with respect to the U.S.’s stance on Latin America provide hope for regional cooperation, and offer a chance to turn the tide on the U.S.’s hitherto flawed position in its relationship with the countries south of its border. Historically, presidential candidates often make promises just to get into office, and then fail to honor them. Given that Latin American issues are rarely critical to U.S. presidential campaigns, Obama’s proposals may prove to be empty, or they may in fact offer the possibility of a real change in hemispheric relations. Colombia offers an excellent opportunity for Obama to distinguish between President Uribe’s faux democracy and the real thing. In this instance it becomes symbolic of what could prove to be a real distinction behind Obama’s regional policy.
This analysis was prepared by COHA Director Larry Birns
Senators Barack Obama and John McCain met last night for the final debate before the November 4th presidential election, sparring over the economy, tax policy, negative campaigning, trade agreements, abortion and the educational system. As with the other debates, third-party candidates were not invited to participate. We break the sound barrier and hear from Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader.
Cynthia McKinney, Green Party presidential nominee. Former Democratic congresswoman from Georgia.
Ralph Nader, Independent presidential candidate. He is a longtime consumer advocate and corporate critic.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Senators Barack Obama and John McCain met last night for the final debate before the November 4th presidential election. It was held at Hofstra University on Long Island in New York.
Prior to the ninety-minute face-off, police arrested fifteen protesters in a peaceful demonstration outside the university led by Iraq Veterans Against the War. One veteran, Nick Morgan, was hospitalized after being trampled by a police horse. Video shot at the scene showed Morgan lying on the ground by a pool of blood. The arrests took place less than an hour before Barack Obama and John McCain took the stage.
During the debate, the Iraq war was barely mentioned. The war in Afghanistan never came up. Instead, the two candidates sparred over the government’s plans to rescue the financial system, tax policy, negative campaigning, trade agreements, abortion and the educational system.
AMY GOODMAN: As with the other debates, third-party candidates were not invited to participate. But today on Democracy Now!, we will break the sound barrier by giving some of those candidates a chance to respond to last night’s questions.
Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney joins us in Atlanta, and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader joins us on the phone. We invited Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin, but they couldn’t join us. So, they will answer the same questions put to the major party candidates.
We begin with CBS News’s Bob Schieffer, the moderator of last night’s debate.
BOB SCHIEFFER: By now, we’ve heard all the talking points, so let’s try to tell the people tonight some things that they—they haven’t heard. Let’s get to it.
Another very bad day on Wall Street, as both of you know. Both of you proposed new plans this week to address the economic crisis. Senator McCain, you proposed a $52 billion plan that includes new tax cuts on capital gains, tax breaks for seniors, write-offs for stock losses, among other things. Senator Obama, you proposed $60 billion in tax cuts for middle-income and lower-income people, more tax breaks to create jobs, new spending for public works projects to create jobs.
I will ask both of you: Why is your plan better than his? Senator McCain, you go first.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, let—let me say, Bob, thank you. And thanks to Hofstra. And, by the way, our beloved Nancy Reagan is in the hospital tonight, so our thoughts and prayers are going with you. It’s good to see you again, Senator Obama.
Americans are hurting right now, and they’re angry. They’re hurting, and they’re angry. They’re innocent victims of greed and excess on Wall Street and as well as Washington, D.C. And they’re angry, and they have every reason to be angry. And they want this country to go in a new direction.
And there are elements of my proposal that you just outlined, which I won’t repeat. But we also have to have a short-term fix, in my view, and long-term fixes. Let me just talk to you about one of the short-term fixes.
The catalyst for this housing crisis was the Fannie and Freddie Mae that caused the subprime lending situation that now caused the housing market in America to collapse. I am convinced that, until we reverse this continued decline in home ownership and put a floor under it, and so that people have not only the hope and belief they can stay in their homes and realize the American dream, but that value will come up.
Now, we have allocated $750 billion. Let’s take 300 of that billion and go in and buy those home loan mortgages and negotiate with those people in their homes, 11 million homes or more, so that they can afford to pay the mortgage, stay in their home.
Now, I know the criticism of this: Well, what about the citizen that stayed in their homes, that paid their mortgage payments? It doesn’t help that person in their home if the next-door neighbor’s house is abandoned. And so, we’ve got to reverse this. We ought to put the homeowners first. And I am disappointed that Secretary Paulson and others have not made that their first priority.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Alright. Senator Obama?
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to thank Hofstra University and the people of New York for hosting us tonight, and it’s wonderful to join Senator McCain again, and thank you, Bob.
I think everybody understands at this point that we are experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And the financial rescue plan that Senator McCain and I supported is a important first step. And I pushed for some core principles: making sure that taxpayers can get their money back if they’re putting money up, making sure that CEOs are not enriching themselves through this process. And I think that it’s going to take some time to work itself out.
But what we haven’t yet seen is a rescue package for the middle class, because the fundamentals of the economy were weak even before this latest crisis. So I’ve proposed four specific things that I think can help.
Number one, let’s focus on jobs. I want to end the tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and provide a tax credit for every company that’s creating a job right here in America.
Number two, let’s help families right away by providing them a tax cut, a middle-class tax cut for people making less than $200,000, and let’s allow them to access their IRA accounts without penalty if they’re experiencing a crisis.
Now, Senator McCain and I agree with your idea that we’ve got to help homeowners. That’s why we included in the financial package a proposal to get homeowners in a position where they can renegotiate their mortgages. I disagree with Senator McCain on how to do it, because the way Senator McCain has designed his plan, it could be a giveaway to banks if we’re buying full price for mortgages that now are worth a lot less. And we don’t want to waste taxpayer money. And we’ve got to get the financial package working much quicker than it’s been working.
Last point I want to make, though, we’ve got some long-term challenges in this economy that have to be dealt with. We’ve got to fix our energy policy that’s giving our wealth away. We’ve got to fix our healthcare system, and we’ve got to invest in our education system for every young person to be able to learn.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Cynthia McKinney, Green Party presidential nominee, you have two minutes to give us your view of the financial crisis and why your plan would be better.
CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Thank you very much. First of all, let me thank you for inviting me to be with you, and also I’d like to thank Trevor Lyman of thirdpartyticket.com, who has also organized any event, a debate, a third-party debate on October 19th from 7:00 to 9:00, and I will be participating.
I’ve put together a fourteen-point plan, which is available on our website runcynthiarun.org. And in those fourteen points is included a elimination of adjustable rate mortgages, predatory lending, and any of the discriminatory practices that helped to fuel the crisis that we’re experiencing. In addition to that, I also call for the elimination of derivatives trading, which is one of the major problems.
I also call for David Walker to—who is the former Comptroller General of the United States, to oversee all of the entities that have received taxpayer funding. He is the one who was in charge of auditing the United States government and basically left in disgust because people in the Congress and in the White House were not listening to his admonitions.
I also call for the nationalization of the Federal Reserve and the establishment of a banking system, a nationalized banking system, that really responds to the needs of people and our country. Our country needs investment in infrastructure, in manufacturing and in greening our economy, and that could be accomplished through such a banking system that belongs to the American people.
And then I would also just like to say I agree that US corporations should not receive tax subsidies for moving jobs overseas, and that’s a piece of legislation that I actually introduced when I was in the Congress.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, independent presidential candidate, your solution for the economic crisis and why your plan is better than these other candidates’?
RALPH NADER: Well, first of all, they had—Washington had Wall Street over a barrel, and they didn’t enact legislation in that $700-plus billion bailout to prevent this from happening again. So there should be in the future, very near future, a comprehensive re-regulation of financial services industry. It was deregulation that opened the doors under Clinton for this wild orgy of excess, as Richard Fisher of the Federal Reserve in Dallas called it.
We need to provide more power to the shareholders—mutual funds, worker pension funds and others—to control the companies that they own and control the bosses so that this doesn’t happen again.
