|
Change in Cuba Policy Is a Nod to Reality |
 |
|
Thursday, 25 December 2014 00:06 |
|
vanden Heuvel writes: "President Obama's decision to normalize relations with Cuba is a decision to recognize reality. For 50 years, the United States has pursued a policy that has failed. The embargo hurt the Cuban people it claimed to help and bolstered the regime that it intended to undermine."
Senator Marco Rubio. (image: NYMag)
Change in Cuba Policy Is a Nod to Reality
By Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Washington Post
25 December 14
 resident Obama’s decision to normalize relations with Cuba is a decision to recognize reality. For 50 years, the United States has pursued a policy that has failed. The embargo hurt the Cuban people it claimed to help and bolstered the regime that it intended to undermine. The effort to isolate Cuba has been increasingly isolating the United States both in the hemisphere and across the world. And as the president concluded, “I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result.” To believe that would be, as Albert Einstein taught us, the very definition of insanity.
The best evidence that this change was long overdue was provided by the hysterical and incoherent reactions of its opponents. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential presidential contender, embraced the initiative, making an indisputable comment about the embargo: “If the goal is regime change, it sure doesn’t seem to be working.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) replied that Paul “has no idea what he’s talking about.”
Rubio argued that the United States gets nothing in return for normalization: no free elections in Cuba, no free press, no democratic progress of any sort. But while we don’t know what the product of the new opening will be, we do know that the half-century of the embargo hasn’t produced free elections or a free press in Cuba either. By making Cuba David against Goliath, the U.S. embargo provides the regime a rationale for its internal crackdowns while elevating its stature across the hemisphere and the developing world. Normalizing relations with Cuba enables the United States to advocate for individual liberty, without being seen as a bully trying to club a small neighbor into submission.
Why, the president noted, should we continue to isolate Cuba when we normalized relations with communist Vietnam and communist China decades ago? Well, argues a Washington Post editorial that labels the president’s opening a “betrayal,” opposition movements in those countries “barely existed,” while there are dissident movements in Cuba. But the logic of normalizing relations with regimes that eradicate all opposition but not with those that allow some dissent is hard to discern.
Opponents suggest that China and Vietnam prove that “engagement doesn’t automatically promote freedom,” as the Post editorial put it. That is certainly true, as is the fact that 50 years of the Cuba embargo haven’t promoted freedom either. Inescapably, China, a country of more than a billion people on the other side of the world, is likely to be marginally less susceptible to the effects of engagement than a small island of 11 million 90 miles off our coast.
In reality, the failed embargo is long past its due date. Cuba is already in transition from the Fidel Castro era. It has better relations with countries in this hemisphere than the United States does. Investors from Europe, Brazil and China are already doing business there. Cubans have greater rights to travel to the United States than Americans have to travel to Cuba.
What Obama has done is recognize this reality. Opponents don’t seem to realize that history has long since moved on. The Cold War is over; the Soviet Union no more. Cuba is our ally in the drug war; its doctors a blessing in the struggle against Ebola. Cuba’s economy is a shambles, even as its health care and education systems are envied across the hemisphere. Republicans — if Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) are able to overcome the business lobby — may refuse to confirm the president’s nominee as ambassador. They can block the legislation needed to lift the embargo. But with the president’s support, travel can be eased, investment and financial restrictions can be lifted, Cuba can be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and something closer to normal relations can begin.
Obama’s common-sense initiative also opens the possibility of a sea change in U.S. relations with its neighbors. For more than a century, we have casually and routinely trampled the sovereign rights of our neighbors to the south. We dispatched the Marines to collect debts and defend United Fruit in the early 1900s. During the Cold War, we armed and trained brutal police and military regimes while destabilizing democratically elected governments. And of course, we tried to overthrow Fidel Castro by invasion, embargo and subversion for decades.
In April, Obama will attend the Summit of the Americas in Panama along with other presidents, including Cuba’s Raúl Castro. There, we might listen more and bluster less. The end of the embargo — if it is lifted — may mark the beginning of a new good-neighbor policy, not just toward Cuba but toward other countries in the hemisphere. We would all profit from that.
 |
|
The Police Aren't Under Attack. Institutionalized Racism Is. |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=32249"><span class="small">Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME Magazine</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 24 December 2014 12:58 |
|
Abdul-Jabbar writes: "According to Ecclesiastes, 'To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose.' For me, today, that means a time to seek justice and a time to mourn the dead. And a time to shut the hell up."
