martes, 14 de enero de 2014
viernes, 21 de junio de 2013
La guerra, los negocios y las distintas definiciones de inseguridad pública que suelen surgir según los intereses de quién se hable.
Reuter: U.S. President Barack Obama sparred with Russia’s Vladimir Putin over how to end the war in Syria during the G8 summit. http://reut.rs/19cQrBn
Both leaders looked tense and uncomfortable, with Putin staring at the floor. Obama tried to lighten the mood by discussing judo but Putin, a black belt in the martial art, replied the U.S. president was simply trying to get him to relax.
Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Top businessmen warn Netanyahu: Stalled peace process will ruin Israel's economy
Citing lack of progress toward two-state solution, Israeli business leaders tell PM they are worried by signals from the international business community.
Haaretz
By Barak Ravid
Jun.18, 2013
1:15 AM Some of the country’s top businessmen met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month to express concern that the stalled peace process with the Palestinians would ultimately harm and even endanger the Israeli economy.
The businessmen told Netanyahu they are worried by the signals they are getting from the international business community.
“We come from the field, and we’re feeling the pressure,” one said. “If we don’t make progress toward a two-state solution, there will be negative developments for the Israeli economy. We’re already noticing initial signs of this. The future of the Israeli economy will be in danger.”
One businessman who attended the meeting told Haaretz that the lack of progress toward a two-state solution could send Israel down a slippery slope toward a binational state that would be either not Jewish or not democratic.
“The world will not accept this,” he said. “Foreign investments will not come to such a state. No one will buy goods from such a state.”
During the 90-minute meeting, the businessmen did not preach to Netanyahu, criticize him or try to pressure him, one participant said. He added that Netanyahu and International Relations Minister Yuval Steinitz, who attended as well, did not argue with them, and in fact agreed with most of what was said.
Heading the group was high-tech entrepreneur Yossi Vardi, who had served as an economic adviser to Netanyahu during the talks with the Palestinians that resulted in the Wye Agreement of 1998. Vardi was a founder of Mirabalis, which developed ICQ, the first instant messaging system, and was sold to AOL in 1998 for $407 million. Since then he has been a major investor in Israeli Internet start-ups.
Joining Vardi were Shlomi Fogel, a close friend of Netanyahu’s and the owner of Ampa; Ruth Cheshin, a member of Teva’s board of directors and the founder of the Jerusalem Foundation; Shmuel Meitar, one of the founders of Aurec and Amdocs, who now runs an educational nonprofit; Benny Landa, a founder of Indigo and now an investor in nanotechnology start-ups; and Rami Levi, owner of the eponymous supermarket chain and cellular firm.
The meeting took place shortly before the six traveled to Jordan for the World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa, where they launched a joint initiative by Israeli and Palestinian businessmen. The initiative was aimed at both increasing economic cooperation and urging the leaderships of both sides to advance the peace process and implement the principle of two states for two peoples. The group asked for Netanyahu’s support for their initiative and received it.
One of the businessmen said Netanyahu’s frustration at the diplomatic stalemate was obvious, and that the prime minister expressed hope that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry would be able to restart negotiations.
“I made the Bar-Ilan [University] speech, and I gave a 10-month freeze [on settlement construction], but they are still setting preconditions,” Netanyahu was quoted as saying. “I can’t get Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] to the negotiating table.”
The Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment for this report.
Top businessmen warn Netanyahu: Stalled peace process will ruin Israel's economy. ''No one will buy goods'' if we progress towards a bi-national state, says meeting attendee http://htz.li/14GKtYs
Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/top-businessmen-warn-netanyahu-stalled-peace-process-will-ruin-israel-s-economy.premium-1.530429
Both leaders looked tense and uncomfortable, with Putin staring at the floor. Obama tried to lighten the mood by discussing judo but Putin, a black belt in the martial art, replied the U.S. president was simply trying to get him to relax.
Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Top businessmen warn Netanyahu: Stalled peace process will ruin Israel's economy
Citing lack of progress toward two-state solution, Israeli business leaders tell PM they are worried by signals from the international business community.
Haaretz
By Barak Ravid
Jun.18, 2013
1:15 AM Some of the country’s top businessmen met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month to express concern that the stalled peace process with the Palestinians would ultimately harm and even endanger the Israeli economy.
The businessmen told Netanyahu they are worried by the signals they are getting from the international business community.
“We come from the field, and we’re feeling the pressure,” one said. “If we don’t make progress toward a two-state solution, there will be negative developments for the Israeli economy. We’re already noticing initial signs of this. The future of the Israeli economy will be in danger.”
One businessman who attended the meeting told Haaretz that the lack of progress toward a two-state solution could send Israel down a slippery slope toward a binational state that would be either not Jewish or not democratic.
