Search This Blog

Thursday, March 26, 2009

John HOPE Franklin

John Hope Franklin: The Passing of a Giant

The senior historian and sage John Hope Franklin passed away today. I’m between classes now but I had to make a few brief observations about the size of the void he leaves behind. Dr. Franklin was part of that generation who understood scholarship as a form of activism, a small, desperately outnumbered band who set out to assault the edifice of false knowledge that upheld inequality. His life literally connects the dark onset of Jim Crow to the election of Barack Obama. There are literally dozens of things that could be said about his contributions but consider this one: it was his historical research that Thurgood Marshall relied upon in writing his arguments for the Brown v. Board of Education case.

When asked how he felt about the election of an African American president last year, Dr. Franklin remarked that his mother raised him to believe that he would, in fact, be the first African American president. And perhaps by some measure he was.

He did not take an oath of office or reside in the White House, but his body of work was an extended State of the Union address and he upheld the Constitution. He was certainly a singular leader and a man whose work laid the groundwork for all of us — historians and civilians alike — to stand on equal footing in this world.

Bolivian President Morales Defends Coca Leaves

Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves
Evo Morales Ayma. The New York Times. March 14, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/opinion/14morales.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

La Paz, Bolivia

THIS week in Vienna, a meeting of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs took place that will help shape international antidrug efforts for the next 10 years. I attended the meeting to reaffirm Bolivia's commitment to this struggle but also to call for the reversal of a mistake made 48 years ago.

In 1961, the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs placed the coca leaf in the same category with cocaine - thus promoting the false notion that the coca leaf is a narcotic - and ordered that "coca leaf chewing must be abolished within 25 years from the coming into force of this convention." Bolivia signed the convention in 1976, during the brutal dictatorship of Col. Hugo Banzer, and the 25-year deadline expired in 2001.

So for the past eight years, the millions of us who maintain the traditional practice of chewing coca have been, according to the convention, criminals who violate international law. This is an unacceptable and absurd state of affairs for Bolivians and other Andean peoples.

Many plants have small quantities of various chemical compounds called alkaloids. One common alkaloid is caffeine, which is found in more than 50 varieties of plants, from coffee to cacao, and even in the flowers of orange and lemon trees. Excessive use of caffeine can cause nervousness, elevated pulse, insomnia and other unwanted effects.

Another common alkaloid is nicotine, found in the tobacco plant. Its consumption can lead to addiction, high blood pressure and cancer; smoking causes one in five deaths in the United States. Some alkaloids have important medicinal qualities. Quinine, for example, the first known treatment for malaria, was discovered by the Quechua Indians of Peru in the bark of the cinchona tree.

The coca leaf also has alkaloids; the one that concerns antidrug officials is the cocaine alkaloid, which amounts to less than one-tenth of a percent of the leaf. But as the above examples show, that a plant, leaf or flower contains a minimal amount of alkaloids does not make it a narcotic. To be made into a narcotic, alkaloids must typically be extracted, concentrated and in many cases processed chemically. What is absurd about the 1961 convention is that it considers the coca leaf in its natural, unaltered state to be a narcotic. The paste or the concentrate that is extracted from the coca leaf, commonly known as cocaine, is indeed a narcotic, but the plant itself is not.

Why is Bolivia so concerned with the coca leaf? Because it is an important symbol of the history and identity of the indigenous cultures of the Andes.

The custom of chewing coca leaves has existed in the Andean region of South America since at least 3000 B.C. It helps mitigate the sensation of hunger, offers energy during long days of labor and helps counter altitude sickness. Unlike nicotine or caffeine, it causes no harm to human health nor addiction or altered state, and it is effective in the struggle against obesity, a major problem in many modern societies.

Today, millions of people chew coca in Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and northern Argentina and Chile. The coca leaf continues to have ritual, religious and cultural significance that transcends indigenous cultures and encompasses the mestizo population.

Mistakes are an unavoidable part of human history, but sometimes we have the opportunity to correct them. It is time for the international community to reverse its misguided policy toward the coca leaf.

Evo Morales Ayma is the president of Bolivia.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Poem by Famous Nuclear Whistleblower

If you don't know who Mordecai Vanunu is, I urge you to visit this website as well as Vanunu's own website.

Mordecai needs YOUR help. He has been held under house arrest in Israel for decades after being imprisoned for spilling nuclear secrets to the British. He is a brave and honest man who deserves his freedom to travel wherever he pleases and speak to whomever he pleases.

Hiroshima – 50 Years

by Mordechai Vanunu

Hiroshima Hiroshima
My beloved Hiroshima
Your sons daughters elders wives
Blew radiated with an Atomic Bomb
A radioactive cloud consumed rubbed out Hiroshima
Hiroshima Hiroshima
For a live nuclear test sentenced you
a nuclear laboratory of children women trees animals
in and under nuclear mushroom live burning
burned flattened to ground radioactive ash- Hiroshima

Hiroshima Hiroshima
Nuclear weapons gamblers win against you '
a U.S. revenge for Pead Harbour
Hiro-shima Japan heroism is the target
wipe out rain Hiro - Hero- shima - Truman
Hiroshima Hero- shima
Japan and U.S. betrayed you Hero Hiroshima
silence forget Hiroshima Atomic tragedy
Japan sacrifices your holocaust on the Yen altar
Hollywood doesn't know you - you are not a Jewish Holocaust
Hiroshima Hiroshima
Ant-nuclear weapons campaigners adopting your
orphans. Heritage of Hiroshima our heroes
carry preach the memory message of Hiroshima
to the future ages to end nuclear gamblers.
Beginning and end of nuclear weapons. Hiroshima. Hero.
Hiroshima. Hero. Hero. Hero.

Presented at the exhibition Hiroshima Sans Amour

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Abolition in New Mexico!

