Content

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

Listen and subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Google | Wherever You Listen

Sign up to receive our weekly newsletter of the best New Yorker podcasts.

Much has changed since China last hosted the Olympics, during the 2008 Summer Games. Those Games were widely seen as greatly improving Chinas international reputation. But the 2022 Winter Games have put a spotlight on the countrys human-rights abuses, most notably the current genocide against Uyghurs and Kazakhs. The U.S. and other nations are boycotting the Games in a partial way, leaving government officials home while allowing athletes to participate, to avoid a bitter disappointment like that in 1980, when America didnt compete in Moscow. The effect of these actions on China may be limited, but the tensions could be very difficult for athletes to navigate.Peter Hessler, for many yearsThe New YorkersChina correspondent, asks David Remnick, When an athlete says something about the internment camps in Xinjiang and the oppression of Muslim people in China, what is the Chinese response going to be? The I.O.C. has really left them out there. The I.O.C.... basically just washed their hands of it. Its really up to the athletes, he notes. A lot of people Ive talked to are very concerned about this. At the same time, the sports reporterLouisa Thomasnotes that these Games may garner little American support or attention. The delayed Tokyo Games last year were already the least-watched Games in history, and there are few big-name U.S. athletes for NBC to promote. I even have a lot of friends who have no idea theres about to be an Olympics, Thomas says. Which is extraordinary.

The rest is here:

The Olympic Games Return to China, in a Changed World - The New Yorker

We live in an age of discord and distrust, much of it fueled by the splintering of our media landscape and the sheer volume of circulating information and misinformation. But there is also a deeper fracturing of what we used to think of as national historical truths.

Over the past several years, significant reappraisals of our collective past have exploded in number. Reconstruction, which was always an inconvenient blemish on our redemptive Civil War saga, is now rightly seen as the systemic continuation of oppression that is was, for example. And the perceived unity of purpose of the Greatest Generation is now counterbalanced by a more rounded view of the ambivalence felt by many at home and the brutality felt on the battlefield.

In an era of falling statues and other icons, some Americans despair that we have lost our collective American narrative to cynical and/or negative portrayals that disconnect us from a healthy patriotism and one another. Others respond that we need such accounts to acknowledge past injustices and better legitimize our present society and government.

One thing is clear: Our revised annals are richer and more complex. As Diane Turner, curator of an Afro-American history collection at Temple University said recently, by being able to tell everybodys story, its good for the society as a whole Lets have these stories, because the more truth we have, the better it is. But with this ever-growing number of stories, might something also be lost?

One prominent American historian worried about this years ago. In a 1982 essay in Foreign Affairs appropriately titled The Care and Repair of Public Myth, William McNeill (author of sweeping histories such as The Rise of the West and Plagues and Peoples) feared discrediting old myths without finding new ones to replace them. He understood such myths not in a negative sense as imaginary or unverifiable, but as a peoples rendering of historical events that illuminates their worldview. To McNeill, a people without a full quiver of relevant agreed-upon statements, accepted in advance through education or less formalized acculturation, soon finds itself in deep trouble, for in the absence of believable myths, coherent public action becomes very difficult to improvise or sustain.

In what he saw even then as an increasingly atomized environment that might cause societies to retreat to more narrow in-groups, McNeill beseeched thoughtful men of letters to create new, more inclusive forms of myth. We must do the best we can, he said, to survive in a world full of conflict by creating and sustaining the most effective public identities of which we are capable.

What narratives can contribute those broader identities today? They cannot simply be those of yesteryear, no matter how nostalgically (or misguidedly) some citizens may yearn for them. Nor can they be manufactured overnight. Their appeal must be expansive and inspirational, and their credibility strong. They must reflect not a yes, but orientation that effectively seeks to erase narrower identities, but a yes, and approach that affirms both larger affinities and more localized loyalties.

One starting point might be the continuing significance of our Declaration of Independence, with its twin themes of liberty and equality tracing a common ongoing quest of various American communities religious, racial, ethnic, disabled, and those of different sexual orientations to gain greater freedom and status. Another is our reputation for both commercial and social entrepreneurship:

While this is often touted as emblematic of our communal freedom from the state, we are also blessed with a history of innovative government-funded research and development, infrastructure, public health and environmental programs that have generated freedom for improved societal well-being. And of course, there is our voluntarism and activism, which continues to inspire people around the world nearly 200 years after de Tocqueville commented on them.

Perhaps our apex narrative needs to be one of economic and social progress that admits flaws and tragedies, but traces a hopeful and persistent, if jagged, story of growth and learning. Such an account, informed by more humility (and maturity) than those trumpeting our purported New World innocence and self-righteousness, can help inoculate us not only against hubris and global overreach, but exceptionalism and ignorance of other countries histories. It might even make us more compassionate toward our forebears, whose transgressions, we tend to forget, were not informed by later knowledge and insights.

Our rejuvenated, more expansive public myths fewer in number, but also more modest and congruent with our current understanding of the world will require many different contributors (not simply men of letters), who are all part of our national mosaic. These myths will not, by themselves, dissipate the rancor that has swelled in the past decade. But they may be one way to help keep our conversations more constructive.

Malcolm Russell-Einhorn teaches in the Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University.

Read more:

Myths of the past no longer represent modern world - Alton Telegraph

Americans who cherish our countrys legacy are horrified by our headlong rush to war. America at its best was the very motor of world progress, higher living standards and peace.

That is our true national identity. We betray the better angels of our nature by making military threats against those who are advancing world powers, as we once were. We commit suicide when we dishonor historic agreements that keep the world safe from nuclear annihilation.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. promised Russian leaders that the U.S.-led military alliance known as NATO would not be extended eastward toward Russia. The transatlantic Globalist war-making faction broke this promise. NATO has moved eastward with eight new members, heavily armed and hostile to Russia. The U.S. installed a far-right anti-Russian regime in Ukraine on Russias border, and armed them for conflict.

China has been similarly ringed by threatening U.S. fleets and military bases.

Russia and China have made it plain they find this intolerable, and cannot permit it to go further.

The world is hurtling toward the unimaginable horror of nuclear war.

We must look soberly and deeply into U.S. history to see how our nation changed from a force for peace into an aggressive provocateur.

We were industrialized by progressive patriots. They won out against Southern slave-owners and imperial financiers who blocked American progress. The U.S. at its best boosted other nations to technological prowess.

Abraham Lincoln and his allies organized the greatest advances ever made in technology and living standards, and a long era of peace with the world. Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy sought a partnership with Russia to bring peace and a humane existence to all mankind.

America changed course after Kennedys murder. We gave up our industries and lost our skills. We gave power to unaccountable Globalist financiers. Their speculation and deindustrialization have bankrupted the Western world. Other powers are now rising who wont follow Globalist rules into poverty and national suicide.

The gravest danger now comes from America abandoning its own historic mission, which is to elevate the common man. Those who know history are especially challenged to act now, to speak out, so that we may protect the civilization that America at its best did so much to advance.

Over the past half century since Kennedys death, the United States, guided by a transatlantic war-making faction, has launched war after war, winning nothing and bringing chaos and suffering to countless millions.

George Washington led our Revolution against the British Empires invading armies. But as President, Washington sought peace with the world. He warned,

The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred is a slave to its animosity which lead[s] it astray from its duty and its interest. [This hatred] disposes each [country] more readily to offer insult and injury and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur The government makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

(Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796)

Abraham Lincoln as a congressman exposed the lies that President James Polk used to justify aggressive war against Mexico. (Lincolns Spot Resolutions, December 22, 1847). And just before he himself ran for President, Lincoln denounced war-makers as barbarians:

From the first appearance of man upon the earth the words stranger and enemy were almost synonymous. Long after civilized nations had defined robbery and murder as high crimes, and had affixed severe punishments to them, when practiced upon their own people it was deemed no offence, but even meritorious, to rob, and murder, and enslave strangers, whether as nations or as individuals To correct the evils which spring from want of sympathy among strangers is one of the highest functions of civilization.

