Sunday, January 18, 2009

Pure Brilliance !!!!

I wish that I wrote this! Or that I could send this directly to some people who really need to read it...

“Some Cyanide to Go With That Whine?: Obama’s Victory and The Rage of the Barbiturate Left” By Tim Wise

My political entry into the left (and by this I mean the real left, beyond the Democratic Party) came a little more than twenty years ago in New Orleans, when, as a college student I became involved in the fight against U.S. intervention in Central America. In particular, the groups of which I was a part sought to end military aid to the death squad governments in El Salvador and Guatemala, and to block support for the contra thugs our nation was arming in Nicaragua, who by that time had already killed about 30,000 civilians in their war with the nominally socialist Sandinista government.

It was the first place where I came into contact with folks who defined themselves as radicals (I had grown up in Nashville, after all, where at that time, even finding “out” liberals was sometimes a challenge), and where I got to experience all the fascinating permutations of Marxism that the left had to offer. In addition to unaffiliated socialists (which I considered myself to be at the time), there were Trotskyites, old-line Leninists, Maoists, and even some bizarre Stalinists in the bunch. Excluding from consideration those among this number who turned out to be FBI spies, there were still plenty of real and interesting ideologues who had valuable insights to offer, even for those of us who didn’t swallow their particular party line.

But despite being interesting, these folks also managed, at least for me, to demonstrate one of the key problems with the left in the U.S. Namely, for the sake of ideological purity few within the professional left expressed any joy about life, or any emotion whatsoever that wasn’t rooted in negativity. They were like the political equivalent of quaaludes: guaranteed to bring you down from whatever partly optimistic place you might find yourself from time to time.

{...}

The humorlessness of the far left–to which I remain connected ideologically if not organizationally–has always struck me as one of its greatest weaknesses. People like to laugh, they like to smile, they like to be joyful, and an awful lot of hardened leftists seem almost utterly incapable of doing any of these things. It’s as if they have all taken a pledge that there should be no laughter until the revolution, or some such shit. No positivity, no hope, no happiness so long as people are still poor and exploited and being murdered by cops, and victimized by United States militarism, or performing as wage slaves for global capital, or eating meat, or driving cars. And they wonder why the left is so weak?

Now, in the wake of Barack Obama’s victory these barbiturate leftists are back in full effect, lecturing the rest of us about how naive we are for having any confidence whatsoever in him, or for voting at all, since “the Democrats and Republicans are all the same,” and he supports FISA and the war with Afghanistan, and all kinds of other messed up policies just like many on the right. Those of us who find any significance in the election of a man of color in a nation founded on white supremacy are fools who “drank the kool-aid,” unlike they, whose clear-headed radical consciousness leads them to recognize the superior morality of Ralph Nader, or the pure “scientific wisdom of chairman Bob Avakian,” or the intellectual profundity of their favorite graffiti bomb: “If voting changed anything it would be illegal.” Yeah, and if body piercings and anarchy tats changed anything, they would be too, and then what would some folks do to be “different?” (Note: there is nothing wrong with either type of adornment, but getting either or both doesn’t make you a revolutionary, any more than voting, that’s all I’m saying).

These are people who think being agitators is about pissing people off more than reaching out to them. So they pull out their “Buck Fush” signs at their repetitively irrelevant antiwar demonstrations, or their posters with W sporting a Hitler mustache, because that tends to work so well at convincing folks to oppose the slaughter in Iraq. But effectiveness isn’t what matters to them. What matters to them is raging against the machine for the sake of rage itself. Their message is simple: everything sucks, the earth is doomed, all cops are brutal, all soldiers are baby-killers, all people who work for corporations are evil, blah, blah, blah, right on down the line. It’s as if much of the left has become co-dependent with despondency, addicted to its own isolation, and enamored of its moral purity and unwillingness to work with mere liberals. In the name of ideological asceticism, they spurn the hard work of movement building and inspiring others to join the struggle, snicker at those foolish enough to not understand or appreciate their superior philosophical constructs, and then act shocked when their movements and groups accomplish exactly nothing. But honestly, who wants to join a movement filled with people who look down on you as a sucker?

