Low-Income Families' Empowerment through Education (LIFETIME) is seeking a Grant Writer & Development Coordinator.

LIFETIME is a statewide membership organization of low-income parents pursuing postsecondary education and training as the means to get their families off welfare – and out of poverty – for good. As a grassroots organization, the majority of our members are low-income single mothers of color who are supporting their children on welfare while completing postsecondary education and training programs.

LIFETIME’s goal is to help all low-income parents complete education and training programs and attain career-path employment at wages that support their families, while organizing for racial, social, political and economic justice for low-income families and communities. We are looking for talented individuals with a strong commitment to social and economic justice to join our growing organization, and can offer many opportunities for meaningful personal and professional growth. The Grant Writer and Development Coordinator will report to the Executive Director.

General Statement of Duties: To work with the Executive Director to write and develop funding proposals and meet reporting requirements of current funders, including identification of new potential funding sources. Experience writing government grants is required. This position will work directly with the Executive Director to secure individual, corporate, government, foundation, and major gifts with current and potential supporters.

• Writing and preparing funding proposals, letters of intent, donation letters and appeals, and all grant reporting on time.
• Coordinating the preparation of all grant reporting, including progress reports and information between departments, ensuring reports are produced on time as required by each funding source, and with any required supporting documents.
• Conducting grant and donor research, to identify new opportunities for funding including foundation, corporations, and government sources.
• Assist Executive Director in building and maintaining relations with funders and donors, including meetings and presentation to current and potential funders.
• Preparing media blasts and press releases.
• Maintaining the database and files on all funders including foundation, corporate, government, and individual donors. Tracking all grant applications, timelines, due dates, and deliverables.


Qualifications: Seeking talented individuals with excellent written and oral communication skills. Prefer at least three or more years of successful fundraising and grant writing experience working in a comparable position within a social justice or nonprofit organization. Strong organization skills and the ability to multitask are essential. Candidate must be a team player, with the ability to work independently. Computer proficiency in Windows based software programs (Word, Excel, Outlook, Publisher, FileMakerPro, Adobe and Macromedia.) LIFETIME is an equal opportunity employer.

To Apply: Please submit cover letter, resume, and writing sample to:
LIFETIME
P.O. Box 1953
San Leandro, CA 94577-0292
Fax: (510) 352-5161
contact@geds-to-phds.org

• Compensation: D.O.E. range $45,000-$47,000 Benefits offered: medical, dental, vision
• This is at a non-profit organization.
• Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
• Please, no phone calls about this job!
• Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

Be careful what you wish for is an adage worth pondering as Wales wakes up to yet another set of extraordinary twists in its 21st Century devolution journey. All along during this election campaign the overriding and tantalising question has been: will the inevitable swing to Labour be enough to push it from 26 Assembly Members to cross the barrier of 30 seats to secure a majority?

At the start of the day Labour was hovering on the edge. However, as the north Wales results came in, with the Conservatives holding Clwyd West and gaining Aberconwy, Labour stuck on 30. Could that lead to Carwyn Jones’ worst nightmare: forced to govern alone without a clear majority? Or will the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru offer him the escape route of a coalition?

Without a coalition Carwyn Jones will be taken out of the comfort zone Labour occupied during the whole of the last term when the One Wales Labour Plaid coalition luxuriated in such a large majority that the whips were made redundant.  During much of the term Karen Sinclair, Labour’s former AM for Clwyd  South, was absent due to illness, and it didn’t matter a jot. But it would in the coming term if Labour opts to run as, in effect, a minority Welsh Government.

And without being ageist, let’s not forget either that Labour will now have two septuagenarians among its ranks – Keith Davies, the new Labour AM for Llanelli, and Gwenda Thomas, who continues as AM for Neath.

In these circumstances it becomes critical whether Government or Opposition provides the Presiding Officer. Labour voices are saying they see no reason why Plaid’s Lord Dafydd Elis Thomas shouldn’t continue in the post. However, Plaid Cymru will not be keen to surrender his vote. In anticipation of the role his deputy in the last term, Newport West Labour AM Rosemary Butler has apparently been busy stocking up on her wardrobe.

Apart from living on a knife edge, without a coalition partner Carwyn Jones will struggle to find the personnel to fill his Cabinet. If Labour does end up governing alone expect a reduction in the size of the Cabinet and a new constellation of portfolios. For example Environment could be merged with Rural Affairs and Housing with Social Justice and Local Government. And, of course, there would be no need for a Deputy First Minister.

However, if Carwyn Jones decides to try governing alone Labour will have little political cover in standing up for Wales against the public spending onslaught about to be unleashed by an unsympathetic Westminster government. In particular, Wales’s financial fortunes will be laid bare when compared with the relative spending deal enjoyed by Alex Salmond’s SNP Government north of the border. With a Scottish independence referendum looming towards the end of the five-year term, the Westminster Government will find all manner of reasons for failing to look for an alternative to the Barnett funding formula which works to Scotland’s benefit but against the interest of Wales.

A couple of weeks after he became the UK Prime Minister a year ago David Cameron visited the National Assembly and said he regarded the nations of the UK as a family that he wanted to keep together, adding, “I don’t want our family to fall out over money.” Expect a good deal of falling out in the next few years, with Carwyn Jones’ Welsh Government becoming more and more frustrated and cross at its inability to wrest any concessions from a London Treasury continuing to pacify the Scots with financial largesse.

Despite all these dilemmas Welsh Labour can at least comfort itself that they are problems of success, the outcome of winning the election. Nonetheless, it will surely be looking for a coalition partner. Before the election Carwyn Jones made it clear he did not wish to lead a minority government. Thirty seats places Labour in the position it found itself in the wake of the 2003 election, living day to day at the mercy of events and negotiating one deal after another with one or the other party.

Not only that, 30 seats puts Labour under potential pressure from any discontented backbencher. This was demonstrated in the term following the 2003 election when the late Peter Law left Labour to form the People’s Voice movement in Blaenau Gwent.

Carwyn Jones will undoubtedly lean in the direction of renewing the One Wales agreement with Plaid Cymru. Although, according to today’s Western Mail, the Liberal Democrats have already made overtures to Labour, they will surely be tainted – in Labour’s eyes – because of their coalition with the Conservatives in the UK government.

Plaid Cymru undoubtedly suffered a severe setback in the election, though in some areas only by a small number of votes. Helen Mary Jones lost Llanelli by just 80 votes. In South West Wales former Plaid AM Dai Lloyd lost his List seat by only 50 votes. A similar margin cost them an extra List seat in North Wales.

Nonetheless, while Plaid Cymru struggled in the campaign to strike a distinctive note, Labour did well in the main because it very successfully presented itself as the antidote to the London Government’s assault on welfare benefits and public sector spending. But it also did well because it emphasised the Welsh dimension of its Labour identity, in the form of the personality of Carwyn Jones and his nationalist slogan ‘standing up for Wales’.

In part this was gifted him by Plaid Cymru which insisted on the referendum for greater powers as the keystone of the coalition One Wales coalition agreement. Plaid then provided the legwork in delivering the commitment while allowing Labour to take the credit and the electoral benefit. Whereas in Scotland the SNP has become the party most clearly identified with defending the nation’s interest, in Wales currently it is Labour.

This is why many in Plaid Cymru will argue that the last thing it needs is an internal argument about whether it should go into coalition again with Labour. Having delivered the referendum, they will say, it now needs a spell in the wilderness to recover its direction, its impetus, and its soul. However, this is a decision that will be made by the Plaid Group in the Assembly. I fancy their judgement, led by Ieuan Wyn Jones, will be to seek a coalition deal from Labour that they can project as being in the interests of Wales.

Constituencies Scoreboard

Party	Seats	+/-	Votes	%	% Change
Labour	28	+4	401,677	42.3	+10.1
Conservative	6	+1	236,916	25	+2.6
Plaid Cymru	5	-2	182,907	19.3	-3.1
Liberal Democrat	1	-2	100,731	10.6	-4.2
Other	0	-1	27,021	2.8	-5.4

After 40 of 40 constituencies declared

Regions Scoreboard

Party	Seats	+/-	Votes	%	+/- %
Conservative	8	+1	213,773	22.5	+1.1
Plaid Cymru	6	-2	169,799	17.9	-3.1
Liberal Democrat	4	+1	76,349	8	-3.7
Labour	2	0	349,935	36.9	+7.2
Other	0	0	139,532	14.7	-1.5
Turnout			949,388	42.2	-1.1

After 5 of 5 regions declared

The immediate problem for the Welsh Conservatives is that in polling relatively well last night, the vagaries of the Additional Member electoral system resulted in the loss of their leader, the former List member for Mid and West Wales, Nick Bourne. In addition, the loss of the Conservative’s Cardiff North AM Jonathan Morgan, who lost his seat to Labour’s Julie Morgan, has removed Nick Bourne’s obvious successor. This presents a more deep-seated problem for the Welsh Conservatives than might at first be appreciated. For between them, Bourne and Morgan have been the major influencers in putting that ‘Welsh’ in front of the party’s name over the past decade. If, for instance, Andrew R. T. Davies, who headed up the party’s List AMs in South Wales Central last night, becomes leader – as seems likely – then the Welsh identity of the Conservative Party in Wales could be blown sideways. To be sure David Melding, another strong Welsh identifier, also made it on the Conservative List in South Wales Central, but he has ruled himself out of the leadership  contest.

The Conservatives have relatively minor problems, again resulting from electoral success, when compared with those facing the Liberal Democrats. It could be said that the Welsh Liberal Democrat vote collapsed in many areas of Wales, and especially in Cardiff, through no fault of their own but because the party at the UK level went into coalition with the Conservatives. That is essentially the case, but what it says is that the Welsh electorate does not distinguish the Welsh Liberal Democrats from those in the rest of the UK. Welsh Liberal Democrats face an existential crisis about their Welsh identity.  What do they stand for that marks them out? After more than a decade of the National Assembly it remains a hard question to answer.

It is paradoxical that much the same problem faces the most distinctive party in Wales, Plaid Cymru, though of course in very different ways. It now has to judge whether it can address the fundamental issues it faces at the same time as being in a coalition government with Welsh Labour that so successfully, in this election at least, has wrapped itself in the Draig Goch. I suspect Ieuan Wyn Jones will judge that he will achieve a greater profile in doing so over the next five years, rather than choosing the alternative, which does not offer him even the position of Leader of the Opposition.

John Osmond is Director of the Institute of Welsh Affairs and a member of Plaid Cymru.

This piece was originally published on ClickOnWales.org.

Boss Lloyd Blankfein dismisses suggestions he might quit as shareholders' pay protest resolution is heavily defeated at annual meeting

Goldman Sachs boss Lloyd Blankfein has dismissed stories that he was going to resign as the Wall Street bank comfortably defused the anger of critical investors at its annual meeting.

A coalition of religious shareholders, including Jewish charity the Nathan Cummings Foundation and the Sisters of St Francis of Philadelphia, called on the company to conduct a formal review of whether its pay packages were "excessive".

Their resolution demanded the company report on how layoffs and the pay of the bank's lowest-paid workers affected the amount of money available for senior management.

Before the New Jersey meeting – one of the most contentious in its 142-year history – shareholders had called on Goldman executives to justify the combined $69.6m (£42.4m) payday its top five executives received in 2010 and to answer questions about allegations that the bank misled clients and lied to Congress.

Father Seamus Finn, of the Catholic group Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, based in Massachusetts, said: "Wall Street seems to be back to normal – the problem is, so many other people are not. Not enough is being done to restore confidence in the system."

He said $15tn of value had been destroyed by the financial crisis and ordinary people were suffering as a consequence while bankers were reaping rich rewards. "It's important to remember the magnitude of the crisis," he told Blankfein.

Blankfein said: "We are very, very mindful of the stresses and strains that led to the financial crisis and have no desire to go back to that place."

But when it came to the vote, Goldman's shareholders rejected the proposal by a massive margin. Just 4.1% of shareholders supported the resolution in a preliminary vote. Finn said his protest vote at the meeting and that of the other religious groups was part of a wider strategy aimed at getting corporations and government to focus on social justice issues. "This is a marathon, not a sprint," he said.

Veteran shareholder activist Evelyn Davis also called on Blankfein to quit.

Shareholder Kervin Puckett, from the Hanini Group, said: "He tried to make it sound like there were a few things wrong but they have got them fixed. Am I convinced? Not really. But the financial performance has been fantastic."

After the meeting a relieved-looking Blankfein said he had no intention of stepping down. "This stuff was all made up," he said. "Why would I give up all this?"

No, I don't mean the movie. The real Paris, Texas. (h/t The Field Negro)

Specifically, I am referring Bobby Yates, a resident of that lovely metropolis, who has been put on trial for sexually assaulting a 16 year old white girl. Why is this wrong? Well let's start with some basic information about Mr Yates. For example, this is a photo of him. Please take a close look:

Mr. Yates is a double amputee because of a hunting accident that occurred over 20 years ago. As a result of that accident he also had a penectomy (i.e., the removal of his penis). Mr. Yates also had his testicles removes as a result of that injury. Mr. Yates has no prior criminal record. Never been convicted of a any crime. Yet, he has been accused of sexually assaulting a 16 year old white girl with his fingers. The local prosecutor indicted him for this alleged sexual assault. His own court appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the case because Mr. Yates did not believe his attorney was doing all that he could to defend him since the attorney was insisting Mr. Yates accept a plea bargain and had refused to hire expert witnesses for the trial.

This is his story:

On March 18, 2008 at approx 1:30 or 2 AM, Bobby Yates got a knock on his door that would change his life.

A 16 year old white female and two adult white males, asked Bobby if they could enter into his home claiming they were locked out of their own homes. Bobby reluctantly allowed them in. Several hours later, Bobby made a 911 call. He told the operator that three people were in his home threatening his life and he was afraid of them and they would not leave. He said one of the three assaulted him by beating him in his face. Bobby can be heard on the 911 call telling the group to get out of his home and telling them not to come near him. The police came and Bobby told them the three had refused to leave his home and they had jerked the phone from him and prevented him from using it the first time he tried and that he had attempted to leave out his front door and they grabbed his wheelchair and prevented him from leaving. The female claimed Bobby touched her vagina even though the two men were in the same room with her the entire time she was in Bobby’s home. [...]

No arrests were made at that time. None of the three were arrested for crimes they had committed. The crimes: Preventing Bobby from making an emergency phone call, assault and preventing Bobby from leaving his home by holding him hostage.

On September 22, 2008, Bobby was arrested and charged with Sexual assault of a child. Even though Bobby called 911 for help, the police report claimed it was the female who called for help and makes no mention of Bobby being assaulted. It does mention that the female was so high on drugs that her speech was slurred. In order to get an indictment, a mug shot was taken of Bobby making it appear as if he was not handicapped. His weight was omitted and the fact that he had no lower limbs was omitted.

Bobby received 4 different evictions from his handicapped accessible home due to his arrest. Manager Kimberly Reavis insisted that she wanted Bobby out. With the help of Lone Star Legal Aid, Bobby remained in his home. In February of 2009, Bobby was awakened by Kimberly Reavis, and informed of racist graffiti on his back porch. The graffiti was threatening “Move out nigger or die”, “KKK, “Whites Only” and etc. The police were notified but so far, no arrests were ever made.

Bobby’s only source of income is $674 which he receives from SSI. In March of 2009, he received a letter from Social Security Administration informing him his benefits were being cut off due to his having been arrested and the warrant that had been issued at that time. Medical assistance was also terminated. With the assistance of Lone Star Legal Aid, Bobby’s SSI and assistance was reinstated.

The Judge in the case, Eric Clifford, placed a gag order and sealed the records. That order has now been lifted. I just spoke to a clerk at the Lamar County Court - Criminal Division to confirm that fact. The clerk I spoke to was friendly, but she wasn't sure if all the court records had been unsealed or merely those filed after the gag order was lifted. As she told me over the phone, gag orders are rarely issued in Lamar Count (the county in which Paris, Texas is located) so she was not familiar with all the details of what court records can be obtained.

I intend to fax a request for the prosecutor's indictment and perhaps other records, but since copies of the records cost $1 per page, and the file is large (so I was informed by the clerk) I'm uncertain how much I can afford to pay for. My budget is limited. The fax number to request copies of the records is 1-903-785-4905. Those court records that would presumably include Grand Jury testimony by Mr. Yates' accuser, the other two white males who were present in his home at the time of the alleged assault and the police officer who responded to the 911 call.

In any case, I find it odd that Mr. Yates, a double amputee, without any sex organs, is being tried for the crime of sexual assault. His physical condition at the very least arguably gives rise to reasonable doubt. Perhaps his story is a complete fabrication, but considering his race, the race of his accuser, and the past history of unequal and discriminatory prosecutions against black men alleged to have sexually assaulted white women in this country, I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the prosecution.

The fact that the Judge originally issued a gag order sealing the court records from public scrutiny is one red flag.

The fact the Mr. Yates was not arrested until 6 months after the alleged crime took place is another major red flag.

My real hope is that that a major news organization will investigate the case and order the complete court file before Mr. Yates' trial begins on May 26th. A Google search reveals only one news story in WiredPRNews, which is essentially the reposting of the press release issued by Justice for Bobby Yates. Obviously, this is case that isn't on any media outlet's radar.

Meanwhile Chang.org is seeking an investigation by the Department of Justice of the Lamar County Attorney's actions in this case and at least several others that raise suspicions about his possible abuse of his office. Go to this website if you would like to sign their petition demanding Attorney General Eric Holder intervene.

When or if I can obtain further information about this case I will post it here. Thanks for reading.

Discuss

Alliance with Liberal Democrats looks likely after party led by Carwyn Jones claims 30 of 60 seats in regional election

Labour narrowly failed to secure an overall majority at the Welsh assembly, opening up the possibility of an alliance with the Liberal Democrats.

The party won 30 of the 60 seats, four more than in 2007 but still one short of what it needed for an absolute majority, and its members will spend the weekend discussing how best to form a government.

Carwyn Jones, the Labour leader, said the people of Wales had sent out the message that they wanted the party to govern, but he was careful not to rule out the possibility of some sort of partnership.

"The one thing the people of Wales have said very clearly to us is they want Labour to stand up for them and they want Labour to lead the next Welsh government," Jones said.

But he added: "Over the next few days all the parties will be considering their positions. The opposition parties have had some severe disappointments and things need to settle before they think about their position."

Labour has, though, ruled out the possibility of working with the Tories and has spent the past four years governing in coalition with the nationalists, Plaid Cymru.

One intriguing option is that the Lib Dems, who have done so badly elsewhere, could play some sort of role in government at the assembly.

Kirsty Williams, the leader of the Welsh Lib Dems, accepted that Jones would be first minister.

Asked if she would work with Labour, she said: "The ball is in the Labour party's court. We'll have to wait and see. Our approach would be to create a stable government and to be able to use our influence to push forward the elements of our manifesto we have campaigned on. This is the time for all the political parties to get some sleep and a little bit of rest and reflect what the Welsh people have decided."

The wipeout of Lib Dems in Wales that had been predicted by some did not happen. The party lost the prized seat of Cardiff Central and saw its vote fall significantly in urban areas where it has worked hard, such as Pontypridd (down by 10%) and Newport East and Swansea West (both down by 9%).

But despite trailing behind the BNP in Blaenau Gwent, the Lib Dems ended up with five seats – a net loss of just one.

The Conservatives lost their assembly leader, Nick Bourne, and one of his lieutenants, Jonathan Morgan – who was beaten by Julie Morgan, the wife of the former first minister Rhodri Morgan in Cardiff North.

But the Tories ended up with 14 seats, up two on four years ago.

The Welsh secretary, Cheryl Gillan, said it had been a good result for the Tories and a bad one for Labour. "If they can't get an overall majority now, it's not a good performance," she said.

The biggest losers were Plaid Cymru, the junior partners of the coalition with Labour, with 11 seats, down from 15.

The party's deputy leader, Helen Mary Jones, lost to Labour in Llanelli and concluded it had done badly because Labour had turned the election into a "referendum on what the Conservative government is doing in Westminster". Plaid's leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, faced questions over his position even before counting had begun. He said Plaid would assess whether it had been damaged by being in power with Labour. But he added: "It was the right thing to do for Plaid and for Wales."

The former Labour Welsh secretary Ron Davies, now a Plaid member, failed to win in Caerphilly and expressed frustration that the issues the election was fought on were UK-wide rather than Welsh.

Labour could still go it alone, and has previously governed with 30 seats, but many members may be reluctant to follow that challenging course again.

Senior Labour figures called for a period of calm. Carl Sargeant, minister for social justice and local government, said "long discussions" would take place over the weekend and a "collective decision" would be arrived at.

The Rhondda assembly member, Leighton Andrews, said he expected a "Labour-led" government with Labour first minister in charge next week.

"Europe-wide laws which require telecommunications companies to notify users if their data is at risk should be extended, the European justice commissioner has said. Privacy rules created under the EU's Electronic Communications Framework should be extended to cover online banking, video games, shopping and social media, Viviane Reding said in a speech (in German)...."

Majorie Hill, CEO of the Gay Men's Health Crisis, has issued a statement directed at NY state Sen. Ruben Diaz, who has again scheduled a massive anti-gay rally on the same day as the AIDS Walk in Central Park.

Sadly, in the mid-afternoon on the 15th, a march against same-sex marriage will be hosted by state Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. in the Bronx.We are distressed that Senator Diaz would focus his attention on increasing homophobia which is a lethal driver of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. A recent study reported that gay couples who are affirmed in their relationships are less likely to place themselves at risk for HIV. Similar findings by other studies have shown that anti-gay bullying and other forms of homophobia can place lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals at higher risk for HIV.

Research has also shown that same-sex marriage has disproportionately positive effects for gay and lesbian couples of color. From our work each day, we know that homophobia and stigma still affect people living with HIV/AIDS and can create barriers to accessing healthcare and support.GMHC as an organization and AIDS Walk New York as a fundraiser promote social justice, equality and equal access for all. To show support for people affected by HIV/AIDS and solidarity for same-sex couples who will soon have the same human rights as heterosexual couples, New Yorkers are encouraged to join us and walk for AIDS Walk New York."

It sounds a bit like Hill is discouraging counter-protesting at the Diaz event.

(Via - Steven Thrasher @ Village Voice)

My mother, Eileen Carragher, who has died aged 91, was an inspirational teacher, a founder member of the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP) in Northern Ireland, and a mother of eight, including triplets.

She was born in Belfast and attended St Dominic's girls' school in the Falls Road and then Queen's University, graduating in 1941 with a degree in Irish and mathematics. In 1945 she married Tom Carragher, a shipyard electrician and trade unionist, who served as an Irish Labour councillor on the Belfast corporation. In the mid-1950s he was laid off, as many Catholics were at the time. It is a tribute to both Tom and Eileen that, despite this, they brought their children up to look at the person, not the creed, and to respect all.

Tom, a self-taught horologist, then ran a jewellery shop. Financial pressures and her own ambition brought Eileen into the workplace as a teacher, first at St Louise's secondary school and then back to St Dominic's, where she taught for the rest of her career. She is fondly remembered by generations of women to whom she explained the mysteries of compound fractions and quadratic equations. But she also brought to her teaching the skills of a mother. She understood adolescent girls and also knew how tough it could be for parents struggling to make ends meet.

