The following was published recently by Julian Assange and Wikileaks.  It gives the reader an idea of the imperialist meddling in Ecuador in the 1970’s that would subsequently lead to the democratic election of Jaime Roldós Aguilera and his subsequent assassination by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1981.

It is important to note, as Stephen Lendman did on March 18^th, 2013 at Dailycensored.com (http://www.dailycensored.com/america-honors-its-worst/):

“that on May 23, Henry Kissinger will be the latest recipient for the Medal of Honor given by the President of the United States. Ceremonies will take place at New York’s Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum. It calls itself “one of America’s leading historic, cultural and educational institutions” (ibid).

Lendman went on eloquently to list the crimes for which Kissinger will be awarded and they include:

Kissinger’s one of America’s worst. On May 27, he’ll be 90 years old. He was an early architect of new world order harshness.

He’s a notorious war criminal. His legacy includes three to four million Southeast Asian war deaths.

He was instrumental in overthrowing Chile’s democratic government. Augusto Pinochet replaced Salvador Allende. A reign of terror followed. It included arrests, killings and torture.

So did privatization of state enterprises, mass layoffs, sweeping deregulation, deep social spending cuts, wage freezes or cuts, unrestricted free market access for western corporations, corporate-friendly tax cuts, trade unionist crackdowns, and harsh repression against opposing a system incompatible with social democracy, civil and human rights.

Kissinger backed Suharto’s brutal dictatorship. His Kopassus special forces terrorized Indonesians. Their record includes kidnappings, rape, torture, targeted killings, sweeping violence, mass murder, and other atrocities against anyone challenging his authority.

He supported his West Papua takeover. He OK’d his East Timor invasion. Over two hundred thousand East Timorese died. Around half a million more were displaced. In his memoirs, former American UN ambassador Daniel Partick Moynihan wrote:

“The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success (ibid)

In two months, 10% of the population was annihilated. It was prelude for what followed.

• Kissinger supported the Khmer Rouge’s rise to power and reign of terror. He encouraged a Kurdish revolt against Saddam Hussein. He then abandoned them. He advised Bush and Cheney on Iraq policy.
• He backed a 1974 Cypriot fascist coup. He defended Turkey’s brutal invasion. He wanted a Washington, DC-based journalist kidnapped and killed.
• He was complicit in Operation Condor. Pinochet and other Latin American despots reigned terror against alleged communists and political opponents. Tens of thousands perished.
• He backed Pakistan’s “delicacy and tact” in overthrowing Bangladesh’s democratically elected government. Half a million deaths followed.
• In 1974, his secret National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) called for drastic global depopulation. Developing nations are resource rich, he said. They’re vital to US growth.
• He wanted useless eaters eliminated. He said “Depopulation should be the highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World.”
• He supported involuntary mass sterilizations. He wanted birth control made a prerequisite for US aid. He wanted hundreds of millions eliminated by 2000
• Kissinger’s worst of all. He symbolizes imperial lawlessness. He waged war on humanity in and out of government. He’s still doing it. On May 27, he’ll again be honored. He deserves prison instead
• His legacy includes involvement in decades of crimes of war, against humanity and genocide. As National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, he served Nixon and Ford from January 1969 – January 1977 (ibid).

Kissinger is a sociopath, psycopath and serial murder and the best book on his crimes can be read in the book by now-deceased, Christopher Hitchens, who documents the serial genocidal killer with great clarity (http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Henry-Kissinger-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/1859843980).

Of course, few know that during his reign in the decade of the seventies, Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger oversaw the entire Latin American Landscape with an eye for imperial power, domination and control.  He was of course aided and abetted by criminal Richard Nixon, then president of the US.

Kissinger’s extraordinary of mass murders and genocide in Latin America is now to be rewarded by “Change You Can Believe in Obama’ with the lavish Medal of Honor to a serial murder.  Can’t get better than this, can it?

Readers must learn the history of the Kissinger/Imperial domination and genocide in Latin America so that when the time comes, he can be planted into the ground with the honors he so badly needs and the public needs to understand about this decrepit ruler elite.

Published by El Telegrafo, April 29, 2013 by ‘Julian Assange in Exile’: The Revelations of Wikileaks

As of this writing, Assange has been in exile for 343 days in the Ecuadorian Embassy in England.  He now writes for El Telegrafo.

(http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/wikileaks/item/ee-uu-oligarquia-y-ff-aa-el-poder-decisivo.html).

In 1973 riots were frequent in Guayaquil, Ecuador where there was concentrated opposition to the Ecuadorian military regime. The photo below shows a protest around the interior of Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Research unit

The U.S. Embassy always closely monitored political activity in Ecuador. The aim was to establish whether there would be any changes that could affect their financial interests.

According to diplomatic cables from the State Department, recently leaked by WikiLeaks, which date from the 70′s, Americans have always felt comfortable with the military dictatorships, both during the period of Guillermo Rodriguez Lara (the former dictator of Ecuador) and the post- triumvirate (See more at: http://www.dailycensored.com/americas-backyard-new-reports-on-ecuador-by-wikileaks/).

A cable written on July 19, 1976, classified as secret, written by an unidentified person at the time, summarizes the situation:

“The purpose of this message is to make an analysis for the State Department and to other agencies of the political dynamics in Ecuador. Having recently arrived from Washington, I realize that maybe the answer in various sectors would be ‘Who cares?’ However, this small country has shown a unique ability in this region at least, to cause us problems, whether bilateral (fishing seizures, GSP, Texaco-Gulf ADA) and multilateral (OAS reform, UNCLOS)”.
The cable adds:

“Unlike other Latin American countries, small and economically dependent, Ecuador has not let its weakness (compared to its neighbors) to stop it at the time it felt it necessary to  face us (the US) when its national interests so require”.

Later, the anonymous analyst notes:

“We believe that the ultimate authorities in Ecuador (dictatorship) will remain friends with the U.S., but that they would not have the power to force the rest of the Government of Ecuador to make changes in its foreign policy.”

It was the time when the country was ruled by the triumvirate formed by Alfredo Poveda, Guillermo Duran and Luis Leoro (http://www.dailycensored.com/americas-backyard-new-reports-on-ecuador-by-wikileaks/).

In the same cable, the embassy reported who the key players in the Ecuadorian political game were:

“The biggest contenders to power in the political system are: the Armed Forces, the elite commercial / industrial / landowner, known as the oligarchy; unions, leftist intellectuals and student populism, represented today by Assad Bucaram and his Concentration of Popular Forces (CFP). The Church is now a latent power and enters the battle only to protect their institutional interests.  Of these, only the military and the oligarchy can exercise decisive power. Between these two, there is at least a passive acceptance of one another. The other contenders are able to interrupt, influence and perhaps bring down a government, but are unable to form or sustain a government that is opposed to the military or the oligarchy.”

The military harshly suppressed any protest, whether they be students, professors, doctors or bus drivers.

