Category Archives: Government Oppression

I wear the mask when Im at the market or somewhere else where I cant hope to maintain social distancing guidelines. I dont like wearing the mask. It impedes my breathing, especially after I eat anything with garlic. It looks silly and, truth be told, I dont know if it is an effective virus blocker.

I have never had a problem looking anyone in the eye while wearing the mask and I have not had anyone give me grief for wearing one.

In return, I have not hassled anyone for not wearing one, but make no mistake: I will avoid you as if you were firing an AK-47 in my direction.

I wear the mask because people who know about viruses and community spread and pandemic response protocols are far more trustworthy than any politician telling you something different.

Those people tell me the mask probably wont protect me, but it could protect those who come in close proximity to me should I have it and not know it. I wear it for you and your loved ones. Not for me and mine. Clearly, people who dont know they have the disease can and do spread it to others. Some lowlifes do know they have the symptoms of the disease and still mingle like demented Typhoid Marys.

I wear the mask out of respect for the employees who wear the mask whether they want to or not. I wear the mask because Im a team player.

I do not feel like my freedom has been diminished and I know what it feels like to have a freedom taken away. Im still upset they banned Lawn Darts.

I know what tyranny is and this isnt it. Tyranny is brutal oppression by the government. It is neither brutal nor oppressive to ask people to be responsible and do their part to mitigate the damage a deadly virus can do. The issue is public health, not political strategy.

There is abundant precedence that gives government the right to enact measures designed to stop infectious disease from decimating communities. The year 1918 wasnt that long ago. There are people alive today who were alive then. The Spanish Flu killed between 50 million and 100 million worldwide.

Anyone who was sick in Moab was under strict quarantine. Social distancing was not recommended. It was enforced. Deputies stationed on the road through Moab forced travelers who lived somewhere else to turn around.

There were no demonstrations about freedom. No armed men geared up for combat terrorized lawmakers. Nobody wrote, Your health is not more important than my liberty, or Muzzles are for dogs and slaves. Im a free human being, on protest signs.

By the way, that dictatorial government that wants to enslave you and make you wear a mask is losing millions and millions of tax dollars and thats just in Grand County.

The virus as of this writing has claimed 99,500 lives in America. That isnt a number anyone can appreciate. I suppose only those who knew and loved one of those 99,500 people understands.

The virus also has killed the U.S. economy or at least knocked it out with a vicious right cross. Being the kind of guy who chooses to wear a mask, I have a lot of compassion and concern for the hundreds of Grand County residents who have lost their jobs and I have the same response for the owners of those businesses, whether they are strictly local or part of a global corporation. I feel for the tens of millions who have lost their jobs in our country and the world.

Two thoughts come to mind, however. One: Lets all admit to ourselves, even silently, that the so-called strongest ever U.S. economy should have been able to weather the COVID-19 storm. Had we acted sooner, maybe we could have stopped the virus before it gained 10,000 footholds in the Lower 48.

We have the most cases in the world, by far; 1.7 million, and we represent less than 5 percent of the global population.

The number is about 370,000 in Brazil, which also had a haphazard and slow response; good enough for second place. Losers.

Heres my number one reason for wearing a mask: Reopening Moab and everywhere else was a political decision, not one based on science. This isnt over. This isnt close to being over. Forget the second wave that was supposed to come with reopening America. Were about halfway through the first wave if the experts are to be believed, and the second one will be deadlier than the first.

To quote Bette Davis in All About Eve: Fasten your seat belts. Its going to be a bumpy night.

Read more from the original source:

Why I wear the mask - The Times-Independent

The truism about India is that for everything that you see, that you hear, frequently the opposite is equally true.

Indias scientists successfully launched the Mars Orbiter Mission, executed a perfect slingshot to place it in orbit and left the world in awe at a price less than what it cost Hollywood to produce the Oscar-winning movie Gravity. Lunar explorations continue apace with Mission Chandrayan 3 to be launched in November 2020. Indias engineers are designing and executing the worlds highest railway bridge over the river Chenab in Kashmir. Indias Election Commission manages the exercise of franchise in the worlds largest democracy, enabling over 910 million citizens to vote, whether at 15,000 feet above sea level in Anlay Phu in Ladakh or 35 kilometres deep into the Gir forests.

304pp, Rs 699; HarperCollins

And yet, the above maxim about the multiple truths that are India is unfortunately proven by the sordid state of affairs in the delivery of public goods and services. The countrys ability in dealing with complexities and scale, alas, has not resulted in creation of capacity for transformative change. Truth be told, our many governments central, state and local have flailed and failed in delivering basic governance.

The promise of piped drinking water continues to be a pipe dream. Households and businesses spend hours cursing power outages despite the claims of surplus power. The inadequacies of preventive and primary health care systems render the poorest the most vulnerable. The millions coming out of Indias broken school education system lack the rudimentary comprehension of the basic three Rs reading, writing and arithmetic. And the security of homes/ businesses depends on outsourced private security contractors.

It used to be said that India is a nation of many nations. Fact is, India is morphing into a nation of gated republics. Slowly, these gated republics are spreading across the landscape and their tell-tale signs are evident in anecdotal snapshots. The empirical picture is changing at a glacial pace and the scale is momentous. Year after year, governments launch new avatars of old promises to deliver public goods and services and taxpayer money is poured into these avatars, but at every milestone of per capita income and affordability, there are public policy failures.

The many failures of public policy are propelling a ceaseless secession. The term secession owes its Latin origins to plebeians withdrawing from ancient Rome to force patricians to address their grievances. Early settlers, said Jean Jacques Rousseau, resolved disagreeable conditions within groups by withdrawing from one and seeking another.

The choice before Indias denizen is to grieve, grate and grimace, or get out. In his seminal tome Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, Albert O Hirschman points out, Once this avoidance mechanism for dealing with disputes or venting dissatisfaction is readily available, the contribution of voice that is, of the political process to such matters is likely to be and remain limited. The voice of the average Indian is not heard and the wait has been too long. And so Indians are desperately seceding, as soon as their income allows, from dependence on government for the most basic of services water, health, education, security, power and are investing in the pay-and-plug economy.