Her own family were far from immune as the Troubles took hold. She and Tom were founder members of the SDLP, seeing in it politics that chimed with their own beliefs in constitutional nationalism and social justice. But like many, they were tested. Tom's shop was burnt out in the summer of 1970. Their home was attacked, their son was threatened and had to leave Belfast, friends and neighbours were killed. The staff at St Dominic's strove to make the school a place of peace and refuge for pupils and Eileen, who became its vice-principal in 1976, was at the forefront of these efforts.

Tom died suddenly in 1977. Eileen threw herself into her work for the SDLP and for PACE – Protestant and Catholic Encounter. She is survived by her children, Rosaleen, Brenda, Breigeen, Owen, Patrick, Kathleen, Fionnuala and me, 14 grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.

The Lahore High Court on Thursday sought till May 10 record of previous petitions filed against the social networking website, Facebook, for blasphemous content. Justice Azmat Saeed passed the order on a petition seeking a permanent ban on Facebook in Pakistan for holding a contest called the 2nd Annual Draw Muhammad Day. The petition was [...]

CUNY's withdrawal of Kushner's honorary degree exposes the widening rift within American Jewry over attitudes to Israel

Tony Kushner may be many things. An American playwright. An instigator. A prodder. A gay man. A Jew. What he is not is an antisemite. What he is not is an Israel-basher. Does he question Israeli policy? He does. And in the new Jew v Jew world of American Jewish discourse, those questions are tantamount to dismissing the state in its entirety. As a result, a reputation has been slandered and all nuance in this conversation has, yet again, has been set aside.

On 2 May, the City University of New York's board of trustees voted not to proceed with the award of an honorary degree to Kushner – an honorific that was to be given during this month's commencement address at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It was the first time in 50 years that CUNY had chosen to withhold a degree from a candidate whose name had come before the board. At issue was not Kushner's long list of accomplishments – the playwright who penned the Pulitzer Prize winning Angels in America, Perestroika and Homebody Kabul, among many, many others, is more than worthy. Instead, the concern raised, and flamed, by one trustee – Jeffrey S Weisenfeld – came regarding Kushner's position on Israel. Weisenfeld stated that Kushner had called Israel's Palestinian policy in the 1948 war as one of "ethnic cleansing", claimed the playwright had supported a boycott of Israel, declared he had criticised the Israeli defence force. In an open letter to the university board of trustees, Kushner called Weisenfeld's successful attack a "grotesque caricature" of his position "concocted out of three contextless quotes".

And then, as only he can, Kushner took apart their criticism. (He was not, he has repeatedly pointed out, invited to defend his case before the board).

"My questions and reservations regarding the founding of the state of Israel are connected to my conviction, drawn from my reading of American history, that democratic government must be free of ethnic or religious affiliation, and that the solution to the problems of oppressed minorities are to be found in pluralist democracy. I am very proud of being Jewish, and discussing this issue publicly has been hard; but I believe in the absolute good of public debate, and I feel that silence on the part of Jews who have questions is injurious to the life of the Jewish people. My opinion about the wisdom of the creation of a Jewish state has never been expressed in any form without a strong statement of support for Israel's right to exist, and my ardent wish that it continue to do so, something Mr Weisenfeld conveniently left out of his remarks."

He went on to say that his position regarding the forced removal of Palestinians in 1948 was formed by reading renowned Israeli historian Benny Morris, and that:

"My outrage, my grief, my terror, my moments of despair – regarding the ongoing horror in the Middle East, the brunt of which has been born by the Palestinian people, but which has also cost Israelis dearly and which endangers their existence, are shared by many Jews, in Israel, in the US and around the world. My despair is kept in check by my ongoing belief in and commitment to a negotiated conclusion to the Palestinian-Israeli crisis."

Like many American Jews, Kushner is in the midst of a process, and is engaged in a thoughtful, nuanced, painful conversation with his colleagues, his family, his friends about the nature of democracy, the future of Zionism, and the context in which the state of Israel might finally make peace with the Palestinians. He is affiliated with a half dozen Jewish organisations in New York. He is on the advisory board of the Jewish Voices for Peace; but while some on the board have called for a boycott of Israel, he has not, and he does not believe in disinvestment.

And yet, the very fact that he has had to spell this out is a travesty. Is Jewish heritage and fealty to the Jewish state a monolith? Is there one means of living Jewishly in diaspora? One means of respecting the state of Israel? The idea that one's relationship to Israel must be uniformly unquestioning is in and of itself the gravest of errors; it is one that will further marginalise and divide a community that is increasingly at war with itself.

Like Peter Beinart's seminal essay in the New York Review of Books, which pointed out to Jewish leadership that the youth of the Jewish community is betwixt and between, bothered and confused, nurtured with beliefs in social justice but encouraged not to question Israel, and thus were turning away from the state, the disenchantment of Tony Kushner will be seen as another deep fissure in an increasingly fractured community. Rather than embracing debate on the future of the state of Israel, there are those in the community who would like to shut down conversation. These are the same voices that have pointed fingers at J Street, the new Jewish pro-Israel lobbying organisation that questions the actions of Israel with regard to the Arab minority – and which has called this week's decision of CUNY's board of trustees "misguided".

And yet the oddest, most disturbing, aspect of this tempest in a Manhattan teapot, is that CUNY isn't, ostensibly, a Jewish institution. It is a centre for higher learning, a place for debate, for raising consciousness, not for dictating the terms of discourse. Division of opinion, one might think, should be debated, if not celebrated, as opposed to quashed. Thirty years ago, CUNY finally apologised to faculty dismissed during the McCarthy era. Will they be forced to do the same for Tony Kushner?

• Comments on this article are set to remain open for 24 hours from the time of publication but may be closed overnight

by Charles Ornstein and Tracy Weber

#slideshow{ width: 350px; min-height: 330px; } #slideshow .slide-caption{ width: 350px; } #slideshow .item img{ width: 350px; height: 220px; margin-bottom: 10px; } #slideshow .photo-caption.slide-caption{ line-height: 1.2em; } #slideshow div.slide-label{ font-weight: bold; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; } #slideshow .slide-pager{ top: 315px; }

This story has been co-published with USA TODAY.

SAN FRANCISCO — From the time they arrived to the moment they laid their heads on hotel pillows, the thousands of cardiologists attending this week’s Heart Rhythm Society conference have been bombarded with pitches for drugs and medical devices.

St. Jude Medical adorns every hotel key card. Medtronic ads are splashed on buses, banners and the stairs underfoot. Logos splay across shuttle bus headrests, carpets and cellphone-charging stations.

In celebration of the Diversity in YA Fiction Tour, enter to win a copy of two, randomly selected books by participating authors!

Join the authors this month in San Francisco, Austin, Chicago, Cambridge and New York. See schedule and details!

To enter the giveaway, comment here or email me (scroll and click envelope) and type "Diversity" in the subject line. Deadline: midnight CST May 27. Note: author-sponsored; U.S. entries only.

Cynsational Giveaway Reminder

Enter to win a signed copy of The Owl Keeper by Christine Brodien-Jones (Delacorte, 2010). First prize: a hardcover copy. Second and third prize: paperback copies. To enter the giveaway, comment at this link or email me (scroll and click envelope) and type "Owl Keeper" in the subject line. Deadline: midnight CST May 27. Note: Author sponsored; U.S./Canada entries only. See also Christine on Writing Scary But Not Too Scary for Tweens.

More News & Giveaways

An Address and a Map Discovering Your Genius as a Writer by Tim Wynne-Jones from The Writers' League of Texas. Peek: "...I’m talking about the genius that each of us possesses to some degree: a natural ability or capacity or quality of mind; the special endowments which fit each of us for our work."

Children's Choice Book Awards Announced (PDF) from The Children’s Book Council (CBC) in association with Every Child A Reader, and the CBC Foundation. Rick Riordan was named author of the year, and David Wiesner was named illustrator of the year. See the complete list of winners.

JanePeddicord.com Space Blog: Where Kids Question the Cosmos. Peek: "SpaceBlog is place for kids to ask questions, to exchange ideas, and always to discover more about space. Of course, educators, parents, and space enthusiasts of all ages are welcome to join in, too!" Learn more about Jane Ann Peddicord.

Author Interview: Tim Tingle by Marie Penny at The Hub from YALSA. Peek: "My mentor, the Choctaw tribal storyteller Charley Jones says, 'tell the stories', but make sure the origin is acknowledged. The Choctaw tribe is very open, you don’t have to be Choctaw to tell the story, but you must respect the tribal origins." Source: American Indians in Children's Literature.

Lee B. Hopkins Poetry Award Teaching Toolbox: teacher guides and book trailers for the LBH award books.

The Interminable Agency Clause by Victoria Strauss from Writer Beware. Peek: "...language inserted into an author-agency agreement whereby the agency claims the right to remain the agent of record not just for the duration of any contracts it negotiates, but for the life of copyright." See also On Agency Agreements by Jennifer Laughran from Jennifer Represents...

Spaghetti Agents by Nathan Bransford. Peek: "They sign up a bunch of writers even when they're unsure about a project, they throw the manuscripts at publishers, and they see what sticks." See also Nathan on Separating Confidence from Self-Doubt.

Book Talking and Preparing for Focus Meeting by Little, Brown editor Alvina Ling from Blue Rose Girls. Peek: "....because I only have between 1 and 2 minutes to present each title, the presentation needs to be really tight. I want to touch on the summary of the book...."

Castellucci Joins 'Los Angeles Review of Books' as YA and Children's Editor by Wendy Werris from Publishers Weekly. Peek: "'So few venues review YA and teen books regularly, and even then it’s usually bestsellers and known authors, so this is an opportunity to assign reviews to the quieter books and older titles,' Castellucci says."

From Publishers Marketplace: "Nikki Loftin’s debut novel The Sinister Sweetness of Splendid Academy, pitched as Coraline meets Hansel and Gretel, about a young girl whose seemingly delightful new school hides frightening secrets, to Laura Arnold at Razorbill, in a two-book deal, for publication in Summer 2012, by Suzie Townsend at Fineprint Literary Management (World)." Congratulations, Nikki!

Twitter Tutorial: The Long Version by Lynne Kelly from Will Write for Cake. Peek: "It's not okay to pitch your novel or query an agent or editor via Twitter, but following them is a great way to find out what's going on in the publishing industry and with their own work...."

Attention New Yorkers: anticipated budget cuts in NYC would effectively shut down many libraries, reduce hours and staff. Please stop by your local library or click to your local library website to sign a petition to save the libraries. See Queens Library, Brooklyn Public Library, and New York Public Library.

Pay-It-Forward ARC Giveaway Contest from Dawn Metcalf. Enter to win advanced reader copies of Dreamland Social Club by Tara Altebrando and Luminous by Dawn Metcalf (both Dutton, 2011). Deadline: May 7. See more information.

Career Planning: Who, Me? by Kristi Holl from Writer's First Aid. Peek: "...making a writing budget–the nuts and bolts of figuring out how much income you need, where it’s going to come from (all possible sources,) and what to do to get it. You’ll want to study this too." Note: Kristi references Chip MacGregor's excellent post Strategic Planning for Writers, but her pep talk/insights/summary are worth considering, too.

Author Advances: How Much You'll Get and When by Author/Agent Mandy Hubbard. Peek: "If you sell a book to one of the big six publishers, and it's a single book deal, and it's something deemed more quiet or literary, you may see $7,500-$10,000. if it has a bigger commercial hook, but still seems a little risky, you may get $15,000." Note: keep in mind that authors also make money from royalties, sub rights sales, public speaking, etc.

Career Insurance: Five Ways to Sell Your Next Book Before Its Written by Roni Loren from Fiction Groupie. Note: emphasis on series writing. Peek: "Unless you're writing the next blockbuster of the century, one book does not a career make. One book is just the gun going off at the starter gate." Source: QueryTracker.netBlog.

2011 Jane Addams Children's Book Awards from Mitali Perkins. The younger children's category winner is Emma’s Poem: The Voice of the Statue of Liberty by Linda Glaser, illustrated by Claire A. Nivola (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt), and the older children's category winner is A Long Walk to Water: Based on a True Story by Linda Sue Park (Clarion). See honor books. Note: "Since 1953, the Jane Addams Children's Book Award honors books published in the U.S. during the previous year that engage children in thinking about peace, justice, world community, and/or equality of the sexes and all races. The books also must meet conventional standards of literary and artistic excellence."

From Publishers Marketplace: "Brian Yansky's Fighting Alien Nation, the sequel to Alien Invasion and Other Inconveniences, which continues the story of the survivors of an alien invasion, again to Candlewick, with Kaylan Adair to edit, by Sara Crowe at Harvey Klinger (world English). Congratulations, Brian!

For Writers: Race and Science Fiction and Fantasy by Mary Anne Mohanraj from Whatever. Peek: "...it’s easy to be paralyzed by that fear, to retreat back to only writing characters who are just like you, or so vague that they can’t possibly be mistaken for anyone real. But again — that makes for bad fiction. If you’re going to write well, you have to get past those fears." See also Your Process of Creating Characters Across Culture or Class from Mitali Perkins from Mitali's Fire Escape.

Point of View in Picture Books in Celebration of National Picture Book Writing Week from Paula Yoo from Write Like You Mean It. Peek: "Look at picture books that are written from different points of view. Compare a picture book written in first person versus third person limited. What are the differences?"

"Birthing a Book: Revelations about the Publishing Process," the transcript of a chat with Bonny Becker from the Institute of Children's Literature.

I Live in the Middle of Nowhere. How Can I Promote My Book? by Kristina Springer from Author2Author. Peek: "...it's hard to get a book faced out at the book store for more than a couple of months. So what can I do?"

Hunger Mountain Critique Auction

Hunger Mountain Critique Auction: Bid for a chance to win critiques from authors, illustrators, and agents from picture books to YA and beyond. See details on:

• 50-page YA manuscript critique with author Holly Cupala;
• illustrator's portfolio critique with Julian Hector;
• picture book critique with agent Jill Corcoran;
• full childrens/YA manuscript critique with agent Elena Mechlin; 50-page middle grade/YA manuscript critique with author Sara Zarr;
• picture book/poetry for children critique with Janet Wong;
• 30-page middle grade/YA critique with agent Joan Slattery;
• newly listed 50-page middle grade critique with agent Erin Murphy;
• 50-page middle grade/YA critique with agent Ammi-Joan Paquette;
• children's/middle grade/Y​A critique with agent Emily Van Beek;
• YA novel (20-page) or poem/story critique with author G. Neri;
• 50-page children's literature critique with author Sara Pennypacker.

Note: Hunger Mountain is the Vermont College of Fine Arts Journal of the Arts, featuring an in-depth focus on children's-YA literature.

Cynsational Screening Room

Check out the book trailer for Bats at the Ballgame by Brian Lies (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010).



Edit Letter Fun: Butcher or Coddler? from lynnekelly2000.



More Personally

This week I turned in my revision of my upcoming YA Gothic fantasy novel, which will be the next fully prose addition to the Tantalize series.

To the left, we see Bashi in the guet room, helping to guard the manuscript as I read through it, tweaking text.

To the right, we see Leo, lounging on Greg's copy of the draft in the parlor. Greg, the kitties, and I read the manuscript out loud to catch typos, missing words, and other minor issues. I'm especially include to skip right over two-letter words like "to," "of," "on," and "so."

See also Official Writer Cat Bios.

I'm pleased to announce that actress Kim Mai Guest will be reading as the character Quincie P. Morris for the audio edition of Blessed for Listening Library/Random House.

Kim Mai also performed as Quincie in the audio production of Tantalize (Listening Library, 2008).

Reminder: all blurb requests must come from editors or agents. Never authors. No exceptions.

Tantalize Reviewed by Anna from Troublingly Good Teen Lit. Peek: "This book could help teens who find themselves with more responsibility than they can handle, or whose parents/guardians are absent. It could also help teens who feel they may have a drinking problem."

Holler Loudly Reviewed by Becca Huttman from South Sound Book Review Council. Peek: "This is a cute story that is just fun. It has lots of action, adventure and fun illustrations."

Holler Loudly Reviewed by GAHome2Mom from Loving Heart Designs. Peek: "...a wonderfully humorous book to share with any young child."

Check out the Holler Loudly Teacher Guides by Shannon Morgan for PreK, Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2!

Personal Links of the Week:

• The Beginning: Or As Nike Advertises: Just Do It from Bethany Hegedus
• Possibly the Best Thing About My Job from Jennifer Ziegler
• The Right Word from Brian Yansky
• Look for the "No" to Find the "Yes" by Lindsey Lane from The Meandering Lane
• Interesting Stats on Librarians by Naomi Bates from YA Books and More
• Look for Susan Salzman Raab's latest "To Market" column, "Social Media: Time Well Spent - and Time Consuming" in the May/June 2011 SCBWI Bulletin.
• Cynthia Leitich Smith at Wikipedia

Cynsational Events

Diversity in YA Fiction: Austin Tour Stop 7:30 p.m. May 9 at BookPeople. Featuring authors With authors Bethany Hegedus, Malinda Lo, Guadalupe Garcia McCall, Cindy Pon, Dia Reeves, and Jo Whittemore, and moderated by Varian Johnson.

Chris Barton will be signing Can I See Your ID? True Stories of False Identities, illustrated by Paul Hoppe (Dial, 2011) at 7 p.m. May 14 at BookPeople in Austin. See discussion guide. See also Chris on Unbridled Silliness and Carefully Researched Truth-telling.

The Chills and Thrills Book Tour will be stopping at 2 p.m. May 15 at BookPeople. Turn out for authors Mari Mancusi, Tera Lynn Childs, Sophie Jordan, Jordan Dane, Lara Chapman, Jennifer Archer, and Tracy Deebs.

The First Annual BooksmART Festival will be from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. June 11 as part of Arts & Letters Live from the Dallas Museum of Art. Peek: "Come spend the day with authors, illustrators, musicians and actors, and enjoy talks, workshops, gallery tours, and entertainment, designed to appeal to every member of the family and every age group." Featured children's-YA book creators include Rick Riordan, Norton Juster, Laurie Halse Anderson, David Wiesner, Jerry Pinkney, Gene Luen Yang, Cynthia Leitich Smith, Duncan Tonatiuh, Antonio Sacre, Joe McDermott, Jan Bozarth, and Ann Marie Newman.

Authors Jennifer Ziegler and Cynthia Leitich Smith will speak to YA readers at 2 p.m. June 18 at Bee Cave Public Library in Bee Cave, Texas. Mark your calendars for book talk and pizza!

Austin Bat Cave Offers YA Writing Workshop with Margo Rabb from May 31 to July 5. See more information.

OStatic (blog)

Linux as Social Justice Symbol - I Think Not OStatic (blog) Either this young writer is a product of the socialistic indoctrination running rabid throughout the world or he just has a profound lack of understanding of Open Source software. He might as well join in Ballmer's choir and sing Linux is communism. ... and more »

What Is Building Change?  The first-ever gathering of people and organizations from across Southwestern Pennsylvania – community members and leaders, human services providers and small business owners, union members, grantmakers, filmmakers, artists, entertainers, students, media representatives, people from all backgrounds and interests – who share a common goal of advancing social justice and change in [...]

Editors' Note: Guest blogger Brett Stockdill is a queer, HIV positive activist, teacher and scholar in Chicago. He is an Associate Professor in Sociology, Women's Studies, and Latino & Latin American Studies at Northeastern Illinois University. His four-part series, "Living in the Borderlands," will be running every morning this week. You can start the series with the first post, "The Odyssey of the Utterly Fabulous Mario Sierra

"God bless the world" -- Mario Sierra*

As Mario came to grips with being HIV positive, he continued to make decisions to not only improve his life, but to support friends and family and struggle for social justice. In the 2000s, with the support of his various communities, he gained legal residency and then citizenship, fortified his relationship with his family of origin, and dove deeper into grassroots activism.

Mario's family of choice - gay and straight, foreign- and US-born, multiethnic - played a crucial role in his path to citizenship. His tightly knit Venezuelan émigré community in Los Angeles generously offered emotional and legal support in this process.

Mario's gay friends also assisted him with outsmarting the patently discriminatory ban on HIV positive immigrants. Daniel, an HIV positive citizen, connected Mario with Nestor, an HIV negative undocumented immigrant, who pretended to be Mario and took an HIV test that was a part of the Green Card medical exam (until 2010). "Mario" tested negative.

With these and other hurdles crossed, Mario became a legal resident of the United States. After 14 years, Mario was able to travel to Venezuela to visit his entire family without fearing that he would be unable to return to the US. He became a citizen in 2009.

Continue reading "Surpassing Borders: Living in the Borderlands"...

Leading Kenyan anti-corruption campaigner John Githongo talks to Madeleine Bunting

"Corruption cannot be tackled from the top, it has to be confronted from the grassroots," so says John Githongo, a man who knows what he's talking about. In 2005 he resigned his senior position in the Kenyan government fighting corruption and went into exile in London after he believed his life was in danger. Such was his reputation that donors cut aid to Kenya, and the reputation of President Mwai Kibaki's government was seriously damaged.

Six years on and Githongo is still as passionately committed to the battle against corruption in Kenya as ever, but now his energies are taken up by building grassroots organisations to challenge the political system rather than working from inside government. After several years in exile, he is back in Kenya and has just launched a new campaign Ni Sisi Kenya (Ni sisi means "it is us").

This week Githongo was in London giving evidence to the parliamentary international development committee in his other role as a commissioner on the Independent Commission for Aid Impact – the new body set up by Andrew Mitchell, the UK development secretary, which will be unveiling its plan of work next Thursday. His appointment on the commission is testimony to Githongo's credibility as one of Africa's most dogged critics of corruption; his experiences since his return to Kenya in 2008 have deepened his analysis of the causes and consequences of poor governance across the continent.

"The biggest problem in Kenya – and across sub-Saharan Africa – is not poverty but inequality. Many African countries are growing at rates of 7%-8% a year, but this is destabilising if it is not accompanied by equity. In highly heterogeneous societies, structural inequality is easier to politicise, and you do that by ethnicising it – as happened in Kenya in 2008. And then you militarise these conflicts using party youth militias.

"That combination fundamentally undermines democracy because it leads to mobilisation along ethnic lines, and that becomes toxic. You can blame an entire group for your woes."

Githongo argues that the single biggest challenge in development is ensuring security for the poor. Without security, investment in health and education is wasted. The social enterprise he set up in 2008, the Inuka Kenya Trust, works across the country with local partners to initiate schemes to build security. But what constantly threatens security is the destabilising impact of inequality.

"We have a model of economic management across the world in which entire sections of the population are being left behind. The proportion living in poverty in Kenya is increasing despite a growing economy," says Githongo.

But the country's ability to tackle inequality is crippled by corruption. Githongo quotes estimates that a third of the Kenyan government revenue is siphoned away into private bank accounts. It is only a mass grassroots campaign that can challenge such an entrenched system, believes Githongo as he reflects on his efforts when he was appointed to a high-level cabinet post by Kibaki to root out corruption.

"Ordinary people have to fight corruption that they see in their daily lives. It has to be a mass movement, said the first African appointed to tackle corruption, Justice Joseph Sinde Warioba, in Tanzania, and he was right.'

According to Githongo's analysis, in the late 80s and early 90s, there was a significant escalation of corruption when multiparty elections were brought in, and it led to political turmoil – and civil war in at least six countries. Whereas in authoritarian regimes corruption had been used to entrench patronage systems, they were at least stable; in the democracies that emerged in Africa in the early 90s, it triggered a scramble for resources with which to fight elections. It's been estimated that 10% of Kenya's tax base ($1bn) was extracted to fight the 1992 election.