(Lincoln, speech to Wisconsin Agricultural Fair, September 30, 1859).

As President, leading the defense of the Union against the slave-owners attack, Lincoln urged peace with the world:

With malice toward none; with charity for all let us do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

(Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865)

President Franklin Roosevelt organized the United Nations and proposed that world peace and poverty-fighting must be centered on continuing the anti-fascist partnership of the U.S., Russia, Britain and China.

The UN Charter begins,

We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war

This is the bedrock of real human rights, not a phony cover-up for regime-change.

President John Kennedy pulled the USA and Russia away from nuclear catastrophe by a deal that removed U.S. missiles from Turkey in exchange for Russian missiles taken out of Cuba.

Kennedy asked Americans to

re-examine our attitude toward the Soviet Union the American people [should] not fall into the same trap as the Soviets, to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, [with] communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievementsin science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

[Our] two countries have [a] mutual abhorrence of war. [W]e have never been at war with each other. And no nation ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. A third of the nations territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland

Today, should total war ever break out again all we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists interest to agree on a genuine peace.

(Kennedy, Commencement Address at Washington University, June 10, 1963)

A pioneering international treaty partially banning nuclear weapons was soon thereafter signed by the U.S., U.S.S.R., and 100 nations.

President Kennedy fired top officials (Allen Dulles, CIA, and Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, Pentagon) who treacherously sabotaged U.S. peace policy. As he was working to prevent full-scale war in Vietnam, and seeking diplomatic ties with Cubas Fidel Castro, Kennedy was murdered.

Martin Luther King risked increased government oppression and even the condemnation of his civil rights allies when he took upon himself leadership of the movement against the Vietnam War.

Kings 1967 New York speech reaches out to us today and calls us to action.

I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours

Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing [anti-war] committees for the next generation [We will have war] without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy

[The] words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable

[The] Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries.

[We] call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond ones tribe, race, class, and nation an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation

A time comes when silence is betrayal

(Martin Luther King, Speech at Riverside Church, April 4, 1967)

Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy and King, who inspired America and the world, urge us not to remain silent when humanitys existence is threatened.

See the article here:

The US Betrays Its Heritage by Threatening World War III Against Russia and China - PRESSENZA International News Agency

Not a week has passed since the military coup on 25 October 2021 without at least three major protests taking place across Sudan. Neighbourhood demonstrations are now daily events, and new forms of resistance are emerging everywhere. The coup government has responded violently: with gunfire, tear gas, alleged rape and sexual assault, raids on hospitals treating the injured, internet shutdowns, and by blocking roads with shipping containers.

Since the morning of the coup, the Sudanese people have been demanding the total removal of the military from their politics. International governments, meanwhile, have been keen to maintain some form of military rule in the country and are helping the military wage a war on its own people.

To understand the current situation in Sudan, we first need to understand the events that led to this point.

In December 2018, protests began across the country in response to rising living costs and deteriorating economic conditions. The following April, these protests culminated in the ousting of dictator President Omar al-Bashir, who had ruled Sudan for almost 30 years.

People wave Sudanese flags and flash victory signs during a protest against Bashirs dictatorship, Khartoum, April 2019. Umit Bektas/Reuters

What followed was a transitional period of government: a military-civilian partnership with the stated aim of returning Sudan to democracy, led by Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok a technocrat who had formerly worked for the UN. This government was backed by regional and international powers including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, the US and the UK, alongside the IMF and the World Bank, which praised Hamdoks commitment to economic liberalisation.

One key event during the transitional period was the signing of the Juba peace deal a deal between the government and the armed movements involved in the conflict in Darfur. The result of this deal was that leaders of these movements were granted ministerial and government positions while the grievances that led to the conflict went unaddressed.

During this period, the movement on the ground in Sudan walked a fine line between prioritising their demands namely, forming a parliament, an end to the further de-subsidisation of basic goods, and justice for the martyrs of the revolution and, in fear of a collapse into total military rule, supporting the transitional government in spite of its economic liberalisation policies. These were policies that led to terrifying levels of inflation, such that the cost of living rose 300% in the year to October 2021.

By the autumn of 2021, a coup was in the air. In their speeches, military generals used the countrys economic deterioration as evidence of the failure of the civilian leadership and likely saw levels of public frustration at their living conditions as an indicator that a coup might succeed. On 25 October, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the military took control of the government, deploying military vehicles to the streets of the capital, arresting the civilian cabinet, shutting down the internet and disrupting radio broadcasting. Crucially, the coup found support among the leaders of armed movements who had joined the government after the Juba peace deal.

The movement, however, had been expecting the coup, staging protests against the takeover before it even happened. This was only possible because movements had been building on the ground for decades. Neighbourhood resistance committees, dating back to the 1990s, were revived during the 2018-19 uprisings to sustain the movement in the face of brutal state violence. These committees initially lacked clear politics and vision, but this developed during the transitional period in response to the failings of Hamdoks government. The first post-revolution budget, for example, acted as a catalyst for alliances between the neighbourhood resistance committees and labour committees. Together with allies in ministries and the civil service, these committees organised against the neoliberal budget, and forced the government to hold an economic conference to discuss the countrys spending priorities.

Protesters shout slogans as they demonstrate against the military coup, Khartoum, October 2021. Mohamed Nureldin/Reuters

On the morning of the coup, resistance committees launched mass protests demanding the total removal of the military from politics in Sudan. People took to the streets, closing them off with barricades and shouting anti-military chants. Over the following weeks, these protests became scheduled, and were held in strategic locations such as the presidential palace.

Since Bashirs dictatorship was overthrown, international governments including the UK have played a counter-revolutionary role in Sudan.

During the transitional period, western governments were satisfied with Hamdoks leadership, as he was implementing their policies of choice and paving the way for investment. They continued to support the implementation of economic liberalisation policies even as the conference on the countrys spending priorities was taking place. Interventions varied from tweets by the UKs ambassador to Sudan shamelessly calling for de-subsidisation, to agreements between the IMF and the Sudanese government confirming the implementation of these policies, rendering the ongoing conference pointless and thereby showing total disregard for the will of the Sudanese people.

This pattern continued in the aftermath of the coup. Calls for the total removal of the military from Sudanese politics were described as unrealistic by the US state department, while the UK ambassador put out a video calling for dialogue with the military generals. Indeed, the international communitys commitment to maintaining some form of military rule in Sudan went so far as to support an agreement between the military and the very same prime minister the military had overthrown late last year. Although the agreement meant keeping the generals in power, and was fiercely opposed by the people of Sudan, international diplomats, including the UN secretary general, kept calling on the people to accept it. They did not, nor did they stop protesting and their protests led to the agreements collapse.

This state of affairs in which the Sudanese resistance calls for the creation of new, inclusive and sustainable forms of governance, while international governments continue to push for the implementation of their pre-set, counter-revolutionary plan is still the basis of Sudanese politics today.

A new attempt to legitimise the coup and institutionalise the status quo is currently being led by Volker Perthes, the special representative of the UN secretary general for Sudan this time in the form of a dialogue process that includes all Sudanese political actors. This initiative comes at a time when the position of the resistance is no negotiation, no partnership, no legitimacy (the three nos against military rule). For the resistance movement, it is nothing but an attempt to blur the reality of the struggle in Sudan: for the people to have a chance at a life where their basic rights are protected, military rule, in all forms, must end. To support any kind of military intervention in Sudanese politics means condemning the people of Sudan to a life of injustice, oppression and violence. There is no middle ground both sides are fighting for their survival.

Predictably, international governments are supporting the dialogue initiative. The UK, USA, UAE and Saudi Arabia a new counter-revolutionary alliance calling itself The Quad issued a joint statement in its support. Notably, this alliance previously backed both a recommitment to the disastrous military civilian partnership and Juba agreement and the failed agreement between Hamdok and the military.