In the last decade, total government expenditure, both central and state, has shot up from Rs 18.52 trillion in 2009 to Rs 53.6 trillion in 201819. That is Rs 6,120 million of taxpayer monies per hour, every day. Over one-fourth, or 26 per cent, of this money is devoted to what the government defines as allocation for delivery of social services. The expenditure on education has shot up from Rs 1.62 trillion to Rs 4.41 trillion in 10 years, yet more parents are pulling their children out of government schools and sending them to private ones. Allocations for health have more than trebled from Rs 742.73 billion to Rs 2.25 trillion between 2009 and 2018. Despite this, nearly 70 per cent of people prefer being treated by private health care service providers. This pushes millions below the poverty line as they borrow to pay for health care, triggering catastrophic costs for families. That there is this continuing exodus even as the government is allocating more and more money has led public-policy pundit and economist Lant Pritchett to ask in the context of delivery of public services if India is a flailing state?

Shankkar Ayar(Courtesy HarperCollins)

The system is wracked by a curious dysfunction there is too much government and too little governance. There are the passive government failures resulting in inferior outcomes as well as active policy failure, where the design and implementation of policy results in outcomes that worsen the situation.

During the research for this book, what has been intriguing to learn is how taxpayers and other citizens have internalized the incapacity of the state to deliver public goods and services. Millions are opting out mentally from holding governments accountable and are turning to private service providers, despite the double whammy of costs.

Central and state governments harvest revenue by taxing income and consumption. Overall tax collections between 200910 and 201819 have more than trebled from Rs 9.84 trillion to Rs 34.94 trillion. The primary imperative and obligation of the state is to deliver education, health care, water supply, electricity and security.

In reality, parents of over 75 million children in private schools are dealing with the cost economics of education, millions are choosing to seek health care from private providers, and households are dependent on inverters. They are paying for services they have already been taxed for. The secession is not by choice but by compulsion and in sectors which form the crucible of economic development.

The normalization of failure is accompanied by misplaced notions of what constitutes a big government. A fallacious and gratuitous explanation often used is that it is better that these services are offered against payment by private providers. The popular Thatcherism, Government has no business being in business, is being distorted in perverse persuasion. True, government must not run commercial enterprises such as airlines and hotels. But when did the moral obligations of government providing basic amenities to taxpayers and citizens get defined as business?

South Korea, Japan and Finland have good education systems and these are run by their governments. Canada has a good health care system and it is run by the government. Singapore and Israel are innovative in water management and their governments are at the forefront of it. Top power companies SGC China, Enel Italy, EDF France, Tepco Japan and Kepco Korea are owned by national governments. Policing and security is an essential public service provided by governments across the globe.

A lucid construct of the role of the state is drawn up by Adam Smith in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Smith says the sovereign or the government has three duties of great importance to attend to. First, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society. Essentially, the obligation of providing education, health, security, water and electricity squarely rests on the state.

The history behind the idea of a nation state has gone through evolutionary and revolutionary iterations where the role of the state has been emphasized and re-emphasized. The idea of the state dates back 10,000 years to Mesopotamia and has evolved since. It was Thomas Hobbes, founder of the concept of the Leviathan, who argued that society without order of a state would descend into bellum omnium contra omnes or the war of all against all. John Locke, who propounded the social contract theory, believed the role of government was to protect its citizens unalienable rights of life, liberty and property. Thomas Paine, in the treatise Rights of Man, declared that welfare is not charity but an irrevocable right. And Beatrice Webb, the patron saint, so to speak, of the welfare states visible across the world, crafted the blueprint that called on governments to provide for an enforced minimum for a civilized life.

There are good reasons why Victor Hugo evangelized the value of education in Les Misrables; why the US and Europe went for universal education; or why a primary focus of Meiji Restoration was on education. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, elementary education was not just free, it was also made compulsory. The School Medical Service was the early avatar of the National Health Service in Britain.

Every modern-day, global economic power focused on education and health during their rise in power and status. The legitimate object of government, Abraham Lincoln said, is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do. These imperatives, among others, were addressed through political agency. The US had three successive programmes the New Deal of Franklin D Roosevelt, the Fair Deal by Harry Truman and the Great Society agenda, under which Lyndon B Johnson expanded education and health care as a strategy to reduce poverty.

The Gated Republic is an enquiry into the history and politics of public policy and the anatomy of failure. Part IV of the Constitution of India, the Directive Principles of State Policy, in Article 38 (1) states: The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.

Seven decades after Independence, the piety of the promises made by the founding fathers has paled. Latter-day politicians and governments are blithely ignoring their responsibilities and Indians are paying the price, literally.

Can India... develop and progress without a healthy and educated workforce, all without clean water, reliable power and security?

The Gated Republic by Shankkar Aiyar releases on June 1, 2020.

Go here to read the rest:

Excerpt: The Gated Republic by Shankkar Aiyar - Hindustan Times

Rejecting the 60 percent bus fares hike, Jatri Kalyan Samity, a passengers' welfare organization, demanded the government to maintain the previous rate bus fares.The organisations Secretary General Mozammel Haque came up with the demand in a press statement on Saturday.The statement said, The government has irrationally imposed a 60 percent hike in bus fares on the general people of the country during the coronavirus crisis. Passengers interest has been utterly neglected. This decision will increase anarchy over bus fares and passengers harassment. People will suffer more for the decision,Without proper cost analysis, without any bargaining with the owners and by showing fake calculations such fare hike is tantamount to oppression on helpless people, added the statement.So the passengers will not accept this unreasonable fare increase in any way, it said.The government has increased fares of inter-district and long routes (Dhaka, Chittagong cities and adjoining areas) bus and minibuses by 60 percent, in order to compensate bus owners carrying 50 percent less passengers to prevent the transmission of coronavirus.Passengers will have to pay the additional bus fares from June 1 (Monday), said a gazette notification issued by the Road, Transport and Bridges Ministry on Sunday.The notification said the additional fares for inter-district and long routes buses and minibuses will be increase by 60 from existing Tk 1.42 for a kilometer.