But Githongo is hopeful. "The political narrative is changing – and we have seen that across the Arab world where human development indicators have been steadily improving in the last decade – but a new generation was frustrated by inequality and corruption. The system of governance had not kept up.

"In sub-Saharan Africa we also see a new generation, and they have new forms of communication with mobile, radio and the internet. Sixty per cent of the Kenyan population is under 18; at the next election, there will be 6 million new voters. The state cannot control communications as it did in the past."

Unemployment is a massive issue for this new generation, argues Githongo, and one of the projects run by Inuka Kenya Trust takes youngsters and gives them enterprise training and education in "basic life skills".

"Their socialisation process has not involved trust, so we take them out of their comfort zone to build trust. They go on boot camps in the wild, camping."

The young men live alongside those from other tribes and learn to collaborate. "We believe that dignity comes before development. Unless someone believes in themselves first, you will push them into a hard world and they will retreat into a gang, and a destructive ethnic identity. We need to build and strengthen a national identity. We draw in Kenyan middle-class volunteers to help run these programmes. We believe we have to get the middle-class into development at a grassroots level, it shouldn't be left to the aid industry, foreigners and churches."

On aid, Githongo shows some scepticism – an appropriate qualification for his role on the commission. He is scathing of the bureaucratisation of aid and a culture of "workshops and per diems" that destroy development. Aid is best used building the capacities of citizens to improve governance, but Kenya needs to work towards a future in which it doesn't need aid, he argues.

And he has one final word of warning: "The relevance of western aid to the developing world is declining exponentially. China can sign a deal worth ten times the amount the UK government is offering Kenya in aid."

The teenage lives lost in custody are due to systemic failures that must be addressed

The tragic news that five teenagers have apparently taken their own lives in custody underlines the need for a complete overhaul of the way we treat young people in conflict with the law. These latest are not isolated cases. Since 1990 we have seen the deaths of 31 children aged 14–17 and 117 aged 18-19, the majority self-inflicted.

Our work with bereaved families through arranging their legal representation at inquests has made a significant contribution to exposing what happens behind the closed doors of custody.

We now know, from previous cases, that Joseph Scholes, a 16-year-old with known mental health problems, was incarcerated in brutal conditions that after nine days propelled him to acts of self-harm. In an ultimate act of despair, he made a noose from a bed sheet and attached it to his cell bars.

Gareth Myatt, a 15-year-old boy, died after three members of staff restrained him. They continued despite his protests that he could not breathe and was going to defecate, which he did.

Adam Rickwood, at 14 the youngest child to die in custody, was found hanging hours after being hit on the nose by staff using a painful state-sanctioned "nose distraction technique", subsequently found to be unlawful.

Liam McManus, a 15-year-old serving one month and 14 days for breach of licence, was found hanging from his cell bars, a death the inquest jury decided was due to "systemic failings".

Our research, based on case studies of children, examined the policy issues raised by these deaths and the investigations. It looked at the social and political context and argued for the abolition of penal custody for children, and the need for radical alternatives.

The lives of children and young people in custody are characterised by social inequality, educational failure, drug, alcohol and mental health problems, experience of abuse, bereavement and neglect. Their custodial experience exacerbates and compounds this vulnerability.

We have witnessed inquest after inquest where the same failings are revealed. The starting point is that extremely young people are being remanded and sentenced to custody (sometimes at great distances from home) in institutions that do not have the resources, facilities or trained staff to keep them safe and deal with their complex needs. And yet vulnerable children are still being placed in penal custody, and there has been a reduction in the more child-centred approach offered by secure children's homes. High reconviction rates illustrate the failure of this approach.

Indifference to these deaths has coincided with increasing demonisation and criminalisation of young people and the use of punitive political rhetoric. "Antisocial" young people are seen as undeserving and in need of control, discipline and punishment rather than care and support.

Many of these tragedies were entirely preventable and amount to a failure by the state in its duty of care. Investigations and inquests are case specific, held in isolation, subject to serious delay and do not ensure that lessons are learned.

The youth justice system needs more profound scrutiny and there is an urgent need for a holistic inquiry, in public, to examine the wider systemic and policy issues. Such an inquiry could look at the similarities between cases as well as focusing on child welfare and youth justice policy.

The fact that successive governments have not seen fit to hold such an inquiry smacks of unaccountability and makes it impossible to learn from failures that have cost children and young people their lives. We can only hope that the deaths of five teenagers in prison and young offenders' institutions in as many weeks shocks the government into decisive action.

The San Francisco Film Society wrapped its 54th San Francisco International Film Festival (April 21 - May 5) with 265 screenings of 193 films from 48 countries, which were attended by 278 filmmakers and industry guests from 22 countries around the globe.

"I had a hell of a good time!" exclaimed Frank Pierson, recipient of this year's Kanbar Award for excellence in screenwriting. "I enjoyed the informality of spirit and the professionalism of execution of the whole event."

This spirit was passed on to the audience, who helped the Festival to sell out 130 screenings during its 15-day run, emphasizing the strong demand for the unique programming that the Film
Society brings to the Bay Area. Of particular popularity were the 134 screenings featuring special guests.  

"Once again our audience brought a unique enthusiasm and knowledge to the Festival," said Graham Leggat, SFFS executive director. "This was combined with the Festival's original programming, headed by Director of Programming Rachel Rosen, which featured numerous live events and a record number of films by female directors.
Together they made this year's International truly one to remember."

The audience enthusiasm was also noticed by Nostalgia for the Light director Patricio Guzmán, who commented on the "excellent post-screening discussions."

Additionally, Film Society Awards Night, the organization's gala fundraiser, chaired this year by Melanie and Larry Blum, raised more than $500,000. Proceeds from this event benefit the
Film Society's Youth Education program, which serves roughly 10,000 Bay Area schoolchildren annually.

Star-Studded Nights

Film Society Awards Night
honored three world-class film talents at Bimbo's 365 Club on April 28.
Honorees were Oliver
Stone, recipient of the Founderʼs
Directing Award, presented by producer Ed
Pressman; Terence
Stamp, recipient of the Peter J. Owens Award for his acting
career, presented by Sight
& Sound editor Nick
James; and Frank
Pierson, who was presented his award by former president of the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences Sid Ganis.

"It was a real epiphany
for me," said Terence Stamp. "The past few days have been a true
hallmark in my life. It felt like a whole evening of untethered love."

Attending the festivities
were director Lynn
Hershman Leeson of
!Women Art Revolution; board member Carla Emil and her husband Rich Silverstein of
Goodby Silverstein; Tom
Bernard, copresident of Sony Pictures Classics; board member Celeste Meier and
her husband Anthony
Meier of Anthony Meier Fine Arts; venture capitalist Dick Kramlich and
his wife Pamela;
board member Todd
Traina and his wife Katie;
gallery owner Serge
Sorokko and his wife, model Tatiana Sorokko; board member and
restaurateur Doug
Biederbeck and his wife Jennifer;
novelist Robert Mailer
Anderson and his wife Nicola
Miner; board member
Fred Levin and his wife Nancy
Livingston; filmmaker Jake
Kornbluth; art dealer Sabrina
Buell; president and founder of the Tin Man Fund Ann Hatch; head of
Chronicle Books Nion
McEvoy; former ambassador Jim Hormel; and Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives Nancy
Pelosi.

"Film Society Awards
Night was such a fun evening," observed an Awards Night guest.
"Bimbo's and the supper club format for the evening made it so intimate,
even though there were over 400 people. The Film Society really knows how to
put on an exciting large-scale event."

Numerous guests graced the
stage during SFIFF54, starting on Opening Night with Beginners director Mike Mills and actor
Ewan McGregor
and continuing throughout the Festival. Celebrated multimedia artist Matthew Barney was
in town to receive the Golden Gate Persistence of Vision Award. Film archivist,
programmer and showman Serge
Bromberg presented a display of some of the earliest examples
of 3-D films at the Castro Theatre.

"I was looking for an
excuse to come back here," said Bromberg. "The Castro is the right place to show
these films."

Legendary actor Terence Stamp
enthralled the audience during his interview with film critic Elvis Mitchell before
the screening of hard-to-find Frederico Fellini film Toby Dammit.
Up-and-coming actors Zoe
Saldana and Clifton
Collins Jr. entertained the audience while being honored with
the Midnight Awards. Director Errol
Morris returned to the Festival with his latest film, the
documentary Tabloid. 

"I owe my career in part
to the world premiere screening of The
Thin Blue Line at the Festival," reminisced Morris. "I
will keep coming back."

Writer/director/actress Miranda July was in
attendance with her latest work The
Future. Writer/actress Brit
Marling and actor William
Mapother presented their film Another Earth. The Mill and the Cross, the latest piece by
acclaimed Polish director Lech
Majewski, was shown to enthusiastic crowds. Director Maryam Keshavarz
brought her film Circumstance
to the Festival.

The Festival wound down with
a few final high profile screenings. The Centerpiece film, Terri, was shown with
director Azazel Jacobs
and stars John C.
Reilly,
Creed Bratton and
Jacob Wysocki in attendance. Closing Night then featured a
screening of On Tour,
which was accompanied by a performance by Mimi Le Meaux, Kitten on the Keys,
Evie Lovelle and Rocky Roulette, four of the burlesque dancers in the film.

Live & Onstage
Events

Kicking off the Live & Onstage
program on April 24 was the State
of Cinema Address, delivered by groundbreaking producer of
independent films Christine Vachon. Also on April 24 was From A to Zellner,
during which the prolific filmmaking duo the Zellner Brothers showcased selections
from their considerable collection of short films, complete with accompanying
song and dance numbers and their keyboard-playing grandfather. New Skin for the Old Ceremony
presented a tribute to the legendary Leonard Cohen on April 26. The event
featured 11 new short films inspired by his songs, a screening of the classic
documentary Ladies and
Gentlemen . . . Mr. Leonard Cohen and live renditions of several
Cohen songs by local musicians Kelley Stoltz and the duo Pale Hoarse. Composer
Stuart Staples collaborated with world-renowned French filmmaker Claire Denis
on Tindersticks:
Claire Denis Film Scores 1996-2009, in which Staples' band
Tindersticks performed live their original scores to scenes from six of Denis'
films. Finally, San Francisco's beloved Porchlight
storytelling series returned to the Festival, captivating story lovers on May
3. The event featured six storytellers accompanied by a video clips, each
telling tales of their filmmaking experiences.

Local Cinema

The 54th International
featured 23 local narrative and documentary features and short films. Among the
Bay Area features were The
Selling by Emily Lou, !Women Art Revolution by Lynn
Hershman Leeson, American
Teacher by Vanessa Roth, Better This World by Kelly Duane
de la Vega and Katie Galloway, Crime
After Crime by Yoav Potash, Miss Representation
by Jennifer Siebel Newsom and Something
Ventured by Dan Geller and Dayna Goldfine. Bay Area shorts
were also abundant and included The
Cap (Arjun Rihan), Chromatastic (Kerry Laitala), Come to the Table
(Zoe Salnave), The
D Train (Jay Rosenblatt), Escape from Suburbia
(Mayana Bonapart), Fire
Bad (Isaac Wolfe), Independence in Sight (Sydney Paige
Matterson, Lauren Lindberg, Julian Compagni-Portis, Bonita Tindle), India Export
(Raphael Linden), Library
of Dust (Ondi Timoner, Robert James), The Math Test
(Sam Rubin), Play
by Play (Carlos Baena), Self Portrait as a PowerPoint Proposal for an Amusement
Park Ride (Jonn Herschend), The Snowman
(Kelly Wilson, Neil Wrischnik), Tourist
Trap (Skye Thorstenson), Young Dracula (Alfred Seccombe) and
Z-Man
(Nat Talbot).

Schools at the
Festival

This year SFFS Youth
Education's Schools at the Festival program celebrated its 20th anniversary.
Many filmmakers participated, with 23 local and international guests discussing
their films and craft in classrooms during the program's 31 school visits,
reaching 1360 elementary, middle and high school students. Teachers were also
invited to bring their students to 18 school screenings held at the Sundance
Kabuki Cinemas. More than 3,000 students from schools across the Bay Area
attended these Schools at the Festival screenings, part of the year-round Youth
Education program. SATF aims to develop media literacy, broaden insights into
other cultures, enhance foreign language aptitude, develop critical thinking
skills and inspire a lifelong appreciation of cinema.

An impromptu chant of
"Kids love movies!" broke out from the young audience at a screening
of the shorts collection Do You See What I See?, bringing this goal to
life. 

Salons and Master
Classes at the Festival

Participating in three Master
Classes, filmmakers and panelists engaged audiences with further discussion of
the ideas presented in their films and related works. French film critic Jean-Michel Frodon
explored the role of the critic in today's cinema; Frank Pierson
discussed the craft of screenwriting and how it has evolved through the years;
and finally, producer Alison
Dickey and director Azazel
Jacobs described their working relationship and how they came
together to bring this year's Centerpiece film to the screen. Two Salons
offered the opportunity for film scholars and filmmakers to engage in
discussions with local cinephiles and engage in in-depth conversations beyond
the typical postscreening Q&A. Author Susan Weiner lead Expressions of French Cinema,
and professor Bill Nichols explored The
Social Justice Documentary. In addition, SFIFF54 offered
industry members a number of professional sessions and networking
opportunities, an extension of the year-round Film Craft & Film Studies
program offered by the San Francisco Film Society.

Award-Winning Films

Eleven films were in juried
competition for the 15th annual $15,000 New Directors Award, given to a first-
time filmmaker whose work exhibits a unique artistic sensibility. The jury,
comprised of Nick James, Daniela Michel and Marie Therese Guirgis, chose
director Park Jung-bumʼs The
Journals of Musan (South Korea), explaining, "The
unexpected ways that the film fuses the personal with the sociopolitical makes
it truly original, especially its sophisticated use of imagery and point of
view."

The FIPRESCI jury, comprised
of Ulrick Eriksen, Barbara Lorey De Lacharrière and Adam Nayman, chose The Salesman by
Sébastien Pilote (Canada). The jury described it as "a first feature with
a precise sense of character and place, yet which is also provocatively
ambivalent about the value of work in the aftermath of local economic
collapse." FIPRESCI, the influential international organization of film
critics, supports cinema as an art and as an autonomous means of expression.
The San Francisco International Film Festival is one of only three festivals in
the United States to host a FIPRESCI jury and award a FIPRESCI prize.

The International awarded
close to $100,000 in total prizes this year with $60,000 to winners in three
categories: investigative documentary feature ($25,000), documentary feature
($20,000) and Bay Area documentary feature ($15,000). The Festivalʼs
Golden Gate Awards were held on Wednesday, May 4 at Temple Nightclub-Prana
Restaurant, with a jury comprised of Dan Krauss, Mike Maggiore and Esther
Robinson. The GGA for Best Investigative Documentary Feature was presented to Crime After Crime
by Yoav Potash (USA). Best Documentary Feature and Best Bay Area Documentary
Feature were both presented to Better
This World by Kelly Duane de la Vega and Katie Galloway
(USA).

The short film jury was made
up of Andy Gillet, Max Goldberg and Kim Yutani. They awarded Best Documentary
Short to Into the
Middle of Nowhere by Anna Frances Ewert (Scotland/England).
The Best Narrative Short was Blokes
by Marialy Rivas (Chile). First place for Best Bay Area Short went to Tourist Trap by
Skye Thorstenson (USA), with second place going to Young Dracula by
Alfred Seccombe (USA). The GGA Youth Work winner was Z-Man by Nat
Talbot (USA), with The
Math Test by Sam Rubin (USA) receiving Honorable Mention.
The Best Work for Kids and Families was Specky Four Eyes by Jean-Claude Rozec
(France), with Honorable Mention going to The Snowman by Kelly Wilson and
Neil Wrischnik (USA). The Best Animated Short was The External World
by David O'Reilly (Ireland) and Best New Visions was Lost Lake by
Zackary Drucker (USA).

The SFIFF54 Audience Awards
gave filmgoers the opportunity to select their favorite narrative feature and
documentary. The Audience Award for Best Narrative Feature went to Denis
Villeneuveʼs Incendies,
with Takashi Miikeʼs 13
Assassins also scoring well with festivalgoers. The
Audience Award for Best Documentary Feature went to Yoav Potashʼs Crime After Crime,
with Kelly Duane de la Vega and Katie Galloway's Better This World
also tallying high votes from the viewers.

For information visit fest11.sffs.org.

For photos and press
materials visit sffs.org/pressdownloads.

San Francisco Film
Society

Building on a 50-plus-year
legacy of bringing the best in world cinema to the Bay Area, the San Francisco
Film Society is a national leader in exhibition, education and filmmaker
services.

The Film Society presents 300
days of exhibition each year, reaching a total audience of 130,000 people. Its
acclaimed education program introduces international cinema and media literacy
to more than 15,000 teachers and students and presents 120 classes and
workshops annually. Through the filmmaker services program essential creative
and business services, and funding totaling millions of dollars, are provided
to deserving filmmakers of all levels.

The Film Society seeks to
elevate all aspects of film culture, offering a wide range of activities that
engage emotions, inspire action, change perceptions and advance knowledge. A
501(c)3 nonprofit corporation, it is largely donor and member supported.
Patronage and membership provides discounted prices, access to grants and
residencies, private events and a wealth of other benefits.

54th San Francisco
International Film Festival

The 54th San Francisco
International Film Festival runs April 21 - May 5 at the Sundance Kabuki
Cinemas, the Castro Theatre, New People and SFMOMA in San Francisco and the
Pacific Film Archive Theater in Berkeley. Held each spring for 15 days, the
International is an extraordinary showcase of cinematic discovery and
innovation in the country's most beautiful city, featuring 15 juried awards,
200 films and live events with upwards of 100 participating filmmakers and
diverse audiences of 75,000+ people.

For more information visit sffs.org.

Beeston has changed physically since the 7/7 bomber evangelised for the jihadist cause, but unity is still elusive

The physical traces of Mohammad Sidique Khan's life in Beeston are all but gone. The gym where the Leeds youth worker bonded with his wards in the Hardy Street mosque has been turned into an after-school teaching area; the bench presses and racks of weights that filled the dingy basement have long since been removed.

The Iqra bookshop perched on the corner of Bude Road, where Khan held late-night discussions about the evils of western foreign policy and evangelised for the jihadist cause, is now an office specialising in personal injury claims.

Hillside primary school, where Khan worked as a teaching assistant until he was dismissed after taking an unauthorised trip to Pakistan in late 2004, has been turned into a conference centre and small business hub. A second gym in a derelict building where Khan spent a few months with fellow bombers Shehzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain has been replaced by flats.

Property developers have all but banished the drug users and sex workers who once plagued the area.

It was moral outrage at the drug-taking and prostitution that got Khan interested in youth work in the first place. Interviewed in the months after the bombings, Khan's brother, Gultasab, explained that seeing Muslims addicted to heroin had pricked his brother's social conscience.

Maz Asghar, a senior youth work manager in south Leeds who oversaw Khan's work in Beeston, said he believed Khan and his co-workers were dedicated to changing the attitudes that kept young Asians in Beeston pinned in poverty.

"If Asian males are not very educated there was the tendency for them to become motor mechanics or taxi drivers, or work in the restaurants ... We wanted to break out of that," says Asghar.

He saw Khan and his fellow youth workers as allies in helping to raise young people's aspirations and move them beyond "fixed views" of what their life should look like, views that were being imposed by their elders.

"[They] struck me as people who cared deeply about advancing and helping that community to realise its aspirations," said Asghar. "That's what we were trying to achieve." He adds: "I had no idea about the involvement in terrorism and fundamentalism and I was shocked that this particular guy had been the focus of this horrible event."

So what has been happening in the past six years to tackle the risk of radicalism in Beeston? Leeds city council, with many others around the country, has received hundreds of thousands of pounds to combat potential extremism.

Money has also been poured into race relations and interfaith work in Yorkshire and nearby areas, some of it predating 7/7, as a reaction to the 2001 summer riots in Bradford, Oldham and the Harehills area of Leeds, when Asian and white youths fought in drawn-out street battles.

In Beeston itself, interfaith work has been carried out by the Hamara Centre, which stands at the geographic heart of the community, and by the Faith Together charity. There appear to be many successes: no one in the area seems to envisage a return to race riots, and at the last council elections in 2010 the British National party lost its council seat in nearby Morley South to an independent.

Drug use and chronic deprivation are not as bad, although there are obvious concerns about the economic downturn. But, says Asghar, relatively little has been done by agencies and charities to tackle extremist Islam and its perception among the young head-on.

"That's the element [of the radicalisation process] that no one wants to talk about," he said. "Right from the outset, when the bombings occurred, people were saying that we need to talk about the issues and the Muslim community need to be open and state its position very clearly in order to say that kind of behaviour is not acceptable. But it didn't really happen."

The reason, he believes, is that people in the Muslim community believe this is not a topic that the government and their council representatives should get involved in. "It's almost as if it is none of their business. The attitude is one of, 'It's our religion and it's something we need to discuss quietly, internally.'"

Asghar thinks that this unwillingness to see Islam discussed more widely comes from the notion of Islamic unity under which open criticism is frowned upon.

"It comes from the myth that whoever is a Muslim is your brother and your sister. That within Islam we are all one ... and that is patently rubbish. There are probably more schisms in Islam than in Christianity." The main religious division in Beeston is between two mosques, in Hardy and Stratford Streets, which stand less than 200 metres from each other.

This wasraisedin February at the 7 July inquest – during testimony from Sarwar Khan, a committee member at the Hardy Street mosque – it became clear that theological differences between the two groups, and their inability to develop a unified approach to tackling problems of poverty and youth aspiration, had allowed extremists to take advantage of the divisions and gain followers.

When the coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, asked Khan whether the two groups had been brought together since the bombings to combat extremism, his answer was laden with disappointment.

"If there was a big community centre where the services [could] be provided to all elders, youngsters, ladies and children sitting under one roof, it would be a great achievement," he said.

"That was my view at that time. Today, it's still my view. In that sense, nothing has been changed. Everything is exactly the same. We haven't achieved that one goal yet."

Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall has learned a valuable lesson about social media: Don't reduce to a few tweets what can't be adequately explained in a page or two. Taking to Twitter, the social media site, the day after President Barack Obama announced Osama bin Laden's death, Mr. Mendenhall scolded Americans for excessive gloating. "What kind of person celebrates death?

This past week I read this well-written post over at MuslimMatters. The author, Ibnabeeomar, logically presented his case on many Muslims missing the forest for the trees by going to extremes in arguing for Halal/Zabiha meat all the while riba-based transactions plague their personal finances. It’s a beautiful piece that I recommend all of you take the time to read.

Many Muslims living in the West are understandably bothered by the petty arguments and polemics surrounding recurring hot topics such as Halal-vs-Zabiha, moonsighting, and participating in elections. They make the case for moving on and focusing on ‘bigger fish to fry’.

I couldn’t agree more.

Here in Saudi Arabia, while many of the issues particular to the West are non-existent, the same disease (‘missing-the-big-picture’-itis) plagues Muslims here as well. The problem here, as I see it, is that Muslims are stuck in neutral with their non-stop focus on Aqeedah.

This constant infatuation with perfecting one’s Aqeedah is like a never-ending cycle of mastering one’s basic math skills. It’s not enough that a class full of children is able to proficiently add and subtract, but they must all do it in exactly the same manner. It matters not that one student uses his fingers to add while another draws lines on paper to subtract or another does it all in her head. They must all continue studying this basic skill until it’s absolutely flawless.

