politics

by

Obama upholds discrimination

Equal rights are not special rightsBarack Obama is on track to become not just a good, but one of the great US Presidents. But yesterday he made a big mistake.

Obama let stand Bush’s executive order allowing religious organizations to discriminate in hiring on the basis of faith and still receive federal funding. Discrimination on the basis of religion is a direct violation of the First Amendment. And because many faith-based organizations are 100% of one race and one language, have prescribed roles for men and women, and often exclude homosexuals and others who don’t fit their doctrines, this order means that invidious discrimination supported by everyone’s tax dollars is now enshrined in Federal policy. The Constitution protects everyone’s right to associate with those they choose, but it also forbids unequal treatment under the law.

Obama had rightly questioned this policy during the campaign, saying “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them–or against the people you hire–on the basis of their religion.”

He was right then and wrong yesterday.

See Obama upholds Bush faith policy – Los Angeles Times.

by

David Bergman’s 1,474-megapixel photo of Obama’s inauguration

David Bergman made an amazing 1,474-megapixel panoramic photo during President Obama’s inaugural address. The detail in the image is impressive; Bergman describes how he found Yo-Yo Ma taking a picture with his iPhone.

The photo is a valuable record of the historic event as well as a technological/artistic tour de force. You can explore the photo itself online and read about how he did it on his blog.

CNN has another photosynth version of this based on photos sent in by diverse individuals at the event:

by

The hidden race war after Katrina

when_the_levees_brokeRebecca Solnit describes her discovery of the Katrina shootings in a recent Mother Jones article and audio interview. She points out that the hidden race war was never really hidden, but it was conveniently ignored, even today, despite Spike Lee’s award-winning documentary and excellent investigative reports, such as as A. C. Thompson’s in The Nation. I suspect the story would still surprise many people and challenge their image of the Katrina aftermath. It should also cause all of us to become more critical of media reports and our own reactions to those:

While the national and international media were working themselves and much of the public into a frenzy about imaginary hordes of murderers, rapists, snipers, marauders, and general rampagers among the stranded crowds of mostly poor, mostly black people in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, a group of white men went on a shooting spree across the river.

Their criminal acts were no secret but they never became part of the official story. The media demonized the city’s black population for crimes that turned out not to have happened, and the retractions were, as always, too little too late. At one point FEMA sent a refrigerated 18-wheeler to pick up what a colonel in the National Guard expected to be 200 bodies in New Orleans’s Superdome, only to find six, including four who died naturally and a suicide. Meanwhile, the media never paid attention to the real rampage that took place openly across the river, even though there were corpses lying in unflooded streets and testimony everywhere you looked—or I looked, anyway.

The widely reported violent crimes in the Superdome turned out to be little more than hysterical rumor, but they painted African-Americans as out-of-control savages at a critical moment. The result was to shift institutional responses from disaster relief to law enforcement, a decision that resulted in further deaths among the thirsty, hot, stranded multitude. Governor Kathleen Blanco announced, “I have one message for these hoodlums: These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so if necessary, and I expect they will.” So would the white vigilantes, and though their exact body count remains unknown, at least 11 black men were apparently shot, some fatally.

In his excellent report, A. C. Thompson presents a frightening and dismaying picture of the response in Algiers Point:

Facing an influx of refugees, the residents of Algiers Point could have pulled together food, water and medical supplies for the flood victims. Instead, a group of white residents, convinced that crime would arrive with the human exodus, sought to seal off the area, blocking the roads in and out of the neighborhood by dragging lumber and downed trees into the streets. They stockpiled handguns, assault rifles, shotguns and at least one Uzi and began patrolling the streets in pickup trucks and SUVs. The newly formed militia, a loose band of about fifteen to thirty residents, most of them men, all of them white, was looking for thieves, outlaws or, as one member put it, anyone who simply “didn’t belong.”

References

Lee, Spike (2006). When the levees broke: A requiem in four acts. [TV mini-series].

Solnit, Rebecca (2008, December 22). The grinning skull: The homicides you didn’t hear about in Hurricane Katrina. Mother Jones. Audio interview

Solnit, Rebecca (in press). A paradise built in Hell.

Thompson, A. C. (2008, December 17). Katrina’s hidden race war. The Nation.

by

Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution

irvington_statue_of_rip_van_winkleOn November 4, voters in the US made a momentous choice, not only by taking another step towards racial equality, but also by demanding new ways of relating to other countries, to injustice, to the environment, and to truth itself. As of today, that is only one step; nothing has changed except the direction we are pointed.

Where the path leads next depends even more on the rest of us than it does on President-Elect Obama. The great challenges of globalization, racism, poverty, and violence are unaffected by a single election. Yet, there is a risk that we can fall asleep, lose sight of those challenges, and begin to think only of narrow issues, such as many that surfaced in the campaign.

We have the opportunity now to respond to the challenges posed 43 years ago in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s excellent speech, Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution. In his talk, he relates the story of “Rip Van Winkle,” who slept 20 years. But he reminds us that when Rip went up to the mountain, the sign on the local inn had a picture of King George III of England. Twenty years later, the sign had a picture of George Washington. Rip had not only slept 20 years; he had slept through a revolution. As King says, “Rip Van Winkle knew nothing about it; he was asleep.”

King saw that we are experiencing a scientific and technological revolution, one that challenges us to remain awake, and to develop a world perspective. It’s more imperative than ever to eradicate racial injustice and rid the world of poverty, and to find an alternative to war and bloodshed. Long before talk of flat worlds, King saw that our destinies were intertwined:250px-martin_luther_king_jr_nywts

All I’m saying is simply this: that all mankind is tied together; all life is interrelated, and we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. For some strange reason I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. And you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be – this is the interrelated structure of reality…And by believing this, by living out this fact, we will be able to remain awake through a great revolution.

Remaining awake means looking beyond government as usual and recognizing that children in Haiti are in our “garment of destiny,” as much a part of our world as the person next door. It means knowing that justice is an ongoing project that needs to be defended wherever we hear of abuses of human rights, not seeking ways to justify them. It means finding an end to wars, not simply moving from one venue to another.

Can we do any better now at addressing King’s great challenges?

References

King, Jr, Martin Luther (1965, June). Remaining awake through a great revolution. Commencement address for Oberlin College, Oberlin Ohio.

by

Bill Ayers interview

Bill Ayers gave his first interview after the election on NPR’s Fresh Air on Tuesday. It’s very interesting,  providing some context on a bizarre aspect of the Presidential race this year. Terry Gross gets him to speak freely and also asks probing questions about the war in Vietnam, the 60’s, terrorism, means v. ends, politics, imperialism, and the personal impact.

Fresh Air from WHYY, November 18, 2008 · The name of former anti-war activist William Ayers was brought up twice in an attempt to discredit Barack Obama during the recent presidential campaign — first by Hillary Clinton, and then by the McCain campaign. Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin accused Obama — who served on two nonprofit boards with Ayers — of “palling around with terrorists.”

The accusations stemmed from Ayers’ involvement with the Weather Underground, a radical group responsible for bombings on the New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. The federal case against Ayers was dismissed in the early 1970s.

Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the author of ‘Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War Activist.’

Ayers will be a guest-in-residence on the Urbana-Champaign campus this coming March 8-12.

by

Creative democracy: Yes we can!

Yesterday’s election of Barack Obama as President of the United States was not only promising for our future, but was also a moving reaffirmation of all that America can be.

His Presidency may not fulfill all the dreams that the candidacy inspired; some things may not change at all. But it reminds me of what Thurgood Marshall said after the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, which outlawed segregated schools. When asked what the Supreme Court ruling really meant, Marshall, said that in fact nothing had changed, except that henceforth, repeating the civil rights mantra, “the law is on our side”. In a similar way, Obama’s Presidency offers no guarantees, but does offer exciting possibilities in terms of uniting Americans and restoring America’s role in the community of nations.

The election of Obama is also a reminder that democracy is not a static system, but a process in need of continual renewal by all. Dewey (1976/1939, p. 230) expresses this in his essay, “Creative democracy: The task before us”:

Democracy as compared with other ways of life is the sole way of living which believes wholeheartedly in the process of experience as end and as means; as that which is capable of generating the science which is the sole dependable authority for the direction of further experience and which releases emotions, needs and desires so as to call into being the things that have not existed in the past. For every way of life that fails in its democracy limits the contacts, the exchanges, the communications, the interactions by which experience is steadied while it is also enlarged and enriched. The task of this release and enrichment is one that has to be carried on day by day. Since it is one that can have no end till experience itself comes to an end, the task of democracy is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all contribute.

Let’s have the audacity to hope that we are capable of creating of “a freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all contribute.” I might add that John McCain’s concession speech was a gracious and thoughtful step in that direction.

References

Dewey, John (1976). Creative democracy: The task before us. In J. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953, volume 14 (pp. 224-230). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1939)

Kluger, Richard (1977, 1975). Simple justice. The history of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’s struggle for equality. New York: Vintage Books.

by

Income inequality is rising in most OECD countries

According to a new Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries, a combination of globalization, economic growth, and other societal changes has not only led to a larger gap between rich and poor nations; it’s also led to a growing gap between rich and poor in more than three-quarters of OECD countries over the past two decades.

Of the OECD countries, except for Mexico and Turkey, the United States has highest inequality level and poverty rate. Since 2000, income inequality has increased rapidly, accentuating a long-term trend that began in the 1970s.

OECD’s Growing Unequal? finds that the economic growth of recent decades has benefitted the rich more than the poor. In some countries, such as Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway and the United States, the gap also increased between the rich and the middle-class.

Countries with a wide distribution of income tend to have more widespread income poverty. Also, social mobility is lower in countries with high inequality, such as Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, and higher in the Nordic countries where income is distributed more evenly.

Launching the report in Paris, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría warned of the dangers posed by inequality and the need for governments to tackle it. “Growing inequality is divisive. It polarises societies, it divides regions within countries, and it carves up the world between rich and poor. Greater income inequality stifles upward mobility between generations, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve. Ignoring increasing inequality is not an option.”

via Income inequality and poverty rising in most OECD countries

by

Idealizing torture

It’s good that people are talking about the issues of renditions, prisons, and torture; too many others treat them as outside of their lives, even though our public policies have very real consequences for people every day. My last post, Once-secret memos endorse CIA torture tactics generated an email comment from someone who said that she “could justify torture if it meant avoiding as many deaths as occurred in 9/11.”

Of course, we’re fortunate in one sense that torture is not a familiar part of most of our lives. But the result is that we idealize it. For many people it’s the glorified version they see on television, as on 24, in which heroes suffer but survive, and bad guys get what they deserve. In that idealized world, moral choices appear more clear-cut: Is it OK to torture one evil person so that thousands of lives can be saved?

But in the real world, there is no evidence that torture actually works:

There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community’s use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information, according to a new report from an intelligence advisory group.

Those TV situations don’t happen, for a variety of reasons. We end up torturing innocent people (who have never even been tried). People who defend torture should be asking, not “is there any conceivable situation in which torture could be justified?”, but “what is the cost of abusing our Constitution, our laws and our moral values? are we absolutely sure that it’s worth it? when we start down that path, how do we decide where to stop?”

I’ve signed the petition at the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT); to say that I don’t believe we should be on the path at all.

References

Aftergood, Steven (2007, January 15). Intelligence Science Board Views Interrogation. Federation of American Scientists.

Intelligence Science Board (2006, December). Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art: Foundations for the Future, Phase 1 Report (374 pages, 2.5 MB).

by

Once-secret memos endorse CIA torture tactics

When I was younger I read about torture in other countries and times, with a sense of fear and revulsion. Later I learned about the School of Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia (since renamed as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). There, the US Army trains Latin American security personnel using training manuals that advocate torture, extortion, and execution. Graduates of the School, including notorious dictators, are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America. But I sought a scintilla of relief in the idea that the torture didn’t actually happen here.

In recent years, I learned about the CIA rendition program, set up during the Clinton administration, and expanded under Bush, in which people are kidnapped and transferred to countries that practice torture, thus violating the long-standing international legal principle of nonrefoulement. Again, one might grasp for a moral distinction between enacting and simply aiding torture. When we learned about Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, we saw that, too, as far away. We were told that it wasn’t actually authorized, even though official rhetoric and policies might have set the stage for it.

In all of these cases, we kept grasping for distinctions–someone else carried out the torture, even though we taught them how to do it; some other country’s laws were barbaric, though we kidnapped people, denied them trial, and took them there, knowing full well, even desiring, what would happen; some low-level soldier abused, even killed detainees, but we had trained them, defined their mission, demonized the people they were sent to aid, and then conveniently looked the other way.

Throughout, we kept asserting that while we associate with others who do unspeakable things, we don’t do it ourselves. After all, if we were to begin to engage in torture, where would it end? How would we be any different from those dictatorships and totalitarian regimes?

We’re even uneasy talking about it:

As recently as last month, the administration had never publicly acknowledged that its policymakers knew about the specific techniques, such as waterboarding, that the agency used against high-ranking terrorism suspects. In her unprecedented account to lawmakers last month, [Condoleezza] Rice, now secretary of state, portrayed the White House as initially uneasy about a controversial CIA plan for interrogating top al-Qaeda suspects.

Last week we learned that, well, we don’t just train others to torture; we don’t just write training manuals for torture; we don’t just ship people off to countries that torture; we don’t just have a few aberrant soldiers who stray from the official line:

The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency’s use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects — documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.

In this case, the CIA itself knew it was crossing the line, that there could be a public backlash directed at them. It insisted on written authorization before continuing.

The Bush administration quickly complied. Why? Because, like the many Latin American dictators who had been trained by the School of Americas, they thought the torture would serve their purposes and they knew they could get away with it. Americans who had learned to accept the School of Americas, the CIA rendition program, and Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, had become all too ready to accept that it does actually happen here. And it’s not just someone else who does it. It’s not against policy. It is the policy, and it’s our leaders who make it happen.

References

Mayer, Jane (2005, November 14). A deadly interrogation: Can the C.I.A. legally kill a prisoner?. The New Yorker.

Warrick, Joby (2008, October 15). CIA tactics endorsed in secret memos: Waterboarding got White House nod. Washington Post.

by

Powell asks, “What if he is?”

Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama for President was a powerful statement from a much-respected figure. It will certainly help Obama’s campaign. But at least as significant was his challenge of Islamophobia:

I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said. Such things as ‘Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.’ Well the correct answer is ‘He is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian, he’s always been a Christian.’ But the really right answer is ‘What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?’ The answer is ‘No. That’s not America.’ Is there something wrong with some 7-year old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she can be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he’s a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

gugart@msn.com">Photo courtesy of Tom Gugiluzza-Smith, August 2008</a>I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo-essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in you can see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have a Star of David. It had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Karim Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American, he was born in New Jersey, he was 14 years old at the time of 9/11 and he waited until he can go serve his country and he gave his life. [Photo courtesy of Tom Gugiluzza-Smith, August 2008]

Powell is not the first to make this point, but it’s difficult to name another such prominent political leader who has done so. Others, including Obama himself, have focused on the fact that some statements about his ethnic or religious background have been false, not on the bigotry revealed by the very question itself. Ignoring the presupposition of those questions shows a lack of understanding and respect for the US Constitution, which should bring shame on Republican and Democratic leaders alike.

See Abed Z. Bhuyan, On Faith: Guest Voices: Powell Rejects Islamophobia