“The world will not accept this,” he said. “Foreign investments will not come to such a state. No one will buy goods from such a state.”
During the 90-minute meeting, the businessmen did not preach to Netanyahu, criticize him or try to pressure him, one participant said. He added that Netanyahu and International Relations Minister Yuval Steinitz, who attended as well, did not argue with them, and in fact agreed with most of what was said.
Heading the group was high-tech entrepreneur Yossi Vardi, who had served as an economic adviser to Netanyahu during the talks with the Palestinians that resulted in the Wye Agreement of 1998. Vardi was a founder of Mirabalis, which developed ICQ, the first instant messaging system, and was sold to AOL in 1998 for $407 million. Since then he has been a major investor in Israeli Internet start-ups.
Joining Vardi were Shlomi Fogel, a close friend of Netanyahu’s and the owner of Ampa; Ruth Cheshin, a member of Teva’s board of directors and the founder of the Jerusalem Foundation; Shmuel Meitar, one of the founders of Aurec and Amdocs, who now runs an educational nonprofit; Benny Landa, a founder of Indigo and now an investor in nanotechnology start-ups; and Rami Levi, owner of the eponymous supermarket chain and cellular firm.
The meeting took place shortly before the six traveled to Jordan for the World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa, where they launched a joint initiative by Israeli and Palestinian businessmen. The initiative was aimed at both increasing economic cooperation and urging the leaderships of both sides to advance the peace process and implement the principle of two states for two peoples. The group asked for Netanyahu’s support for their initiative and received it.
One of the businessmen said Netanyahu’s frustration at the diplomatic stalemate was obvious, and that the prime minister expressed hope that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry would be able to restart negotiations.
“I made the Bar-Ilan [University] speech, and I gave a 10-month freeze [on settlement construction], but they are still setting preconditions,” Netanyahu was quoted as saying. “I can’t get Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] to the negotiating table.”
The Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment for this report.
Top businessmen warn Netanyahu: Stalled peace process will ruin Israel's economy. ''No one will buy goods'' if we progress towards a bi-national state, says meeting attendee http://htz.li/14GKtYs
Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/top-businessmen-warn-netanyahu-stalled-peace-process-will-ruin-israel-s-economy.premium-1.530429
domingo, 16 de junio de 2013
El neo colonialismo tras la primera persona del plural
El problema dentro del Islam
En un bando hay islamistas con una concepción del mundo reaccionaria. En el otro están los que desprecian la opresión por parte de fanáticos religiosos. Estos son la mayoría, pero están mal organizados.
por Tony Blair - 16/06/2013 - 04:00
La Tercera de Chile: http://www.latercera.com/noticia/opinion/ideas-y-debates/2013/06/895-528459-9-el-problema-dentro-del-islam.shtml
HAY UNA opinión sobre el asesinato del soldado británico Lee Rigby en una calle del sur de Londres: horripilante. Pero hay dos opiniones sobre su trascendencia. Una es que se trató de un acto de locos motivado por una idea pervertida del Islam. La otra es que la ideología que inspiró su asesinato es muy peligrosa. Yo soy de esta última opinión. Naturalmente no debemos reaccionar con exageración, pero si creemos que podemos proteger el Reino Unido simplemente con lo que hacemos dentro de nuestro país, estamos engañándonos.
Pensemos en Oriente Medio. Siria está en un proceso de desintegración. El Presidente Bashar Al Assad está pulverizando comunidades enteras que son hostiles a su régimen. En tanto, en Egipto y en todo el norte de Africa, los partidos de los Hermanos Musulmanes están en el poder, pero la contradicción entre su ideología y su capacidad para gestionar economías modernas ha alimentado inestabilidad y presiones de grupos más extremos.
Entiendo el deseo de explicar ese mundo mediante referencia a agravios locales, alienación económica, y naturalmente, “personas locas”, pero ¿de verdad no podemos encontrar un hilo común de una ideología que esté activándolo o exacerbándolo todo? No hay un problema con el Islam. Para quienes lo hemos estudiado, no cabe duda su naturaleza pacífica. No hay un problema con los musulmanes en general. Pero hay un problema dentro del Islam y tenemos que ponerlo sobre la mesa. Naturalmente, hay cristianos extremistas y también judíos, budistas e hinduistas, pero me temo que la variedad problemática dentro del Islam tiene en su centro una concepción de la religión -y de las relaciones entre religión y política- que no es compatible con las sociedades pluralistas y liberales.