Read more from the original source:

Jatri Kalyan Samity demands withdrawal of bus fare hike - United News of Bangladesh

A big dividing line in our country today is whether to wear a face mask or not. For Memorial Day services, former Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Jill wore masks. In contrast, President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump paid their respects on Memorial Day without masks.

In many cities and states across the nation, the number of Covid-19 cases is going down, yet the masking requirements are becoming more stringent. In New Orleans, residents are always supposed to wear a mask, even when outdoors. For businesses, both employees and customers must wear masks. These are more stringent requirements than the State of Louisiana which just recommends mask-wearing.

The same mask requirements are in place in Los Angeles and other areas around the country. It was attempted in Houston, TX, but outraged residents fought back, and a court order stuck down the mask requirement.

For people to wear a mask is really a symbol of oppression and how the government can control the actions of its citizens. Millions of Americans are following these dictates because they are worried about their health and believe that mask-wearing will protect them from the coronavirus.

Ironically, experts are divided on whether masks provide any assistance in preventing the spread of the coronavirus. The official guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) is that mask-wearing should only be used by healthcare workers, caretakers or by people who are sick with symptoms of fever and cough. According to Dr. April Baller, a WHO public health specialist, Masks should only be used by healthcare workers, caretakers or by people who are sick with symptoms of fever and cough.

This recommendation was made in March and has not been altered, even though the Centers for Disease Control does recommend mask-wearing. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases originally recommended that average Americans should not wear masks but has changed his stance and now advocates their usage.

For many Americans, being told to wear a mask is oppressive and an infringement on their liberties. Today, it has become so ingrained in the minds of worried Americans that people driving alone in a vehicle are often spotted wearing a mask. Even though it is not a requirement, people exercising are seen wearing masks as well.

Such extensive mask-wearing is inadvisable for health reasons as well. Masks prevent individuals from inhaling full oxygen, instead, they inhale recycled carbon dioxide. There is also a chemical intake from the materials used in producing the mask.

According to the website, TheHealthCoach, these effects are dangerous for people because even a slight increase of the carbon dioxide levels in their bloodstream can contribute to anxiety and feelings of nervousness as well as cause headaches, dizziness, and fatigue. For these reasons especially, both the healthy and the ill should avoid wearing a mask like the plague.

None of these words of wisdom have prevented many political and health leaders from advocating mask-wearing. However, if these orders are so important, politicians need to abide by them. For example, Biden advised that You need to wear your mask outside. I dont care if youre just walking your dog. Instead of following this advice, Biden was interviewed by CNN on March 26th. The interview was conducted outdoors, and Biden was not wearing a mask.

Biden claimed that the President is a fool for not wearing a mask. Now, it is obvious the real fool is Biden, and, for good measure, he is also a flaming hypocrite.

JeffCrouereis a native New Orleanian and his award winning program, Ringside Politics, airs locally at 7:30 p.m. Fridays and at 10:00 p.m. Sundays on PBS affiliate WLAE-TV, Channel 32, and from 7-11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990-AM &www.Wgso.com. He is a political columnist, the author ofAmerica's Last Chanceand provides regular commentaries on the JeffCrouereYouTube channel and onwww.JeffCrouere.com. For more information, email him at[emailprotected]

Visit link:

Unmasking Biden's hypocrisy and government control in America - Bayoubuzz

Domestic violence has spiked in Mexico during its coronavirus-related lockdown. According to a national network of womens shelters, calls for help were up 60% in April.

Even before the pandemic, however, women in Mexico felt under siege. In one of the worlds most violent countries, women are raped, murdered and kidnapped with stunning frequency, and the problem is growing.

When I first began teaching gender violence in my Latin American studies classes in 2018, Mexico saw seven femicides the legal term for the murder of a woman a day. This year, on average, 10 Mexican women are murdered every day.

In February, just before the pandemic hit, two gruesome killings that took place days apart in Mexico City made national headlines.

Midmonth, 25-year-old Ingrid Escamilla was murdered, skinned and partially disemboweled. Her mutilated body became a public spectacle after police who responded at the scene leaked pictures that the media reproduced. Days later, seven-year-old Ftima Aldrighett kidnapped while waiting for her mother to pick her up from school was found naked in a plastic bag. Police identified signs of sexual abuse and torture.

While surveillance video resulted in the arrest of two people for Aldrighetts case, Escamillas killing remains unsolved a common outcome of murder investigations in Mexico.

After the two gruesome killings in one week, President Andres Manuel Lpez Obrador blamed violence against women on the neoliberal policies of his right-wing predecessors and dismissed Mexicos growing feminist movement as a plot orchestrated by his right-wing opposition.

The Mexican governments dismissive response to femicides sparked intense criticism from feminists, and in March Lpez Obradors administration unveiled a comprehensive plan to protect Mexican women. It promised to reopen government-funded domestic violence shelters and daycare facilities that were shuttered due to budget cuts last year and launch a smartphone app to report street harassment.

Despite the proposal, on March 8, International Womens Day, an estimated 80,000 to 120,000 women marched in Mexico City and nationwide to demand that the government implement policies to protect women, take femicide investigations seriously and bring justice for victims and their families.

I am a scholar of gender and sexuality in Latin America, and the protests goals reminded me of the work of anthropologist Rita Segato, who insists that femicides cannot be seen as the act of lone, sick individuals. Rather, Segato says, womens murders result from a larger system of oppression and control over womens bodies.

Mexicos feminist mobilizations continued the next day, March 9, with a womens strike called A Day Without Us. Despite some criticism of the strike as an elite initiative accessible only to those who can afford to stay home from work, pictures circulated online of half-empty classrooms, subways and streets across the nation.

Within two weeks of the back-to-back feminist protests, Mexico would begin closing down as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The nations attention would turn, understandably, away from womens killings and toward public health. More than 8,000 people in Mexico have since died of COVID-19.

But femicides are a major public health problem for Mexico, too one that will outlast the pandemic. According to the government, 367 women were killed between mid-March and mid-April, the first month of social distancing. Last spring, there were about 300 femicides a month.