 In an archival photo file, the Ecuadorian newspaper, The Telegrafo, shows the arrest of and detention of demonstrator at the time.

The cable then goes on to describe what appears to be laprofunda crisis affecting the Ecuadorian State:

“The fragmentation of the political system and the cult of personality is so dominant that it is reflected in how the government operates no matter which contender is in charge. Typically the president is reluctant to make decisions when the topic is controversial, because he cannot afford to alienate his allies if he wants to stay in power. Instead there is a uniform and consistent power, numerous satrapías that handle different areas, independently of one another. There are dozens of ministries that derive their funding from tax revenues, leaving the central government without much discretionary income. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the freedom to act as he pleases. The Ministry of Natural Resources looks like it can handle oil policy without much interference from the Board of Governors.”

A similar reading is made in a cable years earlier, dated July 13, 1973. Then the analysis was on the government of Guillermo Rodriguez Lara.  For America, this administration was corrupt but efficient.  The cable at the time, written by a person not identified states:

“The level of corruption appears to be increasing and at quite a fast pace and is more visible in the oil issue and purchase of weapons. The appearance of corruption is a relatively new history in this regime. Its effects (of corruption) are undermining public confidence. This corruption must accelerate the degeneration of the regime.”
Despite this situation, the United States regarded the dictatorship of Rodríguez Lara as an ‘efficient government’. American ambassador at the time, Robert Brewster, wrote:

“He and his colleagues seem to be prepared to hold on to power indefinitely. A notable achievement has been the stability of government and increasing the efficiency of public administration, after more than a decade of political emergency. This Government (Lara) has provided more effective administration that most Ecuadorians remember. The traditional political activity has remained at a standstill. The few active civilian politicians have no popularity and the government has been able to harass them in the silence of immunity. And in this Government’s record has been anything but good.”

The US diplomat, Brewster, then gives a profile of Rodriguez Lara:

“There is no doubt that Rodriguez’s personality is the key to military rule. Although physically not impressive, his intellectual ability (rare in this Ecuadorian Army), and his eloquence and command instinct seems to be what earned him a prominent position. There are still frequent reports of ambitious commanders, but all in all Rodríguez’s problematic rivals seem to have been neutralized, at least for the moment.”

Brewster explained that at that time there was no person able to replace Rodriguez, except from the Navy:

“Only the Navy, which is traditionally one of the most educated officer corps, offers some interesting possibilities. One of them is Admiral Alfredo Poveda — strong, competent and serene. Another, much darker, is Renan Olmedo, governor of the province of Guayas. In dealing with unruly Guayaquil, Olmedo has shown unusual forcefulness and political understanding. Poveda seems to be well accepted, at least by his colleagues in the Navy, and occupies the highest office of the Cabinet.  Olmedo, on the other hand, is a loner whose dirty life resume has created reservation among his peers. But prospects are, in any case, that Rodriguez will continue as president until he decides to quit” (see more on Poveda at: http://www.dailycensored.com/americas-backyard-new-reports-on-ecuador-by-wikileaks/).

Brewster is correct in his prognosis, because Poveda is the one who would replace Rodriguez Lara in 1976 (ibid).

But U.S. analysis was not only about the government, but also about the civilian opposition — opposition Washington considered disperse and without popular support.

On August 3, 1973 a cable studying the “Restoration Front “— a political initiative which joined the main political groups of the era: i.e. liberal, velasquistas (the name for those who supported dictator (Velasco Ibarra) and the PIC stated:
“The contrast between the political apathy that existed until recently and this sudden increase in activity shows that it seems more dramatic and meaningful than it probably really is.  Remember that the ‘Front’ is composed of a heterogeneous group of traditional politicians, for the most part, dissident groups. It has no common agenda other than an end to military rule. It lacks popular support. Today is not seen as a serious alternative to the current government.”
For the Embassy, ​​the only serious alternative was Assad Bucaram, the leader of the Concentration of Popular Forces (CFP).  The cable goes on:

“While this is only speculation, it may be that long-term poverty of the military government and the Front, as revealed by political activity, may have the effect of making Bucaram and the PIC the only alternative for change in Ecuador.”

In fact it was the PIC who won the presidential election in 1979 when the country returned to democracy (see more about the assassination of democratic leader Jaime Roldós Aguilera by the CIA @ (http://www.dailycensored.com/americas-backyard-new-reports-on-ecuador-by-wikileaks/).

For America, this was because former President Velasco Ibarra, who had been overthrown by Lara Rodriguez, was by this time a political corpse. On August 20, 1974, Ambassador Brewster analyzes a clandestine meeting of the Velasco Ibarra party, in which Alfonso Arroyo was elected as the top leader:

“The policy statement has had no popular resonance. Velasquismo without Velasco, is, of course, an empty shell.  At the age of 80 years old and after five presidencies, the ‘prophet’ may have been consigned to the dustbin of history in popular belief.”

You can read more about the history of US involvement in Ecuador from ‘Assange in Exile’ at:

(http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/julian-assange).

The post Wikileaks: from US cables: US.: “Oligarchy and armed forces, the decisive power” — Henry Kissinger genoicdal murderer appeared first on DailyCensored.com - Breaking Censored News, World, Independent, Liberal News.

 

In the 1886 Supreme Court case, Boyd vs. US, The Supreme Court ruled that compelling a person to provide papers and evidence against himself was both an unreasonable search and seizure and an unconstitutional act of self incrimination, in violation of the 4^th and 5^th Amendments of the Constitution.  The court majority, at the time, stated:

“Both amendments relate to the personal security of the citizen. They nearly run into, and mutually throw light upon, each other. When the thing forbidden in the Fifth Amendment, namely, compelling a man to be a witness against himself, is the object of a search and seizure of his private papers, it is an “unreasonable search and seizure” within the Fourth Amendment”

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/616

The Constitutional protections afforded individuals as a result of the Boyd ruling against being compelled to provide evidence against oneself were gradually eroded by subsequent waves of court rulings which include: Fisher v. United States in 1976, Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_v._United_States

ANALYSIS

The Boyd ruling reflected a strong sentiment at the time toward limiting the power of the State and protecting the liberty and privacy of US citizens. This ruling was in response to abuses by the British prior to 1776 – abuses such as the use of ‘general warrants’ to search colonists’ homes and seize their property (http://www.answers.com/topic/the-writ-of-assistance-1762).

Alas, since the Boyd ruling there has been a complete loss of the right to not be compelled to provide evidence against oneself. The evisceration of 4^th and 5^th Amendment rights have been part of a culture of mass incarceration resulting in the world’s highest rate of internment; all part of what can be characterized as the modern corporate police state.

The loss of protections granted by the 4^th and 5^th Amendments has been so gradual that the general public is oblivious to what has been lost and passively tolerates GPS surveillance, providing cell phone records and computer hard drives, the forceful the taking of DNA, urine and blood. Several states have even passed statutes requiring unemployment recipients to provide urine samples for drug testing, a clear violation of the 4^th Amendment.

