Note to self: you don't brand...
...you get branded. tssssst.
From Webster
Etymology: Middle English, torch, sword, from Old English; akin to Old English bærnan to burn
also Webster:From AnotherPundit
to brand. transitive verb. to mark with a brand.
branding. active verb. the 21st century process through which corporations designate ownership over human beings and their labor, public space, art, culture and the production of knowledge.
via http://information-control.org
Click the link above for a high quality version for your desktop...
The Jeanne Gauna Liberation Award: for those who hear the sounds of liberation and feel the heartbeat of change.
Recipients:
SouthWest Organizing ProjectPrepared remarks (sorry, no teleprompter at the event so I had to wing it :)
Southern Echo
Project South
Esperanza Peace and Justice Center
Community Voices Heard
Fuerza Unida
Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice
Grassroots Global Justice
...It’s an honor to be here this evening to celebrate 20 years of grassroots victory. Congratulations Southwest Workers Union leadership, members and family.
What can I say about SWU? I’m always inspired by SWU’s dedication and commitment. And I’m always inspired by their unabashed, unashamed politics. Yes they wear their politics, sometimes literally, on their sleeves. It’s a politics of strategy and vision. It’s a working class intellectual politics. It’s a politics grounded in the community. But that’s not all, SWU doesn’t just wear their politics on their sleeves, they also wear their heart on their sleeves.
And one thing’s for sure, they’re always timely and relevant. They pushed us to join them at the Border Social Forum. They challenged us to step up and go down on the Gulf Coast Solidarity and Justice Tour. They put their blood, sweat, tears and brains into the US Social Forum and the Peoples Freedom Caravan, and they represent our movement all around the world.
And now they bring us all here tonight.
We live in an unprecedented defining moment in history. We are experiencing a generational and demographic change/transition at a scale here to before unseen in the United States. We are becoming a younger, darker country…and world.
A man named Barack Obama is President of the United States.
Yet we’ve been left with climate, moral and economic crises of epic proportions.
Our challenge at this particular time is not only to hold those in power accountable to the people. But rather, it’s to set the agenda, take power and govern for ourselves.
I have no doubt in our potential.
We’ve had enough.
We CAN do it.
Another Americas, another world, is possible.
Thank you.
The following pieces are from Ruben Solis, a founder of Southwest Workers Union and long time community organizer, political strategist and a true working class intellectual and historian. Southwest Workers Union is celebrating it's 20th Anniversary this coming weekend.
Presidential elections
(analysis.2)
Ruben Solis
12.08
It was a people’s victory in the November 4, 2008 presidential elections. The huge record voter turn out reflected a growing ‘revolt’ by the grassroots movements. The new grassroots power base and movement force is Youth, African Americans, Women, Indigenous and Latinos as counterweight to the usual conservative (WASP) right wing national agenda under the neo-liberal Reagan-Bush dynasty.
The immediate impact of the outcome of the Presidential elections was change in the political power base that has dominated the White House for nearly three decades. The outgoing DC powers moved the government and state to be a sort of ‘military governance’. The whole of the national agenda, budget and policies became dominated by the strategic-political game plan of war.
The new administration headed by President Obama, the first African American President in the entire history of the United States, has begun by organizing the transition teams developing plans for a multitude of areas of governance, administration and policy directions for the new administration. Some of the work is to map out how to implement campaign promises; the other work is to establish the infrastructure to push through the whole of the four year Obama plan, Party plan and vision.
The ideological-political framework set out by President Obama seems to reflect an approach that is ‘center governance’ or attempts to govern from a centrist position to unite the country under his new plan and platform. His plan to end the war on Iraq is a campaign promise and is planned to happen in the first two years of his administration.
However, his plans to expand the war on Afghanistan and surrounding countries in the Middle East seems to point to his supporting the ‘age-old’ U.S. foreign policy of ‘peace through war’ and not ‘peace through diplomacy’. President Obama’s role as President as the first African American to hold the office can also be the first President and Commander in Chief to establish a new U.S. policy of diplomacy, negotiations, and peace. President Obama can be reduced to a ‘neo-colonial’ President, meaning one that serves the interests of the ruling group that cannot be in power for the interim while the economy and country is in shambles after the Republican Party, W’s string of failures and the failures of the capitalist system.
The two headed party system that has ruled the United States politic and government forever has been by-passed by the grassroots social movement as was seen in this last election. More people voted outside the political party box and more from the demand for a new national agenda politic and national direction. Communities across the country organized voter education and mobilizing projects and campaigns impacting millions of youth and new voters. In most of the states that went from red to blue the determining factor in the turn around in political party was the Black, Women, Latino and youth vote. New Jersey, Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, California, to name a few were overturned because of the new grassroots voter power base.
