Socialism Art Nature

Share/Bookmark
'Honor Killings' in the West
While the Western media often depicts Muslim societies like Pakistan as particularly misogynistic, they ignore the fact that in the U.S., for instance, 3 women are killed EVERY DAY by their male partners.

'Honor Killings' in the West

While the Western media often depicts Muslim societies like Pakistan as particularly misogynistic, they ignore the fact that in the U.S., for instance, 3 women are killed EVERY DAY by their male partners.


Share/Bookmark

America is the land of opportunity, just for some more than others.

That’s because, in large part, inequality starts in the crib. Rich parents can afford to spend more time and money on their kids, and that gap has only grown the past few decades. Indeed, economists Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane calculate that, between 1972 and 2006, high-income parents increased their spending on “enrichment activities” for their children by 151 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, compared to 57 percent for low-income parents.

But, of course, it’s not just a matter of dollars and cents. It’s also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a week on average than poor parents, which is critical during a child’s formative early years. That’s why, as Stanford professor Sean Reardon explains, “rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class students,” and they’re staying that way.

It’s an educational arms race that’s leaving many kids far, far behind.

It’s depressing, but not nearly so much as this:

Even poor kids who do everything right don’t do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong. Advantages and disadvantages, in other words, tend to perpetuate themselves. You can see that in the above chart, based on a new paper from Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill, presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s annual conference, which is underway.

Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. Not only that, but these low-income strivers are just as likely to end up in the bottom as these wealthy ne’er-do-wells. Some meritocracy.

What’s going on? Well, it’s all about glass floors and glass ceilings. Rich kids who can go work for the family business — and, in Canada at least, 70 percent of the sons of the top 1 percent do just that — or inherit the family estate don’t need a high school diploma to get ahead. It’s an extreme example of what economists call “opportunity hoarding.” That includes everything from legacy college admissions to unpaid internships that let affluent parents rig the game a little more in their children’s favor.

But even if they didn’t, low-income kids would still have a hard time getting ahead. That’s, in part, because they’re targets for diploma mills that load them up with debt, but not a lot of prospects. And even if they do get a good degree, at least when it comes to black families, they’re more likely to still live in impoverished neighborhoods that keep them disconnected from opportunities.

It’s not quite a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose game where rich kids get better educations, yet still get ahead even if they don’t—but it’s close enough. And if it keeps up, the American Dream will be just that.


Share/Bookmark

Without a shred of self-consciousness, top Harvard administrators (who regularly get anywhere from $1-10 million in compensation EVERY YEAR) send messages of congratulations to a long-term, under-paid dining service worker who just won $6 million in the lottery and can finally retire in comfort from this wretched corporation-masquerading-as-a-college.


Share/Bookmark

wow. in a recent Globe op-ed over one quarter of the entire Harvard law school faculty publicly weigh in AGAINST Harvard adopting tougher standards to prevent and punish rape and sexual assault on campus. over 75% of the 28 signatories are men. this despite the fact that Harvard is currently under federal investigation for its widespread, sexist toleration of campus rape and rapists; is currently being sued in federal court by a number of current and former students who were sexually assaulted by classmates who faced no punishment; and that a vote among all undergraduates last year overwhelmingly mandated that Harvard implement tougher regulations against campus rapists.

these Harvard lawyers prove that their role in the world — as elitist and detached bourgeois intellectuals — is to hold back the march of progress by littering the road with abstract legalistic verbiage.

they care more about the hypothetical fates of elite male Harvard students who will face systematic persecution in a post-rape fantasy world than they do about the actual 1 in 5 female Harvard students who are CURRENTLY being sexually assaulted by their said male classmates.

these Harvard law “experts” never wrote public op-eds in the Globe decrying the epidemic of unpunished rapes on campus. that was apparently not a cause for alarm. but the very notion that Harvard may crack down on the unchecked sexist behavior of the sons of the nation’s elite suddenly fills these academics with righteous indignation!

this is the hypocrisy of bourgeois law, bourgeois “liberal” thought, and bourgeois academia.

===


Share/Bookmark

Watch America’s last 4 presidents each announce that they’re bombing Iraq | The Week

It’s déjà vu all over again as President Obama becomes the fourth consecutive President to announce a bombing campaign in Iraq. Watch Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Obama make their statements over the span of two decades.

===

MLK, Jr.: “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government. For the sake of those hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.”