These statements show the Quads commitment to maintaining some form of military rule in Sudan. However, they also show a track record of support for failed initiatives. This failure isnt just the result of diplomats incompetency, but of a deeply flawed framework favoured by the international community. In this framework, only historical, commercial and military leaderships are viable. International players continue to imagine dreamworlds where agreements signed by leaders can stabilise nations regardless of whether or not these leaders have met the demands of the masses. While this may have achieved temporary stability under Bashir in the case of the national dialogue process in 2015, since then Sudan has been radically transformed by the countrys organised resistance. As such, so long as the dialogue initiative maintains its pro-military agenda, it is doomed.

Accordingly, the new initiative doesnt change much for Sudans resistance, which has committed to protesting regardless of how many diplomats call its goals unrealistic.

As opposed to the dialogue between leaders, whats important to the Sudanese resistance is the dialogue between the committees, labour groups and other grassroots organisations regarding a new, shared vision for the form of government they wish to establish. Over the last two months, several groups have published draft, individual visions, and the tools they intend to use to achieve them. The streets are now abuzz with news of joint declarations, which are expected in the coming weeks, and which would strengthen the Sudanese resistance in facing down counter-revolutionary forces.

Tyres burn on the ground asprotesters march against military rule, Khartoum, January2022. Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah/Reuters

Perthes has described the situation in Sudan as a crisis. A statement from Mairno city resistance committee rejects this description, however it isnt a crisis, but a revolution.

This statement also directly appeals to people across the world to pressure their [] governments to align themselves with the goals of our people and criminalise the coup. Indeed, people worldwide can show solidarity with the revolution by uncovering how international governments are intervening in Sudan, rejecting their counter-revolutionary initiatives, and amplifying the voices of the resistance. With this solidarity, the people of Sudan can win this war, and a chance at a decent future.

Muzan Alneel is a co-founder of the Innovation, Science and Technology Think Tank for People-Centred Development Sudan and a non-resident fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy.

View original post here:

The West is Waging War on the Sudanese Revolution - Novara Media

PSNA has written to the Minister of Agriculture, Damien OConnor, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nanaia Mahuta, urging the government to pull out of a proposed on-line seminar with Israels agriculture sector.

The Chief Science Advisor to the Ministry of Primary Industries, John Roche, is scheduled to speak at the on-line event on 15/16 February.

The webinar is designed to build strategic partnerships in agriculture with Israel, assisted by the Israeli embassy and the Aotearoa New Zealand government. This is an outrage!

Israels agriculture sector is based on ethnic cleansing, war crimes and human rights abuses against the Palestinian people says PSNA National Chair John Minto.

Our government and our farmers should be demanding Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to their land instead of helping Israel profit from this stolen land

Israels agriculture sector is based on:

This Agritech seminar is a celebration of ethnic cleansing, war crimes and human rights abuses.

Withdrawal is the only moral and ethical course for the government.

Background on Israel as a racist, apartheid state

Early in 2021, BTselem, Israels largest and most respected human rights organisation, released a report calling Israel A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid

In April 2021, the Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning US-based organisation Human Rights Watch released a 213-page report detailing how Israeli policies constitute crimes of apartheid and persecution.

The recently deceased Nobel Peace prize winner and South African Archbishop, Desmond Tutu, said international solidarity such as BDS is critical to ending injustices like apartheid.

I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing in the Holy Land that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under apartheid, says Tutu.

We could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world, who through non-violent means, such as boycotts and disinvestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime

Bishop Tutu says when it comes to Israel we should Call it apartheid and boycott!

In Tutus quote above when he refers to other corporate actors he is referring to entities such as the Ministry of Primary Industries.

Its also worth recording here Tutus words that for anyone to be silent in the face of oppression is to take the side of the oppressor. Taking the side of the oppressor is precisely the position the Ministry of Primary Industries is taking with Israel through this event.

Original post:

Government agriculture seminar based on ethnic cleansing, war crimes and human rights abuses - thedailyblog.co.nz

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the most crippling form of poverty was seen as the poverty of dignity. To read all the letters and diaries and recollections of the time is to see that the severe economic hardship caused by the loss of a job was often considered temporary and survivable. But what destroyed the human spirit what petrified people the most was a loss of dignity caused by the loss of work.

The generation of the Great Depression demonstrated that economic poverty did not permanently cripple, as long as human dignity survived. That kept alive a spirit of hope and will. When a person lost dignity, however, he lost everything. A loss of money is recoverable; a loss of dignity often is not.

The word dignity seems to have gone out of favor. Politicians, educators, and media commentators rarely use that word very much. They talk about income and rights and inequality and discrimination, but almost never dignity.

Yet dignity has a much longer history in the human lexicon than any of those other words. Over centuries of human existence, dignity defined the highest of human ideals and pursuits. The work one does, the way one provides for and protects ones family, has historically been a crucial ingredient of human dignity.

For centuries, work has been bound with human dignity. But that connection appears to have weakened. Once seen as the party of working people, the Democratic Party has evolved into a party that considers work to be a burden, inconvenient, and even degrading. Such attitudes come out in the partys shifted economic and social agendas.

President Bidens Build Back Better plan, strongly supported by nearly all Democrats, sought to make more permanent certain unconditional government grants to adults with children, regardless of whether those adults were working. These grants were instituted by the American Rescue Plan, enacted by the Democrats last March, which changed the child tax credit to automatic taxpayer grants to adults with children, with no work requirement.

Admittedly, eliminating the child tax credit work requirement recognized the problems involved in finding a job during the Covid shutdowns, but the job market is now wide open. Therefore, as Republicans argue, the recent expiration of the Covid-inspired child subsidies presents an opportunity to return to the original scheme, which included a work requirement.

This dismissal of work, ironically, reflects an attitude that infused the Great Society social welfare programs instituted during the 1960s. But because those programs proved disastrous to people who became trapped in them, the 1996 welfare reform sought to reinstate work requirements and thereby restore work to an important value in social policy.

Despite the success of the 1996 reform, Democrats now want to return to the work-dismissive status of the 1960s. Even more ironically, this dismissal of work occurs when jobs and work opportunities are plentiful.

When a society dismisses and disregards a foundation of human dignity, it travels a path toward inhumanity and oppression. One consistent characteristic of oppressive, totalitarian regimes is the disregard for human dignity. Such regimes talk about income and rights and inequality and discrimination, but they completely disregard human dignity.

Throughout all of human history, dignity has been tied up with work. It is not money or consumption or leisure that confer dignity, it is work, because work builds the foundation of human independence, allowing individuals to set the terms of how they and their families will live. Work is the only way through which individuals can take responsibility for their lives and the lives of their families.

But Democrats seem to look at work as an injustice that no person, especially someone who is poor or of minority status, should have to endure. That dismissive attitude toward work perhaps explains why Democrats now struggle with the blue-collar and working-class vote. Democrats of course claim that these voters have become racist, but perhaps a more accurate reason they have left the party is because of Democrats degrading view of work.

The current leftist view of work has been solidifying for decades. Expanding the opportunities for work has increasingly taken a back seat to finding new protected categories of people and undermining social traditions. Indeed, the lefts focus seems to be on government benefit programs rather than job creation.

But it is only work that can create true individual independence and self-sustainability, as well as conferring the pride of accomplishment and contribution. On the other hand, maybe the left does not want independent, self-sustaining individuals; maybe the left wants the majority of society ultimately dependent on government.

Work, and the habits nurtured by work, have throughout human history provided the means by which people can acquire certain vital virtues, such as self-discipline, self-restraint, thrift, and delayed gratification. Work fosters ambition and responsibility. The constitutional framers believed that a prosperous democracy required a virtuous citizenry, and that virtue proceeded from work.