The new power base has been developing for some time now in movements like ‘Push Back’ and the ‘South X Southwest’ as two examples. It is an example of the newest political devilment in the US and it is called ‘community governance’. The new voter base is not running over to the Republican or Democratic Party or third party movements to give away their new found power. Community governance is keeping the power at the community level organized independently of political parties and working for ‘accountability’ at all levels. The grassroots movement is expanding and deepening their efforts to organize and educate the ‘community governance’ movement to be a part of developing the new national agenda in a change we can believe in. This work starts by taking over politically community institutions like the school board of education, the city council and the state legislature. It also involves developing a ‘blueprint’ for change in each state and local community.
**********************************
United States Social Forum reloaded
Jan. 20, 2008
Ruben solis
The first ever United States Social Forum took place in June-July 2007 in Atlanta, Georgia. It brought together 20,000 organizers and activists of the US Social movement. 12,000 delegates registered and participated in the march, proceedings, sessions, assemblies, etc, in the USSF.
The USSF looked at six intersecting thematic axes in hundreds of self organized workshops and plenary sessions and deliberated in the Peoples Movement Assembly and came out agreeing ‘Another United States is Necessary for another world to be possible’. People at the USSF, nor the organizing committee, made it a central point to discuss the upcoming presidential elections. Yet, the historical juncture and the coming change were in the air of the USSF. The very essence of the USSF was about the self-realization of ‘change we can believe in’.
The USSF was filled with the sense and power, meaning and spirit of ‘community governance’ it was thick in the air at the USSF. The sense of ‘yes we can’ and the power to believe another United States is possible was a powerful wave brought on by the grassroots social movement at this stage of development. This wave of ‘change we can believe in’ preceded the Obama campaign and his campaign slogan. It reflects how real the USSF was and Obama’s recognizing the ‘political and historical’ importance of the moment.
With the Obama victory in the Presidential elections, the first African American President in the history of the US, the slogan of the USSF comes more to life. The Obama victory affirmed the vision, thinking and actions of the delegates at the USSF that saw “another US is possible”. With the Obama victory as a people’s victory we can say “what we said was not possible yesterday, today we say yes we can! “.
To make another US possible it was necessary to remove the entrenched neo-con administration of W. It was not easy to get rid of the W. Bush administration with its ‘bunker’ entrenchment mentality. People felt it was immediately necessary to change the W administration’s ‘military governance’ style that made all government policies, funding and programs predicated on accepting its military ideology. The immediate change is that the Obama administration seems to have established a policy of ‘governance from the center’ which makes his plan and administration more inclusive than the last and therefore more unifying for the country.
The most important outcome of the process starting with the organizing process of the US Social Forum starting in April 2004, and the victory of Obama in 08 was the growth and development of a mass movement both civic and social movement that believes in ‘community governance’. This means not just voting or marching but being part of the decision making processes, locally, regionally and nationally. It is a sense that you own the vote you do not give it away to the candidate therefore you retain a responsibility to get involved. It is this growing mass movement capable of moving millions of immigrants in the May 1 2006 march and general strike, moving hundred thousand in the Jena Six mass protest rally and the millions of voters who turned out and mobilized for the defeat of the military governance administration that dragged the country through at least two recent wars and debt.
Looking back at the United States Social Forum the participants were majority young, People of Color, Indigenous, women and LGBT. The diverse make up of the USSF was the best example of the new society of a world where everyone fits, where everyone is equal. The diverse thinking, organization, ideology, and life styles were an important characteristic of the US Social Forum. The Peoples Movement Assembly after the end of the USSF served as a proto type for how to come together as equals in the civic and social movements in the United States.
Hit the following link to reach Ruben.
Message to Obama, Bill Gates, his fellow "philanthropists," (yeah, I put quotes) and all sectors of society...phfff, everyone on the planet:
Double down.
Go all in.
Invest in people.
Invest in the planet.
Invest in public services, education, health care and infrastructure.
Out with the old shit and in with the new...
New Mexico Business Weekly's report on Eclipse today has another pundit thinking ;)
I'm following the story for many reasons, including the fact that it directly affects a member of my fam...
A quick re-cap for folks:
This week I heard from very good sources that employee mileage reimbursement checks from Eclipse were bouncing. Not a good sign. Then employees were sent home without pay. Then today, NMBW says Albuquerque mayor Martin Chavez said the aircraft manufacturing company told employees it was close to finding some new financing. (This was also confirmed by very good source.)
But it was a quote deeper in the story that really caught my eye.
The current financial crisis has made it difficult to raise new investments, Chavez said.
“It’s very clear the nation is in a recession, which is primarily centered around credit,” Chavez said. “My hope is that Eclipse doesn’t get caught up in that, but it’s the same story unfolding in every major city in America.”
Whaaa?
Here's what another pundit is thinking about. While the G-20 meet this weekend amidst a national and global financial crisis caused by a neo-liberal model of the pursuit of capital at all costs and corporate interests in control of all branches of government, we can't forget just how much the Marty Chavez's of the world and their developer friends are part of this financial disaster.
The real story unfolding is how "every major city in America" has been controlled by developers who borrowed money on state, county, local, city and other governments' credit...with much of their bidding done by Mayors like Marty Chavez. These developers are every bit as responsible as anyone for the mess we're in.