If we on the left want those liberals to join the struggle for social justice and liberation, we’re going to have to meet people where they are, not where Bakunin would want them to be. For those who can’t get excited about Obama, so be it, but at least realize that there are millions of people who, for whatever reason, are; people who are mobilized and active, and that energy is looking for an outlet. Odds are, that outlet won’t be the Obama administration, since few of them will actually land jobs with it. So that leaves activist formations, community groups and grass-roots struggles. That leaves, in short, us. Just as young people inspired by the center-right JFK candidacy in 1960 ultimately moved well beyond him on their way to the left and made up many of the most committed and effective activists of the 60s and early 70s, so too can such growth occur now among the Obama faithful. But not if we write them off.

At some point, the left will have to relinquish its love affair with marginalization. We’ll have to stop behaving like those people who have a favorite band they love, and even damn near worship, until that day when the band actually begins to sell a lot of records and gain a measure of popularity, at which point they now suck and have obviously sold out: the idea being that if people like you, you must not be doing anything important, and that obscurity is the true measure of integrity. Deconstructing the psychological issues at the root of such a pose is well above my pay grade, but I’m sure would prove fascinating.

The simple fact is, people are inspired by Obama not because they view him as especially progressive per se (except in relation to some of the more retrograde policies of the current president, and in relation to where they feel, rightly, McCain/Palin would have led us), but because most folks respond to optimism, however ill-defined it may be. This is what the Reaganites understood, and for that matter it’s what Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement knew too. It wasn’t anger and pessimism that broke the back of formal apartheid in the south, but rather, hope, and a belief in the fundamental decency of people to make a change if confronted by the yawning chasm between their professed national ideals and the bleak national reality.

In other words, what the 60s freedom struggle took for granted, but which the cynical barbiturate left refuses to concede, is the basic goodness of the people of this nation, and the ability of the nation, for all of its faults (and they are legion) to change.

{...}

While I would never counsel too much confidence in far-right types to join the struggle for justice–and there, I think skepticism is well-warranted–if we can’t conjure at least a little optimism for the ability of liberals and Democrats to come along for the ride and to do the work, then what is the point? Under such a weighty and pessimistic load as this, life simply becomes unbearable. And if there is one thing we cannot afford to do now–especially now–it is to give up the will to live and to fight, another day.

Full article here

Racial Profiling

Racial profiling in airports is still at large and the Center for Constitutional Rights recently published findings that showed 80% of people that NYPD questions are Black or Latino/Hispanic.

The report said:
“From 2005 to 2008, approximately 80 percent of total stops made were of Blacks and Latinos, who comprise 25 percent and 28 percent of New York City’s total population, respectively. During this same time period, only approximately 10 percent of stops were of Whites, who comprise 44 percent of the city’s population.

“Results show that Blacks and Latinos are significantly more likely to be stopped by the police than Whites; that Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be frisked after a NYPD-initiated stop than Whites; and that Blacks and Latinos are more likely to have physical force used against them during a NYPD-initiated stop than Whites. Yet the rates of summons and arrests from all stops is not only extremely low, but nearly the same across racial categories.”

(Further analysis from Racewire)

I find this all so interesting. Is profiling really anything to do with security? It's obvious that profiling doesn't really reduce harm or crime - sure it catches 'criminals' sometimes because the very bodies who are profiled are often the same bodies who are automatically constructed as criminals regardless.

It seems to me that profiling is more a way to make certain people feel safe and like they are being protected, while simultaneously reminding certain other people that they are not safe, are not protected, and are seen only as a threat. So profiling is about re-establishing the social order and reinscribing privilege and not about securing anything except white privilege and hegemony.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

When will Guantanamo end?