I see this same counterproductive approach to this most fundamental of Islamic sciences. These Muslims, whose sincerity I do not question, overlook the social, educational, political and economic tragedies currently facing the Muslim world, believing the root cause of all our problems is our imperfect Aqeedah. If we simply focused on properly understanding Tauheed and all its ramifications, they claim, then Allah (swt) would shower His blessings down upon us all.

Actually, I can’t argue with this last statement – except with the narrow scope of how they define the ramifications of true Tauheed. For them, it means studying books on Aqeedah ad infinitum. I, on the other hand, take it to mean a Tauheed-inspired worldview in which every aspect of our life, not just the theological minutiae of Aqeedah, are dictated by the One (swt).

The Oneness of Allah (swt) is not rocket science, folks. Everything we need to know we learned in KindergartenSunday School.

The Prophet (saw) declared, "By Allah! I am not afraid that you will worship others with Allah after my death, but I am afraid that you will fight with one another for this dunya.” So if our dear Prophet (saw) did not fear overt shirk becoming established amongst his Ummah, then why are we so engrossed by it?

We have lost sight of the bigger picture – connecting our hearts to Allah (swt) while directing our energies towards a world where Divine justice reigns supreme – choosing to instead focus on the gory details of where is Allah (swt) or exposing those who 'worship graves'.

Disclaimer #1: I am not trying to undermine the importance of studying Aqeedah. But just as basic arithmetic skills are critical in creating a foundation for higher maths, Aqeedah is but a foundation for higher Islamic endeavors.

Disclaimer #2: Saudi Arabia is not alone in her ‘missing-the-big-picture’-itis. Every Muslim land suffers from this disease in one way or another. I just picked on their over-infatuation of Aqeedah as emblematic of the problem.

Filed under: News

Ok, here's the situation: High-tech thieves sit in a car parked outside a work studio while inside valuable data is transmitted over a password-protected Wi-Fi connection. The cyber bandits hack into the network and, then, share the series of ones and zeros with the world, uploading it to social media sites and popular Web-based file-sharing outlets for anyone to grab. Sound like a scene from the Wikileaks saga? The opening of a Tom Clancy novel? A day in the life of Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery? Hardly. This is the real-life scenario that DJ-Producer David Guetta faced recently as hackers stole his latest -- though still unfinished -- single, added their own touches, then leaked it online.

"It's really crazy," Guetta said in an interview with BBC Radio 1. "I know it sounds like a film, but it's the truth." Perhaps just as crazy -- Guetta "hired the guy who works with security for the Pentagon" to find the criminals and help bring them to justice (through the legal system, of course).

Kozhikode: Chairperson of the Kerala State Social Welfare Board Girija Surendran has said the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 has been drawn up to uphold the dignity of women, ensure justice for them and ensure speedy remedy for family problems.

Looking for some inspiration from the next generation? Check out a great new book, "The Next Eco Warriors." It's a compilation of essays from young environmental, social justice, and climate leaders from around the world. I'm honored to be included in the collection telling the story of 350.org.

Click here to learn more about the book and get a copy for yourself. 

The collection was brought together by our good friend Emily Hunter who has helped 350.org get great media coverage in Canada for our global days of action, as well as building more of a vibrant, exciting, and powerful climate movement there and around the world. 

Here's a video preview for the book, check it out: 

Larry Burton (Syndicated Writer) Get ready for the federal government to take over the way division one college football picks a champion.

What's next?

Will the Obama administration take over the Miss America Pageant because Miss Rhode Island has never won?

Will they start producing the television show, Family Feud because no Eskimo family has ever won that show?

And surely they'll take over the Olympics because no African country has ever won a downhill skiing medal in the winter Olympics.

It's clear that entities just can't be fair without the government involving themselves to assure everyone that things can be fixed by the government.

That's why the country is not in debt, Social Security works so well, the Post Office turns a profit and the country never spends more than it takes in.

This week the U.S. Justice Department sent a letter to the NCAA asking them to explain why there isn't a playoff system as there is for other college sports.

I guess they want football to be ignored until the playoffs, just like college basketball. I guess they just want to water down the importance of the regular season. Perhaps they just want more games to bash the bodies of young men who are already beat up by season's end.

The current system may not be perfect, but it has not denied the best teams from showcasing their talent on a national stage in a BCS Bowl. As for being perfect in picking the best college team, not even March madness does that for basketball, it just crowns the team that got hot at the right time in some cases while others may have had injuries.

A playoff is not always the answer, neither is government intervention.

With the top eight teams playing the four BCS bowls could there be room for two more games from those teams who win them?

Maybe, but would it be a grueling undertaking for the teams? Of course it would.

Maybe you don't need a college degree or the government to teach you something you should have learned in kindergarten, life isn't fair. Few things are. That's life and in the end, football is just a game.

Let's quit trying to make imperfect things perfect and just enjoy them for what they are and in this case, it's entertainment.

But most of, let government find something a whole lot more meaningful to work on than how college football gives out trophies.

President of Costa Rica among this year's commencement speakers The Georgetown Voice (blog) Tonight, Georgetown announced the nine speakers for this year's commencement ceremonies. Here's the full list: Dr. Paul Farmer, founder of Partners in Health and Harvard University professor, an international health and social justice organization, ...

According to a recent OECD report Australia has one of the lowest unemployment benefits in the developed world.

Since the mid-1990s, people experiencing unemployment have been increasingly disadvantaged compared with average weekly earners and the aged pension recipients. A single Newstart recipient is forced to survive on $34 a day, a battle that is waged from below the poverty line.

Social, economic and political exclusion is a systematic action that is done to people. It is not something that people happen into by means of bad luck, bad choices or bad karma. It is manifested in individual lives as a unique intersection between personal narrative and the axes of history and structure.

Recently we have seen the Australian Prime Minister appearing to compete with the Leader of the Opposition on who can engage in the toughest welfare-bashing. Our problem in Australia is not the “idleness of the poor”, as perniciously proposed by welfare-bashers of all political stripes. Our problem is inequality. This is a social question, not a question of behaviour. We do irreparable harm when we turn it into a question of individual behaviour, blaming people for their own poverty.

The offensive aspect of these comments is that they blame people for being left out or pushed out. Nothing could be further from the truth. Choices are massively constrained for those who have been systematically locked out of the nation’s prosperity. There’s not much choice between a rock and a hard place. But, of course, such a world-view lets governments off the hook. It denies the reality of the social. It rewrites history.

There is, of course, no solution to any social problem except one that follows from the very conditions of the problem. Approaches to social exclusion that are derived from a magisterial view of a purported moral underclass are destined to deliver the possibility of compliance but never the reality of social justice.

You, they are warned, are responsible for your own situation. You need to get up off your backsides. You need to make a new beginning. Then you will have something to be proud of.

No. “They” do not need to make a new beginning. We need to make a new beginning. By this I mean two things. Firstly, that the problem does not lie with individuals needing to get their act together. It lies with society needing to be reorganised, turned upside down, changed. Secondly, this can never be the lone act of a determined individual. It needs to be collective. The problem can only be solved by means of a solution that finds its makings in the heart of the problem. The problem is social. It must have a social, a collective, a political solution.

This is nowhere more in evidence than in the locational nature of much, but not all, of Australia’s disadvantage. The Federal Government is correct in identifying this as a problem that must be tackled. It is also right to pilot models that take a family-centred approach to supporting and resourcing households to move out of poverty. But the point is completely missed when these communities are then constructed as being hubs of personal dysfunction, as if a whole bunch of bad or lazy people moved to a place and that’s why there’s high unemployment there. The Government knows only too well how labour markets work and the structural and historical causes of high unemployment in a given area are never hard to work out.

Kathy Edin, a sociologist from the United States, described something to an Australian Conference audience that still shocks me when I think about it. She described the US welfare reform program, targeting single mothers. Picture this:

A large billboard poster depicts a black single mother on her way to work. Her young daughter, who is being dropped off somewhere, looks up at her and says: “At least now I can be proud of you.”

And this from the country where the minimum wage took 10 years (between 1997 and 2007) to be adjusted!

Not that Australia has anything to boast about. Our basic unemployment benefit is rated as the lowest in the OECD. It has had no real adjustment since 1994. People experiencing unemployment are kept below the poverty line. When you have a conservative outfit like the OECD telling us that we need to lift the level of unemployment benefits surely it’s time for our Government to sit up and take note.

As life is privatised, the individual who stands accused of having failed to make it in the market is subjected not only to new heights of intrusive surveillance but also to a veritable theology of damnation. As the late Milton Friedman put it, in Capitalism and Freedom: “The major aim of the liberal is to leave the ethical problem to the individual to wrestle with.”

The abstract individual is, under the banner of neoliberalism, endowed with the ability to wrestle with the ethical problem. This abstract individual is as free as an angel to move in and out of the market, buying and selling, working and resting, praying and philosophising.

The people on the margins, however, are made to feel wretched. They are forced underground, especially when they tire of having to seek assistance from charities. They resurface in our prisons or on our streets. They’re forced to hock their furnishings, their personal possessions. They seek consolation in the arms of loan sharks and payday lenders.

The welfare dependency discourse seeks to ensure that the State assists with the transfer of ever-increasing proportions of national wealth to those who are “not dependent” and therefore not at risk of moral turpitude.

This discourse was central to the 1999 discussion paper released by Senator Newman, “The Challenge of Welfare Dependency in the 21st Century”.

It was, however, as analysed in O’Connor’s excellent 2001 article in the Australian Journal of Social Issues, the writings of Gilder and Murray in the US, that popularised into an unquestionable doxa the claim that: “real poverty is less a state of income than a state of mind” and that the government dole blights most of the people who come to depend on it and that, therefore, cutting welfare would benefit the poor because welfare has a dramatically “negative impact on motivation and self-reliance”.

Murray called for the complete abolition of all federal welfare programs and income support structures.

And still there are some who wonder how the personal is political?

The politics of cruelty has penetrated the lives of those who are being herded on the edges of the labour market.

Charity may well tide them over until their next crisis. It is justice, only justice, however, that will fulfil their long-term dreams.

We continue in Australia to be subjected to social policies that are best defined as being paternalistic. Paternalism starts (and ends!) with a highly unequal relationship of power. To “supervise the poor”, as Larry Mead advocates, is really to control and coerce people on the basis of race, class, gender, and disability. The New Paternalism is a relatively recent version of this approach. The focus is on the supposed individual deficit rather than on the structural deficits. The very name bespeaks the manner in which people are being objectified and treated like young children who supposedly have no capacity to make decisions or take control. Any decision imputed to “them” is roundly condemned by a moralising discourse from on high.

The New Paternalism is exemplified in such policies as mandatory income management (such as we see in the Northern Territory Intervention) or using the threat of financial penalties on people in receipt of Unemployment Benefits, as if this could improve a person’s chances of employment.

The New Paternalism is built on the following assumptions:

People are largely to blame for their own marginalisation; people who are marginalised are naturally without power; power naturally rests with those who deserve it; those with power can, at best, use their power to bring about a change in the behaviour of those without power; those with power can, at worst, ignore the problems of the people who are marginalised; the problems experienced by people who are marginalised are their own problems; but their problems bleed into the “mainstream” through increased costs, increased crime, loss of productivity, market constraints, and disorder.

So we end up with solutions that worsen the problem of inequality. As if compulsory income inadequacy, or its accursed cousin compulsory income management, could actually help create the space for dignity and liberation!

When we ask the social question, we find the seeds of the social, and therefore political, solution.

How can we know the guts of the social problem except by listening to those who are forced to live in the guts of the social problem?

Living in the guts of the social problem does not produce silence. There is a rich and constant flow of exchanges between the people who share in the same experience and who are fighting to stay strong. Living in the guts of the social problem, the problem of inequality, does not produce silence. But the refusal to ask the social question does produce an inability to hear.


Dr John Falzon is Chief Executive Officer of the St Vincent de Paul Society National Council of Australia.

• Read all responses to this article

Sen. Mark Warner has set up a new comment feature on his Senate website that allows Virginians to send a message to members of the Navy SEAL team that conducted the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan this week.

The Senator’s office said comments submitted through the site would be delivered to the SEAL commanders.

"His death does not mean that the threat posed by terrorism to our nation has passed. We must remain vigilant," Warner, a Virginia Democrat, told the Associated Press on Monday. "But bin Laden's death does provide a sense of justice, and hopefully a measure of comfort, for those who have given so much in America's fight against international terrorism."

The SEAL community received an outpouring of support and thanks on social networks, the AP reported.

“I believe a lot of Virginians, and many Americans, would like to say ‘thank you,’” Senator Warner said in a statement Thursday, adding that “these Navy SEALs succeeded in an extraordinary mission. I am proud of them.”

My boot is a
little mountain
they tells me so
my memories
cut like a knife
cut cares and
unforeseen changes
that we are guided by
the tumult and torment
if my albinism ways
cause some men to
tremble the cutlass
that gnaws
on the bone
St. Elmo’s whispers
in the night the carcass of the day
the worker of dark
have their unrestrained say.
-


i will give you
a king's anus
for a drop of piss.
-

Here the tom toms
that expose my heart
here the talking dreams
majesty by signe like
diamonds over priced
there is a lie of the truth
in it and man
the presort as stone
and the contentment
of man who will
not dirty his hands
to explore my litter
of parasols of shafts
to pearse you with
the missionary
are after specks
of coal and speechless
deliriums run
respect through the
halls of guilty justice
the court room is a
desert of impetuous
silent ready on
your tongue.
-


April discovered Florida
April took Jesse James
April brought us Booker T
and took MacArthur
April labor a fine win
grant over Lee in April's spring
April hit top hank Aaron
on a row
April ends the
Revolutionary War
and brought Jackie Robinson
to major league\April started the Civil War
April took Lincoln
and birth the Confederate draft
and freed slaves in D C
April birth Hitler
and Shakespeare
April gives us Chernobyl
and Tanzania and grant
and first Social Security check
April opened the door at
Daubau concentration camp
and buys Louisiana at St. Louis
April lives this month
a cruse month yet regardless
of all it all it have brought and
will bring April
is April spring to me
the St. Louis poet said that it is
the cruses month of the year
but April is the sprit of spring'
when Washington took office.
-


freed from my torments
to a high plateau
canopied by over
hanging snow
the lust of my leaves
yet dissolved
the clouds are forgiven
for just passing by
man is the make
of his own desires
man is the mind
that meals out justice
man is the mark
we make with mushrooms
of ferocious horror
perched i know
the monsters within
perched to bunch
with all my military might
i will tear the lighthouse\
into a pestilence of despair
and scorch the garden
of all its top soil
man is only the future
of man on earth
future of how own
intervention of the invented vapor
of his knowledge he can no
count the grains of sand
man can not know
the bounty of life unknown
man is confined to a galaxy
small in the cosmos
man master of his doom
come lately die soon.
-



i have burnt down
the hysteria teeth
and ware the impetuous
missionaries position
around my neck
i am a speck of duration's coal
warm like a lick from the old
i am an endless major pose
before the black and bold
men who woo my heart
and let me blow the blown
I am the penance unfolded
the black head of my taste
is the king's staff I carry
my anus remember
who will fit the gorgeous
rig modestest is my spirit
there is a munificence in my ways
the thrush hole that tighten
in a sexual grip
the blow hole the back door
the of an old man';s blues
the lingual tool
at my use
coconut cream of sons
unborn the very
seed head of me with tails swimming
for the egg when it runs down my thighs
i am the madness that you see
out of the corn of your eye
i resend the sinners of their
sinister ways
thickness and glimpse within
sex makes a release
of my face
and my nakedness is pleased
I tied to earth by breath
a dick of an umbilical cord
grumbling with n excellent song to sing
dig my milky tug tool torn with a ring
i am overflowing with the backwater
of my using dream
i use no plumb
of milking machine
to leak out sons
to be in my dreams
the armor-plated chest
that is my muscles
trilobites in half-light
swollen thick in mirrors
vigorous as tender
my porch to the cause
crepuscular taste
of porch irrepressible
joy opened to the cause
crepuscular taste
and i waste not a seed
nothing rip like dick heads
the vinous words
descry my honor
discount the reptile
motion of my member
because it is a rusty dark
that quiver at the moment
iof a penetration
n me my anus is wild
to welcome in the end
of the metamorphosis
called the arm with a smile
i never use my dick
as a sisal sword
never fight to shot my seeds
i am not infantile in my needs
for cum thick as
sour cream
i am the top soil
where you can plant
your sexual dreams
i am the falcon that
fly between the rain
i vivid flesh
the cerebral cortex
the contour of my ass
the hills you ride
the shit hole eye
is just a part of me
i along is the real thing
my beautiful hills
of feasts and function
blissful is my tenderness
rock hard my dick
with adolescent pre cum
remembered for it musical actions
of efforts
the thorny pluck
a ready to prick lust
the ancestral silent
of dusk made of my cum
a swamp that blazes
a crackle of summons
as my dark inheritance
victorious in zeal
resplendence and proud
i ain’t the serpent’s eye
i am the thunder cry
the bolts that cracks
the Andes of a hag load
of carcasses
let my dick dong long
hangs like a icicle
it slummer in your anus
safe and warm
let me fill up the feel
of your weight pound
against pound against my ass
as ride a rail ride
me full of sexual actions
of laughter.
-

by Nezua

[Trigger warning for racism, violence, Othering, dehumanization.]

Hola, family. My name is Nezua and you may know me as the creator of The Unapologetic Mexican blog. My thanks to Melissa for inviting me to write here at Shakesville, after her reading a stream of tweets I fired off in reaction to the White House releasing President Obama's long form birth certificate in response to Donald Skunkstump's blathering about all the darkies at the water fountain or whatever it was he was trying to say. I know that moment has been eclipsed in the media since Osama Bin Laden was reportedly killed, but the issue of US and THEM is not unrelated, and Them Who Shall Be Asked for Papers know this as well as anyone.

This is an article I have taken my time with, and brevity was not the first priority. It will not be a fast read. I hope you can get to it with a drink, or a sandwich, or a cup of tea.

We begin, but do not end, with the sensational incident where the Obama White House, under Trumpian pressure, produced for public inspection the President's "long form" birth certificate.

I do not know how successful I will be in my attempts to navigate the journey, but I think it's important to move from an immediate feeling of hurt or anger to a broader view of the very thing that moves behind this event and is so upsetting about it. This is what I will try to do.

* * *

Why can't we roam this open country?
Oh, why can't we be what we wanna be?
We want to be free.

--Bob Marley, 3 o'Clock Roadblock

ROADBLOCK

What a frenzy.

What a storm of feelings, thoughts, tweets, and emotions were exploded into view with that one event, where the President of the United States of America—a man of color—answered the insincere jeering of a single white citizen by producing his identity papers for inspection. As if our duly elected President was but a teen at a police checkpoint, wearing baggy pants and with his hands up against the hood. As if he were a young man standing on a corner looking Mexicano, immediately suspect and thus beholden to the law man to prove he was not up to criminal acts. What a shaking of the timbers of racial history were felt up and down the blogosphere in this one simple happening.

And rightly so. What a harsh reality we trade in; that it will take far more time than our grandparents', parents', or our own lifetimes to evolve past the sickly, sadistic, inhuman history we Americans share on matters of race. In matters of history—look to Mexico, or China, or Egypt—this country is in an infantile stage. And the things that were done to African Americans, and Indians (indigenous peoples from el Norte as well as from south of the "border"); to Chinese and Japanese and Chileans and so on.... These ghosts will not fade fast.

Donald Trump is one of those ghosts, his expression forever puckered like a lemon-shocked anus-mouth, his mind alight with tired stereotypes and bursts of fart-static. A clown who doesn't have the decency to laugh at himself.

And Donald is so easy to hate, isn't he? Because he is a hateful man. And because he enlists the powers of hate, hate long rooted in American soil. Hate that long ago drew blood and tossed ropes and smiled for the picture as the body cooled to a dusk-like temperature. Hate that raided Native American villages to murder sleeping children. Hate that buffed its boots before demanding that black men duck their eyes, and go drink from some other fountain. Hate that considers women, and Blacks and Cubans and Haitians and Iraqis and Afghanis and Mexican and Chinese and Vietnamese and Puerto Rican as less than human. Hate today that spends Joe Arpaio's paycheck, props up his decaying frame, and parades his prisoners in pink. Hate yesterday that reneged on treaties, and swallowed up gold, and burned codices.

Donald Trump is animated by the very same hate that is used to divide so many people today, and strives to obscure the roots of our liberation as it obscures the hands that lock the cuffs on us. It is a disease of the mind and soul called White Supremacy. And in the land wherein this virus thrives, certain kinds of men, with their ballooned minds and feverish egos, get to demand certain concessions from other people: that you surrender your papers; that you not harbor anger in your eye or your tone lest it be beaten out of you; that law shall endorse such beatings; that you prone out on the ground with a gun in your back at a moment's notice; that you swallow a bullet if the bully feels sexy while perched up there and straddled around your spine. It is a land where you apologize for a role you never asked for but is ascribed to you by thieves and liars; where They will always have the right to tell you to pull over and prove yourself, and where You will always comply and perhaps be allowed to live with just humiliation if you are lucky enough to walk away with your life.

And so the target of so much history, for a day, becomes Donald "I am the Patriarchy" Trump. And many hearts seethe for his being so cruel as to remind us of our history, and to imply that even when you gain The Most Powerful Office in the World, it means nothing next to the anger of a White Man. It was the same reminder Republican Senator Joe "YOU LIE" Wilson gave us when he shouted down the President of the United States in the middle of an address that was adorned with all the pomp and decorum as we see fit to afford our nation's executive leader. That shout, that demand to show papers, that insistence that you duck your eyes, it hisses You can even become President, but you still are not White. Which means you are not really the President. Don't go dreaming that somehow you are now more powerful than me, darkie.

And as an immediate and visceral (and predictable) reaction, what did so many of us people of color need to see the President do? We needed him to scoff at the implication that such assertions could be true. We needed him to refute that reality. To deny it exists. To stand up and stand proud. To destroy that reality with a new action.

Was coughing up the papers but then roasting Trump at a gala dinner in front of the Press enough? Was ordering the home invasion and murder of a wanted man of color in Pakistan enough to erase that reality? Perhaps for our empathy with Obama being humiliated, it was. Perhaps now the unpleasant memory of watching the national daddy figure bow to a carnival barker has been mitigated for most. Maybe now that feeling, as if we watched the POTUS hand over his lunch money to bullies, has been nullified, gunsmoke wafting about our heads like purifying incense smoke.

And I suppose it is best to take the man at his word: he saw the Birtherism (also known as "Racism") wasn't going to go away and wanted to squash it and force the GOP ravers into a corner by removing what he saw as their last leg in what was left of the Birther argument.

But I do not think it does the larger issue any service to forget it when the feelings fade, or to imagine it resolved because the President has shown his papers, is in the clear, and we are feeling tough again because, damn son—he's got that killer instinct. Just as Rosa Parks' challenge was not to one bus driver, but to an entire system of inequality, this matter is much broader and deeper than the pageantry that recently unfolded between two rich men on TV.

Yes, the dynamic where we identify culturally or ethnically in some way with President Obama (and as a man of color, I do) leads us to watch the disgusting Trump claim victory for making the President skip on command, and we fume with empathy. We gnash our teeth and swear our allegiance all over again to Barack, this poor besieged man who has to endure the barbs and slings of Age Old Racism. This intelligent, thoughtful scholar, statesman, gentleman, father and husband. This President who bears up nobly in conditions potentially humiliating, conditions asked of no other President has been before him. We spit on the ground and growl Trump's name. We swear to show up in the voting booth for the Democrats...as if that in any measurable way addresses the larger issue of Them Who Shall Be Asked for Papers.


