Recent comments

Boycotting Chick-Fil-A While Conservative Christians Play "Victim" Card
By Warren J. Blumenfeld

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-j-blumenfeld/chick-fil-a-boycott_b_...

Donations surge for Planned Parenthood
- Common Dreams staff

Earlier this week the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation had announced that it would no longer provide funding for Planned Parenthood. But today, Komen for the Cure released a statement apologizing and stating that it would continue to fund grants for Planned Parenthood.

Agencies reported that Planned Parenthood had received about $700,000 annually to provide funding for breast exams.

In the days since the announcement, support for Planned Parenthood has surged. Yesterday the Associated Press reported that the group had received $400,000 in smaller donations from 6,000 people, and had also received sizable contributions from individuals.

On Wednesday 18 senators wrote a letter to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure urging the foundation to reverse its politically motivated decision. They wrote:

"It would be tragic if any woman -- let alone thousands of women -- lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack," the senators wrote in a letter to the founder and CEO of Komen.

"We earnestly hope that you will put women's health before partisan politics and reconsider this decision for the sake of the women who depend on both your organizations for access to the health care they need."

The Huffington Post reported on more backlash Komen got:

Komen has faced a massive social media backlash since announcing the decision, with angry people flocking to its message boards and Facebook wall to announce that they will no longer donate to the breast cancer charity.

Today, apparently bowing to widespread pressure, the foundation has announced that it will continue funding Planned Parenthood.

Responding to the decision, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, stated:

“In recent weeks, the treasured relationship between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood has been challenged, and we are now heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women. We are enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders and volunteers. What these past few days have demonstrated is the deep resolve all Americans share in the fight against cancer, and we honor those who are at the helm of this battle.

“Planned Parenthood has been a trusted partner with the Komen Foundation in early cancer detection and prevention services. In particular, Planned Parenthood helps the Komen Foundation reach vulnerable populations — low-income women, African-American women, and Latinas — especially in rural areas and underserved communities where Planned Parenthood health centers are their only source of health care. With Komen Foundation grants, over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and more than 6,400 mammogram referrals. With the outpouring of support over the past week, even more women in need will receive lifesaving breast cancer care.”

While the reversal in funding decision comes as a victory, Jodi Jacobsen of RH Reality Check notes this:

While a reversal of the decision is welcome, it also raises further questions. As I noted just this morning, Komen denied yesterday that the de-funding had anything to do with investigations, even though their original memo said just that. Instead they claimed that the decision was based on "new metrics" and the desire to do "direct service" grants. Here, however, they are back to the "investigations" reason.

And if their only goal was the "cause of breast cancer," then how de-funding Planned Prenthood, one of the most successful parnters reaching a high proportion of women who otherwise did not have access to breast exams, made sense at any level in any discussion with a board of the ostensible poiltical caliber of Komen is mysterious at best.

If one good thing has come out of all of this, it is the continued awakening, begun I believe with the win over the egg-as-person initiative in Mississippi, of women and men a cross the country who are sick of having the right to sexual and reproductive health care politicized by fanatics.

http://www.commondreams.org/

by David Macaray

Unless a miracle occurs, Indiana (with approximately 11-percent of its workforce unionized) is going to become the 23rd “right-to-work” state in the U.S. (and the first one to take that dreadful plunge since Oklahoma did it, in 2001), making it illegal to require union membership as a condition of employment.

Since 1935, unions have been pretty much mainstream. When a person hired into a “union shop,” he or she was required to join up, and begin paying regular monthly membership dues, and that’s how it worked. Given that union jobs generally offered 15-20 percent better wages and benefits (not to mention safer and superior working conditions), and are highly coveted, that requirement was viewed not only as a fair trade-off, but as a privilege.

Then, despite a flourishing middle-class and an economy chugging along at a record pace—and national union membership rolls hovering at close to 35-percent—the anti-union forces (alas, both Republicans and Democrats) rose up, mobilized, and came up with the bumper-sticker concept of “right-to-work,” an arrangement that allows you to work in a union facility without having to join the union. The states that embraced RTW were mainly in the Deep South and Southwest, which makes Indiana’s decision noteworthy.

