Monday, May 21, 2007
Einstein On Socialism
Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein
This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior. But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
You can read the 1949 Monthly Review article Here.
"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil" - Albert Einstein
a very intersting read thanks .would be nice if we had dreams in action of fairness and equality for all worker's and manager's to owner .Fairness is the key maybe
I have read and thought a lot on various ists and isms. This is the most profound encountered in a long while. Einstein's brain was not restricted to pondering mathematics behind the physical make up of the cosmos. His analysis here is some years closer to today's situations than most tagged ist and ism. I wonder how he would factor in how we now use the internet in opposition to the currently realized extension of his economic and social concerns to the butchery they have produced. There is a quote in our Further Left Library that might provide a clue.
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once……Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." - Albert Einstein
I thought this article was quite interesting when I first read it a few years ago.
Here's a link to a few articles in Socialism Today about Einstein inlcuding a review of a book of his political writings (including this essay) http://www.socialismtoday.org/92/einstein.html
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
1905 Revolution End
2nd Arrest Of Trotsky
BackGround
While the Menchivics were arguing how to transfer Russia from feudal to capitalistic in nature, and the Second International was entering its recessionary crisis (plenty of different political & ideological reasons), a 25 year old foresaw, through his expertise in Historical Materialism and under the studies of Parvus that the seeds to establisk a Soviet is possible due to plenty of reasons. When the first Soviet (Workers Council) was built in 1905, Lenin and Julius Martove go "what is that". When the revolution ended, it ended with Trotsky's head up while the Tsarist army baffled that this young fellow was the transformer of a simple demonstration to the 2nd workers' revolutions and established the Second Workers' Council after the Paris Commune of 1871.
This piece is taken from Isaac Deutcher's Prophet Armed timeless masterpiece, that depicts the very end of the first Soviet (Second compared to Paris Commune), and how its organizer got arrested. The 21st Century Communists should learn from their history, and above all how the ideology is placed in the service of the Marxist Revolutionary. It is sad to see Khaled Hdaidi or Elias Attallah claiming they are leftists and bla bla bla:
The Arrest
"From a balcony Trotsky shouted to the delegates: 'Comrades, offer no resistence. We declare beforehand that only an agent provocateur or a policeman will fire a shot here!" He instructed the delegates to break the locks of their revolvers befure surrendering them to the police. Then he resumed his chair at the Executive's conference.
A trade-union spokesman was just declaring his union's readiness ot join in the general strike, when a detachment of soldiers and police occupied the corridors. A police officer entered the room where the Executive was sitting and began to read a warrant of arrest. It was now only a question whether the Soviet would carry its own weakness and humilation with dignity. Resistence was ruled out. But should they surrender meekly, gloomy-faced, without a sign of defiance? Trotsky's pride and his sense of stage effect would not perit him to preside over so flat and disheartening a scene. But he could not afford any serious act of defiance, he could relieve the gloom of the situation only with humour. And so he turned the last scene of this spectacle into a witty burlesque of a bold performance. As the police officer, facing the Executive, began to read the warrant of arrest, Trostsky sharply interrupted him: "Please do not interfere with the speaker. If you wish to take the floor, you must give your name and I shall ask the meeting whether it wishes to list to you."
The perplexed officer, not knowing whether he was being mocke at or whether he should expect armed resistence, waited fo rthe trade-union delegate to end his speech. Then Trotsky gravely asked the Executive whether he should allow the officer to make a statement "for the sake of information". The officer read the warrant, and Trotsky proposed that the Executive should acknowledge it and take up the next item on it agenda. Another speaker rose.
"Excuse me", the police officer, disconcerted by this unheard of behavior, stammered and turned towards Trotsky, as if for help.
"Please do not interfere", Trosktysharply rebuked him. "You have had the floor; you have made your statement; we have acknowledged it. Does the meeting to have further dealings with the policeman?"
"No!"
"Then, please, leave the hall."
The officer shuffled his feet, muttered a few words and left. Trotsky called upon the members of the Executive to destroy all documents and not to reveal their names to the police. From the hall below rose the clangour of broken revolver-locks-the delegates were carrying out Troskty's order.
The police officer re-entered, this time leading a platoon of soldiers. A member of the Executive rose to address the soldiers: The Tsar, he said, was at this very moment breaking the promise of the October Manifesto; and they, the soldiers, were allowing themselves to be used as his tools against the people. The officer, afraid of the effect of the words, hurriedly led the soldiers out into the corridor and shot the door behind them. "Even through closed doors", the speaker raised his vice, "the brotherly call of the workers will reach the soldiers."
At length, a strong detachment of police entered, and Trotsky declared the meeting of the Executive closed.
Thus after fifty days ended the epic of the first Soviet in history."
taken from Isaac Deuther, Prophet Armed Trosky 1879 - 1921 ( Verso, 2003), p. 118 - 119
That was a great story.
I tell people to read volume one of the Trotsky trilogy by Deutscher. The other volumes have views of Deutscher's that are debatable. I liked all three volumes, but not every Trotskyist does.
His ideas on the founding of the 4th Int'l, and life after Stalin, were controversial in the SWP (USA).
THE SWP have always been full of controversies , along with their international the IST... actually I just heard that the IST and CWI are establishing basis in Lebanon, but I dunno to what extent they can fit in the pretext of politics in Lebanon... where might is right rather platforms are read
I think the first volume is better than the others, liked the others less as renegade eye suggested the others have more space devoted to deutschers own views than the first. I personally like reading criticism of various views though so it doesn't bother me so much ( i decided to join the socialist party after reading micheal crick's march of militant).
On Lebanon I know the CWI has at least one member there (see there reports on the CWI website www.socialistworld.net), and I know we've recruited members who have formerly lived in Lebanon as well as the wider middle east region. Only section we've definitely got is Israel/Palestine though.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Beached Ants
"We've gone on vacation to Topsail Island, North Carolina for the past 18 years. This past year, after dinner, we decided to take a walk on the beach like we usually do and discovered the beach was covered for MILES with washed up dead ants! We have never seen anything like this before and nobody knew why this had happened. Nothing was printed in the papers and I still can't get an explanation as to where they came from."
I have not seen any news about mass ant die-offs. Did any one see something reported like this in the news??
im still in shock over the millions of ants and where they came from just strange so strange.thanks for sharing
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The Case of Turkey
And Islamist Orgaizations
Prior to the Republic of Turkey, there existed the massive Ottoman Empire, whose Sultans assumed that they are heirs of the Caliphates and defenders of Islam. The empire itself lasted for centuries and allowed minorities to exist, but provided incentives for people to convert to Islam (Cases of Albania – Kosovo – Bosnia). Towards the 19th Century, corruption rendered the empire weak, and the empire was tagged by the European Colonial forces as “the sick man”. The term Sick Man was used because all the main Imperial forces decided to expand their territorial empires on the expense of the Ottomans. France, Italy, Spain, and Great Britain already carved out North African nations out of the Ottoman empire by the 19th Century.
