One example of the neo-imperial lie is one that the US has invented, under cover of the overarching BIG Lie
Free Market Democracy -- the Lobby System.
Lobbyists rule Congress.
The rights of individual Americans, are largely and almost exclusively negotiated by lobbyists, not by the individuals themselves. The lobby system has overtaken the will and consequently the rights of the American People.
The lie is that US govt is clean government.
Wrong.
This is a lie that is believed by those of us living in post-colonial democracies of the Global South. By this I don't mean the lie is believed by our own homegrown post-feudal government elites,( who are in collusion with US govt, corporate and military elites). I mean the big lie that US Govt. is clean government and that the US govt is pro-people, is a lie believed by our people in the Global South.
We the People believe that the US govt. looks out for its own citizens by upholding civil society individual rights and liberties. Wrong!
Of course US democracy, in 235 years, has gradually created multiple spaces within which individuals and groups can exercise rights and privileges. The US rights-based model locates rights in the individual.
Recently, the US Supreme Court declared Corporations to be persons! Therefore lobbies are persons. PACs are persons. Therefore they have rights, just like you and me. Corporations are People!
Here's one unanticipated but totally predictable consequence:
American Lawyer Copyright
Pakistan Taps Locke Lord Strategies for Lobbying Work Following Bin Laden Fallout
Brian Baxter
The American Lawyer
May 09, 2011
Pakistan has launched an aggressive lobbying effort led by Locke Lord Strategies to keep open a U.S. pipeline of billions in aid after al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was killed on Sunday.
Reuters reports that Locke Lord Strategies -- the lobbying arm of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell -- has been retained by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to fight accusations that Islamabad was complicit in giving refuge to bin Laden in a compound 50 miles outside of the country's capital city and adjacent to its national military academy.
Locke Lord partner Mark Siegel told Reuters that he has spoken twice with Zardari since U.S. special forces killed bin Laden, and "countless" times to the country's ambassador in Washington, D.C., Husain Haqqani. Siegel said that his clients "are certainly concerned" about suggestions that the Pakistani government knew all along about bin Laden's whereabouts, but that there was no proof that a support system for the al-Qaida leader "was government-based."
Locke Lord has a long relationship with Pakistan and its current leaders. The Am Law Daily reported in February on Zardari's hire of Locke Lord and Siegel for a possible libel suit against Jang Media Group over a story by the Pakistani publisher about the president's marital status. Zardari's late wife, former Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, was killed in a terrorist attack in December 2007.
Mark Siegel served as a speechwriter to Bhutto, a former Pakistani prime minister, for nearly 25 years, according to a press release put out by Locke Lord two years ago announcing the firm's hire by Pakistan for U.S. lobbying work. Locke Lord said in a statement to The Am Law Daily on Friday that the firm represented Bhutto before she was assassinated "at the hands of whom many believe was Al Qaeda" and thereafter the Pakistani government and Zardari.
"Locke Lord is continuing to assist President Zardari in his efforts to work with the [U.S.] to combat global terrorism and to establish a more stable and prosperous Pakistan," said the firm, noting that many prominent U.S. politicians consider the country to be an important ally of the U.S. in counterterrorism efforts.
Reuters reports that Locke Lord is paid $75,000 per month by Pakistan and has earned nearly $2 million since being retained by the country two years ago. Records on file under the U.S. government's Foreign Agents Registration Act show that Locke Lord also does work for Pakistan International Airlines, Zardari's Pakistan Peoples Party, and the U.S. Embassy for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
This article first appeared on The Am Law Daily blog on AmericanLawyer.com.
--------------
http://www.lockelord.com/
Locke Lord Strategies is a person! Its a lobbying group but it is a person like you and me!
---------------
Slate copyright
http://www.slate.com/id/2242208/
The Pinocchio Project
Watching as the Supreme Court turns a corporation into a real live boy.
By Dahlia LithwickPosted Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010, at 2:15 PM ET
John Paul StevensYou will doubtless hear today that 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens read aloud from his partial dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission for almost 20 minutes in a slow, halting voice, periodically getting tangled up in thickets of words like "corporation" and "corruption." Meanwhile, a loud banging noise from the bench all but drowned him out. That's true. But Justice Anthony Kennedy fared no better reading from his majority opinion beforehand, tearing through the first part of his summary, then losing his place and stumbling through the holding. If Citizens United really represents the moment at which the Roberts court allows itself to finally give voice to its full-throated judicial activism, it's not clear Anthony Kennedy managed much more than a vocal mumble. He looked like he'd have preferred to have been reading his dissent from a soapbox. Or maybe from a crouch underneath the bench. Stevens haltingly worked his way through all five of his objections to the majority's holding today. Kennedy barely gulped out the holding itself.
PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...REPRINTSSINGLE PAGE
In part, as Rick Hasen suggests that's because Kennedy's soaring sonnet for corporate free speech has very little to do with the case at hand. The court had to reach out far beyond any place it needed to go to strike down century-old restrictions on corporate spending in federal elections. This started off as a case about a single movie. It morphed into John Roberts' Golden Globe night.
So Kennedy doesn't really find his voice today until he gets to the fist-pounding bits: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." "The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach." And: "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
Advertisement
As Stevens says in reading his dissent, none of that has anything to do with the court's decision to topple decades' worth of legal architecture that had never been questioned in the courts. And Kennedy's visceral terror of speech bans (the word "ban" appears 29 times in his 57-page opinion) and "censorship" seems to override any sort of temperate assessment of either the facts of the case before him, the lack of substantial record in the lower courts, the significance of the cases he is overruling, or the consequences of today's opinion. Perhaps because this is the same Anthony Kennedy who was so exquisitely sensitive to the corrupting influence of money on public confidence in judicial elections in the Caperton case about judicial corruption, it's hard to comprehend what it is about unlimited corporate contributions that so moves him.
Related on the Web
Become a fan of Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
If Kennedy is tentative this morning and Stevens is horrified, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas say nothing at all. They don't have to: They're the architects of the edifice Kennedy has erected. Reading from his dissent, Stevens describes their "sweeping" attacks on Michigan's campaign finance law in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (one of the cases overruled today) as "having planted the seed that flowered" into today's majority opinion.
While Stevens is reading the portion of his concurrence about the "cautious view of corporate power" held by the framers, I see Justice Thomas chuckle softly. (Scalia takes on this argument in his concurrence.) Stevens hammers, more than once this morning from the bench on the principle that corporations "are not human beings" and "corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires." He insists that "they are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."
But you can plainly see the weariness in Stevens eyes and hear it in his voice today as he is forced to contend with a legal fiction that has come to life today, a sort of constitutional Frankenstein moment when corporate speech becomes even more compelling than the "voices of the real people" who will be drowned out. Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is "to confuse metaphor with reality." Today that metaphor won a very real victory at the Supreme Court. And as a consequence some very real corporations are feeling very, very good.
copyright
http://blog.nj.com/njv_john_farmer/2010/01/campaign_finance_supreme_court.html
Mark Wilson/Getty Images Members of the US Supreme Court, who recently issued a ruling in a landmark campaign finance case.Few things are more fundamental to our notion of political liberty and equality than freedom of speech. We’re all supposed to enjoy it more or less equally. Ideally, no one’s supposed to have too much more of it than anyone else, or it isn’t very equal.
We all know that’s not how it works, however. Some individuals or groups will, for one reason or another (usually money), always enjoy more of our constitutional freedoms.
The Constitution, in its majesty, guarantees the pauper as well as the prince the right to a lawyer. But it’s better than even money that the prince is going to get Clarence Darrow while the pauper is likely to get the last guy in the class in law school.
That’s why federal courts are there, to smooth out at least some of these inequities.
But it didn’t work that way this week. Instead, a five-man majority of the U.S. Supreme Court transformed freedom of speech into an instrument for inequality by wiping out a century of laws and court decisions curbing the power of rich corporations to buy elections.
Money is political speech, the court held, and can’t be curbed. It’s all the same, whether it’s Bill Gates’ billions or the nickels and dimes in the tin cup of the blind guy on the corner; whether it’s Goldman Sachs using its millions to beat back financial regulations in Washington or the piggy bank change available to individuals or public-interest advocacy groups fighting for reform. All the same.
But if the five justices who wrote the majority decision really believe that, then they’re spending too much time in chambers; they should get out a little more. Corporate cash is corrupting our politics and shredding faith in the system, as the government’s solicitor-general argued in a losing fight to keep the curbs on corporate spending and level the field between haves and have-nots.
It’s by no means a fair fight when citizen groups are forced to go up against Corporate America in the political arena.
"The nature of business corporations," the solicitor-general’s brief maintained, "makes corporate political activity inherently more likely than individual advocacy to cause quid quo pro corruption." It went on to warn of an increase in "pay-to-play" that hands a huge advantage to the boys in the board room because they’re better able "to afford the ante."
In rejecting that argument, the court majority found that corporations have no fewer rights than individuals — in effect adopting the argument of those opposed to any limits on corporate campaign spending. Thomas Jefferson would have gagged on that one.
What will the decision mean politically? Republicans, conservative activists and business lobbyists (see U.S. Chamber of Commerce) are ecstatic. They see the high court as a kind of sugar plum fairy, leading them to an even more bountiful era of federal policy-making and political power. Democrats and liberals fear they’re right.
But who really knows? These things often have unintended consequences. Ben L. Ginsberg, a long-time lawyer for GOP conservative causes, counsels caution.
"It’s going to be a wild, wild West" in future campaigns, he warned, "with a lot more voices and the loudest voices are going to be corporations and unions." In the process, the power of both parties, Republicans as well as Democrats, could be diminished as corporations and unions run their own campaigns and give less cash to either party.
Why run money through the parties — the middle men — when corporations are free now to spend all they want on their own more tightly targeted campaigns for issues and candidates? Conceivably, they could now spend enough to dominate party primaries, denying Democrat and Republican leaders the power to nominate preferred candidates.
Special interest lobbyists are about to become more special than ever.
It’s equally unclear how far this self-indulgent Supreme Court will take its campaign to strip away even reasonable limits on the political power of money.
The law still bars corporations from directly contributing cash to federal candidates — and to overturn that would be a bold-faced invitation to outright bribery. A prudent court would leave that prohibition in place. But with this court, one never knows.
For the record, Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and company are outspoken defenders of judicial restraint, of following precedent and deferring to legislators as the voice of the people. But by lifting the ban on corporate campaign spending, they trashed precedent and gave Congress the one-finger salute.
With faith in the system already at a low ebb, it wasn’t what one would expect from a responsible Supreme Court.
------------------------------
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
USSA not SAARC, USSA not AfPak
USSA not SAARC
USSA
United States of South Asia
Not SAARC
Not South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SAARC is a regional civil service bureaucrat's attempt to manage, contain and restrict the yearnings of the South Asian PEOPLE.
SAARC as geopolitical concept is not sustainable in view of momentous, geopolitical events sweeping South Asia. SAARC, formally established in 1985, has accomplished practically nothing.
Why USSA?
It is abundantly clear that Pakistan and Afghanistan, acting alone, frequently acting against each other, cannot sustain their people against USCIA and USNATO acting at will, that overrun their sovereign territories, in the so-called AfPak.
AfPak is a geopolitical construct intended to dislocate South Asia peoples by inventing neo-imperial identities and neo-imperial territories that do NOT exist on the ground. Nobody in Lahore or Kandahar, Swat or Kabul(or even Abbottabad!) walks around saying "I'm male, 6ft 2 and i'm AfPak."
AfPak is not a South Asian identity on any level -- personal, national, regional or geopolitical.
AfPak is a convenient, self-serving ad hoc invention of the Pentagon, The US Department of State, USCIA and The White House under President Obama. The US Congress didn't come up with AfPak, AfPak is not even in the interests of the American People (yes and millions of others I voted Obama to prevent a Mccain-Palin debacle), AfPak prevents the American People from escaping the stranglehold of a $trillion plus debt from unnecessary war in South Asia. AfPak is against
The bottom line is AfPak a self-serving geopolitical construct of US neo-imperialism, colluding with South Asia's postcolonial post-feudal militaristic landed elites, using religion as a convenient ploy to divide peoples and land, to dislocate people from land.
Want to be reminded of an earlier self-agrandising geopolitical construct now in wide, ethically unsupportable use? The "Middle East".
The term Middle East invented by the colonizing, resource-extracting Brits circa 1900 implies a similar attempt by Empire to dislocate and dispossess the Peoples of West Asia and North Africa. Middel East? Middle of What? East of Where? No folks, its West Asia. It's North Africa. It's PLACE, not SPACE.
USSA is the way forward for ALL South Asians striving for peace through prosperity. For a borderless seamless stability through Social Justice and through economic opportunity. Peacde without scoial and economic justice is a non-starter, a no-brainer, a no-go, a no-show.
The move towards USSA is pragmatic idealism. The move towards USSA is pragmatic ethical geopolitics. It's an embracing, pervasive South Asia Idea.
USSA NOT SAARC
USSA NOT AfPak
Welcome!
--------------
http://www.medical-answers.org/hd/index.php?t=SAARC&retry=yes
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
USSA
United States of South Asia
Not SAARC
Not South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SAARC is a regional civil service bureaucrat's attempt to manage, contain and restrict the yearnings of the South Asian PEOPLE.
SAARC as geopolitical concept is not sustainable in view of momentous, geopolitical events sweeping South Asia. SAARC, formally established in 1985, has accomplished practically nothing.
Why USSA?
It is abundantly clear that Pakistan and Afghanistan, acting alone, frequently acting against each other, cannot sustain their people against USCIA and USNATO acting at will, that overrun their sovereign territories, in the so-called AfPak.
AfPak is a geopolitical construct intended to dislocate South Asia peoples by inventing neo-imperial identities and neo-imperial territories that do NOT exist on the ground. Nobody in Lahore or Kandahar, Swat or Kabul(or even Abbottabad!) walks around saying "I'm male, 6ft 2 and i'm AfPak."
AfPak is not a South Asian identity on any level -- personal, national, regional or geopolitical.
AfPak is a convenient, self-serving ad hoc invention of the Pentagon, The US Department of State, USCIA and The White House under President Obama. The US Congress didn't come up with AfPak, AfPak is not even in the interests of the American People (yes and millions of others I voted Obama to prevent a Mccain-Palin debacle), AfPak prevents the American People from escaping the stranglehold of a $trillion plus debt from unnecessary war in South Asia. AfPak is against
The bottom line is AfPak a self-serving geopolitical construct of US neo-imperialism, colluding with South Asia's postcolonial post-feudal militaristic landed elites, using religion as a convenient ploy to divide peoples and land, to dislocate people from land.
Want to be reminded of an earlier self-agrandising geopolitical construct now in wide, ethically unsupportable use? The "Middle East".
The term Middle East invented by the colonizing, resource-extracting Brits circa 1900 implies a similar attempt by Empire to dislocate and dispossess the Peoples of West Asia and North Africa. Middel East? Middle of What? East of Where? No folks, its West Asia. It's North Africa. It's PLACE, not SPACE.
USSA is the way forward for ALL South Asians striving for peace through prosperity. For a borderless seamless stability through Social Justice and through economic opportunity. Peacde without scoial and economic justice is a non-starter, a no-brainer, a no-go, a no-show.
The move towards USSA is pragmatic idealism. The move towards USSA is pragmatic ethical geopolitics. It's an embracing, pervasive South Asia Idea.
USSA NOT SAARC
USSA NOT AfPak
Welcome!
--------------
http://www.medical-answers.org/hd/index.php?t=SAARC&retry=yes
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thursday, May 5, 2011
An Arab Spring in Palestine?
The inspiringly-named "Arab Spring" is not a monolithic liberatory event.
Each sovereign post-colonial nation-state, still grasped in the right claw of neo-imperialism, often colluding with domestic post-colonial feudal landed elites, has its own trajectory, whether it's Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen or even Libya (was this last 'revolution' fabricated in London and armed by the USCIA/Saudia, and now bombed by France/USNATO?)
Has Palestine had an Arab Spring yet? Did I miss it?
Falasteen Gandhians, where are you?
Israeli Gandhians, where are you?
The recent rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah, provide some hope that that the Arab Spring may be contagious in Gaza.
Civil society nonviolent street protest, as in Cairo's Tahrir Square, highly motivated, persistent, actively, dynamically peaceful, ethically-driven, is so far absent in Gaza.
Going back six decades, Is it possible or feasible to reverse the massive mis-step, by the UNSC (1946), an entity made up of erstwhile colonizers, neo-imperialists and totalitarian nations, that resulted in the creation of the "State of Israel" in 1948?
The UNSC is not the UNGA.
The UNGA would likey have vetoed that mis-step, if that had ever been brought to UNGA's attention. It was not.
Israel, the dominant client-state (contrast Pakistan the dependent client-state) of the US cannot be dismantled, except voluntarily through grassroots action by the Israelis themselves).
Hardly likely under Zionist expansion, acting with the support of a 60-year US policy driven by dominant militarist, political and economic power, interests and influence here in the US. Thanks AIPAC.
Q. Can Israelis, I mean the Israeli PEOPLE, continue to enjoy the right to exist, but not Israel the State? That would be an argument on behalf of PEOPLE, the Israeli people, but not the state.
If that were acceptable then there could come into being a great diverse secular unified State of Palestine. For ALL Philistines. For ALL Falasteen. A PEOPLE-Centered, not a territory-centered, solution would result in a unified secular diverse multireligious, multiethnic, multilingual Palestine. That's what all modern democratic nation-states look like.
Sometimes, in order to move and progress beyond the painful dislocating past, we may need to acknowledge and accept the unfair, even grievously unfair, mis-steps of history.