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Unknown)
The Police Aren't Under Attack. Institutionalized Racism Is.
By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME Magazine
24 December 14
The way to honor those who defend our liberties with their lives — as did my father and grandfather — is not to curtail liberty, but to exercise it fully in pursuit of a just and peaceful society
 ccording to Ecclesiastes, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose.” For me, today, that means a time to seek justice and a time to mourn the dead.
And a time to shut the hell up.
The recent brutal murder of two Brooklyn police officers, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, is a national tragedy that should inspire nationwide mourning. Both my grandfather and father were police officers, so I appreciate what a difficult and dangerous profession law enforcement is. We need to value and celebrate the many officers dedicated to protecting the public and nourishing our justice system. It’s a job most of us don’t have the courage to do.
At the same time, however, we need to understand that their deaths are in no way related to the massive protests against systemic abuses of the justice system as symbolized by the recent deaths—also national tragedies—of Eric Garner, Akai Gurley, and Michael Brown. Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the suicidal killer, wasn’t an impassioned activist expressing political frustration, he was a troubled man who had shot his girlfriend earlier that same day. He even Instagrammed warnings of his violent intentions. None of this is the behavior of a sane man or rational activist. The protests are no more to blame for his actions than The Catcher in the Rye was for the murder of John Lennon or the movie Taxi Driver for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Crazy has its own twisted logic and it is in no way related to the rational cause-and-effect world the rest of us attempt to create.
Those who are trying to connect the murders of the officers with the thousands of articulate and peaceful protestors across America are being deliberately misleading in a cynical and selfish effort to turn public sentiment against the protestors. This is the same strategy used when trying to lump in the violence and looting with the legitimate protestors, who have disavowed that behavior. They hope to misdirect public attention and emotion in order to stop the protests and the progressive changes that have already resulted. Shaming and blaming is a lot easier than addressing legitimate claims.
Some police unions are especially heinous perpetrators. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s previous public support of protestors has created friction with these unions. The Patrolman’s Benevolent Association responded with a petition asking that the mayor not attend the funerals of officers killed in the line of duty. Following the murders of Ramos and Liu, an account appearing to represent the Sergeants Benevolent Association tweeted: “The blood of 2 executed police officers is on the hands of Mayor de Blasio.” Former New York governor George Pataki tweeted: “Sickened by these barbaric acts, which sadly are a predictable outcome of divisive anti-cop rhetoric of #ericholder and #mayordeblasio. #NYPD.”
This phony and logically baffling indignation is similar to that expressed by the St. Louis County Police Association when it demanded an apology from the NFL when several Rams players entered the field with their hands held high in the iconic Michael Brown gesture of surrender. Or when LeBron James and W.R. Allen wore his “I Can’t Breathe” shirts echoing Eric Garner’s final plea before dying. Such outrage by police unions and politicians implies that there is no problem, which is the erroneous perception that the protestors are trying to change.
This shrill cry of “policism” (a form of reverse racism) by Pataki and the police unions is a hollow and false whine born of financial self-interest (unions) or party politics (Republican Pataki besmirching Democrat de Blasio) rather than social justice. These tragic murders now become a bargaining chip in whatever contract negotiations or political aspirations they have.
What prompted a mentally unstable man to shoot two officers? Protestors? The mayor? Or the unjust killings of unarmed black men? Probably none of them. He was a ticking bomb that anything might have set off. What’s most likely to prevent future incidents like this? Stopping the protests which had sparked real and positive changes through a national dialogue? Changes that can only increase faith in and respect for the police? No, because the killer was mentally unfit. Most likely protecting the police from future incidents will come from better mental health care to identify, treat, and monitor violent persons. Where are those impassioned tweets demanding that?
In a Dec. 21, 2014 article about the shooting, the Los Angeles Times referred to the New York City protests as “anti-police marches,” which is grossly inaccurate and illustrates the problem of perception the protestors are battling. The marches are meant to raise awareness of double standards, lack of adequate police candidate screening, and insufficient training that have resulted in unnecessary killings. Police are not under attack, institutionalized racism is. Trying to remove sexually abusive priests is not an attack on Catholicism, nor is removing ineffective teachers an attack on education. Bad apples, bad training, and bad officials who blindly protect them, are the enemy. And any institution worth saving should want to eliminate them, too.
