RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Undermining Human Rights in the Name of Development Print
Monday, 09 April 2012 17:45

Jagger writes: "Vedanta has received unconditional support from the State of Orissa, to start an open pit bauxite mine in Niyamgiri Mountain. It has also been given the green light from the Supreme Court of India."

Bianca Jagger stands in front of a sign for the Vedanta corporation. (photo: Hindu Times)
Bianca Jagger stands in front of a sign for the Vedanta corporation. (photo: Hindu Times)



Undermining Human Rights in the Name of Development

By Bianca Jagger, Common Dreams

09 April 12

 

hen I arrived at Biju Patnaik Airport, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, I was struck by a billboard above the luggage carousel: "Mining happiness for the people of Orissa - Vedanta."

What cruel irony. The poster should have read instead, "Undermining happiness for the people of Orissa." The opening of an aluminum refinery in Lanjigarh, in south-west Orissa in eastern India, by the Vedanta Aluminum Limited (VAL), a subsidiary of British based mining group, Vedanta Resources plc, has brought nothing but misery, disease and impoverishment to the Kondh communities of the area.

Vedanta has received unconditional support from the State of Orissa, to start an open pit bauxite mine in Niyamgiri Mountain. It has also been given the green light from the Supreme Court of India. However the Court has left the final decision with the Ministry of Environments and Forests. The minister, Jairam Ramesh, has told the parliament that Vedanta does not have final forest clearance, a prerequisite for starting the mining work.

If Vedanta's bauxite mining project is allowed to go ahead it will endanger the very survival of the Kondh, a unique and already vulnerable tribe who have lived there for generations. They rely on the forest and streams to graze livestock and gather food, medicines and vital drinking water. The lush forests of Niyamgiri Mountain are a pristine ecosystem of great conservation significance. So important is the local environment to the Kondh that they consider the mountain to be a living God and claim that their spiritual, cultural and economic well-being are embedded deep within it.

Rivers

The top of Niyamgiri mountain, where the mine is planned, is the source of two rivers, the Vamsadhara and the Nagaveli, and thirty six springs. The Wildlife institute of India states that "it is anticipated that the removal of this layer of bauxite at the top of the mountain which stores water will impact ground waters in the region, and consequently the quality of forest lands."

The streams that run through the hills are the only source of water for the Kondh: the Central Empowered Committee to the Supreme Court anticipates "adverse effects of mining will affect not only bio-diversity but availability of water for the local people." Mining operations would result in desiccation, reducing the flow of the two rivers and the streams. The mine will also cause increased erosion and pollution of the water systems, resulting in deteriorated water quality.

The bauxite mine will affect not only the livelihood of the Kondh, but also water sources in the entire surrounding areas.

Journey

In April I traveled to Orissa representing the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation with Action Aid to meet with the Kondh communities. The journey from London to Niyamgiri was grueling: an 8 hour flight from London to Delhi, a 2 hour flight to Bhubaneswar, a 9 hour train ride to Rayagada, a 2.5 hour car journey, a motorcycle ride and finally a hike on foot. The road conditions were treacherous. At one point our car skidded into a ditch and 15 men had to pull us out.

Niyamgiri Mountain: the planned location for Vedanta's bauxite mine.There are approximately 80 million tribal people ('Adivasi') in India, 73% of whom live below the poverty line. The Kondh population is approximately 15 000; most of them live in the state of Orissa. There are 3 distinct groups of Kondh: the Dongria (hill dwellers), the Jharania (who live near the streams) and the Kutia (who live in the plains). Despite vast investment in mining and related industries in Orissa, it remains one of India's poorest states; around 46% of Orissa's families live below the poverty line, earning less than 15,100 rupees, the equivalent of US$ 330 per year. Most of these communities are Adivasis living in rural Orissa.

During my journey to Orissa I visited various villages, including Rengopali, Bandhaguda and Tamaksila. At every stage of my trip, at every village the communities and their leaders were eager to tell me their tragic side of the story.

The Kondh's testimonies exposed the modus operandi of Vedanta as fraught with human right violations, intimidation and manipulation of the law. The government of Orissa is contributing to the demise of the Kondh, by continually favoring the interests of Vedanta, and ignoring laws that recognize tribal rights. In collusion with the State authorities, Vedanta is using the local police to forcibly displace people and crush the indigenous land rights movement.

According to the Site Inspection Report commissioned by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and conducted between the 26th January and 1st February 2010, by a forestry official, a former government wildlife official and an independent sociology expert, the government of Orissa, "has received material assistance from Vedanta ... This is a disturbing state of affairs and needs to be checked if the neutrality of the state is to be maintained."

In 2008 the Supreme Court of India ordered that a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) should be set up to ensure sustainable development of local communities, protection of environment and conservation of wildlife. According to an Amnesty International Report, Sterlite India has 49% stake in this SPV, the government of Orissa has 26% and the Orissa Mining Corporation the remaining 25%.

In 2002 Vedanta approached the communities surrounding Lanjigarh, informing them that they were going to build a factory. Vedanta promised employment for everyone, assuring the Kondh that only one village would be displaced. Instead, Vedanta built the Lanjigarh refinery, which stands in a 750 hectare complex, next to the Vamsadhara river, the main source of water for drinking, cooking, washing, irrigation and cattle for the local people, and many villages downstream.

