|
FOCUS | Charleston Shooting: We Need Prayer, but Also an End to This Political Genocide |
|
|
Sunday, 21 June 2015 12:15 |
|
Jackson writes: "The shooting in Charleston is the result of institutionalized racism, centuries of dehumanisation and the current denial of economic and political equality of opportunity."
Reverend Jesse Jackson. (photo: History.com)

Charleston Shooting: We Need Prayer, but Also an End to This Political Genocide
By Rev. Jesse Jackson, Guardian UK
21 June 15
After the killings, there was urgency about arresting Dylann Roof, but where’s the urgency to address the conditions that led to the tragedy?
ot unlike the four little girls killed in a church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, the nation and the world are saddened and outraged at the hatred and senseless killing of nine African Americans in the historic Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The dead include its pastor and a state senator. Over three decades ago Operation Push – the organisation I founded in 1971 to improve the economic status of African Americans – held its national convention in this church.
And, not unlike the economic and political context of Birmingham, the nation and its leadership are still failing to see, understand and come to grips with the underlying economic and political circumstances that led to such a tragedy. This young white man responsible for the killings, Dylann Roof, did not originate terrorism. He is merely reflecting decades and centuries of institutional and active political terrorism. There were 164 lynchings of African Americans between 1877 and 1950 in South Carolina.
The shooting in Charleston is the result of institutionalised racism, centuries of dehumanisation and the current denial of economic and political equality of opportunity. Today everyone is outraged at the killings, but there is not the same outrage that African Americans have the highest rates of infant mortality, unemployment, of being denied access to capital and bank loans, of imprisonment, segregated housing and home foreclosures, segregated and underfunded public schools, poverty, heart disease, liver disease, diabetes, mental health issues, HIV/Aids and more. We ignore this institutionalised state of terror and the resulting racial fears at our peril.
There was an urgency to identify and arrest Roof before he hurt anyone else, but there is not the same urgency to identify and arrest the current economic and political conditions – the institutional racism and structural injustices – before anyone else gets hurt. Today in South Carolina a historically black university, South Carolina State, is on the verge of closing, but I don’t see the same urgency to save it by the governor and the South Carolina legislature. Governor Nikki Haley appropriately asked South Carolinians to pray for the victims of these killings and their families and decried violence at religious institutions. But she denies poor people access to healthcare by refusing to accept Medicaid monies under the Affordable Care Act – which is jeopardising the economic viability of the state’s hospitals and costing South Carolinians thousands of jobs – and she still flies the Confederate flag on the Capitol grounds.
But these injustices and indifferences are not limited to South Carolina. They’re national in scope. We need a White House Conference on racial justice and urban policy to make sure no one else is being hurt because of economic, political and leadership indifference or lack of vision about what needs to be done. Racism deserves a remedy.
We need the president, the congress, the 50 governors and state legislatures to all put the same effort, resources and energy into ending the crime of racism, economic injustice and political denial throughout the nation. We’ve had enough Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and Walter Scott killings. We’ve had enough infant mortality deaths. We’ve had enough unemployment –always at least twice the rate of white unemployment.
We’ve had enough of segregated and inadequately funded educational opportunities. We’ve had enough of a lack of access to capital and health care. We’ve had enough of homelessness and home foreclosures. We need prayer and we need hope, but we also need a political commitment and a financial budget committed to ending this protracted political genocide.
We need leadership with a vision for racial justice. We need an investment for economic justice – the current rising tide hasn’t lifted all boats. And we need fairness in political representation. That’s what we need if we are ever going to put an end to the protracted “political genocide” of which African Americans have been the victims for nearly 400 years in the United States. We deserve equal economic and political opportunity. We deserve equal justice under the law.

|
|
FOCUS: It's Media Terrorism to Deny Charleston Was About Race |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=33264"><span class="small">Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 21 June 2015 09:57 |
|
Abdul-Jabbar writes: "By convincing Americans that racism doesn't exist, politicians are able to divert funds from programs that combat racism and create equal opportunities for everyone to other projects that would most benefit their political power base."
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE/Getty Images)

