Friday, August 7, 2009

Backlash

New American Media reports that more undocumented Chinese immigrants are entering the US through Mexico, Obama vows to "reform" the immigrant detention complex in the US (NYTimes article here) and RaceWire did a compelling piece on two permanent residents, Elliot Granade and Alexander Alli, caught up in the immigrant detention system in Pennsylvania for committing non-violent crimes. Racewire reports:

On any given day—DHS detains more than one thousand noncitizens in jails across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, particularly in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.... many are lawful permanent residents who are detained for months, if not years, while the immigration courts and federal courts resolve their cases. Yet they never receive a custody hearing to determine whether their prolonged detention is even necessary. Indeed, many choose to abandon their meritorious cases because they cannot endure the prospect of being locked up indefinitely.


We are struggling so hard with this, we are violating constitutional and basic human rights daily, and yet still no one seems capable of looking below the surface at what is causing the situation in the first place! About taking responsibility for the monster we have created through, for example, imperialist attitudes and policies in the region. That's just for starters... oh I could go on.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Sustainable Prisons? (From Liza Bean)

Thanks Liz for showing me this:

You probably don’t use the words “sustainability” and “prison” in the same sentence very often. The housing and feeding of inmates requires huge amounts of water and energy, though, and generates tons of waste. The Sustainable Prisons Project, a partnership between the Washington State Department of Corrections and the Evergreen State College, works to make prisons more efficient… and perhaps even reduce recidivism rates by providing “green collar” training to inmates.

Started in 2004 as a simple project to use dwindling water resources at the Cedar Creek Corrections Center more efficiently, the project now involves food production, recycling, composting, and even beekeeping. Plans for the project include not only building on progress at Cedar Creek, but also expanding the program to three other facilities. The program is even working with national organizations like the Nature Conservancy to protect and restore endangered prairie perennials.

DOC officials see the project as a true win-win: not only can the system save money, but also address mental health challenges and recidivism among inmates by providing them with meaningful work that engages them in issues which extend beyond the prison walls.

Is it time to start using “sustainability” and “prison” in the same sentence more often? Is this a sensible investment in both resource efficiency and prisoner rehabilitation? Let us know what you think…

For the original post and photos see http://www.sundancechannel.com/sunfiltered/2009/08/prison-life-sustainable-prisons-project/.

A New Modified Super-Corn?

Next spring, farmers in Canada will be able to sow one of the most complicated genetically engineered plants ever designed, a futuristic type of corn containing eight foreign genes.

With so much crammed into one seed, the modified corn will be able to confer multiple benefits, such as resistance to corn borers and rootworms, two caterpillar-like pests that infest the valuable grain crop, as well as withstanding applications of glyphosate, a weed killer better known by its commercial name, Roundup.

But a controversy has arisen over the new seeds, which were approved for use last month by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Health Canada hasn't assessed their safety.

The health agency said in response to questions from The Globe and Mail that it didn't have to do so, because it is relying on the two companies making the seeds, agriculture giants Monsanto Co. and Dow AgroSciences LLC, to flag any safety concerns. But the companies haven't tested the seeds either, because they say they aren't required to.

The companies have checked the safety of each of the eight genes one at a time in individual corn plants, but haven't done so when they combined the foreign matter together in one seed, says Trish Jordan, a spokesperson for Monsanto Canada Inc.

"Every single one of the traits has been tested singly, and it has gone through the complete rigorous regulatory review process," Ms. Jordan said.

When the eight traits were subsequently combined into one seed through conventional breeding techniques, there was no trigger for an additional safety assessment, she said.

But the companies', and Health Canada's, position is disputed by opponents of genetically modified foods and consumer safety advocates, who say guidelines from the UN's food standards commission, Codex Alimentarius, recommend such testing, even when the novel traits are introduced through normal plant breeding.

Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, a U.S. advocacy group, says he's worried that combining a large number of foreign genes could lead to the creation of allergens or other deleterious substances in food that don't occur when only one gene is involved.

The government's decision to leave the safety testing to the companies is like "putting the fox in charge of the hen house," Mr. Hansen said.


For the full article read here.

Honestly, anything that Dow and Monsanto do scares the crap out of me. For some reasons why read this. Or go see FoodInc or just google Monsanto and Dow. Seriously insane stuff.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

CA To Reduce Prison Population!

California, one of the most formidable prison systems in the world, has been ordered by a federal court to reduce its inmate population of 150,000 by 40,000 — roughly 27 percent — within two years.

Obviously Schwartzenegger et al are protesting and saying they will appeal but the decision is noteworthy! A step towards recognition that closing prisons and releasing human beings from their cages does not mean chaos and mayhem! A step toward abolition, at least in my (optimistic) book.

Read more in the SF Chronicle or the NYTimes.

What the Tel Aviv Killings Might Say

I thought that Chernus raised some really important points in this article, and his questions certainly don't have easy answers. What do you think?

Tel Aviv Murder Reflects Israeli Fears

by Ira Chernus

Why is the murder of gays in Israel different from all other anti-gay violence? That's the question I asked myself after a gunman killed two and injured fifteen at a gay youth center in Tel Aviv. As the father of a young gay man, I was horrified. As a Jew, I was appalled.

But as an activist for Jewish-Palestinian peace, I was perplexed. I wondered whether homophobia in Israel might somehow be connected to Israel's many years of conflict with its Arab neighbors, its 42 years as an occupying power, and all the violence that Israel has perpetrated as well as endured over those years.

Israel is not an especially virulent hotbed of anti-gay prejudice. Israeli police don't attack gay pride marchers on orders of the government, as police in some other countries do. The orthodox Judaism that is the source of most Israeli homophobia is no more reactionary than the conservative brands of religion that feed homophobia in other nations.

In fact, religious reactionaries in Israel probably get less public respect than they do in the United States. And in Israel it's just one religious faction stirring up prejudice against gays, while in the U.S. we have a whole interfaith coalition doing that odious job.

Nevertheless Israel is a unique case, because its political culture has revolved for so long around fear of, and enmity toward, Arabs, especially Palestinians. In the past, out-of-the-blue shootings like the one last week in Tel Aviv have always been motivated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israeli peace activists have long warned that the moral callousness bred by the occupation and its violence would come home to roost in Jewish Israeli life. Might this attack be evidence that they were right? We can't know for sure until the murderer is identified. Even then, it will hardly be plausible to claim that Israel's policies of domination and violence caused the Tel Aviv murderer to act. Nor do those policies in any way directly cause homophobia in Israel.

The connection is more subtle. It's about what happens when fear becomes the foundation of public life. Israeli political culture is pervaded by insecurity about the nation's very existence. That insecurity is hardly realistic. Israel has by far the strongest military in its region and still enjoys strong backing from the world's only superpower. The fear that an independent Palestine could destroy Israel is about as realistic as the fear that equal rights for gays would destroy the Israeli -- or American -- family as we know it.

But when insecurity takes hold of a society, reality checks have little effect. That's why many Israelis can make the most absurd claims about Palestinians, just as many homophobes make absurd claims about gays and lesbians, or anyone who doesn't fit their rigid gender stereotypes.

Stereotyping is a huge part of the problem in both cases. Israelis too often make sweeping claims about "the Palestinians," as if the millions of Palestinians were all part of a Borg-like monolith (and, unfortunately, too many Palestinians are equally prone to stereotype "the Israeli"). Similarly, anti-gay forces around the world promote sweeping, often ludicrous, generalizations about homosexuals.

There's a close link between the stereotyping and the fear. Why do insecure people resort to stereotypes? And why are those people often so conservative, even reactionary, in their politics? Lots of studies have been devoted to those questions.

A few years ago, a team of psychologists looked at all the studies done over a half-century and found that they generally point to the same conclusions.

Virtually all of the motives that lead people to be conservative "originate in psychological attempts to manage uncertainty and fear. These, in turn, are inherently related to the two core aspects of conservative thought-resistance to change and the endorsement of inequality. The management of uncertainty is served by resistance to change insofar as change (by its very nature) upsets existing realities and is fraught with insecurity. Fear may be both a cause and a consequence of endorsing inequality; it breeds and justifies competition, dominance struggles, and sometimes, violent strife."

In other words, conservatives want to live in a world where the differences between people are fixed, clear-cut, and organized into simplistic hierarchies of better and worse, because they think that will keep them safe. So they want their world organized by the most basic hierarchy of all: "We are better than them."

Who the "we" and "them" are is a secondary matter. It could be straights versus gays, or Israelis versus Palestinians, or Jews versus Arabs, or any other convenient pair of opposites. Any dichotomy will do, as long as it can make life seem simple, unchangeable, and therefore secure.

Stereotyping is a key to this psychological strategy. It turns complicated three-dimensional people into simplistic two-dimensional images, and that makes the world seem more manageable. When the stereotypes of "them" are negative (as they almost always are) they justify the belief in inequality and the superiority of "our kind of people," which is essential to conservatism.

As the psychologists noted, this claim of superiority breeds and justifies competition, domination, and sometimes violence. It's easy to imagine that the Tel Aviv killer felt fully justified. There's plenty of evidence that Israeli Jews dominating and doing violence against Palestinians -- most of it, though not all, on the orders of the state -- often feel fully justified. After all, "the Palestinians want to destroy Israel"; that's the stereotype on which most Israeli policy is based.

Beneath that stereotype lies an irrational fear so deep that columnist Doron Rosenblum in Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz, calls it paranoia. In fact Rosenblum writes of "at least two outstanding traits of Israeliness: aggressiveness and paranoia," and adds what all the psychological studies confirm: Those two traits "reflect two sides of the same coin."

To repeat, none of this suggests that Israel's policies of domination and violence caused the Tel Aviv murder or Israeli homophobia. But the murder can serve as a mirror, in which Israelis, American Jews, and all of us can see what happens when irrational fears of change and difference take over, whether in an individual mind or a whole society.

We here in the U.S. have plenty of irrational fears of our own to deal with. And we have plenty of groups actively preying on those fears to advance their agendas, including anti-gay-rights groups and Jewish groups supporting right-wing Israeli policies.