In the case of Fox News Bureau Chief, James Rosen, the Department of Justice concocted criminal conspiracy charges to justify breaking into his e-mail account in what was clearly an unlawful search under the 4^th Amendment.

In contrast to the Boyd ruling’s protections against any citizen being compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence, the modern corporate police state has gone so far as to codify it as crime to fail to provide such evidence, making the destruction of such evidence a felony (obstruction of justice) subject to prolonged incarceration.

The contemporary Supreme Court has played a key role in the creation and evolution of the modern corporate police state through rulings which grant absolute immunity for prosecutors, immunity from civil suits for police who lie to grand juries, and the right to strip search individuals charged with traffic infractions and other minor offenses.

The Boyd ruling, which protected Americans against being compelled to produce evidence against themselves, represented the best of core conservative principles and values, as the ruling sought to limit the power of government and protect the liberty and privacy of individuals.  But we no longer have liberal or conservative principles – we have a modern police run corporate state.

The fact that allegedly conservative politicians continually undermine the 4^th and 5^th amendments reveals vapid authoritarian tendencies and illustrate that their so-called traditionalist values are little more than a cover for the reality that they are little more than shills for big corporate business.

From indefinite detention, to HR 347, corporate-Democrats have behaved no differently than their Republican counterparts, demonstrating there is little practical difference between the two corporate parties.

We even have a President, a former Constitutional law professor, who unilaterally establishes terrorism watch lists, citizen kill lists, authorizes drone strikes, supports indefinite detention of citizens, and personally decides where the balance between freedom of the press, privacy and national security lies.

A State which prizes the prosecution of individuals above all else, where the populace is under constant surveillance and threat of criminal prosecution from a myriad of vague legal statutes, is not a free society and hardly a democracy.  Simply ask Bradley Manning, John Kiriakou, Thomas Drake, Steven Kim, James Rosen Aaron Swarz and Andrew “Weev” Aurenheimer if you wish more clarity.

Weev was prosecuted and sentenced to 41 months in federal prison under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act for accessing public information on an AT&T server and sending it to Gawker. After tweeting from prison, he was placed in ‘administrative detention’ (solitary confinement) to muzzle his speech and to serve as an important lesson and reminder for those who might wish to express theirs (http://gawker.com/ipad-hacker-andrew-weev-auernheimer-trolls-from-priso-509057520).

The post Boyd vs. US: the decline of the 4th and 5th Amendments and rise of the modern corporate police state in America appeared first on DailyCensored.com - Breaking Censored News, World, Independent, Liberal News.

What is not well known is that Williams received monies from the Apollo Group in the name of John Sperling the former president (http://rainmaker.apps.cironline.org/donors/john-g-sperling/).  Take a look at the other corporate democratic recipients of Apollo largess.  These coin operated lackies include Governor Jerry Brown, the chief dismantler of free education in California.  Brown appointed Terri Bishop, another corporate democrat, to the California Student Aid Commission in 2011.  Bishop has worked at the Apollo Group since 1997, serving most recently as executive vice president of academic strategy and senior advisor to the chief executive officer (http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17364).

The Apollo Group is the owner of the little shop of horrors known as the University of Phoenix (UOP).  This predatory drive-by university is one of the most notorious serial criminal enterprises in the country, leaving students in debt purgatory for life.  They are also active now on the Santa Monica College Campus (SMC) where pepper-spraying president, Chui Tsang has invited them into the mis-educational fold.
Williams support for AB955 and his drafting of the legislation can be seen in light of the for-profit college scheme that has hit America and decimated students’ lives.

The following is from the Green Party.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

The Green Party of California has sent the following letter opposing AB955, which would establish a two-tier educational system in California’s Community Colleges. Contact your state legislator here to tell them to vote ‘no’ on AB955.

http://www.cagreens.org/announce/gpca-opposes-ab955

May 15, 2013

Dear members of the California State Legislature,

The Green Party of California opposes AB955 (and similar self-funded extension course approaches), that place the financial burden of attending community college on the individual student, while enacting a de facto privatized, fee-for-service education mode. Such approaches run counter to the historic role of California’s Community Colleges in providing a baseline of affordable higher education to all.

By displacing the cost of education upon students instead of the state, AB 955 (and approaches like it) provide a disincentive and a justification to the Legislature to not provide sufficient funding for education, and perhaps even make future cuts that would incentivize even greater privatization of our higher education system.

Instead of making progressive reforms to our tax system that could help better fund education – including by reforming Proposition 13, enacting an oil severance tax and a more progressive tax on the very highest income earners – AB 955 is a de facto tax increase on students. This is unjust to the young people who are the future of our state, a disproportionate number who are youth of color, saddling millions of them with mountains of debt, while robbing our future work force of the education it needs.

California must move aggressively towards a better funding of public education, for individual justice and collective health. AB 955 would be a step in the wrong direction, by institutionalizing a shift in education funding responsibility from the state to the student. Such a shift can only lead to a greater commodification of education, something the Green Party believes is unequivocally a matter of collective responsibility.

With a just tax system within a healthy, ecologically-oriented economy, the Green Party of California believes it is within our means to ultimately provide free public education for all. That’s why the Green Party opposes AB 955 and instead seeks to build on the short-term reprieve passage of Proposition 30 provided, to craft long-term progressive tax reform in our state.

Sincerely

Sanda Everette, Alex Shantz
Co-coordinators, state Coordinating Committee
Green Party of California

The post Action Alert: Green Party opposes AB955. No to Contract Education. Yes to Fair Taxes: Das Williams supported by the University of Phoenix appeared first on DailyCensored.com - Breaking Censored News, World, Independent, Liberal News.

In fact, it was just two weeks ago today (May 8) that the Wall St. Journal published a column from two “scientists” claiming that increased CO2 levels are not causing global warming or climate change. The lead author in the article was Harrison Schmitt, former astronaut and former Republican Senator from New Mexico. (Schmitt is a right wing fanatic. According to Wikipidia: ‘In a 2009 interview with libertarian talk-radio host Alex Jones, Schmitt asserted a link between Soviet Communism and the American environmental movement: “I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement.”‘)

The article points out that the increasing levels of CO2 (now over 400 parts per million – ppm) are low compared to the Paleogene period of some 65 million years ago, when they were some 3,000 ppm. The authors forgot to mention that in that period there were no polar ice caps and that sea levels were tens of meters higher than today. This is the blatant dishonesty of the global warming deniers, and it shows the level of journalistic honesty of the foremost newspaper of US capitalism that they should even publish such blatant misrepresentation.

The global warming deniers forgot to mention that this was all that existed of North America in the Paleogene Period.

