RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
A Mother Confronts the Wounded Ego of the Century Print
Wednesday, 13 April 2016 13:47

Berrigan writes: "So far, I've dealt with Donald Trump's bid for the White House as performance art: a clever, full-body, self-marketing scheme in the fashion of actor Joaquin Phoenix restyling himself as a hip hop artist to promote his mockumentary I'm Still Here. I keep waiting for the Trump-presidential-run punch line."

Donald Trump. (photo: Mark Seliger)
Donald Trump. (photo: Mark Seliger)


A Mother Confronts the Wounded Ego of the Century

By Frida Berrigan, TomDispatch

13 April 16

 


There had never been a “concession” statement like it.  It was short, to the point, and in addition to the usual accusations of “lyin’” leveled at Ted Cruz, compared his victorious measures to the ruse the Greeks used to destroy Troy, accused him of outright illegal acts, as well as election thievery, and claimed that even the label “puppet” was too kind by half.  Here’s how that 157-word release began -- and I know at this point you won’t be shocked to learn that I’m quoting from the statement the Trump campaign put out after The Donald was stomped in Wisconsin: “Donald J. Trump withstood the onslaught of the establishment yet again. Lyin' Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him. Not only was he propelled by the anti-Trump Super PAC's spending countless millions of dollars on false advertising against Mr. Trump, but he was coordinating with his own Super PACs (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet -- he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump.”

Admittedly, the full statement lacked words like “vampire,” “pimp,” and “zombie,” but in its relative restraint the Trump campaign was undoubtedly reserving its fire for any election losses still to come on the road to the Big Smash-Up (that used to be called “the Republican convention”). It’s also true that, despite the expectations of New Yorker satirist Andy Borowitz, Trump has not yet filed a suit against the state of Wisconsin and its voters for his loss there.  But if you think we can make it through this “election” season without recourse to the experts (and by that I naturally mean expert satirists, humorists, and cartoonists), then you truly are a -- in the Trumpian tradition of insult -- mad person or, actually, a zombie!  Not having a satirist, cartoonist, or humorist in sight, TomDispatch has gone in another direction today in trying to grasp the essence of what we’re watching and make a little sense of it. Thanks to TomDispatch regular Frida Berrigan, it’s turning to a different set of experts who know something special about the boundaries of the All-Absorbing Self and others: children. So sit back in that swing, give yourself a push, and listen up.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


Make Trump Great Again!
Taking The Donald to Toddler Town

o far, I’ve dealt with Donald Trump’s bid for the White House as performance art: a clever, full-body, self-marketing scheme in the fashion of actor Joaquin Phoenix restyling himself as a hip hop artist to promote his mockumentary I’m Still Here. You remember that odd media moment from a few years back, right? When the handsome star of the Johnny Cash biopic Walk The Line grew a huge beard and rapped incoherently on David Letterman? I can’t be the only one, can I?

So I keep waiting for the Trump-presidential-run punch line.  I mean, what is his endless campaign that’s conquered America’s and even the world’s attention 24/7 really selling: the new Trumptopian private community on the Moon (or in Burma)?

Still, after all these months -- can it truly be nearly a year and not an eon or two? -- I guess I finally have to accept that he’s really running for president and I have to figure out how to explain Donald Trump to my kids. At nine, three, and two, they may be the only Americans left who aren’t in the know when it comes to The Donald -- and, believe me, I have no illusions. This is going to be tough! After all, he makes me scream at the screen, which leads my kids to wonder not about him but about their mom. It goes without saying (which is undoubtedly why I’m saying it) that he’s the antithesis of everything I believe in. Why are you not surprised by this? I’m way left of Bernie Sanders. I don’t usually admit it in public, but I’m probably going to vote for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. She talks about deep system change and a human-centered economy, and that’s the kind of talk I like.

Please note that, in good Mom fashion, so far I’ve used only “I statements” and I’m always polite (when not screaming at that screen). Come to think of it, I pretty much only argue about politics with other people who read the New York Times with a highlighter in one hand, their indignation in reserve, and a pad of paper ready to make notes for their next rational (yet withering) letter to the editor that won’t be published.