It's Media Terrorism to Deny Charleston Was About Race
By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME
21 June 15
The real threat is that we allow this incident to be used as political football
top me if you’ve heard this before: A man walks into a crowded room… and shoots a bunch of people. Yeah, you’ve heard it before. Get used to it, because statistics suggest you’ll be hearing it a lot more. According to a study by Harvard and Northeastern University researchers, from 1982 to 2011, a mass shooting occurred an average of every 200 days; since 2011, mass shootings happened an average of every 64 days. Each time it happens, politicians and commentators immediately rush into to announce the social significance of the tragedy. And sometimes, these commentaries can be more harmful than the actual shootings because of their long-term effect, to the point of creating even more widespread damage to the community.
There’s a lot of debate about whether or not this was a terrorist act. Terrorism is a political tool that has a specific goal. Terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan want to drive Americans out of their countries. Terrorists in other countries do it for the same reason: to gain political power. After an hour at the prayer meeting, Dylann Roof stood up and proclaimed that he was there “to shoot black people.” His rambling manifesto during the shootings was: “You rape our women, and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.” In his mind he was a terrorist, but in reality this was nothing more than hate crime using terrorist tactics to enact his racist fantasy. Roof had no hope of driving African Americans out of the country, starting a race war or engendering any political or social change at all. We shouldn’t use it as an excuse to discuss terrorism because that diverts us from the actual problem.
The real threat here isn’t that this is an indicator of an surge in right-wing racist attacks, it’s that we allow this incident to be used as a political football by those who hope to leverage it to their gain, which is a more subtle form of terrorism: media terrorism.
First, those politicians and pundits who call this an attack not against blacks, but against Christianity or faith, demonstrate the shoddiest excuse for journalism and the most corrupt exercise of politics. GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum called the shootings an “assault on religious liberty.” Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani opined, “Maybe he hates Christian churches.” Fox News referred to it as an “attack on faith.” Presidential hopeful Rick Perry used the shooting to attack President Obama’s call for more gun control. Presidential candidate Rand Paul commented, “You can be a minority because of the color of your skin — or the shade of your ideology.” Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, and senator of the state where the shootings took place, commented: “It’s 2015, there are people out there looking for Christians to kill them.”
Those who refute the clear racial element in these attacks are like Holocaust deniers who say there were no gas chambers, no mass genocide, that the world is just conspiring against the poor misunderstood Nazis. Slavery was America’s Black Holocaust. There were over 10 million slaves in the U.S. between 1525 and 1866, and they were systematically stripped of their identities, dignity, human rights, and far too often, their lives. Yes, that’s ancient history and Americans today should in no way be blamed for the misdeeds of their ancestors. But the hard truth that deniers wish to avoid is that the residual effects of that slavery, abolished 150 years ago, still permeates society. Statistics prove that, despite enormous gains and sincere efforts by many in the white and black communities, African Americans are still struggling to gain economic, educational, and judicial parity. As long as we admit the problem, we have a chance of eventually fixing it.
So why this persistent denying of a lingering racist undercurrent in America? Political gain. By convincing Americans that racism doesn’t exist, politicians are able to divert funds from programs that combat racism and create equal opportunities for everyone to other projects that would most benefit their political power base. We’ve seen this Ministry of Misinformation in action before. In China, the government has removed all mention of the 1989 protest at Tiananmen Square that resulted in the massacre of thousands of people. On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal announced, “Today the system and philosophy of institutionalized racism identified by Dr. King no longer exists.” Donald Rumsfeld is taking another That Never Happened tour, telling us he never thought we could bring democracy to Iraq, despite the endless film of him telling the American people the opposite. They are rewriting history to suit their needs. However, the racism deniers following the Charleston shootings are trying to rewrite history as it’s happening, which is even more insidious.
The result of all this denying is to give tacit approval to continue victimizing certain groups. When those in power argue against fighting for rights for blacks, gays, women, or any other group seeking equal treatment under the law, they are announcing with a wink that these groups somehow don’t deserve those rights. If they don’t deserve equal treatment, then they aren’t equal as people and can be victimized. When presidential candidate Donald Trump refers to Mexican immigrants as mostly drug dealers and rapists, he’s encouraging Americans to victimize them. Nothing says we don’t give a crap about black history more emphatically than flying a Confederate flag, as it does in South Carolina’s capitol, enforced by state law. To claim it’s there to honor the state’s past is like Germany hoisting the swastika above a synagogue to honor its past of making Volkswagens. Whatever Roof’s motivations—be they drug-induced or ideological—he chose to attack a group that to his twisted mind seemed reasonable because they are already a victimized group.
Public perception, not reality, drives political change. In 2014, crime statistics were at a 20-year low, yet most Americans (63%) thought crime was on the rise. Clearly, the increased reporting of violent crimes on TV and the scare-rhetoric of some politicians and news commentators helped mold that perception. Whether intentional or not, that perception drove gun sales up and lowered public support for gun control laws. Profits and political power were made on the back of misperception, not truth. The same misperception occurs regarding Islamic terrorists in the U.S. Since 9/11, an average of nine Muslims have contributed to six terrorism plots a year. The result over those years has been 50 deaths. However, during that same time, according to a study conducted by Professor Arie Perliger at the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center, right-wing extremists conducted 337 attacks each year and were responsible for 254 deaths. But if a government agency wants public support for privacy-invading laws or massive funding, the imminent threat of Muslim terrorists is bandied about because they are on the unofficial Go Ahead and Victimize list. And so it continues with the rush to Jedi mind-trick us into not seeing what is clearly in fronts of us: “This is not the racist you’re looking for.”
Poet Charles Baudelaire once wrote that “The Devil’s best trick is to persuade you that he doesn’t exist.” In this case, the pundit’s and politician’s best trick is to persuade us that racism doesn’t exist so that it can continue to flourish among those who they don’t care about anyway. They dismiss the black community’s concerns, mock them with a symbol of their former oppression, and reduce their hope for meaningful change. Not that far from slavery after all. Yes, Christianity and faith are indeed under attack, not by terrorists, but by these same politicians who fail to demonstrate the teachings of their faith. When young people see such hypocrisy in the name of faith, of course they turn away.
The greatest endorsement of faith came, not from the politicians scurrying for votes off the back of this tragedy, but from the families of the victims who faced the murderer with Christian charity and forgiveness. “You took something very precious away from me. I will never talk to her again. I will never get to hold her again,” said the daughter of shooting victim Ethel Lee Lance. “But I forgive you.” Family member after family member faced Dylann Roof in court and forgave him. That is faith in action, not just the empty words of a vote-grubbing succubus.
Still, there must be accountability and consequences for one’s actions. Dylann Roof may be forgiven his trespasses, but he must still be punished. The same should be said of the pundits and politicians who have cynically, some would say immorally, exploited this tragedy for political gain. When it comes election time, let’s remember their attack on the truth.