From Displacing the Dream, a report I was a major writer and contributor to...
...As available pipelines of public financing from the Federal Government to cities have dried up, public services—from welfare to subsidized housing—have been slashed from the federal budget.5
As a result of this domestic divestment, cities are more and more dependent on real estate taxes to raise their budgets. Developers that build on city land are essentially giving city governments the money they need to operate; the more upmarket the development, the more taxes the city can collect. In this context the profits that developers reap are both monetary and political, including increased control over the policy and planning decisions that shape civic life.6
This privatization of local financing and political power is unprecedented. It has transformed the cyclical process of development into wide scale privatization of public space and services. As more and more city space sells out to the highest bidder, longstanding communities—usually African-American, Latino, and Asian— which held rich social, economic, and cultural networks, are being displaced and thus, destroyed. And with that destruction, there is tremendous cost.
I think we all know the costs now...
5. Hackworth, Jason. The Neoliberal City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007.
6. Ibid.
Displacing the DreamThe following came from this comment stream from this post over on m-pyre...
...here's what happened... (as seen by another pundit)
early on, the polling was as would be expected in the "left" coast. no on 8 was winning close to margin of error...
first fight was the prop language, which the no side won. "eliminating the right of same-sex marriage from the california constitution," or something to that effect. this was instead of some version of "defining marriage" language that the Yes side wanted.
(the poll numbers were the exact opposite depending on how you asked the question. If the question was do you want eliminate rights no was up like 52 - 48, and if you asked is marriage between a man and a woman yes would go up like 52 - 48...)
the first ad bomb came from the yes side. if you didn't see it, you gotta search for it. but basically it had newsom on the steps of SF city hall yelling at the top of his lungs that same sex marriage was here to stay "Whether YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!!!"
this set the tone for the battle.
while the no on 8 side was reeling from that punch, the yes side got to organizing and focused the majority of their strategic efforts on mobilizing the faith community, no doubt.
then more ads...prop 8 will mandate the teaching of same sex marriage in school blah, blah, blah. this wasn't just an ad, this was a meme that was running through the churches and organizing networks of the yes side.
so while the no side starts to realize that the polls are turning they start to run ads that respond to the charges and do absolutely zero organizing.
yes side keeps on the offense. robo calls, direct mail with obama's picture w/ "i don't support gay marriage" quote, door knocking in communities of color, telling pastors they'd be forced to perform gay marriages, etc., etc.
(watching this happen, i'm like wow this is strategic and organized as hell, right.)
so think about it. no on 8 has basically no outreach or action following winning the initial ballot prop language and yes side baits the no side into straight up culture wars in the streets, you know, because the yes side's already done their organizing and have an army.
i'm talking sending young people of color into the streets...strategically placed in the overlapping demographics of religion, race and orientation. this led to daily coverage of these shouting matches in the streets...and eventually a rally at the state capitol where the yes side really placed the wedge by repeating and repeating and repeating that they're counting on a high obama turnout to pass prop 8.
what can the no side do from there? the no side didn't have any real ground game besides the spontaneous stopping on the side of the road to tell the young people with yes signs how wrong and dumb they were. the no side only rallied in the Castro and west Hollywood. No's ad strategy consists of responding to the yes ads and the occasional hey people don't you know this is a civil rights issue cause we put MLK in our ad...ad. (am i starting to sound real bitter like i'm desperately clinging to my copy of the universal declaration of human rights?)
no finally got obama to say no on 8, but by then it was too late. the cards were already played, the traps already set and the game already over. like when you realize someone's like 8 moves ahead of you in a game of chess.
Just being a koyote...
...For Eric Quesada, who's running for supervisor in my district.
From an email I wrote...
A quick YouTube search reveals a wave of grassroots opposition to Prop 6. Most are home-made, amateur videos from young people and youth advocates. The videos come from all across California - SoCal, Central and Silicon Valley and the Bay Area. Some are funny. Some are meant to pull at the heart strings. And others are informational. Yet almost all seem to be against the proposition.
"Well, we don't have the money to do a 30 minute commercial like Obama, or even 30 seconds because airtime is so expensive...But what we do have is people power and this thing is going viral," says Christina "Krea" Gomez of Community Justice Network for Youth (CJNY), a national network of grassroots organizations, service providing agencies, residential facilities and advocacy groups that focus their work on youth of color.
CJNY and their member groups across the state are part of various coalitions to defeat Prop 6, which they say will increase racial disparities and unequal sentencing, lower the age a child can be tried as an adult to 14 and move tax payer dollars from schools and after school programs to prisons. See their blog and YouTube page.
The vice presidential debate was watched more than each presidential debate, separately of course.
Gov Palin's SNL appearance scored more viewers than any of the presidential contenders, vice or top of the ticket.
There's no getting around it. She makes for good TV. Unfortunately for her, it's of the NASCAR type. We're all just waiting for the next car wreck.
on propaganda of 2008 prez election...
human, civil rights
NOT "anti-american,"
accusation IS
Peep their analysis at Changing the Story, SmartMeme's blog.
