Steve Russell : Let Us Now Praise (Not) Famous Women

Posted on October 14, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer

There’s a little “Wonder Woman” in all women. Image from the Wonder Woman Museum.

Let us now praise women
And the roles they play in our lives

By Steve Russell / The Rag Blog / October 14, 2009

I just came from a reunion of the civil rights law firm in Austin, where I used to work. Most of our work involved the anti-war movement and the mainstream discrimination cases, although we did send two lawyers to help defend the avalanche of criminal cases that fell on the American Indian Movement after Wounded Knee II. One of my detractors once said, “the biggest risk you took at the Knee would be a paper cut.”

It’s true that I took no risks at the Knee and I would go farther and say I would not have. Demonstration is easy; organizing is hard, and waving guns at the guys who have all the guns is just plain dumb. That said, once the government dropped the proverbial load of bricks on AIM, AIM had to be defended because their complaints were just even if their tactics were wrong. But I digress.

The people I knew in the civil rights movement were the finest people I’ve known in my life, and at my age I’ve watched plenty of friends and family make the journey, so I know that I should not waste an opportunity to tell somebody how much they have meant to me.

As far as I knew, the firm reunion was put together by a couple of the name partners. At the reunion, I discovered something that should not have been a surprise. Much of the heavy lifting was done by one of several women who had been legal workers.

I got to thinking about her when the truth came out, and I’ve decided that it’s fitting to say some things about her without speaking her name. Here’s a woman who has all the skills to run a law office, with or without computers. She sings and plays piano and accordion. She has a working knowledge of constitutional law, and has forgotten more about medicine than I ever knew. That may be why her daughter has become a medical doctor.

Maybe she is Superwoman, but she represents nicely the women who were behind every campaign I had to run when I was an elected official. I am reminded of the time I didn’t have the money to pay for preparing a mailer and the day before it had to be done my home was suddenly full of women I had no recollection of meeting. It turned out I had met some of them. They appeared because somebody posted a notice on the bulletin board at the battered women’s shelter saying I had an opponent and needed help.

I suppose I got that outpouring from the shelter for two reasons. I had created domestic violence dockets on two different courts, and my opponent had obstructed my efforts on one of those courts. The judge running against me was later arrested for threatening his wife with a gun, but I have no way of knowing if anybody knew about his personal life.

Women were behind everything I’ve ever accomplished in my life. I was married to some of them, some worked for me, and some just helped me for their own reasons, but without them my legal career would not have happened the way it did. It appears to me that we men can’t beat women in academia, in the professions, or in making families the places where our children can feel safe and excel. Seems some men think the only way they can beat women is to beat them.

Men are, indeed, bigger and stronger than women in most cases. There is social science research that tells us women are as likely as men to resort to what is technically domestic violence. That is, they will throw a slap or a dish because they are just as likely as we are to be unskilled at conflict resolution. Violent women notwithstanding, it is the women who arrive in the emergency rooms and the morgues. This is true in the dominant culture and unfortunately it’s also true in our [Indian] cultures.

Domestic violence is not a sex-neutral problem. While some men bite dogs, dog bite is not a species-neutral problem. Domestic violence is our problem, we men, the ones with the size and often the military training.

While it is necessary to put wife beaters in jail, sometimes to keep the peace in the community, jail is not going to stop wife beating. What will stop it is when beating your wife means your fishing buddy doesn’t want to fish with you anymore. When beating your wife is an unadulterated mark of disgrace. When hurting the mother of your children brings you the shame you deserve.

If a judge expresses outrage toward a wife beater, the judge has to be expressing the values of the community, and the community has to be a place where no man, woman, or child will listen to excuses.

She started it. She didn’t have dinner ready on time. She called me a bad name. I’m not here to tell you your wife is perfect, but if you made a bad pick when you got married we have divorce courts for that. I guess you should be proud that everybody would say you are a perfect husband except when you beat her, right?

I can accept that the fact that I have been gifted with a great professional career by a bunch of anonymous women will not apply to everybody. I suppose I can even understand the people who, when I was pushing a female candidate in my tribal election, railed against “petticoat government.”

Habits die hard, although my understanding of Cherokee history matches Wilma Mankiller’s, as expressed in her autobiography: we used to have women leaders before the missionaries taught us that men are meant to run things.

If none of the things I’ve said match your life experience, let me try one more thing. Let me point out that for most of us, the first human touch we experience is by a woman, a midwife or a grandmother in that role. The last human touch we experience will be a woman, a hospice nurse or a sister in that role. In between, if we are lucky, we experience other loving touches from women that ought to give us pause before laying violent hands on them, or offering friendship to a man who does.

If you can come that far with me, let me offer one more suggestion as a privilege of my age: do not waste an opportunity to tell the women who have made your life better how much they mean to you.

[Steve Russell, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, is a Texas trial court judge by assignment and an associate professor of criminal justice at Indiana University. He is a contributor to The Rag Blog and is a columnist for Indian Country Today, where this article also appears. He lives in Bloomington and can be reached at swrussel@indiana.edu.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Preventing Abortion : Contraception More Successful than Laws

Posted on October 14, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer

Sign in Katmandu, Nepal: “Safe Abortion Service avbailable. From 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Sunday to Friday. Charge 1,000 rupees.” The hospital is run by the government. Photo by Binod Joshi / AP.

Guttmacher survey of 197 countries:
Making abortion illegal doesn’t mean fewer abortions

The way to lower (and someday hopefully eliminate) abortion is to teach real sex education and encourage the use of contraceptives.

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / October 14, 2009

Fundamentalists live in a very simple world. They believe they can prevent teens from having sex by refusing to provide them with real sex education. They also believe they can prevent abortions by simply banning legal abortions.

It has recently been shown that teaching “abstinence only” does not prevent teen sex, but it does increase the number of teen pregnancies by preventing the use of contraceptive methods. Now there is a new study that shows banning abortions does not decrease the number of abortions.

The Guttmacher Institute did a survey of 197 countries regarding abortion. They found “roughly equal rates” of women seeking abortions in both countries with legal abortion and countries that had banned abortions. In other words, banning abortion not only didn’t eliminate abortions, it didn’t even lower the number of abortions.

In countries without legal abortion, women just go to a country where it is legal (as Irish women go to Europe) or they seek illegal (and dangerous) abortions (as women in Africa and South America do). In fact, illegal abortions kill at least 70,000 women each year — leaving nearly a quarter of a million children without mothers. Another 5 million women develop serious complications.

Oddly enough, there is a proven way to lower the rate of abortions — contraception. The Guttmacher Institute found that there were 45.5 million abortions in 1995. By 2003, that number had dropped to 41.6 million in spite of an increase in population. The change is due to a wider use of contraceptive methods.

Just look at what contraception has done in the Netherlands — where abortion is legal and contraceptive use is encouraged and taught. Worldwide, the abortion rate is about 29 per 1000 people, but in the Netherlands it is only 10 per 1000 people. Young people there commonly use two forms of contraception, and that has radically lowered the abortion rate.

The facts are clear. If you hate abortion and want to eliminate it, banning abortion will not do it. That will only kill and seriously injure many women. The way to lower (and someday hopefully eliminate) abortion is to teach real sex education and encourage the use of contraceptives.

No one likes abortion. It just can’t be eliminated by simplistic thinking or laws.

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

Death Penalty Probe : Perry Pressured Panel Chair

Posted on October 13, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer


Fired commission chief Sam Bassett:
Pressure from Perry on Willingham probe

By Zachary Roth / October 13, 2009

It’s starting to look more and more like Texas governor Rick Perry orchestrated an effort to thwart a state probe into an arson investigation that may have led to the execution of an innocent man.