January 13, 2009
New York Times

Obama’s Plan to Close Prison at Guantánamo May Take Year

President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.

But experts say it is likely to take many months, perhaps as long as a year, to empty the prison that has drawn international criticism since it received its first prisoners seven years ago this week. One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.

People who have discussed the issues with transition officials in recent weeks said it appeared that the broad outlines of plans for the detention camp were taking shape. They said transition officials appeared committed to ordering an immediate suspension of the Bush administration’s military commissions system for trying detainees.

In addition, people who have conferred with transition officials said the incoming administration appeared to have rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States. The Bush administration has insisted that such a measure is necessary to close the Guantánamo camp and bring some detainees to the United States.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants to close the camp. But in an interview on Sunday on ABC, he indicated that the process could take time, saying, “It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize.” Closing it within the first 100 days of his administration, he said, would be “a challenge.”

The president-elect drew criticism from some human rights groups Monday who said his remarks suggested that closing Guantánamo was not among the new administration’s highest priorities. But even if the detention camp remains open for months, the decision to address Guantánamo on the day after his inauguration seemed intended to make a symbolic break with some of the most controversial policies of the Bush administration.

[...]

In formulating their policy in recent weeks, Obama transition officials have consulted with a variety of authorities on legal and human rights and with military experts. Several of those experts said the officials had expressed great interest in alternatives to the military commission system, like trying detainees in federal courts, and appeared to have grown hostile to proposals like an indefinite detention law.

They also said the transition officials were intensely focused on new international efforts to transfer many of the detainees to other countries.

Several said the officials appeared concerned that a proposal for a new law authorizing indefinite detention would bring the new administration much of the criticism that has been directed at the Bush administration over Guantánamo. A former military official who was part of a series of briefings at the transition headquarters in Washington said the officials had spoken about the indefinite detention proposal as a way of creating a “new Guantanámo someplace else.”

“That is very much not the desire of the Obama team,” said the former military official, who insisted on anonymity because of his concerns about how the transition officials would react to public discussion of their comments.

Catherine Powell, an associate professor of law at Fordham, said transition officials appeared most interested at a meeting last month in showing international critics that they were returning to what they see as traditional American legal values.

“They are really looking for tools that we have in our existing system short of creating an indefinite detention system,” Ms. Powell said.

Mark P. Denbeaux, a Seton Hall law professor who has been a prominent lawyer for Guantánamo detainees, said that at a briefing he attended with senior officials of the transition last month the officials seemed to have decided to suspend the military commissions immediately.

“Their position is they’re a complete and utter failure,” Mr. Denbeaux said.

[...]

Some human rights groups said Monday that they were alarmed by Mr. Obama’s vague timetable and lack of specifics in his remarks Sunday. They said they worried that the administration might yield to pressure to display its toughness in dealing with terrorism in its detention policies.

“The devil is in the details,” said Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who has been pressing the new administration to publicly commit to immediately close Guantánamo.

Mr. Romero said he had grown concerned because transition officials had provided details of their plans for dealing with the economic crisis, but had yet to provide details for how they will close Guantánamo, which has brought worldwide criticism.

“Just like we need specifics on an economic recovery package,” Mr. Romero said, “we need specifics on a ‘justice recovery package.’ ”

Full article here

Sikh Solidarity with Palestine

From Racewire

Sikh Solidarity with Palestine

Thanks to Sonny Singh Suchdev for this

After two weeks of relentless attacks and an ongoing siege, the results are sobering: over 880 people dead, 30% of whom are children, and more than 4000 injured; hospitals, schools, universities, local markets, streets, homes and communities crushed to rubble; a blockade on humanitarian relief including food and life-saving medical supplies; a ban on foreign journalists and media entering the area; and a sealed border rendering 1.5 million people imprisoned within the boundaries of a siege. Hundreds of thousands of lives are being destroyed as they are marked dispensable for one reason only: they are Palestinian. The death toll is rising, and Israel has hinted to no end in sight as it continues to expand its offensive by air, land, and sea.