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson Takes Bold Step By Abolishing Death Penalty

Move Is Indicative Of A National Trend Toward Decreasing Use Of Capital Punishment

NEW YORK - March 18 - The American Civil Liberties Union today praised New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson for signing a bill abolishing the death penalty in New Mexico and replacing it with a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The bill, HB 285, was passed by the state House last month and was approved by the Senate Friday. With its signing, New Mexico becomes the fifteenth state to abandon capital punishment. The legislatures in a number of other states – including Colorado, Montana, Kansas, New Hampshire and Maryland – have all debated bills this year that would replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.

The following can be attributed to John Holdridge, Director of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project:

“Gov. Richardson’s decision today to sign the bill abolishing the death penalty in New Mexico is a historic step and a clear sign that the United States continues to make significant progress toward eradicating capital punishment once and for all. Gov. Richardson’s courageous and enlightened decision should send a powerful message to other states, governors and Americans about the need to take a hard look at our error-prone, discriminatory and bankrupting system of capital punishment. It is a system incapable of ensuring that innocent lives are not unjustly taken. It is a system plagued by racial, economic and geographic discrimination. And it is a system that police chiefs, criminologists and statistical experts around the country agree does not deter crime. Gov. Richardson deserves enormous credit for acting in the best interests of the people of his state and the people of this country.”

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Don't be foreclosed without a fight

Produce The Note ?How-To?

June 19, 2008

Fight Foreclosure: Make ?Em Produce The Note!

Using the ?produce the note? strategy is something all homeowners facing foreclosure can do. If you believe you?ve been treated unfairly, fight back. We have created templates for a legal request, a letter to your lender and a motion to compel to help you through the process. Read the step by step ?how to? under the videos.

Special note: In some states, a lender can foreclose on your home without going to court. These are called non-judicial foreclosure states. You can still use the ?Produce the Note? strategy in these states, but it takes a few more steps on your part.


Produce the Note - Steps To Follow:

WHO OWNS THE NOTE?

Your goal is to make certain the institution suing you is, in fact, the owner of the note (see steps to follow below). There is only one original note for your mortgage that has your signature on it. This is the document that proves you owe the debt.

During the lending boom, most mortgages were flipped and sold to another lender or servicer or sliced up and sold to investors as securitized packages on Wall Street. In the rush to turn these over as fast as possible to make the most money, many of the new lenders did not get the proper paperwork to show they own the note and mortgage. This is the key to the produce the note strategy. Now, many lenders are moving to foreclose on homeowners, resulting in part from problems they created, and don?t have the proper paperwork to prove they have a right to foreclose.

THE HARM

If you don?t challenge your lender, the court will simply allow the foreclosure to proceed. It?s important to hold lenders accountable for their carelessness. This is the biggest asset in your life. It?s just a piece of paper to them, and one they likely either lost or destroyed.

When you get a copy of the foreclosure suit, many lenders now automatically include a count to re-establish the note. It often reads like this: ??the Mortgage note has either been lost or destroyed and the Plaintiff is unable to state the manner in which this occurred.? In other words, they are admitting they don?t have the note that proves they have a right to foreclose.

If the lender is allowed to proceed without that proof, there is a possibility another institution, which may have bought your note along the way, will also try to collect the same debt from you again.

A Tennessee borrower recently had precisely that happen to her. Her lender, Ameriquest, foreclosed on her in July of 2007. About three months later, another bank sent her a default notice for the mortgage on the house she just lost. She called to find out what was going on. After being transferred from place to place and left on hold for lengthy periods of time, no one could explain what happened. They said they would get back to her, but never did. Now, she faces the risk of having her credit continually damaged for a debt she no longer owes.

FIGHT FOR FAIRNESS

This process is not intended to help you get your house for free. The primary goal is to delay the foreclosure and put pressure on the lender to negotiate. Despite all the hype about lenders wanting to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, most borrowers know that?s not the reality.

Too many homeowners have experienced lender resistance to their efforts to work out a payment structure to keep them in their homes. Many lenders bear responsibility for these defaults, because they put borrowers into unfair loans using deceptive, hard-sell practices and then made the problem worse with predatory servicing.

Most homeowners just want these lenders to give them reasonable terms on their mortgages, many of which were predatory to begin with. With the help of judges who see through these predatory practices, lenders will feel the pressure to work with borrowers to keep them in their homes. Don?t forget lenders made incredible amounts of money by using irresponsible practices to issue and service these loans. That greed led to the foreclosure crisis we?re in today. Allowing lenders to continue foreclosing on home after home, destroying our neighborhoods and our economy hurts us all. So, make it hard for your lender to take your home. Make ?em produce the note!

STEPS TO FOLLOW

A. If your lender has already filed suit to foreclose on your home:

1. Use the first form. It?s a fill-in-the-blank legal request to your lender asking that the original note be produced, before it can proceed with the foreclosure. In some jurisdictions, the courts require the original request to be filed with the clerk of court and a copy of the request to be sent to the attorney representing the lender. To find out the rules where you live, call the Clerk of Court in your jurisdiction.
2. If the lender?s attorney does not respond within 30 days, file a motion to compel with the court and request that the court set a hearing on your motion. That, in effect, asks the judge to order the lender to produce the documents.
3. The judge will issue a ruling at your hearing. Many judges around the country are becoming more sympathetic to homeowners, because of the prevalence of predatory lending and servicing. In the past, many lenders have relied upon using lost note affidavits, but in many cases, that?s no longer enough to satisfy the judge. They are holding the lender to the letter of the law, requiring them to produce evidence that they are the true owners of the note. For example:

* In October 2007, Ohio Federal Court Judge Christopher Boyko dismissed 14 foreclosure cases brought by investors, ruling they failed to prove they owned the properties they were trying to seize.