Nor is there much coverage of the role of Oklahoma’s two US senators – James Inhofe (another global climate disruption/global warming denier) and Tom Coburn. Both these senators opposed spending federal aid money to victims of Superstorm Sandy on the US East Coast last winter. Now, they are both asking for similar aid for the Oklahoma tornado victims.

A couple of years ago, I called a call center that happened to be located in Oklahoma. I got to chatting with the woman on the other end. Oklahoma was at that time being devastated by a heat wave and drought, yet that woman claimed global climate disruption was a myth. I wonder what that woman is thinking now.

The post Corporate Media Cover-UP: Oklahoma Supertornado appeared first on DailyCensored.com - Breaking Censored News, World, Independent, Liberal News.

by Danny Weil

Philosophers for Change

[Note: This piece concludes the two-part essay. For Part 1, please see: Link]

Ted Forstmann and private advocacy philanthropy as a social movement

When there is an obvious financial pay-off for those promoting public policy changes through ‘advocacy philanthropy’, it behooves citizens to critically examine those advocates, their agendas and the implications of their claims. Sadly, this is not the case in America today nor was it at the time the leverage buy-out of public schools was being driven by those who posed as charitable individuals but whose real agenda was and is the incessant accumulation of profits.  However, in the spirit of critical examination, let us begin with entrepreneur, Ted Forstmann.

Forstmann was not an unfamiliar face at the time he was first advocating for the privatization of education.  Besides being a multimillionaire venture capitalist, Forstmann considered himself, “a pioneer of the leveraged buy-out” [1]. This is not surprising. He served on the boards of, or was a spokesperson for, many conservative organizations. His interest in school privatization and educational commercialization was born long before he founded the Children’s Scholarship Fund.

According to Forstmann, his educational pursuit was governed by what he had supposedly learned about schools. For example, he suggested that before the American Revolution and for one hundred years of our country’s history, education was widely available and diverse. He went so far as to argue that competition kept the quality of educational experiences high and education was then a voluntary act. Further, he claimed that during this period literacy was high – in fact, he stated it was higher than in some states today.

Many other right-wing market fundamentalists echo the same rhythmic mantra. Andrew Coulson, a darling of reactionary neo-liberals, has stated:

Early colonial America was arguably the freest civil society that has ever existed.  This freedom extended to education, which meant that parents were responsible for, and had complete control of, their children’s schooling. There were no accrediting agencies, no regulatory boards, and no teacher certification requirements. Parents could choose whatever kind of school or education they wanted for their children, and no one was forced to pay for education they did not use or approve of.

Prior to the Revolutionary War, the majority of American schools were organized and operated on a laissez-faire basis. There were common schools (often partially financed by local taxpayers, but primarily funded through private means) and specialized private schools of every sort (church schools, academies that prepared students for college, seminaries, dame schools for primary education, charity schools for the poor, and private tutors). Free schools were established by philanthropists and religious societies throughout the country to meet the educational needs of the very poor [2].

Of course, what Coulson, Forstmann and other market fundamentalists refused to acknowledge is the fact that in colonial America only the Anglo population was considered in literacy estimates.  Native Americans, African Americans, slaves and indentured servants were excluded from any statistical rendering. In Virginia alone, an entire 40% of the population who were slaves was simply disregarded in literacy estimates. Slaves were largely illiterate and prohibited from learning to read as a means of racism and social control [3].

Never mind the facts, for Forstmann and his ilk, a combination of competition, charity, and private and semi-public institutions “worked” in the past and thus the conclusion is that they will work now. The problem, Forstmann has argued, is that starting in the 1850’s with the state of Massachusetts, America began a dramatic shift from free-market and charitable education to “government-run schools” [4]. And even though America today cannot be compared to the America of the pre-Civil War era, Forstmann’s position remained clear during his life – America needed to replace public schools with charitable choice and privatization.

If all this sounds familiar, it should, for Forstmann’s position is little more than an echo of conservative economist Milton Friedman’s position and the ideological echo chamber he was part of has managed to collar many erstwhile advocates with their views dominating the corporate media. Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman argued for the modern concept of vouchers in the 1950s, stating that competition would improve schools and cost efficiency. The view further garnered popularity with the 1980 TV broadcast of Friedman’s series Free to Choose for which volume 6 was devoted entirely to the promotion of “educational freedom” through programs like school vouchers.

There is little doubt that comparable to Milton Friedman, Forstmann’s ideological educational vision was heartfelt and deep pocketed. However, there is no escaping the fact that Ted Forstmann was an entrepreneurial venture capitalist with a market driven agenda for education that seems more commercial and self-interested than altruistic.  For Forstmann, like all capitalists, profits come before people and if this means circling the ideological wagons around this grim reality then so be it.  Forstmann himself, claimed at the time of his launching of Children Scholarship Fund (CSF), that his interest in privatizing education through the use of philanthropic private school scholarships was driven by beneficence, not profit.  As late as 1998 he commented in a speech to the Washington Press Club: “This is a real moral issue. I hate talking about the economics of it” [5].

To read part one and more of part two, please go to: Philosophers for Change:(http://philoforchange.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/advocacy-philanthropy-and-the-leveraged-buy-out-of-public-schools-part-2/).

And:

the postcapitalist discussion

NOTE:

I inserted and ascribed the following quote to Andrew Coulson from his 1999 book, “Market Education: The Unknown History”, published by The Social Philosophy and Policy Center and by Transaction Publishers:

“Early colonial America was arguably the freest civil society that has ever existed. This freedom extended to education, which meant that parents were responsible for, and had complete control of, their children’s schooling. There were no accrediting agencies, no regulatory boards, and no teacher certification requirements. Parents could choose whatever kind of school or education they wanted for their children, and no one was forced to pay for education they did not use or approve of.

Prior to the Revolutionary War, the majority of American schools were organized and operated on a laissez-faire basis. There were common schools (often partially financed by local taxpayers, but primarily funded through private means) and specialized private schools of every sort (church schools, academies that prepared students for college, seminaries, dame schools for primary education, charity schools for the poor, and private tutors). Free schools were established by philanthropists and religious societies throughout the country to meet the educational needs of the very poor ”.

Mr. Coulson wrote to my editor on May 21, 2013 and stated:

“I never wrote the quotation that you ascribe to me above. It is false to claim that this text appears on p. 75 of my book “Market Education,” on any other page of that book, or indeed anywhere in anything I have ever written. Please correct the record” (May 21, 2013 e-mail).

Andrew Coulson is the current Director, for the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. He has been Senior Fellow in Education Policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and he’s editor of School Choices. (http://www.newmedia.ufm.edu/gsm/index.php/Improving_Educational_Services_for_the_Benefit_of_the_Poor).

I researched Coulson’s claim that he did not write the quote and found that indeed, he did not. Thus, the quote cannot be attributed to him and for this I apologize to readers.