So, it's no surprise that Donald Trump pushes all my buttons, even a few I hadn’t noticed that I had, which is why I’ve tried to relegate him to the National Enquirer end of the media-political spectrum. But now that the Enquirer is breaking stories of “political import” in the era of The Donald and he’s even more of a household name than ever, it’s time to reconcile with reality. It’s time to accept that, even though (or do I mean because?) he’s racist and sexist, blustering and entitled, full of lies and blames and hates, he’s a Republican presidential candidate of consequence. I know, I know -- I’m the last person in the United States to do this, but bear with me.

And even if he doesn’t win (please, GOD, yes!), who can deny that this election says something sad, troubling, and important, if not -- in the Trumpian tradition -- unbearably self-important, about our country? I imagine a President Trump and I immediately want to move my whole family to the other side of his big, fat, future “beautiful” wall on the border with Mexico

All of this means that maybe trying to explain The Donald Phenomenon to my kids is a lost cause from the start. I’ll just get screechy and irrational and nine-year-old Rosena will go into preteen mode and roll her eyes, while three-year-old Seamus will say: "Mom, why are you pullin' on your hair and cryin'?"  As I’m reading about Trump, however -- and like all Americans these days, to read is to Trump and to view is to Trump, so I’m totally Trumped -- I’ve been thinking lately that maybe I have the whole thing upside down.  It’s not that I should teach my kids about him, but that my kids could teach him a thing or two about how to be a good person. They could make him great again!  Maybe what we need to do is take Donald Trump back to toddler town.

“Mine” Is a Chilling Word

“Mine, Madeline! It's mine.” The kids are both pulling on Olaf’s arms. The tiny, hug-loving snowman from Frozen is stretched between them, and Seamus is technically correct: Olaf was a Christmas present from his big sister Rosena. I am, however, trying to teach them the concept of “ours” and sharing and taking turns as well. If it isn’t something they can share -- like books -- they can at least trade off, so that both Seamus and his younger sister have a chance to enjoy the object of affection exclusively for a few minutes.

The objects in our house -- except for the high-tech, expensive, and dangerous ones (which are MINE) -- belong to all of us and should be used and enjoyed responsibly by all of us. That’s how we officially operate.  My mother, an activist in her own right, always told my brother, sister, and me that "mine is a chilling word." Isn't that a great line? I don’t use it a lot, because the kids get sidetracked by what chilling means.

It’s no surprise that they are only partway there in moments that really matter like that dispute over Olaf, but Seamus is savvy enough to recognize that deploying the word “ours” when Madeline (the house baby at 2) says “mine” is a good way of getting my attention and some kind of interventionary help against his little sister. Madeline just learned the word “everybody’s” as in “This ball is everybody’s.” It’s mighty cute, even if it does sometimes still stand in for “mine.” And we keep trying.

Trump obviously stopped trying a long time ago, or was never taught to begin with. He has a “mine” problem. Maybe it's because he was brought up with a silver knife in his mouth.  Maybe his father told him “You are a king” and taught him to be a “killer” in childhood, business, and life. Who knows? His father is the “Old Man Trump,” the grim landlord that folk troubadour Woody Guthrie wrote and sang about (after signing a lease for one of his apartments): “I suppose/ Old Man Trump knows/ Just how much/ Racial hate/ He stirred up/ In the bloodpot of human hearts.” (In the 1970s, young Donald Trump and his family were compelled to provide the New York Urban League with a listing of every open apartment in their vast New York City holdings of 14,000 apartments after being sued for racial discrimination by the Justice Department.)

As a kid, Trump was sent off to military school, which he memorably claimed was harder than real military service. In assessing himself in the best possible light (something he’s never stopped doing quite publicly in these last months, giving the world a unique lesson in self-love), he told biographer Michael D’Antonio with pride (I think), “When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same.”

In a way, don’t you think that sums up the problem on hand? America First! Make America Great Again! Me! Mine! Build the Wall! Keep Out the Muslims! Aren’t these the grown-up equivalent of first-grade slogans and sentiments? Maybe Trump never got to be a real toddler and so did not grow into a real man (no matter what he thinks of his “hands”).