Local residents told me that some had received notices from the Kalahandi District administration telling them that their land was to be compulsorily acquired for the refinery. In 2003 Vedanta forced the community of Kinari to vacate their village. Vedanta coerced farmers into selling their land for far below its market value. In contravention of the 5th and 6th Schedules of the Constitution of India, hundreds of people have been displaced. The few people who had titles to their land or records given by the revenue department (TATA) were promised 100,000 rupees per acre. Those without titles were promised a one off settlement of 50,000 to give all their rights away. Worse still, those willing to give up their homes were promised up to 1,000 rupees. According to a report by Amnesty International in 2009, 118 families were fully displaced and a further 1,220 families sold their farmlands to Vedanta. It is believed that Vedanta now owns over 3000 acres of land, including forest land. Vedanta is currently seeking clearance for the compulsory acquisition of an additional 1,340 hectares of land, for expanding the refinery.

Although the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (or PESA) of 1996, grants village councils ('Gaon Sabha') certain political, administrative and fiscal powers, in Orissa, the election of village councils has been indefinitely postponed. Vedanta has violated the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in India on 18 December 2006 (also known as 'Tribal Rights Act' and the 'Forest Rights Act'), which grants forest-dwelling communities the right to land and other resources. In addition, no comprehensive Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) which is a prerequisite for Clearance under the Environment Protection Act, has been carried out. Furthermore the rapid Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) conducted in 2005 was not made available to the public.

The Kondh have been coerced into giving up their homes, their land, and their means of survival, in the name of 'public purpose.' They were promised employment and prosperity. Instead, they got the Lanjigarh refinery. Vedanta claims that the refinery employs 200 local people; in fact, I was told that the mine is run by 57 foreign nationals. The refinery has brought nothing but disease, impoverishment, and environmental degradation to the local communities.

Rengopali

When I arrived at Rengopali the villagers told me how they used to grow millet, beans and peas. They harvested leaves, pineapple, jackfruit, mango, banana, chillies, ginger, turmeric, bamboo and roots from the forest. Fresh water was plentiful. The Kondh used to own 400 acres of land. Now they have been left with only 60 acres. They are fighting to retain that remaining land, their forest and their place of worship. "Every day is a struggle to survive."

The refinery has created two red mud ponds the size of several football pitches near Rengopali into which bauxite ore is washed, along with chemicals, causing toxic fumes and polluted dust. Lutni Majhi, a woman living in Rengopali, told me, "Now, not only is it hot during the day, it is hot at night as the refinery is functioning all the time. Before, we had forest and trees around us, it was much cooler." "We've never had this much heat, flies and mosquitoes." The water sources are exposed to dangerous contamination. The red mud pond is now being expanded. Vedanta has tried to destroy and close a village road which children use for going to school. Their recent attempt to block this road failed but they are determined to deny access to the villagers.

The local people are suffering the consequences of pollution caused by the refinery. New diseases affecting peoples' lungs and eyes are already widespread. According to the Site Inspection Report, 13 people have died from TB in the last 2 years and 200 to 250 cattle and goats have perished. I spoke to a man who is dying from an unidentified respiratory illness resembling TB. When I spoke to his wife, she told me that the hospital could not diagnose her husbands' illness. She was distraught; she fears that she too will be left alone to fend for herself and their children.

The Kondh have suffered grave violations of their human rights to water, food, health, work and an adequate standard of living, including a healthy environment.

"The refinery has built its walls right here making our access to the river very difficult. The water we use now is contaminated with ash pond waste. Our children have blisters and skin problems."

Bandhaguda

In Bandhaguda, which is less than two hundred meters from the refinery, the villagers told me a particularly disturbing story. When Vedanta started to cut the forest to build the refinery, the villagers organized a protest in front of the construction site. Four hundred people from the community, including women and children, demonstrated. The police arrested all the men, keeping them in jail for seven days. When they were released they were told they had become outcast and needed to go to Puri to pray and redeem themselves, at the Lord Jagannath's Temple. The State police were used alongside Vedanta company goons to forcibly take them to far off Puri. When the men of the village were brought back, the walls around the refinery were already built. Their ancestral graveyard was destroyed when the area was illegally enclosed in the Vedanta refinery compound in violation of Customary Law.

Niyamgiri

On the 3rd day of my visit we made our way to one of the Dongria Kondh villages, Tamaksila, about 30 km's from Rayagada. The Dongria Kondh are considered by the Indian government to be an endangered Primitive Tribal Group (PTG) and are recognized as "a people requiring particular protection."

It is near Tamaksila, at the top of Nyamgiri, that Vedanta proposes to mine bauxite to feed the refinery that is currently poisoning the communities around Bandhaguda and Rangapoli. If it goes ahead, the mine will destroy the livelihood and way of life of the Dongria Kondh communities. The very existence of the Dongria Kondh is hanging in the balance.