We need widespread criminal prosecution of these corporate crooks and swindlers. There were lots of deceptive practices, cover-ups and conflicts of interest involved in selling this phony paper around the country and the world.
And we need, if there’s going to be taxpayer injection in these—in financial institutions, the taxpayers should not only have ownership, proportional ownership, but should have representatives on the board. Right now, it’s a very porous and very ineffective provision in the bill.
But above all, we need to make the speculators pay for their own bailout. And that can be done by a one-tenth of one percent tax on derivatives transactions, which this year will be $500 trillion worth. So, one-tenth of one percent will produce $500 billion; two-tenths of one percent will produce a trillion dollars. And that is only fair. So, what’s important here is there’s nothing spectacularly new about a derivatives tax. The stock tax transaction helped to fund the Civil War. Franklin Delano Roosevelt used it. Some European countries have it now. People in New York and elsewhere go into a store and pay six, seven percent sales tax for necessities of life. But someone today on Wall Street will buy $100 million of Exxon derivatives and pay nothing.
We also need a major public works program to stem the slide into a deeper recession, to rebuild America.
AMY GOODMAN: You’re over time. We’re going to break, and when we come back, we’ll move on with this debate between Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Barack Obama and John McCain. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzalez and CBS’s Bob Schieffer, as we expand the presidential debate with Barack Obama, John McCain, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. Bob Schieffer?
BOB SCHIEFFER: Alright, we’re going to move to another question, and the topic is leadership in this campaign. Both of you pledged to take the high road in this campaign, yet it has turned very nasty. Senator Obama, your campaign has used words like “erratic,” “out of touch,” “lie,” “angry,” “losing his bearings,” to describe Senator McCain. Senator McCain, your commercials have included words like “disrespectful,” “dangerous,” “dishonorable,” “he lied.” Your running mate said he “palled around with terrorists.”
Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say to each other’s face what your campaigns and the people in your campaigns have said about each other? And, Senator McCain, you’re first.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, this has been a tough campaign. It’s been a very tough campaign. And I know from my experience in many campaigns that if Senator Obama had asked—responded to my urgent request to sit down and do town hall meetings and come before the American people, we could have done at least ten of them by now. When Senator Obama was first asked, he said, “Any place, any time,” the way Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy agreed to do before the intervention of the tragedy at Dallas. So I think the tone of this campaign could have been very different.
And the fact is, it’s gotten pretty tough. And I regret some of the negative aspects of both campaigns. But the fact is that it has taken many turns which I think are unacceptable.
One of them happened just the other day, when a man I admire and respect—I’ve written about him—Congressman John Lewis, an American hero, made allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst chapter in American history: segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful. And, Senator Obama, you didn’t repudiate those remarks. Every time there’s been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate.
So I want to tell you, we will run a truthful campaign. This is a tough campaign. And it’s a matter of fact that Senator Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history. And I can prove it.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, look, you know, I think that we expect presidential campaigns to be tough. I think that if you look at the record and the impressions of the American people—Bob, your network just did a poll showing that two-thirds of the American people think that Senator McCain is running a negative campaign, versus one-third of mine. And 100 percent, John, of your ads—100 percent of them have been negative.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: It’s not true.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: It absolutely is true. And now, I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings during the course of the campaign than addressing the issues that matter to them so deeply.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: But again, I did not hear a repudiation of Congressman Lewis’s remarks.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I mean, look, if we want to talk about Congressman Lewis, who is an American hero, he, unprompted by my campaign, without my campaign’s awareness, made a statement that he was troubled with what he was hearing at some of the rallies that your running mate was holding, in which all the Republic reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like “terrorist” and “kill him,” and that you’re running mate didn’t mention, didn’t stop, didn’t say, “Hold on a second. That’s kind of out of line.” And I think Congressman Lewis’s point was that we have to be careful about how we deal with our supporters.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Cynthia McKinney, two minutes on your views on the tone of the campaign and some of the exchange between Senator McCain and Senator Obama about John Lewis?
CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, I would rather give my impressions of what differentiates the campaigns of independent and third-party candidates, and that is, I believe that we talk about the issues. Former Comptroller General David Walker said that now is a time that this country needs leadership, not lagship. But unfortunately, we’re getting more lagship than leadership.
For example, the issues that I’ve been talking about as I’ve gone around this country have been the tremendous impact that the Bush tax cuts have had on income inequality in our country. The sad fact of the matter is that we are experiencing the kind of income inequality not experienced since the Great Depression.
In addition to that, I’ve been talking about the need to repeal the PATRIOT Acts, so that we can safeguard our civil liberties, protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I’ve also been talking about the death penalty, because, of course, in the state in which I was born, we have a young man who—for whom a death date has been set, and he’s had seven witnesses to recant their testimony in a trial. We need to talk about justice in this country. And I’m talking about the case of Troy Davis. We do need to talk about the administration of the death penalty.
It’s interesting that, categorically, I support single-payer, and I believe that Ralph Nader does, as well. We make no bones about our support for a single-payer healthcare system in this country. And just last week, 5,000 physicians wrote a letter, and they said that it was the only morally responsible, as well as fiscally responsible solution to the healthcare problems that face our country.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader—
CYNTHIA McKINNEY: So—
AMY GOODMAN: That’s two minutes, Cynthia McKinney. Ralph Nader, your response?
RALPH NADER: Well, first of all, the reason why the press covers the lowest common denominator of gaffes or tactics or horse races or what someone said in a crowd is because Obama and McCain do not open up in their discussion day after day significant issues such as Cynthia McKinney just alluded to. You know, they say the same thing day after day after day, and so the press has to have a cheap lede, and they go with these gaffes or these diversions. If McCain and Obama really opened up all the huge variety of redirections and reforms and what’s going on in the country and allied themselves with local—local citizen groups who are fighting for justice, there would be news every day, and the reporters would not be as inclined to headline these gaffes or these so-called smears from different supporters of Obama and McCain. So it’s a combined responsibility of the candidates who open up this kind of foolishness and silly coverage, because they’re so redundant, they’re so ditto heads on the campaign trail.
And when we campaign all over the country in Nader-Gonzalez, there are all kinds of issues in Florida, in Washington state, in Hawaii, in Colorado, people struggling for clean environment, civic accountability, people going after toxic waste dumps and lack of a living wage. That’s where I would stand. And there needs to be many, many more debates, not these silly parallel interviews by a debate commission that is controlled by the two parties and keeps competition off the stage, in terms of third-party independent candidates. More and more debates will provide more substance, and more and more candidates on those stages who have been qualified on many state ballots—
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, that’s your two minutes. Thanks so much. For the first time in the debate last night, Senator McCain raised the issue of Senator Barack Obama’s connection to Bill Ayers, the University of Illinois professor, former member of the Weather Underground.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Real quick, Mr. Ayers—I don’t care about an old washed-up terrorist. But as Senator Clinton said in her debates with you, we need to know the full extent of that relationship. We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama’s relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy, the same front outfit organization that your campaign gave $832,000 for, for, quote, “lighting and site selection.” So, all of these things need to be examined, of course.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Alright, I’m going to let you respond—
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Bob, it’s going to be—
BOB SCHIEFFER: —and we’ll extend this just for a moment.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: It’s going to be important to just—I’ll respond to these two particular allegations—
BOB SCHIEFFER: Yes.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: —that Senator McCain has made and that have gotten a lot of attention. In fact, Mr. Ayers has become the centerpiece of Senator McCain’s campaign over the last two or three weeks. This has been their primary focus. So let’s get the record straight.
Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago. Forty years ago, when I was eight years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts. Ten years ago, he served and I served on a school reform board that was funded by one of Ronald Reagan’s former ambassadors and close friends, Mr. Annenberg. Other members on that board were the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, the president of the Chicago Tribune, a Republican-leaning newspaper. Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And he will not advise me in the White House. So that’s Mr. Ayers.
Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they’ve done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn’t really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names. It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I’ve had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the US Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Ralph Nader, one minute, your response, especially to the issue of ACORN, because this has now become a major issue as to whether there’s voter fraud or voter suppression going on in this election.
RALPH NADER: First of all, ACORN has done tremendously good work over the years with low-income people in city after city. When they go into big-time voter registration, things happen. Some people may get enthusiastic. They don’t control some of the new people they hire. And this happens. It should not besmirch the overwhelmingly good work on economic justice and voice to low-income people.
Second, on the Bill Ayers thing, who is a lapsed small-time saboteur with the Weather Underground many years ago, what should have been said was the big-time terrorists, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, these are clinically verifiable mass terrorists who have killed innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in their criminal wars of aggression. These are criminal wars of aggression. These are war crimes. These are war criminals. They have killed over a million Iraqi civilians as a result of that criminal invasion. That’s where the discussion should have focused on. The big-time terrorists, the state terrorists in the White House who have violated our Constitution, our statutes and our international treaties, and have been condemned even by the American Bar Association for a continual violence of our—violation of our Constitution.
AMY GOODMAN: Cynthia McKinney?
CYNTHIA McKINNEY: First of all, I think I should say that I believe that the people in this country need a political party and a movement that places our values on the political agenda. Obviously, with that exchange, that’s not the case.
There’s something else that’s a bit more troubling. I’ve also been talking about election integrity as I’ve gone across this country. But, you know, I really don’t like the idea that the face of election fraud, given the past two presidential elections, is now a face of color and one of poor people.
In 2000, when people went to the polls, when the voters went to the polls, they were met with confusing ballots, manipulation of the voter lists, electronic voting machines that didn’t work, inappropriately or ineffectively or poorly trained officials who weren’t familiar with the workings of those machines, and we know what the problems with those machines have been and are. We still have those problems that have been with us since 2000.
In 2004, they added to these problems with the electronic poll books, the sleepovers that were discovered, where the machines weren’t even secured, even intensifying the failures of the machines with the vote flipping, and usually in only one direction. The battery freezes in the midst of voters actually trying to cast their votes.
And now we’ve got voter ID laws across the country, and we’ve got voter caging, which is a fancy way of purging people from the voter files.
So, now, what kind of election is it when neither of the political parties is addressing the issue, the fundamental issue, of whether or not our votes are even going to be counted?
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to move on right now to the issue of free trade. John McCain.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Senator Obama opposes. Right now, because of previous agreements, some made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to Colombia, which is our largest agricultural importer of our products, there’s a hundred—there’s a billion dollars that we—our businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there. Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free.
So, Senator Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, the same country that’s helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that’s killing young Americans and also the country that just freed three Americans, that will help us create jobs in America, because they will be a market for our goods and products without have to paying—without us having to pay the billions of dollars—the billion dollars and more that we’ve already paid.
Free trade with Colombia is something that’s a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them, and maybe you could understand it a lot better.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Let me respond. Actually, I understand it pretty well. The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis, and there have not been prosecutions. And what I have said, because the free trade—the trade agreement itself does have labor and environmental protections, but we have to stand for human rights, and we have to make sure that violence isn’t being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights, which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement, which was a well-structured agreement.
But I think that the important point is we’ve got to have a president who understands the benefits of free trade but also is going to enforce unfair trade agreements and is going to stand up to other countries.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Ralph Nader, two minutes, your response on free trade?
RALPH NADER: There’s no such thing as free trade with dictators and oligarchs in these countries, because the market doesn’t determine the costs. There’s no free collective bargaining for workers. That’s a crime, de facto, in many countries, to try to form an independent trade union. There’s no rule of law, bribery. These companies can go there and pollute at will. There’s no judicial independence to make these companies accountable, and they abuse workers and consumers and communities, as the oil companies and the timber companies have on many occasions.
Second, these—NAFTA and WTO have to be scrapped. Under those treaties, we can withdraw in six months and give notice of withdrawal and renegotiate these agreements for the following purpose: no more trade agreements that subordinate consumer, union, worker and environmental rights. These are pull-down trade agreements that are allowing fascist and corporate dictators to pull down our standards of living, because they know how to keep their workers in their place at fifty cents an hour. So, any new trade agreements should stick to trade. Any other treaty should be labor, environment and consumer on a level playing field. These trade agreements also have to be open, democratic. They cannot undermine our courts, our regulatory agencies and our legislature.
That’s what we’ve got to do. And our website, votenader.org, has ample information on this process.
AMY GOODMAN: In order to get to the next subject, we’re going to go right now to Cynthia McKinney on this, then we go to break and one more topic. Cynthia McKinney?
CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Great. I agree with Nader that we need to repeal NAFTA and all of those so-called free trade agreements, but they are—they don’t constitute fair trade.
And with respect to Colombia, I can say that not only have I been to Colombia, I have seen the devastation of the militarization of our policy, particularly with Colombia, and the displacement particularly of the Afro-Colombian communities across that country.
In addition, I would say that as a result of the unfair elections that have been held, particularly in Uribe, where there—in Colombia, where Uribe was elected, there should have been an Afro-Colombian woman elected as president. Her name was Piedad Cordoba. But instead of being elected, she was kidnapped, and she was forced out of the country. Now she’s back in Colombia serving as a united—as a Colombian senator.
What we must encourage is a relationship with countries around the world, where we engage in fair trade, not free trade; we pay a fair price for the resources and other things that we need; we respect human rights, labor rights, environmental rights; and we repeal these agreements that have been implemented so far.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to break, then come back for our last subject. Cynthia McKinney, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Barack Obama. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. We’re breaking the sound barrier. Back in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzalez and Bob Schieffer.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And this one goes to Senator McCain. Senator McCain, alright, would you like to ask him a question?
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: No. I would like to mention that a couple days ago Senator Obama was out in Ohio, and he had an encounter with a guy who’s a plumber, name is Joe Wurzelbacher. Joe wants to buy the business that he’s been in for all these years, worked ten, twelve hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business, but he looked at your tax plan, and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes. You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket, which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which—Joe was trying to realize the American dream.
Now, Senator Obama talks about the very, very rich. Joe, I want to tell you, I’ll not only help that you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and be able—and I’ll keep your taxes low, and I’ll provide available and affordable healthcare for you and your employees. And I will not have—I will not stand for a tax increase on small business income. Fifty percent of small business income tax is—taxes are paid by small businesses. That’s 16 million jobs in America. And what you want to do to Joe the plumber and millions more like him is have their taxes increased and not be able to realize the American dream of owning their own business.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Is that what you want to do?
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: It’s not what I want to do.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: That’s what Joe believes.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: He’s been watching some ads of Senator McCain’s. Let me tell you what I’m actually going to do. I think tax policy is a major difference between Senator McCain and myself. And we both want to cut taxes. The difference is who we want to cut taxes for.
Now, Senator McCain, the centerpiece of his economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.
What I’ve said is I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent. If you make more—if you make less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see your income tax go up, your capital gains tax go up, your payroll tax. Not one dime. And 95 percent of working families—95 percent of you out there—will get a tax cut.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Cynthia McKinney, your message—since this is now what will be known as the Joe the plumber debate, your message to Joe the plumber, in one minute?
CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, basically, I would say that the Green Party has four pillars on which all of its policy recommendations lie. And that is, they are social justice, ecological wisdom, peace and grassroots democracy. So that means that our foreign policy, our domestic policy, our public policy, in general, would focus on the well-being of the people, on the well-being of this planet.
We would also make sure that we would follow in the footsteps of the legislation that I introduced when I was in the Congress. For example, that legislation taking away the tax breaks for corporations that take their jobs overseas, we also wanted to make sure that US corporations were actually forced to abide by US regulations with respect to labor and environment and human rights. We also introduced the National Forest Protection and Restoration Act that sought to safeguard and actually restore our national forests. This is the kind of public policy that our country needs.