After all, real toddlers play. If their parents aren’t helicoptering in too much, they run headlong into the world with joyous abandon. And every scrape and bump teaches them a lesson not just about their capabilities, but about their limitations, all our limitations. They’re always reaching, always trying, always pushing themselves forward. From this play and the interactions and striving that comes with it they learn about natural consequences, including such simple lessons as be nice to others and they’re likely to be nice to you, share with others and they’re likely to do the same. Here, for instance, is a simple lesson of everyday life that doesn’t need to be taught: holding on tight to a ball is not as much fun as playing catch. (But if you never learn to let go to begin with...?)

I love watching my kids on the playground and work hard not to helicopter in or -- the opposite effect that adds up to more or less the same thing -- disappear into my phone or the crossword puzzle. And what amazes me is that they’re so outgoing and ready to connect with anyone who comes along.

“What’s your name?” Seamus greets each new kid. “Wanna play pirates?” -- or lions, or wolves, or princesses, depending on his mood.  And then he races off, confident that the other kid is running alongside him, ready to play. Madeline laughs and climbs to the top of the highest thing she can scale. “No help, mama. No help. Me do it!!” she calls, proudly, 10 feet off the ground. “Me big.”

And it’s true, she is Huge, so much bigger than Trump because she and Seamus don’t have that overwhelming urge to build walls, or call others names, or demean or demonize.

Listening is an Act of Love (Pay Attention, Donald!)

I almost feel sorry for Trump, given what I know of his upbringing. He pulls on my heartstrings a little, because a man so programmed to grab for every headline and steal every show and say whatever he can to keep the hot lights of the media on him undoubtedly wasn't listened to as a kid.

Listening is an act of love; that's what I tell my own kids (even though the steely-saucy New Yorker still buried in this 42-year-old mother of toddlers rolls her eyes big time every time I say it). If listening is an act of love, then it’s a good bet that long ago Donald Trump lost out big time.

Our children’s librarian told me that it takes a toddler five seconds to hear, absorb, and respond to a question or direction you give them. Five seconds is a long time in toddler town. In those seconds, I try to imagine my words working their way through a labyrinth of puzzles and curiosities as they hone in on the mental heartlands of my children. But here’s the question I ask myself: Why do I think of Trump while waiting for my “wash your hands” directive to radio down to my child’s brain? Why do I feel terrible for him? Maybe because the volume and pitch of his bombast exists in direct correlation to some ancient childhood feeling of wanting to be heard by those giants looming over him and not knowing how to make that happen.

We Have Nothing to Fear But…

Kids are scared of all sorts of things. Seamus and Madeline are afraid of the dark, of monsters, of superheroes gone bad, and -- most of all -- of kale salad. (Their big sister Rosena harbors this particular dread, too.) Their fears are, of course, largely imaginary (kale salad aside). So try explaining the very real terror pressing at the heart of the Republican Party establishment now that their punishing no-government-is-good-government credo (except when it comes to our giant military and the most oppressive powers of the national security state, those giant tax breaks for the rich, and those giant prisons for the poor, black, and brown) has taken root in the ultimate anti-candidate, the bad boy with the world's most talked about hairdo (the blonde bouffant with its own Twitter handle -- "I'm on top of the man who is on top of the world. Follow me, people").  

Trump’s loss in Wisconsin may be good news for Republicans terrified of him and his family moving into the White House. In a recent poll, a third of Wisconsin Republicans said that they were scared of what Trump would do as president. (Many of them assumedly voted for Ted Cruz, a man so preternaturally scary that even the King of Scary -- Stephen King -- is scared of him, and that is scary!)

Fear is an evolutionary tool embedded in our minds to keep our bodies from doing dangerous and reckless things. How do toddlers conquer their fears, real and imaginary? Fear slows down their minds a little, taps into their inner executive, and helps them do a cost-benefit analysis of the risky behavior they’re considering.  Then they screw up their courage, rush into the dark room, flip on the light, and grab the cookies, their little hearts beating like conga drums. The Fear of Trump should serve a similar function for Republicans. The problem is: Ted Cruz is not a cookie!

Toddlers have so much to teach Donald Trump as a person and as a presidential candidate, but deep down I don’t want him to learn such Toddler Town lessons because that just might make him implosion proof and canny enough to sweep into the Republican convention, get that nomination, and take the general election.