Share/Bookmark
DO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NOT EXIST ANYMORE AT UNIVERSITIES??
The judge refused to give me a restraining order on the Dean of Students at New Mexico Highlands University. I cited case laws and told the court how he deprived me of my constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, peaceful assembly on public property, right to remain silent, right to make my own health choices and right to an attorney. I had no lawyer present or witnesses while he had his lawyer who claims that University laws supersede constitutional laws. The judge did not recognize my constitutional rights being violated and did not give me a restraining order because I was not in serious danger or threat of harm. I explained that my emotional health is being affected by the harassment from the dean and how he put university restrictions on my without proper due process. After telling the Board of Regents, The Vice President, The President and the Dean himself several times that I would not like to speak to the Dean and even police officers told me that I don’t have to speak to him and can speak to someone else, the Dean still sends me emails saying I have to meet with him and comply with sanctions. I refuse to be dragged into another meeting as to be bullied and harassed by this man alone and therefore should have a restraining order because my grades are being affected as well as other emotional trauma. He failed to cross examine the men who have raped and abused me as I brought in text messages and pictures of my injuries from an assault. His lawyer made it clear that he is the Dean and is responsible for disciplinary actions. I said that is false because due process requires an impartial judge and a jury which should have been other University members during the hearing. I cited case laws to prove the University is not higher than constitutional law. Please let me know if I’m wrong. The dean is trying to get rid of me after he found out that I was exposing things going on around campus and bringing forth an audio recording of a witness testifying to a prostitution ring on campus, which he made me delete during a meeting with my father present. He sent letters threatening suspension/expulsion if I did not go to his meeting because I refuse to go to a mental health therapist of the University’s choice. He is doing that in an attempt to silence me while he is covering up the corruption on campus. I am restricted from the library, computer labs and anywhere on campus without permission except for my classes at specific times. I don’t think this is even legal. I just contacted the ACLU and Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and believe it is time to get a lawyer after not being able to represent myself in court. The judge said that this legal stuff I brought forward is not accurate and that this is a University matter only to be handled by the University. Please tell me this applies to Universities and they are my individual rights: Tinker v. Des Moines I retain all of my constitutional rights while I am a student, and thus I have a right to a proper hearing with more than just the biased Dean of Students, a Dean who has a personal issue with me and will not let anyone else handle the situation, even though his superiors, such as the University President, could have easily handled the matter.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803)
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
U.S. v. Lee,106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)
"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it."
"It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives.”
Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
"It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no ‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"… "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights. It merely says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But a catalogue of these rights includes customary, traditional, and time-honored rights, amenities, privileges, and immunities that come within the sweep of “the Blessings of Liberty” mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Many of them, in my view, come [410 U.S. 211] within the meaning of the term “liberty” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment.
First is the autonomous control over the development and expression of one’s intellect, interests, tastes, and personality.
These are rights protected by the First Amendment and, in my view, they are absolute, permitting of no exceptions. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. l; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508 (dissent); Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684, 697 (concurring); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293 (Black, J., concurring, in which I joined). The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is one facet of this constitutional right. The right to remain silent as respects one’s own beliefs, Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 196-199, is protected by the First and the Fifth.
Third is the freedom to care for one’s health and person, freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf.
These rights, though fundamental, are likewise subject to regulation on a showing of “compelling state interest.” We stated in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 164, that walking, strolling, and wandering “are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them.” As stated in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29:
“There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will [410 U.S. 214] and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will.”
New Mexico Statute Code §30-3A-2:
As provided in §30-3A-2, harassment consists of:
A person (defendant) knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct;The pattern of conduct is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person;The pattern of conduct serves no lawful purpose; andThe conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.
tag #nmhu

DO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NOT EXIST ANYMORE AT UNIVERSITIES??

The judge refused to give me a restraining order on the Dean of Students at New Mexico Highlands University. I cited case laws and told the court how he deprived me of my constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, peaceful assembly on public property, right to remain silent, right to make my own health choices and right to an attorney. I had no lawyer present or witnesses while he had his lawyer who claims that University laws supersede constitutional laws. The judge did not recognize my constitutional rights being violated and did not give me a restraining order because I was not in serious danger or threat of harm. I explained that my emotional health is being affected by the harassment from the dean and how he put university restrictions on my without proper due process. After telling the Board of Regents, The Vice President, The President and the Dean himself several times that I would not like to speak to the Dean and even police officers told me that I don’t have to speak to him and can speak to someone else, the Dean still sends me emails saying I have to meet with him and comply with sanctions. I refuse to be dragged into another meeting as to be bullied and harassed by this man alone and therefore should have a restraining order because my grades are being affected as well as other emotional trauma. He failed to cross examine the men who have raped and abused me as I brought in text messages and pictures of my injuries from an assault. His lawyer made it clear that he is the Dean and is responsible for disciplinary actions. I said that is false because due process requires an impartial judge and a jury which should have been other University members during the hearing. I cited case laws to prove the University is not higher than constitutional law. Please let me know if I’m wrong. The dean is trying to get rid of me after he found out that I was exposing things going on around campus and bringing forth an audio recording of a witness testifying to a prostitution ring on campus, which he made me delete during a meeting with my father present. He sent letters threatening suspension/expulsion if I did not go to his meeting because I refuse to go to a mental health therapist of the University’s choice. He is doing that in an attempt to silence me while he is covering up the corruption on campus. I am restricted from the library, computer labs and anywhere on campus without permission except for my classes at specific times. I don’t think this is even legal. I just contacted the ACLU and Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and believe it is time to get a lawyer after not being able to represent myself in court. The judge said that this legal stuff I brought forward is not accurate and that this is a University matter only to be handled by the University. Please tell me this applies to Universities and they are my individual rights: Tinker v. Des Moines I retain all of my constitutional rights while I am a student, and thus I have a right to a proper hearing with more than just the biased Dean of Students, a Dean who has a personal issue with me and will not let anyone else handle the situation, even though his superiors, such as the University President, could have easily handled the matter.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803)