We also need an energy policy. War is not an acceptable energy policy. But certainly, if Canada can satisfy all of their space heating needs with solar energy, then so, too, can we. And I’d love to see the old buildings that have been abandoned in community after community across this country become teeming centers of employment so that people are actually able to manufacture the green technology that this country needs in order to relieve us of our dependence on oil. We don’t need to drill.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, your response to Joe the plumber?
RALPH NADER: Well, obviously, say, Joe the plumber, you don’t have to worry about paying for health insurance, because it would be full Medicare for all, and business would not have to pay. It would be an obligation of the government to provide full health insurance. It’s much more efficient. Free choice of doctor and hospital, quality and cost control on the private delivery of healthcare. It’s supported by a majority of the people and a majority of the physicians in a recent poll, 59 percent of them.
We also say to Joe plumber that we’re going to revise the tax system so we tax things we—society likes the least or dislikes the most before we tax human labor. That is, a securities derivative tax. We tax gambling industry more, addictive industry more, corporate crime and pollution, like a carbon tax.
Notice, throughout the debate, so-called, between Obama and McCain, they avoided anything that would challenge corporate power. They didn’t talk about a crackdown on corporate crime. They didn’t talk about ending corporate welfare. They didn’t talk about cutting the huge bloated military budget of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. They didn’t talk about shifting this into a major public works program to repair America at the community level.
What we’re seeing today on your program is how a larger frame of reference should have been given to tens of millions of people, what Cynthia McKinney and I have been denied reaching. That’s why we want to give your listeners our website. Our website is votenader.org. And you can all donate to Cynthia McKinney’s campaign, the Green Party, and to the Nader/Gonzalez campaign. We’re having a big—
AMY GOODMAN: And we’re going to have to leave it there.
RALPH NADER: —super rally on Wall Street at noon today, super rally on Wall Street.
AMY GOODMAN: Super rally on Wall Street at noon. And will you also be at the debate on Sunday night, third-party debate at Columbia University?
RALPH NADER: Well, I just heard about it after you told me about it last night, and—Amy, and I’ve got to look at the schedule and see.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, if—
CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I’m with Trevor—I’m with Trevor Lyman at the thirdpartyticket.com from 7:00 to 9:00 on October 19th.
AMY GOODMAN: And we’ll put information on our website, because supposedly I will be moderating this debate if it does happen, and we’ll let our viewers and listeners know.
PSL candidate Sergio Farias stands with workers, immigrants Wednesday, October 15, 2008
By: Ian Thompson
'People want to be treated equally'
As the elections creep closer, the Party for Socialism and Liberation’s Sergio Farias campaign for San Juan Capistrano City Council keeps going strong. Farias spoke at three local candidate debates in two weeks, reaching hundreds of San Juan’s residents with the message of socialism. One of the forums will be broadcast to millions of Orange County viewers by the local cable television provider.
The Farias campaign stands out
as the lone voice for working-class
and oppressed people in SJC.
At the Oct. 2 forum, held by the League of Women Voters, Farias distinguished his working-class program from those of the bourgeois candidates. On the question of "Why is SJC’s large Latino population disengaged from the political process; and what can be done to change that," Farias cited racist intimidation, police harassment and the anti-gang injunction as primary reasons.
"People want to be treated equally; there should not be any more racism or apartheid conditions tolerated by the city," Farias said. "Latinos and all immigrants must be entitled to full rights in San Juan and beyond."
This starkly contrasted with far-right candidate Laura Freese’s answer. She pressed for more brutal enforcement of immigration and anti-gang laws. Tellingly, Freese referred to all Latinos as "illegals," and blamed immigrants for San Juan’s infrastructure problems, including "overcrowding" and "clogged sewers." Incumbent council member Sam Allevato also spewed racist contempt for Latinos. His sweeping answer cast the entire Latino community as "gang members" and "criminals." Allevato is a retired sheriff’s deputy, who only cares about creating equestrian trails for San Juan’s rich elite. Farias sharply rebuked these reactionary answers.
The next week, Farias continued to strike out at the ruling political establishment in a candidate forum held at a local mobile home park in danger of being closed down by greedy landlords.
His response to questions about affordable housing—"Free housing should be a right for all; evictions and foreclosures must stop now"—was well received by the crowd.
The Farias campaign is receiving wide coverage each week in the Orange County Register, the county’s largest paper, and the local Capistrano Dispatch. Farias, along with the other city council candidates, respond to questions about their respective visions of San Juan and various political topics, such as "How would you solve poverty in San Juan?" or "Is the gang injunction working?"
The Farias campaign stands out as the lone voice for working-class and oppressed people. What is significant is the amount of credible coverage the Farias campaign is getting. Farias is regularly recognized on the street in San Juan and is known throughout the Latino community as an organizer and the "go to" person if there is a problem with racist police or immigration officials.
His campaign again validates the PSL’s intervention in the bourgeois elections. Through the Farias campaign, the PSL is fighting the reactionary capitalists using a mechanism they claim as exclusive and sacred—the electoral process.
Door-to-door canvassing, mainly targeting San Juan’s oppressed Latino neighborhoods and working-class mobile home parks, will continue in the final weeks before the election.
Sergio Farias and PSL presidential candidate Gloria La Riva will speak at a public forum for immigrant rights and against racism at the Lacouague Building (31411 La Matanza Street, San Juan Capistrano) on Oct. 26 at 4 p.m.
The campaign of 19-year-old Lucilla Esguerra is picking up steam. Esguerra, the Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate for California State Assembly, District 48, has been featured on Kababayan L.A., a Filipino American television show that reaches millions of Filipino immigrants.
Lucilla Esguerra's campaign
has organized numerous street
meetings in her majority Black
and Latino district.
An excellent article about her inspiring campaign blazed the front page of the Philippine News, the country’s oldest and most widely circulated newspaper for Filipino Americans. Writer Pasckie Pascua described Esguerra’s campaign succinctly: "Her ambitions are simple and realistic but right on target; her words don’t mince around rhetorical bombast and oratorical histrionics that rule traditional politics—she hits it straight, no qualms, no chasers in between."
Esguerra explains Pascua’s description of her campaign: "It is simple. I’m a socialist candidate. My party, the PSL, is right on target for working-class people. That’s who live in my district; that’s who I want to speak for. My campaign demands jobs, free housing, free health care and an end to police brutality and immigrant bashing."
In contrast, her opponent, incumbent Mike Davis (D), has never spoken out for immigrant rights and rarely even makes appearances in the district. One District 48 resident, Ana, said: "It seems like Davis is on permanent vacation in Sacramento with the other professional politicians. I’ve never seen him anywhere near my home or workplace."
Esguerra’s campaign has been endorsed by a slew of Filipino American activists and community organizations, including the Alliance for Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines, GABRIELA Network, Justice for Filipino American Veterans, Echo Park Community Coalition, Coalition in Defense of Immigrant Rights, the Filipino Workers’ Center, and more. Many of these groups spoke on her behalf at a kick-off meeting on Labor Day, attended by dozens of activists and trade unionists.
Street meetings in Esguerra’s majority Black and Latino district have been a staple of her campaign for weeks. One recent street event focused on the bankers’ bailout. Esguerra and campaign activists spoke to a long line of African Americans waiting to pull their deposits out of Washington Mutual, which had just gone under. One person, Steve, said: "I agree with your campaign. We need a bailout for people like us, not for the rich millionaires on Wall Street. They made my bank go down, not me."
The campaign has also done regular door-to-door outreach, focusing on the oppressed communities of South Los Angeles.