Hay dos efectos resultantes. Primero, quienes profesan opiniones extremas creen que nosotros somos débiles y eso les da fuerza. Segundo, los musulmanes que saben que el problema existe y quieren hacer algo al respecto, se desaniman. En todo Oriente Medio y más allá de él, se está desarrollando una lucha. En un bando hay islamistas y su concepción del mundo exclusiva y reaccionaria. Constituyen una minoría importante y bien organizada. En el otro están los de mentalidad moderna, los que aborrecían la antigua opresión por parte de dictadores corruptos y desprecian la nueva opresión por parte de fanáticos religiosos. Potencialmente son la mayoría; lamentablemente están mal organizados.
Se están sembrando las semillas del fanatismo y del terror futuro. Nuestra tarea es contribuir a sembrar las semillas de la reconciliación, pero la preparación del terreno para la paz no siempre es pacífica. Los largos conflictos en Afganistán e Irak han hecho que las potencias occidentales se muestren cautelosas ante la intervención extranjera, pero no debemos olvidar nunca por qué fueron prolongados esos conflictos: permitimos que nacieran estados fallidos. No todas las intervenciones tienen que ser militares, pero retirarnos de esa lucha no traerá la paz. Tampoco la seguridad por sí sola lo hará. Aunque la resistencia al comunismo revolucionario se basó en la determinación en materia de seguridad, en última instancia fue derrotado por una idea mejor: la libertad. Lo mismo se puede hacer en este caso. Ahora más que nunca hemos de ser fuertes y tener visión estratégica.
(c)Project Syndicate
En un bando hay islamistas con una concepción del mundo reaccionaria. En el otro están los que desprecian la opresión por parte de fanáticos religiosos. Estos son la mayoría, pero están mal organizados.
por Tony Blair - 16/06/2013 - 04:00
La Tercera de Chile: http://www.latercera.com/noticia/opinion/ideas-y-debates/2013/06/895-528459-9-el-problema-dentro-del-islam.shtml
HAY UNA opinión sobre el asesinato del soldado británico Lee Rigby en una calle del sur de Londres: horripilante. Pero hay dos opiniones sobre su trascendencia. Una es que se trató de un acto de locos motivado por una idea pervertida del Islam. La otra es que la ideología que inspiró su asesinato es muy peligrosa. Yo soy de esta última opinión. Naturalmente no debemos reaccionar con exageración, pero si creemos que podemos proteger el Reino Unido simplemente con lo que hacemos dentro de nuestro país, estamos engañándonos.
Pensemos en Oriente Medio. Siria está en un proceso de desintegración. El Presidente Bashar Al Assad está pulverizando comunidades enteras que son hostiles a su régimen. En tanto, en Egipto y en todo el norte de Africa, los partidos de los Hermanos Musulmanes están en el poder, pero la contradicción entre su ideología y su capacidad para gestionar economías modernas ha alimentado inestabilidad y presiones de grupos más extremos.
Entiendo el deseo de explicar ese mundo mediante referencia a agravios locales, alienación económica, y naturalmente, “personas locas”, pero ¿de verdad no podemos encontrar un hilo común de una ideología que esté activándolo o exacerbándolo todo? No hay un problema con el Islam. Para quienes lo hemos estudiado, no cabe duda su naturaleza pacífica. No hay un problema con los musulmanes en general. Pero hay un problema dentro del Islam y tenemos que ponerlo sobre la mesa. Naturalmente, hay cristianos extremistas y también judíos, budistas e hinduistas, pero me temo que la variedad problemática dentro del Islam tiene en su centro una concepción de la religión -y de las relaciones entre religión y política- que no es compatible con las sociedades pluralistas y liberales.
Hay dos efectos resultantes. Primero, quienes profesan opiniones extremas creen que nosotros somos débiles y eso les da fuerza. Segundo, los musulmanes que saben que el problema existe y quieren hacer algo al respecto, se desaniman. En todo Oriente Medio y más allá de él, se está desarrollando una lucha. En un bando hay islamistas y su concepción del mundo exclusiva y reaccionaria. Constituyen una minoría importante y bien organizada. En el otro están los de mentalidad moderna, los que aborrecían la antigua opresión por parte de dictadores corruptos y desprecian la nueva opresión por parte de fanáticos religiosos. Potencialmente son la mayoría; lamentablemente están mal organizados.
Se están sembrando las semillas del fanatismo y del terror futuro. Nuestra tarea es contribuir a sembrar las semillas de la reconciliación, pero la preparación del terreno para la paz no siempre es pacífica. Los largos conflictos en Afganistán e Irak han hecho que las potencias occidentales se muestren cautelosas ante la intervención extranjera, pero no debemos olvidar nunca por qué fueron prolongados esos conflictos: permitimos que nacieran estados fallidos. No todas las intervenciones tienen que ser militares, pero retirarnos de esa lucha no traerá la paz. Tampoco la seguridad por sí sola lo hará. Aunque la resistencia al comunismo revolucionario se basó en la determinación en materia de seguridad, en última instancia fue derrotado por una idea mejor: la libertad. Lo mismo se puede hacer en este caso. Ahora más que nunca hemos de ser fuertes y tener visión estratégica.