Continue reading.The recent revelations of economic trouble have produced a barrage of memes in the media and popular culture: meltdown, bailout, rescue package, and Wall Street vs. Main Street. Now, leaders tell us that we are in the midst a new economic reality – a credit crunch, foreclosure crisis, a recession, or another Great Depression.
Even as lawmakers struggle to reframe the $700 billion package as a “Rescue,” the “Bailout” meme remains more potent. The story of free market fundamentalism is unraveling, and the story has changed – but to what?
What does all of this mean for progressive strategy, and what are the stories we can tell about the real impacts and alternatives?
Go over to votenoprop6.blogspot.com for more info.
SJ Mercury News Editorial: Proposition 6: the worst case of ballot-box budgeting
Press Telegram - Prop 6: a confusing waste
LA Times: With the state scrambling for funds, Proposition 6 would add $1 billino in confused anti-crime spendng
SF Examiner: Prop 6 hurts black youth
Expectations are low, low, low for McCain right now. Yet the spread's still close, with a few polls showing a big move towards Obama.
That bodes well for McCain. All he's gotta' do is show up and not fall asleep, and he'll exceed expectations. That should slow Obama's momentum.
McCain seen as holding his own in the debate will be a victory in the media, and would probably really stunt Obama's momentum.
McCain doing really well will send it back to a dead heat.
Obama has a tough task ahead. He's gotta' keep his usual cool without seeming aloof AND make McCain lose it. TV is an emotional medium. Tone is the key. You have to show enough emotion so people feel you, without going all Howard Dean on it.
Ok. So the drinking game is.
1) If McCain falls asleep (or the opposite, and goes all Dean on everone) take a really big drink.
2) If Obama gets to the point before a long disclaimer, take a really big drink.
Tonight wouldn't normally be make or break for either side. But things are heated right now, in the beltway, mainstreet and the 'hood.
Obama has the opportunity to leave McCain in the dust. And McCain always has the opportunity to turn into dust. I'll be one of the over 80 million people watching, fo sho.
*Prediction: McCain tries to tie Obama to Bush on bailout. That's some dialectic, diabolical shit.
John McCain and Karl Rove have been calling women "Walmart Moms."
Well let me tell you something. If you vote for Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, the only place you're going to be able to shop IS Walmart.
These people have never been inside a Walmart in their life. They don't have to worry about how much things cost. We know we're getting cheap shit at Walmart, but it's all we can afford.
"Walmart Moms." "Bubba Voters." "Nascar Dads."
What assholes.
Dramatic pause.
U got it. Lipstick.
Queue the laugh track.
You know, I think a lot of folks are getting tired of "Sarah, the Insult Comic Candidate" and the right's one-liners.
Every line out of their mouths is an insult to someone or another. It's all about culture wars. But the thing is they seem to be insulting everyone, when you really listen.
The whole narrative on Obama is flat out racist. I said it. Listen. Watch. Read. Race is at the heart of the class and culture wars waged by the rich and elite.
I mean, "Community Organizers?" Hello.
But they don't stop there. They go on to talk about "Wal-Mart Moms."
They're insulting everyone. They think we're dumb. It's obvious they've never been in a Wal-Mart. They've never worried about what things cost, even though they wanna' talk about "values."
Yet I don't think I'm quite as worried as folks seem to be out there. I just think the country's changing.
Don't panic out there folks. We just gotta' work for it. Like we've always had to do.
And yes, we can win. Folks have had enough. Another world is truly possible.
Who said that again?
Right Wing Talking Point: Sarah Palin has more "executive experience" than the entire democratic ticket.
Sane Person Answer: If "executive experience" is the litmus test for presidency, then yes, she has more than Biden, Obama AND McCain. But if it's leadership you want, Barack Obama's historic campaign has been a study in leadership, organization and getting the job done in the face of seemingly impossible obstacles.
...or question.
That's right. I'm back. Excited again. And ready to talk some...shut your mouth!
So here it go.
Is the day of the "two white guys with red and blue ties" ticket over? Can we say that?
(Thanks to Lisa Russ for this one...we've had quite the email exchange around this.)
I suspect we'll see an "angry-white-guys-we-told-you-so" ticket in the next few election cycles - especially with the coming demographic changes - but for now it's an interesting talking point for the current political landscape.
Quote of the Day
Music's not a mirror to reflect reality. It's a hammer...with which to shape it!
Invincible, ShapeShifters, Emergence Records 2008
3. The "football vs. baseball" bit
2. The "when was the last time we bombed white people" bit
1. The "this country was founded by slave owners who wanted freedom" bit
Editor:
Props to the NY Times for William Yardley's chronicle of a progressive city's struggle with their "blind spot" around gentrification and its impact on low-income, working and communities of color, "Racial Shift in a Progressive City Spurs Talks," [5/29/08]. It was also a breath of fresh air the article pointed out Portland's problems play themselves out in cities across the country where middle, low-income and working families struggle to maintain some sense of stability to live, work and raise their families in the neighborhoods we call home.