CONQUER AND DIVIDE

I should probably clearly state the obvious in case it is not as obvious as I'd hope: the American Black experience is deep, unique, and I highly respect it. I would never claim to see it in all its parts or stand within it. I am not pretending to have any stake or voice therein. At the same time, I have my own experiences as a Xicano, and there is some degree of overlap between the experiences of all people of color in this nation. This I know from years of activism and friendships and conversations with people of different ethnicities.

Also—quite important to suss out and account for—there are (exploitable) gaps between our experiences. It is in those gaps that divide and conquer wedges are introduced by the ruling class.

Strategically, it is in marginalized peoples' great interest to discover these gaps ourselves so they cannot be exploited casually. It is in our great interest to find them, examine them, and prepare for the attacks that will be launched; attacks that would seek to exploit the latent weaknesses that could threaten our unity as people marginalized and exploited by the oppressive, racist hand of law. Black and Brown alike suffer behind the racist criminal justice system, for starters. Statistics for both Latinos as well as Blacks are disproportionately high for the actual number of crimes that run rampant through all communities, when compared. This is so because the law continues old power differentials and is implemented by human beings who have been conditioned by the same society.

And because law begins as idea, and only becomes strapped with force when enough people agree on that idea.

One of the ways that unfortunate ideas become commonly accepted is by the use of emotional triggers to mislead thought and obscure the true machinations of state or corporate power.

It is necessary to deny the apparent binaries here.

1. This is not just a black/white issue. Take it from Chuck D. And for all of us who care, there is a way to channel the need to see justice done in the wake of this ugly moment. There are other peoples and communities who would greatly benefit from our consideration in the current context. People who would suffer in continued indignities and abuse were we to avoid using that lens in a broader sense. Other communities that are having their own dignity denied, with not just social pressure demanding they suborn themselves and produce papers for how they look (not white), but laws. Laws and actions, I'm sorry to say, that are supported very much by President Obama. Laws being snuck under the radar that increase the reach of the surveillance state, as well as that feed into the growing prison and detention industry in the U.S. Like the actions of the Department of Homeland Security's Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

I will be more specific on these both in a moment. But I wanted to prepare the soil of your imagination for this turn of thought. I invite you to explore these ideas:

--- The President, seemingly the unwilling subject of this degrading and dehumanizing shape of act before our eyes—being forced to show papers in the course of his day, with no reason but for the fact that he is not a pale man called Smith—supports that very idea being implemented for others who Appear Foreign, and is directly involved with making this a reality across America.

--- If it bothers me that he, as one person (and a very powerful one on the continuum considered) is subject to this, how can I engage the larger fight where millions are subjected to this? Millions of very vulnerable people. Not graduates of Ivy League schools; not powerful politicians with millions of dollars at their disposal, and millions of people clamoring to back them up.

2. This is not a struggle between Barack H. Obama and Donald Whatever Trump. Nor one between their persons or personalities. Sure, let us consider their power and from where their power derives, and what they use it for. Let us give context to the scene and the players. But we really don't need to make either of them a demon or a hero for us to successfully engage this important fight. In fact, doing so will dilute our powers of observation and thought.

3. The battle is not between the Evil, Rich, Racist Ole GOP and the Beleaguered, Liberal, Bullied, Righteous Democrats.If I may presume to know and say so, the battle at the heart of this outrage and hurt here, is for principles. For human dignity, and human rights. The battle is for integrity. The battle is against racist hate shaped into popular opinion and finally, given the force of the masses' will—be it in the shape of social pressure, law, violence, or all three.

Going forward, we must recognize the possible faultline that divides certain viewpoints rooted in the Black American experience from certain viewpoints in the Mexican American community, as well as in the Pro-Migrant community. Especially when exploited by the powers that be. We must dwell in our connectedness. It's not hard. I know I don't just care for Mexicanos. I care for all people who suffer behind the racist machinations afoot in the nation today.

4. It's not citizens vs. immigrants. Human rights, dignity, fairness: these are not things we should let legal terms determine. These are things we want human beings to have. Don't let the squirming exploiters and vampires at the top whisper to us the nightmarish myth of scarcity. Things only seem scarce when a small group of people need to capitalize on many people's energies and resources, and this profit-making pyramid shape enforces an artificial scarcity.

When we feel we cannot even take care of "our own," it's easy to let a feeling of solidarity slip away. It makes me sad when I see people of color who should understand and join in the struggle that Mexicanos and other immigrants face today, but who veer away from that struggle imagining that immigrants represent a threat to their own community. This is the voice of White Supremacy, and it's a bullhorn turned on all day and night in this land, so I understand. But when in all important ways our struggle is the same, "our own" can be an expansive thing—and these larger numbers will render us more powerful to fight those exploiters at the top, already unfairly given advantage.

Many of today's most important issues deal with power differentials between the very rich, and the rest of us. Immigration is one of the most important areas for us to mind. Many issues come together here. Drug war, Commerce, and the Economy. Lines of ownership; lines that signify an US and THEM, borders that we end up believing need small army units and millions of dollars of technology in guns, drones, and surveillance equipment to maintain their reality; their solidity.

In the issue of immigration and corporate abuse of borders and employees is revealed the secret of how towns and communities become economically destroyed by corporate powers being above the law, and exploiting the worker. In the selling of the idea that the only people affected are Criminal Illegal Alien Invader Types, the elite continue to exploit our vulnerable brothers and sisters.

In Immigration politics, we see the manipulative hand of Economics, and the fallout of Capitalism and Neoliberalism. Domestically as well as Internationally. Within this struggle are handholds to engage the struggle for working class rights, women's rights, family rights, culture, reproduction, human rights, our national ethics.

As more and more strife becomes about resources and mobility, more conquer and divide tactics will be put to work in this area of Immigration.

We must remember first and foremost (and again at the end), that the forces that benefit from our being divided will seek to exploit all these key areas. A simple lens adjustment would make that impossible. We must come to realize how many of us share this same struggle; fighting that power that reared its ugly naked head recently under the glow of sunlight bouncing off skyscraper windows, and hissed at the President with breath as old and rancid as years of gallows sweat.


TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY

There are so many discussions about the Arc of Obama in the eye of popular opinion as of yet. We've all had an intense experience of some sort from Election Day until now, though our specific experiences may vary, and our current feelings vary just as much. Some have offered arguable reasons for becoming disenchanted with his administration. I will avoid the political laundry list, some or all of with which you may or may not agree. That's not the conversation(s) I am here for. I don't want to get sidetracked. I don't want to exploit or even risk the potential differences and faultlines in our unity just for a moment. And when I say "our unity," I mean working class people. I mean the 99% of income earners in the nation. I mean many many Black, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican, Guatemalan, Dominican, Chinese, Korean or otherwise golden brown beautiful red black people. I mean white people. Here, I talk to all those people marginalized in some way by the powers and status quo that men like Donald Trump act in the service of.

I propose that what we have in common here is the idea of how wrong it is to deny the full dignity and rights to the Other in the name of safety and legal procedure. I suggest that this fight and furious sense of injustice cannot and should not end with the humiliating press conference, nor with the empowering roast of Trump at a dinner you and I had no means nor invitation to attend.


PROMISES, PROMISES

Candidate and President Barack Obama made some very specific promises to crowds of Latinos, in speeches to NCLR and to the immigrant community. He decried the ICE raids that tore parents away from their children, he called the system broken. In passioned speech, he told desperate immigrant families that he had their back. That he understood their pain. That he was determined to make a difference for them. He said he was an ally to Latinos and to Immigrants and that we could count on him.

He then turns around and continues the raids, but in other shapes. He deports more people than George W. Bush does, ensuring that many, many children are torn from their parents, after all. He does this in the name of Papers, not in the name of human rights or dignity.

President Obama and Janet Napolitano brag to the Republicans that they are deporting record numbers of undocumented immigrants. He turns his back on his own disabled aunt when the cold eye of ICE falls upon her. He sends troops to the US' Southern border, when the economic refugees flee conditions in Mexico that have been greatly caused by NAFTA policies (a Democratic accomplishment under Bill Clinton). Those people risking rape, murder, starvation, and poverty to cross the border to find a chance at life don't need bullets in their heads; they need help accessing resources so they don't need to flee their homes and families.

Obama's Department of Homeland Security offers a program called "Secure Communities" (S-Comm) that ties in the FBI and ICE to local police so that anyone apprehended by local police has all their info shared with these other agencies, even if a person is not convicted of anything. We've seen how successful Arizona's SB 1070 has been in disrupting society, and at driving a wedge between local police and many communities where people fear either being detained or simply being hassled based on ethnic signifiers. Many police have protested the implementation of S-Comm, understanding right away how it would harm their relationship with the immediate community and lend a hand to the proliferation of many crimes that would exploit this wedge. A few cities attempted to opt out of S-Comm, but voila! The cloak came off and Obama's DHS suddenly informed these cities that the program was not, after all, voluntary. Whoops.

Immigrant communities understand that they are being targeted when they are just trying to feed their kids and make a living, often exploited by workplaces that know they live without protection from law or society. But to console the rest who don't know this, Obama's White House claims it is only deporting serious criminals. The most cursory examination of reality shows this to be a complete falsehood.

One easy example of this is shown quite blatantly by how the White House is going after activist, friend, and law school student Prerna Lal. Prerna is a positive role model, an engaged, passionate person and organizer. Hardly a serious criminal. (Please sign the petition to help Prerna fight deportation.) Her crime? The creation and success of DreamActivist.org. Prerna was simply too successful in organizing students behind the DREAM Act, which—unlike these sly and disingenuous actions by the Department of Homeland Security—does exist in the service of human rights. We don't need to be frozen in the sixties to aid those fighting for communities before it becomes common sense to do so. We can look Prerna's way.

The stats tell the same story. The Obama administration is not deporting scores of dangerous criminals but people who have an old offense, or minor offenses, or who get caught up in the widening and growing web of "immigration enforcement," or who are simply students and children of immigrants and dared to make a valedictorian speech at their school, or reach out to help other people in the same plight. Sometimes they are simply driving home from work, and get pulled over by an old, white, sheriff who might as well be Donald Trump. They get asked for their birth certificate because their name sounds...un-American.


COME TOGETHER

It's so easy for us to stay firm in our personal experience and all the ways it feeds our own heart. One of the major premises in this article (or ramble depending on how you look at it) is that we proceed deeper and deeper into times when it will be important to not let ourselves be divided in the wrong ways. The Earth, mother of all, is increasingly poisoned and robbed...and those plunderers conspire to keep us misinformed about her condition. As she sickens in different ways, as our reckless, imbalanced, capitalist society veers drunkenly to and fro, as the divides grow starker and the ultra-rich more intoxicated by desperation, the powers that be will work harder and harder to keep us at each other's throats, to offer us others who we can throw to the curb in order to keep our own apparently threatened freedom.

We can feel empathy, kinship, or even an affection for the person named Barack Obama, for the challenges he faces navigating a system so strongly interwoven with racist currents, yet simultaneously see how today's policies enacted by the creepily-named Department of Homeland Security exist to grow the racist prison system, and aid racist behaviors and values through the normalization of certain laws.

We must shift our view of immigrants as Other. We must consider their fight our fight. They are, in fact, us—if we had less protection and more need for the help of the greater community. They are far closer to you and me than the President is, when it comes to struggle. They can be disappeared down a hole of legalisms and racist hate in a second flat...and you will not see them roasting the police a day later on national TV.

We need to feel simultaneously outraged by the racist mechanisms in society that demand documentation from President Obama simply because he is not white, as well as demand that he, too, do his part in eradicating those very mechanisms.

* * *

Final notes: Thanks to friend (and immigration lawyer) Dave Bennion for helping me with resources and to Melissa for posting the piece, which will be crossposted at The Unapologetic Mexican.

Please consider this a humble passing around of the socialist hat: If you are inclined and able to support my work on issues of race and immigration, paypal to dolaresATxolagrafikDOTcom (preferred method), or follow this link (will subtract a fee from donation).

Egyptians are proud of their role in the Arab spring, but September's elections may expose the revolution's fragility

In Cairo last week I found myself buying a couple of "I love Egypt" T-shirts. When a woman then came up to me and, with much the same solemn pushiness as a squeegee merchant, began to paint the colours of the Egyptian flag on my hand, I did not resist. Speakers in one corner were working up a thin crowd, promising retribution for the ancien regime, justice to the masses. Indifferent to them, large Egyptian families picnicked on a freshly laid lawn, the clumps of grass still springing up unevenly from the ground.

Not far from the square, on the corniche, a small pro-Mubarak demonstration was under way. Earlier in the day, radical Islamists had demonstrated before the American embassy in their first public show of strength. Adding to the confusing reality of post-Mubarak Egypt, thousands of demonstrators in the southern city of Qena had been agitating for days on end against a newly appointed Christian governor. But, here, in Tahrir Square, the main stage for Egypt's festival of democracy, day-tripping revellers like myself easily outnumbered protesters and activists.

The great drama of Mubarak's overthrow behind it, Egypt now copes with an agenda as full as that of a country newly liberated from colonial rule: self-government, social equality, economic consolidation and cultural regeneration. At least one of the many post-revolutionary promises – reassertion of national pride – is already being fulfilled. Mediating the Palestinian agreement between Fatah and Hamas, and releasing Gaza from a brutish captivity, the new Egyptian foreign minister realises a long-thwarted Egyptian desire for dignity and prestige in the wider world.

Political groups are scrambling to get themselves into shape for the national elections due in September; there are already rumours of secret deals between the army and the Islamists, and of other crass expediencies of party politics. Now that it is here, the post-Mubarak era is not as marvellous as it seemed in the imagination. Still, the visitor to Cairo is quickly infected by the excitements of sovereignty, the new political emotions and ideas suddenly in play.

It's true that tourists to the revolution like myself have been traditionally prone to ideological self-deceptions; we tend to see what we want to see, and we suppress anything that doesn't fit our preconceptions. Later, when we are inevitably defeated by reality, we grow bitter, turning against our own naive enthusiasms. But as I stood among the crowds and picnickers in the square, I couldn't resist a pang of confidence and optimism.

Hannah Arendt often spoke of the idea of "natality", the new beginnings latent in human life and action. According to her, every new generation of men and women possesses the creative power to open up fresh possibilities of thinking and action; and, witnessing young Egyptians plan voter awareness campaigns in rural areas, it was hard not to be moved by this latest manifestation of "natality" in the Arab world.

It was disconcerting then to hear in street conversations a high degree of nostalgia for the Mubarak regime – not so much for its brutalities as for the stability it suddenly embodies in Egypt's post-revolutionary disorder. Life, if not exactly sweet then, offered a few certainties. Burdened by the daily imperatives of survival and work, few people could afford the time and leisure to think about the future, let alone form political movements to change it.

For these reflexively conservative Egyptians, long content to mind their own business, their country is now full of threats rather than opportunities. And their mood of foreboding is not an overreaction. For the hard work of creating democratic institutions has barely begun. Indeed, democracy is hardly an adequate word to describe the political system that must not only ensure individual rights and civil liberties but, more importantly, prove itself responsive to the plight of nearly half the population that lives on less than $2 a day.

Egypt's most urgent challenges are unquestionably economic. The western media, inevitably highlighting English-speaking Egyptians, may have given the impression that the uprising was the work of middle-class Facebookistas and the Twitterati alone. It was actually fuelled in its most important stages by the distress and rage of the labouring classes, which has been expressed in sporadic protests over recent years.

A series of workers' strikes in early February proved crucial in forcing Mubarak out. Many more strikes have broken out since; the general economic outlook has worsened since February. Food price inflation is running at over 50%; foreign exchange reserves are depleting fast. Tourists, major contributors to the national GDP, have disappeared. That a draconian IMF bailout and the usual brutality towards the weak will accompany political liberalisation is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Egypt's luck in this regard seems particularly bad from where I write, Indonesia – another former military despotism from the cold war. Indonesia stumbled into multi-party democracy following a regional financial crisis, but its political journey has been smoothed subsequently by a strong economy, primarily the growing Chinese and Indian demand for Indonesian commodities.

Indonesia was fortunate too in having powerful Muslim individuals and organisations that affirmed rather than overturned the country's ideological commitment to religious pluralism. Early in the country's transition to electoral democracy, its president Abdurrahman Wahid, former head of the 30 million-strong Muslim group Nahdlatul Ulama, confidently strengthened the legal rights of minorities and also managed to briefly sideline the military.

It may be optimistic to expect a similarly enlightened attitude from the Islamist parties – Egypt's only organised groups at present – that may be the default winners of September's elections. The responsibilities of power are unlikely to persuade the Muslim Brotherhood to drop its mind-numbing slogan "Islam is the solution". But then not much hope can be invested in the nascent secular and liberal political formations in Egypt. Overwhelmingly Cairo-centric, they seem far from organised. Though well-intentioned, their representatives – upper to upper-middle class – seem no more connected than their counterparts in India or Pakistan to the lives of their struggling compatriots in the countryside.

The elections in September may expose greater tensions of class, clan, gender and religion. Far from being a miraculous panacea, popular enfranchisement in heterogenous societies deepens old divisions and conflicts. Christians in Indonesia feel more rather than less insecure today, as hardline Islamic groups proliferate. Crony capitalists, the bane of pre-democratic Indonesia, have multiplied; members of the military have reinvented themselves, and possess a new authority derived from the ballot box. Assisted by political decentralisation, elected officials have carved out mini fiefdoms within Indonesia's resource-rich territories.

The example of Indonesia proves that many social, political and economic problems do not simply disappear when despotic rule ends; indeed, they can grow more tenacious. It is painful to think that for Egypt, too, democracy may entail the recycling of old elites, and the creation of a new class of oppressors and plunderers. But the experience of other "democracies" cautions us against rejecting this possibility. Indeed, for tourists to Egypt's revolution, it may be the best insurance against cruel disenchantment.

Justices and Journalists: The U.S. Supreme Court and the Media

By Richard Davis

(Cambridge University Press, 241 pp., $28.99)

 

The way in which every person, every institution, relates to people is essentially, though often unconsciously, theatrical. We are experts in self-presentation, in acting a part to further our aims and interests. We have, all of us, a public relations strategy. This is true of the Supreme Court, too, and of the individual Supreme Court justices. Unlike obscure persons, the justices have a media presence: the press and the other media are interested in covering them, and the justices themselves can increase coverage by granting requests for interviews or by reaching out to journalists without being solicited. But the access that the justices have to the media should not be confused with how accessible to the media the justices are. That depends largely on whether they want to be accessible, because public curiosity about them is actually quite limited. They can be private if they choose to be.

There are several complications in the design of a public relations strategy for the Supreme Court or its members. The first is a lack of hierarchy. The associate justices do not “work” for the chief justice. He cannot fire them, or tell them what to say or not to say publicly. This makes it difficult to devise and execute a media strategy for the institution. Take a look at the Supreme Court’s website: www. supremecourt.gov. It’s boring! If you look hard enough, you will find a paragraph implying misleadingly that the Court has a very heavy workload; in fact, in the last half-century its output has fallen, while its staff (consisting mainly of law clerks) has increased substantially, both in quantity and—because, since the late 1960s, a prior clerkship has become de rigueur for Supreme Court law clerks—in experience.

Individual justices have an interest in the public image of their institution, of course, but it often conflicts with their individual interests. This is true for the chief justice as well as for the other justices, which further diminishes the possibility of effective institutional public relations. Individual justices, for example, may want to alter the institution: Richard Davis’s new book reports that Bob Woodward thought that Justice Potter Stewart (a major source for Woodward’s book The Brethren) “almost hoped that he could bring Warren Burger down by launching this inquiry into how he ran the Court.” Justices have sometimes used the media to distance themselves from unpopular decisions, as Justice Powell did by publicly regretting, after his retirement, having voted as a justice against gay rights and in favor of the constitutionality of capital punishment. His retraction undermined the legitimacy of those decisions, thus fouling his (former) nest—a risk when a justice tries to use the media to polish his image.

Justices may also use their access to the media to try to enhance their reputation by criticizing other justices, as Justice Blackmun did with unprecedented candor, accusing conservative justices of having a political agenda. (The pot calling the kettle black.) And the justices must know that they will receive more publicity by striking an individual pose rather than sounding like the Supreme Court’s press officer. They may stain the institution in the pursuit of their personal publicity-hugging ends, but there is nothing that the Court as an institution can do about it. The chief justice could try to use his assigning authority (he assigns the authorship of the majority opinion in all cases in which he is in the majority) to discipline errant justices, but the strategy could easily backfire by embittering those justices and making them behave even less responsibly—and making them also reluctant to join the chief justice’s opinions.

Some persons and institutions promote their interests less effectively by publicity than by mystique, which is nicely defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “an air or attitude of mystery and reverence developing around something or someone.” Kings and dictators, religious leaders, and judges are typical examples of public figures who do this, but such persons are found in all walks of life (Greta Garbo, Bobby Fischer, J.D. Salinger). All of them are, of course, just people, with the normal quota of human imperfections-often with more than the normal quota, as abnormalities may assist certain careers. (Paranoia, for example, is a qualification for a long-serving dictator.)

 

The Supreme Court exercises substantial power, legislative in nature though not in name; but at bottom it is just a committee of life-tenured, mostly elderly, lawyers appointed by politicians. The justices are competent and experienced lawyers, but nowadays are apt to lack the worldly experience that might help them in deciding the most important and controversial cases—the ones with large political or social resonance—wisely. From the Court’s earliest days until the 1970s, a great many of the justices came to the Court from high political office, or were (like Brandeis, Frankfurter, and Fortas) behind-the-scenes presidential advisers. All of Truman’s Supreme Court appointees, for example, served either in Congress or in the Cabinet. Yet apart from Sandra Day O’Connor, the last elected official to serve on the Court was Earl Warren, appointed in 1953, who had been governor of California as well as a vice-presidential nominee; and O’Connor was only an Arizona state senator. In addition, the current justices have—though this is not new-a low comfort level with science and technology, and with complex commercial transactions, at a time when technology (including “financial engineering”) is playing an increasingly large role in culture and society.

Transparency would not be an effective public-relations strategy for an institution so staffed. Suppose that the oral arguments of cases before the Court, and the conferences at which the justices discuss and vote on the cases they have heard, along with the discussions they have with their law clerks about the cases, were broadcast on C-Span, maybe on a special channel devoted to real-time coverage of the Court. Suppose also that the rough drafts of the justices’ opinions, and the written comments exchanged among them on the opinion drafts circulated to them by other justices, were promptly published online. And suppose that at the end of each week a panel of journalists and law professors and practicing lawyers was convened, pawing over all this material, to discuss the week’s work of the Court. Would such media coverage—which, except with a lag, is almost the coverage that the media give the other branches of government—give the public a favorable impression of the Court? Probably not.

The Court receives higher confidence ratings in public opinion polls than the president or Congress, and it faces no challenges to its independence. A public that knew more than it does about the Supreme Court might wonder why this group of people is empowered to make decisions that (when they are based, however tenuously, on the Constitution) other branches of government cannot veto. That was the constitutional plan, but it was controversial from the first—and not surprisingly: Congress and the president can plausibly pretend that their actions are in the interest of the nation as a whole, but a judicial decision always has a loser. For this reason, the Supreme Court decisions in cases that engage the public’s attention will often stir a polemical response.