Several of Mexicos recent victims were girls, such as 13-year-old Ana Paola, who was raped and murdered inside her northern Mexico home on April 2.

When I teach about Mexicos femicides problem, I talk to my students about misogyny. I use that word not in its common sense, to mean hatred of women, but rather in the way author Kate Manne defines it in her 2017 book Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny.

For Manne, misogyny is the policing of womens subordination in patriarchal societies the way people condemn women who dont adhere to social expectations. This instinct has been on display in Mexico, taking the form of a backlash against feminists efforts to put gender violence higher on the public agenda.

A December 2019 case involving Karen Espndola is a good example of how this social misogyny works. Espndola, a 30-year-old woman from Mexico City, texted her mother late one night about feeling unsafe in a cab. When she didnt arrive home, her brother posted her texts online. Concerned shed been kidnapped, people across Mexico mobilized to find her.

Espndola, it turns out, was fine. She had simply wanted to stay longer at a party, texted her mother to buy some time, then switched off her phone.

Though Espndola apologized for unintentionally setting off a social media manhunt, she received death threats. The media played surveillance footage from a bar in which Espndola appeared drinking with men, feeding a narrative that her public behavior was inappropriate. Twitter deemed her #KarenMentirosa #LyingKaren.

Espndola eventually went on national TV to beg forgiveness for partying, for hanging out with men. In short, she apologized for not having been kidnapped.

President Lpez Obrador likewise continues to downplay the problem of violence against women, claiming without factual basis that 90% of calls to domestic abuse hotlines are fake. But other members of his administration appear to be taking the issue more seriously.

"We have a patriarchal system, said Mexican Secretary of the Interior Olga Snchez Cordero on May 20, confirming the administrations commitment to study Mexicos gender violence problem and propose concrete, actionable solutions.

On May 26, Snchez Corderos office released its report, which said Mexican authorities had lacked coordination in femicide investigations and promised to restructure how various federal agencies work together to solve these crimes.

Later that same day, the government launched a public awareness campaign about domestic violence. Its concrete, actionable solution for femicides? Advising men who feel angry to breathe deep and count to 10.

[Youre smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversations authors and editors. You can get our highlights each weekend.]

See the original post here:

Mexico's other epidemic: Murdered women - The Conversation US

As more governments turn to tracing apps in the fight against the coronavirus, a deep-rooted tension between the need for public health information and privacy rights has been thrust into the spotlight.

Track-and-trace technology is being touted as a silver bullet that will allow economies to reopen and people to emerge from home confinement, with health authorities keeping tabs on the virus's spread.

But many fear personal data gathered by governments or companies in the name of pandemic control will be abused for political or commercial gain, or outright oppression in authoritarian states.

"If we are not careful, the epidemic might mark an important watershed in the history of surveillance," Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari wrote in The Financial Times at the height of the coronavirus outbreak.

While fast-improving technology may be a welcome aid for public health officials caught off guard by the scale of the coronavirus crisis, the "downside is, of course, that this would give legitimacy to a terrifying new surveillance system," Harari argued.

Many countries have already introduced smartphone apps to track people's infection status and movements with the intent of alerting people who may have been in close contact with a carrier of the virus.

In some countries participation is voluntary, but in many it is not.

Alert system failure

Asian countries, first hit by the pandemic that has claimed more than 350,000 lives, also led the way with tracing apps, often on a non-voluntary basis.

China, where the outbreak was first detected, rolled out several apps using either geolocation via mobile networks or data compiled from train and airline travel or motorway checkpoints.

Their use was systematic and compulsory and credited with playing a key role in allowing Beijing to lift its lockdown and halt the contagion.

South Korea issued mass mobile phone alerts announcing locations visited by infected patients and ordered anyone placed in quarantine to install a tracking app.

In Thailand, which has delayed passing a law on protecting personal data, people use an app to scan a barcode when they enter or leave a shop or restaurant if someone who later tests positive goes to the same place, everyone else will receive an alert and a free coronavirus test.

The only problem: the government, having already gathered vast amounts of information on millions of app users, has had to concede that the alert function does not work.

"The Covid-19 pandemic has offered a convenient rationale for Asian governments seeking to enhance or sustain their authoritarian capacities to do so for a lengthy period," Paul Chambers, a political scientist at the University of Naresuan in Thailand, told AFP.

Voluntary versus mandatory

Similar debates are raging in the West.

More than half of 2,000 people surveyed by the Brookings Institution in the United States feared contact-tracing apps would violate their privacy.

"Our analysis points to the need for public education campaigns that clarify what the tools are and, especially, what they are not doing," the think-tank said of its survey, carried out between April 30 and May 1.

Public trust is important given that experts say a track-and-trace app must be used by at least 60 percent of any population to be effective.

"Are new technologies becoming more efficient? Certainly. Is it dangerous? Certainly, also," said Benjamin Queyriaux, an epidemiologist and former medical adviser to NATO.

The European Commission has said data harvested through contact-tracing apps must be encrypted and cannot be stored in a centralised database.

In France, which has spurned tracing technology offered by Google and Apple, the CNIL privacy watchdog has approved a government-backed app that will be voluntary to download.

Experts in Norway have warned that its government-backed app does not sufficiently protect privacy, and an Australian app that allows people's data to be accessed by health officials has also raised privacy concerns.

Aims 'not clear'

In Latin America, a woman won a legal case arguing that her privacy rights would be violated by an app launched by the Colombian city of Medelln.

The app is compulsory for employees of companies resuming activity after lockdown, but the court ruled that only the most relevant information may be required from users.

"The aims of these technological solutions are not clear," said Colombian rights body Karisma.

In Argentina, the government is seeking to enforce the use of a hitherto voluntary tracing app in a move rejected by the opposition, which also demands all data be erased when the health crisis is over.

"If corporations and governments start harvesting our biometric data en masse, they can get to know us far better than we know ourselves," Harari warned.