Sam Bassett — the former chair of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, who Perry declined to reappoint last month — is now saying that Perry’s aides tried to pressure him over the direction of the inquiry his panel was conducting into the steps that led to the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for arson. Perry, as governor, signed off on the execution, despite clear evidence that the investigation was flawed.

Bassett told the Chicago Tribune over the weekend that he twice was summoned to meetings with Perry’s top attorneys, who said explicitly that they were unhappy with the how the panel’s probe was being conducted. At one meeting, Perry’s lawyers questioned how much it was costing, and asked why the panel had hired a nationally known arson expert — rather than a Texas fire scientist — to look into the case. Bassett added that after that meeting, a staffer from the Texas general counsel’s office started attending commission meetings.

Said Bassett to the Tribune:

I was surprised that they were involving themselves in the commission’s decision-making. I did feel some pressure from them, yes. There’s no question about that.

Nor is Perry’s office being transparent about the issue. Over the weekend, it refused a request from The Houston Chronicle to release documents that would shed light on how — or whether – it reviewed a report from Willigham’s lawyer, sent hours before Willingham alerting the governor to serious flaws in the arson investigation. Perry’s office argued to the paper that staff comments and analyses of the report aren’t public records.

Since the controversy over Bassett’s ouster erupted last month, Perry has pointed out that Bassett’s tenure was expired, and that the governor merely declined to reappoint him. But an advisory lawyers group, as well as several members of the panel itself, had urged Perry to keep Bassett on. And the decision not to reappoint Bassett came just days before the panel was to hear testimony from Craig Beyler, a nationally known arson expert who argued in a report that methods used in the investigation could not support the finding of arson.

The new chair appointed by Perry to replace Bassett, conservative prosecutor John Bradley, called off Beyler’s testimony, saying he and other new panel members needed more time to get up to speed on the case. Bradley has not said whether Beyler’s appearance will be rescheduled.

Source / TPMMuckraker

Thanks to Harry Edwards / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Refuseniks : Israel’s Shministim say ‘No’ to Occupation of Palestine

Posted on October 13, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer

Refuseniks: Maya Wind, left, and Netta Mishly. Photo by Thomas Good / NLN / The Rag Blog.

Israelis who just say ‘No’:
Students refusing to serve the occupation

By Thomas Good / The Rag Blog / October 13, 2009

NEW YORK — Shministim is a Hebrew word meaning twelfth graders — but it means much more than that in the context of Israeli society and the occupation of Palestine.

Shministim was the name adopted by a group of high school seniors who, in 1970, sent a letter to then Prime Minister Golda Meir, explaining that they declined to serve in the Israeli Defense Force due to the IDF’s role in policing the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. In 1987, a second Shministim group was formed, again composed of high school students who refused to serve in occupied Palestine.

In 2001, a third instance of the sarvanim — or refusenik — movement arose. Members of this third incarnation of the student group are currently touring the U.S. The tour was organized by Jewish Voice for Peace and is being aided by CodePINK.

On September 30, two Shministim refusers, Maya Wind and Netta Mishly, spoke at the Unitarian Church of Staten Island. The event was co-sponsored by the UCSI and Peace Action Staten Island.

The two young women began their presentation with a description of how conscription works in Israel. It is mandatory for all Jews and some non-Jews as well. Women serve two years, men, three. Draft dodging is very common.

According to Wind, 40 percent of those required to serve elude the draft as a variety of loopholes exist. Orthodox Jews are exempted on religious grounds and married women are also not required to serve. Physical ailments are a third way out of military service and mental illness — real or invented — is “another popular one,” Wind said.

Israel also grants conscientious objector status to some conscriptees, although potential COs must convince a panel that they are “universal pacifists” who will not fight under any circumstances. The last officially accepted category is “misfitting” which, according to Ms. Wind, includes “everything from smoking pot in high school to a rough socioeconomic background.”

But the Shministim do not fit into any of these categories. They are refuseniks with a political cause — “selective refusers” who reject Israeli policy towards Palestine and its peoples. Because they are not pacifists and cite a political reason for their refusal, they often become political prisoners of the Israeli military.

Maya Wind read a portion of a Shministim letter that was sent to the Israeli political leaders. The section mentioned several “defense methods” the Shministim find objectionable: “checkpoints, targeted killing (of Palestinians), roads for Jews only, sieges and war.” The conclusion of the statement summarized the Shministim position saying it was “impossible to be moral and serve the occupation.”

Becoming a political prisoner

Netta Mishly described the process of becoming a refusenik. Draftees receive orders to report to base. On arrival each conscript receives an order, in effect the order states you are now a soldier of the IDF. It is at this point the Shministim refuse.

Having refused a direct order, the refuseniks are sent to military prison. When they are released, the Shministim return to base where they are again ordered to become soldiers. Additional refusals provoke additional jail time. This sequence can loop any number of times.

It can be broken by the refusenik asking to see a psychiatrist — or being ordered to see one. If found mentally unfit, the refusenik is exempted from military service. In theory a conscript can be held in prison for ten years but according to Mishly no one has been held beyond two years.

The reason behind the refusal

Maya Wind and Netta Mishly discussed the rationale for the Shministim refusal to serve the occupation in detail. The discussion began with a slideshow depicting the Israeli appropriation of Palestinian land, starting in 1947 and intensifying after the 1948 war. The war resulted in a large land grab that Israelis call independence and Palestinians call the Nakba (catastrophe).

The 1947 partition scheme gave 30 percent of the population (Israelis) 55 percent of the land, Wind said. Since then the Israelis have made encroachment on the remaining lands a centerpiece of domestic and foreign policy. And integral to the encroachment and appropriation is the occupation.

Ms. Mishly described the “three elements of the occupation” in some detail: settlements, check points and “separation barriers” (the Wall).

“The settlements are in very strategic points.” she said.

The settlements are used to justify the army’s presence in Palestine. The settlers, the checkpoints that protect them, and the army personnel that garrison the checkpoints have been deployed for “purely economic reasons,” Mishly said.

The system of checkpoints — and the time involved in negotiating them — keeps the cost of Palestinian produced goods high with the end result being that it is often cheaper for Palestinians to buy Israeli products than to purchase items produced by their own people. The Palestinians who pass through the checkpoints are used as a cheap labor pool by Israelis — and the checkpoints are used effectively to prevent organized resistance to economic exploitation.

The 260 checkpoints make it very difficult for Palestinians to move freely and this is by design, according to Wind and Mishly. Travel permits are required and membership in an organization the Israelis oppose can result in a permit being revoked. This can be devastating as Palestinians must funnel through checkpoints to go to school and hospital — as well as to work.

The official rationale argues that checkpoints are for security and protect Israelis. Ms. Wind disagrees.

“The vast majority of checkpoints separate Palestinians from Palestinians more than they separate Palestinians from Israelis,” Wind said.

The checkpoint system is an aspect of military service the Shministim find particularly objectionable. Wind pointed out that having to wear 80 pounds of equipment, “in all weather,” while strip searching Palestinians who stand on line for hours makes for surly soldiers who are also scared for their own safety. This often results in IDF soldiers abusing Palestinians, Wind said. None of this furthers the peace process.

Up against the wall

Ms. Mishly discussed The Wall, the so-called separation barrier, which is located inside the West Bank — as opposed to encircling the territory. The fact that the Wall winds through Palestinian territory, rather than containing it — erected in areas where settlements are planned but not yet built — would seem to indicate that its purpose is not security but continued encroachment into Palestinian lands, in the form of settlements.

Expanding settlements

The settlements allow Jews seeking affordable housing — underwritten by government sponsored tax incentives — to acquire nicer homes with “better views” than they could find in Israel. But the settlements are not the only form of encroachment. Maya Wind has researched what she calls “the economy of occupation” and she has concluded that there are four core elements:

  1. Economic exploitation of Palestinian natural resources and a cheap labor pool are hallmarks of the economy of the occupation, according to Wind. Palestinian laborers are underpaid (often less than the Israeli minimum wage), uninsured and compelled to work overtime without overtime compensation. Many natural resources are removed from Palestine, for example mud used in facial masks, and packaged and sold as Israeli products.

