The Rag Blog

A serious confrontation is developing between the US and Venezuela over the next seat open on the UN Security Council to be filled by a Latin American country. This change is to take place January 2007. The decision is to be made by October.

Venezuela is actively campaigning for the position. No other country is campaigning for the position on its own. However, the US, which does not have a vote in the decision, is pressuring Latin American nations to support Guatemala.

In January I wrote that Guatemala was sending its foreign minister to Caracas because two years of the Berger government sucking up to the US had not produced meaningful results. Apparently, that was a ploy to get the US to do something for Guatemala. It seems that the payoff is US sponsorship of a 2-year term on the UN Security Council for small, impoverished Guatemala. Cost to the US – zero. Of course, as the Venezuelan ambassador to the UN stated clearly, everyone knows that

Guatemala has no agenda of its own. It’s just a pawn of the US. Still, the US has gone so far as to threaten Chile, which just bought a bunch of US F-16 fighter planes, that it would withhold training of Chilean pilots to fly them if Chile didn’t support Guatemala’s candidacy. The US denies pressuring its Latin American “allies”, which means that they are, of course, doing it.

With their typical, unfailing genius for failure, the Bushits have likely picked another fight they cannot win. But they are desperate to keep Venezuela, i.e., Hugo Chavez, off the UN Security Council, especially at a time when the US is trying to manipulate the UN to support its aggression against Iran. As a rotating member of the Security Council, Venezuela would not have a veto, but it could raise a lot of hell and cause the US major problems.

The current breakdown of votes shows Venezuela in the lead, but without the consensus that is usually required. Columbia and most Central American countries are supporting Guatemala. Peru may also. Chile is not saying, although the Chilean government is reported to have “signaled” support for Venezuela. On the other hand, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, Cuba and most of the Caribbean countries are supporting Venezuela. Notably, Belize, which has a long-running border dispute with Guatemala, is supporting Venezeula too. Mexico’s vote hinges on the outcome of the July 2 presidential election. Lopez Obrador would support Venezuela and Calderon would support Guatemala. If there is not a consensus by October, the matter will be referred to the UN General Assembly, where the chances of the US winning with Guatemala would be still worse. So, most likely, the last couple of years of the Bush regime will feature Hugo Chavez’s perspective stated loudly and clearly on the UN Security Council, just at a time when the US is pushing for sanctions or worse against Iran. For one month of that period, Venezuela would be president of the Council and able to set the agenda.

Maybe the Bushits actually want Venezuela to win and are only putting up opposition for domestic consumption. Venezuela on the Security Council would give the Bushits some cover when they ultimately ignore the UN and act against Iran unilaterally. So what that such an act would lead to even greater isolation and condemnation of the US by the rest of the world? These guys are not known for long-range planning or concern about the opinions of others.

David Hamilton

The article below is from upsidedownworld.org. It explains why Guatemala hasn’t got a chance.

The Race for Latin America’s Security Council Seat
Written by Cyril Mychalejko
Sunday, 25 June 2006

The United States has launched a diplomatic offensive to block Venezuela’s bid for a two-year rotating seat on the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. instead is lobbying heavily for Guatemala to take over the seat being vacated by Argentina.

U.S. officials claim that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a threat to democracy in Latin America and that his presence within Security Council circles would be counter-productive for the world body.

“It should come as no surprise that we believe Venezuela would not contribute to the effective operation of the Security Council, as demonstrated by its often disruptive and irresponsible behavior in multilateral forums,” said State Department spokesman Eric Watnick.

In contrast, Washington believes Guatemala is a “viable candidate.” State Department officials cite Guatemala’s previous work with the U.N. and its contribution of peacekeepers as evidence of its qualifications.

Guatemala’s Qualifications

U.N. High Commisioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour after an official visit to Guatemala last month expressed concern that democratic reforms were “progressing slowly.” Guatemala is 10 years removed from the 1996 Peace Accords which ended a 36-year civil war that left over 200,000 people (mostly indigenous) either dead or disappeared.

“Nothing can exemplify this better than the delay encountered by victims of the armed conflict in obtaining justice and reparation,” said Arbour. “Where impunity is the rule for past violations, it should come as no surprise that it also prevails for current crimes.” Arbour cited a list of problems plaguing the country, which include: ongoing threats and violence directed at human rights workers, the government’s meager investment in social services (the lowest in the region), the continued discrimination and marginalization of indigenous peoples, as well as the continued rise of homicides. Also, after 10 years, Guatemala has failed to adopt and enforce the Peace Accord on the Identity and Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The U.N. is not alone in its criticism and concern about the Guatemalan government’s failure to address discrimination, violence and impunity. Amnesty International issued a report in April 2006 that examines Guatemala’s enforcement of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Inhuman Treatment and Punishment.

“The vast majority of human rights violations committed in the present remain unpunished with the vast majority [of those violations] lacking thorough investigation,” Amnesty’s report stated.