The best public relations strategy in such a situation might be for the justices to distance themselves from the public—to pose as masters of an esoteric art, like mathematicians, or to imitate the Wizard of Oz before he was outed. In this model of judicial p.r.—call it “dignified silence”—the justice is appointed, and then disappears into the Court’s marble palace; he or she is subsequently seen, by the few people in the audience section of the courtroom (critically including a few members of the press), maintaining a Solomonic demeanor, speaking little and gravely—and as Justice Brennan used to say before he changed his mind—refusing to speak to journalists at any time, in any place, on any subject. Remote, wrapped in mystery, the justice committed to the pose of dignified silence issues opinions that present the Court’s decisions as impersonal products compelled by “law” regarded as external to the justices, as the Ten Commandments were external to Moses—handed to him, not written by him. If on occasion the mystique-enveloped justice issues a dissenting opinion—and this will be rare, as he will be reluctant to publicize disagreement, which is anathema to mystique—it will be to express dispassionate disagreement on a point that he will labor to characterize as narrowly technical. He will not question the majority’s good-faith commitment to intellectual rigor and judicial restraint.

 

But most justices have not embraced such a strategy—and yet the Court has retained and indeed augmented its power even at times when its exercise was strongly challenged by other branches of government. So there must be an even better strategy. Not necessarily better for the Court as an institution, but good enough for the Court and—critically—better for the individual justices as they balance their individual interests against their institutional interests: their prestige and power derive from the Court’s prestige and power.

It is here that we might have expected to learn from Richard Davis’s book, as it is one of a tiny handful of books exclusively concerned with the relation between the Supreme Court and the media. This is certainly a timely subject, but the book does not do it justice. Although not very long, it is very repetitious; and although Davis is a political scientist rather than a journalist, it is not analytical. And he does not stick closely to his subject. He is fascinated by oddities (as they seem to us) in the behavior of Supreme Court justices, especially in the nineteenth century, when several of them harbored presidential ambitions and campaigned vigorously, though covertly and unsuccessfully, to be nominated. (The only justice ever to be nominated for the presidency was Charles Evans Hughes, who narrowly lost to Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Chief Justice Taft was an ex-president.) But their efforts had only a little to do with the relation between the media and the justices qua justices, the “little” being that the presidential aspirants were quite willing to sound off to reporters on purely political issues, as other justices would not do.

 

 

The book is poorly written, with passages that make the reader scratch his head in puzzlement: “Will the attention to the individual justices undermine the institution’s product orientation?” “As most biographies do, these books [recent biographies of Supreme Court justices] show the justices as individuals much like others not in high public office, particularly the Supreme Court.” “Broadcast media, particularly, were not venues justices used throughout most of the twentieth century.” “Justices almost never used the vehicle of a press conference for interacting with the press in the twentieth century. They typically occurred when a Justice came to the Court or left it, although not all of the Justices even did that.” “The last member of Congress to come directly from elective office was Harold Burton.” (Davis means the Court, not Congress.) There are puzzling references to “grand jury trials” and to the judicial “collar.”

Davis is a slave to periodization. He believes that history is shaped by the calendar, and so the twenty-first century must have ushered in a new era in the justices’ relations with the media. But at least his book is a detailed narrative of those relations, and therein lies its principal value. We learn that the justices’ favorite strategy, from the Court’s earliest days to the present, has been not to ignore the media but to use them covertly, leaving no footprints. Other officials try to do this, but with less success. Elected officials are so dependent on the media that they cannot easily discipline, by means of ostracism, a reporter (or the newspaper that employs him) who reveals what an official thought he had told the reporter in confidence. Justices pay only a small penalty for cutting off a reporter who betrays a confidence.

 

One expects the Court and the justices to embrace the most aggressive public relations strategies during times in which the Court is embattled—as it was in its earliest days, especially during the Jefferson administration, Jefferson being fiercely hostile to Chief Justice John Marshall’s Federalist-dominated Court. The justices took to writing pseudonymous essays and letters in defense of the Court’s decisions, which they tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to place in newspapers. Decades later the Dred Scott decision triggered ferocious criticism of the Court; and although we think of media decorum as a thing of the past, the nineteenth-century press was even more vituperative than the modern press. During the Civil War, in a case in which Chief Justice Taney ruled (correctly) that the president could not suspend habeas corpus (Lincoln, sensibly from a pragmatic standpoint, disregarded the ruling), The New York Times accused Taney of “us[ing] the powers of his office to serve the cause of traitors.” Another justice was accused by a newspaper of having “passed beyond the age allotted to man, and with his tottering and shattered frame his intellect is crumbling too,” and another justice was called a “fossil,” and another “a slave-catching Judge.” As in the Marshall era, the justices fought back: they wrote essays and letters (sometimes under pseudonyms), sat for interviews with reporters, and even befriended them.

In only two periods since the Civil War era has the Supreme Court been embattled, and only in the first was it in danger of losing the battle. That was in 1937, the year of Roosevelt’s court-packing plan—which was defeated with the help of a letter to Congress from Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Brandeis, which, by assuring Congress that the justices were current with their work, pulled the rug out from under the administration’s contention that the Court needed additional justices because the nine old men could not cope with the workload. The letter was a clever ploy that did no damage to the Court’s mystique because it did not lift the veil that concealed the Court’s internal operations. The letter was not the only media response of the justices; Brandeis gave an interview to two journalists explaining off the record his votes in cases invalidating New Deal legislation.

The second period of embattlement began with the challenge by the Nixon administration to the Warren Court’s liberal decisions, a challenge fueled by scandals involving two of the justices, Douglas and Fortas. The challenge simmered throughout the 1970s and heated up at the beginning of the Reagan Administration. This brought Brennan out of his media closet; but the storm quickly blew over. Liberal dissatisfaction with Bush v. Gore, and more broadly with a Court that was growing increasingly conservative during the 1980s, was also evanescent, despite the unusually sharp tone of the dissents in that case, which predicted incorrectly that the decision would impair the Court’s standing with the public.

The Court has proved remarkably impervious to criticisms, even from within. It receives plenty of academic criticism, but such criticism has no political significance whatsoever. Without really trying, the Court has managed, unlike the other branches of government, to maintain—in an era of unprecedentedly voracious media, intense political partisanship, and growing governmental dysfunction—a considerable measure of immunity from public scrutiny of any kind. The only justices who have received significant media publicity in recent times are O’Connor, as the first woman justice; Thomas, because of the high drama of his confirmation hearing and certain peculiarities in his behavior, such as not asking questions at oral argument; and Scalia, because he is a “character.” He is also the most influential justice of the last quarter-century, his influence ramifying far outside the Court; but that is not the basis of his media celebrity.

 

Back in the1970s and 1980s, Blackmun was the justice most often mentioned by the media (or at least by The New York Times—Davis’s canvass of media coverage of the justices is very limited), doubtless because of Roe v. Wade as well as because of Blackmun’s eccentricity and outspokenness. But public attention to the justices is fleeting. Most members of the public cannot name any Supreme Court justice. In 2009, only 1 percent could identify John Paul Stevens as a justice, though he had been one for more than 30 years. In 1970, 22 percent of the public knew that Warren Burger was chief justice, even though he had served for only one year, while the corresponding figure for John Roberts in 2005, his first year, was 16 percent—and four years later that figure had dropped to 11 percent. These data suggest that the justices’ increased media visibility has not increased public interest in, or knowledge about, the Supreme Court.

One might expect the justices to bask in their anonymity, as it secures their power. Yet since the 1980s they have increasingly courted publicity. The last holdout was Souter, and he has been replaced by the less bashful Sotomayor; and as a result there are no more wallflowers on the Supreme Court. The Associated Press reported in December 2009, shortly after Sotomayor was appointed, that “since becoming the first Hispanic Justice, [she] has mamboed with movie stars, exchanged smooches with musicians at the White House and thrown out the first pitch for her beloved New York Yankees,” while, according to the same AP story, Ginsburg and Scalia “recently had roles in the opening performance of ‘Ariadne auf Naxos’ for the Washington National Opera.”

The justices’ volubility at oral argument has become remarkable: the lawyers have trouble getting a word in edgewise. The justices joke and clown at oral argument; they give the impression, whether or not accurate or intended, that they are playing to the crowd, and they certainly seem to be having a ball. (Thomas does not ask questions, but he chats and chuckles with Breyer, who sits beside him on the bench.) The justices write books (including autobiographies), authorize biographies of themselves, go on book tours, give talks to high school students, debate with each other on television, give speeches all over the world. All this makes their continued refusal to permit the televising of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court puzzling, though the explanation may simply be that they want, in part for reasons of security, not to be recognized by members of the public other than in venues of their choice.

Recently in one of those venues—a packed California auditorium seating 1,200—Justice Kennedy presided over a mock trial of Hamlet for murder, while in another mock trial Justice Ginsburg, dressed in a Civil War uniform, presided over a court martial of General Custer. (Their star turns received front-page coverage in The Wall Street Journal.) Chief Justice Rehnquist had his judicial robe altered to that of the Lord Chancellor in Iolanthe (“The constitutional guardian I/ Of pretty young Wards in Chancery,/All very agreeable girls—and none/Are over the age of twenty-one./A pleasant occupation for/A rather susceptible Chancellor!”). Justice Stevens, in retirement, gives interviews and writes articles settling scores with his conservative former colleagues. Justice Blackmun, brimming over with resentment of his colleagues, settled a number of scores in interviews—in one of which he called the other justices prima donnas—and by ordering his Court files, which contained a surprising amount of vitriol, to be released to the public five years after his death. Even the reticent Souter, in a Harvard commencement address delivered shortly after his retirement, took a shot at his conservative colleagues.

Still, the justices’ antics do little harm—or good. They neither help nor hurt the Court’s public image. True, by traditional standards of judicial behavior, which are intended to project mystique, the justices (not all of them) lack the necessary gravitas. But in this respect they faithfully mirror the larger American culture of today, so that only old fogies are troubled. The very inconsequence of the change in the justices’ demeanor makes one wonder whether Davis really has a subject—whether the media relations of the justices have any contemporary significance at all. When the Court is embattled, the justices have a serious interest in getting the media on their side, and they try to accomplish that by the methods that Davis recounts. At other times, which include the present, the degree to which they expose themselves to the media by engaging in activities that draw media interest has no consequences.

In a celebrity culture there is a demand for celebrities, as well as a willing supply. That is one reason why the justices have become more public, though oddly without being much noticed by the public, judging by the name-recognition statistics. Another reason why justices court publicity nowadays is that, unlike most celebrities (including political ones), they are treated very respectfully by the media. And they have the time to do the celebrity circuit. They hear cases only part of the year, and they have staffs of eager and brilliant law clerks prepared to work very long hours to help them. (The clerks would be quite happy to do all the Supreme Court’s work.)

Davis recounts the history of justices’ efforts to enlist the media in image-making. Justice Frankfurter lobbied The Washington Post to remove from the Supreme Court beat a reporter who “wrote stories suggesting that ... Frankfurter’s work volume was lower than that of other justices.” Flattery is an instrument, too. Chief Justice Warren told a reporter that he was “pleased beyond words” with the reporter’s coverage of the controversial Miranda decision. And like other officials, justices have been known to try to barter access for favorable coverage. But this tactic fails when the reporter is writing about the institution rather than about an individual justice. For if some justices agree to be interviewed, any justice who refuses is apt to be depicted in a poor light. The justices who agree to be interviewed will have an opportunity to promote themselves at the expense of the no-shows, and the reporter naturally will write more favorably about those who cooperate with him than about those who do not—which is just to say that like other conspiracies, a conspiracy of silence among Supreme Court justices is not an equilibrium. A justice would be tempted to cheat his co-conspirators, since he could cast himself in a good light by leaking to a reporter in implicit exchange for favorable coverage. Once one justice does that, the others are under pressure to follow suit.

I began Davis’s book thinking that the relations of Supreme Court justices to the media was an important question. I come away from it thinking that in times past it has been important but that today it is not—and this even though the publicity that Supreme Court justices receive is unprecedented in its volume. A tiny segment of the public is being entertained, which is fine, but public knowledge about the Supreme Court is not growing. The benefits of celebrity accrue to the justices as individuals rather than to the Supreme Court, or to the public at large in the form of a better understanding of a powerful political institution.

 

Richard A. Posner is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This article originally ran in the May 26, 2011, issue of the magazine.

 

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Creation of a new award of $10,000 for a young woman leader in the social justice movement has been announced by the Berger-Marks Foundation. The Edna Award will spotlight significant contributions to social justice and bestow a significant honor to a young woman whose leadership has already fueled social change. Applications are being accepted online through July 15, with the award to be presented in the fall.

Google is a well known company and it rules the world of internet. No one is above law and anyone who violates the law will be taken to justice. One should take care of social norms and should not violate them. There are certain laws made by which you cannot trace any person without his [...]

Falling officer numbers and the changing face of protest present challenges, but the principles of British policing must be upheld

Public trust has always been at the heart of the British model of policing. Trust can be shaken by individual events, perhaps never more so when large-scale public order situations give rise to violence. Such tests seem likely to occur more frequently as spending cuts bite across the public sector. But despite the difficult times we undoubtedly face ahead, it is important to stress that the fundamental elements of how we deal with public order – principles that remain lauded throughout the world – will not change.

By the conscious design of men such as Sir Robert Peel, the police themselves should have to act in such a way that secures and maintains the approval, respect and affection of the public. They should be professional in character, independent of any special interest and above all, accountable to the public we serve and to the rule of law. Despite great changes to society and the police service over the years, the simple maths that 140,000 (and falling) officers continue to police a population of 61 million tells you that policing in the UK is still built on the principle of consent.

Public order situations ask individual officers to make difficult choices: in discharging their duties to uphold the law, to balance competing rights of protesters and those seeking to go about their business, and to use necessary and proportionate force. Where individual officers act outside of the law, then they themselves must be subject to it – as we have seen again recently. The overwhelming majority of officers get it right, often in the face of severe provocation, and they should be supported.

Our understanding of how to make those choices is strengthened by a growing understanding of human rights obligations with the police service. In my own experience in Northern Ireland, the reforms implemented under the Patten report placed human rights at the centre of the police service of Northern Ireland, putting us, at that time, in a unique position. Following the 2009 G20 protests, the national review of tactics led to human rights principles set within revised national guidelines on public order.

That does not mean the British policing model lacks a hard edge. The right to protest is conditional and it is the role of ground commanders to decide what is proportionate in any given situation. The reality is their choices will rarely be welcomed – the Metropolitan Police in particular continues to be criticised, both by those who urge tougher policing tactics, and by those who condemn them. Every public order event poses a different challenge and is an opportunity to improve the way the service responds. The speed at which groups are now mobilising – some of them intent on violence within largely peaceful protests – adds a whole new dimension. Communication between protesters and police remains the key to getting the most appropriate approach in each unique situation.

A striking comparison remains between the policing of protest in Britain and other jurisdictions. The UK does not have standing "riot police", nor are water cannon and baton rounds a common feature, as they are in other western European countries. To manage large-scale events we take officers from the neighbourhoods and communities they would far rather be policing.

In the foreseeable future the need for mutual aid – sharing those officers between forces – to deal with public order events will increase, and it will be critical to preserve the ability of the service to act collectively at a national level when integrating locally elected policing and crime commissioners. Nor can the fact of fewer resources and a harsher fiscal reality be allowed to become a pretext for restrictions on the right to peaceful protest. As a police service it is essential we guard against this, and hold fast to the principles of the British model.

• On Thursday 5 May Sir Hugh Orde is taking part in one of the public events organised by London Metropolitan University on human rights and social justice in an age of austerity

The triumphalism after the American targeted assassination of Osama bin Laden is a sure sign that the US is incapable of understanding the significance of the painful years since September 11. We suffered and now you must, too.

“I’ve never been so excited to see the photo of a corpse with a gunshot wound through the head”, tweeted Emily Miller of The Washington Times.

Most in the mainstream press have simply regurgitated White House propaganda without question, including key details of bin Laden’s death and lifestyle.

The glee with which many in the American public, political and media elites have celebrated the murder of bin Laden may be unsurprising but it provides a welcome insight into an infantile and violence-obsessed culture. He used mayhem against Us and We must unleash overwhelming firepower against Him and His followers.

9/11 was slaughter on a huge scale and American hurt, confusion and anger was understandable. Finding the perpetrators of the crime was essential but it is difficult to cheer when a man receives bullets to the head unless, of course, we want to marinate in the juices of a John Wayne fantasy.

“We responded [to 9/11] exactly as these terrorist organizations wanted us to respond”, says former New York Times Middle East correspondent Chris Hedges. “They wanted us to speak the language of violence”.

The corporate media is filled with undeniably fascinating stories of how the US tracked bin Laden to his Pakistani hideout. The potential complicity of forces within the Pakistani intelligence services will be investigated but is unlikely to lead to a serious reduction in US funding for the corrupt elites there. The ongoing US-led war in Afghanistan guarantees Washington is joined at the hip to the Pakistani military. And once again, the Pakistani people will be killed without mercy.

But largely missing from the mountains of coverage in the last days are the profound changes 9/11 brought to the world, and the pyrrhic victories scored by bin Laden and his group of murderous thugs.

The militarisation of America and the engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia and elsewhere has not made the US homeland any safer. In fact, the opposite is true. The thought that an old man sitting in an expensive compound in Pakistan with no internet or phone access is truly the most dangerous and wanted man in the world shows the skewed priorities of a brutal super-power hell-bent on revenge.

The murder of bin Laden wasn’t justice, as claimed by Obama and a range of commentators. It was a targeted assassination, an art perfected by Israel, and an illegal tool that has not made the Zionist nation any less likely to face attack from designated enemies. America will be no different.

The post 9/11 security state is now well and truly entrenched in our lives. The arrival of President Barack Obama did nothing to change that; it was merely accelerated with a nicer, kinder face. Privatised killing is now ubiquitous in Iraq and Afghanistan as an out-of-control and multi-trillion dollar industry finds ways to kill and make new foes in the process.

The US and its allies have provided over the last years an overwhelming range of weapons to murderers (former opponents now known as “allies”) in nations where conventional US forces have been unable to subdue a legitimate insurgency.

It’s grimly ironic that the Australian media obsesses over every word of supposed terrorism expert Australian David Kilcullen – described on Monday night’s ABC TV Lateline as “one of the world's top counter-insurgency specialists” - without asking whether his skills have actually succeeded and at what cost.

An insurgency still rages in Iraq and has never been stronger in Afghanistan, and the methods by which US forces tried to destroy resistance movements involved arming former enemies and unleashing horrific violence against those who wouldn’t accept US rule. That’s some victory that plays directly into the narrative articulated by bin Laden from the 1990s: Western forces only want to occupy and subjugate Muslims.

Besides, Kilcullen is closely associated with the likely next CIA director David Petraeus, whose military tactics against insurgents have been vicious and counter-productive. He will certainly bring a far more militarised mindset to America’s intelligence community.

But resistance to Western domination of the Arab world wasn’t achieved by Al-Qaeda. Their murder of countless Muslims and quasi-death cult ideology failed to connect with enough people looking for something more than just opposition to sclerotic Western-backed dictatorships across the region.

Hamas, Hizbollah head Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have succeeded where Al-Qaeda failed; they spent years cementing themselves in the fabric of societies that were being ignored by the state. These nationalist movements, with various degrees of aggression and repression, have far more successfully captured the spirit of the post 9/11 times than bin Laden’s superficially appealing dogma. And most Muslims worldwide haven’t bought the hardline Islamist line for years.

This year’s Arab revolutions have shown the almost irrelevance of Al-Qaeda. Millions of Arabs in Egypt, Tunisia, Palestine, Libya, Saudi Arabia and beyond have found ways to challenge despots and US-backed autocrats in ways unimagined and impossible for bin Laden. Freedom movements, partly religious and partly secular, have fundamentally transformed a region that most of its largely young population only associated with social and political stagnation. Al-Qaeda has been almost silent in the last while, a force that had no way to harness, let alone lead, grievances of the oppressed masses.

None of us will feel safer with the death of bin Laden and why should we? The arguments for his organisation’s force have only strengthened since 9/11, even if his tactics were abhorrent and failed to attract huge numbers of followers. America and its allies are now far widely engaged across the Muslim world, militarising lands in the name of “fighting terrorism”. Wikileaks has shown the futility of such actions, detailing US officials attempts to pressure autocratic nations to crack down on unwanted elements while stirring up hatred of citizens under the path of ever-increasing drone attacks (in Yemen, Pakistan and now Libya).

The West will never feel more secure with the murder of a terrorist leader. Almost nowhere in the media orgy of celebration (including, disappointingly, Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show) was anything discussed about occupation. It didn’t exist, seemingly completely separate to the rise and once high popularity of bin Laden. Pakistan’s apparent protection of the Al-Qaeda leader will only deepen America’s desire to further occupy that nation’s mind. Obama is a war President, a badge he wears with pride, such is his escalation of covert missions in numerous nations in the last years.

There has been a deliberate conflation by a litany of politicians, corporate journalists and think-tankers in the last decade to frame every resistance to Western policy as terrorism. It is not. Take Afghanistan, where the Taliban has virtually no relationship with Al-Qaeda anymore and will continue to fight for the liquidation of foreign forces, whether we like or not. They’ll have no concern with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd mouthing platitudes about staying the course in Afghanistan with a warlord infested, Kabul government.

bin Laden died a man who had profoundly changed the landscape of the world. He failed to rally Muslims to his brutal cause but his shadow will continue to hover over Western policy towards the Islamic world. We have been sold a lie, one pushed by the Israelis for decades, that the killing of countless terrorists will bring peace. Colonising Muslim lands is seemingly irrelevant, or locking up innocent men in Guantanamo Bay or escalating a drone war in Pakistan.

The West has much to learn.


Antony Loewenstein is an independent journalist and author of My Israel Question and The Blogging Revolution.

• Read all responses to this article

On Monday, we looked at the first affirmation of the Missional Manifesto regarding the authority of Scripture. In the weeks to come, we are going to take some time to look at each of the affirmations in greater detail in the weeks to come here on the blog. Today, we scan the second affirmation on the gospel.

Here is how the second affirmation reads in the manifesto:

Gospel: We affirm that God, who is more holy than we can imagine, looked with compassion upon humanity made up of people who are more sinful than we will admit and sent Jesus into history to establish His kingdom and reconcile people and the world to Himself. Jesus, whose love is more extravagant than we can measure, gave His life as a substitutionary death on the cross and was physically resurrected thereby propitiating the wrath of God. Through the grace of God, when a person repents of their sin, confesses the Messiah as Lord, and believes in His resurrection, they gain what the Bible defines as new and eternal life. All believers are then joined together into the church, a covenant community working as "agents of reconciliation" to proclaim and live out the gospel. 

In the last post on the authority of Scripture, I said that the framers looked to the Bible first to guide the thinking and the affirmations of the document. In a sense, all of the affirmations build on one another. This is no exception.

In a word, the Scriptures are about the gospel. Every verse, every passage, every book, in both the Old and New Testaments, is leading the reader to see the world's need for redemption which is only found in Jesus. The message of God's great rescue of His people fills the entire Bible. It is the story of salvation from the first Eden to Eden renewed in the new heavens and the new earth.

In 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul reminds the Corinthian church of the gospel that he had preached to them and that it was delivered to them "as of first importance." He then goes on to give one of the many Gospel "nutshells" we find in the Bible in verses 3-4, "...that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."