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

U.S. v. Lee,106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it."

"It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives.”

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

"It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no ‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them."

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)

"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"… "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights. It merely says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But a catalogue of these rights includes customary, traditional, and time-honored rights, amenities, privileges, and immunities that come within the sweep of “the Blessings of Liberty” mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Many of them, in my view, come [410 U.S. 211] within the meaning of the term “liberty” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment.

First is the autonomous control over the development and expression of one’s intellect, interests, tastes, and personality.

These are rights protected by the First Amendment and, in my view, they are absolute, permitting of no exceptions. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. l; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508 (dissent); Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684, 697 (concurring); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293 (Black, J., concurring, in which I joined). The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is one facet of this constitutional right. The right to remain silent as respects one’s own beliefs, Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 196-199, is protected by the First and the Fifth.

Third is the freedom to care for one’s health and person, freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf.

These rights, though fundamental, are likewise subject to regulation on a showing of “compelling state interest.” We stated in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 164, that walking, strolling, and wandering “are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them.” As stated in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29:

“There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will [410 U.S. 214] and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will.”

New Mexico Statute Code §30-3A-2:

As provided in §30-3A-2, harassment consists of:

A person (defendant) knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct;
The pattern of conduct is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person;
The pattern of conduct serves no lawful purpose; and
The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.

tag #nmhu


Share/Bookmark

#ISA is still a far greater threat to world peace and human well-being — and responsible for far more death and destruction in recent years, let alone decades — than #ISIS.

(ISA = Imperialist State of America, aka U.S.A.)


Share/Bookmark
Todd Chretien at Puget Sound Socialists, Sep30, 2014: “Agitate, Educate, Organize!”
30 Sept 2014
Seattle, WA

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

The leaders of the world’s most powerful countries use the term “terrorism” to disparage any violence they themselves don’t commit or condone, explains Ben Norton.

image

… At the end of the day, any serious, critical look at Israel’s policy toward the indigenous Palestinians it has colonized, occupied, and ethnically cleansed for decades should remind one of the mayhem wreaked by ISIL today.

PALESTINIAN HUMAN rights advocates have noted the striking similarities between this fascist organization and this fascist ethnocratic state, and they have chosen a new way to approach it—calling Israel out for what it is: The Jewish State of Iraq and the Levant. JSIL.

On September 29, Palestine solidarity activists flooded Twitter with ‪#‎JSIL‬ and ‪#‎JSILisISIL‬. The hashtag seems to have first been used in this context on the evening of September 27. It appeared sporadically until the afternoon of September 29, when leading Israel-Palestine journalists Rania Khalek and Max Blumenthal tweeted “#JSIL trend it.”

Khalek and Blumenthal—as competent journalists are supposed to do (if only all journalists could follow suit)—always back up their assertions with evidence. And lots of it, at that. They highlighted countless similarities between ISIL and JSIL, decisively proving that fascist apartheid Israel and fascist ISIL are not that different after all:

— “Like its ISIL counterpart,” Khalek tweeted, “the Jewish State in Israel and the Levant (JSIL) executes journalists,” citing a Ma’an News article entitled “Families of 16 journalists killed in Gaza demand justice.”

— “Like ISIL,” Blumenthal responded, “the Jewish State of Israel in the Levant executes human rights workers,” citing a Ha’aretz article entitled “A bullet through the heart of a Palestinian man—and an entire community” and subtitled “A social worker and father of three, Hashem Abu Maria, was killed by an IDF sharpshooter during a protest against the Gaza war. Two others were also shot to death.”