And then I would have a motherly problem of the first order: how to explain President Trump to Rosena, Seamus, and Madeline!

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why I Refuse to Send People to Jail for Failure to Pay Fines Print
Wednesday, 13 April 2016 13:39

Spillane writes: "Far too many indigent defendants are cited for contempt of court and land behind bars for inability to pay. Courts and judges are not powerless to fix the system."

Debtors' prison. (photo: Doug Chaykas)
Debtors' prison. (photo: Doug Chaykas)


Why I Refuse to Send People to Jail for Failure to Pay Fines

By Ed Spillane, The Washington Post

13 April 16

 

Many judges continue to jail defendants who don't have the money. Here are the alternatives.

elissa J. showed up in my court last year with four kids in tow. Her children quietly watched from a nearby table while I spoke with her. The charges against her — driving with an invalid license, driving without insurance, not wearing a seat belt, failure to use a child safety seat properly and four failures to appear — were nothing unusual for municipal court. Nor were her fines of several thousand dollars. But for Melissa, who had a low-paying job and a husband in prison, and who looked like she hadn’t slept in days, that number might as well have been several million.

As a municipal judge in College Station, Tex., I see 10 to 12 defendants each day who were arrested on fine-only charges: things like public intoxication, shoplifting, disorderly conduct and traffic offenses. Many of these people, like Melissa, have no money to pay their fines, let alone hire a lawyer.

What to do with these cases? In Tate v. Short , a 1971 Supreme Court decision, the justices held that jail time is not a proper punishment for fine-only criminal cases, citing the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. But in many jurisdictions, municipal judges — whether they’re overworked, under pressure to generate revenue through fees, skeptical of defendants’ claims to poverty or simply ignorant of the law — are not following the rules. As a result, far too many indigent defendants are cited for contempt of court and land behind bars for inability to pay.

There’s another way, and I’ve been experimenting with it in my own courtroom.

There are no firm numbers nationally on how many fine-only cases end with the defendants in jail, but figures from particular jurisdictions around the country are grim, if partial. A 2014 survey by NPR, New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice and the National Center for State Courts showed that in Benton County, Wash., a quarter of people in jail for misdemeanors on a typical day were there for nonpayment of fines and court fees. (The study also found that civil and criminal fees and fines had increased in 48 states since 2010.) The percentage of jail bookings in Tulsa involving inmates who had failed to pay court fines and fees more than tripled, from 8 to 29 percent of 1,200 inmates, between 2004 and 2013, according to reporting by the Tulsa World. Eighteen percent of all defendants sent to jail in Rhode Island between 2005 and 2007 were incarcerated because of court debt; in 2005 and 2006, that amounted to 24 people per day.

Enough people in Ohio were being locked up for failure to pay fines that, in 2014, the state’s chief justice issued a warning to all judges to stop jailing indigent defendants. In March, the U.S. Justice Department released a letter stressing that courts should not incarcerate defendants for nonpayment and that alternatives must be considered. “In addition to being unlawful,” the letter read, the practice “can cast doubt on the impartiality of the tribunal and erode trust between local governments and their constituents.”

The individual cases are startling. A 19-year-old unemployed Michigan man was jailed after failing to pay a $155 fine for catching a fish out of season; he came up with the $175 bondsman fee to get out but then couldn’t pay the original fine, so he went back to jail. In Ferguson, Mo., one woman was arrested and jailed multiple times over two parking tickets from a single violation in 2007. More than seven years later, she had paid $550 in fines and fees and still owed the city $541, even though her original fine was just $151 plus fees. Her case isn’t particularly unusual for Ferguson: A Justice Department report on the city’s municipal court system revealed “overwhelming evidence” that indigent defendants were serving jail time on fine-only charges, often traffic offenses.

Fortunately, courts and judges are not powerless to fix the system.