    “Israel goes into the West Bank and extracts natural resources as if it owned them,” Ms. Wind said. The Israelis also dump toxic and other waste in the West Bank, she said.

  2. Control of the indigenous population via military means has produced a security industry in Israel. Ms. Wind said that the economic importance of Israeli arms trafficking is a problem but the exportation of security methods and technology using “the occupation as a logo” is particularly offensive

  3. The corporations profiting from the Israeli economic exploitation of Palestinian workers and natural resources are not exclusively Israeli. Multinational corporations profiting at the expense of the Palestinians, encouraged by Israeli tax incentives, is well documented at whoprofits.org, Ms. Wind said.

  4. Water. Water is a key natural resource in the Middle East and 80 percent of the water extracted from Palestine is redirected to Israeli settlements, producing serious shortages in the Occupied Territories.

Ideology and ordinary Israelis

To make the occupation palatable to ordinary Israelis and the rest of the world an ideological war is also underway, Wind said. She told the audience that the “victim mentality,” in part a result of the Holocaust and other examples of anti-semitism, is used to create a distrust of the world — a distrust that is “very harmful to the peace movement” in Israel.

The absence of a “Palestinian narrative” in Israeli discourse and textbooks is used to perpetuate the “empty land” myth, Wind said, alluding to the notion that Palestine was a vast empty expanse, a “land without people for a people without land” before the Israelis arrived. Wind compared the lack of a Palestinian narrative in Israel to the lack of a Native American narrative in U.S. society.

Additional ideological underpinnings of the occupation and exploitation include the notion that the IDF is “the most moral army in the world,” Wind said. She said that this romantic representation of the IDF is accompanied by the myth that the Israeli government wants peace but “there is no partner.” Wind rejects this idea, noting that wherever there are people, there is a partner for the peace process.

The formal presentation was followed by a question and answer session.

An audience member asked about Americans who serve in the IDF. Netta Mishly responded, saying that Americans generally serve only a year as they are “not that useful” due to the language barrier — most Americans who join the IDF do not speak Hebrew.

Commenting on a significant fact, often overlooked in discussions about the occupation, Mishly said that more and more settlers are army careerists, attaining higher and higher ranks and being in a position to influence IDF policy and perhaps Israeli politics. This also hinders the peace process.

Sons and daughters

The most poignant moment in the evening arrived when the two young women discussed the cost of being a Shministim.

Noting that the refuseniks are the smallest segment — approximately 200 people — of the peace movement in Israel, Mishly pointed out that they support each other because they are ostracized. Responding to a question about whether their families support them, Mishly said no.

“It hurts,” she said.

The lack of support for the political position taken by the Shministim does not, however, stop family members from supporting their children when their sons and daughters enter the prison system.

“They are still your parents,” Mishly said.

[Thomas Good is editor of Next Left Notes, where this article also appears.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Mexico : Church and Macho Politicos Wage War on Women

Posted on October 13, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer

Photo of graffiti from Mejilla Hyde.

Catholic Church and macho politicos
Wage war on Mexico’s women

‘Get your rosaries out of our ovaries!’

By John Ross / The Rag Blog / October 13, 2009

MEXICO CITY — “Sacan Sus Rosarios De Nuestras Ovarios!” The women, some of them bare-breasted, linked arms and chanted at the men in suits who were dashing towards the barricaded doors of the colonial edifice that houses the local congress in the central Mexican city of Queretero.

“Get Your Rosaries Out Of Our Ovaries!”

Indeed, some of the men were so eager to get to their desks on the floor of the state legislature that they squeezed through basement windows, risking wrinkles to duds that had been freshly pressed for the occasion.

By 9 a.m. September 1st, in a classic “madruguete” (early morning vote behind locked doors to exclude dissenters), all 21 members of the all-male Queretero congress had unanimously passed a bill criminalizing abortions for all women with the exception of rape victims (but not victims of incest) and those whose lives would be put at risk for carrying to full term. Any other woman who so much as inquired about the availability of abortion at a hospital or clinic could now be imprisoned for up to a year.

According to news reports, a week after the law was passed and signed off on by the rightist Queretero governor, one unfortunate and unidentified woman was in fact arrested for soliciting an abortion, held in jail overnight, and forced to pay a 4000 peso fine.

Queretero was the 15th Mexican state to criminalize abortion. Days later, the conflictive southern state of Oaxaca became the 16th entity in the Mexican union to ratify what pro-choice organizations label “La Ley Machista” that defines life as beginning at fertilization and imposes prison sentences on women seeking to terminate unwanted pregnancies. As in Queretero, the measure was vociferously dissed by pro-choice advocates and the legislature was forced to relocate to a secure alternative site to vote the Oaxaca version of “The Macho Law” up.

Criminalization of abortion bills are also pending in Michoacan, Sinaloa, Veracruz, and Mexico state. With half of Mexico’s 31 states plus one now on record, the machos are assured that a constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion can be passed and such legislation is expected to be introduced in a coming session of the new Mexican congress.

Criminalization of abortion is turning Mexico into “a totalitarian state,” opines Diego Valades, a former attorney general and dean of the National Autonomous University (UNAM) law faculty — such legislation “cedes control of a woman’s body to the state and is itself unconstitutional.” Valades proposes instead a constitutional amendment that would guarantee a woman’s reproductive rights.

The anti-abortion putsch is being orchestrated by the ruling right-wing PAN party in connivance with the Princes of the Catholic hierarchy. One goal is to force repeal of Mexico City’s free abortion-on-demand law. Since the pro-choice legislation was deemed constitutional by a ten to one vote of the nation’s Supreme Court two Septembers ago after the law had been challenged by then-attorney general Eduardo Medina Mora, a proxy for President Felipe Calderon, and the National Human Rights Commission ombudsman Jose Luis Soberanes, an Opus Dei intimate, the city has provided free interruptions of unwanted pregnancies during the first 12 weeks of gestation to more than 30,000 women, an average of 41 a day, according to the Mexico City Womens’ Institute.

Abortion on demand has incurred the fierce wrath of Mexico City Cardinal Norberto Rivera, the most powerful Churchman (there are no Churchwomen) in the land, who ordered all church bells in the capital rung in mourning to mark the court’s decision. The Mexico City archdiocese has since bought a plot in the Dolores Cemetery where it stages funerals for aborted fetuses.

The 102-member Mexican Bishops’ Conference (CEM) is equally as obstreperous in its condemnation of Mexico City’s free abortion services, even those few liberationist bishops who have a voice and vote oppose the leftist capital government’s pro-choice initiative — San Cristobal de las Casas bishop emeritus, an apostle of liberation theology, once exhibited gory blow-ups of aborted fetuses on the esplanade outside the “Cathedral of Peace” in that Chiapas city.

“I am appalled by the CEM’s position. The separation of Church and State is the foundation of the Mexican constitution,” an indignant Diego Valades reminded attendees at a recent National University academic conference.

Mexican Attorney General Arturo Chavez Chavez.

The campaign to criminalize abortion is only one front in the war on women being waged by the PAN, the Roman Catholic Church, and their political allies. Last month (September), the Mexican Senate confirmed Arturo Chavez Chavez, Calderon’s handpicked designee, as the country’s new attorney general over the intense objections of feminists and human rights activists.

As chief prosecutor in the northern state of Chihuahua during the mid to late 1990s, Chavez Chavez was charged with investigating the murders and disappearances of 192 women in the gritty border city of Ciudad Juarez. Mothers of the dead women — “Las Muertas” — accuse Chavez Chavez of gross negligence.