When Mustapha Kamal took power in Turkey, he had to overcome all the Allied forces present there, next to the last Sultan present. When Mustapha Kamal took power, he transformed a nation that was four centuries late into a modern country. He demolished anything reminded him of the Sultans’ system. He changed the letters (from Arabic Letters to Latin, the Ottomans used to write Turkish in Arabic letters). He gave women the right to divorce, (he was the first to divorce probably), and demolished all feudal titles. Despite the fact he faced a lot of opposition, he integrated in the constitution the right of the Turkish Army to declare a Coup in case any Islamist group won elections. The army rebelled in the early 1980s, and froze constitutional life for two years, then constitutional life was re-introduced with the Social Democrats winning. Couple of weeks ago, the army was threatening to do so again. The opposition (Ordogan’s faction) to the Army now has support from of the European Commission and Germany’s top executive power. The European Commission have been arguing that “democracy must not be tampered with”.
This leads us to Egypt. Moubarak was hailed by the US and UK as democratic. Moubarak’s regime has blocked the Muslim Brotherhood to reach power, while he tampered with presidential elections to preserve his throne for his son (the future president of Egypt). To be exact, there has been no country in the world except for Egypt that had judges demonstrating and later beaten by pro-Moubarak regime. It is ironic because Moubarak has been following the foot-steps of Nasser and Sadat in economical corruptions, which led the Muslim Brotherhood’s “welfare” networks to spread through out Egypt. The Kifaya Movement (“Enough” in Arabic) has been forged which included old fashion Arab Nationalists, Muslim Brotherhood, alter-globalization movements, and whatever remained of the reactionary left to join forces against Moubarak’s regime. The Kifaya movement was threatening against Moubarak’s presidential rally, which cost the nominee to be imprisoned for years for even challenging Moubarak. I will not dwell into the details of Egypt’s history of betrayal and oppression, and I am not defending the Muslim Brotherhood. The current status quo in Egypt is due to Moubarak’s and his predecessors’ management. The question is: how long the United States can over-look this fact till Moubarak or his son would be ousted out of power, specially his blunders, and the Social Islamist Networks’ proper organizations, are pushing the Muslim Brotherhood by the year to grow stronger and stronger. More intriguing, Moubarak turns a blind eye on most of these Networks because they are saving money on the Government’s expenses (similar to Hamas having over 40% of the Palestinians under its welfare system which puts Fatah in an awkward position).
The main idea, if the majority of the population are Islamists, do they democratically qualify to rule the nation, despite the fact that previous experiences (like Sudan) witnessed non-Muslims being ruled by the Muslim Law by Force?
In Lebanon, we have seen Hezbollah being a two-fold model, a militant one and a political one. On the militant level, they inflicted damage on the Israelis whereby no army even succeeded before. On the political level, they have been recent in involving themselves in the political life. Till now, they promised to respect minority rights, despite the fact they have their own legal system in the areas they dominate most. In case Hezbollah are 51% percent of Lebanon, does it make them qualified to rule in Lebanon, specially they have direct ties with Ayatollah Khamenei? What would be the position of their secular allies, like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party? What if, in the long-run, Nasrallah is replaced by a more fanatic hardliner as head of the Shora Council?
In Palestine, we already have seen Hamas and Fatah supporters slashing each other when balance of power is present. Hamas belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Strength of the Muslim Brotherhood's partial success returns to the Israeli blunders. Since Zionists feared secular resistence, which was embodied by the PLO, they turned their eyes on the Muslim Brotherhood's social networks in order to weaken the PLO. The PLO towards the end of the 1970s, exploded at the Muslim Brotherhood under the accusation of 'collaborating with the Israelis'.
In Afghanistan, the horrors of the Taliban regime were too terrifying and oppressive, which increased blindly racism towards “secular Muslims” in the West. The United States still think a political solution is the best answer to everything. The bottom line for the driving society towards a certain orientation is not “imposing democracy”, rather placing heavy investments to improve the society. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan, soon to evolve into Taliban, were recieving a lot of money to face the Soviet invasion. They ended up of becoming part of an international terrorist organization, which has no problem of butchering anyone (including the ones who share their sect) under the banner of cleansing the nation from infidels.
Probably the most complicated case was Algeria, when in a Coup was declared after the FIS (Islamist Coalition) won the majority of the Parliament in the early 90s. The problem of the West is that they never understood the “why” part. I mean by the “why” because poverty is rather harsh, and harshness accompanied with informal welfare under the banner of Islam from the logic of hardliners, brings popularity. Algeria for example was the victim of France, which practiced a harsh and racial form of colonialism on the Algerians. Bad corrupt management by the Liberation National Front (FNL) was an incentive to trigger the different factions of the Islamist Network to expand dramatically. The other question is: “How can a country for over a century of oppression can also fix its system in couple of decades?” The Algerians, along with the Tunisians are still busy in persecuting Qa’eda cells over there, while their leaders practice supreme dictatorship over their people. Investments are still at minimal to improve the situation for this nation.
Globally, as I discussed in an earlier post, several left-wing groups blindly supported those groups because they are against US imperialism, and they are the current available alternative. This is wrong, opposing US imperialism is one thing, but supporting blindly anyone who opposes it (with the exception of al-Qa’eda since they have been too extremists to fit that category) is totally wrong and ideological breach of whatever leftist school comes from. The RESPECT coalition and Kifaya movement has been one example, the Chavez-Ahmadinejad alliance is another. If the left have been working on their goals, they wouldn’t have needed to support such coalitions.
Such a dilemma is really complicated to ponder upon, never the less, such pondering is within the realm of the capitalist logic, as revolutionaries, we should focus on our goals no matter who is in the topic executive position: Emancipation of the workers, and all power be secured into the Workers’ Hands.
MFL
American Mothers
A Mothers Day Report Card
The Best And Worst Countries to Be a Mother
Save the Children, a U.S.based independent global humanitarian organization, today released its eighth annual Mothers' Index that ranks the best — and worst — places to be a mother and a child and compares the well-being of mothers and children in 140 countries, more than in any previous year. Sweden, Iceland and Norway top the rankings this year. Niger ranks last among countries surveyed. The top-10 countries, in general, attain very high scores for mothers’ and children’s health, educational and economic status. The 10 bottom-ranked countries — nine from sub-Saharan Africa — are a reverse image of the top 10, performing poorly on all indicators. The United States places 26th this year, tied with Hungary,
The rest of the article follows here.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Child Killers
What if all the children were counted up that America has caused the death or oppression of. From the slaughter of the Indian to their crimes against the immigrant worker, to their conquests and wars around the world. Some Americans are under the illusion their country helps people, but how can they think so with all these deaths of children at their doorstep. Killing children is evil, there is no excuse for this. America is evil.