Promoting same-sex marriage and LGBT equality has been a top priority. Esguerra, an out lesbian, has been a pro-LGBT rights activist since high school. She was the only socialist candidate to participate in L.A.’s huge Pride parade and will be speaking at a Gay-Straight Alliance conference on Nov. 1 to promote student activism for LGBT liberation. She has come out strongly against Proposition 8, an anti-gay marriage referendum on the ballot.
Esguerra is on the ballot as a Peace and Freedom Party candidate. She is proud to represent the only ballot-access socialist party in California. For Peace and Freedom, she recently spoke at a campaign forum to denounce the racist Runner Initiative—a referendum on the November ballot that would further criminalize Black and Latino youth.
In the coming weeks, Esguerra’s campaign will turn up the heat by continuing neighborhood canvassing and street meetings. "It’s all to get the word out about socialism. We want people to know that they can be part of a movement that fights back against all the racism and economic abuses thrown at us by capitalism," said Esguerra. "It isn’t about winning this election or that election. It is about building a movement that one day will win as the capitalist system loses," she continued.
Oct. 18 and 19, the Esguerra campaign will go door-to-door in a massive visibility push. Oct. 25, she is speaking at a well-known library in South Los Angeles, the Southern California Library, with PSL presidential candidate Gloria La Riva. The two will discuss the economic crisis, the war, racism and how workers and students can fight back.
Esguerra’s campaign has inspired strength and activism in sectors of the working class that are looking for a fighting alternative to the status quo.
Vote PSL in November!
Lucilla Esguerra and PSL presidential candidate Gloria La Riva will speak at the Southern California Library (6120 S. Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles) on Oct. 25 at 2 p.m.
On October 2nd, tens of thousands of people, young and old, took the afternoon off and marched in the streets of Mexico City to the cry of "¡Nunca Más!" - Never again!
On that same day in October, forty years earlier, scores of young people, mostly striking University students, were gathered in Tlatelolco Square for a protest meeting. Suddenly, and without provocation, Mexican Army troops opened fire on the crowd, killing at least 200 people,wounding countless more, and "disappearing" hundreds more . The State-controlled media neatly covered up the story, and the Federal government denied that a massacre had taken place. But forty years later even the Mexican government now admits that it was guilty of the shameless crime of using the armed forces against its own citizens to supress a non-violent protest movement.
Initially, the attacks silenced popular protest. But very soon after, and up until the present day, Mexicans from both town and country have continued to organize and resist, in a perpetual struggle to make good on the unfulfilled promises of the 1910 Mexican Revolution.
In the forty years since that bloody day, Mexican society has undergone profound systemic changes. Social movements have seen important victories, but also crushing setbacks. One crucial victory has been public recognition of the Tlatelolco massacre and an increased awareness on the part of the general public that use of the Mexican military to repress social movements is illegal according to the Mexican constitution, and must never be tolerated. The Mexican army has unfortunately continued to fight against organized social movements in recent decades. But even this counterinsurgency has only been allowed to happen in Mexico's most rural areas, in the shadows, and far from the public eye.
Until now.
On Wednesday, October 8th, Morelos Governor Marco Adame called out more than 1,500 police personnel from the State Police and from the Paramilitary Federal Police force to the indigenous town of Xoxocotla. Law enforcement agencies were instructed to dismantle a series of road blockades along the Alpuyeca-Jojutla highway. Residents of Xoxocotla, long known for their effective community organizing and for their willingness to show solidarity with other social movements, had set up the blockades to show solidarity with teachers who have been on strike in Morelos for nearly two months.
The teachers of Morelos and the townspeople of Xoxocotla are united in a common struggle to stop the rapid privatization of public resources. Teachers on strike in Morelos are trying to halt a new set of educational reforms they say would open the doors to the participation of private capital in the public education system. Xoxocotla, on the other hand, is desperately trying to save the aquifer which feeds its municipal water system from being sucked dry from private condominium developers who skirt local zoning laws.
As poorly organized police marched on Xoxocotla, they were quickly outwitted by the highly organized women and men of the town. When police advanced on the roadblocks, the townspeople removed one of the barricades, allowed a few of them to enter, and then established the withdrawn barricade once again. These hapless police officers were trapped within the confines of Xoxocotla's barricades. The officers were effectively penned in for several hours, during which they were unable to dismantle the roadblocks.
Later that night, between 500 and 1000 members of the Mexican Army from the 24th Military Zone barracks in Cuernavaca were given the order from the National Defense Secretary to assist police in their efforts to dislodge protesters in Xoxocotla. Accompanying these soldiers was a vast mobile arsenal, including humvees, tanks, and helicopters. It is important to note that such use of force can only take place under authorization from the executive branch of the Federal government.
Representatives of the newly arrived army and the police informed a negotiating team from Xoxocotla that if the police officers trapped in the town were not allowed to leave, that the order would be given "to attack the town."
Just two short years ago, in a nation still grappling with the murderous legacy of Tlatelolco, the use of the army to contain a protest action in central Mexico would have been unheard of. And in 2008, the people of Xoxocotla couldn't believe what they were witnessing. Shocked by the brazen display of military might, the town let the police officers retreat and removed the road blockades. In return, they were promised that all security forces would leave.
As dawn approached, the vast majority of state security forces remained in place. Reports emerged of arbitrary beatings, illegal home searches, and detentions by police. And in the early afternoon, the women and men of Xoxocotla went back to the highway in protest once again. At that point, members of the State and Federal police, with the cooperation and participation of the Army, launched an attack of collective punishment on the entire town.
Helicopters flew overhead and shot tear gas into private homes, most of which were filled with small children and whose inhabitants were not involved with the road blockades at all. This reporter was led into several homes the following day and saw several large spent containers and saw small children still coughing from the gas.
Houses were raided by police and soldiers, and men taken and beaten in front of their families. There are reports of at least 70 missing persons, of whom only 20 have been officially "arrested."
Yesterday night, I passed 4 checkpoints of armed troops to enter Xoxocotla. I watched as all men entering the town, returning from work were frisked, insulted, and harrassed by troops armed with submachine guns. I headed into the center of town. Hundreds of scared and angry residents emerged from their homes to tell stories of their shock and rage. Many were shcoked at the participation of army troops, tanks, and helicopters.
"Why are they sending the army out against us?" Cried one woman. "We aren't criminals. The President says he is using the army to fight drug traffickers, but he is using it against poor indigenous people."
Demonstrating the short-sighted nature of the government's strategy, another woman whose brother is among the missing echoed a sentiment I heard many times. "Before today many of us didn't even support the teachers' strike. But now we are all with them."
How is it that even as Mexico remembers the 40th anniversary of the Tlatelolco massacre that the army has been allowed to turn its weapons against its own citizens once again?
Despite serious allegations of fraud, Felipe Calderon was sworn in as President of Mexico in December, 2006. Almost immediately following his inauguration, Calderon gave all members of the armed forces a pay raise. Soon afterwards Calderon increased the role of the Mexican Armed forces in Mexican society by announcing that the armed forces would be used to conduct a new heightened war against drug traffickers. Within a few short months, the army was authorized to perform police duties in several Mexican states. Random, illegal military checkpoints targeting civilian vehicles on federal highways became commonplace.
Nearly two years later, with thousands of people killed in Calderon's drug war, there has been no significant disruption in the flow of drugs to the United States. From the outset, critics claimed that Calderon never intended the army's presence in the Mexican countryside to serve as an anti-narcotics force, and that his aims were in fact twofold: To leverage his ability to serve out his Presidential term in light of massive calls for his resignation before his inauguration, and to legitimize the use of the armed forces in domestic affairs as a means to repress Mexico's abundant social movements.
The repression in Xoxocotla this week overwhelmingly supports this hypothesis. Had the citizens of Morelos not seen a gradual increase in the presence of soldiers far from their barracks doing vehicle checks, patrolling the streets, and policing highways, there would surely have been more of a public outcry in this week's use of the army to repress the people of Xoxocotla.