In testimony at his confirmation hearing, the future attorney general insisted that he had cleared 60 murders during his years as Chihuahua’s chief prosecutor but the truth is more diffuse — Chavez Chavez prosecuted one suspect, an Egyptian chemist Omar Latif Sharif, for 60 killings. Sharif, however, was convicted of only one murder, that of a sometimes girlfriend, and is currently serving a 30 year sentence in a Chihuahua penitentiary.

Paula Flores, whose murdered 17 year-old daughter Maria Sagrario has become an icon for the mothers of Las Muertas, recalls a less than empathetic Chavez. When 11 years ago she went down on her knees before him to plead for justice for Sagrario, the aspiring attorney general just walked around her as if she didn’t exist. Later, Chavez Chavez’s investigators mistook Sagrario’s tomb and opened up an adjoining gravesite, carrying off the remains of another Muerta for an autopsy.

Such confusion tainted the Calderon nominee’s years at the helm of the investigation. In 1999, United Nations rapateur for extra-judicial killings Asma Jahangir denounced Chavez Chavez’s “arrogance” when she sought to question him about the investigations. A second UN rapateur on judges and judicial processes, Dato Parran, who visited Juarez in 2002, doubted that any of the more than 100 remaining cases had even been investigated.

In 2003, Amnesty International found “intolerable negligence” in the investigations of the dead women’s murders carried out by Chavez Chavez and his successors — autopsies did not meet international legal standards and inquiries were only initiated after pressure from grieving families. Many of the disappeared women were dismissed as runaways.

Jurist Eduardo Buscalgia, who headed a UN commission that reviewed the violent deaths of 258 women in Juarez between 1993 and 2003, uncovered what he recently described as “procedural horrors” in the investigations of the deaths of Las Muertas. Many of the victims had apparently been tortured and some of their bodies burnt. Eight women had one breast cut off and were brutally bitten by their attacker(s) and their remains thrown out on the same desert lot, evidence that suggested a serial killer was at large yet no serious investigation was ever launched by Mexican authorities.

Instead, Chavez Chavez blamed the women for their own grisly murders, intimating that they had provoked their killers by wearing mini-skirts. “Only bad women go out at night,” he concluded — many of the victims like Maria Sagrario Flores had been working late night shifts at Juarez maquiladoras and were still wearing their “batas” (work smocks) when their bodies were discovered.

Despite overwhelming evidence of Arturo Chavez Chavez’s inept, misogynist investigation into the deaths of Las Muertas, he was confirmed September 24th by the Mexican Senate as the nation’s top law enforcement officer. When, in protest, the mothers of the dead women painted 106 pink crosses (the number of unsolved cases) on the walls of the prosecutor’s offices in Juarez, they were investigated for the destruction of federal property.

Posters at entrance to a government building in Juárez in 1998 protesting disappearances of women and lack of police investigation. Photo© Susan Meiselas.

In another notorious case of violence against women, 11 victims of sexual abuse during police raids in the farming village of San Salvador Atenco May 3rd-4th 2006 have once again been denied justice. This September, the Special Prosecutor for Violence Against Women (FEMIMTRA), which operates under Chavez Chavez’s jurisdiction, rejected their claims that they had been sexually manhandled and penetrated during their arrests and turned the cases back to Mexico state authorities that had already vindicated the police.

Charges against 22 state cops were dropped, five are pending while the accused are out on bail (if previous accusations of sexual battery against the police are any precedent, they will never be prosecuted), and one police agent who was sentenced to three years imprisonment paid a $400 USD fine and is now reportedly back on the Mexico state police payroll.

Violence against women is spiraling in Mexico. On the day Arturo Chavez Chavez was confirmed (September 24th), five women were shot and killed in the Sierra of Petatlan in Guerrero state where army troops have been pursuing purported guerrillas for months. One week later, four women — one a police domestic violence investigator — and a little girl who was playing nearby were gunned down in Ciudad Juarez. According to a grim roster held by the group “Justice For Our Daughters,” 67 women have been murdered or disappeared in Juarez in the first nine months of 2009 — 28 bodies remain unclaimed in the city morgue.

From July 2007 thru June 2008, 227 “feminicides” were recorded in 13 northern Mexican states by the private Citizens Observatory on Feminicides and 1014 counted nationally. 60% of the killings occurred in and around the womens’ homes.

Despite the on-going slaughter, the central Mexican state of Guanajuato, which has long been under the thumb of the Catholic Church and the PAN, is the only one of Mexico’s 31 states that has not enacted a law to protect women from domestic violence. Guanajuato is home to the extreme right-wing “El Yunque” (The Anvil), a secret organization with roots in the 1926-29 Cristero uprising against the anti-clerical president Plutarco Elias Calles, founder of the modern PRI party that ruled Mexico for 71 years until displaced by the PAN’s Vicente Fox, a Guanajuato native, in 2000 — three members of Fox’s cabinet were reportedly affiliated with El Yunque.

When the school term began this fall in Guanajuato, first year high school students found themselves without biology text books because books published by the federal Secretary of Public Education (SEP) had been withdrawn under orders from PANista governor Juan Manuel Oliva who adjudged that they contained “perversions” — the biology books included anatomically-correct reproductions of human genitalia and addressed birth control, even daring to use the two dread words “condom” and “abortion.”

Instead, the Guanajuato Education Secretariat (SEG) distributed 114,000 of their own biology textbooks that demonized masturbation and homosexuality, skipped any mention of AIDS prevention, and advocated abstinence as the only method of avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

When the federal SEP (ironically controlled by the PAN) insisted on teaching the original biology texts, a group of women in Leon, the state capital, headed by a local rightist councilwomen burnt hundreds of the SEP books in the central plaza of the city. “They want to make my son wear a condom,” explained the councilwoman Hortencia Orozco.

The PAN is hardly alone in its pogram against women. The Chavez Chavez nomination was voted up by the PRI and the Mexican Green Environmental Party (sic) that together hold an absolute majority in the Mexican congress. Eight of the 16 states that have criminalized abortion are governed by the PRI whose party president is a woman.

600,000 abortions are performed in Mexico each year according to the Secretary of Public Health, 100,000 of them under dangerous, clandestine circumstances. The prohibition of legal abortion stirs the specter of the dark ages of back alley butchers scraping women with clothes hangers. In six of the 16 states that have criminalized the interruption of unwanted pregnancies, maternal mortality is five times the national average.

Both local and national legislatures in Mexico are male dominated. The number of women holding congressional office (27%) is well below Cuba (43%), Argentina (40%), Costa Rica (39%), and African nations such as Mozambique, Tanzania, and Rwanda (49%). Only 15% of high echelon executives in the Calderon government are women in a country where women (52%) are the majority — in Ecuador 35% of all executive positions are held by women and Argentina and Chile have women presidents.

Two years ago, Mexico revised its electoral code to insure that women would comprise 40% of the federal congress but this September 2nd, when the recently elected Chamber of Deputies met for the first time, eight recently elected women rose from their desks one by one and asked for permanent leaves of absence. Their seats were then delegated to their all-male substitutes (“suplentes“), at least one of whom was the husband of an electee. Denouncing violation of the so-called “Equanimity of Gender” clause of the reformed code, feminist Gabriela Rodriguez, writing in the left daily La Jornada, blasted the flimflam as “nothing less than electoral fraud against women.”