First, defendants must be allowed to argue economic hardship in an indigency hearing, which is Constitutionally required if a defendant says he or she can’t pay. It’s unclear how many judges skip these hearings, and practices vary from one jurisdiction to another, but Lauren-Brooke Eisen, senior counsel at the Brennan Center, says there’s no question that some judges aren’t holding them. “Sometimes it’s not always nefarious,” Eisen says. “They have very full dockets. .?.?. It can require overtime just to finish their docket for the day. It’s not always a deliberate decision to not hold those hearings.”

A BuzzFeed investigation in several Texas cities last year found judges who disputed the requirement to hold indigency hearings, in direct contradiction of state law; some judges claimed not to have the resources to hold them or said defendants wanted to do jail time. Obviously, none of these answers satisfy the law.

Once a defendant proves indigency, we can also be much more creative in our sentencing than “fine or jail” (or a suspended driver’s license, a popular measure that disproportionately hurts low-income workers who can’t get to their jobs without driving). Community service at a nonprofit or government entity is one of the strongest tools judges have at their disposal; in my experience, it boosts defendants’ self-esteem and provides valuable assistance to organizations that need the help.

In my first week as a municipal court judge, in 2002, I visited the jail and, as part of the arraignment process, met with a 27-year-old unemployed woman named Amy V., who had pleaded guilty to driving without insurance, driving with a suspended license and two failure-to-appear charges. She stood up, looked me in the eye and informed me that she would never pay her $1,500 fines. (She also suggested that I was interested in the money only so I could buy myself a steak dinner.) She insisted that she wanted to stay in jail. I released her with an order to complete 70 hours of community service over several months.

I ran into Amy several years later; she now owns a hairstyling business.

Community service isn’t always an option. Melissa J. not only couldn’t pay her fines, but she also couldn’t be away from her children at night or on weekends, since she couldn’t afford child care. So we set her up on a small payment plan, an arrangement that sometimes works for poor defendants. When it later became apparent that she could not afford that, we waived the fine — but only after she took a free class on the use of child safety seats, addressing what was arguably the most concerning charge against her. Our police department, which had cited Melissa originally, was happy to show her how to use a child car seat properly. (In general, the feedback I’ve gotten from the College Station police on alternative sentencing has been positive; they don’t want to see defendants reoffend, either.) She obtained a valid driver’s license and has not been to our court since.

Judges can also sentence defendants to anger-management training, classes for first-time offenders or drunk-driving-impact panels. National research shows that alternative sentencing like teen court can reduce recidivism, and my time on the bench confirms this. One defendant in an alcohol-related case, Jeff Schiefelbein, was sent to a Mothers Against Drunk Driving victim-impact panel in 1997. He was so moved by the experience that he decided to create a designated-driver program for anyone who is intoxicated and needs a ride home. Since 1999, his organization, Carpool, has provided on average 650 rides each weekend in College Station.

And occasionally, as a judge, you can choose mercy. Roger S. was facing an $800 fine for speeding, driving without insurance or registration and driving with defective equipment. He also had terminal cancer. He wrote to me, explaining that he could not afford his treatments, much less what he owed the court. I picked up the phone and called him from court. He was a little surprised but pleased to be talking to the judge. After discussing his medical treatment and all of those costs in detail, I waived his fines because of indigency and inability to perform community service, much to his and his family’s relief.

The Brennan Center’s Eisen suggests that judges are continuing to sentence such defendants to jail instead of pursuing alternatives partly because of the wording in another Supreme Court ruling, Bearden v. Georgia. “Judges cannot revoke someone unless it’s for willful nonpayment,” she says. “As you can imagine, the word ‘willful’ can be interpreted in many different ways. .?.?. Sometimes a judge will have a hearing and will say, ‘It looks like you’re paying for XYZ’ or ‘You have a job.’?”

Judges might also be unlikely to dismiss fees because municipalities have become so dependent on the revenue — as in Washington state, where interest rates on unpaid fees are 12 percent, or in Ferguson, where revenue from court fees increased 80 percent in two years. Courts “are not an ATM for the city council,” says Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, who co-chairs a national task force on fines, fees and bail. “You’re not supposed to be funding your operation from fines or fees.” But, she says, “judges want to have decent facilities. They want to have support staff. It may very well be that local funding sources .?.?. have said, ‘You’ve got to pay for your own keep.’ That’s not the way it should be.”