Even more distressing is another clue I witnessed in the ruined home of one woman of Xoxocotla yesterday: a tear gas cannister with English text written on it:
"FOR USE ONLY BY TRAINED INDIVIDUALS"
Apart from the obvious and cynical irony of this "warning label" on a weapon that had been used to terrorize small innocent children, the cartridge proves that the weapons shot from Federal helicopters have been provided by manufacturers from an English speaking country, presumably the United States. Recently, the U.S. Congress authorized 400 million dollars in funding to provide support for the Mexican military in its "war on drugs" in a package known as "Plan México" or "The Merida Initiative."
Declassified documents from the U.S.' National Security Archive have established evidence of Washington's participation in the Tlatelolco massacre. In 2008, once more, the U.S. is helping to arm the Mexican military to attack its own citizens.
Sunday's C-Span opportunity: 3rd-party candidates debateBy Maria RecioMcClatchy Newspapers: Tuesday, October 14, 2008Third-party presidential candidates finally will have their owndebate: at 8 p.m. (5 p.m. PST) Sunday at Columbia University in New York.The debate, which will be announced Wednesday, will include at least threeof the four third-party candidates - independent Ralph Nader, the GreenParty's Cynthia McKinney and the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin.Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr said he has a scheduling conflict, butdebate organizers say he wanted to appear only with Nader. (Democraticnominee Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain are also invited.)Nader and Barr are on the ballot in 45 states, while the Green Party is on31 state ballots and the Constitution Party is on the ballot in 37 states.Nader and McKinney also are on the District of Columbia ballot.Organizers say the debate is an important exercise in democracy, especiallybecause the debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (thelast of which is Wednesday night) exclude candidates scoring below 15percent in national polls. Nader, the best known of the candidates, has anaverage of 2.5 percent in recent national polls, according torealclearpolitics.com, while Barr averages 1.5 percent.Nader maintains that if he could get into the debates run by the Commissionon Presidential Debates, his numbers would immediately climb because"two-thirds of the people don't know we're running.""It's a Catch-22."Nader describes the debate commission as "a two-party dictatorial companythat doesn't want anybody else on the stage." The commission, created in1987, is a corporation headed by two former chairs of the Democratic andRepublican parties.But third-party critics of the system recently got some traction: the secondof the presidential debates prompted a chorus of criticism of the "boring"format and the lack of follow-up questions.Nader also will give the issue more visibility at a rally to open thedebates Wednesday night at New York's historic Cooper Union Great Hall,where presidential candidates back to Abraham Lincoln have spoken.The format for Sunday's third-party debate is still being finalized. It willbe moderated by Pacifica radio host Amy Goodman. The issues promoted by thecandidates strike a different chord from the major party standard-bearers -all four are against the $700 billion economic bailout and all oppose theIraq war.In addition, each has his or her own agenda: Nader rails against corporategreed while McKinney promotes environmental causes. The Libertarian Party isa critic of monetary policy and likes to invoke a return to the goldstandard. Baldwin of the Constitution Party represents a conservative, smallgovernment, anti-abortion party that wants to "restore the government to itsbiblical foundations."The third-party debate will be streamed at www.thirdpartyticket.com and willbe shown on C-Span.
Yesterday, Ralph was in front of the Treasury Building in Washington, D.C. calling on Secretary Henry Paulson to give back some of the millions he made at Goldman Sachs to help underwrite the bailout.
Thanks to your help, we will be firing on all cylinders during the last three weeks of the campaign.
Remember, if you donate $100 more now, we will ship to you our corporate crime package.
This includes two books and a DVD: Gangster Capitalism by Michael Woodiwiss, The Cheating of America by Charles Lewis, Bill Allison and the Center for Public Integrity, and a DVD that we are making of tomorrow's rally on Wall Street. (This offer ends October 24, 2008 at 11:59 p.m.)
October 14, 2008Independent Nader Discusses Economy, Presidential BidMP3: Consumer advocate Ralph Nader spoke with Ray Suarez about his independent run for the presidency as well as his solutions for critical problems facing Americans, including the ailing domestic economy and global markets.
An interview with a comrade from the Grupo Anarco-Comunista "15 de Noviembre"
The following interview was made in July and August 2008 with a member of the "15th November" Anarchist Communist Group, a recently-formed libertarian group in Ecuador, which among other things publishes the magazine "Chasqui Anarquista" with other anarchists, of which two issues have so far come out. In this interview, we tried to find out a little about the origins of the libertarian movement in Ecuador and understand how anarchist communists feel about the social reforms being carried out by Rafael Correa's government. [Castellano]
...
Do you believe there is some tangible threat on the part of the aggressive Colombian military forces, who are undoubtedly acting at the dictates of the USA? Uribe's right-wing government is the expression of the imperialist re-composition of South America. This was seen in the plan to put "Plan Colombia" into operation at the start of this decade. Behind the euphemism of combating drug trafficking, the United States is trying to set up geopolitical control over our lands. This behaviour, together with the growing arms funding and professionalization of the Colombian army, demonstrates the interests and influence of Yankee imperialism over the Colombian government. The real danger is that the conflict will spread throughout the region, a policy that guides the Colombian government's relations with its neighbours, including Ecuador. There have of course been set-ups, like the cowardly murder of the FARC-EP commander "Raúl Reyes" in this country, or lies like Ecuador being the home of the guerrillas' rearguard. We must be careful with the distortions that can easily be given to this problem, and at least for the moment prevent any direct intervention in "our America" by the imperialists.Lastly, could I ask you what chances there are of building a revolutionary, libertarian alternative in Ecuador? What possibilities there are, depend not only on the conditions for it. It would be ironic to say that, as they are already in place; we live in a class society. It depends on the conviction and dedication of each member of the Organization in being a part of the class war, in the neighbourhoods, in schools and universities, in the workplace. It is interesting to see that in Ecuador, three consecutive presidents in a row have been swept away by the "Out, all of them!" movement - and not only these three parasites, but also the institutions and both private and State bodies. And one of our most basic weapons in this revolutionary task is to take advantage of this discontent....
Bolivian President Evo Morales today led a peaceful march of social organizations that set off towards La Paz to call for a referendum on the new constitution, PL reports.At the mass rally in Caracollo, a town in the Bolivian altiplano 200 kilometers from the seat of government, Morales affirmed that the demonstration is an expression of the conscience of the people, who support the current process of change.The head of state highlighted that this is the biggest demonstration to date of unity and the will to fight for social justice, since the March for Life led by Bolivian miners in 1986.He added that 5,000 people from the country’s nine departments and representing different sectors and political affiliations are on their way to La Paz to demand that Congress pass a bill calling for a referendum on the constitution."But at the end of this march, we could be joined by close to one million people determined to re-found Bolivia by establishing a new political constitution," he affirmed. ...
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States has been deploying agents in Zulia under the protection Manuel Rosales, the governor of that Venezuelan state, President Hugo Chávez stated today, PL reports.
I am reminded of the Zapatistas, whom my lawyer calls "the world's cuddliest political revolutionaries". Ironically, Subcomandante Marcos' charisma is big enough to smoke Obama's charisma like so much pipe tobacco. Yet he refuses to lead. Like Spider-Man or a luchador, he refuses even to remove his mask.The Zapatistas are small in number, and they live in a jungle, and they have guns. I fear that their form of organization will not work for large populations who live in non-jungles and have no guns. I fear that it is too late for me to join, now that my friends have posted pictures of my real face on Facebook.
Igal Sarna meets a Mossad chief’s daughter who is in jail for refusing national service
Omer Goldman is a very pretty girl, slender as a model. Never still and very restless, the expected loss of her freedom fills her with anxiety. For months before she refused to be drafted into the Israel Defence Forces she went to a psychologist every week to prepare for what was to come: incarceration in a cell in a military prison. A narrow cage for a songbird.