The Dongria Kondh consider the remote hills - home to their god, Niyam Raja - sacred, and they also depend on the hills for their livelihood. For the past eight years they have been fighting to protect their land and way of life. The tribe had gained the support of NGOs including Amnesty International and Survival International, which ran a successful global campaign comparing the Dongria Kondh’s plight to the Na’vi tribe in the film “Avatar.” The Government of Orissa failed to inform the Kondh of their rights under the Forest Rights Act and Vedanta did not warn them of the potentially devastating impact of its project. According to a report from the UK National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, "Vedanta failed to engage the Dongria Kondh in adequate and timely consultations about the construction of the mine ... Vedanta did not respect the rights and freedoms of the Dongria Kondh consistent with India's commitments under various international human rights instruments, including the UN international covenant on civil and political rights, the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, the convention on biological diversity and the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people."

The path to Tamaksila had been dug up, apparently for the purpose of laying an asphalt road to connect the villages in the mountain to the Panchayat. I learned that the real reason is to give access to Vedanta. The deep trenches on the path made it difficult for us to drive both vehicles up to the village and it was decided that one vehicle would transport some of us up and the rest would make their way on foot.

We finally reached the village after another 20 minutes' drive. Before us stood quiet mud huts with thatched roofs, holding Mahua tree hay and flowers that had been put there to dry. The only sounds to be heard were bird calls, the mooing of the indigenous breeds of cows, and the flurry of the poultry scattered by our vehicle.

Our hosts took us further down the path that passed through the village. Suddenly in front of us stood a large gathering of more than 100 members of one of the oldest surviving indigenous people: the Dongria Kondh. Many of them had walked 10 km's or more from their villages further up in the hill just to meet us and share their concerns about the imminent threat to their sacred mountain and to their way of life.

I was very moved by the beauty of the place and the unforgettable sight of the Dongria Kondh community waiting for us. As soon as we came up the hill they announced our arrival with drum beats and began their traditional welcoming ceremony. Two young men with handmade drums started singing a slow rhythmic song about Niyamgiri. A group of beautiful young girls started singing in tune with the boys and dancing arm-in-arm. Like their life in the mountains their music too was peaceful and rhythmic. The lyrics were poignant. It eulogized the mountain and listed the gifts the mountain gave to them. I was told how their struggle had made its way into all of their songs. The song ended with the line, "we will not leave Niyamgiri".

A group of smiling women surrounded me and put their arms around my waist, leading me to my assigned seat. Before I sat down, they gave me a beautiful bouquet of scented flowers and put a garland of flowers they had picked from the mountain around my neck. They welcomed everyone with the traditional 'tika' on our foreheads, made with the paste of turmeric and rice.

The women and girls were wearing their traditional colorful clothes, beaded jewelery, hair pins, ear and nose rings, and head necklaces. In contrast, the men wore plain dhotis. Many had long hair tied into a knot in the nape of their necks. In traditional fashion some were carrying axes on their shoulders and in their hands. One could already see the influence of 'development' in some of the young men wearing shirts and t-shirts, as opposed to the older men of the tribe sitting bare-chested and breaking into song every now and then.

We all sat around in a circle. They brought us chairs to sit on; but the men women and children of the Dongria Kondh sat on the ground. As soon as I asked questions they stood up and began to tell me with great urgency their concerns and fears that Vedanta was going to destroy their mountain and their livelihood.

Kuleska Patru one of the leaders of the Dongria Kondh told me, with passion and determination, "We will not leave Niyamgiri." Without our mountain, our god, there is no life for us; we will resist the forced expulsion till death." "Just as a fish cannot survive outside of water, the Kondh cannot survive without Niyamgiri." The message the Kondh asked me to bring to the Indian Government, the Chief Minister of Orissa, Vedanta and their shareholders and to the people at large was loud and clear: "We are prepared to die rather than abandon our sacred mountain; we don't know how to survive in the outside world". "No amount of financial reward or relocation packages can compensate for the loss of our livelihood and our sacred land." "Please tell Vedanta that the Kondh do not want the mine to be built."

Their hope is that the Government of India and the Chief Minister of Orissa, Naveen Patnaik will respect their livelihood, their culture, and their fundamental human rights and prevent Vedanta from causing the irreversible destruction of Niyamgiri Mountain, by allowing it to become another industrial wasteland.

A Redefinition of Development

I have campaigned on these issues for nearly three decades, so I speak from first hand experience when I say that the Kondh tribe's battle to save their livelihood illustrates the struggle for survival that tribal and indigenous people are facing throughout the world.

When I read Arundhati Roy's essay "Walking with the Comrades" it brought back memories of the abuses I witnessed in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru and Brazil, amongst others. The struggle of tribal and indigenous people vs. corporations and states, over ancestral land rich in natural resources, is a global issue. Throughout history indigenous and tribal people have been oppressed and forcibly expelled from their ancestral land, their rights violated with impunity by governments that put the interest of corporations above their survival. This combination of factors has often led them to resort to armed struggle, in order to protect their families, their land, their livelihoods and their culture. Last year in Peru, hundreds of Amazonian Indians were wounded and arrested in clashes over oil and timber.

Vedanta's modus operandi is not an isolated case. People in the developing world have been victims of exploitation for centuries. Today, exploitation is no longer carried out by colonial adventurers aiming to discover new horizons for spices, tobacco or slaves. Now, it is often carried out by powerful businessmen representing mining, oil and gas or logging companies. These policies are being implemented "in the name of progress and development." The mantra is "maximum production, minimum cost and open markets."