The judges I’ve spoken with who jail these defendants fall into several categories. Some simply do not understand the requirement to hold indigency hearings. One judge told BuzzFeed that in nine years on the bench, she’d never given a defendant an alternative to jail, and she insisted that she was not required to offer one. But O’Connor says there’s “no excuse” for judges to be ignorant of the law, thanks to the training and continuing educational opportunities available to them. “If they don’t know, then they weren’t listening.”

Others know the law but agree to jail defendants who say they’d prefer it to community service, which is still not allowed under law. And some look upon granting alternative sentences and waiving fines as a slippery slope to not taking crime seriously. My experience with defendants has been exactly the opposite.

Of course, no matter how many great alternatives judges can provide instead of jail time, if a defendant fails to come to court, he or she won’t be able to hear about them. Courts must be as accessible as possible, and that starts with allowing children to accompany their parents. One of the revelations in the Justice Department’s report on Ferguson was that children weren’t allowed in municipal court, which explains why many defendants were unable to appear. Several courts in Texas limit or don’t allow parents bringing their children, even though kids don’t present a problem in my court — maybe because we provide coloring books and toys for them to play with while their parents take care of their cases.

Twice a year, Brazos County also provides two to three weeks of warrant amnesty, when we waive the $50 warrant fee for any active warrant if the defendant comes to court to take care of his or her case. The court communicates with defendants through letters, phone calls and emails so they know their options; I ask undergraduate interns to volunteer to call people in active warrant. It’s amazing how many defendants show up once they know they won’t be immediately arrested when they step into the courtroom — we clear about 600 cases during each amnesty period. The program, which has been in place for 15 years, has caught the eye of Doug Colbert, a University of Maryland law professor, whose goal is to bring a similar warrant amnesty program to Baltimore.

I used to prosecute felonies as an assistant district attorney in Brazos County. During that time, I worked for a year in the intake division. This drove home a lesson that my boss, the district attorney, had been trying to instill in me: Every case file is an individual whose rights are as important and sacred as mine or those of my family. The decision to charge or dismiss demands empathy and vigilance. Misdemeanor criminal cases provide an opportunity for a much happier outcome than most felonies because there is a genuine chance for a defendant to learn from a mistake and never set foot in a courtroom again — and keeping someone out of jail is a good way to ensure that happens. In these cases, it should be possible for defendants to resolve their cases without losing their liberty.

All judges want to uphold the rule of law in the communities we serve, but too often we can get lost in the day-to-day business of running a court; we ignore the consequences of what we do. An arrest can cost a citizen his or her job, dignity and security. Alternative sentencing is a way to achieve what we should all want: an end to criminal behavior.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Why I'm Supporting Bernie Sanders Print
Wednesday, 13 April 2016 10:31

Merkley writes: "After considering the biggest challenges facing our nation and the future I want for my children and our country, I have decided to become the first member of the Senate to support my colleague Bernie Sanders for president."

Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon. (photo: Getty Images)
Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon. (photo: Getty Images)


Why I'm Supporting Bernie Sanders

By Jeff Merkley, The New York Times

13 April 16

 

O decision we make as Americans more dramatically affects the direction of our country than our choice for president. He or she is more than the manager of the executive branch, commander in chief or appointer of judges. The president reflects, but also helps define, our national values, priorities and direction.

After considering the biggest challenges facing our nation and the future I want for my children and our country, I have decided to become the first member of the Senate to support my colleague Bernie Sanders for president.

I grew up in working-class Oregon. On a single income, my parents could buy a home, take a vacation and help pay for college. My father worked with his hands as a millwright and built a middle-class life for us.


READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=24462"><span class="small">Bill McKibben, EcoWatch</span></a>   
Wednesday, 13 April 2016 08:27

McKibben writes: "This May, people will be joining hands in a new way to step up that fight on the front lines. This May, we’re breaking free from fossil fuels across the globe."

Climate activist Bill McKibben. (photo: 350.org)
Climate activist Bill McKibben. (photo: 350.org)


It’s Time to Break Free From Fossil Fuels

By Bill McKibben, EcoWatch

13 April 16

 

his February was the hottest in recorded history, scorching crops and flooding homes all across the planet. Record-breaking temperatures have robbed the Arctic of its winter.