As one Democrat member of Congress said during a hearing about the lack of work requirements in Build Back Better, mention of the so-called dignity of work is like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard. This derision of one of the most foundational virtues underlying our society and democracy is what is most troubling about the Democrats.

If there is no dignity in work, then there should be no work, since no one should be forced to perform undignified activities. But if no one works, how are people to become virtuous citizens independent of their government? If no one works, where are all the tax dollars to come from?

What is most troubling about the Democratic agenda and the liberal outlook is not the price tag of their social and economic programs. What is most troubling is how the left continually seeks to fundamentally transform American society and culture.

At the very center of society is the individual, but the left wants to remove the individual from that role; the left wants government at the center. One way to do that is to remove the ability of the individual to serve as an independent foundation of government and society.

Degrading the dignity of work will certainly achieve that goal. Then, once dignity is removed, and then work degraded, all individuals will indeed be alike they will all be dependent on the government to tell them what rights they have and what benefits they will receive. Once that occurs, will there even be any questions as to how those government beneficiaries are to vote?

Patrick Garry is professor of law at the University of South Dakota, senior fellow at the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy, and author of The False Promise of Big Government (ISI Books).

See the original post:

How Ending Expectations That Adults Work For A Living Erases Dignity - The Federalist

Louis McKechneys 21st birthday wasnt like most other students. He didnt get drunk or go clubbing. He was busy being sentenced to prison instead.

The Bournemouth University student was part of the infamous Insulate Britain protests which shut down the M25 last year.

The demonstrations triggered outrage among drivers in the capital, and ministers too. Home Secretary Priti Patel soon beefed up legislation to stop protests like it happening again.

READ MORE:Insulate Britain cost Met Police a staggering 2 million in just four weeks

Louis has been arrested seven times with Insulate Britain - so many times that theyve become a blur, he tells MyLondon.

That includes gluing himself onto the road six times in London.

After weeks of protests last autumn, he was sentenced to three months in prison for contempt of court. He and five other activists faced an injunction not to block the M25 again. They defied it.

He served half of a three month sentence, and has now spoken about his experience at HMP Thameside, Greenwich.

Louis said: I was sh**ting myself. When I got in, two prisoners came over, and said they had heard what I was in for.

Then they said theyd make sure my time here was as good as possible.

I thought it would be much worse - I got told prison is a place of violence, hardened criminals, and bullies.

Instead, everyone was lovely.

Louis says he spent time reflecting on his actions while in prison.

Far from putting him off protesting, it has made him more determined.

We cant afford not to take these risks. Id risk prison again if it meant potentially saving thousands of lives," he said.

Many voters struggle to see how shutting down the M25 saves lives. After three weeks of protests last September, YouGov found that only 18 per cent of Brits supported their actions, compared to a quarter who backed the group before.

Their tactics have polarised opinion. I ask Louis if he can sympathise.

He said: We dont like shutting down motorways - its not a tactic any of us enjoy. But its the only way we get the government to listen and get the word out there.

Evidently it did work, because of the hundreds of articles we got about us in the first few weeks."

For Louis and other protesters, public support isnt the objective. Policy change is.

We have to disrupt lives to save them. Thousands die of fuel poverty each year. If the government insulated Britains homes and buildings, they would be saved, he tells MyLondon.

The government has a dilemma. While tough protest restrictions may put off some less committed protesters, for those who see climate change as the fight of their lives, it will not deter them.

Prison hasnt put me off at all. Im far more willing to go to those lengths again after realising prison is no way near as bad as its meant to be," he said.

Its meant to be a deterrent - but it no longer scares me.

Im a climate activist. I want to stop the climate crisis because it threatens billions of lives.

The government says its policing bill is to tackle the changing nature of protest - hardcore middle class activists in the minds of ministers locking on to roads and public infrastructure.

Insulate Britain, however, says it is following the same model of the US Freedom Riders, and the Suffragettes".

Ministers will say it is unnecessary, and that Britain is world-leading on climate change, with a new target to reduce emissions by 78 per cent by 2035.

Do you want to stay up to date with the latest news, views, features and opinion from across the city?

MyLondon's brilliant newsletter The 12 is absolutely jam packed with all the latest to keep you keep you entertained, informed and uplifted.

You'll get 12 stories straight to your inbox at around 12pm. Its the perfect lunchtime read.

And what's more - it's FREE!

The MyLondon team tells London stories for Londoners. Our journalists cover all the news you need - from City Hall to your local streets, so you'll never miss a moment.

Don't skip a beat and sign up to The 12 newsletter here.

For the climate movement, it is still not ambitious enough.

And for hardened protesters like Louis, the policing bill wont stop their tactics. Indeed, civil disobedience - breaking the law - is kind of the point.

The government is simply increasing the number of laws theyll be breaking.

Its a sense of moral duty - however controversial - that renders the legislation almost irrelevant for people like Louis.

Louis might be willing to go to prison again, but is he nervous about the legislation?

On the whole, we are scared of the bill coming in. Were going to see all our friends in prison.

But were not backing down because its bigger than any one of us.

Resistance to government oppression increases proportionally to oppression. There will be many more arrests down the line.

Policing bill or no policing bill, activists like Louis could spend their next birthdays in jail again. After all, it was not the worst birthday Ive had, he says.

All six of his Insulate Britain friends are now out of HMP Thameside. What are they planning next?

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is nearing its final stages in the House of Commons this month.

Got a story for MyLondon? Get in touch: josiah.mortimer@reachplc.com

Want more from MyLondon? Sign up to our daily newsletters for all the latest and greatest from across London here.

Excerpt from:

'I went to prison for gluing my face to the M25 and I'd do it again' - My London

The View mocked the Defeat the Mandates march that took place on the National Mall in Washington on Sunday, saying its speakers and premise were misinformed.

People from across the country gathered at the Washington Monument and walked to the Lincoln Memorial to participate in the march, which was part of an international demonstration against COVID-19-related restrictions.

Among those who spoke was Children's Health Defense founder Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The show's co-hosts criticized Kennedy for comparing present-day mandates to the Nazi oppression of Jews and claiming that mandates are stripping people of their rights.

"Even in Hitler's Germany, you could cross the Alps into Switzerland," Kennedy said. "You could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did. I visited in 1962 East Germany with my father and met people who had climbed the wall and escaped. So it was possible. Many people died doing it, but it was possible. Today, the mechanisms are being put in place that will make it so none of us can run, none of us can hide."

Co-host Whoopi Goldberg angrily criticized the comparison.

"How can anyone be this misinformed?" Goldberg said. "Not just about the vaccines and mandates but about history. How is it possible?"

The clip of Kennedy speaking aired on the show was cut short and did not include his claims about modern technology stripping people of constitutional rights and leaving little room for escape today.

"The minute they hand you that vaccine passport, every right that you have is transformed into a privilege contingent upon your obedience to arbitrary government dictates," Kennedy added. "It will make you a slave."

Co-host Ana Navarro mocked Kennedy, saying, "Every family has an idiot, and obviously the Kennedys are not immune to that," to which the co-hosts laughed.

"I find it incredibly offensive, though, that they keep referencing the Holocaust, which is such a unique time in history that should be respected as such," Navarro said.

The show's hosts also blasted Kennedy's claims of vaccine injury as a conspiracy. Co-host Joy Behar reminded those listening of how British Dr. Andrew Wakefield's findings of vaccine injury were discredited due to financial conflicts of interest and ethical misconduct.

"He basically lost his medical license," Behar said. "[People] hooked onto this lie and it became a movement."

Behar did not address other medical studies compiled by Kennedy's nonprofit group that implicate vaccines in various medical injuries.

SEE IT: 'DEFEAT THE MANDATES' PROTESTERS MARCH ON NATIONAL MALL

While speaking at the rally, Kennedy called out vaccine companies and the Food and Drug Administration for their lack of transparency.