But give these anti-union zealots some credit. Their sappy, albeit close-to-meaningless phrase smacks of the same general good feeling conveyed by that “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” reference in the Declaration of Independence. Right to work. Right to vote. Right to choose. Right to speak your mind. It’s all good. Hell, who’s going oppose something as basic the “right to work”? After all, this is America, isn’t it?

Yet, if these RTW laws were actually examined, we might take a different view. In fact, our first order of business might be to suggest they be called “right-to-become-hypocritical-unAmerican-blood-sucking-parasite” agreements.

While it’s true that workers who choose not to join the union can’t run for union office, or be appointed to committees, or vote in union elections, they’re still allowed to bury their greedy, non-dues-paying snouts in the union trough. These “free-riders” not only receive full union wages and benefits, they have the right to file grievances when their contractual rights have been violated. Not too shabby an arrangement. Sort of like a draft-dodger being entitled to a Purple Heart.

Naturally, the business and political interests pushing these RTW initiatives make them sound as noble and quasi-altruistic as possible (remember “trickle-down economics”?), even though, in truth, they’re doing nothing more high-minded than trying to hang on to their money. Apparently, the DNA that triggers a desire for lower taxes, greater profits, and Cayman Island bank accounts is intrinsic to human nature. Anyone doubting the veracity of this simplistic proposition need only observe the response of Toddler A when Toddler B attempts to take away a valued toy.

And this acquisitive impulse has nothing to do with necessity. Even with near-record unemployment, the Department of Commerce reported in November, 2010, that U.S. companies just had their best quarter….ever. According to the DOC, businesses recorded profits at an annual rate of $1.66 trillion in the third quarter of 2010, which is the highest rate (in non-inflation-adjusted figures) since the government began keeping records more than 60 years ago. All this while the middle-class continues to be chipped away.

But as selfish as businesses are, and as devious and monomaniacal as the Republican Party is in dedicating itself to crippling organized labor’s political influence (labor was reported to have spent $400 million getting Obama elected in 2008), it’s the workers themselves who cause the most heartburn.

Non-union workers who earn union wages and benefits—but don’t know why—are not only ignorant, they’re dangerous. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Non-union forklift drivers who earn $40,000 a year in a union shop, but cling to the belief that they’re doing it “on their own,” are not only gaming the system, they’re missing the point. They don’t realize that without worker collectives and worker solidarity, the whole shebang would quickly devolve into “every man for himself,” which is precisely what corporations dream about when they go to sleep at night.

Workers with limited skills and a h.s. education—and without a labor union to back them up—would find themselves in economic free-fall. Without outside help, they’d gradually slide all the way down until they hit the federal or state minimum. Not a pretty outcome. On the other hand, they would, of course, retain their "right” to work.

David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Labor”), was a former union rep. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 2, 2012
4:55 PM

CONTACT: Voces de la Frontera

Joe Shansky (414) 218-3331
The ARMS Act: GOP Offers Immigrant Youth as Cheap Labor and Cannon Fodder

WASHINGTON - February 2 - Last week Rep. David Rivera (R-FL) introduced the ARMS Act, H.R. 3823, in the House of Representatives. The bill is a diluted version of the DREAM Act which would allow certain undocumented youth to attain legal status through military service. The undiluted version of the DREAM Act offers youth both the option of two years in higher education, or military service to attain legal status.

The bill emerges on the footsteps of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s DREAM Act veto statement, in which he calls the DREAM Act “a mistake", a stance he has continuously affirmed. Immediately after the ARMS Act surfaced, Mr. Romney flipped his stance and in recent interviews has said he would support a version of the DREAM Act if it focused on the military component- in other words the ARMS Act. Fellow Republican presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich agrees.

“Republican-backed immigration reform bills are becoming narrower and narrower,” says Maricela Aguilar, undocumented student at Marquette and board president of Voces de la Frontera. “It seems that the Republican Party still doesn’t understand the dire need for humane immigration reform. They keep offering band-aids to help with a gash.”

“With the current state of the nation, we need to be focusing on education and preparing the next generation of leaders, including undocumented Americans, to solve our nation’s most pressing problems," says Aguilar.