According to Sikhi, all human lives are equal and should be cherished. Right now in Gaza, the lives of an entire people are being deemed worthless. We mourn the recent loss of over 880 Palestinian lives taken by the Israeli military. We also mourn the loss of the 9 Israeli lives taken by Hamas rockets.

We are Sikhs who stand against the brutality of Israeli occupation and the ongoing siege, blockade, and massacre of Gaza. Now more than ever, we call on our Sikh sisters and brothers to think about what our faith and our Sikh identity really means. Why did Guru Nanak Sahib seek to abolish the caste system in South Asia? Why did Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib sacrifice his life for the sake of others’ (non-Sikhs) right to freely practice their religion and live free of persecution? Why did Guru Gobind Singh, our tenth Guru, give birth to the Khalsa – an armed body of full-time revolutionaries – in 1699?

Because for Sikhs, fighting against all forms of tyranny and oppression is a spiritual obligation.

We are inspired by this Sikh tradition of fighting not only for our own rights and our own sovereignty as Sikhs, but for the freedom and rights of all people – sarbat da bhala. Historically, Sikhs have known all too well what state repression and violent hatred look like. Sikhs too, like Palestinians, have faced campaigns of ethnic cleansing by emperors and prime ministers, dictators and elected leaders. Without a doubt, we have struggled and we must continue to struggle for our right to exist and our right to be Sikhs. But we must bring to the forefront our responsibility to fight for the liberation and freedom of all people. When we end ardas with, “Nanak naam chardi kala, tere bane sarbat da bhala,” we must pay attention to the power and weight of these words, take them to heart, and put the concept of sarbat da bhala into practice.

What that means for us now, as Sikhs and as people of conscience, is to stand in solidarity with the people of Gaza, the Palestinians around the world fighting for their right to return home, and the thousands of Jewish and Israeli activists calling for an immediate end to the siege and an end to Israeli apartheid. Together, we must all demand peace and justice.

Get together with others in your community, Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike, and attend a local demonstration against the siege of Gaza. Make a donation to send medical supplies and other humanitarian relief to Gaza (http://www.freegaza.org; http://www.mecaforpeace.org). For those in the United States, call on the Obama administration to make his promise of “change” a reality by stopping the spending of U.S. tax dollars on bombs that kill Palestinians. For those in Canada, call on Harper to condemn Israel’s crimes against humanity and demand an immediate stop to the siege. Pressure both governments to urgently support the global movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel—a strategy that helped to end apartheid in South Africa 15 years ago (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/09-0).

To sign on to this statement, send an email with your name and city to: sikhsolidarity@gmail.com.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

True Heroes

It gives me pride and relief to watch this film clip of testimonials from Israeli citizens who refuse to serve in general and in Gaza, now, specifically. Their words are full of wisdom from experience and from pain - it brought me to tears, quite honestly, and renewed my hopes for democracy in Israel. Definitely worth a watch, and the parts that impacted me most were at the end so even though it's seven minutes long, it's worth it.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Accuracy in Reporting of Israel/Palestine - NYT Report Card

I know that statistics don't necessarily prove anything but this is still interesting and relevant. Food for thought, if you will.

The New York Times

Study Periods:
September 29, 2000 - September 28, 2001
January 1, 2004 - December 31, 2004

Chart showing that while Palestinian children's deaths have been significantly underreported, Israeli children's deaths were reported repeatedly.
The New York Times reported the death rates of Israeli and Palestinian children almost identically despite the fact that almost five times more Palestinian children were actually being killed.

Abstract

This study consists of a statistical examination of The New York Times’ news coverage of the first year of the current Palestinian uprising, and of its coverage of that uprising in 2004. The categories examined are coverage in headlines or first paragraphs of conflict deaths and, as a subcategory, children’s deaths. In addition, we studied coverage of deaths in complete articles for a sample month-long sub-study in 2004. Our findings indicate significantly distorted coverage by The New York Times of these topics. In the first study period The Times reported Israeli deaths at a rate 2.8 times higher than Palestinian deaths, and in 2004 this rate increased by almost 30%, to 3.6, widening still further the disparity in coverage. The Times’ coverage of children’s deaths was even more skewed. In the first year of the current uprising, Israeli children’s deaths were reported at 6.8 times the rate of Palestinian children’s deaths. In 2004 this differential also increased, with deaths of Israeli children covered at a rate 7.3 times greater than the deaths of Palestinian children. Given that in 2004 22 times more Palestinian children were killed than Israeli children, this category holds particular importance. We could find no basis on which to justify this inequality in coverage.

Full report here

Friday, January 9, 2009

Reversing Criminalization from the American Journal of Psychiatry

January 2009

"As of June 2007, there were at least 360,000 persons with major psychiatric disorders, and perhaps as many as half a million, in our jails and prisons. With such huge numbers, can we really say that deinstitutionalization has taken place? There numbers underscore a pressing need for reliable hard data about these severely mentally ill persons who have been criminalized. In an article in this issue, Baillargeon et al. provide valuable hard data. They found that inmates with major psychiatric disorders, and especially those with bipolar disorders, had a substantially increased risk of multiple incarceration. Clearly, this study tells us that criminalization is not being reversed... Incarceration poses a number of important problems and obstacles to treatment and rehabilitation. Even when quality psychiatric care is provided, the inmate/patient still has been doubly stigmatized - as both a mentally ill person and a criminal... The correctional facility's overriding need to maintain order and security; as well as its mandate to implement society's priorities of punishment and social control, greatly restricts the facility's ability to establish a therapeutic milieu and provide the necessary interventions for treating mental illness successfully...
"The community treatment of persons with severe mental illness who are or may become offenders has become an increasingly important and urgent issue. Diversion is of little value unless there are community treatment resources to which mentally ill offenders can be diverted. We need a vast expansion of modalities such as assertive community treatment - community-based, sometimes court-ordered, mobile mental health treatment teams that provide an array of treatment, rehabilitation, and housing services that are available 24 hours a day: intensive case management; the ready availability of psychiatric medicines; adequately and appropriately structured and supportive therapeutic housing arrangements; treatment of co-occurring disorders; vocational rehabilitation; and close working relationships between mental health and criminal justice professionals - to name but a few of these needed resources...
"It is essential to facilitate access to psychiatric hospital care for patients who need it. It is important to acknowledge that the community is not necessarily the most benign treatment setting for all mentally ill people at all times. Success in reducing criminalization in this population will require access to hospital care for those who need it, for as long as they need it.
"Currently, a large number of people with severe mental illness receive their acute psychiatric inpatient treatment in the criminal justice system rather than in the mental health system. Clearly, if there were not a shortage of acute inpatient beds in the mental health system, many acutely psychotic persons might not come first to the attention of law enforcement officers, or if they did, they could be transported to acute psychiatric facilities rather than arrested. In most cases, acute psychiatric inpatient treatment should be the responsibility of the mental health system. As Baillargeon et al. point out in their article, acute inpatient beds should be a high priority in community mental health, and lengths of stay should not be unreasonably short.
"Another important resource that can help preevent criminalization is assisted outpatient treatment. Assisted outpatient treatment is court-ordered civil committment that is initiated by the mental health system to ensure that persons with metnal illness and a history of hospitalizations and/or violence participate in services to the community; it is for those who are capable of living in the community with the help of family, frriends, and mental health professionals, but are resistant to psychiatric treatment, including medication. Without such treatment they may relapse and require hospitalization or be arrested, incarcerated, and criinalized. Such at-risk individuals are ordered to participate in outpatient psychiatric treatment with their progress closely monitored by the court..."