However in my research regarding Coulson’s claim disavowing the quote, I also found out that his former employer, The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has also used this quote, word for word and they too have attributed it to him over 12 years ago.  Funny, it took Coulsen less than 12 hours to contact my editor but in the last twleve years he has done nothing about his former bosses at Mackinac!  This is all about the right wing thought police monitoring website and often then engaging in Dos attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack).

In a January 9, 2001 paper written for the Mackinac Center entitled: Early Colonial Period to
the American Revolution: A Free Market Education, by Mr. Matthew J. Brouillette, President and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and former Director of Education Policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy (http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/about/page/staff-2) repeated the quote word for word and he too attributed the words to Andrew Coulson (http://www.mackinac.org/3254). This seems odd, as Coulson was a Senior Fellow in Education Policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy for years. Surely he must have been aware words were being ascribed to him falsely?

Brouillette’s citing of the quotation, which he incorrectly attributed to Coulson, was once again repeated in an article written on July 26, 2010, entitled: The Evils of Public Education; Why UP and All Public SUCs Must be Privatized?from the Vincenton Post: Promoting Honesty, Ojectivity and Integrity (http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/the-evils-of-public-education-why-up-and-other-sucs-must-be-privatized/).

Here, the author not only quotes Brouillette and the passage he attributed to Coulson, but the post goes on to speak of government “education camps” — key right wing language (ibid).

The Association for Waldorf Schools for North America in a 2007 report entitled: Independent Schools And School Choice Legislation in the United States September 2007 The Association of Waldorf Schools of North America The Institute for Social Renewal also repeated the same quote falsely attributed to Andrew Coulson (http://thecenterforsocialresearch.org/sites/default/files/assets/csr/about/schoolchoice07.pdf).

One can only assume that either the quote was written by Brouillette and attributed to Andrew Coulson, or written by another unknown person and then handed to Brouillette and then spread through various organizations.

Either way, Coulson certainly did not write these words and I admit the mistake made in the article. It is odd, however, that Coulson would not want to correct the record where ‘right wing’ reactionary sites also use the reference and then attribute it to him which they have been doing for years. This is especially true when one finds that Coulson was intimately connected to the Mackinac Center that falsely quoted him.

So, let this be seen as a god faith attempt to clean the record for Mr. Andrew on all accounts.

What we do know, is that Andrew Coulson has recently remarked in the Journal of School Choice, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2009: pp. 1–46:

“I have previously presented evidence and arguments to the same effect (Coulson, 1999). After surveying alternative school governance and funding systems in more than a dozen times and places from classical Greece to contemporary Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, I found that school choice and direct payment of fees by parents, autonomy for educators, minimal regulation, vigorous competition among schools, and the profit motive for at least some portion of schools were associated with the most effective and responsive education systems. The lack of even one or two of these characteristics was associated with inferior outcomes” (http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/10.1.1.175.6495.pdf).

Readers should also note that:

“The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Murray Rothbard, Ed Crane and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries. In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute. According to the 2011 Global Go To Think Tank Index, Cato is the 6th most influential US based think tank, ranking 3rd in Economic Policy and 2nd in Social Policy” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute).

Thus, when it comes to my statement in the article that “Andrew Coulson, a darling of reactionary neo-liberals….” —  this can hardly be refuted and for this reason this illustrative depiction of Andrew Coulson will remain as will the words attributed to him by his reactionary buddies at Mackinac and friends.

Keep the web open and free!  We have a world to win!

The post Advocacy philanthropy and the leveraged buy-out of public schools — Part 2 appeared first on DailyCensored.com - Breaking Censored News, World, Independent, Liberal News.

I got a message today from a person who I trust, a true dyed in the wool Socialist and defender of justice and freedom.  He sent me an article from the Ecuadorian newspaper, El Comercio about the sentence and jailing of Mery Zamora.  He told me it was sent to him by a US ‘leftist’.  How sad, I thought as I read the article that a so-called leftist from the US would embrace a right-wing newspaper article and send it as if Mery Zamora was being persecuted by a dictator in Ecuador.

The facts are quite different than the right wing press, el Comercio, would like North Americans and others to believe.  Mery Zamora was and is part of a CIA sponsored coup attempt and her sentence by the courts and her jailing can only be good news for those who wish to see justice and the end of CIA involvement in Ecuador and in Latin America.

Here is the coverage from ‘El Telegrafo’, the Ecuadorian paper that is not privately owned nor sponsored by the CIA and their minions (http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/noticias/judicial/item/audiencia-de-juzgamiento-a-mery-zamora-continuo-hoy.htm) as well as some history regarding the September 2010 attempted coup against Correa.   They tell a different story and perhaps the so-called left in the US should take the time to research what is going on in South America before they begin to send right wing propaganda and say they are ‘leftists’.

Mery Zamora persident of the National Union of Teachers sentenced to 8-12 years for sabotage and terrorism

One day after Mother’s Day, the Guayas judges of the Tenth Criminal Court in Ecuador sentenced president of the National Union of Teachers, Mery Zamora, for the crime of sabotage and terrorism, because of the excesses she engaged in involving high school students back in September 30, 2010.

The prosecutor’s thesis was that Juan Carlos Vivar prompted Zamora Aguirre Abad College students to demonstrate on September 30, 2010 while police revolted against the government. Among the prosecution witnesses were Carmelina Franco and Monica Villegas, then director in Guayas and Secretary of Education respectively along with at least 15 prosecution witnesses.

The September 2010 Revolt Against Correa: some context

Few in the US know that Ecuadorian government declared a state of emergency after police launched a chaotic rebellion over austerity measures that cut their benefits in September of 2010.  But this small group of police constituted only a few hundred and they were incited to riot by right wing forces in the country.

Hundreds of officers involved in the insurrection took over police barracks in Quito, Guayaquil and other cities. They also set up roadblocks out of burning tires that cut off highway access to the capital.  The protests were triggered by a law passed by congress that would have ended the practice of giving medals and bonuses to officers with each promotion.  It also extended from five to seven years the usual period required for coveted police promotions.  Many citizens saw this as good news for the police in Ecuador are not trusted by most and many find them corrupt, isolated and involved in CIA insurgency plots.

In September of 2010 provoked officers shoved President Rafael Correa around and pelted him with tear gas and water when he tried to speak at a police barracks in the capital, Quito. Correa was then taken to hospital from the effects of the gas after the military stepped in and put down the feeble uprising.  A state of emergency put the military in charge of public order, suspending civil liberties and allowing soldiers to carry out searches without a warrant.

This was clearly an orchestrated coup attempt against president Correa at the time.  Correa, who was only slightly injured, later charged opposition figures, the police, and the military of attempting a coup d’état.  His leftist ally in Venezuela, now-deceased, President Hugo Chávez, wrote over Twitter: “They are trying to oust President Correa” (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0930/Ecuador-coup-attempt-President-Rafael-Correa-attacked-in-police-revolt).