I met her several times during September, in an apartment, with other girls who are conscientious objectors. Together they would hand out flyers against Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza at the gates of a high school like the one she completed a year ago.
On her last day of freedom as a civilian, I saw her at the gates of the intake base to which she had received orders to report for induction for a two-year stint with the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), like every Israeli girl. But she came to refuse the draft, to be tried and to be imprisoned immediately.
Several dozen supporters showed up - members of Anarchists Against the Wall, her mother and a few girlfriends - and she stayed close to them as though she were trying to delay the end, the moment when she would clash all alone with the army.
For Omer, this transition is sharper and more surprising than for most conscientious objectors: she is the daughter of the outgoing deputy head of Mossad, the man who very nearly became head of the organisation.
Omer grew up all her life in the warm bosom of a huge security establishment that has now become an enemy rather than a friend. Her father appears in the newspapers as 'N'. He was a senior intelligence officer and then transferred to Mossad and climbed to the top until in 2007 he became the deputy to Mossad chief Meir Dagan (right), now considered the most powerful mystery man in the Israeli security establishment.
'N', who specialises in the dilemma of Iran,
was spoken of as Dagan's designated successor, but Dagan had no intention of retiring. Differences of opinion developed between two strong bosses and 'N' resigned in June 2007.
This was the time when his daughter Omer, a pampered child of the wealthy suburb Ramat Hasharon, was beginning to move away from the usual high school-to-army trajectory.
Parallel to her father's struggle and his resignation from Mossad, Omer rebelled against the way he had paved for her and went to have a look at Palestinian life on the other side of the wall. Call this an adolescent's rebellion against her father or a battle for the heart of a father who had left home.
She is one of about 40 high school students who signed the 2008 12th-graders' letter. Thirty-eight years ago, the first such letter caused a huge uproar. In April 1970 students from my final year in secondary school sent a letter to the prime minister, Golda Meir, against the occupation and the war of attrition. Since then there have been other letters and the uproar has died down. But in Israel conscientious objection still arouses cold, self-righteous wrath.
Omer told me that the crucial moment of her metamorphosis occurred this year when she went to a Palestinian village where the IDF had set up a roadblock. Someone she had considered her enemy all her life stood beside her and someone who was supposed to be defending her opened fire at her.
"We were sitting by the roadside talking and soldiers came along and after a few seconds they received an order and fired gas grenades and rubber bullets at us. Then it struck me, to my astonishment, that the soldiers were following an order without thinking. For the first time in my life an Israeli soldier raised his weapon and fired at me."
And when you told your father?
"Dad was astonished and angry that I had been there and endangered my life. After that we had conversations. He supported me as his daughter and we have a good relationship, but he is decidedly opposed to what I do and even more to my refusal to
‘For the first time in my life an Israeli soldier raised his weapon and fired at me’
serve in the army.
"At first he thought this was a passing phase of adolescence and later he understood that this is coming from a place deep inside me. He and I have very similar characters. I, too, fight to the end for what I believe in. But we are opposites ideologically."
When I ask more about her father, Omer smiles and does not answer. A rare moment of silence. The beauty of her smile covers for everything.
On September 23 she refused to serve in the army, was tried and was sent to prison for 21 days. Next week she will be tried again - and again until the army tires or she tires.
In two weeks' time, my own son Noam is due to join the army and I will be accompanying him to the same base where I last saw Omer Goldman. Unlike Omer, Noam intends to do his military service. I understand them both.
FIRST POSTED OCTOBER 9, 2008
Omer’s father was spoken of as Dagan’s successor. But Dagan had no intention of retiring
A new Army grant aims to create email or echnology is based on reading electrical activity in the brain using an electroencephalograph, or EEG. Similar technology is being marketed as a way to control video games by thought.
What do Barack Obama and John McCain say, and what have they done, about policies that matter to Wired.com? Here are descriptions and analysis on five issues:
Except for green tech, none of these issues has played a big role in the campaign so far, and none will likely come up in Wednesday's third and final debate. But they are all still quite important. And there are many other technology issues that matter, beyond these five.
For more, read this report -- or, better yet, scroll down and use the Reddit tools to submit your own topics, grade the candidates, and vote on other reader submissions.
The Issue: The United States is becoming a tortoise in a world of hares. One of the world’s most Wired nations a decade ago, we now lag behind most of our peers. In France, broadband access is half the price and four times as fast. The main cause for the debacle is a lack of competition in telecommunications. Most communities have, at best, one cable choice and one DSL choice. This situation came about through the mass consolidation of the industry, and through the non-enforcement and then repudiation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which mandated that entrenched telecom companies lease their lines into people’s homes to smaller companies.
McCain’s Position: As argued here and here, McCain has consistently been on the wrong side of this issue. As Senate Commerce Chair, he supported the mass consolidation in the industry. He also consistently voted the wrong way on whether entrenched competitors should be forced to lease their lines. The one point in his favor is his support of the Community Broadband Bill which would help cities offer wireless Internet, even when the local companies try to crush them.
Obama’s Position: Obama wasn’t around for the major votes on this issue. And while he is advised by all the right people, he hasn’t come out with a specific plan to open up the industry. His big proposal is to take money currently used to subsidize rural phone use and, instead, use it to subsidize rural broadband use. This could be helpful. But if the markets aren’t made competitive beforehand, it could also end up as little more than another subsidy to the same giant companies that have served us so poorly.
Zeitgeist: The Movie
successfully challenged customary assumptions about democracy and religion, and resonated with the fears and dreams of millions of viewers. The sequel, Zeitgeist: Addendum,
explores the corruption of our globalized monetary system, and considers how we might effect a transition from a society of scarcity and profiteering, to one of sustainability and abundance.
The film opens with a concise analysis of the monetary system, explaining how money is debt, and how debt is used as a subtle tool by an unelected "corporatocracy" to enslave the populace within the system. "Economic hitman" John Perkins describes how various reformist political leaders of developing nations worldwide have been overthrown or assassinated when they have attempted to withstand the global ambitions of this corporatocracy.
Suggesting that human behaviour is environmentally conditioned, the film argues that our current egocentric, profit oriented environment nurtures unthinking nihilistic consumers, who struggle to envisage any alternative to the status quo.
Zeitgeist: Addendum concludes by taking us on an inspirational tour of a world that might yet come into being, if we can move beyond our paralyzing profit structure, and the elite that manipulate it. The technology to create a truly egalitarian planetary civilization of sustainable abundance already exists. What is needed is the will, the courage and the opportunity to apply it.
Read D. T. Suzuki - Manual of Zen Buddhism on Scrib'd
"Suzuki's works on Zen Buddhism are among the best contributions to the knowledge of living Buddhism… We cannot be sufficiently grateful to the author, first for the fact of his having brought Zen closer to Western understanding, and secondly for the manner in which he has achieved this task."
-Carl Jung in the foreword of "Suzuki, D. T. (1964), An Introduction to Zen Buddhism"
Upon that night, when fairies light
On Cassilis Downans dance,
Or owre the lays, in splendid blaze,
On sprightly coursers prance;
Or for Colean the route is ta'en,
Beneath the moon's pale beams;
There, up the cove, to stray and rove,
Among the rocks and streams
To sport that night.
Among the bonny winding banks,
Where Doon rins, wimplin' clear,
Where Bruce ance ruled the martial ranks,
And shook his Carrick spear,
Some merry, friendly, country-folks,
Together did convene,
To burn their nits, and pou their stocks,
And haud their Halloween
Fu' blithe that night.
The lasses feat, and cleanly neat,
Mair braw than when they're fine;
Their faces blithe, fu' sweetly kythe,
Hearts leal, and warm, and kin';
The lads sae trig, wi' wooer-babs,
Weel knotted on their garten,
Some unco blate, and some wi' gabs,
Gar lasses' hearts gang startin'
Whiles fast at night.