And then move forward unified, perhaps in yet another an upcoming Spring, to correct these mis-steps.
That is pragmatic idealism.
For the sake of the Greater Collective Good (GCG). of a Unified Palestine.
-----------------------
AP & Yahoo! copyright
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110505/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_palestinians_reconciliation
Palestinian deal ends rift, hurts peace prospects
AP
Mahmoud Abbas, Khaled Mashaal AP – In this photo released by the Hamas Media Office, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, center-left, and …
Palestinian leaders hail end to four-year rift Play Video Mideast Video:Palestinian leaders hail end to four-year rift AFP
Mideast Video:Unity deal in Middle East Australia 7 News
Palestinians hail landmark reconciliation pact Play Video Mideast Video:Palestinians hail landmark reconciliation pact AP
By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press – Wed May 4, 9:19 pm ET
CAIRO – Rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas signed a landmark reconciliation pact on Wednesday, ending a four-year rift that had divided the territory envisioned for a future Palestinian state. The deal plunged Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking deeper into uncertainty as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a "mortal blow to peace."
The agreement, which followed years of bitter acrimony between the two Palestinian movements, was made possible in large measure by the political changes sweeping the Arab world and the deadlock in U.S.-brokered peace talks with Israel.
A unity government foreseen by the accord would also allow the Palestinians to speak with a single voice if they go ahead with plans to ask the United Nations to recognize Palestine as a state during the annual General Assembly session in September.
With Wednesday's signing, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose Palestinian Authority governs the West Bank, joined forces with Khaled Mashaal, the Syrian-based head of Hamas, which rejects Israel's existence and is backed by Iran.
The alliance set off ecstatic celebrations in the Palestinian territories — and warnings from both the Obama administration and international mediator Tony Blair that the new Palestinian government must recognize Israel or risk international isolation.
Abbas brushed off the criticism and instead used the occasion to deliver a scathing attack on Israel, saying "We reject blackmail and it is no longer possible for us to accept the (Israeli) occupation of Palestinian land."
Both Palestinian leaders emphasized a united Palestinian direction, with Mashaal declaring the pact means the Palestinians will have "one leadership, ... one decision."
"The common national goal is to establish a Palestinian state, independent with sovereignty on the West Bank and Gaza Strip with Jerusalem as the capital, without settlements, without giving up a single inch of it and with the right of return" of Palestinian refugees, the Hamas leader said.
Netanyahu denounced the new Palestinian alliance as "a mortal blow to peace and a big prize for terrorism."
"Israel continues to want peace and seek peace but we can only achieve that with our neighbors that want peace," the Israeli leader said. "Those of our neighbors that seek the destruction of Israel and use terrorism are not partners to peace."
The Palestinians have been torn between rival governments since a previous unity arrangement collapsed into civil war in June 2007. In five days of fighting, Hamas overran the Gaza Strip, leaving Abbas' Palestinian Authority in charge of the West Bank. Reconciliation is essential for Palestinian dreams to establish a state in the two areas.
Wednesday's pact provides for the creation of a joint Palestinian caretaker government ahead of national elections next year. But it leaves key issues unresolved, such as who will lead the government or control the competing Palestinian security forces, and makes no mention of relations with Israel.
In his speech, Abbas rejected Israel's opposition to the pact, saying the reconciliation with Hamas was an internal Palestinian affair.
"They are our brothers and family. We may differ, and we often do, but we still arrive at a minimum level of understanding," he said.
Abbas said Israel cannot continue to act as "a state above the law" and called for an end to construction in Jewish settlements on lands the Palestinians want for a future state.
"Mr. Netanyahu, you must choose between settlements and peace," he said.
It's not clear whether Western powers would deal with the new government that is to emerge from the unity deal. So far, they've said they are waiting to see its composition.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said it was important that Palestinians ensure that their agreement is implemented "in a way that advances the prospects of peace rather than undermines them."
He said the U.S. was still waiting to see what the agreement actually means in practical terms, but stressed Hamas' inclusion in the government must be accompanied by recognition of the state of Israel, a commitment to nonviolence and acceptance of previous agreements.
"If Hamas wants to play a meaningful role in the political process there, and indeed in the peace process, they need to adhere to these principles," Toner said.
Blair agreed. "I think the central question people ask is, 'Does this mean a change of heart on behalf of Hamas or not?'" he told The Associated Press.
Unlike Fatah, which has negotiated several partial peace accords with Israel, Hamas does not accept a place for a Jewish state in an Islamic Mideast, though leaders like Mashaal say they would accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as an interim step.
Hamas, which is considered a terror group by Israel, the U.S. and European Union, has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel, killing hundreds, and thousands of rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel, many by Hamas. Israel has retaliated with strikes into Gaza that have killed dozens of Palestinian civilians.
The Quartet of Mideast mediators — the U.S., the EU, the United Nations and Russia — has long demanded that Hamas renounce violence and recognize the principle of Israel's right to exist. Hamas' continued refusal to accept these conditions could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in international aid.
Palestinian political activist Mustafa Barghouti said Hamas, by signing the accord, "showed a sign of moderation."
"I hope the United States starts seeing the situation not through Israeli eyes. I hope the United States can have its own independent policy," he said.
Reservations over key differences between the two sides linger, and Palestinian leaders had a brief dispute ahead of Wednesday's signing ceremony when Mashaal objected to being seated in the front row rather than on the podium along with Abbas, the Egyptian foreign minister and intelligence chief.
He grudgingly accepted his seat and the atmosphere remained generally upbeat, with many among those present saying they saw the deal as a byproduct of the political changes sweeping the Arab world.
Uprisings toppled or weakened some of the leaders who had patronized Hamas and Fatah, and angry Palestinians, inspired by Arab youth movements in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere, had begun to take to the streets to demand an end to the Fatah-Hamas rift.
"The general atmosphere in the region imposed a different reality," said Cairo-based Mohammed Sobeih, the Arab League official handling Palestinian affairs. "Everybody believed that the continuation of the division is dangerous, destructive and none will be able to bear it any longer."
Syria, long Hamas' traditional Arab backer and home to several of its top leaders, has been rocked in recent weeks by a wave of protests demanding the ouster of President Bashar Assad. Similarly, the regime of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, Fatah's main backer, collapsed in February after an 18-day uprising.
Ahmed Abdel-Rahman, a spokesman for Abbas, said Syria had always been the decision-maker for Hamas. "There was a Syrian veto, but now it doesn't exist," he said.
Samir Ghattas, head of the Cairo-based Maqdus Center for Strategic Studies, suggested that Syria's weakened leadership may no longer feel it prudent to doggedly maintain its close ties with Hamas.
Palestinian businessman Munib al-Masri, head of an independent political bloc, said Mubarak's personal enmity toward Hamas was a major barrier to unifying the Palestinian rivals.
After Mubarak's ouster, al-Masri helped arrange for Fatah and Hamas delegations to meet with new Egyptian officials in the foreign ministry and intelligence service, leading to Wednesday's accord.
"The youth in the streets brought awakening, a spring and a revival," al-Masri said.
___
Associated Press writers Amy Teibel in Jerusalem and Ibrahim Barzak in Gaza City, Gaza Strip, contributed to this report.
Each sovereign post-colonial nation-state, still grasped in the right claw of neo-imperialism, often colluding with domestic post-colonial feudal landed elites, has its own trajectory, whether it's Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen or even Libya (was this last 'revolution' fabricated in London and armed by the USCIA/Saudia, and now bombed by France/USNATO?)
Has Palestine had an Arab Spring yet? Did I miss it?
Falasteen Gandhians, where are you?
Israeli Gandhians, where are you?
The recent rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah, provide some hope that that the Arab Spring may be contagious in Gaza.
Civil society nonviolent street protest, as in Cairo's Tahrir Square, highly motivated, persistent, actively, dynamically peaceful, ethically-driven, is so far absent in Gaza.
Going back six decades, Is it possible or feasible to reverse the massive mis-step, by the UNSC (1946), an entity made up of erstwhile colonizers, neo-imperialists and totalitarian nations, that resulted in the creation of the "State of Israel" in 1948?
The UNSC is not the UNGA.
The UNGA would likey have vetoed that mis-step, if that had ever been brought to UNGA's attention. It was not.
Israel, the dominant client-state (contrast Pakistan the dependent client-state) of the US cannot be dismantled, except voluntarily through grassroots action by the Israelis themselves).
Hardly likely under Zionist expansion, acting with the support of a 60-year US policy driven by dominant militarist, political and economic power, interests and influence here in the US. Thanks AIPAC.
Q. Can Israelis, I mean the Israeli PEOPLE, continue to enjoy the right to exist, but not Israel the State? That would be an argument on behalf of PEOPLE, the Israeli people, but not the state.
If that were acceptable then there could come into being a great diverse secular unified State of Palestine. For ALL Philistines. For ALL Falasteen. A PEOPLE-Centered, not a territory-centered, solution would result in a unified secular diverse multireligious, multiethnic, multilingual Palestine. That's what all modern democratic nation-states look like.
Sometimes, in order to move and progress beyond the painful dislocating past, we may need to acknowledge and accept the unfair, even grievously unfair, mis-steps of history.
And then move forward unified, perhaps in yet another an upcoming Spring, to correct these mis-steps.
That is pragmatic idealism.
For the sake of the Greater Collective Good (GCG). of a Unified Palestine.
-----------------------
AP & Yahoo! copyright
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110505/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_palestinians_reconciliation
Palestinian deal ends rift, hurts peace prospects
AP
Mahmoud Abbas, Khaled Mashaal AP – In this photo released by the Hamas Media Office, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, center-left, and …
Palestinian leaders hail end to four-year rift Play Video Mideast Video:Palestinian leaders hail end to four-year rift AFP
Mideast Video:Unity deal in Middle East Australia 7 News
Palestinians hail landmark reconciliation pact Play Video Mideast Video:Palestinians hail landmark reconciliation pact AP
By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press – Wed May 4, 9:19 pm ET
CAIRO – Rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas signed a landmark reconciliation pact on Wednesday, ending a four-year rift that had divided the territory envisioned for a future Palestinian state. The deal plunged Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking deeper into uncertainty as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a "mortal blow to peace."
The agreement, which followed years of bitter acrimony between the two Palestinian movements, was made possible in large measure by the political changes sweeping the Arab world and the deadlock in U.S.-brokered peace talks with Israel.
A unity government foreseen by the accord would also allow the Palestinians to speak with a single voice if they go ahead with plans to ask the United Nations to recognize Palestine as a state during the annual General Assembly session in September.
With Wednesday's signing, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose Palestinian Authority governs the West Bank, joined forces with Khaled Mashaal, the Syrian-based head of Hamas, which rejects Israel's existence and is backed by Iran.
The alliance set off ecstatic celebrations in the Palestinian territories — and warnings from both the Obama administration and international mediator Tony Blair that the new Palestinian government must recognize Israel or risk international isolation.
Abbas brushed off the criticism and instead used the occasion to deliver a scathing attack on Israel, saying "We reject blackmail and it is no longer possible for us to accept the (Israeli) occupation of Palestinian land."
Both Palestinian leaders emphasized a united Palestinian direction, with Mashaal declaring the pact means the Palestinians will have "one leadership, ... one decision."
"The common national goal is to establish a Palestinian state, independent with sovereignty on the West Bank and Gaza Strip with Jerusalem as the capital, without settlements, without giving up a single inch of it and with the right of return" of Palestinian refugees, the Hamas leader said.
Netanyahu denounced the new Palestinian alliance as "a mortal blow to peace and a big prize for terrorism."
"Israel continues to want peace and seek peace but we can only achieve that with our neighbors that want peace," the Israeli leader said. "Those of our neighbors that seek the destruction of Israel and use terrorism are not partners to peace."
The Palestinians have been torn between rival governments since a previous unity arrangement collapsed into civil war in June 2007. In five days of fighting, Hamas overran the Gaza Strip, leaving Abbas' Palestinian Authority in charge of the West Bank. Reconciliation is essential for Palestinian dreams to establish a state in the two areas.
Wednesday's pact provides for the creation of a joint Palestinian caretaker government ahead of national elections next year. But it leaves key issues unresolved, such as who will lead the government or control the competing Palestinian security forces, and makes no mention of relations with Israel.
In his speech, Abbas rejected Israel's opposition to the pact, saying the reconciliation with Hamas was an internal Palestinian affair.
"They are our brothers and family. We may differ, and we often do, but we still arrive at a minimum level of understanding," he said.
Abbas said Israel cannot continue to act as "a state above the law" and called for an end to construction in Jewish settlements on lands the Palestinians want for a future state.
"Mr. Netanyahu, you must choose between settlements and peace," he said.
It's not clear whether Western powers would deal with the new government that is to emerge from the unity deal. So far, they've said they are waiting to see its composition.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said it was important that Palestinians ensure that their agreement is implemented "in a way that advances the prospects of peace rather than undermines them."
He said the U.S. was still waiting to see what the agreement actually means in practical terms, but stressed Hamas' inclusion in the government must be accompanied by recognition of the state of Israel, a commitment to nonviolence and acceptance of previous agreements.
"If Hamas wants to play a meaningful role in the political process there, and indeed in the peace process, they need to adhere to these principles," Toner said.
Blair agreed. "I think the central question people ask is, 'Does this mean a change of heart on behalf of Hamas or not?'" he told The Associated Press.
Unlike Fatah, which has negotiated several partial peace accords with Israel, Hamas does not accept a place for a Jewish state in an Islamic Mideast, though leaders like Mashaal say they would accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as an interim step.
Hamas, which is considered a terror group by Israel, the U.S. and European Union, has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel, killing hundreds, and thousands of rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel, many by Hamas. Israel has retaliated with strikes into Gaza that have killed dozens of Palestinian civilians.
The Quartet of Mideast mediators — the U.S., the EU, the United Nations and Russia — has long demanded that Hamas renounce violence and recognize the principle of Israel's right to exist. Hamas' continued refusal to accept these conditions could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in international aid.
Palestinian political activist Mustafa Barghouti said Hamas, by signing the accord, "showed a sign of moderation."
"I hope the United States starts seeing the situation not through Israeli eyes. I hope the United States can have its own independent policy," he said.
Reservations over key differences between the two sides linger, and Palestinian leaders had a brief dispute ahead of Wednesday's signing ceremony when Mashaal objected to being seated in the front row rather than on the podium along with Abbas, the Egyptian foreign minister and intelligence chief.
He grudgingly accepted his seat and the atmosphere remained generally upbeat, with many among those present saying they saw the deal as a byproduct of the political changes sweeping the Arab world.
Uprisings toppled or weakened some of the leaders who had patronized Hamas and Fatah, and angry Palestinians, inspired by Arab youth movements in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere, had begun to take to the streets to demand an end to the Fatah-Hamas rift.
"The general atmosphere in the region imposed a different reality," said Cairo-based Mohammed Sobeih, the Arab League official handling Palestinian affairs. "Everybody believed that the continuation of the division is dangerous, destructive and none will be able to bear it any longer."
Syria, long Hamas' traditional Arab backer and home to several of its top leaders, has been rocked in recent weeks by a wave of protests demanding the ouster of President Bashar Assad. Similarly, the regime of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, Fatah's main backer, collapsed in February after an 18-day uprising.
Ahmed Abdel-Rahman, a spokesman for Abbas, said Syria had always been the decision-maker for Hamas. "There was a Syrian veto, but now it doesn't exist," he said.
Samir Ghattas, head of the Cairo-based Maqdus Center for Strategic Studies, suggested that Syria's weakened leadership may no longer feel it prudent to doggedly maintain its close ties with Hamas.
Palestinian businessman Munib al-Masri, head of an independent political bloc, said Mubarak's personal enmity toward Hamas was a major barrier to unifying the Palestinian rivals.
After Mubarak's ouster, al-Masri helped arrange for Fatah and Hamas delegations to meet with new Egyptian officials in the foreign ministry and intelligence service, leading to Wednesday's accord.
"The youth in the streets brought awakening, a spring and a revival," al-Masri said.
___
Associated Press writers Amy Teibel in Jerusalem and Ibrahim Barzak in Gaza City, Gaza Strip, contributed to this report.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
May Day Mubarak!
May I has especial meaning this year for workers in Wisconsin.
On their behalf and in support of our own right, held individually and collectively, to human dignity through work, we celebrate May 1, locally and globally.
The Arab Spring is driven by working people. Call them protesters but they are workers.
That Gandhian ethos of activism for social justice through collective conscience and self-renewal has just begun to touch yet again (they had their chance in the 40's -60's), the post-colonial-imperial peoples of societies in West Asia and North Africa.
This culture area is referred to by dominant former colonizing states and current neo-imperial states as the Middle East -- Middle of what? East of where?
A colonial-imperial construct to dislocate the peoples of those lands on yet another May Day Remembrance.
Now off to spend some hours reflecting in historic Union Square, New York City. Gandhi's statue stands in a little corner of the park there.
May Day Mubarak!
On their behalf and in support of our own right, held individually and collectively, to human dignity through work, we celebrate May 1, locally and globally.
The Arab Spring is driven by working people. Call them protesters but they are workers.
That Gandhian ethos of activism for social justice through collective conscience and self-renewal has just begun to touch yet again (they had their chance in the 40's -60's), the post-colonial-imperial peoples of societies in West Asia and North Africa.
This culture area is referred to by dominant former colonizing states and current neo-imperial states as the Middle East -- Middle of what? East of where?
A colonial-imperial construct to dislocate the peoples of those lands on yet another May Day Remembrance.
Now off to spend some hours reflecting in historic Union Square, New York City. Gandhi's statue stands in a little corner of the park there.