B. If you are in default, but your lender has not yet filed suit against you:

1. Use the second form. It?s a fill-in-the-blank letter to your lender which also requests they produce the original note, before taking foreclosure action against you.
2. If the lender does not respond and files suit against you to foreclose, follow the steps above.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Remember Rachel Corrie

Please visit this site to learn more about Rachel Corrie and find out what you can do to support her memory and further her struggle:

And here is a Democracy Now report marking the sixth anniversary of her death.

Rachel died a year before I got to college. I learned about her in a discussion about The Diamondback, my university's (The University of Maryland's) student newspaper. Some friends of mine planted themselves inside The Diamondback's newsroom and refused to leave in protest because of a nasty political cartoon ridiculing Rachel's death and claiming that she was doing nothing more than "protecting terrorists" and basically got what she deserved.

The more I learn about her, the more I wish I had met her. How does a privileged blond girl from Washington state become a martyr for the Palestinian cause? Why hasn't there been more outrage from her fellow countrymen? Do Americans still not understand that Israel routinely bulldozes the homes of innocent Palestinians for no other purpose than to expropriate their lands?

Rachel died a noble death. I'm sure all of those who continue to defame her (most of them in ignorance, acting as if she wanted to be crushed when in fact the bulldozer had trapped her) secretly wish they had an iota of her courage. They wish their lives had such a purpose -- that they, too, can fight for something greater than themselves and not simply repeat the same propaganda justifying the illegal actions of the Israelis until it becomes fact.

When will the masses of this country stand up for what is just and condemn the military support their country provides Israel to maintain its occupation?

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Yes, Women Are People Too...

Time to Ratify Women's Treaty, Groups Urge

by Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS - Rights activists in the United States are urging their newly-elected government to support global initiatives aimed at protecting women's rights.

"If Barack Obama wants one important thing to do for women, he will direct the U.S. Senate to ratify CEDAW," said Ritu Sharma, a leading women's rights activist.

CEDAW is the acronym for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which has been endorsed by over 170 countries.

In the past three decades, U.S. policymakers rejected CEDAW by reasoning that women in the United States already enjoyed legal protections against violence and discrimination.

But rights activists counter that the U.S. refusal to ratify the treaty encourages repressive regimes to promote discriminatory practices against women.

"There is no reason for us to wait for the U.S. ratification of CEDAW," said Sharma, who leads the Women's Edge Coalition, which comprises hundreds rights groups worldwide.

Created about 30 years ago, CEDAW clearly defines what constitutes gender discrimination and sets an agenda for national action to end abuse of women's rights.

Many countries that are signatory to the treaty have improved their laws, but in most cases, have failed to protect women from everyday violence and abuse.

Numerous studies carried out by the U.N. and independent think tanks in recent years show that in many parts of the world millions of women continue to face discrimination of every description.

Researchers say every year hundreds of thousands of women are forced into prostitution, with many suffering beatings not only by pimps and customers, but also policemen.

And how many women repeatedly endure violence in the supposed safety of their own homes? No one really knows, not even those who specialize in this subject. In many countries, including those with high rate of education, domestic violence is still regarded as a "private" matter, which gives authorities a justification to look the other way.

Women's situation, according to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon, is not going to change unless men, particularly those in power, are willing to change their behavior.

"Changing mindset and habits of generations is not easy," stated Ban on the eve of International Women's Day, which is observed all over the world on Sunday, Mar. 8.

"We must work together to state loud and clear, at the highest level, that violence against women will not be tolerated, in any form, in any context," he said.

Women's rights activists who work closely with the U.N. note that since the 1995 World Summit in Beijing, some progress has been made to protect women's rights. But many of them say there's still a long way to go for full recognition of women's rights as human rights.

As the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women convened its annual meeting last week, delegates said they were hopeful that the new U.S. leadership would act differently.

The past U.S. administration had imposed harsh conditions for funding to the U.N. agencies working to help improve women's life conditions in poor countries.

The George W. Bush administration refused to fund health programs in countries that recognized women's right to have abortion. As a result, hundreds of thousands of women died during pregnancy.

Ban was silent on the issue of the U.S. non-ratification of CEDAW. However, in a recent conversation with IPS, he said he appreciated the intentions of the new administration.

"I think it is going to be very positive," he said in response to a question about whether the Obama administration would be willing to sign U.N. treaties that the previous administration had either ignored or worked actively to undermine.

Last week, Ban ordered U.N. officials to organize special events all across the world in observance of International Women Day. The U.N.-sponsored events are supposed to include rallies, seminars, exhibits, film screening and concerts to create awareness about women's rights.

Women's rights activists say they are glad that the world community was consistent in trying to make progress on its agenda, but stress that in order to gain positive results a powerful country like the United States must be part of the movement.

Sharma hopes that the new U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, would play an important role in advancing the international agenda on women's rights.

Before taking charge of the State Department, Clinton stressed the importance of aiding women and girls, who are at greatest risk of being poor, and form seven in 10 of the world's hungry.

"Investing in our common humanity through social development is not marginal to our foreign policy but integral to accomplishing our goals," she said in a recent statement. In her view, "If half of the world's population remains vulnerable to economic, political, legal, and social marginalization, our hope of advancing democracy and prosperity will remain in serious jeopardy."

Though pleased with Clinton's position on women's rights, Sharma, like many other activists, said she would like to see the new administration take real and practical steps to cooperate more closely with the international community.

"Clinton's nomination as our third female secretary of state means that, once again, a woman will be the nation's chief diplomat and public face to the world, underscoring America's commitment to women's equality and empowerment worldwide," she said.

"But to take this commitment to the next level, this administration has to make U.S. international assistance a foreign policy priority and ensure that it benefits the world's women," she added. "Putting a real emphasis on investing in women would mean both women and men can contribute to lifting themselves from poverty."

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Activism in the Suburbs?!