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose.” This is the season and time when we should be resolved to continue seeking justice together and not let those with blind biases distract, diminish, or divide us. The way to honor those who defend our liberties with their lives—as did my father and grandfather—is not to curtail liberty, but to exercise it fully in pursuit of a just and peaceful society.
|
|
|
A Christmas Wishlist From America's Children to Policymakers |
|
|
Wednesday, 24 December 2014 12:35 |
|
Weiss writes: "As children across the country send their wish lists to Santa, we put forth our own. Looking back on a year marked both by record-high levels of income inequality, and by increasing recognition of the damage that inequity brings, we wish for all of our children the life basics that better-off children can take for granted."
(photo: Joydeep Mitra/flickr CC 2.0)
A Christmas Wishlist From America's Children to Policymakers
By Elaine Weiss, Moyers & Company
24 December 14
s children across the country send their wish lists to Santa, we put forth our own. Looking back on a year marked both by record-high levels of income inequality, and by increasing recognition of the damage that inequity brings, we wish for all of our children the life basics that better-off children can take for granted:
1.) Parents who earn a living wage: Nearly half of American children spend their early years at or below twice the federal poverty level, which poses major obstacles to their school, life and success. And the federal minimum wage of $7.25 is far too low to lift a family out of poverty, even if a parent works full time. Recognizing this reality, four states – Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota – recently established state minimum wages higher than the federal one, as have cities from California to Maryland. Research affirms the substantial benefits, and the lack of downsides, to such actions. Let’s revisit the Harken-Miller proposal to raise the wage to $10.10, boosting one-in-five US kids!
2.) Three square meals a day: In 2012, more than one in five children lived in households that could not always provide them nutritious meals. Children who begin school without healthy breakfast cannot focus in class. Too many skipped meals cause sickness, missed school days and ultimately, chronic health problems. We must strengthen school meal nutrition requirements and continue to expand school breakfast, dinner and summer meal programs, as well as protect food stamps from further cuts. No child or adult in a country as rich as ours should be hungry!
3.) Nurturing, stimulating care in their first years of life: The costs of child care are prohibitive for low-income families, only half of whom have access to pre-kindergarten, while providers’ poverty-level wages make clear the need for public investment. We must build on momentum to improve child care quality and accessibility, expand home visiting programs, and take action on the president’s call for universal pre-kindergarten. We must also encourage more states and districts to follow the leads of New York City, San Antonio and Boston – making quality pre-k available to all who need it!
4.) Safe, stable housing in healthy communities: As the recent tragedy in Ferguson, Missouri, reminds us, 60 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, our cities and schools remain starkly segregated. Too many children of color grow up in neighborhoods marked by restricted opportunities, high rates of violence and unemployment, and schools and other public institutions that struggle to compensate. Communities should embrace smart zoning policies and mixed-use housing, so every American child can experience the melting pot!
5.) Doctors and dentists when they need them (and when they don’t): The Affordable Care Act helps more kids get health insurance and will reduce by half the number who can’t access a dentist. But we still have lots of work to do. School-based health clinics help parents avoid lost wages to take kids to the doctor’s office, and they reduce chronic absence and support student mental health. They can be supported by the ACA and are gaining steam. Keep the momentum going!
6.) Qualified, experienced teachers: The focus, in recent years, on using student test scores to weed out “bad” teachers has compounded high-poverty schools’ historic challenge to recruit and retain strong teachers. High-stakes testing forces educators in such schools to devote more time to test prep and less to activities that make teaching rewarding, and punishes them for choosing to work where they can have the greatest impact. Teaching in high-poverty schools is among the most rewarding, and also most challenging jobs; those teachers merit our respect, and they need all our support, from strong preparation and induction programs to ensuring they have the resources to do their best for kids every day!
7.) Enriching educational experiences: The same property-tax based system that hampers low-income schools’ capacity to hire strong teachers leaves them short of the other resources – from computers and libraries to nurses and counselors – that help those teachers be effective. Regressive state funding systems compound the problem, forcing cuts to the art, music, civics and physical education classes that make school engaging and are critical for life success. Follow the lead of organizers in Philadelphia – demand a stop to the starvation of our high-poverty schools!