(c)Project Syndicate
sábado, 15 de junio de 2013
Elecciones en Irán
El sucesor de Ahmadinejad
Por Robert Fisk *
P/12 15.06.2013
Escogidos a mano. Eso es lo que se puede decir de los candidatos para la elección presidencial iraní de este viernes. El Consejo de los Guardianes se ha asegurado de que los ocho candidatos –todos hombres, claro está– cuenten con la aprobación del líder supremo, Ali Jamenei. El poder permanece dentro de los miembros de la pandilla de los clérigos, lo cual fue la intención de Ruhollah Jomeini, el líder supremo. Siempre me ha molestado esa palabra. Un líder supremo es un guía, y en alemán guía se dice führer.
No, la República Islámica de Irán no es un Estado nazi. La mayoría de los iraníes parecen creer que tienen derecho a tener instalaciones nucleares. Said Jalili, el negociador nuclear del país, podría ser electo presidente, o posiblemente su antecesor, Hassan Rohani, pero ¿cómo pueden los iraníes llamar a esto una elección cuando Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani ha sido descalificado? Se supone que el pueblo debe elegir a los candidatos, no los guardianes.
El fin de semana llamé a un viejo amigo iraní para preguntarle su opinión. Es un académico –uno muy sabio– y su respuesta fue muy simple. No votaré por ninguno de esos candidatos, no pueden representar los valores que para mí son importantes. Ellos saben que no son democráticos.
El profesor Mohammed Marandi, de la Universidad de Teherán, señaló más o menos lo mismo, pero agregó que mucha gente en España, Italia, Grecia (o los palestinos de Gaza que votaron por Hamas y fueron puestos bajo sitio por ello) tampoco sentían que vivían en una verdadera democracia. Buen punto.
Sí, hay una especie de democracia fantasma en esta elección. No es difícil, por ejemplo, ver por qué el ex alcalde de Teherán Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf podría ser el favorito. Proviene de un linaje familiar adecuado, es decir, es de origen humilde, y muchos admiran el hecho de que su padre es panadero. Ghalibaf ascendió de las filas militares a los más altos rangos del ejército durante la titánica guerra Irán-Irak.
A diferencia del horrible Ahmadinejad, Ghalibaf combatió en las más feroces batallas y por ello hoy tiene considerable influencia en las Guardias Revolucionarias. Si Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea e Israel continúan con sus amenazas a Irán por su programa nuclear, Ghalibaf podría ser el hombre que se enfrentaría a esta campaña occidental y evitaría la demencial retórica de Ahmadinejad, quien ha pasado su presidencia enojando a los enemigos de Irán con el único fin de enfurecerlos.
La elección iraní sigue sin ser una elección, sino una competencia entre los favoritos del clero. Hay una cuestión mucho más amplia involucrada aquí. Recordemos la revolución iraní de 1979. ¿No se suponía que habría una democracia entonces? ¿Y acaso no vimos a Komeini convertir a Irán en una teocracia, o más bien, una necrocracia; un gobierno de los muertos para los muertos? ¿No dice esto algo muy importante sobre esa vasta zona de montañas, ríos y arena que llamamos Medio Oriente? Salen el rey Farouk, el rey Idris, la monarquía iraquí, el sha; y llegan los dictadores, los Nasser, los Sadat, los Mubarak; los Ben Ali y los Khadafi. Y el clero. O están también las revoluciones correctivas como la de Hafez Assad en Siria.
Luego llega otra revolución y salen los Mubarak, los Ben Ali, y los Khadafi... y bueno, Siria podría resultar algo muy distinto. Bahrein está segura por el momento (gracias a nosotros) mientras Qatar, los Emiratos y los sauditas están demasiado ocupados cocinando la revolución siria para ocuparse de sus propias revoluciones. Y así continúa todo. Contrabandeamos equipo militar a Siria y nos preocupa que armas químicas acaben en las manos equivocadas. Expresamos nuestra indignación cuando Hezbolá interviene para ayudar a Siria, pero hablamos alegremente de cómo la rebelión contra Assad es ahora el centro del jihadismo mundial.
La historia sugiere que democracia no es una palabra que tenga asociaciones felices en los oídos de los pueblos de Medio Oriente. Después de todo, para ellos las democracias fueron las naciones occidentales que apoyaron a los Sadat, Mubarak, Ben Ali y el sha, y las puertas giratorias por la que entró y salió el Khadafi besado por Blair, surgido de los aparatos de seguridad de dichas naciones. En cuanto al sha, él era el aparato de seguridad de Irán.
Libertad y dignidad es lo que pedía la gente. Y derechos humanos; no democracia. ¿Se les van a conceder estas vitales mercancías?