— Blumenthal continued: “Like ISIL, the Jewish State (JSIL) executes medical workers and first responders,” citing an interview in an Alternet article he wrote in which an innocent Red Cross volunteer was deliberately murdered by Israeli soldiers.

— “The Jewish State in Israel & the Levant (JSIL) recruits foreign fighters with propaganda,” Khalek added, along with the tag #JSILisISIL, pointing to the Mondoweiss article entitled “Slate blames Birthright for indoctrinating American Jew who was killed fighting for Israel.”

— “Like ISIL,” Khalek goes on, “the Jewish State (JSIL) beheads its victims, even children,” citing a chilling ElectronicIntifada.net article entitled “‘Wake up, my son!’ None of Gaza’s murdered children are just numbers.”

— Blumenthal tweets: “Like ISIL, the Jewish State (JSIL) recruits indoctrinated foreigners to displace indigenous people,” citing a Guardian article entitled “How 90 Peruvians became the latest Jewish settlers.”

— “ISIL targets hospitals, doctors, journalists,” writes Blumenthal. “JSIL targets hospitals, doctors, journalists.” He includes the Mondoweiss article entitled “Latest from Gaza: Israel targets houses, mosques, disabled center and essential infrastructure, 14 more Palestinians killed.”

— Khalek concludes: “JSIL has already imposed its jizya [the tax an Islamic state levies on non-Muslim subjects, according to ancient Islamic law] on American taxpayers forced to pay $3.1 billion per year to Israel in military aid. Scary stuff.”

… Viggo Mortensen, to great hullabaloo in the tabloids, has joined the group of U.S. human rights activists honest enough to call Israel’s state terrorism what it actually is: state terrorism.

We must be honest with our language. If we are going to refer to ISIL as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, we must also refer to Israel as the Jewish State of Iraq and the Levant. Say it; say it loud. JSIL.

For if we ever truly wish to stop terrorism, to end terrorism in all of its forms, we must be honest about its very nature, and we must heed Eqbal Ahmad’s counsel to condemn the most deadly and destructive form of terrorism of all: state terrorism.


Share/Bookmark

image

Anti-racist activists were sitting in at the Beavercreek, Ohio, police station as this article was published October 8, in a dramatic protest against the police murder of John Crawford III and the failure of a grand jury to indict the officer responsible.

The story of Crawford’s murder in a Walmart in a suburb of Dayton has gained national and international attention—but apparently not enough to convince authorities to press for an indictment against the cop who killed an innocent, unarmed man in cold blood. So activists are stepping up their struggle with their indefinite occupation in Beavercreek.

On August 5, the 22-year-old Crawford was walking through the aisles of the store and chatting on a cell phone with his girlfriend while holding a pellet gun sold by the store. Another customer called 911—officer Sean Williams arrived on the scene with his gun drawn, and proceeded to open fire only a few seconds after confronting Crawford. According to his girlfriend Lee Cee Jackson, Crawford’s last words were: “It’s not real!”

A recently released surveillance video and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine’s own investigation show that Crawford was completely innocent.

===

What you can do

Organizers of the sit-are asking supporters to call the Beavercreek police station at 937-426-1225, ask to speak with Police Chief Dennis Evers, and tell him you support the demands of the occupiers. You can also e-mail local officials at admin@beavercreekohio.gov. For more details, visit the “Solidarity Actions” page of the OSA website.

For breaking news and to find out how to support the campaign, visit the Ohio Student Association website and Facebook page—you can also follow @OHIOstudents on Twitter.

A “Justice for John Crawford” rally has been planned for October 18 at the Ohio Statehouse, 1 Capitol Square, in Columbus.


Share/Bookmark
14 playsDownload
Women, Race and Class
A History of Black Feminism

Socialism 2014

June 26, 2014

The widely accepted narrative of the modern feminist movement is that it initially involved white women beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, who were later joined by women of color following in their footsteps. But decades before the rise of the modern women’s liberation movement, Black women were organizing against their systematic rape at the hands of white racist men. And in the 1960s, Black women and other women of color began organizing against their oppression as early as white women, forming a multitude of organizations. This session gives an overview of the history and politics of Black Feminism in the United States.


Share/Bookmark
8 playsDownload
Art and Class

Socialism 2014

June 26, 2014

There is an array of debates in the contemporary art scene: How does creative labor fit into the economy? Is art merging with fashion and entertainment? What can we expect from political art? Art critic Ben Davis argue that returning class to the center of discussion can play a vital role in tackling the challenges that visual art faces today, including the biggest challenge of all—how to maintain faith in art itself in a dysfunctional world.

Unfortunately, the last few minutes of this program were cut off due to a technical problem.


Share/Bookmark