[John Ross’ monstrous El Monstruo — Dread & Redemption in Mexico City, a “love letter” to the most contaminated, corrupt, and conflictive city in the Americas (Kirkus Reviews), will be published next month by Nation Books. His Iraqigirl (Haymarket), the diary of a teenager growing up under U.S. occupation, is now in the stores. The author is scouting venues for a 2009-2010 book tour. Any ideas? Contact johnross@igc.org.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 13 Comments

Rag Radio! : Healthcare NOT Warfare

Posted on October 12, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer


TUESDAY ON KOOP RADIO IN AUSTIN:

RAG RADIO
HOSTED BY THORNE DREYER

KOOP, 91.7 FM — Every Tuesday afternoon — 2-3 PM

The latest addition to the Rag media family, Rag Radio presents issue-oriented discussion and cutting edge cultural programming in the tradition of the underground press. With a heavy dose of our countercultural history. [The Rag was Austin’s legendary 60’s underground newspaper; The Rag Blog and Rag Radio represent its spiritual rebirth.]

VOLUME I, NUMBER 3:
Tuesday, October 13, 2-3 PM

Healthcare NOT Warfare
Rev. Jim Rigby
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
Austin, Texas
and
Jesse Romero
Texas State Director
Health Care for America Now

NEXT WEEK:
Tuesday, October 20, 2-3 PM

Criminal Justice and Texas Politics
Glenn W. Smith
Texas blogger and political consultant
and
Steve Hall
Director, StandDown Texas Project


The online stream of RAG RADIO can be found here:


The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Who Owns Congress? (Hint : Wall Street)

Posted on October 11, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer

And where’s the outrage?
Wall Street owns Congress

By Sid Eschenbach / The Rag Blog / October 11, 2009

See ‘On the government’s owners’ by Glenn Greenwald, Below.

A few years ago, Bill Bennett wrote a book entitled The Death of Outrage based loosely, between self-serving rants, on the assertion that the nation should be outraged by Bill Clinton’s character flaws…

The issue covered in Glenn Greenwald’s article below is so far more important, far more lethal and far more pressing than any part of Bennett’s book that it beggars the mind… but still no outrage. The inchoate sentiments displayed by the Tea-Baggers are as close as any group has come, albeit in their case from a particularly strange and disjointed line of reasoning, to grasping and acting on the fact that there has in fact been a financial coup d’etat in the U.S.

The political party that is able to articulate and frame this debate will own it… although for the very reason that there has been a coup, no major national leaders are making it.

No time like the present.

On the government’s owners

By Glenn Greenwald / October 10, 2009

The most revealing political quote of the last year came, in my view, from the second-highest ranking Democratic Senator, Dick Durbin, who told a local radio station in April: “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”

The best Congressional floor speech of the last year on the financial crisis was this extraordinarily piercing five-minute revelation from Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio on the Wall Street bailout and how the Congress is subservient to their dictates.

And the single most insightful article on the financial crisis was written by former IMF Chief Economist and current MIT Professor Simon Johnson in the May 2009 issue of The Atlantic, when he argued that “the finance industry has effectively captured our government” and detailed how the U.S. has become very similar to failed emerging-market nations in both its political and economic culture.

All of that came together last night on Bill Moyers’ Journal program, as Johnson and Kaptur together discussed the stranglehold which the financial industry exerts over the federal government and how that has produced a jobless recovery in which the only apparent beneficiaries are the bankers and other financial elites who caused the financial crisis in the first place.

The discussion began with reference to this Associated Press article from last week, which examined Timothy Geithner’s calenders, obtained through a FOIA request. Those documents show that Geithner spends an amazing amount of time on the telephone with the CEOs of Goldman Sachs, Citibank and JP Morgan: “Goldman, Citi and JPMorgan can get Geithner on the phone several times a day if necessary, giving them an unmatched opportunity to influence policy.”

Other than the President, virtually everyone else — including leading members of Congress — are forced to leave messages. Kaptur and Johnson begin by discussing what that signifies in terms of the ongoing financial crisis and how government works.

I’ll excerpt a few representative passages, but the entire segment is very worth watching:

[Moyers plays an excerpt from Capitalism: A Love Story:

MICHAEL MOORE: Do you think it’s too harsh to call what has happened here a coup d’état? A financial coup d’état?

REP. MARCY KAPTUR: That’s, no. Because I think that’s what’s happened. Um, a financial coup d’état?

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah.

MARCY KAPTUR: I could agree with that. I could agree with that. Because the people here (pointing to the Capitol) really aren’t in charge. Wall Street is in charge”…]

SIMON JOHNSON: Well, I think it really tells you how the system works. The system is based on access and is based on what on Wall Street shaping Washington’s view of what’s important.

It’s the people who are very close to Mr. Geithner before when he was the head of the New York Fed. Before he became Treasury Secretary. These people have unparalleled access. And in a crisis, when everything is up for grabs, you don’t know what’s going on, the people who will take your phone calls, right, in government and people who are going to be standing in the oval office, making the key decisions. That’s the heart of the system. That’s the heart of how you get your agenda through, by changing their worldview. . . .

And Rahm Emanuel, the President’s Chief of Staff has a saying. He’s widely known for saying, ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’. Well, the crisis is over, Bill. The crisis in the financial sector, not for people who own homes, but the crisis for the big banks is substantially over. And it was completely wasted. The Administration refused to break the power of the big banks, when they had the opportunity, earlier this year. And the regulatory reforms they are now pursuing will turn out to be, in my opinion, and I do follow this day to day, you know. These reforms will turn out to be essentially meaningless. . . .

BILL MOYERS: Let me show you an excerpt from the speech President Obama made on Wall Street last month, September. Here is the challenge he laid down to the bankers.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.

BILL MOYERS: A reality check. Not one CEO of a Wall Street bank was there to hear the President. What do you make of that?

SIMON JOHNSON: Arrogance. Because they have no fear for the government anymore. They have no respect for the President, which I find absolutely extraordinary and shocking. All right? And I think they have no not an ounce of gratitude to the American people, who saved them, their jobs, and the way they run the world.

BILL MOYERS: In the scheme of things, it is the Congress, and the government that’s supposed to stand up to the powerful, organized interests, for the people in Toledo, who can’t come to Washington. Who are working or trying to keep their homes or trying to pay their health bills. What’s happened to our government?

MARCY KAPTUR: Congress has really shut down. I’m disappointed in both chambers, because wouldn’t you think, with the largest financial crisis in American history, in the largest transfer of wealth from the American people to the biggest banks in this country, that every committee of Congress would be involved in hearings, that this would be on the news, that people would be engaged in this. . . .

I’ve been one of the Members of Congress trying to increase by ten times the agents to get at the justice issues for the American people. For companies that have been hurt. For shareholders that have been hurt. Our government isn’t doing it. That it’s very easy to look at the budget of the F.B.I. in mortgage fraud and securities fraud and say, ‘How serious is the government?’ And until those numbers increase, we will not begin to get justice. . . .

BILL MOYERS: Well, and this is what we were talking about earlier, the system. I mean, President Clinton’s Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin helps eliminate Glass-Steagall. And then leaves the government and goes to work for? Citicorp?

SIMON JOHNSON: Well Rubin’s a fascinating character. He ran Goldman Sachs, he went into the Clinton White House, then he became Secretary of the Treasury, and it was on his watch that, first of all, Glass-Steagall began to really seriously crumble, and then it was completely swept away- replaced, abolished, really. And then, of course, Rubin goes on after he leaves Treasury, to be the senior guru type figure at Citigroup. And Citigroup is absolutely epicenter of everything that’s gone wrong with our financial system.

BILL MOYERS: And wasn’t it Robert Rubin the mentor, the guru to both Tim Geithner and Larry Summers?

SIMON JOHNSON: Absolutely. Both Geithner and Summers advanced to senior positions in the Treasury under Rubin was instrumental in bringing Larry Summers to be President of Harvard, after the Clinton Administration. And according to published new report, he was absolutely key person in making sure that Tim Geithner first went to a senior job at the IMF, and then became President of the New York Fed. And there are unconfirmed reports that Robert Rubin was an essential adviser to then candidate Obama in fall of last year, with regard to who he should bring on board as the leadership team on the economic side.