Why did Paul say that this was of "first importance?" Looking at verse 17, Paul says that if Christ was not raised from the dead, we are still in our sins. One of our framers, Tim Keller, says it this way, "It is...important to realize that the gospel is primarily about how our alienation with God is addressed and removed by the work of Christ." Tim is right. The good news of the gospel is, as J.I. Packer says, "God saves sinners."

So when we begin to talk about things like mission, we must be careful to keep the Bible's grand theme of the gospel in view at all times. That is why we used the language of reconciliation in the manifesto.

Here is what is interesting. One's view of salvation-- however it is defined-- will determine the missionary work. To say it another way, being "missional" is inextricable from one's soteriology.

In Transforming Mission, David Bosch states that the Christian missionary movement has been driven throughout its history by the aspiration to mediate salvation to all. And just as there have been paradigm shifts in the understanding of how Scripture informs mission, there have been shifts in the understanding of the nature of the salvation the church mediates in its mission. Now, I do not intend in these posts to say "this is what we all thought as framers," but I think these shifts explain why it was important to convey of an understanding of the gospel in the manifesto.

Many evangelicals would be surprised that anyone would want to make the gospel into something more than being "reconciled to God by the death of his Son" (Romans 5:10). But if you've watched the missional conversation over the past few years, many have expressed concern that this approach to the gospel has the potential to thwart mission. Why?

The discomfort that some have about a definition of the gospel that stops at redemption is that it has a tendency to minimize the gospel. In other words, if the gospel is only about salvation, what about the imperatives in the Bible that seem to connect the gospel with caring for the poor, visiting the captive, ministering to the marginalized, and engaging in social action (Ps. 14:6; Deut. 10:18; 24:17; Mal. 3:5; Mt. 6:2; James 2:2-6; 1 Jn. 3:17-18)?

I think it is important to remember that there is a difference between the gospel and the implications of the gospel. The gospel is the good news of the gracious work of Jesus in his life, death, and resurrection that restores our relationship with God when we, as the manifesto says, repent of our sin, confess the Messiah as Lord, and trust in him. Some have called this the "God-Man-Christ-Response" understanding of the gospel. A gospel-centered mission will always include a call to the individual to place their faith and trust in Jesus. This is why evangelism is an indispensable part of mission.

But others prefer to describe the story-arc of the Bible as "Creation-Sin-Redemption-Restoration." The addition of restoration emphasizes that God 's end game is to restore His creation back to its original order. God's purpose is to redeem individuals, gathered as one people who will dwell securely forever in a restored creation (Revelation 21).

In his booklet, The Restoration of All Things, Sam Storms says it this way:

The efficacy and finality of Christ's redemptive work, together with his resurrection and exaltation as Lord to the right hand of the Father, alone accounts for the anticipation all Christians have of the return of Christ and the consummate fulfillment of God's eternal purpose in the new heavens and new earth. [1]

The emphasis on restoration also includes the idea that God is not merely saving individuals but a people who will join Him, as the manifesto says, as "agents of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5). The gospel of "first importance" removes our primary alienation from God (sin) but it also sends us out to join God in His restoration movement. to bring healing to culture's physical, emotional, psychological, relational and societal brokenness. This is why acts of mercy and justice through the church is also a fundamental facet of mission. Our work as agents of reconciliation is primarily carried out through our calling to make disciples of all nations, but is also connected to obeying the commands of God in seeking the good of others.

I believe the addition of restoration to the story-arc of the gospel is helpful and something I teach and preach, but let me caution us here. When you look at mission history, an emphasis on social awareness and world transformation has led to problems. Any Christian with a history book and a willingness to learn can see that, as missionary Stephen Neill said, "if everything is mission, nothing is mission."

I have pointed out before that the last two times that Christians "discovered" social justice, it did not end well. I think that evangelical Christians must focus more acts of mercy and justice but they need to know and avoid the errors of those who came before us that shared the same concern.

The Manifesto takes a "both-and" approach to the gospel and its implications. It is both "God-Man-Christ-Response" and "Creation-Sin-Redemption-Restoration." God's plan is to save individuals but in saving individuals he gathers them together as one people, and sends them out into the world on one mission.

Jared Wilson calls this the "two-fisted gospel" when he says, "One fist to take out the prince of the power of the air with the revolutionary news that the risen Christ is Lord, and one fist to bring justice to the captives with the embodied news that God is love." [2] So yes, we've been saved from sin but for a greater purpose, as the manifesto says, to "proclaim and live out the gospel."

Next, we will look at the third affirmation regarding the kingdom. You will see how today's discussion dovetails right into the kingdom affirmation. Be sure to read the preamble and affirmations here, and then come back and weigh in with your thoughts in the comments.

(Please be mindful of the comment policy at the blog as you post your comments)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Sam Storms, The Restoration of All Things, The Gospel Coalition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2011), 7.

[2] Jared Wilson, "The Two-Fisted Gospel: A Manifesto for Kingdom Militancy"

Editors' Note: Guest blogger Brett Stockdill is a queer, HIV positive activist, teacher and scholar in Chicago. He is an Associate Professor in Sociology, Women's Studies, and Latino & Latin American Studies at Northeastern Illinois University. His four-part series, "Living in the Borderlands," will be running every morning this week. You can start the series with the first post, "The Odyssey of the Utterly Fabulous Mario Sierra

The Crossroads of 'Illegal' and HIV

"...this is just a condition that you have to deal with..." --Mario Sierra*

After putting it off for years, Mario decided to get an HIV test in 2000 at the age of 34. He chose to take an anonymous test (rather than a confidential one that links test results to the person's name) in large part because he was "illegal."

"I knew that if I let my HIV status out I would probably have a problem with immigration so that's why I decided now more than ever I can't tell anybody if I become positive. And that was exactly the result. I came out positive," he said.

His fears relating to his undocumented status merged with fears surrounding HIV, but he drew upon the same spirit of resilience with which he had tackled other challenges.

"It was horrible... I excluded myself from everything," Mario told me. "I didn't want anybody to know... I was so devastated. I feel like my life changed from that point on. Being illegal. And what if I really get sick right now, and I can't work. I can't collect unemployment. I would have to be on my own so - it's like I built this strength inside of me. To tell my body, 'no, you cannot get sick, you have to go on and be strong because you don't have help if you need it.'"

What makes Mario's life since 2000 even more remarkable - his career, his leadership in a number of interconnected cultural communities, his contributions to his family of origin, and his social justice activism - is that even as Mario confronted the daily onslaughts of xenophobia, racism and homophobia, he also tackled the everyday challenges of living with HIV.

Continue reading "Surviving: Living in the Borderlands"...

17-year-old Australian teen appeared in court on Thursday after allegedly breaking in to Sydney's Acer Arena and egging the pop star.
By Gil Kaufman

Justin Bieber
Photo: Christopher Polk/ Getty Images

When are people going to learn that you just can't get away with dissing Justin Bieber? You can't criticize him, date him or look sideways at the "Baby" singer without the Beliebers coming down on you like a ton of sparkly, text-mad bricks.

So it should come as no surprise that the culprit in a recent Bieber bashing Down Under was swiftly brought to justice for his egg raid on the pop star. According to The Associated Press, Australian officials have charged a 17-year-old with breaking into Bieber's concert at Sydney's Acer Arena on Friday and tossing eggs at the singer. Video of the incident showed several raw eggs hitting the stage and just missing Bieber and his backup singers. Bieber and his crew kept dancing amid the attack, but the Melbourne Herald Sun reported that officials from the arena complained about the incident to police after catching wind of the egging on a social networking site.

The teen was arrested at his home in Bondi Junction, and police seized a cell phone and other items while taking him into custody.

The unnamed youth made an appearance in Sydney Children's Court on Thursday and was charged with breaking and entering, trespassing, and malicious damage. He was released on bail and is scheduled to enter a plea next month. Police say the teen broke into the arena through the roof.

Bieber didn't react to the ovum assault, but he did take time after one of his recent shows to meet up with Australian teen Casey Heynes, who became famous for a viral video in which he stood up to a bully. He invited Heynes to come out on stage at a show in Melbourne and tell the crowd "Never say never" after meeting with him privately backstage.

Related Photos

• Justin Bieber Takes Over The Bodies Of Other Teen Idols

Related Artists

• Justin Bieber

By all appearances, the Toronto firm of solicitors is a fine boutique, experienced in a wide-range of international transactional work,  Best of all is their commitment to the client:

At Wagner Elliot LLP w e are committed to providing commercial legal advice of the highest quality at a sensible cost. Our service is: • personal • proactive and • practical Our charging policy is: • flexible • realistic and • totally transparent

There is only one drawback.  It's a complete fraud.  There is no law firm Wagner Elliot, as George Wallace details at Declarations and Exclusions.  Together with Antonin Pribetic, George has unearthed a few firms, all using the names and images of real lawyers, to manufacture fake law firms in Canada and United Kingdom.  And darn nice places to work and do business.

Lawyers in Canada have begun receiving solicitations from Wagner Elliot, apparently in need of local counsel to help with its burgeoning multinational real estate practice.  Dan Pinnington at Slaw has put out the word that this is a scam, much like the collections and divorce emails that have become pervasive across the internets. 

It's hardly a complicated scheme, but hungry lawyers are, well, hungry.  And given how well established Wagner Elliot is, as demonstrated by their very fine website, how is a hungry lawyer to know?  And what a fine looking building they have.



By sheer luck, marketing guru Seth Godin posted this very day about believing in the invisible.

If you are too trusting of the invisible, then you buy that $89 ebook that comes with the promise of instant riches, or you sign up for ear candling, or invest time and money with a charlatan. If you haven't figured out how to discern the invisible stuff that's true from the invisible stuff that's a trick, you're helpless in a world where just about every decision we make has to do with things that are invisible.

Thus, two kinds of serious errors: believing in invisible things that aren't true, or insisting that the truth might not be. They're caused by fear, by deliberate misinformation and by being uninformed.

How to discern between the two is our problem, not Seth's.  That's how marketing gurus roll.

The slope is becoming ever more slippery.  Only last week, Brian Tannebaum wrote a provocative post about young lawyers learning to "fake it 'til they make it," which brought out a surprising number of scoundrels asserting their droits moraux to hold themselves out in best possible light, even if that light is false and deceptive, providing that they believe that they haven't stretch reality too far.  But at least these scoundrels were actually lawyers.  At least I think they were lawyers.

When all it takes is a website with some generic photos of buildings and the standard verbiage commitment to clients, it no longer requires lawyers to play lawyers on the internet.  The potential is huge, and it can save young lawyers a fortune in law school debt. 

There have been individuals who pretended to be lawyers before.  Dan Penofsky immediately comes to mind, a New York City Assistant District Attorney (and a pretty darn good one) who, as it happens, wasn't a lawyer, but who managed to get away with playing prosecutor for decades. He tried a good case and was a formidable adversary.  And he didn't even have a website.

The interwebz is the land of opportunity for the invisible, and as every social media guru and legal marketer points out, all it takes to gain fabulous wealth in the law is to know how to play the internet marketing game better than the lawyer next door.  So if you're not as adept as your neighbor, or perhaps too shy and reticent to puff your way to fame and fortune, perhaps your best route to success is to get a job with a law firm that has mastered social media and self-promotion.

I hear Wagner Elliot, LLP, would be happy to take you on.  Just send in your equity stake and wait for instructions.

© 2011 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.

Photo by Helga Weber

By Ali Luke

Do little things make you unnecessarily stressed?

Do you feel a nagging sense of dissatisfaction with your life?

Do you struggle to see other people’s point of view?

It’s often hard to keep a sense of perspective in our lives. We’re constantly bombarded with urgent-seeming stimuli – like texts, phone calls, instant messages, tweets and emails. We live each day in a rush, fighting our way through an endless to-do list.

And we often grumble and complain about problems in our life, while ignoring all the good things which we have. We might get blinkered and feel that our opinions are the right ones.

Changing your perspective can be incredibly refreshing. It might:

• Open up new possibilities that you hadn’t thought of before
• Help you to heal a relationship with someone who you thought had “stupid” values and opinions
• Calm you down when you’re feeling stressed
• Let you enjoy and appreciate all the good things you already have

Here are seven simple ways to change your perspective. Give one (or more!) of them a try, today:

#1: Ask “Will it Matter in Five Years”?

When I’m anxious about something, this is what I often ask myself. Almost always, the answer is that it won’t matter in a week, let alone in five years.

Some days – even some moments – are life-changing. You’ve probably been through some of these – like exams, job interviews, the decision to get married, or buying a house.

Most of what we worry about, though, is fleeting and trivial. Maybe you’ve made a mistake at work, or you’ve had a dinner crisis which means your family is eating pizza for the third time in three days. It’s really not worth stressing yourself over.

#2: Draw or Write About a Situation

Maybe you’ve got a big decision to make, or a big problem to confront. It might have been on your mind for days or weeks; it could even be something that you’ve talked about (or argued about) with your partner.

The problem is, you feel like you’re not getting anywhere. You’re just as uncertain or anxious as you were before.

This is a great time to grab a pen and paper. Either write about the problem – perhaps in the style of a journal entry, or as a list of ideas – or draw something which represents the current situation. By doing your thinking on paper, you automatically start creating structure and order, allowing you to see things from a new, clearer, perspective. Chances are, you’ll find several possible solutions.

#3: Write a List of Things You’re Grateful For

Whatever your current situation, you’ve got loads of great things in your life too. Some of us (me included!) find it all too easy to moan about stuff which isn’t going well – but pretty hard to spot the everyday good things which we take for granted.

Spend five minutes writing a list of things which you’re grateful for. They can be big (“my parents’ love and support”) or small (“fresh coffee”). This is a powerful exercise to do on a regular basis, perhaps every week. You can also do it as a family.

#4: Go For a Walk

When I’m feeling a bit fed up or out of sorts, I try to get outside for a walk. Often I don’t feel like doing it – but as soon as I’m out and moving, I find my mood dramatically improving.

Walking is a great way to get yourself physically away from whatever’s stressing you (your work, the state of the house…) and to give yourself a chance to think. If you can head somewhere relaxing, like a local park or area of woodland, you’ll find that your thoughts quieten down and that it’s easier to get things into perspective.

#5: Go Travelling

Getting away from home – whether that’s for a few days or a few months – can be an incredibly powerful, even life-changing, experience. Just staying in a different city will jolt you out of your usual routine (and perhaps help you figure out what you’d like to add into your daily life).

If you go abroad, you’ll be able to experience a completely new perspective. You’ll see how life can be lived in hundreds of very different ways. You’ll have the space and time to reflect on your own life, and you may well be motivated to make big changes.

Even the duller bits of travelling can be powerful: a long airplane ride might be a rare opportunity to read a whole book in one sitting, for instance.

#6: Ask “Why” – And Keep Asking

Next time you’re struggling to get perspective, ask why you do something. Channel your inner child here – be tenacious in pushing for a real answer!

If you’re working a job you hate, why are you doing it? Perhaps it’s for the money – but do you really need that money? (You may well do. But it’s possible that you’re trying to support a lifestyle that’s actually making you miserable.)

It can be uncomfortable to look at the reasons why we’re pursuing the goals that we have. But by being honest with yourself, you can open up the possibility of change.

#7: Listen to An Argument for The Other Side

Most of us have deeply held beliefs on some subjects – perhaps religion, politics, morality, social justice, or similar weighty issues.

You might find it very hard to understand how anyone could be so crazy as to support the “opponents” of your particular viewpoint. It’s an interesting exercise to read or listen to an argument put forwards by a group which you’d normally totally disagree with.

I’m not suggesting that you should change your views or compromise your values. But I am suggesting that you recognize that there are intelligent, thoughtful, good people who have different opinions from you. You might well disagree with them – but it’s useful to see where they’re coming from.

This can be a powerful and even upsetting way to change your perspective, so proceed with caution, and don’t get drawn into arguments yourself: just listen and make the effort to understand.

Are there any areas of life where you need to get some perspective? If you’ve got any thoughts or ideas to share, the comments are open…

Author bio:

Ali writes about personal growth and development on her blog, Aliventures. As well as blogging, she writes fiction, and is studying for an MA in Creative Writing.

---

What Now?	Peter Recommends
Advertise on The Change Blog	30 Days to Change Your Life - 66% Off
Become a fan on Facebook	Audible - Download a Free Audio Book
Contribute a Guest Post	Cloud Living - Make a Living Online
Download my Free Ebook	Hypnosis Downloads - MP3 Downloads
Follow me on Twitter	Unconventional Guides - Ebooks + More

Sign up to Society daily email briefing

Today's top SocietyGuardian stories

• Andrew Lansley 'could lose job over NHS reforms'

• Local elections: Liberal Democrats facing loss of up to 600 seats

• Andrew Bowman: Much for the Lib Dems to lose in Manchester

• Suffolk halts 'virtual council' cash-saving plan

• Concern over teenage deaths in prison

• Teen girls 'should be taught to say no to sex'

• Forced-out police officers asked to volunteer

• Deficit targets will be missed, George Osborne told

• Deborah Orr: A very practical way to prevent drug tragedies

• Twitter could help fight spread of disease

All today's SocietyGuardian stories

Other news

• Child abuse deaths have fallen dramatically over the past 30 years, reports the Independent. It says the findings – published in Archives of Disease in Childhood – act as tribute to the success of child protection policies and those who implement them.

• An international federation of homelessness organisations has warned that London has joined a 'worrying' Europe-wide trend to criminalise homeless people, according to Inside Housing. Feantsa, the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless, said there was an 'alarming' and 'cruel' development across Europe, including in Madrid, London and Prague, to expel homeless people from public spaces.

• The creators of the Mumsnet website have set up a new social network for the UK's grandparents, reports the Evening Standard. Gransnet, gives the country's 14 million grandparents an online space to discuss subjects including relationships, hobbies, news, culture and grandparenting. The site will be edited by Geraldine Bedell, regular Observer contributor and editor of the Agebomb blog

• A Glasgow-based aid charity says it is facing closure because the city council is increasing its rent from £1 to about £18,000 a year, according to Third Sector. Glasgow the Caring City, which provides grass-roots support for young people in Glasgow and aid to people living in deprivation across the world, fears the impact of a move by Glasgow city council to end concessionary rents for organisations, including charities, using council-owned commercial properties across the city.

On my radar ...

• NHS reforms. Our live blog is looking at devolved power and the NHS, although one topic seems to be dominating the day's debate: how much longer will Andrew Lansley be at the helm of the health and social care bill? Dominic Browne on the Left Foot Forward blog asks Will David Cameron make Lansley a scapegoat, and will it work? He reckons:

"In light of this and the difficult relationship the Conservatives have with the British public over the NHS, Cameron might make Lansley a scapegoat. This would be humiliating in itself and would have to accompany some major compromises on the health bill. The best outcome for progressives would be for the unpopular Lansley to retain his job, and the healthcare bill to be defeated outright.
Lansley has become a liability and the bill has already lost the support of Liberal Democrats. Tomorrow's election results may well give the Lib Dems even more reason to retreat back to their base and disassociate themselves from the Tories."

• Election day. As well as the AV referendum, there are local elections in England and Northern Ireland, votes for assembly members in Wales and Northern Ireland, Scottish parliament polls and five mayoral ballots. My colleague Hélène Mulholland is live blogging the political action today. @dermotfinch, of the Centre for Cities tweets:

"A year ago, Lib Dems were running loads of cities - Liverpool, Leeds, Hull, Sheffield, Newcastle, Bristol, Cambridge - how many after tmrw?"

Andy Sawford, of the Local Government Information Unit, has blogged the 50 councils to watch:

"It has to be remembered that Labour performed particularly badly last time these council seats were up for election in 2007, and given their current lead in the opinion polls, they are predicted to make big gains tomorrow. The big unknown is quite what will happen in the many contests between Conservatives and Lib Dems. I've erred, based on the opinion polls, towards the Conservatives making some gains from the Lib Dems. There is a big caveat here though, the polls will not translate uniformly to what happens locally, where local issues, campaigns and council performance, will be a big factor in the results."

And the We Love Local Government blog is bigging up all those council staff who make elections happen:

"It started early this morning as a small army of local authority workers set off to prepare the school halls, doctors surgeries, community halls and council buildings that serve as polling stations. They will start working at 6:30am and finish at 10pm when the responsible officer in each polling station will ensure that the sealed ballot boxes are delivered to the counting hall.
In many authorities another tribe of officers will be there at 10pm to count the votes as they come in, many working until early into the next morning to make sure democracy runs its proper course in a timely manner."

I love this picture tweeted by @AndrewBloch, which should be referred to on every polling day, and @tobyblume says he's "Starting democratic education early in our house!"

• The launch of the Transition Institute this morning. The institute, a joint venture between Social Enterprise London and Nesta, aims to support public servants who are "spinning out" their services into social enterprise. Speakers at the launch include Ali Parsa of Circle Healthcare, Andrew Burnell, CEO of City Healthcare Partnership, Craig Dearden Phillips of Stepping Out, Allison Ogden-Newton of Social Enterprise London, James Miller of Living Well and former Labour health minister and chair of the Social Enterprise Coalition Baroness Thornton. You can track the launch at the twitter hashtag #transitioninstitute while the Guardian's Jane Dudman writes about the institute here. My favourite tweet: Allison Ogden-Newton, who reported Ali Parsa as saying:

"I think there is a real danger with this Gov that they don't seem 2 no how 2 make #socent happen"

• Jonathan Bland, former chief executive of the Social Enterprise Coalition, who has submitted a new international review to the government's Mutuals Taskforce, setting out what the experiences of Spain, Italy and Sweden can teach the UK about turning public services into mutuals. His report, Time to Get Serious, International Lessons for Developing Public Service Mutuals, concludes that the UK isn't yet ready for the move:

"Understanding of the business models is limited and support is fragmented. To date there has not been investment of sufficient resources.
... I am calling on government to invest in the creation of a new long-term specialist support service for public servants to provide training, business advice and help with access to finance that is appropriate to co-operative and mutual enterprise."

• Journalist and photographer Ciara Leeming's Streetfighters project (featured in Society daily last year), which gained an "honourable mention" in the digital category of this year's Amnesty International media awards. Leeming, an expert on regeneration, powerfully tells the stories of individuals and communities caught up in the housing market renewal demolition schemes in the north of England, through words, pictures and audio.

• The Great Estate, Michael Collins' look at the history of council housing in Britain, which is being aired on BBC2 at 7pm today, after its showing on BBC4 last month

• This excellent blog from our contributor Edward Lawrence on the injustice of disability benefit reforms:

"... the benefits system is in danger of creating its own miscarriages of justice. The new workplace capability assessment will find disabled people fit to work when they are manifestly unable to do so. It will penalise them financially and so curtail their independence."

• International day of the midwife, which is being marked worldwide today. See this great site from the White Ribbon Alliance, Stories of Midwives

On the Guardian Professional Networks

• Live social enterprise Q&A; from 1pm - communicating your mission. What are the tricks and tips involved?