The Indian state, enticed by visions of joining the developed world, is pursuing policies that use the same senseless tactics as the colonial powers of the last century. How is it possible that governments continue to pursue such irrational development policies, which blatantly undermine the basic human rights of tribal and indigenous people and the poorest sectors of society?

In addition to endangering the livelihoods of thousands of people, devastating the environment, wiping out precious biodiversity, fauna and flora and causing catastrophic climate change, the actions of these states and corporations have another important and often overlooked consequence: they are causing irreversible damage to the world in which future generations must live.

According to the UN, companies have a responsibility to respect human rights wherever they do business. It is deplorable that local inhabitants should have to implore and appeal to the better nature of shareholders and company executives to protect their human rights, their homes and their livelihoods. Companies who violate this fundamental right should be held accountable in a court of law.

In the 21st century, we need to redefine the meaning of "development." It must be sustainable. Any development project must take into account the needs and aspirations of the local communities, and should benefit all sectors of society. Respect for human rights and the environment must be a priority. As Our Common Future, the report published by the UN's Brundtland Commission states, development must "meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The criteria for "development" need to be more holistic - instead of focusing on GDP, we need to take Human Development Indicators (poverty, health, mortality, education) into account, when assessing a 'development' project.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) refers to a commitment to business activity that promotes environmental, economic and social benefit. Today, CSR is often used as a window-dressing, by corporations for their commercial benefit, to improve their image with the public or with government. We just have to look at Vedanta's PR campaign for evidence of this. We must ensure that CSR becomes an integral part of business practice. Corporations must follow through with their pledges, to adhere to ethical standards, corporate responsibility and sustainable practice. These principles have to be enforceable - not as voluntary measures, but as a legally binding mechanism in international law. Corporate Social Responsibility is not only about how corporations spend their money, but about how they make it.

There has been some success in our campaign to hold Vedanta accountable. In February this year the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Church of England demonstrated their commitment to human rights and ethical investment by disinvesting from Vedanta. Edinburgh-based investment management company Martin Currie sold its £2.3m stake in Vedanta in 2008 on ethical grounds. In 2007 the Norway pension fund withdrew its investment of $15.6m based on the findings of its ethics committee, which stated: "Allegations leveled at Vedanta regarding environmental damage and complicity in human rights violations, including abuse and forced eviction of tribal people, are well founded."

It is my hope that the Indian government and particularly the Government of Orissa will do everything in its power to prevent Vedanta from endangering the survival of the Kondh. It is not too late to force Vedanta to adhere to ethical codes of practice that respect human and environmental rights. This may be our last chance to help the Kondh and prevent their way of life from disappearing altogether.

When I attended Vedanta's AGM last year, I spoke to Sitaram Kulisika, who was representing the Kondh people at the meeting. I was very moved by his compelling testimony, his commitment to his homeland, and his people: "Once they start mining, the mountain will be bulldozed and the rivers will dry up and our livelihood will be lost," he said. "We don't know how to adapt and survive and our way of living is not available in the cities. We will be extinct."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Cultural Liberalism Is Not Enough Print
Sunday, 08 April 2012 11:53

Alterman writes: "If a Democratic president could consider cutting America's shredded safety net further when unemployment remained stiffly high and the country was undergoing an explosion of inequality, was the 'liberal moment' of American politics finally over?"

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on energy policy during a rally in Largo, Maryland, 03/15/12. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
President Barack Obama delivers remarks on energy policy during a rally in Largo, Maryland, 03/15/12. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)



Cultural Liberalism Is Not Enough

By Eric Alterman, The New York Times

08 April 12

 

s White House aides and Congressional leaders flood the media with dueling leaks about just how far President Obama was willing to go last summer to meet the budget-cutting demands of House Speaker John A. Boehner, many liberals have reacted with shock and horror at how much of their historic achievement the president appears to have been ready to bargain away. If a Democratic president could consider cutting America’s shredded safety net further when unemployment remained stiffly high and the country was undergoing an explosion of inequality, was the "liberal moment" of American politics finally over?

Yet Maryland recently became the eighth state to join the same-sex marriage club (which includes the District of Columbia). Rush Limbaugh was force-fed a triple helping of crow for his failed attempt at "slut shaming," after opening up the gender gap again. Women, young people, college graduates and mixed-race Americans, surveys indicate, are spurning conservative arguments about contraception, same-sex marriage and sexual freedom.

In other words, economic liberalism is on life-support, while cultural liberalism thrives. The obvious question is why. The simple answer is that cultural liberalism comes cheap. Supporting same-sex marriage or a woman’s right to choose does not cost the wealthy anything or restrict their ability to become wealthier. But there is more to it than that.

The United States has undoubtedly become a fairer, more open and less oppressive society thanks largely to the political and cultural struggles waged by liberals during the past half century. The progress in securing basic human and civil rights for women, African-Americans, gay men and lesbians, immigrants and their children, Americans with disabilities and so many others is a testament to liberal courage in the face of adversity and oppression. This was the work of "those who marched and those who sang, those who sat in and those who stood firm, those who organized and those who mobilized," as Barack Obama recalled on the occasion of the unveiling of the memorial statue of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the National Mall in October.