Newton peace activists say Obama withdrawal plan is not enough


By Erica Noonan, Globe Staff

Hell no. These suburban peace protesters won’t go.

President Barack Obama’s plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq doesn’t go nearly far enough, say local peace activists — many of whom are in their sixth year of grueling weekly public vigils against American foreign policy.

The president’s plan to leave a contingent in place through 2011 and deploy 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, as well as recent hostilities in Pakistan, leaves plenty to demonstrate about, they said.

‘‘Iraq is a symptom of a foreign policy and priorities that I disagree with,’’ said Susan Mirsky, 64, who was holding a sign saying, ‘‘Enough! Bring the Troops Home Now!’’ at a recent vigil organized by Newton Dialogues on Peace and War.

‘‘I believe we are making a difference. People see us and we make an impact, however slight, but you never know how it ripples out,’’ said Mirsky, 64, whose own activism began as a student during the Vietnam era.

Their determination is played out in more than 35 local vigils — involving groups from Needham, Natick, Sherborn, Holliston, Hudson, Waltham, Watertown, Wellesley — that sprang up on street corners shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. Once war began in Iraq, they settled in for the long haul.

Today, nearly all the vigil groups have a core that is still active, though some have joined forces with neighboring towns or reduced their demonstrations to once or twice per month.

‘‘The invasion of Iraq was a horrible thing, so I started coming because I thought I’d go out of my mind if I didn’t do something,’’ said David Ascher, 61, who protested at anti-Vietnam sit-ins as a student at City College in New York, before moving to Newton and working as a software consultant. ‘‘I’m still here because there are still many, many unresolved questions about this war. When I stop feeling this way, maybe I won’t come anymore.’’

The mainstays of the suburban vigil movements are nearly all over age 60, and some, like longtime protester Marvin Miller, who has carried the same slightly battered, hand-lettered placard reading ‘‘Peace Liberty Justice’’ in Newton since 2001, are past 80.

Barbara Boltz, 76, of Arlington is part of a group of weekly peace demonstrators from Arlington and Lexington who gather Mondays at 5 p.m. on Massachusetts Avenue in Arlington. She plans to keep it up indefinitely.

‘‘Some people do think we should give Obama more time. But he is talking about troops in Iraq for three more years and more people in Afghanistan, which I see as just another quagmire,’’ said Boltz, who said her activism dates to the civil rights movement.

The suburban peace groups are occasionally bolstered by students from Boston College, Brandeis University, and other local schools, but by and large, young peace activists do not demonstrate on a weekly basis.

Since January 2007, a small groups of religious leaders, faculty and students at Brandeis University in Waltham have held a weekly outdoor peace vigil.

The lunchtime session, which usually lasts about 20 minutes, will continue for the foreseeable future, said Alexander Kern, a university chaplain.

‘‘We’ll do it until the war ends, and it hasn’t ended yet and there is a lot to be resolved. We feel we have to keep the pressure on,’’ he said.

Brandeis sophomore Lev Hirschhorn said student peace activists feel as committed to their activism as ever.

‘‘We also need to empathize with the people whose lives have been destroyed by this war and their suffering just goes on and on,’’ said Hirschhorn, 19.

Students tend to be more active in on-campus and online peace efforts, while the older activists say they feel there is no substitute for the old-school approach of standing out in public with a sign.

Linda Stern, 67, of Newton, was active in demonstrations during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 as a student at Carleton College in Minnesota, and marched to protest the Vietnam War in Washington D.C., where students were tear-gassed and attacked by dogs.

The retired MassBay Community College librarian said the lack of a draft for the Iraq war was probably a large factor in the shortage of on-the-street young demonstrators.

‘‘They may think this approach is passé, and they certainly have other international issues they are involved in,’’ said Stern. ‘‘But people see us and know us, and more and more often say ‘thank you’ for being here. So I think we have an impact.’’

Newton demonstrators did consider ratcheting down the protests after Obama’s victory in November, but decided to keep up the weekly Thursday afternoon pace, at least through this coming summer.

Over the years, participation ranged from several hundred during special events commemorating the anniversary of the war, to just a half-dozen on the coldest and rainiest winter evenings, Ascher said.

These days, support for their antiwar cause is easier to come by.

During last week’s vigil, several men and women driving Priuses beeped and waved, and a half-dozen pickup-truck-and-minivan owners offered thumbs-up.

An SUV driver at a stoplight rolled down a window and hooted into the icy air, ‘‘Bring my brother home!!’’

The preschooler in the SUV’s back seat waved and clapped. The vigilers cheered back.

The vigils were not always such amiable scenes. Newton demonstrators, like every group, have had their share of boos and hurled insults (Most common, ‘‘Go home, commies!’’ Second place was, ‘‘Nuke ’em all!’’) There was even a near-fistfight a few years ago, when a heckler pulled up on the curb and screamed an anti-Semitic insult.

For a few weeks, a counter-demonstrator stood across the street with a ‘‘WMDs Found’’ sign. (Weapons of mass destruction were never actually found in Iraq, the vigil participants are quick to point out.)

Weeks also went by where the general mood was widespread indifference, demonstrated by a regular stream of cars who pulled over not to talk politics, but to ask directions to the Mass. Pike, said Ascher.

Even though the tide of public opinion on the war has turned, many in the peace movement feel that the time is right to become even more visible.

Vigilers from across the suburbs plan to join together on Thursday in Watertown Square from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. for a candlelight vigil commemorating the sixth anniversary of the US ‘‘Shock and Awe’’ military attack on Baghdad.

With public opinion against the war, ‘‘it’s time to show people there is an active peace movement in the United States,’’ said Marilyn Levin, a United for Justice with Peace activist from Arlington who plans to attend a planned national March on the Pentagon, sponsored by dozens of peace groups, this Saturday in Washington DC.