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces added:

"The ARMS Act is an unacceptable piece of legislation that highlights the huge disconnect between the Republican Party and the Latino community and America at large. The DREAM Act is supported by 70 percent of likely voters and leaders in education, the military, business, and religious orders. In the Latino community nationally, that number jumps to 77.5 percent.

This bill is a blatant attempt by Republican presidential hopefuls to come off as pro-immigrant when in fact it treats immigrant youth as a source of cheap labor and cannon fodder, and not human beings with their own dreams and aspirations."
###

Voces de la Frontera is Wisconsin's leading immigrant rights group - a grassroots organization that believes power comes from below and that people can overcome injustice to build a better world.

Voces de la Frontera Links:
http://www.vdlf.org/

by Amy Goodman

Although Mitt Romney has yet to win a majority in a Republican primary, he won big in Florida. After he and the pro-Romney super PACs flooded the airwaves with millions of dollars’ worth of ads in a state where nearly half the homeowners are underwater, he talked about whom he wants to represent. “We will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and there’s no question, it’s not good being poor,” he told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien. “You could choose where to focus, you could focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You could focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans.” Of the very rich, Romney assures us, “They’re doing just fine.” With an estimated personal wealth of $250 million, Romney should know.

Romney’s campaign itself is well-financed, but his success to date, especially against his current main rival, Newt Gingrich, is driven by massive cash infusions to a so-called super PAC, the new breed of political action committee that can take unlimited funds from individuals and corporations. Super PACs are legally prohibited from coordinating their activities with a candidate’s campaign. Federal Election Commission filings made public Jan. 31 reveal that the principal super PAC supporting Romney, Restore Our Future, raised close to $18 million in the second half of 2011, from just 199 donors. Among his supporters are Alice Walton, who, although listed in the report as a “rancher,” is better known as an heir to the Wal-Mart fortune, and the famously caustic venture capitalist and billionaire Samuel Zell, the man credited with driving the Tribune media company into bankruptcy. William Koch, the third of the famous Koch brothers, also gave.

Juxtapose those 199 with the number of people living in poverty in the United States. According to the most recent figures available from the U.S. Census Bureau, 46.2 million people lived in poverty in 2010, 15.1 percent of the population, the largest number in the 52 years the poverty estimates have been published. 2010 marked the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty.

Romney, in his victory speech in New Hampshire, said: “This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success. ... We are one nation under God.”

The next morning, NBC’s Matt Lauer challenged him, asking: “Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?” Romney doubled down, claiming: “I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus 1 percent—and those people who have been most successful will be in the 1 percent ... [it’s] entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.”

© 2012 Amy Goodman
http://www.democracynow.org/

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 900 stations in North America. She was awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and received the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.

by Ted Rall

Reacting to and attempting to co-opt the Occupy Wall Street movement, President Obama used his 2012 State of the Union address to discuss what he now calls "the defining issue of our time"--the growing gap between rich and poor.

"We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by," Obama said. "Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."

No doubt, the long-term trend toward income inequality is a major flaw of the capitalist system. From 1980 to 2005 more than 80 percent in the gain in Americans' incomes went to the top one percent. This staggering disparity between the haves and have-nots has created a permanent underclass of underemployed, undereducated and alienated people who often turn to crime for survival and social status. Aggregation of wealth into fewer hands has shrunk the size of the U.S. market for consumer goods, prolonging and deepening the depression.

How can we make the system fairer?

Liberals are calling for a more progressive income tax: i.e., raise taxes on the rich. Obama says he'd like to slap a minimum federal income tax of 30 percent on individuals earning more than $1 million a year.

Soaking the rich would obviously be fair. GOP frontrunner/corporate layoff sleazebag Mitt Romney earned $59,500 a day in 2010--and paid half the effective tax rate (13.9 percent) than of a family of four earning $59,500 a year.

Fair, sure. But would it work? Would increasing taxes on the wealthy do much to close the gap between rich and poor--to level the economic playing field?

Probably not.

From FDR through Jimmy Carter it was an article of faith among liberals that higher taxes on the rich would result in lower taxes on the poor and working class. This was because the Republican Party consistently pushed for a balanced budget. Tax income was tied to expenditures, which were more or less fixed--and thus a zero-sum game.

That period from 1933 to 1980 was also the era of the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society social and anti-poverty programs, such as Social Security, the G.I. Bill, college grants and welfare. These government handouts helped mitigate hard times, gave life-changing educational opportunities that allowed class mobility, closing the gap between despair and hope for tens of millions of Americans. As the list of social programs grew, so did the tax rate--mostly on the rich. The practical effect was to redistribute income from top to bottom.

Democrats think it still works that way. It doesn't.

The political landscape has shifted dramatically under Reagan, Clinton and the two Bushes. Budget cuts slashed spending on student financial aid, food stamps, Medicaid, school lunch programs, veterans hospitals, and aid to single mothers. The social safety net is shredded. Most federal tax dollars flow directly into the Pentagon and defense contractors such as Halliburton.

As the economy continues to tank, there's only category to cut: social programs. "Eugene Steuerle worked on tax and budget issues in the Reagan Treasury Department and is now with the Urban Institute," NPR reported a year ago. "He says one reason no one talks about preserving the social safety net today is that lawmakers have given themselves little choice but to cut it. They've taken taxes and entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, off the budget-cutting table, so there's not much left."

Meanwhile, effective tax rates on the wealthy have been greatly reduced. Which isn't fair--but not in the way you might think.

Taxes on middle-class families are at their lowest level in 50 years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal thinktank.

What's going on?

On the revenue side of the budget equation, the poor and middle-class have received tiny tax cuts. The rich and super rich have gotten huge tax cuts. Everyone is paying less.

On the expense side, social programs have been pretty much destroyed. If you grow up poor there's no way to attend college without going into debt. If you lose your job you'll get 99 weeks of tiny, taxable (thanks to Reagan) unemployment checks before burning through your savings and winding up on the street.

Military spending, on the other hand, has soared, accounting for 54 percent of federal spending.

In short, we're running up massive deficits in order to finance wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on, and so rich job-killers can pay the lowest tax rates in the developed world.

I'm all for higher taxes on the rich. I'm for abolishing the right to be wealthy. But liberals who think progressive taxation will mitigate or reverse income inequality are trapped in the 1960s, fighting the last (budget) war in a reality that no longer exists. The U.S. government's top priority is invading Muslim countries and bombing their citizens. Without big social programs, invading Muslim countries and bombing their citizens is exactly where every extra taxdollar collected from the likes of Mitt Romney would go.

The only way progressive taxation can address income inequality is if higher taxes on the rich are coupled with an array of new anti-poverty and other social programs designed to put money and new job skills directly into the pockets of the 99 percent of Americans who have seen no improvement in their lives since 1980.

You have to rebuild the safety net. Otherwise higher taxes will swirl down the Pentagon's $800 toilets.

If you're serious about inequality, income redistribution through the tax system is only a start. Whether through stronger unions or worker advocacy through federal agencies, government must require higher minimum wages. Maximum wages, too. A nation that allows its richest citizen to earn ten times more than its poorest would still be horribly unfair--yet it would be a big improvement over today. Shipping jobs overseas must be banned. Most free trade agreements should be torn up. Companies must no longer be allowed to layoff employees before eliminating salaries and benefits for their top-paid managers--CEOs, etc.

And a layoff should mean just that--a layoff. First fired should be first rehired--at equal or greater pay--if and when business improves.

Once a battery of spending programs targeted to the 99 percent is in place--permanent unemployment benefits, subsidized public housing, full college grants, etc.--the tax code ought to be radically revamped. For example, nothing gives the lie to the myth of America as a land of equal opportunity than inheritance. Aristocratic societies pass wealth and status from generation to generation. In a democracy, no one has the right to be born into wealth.

Because everyone deserves an equal chance, the national inheritance tax should be 100 percent. While we're at it, why should people who inherited wealth but have low incomes get off scot-free? Slap the bastards with a European-style tax on wealth as well as the appearance of wealth.

Now you're probably laughing. Even Obama's lame call for taxing the rich--so the U.S. can buy more drone planes--stands no chance of passing the Republican Congress. They're empty words meant for election-year consumption. Taking income inequality seriously? That's so off the table it isn't even funny.

Which is why we shouldn't be looking to corporate machine politicians like Obama for answers.

Ted Rall is the author of the new books "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," and "The Anti-American Manifesto" . His website is http://tedrall.com.

by Bill Quigley and Sam Schmitt

Question One. The combined pay of the 299 highest paid CEOs in the US is enough to support how many median salary jobs?

45,000? 83,000? 102,325?

Two. The median net worth of black households in the US is $2,200. What is the median net worth of white households in the US?

$4,400? $44,000? $97,000?

Three. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development issues a national survey every year listing fair market rents for every county in the US. HUD also suggests renters should pay no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. In how many of the USA’s 3068 counties can someone who works full-time and earns the federal minimum wage pay 30% of their income and find a one-bedroom apartment at the fair market rental amount?

19? 368? 1974?

Four. How much must the typical U.S. worker earn per hour to rent a two-bedroom apartment if that worker dedicates thirty percent of his income, as HUD suggests, to rent and utilities?

$9.39? $14.63? $18.46?

Five. The wealthiest 1 percent of the US has a net worth which is how many times greater than the median or typical household’s net worth?

50? 150? 225?

Six. Which of these countries puts the highest percentage of their people in jails and prisons?

China? Iran? Iraq? Germany? Russia? USA?

Seven. In 2012, the US will pay out about $620 billion for old age Social Security benefits to 45 million families. How much is budgeted for military spending by the US in 2012?

$310 billion? $620 billion? $836 billion?

Eight. The US is number one in the world in military spending. How much more does the US spend compared to the top 15 countries in the world in military spending?

More than any 2 other countries combined? More than any 5 other countries combined? More than all the rest of the 15 top military spending countries combined?

Nine. How many people in the world live on less than $1.25 a day?

150 million? 500 million? Over 1 billion?

Ten. How many people in the world live without electricity?

500 million? One billion? One and half billion?

Eleven. The US government donates over $30 billion a year in official development assistance (foreign aid) to poor countries. Where does that rank the US government in percentage of giving among the richest 23 countries?

First? Tenth? Nineteenth?

Twelve. The US government donates over $30 billion a year to poor countries. How much do US consumers spend on pets and pet supplies each year?

$10 billion? $30 billion? $67 billion?

Thirteen. The poverty rate among children in the US is over 20 percent. How does US compare with the rest of the 30 nations surveyed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development?

First? Tenth? Twenty-sixth?

Answers to Social Justice Quiz 2012:

One. The combined pay of the top 299 CEOs is enough to support 102,325 average jobs. Source: Corporate Paywatch.

Two. The median net worth of white households in the US is $97,900. Source: Economic Policy Institute.

Three. Except for eleven counties in Illinois and another eight in Puerto Rico, there is no county in the US where a one bedroom fair market rate apartment is available to a person working full-time at the minimum wage. Source: The National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Four. The typical worker must earn $18.46 an hour to rent a two bedroom apartment. Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Five. In the last numbers reported, the top 1 percent had net worth 225 times greater than the median or typical household’s net worth, the highest ever recorded. Source: Economic Policy Institute.

Six. The rate of incarceration per 100,000 people is: USA 730, Russian 534, Iran 334, China 122, Iraq 101, and Germany 86. Source: International Centre for Prison Studies, University of Essex.

Seven. $836 billion. Over $713 billion on military programs and another $123 for veterans affairs. Source: US Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2012.

Eight. The US spends $100 billion more on our military than the next highest 15 countries combined. More than China, UK, France, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Germany, India, Italy, Brazil, South Korea, Australia, Canada and Turkey combined. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2011 Yearbook.

Nine. 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 a day. Source: United National Development Program, Human Development Report 2010.

Ten. One and half billion people, more than one of every five people in the world, live without electricity. Source: United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report 2011.

Eleven. US government ranks 19th out of 23 countries in assistance to poor nations, giving about two-tenths of one percent of US gross national income to poor countries. Source: Global Issues: Foreign Aid for Development Assistance.

Twelve. US consumers spend $67 billion each year on pets, pet products and services. Source: US Census Bureau 2012 Statistical Abstract.

Thirteen. The US poverty rate among children ranks the US 26th among 30 nations in the rate of poverty among children. Source: Poverty among children. OECD.

Bill Quigley is Associate Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. He is a Katrina survivor and has been active in human rights in Haiti for years. He volunteers with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) and the Bureau de Avocats Internationaux (BAI) in Port au Prince. Contact Bill at quigley77@gmail.com

Sam Schmitt is a law student at University of Montana School of Law.

Communist China’s efforts to ruthlessly exploit Tibet’s culture for the purpose of propaganda and profit continue unchecked, not content with marketing Tibet‘s challenging and beautiful landscape (well the truncated and annexed fabrication it calls the Tibet Autonomous (sic) Region) as some form of Shangri-la playground; for eco-tourists, climbers, cyclists, canoeists, hikers and photographers (or anyone else so possessed of selfishness that they are prepared to overlook the tyranny in order to gain some exotic experience) the communist authorities are assiduously marketing Tibetan culture as a key commercial enterprise.

Having invaded, annexed and violently suppressed Tibet and its people, in true colonialist fashion it is now engaged in profiting from supposedly authentic cultural enterprises by manipulating and exploiting foreign (and Chinese) tourists. It is a reminder of the humiliating tragedy that befell the native cultures of North America, their traditions and lifestyle assaulted by a vicious and intolerant colonizer, gaoled within the crippling misery of reservations, a fate which is being which is being enacted upon Tibet’s nomads who are being forced to live in what are effectively concentration settlements.

Those sepia images of native American peoples, that performed in any number of ’Wild West Shows’, retain a disturbing resonance today. Forced through oppression and conquest to scratch a living by displaying their horsemanship or ritual dancing to the beery applause of the very people who had stolen and eroded their lands and culture. The photographic archive of those times reveals, not only the dark stain upon the history of the United States, but graphically exposes the cynical and exploitative nature of colonization and arrogant imperialism of the dominant power.

As evidenced by China’s actions inside occupied Tibet such expansionist corruption is not consigned to those yellowing pages of history, Tibetans are facing a similar shameless process, that seeks to extract maximum profit, through the callous perversion of Tibetan culture. Nowhere is the this more nauseatingly demonstrated perhaps than in the so-called National Minorities Park in Beijing, in which China’s grotesque parade of peoples it has subjugated is paraded for the questionable appreciation of tourists, who consume the lies without question, knowledge or worse, conscience.

Apart from the commercial advantages of promoting Tibetan culture, the Chinese regime is always keen to seek maximum propaganda advantage too for presenting its occupation in a positive light, by peddling the usual disinformation mantra of improved economic educational and health for Tibetans, since the jackbooted arrival of China’s storm troopers in 1949. It recognizes the value of tourism in that context and China’s Department of Propaganda has been unsleeping in its efforts to encourage visitors to occupied Tibet, knowing that perceptions and attitudes may be shaped to conform to the ideological lie that is China’s version of Tibet. A significant component of that sly conjuration is to exploit Tibetan culture and present a Sinocized version that echoes the official propaganda, corrupting and exaggerating authentic Tibetan customs into a theme park performance. Indeed Tibetan towns like Lhasa and Shigatse have become little more than entertainment venues in which tourists are moved around a number of precisely controlled and presented stages, removed from the grim reality of China’s oppression of Tibet, while carefully exposed to images approved by the occupying regime.

Central to that effort is the illusion of a vibrant and happy Tibetan culture, to endorse and legitimise the baseless claims made by China that its rule in occupied Tibet is benign and beneficial. “In Lhasa, we and our companions stayed in a stylish hotel with all that one would expect from a world-class facility. By appearance, the personnel were entirely Han. Our city tour guide was Han. Our bus drivers were Han. The people on the streets of Lhasa seemed to be 75 percent Han except inside the Jokhang Temple and in a small, two-block-long, open air market near the Temple. In the circuit around the Temple Chinese run all the high-end shops and almost all the outside trinket stalls.” (Testimony From Ms Linda Thom Foreign Tourist To Occupied Tibet 2007)

Visitors are also China’s ‘useful idiots’ in that they have a potential to disseminate propaganda fabrications among family, friends, colleagues, and more significantly across social network platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and upon personal Blogs. Yet those considering visiting occupied Tibet should realize that tourism is a significant contributor to China’s colonization, securing employment and business opportunities for its colonizers. Moreover, it is a powerful tool of manipulation and disinformation that serves China’s objectives to affirm Tibet as being an inalienable part of China.

Beyond the satisfied myopia of the tourist however the erosion and exploitation of Tibet’s traditions, including its very language continues apace. The suffocating excesses of Chinese occupation has forced Tibetans into extreme choices, similar to that experienced by native peoples of America who were given stark options by the colonizing white man. As with the plight of those peoples, Tibetans face educational, health, economic and cultural apartheid, having become tourist curious in their own land, some are forced into an industry that exploit the very culture from they sprang. Their movements restricted, religion under assault and denied civil and political freedoms, the people of Tibet are witness to a cold-hearted profiteering of their lifestyle as tourism spreads, bringing with it a range of additional social problems and ever more Chinese settlers.

The cultural genocide that is being waged against Tibet has been accelerated to dangerous levels of intensity with the construction of the railway from so-called Qinghai (actually annexed Tibetan region of Amdo and parts of Kham) to Lhasa. Since its opening in 2006 it’s presence has permitted and encouraged a massive increase of Chinese tourists and migrants to the Tibetan capital, 4.38 million up to 2010, according to official Chinese sources. Foreign tourists boarding the train will not realize that the railway serves too as an economic and security artery maintaining China’s despotic military grip over the region. It is not so well known that the rail line’s communication system itself is part of China’s surveillance and intelligence network, called Golden Shield, which monitors and processes information on untold millions. Nor are the some 12, 000 tourists and colonizers brought each day to Lhasa normally aware of the military posts which line the rail route, another strategic reason for the line’s creation.

“The train we rode had a capacity for 885 passengers and was about 85 percent full. The Chinese run eight trains in and eight trains out of Tibet daily which means that 12,000 riders come and go each day. My husband and I guessed, by observation of all cars, that our train carried about 90 percent Han Chinese, perhaps 5 percent ‘long noses‘ (Europeans) and the remainder Tibetans.” (Testimony of Linda Thom foreign tourist in occupied Tibet 2007)

Tourism is a major component of China’s effort to further exploit and undermine Tibetan national identity and culture, it benefits virtually entirely the colonizers, marginalizing even further Tibetans. It insidiously promotes China’s propaganda and seeks to legitimise its baseless claim over Tibet by manipulating tourists and presenting distorted images of Tibet’s culture. Visitors to occupied Tibet should in no way consider they have witnessed the real Tibet, instead they are exposed to a cynically constructed and ersatz distortion of Tibetan culture, while the genuine traditions of Tibet are suppressed and eroded. Rather than becoming willing collaborators in that odious process those contemplating a vacation to occupied Tibet should ask themselves if they wish to stand in solidarity with Tibetans in Tibet, who resist the assault upon their culture and denial of national freedom, or endorse and support China’s occupying regime by sustaining and encouraging the colonization of Tibet.

http://tibettruth.com/2010/09/01/tourism-exploiting-tibet-and-manipulati...

Dollars play a decisive role in US politics. And more so since the supreme court allowed unlimited campaign contributions
by Gary Younge

Republican presidential debates are not for the faint-hearted. Last week in Jacksonville, Florida, Rick Santorum warned of the "threat of radical Islam growing" in Central and South America. Newt Gingrich advocated sending up to seven flights a day to the moon, where private industry might set up a colony, and reaffirmed his claim that Palestinians were invented in the late 70s. Mitt Romney argued that if you make things tough enough for undocumented people, they will "self-deport".

Given the general state of the Republican party, such comments now attract precious little attention. Truth and facts are but two options among many. The party's base, overrun by birthers, climate change deniers and creationists, floats its warped theories and every now and then one makes it to the top and bobs out into the airwaves.