Liberal optimism regarding race and progress had been buoyed by the belief that, with the right experts running the government, an expanding economic pie could be guaranteed indefinitely, which would in turn purchase peace between feuding factions. But liberals had no ready response when the global economy chose not to cooperate, first with the rise in oil prices following the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and then with the exodus of exactly the kinds of manufacturing jobs that had provided the engine driving the expansion of the middle class in the first place.

The failure of liberals to plan for the failure of their plans - what Saul Bellow once called the "Good Intentions Paving Company" - resulted in a bitter, resentful scramble for the remaining scraps. Liberal politicians proved unable to face up to the harsh realities. "The great liberal failing of this time," Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed as early as 1968, was "constantly to over-promise and to overstate, and thereby constantly to appear to under-perform." This not only alienated key constituencies, but it also diminished the trust between the governing and the governed that previous generations of liberals had worked so hard to earn.

Caught in the crosswinds of so many simultaneous crises - I have not even mentioned Vietnam - many liberals chose to focus, rather perversely, on a "rights" agenda and the internecine fights it engendered within their increasingly fractured coalition. They lost sight of the essential element that had made the coalition possible in the first place: the sense that liberalism stood with the common man and woman in their struggle against economic forces too large and powerful to be faced by individuals on their own.

Liberals must find a way to combine their cultural successes with new approaches to achieving economic equality. But they must do so unambiguously and unequivocally. That brings us back to President Obama.

The president often sounds as if he believes in a vigorous economic populism. Just this past Tuesday he told the American Society of News Editors: "In this country broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class. That’s how a generation who went to college on the G.I. Bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economy the world has ever known." But so far the president has been unwilling to put his budgetary moneys where his mouth is.

In fact, Obama has proved far more adept at adapting his positions toward the increasingly radical views enunciated by the leaders of the Republican Party than he has in articulating - and sticking to - an alternative vision of the role of government in ensuring a fair economic shake for all its citizens.

He asked the right question on Tuesday when he said: "Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well, while a growing number struggle to get by? Or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot?" But as liberals have repeatedly learned to their dismay, the devil is not in the poetry of the president’s election-time rhetoric but in the prose of his apparent eagerness to seek out a compromise on almost any Republican proposal offered him. Liberals have spent decades trying to adjudicate the claims of their conflicting constituencies without focusing sharply enough on the economic well-being of a broad section of Americans. A fight for fairness and equity could unite the working poor and middle class in a winning coalition for the future, but the problem today for liberals is less the message itself than the credibility of the messenger.

While signaling his support for much if not all of liberalism’s cultural agenda, President Obama has occasionally tossed economic liberals a rhetorical bone - but he has also worried too much about deficit reduction. In this regard, Obama embodies the unsolved liberal conundrum. Were the president to embrace a genuinely populist economic agenda and mean it this time - just as Franklin D. Roosevelt did in his second term - he might go a long way toward solving the problem that has dogged liberalism now for nearly half a century.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Obama's Duty to Fight Back Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5241"><span class="small">Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic</span></a>   
Saturday, 07 April 2012 17:13

Excerpt: "Someday the political consensus may return. Even now, Red and Blue America still have much in common, starting with a reliance on Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other programs Ryan, Romney, and the Roberts Court eye skeptically. But in the face of this assault on government, a pincer movement by Republican judges and Republican officials, Obama has a duty to respond in kind."

President Obama has begun to fight back against the GOP attacks on his healthcare reform law. (photo: Agence France-Presse)
President Obama has begun to fight back against the GOP attacks on his healthcare reform law. (photo: Agence France-Presse)



Obama's Duty to Fight Back

By Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic

07 April 12

 

here is no Red America and there is no Blue America. Remember the first time you heard Barack Obama say that? I do. It was July, 2004, during the Democratic National Convention, when the young, skinny state senator from Illinois propelled himself into national politics.

The speech was a harbinger. Finding common ground was a recurring theme of Obama's 2008 campaign and, arguably, of his first two years in office, although it rarely turned out as the new president hoped. Over and over again, he tried to compromise with Republicans-on the stimulus, on health care reform, and on deficit reduction-only to have Republicans walk away. (My colleague Noam Scheiber's book, The Escape Artists, has plenty more on that, if you haven't read it already.)

I thought about that 2004 speech twice this week, first when Obama criticized the Supreme Court and later when he criticized the proposed budget of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. The swipe at the Court, during a press conference, was mild. The attack on Ryan's budget, which presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has embraced, was not. Particularly with the comments about the Ryan budget, delivered as a speech to a convention of newspaper editors, it was if Obama had given up on the idea of political comity. Maybe the citizens of Red America and Blue America still have a lot in common, he seemed to be saying, but the officials they are electing do not.

If that's what Obama now believes, I think he is correct. Postwar America enjoyed a broad consensus about the role of government and expanse of the welfare state. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans-they pulled in different directions, with the left hoping to expand the state, the right looking to shrink it. But the idea of eliminating vast swaths of the federal government and gutting entitlements beyond recognition was simply not an element of respectable political conversation.