This will allow them to "not just predict our feelings but also manipulate our feelings and sell us anything they want be it a product or a politician."

by Didier Lauras, with AFP bureaus

See original here:

Virus apps expose tension between privacy and need for data - Buenos Aires Times

Srinagar, June 01 (KMS): Independent political analysts as well as human rights activists who keep a close watch on oppression against minorities and champions of right to self-determination movements have noted it with surprise that the world is showing concern over murder of just one black man by a police officer in the United States, but is indifferent to the killings of thousands of innocent people at the hands of Indian state machinery in occupied Kashmir.

The analysts and rights activists in their media interviews argued that the world should, indeed, take serious note of the killing of the black man in the US; however, it should not, at the same time, make any discrimination in expressing its concern over the loss of such lives in occupied Kashmir as blood of a black man and a Kashmiri Muslim is always red in colour.

It is worth mentioning here that during the course of compilation of the report by Editor, Kashmir Media Service, Muhammad Arshad Khan, it was noted that an atmosphere of terror, created by the fascist Modi government in India, runs so deep in occupied Kashmir that every right activist or political analyst, who was approached for comments, did not feel secure to express his opinion in an open manner while disclosing full identity. It was observed that almost all such people wished not to be named because of the possible wrath of the Modi government. In this regard, they cited the examples of rights champions Jaleel Andrabi, Abdul Ahad Guru and many others who were martyred by Indian troops or their stooges for being critical of Delhis oppressive policies in occupied Kashmir.

Why the international community is silent on loss of Kashmiri lives, asked a Srinagar-based political writer, analyst and columnist, Wiqi, who preferred to be identified by his nick name. Just one incident in the US has caused outrage, what about thousands of lives by tens of thousands of Indian men in uniform in occupied Kashmir, he further enquired.

India is killing Kashmiri youth on daily basis as of today Indian troops have killed three youth in Rajouri while in the past 300 days, they had killed 134 innocent people, a rights activists, who wished not be named said in Jammu. Citing a recently published report, he said 1,299 Kashmiris critically injured by Indian forces in the past 10 months.

Indian army is carrying out genocide of Kashmiri youth, said another political analyst, who asked to be identified as, Zaveed, adding that even Indian forces did not spare a 12-year-old handicapped boy and killed him during a cordon and search operation in the territory. Are Kashmiris children of a lesser God, he asked.

Besides killings, vandalism of houses and harassment of residents is the new norm in the territory and the troops damaged 909 houses in the past 300 days, he said referring to the recently published report.

By doing all this, India wants to subdue Kashmiri freedom struggle and change the Muslim majority status of occupied Kashmir, he further said.

Like Loading...

Related

Here is the original post:

Why discrimination between blood of a black man and a Kashmiri? - Kashmir Media Service

Youve written about the American grand strategy. What do you consider that to mean?

It describes the use of all of the nations resources and power for the end goals it wants to achieve in the world. Its not just about using the military. Its not just about the economy. Rather its drawing on all those elements and resources a country has its ideas, its values, the military, its economy, its diplomatic expertise, its intelligence community drawing all those together and then saying, what are the big threats and big opportunities we face in the world and how do we align all of those resources and choose our priorities? Because you cant do everything. You cant stop all the threats. You cant seize all the opportunities. How do we identify the most severe threats and the most attractive opportunities and how do we act on them?

In the case of President Reagan, he had a grand strategy of winning the Cold War peacefully. It involved identifying the weaknesses in the Soviet system: its oppression of its people and decrepit economy, the blowback it was experiencing for being an aggressive imperial power in Central and Eastern Europe and elsewhere around the world, and also the vulnerabilities in its military. He then looked for ways to bring pressure on that Soviet system, with a military buildup, with an economic expansion, with deepening partnerships with our allies. Americas allies are a vitally important source of our national strength and our grand strategy. Reagan wanted to bring pressure on the Soviets but pressure in which they would feel like they needed to negotiate. He always sought to negotiate with the Soviets. He wanted to put pressure that would produce a more reform-minded leader with whom he could negotiate. Then Gorbachev comes along, and Reagan says, Theres my guy. That combination of pressure and diplomacy working together, thats how he had a grand strategy to expand freedom in the world and bring the Cold War to a peaceful end through the dissolving of the Soviet Union.

Youve said Reagan embodied a philosophy of conservative internationalism. How do each of those words distinguish it from other foreign policy strategies, and are you a fan?

Yes, I would identify myself as a conservative internationalist. Ill start with the internationalist part. That advocates American engagement with the world. Its very opposed to isolationism. The United States needs to be active in the world, lead the world, be involved in international institutions with allies.

The conservative part emphasizes Americas distinctive values. This embraces some notion of American exceptionalism and also emphasizes the roles that military and economic strength play. I dont think its a belligerent philosophy, looking to start unnecessary wars, but it understands that the presence and use of a strong military can strengthen diplomacy. Thats often best done through Americas cooperation with its allies and less so through formal international institutions, which too often can be bureaucratically gummed up or hijacked by malevolent powers such as Russia and China. Its a big-tent philosophy, and conservative internationalists will differ among themselves about what to do about specific issues, such as the Iranian nuclear program.

Was JFK a conservative internationalist by that definition?

He certainly had elements of conservative internationalism, yes. JFK is an endlessly fascinating figure. Its hard to evaluate Kennedys foreign policy because he had less than three years in office, and there are endless debates about what a full Kennedy presidency of one or even two terms would have looked like. He had his share of missteps, like the Bay of Pigs. And he certainly wasnt using conservative internationalism in 1961 when he sent signs of weakness to Khrushchev and didnt respond assertively enough when Khrushchev put up the Berlin Wall.

But his management of the Cuban Missile Crisis, combining the threat of force and naval blockade with some creative diplomacy to avoid a war, was a masterpiece of it. And he certainly had a very lofty vision for Americas unique role in the world as an exemplar of freedom and supporter of those who aspired to freedom. Those would also be part of his conservative internationalism. Recently, there have been more conservative internationalists among Republicans, whether a Marco Rubio or a Mitt Romney. But its by no means exclusive to the Republican Party. Harry Truman would also be a conservative internationalist by this definition.

So in this case, conservatism does not signify preference for small government; it signifies willingness to use the military.

Right. It starts with a philosophy that if one of the main constitutional responsibilities of a government is to provide for the defense of the country, then conservatives want to put enough resources into the military to ensure that. So its one of the few areas where conservatives will be more supportive of government spending, even if they are not as supportive of expansive government spending on all domestic programs.

There seems to be a popular notion that Reagan underwent a change of heart in office, moving from evil empire rhetoric to arms reduction treaties. Did he?

No. In my forthcoming book, I argue very much against the belief that there was a Reagan reversal, that he underwent a change of heart. From the day he took office, its very clear he wanted to pursue this two-pronged strategy of confronting the Soviet Union and also reaching out. In March 1981, just two months into office when Reagan is in a hospital bed recovering from the assassination attempt, he writes a letter to Brezhnev saying in effect, We really need to talk. I really want to have a meeting with you. Lets do some negotiations. The problem was, he also knew that for it to be effective, he had to have a willing negotiating partner, and that doesnt come along until Gorbachev.

Throughout his life, Reagan was a nuclear abolitionist. He was terrified of nuclear weapons, but he first wanted to get rid of Soviet communism. He knew that in a fallen world if I can use a theological term, where there are aggressive, malevolent forces who also have these destructive weapons, sometimes you first need to build up your nuclear arsenal in order to confront the evil adversary, and only then can you build down your nuclear weapons.

Where I do see a change or evolution in Reagan is this: When he first came into office, he was interested in supporting democracy and human rights in communist countries, but was less interested in doing so with right-wing authoritarian countries who were Americas anticommunist allies. But by his second year in office, particularly with his June 1982 Westminster address in London, he became much more interested in supporting democracy and human rights globally. Then by his second term, he engaged in pretty assertive diplomacy with American allies like South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Chile and others to democratize. Authoritarian governments supported by the U.S. were getting pressure from the Reagan administration to transition to democracy. He tied this back to the Cold War. He realized its not enough to just criticize communism; you need to show a positive alternative. You need to show what a free society looks like, the human flourishing thats possible in societies that have political, religious and economic liberty. He also realized the need for moral consistency, that standing for freedom should not be hobbled with exceptions.

When we think of national security, we overwhelmingly think of four countries: China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. Are there others out there we should be keeping one eye on?

Between coronavirus and those four countries you mentioned, we certainly have enough on our plate. I dont want to sound too alarmist. That said, jihadist terrorism is still a threat. Weve enjoyed some tremendous counterterrorism successes under presidents Bush, Obama and Trump, with the killing of Bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi, the ISIS leader. Were now 19 years after 9/11 and have not had another mass-casualty terrorist attack in the United States. However, ISIS has reconstituted itself in parts of Iraq and Syria. Al Qaeda is still alive and active in parts of South Asia, with franchises on the Arabian Peninsula and in Africa. I dont want us to lose sight of the terrorist threat. Weve managed it pretty well, but all it takes is one set of bad guys getting through, and great harm could be done.

I also worry about some fragile states. Pakistan comes to the top of mind. They have a large number of nuclear warheads and a fragile government living in a difficult neighborhood. And some pretty compromised members of its intelligence community have been supporting the bad guys.

You mentioned the need for moral consistency a moment ago. Do we risk moral inconsistency in our relationship with Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia on the other?

Speaking as a recovering policymaker, hard choices, compromises and even some hypocrisies are always going to be a part of the landscape. Those are the messy trade-offs of policymaking. I now have the luxury of being a professor and opining without the responsibility of policymaking, so I want to be very careful not to sound too sanctimonious.

I appreciate historically that the American-Saudi partnership was very important during the Cold War. I also appreciate that in the contemporary moment they are a counterweight to Iran because Im pretty hawkish on Iran. Whether its in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or any number of other places, Iran is still pursuing an aggressive, violent, destabilizing approach. The regime supports terrorism that has killed a number of Americans going back to 1983. Insofar as the United States should oppose Irans bad behavior, the Saudis are partners in that respect.

With all of that said, back in my time in government, I worked occasionally on U.S.-Saudi relations. I traveled to Saudi Arabia multiple times and have seen the oppression of their people, of women, of religious minorities, even of Shia Muslims, which is appalling. Then there is the regimes support for a pretty extremist version of Islam; its no accident that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

For the last few years I have thought that perhaps its time for the U.S. to recalibrate its relationship with Saudi Arabia. I do not want us being as supportive of the Saudis as we have been. Many years ago on a trip to Riyadh, I had dinner with a journalist named Jamal Khashoggi, who was gruesomely murdered last year reportedly at the behest of Mohammed bin Salman, so theres a personal element for me to this. MBSs orchestration of the war in Yemen has been appalling. His blockade of Qatar has been reckless and destabilizing. Hes certainly been very despotic in his treatment of a lot of his own people.

Thanks to the shale revolution and Americas much more diversified energy sources, the world is not as dependent on Saudi petroleum as it once was. Its time for the U.S. to rethink and potentially distance itself more from Saudi Arabia.

More on William Inboden: Reared in Tucson and educated at Stanford and Yale, in 1995, he began working in Washington, D.C., first as a staff member for Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Georgia), then for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas). In 2002, he became a special adviser in the State Department for international religious freedom and later joined its policy planning staff. In 2005, he began two years of service on the National Security Council as senior director for strategic planning. Inbodens think-tank experience includes the American Enterprise Institute and leading the London-based Legatum Institute. His classes, Ethics & International Relations and Presidential Decision-Making in National Security, have been selected in recent years as the Best Class in the LBJ School.

Visit link:

UT national security expert: COVID-19 accelerating some global trends, changing the direction of others - UT News | The University of Texas at Austin

Hundreds of protestors marched the streets of Huntington Saturday to raise awareness about police brutality and systemic racism amid nationwide demonstrations in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

Within the police departments themselves, there are some thugs and some gangsters. The police know who the gangsters in their forces are, Rev. Matthew J. Watts, one of the protestors, said. When that officer was kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, and he was screaming for his dead mother and yelling that he couldnt breathe, [the other officers] were standing there with their arms crossed, knowing they were being filmed. They knew they were invincible. They knew that officer was a thug.