And yet despite this, governments around the world still plan to build massive new coal mines and open new oil and gas fields.

But everywhere they do, something remarkable is happening: resistance. This May, people will be joining hands in a new way to step up that fight on the front lines. This May, we’re breaking free from fossil fuels across the globe.

Next month, from the oil and gas fields of Nigeria and Brazil to the coal fields of Germany and Australia, people have made their intentions clear: they intend to keep coal, oil and gas in the ground and are willing to put their bodies on the line to do it. Even as the ability to freely protest is constrained in many parts of the world—recent violent crackdowns in the Philippines and Bangladesh mark a tragic uptick in a troubling trend—those who can, are standing up. Resistance is not fading away. It’s growing.

That’s what Break Free is about: escalating the global fight to keep fossil fuels underground and accelerating a just transition to the renewable energy driven economy we know is possible.

The good news is that the transition to renewable energy is coming sooner and faster than anyone thought. Ninety percent of the new electricity generation installed last year was renewable, leading to two years running of flat—though still too high—global carbon emissions.

But the real reason I see for hope is in the resistance to fossil fuels that is growing everywhere the fossil fuel industry turns. Break Free will be one of those moments that you will remember and if you can find a way to join in an action near you, you will be a part of something special.

It’s likely that this fight is the biggest humanity will ever face. It may look like the odds are stacked against us, but no fight worth fighting has ever been easy.

Watch this video to learn more:

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Elections and Undocumented Immigrants in the United States Print
Wednesday, 13 April 2016 08:22

Oliva writes: "In the United States, undocumented immigrants are as indispensable as cheap labor, but excluded as human beings. They are denied employment benefits and their human rights are abused. Come presidential election time, they become the most precious fodder for the Democratic and Republican parties."

A young undocumented Salvadoran immigrant watches as a U.S. Border Patrol agent records family information. (photo: AFP)
A young undocumented Salvadoran immigrant watches as a U.S. Border Patrol agent records family information. (photo: AFP)


Elections and Undocumented Immigrants in the United States

By Ilka Oliva Corado, teleSUR

13 April 16

 

Undocumented immigrants are used as election fodder in the United States.

n any country, undocumented migrants are always the hardest hit by the system. Invisible as people but visible as spoils. Undocumented migrants are taken advantage of by the country of origin that forces them to migrate; in exchange for this ingratitude they receive the remittances they send and that keep the country afloat. The intermediate country disrespects their human rights and freedom of transit. They kidnap, torture and disappear them. And finally, the receiving country that eventually becomes their country of residence also uses them.

A clear example of this is the crisis in Europe which as an example of inhumanity, is closing the doors and leaving migrants to their own devices. There is also the forced migrations from Latin America, especially from the northern triangle of Central America and those from Mexico who seek to reach the United States. It is a perennial crisis that is the result of U.S. overt and covert interference through the region and the neoliberal governments that they propped up in the process. Currently there is a system that marginalizes and oppresses these migrants, involving corrupt, lackey governments.

In the United States, undocumented immigrants areas indispensable as cheap labor, but excluded as human beings. They are denied employment benefits and their human rights are abused. Come presidential election time, they are notorious and become the most precious fodder for the Democratic and Republican parties. They are constantly brought up in debates, interviews and meetings. Some in favor and others against: but only in word, as in action because both parties abuse them and benefit from this form of slavery. The Democratic Party is not a leftist party, nor even center-left. It's as stubborn as the Republican Party, as demonstrated by the "legacy" that Obama – who should give back the Nobel Peace given to him – leaves.

The media aligned to the system want us to see the elections from the perspective that suits them. On the one hand, covering absolutely everything concerning Donald Trump. Trump as a political candidate is a creation of the media rather than the millionaires who support him. The media edits him, raises his tone, makes him popular, throwing him at and promoting him to the masses. One could argue that this is being done to benefit Hillary Clinton, and maybe that's the game – but they never imagined that Trump would arouse the racial hatred and xenophobia that has always existed in Anglo society. And it wouldn't be hundreds, but hundreds of thousands that support him. From that perspective, this was the play: create a wave of anti-Trump reaction, not cover Sanders and lead the masses toward Hillary Clinton.