Still, some conservatives were working to undermine this consensus all along-intellectually and, when they had power, politically. Now these efforts have come to define the mainstream position of the Republican Party and threaten, credibly, to change public policy.

We saw that last week, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act. Nobody knows how the Court will rule and many experts believe, still, the most likely outcome is a validation of the law. But the majority of five conservative justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, seemed extremely sympathetic to the law's challengers-just over their claims that the law's individual mandate intruded upon liberty but also over their claims that the entire structure of Medicaid amounted to unconstitutional coercion of the states.

It's conceivable that the Court could throw out the entire law. Quite apart from yanking insurance from 30 million people now in line to get it, such a ruling could establish legal grounds for challenging the existing Medicaid program-on which 58 million Americans, including a quarter of all children and millions of elderly nursing home residents, rely.

Such a ruling is among the least likely ways the justices will rule. But the idea of ending Medicaid as we know it has a lot of currency across the street, in the Capitol Building, as Ryan made clear with his most recent budget proposal.

The terms of the Ryan budget are no less startling because, by now, they have started to become familiar. The budget calls for dramatically reducing what the federal governments spends on Medicaid, then turning it over to the states. According to a joint analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Urban Institute, between 14 million and 27 million people would lose health insurance as a result. (This doesn't include 17 million who, by that estimate, would lose Medicaid via repeal of the Affordable Care Act.) At the same time, it would reduce discretionary spending so radically that according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “most of the federal government aside from Social Security, health care, and defense would cease to exist” by 2050.

The budget would also transform Medicare into a voucher program, eliminating the program's present guarantee of benefits. The funding cut isn't as dramatic as the one in the last Ryan budget. But if Republicans got their way and realized that eliminating the federal government meant, among other things, eliminating the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Bureau of Investigation, Medicare would likely emerge as a candidate for deeper cuts. The cuts would be necessary, in part, because the Republicans remain committed to reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans-and to the proposition, contrary to available evidence, that such cuts will strengthen the economy.

The chances of a Republican Congress passing, and a Republican president signing, such draconian plans may seem far-fetched. But plenty of people thought the same thing about a crazy libertarian critique of health insurance mandates-an idea that conservative intellectuals developed and that elected Republican officials championed. Romney's praise for the budget may not be heartfelt, but having promised the right wing he'd take it up he'd have little option but to do so. Besides, Republicans control one house of Congress right now. That house approved a mostly similar budget just one year ago. Who's to say they won't do it again?

Someday the political consensus may return. Even now, Red and Blue America still have much in common, starting with a reliance on Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other programs Ryan, Romney, and the Roberts Court eye skeptically. But in the face of this assault on government, a pincer movement by Republican judges and Republican officials, Obama has a duty to respond in kind.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Obama Can Win With Women Print
Saturday, 07 April 2012 10:05

Excerpt: "Congratulations, Republicans! The tents have been struck and Mitt Romney will be your nominee. But before you pop the champagne, the women of America have a message for you: Welcome back to 1992 - the Year of the Woman."

President Barack Obama greets women onstage. (photo: Mel Evans/AP)
President Barack Obama greets women onstage. (photo: Mel Evans/AP)



How Obama Can Win With Women

By Nancy L. Cohen, Rolling Stone

07 April 12

 

ongratulations, Republicans! The tents have been struck and Mitt Romney will be your nominee. But before you pop the champagne, the women of America have a message for you: Welcome back to 1992 - the Year of the Woman.

The 2012 election was supposed to be all about the economy. But two months into the latest Republican delirium over birth control, Planned Parenthood, mandatory ultrasounds, "vaginal wands," Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke, it's turned into a referendum on sex and women, much to the glee of Democrats, who can scarcely believe their luck. President Obama has opened up a decisive lead against Romney thanks to a fresh surge in support from women voters. In swing states, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll, Obama has a 19-point lead over Romney among all women, up from 12 points before the GOP's "war on women" was flushed into the open for all to see, and a 2-to-1 lead among women under 50. One-quarter of women in that survey say that the birth control issue is extremely important to their vote. A recent Pew poll has Obama leading Romney by 20 points among women nationally. If the presidential election were held today, Obama would be reelected thanks to this overwhelming advantage with women, who've outnumbered men at the polls in every election since 1986.

Republicans ought to know better. After all, they've barreled down this particular cul-de-sac before, in 1992. That was the year the far-right dragooned President George H. W. Bush, another establishment 1 percenter, into a futile Holy War against women, feminism, and, essentially, the current century. Pat Buchanan, given the honor of presenting the keynote address on the opening night of the GOP convention, used the spotlight to declare a "culture war" and declaim, "Radical feminism [is] the agenda Clinton and Clinton would impose on America." Earlier, vice-president Dan Quayle, acting on William Kristol's advice, blamed the Los Angeles riots on a fictional single mother. Dan's wife Marilyn took to the convention stage to denounce working women. "Not everyone," she said, "joined the sexual revolution or dodged the draft. Not everyone believed that the family was so oppressive that women could only thrive apart from it." Around the same time, Bush consultant and current Fox News CEO Roger Ailes accused Hillary Clinton of subverting parents' rights, while the televangelist Rev. Pat Robertson told his supporters that feminism wasn't about "equal rights for women," but rather "a socialist anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

Only the bit about witchcraft didn't make it into the Republican Party's platform.