8.) The chance to build on those experiences in afternoons, weekends and summers: Research shows that achievement gaps grow the most between June and September – when wealthier students expand on their school experiences through arts, organized sports and travel, while many of their low-income peers lack those options. Until we ensure all students access to enriching afterschool and summer programs, we’ll continue to waste precious chances to avert summer learning loss and help all students discover their unique talents!
9.) An education system in which the voices of educators, parents and students are front-and-center: We must stop acting as if improving conditions for teachers comes at the expense of dollars for children, suggesting that staking teachers’ jobs on test scores is actually good for students, and treating some parents as obstacles to be avoided, rather than assets to be leveraged. Effective, sustainable reform bubbles up from each community’s needs and resources, and has its foundations in what true classroom experts – those who work and learn there — see and experience every day.
10.) Big American Dreams, and lives that make attaining those dreams possible.
|
|
5 Reasons the World Needs an Arctic Sanctuary |
|
|
Wednesday, 24 December 2014 12:30 |
|
Sweeters writes: "As climate change makes this already fragile ecosystem even more vulnerable, Greenpeace is campaigning to establish an Arctic Sanctuary to protect the area. Why an Arctic Sanctuary? Here's my list of reasons to protect the North Pole."
We need an arctic sanctuary. (photo: Rose Sjolander/70)
5 Reasons the World Needs an Arctic Sanctuary
By Mary Sweeters, Greenpeace
24 December 14
 hy an Arctic Sanctuary? Here’s my list of reasons to protect the North Pole.
#1: It’s a really special place. You don’t need to tell me twice that the Arctic is an incredible place. But now it’s been officially recognized as such by the global scientific community and those who make laws to protect the world’s oceans. Earlier this year, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity recognized the central Arctic Ocean as an Ecologically or Biologically Significant Area (EBSA), a distinction that recognizes its regional and global importance as an ecosystem.
Indeed, the wildlife is awe-inspiring: million of breeding migratory birds and incredible species including whales, walrus, seals, narwhals, foxes, caribou, and polar bears. In the summer, this “Land of the Midnight Sun” is among the most biologically productive places in the world. It is also home to a rich cultural diversity among its more than four million residents, including over 20 Indigenous groups. Let’s not mess up such a special place with oil drilling or industrial-scale fishing.
#2: Climate change puts major stress on the Arctic. While climate change is affecting all parts of the planet, the Arctic is particularly susceptible. The region is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet and scientists are observing the sea ice decrease significantly. This affects wildlife that rely on ice coverage for hunting, resting, and raising their young. Consequently, Arctic communities, especially those that rely on healthy wildlife populations for subsistence hunting in the lower regions, are affected.
Scientists are also observing things like an increase in disease-causing parasites in the region, which could affect both people and wildlife. While creating an Arctic Sanctuary would not directly address the sources of greenhouse gases, it’s a critical means of limiting pressure on the region and strengthening ecosystems to help them to adapt and be resilient.
#3: Do it for the fish. The world’s oceans are struggling. 80% of global fish stocks are fully- or over-exploited, meaning they need serious management and protection. What does that have to do with the Arctic? While we don’t know everything yet about how the retreating ice will affect fish populations, scientists and policy makers anticipate that as the ice melts, the commercial fishing industry will move in, accessing ice-free areas that it previously couldn’t.
In 2009, the US government placed a fishing ban on US Arctic waters in order to give time for adequate study of the region before deciding whether to allow large scale fishing there. A sanctuary in the central Arctic Ocean would act on the same precautionary principle and protect fish populations from seeing the same fate of so many others around the world.
#4: We have an opportunity now. Early next year, US Secretary of State John Kerry will be in a unique position to lead the way towards an Arctic sanctuary, as the US becomes the chair nation of the Arctic Council, a global body of stakeholders and nations that border the Arctic. The Council will drive the global conversation about the Arctic. If the Council countries agree to a sanctuary, it will be a huge step toward a binding agreement to protect the region. Tell Secretary of State John Kerry to make Arctic conservation a priority.
#5: Where would Santa go? Enough said.
|
|