At first they said he was crazy. No, Trump is not a madman. Perhaps Bernie Sanders is crazy and a dreamer, but Trump is an extremist fanatic just like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Sanders is not excellence, he is not the ideal candidate, but he is the closest thing to a government that would refrain from interfering in political affairs of other peoples. That is, to stop invading territories, conducting genocides and crimes against humanity on behalf of white supremacy. He also offers real solutions to domestic issues. Sanders is only followed by the left-wing idealists that are so scarce in the United States.

Quite another thing is happening with Hillary Clinton who some people support because supposedly "it's a woman's turn" to be president. Yes, it is time that the United States has a female president, but not Hillary Clinton. The cards are marked, and it is well known that Hillary Clinton will win the presidency. She is the candidate proposed and defended by the system to the hilt. U.S. society is one of the most polarized in the world, because the capitalist system uses consumerism as its lethal weapon. It has people too entertained in vanities to think and act politically.

That is, unless the youth react and change of direction of this election at the last moment by voting for Sanders, which is very unlikely to happen. A vote does not change from one day to the next and mentalities have been shaped for years to embrace a kind of fanaticism, which directly related to media coverage. And in this case, Hillary Clinton is carrying the torch because of her husband who was president and the role she has played in the U.S. government for decades.

Of course a very important factor, is the nerve she has in declaring herself a feminist and by doing so, won over thousands of American women who long for equal rights (unfortunately, even Dolores Huerta). She uses feminism in the same way she is using Immigration Reform and the subject of deportations. With these she has secured an advantage with both those sectors of society. Sanders has a lot more to say on these subjects but the media does not cover him. Why? Because his proposals are against the system and his presidency became a reality and he kept his word, many things would change for the majority in the United States and in that country's foreign policy.

Meanwhile Trump has declared himself completely against Latin American immigrants. No wonder that the Border Patrol declared their support for him a few days ago. The Latin American community is the largest minority in the United States and is vital in the elections. For that reason Univision, which is the most watched channel by the Latino community in the United States, conducted the Democratic debate in Spanish. Their owners are anti-Latin America and anti-Cuba Democrats.

Jorge Ramos (who was one of the moderators) had an ace in the hole and the crowd following the debate on television did not even notice that he coralled them into the Clinton camp and in the easiest way. He said at the start of the debate that his daughter worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign. And Jorge Ramos is a well-liked journalist by the community, and so his word makes puppets of the masses and submits them to his will. Ramos is anti-Cuba and anti-progressive governments; he is a journalist who is aligned with the system and defends it.

Aside from being unethical, the comment gave Hillary Clinton an advantage over Sanders. And I mention it in this article because it was a form manipulation and it must be called out. Hillary Clinton was in favor of deporting children and adolescents who entered the country last year in the so-called crisis of undocumented children traveling without an adult. Needless is to say that it was a crisis created to implement the Southern Border Plan and the Maya-Chortí, militarizing from the southern U.S. border to Honduras that has only served to allow Mexican immigration authorities to submit further migrants in transit to further dehumanizing treatment.

In the debate, Sanders left the moderators and the anti-Cuba attendees speechless when he spoke of Operation Condor in the region and U.S. interference in Latin America, specifically mentioning Nicaragua and Guatemala. He is against the blockade that the United States has on Cuba and calls for the closure of Guantanamo, while Clinton supports U.S. meddling in the region, such as her support for the 2009 coup in Honduras. What feminist would agree with that? No one that is a real feminist.

It is important to highlight the vital role played by the Guatemalan migrant Lucia Quiej, who denounced the mass deportations of parents. And there are thousands like her. We'll see how deportations increase when Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. She completely represents the continuity of the system, and the fact that she is a woman does not mean anything - both she as a women and Obama as a Black man, side with oppression.

Will the outlook change in the coming months? Will U.S. society wake up and opt for a big change by voting for Sanders? Will there be utopia in a country like the United States after Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Malcolm X? What is at store for undocumented migrants? When will the millions of undocumented workers awake and have their human value be felt?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 Next > End >>

Page 2077 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN