Javier Bustamante,
Editor

Democracy

One of the greatest songs written in recent years: Leonard Cohen's "Democracy," from his astonishing album, "The Future." Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for discover it to us from You Tube. (Click on the photo twice and wait for awhile. It's a big file but worth waiting for. Also click on the word " Democracy" and read the lyrics while you listen. Also worthwile)

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

The Difference Two Years Made

New York Times Editorial

On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.

That is why things are different this year.

To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House — and for the most part, the Senate — during President Bush’s tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country’s dependence on foreign oil.

Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition — and even the more moderate members of their own party — out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.

The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.

That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women’s rights.

For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.

An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.

Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.

After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.

In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president’s campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush’s goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.

This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
O'Malley for Governor
Originally published October 29, 2006 by the Baltimore Sun
Putting aside the rhetorical excesses of what has been an extended, if not particularly inspiring, gubernatorial race, voters must choose between an incumbent with, at best, an uneven record and a challenger with a worthy agenda. Both men are intelligent, telegenic and ambitious. But we believe Martin O'Malley, who has performed well in the difficult role of big-city mayor, is the better choice to lead this state through the challenges that lie ahead. In the next four years, Maryland is likely to face a return of $1 billion annual budget deficits. Issues of growth and development, the continued degradation of the Chesapeake Bay, the quality of public schools, the region's congested roads and strained transit systems, the rising cost of health care and the future of the state's economy are of paramount concern. Such issues require a governor with vision who can work with the General Assembly and overcome what has devolved into a dysfunctional and contentious atmosphere in Annapolis. Mr. O'Malley has demonstrated these leadership skills.[more]

U.N. Reality Check by Ted Turner

I've been getting some questions lately about the value of the UN and about what I've learned since I donated one-third of my wealth to start the UN Foundation almost nine years ago. Here's the answer.

The fact is that the UN works - for the world's poor, for peace, for progress and for human rights and justice.

I'll admit that cooperating through the UN can be difficult at times; and I'll admit that the UN can be improved. But anything worthwhile is hard - and frankly I can't think of a more worthwhile endeavor than what the UN does to foster peace and prosperity on a global scale.

Let's look at the reality.

The reality is that the UN has succeeded in its essential mission of preventing World War III.

The reality is that UN peacekeeping is an incredible value for the United States and the rest of the world.

In fact, UN peacekeeping is one of the great bargains of all time, ensuring that no one country has to pay all the bills or take all the risks for peace and security around the world. The RAND Corporation has estimated that UN peacekeepers can do the job at a fraction of the cost of U.S. troops. The U.S. does not contribute any of the almost 100,000 UN peacekeepers deployed around the world. Financially, the U.S. share of the UN's 17 peacekeeping operations is about $1 billion this year -- equivalent to about 5 days of the U.S. deployment in Iraq. In the world of business, we call that a bargain.

The reality is that the UN handles humanitarian emergencies skillfully. When the Asian tsunami struck, the UN was there immediately, they got the job done - food, water, health shelter - and they are still on the scene helping those communities rebuild. The people of New Orleans would have been lucky to have had such an efficient and effective response after Katrina.

The reality is that there are dozens of unrecognized ways that the UN helps make our complicated world work. The UN's International Civil Aviation Organization makes possible the system of international air traffic. The Universal Postal Union makes it possible to put an American stamp on an envelope and send a letter that will arrive in an Australian mailbox. The World Meteorological Organization monitors global weather patterns. The Food and Agriculture Organization helps keep the world fed. And the World Health Organization and other health agencies help research, monitor and contain diseases that transcend borders.

And the reality is that most UN staffers are not sitting comfortably in New York, but rather deployed around the world:

* They are living in mud huts trying to make agriculture work in Africa;
* They are organizing blue helmets to keep the peace among warring factions, and the elections needed thereafter.
* They are thinking up ways to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
* They are risking life and limb cleaning up landmines.
* They are inoculating children.
* They are giving comfort to the displaced and dispossessed in refugee camps.