MARCY KAPTUR: And you know, looking at it from the heartland, when I look at Wall Street and all their connections into Washington, and I’ve been at it a while now, it’s very disheartening to me, because I know they don’t care about us out there. We’re flyover country for them. And they’re just out to make money. . . .

BILL MOYERS: So, Simon, what happens now? If we’re going to avert a depression and the next calamity, what needs to be done?

SIMON JOHNSON: Well, I think you have to keep at it, Bill. I mean, that’s the lesson from previous generations of Americans, who have really confronted entrenched power like this. You have to keep at it. And you mustn’t be satisfied. When the Administration says, ‘Okay, we fixed it. Don’t worry. We did some technical tweaking on capital requirements, for example, in the banks.’ You have to say, ‘No, that’s not true. Let’s look at what’s happening, let’s follow it through.’ . . . .

BILL MOYERS: Does President Obama get it?

MARCY KAPTUR: I don’t think President Obama has the right people around him. The poor man inherited a total mess, globally and domestically. I think some of the people that he trusted haven’t delivered. I urge him to get new generals. It’s time.

SIMON JOHNSON: Louis the Fourteenth of France, a very powerful monarch, was famous for having many bad things, you know, happen under his rule. And people would always say, ‘If only Louis the Fourteenth knew. I’m sure he doesn’t know. If we could just tell him, he’d sort it out.’ You know. I’m skeptical.

Neil Barofsky, the independent watchdog of the TARP program, recently said that while the Wall Street bailout did avert full-scale financial collapse, it plainly failed in its principal stated goal of increasing lending (because banks used the money to buy other institutions, create capital cushions, pay out bonsues, etc.). He detailed how the Treasury Department actually tried (mostly unsuccessfully) to coach the banks into refusing to provide Barofsky with information about how they used the TARP money they received. Worse, he said that the U.S. economy is more dependent than ever on these same “too-big-to-fail” financial institutions, which have grown in size, and the U.S. economy is thus more vulnerable than it was even a year ago to an actual collapse. Meanwhile, even the extremely modest Wall Street reforms Obama is advocating are meeting heavy resistance from those who Dick Durbin called the Owners of Congress.

As Kaptur said, given the size and scope of “the largest transfer of wealth from the American people to the biggest banks in this country,” one would expect there to be massive public interest in what happened and why, and, more so, whether any of this is being fixed (it plainly isn’t). One would particularly expect the Democratic Party — which has long branded itself as being the populist party against Wall Street — would be leading that charge, for political benefit if not for substantive reasons. But that’s clearly not happening, and the primary reason why is because both political parties, as institutions, are dependent on and thus controlled by the very industry that is at the heart of it.

Among the two parties, there’s no outlet for the populist anger that Kaptur understands and is voicing because each party is eager to serve the interests of those who fund them. And that’s why Democrats have largely ceded the populist anger over Wall Street to GOP operatives who are exploiting the “tea party” movement as the only real organized citizen activism over these issues. See this article from last week: “Wall Street money rains on Chuck Schumer”:

While the industry has scaled back its political spending in the wake of last year’s economic collapse, data from the Center for Responsive Politics show that it’s still investing heavily in the Senate, where it’s likely to have its best shot at stopping — or at least shaping — the crackdown on Wall Street that President Barack Obama has proposed.

And it’s clearly looking to Democrats to do it.

Of the $10.6 million the industry has given to sitting senators this year, more than $7.7 million has gone to Democrats.

This is hardly unique to the banking industry. This is how the political system works generally. Earnest, substantive debates over this or that policy are so often purely illusory, as the only factor that really drives that outcomes is the question of who owns and thus controls the political system. That central fact subsumes just about everything else.

Source / salon.com

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 7 Comments

Tipping Point : New Research on Climate Change Says We’re Getting Close

Posted on October 11, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer

Illustration by Guy Billout / Mother Jones.

New methods of scientific research show
CO2 levels way beyond ‘natural fluctuation’

It is undeniable that CO2 levels have risen and fallen in the past. It is also undeniable that there is a point beyond which serious damage to the world’s environment will occur.

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / October 11, 2009

For years now, we have been arguing about global climate change (commonly called “global warming”) and whether it is caused by increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Most of the world’s scientists believe we are nearing the tipping point, beyond which will cause global catastrophe. Conservatives disagree, saying it is natural for CO2 levels to rise and fall and we shouldn’t burden our corporations over something that is natural.

Both sides have a point. It is undeniable that CO2 levels have risen and fallen in the past. It is also undeniable that there is a point beyond which serious damage to the world’s environment will occur. But what is the tipping point, and how much have the levels of CO2 varied in the past (without causing damage to the environment)?

It has been hard to answer these questions in the past, because all we had to go on were ice core samples. The ice core samples will only take us back about 800,000 years. Fortunately, scientists have now developed a method for seeing CO2 levels much farther back in time — about 20 million years. And what they’ve found is kind of scary.

This new method involves taking sediment cores from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. That gives them the ratios of boron and calcium in the shells of tiny marine organisms called foraminifera. This gives them the ph of the water as far back as twenty million years ago, and from that ph they can figure the level of CO2 in the air at any particular time.

Our current level of CO2 in the air is slightly less than 400ppm, and scientists expect we will reach the 400ppm level in about a decade (or less). The International Energy Agency, in it’s prescription for controlling CO2 levels, sees them topping out at 510ppm before stabilizing at 450ppm. The energy bill recently introduced in the U.S. Senate also uses the 450ppm figure as a target.

The new research takes us back to the Miocene period, which started a little over twenty million years ago. At that time, the CO2 levels were at 400ppm (about what they are now). This was probably caused by prolonged volcanic activity in the Columbia River Basin in North America.

But the scary part is that at that time, there were no ice caps at the north and south poles. And the sea level was 80-130 feet higher than today. The CO2 level began to decline about 14 million years ago, causing the gradual growth of the ice caps and the gradual lowering of ocean levels. Since that time, the CO2 level has fluctuated naturally between 180ppm and 280ppm.

While the pro-corporate conservatives are correct that there have been natural fluctuations, we have surpassed the high end of that fluctuation for many years now. At 400ppm and beyond we are approaching the tipping point, beyond which we will no longer be able to avoid catastrophe.

We have been debating whether 450ppm of CO2 in the air is doable. That may well be the wrong question. Considering the new research, we should be asking if 450ppm is too high a level to avert disaster. After all, the ice caps are already melting and we are not quite up to the 400ppm level of CO2.

Even if we are able to stabilize the level of CO2 at 450ppm (and that looks doubtful at present), we may just be slowing the coming disaster instead of preventing it. And that’s just not good enough.

While some of our lawmakers (and those in other countries) are talking about stabilizing CO2 levels, there doesn’t seem to be any urgency in their actions. Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be much urgency among the general population either. It’s almost as if everyone believes this is a problem, but we have a lot of time to deal with it. All we have to do is pass a law or two, but not ones that would alter our lives, and everything will be all right.

It would be nice if that were true, but this new research shows us it’s not. We may already be at or closely approaching the tipping point. Immediate and radical action is necessary. We cannot continue to build coal plants and placate ourselves with myths of “clean coal.”

We must stop polluting our air with more and more CO2. If we cannot immediately develop and transfer to really clean forms of energy, then we need to cut our energy use and change our lifestyle.

The alternative is unthinkable for our children and grandchildren.

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

Honduras : Talks Ramp Up as Repression Gets Bloody

Posted on October 11, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer

Top, Zelaya supporter with sign saying “Honduras, this is your president,” outside the U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa, Oct. 7, 2009. Photo by Rodrigo Abd / AP. Below, riot policemen stand guard as Zelaya supporters protest in Hato De En Medio neighborhood in Tegucigalpa, Oct. 10. Photo by Henry Romero / Reuters.