It's time we change the way our neighborhoods and cities develop and grow. Neighborhoods and communities can no longer simply be seen as commodities, markets and investments to be bought and sold at the whim of speculators. The result of this conventional wisdom - that the only common sense 'fix' for 'crime-ridden, blighted and polluted' communities (often code for communities of color) is corporate luxury development with token "mixed income" projects and subjective definitions of affordable, workforce housing - is the current economic recession in which the country finds itself, a recession widely thought to be buoyed by a so called housing crisis. Fortunately many are now finally starting to see it's really an affordable housing crisis, "Major San Francisco Development Faces a Ballot Test," [5/28/08].
Similar to the idea of living wages - that people who work hard should be able to live and raise a family on their salaries - communities should be able to control development so that the people who live there can continue to do so if they choose.
Talking about it like folks are in Portland is a start. But changing faulty common sense conventional wisdom is really achieved through action and "living development" policies shaped by and for the people who live in the communities in need of solutions to the affordable housing crisis.
The article did leave this regular NYT reader and subscriber begging for answers to a few questions.
If Portland's Restorative Listening Project is rooted in the concept of restorative justice and modeled after the truth and reconciliation commission following the end of apartheid in South Africa, is gentrification a crime? To me at least, there's no doubt solutions require some sort of prevention and corrective action to decrease racial, gender and class disparities (Note to regular readers: Another Pundit calls these disparities *democracy divides*)
And how are cities, towns, municipalities and other governments from rural America to urban centers - where revenues for essential services and things like, I don't know, public safety, are almost solely dependent on credit and bond ratings from corporate handouts and back room deals with predatory developers and misery profiteers - going to find the resources to play government?
Another Pundit
National Conference on Media Reform 2008:
media justice
is much more about justice
than the media
A quote for the day.
“We are in government but not in power,” said Lula’s close aide, Dominican friar Frei Betto. “Power today is global power, the power of the big companies, the power of financial capital. Source.
Since his new book and new Sunday morning talk show came out this week, Another Pundit figured Fareed Zakaria would be the first to get skewered.
Wikibio:
Estimated Net Wealth: Shit, I don't know. It's in the millions, no doubt. It's a great question, though.
Dr. Fareed Zakaria PhD (born January 20, 1964, Mumbai, India) is a journalist, columnist, author, editor, commentator, and television host specializing in international relations and foreign affairs.
He was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000. He writes a weekly foreign affairs column for Newsweek, which appears biweekly in the Washington Post. In 2003, his book The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Norton) was published.
On television, Zakaria hosted the weekly Foreign Exchange with Fareed ZakariaPBS. From 2002 until 2007, he was a regular member of the roundtable of ABC News's This Week with George Stephanopoulos and an analyst for ABC News. In the fall of 2007, he joined CNN to host a weekly show, called Fareed Zakaria - GPS (Global Public Square), on international affairs that premiered worldwide on June 1, 2008. news show for
So you wanna' be a corporate pundit, and make the big bucks? Fareed's story is a great lesson in how to do it. As corporate media's go-to brownie on "why they hate us," he's the quintessential "good cop" neo-liberal propagandist, known to many as a "pundit" for the fourth estate.
His pundistyle? It's a pretty formulaic mix of simple metaphors, fake gravitas, unauthentic provocation, and, of course, the requisite kneel to those in power.His central basis for the rise of the rest:
...The world has shifted from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism.More proof that, as a friend of mine recently told me when I passed him this article, that these neo-liberals don't have a clue of what's happening out there.
...We are living through the third great power shift in modern history. The first was the rise of the Western world, around the 15th century. It produced the world as we know it now—science and technology, commerce and capitalism, the industrial and agricultural revolutions. It also led to the prolonged political dominance of the nations of the Western world. The second shift, which took place in the closing years of the 19th century, was the rise of the United States. Once it industrialized, it soon became the most powerful nation in the world, stronger than any likely combination of other nations. For the last 20 years, America's superpower status in every realm has been largely unchallenged—something that's never happened before in history, at least since the Roman Empire dominated the known world 2,000 years ago. During this Pax Americana, the global economy has accelerated dramatically. And that expansion is the driver behind the third great power shift of the modern age—the rise of the rest.
Another Pundit is in awe of the most recent piece from who he considers the "pound for pound" (by population, resources and square miles of land) most influential political leader (whether you agree with him or not) of the last 50 years - Fidel Castro. An excerpt (but folks should really read the whole thing):
It would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing the speech Obama delivered on the afternoon of May 23 at the Cuban American National Foundation created by Ronald Reagan. I listened to his speech, as I did McCain’s and Bush’s. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly.
...Presidential candidate Obama’s speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation (Cuba), remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it.
...What did he say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency? "For two hundred years," he said, "the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle --not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and despair. That is not a future that we have to accept --not for the child in Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We must do better
....I am not questioning Obama’s great intelligence, his debate skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. I feel sympathy for his wife and little girls, who accompany him and give him encouragement every Tuesday. It is indeed a touching human spectacle.
Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.
1) Is it right for the president of the United States to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext may be?
2) Is it ethical for the president of the United States to order the torture of other human beings?
3) Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the United States as an instrument to bring about peace on the planet?
4) Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment on only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilize it, good and honorable, even when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? If it is good, why is this right not automatically granted to Haitians, Dominicans, and other peoples of the Caribbean, and why isn’t the same Act applied to Mexicans and people from Central and South America, who die like flies against the Mexican border wall or in the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific?
5) Can the United States do without immigrants, who grow vegetables, fruits, almonds and other delicacies for U.S. citizens? Who would sweep their streets, work as servants in their homes or do the worst and lowest-paid jobs?
6) Are crackdowns on illegal residents fair, even as they affect children born in the United States?
7) Are the brain-drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable?
8) You state, as I pointed out at the beginning of this reflection, that your country had long ago warned European powers that it would not tolerate any intervention in the hemisphere, reiterating that this right be respected while demanding the right to intervene anywhere in the world with the aid of hundreds of military bases and naval, aerial and spatial forces distributed across the planet. I ask: is that the way in which the United States expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?
9) Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks on sixty or more dark corners of the world, as Bush calls them, whatever the pretext may be?
10) Is it honorable and sound to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over?
Before judging our country, you should know that Cuba, with its education, health, sports, culture and sciences programs, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world, and the blood that has been shed in acts of solidarity towards other peoples, in spite of the economic and financial blockade and the aggression of your powerful country, is proof that much can be done with very little.
The only form of cooperation the United States can offer other nations consist in the sending of military professionals to those countries. It cannot offer anything else, for it lacks a sufficient number of people willing to sacrifice themselves for others and offer substantial aid to a country in need (though Cuba has known and relied on the cooperation of excellent U.S. doctors). They are not to blame for this, for society does not inculcate such values in them on a massive scale.
We have never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the United States our help when hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our internationalist medical brigade bears the glorious name of Henry Reeve, a young man, born in the United States, who fought and died for Cuba’s sovereignty in our first war of independence.
Our revolution can mobilize tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilize an equally vast number of teachers and citizens, who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfill any noble purpose, not to usurp people’s rights or take possession of raw materials. The good will and determination of people constitute limitless resources that cannot be kept and would not fit in a bank’s vault. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire.
Fidel Castro Ruz May 25, 2008 10:35 p.m.
The real upsetting thing about this is not that she didn't attempt a "major speech" on race, class and gender like Obama did.
CNN - Clinton chastises press for ignoring sexism: "There should be equal treatment of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head," Clinton told the Washington Post in an article published in the paper's Tuesday edition. "It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."
"…I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press."
And then tonight in her speech following Kentucky primary results:
I'm paraphrasing, but: 'I want you to join me to break the hardest glass ceiling.'It's that it's a mixed message. If it's the hardest glass ceiling to break, then how to you square the other argument that Obama's "unelectable" because he can't win white working class voters in the "big" swing states?
As the story plays itself out, I think we’ll find that Obama’s nomination and ultimate presidency (and the primary race itself with Clinton) will only shine a spotlight on the well documented race, gender and class disparities and inequalities - what I call *democracy divides* - that exist, and force folks to really have a debate about solutions.
If you take Jesse Jackson's generalization in the Sun Times today and, yes maybe overly simplistic, narrative to it’s end, the solutions are still the same. Bridging the democracy divides of race, class, region, religion, gender, access to public space, institutions and airwaves, etc. is about correcting the disparities and (this is a little yucky, cause I know it ain’t true) continuing the arc of justice that is (yes, it’s been an ebb and flow of setbacks and victories and it’s more f-ed up than ever right now, but…) "perfecting the union."
The point is racial, gender and economic justice solutions have been the driving force behind what Jackson called “…an America that keeps growing, keeps renewing itself, keeps getting better.”
That’s the framing that needs to happen. Well, that and who’s responsible and what role civil society and government have to play in those solutions.
My read on what's happening today behind the curtains in ElectionLandia08.
Obama's team is playing chess, not checkers.
Not even going to Oregon or Kentucky, but to Iowa to claim victory without claiming victory.
It will be a similar speech to the one he made following Iowa primary.
But today he takes on Bush and McCain on Iran, Cuba. Going to Florida tomorrow.
It is general election time.
The question the media will want to dwell on is how much it alienates Clinton base. Saw this national poll, though, so it's not the worst time to not quite claim victory, but, you know, claim victory.
On Iran, Cuba. Tells Wolf Blitzer the policies of the past 50 years on Cuba have failed, like with Iran and also during the last 8 years of Bush.
It's gutsy, but strategic to play good cop vs. bad cop cowboys. It, of course, ties McCain to Bush. But it also takes on what is a perceived Obama weakness and McCain strength while advancing a diplomacy agenda - even if it's blurry and, yes, a good cop - but a cop nonetheless - diplomacy agenda.
It's at least 10 moves ahead if it were a chess game, at least two months ahead in the election process. When the republicans try to play this card over and over, he'll just say it's old news, old politics and that he's addressed it. Under that scenario, polls don't change even in an arena of debate that's supposed to be McCainLandia.
Anything that McCain says that sounds like the same debate Obama had with Clinton, he'll call "old." That makes another pundit Laugh Out Loud!
I'm assuming that the Dem nominee will have about an 8-12 percentage point advantage following convention - that, along with all the other perceived advantages for Dems ($, saliency, organization, etc., etc., etc.) places this in the
Strategy Prepare Influence Neutralize
category.
Some of the best of all time.
Electoral map will be still be interesting as November approaches. Clinton, Rove, Bush and McCain think so anyway.
Clinton put her best argument forward in her speech tonight following her win in W. Virginia. No doubt.
At the same time, unfortunately for her, she's a month or so late and a few million dollars short.
And her argument was severely undercut by Childers' win in a Republican stronghold where the democrat was hammered with ads tying him to Obama.
...and how hard it is to focus on what's happening out there.
If Henry Adams, whom you knew slightly, could make a theory of history by applying the second law of thermodynamics to human affairs, I ought to be entitled to base one on the angle of repose, and may yet. There is another physical law that teases me, too: the Doppler Effect. The sound of anything coming at you -- a train, say, or the future -- has a higher pitch than the sound of the same thing going away. If you have perfect pitch and a head for mathematics you can compute the speed of the object by the interval between its arriving and departing sounds. I have neither perfect pitch nor a head for mathematics, and anyway who wants to compute the speed of history? W. Stegner, Angle of Repose.The following are two articles that just may cut through the noise of the corporate media train coming at us full speed.
Then David Brooks opines in the NY Times about a "Conservative Revival" from the other side of the pond.Newt says...
My Plea to Republicans: It's Time for Real Change to Avoid Real DisasterThe Republican loss in the special election for Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District last Saturday should be a sharp wake up call for Republicans: Either Congressional Republicans are going to chart a bold course of real change or they are going to suffer decisive losses this November.
The facts are clear and compelling.
Saturday's loss was in a district that President Bush carried by 19 percentage points in 2004 and that the Republicans have held since 1975.
This defeat follows on the loss of Speaker Hastert's seat in Illinois. That seat had been held by a Republican for 76 years with the single exception of the 1974 Watergate election when the Democrats held it for one term. That same seat had been carried by President Bush 55-44% in 2004.
...These two special elections validate a national polling pattern that is bad news for Republicans. According to a New York Times/CBS Poll, Americans disapprove of the President's job performance by 63 to 28 (and he has been below 40% job approval since December 2006, the longest such period for any president in the history of polling).
A separate New York Times/CBS Poll shows that a full 81 percent of Americans believe the economy is on the wrong track.
The current generic ballot for Congress according to the NY Times/CBS poll is 50 to 32 in favor of the Democrats. That is an 18-point margin, reminiscent of the depths of the Watergate disaster.
Newt's article is interesting for it's insight into the disarray of the Republican party. Especially as the corporate media has fixated on divisions within the Democratic party.David Brooks says...
The Conservative RevivalToday, British conservatives are on the way up, while American conservatives are on the way down. British conservatives have moved beyond Thatcherism, while American conservatives pine for another Reagan. The British Conservative Party enjoyed a series of stunning victories in local elections last week, while polls show American voters thoroughly rejecting the Republican brand.
The flow of ideas has changed direction. It used to be that American conservatives shaped British political thinking. Now the influence is going the other way.
The British conservative renovation begins with this insight: The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”
And the following analysis is a little stale, for me at least 'cause I've been saying it since, well, Iowa, and friends have heard it ad nausea, but...From USA Today: Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests."I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.
Somewhere in a plane from Iowa to New Hampshire, in the middle of the night, a plan was hatched. Turn Obama into the "black candidate."
So, I made this blog one night a long time a go from a simple name that I thought was catchy. Then I made the mistake of linking to it in the comment section of a blog I frequent. They linked to it, and I know they must be tired of me taking up space on their comment page, so now I figure it's time to find my voice...my purpose for writing a blog.
The tagline for this blog is "bridging democracy divides one post at a time." In the political time and place we find ourselves in, with a Doppler effect of (mis)information, distraction, bias and corporate branding noise screaming towards us, there's gotta' be a place for someone to focus us in on what's important.
I think another pundit is possible. One that is not beholden to corporate sponsorship, that asks the right questions and one that offers solutions. And I think I'm that pundit.
See, there's this historic race going on. Remember? It was historic. The two front runners of the front running party were confronting head on old, dominant narratives - like that only white men can be president. But somewhere folks got off track. We lost track of our goals. Our real problems. And, most importantly, who's responsible for solving our problems.
Race, class and gender disparities - what I call *democracy divides* exist. These disparities aren't about personal prejudice - that "we can't get along." They're not about individual "racists." These divides don't result from anecdotes about "race relations" or individual experiences of prejudice. They come from bad public policy. These divides are institutional. Structural.
The question is about how we bridge these divides, and support solutions inline with the needs, values and interests of poor, working and middle class families.
Bridging these divides starts with corrective solutions to disparities and democracy divides of race, class, gender and region...you know, progress.
Yet the vision of everyone with equal access to democracy, opportunity and economic and social justice will only be realized with big ideas, sacrifice and commitment.
Come back for analysis, punditry for the people, stories that confront dominant narratives and conventional wisdom in the service of justice, updates about all the stuff I'm all up in...and more, I'm sure.
Some say it could hit $7 in the next four years.
But yes, folks. I paid 4 bucks a gallon for the first time yesterday. It hurt. But it's only going to get worse, and maybe it'll get us off our addiction to oil - and all that comes with it.
A side note: I was "texting" my friends, whining about paying $4 per gallon... One of them reported from the US/Mexico border that Border Patrol, Police and other "officials" don't seem to be feeling a crunch yet.
"They're the only ones out driving around all day," my source said.
The rest of us? Some are resorting to prayer.
You know the story:
Obama's grassroots movement.
Hillary underestimated it...
The media failed to see it coming...
It's a "new" kind of politics.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Obama tapped into movements that already existed with strategic communications, and a politicized generation coming of age during a time of war, economic crisis and historic inequality and environmental catastrophe. It's not a new analysis. Hillary didn't underestimate it and the media didn't fail to see it, they didn't even know they were out there.
Talk about being out of touch.
1.) It lost the last two elections.In the end, what Obama has bet on is that changing the electoral map can transcend what a friend of mine calls the “tyranny of the six percent” (you know – so many agree with you and so many disagree with you and you go after the rest) that leads to micro-poll messaging and targeting and 50 % + 1 tactical elections (oh yeah, and two-party corporate control of the electoral system – oops did I say that?) where solutions and progress get lost in the margins of the “undecideds” and special interests.
2.) When Bill Clinton, in South Carolina, pushed the double-speak of “Obama-can’t-win-but-they-would-make-a-dream-ticket” line, he reasoned it would be because of what he implied was Obama’s “urban” draw. Yes. That same old map – with Hillary taking what would be, according to conventional wisdom, Republican territory in a general election. As if Clinton will really compete there. Anyone seen her “negatives” amongst Democrats, let alone Republicans?
3.) This is further undercut by Obama’s wins in those “small states.” You know, where there are a lot of those “white” working class voters that Clinton says are her “base.” Am I missing something here? I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt Obama is going continue to bring new voters to the polls and pad the popular vote – state by state. (“There are not blue states and red states…there are the United States…blah, blah, blah.”)
4.) Clinton’s latest double-speak where behind closed doors she continues to say Obama can’t win, but when pushed said that not only does Clinton think Obama can beat McCain, but she also said she’ll do “anything” she can to make sure a Democrat takes the Whitehouse following November’s election. That would make the “Big State” strategy moot anyway, right? I mean, since she’ll bring it home for the Dems anyway?
5.) The reason Obama’s message has resonated with large chunks of the electorate is because it transcends the micro-poll messaging and targeting that leads to a divided electorate – currently playing itself out with the Clinton “Big State” (and 50% + 1, slash and burn, kitchen sink) strategy in exit polling, showing the same old divides of class, race, gender, religion, region, etc., etc., etc.
6.) Playing devil’s advocate (you know, “we’re only toughening Obama up for the general when the Republican attack machine really comes after whoever’s the nominee”) still makes you an advocate for, um, the devil. Uh, did I mention Clinton’s negatives?
The Democratic Primary is now only about personality
Wrong!
It's not about race or gender, either. Nor is it about minor policy disagreements. To be real, the general won't be about minor or even major policy disagreements either. Status quo is still the goal. For both parties. They are the very definition of status quo. But that aside...
It's about strategy.
Clinton Strategy:
Big states. Democratic strongholds. Micro polls.
Country's Mood: Angry, center-right.
Obama Strategy:
All states. Every voter. Big message.
Country's mood: Hopeful, center-left.
Published on: February 8, 2008
Published by: karlos schmieder
Likely and eligible African American Democrat voters made up 9% of Super Tuesday's California primary, according to Survey USA.
ProjectVote.org documented an increase in young, Latino and African American turnout across 5 important primary states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee), and say young and people of color voted in record numbers in all Super Tuesday states.
Yet African Americans underperformed compared to their percentage of the voting eligible population in California, making up just 7% of the state’s Democratic voters, according to exit polls.From the Displacing the Dream prologue: As more and more city space sells out to the highest bidder, longstanding communities - usually African-American, Latino and Asian - which hold rich social, economic and cultural networks, are displaced and, thus, destroyed. And with that destruction, there is tremendous cost.
One of those costs, particularly in the Bay Area, is the resulting loss of electoral, organizing and mobilization power for the region’s African American population.
Does predatory corporate development disenfranchise communities? A body of evidence is beginning to suggest it does.