Concerned about a spike in the murder rate of Guatemalan women, the Amnesty report focuses on violence against women and the government’s failure to bring perpetrators to justice. Sexual violence and mutilation are associated with a large percentage of the killings. Yet, despite the rapid rise of these gruesome crimes, there has been no increase in prosecutions by the state. Amnesty cites a report that reveals that “between 2001 and 2005, only five of the 1,897 cases had been resolved in the courts.”

Amnesty attributes this failure to gender discrimination and reports that prosecutors and police often blame victims and falsely accuse them of being prostitutes or gang members. The government’s inability to expeditiously prosecute these murders and the subsequent suffering this inflicts on victims’ families amounts to violations of the U.N. convention. In addition, Amnesty raised concerns about Guatemalan government policies of home demolition and violent eviction of campesinos (subsistence farmers) as a method of settling land disputes. Guatemala counted 1,052 disputed land claims as of December 2005. In the small Central American country, less than two percent of the population own 60 percent of the land. This disparity in land ownership resulted from land tenure policies carried out by successive dictatorships during the county’s civil war and led to widespread internal displacements of Guatemala’s rural poor. The International Displacement Monitoring Centre, an international body monitoring conflict-induced internal displacement, estimates that as many as one million people have been displaced in Guatemala, most of them indigenous.

Under current President Oscar Berger, a former businessman and wealthy landowner, forced evictions marked by violence, house burnings and demolitions have been used to settle these disputes. Not only does this amount to violations of the Convention against torture, it also fails to meet obligations under the Peace Accords which guaranteed land redistribution and resettlement for poor people uprooted during the war. In addition, human rights and indigenous activists have suffered threats, attacks and executions.

Berger’s propensity for violence-as-conflict-resolution was exposed again in January 2005 over a disputed World Bank mining project. Indigenous protestors raised a blockade to prevent Canada’s Glamis Gold from bringing in its mining equipment. Berger sent in the military and police, who opened fire on protestors, killing one person and injuring dozens of others. Like the U.N.’s commissioner for human rights pointed out, since impunity rules for crimes in the past, the current situation in Guatemala should come as no surprise.

According to Amnesty International, “Those responsible for past human rights violations, including policies of systematic torture, forced ‘disappearances’ and genocide, remain at large, unaccountable for their actions, in some cases enjoying considerable political influence in present day Guatemala.”

One notable example is Efrain Rios Montt, the military man who became president in 1982 after launching a military coup. Upon winning power, Montt, with a nod from Washington, launched a scorched-earth campaign against the Mayan population that killed and “disappeared” thousands of indigenous. In recent years, Montt has served as head of Congress and ran for president in 2004 before losing to Berger.

Rhetoric and Reality

U.S. concerns over Venezuela’s bid has nothing to do with democracy and respect for international law. What’s at stake is Washington’s waning influence over the region, its ability to call the shots globally and the U.N.’s institutional acquiescence in maintaining a global hierarchy marked by violence, discrimination and impunity –much like in Guatemala. Recent elections throughout the region have left many leaders in Washington (both corporate and political) reminiscing for the good old days when Latin American heads of state could be counted on to push through neoliberal reforms and support U.S. foreign policy, even if it meant these same leaders had to use violence and oppression. Former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and the aforementioned Montt serve as good examples.

Leaders representing the new Latin America, such as Venezuela’s Chavez, Bolivia’s Evo Morales and, to a lesser degree, Argentina’s Nestor Kirchner and Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva are a threat to the current global hierarchy led by Washington and supported by the U.N. These countries, along with Uruguay and Paraguay, are expected to support Venezuela’s bid for the open seat. The U.S is using diplomatic pressure to urge Chile, seen as a critical vote, to push Guatemala through. But if the 2005 OAS election, where the U.S.-backed candidate lost to Chile’s José Miguel Insulza, is any indicator, Washington may be in for another disappointment and dose of reality.

And even though the Security Council doesn’t rubber-stamp everything coming out of Washington, like the war in Iraq, the war still happened (in violation of the U.N. Charter), over 100,000 Iraqis are dead and the U.S. government has yet to be held accountable. Other U.N. crimes that come to mind are the sanctions that left over 500,000 Iraqi children dead, and more recently its support of the coup in Haiti and the use of death squads in that country.

Venezuela’s election to the Security Council could very well challenge this inhumane system and global hierarchy that smaller nations have fallen prey to. It is feared that the Venezuelan government’s outspoken and harsh criticisms directed toward U.S. foreign policy could prove to be contagious. Chavez has even called out the U.N. for its institutional failures.

In September 2005 he spoke before the U.N. and demanded a “re-founding” of the organization. Part of the institutional changes he suggested were terminating the veto vote and expanding the Security Council to include newly developed and developing nations. This is why Washington objects to Venezuela’s candidacy.

Cyril Mychalejko is the assistant editor of www.UpsideDownWorld.org and is currently based in Ecuador.

I always feel sad leaving Paris. Our most recent visit of a month was the longest continuous time I’ve ever spent there. My Francophilia did not diminish with more prolonged exposure. Sally has become infected, too.