Here is another article showing Americas treatment of children.
Granma International, Havana. May 9, 2007
U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq kills seven children CAIRO, May 8. —
Seven children, students at a public school in the Iraqi town of Mandali in Diyala province, were killed after a U.S. helicopter gunship fired on the town, according to Iraqi police sources.
An AFP report out of Washington said that the Pentagon had announced Tuesday it was sending 10 additional combat brigades — about 35,000 troops — to Iraq.
No decision had been made on the number of troops that will be stationed in that Arab country in the future, but deployment orders will make it possible to keep up to 20 combat brigades in Iraq until the end of the year, said Bryan Whitman, a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department.
Whitman said that the 10 combat brigades, all active-duty Army troops, had received their orders to deploy from August to December of this year.
Translated by Granma International
Yes this is sad the politics of the land right now but if you counted all the children who have been harmed buy abortion child slavery around the world famines and other stuff who have died im sure its way worse .Also most people in america have given to other countries out of pocket to help other countries all the while corporations have not a care for any human tole.War is never for a good unless your freeing a people or protecting your own home land and children.
If we all stopped fighting and started caring for the land the history and freedoms of others and help would it not be better no mater what countries come together for the good of earth and life?
America is a lot of things but even many of the natives here liked the ideas and joined in the wars in honor of protecting the ideas of the Constitution sad tho in some times it not with a total truth . also sad the original ideas have not held up Healing not Killing is the way
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Kiddie Prisons
America Treats Children as PrisonersMay. 03, 2007 The law according to Bush has usually resulted in atrocities in faraway places like Guantánamo but lesser evils like phone-log spying here. But now some of the new policies vis-à-vis cracking down on immigrants are coming home. Tipster Bohica alerted us to new developments concerning the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility in Texas where hundreds of children are being detained with their families pending immigration cases. The facilities are a new invention since the government vowed to end "catch and release" policies in which immigrants rarely showed up for their hearings voluntarily. Complaints about the conditions in the detention center have spawned lawsuits by the Texas ACLU, numerous vigils and, beginning today, a three-week fact-finding mission by Jorge Bustamante, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.
The complaints against the new detention centers (the government prefers the moniker "residential facility," although Hutto was originally designed as a prison) are varied -- but they amount to one disturbing idea: that we are treating children of all ages (many of whom are U.S. citizens) essentially as prisoners. Initial findings by the ACLU found that the children wore prison garb, received one hour of recreation a day and no formal education, and were kept in small cells 11 to 12 hours each day without food or toys. Other complaints involve psychological abuse, including guards telling children they would be separated from their families if they didn't stop crying. (For a great Q&A with ACLU's Lisa Graybill, click here.)
So far, 10 out of the 12 children named in the suits have been released, but the most disturbing part of the story is that these facilities may be a great new business model for the future. Hutto is owned by Corrections Corporation of America, the nation's largest provider of corrections management services, which today announced a 44.4 percent increase in earnings for the first quarter of 2007 in part as a result of federal revenues "favorably impacted by new contracts from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ('ICE') at our T. Don Hutto Residential Center, our Stewart Detention Center and our Eloy Detention Center." Who ever said illegal immigrants aren't good for business?
-- Carol Lloyd
ohno GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we have become the beast of the east the poor little ones when did mental mistreatment become a ok here of child much less familys and why are these people not broght up on charges of child abuse DOGGONEIT
Bless the little children and for once i have no care or forgivness to people who can do this to children much less adults this is just inhumain ok america wheres the freedoms now ?
Monday, May 07, 2007
Four Stages Of Life
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Some Texas Truths
Texas Independance Day May 2
Here is a post I pass on about Texas. A different view of Americans and how some see their history and respect it.
"Other then my great grandmother, who was from a Comanche tribe in west Texas, all my ancestors were scots. So I am not Mexican, nor from any other country south of the border. My family came to Texas long before it was even a republic".
"Mexicans were astoundingly generous to norteamericano colonists. Ahead of a household normally received a league and a labor. That amounted to a whopping 4,605 acres. Additionally, immigrants couldalso expect a tax rebate until they got on their feet in their adopted homeland. Americans who had been ruined in the Panic of 1819 flocked to Mexican Texas by the thousands. And they were grateful to Mexico for the chance--and a place--to make a fresh start. To most American immigrants, it seemed as if Mexico offered more opportunity than the"land of opportunity" itself.
Most Texians immigrated under the Mexican Constitution of 1824. Under that covenant Mexican citizens enjoyed a republican form of government and most of the power of government resided at the state and local levels. Indeed, the Mexican federalists were great admirers of the United States Constitution of 1787 and employed it as a model for their 1824 charter. When Santa Anna revoked the Constitution of 1824 and declared himself dictator in 1835, all bets were off. American Mexicans considered themselves bound to the old constitution and were not about to sit still and be quiet while a military dictator appropriated the reins of government. They were not, however, alone it that. Many Federalistias Mexicans loyal to the Constitution of 1824 -also took up arms to resist Santa Anna's centralist regime.
So the revolt that began near Gonzales in October 2, 1835, was a civilwar - not a bid for complete separation from Mexico. Both Anglo-CelticTexians and the native Tejanos fought for self-government within the federalist system created by the Constitution of 1824. The war was not, as some have insisted, a "culture conflict." Indeed, many Texas Mexicans joined with norteamericano neighbors to resist the centralistas.
Independence forced Tejanos to make hard choices. Some like Navarroand the Seguans opted to support the new republic. But others like Benevides, the alcalde of Victoria, could not force their principlesto bend that far. Benevides was a Mexican first, a federalist second.He had seen much hard fighting at the siege and storming of Baxar in1835, but when he heard of the March 2 declaration he went to Goliad commander James W. Fannin and informed him he was leaving the army. He could not abide centralist despotism, but neither could he be a party to striping Mexico of Tejas. He believed his only honorable option was to return to his ranch and sit out the war as a non-combatant. Fannin understood his plight and sent him home with his blessing. Still other Tejanos, like Carlos de la Garza, Juan Moya, and Agustan Moya,resented the influx of foreign settlers, view opposition as disloyalty to their motherland, and flocked to the centralist banner. These were not men who wet their fingers to test the prevailing winds; they did not plot their course according to the latest public opinion poll.They were deeply rooted in principle and tradition. Each of theseTexas Mexicans followed his heart and while the path did not always lead to victory, it never led to dishonor."
I bring this up because I for one am sick and tired of hearing people from Texas say the words "illegal immigrants". Either those Texans are transplants or totally ignorant of how important Mexicans are to our being here. Mexico invited us, treated us with the up most respect and friendliness, now a mere 150 yrs later we repay the kindness with hate.
I was not raised this way, nor was anyone I grew up with. We respect and honor this land and the people whose ancestors welcomed us withopened arms. We love their vibrant culture, strong work ethics, andintegrity. For most of us older and multi-generational Texans, we find those traits rare in the Euro-anglos here.