• Professor Graham Smith, a professor of politics at the University of Southampton, on how the AV referendum process was a missed opportunity for citizen engagement

• Susan Osborne, of University Hospital of South Manchester on how the trust uses ju jitsu and £50-worth of hula hoops to keep its staff fit

• Helen Beckett rounds up the best of the charity blogs, those that admit failure and amuse as well as inform

SocietyGuardian blogs

Patrick Butler's cuts blog

Joe Public

Sarah Boseley's global health blog

SocietyGuardian on social media

Follow SocietyGuardian on Twitter

Follow Patrick Butler on Twitter

Follow Clare Horton on Twitter

SocietyGuardian's Facebook page

SocietyGuardian links

SocietyGuardian.co.uk

Guardian cutswatch - tell us about the cuts in your area

Public Leaders - the Guardian's website for senior managers of public services

The Guardian's public and voluntary sector careers page

Hundreds of public and voluntary sector jobs

SocietyGuardian acting editor: Anna Bawden

Email the SocietyGuardian editor: society@guardian.co.uk

SocietyGuardian.co.uk editor: Clare Horton

Email the SocietyGuardian.co.uk editor: editor@societyguardian.co.uk

Interested in education policy and news too? Sign up for the daily Cribsheet round-up

Having been in the UK the last week and met so many friends whom I originally got to know through Greenbelt, I'm all the more enthusiastic about Wild Goose, coming up in North Carolina in just over a month.

What's Greenbelt? It's a festival of faith, art, and justice, planned and led by a fascinating group of Christian leaders in the UK, held every August. (I'll be speaking/hanging out there this year.)

What's Wild Goose? It's a similar festival being planned by a similarly fascinating group of Christian leaders in the US. I'll be speaking/hanging out there as well.) You can find out more about it here:
http://www.wildgoosefestival.org/intro/

I hope you'll consider being part of this first-ever Wild Goose Festival. It can play an important role in the emergence of a new Christian ethos in our land.

Quotable:

The Wild Goose is a Celtic metaphor for the Holy Spirit. We are followers of Jesus creating a festival of justice, spirituality, music and the arts. The festival is rooted in the Christian tradition and therefore open to all regardless of belief, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, denomination or religious affiliation.
In adopting the image of the Wild Goose we recognize that in the current climate of religious, social and political cynicism, embracing the creative and open nature of our faith is perhaps our greatest asset for re-building and strengthening our relationships with each other, with our enemies, with our stories, our texts, and the earth. In that spirit, in a festive setting, and in the context of meaningful, respectful, and sustained relationships, we invite you to create with us!

And yes, I'll be camping.

On the death of Osama bin Laden, theologian Miroslav Volf expresses my sentiments when he writes:

We are right to feel a sense of relief that a major source of evil has been removed. But we should reflect also on the flip side of that relief: the nature of our fears. As the King hearings and state-level anti-Sharia bills indicate, many people in our nation find themselves under a spell of a "green scare" analogous to the red scare of the 1950s. But fear is a foolish counselor, and our war in Iraq--unnecessary, unjust and counterproductive--is evidence of this.

Fear is a foolish counselor, and it is also an addictive one. As the work of Rene Girard and others makes clear, our national anxieties love to vent themselves on some monster, real or imaginary. We can unite our party, if not our nation, around common aggression against shared fear - even if we can't unite them around a common vision around shared values. This trade in the currency of fear sets us up for a boom-bust cycle not unlike our economic cycle, and not unlike the vicious cycles of agony and ecstasy known by addicts.

Running a society on fear is a lot like running a society on debt. It runs just fine for a while, but the merciless crash at the end comes by surprise.

Fear-as-fuel causes a kind of social global warming, filling our social atmosphere with invisible toxins that subtly, silently, relentlessly change everything and make our society less humane and less habitable. Those who live by the sword, Jesus said, will die by it, and I imagine the same could be said for fear, because the sword - like the knife, bullet, gun, or bomb - is in the end an icon of fear, a fetish of intimidation intended to drive others into a fearful retreat or surrender.

Ironically, as we focus on some external monster to fear - either a ghostly, faceless one like communism, or an embodied one imaged by bin Laden - we are distracted from internal dangers which rightly deserve our fear.

For example, have we assessed over the last ten years the ways in which we have become more like the enemies we have fought? Torture, invasion, disregard of borders, imprisonment without trial, violation of international law, vigilantism ... we find ourselves repeatedly defending things we would quickly condemn in others. It's unpopular to say this, but mustn't it be said?

At what point do we Americans temper the celebration of our victories with concern about what we are becoming? At what point do we notice that for us the word "justice" is harder and harder to distinguish from "revenge?" As a nation that again and again proves its power and cleverness, do we think ourselves somehow immune from the dangers of over-reach, pride, self-deception?

I say none of this to minimize the respect owed to those who took great risks to end bin Laden's reign of terror, from President Obama in the White House to the Navy Seals on the ground. I say it, rather, to warn us of the danger of mirroring what we fear. It would be a tragedy for us, in having defeated our enemies, to have unwittingly become a similar kind of enemy to others ... to have defeated monsters by becoming one.

From Human Rights Watch

 

(Geneva) - United Nations member states should denounce Singapore's severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and assembly during the country's first-ever Universal Periodic Review (UPR), Human Rights Watch said today. The review, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, is scheduled for May 6, 2011.

With Singapore's national elections on May 7, Singaporean citizens should demand that candidates seeking their vote publicly support rescinding laws and practices that violate fundamental human rights, Human Rights Watch said.

Human Rights Watch urged UN member states to reject Singapore's claims of "specific national circumstances" that negate the universality and indivisibility of human rights, as set out in the government's national report for the UPR.

"Singapore claims exceptionalism as a way to dismiss international criticism of laws and practices that block meaningful access to free speech, association, and assembly," said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "Such appeals run contrary to the universality of human rights and mask Singapore's long-established pattern of civil and political rights abuses."

Human Rights Watch, in its UPR submission, highlighted areas where Singapore's rhetoric has not matched the reality of a rights record in accord with international standards and has outlined recommendations for improvement. They include:

Freedom of Expression, Association, and Assembly

Singapore's rules governing the formation and activities of political parties and political organizations impede airing of opposition viewpoints. To comply with international human rights standards for freedom of association and assembly, Human Rights Watch urges revision of the 2009 Public Order Act, which requires a permit for "any cause-related activity," defined as a show of support by one or more persons for or against a position, person, group, or government. Influential online media such as The Online Citizen are forced to register as "political societies," restricting their ability to raise funds and to retain their reporting flexibility. The Speaker's Corner, the only outdoor space in Singapore where speakers and demonstrators are not required to have permits, was declared off-limits for all activities as soon as the general election was announced on April 19.

Peaceful critics of government leaders are targeted in government-initiated criminal defamation cases that result in prison terms and monetary fines severe enough to trigger bankruptcy. Although it has been 47 years since Singapore last experienced communal violence linked to ethnic identity, the government has continued to use this rationale to deny free expression on matters of race or religion, to refuse the right to public assembly without police permission, which is rarely granted except in very limited areas, and to maintain draconian restrictions on publishing and the media.

The government decision to prosecute Alan Shadrake, a British journalist who authored Once a Jolly Hangman, Singapore Justice in the Dock, exemplifies its willingness to silence accusers rather than tolerate criticism. In November 2010, Shadrake was sentenced to six weeks in prison and a SGD 20,000 (US$16,260) fine on contempt of court charges for "scandalizing the judiciary." He had alleged that court decisions in capital cases, which mandate execution for murder, treason, and some 20 drug-related offenses, were influenced by political and economic pressures, biases against the "weak," "poor," and "uneducated," and interference by the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). The government prosecutor argued that Shadrake's insinuations and allegations "muzzle confidence in the courts' impartiality, integrity, and independence." At Shadrake's appeal in April, the prosecutor contended that Shadrake had "transgressed" the limits of free speech and fair criticism and had "maligned the entire judiciary," thus endangering public confidence in the judiciary. The Court of Appeal has yet to issue a ruling.

Criminal Justice System

Human Rights Watch urges UN member states to call on Singapore to make substantial reforms to laws permitting the use of preventive detention - indefinite detention without charge - which Singapore defends in its National Report as "a last resort" when threats to public security, safety, and order are severe. The Internal Security Act, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions), and the Misuse of Drugs Act all contain provisions that violate internationally recognized rights to due process and a fair trial. Under those provisions, arrest warrants are unnecessary, judicial review is not required, and detainees are expressly forbidden from contesting their detention through the criminal justice system.

Delegates at the UPR should press for legal reforms to end Singapore's widespread use of corporal punishment, both as judicially sanctioned punishment for some 30 offenses - in 2010 some 3,170 people were sentenced to judicial caning in addition to prison time - or as administrative punishment in the military prisons, reform schools, and secondary schools.

"Caning is nothing more than a form of torture," Robertson said. "Singaporean authorities should revoke all laws and regulations permitting such barbaric practices, which belie Singapore's claim to being a modern and just society."

Labor Rights

Singapore's Trade Unions Act gives private sector workers the right to form or join trade unions, but the rights are compromised in practice. Foreign workers, who comprise close to one third of Singapore's work force, may not serve as trade union officers, trustees, or staff without Ministry of Manpower approval. Legal recognition of unions is further subject to the approval of the Registrar of Trade Unions who can refuse or cancel registration or rewrite a union's rules. Collective bargaining is also restricted because rank-and-file union members do not have the power to accept or reject collective agreements negotiated by their representatives. Unions affiliate with the umbrella National Trade Union Congress (NTUC), which since its inception has been closely allied to the ruling People's Action Party and which is disinclined to permit union members who support opposition political groups holding office in affiliated unions.

 

Foreign Domestic Workers

A standard contract for migrant workers is required by the government, but fails to address issues such as long work hours and poor living conditions. Instead of guaranteeing a weekly day off and a set number of daily rest hours, the government allows the employer and employee to negotiate rest days within set limits, and an employer may without penalty disregard recommendations for a minimum number of daily rest hours. The contract also fails to prevent denial of annual or medical leave, requires immediate deportation of a pregnant migrant worker, and stipulates that no foreign domestic worker may marry a Singaporean citizen.

"Freedom of association remains an illusion for foreign workers in Singapore," Robertson said. "If the government is really serious in its rhetoric of being an advocate for workers, then it should immediately rescind laws and practices that violate their rights."

Member states at the UPR should demand that Singapore improve its shoddy record of cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council's special rapporteurs, Human Rights Watch said. Two special rapporteurs - one in 2006 on the situation of human rights defenders, and the other on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions - have requested to visit Singapore. The government has not responded.

Singapore also has a poor record, especially among ASEAN members of ratifying international human rights instruments. It has not yet ratified core UN treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

"Singapore's first-ever UPR review provides the opportunity to establish a baseline to measure future improvements in the country's respect for human rights," Robertson said. "States should call on Singapore to demonstrate its commitment to human rights by ratifying all core UN human rights instruments and living by them."

OSTATIC: "Today I saw a comparison of Linux vs Microsoft to the establishment/capitalism/corporate American vs 60's hippies. Either this young writer is a product of the socialistic indoctrination running rabid throughout the world or he just has a profound lack of understanding of Open Source software."

The votes are now in and the judges have met to deliberate the entries. Congratulations to the shortlisted nominees who are listed below. The winners will be announced at a ceremony in June, and will be available here on 10th June.

Local Retailer

The Better Food Company
Offering fresh, organic produce in the Bristol area, the Better Food Company work to reduce food miles and support local suppliers.

The People's Supermarket
Recently featured on a Channel 4 documentary, the People's Supermarket in Holborn, London, aims to be a sustainable food cooperative providing healthy food at reasonable prices.

Unicorn Wholefood Co-operative Grocery
Unicorn is a co-operative grocery based in South Manchester. Owned and run by the workforce, the grocery donates 5% of its wage bill to local and international projects.

Online Retailer

Offset Warehouse
Offset Warehouse is a social enterprise offering a one-stop online shop for ethical clothing and interiors. Their website provides a wealth of information on the sourcing of products they stock.

Riverford Organic Vegetables
Riverford deliver around 47,000 boxes of vegetables and other produce in the UK every week. A network of sister farms allows Riverford to supply a wide area while maintaining their ethical standards.

Wiggly Wigglers
Offering an array of natural gardening supplies, Wiggly Wigglers have moved on from wormeries and now sell a huge range of environmentally friendly products.

Campaigner sponsored by B&Q;

38 Degrees
Named after the angle at which an avalanche occurs, 38 Degrees aims to mobilise mass participation to campaign for social and environmental justice and dispel the apathy so often associated with modern politics.

Compassion In World Farming
Speaking up for those who can't speak up for themselves, CIWF campaigns for an end to cruel factory farming practices. Recent successes include a high profile campaign against the Nocton "mega dairy."

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall
A familiar face through his campaigns around chicken farming and fish conservation, Hugh won last year's award and has continued to fight for better husbandry.

Global Campaigner

Avaaz
Roughly translating as "voice," Avaaz has a simple mission: to organize citizens of all nations to close the gap between the world we have and the world most people everywhere want.

Greenpeace
Forty years since it was founded, Greenpeace has grown into perhaps the best recognised environmental campaign movement in the world. Their mission of positive change through action is often controversial but never easy to ignore.

Greg Valerio
Greg is a pioneer in the international development of fairly traded jewellery and is recognised globally as one of the loudest and most persistent voices in the fight for responsible mining.

Ecover Ethical Kids

Green Gateways Business Club
As part of this Yorkshire based project pupils run and attend green business breakfasts at school. National companies such as Asda and KMPG have spoken at the networking events.

Savy B.O.B. Box
Year 8 pupils from Merseyside, working alongside Duke of Edinburgh Award students, make, sell and distribute unique bat or bird boxes within the local community.

Turners Hill Primary School
Turners Hill have pioneered a continuing, whole school eco project, spanning over 20 years, embedding environmental issues into the curriculum to promote and encourage awareness from an early age.

Fashion & Accessories sponsored by VOGUE.COM

Pachacuti
Pachacuti was founded in 1992 and combines British design with sustainable production in the Andes by women who are socially, geographically and economically marginalised. Their trademark Panama hats epitomise slow fashion.

Christopher Raeburn
Christopher Raeburn constructs innovative outerwear from reworked military fabrics. Staunchly British, all garments are proudly "Remade in England".

Veja
Veja is a pioneering brand of footwear established in 2005 which works under fair trade principles with small producers across Brazil and uses ecological materials.

Big Idea sponsored by National Grid

Biogen Greenfinch
BiogenGreenfinch takes waste food from households, supermarkets, restaurants and food manufacturers and through its natural anaerobic digestion process produces renewable electricity, heat and a ready-to-use fertiliser for crops.

Giveacar
Giveacar raises funds for charities through scrapping or auction of old and end-of-life donated vehicles. They limit the environmental impact of end-of-life vehicle disposal and have raised over £250,000 since January 2010.

Pavegen
Pavegen use wasted kinetic energy from footsteps and turn it into electricity- allowing people to take part in energy saving in a fun educational way. The project is set to be the only commercial kinetic renewable energy generating technology in the world.

Grassroots sponsored by Timberland

The Bristol Bike Project
A volunteer-run, community bicycle project that repairs, reuses and relocates unwanted bicycles within underprivileged and marginalised groups in our city.

Liftshare
Liftshare is dedicated to reducing the number of cars on our roads by helping people find others going their way, so they can car-share. Over 420,000 individuals have signed up to date, and members are currently taking about 80,000 car journeys off the UK's roads every day.

Putting Down Roots
A gardening project for homeless people run by St Mungo's in hostels, parks and an allotment, developing gardening skills, providing maintenance and improving public safety.

Business sponsored by Jupiter Asset Management

The Co-operative Group
The Co-operative Group is a member-owned and UK-based family of businesses operating primarily in the food retail, financial services, travel, pharmacy and funeralcare sectors.

Global Ethics
Global Ethics aim to massively, positively and permanently change lives in the world's poorest communities by encouraging people to select their "One" branded products when buying everyday essentials.

Yeo Valley
Yeo Valley is an independent, family-owned dairy and farming business based in Somerset, and is the number one organic dairy brand in the UK. Yeo Valley is committed to sustainable, ethical and environmentally-friendly British farming.

Conservation

Good Catch
Good Catch provides practical information and events, helping the culinary and catering sector navigate seafood sustainability to buy, serve and promote marine-friendly menu options.

Peak District Environmental Quality Mark
The Peak District Environmental Quality Mark (EQM) is an award for businesses that help conserve and enhance the Peak District National Park.

Thameside Nature Park
Essex Wildlife Trust are turning 845 acres of landfill site on the north bank of the Thames into a living landscape for wildlife and people.

Blog

Shirahime: shirahime.com
This blog hopes to complement the typical, style oriented fashion publication by providing thoroughly researched background insights, and shedding a critical light onto what is going on in the broad area of sustainability/ethics in the fashion and clothing industry.

Well Seasoned: www.wellseasoned.co.uk/
Well Seasoned started as a blog in 2009 to champion seasonal eating and British seasonal events. It quickly gained a significant following and evolved into a campaign website with blog, recipes and trip reports.

YouGen: www.yougen.co.uk/blog/
The YouGen blog brings together reporting, comment and expert advice with the aim of educating and entertaining readers, and creating confident, informed consumers in the market for renewable energy.

Lifetime Achievement

The winner of The Observer Lifetime Achievement Award will be announced at the awards ceremony and will appear here on 10th June.

Two million of New Jersey's 8.8 million citizens live in poverty. According to spokespeople from Legal Services of New Jersey, the number of Garden State residents living under these conditions has gone up eight percent during the first year of the Christie administration. So how does the legislature develop a budget during a recession that meets our social obligations with competing demands from advocates for infrastructure, businesses, museums, the arts, libraries, environmentalists, transportation, fire and police, education, and other agencies that strive to make New Jersey a great place to live and work? That's the challenge that faces the Assembly Budget Committee, which took testimony from about fifty individuals today at the Blackwood Campus of Camden Community College.

Today's hearing was the third and final opportunity for these advocates to state their case to the committee, chaired by Assemblyman Louis Greenwald (D-Camden), as the legislators try to construct a budget that is both fair and balanced, and that can survive the veto pen of Governor Christie.
I arrived on the Camden County College campus about an hour before the posted start time to find about 200 tee-shirted parochial school students sitting in the audience. According to Mary Boyle, the Superintendent of the Diocese of Camden, they were here to lobby to keep the "Opportunity Scholarship Act"  (a program that would give scholarships to kids to attend private schools, including many that are religion-based) alive. Boyle said it was a "human right" for parents to choose an appropriate education for their children, defining "appropriate" as the ability to focus on one's abilities and strive for a higher standard of life. After receiving a rousing pep talk on the need for vouchers from Assemblyman Angel Fuentes (D-Camden), about half the students took their signs outside and demonstrated with chants of "O-S-A, O-S-A." Greenwald did not refer to the students' participation in the political process in the same derogatory way as the governor did on another occasion, but rather noted that whether or not we agree, the students participation was a good lesson for them.

The first person to testify was Kathleen Davis, COO of the Southern New Jersey Chamber of Commerce. While she emphatically supports Governor Christie's budget (when asked, she gave it a grade of A+), where she and I do agree is the need to hold government to some of the same standards as businesses using proven tools like ISO certification. Davis specifically touted the fact that the Chamber has achieved ISO 9001:2008 certification - something that is just as applicable to the public sector as it is to the private sector. (See my diary Seeing Red for more.)

Most of the people who testified were from social service groups that provide aid to the less fortunate. None of these advocates lobbied for more money - they just tried to persuade the panel to either keep their funding level constant or to restore some of the draconian cuts made by the governor in the prior budget. The most poignant testimony was from clients of these agencies. One such person was Carlos Londono, a client of Legal Services of New Jersey. Former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, vice-chair of that organization introduced the Middlesex County resident who had a decent job but through illness and other misfortunes lost his wife, house, and car and became homeless virtually overnight. Londano was turned down for assistance and only through a fortuitous set of circumstances got in touch with the Legal Services organization who helped him navigate through the bureaucracy to get the help he needed. If last year's cut of $9.7 million were to be restored, they could service an additional 11,000 clients like Londano.

Candace Singer, a former addict, now working for the NJ Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, made a point that was repeated by many of the social service advocates. By spending money now to help those less fortunate, we are saving money in the long run - money on recidivism, emergency health care, and other services that will needed as a result of yanking these safety nets. Similarly, Dr. Lawrence Ragone, who runs a non-profit eye-care clinic in Camden pointed out that reductions in aid to vision care for poor children would have an adverse impact on their ability to perform in school. (Amazingly, one assemblyman was surprised to hear that an eye exam and glasses typically costs $200 and many families simply can't afford that amount.) Alma Padgett, whose daughter received treatment for drug addiction, pointed out that the state's investment in treatment costs a lot less than the inevitable incarceration would have, had treatment not been available.

There was lots of other testimony, all of which will be posted on the Assembly's web site. There was a fireman lobbying to have the state meet its pension obligations, fishermen looking for support, museum directors begging to just keep funding for these cultural and tourism venues from being cut, and transportation and infrastructure advocates trying to keep the state free of congestion. All of these, along with the critical social needs, seem to me to be much more important than the testimony from two girls, an eight grader and a tenth grader, asking for state money to support their attendance at religious schools.

The Assembly has a lot of choices to make as they work on the budget. While these hearings provide a level playing field in that anyone can come and testify, the legislators will be continuously lobbied by powerful well-organized  and well-funded groups. Let's hope they listened to the advocates for the less fortunate - those who can't afford the high-priced lobbyists - and make the state a better place for all New Jerseyans.  

Independent politician TD Luke "Ming" Flanagan said he will kick weed habit after gardaí pressure for prosecution

One of Ireland's newest and most flamboyant parliamentarians is giving up smoking cannabis so he can keep his seat in the Dáil.

Independent TD Luke "Ming" Flanagan revealed this week he is kicking the habit after rank and file gardaí called for him to be prosecuted for breaking the law.

With his pointy dark "devil beard" and ponytail, Flanagan plays on his resemblance to the tyrant Ming in the Buck Rogers space adventures.

The new deputy for Roscommon-South Leitrim had campaigned for cannabis to be legalised before his election to the Dáil last month. He said he took the decision to quit smoking the drug to protect his wife and children from further media scrutiny, as well as pressure from the Garda Síochána.

"I've looked at my options. I can continue to smoke and face a six-month prison sentence and lose my seat in the Dáil, or I can stop," Flanagan said. "It is not an ideal situation, but my wife and children are the most important people on the planet to me, and I don't want my kids to witness the garda calling to the house."

He added: "The garda have to do their job. However, I will still campaign for legalisation of cannabis."

Flanagan was elected mayor of Roscommon in 2010. He first stood in a general election as a protest candidate against his then landlord, Fianna Fáil TD Frank Fahey, in 1997 in Galway West. He polled 5,000 votes in the 1999 European elections in Connacht-Ulster.

He has publicly criticised the influence of the drinks lobby and highlighted the rights of turf-cutters affected by the EU-led ban on harvesting in 32 raised bogs. He is also committed to social justice issues and local government reform.

Meanwhile, a fellow Independent TD and equally colourful Dáil member backed "Ming's" call for cannabis to be legalised. Mick Wallace, TD for Wexford, said alcohol caused far more damage in Ireland than hash.

However, Flanagan's statement that he cultivated cannabis was "a direct challenge to the law", the Garda Review magazine said. The official publication the Garda Representative Association, which represents rank and file officers was bitterly critical of Flanagan.

It said: "We now have an elected public representative of the legislative system who is publicly committed to the legalisation of cannabis and has regularly admitted in the media that he cultivates a supply for personal use. It is a direct challenge to the law and as such to the law enforcers."

The publication added: "We cannot have a situation where the law is ignored, either through appeasement or political expediency, otherwise our system of justice will become a mockery."

Ten years ago Flanagan sent 500 cannabis joints to Irish politicians as part of his campaign to legalise the drug.