"The Pfizer vaccine is the only vaccine that has a license," Kennedy said. "Until [the other vaccines] get that license, they do not have to produce their data. So the only data we really have that is reliable is the Pfizer data. And by the way, there are half a million pages of granular data, which Pfizer and the FDA have refused to produce because they say it is too burdensome. These are the data that they reviewed for 108 days, but they say they can't show it to us for 55 years."

When referencing Kennedy and those who support the anti-mandate movement, Behar called them "crazies" who wrongly oppose masks and vaccines as if they are being pursued by Nazis.

"It's so offensive to compare anything to the Holocaust," co-host Sunny Hostin said. "It's offensive to compare anything to the Middle Passage, to compare anything to slavery. I'm surprised actually that thousands of people showed up. The [organization] estimated 20,000 would attend, but thousands still did."

The organization behind the rally told the Washington Examiner that between 30,000 and 40,000 people showed up throughout the day.

"We went a long way in crushing the false narrative that this is all about anti-vax," the rally's founder, Trevor FG, told the Washington Examiner. "It's clearly not, as yesterday's speakers alluded to it's anti-mandate."

The National Park Service could not confirm how many people were in attendance.

"Due to the difficulty in accurately assessing crowd estimates for large events, the National Park Service no longer provides crowd estimates for permitted events," National Mall and Memorial Parks Chief of Communications Mike Litterst said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. "It is left to the discretion of event organizers to make a determination of their event attendance."

The rally organizers said more protests are expected.

"We are just getting started and have a surge of momentum, likely taking this effort to major cities across the country," Trevor FG said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The energy of those on the National Mall was puzzling to the show's hosts.

"In light of the fact that 860,000 Americans have died from COVID [for] anti-vaxxers to still exist, for the anti-mask folks to still exist it's just shocking," Hostin said.

Original Location: WATCH: The View mocks RFK Jr. and anti-mandate rally in DC

Washington Examiner Videos

Here is the original post:

WATCH: The View mocks RFK Jr. and anti-mandate rally in DC - Denver Gazette

University of Pennsylvania law Professor Amy Wax.

University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax faces investigation and possible sanctions from her university, as a result of her statement that "as long as most Asians support Democrats and help to advance their positions, I think the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration." Her support for racial discrimination in immigration policy is not an isolated remark. At the 2019 National Conservatism conference, Wax said much the same thing about non-white immigrants generally, arguing for "the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites."

On the issue of sanctions, I largely agree with the Academic Freedom Alliance's letter about this case, emphasizing the principle that universities should not punish faculty for out-of-class political speech (I am a member of AFA myself, but was not involved in the drafting of this letter). Penn is a private university, so the First Amendment does not apply. Nonetheless, I don't think university administrators can be trusted to enact such speech restrictions or to enforce them fairly. Any attempts to do so is likely to undermine academic freedom, and reduce the quality of intellectual discourse.

That said, Wax's statements on immigration are deeply problematic, and deserve severe criticism. Worse, they are symptomatic of a broader pattern on the right. All too many conservatives support discrimination and injustice in immigration policy of a kind they would reject elsewhere.

Wax and her supporters defend her comments on immigration by emphasizing that her objections to Asian immigrants and non-white ones generally are not about biological race, as such, but merely about their political and cultural values. If Asian immigrants voted for Republicans, rather than Democrats, she would perhaps be happy to take more of them.

But this defense doesn't cut it. Wax is still advocating large-scale racial and ethnic discrimination. The fact that she wants to use race and ethnicity as crude proxies for other characteristics doesn't make it right. Conservatives, including Wax herself, readily see that when it comes to racial preferences in college admissions, defended on the grounds that African-American applicants, for example, are more likely to have been victims of racial injustice or to contribute to "diversity" on campus. The idea that blacks are, on average, more likely to have experienced racism in American society than whites, is likely true. Nonetheless, Wax rejects such rationales for racial preferences, on principle, and instead (correctly, in my view) advocates color-blind admissions.

The very same logic should dictate color-blindness - and rejection of ethnic and national-origin discrimination - in immigration policy, as well. Indeed, racial and ethnic discrimination in immigration policy is a far greater injustice than affirmative action preferences in university admissions. Most victims of the latter still get to go to college in the US, usually at universities only modestly less prestigious than the ones that rejected them. By contrast, many victims of racial and ethnic discrimination in immigration policy are consigned to a lifetime of poverty and oppression in their countries of origin.

If the reason to oppose racial and ethnic discrimination in college admissions is that government and university bureaucrats can't be trusted to craft such policies fairly, the same point applies in spades to immigration policy. Indeed, anti-Asian discrimination in the former is often motivated by the same sorts of crude stereotypes as the latter.

To the extent that (as in Wax's case) discrimination in immigration are based on generalizations about the political views of various racial and ethnic groups, they also run up against principles of freedom of speech. It is striking that many of the same conservatives who advocate viewpoint-based immigration restrictions are also deeply angry about "cancel culture" and government attempts to combat supposed "misinformation" online. If we can't trust government and university officials to properly regulate speech on social media or that of academics like Wax, why should we trust the government to decide which would-be immigrants' political views are acceptable, and which ones have bad cultural values?

That's especially true if we are talking about excluding people not based on their actual views, but merely based on crude generalizations about the views of members of their racial or ethnic group. If Wax ends up getting punished for her statements, it will at least be for things she actually said. It would be much worse if she were sanctioned merely because she is white, and university administrators concluded that whites, on average, are more likely to have reprehensible views on racial issues than members of other groups.

Some argue that this kind of double standard is acceptable because would-be immigrants don't have a right to come to the US. I deny the latter premise. Indeed, most immigration restrictions are unjust for much the same reasons as domestic racial discrimination is, and standard rationales for a general right of governments to exclude immigrants collapse upon close inspection.

But even if you accept the conventional wisdom that governments have a general right to exclude migrants, it doesn't follow they can do so based on racial and ethnic discrimination. Racial discrimination in government policy is wrong even with respect to institutions from which the government can bar people for other reasons. For example, the government isn't required to admit any particular applicant to a public university, or even to establish such schools at all. But racial discrimination in state university admissions is still unjust (and outrages conservatives, including Amy Wax).

The same goes for discrimination based on political views. A state university that admitted only Democrats (or only Republicans) would be an affront to freedom of speech. Conservatives would be among the first to object to it.

There is no good reason to exempt immigration restrictions from moral constraints that apply to other government policies. And that especially goes for restrictions based on crude racial and ethnic stereotypes, such as lumping together all Asians and all non-whites, ignoring the vast diversity within both categories.

If these kinds of double-standards were unique to Wax, they wouldn't matter much. But, sadly, such views are common on much of the political right. Many of them cheered Donald Trump's stigmatization of Mexican immigrants, his advocacy of banning migration from "shithole countries" (all of them majority non-white), and his travel bans openly directed at Muslims, in a way conservatives rightly denounce as unconstitutional and unjust in the domestic context. More generally, all too many on the right support a jurisprudence under which immigration restrictions are largely exempted from constitutional constraints that apply to virtually all other government policies, including freedom of speech, and rules against racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination.

The political left has its own flaws, when it comes to racial and ethnic discrimination, including anti-Asian bias in admissions at various elite educational institutions, which I have condemned. But their flaws are no excuse for egregious conservative double standards on immigration.

If you truly support principles like color-blindness and freedom of speech and religion, you can't chuck them out the window when the subject turns to immigration policy. Conservatives would do well to remember that.

Indeed, experience shows that promoting invidious discrimination in one area of government policy increases the risk that it will spread to others. Historically, racist immigration policies were closely tied to similar bigotry at home, with each feeding off the other. Anti-Asian immigration restrictions in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries coincided with discriminatory policies against those same groups within the United States; the two were mutually reinforcing. The same pattern could well recur today.