Leaders throughout Latin America, reeling from the ouster of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras the summer beforehand, put their support behind Correa directly following the failed coup attempt. The Organization of American States (OAS) held a crisis meeting in Washington, and Secretary General José Miguel Insulza pledged the organization’s “full support” in a telephone conversation with Correa, according to a statement.

Correa blamed the police uprising on the allies of his chief political foe, the most Lucio Gutierrez and the white hand of the CIA.  Correa’s predecessor, the pro-U.S. Lucio Gutierrez, is wedded to foreign oil company interests in the country and he was accused of staging the coup plot by the government and of covertly supporting the police and Air Force mutineers who revolted. The chief of the national police resigned over the incident, and three commanding colonels were placed under investigation for possibly inciting last week’s violence (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/10/ecuador-coup-attempt-correa-instability-calm.html).

Journalist Wayne Madsen noted at the time:

“Using the standard CIA playbook on toppling democratically-elected governments in Latin America, the Obama administration, which was not happy with Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa’s moves to increase state control over oil companies in the nation and his decision to oust the United States military from its airbase at Manta, appears to have suffered a major defeat in the failed coup attempt in Ecuador by police officers and Air Force personnel who were backed by rightist elements in the National Assembly and business community. Correa was re-elected with an overwhelming majority last year after he gave the U.S. military its walking papers from the Manta airbase. The Pentagon and CIA have been working to topple Correa ever since by pumping money into opposition political parties and other groups through NGOs funded by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy” (http://www.voltairenet.org/article167155.html).

Correa, like deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who was briefly ousted in an April 2002 coup organized by the CIA, was held as a virtual hostage at the Police Hospital in Quito for the greater part of a day.  All of this provided a grim reminder of an old CIA tactic in staging coups in Latin America. Chavez also was briefly held hostage on a Venezuelan island in the Caribbean while a U.S.-registered plane stood by to fly him into exile.

Police a source of CIA infiltration

The systematic use of corruption techniques by the CIA in order to acquire the “goodwill” of police officers was described and denounced on many occasions by the ex-CIA agent Philip Agee who, before leaving the agency’s ranks, was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Quito.

Former US Ambassador to Ecuador, Heather Hodges said at the time:

“We work with the Ecuadoran government, with the military, with the Police, on objectives that are very important for security” (http://www.voltairenet.org/article167150.html).

Hodges was subsequently thrown out of the country by Correa and she was replaced by US Ambassador Adam Namm who himself is now creating the material conditions for further coups by claiming there is no free press in Ecuador (http://www.dailycensored.com/is-the-cia-behind-attacks-on-ecuadors-press-correa-warns-us-ambassador-namm-dont-be-a-meddler/) (http://www.dailycensored.com/why-is-the-us-ambassador-to-ecuador-adam-namm-doing-an-about-face-on-freedom-of-the-press-in-ecuador-freedom-foundation/).

U.S. officials appeared in Ecuador before the attempted failed coup under the pretext of extending relations between Ecuador and the United States. For example, Arturo Valenzuela, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, repeatedly visited President Correa, leading up to a visit from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Valenzuela was accompanied by his pal, Todd Stern, the “Climate Change Envoy,” also known for his CIA ties.

In an emergency Latin American summit meeting in Argentina at the time, as noted, former President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez saw the U.S. behind the events in Ecuador and went on to note, “The Yankee extreme right is trying right now, through arms and violence, to retake control of the continent.” Chavez’s own experience with a CIA backed coup and the June 2009 coup, supported by the Pentagon, CIA, and Mossad against his ally Zelaya in Honduras, made him an expert on CIA and Mossad tactics in the region. Informed sources noted that at the time Correa and Chavez are currently comparing notes on the coups launched against them (“Quito’s Police: CIA breeding ground“, by Jean Guy Allard, Voltaire Network, 2 October 2010).

Correa would not back down

The failed September 2010 coup attempt against Correa showed no immediate reports of casualties and the president showed no sign of backing down. “They are a bunch of ungrateful bandits. No one has supported the police as much as this government,” he told reporters at the time (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/30/ecuador-chaos-police-rafael-correa).

Correa challenged the protesters to kill him, according to local media: “I’m not taking one step back. Gentleman, if you want to kill the president, here he is, kill him if you have the gut.” (ibid).  The rebel officers responded with shouts, stones and teargas canisters, prompting Correa’s bodyguards to spirit him from the scene.

The protests, at the time, rapidly spread to bases and barracks in three provinces, with witnesses reporting looting, compounding a political crisis that would have prompted Correa to dissolve parliament and rule by decree until elections.

However, the head of the armed forces, Ernesto Gonzalez, said troops remained loyal to Correa. “We are in a state of law. We are loyal to the maximum authority, which is the president” (ibid).

The foreign minister at the time, Ricardo Patino, played down the severity of the protests. “This is not a popular mobilization, it is not a popular uprising, it is an uprising by the police, who are ill-informed,” he told TV network Telesur.

Zamora just another snake in the grass

Among the witnesses who testified last week against Zamora included the Deputy Minister of Education, Monica Franco, who confirmed that Zamora urged Aguirre Abad school students to take to the streets to demonstrate against the government during the rebellion of the 30S police.

When the court rendered their decision, Zamora said that “she was a victim of pressures and blackmail.”  Her defense said they will appeal the ruling.

For his part, the prosecutor, Juan Carlos Vivar said that at the hearing that he presented documentary evidence that enabled the court to come to the decision that Zamora was indeed involved in creating false rumors and terrorism in Ecuador.

Article 158 of the Penal Code establishes imprisonment of 8-12 years for those who “destroy, impair, disable, disrupt or paralyze public services”.

Human Rights Ecuador calls the Zamora sentence an expression of hatred against the opposition

On the other hand, as reported by Human Rights Ecuador, for the National Director of the Movimiento Popular Democrático (MPD), Luis Villacis Maldonado, the court ruling “is an expression of hatred and political persecution of social leaders, reflects discrimination against brave women who speak up against abuses of power and the desire of a group of swallows and careerists judges, to curry favor with Carondelet for promotions, as is typical of the nefarious Judge Paredes”.

He went on to say that “Mery Zamora’s sentence is the culmination of a systematic campaign of persecution, insults and humiliation and that this process was already closed for lack of evidence, but was reopened by presidential order. Now without evidence they condemn this teacher to eight years in prison for terrorism, illegal and unconstitutional. That’s how the justice system in Ecuador: “on demand” (http://www.humanrightsecuador.org/2013/05/15/mery-zamora-in-ecuador-there-is-no-justice-no-democracy-only-fear-and-persecution/).

However it is important to note that Human Rights Ecuador is tied to the North American organization Human Rights Watch (HRW), with its Capitol in Washington.   José Miguel Vivanco, the boss of the Americas Division of the HRW has been linked to the CIA and the Cuban-American Mafiosi, both eager to show that their aggression against Ecuador, Venezuela, Cuba and any other Latin American country that does not consider itself “America’s backyard”.  The allegations are that he is a CIA agent (http://ateaysublevada.over-blog.es/article-detras-de-los-ataques-de-human-rights-watch-a-ecuador-un-ex-funcionario-de-pinochet-102108859.html).