My grandparents and their grandparents would not greet me favorably in the after life if I do not stand up for our comrades of Mexican descent or if I do not fight the building of walls even up to my very last breath. And in my opinion any Texan, regardless of nationality or race, who does not do the same should leave. You are the ones who do not deserve to fly your flags here.
And for anyone that is still interested here is an excellent link about Texas Indpendance.
Bless you for standing up for the truth and reminding people history and sad truth welcomed with open arms and payed back with hate sad huh seams to be a repeat of all history
i would like to learn more about the moya delgado family if you know anything please email mariaysabelmariaysabel@yahoo.com
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
May Day To ALL
"...Let the winds lift your banners from far lands
With a message of strife and of hope:
Raise the Maypole aloft with its garlands
That gathers your cause in its scope....
...Stand fast, then, Oh Workers, your ground,
Together pull, strong and united:
Link your hands like a chain the world round,
If you will that your hopes be requited.
When the World's Workers, sisters and brothers,
Shall build, in the new coming years,
A lair house of life--not for others,
For the earth and its fulness is theirs. "
Walter Crane, Workers Maypole, 1894
An extensive information on the origins of May Day are present on the Marxist Internet Archive (MIA) May Day section.
May the first of May (aka May Day) motivates always to work for the Proletariat, and the memories of the fallen ones who sacrificed their lives for the overall oppressed live in our hearts and minds.
MFL
Monday, April 23, 2007
Traditions
Traditional, to me, means in the way of the ancestors, as it was always done. But then again, so many ancestors and so many ways they did things, so tradtional could just come down to meaning your way.
The rate at which western civilization is altering the scene of everyday life has caused me to witness more changes than fifteen generations of my ancestors. In a way I am literally my own great-great-great……great-grandpaw. Only the truest traditions can withstand such an onslaught. The golden rule shines more everytime it is applied, nothing tarnishes it.
Hello Zatikia, it is wonderful to grok your wisdom again.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Joe Sacco: Palestine
Well this book is not really a book, but worth dozens of books: Joe Sacco: Palestine. The Book is written in a comic form with the most remarkable language that tells the story of Sacco's adventure in Palestine, and what he saw. Edward Said wrote the introduction, and for anyone interested to see life in Palestine or Zionist illogical "logic", then I highly recommend this comic to be read. When a friend of mine recommended the book to me, I was rather taken by surprise, in terms of "what do you mean a Comic book", guess I was proven wrong.
It tackles different issues, issues that are so many to count, but I liked the idea of certain Palestinians argued that they can easily communicate with the Arab Jews but not with the European Jews (who in Palestine back in 1910s marketed their racial idea of Zionism) who broke up the harmony of all sects living togather in the "holy lands". The Book also provides in a very smooth manner the Palestinian/Israeli clashes from different perspectives.
Ill have to check it out. Sometimes a simpler , easier to read format like a comic book is the perfect form of communication.
Always Negative
By Patrick Osio, Jr
There is a sector in the United States that no matter what the issue or occasion when it comes to Mexico, the spin is always negative. To this sector, Mexico can never do right and Mexico is always out to hurt or take advantage of the U.S. That such sector exists is not surprising because there has always been, and will forever be, people of such mentality be it about Mexico/Mexicans, Blacks, Jews, Catholics, Asians, Arabs, or of a multitude of other ethnic or religious groups.
What is surprising is that there are so many people who hear or read such negative spins who believe or not even question the often times absurdity of what they are hearing or reading.
Let's take some examples.
For three years the North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico was the subject of intense negotiations, hearings and debates. During this period, dire warnings about doing business with Mexico were broadcasted by the negative-Mexico sector. Mexicans can't afford US goods; Mexicans cannot be relied to live up to the agreement; Mexicans will take jobs away from US workers; and on the spin went.
Prior to the agreement, Mexico's tariff system was unfavorable to the US. US made cars could not be imported and when done so it was with better than 100-percent tariff. Electrical and electronic goods could not be imported with less than 100-percent tariff; corn was under quotas with high tariffs, and on it went. NAFTA removed these barriers, and US products became easily accessible to the point that Mexico is now second only to Canada as the best US client. On the other hand, Mexican products exported to the US were taxed a the lowest rate as a developing country which meant US tariffs averaged less than 6-percent. Clearly the US has been the biggest winner in NAFTA.
Within NAFTA there were sections dealing with transportation. This section, agreed and signed by the three countries, allowed for US trucks to enter Canada and Mexico; Canadian trucks into the US and Mexico and Mexican trucks into the US and Canada.
The negative-Mexico sector hollered and screamed and the media loved the controversy publishing every argument, sane-insane, idiotic or moronic as fact without question. The main argument was and continues to this date, that Mexican trucks and their drivers pose eminent danger to the children, women an males of the US because they will be killed or at best maimed by the unsafe trucks and amateur Mexican drivers.
There was of course no evidence presented with the arguments, simply because none exists. How can it? Mexican trucks are not allowed on US highways so there cannot be evidence. And, no thought was given as to how it is that Mexico manages to move its commerce within their country. But facts and evidence is not a requisite, spinning the perception is enough. And, sadly far too many people buy into it.
In the agricultural section of NAFTA, Mexican avocados were to be allowed entry beginning in 1997. Here again the spin to revoke that section was the subject of intense negative-Mexico publicity. Full page ads were purchased by avocado associations and growers claiming that allowing Mexican avocados would destroy the entire US avocado industry, because plagues, weevils and as of yet undiscovered pests would be brought with Mexican avocados.
Yet, Mexico is the country that gave the world the avocado that has been growing there for around 5,000 years. Mexico is the world's largest producer of avocados and exports them to nearly all countries in the world. So we were to believe that US avocado growers were fighting for citizens' health and to prevent the eradication of their industry while stressing this was not an "economic issue." And sadly, people bought into it without questioning why avocados cost US consumers better than a dollar each, while Mexican consumers can buy them for ten to fifteen cents each.
The same negative-Mexico sector also argues that Mexican immigrants – legal and illegal – just don't want to assimilate into the greater scheme of what the US is. They continue to speak Spanish and celebrate Mexican holidays, and continue to favor Mexican music and food. Surely, they say this is proof that there is no intention to assimilate.
Following that logic, can it be said that Native Americans don't want to assimilate? They insist on keeping their languages, traditions and cultures alive and passing it on to their children. What's with them?
Irish-Americans don't assimilate they insist on river dancing, holding a parade on the 17th of March, they frequent Irish pubs, and worse - root for Irish soccer teams and the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. Tell me they're assimilated.
Chinese celebrate their New Year with parades and firecrackers, which is not the same as for assimilated Americans. They open Chinese food restaurants and, continue to speak their ancestral language. Now there is a non assimilated group.