May Day Mubarak!
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The 2011 G-20 November Meetup in Cannes -- What Topic is Off Limits?
The G-20 meets in November in Cannes this year. Heads up, People.
You know what the G-20 don't discuss?
Arms. Weapons of destruction, mass or otherwise. Mass means People, right?
The vast, enormously profitable arms sales from which military contractor elites in the Pentagon, the defence establishments in India and Pak and China, and every one of the G-20, make huge covert profits.
Manmohan will not be bringing up India's arms purchases either. He and India are part of that cynical, fairly covert, G-20 maneuver.
Why covert? Because G-20 has no charter and it's meetings are mainly closed-door. A great moment for democracy. You and I wont know what went down among the great ones. Happy with that Aam Log?
Arms profiteers don't have to actually exchange cash under the table to make a profit, right?
The US has been a war machine and economy since World War II. So are the UK, France.
India's economy as a post-colonial democracy will ultimately end up in the same sorry boom-and-bust so-called 'free market" imbroglio, if India, the world's largest economy, plays the same US game of a hidden arms-driven budget agenda, instead of a human development, social justice agenda.
India should chart a different course away from arms dependency on the G-3 and instead foster social justice collaboration with the Global South~South economies, example Brazil, Ghana, South Africa. That post-colonial option has the potential of India further developing the Gandhian pragmatic ideal, The Peoples' Ideal, of Ethical Democracy, now largely missing in corruption-ridden India.
Dr. Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-----------------------
G-20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-20_major_economies
--------------------------------------------------------
BBC copyright
14 April 2011 Last updated at 09:18 ET
London G20 demo: Met Police 'kettling' not justified
Bishopsgate Climate Camp Demonstrators at the climate camp were kept in a tight police cordon for more than four hours
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
G20 policing tactics questioned
Met complaints rise over average
Warning over policing of protests
Two activists have won their case against policing of the G20 protests, as the High Court ruled police containment was "not justified".
The judges upheld Hannah McClure and Josh Moos's case that police used "violence" to control the Camp for Climate Action in London in April 2009.
There was "no reasonable" justification for "kettling" but police did not unlawfully try to clear the camp.
The Metropolitan Police said it would appeal against the court's judgement.
In response to this, Frances Wright, from the climate camp's legal team, said: "It is outrageous that public money is continuing to be used to defend the kettling of the climate camp for five hours.
"The police lost the argument in the media and public confidence dropped, two parliamentary committees were critical and now the court has agreed."
John Halford, counsel for the demonstrators, said: "The court has roundly condemned the unlawful and oppressive police response, exposing it as unacceptable in a democratic society."
The Met's decision to push protesters at the Bishopsgate camp was "not necessary or proportionate", the judges decided.
Three activists at the camp had challenged the legality of police using riot shields to land blows on protesters at the G20 demonstrations, known as "shield strikes".
Chris Abbott's case was dropped because he could not get legal aid, his lawyers said.
Sir Anthony May, the president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Sweeney rejected the complaint that the Met decided unlawfully to clear the climate camp before it was due to end.
Met officers "kettled" demonstrators for more than four hours on 1 April, the same day newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson died after being pushed down by a police officer in Royal Exchange.
Ruling in the case, the judges said: "There was at 7.07pm no reasonably apprehended breach of the peace, imminent or otherwise, within the Climate Camp itself sufficient to justify containment."
Metropolitan police officers on duty in the City of London during clashes between police and protesters at the time of the G20 summit The case challenged the use of riot shields to strike protesters
But the court heard that later in the evening there was a risk and police reaction was appropriate.
There had already been incidents at the Bishopsgate camp where bottles and coins and other items were thrown at the police lines, but the protest had been largely peaceful, the court heard.
"When the Royal Exchange protesters were dispersing from 7.25pm there was clearly a risk that some of them might head for the Climate Camp and the police were right to anticipate the risk and take appropriate steps to deal with it, if it materialised," the judges said.
They said the Met's decision to push protesters 15-person deep was not needed.
"We think that the police were right to have an eye to infiltration from Great St Helens Street and the street or alleyway opposite, but we are not persuaded that the pushing operation of a 15-person deep crowd to move them approximately 20-30m to the north and beyond these side roads was reasonably necessary.
"It follows that, in our judgement, the pushing operation from the south was not necessary or proportionate."
'Prevented violence'
On the use of shields the judges ruled: "The policy and training about the use of shields as it came over to us in the evidence appeared to be insufficient for individual circumstances.
"There needed to be clear-cut instructions as to whether shield strikes were ever justified, and, if so, when."
The judges said the Met had a duty to clear the road, "by force if necessary", but added: "If there were individual occasions when the force used may have been excessive, that is a matter for individual complaint, not for these judicial review proceedings."
A Met statement said the judgement recognised police concerns about the possibility of a breach of peace at the camp and officers believed "the Bishopsgate containment prevented further scenes of violence and criminal damage occurring on 1 April 2009".
The force said: "We have rigorously defended the claims against the MPS because at the heart of this case lies a vital public order policing tactic that prevents disorder and protects the public.
"It should be noted that the judgement relates to the individual circumstances of 1 April 2009 and not the use of containment at other events.
"Where necessary we will continue to use containment as a last resort to prevent serious disorder and violence.
"We will be appealing the Administrative Court's finding that the containment and pushing operations on the 1 April 2009 in Bishopsgate were not lawful."
More on This Story
Related Stories
G20 policing tactics questioned 14 APRIL 2011, LONDON
Met complaints rise over average 24 FEBRUARY 2011, LONDON
Warning over policing of protests 09 FEBRUARY 2011, UK
Met boss 'sorry' over false claim 25 JANUARY 2011, LONDON
'Covert Met officers at G20 demo' 19 JANUARY 2011, LONDON
Police 'kettle' tactic feels the heat 09 DECEMBER 2010, UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know what the G-20 don't discuss?
Arms. Weapons of destruction, mass or otherwise. Mass means People, right?
The vast, enormously profitable arms sales from which military contractor elites in the Pentagon, the defence establishments in India and Pak and China, and every one of the G-20, make huge covert profits.
Manmohan will not be bringing up India's arms purchases either. He and India are part of that cynical, fairly covert, G-20 maneuver.
Why covert? Because G-20 has no charter and it's meetings are mainly closed-door. A great moment for democracy. You and I wont know what went down among the great ones. Happy with that Aam Log?
Arms profiteers don't have to actually exchange cash under the table to make a profit, right?
The US has been a war machine and economy since World War II. So are the UK, France.
India's economy as a post-colonial democracy will ultimately end up in the same sorry boom-and-bust so-called 'free market" imbroglio, if India, the world's largest economy, plays the same US game of a hidden arms-driven budget agenda, instead of a human development, social justice agenda.
India should chart a different course away from arms dependency on the G-3 and instead foster social justice collaboration with the Global South~South economies, example Brazil, Ghana, South Africa. That post-colonial option has the potential of India further developing the Gandhian pragmatic ideal, The Peoples' Ideal, of Ethical Democracy, now largely missing in corruption-ridden India.
Dr. Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-----------------------
G-20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-20_major_economies
--------------------------------------------------------
BBC copyright
14 April 2011 Last updated at 09:18 ET
London G20 demo: Met Police 'kettling' not justified
Bishopsgate Climate Camp Demonstrators at the climate camp were kept in a tight police cordon for more than four hours
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
G20 policing tactics questioned
Met complaints rise over average
Warning over policing of protests
Two activists have won their case against policing of the G20 protests, as the High Court ruled police containment was "not justified".
The judges upheld Hannah McClure and Josh Moos's case that police used "violence" to control the Camp for Climate Action in London in April 2009.
There was "no reasonable" justification for "kettling" but police did not unlawfully try to clear the camp.
The Metropolitan Police said it would appeal against the court's judgement.
In response to this, Frances Wright, from the climate camp's legal team, said: "It is outrageous that public money is continuing to be used to defend the kettling of the climate camp for five hours.
"The police lost the argument in the media and public confidence dropped, two parliamentary committees were critical and now the court has agreed."
John Halford, counsel for the demonstrators, said: "The court has roundly condemned the unlawful and oppressive police response, exposing it as unacceptable in a democratic society."
The Met's decision to push protesters at the Bishopsgate camp was "not necessary or proportionate", the judges decided.
Three activists at the camp had challenged the legality of police using riot shields to land blows on protesters at the G20 demonstrations, known as "shield strikes".
Chris Abbott's case was dropped because he could not get legal aid, his lawyers said.
Sir Anthony May, the president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Sweeney rejected the complaint that the Met decided unlawfully to clear the climate camp before it was due to end.
Met officers "kettled" demonstrators for more than four hours on 1 April, the same day newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson died after being pushed down by a police officer in Royal Exchange.
Ruling in the case, the judges said: "There was at 7.07pm no reasonably apprehended breach of the peace, imminent or otherwise, within the Climate Camp itself sufficient to justify containment."
Metropolitan police officers on duty in the City of London during clashes between police and protesters at the time of the G20 summit The case challenged the use of riot shields to strike protesters
But the court heard that later in the evening there was a risk and police reaction was appropriate.
There had already been incidents at the Bishopsgate camp where bottles and coins and other items were thrown at the police lines, but the protest had been largely peaceful, the court heard.
"When the Royal Exchange protesters were dispersing from 7.25pm there was clearly a risk that some of them might head for the Climate Camp and the police were right to anticipate the risk and take appropriate steps to deal with it, if it materialised," the judges said.
They said the Met's decision to push protesters 15-person deep was not needed.
"We think that the police were right to have an eye to infiltration from Great St Helens Street and the street or alleyway opposite, but we are not persuaded that the pushing operation of a 15-person deep crowd to move them approximately 20-30m to the north and beyond these side roads was reasonably necessary.
"It follows that, in our judgement, the pushing operation from the south was not necessary or proportionate."
'Prevented violence'
On the use of shields the judges ruled: "The policy and training about the use of shields as it came over to us in the evidence appeared to be insufficient for individual circumstances.
"There needed to be clear-cut instructions as to whether shield strikes were ever justified, and, if so, when."
The judges said the Met had a duty to clear the road, "by force if necessary", but added: "If there were individual occasions when the force used may have been excessive, that is a matter for individual complaint, not for these judicial review proceedings."
A Met statement said the judgement recognised police concerns about the possibility of a breach of peace at the camp and officers believed "the Bishopsgate containment prevented further scenes of violence and criminal damage occurring on 1 April 2009".
The force said: "We have rigorously defended the claims against the MPS because at the heart of this case lies a vital public order policing tactic that prevents disorder and protects the public.
"It should be noted that the judgement relates to the individual circumstances of 1 April 2009 and not the use of containment at other events.
"Where necessary we will continue to use containment as a last resort to prevent serious disorder and violence.
"We will be appealing the Administrative Court's finding that the containment and pushing operations on the 1 April 2009 in Bishopsgate were not lawful."
Related Stories
G20 policing tactics questioned 14 APRIL 2011, LONDON
Met complaints rise over average 24 FEBRUARY 2011, LONDON
Warning over policing of protests 09 FEBRUARY 2011, UK
Met boss 'sorry' over false claim 25 JANUARY 2011, LONDON
'Covert Met officers at G20 demo' 19 JANUARY 2011, LONDON
Police 'kettle' tactic feels the heat 09 DECEMBER 2010, UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, April 25, 2011
Frayed Fabric of South Asia-US Geopolitics
Frayed Fabric of South Asia-US Geopolitics
Both India and Pakistan governments have respectively dismissed as "false" "unfounded and totally baseless" The Times (London) April 23, 2011 report of "back channel" diplomacy.
The following news story appears to have been faked all the way up and down. Or not.
Because the story was allegedly faked, the question is Why? Actually the more productive line of inquiry would be, why did all the India and Pakistan media run with the news story, before checking whether it was fact?
Look, this is not about building a conspiracy theory. Instead, the story gained weight and credibility because it's really all about the drone-weary, terror-wary PEOPLE, the Aam Janata in India and Pakistan, hoping for some stability, some positive momentum, some hope to keep the positive feelings going, after the heady India double victory against a sporting Sri Lanka side and a fumbling Pakistan team in an unprecedented ALL South Asia 2011 World Cup Cricket Final.
The allegedly fake news report, excerpted from The Times of London states:
"Singh appointed an unofficial envoy to make contact with General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's chief of the Army Staff who exercises de facto control over foreign policy"
"De facto control"? Really? Not so much.
The US controls Pak's foreign policy, which is shaped by the CIA acting in its own interest against various factions of the ISI.
The LeT is therefore funded both directly and indirectly by the USCIA.
The CIA dictates US Govt's Foreign policy, not the other way around.
[Most recent example, CIA operatives are and have long been in Libya]
That is the rocky, murky terrain of South Asia-US geopolitics that Manmohan Singh, born in Pakistan (!) has to negotiate. The tragedy of Partition becomes more real every day.
Further, the Times article states Manmohan sent "an unofficial envoy" to talk to Ashfaq Kayani and ISI chief Shuja Pasha.
I lived in Kolkata (then Calcutta) and saw the raped and pregnant Bengali Hindu women, broken but still survivors, enter the streets as brutalized refugees from Dacca (now Dhaka).
Kayani (b. 1952, same year as ISI head honcho Shuja Pasha) was commissioned, age 19, a highly impressionable age, in the year (1971) that the Pakistan Army was driven out of East Bengal under the leadership of Libertador Sheikh Mujb-ur-Rahman (BangaBandhu) and East Bengal became the sovereign nation-state of Bangladesh.
Q.Will Kayani or Pasha, ever forget that humiliating defeat and lost territory?
If we rely on the hard evidence of political psychology,
India will have to wait for bitter but pragmatic Kayani's and bitter but pragmatic Pasha's successors, successors born in a later generation, to see significant progress and change.
This defeat is why Pakistan will keep clamoring for Kashmir because of the psychological and political scars of a forever lost East Bengal. It's understandable but not tenable.
Pakistan now shrinks by the minute, its territory overrun by USCIA/NATO and its people droned from the air by the USCIA. The Raymond Davies CIA agent, who was set free by the PakISI, is only the latest predictable twiststory in PakISI/USCIA geopolitics.
See how complex and challenging our shared history with Pakistan is?
So long as the territory of Pakistan, not just the Af-Pak border, is owned and operated by the USCIA, India will continue to need to take ***baby steps*** towards dialogue, always watching our backs and looking over our shoulders.
No problem, India can keep doing that, we have become adept at watching the US operating in our region against both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
USCIA operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan go back to the early US-invented Cold War 1950's, just about the time Kayani and Pasha were born!
Pity and empathy for the people of Pakistan, our blood sisters and brothers, who are suffering, in propagandist/hate Hindu denial for the crimes committed against them by:
1) Pak/ISI,
2) in collusion with the USCIA
South Asia-US Geopolitics: Collective Memory Vs. Militarist Memory
To deepen the gravitas of South Asia-US geopolitics in 2011, let us note that Kayani and Pasha, both newly commissioned at age 19 in 1971, would even now, in 2011, gratefully remember 1)the US Seventh Fleet and 2)the CIA. How would they remember that?
The US Seventh Fleet, (specifically the TF 74, which included the nuclear-powered Enterprise and Gumard, destroyers and missile escorts ) was there when Pakistan needed them most, in 1971.
The USCIA was there again, after 9/11, when the US airlifted key CIA-directed ISI/Taliban operatives out of Kabul and Kandahar, before the US invasion of Afghanistan.
It can be gratifying (not to mention profitable) to be a dependent-client state. Kayani and Pasha can understandably appreciate that.
In 1971, at the height of Bangladesh’s war of Liberation, the United States Seventh Fleet conducted an incursion into the Bay of Bengal, to advance its own interest vis a vis Pakistan, its dependent-state client.
This is the same US Seventh Fleet that supported combat intelligence that divided the Koreas (1945) in the context of the US- invented Cold War against the Soviets. This is the same Seventh Fleet that provided the balltle support that napalmed little girls in VietNam (1972). Se how that Vietnam atrocity in 1972 is neatly juxtaposed with the Bay of Bengal incursion in 1971?
See how our current geopolitics is driven by collective memory of powerful militarists in a client dependent-state ?
To perform Development Journalism, Kayani and Pasha’s anti-people, geopolitical militarist memory needs to be outweighed and outmaneuvered by Aam Log Collective Social Justice memory, based on evidence, proof and personal experience of dislocation and dispossession from Swat to Sylhet.
South Asian Aam Log Collective Memory can prevail against Militarist Memory, so long as We the People, our activists, our media (even some of our governments and some of our armies some of the time), take effective ethical steps on that collective path, in the name of All South Asians for the sake of a Greater Collective Good (GCG). That’s pragmatic idealism with a calm, steely eye fixed on the geopolitics of the dependent-client state(s) in our region.
Dr. Chithra Karunakaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
[blog funded by CUNY]
www.facebook.com/chithra.karunakaran
www.disqus.com/EthicalDemocracy
@EthicalDemocracy
http://Southasianidea.com
posts on "A People's General."
-----------------------
Rising Kashmir newspaper copyright
Manmohan in secret talks with Kayani: THE TIMES
London, April 23: India's Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh opened secret talks with Pakistan Army chief ten months ago to build on the cricket-inspired diplomatic thaw between the two countries, a media report said today.
“Singh appointed an unofficial envoy to make contact with General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's chief of the Army Staff who exercises de facto control over foreign policy," The Times reported. It said the talks, through a back channel, have encouraged the UK and US believe that the countries competition for influence in Afghanistan could be better managed during efforts to start a peace process.
Earlier also, there were reports that India has asked its envoy in Pakistan to open channels of communication with Pakistani army chief General Pervez Kayani as well as ISI chief Shuja Pasha.