Could there be a more meaningful and necessary effort to invest in? I don't think there is and that's why I launched the UN Foundation. And I'm delighted that so many others have recognized the valuable work the UN is doing. Since 2001 every dollar I've put in to the UN Foundation has been matched by another dollar contributed by corporations, foundations or tens of thousands of individuals. In that time, the UN has evolved into an ever more effective partner organization.

An interdependent world needs and deserves planetary philanthropy, not backyard philanthropy. Those of us who invest in the UN are planetary philanthropists - campaigning with the UN for the world's future by taking on the toughest global challenges.

We're campaigning for a new energy future so that we are no longer bound to the fossil fuels that are a threat to our security and our environment.

We're campaigning to rid the world of preventable childhood diseases - measles and malaria and polio - so every child has a chance.

We're on a campaign to elevate the status, the rights and the profile of adolescent girls - so that they have the same opportunities, the same health care, the same education as boys. Equal rights and opportunity is still one of the world's biggest challenges.

And we're campaigning to protect the great natural treasures of the world through our cooperation with the World Heritage Center. We have to take care of the Galapagos, Yellowstone and all the other World Heritage sites around the world - and make sure that the communities that surround them benefit from conservation of these treasures.

The world's greatest challenges are not just the obligation of governments - we're all responsible for the future -- businesspeople and citizens, non-governmental organizations and philanthropists. If we're going to take on the great global challenges of the 21st century, we need to make it possible for the UN to lead a worldwide partnership to take on the toughest problems we've got.

Explicando el mundo a los niños

-- Papá, ¿por qué atacamos Iraq?

-Porque tenían armas de destrucción masiva, hijo.

-- Pero los inspectores no las encontraron.

-Porque los iraquíes las habían escondido.

-- ¿Y por eso los atacamos?

-Si, las invasiones son mejor que las inspecciones.

-- Pero después de invadirlos no hemos encontrado ningún arma de destrucción masiva, ¿o no?

-Eso es debido a que los iraquíes las escondieron muy bien.

-- ¿Para que quería Iraq todas esas armas de destrucción masiva?

-Para usarlas en la guerra, tonto.

-- No lo entiendo. Si tenían esas armas para usarlas en la guerra, porqué no las usaron cuando los atacamos?

-Probablemente porque no querían que nadie supiese que las tenían, por lo que decidieron morir en decenas de miles antes que defenderse.

-- Esto no parece lógico, papá. ¿Por qué tenían que preferir morir en vez de usar las armas para luchar contra nosotros?

-Es otra cultura. No tiene porqué haber ninguna lógica en eso.

-- No sé que piensas tú, pero yo creo que no tenían ninguna de esas armas que nuestro gobierno decía.

-Mira, no importa si tenían esas armas o no. De todas maneras teníamos buenas razones para invadirlos.

-- ¿Y cuales eran?

-Incluso si Iraq no tenía armas de destrucción masiva, Saddam Hussein era un dictador cruel, y eso era una buena razón para invadir otro país.

-- ¿Por qué?. ¿Que hace un cruel dictador para que se invada su país?

-Por ejemplo torturaba a su pueblo.

-- ¿Más o menos como hacen en China?

-No vengas ahora comparando China con Iraq. China es un amigo comercial, donde millones de habitantes trabajan con sueldos de esclavo para hacer las compañías de EEUU aún más ricas.

-- O sea, ¿que si un país deja que su pueblo sea explotado por compañías de EEUU es un buen país, incluso si torturan a su propio pueblo?

-¡Correcto!

-- ¿Por qué era torturada la gente en Iraq?

-Más que nada por crímenes políticos, como criticar el gobierno. La gente que criticaba el gobierno era encerrada en la cárcel y torturada.

-- ¿No es lo mismo que ocurre en China?

-Te he dicho que China es diferente.

-- ¿Cual es la diferencia entre China e Iraq?

-En Iraq mandaba el partido Baath y en China los comunistas.

--¿No me has dicho que el comunismo es malo?

-No!, sólo el comunismo cubano es malo.

-- ¿De que manera es malo el comunismo cubano?

-Bueno, por ejemplo a los críticos del gobierno los encierran en la cárcel y torturan.

-- ¿Como en Iraq?

-Exacto!

-- ¿Y como en China?

-Ya te he dicho que China es un amigo. Cuba, no.

-- ¿Por qué no es Cuba un amigo comercial?

-Mira: en los años 60 nuestro gobierno hizo unas leyes que hacían ilegal el comercio mientras no dejasen de ser comunistas y fuesen capitalistas como nosotros.

-- ¿Y si quitásemos esas leyes e hiciésemos comercio con Cuba no los convencería para ser capitalistas?

-¡No te hagas el gracioso!

-- ¡No era mi idea!

-Además tampoco hay libertad de religión en Cuba.

-- ¿Cómo el movimiento Falun-Gong en China?

-Te he dicho que no digas tonterías de China. De todas maneras Saddam Hussein tomó el poder en un golpe de estado, lo que lo hace ilegítimo.

-- ¿Que es un golpe de estado?

-Cuando un general toma el poder con violencia en vez de elecciones como hacemos en EEUU.

-- ¿El líder de Paquistán no llegó al poder en un golpe de estado?

-¿Te refieres a Pervez Musharraf?, sí, pero Paquistán es nuestro amigo.

-- ¿Como puede ser Paquistán nuestro amigo si su líder es ilegítimo?

-Yo no he dicho que Pervez Musharraf sea ilegítimo.

-- ¿No acabas de decir que si un general toma el poder en un golpe de estado es ilegítimo?

-Sólo Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf es nuestro amigo porque nos ayudó a invadir Afganistán.

-- ¿Por qué invadimos Afganistán?

-Por lo que nos hicieron el 11 de septiembre.

-- ¿Que nos hizo Afganistán el 11 de septiembre?

-El 11 de septiembre fueron secuestrados 4 aviones por 19 hombres, 15 de ellos era de Arabia Saudí. Tres aviones explotaron sobre edificios y mataron a mas de 3.000 personas.

-- ¿Y que tiene que ver Afganistán en esto?

-Allí se entrenaron esos hombres malos bajo la dirección de los Talibán.

-- ¿Son los Talibán esos musulmanes fanáticos que cortan la cabeza y las manos de la gente?

-Exacto, además oprimían a las mujeres.

-- ¿No les dio la administración de Bush 43 millones en mayo del 2.001?

-Si, pero fue una recompensa por su buen trabajo contra la droga.

-- ¿Lucha contra la droga?

-Si, los Talibán fueron muy efectivos para evitar que la gente plantase amapolas de opio.

-- ¿Y como hicieron tan buen trabajo?

-Fácil. A quien pillaban cultivando amapola le cortaban la cabeza y las manos.

-- ¿Así que si cortaban cabezas y manos por eso era correcto, pero no por otros motivos?

-Correcto. Además obligaban a las mujeres a llevar velo que tapaba todo el cuerpo.

-- ¿No ocurre eso también en Arabia Saudí?

-No, en Arabia Saudí es ropa tradicional que tapa todo el cuerpo.

-- ¿Cuál es la diferencia? A mi me parece lo mismo con otro nombre.

-No compares Afganistán con Arabia Saudí. Los saudíes son nuestros amigos.

-- Me pareció que dijiste que 15 de los 19 secuestradores eran de Arabia Saudí.

-Sí, pero se entrenaron en Afganistán.

-- ¿Quién los entrenaba?

-Un hombre malo, llamado Osama Bin Laden.

-- ¿Era de Afganistán?

-Oh, no. Era de Arabia Saudí, pero malo, muy malo.

-- Creo recordar que un tiempo era nuestro amigo.

-Sólo cuando nos ayudó con los Muyahedines contra los soviéticos en los 80.

-- ¿Los soviéticos?, ¿no eran esos del imperio comunista que nombraba Ronald Reagan?

-Ya no son soviéticos. La URSS colapsó en 1990, ahora son capitalistas y les llamamos rusos.

-- ¿Los soviéticos?, digo, los rusos ¿son ahora nuestros amigos?

-No directamente. Fueron nuestros amigos al dejar de ser soviéticos, pero no nos ayudaron en la invasión de Iraq y estamos enfadados con ellos. También estamos enfadados con los franceses y los alemanes.

-- Los franceses y alemanes también son malos?

-Bueno, no malos, pero nos enfadamos con ellos y rebautizamos las patatas francesas y las tostadas francesas en patatas y tostadas "Freedom".

-- ¿Rebautizamos siempre la comida de los países que no hacen como queremos?

-Sólo a los amigos, a los enemigos los invadimos.

-- ¿Pero no era Iraq amigo nuestro en los 80?

-Sí, entonces sí.

-- Era Saddam líder entonces?

-Sí, pero luchaba contra Irán, lo que lo hacía en ese momento nuestro amigo.

-- ¿Por qué eso lo hacia nuestro amigo?

-Porque Irán era nuestro enemigo.

-- ¿No fue Saddam el que gaseó a los kurdos?

-Sí, pero como luchaba contra Irán, miramos hacia otro lado para mostrarle que era nuestro amigo.

-- Entonces, ¿si alguien lucha contra un enemigo nuestro se convierte en nuestro amigo?

-¡Más o menos!

-- ¿Y si lucha contra algún amigo se convierte automáticamente en enemigo nuestro?

-A veces ocurre eso. De todas maneras, si empresas estadounidenses venden armas a los dos bandos, ganan más dinero, así que mejor.

-- ¿Por qué?

-Porque la guerra es buena para la economía, lo que quiere decir que la guerra es buena para los EEUU. Además Dios está de parte de los EEUU, así que los que se oponen a la guerra son pecadores, comunistas anti-EEUU. ¿Comprendes ahora por qué atacamos Iraq?

-- Creo que sí. Atacamos porque Dios quiere, ¿verdad?

-¡Sí!

-- Pero como supimos que Dios quería que atacásemos Iraq?

-Mira: Dios le habla a George W. Bush y le dice que ha de hacer.

-- O sea, que invadimos Iraq porque George W. Bush escuchó voces dentro de su cabeza.

-Si!, al fin has comprendido como funciona el mundo. Anda, cierra los ojos, ponte cómodo y duerme. ¡Buenas noches!

-- ¡Buenas noches papá!

Sometido por Mario Carrión

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

Lessons for Immigration Policy: The Bracero Guest Worker Program Welcome Ex-Bracero, Felipe Muñoz Saturday, October 28, 2006, 7:00PM Saint Stephen’s and the Incarnation Church, 16th and Newton Sts. NW Spanish/English Translation, Cultural Presentation, Refreshments Columbia Heights Metro

As the immigration debate rages in the halls of Congress and in streets across the country, it is helpful to review lessons from the past.

President Bush and many in Congress are promoting immigration ‘reform’ measures similar to the post-World War II Bracero program, where migrant workers were little more than indentured servants contracted to specific employers. Workers, vulnerable to extreme exploitation, were denied basic human and labor rights. Under these contracts, the US government withheld 10% of wages, allegedly for a retirement fund that "encouraged" Braceros to return to Mexico. But the money disappeared - billions of dollars lost to corrupt US bankers or Mexican government officials.

Thousands of ex-Braceros have organized to demand their retirement funds. Recently, the Mexican government agreed to pay US $4,000 to Braceros who are registered with a government agency, a small pittance in comparison to the billions that rightfully belong to these senior citizens. The ex-Braceros are demanding full justice, but the US and Mexican governments turn a deaf ear. The need for full repayment is urgent as most ex-Braceros are now over 70 years old.

The Mexico Solidarity Network, Mexicanos sin Fronteras and the Woodbridge Workers Committee invite the community to come and hear directly from Don Felipe Muñoz, representing the nearly 10,000 strong National Assembly of ex-Braceros. Don Felipe will discuss the historic impact of guest worker programs in the US, and the Ex-Bracero’s struggle to recuperate lost wages. A representative from Mexicanos sin Fronteras and a current day laborer from Woodbridge Workers Committee will provide additional social and economic context, followed by a discussion of strategies about working together at the grassroots level to demand justice that is long overdue! For more information please contact Macrina Cardenas at (202) 544-9355 or msn@mexicosolidarity.org

Submitted by Rudy Arredondo