And don't get me started on Italian-Americans – aren't they all Mafioso? And those who aren't insist on throwing out Italian words when speaking and sing Italian romantic ballads, and who gave them permission to hook assimilated Americans with their pizza's and all those non-assimilated pasta dishes? And, what's with the Columbus Day parade?
What about Germans with their October Fest days; Scots with Scottish rites? Japanese with Sushi? And the Pollocks who go as far as having Polish language newspapers. Surely no one says they're assimilated.
The negative-Mexican sector makes no bones about all these other non-assimilated Americans. No, the fuss is simply about Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. It makes one wonder if there are not some dark souls behind all this.
Ah, the hell with it. Bartender, serve me another tequila shot and get me some more tortilla chips and salsa.
so true even worse when your a so called mutt or mic blood you have no culture you have no customs and you dont count in the scheme of things why im american but then at one time it was north central and south as one place not man made lines around the world.HUgs i pray we all find peace
Saturday, April 14, 2007
The Sinner's Guide
To Evangelical Right
A site I bumped into, a funny book, as it seems, and a monitor of the Bushies. I found it while browsing Virgil Johnson's and Jodi's blogs. Of all horrorous things to be read there, this struck me as the worst:
What if you could know that your unborn baby boy is likely to be sexually attracted to other boys? Beyond that, what if hormonal treatments could change the baby's orientation to heterosexual? Would you do it? Some scientists believe that such developments are just around the corner....
For the rest of the read, click here.
i just think they need mental help to think of messing with a creation of god to force a child to be as you want and not as God wants it to be.what next let me preorder what i want my child to look like my Creator help us where is the humanity?judge not and yeah shale not be judged and to judge a child no wonder says we are born into fricking fracking sin with these kind of none christan views!!!!
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Poll #14 Comments
If you had to fight for one, which would it be?
Al-Qaeda
United States
One could always choose by flipping a coin but then would have to face the problem of deciding which to assign head and which tail.
i think i would rather stand and watch the leaders fight it out .but if i have to choose i choose to just shoot me ok i dont want to harm anyone nore do i like reading about people harming people .so i guess im weird i rather see humans helping and learning to respect and stop harming in so many ways i even do it at times and dont mean to so just shoot me ok get me out of yalls misery and my own.
Since the very term "Al-Qaeda" is a term dreamed up by the neocons to describe their imaginary enemy as a terrorist network rather than the helter skelter, unallied terrorist pockets it was in 2000 in order to justify reentering the daily life of the middle east, I think the question is meaningless. Now if by Al-Qaeda you mean the rallying point for all Muslims alienated by the US since "mission accomplished" were getting down to the nitty gritty. Since both sides kill more innocent people than just the people trying to kill them, I cannot sympathize with either side.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Carlos Fuentealba
As you might imagine, teachers in Argentina are not well paid. And their situation is worse in provinces far away from the capital. Last week there was a protest in Neuquen, a province in the south, about 950 km away from Buenos Aires, which is ruled by the MPN (movimiento popular neuquino), a fascist rightwing party. During that protest, 41 yr old chemistry teacher Carlos Fuentealba was killed by the police. They shot him with a tear gas can at short distance.
Today, Monday, teachers all over the country are on strike. Also bank workers, trains, buses, university professors, hospitals. His students paid homage to him. They carried banners saying "las tizas no se manchan de sangre" (chalks must not be stained with blood).
We will keep fighting.
It sad when not only they gass people for freedom of speach but they also kill them with gass cans.Bless them all now thats a way to inspire to protest close down schools banks and and everything let the powers that be know .Sad someone had to die tho.
be safe walk in peace allways
The English language Buenas Aires Herald carries this article in todays edition. It reports eight opposition legislators of the Neuquén provincial assembly formally demanded Neuquén Governor Jorge Sobisch’s impeachment yesterday morning in the aftermath of Neuquén teacher Carlos Fuentealba’s death at police hands,
The Herald has been added to our left column news links.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
I Just Want To
Sing Your Name
There was song by Woodie Guthrie that honored Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Its title was the same as this post. The repetitive lyrics were simple. He sung their names and repeated the title. There are some names I would like to sing too, those of the few hundred with whom I have communicated empathetically since treading the path to where we are on the Further Left Forum.
One of our team members recently recounted experience at the end of a first year of blogging. I was impressed and it seemed a good idea to do with Further Left. It has been a long trek with many changes and people. Today marks a fifth anniversary of sorts. This is a good time.
It will be a telling of Further Left’s genesis from perspective of my involvement. Repetitions of “I”, “me”, and “my” will certainly lend an egocentric slant that I hope is discounted. The several hundred other participants will remain unnamed out of respect for anonymity, but the trip has been a joint venture of the many rather than one or a few.
Early days of my professional career delved concepts of computers before they existed. My specialty was microcomputer telecommunications by time of mid 1980’s retirement. That is when, along with uncounted others, we were first nourishing an internet seed just beginning to germinate.
Away from professional environs, I publicly wore without concern the reputation of civil rights, labor, anti-war, and associated cause activist, organizer, and general political/social troublemaker. Classrooms and labs fed the family while struggles in streets, meeting halls, and doorways fortified the heart.
From retirement until early 2002, I was prevented by circumstances from exploring what the internet had become. Age and distance also prevented social and political aspects of life I would rather be exercising. A computer on the internet bridges those limitations. It seemed a suitable tool for increasing the odds of at least figuratively ‘dying on my feet’ by substituting fingers on a keyboard.
Five years ago today marked my entrance to online agitating by posting on a US site oriented and operated to support its democrat political party though posing otherwise with the pretentious label ‘underground’. I became a fixture with views either too far left or ‘under’ to suit the site’s proprietors. They finally banned my further use in late December 2003.
I came to join with some of shared outlook from there at a now defunct site that was underground in more than name. It was web invisible, used encrypted transmission, and accessible only by invitation. Besides a forum for posting articles and opinion, it had a chat room to which I was attracted.
I knew from experience that political organizing solidifies through personal relationships. Previous activism taught to maximize their development and minimize mistakes by basing trust on observing what a person does rather than says. Unfortunately, just as in paper publishing, the pre-configured writing of internet posting favors saying and obscures doing. It lets readers know what a writer wants them to think rather than perceive what they are.
Chat rooms differ in that respect. There, habits are prominent in guiding more rapid back and forth expression. They impede coating presentation to desire. Personages behind the words reveal themselves eventually, whether intended or not. A chat room seemed a promising tool for melding a preferred past into a computer present if taken to public domain. The Further Left chat room opened as such on Yahoo in August 2003.
It started well and soon drew a core of dedicated users. Sometimes just a few attended, but about 12 were normal, and it was double that at times. I had the background, inclination, time, and internet facility to most readily assume primary responsibility for maintaining the room's existence. Others shared keeping it open around the clock as well as maintaining a conceptual credo similar to that of the Forum today.