And how did all that venom about women work out for the GOP? Bill Clinton won the presidency with the largest gender gap ever and a record number of Democratic women swept into Congress. Women voted for Clinton over Bush by a 20-point margin.

If 1992 offers a cautionary tale for the Republicans - one they show little sign of heeding - it likewise provides a useful playbook for Obama and the Democrats.

Far-right zealots, it's true, built Bush the elder's funeral pyre; but it took Bill and Hillary Clinton to light the match. "Frankly, I am fed up with politicians in Washington lecturing the rest of us about family values," Bill said in accepting the Democratic nomination. In his sole appearance at the convention before his closing night speech, he went to the Women's Caucus and, with TV cameras rolling, described himself as "the son of a single mother, and the husband of a working wife." The Clintons and the Democratic party devoted the convention to a celebration of the party's unequivocal commitment to the right to legal abortion and to the rise of women in politics. Night one featured the six Democratic women running for U.S. Senate; night two featured pro-choice Republicans on stage endorsing Clinton. "We have not abandoned our party," they said. "George Bush abandoned us."

Just as today's Republican war on women has provoked women into action, so too, on the eve of the '92 election, did the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings and the (perfectly rational) fear that Roe v. Wade would be overturned make women central players in that year's contest. Anger over the conservative attack on women's rights produced a host of unprecedented achievements: the largest pro-choice demonstrations ever; the most female candidates to run for U.S. Congress (the number of women went from 28 to 47 in the House and doubled in the Senate); a surge in new members and donations for women's political groups; record turnout among young women voters. And this was all before the Internet opened for business or any non-elite owned a cellphone.

This isn't to say that women's rights were the top issue in the 92 election; the economy was. But the attention that Clinton and the reborn women's movement focused on the Republicans' reactionary views mattered. A lot. Bush lost one out of every six Republicans because of the party's extreme antiabortion platform. Even more devastating, Bush lost 70 percent of pro-choice independents. (Pro-choice sentiment was then at an all-time high of 61 percent, and one-quarter of all voters said that abortion was their number one issue.) Clinton, for his part, lost very few antiabortion Democrats.

The gender gap in favor of Clinton was due above all to women's "feminist consciousness," according to sociologists Clem Brooks and Jeff Manza, who also determined that Republican attacks on working women (are you listening Rick Santorum?) drove millions of Republican women permanently out of the GOP.

Plenty of Democrats, it's worth remembering, warned Clinton to quiet down about women, feminism, and abortion so as not to alienate "mainstream" America. Clinton ignored the advice. Will Obama show the same resolve when the polls tighten and Democrats start panicking?

So far, so good. Obama appears to be aware of the lessons of '92. He did not bow to pressure from Catholic Democrats (just about all men, by the way) to back down on universal no-cost insurance coverage for birth control, though he did compromise on how religious employers would be required to do so. When Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke, the law student who spoke in favor of the contraception mandate before Congress "a slut," the president got on the phone to Fluke and told her that her parents "should be proud." When Romney promised to "get rid of" Planned Parenthood, Obama cut a video for the organization. And just in case those suburban women swing voters might have tuned out already, what with spring vacation and soccer season upon us, Obama criticized the men's-only membership policy at Augusta, the club where the Masters golf tournament is being held. "It's kind of long past the time when women should be excluded from anything," said White House spokesman Jay Carney earlier today, quoting his boss.

There's still plenty of time for Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The GOP establishment is desperate to silence the loudmouthed misogynists and change the subject from lady parts and birth control to the economy. But Candidate Etch-A-Sketch should not be allowed to erase the stunning extremism of his primary battle. Romney's promise to defund Planned Parenthood, eliminate the Title X Family Planning program, overturn Roe v. Wade, and support "personhood amendments" declaring a fertilized human egg to be a legal person pose a real and imminent threat to women's rights, freedoms, and health.

No doubt the sages will appear to tell Democrats to shut up about "distracting" social issues. American women have a message for you too: Remember your history. It's the women, stupid.

Nancy L. Cohen is a historian and the author of the the new book, Delirium: How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing America. Follow her on Twitter (@nancylcohen) or on Facebook

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Sexual Humiliation, a Tool to Control the Masses Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=10666"><span class="small">Naomi Wolf, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Friday, 06 April 2012 15:37

Wolf writes: "In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws..."

Portrait, author and activist Naomi Wolf, 10/19/11. (photo: Guardian UK)
Portrait, author and activist Naomi Wolf, 10/19/11. (photo: Guardian UK)



Sexual Humiliation, a Tool to Control the Masses

By Naomi Wolf, Guardian UK

06 April 12

 

n a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Is American strip-searching benign? The man who had brought the initial suit, Albert Florence, described having been told to "turn around. Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks." He said he felt humiliated: "It made me feel like less of a man."

In surreal reasoning, justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this ruling is necessary because the 9/11 bomber could have been stopped for speeding. How would strip searching him have prevented the attack? Did justice Kennedy imagine that plans to blow up the twin towers had been concealed in a body cavity? In still more bizarre non-logic, his and the other justices' decision rests on concerns about weapons and contraband in prison systems. But people under arrest – that is, who are not yet convicted – haven't been introduced into a prison population.