Then, first and foremost, through the kail,
Their stocks maun a' be sought ance;
They steek their een, and graip and wale,
For muckle anes and straught anes.
Poor hav'rel Will fell aff the drift,
And wander'd through the bow-kail,
And pou't, for want o' better shift,
A runt was like a sow-tail,
Sae bow't that night.
Then, staught or crooked, yird or nane,
They roar and cry a' throu'ther;
The very wee things, todlin', rin,
Wi' stocks out owre their shouther;
And gif the custoc's sweet or sour.
Wi' joctelegs they taste them;
Syne cozily, aboon the door,
Wi cannie care, they've placed them
To lie that night.
The lasses staw frae 'mang them a'
To pou their stalks of corn:
But Rab slips out, and jinks about,
Behint the muckle thorn:
He grippet Nelly hard and fast;
Loud skirl'd a' the lasses;
But her tap-pickle maist was lost,
When kitlin' in the fause-house
Wi' him that night.
The auld guidwife's well-hoordit nits,
Are round and round divided,
And monie lads' and lasses' fates
Are there that night decided:
Some kindle coothie, side by side,
And burn thegither trimly;
Some start awa, wi' saucy pride,
And jump out-owre the chimlie
Fu' high that night.
Jean slips in twa wi' tentie ee;
Wha 'twas she wadna tell;
But this is Jock, and this is me,
She says in to hersel:
He bleezed owre her, and she owre him,
As they wad never mair part;
Till, fuff! he started up the lum,
And Jean had e'en a sair heart
To see't that night.
Poor Willie, wi' his bow-kail runt,
Was brunt wi' primsie Mallie;
And Mallie, nae doubt, took the drunt,
To be compared to Willie;
Mall's nit lap out wi' pridefu' fling,
And her ain fit it brunt it;
While Willie lap, and swore by jing,
'Twas just the way he wanted
To be that night.
Nell had the fause-house in her min',
She pits hersel and Rob in;
In loving bleeze they sweetly join,
Till white in ase they're sobbin';
Nell's heart was dancin' at the view,
She whisper'd Rob to leuk for't:
Rob, stowlins, prie'd her bonny mou',
Fu' cozie in the neuk for't,
Unseen that night.
But Merran sat behint their backs,
Her thoughts on Andrew Bell;
She lea'es them gashin' at their cracks,
And slips out by hersel:
She through the yard the nearest taks,
And to the kiln goes then,
And darklins graipit for the bauks,
And in the blue-clue throws then,
Right fear't that night.
And aye she win't, and aye she swat,
I wat she made nae jaukin',
Till something held within the pat,
Guid Lord! but she was quakin'!
But whether 'was the deil himsel,
Or whether 'twas a bauk-en',
Or whether it was Andrew Bell,
She didna wait on talkin'
To spier that night.
Wee Jennie to her grannie says,
"Will ye go wi' me, grannie?
I'll eat the apple at the glass
I gat frae Uncle Johnnie:"
She fuff't her pipe wi' sic a lunt,
In wrath she was sae vap'rin',
She notice't na, an aizle brunt
Her braw new worset apron
Out through that night.
"Ye little skelpie-limmer's face!
I daur you try sic sportin',
As seek the foul thief ony place,
For him to spae your fortune.
Nae doubt but ye may get a sight!
Great cause ye hae to fear it;
For mony a ane has gotten a fright,
And lived and died deleeret
On sic a night.
"Ae hairst afore the Sherramoor, --
I mind't as weel's yestreen,
I was a gilpey then, I'm sure
I wasna past fifteen;
The simmer had been cauld and wat,
And stuff was unco green;
And aye a rantin' kirn we gat,
And just on Halloween
It fell that night.
"Our stibble-rig was Rab M'Graen,
A clever sturdy fallow:
His son gat Eppie Sim wi' wean,
That lived in Achmacalla:
He gat hemp-seed, I mind it weel,
And he made unco light o't;
But mony a day was by himsel,
He was sae sairly frighted
That very night."
Then up gat fechtin' Jamie Fleck,
And he swore by his conscience,
That he could saw hemp-seed a peck;
For it was a' but nonsense.
The auld guidman raught down the pock,
And out a hanfu' gied him;
Syne bade him slip frae 'mang the folk,
Some time when nae ane see'd him,
And try't that night.
He marches through amang the stacks,
Though he was something sturtin;
The graip he for a harrow taks.
And haurls it at his curpin;
And every now and then he says,
"Hemp-seed, I saw thee,
And her that is to be my lass,
Come after me, and draw thee
As fast this night."
He whistled up Lord Lennox' march
To keep his courage cheery;
Although his hair began to arch,
He was say fley'd and eerie:
Till presently he hears a squeak,
And then a grane and gruntle;
He by his shouther gae a keek,
And tumbled wi' a wintle
Out-owre that night.
He roar'd a horrid murder-shout,
In dreadfu' desperation!
And young and auld came runnin' out
To hear the sad narration;
He swore 'twas hilchin Jean M'Craw,
Or crouchie Merran Humphie,
Till, stop! she trotted through them
And wha was it but grumphie
Asteer that night!
Meg fain wad to the barn hae gaen,
To win three wechts o' naething;
But for to meet the deil her lane,
She pat but little faith in:
She gies the herd a pickle nits,
And two red-cheekit apples,
To watch, while for the barn she sets,
In hopes to see Tam Kipples
That very nicht.
She turns the key wi cannie thraw,
And owre the threshold ventures;
But first on Sawnie gies a ca'
Syne bauldly in she enters:
A ratton rattled up the wa',
And she cried, Lord, preserve her!
And ran through midden-hole and a',
And pray'd wi' zeal and fervour,
Fu' fast that night;
They hoy't out Will wi' sair advice;
They hecht him some fine braw ane;
It chanced the stack he faddom'd thrice
Was timmer-propt for thrawin';
He taks a swirlie, auld moss-oak,
For some black grousome carlin;
And loot a winze, and drew a stroke,
Till skin in blypes cam haurlin'
Aff's nieves that night.
A wanton widow Leezie was,
As canty as a kittlin;
But, och! that night amang the shaws,
She got a fearfu' settlin'!
She through the whins, and by the cairn,
And owre the hill gaed scrievin,
Whare three lairds' lands met at a burn
To dip her left sark-sleeve in,
Was bent that night.
Whyles owre a linn the burnie plays,
As through the glen it wimpl't;
Whyles round a rocky scaur it strays;
Whyles in a wiel it dimpl't;
Whyles glitter'd to the nightly rays,
Wi' bickering, dancing dazzle;
Whyles cookit underneath the braes,
Below the spreading hazel,
Unseen that night.
Among the brackens, on the brae,
Between her and the moon,
The deil, or else an outler quey,
Gat up and gae a croon:
Poor Leezie's heart maist lap the hool!
Near lav'rock-height she jumpit;
but mist a fit, and in the pool
Out-owre the lugs she plumpit,
Wi' a plunge that night.
In order, on the clean hearth-stane,
The luggies three are ranged,
And every time great care is ta'en',
To see them duly changed:
Auld Uncle John, wha wedlock joys
Sin' Mar's year did desire,
Because he gat the toom dish thrice,
He heaved them on the fire
In wrath that night.
Wi' merry sangs, and friendly cracks,
I wat they didna weary;
And unco tales, and funny jokes,
Their sports were cheap and cheery;
Till butter'd so'ns, wi' fragrant lunt,
Set a' their gabs a-steerin';
Syne, wi' a social glass o' strunt,
They parted aff careerin'
Fu' blythe that night.
Robert Burns 
Our lives avoided tragedy
Speculators have found Hungary to be very weak and vulnerable 
The Farias campaign stands out
as the lone voice for working-class
and oppressed people in SJC.
Lucilla Esguerra's campaign
has organized numerous street
meetings in her majority Black
and Latino district.