When I suffered incapacitation of computer use for a period of several months, regular users extended efforts to maintain the chat room's existence. It showed they considered it as having value. It was good to discover personal importance and presence were neither predominant nor necessary. That lesson mattered a lot.
The room's user demography reflected internet use in general. About half counted the US and UK associated nations as origin, the latter in relative lesser proportion. The other half influenced me most however by expanding political and social outlook beyond provinciality of previous experience. That was the greatest abstract value I gained from the chat room. The less abstract one was meeting people I came to know well.
The Yahoo system offered no manner of moderation over who could join or what they might do. People began to show with discordant motives. It was their computer and just as with a shoot 'em down game, they could entertain themselves as chosen with little apparent recognition there were real lives behind the screens. It went progressively downhill from there. Some disruption was from intended counter political effort. Most was just plain ‘look at me’ computer play.
To lend direction, I sought serious user input and created a file of Frequently Asked Questions in the late fall of 2003. That was the start of what enlarged through user contributions to become in March 2004 the Further Left Chat Room Library web site. It helped somewhat and its contents still account for a large share of Forum contacts through search engine queries.
The decline continued however. Many solid participants cut us off and left a feeling there was something else going on. There was. There were fake, impersonating, and lying emails, impersonating posting, fake web sites, threats in print, phone calls, instant messaging, and emails. Resulting distrust chased some old hands and many newcomers away. There was worse, much worse.
Revelations of user names, addresses, phones, and businesses appeared. There was a web site falsely identifying a user as a child molester on the lamb for murder. A separate chat room offered another’s sister in prostitution with contact details. Confusion occurred from sprouting of similar and same name Further Left chat rooms and web sites. Some of the Library's code combined with that of a porn site. There were complaints to law enforcement and surreptitious infiltration of same. People went to jail and underground. Many good ones left out of necessity, disgust, or because they could not afford that sort of strain on personal lives.
Such chaos was not restricted to Further Left but occurred throughout the Yahoo chat system. I believe it was probably out of concern for legal liability and advertiser fears that Yahoo did away with all user created chat rooms in June of 2005. That is despite some evidence the political direction of our room was a specific target of individuals working within the Yahoo operation. Whichever was the case, we saw our demise in the works before it happened. The closing came without surprise and we were ready to turn negative to positive.
We immediately installed the Further Left chat room on an IRC system. It was an improvement over Yahoo in many respects. Some were reliability, format, and ease of use. The biggest change had to do with managing manner of use. There was no more of either the nonsense or danger primarily due to our preventative actions.
Also missing were many users we thought at the time we would like to retain. Several gave us a look but evidently decided there was greater joy in the excitement of Yahoo craziness. Others quit because they objected to our moderation controls. Despite concerted notification efforts, many probably lost track of our location after the Yahoo demise. I regret my fault of discouraging some by valuing operation over persons.
Some intentional disruptors returned and attempted encores on the new chat system. We cut it off. Blocked attempts also repeated on the Forum after its initiation. Some still try for acceptance under pretense of innocent appearing inputs in the chat room, Forum, and its team member blogs. People can become good at fooling the unwary. Spotting what they can be and remembering it was a sad but advantageous Yahoo chat experience.
One of our long-term chat participants and team members created a personal posting blog in November 2004. Several others established theirs between then and October 2005, when the Forum was initiated. Its original team members were chat room regulars of long standing. Other team member blogs soon followed. The team grew as some joined in the fall of 2006. The Forum’s Posting Guide, Privacy Policy, and Contributors list were designed in part to aid maintaining a focused conceptual style that does not lead toward mistakes of a murky past.
In March 2006, the Library’s internet service provider denied us further hosting. The claim was its political content and links to the chat room and Forum were causing hacker attacks presumably emanating from the US. It is ironic the service is owned and operated by a Canadian and located in Mexico. Whether or not the reason given was the valid cause of action, the de facto censorship did not stick. We moved quickly to and still are with a more reliable and enhanced service at half the cost.
From the perspective of those of us who continued using the chat room, its quality improved markedly at the move. That however has evidently not been the view of most that never returned. Use has since fallen steadily to where now just a few of us who know each other well continue to communicate as friends. Our Contributor list shows the Forum also suffers a noticeable contribution decrease. I wish these were otherwise but understand people change in circumstance and inclination.
That is where we were and how I see us today. Where will we be tomorrow? How will we get there? Which way should we stride? Or, should we bother at all? Is this missive a final verse to a last hurrah? I have no answers to those but wonder about them in pondering the words of Antonio Machado: "There is no path. Paths are made by walking. The only path seen looking back is as a wave in the sea, one never to be tread again."
What I do know is that if you affect someone, it will pass to another. You probably will not know to whom, how, or when, but it will pass. There is an improvable but statistically substantiated conjecture that shows how far and easily. Suppose Joe knows Moe and Moe knows Floe. Call that a “two link bridge” between Joe and Floe. Study has it that a bridge of six links is sufficient with a high degree of probability to connect any two people on Earth. We are closer to affecting one another than we think.
Five years ago, I did not know the internet could spread political effect. I had never heard of a chat room four years ago. Blogs entered my conscience less than two years past. The current Forum team has been together about half a year. This report started as a song honoring names of more than a couple hundred who have walked some of the way with us. All have also traveled with others. Moreover, those others have …. You get the idea. Paths are made by walking.
thanks you and bless everyone who every shared or learned from this .
I know i have learned so much not that i allways agree but i agree to disagree and even in my life this group has helped me learn and im now off mental medacations cause the use of my mind and the learning of myself and true life around the world has opened my self .If nothing i have learned to speak up for me and for others .HUGS be safe walk in peace allways
Sonshine
if we never cross paths again to many who changed names and played the who can you trust games .I miss you all serious and the silly thanks for teaching me so much .
I don't know how to post on the latest forum set up but I want to contribute the following to the furtherence of the further left cause … humor is good for the sold-out heart. I have now watched 11 videos by Roy Zimmerman and, although Chickenhawks is still my favorite, there is not one that doesn't rival the best satire out there, from Swift to Bill Hicks. My favorite line is, "abstinence-only sex education is like just-hold-it potty training." What a load of cathartic, bittersweet belly laughs this guy evokes.
Some of the most interesting disruptions on Yahoo's Furtherleft chat were from people that were sending me messages in Arabic. A friend of mine fluent in Arabic was telling me that it's probably a counter-intelligence agent trying to reach out to a possible Al Qaeda Terror cell. It was as if anyone who could have opinions counter our government must have been coming from the enemy. In those days, the mantra "you are either with us or against us" was the meme of the day. When combined with "free speech zones" it really had me worried where free speech was going down the tube in this coutry. It did not surprise me when Further Left was shut down and the right wing chat and sex chat rooms were left perfectly intact. In fact, Yahoo still hosts thousands of sex chat rooms for every kind of pervert imaginable. It's very clear to me that "laissez faire" capitalism is everything about making a buck and keeping people from practicing democracy. Free speech and political discourse at all sides of the political spectrum, and the participation in government by people - especially ones with a dissenting opinion are germaine operating a democracy. I'm glad that two years later you no longer have to fear an extraordinary rendition for questioning the current administration's policies.