More bloody repression in Honduras
As negotiations enter new stage

By David Holmes Morris / The Rag Blog / October 10, 2009

See ‘Zelaya stakes out his position’ by Arturo Cano, and late-breaking story on new media crackdown, Below.

As determined protests and bloody repression continue in the streets outside, representatives of deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and the de facto government led by Roberto Micheletti have been meeting with Latin American diplomats in a hotel in Tegucigalpa since October 7 in an effort to resolve the crisis the country has been living through since June 28.

Optimists say the talks, sponsored by the Organization of American States, are already producing results, but skeptics counter that the coup government will never budge from its hidden agenda of stalling until the November elections which, the golpistas hope, will restore legitimacy to the Honduran government and will spell defeat for those struggling for change.

Journalist Arturo Cano wrote the following from Tegucigalpa where he is covering the crisis for the Mexican daily newspaper La Jornada.

Zelaya stakes out his position:
A return to power before the 15th or no elections

Micheletti warns that nothing short of an invasion will prevent November 29 vote while Insulza says the basis of dialogue must include all provisions of San José Accord.

By Arturo Cano / October 8, 2009

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Luz Ernestina Mejía, Miss Honduras of 1980, former Partido Liberal congresswoman and an organizer of the “white marches” against the reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya to the presidency, is furious with the foreign ministers.

“Why should we approve of Zelaya’s capricious return to power through legal means? No restitution, no tercería (a third person in the presidency), nothing. I am a radical,” she says.

“So what is this dialogue for?” she asks. “They (the zelayistas) are lucky I’m not one of the negotiators.”

But they are not that lucky: hours later, when presented with arguments by diplomatic representatives of several countries, the de facto president becomes exasperated and says he’s been tricked.

“We thought you had come in good faith to tell us you accept a Honduran solution, but the speeches you have made are totally different. They say we have to return Mr. Zelaya to power,” Micheletti thunders, although, in truth, he is not as radical as Miss Honduras.

He does accept a third person in the presidency. “I will step aside but this gentleman who has done so much harm to the economy and to Honduras must also step aside.”

Micheletti gives a report on his government, chastizes the ministers for their deafness and waxes apocalyptic. “The elections will be held on November 29! Only if we are attacked and invaded will they not be held!”

’Not a single death,’ he presumes to claim

He takes pleasure in his verbal retaliation: “You neither know the whole truth nor at times do you want to hear the whole truth.” And Micheletti’s truth is that “there has not been a single death at the hands of the army or the police,” there has not been a state of siege, but merely the suspension of “some” rights and the closing down of two media, thanks to which acts “the population has experienced the most peaceful of days.”

And in passing, Micheletti informs José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States, the foreign ministers of six countries and several other diplomatic representatives, of the cost of feeding Manuel Zelaya’s horse and of his groom’s salary.

In the morning, Insulza had stated the OAS position: the Honduran dialogue should have as a basis “all the points” of the San José Accord, proposed more than two months ago by Óscar Arias. One of those points is Zelaya’s restitution to office. Insulza adds to that the formation of a “national unity” government and Zelaya’s renouncing any act leading to the rewriting of the constitution.

A couple of days ago, Micheletti let slip a mention of the possibility of reinstating the president. Now, with the ministers as a captive audience, he returns to the position he had held since the coup d’état.

“To continue in a situation like this one, in which President Zelaya is not reinstated, poses a considerable risk that the results of the election will not be recognized,” says Rodolfo Gil, Argentine representative to the OAS.

Along the same line, Brazilian representative Ruy Casaes cites the example of President Fernando Collor de Mello, “deposed by absolutely legal means.”

The remaining representatives are less direct, so the Brazilian is the only one Micheletti interrupts. He greets the Mexican foreign minister, Patricia Espinosa, with a kiss.

Honduras’ ousted President Manuel Zelaya gestures after a meeting with negotiators at the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2009. Photo by Esteban Felix / AP.

One day in office and ‘he’ll twist it all around’

“Treat me right because I’m going to be interior minister again,” Víctor Meza would say in the first days of August, when he was predicting “good news soon.” Two months later, Meza heads a group of three who represent Zelaya in the talks with the de facto government. So the “good news” never came.

Only Zelaya’s secret return to his country on Monday, September 21, turned the situation around and made the international community tighten some screws, particularly one manufactured in Brazil, and brought about this day: the first day that union leader Juan Barahona is not in a march but in a great hall with carpets and chandeliers, a proletarian in a sea of suits, in blue jeans and his baseball cap. And to be sure, Barahona and Zelaya’s Labor Minister Mayra Mejía are left alone on the left of the first row; none of the businessmen or politicians, unanimous in their support of the coup, wants to sit next to them.

First to speak at the opening ceremony of the dialogue is José Miguel Insulza, who brings to the table the San José Accord and asks the participants to negotiate “their hidden intentions.” When he finishes, the businessmen, the hard-line of the coup, respond with a timid boo.

“Once again they’ve come to impose their agenda, their formula,” says businessman Santiago Ruiz, one of those who booed and one of those convinced that Zelaya should never be reinstated. “One day in office and he’ll twist it all around.”

Zelaya began the day with a statement on the radio: “We warn you that if the president is not returned to office before October 15, then automatically, for lack of validity, credibility and the confidence of the national and international communities, the electoral calendar will be null and void until the San José Accord is signed and the president is reinstated.”

The elections are the battle horse of the de facto government, the political parties, the businessmen, the “civil society” marching in their white t-shirts, and the churches.

They don’t want a dialogue, they want to stall until the elections which, to their way of thinking, will magically make the world’s governments recognize that there was a “presidential succession” and not a coup d’état.

’Hypocritical maneuvering’ will be exposed

“President Zelaya will be back in the capitol this month, the president will return to the office to which he was elected,” says Víctor Meza shortly after his presentation to the international delegation and before his closed meeting with the de facto government’s negotiators.

In his speech Meza apologizes for being late, which resulted from Zelaya’s representatives not being allowed to see the president in the Brazilian embassy until eight o’clock this morning.

Shortly before the assembly was convened, perhaps in order to present the OAS mission with a luxurious reception, the police broke up a zelayista demonstration at the United States Embassy. They then also attacked groups of students demonstrating at the National University.

Meza denounces these actions and forsees a scenario that the zelayistas consider likely:

“This dialogue has virtues and possibilities and when we understand it as a medium for calculated retreats and tactical delays, the dialogue has the advantage of exposing that hypocritical maneuvering.”

Leaving stridency aside, Meza calls for a speedy exit from the “dark tunnel” Honduras has entered after “allowing the barbaric to overcome the civilized.”

Interestingly, some of the public, including some among the press, applaud him.

Source / La Jornada

Breaking story:
Honduras imposes media restrictions

October 11, 2009

Honduras’s government has imposed a new law limiting media freedoms in the country, amid a political standoff between Roberto Micheletti, the de facto leader, and Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president.

Talks between the rival factions entered a three-day pause on Saturday, prolonging uncertainty over a possible resolution to the almost four-month old crisis.

The new legislation gives Micheletti’s government the power to close down radio and television stations that incite “social anarchy” or “national hatred”.

Oscar Matute, the interior minister, denied the measures amounted to controlling the media, saying the government was was applying rules allowed under international law.

“It doesn’t represent any kind of control of the media,” he was quoted by the Reuters news agency as saying.

“No journalist, no media outlet, can act as an apologist for hatred and violence in society.”

Media crackdown

The government has not fulfilled an earlier promise to lift emergency measures that closed Radio Globo and Canal 36 last month, which had supported Zelaya.