|
|
|
TPP: Back to the Ramparts |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 21 June 2015 08:09 |
|
Ash writes: "We won a small victory on June 12, 2015. House Democrats used a tactical maneuver to derail a bill giving fast-track authority to President Obama to negotiate the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That victory will be short-lived."
Barack Obama and John Boehner. (photo: TNA)

TPP: Back to the Ramparts
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
21 June 15
e won a small victory on June 12, 2015. House Democrats used a tactical maneuver to derail a bill giving fast-track authority to President Obama to negotiate the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That victory will be short-lived.
What House Democrats did was fail to pass a bill linked to the fast-track authorization called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). In that the two bills had been linked by the Senate. the demise of TAA in the House prevented, at that time, passage of fast-track authorization.
The TPP treaty at the heart of this drama is a game-changing agreement. Everyone and everything will be affected. The TAA bill, however, is a red herring. It’s a meaningless publicity stunt not worth, to any American worker, the paper it is written on.
The real purpose of TAA is to provide political cover to Democrats who sell out their voters and workers in their home districts. It gives them something they can hold aloft as proof that they got a concession for American workers. In fact, it’s a fig leaf to make selling out somewhat safer. It’s also something the commercial press can use in selling the package to the American public.
What the TAA bill did do is give the democrats a way to politely derail fast-track authorization. It gave them an option for passive resistance which, to their credit, they passively opted to exert.
TAA having failed and fast-track authority having passed in the House, both bills are now back in the Senate, with President Obama and Senate GOP leaders looking for a way, any way, to move fast-track authority to Obama’s desk.
To understand why they are likely to succeed, follow the money. Yes, the TPP agreement is a game-changer. It is also of, for, and by the Multinational Corporations. The politicians ramrodding it through Congress are paid, and paid well, to make sure it becomes law.
At stake is control of global resources and production on a staggering scale. In terms of natural resources, it’s everything from fossil fuels to precious metals to old growth timber and ivory. In addition, every facet of global production would be affected. From consumer electronics to clothing, from aerospace to shipbuilding, if it can be produced by man, the Multinational Corporations and investors backing the TPP agreement have every intention of controlling it – whatever that takes.
Would that include bribing and manipulating spineless American politicians to sell out their country and their communities? Bet your life on it.
What You Can Do
The day before the June 12 TPP vote, Elizabeth Warren posted a simple request to her website. It said, “I need you to make a phone call.” Her page provides a link to look up your Congressional representatives and a sobering explanation of what TPP means to you and the the country. Visit her page … make the call.
You should also contact the AFL-CIO and let them know you support their position that they will not contribute to the campaign of any publicly elected official who votes to promote the TPP agreement.
The time has come to make your voice heard, loud and clear. Try it, you’ll like the results.
Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