ANOTHER VERSE
There was only brief pondering after posting the above historical take with its dismaying and questioning conclusion we were turning inward and diminishing in the process. It required little time realize it behooves going to where people are to agitate, antagonize, educate, and organize among them.
I had not been to a Yahoo chat room since they removed ours in June 2005 but decided to check for change and spent several days doing so. They were changed all right, but not as hoped. They were much worse than we experienced. There were the expected ignorant phrase slingers, and even a few of the worst goofs from days of yore. There was more of something else.
Maybe screwing people is what politics is really all about. If so, the Yahoo political rooms were in fine shape. They were loaded with sex hustling bots posting links that probably required credit card numbers for full negotiation. Those so jammed the chat rooms, it was difficult to enter one. It seemed verification of George Orwell’s comment that political whoopee is simply sex gone sour.
A news article mentioned another chat system called Paltalk. I acquired its software and was positively surprised. Video and voice are drawing cards for the masturbatory crowd, but those hang in their own area. Political bumper stickers noting little but propaganda slogans abound, but for the most part those issuing them gather to themselves. In contrast, there are other chat rooms where people express themselves with sentences of substance bearing thought.
That Paltalk users of various interests and manner separate to their own sort, is probably forced by moderation methods Yahoo lacked. The controls are similar to those of our current chat room. The entrances to ours are only through the Library and Forum, and the route of access difference marks what Paltalk has that we lack, people.
PalTalk now has a new chat room in its Government and Politics section titled (what else but) "Further Left". Its entry headliner is "Further Left" indicates neither a stance nor path but a direction of venture. A journey begins with a step. This text room’s purpose is to encourage support for oppressed people striking at causes of concerns as they see fit. Persons in accord are welcome. Others are not. Our download library, independent chat, and posting forum are at http://furtherleft.net.
Activity started slow as expected but has picked up to where there are several repeat users. I was elated to encounter and communicate with some of the better but lost old Yahoo stalwarts. Searches pulled up names of quite a few others. Contacts with the Library and Forum have picked up markedly. Miguel pitched in to help the set up and monitoring. I hope for others.
Paltalk is somewhat like Yahoo Messenger. It can integrate Yahoo and IRC instant messaging systems into its own. Here is its download site. It installs easily and is free of cost. As with Yahoo however, you have to put up with annoying advertising banners below the chat rooms. There are hacks to remove them that make technical sense. I went ahead and bought their higher end version to not only avoid the ads but also gain a few gimmicks.
Yet wondering if I am up to the task, I will continue with Paltalk's chat. Experience should ameliorate previous frustrations over unmet wishes and wants. There have been no increase in waking hours of a day however, and maintaining an active chat room takes time as well as effort. Thus, there will probably be some changes in dedication to what we presently have. The Library, current Chat, and Forum, will stay for now but their adjuncts will probably receive less attention.
There is considerable political pontificating and chat room monitoring experience among us. I would certainly welcome its application to sharing the load. If that is not to be for whatever reasons, I can rely on having learned 'if you build it, they will come' and continue with a sense of 'did it before, can do it again'.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Detention Camp
= Concentration Camp
Over 500 articles make reference to the Wikipedia Internment article either directly or through redirects. A list of them is here.
But curiously enough Detention_center re-directs to Prison
According to Wikipedia's current definition, Guantanamo Bay detention camp qualifies as an detainment camp / concentration camp / internment / relocation camp. It holds political opponents, enemy aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, usually during a war. The inmates are selected according to some specific criteria, rather than individuals who are incarcerated after due process of law fairly applied by a judiciary. I.e. are imprisoned without habeas corpus rights, no right to see an attorney, no charges, no court trial, no jury... Thus Camp Delta, Camp Echo, Camp Iguana (for Children) and Camp X-ray are all concentration camps/internment camps/relocation centers/detention centers. Same difference.
Four words with one and the same exact meaning?? Same article to cover them all? Perhaps they all are used to reframe the same thing - an illegal prison for people that have not been accused of anything. I would have thought that the article would have represented several different viewpoints and not dressed-down torture camps, detention camps, and concentration camps to be mere internment centers .
"All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.)" -- President George W. Bush 2003 State of the Union Address
Makes you think, doesn't it?
yeah if you have heard of 3,000 means must be a lot highter and what will happen to all us no ones
at the rate this travasty and mis use of our military and american funds.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Something Shared
Im american im not afro american i not native american im not english american im just a plain ol poor working class american who's so close to going to live in our mental hospitals one day if not a death camp way we are going.
I love what my country stood for i love the help that is set up to help people in times of need what i don't understand tho is why on God green earth slowly going brown
that humans have let us loose so many freedoms all our ancestors from world over and here fought for died for in the land of magic and make believe only the strong survived to make it here and with all the broken treaty's to my cousins.
they say freedom is but another word for nothing else to loose. when we have voluntary given so many freedoms away and the laws have changed so much and each state has different laws in one country im confused someone please tell me where the land of i wana be free is what state in the united states honors the original United States Constitution
shoot im 43 soon and i did not learn all this you see im one the lost kids not of my moms making or my dads but who knows only thing i have to loose is my life and my babes = my pets seams i all ready have lost the freedoms promised in the United States Constitution. to bad the liberty bell broke i guess it was a sign we did not head.
be safe walk in peace allways. this is what was shared below
"Soon, in the US, the danger of speaking ones mind will be done with, because many wont be able(like now) and nobody(the world) will NOT listen when they hear the cry...just what we have been given...
its important to think in terms of laws...but even that will do very little, and it will get here as soon as National Security becomes Law of the Land...this is, explanations and rhetorics if any will be kept to a minimum...
if we thought, someone, was listening to us when we went to the streets to protest, wait till you see that leaving your house could be a greater mistake...
if you are NOT afraid for your life(like the rest) it probley means you are not afraid that your thoughts will be repressed and you'll also join the new and improved way of Democracy...in that case, consider this as a note to your children's...
and finally, sadly, unless you know some good lawyers, that might reduce 90 years sentences, i would be very hesitant to speak my mind...all in all, its time to be careful with our words...if you thought you were careful before, you are not listening...
a heads up...
peace..."
Bless them for sharing with me there fears i still have some faith left or right .
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Oh Say Can You See
Oh say, can you see,
Any bedbugs on me,
If you do, pick a few,
And I will fry them for you.
But that was just kids being cute without grasp of the substitution's appropriateness. It wasn't until later years that I sung another lyric with political intent.
There were campus protests opposing the then current war. They essentially shut the school down. Its president suffered embarrassment of having been forced by local self designated patriots to publicly sing the national anthem. The state police were called out and assembled to restore campus order. Their large number were in rank at attention for the morning's US flag raising. As it started to slowly climb and the cops feigned showing proper patriotism, someone in the much larger gathered crowd began singing hard to forget lyrics, and the rest took it up.
Ha ha ha, Ha ha ha,
Ha ha ha ha ha ha,
Ha ha ha, Ha ha ha,
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Those were the words I cynically recalled while reading the following article about US justice, a word that is not, by the way, among those of their anthem. The only surprising thing was where the article appeared. It is usually necessary to seek publications outside US borders to get a glimpse of what is as it is. This one was in the US Saint Louis Post Dispatch for 'Americans' to skim and forget in favor of TV presentations of what isn't happening and who cares about what it says is. No need now to remember the proper order of their pretentious anthem's official words "proudly we hail", "bombs bursting in air" and "rocket's read glare"
HUNDREDS AT GUANANAMO FACE HEARINGS, NO TRIALS
By Guy Taylor
03/31/2007
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, CUBA • His ankles shackled and locked to the floor, the heavyset man with a shaved head and a thick black beard sat as a panel of military officers shuffled into the windowless hearing room. Over the next hour, the officers presented a classified summary of accusations against the man as part of a once-a-year review to determine whether he would be released after more than 60 months of incarceration. The man refuted their assertion that he once served as a high-level operator in the Taliban; he claimed instead to be no more than an innocent shopkeeper from outside Kabul.
The hearing, called an Administrative Review Board, happened in small trailer almost entirely without notice last week, the same week Australian David Hicks made worldwide headlines by becoming the first to be convicted in a special war crimes court here. Hicks pleaded guilty in exchange for a sentence of nine months in an Australian prison, which was announced Friday night.
While the court aims to bring some form of justice for men like Hicks and admitted Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the fate of hundreds of others still lingers.
For men such as the bearded Afghan, the legal proceedings amount to little more than the once-a-year hearing they receive in the windowless white trailer. And with public and political debate raging over whether the Guantanamo prison ought to be closed, some, including the military officials in charge here, say the prison's future hinges on what is to come of these lesser-known prisoners.
Asked in an interview this week if the prison may soon be shut down, Army Brig. Gen. Cameron A. Crawford, deputy commander of the joint task force that runs the prison, said: "I don't know."
"A better question might be, 'What are we going to do with the 380-some detainees we have here?' " he said.
"What is going to be their disposition? That will, in turn, drive how long Guantanamo is open as a detention facility."
Grim outlook
Military officials are conducting almost daily administrative hearings like the one for the Afghan, designed to give each detainee an annual chance to have his status as an "enemy combatant" reviewed by a panel of military officers.
While Pentagon news releases say there have been "approximately 390 releases and transfers" from Guantanamo since the prison was created in 2002, the number of men leaving the prison is now waning significantly.
Out of 328 hearings conducted last year, none resulted in a release,
according to officials at Guantanamo. Fifty-five led to recommendations that detainees be transferred, most to their native countries, and 273 ended with a ruling to keep the detainee at Guantanamo. Officials said 111 prisoners were released last year, but they were the result of earlier hearings.
About eight out of 10 detainees opt not to show up at the hearings, lest their participation lend some legal validity to the process. Most are advised not to attend by pro-bono civilian lawyers, who are seeking to have their cases tried in U.S. federal court.
Human rights and civil liberties groups argue the hearings unjustly stack the deck against detainees because military officials present only a summary of classified evidence of the reason each is being held.
Half of each hearing consists of military officers mulling over the classified portion of the evidence, without the detainee or any outside observer, present.
'Sources are classified'
The Afghan, whose name is being withheld in adherence to Pentagon ground rules for journalists, was the first detainee to show up for an administrative hearing since December. During the past three months, 20 such hearings were held with no detainee present.
The four military officers sat at a table with a large American flag on the wall behind them. The name tags had been removed from their uniforms. They read from a three-ring notebook.
"The detainee stated that when Taliban forces captured Kabul, they detained many people and he took a job in the intelligence ministry of the Taliban and was in charge of patrolling the streets," read one officer.
His wrists cuffed in his lap, the Afghan responded through his translator: "They were forcing young men to serve in their army. Since I didn't want to go to war and fight, I just gave my name to work in an administrative job. I did this to avoid having to go and fight … I wasn't working in the intelligence office. I had to go there to show my face once in a while."
He acknowledged having received pay from the Taliban, to which the military official asked, "Why would the government pay somebody who wasn't working?"
"In Afghanistan, it's normal," the prisoner said. "It's chaos, it wasn't organized. They don't have like a human resources office that follows up."
He also acknowledged carrying a handgun when was arrested, but said that, too was normal.
The Afghan said he had made up some of his other statements to interrogators who questioned him aggressively.
"Sometimes they would treat me real bad," he said. "I would say whatever came out of my mouth. There were so many times I would say, 'Why don't you call me Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden?' I would tell the interrogators, 'Why don't you write down anything you want and I'll sign it.'"
He also denied an allegation read by the military officer that the "detainee's sister is married to a Taliban intelligence officer."
"My sister is not married to a Taliban," he said.
After denying the officers' statement that a source had said the Afghan was a "major" Taliban intelligence operative, he asked: "Why are you hiding information from me … the sources who said these things about me?"
"The sources are classified," said an officer, "for reasons having to do with security."
At the hearing's end, an officer read a list of reasons why the detainee should perhaps be released, including that he claims he had "never heard of al-Qaida until the United States began bombing Afghanistan."
Return to war?
As occurs after every administrative hearing, military officials will now review the Afghan's statements along with the secret evidence against him, then make a recommendation to the Pentagon on whether to release, transfer, or keep him imprisoned.
Critics decry the process.
"You've got hundreds of people here who've never been charged with any crime and will never be charged," said Sabin Willett, a volunteer lawyer from Boston who was at Guantanamo this week. "It's a farce."
Willett represents a group of ethnic Uighurs — men from northwestern China — who were detained in Afghanistan more than five years ago and continue to be held at Guantanamo despite having been determined by military officials to no longer be a threat to the United States.
Gen. Crawford, the deputy prison commander, defended the hearing process, noting that the Defense Department "very recently crossed that magic point where we've actually released more detainees than are actually here." The purpose of the process is "to make sure that we're not holding anybody any longer than we need to," he said.
A recent Pentagon news release says the process is designed with a "rigor" that "helps mitigate the risk that a released/transferred detainee will return to the fight and the Global War on Terror."
Guy Taylor is a freelance journalist based in Washington.
In offer of one more reference to their national anthem, there is something there about the "twighlight's last gleaming" over the "land of the free and the home of the brave". Let us sing with more fitting lyric as we do our best to bring that about.
Ha ha ha, Ha ha ha,
Ha ha ha ha ha ha,
Ha ha ha, Ha ha ha,
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