The two stations were among the only media in Honduras that reported on the protests in favour of restoring Zelaya to power.

Michelletti’s government accused the stations of encouraging vandalism and insurrection for announcing demonstrations.

Honduras has experienced near daily protests since the military-backed coup in June, which came after Zelaya pressed ahead with plans for a referendum on changing the constitution despite a Supreme Court order ruling the vote illegal.

The interim government accuses Zelaya of trying to amend the constitution to annul one-term presidential limit.

Zelaya denies the allegation.

Negotiations suspended

Since sneaking back into Honduras late last month, Zelaya has been taking refuge, with dozens of supporters, in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital.

The international community has been pressuring the interim government to allow Zelaya’s return to power ahead of the November 29 presidential election, which was scheduled before the coup.

Representatives from the rival factions said that recent face-to-face talks have yielded agreement on 60 per cent of the issues under an international plan to resolve the crisis.

But Juan Barahona, Zelaya’s negotiator, said no agreement had been reached on the fundamental issue of whether the ousted leader could return to serve out the remaining months of his term.

They planned to discuss the issues within their own factions over the three-day pause and resume negotiations on Tuesday, two days before the October 15 deadline given by the Zelaya camp for his unconditional restitution.

Source / Al Jazeera

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

BOOKS / Speak English! by Mike Palecek

Posted on October 10, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer


Sci-fi, conspiracy theories and politics merge:
Speak English! is a wild journey

By Joan Wile / The Rag Blog / October 10, 2009

[Speak English! by Mike Palecek. Trade paperback, 322 pp. Published by CWG Press; to be released November, 2009.]

Speak English, by Michael Palecek, speaks the truth, and in English.

Combination road story, sci-fi mystery, philosophical consideration, and political castigation of just about everything, Mr. Palecek’s book is a must-read for all who seek justice, peace, accountability of elected officials, and penetration of the myths that cloud our political vista.

With unique and dazzling style, Mr. Palecek takes us with him on a cross-country book tour during which we encounter many of the gutsy anti-establishment heroes and heroines of our times.

This account is book-ended by an intriguing tale of country boys engaging with aliens and flying saucers.

The seeming disparity between the extra-terrestrial yarn and the contemplative trek across the United States is resolved, finally, in a surprising twist which leaves the reader awestruck yet satisfied.

The author is obsessed with his beliefs that the 9-11 tragedy was caused by George Bush and his cronies, and that President Kennedy’s assassination did not occur as the official investigation findings claim.

He is also heartbroken about Paul Wellstone’s death in an airplane crash and suspicious that it, too, was a politically-motivated killing.

One comes to believe, while reading the book, that these are not necessarily crackpot conspiracy theories but rather enigmas deserving of much deeper probing.

Speak English contains many varied elements — poetry combined with funny yokel dialogue, for instance; inspiring quotes from eminent writers and statespeople; questions upon questions with startling answers.

Just as the book’s protagonist encounters many adventures on his book tour, we, the readers, encounter twists and turns from paragraph to paragraph and page to page that make our perusal of his book one big adventure. It is difficult to adequately describe its immense sweep and broad diversity of style and subject.

This is a page-turner. Curl up in a comfortable chair with a healthy dose of cynicism and open-mindedness for an enlightening and entertaining trip through America’s (no-)heartland and the author’s unique, inquiring sensibility.

[Joan Wile is the author of Grandmothers Against the War; Getting off Our Fannies and Standing up for Peace (Citadel Press, ’08).]

Go here to find Speak English! by Mike Palecek.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Carl R. Hultberg :
How They Busted Hippie Hill

Posted on October 10, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer

They found dope in Dick’s Store and then they took down Hippie Hill.

hippie hill - dick's store

Dick’s Store in Danbury, NH — near Hippie Hill — shown after Dick got busted Sunday, Oct. 4. Photo by Ken Williams / Concord Monitor.

As far as I know Hippie Hill had never really bothered many of the local townspeople. All that changed last year…

By Carl R. Hultberg | The Rag Blog | October 10, 2009

HIPPIE HILL, NH — The town of Danbury, New Hampshire, where I live, is also home to a local landmark known as Hippie Hill. Of course, this being New Hampshire, we have to remember that here the term “hippie” does not connote any particular point of view regarding war, peace, ecology, racial equality or women’s liberation. What hippie means in NH is long hair and a predilection for the consumption of large quantities of marijuana (and beer).

In many ways hippie is the same as biker (motorcyclist) in New Hampshire. So it is at Hippie Hill where local bikers and others who like to ride their motorcycles (without noise restricting mufflers) on Rte 4 congregate in downtown Danbury to throw horseshoes, drink beer and defiantly smoke (mostly homegrown) pot on a little knoll (railroad embankment) across the road from Dick’s Store.
Continue reading →

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 15 Comments

Nobel Screams : ‘Out of Afghanistan’

Posted on October 10, 2009 by Thorne Dreyer

Nobel Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland. Obama has a lot to live up to.

Nobel Prize is mandate to exit Afghanistan,
Build a green-powered, nuke-free earth

By Harvey Wasserman / The Rag Blog / October 10, 2009

Above the din, the Nobel message screams: “U.S. OUT OF AFGHANISTAN, GO FOR SOLARTOPIA!”

It’s now up to US to use that Nobel to win that dual prize.

This award never went to two of the most critical peacemakers of the 20th Century: Mahatma Gandhi, who pioneered the successful use of mass non-violence; and Eleanor Roosevelt, feminist godmother of the New Deal’s social programs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It has not gone to Cesar Chavez, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Thich Nhat Hanh, Paul XIII and so many more.

But yes it did to Barack Obama. Why?

Right now we have no choice but to defer to the committee that took the plunge. Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland explained that “It could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now we have an opportunity to respond — all of us.”

Respond to what?

“We couldn’t get around these deep changes that are taking place” under Obama.

ARE taking place? Or WILL take place? Or MIGHT take place if somebody plays this card right.

Say you’re a committee member desperate for peace and a solution to climate chaos.

Maybe you’re a gambler. You remember giving the Prize to Desmond Tutu for fighting apartheid before it was abolished.

You say: “This new kid talks a great game. He’s made a green and peaceful feint or two. But the generals and fossil/nukers are at his throat.

“Let’s box him in. Let’s hang this Nobel around his neck… and over his head. Let’s DARE him to do right.”

Or, as Jagland has actually put it, the award will give Obama “encouragement” and “support in producing concrete results” for the “vision of a nuclear-free world” among other things.

Now let’s say you’re an American activist. You’re desperate to stop the worst mistake America could make since Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 escalation of the Vietnam War — that is, a murderous, suicidal escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

We all know this would shred the last fiber of a failing society, utterly decimating any chance for an American moral, ecological or economic recovery.

But the long knives of Pentagon junta are out in force.

We also know without a massive Solartopian push for renewables and efficiency, the global climate is doomed. Nuclear power must be excluded and fossil fuels phased out.

Now this glib young prez, who must stand up to the generals and King CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes, Gas) is given — or shall we say, stuck with — the Nobel Prize.

Pasted to his back now are the words of Alfred Nobel lauding “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”

Obama rightly says he does not deserve “to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”

But the Committee, which cited Afghanistan, climate change and nuclear disarmament in its decision, is clearly betting this marker might help him — FORCE him — to get there.

Obama could, of course, use it as cover — Henry Kissinger style — to do the wrong things.

But this gift is not to Obama. It’s to US, as a tool to MAKE him go where we must.

The spotlight has now been amped. The focus is on Aghanistan and a green-powered, nuke-free Earth.

The Nobel is a mandate — a sacred trust — to push this president into the pantheon with Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, not to mention Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi.

Ready or not, we have our opening to make Barack Obama rise to their standard.

[Harvey Wasserman’s Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth is at www.solartopia.org.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments