by: Jim Vrettos on July 29th, 2014 | Comments Off
Editor’s Note: This is a piece written by a John Jay sociology professor, Jim Vrettos, and was part of a panel Professor Vrettos chaired at the recent Left Forum held at John Jay College in New York City, which took place from May 30 to June 1, 2014. The panel was entitled: What Would a Transformative Justice System Look Like —Politically, Economically, Spiritually and Intellectually? Other panelists included: Dr. Carl Hart – drug researcher and neuroscientist from Columbia University, Felipe Coronel – the political rapper known as Immortal Technique, Fania Davis — Executive Director of the Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth program in Oakland, California, and Tom Hayden -founder and director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center in Culver City, California.
“The mayor and the commissioner should begin a serious discussion of the future of “broken windows” policing, the strategy of relentlessly attacking petty offenses to nurture a sense of safety and order in high-crime neighborhoods, which, in theory, leads to greater safety and order. In reality, the link is hypothetical, as many cities and towns across the country have enjoyed historic decreases in violent crime since the 1990s, whatever strategies they used. And the vast majority of its targets are not serious criminals, or criminals at all.
(New York City Police Commissioner) William Bratton is a pioneer of broken windows policing and (New York City Mayor) Mr. de Blasio is a stout defender … Mr. Bratton should not be a once-innovative general fighting the last war. Mr. De Blasio was elected on a promise of being a transformative mayor who would recognize the times we live in and respect the communities whose residents fear the police. Now is the time to show it.”
New York Times Editorial —July 25, 2014
Everywhere today we see questioning, imagining, mobilizing and organizing of people into what they think America and the world can or should be. The work of completing America’s revolutionary and transformative promise and indeed, of all humankind’s hopes is now so immediate and profoundly necessary that the fate of the species and natural world literally is in the balance. And the radical left is also vigorously questioning the specter of America’s past and its present destructiveness and dysfunctionality.
by: Michael Lozano on July 29th, 2014 | Comments Off
Credit: New American Media
(Cross-posted from New American Media)
Editor’s Note: Young people in Los Angeles held a fast during the fourth week of July to call attention to the welfare of Central American children crossing into the United States. They are asking the Obama administration to take executive action to treat the children as refugees. The Obama administration is currently considering whether to make this change, according to The New York Times.
LOS ANGELES – Young people are once again leading the moral charge on a humanitarian issue that they say has been hijacked by politics.
Eight Los Angeles youth between the ages of 14 and 22 are fasting to call attention to the welfare of the tens of thousands of Central American children who have entered the United States to flee violence in their home countries.
Eighteen-year old Yamilex Rustrian says she decided to participate in the seven-day fast to remind the country whom the White House and Congress are seeking to deport: “These are children, not animals,” she said. “They still deserve to have human rights.”
The youth are spending their nights inside a giant white tent encampment perched on the grass lawn of historic Olvera Street in Los Angeles, hoping that Washington, D.C. politicians will consider treating the 50,000-plus children coming into the United States as refugees.
Attitudes toward the Central American children have clearly become politicized. Forty-six percent of Democrats support speeding up immigration proceedings even if those eligible for asylum may be deported, as do 60 percent of Republicans, the Pew Research Center reports.
But the fasters say they want to keep politics out of the discussion.
Credit: Creative Commons
If the polls are correct and the Senate goes Republican this November, the House of Representatives will make impeaching the president its first order of business. And it will pass the Republican House overwhelmingly.
In theory, it shouldn’t matter to the House whether the Senate has a Republican majority or not. The House can impeach regardless. But with the Senate in Democratic hands, the House leadership can argue that there is no point in impeaching (which is merely an indictment) when the Senate won’t convict.
If, as is likely, the Senate is in Republican hands, it will impeach, a Senate trial will take place, and it will be followed by a vote to remove the president from office.
On what grounds, one might ask.
Credit: Creative Commons
I keep hearing in the press and in popular discourse about the “two sides” in the Middle East conflict, with the sides being the Palestinians and the Israelis. I understand that there are indeed a number of “sides,” but I believe that the Palestinian people and the Israeli people are generally on the same side.
I do not see the two opposing sides being the Palestinian people versus the Israeli people. Rather, the opposing sides represent many of the leaders verses the peace loving Israelis and Palestinians who truly want to live in harmony with one another.
Many of the Israeli leaders desire to maintain and expand current borders and territories and to impose harsh penalties (for example the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza) upon the Palestinian people, which has resulted in a great humanitarian crisis, while the Palestinian leaders, primarily members of Hamas, vow to destroy the Jews, fire rockets on Israeli civilians, and are committed to forcing all Jews into the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, those who want peace are being held hostage by their leaders.
I visited Jerusalem last year, and I talked with Israelis and Palestinians who truly desire peace, who truly desire an era in which they can live alongside one another in trust and in harmony, but they are feeling that the continuing politics of hate and fear, war, and division are preventing this peaceful coexistence.
by: Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove on July 15th, 2014 | 2 Comments »
For every season, there is a message. “Do not be afraid.” “Let my people go.” “Take up your cross.” “I have a dream.”
In America today, I’ve come to believe, God’s Word for us is, “Go to hell.”
Unbeknownst to most Americans, our justice system changed radically in the late 20th century. Like most countries in the modern West, roughly one in a thousand Americans were in prison in the early 70s. Today, we incarcerate 1 in 107 Americans. Over 7 million adults are currently in jails, in prison, or on probation. More than 65 million US citizens now have a criminal record, while another 11 million undocumented people live outside the the law, subject to seizure and deportation.
Legal scholar William Stuntz has described the past 40 years as the “collapse of America’s criminal justice system.” Noting the ways “law and order” has landed more black men in prison today than were in slavery in 1850, Michelle Alexander calls it the “new Jim Crow.” Or, as Piper Kerman puts it, “orange is the new black.”
by: Alan Bean on July 9th, 2014 | 3 Comments »
(Cross-posted from Friends of Justice)
Proverbs 6:16-19 (NRSV)
16 There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that hurry to run to evil,
19 a lying witness who testifies falsely,
and one who sows discord in a family.
Everybody can define “hottie” these days; but the old-school word “haughty” doesn’t come up much in casual conversation. If you’re not familiar with the term, the Merriam-Webster dictionary provides a simple definition:
Having or showing the insulting attitude of people who think that they are better, smarter, or more important than other people.
If you would like to see haughty eyes, look no further than the faces of the men and women protesting the arrival of migrants from Central America. The woman who screamed, “we don’t want you; nobody wants you!” may have believed she was speaking for the entire nation.
by: Michael Hulshof-Schmidt on July 9th, 2014 | 6 Comments »
Credit: Creative Commons
The past few weeks have left me nonplussed regarding basic human rights and those decrying “infringement of their religious liberties.” It is difficult for me not to see organized religion as the common denominator of discord in the form of misogyny, homophobia, racism, and even further marginalizing those living in poverty.
Currently, President Obama is working on an executive order with the goal to be diverse and inclusive: federal contractors must not discriminate against LGBTQ people. Am I the only one who feels that this seems like basic common sense and good leadership? I thought our world leaders were charged with the task of expanding human rights and advocating for targeted populations. Sadly, “religious leaders” such as Rick Warren and Catholic Charities insist that this effort of equity infringes on their religious liberties. Need we remind Catholics of what religious infringement might look like, a la The Crusades and The Inquisition? You remember The Inquisition – those madcap Catholics just providing “tough love for heretics,” Jews, Muslims, and anyone not willing to convert to Catholicism.
In the wake of the foul Supreme Court decision Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which seemed like a decision made on behalf of the Catholic Pope, I am in a state of worry about how thoroughly religion dictates human rights and which religion(s) shares disproportionate power.
My understanding is that the executive order (which is not in a final draft) will not force heterosexuals to have sex with or marry people of the same sex. It will instead allow LGBTQ people a source of income – to be granted employment. Denying people employment and a way to sustain themselves and their families seems to run contrary to how I understand the purpose of religion. It leaves me asking: “who does your God hate.” Is God about hate? If we continue to travel down a road of “religious infringement” based on people who are different, how does this help to create a peaceful community of people? How does this help humans share a planet and create space for differences?
by: Warren Blumenfeld on July 1st, 2014 | Comments Off
“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.”
- Justice Samuel Alito, in the majority opinion, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
Credit: Creative Commons
We can add “Justice” Samuel Alito, “Justice” Anthony Kennedy, “Justice” John Roberts, “Justice” Clarence Thomas, and last, but certainly not least, “Justice” Antonin Scalia to the oxymoron list since this Supreme Court decision amounted to anything but justice. The five men voting in the majority denied the rights of women, most particularly working-class women employees at “closely-held” (family owned with a limited number of shareholders) for-profit corporations, which actually includes most U.S. corporations, control over their reproductive freedoms generally extended to women at other companies.
by: Roger Copple on June 30th, 2014 | 1 Comment »
Credit: Creative Commons
This article is not specifically about the exploited working class, the disappearing middle class, or the still-controlling ruling class. Instead, it is about describing how local, state, and the national governments can be improved, preferably under a new national constitution. It is not just about government; it expresses my worldview on several topics.
Some hardcore pragmatists and realists think it is foolish to contemplate ideas that may take 100 years to implement. But to idealists–visualizing the actual goal or dream is what energizes us. In the first half of this long article (I apologize), I identify some of the major political and religious groups in the United States; and then, in the second half, I propose a fair system that levels the political playing field among these diverse groups.