‘‘We are the only force that can stop our government,’’ she said. ‘‘It is only the power of the American people that can change foreign policy.’’

Erica Noonan can be reached at enoonan@globe.com

NEWTON ONLINE
For information about the Garden City — news, discussions, sports, and more — go to www.boston.com/newton.

Interview with an Afghan Activist

From Democracy Now

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to war. Vice President Joe Biden is in Brussels today to get NATO allies to support the US surge in Afghanistan with more troops. The Obama administration has ordered 17,000 more US troops to Afghanistan to fight as part of an escalation of the seven-year-old war.

Meanwhile, in an interview with the New York Times, President Obama admitted the US is not winning the war in Afghanistan. He also revealed the US is considering reaching out to moderate elements of the Taliban, as he put it, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.

On Sunday, thousands of women across Afghanistan donned blue scarves and came together for a Prayer for Peace with Justice. The gatherings marked International Women’s Day. That night, I spoke with Rangina Hamidi. She is a former resident of the United States who returned to her native Afghanistan shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Today she is president of Kandahar Treasure, the first women-run business in her hometown of Kandahar, helping Afghan women sell locally made embroidery. I asked Rangina Hamidi about the significance of the International Women’s Day in Afghanistan.

RANGINA HAMIDI: In Kandahar, we got together about—well, we got together last year and decided that as the government agencies have been celebrating International Day for Women, which falls on March 8th every year, we did not want to be necessarily celebrating the day when so many women were in mourning because they were losing a lot of their male relatives or male members of their families almost on a daily basis. So, in 2008, on March 8th, the women in our network gathered together, more than 1,500 of them, to commemorate the day by praying for peace, because they’ve been in war for literally more than thirty years. And women are sick and tired of it, and they don’t know—you know, on a local level, they don’t know any political figure, locally or nationally and/or even internationally, that they can go to to have their voices and have their plea be heard. So, because this is a religious and a conservative society, the women said, “Who better to pray to about peace than God?” These are all believing women. And so, they gathered for the first time publicly to pray for peace.

And it was not, you know, a program to necessarily get a lot of media. I mean, it was an event, kind of almost ad hoc, to expect the local government and the insurgents to hear the woman’s voice. And unexpectedly, a lot of media came and, you know, covered the event, and the women’s voices were heard, surprisingly, all over the world.

So, in Kandahar yesterday, we had more than—you know, we had hundreds of women show up, and all of them were praying for peace. The age group—we probably had women in their seventies and as young as ten and twelve. Even babies came to our event with their mothers. And it was a very peaceful and a calm event. All of the women were wearing light blue scarves as a symbol of peace and stability that they’d chosen.

And basically, it was a short event, but an event full of a lot of meaning, because the women want the world to know that they’re active in their pursuit—in their way of pursuing peace and stability, because a lot of the women know that the men, unfortunately, in our country, whether they’re in politics or not in politics, being either businessmen or just men in society, it seems that men are not trying hard enough to ask for peace. And so, the women have taken it upon themselves, that because they have never been part—an active part of the wars in the past thirty-plus years, they want to now be the active agents of calling for peace.

AMY GOODMAN: Rangina, right now, US policy—President Obama announcing the surge in Afghanistan, tens of thousands of more troops being sent in—what does this mean for Afghanistan, and particularly Kandahar? I mean, in the last week, we’ve heard about the three Canadian soldiers that were killed. I don’t know how many Afghan men, women and children have been killed. But what about this policy?

RANGINA HAMIDI: OK, that’s a great question. In fact, last night, we were at a friend’s house for dinner, and I’ll begin by quoting her directly. Her name was Shalah [phon.], and she said, quote, “Every time someone from my household goes out, I accept in my heart that they may not come back.” This is the kind of feeling and attitude that most Afghan people live with today.

And she also—you know, she was someone that you do not expect to have any political opinion or basically an opinion and an idea of the current situation. But she was very open to share her thoughts with us, especially when she pointed this—after, you know, quoting her, we continued talking to her. And then she—surprisingly, she said, she said, “When Obama was being elected or elected to become president of the United States, there was hope in her family.” And she said that “I had hoped that things might change”—and “things” in terms of the military and political situation of Afghanistan, because she said, “We don’t want more killing to occur.” But as Obama decided, obviously, you know, after being sworn in as president that he will send more troops, more troops translate to more killing here. And so, she was very unhappy about that decision.

And this is not the decision only of her, but the decision of mine—or the opinion of mine and so many other people here who share this frustration that, you know, America needs to better focus on its strategy about what they’re doing here and, you know, what they want to accomplish in Afghanistan. Merely sending more troops will not solve the problem.

This is a political situation where, in my opinion—this is my personal opinion—that for every one individual we kill—and often it’s easy to claim that this is a Talib. You know, we bombard a village and then say, “Well, we killed a Taliban.” That’s not necessarily true. A lot of innocent people get killed. The common people are stuck in the middle. So, on the one hand, the Taliban or insurgents might come at nighttime with guns and ammunitions and force the village people to keep them, meaning give them housing, give them food. And when they do that, because they can’t—you know, ordinary people cannot fight back, in the morning or maybe a day or two later, the military get reports that the Taliban or insurgents have come, and then they come and start bombarding. So, when they bombard, the bombs are blind. They don’t see who’s Taliban, who’s not. We can’t differentiate between the ordinary people and the Taliban. So a lot of innocent people are being killed in the process, and the psychological effect on people is that, whether it’s a Talib or, you know, an ordinary person, it’s an Afghan that is being killed at the end. And so, it is very hard to not feel bad for innocent people being killed. And so, my assessment is that for every one person that we kill, we’re creating ten more who are against us. So if this policy of war and killing continues, I don’t know if we’re going to get any good result in the near future.