More here:

Amy Wax and the Problem of Right-Wing Double Standards on Immigration - Reason

Gwen-Mike-on-vaccination-card

But on the "no vaccination, no entry" policy, Mayor Mike embraced the rule in his January 19 executive order banning, among others, the unvaccinated from malls and indoor venues in the city.

WHAT STRIKES THE PUBLIC at once is this: The chief local executives of the two biggest LGUs in Cebu have contrasting beliefs on an important matter -- the vaccination cards -- in the government response to the pandemic. The mayor wants it used to encourage vaccination; the governor sees it as a tool of oppression.

Mayor Mike favors the no vax, no entry rule against the unvaccinated and includes it in his executive order. Guv Gwen disagrees with the no vax, no entry policy and reminds her mayors to avoid it from any government transaction. Mike will implement the no vax, no ride rule once it comes from Manila. Gwen does not like it but doesn't say if she'll disobey a national order to enforce it here.

NO DEFIANCE. Neither LGU leader is defying national government policy, for now.

The governor appears to comply with national policy under Republic Act 11525, which establishes the vaccination program against the coronavirus. She cited the part that says "vaccine cards shall not be considered as an additional mandatory requirement for educational, employment, and other similar government transaction purposes." Her memo to the mayors echoes that prohibition of the law and doesn't go beyond that.

Notice that Gwen's memo doesn't touch on any ban on private establishments catering to the public. That gives private owners the discretion to impose their own rules, provided none will violate any express government order. Thus, in the 44 towns and six component cities of Cebu, malls and similar businesses may or may not require the vax cards, while in Cebu City, there is an express order from City Hall to require the cards for admission.

NO COLLISION, YET. The governor has expressed her opposition to the no vax, no ride policy, calling it "anti-poor" and repeating once more her belief that vaccination is a matter of choice. "Give that respect to the individual," CNN quoted her Wednesday. Yet it has not come to the point where she is defying the order. There's no order yet. With the confusion in Metro Manila, it may not come soon but when it does, she can make her choice, as she did in that imbroglio last year over airport arrival protocol.

Different rules among the LGUs -- because of different mindsets of their leaders -- but they don't directly clash or collide yet. Still, it is setting up the stage for similar incidents in the earlier part of the coronavirus emergency when rules in Cebu City differed from those in the province. One time, the governor called out an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) official, a councilor, for interfering with Capitol rules at the airport.

TOO SOON TO FORECAST failure of the agreement among Metro Cebu mayors and the governor regarding a united front on the anti-Covid campaign.

Last January 7, Cebu Province and the tri-cities of Cebu, Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu announced they agreed that the anti-Covid policy of entire Cebu should be uniform. The three city mayors met the night before with the mayor and Presidential Assistant for the Visayas Michael Lloyd Dino and discussed the need for similar guidelines and regulations in dealing with the pandemic. Typhoon Odette increased the urgency of being united so as to speed up rehabilitation and recovery, Guv Gwen stressed.

They started the posture of a "One Cebu" by agreeing on similar border restrictions.

THE LAST WORD. Now the apparent differences of policy seen from the mayor and the governor are still mostly talk. As cited earlier, there is yet no direct and frontal clash. And local policy-making has not yet crossed lines of national fiat. The gap may still be bridged but surely, the posture shaping up does not look like the kind they want to present to their public and the decision makers in central government.

It could bolster the IATF and Palace argument for having the last word over the LGUs in a time of emergency and crisis.

View original post here:

EXPLAINER: Different mindsets of Mayor Mike, Guv Gwen on using vax cards against the unvaccinated. But could any LGU defy central government policy?|...

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is hoping that government schemes that offer free or subsidized amenities such as housing, toilets and health care that have been availed of by the Scheduled Caste communities, will translate into votes for the party in the upcoming assembly elections in five states particularly in Uttar Pradesh, where it seemed to work in 2017. In recent elections the party has been able to earn dividends from a newly minted constituency of beneficiaries who seem to have shed their preference for voting on the basis of caste compulsions alone.

In states such as Uttar Pradesh where SCs comprise about 20% of the voter base, the partys outreach has been designed to underline the benefits that the socially and economically marginalised have derived from a clutch of government schemes. Having gained substantially by tapping into the non-Yadav OBC (other backward class) vote bank in the state, the BJP has focused on SC communities that have traditionally been with the Bahujan Samaj Party, the move did appear to work in 2017.

The BJP has traditionally not been the choice of the Bahujan Samaj. For years the RSS carried out the Samajik Samarasta (social harmony) programmes that stressed on doing away with separate crematoriums, temples and drinking water sources. But these alone did not erase the divisions on the ground. Political representation and [delivery of] a pacca house and cash transfer have been more effective. We are confident of having gained a toehold in the Bahujan Samaj, said a senior party functionary who asked not o be identified.

In 2017, the BJP showed a marked improvement in its performance in the 84 seats that are reserved for the SC candidates in UP. Its tally in the reserved seats increased from 3 in 2012 to 68 and its vote share also increased from 14% to 40%. The party gave tickets to 65 non- Jatav Dalits in these reserved seats. The Jatavs are BSP-loyalists.

Just as it did with the OBC community where it targetted the non-dominant sections, within the SC communities too the BJPs approach centred around wooing non-Jatav communities such as Dobi, Khatik, Passi and Valmiki that together account for 12% of the SC vote. The Jatavs account for 9%.

The BJPs outreach, ensuring political representation to all including the non-Jatavs and Jatavs and the emphasis on delivery of social schemes helped the party in 2017 and 2019 (general elections). If you look at the composition of PM Modis and CM Yogis council of ministers, you will find SCs present in significant numbers, said Guru Prakash Paswan, national spokesperson for the party. He said beneficiaries of social schemes have emerged as a political base and the younger generation of Dalits has realised that they were fooled by the SP and BSP.

There are 12 ministers from SC communities in the union council of ministers and eight in Uttar Pradesh.

The BJP has so far announced candidates for 192 seats.

Lacking SC Faces

While the BJP claims to have given more representation to Dalits in government, the problem is the absence of faces that can draw votes. Apart from Baby Rani Maurya, who quit as Uttarakhand governor to contest elections the BJP does not have many prominent faces among the Jatavs. Party leaders aware of the developments claim the BJP is grooming leaders, particularly among the young, educated Dalits and accept that for now the biggest draw has been PM Modis popularity and the effectiveness of government schemes.

The party has also been pitching nationalism as a binding factor. In November last, UP unit president Swatantra Dev Singh while addressing a conclave told party workers to have tea with 10 to 100 Dalit families in their neighbourhoods and villages and persuade them that voting is not done in the name of caste, region and money but in the name of rashtravaad (nationalism).

A second BJP functionary who is also from a SC community admitted that the representation that the BJP speaks of has not entirely placated the communities. There is a lot of awareness now. Optics doesnt cut ice with the younger generation particularly. It is not enough to say there is a minister, the rank and the respect accorded to them matter as well. For instance, there is only one Dalit in the UP cabinet; the rest are state ministers with little clout. Jatavs are the largest lot but again with little representation, added this person, who too asked not to be named.

The BJP is also pitching the protection it can offer from oppression for SCs.

The composition of the villages was such that the SCs depended on the upper castes for jobs. There are number of cases where SCs have been subjugated by the Yadvas and for them the BJP is the only party that can prevent the recurrence of atrocities. Irrespective of their castes the BJP candidates will stand up for them, said a third functionary who asked not to be named.

Contesting claims

BSPs Lok Sabha MP, Ritesh Pandey rebutted the BJPs claims about improving the lot of the Dalits and claimed they would continue to vote for his party. The BSP has Behenjis (Mayawati) good governance model which included everyone including the most downtrodden. Since 2007 she has given fair participation to all castes and communities. Her cabinet had representation from every caste; it was extremely inclusive. And in her politics religious bigotry was not accepted which is what is the need of the state today.