So the oft-touted notion that these debates have been responsible for shifting the trajectory of this primary race would be worrying if it were true. It is difficult to think of anywhere else in the western world where these debates would have any credibility outside of a fringe party (even if the fringes in Europe are now spreading). Far from indicating America's exceptionalism, it looks more like an awful parody of the stereotypes most outsiders already believed about American politics at its most bizarre. "Those who follow this race daily may have long since lost perspective on how absurd it is," said the German magazine Der Spiegel last week. "Each candidate loves Israel. They all love Ronald Reagan. Each loves his wife, a born first lady, for a number of reasons."

The good news is, with the exception of Perry's demise, the debates have not been pivotal. The bad news is that the truly decisive element has been something even more insidious: money. Lots of it.

This is not new. But since a 2010 supreme court ruling allowing unlimited campaign contributions by corporations and unions, it has become particularly acute. Moreover, the contributors can remain anonymous. The organisations that are taking advantage of this new law are known as Super Pacs. Even at this early stage of the presidential cycle, their potential for framing the race is clear. In the whole of 2008 individuals, parties and other groups spent $168.8m independently on the presidential election. This year on Republican candidates alone, where voting started less than a month ago, the Super Pacs have reported independent expenditures of almost $40m. In 2008 election spending doubled compared with 2004. This year industry analysts believe the money spent just on television ads is set to leap by almost 80% compared with four years ago.

Money in American politics was already an elephant in the room. Now the supreme court has given it a laxative, taken away the shovel, and asked us to ignore both the sight and the stench.

The only real restriction is that there should be no co-ordination between the candidate and the Super Pac. In practice, this is little more than a fig leaf. A few weeks ago one of the ads, funded by the Super Pac supporting Gingrich, was slated for its many brazen inaccuracies. At a campaign stop in Orlando, Gingrich told supporters: "I am calling on this Super Pac – I cannot co-ordinate with them and I cannot communicate directly, but I can speak out as a citizen as I'm talking to you – I call on them to either edit out every single mistake or to pull the entire film."

Romney is no less compromised. His former chief campaign fundraiser and political director work for the main Super Pac supporting him, which was set up with the help of a $1m cheque from an ex-business partner. "This legalism of 'no co-ordination' is a filament-thin G-string," wrote Timothy Egan in the New York Times recently. "Everyone co-ordinates."

Money alone can't guarantee success. Santorum spent around 74 cents a voter in Iowa and narrowly won; Perry spent around $358 per vote and came a distant fourth. Debate performances, policy positions, personal histories and retail politics play a role. But the fact that money is not the sole determinant doesn't mean it's not the key one. Two months ago Gingrich's surge in Iowa was halted after Romney's Super Pac ploughed millions of dollars into campaign ads attacking him. Romney's commanding lead in South Carolina was similarly thwarted when Gingrich's Super Pac injected several million dollars.

This is not a partisan point. Almost two-thirds of Americans believe the government should limit individual contributions – with a majority among Republicans, Democrats and independents. The influence of money at this level corrupts an entire political culture and in no small part explains the depth of cynicism, alienation and mistrust Americans now have for their politicians.

The trend towards oligarchy in the polity is already clear. There are 250 millionaires in Congress. Their median net worth is $891,506, nine times the typical US household. Around 11% are in the nation's top 1%, including 34 Republicans and 23 Democrats. And that's before you get to Romney, whose personal wealth is double that of the last eight presidents combined. All of this would be problematic at the best of times, but in a period of rising inequality it is obscene.

The issue here is not class envy, hating rich people because they are rich, but class interests – cementing the advantages of the privileged over the rest. The problem is not personal, it's systemic. In the current climate, it means a group of wealthy people in business will decide which wealthy people in Congress they would like to tell poor people what they can't have because times are hard. And unless the ruling is overturned there is precious little that can be done about it.

Last week in a Massachusetts Senate race, both the Republican incumbent and his likely Democratic challenger signed a pact agreeing not to use third-party money. The trouble is that the agreement is completely unenforceable. Already at least one pro-Republican group has refused to commit to it.

Downplaying money's central role at this point merely buys into the illusion of participatory democracy, where ideas, character and strategy are paramount, while others are actually buying the candidates and access to power. The result is a charade. Fig leaf, G-string – name the scanty underwear of your choice. The emperor is butt naked. Whoever you vote for, the money gets in.

© 2012 The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/29/us-politi...

Gary Younge is a Guardian columnist and feature writer based in the US.