Our apartment was on the ancient Rue de Temple, just one block from the Hotel de Ville, the dazzling architectural extravaganza that serves as the city hall of Paris. Having been seriously torched by the Paris Commune in 1871, it was rebuilt, replicating the original neo-Renaissance style, complete with 146 statues of illustrious Frenchmen that adorn its façades.

It was there after the July Revolution in 1830 that La Fayette gave the throne to the Duc d’Orleans under constitutional restrictions acknowledging ultimate sovereignty resting with the citizenry. This act ended the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy after Napoleon, the final termination of a dynasty that had ruled France since the mid-15th century. This Duc d’Orleans, thereafter King Louis-Phillipe I, only lasted in power until 1848, when a new generation of Parisian insurrectionarists overthrew him as well, establishing a new republic, declared at the same Hotel de Ville.

The broad open area in front of it is the Place de Grève where, according to Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Notre Dame de Paris), Quasimodo’s beloved La Esmeralda met her fate in 1482. Stroll from there up the Rue de Rivoli past the Louvre to the Place de la Concorde and stand on the spot where Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and Robespierre all lost their heads, along with a few thousand others during “the Terror” of 1793. Then turn south just across the Seine into the Left Bank neighborhood to visit the house where Karl Marx spent some of his most formative years or the café where Lenin worked as a waiter or Gertrude Stein’s place where Hemingway, Picasso, and Joyce hung out, or have an existential coffee at the Deux Magots on Sartre/de Beauvoir Place, or tour the medieval Abbey de Cluny with its Roman baths. Then turn back north on the Boulevard St. Michel, where the main battles of the 1968 student uprising took place, cross over the river via the Ile de la Cité where Julius Caesar camped in 63 BC, stopping in front of Notre Dame, built between 1163 and 1300, where Napoleon crowned himself emperor in 1804, and you’ve returned to the Hotel de Ville, having walked a couple of miles, with waves of history washing over you every step. Described as the world’s finest outdoor museum, the consistent architectural antiquity of central Paris provides the perfect setting for your stroll.

On our last night in Paris, we made the mistake of visiting our friends Billy and Jean-Luc, a French-American couple together more than 20 years, in their Marais apartment. Billy came to gay Paris from Austin in the 70’s “to dance at the Lido in a g-string with a feather up my ass.” Along the way, he qualified for a French government pension. We drank a few 1664’s, France’s best mass beer, while they showed us the new photos of their cute-to-die-for 200 year-old country cottage two hours south of Paris and we played with their cute-to-die-for French bulldogs. The cottage’s thick, stuccoed walls and sloping tile roof are set in a bucolic idyll, appropriate subject matter for an impressionist masterpiece. Not a good way to prepare to return to Amerika.

Separation anxiety sets in as the cab to the airport rolls out of central Paris and into the suburbs, where the attractive old housing thins out, replaced by modern, unimaginative, high-rise apartment blocks. These boxes are usually described in grim tones, but they look at least a couple of steps up from public housing in the US, not infrequently with adjacent areas of kitchen gardens, and with very culturally diverse inhabitants.

Entering De Gaulle airport, you’re suddenly swallowed up by the concrete, glass and steel modernism distinctive of nowhere and the US-inspired paranoid security apparatus. It’s getting painful, but there remain a couple of French frills scattered about the airport to staunch the psychic wounds. You don’t have to take your shoes off. Café staff still speak French first and English badly enough to successfully piss off one already angry American dad with very expensive blonde brood in tow when they missed his order in English on the first try. I relished the reconfirmation of my stereotypes. One more double expresso and a copy of “Liberation” and it’s a bientot, hopefully not au revoir. Henceforth, speaking French becomes an affectation.

Waves of undesirable change in ambiance increasingly roll over you. The size of the average person increases about 50% between Charles de Gaulle and Bush League International, especially outward. Unlike de Gaulle, Houston’s airport has pedestrian safety issues due to overbearing motorized carts for the variously infirm and terminally lazy speeding up behind you and demanding right of way. I pretend I’m deaf. Fox News once again blares its repulsiveness into my reality. Baseball caps are suddenly back in fashion, even indoors, even at night. The airport food court welcomes you with a full blast of Americana, including an imitation Italian food stall with a sign saying “God Bless America” (and fuck everyone else?), run by Mexicans serving processed carbo-fat while defanged R&B hums subliminally. On numerous large flat screens, some golf tournament and a baseball game have replaced the World Cup, where the US team started off by getting ripped 3-0 by a Czech Republic team which then lost 2-0 to Ghana.

Back in the US, I drive, not walk, through the city in my very own car, not a taxi or a bus, and everything looks unaestheticly modern, temporary and disposable. This part of the world has exponentially more and more space devoted to the requirements of large, mechanized, individual mobility devices, which Paris and many other European cities are struggling to restrain. Here these vehicles are typically of an entirely different nature, as there are almost no pick-up trucks, Hummers or maxed-out SUV’s in Europe. Gasoline there costs more than twice as much as here, primarily because of taxes that support public transportation and restrain the unfettered growth of car fetishism, forced collectivization unthinkable here. As a result, Paris has highly efficient and overlapping bus, boat, metro, regional computer train and high speed international train systems, not to mention lots of Smart cars.

Here, the urban geography has been developed so as to render almost impossible all alternatives to car addiction.

It’s culture shock time. The immigration man stamped my passport and welcomed me back home with a smile. I told him he cannot imagine how happy I am to be here.

David Hamilton

When I read this on Today in Iraq, I knew I had to ask Cervantes to let me post it here. It is an argument that is seldom articulated, and one too easily forgotten in the mess that this illegal, misguided war has become. My thanks to Cervantes and Today in Iraq for granting permission.

I’m going to do something we seldom do here [on “Today in Iraq,” that is], and that is to make an extended personal statement — the reason being that the available reporting on this is so warped that I can’t let it stand on its own. The discussion, both here and in Iraq, over Maliki’s suggestion of a possible amnesty for resistance fighters who have attacked occupation forces, has been truly Orwellian. People in the U.S., including I am sorry to say much of the Democratic congressional delegation and a good part of the liberal blogosphere and chattering classes, apparently do not understand that the United States attacked and invaded Iraq. The Iraqi army fought back. Ultimately much of it went underground and continued to fight in guerilla mode. There has been no peace settlement. In fact, although as far as I know nobody has pointed this out, the government of Iraq never surrendered.

Meanwhile, back in the U.S.A., in the warped Congressional debate on Iraq staged by the Republicans, Republican Senators defended the amnesty idea – which I suppose they have to do since the administration line is that the new Iraq government is sovereign and legitimate — while Democrats and their supporters attack them for supporting amnesty for “terrorists” who have “murdered” American forces “serving heroically in Iraq to provide all Iraqis a better future.” Listen folks — get this straight. It’s a war. That’s what happens in wars, people try to kill each other. If Iraqi resistance fighters who attack U.S. forces are terrorists and murderers, then by the precise same standard, U.S. troops in Iraq are terrorists who have murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis. You can’t have it both ways.

Cervantes (of Today in Iraq)

I sometimes get led into these things. I meet people that are way too real. They all know me for what I am – a guy who will work his ass off to help them out.

I am frightened that I can’t do this without help. And I don’t know too many people who might actually see this vision that I have seen. It is very different to be the one White confidante among the 1000 African Americans.

The White guy who is invited out to dinner, who sits at the table with the rich guys in pin stripe suits and the guys in flip flops at the place that serves the best greasey food in Atlanta. Where the waitress says the collards aren’t up to par tonight so stick with the gumbo and hush puppies, and the shrimp is excellent. And everone says grace and they all drink Bud. The waitress even stood with a bowed head, she knew she was in the presence of some really different folks, and I do really mean that.

Morehouse College is a big deal. MLK was here and Andrew Young and the movement, as they say, started here. Which may or may not be true, but the legend has it.

Here is the order that has been given to me this week and I am very serious about this and I do mean this. I have to make a concerted effort to perform this task. Barak O’Bama and the rest of the power brokers who are strong in the East need and want an entry into the West and they see Texas as a stepping stone. I said Houston because of all its Blacks but they said no, they want the young Hispanics to come together with us. We have to do something to dissolve the mistrust that exists between the Black and the Brown, we have to form a coalition, a coalition that would be powerful enough to get something done.

One man, at one of my sessions (and that is going to sound very strange, ‘my session’) said he is tired, very tired of burying his children, be it from street violence, and now from the Iraq war which is the work of Satan. He is a Baptist preacher from South Carolina. And he is right. It is time to turn the country around. And he said he was 72 and he is too old to pick cotton anymore and too old to march to Washington, but we have to train the new ones to do the work. And they have to be trained well.

But I want to set up a South Texas meeting of NPLC Fatherhood development group for the helping and developing of Fragile Families in San Antonio. We have the national organizations who will cooperate. I am sure we can get Wade Horn on board.

We need a venue. UTSA maybe? Or Trinity or even Seguin? The Convention Center, of course, if it were reasonable. Morehouse and the University of Detroit were gratis to our organization. But I think San Antonio would be the best place to do this. Of course, it wouldn’t be free, but the people at the college in Seguin or Texas State could cooperate with the big boys in San Antonio?

Then the second part after we get some funding to get this off the ground is to get jobs. Get people like Toyota and Samsung and so forth to teach the young people what it takes to get a job. Train the youngstere to be able to work and to be able to talk to people in an understandable language.

I met last night at a bar (I am good at that), with a haberdasher from New York – a very rich Black guy who is devoted to the project. We discussed religion, of all things, for an hour or two. They feel they are mandated from God to do this.

There are others, too, who want to work on this, many. We have talked and we have come up with a plan of which I am a big, big part. Why me? Don’t ask, but this has got to fly, it just has to and there are a hundred reasons why.

Our youth, Black, White, Hispanic are losing the battle of getting ready for the job market. Yes, 30 percent or so go to college, but 70 percent are under the radar, working for low wages, and they are not meeting their obligations to family. There are 70 percent, 70 percent of the births in this country that are just that. No family, no marriage, not that marriage is the all encompassing answer, but it helps. But to make it all work we need kids with jobs and that whole thing starts at a very young age…middle school, and grade school. We are talking about saving the nation here.

I know that sounds damn stupid coming from a scatterbrain like me, but I need help and I need your input. You might help organize, you can help find the people who you know who have the power to make it work and let me and my people who have the ideas and clout talk to them. We need the Michael Dells and Henry Cisneroses and the San Antonio Spurs, the George Gervinss of the world to move this forward and it is so imperative that it be done now before it is too late.

I went to the church where Martin Luther King was the preacher, I went to the church where they held the service for Correta Scott King. I talked to Denzel Washington. I saw that the movement for a better and stronger America is eroded, it is stagnant and there has to be something done and it has to be done by us. Hell, as I told the men I was with, we are all gray beards, we all marched.

I can truthfully say that. One of my very best friends and I were told to get the hell out of here with a .45 in our faces. We were tear-gassed and chased by the police. We went to Chicago and so on and so forth, so we have a feel for it. We know that there are still Confederate flags flying and there is still that sickness in the country that we delude ourselves into thinking is free.

The Katrina refugees (and I call them that) are not a bunch of freeloaders. They want to rebuild. But they can’t. I talked to a large group of them and heard their stories. It was so heart-wrenching that I actually cried with them. These are hard-hearted men who worked for years. They were never rich, they were never what we would consider well off, but they fed their families and paid their rent and had homes and jobs, be it playing a sax at a club or tending bar or cooking hush puppies and catfish. They worked and were content with their place in life; oh, I am sure they wished they might win the lotto, but they were real. Now they are the living dead. It is horrible, horrible, horrible. No society that is as rich as ours should allow this to happen.

It isn’t only New Orleans, and it isn’t only African-Americans. Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Texas are in the same struggle. Why?

I can come up with a few answers and the people here have a few answers, too. One, of course, is red tape, which is attached to greed.

Have I said enough?

Charles Rangel told me yesterday, when I told him I listened to his speech at the Democratic Convention, that I must have been the only White guy that did. He was joking, but impressed that I had heard every word. I didn’t tell him it was mostly by accident, as I was driving to Syracuse, NY, but still I did not turn to another station. He is a smart man, perhaps a tad corrupt, but then who in Washington isn’t? He also has a vision and it is becoming the same as mine. Heaven help me now.

There is work to be done. A lot of work. Am I thinking over the top here?

Charlie Loving

I’m writing about the situation in Oaxaca. As I write, the capital city is under siege. At approximately 5 a.m. this morning the state police attacked the teachers’ occupation of the city center. Though reports are sketchy, it seems that three teachers have been killed, as well as a young girl. The teachers have taken three or four police hostage. A raging battle is underway to control the zocalo, the center of life in Oaxaca, and the heart of the teacher’s encampment. In the dawn raid the teachers were forced out, but the local paper, Noticias de Oaxaca, has reported that at 9:30 a.m. local time the teachers, armed with rocks and sticks, re-took the main square. Police are firing tear gas from helicopters right now. Thousands (tens of thousands) of people are involved in running battles in the streets. And there is the fear that upwards of 3,500 federal riot police — deployed to Oaxaca in the last two weeks by Vicente Fox — are about to enter the city.

I’ve just gotten off the phone with friends in the center. They described the scene on the streets this morning at about 7:30 a.m. Hundreds of people crying from the mix of tear gas, smoke bombs and some other pepper spray. The men forming groups to launch the assault to retake the zocalo. Mothers telling their boys to take care of themselves as they fall into line. From the rooftops of the single-story houses you can watch the helicopters flying overhead, shelling tear gas canisters into the crowds. There is a heavy fear, but also, I was told, you could hear the sound of people marching and singing.

As a brief background, you might want to read: http://www.narconews.com/Issue41/article1874.html

The teachers’ occupation of the city, known in Spanish as a ‘planton,’ began 23 days ago. More than 80,000 teachers from every municipality in the state had converged on the capital to press a list of demands for more resources for education. They have had two mass marches, the most recent bringing more than 120,000 people out, the largest demonstration in the city’s history. The planton has become an annual event since more than a decade, and I will never forget last year’s planton, which happened while I was still living there. For about 10 days the teachers occupied the entire center of town, sleeping on the streets under tarpaulins stretched overhead. They were extremely well organized and the city center was never more alive. The teachers and their families would cook large meals on open fires, play guitar and sing, rest on folded cardboard in the shade. They set up their radio station “Radio Planton” and played music on loud speakers. There were first aid tents, propaganda tents, mass meetings on every corner.

This year, many have remarked that the planton, and the teachers’ mobilization generally, has been different. The question is: If the teachers brought 80,000 to the city, who are the other 40,000? I’m not close enough to give a good answer, but what I understand is that the teachers have offered an opening which hundreds of small community groups and social justice centers from around the state have chosen to follow. The past two years under the new PRI governor Ulises Ruis has intensified the level of state repression. Scores of activists in small villages have been killed, hundreds arrested and still in jail as political prisoners. The spike in repression was so great that Amnesty International sent a delegation to Oaxaca in May of 2005 to investigate. It appears that when the teachers marched on the capital three weeks ago, they were joined by tens of thousands of others from the villages in what is becoming a broad movement to depose the governor. Ruis has refused to meet with the teachers, and has managed to pull in his party’s promisary notes to about half of the state’s municipal mayors, who signed a decree condemning the teachers’ action. But there is a palpable sense that the social movements are converging and that something new is underway.

During the past three weeks, the movement has shown a great level of strength and creativity — occupying the city’s airport, smashing the newly-installed parking meters throughout the city center, occupying the toll booths on the main road from Oaxaca to Mexico City — not to stop the cars, only to stop the collecting of tolls, and the very fact that they have occupied the zocalo has great significance as the new governor, after spending upwards of $100 million to ‘beautify’ the zocalo, decreed that it was now off-limits for any demonstrations.

Three nights ago, Ruis met with business leaders at a late-night gathering and promised to use the ‘mano dura’ or hard hand. There were reports that the first 1,500 federal riot police were camped in the nearby town of Tlacolula. This morning the governor appears to have proven himself a man of his word. Some reports have said that the tear gas in the city center is so thick you can’t see the hand in front of you.

I have not seen any reports in the US media, BBC etc. There is some information on indymedia’s Mexico site, some more on the online version of Noticias de Oaxaca — both in Spanish. (http://www.noticias-oax.com.mx/) I know that the police have shut down the teachers’ radio station, ‘Radio Planton,’ but as of noon, Oaxaca time, the students’ radio station ‘Radio Universitario’ was still broadcasting and “you can hear the broadcast from every window and door in town.” The students themselves have occupied the university, but the latest reports suggest that the police are heading there now.

I’m writing this in the hope that you can help spread the word, and alert others in the network of media to turn their attention to the struggle ongoing.

In solidarity, Charlie Loving

I’m the Decider
by Roddy McCorley

I’m the decider. I pick and I choose.
I pick among whats and I choose among whos.
And as I decide each particular day,
The things I decide on all turn out that way.

I decided on Freedom for all of Iraq.
And now that they have it, I’m not looking back.
I decided on tax cuts that just help the wealthy.
And Medicare changes that aren’t really healthy.

And parklands and wetlands, who needs all that stuff?
I decided that none would be more than enough!
I decided that schools all in all are the best
The less that they teach and more that they test.

I decided those wages you need to get by
Are much better spent on some CEO guy.
I decided your Wade, which was versing your Roe
Is terribly awful and just has to go.

I decided that levees are not really needed.
Now when hurricanes come they come unimpeded.
That old Constitution? Well, I have decided
It’s “just goddam paper.” It should be derided.

I’ve decided gay marriage is icky and weird.
Above all other things, it’s the one to be feared.
Yes, I’m the Decider. I know what is best.
Listen only to me and ignore all the rest.

Or I’ll tap your phones and your e-mail I’ll read.
Because I’m the Decider, like Jesus decreed!
Yes, I’m the Decider, so watch what you say
Or I may decide to whisk you away.

Cheney and Rummy and Condi all know
That I’m the Decider. They tell me it’s so.
Yes, I’m the Decider. The finest alive
And I’m nuking Iran. Now watch this drive!

h/t The Daily Kos

And there’s more:

Down by the Pentagon, where the crickle grass grows,
Where for years the insurgents have been in their “last throes”
Old Donald Rumsfeld relaxed and kicked back
And thought of the fine job he’d done in Iraq

But despite Rummy’s feelings of omnipotent might
Lots of people were dying, with no end in sight
So several old generals rose up in rage
And their mad diatribes made it to the front page

All of them wanted poor Rummy to quit
Since ’twas under his watch that Iraq went to shit
But just as old Rummy was about to resign
Bush came along and said “You’re doing just fine!”

He was tallish and oldish and grayish and chimpy
And his face looked cartoonish, like a Ren or a Stimpy
He rolled up his sleeves, slammed the floor with a “bang!”
And then bellowed out in his fake Texas twang:

“I’m the decider! I decide what is best!
And all my decisions, they come Jesus-blessed!
I don’t read the views of the MSM paparazzi
‘Cause I need Rummy’s help stopping Muslamonazis!

“To all you old generals whose anger won’t yield,
Why won’t you think of the troops on the field
They want Rummy to stay, they say that they need him
What’s wrong with you bastards, do y’all just hate freedom?”

And with that all the critics looked shamed and afraid
For providing bin al-Qaeda with comfort and aid
They wept and covered their faces with bags
And said, “We’re sorry for being such traitorous fags!”

h/t Sadly, No!

One of our group is on a mission to Colombia. She has asked, “Please hold me and the other team member, Audrey Miller, in the light/in prayer, send positive energy, or whatever works for you, as we travel to Colombia May 30-July 13.”

To read periodic postings of their activities, visit: Friends Peace Teams.

Richard Jehn

Summer Solstice/Litha

“Sweet summer breeze, whispering trees, Stars shining softly above…”

Litha, the Summer Solstice, fifth spoke on the Wheel of Life, reaches Austin on Wednesday, June 21, 2006. Lady Moon is in her fourth quarter in Taurus and Lord Sun enters Cancer at 7:26 a.m. The two Solstices and Equinoxes are major events (quarters) as measured by the 8-spoke Wheel. The other four spokes are designated as “cross-quarters” and considered to be lesser rituals, even though some observers of the rituals associated with the Wheel rank Halloween as a major festival. If you choose to invite friends and neighbors to share your observance of this festal occasion, the information offered here is likely to prove useful.

Colors associated with the Summer Solstice are white, red, and yellow. Wear these colors and encourage your guests to do likewise. Your meal should include red and yellow fruits and vegetables. Since this is a Fire Festival, if at all possible, hold your festivities outdoors and include a fire of some kind. Foods cooked over an open flame are most appropriate for this celebration, so consider grilling or barbequing some of your meal. While we think first of meat when the word “barbeque” is mentioned, veggies also grill quite nicely. Skewers of yellow squash, ripe bell peppers, and onion chunks can compliment the fajitas and shish kebab, rounding out the menu while showing the appropriate colors for this day and honoring the fruitfulness of our gardens. This festival is one where food may be shared, so divide the leftovers among your guests. Sharing fire, however, is taboo, as is sleeping away from home.

Fourth quarter moons are quiet times when we review our accomplishments and begin to consider what the next things are that need doing. Fourth quarters of the moon are also the best times to weed a garden and put an end to things rather than to perform rituals for prosperity or increase. You and your guests may choose to make or draw representations of things you wish to eliminate from your life and burn them in your fire. For example: if you desire to stop smoking tobacco, draw a cigarette and surround it with the “no” symbol of a red circle with a red diagonal line drawn through it; burning this piece of paper reinforces your resolve to quit and could make the process go more easily.

Include your pets in your festivities. This is a celebration not only of humans’ work but also animals’ work. Not all of us live on a farm with workhorses, goats, or chickens, but many of us keep cats to deter rats and dogs for security alarms as well as companionship. Let your animals join you and your friends and be sure to waft some of the smoke from your fire over them as well as the human attendees. Use a feather, preferably one you have found, not bought, to direct the smoke.

There is much garden-energy associated with this spoke of the Wheel. It is a time to bless your garden, whether vegetable, herb, or flower. Your guests may assist you in this project by walking barefoot clockwise around your garden, singing and strewing rose petals. As part of your blessing, remember the fairies and leave them items that can be used in their own celebrations: a tiny cup of herb tea placed on a pretty leaf on a pretty, flat rock in a secluded corner of your garden with a wind-chime hung above; sparkly crystals; a small cookie; a fragrant flower. By remembering and honoring fairy-energy, you are also generating good will with entities that can help your garden to grow better and more beautiful.

Kate Braun

French government is similar to that in the US in that it has three branches, executive, legislative and judicial. The executive, however, is divided between the president, who is elected to five-year terms, and a prime minister, who is appointed by the president. Quoting Wikipedia, “The President has a degree of direct executive power, but most executive power resides in his appointee, the Prime Minister. The President’s choice for Prime Minister must have the confidence of the National Assembly, the lower house of Parliament; also the Prime Minister is always from the majority party in that house.” Presidential elections occur in two stages. In the first, candidates from many different parties participate. The second round is a runoff between the two who receive the largest votes in the first round. In recent French history, control of the executive has alternated between the Rassemblement pour la Republique (which I will refer to as the Gaullists, although that shorthand characterization may be becoming less accurate over time) and the French Socialist Party.

Sharply contrasting with the US, almost all positions of leadership in French politics are held by lifelong professional politicians, specifically graduates from the elite Ecole National de Administration. The French would never think of electing a president who is some amateur not specifically trained to be a politician and with many years experience in various political offices.

The last presidential election in 2002 was a fiasco for the left. Because the left splintered into several different parties in the first round, the two principal right-wing candidates made the runoff. The incumbent, Jacques Chirac (Gaullist), won the first round, but with less than 20% of the vote. Second place went to Jean-Marie Le Pen of the extreme right Front National, with policies similar to US Republicans plus anti-semitism and a militant dislike of immigrants, i.e., fascism. He received just less than 17% in the first round. The Socialist Party candidate in 2002, Lionel Jospin, ran third; less than 1% behind Le Pen. Several parties to the left of the Socialists garnered significant support: Workers Struggle – 5.72%, The Greens – 5.25%, Revolutionary Communist League – 4.25%, Communist Party – 3.37%, Left Radical Party – 2.32%, among others.

The first-round results produced great shock and dismay on the left and massive street demonstrations against Le Pen. In the second round, Le Pen received only 1% more of the vote than he had in the first round and Chirac won with a massive landslide of over 82% of the vote. This occurred despite Chirac being widely considered a corrupt, vacillating, gladhanding politician with few if any principles. Chirac has muddled along through his tenure with approval ratings below George W. Bush at his worst, receiving his highest acclaim for standing up to the US in the rush to war in Iraq. It should be noted that the supposedly right-wing French Gaullists like Chirac support policies well to the left of US Democrats. In fact, almost the entire French political spectrum is to the left of the US political spectrum.

Opposition to US imperialism is consistent with the concept initiated in the 1960’s by General de Gaulle, an incredibly prescient man who initiated the concept of a multi-polar world power structure. This became the French response to the bi-polar conflict, the Cold War, which dominated world affairs during that era. Thus, he withdrew France from NATO and created an independent nuclear armed military. This independence has been a cornerstone of French foreign policy ever since. However, Chirac has on numerous occasions sought to suck up to the US on issues he regards of relatively minor relevance, such as overthrowing the democratically elected Aristide government in Haiti.

The next French presidential election is in May of 2007, less than a year away. How is it shaping up? The various left-of-the-Socialists parties still have ambitions, but it is reasonable to predict that there will be a phenomenon on the left in France similar to the abdication of the Green Party to the Democrats in the US in 2004, so that the left doesn’t get excluded from the runoff as in 2002. There also remains the fear that Le Pen has gained support because of the inflamed immigration issue and could make the runoff again, although he’ll probably never get more than 25% of the total vote. However, Jospin, the 2002 Socialist Party candidate, was considered tired and weak. That will very likely not be the case in 2007. There have also been splits on the extreme right, with Le Pen protogeés thinking it is time for their aging tradtional leader to step aside in favor of new blood. Hence, it is fair to assume that the next election will again end up in a run off between the Gaullists and the Socialists.

The Gaullists have a race on their hands for the nomination between the current prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, and the current Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy. De Villepin was badly discredited earlier this year by his proposal of the pro-capitalist economic “reforms” that led to massive street demonstrations, which forced him to back down. Sarkozy distinguished himself to the right by taking a very hard line against the rioters in the suburbs last November, going so far as to publicly call them scum, and is considered a highly combative conservative. For the left in the US, the basic issue is whether the next French president will continue to steer a course independent from the US in foreign affairs. Sarkozy is the most likely candidate to move closer to an alliance with the US and he is the most likely candidate for the Gaullists. My friends here describe him as “worse than Blair.” Sarkozy represents the Americanization of France, removing restraints on market capitalism and cutting existing socialist benefits.

By far the most popular Socialist Party candidate at this point is Ségolène Royal. The growth of her popularity has been described as “meteoric” over the past year. A recent poll conducted by the pro-Socialist Liberation newspaper gave her a huge lead over any other potential Socialist candidate when people sympathetic to the Socialist Party were asked who would be their best candidate. Her current office is roughly equivalent to a US governor and she is “married” to Francois Hollande, head of the Socialist Party, who is also considered a potential presidential candidate. Actually, they were never legally married, but they have been together about 30 years and have four children. This is not seen as a relevant political factor. She is regarded as elegant and articulate, a perfect incarnation of the “caviar socialists.” She has advocated controversial proposals within the Socialist Party that are considered to the right of traditional socialist positions. For example, she has criticized the extension of the 35-hour work week to small employers. She also proposed, as an alternative to prison, mandatory community service projects run by the military for delinquent youths and the reduction of state benefits for the families of recidivist delinquent adolescents. The latter made it into the Socialist Party platform. She is clearly trying to portray herself as tough on crime to counter the use of that issue by the right. She is, therefore, seen as somewhat Hillary-esque within the French context, although her positions on virtually everything are far to the left of Hillary’s.

The Socialist Party just came out with its platform for 2007 and it is more binding on candidates than are platforms of American political parties. It was characterized as moving both right on crime and left on economic issues; “one of the toughest law-and-order platforms ever put forward by a leftist party in France.” Its principal economic element was an increase in the minimum wage by more than 23%, from 1,218 euros to 1,500 euros (about $1,900) a month by 2012. Based on that 35-hour week, that works out to about $12.50 an hour. Other elements of the platform include the re-nationalization of the power giant Electricité de France, plans to build 120,000 housing units a year for the poor and establishing the right to lifelong free education to retrain workers.

At this point, no one knows who would win a race between the Socialist Royal and the Gaullist Sarkozy. The eleven months before the election is a political lifetime. But for leftists in the US and worldwide, a lot rides on the outcome. France has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and a veto there that is an important tool to help restrain US aggression. It also has prestige and influence beyond what its economic or military power might warrant. Although Spain and Italy have gone to the Socialists in their most recent elections and Blair continues to weaken in England, Germany lost its Social Democratic government. A Sarkozy victory in France is hardly out of the question and would be a disaster. The election will be decided on domestic issues and, perhaps, the gender of the candidates. A Sarkozy victory would also very likely be highly divisive within a French society which has a long history of popular militancy.

A wildcard is the Muslim vote, heretofore largely insignificant, although they make up almost 10% of the population, the largest Muslim population in any Western European country. Despite their numbers, out of 555 members of the French National Assembly, none are Muslims. There are reports of new voter registration efforts taking place among them. Sarkozy has few admirers there.

David Hamilton from Paris