Pandey added that the impact of social schemes and housing will not outweigh the concerns that the communities have. While all this (giving houses and building toilets) is fine, what has affected the youth is the absence of access to higher education and a substantial reduction in scholarship amounts. The state government has squeezed out OBCs and Dalits from getting government jobs by privatising jobs and bringing in contractual appointments in lot of Grade III and IV positions, in which many people of these communities would typically find employment.

While the BSP dismisses the BJPs overtures such as senior leaders eating in Dalit households as a political stunt, the BJPs retort is a long list of atrocities that went unheeded during Mayawatis tenure as CM. The BJP claims that in that period (2007-12) the state government failed to economically empower Dalits in the state. The Human Development Index of Uttar Pradesh was below the national average of 0.467 due to poor health services and low incomes, the BJP claimed.

In a booklet prepared for campaign in UP, the BJP alleged, during Mayawatis tenure an amendment was made to the law for prevention of atrocities on SCs, nullifying the possibility of a direct FIR in cases of rapes. It also commended the Yogi Adityanath government for repeatedly invoked the National Security Act against those who burnt the houses of Dalits and committed atrocities against them in Jaunpur, Azamgarh and Lakhimpur.

Concerns about identity

Chandra Bhan Prasad, a Dalit Ideologue and and scholar affiliated with the Mercatus Center, George Mason University, US said the BJPs claims of Dalits warming up to the party are questionable and that there is concern within the community about the continuing oppression of Dalits by the upper castes and the administration.

During the past five years of BJP Rule, upper castes and the police almost merged into one entity, and targeted rising Dalits. Let it be clear, Dalits dignity is no more exchangeable for few kilograms of ration and salt packets. And I have observed that before only Dalit intellectuals and activists called BJP names, now even commoners have turned abusive of the BJP, he said. The reference to ration is the free foodgrains being provided by the Yogi government in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic.

To a separate question on which party stands to gain from the Dalit vote he said, To the Dalit middle class, defeating BJP is a bigger concern. Dalit Ki Beti (daughter of a Dalit) Chief Minister (one of the BSPs famous campaign pitches of the last decade) is an idea that has outlived its expiry date.

Smriti covers an intersection of politics and governance. Having spent over a decade in journalism, she combines old fashioned leg work with modern story telling tools. ...view detail

The rest is here:

UP elections: BJP banks on welfare plans to win SC votes - Hindustan Times

GABY RUSLI WRITES Faith teaches us that all men are created equal, yet we choose to enslave one another. European empireshave colonized almost every country globally, and while colonialism has been linked to progress, it has left nations scarred and changed. For Indonesia, the foreign occupation has inspired a romantic and patriotic generation. A youth that fought back through warfare, inspiring literature, and original political ideals, all of which are reflected most authentically by Pramoedya Ananta Toer in the classic novel,This Earth of Mankind(1996).

Minke is an exemplary student of Javanese descent studying at the prestigious Dutch school at the turn of the 19th century. He meets Annelies Mellema, an innocent girl of Javanese and Dutch background from a wealthy family, and her progressive Javanese mother, Nyai Ontosoroh, a concubine who oversees the Mellema estate. Minke faces personal and societal challenges, being a highly educated Native exposed to foreign ideals in a place that implements a caste system and utilizes language as a tool of oppression and slavery. His love for Annelies and association with the Mellema family further complicates his position and helps him find his identity.

This Earth of Mankind is the first book of Pramoedya Ananta Toer in his series of books known as the Buru Quartet. It was written when Toer was a political prisoner on the island of Buru under the Suharto administration after the 1965 failed Communist coup detat. Toer was not a communist but faced censorship from the native government. They feared that Toer would spread foreign ideals to the people of the newly formed Republic of Indonesia. He was not permitted pen and paper while imprisoned. That did not stop Toer from reciting the stories orally to fellow prisoners in the Buru Island (hence the name Buru Quartet) until the stories were eventually written and smuggled out. His works were banned in Indonesia until 2000 but were translated into numerous languages and considered classics outside Indonesia.

This Earth of Mankindis as extraordinary as the lengths it took to be written. No one can more beautifully capture the solidarity among Indonesians than Toer. In the face of systemic oppression and separation, Minke and Annelies story embodies the Indonesian peoples arduous struggle for independence in a land that is rightfully theirs. One witnesses the spreading support by Dutch, mixed, and natives alike at a time when colonialism was rapidly coming to an end as modernization was inevitable.

The residual effect of colonialism remains in the culture of Indonesia today, where separation of races continues to exist in covert forms, and selfish abuse of power is conducted by those left in charge. Toers imprisonment, censorship, and exposure to other political ideals made him an outsider in his own country but allowed him to see Indonesia in a brutally honest light. He reminds one that victory is not always necessary to advance. Toers legacy remains the quintessential example of Indonesian ingenuity, which makes one honored to be an Indonesian.

New Book Reviewer, Gaby Rusli, is an LMU International Relations graduate and environmentalist who is passionate about Indonesian and Southeast Asian political affairs.

Edited by book review editor-in-chief, Ella Kelleher.

Read the original post:

BOOK REVIEW: THIS EARTH OF MANKIND (1996) BY PRAMOEDYA ANATA TOER THE AWAKENING OF A NATION ENSLAVED IN ITS OWN LAND - Asia Media International

Letter writers| Fort Myers News-Press

A strategic principle in the master war strategist Sun Tzus classic book "The Art of War"is that you start a war only if you are certain you can win it. Putin is a master strategist like General Sun Tzu. He perceives Donald Trumps attack on our government Jan.6 and massive division in our country by Trumps lies about the election as weakness. The stage is set for abandoning the liberal world order since the end of WWIIand return to the madness of deadly costly medieval wars that only lead to destruction and chaos.

Donald Trumps promotion of big lies has resulted in division, distrust of our elections, and chaos in the United Stated. The implications are geopolitical, however -- not limited to our beloved country. The political upheaval that we are experiencing here has undoubtedly fueled Vladimir Putins militaristic ambitions, leading to a potential World War III. The time has come for Republican senators and representatives to break ranks, abandon support for the traitor Trump, heal wounds due to Trump's lies and bind our nation together once again.

William Pettinger, Bonita Springs

There are two Democratic senators in the Senate who keep President Biden from accomplishing the things he and all Democrats and many people want to see come to pass. No need to name them. We all know who they are. What those two senators ignore is the fact that by siding with the Republicans they make it more difficult for other Democrats to be re-elected in the midterm elections. People will not re-elect members of a do-nothing majority Congress.

An independent senator who votes Democratic has vowed to support opponents of those two in their next primary election. Too late to help President Biden but if successful, good riddance.

E.R. Santhin, Naples

A recent correspondent proclaims "worst ever"offering the following as proof.

Highest Inflation ever. Highest in 30 some years, yes. But highest ever? Not even close. Of course, inflation is a concern. But the president is hardly responsible for causing the current supply and demand imbalance that is driving increased prices.

Highest gas prices ever. Highest in the last year, yes.Highest ever? Again, not even close. The economy improved demand went up. COVID and Gulf coast storms reduced supply. Surprise, prices went up.

No longer oil independent.This likely refers to the presidents executive orders regarding drilling leases and pipeline construction, none of which have any effect on current production. We generally produce about as much oil as we consume. Looking at oil alone is a limited perspective. A broader perspective would be energy independence including all energy producing sources. Since 2019 we have reached energy independence exporting more energy than we import.

This is no defense of President Biden or his policies. But posting false or exaggerated political talking points serves no productive purpose.

Bill Guyer, Fort Myers

The Greater Naples Chapter of Americans United is proud to announce that the 2022 Turner Civic Award will be presented to Rev. Tony Fisher and The Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Greater Naples.