Watts said police officers too often are able to act recklessly and violently, knowing they will not be held accountable for their actions because any investigations into the matters are conducted by other police officers.

The officer who killed George Floyd has been wreaking havoc for years, and he always got a pass, Watts said. Theyre protected by that blue code. We have to police the police ourselves.

Chauvin, the officer who kneeled on the neck of Floyd for nearly ten minutes and for nearly two minutes after learning Floyd no longer had a pulse, had been the subject of 18 prior citizen complaints filed against his police department, including one instance when he shot Leroy Martinez, a 23-year-old Alaska Native. He never was prosecuted for his use of excessive force.

Watts said a potential solution to the rampant police brutality and lack of accountability for law enforcement is the implementation of citizen review boards to investigate complaints filed against police departments.

We need to have citizen review boards. We should demand that we have them. These people work for us, Watts said. What I have found in my years is that anytime theres a government institution, and the public is not privy to it, it goes off the rails. These people become gods. Unchecked power is inherently corrupting.

Tosha Hairston, a Marshall University alumnus, said she and her cousin Erica attended the protest because they wanted to stand up for their children. They each have two black sons.

Hairston said she has custody of her younger brother, who was threatened and injured by a police officer during an incident at Huntington High School a few years ago.

There was an incident at Huntington High where he ended up hitting the principal, and we have a video of the cops holding him down on the ground, and when I got to the school, they had him handcuffed and had left marks on his neck, and that was all just so hard, Hairston said. It was hard to see him like that.

Hairston said her brother was handcuffed with his hands behind his back when the police officer threatened him with more violence while holding his forearm onto her brothers neck. Her brother was 17-years-old at the time of the incident.

Hairston encouraged other parents to imagine if their child was put in the situation of her brother or of someone like George Floyd in Minneapolis at the hand of a law enforcement officer.

Imagine your child being held down on the ground yelling and asking for help and screaming, I cant breathe repeatedly. How would you feel? The color of your skin shouldnt matter, she said. Put yourself in our shoes and think about what if it happened to you or your kidhow would you feel if you lost your kid to something like that?

Hairston said while there is an evident systemic racism problem in America and among police forces, there is also a significant issue of unchecked authority.

Its also an authority problem, she said. In so many cases, police are abusing their authority in the worst ways.

Erica Harmon, another of the protestors Saturday, said there is a misconception among West Virginians that racism and police brutality are not as prominent in the state as in other places throughout the country.

Racism and police brutality are here in West Virginia. We have it here, and its here every day. Its not hidden, Harmon said. Every time you turn around being a black person, you are a target, and its not fair. Its not okay. If you say these problems arent here in West Virginia, youre choosing to be blind. Youre choosing to be ignorant.

Harmon said her son has experienced issues with racism and police officers abusing authority in Huntington.

He has been called the n-word playing middle school sports, she said. He got pulled over while driving just a couple weeks ago, and the cop said he had a taillight out. There was no taillight out. Its because he was black, just driving down Route 60.

Harmon said the issue of systemic racism, particularly in law enforcement, is evident through comparing the ways police officers treat white people versus how they treat black people when they have clearly committed a crime.

Its like when that white guy (Dylann Roof) shot up the black church in (Charleston) South Carolina, and he gets walked out calmly in handcuffs, Harmon said. If a black guy does that, he doesnt walk out at all. And its sad. We just want to be treated like everyone else.

Harmon, who has lived in West Virginia her entire life, said she also has experienced racism in her daily life in Huntington.

We arent treated the same ways youre treated, she said. When I walk into the grocery story, I get followed. I dont bring my purse or nothing, and I still get followed. You walk into the store right behind me, and they dont think twice about you. Thats because of the color of my skin, and thats not okay at all.

Malaya Gunn, a 16-year-old student at Huntington High School, said she and her family members have had several traumatizing experiences with police officers, including one incident which caused her to fear for [her] life.

My heart aches for my brothers and sisters, Gunn said. We are losing them every day because of police brutality and racism and hate. I wanted to be here, and I brought my momma, and my sisters and my friends and family along to help support everyone here and the rest of our community, because it could be me next, or it could be someone I love. It could be my brother or my sister or my friend. It could be any of us.

Gunn encouraged those outraged by the killing of Floyd and other instances of police brutality and systemic racism to become more politically active in their communities.

Come protest. Stand with us, Gunn said. If you stay at home and do nothingif youre silentyoure on the side of the people oppressing us. Come love with us. Come educate with us. I want nothing but peace and love and hope. But for us to have peace, we need justice; when we have justice, well have peace.

Del. Sean Hornbuckle (D Cabell, 16) also attended the protest. During a Facebook livestream earlier this week, Hornbuckle addressed many of the issues that were highlighted during the protest and at similar protests that have occurred across the country since the murder of Floyd.

These recent incidents occurring in our country highlight decades of frustration, pain, hurt, anger, confusion, mental health issues, systemic racism and all of the above, Hornbuckle said. Right now, we are amongst maybe the biggest battles we will see in our lifetimes. We have to really bear down and start addressing inequalities and systemic racism and oppression. People are hurt. Weve got to genuinely do something about it. We have to take action. We have to have a plan. We cant take this anymore.

Hornbuckle said it is unacceptable for politicians and other political and community leaders to offer hollow words and condolences in the wake of tragic incidents such as the ones in Minneapolis. He said in his six years working in the state legislature, he has been shocked at the ways politicians of both parties avoid addressing issues such as systemic racism.

Weve head debates on womens healthcare, different types of gun issues, tort law, we have moved Heaven and Earth for universities, hospitals, different businesses and the coal industry. Weve done everything, Hornbuckle said. Sometimes Ive agreed with those stances, and sometimes Ive disagreed. Ive debated, and Ive been an advocate. but the common thing is that we never ever debate or even bring up the issue of systemic racism. It doesnt get touched. It doesnt get talked about. Every single issue, we debate and we vote up or we vote down. But this one issue, Democrats and Republicans both dont want to touch it. That is purely unacceptable.

Hornbuckle called on his colleagues working in state government to take action.

Im asking all my colleagues, he began. Im asking the delegates I serve withthe senators, the mayors, the governor, congressmen and congresswomen, senate president, speaker of the houseIm asking all of you: What are we going to do? Are we going to put something together? Are we going to talk about these issues? Is it going to matter if its an election year? What are we going to do? Im asking you. No more waiting.

Douglas Harding can be contacted at [emailprotected]

Read the original:

Hundreds march in Huntington to protest police brutality, systemic racism - MU The Parthenon

Since its founding in 1922, the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party has combined its goal of ending US rule with a push to reintegrate with sister republics throughout Latin America, and Latin American countries have often responded in kind. Despite undergoing many changes over the past hundred years, todays movement remains broad and inclusive rather than restrictive and reactionary, writes Margaret Power.

Nationalism today has become synonymous with hatred, xenophobia, and reactionary politics. But that has not always been the case nor is it necessarily true today, as the example of Puerto Rico illustrates.

Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony for four hundred years. It became a US colony in 1898, and it remains one today. Puerto Rican nationalists want to end US colonial rule in the archipelago and inaugurate a sovereign republic.

As I argue in my forthcoming book, tentatively titled Solidarity across the Americas: The Puerto Rican Nationalist Party and Anti-Imperialism, examining the history of the Nationalist Partys transnational networks across the Americas from the 1920s to the 1950s reveals two crucial points about the party and nationalism.

First, since its founding in 1922, the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party has combined its goal of ending US rule with its push to reintegrate the archipelago with its sister republics throughout Latin America. It interwove nationalism with its transnational identity as a Hispanic nation, one that shared a common language, history, and culture with the former Spanish colonies in the Americas.

The Nationalist Party also drew on the legacy of nineteenth century pro-independence Caribbeanists such as Ramn Emeterio Betances in Puerto Rico, Jos Mart in Cuba, and Gregorio Lupern in the Dominican Republic to propound the unity of the Caribbean islands, including Haiti, and support each nations struggles against foreign domination. The Nationalist Party understood that its colonial status was part of US imperialist designs for the region. It identified its situation with that of other nations oppressed by US rule, particularly those that experienced US military occupation.

In 1927 the Nationalist Party sent its vice president, Pedro Albizu Campos, on a three-year solidarity tour throughout the Caribbean, to Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. At the send-off banquet, the Nationalist Party president gave a speech (published in full in the Puerto Rican newspaper La Democracia) summarising the partys perspective on its relationship to Latin America:

Puerto Rico is not just fighting for Puerto Rican nationalism; we are also fighting for Mexican, Dominican, [and] Nicaraguan nationalism because we are the same people, from the Rio Grande in North America to Patagonia in South America. [We are] one homogeneous people [with shared] customs, language, religion, race. What affects Santo Domingo and Nicaragua also affects Argentina and Puerto Rico; it affects our common interests as a people united by the same bonds.

Second, Latin Americans reciprocated the Nationalist Partys solidarity with their own struggles.

For much of the first half of the twentieth century Latin Americans pointed to Puerto Rico as visible proof of US imperialism in the region. As a result, Latin American leaders, intellectuals, and organisations frequently issued statements, signed petitions, sent cablegrams to US officials condemning their governments reign over Puerto Rico, and demanding the release of Nationalist Party political prisoners held in US jails.

Continent-wide campaigns in favour of Puerto Rican independence and against the imprisonment of anti-colonial leaders flourished from the late 1930s through the 1940s, the years when Franklin Roosevelts Good Neighbor Policy defined US relations with Latin America. For example, 63 members of the Argentine Congress, including the President and First and Second Vice Presidents of the Chamber of Deputies, directed a letter to Roosevelt respectfully request[ing] of your Excellency the freedom of the Puerto Rican intellectuals, Pedro Albizu Campos, Juan Antonio Corretjer, Clemente Soto Vlez, and their noble companions, leaders of the national movement for independence in our brother country.

In the early 1950s the Nationalist Party launched a series of failed military attacks in Puerto Rico and the United States. In response, the US government unleashed a wave of repression, imprisoning Nationalist leaders, members, and sympathisers. Stripped of its leaders, many of whom spent decades in prisons, besieged by the FBI and other state agencies of repression, the independence movement declined. It resurged in the 1960s, partly inspired and supported by the 1959 Cuban revolution.

Today, the nationalist movement is at once broader and yet more diffuse, lacking a single organisation or unified goal. Instead of focusing primarily on the establishment of an independent nation, the agenda of todays nationalist movement incorporates environmental issues, demands for womens and LGBT rights, and anti-racism. However, instead of calling clearly for independence, it now upholds the vaguer demand of sovereignty.

The most visible manifestation of Puerto Rican nationalism in its twenty-first century incarnation occurred in the summer of 2019. Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans took to the streets of the island demanding that Governor Ricardo Rosell resign. On July 22, 2019, one million Puerto Ricans fully one third of the population flooded the streets of San Juan chanting, Ricky, resign! Pictures of the protests show the crowd waving the Puerto Rican flag, not party banners.

The flag, the quintessential symbol of the nation, represented unity in opposition to the corrupt governor and political system that had failed to administer the archipelago efficiently, compassionately, or fairly following the devastating blows of Hurricanes Irma and Mara in September 2017. It symbolised the Puerto Rican people joining together to assert their rights and their determination to obtain them.

Although Puerto Rican nationalism has evolved over the last one hundred years, for many it continues to represent a liberatory movement and goal. Far from calling for new barriers and walls, it heralds an end to oppression and the assertion of a positive identity and dignity.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note:This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.

Shortened URL for this post:https://bit.ly/3cixJxE

Margaret Power Illinois Institute of TechnologyMargaret Power is a professor of history at the Illinois Institute of Technology. She is the author of Right-Wing Women in Chile along with other books, chapters, and articles on the political right in Latin America. She is currently working on a manuscript that is tentatively titled Solidarity across the Americas: The Puerto Rican Nationalist Party and Anti-Imperialism.

Read the original here:

The history of Puerto Rico shows that nationalism can be liberatory rather than xenophobic - USAPP American Politics and Policy (blog)