My personal recommendation, and that of many Afghans, is that the strategy about going forward with this war needs to change, for one, with a heavy focus and a critical focus on development. Afghanistan remains, after seven years or eight years of the international community’s involvement, to be a very severely undeveloped nation, with poverty still on the rise and corruption still very much as part of an integral part of the current government that we have. So unless there’s focus or a push from the international community to force the government, because the government, after all, is to—the government, after all, is operating on behalf of or as a representative of the people, but it is so corrupt. And, you know, obviously the government is getting a lot of assistance and aid from the international community to continue its operations. The international community has a responsibility to put enough pressure on Karzai and his government to address the issue of corruption. And unless we address the issue of corruption, development becomes a very hard, you know, issue, because even though many Afghans know that a lot of aid has come since the past eight years, because of the corruption or because of the level of corruption, the people, in the very end, the people in the villages, the people in the small cities, have hardly seen any kind of difference in their lives from when the Taliban were in power to now.

So you can imagine the effect that this is having on ordinary people and the frustration and the anger. And, you know, again, it’s hard to accept this fact. But I can understand why ordinary Afghans would want to go and join forces with the insurgents and/or the Taliban, because the alternative government, or the government in power right now, has failed to provide any services or development to the people.


AMY GOODMAN: Rangina Hamidi is an Afghan activist. She’s speaking to us from Kandahar. We’ll come back to the conversation in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We continue with my conversation with Afghan activist Rangina Hamidi. I reached her in Kandahar and asked her to talk about the reaction to the deaths of the three Canadian troops in Afghanistan last week.

RANGINA HAMIDI: In our peace event—not yesterday, because we did not have much time to give women to really basically—or to really voice their own personal opinions about it, because we had to go to a second event organized by the government agency, but last year—I heard a mother had lost her son due to a suicide bomber, and she got up to speak, and she said a beautiful thing. She said, “Whether it’s a Talib who’s being killed, an Afghan policeman who’s being killed, or an international army military person who is being killed, he leaves behind a mother, a sister or a daughter and/or a wife who mourns for them.” So that saying was quite powerful in saying that women have this inclusive idea of security and owning peace. Stopping the killing for all, whether they’re Afghan or not, is reason enough for them to wage peace. You know, mothers feel the pain of human beings, and they’re calling for and they want this killing to stop.

But it’s very difficult for them to also understand that—you know, I’m not trying to belittle the fact that three or more—I mean, we’ve had obviously more killings of not only the Canadian soldiers, but other soldiers all over Afghanistan. So, three Canadians get killed, and it’s in the news, and everybody obviously knows about it and talks about it, but in Afghanistan, on a daily basis, we have more than—I mean, it’s very hard for me to quote, but I would not be surprised if we have more than ten or fifteen people being killed on a daily basis, you know, on a city level. I’m not even talking about the villages that are bombarded. Those are numbers that we never even hear about. So, for Afghans, for ordinary Afghans, they ask the question of justice and fairness. Where is the fairness in reporting the lives of people that are killed on the Afghan side?

And in the end, there is a war going on. We cannot deny the fact that we are at war here in Afghanistan. You know, many of my government officials, both on a national level and on a very local level, they get up and they speak about how wonderful life is and how wonderful, you know, the situation is and the progress we’re making going forward. But the reality is that we are at war. And this is a fact that the world needs to accept and Afghanistan needs to accept, that unless you address the issue of war and killing and a strategic way to move forward about bringing peace or waging peace, you cannot—you cannot stop it. I mean, sometimes I feel that we’re fooling ourselves. We being an Afghan American, so I see myself almost as a bridge between both of the worlds. How can we refuse to accept that there’s a war going on?

So, again, I reemphasize that unless we change our strategy moving forward and focus heavily on development and address the political situation of the region with a strategy, with a clear focus, with an understanding and a reality check of what is going on on the ground, we cannot simply be making decisions for Afghanistan sitting in Washington and not having any contact or any communication with people on the ground. Honestly, I felt that when I was in Washington, that many—unfortunately, many of our policymakers don’t even have a clue of what’s really going on, but they’re making policies. And that is a really scary thing.

AMY GOODMAN: Rangina, what brought you back to Afghanistan?

RANGINA HAMIDI: What brought me back? Sometimes I just say I was born to be back, but I guess that’s a cliché to say, and it doesn’t sound too good. But I guess, at the end of the day, I can just point to the fact that I’m an Afghan woman; I was born in Afghanistan, in Kandahar, to be specific; and I was fortunate enough—of course, my country was unfortunate and my family was unfortunate to be forced to leave by the war that Russians started in the early—or late ’70s, but I was fortunate enough to have been brought up in a family that is very open-minded, very much forward-thinking, and allowed me every opportunity and any opportunity in my life that I wanted to take. So when I finished my college in America and September 11th happened and then the issue of Afghanistan came up, I only knew that I had to go back, because if I had—if my father had—or if my parents had not decided to leave Afghanistan when we were young, I could very well be the women that I work with today. And most of these women are, you know, unfortunately women who are either widows or extremely poor or living in relationships and families that are completely controlling and, you know, not recognizing women’s rights and not recognizing women as valuable human beings.

So I only thought of it—my sole decision or my main decision to come back is to serve the people that I’m part of. I mean, I cannot deny the fact, my identity, that I am Afghan. And having the understanding of both worlds, both being Afghan and then being American, and seeing the world through both lenses gives me a great opportunity to be able to create a bridge of understanding, not only for my Afghans, but also to help my American community in trying to understand what the problems are. So I think it just was a natural calling that I answered. And I’m very happy, and I’ve enjoyed every single second of my life in the past six years that I’ve been here.

AMY GOODMAN: Rangina, tell me about your organization, Kandahar Treasure.