Con todo, bajo el aburrido y electo Mursi, El Cairo está viviendo una serie de minirrevoluciones. La policía hace huelga, hay revueltas en los ministerios de Agricultura, Educación, la Judicatura y la prensa. Hasta la Opera del Cairo está en paro. No se representará Aída este año, amigos, tampoco habrá ballet.
El pequeño Túnez tiene las mejores posibilidades de sobrevivir. Libia está dividida gracias a la mafia que puso en escena la revolución, incluida la milicia pro gubernamental que no tuvo empacho en asesinar a 20 manifestantes, en su mayoría desarmados, el pasado fin de semana.
Ni hablar de Siria, cuyo gobierno fue acusado por los franceses de usar gas sarín y donde un rebelde (porque nosotros apoyamos a los rebeldes ¿no?) fue visto comiéndose parte del cadáver de un alawita mientras otros ejecutaban a los soldados sirios capturados y lo grababan en video.
Existe una intrigante pista sobre el futuro en un extraño pronunciamiento del ejército sirio después de haber recuperado Qusair la semana pasada. Las fuerzas sirias, no Bashar ni el partido Baaz, dijeron que no vacilaremos en aplastar con puño de hierro a quienes nos ataquen. Su destino es la rendición o la muerte. También el ejército egipcio desenvaina sus espadas (de fabricación estadounidense). El ejército sigue siendo el poder supremo en Argelia (con todo nuestro apoyo). Los Guardianes de la Revolución seguirán entregándole el país a los ayatolás. ¿Estarán de regreso los hombres vestidos de color caqui?
* De The Independent, de Gran Bretaña. Especial para Página/12.
viernes, 11 de enero de 2013
En torno al Holocausto
Revista Letras Libres, edición México
Número 169
En torno al Holocausto
Enero 2013
El concepto del Mal se ensanchó al máximo con el Holocausto. No se asesinó, como había ocurrido hasta entonces, por pertenecer a un partido, defender una idea heterodoxa o profesar algún credo minoritario. En el Holocausto murieron hombres y mujeres, pero también niños y nonatos. Se les aniquiló por ser judíos, por ser. El hombre estuvo a punto de liquidar la idea del Hombre. En este número, Timothy Snyder revisa la demencial "lógica" nazi del exterminio. Zalmen Gradowski testimonia que el infierno en verdad existe. Enrique Krauze expone el daño que la mentira y el odio causan en los pueblos, mientras que Andrea Martínez Baracs echa por tierra el mito de la Resistencia francesa. Humberto Beck realiza una relectura de Primo Levi, que nos dice: "Sucedió, por lo tanto puede suceder otra vez: este es el corazón de lo que tenemos que decir."
Por
Un poema:
Dios misericordioso
Por
Dios misericordioso
escoge a otras personas,
elige a otros más.
Nos encontramos cansados de la muerte y de morir.
Ya se nos terminaron las plegarias.
Escoge a otras personas,
elige a otros más.
Ya no tenemos sangre
para ofrecernos en sacrificio.
Nuestra casa se convirtió en desierto.
Ya no alcanza la tierra para nuestras tumbas.
No más lamentación para nosotros,
no más endechas
en los libros antiguos y sagrados.
Dios misericordioso,
santifica otro país,
otra montaña.
Hemos regado todos los campos y las piedras
con ceniza, con sagrada ceniza.
Con ancianos,
con jóvenes
y con recién nacidos, pagamos
cada letra de tus Diez Mandamientos.
Dios misericordioso,
alza tu fiera frente
y mira a las personas de este mundo;
dales las profecías, los Días del Temor.
Cada lengua balbuce Tu palabra.
Enséñales los hechos milagrosos
y los caminos de la tentación.
Dios misericordioso,
danos prendas sencillas
de pastores que están con sus ovejas,
de herreros que trabajan con martillos,
de lavanderas y desolladores,
y hasta de alguien inferior, incluso.
Y haznos un favor:
Dios misericordioso,
despójanos del genio y su Divina Presencia. ~
Versión de Hernán Bravo Varela
viernes, 25 de febrero de 2011
Tea Party: ¿de neoliberalismo a neo teocracia? ¡El templo del dios Mammon!
The Tea Party's Religious Inspiration
If American politics were a TV show, it would by now have jumped the shark. Then again, American politics is a sort of TV show, considering its surreal plot lines, its cast of kooky narcissists, and an epistemology that blithely combines absolutist religious convictions with post-modern relativism: belief that the Bible is literally true comfortably co-exists with disbelief in simple, verifiable matters of fact, like the President's place of birth or the absence of an HCR death panel mandate. It's not surprising that, under the influence of the Tea Party, freedom is just another word for no abortion rights (and no contraception or cancer screenings for poor women). Not long ago, the Tea (taxed enough already) Party was often presumed to stand for what its name implies -- low taxes and limited government services (or at least limits on programs and services not enjoyed by its members.) But a new Pew Forum survey offers some quantitative evidence that Tea Party members tend to be religiously inspired, social conservatives; the movement "draws disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants ... most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party."
What seems new is the increased dominance of the Republican Party by sectarian religious extremists and their acquisition of power during a prolonged economic crisis and evenlonger war.
Pew's findings are unsurprising. You might have inferred the Tea Party's religious motivations from the statements and policies of its established or aspiring political leaders, at state and federal levels. I'll refrain from offering an extended litany of their wacky assertions and legislative ideas. Just keep in mind a few examples.
One of the subtler but also most hysterical expressions of legislative sectarianism is the wave of state proposals aimed at banning the non-existent threat of Sharia law. At first glance, you might mistake this trend for an effort to keep religion out of government, but a law intended to impose special disadvantages on one religion is no less sectarian (and violative of the First Amendment) than a law intended to extend special advantages to another.
So it's not surprising to find proposed bans on Sharia law in conservative states, like South Dakota and Texas, alongside extreme anti-abortion proposals. (You can find atheists and agnostics who oppose abortion rights, but generally the anti-abortion movement is overwhelmingly religious and tends to divide along sectarian lines: according to Pew, "most religious traditions in the U.S. come down firmly on one side or the other.") The notorious South Dakota bill that would arguably legalize the killing of abortion providers has been tabled; but a bill pending in Texas requires doctors to conduct pre-abortion sonograms for women and to impose on them a description of the fetus's arms, legs and internal organs. Supporters of this bill insist that it is "pro-woman;" its purpose is empower them and "ensure there are no barriers preventing women from receiving the information to which they are entitled for such a life-changing decision" -- barriers like a woman's right to decline a sonogram or description of the fetus.
But the right wing's aggressive sectarianism extends far beyond the usual battles over abortion and other culture-war casualties. Just listen to Mike Huckabee gush over Israel (biblical Zionists have been carrying on about Israel for years, but these days they have Tea Party stars on their side.) Michelle Bachmann claims that "if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play." Note former Senator Rick Santorum's defense of the Crusades, which, he laments, have been maligned by "the American left who hates Christendom." Remember the Bible-based environmental policy of Illinois Congressman John Shimkus, now chair of the House Environment and Economy Sub-Committee. "The Earth will end when God declares it's time to be over," Shimkus famously declared in a 2009 hearing. Reading from the Bible and citing God's promise to Noah not to destroy the earth (again), Shimkus said, "I believe that's the infallible word of God and that's the way it's gonna be for his creation."
Pay particular attention to Indiana congressman Mike Pence's revealing declaration that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a federal bill prohibiting workplace discrimination against gay people "wages war on freedom of religion in the workplace." If religious beliefs legitimized workplace discrimination, as Pence advises, then Title Vll of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would be unconstitutional at least as applied to people with religious compunctions against hiring women or members of particular racial or religious groups: If you believe that God did not intend women to hold traditionally male jobs, for example, or if you simply don't like Mormons, then, in Pence's view of religious freedom, you have a constitutional defense to employment discrimination claims by female or Mormon job applicants. But I bet that Pence would hesitate to defend a constitutional right to discriminate categorically against women or Mormons in the workplace; and if I'm right, it means he recognizes religious biases as defenses to discrimination claims as long as they're biases he shares. Pence's position on ENDA demonstrates the confident, theocratic approach to governing enabled by the Tea Party's electoral successes.
Of course, Pence and Shimkus, among others, are hardly the first theocrats to land in office. There's nothing new about the religious right's drive for political power, which helped sweep Ronald Reagan into the White House in 1980, when liberal stalwarts were swept out of the Senate. What does seem new is the increased dominance of the Republican Party by sectarian religious extremists and their acquisition of power during a prolonged economic crisis and even longer war -- a period marked by national pessimism, fear of terror, and a bipartisan assault on civil liberty unprecedented in its scope (thanks to technology) if not its intentions. In other words, what's worrisome is our vulnerability, susceptibility to demagoguery, and diminishing margin of error. We don't have time for the unexamined certitudes of religious zealotry.
If only Tea Partiers and their legislative surrogates would take seriously the Constitution and the founding fathers they so frequently invoke. Then they'd respect the First Amendment's prohibition on government-established religion, which codified the Founder's belief in a secular, civil government that accommodates diverse religious practices and beliefs. They'd understand that the Establishment clause doesn't merely bar the federal government from requiring us to attend a federal church; it bars Congress from turning sectarian religious beliefs into law (unless they coincide with practically universal moral codes, like prohibitions on murder.) "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible," Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin once said (to appropriate acclaim.) It's an accurate statement of law and constitutional ideals, but, sad to say, an increasingly aspirational description of political practice.
The Tea Party and Religion
ANALYSIS February 23, 2011 The Tea Party movement clearly played a role in rejuvenating the Republican Party in 2010, helping the GOP take control of the House and make gains in the Senate. Tea Party supporters made up 41% of the electorate on Nov. 2, and 86% of them voted for Republican House candidates, according to exit polls. But the precise nature of the Tea Party has been less clear. (...) A new analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that Tea Party supporters tend to have conservative opinions not just about economic matters, but also about social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In addition, they are much more likely than registered voters as a whole to say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on these social issues.2 And they draw disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants.
Para los que aún crean que el Tea Party es un movimiento ciudadano contra los abusos del gobierno, un poco de realidad: la banda de millonarios que financian / controlan el movimiento. Solo tienen un punto en su agenda: menos gobierno, más mercado. Por supuesto, una cita a puerta cerrada como dicta la liturgia.
By KENNETH P. VOGEL & SIMMI AUJLA
1/27/11 4:18 AM EST
This weekend, for the eighth straight year, the billionaire Koch brothers will convene a meeting of roughly 200 wealthy businessmen, Republican politicians and conservative activists for a semi-annual conference to raise millions of dollars for the institutions that form the intellectual foundation – and, increasingly, the leading political edge – of the conservative movement.
In the past, the meetings have drawn an A-list of participants – politicians like Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, leading free-market thinkers including American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks, talkers Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and even Supreme Court justices - to mingle with the wealthy donors who comprise the bulk of the invitees. The meetings adjourned after soliciting pledges of support from the donors – sometimes totaling as much as $50 million – to non-profit groups favored by the Kochs.
For the most part, the meetings, which are closed to the public and reporters, have attracted little attention outside conservative circles. But very different circumstances surround the Koch conference set to begin Saturday at an exclusive resort outside Palm Springs, Calif.
The Koch brothers – Charles and David – have come under intense scrutiny recently for their role in helping start and fund some of the deepest-pocketed groups involved in organizing the tea party movement such as Americans for Prosperity, and for steering cash towards efforts to target President Barack Obama, his healthcare overhaul, and congressional Democrats in the run-up to the 2010 election.
Liberal critics have launched a campaign to highlight what they say is the systematic way in which the Kochs use their political giving to advance a conservative economic and regulatory agenda designed to further the interests of their oil, chemical and manufacturing empire.
Common Cause, the liberal watchdog group, is planning a protest called “Uncloaking the Kochs” and what it calls “the billionaires caucus” on Sunday a few miles down the road from the resort in Rancho Mirage, Calif., where this weekend’s conference will be held, and a handful of reporters have made plans to try to cover the Koch’s closed-door gathering.
While the Koch conferences have taken on an undeniably political edge – a June summit featured sessions on voter mobilization efforts for the 2010 midterms as well as solicitations for an ad campaign attacking Democratic lawmakers – those who have attended the meetings say the critics have it all wrong.
“The main goal of the seminars appeared to me to be education on the challenges that face the American system of free enterprise and democracy, and what people can do about them,” said Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a conservative Republican who has attended at least seven of the meetings.
McDonnell, who is not attending this weekend’s conference, said he was introduced to the gatherings by “free market friends up in Northern Virginia, some in the Koch enterprises institution,” and he cast the conferences as playing an important role in the political process.
“Groups on the right, left and in the middle get together all over this great country to exercise their first amendment rights to talk about these issues - some of them are public. Some of them are closed meetings,” he said. “So, to the degree that some on the left may be trying to attack these Koch seminars is really ridiculous.”
Until recently, the secrecy surrounding the meetings had always been tight.
Mike Huckabee at home abroad on frequent trips to Israel
By BEN SMITH
2/18/11 10:52 AM EST
A parade of Republican presidential hopefuls is making its way to Israel, signaling the candidates’ seriousness about foreign policy and national security and their hawkish approach to terrorism. As POLITICO recently reported, “A stop in the Jewish state is becoming as critical as an early trip to Iowa or New Hampshire.”
But while Mitt Romney and Haley Barbour check the Israel box and move on, Mike Huckabee lingers. This month, the former Arkansas governor spent two weeks in Israel on his 15th trip to the Jewish state, during which his suggestion that the Palestinians go find their own state in some Arab country prompted a settler leader, Dani Dayan, to announce that he is praying Huckabee will be elected president.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49750.html#ixzz1F0FA3iOn
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49750.htmlFeb 24th 2011, 9:52 by Schumpeter
.MOTHER JONES has compiled some interesting graphics on the distribution of wealth in the United States. The magazine's list of the ten richest people in Congress is particularly interesting (John McCain, who forgot how many houses he owns during the 2008 presidential election, does not make it).
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $451.1 million
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) $435.4 million
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $366.2 million
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $294.9 million
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $285.1 million
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $283.1 million
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) $231.2 million
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $201.5 million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $136.2 million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $108.1 million
It is notable that seven of the top ten are Democrats. Of these, four made their money by marrying or inheriting it. Perhaps the Republicans should start rethinking their opposition to inheritance taxes.
Rick Santorum says the history of the Crusades has been corrupted by 'the American left.' AP Photo
By ANDY BARR
2/23/11 2:35 PM EST Updated: 2/24/11 7:57 AM EST
Rick Santorum launched into a scathing attack on the left, charging during an appearance in South Carolina that the history of the Crusades has been corrupted by “the American left who hates Christendom.”
“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical,” Santorum said in Spartanburg on Tuesday. “And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom.”
He added, “They hate Western civilization at the core. That's the problem.”
After asserting that Christianity had not shown any “aggression” to the Muslim world, the former Pennsylvania senator — who is considering a 2012 run for the White House — argued that American intervention in the Middle East helps promote “core American values.”
“What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers,” he said. “What we're talking about are core American values. ‘All men are created equal' — that's a Christian value, but it's an American value.”
“It's become part of our national religion, if you will,” he continued. “The point I was trying to make was that the national faith, the national ideal, is rooted in the Christian ideal — in the Judeo-Christian concept of the person.”
Pelosi edits honorary resolution...on Pelosi http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0211/Pelosi_edits_honorary_resolutionon_Pelosi_.html
White House meets lobbyists off campus http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50081.html
White House meets lobbyists off campus http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50081.html
(Clockwise from upper left) Limbaugh, Bachmann, Breitbart and Palin have all taken jabs. AP Photos
By AMIE PARNES
2/24/11 7:43 PM EST Updated: 2/25/11 11:50 AM EST
Except for an ill-advised trip to an expensive Spanish resort last summer, Michelle Obama has escaped much of the criticism that has been directed at her husband, keeping a relatively low-profile while primarily focusing on childhood obesity, military families and the arts.
During her first two years in the White House, she was more Laura Bush rather than Hillary Clinton, but that has begun to change. Now, for conservative critics, it is open season on the first lady.
Obama’s admonishments on nutrition and advice on breastfeeding are examples of big government “nanny state” intrusion according to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.); her eating habits are evidence of her hypocrisy, according to Rush Limbaugh; her athletic physique is something to be lampooned on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website, which posted a cartoon showing her as overweight and eating a plate full of hamburgers.
To date, the East Wing has managed to stay above the fray, not wanting to take part in a point-counterpoint kind of debate. But to one academic expert on first ladies, the attacks seem unusually pointed.
“There’s so much anger in the criticism surrounding Michelle Obama,” said Myra Gutin, a Rider University professor and author of a biography of Barbara Bush and a book on 20th century first ladies. “It seems almost personal to me.”
Republicans have a simple response: Obama is now fair game because she is playing an increasingly political role in her husband’s administration.
When Obama made a string of campaign stops for Democratic candidates during the 2010 campaign, Republicans generally refrained from any attacks. But many of them point to the first lady’s e-mail to supporters earlier this month announcing the news that Charlotte had been picked as the host city of the 2012 Democratic National Convention as an example of her slow movement onto political turf.
And they say her support for the government playing a bigger role in advancing better nutrition is inherently political. “If the first lady doesn’t want criticism, then she shouldn’t propose policy,” said Republican strategist Mark McKinnon.
“While no one disagrees with encouraging good health, against the backdrop of her husband’s demonstrably invasive and expanding government, the fear is that her encouragement will cross over to government fiat,” said Mary Matalin, a former aide to President George H.W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
In contrast to Hillary Clinton, who was put in charge of her husband Bill Clinton’s health care initiative shortly after he became president, Obama’s role in health care policy has been minimal. Clinton, a former senator who is now secretary of state, was an entirely new model of a first lady and quickly became a target of what she called “the vast right wing conspiracy” before dialing back her public involvement in policy after health care crashed and burned.
Republican strategist John Feehery said conservatives may be seizing on the fact that Michelle Obama, like Hillary Clinton, is perceived to be more liberal than her husband. But he sees a difference between the current first lady and Clinton, who was perceived as a “real ideological threat.”
“Michelle Obama isn’t heading up a health care task force,” Feehery said, referring to Clinton. “Michelle Obama is talking about issues that are relatively important. I think she’s a fairly traditional first lady.”
In that sense she has resembled her predecessor, Laura Bush, who promoted literacy and woman’s issues in Afghanistan as first lady, and never attracted much controversy.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)