|
|
America's Drone Policy Is All Exceptions and No Rules |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29990"><span class="small">Trevor Timm, Guardian UK</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 21 June 2015 08:08 |
|
Timm writes: "The Obama administration is again allowing the CIA to use drone strikes to secretly kill people that the spy agency does not know the identities of in multiple countries - despite repeated statements to the contrary."
A Yemeni man looks at graffiti showing a US drone. (photo: Yahya Arhab/EPA)

America's Drone Policy Is All Exceptions and No Rules
By Trevor Timm, Guardian UK
21 June 15
The drone strikes in Yemen are a reminder that the ‘rules’ are virtually meaningless. That sets a terrifying precedent for the next president
he Obama administration is again allowing the CIA to use drone strikes to secretly kill people that the spy agency does not know the identities of in multiple countries - despite repeated statements to the contrary.
That’s what we learned this week, when Nasir al-Wuhayshi, an alleged leader of al-Qaida, died in a strike in Yemen. While this time the CIA seems to have guessed right, apparently the drone operators didn’t even know at the time who they were aiming at - only that they thought the target was possibly a terrorist hideout. It’s what’s known as a “signature” strike, where the CIA is not clear who its drone strikes are killing, only that the targets seem like they are terrorists from the sky.
Signature strikes has led to scores of civilians being killed over the past decade, including two completely innocent hostages less than two months ago. It’s a way of killing that’s been roundly condemned by human rights organizations and that some members of Congress have tried to outlaw. The incredible dangers behind such a policy are obvious. Here’s how the New York Times described it when the White House’s ‘kill list’ was first revealed in 2012:
The joke was that when the CIA sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers – but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued.
It was so controversial that, in 2013, President Obama announced new “rules” for drone strikes that tightened requirements for when the CIA or any government agency could attempt to kill someone and were, in theory, meant to be the end of signature strikes. One of the rules was that a drone target had to be an “imminent threat” to the US and there had to be a near certainty that civilians would not be killed. (One would assume it’s close to impossible to call someone an “imminent threat” when you don’t even know who that person is.)
But it has become increasingly clear that the “rules” are virtually meaningless and the Obama administration is setting a terrifying precedent for the next president who can change or expand them on a whim.
After the “rules” were announced in 2013, the Associated Press reported that the US was going to stop signature strikes everywhere, including in Pakistan. Then we found out, through the Wall Street Journal, that actually, no, the president issued a secret waiver for Pakistan and part of the rules didn’t apply there. Now just this week, we’ve learned from the Washington Post that Obama, at some point, issued another waiver on the “imminent” rule for Yemen, allowing the CIA to continue signature strikes there unabated. According to their report: “US officials insisted that there was never a comprehensive ban on the use of signature strikes in that country” to begin with.
In other words, a key part of the drone “rules” Obama laid out in public don’t apply in the two countries where the CIA conducts virtually all of its drone strikes. Oh, and the “imminent threat” rule doesn’t apply in Afghanistan either, the only other country where the US military is regularly conducting its strikes.
As is typical with the US government’s extrajudicial killing policy, there was no public debate about any of the changes to the supposed rules, or even announcement that they ever changed - only an unofficial leak to a journalist after the latest killing.
Beyond the enormous human rights consequences related to such a dangerous policy, these types of strikes backfire on the United States, sowing hatred in the populations of bombed countries and breeding sympathy for al-Qaida where there was none before. This is why, as the Washington Post suggested in a separate article this week, drone strikes might be as effective at helping the spread of al-Qaida as killing its leaders.
It was only two months ago when a US drone accidentally killed two innocent hostages, one of whom was a US citizen, via a signature strike. At the time, President Obama publicly apologized and vowed to deliver a “full” investigation - even while absurdly refusing to acknowledge it was a drone strike that actually killed them. What happened to that investigation? If the government’s extreme secrecy surrounding drones is any indication, we’ll probably never know. It’ll likely be locked in a safe with a classified stamp on it, destined never see the light of day. In its place, the CIA has a new example to only extend its grip on extrajudicial killing.

|
|