RANGINA HAMIDI: When I first came in 2003, I was part of—I was working with a nonprofit organization called Afghans for Civil Society, and we started an Income Generation Project for women here, because most women obviously did not have opportunities to earn an income. So, recognizing that women in Kandahar are extremely skilled in a very delicate and a fine embroidery of the region—they all know how to do this from starting ages six and seven—we recognized the skill, and instead of wasting resources of the international community funding money to train people how to do something they already knew, we instead focused on training them how to improve the quality of their work and, you know, helping with the designs, so that we could better market it.

And we operated this project for about three years before I had the idea of transferring it or making it into a business, because, ultimately, a business model is the most sustainable and promising model. And in terms of development, in a region like Afghanistan, unless there is a long-term sustainability in mind, unfortunately most of the projects that begin, they fail, because there’s no sustainability taken into consideration. So we turned the nonprofit project with Afghans for Civil Society to become Kandahar Treasure, which is the first private women-owned business in Kandahar.

And currently we’re working with over 400 women at home. Most of these women are at home. We have twenty women coming in to our production site, where we work on a daily basis creating the prototypes or the models for the masterpieces that we then take to the women to reproduce from. And women are earning an income in their home, at the safety of their home, and men are loving the project or the business, because we’re not asking women to do anything extraordinary that they wouldn’t be doing. And I know that Kandahar Treasure will be one model that the world can look at to see that sustainable development is possible and that change can happen in small increment ways. We don’t necessarily need to focus on big huge projects, although they’re important, too. But it is really the small grassroots projects and initiatives that will ultimately make the biggest change.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Rangina, I wanted to get your opinion of this latest news. The New York Times published an interview that they did with President Obama on Air Force One. They said President Obama declared in the interview that the United States is not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq. Your response, Rangina?

RANGINA HAMIDI: I think that’s a very interesting point. And actually, I would like to take some time to answer this. In 2001, when the Bonn Agreement was being signed on Afghanistan, as outside—as Afghans sitting obviously not at the table and not at the conference, but we know the representatives of many of the political parties or groups of the past thirty-some years of the war in Afghanistan all represented at that agreement, I—you know, having absolutely no experience in Afghanistan, because I was in America still, I questioned my father. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that almost every group that has been involved in the destruction of Afghanistan since the past thirty years is represented in the Bonn conference except for the Taliban?” And seven years later, or eight years later, that question that I asked is now actually being talked about by the President of America.

And it’s interesting, because if you ask, again, ordinary Afghans—there’s a difference between ordinary Afghans and then Afghans who have been involved very brutally in the destruction of Afghanistan—many Afghans will say that they did not want any of the warlords, the drug lords, the people who destroyed Afghanistan since the late ’70s, to be involved in the government, but yet the reality and the fact of the matter is—and this is what the world needs to know—that every single thug responsible for the destruction is now in some power position within the government of my country. They’re either ministers or advisers or in the senate or in the parliament or, on a local level, governors of provinces. So it was only a question of justice and fairness to say, well, if all these guys are in this government, why are we excluding the Taliban from it initially? Ideal case scenario, of course, would be to not have any of them involved, from day one. But if you are playing fair and just, then you involve the Taliban, too.

Now, coming back to the question of moderate Taliban, to be honest, I, as an Afghan, to this day, I still question, first of all, who is a Talib? And I think this is what Americans and the American government also lacks an understanding of. When we talk about the Taliban, who are we really talking about? Because the Taliban movement itself is so divided among itself that there is the Pakistani version, there is the Afghans, there is the Chechens or the Arabs or the, you know, people who come from other parts, or the Somalians, for example, who come from other parts of the world to be involved in this movement. Who are we talking about when we talk about the Taliban? And then, when we say “moderate Taliban,” I almost laugh at that the statement, because if it’s a moderate Talib who’s not actively fighting a war, meaning not blowing himself up or not encouraging others to blow themselves up, then why do we necessarily need to waste resources and time in talking to them? Because they’re not the problem; the problem is the extremists. Why aren’t we trying harder to reach out to the most extreme? Because that’s really the problem, the problem makers.

And, you know, a fact that America needs to accept is, when we address the issue of Taliban, be it extreme or moderate, the question of Pakistan is definitely a must. You cannot deny the fact that Pakistan is not involved. Everybody knows this. The entire world knows this. And so, unless there is a clear focus or a clear item on the agenda about the issue of Taliban that Pakistan needs to be actively involved and that the extremists need to be somehow addressed, I fear that we might be losing time and resources and energy again by just merely focusing on the moderate.

Again, I’m not suggesting that it’s not a good idea to begin with the moderates, a conversation with the moderates, but that should not be our ultimate goal and the end of the goal. We need to reach out to the extremists, and we also need to reach out—I mean, and not reach out, but reach out to the people, to the masses, and really just state our goal in Afghanistan. You know, I would like America to clearly state what it wants to achieve in Afghanistan, for how long it wants to be here. You know, when you compare it to Iraq, there is now a clear goal of when America wants to leave, and they’re already pulling out troops, and, you know, the Iraqis now have a feeling that America will eventually leave. For Afghanistan, we still have no idea. Is this going to be an indefinite war? Is this going to be an indefinite presence in Afghanistan? And if it is, we would like to know. I think Afghans have the right to information, and that information is our right to know. And I think America owes that responsibility to tell us what they’re doing here, how long they’re going to be here, and what its strategy is in addressing the situation.

AMY GOODMAN: Rangina Hamidi is an Afghan activist and founder of kandahartreasure.com, the first women-run business in her hometown of Kandahar. She was speaking to us from there.

Rethink Afghanistan

When the American people voted Barack Obama into office on Nov. 4, I don't think they had an escalation of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan on their mind. They voted for real change, not another fruitless and costly military solution, but it seems that the fundamental nature of U.S. foreign policy has not changed since Bush's departure and likely will not change any time soon.