"We have given the green signal.
As a new season of Indo-Pak engagement bursts upon the sub-continent, there is a realization that India's efforts to talk is incomplete because there is no communication with the Pakistani army — effectively the real power centre. The diplomatic outreach to General Kayani is under the rubric of engaging all stakeholders so as not to attract extra attention, but it's a special effort by India,” sources in Indian government had said.
The visit of Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to watch the semi-final match between India and Pakistan in the cricket World Cup last month has sparked hope of a diplomatic thaw between the two neighbouring countries.
Kayani visited Kabul this week to meet members of the High Peace Council, a body set up by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, to build contacts with Taliban groups. The army chief was accompanied by General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, head of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
-----
-------------
The Times (London) copyright
The Times (London) April 23, 2011
Restart of cricket relations leads to secret India-Pakistan diplomatic drive
Francis Elliott and Tom Coghlan
• The Times
• Published: 23 April 2011
• Asia
[Full text obtained through LexisNexis]
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 42
LENGTH: 440 words
The Prime Minister of India has opened secret talks with the head of Pakistan's military to build on the cricket-inspired diplomatic thaw between the rivals.
appointed an unofficial envoy to make contact with General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's Chief of the Army Staff who exercises de facto control over foreign policy, about ten months ago, The Times has learnt.
The talks, through a back channel, have encouraged London and Washington to believe that the countries' competition for influence in Afghanistan could be better managed during efforts to start a peace process.
General Kayani visited Kabul this week to meet members of the High Peace Council, a body set up by President Karzai, to build contacts with Taleban groups. General Kayani was accompanied by General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the head of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
Delhi, which in the past would have condemned the visit as Pakistani "meddling", remained silent - providing the latest evidence of rapprochement being driven by the US, after the Cricket World Cup semi-final between the two nations.
Cricketing ties, severed in the wake of the Mumbai attacks in November 2008, have been restored and a series of three one-day games will take place to coincide with a visit to Islamabad by Mr Singh.
The settling of a disputed border at Sir Creek in the south, and the demilitarisation of the Siachen glacier in the north, are also being used to create an impression of diplomatic momentum.
Genuine progress, however, requires the co-operation of Pakistan's military, which India has long accused of fostering militant groups to fight a proxy war in Kashmir. For its part, Pakistan accuses India of promoting separatists in the province of Baluchistan and seeking undue influence in Afghanistan as a counterbalance to its neighbour. It questions the need for India to maintain four consulates in Afghanistan, two of them close to its borders in Kandahar and Jalalabad.
Pakistan insists that it must insure against a possible collapse of Afghanistan into civil war, by retaining proxies within the country. It is pressing the US to open talks with figures from the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, as it seeks to influence the future Afghan government.
Despite US pressure and Mr Singh's commitment there remain other substantial obstacles to a lasting thaw. Access for Indian investigators to the suspected conspirators behind the Mumbai attacks, who are detained in Pakistan, remains a sticking point.
Although it will allow the investigators to travel, Islamabad said that they may interview only the interrogators, not the suspects.
-------------------------------------------
Rising Kashmir copyright
News report 2 days later:
‘Kayani did not contact Singh’
Islamabad, April 25: Pakistan Army Monday dismissed as unfounded and totally baseless a media report that its powerful chief Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani held talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh through a "secret envoy and back channel".
A spokesperson of the Inter-Services Public Relations Directorate (ISPR) denied the news item which appeared in The Times of London on April 23 and called it "unfounded and totally baseless".
The paper had reported that Singh had appointed an "unofficial envoy" to make contact with Kayani, "who exercises de facto control over Pakistan's foreign policy".
The talks, through a back channel, have encouraged the UK and US believe that the countries' competition for influence in Afghanistan could be better managed during efforts to start a peace process, the media report had said.
The prime minister's office in New Delhi had yesterday termed as 'false' the report that Singh had contacted Kayani before the Mohali meeting between prime ministers of the two countries.
------------------------------------
Both India and Pakistan governments have respectively dismissed as "false" "unfounded and totally baseless" The Times (London) April 23, 2011 report of "back channel" diplomacy.
The following news story appears to have been faked all the way up and down. Or not.
Because the story was allegedly faked, the question is Why? Actually the more productive line of inquiry would be, why did all the India and Pakistan media run with the news story, before checking whether it was fact?
Look, this is not about building a conspiracy theory. Instead, the story gained weight and credibility because it's really all about the drone-weary, terror-wary PEOPLE, the Aam Janata in India and Pakistan, hoping for some stability, some positive momentum, some hope to keep the positive feelings going, after the heady India double victory against a sporting Sri Lanka side and a fumbling Pakistan team in an unprecedented ALL South Asia 2011 World Cup Cricket Final.
The allegedly fake news report, excerpted from The Times of London states:
"Singh appointed an unofficial envoy to make contact with General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's chief of the Army Staff who exercises de facto control over foreign policy"
"De facto control"? Really? Not so much.
The US controls Pak's foreign policy, which is shaped by the CIA acting in its own interest against various factions of the ISI.
The LeT is therefore funded both directly and indirectly by the USCIA.
The CIA dictates US Govt's Foreign policy, not the other way around.
[Most recent example, CIA operatives are and have long been in Libya]
That is the rocky, murky terrain of South Asia-US geopolitics that Manmohan Singh, born in Pakistan (!) has to negotiate. The tragedy of Partition becomes more real every day.
Further, the Times article states Manmohan sent "an unofficial envoy" to talk to Ashfaq Kayani and ISI chief Shuja Pasha.
I lived in Kolkata (then Calcutta) and saw the raped and pregnant Bengali Hindu women, broken but still survivors, enter the streets as brutalized refugees from Dacca (now Dhaka).
Kayani (b. 1952, same year as ISI head honcho Shuja Pasha) was commissioned, age 19, a highly impressionable age, in the year (1971) that the Pakistan Army was driven out of East Bengal under the leadership of Libertador Sheikh Mujb-ur-Rahman (BangaBandhu) and East Bengal became the sovereign nation-state of Bangladesh.
Q.Will Kayani or Pasha, ever forget that humiliating defeat and lost territory?
If we rely on the hard evidence of political psychology,
India will have to wait for bitter but pragmatic Kayani's and bitter but pragmatic Pasha's successors, successors born in a later generation, to see significant progress and change.
This defeat is why Pakistan will keep clamoring for Kashmir because of the psychological and political scars of a forever lost East Bengal. It's understandable but not tenable.
Pakistan now shrinks by the minute, its territory overrun by USCIA/NATO and its people droned from the air by the USCIA. The Raymond Davies CIA agent, who was set free by the PakISI, is only the latest predictable twiststory in PakISI/USCIA geopolitics.
See how complex and challenging our shared history with Pakistan is?
So long as the territory of Pakistan, not just the Af-Pak border, is owned and operated by the USCIA, India will continue to need to take ***baby steps*** towards dialogue, always watching our backs and looking over our shoulders.
No problem, India can keep doing that, we have become adept at watching the US operating in our region against both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
USCIA operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan go back to the early US-invented Cold War 1950's, just about the time Kayani and Pasha were born!
Pity and empathy for the people of Pakistan, our blood sisters and brothers, who are suffering, in propagandist/hate Hindu denial for the crimes committed against them by:
1) Pak/ISI,
2) in collusion with the USCIA
South Asia-US Geopolitics: Collective Memory Vs. Militarist Memory
To deepen the gravitas of South Asia-US geopolitics in 2011, let us note that Kayani and Pasha, both newly commissioned at age 19 in 1971, would even now, in 2011, gratefully remember 1)the US Seventh Fleet and 2)the CIA. How would they remember that?
The US Seventh Fleet, (specifically the TF 74, which included the nuclear-powered Enterprise and Gumard, destroyers and missile escorts ) was there when Pakistan needed them most, in 1971.
The USCIA was there again, after 9/11, when the US airlifted key CIA-directed ISI/Taliban operatives out of Kabul and Kandahar, before the US invasion of Afghanistan.
It can be gratifying (not to mention profitable) to be a dependent-client state. Kayani and Pasha can understandably appreciate that.
In 1971, at the height of Bangladesh’s war of Liberation, the United States Seventh Fleet conducted an incursion into the Bay of Bengal, to advance its own interest vis a vis Pakistan, its dependent-state client.
This is the same US Seventh Fleet that supported combat intelligence that divided the Koreas (1945) in the context of the US- invented Cold War against the Soviets. This is the same Seventh Fleet that provided the balltle support that napalmed little girls in VietNam (1972). Se how that Vietnam atrocity in 1972 is neatly juxtaposed with the Bay of Bengal incursion in 1971?
See how our current geopolitics is driven by collective memory of powerful militarists in a client dependent-state ?
To perform Development Journalism, Kayani and Pasha’s anti-people, geopolitical militarist memory needs to be outweighed and outmaneuvered by Aam Log Collective Social Justice memory, based on evidence, proof and personal experience of dislocation and dispossession from Swat to Sylhet.
South Asian Aam Log Collective Memory can prevail against Militarist Memory, so long as We the People, our activists, our media (even some of our governments and some of our armies some of the time), take effective ethical steps on that collective path, in the name of All South Asians for the sake of a Greater Collective Good (GCG). That’s pragmatic idealism with a calm, steely eye fixed on the geopolitics of the dependent-client state(s) in our region.
Dr. Chithra Karunakaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
[blog funded by CUNY]
www.facebook.com/chithra.karunakaran
www.disqus.com/EthicalDemocracy
@EthicalDemocracy
http://Southasianidea.com
posts on "A People's General."
-----------------------
Rising Kashmir newspaper copyright
Manmohan in secret talks with Kayani: THE TIMES
London, April 23: India's Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh opened secret talks with Pakistan Army chief ten months ago to build on the cricket-inspired diplomatic thaw between the two countries, a media report said today.
“Singh appointed an unofficial envoy to make contact with General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's chief of the Army Staff who exercises de facto control over foreign policy," The Times reported. It said the talks, through a back channel, have encouraged the UK and US believe that the countries competition for influence in Afghanistan could be better managed during efforts to start a peace process.
Earlier also, there were reports that India has asked its envoy in Pakistan to open channels of communication with Pakistani army chief General Pervez Kayani as well as ISI chief Shuja Pasha.
"We have given the green signal.
As a new season of Indo-Pak engagement bursts upon the sub-continent, there is a realization that India's efforts to talk is incomplete because there is no communication with the Pakistani army — effectively the real power centre. The diplomatic outreach to General Kayani is under the rubric of engaging all stakeholders so as not to attract extra attention, but it's a special effort by India,” sources in Indian government had said.
The visit of Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to watch the semi-final match between India and Pakistan in the cricket World Cup last month has sparked hope of a diplomatic thaw between the two neighbouring countries.
Kayani visited Kabul this week to meet members of the High Peace Council, a body set up by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, to build contacts with Taliban groups. The army chief was accompanied by General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, head of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
-----
-------------
The Times (London) copyright
The Times (London) April 23, 2011
Restart of cricket relations leads to secret India-Pakistan diplomatic drive
Francis Elliott and Tom Coghlan
• The Times
• Published: 23 April 2011
• Asia
[Full text obtained through LexisNexis]
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 42
LENGTH: 440 words
The Prime Minister of India has opened secret talks with the head of Pakistan's military to build on the cricket-inspired diplomatic thaw between the rivals.
appointed an unofficial envoy to make contact with General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's Chief of the Army Staff who exercises de facto control over foreign policy, about ten months ago, The Times has learnt.
The talks, through a back channel, have encouraged London and Washington to believe that the countries' competition for influence in Afghanistan could be better managed during efforts to start a peace process.
General Kayani visited Kabul this week to meet members of the High Peace Council, a body set up by President Karzai, to build contacts with Taleban groups. General Kayani was accompanied by General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the head of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
Delhi, which in the past would have condemned the visit as Pakistani "meddling", remained silent - providing the latest evidence of rapprochement being driven by the US, after the Cricket World Cup semi-final between the two nations.
Cricketing ties, severed in the wake of the Mumbai attacks in November 2008, have been restored and a series of three one-day games will take place to coincide with a visit to Islamabad by Mr Singh.
The settling of a disputed border at Sir Creek in the south, and the demilitarisation of the Siachen glacier in the north, are also being used to create an impression of diplomatic momentum.
Genuine progress, however, requires the co-operation of Pakistan's military, which India has long accused of fostering militant groups to fight a proxy war in Kashmir. For its part, Pakistan accuses India of promoting separatists in the province of Baluchistan and seeking undue influence in Afghanistan as a counterbalance to its neighbour. It questions the need for India to maintain four consulates in Afghanistan, two of them close to its borders in Kandahar and Jalalabad.
Pakistan insists that it must insure against a possible collapse of Afghanistan into civil war, by retaining proxies within the country. It is pressing the US to open talks with figures from the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, as it seeks to influence the future Afghan government.
Despite US pressure and Mr Singh's commitment there remain other substantial obstacles to a lasting thaw. Access for Indian investigators to the suspected conspirators behind the Mumbai attacks, who are detained in Pakistan, remains a sticking point.
Although it will allow the investigators to travel, Islamabad said that they may interview only the interrogators, not the suspects.
-------------------------------------------
Rising Kashmir copyright
News report 2 days later:
‘Kayani did not contact Singh’
Islamabad, April 25: Pakistan Army Monday dismissed as unfounded and totally baseless a media report that its powerful chief Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani held talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh through a "secret envoy and back channel".
A spokesperson of the Inter-Services Public Relations Directorate (ISPR) denied the news item which appeared in The Times of London on April 23 and called it "unfounded and totally baseless".
The paper had reported that Singh had appointed an "unofficial envoy" to make contact with Kayani, "who exercises de facto control over Pakistan's foreign policy".
The talks, through a back channel, have encouraged the UK and US believe that the countries' competition for influence in Afghanistan could be better managed during efforts to start a peace process, the media report had said.
The prime minister's office in New Delhi had yesterday termed as 'false' the report that Singh had contacted Kayani before the Mohali meeting between prime ministers of the two countries.
------------------------------------
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Cyberbullying, Sexual Orientation & Suicide
Indicted Rutgers student Dharun Ravi and criminologist Sameer Hinduja are both "overzealous", Clementi is the Victim
A printed quote (has to be verified) supposedly from Hinduja:
“I understand the prosecutor wants to send a clear message, and that this case has and will continue to receive the national spotlight,” says Sameer Hinduja, a criminologist at Florida Atlantic University and the codirector of the Cyberbullying Research Center. “But pursuit of such charges is, in my opinion, incredibly overzealous.”
Really, should this guy, this criminal criminologist Hinduja be co-director of such a sensitive, presumably human-rights-justice-oriented group?
There are two "overzealous" actors in this sad, horrific real life-death narrative.
1. If anyone is overzealous it is Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers student who spied on Clementi's most private moments, broadcast words and images about Clementi's most private and personal identity.
I am wondering what parenting and which siblings and peers Ravi had that partly influenced his criminal and inhuman actions against Clementi. Ravi is of course entirely responsible for his own criminal acts. Let him do the time.
2. Sameer Hinduja, the co-director no less, of the Cyberbullying Research Center is "overzealous" in whitewashing Dharun Ravi's criminal intent and acts.
Dr. Chithra Karunakaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
www.disqus.com/EthicalDemocracy
@EthicalDemocrac
------
Daily Beast copyright
story by Jessica Bennett on Yahoo (did she get her quotes right?)
Should Tyler Clementi's Bully Be Charged With a Hate Crime?
Email
Print
Jessica Bennett – Fri Apr 22, 11:22 am ET
NEW YORK – Should Tyler Clementi's Bully Be Charged With a Hate Crime?Tyler Clementi's roommate—who broadcast the gay teen's sexual encounter with a man, leading to his suicide—could get 10 years in prison. Jessica Bennett on cyberbullying's new price.
It was perhaps the most brutal example of a private moment gone public. A shy 18-year-old, an accomplished violinist, learns a month into the school year that his college roommate has been spying, via a computer webcam, on his sexual relations with another young man. This student is not openly gay, nor does he know how many of his peers have viewed the recording. So it’s easy to imagine that Tyler Clementi was assuming the worst when, two days later, on September 21, the Rutgers freshman jumped 202 feet to his death from the George Washington Bridge.
Clementi’s death set off an immediate firestorm. Gay rights groups, devastated by the latest in a string of recent teen suicides, called for his roommate, Dharun Ravi—along with Ravi's alleged accomplice, Molly Wei—to be charged with hate crimes. Schools and law enforcement agencies began tearing through legislation to prevent bullying in the future. “Bullied to Death,” quickly becoming the year's most-discussed social crisis, was the talk of cable news shows all over the country.
On Wednesday, the case made headlines yet again when a Middlesex, New Jersey grand jury issued a 15-count indictment against Ravi, adding bias intimidation to the previous charges of privacy invasion—essentially, alleging that Ravi’s act rises to the level of hate crime because Clementi was gay. "The criminal case is about the line between acceptable conduct and unacceptable conduct... particularly in this era of electronic media," the attorney for the family of Clementi told Reuters. (Neither he nor Ravi’s attorney returned request for comment.) In order to prove the claim in court, prosecutors will have to show that Ravi’s motivation for the act was spurred by Clementi’s sexual orientation, and was not simply a nasty college prank gone terribly wrong. If convicted, the 19-year-old could face up to 10 years in prison.