Rev. Fisher embraces both the pastoral and prophetic roles of ministry and sees great potential in the Unitarian Universalist movement as a catalyst for change. American Unitarian Universalism has its roots in the early American colonies and thrives today as a free-thinking, non-creedal religion where all are welcome. UUCGN members gather to nurture their spirits and put faith into action through social justice work.

Among their projects and activities promoting social justice are the Progressive Voices Lecture Series, Team Against Racism and Oppression, Voting Rights, Mindful Monday Forums, Weekend Meals, Legal Aid, Womens Justice, LGBTQI and Climate Change.

The luncheon ceremony will be held on Tuesday at noon at the Vineyards Country Club in Naples. Tickets cost$40 per person, $75 per couple or $140 for a table of four. For more information, please call 609-647-1343 or visit our website http://www.au-naples.org.

Americans United, a 501(c)(3) corporation, is a nonpartisan educational organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.

Bill Korson, president, Greater Naples Chapter of AU

SB 148 is silliness disguised as protecting "individual freedom"by attacking the phantom threat of critical race theory.This bill prohibits teachers from making students "feel responsible for historic wrongs because of their race, color, sex or national origin,"

How does that play out in practice? At best, self-imposed censorship would change exciting chapters of our history to become increasingly bland so nothing could be interpreted as giving offense. At worse, lawsuits, firings and resignations would flow.

I have taught, although not at the K-12 level targeted by this bill. I have given classes about the war in Vietnam.Would mentioning my disabled veteran status risk censorship if a student of Vietnamese origin somehow thinks I am blaming him or her?If teaching about the world wars, would mentioning that my machine gunner great uncle was wounded and captured, or my fighter pilot uncle was killed, risk offending students of German descent?Would talking about the human and material cost of any conflict make students uncomfortable about being ethnically associated with combatants?Could business managers mention any of these and be accused of creating a hostile work environment?

This is a feel-good bill that has given little thought to the damage it does.Legislative efforts should be spent more productively.

Bruce Beardsley, Naples

A plea to moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, and Independents: Please launch the creation of a third party for 2024. Romney, Manchin, Bloomberg or the like, get together and make it happen. Please, lets stop this insanity in Washington. We desperately need an American party for for all Americans. Do the math, its a winning strategy. Please start now!

Douglas Keeler, Bonita Springs

We live in a black is white world where if whats written is held up to a mirror itspeaks truth. Our 19th District representativeByron Donalds sent an email on Jan.14 supporting the abolition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The bill was introduced by none other than Cancun Cruz. The CFPB is an agency that makes certainbanks, lenders, collection agencies and other financial companies treat the consumer "fairly."Donalds doesnt want you to be treated fairly so you have little to no recourse in a dispute. He lists crazy stuff in the email like unconstitutional, liberal judges and more. More like hes trolling for political campaign donations from big businesses at the expense of you, the constituents. Sign up for his emails and see where he really stands. Its shocking.

Laurence Jacks, Estero

Original post:

Letters to the editor for Monday, January 24, 2022 - News-Press

Cautioning that in celebrating the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., people often domesticate and water down his message, Pastor Drew G.I. Hart, a theology professor at Messiah College, urged people instead to affirm the dignity and worth of every person to honor King.

Its important to find times to really learn from him. So often we rehearse or almost freeze Dr. King in 1963 at the giving of his I Have a Dream speech, Hart said.

I think now we have the great urgency in our moment to deepen our commitments to truth telling, to compassion, to an unwavering focus on deepening injustice and an attentiveness to the liberating and healing presence of God in our world. And so, Dr. King modeled that kind of life in his public witness, Hart said.

In memory of Dr. King, now is the time to stand up and speak up against injustice near and far. Now is the time to hold tight to love in our struggle against hatred, apathy and greed, he added.

Hart was the featured speaker on the first day of events scheduled for Dream Week to honor Kings birthday and life. Because of the weather, Hart delivered his presentation, titled a Revolution of Values, virtually.

In his talk, Hart addressed what King called the triple evils of racism, materialism and militarism.

Over the past couple years, many people in our nation have once again, been confronted with the way systems of policing in the United States often steal, kill and destroy Black life, he said.

In the summer of 2020, some Americans began awakening to the racist systems and patterns that exist in our country, as they witnessed the racial violence and the response of uprisings and activism. For a few, this moment pulled the curtain back on the anti-Black cycles of death that have plagued our society for centuries, Hart stated.

The global pandemic, according to Hart, also revealed a lot about how our nation addresses the needs of our most vulnerable population.

It was a moment when our interconnectedness seemed to be so obvious because of what we do as individuals affects others and not just ourselves. And yet, we have been unable to work together communally and some have even refused to consider the well being of their neighbor, he said,

Despite having enormous economic resources as a nation, our government stumbled, conspiracies thrived, faith leaders stumbled and too many people have avoided prioritizing the needs of those who are most vulnerable, he stated.

Our response reveals a moral bankruptcy and a hard-heartedness deep in the soul of the nation, Hart added.

Hart cited statistics that revealed there are half a million people without homes in this country, not, he contended, from a lack of resources, but from a lack of regard for the well being of our neighbors.

The animosity towards redistributing the abundance of resources our nation has for the well being of all, always seems especially striking when considering our unwavering commitment to funding things like the war machine and the military-industrial complex. Our nation has budgeted close to $800 billion so we can dominate the globe to our advantage, he said.

This disparity between funding militarism and finding support for eradicating poverty was addressed by Hart.

These were the kinds of issues that Dr. King in his latter years of his life was addressing, especially in terms of how they were interrelated with one another. He understood that racism, materialism and militarism were bound up together and were degrading our efforts towards mutual thriving, he said.

He defined what he called thin racismpersonal prejudice and hatredand thick racismhow we structure policies and practices of society to provide advantages to some and disadvantages to othersand how the latter has shaped history.

Weve actually had policies and practices in place that go back decades or sometimes centuries that shaped peoples lived experiences even in the present, he said.

Police discrimination as one dimension of a centuries-long history of oppression of racial minorities has been humiliating, degrading and at times, death-dealing, Hart said.

Statistics show that Black people are three times more like to be killed by police and 98.3% of all police killings occurred without any charges being brought, Hart stated.

Police are often used for social control of people of color, poor people and to suppress social movements for change. This has become the norm for how many vulnerable neighborhoods experience policing systems, he said.

Nevertheless we continue to pour and invest more and more economics resources into the same systems expecting different results, he added.

The issue of racism in American can only be solved with what King called the revolution of values and practice, before any policies can be changed.

We will need to be able to recognize that everyone is made in the image of God and therefore have inherent dignity and worth, Hart said.

Part of bringing about this change is receiving the stories of those who have suffered discrimination and allowing their experiences to transform society.

We will have to confront, challenge and transform the systems and policies that perpetuate so much violence. But more broadly, if were going to tackle racism as it manifests in a variety of dimensions in our society, it will require telling a more true full story of our nations history, he said.

Hart cautioned against allowing those who oppose Critical Race Theory to shut down any attempt at teaching our racist history and contemporary challenges.

He addressed the fact that people have been deprived a share of the nations wealth because of the color of their skin through intentional discrimination and commission.

We could go on and on about all the different policies and practices at the national, state and local levels that contributed to turning Black neighborhoods into economic resource deserts, he said.

Thats why we need to heed Dr. Kings invitation and undergo a radical revolution of values practice, Hart said.

He noted that the Poor Peoples Campaign begun by King has been revived.

This is a movement inviting us to link arms in solidarity with vulnerable people across the nation and across the globe. he said.

Like us, the theology of Shalom or mutuality and harmony, Hart said that the current manifestation of the Poor Peoples Campaign all of creation interdependently thriving and living into the divine dream for all of us.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See more here:

Speaker affirms Dr. King's message; 'Now is the time to stand up against injustice' - Williamsport Sun-Gazette