No invading force in history has been able to subdue the Afghan people. In fact, the best that the United States has been able to do is to control the major cities in an overwhelming rural country. The Taliban that was supposedly destroyed back in 2001 now controls well more than half of the country (though it's important to mention that today's "Taliban" has a slightly different character).

Rethink Afghanistan is the latest project of filmmaker Robert Greenwald. It features interviews from prominent experts and journalists calling for a non-aggressive approach to Afghanistan.

Support Student Struggles!

As a recent college graduate, I can't help but sympathize with students who put their academic careers in jeopardy to struggle against an oppressive administration for more democracy, cheaper tuition, and socially responsible investment.

Universities are microcosms for the society at large. Corporate control is increasing while students are often given fewer rights than a typical consumer would receive.

At the University of Maryland, I struggled for divestment from Sudan, less military/intelligence access, workers' rights, anti-racism/diversity measures, and more.

Ongoing struggles:

University of the District of Columbia (UDC)

http://saveudc.com/

New York University (NYU)

http://takebacknyu.com/

New School

http://www.newschoolinexile.com/

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Green Civil Disobedience

See You in Jail: It’s Not Symbolism When You Live in D.C.

Posted by Mike Tidwell on 26 Feb 2009

Why I’m joining 2,000 people for a global warming mass arrest on Monday

On Monday I’m going to get arrested just two blocks from the U.S.
capitol building. I’ll peacefully block the entrance to an energy plant
that burns raw coal to partially power Congress. My motivation is
global warming. My colleagues in civil disobedience will include the
poet Wendell Berry, Country western singer Kathy Mattea, and Yale
University dean Gus Speth.

Up to two thousand other people from across the country will risk
arrest, too. We’ll all be demanding strong federal action to phase out
coal combustion and other fossil fuels nationwide that threaten our
vulnerable climate.

This mass arrest might seem symbolic and radical to many Americans.
Symbolic because it’s purposefully organized amid the iconic images of
Washington, D.C. And radical because, well, isn’t getting locked up
kind of out there? And isn’t global warming kind of vague and distant?

But I live five subway stops from the U.S. Capitol. My home is right
here. There’s nothing symbolic – for me — about trying to keep the
tidal Potomac River out of my living room and off the national Mall
where my son takes school trips. There’s nothing symbolic about
fighting for homeowner’s insurance in=2
0a region where Allstate and other
insurers have already begun to pull out due to bigger Atlantic
hurricanes. And what’s vague about the local plant species like
deadnettles and Bluebells that now bloom 4-6 weeks earlier in D.C.-area
gardens thanks to dramatic warming.

For citizens like me who live amid the symbolic trappings of D.C., we
stand as proof that climate change is everywhere, right now, and no one
is immune, not even the citizens and leaders of the world’s most
powerful city. (No wonder nearly 1 in ten protestors on March 2nd will
be members of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network).

And radical? Actually civil disobedience is no more radical than our
belief that extreme energy changes are possible now – not just in
far-off China or liberal Oregon, but in the city of Washington, D.C.
itself. Like a growing number of Metro D.C. residents, my home in
Takoma Park is completely solarized. I heat my home with locally grown,
organically fertilized corn that saves me money. And beginning this
summer in much of Maryland, energy from wind farms will be cheaper than
coal-fired electricity from Pepco, the state’s mega-utility. Meanwhile,
as a region, the D.C. area uses twice as much electricity per capita as
Californians or residents of New York State. Clearly, there is
low-hanging “efficiency fruit” everywhere you look in the nation’s
capital. Washington could cut its power=2
0use in half and still have
every comfort and abundance: bright lights for the Kennedy Center,
heating and cooling for the museums, fast computers for every hall of
Congress. No tradeoffs.

We just need national legislation to move things along as fast as the
climate is changing, which is to say right now! Congress must pass – in
2009 – a cap on carbon pollution that matches the goals of Japan and
the European nations under the current international climate talks.
Then Obama must go to Copenhagen, Denmark in December to negotiate a
strong successor to the Kyoto protocol.

Otherwise, Washington, D.C. is screwed. Not just in a political and
diplomatic sense. But screwed as an actual place. On its last day in
office, the Bush Administration released a study showing the U.S.
Atlantic coast would soon see sea-level rise much worse than previously
estimated. Another study in the journal Science this month showed that
ice reduction in Antarctica is actually leading to planetary
gravitational changes that will further cause the Atlantic to bulge and
swell, leading to still more rise. Who knew? University of Maryland
professor Court Stephenson already believes a billion-dollar flood gate
on the Potomac River just south of D.C. is the only thing that can save
Washington from future mega-storms. No wonder in nearby New York city,
mayor Michael Bloomburg is already planning to move to higher ground
the pumps that
keep the New York subway dry.

But adaptation measures will never protect us without a simultaneous
turn to clean energy. Which is why I’m getting arrested March 2nd with
thousands of others two blocks from the Capitol. President Obama and
Congress have already done a lot for the climate in the last six weeks
alone, and I hear the voice of those who say, “Why push so hard now?”

But I’m reminded of the labor leaders who visited Franklin D. Roosevelt
in the 1930s. After hours of talks they persuaded the President to
support a pro-union proposition. But FDR then surprised them. “Okay
you’ve convinced me,” he said. “Now go out and pressure me.” That’s
kind of the weird way politics works. Obama and Congress need this
pressure to help them keep doing what, for the most part, they already
want to do.

All politics is local, as they say, so in the end I’m just looking
after my street corner. My corner just happens to be in the D.C. area.
I have a son here, and the scientists have spoken: there’s nowhere to
hide from global warming. Nowhere. So I want an end to coal combustion
in my region. I want to live surrounded by wind mills, not flood
levees. For this, I’ll even get arrested, knowing all along that the
reverse is true too: If the actual citizens of Washington, D.C. are
safe from global warming, then everyone else i
n the world is safe too.

(Mike Tidwell is director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network)