Experts say the case has entered new legal territory—a hate crime charge for what has become, rationally or not, every parent’s worst fear: cyberbullying. New Jersey passed one of the strictest anti-bullying laws in the nation in the months following Clementi’s death, and 45 states now have such policies on their books. We now know that 1 in 5 students is harassed each year, along with a shocking 9 in 10 gay teens, according to the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. Kids who are bullied are five times more likely to be depressed, and nearly 160,000 of them skip school each day, fearful of their peers. The problem is epidemic.
But as painful as Clementi's story is to hear about—and as much as the indictment has been applauded by some activists—there are legal experts who question whether the punishment fits the crime. Today’s world of cyberbullying is no doubt more potent than the bullying of yore. With smart phones and social media following kids wherever they go, the end of the school day no longer marks a reprieve from the taunts and torment bullies dole out. But most cases of this kind are infinitely more complicated than the public discourse makes them out to be. “People are thirsty for these quick fixes,” says Samuel Goldberg, a former New York prosecutor and legal analyst. “It was a horrible thing that happened, there’s no question. But I think people’s knee-jerk reaction is to simply throw the book at these kids.”
"Pursuit of such charges is, in my opinion, incredibly overzealous.”
Which brings us to the story of Phoebe Prince, the 15-year-old Massachusetts girl who brought bullying into the national spotlight early last year. Prince killed herself in January 2010, after suffering months of alleged verbal torment by her high school peers. Five of those former peers, all minors, have been indicted on felony charges that range from stalking and harassment to violation of civil rights; like Ravi, they face up to 10 years in prison. A sixth defendant, now 19, faces charges of statutory rape related to consensual sex with Prince when he was a senior. Each of these students was forced to drop out of school, many put off hopes of graduation, and one lost a football scholarship to college.
The public was quick to indict on their own in Prince’s case, long before the facts were in. As more details emerged, however, we learned that Prince had tried to kill herself before, was on medication for depression, and was struggling with her parents’ separation. As Goldberg put it at the time, “What happened until innocent until proven guilty? It's politically incorrect to even suggest that. These cases are very high-profile, but very few people know all the facts involved.”
Prince and Clementi’s cases have brought long-overdue attention to the bullying issue. But they have also shown that efforts to solve bullying problems through crusading prosecution can do more harm than good. Ravi and Wei were both over 18 when their crime was committed, but they were still teens. There is longstanding research to show that law is not a deterrent to young people, who often respond emotionally to their surroundings. Ultimately, labeling teens "criminals," say criminologists, will only make it harder for them to engage with society when they return. “I understand the prosecutor wants to send a clear message, and that this case has and will continue to receive the national spotlight,” says Sameer Hinduja, a criminologist at Florida Atlantic University and the codirector of the Cyberbullying Research Center. “But pursuit of such charges is, in my opinion, incredibly overzealous.”
Under the glare of a national spotlight, nobody would dare argue that Ravi’s crime go unpunished. But there are certainly details that have yet to make their way into the public eye. For one: Ravi’s attorney’s insistence that the images of Clementi—while widely reported to have been “live-streamed”—were never in fact transmitted beyond a single computer belonging to Ravi’s alleged accomplice.
Whatever the outcome, Ravi's and Wei's punishments will rightly continue. “They’re going to have to cope with the proverbial blood on their hands for the rest of their lives,” says Hinduja. Whether that's good enough will be decided in court.
Jessica Bennett is a Newsweek senior writer covering society, youth culture and gender. Her special reports, multimedia packages and original Web video have been honored by the New York Press Club, the Newswomen's Club of New York and GLAAD, among other organizations. Follow her on Twitter.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
A printed quote (has to be verified) supposedly from Hinduja:
“I understand the prosecutor wants to send a clear message, and that this case has and will continue to receive the national spotlight,” says Sameer Hinduja, a criminologist at Florida Atlantic University and the codirector of the Cyberbullying Research Center. “But pursuit of such charges is, in my opinion, incredibly overzealous.”
Really, should this guy, this criminal criminologist Hinduja be co-director of such a sensitive, presumably human-rights-justice-oriented group?
There are two "overzealous" actors in this sad, horrific real life-death narrative.
1. If anyone is overzealous it is Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers student who spied on Clementi's most private moments, broadcast words and images about Clementi's most private and personal identity.
I am wondering what parenting and which siblings and peers Ravi had that partly influenced his criminal and inhuman actions against Clementi. Ravi is of course entirely responsible for his own criminal acts. Let him do the time.
2. Sameer Hinduja, the co-director no less, of the Cyberbullying Research Center is "overzealous" in whitewashing Dharun Ravi's criminal intent and acts.
Dr. Chithra Karunakaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
www.disqus.com/EthicalDemocracy
@EthicalDemocrac
------
Daily Beast copyright
story by Jessica Bennett on Yahoo (did she get her quotes right?)
Should Tyler Clementi's Bully Be Charged With a Hate Crime?
Jessica Bennett – Fri Apr 22, 11:22 am ET
NEW YORK – Should Tyler Clementi's Bully Be Charged With a Hate Crime?Tyler Clementi's roommate—who broadcast the gay teen's sexual encounter with a man, leading to his suicide—could get 10 years in prison. Jessica Bennett on cyberbullying's new price.
It was perhaps the most brutal example of a private moment gone public. A shy 18-year-old, an accomplished violinist, learns a month into the school year that his college roommate has been spying, via a computer webcam, on his sexual relations with another young man. This student is not openly gay, nor does he know how many of his peers have viewed the recording. So it’s easy to imagine that Tyler Clementi was assuming the worst when, two days later, on September 21, the Rutgers freshman jumped 202 feet to his death from the George Washington Bridge.
Clementi’s death set off an immediate firestorm. Gay rights groups, devastated by the latest in a string of recent teen suicides, called for his roommate, Dharun Ravi—along with Ravi's alleged accomplice, Molly Wei—to be charged with hate crimes. Schools and law enforcement agencies began tearing through legislation to prevent bullying in the future. “Bullied to Death,” quickly becoming the year's most-discussed social crisis, was the talk of cable news shows all over the country.
On Wednesday, the case made headlines yet again when a Middlesex, New Jersey grand jury issued a 15-count indictment against Ravi, adding bias intimidation to the previous charges of privacy invasion—essentially, alleging that Ravi’s act rises to the level of hate crime because Clementi was gay. "The criminal case is about the line between acceptable conduct and unacceptable conduct... particularly in this era of electronic media," the attorney for the family of Clementi told Reuters. (Neither he nor Ravi’s attorney returned request for comment.) In order to prove the claim in court, prosecutors will have to show that Ravi’s motivation for the act was spurred by Clementi’s sexual orientation, and was not simply a nasty college prank gone terribly wrong. If convicted, the 19-year-old could face up to 10 years in prison.
Experts say the case has entered new legal territory—a hate crime charge for what has become, rationally or not, every parent’s worst fear: cyberbullying. New Jersey passed one of the strictest anti-bullying laws in the nation in the months following Clementi’s death, and 45 states now have such policies on their books. We now know that 1 in 5 students is harassed each year, along with a shocking 9 in 10 gay teens, according to the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. Kids who are bullied are five times more likely to be depressed, and nearly 160,000 of them skip school each day, fearful of their peers. The problem is epidemic.
But as painful as Clementi's story is to hear about—and as much as the indictment has been applauded by some activists—there are legal experts who question whether the punishment fits the crime. Today’s world of cyberbullying is no doubt more potent than the bullying of yore. With smart phones and social media following kids wherever they go, the end of the school day no longer marks a reprieve from the taunts and torment bullies dole out. But most cases of this kind are infinitely more complicated than the public discourse makes them out to be. “People are thirsty for these quick fixes,” says Samuel Goldberg, a former New York prosecutor and legal analyst. “It was a horrible thing that happened, there’s no question. But I think people’s knee-jerk reaction is to simply throw the book at these kids.”
"Pursuit of such charges is, in my opinion, incredibly overzealous.”
Which brings us to the story of Phoebe Prince, the 15-year-old Massachusetts girl who brought bullying into the national spotlight early last year. Prince killed herself in January 2010, after suffering months of alleged verbal torment by her high school peers. Five of those former peers, all minors, have been indicted on felony charges that range from stalking and harassment to violation of civil rights; like Ravi, they face up to 10 years in prison. A sixth defendant, now 19, faces charges of statutory rape related to consensual sex with Prince when he was a senior. Each of these students was forced to drop out of school, many put off hopes of graduation, and one lost a football scholarship to college.
The public was quick to indict on their own in Prince’s case, long before the facts were in. As more details emerged, however, we learned that Prince had tried to kill herself before, was on medication for depression, and was struggling with her parents’ separation. As Goldberg put it at the time, “What happened until innocent until proven guilty? It's politically incorrect to even suggest that. These cases are very high-profile, but very few people know all the facts involved.”
Prince and Clementi’s cases have brought long-overdue attention to the bullying issue. But they have also shown that efforts to solve bullying problems through crusading prosecution can do more harm than good. Ravi and Wei were both over 18 when their crime was committed, but they were still teens. There is longstanding research to show that law is not a deterrent to young people, who often respond emotionally to their surroundings. Ultimately, labeling teens "criminals," say criminologists, will only make it harder for them to engage with society when they return. “I understand the prosecutor wants to send a clear message, and that this case has and will continue to receive the national spotlight,” says Sameer Hinduja, a criminologist at Florida Atlantic University and the codirector of the Cyberbullying Research Center. “But pursuit of such charges is, in my opinion, incredibly overzealous.”
Under the glare of a national spotlight, nobody would dare argue that Ravi’s crime go unpunished. But there are certainly details that have yet to make their way into the public eye. For one: Ravi’s attorney’s insistence that the images of Clementi—while widely reported to have been “live-streamed”—were never in fact transmitted beyond a single computer belonging to Ravi’s alleged accomplice.
Whatever the outcome, Ravi's and Wei's punishments will rightly continue. “They’re going to have to cope with the proverbial blood on their hands for the rest of their lives,” says Hinduja. Whether that's good enough will be decided in court.
Jessica Bennett is a Newsweek senior writer covering society, youth culture and gender. Her special reports, multimedia packages and original Web video have been honored by the New York Press Club, the Newswomen's Club of New York and GLAAD, among other organizations. Follow her on Twitter.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Constructing Grounded Conversations In Ethical Democracy
please read this Blog entry from the bottom up (scroll down)
------------------------------
Chithra KarunaKaran says:
April 22, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Dear Respected Abbas Akhtar,
I agree with you about the General’s soft power approach to win friends and influence people. It’s very appealing.
However, I also want to be ***extremely wary*** of any institutionalized power (aka Army, legislators, courts) of the sovereign democratic Nation-state that can and will usurp the People’s Power.
I have met and worked with Aam Koshur every day in the Valley, ordinary people like you and me. We care about our friends and neighbors and are peaceful in our daily activities.
I want such people to lead civil society, not a general.
The enormous resources now used by the Army can instead be diverted to the People.
Our fiscal resources are finite, not infinite. Why should the Army command such massive resources? The resources are PUBLIC WEALTH, these resources belong to Aam Koshur.
Abbas Akhtar, you said:
“We must strengthen his hands to strengthen the hands of Awam”
I respectfully disagree.
Instead I say, We must strengthen Awam, so that the Army can be kept, in check, as a purely protective force on our border, not on our streets and not in our homes.
I would never accept an explanation of “mistaken identity” if my son was the target of an Army sting operation.
I wonder if Hasnain’s own son would be the target of a “mistaken identity.”
Of course not.
Only a poor woman’s despairing, disempowered son, who never received social justice opportunities, would be the target of “mistaken identity” by the Army.
People’s Power, supported by the government, and by the uniform Rule of Law is what we are all trying to build throughout our fragile and corruption-ridden democracy. Our democracy is a work in progress.
Power resides in the People. Our people are finding that they do have power and they are using that power, slowly but surely. The power of knowledge, information, discussion, non-violence to demand their rights to human dignity, free from the manipulation of unelected as elected politicians and free from state-sponsored violence.
Let us strengthen Our People Power, (not our army) by giving our People education, healthcare, housing and employment opportunities. They are enormously capable of speaking in their own voice to demand their rights and perform their responsibilities.
People’s Hearts are Not Weapons. My heart is not my weapon. Our hearts feel emotions based on experience in our daily lives and through memory of past experiences.
Our Brains and Minds are not owned by the sovereign Nation-State or by any Army.
We are each capable of thinking independently and making our own choices, for the Greater Collective Good.
The People want social, economic and civil justice opportunities. That is the basis of our Power.
No general can give it to us, because People already have the Power.
So, Power to the People and let the Army take its direction from the People, not the other way around.
Thanks for your kind response. I appreciate it.
Chithra
Reply
Chithra KarunaKaran says:
April 22, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Abbas Akhtar I quoted you but the quote was deleted because I used carets. Something is wrong with the format, it does not allow the use of carets:
Here’s the quote I disagreed with, from your reply:
“We must strengthen his hands to strengthen the hands of Awam”
Reply
Abbas Akhtar says:
April 23, 2011 at 5:59 am
Dear Dr KarunaKaran
The insurgency in Kashmir needs to be studied from the concepts of Conflict Initiation, Conflict Stabilization, Conflict Termination and Conflict Resolution. To be able to intellectually engage at all these levels the US COIN doctrines in Afghanistan are relying heavily on the Indian experience. Power and Love are two important instruments of managing terror unleashed by Pakistan. They are laundering money to seduce our youth towards gun running, drugs and terror.
The administrative machinery in Kashmir is now on the same page to counter this menace. If army goes to the barracks, these divisive forces will get a boost. It is with this backdrop that Gen Hasnain is turning the tide of popular support in Kashmir.
You may read this http://www.geopolitics.in/jan2011.aspx
Reply
Chithra KarunaKaran says:
April 23, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Dear Respected Abbas Mukhtar,
Hope you still got my main point about PEOPLE POWER.
We need all stakeholders involved in the process, including Kashmiris across the LoC.
The geopolitical ‘seema’ has not succeeded in piercing a painful line across our hearts!
We still feel Kashmiriyat.
The Army, no matter which country, is a “vested interest” not necessarily a “stakeholder”. Having Force is not the same thing as having a stake.
I have love for General Hasnain and especially for my Fauj, but I also understand that coercive Force is their attribute.
Coercive Force is NOT the attribute of People Power. I am committed to that.
Because civil society is relatively weak in Kashmir (compared to Kerala, Tamil Nadu or West Bengal), it is easy to see PEOPLE in the great state of J&k ceding (giving up) their power to the Army and seeking guidance from it.
It is a mistake the create a “Kashmir Exception” in the Indian nation-state and say the Army belongs there.
The Army does not belong there, except at the border, to protect the sovereign nation-state. ***I reject AFSPA outright***.
Also Abbas, you have not directly addressed my enormously important point that VAST RESOURCES are expended on the Army in J&K.
Those same vast resources could feed, clothe and educate every woman, child and man, on BOTH sides of the LoC!!!
I know they are MY sisters, brothers and children.
As one who has lived taught in the US and in many parts of the world for 35 years, I am fortunate to be able to make a comparative analysis between democratic models.
If you have lived only in one place it is impossible to do so.
I would not want India to follow the US Militarist Capitalist Democratic Model. In this model people have broad freedoms and protected individual liberties.
But that is not the same as having a society built on ethical practices of local and global Social Justice.
The Indian sovereign democratic nation-state model is ***attempting***, not yet succeeding, to be built on Social Justice.
The Gandhian model of Ethical Democracy, I am happy to note, has guided the national leaders of Indian geopolitics for six decades, though it is not explicitly stated. In contrast, the US nation-state is expansionist, opportunist, exceptionalist and triumphalist.
It is the antithesis of the Indian nation-state model.
People Power in Kashmir fits the Indian model, not the US model. If the Army gains the upper hand, it will be closer to the US model.
Which one do you want?
Every Aam Koshur I have lived with and met and served wants the Indian ethical democratic model. It is equally Gandhian and Koranic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian & Indigenous pantheistic Human Ethics.
Now in 2011, we are Winning Hearts and Minds through civic engagement, including right here on this discursive template and in the schools, hospitals, shops and streets of the Valley and everywhere in India.
Satyameva Jayate — To Truth goes the Victory. Not to you or to me, but to Truth itself.
Dr. Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice [blog now funded by CUNY]
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
http://www.facebook.com/chithra.karunakaran
@EthicalDemocrac
http://www.disqus.com/EthicalDemocracy
Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbas Akhtar says:
April 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Dear Dr KarunaKaran
I am deply impressed with your judgement that awam is The Force. Having seen General Hasnain work on the same theme such as Heart as the Weapon and “Awam aur Jawan, aman hai Muqam” We the youth of Kashmir are truly inspired by the General and his approach to empower the people of Kashmir. We must strengthen his hands to strengthen the hands of Awam. Its been a long time since we have come across a person who genuinely cares about the awam and we are grateful for that
------------------------------------------------------------
Chithra KarunaKaran says:
April 22, 2011 at 3:03 pm
A People’s General must PROVE his Awami credentials
General Hasnain bears a beautiful, poetic name. Hope he lives up to it.
Muzamil Jaleel’s analysis in “A People’s General” is a valuable critical assessment of the modern face of the Army, with its unified strategy at confidence-building through community outreach.
General Hasnain is the human face of the modern Indian army, operating in a border state that has faced both prolonged infiltration and internal separatism. That is a dual challenge that cannot be minimized.
The sovereign multiethnic, multilingual, multireligious post-colonial democratic Indian secular state is an unprecedented work in progress. Compare India with Brazil, South Africa and Ghana, not with China or Pakistan.
Of the latter two, both of whom are unpredictable, expansionist opportunist neighbors, one is totalitarian but prosperous, the other is US-owned, unstable and terror-prone.
We the People are part of that ongoing work in progress of Indian Democracy, flawed and unequal as it presently is. But the huge voter turnout in the panchayat elections gives us hope. Civil discussion gives us hope. Propserity and stability give us hope.
General Hasnain also gives us hope. That work of democracy never ends. Vigilant public participation is the price of Democracy.
We the People are ones we have been waiting for. General Hasnain is trying to be one among us. The Fauj is trying to be one among us. They are men who have mothers, sisters and wives, daughters and sons. To dehumanize ordinary soldiers is to misconstrue their potential role. General Hasnain understands this potential to build a People’s Army.
But We the People, the Awaam, the Aaam Koshur ***cannot rely solely on rank and title and medals. We certain cannot rely on force.
We want to see the security forces at the border, ***not in our streets***, and we want civilian peace groups, example grassroots NGO’s and multiple associations of teachers, students, farmers, carpenters, shawlmakers, engineers, doctors, merchants, working in partnership with government and the courts to ensure swift justice for victims and swift justice against perpetrators, in our communities and our localities.
We need education, healthcare and employment opportunities which are the bedrock of a prosperous and therefore peaceful civil society.
That does not come from General Hasnain or the army or the police. It comes from us, facilitated by a civilian government and non-governmental grassroots groups, not the army.
Having volunteered in education for four years in Jammu, Valley and Ladakh I find our greatest leaders are our Awam, our People.
We are the Force, We are the Power.
Not the Army.
The Army, including General Hasnain, have Force but they are not The Force.
Dr. Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
http://www.disqus.com/EthicalDemocracy
http://www.facebook.com/chithra.karunakaran
@EthicalDemocrac
Never follow me! Engage in Social Justice locally, globally.
--------------
A People’s General
April 17, 2011 by Team SAI
Filed under internal security
11 Comments
The first Muslim officer to command the Army in Kashmir in two decades, Lt General Syed Ata Hasnain is attempting to bridge the divide between the Army and the people with his “heart as weapon” doctrine, reports MUZAMIL JALEEL.
This story first appeared in Indian Express 16 April 2011
ASSALAMUALIKUM. Mera naam Ata Hasnain hai.” This is how Lt General Syed Ata Hasnain, General Officer Commanding of the Army’s 15 Corps, begins his interaction with villagers in the Valley. The first Muslim officer to command the Army in Kashmir after Lt General M K Zaki, who led the force at the outset of militancy two decades ago, Hasnain took over in December 2010. He plays down his background, insisting he wants to be seen as nothing more than an officer of the Indian Army. But his name itself has set the tone for his new and challenging agenda in Kashmir, where religion and the scars of Partition form a compulsory backdrop of the political narrative.
“My heart is my weapon,” says Hasnain as he travels across the Valley to interact with villagers. “Times have changed and the Army cannot limit its role to military operations. We have to look at security in much more comprehensive terms.”
Laying out his agenda at a public interaction, Hasnain says his objective is to practise “an entirely humane” approach with a long-term perspective. “I think my force should not be seen as one with arms everywhere. Our main weapon is our heart. And that is the weapon we will carry around in our efforts to bring stability to the state all over again,” he says.
His aim, he emphasises, is “to look at how the Army can assist the state government in reaching out to the people and putting a balm on the many wounds that may have occurred over a period of time”.
Hasnain’s new “heart as weapon” doctrine and style of functioning have, in fact, changed the very contours of Army’s rules of engagement in Kashmir, a place where the uniform has generally been viewed with fear. Hasnain is trying to erase this psychological barrier and begin a conversation with the “awam (people)”: a difficult and arduous journey in a landscape where spools of barbed wire divide the troops and the people in both physical as well as psychological terms.
Hasnain’s understanding of the intricacies of Kashmiri culture, and religious and political sensitivities, and the willingness to look beyond the statistics of “kills” and suc cess of encounters, has provided the top military commander in Kashmir with the essential ammunition to launch a successful public relations exercise. The challenge, however, lies in the manner in which he will deal with larger and contentious issues, like the speedy investigation into allegations of serious human rights abuses, demands of withdrawal from civilian areas, and the repeal of controversial laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.
At a recent public interaction programme in north Kashmir’s Handwara town, Hasnain, whose family originally belongs to Lucknow, further demystifies his new doctrine. “There is no solution for any problem by military means,” he says. “The Army in the Valley is carrying out the job of stabilising the situation. We are here to create a stable environment. We are ensuring that the local population remains with us. This can only be done through reaching out and engaging with the people.” He insisted that the Army was maintaining utmost restraint while conducting its counter insurgency operations in the Valley
“We have carried out all our recent operations in Sopore, Shopian and Tral areas without any collateral damage. We are making sure that even the houses where militants are hiding are not destroyed. People have started reposing their confidence in the army.”
Reaching out in Handwara THE Handwara meeting was important because Manzoor Ahmad Magray, a 21-year-old student from adjoining Chowgul village, was killed by troops who had laid a night ambush for militants on February 4 this year. Since this was the first such incident after Hasnain took charge, it became a litmus test on the ground for his new approach. Hasnain had reacted immediately, expressing regret for the loss of life and then ordering a court of inquiry.
“It was an unfortunate case of mistaken identity,” he says at the awami sunwai (public hearing. “We have publicly regretted this death and the Army has already completed its court of inquiry. I think the State administration too has completed its inquiry. We will make it public soon.” He said he ordered a modification in the Army’s standard operating procedure soon after the incident. “We are making sure that our troops never fire without sufficient warning,” he says.
Hasnain had invited Magray’s father for the meeting too. “We cannot bring back your child but I promise, we will ensure that justice is done,” he told him. Magray’s younger brother Dawood Ahmad Magray has already been adopted by the Army and admitted to its Pahalgam Boarding School.
Though Hasnain’s approach did calm the situation from taking a volatile turn, it is yet to be seen as to how the promise of justice is served. During his tenure as the Army’s top commander in Kashmir, Hasnain’s “heart is my weapon” doctrine will be always pitted against the scepticism that has pervaded civil ian engagement with the Army in Kashmir for the last two decades.
Hasnain has inherited a legacy of public mistrust, unaddressed issues, and unanswered questions, which will confront him as he attempts to go beyond military victories. Even the fate of inquiries into major incidents of fake encounters is yet to be known: Pathribal in 2000, Handwara in 2007, and an incident of fake surrender in 2005, when more than 50 villagers from Budgam district were kept illegally confined for six months before being made to `surrender’. Though he stresses that a Kashmir solution cannot be achieved through military means alone, it is yet to be seen as to how the army will react to any forward movement towards a political resolution.
Putting `awam’ first Hasnain, however, has made some important beginnings. His intent was known when he changed the Army’s main slogan from “Jawan aur awaam, aman hai muqam” (jawan and people, peace is the destination) to “Awam aur jawan, aman hai muqam”, thus putting people first. Hasnain also deleted `Operation’ from Operation Sadbhavana so that the “people don’t look at Army’s developmental works as part of their military operations”. This symbolic beginning was followed by a string of new measures with an emphasis on better public relations.
He started the “Ji Jinab” campaign, which aims at making jawans more courteous towards people. “I talk to the troops and explain the importance of showing respect to the people,” he says at the tea after the public interaction. “We have to be firm but respectful. Ji Jinab means exactly that.”
The Army has also launched a programme to teach Kashmiri to officers. “We want better communication with the people. We are here for the service of the people and we want that sentiment to reach the people,” he said.
Hasnain began his public interaction tours from volatile neighbourhoods and has already visited Shopian in south Kashmir, and Palhalan and Sopore in north Kashmir to “directly talk to the people”. The response has been interesting, especially as villagers come with a bagful of complaints that primarily revolve around problems with local governance. Aware of the sensitive relationship between the Army and the civilian administration, Hasnain is always accompanied by senior officials of the District Administration.
In Handwara, the public meeting was held at the conference hall of the J&K Government’s Environment and Forest Department and Hasnain was accompanied by local MP Sharief-ud-Din Shariq, deputy commissioner of Kupwara, and senior army and police officers.
Ajaz Ahmad Sofi, president of Handwara’s Traders’ Federation, told Hasnain that it was for the first time in two decades that a corps commander had visited the town and held a public interaction. He sought Hasnain’s intervention to ease the Army’s night blockade of the road connecting the town with the Rajwar area. Hasnain responded by issuing orders to lift the barricade immediately.
Advocate Nazir Ahmad too has a complaint. “Since 1947, our village is without road and electricity.” Ghulam Mohammad Mir, who introduces himself as a local People’s Democratic Party leader, highlights the issues of misgovernance in Handwara. Mir also requests Hasnain to absorb more Kashmiri youth, especially from Kupwara and Handwara, in the Army. Hasnain responds by saying that the Army has sent 30 youths from north Kashmir to Chandigarh for coaching.
Mushtaq Ahmad, a government school teacher, has come from Sarmarg village with a complaint about the construction of a road link in his area under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana in 2005. “The contractor used substandard material. We informed government officials several times but they never took our complaints seriously. Please help us”.
Hasnain’s reaction to complaints against administrative problems is guarded. He has a good rapport with the state government and he seems cautious to avoid stepping into their domain.
Asked to comment on the recent statement of J&K DGP Kuldeep Khoda that militancy was down by 45 percent in the state, he says, “Yes, there is a drop in militancy. But we never see a decline through the prism of statistics.
We look at the overall atmosphere.”
Hasnain, however, doesn’t think militancy is over yet. “As long as there are camps, there is a threat. The camps are still intact and filled with militants. The next two weeks will be important for us,” he says.
“But the Army is strong enough to prevent the infiltration as we have developed a good mechanism to stop the infiltration from across the LoC.”
On the question of why the Army hesitates to operate in Maoist-hit states while it was keen to `stabilise’ Kashmir, he says there is no comparison between the two situations. “The Maoist problem is totally an internal problem and Kashmir is an existential threat,” he says. “It (Kashmir), however, needs to be tackled carefully”.
------------------------------
Chithra KarunaKaran says:
April 22, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Dear Respected Abbas Akhtar,
I agree with you about the General’s soft power approach to win friends and influence people. It’s very appealing.
However, I also want to be ***extremely wary*** of any institutionalized power (aka Army, legislators, courts) of the sovereign democratic Nation-state that can and will usurp the People’s Power.
I have met and worked with Aam Koshur every day in the Valley, ordinary people like you and me. We care about our friends and neighbors and are peaceful in our daily activities.
I want such people to lead civil society, not a general.
The enormous resources now used by the Army can instead be diverted to the People.
Our fiscal resources are finite, not infinite. Why should the Army command such massive resources? The resources are PUBLIC WEALTH, these resources belong to Aam Koshur.
Abbas Akhtar, you said:
“We must strengthen his hands to strengthen the hands of Awam”
I respectfully disagree.
Instead I say, We must strengthen Awam, so that the Army can be kept, in check, as a purely protective force on our border, not on our streets and not in our homes.
I would never accept an explanation of “mistaken identity” if my son was the target of an Army sting operation.
I wonder if Hasnain’s own son would be the target of a “mistaken identity.”
Of course not.
Only a poor woman’s despairing, disempowered son, who never received social justice opportunities, would be the target of “mistaken identity” by the Army.
People’s Power, supported by the government, and by the uniform Rule of Law is what we are all trying to build throughout our fragile and corruption-ridden democracy. Our democracy is a work in progress.
Power resides in the People. Our people are finding that they do have power and they are using that power, slowly but surely. The power of knowledge, information, discussion, non-violence to demand their rights to human dignity, free from the manipulation of unelected as elected politicians and free from state-sponsored violence.
Let us strengthen Our People Power, (not our army) by giving our People education, healthcare, housing and employment opportunities. They are enormously capable of speaking in their own voice to demand their rights and perform their responsibilities.
People’s Hearts are Not Weapons. My heart is not my weapon. Our hearts feel emotions based on experience in our daily lives and through memory of past experiences.
Our Brains and Minds are not owned by the sovereign Nation-State or by any Army.
We are each capable of thinking independently and making our own choices, for the Greater Collective Good.
The People want social, economic and civil justice opportunities. That is the basis of our Power.
No general can give it to us, because People already have the Power.
So, Power to the People and let the Army take its direction from the People, not the other way around.
Thanks for your kind response. I appreciate it.
Chithra
Reply
Chithra KarunaKaran says:
April 22, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Abbas Akhtar I quoted you but the quote was deleted because I used carets. Something is wrong with the format, it does not allow the use of carets:
Here’s the quote I disagreed with, from your reply:
“We must strengthen his hands to strengthen the hands of Awam”
Reply
Abbas Akhtar says:
April 23, 2011 at 5:59 am
Dear Dr KarunaKaran
The insurgency in Kashmir needs to be studied from the concepts of Conflict Initiation, Conflict Stabilization, Conflict Termination and Conflict Resolution. To be able to intellectually engage at all these levels the US COIN doctrines in Afghanistan are relying heavily on the Indian experience. Power and Love are two important instruments of managing terror unleashed by Pakistan. They are laundering money to seduce our youth towards gun running, drugs and terror.
The administrative machinery in Kashmir is now on the same page to counter this menace. If army goes to the barracks, these divisive forces will get a boost. It is with this backdrop that Gen Hasnain is turning the tide of popular support in Kashmir.
You may read this http://www.geopolitics.in/jan2011.aspx
Reply
Chithra KarunaKaran says:
April 23, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Dear Respected Abbas Mukhtar,
Hope you still got my main point about PEOPLE POWER.
We need all stakeholders involved in the process, including Kashmiris across the LoC.
The geopolitical ‘seema’ has not succeeded in piercing a painful line across our hearts!
We still feel Kashmiriyat.
The Army, no matter which country, is a “vested interest” not necessarily a “stakeholder”. Having Force is not the same thing as having a stake.
I have love for General Hasnain and especially for my Fauj, but I also understand that coercive Force is their attribute.
Coercive Force is NOT the attribute of People Power. I am committed to that.
Because civil society is relatively weak in Kashmir (compared to Kerala, Tamil Nadu or West Bengal), it is easy to see PEOPLE in the great state of J&k ceding (giving up) their power to the Army and seeking guidance from it.
It is a mistake the create a “Kashmir Exception” in the Indian nation-state and say the Army belongs there.
The Army does not belong there, except at the border, to protect the sovereign nation-state. ***I reject AFSPA outright***.
Also Abbas, you have not directly addressed my enormously important point that VAST RESOURCES are expended on the Army in J&K.
Those same vast resources could feed, clothe and educate every woman, child and man, on BOTH sides of the LoC!!!
I know they are MY sisters, brothers and children.
As one who has lived taught in the US and in many parts of the world for 35 years, I am fortunate to be able to make a comparative analysis between democratic models.
If you have lived only in one place it is impossible to do so.
I would not want India to follow the US Militarist Capitalist Democratic Model. In this model people have broad freedoms and protected individual liberties.
But that is not the same as having a society built on ethical practices of local and global Social Justice.
The Indian sovereign democratic nation-state model is ***attempting***, not yet succeeding, to be built on Social Justice.
The Gandhian model of Ethical Democracy, I am happy to note, has guided the national leaders of Indian geopolitics for six decades, though it is not explicitly stated. In contrast, the US nation-state is expansionist, opportunist, exceptionalist and triumphalist.
It is the antithesis of the Indian nation-state model.
People Power in Kashmir fits the Indian model, not the US model. If the Army gains the upper hand, it will be closer to the US model.
Which one do you want?
Every Aam Koshur I have lived with and met and served wants the Indian ethical democratic model. It is equally Gandhian and Koranic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian & Indigenous pantheistic Human Ethics.
Now in 2011, we are Winning Hearts and Minds through civic engagement, including right here on this discursive template and in the schools, hospitals, shops and streets of the Valley and everywhere in India.
Satyameva Jayate — To Truth goes the Victory. Not to you or to me, but to Truth itself.
Dr. Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice [blog now funded by CUNY]
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
http://www.facebook.com/chithra.karunakaran
@EthicalDemocrac
http://www.disqus.com/EthicalDemocracy
Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbas Akhtar says:
April 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Dear Dr KarunaKaran
I am deply impressed with your judgement that awam is The Force. Having seen General Hasnain work on the same theme such as Heart as the Weapon and “Awam aur Jawan, aman hai Muqam” We the youth of Kashmir are truly inspired by the General and his approach to empower the people of Kashmir. We must strengthen his hands to strengthen the hands of Awam. Its been a long time since we have come across a person who genuinely cares about the awam and we are grateful for that
------------------------------------------------------------
Chithra KarunaKaran says:
April 22, 2011 at 3:03 pm
A People’s General must PROVE his Awami credentials
General Hasnain bears a beautiful, poetic name. Hope he lives up to it.
Muzamil Jaleel’s analysis in “A People’s General” is a valuable critical assessment of the modern face of the Army, with its unified strategy at confidence-building through community outreach.
General Hasnain is the human face of the modern Indian army, operating in a border state that has faced both prolonged infiltration and internal separatism. That is a dual challenge that cannot be minimized.
The sovereign multiethnic, multilingual, multireligious post-colonial democratic Indian secular state is an unprecedented work in progress. Compare India with Brazil, South Africa and Ghana, not with China or Pakistan.
Of the latter two, both of whom are unpredictable, expansionist opportunist neighbors, one is totalitarian but prosperous, the other is US-owned, unstable and terror-prone.
We the People are part of that ongoing work in progress of Indian Democracy, flawed and unequal as it presently is. But the huge voter turnout in the panchayat elections gives us hope. Civil discussion gives us hope. Propserity and stability give us hope.
General Hasnain also gives us hope. That work of democracy never ends. Vigilant public participation is the price of Democracy.
We the People are ones we have been waiting for. General Hasnain is trying to be one among us. The Fauj is trying to be one among us. They are men who have mothers, sisters and wives, daughters and sons. To dehumanize ordinary soldiers is to misconstrue their potential role. General Hasnain understands this potential to build a People’s Army.
But We the People, the Awaam, the Aaam Koshur ***cannot rely solely on rank and title and medals. We certain cannot rely on force.
We want to see the security forces at the border, ***not in our streets***, and we want civilian peace groups, example grassroots NGO’s and multiple associations of teachers, students, farmers, carpenters, shawlmakers, engineers, doctors, merchants, working in partnership with government and the courts to ensure swift justice for victims and swift justice against perpetrators, in our communities and our localities.
We need education, healthcare and employment opportunities which are the bedrock of a prosperous and therefore peaceful civil society.
That does not come from General Hasnain or the army or the police. It comes from us, facilitated by a civilian government and non-governmental grassroots groups, not the army.
Having volunteered in education for four years in Jammu, Valley and Ladakh I find our greatest leaders are our Awam, our People.
We are the Force, We are the Power.
Not the Army.
The Army, including General Hasnain, have Force but they are not The Force.
Dr. Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
http://www.disqus.com/EthicalDemocracy
http://www.facebook.com/chithra.karunakaran
@EthicalDemocrac
Never follow me! Engage in Social Justice locally, globally.
--------------
A People’s General
April 17, 2011 by Team SAI
Filed under internal security
11 Comments
The first Muslim officer to command the Army in Kashmir in two decades, Lt General Syed Ata Hasnain is attempting to bridge the divide between the Army and the people with his “heart as weapon” doctrine, reports MUZAMIL JALEEL.
This story first appeared in Indian Express 16 April 2011
ASSALAMUALIKUM. Mera naam Ata Hasnain hai.” This is how Lt General Syed Ata Hasnain, General Officer Commanding of the Army’s 15 Corps, begins his interaction with villagers in the Valley. The first Muslim officer to command the Army in Kashmir after Lt General M K Zaki, who led the force at the outset of militancy two decades ago, Hasnain took over in December 2010. He plays down his background, insisting he wants to be seen as nothing more than an officer of the Indian Army. But his name itself has set the tone for his new and challenging agenda in Kashmir, where religion and the scars of Partition form a compulsory backdrop of the political narrative.
“My heart is my weapon,” says Hasnain as he travels across the Valley to interact with villagers. “Times have changed and the Army cannot limit its role to military operations. We have to look at security in much more comprehensive terms.”
Laying out his agenda at a public interaction, Hasnain says his objective is to practise “an entirely humane” approach with a long-term perspective. “I think my force should not be seen as one with arms everywhere. Our main weapon is our heart. And that is the weapon we will carry around in our efforts to bring stability to the state all over again,” he says.
His aim, he emphasises, is “to look at how the Army can assist the state government in reaching out to the people and putting a balm on the many wounds that may have occurred over a period of time”.
Hasnain’s new “heart as weapon” doctrine and style of functioning have, in fact, changed the very contours of Army’s rules of engagement in Kashmir, a place where the uniform has generally been viewed with fear. Hasnain is trying to erase this psychological barrier and begin a conversation with the “awam (people)”: a difficult and arduous journey in a landscape where spools of barbed wire divide the troops and the people in both physical as well as psychological terms.
Hasnain’s understanding of the intricacies of Kashmiri culture, and religious and political sensitivities, and the willingness to look beyond the statistics of “kills” and suc cess of encounters, has provided the top military commander in Kashmir with the essential ammunition to launch a successful public relations exercise. The challenge, however, lies in the manner in which he will deal with larger and contentious issues, like the speedy investigation into allegations of serious human rights abuses, demands of withdrawal from civilian areas, and the repeal of controversial laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.
At a recent public interaction programme in north Kashmir’s Handwara town, Hasnain, whose family originally belongs to Lucknow, further demystifies his new doctrine. “There is no solution for any problem by military means,” he says. “The Army in the Valley is carrying out the job of stabilising the situation. We are here to create a stable environment. We are ensuring that the local population remains with us. This can only be done through reaching out and engaging with the people.” He insisted that the Army was maintaining utmost restraint while conducting its counter insurgency operations in the Valley
“We have carried out all our recent operations in Sopore, Shopian and Tral areas without any collateral damage. We are making sure that even the houses where militants are hiding are not destroyed. People have started reposing their confidence in the army.”
Reaching out in Handwara THE Handwara meeting was important because Manzoor Ahmad Magray, a 21-year-old student from adjoining Chowgul village, was killed by troops who had laid a night ambush for militants on February 4 this year. Since this was the first such incident after Hasnain took charge, it became a litmus test on the ground for his new approach. Hasnain had reacted immediately, expressing regret for the loss of life and then ordering a court of inquiry.
“It was an unfortunate case of mistaken identity,” he says at the awami sunwai (public hearing. “We have publicly regretted this death and the Army has already completed its court of inquiry. I think the State administration too has completed its inquiry. We will make it public soon.” He said he ordered a modification in the Army’s standard operating procedure soon after the incident. “We are making sure that our troops never fire without sufficient warning,” he says.
Hasnain had invited Magray’s father for the meeting too. “We cannot bring back your child but I promise, we will ensure that justice is done,” he told him. Magray’s younger brother Dawood Ahmad Magray has already been adopted by the Army and admitted to its Pahalgam Boarding School.
Though Hasnain’s approach did calm the situation from taking a volatile turn, it is yet to be seen as to how the promise of justice is served. During his tenure as the Army’s top commander in Kashmir, Hasnain’s “heart is my weapon” doctrine will be always pitted against the scepticism that has pervaded civil ian engagement with the Army in Kashmir for the last two decades.
Hasnain has inherited a legacy of public mistrust, unaddressed issues, and unanswered questions, which will confront him as he attempts to go beyond military victories. Even the fate of inquiries into major incidents of fake encounters is yet to be known: Pathribal in 2000, Handwara in 2007, and an incident of fake surrender in 2005, when more than 50 villagers from Budgam district were kept illegally confined for six months before being made to `surrender’. Though he stresses that a Kashmir solution cannot be achieved through military means alone, it is yet to be seen as to how the army will react to any forward movement towards a political resolution.
Putting `awam’ first Hasnain, however, has made some important beginnings. His intent was known when he changed the Army’s main slogan from “Jawan aur awaam, aman hai muqam” (jawan and people, peace is the destination) to “Awam aur jawan, aman hai muqam”, thus putting people first. Hasnain also deleted `Operation’ from Operation Sadbhavana so that the “people don’t look at Army’s developmental works as part of their military operations”. This symbolic beginning was followed by a string of new measures with an emphasis on better public relations.
He started the “Ji Jinab” campaign, which aims at making jawans more courteous towards people. “I talk to the troops and explain the importance of showing respect to the people,” he says at the tea after the public interaction. “We have to be firm but respectful. Ji Jinab means exactly that.”
The Army has also launched a programme to teach Kashmiri to officers. “We want better communication with the people. We are here for the service of the people and we want that sentiment to reach the people,” he said.
Hasnain began his public interaction tours from volatile neighbourhoods and has already visited Shopian in south Kashmir, and Palhalan and Sopore in north Kashmir to “directly talk to the people”. The response has been interesting, especially as villagers come with a bagful of complaints that primarily revolve around problems with local governance. Aware of the sensitive relationship between the Army and the civilian administration, Hasnain is always accompanied by senior officials of the District Administration.
In Handwara, the public meeting was held at the conference hall of the J&K Government’s Environment and Forest Department and Hasnain was accompanied by local MP Sharief-ud-Din Shariq, deputy commissioner of Kupwara, and senior army and police officers.
Ajaz Ahmad Sofi, president of Handwara’s Traders’ Federation, told Hasnain that it was for the first time in two decades that a corps commander had visited the town and held a public interaction. He sought Hasnain’s intervention to ease the Army’s night blockade of the road connecting the town with the Rajwar area. Hasnain responded by issuing orders to lift the barricade immediately.
Advocate Nazir Ahmad too has a complaint. “Since 1947, our village is without road and electricity.” Ghulam Mohammad Mir, who introduces himself as a local People’s Democratic Party leader, highlights the issues of misgovernance in Handwara. Mir also requests Hasnain to absorb more Kashmiri youth, especially from Kupwara and Handwara, in the Army. Hasnain responds by saying that the Army has sent 30 youths from north Kashmir to Chandigarh for coaching.
Mushtaq Ahmad, a government school teacher, has come from Sarmarg village with a complaint about the construction of a road link in his area under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana in 2005. “The contractor used substandard material. We informed government officials several times but they never took our complaints seriously. Please help us”.
Hasnain’s reaction to complaints against administrative problems is guarded. He has a good rapport with the state government and he seems cautious to avoid stepping into their domain.
Asked to comment on the recent statement of J&K DGP Kuldeep Khoda that militancy was down by 45 percent in the state, he says, “Yes, there is a drop in militancy. But we never see a decline through the prism of statistics.
We look at the overall atmosphere.”
Hasnain, however, doesn’t think militancy is over yet. “As long as there are camps, there is a threat. The camps are still intact and filled with militants. The next two weeks will be important for us,” he says.
“But the Army is strong enough to prevent the infiltration as we have developed a good mechanism to stop the infiltration from across the LoC.”
On the question of why the Army hesitates to operate in Maoist-hit states while it was keen to `stabilise’ Kashmir, he says there is no comparison between the two situations. “The Maoist problem is totally an internal problem and Kashmir is an existential threat,” he says. “It (Kashmir), however, needs to be tackled carefully”.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Obama, Why Drag "The Third World" into US Eection 2012?
Watch how the mainstream US media reports it and headlines it, without critical explanation and without critical reasoning (scroll way way below, my comment which follows right here)
I say:
Obama claims Republicans are wanting to turn the US into "a Third World" Country! in a re-election fundraiser at his political base in Chicago. Most working people (that's the majority of ALL voters) in Wisconsin and Ohio and everywhere else, are already keenly aware that their elected Republican leaders are proving to be not worthy of their vote and recalls are being vigorously pursued.
Do you see how DISRESPECTFUL the US Govt and the American People are, to buy into this demeaning language and this politically expedient, self-serving line of reasoning? Has the "Third World" done anything to engineer the sorry mess the US economy is in?
The Third World is a concept that only partially describes the post-colonial, sovereign, non-aligned nations, designating PEOPLES whose ancestral lands were occupied and who were colonized, until those very Peoples drove the exploitative colonizers out! That is the Third World, President Obama. Your Kenyan father and Indonesian half-sister were born there remember? You lived briefly in the Third World, remember? Your CIA operatives and Armed Forces are occupying, droning and killing in The Third World, remember?
Why diss us in the Third World to make your point against some, not all,ethically challenged Republicans, to grab a cheap headline in your re-election campaign? Leave us out. Please.
The US media is part and parcel of the US Govt. The US media is post-embedded since 2003 following the US invasion of Iraq. The US media will accept such characterizations from the Government, without examination and will repeat, not report such quotes, from the US President, no less. There will be NO copy in any US media along these lines:
"The Third World, referred to by the US President roughly connotes all countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America that were occupied, plundered and enslaved, until these peoples drove out the white colonizers and set themselves free between the 1940s and 1960s."
Malcolm X and MLK would likely be cringing in their graves at Obama's statement.
Malcolm celebrated the Third World and the Bandung Conference 1955 in his speeches. Malcolm X was a Free Speech internationalist, whereas in the US he is regarded even by Blacks as a Black leader and by whites as a violent Black leader. Martin Luther King before his murder, began to refer to the race struggle as a struggle for justice within the larger struggle for freedom worldwide. Where does Obama stand in the line of succession?
Obama is almost as ahistorical as Condolezza Rice when she came to New Delhi and lectured India's elected parliamentary leaders on the supposed limitations of the Non-Aligned Movement(NAM).
Obama's audience at the Navy Pier fundraiser included large numbers of Black folk, who are part of the Third World of the US, yes or no? The minorities who have been marginalized and who have a history of enslavement dispossession dislocation. Yeah, since Obama's election we all became post-racial. Yeah right
The US Government's superpower ignorance, US exceptionalism, US supremacism are at an all time high:( just, just when the US economy is in the toilet, the US economy is in fact, in grave decline. You cant have it both ways. The Global South is eating your jobs, because the market economy must ensure profits, so chase cheap labor from Nigeria to Nam. I agree with the inevitable principle of free markets == but they have to be tweaked, sometimes aggressively, to deliver The Greater Collective Good (GCG)
Global South sovereign nation-states, please do not roll out the Red carpet for Obama anytime soon. Yes, Barack, Schumer, Boxer, Murray are preferable to Boehner, Ryan, Walker, Kasich but The Third World has not tanked the US economy.
Send a letter of protest against such intentionally pejorative descriptions of the Global South, to Obama at www.whitehouse.gov
South~South.
------------------
AGP copyright
Republicans will make US 'Third World' nation: Obama
AFP on Yahoo!
Republicans will make US a Third World;= country: Obama AFP – President Barack Obama reads a note given to him by a young girl upon arrival at O?Hare International …
Exclusive: President Obama says he won't write off Texas in 2012 election Play Video Barack Obama Video:Exclusive: President Obama says he won't write off Texas in 2012 election KENS 5 - TV San Antonio
Trump on Obama, Healthcare and Abortion Play Video Barack Obama Video:Trump on Obama, Healthcare and Abortion ABC News
President Obama and the Social Compact Play Video Barack Obama Video:President Obama and the Social Compact FOX News
by Mira Oberman – Fri Apr 15, 12:57 am ET
CHICAGO (AFP) – US President Barack Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
The attack came a day after Obama savaged Republican budget plans and unveiled his $4-trillion deficit reduction drive that aims to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to preserve key social services.
The debate over fiscal policy will prove critical to the 2012 campaign and Obama sought to frame it as a "stark choice" between investing in the future or watching the country fall apart.
"Under their vision, we can't invest in roads and bridges and broadband and high-speed rail," Obama told a select group of the Democratic faithful at the second of three fundraising events in his hometown of Chicago.
"I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure."
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]
Republicans plans to shrink the reach of government is "not a vision that's impelled by the numbers" but a "choice" to give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the rich rather than ask those who've been "blessed" to "give a little more."
Obama said his vision is of an ambitious, compassionate, and caring America "where we're living within our means but we're still investing in our future."
"If we apply some practical common sense to this, we can solve our fiscal challenges and still have the America that we believe in," Obama told supporters at Chicago's N9ne restaurant.
"That's what this budget debate is going to be about. And that's what the 2012 campaign is going to be about."
The events in Chicago were Obama's first fundraisers since he officially launched his bid for a second term on April 4 and were expected to raise about two million dollars.
Analysts predict Obama -- who raised a record $750 million ahead of the 2008 election -- will build a billion-dollar war chest this time around.
Money won't be enough to win, senior advisor and 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe told a crowd of 2,300 supporters gathered in a ballroom at Navy Pier ahead of Obama's speech.
"If only the people who normally vote in presidential elections vote in this election it will be too close," Plouffe said as he urged supporters to get more people involved in the campaign.
"You've got to get these people to get involved and to vote so we can make sure that we succeed in this election."
Obama established his 2012 campaign headquarters in Chicago, the first time a presidential reelection campaign was not based in Washington.
He told supporters it was so the campaign would be "rooted in your hopes and rooted in your dreams" instead of influenced by Washington pundits and powerbrokers.
Obama reminded the cheering crowd of the sense of hope and possibility they felt when they celebrated his election as the first African American US president in Chicago's Grant Park.
"And yet, even as we celebrated -- you remember what I said back then? I said our work wasn't ending, our work was just beginning," Obama said.
"We've still got business to do. We are not finished.
"We've got to reclaim the American dream for all Americans. That's the change we still believe in."
Barring a dramatic turn, no major adversary from within his party is likely to challenge Obama, who turns 50 in August.
As for who might run against him from the Republican Party's ranks, uncertainty reigns.
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney have taken the first official steps toward candidacy, while conservative former House speaker Newt Gingrich and even real estate mogul Donald Trump have hinted at challenging for the Republican nomination.
In less than a month, the 64-year-old Trump has jumped from 10 to 19 percent support among Republican voters, tying with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, according to a CNN poll released this week.
Republican officials worry that the crowded field of possible White House hopefuls could end up helping Obama, who could be vulnerable as the US economy sputters its way out of its worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
---
Republicans will make US 'Third World' nation: Obama
President Barack Obama reads a note given to him by a young girl upon arrival at O?Hare International Airport. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
President Barack Obama reads a note given to him by a young girl upon arrival at O?Hare International Airport. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
President Barack Obama speaks to supporters during a fundraiser at Navy Pier in Chicago, Illinois. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
President Barack Obama speaks to supporters during a fundraiser at Navy Pier in Chicago, Illinois. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
Supporters listen as President Barack Obama speaks at a fundraiser in Chicago. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
Supporters listen as President Barack Obama speaks at a fundraiser in Chicago. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
AFP - US President Barack Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
The attack came a day after Obama savaged Republican budget plans and unveiled his $4-trillion deficit reduction drive that aims to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to preserve key social services.
The debate over fiscal policy will prove critical to the 2012 campaign and Obama sought to frame it as a "stark choice" between investing in the future or watching the country fall apart.
"Under their vision, we can't invest in roads and bridges and broadband and high-speed rail," Obama told a select group of the Democratic faithful at the second of three fundraising events in his hometown of Chicago.
"I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure."
Republicans plans to shrink the reach of government is "not a vision that's impelled by the numbers" but a "choice" to give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the rich rather than ask those who've been "blessed" to "give a little more."
Obama said his vision is of an ambitious, compassionate, and caring America "where we're living within our means but we're still investing in our future."
"If we apply some practical common sense to this, we can solve our fiscal challenges and still have the America that we believe in," Obama told supporters at Chicago's N9ne restaurant.
"That's what this budget debate is going to be about. And that's what the 2012 campaign is going to be about."
The events in Chicago were Obama's first fundraisers since he officially launched his bid for a second term on April 4 and were expected to raise about two million dollars.
Analysts predict Obama -- who raised a record $750 million ahead of the 2008 election -- will build a billion-dollar war chest this time around.
Money won't be enough to win, senior advisor and 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe told a crowd of 2,300 supporters gathered in a ballroom at Navy Pier ahead of Obama's speech.
"If only the people who normally vote in presidential elections vote in this election it will be too close," Plouffe said as he urged supporters to get more people involved in the campaign.
"You've got to get these people to get involved and to vote so we can make sure that we succeed in this election."
Obama established his 2012 campaign headquarters in Chicago, the first time a presidential reelection campaign was not based in Washington.
He told supporters it was so the campaign would be "rooted in your hopes and rooted in your dreams" instead of influenced by Washington pundits and powerbrokers.
Obama reminded the cheering crowd of the sense of hope and possibility they felt when they celebrated his election as the first African American US president in Chicago's Grant Park.
"And yet, even as we celebrated -- you remember what I said back then? I said our work wasn't ending, our work was just beginning," Obama said.
"We've still got business to do. We are not finished.
"We've got to reclaim the American dream for all Americans. That's the change we still believe in."
Barring a dramatic turn, no major adversary from within his party is likely to challenge Obama, who turns 50 in August.
As for who might run against him from the Republican Party's ranks, uncertainty reigns.
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney have taken the first official steps toward candidacy, while conservative former House speaker Newt Gingrich and even real estate mogul Donald Trump have hinted at challenging for the Republican nomination.
In less than a month, the 64-year-old Trump has jumped from 10 to 19 percent support among Republican voters, tying with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, according to a CNN poll released this week.
Republican officials worry that the crowded field of possible White House hopefuls could end up helping Obama, who could be vulnerable as the US economy sputters its way out of its worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
---
Washington Times copyright
EDITORIAL: Obama’s Third World America
Big Government deficit spending undermines U.S. competitiveness
126 Comments and 72 Reactions|Tweet|Share|Print|Email|More
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Washington Times
6:02 p.m., Friday, April 15, 2011
MugshotPresident Barack Obama is interviewed by The Associated Press, Friday, April 15, 2011, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Politics
Barack Obama
India
President Obama warns Republican policies will turn America into a Third World country. Look who’s talking.
On a campaign fundraising trip to Chicago, Mr. Obama quipped that under the proposed Republican budget plan, “we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought - that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure.” He failed to elaborate on which developing countries he thinks should be models for the United States, but his policies have secured America’s status as part of the declining world.
Mr. Obama has approached the presidency less as a traditional American chief executive and more as a developing world populist. The 2009 stimulus program was taken directly from this playbook, using deficit spending to distribute favors to his union supporters and cronies in the form of public-works projects and other handouts. It was a spectacular failure at creating the promised number of jobs but succeeded in Mr. Obama’s core mission to “spread the wealth around.”
Mr. Obama has accepted what he sees as the inevitability of American economic decline. During the 2008 presidential campaign, he declared, “we can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” He has yet to explain why he thinks the American people need to ask permission from other countries to maintain a high standard of living.
During the president’s trip to India in November 2010, he said that for most of his lifetime, “the U.S. was such an enormously dominant economic power … that we always met the rest of the world economically on our terms.” In his view, however, Mr. Obama is overseeing the end times for U.S. economic dominance. Rising economies in China, India, Russia, Brazil and elsewhere will, he says, “keep America on its toes.” Meanwhile, these same countries just finished a conference in China exploring new ways to put America flat on its back.
Mr. Obama is making our enemies’ job easier. He has increased economic regulation, pursued energy policies that stifle exploration and production at home while promoting it abroad, and has shown a general contempt for free-market principles that made the U.S. economy great. Plus, given Mr. Obama’s astonishingly lax immigration policies, America won’t have to wait long to become a Third World country because the Third World is coming here.
The debt accrued on Mr. Obama’s watch is the centerpiece of the forces that are driving the United States to global pauperhood. In 2008, gross public debt was 69 percent of the gross domestic product. This year it will pass 100 percent. Mr. Obama’s debt has stifled economic productivity and has driven the country to the point where only 66 percent of men had jobs last year, the lowest figure on record.
Were it not for Mr. Obama’s drunken-sailor-style spending, facilitated by Democratic supermajorities in both houses of Congress during his first two years, the United States wouldn’t be in this fix. Still, the president’s answer to economic crisis is to heap on more debt. It’s this crippling tax-and-spend Obama creed that’s bringing America to the brink of Third World inferiority.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
I say:
Obama claims Republicans are wanting to turn the US into "a Third World" Country! in a re-election fundraiser at his political base in Chicago. Most working people (that's the majority of ALL voters) in Wisconsin and Ohio and everywhere else, are already keenly aware that their elected Republican leaders are proving to be not worthy of their vote and recalls are being vigorously pursued.
Do you see how DISRESPECTFUL the US Govt and the American People are, to buy into this demeaning language and this politically expedient, self-serving line of reasoning? Has the "Third World" done anything to engineer the sorry mess the US economy is in?
The Third World is a concept that only partially describes the post-colonial, sovereign, non-aligned nations, designating PEOPLES whose ancestral lands were occupied and who were colonized, until those very Peoples drove the exploitative colonizers out! That is the Third World, President Obama. Your Kenyan father and Indonesian half-sister were born there remember? You lived briefly in the Third World, remember? Your CIA operatives and Armed Forces are occupying, droning and killing in The Third World, remember?
Why diss us in the Third World to make your point against some, not all,ethically challenged Republicans, to grab a cheap headline in your re-election campaign? Leave us out. Please.
The US media is part and parcel of the US Govt. The US media is post-embedded since 2003 following the US invasion of Iraq. The US media will accept such characterizations from the Government, without examination and will repeat, not report such quotes, from the US President, no less. There will be NO copy in any US media along these lines:
"The Third World, referred to by the US President roughly connotes all countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America that were occupied, plundered and enslaved, until these peoples drove out the white colonizers and set themselves free between the 1940s and 1960s."
Malcolm X and MLK would likely be cringing in their graves at Obama's statement.
Malcolm celebrated the Third World and the Bandung Conference 1955 in his speeches. Malcolm X was a Free Speech internationalist, whereas in the US he is regarded even by Blacks as a Black leader and by whites as a violent Black leader. Martin Luther King before his murder, began to refer to the race struggle as a struggle for justice within the larger struggle for freedom worldwide. Where does Obama stand in the line of succession?
Obama is almost as ahistorical as Condolezza Rice when she came to New Delhi and lectured India's elected parliamentary leaders on the supposed limitations of the Non-Aligned Movement(NAM).
Obama's audience at the Navy Pier fundraiser included large numbers of Black folk, who are part of the Third World of the US, yes or no? The minorities who have been marginalized and who have a history of enslavement dispossession dislocation. Yeah, since Obama's election we all became post-racial. Yeah right
The US Government's superpower ignorance, US exceptionalism, US supremacism are at an all time high:( just, just when the US economy is in the toilet, the US economy is in fact, in grave decline. You cant have it both ways. The Global South is eating your jobs, because the market economy must ensure profits, so chase cheap labor from Nigeria to Nam. I agree with the inevitable principle of free markets == but they have to be tweaked, sometimes aggressively, to deliver The Greater Collective Good (GCG)
Global South sovereign nation-states, please do not roll out the Red carpet for Obama anytime soon. Yes, Barack, Schumer, Boxer, Murray are preferable to Boehner, Ryan, Walker, Kasich but The Third World has not tanked the US economy.
Send a letter of protest against such intentionally pejorative descriptions of the Global South, to Obama at www.whitehouse.gov
South~South.
------------------
AGP copyright
Republicans will make US 'Third World' nation: Obama
AFP on Yahoo!
Republicans will make US a Third World;= country: Obama AFP – President Barack Obama reads a note given to him by a young girl upon arrival at O?Hare International …
Exclusive: President Obama says he won't write off Texas in 2012 election Play Video Barack Obama Video:Exclusive: President Obama says he won't write off Texas in 2012 election KENS 5 - TV San Antonio
Trump on Obama, Healthcare and Abortion Play Video Barack Obama Video:Trump on Obama, Healthcare and Abortion ABC News
President Obama and the Social Compact Play Video Barack Obama Video:President Obama and the Social Compact FOX News
by Mira Oberman – Fri Apr 15, 12:57 am ET
CHICAGO (AFP) – US President Barack Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
The attack came a day after Obama savaged Republican budget plans and unveiled his $4-trillion deficit reduction drive that aims to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to preserve key social services.
The debate over fiscal policy will prove critical to the 2012 campaign and Obama sought to frame it as a "stark choice" between investing in the future or watching the country fall apart.
"Under their vision, we can't invest in roads and bridges and broadband and high-speed rail," Obama told a select group of the Democratic faithful at the second of three fundraising events in his hometown of Chicago.
"I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure."
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]
Republicans plans to shrink the reach of government is "not a vision that's impelled by the numbers" but a "choice" to give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the rich rather than ask those who've been "blessed" to "give a little more."
Obama said his vision is of an ambitious, compassionate, and caring America "where we're living within our means but we're still investing in our future."
"If we apply some practical common sense to this, we can solve our fiscal challenges and still have the America that we believe in," Obama told supporters at Chicago's N9ne restaurant.
"That's what this budget debate is going to be about. And that's what the 2012 campaign is going to be about."
The events in Chicago were Obama's first fundraisers since he officially launched his bid for a second term on April 4 and were expected to raise about two million dollars.
Analysts predict Obama -- who raised a record $750 million ahead of the 2008 election -- will build a billion-dollar war chest this time around.
Money won't be enough to win, senior advisor and 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe told a crowd of 2,300 supporters gathered in a ballroom at Navy Pier ahead of Obama's speech.
"If only the people who normally vote in presidential elections vote in this election it will be too close," Plouffe said as he urged supporters to get more people involved in the campaign.
"You've got to get these people to get involved and to vote so we can make sure that we succeed in this election."
Obama established his 2012 campaign headquarters in Chicago, the first time a presidential reelection campaign was not based in Washington.
He told supporters it was so the campaign would be "rooted in your hopes and rooted in your dreams" instead of influenced by Washington pundits and powerbrokers.
Obama reminded the cheering crowd of the sense of hope and possibility they felt when they celebrated his election as the first African American US president in Chicago's Grant Park.
"And yet, even as we celebrated -- you remember what I said back then? I said our work wasn't ending, our work was just beginning," Obama said.
"We've still got business to do. We are not finished.
"We've got to reclaim the American dream for all Americans. That's the change we still believe in."
Barring a dramatic turn, no major adversary from within his party is likely to challenge Obama, who turns 50 in August.
As for who might run against him from the Republican Party's ranks, uncertainty reigns.
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney have taken the first official steps toward candidacy, while conservative former House speaker Newt Gingrich and even real estate mogul Donald Trump have hinted at challenging for the Republican nomination.
In less than a month, the 64-year-old Trump has jumped from 10 to 19 percent support among Republican voters, tying with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, according to a CNN poll released this week.
Republican officials worry that the crowded field of possible White House hopefuls could end up helping Obama, who could be vulnerable as the US economy sputters its way out of its worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
---
Republicans will make US 'Third World' nation: Obama
President Barack Obama reads a note given to him by a young girl upon arrival at O?Hare International Airport. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
President Barack Obama reads a note given to him by a young girl upon arrival at O?Hare International Airport. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
President Barack Obama speaks to supporters during a fundraiser at Navy Pier in Chicago, Illinois. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
President Barack Obama speaks to supporters during a fundraiser at Navy Pier in Chicago, Illinois. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
Supporters listen as President Barack Obama speaks at a fundraiser in Chicago. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
Supporters listen as President Barack Obama speaks at a fundraiser in Chicago. Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
AFP - US President Barack Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
The attack came a day after Obama savaged Republican budget plans and unveiled his $4-trillion deficit reduction drive that aims to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to preserve key social services.
The debate over fiscal policy will prove critical to the 2012 campaign and Obama sought to frame it as a "stark choice" between investing in the future or watching the country fall apart.
"Under their vision, we can't invest in roads and bridges and broadband and high-speed rail," Obama told a select group of the Democratic faithful at the second of three fundraising events in his hometown of Chicago.
"I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure."
Republicans plans to shrink the reach of government is "not a vision that's impelled by the numbers" but a "choice" to give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the rich rather than ask those who've been "blessed" to "give a little more."
Obama said his vision is of an ambitious, compassionate, and caring America "where we're living within our means but we're still investing in our future."
"If we apply some practical common sense to this, we can solve our fiscal challenges and still have the America that we believe in," Obama told supporters at Chicago's N9ne restaurant.
"That's what this budget debate is going to be about. And that's what the 2012 campaign is going to be about."
The events in Chicago were Obama's first fundraisers since he officially launched his bid for a second term on April 4 and were expected to raise about two million dollars.
Analysts predict Obama -- who raised a record $750 million ahead of the 2008 election -- will build a billion-dollar war chest this time around.
Money won't be enough to win, senior advisor and 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe told a crowd of 2,300 supporters gathered in a ballroom at Navy Pier ahead of Obama's speech.
"If only the people who normally vote in presidential elections vote in this election it will be too close," Plouffe said as he urged supporters to get more people involved in the campaign.
"You've got to get these people to get involved and to vote so we can make sure that we succeed in this election."
Obama established his 2012 campaign headquarters in Chicago, the first time a presidential reelection campaign was not based in Washington.
He told supporters it was so the campaign would be "rooted in your hopes and rooted in your dreams" instead of influenced by Washington pundits and powerbrokers.
Obama reminded the cheering crowd of the sense of hope and possibility they felt when they celebrated his election as the first African American US president in Chicago's Grant Park.
"And yet, even as we celebrated -- you remember what I said back then? I said our work wasn't ending, our work was just beginning," Obama said.
"We've still got business to do. We are not finished.
"We've got to reclaim the American dream for all Americans. That's the change we still believe in."
Barring a dramatic turn, no major adversary from within his party is likely to challenge Obama, who turns 50 in August.
As for who might run against him from the Republican Party's ranks, uncertainty reigns.
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney have taken the first official steps toward candidacy, while conservative former House speaker Newt Gingrich and even real estate mogul Donald Trump have hinted at challenging for the Republican nomination.
In less than a month, the 64-year-old Trump has jumped from 10 to 19 percent support among Republican voters, tying with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, according to a CNN poll released this week.
Republican officials worry that the crowded field of possible White House hopefuls could end up helping Obama, who could be vulnerable as the US economy sputters its way out of its worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
---
Washington Times copyright
EDITORIAL: Obama’s Third World America
Big Government deficit spending undermines U.S. competitiveness
126 Comments and 72 Reactions|Tweet|Share|Print|Email|More
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Washington Times
6:02 p.m., Friday, April 15, 2011
MugshotPresident Barack Obama is interviewed by The Associated Press, Friday, April 15, 2011, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Politics
Barack Obama
India
President Obama warns Republican policies will turn America into a Third World country. Look who’s talking.
On a campaign fundraising trip to Chicago, Mr. Obama quipped that under the proposed Republican budget plan, “we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought - that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure.” He failed to elaborate on which developing countries he thinks should be models for the United States, but his policies have secured America’s status as part of the declining world.
Mr. Obama has approached the presidency less as a traditional American chief executive and more as a developing world populist. The 2009 stimulus program was taken directly from this playbook, using deficit spending to distribute favors to his union supporters and cronies in the form of public-works projects and other handouts. It was a spectacular failure at creating the promised number of jobs but succeeded in Mr. Obama’s core mission to “spread the wealth around.”
Mr. Obama has accepted what he sees as the inevitability of American economic decline. During the 2008 presidential campaign, he declared, “we can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” He has yet to explain why he thinks the American people need to ask permission from other countries to maintain a high standard of living.
During the president’s trip to India in November 2010, he said that for most of his lifetime, “the U.S. was such an enormously dominant economic power … that we always met the rest of the world economically on our terms.” In his view, however, Mr. Obama is overseeing the end times for U.S. economic dominance. Rising economies in China, India, Russia, Brazil and elsewhere will, he says, “keep America on its toes.” Meanwhile, these same countries just finished a conference in China exploring new ways to put America flat on its back.
Mr. Obama is making our enemies’ job easier. He has increased economic regulation, pursued energy policies that stifle exploration and production at home while promoting it abroad, and has shown a general contempt for free-market principles that made the U.S. economy great. Plus, given Mr. Obama’s astonishingly lax immigration policies, America won’t have to wait long to become a Third World country because the Third World is coming here.
The debt accrued on Mr. Obama’s watch is the centerpiece of the forces that are driving the United States to global pauperhood. In 2008, gross public debt was 69 percent of the gross domestic product. This year it will pass 100 percent. Mr. Obama’s debt has stifled economic productivity and has driven the country to the point where only 66 percent of men had jobs last year, the lowest figure on record.
Were it not for Mr. Obama’s drunken-sailor-style spending, facilitated by Democratic supermajorities in both houses of Congress during his first two years, the United States wouldn’t be in this fix. Still, the president’s answer to economic crisis is to heap on more debt. It’s this crippling tax-and-spend Obama creed that’s bringing America to the brink of Third World inferiority.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)