Our surveillance state shown considerable determination to intrude on citizens sexually. There's the sexual abuse of prisoners at Bagram – der Spiegel reports that "former inmates report incidents of … various forms of sexual humiliation. In some cases, an interrogator would place his penis along the face of the detainee while he was being questioned. Other inmates were raped with sticks or threatened with anal sex". There was the stripping of Bradley Manning is solitary confinement. And there's the policy set up after the story of the "underwear bomber" to grope US travelers genitally or else force them to go through a machine – made by a company, Rapiscan, owned by terror profiteer and former DHA czar Michael Chertoff – with images so vivid that it has been called the "pornoscanner".

Believe me: you don't want the state having the power to strip your clothes off. History shows that the use of forced nudity by a state that is descending into fascism is powerfully effective in controlling and subduing populations.

The political use of forced nudity by anti-democratic regimes is long established. Forcing people to undress is the first step in breaking down their sense of individuality and dignity and reinforcing their powerlessness. Enslaved women were sold naked on the blocks in the American south, and adolescent male slaves served young white ladies at table in the south, while they themselves were naked: their invisible humiliation was a trope for their emasculation. Jewish prisoners herded into concentration camps were stripped of clothing and photographed naked, as iconic images of that Holocaust reiterated.

One of the most terrifying moments for me when I visited Guantanamo prison in 2009 was seeing the way the architecture of the building positioned glass-fronted shower cubicles facing intentionally right into the central atrium – where young female guards stood watch over the forced nakedness of Muslim prisoners, who had no way to conceal themselves. Laws and rulings such as this are clearly designed to bring the conditions of Guantanamo, and abusive detention, home.

I have watched male police and TSA members standing by side by side salaciously observing women as they have been "patted down" in airports. I have experienced the weirdly phrased, sexually perverse intrusiveness of the state during an airport "pat-down", which is always phrased in the words of a steamy paperback ("do you have any sensitive areas? … I will use the back of my hands under your breasts …"). One of my Facebook commentators suggested, I think plausibly, that more women are about to be found liable for arrest for petty reasons (scarily enough, the TSA is advertising for more female officers).

I interviewed the equivalent of TSA workers in Britain and found that the genital groping that is obligatory in the US is illegal in Britain. I believe that the genital groping policy in America, too, is designed to psychologically habituate US citizens to a condition in which they are demeaned and sexually intruded upon by the state – at any moment.

The most terrifying phrase of all in the decision is justice Kennedy's striking use of the term "detainees" for "United States citizens under arrest". Some members of Occupy who were arrested in Los Angeles also reported having been referred to by police as such. Justice Kennedy's new use of what looks like a deliberate activation of that phrase is illuminating.

Ten years of association have given "detainee" the synonymous meaning in America as those to whom no rights apply – especially in prison. It has been long in use in America, habituating us to link it with a condition in which random Muslims far away may be stripped by the American state of any rights. Now the term – with its associations of "those to whom anything may be done" – is being deployed systematically in the direction of … any old American citizen.

Where are we headed? Why? These recent laws criminalizing protest, and giving local police – who, recall, are now infused with DHS money, military hardware and personnel – powers to terrify and traumatise people who have not gone through due process or trial, are being set up to work in concert with a see-all-all-the-time surveillance state. A facility is being set up in Utah by the NSA to monitor everything all the time: James Bamford wrote in Wired magazine that the new facility in Bluffdale, Utah, is being built, where the NSA will look at billions of emails, texts and phone calls. Similar legislation is being pushed forward in the UK.

With that Big Brother eye in place, working alongside these strip-search laws, – between the all-seeing data-mining technology and the terrifying police powers to sexually abuse and humiliate you at will – no one will need a formal coup to have a cowed and compliant citizenry. If you say anything controversial online or on the phone, will you face arrest and sexual humiliation?

Remember, you don't need to have done anything wrong to be arrested in America any longer. You can be arrested for walking your dog without a leash. The man who was forced to spread his buttocks was stopped for a driving infraction. I was told by an NYPD sergeant that "safety" issues allow the NYPD to make arrests at will. So nothing prevents thousands of Occupy protesters – if there will be any left after these laws start to bite – from being rounded up and stripped naked under intimidating conditions.

Why is this happening? I used to think the push was just led by those who profited from endless war and surveillance – but now I see the struggle as larger. As one internet advocate said to me: "There is a race against time: they realise the internet is a tool of empowerment that will work against their interests, and they need to race to turn it into a tool of control."

As Chris Hedges wrote in his riveting account of the NDAA: "There are now 1,271 government agencies and 1,931 private companies that work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States, the Washington Post reported in a 2010 series by Dana Priest and William M Arken. There are 854,000 people with top-secret security clearances, the reporters wrote, and in Washington, DC, and the surrounding area 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2011."

This enormous new sector of the economy has a multi-billion-dollar vested interest in setting up a system to surveil, physically intimidate and prey upon the rest of American society.

Now they can do so by threatening to demean you sexually – a potent tool in the hands of any bully.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3331 3332 3333 3334 3335 3336 3337 3338 3339 3340 Next > End >>

Page 3336 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