On the Jewish side, the latest case in point is a letter circulating in the U.S. Senate, calling on President Obama to "press Arab leaders to consider dramatic gestures toward Israel" to advance the peace process.

The letter, initiated by Senators Evan Bayh and James Risch and signed so far by five others, is the top item on the "Take Action" page of the website of AIPAC (the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee). It has all the hallmarks of previous Congressional letters that have been written in AIPAC's office. It's no stretch of the imagination that this letter, too, was written by the premier American-Jewish fear-mongering lobby.

As the Jewish peace group Brit Tzedek v'Shalom tells its members: "There is nothing wrong with calling on all parties in the Middle East to step up to the plate. This is, in fact, President Obama's approach. ... The problem with the Bayh-Risch letter is what is intentionally left out: the need for a complete Israeli settlement freeze to help move the peace process forward."

In fact, the letter makes it sound like Israel has already taken major steps in the service of peace while Arabs have done nothing. Read the Arab League's peace plan, now waiting seven years for a response from Israel, alongside reports of Israeli plans to expand settlements and block peace initiatives, to see how misleading this view is. Once again, fear and the conservatism it breeds can crowd out reality, even at the highest levels of government.

The ultimate tragedy of every right-wing strategy, whether anti-gay, anti-Palestinian, or anti-whatever, is that it's doomed to fail. Trying to prevent change, conservatives only engender conflict that is bound to lead to more change. Trying to control others, conservatives only insure that the world will grow even further out of their control. The idea of staying safe by preventing change and complexity is always an illusion.

But it's an illusion that dies hard. And while it is slowly dying, its victims -- in Tel Aviv, the Occupied Territories, and all over the globe -- are dying too.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Read more of his writing on Israel, Palestine, and American Jews at http://chernus.wordpress.com.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Healthcare Shortfalls

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 31, 2009
2:03 PM


CONTACT: National Organization for Women (NOW)
Mai Shiozaki, 202-628-8669, ext. 116; cell 202-641-1906
NOW Outraged at House Vote on Abortion Coverage -- Women's Rights Traded Away
WASHINGTON - July 31 - NOW is outraged to learn that the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed an amendment excluding abortion services from the "essential" health benefits package as defined by the government. Under this amendment, subsidies used to help pay insurance premiums for low-income people could not be used for abortion services. The New York Times reports that "insurers must use money from private sources to pay for any abortions."

"Reproductive health care is a fundamental right. Any health care plan that does not cover the full range of reproductive services, including abortion, discriminates against women," said NOW President Terry O'Neill. "Once again, our representatives are giving in to the right wing by trading away women's rights. Well, I have a message for them, our reproductive rights are not theirs to give away."

O'Neill noted that a majority of voters support coverage for abortion services, with only about a quarter opposed to using tax dollars to pay for abortion. In addition, a recent study found that most people in the U.S. with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion. "Don't low-income people deserve the same level of coverage as other people in this country?" asked O'Neill. "Our lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating class-based and gender-based biases as they attempt to 'reform' our broken health care system."
###
The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Also, the Black Agenda Report's Bruce Dixon wrote a scathing piece on Top Ten Ways To Tell Your President & His Party Aren't Fighting For Health Care For Everybody. Number 4 hits especially hard:
#

The president and his party have received more money from private insurers and the for-profit health care industry than even Republicans, with the president alone taking $19 million in the 2008 election cycle alone, more than all his Repubican, Democratic and independent rivals combined.

Democratic senator Max Bacaus got $1.1 million in 2008. Democratic senators Harkin, Landreau and Rockerfeller each got over half a million, and Senator Durbin got just under half a million. Other Democratic senators got a little less. Four Democrats in the House, Rangel, Dinglell, Udall and Hoyer got over half a million apiece in 2008, with other Democrats not far behind.

Is there any wonder that the insurance companies, like the drug companies are also running “bipartisan health care reform” commercials using the president's exact language?

But all are worth reading and really worrysomep.

Correction

Yesterday I said two families but that was misleading. 50 Palestinians were evicted.

From Democracy Now:
Israel Evicts 50 Palestinians from Home in East Jerusalem

Israeli police have evicted more than fifty Palestinians, including nineteen children, from their homes in East Jerusalem after an Israeli court ruled their homes were owned by Jewish settlers. The court’s ruling was based on nineteenth century documents. The eviction has been widely condemned by the international community, including the United Nations and the Obama administration. The British consulate said it was “appalled” by the court’s decision. In a statement, the consulate said, “These actions are incompatible with the Israeli professed desire for peace. We urge Israel not to allow the extremists to set the agenda.”

Hatem Abdel Qader, a leader of Fatah in Jerusalem: “For sure, the battle in Sheikh Jarrah has not ended. There are confiscation orders for twenty-eight houses. Three of them have already been carried out. There is a battle to save the other houses. We will be firm in this battle on a political, social and legal level. There is an Israeli project in Sheikh Jarrah which aims to remove this neighborhood and connect it with Shepherd Hotel and the Mufti neighborhood and to locate a huge settlement close to the Old City of Jerusalem in order to make the Old City of Jerusalem Jewish.”