In fact, Vivanco, the “boss” of the “Americas Division” HRW studied at the Faculty of Law of the University of Chile during the Pinochet rule and as the fascist dictator imposed its constitution is very suspect indeed.

In 2010 Correa lamented that foreign media and international organizations like HRW and how they persistently condemn Ecuador and its government for an alleged attack on freedom of expression, when in reality what exists in the country is a constant struggle for respect of the rights of citizens, including the right to a good name and honor (ibid).

Conclusion

Meanwhile, as Zamora prepares for her incarceration for supporting the apparent CIA led uprising by inciting students to participate in the coup attempt, Adam Namm, the US Ambassador to Ecuador continues his provocations along with right wing elements of the country, arguing that Ecuador has no freedom of press (http://www.dailycensored.com/king-george-barack-obama-the-ap-the-4th-amendment/).

We can only wait to see what happens in the tiny country of Ecuador where oil, much like in Venezuela, is the real prize the US is really after.  As to freedom of the press, simply take a look at the spying-Gate that has exploded in the US and the attempt by US forces to get their hands on Julian Assange who is bottled up in an Ecuadorian Embassy in London and ask yourself, “Which country seems to support the freedom of expression?  Ecuador or the US”?  Certainly the answer is clear – it is not the US (http://www.dailycensored.com/center-for-constitutional-rights-denounces-media-silence-a-former-cnn-journalist-confirms-the-manufacture-of-information/).

The post Mery Zamora, former president of the National Union of Teachers was convicted of sabotage and terrorism in Ecuador appeared first on DailyCensored.com - Breaking Censored News, World, Independent, Liberal News.

On May 16, 2013 President Obama responded to the emerging scandal involving the Department of Justice’s warrantless spying on AP journalists by stating that a “balance” needs to be maintained between national security and freedom of the press (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/obama-ap-scandal_n_3287165.html).

Obama’s stance on the DOJ warrantless spying is in clear violation of the 4^th Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is unequivocal; it gives no consideration for national security.  This is the same argument Richard Nixon tried to get away with under Watergate when trying to explain his spying and break-ins.

The fourth amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Prior to the 1760’s General writs were used to search homes and seize property.  In 1776 Virginia passed the declaration of rights which prohibited the use of general writs (warrants). The Fourth Amendment was based upon this. The Virginia Declaration of Rights states:

“That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted”

The backlash against general warrants was fueled by the Excise Act of 1754. As explained by Wikipedia,” The Excise Act of 1754 gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists concerning their use of goods subject to customs and permitted the use of a general warrant known as a writ of assistance, allowing them to search the homes of colonists and seize “prohibited and uncustomed” goods.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The historical context of general warrants and their abuse dates back to 18^th century England, as detailed in Wikipedia:

“The 1760s saw a growth in the intensity of litigation against state officers, who, using general warrants, conducted raids in search of materials relating to John Wilkes‘ publications attacking both government policies and the King himself. The most famous of these cases involved John Entick, whose home was forcibly entered by the King’s Messenger Nathan Carrington, along with others, pursuant to a warrant issued by George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax authorizing them “to make strict and diligent search for . . . the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers … and seized printed charts, pamphlets and other materials.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutioman

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

The sole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to PROTECT the rights and liberties of citizens from over-reach by the government. There was no consideration given to the needs of government, or national security.   The Supreme Court ruled such during the 1970’s when Nixon used the same argument to excuse his criminal behavior.

Yet there are few voices in government vociferously protesting Obama’s ongoing conduct which demonstrates contempt for Constitutional rights and the rule of law and the occupation of the government by dark forces of corporate power.  This includes drone strikes, kill lists, indefinite detention of Americans, and HR 347 which criminalizes protests on Federal property.  Neither liberal democrats nor conservatives who claim to support limited government and liberty are up in arms.  They have become part of the corporate state.

We are at a juncture in history where the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government (corrupted by corporate money) have been enacting and supporting policies which violate the Fourth Amendment while showing contempt for the rights of Citizens.  In fact, one could say we are subjects of our corporate government, not free citizens.

This includes FISA (warrantless wire tapping) , the war on drugs ( asset forfeiture laws) and the Supreme Court’s decision to allow strip-searches for minor offenses http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The Fourth Amendment receives little deference in contrast to the second amendment despite the fact that it has far greater impact on the liberty of citizens.

Barrack Obama’s pursuit of AP reporters, Bradley Manning. Julian Assange, John Kiriakou and Thomas Drake are remarkably similar to King George’s use of general warrants to pursue John Entick in the 1760’s.

The passage of laws against General warrants by Massachusetts and Virginia were in response to abuses of citizens’ rights and ultimately lead to the passage of the Fourth Amendment. Obama’s belief that he is above the law is exactly the type of conduct the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect against.   Perhaps it is time to impeach this scoundrel and send a message to the corporations that control him that WE WILL NOT TAKE this abuse any longer.

The post King George, Barack Obama, The AP & the 4th Amendment appeared first on DailyCensored.com - Breaking Censored News, World, Independent, Liberal News.

The letters on the subtext of democracy, “Look at message behind quote” and “Conundrum first-past-the-post system poses” (May 14), emphasise the problematic nature of this ideology. However, we would be mistaken to think that democracy is “neutral” simply because it can be used to vote in an Adolf Hitler or a lesser megalomaniac. It is pointless to argue, as Winston Churchill did, that democracy is a terrible system but the alternatives are worse.

As the great parliamentarian had admitted, the system he defended was not so great in itself.  He also reportedly said: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Similarly, to state that proportional representation is more democratic begs the issue of why some think the Group Representation Constituency electoral system is worse.
If getting a proportion of votes validates a presence in parliament, why is that any better than having a group of people who gain admittance via majority vote? Why are political aspirants who may play the role of demagogue to gain those “proportional” votes any better than those who “ride on the coat-tails” of seasoned politicians?

 
It is imperative that the citizenry are proactive and make their voices heard through activism, public forums and the constructive, civil use of social media, rather than rely on politicians to harangue one another to score points ostensibly for the public good.
Besides, if the United States is a prime example of democracy, then this system has not fared much better since the time it allowed the Nazis to come into power. One need only look at the internal violence in the US since its independence, or see how it has become, perhaps, the world’s greatest debtor nation. Democracy has devolved; it has reached as far as the capitalist economic system that undergirds it has allowed.
This is why Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s statement that the Cabinet’s centre of gravity has shifted to the left is important. In tackling the underlying free-market fundamentalism that has weakened the US, technically the world’s foremost democracy, the Singapore Government would be grappling with what is behind the economic woes of many.
Indeed, good people in any system can offset its limitations. Any political system is a function of the character of the country’s people, not the other way around. As novelist E M Forster pointed out, democracy is not worth three cheers: “So, two cheers for democracy: One, because it admits variety and two, because it permits criticism.” What is left out are the ideas and practice of justice and compassion.’ ‘

Sanjay

The post Go beyond the ideology of democracy appeared first on DailyCensored.com - Breaking Censored News, World, Independent, Liberal News.

On Tuesday evening, regional conferences of the union took place, at which 95
percent of those present voted for strike action. Participation at the conferences was estimated at 10,000 to 20,000. The union has a total of 88,000
members.
The teachers voted by an overwhelming majority to defy the dictatorial actions of the government, which has placed teachers under martial law and invoked civilian mobilisation measures, attempting to force teachers back to work. Any teacher who goes on strike now faces imprisonment of up to five years and dismissal. Education Minister Konstantinos Arvanitopoulos (New Democracy, ND) said on Wednesday that he would seek to ensure that exams begin as scheduled on Friday.
The Greek government has now issued bans on strikes on three separate occasions this year. In January, it introduced martial law measures against striking metro drivers, and in February, it moved against sailors who had stopped work to demand payment of back wages. So far, the government, working closely with the unions and the police, has been able force striking workers back to work.
The teachers are the first profession to openly defy the government and the public service trade union federation, ADEDY, despite all the threats made against them. They are seeking to defend themselves against government proposals to extend their working hours by two hours without pay, sack up to 10,000 teachers, and transfer 4,000 teachers to remote areas.
The determination and defiance shown by the teachers is an expression
of broad opposition amongst Greek workers to the austerity dictates of the
government. Teachers have already received wide support. A number of other groups of workers and professions have officially signaled their support. No fewer than six rounds of austerity measures dictated by the European Union (EU)
have caused a social disaster of historic proportions in Greece. Hunger and
poverty have returned to the streets, and the official unemployment rate has
risen to over 27 percent. Many teachers earn no more than €585 a month.
In their struggle, the Greek teachers confront not only the government and the
state apparatus, but also the trade unions and their pseudo-left defenders.
ADEDY has systematically isolated the teachers. It turned down a call from the teachers’ union to call other school staff out on strike. Instead, the union federation organised mini-demonstrations and some symbolic actions in an attempt to cover up their betrayal.
On Wednesday, representatives of the regional trade union organisations of teachers met to evaluate the voting results and discuss their next steps. Details of the discussions have not yet been made public. Several union representatives once again called upon ADEDY and the private sector union federation, GSEE, to join their strike on Friday. Apparently, they hope that such futile appeals will undermine the resolve of teachers to strike.
The national executive of the OLME teachers’ union responded to its members’ vote for strike action by immediately entering negotiations with the government and opposition parties to discuss ways of averting the strike.
On Wednesday the chairman of OLME, Nikos Papahristos, met with representatives of the conservative ruling party ND, and later with representatives of its social-democratic coalition partner, PASOK. Papahristos explained that both parties had promised to forward OLME’s demands to the Ministry of Education.
Papahristos was himself an ND member until he was expelled a week ago because of his union’s strike threat. He had reiterated before the government strike ban that the union would abide by it. Faced with angry teachers, he is now trying to prevent the strike by the back door.
After the meeting with ND and PASOK, he announced that he would call
off the strike if the government withdrew the ban. “If the mobilisation order is
canceled and an open dialogue takes place we are prepared to call off the strike,” he said. OLME’s call for an “open dialogue” is supported by the main opposition party, the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA). Papahristos had already met with SYRIZA chairman Alexis Tsipras on Tuesday. At the start of the week, SYRIZA had called upon the government to withdraw its mobilisation order and commence new negotiations with OLME after the exams. Otherwise “law and order” were at risk, Tsipras said. In fact, an “open dialogue” with the government only serves to delay the attacks on teachers until after the exams.
The response by ADEDY, OLME and SYRIZA illustrates the reactionary role played by these organisations. As conflicts heighten between the financial elite and the working class, the unions are moving ever closer to the state apparatus. Tsipras clarified the class position of his party when he spoke just as teachers received their mobilisation orders. In a speech to the Hellenic Federation of Enterprises (SEV) on Monday, he appealed for reconciliation between political camps and stressed that all sides must take responsibility for the country and future generations.
Even if OLME does issue a call for strike action, it is already clear it will seek the first opportunity to isolate the teachers and call off the strike. To defend their rights, workers must break with the union straitjacket and make the strike by teachers the starting point of a broad mobilisation against not only the government but also its pseudo-left
supporters.

The post Greek teachers defy military mobilization : We will strike anyway! appeared first on DailyCensored.com - Breaking Censored News, World, Independent, Liberal News.

Teachers, once loved by the people, are now demonized as greedy, laxy, sex-driven, and simply useless.  This is no mystery; the ruling class hates education and only speaks of it in market terms.

Now, this from Greece:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578479271015596576.htm)l Updated May 12, 2013

Teachers in Greece Warned to Not Strike By STELIOS BOURAS ATHENS—Greece ordered teachers on Sunday to scrap a planned strike this week, or otherwise face arrest, the government’s latest bid to stamp out worker opposition to austerity measures international creditors demand. For the third time this year, Greece’s coalition government invoked a law allowing for compulsory civil mobilization, signaling a willingness to press the country’s powerful unions and to stick to the country’s planned overhauls. In a copy of the government gazette published Sunday, the government instructed some 80,000 secondary-school teachers to call off the strike set to start Friday that would disrupt university entrance exams. “Taking into account the urgent need to prevent the threat of negative consequences from the proposed strike…we declare civil mobilization for all secondary teachers and the necessary resources,” it said.

Teachers plan to strike in response to government plans to increase their workweek by two hours and the transferring of personnel to different schools, depending on staffing needs, moves teachers say will lead to job cuts. After meeting on Friday, Greece’s secondary-school teachers union, OLME, agreed on a 24-hour strike for May 17 and rolling strikes to be held the week after. OLME plans to hold a rally in central Athens on Monday and called on the country’s two largest public- and private-sector workers groups—ADEDY and GSEE—to join them in a nationwide 24-hour general strike at the end of the week in opposition to the government’s “authoritarianism.”

Since the start of the year, the government, which is led by the conservative New Democracy party, has also ordered striking seamen and transport workers back to work by invoking the law ordering workers to return to work or face arrest and risk dismissal. Greek governments have generally used those special powers sparingly, but in an effort to show his resolve against the unions—and despite grumbling from his junior coalition partners from the Socialist and Democratic Left parties—Prime Minister Antonis Samaras has been making more use of this emergency measure. It is the first time, however, that it has been enacted before workers actually walk off the job. Write to Stelios Bouras at stelios.bouras@dowjones.com

The post Teachers in Greece Warned to Not Strike appeared first on DailyCensored.com - Breaking Censored News, World, Independent, Liberal News.